competing transportation chains in helsinki-tallinn route ... · olli-pekka hilmola (editor)...
TRANSCRIPT
Olli-Pekka Hilmola (Editor)
Competing Transportation Chains in Helsinki-Tallinn Route: Multi-Dimensional Evaluation
ISBN 978-952-265-276-8 (paperback)ISBN 978-952- 265-277-5 (electronic, PDF) ISSN 1799-3563 Lappeenranta 2012
LAPPEENRANNAN TEKNILLINEN YLIOPISTOLAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Teknistaloudellinen tiedekunta Tuotantotalouden laitos
Faculty of Technology ManagementDepartment of Industrial Management
Tutkimusraportti Research Report 243
LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Faculty of Technology Management Department of Industrial Management Kouvola Research Unit Research Report 243
Competing Transportation Chains in Helsinki-Tallinn Route: Multi-Dimensional Evaluation
Olli-Pekka Hilmola (Editor)
Part-financed by the European Union
(European Regional Development Fund)
ISBN 978-952-265-276-8 (paperback) ISSN 1799-3563 ISBN 978-952-265-277-5 (electronic, PDF)
1
2
Acknowledgements
Things should always be kept in context, even if we talk about current economic crisis continuing throughout Europe. It is of course evident that this will affect in our transportation flows, material handling and logistics processes overall. But in decades long perspective we are still on growth track and in some cases growth has not been disrupted at all. Latter is the case of Helsinki-Tallinn volumes in overall perspective.
For example in early 90’s passenger transport volumes were between Helsinki and Tallinn roughly 2 mill. passengers – in two decades time this volume has increased by more than three and half times! Similar growth is apparent in transported passenger cars and trucks. Of course volumes are result of different factors, but mostly base volume still appears from the interaction of economies of Estonia and Finland. Foreigners and long-distance transports have taken some share, but still their role is not dominant. However, this could change soon, at least regarding to freight transports.
Change is driven primarily by increasing environmental regulation at Baltic Sea area, and European Union. In the near future we shall have first very strict sulphur oxide emission regulation implemented, and in the forthcoming years some sort of payment system is developed for the CO2 emissions of sea transports. These two together with increasing price of oil will considerably change transportation chains within Baltic Sea area, and will increase the importance of very short sea shipping alternatives e.g. from Finland. One of the shortest is Helsinki-Tallinn, together with Vaasa-Umeå. In forthcoming years and decades time horizon solutions are hardly the same as before – business decisions are increasingly based on ecologic-economic tightly coupled relationship. Therefore, we are analyzing in this research work current transportation chains, but also possible, but not implemented alternatives.
We are grateful from the opportunity to complete this study for the H-TTransPlan project (led by the cities of Helsinki and Tallinn; financed by the European Regional Development Fund). Project has not only provided necessary funding, but also contacts to actors and feedback to the research completion too. Would also like to personally state gratitude for our research team, consisting diversity in gender, age and nationality. Your efforts and contribution in respective areas is very much appreciated. Thank you.
In Kouvola, Finland 18.Sept.2012,
Olli-Pekka Hilmola Prof., Docent, Ph.D.
3
Abstract
There is currently going on large debate about environmental regulation in short sea shipping of Baltic Sea, and performance (costs and connections) of post year 2015. Within two years we shall have strict sulphur oxide regulation effective, and basically general cargo sea transports costs from e.g. Finland to Central Europe will increase by 30-40 %. However, this is not the end in the environmental demands; i.e. CO2 emissions will probably come as liability of transportation as well. Also in background we have experienced increasing price of oil, trend ought to continue in the future too. These are all forming together the new demands for transportation chains, and evaluation should not only be for the future concerning today’s costs, prices and lead time, but also to take into account CO2 emissions and fuel economy. Our purpose in this research is to sketch some sort of multi-dimensional evaluation from the alternatives of Helsinki-Tallinn general cargo transportation flows.
In a posteriori perspective sea transport between Helsinki and Tallinn has been huge success story. More than 7 mill. passengers, 1 mill. passenger cars and 0.25 mill. trucks were transported between these two sea ports in year 2011 alone. Due to this, combined passenger and freight ferries dominate the market, and basically roro and container ships are within margin. Also every now and then railway based alternative (railship or railway tunnel) has been brought into discussion. However, until today ropax ferries have taken clear lead, and no other concept seems to be challenging it. This would of course be the case, if business environment would be kept as it has been for the last two decades. Due to year 2015 sulphur regulation, CO2 emission requirements and dearer oil, we most probably will experience business model change in transportation chains.
Our research shows that ropax vessels are not necessarily by anyhow cheaper alternatives for freight than what roro and container ships are. It just has much better daily frequency and lead time to offer. Based on our cost analysis need for speed is caused due to accompanying truck driver within freight, not necessarily valuable cargo carried. It is difficult to evaluate with highest accuracy situation against railway options (tunnel and railship), but it seems that these would not be able to offer dramatically lower price, and nor matching lead time performance. There is some hope in railway tunnel option, since actual transportation task cost is low, but loading/unloading operations, train forming, and access fee to use the tunnel make it having similar cost with other alternatives.
If transportation chains would be evaluated only with CO2 emissions and energy efficiency within Helsinki-Tallinn route, then clearly all solutions around containers carrying cargo would be better than others. This also means that putting inside of sea vessel semi-trailers with cabins is not wise, as they take space and add more non productive weight (main practice of today, semi-trailer with truck on ropax ship). Within sea transportation based chains, best performance is clearly in container ship, and worst in railship. Latter for the reason as so much unproductive weight is on a ship. Roro and ropax are performing between these two extremes, where roro is a bit better than ropax. Of course, if railway tunnel option is included in evaluation, then best performance arises from it. It should be noted that both, container ship and railway tunnel transport do have as one of the greatest improvement area loading and unloading operations, not necessarily actual transportation.
Keywords: Logistics, performance, Helsinki-Tallinn, sea, railways, utilization
4
Tiivistelmä Tällä hetkellä on käynnissä julkinen keskustelu ympäristölainsäädännön muutoksesta Itämerellä, ja merikuljetusten suorituskyvystä (kustannukset ja yhteydet) vuoden 2015 jälkeisessä maailmassa. Kahdessa vuodessa tiukahko rikkilainsäädäntö tulee voimaan ja merikuljetukset esim. Suomesta Saksaan kallistuvat 30-40 %. Tähän eivät kuitenkaan ympäristövaatimukset lopu, vaan jatkoa on luvassa. Esimerkiksi aiheutetut CO2 -päästöt tulevat mitä todennäköisimmin kuljetusmuotojen vastuulle ja maksettaviksi. Näiden tiukkenevien ympäristövaatimusten ohessa öljy on jatkanut hinnan nousuaan ja trendi tulee todennäköisesti myös jatkumaan. Nämä kaikki muutokset tulevat muokkaamaan kuljetusketjujen vaatimuksia, ja päätöksiä ei enää tehdä pelkästään kustannusten, hintojen ja läpimenoaikojen perusteella, vaan CO2 -päästöt ja polttoainetaloudellisuus tulevat päätöskriteerien osaksi. Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on kehittää kuvattua arviointia eri kuljetusketjujen välillä Helsingin ja Tallinnan välisessä rahtiliikenteessä.
Jälkikäteen tarkasteltuna Helsingin ja Tallinnan välinen meriliikenne on ollut suuri menestystarina. Viime vuonna kaupunkien välillä meriteitse liikkui yli 7 milj. matkustajaa, miljoona autoa ja 0,25 miljoonaa rekkaa. Johtuen massiivisista yhdistetyistä matkustaja- ja rahtivirroista, nk. ropax -alukset dominoivat markkinaa ja roro- sekä konttialukset ovat painuneet täysin marginaaliin. Ajoittain on tarjottu keskusteluissa myös vaihtoehdoksi rautateitä (esim. junalautta tai rautatietunneli). Mikään nykyisistä olemassa olevista tai kehitettävistä vaihtoehdoista ei ole kyennyt vakavasti haastamaan ropax -laivoja. Tämä tilanne vallitsee tietysti staattisessa liiketoimintaympäristössä. Edellä mainitut ympäristöpohjaiset maksut ja jatkuvasti kallistuva öljy johtanevat kuitenkin liiketoimintamallin muutokseen.
Tehdyn tutkimuksen mukaan ropax -alukset eivät ole mitenkään halvempi vaihtoehto kuljetusketjulle, esim. verrattaessa roro- ja konttialuksiin. Ropax kykenee vain paljon parempaan kuljetusfrekvenssiin kaupunkien välillä ja kilpailukykyiseen läpimenoaikaan. Nopeuden tarpeen aiheuttaa kustannusanalyysin mukaan paljolti rahtiliikenteessä mukana matkustava rekkakuski. Rautateiden tuomaa kilpailutilannetta on vaikea arvioida kovin luotettavasti, mutta voidaan esittää, että hinnallisesti se ei tule olemaan paljoakaan halvempi ja läpimenoaika tulee olemaan pitempi. Rautatietunneli tuo jotain toivoa tilanteeseen, kun itse kuljetussuorite on monikertoja halvempi, mutta hinnan nostaa muiden tasolle lastaus/purku -kustannukset, junan muodostus ja tunnelin käyttömaksut.
Mikäli kuljetusketjuja arvioitaisiin pelkästään CO2 -päästöjen ja energiatehokkuuden perusteella Helsinki-Tallinna -reitillä, niin kaikki ratkaisut käyttäisivät jotenkin kontteja kuljetuksissaan. Tämä tarkoittaa myös sitä, että itse vetoauton laitto laivaan on nähtävänä tarpeettomana, koska se vie vain tilaa sekä lisää aluksen painoa (käytäntö, joka on vallalla ropax -laivoissa nykyisin). Merikuljetuksiin perustuvissa kuljetusketjuissa itse konttilaiva on kaikkein paras ja taas junalautta huonoin. Jälkimmäisen päästöt ja kulutus johtuvat valtavasta lastatusta määrästä tuottamatonta painoa. Roro ja ropax -alukset ovat näiden kahden ääripään välimaastossa, joskin roro on hieman parempi kuin ropax. Mikäli rautatietunneli tuotaisiin arviointiin mukaan, niin paras suorituskyky löytyisi kiistatta sen tarjoamasta kuljetusketjusta. On syytä huomioida, että kaksi parasta vaihtoehtoa (rautatietunneli ja konttilaiva), ovat niin ympäristöystävällisiä, että suurimmat parannukset tulevat itse lastin muodostukseen ja purkuun liittyvistä toiminnoista, eikä päätehtävästä eli kuljetuksesta.
Avainsanat: Logistiikka, suorituskyky, Helsinki-Tallinna, meri, rautatie, käyttöaste
5
Contributing Authors
Chapter 1: Editor
Chapter 2: Editor
Chapter 3: Marina Karamysheva & Ida Norddal
Chapter 4: Marina Karamysheva & Ida Norddal
Chapter 5: Marina Karamysheva & Ida Norddal
Chapter 6: Marina Karamysheva, Ida Norddal & Editor
Chapter 7: Editor
Chapter 8: Milla Laisi, Editor and Ville Henttu
Chapter 9: Wladimir Segercrantz
Chapter 10: Editor
6
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................... 17
2.1. Warehousing and Road Transportation in European Context ............................. 17
2.2. Environmental Pressure Is on: Significantly Lower CO2 Emissions Required ... 21
2.3. Environmental Pressure Is on: Very Low Level of Sulphur Emissions Results on Higher Transportation Costs ....................................................................................... 24
2.4 Growth and Decline – Different Faces of Helsinki Sea Port ................................ 26
2.5. General Cargo in Tallinn Sea Port: Opportunities Lie Ahead ............................. 31
3. Assumptions and Parameter Values of Empirical Part ........................................... 35
3.1. Calculation of CO2 Emissions for the Transportation Process ............................ 36
3.2. Calculation of CO2 Emissions for the Hinterland Processes ............................... 39
4. Different Scenarios Used and Procedures .................................................................. 43
4.1. Calculation of CO2 Emissions for the Transportation Process ............................ 43
4.2. Calculation of CO2 Emissions for the Hinterland Processes ............................... 46
5. Sea Port Visits ............................................................................................................ 49
5.1. Port of Helsinki, Vuosaari Harbour ..................................................................... 49
5.2. Port of Tallinn, Muuga Harbour .......................................................................... 51
6. CO2 Emissions: Different Alternative Comparison and Overall Results ................ 55
6.1. Railway Part – Detailed Analysis Considering Utilization Sensitivity from Transportation Emissions............................................................................................ 60
6.2. Container Ship – Environmentally Friendly and More so with Larger Size ....... 64
6.3. Ferry (ropax) Ship – Currently the Most Used Alternative ................................. 66
6.4. Roro Ship – Slightly Better than Ropax .............................................................. 68
6.5. Analyzing All Possible Combinations with Most Probable Utilization Level .... 69
7. Energy Consumption of Different Options ............................................................. 75
7.1. Railship ................................................................................................................ 76
7.2. Container Ship ..................................................................................................... 78
7.3. Ferry Ship (ropax) ................................................................................................ 80
7.4. Roro Ship ............................................................................................................. 81
8. Prices, Costs and Lead Time of Different Alternatives in Helsinki-Tallinn Route 83
8.1. Shipping based Transportation Chains ................................................................ 83
7
8.2. Railway based Transportation Chains ................................................................. 86
8.3. Other Indirect Costs (Transportation Fleet, Driver and Cargo) ........................... 88
9. Could Radical Improvement in Lead Times of Container and Trailer Handling Be Achieved in the Port of Muuga (Tallinn)?...................................................................... 93
10. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 95
References ...................................................................................................................... 99
Appendices ................................................................................................................... 105
8
9
1. Introduction
Maritime transport is at top of the agenda in most of the world’s export countries,
whether they are landlocked or not. However, untypical is its level of dominance, what
Finnish export and import statistics reveal (Finnish Customs, 2012). From Finnish
imports 81.7 % in year 2011 were transported through sea ports. Correspondingly from
exports share was 87.7 %. After sea transportation as second highest alternative comes
railways (basically serving eastern trade), where the share from imports is 8.7 % and
from exports 2.8 %. So, Finland is entirely dependent on sea ports and routes in foreign
trade, and this activity should be having high efficiency, quality, flexibility and cost
standard. However, competitiveness is not only in hands of Finland. For example, in
export trade it is important that we have import flows too (in order to achieve high
enough fillrates in ships). So, it helps, if we are able to attract import transit (containers)
to serve e.g. Russia and other eastern countries (Hilmola et al., 2007). Also for the
development of sea ports, export transit is important (typically raw materials); this gives
scale and critical mass to develop local logistics clusters. Another external factor to be
taken into account is increasingly tightening environmental regulation. As most of the
Finnish shipping routes are feeder traffic to larger hubs, then as third is worth to
mention increasing oil prices (connected to environmental regulation too, sulphur oxide
restrictions will lead to much dearer oil used). Long-distance and ocean traffic is easy to
optimize with low steaming, but short sea shipping is entirely another story, where ships
barely reach lowest scale level (e.g. see emission curves in Walsh & Bows, 2012). In
empirical research works it has been e.g. found that short sea shipping (typically roro) is
having hard time to compete in cost wise against road transport (Morales-Fusco et al.,
2012; Puckett et al., 2011), and typically only remedy has been public sector subsidy in
one form or another (Morales-Fusco et al., 2012).
Due to peripheral location and thin transportation flows, Finnish transport in the
segment of general cargo has traditionally been build around trucks (and arising
variations). This also leads on the wide variety in used transportation equipment.
Containers are not that popular (of course have increased their share) as in other parts of
the world, e.g. China and leading Asian logistics centers. In a good year Finnish sea
ports handle 1.4-1.5 mill. twenty feet containers (TEUs; Finnports, 2012). Similarly in
good year our sea ports handle 0.8-0.9 million trucks and semi-trailers (Finnports,
10
2012). As containers are measured and transformed in statistics to 20 feet equivalent
units, even if most common container in sea ports is forty feet one, it could be assumed
at first glance that containers are already in clear lead over the others. However,
transforming TEU amounts of Finnish sea ports to FEUs will give more valid situation
analysis (mostly used one and comparable to semi-trailers): 0.7-0.75 million FEUs are
handled in a good year in our sea ports. So, basically containers are still a bit lacking
behind traditional and high emitting trucks, accompanied typically with semi-trailer.
Trucking is of course flexible and robust in performance, which e.g. container
transportation with sea-rail linkage is not. Think about strike at all sea ports or harsh
winter storm. In the case of strikes, sea-rail linked transportation chain does not move
anywhere, but trucks and semi-trailers are able to use passenger ferries (ropax), and
export-import continues. Also difficult weather conditions favour road transport: If one
train carries 30 semi-trailers and in other situation these semi-trailers are transported by
road, it is probable that in harsh winter conditions some semi-trailers accompanied with
truck will find their destination. In a case of train this is binary situation, and all or
nothing is reality. Due to earlier described, truck based transportation chains favour
ropax and roro vessels. These have from Finland fixed and frequent sea links e.g. to
Russia, Estonia, Poland, Sweden and Germany.
Another problematic situation to favour more container transport is the lack of
frequency and also connections on short-distance sea transportation. One good example
is Helsinki-Tallinn route, main interest of our research. Based on Hilmola (2011a and
2011b) in years 2009-2010 container ship connections between these two cities were
few, basically two connections from Tallinn’s Muuga terminal to Helsinki’s Vuosaari
(frequency of one or two weeks). However, situation was not so poor before credit
crunch crisis – in early 2000 until year 2008 numerous connections were serving this
route. It could only be guessed, why such negative change has occurred. One
explanation could be the massive investments and competition of ropax ships and vessel
operators on this route. However, situation is difficult to revert back, and basically in
current volumes containers have extremely low market share in e.g. Helsinki-Tallinn
route. Sundberg et al. (2011) estimated that this share would be as low as 0.4 %. Based
on their longitudinal data, container transport has been for long time at very low levels.
11
This would then mean that earlier container vessel traffic was just for the purposes of
shipping lines to build proper star/circle routes, where Tallinn and Helsinki were just
conveniently located nearby each other. Maybe Tallinn has grown so much in container
side that it is seen separate from Helsinki (in most of the cases) and fits better to some
other star/circle routes of container ships. Due to this change these two cities have lost
important connectivity to each other, and in most of the cases container routes from
Finland to Estonia go through Germany (if used at all).
Theoretically we have also as an option railships, where railway wagons are put inside
of roro type of vessel. In long-term Finland has faced great disadvantage in
interoperability of Central European railway system – our gauge width is different
(1524 mm vs. 1435 mm), signaling system differs and electrical system is unique.
Therefore, seamless and low cost railway operations using ships to Europe is nearly
impossible. This has been witnessed in previous decades. For example, earlier (before
year 1997) there was railship traffic from Hanko sea port to Germany. Thereafter, this
loading and gauge change place was changed to another nearby sea port, Turku.
Actually national railway company VR enlarged the service in year 1998 (VR, 1998),
and established joint venture SeaRail with Green Cargo (or SJ at that time) to serve
Turku-Stockholm route as well as railway transport to diverse destinations inside of
Sweden and Northern Europe. Connections to Germany were also tried to be assured in
collaboration with major actors, shipping company Finnlines and Deutsche Bahn. Based
on accounting records SeaRail connection was actually profitable in the years of early
2000, but only marginally. Problem was that volumes never grew enough, and after year
2007 this connection was constantly producing deficits. Based on financial statements
this connecting between Finland and Sweden produced deficits of nearly 3 mill. euros in
the period of 2007-2011. From year 2012 onwards Finland has been lacking all of
railship connections (VR Group, 2011), and no actor has stated any positive point of
views from its initiation in the future. Actually VR Group (2011) emphasized in the
shutdown press release that railway’s role in the future is to be part of container
transport chains. Before the credit crunch, there were activity e.g. between Estonia and
Finland with this regard as Narva Line ltd. had railship operating between Sillamäe and
Kotka. Operations started in May 2006, but ended roughly year and half later – typically
this ship was full of trucks, instead of railway wagons (Yle, 2007). However, it should
12
be emphasized that the concept of railship traffic is not entirely dead – still today there
exist connection from Russian sea port of Ust’Luga (southwest from St. Petersburg) to
German Sassnitz (Ust’Luga, 2012). It remains to be seen, how sustainable and
financially viable this connection actually is, at least partners of this project are both
influential in European logistics markets, namely German DB and Russian RZD.
As both container ship and railship are more or less theoretical alternatives, and could
be scaled up with some months delay (or couple of years at maximum), the fourth
alternative in this research work for Helsinki-Tallinn route is railway tunnel, which
needs in positive scenario decades to be operational. Even if this option would sound
like way too massive for small countries to connect each other, tunnels in general in
European landscape live boom period. Also in Helsinki metropolitan region this is
already the case as together three railway tunnel construction projects are at design or
construction phase (circle rail in Vantaa, west metro to Espoo and water drop rail in the
heart of the city center; having total costs exceeding two billion euros). Similar boom is
on in the metropolitan areas of Stockholm and Copenhagen. However, for longer
distance tunnels, Fehmarnbelt tunnel between Denmark and Germany is experiencing
needed tailwinds – it is having a bit lower price tag (5.5 bill. euros) than Helsinki-
Tallinn tunnel, but it is intended to serve both road and railway transport (Hilmola &
Ketels, 2012). This project is still on the lobbying/initial design phase, but is expected to
materialize. For the construction of Brenner railway tunnel (or axis), operating between
Italy and Austria, EU has granted nearly 800 mill. euros (European Commission, 2010).
This project is already at construction phase (BBT SE, 2012), and is estimated to have
final price tag of nearly 8 bill. euros. Brenner railway tunnel project is worth of
following, since it is quite similar in length and design, what Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel is
planned to be. However, tunnel building between Helsinki and Tallinn is still long-term
“dream”, and we need to understand mechanisms of it better. This does not mean that
technical solutions would be needed to have major role, but mechanisms to economies
and wellbeing. Couple of years ago study showed that tunnel is not profitable with
current economic estimates, but opportunity costs caused by disruptions such as sea port
strikes and natural disasters, could turn it as profitable (Saranen, 2010). In the following
analysis we hopefully draw some details of freight logistics and possible benefits gained
– these micro-level issues have not been researched that well before. In the following
13
decades we may face environment, where oil is having costs of 200 USD per barrel (or
even more) and CO2 emission rights will have 10-20 times higher cost than today.
