Analytical Decision-Making Methods for Evaluating Sustainable Transport in European Corridors

282 Pages·2014·10.487 MB·English

by  Isabella M. Lami (eds.)

Sxi
Isabella M. Lami Editor
Analytical Decision-Making Methods for
Evaluating Sustainable Transport in
European Corridors
SxI – Springer for Innovation /
SxI – Springer per l’Innovazione
Volume 11
For furthervolumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/10062
Isabella M. Lami
Editor
Analytical Decision-
Making Methods for
Evaluating Sustainable
Transport in European
Corridors
123
Editor
Isabella M.Lami
Regional and Urban Studiesand Planning
Politecnico diTorino
Turin
Italy
ISSN 2239-2688 ISSN 2239-2696 (electronic)
ISBN 978-3-319-04785-0 ISBN 978-3-319-04786-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04786-7
Springer ChamHeidelberg New YorkDordrecht London
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2014943242
(cid:2)SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2014
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor
informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief
excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the
purposeofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthe
work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of
theCopyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must
always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the
CopyrightClearanceCenter.ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor
anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with
respecttothematerialcontainedherein.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
‘‘But a commander in chief, especially at a difficult moment, has always before
himnotoneproposalbutdozenssimultaneously.Andalltheseproposals,basedon
strategics and tactics, contradict each other. A commander in chief’s business, it
wouldseem,issimplytochooseoneoftheseprojects.Buteventhathecannotdo.
Events and time do not wait. […] An order must be given (him) at once, that
instant. And the order to retreat carries us past the turn to the Kaluga road. And
aftertheadjutantcomesthecommissarygeneralaskingwherethestoresaretobe
taken, and the chief of the hospitals asks where the wounded are to go, and a
courierfromPetersburgbringsaletterfromthesovereignwhichdoesnotadmitof
the possibility of abandoning Moscow, and the commander in chief’s rival, the
man who is undermining him (and there are always not merely one but several
such),presentsanewprojectdiametricallyopposedtothatofturningtotheKaluga
road,andthecommanderinchiefhimselfneedssleepandrefreshmenttomaintain
hisenergyandarespectablegeneralwhohasbeenoverlookedinthedistributionof
rewardscomestocomplain,andtheinhabitantsofthedistrictpraytobedefended,
andanofficersenttoinspectthelocalitycomesinandgivesareportquitecontrary
towhatwassaidbytheofficerpreviouslysent;andaspy,aprisoner,andageneral
who has been on reconnaissance, all describe the position of the enemy’s army
differently’’.
[Lev Tolstoj, War and Peace, The Cambridge World Classics, 2010]
v
Foreword
Infrastructure and Sustainable Growth:
The European Perspective
Until the early 1980s the international geography of transport was dominated by
the relationship between the world’s major economic centres, namely the United
States and Europe. This led to a rapid development of European ports positioned
along the Atlantic coast, representing the points of easier access to the internal
market. Over the years, this monopoly has increasingly consolidated, despite the
construction of transhipment ports in the Mediterranean in the late 1990s. This
allowed recovery of least part of the economies of scale and efficiencies of
transport needed to bridge the competitive gap with the northern ports.
At present, the development of the economies of South-East Asia has com-
pletely changed the structure of trade routes giving a new focus to the Mediter-
ranean (and therefore also Italy) ports. However, northern ports continue to
increase their development not only because of the geographical advantages, tied
to their proximity to major markets in Europe. They, therefore, have greater
economicefficiency and reliabilityinthe integrated sea–land supplychain,which
still appears to compensate for increased travel times.
Itis necessarytoemphasise thatthecompetition betweentheportsofnorthern
Europe (namely: Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, Bremen, Le Havre and
Zeebrugge) and the Mediterranean (Valencia, Barcelona, Marseille, Genoa, La
SpeziaandPiraeus)notonlypotentiallyconcerntheforeign,rivalmarkets,butalso
thegoodswithorigin/destinationinthedomesticmarket.
This competition is likely to increase in the years to come.
