You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Tiago Santos
 + 2499 word(s) 2499 2022-02-15 03:43:49 |
2 format correct
Bruce Ren
 Meta information modification 2499 2022-03-18 01:14:05 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Santos, T. Integrating Short Sea Shipping with Trans-European Transport Networks. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20498 (accessed on 15 May 2025).
Santos T. Integrating Short Sea Shipping with Trans-European Transport Networks. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20498. Accessed May 15, 2025.
Santos, Tiago. "Integrating Short Sea Shipping with Trans-European Transport Networks" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20498 (accessed May 15, 2025).
Santos, T. (2022, March 11). Integrating Short Sea Shipping with Trans-European Transport Networks. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20498
Santos, Tiago. "Integrating Short Sea Shipping with Trans-European Transport Networks." Encyclopedia. Web. 11 March, 2022.
Integrating Short Sea Shipping with Trans-European Transport Networks
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jmse10020218

A numerical model of transport networks is used to support the calculation of the main parameters driving transport decisions, for multiple pairs of origin/destination representing statistical regions of the European Union, and for different, alternative intermodal and unimodal transport chains. Results are presented using a geographic information system. This approach is applied in a case study dedicated to the evaluation of the competitiveness of transport chains based on short sea shipping between Portugal and The Netherlands, integrated with other components of Trans-European Transport Networks (rail freight corridors and inland waterways), compared to road haulage-based transport chains.

short sea shipping intermodality Trans-European Transport Networks rail freight corridors inland waterways logistics

1. Introduction

Short sea shipping (SSS) has not gained a significant market share in the European Union (EU) in recent decades even though substantial funding has been allocated to its promotion [1]. In general, SSS is cost competitive in comparison with road but it involves longer transit times, it is not door-to-door, and it is less flexible [2]. Overall, SSS has sustained a consistently strong competition from road haulage, spurred also by the influx of lower-wage drivers, who have even allowed some improvement of road haulage cost competitiveness. The position of SSS could benefit from increased utilization of Roll-on/Roll-off (Ro-Ro) ships [3], which facilitate cargo handling and integrate better with road haulage, thus allowing savings in door-to-door transit time (important considering current just-in-time logistics, as reported in [4]), albeit at the cost of somewhat increased costs [2]. In the Portuguese case, maritime freight transportation to Northern Europe resorts mainly to container ships, but the advantages of Ro-Ro could be better explored, as it was only a few years ago that the first SSS Ro-Ro liner service came into operation1.
SSS services of any type are, however, still inevitably dependent on road haulage for pre-carriage or on-carriage of cargo from ports to origins/destinations (O/D). Therefore, when distributing cargo throughout northern Europe, substantial distances still have to be covered by road from the ports to the final destinations, and in many cases, this will contradict important European Commission policy objectives [5], namely that “a substantial part of the 75% of inland freight carried today by road should shift onto rail and inland waterways”. This objective is in line with the White Paper [6] target of achieving "a modal shift of 30% of road freight over 300 km by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050". It is thus essential that SSS integrates efficiently with railway lines and inland waterways if it is to assist effectively the EU policies of shifting cargo away from the road and promoting multimodal transport.
In order to promote this integration it is essential to know the main service attributes ensuring the competitiveness of SSS in intermodal transport chains (TC). This has been studied by different authors using questionnaires issued to logistic operators, shippers, and intermodal operators [7]. Furthermore, the Portuguese Industry Confederation (CIP) [4] has conducted a study of the competitiveness of transport modes in freight transportation between Portugal and Northern Europe. This organization reports that almost 70% of Portuguese foreign trade occurs with the European Union and that out of this trade, about two thirds of the physical goods are carried by road with the remaining part being carried by sea (container lines). Awareness of the existing or possible multimodal or intermodal alternatives for delivery of cargo throughout Europe is limited among shippers and forwarders in Portugal [4]. This situation is even more true for the scope of geographical competitiveness of unimodal and multimodal transport chains, as studies [4] and [7] are purely qualitative. The present paper contributes to the literature by delimiting and quantifying the scope of SSS (intermodal transport) competitiveness, shedding light on the common qualitative assertion that SSS remains primarily a transportation option for coastal regions [4] and for cargo that is not urgent, all other cargo being carried by road across long distances.
When one looks at land-based modes, the situation in this corridor concerning the utilization of the TEN-T network (other than the road network) remains very unsatisfactory. In fact, the use of railway lines to move freight directly from Portugal to Northern Europe has been repeatedly proposed [4] but the fact is that no direct rail service operates in the Rail Freight Corridor 4 (RFC 4) from Portuguese ports to Mannheim (Germany). There were attempts in the past to establish rail freight services in Portugal-Germany2 but these have been short-lived as long transit time (3 days only for rail), differences in rail gauge, difficulties in finding available slots in congested railway lines and dependence on road haulage for pre-carriage and on-carriage compromised the attractiveness of these services. This situation is evidenced by the modal distribution of trade between Portugal and Spain and the European Union in 2017, showing that the railroad has percentages of 1% and 2%, while the road holds 68% and 64% and, finally, maritime transport is responsible for 31% and 34% [8]. In this context, it is important to note that the history of the modal split, between 2008 and 2017, despite observing growth rates in commercial trades, maintained the railroad at very low rates, with a predominance in road transport and maritime transport.

