Transportation Research Part D: Heitor Abreu, Tiago A. Santos, Valdir Cardoso

Transportation Research Part D 114 (2023) 103544
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd
Impact of external cost internalization on short sea shipping – The

case of the Portugal-Northern Europe trade
Heitor Abreu, Tiago A. Santos *, Valdir Cardoso
Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean Engineering (CENTEC), Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This paper presents research on the impact of transportation external costs internalization in the
Short Sea Shipping competitiveness of short sea shipping. Numerical methods for calculating emissions and external
Intermodality costs, that consider the full range of technical and operational vehicle characteristics are pre
External costs
sented. The impacts of existing and future emission control areas, emissions abatement tech
Emissions
Green Logistics
nologies, types of fuel, ship speed, cargo capacity and utilization factors in the required freight
Maritime transportation rate are evaluated. Internal and external costs are used to evaluate alternative intermodal chains
for a set of pairs origin/destination extending to a range of regions in Northern Europe. Short sea
shipping is competitive for a large set of destinations and its scope of competitiveness does not
change significantly between different scenarios. Competitiveness regarding external costs shows
more variation but, due to the small relative magnitude of these costs, internalization shows a
moderate potential for promoting modal shift towards short sea shipping.
1. Introduction
The transportation sector has a major contribution to the world CO2 emissions, being responsible for about 16.2 % of CO2 emissions
during 20161 whereas the shipping sector accounts for 1.7 %, but more than 80 % of the international trade in volume is handled by
maritime transport mode according to (UNCTAD, 2021). Therefore, shipping is regarded as the most efficient transportation mode in
the matter of emissions, given the economies of scale it allows and the low carbon emissions intensity (Zis et al., 2019). However, it is
not considered environmentally friendly when other air pollutants are considered, such as sulphur oxides (SOX), for which 5 %-8% of
the anthropogenic emissions in the world are attributable to ocean-going ships (Corbett et al., 2007).
To address these issues, regulations were developed and are still evolving (Zis et al., 2019), (Zis et al., 2015), such as the intro
duction of Emission Control Areas (ECA) in 2005 by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) through MARPOL Annex VI.
Within these areas, sulphur content in the vessel’s fuel is limited and it has decreased from 1 % to 0.1 % in 2015. Additionally, the
establishment of Green corridors - a concept introduced by the EU in 2007 - adds to these proposals as it has the intention to create
coordinated, efficient, and eco-friendly cargo transit between key hubs (Psaraftis & Panagakos, 2012). However, these regulations and
projects aiming at the abatement of emissions also have negative impacts on maritime transport. After ECA creation, shipowners had to
use Marine Gas Oil or invest in scrubber systems to cover the new emission limits, leading to an increase in freight rates and a
* Corresponding author at: Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal.
E-mail address: tiago.santos@centec.tecnico.ulisboa.pt (T.A. Santos).
1
Roser, M., & Ritchie, H. (2020, August). CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from Our World in Data: https://ourworldindata.org/
co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103544
Received 26 July 2022; Received in revised form 10 October 2022; Accepted 19 November 2022
Available online 10 December 2022
1361-9209/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Abreu et al. Transportation Research Part D 114 (2023) 103544
consequent loss of competitiveness of the sector (Psaraftis & Kontovas, 2010).

Considering these regulatory developments and the impact of such measures on future transport chain preferences, this paper aims
to analyze how some of the new alternatives - in the present case with special attention to the utilization of abatement technologies and
low Sulphur fuel types - impact on the internal and external costs of transportation and, therefore, in the competitiveness of transport
chains combining short sea shipping (SSS) with other modes of transportation. This is especially relevant as the EU is committed in
reducing significantly the 75 % of inland freight carried by road through the use of rail and inland waterways (European Commission,
2019). Furthermore, the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (European Commission, 2020) indicate that transport by inland
waterways and short sea shipping should increase by 25 % by 2030 and by 50 % by 2050 (compared to 2015).
This research also intends to fill the literature gap on the relation between abatement strategies and the competitiveness of SSS
while considering complete transport chains (door-to-door) and the full range of details on the different vehicle’s technical charac
teristics. Finally, it is also an objective to evaluate the impact of the above aspects on the decision-makers transport chain preferences
when negative environmental and human impacts from transport activities are passed to waterborne (maritime and inland waterways -
IWT) and land (rail and road) modes of transportation, a process known as internalization of external costs.
The computational tool described in this paper goes beyond the extensive number of carbon calculators available online, providing
additional parameters for defining all modes of transportation in the chain. Many websites adopt rough simplifications that can lead to
wrong conclusions and most of them do not cover inland waterways or maritime transportation. The cargo capacity utilization factor,
for instance, are assumed constant, even though it presents variations in different routes. Many other specific vehicle characteristics,
especially in maritime transportation, are not taken into consideration and important air pollutants are most often not considered.
The research in this paper considers a case study dedicated to container freight transport in the corridor from the north of Portugal
(Porto) to regions of Northern Europe, ranging from France to Germany, however, some conclusions can be extended to other origins in
Europe. This is particularly true as regards the importance of such factors as distance from origin to destination in the preference for
road-only or intermodal chains, or the influence of destination distance from the coastline in transport chain preference. In this respect,
conclusions from this paper are deemed especially relevant for peripheral regions of the European Union, but factors such as the
technical characteristics of vehicles in each mode of transport, distance travelled by cargo, countries’ marginal external costs and
different internal cost levels across the EU, advise caution when generalizing conclusions of this research to other corridors in the EU.
To accomplish the objectives of this work, first the methodological approach is outlined and then a case study is presented. The
structure of this paper comprises an overview of the literature on relevant issues in section 2. In section 3, the numerical methods for
calculating internal costs arising from intermodal transportation and for calculating emissions of particulate matter (PM), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), sulphur oxides (SOX) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are detailed, including updates from previous models. The same section
presents the external costs assessment method used in the European Union (EU) modified so that previously computed emissions are
taken into account for all modes of transportation. In section 4, the background for the case study is presented, while section 5 shows
the numerical results for unimodal and intermodal transport chains. These results are first compared just regarding internal and
external costs of transportation, independently, and, after summing them, the impact of internalization of externalities is assessed and
observed in maps representing the lowest cost chain for each region of destination. In section 6 the paper’s conclusions are presented.
2. Literature review
2.1. Assessment of greenhouse gases and air pollution in shipping
Different strategies for cutting GHG emissions are on the center of international discussion in order to manage one of the biggest
challenges of the 21st Century, the Climate Change. Even if emissions standards have evolved on the past years, no regulation cover all
modes of transport in a global scale (Wild, 2021). Compared to 2018 emission levels, the Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) in 2018 established that GHG emissions are to be reduced by at least 50 % by 2050 and CO2 emissions intensity have to be
decreased by 40 % by 2030 and 70 % by 2050. Extensive research can be found about the impact of different measures to ensure
international compliance with regulatory requirements and the challenges faced by Short Sea Shipping (SSS) within the broader
context of intermodal transport chains (Psaraftis & Kontovas, 2010).
(Zis et al., 2015) applied an activity-based methodology for calculating emissions generated from shipping to investigate the
environmental impacts of reduction strategies, practices, and technological solutions on the global balance emissions, emphasizing the
need to involve authorities and shipping companies while conduct comprehensive analyses of the effects of such measures to achieve
minimum environmental cost. Additionally, (Zis et al., 2020) has classified different emission abatement mechanisms on the Ro-Pax
sector in logistics-based measures (e.g., weather routing, speed and fleet allocation optimization, cargo capacity utilization), tech
nological solutions (e.g., new fuels, carbon capture technologies, fuel cells, cold ironing), and market-based measures (e.g., single or
combined bunker levy and emissions trading schemes). It was concluded that just a combination of two or more of these alternatives
allows achieving IMO targets, but the cost associated is significant, while conceding that innovative technologies are necessary and
worth pursuing.
Furthermore, (Lindstad & Eskeland, 2015) presents bulk carrier design and operational features as an alternative for cutting costs
and emissions. The paper concluded that high cargo capacity and slender hulls save energy and emissions, but additional costs or
inconveniences in ports and canals have to be considered. Inside port areas, emissions are related to cargo loading/unloading oper
ations, impacting the health of port workers and people living nearby (Nguyen et al., 2022). Nevertheless, cold ironing and others
operational measures are alternatives to cut emissions, but this strategy is not considered in the present study since all power demand
comes from shaft and auxiliary generators.
2
2.2. Regulatory impact on short sea shipping competitiveness
Environmental regulations, as external institutional drivers, exercise a positive and significant pressure for the adoption of green
technologies and process innovations in the shipping companies, especially in Europe’s SSS companies (Raza, 2020). In 2015, the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) reduced sulphur limits inside Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA) to 0.1 %, motivating
studies to comply with new requirements by adopting different strategies. Firstly, Marine Gas Oil (MGO) adoption, in substitution of
Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), was responsible for services freight rate increase estimated about 8 % to 20 % for traditional short sea
transportation (Notteboom et al., 2010), but still provide the most immediate mean for reducing SOX emissions. Considering higher
capital cost alternatives, (Brynolf et al., 2014) showed that the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) in engines fueled by HFO and
MGO and also liquefied natural gas (LNG) engines in Ro-Ro vessels allows successful compliance with ECA and Tier III requirements,
but with special attention to ammonia and methane slips in SCR equipped and LNG engines, respectively. In order to give financial
support to install such greening technologies, (Schinas & Metzger, 2019) presents a pay-as-you-save methodology, allowing ship
owners and equipment manufacturers to obtain benefit.
The implementation of a SECA in the Mediterranean Sea was discussed in 2014 (it has now been decided) and, a modal split model
applied to transportation between Greece and northern Germany was analyzed by (Panagakos et al., 2014). The introduction of this
area could lead to a modal shift to road-only transportation around 5.2 %, which under certain, can go up to 17.1 %. On the other hand,
fuel switching to MGO showed to be a suitable solution instead of scrubber technology or LNG fuel, more likely to be applied in
newbuildings. Either case showed that more severe regulations lead to significant improvements on the level of major pollutant
emissions. Emission requirements are also expanding to international waters, as the fuel sulphur limit in international shipping was
reduced from 3.5 % to 0.5 % in January 2020, but the use of new blends of fuel is responsible for increasing the power consumed in oil
refining, indirectly increasing CO2 emissions (Krantz et al., 2022).
2.3. Fuel switching and slow steaming compliance strategies
Transport strategies to increase maritime competitiveness to avoid negative impacts on SSS by simultaneously complying with new
emission requirements in SOX and NOX were then analyzed by (Bergqvist et al., 2015) in the case of the forest industry in Sweden,
(Svindland, 2018) for container feeder segment, and more generally, the consequences on the European Ro-Ro transportation can be
found in (Zis & Psaraftis, 2017) with further extension in 2019 (Zis et al., 2019). These studies evaluated the possible redistribution of
cargo to land-based alternatives originally flowing in Ro-Ro routes. Exceptionally low prices of fuel in 2015 however led to slightly
bigger market shares of the maritime transportation, due to the fact that freight rates were lowered more than road mode, showing a
relation between fuel price and Ro-Ro competitiveness. Additionally, vessels propelled by LNG fuel is in an early stage of development
(Peng et al., 2021), and port infrastructure are not sufficient to encourage this abatement strategy.
For ensuring lower levels of emissions, speed reduction inside ECA and speed increment outside ECA can be an alternative for
maintaining service levels and decreasing total cost. Speed differentiation has limited impact on bunker saving since MGO savings
inside ECA are compensated to some extent by increasing fuel consumption outside SECA, independently of number of vessels in the
service and fuel price (Doudnikoff & Lacoste, 2014). (Zhen et al., 2018) implemented an optimization procedure for optimizing speeds
in cruise lines by determining route and ports sequence.
(Zis & Psaraftis, 2018) investigates operational measures carried out by shipowners to comply with 2015 low-sulphur requirements
in the European SECA without affecting their market share. Among these measures, modal shifts could be avoided by reducing sailing
speed when fuel prices are high, in parallel with reductions in port time obtained through additional effort to ensure efficient handling
and transport reliability. The vessel’s navigation frequency also guarantees a favorable competitiveness since fuel savings overcome
the loss of revenue, but it may result in lower cargo utilization factors. Furthermore, scrubbers or LNG use, when fuel prices are low,
constitutes an investment less appealing due to increasing payback periods. Analytically, the economic effects on abatement strategies
are described in (Psaraftis & Kontovas, 2010), in which relations between fuel consumption and modal split can be found when
considering speed reduction. A more detailed analysis is undertaken in (Zis et al., 2016) concerning payback periods for the adoption of
emission abatement technologies.
2.4. Internalization of transport externalities
Current fuel prices and new emission restrictions can have a significant negative effect on the Ro-Ro sector if no additional
measures are adopted to avoid shifts to land-based modes, typically more pollutant than waterborne transportation (Zis et al., 2019). A
way to penalize the decision maker by the negative effects brought by their activity is to consider external costs, “a cost or benefit that
is imposed on a third party who has not agreed to incur that cost or benefit” (Pigou, 1920). In the transportation sector, introducing
external cost on the traditional cost structure is a form of internalizing externalities (Santos & Ramalho, 2021b).
External costs are classified into nine categories - air pollution, congestion, noise, accidents, climate change, well-to-tank (WTT)
emissions, habitat, and infrastructure, according to (CE DELFT, 2019). Air pollutant cost and climate change costs are costs related to
externalities caused by air pollutant emissions and it can be found in all modes of transport in analysis. Air pollutant emission are
related to several human health problems, but it can be also extended to material and biodiversity losses. Energy related air pollutants,
PM and NOX, are largely associated to higher risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, leading to medical treatment costs,
production loss at work and even to death. Additional issues addressed by air pollutants, such as NOX, NH3 and SOX are agricultural
crops damage, corrosion on building, acidification of soil, and eutrophication of ecosystems.
3
On the other hand, the effects of global warming due to greenhouse gases (GHG) emission are related to the Climate Change cost.
Problems associated with the rise of sea level, biodiversity loss, water management issues, frequent weather extremes and crop failures
are taken into consideration in this classification. The method adopted to monetize the GHG emissions is the avoidance cost approach,
i.e., the current cost to avoid having to incur costs in the future, based on limited temperature rises stablished in the Paris Agreement.
The carbon price adopted is 100 €/tCO2 equivalent, which represents an agreed value on the literature (CE Delft, 2019). For pricing
carbon emissions, another way is to establish carbon trading systems that allows a carbon credit to be traded, i.e., allows the company
that holds the right to emit a certain amount of GHG to sell to another company. In accordance with the European Commission climate
action plan, the Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS)2 was created in a 2005 as the world’s first international emissions trading system,
working with cap-and-trade mechanism. By this mechanism, the amount of emissions allowed (cap) that can be trade is reduced over
time and emissions decreases. The price traded in this system is the carbon permit can vary significantly according to social and
economic situation. For instance, nowadays carbon prices are at high records (about 94 EUR/tCO2) due to combined factors of current
shortage of natural gas and consequent increased demand for coal, pollutant energy source.
Announced in December 2021, EU is developing and implementing a new package of proposals so called ‘Fit for 55′ focused on an
ambitious target of abating net emissions by 2030 by at least 55 % compared to emission levels of 1990 and becoming Europe the first
climate neutral continent by 2050. Among other actions, the strategy adopted is to extend EU-ETS to maritime, road transport, and
buildings over the period 2023 to 2025.3 As studied in (Christodoulou et al., 2021), the extension to cover CO2 emissions from the
maritime sector has a strong negative impact on the competitiveness of Ro-Ro and Ro-Pax segments against other modes of trans
portation, encouraging modal shift from sea to land-based modes whether ship operators do not invest in energy-efficient technical and
operational measures and alternative or renewable fuels. Emission allowance fee is a way of internalizing the negative externalities and
funds generated from the EU ETS can be applied on environmental projects (Cariou et al., 2021), even with low carbon prices. Recent
developments shown that the introduction of maritime transportation on the EU ETS can also be responsible for shifting the container
routes preference to port calls outside the European Economic Area (EEA) to reduce costs with EU allowances (Lagouvardou &
Psaraftis, 2022). Consequently, the measure to reduce GHG emission levels may have the opposite effect, with carbon leakage
occurring and also negative economic consequences for EU ports. In the case of short sea shipping, carbon leakage is more difficult to
occur, except if alternative routes partially outside of the EU are feasible, which is not the case in the study considered in this paper.
Literature reviews on externalities of only road transportation and intermodal freight transport can be found in (Mostert & Lim
bourg, 2016), covering objective, type of externalities, and the type of cost (marginal, average, total). The effect of air pollution
external costs is also analyzed in (Mostert et al., 2017) for the case study in Belgium, regardless maritime transportation. Results
showed an increasing intermodal transport market share by external costs minimization since rail and IWT modes are less harmful for
the environment than road mode. By an economic optimization perspective, the incurring road taxes are responsible for a decrement
on market share instead of intermodal transport. In order to evaluate the environmental competitiveness of SSS and road-only
transportation (Vallejo-Pinto et al., 2019) established a methodology based on map visualizations of so-called isoemissions maps,
comparing regions connected by SSS with the same level of emissions as road routes. The geographical scope of more environmentally
friendly modes is determined regarding GHG emissions rather than the monetization of its negative impacts. The case study considers
different origin points connected to the port of Gijón (Spain) and then by sea to the port of Saint-Nazaire (France), finally heading to
several destinations in France. Results show that using SSS mode to French regions are reached with fewer air emissions. Additionally,
a broader geographical area for SSS transportation is achieved by a higher the load factor.
(Santos & Ramalho, 2021a) have studied in detail the numerical methods applied in a decision-making tool for computing
emissions in intermodal transport chains. Additionally, results are shown to routes connecting Portugal to central Europe, in which the
maritime mode is conducted by vessels with the same capacity and installed power but fueled by VLSFO and equipped with scrubber
and Selective Catalytic Reduction, or simply fueled by LNG. The results demonstrated a significant reduction on air pollutant emissions
by adopting LNG fuel, but economical aspects of power system installation cost and fuel purchase cost were not considered.
Furthermore, the numerical tool was expanded to compute external costs according with (CE Delft, 2019) for the same geographical
scope in (Santos & Ramalho, 2021b) and the best route could be determined by external cost internalization for a set of destination
connected by different routes, demonstrating the importance of more intense externalities monetarization to reduce transport
externalities.
This paper presents relevant contributions by considering several ship’s operational and technical characteristics in order to
evaluate how and with which intensity these different strategies impact on the preference of routes containing the maritime mode
instead of land-based transport modes, always aiming at the best environmental performance. In order to do this, environmental and
economic aspects are considered simultaneously, i.e., the paper covers, with the same relevance, the economic and environmental
impacts of the different strategies, such as installing LNG systems, adopting abatement technologies or using a low sulphur content
fuel. Differently of existing emissions and external cost calculators, this numerical tool is able to determine the best route from both the
environmental and economic points of view, considering all possible combinations of modes of transportation, including a reasonable
degree of detail in the characterization of each vehicle and an extensive geographical scope of analysis.
2
European Comission. (2003). Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Union.
Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/87/oj.
3
Lohan, C., & Mallia, S. (2022). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:’Fit for 55′ : delivering the EU’s 2030 Climate Target on the way to climate neutrality. Retrieved
from https://webapi2016.eesc.europa.eu/.
4
3. Numerical methods
The following section presents the numerical methods used within the scope of the methodology for assessing transport chains.
Firstly, the numerical method used to calculate internal transportation costs is presented. The inputs are the route, modelled using the
transportation network, and the vehicle characteristics. Subsequently, the numerical methods applied to compute fuel consumption,
emissions and external costs for waterborne (maritime and inland waterway), road and rail modes of transportation are presented.
3.1. Internal cost calculation method
The variables which are used to identify the most competitive intermodal transportation chains are numerically calculated based on
the transport networks model presented in (Santos et al., 2022). This model takes the perspective of the transport decision-maker
(shipper or forwarder) and, therefore, all costs mentioned below actually correspond to prices charged to the decision maker by
transport operators (shipping, freight rail and trucking companies) and, as such, include some profit margin. However, for the
transport decision-makers all of these materialize as transport ‘costs’ and such term will be used throughout the paper.
The first variable to be defined is the quantity of links in the transportation network, here referred as L. A path p is defined as a
succession of links between a pair origin–destination (O/D). The group of paths that share the same pair origin–destination is defined
as a set k. Paths in the same set (using the same modes of transportation or not) constitute a group of options for transporting cargo
between the pair origin–destination in question. The links i that compose each path are defined by its characteristics of length (distance
to be travelled) Dli , average speed Sli and mode of transportation. The binary variable δli identifies if a link is operational or not, while
the binary variable δkpi describe if a link is used in path p. Finally, a third binary variable δRdi points if it is a road link or not. The cost for
moving a cargo unit using a specific path is obtained with the variables mentioned. To do so, the distance covered by set k’s path p is
calculated. Considering just the road mode, the total distance travelled is indicated by:
∑
L
DRDkp = δli .δkpi .δRdi .Dli (1)
i=1
The cost for this travelled distance is then determined by:

CRDkp = DRDkp .cRD (2)
in which the coefficient cRD represents a cost function of the road distance:
( )
cRD = f DRDkp (3)
( )
The cost coefficient in Equation (3) is determined with the interpolation of a non-linear function of specific cost f DRDkp -a
monetary value per km and cargo unit – with exponential form, which is determined based on the pertinent market conditions. For
other modes of transportation, the procedure is repeated and the costs are signed as CRLkp , CIWkp , CRRkp , and CCCkp . All these variables are
calculated with their corresponding cost coefficients that are non-linear functions of the overall distance using the corresponding mode
of transport. The overall transportation cost along a certain path is thus equal to the sum of the expenses for each way of transportation:
CTR kp = CRDkp + CRLkp + CIW kp +CRRkp + CCCkp (4)
The total cost is calculated with the sum of expenses collected travelling and costs related with cargo handling and storage in
intermodal terminals present in the network:
∑
N
( )
Ckp = CTRkp + δnj δkpj . Cuj + Clj + Csj (5)
j=1
where Cuj , Clj , and Csj represent costs unloading, loading, and with storage in a node j; δnj is a binary variable that defines if the node
j is active; δkpj is a binary variable that defines whether node j is used in path p of the set of paths k.
3.2. Emissions calculation method
The numerical method used to compute PM, CO2, NOX and SO2 emissions is divided into a fuel-based component, in which emission
factors directly relate mass of pollutant emitted to the mass of fuel burned (g/g), and energy-based component, in which emission
factors relates the mass of pollutant to the energy required (g/kWh) (IMO, 2020). Therefore, it is first necessary to estimate the power
demand and fuel consumption for each mode of transport before applying emission factors, in a similar way to what is presented in
(Santos & Ramalho, 2021a).
3.2.1. Maritime and inland waterway modes

The fuel consumption in waterborne transport results from the main and auxiliary engines, responsible for the ship’s propulsion
and electric generation onboard, and shaft generators. The power demand varies according to the vessel’s operational phases - cruise
phase, when the vessel is navigating at sea with its main engine load above 20 %; maneuvering phase, identified when the vessel is
5
heading or leaving berth and it is characterized by main engine load below 20 %, and for the port phase, the vessel is simply anchored
at the destination node located in an existing port.
The total main engine fuel consumption FCME,ij on the maritime transport path j, part of the pair origin–destination i, corresponds to
the fuel consumption in cruise profile FCsea mano
ME,ij and maneuver profile FCME,ij :
sea
FCME,ij = FCME,ij mano
+ FCME,ij (6)
For each component, the power demand and technical characteristics of the machinery determines its fuel consumption. The fuel
consumption of the vessel’s main engine, FCsea
ME,ij , on the maritime path is calculated using:
∑K Lijk
sea
FCME,ij = SFCME,ijk ⋅ (PEF,ijk + Lsea
PTO ⋅ PTOij ) ⋅ (7)
k=1 Vijk
in which the power demand is PEF,ijk for propulsion (in kW), shaft generators power is PTOij (in kW); and its utilization is Lsea
PTO ; the
main engine specific fuel consumption is SFCME,ijk (in g/kWh); the distance navigated is Lijk (in km); the speed within a link is Vijk , (in
km/h); and K is the number of links that compose the maritime path j part of the pair origin–destination i.
The engine power demand PEF,ijk can be adjusted according to the vessel’s speed and draught, accounting for the effect of link-
related speed and different cargo utilization. Firstly, the reduced draft in the new cargo situation is approximated by assuming a
fairly parallel ship’s side plates. The variation in displacement can be given by the design deadweight, minus the cargo weight,
approximated by the cargo utilization factor, ship’s capacity, and cargo unit weight (δΔ = DWTij − WFEU ⋅ Capij ⋅ Utij ). However, the
( )
displacement variation is also given by the volume of water displaced in the draft variation (δΔ = γ ⋅ Dij − D’ ij ⋅ Aw ⋅ LPP ). Equaling
these two relations and using the definition of waterplane coefficient cw = Aw /(B⋅LPP ), the new draft DẤij is approximately:
DWTij − WFEU ⋅ Capij ⋅ Utij
DẤij = Dij − (8)
cw ⋅ LPPij ⋅ Bij ⋅ γ
in which Dij is the summer draft (in m), DWTij is the vessel’s design deadweight (in tons), Capij is the vessel’s capacity (in FEUs), Utij
is cargo utilization factor, LPP ij is the ship length between perpendiculars, Bij is the moulded breadth, and WFEU is the weight of each
cargo unit.
The effective power can be approximated by the installed main engine power, lowered by a cubic ratio between link speed and
design speed and a displacement relation (indirectly, draft ratio) powered by 1/3. Additional considerations about weather and fouling
effects, responsible for increasing power demand, are carried out by constant efficiencies. For a specific link speed Vijk (in km/h) and
draught D’ ij (in m), the effective output PEF,ijk now can be estimated by a modified version of the Admiralty Formula below (IMO,
2020).
( )3 ( ’ )0.66
Vijk D
PMEij ⋅ Vij ⋅1.852 ⋅ Dijij
PEF,ijk = (9)
ηw ⋅ ηf
in which PMEij is the MCO main engine power (in kW) and Vij is the ship speed at MCR (in knots) in calm conditions. It is assumed
that the weather efficiency ηw is 0.867 for a Ro-Ro ship with deadweight larger than 5000 t and the fouling efficiency ηf is 0.917 (IMO,
2020).
The main engine specific fuel consumption SFCME , in Equation (7), is approximated by a parabolic curve of specific fuel con
sumption function of the main engine power load. The curve comprises a second-degree polynomial equation obtained by regression
from comprehensive specific fuel consumption measurements from Wartsila engines (Jalkanen et al., 2012). The point of maximum
fuel-efficiency, noticed when the power load is around 80 % MCR, comprises the minimum SFC, also known as basic specific fuel
consumption (IMO, 2020). These values depend on the engine rated speed (slow, medium and high-speed engines) and fuel types
(HFO, LNG, MDO, Methanol). In the case of LNG engines variations, a base fuel specific consumption was used as obtained from
(Pavlenko et al., 2020). It was assumed that for residual low-sulfur fuels (LSHFO, VLSFO, and ULSFO) the base coefficients are the same
as for HFO. The engine load from Equation (9) is used as criterion for characterizing of the maneuvering profile (below 20 %) and the
same equation is applied to compute the main engine fuel consumption, but with a constant power load Lmano ME .
A constant usage percentage Lsea mano
AE and LAE of the total auxiliary engine power PAEij is used for computing the auxiliary engine fuel
port
consumption, FCsea mano
AE,ij at sea and FCAE,ij in maneuvering operations. For emissions at port FCAE,ij , fuel is assumed to be used along the
number of hours spent moored TP,ij using the auxiliary engine by a rate of Lport
AE . Thus, the total auxiliary engine is given as:
FCAE,ij = FCport mano sea

AE,ij + FCAE,ij +FC AE,ij (10)
in which:
∑K Lijk
sea
FCAE,ij = SFCAE ⋅ Lsea
AE ⋅ PAEij ⋅ k=1 V
(11)
ijk
∑K Lijk
mano
FCAE,ij mano
= SFCAE ⋅ LAE ⋅ PAEij ⋅ k=1 V
(12)
ijk
6
port
FCAE,ij = SFCAE ⋅ Lport
AE ⋅ PAEij ⋅ TP,ij (13)
Once the power demand and fuel consumption are determined, exhaust emissions are obtained using methods based on energy-
based factors, for NOX and PM emissions, or fuel-based factors, for CO2-eq and SO2 emissions. The GHG emission factor considers
the most relevant global warming pollutants - carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide - and an equivalent emission factor (CO2-eq
emissions) is computed by the sum of each emission factor, weighted by its global warming potential. It is also assumed that low sulfur
fuels have the same carbon emission factors as HFO.
SOX fuel-based factors can be expressed by the fuel’s sulfur content, in which 98 % of the fuel sulfur while translate into SO2
emissions. As stated on the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 and (Olmer, 2017), it can be calculated, in g/g, as:
EFSO2 = 2 ⋅ 0.97753 ⋅ SC ⋅ 10− 6

(14)
in which SC is in ppm weight.
Energy-based emission factors for PM and NOX depend on engine loads. (IMO, 2020) proposed a lower combustion efficiency when
the main engine operated in low load and it is assumed that emission factors are constant above 20 %MRC. On the case of particulate
matter, emissions are composed by PM2.5 and PM10. As typically assumed on the literature, the total emission is obtained by computing
PM10 and assuming that 92 % of the calculated value is PM2.5. For computing the energy-based factor PM10, the following equation is
applied as function of the sulfur content S, and it is given for HFO and MDO/MGO, respectively, as:
EFe− PM10 = 1.35 + SFCij ⋅ 7 ⋅ 0.02247 ⋅ (S − 0.0246) (15)
EFe− PM10 = 0.23 + SFCij ⋅ 7 ⋅ 0.02247 ⋅ (S − 0.0024) (16)
For VLSFO and ULSFO, the emission factor is given by Equations (15) and (16), applying different sulfur contents. The emission
factor is assumed to be 0.02 g/kWh for LNG-Otto medium and slow speed and 0.01 for LNG-Diesel, and auxiliary engine.
For computing NOX emissions, the Tier emission standards are used as emission factors, depending also on the engine rated speed.
In this study, medium speed engines are considered to have a rated speed of 500 rpm for applying the emission factor formulation and
LNG-Otto medium and slow speed were assumed to have 1.3 g NOX/kWh emission factor. Energy-based NOX and PM factors are
converted into fuel-based factors by dividing it by the basic specific fuel consumption.
The total emission per pollutant p, at maritime path j, also considering emissions at port, is obtained by multiplying the fuel
consumption by the emission factors in g/g fuel in each machine:
Eijk,p = FCME,ij ⋅ EFp,ME + FCAE,ij ⋅ EFp,AE (17)
Additionally, the model is able to simulate the impact of abatement technologies by using a negative (reduction) or positive
(increment) percentage of each pollutant emission. For instance, the Wet Scrubber (WS) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) are
responsible for cutting − 80 %, − 97 %, and − 60 %, for NOX, SOX and PM emissions, respectively, and increase 2 % fuel consumption.
For slow speed engines, Wet Scrubber (WS) with Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) are responsible for decreasing − 80 %, − 95 %, − 58
%, for NOX, SOX and PM emissions, but CO2-eq emissions and fuel consumption are increased by 2 % and 7 %, respectively.
The same calculations are done for inland waterways (IWT), but some simplifications are assumed, such as constant draft and
constant specific fuel consumption on main engine for computing effective power and fuel consumption, respectively. The specific fuel
consumption of the main engine in self-propelled barges were extracted by the same database from maritime transportation, but
medium-speed Diesel engines propelled by MGO are considered in this case. The fuel consumption of auxiliary engines in IWW was
also assumed to be 5 % of main engine fuel consumption since it comprises a small consumption onboard, not always considered in the
literature.
3.2.2. Road transport

The power demand is given by an estimate of the resistance force multiplied by the link speed. Additionally, congestion can degrade
truck’s speed, responsible for increasing travelling time. The congestion level is covered by applying speed reduction coefficients,
determined by the ratio between volume and capacity of roads in database, as shown in Table 1 (CE Delft, 2019).
Assuming air density ρair = 1.225kg/m3 , drag coefficient Cd multiplied by the truck’s frontal area A as Cd ⋅ A = 6m2 , rolling
resistance coefficient c = 0.006 and the acceleration of gravity g = 9.81m/s2 , the total resistance force FT,ijk is given by:
Table 1
Road speed reduction (Vijk) due to congestion as a function of road capacity ratio.
Congestion level Road capacity ratio (V/C) Speed reduction
1 V/C < 0.4 Vijk

2 0.4 ≤ V/C < 0.8 Vijk
3 0.8 ≤ V/C < 1 0.75 ⋅ Vijk
4 1 ≤ V/C < 1.2 0.5 ⋅ Vijk
5 V/C ≥ 1.2 0.4 ⋅ Vijk
7
( )2
1 Vijk
FT,ijk = ⋅ ρair ⋅ Cd ⋅ A ⋅ + c ⋅ Wij ⋅ 103 ⋅ g = 0.28 ⋅ Vijk
2
+ 58.86 ⋅ Wij (18)
2 3.6
where Wij is the truck weight (in tons), and Vij is the truck speed (in km/h).
The truck power demand PD when traveling at constant speed depends on transmission efficiency η, assumed to be 0.85:
FT,ijk Vijk
PD = ⋅ (19)
η 3.6
PM and NOX emissions may be obtained (in g), directly from the energy-based emission factor EF e , in g/kWh, power demand
computed, in kW, and time on the link:
Dijk
Eijk,p = EFe,p ⋅ PD ⋅ (20)
Vijk
On the other hand, CO2-eq and SOX emission are consequence of the fuel consumption on the road, obtained by multiplying specific
fuel consumption SCFij , in g/kWh, by the power demand and the total emission Eijk,p is:
Dijk
Eijk,p = EFf ,p ⋅ SCFij ⋅ PD ⋅ (21)
Vijk
In the literature, truck fuel consumption is usually given in liters of fuel per kilometer. However, the specific fuel consumption is a
useful parameter for computing fuel consumptions in different vehicle’ speeds. The truck specific fuel consumption was then assumed
to be 215 g/kWh, considering an average heavy-duty truck used in long haulage transport in Europe (COST, 2005; FVT, 2018). The
parameter reflects several steady-state measurements of engines for EURO standard classifications.
Table 2
External cost components and their dependences on relevant parameters.
External Cost Inland water Maritime Transport Road transport Rail transport
Transport
Air Pollution - Vessel Type: CEMT II, - Ship type: Ro-Ro, container - Fuel: Diesel or LNG - Freight transport type: short or long container
Va or Convoy ship or bulk vessel
- Vehicle segment: rigid or - Traction: electricity or diesel
- Emission class: CCNR - Size: Small or Large articulate and category - Abat. Tech.: with or w/o EGR/SRV
0, 1 or 2 - Distance EURO - Link type: metropolitan, urban or rural
Link type: rural or Tier: 0, 1 or 2 - Standard: EURO 0 to 6
urban
- Road area: metropolitan,
urban or rural
- Road type: motorway, urban,
rural
Climate - Vessel Type: CEMT II, - Ship type: RoPax, container - Fuel: Diesel or LNG - Freight transport type: short or long container
Change Va or Convoy ship or bulk vessel
- Vehicle segment: rigid or Traction: diesel
- Size: Small or Large articulate and category
- Distance - EURO Standard: EURO 0–6
rural
Well-To- -Vessel Type: CEMT II, - Ship type: RoPax, container - Fuel: Petrol, Diesel or LNG - Train type: passenger (highspeed, intercity or
Tank Va or Convoy ship or bulk vessel regional) or freight (short or long container)
Vehicle segment: rigid or
- Size: Small or Large articulate and category - Traction: electricity or diesel
- Distance - EURO Standard: 0–6
Road area: metropolitan
rural
Accident - Link country: EU N/A - Link country: EU countries - Link country: EU countries
countries
- Road type: urban, motorway
or rural
Noise N/A N/A - Link type: metropolitan, - Link type: metropolitan, urban and rural
urban and rural
- Time of the day: day or night
- Time of the day: day or night - Traffic situation: thin or dense
- Traffic situation: thin or dense
Congestion N/A N/A - Link country: EU countries N/A
- Zone: suburban,urban or rural

- Type: Over Congested Near
8
3.2.3. Rail mode

Emissions in rail transport are computed for a line-haul Diesel locomotive used in long-distance freight rail traction. A typical fuel
consumption FCij of 219 kg/hour (European Agency Emission, 2019) is used, and the emissions are obtained by using pollutant p
emission factor EFp , in grams of pollutant per ton of fuel burned.
Dijk
Eijk,p = EFp ⋅ FCij ⋅ (22)
Vijk
Adopting a conventional fuel oil sulfur content of 0.001 %, the SOX emission factor was obtained by applying Equation (14),
resulting in 0.02 kg/ton. Again, CO2-eq emission factors were computed by summing the emission factors of main GHG (CO2, CH4, and
N2O) and weighting them by the global warming potential, resulting in 3.181 g/g. For LNG, the emission factor is 3.104 g/g.
Emissions abatement technologies available for diesel railway engines are also considered in the model. The PM emission factor is
assumed to be 0.012 g/kg when equipped with a DPF. For rail transportation, it was considered that 95 % of calculated PM10 is PM2.5.
3.3. External cost calculation method
According to EU External cost handbook (CE Delft, 2019), the external costs are classified in Air pollution, Climate Change, Well-
To-Tank, Accidents, Congestion and Noise costs. Each category is related to different negative externalities and for each transport
mode assumes different magnitudes and forms.
For computing the average Air Pollution cost CAirPol,ij in each path j part of the pair origin destination i, is obtained by equation
below, multiplying the pollutant emissions ESO2,ij , ENOX,ij and EPMij , in g, by its respective costs ctonSO2 , ctonNOX and ctonPM in EUR per ton of
pollutant, respectively.
( )
CAirPol,ij = ctonSO2 ⋅ ESO2,ij + ctonNOX ⋅ ENOX,ij + ctonPM ⋅ EPMij ⋅ 10− 6 (23)
In the same way, the Climate Change cost CCC,ij is given by the multiplication of the equivalent CO2-eq emissions, ECO2− eq ij by the
carbon price ctonCO2 :
CCC,ij = ctonCO2 ⋅ ECO2− eq ij ⋅ 10− 6

(24)
Beside external costs caused by exhaust gas emissions, the remaining externalities are calculated by multiplying the distance
travelled in the link by the marginal cost given in EUR/vehicle-km. All cost factors (including pollutant cost) were extracted from (CE
Delft, 2019). In order to properly compare different transport modes, the external cost is always divided by the cargo transported by
the vehicle. In the case of maritime transport, the cargo is function of vehicle capacity Capij and utilization Ut ij . Table 2 summarize the
external cost components dependences on different variables according to mode of transportation, showing also that some externalities
are considered negligible in some transport modes (N/A).
4. Case study
4.1. Geographical scope and transport chain definition
The geographical scope of this case study concerns routes departing from the North of Portugal to 75 Nomenclature of Territorial
Units for Statistics (NUTS) capitals of North-western Europe. The chosen region comprises important countries and areas of major
importance to Portuguese international trade. An assessment of transport polluting emissions and costs - internal and external – is
performed for this set of pairs origin–destination (O/D), when using different combinations of modes of transportation. Fig. 1 presents
possible transport modes connecting Porto (Portugal) to Stuttgart (Germany) and Table 3 shows 7 transport chains composed by
combinations of these different modes. The modes are combined in chains, as required, in order to reach other destinations.
Chain A considers direct road transportation from the origin and destination with no intermodality. In Chain B, cargo is transported
from the origin to the Ro-Ro terminal of Leixões by road. Cargo is then transported to Rotterdam’s Ro-Ro terminal (short sea shipping),
from which it performs its last journey to the destination by road. Chain C considers that, after the maritime transportation, the cargo is
directed from the Ro-Ro terminal in Rotterdam to its rail terminal. From there, the cargo flows to Oberhausen rail terminal, in Ger
many, from which the cargo performs its last journey to the destination by road. Chain D considers that, after the maritime trans
portation, the cargo is directed from the Ro-Ro terminal in Rotterdam to its fluvial terminal. From there, the cargo flows to Ruhrort
fluvial terminal, in Germany. Then, it ends the voyage by road to reach the destination. Chain E considers transportation by road to the
MSC rail terminal in Entroncamento. It performs a rail journey to Mannheim’s rail terminal, from which the cargo leaves by road to its
destination. Chain F is the same as Chain E, but considering the Cacia rail terminal instead of the MSC one in Entroncamento. Chain G is
the same as Chain C, but considering the Mannheim rail terminal instead of the Oberhausen one.
4.2. Scenarios for emission reduction strategies
For those chains containing maritime transportation, different technical and operational conditions will be considered for the Ro-
Ro vessel, namely the impact of fuel type, cargo utilization, vessel size, cruise speed and abatement technologies are considered within
the scope of 10 scenarios, as presented in Table 4. The first six and last three scenarios correspond to the utilization of a very large cargo
9
Fig. 1. Transport chains and modes for connecting Porto to Stuttgart.
Table 3
Transport chain options.
Transport Chain Modes of transportation
A Road
B Road + Ro-Ro + Road
C Road + Ro-Ro + Rail + Road
D Road + Ro-Ro + IWT + Road
E Road + Rail + Road
F Road + Rail + Road
G Road + Ro-Ro + Rail + Road
Ro-Ro ship in the route, while the seventh scenario corresponds to a medium-size cargo Ro-Ro ship.
The first scenario corresponds to the situation before the emission control area (ECA) came into existence and before the limitation
of 0.5 % in fuel’s sulphur content. It is considered in order to have all scenarios in perspective and compare the effect of abatement
technologies in Scenario 10, in which HFO is also adopted.
Scenario 2 corresponds to a situation in which the sulphur content is reduced to 0.5 % (VLSFO) but no ECA exists. It would
correspond to the current IMO requirement on maximum sulphur content but with no additional requirements posed by ECAs. In
scenario 3, the situation is similar to the current one, with VLSFO being used outside ECA and inside ECA, but in the latter case the wet
scrubber (WS) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) are used. Scenario 4 considers that VLSFO fuel is used outside ECA and ULSFO
(0.1 %S) is used inside ECA, with no need to use the WS and SCR. Scenario 5 considers the use of LNG inside and outside of ECA, while
scenario 6 considers the utilization of ULSFO (0.1 %S) fuel inside and outside ECA, so no use of WS and SCR is needed. Therefore, this
sixth scenario actually corresponds to a situation in which an ECA would exist from Portugal to the Netherlands and thus the use of 0.1
%S fuel is needed (or else the scrubber is used during all voyage). Finally, scenario 7 is similar to scenario 3 but the ship is a medium-
size cargo Ro-Ro ship. Scenario 8 corresponds to a situation where the utilization level of the large-size ship is only 80 % and scenario 9
uses the same ship but with a higher sailing speed of 18 knots. In these two scenarios, all other parameters are similar to scenario 3.
Finally, scenario 10 represents a scenario where the large-size Ro-Ro keeps using HFO but is equipped with a scrubber to bring the
emissions to compliance inside and outside the ECA.
4.3. Technical characteristics of vehicles used in the different transport modes
As mentioned, two different sizes of Ro-Ro ships are analyzed, and their main technical features can be seen in Table 5. Notably,
10
Table 4
Main engine and auxiliary fuel and abatement technologies scenarios.
Scenarios Ship Main Engine Auxiliary Engines
capacity
Tier Outside ECA Inside ECA Outside ECA Inside ECA
Fuel Abat. Fuel Abat. Fuel Abat. Fuel Abat.

Tech Tech Tech Tech
1- Very High emissions Large 2 HFO (2.7 %S) – HFO (2.7 %S) – MDO – MDO –
2 - High emissions Large 2 VLSFO (0.5 % – VLSFO (0.5 % – MDO – MDO –
S) S)
3 - Real conditions Large 2 VLSFO (0.5 % – VLSFO (0.5 % WS+ MDO – MDO –
S) S) EGR
4 - Low emissions Large 2 VLSFO (0.5 % – ULSFO (0.1 % – MDO – MDO –
S) S)
5 - Very Low emissions Large 3 LNG – LNG – MDO – MDO –
6 - Ultra Low Emissions Large 2 ULSFO (0.1 % – ULSFO (0.1 % – MDO – MDO –
S) S)
7 – Medium size vessel Medium 2 VLSFO (0.5 % – VLSFO (0.5 % WS+ MDO – MDO –
S) S) SCR
8 – Capacity utilization 80 Large 2 VLSFO (0.5 % – VLSFO (0.5 % WS+ MDO – MDO –
% S) S) EGR
9 – Increased ship speed 18 Large 2 VLSFO (0.5 % – VLSFO (0.5 % WS+ MDO – MDO –
knots S) S) EGR
10 - High emissions + ECA Large 2 HFO (2.7 %S) WS+ HFO (2.7 %S) WS+ MDO – MDO –
EGR EGR
parameters related to freight capacity are considerably different, in which the large size vessel has capacity for more than double the
number of trailers and deadweight.
As mentioned in the Methodology section, the load of main engine, auxiliary engines and shaft generators has to be known in order
to evaluate emissions accurately. Table 6 presents, for large and small size Ro-Ro vessels, the power demands on board, comprising
machinery and equipment demands. Bow thrusters are fed using shaft generators and then, power demand in both Ro-Ro vessels is
satisfied by Power-Take Off mechanisms from the main engine.
In order to describe the other modes of transportation on the chain, the technical characteristics of the vehicles in IWT, rail and road
modes are displayed in Table 7.
4.4. Impact of emission reduction strategies in internal costs
The intermodal transport chain numerical tool uses as input for the calculations the specific values of transport costs for the
different modes of transportation. These values result from internal cost’s structure for each individual mode of transportation. This
case study considers, as regards short sea shipping, ten different scenarios for emissions and external costs assessment, but these
scenarios also have impact on the internal costs of transportation as the ship’s capital, operating and voyage costs will also be
impacted. This section presents the results of such assessment, expressed as required freight rates necessary to break-even in the
various scenarios.
The methodology for internal cost calculations in SSS is based on (D’Almeida, 2009), which consists mainly in the division of
annual costs in capital costs, operating costs and voyage costs. The capital costs are numerically dependent of the discount rate, the
ship life cycle and its acquisition price. The operating costs are split in Manning, Stores and Consumables, Periodic Maintenance,
Maintenance and Repairs, Insurances and P&I, Administration Costs and also, in the present case, Cost of Abatement Technologies
Table 5
Ro-Ro vessel technical characteristics.
Parameter Large capacity Ro-Ro Medium capacity Ro-Ro Unit
Length between Perpendiculars 226 195.4 [m]

Breadth 35 26.2 [m]
Draft 8.1 7.4 [m]
Deadweight 27,687 13,625 [ton]
Freight Capacity 503 217 [trailers]
Emissions Tier Standard 2 2 [-]
Main Engine Speed Rating SS MS [-]
Main Engine Power 7,872 5,905 [kW]
Auxiliary Engine Power 11,650 2,540 [kW]
Shaft generator 3,000 3,750 [kW]
Cruise speed 15 15 [knots]
Port time 12 12 [hours]
SS – slow speed; MS – medium speed.
11
Table 6
Power demand for large and medium capacity Ro-Ro vessels (unit is kW).
Machinery Large capacity Ro-Ro Medium capacity Ro-Ro
Navigation Maneuvering Port Navigation Maneuvering Port
Main Engine 7,872 0 0 5,905 0 0

Auxiliary Engines 1,803 2,731 809 305 305 635
Shaft generators 0 10,000 0 0 2,700 0
Total 9,675 12,731 809 6,210 3,005 635
Table 7
Vehicle’s characteristics.
IWT Truck Train
- Vessel’s type: Barge - Trip time: Day - Abatement technology: none

- Emission stage: II - Cargo weight: 30 ton - Train’s capacity: 40 FEUs
- Fuel: EN590 - Truck type: A - Train fuel: Diesel
- Emissions abatement technologies: DPF + SCR -Truck weight class: 40 tons - Capacity utilization factor: 100 %
- Main diesel engine speed rating: medium speed - Truck fuel: Diesel - Engine fuel consumption: 219 g/km
- Freight capacity: 1500 tons/ 50 FEUs - Truck EURO class: 5
- Capacity utilization factor: 100 % - Truck’s engine specific fuel consumption: 215 g/kWh
- Main engine power: 737 kW - Truck’s engine power: 365 kW
- Vessel’s speed: 10 knots
Operation. Voyage costs in this study are composed by three shares: fuel cost, port dues and cost with pilotage. The costs with cargo
handling are neglected in the calculation of the specific cost of transportation because they are added further by the intermodal
transportation chain software. With the cost per unit of cargo obtained, it is then divided by the distance travelled to obtain a cost in
EUR/unit.km. Along this process, a profit margin for the shipping company must also be added, usually accounting for 10–20 % of the
final price. The following paragraphs detail the assumptions and results regarding only those components of the complete cost
structure which are different between the scenarios.
The first aspect to be considered is the impact of emission abatement technologies in the newbuilding price of the ships (which then
translates into a capital cost). Indeed, given that the scenarios account for different vessel sizes and abatement technologies, it is
natural that these features impact in the investment cost of the vessels. To consider this impact, the newbuilding price had to be
obtained for all cases. In order to do so, costs with WS, EGR, SCR and LNG propulsion were added to the original newbuilding price of
the vessels if they applied in the scenario under study. The newbuilding price of the vessels was considered to be 50 million USD4 and
90 million USD,5 respectively for the medium and large capacity Ro-Ro. The investment cost of installing a WS is 0.16$/W, with OPEX
of 3 % of the CAPEX (Wang & Corbett, 2007). For the SCR, capital cost is of 0.50$/W with 4.65$/MWh for operating costs.6 For a vessel
with an installed power as that of the large capacity Ro-Ro, EGR investment would be about 1.05 million USD with annual operating
costs of 550 thousand USD if operating constantly.7 Finally, LNG conversion from Diesel Engine has a cost of 340$/kW as per (Banawan
et al., 2010). Table 8 shows the investment cost for all scenarios.
Regarding voyage costs, the most important variable for the determination of the specific cost of transportation to be used in the
maritime links is the fuel price. The rates considered correspond to the market conditions in November 20218 and are displayed in
Table 9.
Still as part of the voyage costs, port dues and pilotage need to be considered. These values were retrieved from the tariff’s book of
the ports of Leixões9 and Rotterdam.10 The applicable costs are shown in Table 10.
Table 11 presents the internal costs in $/FEU, followed by the specific cost of transportation in cents of USD and EUR - conversion
rate of 1 EUR = 1.16 USD. The specific cost already accounts for the profit margin of the shipping company (taken to be 20 %) and,
again, it was obtained by dividing the cost per FEU by the distance travelled by the vessels (1720 km).
From this result, it may be seen that all scenarios present SSS specific costs comprised between 388 USD and 430 USD except for
scenarios 5, 7, 8 and 9. This range of 42 USD is actually about 10 % of the minimum cost, and might be deemed not very significant. On
4
Stoker, L. (2011, 10 18). MV Bore Song Ro-Ro Vessel. Retrieved from Ship Technology: https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/mv-bore-
song-ro-ro-vessel/.
5
Afloat. (2018). World’s Largest Short Sea Ro-Ro Vessel MV Celine Christened at Dublin Port. Retrieved from Afloat: https://afloat.ie/port-news/
dublin-port/item/39005-world-s-largest-short-sea-ro-ro-vessel-mv-celine-christened-at-dublin-port.
6
Intertanko. (2007). Use of MDO by Ships Part of Holistic Approach. Retrieved from Intertanko: https://www.intertanko.com.
7
Alternative propulsion and future fuels. (2021). Retrieved from Bureau Veritas: https://marine-offshore.bureauveritas.com/needs/alternative-
propulsion-and-future-fuels.
8
Ship&Bunker. (2021, 11). Rotterdam Bunker Prices. Retrieved from https://shipandbunker.com/prices/emea/nwe/nl-rtm-rotterdam.
9
APDL. (2021). Port Authority Tariffs. Retrieved from Port of Leixões: https://www.apdl.pt/en_US/tarifas.
10
Port dues tariffs. (2021). Retrieved from Port of Rotterdam: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/port-dues-tariffs.
12
Table 8
Investment cost for different scenarios.
Scenario Vessel Propulsion Abatement technology Investment [Million USD]
1 Large Diesel – 90.00

3 Large Diesel WS + EGR 94.03
5 Large LNG – 96.34
7 Medium Diesel WS + SCR 52.52
Table 9
Fuel types and price.
Fuel Type Fuel Price [$/ton]
HFO 420
VLSFO 550
ULSFO 610
MDO 700
LNG 1,500
Table 10
Port dues and pilotage costs.
Category Fares Medium size Ro-Ro [EUR] Large size Ro-Ro [EUR]
Leixões Rotterdam Leixões Rotterdam
Port Port usage 4,608 6,371 13,381 18,501

Dues Mooring + unmooring 727 1,718 727 1,718
Drinking water – 298 – 298
Pilotage Pilotage charge 1,202 2,740 2,048 2,740
Pilotage boats usage 576 – 576 –
the other hand, using LNG (scenario 5), medium size ships (scenario 7), having lower utilization factors (scenario 8) or higher average
speed (scenario 9) have a significant impact on costs. These cost increases with respect to the real conditions (scenario 3), in which
VLSFO is used along with abatement technologies, are presented in Table 12. The highest increase comes from the use of an LNG engine
in the propulsion machinery, with an increase of 42 % compared with scenario 3.
Fig. 2 shows the magnitude of the cost components in each scenario, with capital cost, operating cost and voyage cost represented in
millions of USD per year.
The smallest cost of transportation belongs to scenario 1, which uses HFO - the cheapest fuel of all, leading to smaller voyage costs -
and does not consider the use of scrubbers, which would increase capital and operating costs. The second smallest cost belongs to
scenario 10, which has the same conditions as scenario 1 but considering the use of wet scrubbers and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR).
The additional capital cost due to installing the abatement technologies is spread along the 25 years of service life of the vessel, leading
only to a 10$ difference on the transportation cost per FEU. The use of HFO maintains the voyage costs low - again, cheapest fuel - and
with the same value as in scenario 1. The largest cost belongs to scenario 5, which uses LNG propulsion. Even though the use of such
machinery leads to high investment costs, the highest cost is mainly due to the LNG fuel cost. Even with a smaller specific fuel oil
consumption (SFOC of 168 g/kWh) when compared to diesel engines (SFOC of 180 g/kWh), the cost of LNG per ton is significantly
higher than the cost of bunker fuel per ton. The voyage costs are, therefore, the largest of all the scenarios, leading to the highest
transportation cost.
The second highest cost belongs to scenario 7, which is the only one that considers a medium size vessel. This ship leads to smaller
economies of scale, as the cargo carrying capacity is reduced more than the internal costs with the use of a smaller ship. In fact, this
scenario is the one with the smallest capital, operating and voyage costs per year but the cargo carrying capacity is less than 45 % of the
large size vessel. Scenario 8 comes as the third highest cost, as it considers a utilization ratio of 80 % of its cargo capacity, while all
other scenarios have 100 %. The annual internal costs are the same as in scenario 3, as the vessels have the same size, operate with the
same average speed, use the same fuel and have the same abatement technologies. In scenario 8, however, these annual costs are
divided by a smaller number of FEUs carried per year to obtain the transportation cost in $/FEU. Scenario 9 follows as the fourth
highest cost, as it is the only scenario that has a speed of 18 knots (higher than the 15 knots considered in all other scenarios). In this
case, the operation with a higher speed leads to a cubic growth in the power required to propel the vessel. As a direct effect, the fuel
consumption is higher and, therefore, the voyage costs increase. For the remaining scenarios, the difference in transportation cost is
13
Table 11
Short sea shipping specific cost of transportation.
Scenario Cost [$/FEU] Specific cost [0.01 $/FEU.km] Specific cost [0.01 EUR/FEU.km]
1 388 27.7 23.3

2 416 29.0 25.0
3 430 30.0 25.9
4 422 29.4 25.4
5 611 42.6 36.7
6 429 29.9 25.8
7 587 40.9 35.3
8 538 37.5 32.3
9 469 32.7 28.2
10 408 28.5 24.5
Table 12
Comparison of the transportation cost between real condition and most expensive scenarios.
Comparison Scenario 3 Scenario 5 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9
Description Real conditions LNG propulsion Medium size vessel 80 % utilization Speed 18kn
Cost/FEU $ 430 $ 611 $ 587 $ 538 $ 469
Cost increase – 42 % 36 % 25 % 9%
Fig. 2. Internal cost components.
smaller and is due to the fuel type and the use of abatement technologies. Scenarios that consider the use of VLSFO have smaller voyage
costs then the ones that consider ULSFO (most expensive type of fuel for main engine). Between scenarios that have the same fuel type
(same voyage costs), the ones which consider abatement technologies will have higher capital costs and, therefore, higher trans
portation cost in $/FEU.
Having obtained the SSS specific costs of transportation in the various scenarios, these can be used to complete the definition of the
non-linear function in Equation (3). For the other modes of transportation, the specific values adopted were based on (CEGE, 2014), (Ti
et al., 2021), (Janic, 2007), (Lupi et al., 2021), Dirrect Ferries website11 and Freightlink website.12 Fig. 3 shows the specific costs for all
modes adopted in this study, with SSS values displayed until the 1500 km mark, with further values to be included according to the cost
in question (see Table 11) for each of the 10 scenarios defined above.
In addition to the internal costs inherent to modes of transportation, it is necessary to consider the transshipment expenses arising
in seaport and intermodal terminals and the time spent in such activities. Using the cargo handling tariffs applied in the terminals13 or
typical tariffs from (TRT, 2017), and the typical delays obtained from (PIANC, 2014), it is possible to summarize the values as it has
been done in Table 14. It is worth pointing out that in the case of the container terminal in Leixões, zero loading costs are shown
11
Dirrect Ferries. (2022, 04 18). Retrieved from https://www.directferries.pt/.
12
Freightlink. (2022, 04 18). Retrieved from Freightlink: https://www.freightlink.co.uk/.
13
Yilport. (2021). Tariff regulations. Leixões. Retrieved February 1, 2021, from https://www.tcl-leixoes.pt/en/regulations/tariff-.
14
Fig. 3. Specific costs of transportation for different distances travelled.
because, when dealing with outbound containers, the cargo handling tariff is 142.7 EUR and it includes the unloading from the truck to
the container yard.
5. Numerical results
The numerical tool based on the methods described in section 3 will now be used to calculate internal costs, emissions and external
costs arising for the different transport chains (A-G), for multiple pairs O/D (corresponding to 75 NUTS 2 regions) and for the 10
different operational and technical conditions (scenarios 1–10). This allows determining for which regions a certain transport chain is
preferable against other combinations of modes of transport in the 10 scenarios. Three different criteria are then adopted to evaluate
chain’s competitiveness: minimum internal cost; minimum external cost; minimum sum of these two costs (corresponding to full
external cost internalization). A geographical representation of chain’s competitiveness in maps is presented for each of these three
criteria and for the various scenarios.
5.1. Transport chains geographical scope of competitiveness considering internal costs
Fig. 4 presents maps, for all scenarios, showing the most competitive transport chain for 75 NUTS 2 regions when the adopted
criterion is the internal cost, following the nomenclature in Table 3. Maps were developed using the on-line geographic information
system (GIS) tool Datawrapper.
Transport chain A corresponds to fully road-based transportation, while Transport chain B corresponds to SSS (Ro-Ro based)
complemented by road and Transport chain D corresponds to SSS (Ro-Ro based) complemented by IWT and road. The scenarios that
present the highest specific cost of transportation for the maritime link - scenarios 5, 7, 8 and 9 - are the ones that have the largest
number of regions covered by the transportation, which is cheaper in these cases. On the other hand, the scenario with the minimum
specific cost for the maritime link - scenarios 1 – is the one for which the Ro-Ro + road chain has the highest number of regions covered.
Even though scenarios 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 have specific costs slightly higher than scenario 1, they end up attracting roughly the same
regions (road takes advantage only in two NUTS 2 regions), which shows a not very high sensitivity of the competitiveness of maritime
transportation based transport chains, with respect to variations of SSS specific costs of the order of magnitude indicated in Table 11.
Also, the two regions covered by Transport chain D in all scenarios are the closest regions to the Ruhrort IWT terminal, i.e., this chain is
financially advantageous if the final road linkage (and related handling cost from the IWT terminal to the truck) does not cost more
than the money saved with the use of IWT. Another detail worth noticing is that the closest regions to the destination port (Rotterdam)
will always be attracted by the combination of the maritime transportation and road (with or without IWT connections) given the short
road linkage that must be done between the terminal and the final destination. The furthest away the NUTS 2 region is from this port,
and therefore the larger is the distance to be covered by truck to get to the destination, the less competitive this chain, based on SSS, is.
That explains why the regions in northern France easily respond to the variation of scenarios: they are at the edge of competition
between the road and maritime + road transportation.
15
Table 14
Cargo handling tariffs and average time in the considered terminals.
Terminal category Location Country Cargo handling tariffs [EUR] Average time in terminal [h]
Load Unload
Ro-Ro Leixões PT 25 25 6
Ro-Ro Rotterdam NE 50 50 6
Container Leixões PT 0 142.7 72
Container Rotterdam NE 25 120 48
Rail Oberhausen GE 25 25 6
Rail Entroncamento PT 12.5 12.5 12
Rail Mannheim GE 25 25 12
Rail Cacia PT 12.5 12.5 12
Inland waterway Ruhrort GE 25 25 9
(a) Scenario 1 (HFO). (b) Scenarios 2 (VLSFO), 3 (VLSFO w/ abat. tech.),

4 (VLSFO/ULSFO), 6 (ULSFO) and 10 (HFO w/ abat. tech.).
(c) Scenario 5 (LNG), 7 (Medium size Ro-Ro), 8 (80% utilization), 9 (18 knots).
Fig. 4. Transport chains scopes of competitiveness taking as criterion the internal costs.
5.2. Transport chains geographical scope of competitiveness considering external costs
For all scenarios, Fig. 5 present maps showing the most competitive transport chain, following the nomenclature in Table 3, when
the adopted criterion is the minimum external cost among the seven available route options. Generally, in all cases, it may be seen that
transport chain D dominates most part of Germany, Eastern Netherlands, Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine regions in France. This fact
implies that maritime transportation through the port of Rotterdam, integrated with inland waterways, constitutes the route option
with the lowest transportation externalities. In addition, for the regions close to Mannheim rail terminal, in Southern Germany, rail
transportation associated with SSS (chain G) is justified by the proximity between destinations and rail intermodal terminal. For re
gions closer to the coastline transport chain B is the most competitive. In any case, it is worth stressing that chains B, D and G are all
based on SSS.
16
The size of the road geographical scope of competitiveness is directly related to SSS characteristics. For scenarios in which the SSS
mode is weakened, i.e., use of highly pollutant fuel (HFO) without use of abatement technologies (Scenario 1) or utilization of medium-
size Ro-Ro vessel (Scenario 7), the largest area of competitiveness of unimodal road transportation is noticed, see Fig. 5a. To a lesser
extent, external costs for SSS routes also surpass those of the road when a lower ship cargo utilization is considered, see Fig. 5b. In these
cases, destinations located in Western France, where road distances from Portugal are not considerably high, the road unimodal
transport chain (chain A) presents a better solution compared to other transport chains which make use of less polluting modes. The
high external cost of intermodal routes could be avoided by efficient connections from the port of Rotterdam using rail or IWT for this
region (chains C, D and E). Even if the chain preference is the same when using different fuels and cruise speed, in Fig. 5c, it does not
imply that external costs are the same quantitatively. Taking Scenario 3 (VLSFO w/ abat. tech.) as a reference, external costs for
Scenarios 9 (18 knots), 4 (VLSFO/ULSFO) and 2 (VLSFO) presented an average increment of about 4 %, 6 % and 7 %, respectively. On
the other hand, Scenarios 10 (HFO w/ abat. tech.), 5 (LNG) and 6 (ULSFO) presented an average decrement of − 10 %, − 12 % and –23
% on external costs compared to scenario 3, respectively. This behavior is directly related to different levels of air pollutant emissions,
affected by low sulphur content fuels or by the combination of scrubber and exhaust gas recirculation systems.
In order to compare internal and external costs, for Scenario 3 (VLSFO w/ abat. tech.), Fig. 6a presents the ratio between the
external and internal costs on the preferable chain regarding each criterion. Notably, external cost magnitude is much lower than
internal cost magnitude, with external costs forming only 26 % of internal costs, on average. For this reason, internalization of external
costs on the total cost of transportation leads to a small impact on the transport chain preference, as it is going to be presented on the
next section. Fig. 6b shows the ratio between the highest and lowest external costs for a certain region, allowing to conclude that the
preferable transport chain showed in Fig. 5c corresponds to 23 % to 59 % of the worst chain (usually Chain A or E). This indicates that,
even for the chain with the highest external costs (among the chains that lead to a certain region), these costs are not higher than the
internal costs.
Differently from Fig. 6a, Fig. 6b presents a clear pattern that depends on the distance from the port of Rotterdam. A lighter blue
pattern can be noticed in the Netherlands and Western Germany due to combined effect of the proximity from the SSS terminal,
responsible for reducing the minimum external cost, and a longer road distance from Portugal, responsible for increasing the maximum
(a) Scenarios 1 (HFO) and 7 (Medium size Ro-Ro) (b) Scenarios 8 (80% cargo utilization)
(c) Scenarios 2 (VLSFO), 3 (VLSFO w/ abat. tech.), 4 (VLSFO/ULSFO),

5 (LNG), 6 (ULSFO), 9 (18 knots) and 10 (HFO w/ abat. tech.)
Fig. 5. Transport chains scopes of competitiveness taking as criterion the external costs.
17
(a) External cost over internal cost (b) Minimum over maximum external costs
Fig. 6. External and internal costs comparison on the most competitive chains.
external cost (Chain A). On the other hand, in regions in France, a darker blue is noticed even considering that the preferable transport
chain is the same (Chain B). This chain choice generates around half of externalities cost in only-road chain A, against around one
quarter for regions close to Rotterdam, due to the use of a longer road distance for end-door transportation in France. The same can be
said about Southern Germany, in which rail option (Chain G) has an even closer external cost order of magnitude to the one obtained
from road chain (on average 55 %).
5.3. Transport chains scope of competitiveness considering total costs
As previously mentioned, internal costs correspond to transport company expenses but do not reflect the negative impacts on the
environment and society, which are coming to the center of attention of regulatory bodies and intergovernmental organizations. To
avoid the aggravation of environmental problems, the internalization of external costs could restrict the most polluting modes of
transportation by ensuring modal shifts to maritime transportation. Fig. 7 shows the effects of a full internalization of external costs,
that is, the summation of internal and external costs and the identification of the transport chain with the minimum total cost for each
NUTS 2 region.
Fig. 7 shows that the majority of the regions have kept their transport chain preference even after internalizing the full external
costs, with just 8 % of the NUTS regions changing their chain preference (on average) in comparison with Fig. 4. This fact can be
explained by a higher order of magnitude for internal costs when compared to the pricing of pollutant emissions and other exter
nalities. Comparing with Fig. 5, the large set of regions preferring the transport chain that includes inland waterways (Chain D), when
external costs were used as the decision criterion, has been considerably reduced and the rail transport (Chain G) has disappeared in
the Southern Germany. The advantage in external costs is clearly offset by the severe disadvantage in internal costs for these regions.
The number of regions for which transport chain A (unimodal road chain) is preferable has been reduced in France (especially in
Scenarios 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10) and Chain B has taken its place for all cases. This indicates that the internalization of external costs has
some contribution in promoting the competitiveness of short sea shipping. The dimension of this region, on the other hand, is related to
the ship characteristics. For instance, a lower vessel cargo utilization factor of lower vessel capacity (Scenario 7 and 8) was responsible
for increasing the road scope of competiveness, see Fig. 7c, to Franche-Comté region. Fig. 7b shows how the utilization of HFO or
higher speeds made road the most competitive chain for Lower Normandy and Bourgogne.
To evaluate the impact of each operational and technical SSS characteristic on the total scope of competitiveness, Fig. 8 shows the
number of regions that changed their transport chain preference after internalizing external costs. Additionally, the stacked bar
components identify the transport chain shifts. Internalization leads to, depending on the scenario, 4 to 11 % of transport chain shifts to
short sea shipping, expressed as percentage of the overall number of regions within the studied geographical area. In general, even
when penalizing the SSS mode with increased speed, low sulfur content fuels and lower cargo utilization, including external costs in
the cost structure (internalization) had a positive impact since SSS was included in the preferred chains for several regions (shifts to B)
and for a few regions IWT has also benefited from internalization (shifts to D). Scenario 5 (LNG fuel) is responsible for the highest
number of shifts (a net total of 8) and the lowest is Scenario 1, due to its poor environmental performance in air pollutant emissions.
6. Conclusions
This paper has presented a literature review covering maritime air pollution, existing and in development environmental regu
lations, fuel switching and slow steaming strategies and internalization of external costs, supporting the development of a numerical
tool capable of evaluating intermodal transport chain’s emissions, internal and external costs. This was used in a case study dedicated
to freight transportation from Portugal to Northern Europe that includes the consideration of different scenarios regarding ship’s
technical and operational conditions.
18
(a) Scenarios 2 (VLSFO), 3 (VLSFO w/ abat. tech.), (b) Scenario 1 (HFO) and 9 (18 knots)
4 (VLSFO/ULSFO), 5 (LNG), 6 (ULSFO)
and 10 (HFO w/ abat. tech.)
(c) Scenario 7 (Medium size vessel) and 8 (80% utilization)

