1.1. Road transport
We apply CBA analysis based on the costs of vehicle operation per country. It means that the analysis takes the side of people or companies that exploit transport, but not, for instance, a societal perspective.
The costs of vehicle operation are different per country of operation. The COMPETE project Annex 1 presents data on costs of heavy duty vehicle operation. These costs are in the form of costs per kilometre driven per country, they can be found in the column HDV / Specific costs in euro/vehicle-km in the table below.
Table 64: Light duty vehicles (LDV) and heavy duty vehicles (HDV): Specific costs per vehicle-km, total costs and total costs per GDP (data for 2005)
:
For our computation, we equal HGV to HDV, i.e. they are classified as trucks of 18.75 meters and 40 tonne gross. The cost of 60 tonne 25.25 meter LHV operation is 20 % more expensive than that of nor-mal HGV61.
Thus, to calculate costs of scenario 1, we multiply the number of vehicle kilometres per country by the country-specific cost of vehicle kilometre.
For scenario 2, we do similar computations: for the HGV part of the flow we multiply the number of HGV vehicle-km per country by the country-specific cost of vehicle-km. For the LHV part of the flow, multiply the number of the LHV vehicle-km per country by the country-specific cost of vehicle-km times 1.2, as we assumed the cost of LHV vehicle-km to be 20 % more.
Scenario 3 is similar to the scenario 2, except for the fact that LHVs of 25.25 meter and 60 tonne are only allowed in the “coalition/corridor” countries.
Scenario 4: for the HGV part of the flow we multiply the number of HGV vehicle-km per country by the country-specific cost of a km. For the LHV part of the flow, multiply the number of LHV vehicle-km per country by the country-specific cost of vehicle kilometre times 1.04, as we assumed the cost of LHV 44 tonne LHV vehicle-km to be 4% more.
Summing up costs of HGV and LHV we get the scenario 2 road transport costs. The following table pre-sents results of the calculations:
Table 65: Total expenditures, 2020 S1 total expenditures: 329 146 million euro S2 total expenditures: 305 155 million euro S3 total expenditures: 324 029 million euro S4 total expenditures: 322 586 million euro S2 Difference, % 7.29 % S3 Difference, % 1.55 % S4 Difference, % 1.99 % S2 Difference, abs: 23 991 million euro S3 Difference, abs: 5 117 million euro S4 Difference, abs: 6 560 million euro
The conclusion is that the total road transport expenditures in scenario 2 is some 7.3 %, for scenario 3 it is 1.55% and scenario 4 is 1.99 % cheaper than the road costs in scenario 1. This is logical, because in sce-nario 2 there are some 13 % less vehicle-kilometres made, however 1/3 of them are done by LHVs, which are 20 % more expensive in operation.
Important note: The CBA road transport calculations are done with 2005 road transport costs, but applied to road transport requirements of 2020.
1.2. Rail transport
There is no straightforward way to make CBA analysis based on the TRANS-TOOLS output, since the model produces tonne volumes, instead of tonne-kilometre volumes. To overcome this problem, we used Eurostat data on rail tonne-km per EU country, as well as the COMPETE project assessment of the cost of tonne-km transportation per country.
Table 66: Railways: Average costs per passenger-km (rail passenger) and tonne-km (rail freight) (data for 2005), COM-PETE Annex 1.
To get the 2020 tonne-km rail transport volumes, we have indexed Eurostat tonne-km 2005 volumes by the factor of 1.61. This factor is used in TRANS-TOOLS to assess the future rail transport demand in Europe. Coupled together with rail costs per country, we obtained scenario 1 costs. Consequently, for scenarios 2, 3 and 4 we applied difference factor, calculated during scenario runs. The following table pre-sents calculation results
Table 67: Rail expenditures, 2020
Scenario Rail expenditures Absolute difference S1 Difference, % S1 64 897 million euro
S2 62 221 million euro 2 676 million euro 4.12%
S3 63 823 million euro 1 075 million euro 1.66%
S4 63 696 million euro 1 201 million euro 1.85%
Important note: The rail volumes are extrapolated according to Eurostat 2005 data. The costs are calculated with 2005 euro costs and applied to 2020 volumes. The costs do not include terminal operation and trans-shipment costs.
1.3. Inland waterway transport
As it is the case with the rail transport mode, there is no straightforward way to make CBA analysis based on the TRANS-TOOLS output, since the model produces tonne volumes, instead of tonne-km volumes.
Similarly to rail CBA, we used Eurostat data on aggregate European inland waterway volumes. We did not distinguish individual countries because there is no inland waterway cost data available on country level.
The COMPETE report provides the European average inland waterway transport cost, which amounts to 0.008 euro/tonne-km.
port tonne-km volumes of scenarios 2, 3, 4 were based on scenario 1 volume, adjusted according to TRANS-TOOLS scenario results. The following table shows the resulting costs.
Table 68: Inland waterway expenditures, 2020
Scenario Inland waterway expenditures Absolute difference S1 Difference, % S1 1 773 million euro
S2 1 723 million euro 50 million euro 2.85%
S3 1 733 million euro 41 million euro 2.29%
S4 1 751 million euro 22 million euro 1.23%
Important note: The inland waterway volumes are extrapolated according to Eurostat 2005 data. The costs are calculated with 2005 euro costs and applied to 2020 volumes. The costs do not include terminal opera-tion and transshipment costs.
1.4. Total transport
The CBA of all transport modes under consideration concerns a cost comparison of the total transport scenario costs. The following table summarizes the computations.
Scenario Total road S1: 329 146 million euro 1 773 million euro 64 897 million euro 395 816 million euro
S2: 305 155 million euro 1 723 million euro 62 221 million euro 369 099 million euro -26 719 million euro -6.75%
S3: 324 029 million euro 1 733 million euro 63 823 million euro 389 585 million euro -6 233 million euro -1.57%
S4: 322 586 million euro 1 751 million euro 63 696 million euro 388 033 million euro -7 783 million euro -1.97%
The last column represents relative cost saving in comparison to scenario 1: scenarios 2, 3 and 4 are all cheaper than scenario 1. The absolute cost difference, expressed in euro2005 is between 8 and 27 billion euro, according to the scenario.