Decarbonising Road
Freight
Results of expert opinion survey
Francisco Furtado, ITF-OECD
28 June 2018

INTRODUCTION
The expert survey is part of the ITF Decarbonising Transport initiative's
thematic work stream on Road Freight transport, aiming to Gather initial evidence on cost-effectiveness, market uptake and barriers to
implement different measures Logistics and supply chains Alternative Fuels
 Vehicle and engine efficiency
 Intelligent systems and driver training Explore how emerging market trends, new entrants and disruptive
technologies might shape the sector

 Identify pressing challenges and policy priorities

INTRODUCTION
The survey was sent to experts in government, industry, civil society andacademia.

 108 experts responded
 80% of respondents European based,
20% are non-European based 30% government
28% private sector
25% research/academia
18% international organisations or NGOs

In which area do you work?
Policy making and analysis

33.80%

Environment and sustainability

29.58%

Production, data, operations
Administration and management
Institutional relations
Other

14.09%
9.86%
4.93%
7.75%

Logistics and supply chainsLogistics and supply chains

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

10

 Optimisation andcollaboration mosteffective logistics
measure reducing
emissions (above
overall average)

98

Average score (0-10)

7
6
5
4
3
2

1
0

Optimisation of routing, assets
and collaboration
Costs to implement

Modularised and standardised
packaging units

Effective in CO2 reduction

Widening delivery windows

Operational improvements All logistic measures
have more impacts on
operational
improvements than for
reducing emissions

Logistics and supply chains

Optimisation and
Collaboration

BARRIERS

Modular packaging
units

Widening delivery
windows

1

Industry-level
coordination andcooperation

Industry-level
coordination andcooperation

Goes against market
trends2Market structure and lackof scale at individualcompany level

Market structure andcompetitive pressure

Permits, standards andregulations

3

Cultural barriers in theindustry

Vehicle design

Cultural barriers in theindustry/Lack ofgovernment support andincentives

 Industry level coordination and market structure are the major
barriers for Optimisation and Modular units.
Market trends and existing permits/regulations are the key barriers
to widening the delivery windows.

Logistics and supply chainsIf delivery windows are not relaxed it is impossible to increase vehicle
capacity utilisation (even when other measures are deployed)?
Strongly
disagree20%

Strongly
agree

15%

Beyond theaveragescore apicture ofdividedopinions

10%

5%

0%
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Logistics and supply chains When do you think “The Physical Internet” will be in widespread use?
By 20200%

Between 2020 and 2030

16%

Between 2030 and 2050

55%

After 2050

Never
I don't know

12%

 Majority thinks it will be inwidespread use by 2050

6%

12%

 Potentially as effective in decreasing
CO2 emissions as
Optimisation/Collaboration

Alternative Fuels

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Alternative Fuels
45%
40%

 Different alternative mix
for different operation
types

35%
30%
25%

 Full-battery electric (2nd20%

Hybrid) for Urban

15%

 Hybrid (2nd Gas/Fullbattery) for Regional10% Biofuels (2nd Electric

5%road) for Long-haul

0%
BiofuelsGas (LNG, CNG) Hydrogen fuel
cell
Urban

Regional

HybridLong-haul

Full-battery
electric

Electric roads

TIMELINE

Alternative Fuels
60%

 Hybrid fastest adoption
 >50% think Full-battery
Electric in widespread use
by 2030

50%

40%

 Gas and Biofuels, >50%
also think they will be inwidespread use by 2030,
but higher skepticism

30%

20%

10%

0%
Biofuels
By 2020

Gas (LNG, CNG) Hydrogen fuelcell

Between 2020 and 2030

HybridBetween 2030 and 2050

Full-battery
electric
After 2050

Never

Electric roads
I don't know

 Hydrogen and Electricroads latest adoption andhighest skepticism

BARRIERS

Alternative Fuels
Charging and distribution network

25%

Lack of strict emission regulations

16%

Vehicle side technology

14%

Lack of financial incentives

14%

Fuel production technology

14%High lifecycle "well-to-wheel" emissions of alternatives tocombustion engine
Permits, standards and regulations (e.g. labour laws, regulations)
Other

9%
4%

4%

 Key overall barrier is “charging and distribution network”

BARRIERS

Alternative Fuels
100%

80%

Difficult to scale up production
Fuel costs

60%
High life cycle "well-to-wheel" emissions
Charging networks and/or infrastructure

40%

Vehicle lacks operational requirements (e.g. range,
capacity)

20%

Vehicle cost0%
BiofuelsGas (LNG, CNG) Hydrogen fuelcellPlug-in hybrid

Full-battery
electric

Electric roads

 For Biofuels key barrier is the difficulty to scale up production,
vehicle costs for Hybrids

Vehicle and engine efficiency

Vehicle and engine efficiency
10 Improving efficiency ofvehicles (engine, rolling
resistance, aerodynamicsetc.) is the most effective
CO2 reducing measure(not including alternative
fuels)

9
8

7
Average score (0-10)

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

High Capacity Vehicles
Effective in CO2 reduction

Vehicle technologies
Operational improvements

 High Capacity Vehicles
more impacts on
operational improvements
than CO2 reductionMARKET UPTAKE

Vehicle and engine efficiency

To what extent should high capacity vehicles be deployed for long-hauloperations?
They should and can be applied to most long-haul operations.

They should be applied for trips along major higways.

38%

13%

They should be applied only on specific corridors with high demand
volumes where there are limited alternatives for other heavy
modes (e.g. rail, inland waterways).

There should not be increases in current truck capacities.

35%

15%

 85% of the respondents think it should be applied (with more or lessrestrictions) But around half put high restrictions (or completely object)

Vehicle and engine efficiency

BARRIERS

Regulation

42%

Road infrastructure limitations (e.g. bridges, crossings andjunctions) and damage increase.

42%

Limited to certain demand characteristics (e.g. high volumes ofbulk commodities)

Other

11%

5%

High Capacity Vehicles

 Regulation and Infrastructure limitations

BARRIERS

Vehicle and engine efficiency
Initial costs

27%

Lack of strict fuel and emission standards

24%

Small companies lack scale economies that allow a return on
investment

17%

Lack of financial incentives from government

14%

Separate ownership of trailers and tractors

9%These technologies are already being widely adopted by theindustry Vehicle technologies

Other

5%

4%

 Initial costs, lack of strict fuel and emissions standards

Intelligent systems and driver training

IS and driver training10

 Driver training the mosteffective in decreasing
CO2 emissions in thisgroup (above overall
average).

9
8
7

Average score (0-10)

EFFECTIVENESS

654

 Truck platooning on the
average, Autonomous
Trucks below.

32
10
Driver trainning and assisted
driving

Truck Platooning
Effective in CO2 reduction

Autonomous Trucks

MARKET UPTAKEIS and driver training

To what extent are driver training and assisted driving currently
employed across the industry?
25%

20%

 Average
score 4.73,
still room to
grow

15%

10%

5%

Not 0%
at all

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fully
implemented

IS and driver training

OPERATIONAL COSTS

50%

 >50% think Truck
platooning will deliver
operational costdecreases of more than
10%

40%

30%

 45% think Autonomous
trucks will deliver
operational costdecreases of more than
25%

20%

10%

0%
Truck Platooning

Autonomous Trucks

Less than 10%

Between 10% and 25%

Between 40% and 50%

More than 50%

Between 25% and 40%

IS and driver training

TIMELINE50%

 >50% stated Truck
platooning will be acommon practice by 2030

40%

30%

 >50% statedAutonomous Trucks will
be in general use by
2050

20%

10%

0%
Truck platooning
By 2020

Between 2020 and 2030

Autonomous trucks
Between 2030 and 2050

After 2050

Never

I don't know

BARRIERS

IS and driver training
Security and safety concerns (e.g. vulnerability to "hacking")

26%

Permits, standards and regulations (e.g. labour laws, regulations
and insurance)

20%

Required changes to road infrastructure (e.g. highway
entrance/exit ramps, reinforce structure, sensors)

18%

Vehicle technology (sensors, equipment and digital tech)18%

Competitive pressure will limit platooning opportunities between
trucks of different companies

9%

Cultural barriers, resistence from general public Truck platooning


Other

Security and safety, Regulation

8%

2%

BARRIERS

IS and driver training
Security and safety concerns (e.g. vulnerability to "hacking")

22%

Legislation and regulation

19%

Vehicle technology (sensors, equipment and digital tech)

17%

Difficulties in transition period where autonomous and othervehicles coexist

15%

Required changes to road infrastructure (e.g. dedicated lanes,
comunication equipement, sensors)

14%

Cultural barriers, resistence from general public Autonomous trucks


Other

Security and safety, Regulation

12%

1%

Emerging Trends

EFFECTIVENESS

Emerging Trends

 E-commerce is theleast effective CO2
reductionmeasure/trend,
Crowdshipping issecond worst
overall

10
9

Average score (0-10)

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
E-commerce

Crowdshipping

Digital freight matching

Effective in CO2 reduction

Collection points

 Collection points
slightly above
overall average

E-COMMERCE MOST RELEVANT IMPACTS
Tighter delivery windows and service requirements
constrain efforts to optimise operations and decreaseavailable capacity use

19%

Increased economies of scale will allow for more
efficient operations and higher vehicle capacity
utilisation

16%

Increased market control by E-commerce giants will
reduce prices for carriers and the trucking industry

15%

Facilitates collaboration, freight matching and asset
sharing

12%

Less ability of independent trucking companies torenew their equipment and competitive pressure thatcan lead to increased empty runs and lower load…

12%

Facilitates the adoption of new standards andtechnologies

 61% stated they could
significantly reduce
private trips for shopping

11%

Other

No significant impacts

 Increased service
requirements that
constrain efforts to
Optimise9%7%

 E-commerce companies
will increasingly play adominant role as logistic
services providers

EXOGENOUS FACTORS
60%

Demand50%
40%

Increase

30%

Decrease
Not significant

20%

I don't know
10%
0%
70%

Reshoring

3D printing

Shifts in trade routes

Distances60%

 Reshoring

No consensus on demand

Decreased distances

 3D printing

Not significant on demand

Not significant or decreased
distance

50%
Increase

40%

Decrease30%

Not significant

20%

I don't know

10%0%
Reshoring

3D printing

Shifts in trade routes

 Shifts in trade routesIncreased demand

No consensus on distanceMOST LIKELY TRENDS AND LOGISTIC MEASURESBY 2030
E-commerce

78%

Route and assets optimisation

67%

Easily accessible, all day long, collection points for deliveries in cities

49%

Collaboration and asset sharing

43%

Modularised, standardised packaging units

39%

Digital freight matching

39%

Shifts in trade routes

29%"Physical Internet"

27%

Widened delivery windows

25%

Crowdshipping25%

3D printing

22%

Reshoring
Other

12%
4%

 E-commerce is themost likely trend
 Optimisation is also
likely for >50%
 Reshoring is theleast likely, 3D
printing second to
lastPressing challenges, policy priorities and who
will lead transformation?

PRESSING CHALLENGES
Different pressing challenges by level of economic development
Shocks from new entrants and disruptive
technologies

High-income countries

Inadequate regulation and legal framework
Lack of qualified workforce
Safety and security issues

Middle-income countries

Profitability and financial viability
Increase productivity and resource use
efficiency

Low-income countries

Lack of adequate infrastructure

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Average score

140

160

180

200

Environmental impacts and energy consumption

PRESSING CHALLENGES
Low-income

Middle-income

High-income

Environmental impacts
and energy consumption

Environmental impacts
and energy consumption

1

Lack of adequate
infrastructure

2

Inadequate regulationand legal framework

Safety and security issues

Shocks from new entrants
and disruptive
technologies

3

Safety and security issues

Increase productivity andresource use efficiency

Increase productivity andresource use efficiency

 Environmental issues are the most pressing challenges in middle- and highincome countries, lack of infrastructure in low-income countries
 Shocks from new entrants and disruptive technologies are an important challengein High-income countries, Safety and security in middle income and inadequate
regulation in low income

POLICY PRIORITIESPolicy priorities for each country group vary
Total or partial bans on certain vehicle types (e.g.
prevent diesel trucks from making deliveries in city
centre)High-income countries

Fuel efficiency and emissions standards for vehicles

Pricing mechanisms (e.g. fuel tax, distance based)
Middle-income countries
Financial incentives

Reform regulation and legal framework for thesector (e.g. labour laws, permits, insurance related
issues)Low-income countries

Promote standardisation of vehicles, equipment,
procedures and digital networks
0

20

40

60
Average score

80

100

120

Improve infrastructure supply

POLICY PRIORITIES
Low-income

Middle-income

High-income

1

Improve infrastructure
supplyFuel efficiency andemissions standards forvehiclesFuel efficiency andemissions standards forvehicles2

Reform regulation andlegal framework for thesectorPricing mechanisms

Pricing mechanisms

3

Fuel efficiency andemissions standards forvehiclesReform regulation andlegal framework for thesectorTotal or partial bans oncertain vehicle types

 Fuel efficiency and emissions standards for vehicles a top priority for all countries
 Pricing mechanisms on high- and middle income countries, total or partial bans on
high-income countries
 Improving infrastructure is the number one priority for low income countries

WHO WILL LEAD TRANSFORMATION?
Government and regulators

29%

New entrants (e.g. mega E-commerce retailers and/or
digital platform developers)

21%

Retailers/Shippers (e.g. Walmart, Nestlé...)16%

Logistic suppliers (e.g. DHL, UPS)

15%

Vehicle manufactures (e.g. Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi
Alliance, Volvo...)13%

Energy companies (e.g. BP, Exxon Mobil, Aramco...)4%

 Government andregulators almost 30%

 Private sector
combined 70%

 New entrants will
Other

2%

lead on the privatesideSummary of results

Summary of results
0
Vehicle technologies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Effective in CO2
reduction?

Driver trainning and assisted driving
Optimisation of routing, assets and collaboration
High Capacity Vehicles
Physical internet
Collection points
Truck Platooning
Digital freight matching

Widening delivery windows
Autonomous Trucks

 Improving
vehicle efficiency(vehicletechnologies) isthe most
effective of thesealternatives

Modularised and standardised packaging units
Crowdshipping
E-commerce E-commerce theworstSummary of results

 Logistics - Optimisation and collaboration is the measure that gathers more consensus.
 Alternative Fuels – Solution for Urban and Regional. Mixed results for the Long-haul.
Charging and supply network is a key barrier.

 Vehicle efficiency – High cost-effectiveness of CO2 emissions reduction. Initial costs
and lack of strict standards are barriers.

 Intelligent systems and driver training – Driver training is cost-effective and has
room to grow. Truck platooning and Autonomous trucks benefits will reduce cost. In
wide use by 2030-2050.

 Emerging trends – E-commerce is to gain speed, which will not help decarbonise thesector. Re-shoring and 3D printing not likely.

 Challenges and Policy – Environmental impacts a challenge in High and Middle income
countries. Safety and security important in Middle and Low income countries. Shocks
with new entrants in High income. Fuel efficiency standards a policy priority (H/M),
legal framework (M/L). Infrastructure the most important for Low income group.

Thank you
Francisco Furtado
Francisco.FURTADO@itf-oecd.org

www.itf-oecd.org