This research report is part of H-TTransPlan project and is intended to evaluate
Helsinki-Tallinn freight transportation options from multi-dimensional perspective, so
how different alternatives in the above are performing regarding to costs, time, energy
consumption and CO2 emissions. We see transportation task in this research in light of
two main components: (1) hinterland operations (loading and unloading), and (2) sea
vessel transportation task. We shall of course report in the end main results together, but
try to analyze results through this divide. Reason is simple: numerous and
heterogeneous sea port operations (loading and unloading) are still not analyzed deep
enough in scientific research works, and therefore energy consumption and emissions
derived from different references are good estimates at best. For the purposes of this
research work, we needed port visits and asked expert opinions from various different
people. Of course we try to use different databases (like VTT Lipasto, 2011;
TREMOVE, 2010) and research works (e.g. Delhaye, 2010; Henttu et al., 2010; Henttu
and Multaharju, 2011; Henttu & Hilmola, 2011) in emissions and energy consumption
of sea, road and railway transports, but for entire transportation service produced (e.g.
from Helsinki to Tallinn) we do not have any one particular “the reference” to be used.
In general also the cost level of transshipment operations at hinterlands is typically
“good estimate” at best in different international studies (see Ballis et al, 2004; Janic,
2007). However, we have tried to build in this report needed accuracy with earlier
research findings, own experience, site visits and expert options.
Due to weight restrictions of Estonian roads (and Baltic States and Poland overall),
most typical road transport unit type is single semi-trailer or FEU container carried by
truck. These could be loaded in full regarding to weight restrictions, but it is impossible
to use combined trucks having seven axels and total gross weight of 60 tons (like in
Finland or Sweden). However, based on national statistics, transportation units are
rarely transported with 100 % weight limit (of sea ports, like data gained through
Finnports, 2012) – actually typically volume is the constraint (if there is any) and semi-
trailers and containers weight on the average half what they could carry weight in
reality.
14
These proposed 200 units of general cargo (carried either with semi-trailer or FEU
container) are transported with following vessels: (1) ropax (like Tallink, Viking Line or
Eckerö Line), (2) roro (like Finnlines or Stella Group) or (3) container sea vessel (like
Containerships). In our study we are using two sea vessel fillrates / utilization levels: (1)
VTT Lipasto (2012) assuming high levels of utilization (e.g. ropax having fillrate of 80
%), and (2) try to analyze utilization levels of 30-70 % (Styhre, 2010 estimated based on
empirical research of Swedish, Danish and Norwegian short sea shipping operations
that real utilization in 19 routes was lower than 50 %, actually just above 40 % on the
average). Although these latter mentioned fillrates sound low, even below 30 % values
have been argued to be reality taking into account all shipping lines in Helsinki-Tallinn
route (Nupponen, 2011). It is, however, in light of latest research works below 30 %
could be too low value, and maybe given provocatively to open up discussion from the
low utilization topic (e.g. compare to Sundberg et al., 2011). We of course share the
opinion with Nupponen (2011) that utilization rates are low, and much lower than in
emission calculations and other cost templates have been assumed in the first place.
As H-TTransPlan project is also interested from railship option, we analyze this with
the vessel sizes used typically in the Baltic Sea Region, like what was the size of vessel
between Turku and Stockholm (second scenario is built with assumption that railship is
similar to roro in its characteristics). Project also had wish that mafi option of container
transports is being taking into account (loaded to roro or ropax vessel), which we also
represent as separate calculated area.
As final and seventh option H-TTransPlan project has specified that train tunnel option
should be examined as well. Based on our knowledge, these tunnel transport operations
are in longer distances operated only with electrical traction, so we make our
calculations based on this. However, transportation amount is still the same, 200 units
of cargo (which is split in four to more than twenty separate freight trains, depends on
used utilization rate, in other words, shorter trains are used in lower rates). We also of
course analyze hinterland loading and unloading operations at terminal areas to compare
emissions of rail and road in general with the task of 200 units cargo transportation.
This research is structured as follows: In Section 2 we review previous literature from
the topics of this project, but also use extensively second hand data to illustrate changes.
15
Also macro situation and long-term development in sea ports of Helsinki and Tallinn is
analyzed through statistical data. As CO2 emission calculations in our study are not only
basis for these emissions, but also are used in energy consumption estimates, their
background is introduced in details in Sections 3 and 4. Introduction concerns parameter
values, scenarios used and procedures applied. In Section 5 we give technical and more
up to date information from Vuosaari and Muuga harbours, which are focal points in
competing transportation chains of this study – data was mostly gained by visiting these
two sea ports. CO2 emissions are analyzed in Section 6 with “between” comparisons
(different transportation chains) and “within” sensitivity analysis (utilization of
transportation device). Thereafter, in Section 7 follows energy consumption (diesel oil)
analysis. In order to draw appropriate overall picture from transportation chains, we
analyze prices, costs and lead times of different alternatives in Section 8. As for the
study it was found that container transports is worthwhile to develop further in situation
of increasing oil prices and environmental payment sanctions (sulphur oxide and CO2),
we have also visited and analyzed developing fast non Customs Free Zone area in the
port of Muuga. Preliminary results of this are drawn together in Section 9. Research
work is concluded in final Section 10, where we also provide avenues for the further
research in the topic area of this project.
16
17
2. Literature Review
2.1. Warehousing and Road Transportation in European Context
Importance of warehousing is difficult to illustrate through statistics, since
manufacturing and retail companies are still having mostly this activity at their own
disposal, and only partly these operations have been outsourced (world-wide
outsourcing is still progressing trend, like Edgell et al., 2008; Tian et al., 2008). Based
on European wide transportation statistics, warehousing companies (have named this as
their branch) employ second largest amount of people in the sector, led by road
transportation (freight). Difference between these two is not that great (Tables 1 and 2).
However, based on numerous studies, outsourcing levels in warehousing work itself are
not extremely high (opposite to transportation, where it is at the level of 90 %). Based
on Cap Gemini (2007) study outsourced level in Europe is 68 %, and later Hilmola &
Tan (2010) illustrated that in Finland and Sweden this is close to 50 %. Large-scale
survey completed in Finland recently showed that warehousing outsourcing level could
be in reality as low as 25-30 % (Solakivi et al., 2010).
In regional comparison Finland and Sweden are following e.g. in relative terms
Germany, Estonia and Latvia in warehousing sector employment (Table 1).
Interestingly, in Finland during years 2008 and 2009 warehouses employed roughly as
many people in this sector as what is the situation in Latvia. In turn Swedish
warehousing employment is at the level of all Baltic States together. Germany with
strong manufacturing industry representation, central position in Europe as well as large
internal consumer markets lifts it to class of its own with warehousing branch. More
than half million people are working in companies having main activity in here. Also
worth to mention is that one of the worst economic crises in decades taken place in year
2009 did not affect that greatly warehousing employment in our two year observation
period – decline is roughly 2.5-3.6 % (in EU12, 15 and 27). This might be due to the
reason that inventory levels have been streamlined with Just In Time and Lean systems,
and therefore warehousing follows end demand closely, and some volume is still left at
warehouses (in both directions, incoming and outgoing), even if sudden collapse is
experienced (and this decline is not further fostered by large inventories at hand). It
should also be noted that amount of warehouses and m2 are still on long-term growth
18
path, even if manufacturing is in turn at the structural and long-term decline (they are
soon intercepting each other e.g. in UK, e.g. Baker & Sleeman, 2011).
Table 1. Warehousing employment (’000) in European Union during years 2008
and 2009. Source: European Union (2011; 2012).
Table 2. Transportation (road freight) employment (’000) in European Union during years 2008 and 2009. Source: European Union (2011; 2012).
Interestingly, road transportation employment in Germany is not that relatively large as
what is the situation e.g. in Estonia and Latvia. Actually it is the lowest from all
observed countries. This could be explained with numerous railway companies
operating in the country plus wider use of inland water transport. In other respects data
does not bring that many surprises – Sweden is again as large as all Baltic States.
However, Finland is having surprisingly large amount of road transport employees.
Again, this could be explained with other transportation modes – inter-modal
competition in Finland is still low (railway sector is having governmental incumbent,
2009 2008
Region/country Employees % from total Region/country Employees % from total
EU27 2379.3 22.5% EU27 2463.9 27.1%
EU15 2010.0 23.6% EU15 2084.7 29.1%
EU12 369.3 17.8% EU12 379.2 19.7%
Germany 548.5 29.7% Germany 566.1 39.5%
Estonia 10.3 27.3% Estonia 10.5 28.8%
Latvia 24.6 34.9% Latvia 26.1 37.1%
Lithuania 14.1 15.4% Lithuania 15.4 16.8%
Finland 28.1 18.3% Finland 27.4 22.3%
Sweden 49.0 18.9% Sweden 53.0 23.7%
2009 2008
Region/country Employees % from total Region/country Employees % from total
EU27 2951.8 27.9% EU27 3042.2 33.5%
EU15 2274.4 26.7% EU15 2302.6 32.1%
EU12 677.4 32.7% EU12 739.6 38.5%
Germany 357.6 19.4% Germany 363.0 25.3%
Estonia 13.6 36.1% Estonia 15.1 41.5%
Latvia 17.9 25.4% Latvia 22.3 31.6%
Lithuania 40.1 43.8% Lithuania 46.5 50.6%
Finland 45.7 29.7% Finland 39.5 32.2%
Sweden 71.6 27.6% Sweden 75.6 33.8%
19
and two very small actors inaugurating operations). In all examined statistics job losses
in sector were much more considerable than in warehousing – EU12 lost 8.4 % as
Latvia and Lithuania recorded double digit amounts. In data only Finnish road transport
(freight) sector continued its growth in the mid of credit crisis.
During the last decades (mostly after the oil crisis of 70’s), main tendency in
warehousing has been centralization (Maister, 1976; Ashayeri & Rongen, 1997;
Seppälä, 1997; Das & Tyagi, 1999; Duan, 2006). Many factors have enabled this, but
mostly it is accountable to cheap oil (during 80’s and 90’s), deregulation in different
sub-sectors of transportation logistics, free trade movement around the world (World
Trade Organization) and over capacity of transportation sector (caused by different
factors). Also in background there is large-scale change of manufacturing industry to
develop streamlined JIT / Lean systems and demand driven manufacturing. So,
basically in numerous industries it has been beneficial to shift inventories and
warehouses on wheels (or sea vessels or airplanes; e.g. Hilletofth et al., 2011), and
reduce drastically distribution network nodes. This has enabled short response
(implemented typically with road and air) and considerably lower amount of inventory
investments. Again inventory reduction and centralization on very few locations, to say
like in Europe, has increased the ability for companies to introduce newer models faster,
recovery from product quality problems easier and enable service and customization
based on orders (Pagh & Cooper, 1998; Hilletofth, 2009).
However, centralization is experiencing small-scale change. As ultra low interest rates
(implemented after credit crisis), extremely dear oil, product flows coming around the
world for own end products, and increasing pressures to respond on environmental
demands (and to be able to lower amount of transport, and particularly increase fill-
rates) have taken foothold. Also emerging countries in Europe, outside free trade area,
have required, together with earlier mentioned factors, that companies need to have
more warehouses (Baker, 2007; Hilletofth et al., 2012; Kabashkin, 2012). So, current
tendency is a bit diverting from earlier path – we need to modify structures to
correspond on new changed business environment. However, this does not mean that
we shall rewind ourselves back to 60’s, when all sub-regions of one country were
20
having small warehouses. It just means that instead of one centralized location,
companies do need to consider having second, third and possibly fourth warehouse to
serve their needs (Simchi-Levi et al., 2012).
Table 3. Warehousing capacity (m2) in TOP20 Finnish warehousing locations. Source: Statistics Finland (2012)
Warehousing in Finland has continued in long-term perspective centralization to the
areas nearby main general cargo sea ports and population concentration places. As
Table 3 illustrates, largest concentration of warehouses in Finnish construction register
are located in Vantaa and Helsinki – mostly due to opening and shifting Helsinki sea
port to Vuosaari (short proximity of Vantaa, which started in year 2008), but also due to
hinterland connectivity and air transport proximity, highest absolute m2 growth has been
experienced in Vantaa. Actually Vantaa is nowadays the largest warehouse location in
the whole Finland – exceeding also Helsinki (, which has been rather conservative on
growth of this sector within last decade). Close to Vantaa are located also Kerava
(significant increase in warehousing capacity during the last decade, mostly due to local
development programme) and Hyvinkää.
City/town Warehouses (m2) Built 2000‐2009 (m2) Built 2010 (m2) Approx. 10 years or younger
1 Vantaa 1,609,094.00 400,935.00 14,624.00 25.8%2 Helsinki 1,209,543.00 197,951.00 3,277.00 16.6%3 Turku 872,663.00 173,515.00 45,546.00 25.1%4 Kotka 692,095.00 284,698.00 624.00 41.2%5 Tampere 558,354.00 63,372.00 416.00 11.4%6 Espoo 546,856.00 31,855.00 1,316.00 6.1%7 Pori 526,906.00 108,181.00 5,821.00 21.6%8 Oulu 422,937.00 52,729.00 9,422.00 14.7%9 Kouvola 354,988.00 144,349.00 1,339.00 41.0%10 Hamina 352,531.00 112,151.00 460.00 31.9%11 Lahti 349,423.00 60,644.00 20,381.00 23.2%12 Seinäjoki 337,199.00 74,514.00 16,025.00 26.9%13 Rauma 309,226.00 37,885.00 1,204.00 12.6%14 Lappeenranta 307,154.00 119,833.00 4,461.00 40.5%15 Hyvinkää 274,841.00 33,157.00 16,224.00 18.0%16 Kokkola 242,878.00 23,106.00 7,144.00 12.5%17 Kuopio 223,357.00 30,795.00 ‐ 13.8%18 Kerava 213,580.00 59,751.00 19,949.00 37.3%19 Jyväskylä 210,466.00 53,248.00 696.00 25.6%20 Hämeenlinna 204,309.00 94,203.00 2,441.00 47.3%
21
However, in proportional sense locations in east and close to HaminaKotka sea port and
Russia have shown impressive growth. In Kotka, Lappeenranta and Kouvola
warehousing space has been added with impressive rate; warehouses built in period of
2000-2010 account more than 40 % from total space. Hamina is having similar
performance, but somewhat lower.
Among Helsinki sea port proximity and Russian influence on Finnish logistics system,
we may also identify some exceptions from these two. For example, in Turku logistics
park located at vicinity of an airport has attracted warehouse terminal investments, and
Seinäjoki in turn in the middle of Finland, mostly due to the reason of long distances
and long tradition of this region to act as one of the main locations of food production
and farming.
2.2. Environmental Pressure Is on: Significantly Lower CO2 Emissions Required
Most recent transportation White Paper from European Commission (2011) makes it
clear that current oil dependent transportation logistics could not continue to be used in
the future, and reductions on GreenHouse Gases (GHG) by 2050 should be made at
level of 60 % (compared to the situation of year 1990). Even if this goal sounds
demanding, so are the short-term goals (e.g. reducing GHGs by 20 % by year 2020 or
by 30 % respect of year 2030). Most significant GHG substance is carbon dioxide
(CO2), which is emitted mostly by burning fossil fuels. From our atmosphere it is
removed only by forests and plants. However, green areas have been largely removed
by human actions and increasing amount of people living on the earth.
Challenge with CO2 emissions in transportation is that their reduction in radical manner
is not possibility at transportation mode level (e.g. trucks or short sea shipping), but it is
merely question of avoiding using mineral fuels and replacing them with electricity.
Latter one ought to be produced with environmentally (will not produce CO2 or very
low amounts) sustainable manner, like originating e.g. from solar power, wind mills,
hydropower or nuclear power plants. Typically most preferred solution therefore in low
emission environment are long and fully loaded freight trains, but only if they use
electricity as a traction (of course diesel traction is better than road, but only due to
22
lower friction and freight load difference; see details Delhaye et al., 2010). Railway also
beats road option in a manner that it requires lower amount of land area to transport
same amount of freight – giving more space for forests and plants to act as world’s
carbon sink (Henttu et al., 2010). Air and sea transports share same advantage with rails
(lower amount of infrastructure needed), but their fuel consumption in higher speeds is
questionable (Maibach et al., 2008). Also some ship types, like roro, consume based on
Nieuwenhuis et al. (2012) so extensively fuel that CO2 emissions are nearly the same
for transported tonne-km than what is the case with road transport. So, simplistically
speaking, in order that we may achieve 50-60 % reduction levels in CO2 emissions,
there is hardly any other alternative than electrified train. Of course all transports can
not be completed with this option either – in that case we need environmentally friendly
road, air and sea transports. However, this means significant changes on their current
modus operandi (e.g. speed, driving habits, used fuel and fillrates).
Basically we should avoid as much as possible road transport and replace this usage
with rails and sea/river transport (e.g. some programs having financial intensives have
been run, like Marco Polo). These reduction demands and themes are nothing new in
EU, since they have been in the discussion agenda now for more than decade (European
Commission, 2001). Of course these demands are now in the first stage implemented for
industrial operations (heavy industries and electricity production), but transportation
will share its part in the near future (Ellerman et al., 2010). Reason is that it has been
showing growth in emissions from year 1990 level, and its share from overall GHG
pollution is one fourth (and is still growing, see Stead, 2006). So, in a nutshell within
EU area transportation logistics is to blame from harmful GHG emissions. However,
change is not easy to implement within future, since e.g. global political implications
are unknown. We have received some early experiences from aviation sector emission
prevention for flights leaving and ending to EU area. USA, Russia and China have
loudly opposed these emission payments in aviation and have given early warnings
from consequences on trade (Clark, 2012).
Even if long term forecasts for emission right costs of CO2 are really high, in the
emission exchange ICE-ECX their price has continued decline (Figure 1). Actually it is
shown in Figure 1 that CO2 emission contract prices are flirting in the lowest levels
23
since the trade started in year 2006. Current average contract (futures contracts) price is
just slightly above 7.6 euros per tonne of CO2 emitted. Of course major factor for such
low value is the macro economic situation in Europe (recession and in some country
cases, depression), but also could be assumed that implementation of emission
payments on heavy industries, and the dawn of these payments in transportation sector
have changed the behavior of for-profit decision makers. It could be assumed that new
emission free or significantly removing technologies have been invested, but in some
cases heavily polluting factories have been offshored and/or outsourced to outside of
EU region.
Figure 1. Emission (CO2) rights price development in options exchange during period of Jan.2006-Aug.2012. Source: ICE-ECX (2012)
Based on DG Regional (2008) and Maibach et al. (2008) highest trajectory of CO2 costs
in European Union should be roughly 10 times of that, what they are sold at exchange
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
27.5
30
32.5
35
9‐Jan
‐06
23‐Feb‐06
11‐Apr‐06
30‐M
ay‐06
14‐Jul‐06
30‐Aug‐06
16‐Oct‐06
1‐Dec‐06
19‐Jan
‐07
7‐M
ar‐07
24‐Apr‐07
8‐Jun‐07
25‐Jul‐07
10‐Sep‐07
25‐Oct‐07
11‐Dec‐07
30‐Jan
‐08
17‐M
ar‐08
6‐M
ay‐08
20‐Jun‐08
6‐Aug‐08
22‐Sep‐08
6‐Nov‐08
23‐Dec‐08
11‐Feb‐09
30‐M
ar‐09
18‐M
ay‐09
3‐Jul‐09
19‐Aug‐09
5‐Oct‐09
19‐Nov‐09
8‐Jan
‐10
24‐Feb‐10
14‐Apr‐10
1‐Jun‐10
16‐Jul‐10
1‐Sep‐10
18‐Oct‐10
2‐Dec‐10
21‐Jan
‐11
9‐M
ar‐11
27‐Apr‐11
14‐Jun‐11
29‐Jul‐11
14‐Sep‐11
31‐Oct‐11
15‐Dec‐11
3‐Feb‐12
21‐M
ar‐12
9‐M
ay‐12
25‐Jun‐12
9‐Aug‐12
24
today. Also their growth ought to continue until 2050, when they should reach 180
euros per CO2 emitted tonne. High level of costs is justified with discontinuities in
climate change processes – as emerging economies are not that interested from CO2
prevention, additional emissions produced in developed economies have considerably
larger effects. So, marginal costs are then relatively high and do not follow incremental
cost development. However, despite all of bleak and high cost forecasts of the future,
fact is that today CO2 emissions are trading at lowest point possible in all scenarios
proposed by DG Regional (2008) and Maibach et al. (2008). Actually these publications
forecasted that around seven euros was to be the lowest possible low in year 2010. This
translates that most of investment projects in EU area in transportation infrastructure or
heavy industries, having their reasoning on lower emissions, are producing much lower
payoff than was originally planned. Therefore, in current environment their profitability
is rather questionable, even in the long term. Recently we have received opinions from
experts of emission trading that EU should radically decrease the amount of sold
emission rights in order to secure greener future. With current levels e.g. a bit greener
coal in energy production is better alternative than other less polluting options, like gas
(Evans, 2012). However, it should be reminded that there exists research works, which
argue that in Europe CO2 tonne cost should be around 4-20 euros (Quinet & Vickerman,
2004) in the early period of CO2 reduction adaption (pre 2020 world). So, maybe
current rather lowly valued emission cost is just reflecting easier demands before the
year 2020, but this will drastically change as we proceed towards ambitious goal of year
2050.
2.3. Environmental Pressure Is on: Very Low Level of Sulphur Emissions Results on Higher Transportation Costs
Regarding to other emissions, there has been much talk around e.g. in Finland from new
sulphur oxide regulations of shipping in the Baltic Sea. Based on new directive, Baltic
Sea together with North Sea and English Channel are three areas in Europe within the
new very low sulphur emission area with demand of 0.1 % maximum emissions from
year 2015 onwards. Simultaneously e.g. Mediterranean area is getting much lower
emission restriction to start with (0.5 %). Whole emission debate arises from the used
25
fuel – in sea transport it has been extremely dirty graded fuel in order to ensure lowest
possible fuel cost in operations. New regulations will force shipping companies to start
using one of the finest grades of fuel or then invest in still not in large-scale
implemented sulphur scrubber technology. In medium term it is assumed that scrubbers
will not be available for all and implementation is not going to be easy. Therefore,
prices of freight will increase due to higher fuel costs (these will basically double in
conservative scenario). It is estimated that for Finnish freight having destination in
Central Europe low sulphur requirement would correspond increase of 30-40 % for
current sea transport costs (Kalli et al, 2009). Central European research works
(Delhaye et al., 2010) have estimated a bit lower cost increases (20-30 %), but of course
route mix was more diverse (Finland is hurt most by its peripheral location).
Research argues that implementation of 0.5 % level at Baltic Sea would be resulting in
much more conservative price increases (Kalli et al., 2009), but would also result on
much lower emissions as compared today’s situation (shipping at Baltic Sea has already
used fuel having sulphur content of 1.5% from year 2006 onwards and 1.0 % from July
2010 onwards). It should be noted that in IMO’s action plan the whole world will
implement low sulphur regulation of 0.5 % from year 2020 onwards. Interestingly IMO
has not stated any further actions to achieve the level, where e.g. Baltic Sea is demanded
to be already from year 2015 onwards.
Increasing transportation costs is not minor issue for the heavy industry factories
located in Finland. They already pay much higher price to exist in periphery, and
proportional logistics costs are high to reach customers in Central Europe. Also the
financial soundness of these factories is not the best possible one – all three major forest
industry companies are currently profitable (UPM, 2012; Stora Enso, 2012, Metsä
Board, 2012), but we are talking here from EBIT (%) in single digit. Please do note that
this profitability has been achieved with heavy restructuring in Finland and placement
of pulp and paper factories nearer of cheap raw material (e.g. Latin America) and
emerging markets (Asia, particularly China). Steel producers Outokumpu and
Rautaruukki, important customers also in logistics industry, are experiencing already
difficult times. Recently their profitability has faded away (Outokumpu, 2012;
Rautaruukki, 2012), and both are undergoing restructuring processes (both have lost
26
from their stock market valuation in five year period approx. 85 %!). It is rather
questionable what is the future of Finnish operations, if logistics costs of sea transport
are about to increase 30-40 %. Actually increase could be even higher, since based on
studies highest price is paid in sulphur emission change by heavy industry actors (bulky
items with low sales price). We are not talking here only about factories, but negative
feedback loop from their problems will reach sea ports, road transport, railways
stevedoring, warehousing and sea vessel operators. In most bleak scenario we have
numerous bankruptcies on the way, and vicious long business cycle ahead.
2.4 Growth and Decline – Different Faces of Helsinki Sea Port
In one angle, sea port of Helsinki is growing, if we talk about passenger transports and
related services. Last year Helsinki was serving more than 10 million passengers, most
of these in the route of Helsinki-Tallinn (7.3 million). As Finland is remote place with
low population in periphery, then passenger traffic is tied to freight transport due to the
shipping profitability reasons (either one alone is not having enough justification for
high frequency). Therefore, it is not surprising to find out that Helsinki as a sea port is
dominant player in truck and semi-trailer handling (Figure 2). Actually it is larger than
all of its rivals combined – this situation has persisted from year 2007 onwards. For
passengers and truck based freight sea port is still clearly on growth track, in long and
short term.
Described growth is not only increasing handling amounts of road vehicles on freight
category. Strikingly rapid and also alarming growth is the transport of cars in ropax
ferries (Figure 3). After its initial public offering to Tallinn Stock Exchange, Tallink
Group has recorded continuously increasing car handling at Helsinki-Tallinn route (data
gathered from press releases in Figure 3). Growth is having of course clear linear
component, but also seasonal fluctuation, having peak in summer vacation month, July.
It is worth to notice that this growth has been around even in the mid of credit crisis,
which changed basically every other aspect of our global transportation system. In most
recent 12 month period (Aug.2011-July.2012) amount of car handling increased above
750 thousand units. This is the situation only regarding to one ferry operator (leader),
27
including others (Eckerö and Viking Line) and we will have clearly above 1 million cars
handled in year 2011 (Tapaninen, 2012).
Figure 2. Trucks and semi-trailers handled in Finnish sea ports during period of 2000-2011. Source: Finnports (2012).
Even if trucks and semi-trailers are experiencing overall strong growth (Figure 2), this
is not that unevenly distributed among different options (roro, ropax and different
routes). For example, Tallink group reports similar growth levels as general aggregates
show (Figure 4) and is having currently 50 % market share from truck and semi-trailer
traffic between these two cities (Tapaninen, 2012 for overall volume). So, ropax vessel
alternative is not super popular in a sense like it is among transporting of cars. However,
there exists possibility that this could be changing. From year 2015 onwards sulphur
regulation of IMO and EU will increase sea based transportation cost from Finland to
Europe with 30-40 % (e.g. Kalli et al., 2009), and could considerably increase the
popularity of short distance ropax options. In Figure 4 we may see one anomaly for this
0.00
100,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
500,000.00
600,000.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Helsinki
Naantali
Turku
Hanko
HaminaKotka
Rauma
Oulu
Kemi
Uusikaupunki
Vaasa
28
from March 2010, when stevedoring strike in Finland stopped the handling at all sea
ports. This only with exception of ropax vessels, where drivers do the actual loading
and unloading work. Monthly handling amounts spiked from Feb.2010 with nearly half,
and reached nearly the level of 12,000 units handled. This sort of spike is possibility in
the post 2015 world, where hinterland transports replaces sea transport to/from Europe.
There is already strong evidence that current volumes of Helsinki-Tallinn routes are
serving foreign trade of other than Finnish-Estonian axel (Sundberg et al., 2011). So,
readiness and use is already in the place. We could also find some evidence (Figure 5)
that truck and semi-trailer flows through Helsinki are more valuable as weight
difference to Finland on the average is nearly one ton per transported unit.
Figure 3. Passenger cars traveling (monthly) between Estonia and Finland within Tallink-Silja ferry line during period of Sept.2005-July.2012. Source (data): Tallink (2012)
y = 717.76x + 10389R² = 0.788
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
29
Figure 4. Cargo unit volume (monthly) between Estonia and Finland within Tallink-Silja ferry line during period of Sept.2005-July.2012. Source (data): Tallink (2012)
Figure 5. Average truck/trailer freight weight handled in Finnish sea ports. Source (data): Finnports (2012)
y = 26.025x + 8029.5R² = 0.1931
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
9 101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.00
13.50
14.00
14.50
15.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
AVER per trailer, Finland
AVER per trailer, Helsinki
30
Figure 6. Container handling (Twenty feet Equivalent Units, TEUs) in Finnish sea ports during period of 2000-2011. Source: Finnports (2012)
Declining part of the Helsinki sea port is its container handling. Volumes of today are
barely above year 2000 level (Figure 6). In the same period of time volumes of
HaminaKotka and Rauma have more than doubled in this category. Actually eastern
transit specialized HaminaKotka reached before global credit crisis level of 800,000
TEU (above 2.5 times more to base period). It could be rightly argued that Helsinki has
been on declining market share path in container handling for the entire observation
period, and volumes have steadily continued their decline from year 2004 onwards. This
is worrisome trend, since sea port has been specialized only on general cargo and
passenger transport – dry and liquid bulk do not have any major role. So, from one
angle sea port of Helsinki is growing, and on the other, it is on the decline.
0.00
100,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
500,000.00
600,000.00
700,000.00
800,000.00
900,000.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
HaminaKotka
Helsinki
Rauma
Hanko
Oulu
Pori
Kokkola
Tornio
Turku
Kemi
Raahe
Pietarsaari
Lappeenranta
Naantali
31
2.5. General Cargo in Tallinn Sea Port: Opportunities Lie Ahead
Examining sea port of Tallinn through general tonneage amounts will not give correct
picture for our purposes as we are interested from general unitized cargo in this research
work – role of oil and in parts dry bulk is just too significant (e.g. Hilmola, 2011a; Hunt,
2009). Already in the earlier sub-section we concluded that passenger traffic between
Tallinn and Helsinki is massive, and so is the accompanied car and truck/trailer traffic.
Sea port of Tallinn is not entirely dependent on Finnish and Helsinki flows, but they
play an important role. For example, still today more than 80 % from ferry passengers
originate from Finnish route and similar share (>70 %) of transport vehicles (semi-
trailers and trucks) in sea ports are having connection with Finland (either to or from).
So, we do not need to repeat earlier observations: Growth is in place in semi-trailers and
trucks. Actually their volume was in parts hurt by credit crunch, but earlier peak volume
(year 2007) has already been by-passed in year 2010. Should be noted that port of
Tallinn is not only located in Tallinn area – operations are wide spread to e.g. Paldiski
and Saaremaa. However, remote locations role in containers and trucks/semi-trailers is
limited.
Container flows nowadays between Helsinki (or Finland) and Tallinn are rather
minimal, so performance of Tallinn is rather independent from Finnish volumes.
Actually container handling volumes at sea port of Tallinn have progressed very
strongly upwards during observation period shown in Figure 7. Even in most recent
year 2012 volumes have been robustly increasing, situation where European economic
problems are well-known and ought to affect every part of the transportation system.
Development has been impressive as during year 2004 sea port exceeded level of
100,000 TEU, and is now approaching in forthcoming years one fourth of million TEU.
32
Figure 7. Amount of containers (TEUs) handled in the sea port of Tallinn during the period of 1999-2012 (* last year is forecast based on six first months). Source: Port of Tallinn (2012)
It could be argued that railway transport is having main role in this very promising
progress. As is shown in Figure 8 growth of particularly export containers has not eased
at all – performance of rail based chain is strong. Surprisingly import of empty
containers is another growth sub-class in railways. These both volumes do not
necessarily arise from Estonian economy (exports have increased anyway significantly
in previous years), but most probably some east transit is affiliated with them. Based on
statistics one fourth of containers handled in all Estonian sea ports are transit type.
0.00
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012*
33
Figure 8. Amount of containers (TEUs) transported to and from sea ports by rail in Estonia. Source: Statistics Estonia (2012)
Progress in general cargo in Tallinn is promising, but sulphur regulation change could
even provide platform for further growth. This would concern both containers and
trucks/semi-trailers. Reasoning is simple: As freight rates at sea increase by 30-40 %,
sea transportation is going to be minimized in numerous transportation groups. This
particularly in the case of cargo originating to/from Finland. Even if Tallinn in
traditional sense is not optimally located as compared to Swedish hinterland route, its
performance shall improve substantially as numerous ferries operating between Sweden,
Denmark, Poland and Germany are not any longer that viable option. This is illustrated
in Table 4 with ferry connected Fehmarn route (Denmark and Germany) and hinterland
dominated Jutland. Differences get better for Tallinn’s benefit.
0.00
5,000.00
10,000.00
15,000.00
20,000.00
25,000.00
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Exported full containers
Exported empty containers
Imported full containers
Imported empty containers
34
Table 4. Distances by road transport to selected German and Central European cities from Tallinn and Stockholm. Source (data): Google Maps (2012)
Even if numerous German destinations are not viable in the new hinterland dominated
setting either (kms travelled), Swedish route competitiveness is still questionable. This
in a case for cargo originating from Helsinki sea port’s sphere of influence. Reason is
simple: Sea journey from Helsinki to Stockholm is more than 400 km longer than to
Tallinn. As sea transportation is already now having much higher cost than plain road
transport, then Tallinn is basically competitive to all Table 4 cities. Not necessarily
being rational or right choice in environmental sense or amount of kilometers travelled,
but in post 2015 world competitiveness of sea transport is going to be severely hurt.
This will change old habits in radical manner.
Distance (km) Difference (km)
City Tallinn Stockholm (Fehmarn) Stockholm (Jutland) Stockholm (Fehmarn) Stockholm (Jutland)
Berlin 1486 1074 1392 ‐412 ‐94
Hamburg 1775 978 1120 ‐797 ‐655
Düsseldorf 2087 1368 1502 ‐719 ‐585
Cologne 2099 1396 1530 ‐703 ‐569
Frankfurt 2072 1463 1608 ‐609 ‐464
Stuttgart 2157 1627 1772 ‐530 ‐385
Munich 2105 1747 1892 ‐358 ‐213
Wien 1659 1946 2090 287 431
Warsaw 975 1816 1982 841 1007
Budapest 1677 2141 2286 464 609
Berlin: via Trelleborg to Travemunde
35
3. Assumptions and Parameter Values of Empirical Part
The goal of this study is to examine and compare different transportation concepts
between Helsinki and Tallinn in terms of their prices, costs, use of time, energy
consumption, and CO2 emissions. Five different transportation chains are being
examined and compared: Waterborne transportation by ferry (ropax), roro ship,
container ship or railship, and transportation via railway tunnel.
The comparison of different transportation chains is made by assuming that one has 200
units of cargo that are to be transported between the two locations. For each
transportation concept, these 200 units of cargo can be loaded in semi-trailers and/or
FEUs in different combinations (see Table 5). All possible ways of loading are being
studied for each transportation concept. For ferries, roro ships and railships, this also
includes loading a combination of semi-trailers and FEUs. When this scenario is
examined, the share of cargo units allocated to semi-trailers and FEUs are the same
(”complex” unit approach was used for calculations, which means that each unit
consists of one FEU and one semi-trailer). The scenario of loading different cargo units
on a vessel is not applied to container ships, as they can only be loaded with containers.
Table 5. Ways to load cargo for different transportation concepts
Alternatives
Ferry (ropax)
Roro ship
Container ship
Railship Railway tunnel
Semi-trailers, with cabin X X Semi-trailers, without cabin X X Semi-trailer on flatcar, with cabin X X Semi-trailer on flatcar, without cabin
X X
FEU X FEU on platform, with cabin X X FEU on platform, without cabin X X FEU on mafi roll trailer, without cabin
X X
FEU on flatcar X X
For all transportation chains, both hinterland operations and the actual transportation
process itself were studied.
36
3.1.Calculation of CO2 Emissions for the Transportation Process
VTT LIPASTO
The calculation of CO2 emissions per cargo unit for the transportation process between
Helsinki and Tallinn by sea was being made using the initial data on CO2 emissions
from the VTT Lipasto (2011) calculation system and database. VTT Lipasto (2011)
contains models for different modes of transport, including data about CO2 emissions
(g/ship km) for different vessels with given characteristics in Finland. The system uses
information from different official sources, and results of calculations are used as
official information on emissions for Finland. (VTT Lipasto, 2011)
VTT Lipasto (2011) database provides data on total vessel’s emissions per one km of
trip. Following logic of the VTT Lipasto (2011), it was assumed that calculations were
done as follows: knowing total emissions per one km and deriving it on carrying
capacity of the vessel, emissions per unit were calculated and then, using data on
average unit load (in case of semi-trailers or FEU), emissions per tonne-km were
derived. Total emissions of vessels (g/ship km) were used in the present calculations.
VTT Lipasto’s (2011) Assumptions:
All VTT Lipasto (2011) unit emission figures include the emissions emitted both en route and in ports
Utilization (fillrate) of container ship is 65 %
Share of empty units FEU: 23 %
Utilization (fillrate) of roro and ropax ship is 80 %
Share of empty units of semi-trailers: 15%
For ferries (ropax): 20% of emissions are allocated to freight
Average specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC) of main engines in waterborne traffic: 190 g/kW h
CO2 emission heavy fuel oil = 3,188 g/g fuel consumption
Railship’s emissions assumed to be equal to emissions of roro vessels
Container freight train is having 2000 tons of weight
Example vessels
These calculations are mainly based on weight approach, which will be described
below. In this approach it is assumed that vessel emissions correspond to the total
37
weight of vessel. Accordingly connection weight of vessels should be known. To get the
weight figures example vessels were used for the current calculations. Data on light
weight of vessels (weight of vessel herself, equipment, fuel, water and provision stocks)
is not usually published due to commercial reasons, thus weights of vessels had to be
calculated.
Vessels were chosen according to several parameters predetermined (used) by VTT
Lipasto (2011) database, such as Deadweight Ton, Gross Tonnage, carrying capacity,
and speed. This was also done for the purpose of using the VTT Lipasto (2011) data as
an initial data for making the calculations. Assuming that example vessels have
approximately the same as above mentioned parameters, data on ship emissions has
been taken as input data for further calculations. It should be mentioned, that for
railships not only data from VTT Lipasto (2011), but also another estimate based on the
HFO consumption for CO2 emissions per ship km was used (Uljanik, 2012).
Information on vessels characteristics was gathered from different sources such as
official web-sites of shipyards, shipping lines, traffic trackers, containerization yearbook
etc. Vessel data can be found from Table 6.
Table 6. Input data for used example vessels.
Type of vessel Roro ship
Ferry (ropax)
Container ship
Container ship
Railship
Name of vessel MS
Estraden MS Viking XPRS MS Sungai Mas MS Alana -
Length [m] 162.70 170.13 133.00 149.10 147.00
Breadth [m] 25.20 27.70 21.00 22.50 18.30
Draught/draft [m] 6.60 6.75 6.10 8.70 4.50
Block coefficienti [unitless] 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59
Speed [knot] 19.00 25.00 13.5 18.5 14.00
Lane meters [m] 2 300.00 1 000.00 - - -
Capacity passengers [units] - 2 500.00 - - -
Capacity passenger cars [units] - 240.00 - - -
Capacity TEU [units] - - 500 1 008 -
Capacity TEU 14t [units] - - 406 720 -
Capacity railway wagons [units] - - - - 52.00
Consumption heavy fuel oil [tonnes/24 hours]
- - - - 17.40
38
As typically container ship size visiting in Finland is roughly 500 TEU, then VTT
Lipasto’s assumption of 1000 TEU ship needed to be downgraded to half. We used as
example ship MS Sungai Mas, and fuel consumption formula from Cullinane & Khanna
(1999: 193). Based on completed calculations, we were able to gain information that
fuel consumption and directly related CO2 emissions are 70 % in 500 TEU ship as what
they are in twice larger. Even if emissions are at ship level 30 % lower, 50 % lower
container amount leads to a bit higher emissions.
Input data transport units
Present task implicates consideration of unitized cargo transportation, where units are
FEU (forty feet equivalent unit container) and semi-trailers. Statistical information from
Finnish ports was used to figure out average load of FEU and semi-trailers transshipped
through them to correlate the calculations with real situation. Average load was
calculated for period of 2003-2011. Results are presented in Table 7. As different
scenarios of units transportation were supposed to be considered by the task, different
combinations and dimensions of means of transportation has been taken into
consideration: Semi-trailers with/without cabin, short/long flat cars, and mafi roll
trailers (Table 8 and Table 9).
Table 7. Average load of FEU and semi-trailers, Finnish ports’ data.
Item Average weight of load [kg]
FEU 16 690 Semi-trailer 13 850
Table 8. Transport units’ dimensions.
Item FEU Semi-trailer Cabin Short flatcar Long flatcar Platform Mafi roll trailer
Outside length [m] 12.19 13.60 3.40 14.62 25.52 12.40 12.19
Net weight [tonnes] 4.00 5.20 7.85 22.00 33.50 5.20 6.80
Payload [tonnes] 26.00 27.00 - 72.00 - - -
39
Table 9. Different intermodal loading units’ average load in Finnish ports in years 2003-2011 (average weight with load incl. empty units, 23 % for FEU and 15 % for semi-trailers).
Item Length [m]
Net weight [tonnes]
Gross weight [tonnes]
Average weight with load [tonnes]
Semi-trailers, with cabin 17.00 13.05 40.05 24.82
Semi-trailers, without cabin 13.60 5.20 32.20 16.97
Semi-trailer on flatcar, with cabin 25.52 46.55 73.55 58.32
Semi-trailer on flatcar, without cabin 14.62 27.20 54.20 38.97
FEU 12.19 4.00 30.00 16.85
FEU on platform, with cabin 15.80 17.05 43.05 29.90
FEU on platform, without cabin 12.40 9.20 35.20 22.05
FEU on mafi roll trailer 12.19 10.80 36.80 23.65
FEU on flatcar 14.62 26.00 52.00 38.85
Other input data
For all calculations, the distance for sea route between Helsinki and Tallinn has been set
to 84 km. Also, a sea water density of 1005 kg/m3 has been used for the Gulf of Finland.
For the calculations of CO2 emissions for ferries where the weight of passengers and
passenger cars are taken into account, average weight used for these units are 100 kg
and 1500 kg respectively.
3.2.Calculation of CO2 Emissions for the Hinterland Processes
VTT LIPASTO
The calculation of CO2 emission for trucks was completed with data from VTT Lipasto
(2011) regarding CO2 emissions for urban driving of semi-trailer combination. Using
MS Excel linear progression for CO2 emissions (dependence of emissions on
truck’s/semi-trailers capacity utilization) was created, which allowed calculating
emissions for every load share. Data for most common cases is represented in Table 10.
40
Table 10. CO2 emissions for urban driving. Source: VTT Lipasto (2012)
Capacity utilization [%]
CO2 emission [g/km]
0 % 117370 % 1558100 % 1723
Data from sea ports
The calculation of CO2 emissions for trucks made use of estimates for the average
distances travelled within port area (this was compiled by the authors). These estimates
were created by comparing the knowledge of how equipment travelled within ports that
was obtained during port visits (described in the following). Actual distances within the
ports were obtained from sea port specific maps, which are available on official web-
sites with scales.
Table 11. Distances in Vuosaari (Helsinki) and Muuga (Tallinn) sea ports.
Distance Vuosaari [km]
Distance Muuga [km]
Entry of port to parking lot 0.30 1.90 Rail track to parking lot 0.30 2.10 Parking lot to vessel 1.40 0.30 Entry of port to container yard 1.50 3.00 Rail track to container yard 0.30 3.10 Container yard to vessel 0.30 0.70
In Table 11 is presented distances of Vuosaari and Muuga for truck and container.
