1. New UE Freight Corridors in the area of the central Europe Research Unit “Transport, Territory and Logistics” (TTL) University IUAV of Venice Final report Venice, 2009 October 30th

2. SECTION A – Study overview and objectives

3. WP 3.3.1 “Intermodal network definition of development p r i o r i t i e s f o r d e p l o y m e n t ” a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e “ B u s i n e s s c a s e : p o r t o f V e n i c e ” [ W P 5. 4. 8 ]  The railway network of central Europe, capable to achieve combined transport (specifically for container), in combination with the sea ports of Northern Europe (Rotterdam-Hamburg-Bremerhaven) and Northern Italy (Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Sea);  The economic area of influence of each port analyzed through transport variables (time) and then environmental parameters (energy consumption and emissions);  The environmental problems connected with the current economic organization of sea lines and the influence areas of the port systems minimizing environmental impacts;  Alternative scenarios for the most sustainable traffic organization. 3 This study has defined

4. SECTION B – Multimodal freight transport network

5. Container shipping relation Asia-Middle East to Europe This research has investigated International transport chains from Asia-Middle East to Europe via Suez Canal and via European ports up to their final destination by rail or road. Multimodal freight transport relates to shipments for which two or more transport modes are used - e.g. ship and train, ship and truck, or ship train and truck.

6. Assumptions As Port Said could be considered the gate of Suez Canal, it has been considered as the origin point for the comparison between multimodal chains, so:  Paths to North Adriatic and North Tyrrhenian ports are realized through 7,500 TEU capacity Ship  Paths to Atlantic ports are realized with 9,000 TEU capacity Ship  Destination within a 200-km (124-mile) range from ports are supposedly reached by road  Destination beyond a 200-km (124-mile) range from ports are served supposedly both by rail and road system combinations

7. The network simulated in the study The first part of the study has been devoted to the elaboration of the reference multimodal graph, required by the flow network simulation and traffic-related computation. The multimodal graph is made up as follows:  the maritime paths from the Suez Canal (gate for the Mediterranean Sea from the Far East), and the three port systems:  North Europe (Rotterdam – Hamburg),  North Tyrrhenian Sea (Genova – la Spezia),  North Adriatic (Venezia – Trieste);  the landlines (rail-road) between the three port systems and the main destination in the Central Europe. 7

8. European sea ports

9. Maritime freight network

10. Railway and road freight network

11. Port efficiency Port efficiency is an important element of shipping costs but was not taken into account in the precincts of this research The handling time and costs are determined from variable local conditions. 11

12. SECTION C – Simulation parameters

13. Simulation Methodology and Procedure Multimodal network have been defined as arcs (rail and road links) and nodes (ports, goods yards, logistic centers). Efficiency and environment impacts of transport chains are estimated in relation with following parameters:  Distances from each arch have allowed the calculation of average travel times (minutes);  Travel time simulation has been performed on road network by applying an All-or-Nothing assignment model with flow control. This model assumed that travel time could vary with congestion.  Consumption and emission simulation refers to unitary value calculated in a preliminary study. These parameters have been defined for each transportation mode. Final parameters are reported to total emission and consumption express per moved Teu for each relation.  The simulations were carried out using APL Language Program 13

14. Transit Time validation  Container transport services: transit times are deducted at an average cruise speed of 17knots. This value has been calculated in relation at real transit time recorded on this trade line (source: shipping companies, Maersk, MSC, and others);  Rail network: running time has been simulated in relation with distances and the results show commercial speed equal to 40 km/h (25 mph). This value has been validated by Infrastructure Manager data (Rfi);  Truck services: transit times have been simulated in relation with distances and are calibrated on the data reported by the European freight road companies and in relation with freight slots designed by infrastructure managers. 14

15. Standard transport modes considered 15 MAIN FEATURES FREIGHT TRAINTRUCK GROSS WEIGHT [Ton] 100040 TARE [Ton]60010 PAY LOAD [Ton]40030 WEIGHT PER TEU13,2 TEU/TRAIN30 TEU/TRUCK2 Main featuresunitMean value Energy Consumption t/h5,6 Speedknot17 Speedkm/h31,45 Fuel Consumption per kmton/km0,18 Fuel Consumption per teu – kmgram/km teu35,61 Consumption km teu gram/km teu 178.060 Source: Containerization International, fleet average data INPUT DATA FOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION Teu /ship 5.000 7.000 9.000 GT /ship 64.000 65.000 66.000 consumption ton/day* 158 161 163 km/day 756 gram/km 209.703 212.813 215.923 gram/km teu 41,94 30,40 23,99 *C=8,0052+0,00235*GT Source: A.R.P.A.V., Le emissioni da attività portuale, 2007 Train / TruckContainer Ship /

16. Fuel Consumption by Mode of Transportation ENERGY CONSUMPTIONWh/ tkmgram/t-kmgram/km teukg/km teu FREIGHT TRAIN (electric engine)221,8962,370,06 FREIGHT TRAIN (Diesel-electric engine) 51650,17 TRUCK 12,52200,22 ENERGY CONSUMPTIONg/km teukg/km teu Mean Value/ship35,610,036 5.000 teu/ship 41,940,042 7.500 teu/ship 35,840,036 9.000 teu/ship 35,570,036 Train / Truck Container Ship /

