IMPROVING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF GOODS MOVEMENT

James J. Winebrake, PhD., Rochester Institute of TecAsllomar 2009 Conference on Transportation and E
Acknowledgements

 Although I am presenting today, much of th

material was developed jointly with Dr. JamCorbett, y University of Delaware.

 I am indebted to the faculty and students in 

Laboratory pg for Environmental Computing anDecision Making at RIT, including Bryan ComProkop, Dr. Scott Hawker, and Dr. Karl Korf

J. Winebrake, A
My y Job Today

 Present energy 

 and environmental attributes o

movement from multiple modes

 Discuss benefits from shifting from high energy

modes to low energy-intensity modes

 Assess overall opportunities for mode-shifting i

larg y er s stems context

 Provoke policy-focused discussion 

J. Winebrake, A
Working yp H othesis

 We can solve a large part of the energy a

environmental problems of freight transpormovingg 

oods off trucks and onto trains and 

V.

J. Winebrake, A
O i f G d M Overv

iew

of Goo

d

s Movem

J. Winebrake, A
Goods Movement and GD

4800

Ton‐Miles v. GDP for the U.S. (1987‐2005)

440046004800380040004200

iles (Billions)

340036003800

Ton‐Mi For every trillion dollar increase in GDP, we 

expect an additional 242 billion ton-miles.

30003200

6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 

J. Winebrake, A

GDP (Billions, 2000$)

Source: Corbett and Winebrake, 2009.
6,000,000

U.S. Freight Transport by Mode, 1980‐2030

5,000,000

s

3 000 0004,000,000

Ton‐miles

2,000,0003,000,000

Millions of

1,000,000

M

0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 20

Truck Rail Domestic Domestic Shipping Shipping Air So rce u :B rea u u of Transportation Transportation 

(1980‐2006); AEO 2009 (derived, 

J. Winebrake, A
8000.0

Projected Energy Use in U.S. Freight Transport, 2006‐2030

6000.07000.04000 05000.0

n BTUAAGR: Freight truck =1 3%

3000.04000.0

Trillion-Freight truck =1.3%

-Freight rail = 0.9%-Air (freight carriers) = 2-Domestic shipping = 0.9%

1000.02000.0

0.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Truck Rail Domestic Shipping Air Truck Rail Domestic Shipping Air Source: Source:

J. Winebrake, A

Source: AEO 2009, Table 45.
Shipping,

Recreational Boats

0.9%

Air

9.8%

Military Use

2.8%

Lubricants

0.3%

Percentage of Energy‐Related Transportation CO2 Emissions by Mode, 

Total from t

Shipping, Domestic

1 2%

pp g,

International

3.1%

from t~1.9 

Total 

from a

Rail, Freight

2.2%

1.2% from a

~5.9 

Rail, Passenger

0.3%

B T i

Freight Trucks

18.3%

Commercial Light

Trucks

Bus Transportation

1.0%

Trucks

2.1%

J. Winebrake, A

Source: AEO 2009, Table 19.
M d l C i M

o

d

al Compar

isons

J. Winebrake, A
5000 Energy Intensity of US Freight Modes, 1980‐2006

40004500

mile)

250030003500

(BTU/ton‐m

Note:

These represent top-down averages and should 

150020002500

gy Intensitynot be used for blanket modal comparisons!

500

10001500

Energ

0

500

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2

Truck Rail Domestic Shipping Source: Transportati

J. Winebrake, A
Range of typical CO2 efficiencies for various cargo carrie

Cr de

General Cargo

LNG

Cr

ude

NOTE I f f 

Bulk

Chemical

Reefer : Impacts are

a function

of 

many factors related to route and modal characteristics.

Product

LPG

Container

Road

Rail

RoRo / Vehicle

0 50 100 150 200 

g CO2 / ton*km

Source: Buhaug, et al. 2009 J. Winebrake, A
S E l U i GIFT Some Examples U

s

ing GIFT

Th e G ti l I t d l F i ht T t ti (G

Geospati

al I

n

termo

d

al Fre

i

ght Transpor

t

ation (G

model is a model jointly developed by the RochestInstitute of Technology y 

 and the Universit

y of Delaw

with funding support from US DOT/MARAD, GreaMaritime Research Institute, ARB, among others.

J. Winebrake, A
Connect Multiple Transportation Mode Netw

Intermodal Transfer Facilities

Road Network Rail Network

Waterway Network Intermodal Transfer Fa

J. Winebrake, A
Define Economic, Energy, Time and Environment

of Traversing Each Network Segment and Tra

Truck Segment 

“Costs

”

Operating Energy CO

2 NOx

...

Cost

Distance Time

Truck Segment Costs

ESRI ArcGIS 

N y etwork Anal

yst finds 

“Shortest” (least cost) routes.

J. Winebrake, A
J. Winebrake, A

Montreal to Cleveland (Ship 1) Montreal to Clevela
Emissions and Time of Delivery Tradeof

Montreal to Cleveland

400600

2 (kg)

0

200

T k Shi (DR) R il 

CO2

Truc

k Shi

p (DR)

R

ail 

804060

e-of 

y (hrs)

0

20

40

Time

Deliver

J. Winebrake, A

Truck Ship (DR) Rail 

Mode
300

400

CO2 Compariso

100200300

CO

2 (kg)

0

100

Truck Only Rail Only Ship

J. Winebrake, A
2500

CO2 Comparison

100015002000

O

2 (kg)

0

500

1000

CO

Truck Only Rail Only 

J. Winebrake, A
O i i f M d Sh

Opportun

i

t

ies for M

o

d

e Sh

J. Winebrake, A
The IF-TOLD Mitigation Framewo

A C t t f M d Shifti Di A Con

text for M

o

d

e Shifting Disc

 The IF-TOLD “six-legged cow”:



