Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 198–220 | Cite as

New environmental demands and the future of the Helsinki−Tallinn freight route

  • Olli-Pekka Hilmola
  • Harri Lorentz
  • Dawna L Rhoades
Original Article


The environmental friendliness of short sea shipping has been justified in Europe by the ensuing lower congestion at hinterlands and unneeded large-scale infrastructure investments on roads and railways. However, the attractiveness of short sea shipping is about to change. This is because of increasing environmental regulations (International Maritime Organization (IMO) sulfur regulation in the Baltic Sea and planned CO2 emissions trading) and increased world market oil prices. In this research, we analyze this potential change using data envelopment analysis on the existing transportation chain alternatives in the Helsinki (Finland)−Tallinn (Estonia) short sea route (chains using either roro, ropax or container ships). The analysis also includes the planned railway tunnel between the two cities. On the basis of our findings, the current truck and semi-trailer-based transportation is challenged by containers, irrespective of how they are carried (ship type). In the long term, for reasons of emissions and oil independency, the possibility of tunnel construction would make it vital to have container ship operations available along this route. The forthcoming change is not radical, but rather evolutionary and long term oriented.


short sea shipping railway tunnel Helsinki Tallinn DEA 


  1. AlpTransit Gotthard. (2014) Official webpages of Gotthard Base Tunnel,, accessed May 2014.
  2. Anguera, R. (2006) The Channel Tunnel – An ex post economic evaluation. Transportation Research Part A 40 (4): 291–315.Google Scholar
  3. BBT SE. (2012) Official webpages of Brenner Tunnel,, accessed August 2012.
  4. Brooks, M.R and Trifts, V. (2008) Short sea shipping in North America: Understanding the requirements of Atlantic Canadian shippers. Maritime Policy & Management 35 (2): 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang, C.-Y. and Ive, G. (2007) The hold-up problem in the management of construction projects: A case study of the Channel Tunnel. International Journal of Project Management 25 (4): 394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2 (6): 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crumley, B. (2010) The Eurotunnel Back on Track. Time Magazine 18 October,,9171,2024237-1,00.html, accessed April 2013.
  8. Defra. (2012) 2012 greenhouse gas conversion factors for company reporting,, accessed August 2012.Google Scholar
  9. DNV. (2012) Greener Shipping in the Baltic Sea. Det Norske Veritas. June 2010,, accessed August 2012.Google Scholar
  10. Eurotunnel. (2012) Fares,, accessed December 2012.
  11. Finnish Customs. (2013) Transports of foreign trade, January–December 2012,, accessed June 2013.
  12. Finnports. (2014) Finnish Port Association – Statistics,, accessed May 2014.
  13. Goto, M. and Tsutsui, M. (1998) Comparison of productive and cost efficiencies among Japanese and US electric utilities. Omega, International Journal of Management Science 26 (2): 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haralambides, H. and Gujar, G. (2012) On balancing supply chain efficiency and environmental impacts: An eco-DEA model applied to the dry port sector of India. Maritime Economics & Logistics 14 (1): 122–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hilmola, O.-P. (2011a) Rail Baltica Influence Area: State of Operating Environment. Lappeenranta, Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Department of Industrial Management. Research Report 236.Google Scholar
  16. Hilmola, O.-P. (2011b) Container sea ports and network connections within the Gulf of Finland. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling 3 (4): 316–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hilmola, O.-P. (2013) Environmental and infrastructure payments and the future of road transports: Case Tallinn-Warsaw. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research 4 (1): 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hilmola, O-P. and Ketels, C. (2012) Transportation Infrastructure Investments in the Baltic Sea Region. In C. Ketels. State of the Region Report. Denmark, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  19. Hilmola, O.-P. and Lorentz, H. (2012) Confidence and supply chain disruptions: Insights into managerial decision-making from the perspective of policy. Journal of Modelling in Management 7 (3): 328–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilmola, O.-P., Tapaninen, U., Terk, E. and Savolainen, V.-V. (2007) Container Transit in Finland and Estonia – Current Status, Future Demand and Implications on Infrastructure Investments in Transportation Chain. Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies Turku, Finland: University of Turku A44.Google Scholar
  21. IHS Global Insight. (2009) An Evaluation of Maritime Policy in Meeting the Commercial and Security Needs of the United States. Washington DC, USA: IHS Global Insight.Google Scholar
  22. IMO. (2012) International Shipping Facts and Figures – Information Resources on Trade, Safety, Security, Environment. London: IMO Maritime Knowledge Centre.Google Scholar
  23. Jain, P., Cullinane, S. and Cullinane, K. (2008) The impact of governance development models on urban rail efficiency. Transportation Research Part A 42 (10): 1283–1294.Google Scholar
  24. Jasper, C. and Webb, A. (2013) Deutsche Bahn Wins Right to Fight Eurostar in Channel Tunnel. Bloomber News, accessed June 2013.
  25. Kalli, J., Karvonen, T. and Makkonen, T. (2009) Sulphur content in ships bunker fuel in 2015: A study on the impacts of the new IMO regulations and transportation costs. Publications of the Ministry of Transport and Communications. No. 31. Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  26. Keh, H.T. and Chu, S. (2003) Retail productivity and scale economics at the firm level: A DEA approach. Omega – The International Journal of Management Science 31 (2): 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keinänen, O. and Sakkeus, J. (2012) Conclusions. In: U. Tapaninen (ed.) Helsinki and Tallinn on the Move. Helsinki, Finland: H-TTransPlan Project.Google Scholar
