Carbon Corridor

Notes on carbon markets and industrial transition

Sections

Why planners keep our corridor notes on the desk

Plenty of publications describe freight decarbonisation in broad strokes. We work the other way around: a single rail spine, a specific terminal, a named road leg, and the numbers that come out of it. That difference matters when a figure has to survive a client review or an internal audit.

Method before conclusions

Every corridor piece states its emission factor set, the tonne-kilometre basis and the telematics window it draws from. If a number cannot be traced back to those three things, we say so instead of smoothing it over.

Corridor-level, not country-level

The Johannesburg-Durban spine, Richards Bay coal and container flows, N1 and N3 leg splits, inland consolidation depots. Averages across South Africa hide the gradient, idling and load-factor effects that actually move diesel burn.

Written for small fleets too

Gauteng and Western Cape hauliers rarely have a full-time analyst. Our method notes assume a spreadsheet, a telematics export and an hour on a Friday afternoon, not a dedicated sustainability team.

Trials reported as they run

Electric and gas truck trials, driver coaching cycles, telematics data-quality fixes. We publish what happened in the first months, including the parts that were dropped because they did not fit a working schedule.

Claims that survive review

We run a blunt column on figures that fall apart under third-party scrutiny, and we name the assumption that broke. It is not comfortable reading, but it is the reason operators cite our notes in their own reporting packs.

Sources you can check

Interview transcripts, spreadsheet extracts and factor references sit alongside the articles. Where a source asked to stay off the record, we mark the gap rather than filling it with an estimate.

Curious how the editorial side is run? Read more on the company page, or send a corridor tip straight to the editors via contact.

Who we work with on corridor data

Our method notes are not written in isolation. Hauliers, terminal operators and rail planners let us pull telematics, weighbridge tickets and load sheets, then sit through the awkward part where the numbers do not match. These are the organisations that keep the reporting honest.

N3 Linehaul Group

Long-haul road operator

Shared twelve months of diesel and tonne-kilometre records from the Johannesburg–Durban run, including the escarpment descent where fuel burn drops well below the corridor average.

Richards Bay Terminal Services

Bulk and container handling

Opened their siding records for the coal and container flow comparison, and let us publish the emission factor mismatch that two operators on the same line were reporting.

Gauteng Fleet Cooperative

Small haulier collective

Nine owner-operators who run reporting without a full-time analyst. They tested our simplified baseline method and told us plainly which parts did not survive a real dispatch week.

Cape Consolidation Depot

Inland load consolidation

Provided depot-level load splits and idling logs, which is where a lot of reported savings quietly disappear once vehicles wait for a consolidated run.

Telematics Data Review Panel

Independent reviewers

Three fleet engineers who check our published figures against raw exports before anything goes out. They have rejected two drafts so far, and both rejections are documented in the method notes.

Western Cape Haulage Forum

Regional operator network

Hosts our quarterly corridor sessions and supplies the interview transcripts we publish, including the blunt column about claims that fall apart under third-party review.

Cookie settings

We use cookies to keep the site reliable, remember basic choices, and understand which pages are useful. You can accept, reject, or review the settings before continuing.