New UE Freight Corridors in the area of the central Europe Research Unit “Transport, Territory and Logistics” (TTL)

University IUAV of Venice

Final report

Venice, 2009 October 30th

SECTION A – Study overview and objectives

WP 3.3.1 “Intermodal network definition of development priorities for deployment” and implementation of the “Business case: port of Venice” [WP 5.4.8]

The railway network of central Europe, capable to achieve combined transport (specifically for container), in combination with the sea ports of Northern Europe (Rotterdam-Hamburg-Bremerhaven) and Northern Italy (Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Sea);

The economic area of influence of each port analyzed through transport variables (time) and then environmental parameters (energy consumption and emissions);

The environmental problems connected with the current economic organization of sea lines and the influence areas of the port systems minimizing environmental impacts;

Alternative scenarios for the most sustainable traffic organization.

3

This study has defined

SECTION B – Multimodal freight transport network

Container shipping relation Asia-Middle East to Europe

This research has investigated International transport chains from Asia-Middle East to Europe via Suez Canal and via European ports up to their final destination by rail or road.

Multimodal freight transport relates to shipments for which two or more transport modes are used - e.g. ship and train, ship and truck, or ship train and truck.

Assumptions

As Port Said could be considered the gate of Suez Canal, it has been considered as the origin point for the comparison between multimodal chains, so:

Paths to North Adriatic and North Tyrrhenian ports are realized through 7,500 TEU capacity Ship

Paths to Atlantic ports are realized with 9,000 TEU capacity Ship

Destination within a 200-km (124-mile) range from ports are supposedly reached by road

Destination beyond a 200-km (124-mile) range from ports are served supposedly both by rail and road system combinations

The network simulated in the study

The first part of the study has been devoted to the elaboration of the reference multimodal graph, required by the flow network simulation and traffic-related computation.

The multimodal graph is made up as follows:

the maritime paths from the Suez Canal (gate for the Mediterranean Sea from the Far East), and the three port systems:

North Europe (Rotterdam – Hamburg),

North Tyrrhenian Sea (Genova – la Spezia),

North Adriatic (Venezia – Trieste);

the landlines (rail-road) between the three port systems and the main destination in the Central Europe.

7

European sea ports

Maritime freight network

Railway and road freight network

Port efficiency

Port efficiency is an important element of shipping costs but was not taken into account in the precincts of this research

The handling time and costs are determined from variable local conditions.

11

SECTION C – Simulation parameters

Simulation Methodology and Procedure

Multimodal network have been defined as arcs (rail and road links) and nodes (ports, goods yards, logistic centers). Efficiency and environment impacts of transport chains are estimated in relation with following parameters:

Distances from each arch have allowed the calculation of average travel times (minutes);

Travel time simulation has been performed on road network by applying an All-or-Nothing assignment model with flow control. This model assumed that travel time could vary with congestion.

Consumption and emission simulation refers to unitary value calculated in a preliminary study. These parameters have been defined for each transportation mode. Final parameters are reported to total emission and consumption express per moved Teu for each relation.

The simulations were carried out using APL Language Program

13

Transit Time validation

Container transport services: transit times are deducted at an average cruise speed of 17knots. This value has been calculated in relation at real transit time recorded on this trade line (source: shipping companies, Maersk, MSC, and others);

Rail network: running time has been simulated in relation with distances and the results show commercial speed equal to 40 km/h (25 mph). This value has been validated by Infrastructure Manager data (Rfi);

Truck services: transit times have been simulated in relation with distances and are calibrated on the data reported by the European freight road companies and in relation with freight slots designed by infrastructure managers.

14

Standard transport modes considered

15

MAIN FEATURES  FREIGHT TRAIN TRUCK

GROSS WEIGHT [Ton]

1000 40

TARE [Ton] 600 10

PAY LOAD [Ton] 400 30

WEIGHT PER TEU 13,2

TEU/TRAIN 30

TEU/TRUCK 2

Main features unit Mean value

Energy Consumption t/h 5,6

Speed knot 17

Speed km/h 31,45

Fuel Consumption per km ton/km 0,18

Fuel Consumption per teu – km gram/km teu 35,61

Consumption km teu gram/km teu

178.060

Source: Containerization International, fleet average data

INPUT DATA FOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Teu /ship

5.000

7.000

9.000

GT /ship

64.000

65.000

66.000

consumption ton/day*

158

161

163

km/day

756

756

756

gram/km

209.703

212.813

215.923

gram/km teu

41,94

30,40

23,99

*C=8,0052+0,00235*GT Source: A.R.P.A.V., Le emissioni da attività portuale, 2007

Train / Truck Container Ship

/

Fuel Consumption by Mode of Transportation

ENERGY CONSUMPTION Wh/ tkm gram/t-km gram/km teu kg/km teu

FREIGHT TRAIN (electric engine) 22 1,89 62,37 0,06

FREIGHT TRAIN (Diesel-electric engine)

  5 165 0,17

TRUCK   12,5 220 0,22

ENERGY CONSUMPTION g/km teu kg/km teu

Mean Value/ship 35,61 0,036

5.000 teu/ship 41,94 0,042

7.500 teu/ship 35,84 0,036

9.000 teu/ship 35,57 0,036

Train / Truck

Container Ship

/

Emissions (C02, NOx, SO2, NMVOC, PM)

1. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major GHG leading to global warming. The global average temperature increase could have serious impact on global climate, leading to sea level rise, submerging many islands and metropolitans, and possibly even triggering acidification of the ocean ecological system. CO2 emissions from diesel engines are proportional to their fuel consumption.