Noteworthy is that Vuosaari is having much better layout in terms of distances travelled
in port area (with one exception Muuga’s distances are greater). This corresponds to
lower emissions in the hinterland operations. Also capacity of used equipment and lead
time ought to be better in shorter option.
41
Data from producers of port equipment
The calculations of CO2 emissions for hinterland operations have combined data for
fuel and energy consumption with average handling capacity for different port handling
equipment. Calculations were done per one cargo unit (in this case one cargo unit means
one FEU or one semi-trailer). Data for fuel and energy consumption for reach stackers
(RS), straddle carriers (SC), shuttle carriers (SHC) and ship-to-shore (STS) cranes were
obtained from producers of port equipment (also in part with stevedoring company
contact) by contacting them via e-mail and by phone. Data is presented in Tables 12 and
13.
Table 12. Input data reach stacker (RS), straddle carrier (SC) and shuttle carrier (SHC). Source: Konecranes (2012)
RS SC/SHC Handling capacity [units/hour] 10.00 15.00 Fuel consumption [l/h] 15.00 20.00 CO2 emission [kg/l fuel consumption] 2.66 2.66
Table 13. Input data ship-to-shore (STS) crane.
STS Crane Handling capacity [units/hour] 25.00 Energy consumption per cycle [kWh] 2.00 CO2 emission [g/kWh] 201.76
Handling efficiency of STS crane could be a bit too high, since from earlier research
works we have concluded that handling efficiency in Helsinki and Muuga sea ports for
containers is roughly 15-20 units per hour (Hilmola et al., 2007). However, these
efficiency numbers arise from year 2007 data and thereafter working methods,
competition, management and used technology could have improved the situation.
Another explaining factor for the difference is that in earlier study STS crane efficiency
was gained from realized data, and it contains all the delays (shift changes, weekends
etc.) and disruptions experienced.
42
43
4. Different Scenarios Used and Procedures
4.1. Calculation of CO2 Emissions for the Transportation Process
The way that data are presented in the VTT Lipasto (2011) database has greatly
influenced how the CO2 emissions for the transportation process have been calculated in
this report. By taking the CO2 emission per ship kilometre as a starting point, the CO2
emissions per cargo unit were calculated in two different manners.
Description of first approach (varying of cargo weight), V1
The first approach assumed a linear relationship between vessel total weight and fuel
consumption/CO2 emissions. So, ship’s CO2 emissions varied based on cargo being
loaded into the ship. Lower the cargo on board, then CO2 emissions were a bit lower too
(please do note that remarkable amount from overall weight is other than cargo,
typically at least 50 % in other than container ships). However, at transportation unit
level CO2 emissions increase even with this approach as lower amount of transportation
units share the overall pollution. This first approach for calculating the CO2 emissions
per cargo unit for different vessel types is presented in Figure 9.
Some might argue against of this used approach as ships are having ballast water
pumped into structures as lower freight amounts are used. However, we would like to
emphasize that ballast water is mostly used on oceans and in situations where no cargo
is on board. Based on IMO (2012) amount of ballast water in general cargo ships is one
third or 40 % from DWT. This corresponds roughly the amount what we have cargo on
board in lowest scenarios. So, therefore we may counter argue that ballast water is used
in lower cargo utilization in very small scale. This debate about scale of ballast water
use could be continued endlessly, e.g. roro ships in Northern Europe favour fixed
ramps, which require ships to be at same load every time they enter these sort of quays.
44
Figure 9. Presentation of first approach for calculating CO2 emissions.
As for a number of example vessels displacement was not known, it was estimated by
using the following formula:
Eq. [1] Δ · · · ·
In this formula, L, B and T represent the length, breadth and draught/draft of the vessel.
For vessels where the length between perpendiculars (LBP) was given, this number was
used as L. If this was not the case, L was set equal to the total length of the vessel
(LOA). CB stands for block coefficient, while rho (ρ) represents the sea water density.
Find similar real vessel
Find suitable vessel in LIPASTO.
Estimate weight of
ship without cargo.
Estimate weights of a ship with different cargo fill rates.
Estimate CO2
emission [g/tonnes
ship weight]
Estimate CO2
emissions [g/cargo unit]
Estimate CO2
emissions [g/ 200
cargo units]
Estimate cargo weight
different fill rates.
Estimate maximum cargo weight
Estimate displacement of vessel
Find data for CO2 emission [g/skip km]
45
For roro vessels and ferries, the maximum cargo weight was estimated by multiplying
the vessel’s capacity for semi-trailers without cabin by the gross weight per semi-trailer
without cabin. For container vessels, the same number was estimated by multiplying the
vessel’s capacity for TEU 14 t (assumption of the Containerization International, 2010)
by 14 tonnes. For railships, the maximum cargo weight was estimated by multiplying
the vessel’s capacity for flatcars by the gross weight per flatcar, where vessel’s capacity
was multiplied with the number of wagons the vessel can transport on their length
(length of the wagons was provided in the vessels description on the official web-site of
shipyard). Having the vessel’s displacement and maximum weight of cargo at hand, the
weight of ship without cargo was estimated by subtracting the maximum weight of
cargo from the vessel’s displacement. For all vessels, data for average load for semi-
trailers and FEU in Finnish sea ports from 2003 to 2011 was used when estimating the
weight of cargo with varying fill rates.
For the first approach for calculating CO2 emissions per cargo unit, there exist therefore
two different calculations for railship vessel type: In addition to using data from VTT
Lipasto (2011), CO2 emission (g per ship-km) was also estimated by using the given
fuel consumption of the example vessel.
Description of the second approach, V2
The second approach assumed that vessels fuel consumption/CO2 emissions are
independent of the utilization of cargo space, and that ballast water and other factors
even out the influence of varying cargo weight. In this approach, CO2 emissions per
cargo unit were calculated by dividing the vessels total emissions on the varying
number of cargo units. The second approach for calculating the CO2 emissions per
cargo unit for different vessel types is presented in Figure 10.
As lower cargo levels do not get any compensation out of lower weight, then CO2
emissions at transportation unit level are always the same or higher than in V1
approach, except for above assumed utilization level from where total emissions and
fuel consumption are arising from (80 % in roro and ropax, while 65 % in container
ships). However, there is a danger that this approach will lead to unrealistically high
46
emission levels, which do not correspond reality (in low utilization levels). In opposite
case within very high utilization levels (above assumed utilization level from where
emission levels are originally taken) this approach will produce too low emissions.
Figure 10. Presentation of second approach for calculating CO2 emissions.
As in the first approach, two different ways of railship’s emissions calculations were
used. So, one was using roro characteristics (so roro ship just converted to railship), and
another one taken from one railship constructors website (Uljanik, 2012).
4.2. Calculation of CO2 Emissions for the Hinterland Processes
The ways different cargo types are handled at Vuosaari (Helsinki) and Muuga (Tallinn)
ports were used as a basis for the calculations of CO2 emissions per cargo unit for
hinterland processes. In these ports, the equipment used for loading and unloading the
different cargo types that are being examined in this report were identified as being
trucks, reach stackers (RS), straddle carriers (SC), shuttle carriers (SHC) and ship-to-
shore (STS) cranes (see Table 5). The CO2 emissions related to the hinterland processes
were therefore calculated by estimating the CO2 emissions for trucks, RS, SC, SHC and
Find real vessel with similar
characteristics to LIPASTO vessel.
Find suitable vessel in LIPASTO.
Calculate # of cargo units
with different cargo fill rates.
Estimate CO2 emissions
[g/cargo unit]
Estimate CO2 emissions [g/ 200 cargo units]
Find data for CO2 emission [g/ship km]
47
STS cranes respectively, and then combining these calculations in order to obtain the
CO2 emissions for the complete hinterland processes. Different hinterland operations
are presented in Table 14.
Table 14. Loading processes for the different ways to load cargo.
Alternative Loading process Semi-trailers, with cabin Transported to parking lot by truck and loaded to vessel by truck. Semi-trailers, without cabin Transported to parking lot by truck and loaded to vessel by truck.
Semi-trailer on flatcar, with cabin Transported to port siding (railway track) and loaded to vessel by diesiel locomotive shunter
Semi-trailer on flatcar, without cabin
Transported to port siding (railway track) and loaded to vessel by diesiel locomotive shunter
FEU Transported to container yard by truck, unloaded by RS/SC/SHC, taken to vessel by RS/SC/SHC and loaded to vessel by STS crane.
FEU on platform, with cabin Transported to container yard by truck, and taken to vessel by truck. FEU on platform, without cabin Transported to container yard by truck, and taken to vessel by truck. FEU on mafi roll trailer, without cabin
Transported to container yard by truck, unloaded to mafi roll trailer by RS, and loaded to vessel by truck.
FEU on flatcar Transported to port siding (railway track) and loaded to vessel by diesiel locomotive shunter
The CO2 emissions for trucks were calculated by combining emissions data for urban
driving of semi-trailers from VTT Lipasto (2011) with the average driving distances by
truck at Vuosaari and Muuga ports for the different cargo types that were shown earlier
in this report. The CO2 emissions for RS, SC and SHC were calculated by combining
the average fuel consumptions of every machine with the average CO2 emissions of the
fuel that is being used. The CO2 emissions of STS cranes were calculated by combining
the average energy consumption of the machine with an estimate for the CO2 emissions
of Finnish electricity production.
We have not taken into account in ship emissions the standstill mode at sea port.
Typically shipping lines keep engines on at sea port areas, even if the loading and
unloading is going on. This would increase emission levels of all sea based options
somewhat, but in the end standstill mode would result on very insignificant pollution
levels in overall perspective.
48
49
5. Sea Port Visits
5.1. Port of Helsinki, Vuosaari Harbour
Vuosaari Port of Helsinki started its operations in 2008. Port works with roro, ropax and
container vessels. Proportion of roro and container vessels (in terms of cargo tonnage)
has been around split of 60 % / 40 %. The port is the largest one from handling roro
vessels prospective, second – for container ships operations and again first from value
of cargo point of view within all ports of Finland. Port has maximum depth of 12.5
meters, thus main type of ships calling into are feeder vessels. Vuosaari’s role in bulk
cargo is minimal (few thousand tons per year).
During year 2011 the Port of Helsinki handled more than 520 thousand semi-trailers
(Vuosaari share a bit more than half from all Helsinki’s terminals) and handled more
than 390 thousand TEUs. Theoretical capacity of the port allows to process 20 vessels at
a time, and three operators are working in there. Unloading and loading process for roro
vessel takes 6 h in average. Roro vessels are staying in the port in average 2 – 12 hours
per day. In order to have some electricity during staying at the berth vessels do not turn
off their engines completely. Regularly, trucks coming to the port usually run 2 to 4 km
on the territory of the port. 2000 trucks are coming in and out of the port each day.
(About semi-trailer: one engine (truck itself) can bring to the port up to 10-20
semitrailers per day)
There are three main cargo groups in export cargo flows: paper/woods, machinery and
metals. These groups have approximately equal share in total volume. Export and
import cargo flows come from and are distributed mainly to the metropolitan area of
Helsinki, which is at radius of 150 km around the city (different warehouses and
manufacturers). Main volumes of cargo, which come to port from hinterland, are fed in
92% by trucks and in 8% by railway. Share of the railway transport could be increased
up to 25%. Volume of transit cargo traffic in Vuosaari port is few percents from total.
Nowadays only 40-50 % of port’s total capacity, which is of 20-25 million tonnes per
year, is being used. Trend for vessels is seen that the share of roro and ropax will
increase.
50
From ecological point of view, port requires the operating companies, which are located
and operating in its premises, to follow port’s environmental permits. In this permit
major attention is paid to noise issues rather than emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus,
port’s authorities do not influence the operators’ choice of loading equipment,
nevertheless, as port is newly constructed, many of them owns new equipment, which
meets modern requirements for fuel. The share of new bought equipment, which uses
electricity for operations, is 1/3 or even half.
In the harbour operates one small ”follow me” vessel, which is used for meeting and
escorting coming vessels, when weather conditions are hard or vessel is calling into the
port for the first time. During the summer time this ship is for the most of the time out
of operation, but is used much more often during the winter.
Port owns only the following infrastructure: roads, railway tracks, berths, port’s fields,
pipelines, electrical and telecommunication networks, as well as wlan network and
some technical buildings such as electrical substations. Port does not own cranes,
loading equipment or different types of vehicles. Port does not have any facilities for
dispatching of railships, because nowadays this kind of business is not profitable. This
option could be developed in case, if Rail Baltica Growth Corridor project will be
developed successfully.
Double run operations are used for loading and unloading of a vessel. For example, this
was observed at Steveco berth, when two gantry cranes loaded and unloaded containers
simultaneously. Those cranes use electricity for operation. Containers were delivered to
the cranes place by four straddle carriers, half of which uses fuel and another half
electricity. Steveco container yard has 2 ha space, at which containers are allocated in
lines, so straddle carriers are running around all the area of the container yard.
Main types of loading/unloading equipment, which is used in the port are: Reach-
stackers, straddle carriers, gantry cranes and harbour tractors.
Mafi trailers are owned by Finnsteve company (daughter company of Finnlines).
Finnsteve does not use mafi trailers often, they are mainly stored in the port. During the
visit it was observed, that there were several trailers loaded with oversized cargo, couple
of them was laden with containers, others were empty.
51
After containers and semitrailers have been stored in the port, they are loaded to the
vessels for further transportation. Trucks are loaded either by port tractor or by their
own engines (cabins). Containers on mafi roll trailers, which should be dispatched
further by roro vessels, are loaded by port tractors. Containers, which will be
transported by container ship are delivered by reach stacker/straddle carrier to the STS
crane place and then loaded by it to the vessel. Average capacity of STS cranes is 25
containers per hour. For example, Finnsteve has 4 STS cranes. Usually, 2 cranes are
used for loading of one vessel, but there are cases when 4 vessels could be loaded
simultaneously.
5.2. Port of Tallinn, Muuga Harbour
Visit to the Port of Tallinn was organized in the framework of this report and H-
TTransPlan project. The main goal of the visit was to find out, how the process of
unitized cargo handling in the port is going on in reality, what kind of handling
equipment and port infrastructure are involved in this process. The Port of Tallinn is
made up of five constituent harbours, and Muuga area, which is the biggest cargo
harbour in Estonia, was chosen for the visit. Mr. Margus Sitsi (business line manager of
general, dry and roro cargo), represented the port authorities and headed the excursion
around the Muuga harbour area.
Port of Tallinn Company is applying landlord principles for the territory nowadays. The
business model of port has been changed in the mid 1990s by switching from service
port type to landlord type. It means, that all cargo handling operations were given to
private operators, and overall amount of each exceeds 25 at the moment. Main business
activity of the Port of Tallinn is maintenance and development of infrastructure, leasing
territories to terminal operators, attraction of investments into the infrastructure and
superstructure development.
Port of Tallinn has both passenger and cargo traffic flows. It is the biggest port in the
region of Baltic States in terms of total volumes (passenger plus cargo). Old city
harbour (main passenger harbour) is one of the busiest harbours for passenger traffic in
the Baltic Region. Besides of passenger traffic, there is also roro cargo handled in Old
52
City harbor. Four shipping lines have regular services: Tallink, Eckerö Line, Viking
Line and St. Peter Line. They perform regular traffic on the following international
routes with connections to Helsinki, Mariehamn, Stockholm, St. Petersburg etc. Total
amount of passengers transported is still growing (even during previous years) and
according to information provided by the Mr. Sitsi, passenger business is a very
important part of the whole business model of the port, which showed growth even
during the crisis time.
Port’s freight operations include handling of different types of cargo: general, dry-bulk,
liquid, container, and roro cargo. Herewith loading of crude oil and oil products makes
approximately ¾ of all freight turnover in Muuga harbour. Main volume of these goods
come from Russia and Eastern Europe and is intended to be transported further to
Western Europe, America and Southeast Asia. Thus, harbour has lots of storage
facilities for handling transit cargo, which are under ownership and operation of number
of private operators. It was mentioned by Mr. Sitsi, that for this type of cargo port can
provide very good conditions for loading/unloading of vessels. For example, loading of
180000 tons of oil into tanker takes in average 3 days with interruptions (with total
vessel’s DWT of 300 000 tons). According to official information from the port’s
website, the maximum speed of loading of oil products is up to 8000 tons of cargo per
hour. Amount of cargo laden is restricted by the depth of the Danish Straits, so that all
the vessels going from/to the Baltic Sea can pass them – Muuga is not the constraint in
here. Draft in turn depends on the depth of the harbour, the deepest berth in Muuga
harbour is 18 meters with length of 340 m.
Also port’s operators in Muuga harbour have well developed facilities for handling
general cargo, such as bags, cartons, cases etc. One of the competitive advantages of the
Port, which allows attracting more cargo on its service, is its free customs zone.
Facilities for storage and handling of bulk cargo, such as coal, fertilizers, grain etc., are
well presented in the Muuga harbour. This type of cargo is also mostly transit.
Container and roro vessels are also loaded and unloaded in the Muuga harbour. There is
container yard meant for storage of empty and laden containers, also facilities for
handling of trucks and semi-trailers.
53
Taking into account introduction of IMO sulphur regulation in 2015, it is expected that
size of container vessels will increase. Nowadays port accepts feeder container vessels
only, but can accept ocean ships according to the existing draft (14.5 m). Roro vessels
are mainly loaded basically in Old Town harbour, but also in Paldiski Southern harbor
and Muuga harbour. Representative person hasn’t provided us with any specific
information concerning processing roro vessels (time of its loading/unloading, amount
of lifting equipment needed, average size of vessels etc.); this mostly due to the reason
that information could only be obtained from port’s private operators.
For handling containerized cargo there is different lifting equipment in the harbour. This
equipment belongs to different operator, working in Muuga under long-term contract,
whilst Port of Tallinn itself does not possess any lifting equipment. From overview of
the harbour, it was calculated that there are at least 3 of STS cranes, 9 of shuttle carriers
(different types), and 2 of reach stackers. Operator is also using number of RTG cranes
(rubber tire gantry cranes) at storage area and RMG (rail mounted gantry) at railway
loading area. Part of lifting equipment uses electricity for operations (i.e., gantry
cranes), part uses diesel engines. The proportion of adapted to electric power and
adapted to diesel power units is unknown and should be asked from the operators
directly.
As Muuga harbour has well developed railway infrastructure, operators organized
regular service on dispatching of container block-trains to Russia (Moscow),
Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Also new connection to Koper and Wien was put into
operation. Share of railway dispatches and supplies is growing, but its further
development depends on type, destinations and volumes of cargo. The port’s railway
infrastructure is connected directly to the Estonian Railway, which is a part of 1520 mm
railway network (Russia and Commonwealth of Independent States). Loading on
railway itself is cheaper as compared to trucks, but all additional shifts of cargo and
execution and processing of documentations might make the prices equal.
54
55
6. CO2 Emissions: Different Alternative Comparison and Overall Results
As it was mentioned before, different scenarios were used for CO2 emissions caused by
sea transportation of unitized cargo (see Table 15). For different types of vessels
number of scenarios of unitized cargo transportation was considered and results in
overall were consistent. As most pollution in Helsinki-Tallinn route is emitted at sea, it
is the most important issue that this transportation part is managed with best possible
efficiency. This means that truck cabins should not be taken to the ships (requires space
and adds weight). So, even if semi-trailers have lower payload than FEUs in the
following calculations, the latter is still least harmful for the environment (in most of the
situations, total weight of FEUs and semi-trailers is nearly the same, see Table 9).
Table 15. The worst and best scenarios for unitized cargo transportation by different types of vessels.
Type of Vessel Number of Scenarios Worst Scenario Best Scenario V1 – Overall Weight Affects on Fuel Consumption
Container ship 2 30% of ship utilization, 500 FEU ship
80% of ship utilization, 1000 FEU ship
Roro 9 30 % of ship utilization, 100 semi-trailers and 100 FEU on platform with cabin
80% of ship utilization, 200 FEU on platform without cabin or semi-trailers without cabin
Ferry (ropax) 9 30% of ship utilization, 200 semi-trailers with cabin
80% of ship utilization, 200 FEU on platform without cabin
Railship 5 30 % of ship utilization, 200 semi-trailers with cabin
80% of ship utilization, 200 semi-trailers on flatcar without cabin
V2 – Fuel Consumption is the Same No Matter What the Weight Is Container ship 2 30% of ship utilization, 500
FEU ship 80% of ship utilization, 1000 FEU ship
Roro 9 30% of ship utilization, 200 semi-trailers with cabin
80% of ship utilization, 200 FEU on mafi roll trailer
Ferry (ropax) 9 30% of ship utilization, 200 semi-trailers with cabin
80% of ship utilization, 200 FEU on platform or on mafi roll trailer without cabin
Railship 5 30 % of ship utilization, 200 semi-trailers with cabin
80% of ship utilization, 200 FEU on flatcar/200 semi-trailers on flatcar without cabin/100 semi-trailers and FEUs on flatcar without cabin
56
As it could be seen from Table 15, results differ in marginal extent with respect of the
type of the vessel. It is obvious, that the best scenarios are those, in which capacity
utilization is used as fully as it is possible, whether this capacity refers to the amount
(space used most efficiently) or weight of units. Such additional parts of units as, for
example, cabin for semi-trailers, increase the inefficiency of vessel capacity and lead to
higher level of emissions. Practically every worst scenario contains semi-trailer with
cabin in hand with low rate of ship utilization. Herewith, the lowest level of emissions
could be achieved by decreasing amount of “useless” parts during the transportation
process and increasing loading of vessels up to 80-100%.
The best type of sea vessel for cargo transportation on the route, according to the results
achieved, is container ship (Figures 11a & 11b as well as Figure 12a & 12b). In general
are notable sizable differences in CO2 emissions between competing transportation
chains – with low utilization levels differences between highest polluting and lowest
one widen considerably. All sea transportation options are weaker as compared to
railway tunnel in low utilization environment.
