Scholarly article on topic 'Mode Shift as a Measure to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions'

Mode Shift as a Measure to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Academic research paper on "Civil engineering"

Share paper
OECD Field of science
{"Mode shift" / "greenhouse gas" / GHG / rail / "passenger transport" / "freight transport" / "infrastructure investment" / "EC white paper"}

Abstract of research paper on Civil engineering, author of scientific article — Bo-Lennart Nelldal, Evert Andersson

Abstract Forecasts indicate that it is not possible to reduce total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport to fulfil the target of two degrees global warming with technology means alone. It is possible to reduce GHG-emissions for all modes but still rail will be the most efficient mode by 2050. Rail has a modest market share in the EU in comparison with ‘best practice’ rail systems in the world. There is a big potential if the rail system is developed with new high speed rail and freight corridors as well as an upgraded conventional network and intermodal systems.This paper presents an estimation of the effects of a partial mode shift to rail transport applying world's ‘best practice’ by the year 2050. It is shown that such a mode shift to rail can reduce EU transport GHG emissions over land by about 20%, compared with a baseline scenario. In combination with lowcarbon electricity production a reduction of about 30% may be achieved. A developed rail system can thus substantially contribute to the EU target of reducing GHG emissions in the transport sector by 60% below 1990 levels. To enable such a mode shift and to manage the demand for capacity, there is a need ofinvestments. This will also maintain and increase mobility for passengers and freight transport.

Academic research paper on topic "Mode Shift as a Measure to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions"

Available online at

SciVerse ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 48 (2012) 3187 - 3197

Transport Research Arena- Athens 2012

Mode shift as a measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Bo-Lennart Nelldal*, Evert Andersson^

Adjunct Professor, KTH Traffic and Logistics, SE-10044 Stockholm, Sweden Professor em, KTH Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, SE-10044 Stockholm, Sweden


Forecasts indicate that it is not possible to reduce total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport to fulfil the target of two degrees global warming with technology means alone. It is possible to reduce GHG-emissions for all modes but still rail will be the most efficient mode by 2050. Rail has a modest market share in the EU in comparison with 'best practice' rail systems in the world. There is a big potential if the rail system is developed with new high speed rail and freight corridors as well as an upgraded conventional network and intermodal systems.

This paper presents an estimation of the effects of a partial mode shift to rail transport applying world's 'best practice' by the year 2050. It is shown that such a mode shift to rail can reduce EU transport GHG emissions over land by about 20 %, compared with a baseline scenario. In combination with low-carbon electricity production a reduction of about 30 % may be achieved. A developed rail system can thus substantially contribute to the EU target of reducing GHG emissions in the transport sector by 60 % below 1990 levels. To enable such a mode shift and to manage the demand for capacity, there is a need of investments. This will also maintain and increase mobility for passengers and freight transport.

©2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of the Programme Committee of the T ransport Research Arena 2012

Keywords: Mode shift; greenhouse gas; GHG; rail; passenger transport; freight transport; infrastructure investment; EC white paper


passkm passenger kilometres tonkm tonnes-kilometres

TOSCA Technology Opportunities and Strategies toward Climate-friendly transport (EU funded project)

* Bo-Lennart Nelldal Tel. +46 70 762 3056; fax: +46 8 21 28 29. E-mail address',

T Evert Andersson. Tel.:+46 8 790 7628; fax:+46 8 790 7629. E-mail address',,

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of the Programme Committee of the Transport Research Arena 2012


1. Introduction

To achieve a sustainable society, the target within the EU is to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80-95% from the 1990 level. A reduction of at least 60% is required from the transport sector, EC (2011). Since GHG emissions from EU transport (excl international bunkers) have increased by approx 26% from 1990 [2], the target from 2010 will be 68%. At the same time, there is also a target within the EU to maintain or increase mobility for passengers and freight.

On 28 March 2011 the European Commission published a white paper entitled "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system". EC has a vision of a long-term-sustainable transport system with the aim of attaining the goals set for reducing the transport sector's emissions. Important goals and measures for the rail mode are described below.

- 30% of road freight over 300 km should shift to other modes such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050, facilitated by efficient, green freight corridors.

