STEMM Case Study Transalpine Freight Transport

Transcription

1 _ STEMM / WP6: Case Study Transalpine Freight Transport STEMM Case Study Transalpine Freight Transport Commissioned by: The Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General VII for Transport, Bundesamt für Bildung und Wissenschaft (BBW), Information: Stefan Suter, suter@ecoplan.ch

2 _ s 1) Introduction The case study transalpine freight transport (TAFT) has been carried out within work package 6 of the STEMM project. It pursues two main objectives: to test the applicability of the intermodal freight model developed within the STEMM project (see section 3 below). to estimate the potential effects of packages of policy instruments and of specific instruments for improved intermodality respectively (see section 4 below). Accordingly, there is a strong link to two other work packages of the STEMM project: The TAFT case study has used the transport model developed by MDS-Transmodal within work package 4B. Work package 7 on barriers and policy instruments for improved intermodality has provided the basic inputs for the design of instruments tested for TAFT. 2) Transalpine freight transport The case study area are the 14 transalpine road and rail transport corridors within the Alpine arc reaching from the Ventimiglia corridor at the Ligurian coast to the Wechsel corridor in eastern Austria. From the point of view of intermodal transport TAFT is one of the most advanced market in Europe: The share of road-rail combined transport on total cross-border transport within Europe has amounted to 5.2% in If the transalpine flows are excluded this share drops to 1.7%. The reasons behind this fact are first of all the regulatory framework in the Alpine countries Austria and Switzerland (28 t limit and night / Sunday driving bans for HGV (CH), road tolls (A), investments in the rail and terminal infrastructure). 3) Instruments tested in the TAFT case study The instruments given in the first column of table S-1 have been tested in the TAFT case study. For each instrument a lower and an upper bound has been defined (e.g. low/high subsidisation of intermodal services) to show a plausible range of the potential effects. In a next step, the instrument had to be transformed into model inputs. The second column of table S-1 summarises the way the instruments have been implemented in the transport model used in the TAFT case study.

3 _ STEMM / WP6: Case Study Transalpine Freight Transport Both, the design of the instruments as well as their implementation are based on experiences made in European countries (if available) evidence from the literature views of the experts and actors that have been interviewed within WP7 figures that have emerged in relevant transport policy discussions This information is presented in detail in annex A of the report. Table S-1: Policy instruments and model implementation Instruments: Effects, implementation in the model: D1 rail deregulation, successful realisation of the concept of European Rail Freightways A1 mileage tax for road freight transport A2 diesel tax A3 Alpine vignette (daily, monthly, annual vignettes) A4 corridor charges A5 adjustment in vehicle taxation A6 subsidisation of rail traction A7 subsidisation of infrastructure access A8 subsidisation of terminals R1 better enforcement of weight limits R2 driving bans R3 better enforcement of social regulations R4 better enforcement of speed limits F1 extension of rail infrastructure F2 improvement of logistics in intermodal transport increase in speed, reduction of operating cost, increase of reliability and frequencies of intermodal services increase of road haulage cost per kilometre increase of fuel cost for road haulage introduction of a fixed charge per passage of the different transalpine road corridors introduction of corridor specific passage charges lowering the fixed part of HGV taxation (reduction of the vehicle tax especially for HGV used in intermodal transport) reduction of the variable operating cost of intermodal services reduction of the charges intermodal services have to pay for the use of the rail network reduction of the terminal handling cost reduction of the permissible net truckload it has not been possible to derive a useful model input reduction of the daily driving hours in road haulage reduction of average speed in road haulage realisation of new base tunnels through the Alps resulting in shorter links, higher speed, reduced operating costs and improved intermodal services, attractive Rolling Motorway services in CH and AU reduction of terminal handling cost, slight increase of reliability of intermodal services

4 _ The table shows that fourteen out of the fifteen instruments have been successfully implemented. In many cases it has been possible to model the effect directly within the transport model by an adjustment of cost and network parameters. The implementation has been more difficult in cases where the effects of the instruments first had to be transformed in such parameters. The implementation of instrument D1 illustrates this problem: We first had to assume what the effects of the deregulation could be. In a second step these effects had to be transformed into model inputs. In some cases the definition of these secondary impacts have based on rather coarse assumptions because of lack of information and available data. 4) Definition and effects of packages of instruments The case study reports shows the effects of each instrument in detail. Here, we concentrate on the effects of four scenarios, i.e. packages of instruments. The following scenarios have been defined: Table S-2: Definition of the TAFT scenarios Description of the scenarios Design of instruments Lower bound Upper bound Scenario MIN: Business as usual in transport policy, i.e. some measures to support intermodal transport and to promote rail revitalisation, only very limited additional policy measures in road freight Rail: limited deregulation in the rail sector transport, moderate subsidisation of intermodal transport, some infrastructure extensions in the Alpine regions D1, A7, A8, F1, F2 none Road: some additional pricing (low diesel tax, Alpine vignette) A2, A3 none Scenario MIX: combination of policy measures in the road and rail sector, additional measures and some tightening up of existing instruments Rail: extension of subsidisation of intermodal transport, limited deregulation and infrastructure extension D1,A6, A7, A8, F1, F2 Road: introduction of a European mileage tax and of an Alpine vignette, additional efforts to better enforce existing regulations A1, A2, A5, R1, R3, R4 A3

5 _ T STEMM / WP6: Case Study Transalpine Freight Transport Scenario PRO RAIL: strongly rail oriented strategy, limited action in the road transport sector Rail: far-reaching, successful rail deregulation, high subsidisation of intermodal services, large extension of the rail infrastructure in the Alps D1, A6, A7, A8, F1, F2 Road: moderate additional pricing (diesel tax, Alpine vignette) A2, A3 Scenario ANTI ROAD: strongly road oriented strategy Rail: limited deregulation, carrying on with financial aids D1, A7, A8, F1, F2 Road: full internalisation of external costs, strict enforcement of regulations, additional Alpine-specific charges A1, A2, A4, A5, R1, R3, R4 In the case study report the effects of the instruments and scenarios are presented as global changes (i.e. change of total TAFT in tons, tonne-kilometres etc.) as changes of transport and traffic volume per mode and corridor as changes of the mode shares differentiated according to the origin and destination of the transports and according to the goods categories The effects of the scenarios refer to the year It is assumed that Switzerland has abandoned the 28 t limit for HGV but has introduced charges for the use of the Swiss transalpine corridors equivalent to those levied on the Brenner and Mont Blanc corridor. The assumptions affect the modal split of transalpine freight transport (measured in tons). Table S-3 presents the modal split for the year 1994 and 2010 respectively. Figure S-3: Modal split of TAFT in 1994 and 2010 France 2010 Switzerland Austria Total RM CTR Road 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6 _ Q Table S-3 shows the dramatic mode shift that is likely to occur under the two assumptions mentioned above. The modal split in Switzerland would be similar to the ones in Austria and France. The modal split of total transalpine transport changes in favour of road transport: The share increases from 82.8% to 87.6%. In figure S-4 the impacts of the four scenarios are summarised. They are shown as changes of modal split of TAFT in the different Alpine countries.(1) Figure S-4: Impact of the scenarios on the mode shares of TAFT ANTI ROAD PRO RAIL MIX MIN BC 2010 ANTI ROAD PRO RAIL MIX MIN BC 2010 ANTI ROAD PRO RAIL MIX MIN BC 2010 ANTI ROAD PRO RAIL MIX MIN BC 2010 French corridors Swiss corrridors Austrian corridors All corridors RM CTR Road 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% BC 2010 = Base case Note: Conventional wagon load rail transport is not included in the analysis of the case study.