Untilthelastdecade,theareaservedbyaporthasalwaysbeenlargelymadeup
of contiguous territories.
In perspective, the increase in efficiency of long-distance connections, mainly
duetotheimplementationofEuropeancorridors,willsignificantlychangetheface
of this system. Ports orient their strategies to expand trade on expanding to more
and more distant areas, despite the prevailing domain of other terminals. At the
same time, the stronger economic and logistical areas of Europe feel the need to
establish effective business relationships with the largest number of ports as
vii
viii Foreword
possible, in order to have more options and greater flexibility in transport. Added
to this are the growing markets of Eastern Europe, which have helped to shift the
focusofinternationaltradetotheEastandthattodayisanewandconsistentbasin
to serve.
Theeconomiccrisisthathasledtoasharpcontractionoftradeandwhichsawa
timeofuncertainty,hasalsoledtoanopportunityforthecompetitiverepositioning
of European ports. However, the economic situation is changing only slightly.
Afteradisastrous2009(Rotterdam-9%,from10.8millionTEUin2008to9.7in
2009; Genoa -17 %, 1.8000000–1.5000000 TEUs—Data Port Authority), traf-
ficking returned to growth in all ports, but with a reduction in growth rates (the
amount of traffic of major European ports shows +10.26 % 2009–2010, +7.15 %
2010–2011, +3.32 % from 2011 to 2012).
The gap between the Northern Range ports and the Mediterranean is likely to
increase, due to the current trend in the shipping market: it is the effect of
‘‘merging’’(ortheagreementsbetweenthemajor shipping lines),i.e.connections
between the major shipping lines and port operators, and naval gigantism.
The future of the ports will also be dictated by the characteristics of the
infrastructurethataffectwhetherornottheaccessofnewmegashipsandlogistics
services in the hinterland. Unlike the ports of the Northern Range, numerous
Mediterranean ports do not allow the use of large vessels, either because of the
characteristicsoftheinfrastructureoftheharbours(i.e.waterdepth,thesizeofthe
docks and availability of storage spaces) or because of the different economic
dimension of the hinterland. Therefore, the Mediterranean ports do not allow
exploitation of similar scale economies employed in Northern Europe.
The trend in data on the ships size is striking, as are the future predictions.
Estimates of Ocean Shipping Consultants (OSC) which show that the number of
containervesselswithacapacitygreaterthan4,000TEUswillbeexpectedtogrow
progressivelyandwillconstitute60%oftheworldfleetin2025.Toalargeextent
this increase will contribute towards the growth of ships with a capacity of more
than 10,000 TEUs.
The current monopoly of the Northern Europe ports in the international
transport market leads to a noticeable impact on the environment both globally
(i.e. more energy consumption and emissions due to longer journeys) and locally
(i.e.thesensitiveissueofnoisepollutionfrompassingtrainsintheRhinevalleyof
Germany). According to the conducted SoNoRa study in ‘‘New EU Freight Cor-
ridorsintheareaoftheCentralEurope’’bytheIUAVUniversityofVenice(IUAV
2009) it is estimated that the forwarding of containers from the Suez Canal to
MunichviatheNorthAdriaticratherthanbyRotterdamreducesCO emissionsof
2
135 kg per TEU.
In the three scenarios simulated by the OSC (natural evolution, recovery from
the recession, prolonged recession), they assume an increase in the gap of con-
tainertraffichandledbytheportsofNorthernEuropeandtheMediterraneanports
equalto4–5timesthatof2010.Iftheestimates,atagloballevel,providedbythe
Ocean Shipping Consultants (OSC) are proved to be true, CO emissions could
2
stillexpand,leadingtounsustainableenvironmentaleffectsonEuropeanterritory.
Foreword ix
At a European level, faced with the alternative of either exploiting economies
ofscaleandafurtherconcentrationoftrafficontheportsoftheNorthSea(andthe
BalticSea)orbringingtheMediterraneanport(andtheBlackSea)tocomparable
levelsofcapacityandefficiencyasofthoseoftheNorthSea,thelatteroptionwas
favoured. This would allow the correct utilisation of a logistical transport asset
which at present is not very sustainable.
This position is strengthened in the White Paper on Transport of 2011
‘‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area—Towards a competitive and
resourceefficienttransport’’,whereitstatesthat‘‘incoastalregionsthereisaneed
for a greater number of efficient entry points to European markets to avoid
unnecessary traffic flows across Europe. Seaports play an important role as
logistics centres but require efficient connections with the hinterland’’ [1].
The White Paper on Transport updates the European Union’s objectives in the
fieldoftransportuntil2050.TheTransport2050roadmapisintendedtoeliminate
the major barriers and bottlenecks in many key areas of various sectors: transport
infrastructure and investment, innovation and the internal market. The goal is to
createasingleEuropeantransportareaandafullyintegratedcompetitivetransport
network which connects the different modes of transportation and allows a pro-
found change in the transportation of passengers and cargo.
At the infrastructure level, in addition to the application of new intelligent
systems for security and information, stand three goals related to optimize the
effectiveness of the multimodal logistic chains and to increase the use of more
energy efficient modes of transport:
• ‘‘Complete the European high-speed rail network by 2050. Triple the existing
high-speed rail network and maintain the dense railway network of all the
Member States by 2030, because by 2050 the majority of medium-distance
passenger transport should be by rail.
• The multimodal TEN-T ‘core network’ should be fully operational throughout
the European Union by 2030. In 2050 a network of high quality and capacity
should be connected with a variety of information services.
• Connectallcorenetworkairportstotherailnetwork,preferablyhigh-speed,by
2050. Ensure that all major seaports are sufficiently connected to the system of
rail freight and, where possible, inland waterways’’ [1].
ThestrategiesinEuropearenotonlyorientedtoinfrastructuredevelopmentbut
also to promote actions of management and regulation of the transport sector, for
example, the creation of a competitive market, the harmonisation of rules, sim-
plification of procedures, the use of new information technologies for the safety
and efficiency of transport and the internalisation of external costs of transport.
By 2030, 30 % of the transportation of goods by road should transfer to other
modesoftransportsuchasrailorinlandwaterways:in2050thisfigureshouldrise
to50%.Thereisarealneedtopromotemoresustainableformsoftransportother
thanroadtransport(i.e.rail,inlandwaterwaysandmotorwaysofthesea),inorder
to reverse the trend of recent years, which has seen a steady increase in freight
x Foreword
demand(ifweexcludethecrisisof2008–2009)andamuchhigherroadtransport
quota than in the past.
The situation at a national level, however, shows great heterogeneity. Some
countries are more advanced than others in the development of integration
between transport modes. These countries include Germany, Belgium and The
Netherlands that use most of their inland waterways and Austria, Finland and
Sweden, which have a well-developed rail network that is conducive to a more
balanced modal split.
ItalystartsfromaworsesituationthanmostEuropeancountries,althoughithas
improved its performance since the crisis: 88 % of the value of goods by road in
2007hasrisento91%in2009.Duetothedecreaseandinstabilityofthequantity
of transported goods, roads were more favoured as they were more flexible than
railways but recovered to reach 86 % in 2012. Despite the slight improvement,
Italy is still bringing up the rear in respect to the nations with which it was
compared, and this demonstrates the need to act quickly and with adequate
investment.
On17October2013,theEuropeanCommissionpublishedthefinaldraftofthe
TEN-T network after consultations between the Member States and stakeholders.
Thenewmapsshowtheninemaincorridors,onelessthanproposedin2011.This
networkwillconnect38majorairportswithrailconnectionsthatleadtothemajor
cities(onemorethantheoriginal37)andwillcomprise15,000kmofrailwaylines
convertedtohigh-speedand35cross-borderprojectsmeanttoreducebottlenecks.