2. Integrating Short Sea Shipping with Trans-European Transport Networks

2.1. Cost and Time Competitiveness of Intermodal Transport

There is a substantial body of literature that considers the modelling of costs in road and intermodal freight transportation. Several studies [9][10] assessed internal and external costs in transportation, concluding that the break-even distance for intermodal transportation (rail-based) is about 1050 km and that internalising external costs may not necessarily promote a shift of cargo to intermodal transportation. Other authors [11][12] indicate, however, that intermodal transport solutions become attractive at distances above only 500 km or even 400 km. Internal and external costs of intermodal transport that use SSS instead of rail lead to the conclusion that SSS benefits from the use of low sulphur fuels and from an increase in ship’s capacity utilization, which may make it competitive even at much shorter distances than 1050 km [13][14]. Overall, the threshold distance for the competitiveness of SSS or rail in comparison with road appears to vary significantly according to the particular conditions of the transport chains under study.
Most of the literature concentrates on the cost side (internal, external, or full costs) of intermodal transport, but very few consider in detail the time factor, which is crucial in just-in-time logistic strategies. This factor has been highlighted in a study [15] dedicated to the case of Portuguese cargo exported or imported from the EU. Companies indicate that the transit time of SSS is unsatisfactory and that the low frequency of departures further degrades the performance of SSS. The inappropriate door-to-door capability of SSS contributes additionally to the problem of excessive transit time due to changes of transport mode across the transport chain. This may also produce extra costs, but these in most cases are not critical [16]. In general, respondents agreed that SSS-based intermodal transport chains were certainly cheaper than road-based transportation, which is not surprising given that the distance from Portugal to Germany is generally above 2000 km, thus well beyond the above-mentioned thresholds. In general, the time factor now appears to be more important than transportation cost.
Accordingly, the time and cost particularities of intermodal transport chains based on SSS in the corridor from the Iberian Peninsula to Northern Europe have been studied [17][18] The first paper includes a methodology for modelling demand in SSS (using Ro-Ro ships), which allowed the estimation of cargo volumes in the route Leixões-Rotterdam, while the second presents a multicriteria approach to select the most convenient ports for establishing SSS services in the same corridor. The methodology in [17] involved the evaluation of preferences for SSS or road transportation over a set of pairs O/D, considering both time and cost as decision parameters. These results were later used to size the required Ro-Ro ship for this route and estimated cargo volume [19]. In these papers, the transport network was modelled only employing road distances between main cities representative of each NUTS 2 region without regard for such parameters as, for example, type of road, impact in the average speed of heavy goods vehicles (HGV) and type of environment where the road is located. Therefore, to enable a more realistic calculation of the various transport parameters frequently considered in transport decision making, a comprehensive model of the transport network (including road, rail, SSS and inland waterways) covering the main parts of Western Europe was developed.
The network model developed by the authors has already allowed the study of the competitiveness of different intermodal transport solutions, some including SSS services (Ro-Ro or container services), in terms of transit time and transportation cost, as shown for a corridor from Northern Portugal to Northern France [20]. This paper only considered a pair O/D (Porto/Paris) but the work was later extended to cover multiple pairs O/D across Northern France and Belgium [21]. This allowed a geographic delimitation of the potential hinterland and foreland of a SSS route, using as a criterion the GTC. In these two studies, the maritime route linked the ports of Leixões and Le Havre. The same approach had been used to determine the external costs of intermodal transportation using the Marco Polo approach [22] and also the EU handbook [23]. The present paper seeks to apply the same approach to assess the cost competitiveness of different intermodal transport chains based on SSS, for transporting cargo from Portugal to wide set of Northern European NUTS 2 regions, covering Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and part of France.
Considering that both time and cost have a high impact on the relative competitiveness of different transport chains, it seems useful to resort to the concept of generalized transportation cost (GTC), which sums to the transport cost the product of time and value of time (VoT) for cargo. This latter variable is a difficult parameter to estimate in a precise manner. A substantial body of literature exists on this topic, but the general conclusion is that values vary significantly. Values for VoT may be found in many papers and studies and a summary is provided in comprehensive reviews such as those of [24][25][26]. A significant number of VoT values were identified in these studies, with a variation between €2 and €47 per hour and trailer. Particular studies [27] focused on SSS-based chains indicate suitable values of €6.82 per hour, which will be considered in this paper.

2.2. Geographical Delimitation of Transport Chains Competitiveness

The cost and time considerations above, coupled to models of transport networks, allow the geographical delimitation of the scope of competitiveness of SSS solutions (integrated in intermodal transport), in the wake of a considerable literature on this topic. In fact, such geographical studies can be subdivided into three broad categories: studies dedicated to the characterization of port hinterlands; studies dedicated to the characterization of which transport solutions are employed to reach different locations within the port’s hinterland; studies dedicated to the characterization of the competitiveness of full transport chains (from origin to destination) across vast geographical regions.
The first category includes studies on the characterization of port’s hinterlands and acessibality to the different port ranges. This approach stems from the considerable literature on transportation networks [28][29][30] and has allowed, for example, the study of the accessibility of locations across the US from and to different port ranges [31][32]. This category includes also studies carried out using empirical data on the geographical distribution of cargos flowing through a certain port. If such information is available for several ports (from Customs for example), the hinterlands of the different competing ports may be identified. The literature is rich on such studies and many port authorities also regularly conduct studies in this field. The hinterland of Ligurian ports across Northern Italy and a few NUTS 1 regions of neighbouring countries was studied in [33], which also examined the effectiveness of gravity models to explain the share of the different ports in this contested environment. In [34], an optimization model for evaluating the location of potential inland ports within the same geographical area is proposed. An empirical analysis of the port hinterland and the catchment area of Adriatic ports (in Italy), but still with no definition of the geographical scope of different ports, has been presented in [35]. Based on customs data, in [36], an analysis of the spatial development of Spanish ports hinterlands between 2000 and 2010 is carried out, considering both the Mediterranean and Atlantic coast. Similar studies have been carried out to determine the hinterland boundaries of major ports in France, namely the boundary between Le Havre (and other Northern range ports) and Marseille [37]. The findings of this study are actually in line with those of [38] on the delimitation of the boundary of northern and southern European port ranges. Market shares and volumes of the main Northern Range ports in NUTS 2 regions have also been studied in [39].
The second category of studies, rather than focusing on the competitiveness of ports across the hinterland, considers the competitiveness of different transport solutions to reach locations situated within the hinterland. The competitiveness of combined transport versus road based transport in freight transportation from Le Havre to multiple locations across the Ille de France region is studied in [40]. A very interesting and complete model has been developed in Belgium [41] and used to determine the scope of competitiveness of intermodal solutions (rail or inland waterways based) in the distribution of containers originating in Antwerp throughout this country. That paper presents a very complete geographic information system (GIS) based model that comprises road, rail and barge networks in Belgium, as well as existing intermodal terminals, and it has been used to study the effects of fuel price increases, the internalization of external costs, the value of time in modal choice, and the optimal location of barge terminals [42][43][44][45]. In connection with this model, empirical studies have also been conducted on the preferences of modal choice decision makers in Belgium in the short distance inland container transport [46]. The competitiveness of intermodal transport solutions versus road solutions and its impact in the competiveness of ports has also been studied for the Portuguese case in [47].
The third category of studies, which are relatively rare, strives to analyse the competitiveness of full transport chains, in which short sea shipping integrates with other modes in complex combinations, to reach wide geographical areas. The catchment area of SSS-based transport solutions from Belgium to the Baltic countries and Russia has been studied in [48], using various ports in the Baltic Sea as possible gateways. Regarding the competitiveness of SSS in the corridor from Western Iberian Peninsula to Northern Europe, very few studies have been carried out. One example is [18], where a number of transport chains from Spain to France are studied, combining different ports in Spain and France to reach specific destinations in France, while in [20] the route between Leixões (Portugal) and Rotterdam was studied to reach NUTS 2 regions spread throughout Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, and France. A similar study [21] has been conducted for the port of Le Havre. However, these studies have only considered road distribution of containerized cargo from the destination ports to final destinations. This paper seeks to expand the analysis to cover a diversity of SSS-based intermodal transport solutions across a vast geographical region.

