Toward a Better Methodology for Assessing CO₂ Emissions for Intermodal and Truck-only Freight Systems: A European Case Study

ABSTRACT

This study aims to examine whether the intermodal freight system emits less CO₂ than its road-based counterpart. Three types of freight systems are considered: a truck-only system, a rail-based intermodal freight system, and a vessel-based intermodal system. Furthermore, nine scenarios are designed in terms of four different power sources for an electrified rail-based intermodal system and three different sized ships for a vessel-based intermodal system. The results show intermodal systems generally emit less CO₂ than the truck-only system. However, intermodal systems can emit more CO₂ than truck-only systems under certain extreme conditions of electricity production, vessel size and detour factors.

Key Words:

• CO₂ emissions
• diesel and electrified train
• intermodal freight system
• truck
• waterborne vessel

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the draft version of this paper. We also acknowledge that this work was partially supported by the research fund of Hanyang University (HY-2012-N).

Notes

¹The emissions factors initially developed by CE-Delft (den Boer Brouwer, and Essen 2008; den Boer, Otten, and van Essen 2011) and cited in several papers (Banister 2005; Givoni 2006; Tuzkaya, 2009).

²Rail freight transport using electric locomotives are also included in Appendix A even though they produce “production emissions” rather than ‘direct’ emissions.

Source: Port of Rotterdam 2007 and EC 2006.

³The criterion of the amount of containers (i.e., 1,500 TEU) follows from our intention to use settings (assumptions) that allow us to compare modes in a realistic way. In case of much less containers (e.g., less than about 50 TEU or so), trucks would be the only option. If the amount was greater than 2,000 TEU, short sea shipping would be the least CO₂ emitting option.

Source: MEET final report, 72.

Source: MEET final report, 72.

Source: MEET final report, 83.

Source: MEET final report, 83.