So, as a main conclusion we may argue that as transportation device from
environmental perspective we should favour container, but best situation is in sea
transport, if this container is on large container ship. However, it should be noted that in
overall perspective railway tunnel even beats container vessel (although it includes
numerous handling emissions, which could be automated further with the help of larger
volume). However, it should be noted that container ship in V2 scenario and with high
utilization is giving possibly unrealistically low emissions – this for the reason that
basic scenario of CO2 emissions was estimated with VTT Lipasto utilization rate. In V2
scenario higher utilization rates are assumed to consume same amount of fuel (and
correspondingly produce same amount of CO2) as it is the case with 65 % utilization,
and therefore higher loads will lead to unrealistically low CO2 values.
57
Figure 11a. CO2 emissions for different transportation chain alternatives (g of CO2 per unit), 200 FEU situation (most environmentally friendly nearly in all cases), V1 scenario and 80 % utilization level.
Figure 11b. CO2 emissions for different transportation chain alternatives (g of CO2 per unit), 200 FEU situation (most environmentally friendly nearly in all cases), V2 scenario and 80 % utilization level. *, railway tunnel performance is the same in both V1 and V2 scenarios
0.00
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
350,000.00
400,000.00
Roro Ferries (ropax)
Container ship
Railship 1 Railship 2 Railway tunnel
Hinterland Operations
Transportation
0.00
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
350,000.00
400,000.00
450,000.00
500,000.00
550,000.00
Roro Ferries (ropax)
Container ship
Railship 1 Railship 2 Railway tunnel*
Hinterland Operations
Transportation
58
Container ship can be loaded with containers only. Containers have the lowest net
weight with average loading roughly equal to loading of semi-trailers. This means, that
containers can use vessel’s capacity more efficiently rather than semi-trailers (in case of
e.g. roro). Calculations showed that there is exponential dependence of amount of CO2
emissions on carrying capacity of container ships. This dependence shows that the level
of emissions decreases with increasing of the capacity dramatically. For example, CO2
emissions of 500 TEU vessel make up 68-70% of emission level of 1000 TEU vessel.
At the same time the worst capacity utilization and highest CO2 emissions belong to
railships. The main reason is that besides the cargo unit itself railship carries railway
wagons, which have net weight even higher than the average load of FEU or semi-
trailer (wagon weight of 22 and 33.5 tons; see Table 8).
Mixed scenario utilized 100 semi-trailers and 100 FEU for fulfilment of transportation
of 200 units of cargo and it did provide average amount of emissions. Level of
emissions is higher in case of transportation of semi-trailers with cabins, as cabins add
7.85 tonnes more of additional tare weight, and, consequently, level of emissions is
lower when semi-trailers are transported without cabins. Meanwhile, usage of mafi roll
trailers (MRT) for container transportation by roro vessels and ferries provides still less
emissions compare to semi-trailers with cabins, but more comparing to semi-trailers
without ones. This could be explained by the fact, that net weight of MRT is 1.6 tonnes
more than weight of semi-trailer’s platform. Semi-trailers without cabins option is
closer to cargo transportation in containers (or in some cases in total slightly better),
which are the most environmentally friendly from CO2 emissions point of view.
Therefore, conclusion as follows can be drawn. From CO2 emissions point of view in
case of new IMO sulphur regulation introduction shipping lines should adjust their
strategies towards increasing of the utilization rate of existing vessels as well as
attraction of more of containerized cargo to their services, as well as ports should
develop facilities and value added services for handling of such type of cargo.
59
Figure 12a. CO2 emissions for different transportation chain alternatives (g of CO2 per unit), 200 semi-trailers with cabin situation (maximum emissions; container ship, FEUs), V1 scenario and 30 % utilization level.
Figure 12b. CO2 emissions for different transportation chain alternatives (g of CO2 per unit), 200 semi-trailers with cabin situation (maximum emissions; container ship, FEUs), V2 scenario and 30 % utilization level. *, railway tunnel performance is the same in both V1 and V2 scenarios
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
1100000
1200000
1300000
1400000
Roro Ferries (ropax)
Container ship
Railship 1 Railship 2 Railway tunnel
Hinterland Operations
Transportation
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
2000000
2200000
2400000
Roro Ferries (ropax)
Container ship
Railship 1 Railship 2 Railway tunnel*
Hinterland Operations
Transportation
60
Among sulphur regulation change, we may face in the future CO2 emission payment at
sea and in the entire transportation process. With current low price levels of emission
rights, extra costs incurred in Helsinki-Tallinn route are not that high. For example, in
Figure 12a highest polluted amount per unit is 1.3 tons. This would correspond with
CO2 ton cost 7.6 euros in total to 9.88 euros. In turn option emitting 0.3 tons would cost
2.28 euros, and 0.05 tons would in turn be 0.38 euros. These sums are not large, even if
multiplied with annual volumes (e.g. 250 thousand: 2.47 mill. euros, 0.57 mill. euros
and 0.095 mill. euros). However, if emissions rights would cost 50 euros or even 100
euros per ton and traffic amounts would be double from current situation, then these
costs would matter. We are talking in this worst scenario about tens of millions per year
as additional cost (0.3 tn/unit would be 15 million euros p.a. with 100 euros/tn CO2
price). With highest forecasted CO2 price of 180 euros per ton, worst options would
result on more than 100 mill. euros additional cost per year.
6.1. Railway Part – Detailed Analysis Considering Utilization Sensitivity from Transportation Emissions
Regarding to railway options, in our emission calculations were revealed that railway
tunnel option, in other words electrified journey of distance 84 km with freight train is
the most environmentally friendly alternative. However, this observation also “depends”
from the used transportation device for freight, and from train length (lower utilization
of railway service, wagons are just not travelling in between). Generally in studies it has
been verified with real data that entire train energy consumption declines with
exponentially distributed manner (per weight unit of course; entire train consumes
increasingly more energy with higher weights; Lindgreen & Sorenson, 2005; Parajuli,
2005). However, mostly in our example (except very low utilization freight trains), and
in reality in general, train weights are between 1000 to 2000 tons. In this area
exponentially declining consumption reminds linear one. So, we have assumed that
tonne-km fuel consumption per unit goes in half as train size changes from 500 tons
train to 2000 tons (this is similar with Lindgreen & Sorenson, 2005: 107-110).
Varying situation regarding to CO2 emissions of railway tunnel alternative is illustrated
in Figure 13. As a pragmatic guideline it could be stated that freight trains should have
61
needed length, and they should weight somewhere around 1500-2000 tons to reach low
emission levels (this is reached in our example with utilization levels of 70-80 % and
30-40 wagons connected to train). Also transporting semi-trailers with truck engine is
rather questionable – additional non freight weight is added with cabin and their railway
wagon also has higher weight than in other options. Difference to FEU on flatcar (if
FEU is loaded as on the average) or semi-trailer on wagon level is rather large, approx.
20 tons. This weight is basically non value adding for the transportation service. This
also causes that 50 % / 50 % mix with more feasible alternatives (FEU or semi-trailer
on flatcar) is polluting nearly 50 % more in 80 % utilization scenario as compared to
situation, where 200 units of most feasible alternatives are used.
Figure 13. Railway tunnel transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn and its CO2 emissions per transported unit (g of CO2) without forming and loading work included.
‐
10,000.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
40,000.00
50,000.00
60,000.00
70,000.00
80,000.00
90,000.00
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON FLATCAR 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON
FLATCAR
100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100
FEU ON FLATCAR
62
Interpretation from more in-depth analysis of railship option is the same with railway
tunnel, even if it was in overall evaluation highest polluter per transported unit (depends
also partially on reference fuel consumption assumed, in Figure 14 we have two options
R1 and R2). With semi-trailer and truck engine (cabin) and very high weighted special
wagon used emissions of this option increase two times higher as compared to FEU on
flatcar or semi-trailer on flatcar (Figures 14 & 15). Basically from environmental
perspective semi-trailers with cabin should not be transported in either of the railway
options at all – even mixing these with 50 % / 50 % principle with much viable options,
railship option is about to pollute much more. This due to the reason that railship
emissions increase e.g. in 80 % scenario with more than 30 % (V1) and in the second
case 80 % utilization will have 10 % emission increase (V2) – in other words worst
performing alternative becomes even poorer choice.
Figure 14. Railship 1 (R1) and 2 (R2) transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn and its CO2 emissions per transported unit (g of CO2) without forming and loading work included (V1 scenario).
‐
200,000.00
400,000.00
600,000.00
800,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,600,000.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON FLATCAR 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON
FLATCAR
100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100
FEU ON FLATCAR
R1
R2
63
Figure 15. Railship 1 (R1) and 2 (R2) transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn and its CO2 emissions per transported unit (g of CO2) without forming and loading work included (V2 scenario).
There could of course be some other aspect than emissions, why e.g. railship is taken
into use. One of them could be avoiding large-scale infrastructure build-up in both sides
of the sea – for example if Rail Baltica alignment would serve Finnish export to Central
Europe, then loading could be done with infrastructure already available in Finland
(1524 mm – this in situation that Rail Baltica is implemented with old Russian standard)
and trains would return back e.g. loaded in Lithuanian and Polish border. However,
whatever the justification for railway use in Helsinki-Tallinn route, then in operational
sense volumes should be certain for the offered option, and trains should be long in
tunnel option and high utilization achieved in railship alternative. This means that
volume flexibility should be sacrificed and current modus operandi with e.g. ropax
ships would not be way of operating with rails (where lower utilization levels have not
been that serious issue until today).
‐
500,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON FLATCAR 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON
FLATCAR
100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100
FEU ON FLATCAR
R1
R2
64
6.2. Container Ship – Environmentally Friendly and More so with Larger Size
In overall analysis container ship option showed remarkably lower emissions than other
shipping alternatives. Generally container shipping is environmental option, and will
only increase so if larger ship sizes are being used. Typically in Finland and Estonia
container ships are feeder sized, and therefore they are within the range of couple of
hundreds to above 1000 TEU. These are really small ones as compared to Asian deep
sea serving options, which are now at maximum within the range of 12,000-14,000
TEU. Having these operating in Baltic Sea would be impossible technically, but also if
technical issues could be solved, then business wise these would be really difficult to
have profitable (in the end general cargo flows are thin in Baltic Sea, and couple of
large units would make them entirely inflexible).
However, container ship size change in feeder scale brings also very handsome benefits
for the nature. This is illustrated in Figures 16 and 17. With utilization rates of 70-80 %
and ship size of 1000 TEU, we could achieve approx. 40 thousand gram emissions per
FEU (please note caution that V2 scenario could result in too low emissions due to VTT
Lipasto’s low utilization rate of 65 %). This is roughly 12,000 grams above the level of
railway tunnel option. However, having this sort of vessel operating between Helsinki
and Tallinn would require more from management side: All container ships in Baltic
Sea go around of rings or stars, and they visit numerous different sea ports during the
journey. So, arranging large-scale ship would require collaboration with large hub sea
ports, like Hamburg, Bremen/Bremenhaven and/or Rotterdam. Also possibly fourth
country would be needed to be added on route, like Latvia. Having just one two point
route operated by 1000 TEU ships available in Helsinki-Tallinn route would be
basically infeasible, mostly due to business and operational reasons (two 1000 TEU
ships 100 % loaded in this two point route would need only 250 visits each to take care
of semi-trailer volume of today, corresponding to 125 visits in each port per ship).
Large ships (relatively, with respect of volumes) would be inflexible and having high
fixed costs in the beginning (as current volumes are so low) – increasing also business
risks way too high. However, this does not mean that two point traffic would not be
impossibility – ship size just needs to be small enough (maybe close to 500 TEU per
ship to minimize the business risks involved in the start up of operations).
65
Figure 16. Container ship transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn and its CO2 emissions per transported unit (g of CO2) without loading work included (V1 scenario).
Figure 17. Container ship transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn and its CO2 emissions per transported unit (g of CO2) without loading work included (V2 scenario).
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CONTAINER SHIP WITH CAPACITY OF 500 TEU/250 FEU CONTAINER SHIP WITH CAPACITY OF 1000 TEU/500 FEU
‐
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
140,000.00
160,000.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CONTAINER SHIP WITH CAPACITY OF 500 TEU/250 FEU CONTAINER SHIP WITH CAPACITY OF 1000 TEU/500 FEU
66
In very high utilization levels, like 90 % or 100 %, V2 scenario shows very low
emission amounts. These would be hard to achieve, since we assume in this scenario
that fuel consumption of container ship stays as the same, which it is at 65 % utilization
level. However, it could be rightly argued that around level of 40,000 CO2 grams per
cargo unit could be achieved, if high utilization is achieved and ship size is larger one.
Please do note that 1000 TEU is not maximal ship size in this route, even 1500 or 2000
TEU ship could be used. This ought to reduce emissions even further. Use of slow
steaming strategy to save fuel costs typically starts with container ships of having size
of 1000 TEU or larger (Cariou, 2011).
6.3. Ferry (ropax) Ship – Currently the Most Used Alternative
Ships combining passenger flows as well as roll on / roll off operations of vehicles at
rubber wheels are additional exception in environmental calculations. Main issue in here
is that ropax ferries are like small towns on the sea and their main operation is not
carrying cargo vehicles. It is nice addition and source of profit, but it is not the main
task. This could be illustrated that with the maximum cargo trailer amounts plus with
maximum amount of private cars on the board (including also the weight of people in
both), the weight from whole ship’s displacement is only approx. 15 %. Therefore, in
our CO2 estimates differences between scenarios of V1 and V2 were minimal (varying
amount of weight was rather insignificant as thinking about entire entity).
67
Figure 18. Passenger and cargo ferry (ropax) transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn and its CO2 emissions per transported unit (g of CO2) without loading work included (V2 scenario).
Most critical issue regarding to emissions on ropax option is the utilization of actual
cargo space on ship. As could be noted (Figure 18), utilization levels of 30 % to 40 %
produce significantly higher amount of emissions. In worst cases, where non-value
adding cabin of the truck is also included (takes a lot of space and amount of
transportation units is much lower than in other cases), then we are approaching
emission levels of railship. Oppositely decent emission levels are being achieved, when
utilization levels on ships are high and transportation devices do not have traction unit
installed on them (without cabin). As length difference between semi-trailer (empty to
be carrying container) and mafi is so small, it is more or less the same, what is the
transportation unit being used.
‐
100,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
500,000.00
600,000.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER
68
6.4. Roro Ship – Slightly Better than Ropax
Difference between roro ship to ropax is in the dominance of cargo in ship design and
opearations. Therefore, from its displacement weight more could be cargo – in our
example ship it is one third. For this reason environmental soundness of this alternative
is a bit better than ropax. In our presented estimates this difference is 17-19 % for the
benefit of roro. We have included both situations (V1 and V2) in Figures 19 and 20.
Figure 19. Roro ship transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn and its CO2 emissions per transported unit (g of CO2) without loading work included (V1 scenario).
‐
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
350,000.00
400,000.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER
69
Figure 20. Roro ship transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn and its CO2 emissions per transported unit (g of CO2) without loading work included (V2 scenario).
As also earlier, utilization of ship becomes very important regarding to overall CO2
emissions. Again very low level utilization changes roro transportation alternative as
really polluting one, and reaches the level of railship. Story is also similar with
transportation device put into ship: If semi-trailers or containers are having also traction
included, then performance is deteriorating and amount of pollution is 25-30 % higher.
6.5. Analyzing All Possible Combinations with Most Probable Utilization Level
Earlier we have analyzed altogether lowest and highest utilization rates and completed
sensitivity analysis regarding to actual transportation task of each alternative. However,
this could be insufficient for practice. This due to the reason that in reality utilization of
ships at e.g. Helsinki-Tallinn route will have fillrates falling between extremes of 30 %
and 80 %. Therefore, in project with discussions of experts from the city of Helsinki, we
‐
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
350,000.00
400,000.00
450,000.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER
70
decided to complete through analysis from competing transportation chains with
utilization level of 50 %. This is actually more or less in line with previous research
work from Sweden, where shipping lines operating to Denmark and Norway were
operating in level of 40-50 % (anyway, utilization in many cases was just above 40 %;
see Styhre, 2010).
As has been concluded earlier, in actual transportation process FEU container is
unbeatable, and leads the entire evaluated spectrum of choices (Table 16a). However,
semi-trailer without cabin difference is not that wide in this selected utilization level,
and basically tradeoff with easier loading will in many cases make semi-trailer
performance close or even better than container (please do note that payload weight of
semi-trailer was 2.84 tons lower in semi-trailer as compared to FEU). Interestingly mafi
roll trailer is shown to be good in container transports, e.g. in case of roro and ropax.
This is due to the reason that mafi is 21 cm shorter than platform alternative carrying
FEU.
71
Table 16a. Emissions (CO2) of all transportation chain alternatives concerning main transportation task within Helsinki-Tallinn route as utilization is 50 % (g of CO2 per unit).
Transportation Chain Alternative Actual Transportation
Vessel Scenario Sea or Rail (v1) Sea or Rail (v2)
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 215767 239164
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 168769 190762
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 208800 222556
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 161818 174174
Roro 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 160814 170468
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 210766 228914
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 188774 205436
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 164999 182091
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 165942 182091
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 277574 286687
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 222190 230942
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 262784 268191
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 203134 207848
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 199178 202778
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 269893 277131
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 238185 244527
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 212098 218787
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 212472 218787
Container ship FEU 500 75391 87438
Container ship FEU 52690 62347
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 843228 1335334
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 496381 763048
Railship 1 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 496069 763048
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 719153 890223
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 516026 728364
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 394040 624001
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 231959 356572
Railship 2 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 231813 356572
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 336060 416001
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 241139 340364
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 62339
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 38706
Railway tunnel 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 38649
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 53324
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 37893
72
Table 16b. Emissions (CO2) of all transportation chain alternatives concerning hinterland operations within Helsinki-Tallinn route (g of CO2 per unit).
Denotation: RS (Reach Stacker), SC (Straddle Carrier), SHC (SHuttle Carrier), DLS (Diesel Locomotive Shunter), and STS (Ship To Shore crane)
Interesting is the finding that within 50 % utilization scenario differences between
transportation chains in CO2 total emissions become somewhat lower (proportionally;
see Table 16c) as compared to lowest utilization level situation (30 %). However,
general findings still persist: Container ship is best alternative from all shipping based
transportation chains, and roro as well as ropax options emit two to three times more.
Railship is again showing highest pollution levels. It is of course so that within the
entire alternative spectrum, railway tunnel beats all the shipping alternatives. However,
it should be noted that altogether with assumed hinterland operations (train forming),
semi-trailer is in 50 % utilization case (shorter train) best performing option from
railway tunnel chain alternatives.
Transportation Chain Alternative Hinterland Operations
Vessel Scenario Truck RS, SC and SHC STS DLS Forming of train
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 5862
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 5862
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 8267
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 8267
Roro 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 1503 7980
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 7064
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 3682 3990
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 7064
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 3682 3990 831
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 5862
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 5862
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 8267
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 8267
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 1503 7980
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 7064
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 3682 3990
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 7064
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 3682 3990
Container ship FEU 500 6764 7980 807
Container ship FEU 6764 7980 807
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 7279 7406
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 4732 7406
Railship 1 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 3496 22497
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 8912 14952
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 7014 14952
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 7279 7406
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 4732 7406
Railship 2 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 3496 22497
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 8912 14952
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 7014 14952
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 7406
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 7406
Railway tunnel 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 22497
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 14952
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 14952
73
Table 16c. Emissions (CO2) of all transportation chain alternatives in total within Helsinki-Tallinn route as utilization is 50 % (g of CO2 per unit).
What should be noted from this detailed analysis from all possible alternatives, is the
performance of hinterland operations regarding to semi-trailers (Table 16b). As these
are loaded horizontally (even using polluting truck diesel engine), the overall result is
comparatively good performance. Of course our hinterland operations assumptions are
maybe too harmful for e.g. containers as we assume that ship-to-shore crane is
electricity powered and other devices are using diesel engines. Container transportation
chains could do a lot by applying rigid practices of using only electricity power. Also
automation and direct loading to transportation device should be further developed
(without intermediate storing, which requires additional container movements).
Transportation Chain Alternative Total CO2 Emissions
Vessel Scenario Total (v1)
Hinterland
from total (v1) Total (v2)
Hinterland
from total (v2)
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 221629 2.6% 245026 2.4%
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 174631 3.4% 196624 3.0%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 217066 3.8% 230822 3.6%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 170085 4.9% 182441 4.5%
Roro 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 170297 5.6% 179951 5.3%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 217830 3.2% 235979 3.0%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 196446 3.9% 213108 3.6%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 172064 4.1% 189155 3.7%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 174445 4.9% 190594 4.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 283436 2.1% 292548 2.0%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 228052 2.6% 236804 2.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 271051 3.0% 276457 3.0%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 211401 3.9% 216114 3.8%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 208661 4.5% 212261 4.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 276958 2.6% 284195 2.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 245858 3.1% 252199 3.0%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 219163 3.2% 225851 3.1%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 220144 3.5% 226460 3.4%
Container ship FEU 500 90942 17.1% 102988 15.1%
Container ship FEU 68240 22.8% 77897 20.0%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 857913 1.7% 1350019 1.1%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 508518 2.4% 775186 1.6%
Railship 1 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 522062 5.0% 789041 3.3%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 743016 3.2% 914086 2.6%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 537993 4.1% 750330 2.9%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 408725 3.6% 638686 2.3%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 244096 5.0% 368710 3.3%
Railship 2 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 257806 10.1% 382565 6.8%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 359923 6.6% 439864 5.4%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 263105 8.3% 362330 6.1%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 69745 10.6%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 46112 16.1%
Railway tunnel 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 61147 36.8%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 68275 21.9%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 52844 28.3%
74
All the other utilization levels, CO2 total emissions are shown in Appendix A. As
hinterland operations are not assumed to have any scale regarding to used fillrate levels,
then all of the alternatives have used information given in Table 16b (excluded also
from Appendix A).