References

  1. European Court of Auditors. Have the Marco Polo Programmes Been Effective in Shifting Traffic off the Road? Special Report No 3; European Court of Auditors: Luxembourg, 2013.
  2. Paixão Casaca, A.C.; Marlow, P. The Impact of the Trans-European Transport Networks on the Development of Short Sea Shipping. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2007, 9, 302–323.
  3. Christodoulou, A.; Raza, Z.; Woxenius, J. The Integration of RoRo Shipping in Sustainable Intermodal Transport Chains: The Case of a North European RoRo Service. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2422.
  4. CIP. Logistics in Portugal (in Portuguese); CIP: Lisbon, Portugal, 2015.
  5. European Commission. The European Green Deal, COM (2019) 640 Final; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
  6. European Commission. White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area–Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System, COM (2011) 0144; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
  7. Paixão Casaca, A.C.; Marlow, P.B. The competitiveness of short sea shipping in multimodal logistics supply chains: Service attributes. Marit. Policy Manag. 2005, 32, 363–382.
  8. OTEP. 9th Report of the Cross-Border Observatory Spain/Portugal. 2018. Available online: https://www.gee.gov.pt/pt/publicacoes/observatorio-transfronteirico-espanha-portugal/ (accessed on 1 June 2021). (In Portuguese)
  9. Janić, M. Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road freight transport network. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2006, 12, 33–44.
  10. Janic, M.; Vleugel, J. Estimating potential reductions in externalities from rail-road substitution in Trans-European freight transport corridors. Transp. Res. Part D 2012, 17, 154–160.
  11. Van Klink, H.; Berg, G.C.V.D. Gateways and intermodalism. J. Transp. Geogr. 1998, 6, 1–9.
  12. Tsamboulas, D.; Vrenken, H.; Lekka, A.-M. Assessment of a transport policy potential for intermodal mode shift on a European scale. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pr. 2007, 41, 715–733.
  13. Tzannatos, E.; Papadimitriou, S.; Katsouli, A. The cost of modal shift: A short sea shipping service compared to its road alternative in Greece. Eur. Transp. Transp. Eur. 2014, 56, 2.
  14. Sambracos, E.; Maniati, M. Competitiveness between short sea shipping and road freight transport in mainland port connections; the case of two Greek ports. Marit. Policy Manag. 2012, 39, 321–337.
  15. CIP. Survey into International Goods Transportation; Report Ref-106; CIP: Lisbon, Portugal, 2016. (In Portuguese)
  16. Kim, N.S.; Van Wee, B. The relative importance of factors that influence the break-even distance of intermodal freight transport systems. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 859–875.
  17. Santos, T.A.; Soares, C.G.; A Santos, C.G.S.T. Modeling transportation demand in short sea shipping. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2017, 19, 695–722.
  18. Martínez-López, A.; Munín-Doce, A.; Alonso, L.G. A multi-criteria decision method for the analysis of the Motorways of the Sea: The application to the case of France and Spain on the Atlantic Coast. Marit. Policy Manag. 2015, 42, 608–631.
  19. Santos, T.A.; Soares, C.G. Methodology for ro-ro ship and fleet sizing with application to short sea shipping. Marit. Policy Manag. 2017, 44, 859–881.
  20. Santos, T.A.; Guedes Soares, C. Short Sea Shipping and the Promotion of Multimodality in the European Atlantic Area. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists, Athens, Greece, 25–27 June 2019.
  21. Santos, T.A.; Escabelado, J.; Martins, P.; Soares, C.G. Short Sea Shipping Routes Hinterland Delimitation in the European Atlantic Area. In Developments in Maritime Technology and Engineering; Guedes Soares, C., Santos, T.A., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 81–90.
  22. Santos, T.A.; Guedes Soares, C. Assessment of Transportation Demand on Alternative Short Sea Shipping Services Considering External Costs. In Integration of the Maritime Supply Chain: Evolving from Collaboration Processed to Maritime Supply Chain Network; Vanelslander, T., Sys, C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 13–45.
  23. Santos, T.A.; Ramalho, M.; Guedes Soares, C. Sustainability in Short Sea Shipping–Based Intermodal Transport Chains. In Short Sea Shipping in the Age of Sustainable Development and Information Technology; Santos, T.A., Guedes Soares, C., Eds.; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2020; pp. 89–115.
  24. Zamparini, L.; Reggiani, A. Freight Transport and the Value of Travel Time Savings: A Meta?analysis of Empirical Studies. Transp. Rev. 2007, 27, 621–636.
  25. Feo-Valero, M.; García-Menéndez, L.; Garrido-Hidalgo, R. Valuing Freight Transport Time using Transport Demand Modelling: A Bibliographical Review. Transp. Rev. 2011, 31, 625–651.