Fig. 7. Transport chains scopes of competitiveness taking as criterion the total costs (full internalization).
Chain B to D Chain A to B
Number of chain shifts
10 7 7 7 8 7 7
8 5 5 6
6 3
4 5 5 5 6 5 4 5
1 3 3
2
0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
10 - HFO w/ abat. Tech.
3 - VLSFO w/ abat. Tech.
9 - 18 knots
1 - HFO
2 - VLSFO
4 - VLSFO/ULSFO
7 - Medium size
5 - LNG
6 - ULSFO
8 - 80% utilization
Fig. 8. Transport chain shifts in each scenario in analysis.
One major conclusion, when only internal costs of transportation are considered, is that intermodal chains based on SSS are
competitive across more than half of the regions comprised in this study. Only for regions in France closer to Portugal are road-only
transport chains more competitive. This result is most welcome as it is in line with the EU Commission objective of decreasing the 75 %
of the inland freight currently carried by road (European Comission, 2019). It was also found that the geographical competitiveness of
SSS does not vary significantly with the type of fuel used, leaving aside scenarios 1 and 2, which are not realistic because of the high
Sulphur content of fuel considered in these scenarios. Therefore, there appears to be little reason for shipping companies not to adopt
more environmentally responsible strategies, as they would not significantly loose competitiveness and could still claim being
19
environmentally sustainable. This study also evidences that larger vessels (provided they can be filled), high occupancy factors and
slower speeds all improve SSS competitiveness. On the contrary, the use of LNG propulsion leads to higher transportation costs,
resulting from the higher price of LNG (even more important as the 2022 Ukraine-Russia conflict unfolds).
Another important conclusion of this study, in what concerns transport preferences from the point of view of external costs, is that
inland waterway transportation coupled to SSS presents clear advantages for numerous regions away from the coastlines and for
northern Germany as a result of slow speed and utilization of very low sulphur fuel. The utilization of cleaner fuels and emissions
abatement technology in SSS is also moderately positive in terms of competitiveness as it reduces external costs, allowing gaining
advantage over the road. This reinforces the importance of alternative fuels for meeting new EU regulations to reduce GHG footprint
for ships, namely the FuelEU Maritime Regulation focused in reducing 75 % of GHG energy intensity by 2050.
When external costs (monetized using EU handbook coefficients) are combined with internal costs, it is seen that there is little
impact on transport chain preferences. Full internalization of external costs was responsible for a moderate 4 to 11 % of transport chain
shifts (expressed in number of regions). This occurs because external costs are, on average, only about 26 % of the internal costs and fail
to make a significant difference. The scenarios in which more shifts occur are those involving the use of low sulfur fuels or abatement
technologies. Summarizing, although internalization does promote a modal shift to SSS, a more substantial modal shift would require
that the coefficients used in the evaluation of external costs and/or the price of carbon emissions are updated in the future, leading to
higher external costs. With the introduction of maritime transportation and road transport in Emission Trade Systems, as proposed in
the “Fit for 55” package, this effect of carbon emission prices will materialize, possibly to the benefit of SSS.
The research presented in this paper may be extended in various ways: improving the modelling of fuel consumption with data
obtained from real life measurements; implementing and comparing more exact methods for computing power demand and emissions;
introducing modelling of modal split in order to estimate the actual volume of cargo flows in each chain; extending routes to other
NUTS 2 regions in Europe; introducing new routes and ports in the analysis; accounting for differing national degrees of internalization
of external costs.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under grant number PTDC/ECI-TRA/28754/2017 and is
in line with the Strategic Research Plan of the Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean Engineering (CENTEC), which is financed by
FCT under contract UIDB/UIDP/ 00134/2020. The authors would like to thank Pedro Martins for his contribution in modelling
intermodal transport chains.
References
Banawan, A.A., Gohary, M.M., Sadek, I.S., 2010. Environmental and economical benefits of changing from marine diesel oil to natural-gas fuel for short-voyage high-
power passenger ships. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment 224 (2), 103–113.
https://doi.org/10.1243/14750902JEME181.
Bergqvist, R., Turesson, M., Weddmark, A., 2015. Sulphur emission control areas and transport strategies -the case of Sweden and the forest industr. Eur. Transp. Res.
Rev. 7 (2), 1866–8887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-015-0161-9.
Brynolf, S., Magnusson, M., Fridell, E., Andersson, K., 2014. Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or
change of fuels. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 13, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.001.
Cariou, P., Lindstad, E., Jiac, H., 2021. The impact of an EU maritime emissions trading system on oil trades. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 99, 102992 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102992.
CEGE, 2014. Container terminals in the region of Lisbon-Setúbal – a Comparative Analysis. ISEG - School of Economics and Management, Lisbon, Portugal.
Christodoulou, A., Dalaklis, D., Olçer, A.I., Masodzadeh, P.G., 2021. Inclusion of Shipping in the EU-ETS: Assessing the Direct Costs for the Maritime Sector Using the
MRV Data. Energies, 1996-1073. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/en14133915.
Corbett, J.J., Winebrake, J.J., Green, E.H., Kasibhatla, P., Eyring, V., Lauer⊥, A., 2007. Mortality from ship emissions: A global assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol.
8512–8518.
COST, 2005. Emissions and Fuel Consumption from Heavy Duty Vehicles: Working Group A: Vehicle Model Final Report. In https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/
files/project/documents/20090619_171904_26922_II_COST346_WGA_FinalReport.pdf (COST 346). European Co-operation in the Field of Science and Technical
Research.
D’Almeida, J., 2009. Naval architecture – Preliminary ship design. Prime Books, Lisbon, Portugal.
Delft, C.E., 2019. Handbook on the External Costs of Transport. European Union, Luxembourg.
Doudnikoff, M., Lacoste, R., 2014. Effect of a speed reduction of containerships in response to higher energy costs in Sulphur Emission Control Areas. Transp. Res. Part
D: Transp. Environ. 11, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.03.002.
European Agency Emission, 2019. European Agency Emission Inventory Guidebook. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
European Comission, 2003. Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance
trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?
uri=celex%3A32003L0087 [accessed on 5 October 2022].
European Comission, 2019. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the regions. The European Green Deal. 11 December 2019, COM(2019) 764 final. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d165-
1c22-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF [accessed 6 October 2022].
European Comission, 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the regions. Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy. 9 December 2020, COM(2020) 789 final. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?
uri=cellar:5e601657-3b06-11eb-b27b-1aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF [accessed 6 October 2022].
20
FVT, 2018. Comparison of fuel consumption and emissions for representative heavy-duty vehicles in Europe: Final Report. In https://the/.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/06/HDV-EU-fuel-consumption_TU-Graz_ICCT-Consultant-Report_27022018_vF.pdf (FVT-099/17/Rex EM 16/18-6790). International Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT).
IMO, 2020. Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gases Study 2020. International Maritime Organization, London.
Jalkanen, J.-P., Johansson, L., Kukkonen, J., Brink, A., Kalli, J., Stipa, T., 2012. Extension of an assessment model of ship traffic exhaust emissions for particulate
matter and carbon monoxide. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12 (5), 2641–2659. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2641-2012.
Janic, M., 2007. Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. (1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2006.10.004.
Krantz, G., Brandao, M., Hedenqvist, M., Nilsson, F., 2022. Indirect CO2 emissions caused by the fuel demand switch in international shipping. Transp. Res. Part D:
Transp. Environ. 102, 103164 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103164.
Lagouvardou, S., Psaraftis, H.N., 2022. Implications of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) on European container routes: A carbon leakage case study. Mar.
Transp. Res. 3, 100059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2022.100059.
Lindstad, H., Eskeland, G.S., 2015. Low carbon maritime transport: How speed, size and slenderness amounts to substantial capital energy substitution. Transp. Res.
Part D: Transp. Environ. 41, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.006.
Lupi, M., Pratelli, A., Campi, F., Ceccotti, A., Farina, A., 2021. The “Island Formation” within the Hinterland of a Port System: The Case of the Padan Plain in Italy.
Sustainability 4819. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094819.
Mostert, M., Limbourg, S., 2016. External Costs as Competitiveness Factors for Freight Transport - A State of the Art. Transp. Rev. 692–712 https://doi.org/10.1080/
01441647.2015.1137653.
Mostert, M., Caris, A., Limbourg, S., 2017. Road and intermodal transport performance: the impact of operational costs and air pollution external costs. Res. Transp.
Bus. Manag. 75–85 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.02.004.
Nguyen, P.-N., Woo, S.-H., Kim, H., 2022. Ship emissions in hotelling phase and loading/unloading in Southeast Asia ports. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.
103223 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103223.
Notteboom, T., Delhaye, E., Vanherle, K., 2010. Analysis of the Consequences of Low Sulphur Fuel. European Community Shipowners’ Associations, Antwerp.
Olmer, N.E., 2017. Greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping. The International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington DC, USA.
Panagakos, G.P., Stamatopoulou, E.V., Psaraftis, H.N., 2014. The possible designation of the Mediterranean Sea as a SECA: A case study. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp.
Environ. 74–90 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.010.
Pavlenko, N., Comer, B., Zhou, Y., Clark, N., Rutherford, D., 2020. The climate implications of using LNG as a marine fuel. The International Council on Clean
Transportation Working paper 2020–02.
Peng, Y., Zhao, X., Zuo, T., Wang, W., Song, X., 2021. A systematic literature review on port LNG bunkering station. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 91, 102704
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102704.
Pigou, A., 1920. The Economics of Welfare. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK.
PIANC, 2014. Masterplans for the Development of Existing Ports. PIANC, Brussels, Belgium.
Psaraftis, H.N., Kontovas, C.A., 2010. Balancing the economic and environmental performance of maritime transportation. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 15,
458–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.05.001.
Psaraftis, H.N., Panagakos, G., 2012. Green corridors in European surface freight logistics and the SuperGreen project. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 1723–1732. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1147.
Raza, Z., 2020. Effects of regulation-driven green innovations on short sea shipping’s environmental and economic performance. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.
102340 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102340.
Santos, T., Ramalho, M., 2021a. Numerical Modeling of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 679. https://doi.org/
10.3390/jmse9060679.
Santos, T., Ramalho, M., 2021b. The Impact of the Internalization of External Costs in the Competitiveness of Short Sea Shipping. Journal of Marine Science and
Engineering 9, 959.
Santos, T., Fonseca, M.Â., Martins, P., Guedes Soares, C., 2022. Integrating Short Sea Shipping with Trans-European Networks. Journal of Marine Scince and
Engineering 10, 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10020218.
Schinas, O., Metzger, D., 2019. A pay-as-you-save model for the promotion of greening technologies in shipping. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 184–195
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.01.018.
Svindland, M., 2018. The environmental effects of emission control area regulations on short sea shipping in Northern Europe: The case of container feeder vessels.
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 423–430 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.11.008.
Ti, Upply, & IRU. (2021). The European road freight rate development benchmark - Q4 2021.
TRT, MDS, 2017. Gathering Additional Data on EU Combined Transport. European Commission, Unit D1-Maritime Transport & Logistics, Brussels.
UNCTAD, 2021. Review of Marine Transport. United Nations Publications, Geneva, Switzerland.
Vallejo-Pinto, J.A., Garcia-Alonso, L., Fernández, R.Á., Mateo-Mantecón, I., 2019. Iso-emission map: A proposal to compare the environmental friendliness of short sea
shipping vs road transport. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.01.015.
Wang, C., Corbett, J.J., 2007. The cost and benefits of reducing SO2 emissions from ships in the US west coastal waters. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 12 (8),
577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2007.08.003.
Wild, P., 2021. Recommendations for a future global CO2-calculation standard for transport and logistics. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 100 (9), 103024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103024.
Zhen, L., Li, M., Hu, Z., Lv, W., Zhao, X., 2018. The effects of emission control area regulations on cruise shipping. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 62, 47–63.
Zis, T.P., North, R.J., Angeloudis, P., Ochieng, W.Y., Bell, M.G., 2015. Environmental balance of shipping emissions reduction strategies. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2479 (1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.3141/2479-04.
Zis, T., Psaraftis, H.N., 2017. The implications of the new sulphur limits on the European Ro-Ro sector. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 52 (Part A), 185–201.
Zis, T., Psaraftis, H.N., 2018. Operational measures to mitigate and reverse the potential modal shifts due to environmental legislation. Marit. Policy Manag. 117–132
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1468938.
Zis, T., Angeloudis, P., Bell, M.G., Psaraftis, H.N., 2016. Payback Period for Emissions Abatement Alternatives: Role of Regulation and Fuel Prices. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2549 (1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.3141/2549-05.
Zis, T., Psaraftis, H.N., Panagakos, G., Kronbak, J., 2019. Policy measures to avert modal shifts caused by sulphur regulation in he European Ro-Ro sector. Transp. Res.
Part D: Transp. Environ. 70, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.03.001.
Zis, T.P., Psaraftis, H.N., Tillig, F., Ringsbergb, J.W., 2020. Decarbonizing maritime transport: A Ro-Pax case study. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 37, 100565 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100565.
21

Transportation Research Part D: Heitor Abreu, Tiago A. Santos, Valdir Cardoso

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Research Part D: Heitor Abreu, Tiago A. Santos, Valdir Cardoso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Research Part D 114 (2023) 103544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

Impact of external cost internalization on short sea shipping – The

consequent loss of competitiveness of the sector (Psaraftis & Kontovas, 2010).

2.1. Assessment of greenhouse gases and air pollution in shipping

2.2. Regulatory impact on short sea shipping competitiveness

2.3. Fuel switching and slow steaming compliance strategies

2.4. Internalization of transport externalities

3.1. Internal cost calculation method

The cost for this travelled distance is then determined by:

3.2. Emissions calculation method

3.2.1. Maritime and inland waterway modes

FCAE,ij = FCport mano sea

EFSO2 = 2 ⋅ 0.97753 ⋅ SC ⋅ 10− 6

EFe− PM10 = 0.23 + SFCij ⋅ 7 ⋅ 0.02247 ⋅ (S − 0.0024) (16)

3.2.2. Road transport

1 V/C < 0.4 Vijk

- Zone: suburban,urban or rural

3.2.3. Rail mode

3.3. External cost calculation method

CCC,ij = ctonCO2 ⋅ ECO2− eq ij ⋅ 10− 6

4.1. Geographical scope and transport chain definition

4.2. Scenarios for emission reduction strategies

Fig. 1. Transport chains and modes for connecting Porto to Stuttgart.

4.3. Technical characteristics of vehicles used in the different transport modes

Fuel Abat. Fuel Abat. Fuel Abat. Fuel Abat.

4.4. Impact of emission reduction strategies in internal costs

Length between Perpendiculars 226 195.4 [m]

SS – slow speed; MS – medium speed.

Navigation Maneuvering Port Navigation Maneuvering Port

Main Engine 7,872 0 0 5,905 0 0

- Vessel’s type: Barge - Trip time: Day - Abatement technology: none

1 Large Diesel – 90.00

Leixões Rotterdam Leixões Rotterdam

Port Port usage 4,608 6,371 13,381 18,501

1 388 27.7 23.3

Fig. 2. Internal cost components.

Fig. 3. Specific costs of transportation for different distances travelled.

5.1. Transport chains geographical scope of competitiveness considering internal costs

(a) Scenario 1 (HFO). (b) Scenarios 2 (VLSFO), 3 (VLSFO w/ abat. tech.),

5.2. Transport chains geographical scope of competitiveness considering external costs

(c) Scenarios 2 (VLSFO), 3 (VLSFO w/ abat. tech.), 4 (VLSFO/ULSFO),

5.3. Transport chains scope of competitiveness considering total costs

(c) Scenario 7 (Medium size vessel) and 8 (80% utilization)

Fig. 8. Transport chain shifts in each scenario in analysis.

Declaration of Competing Interest

You might also like