- By 2050, a European high-speed rail network should be completed. Triple the length of the existing high-speed rail network by 2030 and maintain a dense railway network in all Member States. By 2050 the majority of medium-distance passenger transport should go by rail.

As can be seen from this, rail transportation plays an important role in the EU's future transport policy to attain the dual goals of maintained or increased mobility and reduced emissions.

2. Related research

A paper by Anable et al (2010) deals with scenarios for passenger transport in the UK at 2050. Both technical and behavior changes are modeled. A lifestyle scenario results in 74% reduction of distance traveled by car and halved energy demand compared with a reference scenario.

A study by Boer et al (2011) deals with shift from road to rail of freight transports in EU to 2020. One conclusion is that there is a potential to increase the market share for rail from 18 to 31-36% and reduce the GHG by 19% of the emissions where road and rail compete.

A techno-economic analysis of opportunities and strategies towards climate-friendly transport is made in the EU-funded project TOSCA (Technology Opportunities and Strategies toward Climate-friendly transport, ref 2011a, b, c, d). The conclusion is that technology improvements are essential, but cannot alone meet the EU targets of GHG reductions. Also behavioral measures are needed, such as reducing the need for transport and shifts toward low-emission transport modes.

3. Transport demand and modal split in an international perspective

Some facts about passenger transport around the world are shown in Table 1. In Europe, the structure is different between EU 15 and EU 12. Car ownership in particular is lower in EU 12, as is also travel consumption per inhabitant. In the USA, car ownership is extremely high and travel consumption per inhabitant is more than twice that in Europe.

In Japan, car ownership and travel consumption are of the same order as in Europe. At 30%, rail's market share is very high in Japan. This can be compared with 0.4% in the USA and 6.5% in Europe, excluding metro and trams. Despite a normal car ownership level, the private car's market share in Japan is only 54%, compared to 74% in Europe and 85% in the USA. One explanation is that Japan has a highspeed rail system over large parts of the country, with both direct trains for longer distances and stopping trains for short and medium distances. Japan has also a lower share of motorways than Europe and USA.

For freight however, the situation is different. There are no big differences in GNP per inhabitant except for EU 12, where it is much lower. Tonne-kilometres per inhabitant are three times as high in the USA as in Europe. One explanation for this is that the USA is a big continent with substantial natural recourses moved on long distances to the users. Rail's market share is extremely high in the USA; 53% compared to 18% in Europe, excluding sea transport and pipelines. The long-distance freight railways in the USA are very efficient and market-oriented with long trains, high axle load and a large loading gauge.

Bo-Lennart Nelldal and Evert Andersson /Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 48 (2012) 3187 - 3197 Table 1: Some facts about transport and infrastructure in Europe, USA and Japan. Source: Calculations from EC (2009).

Europe Europe Europe US Japan

2007 EU 15 EU 12 EU 27

Population density

Millions of inhabitants 392 103 495 301 128

Number of inhabitants/km2 121 95 115 31 340

Passenger transports

Passengerkm/inhabitant/year 13 954 7 864 12 770 28 530 10 147

Cars/1000 inhabitants 500 326 464 781 539

Market shares

Privât car 75% 70% 74% 85% 56%

Bus and coach 8% 13% 9% 3% 7%

Rail 6% 6% 6% 0% 30%

Metro and tram 1% 3% 1% 0% **

Air 9% 7% 9% 11% 7%

Sea 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Roads metre/1000 inhabitants 10 101 21 472 9 297

Motorways mere/1000 inhatbitants 151 41 128 316 58

Railways metre/1000 inhabitants 384 598 429 678 219

High-speed rail m/1000 inhabitants 16 0 12 1 19

High-speed rail/Motorways % 10% 0% 10% 0% 33%

Freight transports*

Gross national product (GNP)/inhabitant 29 281 8 398 24 935 33 472 28 227

Tonne-kilometres/inhabitant 5 000 5 437 5 091 16 880 2 891

Market shares

Road 78% 70% 76% 37% 94%

Rail 15% 28% 18% 53% 6%

Inland waterway 7% 2% 6% 10% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

