REVIEW OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES – NÁRODOHOSPODÁŘSKÝ OBZOR
VOL. 15, ISSUE 1, 2015, pp. 35–48, DOI: 10.1515/revecp-2015-0010
The Role of Ferry and Ro-Ro Shipping in
Sustainable Development of Transport1
Izabela Kotowska2
Abstract: As far as sustainable transport development is concerned, transfer of cargo
from road transport to short sea shipping, which, according to the common opinion,
generates lower external costs, is one of the objectives of the European Union policy.
However, the latest research results indicate that some Ro-Ro vessels and ferries generate
higher external costs than road transport. In light of this, benefits resulting from
transferring the cargo from road to sea seem to be questionable. The main aim of the
article is answering the question whether, and if so, how ferry and Ro-Ro shipping contributes
to development of sustainable transport? In order to answer this question, an
analysis of ferry and Ro-Ro shipping lines functioning in European transport system has
been conducted.
The article presents research results based on an analysis of approx. 900 ferry and RoRo
shipping lines considering the length and time of voyage compared to alternative
road transport. Usually, the course of sea shipping route does not cover the route of the
road transport, and therefore the lengths of both routes frequently considerably differ,
which significantly affects the total external costs generated by them. On the basis of
the analysis, the shipping lines have been classified according to the criterion of their
substitutability to road transport and their role in sustainable transport development.
Key words: External costs, Ferry shipping, Intermodal transport, Ro-Ro shipping, Short
sea shipping, Sustainable transport
JEL Classification: R41, R48
Introduction
The current development of civilization has led to an imbalance between the economic
development and natural resources, which entails a serious risk of economic, environmental,
social and political instability. The idea of sustainable development was first
defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development. In a report published
in 1987 which was entitled "Our Common Future," sustainable development was
defined as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (UN documents, 1987). The main
1
The project was funded by the National Science Centre allocated on the basis of the decision
DEC-2012/05/B/HS4/00617.
2
Maritime University of Szczecin, Faculty of Economics and Transport Engeenering. E-mail:
i.kotowska@am.szczecin.pl.
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES
36
priority of sustainable development is a compromise between economic and social development
and protection of natural resources.
Sustainable transport is one of the main strategic objectives of sustainable development.
The first definition of sustainable transport was developed by the OECD in 1996, according
to which the sustainable transport should be understood as transport which
"does not endanger public health or ecosystems and meets the needs of the movement in
accordance with the principles of the use of renewable resources below their regeneration
capacity and use of non-renewable resources below the possibilities of developing
their renewable substitutes” (OECD, 1996). Richardson, modifying the definition of
sustainability developed by the Brundtland Commission, describes sustainable transport
as "the possibility of meeting the transport needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own transportation needs" (Richardson,
2005).
Sustainable transport is a transport that:
− is accessible, safe and environment-friendly;
− is affordable, operates efficiently, offers a suitable choice of means of transport
and supports the economy;
− commits to reducing emissions and waste production including the possibility
of an ecosystem to absorb them, the consumption of non-renewable resources
and consumption of renewable resources, land use and the noise (Assessment
and Decision Making for Sustainable Transport, 2004, cited in Pawłowska,
2010).
In this light, transport policy should be directed towards development of such modes of
transport that both fully meet the transport needs and contribute to reduction of harmful
impact on the environment.
Constant efforts to increase efficiency of European transport system while putting much
pressure on reducing harmful effects on the environment has become a major objective
of the common EU transport policy (White Paper, 1993; White Paper, 2001; White
Paper, 2011). Transfer of cargo from road transport to other transport modes with less
negative impact on the natural environment, especially to rail transport and inland shipping,
became the basic task. By 2030, both modes of transport as well as short sea
shipping would have to be nearly doubled (Thaler and Wiederkehr, 2004; Chen, Yang
and Notteboom, 2014).
The growth of short sea shipping as an alternative for road haulage is mainly aimed at
discerning social benefits resulting from lower external costs generated in maritime
transport, lower number of accidents and reduced congestion (Perakis and Denisis, 2008;
Lee, Hu and Chen, 2010; Medda and Lourdes, 2010). Paixao Casaca and Marlow (2002)
point out that the lower social harmfulness of maritime transport is mainly due to the
economy of scale, manifesting itself in a much larger capacity of ships than other
transport means. Koliousis et al. (2013) points out that the development of short sea
shipping is limited by deregulation of road haulage market.
