SY820en TransportMIPS - Natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system.pdf [Attachment, Publication/brochure, 1790 kb]

8/14/2019 SY820en TransportMIPS - Natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system.pdf [Attachment, Publication/brochure, 1790 kb]

1/106

Transport MIPS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

......................................................M I N I S T R Y O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T

T h e F i n n i s h E n v i r o n m e n t 820 en

Satu Lhteenoja - Michael Lettenmeier - Arto Saari

The natural resource consumption ofthe Finnish transport system


2/106


3/106

THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT 820en | 2006

Transport MIPSThe natural resource consumption o the Finnish transport system

Satu Lhteenoja Michael Lettenmeier Arto Saari

Helsinki 2006MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT


4/106

THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT 820en | 2006Ministry o the EnvironmentEnvironmental Protection Department

Layout: Marjatta NaukkarinenPhoto: Petri Kuokka

The publication is available in the internet:www.environment.

ISBN978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF)ISSN 1796-1637 (online)


5/106

FOREWORD

Sustainable development calls or an improvement in eco-e ciency among humansociety as a whole and in all its actions. The environmental impact o the di erentorms o transport has traditionally been viewed and comparisons made rom thestandpoint o emissions and energy consumption. The MIPS (Material Input per UnitService) indicator used in this study expands the perspective to the natural resourceconsumption during an entire li e cycle, thereby bringing a new slant to the discussionon the environmental e ects o transport and sustainable development.

This study has ormed part o a larger, two-stage FIN-MIPS Transport research project in which the natural resource consumption o the transport system and di erentmodes o transport over entire li e cycles have been studied. Case studies were madeduring the rst stage o the project on maritime, air, rail, road and bicycle transport.In the second phase o the project, a study on local transport has been made as anadjunct to this study. In this study MIPS values were calculated or road, bicycle, rail,air, maritime and local transport in Finland by generalising the case studies. For themain part this report contains the same in ormation as the report published in Finnish(Suomen ymprist/Finnish Environment 820). However, to make comprehensioneasier, certain parts have either been added or omitted.

The main nancial supporters o the FIN-MIPS Transport project have been theMinistry o Transport and Communications and Ministry o the Environment. Furt-her unds have been provided by the Finnish Road Administration, Finnish Mariti-me Administration, Finnish Rail Administration, Civil Aviation Authority, and theFinnish Association or Nature Conservation. The Finnish Association or NatureConservation has been responsible or the carrying out and coordination o the stu-dy. The project has been accomplished as part o the Ministry o the EnvironmentsFinnish Environmental Cluster Research Programme.

Participants in the projects steering group were Merja Saarnilehto, Mauri Heikko-nen and Jarmo Muurman rom the Ministry o the Environment, Saara Jskelinen,Raija Merivirta and Outi Vkev rom the Ministry o Transport and Communications,Arto Hovi rom the Finnish Rail Administration, Niina Rusko and Mikko Viinikainenrom the Civil Aviation Authority, Olli Holm rom the Finnish Maritime Administra-tion, Tuula Smnen and Anders Jansson rom the Finnish Road Administration,Otto Lehtipuu rom VR Group, Pertti Pitknen rom Finnair, Maria Joki-Pesola romthe City o Helsinki, and Arto Saari and Michael Lettenmeier rom the Finnish As-sociation or Nature Conservation. The steering group has also acted as the support

group or this study.The FIN-MIPS Tra c research project was headed by Dr. Arto Saari and coor-dinated by eco-e ciency consultant Michael Lettenmeier. The calculations or thestudy were carried out by Satu Lhteenoja. The techniques and research methodsused were planned by Satu Lhteenoja, Michael Lettenmeier and Arto Saari, whoalso wrote the report.

In addition to the contributions o the members o the steering group, signi cantsupport has been received rom Senior expert Aarno Valkeisenmki rom the Fin-nish Road Enterprise, aircra t engine specialist Janne Pallonen rom Finnair, tra cplanning engineer Antero Naskila rom the City o Helsinkis Planning Department,development manager Harri Ajomaa rom the Finnish Post Corporation, BusinessExcellence Manager Tuija Janakka rom TNT Finland Oy, tra c coordinator ReijoProkkola rom the Finnish Road Administration, assistant manager Kirsti Tarnanen-Sariola rom the Finnish Port Association, Ilmo Menp rom the Thule Institute,


6/106

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

and those carrying out the FIN-MIPS Transport projects case studies, namely ElviiraHakkarainen, Anni Nieminen, Kaisa Pusenius, Aino Rantanen, Suvi Talja and LeenaVihermaa. The contribution to the implementation and success o the project o allthose mentioned has been considerable. In addition, valuable in ormation or theaccomplishment o the case studies has been supplied by numerous individuals inthe employ o the Finnish Road Administration and the Finnish Road Enterprise.

We wish to thank all those who participated in the implementation o the project.Hope ully, the study will help promote sustainable development within the transportsector!

Helsinki, February 2006

Satu Lhteenoja Michael Lettenmeier Arto Saari


7/106

Ministry o the Environment

Contents

1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................71.1 Background, purpose and design o the study ..........................................7

1.2 Finlands transport system .............................................................................8

2 Material and methods .........................................................................................162.1 Eco-e fciency and MIPS ...............................................................................16

2.1.1 Concept o eco-e ciency .....................................................................162.1.2 Indicator o eco-e ciency: MIPS........................................................172.1.3 Reducing material fows ......................................................................182.1.4 Criticism o the MIPS method ............................................................192.1.5 Previous studies on the subject .........................................................19

2.2 Study material .................................................................................................20

2.3 Boundaries set or this study .......................................................................20

2.4 Main assumptions ..........................................................................................212.4.1 Road transport ......................................................................................222.4.2 Bicycle transport ...................................................................................232.4.3 Rail transport .......................................................................................232.4.4 Air transport ........................................................................................232.4.5 Maritime transport ...............................................................................2

2.5 In rastructure material input allocation to transport ............................22.5.1 Road transport ......................................................................................262.5.2 Bicycle transport ...................................................................................302.5.3 Rail transport ........................................................................................332.5.4 Air transport .........................................................................................32.5.5 Maritime transport ...............................................................................3

2.6 Choice o allocation methods applied in the study ................................36

2.7 Calculation examples ....................................................................................37

3 Results .........................................................................................................................383.1 Natural resource consumption o road transport ...................................38

3.1.1 MI values or road transport ...............................................................383.1.2 Calculating natural resource consumption or a desired route .... 13.1.3 MIPS values or road transport by road and street category ......... 13.1.4 MIPS values on average or road transport in Finland ................... 3

3.2 Natural resource consumption by bicycle transport ...............................3.2.1 MI values or bicycle transport ..........................................................3.2.2 MIPS values and calculation o natural resource consumption

or a desired route ................................................................................3.3 Natural resource consumption by rail transport .....................................

3.3.1 MI values or rail transport ................................................................3.3.2 Calculation o natural resource consumption or a desired route 63.3.3 MIPS values per track type ................................................................. 73.3.4 Average MIPS values ........................................................................... 8


8/106

6 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

3.4 Natural resource consumption by air transport ...................................... 93.4.1 MI values or air transport ................................................................. 93.4.2 Calculation o natural resource consumption or a desired route 03.4.3 Average MIPS values .......................................................................... 1

3.5 Natural resource consumption by maritime transport ........................... 13.5.1 MI values or maritime transport ..................................................... 13.5.2 Average MIPS values .......................................................................... 2

3.6 Natural resource consumption by Finlands transport system ............. 3

4 Calculation examples .......................................................................................... 74.1 Calculation examples or passenger tra fc .............................................. 7

4.2 Calculation examples or reight tra fc ....................................................67

5 Summary o results and conclusions .............................................................725.1 Basis o the study ............................................................................................72

5.2 Main observations .........................................................................................735.2.1 MIPS gures or di erent modes o transport ................................735.2.2 Overall consumption o natural resources by the tra c system .76

5.3 Ways o reducing the material intensity o transport .............................76

5.4 Evaluation o reliability o results .............................................................82

5.5 MIPS as a measure o natural resource consumption by transport ....83

5.6 Proposals or urther study .........................................................................8

5.7 In conclusion ...................................................................................................8

Re erences .........................................................................................................................87

Appendix 1 MIPS values or road transport ......................................................91Appendix 2 MIPS values or air transport .........................................................93Appendix 3 Calculation o the natural resource consumption o

reight transport by the TNT concern: examples .................98Documentation page .................................................................................................101


9/106

7 Ministry o the Environment

1 Introduction

1.1

Background, purpose and design o the study

Traditionally, in environmental studies on transport the ocus has been on emissions tothe air, water and soil, and on energy consumption and noise pollution. In this studywe have not concentrated on emissions, but on the natural resource consumption otransport. The method used is the so-called MIPS method (Material Input per ServiceUnit) developed by the Wuppertal Institute or Climate, Environment and Energy inthe early 1990s. With this method it is possible to relate the natural resources consu-med to the resulting service per ormance, and to thereby obtain eco-e ciency values,or example, or di erent modes o transport, which allows or valid comparisonsto be made.