*) Exkl sea and pipe-lines **)Incl in rail

4. Energy consumption and GHG emissions for different modes, 2010-2050

Possible development up to the year 2050 has been analyzed by the TOSCA project; see TOSCA (2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d), taking into account the most promising technical improvements. Figure 1 show the estimated average life-cycle GHG emissions for all investigated modes, including indirect emissions for electric modes. There is a significant technical potential to reduce energy consumption in all modes in the long term; in the order of 25-40% for cars, trucks and airplanes. This is without using biofuels or low-GHG electricity. From a pure technical point of view more can be gained by using biofuels and, for cars and short-distance trucks, even low-GHG electricity. This will require substantial taxation, subsidies or other regulatory measures. Further, the availability of biofuels on a very large scale for transportation will most likely be limited in a global perspective, because of other competing needs for the use of land.

It is also possible to reduce the long-term energy consumption by 40-50% for trains with a combination of different means. Most of these means have economic benefits as well and will be introduced gradually. The reduction of energy consumption also includes the estimated increase of speeds due to the need for more competitive rail services. It should be noted that high-speed rail has the lowest GHG emission of all types of passenger rail transport, due to superior aerodynamic performance and a high load factor and sometimes shorter distances on the new line. With a possible future low-GHG production mix of electric power it is even lower.

There are some fundamental technical prerequisites that make rail energy efficient: the wheel-steel rail concept has very low rolling resistance, coupling many vehicles together reduces drag, moderate grades

reduce the need for propulsion forces, electric traction is available and braking energy can to a large extent be regenerated back to other trains or to the electric grid. All these factors make trains energy efficient in comparison

Today approximately 50% of the European rail network is electrified and 80-90% of rail transport in Europe is operated using electric propulsion. Electricity can be produced with very low GHG emissions, but today about 50% in Europe is produced with GHG-emitting fuels as coal, natural gas and oil.

Nonetheless, even without a change in electricity mix, and with increased average speed, rail is still expected to be energy efficient and has lower GHG emissions than other modes in 2050. This is why it is a good solution to make rail so attractive that its market share increases, particularly over medium and longer distances, where rail is most efficient

Passenger transport GHG emissions □ 2010 ■ 2050 Baseline □ 2050 with low GHG

□ 2010 120

Freight transport GHG emissions 12050 Baseline □ 2050 with low GHG



Figure 1. (left): GHG emissions in grams per passenger-kilometre, (right) GHG emissions in grams per tonne-kilometre for different modes with average European electricity mix 2010 and 2050 with most promising technology. Sources: TOSCA (2011); Heavy truck: Institut fur Energie- und Umweltforschung (2008).

5. Future passenger rail system

5.1 The development ofa high-speed network in Europe

The plans for high-speed lines are developing and in addition to visions there are now government investigations being carried on in more countries, such as Sweden, Norway and the UK. No decisions have yet been taken in these countries but high-speed lines are taking on an increasingly prominent role not only within the European Union but also in the individual countries' planning processes.

If the plans are realized, it means that the European network that in 2010 had a length of 6,000 km will be expanded to 17,000 km by 2025, i.e. its total length will increase threefold. If expansion continues at the same rate until 2050, there will be 36,000 km of high-speed lines in Europe, equivalent to 17% of today's network. The difficulties associated with implementation can often be found in a long and tricky planning process as well as funding.

There is also a plan for a TEN-T (Trans European Network) high-speed-train network in Europe that also comprises conventional lines for 200 km/h or more. It is larger than the high-speed network that only comprises new lines for speeds of at least 250 km/h. The TEN-T comprised 10,000 km in 2005 and is estimated to comprise 30,000 km by 2020. The six freight corridors in the planned TEN-T network comprise a total of 13,500 km. Besides TEN-T and the new very high-speed lines, also upgrading of the existing rail network is important for reduced travel time, punctuality and increase of capacity.

In the EU's white paper, great emphasis is also laid on intermodal traffic as regards passenger transport, and in particular between train and airplane.

5.2 Possible market effects ofa developedpassenger rail system

Investigations and statistical analysis show a very strong connection between journey time by rail and rail/air market share. Graphs shown in different publications by Nelldal-Troche (2001), Steer Davis Gleave (2006), UIC (2008), Kjorstad-Norheim (2009) have a similar form. Models developed by Transek (2002), Jorritsma (2009) and Lundberg (2010) are consistent and have high reliability, see figure 2.

