Scholarly article on topic 'Assessing intermodal freight transport scenarios bringing the perspective of key stakeholders'

Assessing intermodal freight transport scenarios bringing the perspective of key stakeholders Academic research paper on "Economics and business"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Transportation Research Procedia
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Intermodal transport" / "freight transport costs" / "Shipping speed" / "CO2 emissions" / "Corporate Social Responsibility"}

Abstract of research paper on Economics and business, author of scientific article — Jose Prata, Elisabete Arsenio

Abstract This paper extends the previous R&D project on the evaluation of intermodal freight transport scenarios (seamless multimodal logistic chains) centered in the Port of Sines in Portugal where a set of alternative investment options were compared: (i) maritime – maritime (short-sea-shipping); (ii) maritime-road; (iii) maritime-rail; (iv) maritime-rail-air. This paper aims to bring the perspective of key stakeholders gathered in a specific workshop and assesses the impact of their views in the evaluation of options. The impact analysis focuses on most critical operational and environmental variables, namely shipping speed and CO2 emissions.

Academic research paper on topic "Assessing intermodal freight transport scenarios bringing the perspective of key stakeholders"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Transportation

ScienceDirect Procedía

Transportation Research Procedía 25C (2017) 900-915 ■ ■ w «J «J

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016

Assessing intermodal freight transport scenarios bringing the perspective of key stakeholders

Jose Prataa, Elisabete Arsenioa*

aLNEC I.P., Department of Transport, Avenida do Brasil, 101, Lisboa, 1700-066, Portugal

Abstract

This ¡paper extends the previ ous R&D project on the evaluation of intermodal freight transport scenarios (seamle ss multimodal logistic chains) centered in the Port of Sines in Portugal where a set of alternative investment options were compared: (i) maritime - maritime (short-sea-shipping); (ii) maritime-road; (iii) maritime-rail; (iv) maritime-rail-air. This paper aims to bring; ohe onr^pecti vm pa key atakeholders g athered i n a specific workshon ann arsesses the impact of their views in the eval uation of options. The impact analysis focuses on most critical operational and environmental variables, namely shipping speed and CO2 emissions.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Prer-revi^ under re^onsbility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY. Keywords: Iete)modal transport, freight transport costs, Shipping speed, CO2 emissions, Corporate Social Responsibility.

1. Introduction

Actually, around 96% of freight traffic moves along Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) including core ports such as the Port of Sines in Portugal , included in the designated Atlantic corridor. The Port of Sines is the main port in the Ibero -atlantic fronting the southeast of Europe and it leads the Portuguese port sector in the -volume of cargo handled (27423 1 03ton and 34600 1 03ton, in 2012 and 2013 , respectively) (INE, 2014). Following the Strate gic Transport and Infrastructures' Investment Plan 201 4-e022 of the Portuguese Government seFeral transport mvestments are planned to accommodate the expected frei°ht growth until 20220. This paper extends the previous

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 218 443 326; fax: +351 218 443 029.

E-mail address : elisabete.arsenio@lnec.pt

2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY. 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.465

Elisabete Arsenio et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25C (2017) 900—915 901

Nomenclature

AE Group of African countries from east side

ANE Group of north American countries from east side

ANW Group of north American countries from west side

AW Group of African countries from west side

CSR Corporate social responsibility

Ex.C External costs

GT Gross tonnage

ME Group of countries from Middle East

MM Group of European countries located nearly from Mediterranean Sea, between Gibraltar and Suez;

NE Group of northern European countries

Op.C Operational costs

OR Group of oriental countries and from Oceania

PF Pilotage fees

LA Group of some south American countries from west side

QT Total quantity of goods

SSS Short-sea shipping

UPF Using port fees

research pursued as part of the R&D project COST-TRENDs (Arsenio, et al., 2013) funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology. It included a strategic evaluation case study of intermodal transport (including the set of hinterland connection options) centered in the Port of Sines. The previous study (Arsenio, et al., 2013) provided a comparative analysis of a set of alternative investment options (ex ante analysis): (i) maritime -maritime (short-sea-shipping); (ii) maritime-road; (iii) maritime-rail; (iv) maritime-rail-air. Several key performance indicators were estimated for each intermodal investment option. It was found that short-sea shipping was associated with the best cost-effectiveness indicator in 2020, with an average operational cost of 2,17 €/ton. Additionally, it was found that external costs related to CO2 emissions represented 0,169 €/ton, higher than for railways (0,056 €/ton) which pointed out the importance of short sea shipping in the freight chain where the Port of Sines could act as a reinforced transhipment hub (Prata & Arsenio, 2014). The research also brought together Port stakeholders in a specific workshop entitled as "Open Seminar to Key Stakeholders from APS S.A", which was held at LNEC in 27th November 2013. All invited stakeholders were experienced professionals involved in Port management and freight operations. Firstly, several intermodal transport options were presented along with the results of the case study conducted as part of the COST-TRENDs project (Arsenio, et al., 2013). An interactive discussion followed with the stakeholders aiming to gather their views on the most important drivers and critical variables for maritime freight transport and hinterland transport investments until 2020. Stakeholders had identified the speed limit as one of the most critical operational variables to reduce maritime transport costs. Regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions, the Port managers mentioned that carbon related taxes would lower the competitiveness of the Port but that these could be a policy option for Europe until 2020. In the short term, natural gas was identified as an alternative energy source aiming at low carbon transport in comparison to conventional fuel shipping. The Port of Sines could represent an important centre to recharge ships operated by using natural gas when considering the expansion of Natural Gas Terminal. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) offers significant local pollution emission benefits comparatively to marine petroleum fuels. A switch to Natural gas can reduce immediately air pollutants such as SOx and PM10. Additionally, a fuel-cycle analysis comparison between LNG and conventional marine fuels shows that it is possible to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the maritime transport sector (Thomson, et al., 2015). According to Brynolf, et al. (2014), the combined effort to reduce the SOx, NOx and GHG emissions is in line with future regulations that will require a significant change in ship propulsion. Minimising the carbon footprint and fuel consumption is a strategic direction for shipping companies (Mansouri, et al., 2015). The use of LNG or methanol produced from natural gas can improve the overall environmental performance. The life cycle assessment of methanol and methane as marine fuel (produced from the same raw materials) do not show any significant differences in environmental performance

(Brynolf, et al., 2014). The use of biofuels is one possible measure to decrease the global warming impact from shipping activity (Bengtsson, et al., 2012). A previous study analysed the effect of speed reduction from 21 to 18 knots for a fleet of 25 identical Panamax containerships and it was found that it would be necessary 4,17 extra ships per year to achieve the same cargo (Psaraftis & Kontovas, 2010). The IMO GHG study (International Maritime Organization, 2014) shows a potential reduction of CO2 between 25 and 75% per ship, with currently available technologies. However, the top end of this range is only possible by reducing speed. According to Lindstad, et al. (2011), maritime transport represented in 2009, 3.3% of the world's total CO2 emissions and there is a substantial potential for reducing CO2 emissions in shipping. It is possible to reduce CO2 emissions between 19% and 28% based purely on lower speeds (Lindstad, et al., 2011). The CE Delft report (Faber, et al., 2012) indicates that a 10% speed reduction implies a 27% engine power reduction. However, a vessel sailing 10% slower will expend, approximately, 11% more time to cover a certain distance. The relation between fuel consumption and CO2 emissions is proportional with energy consumption, except at very slow speeds. Fuel costs are an important cost item in shipping, and typically, account for more than 50% of the total operational costs (Fagerholt, et al., 2015). A possible regulation of speed through speed restrictions for reducing CO2 emissions should be expressed in average speed over ground and be dependent on the ship type and possibly its size. According to the literature review developed by CE Delft Report (Faber, et al., 2012), the costs and benefits comprise the following items: (i) internal costs (building and operating additional ships; ship and engine modification; higher inventory costs for maritime cargo; monitoring costs); (ii) internal benefits, namely fuel savings; (iii) external costs (adjustment of logistical chaines; less innovation in energy saving technologies) and (iv) external benefits (lower emissions of CO2, NOx, SOx, and black carbon; fewer whale strikes; higher emissions associated with ship building). One example, the Port of Long Beach has implemented a Green Flag Program to reduce ship emission. The aim of the program was based on a vessel speed reduction to 12 knots within 40 nm of Point Fermin (which is a point near to the harbor entrance). It shall be noted that the speed reduction to 12 knots will imply a reduction of 29% of CO2 emissions, assuming the participation of all ships (Faber, et al., 2012). Each vessel type has its own design speed but smaller ships are designed for lower speeds than larger ships. Table 1 shows the design and average speed for selected ship types.

Table 1. Design speeds and average speeds of selected ship types (Faber, et al., 2012).

Ship type Ship size Design speed Average speed

(knot) while at sea (knot)

Crude oil tanker >200000 dwt 15,4 14,4

Crude oil tanker 60000-79999 dwt 14,6 13,4

Bulk carrier >200000 dwt 14,4 13,3

Bulk carrier 60000-69999 dwt 14,4 13,2

General cargo >10000 dwt 15,4 14,8

General cargo <4999 dwt 11,7 10,5

Container >8000 TEU 25,1 22,7

Container 3000-4999 TEU 23,3 20,9

Psaraftis & Kontovas (2013) distinguishes slow steaming from speed limits. The first is a voluntary response and the second is an imposed measure: (i) if the speed limit is above the optimal speed that is voluntarily chosen, then it is superfluous; (ii) if it is below, it may cause distortions in the market and costs that exceed the benefits of speed reduction. The same authors point out possible side-effects which may include: (i) building more ships to match demand throughput, with more CO2 associated with shipbuilding and recycling; (ii) increasing cargo inventory costs due to delayed delivery; (iii) increasing freight rates due to a reduction in tonne-mile capacity; (iv) inducing reverse modal shifts to land-based modes (mainly road) that would increase the overall CO2 level, and (v) implications on ship safety (Psaraftis & Kontovas, 2013). In this study we use the function estimated by Dong-Ping (2010): y=7,75x-80,6 and R2=0,9974, where y is gCO2/TEU.km and x is the sailing speed in knots) as it provides a detailed service activity-based method to estimate the CO2 emission index of containerships (Dong-Ping, 2010). This research paper aims to bring the views gathered from Port stakeholders into the assessment analysis of fright transport investments,

by analysing the impact of sailing (paad and CO2 ami((ioe( in the avaluatioe of the ieta)modal optioe( p)aviou(ly addressed. The )amieda) of this papa) is o)aaeizad as follows: section 2 p)a(aet( the Port of Sines in the context of main transport and social trends; (actioe 3 p)a(aet( the study methodology and the a((umptioe( considered for a((a((iea the set of alternative ieta)modal freight transport options (ex ante analysis, before the investments are made); sactioe 4 presents the casa study and the davalopmaet of future scenarios until 2020; sactioe 5 presents the )asults of the analysis; and finally, section 6 presents key conclusions and findings.

2. The Port of Sines in the context of main transport and social trends

The Port of Sines is the main port in the Ibero-atlantic front of Europe whose geophysical characteristics have been determinant on its consolidation as national strategic asset. It is the country's leading energetic supplier, as well as an important port as far as general and containerized cargo concerns and it has a high growth potential to become a reference European port (PSA, 2014). The Port of Sines entered the "top 25" of Europe's largest ports (24th position), being the second European harbor with the highest growth in 2012 with 28.6 million tonnes handled (TR, 2014). The previous Portuguese Strategic Transport Plan 2011 - 2015 (PET) planned a total investment of 1350,7 M€ for the Port of Sines, where: (i) 20,4% are public investments; (ii) 15,8% are dedicated to Terminal XXI expansion (containers); (iii) 69,7% are dedicated for the new terminal container called as Vasco da Gama, and (iv) 14,5% are dedicated for the expansion of Natural Gas Terminal (PET, 2011). More recently, the Portuguese Strategic Transport & Infrastructures' Plan 2014 - 2020 (PETI3+) provides an update of the previous PET 20112015 and comprises strategic goals for the Port of Sines aligned with a long-time horizon. The planned investment aims to promote intermodal freight transport and to reduce operational costs along freight logistic chains. According to the European Intermodal Association (EIA), containers are represented as cargo units intended for good movements between two transport modes, and shall be suitable for efficient, safe and quick operations (EIA, 2012). The containerized cargo in maritime transport is associated with the type of Liner Shipping service. According to Hoffman (2012), this service makes it possible to carry containers in one trip to several final destinations, even if the individual transport of these containers is economically unfeasible, directly from point A - origin, and B - final destination (Hoffman, 2012). In order to understand which ports are more competitive, the UNCTAD is evaluating since 2004, different levels of connectivity between ports of the same country (UNCTAD, 2012). This connectivity indicator is designated as Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI). Five components are evaluated over time, namely: (i) the number of companies that provide services between ports of the country , (ii) the size of the largest ship (TEUs) that provides the service between ports of the country (represent an indicator of economies of scale); (iii) the number of services that link one specific port with other foreign ports (transshipment needs decreases with an higher LSCI); (iv) the total number of ships engaged in the services between ports of the country, and (v) total capacity of vessels (TEUs) that provide services between ports of the country. Between 2004 and 2011 the size of ships increased about 74% and the number of companies, services and ships tended to decrease. Simultaneously, the lower number of ships with higher capacity implies economies of scale (and lower transport costs). Consequently, vessels with higher capacity require bigger companies and these can make pressure on smaller ones. In this sense, the reduction of competition could promote an oligopoly market and subsequently the reduced costs are not guaranteed to final customers (Hoffman, 2012). On the other hand if bigger companies aim for a higher charge load per time unit to reduce costs, it is also possible that smaller companies could obtain gains through short sea shipping (SSS) and transshipment activities. Since one limitation of speed limits is build more ships to match demand throughput (Psaraftis & Kontovas, 2013) it is possible that SSS can have gains against bigger companies. Following the European Environmental Agency (EEA, 2013) the SSS will increase 100% until 2050 and intermodal transport is not competitive for ranges lower than 750 km (especially in the mainland). Considering the supply chains variety there are three elements that influence the efficiency of intermodal transport (i) time (influenced by the speed limits of each transport mode and working hours per day), (ii) reliability (safety issues, punctuality and congestion) and (iii) flexibility (related to market and demand) (EEA, 2013). The Port of Sines is also committed to promote Corporate Social Responsibility, as a response to sustainability issues such as those related to environmental pressures. The EC Green Paper (2001), entitled as "Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility", defines Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a fundamental concept whereby companies integrate, voluntarily, social and environmental issues in their economic activity and in their stakeholder's

interaction. The sustainable principles represent the path to achieve economic success and contribute to a cleaner environment and social benefits. The voluntary condition of the CSR concept allows companies to develop their own business strategies (EC Green Paper, 2001). The European Union helps to launch the ISO 26000, entitled as "Guidance on social responsibility" developed by International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and designed to be applied by all organizations (not only by firms). This document established different guidelines to help organizations to implement their own policies based on sustainability. The seven principles of ISO 26000 are: accountability; transparency; ethical behaviour; respect for stakeholder interests; respect for the rule of law; respect for international norms and for human rights (ISO 26000, 2010). The concept of CSR within the context of seaports is related to sustainable supply chain management, having on its basis the central concept of sustainable development, which refers to meeting the company needs, respecting the environment of the planet without endangering future generation's needs (ISO 26000, 2010). According to the above referred, the stakeholder theory emerges as a central concept in CSR, which analysis the interactions between firms and their stakeholders (e.g. to improve shareholder value; to influence strategies; to influence companies). The internalization of external costs that includes possible port dues and charging systems (e.g. related to GHG emissions and other pollutants) are important policy trends requiring a future CSR strategy. Previous studies had mainly been focused at environmental issues, such as waste, oil pollution (Carpenter & MacGill, 2001), air pollution (Michaellowa & Krause, 2000), port facilities and charging infrastructures (Bergantimo & Coppejans, 2000). According to the desired distribution between transport modes from the perspective of the port and/or a public actors such as the city-region, port owner (among others), the introduction of a port due may be justified by several reasons as follows: (i) the region wants to distribute traffic in a different way; (ii) the port wants to improve efficiency by decreasing congestion at the port, queuing times, handling efficiency; (iii) by introducing different port dues schemes for hinterland transport/transport service providers, an higher efficiency and better utilisation of resources can be achieved; (iv) depending on what the revenues from the port dues are used for (e.g. investments in infrastructure and equipment to improve the transport operation efficiency), and (v) from a social perspective, the utilisation of infrastructure enables more efficient use of infrastructure resources and investments, among others (Bergqvist & Egels-Zandén, 2012). At the moment, the Port of Sines has still limited incentives to introduce green port dues. There are several perceived risks by stakeholders to be accounted for in case of a possible price increase (e.g. impact on port business volume with possible demand reduction, shift of demand to other competitors, etc.). However, as demonstrated by (Bergqvist & Egels-Zandén, 2012) the introduction of a differentiated port fee related to hinterland transport can have a limited effect on total costs; simultaneously, the environmental impact of hinterland transport decrease significantly if the fee levels are set at suitable levels (given the elasticity of the hinterland transport market) - this is justified by the same authors as the shift to greener modes of transport has often associated economies of scale, given a less than proportional increase in transport costs as compared to the introduction of charges. It shall be noted that the European Commission Transport White Paper (EC, 2011) points out the importance of improving hinterland connections to ports, efficient services and set adequate port pricing as conditions to remain competitive in increasing globalised markets. On the other hand, the mentioned White Paper envisages that a total of 30 % of road freight over 300 km should shift to other modes such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030 (and more than 50 % by 2050). The White Paper refers the need to cut greenhouse gas emission (GHG) from transport by 20% by 2030 and by 70% until 2050 (with respect to 2008 levels). Therefore, intermodal transport investments and reducing the carbon footprint of logistic chains are matters of primary importance for the European transport policy.

3. Assessing intermodal freight transport options: methodology

Considering the already mentioned planned investments for the Port of Sines and its hinterland until 2020, the evaluation of intermodal freight transport comprised the following set of options (seamless logistic freight chains): (i) maritime - maritime (short-sea-shipping); (ii) maritime-road; (iii) maritime-rail; (iv) maritime-rail-air. The methodology adapted is based on the same methodology of previous study (Arsenio, et al., 2013). The analysis used historical data on transport freight, energy and emissions to develop prospective scenarios until 2020, comprising the development of port hinterland connections and coastal shipping. The cost model aimed to minimize total intermodal transport costs along the logistic chain (including external costs due to CO2 emissions). The total transport operating costs included the following components: (i) energy costs, (ii) amortization of the technology and (iii) technological

depreciation, (iv) maintenance, (v) personnel costs, (vi) fees (use of infrastructure, piloting, goods handling, storage, crew, etc.), (vii) insurance, and (viii) overhead costs. Overall, the study methodology can be summarizes as follows: (i) development of future scenarios for the evolution of freight movements using best practice methods (foresight analysis); (ii) computation and minimization of the total intermodal freight costs for different sailings speeds (between 17 and 23 knots) including the external costs that are related to climate change, for each option based on: (a) origin - destination (OD) matrix; (b) travel distance - time, and (c) capacity & constraints. The study estimated several key performance indicators for each option which are aligned with cost minimization and environmental goals (minimization of CO2 emissions). The study assumptions are next detailed in section 3.1.

3.1. Assumptions

The following assumptions were considered in the study: (i) The widening of the Panama Canal scheduled for 2014 will allow the movement of larger ships and cargo capacity, representing an advantage for Sines (key transhipment hub) for the entry and exit of goods in Europe (ENM, 2013); (ii) The European's Commission Transport White Paper that points out the need to concentrate action on the components of the TEN-T network with the highest European added value. It is said that 30% of road freight over 300 km should shift to other transport modes such as rail or waterborne transport until 2030, and more than 50% by 2050 (EC, 2011); (iii) It is assumed that the goods handled in the Alentejo region in Portugal were moved from/to Sines; (iv) The technological improvement of trucks until 2020 will turn this mode 10% more efficient (EC, 2011); (v) 40% of CO2 emissions associated to maritime transport will be reduced by 2050, comparatively to the reference year of 2005 (EC, 2011).It is assumed a goal reduction of CO2 emissions by 27% until 2020 (emissions related to maritime transport); (vi) The maximum annual container handling will increase from 1000000 to 5000000 TEUs in 2022 (PET, 2011). It is assumed the same value for 2020; (vii) the sailing speed considered as reference is 20 knots; (viii) it was considered 95% of maximum capacity as useful transport cargo; (ix) it was considered that quantities of goods (per year) lower than vessels' capacity should be aggregated into a single vessel associated to one maritime route. It is assumed a 39% reduction of oil imported in 2020 due to the expected integration of electric vehicles in the fleet (EC, 2011); (x) It is assumed that in 2020, the airport of Beja can function as an extension of the logistic platform of the Port of Sines and will allow the promotion of exports of the following goods: putrescible, technology, textile and footwear. In this sense, the activities related with the primary sector such as agriculture, fisheries and livestock could catalyze the regional economy. Portugal could become more competitive if these value-added goods could be exported in a more efficient way. It is assumed as an predetermined-element, that in 2020 the export of those goods will be achieved by intermodal transport (that combines rail and air transport) and by transferring 30% of road freight movements; (xi) It was considered that the cargo movements between Sines and Madrid are as follows: (a) 70% have Madrid as final destination and (b) 30% have Madrid as origin of cargo; (xii) It was considered 70% of maximum capacity as useful transport cargo at air mode; (xiii) It is assumed as an predetermined-element a national increase of 50% of goods: 01 (agriculture products, animal products, hunting and forestry, fish and other fishery products) and 05 (textile products and leather goods); (xiv) since this work comprises an aggregate data related to the goods and CO2 emission it wasn't considered the CO2 emissions per ship; and (xv) the average sailing speed of 20 knots was considered in the analysis. In this paper we use the results of Dong-Ping Song (2010) research for estimating of CO2 emissions (gCO2/TEU.km) as a function of speed (x): it was assumed the same function/trend (y=7,75x-80,6 and R2=0,9974) to lower sailing speeds, namely 17 knots.

4. Development of future scenarios until 2020

The Port of Sines along with its industrial and logistic areas has road and rail infrastructures connected to different terminals. The Atlantic Corridor rail freight line number 4 (EC, 2013) will promote intermodal transport options that will combine the use of hinterland transport modes such as rail, connecting Sines and Madrid. In this research we considered a new railway line that crosses the city of Beja (located a 110 km from port of Sines through road IP-8). This consideration is important to assess the potential of linking existing infrastructures with air freight transport for exporting valued-added goods. The city of Beja in the Alentejo region has a new airport infrastructure with almost no use, so the research aimed to optimize existing infrastructures and explored how this facility could be

more competitive for intermodal purposes. The Port of Sines is the unique deepwater port in the country able to accommodate vessels of the "Postpanamax" type. The development of prospective scenarios comprised different methodological steps. The first step is represented by the characterization of the initial/reference situation (in terms of good movements, energy and related CO2 emissions). Appendix A presents the reference situation in 2011. The second methodological step comprised the identification of predetermined-elements: (i) climate change issues; (ii) increase of globalization issues; (iii) increase of fossil fuel costs; (iv) higher investments on renewable energy to produce electricity; (v) integration of electric vehicles in the Portuguese fleet; (vi) energy intensity reduction; (vii) technology improvement; (viii) increase of intermodal freight transport and good movements; (ix) expansion of Port of Sines; (x) innovation in information technology and communication systems. After a comprehensive analysis conducted at the European and national levels, the set of crucial uncertainties could be identified as follows: (i) Portuguese economy, (ii) social behaviour; (iii) EU to support for cohesion and economic development; (iv) new transport infrastructures; (v) optimize use of existing transport infrastructures; (vi) stimulation of the primary sector of the economy, and (vii) evolution of electricity costs. The wild cards that represent factors that could lead to the collapse of the Port of Sines were identified are as follows: (i) terrorism and armed conflict; (ii) environmental disasters; (iii) natural disasters; (iv) collapse of the European economic system; (v) unmatched competitiveness of the ports of Algeciras and Tanger-Med in relation to Sines. Appendix B presents the desirable future for 2020 which comprises the third methodological step (considering the movement of goods, energy consumption and CO2 emissions) after considering the main assumptions previously referred, the predetermined-elements, crucial uncertainties and wild cards. The final step comprised the development of several performance indicators related to the cost-effectiveness of intermodal freight transport options.

5. Transport costs of intermodal freight scenarios

This chapter analyses the costs of intermodal freight scenarios in Europe which comprise the options previously referred: (i) maritime - maritime (short-sea-shipping); (ii) maritime-road; (iii) maritime-rail; (iv) maritime-rail-air, where each multimodal logistic chain worked as a seamless freight option.