75
7. Energy Consumption of Different Options
Except for container ships and railway tunnel option, typically in CO2 emissions
hinterland operations played rather minor role. This was typically couple of percents,
but increased up to 5-6 %. Average was around four percents. It did not matter that
much whether we were dealing with V1 or V2 scenario. From hinterland operations e.g.
ship-to-shore crane was also powered with electricity, and therefore harmful mineral
fuel based emissions were even slightly lower in the most of the analyzed scenarios. For
the sake of simplicity in the following we have analyzed only actual sea transportation
energy consumption, and are reporting findings in terms of used amount of diesel oil per
transportation unit. Currently 1 % sulphur content fuel used in vessels is not diesel oil,
but in post year 2015 world used one will be more or less equivalent to diesel. Basically
diesel oil has been proposed or forecasted to spike in consumption in Baltic Sea due to
the reason that it is one viable alternative, which leads to level 0.1 % or below sulphur
emissions (e.g. DNV, 2010).
In the following energy consumption analysis we have not at all analyzed railway tunnel
option due to the reason that it is not using any mineral fuel in its transportation process
(this could be further assured by buying green electricity only), and in limited scale
within loading-unloading operations as well as train forming process. Analyzed
container ship options concern actual sea transportation, but not hinterland operations.
This creates some sort of bias in the results, since in container ship case hinterland
operations are rather significant, typically 10-20 % from total (even 30 % within the
most environmentally friendly sea transportation options). However, as difference to
other options is so wide in CO2 emissions and directly proportional diesel oil
consumption, the margin added in the above of following results is only marginal.
Container ships are clearly the least diesel oil consuming option, if railway tunnel
option is not taken into account. We have converted in the following CO2 emissions to
diesel oil with following conversion equation (Defra, 2012): One liter of diesel oil is
equivalent to 2.6569 kg of CO2. This is the value recommended by UK government
(Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and it is equivalent to US Energy
Information Administration (US EIA, 2011; 2.68 kg of CO2).
76
As a comparison base in the following for sea transportation diesel oil consumption, we
could use consumption of truck with semi-trailer at road. Based on Ikonen et al. (2007)
this sort of road transport combination consumes 37 liter of diesel oil in 100 km; as
Helsinki-Tallinn sea route is 84 km in the following consumption calculations, then this
corresponds 31.08 liters (actually this is a bit pessimistic, since this consumption is for
full weighted load). Based on Polttoaine.net (2012) average price of diesel oil purchased
from fuel station in 20.Aug.2012 from Finland was 1.549 euros per liter, and without
value-added tax this is 1.259 euros per liter (actual price of private sector). Therefore,
Helsinki-Tallinn sea route driven with truck would have VAT (0 %) fuel cost of 39.14
euros. This value is good benchmark in the following analysis as only container ship is
able to achieve lower consumption levels per transported unit.
7.1. Railship
Difficult situation and low performance of railship could be understood as Figures 21
and 22 are examined in details. Two different emission calculation approaches lead into
same conclusion: CO2 emissions are high, and ships require massive amounts of diesel
fuel to fulfill the transportation task. Most severe situation is with railship 1 option, and
railship 2 is half from its diesel oil consumption. Anyway, with utilization levels of 30-
50 % and with unsuitable unit load (semi-trailer with cabin), fuel consumption increases
up to several hundred liters per transported unit. This is just too much – please
remember as comparison base truck fuel consumption with full load. However, there is
some hope in railship fuel consumption, but it is with 80 % fillrate and semi-trailers on
flatcar without cabin. In this situation fuel consumption is on railship 1 alternative 130-
180 liters per transported unit and in railship 2 correspondingly 62-85 liters per
transported unit. However, it should be emphasized that there is little hope – if diesel
prices continue their increase, whole option of railship is easily out of market.
77
Figure 21. Railship 1 (R1) & 2 (R2) transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn diesel (liters) consumption per transported unit without forming and loading work included (V1 scenario).
Figure 22. Railship 1 (R1) & 2 (R2) transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn diesel (liters) consumption per transported unit without forming and loading work included (V2 scenario).
‐
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
450.00
500.00
550.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON FLATCAR 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON
FLATCAR
100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON
FLATCAR
R1
R2
‐
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
450.00
500.00
550.00
600.00
650.00
700.00
750.00
800.00
850.00
900.00
950.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON FLATCAR 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON
FLATCAR
100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON
FLATCAR
R1
R2
78
With current diesel price, most oil consuming situations lead to very high costs, ranging
from approx. 300 euros up to 1000 euros. It is understandable that not in any
circumstance these would be acceptable. As oil and also diesel oil prices are breaking
all time highs in Euro area (due to reason of moderately high oil price and weak Euro
currency against USD), it means that most beneficial scenarios would not be good
either. These range from below 100 euros to more than 200 euros. In such a short route
even these costs are challenge, and do not make railship attractive.
7.2. Container Ship
Absolute maximum consumption for container ship option is below the minimum of
various railship alternatives. Actually consumption (Figures 23 and 24) in any case is
below 60 liters per transportation unit. In smaller container ship (500 TEU)
consumption declines below 30 liters as utilization levels reach above 70 %. In larger
container ship (1000 TEU) the consumption easily declines below 20 liter level with
even utilization of 50 % or above. So, as comparison container ship consumes lower
amount of fuel than trucking option (31 liters and 84 kms of road transport) and
basically three times below best performance of railship. This is rather pragmatic
example from the performance of container ships in short sea shipping, and illustrates
clearly that how critical ship size actually is.
Diesel oil consumption efficiency is clear as container ship consumption is evaluated in
light of current price. Smaller container ship reaches fuel cost of 27.4 euros per
transported unit (80 % utilization) as larger container ship is having just below 20 euros
level with the same utilization (V1 scenario, Figure 23). It could be therefore argued
that containers are really robust against oil price increases. Basically transportation
system could just respond on adding larger ships and decreasing the service frequency.
So, cost level could be kept rather stabile as compared to other shipping alternatives,
even if prices of oil would double.
79
Figure 23. Container ship transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn diesel (liters) consumption per transported unit without loading work included (V1 scenario).
Figure 24. Container ship transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn diesel (liters) consumption per transported unit without loading work included (V2 scenario). Please note that 70-100 % utilization levels could indicate too low fuel consumption levels.
‐
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CONTAINER SHIP WITH CAPACITY OF 500 TEU/250 FEU CONTAINER SHIP WITH CAPACITY OF 1000 TEU/500 FEU
Diesel (l)
‐
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CONTAINER SHIP WITH CAPACITY OF 500 TEU/250 FEU CONTAINER SHIP WITH CAPACITY OF 1000 TEU/500 FEU
Diesel (l)
80
7.3. Ferry Ship (ropax)
As ropax ship combining freight and passenger flows is having so high weight without
these two main groups onboard, we are therefore analyzing in the following only V2
scenario. This for the reason that V1 would not differ from it that significantly as freight
added on-board is rather marginal to the entire weight of the ship. As Figure 25
illustrates, ropax is not as low performing as what was railship, but with low utilization
levels it is really consuming diesel oil. Especially if we have cabins transported together
with cargo, oil consumption is above 100 liters per transported unit. However, in other
end (high utilization), ropax option is performing satisfactorily, but still consuming 48
liters or above.
Figure 25. Passenger and cargo ferry (ropax) transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn diesel (liters) consumption per transported unit without loading work included (V2 scenario).
With current diesel oil prices best performance of ropax will reach above 60 euros level
per transported unit. This is substantially higher than in container ship case, and with
lower utilization rates ropax becomes really uncompetitive. In all five scenarios 30 %
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50%60% 70%80% 30%40% 50%60% 70% 80% 30% 40% 50% 60%70% 80%30% 40%50% 60%70% 80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER
Diesel (l)
81
fillrates will lead to fuel costs of 160 euros or above (worst performing is above 230
euros per unit). This is not good news, if we think about growing passenger amounts in
Helsinki-Tallinn route and potentially significantly growing cargo volumes. These two
factors together could lead into large investment activity. However, if investment timing
is not right, and leaves utilization low as well as oil continues upwards movement,
whole business model could be in danger.
7.4. Roro Ship
As roro ship is dedicated nearly entirely for freight transport (could be of course serving
small amount of passengers, typically truck drivers), its performance is a bit better in
fuel consumption than in ropax example (Figures 26 & 27). At best configuration (when
cabins are not on-board), in both of the scenarios V1 and V2, diesel oil consumption
declines to 40-42 liters per transported unit. However, as downside roro is also sensitive
to utilization rates as in lowest fillrate (30 %) consumption increases up to 100 liters
level. With cabins included this highest consumption level is 120-140 liters level.
In price terms roro reaches the level of 50-53 euros per unit in the best performing
situation. In highest consumption situations this unit cost is around 125.9 up to 176.3
euros per unit. Based on these it is inevitable that roro is very sensitive to utilization
rates, so careful planning on schedules as well as most suitable frequency between
destinations is vital part of its fuel consumption, and in turn, profitability success
formula. This is its major strength as compared to ropax – latter one is driven by
passengers, their consumption on vessel and tax free sales. Consuming customer results
in timetables, which are not made that much on freight and fuel consumption concerned.
This could be e.g. seen in development of travel time in Helsinki-Tallinn route in ropax
ferries – this has more than halved in few decades time period.
82
Figure 26. Roro ship transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn diesel (liters) consumption per transported unit without loading work included (V1 scenario).
Figure 27. Roro ship transportation task from Helsinki to Tallinn diesel (liters) consumption per transported unit without loading work included (V2 scenario).
‐
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
30%40%50%60%70%80%30%40%50%60%70%80%30%40%50%60%70%80%30%40%50%60%70%80%30%40%50%60%70%80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER
Diesel (l)
‐
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
30%40%50%60%70%80%30%40%50%60%70%80%30%40%50%60%70%80%30%40%50%60%70%80%30%40%50%60%70%80%
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN
200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN
200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN
200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER
Diesel (l)
83
8. Prices, Costs and Lead Time of Different Alternatives in Helsinki-Tallinn Route
8.1. Shipping based Transportation Chains
Due to the fact that Helsinki, Finland and Tallinn, Estonia do share similar economical,
social and cultural backgrounds, there are good preconditions to create a twin-city.
However, the distance between the two cities is rather long (84 kilometres), which
creates challenges. (Sundberg et al., 2011) Currently the freight flows are mainly
transported in ropax vessels. There exists a container vessel connection to Muuga, but it
is rarely used. Major amount of container shipping lines are offering Helsinki – Tallinn
route via Hamburg, Germany, wherefore it is not competitive with ropax option.
Because of high utilization and frequent connections of ropax vessels, there is no pure
roro connection between the cities (if e.g. roro ships of ropax operators are not taken
into account; Eckerö Line’s m/s Translandia operates from Vuosaari to old city terminal
of Tallinn, like did m/s Kapella of Tallink, which ended in Aug.2012).
In sea transport there exist various costs, of which some cannot be influenced. These
include for example the harbour charges that in Finland are based on the law on
municipal port order and transport charges (955/76) (Port of Helsinki, 2012).
Additionally, there are various other charges, for example terminal handling charges
and the bunker adjustment factor (BAF). Price of fuel oil is directly affected by the oil
price, wherefore it increases and decreases depending on the price level of oil. BAF is
generally adjusted on a monthly basis. (KK Freight, 2012) When considering the traffic
between Helsinki and Tallinn, the cost structure is rather simple. The costs are presented
in Table 17. (This calculation assumes that the unit arrives to port as late as possible,
and do not include the charges collected by e.g. the shipping companies).
Table 17. Costs and prices in Helsinki-Tallinn route.
Costs Ropax, without cabin Ropax, with cabin Roro, without cabin Roro, with cabin Container, 40' DC
Cargo charge 3.08 € / ton 3.08 € / ton 3.08 € / ton 3.08 € / ton 3.08 € / ton
Sea freight 445 € 446 € 385-425 € 470 - 510 € 442 €
BAF 3.40 € / ton 3.40 € / ton 3.40 € / ton 3.40 € / ton 64 €
Note!
Prices without VAT
Container: Helsinki - Muuga, FOT-FOT (incl. THC + other terminal charges); BAF 32 EUR /TEU
Roro: Gate-gate
84
As presented earlier, currently there is no roro (except Eckerö Line’s m/s Translandia)
connection between Helsinki and Tallinn. The sea freight figures presented in Table 17
are fictional prices from one possible roro operating shipping companies in this route.
Charge for container was received from a shipping company, which is having a direct
connection from Helsinki to Muuga. Ropax charges are average values from prices
received from three main ropax companies offering services between Helsinki and
Tallinn (Viking Line, TallinkSilja and Eckerö Line). The sea freight charge is inclusive
of charges such as vehicle charge / terminal handling charge etc. Interestingly, the way
to calculate the sea freight charge varies between the companies. Some ropax shipping
lines have a fixed price for all calls, while some have different price classes depending
on a time of the call.
The charges in Helsinki – Tallinn leg can be divided into three: Cargo charge, sea
freight and BAF. Cargo charge is collected by the Port of Helsinki, and it is 3.08 Euros /
ton in all different units. BAF in August 2012 is 3.40 Euros / ton in roro and ropax
vessels, while 32 Euros / TEU when using containers. Sea freight charge in
containerized cargo is 442 Euros / 40’ DC (inclusive of terminal handling charges),
while the fictional price for roro unit is around 400 Euros. When considering the ropax
vessels, there are two options: Trailer can be transported without the cabin (meaning
loading and unloading procedures are done by a stevedoring company) or with the
cabin; this does not influence on the average final price which is around 445 Euros.
However, the price is compounded differently. One of the defining factors is the length
of the unit. Trailer is 14 metres, while trailer with cabin is 17 metres. Additionally the
charge per metre might change, which influences on the final price. Generally, charges
(including both per metre and handling charges) are more expensive when transporting
a trailer without a cabin. When comparing the occurred charges (see Table 16 above), it
does not matter which shipping mode is used, because the shipping charges are exactly
the same.
Another important factor in such a short leg as Helsinki – Tallinn is the lead-time and
amount of calls. As mentioned earlier, currently there is no roro connection available.
Although container vessel traffic has never been significant in Helsinki – Tallinn route,
during the last decade there have happened some changes. For example, earlier many
85
shipping companies were offering services to Tallinn, but currently only single option is
available. Based on the received information, there is a weekly connection from
Helsinki to Muuga, leaving from Helsinki on Mondays and arriving to Muuga on
Tuesdays. The unit needs to be in harbour one day before the departure, the shipping
time is one day and container is available for pick-up the day after arrival, giving a total
lead-time of 2.5 – 3 days (see Table 18).
Table 18. Lead-times in Helsinki-Tallinn route.
The situation is different in ropax connections, as there are various options available
(more information is provided in Table 19 below). Three different shipping lines
providing ropax services, Viking Line, TallinkSilja and Eckerö Line, have dissimilar
amount of calls. Viking Line is offering two calls per day, while TallinkSilja has daily
around six calls (departure times vary between weekdays). Eckerö Line has four daily
connections. All connections are between Helsinki city ports (Katajanokka / Viking
Line, Länsisatama / TallinkSilja and Eckerö Line), except two daily calls of Eckerö
Line (earlier TallinkSilja was having one too), which are departing from Vuosaari. In
Tallinn, all vessels are calling the old city terminals. The shipping time depends on a
connection: Average time is from two to three hours, but there are some calls which
require more time, for example some dinner cruises etc. Because the units need to be in
port only 1-1.5 hours before the departure, the average lead-time for cargo transported
in ropax vessels is from four to eight hours.
Table 19. Daily departures of ropax ships within Helsinki-Tallinn route. (Eckerö Line, 2012; TallinkSilja, 2012; Viking Line, 2012)
Time Ropax, without cabin Ropax, with cabin Roro Container, 40' DC
Check-in 1.5 hours 1 hour Day before
Shipping time 2 - 6.5 hours 2 - 6.5 hours 1 day
Release Right after arrival Right after arrival Next day
TOTAL 4 - 8 hours 4 - 8 hours 2.5 - 3 days
Company No. of daily departures Port of departure Port of arrival Travel timeEckerö Line 2 Länsisatama A-terminal Around 3 hours
2 Vuosaari D-terminal 4-5 hoursTallinkSilja Around 6 Länsisatama D-terminal 2 hours*Viking Line 2 Katajanokka A-terminal 2.5 / 3.5 hours
86
When taking into account both the freight charges and lead-time, ropax vessels provide
the best connection on the Helsinki – Tallinn route. The charges are on the same level
with all different shipping modes, while there are significant discrepancies in lead-
times. The most time-consuming is container vessel which requires 2.5 to 3 days for
transport, compared to ropax vessels’ 4-8 hours. Therefore it can be assumed, that the
utilization of ropax connection will increase in the future.
8.2. Railway based Transportation Chains
Alternatives using mainly railway based transportation in the route were needed to be
developed through cost estimates and adding overheads as well as profit margins
(railway tunnel), and by asking from operators about their prices in other routes
(railship). Both of the approaches in two different railway transportation options
resulted on only satisfactory accuracy. We would like to stress in the following that
railway pricing and costs should be followed carefully, if e.g. intermodal transportation
in Finland develops further (e.g. route between Helsinki and Oulu will get its volumes
back) and/or railships became again operational.
For railship pricing we contacted not any more serving operator concerning the past
pricing, but we were unlucky to get any answer. Along with this we contacted foreign
sources, which are operating at Baltic Sea with railships. From these we got some sort
of rough prices, but these were left unconfirmed by the actual railship operator.
However, based on these experiences we would be willing to argue that railship price
within the route of Helsinki-Tallinn would be roughly the price of roro, but with some
additions. However, this only concerning transportation. If loading and unloading of
cargo on wagons is also included, then we are talking about 88 euros more for container
and 44 euros more for semi-trailer / truck. Difference becomes from the fact that
containers need to be loaded and unloaded vertically, but truck / semi-trailer on train
could be loaded horizontally (Bauer et al., 2001; Henttu & Multaharju, 2011). These are
of course estimates. Altogether we are talking at least price of 600 euros per transported
unit. Lead time ought to be same what is it with container nowadays. So, lead time is
days instead of hours.
87
For railway tunnel actual transportation cost (incl. all costs except overhead and profit
margin) is relatively low (methodology based on Henttu et al., 2010). This is illustrated
with separate pillar in Figures 28 and 29. For FEUs this is roughly 100 euros and for
semi-trailers depending on the length of the train from 150-200 euros per unit.
However, problematic part comes from transshipment costs (loading/unloading of cargo
to wagons as well as forming the train; Bauer et al., 2001; Henttu & Multaharju, 2011).
These together with overhead margin (20 % additional margin on the top of everything
else) and profit margin (same 20 % on the top of everything) will result on rather high
costs. Or actually costs are approaching the same 400 euro area, what was the situation
with cheapest shipping transportation chain options. However, there is some hope that
FEUs are a bit cheaper than all the other options analyzed before – actually with longest
train this estimated price will be below 300 euros per FEU (Figure 28).
Figure 28. As 200 FEUs on flatcar are transported in railway tunnel, total costs (y-axis, in euros per FEU) including railway transport itself, two transshipments (Helsinki and Tallinn) plus small margin for overhead and profit (20 % added in both).
329.9 320.9310.5
283.9
121.1114.9
107.6
89.1
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
70% 80% 90% 100%
Sales Price (profit margin incl.)
Overhead costs added
Transshipment costs added
Railway Transportation Costs
88
Figure 29. As 200 semi-trailers with cabin on flatcar are transported in railway tunnel, total costs (y-axis, in euros per semi-trailer) including railway transport itself, two transshipments (Helsinki and Tallinn) plus small margin for overhead and profit (20 % added in both).
It should be noted that our railway tunnel option does not include any fee for using the
tunnel. Most probably financing of the tunnel would be dependent on access fees (like it
is in Channel Tunnel between UK and France). It could be estimated that for one way
these costs are roughly 100-150 euros per FEU/semi-trailer transported. So, after adding
this access fee and we are at the very same cost neighborhood with sea based
transportation chains. In lead time wise railway tunnel option would be somewhere
between ropax and container performance of today. Most probably this option would
take in total 12-24 hours.
8.3. Other Indirect Costs (Transportation Fleet, Driver and Cargo)
To understand reason for short lead time need at ropax option, it is necessary to analyze
this through the angle of transportation / logistics service company. Typically two
additional cost items of transportation fleet cost and salaries have impact, which play
372.5355.6
340.4
304.2
194.7182.9
172.4147.3
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
70% 80% 90% 100%
Sales Price (profit margin incl.)
Overhead costs added
Transshipment costs added
Railway Transportation Costs
89
rather important role in the short lead time requirement (and from willingness to pay
higher or average price out of it). First of all, transportation fleet in trucking is
expensive. It is so that semi-trailer is typically ten times more expensive than FEU
container (latter costs roughly 5,000.00 euros as new). If new truck is included into
semi-trailer, then fleet cost will reach 150,000.00 euros. This is 30 times more
expensive than FEU container. Even if interest rates are low nowadays, these huge sums
will lead to very significant additional costs carried by the transportation chain
customer. Among fleet cost, truck and semi-trailer combination requires truck driver as
well, and this salary is not insignificant either (we have estimated here 13.5 euros per
hour salary with 70 % additional pension, social, holiday and insurance costs; these
were the values of Finnish trucking sector couple of years ago).
As Table 20 shows, truck with semi-trailer e.g. on board of ropax ship will result in very
high total costs, if journey takes longer time. However, if lead time is around 3-4 hours,
then it is understandable that additional total cost is somewhere 75-100 euros for this
combination. This is the price from flexibility, short lead time and able to be drive
directly out of the ship as vessel arrives to the sea port to be unloaded. Should be noted
that from total costs, salaries take 90 % share e.g. in 4 h lead time scenario, and it could
be assumed that logistics service companies would be willing to minimize its effect.