The study orms part o a more extensive FIN-MIPS Transport project. In thisproject the natural resource consumption in Finland in relation to the passenger-and tonne-kilometres transported has been calculated. The rst phase o the studyocussed on ve sub-areas o the transport system: road transport, rail transport, airtransport, maritime transport, and bicycle transport. These case studies have beenpublished in Finnish in separate reports in the Ministry o Transport and Communi-cations series o publications in 200 and, so ar, partly in English (Vihermaa et al.2006, Saari et al. 2007). The case study on the local transport network and the naturalresource consumption relating to its use was published in the same series in spring2006. The FIN-MIPS Transport project results are needed or calculating MIPS valuesor products or services, or when comparative data is required on the natural resourceconsumption o di erent modes o transport during their li e cycle.

The aim o this study is to: Generalise the case study results o the project on the consumption o naturalresources by di erent modes o transport or the whole o Finland.

Produce calculation data and a method by means o which the natural resourceconsumption o a desired route or journey in Finland could be calculated.

Present di erent practical examples and through these compare the natural resour-ce consumption o di erent modes o transport.

Consider ways o reducing the material intensity o the transport system.

The report comprises ve chapters. At the end o the rst chapter (introduction) ageneral review o Finlands transport system is given. In the second chapter the re-search material and methods are described. The third chapter deals with the resultsobtained or each orm o transport, as well as at the level o the entire transportsystem. The method o calculation or calculating the MIPS values or each mode o


10/106


transport is also described. In the ourth chapter the results obtained are related togenuine situations by means o some calculation examples. The th chapter bringstogether the main conclusions, in addition to presenting some ideas as to how thematerial intensity o transport could possibly be reduced.

In the MIPS study o the transport system it was necessary to make di erent as-

sumptions to carry out the calculations. For this reason, it is good to bear in mindthat the gures presented as results are not absolute truths, rather they describe wellthe magnitude o natural resource consumption by the di erent modes o transportin Finland. MIPS brings a completely new dimension to the discussion on the en-vironmental impact o transport which broadens the perspective rom its previousdimensions but which is, however, only one method among others.

1.2

Finlands transport systemFinlands transport system consists o the transport in rastructure, the tra c usingthis, and the norms and control measures (like taxes and laws) that control the tran-sport sector. Road, rail, water and air transport orm an integrated system whichmakes it possible or people to move, and goods to be transported, in an e ectiveand purpose ul manner (Finnish Road Administration 1999).

The transport system is one o societys basic structures. Its development is control-led by social policy objectives. The characteristics o the system are essentially a ected by how well the di erent components and di erent orms o transport combine. Thiscan be vastly infuenced by developing the transport system through holistic coope-ration between the di erent per ormers and not merely through isolated individualplans (Ministry o Transport and Communications 200 ).

The transport system is used to meet the requirements or moving both peopleand goods. The total length o Finlands tra c routes, which include public roads,streets, private roads, railways, water routes, the metro (underground) and tramways,is 70,000 kilometres (Ministry o Transport and Communications 200 ).

The Ministry o Transport and Communications makes a comprehensive studyo travel habits in Finland at six-year intervals. The most recent passenger transportstudy is rom 1999 (Ministry o Transport and Communications 1999). The results othe latest passenger transport study, material or which was collected in 200 200(Uusnkki 200 ), were not yet available when this study was carried out. Partlyor this reason there are gures that deviate rom each other in the statistical datapresented below. However, the magnitude o these reveals the situation in Finlandextremely well.


11/106


nationally important road

border crossing pointwinter harbourairporttravel centrecargo terminal

Figure 1. Nationally important road, sea and air transport network

(Ministry o Transport and Communications 2000: 17).

Trends in tra c

Tra c in Finland grew vigorously between the 1960s and the 1990s. During the eco-nomic depression growth momentarily slowed down but is now again in the region o2 percent per annum. Figures 2 and 3 show the trends in per ormances in passengerand reight transport in Finland over the last ew decades.


12/106


Figure 2. Trends in passenger tra c in 19602004 (Finnish Road Administration 2005a).

Figure 3. Trends in domestic reight tra c in 19602004 (Finnish Road Administration 2005a).* Road tra c comprises lorry and van tra c.

Trends in passenger traf c in 1960-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000year

b i l l i o n p e r s o n

k m

Passenger car traf cBus/coach traf c

Rail traf cAir traf cMaritime traf c

Trends in domestic traf c in 1960-2004

0

5

1015

20

25

30

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000year

b i l l i o n t o n n e k m

Road traf c * Rail traf cMaritime traf c

Transport today

In Finland around ,900 million passenger transport journeys are made per year. Thetotal per ormance o passenger transport in 200 was 68, million passenger-kilo-metres, 9 percent o which consisted o road transport, the rest being spread over rail,water and air transport. The reight transport per ormance in 200 totalled 1.9 milliontonne-kilometres (Finnish Road Administration 200 a). Hal o all passenger journeysare less than six kilometres in length (Ministry o Transport and Communications1999). The share o public transport in domestic passenger transport is approximately16 percent (Ministry o Transport and Communications 200 ). Two-thirds o reighttransport per ormances consist o road transport and one-quarter o rail transport.


13/106


Vehicular transport

The vehicular transport in rastructure is divided into public roads maintained bythe Finnish Road Administration, and streets and private roads maintained by mu-nicipalities and the private sector. Public road transport can be considered to mainly

consist o long-distance tra c and that on streets and private roads to constitutelocal tra c.

The total length o Finlands road network comes to around ,000 kilometres, owhich approximately 78,000 kilometres, or 20 percent o the road network, consistso public roads. Most o the public road network is located close to urban areas and between urban areas. In this study public roads have been divided on the basis o aunctional road classi cation into ve categories: motorways (which are actually parto the class 1 main roads network), class 1 main roads (i.e. class 1 main roads otherthan motorways), class 2 main roads, regional roads, and connecting roads. Thereare some 6 3 kilometres o motorways in Finland (Finnish Road Administration200 b).

Figure 4. Most o the road network consists o private and connecting roads which see comparatively little use.

Length of entire road network (km)

26,000

78,000

350,000

Municipalstreets

Publicroads

Privateroads

Division of public roads

11 %

6 %

17 %

66 %

Main roads,1st classMain roads,2nd classRegionalroadsConnectingroads

Finlands public roads on average are used by 1,200 vehicles per 2 hours (Table 1).The overall transport per ormance on public roads in 2003 was 33 billion vehicle-kilometres (Tie akta 200 ; Yleiset tiet 1.1.200 ). Over 60 percent o the transport per-ormances on public roads take place on class 1 main roads (including motorways)

and class 2 main roads, and only 19 percent o transport per ormances take place onconnecting roads, the length o which accounts or 66 percent o the entire public roadnetwork. Eighteen percent o transport per ormances take place on the motorways.

Table 1. Length, average daily tra c (ADT) and annual transport per ormance by road category(Yleiset tiet 1.1.2004).

Motor-way

Class 1main road

Class 2main road

Regionalroad

Connect-ing road

All pub-lic roads

Length (km) 794 7,780 4,686 13,469 51,469 78,198ADT 20,621 3,611 2,501 1,283 329 1,200Transport per-ormance (mill.vehicle-km/year)

5,976 10,255 4,277 6,307 6,189 33,004


14/106


Finland has some 2.3 million private passenger cars, and the number has been cons-tantly growing. Altogether there are around 2.7 million cars (Fig. ). Nowadays, overtwo-thirds o households have a car, and 16 percent o them possess two or more cars(Ojala 2000: 8 ).