Intermodalism/mode-shifting

–

use of efficient modes



Fuels

– use of low carbon fuels



Technology – application of 

efficient technologies



Operations – best practices in 

operator behavior



Logistics – improve supply chain management



Demand – reduce how much 

STUFF we consume

Even a six-legged cow 

all legs – dynamic, b

J. Winebrake, A
Opportunities for Mode-Shiftin

ΔE =∑[W ⋅c ⋅ f ⋅ p (E −E 

k

ij ik ijk ijk pijk Ei E

E W c f

ΔEij = energy savings due to modal shift from i to jWik = work done by mode i for commodity k (ton-miles) c = shipment compatibility fraction of i to j for k (ca

ijk = shipment compatibility fraction of i to j for k (ca

fijk = shipment feasibility fraction of i to j for k (infrast

pijk = shipment practicality fraction of i to j for k (econ

Ei = energy intensity factor for i (Btu/ton-mile)Ej = energy intensity factor for j (Btu/ton-mile)

J. Winebrake, A

Also need to account for intermodal transfer penal
Insights into cijk – Cargo Characte

Percentageof Goods Movement in U.S. by Commodity (Sample) and

Mode (2002 CFS Data)

g ijk g

Nonmetallicmineral products

Elect. and electrical equip.

Misc. manufactured products 1.1%

1.0%4.3%

Coal

Basic chemicals

p

3.7%21.9%1 8%

Other agricultural products

Gravel and crushed stone

Nonmetallicminerals 1.8%

3.4%3.5%

Live animalsand live fish

Cereal grains 8.4%

0.1%

0% 50% 100%

Truck Rail Water Other/Unknown

J. Winebrake, A

Source: CFS 2002, Ton-Miles by Commodity and Mode
Insights into fijk – U.S. Intermodal 

Infrastructure

J. Winebrake, A
1800

Average Miles per Shipment by Mode for the U.S. (2007)

1400160010001200

Shipment

600800

Miles perS

200400

0

Truck Rail Shallow

draft

Great Lakes Deep draft Air (included

truck and

Par

U.S.P

J. Winebrake, A

air) cou

Source: CFS 2007.
Estimating g Mode Shifting Poten

Δ =∑[ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ( − )]

k

ij ik ijk ijk pijk Ei Ej E W c f

TruckRailWaterIntermoUSPS/POtherModal S

Consider total ton-miles as a 

gridded box, where each cell is 

J. Winebrake, A

equivalent to 1%. 
Estimating g Mode Shifting Poten

Δ =∑[ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ( − )]

k

ij ik ijk ijk pijk Ei Ej E W c f

TruckRailWaterIntermoUSPS/POtherModal S

Assume that about 50% of the cargo currently 

by truck is compatible with rail or ship due to 

ti f t l di l i ti t [ 

J. Winebrake, A

properties, safety, loading logistics, etc. [cijk ~ 
Estimating g Mode Shifting Poten

Δ =∑[ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ( − )]

k

ij ik ijk ijk pijk Ei Ej E W c f

TruckRailWaterIntermoUSPS/POtherModal S

Assume that of the cargo that is compatib

infrastructure can only serve 70% of the ton-m

J. Winebrake, A

the short term [fijk ~0.70] 
Estimating g Mode Shifting Poten

Δ =∑[ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ( − )]

k

ij ik ijk ijk pijk Ei Ej E W c f

Under these 

there is poten

5% of the to

(~12% of tr

from truck to 

truck is ~5 

energy in

rail/ hi h 

il/ship, the

~8% reduct

consum

Average distance by truck is 200 miles. Assume t

~50% of the ton-miles shipped > 200 miles and 25

> 500 miles. Assume economic possibility exists for 

J. Winebrake, A

shifting for 35% of total truck trips. [pijk ~ 0.35
P li i f P i Effi 

P

oli

c

ies for Promot

ing Effi

c

J. Winebrake, A
Policy Options dalism

ogy ons sy p

Intermod

Fuel

Technol

o

Operatio

Logistics

Policy Options I F TOL

Efficiency standards ●●●Taxes ●●●●●Subsidies ●●●Technology mandates ●Infrastructure investment ● ●R&D investment ● ●Alternative/LC fuels ● ●Size/weight restrictions ● ●●Demand management 

J. Winebrake, A
C li onc usion

J. Winebrake, A
Conclusion

 Modal shifts offer large side Modal shifts offer large side-by-side benef System benefits vary depending on vessel, 

locomotive, and route characteristics and arconstrained by compatibility, feasibility, and p y racticality – research needed here

 Suite of policy options should be considered 

recognizing freight sector as a system

 Wedge analysis needed for freight sector t

at potential for the IF-TOLD set of elements

J. Winebrake, A
Citations

 Corbett, J. J.; Winebrake, J.J.; “The impact of globalisation on 

mariti t t ti it P t t d d f t ti 

itime transport activity: Past trends and future perspectives,

Globalisation, Transport, and Environment, edited by N. A. BraaOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECforthcoming.

 Buhaug, Ø.; Corbett, J. J.; Endresen, Ø.; Eyring, V.; Faber, J.; Ha

Lee, D. S.; Lee, D.; Lindstad, H.; Mjelde, A.; Pålsson, C.; WanquiWinebrake, J. J.; Yoshida, K. Updated Study on Greenhouse Gas from Ships; International Maritime Organization ( ) IMO London, 

 Energy Information Administration (2009). Annual Energy Outlo

Washington, DC; available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

 B f T t ti St ti ti C dit Fl S (20

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Commodity Flow Survey (202007), available at http://www.bts.gov/programs/commodity_flow_survey/

J. Winebrake, A