Advertisement

Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 61–78 | Cite as

Evaluating the external costs of trailer transport: a comparison of sea and road

  • Inge Vierth
  • Victor Sowa
  • Kevin CullinaneEmail author
Original Article
  • 98 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of this study is to deduce the comparative level of external costs per transported trailer within a context where an existing freight transport chain is replaced by one that includes greater use of shipping. Using both Sweden’s national guidelines for cost–benefit analysis (ASEK) and the European guidelines (Ricardo), the external costs of two alternative options are evaluated. The external costs for a road and shipping option are estimated to be lower than for the direct shipping option under Swedish guidelines, but higher under the European guidelines. However, the results favour the road and shipping option in preference to the direct shipping option under both Swedish and European guidelines when internalizing taxes and fees are accounted for. This is the case even where the shipping mode is compliant with the most stringent environmental regulations. The paper concludes that the evaluation system employed can have a fundamental impact on the outcome of a CBA and that the Swedish guidelines (ASEK) could by improved by incorporating specific values for air pollution from ships (particularly NOx emissions) and a system for regularly updating emission factors.

Keywords

Freight transport Environment CBA Emissions ro–ro Ropax 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Sweden’s East Coast Ports Coalition for funding this study. For valuable comments received on an earlier version of the paper, thanks are due to Katarina Händel (Swedish Maritime Administration), Gunnel Bångman (Swedish Transport Administration), Henrik Swahn (HSAB) and Mattias Haraldsson (VTI – The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute). The authors would also like to thank Rune Karlsson at the VTI (for the use of Figs. 1 and 2), as well as the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Prof. Hercules Haralambides, and anonymous reviewers, for providing valuable feedback on an earlier version of the paper. The conclusions and recommendations expressed in the paper remain the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the VTI as an authority.

References

  1. Aperte, X.G., and A.J. Baird. 2013. Motorways of the sea policy in Europe. Maritime Policy & Management 40 (1): 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baindur, D., and J. Viegas. 2011. Challenges to implementing motorways of the sea concept—lessons from the past. Maritime Policy & Management 38 (7): 673–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird, A.J. 2007. The economics of Motorways of the Sea. Maritime Policy & Management 34 (4): 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickel, P., and R. Friedrich (eds.). 2013. Environmental external costs of transport. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, D., B. Caulfield, and M. O’Mahony. 2012. Assessing the barriers to greener fiscal measures and ecological tax reform in the transport sector. In Sustainable systems and energy management at the regional level: Comparative approaches, ed. M. Tortora, 19–37. Information Science Reference: Hershey PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DieselNet. 2017. Emission standards. Heavy-duty diesel truck and bus engines. http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/hd.php, accessed 10/09/17.
  7. Douet, M., and J.F. Cappuccilli. 2011. A review of short Sea Shipping policy in the European Union. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (4): 968–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eliasson, J. 2013. Project appraisal in Sweden. In International comparisons of transport appraisal practice: Overview report, ed. P. Mackie, and T. Worsley. Leeds: Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. 2004. Motorways of the Sea, Implementation through Article 12a TEN-T. Consultation, Document dated 30 July, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. 2011. White paper: Roadmap to a single European transport area—towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. COM(2011) 144. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  11. Feo, M., R. Espino, and L. Garcia. 2011. A stated preference analysis of Spanish freight forwarders modal choice on the south-west Europe Motorway of the Sea. Transport Policy 18 (1): 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hjelle, H. 2014. Atmospheric emissions of short sea shipping compared to road transport through the peaks and troughs of short-term market cycles. Transport Reviews 34 (3): 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IMO. 2014. Third IMO GHG Study 2014. London: International Maritime Oraganisation.Google Scholar
  14. Janic, M. 2007. Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road freight transport network. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12 (1): 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kystverket. 2017. Kystverkets veileder for tilskudd til overføring av gods fra veg til sjø. http://kystverket.no/link/68d44d9f645f4d4b83c3e9ccc9cfb726.aspx. Accessed 05 Sept 17.
  16. Lee, P.T.W., K.C. Hu, and T. Chen. 2010. External costs of domestic container transportation: Short-sea shipping versus trucking in Taiwan. Transport Reviews 30 (3): 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. López-Navarro, M.A. 2013. Unaccompanied transport as a strategy for international road hauliers in Ro-Ro short sea shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics 15 (3): 374–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lun, Y.V., K.H. Lai, and T.E. Cheng. 2013. An evaluation of green shipping networks to minimize external cost in the Pearl River Delta region. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (2): 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Macharis, C., E. Van Hoeck, E. Pekin, and T. Van Lier. 2010. A decision analysis framework for intermodal transport: Comparing fuel price increases and the internalisation of external costs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44 (7): 550–561.Google Scholar
  20. Mellin, A., Wikberg, Å., Karlsson, R., and Vierth, I. 2013. Internalization of external effects in European freight corridors. CTS Working Paper 2013:2, Stockholm: Center for Transport Sttudies.Google Scholar
  21. Morales-Fusco, P., M. Grau, and S. Sauri. 2017. Effects of RoPax shipping line strategies on freight price and transporter’s choice, Policy Implications for promoting MoS. Transport Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.021.Google Scholar
  22. Mostert, M., A. Caris, and S. Limbourg. 2017. Road and intermodal transport performance: the impact of operational costs and air pollution external costs. Research in Transportation Business and Management. 23: 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ng, A.K.Y. 2009. Competitiveness of short sea shipping and the role of port: the case of North Europe. Maritime Policy & Management 36 (4): 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. NTM. 2016. NTM Calc 4.0. https://www.transportmeasures.org/ntmcalc/v4/basic/index.html#/. Accessed 10 Apr 2017.
  25. Paixão Casaca, A.C., and P.B. Marlow. 2007. The impact of the trans-european transport networks on the development of short sea shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics 9 (4): 302–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Resa-mellan.se. 2017. Truck distance and fuel calculator. http://www.resa-mellan.se/. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.
  27. Ricardo. 2014. Update of the handbook on external costs of transport (Final Report), London: Ricardo-AEA.Google Scholar
  28. Sea-distances.org. 2017. Sea distance calculator. https://sea-distances.org/. Accessed 04 Sept 2017.
  29. Sjöfartsverket. 2017. Fairway Dues. http://www.sjofartsverket.se/en/About-us/Finances/Fairway-Dues/. Accessed 04 Sept 2017.
  30. SåCalc. 2015. Verktyg från Sveriges Åkeriföretag. Årlig körsträcka för lastbil. http://www.akeri.se/transportindex/sacalc-basic. Accessed 04 Sept 2017.
  31. Styhre, L. 2009. Strategies for capacity utilisation in short sea shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics 11 (4): 418–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Styhre, L., V. Roso, R. Bergqvist, J. Woxenius, and K. Lumsden. 2014. Development of the short sea shuttle concept. Gothenburg: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. Suárez-Alemán, A. 2016. Short sea shipping in today’s Europe: A critical review of maritime transport policy. Maritime Economics & Logistics 18 (3): 331–351.Google Scholar
  34. Tichavska, M., and B. Tovar. 2017. External costs from vessel emissions at port: A review of the methodological and empirical state of the art. Transport Reviews 37 (3): 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trafikanalys. 2015. Transportsektorns samhällsekonomiska kostnader 2015: Rapport 2015. Stcokholm: Trafikanalys.Google Scholar
  36. Trafikanalys. 2017. Eco-bonus för sjöfart: slutredovisning, Rapport 2017:11, Stcokholm: Trafikanalys. http://www.trafa.se/globalassets/rapporter/2017/rapport-2017_11-ecobonus-for-sjofart—slutredovisning.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2017.
  37. Trafikverket. 2015. Samhällsekonomiska principer och kalkylvärden för transportsektorn: ASEK 5.2. Version 2015-04-01. Borlänge: Trafikverket.Google Scholar
  38. Tzannatos, E., S. Papadimitriou, and A. Katsouli. 2014. The cost of modal shift: a short sea shipping service compared to its road alternative in Greece: European. Transport 56 (2): 1–20.Google Scholar
  39. U.K. Department for Transport. 2015. Guide to the Waterborne Freight Grant scheme. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/waterborne-freight-grantscheme-guide-2015-to-2020. Accessed 09 Apr 2017.
  40. Unifeeder. 2015. Vessels and vessel tracking. http://www.unifeeder.com. Accessed 17 Apr 2017.
  41. Vanherle, K., and Delhaye, E. 2010. Road versus short sea shipping: comparing emissions and external costs. Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economists, Lisbon, Portugal, 7–9.Google Scholar
  42. Vierth, I. Mellin, A., and Karlsson, R. 2013. Externa kostnader och avgifter för fem svenska, gränsöverskridande godstransporter. Notat 10-2013Stockholm: VTI.Google Scholar
  43. Vierth, I., and Sowa, V. 2015. Externa kostnader i transportscenarier med utökad användning av sjöfart. Report 848. Stockholm: VTI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Etraveli ABUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.School of Business, Economics and LawUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations