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

1. Synthesis of Multimodal Freight Transport and Emissions Cost and Application in the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan Irfan Rasul, PasiLautala, Ph.D., P.E. Civil and Environmental Engineering Michigan Technological University 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931 Logistics, Trade and Transportation Symposium 2014 Gulfport, MS

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Literature Review • Shipping Cost • Carbon Emissions

5. 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.

6. Multimodal Shipping Cost from Past Studies

7. CN Tariff Rate for Rail

8. 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. Forkenbrockconcluded 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.

9. Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan

10. Commodity Flow in the UP

11. Commodity Flow in the UP (Contd..)

12. Commodity Flow in the UP (Contd..)

13. Potential Transload Facility in the UP ??? Nestoria? Ishpeming? Amasa?

14. 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)

15. 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/.

16. 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.

17. Questions???