5.1. Maritime transport - short sea shipping

The O-D matrix for the freight intermodal option that combined the use of maritime transport with SSS considered the following zones for analysis: (i) AE - represents the group of African countries from east side; (ii) ANE - represents the group of north American countries from east side; (iii) ANW- represents the group of north American countries from west side; (iv) AW - represents the group of African countries from west side; (v) ME -represents the group of countries from Middle East; (vi) MM - represents the group of European countries located nearly from Mediterranean Sea, between Gibraltar and Suez; (vii) NE - represents the group of northern European countries; (viii) OR - represents the group of eastern countries and from Oceania, and (ix) LA - that represents the group of some south American countries from west side. This zone rearrangement was important to clarify the understanding of data. Different types of container vessels were considered as function of capacity (UNCTAD, 2012). In order to determine the transport freight costs of each vessel for different country groups, Appendix C and Appendix D present the operational costs for charged and discharged goods, respectively, considering different sailing speeds and different type of vessels for the reference year of 2011. In this sense it is expected that the results presented in Appendix C and Appendix D show different operational costs between charged and discharged cargo, in 2011. Based on the main assumptions previously referred in section 3.1 and on the prospective scenarios developed, it shall be noted that operational costs by 2020 would be equal, since the relations associated to O-D matrix were considered the same. The costs associated to port fees are not included because these are computed in function of GT (gross tonnage) and QT (total quantity of goods). These Port fees can be computed using the data from Table 2.

Table 2. Fees cost (in €) of Port of Sines.

Vessels QT/GT UPF PF (in) PF (out)

>1,22 Containers <1,22 0,3118 GT 0,1078 GT + 0,1679 QT 6,1220 x VGT 6,1220 x VGT 6,1220 x VGT 6,1220 x VGT

5.2. Maritime transport - road transport

The computation of internal freight transport costs includes the Port of Sines and Madrid as strategic nodes (origin and destination of cargo). We considered several types of HGVs according to capacity (RHA, 2012) and (IMPACT, 2008). Appendix E shows road freight transport costs between Sines and Madrid for each type of heavy vehicles, in 2011 and 2020.

5.3. Maritime transport - rail transport

Considering the construction of a new railway line between Sines, Beja and Madrid (case study assumption), the internal freight rail transport costs were computed as function of different type of wagons, capacities, and length and weight limitation/restrictions of locomotives (Floden, 2011). Appendix F and Appendix G show the internal freight rail transport costs between Sines and Madrid and between Madrid and Sines, for 2011 and 2020, respectively.

5.4. Maritime transport - rail - air transport

Freight air transport costs considered the future use and optimization of Beja Airport infrastructure. Several types of airplanes with different capacities (WBG, 2009) were considered. Products to be moved by air transport (products mentioned in section 3.1 as main assumptions to country exports) follow the same trend on the already mentioned OD matrix. Since this transport option represents a future scenario for 2020 it was considered the WBG (2009) good movement projections between Europe and the other referred group of countries. Appendix H shows the internal freight air transport costs between Beja and the World and 2020.

5.5. Comparative analysis for 2020

The cost estimation for maritime transport considered Container Ships; for road transport HGVs of 40 ton; for rail transport a train that comprises the Sgns wagons; for air transport the model Boeing 767. A comparative analysis was developed to better address the research goal of finding out the most cost-effective intermodal options. This analysis considered the European cargo movements. In this sense it is expected that vehicles with lower cargo capacity present higher costs. Table 3 presents the range of intermodal freight transport costs as a function of sailing speed (17 to 23 knots) and according to different hinterland connection options to maritime transport. The intermodal freight transport costs include operational costs (Op.C) and external costs (Ex.C) associated to climate change, in 2020 (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparative analysis: intermodal freight transport costs (internal + external due to CO2) for different options in Europe in function of different sailing speeds (in 2020)

Intermodality Type of Transport Sailing speed (knots)

scenario transport costs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

€/ton 2,56 2,42 2,29 2,17 2,07 1,98 1,89

Maritime - Op.C

Short Sea Container M€/year 6,48 6,12 5,79 5,50 5,24 5,00 4,78

Shipping Ship €/ton 0,12 0,13 0,15 0,17 0,18 0,20 0,22

(SSS) Ex.C

M€/year 0,60 0,69 0,78 0,88 0,96 1,04 1,14

Maritime - HGV 40t Op.C €/ton M€/year 122,90 425,70 122,83 425,58 122,77 425,46 122,71 425,36 122,66 425,27 122,61 425,19 122,57 425,11

road Ex.C €/ton M€/year 0,82 5,91 0,84 6,05 0,85 6,18 0,87 6,32 0,89 6,44 0,91 6,56 0,93 6,70

Maritime - Sgns Op.C €/ton M€/year 2,47 2,42 2.40 2.41 2,34 2,40 2,28 2,39 2,23 2,38 2,18 2,37 2,14 2,36

rail Ex.C €/ton M€/year 0,04 0,03 0,05 0,03 0,05 0,03 0,06 0,04 0,06 0,04 0,06 0,04 0,07 0,04

Maritime- Boeing767 Op.C €/ton M€/year 1559,19 2,51 1559,12 2,50 1559,05 2,50 1559,00 2,49 1558,94 2,49 1558,90 2,49 1558,85 2,48

Rail - air Ex.C €/ton 8,28 8,29 8,30 8,31 8,32 8,32 8,33

M€/year 0,04 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,06 0,06

Considering the sailing speed of 20 knots, appendix E shows that maritime-SSS represents the option that is associated with the lowest operational cost (around 2,17 € per ton in 2020), followed by maritime transport-rail (2,28 € per ton in 2020). On the other hand the intermodal option that combines the use of maritime and rail transport is related with the lowest external cost in terms of CO2 related emissions (additional external cost of 0,056 € per ton of goods handled in 2020). Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the variation of operational and external costs as a function of sailing speeds for the following options: maritime - SSS, maritime - road and maritime - rail, respectively. It shall be noted that higher sailings speeds imply lower operational costs and higher external costs related to climate change for all options in study. The impact of sailing speed variation (between 17 and 23 knots) is more notorious in SSS (between 18% more expensive and 13% cheaper, respectively) and in the intermodal option as maritime - rail (between 6% more expensive and 5% cheaper, respectively). For instance, the sailing speed reduction from 20 to 17 knots in maritime - SSS intermodal option represents an higher operational costs around 18%, from 2,17€/ton to 2,56€/ton. Simultaneously the same variation would decrease the external costs related around 32%, from 0,17€/ton to 0,12€/ton. The impact of sailing speed variation in all the other options assessed turned not relevant since the other hinterland transport mode (road, air) leads to much higher operational and external costs in relative terms.

-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Operational cost (€/tonJ Eirternal cost K/ton}

Fig. 1. Variation of operational transport costs (a) and external costs due to CO2 emissions (b) in maritime - SSS Intermodality option as a

function of sailing speeds.

-0,2» -0,1» -0,1 K 0,0» 0,1» 0,1« 0,2% 0,2» -6» -4% -2% OK 2% 4» 6% 3%

Operational cost (€/ton) External cost (t/ton)

Fig. 2. Variation of operational transport costs (a) and external costs due to CO2 emissions (b) in maritime - road option as a function of sailing

speeds.

-10% -556 0% 5% 10» -30» -20» -10» 0» 10» 20» 30»

Operational cost (i:/toil) External cost K/ton)

Fig. 3. Variation of operational transport costs (a) and external costs due to CO2 emissions (b) in maritime - rail option as a function of sailing

speeds.

6. Conclusions

The EC Transport White Paper (EC, 2011) already pointed out the importance of improving hinterland connections to ports, efficient services and set adequate port pricing policies in Europe. This is so because around 74% of goods imported and exported and 37% of exchanges within the European Union transit through seaports (EC, 2013). The Port of Sines located in the Atlantic corridor of the TEN-T is the unique deepwater port in Portugal able to accommodate vessels of the "Postpanamax" type. As such, several transport investments in this Port's hinterland connections had being planned to accommodate the expected freight growth until 2020. As a continuation of a previous research (Arsenio, et al., 2013) with the ex ante analysis of alternative intermodal options (centred in the Port of Sines) designated as: (i) maritime - maritime (short-sea-shipping); (ii) maritime-road; (iii) maritime-rail; (iv) maritime-rail-air, this paper considers now the views of the Port stakeholders regarding the set of critical operational and environmental variables gathered in a specific Seminar. These variables were found to be the reduction of shipping speed and CO2 emissions. Results from our analysis show that the impact of sailing speed variation, between 17 and 23 knots, is more notorious in SSS, leading respectively to a 18% more expensive transport cost in the logistic chain (lower speed interval value) but 13% lower transport cost (higher speed interval value). For instance, considering the sailing speed reduction from 20 to 17 knots in maritime - SSS intermodal option, as suggested by the Port stakeholders, this would lead to higher operational costs, representing an increase

from 2,17€/ton (baseline scenario of 20 knots) to 2,56€/ton. Simultaneously the same variation would decrease the related external costs due to CO2 emissions around 32%, from 0,17€/ton to 0,12€/ton. Although these results reinforce the Port stakeholders' views on the importance of a speed limit policy for the purpose of reducing CO2 related emissions from maritime transport, other issues would require further analysis before policy implementation. This includes the study of a fixed speed versus models of differentiated speed limits (e.g. by ship types/vessels) and the assessment of each policy effect in the competition of shipping markets and supply chains. Nevertheless, other side effects such as those related to shipping safety and security may play a role.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology through the R&D project COST-TENDs and the Port of Sines and the Algarve S.A for the support, namely for the Open Seminar to Stakeholders.

Appendix A. Characterization of initial situation - reference year 2011

2011 Portugal Alentejo/Sines

Energy consumption (toe) 112615 44003

Maritime transport CO2 Emissions (ton) 358270 139990

Goods (ton) 63649548 24870418

Energy consumption (toe) 47730 24026

Road transport CO2 Emissions (ton) 117205 58998

Goods (ton) 9974564 5020961

Energy consumption (toe) 2300807 465235

Rail transport CO2 Emissions (ton) 7009928 1417443

Goods (ton) 214657765 43404877

Energy consumption (toe) 128110 0

Air transport CO2 Emissions (ton) 370656 0

Goods (ton) 904213 0

Energy consumption (toe) 2589262 533264

Total CO2 Emissions (ton) 7856059 1616431

Goods (ton) 289186090 73296257

Movement of goods at national ports (ton) Portugal Sines

Charged Discharged Charged Discharged

Total 23586159 40063389 7660115 17210303

Containers 8811845 5263942 2555361 2028296

Bulks liquid 6996213 20265404 4829255 11321412

Bulks grain 3809720 12543029 181866 3 859730

General and fractional 3732919 1889434 93633 865

Ro-Ro 235462 101580 0 0

Movement of goods (ton) Road Rail Road Rail

0 - 49 km 114234011 11133 25286232 6189

50 - 99 km 100 - 149 km 36736921 2529733 14826871 8131889 3281997 1406369

150 - 299 km 21725048 6458460 4808941 3590490

300 - 499 km 7857002 1739184

Higher than 500 km 19277911 975238 156634 17913

Total 214657765 9974664 43404877 5020961

rndix B. Desirable future for 2020

2020 Alentejo/Sines

Energy consumption (toe) 49543

Maritime transport CO2 Emissions (ton) 157616

Goods (ton) 38184069

Energy consumption (toe) 40148

Road transport CO2 Emissions (ton) 98587

Goods (ton) 8390124

Energy consumption (toe) 612013

Rail transport CO2 Emissions (ton) 1864637

Goods (ton) 63443156

Energy consumption (toe) 12748

Air transport CO2 Emissions (ton) 36884

Goods (ton) 89978

Energy consumption (toe) 714453

Total CO2 Emissions (ton) 2157724

Goods (ton) 110107329

Movement of goods at national ports (ton) Sines

Charged Discharged

Total 17236764 20093621

Containers 14054486 11155628

Bulks liquid 1889898 4430561

Bulks grain 211787 4494747

General and fractional 1074550 9927

Ro-Ro 6043 2758

Movement of goods (ton) Road Rail Maritime Air

0 - 49 km 37954520 9290 0 0

50 - 149 km 17132192 2110954 0 0

150 - 499 km 8262402 6172462 783152 0

Higher than 500 km 94043 97419 70532 89978

Total 63443156 8390124 853684 89978

Appendix C. Operational costs (in €/ton) of freight maritime transport charged for each country group in function of sailing speed and vessel (capacity) in 2011