7 _ STEMM / WP6: Case Study Transalpine Freight Transport From the analysis of the impacts of the instruments and scenarios the following main findings can be summarised: o Figure S-4 shows large effects the scenarios have on modal split of the freight transport using the French, Swiss and Austrian corridors included in the case studies. In figure S-5 it is furthermore shown what considerable reductions of transalpine road freight transport have been calculated for the different scenarios. The model results show the effectiveness of packages of instruments compared to single instruments. Even if the instruments do not have a very restrictive design, i.e. if only the lower bound is assumed, the modal split of TAFT can be noticeably changed in favour of intermodal services. o With regard to the different instruments the most important results are: Improvements of efficiency and productivity in the rail sector can have a large effect. Accordingly, a successful realisation of the Freightways concept is crucial for improved intermodality in transalpine freight transport. It has at least the same potential effects as an increased subsidisation but costs much less. The extension of the rail network is an important condition to make the switch from road to intermodal services possible. The effects on the Swiss corridors show that an attractive Rolling Motorway service, for example, can attract a substantial part of TAFT. The unwelcome side effect is that this service competes not only with pure road transport but also with unaccompanied combined transport. Policy measures in the road sector are as important as in the rail sector. Especially the mileage tax to internalise the external costs of road freight transport considerably affects (long distance) transalpine freight transport. The impact is stronger than the one of specific measures for the Alpine corridors (e.g. the Alpine vignette). o The analysis of the scenarios confirms the fact stated above that the rail-oriented policy measures have a large potential to increase the use of intermodal services: The strongest effects on mode choice does not come from the ANTI ROAD scenario with all restrictive road transport policy measures but from the PRO RAIL scenario (see figure S-5). o The model assumes that these changes can be accommodated by intermodal services, i.e. unaccompanied combined transport and Rolling Motorway services. In the real world this means that the capacities of CTR and RM must be substantially increased. In the case of the scenario MIX, for example, about 150% more tons of goods should be transported with CTR services through the Alps compared to the base case Compared with today s volumes (year 1997) the increase is significantly lower but still amounts to 92%. (2) In the case of PRO RAIL, the scenario with the largest CTR effect the increases are 350% and 243% respectively. Some of the estimated increases for RM are even larger than the ones for CTR in the PRO RAIL case! 2 Note: The 1997 figures refer to a situation with the 28 t limit for HGV in Switzerland, the base case 2010 to a situation without the limit resulting in a shift of transport volumes from CTR to road. Therefore, the CTR volume in the base case 2010 is lower than observed in 1997.

8 _ Figure S-5: Summary of the impacts of the scenarios: Change of road transport volumes MIN MIX PRO RAIL ANTI ROAD France Switzerland Austria Total -80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% o As in the case of the instruments the effects strongly differ between the corridors because of country-specific differences in the initial situation and in the way the instruments are designed. o The changes in modal split also differ between the origins and destinations of transalpine transport flows depending on the provision and quality of facilities for intermodal services. Accordingly, the different European countries that trade with Italy by using land transport modes are not affected equally by the scenarios. o For Switzerland, the effect of a dropping of the 28 t limit for HGV is enormous if not accompanied with restrictive policy measures in the road and rail sector. The scenarios MIN and MIX - figure S-4 shows that they do change the Swiss modal split in favour of intermodal transport services - will not prevent road transport from growing compared to the current situation (year 1997). In the case of MIN this growth would be substantial. On the other hand, especially the Mont Blanc and the Brenner corridor profit from this adoption of the EU weight limit for HGV in Switzerland: They will have a lower traffic volume in 2010 than now (1997).

9 _ G STEMM / WP6: Case Study Transalpine Freight Transport 5) Conclusions Two types of conclusions are drawn in the report: On the one hand, conclusions with regard to the applicability of the transport model, on the other hand, conclusions with regard to the potential effects of policy instruments for improved intermodality: o Applicability of the transport model The MDS-Transmodal has turned out to be able to handle fourteen out of the fifteen policy instruments included in the TAFT case study. The model has furthermore proved its capability to deal with packages of different instruments. Starting from a fixed origin-destination-matrix of goods flows the model has been able to re-produce accurately the observed transport flows on the different corridors and for the different modes. The effects estimated by the model fundamentally correspond with what can be expected based on expert knowledge. Most of the differences in the effects can be explained. The results of the model reflect the characteristic features of the different instruments and of their effects on route and mode choice. The model also proved its user-friendliness: Changes in the model inputs caused by a new design of an instrument have been quickly implemented. This has allowed to carry out a large number of model runs before the final results that are presented in this report have been produced. The analysis in the case study has also shown fields for further improvements of the model. If realised these improvements would increase the expressiveness of the results. From our point of view they can be seen in the following points: In the case of the mode choice the model does not take into account certain factors that also influence the mode choice (e.g. the consignment size). Due to lack of information it has been unavoidable to partly make rather rough assumptions when the model inputs have been defined. Missing information has also effects on the expressiveness of the results of the model runs. Because of the coarse zone structure in eastern Austria (only two zones defined), for example, the model has not been able to carry out a reliable route choice in that area (e.g. choice between the Wechsel and the Schober corridor). The route choice of intermodal services is limited. In the base case for each CTR service a single Alpine corridor used has been defined. When the impacts of different instruments and scenarios have been calculated the CTR services haven t had the choice to switch to another rail corridor. The supply side is only partly taken into account. There are some rather lax restrictions of the infrastructure capacity but in general the model assumes that the changes from road to intermodal services can be accommodated at unchanged cost. It also neglects behavioural second-round effects.

10 _ n o Potential effects of the instruments and scenarios The potential effects of the instruments and scenarios have already been summarised above. We renounce repeating the main findings shown in these sections. Here, we draw our conclusions from these effects. When the impacts calculated are compared it should be kept in mind that they crucially depend on the model inputs. We underline two points in this context: - The design of the instruments and the definition of the lower and upper bound have, at least for some instruments, been chosen rather freely. - The derivation of the model inputs has been evident only for some of the instruments (e.g. a mileage tax corresponds to an increase of cost per vehiclekilometre in road haulage). For others, the derivation of the inputs has turned out to be quite difficult. The model-exogenous assumptions that had to be made in a first step influenced the result of the model runs (see for example for instrument D1 Deregulation in the rail sector ). The discussion of the specific instruments has shown that the most effective ones are those that should be taken at the European level. Thus, the case study confirms that the promotion of intermodality in land transport through policy measures is first of all an international, a European issue. There is some room for manoeuvre at the national or even regional level but the major changes must be decided at a higher level. The case study underlines the need of a combined road-rail strategy and confirms the effectiveness of packages of instruments compared to actions concentrating on specific instruments. For most of the instruments good reasons have been found for an introduction. The intention has not been to increase the share of intermodal transport services on whatever cost. For the most important instruments political action is justified by arguments like the internalisation of external costs or the increase of competition; arguments that belong to the core guidelines of the transport policy of the Commission. The results of the model runs show a large need for co-ordination in different fields. The need for co-ordination is first of all given because unilateral measures quickly result in detour traffic. In this context the analysis confirms the large effect of the 28 t limit for HGV in Switzerland. The model runs show that a dropping of this limit would result in an enormous increase of road freight transport through Switzerland unless it is not accompanied with restrictive road and rail-oriented policy measures. If these measures are not taken the modal split of total transalpine freight transport would change strongly in favour of road transport. The final conclusions of this case study may be the following: It has been shown that there are instruments and especially packages of instruments that can induce large shifts from road to intermodal transports in transalpine freight transport and for most of them there are good reasons for an introduction. If they are not taken and if Switzerland abandons the 28 t limit future transalpine transport will be dominated even more than now by road freight transport.