The nine main lines are divided into two north–south corridors (Scandinavian—
Mediterranean and the North Sea–Mediterranean Sea), three east–west corridors
(the Mediterranean, the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea–Baltic Sea) and four
diagonal corridors (Rhine–Danube, Rhine–Alps, the Baltic–Adriatic and Eastern
Europe–Eastern Mediterranean).
Thenewtransportcorenetworkwillbecomplementedbyanextensivenetwork
oflines(comprehensivenetwork)thatconnecttothecorenetworkatregionaland
nationallevels. Theultimate goal ofthe new guidelines ofthe EuropeanUnion is
toensurethatgraduallyby2050,thedistancefromthemainnetworkwouldbeno
further than 30 min for the vast majority of European citizens and businesses.
The nine corridors mark a huge advance in the planning of transport infra-
structure. The experience gained already shows the considerable difficulty of
making cross-border projects and other transportation projects in a coordinated
way in different Member States. The plans and governance structures of the new
corridors will greatly facilitate the implementation of the new core network.
The community funding necessary to achieve the objectives are set to triple
over the period 2014–2020 up to 26 billion Euros, which will serve as the capital
of ‘‘goodwill’’, in order to stimulate other investments in the Member States
intendedtocompletedifficultcross-borderlinksandlinesthatwouldnototherwise
be built. According to estimates, the cost of implementing the first phase of
funding of the core network will amount to 250 billion in the period 2014–2020.
IttranspiresthatEuropeanpolicies,suchasthetransportinfrastructurepolicies
of the TEN-T and the pattern of land use implicit in them, tend towards a
Foreword xi
rebalancing of the territorial organization of production and trade, which would
bring the Mediterranean back to the centre of the logistic continental arena.
In this context, the degree of performance of the integrated systems—Ports—
corridors—will play a key role on several levels: the infrastructure level, linking
the availability and degree of congestion in the network of land transport con-
nected to the inland: the level of transport services, the availability and effec-
tivenessofliaisonservices,and,finally,thelogisticslevellinkingtheefficiencyof
the transport chain and its integration into the overall supply chain.
‘‘Intermodal’’ is the keyword for the development of a logistics system that is
bothefficientandsustainable,whichrespectsthetraversedterritoriesanddrawing
itsstrengthfromtheresourcesandthepeculiaritiesthattheythemselvesareableto
generateandexploit.Itisthroughtheintegrationofinfrastructureandterritorythat
the efficiency of the logistics system can be appreciated as a whole.
To take this opportunity, however, it is necessary to promote clear national
policiesconsistentwiththeEuropeanUnion,tohavethepoliticalcouragetomake
choices and prioritise actions: policies that are able to specify requirements
(demand analysis), to set goals through concrete numbers, programmes, actions
andinfrastructurewiththeconsentofthepopulationandtoidentifythenecessary
funding sources.
Forthesereasonsitisessentialtodevelopvaluationmodelsinordertoquantify
and qualify the effects (direct and indirect, positive and negative) of certain
decisions of logistics and transport systems on the territory and the environment.
Never in these circumstances, as they have historically done in the field of
transportofgoodsandpeople,doweneedtoexercisethemaximumofpredictive
ability, to prevent, or at least reduce, the risk of an irreversible bad decision.
Hence, many evaluation tools are available in the decision process to support
the transformation of the territory: multi-criteria techniques, analysis for the
selection of alternative scenarios, economic analyses of the investment (such as
cost-benefitanalysis,opportunitycosts).These aretoolsthroughwhich tooperate
in order to make an appropriate choice to resolve the complexity of the shared
problems.
Turin, March 2014 Riccardo Roscelli
References
1. European Commission (2011) White paper on transport of 2011—Roadmap to a single
European transport area—towards a competitive and resource efficient transport. http://ec.
europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2011_white_paper_en.htm
2.SoNorA(2009)NewUEFreightCorridorsintheareaofthecentralEurope,finalreportedited
by Research Unit ‘‘Transport, Territory and Logistics’’ (TTL)-University IUAV of Venice.
https://www.port.venice.it/files/page/studiosonoraco2.pdf