17. Emissions (C0 2, NO x, SO 2, NMVOC, PM) 1.Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major GHG leading to global warming. The global average temperature increase could have serious impact on global climate, leading to sea level rise, submerging many islands and metropolitans, and possibly even triggering acidification of the ocean ecological system. CO2 emissions from diesel engines are proportional to their fuel consumption. 2.Nitrogen oxides (NOx), including nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions are major contributors to acid rain, leading to the over-fertilization of lakes as well as the formation of smog. 3.Sulfur oxides (SOx), including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3), lead to acid rain and have detrimental effects on vegetation and human health. Sox emissions are proportional to total fuel consumption 4.Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) are an important outdoor air pollutant. The group includes individual VOCs such as, benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 1,3-butadiene. Within the NMVOCs, the aromatic compounds benzene, a carcinogen, may lead to leukemia through prolonged exposure. Many VOCs are involved in reactions that form ground-level ozone, which can damage to crops and many materials as well as potential effects on human health. 5.Particulate Matter (PM), mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air come from a variety fuel combustion, these emissions affect particularly respiratory system

18. Emissions unit values for transportation modes 18 RELATION FINAL ENERGY: EMISSION FACTORS TO FINAL ENERGY (KG FUEL) CO2NoxSO2NMVOCPM ggggg Gasoline6702,26,22,10,3 Diesel4701,84,41,50,24 Kerosene4501,84,31,50,23 Marine diesel oil 4001,741,50,22 Source: Ecoinvent 2006 VALUE OF EMISSIONS PER TEU - KM Power Source CO2/teu-km (grams) NOx/teu-km (grams) SO2/teu-km (grams) NMVOC/teu-km (grams) PM/teu-km (grams) total grams/teu- km TRAIN Electric 29,314 0,112 0,274 0,094 0,015 29,81 Diesel -Electric 77,550 0,297 0,726 0,248 0,040 78,86 TRUCK Diesel 103,400 0,396 0,968 0,330 0,053 105,15 SHIP Kerosene 16,025 0,064 0,153 0,053 0,008 16,30 Marine diesel oil 14,245 0,061 0,142 0,053 0,008 14,51 SHIP 5.000 teu 18,873 0,075 0,180 0,063 0,010 19,20 SHIP 7.500 teu 16,128 0,065 0,154 0,054 0,008 16,41 SHIP 9.000 teu 16,005 0,064 0,153 0,053 0,008 16,28 Source: our elaboration

19. Results 19 The values estimated in this research, applied the network simulation, allowed:  To pick up the multimodal freight transport modal combinations related to shipments, for example ship and train, ship and truck, or ship train and truck;  To account the total energy consumption and emissions on every arch of the graph and for the main destination, using multimodal network;  To estimate the different values of the time, the energy consumption and the emission using different links and different integrated transport modes

20. SECTION D – SIMULATION RESULTS

21. SECTION D.1 – EUROPEAN DESTINATION

22. Port Said – Krakow Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 22

23. Port Said – Krakow Partial Emissions 23

24. 24 Port Said – Metz Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

25. Port Said – Metz Partial Emissions 25

26. Port Said – Munchen Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 26

27. Port Said – Munchen Partial Emissions 27

28. Port Said – Paris Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 28

29. Port Said – Paris Partial Emissions 29

30. Port Said – Praha Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 30

31. Port Said – Praha Partial Emissions 31

32. Port Said – Wien Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 32

33. Port Said – Wien Partial Emissions 33

34. 34 The elaborations show:  The North Adriatic ports are efficient in transportation terms for all European destination examined;  The North Tyrrhenian ports present lower value only for energy consumptions and emissions exclusively for the French area (Metz and Paris);  The North European ports are not efficient for any parameters used in the study for all the destination tested. Transport and environmental best intermodal paths

35. SECTION D.2 – REGIONAL DESTINATION

36. Port Said – Padova Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 36

37. Port Said – Padova Partial Emissions 37

38. Port Said – Treviso Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 38

39. Port Said – Treviso Partial Emissions 39

40. Port Said - Udine Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 40

41. Port Said – Udine Partial Emissions 41

42. Port Said – Venezia Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 42

43. Port Said – Venezia Partial Emissions 43

44. Port Said - Vicenza Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 44

45. Port Said – Vicenza Partial Emissions 45

46. Port Said – Verona Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions 46

47. Port Said – Verona Partial Emissions 47

48. 48 Transport and environmental best intermodal paths A regional level analysis lets us draw the following conclusions:  The connection between North Tyrrhenian Ports and Padua Freight Village is not economically efficient to reach the final destinations (either if consumptions or if emissions are at-stake);  The port of Trieste can handle the concurrency of Venice only for North-Eastern border destinations: for leftover destinations Venice is to be preferred for both consumption and emission efficiency.