  26. Hintjens, J.; Van Hassel, E.; Vanelslander, T.; Van De Voorde, E. Port Cooperation and Bundling: A Way to Reduce the External Costs of Hinterland Transport. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9983.
  27. Lupi, M.; Farina, A.; Orsi, D.; Pratelli, A. The capability of Motorways of the Sea of being competitive against road transport. The case of the Italian mainland and Sicily. J. Transp. Geogr. 2017, 58, 9–21.
  28. Morris, J.; Dumble, P.; Wigan, M. Accessibility indicators for transport planning. Transp. Res. Part A Gen. 1979, 13, 91–109.
  29. Southworth, F.; E Peterson, B. Intermodal and international freight network modeling. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2000, 8, 147–166.
  30. Thill, J.-C. Geographic information systems for transportation in perspective. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2000, 8, 3–12.
  31. Lim, H.; Thill, J.-C. Intermodal Freight Transportation and Regional Accessibility in the United States. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2008, 40, 2006–2025.
  32. Thill, J.-C.; Lim, H. Intermodal containerized shipping in foreign trade and regional accessibility advantages. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 530–547.
  33. Ferrari, C.; Parola, F.; Gattorna, E. Measuring the quality of port hinterland accessibility: The Ligurian case. Transp. Policy 2011, 18, 382–391.
  34. Ambrosino, D.; Ferrari, C.; Sciomachen, A.; Tei, A. Intermodal nodes and external costs: Re-thinking the current network organization. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2016, 19, 106–117.
  35. Acciaro, M.; Bardi, A.; Cusano, M.I.; Ferrari, C.; Tei, A. Contested port hinterlands: An empirical survey on Adriatic seaports. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2017, 5, 342–350.
  36. Alonso, L.G.; Martínez-Pardo, A.; Pinto, J.A.V. Analysis of the spatial development of the hinterland of ports: A case study. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2016, 8, 111.
  37. Guerrero, D. Deep-sea hinterlands: Some empirical evidence of the spatial impact of containerization. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 35, 84–94.
  38. Hassel, E.V.; Meersman, H.; Voorde, E.V.; Vanelslander, T. Impact of scale increase of container ships on the generalized chain cost. Marit. Policy Manag. 2016, 43, 192–208.
  39. Zondag, B.; Bucci, P.; Gützkow, P.; De Jong, G. Port competition modeling including maritime, port, and hinterland characteristics. Marit. Policy Manag. 2010, 37, 179–194.
  40. Frémont, A.; Franc, P. Hinterland transportation in Europe: Combined transport versus road transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 548–556.
  41. Macharis, C.; Pekin, E. Assessing policy measures for the stimulation of intermodal transport: A GIS-based policy analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 2009, 17, 500–508.
  42. Macharis, C.; Pekin, E.; Van Lier, T. A Decision Analysis Framework for Intermodal Transport: Evaluating Different Policy Measures to Stimulate the Market. In Integrated Transport: From Policy to Practice; Givoni, M., Banister, D., Eds.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2010; pp. 223–240.
  43. Macharis, C.; Van Hoeck, E.; Pekin, E.; Van Lier, T. A decision analysis framework for intermodal transport: Comparing fuel price increases and the internalization of external costs. Transp. Res. Part A 2010, 44, 550–561.
  44. Pekin, E.; Macharis, C.; Meers, D.; Rietveld, P. Location Analysis Model for Belgian Intermodal Terminals: Importance of the value of time in the intermodal transport chain. Comput. Ind. 2013, 64, 113–120.
  45. Macharis, C. The Optimal Location of an Intermodal Barge Terminal. In Transport Developments and Innovations in an Evolving World; Beuthe, M., Himanen, V., Reggiani, A., Zamparini, L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 211–234.
  46. Meers, D.; Macharis, C.; Vermeiren, T.; van Lier, T. Modal choice preferences in short-distance hinterland container transport. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2017, 23, 46–53.
  47. Santos, T.; Soares, C.G. Container terminal potential hinterland delimitation in a multi-port system subject to a regionalization process. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 75, 132–146.
  48. Ng, A.K.Y. Competitiveness of short sea shipping and the role of port: The case of North Europe. Marit. Policy Manag. 2009, 36, 337–352.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Transportation Science & Technology
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Tiago Santos
View Times: 512
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 18 Mar 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback