irfan rasul , pasi lautala , ph.d., p.e. civil and environmental engineering
DESCRIPTION
Synthesis of Multimodal Freight Transport and Emissions Cost and Application in the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan. Irfan Rasul , Pasi Lautala , Ph.D., P.E. Civil and Environmental Engineering Michigan Technological University 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Synthesis of Multimodal Freight Transport and Emissions Cost and Application in the Upper Peninsula
(UP) of Michigan
Irfan Rasul, Pasi Lautala, Ph.D., P.E.Civil and Environmental Engineering
Michigan Technological University1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931
Logistics, Trade and Transportation Symposium 2014Gulfport, MS
Outline• Introduction• Literature Review
• Shipping Cost• Carbon Emissions
• Upper Peninsula in Michigan Study• Commodity Flow (TRANSEARCH database)• Options for multimodal transport• Development of model
• Base shipping cost• Base shipping plus carbon emission costs
• Conclusion
Introduction Transportation is a necessity for all industries, as it determines the
location and types of consumers that can be efficiently served.
Freight mode choice depends on many factors, such as commodity
volume and value, distance to be travelled, origin and destination,
capacity and pricing of available modes, and time of transit.
This research investigates parameters related to intermodal / multimodal
transportation, concentrating on shipping and emission costs for
movements that use rail and truck as their primary modes.
Information gained from the past studies will be used to develop general
shipping costs, emission factors, and emission costs for a conceptual
model to evaluate multimodal transportation and transloading
opportunities in the UP region.
Shipping Cost
The range of shipping unit cost For rail, $0.01 to $1.15 per ton-mile
For truck, $0.03 to $0.19 per ton-mile
The studies that used rail for different distances and payloads found that
the unit cost decreases, if the distance and/or pay load increases.
For trucks, longer distances meant increased unit costs.
The studies agreed that the unit shipping costs are higher for trucks and
lower for rail when distance increases, no general formula can be derived
to quantify the relationship.
The great variation in unit shipping cots values also suggested that range
of unit cost values should be used in the study to evaluate the relative
sensitivity of shipping costs to the modal selection.
Multimodal Shipping Cost from Past Studies
Type Distance (miles)
Weight used
(tons per car)
Unit cost (indexed to
2012)
Distance (miles)
Weight Used
(tons per truck)
Unit cost (indexed to
2012)
Bulk Heavy unit 1000 105 0.0119 (0.02) < 250 14.8 0.0217 (0.03)
BulkMixed freight 500 70 0.012 (0.02) _ _ _
Container Intermodal 1750 28 0.0268 (0.04) 250 - 500 14.8 0.0894 (0.13)
ContainerDouble-
stack container
1750 56 0.0106 (0.01) > 500 14.8 0.0769 (0.11)
Wang et al 1995Bulk and recycled
paper_ _ 60 0.12 (0.17) _ 22 0.1 (0.14)
US DOT 1995-2004
General Freight _ _ _ 0.032 (0.04) _ _ 0.1104 (0.19)
General Freight
(Forkenbrock Study)
Mixed freight
_ _ 0.022 (0.03) < 250 24 0.0217 (0.03)
Intermodal Intermodal _ _ 0.0268(0.04) > 500 17.5 0.0842 (0.12)
Cambridge Systematics Inc.
2002Bulk and
Intermodal_ _ _ 0.024 (0.03) _ _ 0.08 (0.10)
50 tons 75 100 1.09 (1.15) 75 25 0.033(0.04)
10,000 tons 75 100 0.0272 (0.03) 75 25 0.033(0.04)
50 tons 2000 100 0.48 (0.52) 2000 25 0.04 (0.05)
10,000 tons 2000 100 0.0032 (0.01) 2000 25 0.04 (0.05)
Atkinson et al 2006 Bulk _ _ _ 0.034 (0.04) _ 24 0.0842 (0.09)
Columbia River Crossing 2004 Bulk
Rail Truck
Kehoe, Owen 2001
Forkenbrock 1994
AuthorStudy Year Commodity
CN Tariff Rate for Rail
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,4000.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
f(x) = 2.5492295084029 x^-0.584395251465572
Cost per ton-mile vs Distance
Distance, miles
Cost
per
ton-
mile
Carbon Emissions The range of carbon emission factor
For rail, 15.40 - 41.42 grams per ton-mile of CO2
For truck, 64.96 - 297.90 grams per ton-mile of CO2
Studies which evaluated metropolitan areas resulted in higher emission factors,
whereas the studies with lower values were for rural counties. Forkenbrock
concluded that truck payload and speed are also relevant in calculation of
emission factors whereas Cefic-ECTA study emphasized on empty backhaul.
Chernick and Caverhill provided a range of $2.27 to $24.95 per ton of CO2
emission.
National Economic Research Associates suggested emission cost of $3.56 per ton
of CO2 emission.
National Research Council provided a range of $10 to $20 per ton of CO2
emission.
Commodity Flow in the UP Commodities STCC
Inbound Outbound Internally in the UP 2009 2030 2009 2030 2009 2030
Agriculture 1 268,608 241,708 38,218 276,197 0 5,936
Iron Ores 10 264,050 233,297 0 2 12,451 20,029 Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals
14 418,265 651,703 64,296 137,470 220,649 595,035
Food Products 20 338,867 435,473 75,056 112,928 0 11,763 Lumber and Wood Products
24 149,875 444,296 1,713,462 1,925,218 3,288,699 7,815,825
Pulp and Paper Mill Products
26 138,128 212,382 299,795 411,036 0 5,708
Chemical Products
28 242,987 270,453 194,486 258,912 0 2,638
Petroleum or Coal Products
29 219,072 205,274 216,511 206,083 22,663 70,634
Rubber and Plastics
30 31,286 55,537 16,965 29,050 0 1
Clay, Cement, Glass, Stone Products
32 153,794 305,823 137,063 221,060 71,044 381,507
Primary Metal Products
33 105,414 148,866 54,732 98,262 0 399
Fabricated Metals
34 55,229 94,104 55,111 76,307 0 337
Machines 35 31,294 67,495 34,814 63,612 0 0
Secondary Traffic 50 550,150 1,365,482 81,441 175,472 0 1,103
Other 222,241 387,453 364,271 343,527 6,092 112,350
Total 3,189,260 5,119,346 3,346,220 4,335,136 3,621,598 9,023,265 % increase 61 30 149
Commodity Flow in the UP (Contd..)
0 to 100
100 to 200
200 to 300
300 to 400
400 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 20000
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
Truck Movements by Distance (TRANSEARCH 2009)
Internal Outbound Inbound
Distance, miles
Volu
me,
tons
Commodity Flow in the UP (Contd..)
Chicago Chicago (Through) Wisconsin Minneapolis Minneapolis (Through)
Canada0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
Interstate movements by truck from selected counties in the UP
Outbound Inbound
Volu
me,
tons
Analysis of the Model
Two scenarios Base shipping cost (including interchange cost)
Base shipping plus carbon emission costs.
Sensitivity Analysis for different fuel prices.
Compare the costs and sensitivity for each location.
(Nestoria, Ishpeming and Amasa)
References• Cook, P.D., et al. Key factors in road-rail mode choice in India: applying the logistics cost approach. in Simulation
Conference Proceedings, 1999 Winter. 1999. IEEE.• Cullinane, K. and N. Toy, Identifying influential attributes in freight route/mode choice decisions: a content analysis.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2000. 36(1): p. 41-53.• Jiang, F., P. Johnson, and C. Calzada, Freight demand characteristics and mode choice: an analysis of the results of
modeling with disaggregate revealed preference data. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 1999. 2(2): p. 149-158.• Rich, J., P.M. Holmblad, and C.O. Hansen, A weighted logit freight mode-choice model. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 2009. 45(6): p. 1006-1019.• Shinghal, N. and T. Fowkes, Freight mode choice and adaptive stated preferences. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, 2002. 38(5): p. 367-378.• McGinnis, M.A., A comparative evaluation of freight transportation choice models. Transportation Journal, 1989. 29(2): p.
36-46.• David, P.A. and R.D. Stewart, International logistics: the management of international trade operations. 2010: Cengage
Learning.• Reis, V., et al., Rail and multi-modal transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 2012.• United Nations (UN) & Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), Terminology on Combined Transport. . New York and
Geneva., 2001.• Forkenbrock, D.J., Comparison of external costs of rail and truck freight transportation. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 2001. 35(4): p. 321-337.• Officials, A.A.o.S.H.a.T., Freight–Rail Bottom Line Report. 2002. p. 25 - 35.• Hanssen, T.-E.S., T.A. Mathisen, and F. Jørgensen, Generalized Transport Costs in Intermodal Freight Transport. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 54: p. 189-200.• Janic, M., Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road freight transport network. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 2007. 12(1): p. 33-44.• Wang, C.-H., J.C. Even Jr, and S.K. Adams, A mixed-integer linear model for optimal processing and transport of secondary
materials. Resources, conservation and recycling, 1995. 15(1): p. 65-78.• U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration and Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. National Transportation Statistics. Available from: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/.
• Kehoe, O., Economics of Truck and Rail Freight Transportation. Economics. 12: p. 8-2003.• National Economic Research Associates, External Costs of Electric Utility Resource Selection in Nevada.
1993: Nevada Power Company. Cambridge, MA.• Columbia River Crossing, Feasibility of Diverting Truck Freight to Rail in the Columbia River Corridor.
2006.• Atkinson, G. and S. Mourato, Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. 2006.• U.S. Department of Energy and Energy Information Administration Energy, Transportation sector energy
consumption in Annual Energy Review (Washington DC: Annual Issues), tables 2.1a, 2-1e, and 5-13c,. November, 2012.
• Iden, M., Engines of Change & Future Fuels for US Freight Locomotives, in Faster Freight Cleaner Air 2008 conference. 2008.
• Tolliver, D., P. Lu, and D. Benson, Comparing rail fuel efficiency with truck and waterway. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2013. 24: p. 69-75.
• ICF International, Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors. 2009. p. 5 - 12.
• Texas Transportation Institute, A MODAL COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION EFFECTS ON THE GENERAL PUBLIC. 2007.
• O'Rourke, L., K. Read, and E. Johnston. US Freight Emissions Segmented by BCO Industry. in Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting. 2013.
• Hanaoka, S. and M.B. Regmi, Promoting intermodal freight transport through the development of dry ports in Asia: An environmental perspective. IATSS Research, 2011. 35(1): p. 16-23.
• PB Americas, I., Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process. 2013: Transportation Research Board.
• Cefic and ECTA, "Guidelines for Measuring and Managing CO2 Emission from Freight Transport Operations". 2011.
• Blanco, E.E., CASE STUDIES IN CARBON-EFFICIENT LOGISTICS- Ocean Spray - Leveraging Distribution Network Redesign. 2013.