The relation between rail and air is very direct. Whenjourney time by train is shorter, more customers change mode to train. Price and frequency have less importance than journey time. However, distance and journey time to the airport as well as terminal times will also affect the relative journey time by air compared with rail. One conclusion is that with a travel time of three hours rail will have a higher market share than air. With three hours, travel time from city to city is almost equal for air and rail, including feeder transport and terminal times.

There is also a substantial impact on private car use, trip generation and trip distribution. The effects of fast regional trains Stockholm-Eskilstuna (115 km, east of Stockholm, Sweden) opened in 1997 have been evaluated ex post ex ante by Froidh (2003). Journey time was shortened from lh40min to about lh, making daily commuting possible. The demand for rail transport increased 6 times compared with the old line. The rail services' market share increased from 6% to about 30% for regional journeys. Most of the new rail customers were former car riders and many new trips were generated because daily commuting was possible.

Similar effects have been shown by Jorritsma (2009) for the Madrid-Seville high-speed line, where the market share for rail increased from 16% to 51%, while road and air transport dropped accordingly. Figure 2 (right) shows the influence on road transport from the introduction of French high-speed rail Paris-Lyon.

Competing with the car is more complex than competing with air travel. There are many other factors affecting car travel. Except travel time, price, frequency and punctuality are important. In long term the result can be less increase in car travel and it can also affect car ownership and localization because of shorterjourney times which allows daily commuting as has been shown by Froidh (2003).

Market share for rail depending on Journey time by rail

Figure 2: (left): Market shares rail-air as a function of railjourney times around year 2010. Source: Lundberg (2010) (right): Road transport development Paris-Lyon 1981-1991 compared with other roads. Source: Arduin (1994).

6. Future rail freight system

6.1 Plans for Europe

In the short term, timetable channels for international freight trains with "one stop shop" already exist, which means that railway companies only need to approach one infrastructure manager to get a timetable slot. Further there is also the TEN-T network and the planned corridors with the common European signalling system ERTMS. The aim is to achieve an interoperable network with a common standard where it is possible to operate a freight train throughout Europe in roughly the same way as a truck.

In the long term, there is an ambition to also make it possible to operate long freight trains of possibly 1,500 metres in length, compared to today's 500-750 metres in this network. Today standards vary between different countries, not only as regards train length but also when it comes to loading gauges, power supply systems and signalling systems. ERTMS is intended to resolve the problem of different signalling systems but it will take time before it has been introduced everywhere.

Developing intermodal traffic is important for the railway to be able to reach a larger market. If intermodal freight transport is to increase, more efficient terminal technologies must be developed for both containers and trailers. Most trailers in Europe cannot be lifted by crane, so solutions are needed where the trailer can roll or be hauled by other means than lifting. As regards containers and swap bodies, a solution with liner trains and automatic horizontal transfer would be ideal; see Nelldal (2005) and Woxenius (2004). The containers would then also be able to be loaded and unloaded below the overhead electric contact wires at terminals along the way. Such a system provides for a quick load transfer, which is necessary to be cost effective and successfully compete with road transport on medium distances.

6.2 Possible market effects for freight

As was shown in Section 3, rail's market share is much higher in the USA than in Europe. The development of the market shares in USA, EU and Sweden is shown in Figure 3. There are differences between the markets in the USA and EU. In USA the market has no national borders and the US railways can cross state borders without delays and they are very efficient. This is not the situation today in the EU, but this is what the EU's policies are seeking to achieve in the future.

There are heavy unit-trains that transport coal, for example, over long distances in USA. They account for about 25% of the railways' tonne-kilometres. But there are also unit trains in Europe, mostly for coal and iron ore, and they account for 27% of the tonne-kilometres in Europe. Such heavy haulage is a kind of de facto monopoly. Road haulage also has a de facto monopoly over distances shorter than 100 km, or approximately 10% of the tonne-kilometres by truck.