Therefore, salaries of truck drivers are not that of Finnish system, but most probably
from Baltic States or Poland. Then we may expect at least 50 % reduction in the used
salary amounts. Also notable is the fact that savings in fleet, by using very old one, are
rather marginal. In Table 20 is also shown, that by applying rigid cost reduction strategy
on both salaries and fleet, 3-4 hour scenario is reached in double time, 6-8 hours.
If truck driver is not traveling together with shipment, then additional costs of truck plus
semi-trailer combination will decrease considerably (e.g. loaded on railway wagon or
railship; also possible in roro and ropax). As Table 21 illustrates, in this situation lead
time does not matter that much from logistics service company additional cost
perspective. To reach the cost level of fleet accompanied with driver, this transportation
combination could spend at the sea two days or more. If truck is not included (like in
Table 22), then this additional cost sinks even further, and cost level of truck, semi-
trailer with driver will be reached in three days or more.
90
Table 20. Amortization (15 years economical use time), interest payments (5 % p.a.), salaries (13.5 € per h and 70 % additional costs) and total costs of truck and semi-trailer traveling in Helsinki-Tallinn route. Assumed fleet acquisition price 150,000.00 € (truck plus semi-trailer) and usage of 21 d (24 h) per month.
Table 21. Amortization (15 years economical use time), interest payments (5 % p.a.) and total costs of truck and semi-trailer traveling in Helsinki-Tallinn route. Assumed fleet acquisition price 150,000.00 € (truck plus semi-trailer) and usage of 21 d (24 h) per month.
Time Amortization Interest Salary Total
Total
(‐50 % fleet)
Total
(‐50 % fleet and salary)
1 h 1.65 € 0.62 € 22.95 € 25.22 € 24.09 € 12.61 €
2 h 3.31 € 1.24 € 45.90 € 50.45 € 48.17 € 25.22 €
3 h 4.96 € 1.86 € 68.85 € 75.67 € 72.26 € 37.84 €
4 h 6.61 € 2.48 € 91.80 € 100.89 € 96.35 € 50.45 €
5 h 8.27 € 3.10 € 114.75 € 126.12 € 120.43 € 63.06 €
6 h 9.92 € 3.72 € 137.70 € 151.34 € 144.52 € 75.67 €
7 h 11.57 € 4.34 € 160.65 € 176.56 € 168.61 € 88.28 €
8 h 13.23 € 4.96 € 183.60 € 201.79 € 192.69 € 100.89 €
12 h 19.84 € 7.44 € 275.40 € 302.68 € 289.04 € 151.34 €
24 h 39.68 € 14.88 € 550.80 € 605.36 € 578.08 € 302.68 €
48 h 79.37 € 29.76 € 1,101.60 € 1,210.73 € 1,156.16 € 605.36 €
72 h 119.05 € 44.64 € 1,652.40 € 1,816.09 € 1,734.25 € 908.05 €
Time Amortization Interest Total
Total
(‐50 % fleet)
1 h 1.65 € 0.62 € 2.27 € 1.14 €
2 h 3.31 € 1.24 € 4.55 € 2.27 €
3 h 4.96 € 1.86 € 6.82 € 3.41 €
4 h 6.61 € 2.48 € 9.09 € 4.55 €
5 h 8.27 € 3.10 € 11.37 € 5.68 €
6 h 9.92 € 3.72 € 13.64 € 6.82 €
7 h 11.57 € 4.34 € 15.91 € 7.96 €
8 h 13.23 € 4.96 € 18.19 € 9.09 €
12 h 19.84 € 7.44 € 27.28 € 13.64 €
18 h 29.76 € 11.16 € 40.92 € 20.46 €
24 h 39.68 € 14.88 € 54.56 € 27.28 €
48 h 79.37 € 29.76 € 109.13 € 54.56 €
72 h 119.05 € 44.64 € 163.69 € 81.85 €
91
Table 22. Amortization (15 years economical use time), interest payments (5 % p.a.) and total costs of semi-trailer traveling in Helsinki-Tallinn route. Assumed fleet acquisition price 50,000.00 € (semi-trailer) and usage of 21 d (24 h) per month.
Table 23. Amortization (20 years economical use time), interest payments (5 % p.a.) and total costs of FEU container traveling in Helsinki-Tallinn route. Assumed fleet acquisition price 5,000.00 € (FEU) and usage of 30 d (24 h) per month.
Again container option is in class of its own. As containers are used globally, their
production volumes in Chinese factories are large and design standardized, then their
price is very low and competitive. In comparison, FEU container can stay at sea two
days, when truck with semi-trailer (without driver) could do correspondingly for one
Time Amortization Interest Total
1 h 0.55 € 0.21 € 0.76 €
2 h 1.10 € 0.41 € 1.52 €
3 h 1.65 € 0.62 € 2.27 €
4 h 2.20 € 0.83 € 3.03 €
5 h 2.76 € 1.03 € 3.79 €
6 h 3.31 € 1.24 € 4.55 €
7 h 3.86 € 1.45 € 5.30 €
8 h 4.41 € 1.65 € 6.06 €
12 h 6.61 € 2.48 € 9.09 €
24 h 13.23 € 4.96 € 18.19 €
48 h 26.46 € 9.92 € 36.38 €
72 h 39.68 € 14.88 € 54.56 €
Time Amortization Interest Total
1 h 0.03 € 0.01 € 0.04 €
2 h 0.06 € 0.03 € 0.09 €
3 h 0.09 € 0.04 € 0.13 €
4 h 0.12 € 0.06 € 0.17 €
5 h 0.14 € 0.07 € 0.22 €
6 h 0.17 € 0.09 € 0.26 €
7 h 0.20 € 0.10 € 0.30 €
8 h 0.23 € 0.12 € 0.35 €
12 h 0.35 € 0.17 € 0.52 €
24 h 0.69 € 0.35 € 1.04 €
48 h 1.39 € 0.69 € 2.08 €
72 h 2.08 € 1.04 € 3.13 €
92
hour. This is one main reason, why containers are not typically in such high hurry as
tied capital in the transportation fleet is significantly lower.
We have not analyzed in details in this publication the role of tied capital on actual
cargo being carried. If freight is very low bulk value, like paper or potatoes, then we are
talking about roughly 20,000.00 euros value tied per FEU or semi-trailer. If interest for
this inventory investment on transportation pipeline is valued, most probably it would
be something like given in our transportation fleet calculations. So, we are talking here
very low overall costs in e.g. 4-8 hour ropax transport – couple of euros at best (actually
Table 22 is worthwhile to examine in details, here we have calculated interest for
average capital of 25,000.00 euros, more or less similar with low valued cargo). Also
more valuable cargo, like clothing (e.g. shoes) and basic consumer electronics (e.g.
some movie player), is resulting in total capital tied of 100-200,000.00 euros per FEU or
semi-trailer. Even if this sounds great amount, it is in this sort of short route having
similar importance with interest rate of new truck and semi-trailer combination (Table
21). So, below five euros inventory holding costs (for cargo worth of 75,000.00 euros)
on transportation journey duration of 8 hours or less. We may conclude based on these
all calculations that the need for speed is driven primarily by semi-trailer accompanied
with truck and driver – the last item playing the key role.
93
9. Could Radical Improvement in Lead Times of Container and Trailer Handling Be Achieved in the Port of Muuga (Tallinn)?
As earlier analyses have showed, container transports between Vuosaari and Muuga
require improvement as freight movement is currently so insignificant and it takes
day(s) that container may continue further from Muuga port. Therefore, Prof. Wladimir
Segercrantz arranged three meetings with concerned stakeholders of Tallinn from lead
time issue: (1) CT Transiidikeskus (2012), (2) Tallinn Port Authority (2012) and (3)
Ministry of Finance (2012). Following text is synthesis from these meetings, and it
sheds light on container and also roro transportation between Vuosaari and Muuga, and
illustrates potential to decrease dramatically handling times at Muuga sea port area.
Basically change is possible, but some additional investments are needed.
The area of the Port of Muuga is control type I Free Zone. It means that the territory has
perimeter fence and goods placed there are supervised by custom and are automatically
under this regime. In case were necessary custom clearance procedures will be carried
out in the destination point of cargo, it is favourable to move them fluently to the
destination locality.
Estonian Custom officials fully understand the problem how to speed up the operations
with cargo, which is not connected with Free Zone. They have formulated the principles
for streamlined operations for transit of containers and trucks with trailers bypassing
Free Zone of Muuga:
1. It is necessary to dedicate one quay for direct transit operations.
2. Virtual corridor is necessary to develop with electronic access control in both
sides.
3. Every vehicle will be supplied with electronic key and it is necessary to register
in the both sides of virtual corridor. That activity will enable to check the
movement of loaded vehicles in the Port area.
4. No stops in the Port Zone are allowed. That will be a grant for the Custom
officials that not legal activities in the Free Zone have been taken place.
5. That is flexible understanding of the legislation related to the free zones. At the
same time the Custom authorities have understanding that the needs of logistics
94
operators are much wider and support the business is in the interests of custom
officials as well.
6. In principal the virtual corridor solution could be used for rail operations too. In
point of view of Estonian Custom in that case could be better to establish rail
corridor with real physical barriers. Nevertheless the virtual corridor solution
with additional electronic control is possible too.
The port operator Container Terminal (CT) of the Transiidikeskus Ltd has implanted the
virtual corridor for streamed operations for roro cargo in the Port of Muuga. Container
terminal has readiness for operations, having dedicated quays No 13 and 14. The quays
have length of 200 m and draught 14.5 m. Rail track and own railway yard are located
close to quays area. Please see Appendix B for real-life pictures from this separated
area.
CT of Transsiidikeskus has operated the port terminal processes for Vuosaari – Muuga
cargo line. Unfortunately the operation is closed now. Transiidikeskus has necessary
legal and operational readiness to open container and roro cargo handling process for
line Vuosaari – Muuga using quays No 13 and 14 and the virtual exit corridor passing
by Free Zone. To find operator for that activity the marketing study was carried out and
several shipping lines were approached. At this moment there is no candidate for
opening container or roro line between Vuosaaari – Muuga. Transiidikeskus pointed out
that to open the direct and regular container and roro service between Vuosaari and
Muuga is in line with the strategy of the company.
Port of Tallinn as parent company of the Port Muuga is supporting the development of
container and roro cargo operations between Vuosaari and Helsinki. It is possible that in
future developments of the Port might be investments for new quay in the Eastern area
of Muuga Port. That solution enables to develop corridor with real fences between other
Free Zone areas.
95
10. Conclusions
If very short sea shipping transportation chains of this research work, and basically the
connection between cities of Helsinki and Tallinn would be observed by other than
Finns or Estonians, this connection would not be seen as important at first glance.
However, significant development in these two economies, amount of passengers
traveling and also freight flows between these two near-by sea ports make it interesting
and important. As environmental demands are getting increasingly tighter in future, it
means that road transports and short sea shipping methods and use will change
tremendously. Basically it is so, that emissions management, and particularly CO2
minimization becomes first priority. This is because of the fact that fuel consumption
goes hand in hand with CO2 emissions. Currently we have only used to pay from used
fuel, but in the future we shall most probably pay from emitting CO2 as well. As fuel
costs in e.g. shipping and road transport are already high and take proportionally very
significant proportion from overall costs, it is inevitable that most competitive
transportation chains of tomorrow will be focusing on emission minimization and green
issues. This not necessarily for the reason that companies would be interested and
eagerly willing to take into account green issues, but because these have so huge impact
on competitiveness and profitability.
Based on the findings of this research work, we may argue that current modus operandi
in Helsinki-Tallinn route, using mainly ropax ships and semi-trailers with cabin, is far
from optimal. This basically arises from CO2 emissions and fuel economy. Of course in
current environment ropax based chain is performing well, if compared to main
competitors. As price differences between different chains are basically within same
level, and ropax offers much better frequency, shorter lead time and convenient price
for semi-trailer with cabin, it is not surprise that most of the transportation flows are
completed through this chain (even if driver with entire semi-trailer truck adds “hidden”
indirect costs). Typically it is forgotten in importance the frequency of short sea
shipping connections; based on recent North American empirical study, it was found
that customers were willing to pay significantly higher price from higher frequency of
short sea shipping alternative (Puckett et al., 2011).
96
Despite all of the success factors of ropax ships, there exist danger in this option in the
future – reason is environmental and related to capacity addition. It seems to be the case
that nothing prevents tight sulphur regulation to be implemented in the Baltic Sea. This
will mean that companies will start to seek new routes to and from Central Europe.
Naturally this is very lucrative business opportunity for ropax vessel operators. Risk and
reward, unfortunately, go together in this business opportunity. In short-term there is of
course volumes available, but as question remains, will these volumes start to decline in
the longer term. So, are companies using these dearer routes able to pay higher price
and correspondingly transfer costs to their own customers or not. These stiff
environmental demands could also result on macro economic slowdown here in
Northern Europe, and therefore risk of lower economic growth is also very much
present. As we know that ropax is having difficulties of having lower CO2 emissions
and better fuel economy (especially vulnerable for low utilization levels), it is
questionable whether this option is able to compete with price in the future either. If
most probable scenario is increasing environmental demands and basically payments
related to that and oil price will continue to increase, transportation costs will of course
reflect these changes with corresponding significant price increases. So, altogether
ropax based chain is competitive today and could be seen at first glance as such in post
year 2015 world. However, there is danger that other business environment changes will
make it less competitive. Therefore, in light of this research, it would be better, if cargo
capacity additions would be implemented by adding more roro or container ships on the
route.
Our research also very clearly showed that railship option is not worthwhile to
implement between Helsinki and Tallinn. It sounds like a good and environmentally
friendly plan, but in reality it is not. Most of the downside comes from too high non
value adding weight as transported freight is in e.g. semi-trailer, which is loaded on very
heavy railway wagon and these three are placed in sea vessel very close to roro ship (or
basically roro ship with rails). It should be remembered that railways are based on very
heavy structures, and emphasis on safety in everywhere, and therefore e.g. especially
semi-trailer with cabin is worst possible option to be transported with currently used
wagons. It is also very doubtful, what kind of frequency and price level railship could
end offering, if it would be profitable. Maybe frequency would be once or twice in a
97
week, having emphasis on very high fillrates at ship. However, our analysis has shown
in this study that even very high utilization at ships will end up to high CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption. In current, but also foreseeable future, having low performance
in these would end in very low financial performance. It should be noted that railships
in Finland are nowadays inexistent, and last connection to Sweden was scaled down due
to significant losses produced.
Based on this study, most promising in the future transport chains, even short sea
shipping ones, is the wide application of containers. We ought to use containers more in
different sea vessels than container ships, but their use should also be enlarged to
railways. This will bring benefits basically for environment and fuel economy. This
change is going to be hard part for companies using currently semi-trailers. However, in
post year 2015 world and far beyond (e.g. think about years 2030 and 2050 and EU
wide emission prevention demands), it is clear that containers become main freight
transportation device, even in the shorter non-“between continents” transportation
chains.
If sea based transportation chains between Helsinki and Tallinn would be compared
with environmental and fuel economy factors, container ships would take without a
doubt best performing position. This is also clear in other international and empirical
material research works: Roro ships emit from 63 % up to 219 % more CO2 than
container ships (Walsh & Bows, 2012). Sames & Köpke (2012) argue based on massive
data analysis of world fleet of container ships, that these still hold considerable fuel
economy and lower emission potential as these matters were taken into development
only very recently, and some progress is shown in the fleet supplied after year 2001.
However, it should be reminded that container based transport at sea is not only low
emission producing and having better fuel economy due to use of container boxes in
carrying unitized cargo. This is one part of the equation only. Second part is the speed
of container vessels – they proceed at sea much more slowly as compared e.g. to roro
vessel travelling to Germany from Finland. Most important in container transport
business is overall price, not necessarily speed. Whole structure was built to serve long-
distance continental traffic and feeder ships at Baltic Sea were just put on place to
deliver e.g. Asian cargo to Northern Europe (very good example, Wang & Meng, 2012).
98
This structure and approach is simultaneously strength and weakness of container
transports. It provides low price, but lead times are longer, and in many cases (such as
Muuga) sea ports are only used to handle non European Union cargo (purpose of
customs free zone). Our study illustrates with analysis of Muuga’s situation that further
improvement on lead time is possible, but will require investments. However, in the end
container ship based transportation chain is not able to compete with ropax option. It
will end up being slower whatever the situation is.
In the longer term railway tunnel and railway freight connection operating between
Helsinki and Tallinn is having clear benefits in light of this research work. These pros
arise mostly from using electricity as traction and resulting low or nearly non-existing
CO2 emissions and being able to remove dependency on oil. If CO2 emissions are going
to cost in following decade ten or twenty times more than that of today, and if oil price
doubles or triples from current level, benefits from railway tunnel are really tangible and
financially very rewarding. As downside, railway tunnel will not result on much lower
freight rates between e.g. Helsinki and Tallinn. Reason is basically rooted on loading
and unloading operations, but also on access fee paid by the train of using the tunnel.
However, it should be noted that without these two, the plain transportation part is
extremely cost competitive. Maybe other factors could soften the effect of additional
factors, like technical solutions (automation in loading and unloading operations) as
well as getting positive cash flows from other freeing assets as railway tunnel is being
built (e.g. land areas in city centers are going to be released for residential living instead
of sea port operations).
As further research we would be interested to follow and build scenarios for different
changes taking place in the post year 2015 world. Also seeing upcoming changes in post
year 2020 world would be interesting research area too. Environmental pressure is on,
and oil prices have increased very significantly in last decade perspective. Forthcoming
changes in transportation chains are going to affect also industrial and warehousing
structure, not only in Finland, but all a bit distant countries from Central Europe. Also
in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Russia, huge interest and significant development /
investment activity is placed on northern areas. However, raw materials taken from
north need to end also somewhere – most probably to European factories. It is not
99
entirely out of question that these products would not be put into containers (e.g. special
sea containers, twenty feet long, but having higher payload) – as open question reminds,
from where these containers shall flow to Europe, and what is the main hinterland
transportation mode. This modal choice will affect sea based alternatives used.
References
Ashayeri, Jalal & Joost M.J. Rongen (1997). Central distribution in Europe: A multi-criteria approach to location selection. International Journal of Logistics Management, 8:1, pp. 97-109.
Baker, Peter (2007). An exploratory framework of the role of inventory and warehousing in international supply chains. International Journal of Logistics Management, 18:1, pp. 64-80.
Baker, Peter & Jon Sleeman (2011). The impact of economic and supply chain trends on British warehousing. Logistics Research Network Conference Proceedings 2011, Southampton, UK.
Ballis, A. and J. Golias (2004). Towards the improvement of a combined transport chain performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 152:2, pp. 420-436.
Bauer, Georg, Alice Fiser & Daniel Schneider (2001). Intermodal transport systems: A solution for the impending collapse of East-West traffic? In Mayinger, F. (ed): Mobility and traffic in the 21st century. Springer – Verlag, Berlin.
BBT SE (2012). Brenner Tunnel Official Webpages. Available at URL: http://www.bbt-se.com Retrieved: Aug.2012.
Cap Gemini (2007). 2007 Third-Party Logistics – Results and Findings from 12th Annual Study. Available at URL: http://www.de.capgemini.com/m/de/tl/Third-Party_Logistics_2007.pdf Retrieved: 6 Feb 2008.
Cariou, Pierre (2011). Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transportation Research: Part D, 16:3, pp. 260-264.
Clark, Pilita (2012). US warns over EU stance on airline emissions. Financial Times, 17.April. Available at URL: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/10b30e4c-88bc-11e1-a526-00144feab49a.html#axzz23Qkh2We5
Containerization International (2010). Containerization International Yearbook 2011. Informa Publishers, UK, London.
Cullinane, Kevin & Mahim Khanna (1999). Economics of scale in larger container ships. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 33:2, pp. 185-208.
Das, Chandrasekhar & Rajesh Tyagi (1999). Effect of correlated demands on safety stock centralization: Patterns of correlation versus degree of centralization. Journal of Business Logistics, 20:1, pp. 205-213.
Defra (2012). 2012 greenhouse gas conversion factors for company reporting. Available at URL: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2012/05/30/pb13773-2012-ghg-conversion/ Retrieved: Aug.2012.
100
Delhaye, Eef, Tim Breemersch, Kris Vanherle, James Kehoe, Mary Liddane & Kevin Riordan (2010). COMPASS – The Competitiveness of European Short-Sea Freight Shipping Compared with Road and Rail Transport. Transport & Mobility Leuven: Leuven, Belgium.
DG Regional (2008). Guide to COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS of Investment Projects. European Commission, Brussels.
DNV (2012). Greener Shipping in the Baltic Sea. Det Norske Veritas. June 2010. Available at URL: http://www.dnv.fi/Binaries/Greener%20Shipping%20in%20the%20Baltic%20Sea_tcm146-429433.pdf Retrieved: Aug.2012.
Duan, P. (2006). An Integrated Modeling Framefork for Intermodal Freight Operations Hub Cities. Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University, USA.
Eckerö Line (2012). Eckerö Line aikataulut (free translation in English: “Eckerö Line timetables”), available at: http://www.eckeroline.fi/fi/document-Rahti-Aikataulut.aspx?docID=2710, retrieved August 2012.
Edgell, Jon, Gabriel E. Meister & Nigel Stamp (2008). Global outsourcing trends in 2008. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 1:2, pp. 173-180.
Ellerman, A. D., F. J. Convery, C. De Perthuis, E. Alberola, B. K. Buchner, A. Delbosc, C. Hight, J. H. Keppler and F. C. Matthes (2010). Pricing Carbon: The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
European Commission (2001). WHITE PAPER: European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
European Commission (2011). TEN-T – Priority Projects 2010, Detailed Analysis. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
European Commission (2011). WHITE PAPER: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
European Union (2011). EU Transport in Figures – Statistical Pocketbook 2011. Luxemburg: Publications Office of EU.
European Union (2012). EU Transport in Figures – Statistical Pocketbook 2012. Luxemburg: Publications Office of EU.
Evans, Stephen (2012). German coal power revival poses new emissions threat. BBC News, 8.Aug. Available at URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19168574
Finnports (2012). Finnish Port Association – Statistics. Available at URL: http://www.finnports.com/eng/statistics/ Retrieved: Aug.2012.