Vessel Country Sailing speed

groups 17 knots 18 knots 19 knots 20 knots 21 knots 22 knots 23 knots

NE 2,70 2,55 2,41 2,29 2,18 2,09 1,99

MM 3,09 2,92 2,76 2,63 2,50 2,39 2,28

ME 8,30 7,84 7,42 7,05 6,72 6,41 6,13

OR 15,76 14,89 14,11 13,40 12,76 12,18 11,65

Feedermax (500 TEU) AE 4,35 4,11 3,90 3,70 3,52 3,36 3,22

AW 11,80 11,15 10,56 10,03 9,55 9,12 8,72

LA 8,24 7,78 7,37 7,00 6,67 6,37 6,09

ANE 7,18 6,78 6,42 6,10 5,81 5,55 5,31

ANW 12,03 11,36 10,76 10,22 9,74 9,29 8,89

NE 1,38 1,30 1,24 1,17 1,12 1,07 1,02

MM 1,58 1,49 1,41 1,34 1,28 1,22 1,17

ME 4,25 4,01 3,80 3,61 3,44 3,28 3,14

Container OR 8,07 7,62 7,22 6,86 6,53 6,23 5,96

Ship (1500 AE 2,23 2,10 1,99 1,89 1,80 1,72 1,65

TEU) AW 6,04 5,70 5,40 5,13 4,89 4,67 4,46

LA 4,22 3,98 3,77 3,58 3,41 3,26 3,12

ANE 3,67 3,47 3,29 3,12 2,97 2,84 2,72

ANW 6,15 5,81 5,51 5,23 4,98 4,76 4,55

NE 0,92 0,87 0,82 0,78 0,74 0,71 0,68

MM 1,05 0,99 0,94 0,89 0,85 0,81 0,78

ME 2,82 2,66 2,52 2,40 2,28 2,18 2,08

Main Liner OR 5,36 5,06 4,79 4,55 4,34 4,14 3,96

(35000 AE 1,48 1,40 1,32 1,26 1,20 1,14 1,09

TEU) AW 4,01 3,79 3,59 3,41 3,25 3,10 2,96

LA 2,80 2,64 2,51 2,38 2,27 2,16 2,07

ANE 2,44 2,30 2,18 2,07 1,98 1,89 1,80

ANW 4,09 1,01 3,66 3,47 3,31 3,16 3,02

Appendix D. Operational costs (in €/ton) of freight maritime transport discharged for each country group in function of sailing speed and vessel (capacity) in 2011

Vessel Country Sailing speed

groups 17 knots 18 knots 19 knots 20 knots 21 knots 22 knots 23 knots

NE 2,30 2,17 2,06 1,95 1,86 1,78 1,70

MM 3,07 2,90 2,75 2,61 2,49 2,37 2,27

ME 8,71 8,23 7,80 7,41 7,05 6,73 6,44

OR 14,13 13,51 12,95 12,44 11,99 11,57 11,20

Feedermax (500 TEU) AE 4,35 4,11 3,90 3,70 3,52 3,36 3,22

AW 11,80 11,15 10,56 10,03 9,55 9,12 8,72

LA 8,40 7,93 7,51 7,14 6,80 6,49 6,21

ANE 6,33 5,98 5,67 5,38 5,13 4,89 4,68

ANW 12,03 11,36 10,76 10,22 9,74 9,29 8,89

NE 1,18 1,11 1,05 1,00 0,95 0,91 0,87

MM 1,57 1,49 1,41 1,34 1,27 1,22 1,16

ME 4,46 4,21 3,99 3,79 3,61 3,45 3,30

Container OR 7,23 6,91 6,63 6,37 6,14 5,92 5,73

Ship (1500 AE 2,23 2,10 1,99 1,89 1,80 1,72 1,65

TEU) AW 6,04 5,70 5,40 5,13 4,89 4,67 4,46

LA 4,30 4,06 3,84 3,65 3,48 3,32 3,18

ANE 3,24 3,06 2,90 2,76 2,62 2,51 2,40

ANW 6,15 5,81 5,51 5,23 4,98 4,76 4,55

NE 0,78 0,74 0,70 0,66 0,63 0,60 0,58

MM 1,04 0,99 0,93 0,89 0,85 0,81 0,77

ME 2,96 2,80 2,65 2,52 2,40 2,29 2,19

Main Liner OR 4,80 4,59 4,40 4,23 4,07 3,93 3,81

(35000 AE 1,48 1,40 1,32 1,26 1,20 1,14 1,09

TEU) AW 4,01 3,79 3,59 3,41 3,25 3,10 2,96

LA 2,85 2,70 2,55 2,43 2,31 2,21 2,11

ANE 2,15 2,03 1,93 1,83 1,74 1,66 1,59

ANW 4,09 3,86 3,66 3,47 3,31 3,16 3,02

Appendix E. Internal costs (in €/ton) of freight road transport between Sines and Madrid (2011 and 2020)

Heavy vehicles Capacity (ton) Sines 2011 - Madrid (€/ton) 2020 Sines 2011 - Beja (€/ton) 2020 Beja -2011 - Madrid (€/ton) 2020

HGV 5.5t 1,6 219 405 100 129 197 354

HGV 12t 3,5 126 248 54 73 112 215

HGV 24t 6,9 87 177 35 49 78 153

HGV 40t 11,5 59 122 22 32 52 105

Appendix F. Internal costs (in €/ton) of freight rail transport between Sines and Madrid (2011 and 2020)

Train (wagons Total Cargo Sines - Madrid (€/ton) Sines - Beja (€/ton) Beja - Madrid (€/ton)

type) (ton) (ton) 2011 2020 2011 2020 2011 2020

Lgns 1908 1188 1,331 1,276 0,201 0,193 1,130 1,083

Sgns 1898 1610 1,150 1,063 0,174 0,161 0,976 0,902

Sdgmrss 1887 1400 1,169 1,102 0,177 0,167 0,992 0,935

Appendix G. Internal costs (in €/ton) of freight rail transport between Madrid and Sines (2011 and 2020)