2. Nitrogen oxides (NOx), including nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions are major contributors to acid rain, leading to the over-fertilization of lakes as well as the formation of smog.

3. Sulfur oxides (SOx), including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3), lead to acid rain and have detrimental effects on vegetation and human health. Sox emissions are proportional to total fuel consumption

4. Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) are an important outdoor air pollutant. The group includes individual VOCs such as, benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 1,3-butadiene. Within the NMVOCs, the aromatic compounds benzene, a carcinogen, may lead to leukemia through prolonged exposure. Many VOCs are involved in reactions that form ground-level ozone, which can damage to crops and many materials as well as potential effects on human health.

5. Particulate Matter (PM), mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air come from a variety fuel combustion, these emissions affect particularly respiratory system

Emissions unit values for transportation modes

18

RELATION FINAL ENERGY: EMISSION FACTORS TO FINAL ENERGY (KG FUEL)

  CO2 Nox SO2 NMVOC PM

  g g g g g

Gasoline 670 2,2 6,2 2,1 0,3

Diesel 470 1,8 4,4 1,5 0,24

Kerosene 450 1,8 4,3 1,5 0,23

Marine diesel oil

400 1,7 4 1,5 0,22

Source: Ecoinvent 2006

VALUE OF EMISSIONS PER TEU - KM

  Power Source CO2/teu-km

(grams) NOx/teu-km

(grams) SO2/teu-km

(grams) NMVOC/teu-km

(grams) PM/teu-km

(grams) total grams/teu-

km

TRAIN Electric 29,314 0,112 0,274 0,094 0,015 29,81

  Diesel -Electric 77,550 0,297 0,726 0,248 0,040 78,86

TRUCK Diesel 103,400 0,396 0,968 0,330 0,053 105,15

SHIP Kerosene 16,025 0,064 0,153 0,053 0,008 16,30

  Marine diesel oil 14,245 0,061 0,142 0,053 0,008 14,51

SHIP 5.000 teu 18,873 0,075 0,180 0,063 0,010 19,20

SHIP 7.500 teu 16,128 0,065 0,154 0,054 0,008 16,41

SHIP 9.000 teu 16,005 0,064 0,153 0,053 0,008 16,28

Source: our elaboration

Results

19

The values estimated in this research, applied the network simulation, allowed:

To pick up the multimodal freight transport modal combinations related to shipments, for example ship and train, ship and truck, or ship train and truck;

To account the total energy consumption and emissions on every arch of the graph and for the main destination , using multimodal network;

To estimate the different values of the time, the energy consumption and the emission using different links and different integrated transport modes

SECTION D – SIMULATION RESULTS

SECTION D.1 – EUROPEAN DESTINATION

Port Said – KrakowDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

22

Port Said – KrakowPartial Emissions

23

24

Port Said – MetzDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

Port Said – MetzPartial Emissions

25

Port Said – MunchenDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

26

Port Said – MunchenPartial Emissions

27

Port Said – ParisDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

28

Port Said – ParisPartial Emissions

29

Port Said – PrahaDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

30

Port Said – PrahaPartial Emissions

31

Port Said – WienDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

32

Port Said – WienPartial Emissions

33

34

The elaborations show:

The North Adriatic ports are efficient in transportation terms for all European destination examined;

The North Tyrrhenian ports present lower value only for energy consumptions and emissions exclusively for the French area (Metz and Paris);

The North European ports are not efficient for any parameters used in the study for all the destination tested.

Transport and environmental best intermodal paths

SECTION D.2 – REGIONAL DESTINATION

Port Said – PadovaDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

36

Port Said – PadovaPartial Emissions

37

Port Said – TrevisoDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

38

Port Said – TrevisoPartial Emissions

39

Port Said - Udine Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

40

Port Said – UdinePartial Emissions

41

Port Said – VeneziaDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

42

Port Said – VeneziaPartial Emissions

43

Port Said - Vicenza Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

44

Port Said – VicenzaPartial Emissions

45

Port Said – VeronaDistances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

46

Port Said – VeronaPartial Emissions

47

48

Transport and environmental best intermodal paths

A regional level analysis lets us draw the following conclusions:

The connection between North Tyrrhenian Ports and Padua Freight Village is not economically efficient to reach the final destinations (either if consumptions or if emissions are at-stake);

The port of Trieste can handle the concurrency of Venice only for North-Eastern border destinations: for leftover destinations Venice is to be preferred for both consumption and emission efficiency.