Figure 5. Number o vehicles registered in Finland in 2003 (Finnish Road Administration 2005a).

Vehicles in 2003

86.9 %

0.4 %

9.6 %

2.6 %0.6 %

passenger cars 2,274,572

buses/coaches 10,358

vans 250,107

lorries 67,637

other vehicles 14,942

There are approximately 26,000 kilometres o municipal streets in Finland. Most othe streets were constructed rom the 1970s to the 1990s. The majority o streets leadto residential properties, ensuring access to these by car. From these streets, tra c isconducted to collector streets, which then conduct the tra c to main streets. Sixty-nine percent o all municipal streets are streets leading to residential properties, 27percent are collector streets, and percent are main streets (Finnish Road Administra-tion 200 b). O the kilometres driven on these streets, around 70 percent are drivenon main streets, 17 percent on collector streets, and 13 percent on streets leading toproperties. The total transport per ormance on streets is approximately 1 .8 millionroad-kilometres a year (Technical Research Centre o Finland, VTT 200 ).

Seventy-seven percent o Finlands road network, or some 3 0,000 kilometres,constitutes private roads. Private roads have been constructed gradually accordingto local transport requirements and they are managed by their users. (Finnish RoadAdministration 200 b.) Despite the length o the road network, the transport per or-mance on private roads comes to only approximately one billion vehicle-kilometresa year (Tie akta 200 ).

Bicycle transport

Statistics relating to cycling and the number o bicycles in Finland are not as preciseas they are on other orms o transport. However, several assessments o these areavailable. According to the Ministry o Transport and Communications, 80 percento Finns have a bicycle (Ministry o Transport and Communications 2001: 8). In thisstudy the assessments used were made by the Association o Finnish Bicycle Manu-acturers (200 ), who estimated that there are some 3.1 million bicycles which areridden 1.3 billion kilometres a year (Hakkarainen et al. 200 : 26). Thus, one bicycle isridden approximately 20 kilometres a year.

According to the 1999 passenger transport study, one out o ten journeys is made by bicycle, that is, the same number as made by public transport. Regional di erencesare great. In Oulu, cycling accounts or as much as 20 percent o all journeys made.


15/106


The most cycling takes place in municipalities with a population o 8,000 0,000(Ministry o Transport and Communications 2001: , 13). O trips made by bicycle,76 percent are less than three kilometres long. Twenty-eight percent o passenger car journeys are also less than three kilometres. On short journeys the bicycle competeswell with the passenger car in terms o speed and the bicycle is highly suitable as a

means o transport on most such short trips. Men tend to use a passenger car morethan women, whereas women more o ten use a bicycle or walk (Ministry o Transportand Communications 1999: 38-39, 8).

Shared-use paths allow both pedestrian and bicycle tra c. Finland has 12,000 kilo-metres o shared-use paths where cycling is permitted (Hakkarainen et al. 200 : 27).O these, ,730 kilometres are located alongside public roads, meaning that they arethe Finnish Road Administrations responsibility, and the others are the responsibilityo municipalities (Finnish Road Administration 200 a).

A realistic target in cycling has been to raise the contribution o bicycle journeys toa quarter o all journeys. To make cycling an attractive alternative, residences, workplaces and services should be located close to each other. Additionally, an uninter-rupted network o bicycle paths would be necessary. This does not, however, meanspeci c lanes or cyclists in every place, because streets and roads are sa e or cyclistsprovided the speed o motorised tra c is low (Ojala 2000: 99).

Rail transport

Almost 60 million passenger-kilometres were covered on the railways in 2003. Railtransport accounts or around one percent o all passenger transport journeys inFinland. The passenger transport per ormance on the railways is 3,338 million passen-ger-kilometres, or approximately percent o passenger transport journeys overall.Around one-quarter o Finlands reight transportation takes place on the railways.In 2003 a total o 3. million tonnes o goods were transported by rail (Finnish RailAdministration 200 ).

The length o Finlands entire railway network (Fig. 6) is ,8 1 kilometres, o which,6 3 kilometres consists o main track. O the entire length o the railway network,91.3 percent, or ,3 kilometres, is single-track and 8.7 percent, or 07 kilometres, iseither double-track or multi-track. A total o 1,893 kilometres o single-track railwayhas been electri ed, while all the double- or multi-track lines have been electri ed.The entire line length, including sidings, is 8,707 kilometres (Finnish Rail Administra-tion 200 : 8).


16/106


Figure 6. Finlands rail network (Finnish Rail Administration 2004: 9, adapted).

Air transport

The proportion o air transport in domestic passenger transport per ormances in

2000 was about two percent, and that o reight transport per ormances was aroundone percent. In international passenger transport the contribution o air transportwas appreciably higher than in domestic passenger transport; in 2000 air transportaccounted or 1 percent o Finlands international passenger transport (Ministry oTransport and Communications 2002). In 2003 over 13 million passengers travelled by air in Finland, this being 0 percent more than 10 years previously (Civil AviationAuthority 200 ).

The state-owned Finavia maintains 2 airports in Finland. At these airports, 27 run-ways are in use in winter and 33 in summer. The combined length o these runwaysis around 7 kilometres (Ministry o the Environment 2003). In this study not only theairports belonging to Finavia, but also those owned by the municipalities o Seinjokiand Mikkeli, which have regular air transport, are included (see Fig. 1).


17/106


Maritime transport

The majority o reight transport between Finland and other countries takes place bysea. In 2003 around 88 million tonnes o goods were transported between Finland andoreign destinations. The proportion o maritime transport in Finlands exportation

and importation in 2002, measured in tonnes, came to over 77 percent.In 2003 passenger tra c between Finland and oreign countries amounted to 1 .6

million passengers. This gure includes both arriving and departing passengers.Most o Finlands passenger tra c taking place between Finland and places abroadis destined or Sweden or Estonia (Finnish Maritime Administration 200 ).

According to the Finnish Maritime Administrations (200 ) statistics, 636 vesselsmeasuring 1 metres at minimum were recorded in Finlands registry o shipping in200 . By law, vessels o this length and longer have to be recorded in Finlands regionalregister. This trade feet was divided in 2001 into vessel types as ollows: passengervessels made up 3 percent o the total number o vessels, dry cargo vessels made up20 percent, tankers approximately percent, and other vessels some 1 percent. Theproportion o Finnish vessels in the transportation per ormances o Finlands mari-time tra c, that is, tonne-kilometres, is approximately 20 percent (Finnish MaritimeAdministration 2002).

Finland has over 0 ports handling oreign cargoes. O these, 23 operate all yearround (see Fig. 1). However, cargo transportation is clearly concentrated at the largerports: in 2001 the ten largest ports handled 7 percent o all cargo tra c (Viitanen etal. 2003, cit. Lindqvist et al. 200 : 1 ).

Finlands water tra c shipping channels comprise marine channels, inland waterchannels, and canals. The channels are maintained by the Finnish Maritime Admin-istration. There are a total o 8,200 kilometres o coastal channels, o which cargoshipping channels (o depth .01 .3 metres) amount to ,600 kilometres. The FinnishMaritime Administration maintains 2 ,000 sa ety devices in the channels, includinglighthouses, buoys and channel markers. Public shipping utilities in Finland ownnine ice breakers (Vesivylt 200 ).


18/106


2 Material and methods

2.1

Eco-e ciency and MIPS

2.1.1

Concept o eco-e ciency

The concept o eco-e ciency has ormed part o environmental discussions and stu-dies or over a decade already. It means the e ciency o natural resource use, or inother words, the relationship between the bene t derived rom a product or serviceand the natural resources consumed in achieving it. The basic concept can be conden-sed into two words: more rom less (Rissa 2001, p 10). The World Business Councilor Sustainable Development (WBCSD) opened up the concept to public discussionat the UN Con erence on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiroin 1992. The Council de ned eco-e ciency as ollows: Eco-e ciency is achieved bythe delivery o competitively priced goods and services that satis y human needs and bring quality o li e, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resourceintensity throughout the li e cycle to a level at least in line with the Earths estimatedcarrying capacity.