Deregulation of the rail freight market in Europe has been implemented successively over the last 15 years but has in most countries only been implemented theoretically and not in practice. In the former eastern European regulated economies, EU 12, rail's market share has decreased successively from 51% in 1995 to 28% in 2007. In EU 15 it has been relatively stable at about 15%, with a slight increase. In the whole of Europe it decreased at the beginning of the period but has stabilised in the last 5 years.

In more deregulated countries like Germany, the UK, Austria, Switzerland and Sweden rail freight has increased due to new companies entering the market and more efficient state railways as a result of competition; see Figure 3 (right). In some countries, truck-fees may also have affected the modal split. The development is not dramatic but in a historical perspective with continuously decreasing market shares for rail, this represents an interruption of the earlier trend.

In international transport in particular there is great potential for rail freight because the market share is lower than in national transport due to management and interoperability problems. In Sweden, international transport's market share is only half of the share of the national transport despite there being large volumes over long distances that are suitable for rail because of economics of scale.

Rail Freight market share in Sweden, the EU and the USA Railway market share in some countries in Europe

Note: Some figures 1970-1990 are missing and iastyear's are preliminary

Figure 3: Left: Development of rail's market share in USA, Europe and Swede Right: Development of freight rail market share in some countries in Europe with deregulated rail freight market. Source: EU statistics 2009.

7 Demand forecasts

In TOSCA total demand forecasts with modal split have mainly been made using the Trans-Tools forecast model. The GHG emissions were then calculated by completing vehicle stock models. Here we will first discuss the demand in the projection of TOSCA and then a hypothetical redistribution between modes. The redistribution and the resulting mode shift to rail are made under the assumption of a "best practice" rail system, with influences from USA, Japan and Switzerland.

The figures from TOSCA baseline forecasts are shown in Table 2. Public transport and shipping were not included in the available forecasts. The total demand for passkm by road, rail and aviation will increase by 59% from 2010 to 2050 in a baseline scenario. For freight, the total demand for truck and rail will increase by 51% in tonneskm. As a matter of fact, the Trans-tools model seems to be very static, most changes being in total demand because of different economic development. The market shares are almost constant from 2010 to 2050. The only change observed in market share has been implemented outside Trans-tools for aviation forecast, because the Trans-tools forecast did not prove to be realistic.

7.1 A mode shift scenario

The mode shift scenario for passenger transport includes an extended high-speed rail network throughout Europe, much like in Japan today. Faster, more frequent Intercity and regional trains will be introduced on the conventional network. This will encourage a shift from car to rail and from air to rail and also induce some new travel. The aim is to achieve a market share for rail of about 30% by 2050.

The high-speed network will free capacity for rail freight on the conventional network but for capacity reasons new tracks and terminals will also be built. This will lead to higher average speeds and better quality. Longer and heavier trains will lower transportation costs. Deregulation will be fully implemented, which is especially important in international transport. There is a potential in intermodal transport for high value goods and over shorter distances. The aim is to attain a market share of 50% of the land-based road-rail market, not to take market shares from shipping.

7.2 Method

Data for all modes has been extracted from Trans-tools by the University of Cambridge. The data used for mode shift calculation is the distribution by distance classes. This is because it is the most relevant factor for increasing rail transport. Rail is more competitive over longer distances except for very long distances for passenger where aviation dominates and for overseas shipping, where shipping is the only

available mode, except a small amount carried by air. Shipping, however, is not included in this case study. The mode split has therefore been adjusted for different distance classes to what we have estimated to be a realistic share in the future. For passenger transport we have compared with the distribution in Japan and other studies. For freight transport we have compared with figures from a detailed forecast from a "best practice" rail scenario for Sweden. This has been applied to the demand for 2050.

For the GHG-calculations aviation has been separated for shorter than 1,000 km and longer than 1,000 km. The shorter lines are less efficient and compete more with rail. Also, lighter trucks have been separated from heavier and medium sized trucks operating on longer distances which are more efficient and compete with rail.

7.3 Results

In the baseline scenario, passenger transport by car will increase by 57% from 4,725 to 7,415 billion passkm, rail will increase by 37% from 410 to 560 and for air we have assumed 100% from 560 to 1100 billion passkm. The shift in mode split from road to rail has been adjusted from road to rail over distances mainly over 100 km and from air to rail mainly between 300 and 1,000 km. The net result is that rail demand will increase from 560 to 2,660 billion passenger kilometres or a factor of 4.7 compared with the baseline scenario. The shift from road and aviation to rail results in 2,100 passenger kilometres to be transferred to rail. This means that private car still will increase with 19% and aviation will increase with 48%.

In the baseline scenario, freight transport by truck will increase by 53% from 1,900 to 2,900 billion tonne-km and by rail by 43% from 440 to 630 billion tonne-km. The shift from road to rail over longer distances results in 950 billion tonne-kilometres being transferred from road to rail. This means that the truck transport effort will remain at the 2010 level. Rail will increase from 630 to 1,600 billion tonne-km or a factor of 2.5 compared with the baseline scenario.

The market share for passenger rail will increase to 29%, as result of the mode shift; for car it will decrease to 62% and for air it will decrease to 8% for the car-rail-air-market. At distances between 1001000 km rail has a market share of 61% of the passenger-km which is in line with the EU target that the majority of the medium distance passenger transport should go by rail.

The market share for freight rail will increase to 45% as result of the mode shift and truck will decrease to 55%. This means that rail and truck has each half of the long distance market of transport longer than 100 km. At distances longer than 300 km rail has taken over 63% of the tonne-km by road in the baseline scenario at 2050. These figures are in line with the EU target that more than 50% of the road freight should shift to rail or waterborne transport in 2050.

In the baseline scenario, the GHG emissions for all modes included for passenger and freight transport will increase by 15% between 2010 and 2050 despite technology improvments. In the mode shift scenario, GHG will decrease by 8%, and will be 20% lower than the baseline scenario. The net effect is almost the same in passenger and freight transport.

These estimations have been done by today's production mix of electricity. There is also a scenario with electricity production with lower GHG emissions. This is important both for rail and for electric private cars at 2050. In this scenario, combined with a mode shift to rail, it is estimated to be possible to reduce GHG emissions by almost 30% from 2010 to 2050.

7.4 The capacity challengefor rail

The increase in rail transport with a mode shift is estimated to 4% a year. Between 1995 and 2007, freight transport by road in Europe increased by 3.4% a year on average, and before 1995 the increase was even higher. In a long-term perspective, a development of this order is therefore not impossible.

Regarding capacity, building a high-speed network will free capacity so it will be possible to operate twice as many freight trains on the conventional network as today. With longer freight trains, possibly a doubling of the length from 500-750 to up to 1,500 meters, capacity will be doubled again (in the USA freight trains today are up to 3,000 metres long). Higher axle loads, from today's 22.5 tonnes in Europe to

25 tonnes will increase capacity by 15% and 30 tons by about 40% (in the USA the axle load today is 35 tons). Further, increased loading gauge can increase the useful volume in freight wagons by 30-50%.

For passenger trains, building separate high-speed lines will at least quadruple capacity and also increase reliability. Further, there is also a need for more capacity in the ordinary network. The introduction of ERTMS level 3 is important because it can increase capacity by 40%. To some extent, this can be handled by longer trains and higher capacity trains such as double-deckers and wide-body trains.

An increase in capacity of 4-6 times is therefore not unrealistic but assumes heavy investment in rail infrastructure. Inversely, the need to invest and maintain the road system will be reduced.

It should be pointed out that investment in increased capacity will in most cases also lead to lower operation cost and will therefore contribute to a more competitive rail transport system in general.

o o to

Direct, Intra-EU h Intercontinental/2

t6% reductio n Irorr 2005

60% reduction from 1990 80% reduction from 192Ü,

O O ¡n tu c c o

— Eurostat Baseline Challenging Favourable À

Fuel Lifecycle,

1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030

Figure 4: Results of TOSCA forecasts and estimation of GHG-emissions 2010-2050; TOSCA (2011)

Table 2: Demand forecasts 2010-2050, baseline forecast and rail 'best practice' mode shift scenario.

2010 2050 2050 Increase 2010-2050 Difference Shares %

Demand forecasts Baseline Mode Baseline Mode Baseline/ 2010 2050 2050

shift shift Mode shift Baseline Mode shift

Passenger kilometres, billions

Passenger cars 4 725 7 414 5 620 1,57 1,19 0,76 83% 82% 62%

Rail passenger 409 561 2 660 1,37 6,50 4,74 7% 6% 29%

Aviation (intra-EU27) 558 1 100 740 1,97 1,33 0,67 10% 12% 8%

Sum 5 692 9 075 9 020 1,59 1,58 0,99 100% 100% 100%

Tonne-kilometres, billions

Trucks 1 881 2 881 1 930 1,53 1,03 0,67 81% 82% 55%

Rail freight 441 633 1 584 1,43 3,59 2,50 19% 18% 45%

Sum 2 322 3 514 3 514 1,51 1,51 1,00 100% 100% 100%

Table 3: Total GHG-emissions and average emissions per passenger and tonne-kilometres

2010 2050 2050 2050 2050 2010 2050 2050 2050

GHG emissions Baseline Mode Mode shift Mode shift/ Baseline Mode Mode shift

shift low GHG el baseline shift low GHG el

Passenger transports Tonnes C02, millions g C02/passenger kilometre

Passenger cars 624 727 551 393 -24% 132 98 98 70

Rail passenger 20 12 56 21 374% 48 21 21 8

Aviation (intra-EU27) 78 90 56 56 -38% 140 82 76 76

Sum 721 829 663 471 -20% 127 91 73 52

Index 100 115 92 65 -20% 100 72 58 41

Freight transports Tonnes C02, millions g C02/tonne-kilometre

Trucks 245 289 215 215 -25% 130 100 112 112

Rail freight 11 7 17 8 149% 26 11 11 5

Sum 256 296 233 223 -21% 110 84 66 64

Index 100 116 91 87 -21% 100 76 60 58

Total 977 1 124 896 694 -20% 122 89 71 55

Index 100 115 92 71 100 73 59 45

8 Investment strategies

A mode shift to the comparatively beneficial rail transport, with respect to energy and GHG emissions, requires investment both in trains and in infrastructure. Train investment will be part of operator's business decisions and their capital cost is essentially included in their operational cost. Infrastructure investment is partly included in operation cost, to the extent that capital cost for investment is included in current average levels of track access charges. Note that USA and Japan cover most infrastructure cost by their operational revenues.

In this study no detailed investigation on infrastructure investment has been made, but some indications on the order of investment, based on European experience, is shown below. EEA (European Environmental Agency) has presented data on transport infrastructure investments in Europe (with 20 countries covering 75% of EU) for all transport modes 1990-2008. For road and rail the figures for 1995 and 2008 are as listed below. We have assumed a modest shift of investment from road to rail from 2015. For the period 2015-2050 the assumptions are shown in the right column.

Investments in 1995 2008 2015- 2015-2050

% of GDP 2050 billion EUR

Road 0.55 0.69 0.55 2,500

Rail 0.24 0.36 0.50 2,200

Total 0.79 1.05 1.05 4,700

In the above example it is thus assumed that road investment from 2015 is hold back to the same share of GDP as in 1995, while rail investment is increased by the same amount. Total investment as share of GDP is the same as in 2008. GDP 2008 in EU-27 was 12 461 billion EUR. We assume that investments for equivalent railway capacity and speed follow GDP development, including successive improvements for safety, environmental protection etc. The total rail investment is then estimated to be 2,200 billion EUR for the period 2015-2050.

These investments can be used for

- 30 000 km additionalHigh speed-railways a22MEUR/km 660 billion EUR

- 30 000 km new Freight Corridorsal3 MEUR/km 390 billion EUR

- Upgrading of existing railways 1150 billion EUR

Freight corridors above will include also new intermodal terminals for fast and cost-efficient load transfer. Upgrading of existing railways includes speed and capacity enhancement, both passenger and freight, for example: more double and quadruple tracks, ERTMS Level 3, increased axle load and loading gauge, sidings and signaling for longer trains, improved receptivity for regenerated energy, etc.

9 Conclusions

With current total levels of transport infrastructure investment, and a modest re-allocation from road to rail from 2015, it is likely that the European rail system until 2050 can be positioned to handle a considerable share - in the order of 25-30 % of the total passenger transport and 45% of the freight transport by truck and rail. This will be possible if the European rail system is developed into a 'best practice' rail system which will open into mode shift by shorter journey times and more efficient rail freight.

Based on earlier determined levels of GHG emissions for different transport modes (TOSCA and others) it is estimated that a reduction of European transport GHG emissions of at least 20 % can be achieved from 2010 until 2050 in the above-mentioned mode shift scenario. This is in comparison with a baseline scenario with modest initiatives towards substantial GHG reductions. If low-GHG electricity (one third of current carbon content) is produced, up to 30 % lower GHG emissions can be achieved.

A developed rail system can thus substantially contribute to the EU target of reducing GHG emissions by 60 % below 1990 levels. Also other means will however be necessary, such as technology development, electrification of short-distance road transport and a certain amount of biofuels, the latter however assumed to have a limited large-scale availability. Measures to reduce the transport needs in general should also be considered.


Anable J, et al (2010): Modelling transport energy demand: A socio-technical approach. Energy Policy.

Arduin, J-P (1994): Methods for trafficforecasts, French National Railways report.

de Boer E, et al (2011): Potential of modal shift to rail transport - Study on theprojected effects on GHG emissions and transport volumes. CE, publication 11 4255 15, Delft.

EC (2008). Commission facilitates interoperabilityfor Europe's trains. Brussels, April 2008. EC (2009): EU energy and transport in figures, EC.

EC (2011): Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficienttransportsystem, EC White Paper, Brussels, 28.3.2011.

Fröidh, O (2003): Introduction of regional high speed trains. A study ofthe effects ofthe Svealand line on the travel market, travel behaviour and accessibility. Doctoral dissertation, TRITA-INFRA 03-041.

Institut iur Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg, (ifeu) (2008) Datenbank Umwelt & Verkehr im Auftrag von Allianz pro Schiene e.V., Verband der Bahnindustrie (VDB) und Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen (VDV).

Jorritsma P (2009), Substitution opportunities of high speed train for air transport. Aerlines magazine, issue 43.

Kjorstad K, Norheim B, Urbanet Analyse, Markedetfor hoyhastighetstog i Norge-Analyse av flypassasjerenes preferanser, rapport 12/2009 from COINCO NORTH

Lundberg, A-I (2011): Competition and interaction between rail and air, Part 1: International comparison. KTH Report TRITA-TEC-RR 11-001.

Nelldal B-L., Troche G. (2001). Europakorridoren - ett bredbandför fysiska transporter. KTH Report TRITA-IP AR 01-97

Nelldal B-L. (ed.) (2005). Efficient train systems for freight transport-A systems study. KTH Railway Group, Report 0505, Stockholm.

TOSCA (2011a):

TOSCA (2011b): Schaefer A, et al: TOSCA Project Final Report: Description oftheMain S&T Results/Foregrounds. 27 May 2011

TOSCA (2011c): Andersson E, Berg M, Nelldal B-L, Fröidh O: Rail Passenger Transport: Techno-economic analysis of energy and greenhouse gas reductions. TOSCA WP 3 Report, KTH, Stockholm.

TOSCA (2011d): AnderssonE, et al: Rail Freight Transport: Techno-economic Analysis of Energy and Greenhouse Gas reductions. TOSCA WP 3 Report, KTH, Stockholm.

SteerDavies Gleave (2004): High speed rail: International comparisons.

Transek (2002): Samverkan och konkurrens mellan tag och flyg (2002). Rapport till Stockholmsberedningen.

UIC (2008) High speed rail - Fast track to sustainable mobility

WendlerE. (2009'): Influence ofETCSon the capacity oflines. In Compendium on ERTMS, p.211-223. UIC/Eurailpress/DW ISBN 978/7771-0396-9, Hamburg.

Woxenius, J., Andersson, E., Bärthel, F., Troche, G., Sommar, R. Trouve, J. (2004): A Swedish intermodal transport service based on line-trains servingfreight forwarders, the 10th WCTR, Istanbul, 48 July. Published in "Revised CD/Selected proceedings".