Train (wagons Total Cargo Sines - Madrid (€/ton) Sines - Beja (€/ton) Beja - Madrid (€/ton)

type) (ton) (ton) 2011 2020 2011 2020 2011 2020 Lgns 1908 1188 1,807 1465 0,273 0,222 1533 1,244

Sgns 1898 1610 1,650 1,325 0,250 0,200 1,401 1,124

Sdgmrss 1887 1400 1,666 1,352 0,252 0,204 1,414 1,147

Appendix H. Internal freight air transport costs between Beja and Europe (2020)

Airplane Cargo (ton) Cost (€/ton.km) Cost (€/ton)

Boeing 727 23,5 0,77 1893

Boeing 737 15,0 0,73 1775

Boeing 757 39,0 0,70 1723

Boeing 767 60,0 0,64 1558

DC-10s 65,0 0,90 2204

Boeing 747 96,0 1,11 2714

References

Arsenio, E., Pontes, J. P. & Prata, J., 2013. Transporte Intermodal de Mercadorias: um caso de estudo. R&D Project Report COST-TRENDs, Foundation for Science and Technology: COSTs of Transport TRENDs in Portugal: the role of environmental externalities and industrial location patterns. Vol II., Foundation for Science and Technology.

Bengtsson, S., Fridell, E. & Andersson, K., 2012. Environmental assessment of two pathways towards the use of biofuels in shipping. Energy Policy, Volume 44, pp. 451-463.

Bergantimo, A. S. & Coppejans, L., 2000. Shipowner preferences and user charges: Allocating port infrastructure costs. Transport Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 36(2), pp. 97-113.

Bergqvist, R. & Egels-Zanden, N., 2012. Green port dues — The case of hinterland transport. Research in Transportation Business & Management, Volume 5, pp. 85-91.

Brynolf, S., Fridell, E. & Andersson, K., 2014. Environmental assessment of marine fuels: liquefied natural gas, liquefied biogas, methanol and bio-methanol. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 74, pp. 86-95.

Carpenter, A. & MacGill, S., 2001. Charging for port reception facilities in North Sea ports: Putting theory into practice. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 42(4), pp. 257-266.

Corbett, J. J., Wang, H. & Winebrake, J. J., 2009. The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping.

Transportation Research Part D, Volume 14, pp. 593-598.

Dong-Ping, S., 2010. CO2 emission analysis for containerships based on service activities. Lisbon, World Conference on Transport Research.

EC Green Paper, 2001. Green Paper: Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, Brusseks: Comission of The European Communities.

EC, 2011. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area — Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system, Brussels: European Commission.

EC, 2013. The Core Network Corridors, Trans European Network, Brussels: European Commission.

EEA, 2013. Balancing the future of Europe's coasts — knowledge base for integrated management., Luxembourg: European Environment Agency.

EIA, 2012. Innovative Intermodal Transport, Brussels: European Intermodal Association.

ENM, 2013. Estrategia Nacionalpara o Mar 2013 - 2020, Lisboa: Governo de Portugal.

Faber, J. et al., 2012. Regulated Slow Steaming in Maritime Transporte: An Assessment of Options, Costs and Benefits, Delft: CE Delft.

Fagerholt, K., Gausel, N. T., Rakke, J. G. & Psaraftis, H. N., 2015. Maritime routing and speed optimization with emisson control areas. Transportation Research Part C, Volume 52, pp. 57-73.

Floden, J., 2011. Rail freight costs — Some basic cost estimates for intermodal transport, Sweden: School of Business, Economics and Law, Goteborg University, Swedish Intermodal Transport Research Centre.

Hoffman, J., 2012. Corridors of the Sea: An investigation into liner shipping connectivity., Geneva: Les Corridors de Transport.

IMO, 2000. Comprehensive manual on port reception facilities, London: International Maritime Organization.

IMPACT, 2008. Road infrastructure cost and revenue in Europe. Produced within the study Internalisation Measures and Policies for All external Costs of Transport - Deliverable 2., Delft: CE Delft.

INE, 2014. Estatisticas dos Transportes e Comunicagdes 2013, Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Estatistica, I.P..

International Maritime Organization, 2014. Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study, London: International Maritime Organization.

ISO 26000, 2010. Guidance on social responsibility, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.

Lindstad, H., Asbjernslett, B. E. & Stramman, A. H., 2011. Reductions in greenhousegas emissions and cost by shipping at lower speeds. Energy Policy 39, pp. 3456 - 3464.

Mansouri, A. S., Lee, H. & Aluko, O., 2015. Multi-objective decision support to enhance environmental sustainability in maritime shipping: A review and future directions. Transportation Research Part E, Volume 78, pp. 3-18.

Michaellowa, A. & Krause, K., 2000. International maritime transport and climate policy. Intereconomics, 35(3), pp. 127-136.

PET, 2011. Plano Estratégico dos Transportes: Mobilidade Sustentavel 2011 - 2015, Lisboa: Ministério da Economia e do Emprego.

Prata, J. & Arsenio, E., 2014. Assessment of intermodal freight transport costs: an opportunity to short-sea shipping?. Frankfurt, European Transport Conference.

PSA, 2014. Port of Sines. [Online] Available at: /www.portodesines.pt/ [Acedido em 24 4 2014].

Psaraftis, H. N. & Kontovas, C. A., 2010. Balancing the economic and environmental performance of maritime transportation. Transportation Research Part D, Volume 15, pp. 458-462.

Psaraftis, H. N. & Kontovas, C. A., 2013. Speed models for energy-efficient maritime transportation: A taxonomy and survey. Transportation Research Part C, Volume 26, pp. 331-351.

RHA, 2012. Cost Tables, Good Vehicles Operating Costs 2012, Imtech: DFF International LTD.

Thomson, H., Corbett, J. J. & Winebrake, J. J., 2015. Natural gas as a marine fuel. Energy Policy, Volume 87, pp. 153-167.

TR, 2014. Transportes em Revista. [Online]

Available at: http://www.transportesemrevista.com/Default.aspx?tabid=210&language=pt-PT&id=5746 [Acedido em 24 04 2014].

UNCTAD, 2012. Review of maritime transport 2012, New York: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

WBG, 2009. Air Freight: A Market Study with Implications for Landlocked Countries, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Group.