SHIPPING
WorldCargo
news
The greenest way from Shanghai to Chicago*
W
ith the coming expansion of assumed negligible delay to transit either fewer locomotives than West Coast current Panamax and Future Panamax *This article has been written by Krystle
the Panama Canal, competi- the Suez or Panama canals. trains due to having fewer mountains vessels respectively.
McBride, an analyst in AECOM’s marine
tion between ports on all Table 4 lists the estimated capacity of to cross. Ships have no hills to climb
analysis group, and Mark Sisson, PE, who
three coasts of North America will be each mode of travel. For the purposes of so they are designed to run at nearly West greenest
leads the marine analysis group. The views
fierce when it comes to serving the mar- this analysis, we have assumed that each full power at cruising speed. Figures 2 and 3 show that regardless of
expressed are those of the authors and are not
necessarily shared by WorldCargo News. US-
ket between Asia and the US Midwest. mode is 100% utilised. Note the signifi- vessel size, West Coast ports of entry are
based AECOM is a global provider of technical
With growing awareness of the contri- cant difference in load factors for trains Emissions data the greenest options for serving the Chi-
and management support services to a broad
butions of the transportation industry to versus other modes. We developed CO output for each mode cago market. For all-water to the East
2
range of markets, including transportation,
greenhouse gas production and climate based on published data. CO is closely Coast, the Panama Canal is preferable to
change, which of these routes will be best Mountain hauls
2
utilities, environment and energy. It has 43,000
linked with fuel economy, which in turn is the Suez route because it saves around employees around the world and has clients in
for the planet? Trains need power to accelerate and linked with engine power. Most engines 2000km of voyage distance and related
more than 100 countries. Revenues in 2008
This article attempts to help answer climb hills, but can run with a rela- emit CO at around 650-700 g/kWh. emissions. In any event, rail is far greener
came to US$5.6B
2
this question by examining the hypotheti- tively low effort on flat ground due to CO emissions per hour were multi- than trucking.
2
cal journey of one 40ft import container the low drag and low wheel friction plied by journey time from Table 3 to get Figure 4 shows the unit emissions rate TEU-km of travel. Note that there are
from Shanghai to Chicago via a variety compared to ships or trucks. East Coast overall emissions per trip. Figures 2 and 3 for each mode of travel considered in this two unit emissions figures for typical 400
of routes and transport modes. Table 1 sets and Gulf Coast trains typically require show emissions for each case based on study, expressed in grams of CO per TEU trains, depending on the number
2
out the ports of entry and landside modes
considered for this article. A map of these
routes is provided in Figure 1 (next page).
In Figure 1, the routes coloured red
go directly from Shanghai to the North
American west coast without transiting a
canal. Those coloured blue use the Panama
Canal, while the orange routes pass
through the Suez Canal. Experience the
For each case, we have analysed sea-
borne transport with both the current
Panamax vessel of 4500 TEU capacity and
the Future Panamax vessel of 12,000 TEU.
progress.
Distances
Table 2 lists the distance travelled by mode
for each of the 10 cases: This simple analy-
sis assumes a direct journey in each case.
In reality, transit will be somewhat longer
as vessels may make other stops along the
way, and transshipment may also be uti-
lised. Vessel distances are taken from the
Portworld.com website.
We have assumed the following mean
speed to get the travel times by mode
shown in Table 3.
a71 Current or Future Panamax (4500 or
12,000 TEU) Vessel 24 knots = 44 kph
a71 Train = 35 kph
a71 Truck = 70 kph
For our simplified analysis, we are as-
suming direct travel between Shanghai
and the various destination ports. This
travel time begins when the vessel sails
from Shanghai and does not include ter-
minal time in the US, so it is only a por-
tion of the total time.
We are primarily concerned with the
relative time between each of our 10 cases.
For the purposes of this analysis, we have
Table 1: Single 40ft container
shipment from Shanghai to Chicago.
The 10 routes analysed
Port Canals Landside
of entry transited mode
1 Prince Rupert None Rail
2 Tacoma None Rail
3 Los Angeles None Rail
4 Houston Panama Rail
5 Jaxport Panama Rail
6 Norfolk Panama Rail
7 Norfolk Suez Rail
8 New York Suez Rail
9 New York Panama Rail
10 New York Panama Truck
Table 2: Distances (1-10 as above)
Vessel Rail Truck
travel travel travel
(km) (km) (km)
1 4600 4100 n/a
2 5100 3200 n/a
3 5700 3200 n/a
4 10,100 1800 n/a
5 10,100 1500 n/a
6 10,400 1400 n/a
7 12,500 1400 n/a
810,600 1300 n/a
912,300 1300 n/a
1010,600 n/a 1300
Table 3: Transit time (1-10 as above)
Vessel Railor truck Total
travel travel travel
(h) (h) (days)
1 104 115 9.1
2 114 90 8.5
3 129 90 9.1
4 228 51 11.6
5 226 42 11.2
6 233 39 11.4 Liebherr Container Cranes Ltd.
7 281 39 13.3
Fossa, Killarney/Ireland
8 238 37 11.5
9
Tel.: +353 64 6670200
277 37 13.1
10 238 19 10.7
Fax: +353 64 6631602
sales.lcc@liebherr.com
Note: transit time does not include
www.liebherr.com
The Group
other port calls, terminal dwell times or
canal queue times
March 2009 21
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40