The eco-e ciency concept brings a new perspective to environmental protecti-on. Traditionally, in environmental protection the accent has been almost entirelyon hazardous substances and emissions endangering human health. According toSchmidt-Bleek (2002, p 6770), this kind o traditional environmental policy which o-cuses on reducing proven hazardous substances cannot be e cient and preventative.Alongside studies on the toxicity o individual substances we ought to pay attention

to the massive material fows used by and caused by mankind that are responsible,or example, or the environmental impact o energy consumption. Studying materialfows initiated by mankind and reducing these is important because rapidly growingmaterial fows alter the worlds ecological balance. This may have consequences weare not yet even aware o (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 2326).

According to the eco-e ciency concept, securing sustainable development necessi-tates a reduction in the material intensity o societies known as dematerialisation.This requires a change in production and consumption habits by improving the e -ciency o natural resource consumption. On a global scale, material fows need to becut by around one-hal o their present level. In addition, as there is a wish to divideprosperity evenly over the world, industrial countries must increase the e ciency otheir natural resource consumption ten old over the next ew decades. This goal iscalled Factor Ten (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 177190). This line o thought may also bringa long-awaited connection between the economy and the environment: by improving


19/106


the e ciency o material consumption not only the environment, but also money will be saved (Ho rn 1999, p 131 ).

In order to assess and study material consumption, we must be able to measure itreliably. As an indicator o eco-e ciency many alternatives have been put orward,one o which is the MIPS indicator used in this study.

2.1.2

Indicator o eco-e ciency: MIPS

At the beginning o the 1990s, the Wuppertal Institute in Germany began to developan indicator with which it could be possible to reliably refect the environmentalimpact o products and services rom the material fow perspective. This indicatorhad to be clear and simple to use, it had to be suitable or processes, products andeven services, and, in addition, it had to be applicable locally, regionally, and globally(Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 107).

The result was the MIPS indicator (Material Input per Service Unit), which me-asures the eco-e ciency o a product throughout its li e cycle, that is, the materialconsumption in relation to the bene t obtained rom the product.

The MIPS indicator is composed o an MI value (the material and energy consump-tion o the product or service throughout its whole li e cycle) and an S value (the ser-vice unit o the product or service). MIPS is calculated by dividing the material inputMI by the total amount o service per ormance (Autio & Lettenmeier 2002, p 1 ).

Material input (MI)

MI is the sum o the natural resource use throughout the entire li e cycle o a productor service. The MI actor is a number embodying all the material amounts trans erredduring the processing o the raw material per weight unit o the raw material in ques-tion, including the material trans ers required by the energy consumption involved.It would thus also include, or example, material trans erred during ore quarryingand coal mining. The measurement unit is kg/kg, that is, kilograms material perkilograms raw material. The unit o energy input, especially the unit o electricityMI actors, is kg/kWh. To simpli y calculation the Wuppertal Institute has alreadyspeci ed MI actors or di erent raw materials and orms o energy. By multiplyingthe amounts o materials in a product by the MI actor or each material the naturalresource input or each material can be obtained as a whole. In the same way, other

production inputs (e.g. electricity, heat, transportation) can be multiplied by the MIactors belonging to these. By summing the MI results or di erent stages in the li ecycle o a product, the material demand or each product can be obtained. Thus, thestudy extends to those components that the eye does not see, that is, it embraces theraw material manu acturing o the product until the end o its li e cycle.

According to the MIPS concept, material inputs are calculated separately in vedi erent categories: abiotic materials, biotic materials, water, air, and earth move-ments in agriculture and orestry.

Abiotic materials are solid mineral raw materials such as stone and ores rommines, quarries and smelting plants. Fossil uels such as coal, crude oil and naturalgas are also considered to be abiotic materials, as are all mineral deposits which ha-ve to be moved, or instance, in conjunction with quarrying, in addition to surplusexcavation materials associated with, or example, the construction o buildings androads (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 13213 ).

unit Service

Input Material

S MI

MIPS


20/106


Biotic materials include all plant biomass taken or human utilisation, that is, allcultivated, uncultivated, picked, gathered or otherwise bene cial plants. Animalsalso belong in this class, but in the case o animals reared by people the biomass othe ood eaten by the animals (e.g. grass consumed by a cow) enters the calculations.Wild animals, sh and trees are also included among biotic materials (Schmidt-Bleek

2002, p 13213 ).Water is included when it is removed rom nature by technical means. Dammed

water and rainwater, which are diverted rom their original place as a consequenceo human activities, are included. For instance, when calculating material fows orroads, all the rainwater alling on the asphalt is included, because it is preventedrom being absorbed by a natural sur ace. Water quantities used in agriculture arealso included in this category (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 13213 ).

Air is included when people change it chemically or physically. Only that part othe air which is changed is included in the calculations, or instance, the amount ooxygen used in combustion processes. Mechanically moved air, as or example airmoved by a windmill or ventilator, is not taken into account (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p13213 ).

In agriculture and orestry, earth is moved through mechanical processes and ero-sion. In practice, erosion is generally used as the indicator. Research on this category isstill continuing at the Wuppertal Institute, and MI actors have still to be announced,or example, or many agricultural products (Rittho et al. 2002).

Service unit (S)

In the MIPS concept, products and materials are seen as providers o a certain serviceor bene t: mankind does not need products merely or what they are, but or the ser-vices they per orm. Service unit means the bene t obtained rom a product or serviceand it is always de ned in each individual case. A service unit could be, or instance,a single wearing o an item o clothing, when clothes are the subject, or a passenger-or tonne-kilometre, when orms o transport are being looked at. When the materialinput is divided by the service, bene cial products or systems produced by the sameservices can be compared with each other. This requires the service per ormance to be de ned in the same way or all. Thus, or example, the consumption o naturalresources by di erent modes o transport can be compared, when consumption by allorms o transport is correlated with passenger- or tonne-kilometres (Schmidt-Bleek2002, p 113119).

When de ning the service unit one easily arrives at a situation in which a parti-cular actor causing environmental loading or natural resource consumption has to be divided among di erent bene ts or recipients o bene ts. In such a case one has

to resolve the problem o on what basis such division is to be carried out, that is, inwhat way the adverse actor is to be allocated between the di erent solutions. Inthis study the most signi cant allocation question is the allocation o in rastructurematerial inputs between di erent types o users (see section 2.6).

2.1.3

Reducing material fows

The idea behind the MIPS method is to develop products and services ending in aquality service using ewer natural resources than previously. The goal is attained byeither reducing the material input, MI, or by increasing the service per ormance, S.

The MIPS indicator can be used as a tool in industrial product design, as well asin the planning o services, production plants, and in rastructure, and in ecologicalevaluations. An advantage o the method is that the products producing the same


21/106


service become comparable when the material inputs are calculated or the sameservice unit. In the uture MIPS could be included in, or example, in rastructureplanning in the same way as other environmental impact assessments at the earlystages o planning. By using the MIPS approach one also can separate ecologically bene cial recycling and other processes rom those that are ecologically problemati-

cal. In addition, one can assess the acceptability o aid to developing countries andtechnical projects (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 128).

A concept closely associated with the MIPS indicator is that o the ecological ruck-sack. This means the mass o material trans erred as a result o a product or service, but the mass o the product is not included in the calculation as it is in MI values.The ecological ootprint, on the other hand, attempts to indicate the sur ace arearequired or producing the product or service (e.g. Rissa 2001).

2.1.4

Criticism o the MIPS method

The indicators given as measures o eco-e ciency have attracted not only interest, but also criticism. Be ore making use o the method one should understand whatMIPS is able to accomplish and what it cannot. Schmidt-Bleek (2002, p 127) stresses,or example, that MIPS can only be de ned or nal products that generate services,and not or raw materials or individual materials.

One inherent weakness o the method is that it does not di erentiate betweendi erent materials in terms o harm ulness and toxicity o material fows to the en-vironment. MIPS has been criticised on the grounds that it is incapable o refectingthe actual amount o environmental impact caused by a product, since it gives thesame weight to all the materials, irrespective o their di ering environmental e ects(e.g. Koskinen 2001). On the other hand, it is not the purpose o MIPS calculationsto replace other methods o assessing environmental impact, rather it is intended tosupplement them rom the materials intensity perspective (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p129).

A urther weakness o the method is its laboriousness and uncertainty. As withother li e-cycle calculations, calculating MIPS values or even a slightly complicatedservice or product takes a lot o time and calls or numerous assumptions and esti-mates. Even the MI actors published as a starting point by the Wuppertal Institute(Wuppertal Institute 200 ) are the results o many estimates and generalisations. Itis di cult to check the calculations behind the indicators, as the values have beencalculated by many parties and also include estimates. The Wuppertal Institute hasnot published all the calculations behind its MI actors nor their reliability limits,which means the user has only limited opportunity to assess the reliability o the

actors or to set limits to the results obtained through them. Depending on the target,success ul calculations o MIPS values may also require a considerable amount oexpert assistance.

2.1.5

Previous studies on the subject

MIPS is still a relatively young method. The studies relating to it are mostly thosepublished by the Wuppertal Institute. The Wuppertal Institute has published reportson the transport sector, mainly on rail transport and shipping (e.g. Stiller 199 ). Onlyreight transport MI values have been published or road transport (Schmidt-Bleek2002, p 66; Wuppertal Institute 200 ). As ar as we know, nowhere else in the worldhas a MIPS study as broad as this one been made on transport.


22/106


In Finland the MIPS method was experimented with on a broad scale or the rsttime in 20002002 in the Factor X Entering markets eco-e ciently project. In thisproject enterprises examined the natural resource consumption o their products andservices. Companies and pro essionals in the environmental sector were trained inthe application o the MIPS and Factor X concepts. As a consequence, MIPS values

corresponding to Finlands conditions were obtained on, or instance, o ce urnitureand hip surgery (Autio & Lettenmeier 2002).

The City o Helsinki Public Works Departments MateriaEuro project investigatedthe natural resource consumption o street building and maintenance (Hnninen et al.200 ). Studies based on the MIPS method have been published in Finland as mastersand diploma theses on both tra c (Lindqvist 200 ; Nieminen 200 ; Vihermaa 200 ;Pusenius 200 ; Helln 200 ; Hnninen 200 ) and other entities, including university buildings (Sinivuori 200 ) and the consequences o waste policy (Salo 200 ).

In Finland the use o natural resources by the national economy as a whole is cal-culated on an annual basis. Finlands Total Material Requirement (TMR) calculationsalso include material fows rom transport (Menp et al. 2000). Out o the ve na-tural resource categories which are calculated separately in the MIPS concept, TMRincludes the abiotic and biotic material inputs, together with erosion.

2.2

Study materialThe bases or this study have been the previous FIN-MIPS project case studies on theeco-e ciency o the di erent modes o transport (Hakkarainen et al. 200 ; Lindqvistet al. 200 ; Nieminen et al. 200 ; Pusenius et al. 200 ; Talja et al. 2006; Vihermaa etal. 200 ). Basic data on material input, together with some case calculations, wereobtained rom these studies, re erred to below as the case studies. In addition to the basic data obtained, a lot o other in ormation on the di erent components o thetransport system had to be gathered. Owing to the nature o the work, the materialused has been extremely variable in terms o quality, and in ormation was soughtrom numerous di erent sources. Most o the written sources are publicly availableon the Internet. In addition, many statements and much in ormation were obtainedrom experts in many elds, both verbally and by email.

In the main, the calculations and generalisations were made on the basis o theexisting case studies. Thus, the MI actors used or the calculations are principallythose used in the case studies in the project.

2.3

Boundaries set or this studyThe transport system is extensive and complex with many components which aredi cult to de ne precisely. Especially in conjunction with such broad material cal-culations, however, the setting o limits has been unavoidable, due to the sheer laboriousness o the calculations. The availability o in ormation has also a ected theextent o the studies.

O the ve di erent natural resource classes used in MIPS, only abiotic material,water and air consumption are studied. In the case studies biotic material consump-tion was also examined. However, as all orms o transport were ound to have onlya slight impact in regard to the consumption o biotic materials, the latter were le tentirely out o this study.

Road tra c has been divided into three components: that on public roads, that inmunicipal streets, and that on private roads. The vehicles were divided into six types.Motor cycles, or instance, were le t out. Privately built orest (logging) roads, and


23/106


other roads to orests or summer cottages in a drivable condition, were omitted romthe study, because orest roads were assumed to be mainly con ned to orestry use,and summer cottage roads to be very little used. Out o the total length o privateroads (3 0,000 km), 100,000 kilometres are thus included in this study. For municipalstreets, main streets, collector streets, and streets going to residential properties were

considered separately in relation to natural resource consumption (Pusenius et al.200 , p 1622; Talja et al. 2006). In regard to pedestrian and bicycle tra c, only bicycletransport has been studied. The natural resource consumption o riding a bicyclehas not been calculated or anything other than or bicycle lanes (Hakkarainen et al.200 , p 21).

It is a simple matter to sharply restrict Finlands internal rail tra c since there areewer per ormers and rail classes than in road transport. Finlands entire long-dis-tance rail transport has been studied in conjunction with rail transport, as well as theHelsinki Metropolitan Areas local train, tram and metro (underground) transport.

In air transport the study has been restricted to commercial aviation in such way,however, that the volume o military and general aviation tra c were taken into ac-count when dividing the in rastructure material input between the di erent brancheso aviation. In addition to Finlands internal air transport, the scope o the study alsoincludes air tra c leaving Finland or destinations abroad (Nieminen et al. 200 , p 11).In the calculation o the material input o the entire air transport system (see section2. . ), only air transport taking place within Finlands economic area has been takeninto consideration.

In the case o shipping, inland water transport has been le t completely out o thepicture. The contribution o log foating to Finlands reight transport is o the ordero one percent. Coastal shipping and recreational boating have also been omitted romthe maritime transport picture, and the study has concentrated only on commercialtransport going abroad. Among the harbours, only winter ones are included, whilethe only shipping channels included are the ones leading to winter harbours. Fourtypes o vessels have been examined (Lindqvist et al. 200 , p 10, 16). For the calcula-tion o maritime transport overall, only movement within Finlands economic areahas been taken into account.

2.4

Main assumptionsIn the FIN-MIPS Transport project case studies the eco-e ciency o Finlands modeso transport has been investigated on the basis o some examples. An e ort was madeto select these examples to give as representative picture as possible o the main typesin each sector in Finland. The results o the examples were processed and supple-

mented so that the presumed average MIPS values or the modes o transport wereobtained, these refecting Finland as a whole. The ollowing sections present the mainassumptions on which the calculations are based.

In addition to setting limits to the transport system being investigated, numerousassumptions also had to be made in the calculations, among them the service li e othe vehicles and their average ridership. Such assumptions were made in collabora-tion with the road and other administrations to ensure they were based on the bestpossible knowledge and expertise. However, no one can with any certainty be sureo , or example, the actual service li e o the in rastructure, which is such an impor-tant actor rom the standpoint o the results o the calculations. The most importantassumptions made are shown in Table 2.


24/106


Table 2. The main assumptions concerning the use o in rastructure and means o transport.

Means o transport

Li espan o in rastruc-ture(years)

Capacity use o in ra-structure

Li espan o means o trans-port

Capacity use

Car 60 Average daily tra c(ADT) o di erent roadand street categories, 26

38,600 vehicles/day

270,000 km 1.4 passengersBus 60 1,000,000 km 13 passengersVan 60 400,000 km 1 pass. or 200 kgLorry 60 1,000,000 km 7, 14 or 21 tonnes

(approx. 50%)Bicycle 60 ADT 300 bikes/day 20 yrs 1 personCargo train 100 0.53.0 mill. tonnes/yr 14,000,000 km 50%Long distancetrain

100 0.055.0 mill. pass.trips/yr

14,000,000 km 2060%, dependingon rail tra c

Local train 100 ADT 11,000 pass./km Based on longdistance trains Based on yearly

passengerMetro 100 ADT 52,500 pass./km

Tramway 60 ADT 3,800 pass./km

Aircra t 100Based on the real vol-ume o operations

30 yrs ( depend-ing on aircra ttype, 20110 mill.km)

5389%,depending on theroute

Passengervessel

50 30 yrs,high-speed cra t15 yrs

2,000 pass. (pass.erry)300 pass. (high-speed cra t)

Cargo vessel 50 30 yrs 2,1002,200 t(RoRo vessel)8,300 t (oil tanker)

For the purposes o this study, the MI actor adopted or electricity was Finlandsaverage national electricity mix, as calculated by Nieminen et al. (200 , appendix C).The abiotic MI actor or Finlands average national electricity mix is 0. 3 kg/kWh,or water, 189 kg/kWh, and or air, 0.22 kg/kWh.

