Synthesis of Multimodal Freight Transport and Emissions Cost and Application in the Upper Peninsula

(UP) of Michigan

Irfan Rasul, Pasi Lautala, Ph.D., P.E.Civil and Environmental Engineering

Michigan Technological University1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931

Logistics, Trade and Transportation Symposium 2014Gulfport, MS

Outline• Introduction• Literature Review

• Shipping Cost• Carbon Emissions

• Upper Peninsula in Michigan Study• Commodity Flow (TRANSEARCH database)• Options for multimodal transport• Development of model

• Base shipping cost• Base shipping plus carbon emission costs

• Conclusion

Introduction Transportation is a necessity for all industries, as it determines the

location and types of consumers that can be efficiently served.

Freight mode choice depends on many factors, such as commodity

volume and value, distance to be travelled, origin and destination,

capacity and pricing of available modes, and time of transit.

This research investigates parameters related to intermodal / multimodal

transportation, concentrating on shipping and emission costs for

movements that use rail and truck as their primary modes.

Information gained from the past studies will be used to develop general

shipping costs, emission factors, and emission costs for a conceptual

model to evaluate multimodal transportation and transloading

opportunities in the UP region.

Literature Review

Shipping Cost

Carbon Emissions

Shipping Cost

The range of shipping unit cost For rail, $0.01 to $1.15 per ton-mile

For truck, $0.03 to $0.19 per ton-mile

The studies that used rail for different distances and payloads found that

the unit cost decreases, if the distance and/or pay load increases.

For trucks, longer distances meant increased unit costs.

The studies agreed that the unit shipping costs are higher for trucks and

lower for rail when distance increases, no general formula can be derived

to quantify the relationship.

The great variation in unit shipping cots values also suggested that range

of unit cost values should be used in the study to evaluate the relative

sensitivity of shipping costs to the modal selection.

Multimodal Shipping Cost from Past Studies

Type Distance (miles)

Weight used

(tons per car)

Unit cost (indexed to

2012)

Distance (miles)

Weight Used

(tons per truck)

Unit cost (indexed to

2012)

Bulk Heavy unit 1000 105 0.0119 (0.02) < 250 14.8 0.0217 (0.03)

BulkMixed freight 500 70 0.012 (0.02) _ _ _

Container Intermodal 1750 28 0.0268 (0.04) 250 - 500 14.8 0.0894 (0.13)

ContainerDouble-

stack container

1750 56 0.0106 (0.01) > 500 14.8 0.0769 (0.11)

Wang et al 1995Bulk and recycled

paper_ _ 60 0.12 (0.17) _ 22 0.1 (0.14)

US DOT 1995-2004

General Freight _ _ _ 0.032 (0.04) _ _ 0.1104 (0.19)

General Freight

(Forkenbrock Study)

Mixed freight

_ _ 0.022 (0.03) < 250 24 0.0217 (0.03)

Intermodal Intermodal _ _ 0.0268(0.04) > 500 17.5 0.0842 (0.12)

Cambridge Systematics Inc.

2002Bulk and

Intermodal_ _ _ 0.024 (0.03) _ _ 0.08 (0.10)

50 tons 75 100 1.09 (1.15) 75 25 0.033(0.04)

10,000 tons 75 100 0.0272 (0.03) 75 25 0.033(0.04)

50 tons 2000 100 0.48 (0.52) 2000 25 0.04 (0.05)

10,000 tons 2000 100 0.0032 (0.01) 2000 25 0.04 (0.05)

Atkinson et al 2006 Bulk _ _ _ 0.034 (0.04) _ 24 0.0842 (0.09)

Columbia River Crossing 2004 Bulk

Rail Truck

Kehoe, Owen 2001

Forkenbrock 1994

AuthorStudy Year Commodity

CN Tariff Rate for Rail

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,4000.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

f(x) = 2.5492295084029 x^-0.584395251465572

Cost per ton-mile vs Distance

Distance, miles

Cost

per

ton-

mile

Carbon Emissions The range of carbon emission factor

For rail, 15.40 - 41.42 grams per ton-mile of CO2

For truck, 64.96 - 297.90 grams per ton-mile of CO2

Studies which evaluated metropolitan areas resulted in higher emission factors,

whereas the studies with lower values were for rural counties. Forkenbrock

concluded that truck payload and speed are also relevant in calculation of

emission factors whereas Cefic-ECTA study emphasized on empty backhaul.

Chernick and Caverhill provided a range of $2.27 to $24.95 per ton of CO2

emission.

National Economic Research Associates suggested emission cost of $3.56 per ton

of CO2 emission.

National Research Council provided a range of $10 to $20 per ton of CO2

emission.

Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan

Mackinaw Bridge

Upper Peninsula

Lower Peninsula

Commodity Flow in the UP Commodities STCC

Inbound Outbound Internally in the UP 2009 2030 2009 2030 2009 2030

Agriculture 1 268,608 241,708 38,218 276,197 0 5,936

Iron Ores 10 264,050 233,297 0 2 12,451 20,029 Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals

14 418,265 651,703 64,296 137,470 220,649 595,035

Food Products 20 338,867 435,473 75,056 112,928 0 11,763 Lumber and Wood Products

24 149,875 444,296 1,713,462 1,925,218 3,288,699 7,815,825

Pulp and Paper Mill Products

26 138,128 212,382 299,795 411,036 0 5,708

Chemical Products

28 242,987 270,453 194,486 258,912 0 2,638

Petroleum or Coal Products

29 219,072 205,274 216,511 206,083 22,663 70,634

Rubber and Plastics

30 31,286 55,537 16,965 29,050 0 1

Clay, Cement, Glass, Stone Products

32 153,794 305,823 137,063 221,060 71,044 381,507

Primary Metal Products

33 105,414 148,866 54,732 98,262 0 399

Fabricated Metals

34 55,229 94,104 55,111 76,307 0 337

Machines 35 31,294 67,495 34,814 63,612 0 0

Secondary Traffic 50 550,150 1,365,482 81,441 175,472 0 1,103

Other 222,241 387,453 364,271 343,527 6,092 112,350

Total 3,189,260 5,119,346 3,346,220 4,335,136 3,621,598 9,023,265 % increase 61 30 149

Commodity Flow in the UP (Contd..)

0 to 100

100 to 200

200 to 300

300 to 400

400 to 500

500 to 1000

1000 to 20000

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Truck Movements by Distance (TRANSEARCH 2009)

Internal Outbound Inbound

Distance, miles

Volu

me,

tons

Commodity Flow in the UP (Contd..)

Chicago Chicago (Through) Wisconsin Minneapolis Minneapolis (Through)

Canada0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Interstate movements by truck from selected counties in the UP

Outbound Inbound

Volu

me,

tons

Potential Transload Facility in the UP ???

Nestoria?

Amasa?

Ishpeming?

Analysis of the Model

Two scenarios Base shipping cost (including interchange cost)

Base shipping plus carbon emission costs.

Sensitivity Analysis for different fuel prices.

Compare the costs and sensitivity for each location.

(Nestoria, Ishpeming and Amasa)

References• Cook, P.D., et al. Key factors in road-rail mode choice in India: applying the logistics cost approach. in Simulation

Conference Proceedings, 1999 Winter. 1999. IEEE.• Cullinane, K. and N. Toy, Identifying influential attributes in freight route/mode choice decisions: a content analysis.

Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2000. 36(1): p. 41-53.• Jiang, F., P. Johnson, and C. Calzada, Freight demand characteristics and mode choice: an analysis of the results of

modeling with disaggregate revealed preference data. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 1999. 2(2): p. 149-158.• Rich, J., P.M. Holmblad, and C.O. Hansen, A weighted logit freight mode-choice model. Transportation Research Part E:

Logistics and Transportation Review, 2009. 45(6): p. 1006-1019.• Shinghal, N. and T. Fowkes, Freight mode choice and adaptive stated preferences. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics

and Transportation Review, 2002. 38(5): p. 367-378.• McGinnis, M.A., A comparative evaluation of freight transportation choice models. Transportation Journal, 1989. 29(2): p.

36-46.• David, P.A. and R.D. Stewart, International logistics: the management of international trade operations. 2010: Cengage

Learning.• Reis, V., et al., Rail and multi-modal transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 2012.• United Nations (UN) & Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), Terminology on Combined Transport. . New York and

Geneva., 2001.• Forkenbrock, D.J., Comparison of external costs of rail and truck freight transportation. Transportation Research Part A:

Policy and Practice, 2001. 35(4): p. 321-337.• Officials, A.A.o.S.H.a.T., Freight–Rail Bottom Line Report. 2002. p. 25 - 35.• Hanssen, T.-E.S., T.A. Mathisen, and F. Jørgensen, Generalized Transport Costs in Intermodal Freight Transport. Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 54: p. 189-200.• Janic, M., Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road freight transport network. Transportation Research Part D:

Transport and Environment, 2007. 12(1): p. 33-44.• Wang, C.-H., J.C. Even Jr, and S.K. Adams, A mixed-integer linear model for optimal processing and transport of secondary

materials. Resources, conservation and recycling, 1995. 15(1): p. 65-78.• U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration and Bureau of Transportation

Statistics. National Transportation Statistics. Available from: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/.

• Kehoe, O., Economics of Truck and Rail Freight Transportation. Economics. 12: p. 8-2003.• National Economic Research Associates, External Costs of Electric Utility Resource Selection in Nevada.

1993: Nevada Power Company. Cambridge, MA.• Columbia River Crossing, Feasibility of Diverting Truck Freight to Rail in the Columbia River Corridor.

2006.• Atkinson, G. and S. Mourato, Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. 2006.• U.S. Department of Energy and Energy Information Administration Energy, Transportation sector energy

consumption in Annual Energy Review (Washington DC: Annual Issues), tables 2.1a, 2-1e, and 5-13c,. November, 2012.

• Iden, M., Engines of Change & Future Fuels for US Freight Locomotives, in Faster Freight Cleaner Air 2008 conference. 2008.

• Tolliver, D., P. Lu, and D. Benson, Comparing rail fuel efficiency with truck and waterway. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2013. 24: p. 69-75.

• ICF International, Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors. 2009. p. 5 - 12.

• Texas Transportation Institute, A MODAL COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION EFFECTS ON THE GENERAL PUBLIC. 2007.

• O'Rourke, L., K. Read, and E. Johnston. US Freight Emissions Segmented by BCO Industry. in Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting. 2013.

• Hanaoka, S. and M.B. Regmi, Promoting intermodal freight transport through the development of dry ports in Asia: An environmental perspective. IATSS Research, 2011. 35(1): p. 16-23.

• PB Americas, I., Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process. 2013: Transportation Research Board.

• Cefic and ECTA, "Guidelines for Measuring and Managing CO2 Emission from Freight Transport Operations". 2011.

• Blanco, E.E., CASE STUDIES IN CARBON-EFFICIENT LOGISTICS- Ocean Spray - Leveraging Distribution Network Redesign. 2013.

Questions???