Qualifications and limitations for intermodal freight transport

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Qualifications and limitations for intermodal freight transport"

Transcription

1 Qualifications and limitations for intermodal freight transport Sönke Behrends, Chalmers University of Technology Rail Baltica Growth Corridor Interregional Roundtable and H-T Transplan meeting April 2012, Tallinn

2 Qualifications and limitations for intermodal freight transport Market potential Connection to Europe and Russia Intra-Baltic transport Environmental performance CO2 Local air pollution Traffic impacts

3 Rail transport systems - Consolidation networks Direct link Corridor Hub-and-spoke Connected hubs O O O O D D D D Woxenius (2007)

4 Direct link Sender S Time/ Costs Road Rail Terminal 1 Terminal 2 = All road Rail haul Transhipment All road Road Receiver R Prehaulage Posthaulage Transhipment Ca. 500 km All road Distance Efficienct operations Full trains No additional stops No shunting No reposition of wagons Meets shippers requirments Evening departure and morning arrival (nightjump) Lower costs and equal or better quality than road Limited potential Requires high transport volumes between terminal regions (> tons/year) Requires long distanes (>500km)

5 Direct links dominate... Kombiverkehr Transfracht

6 Direct links dominate... CargoNet (until 12/2011) (01/ /2012)

7 Tallinn St. Peterburg Pärnu 550 km Riga Panevezys Kaunas 400 km Bialystok 600 km Warsaw Berlin Frankfurt/O. Poznan Lodz

8 line-train Sender S Time Road Terminal 1 node 1 Rail node 2 Road node 3 Receiver R Terminal 2 Rewarding market segment Short distances (>100km) Small volumes (>50000 tons/year) < All road All road Posthaulage Challenging operations Low load factor Fast intermediate stops Transhipment Prehaulage Rail haul Tranship ment All road Distance Requires innovative terminals Transhipments under contact wire à fast Small-scale design à cost efficient Terminal m IN B IN C IN D Terminal n node same as INB same as IN B road access provision for road transhipment transhipment area main track with junction and signals

9 Case study: corridor Gothenburg-Stockholm Gothenburg+ Stockholm+ 485+km+ Gothenburg+ Herrljunga+ Skövde+ Örebro+ Västerås+ Stockholm+ 79+km+ 65+km+ 138+km+ 98+km+ 105+km+ 120 Theoretical data Corridor in Gothenburg- Stockholm with 4 intermediate stops Transport demand Gothenburg ß à Stockholm not included 0 2 Number of swap bodidies The effect of transhipment costs Low costs are prerequisite for high train load factor Requires a large share of the cities goods flows Transhipment unit costs [SEK] 0 All- road

10 Qualifications and limitations for intermodal freight transport Market potential Connection to Europe and Russia Intra-Baltic transport Environmental performance CO2 Local air pollution Traffic impacts

11 Holistic perspective on intermodal transport City%A% % City%B% % (terminal( ( Long(haul(on(RAIL% ( Pre8(and(post(haulage(on(ROAD% ( Shipper/( Receiver( ( 60" External)costs,)Road)0),)Germany) 50" ct/swap"body" 40" 30" 20" 10" 0" saturated" congested" urban" rural" rural" urban" PPH"urban,"day:me" Rail,"night" Single@mode"road,"night" Traffic" Air"pollu:on" Climate"

12 Case study: Long-distance transport in a freight forwarders LTL network What are the environmental consequences of a modal shift? Climate impact (CO2) Local and regional air pollution (particles, NOx, etc.) Traffic impacts (congestion, noise, accidents, etc.) Two cases with contrasting characteristics 1. Gothenburg-Stockholm, Sweden Emission-free electricity Long transport distance (480km) 2. Bremen-Hanover, Germany Fossil fuel based electricity Short transport distance (130km) One Scenario Alternative terminal location in Hannover and Stockholm

13 External costs of unimodal vs. intermodal transport 2,500" 2,500" External"cost/swap"body"[ ct]" 2,000" 1,500" 1,000" 500" External"cost/swap"body"[ ct]" 2,000" 1,500" 1,000" 500" PPH" Long-haul" Transhipments" 0" Road" IRRT-Base" case" IRRT-Alt." loca6on" 0" Road" IRRT-Base" case" IRRT-Alt." loca6on" Sweden: Gothenburg-Stockholm (480km, emission-free electricity) Germany: Bremen-Hannover (130km, fossil fuel based electricity)

14 Analysis Sweden Good preconditions à significant reduction of total externalities External)cost/swap)body)[ ct]) 2,000" 1,500" 1,000" 500" External)cost/swap)body)[ ct]) 2,000" 1,500" 1,000" 500" 0" Traffic" Air"pollu2on" Climate" 0" Gothenburg" Interurban" Stockholm" Road" IRRT;Base"case" IRRT;Alt."loca2on" Road" IRRT;Base"case" Impact category trade-off air pollution and climate impact benefits vs. higher traffic impacts No effect of alternative terminal location Geographical trade-off Interurban benefits vs. disadvantages in origin and destination cities Alternative terminal location in Stockholm reduces trade-off

15 Shipper All road PPH Rail terminal

16 Shipper terminal (approx. 22km) All road PPH Rail

17 Analysis Germany Bad preconditions à increase in total externalities External)cost/swap)body)[ ct]) 800" 700" 600" 500" 400" 300" 200" 100" 800" 700" 600" 500" 400" 300" 200" 100" 0" Traffic" Air"pollu6on" Climate" 0" Hannover" Interurban" Bremen" Road" IRRT?Base"case" IRRT?Alt."loca6on" Road" IRRTGBase"case" IRRTGAlt."locaJon" Impact category trade-off air pollution benefits vs. higher traffic and climate impact Alternative terminal location reduces trade-off Geographical trade-off Significant interurban benefits vs. significant disadvantages in Hannover Alternative terminal location in Hannover reduces impacts Small benefits in Bremen

18 All road PPH Rail Shipper terminal

19 terminal Shipper All road PPH Rail

20 terminal Shipper All road PPH Rail

21 Summary Market potential Big potential for intermodal rail freight from/to Germany and Russia Don t forget intra-baltic-corridor transport Environmental potential Trade-off: global/regional benefits vs. higher local impacts Scale of trade-off depends on urban PPH distances à Importance of local land-use planning