For the calculations in the study it was estimated that in Finland the precipitationis approximately 600 millimetres a year (Finnish Meteorological Institute 200 ).

2.4.1

Road transport

The studies o Pusenius et al. (200 ) and Talja et al. (2006) were the bases or calcu-lating the MIPS values or road transport. Pusenius et al. (200 , p 2 26) have romthe very outset taken note o the generalised nature o their results, despite the study being based on actual cases. For the calculations in the report, Finlands average tra cdata have been used instead o local tra c data. The total amount o earth and othermaterial moved has also been assessed on the basis o the national situation. The samegoes or the utilisation o surplus excavation materials rom cuttngs in di erent typeso roads. Talja et al. (2006) calculated the MIPS values or streets and private roadsdirectly at the level o Finland as a whole.

The MIPS values or road transport were calculated or a total o six road categoriesand three street categories. Six kinds o vehicles gured in the case studies: passengercar, van, bus/coach, light lorry, lorry with semi-trailer, and lorry with trailer. In thisstudy the MI values calculated by Pusenius (200 ) were adopted and adapted.


25/106


2.4.2

Bicycle transport

In the study on the natural resource consumption o bicycle transport (Hakkarainenet al. 200 ) ve di erent Helkama and Tunturi bicycle models were used. These

included both steel- and aluminium- ramed bicycles. Based on the examples, orgeneralisation purposes the natural resource consumption o the average Finnish bicycle was calculated by determining the number o aluminium- and steel- ramed bicycles in Finland.

Pathways or bicycle and pedestrian tra c, or shared-use paths, orm a part othe material input o bicycle transport. Since these pathways are used by others inaddition to bicyclists, thought had to be given to the allocation o the material inputo the shared-use paths among the di erent users (see section 2. .2.). The materialinput or bicycle transport also included the lighting o the shared-use paths (Hak-karainen et al. 200 , p 39).

2.4.3

Rail transport

Vihermaa et al. (200 ) calculated the natural resource consumption or a one- andtwo-track railway line. In regard to rail transport, one locomotive, one wagon ( orpassengers) and one wagon ( or reight) were studied. In the study the MIPS valuesor rail transport or the whole o Finland were already available. A generalisationhad been made or each section o rail and the number o tracks and business categoryhad been taken into account (Table 3). Additionally, equivalent case study MI valuesor those sections o rail used solely by reight trains had been used.

Table 3. Levels o business used or long-distance passenger and reight transport and the capacityuse associated with these (see Vihermaa et al. 2005, p 17).

Passenger transport Freight transportLevel o use Journeys/year Ridership % Net tonnes /year Capacity use %

Busy 5,000,000 60 3,000,000 50Average 500,000 35 1,500,000 50Little used 50,000 20 500,000 50

The gures published by Vihermaa et al. (200 ) or rail tra c and its in rastructurepartially ormed the basis or the calculations made by Talja et al. (2006) or local

train, metro, and tram transport. In this study the MIPS values calculated by Talja etal. (2006) or local train, metro and tram transport were used directly.

2.4.4

Air transport

In this study, air transport has been divided into our parts: domestic, European,holiday, and long haul. In addition, fights to places near to Finland were separatedrom European fights in general. Nearby areas in this instance means mainly St.Petersburg and the Baltic states, together with Swedens eastern coast. The materialinput o local air transport includes the natural resource consumption o the in ra-structure o airports, plus aircra t and their uel consumption.

The basis used or the MIPS value calculations or air transport was the study byNieminen et al. (200 ) on the natural resource consumption o air transport. The air-


26/106


ports o HelsinkiVantaa and Jyvskyl were chosen or the study. Jyvskyl airportrepresents well the average Finnish provincial airport (Viinikainen 200 a), so thatairports other than HelsinkiVantaa were assessed on the basis o the one at Jyvskyl. In the case o oreign airports these were assumed to be equivalent to HelsinkiVan-taa airport (Nieminen et al. 200 , p 11). This is a rough generalisation, but studying

oreign airports would have been too laborious. In addition, the contribution o in -rastructure to the material input o air travel decreases with distance, so that even anerror in an assumption will decrease as the journeys increase.

Nieminen et al. (200 ) studied six aircra t types, ve o them being passenger airc-ra t. The natural resource consumption o aircargo transportation (kg/tonne-kilomet-re) can be obtained airly reliably by multiplying the gures per passenger-kilometre by ten, since it is generally assumed that in air travel one cargo tonne is equivalent toten passengers with their baggage (Rusko 200 a). The natural resource consumptiono those aircra t types or which examples have not been calculated was estimated by using the nearest equivalents among the cases recorded by Nieminen et al. (200 ).Finavias environmental planner Niina Rusko (200 a) assisted with the evaluations.

The ollowing ridership percentages were used or air transport (Nieminen et al.200 , p ):- Domestic: 3%- European fights: 6.6%- Intercontinental fights: 73.1%- Holiday fights: 88.7%

Most o the material input components were obtained directly rom the examples ur-nished by Nieminen et al. (200 ). Fuel consumption per passenger-kilometre changesaccording to the length o the fight, so that it was calculated separately or the routesused as examples. Janne Pallonen (200 ), rom Finnair, supplied in ormation on theuel consumption and emissions o each aircra t. In the results the MIPS values orthe di erent routes and aircra t are given per passenger-kilometre and route.

Based on the examples, it has been calculated how much natural resources per pas-senger-kilometre air transport consumed, on average, when fying rom Helsinki toFinlands nearby areas, Europe, holiday destinations, and distant countries. Finlandsaverage MIPS values take into account all types o aircra t and routes by weightingthe consumptions o di erent aircra t and routes with the number o operations. Sincethe di erences between oreign fights in terms o natural resource consumption perpassenger-kilometre are smaller, it has been possible to determine the average MIPSvalues on the basis o sample routes.

2.4.5

Maritime transportIn the case o maritime transport only shipping destined or oreign ports has beenstudied. In regard to the ports it was assumed, as in air transport, that a oreign portis the same as the departure port in Finland.

In the maritime transport case study our di erent kinds o harbours, our di erentkinds o vessels, and routes o di erent length, including ones rom Finland to Tallinnand New York, were investigated. In this study, due to a lack o source data and thework involved in collecting such data, the average MIPS values or maritime transportwere calculated by adapting the results rom Lindqvists (200 ) case study.

For calculating the annual overall consumption o maritime transport, it was ne-cessary to determine how much abiotic resources the harbours, channels and vesselsconsume in Finland in total. In the case o ports, the study has been con ned to win-ter harbours. Routes that have been included are those leading to winter harbours,


27/106


which amount to some 2,200 kilometres (Holm 200 ). The investigation o the naturalresource consumption o vessels was limited, as with air transport, to Finlands eco-nomic area. In ormation about the uel consumption o vessels was obtained rom theLipasto in ormation system o the Technical Research Centre o Finland (VTT 200 ),while other vessel consumption was assessed on the basis o such data and on the

studies by Lindqvist et al. (200 ) and Stiller (199 , p 30).

2.5

In rastructure material input allocation to transport

Allocation questions in li e-cycle studies

The purpose o li e-cycle studies is to indicate the environmental loading or consump-tion o products or services in concrete numbers throughout the entire li e cycle. Insuch studies one o ten aces a situation in which a particular adverse actor causingloading or consumption has to be divided up among di erent bene ts or recipientso bene ts. In such a case one is obliged to resolve the problem o on what basis thisallocation is to be made, in other words in what way the adverse actor is to be allo-cated between the di erent bene ts or yields.

When the yields rom a process are highly similar or comparable with each other,allocation can be made extremely simply and easily. By contrast, with complicatedprocesses or systems the method o allocation may be particularly di cult, especiallywhen it is not possible to easily put the yields or the bene ts derived rom these ona comparable basis.

In the MIPS concept, questions o allocation appear when, or example, unctionallyor economically deviating results are obtained rom certain processes, or when di -erent service per ormances are obtained rom a particular material input. A processor product chain may produce main products or by-products, and the quantitativeand economic relationships may vary according to time, place or economic situation.For example, the wood-processing chain produces, among other things, paper, wood,particle board, heat, and logging residue. All o these have a use but allocating thematerial fows o orest harvesting between the di erent products calls or care uldeliberation. The public in rastructure such as the streets o downtown Helsinki isused by, or instance, lorries, buses, passenger cars, bicyclists, people going to workor other pedestrians, as well as by people celebrating May Day. How, then, should thematerial input o the streets be allocated between those mentioned and other users?How can the material input due to water level regulation be allocated among suchwidely di ering entities as electricity generation, food control, and the recreational

use o waterways?The basic literature on the MIPS concept deals with allocation questions but itis requently unable to o er patent answers to them. For instance, recycling wastematerials in general conserves material compared to the use o virgin raw material.Savings due to the recycling process are allocated in the MIPS concept to recycledproducts, which, when used or manu acturing, reduce the consumption o virgin rawmaterials (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 11311 ). Savings brought about by the recyclingprocess, on the other hand, are not assigned to the product whose wastes have beenused to advantage. This allocation is de endable because the conservation o naturalresources arises rom the wastes being used as a raw material or a new product. Mo-reover, it would be di cult to predict in what quantity and orm a durable product(e.g. television set, house or road sur ace) in particular can be, or can be desired to be, utilised as a raw material or another product. On the other hand, this methodo allocation does not give any rewards i the manu acturer anticipates the recycla-


28/106


bility o its product already at the product-design stage and, or this reason may, orexample, make use o a larger material input.

Thus, taking decisions on allocation methods or which there is more than one truthis unavoidable. First, decisions have to be weighed up and then taken, and, nally,documented as per ectly as possible. In this and the ollowing section the allocation

options available to the di erent case studies within the FIN-MIPS Transport projecthave been documented, as well as reasons given regarding how and why the decisionwas taken on the nal choice.

Alternatives considered in this study

In the FIN-MIPS Transport study the biggest allocation issues are those associatedwith the apportioning o the MI o in rastructure among the di erent orms o tran-sport. No single correct answer to these questions exists. For instance, passengertra c and reight tra c generally use the same roads and other in rastructure. Theheavier goods vehicles command more o the road structure, take up more space, andare slower than passenger vehicles. At the same time, the lighter passenger vehicles, because o the high number o them, may exceed the capacity o the roads, therebycausing pressure or urther road construction. Thus, in general, bases can be oundor di erent allocation methods which vastly a ect the end result and di erences

between the MIPS values or the orms o transport. The percentage o in rastructurein MIPS values or orms o transport is extremely signi cant, amounting to up to 90percent o the entire consumption o the abiotic natural resources. Hence, a mattero paramount importance rom the standpoint o the end result is what proportiono the material input o the in rastructure should be allocated to passenger transportand what to reight transport. Consequently, much thought was given to this aspectand di erent options were sought and very care ully weighed up or each mode otransport.

The comparisons o the e ects o allocation methods on MIPS values presented inthis study were made on the basis o preliminary gures, or those obtained directlyrom the case studies. Hence, they are not exactly equivalent to the nal results. Thepurpose o the comparisons is to bring out the importance o the selected allocationmethod on the results.

2.5.1

Road transport

In road in rastructure allocation the problem is how large a part o the li e-cyclematerials o a road can be apportioned to each o the di erent users, that is, light

transport and heavy transport. In the case study (Pusenius et al. 200 ) this dilemmawas approached in three ways: the wear and tear on the road during its li e cycle wasdivided according to 1) road costs, 2) the gross weight o vehicles, and 3) averagedaily (2 h) tra c (ADT). Road-cost allocation was based on road costs published bythe Finnish Road Administration. However, the expenditure is not evenly dividedover the roads in the same way as materials consumption, so that it is not a viableallocation method and was thus deleted rom the list o alternatives. As a third option,two other allocation methods were studied: the division o the construction layerso a road in a di erent way or the di erent orms o transport, and the weighting othe ADT with a so-called passenger car equivalence actor.


29/106


Allocation according to road-layer consumption

In conjunction with road in rastructure allocation between light and heavy transport,a study was made on how heavy transport actually a ects the sizing o the construc-tion layers o a road (Fig. 7). The notion was that those parts o the road structure

that are made thicker and stronger due to heavy transport should be allocated moreto heavy transport. The other components o the road would be allocated more topassenger transport, because this is quantitatively superior and more roads are builtprimarily because o the increase in the volume o tra c (e.g. Ojala 2000, p 8687) . The study entailed perusing the instructions or road construction planning (e.g.Tammirinne et al. 2002; Pihlajamki 2001; Finnish Road Administration 200 c), andalso interviewing experts rom the Finnish Road Administration and Finnish RoadEnterprise.

Based on this scrutiny, it was discovered that many actors infuence the designingo road structures and that these could not be unequivocally correlated with anyparticular vehicle category. According to Lehtonen (200 ), the supporting unboundlayer in connecting and regional roads is thickened by 0 millimetres when the volu-me o heavy transport on the road rises 2. times. On class 1 main roads and class 2main roads a similar increase in heavy transport calls only or thickening o the roadsur ace, which does not contribute very much to the overall cost o the materials. Thetotal thickness o the sur ace structure, in other words, the total amount o materialrequired or this, in practice is determined by the tendency o the ground to su errom rost damage and by the targets set or fatness: the higher the road quality, themore level the road sur ace has to be (Tolla 200 ).

Wearing course ,bitumenous

Unbound layers

Road bed

Wearing course ,bitumenous

Unbound layers

Road bed

ReinforcementsAC bearing , Bitumen andcomposite stabilization

Gravel , SandCrushed rock Industry by -products

Thermal insulation materials

Reinforcements

AC, SMA, soft -AC

Figure 7. Road construction layers, general depiction (Ehrola 1996, p 138).

According to Tolla (200 ), the amount and quality o the oundations in Finland inpractice determine the objectives set or road-sur ace fatness, and not the weight otra c. In regard to the oundations, the most important actor determining the di-mensions is the quality o the ground (strength and composition properties), togetherwith the location o the road in the terrain (height o embankment, depth o cutting,land inclination, etc).

Based on the oregoing, it was decided to leave allocation based on road construc-tion out o the allocation alternatives under scrutiny.


30/106


Allocation based on vehicle gross weight

Pusenius et al. (200 ) have estimated the average weight o reight transport to be1 tonne in the case o vans, 7 tonnes in the case o a light lorry, 1 tonnes in the caseo a lorry with a semi-trailer, and 21 tonnes in the case o a lorry with a trailer (Pu-

senius et al. 200 , p 30). In the case o vans, however, the gure given is not actuallytrue. Transport expert Tuomo Heinonen (200 ) rom Finnish Transport and Logistics(SKAL ry) says that vans hardly ever travel with a ull load as assumed in the casestudy. With van transport, space is o ten more o a limiting actor than weight. Vansare o ten used or courier-type goods distribution in which small volumes o goodsare transported and the load is equivalent to the number o calls that can be made ina day. In practice, nowhere near the maximum loads are carried in vans in terms okilograms, rather the limiting actor is more o ten capacity than weight. Heinonenestimated the average load o vans as 100200 kilos. The Finnish Post Corporationsdevelopment manager, Harri Ajomaa (200 ), roughly estimated that the corporationsvans carry an average o 00 kilograms o mail. The Finnish Post Corporation is oneo Finlands main enterprises in regard to van loads. Vans in private use most likelycarry less in the way o loads than those owned by rms. Based on these assessments,it has been assumed in this study that the average load or vans is 200 kilograms.

Gross vehicle weight (kerb weight o vehicle + weight carried) has thus been recal-culated as ollows: passenger car, 1. tonnes; bus/coach, 1 . tonnes; van, 2.2 tonnes;light lorry, 17 tonnes; lorry with semi-trailer, 30 tonnes; and lorry with trailer, 3tonnes (see Pusenius et al. 200 , p 32). These gures, multiplied by the average dailytra c (ADT) per road class, give the allocation division shown in Table .

Table 4. Allocation o road materials between vehicles according to gross weight.

Motorway Class 1

main road

Class 2

main road

Regional

road

Connec-

ting roadPass. car 31.4% 33.9% 33.9% 35.5% 37.7%

Bus/coach 4.6% 5.0% 5.0% 5.2% 5.6%

Van 4.0% 4.3% 4.3% 4.5% 4.8%

Ll 9.3% 13.7% 13.7% 17.2% 18.8%

Ls 11.2% 17.7% 17.7% 19.4% 33.2%

Lt 39.6% 25.4% 25.4% 18.1% -

Pass. car = Passenger car, Ll = Light lorry, Ls = Lorry with semi-trailer, Lt = Lorry with trailer

Calculated in accordance with this allocation method, the contribution o passengertransport to road material consumption comes to around 0 percent, and that oreight tra c to around 60 percent. The allocation method sharply di ers in relationto its results rom the other two options. Thus, there are no grounds or it with respectto, or example, tra c planning. The RoadMIPS working group under the FIN-MIPSTransport project ound this method o allocation to be unsuitable, so that it is nolonger included in the nal selection.


31/106


Allocation based on average daily tra c (ADT)

This allocation method is the same as in the public road case study. Table showshow road consumption is divided between the various vehicles when applying thenational average daily tra c data or the road types to be studied (Pusenius et al.

200 , p 32). The allocation to tra c on class 2 main roads was estimated as being thesame as on class 1 main roads, on which most o the tra c moves. The allocationtakes into account only the volume o tra c on the roads, not other characteristicssuch as size and speed, as these are quite variable.

Table 5. Allocation o di erent road-class material inputs between vehicles according to averagedaily tra c (ADT).

Motorway Class 1main road

Class 2main road

Regionalroad

Connectingroad

Pass. car 84.1% 84.1% 84.1% 84.1% 84.1%Bus/coach 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%Van 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%Ll 2.2% 3.0% 3.0% 3.6% 3.7%Ls 1.5% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 3.7%Lt 3.7% 2.2% 2.2% 1.5% -


Allocation according to ADT weighted bypassenger car equivalence actor

According to the handbook o the Association o Finnish Civil Engineers (RIL16 -11987, p 1 ), tra c fows composed o a mix o di erent vehicles can be made com-parable by converting the numbers in the di erent vehicle groups into passengercar units using a certain equivalence actor. Heavy vehicles take up more space and,especially when driving uphill, are slower than other tra c, so that their e ect is thesame as adding a certain number o passenger cars to the tra c. Equivalence actorscommensurate with the norms o the Finnish Road Administration and Finnish RoadEnterprise or vehicles are as ollows:Passenger car 1.0Coach and lorry with two axles 2.0Lorry with several axles 3.0

Motorcycle 0.

According to Prokkola (200 ), this is an appropriate way o weighting heavy transportin the ADT, despite its being used only rarely nowadays. In road planning the so-called equivalence actor method is more o ten used or weighting heavy transportwhen calculating tra c loading (Finnish Road Administration 200 c, p 2 2 ). In thismethod the number o vehicles in the various heavy transport categories is weightedwith a actor according to how many times the vehicle exceeds the standard axle mass(100 kN or a single two-wheeled axle). The load actor does not, however, expressheavy transport in terms o passenger cars, nor is there any actor or passengercars. The equivalence actor is mainly used on roads used by an exceptionally largevolume o heavy transport. Thus, the older, more simple passenger car equivalenceactor method, in which the actors are converted into passenger car units (Table 6),is more suited to this study.


32/106


Table 6. Allocation o road material input between di erent vehicle categories according to ADTweighted by a passenger car actor. In the allocation o lorries to the di erent road categories thesame values have been used as in the allocation alternative commensurate with the ADT. A van isconsidered to be equivalent to a passenger car.

Motorway Class 1main road

Class 2main road

Regionalroad

Connectingroad

Pass. car 73.9% 74.4% 74.4% 74.8% 74.9%Bus/coach 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1%

Van 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%

Ll 3.9% 5.3% 5.3% 6.4% 6.6%

Ls 4.0% 5.8% 5.8% 6.1% 9.9%

Lt 9.8% 5.8% 5.8% 4.0% -


This allocation method alls between two extremes, while, however, weighting pas-senger car tra c considerably more than heavy transport. There are no signi cantdi erences between these two allocation methods in the results or passenger cartra c, but in reight transport the di erence is signi cant (Fig. 8).

Figure 8. Di erences due to allocation method in average abiotic MIPS values or tra c on publicroads.

2.5.2

Bicycle transport

In the MIPS study on bicycle tra c questions o allocation apply mainly to the in -rastructure, in other words the allocation o materials or shared-use paths between bicycle transport, pedestrians and other users. MIPS values obtained by two di erentallocation methods have been presented in the bicycle transport case study. Thesetwo allocation methods are extremes among the possible alternatives. Here we givea urther, new allocation method, the results rom which all somewhere between theresults o those in the case study. Lighting o the path has been calculated accordingto all the ridden kilometres in all the alternatives, even i the cycle lane is not entirelyallocated to bicycles.

Discussion about shared-use path allocation generated a great deal o debate re-garding on whose terms cycle lanes have been constructed and are constructed. Theexistence o cycle lanes is o ten de ended on the grounds o sa ety or cyclists. Thereputation and popularity o separate cycle lanes as a sa e thorough are is, however,open to doubt in the light o accident statistics. According to numerous studies,

Passenger transport abiotic MIPS

0.210.34

1.69 1.51

0.00

0.20

0.400.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

passenger car bus/coach

k g / p e r s o n k m

ADT

weighted ADT

Goods transport abiotic MIPS

0.20

0.61

0.14

0.36

0.46

0.26

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

l orry l or ry wi th sem i-trailer

lorry with trailer

k g / t o n n e k m

ADTweighted ADT


33/106


cycling is sa est alongside motorised tra c in streets and roads, and least sa e oncycle lanes running alongside streets. Between these two extremes are cycle lanesthat are separated rom the street network. Similar observations on the sa ety o cyclelanes have been reported in Finland (Rsnen & Summala 1998) and North America(Aultman-Hall & Hall 1998; Aultman-Hall & Kaltenecker 1999), as well as in Germany

(Monheim & Dandor er-Monheim 1990).From the standpoint o increasing bicycling, however, the eeling o sa ety is at least

as important as the actual sa ety. The Ministry o Transport and Communications bicycle policy programme (Ministry o Transport and Communications 2001) saysthat more cycle lanes are needed. Bicycle lanes enhance the attraction o cycling andat least the perception o sa e cycling (Kallioinen 2002; Neuvonen 2002).

When considering allocation based on sa ety aspects, it was said that bicyclistssa ety could also be improved by reducing the speed o motorised tra c. In a built-up area, or example, with speed limits o 30 0 kilometres per hour, cyclists couldride alongside the tra c without the necessity or separate lanes. Outside such areas,where the speed o motorised vehicles is clearly higher than that o cycles, there aremore solid grounds rom the sa ety and com ort angles or the provision o separatecycle lanes. In such areas cycle lanes are also requently separated rom roads, therebyreducing accidents between bicyclists and motorists (Rsnen & Summala 1998). Onthese bases, cycle lanes could be allocated di erently in urban areas and less heavilypopulated areas.

From the standpoint o the MIPS concept, it is simpler to allocate the in rastructureto its actual users, irrespective o or what reason and on whose terms the in rastruc-ture has been constructed. Otherwise, one is required to consider cause-and-e ect backgrounds or equivalent in rastructure use or other orms o transport, too, whichwould undermine the objective o creating MIPS values as an aid to MIPS calculationsor other actions. Consequently, allocation methods based on sa ety concepts wereabandoned. In the nal discussion, the choice was made between three allocationmethods. O these, the third, in which cycle lanes are not allocated to cycles, wasincluded to show that the matter o allocation method had been approached rom avariety o di erent angles.

Allocation 1: Cycle lanes or cycles

In the rst allocation method the material consumption o cycles, cycle lanes and ligh-ting was included in the MIPS value (Hakkarainen et al. 200 , p 28). In this instancecycle lane means hal a shared-use path, i.e. a lane divided equally between cyclistsand pedestrians.

In this method o allocation, which is also the case studys rst option, the in -

rastructure is allocated to the entity that uses it. The starting point o the allocationmethod is that cycle lanes are designed rom the bicyclists perspective. Robust, high-pro le lanes give cycling the status o a genuine orm o transport. Cycling along acycle lane is elt to be a sa er orm o travel than cycling alongside motorised tra c.Many people, especially children, who are not overly amiliar with road sa ety rules,use cycle lanes. Behaviour and attitudes towards bicycling learnt as a child are easilycarried over into later stages o li e (Neuvonen 2002, p 37, 8, 62).

Using this allocation method, MIPS values are calculated in the ollowing way

Documents

SY820en TransportMIPS - Natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system.pdf [Attachment, Publication/brochure, 1790 kb]