Options for reducing external costs from freight transport along the Brenner corridor

Abstract

The Brenner is the most heavily travelled transalpine corridor in terms of freight transport. The current modal split tends heavily towards road (71% road -29% rail), with significant repercussions in terms of environmental and social impacts. Indeed, Alpine areas generate external costs that are up to four times higher than flat areas. The promotion of railway, which is the least impacting transport mode, has thus a strategic value. For this reason, the European Union, the Alpine macro-region and the Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino Euroregion are promoting multi-level strategies to reduce the impact generated by freight transport along the Brenner corridor. This paper analyses each level, focussing then on the Euroregion. Its ambitious objective is to achieve a balance between transport modes in the Alpine corridor by 2027, and then to invert them (29% road -71% rail) by 2035. This paper aims to calculate the savings of external costs deriving from the achievement of this objective. If the aggregated data from 2015 to 2035 are considered and the Euroregion scenario is compared with a prosecution of the current trend, the saving in external costs would amount to €262 M (− 26% than the current trend). This value is not negligible; being equal to 4.7% of the annual public expenditure incurred by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, it suggests to policy makers the importance of taking up measures to encourage the modal shift.

Cost Models and Cost Factors of Road Freight Transportation: A Literature Review and Model Structure

“…Nocera et al [55] presented options for reducing external costs from freight transport along the Brenner corridor. The current modal split in the studied region tended heavily towards road (71% road -29% rail), and the objective is to achieve (29% road -71% rail) by 2035.…”

County-Wide Mortality Assessments Attributable to PM2.5 Emissions from Coal Consumption in Taiwan

“…Indeed, a previous report showed that the line or mobile source contribute 21.2% of PM2.5 in Taiwan [45]. Therefore, transportation systems should be discussed, including electronic transport tools [51][52][53].…”

Crossing Borders and Expanding Modal Shift Measures: Effects on Mode Choice and Emissions from Freight Transport in the Nordics

“…At the same time, Kaack et al [5] find that many countries lack such policies. Nocera et al [26] use a different, but comparable taxonomy, dividing instruments that can (in)directly encourage modal shift into push measures (making road transport less attractive) and pull measures (making rail and waterborne transport more attractive). For freight transport, push measures may include taxation, charges and tolls, and regulatory measures (e.g., orders and bans), while pull measures may include positive financial incentives for sea and rail transport or measures that improve reliability or infrastructure or reduce shipping costs.…”

“…The first four scenarios consider single policy measures, while the latter five scenarios consider combinations of the single measures and/or border-crossing implementation in the Nordic countries. Together, the scenarios cover both infrastructure/efficiency improvements and financial incentives (in line with [5]) and can be characterized as both push and pull measures [26]. Vierth et al [32] carried out a related analysis as in the current paper for the case of Sweden, using the Swedish national freight model to calculate modal shifts, environmental effects, and changes in logistics costs from several proposed policy measures.…”