Finnish Customs (2012). Transports of foreign trade, January-December 2011. Available at URL: http://www.tulli.fi/fi/suomen_tulli/ulkomaankauppatilastot/tilastoja/kuljetukset/index.jsp Retrieved: Aug.2012.
Google Maps (2012). Map and route builder application of Google Maps. Available at URL: http://maps.google.fi/ Retrieved: Aug.2012
101
Henttu, Ville & Olli-Pekka Hilmola (2011). Financial and Environmental Impacts of Hypothetical Finnish Dry Port Structure. Research in Transportation Economics, 33:1, pp. 393-407.
Henttu, Ville, Lauri Lättilä & Olli-Pekka Hilmola (2010). Financial and Environmental Impacts of a Dry Port to Support Two Major Finnish Seaports. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Department of Industrial Management. Research Report 224.
Henttu, Ville and Sirpa Multaharju (2011). Transshipment Costs of Intermodal Transport in Finnish Context. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Department of Industrial Management. Research Report 234.
Hilletofth, Per (2009). How to develop a differentiated supply chain strategy? Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109:1, pp.16-33.
Hilletofth, Per, David Eriksson, and Olli-Pekka Hilmola (2012). Two sides of a token: Coordinating demand and supply at furniture wholesaler. International Journal of Manufacturing Research, 7:2, pp. 101-122.
Hilletofth, Per, Olli-Pekka Hilmola and Frida Claesson (2011). In-transit Distribution Strategy: Solution for European Factory Competitiveness? Industrial Management and Data Systems, 111:1, pp. 20-40.
Hilmola, Olli-Pekka (2011a). Rail Baltica Influence Area: State of Operating Environment. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Department of Industrial Management. Research Report 236.
Hilmola, Olli-Pekka & Christian Ketels (2012). Transportation Infrastructure Investments in the Baltic Sea Region. In Ketels, C. (2012): State of the Region ReportTM. Denmark, Copenhagen.
Hilmola, Olli-Pekka (2011b). Container sea ports and network connections within the Gulf of Finland. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 3:4, pp. 316-334.
Hilmola, Olli-Pekka & Albert Wee Kwan Tan (2010). Logistics outsourcing and supply management in Finland, Sweden and UAE. International Journal of Procurement Management, 3:1, pp. 32-53.
Hilmola, Olli-Pekka, Ulla Tapaninen, Erik Terk & Ville-Veikko Savolainen (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, University of Turku (Turku, Finland), A44.
Hunt, Tonis (2009). Risks causing use of alternative routes in handling oil and chemical cargo flows in Finnish and Estonian ports in the Gulf of Finland. Estonian Maritime Academy Proceedings, Nr. 9, pp. 7-17.
ICE-ECX (2012). ICE-ECX European Emissions - Emissions Index. Available at URL: https://www.theice.com/marketdata/reports/ReportCenter.shtml?reportId=82&productId=390&hubId=564 Retrieved: Aug.2012.
Ikonen, Markku, Arvet Palkov & Kalle Viljanen (2007). Raskaiden ajoneuvojen omamassat – Selvitys mahdollisuuksista lisätä kantavuutta (free translation in English: ”Heavy vehicle weights – Research from possibilities to increase payload”). Turku University of Applied Sciences, 37. Turku, Finland.
102
IMO (2012). GloBallast – The Issue. Available at URL: http://globallast.imo.org/index.asp?page=problem.htm Retrieved: July.2012
Janic, M. (2007). Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road freight transport network. Transportation Research Part D, 12:1, pp. 33-44.
Kabashkin, Igor (2012). Freight transport logistics in the Baltic Sea Region. Regional aspects. Transport and Telecommunications, 13:1, pp. 33-50.
Kalli, Juha, Tapio Karvonen & Teemu Makkonen (2009). Sulphur content in ships bunker fuel in 2015: A study on the impacts of the new IMO regulations and transportation costs. Ministry of Transport and Communications. No. 31. Helsinki, Finland.
KK Freight (2012). Shipping Surcharges –CAF, BAF, All In. Available at URL: http://www.kkfreight.com/shipping-surcharges.html. Retrieved: August 2012.
Konecranes (2012). Personal communication by email to company (three different persons). July 2012.
Lindgreen, E., and S. C. Sorenson (2005). Simulation of Energy Consumption and Emissions from Rail Traffic Evaluation. Technical University of Denmark, MEK-ET- 2005 – 04. Denmark, Lyngby.
Maibach, M., C. Schreyer, D. Sutter, H.P. van Essen, B.H. Boon, R. Smokers, A. Schroten, C. Doll, B. Pawlowska, and M. Bak (2008). Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector. Delft, Netherlands.
Maister, D.H. (1976). Centralization of inventories and the square root law. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, 6:3, pp. 124-134.
Metsä Group (2012). Second Quarterly Report. 2.Aug. Helsinki, Finland. Morales-Fusco, Pau, Sergi Sauri and Alejandro Lago (2012). Potential freight
distribution investments using motorways of the sea. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, pp. 1-11.
Nieuwenhuis, Paul, Anthony Beresford and Andrew Ki-Young Choi (2012). Shipping of local production? CO2 impact on a strategic decision: An automotive industry case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 140:1, pp. 138-148.
Nupponen, Sakari (2011). Viron-laivojen yllätyspuoli: 10 000 tyhjää kilometriä (free translation in English: ”Estonian ferries surprise side: 10 000 kms of empty space”). Taloussanomat, 4.Oct.2011. Available at URL: http://www.taloussanomat.fi/ulkomaat/2011/10/04/viron-laivojen-yllatyspuoli-10-000-tyhjaa-kilometria/201114156/12 Retrieved: May.2012
Outokumpu (2012). Second Quarterly Report. 10.July. Espoo, Finland. Pagh, J.D. and Cooper, M.C. (1998). Supply chain postponement and speculation
strategies: how to choose the right strategy. Journal of Business Logistics, 19:2, pp. 13-33.
Parajuli, Ashis (2005). Modeling Road and Rail Freight Energy Consumption: A Comparative Study. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis. Queensland University of Technology. Australia, Queensland.
Port of Tallinn (2012). Cargo statistics webpage. Available at URL: http://www.portoftallinn.com/key-figures Accessed: Aug.2012.
Port of Helsinki (2012). Price List 2012. Port of Helsinki, Finland.
103
Polttoaine.net (2012). Webpages of service gathering prices of fuel in different stations in entire Finland (in Finnish). Available at URL: http://www.polttoaine.net/ Retrieved: Aug.2012.
Puckett, Sean M., David A. Hensher, Mary R. Brooks and Valerie Trifts (2011). Preferences of alternative short sea shipping opportunities. Transportation Research: Part E, 47:2, pp. 182-189.
Quinet, Emile and Roger Vickerman, (2004). Principles of Transport Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom, Cheltenham and Northampton.
Rautaruukki (2012). Second Quarterly Report. 19.July. Helsinki, Finland. Sames, Pierre C. & Martin Köpke (2012). CO2 emissions of the world container fleet.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, pp. 1-11. Saranen, Juha (2010, ed.). Intermodal Transportation in Emergency Situations in the
Gulf of Finland. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Department of Industrial Management. Research Report 223. Lappeenranta, Finland.
Seppälä, Ulla (1997). An Evolutionary Approach for Location Economic Facilities. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, Mathematics, Computing, and Management in Engineering Series, No. 83 (Doctoral diss.). Helsinki, Finland.
Simchi-Levi, David, James Paul Peruvankal, Narendra Mulani, Bill Read and John Ferreira (2012). Is it time to rethink your manufacturing strategy? Sloan Management Review, 53:2, pp. 20-22.
Solakivi, T., Ojala, L., Töyli, J., Hälinen, H-M., Lorentz, H., Rantasila, K., Huolila, K. and Laari, S. (2010). Finland State of Logistics 2010 (in Finnish). Publications of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications 36/2010, Helsinki, Finland.
Statistics Finland (2012). Construction database. Available at URL: http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/rakke/meta_en.html Retrieved: April.2012
Statistics Estonia (2012). Transport statistics database. Available at URL: http://www.stat.ee/transportation Retrieved: Aug.2012
Stead, Dominic (2006). Mid-term review of the European Commission’s 2001 Transport White Paper. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 6:2, pp. 365-370.
Styhre, Linda (2010). Capacity Utilization of Short Sea Shipping. Doctoral Dissertation. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Stora Enso (2012). Second Quarterly Report. 20.July. Helsinki, Finland. Sundberg, Pekka, Antti Posti & Ulla Tapaninen (2011). Cargo Traffic on the Helsinki-
Tallinn Route. Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies, University of Turku, A56. Turku, Finland.
Tallink (2012). Tallinn stock exchange press release database, Tallink. Available at URL: http://www.nasdaqomxbaltic.com/market/?instrument=EE3100004466&list=2&date=2012-08-12&pg=details&tab=news Retrieved: June-Aug.2012
TallinkSilja (2012). TallinkSilja reitit ja aikataulut (Free translation in English: “TallinkSilja routes and timetables”). Available at URL: http://www.tallinksilja.com/fi/mainMenu/cargo/routesAndTimetables/finEst.htm Retrieved: August 2012.
104
Tapaninen, Ulla (2012). Helsinki – Tallinn Passenger and Cargo Studies. Presentation given in Tallinn, Estonia (26.April.2012), RBGC interregional roundtable and H-TTransPlan meetings.
Tian, Yu, Fujun Lai & Francis Daniel (2008). An examination of the nature of trust in logistics outsourcing relationship – empirical evidence from China. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108:3, pp. 346-367.
TREMOVE (2010). A policy assessment model to study the effects of different transport and environment policies on the transport sector for all European countries. Available at URL: http://www.tremove.org Retrieved: May.2012
Uljanik (2012). Wagon Carrier – Uljanik shipyards. Available at URL: http://www.uljanik.hr/index.php?id=34&L=0 Retrieved: July.2012.
UPM (2012). Second Quarterly Report. 7.Aug. Helsinki, Finland. US EIA (2011). Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program Fuel Emission
Coefficients. Available at URL: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html Retrieved: Aug.2012.
Ust’Luga (2012). Launching Regular Ferry Communication Sassnitz — Ust-Luga. Ust’Luga sea port webpage press release, 9th of June. Available at URL: http://www.ust-luga.ru/pr/?s=news&id=394&lang=en Retrieved: Aug.2012.
Viking Line (2012). Viking Line reitit ja aikataulut (free translation in English: “Viking Line routes and timetables”). Available at URL: http://www.vikingline.fi/cargofi/reitit_aikataulut/aikataulut/hel_tal_ros.asp Retrieved: August 2012.
VR (1998). Annual Report of National Railway Company VR. Helsinki, Finland. VR Group (2011). Junalauttaliikenne Turun ja Tukholman välillä loppuu (free
translation in English: ”Railship traffic between Turku and Stockholm ends”). Press release, 7.Oct. Available at URL: http://www.vrgroup.fi/fi/vakiolinkit/VR-konsernitiedottaa/news_20111007140729.html Retrieved: Aug.2012.
VTT Lipasto (2011). Lipasto Traffic Emissions. Available at URL: http://lipasto.vtt.fi/indexe.htm Retrieved: June-July.2012.
Walsh, Conor & Alice Bows (2012). Size matters: Exploring the importance of vessel characteristics to inform estimates of shipping emissions. Applied Energy, 98, pp. 128-137.
Wang, Shuaian and Qiang Meng (2012). Liner ship fleet deployment with container transshipment operations. Transportation Research: Part E, 48:2, pp. 470-484.
Yle (2007). Päivittäinen laivaliikenne Kotkan ja Sillamäen välillä päättyy (free translation in English: ”Daily ferry traffic between Kotka and Sillamäe ends”). Yle broadcasting company, 17.Oct., Helsinki, Finland. Available at URL: http://yle.fi/uutiset/paivittainen_laivaliikenne_kotkan_ja_sillamaen_valilla_paattyy/5805878 Retrieved: Aug.2012.
105
Appendices
Appendix A Total CO2 emissions of utilization levels 30%, 40%, 60%, 70% and 80%. Hinterland operations are not separately reported as they are in all situations like shown in Table 16b.
30 % Utilization
Transportation Chain Alternative Total CO2 Emissions
Vessel Scenario Total (v1)
Hinterland
from total (v1) Total (v2)
Hinterland
from total (v2)
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 347525 1.7% 406462 1.4%
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 275792 2.1% 326342 1.8%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 334119 2.5% 380918 2.2%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 261461 3.2% 299612 2.8%
Roro 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 260506 3.6% 295626 3.2%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 336844 2.1% 388588 1.8%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 307897 2.5% 356020 2.2%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 270374 2.6% 315218 2.2%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 272756 3.1% 316657 2.7%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 471192 1.2% 494916 1.2%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 381101 1.5% 401763 1.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 450760 1.8% 470151 1.8%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 339962 2.4% 354680 2.3%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 341925 2.8% 355896 2.7%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 448372 1.6% 468948 1.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 404668 1.9% 423368 1.8%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 366792 1.9% 384969 1.8%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 367774 2.1% 385578 2.0%
Container ship FEU 500 122267 12.7% 161280 9.6%
Container ship FEU 88238 17.6% 119599 13.0%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 1352513 1.1% 2303389 0.6%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 805102 1.5% 1347032 0.9%
Railship 1 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 818711 3.1% 1360953 1.9%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 1188144 2.0% 1625857 1.4%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 814808 2.6% 1356893 1.6%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 639617 2.2% 1083961 1.3%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 382455 3.1% 635699 1.8%
Railship 2 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 396231 6.5% 649620 3.9%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 567715 4.1% 772258 3.0%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 392244 5.5% 645560 3.3%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 83726 8.3%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 55501 12.6%
Railway tunnel 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 70565 31.4%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 79859 18.2%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 62330 23.3%
106
40 % Utilization
Transportation Chain Alternative Total CO2 Emissions
Vessel Scenario Total (v1)
Hinterland
from total (v1) Total (v2)
Hinterland
from total (v2)
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 266530 2.2% 302603 1.9%
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 212377 2.8% 245026 2.4%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 258961 3.2% 284543 2.9%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 203124 4.1% 224807 3.7%
Roro 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 203975 4.6% 223136 4.2%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 262460 2.7% 293207 2.4%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 237791 3.2% 266124 2.9%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 208579 3.4% 235979 3.0%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 210961 4.0% 237418 3.6%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 352824 1.7% 367336 1.6%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 279772 2.1% 292548 2.0%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 330770 2.5% 340823 2.4%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 259611 3.2% 268076 3.1%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 261574 3.6% 269293 3.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 341238 2.1% 353477 2.0%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 315664 2.4% 327438 2.3%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 273293 2.6% 284195 2.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 274275 2.8% 284803 2.7%
Container ship FEU 500 102689 15.1% 124848 12.5%
Container ship FEU 75826 20.5% 93716 16.6%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 1088712 1.3% 1794910 0.8%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 632058 1.9% 1013418 1.2%
Railship 1 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 645635 4.0% 1027306 2.5%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 841820 2.8% 1168232 2.0%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 641747 3.4% 1023263 2.1%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 516460 2.8% 846466 1.7%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 301709 4.0% 479918 2.5%
Railship 2 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 315452 8.2% 493807 5.2%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 405986 5.8% 558518 4.2%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 311481 7.0% 489763 4.4%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 75890 9.5%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 50318 14.3%
Railway tunnel 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 65368 34.1%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 73321 20.1%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 57118 25.8%
107
60 % Utilization
Transportation Chain Alternative Total CO2 Emissions
Vessel Scenario Total (v1)
Hinterland
from total (v1) Total (v2)
Hinterland
from total (v2)
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 189392 3.1% 203689 2.9%
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 149591 3.9% 164515 3.6%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 187142 4.4% 192451 4.3%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 146834 5.6% 152627 5.4%
Roro 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 148931 6.4% 152555 6.2%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 188077 3.8% 197826 3.6%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 169176 4.5% 178141 4.3%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 147950 4.8% 158234 4.5%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 150331 5.7% 159673 5.3%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 244320 2.4% 250389 2.3%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 193171 3.0% 199209 2.9%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 230701 3.6% 232967 3.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 179260 4.6% 181473 4.6%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 177944 5.3% 179155 5.3%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 234104 3.0% 238006 3.0%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 211827 3.6% 215520 3.6%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 183860 3.8% 187801 3.8%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 184841 4.2% 188410 4.1%
Container ship FEU 500 83111 18.7% 88415 17.6%
Container ship FEU 63291 24.6% 67575 23.0%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 759126 2.0% 1159477 1.3%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 445373 2.8% 653318 1.9%
Railship 1 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 458884 5.7% 667140 3.9%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 611209 3.9% 752431 3.2%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 468891 4.7% 638478 3.5%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 362679 4.1% 549763 2.7%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 214706 5.8% 311878 4.0%
Railship 2 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 228382 11.5% 325700 8.0%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 298438 8.1% 364431 6.6%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 230922 9.6% 310170 7.1%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 64445 11.8%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 42393 18.0%
Railway tunnel 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 57413 39.5%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 63975 23.7%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 49041 30.9%
108
70 % Utilization
Transportation Chain Alternative Total CO2 Emissions
Vessel Scenario Total (v1)
Hinterland
from total (v1) Total (v2)
Hinterland
from total (v2)
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 168056 3.5% 176330 3.3%
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 131766 4.4% 141658 4.1%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 167232 4.9% 166920 5.0%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 131125 6.3% 132484 6.2%
Roro 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 132749 7.1% 131804 7.2%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 166825 4.2% 170574 4.1%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 149839 5.1% 153345 5.0%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 132489 5.3% 138408 5.1%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 133218 6.4% 137729 6.2%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 210289 2.8% 213710 2.7%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 165032 3.6% 168880 3.5%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 197534 4.2% 197219 4.2%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 156303 5.3% 156729 5.3%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 155850 6.1% 155341 6.1%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 203494 3.5% 205015 3.4%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 186673 4.1% 188410 4.1%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 164511 4.3% 166947 4.2%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 159999 4.8% 161634 4.7%
Container ship FEU 500 77517 20.1% 78006 19.9%
Container ship FEU 59747 26.0% 60185 25.8%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 685090 2.2% 1016626 1.5%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 399708 3.1% 565130 2.2%
Railship 1 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 413186 6.4% 578919 4.6%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 565209 4.3% 640578 3.8%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 419590 5.3% 556507 4.0%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 328199 4.6% 483126 3.1%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 193484 6.5% 270785 4.6%
Railship 2 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 207127 12.7% 284574 9.3%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 277051 8.8% 312271 7.8%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 207992 10.8% 271974 8.2%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 59629 13.2%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 38953 20.1%
Railway tunnel 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 53958 42.4%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 60102 25.6%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 45505 33.8%
109
80 % Utilization
Transportation Chain Alternative Total CO2 Emissions
Vessel Scenario Total (v1)
Hinterland
from total
(v1) Total (v2)
Hinterland
from total
(v2)
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 150823 3.9% 154232 3.8%
Roro 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 118430 4.9% 124558 4.7%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 151233 5.5% 146405 5.6%
Roro 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 118689 7.0% 116537 7.1%
Roro 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 120666 7.9% 116310 8.2%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 150885 4.7% 150136 4.7%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 135413 5.7% 134847 5.7%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 119319 5.9% 121521 5.8%
Roro 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 120444 7.1% 121348 7.0%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN 185136 3.2% 186599 3.1%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN 146778 4.0% 149205 3.9%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITH CABIN 176496 4.7% 174545 4.7%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON PLATFORM WITHOUT CABIN 139085 5.9% 138171 6.0%
Ferries (Ropax) 200 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 139194 6.8% 137389 6.9%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITH CABIN 180537 3.9% 180271 3.9%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 161831 4.7% 161634 4.7%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS AND 100 FEU ON PLATFORM, WITHOUT CABIN 144732 4.9% 145629 4.9%
Ferries (Ropax) 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON MAFI ROLL TRAILER 141567 5.4% 141768 5.4%
Container ship FEU 500 73322 21.2% 70199 22.2%
Container ship FEU 57038 27.3% 54537 28.5%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 603237 2.5% 858714 1.8%
Railship 1 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 365167 3.5% 498374 2.6%
Railship 1 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 378611 7.0% 512130 5.2%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 496107 4.9% 558608 4.4%
Railship 1 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 367378 6.1% 493871 4.6%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 290067 5.3% 409451 3.7%
Railship 2 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 177460 7.2% 239707 5.3%
Railship 2 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 191070 13.9% 253463 10.5%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 244868 10.0% 274074 8.9%
Railship 2 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 183702 12.3% 242812 9.3%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITH CABIN 55114 14.6%
Railway tunnel 200 SEMI‐TRAILERS ON FLATCAR WITHOUT CABIN 35687 22.6%
Railway tunnel 200 FEU ON FLATCAR 50678 45.5%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITH CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 56494 27.5%
Railway tunnel 100 SEMI‐TRAILERS WITHOUT CABIN AND 100 FEU ON FLATCAR 42138 36.9%
110
Appendix B Dedicated quays of Muuga (Tallinn) sea port (Figure 1) at map, and real picture from quay 14 (Figure 2).
Fig 1. Dedicated quays 13 and 14 for transit cargo operations bypassing the Free Zone. Quays
have loading ramp. Rail terminal is located nearby.
Rail terminal and marshaling yard of CT Muuga
Quays 13 and 14 with loading ramp
Fig 2. Quay 14 with loading ramp
Olli-Pekka Hilmola (Editor)
Competing Transportation Chains in Helsinki-Tallinn Route: Multi-Dimensional Evaluation
ISBN 978-952-265-276-8 (paperback)ISBN 978-952-265-277-5 (electronic, PDF) ISSN 1799-3563 Lappeenranta 2012
LAPPEENRANNAN TEKNILLINEN YLIOPISTOLAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Teknistaloudellinen tiedekunta Tuotantotalouden laitos
Faculty of Technology ManagementDepartment of Industrial Management
Tutkimusraportti Research Report 243