Volume 15, Issue 1, 2015
37
External Costs in Transport
The problem of the assessment of the external costs of transport has been discussed
since the early 1990s. The first studies referred to external costs of road vehicle and rail
transport only, whereas the costs in inland and maritime shipping were often marginalized
(Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport, 1995; White Paper, 2001). Since
then, many publications concerning calculation of external costs have been published,
some dealing with the calculation of external costs on specific transport routes
(Weinreich et al, 1998) or in specific areas (Eriksen, 2000; Tzannatos 2010), others
concentrating on externalities of a specific mode of transport (Janic, 2007; Forkenbrock,
1999, 2001; Rohács and Simongáti, 2007; Bloemhof et al, 2011).
The first publications considering the aspect of external costs in sea shipping clearly
pointed out that the maritime transport is much more environment-friendly than road
haulage. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament And of the Council, on
the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance
of the freight transport system (2002) pointed out that the external costs generated
by short sea shipping were six times lower than those generated in road haulage. The
difficulties of valuation of external costs of transport result from a different level of
impact that transport has on the environment; here, the impact depends on the level of
traffic. Every vehicle has a different effect on traffic flow, and therefore on level of
pollutants and greenhouse gases emissions, traffic accidents and congestion.
Many programs aiming at the assessment of the external costs of transport based on
marginal costs methodology (e.g. UNITE, 2003; RECORDIT, 2003) have been realized
from the beginning of the 21st century. In INFRAS/IWW (2004) authors presented the
total and average external costs generated in road, rail and air transport, as well as in
inland shipping for EU 17 countries.
On the basis of the aforementioned programs a method of calculating external costs of
transport for the purposes of Marco Polo II Program (MPII) was developed in 2004. (Ex
ante Evaluation Marco Polo II 2007-2013, 2004). In the program, the external costs
generated in short sea shipping were definitely higher than in the Proposal quoted above,
nevertheless, they were three times lower than in road haulage. As far as the pollution
emission and noise generated by the transport means as well as the level of road safety
is concerned, the progress achieved in road haulage in the last 15 years made the external
costs of the mode of transport significantly lower (Geurs and van Wee, 2004). When
compared to all other transport modes, the scale of reduction of external costs generated
by road transport was the greatest one. In 2006, a guide with a consistent methodological
framework for the assessment of the project in terms of social benefits was published
(HEATCO, 2006). In contrast to the publications mentioned previously, authors
proposed valuation method based on unit costs of emissions and the costs of individual
accidents. This approach allows us to evaluate the external costs differently for each
means of transport.
The fact that MPII did not reflect the diversity of external costs depending on capacity,
fuel consumption and emission standards of transport means led to a revision of the
method of valuation of external costs of transport. In 2012, new directives concerning
the assessment of the external costs of transport for the needs of Marco Polo II Program
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES
38
were published (Brons and Christidis, 2012). This caused simultaneous changes in the
level of external costs. The new version proposed nearly two times lower external costs
generated in road transport than those in the version from 2004. In maritime transport,
external costs ranged from EUR 0.55 /1000 tkm for bulk or general cargo and LNG
fuelled vessel up to EUR 19.63 /1000 tkm for Ro-Ro or Ro-Pax, Hi-Speed and high
sulphur fuelled vessel, while in MP II (2004), the external cost generated in maritime
transport was equal to EUR 9 /1000 tkm for all SSS ships.
Figure 1 External Costs in Short Sea Shipping (SSS) and in Road Transport Proposed in
Marco Polo Program (EUR/1000tkm)
Source: own drawing based on: European Commission, 2004; Brons and Christidis, 2012.
Table 1 Emission of Pollution in Road and Sea Transport on Cargo |Unit* (CU)
(kg/CU·1000km)
contamina-
tion
Ro-Pax
(3000lm)
Ro-Ro
(1900lm)
Container ship (1
thou. TEU)
Truck
(EURO V)
CO2 1,492.39 1,535.94 478.24 1506.43
NOx 33.16 34.13 15.04 1.66
SOx (SECA
2010)
10.46 10.77 3.35 0.05
SOx (SECA
2015)
1.05 1.08 0.34 0.05
NMVOC 1.20 1.24 0.50 1.05
PM 1.99 2.05 1.46 0.20
*Cargo Unit- semitrailer or 45’container
Source: Kotowska, 2014.
A research of external costs conducted by Castels et. al. (2012) based on three model
vessels: a container ship, a Ro-Ro and Con-Ro vessels, and one road truck (of up to 50ton
capacity) showed that the external costs generated by Ro-Ro and Ro-Pax ships present
higher values than road transport. The Ro-Ro ship generates EUR 0.0046 / tkm and
Ro-Pax ship generates EUR 0.0073 / tkm, while road transport only EUR 0.0029 / tkm.
Slightly different, however, also confirming the fact that Ro-Ro vessels and ferries
generate considerably higher external costs than it had been so far believed, are the
results presented by the research realized within the NSC (2013). The analysis of the
pollution emission developed on the basis of real fuel consumption showed that the
model Ro-Ro and Ro-Pax ships emit significantly more sulfur dioxides, particulate
Volume 15, Issue 1, 2015
39
matters and non-methane volatile organic compounds than road vehicles (table 1) (Kotowska,
2014).
However, the external costs appear significantly lower than it might be supposed on the
basis of the pollution level alone. Most of the pollution generated by vessels is produced
away from inhabited areas and that is why they affect human life and health to a much
lesser extent. Moreover, ships generate considerably less noise and congestion that are
so common in road traffic; in sea transport, these are a rare phenomenon (Kotowska,
2013). Not without significance is the fact that in comparison to road transport, there are
much fewer accidents involving fatalities in maritime transport. In 2009, about 35 thousand
people were killed and further 1.5 million injured in road accidents on the territory
of the European Union (Eurostat Database, 2013), whereas in the same period, 559
accidents and 52 fatalities of seafarers occurred in maritime transport within the water
areas of the European Union countries (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2010). Figure
2 presents the external costs generated by Ro-Ro and Ro-Pax vessels which are
slightly higher than the costs generated by 40-ton Euro V road truck.
Figure 2 External Costs in Road Transport and Short Sea Shipping [EUR/(cargo unit*km)]
Source: Kotowska, 2014.
Methodology
On the basis of the study results presented in Fig.2, a conclusion might be drawn that
Ro-Ro and ferry transport, against common opinions, not always brings more social
benefits than road transport. However, the analysis based only on unit external costs
may lead to erroneous conclusions. The course of sea shipping route does not usually
cover the route of the road transport, and therefore the lengths of both routes can considerably
differ, which significantly affects the total external costs generated by them.
The main purpose of transferring the cargo from road transport to land-sea transport
chain consists in reducing total external costs. Therefore, the benefits (B) from this
transfer can be identified as the difference between total external costs generated in road
transport (‫ܥܧ‬ܴܶሻ and alternative land-sea transport chain (‫ܥܧ‬‫ܵܮ‬ሻ:
‫ܤ‬ ൌ ‫ܥܧ‬ோ் െ ‫ܥܧ‬௅ௌ ൌ ݈ோ் ∙ ݁ܿோ் െ ݈௅ௌ ∙ ݁ܿ௅ௌ (1)
where the unit external costs (݁ܿ௅ௌሻ	in land-sea transport chains is calculated as follows:
݁ܿ௅ௌ ൌ
݁ܿோ் ∙ ݈௉ு ൅ ݁ܿெ் ∙ ݈ெ்
݈௉ு ൅ ݈ெ்
(2)
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES
40
where:
݈௅ௌ െ	length of land-sea transport chain (km)
݈௉ு െ	length of pre-haulage in land-sea transport chain (km)
݈ெ் െ	length of maritime transport in land-sea transport chain (km)
݈ோ் െ	length of alternative road transport (km)
݁ܿோ் െ	unit external costs in road transport (
‫ܴܷܧ‬
ܿܽ‫݉݇∙	ݐ݅݊ݑ	݋݃ݎ‬
ሻ
݁ܿ௅ௌ െ	unit external costs in land-sea transport chain (
‫ܴܷܧ‬
ܿܽ‫݉݇∙	ݐ݅݊ݑ	݋݃ݎ‬
ሻ
݁ܿெ் െ	unit external costs in maritime transport (
‫ܴܷܧ‬
ܿܽ‫݉݇∙	ݐ݅݊ݑ	݋݃ݎ‬
ሻ
If we assume that the unit external costs generated by ferries and Ro-Ro (݁ܿெ்ሻ	ships is
the same as in road transport (݁ܿோ்ሻ then based on the research results presented on fig.
2 , the equation 1 can be simplified as follows:
݁ܿெ் ൌ ݁ܿோ் ൌ ݁ܿ (3)
the equation 1 takes a form:
‫ܤ‬ ൌ ሺ݈ோ் െ ݈ெ்ሻ ∙ ݁ܿ (4)
considering what has been mentioned above, it can be concluded that:
∀݈ோ் ൐ ݈௅ௌ:	‫ܤ‬ ൐ 0 (5)
Formula 5 informs that all Ro-Ro and ferry lines, where shipment is reducing transport
distance of freight comparing to alternative road transport, also contribute to reduction
of external costs of transport, and thus play an important role in the sustainable development
of transport.
It is not possible to evaluate the impact of this segment of the shipping market on sustainable
transport development without analysing the shipping lines’ courses, since in
the case of sea shipping, the shipment route does not cover the alternative road haulage
route. This significantly affects the ratio between the lengths of both transport ways and,
hence, the total external costs in both transport chains.
To answer the questions of whether, and if so, then how ferry and Ro-Ro shipping contribute
to development of sustainable transport, an author’s analysis of ferry and Ro-Ro
lines operating within the European transport system was carried out. For the purpose of
the analysis the database comprising of 878 ferry and Ro-Ro lines operating on the
Baltic, North and Mediterranean Seas was executed. The database covered the following
issues concerning the shipping lines:
− port of departure
− port of destination
− the sea distance between the terminals
Volume 15, Issue 1, 2015
41
− time of the voyage
− type, age and size of the vessel operating the line.
For each of the analyzed shipping line characteristics of the alternative road connection
(if there was any) was determined: the distance and average time of truck haulage. Road
haulage time was determined at the average truck’s speed of 60kph including the mandatory
rest time for drivers according to the dependence:
ܶோ் ൌ
‫ە‬
ۖ
‫۔‬
ۖ
‫ۓ‬
‫ݐ‬௝௦,																																			‫ݐ‬௝௦ ൑ 20
‫ݐ‬௝௦ ൅ 10.5; 															20 ൏ ‫ݐ‬௝௦ ൑ 40
‫ݐ‬௝௦ ൅ 21; 															40 ൏ ‫ݐ‬௝௦ ൑ 58
‫ݐ‬௝௦ ൅ 31.5; 														58 ൏ ‫ݐ‬௝௦ ൑ 76
‫ݐ‬௝௦ ൅ 42; 															76 ൏ ‫ݐ‬௝௦ ൑ 94
(6)
where:
Tୖ୘ െ	 Total time of the road haulage (h)
t୨ୱ െ	 Time of the vehicles’ haulage (h)
On the basis of the data collected a classification of shipping lines according to the
criterion of the lines’ substitutability in reference to road transport was conducted. The
suggested classification is expressed by the possibility of substituting sea shipment by
its alternative land transport and the ratio between the lengths of the land-sea transport
chain and the land chain. Membership of ferry and Ro-Ro lines in their particular categories
determine their role in the sustainable transport development.
Results
73% of the ferry and Ro-Ro lines considered are mandatory (without alternative land
routes), out of which approximately 63% connect island regions (as the only connections
with the mainland) and the other 10% are the lines for which, due to the lack of
appropriate infrastructure, there is no possibility of road transport. The first group covers
connections with the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Greek islands on the
Mediterranean Sea (35% of all the analyzed connections) operated mainly by passengercar
ferries (only 16% is operated by Ro-Ro vessels), connections between Danish, Finnish
as well as the British islands with the mainland. The second group includes mainly
the shipping lines between European ports of the Mediterranean Sea and the African
ports (30% of the line serviced by Ro-Ro vessels).
If we take into consideration the lack of the possibility to replace these lines with the
alternative road transport, it cannot be assumed that these lines in any way contribute to
reduction of external costs of transport. This does not mean, however, that they do not
contribute in any way to sustainable transport development. The lines enable meeting
transport and commercial needs of the inhabitants, improve safety and support development
of tourism, and thus contribute to social-economic development, which is one of
the priorities of sustainable development.
27% of all the lines in our analysis are of optional character. They can be divided into
three types:
− bridge lines
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES
42
− transverse lines
− longitudinal lines.
The classification of ferry and Ro-Ro lines is presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Ferry and Ro-Ro lines Classification
Source: own drawing.
− Tmt – voyage time
− Trt – road haulage time
− Cmt – external cost in maritime transport
− ECrt – external cost in road transport
Bridge type shipping lines (6% of shipping lines identified) are short lines of up to 2
hours of haulage time. They make natural extensions of land roads and are serviced only
by ferries. Some bridge lines appear to be alternatives to permanent infrastructural con-
Volume 15, Issue 1, 2015
43
structions, e.g. Rodby-Puttgaden line is an alternative connection to the bridge between
Nyborg and Korsør. The lines service self-propelled units, and their development is
closely connected with the dynamics of road freight. Rather than being competitive to
road freight, they contribute to its development. Due to the role they play, they do not
contribute to the reduction of the transport external costs, either.
The second group (about 14% of all identified lines) makes transverse lines, where the
voyage lasts over 2 hours but shorter than via the alternative road haulage. Similarly to
bridge lines, these lines are complementary to land routes. They are mainly lines connecting
terminals located on the opposite coastlines of closed water areas, e.g. the Baltic
Sea, the Adriatic Sea and the northern part of the Mediterranean Sea (figure 4).
Their strong competitive position is due to the fact that both the time and the cost of
freight via these lines are lower than those in road haulage. The time of shipment which
approximately equals the mandatory rest period for drivers is an additional advantage
for about 30% of them. The significance of the lines has increased with the introduction
of restrictions concerning drivers’ working time as well as the road fees on European
highways, due to which some of the freight was transferred from bridge lines to transversal
lines. Thanks to their shortening of the freight distance, out of all the analyzed
ferry and Ro-Ro lines, these lines contribute to the reduction of external costs of
transport to the greatest extent.
Figure 4 Ro-Ro and Ferry Transverse Lines.
Source: own drawing.
The third group includes lines where the voyage takes longer than the alternative road
haulage, which makes their competitive position weakest in relation to the road haulage
when compared to the above identified groups. The lines feature high substitutability in
relation to road shipment. As routes of most of them are parallel to the continent coast-
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES
44
line, they can be defined as longitudinal. They constitute only 7% of the identified ferry
and Ro-Ro lines, and most of them are serviced by Ro-Ro ships.
Longitudinal lines are primarily connections in the following relations:
− west - east on the Baltic and/or North Sea connecting mainly Finland and Sweden
with Belgium, Great Britain, Germany and Poland, Germany with Russia,
Lithuania and Latvia, as well as the lines on the Mediterranean Sea, e.g. between
Italy and Spain, Italy and Turkey, or Belgium and Spain;
− north – south, e.g. between Norway and Germany or Belgium and Great Britain
(figure 5).
Figure 5 Ro-Ro and Ferry Longitudinal Lines.
Source: own drawing.
Due to the course of the longitudinal lines in relation to the alternative road routes, and
bearing in mind the presented analyses concerning the external costs generated by RoRo
ships, ferries and road vehicles, social benefits resulting from the shipment via these
shipping lines may seem disputable. However, it is worth emphasizing that routes of 43
out of 52 shipping lines classified into this group were shorter than the alternative road
routes. Only 9 connections did not meet the criterion. This does not change the fact that
the cargo transported on longitudinal lines may generate higher external costs than the
direct low-emission (Euro V norm and higher) road vehicle transport. Especially due to
the fact that in order to assess total external costs generated in land-sea transport chains
correctly, costs of pre-haulage transport as well as the costs generated in the port terminals
should be considered.
Volume 15, Issue 1, 2015
45
Conclusions
The answer to the questions of whether, and if so, then how ferry and Ro-Ro shipping
contributes to the development of sustainable transport is not obvious. The impact of the
shipping lines analyzed on sustainable transport depends on their length, duration of
voyage, the course in relation to the road route and the type of the vessel they are serviced
by.
Three fourths of the Ro-Ro and ferry shipping lines operating within the European shipping
market are of mandatory character, and their activity brings rather social-economic
than environmental benefits. They contribute to sustainable development by meeting the
transport and trade needs of the inhabitants. They improve the safety of the regions and
influence development of tourism.
Figure 6 The Influence of Identified Types of Ro-Ro and Ferry Lines on Sustainable
Transport
Source: own drawing.
The rest of the Ro-Ro and ferry shipping lines is of optional character and has to compete
with direct road transport. The majority of the other shipping connections serviced
by ferries and Ro-Ro vessels contribute to shortening of shipment route in relation to the
alternative road transport and, hence, to reduction of total external costs generated in
transport, which is the main aim of sustainable development. Despite the fact that they
reduce the freight distance, bridge lines are natural extensions of land routes and thereby
contribute to their development. Their impact on sustainable development is low, and
rather than from reducing the external costs, it results from socio-economic benefits
(just like mandatory lines). The third group of optional lines, longitudinal lines, do not
contribute to reduction of external costs resulting from environmental pollutants. The
impact on sustainable development results rather from the fact that by transferring the
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES
46
cargo from road to sea, they reduce the road congestion and accidents. The influence of
identified types of Ro-Ro and ferry lines on sustainable transport is presented on figure
6.
To sum up, it needs to be stressed that not in all conditions of maritime shipment bring
more environmental benefits than direct road haulage. External costs in short sea shipping
are affected significantly by fuel consumption which depends upon the vessel’s
load capacity, her age and operational speed. Voyage duration, the number of ports in a
round trip, and the distance at which cargo is transported to/from the port hinterland are
factors that have their significance, too. The benefits resulting from the short sea shipping
in each case should be assessed individually.
Despite the ambiguous results, support of development of short sea shipping may be
substantiated by the fact that in maritime transport, unlike in the other transport modes,
there is a possibility to considerably enlarge vessels’ capacity. The permissible parameters
of ships employed in short sea shipping do not result from legal conditions (as it is
the case in road and rail transport) but from natural or infrastructural limitations. In
practice, it means that together with dredging navigable canals, fairways of the port
entrance or building new deeper quays, conditions for launching bigger size vessels to
be operated will be created, which shall result in further reduction of unit external costs
generated in maritime transport.
References
BLOEMHOF, J. M., VAN DER LAAN, E. A., and BEIJER, C. (2011). Sustainable
Inland Transportation. International Journal of Business Insights and Transformation, 3.
BRONS, M., CHRISTIDIS, P. (2012). External cost calculator for Marco Polo freight
transport project proposals, Call 2012 version. JRC Scientyfic and Policy Reports. European
Comission, Brussels 2012.
CASTELLS, M., USABIAGA, J., MARTÍNEZ, F. (2012). Road and Maritime
Transport Environmental Performance: Short Sea Shipping Vs Road Transport. Journal
Of Maritime Research, 9(3). pp. 45-54.
CHEN, K., YANG, Z., NOTTEBOOM, T. (2014). The design of coastal shipping services
subject to carbon emission reduction targets and state subsidy levels. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 61. pp. 192-211.
ERIKSEN, K. S. (2000). Calculating external costs of transportation in Norway. European
Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research. pp. 9-25.
EUROSTAT DATABASE (2013). Victims in road accidents by NUTS 2 regions
[tran_r_acci].
Ex ante Evaluation Marco Polo II 2007-2013 (2004). European Commission. Final
Report-1, Rotterdam, Ecorys, 2004.
FORKENBROCK, D. J. (1999). External costs of intercity truck freight transportation.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 33(7). pp. 505-526.
FORKENBROCK, D. J. (2001). Comparison of external costs of rail and truck freight
transportation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 35(4). pp. 321-337.
Volume 15, Issue 1, 2015
47
INFRAS/IWW (2004). External costs of transport. Update Study. Zurich/Karlruhe.
GEURS, K., VAN WEE, B. (2004) Backcasting as a tool for sustainable transport policy
making: the environmentally sustainable transport study in the Netherlands. European
Journal of Transport Infrastructure Research. 4(1), pp. 47-69.
HEATCO. (2006). Bickel P., Friedrich R., Burgess A., Fagiani P., Hunt A., De Jong G.,
Laird J., Lieb C., Lindberg G., Mackie P., Navrud S., Odgaard T., Ricci A., Shires J.,
Tavasszy L. Developing Harmonized European Approaches for Transport Costing and
Project Assessment. Proposal for Harmonized Guidelines. IER.
JANIC, M. (2007). Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road freight transport
network. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 12(1). pp. 33-44.
KOLIOUSIS, I., KOLIOUSIS, P., PAPADIMITRIOU, S. (2013). Estimating the impact
of road transport deregulation in short sea shipping: experience from deregulation in the
European Union. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics. 5(4). pp.
500-511.
KOTOWSKA, I. (2013) Method of Assessing the Impact of Polish Container Terminals
in Reducing the External Costs of Transport, PROMET-Traffic&Transportation, Vol.
25, no 1, pp. 73-80.
KOTOWSKA, I. (2014) Short sea shipping in the light of idea of sustainable development
of transport, Scientific Publishing House of the Maritime University, Szczecin. [In
Polish]
LEE, P.T. W., HU, K.C., CHEN, T. (2010). External Costs of Domestic Container
Transportation: Short Sea Shipping versus Trucking in Taiwan. Transport Reviews.
30(3). pp. 315-335.
European Maritime Safety Agency (2010) Maritime Accident Review 2010, Available
from: http://www.emsa.europa.eu/.
MEDDA, F., LOURDES, T. (2010). Short-sea shipping: an analysis of its determinants.
Maritime Policy and Management. 37(3). pp. 285-303.
NSC (2013). The Role of lad-sea transport chains in European transport system. National
Science Centre DEC-2012/05/B/HS4/00617.
OECD (1996). Environmental criteria for sustainable transport. Document
OECD/GD(96)136,1996. OECD Environment Directorate’s Task Force on Transport.
PAIXÃO CASACA, A.C., MARLOW, P.B. (2002). Strengths and weaknesses of short
sea shipping. Marine Policy. 26(3). pp. 167-178.
PAWŁOWSKA B. (2010). Analysis of the effectiveness of the process of sustainability
the development of transport. Logistyka. 2. pp. 12-39 [In Polish].
PERAKIS, A. N. DENISIS, A. (2008). A survey of short sea shipping and its prospects
in the USA., Maritime Policy and Management. 35(6). pp. 591-614.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament And of the Council, on the granting
of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES
48
freight transport system (2002). Brussels, 04.02.2002, COM(2002)54 final, OJ C 126,
28.5.2002.
RECORDIT. (2003). Real Cost Reduction of Door-to-door Intermodal Transport. EU
project. final report.
ROHÁCS, J., SIMONGÁTI, G. (2007). The role of inland waterway navigation in a
sustainable transport system, Transport. 22(3). pp. 148-153.
RICHARDSON, B. (2005). Sustainable transport: analysis frameworks. Journal of
Transport Geography. 13. pp. 29-39.
Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport. (1995) Policy options for internalizing
the external costs of transport in the European Union. European Commission. Directorate-General
For Transport-DG VII. COM(95)691.
THALER, R., WIEDERKEHR, P. (2004). Environmentally Sustainable Transport in the
CEI Countries. European Journal of Transport Infrastructure Research. 4(1). pp. 99-120.
TZANNATOS, E. (2010). Ship emissions and their externalities for the port of Piraeus–
Greece. Atmospheric Environment. 44(3). pp. 400-407.
UNITE (2003), Nash, C., UNIfication of accounts and marginal costs for Transport
Efficiency, EU project, final report; Leeds.
UN DOCUMENT (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development
our: commons future, Available from: http://www.un-documents.net/our-
common-future.pdf.
WEINREICH, S., RENNINGS, K., SCHLOMANN, B., GEßNER, C., ENGEL, T.
(1998) External Costs of Road, Rail and Air Transport-a Bottom-Up Approach, no. 98-
06, ZEW Discussion Papers.
WHITE PAPER (1993) Growth, competitiveness, employment. The challenges and
ways forward into the 21st century, Brussels, 5.12. 1993, COM(93)700.
WHITE PAPER (2001). European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Brussels.
12.9.2001, COM(2001)370 final.
WHITE PAPER (2011). Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a
competitive and resource efficient transport system. Brussels. 29.03.2011.
COM(2011)144 final.