  28. Liao, C.-H., Lu, C.-S. and Tseng, P.-H. (2011) Carbon dioxide emissions and inland container transport in Taiwan. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (4): 722–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McIntosh, C. (2013) The fuel use and air emission consequences of shipping great lakes coal through the soo locks. Transportation Research Part D 18 (January): 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merk, O., Hilmola, O.-P. and Dubarle, P. (2012) The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: The Case of Helsinki – Finland. OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2012/08, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  31. Morales-Fusco, P., Sauri, S. and Lago, A. (2012) Potential freight distribution investments using motorways of the sea. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nieuwenhuis, P., Beresford, A. and Ki-Young Choi, A. (2012) Shipping of local production? CO2 impact on a strategic decision: An automotive industry case study. International Journal of Production Economics 140 (1): 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue, J.-P. (2009) The future of containerization: Perspectives from maritime and inland freight distribution. GeoJournal 74 (1): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue, J.-P. (2008) Containerisation, box logistics and global supply chains: The integration of ports and liner shipping networks. Maritime Economics & Logistics 10 (1–2): 152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ojala, L., Kersten, W. and Lorentz, H. (2013) Transport and logistics developments in the Baltic Sea region until 2025. Journal of East-West Business 19 (1–2): 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ports of Sweden. (2012) Cargo Statistics Available from Swedish Sea Ports,, accessed December 2012.
  37. Puckett, S.M., Hensher, D.A., Brooks, M.R. and Trifts, V. (2011) Preferences of alternative short sea shipping opportunities. Transportation Research: Part E 47 (2): 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raab, R.L. and Lichty, R.W. (2002) Identifying subareas that compromise a greater metropolitan area: The criterion of country relative efficiency. Journal of Regional Science 42 (3): 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rodrigue, J.P. (2010) Ports and maritime trade,, accessed May 2014.
  40. Sames, P.C. and Köpke, M. (2012) CO2 emissions of the world container fleet. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 48: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Savolainen, V.-V and Hilmola, O.-P. (2009) Relative technical efficiency of European transportation systems concerning air transports and railways. International Journal of Business Performance Management 11 (1-2): 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Statistics Estonia. (2014) Transport statistics database,, accessed May 2014.
  43. Styhre, L. (2010) Capacity utilization of short sea shipping. Doctoral Dissertation. Göteborg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
  44. Sundberg, P., Posti, A. and Tapaninen, U. (2011) Cargo Traffic on the Helsinki-Tallinn Route. Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies. Turku, Finland: University of Turku, A56.Google Scholar
  45. Tallinn Sea Port. (2014) Port of Tallinn key figures,, accessed May 2014.
  46. Tapaninen, U. and Räty, P. (2012) Vehicles carrying cargo in the ports of Helsinki and Tallinn. In: U. Tapaninen (ed.) Helsinki and Tallinn on the Move. Helsinki, Finland: H-TTransPlan Project.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, L.S. (2008) Railway Access Charges in the EU: Current Status and Developments Since 2004. Paris, France: OECD/International Transport Forum.Google Scholar
  48. Tzannatos, E. (2010) Costs and benefits of reducing SO2 emissions from shipping in the Greek sea. Maritime Economics & Logistics 12 (3): 280–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. United Nations. (2012) Review of Maritime Transport. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, New York and Geneva.Google Scholar
  50. VTT Lipasto. (2011) Lipasto Traffic Emissions,, accessed June–July 2012.
  51. Walsh, C. and Bows, A. (2012) Size matters: Exploring the importance of vessel characteristics to inform estimates of shipping emissions. Applied Energy 98: 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang, T.-F. and Cullinane, K. (2006) The efficiency of European container terminals and implications for supply chain management. Maritime Economics & Logistics 8 (1): 82–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woxenius, J. and Bergqvist, R. (2011) Comparing maritime containers and semi-trailers in the context of hinterland transport by rail. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (4): 680–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wright, R. (2012) Eurotunnel to take over SeaFrance vessels. Financial Times, accessed June 2013.
  55. Wu, J., Yan, H. and Liu, J. (2010) DEA models for identifying sensitive performance measures in container port evaluation. Maritime Economics & Logistics 12 (3): 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xue, M. and Harker, P.T. (2002) Note: Ranking DMUs with infeasible super-efficiency DEA models. Management Science 4 (5): 705–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olli-Pekka Hilmola
    • 1
  • Harri Lorentz
    • 2
  • Dawna L Rhoades
    • 3
  1. 1.Kouvola Research Unit, Lappeenranta University of TechnologyKouvolaFinland
  2. 2.Operations & Supply Chain Management, Turku School of Economics, University of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.College of Business, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, FLDaytona BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations