Ppt-presentation of the study - NECL II

MIDNORDIC TRANSPORT STUDY
NECL II project Study 3.4
Summary of Results

Transport Study Background and Objectives
• Part of Midnordic Green Transport Corridor project
(NECL II) part-financed by EU’s Baltic Sea Region
Programme
• Project develops action to enhance transport
corridor stretching from central Norway via
Sweden and Finland to Russia
• Transport study focused on competitiveness and
development needs of east-west transport chains
via Central Finland

Midnordic Transport Network

Forecast of Russian Imports (excl. oil, coal and raw materials)
• Russian imports is forecasted
to grow substantially in
product groups which have
notable production in Mid-
Nordic regions
• Product groups suited well in
container and Ro-Ro
transport, which combines
even small transport flows
cost-efficiently
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Import to Russia 2011 (1 000 t)
Import to Russia 2020 (1 000 t)
Finland
Rest of the EU
Rest of the World
Finland
Rest of the EU
Rest of the World
Graph source: Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications 2013

Finnish Port Transport Route Comparisons
• West-coast ports are
competitive, especially in
accessibility by rail, compared
to HaminaKotka
• In transport costs, differences
between transport modes are
small. Electrified rail
connection to Rauma is most
competitive.
• Ports’ liner traffic frequency
important for several product
groups
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Ports - Jyväskylä (h, B)
Ports - Jyväskylä (€, A)
Road
Railway
Road
Railway

ROUTE STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Kokkola - Container and chemical
Central Finland traffic of Port of Kokkola
Vaasa-
Central Finland
Kaskinen-
Central Finland
Port’s roro connections to
Sweden
Strong in sawn timber
transport
The forest industry in
Central Finland prefers
other ports
Few connections to
feeder ports
Lack of liner traffic
Ostrobothnia track
improvement being
finalised
Development of Vaasa-
Seinäjoki region increases
need for east-west
connections
Possibly new bio diesel
factory
Postponement of
Kokkola-Ykspihlaja rail
projects
Possible profitability
problems with new
shipping connections
Availibility of financing for
railroad improvement
Pori-
Central Finland
Rauma-
Central Finland
Turku-
Central Finland
HaminaKotka-
Central Finland
Port strong in
high&heavy transport
Overseas connections
from the Port of Rauma
Central Finland’s most
important export port at
west coast
Frequent Ro-Ro
connections
Frequent liner
connections
One of the main ports for
Unelectrified end of rail
connection
Not very strong logistics
sector in the region
Slowest transport times
both by road and rail
Suitable road connection
for special transport
Expansion of port and a
new container quay
Ongoing study on Turku-
Tampere connection
Congested rail connection Highway 4 part of the
European core network
Congested rail connection
Liner traffic frequency
dependent on UPM paper
factory
Unadequate container
ship frequency
Diminishing transit
volumes increases prices
in export container

Border-station Transport Route Comparisons
• Southernmost borderstations
between Finland and
Russia are best accessible by
road and have best road
connections on the Russian
border
• Russia plans to partly transfer
rail freight from Vainikkala to
Imatrankoski route
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jyväskylä - Border stations (h, B)
Jyväskylä - Border stations (€, A)
Road
Railway
Road
Railway

ROUTE STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATHS
Central Finland- Procument area for The track in most parts Niirala logistics area
Niirala
forest industry
unelectrified
Central Finland-
Parikkala
Uncongested route for
freight traffic
Central Finland-
Imatra/Imatrankoski
Central Finland-
Nuijamaa/
Vainikkala
Central Finland-
Vaalimaa
Logistics services
closeby the borderstation
Best accessible border
station from Jyväskylä
Electrified rail
connections
Most important route
for exports by rail
Most important borderstation
for exports
Only temporary border
crossing for imports
from Russia
In Finland track is
mostly unelectrified
Lack of logistics services
Traffic via Savonlinna by
diesel trains
Rail capacity
Parikkala-Imatra
Kouvola’s role as a
competitive railway hub
to Central Finland
Congested route
Lenght of rail
connection
Congested borderstation
Shortest rail connection
to the border, if
connection to
Elisenvaara restored
Transfer of rail freight
from Vainikkala
Agreement with Russia
on exports by rail
Rail investment projects
in Finland and Russia
Combined rail-road
transport between
Finland and Moscow
Development of
Vainikkala rail yard
E18 road development
projects
Rail connection
requires an agreement
between the states
Capacity problems on
Imatra-Svetogorsk track
Rail capacity Luumäki-
Imatra, if double track
investment is
postponed
Transfer of rail freight
to Imatrankoski route
Notable growth in
passenger traffic
Major traffic growth
increases congestion

Comparison of International Routes 1
• Mid-Nordic route was
compared to selected routes
between Asia/North America
and St. Petersburg
• Comparison was focused on
container transport, where
• Re-loading is common and
even small transport flows
are combined into greater
volumes

Comparison of International Routes 2
New York - St. Petersburg (km)
• Mid-Nordic route is
competitive in transport
length in transport between
North America and Russia
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Road
Short sea
Overseas
• Major challenge for the Mid-
Nordic route is minor
container and liner traffic of
Port of Trondheim
14
12
10
8
6
New York - St. Petersburg (d, A)
Road
4
2
0
Short sea
Overseas

Conclusions (1/2)
• Transport of the Midnordic Corridor
• Russian import markets the most potential for the corridor
(food, machinery, and chemical exports)
• Sphere of influence of Trondheim logistics centre most likely
to be restricted to Norway and Sweden
• Transport between Finnish west coast and Central Finland
• No foreseen major shift of transport flows to west-coast
routes
• The ports of Rauma and Pori are the most competitive ones
in terms of land transport routes and shipping frequencies

Conclusions (2/2)
• Transport between Central Finland and border stations
• For imports of forest industry, functionality of the
Niirala and Imatra routes important both in road and
rail transport. Role of Parikkala in road transport
possible to develop for reasonable costs.
• Part of rail freight transport from Vainikkala to
Imatrankoski route increases need to improve costefficiency
of latter route
• In order to avoid congestion at Vaalimaa and Nuijamaa,
exports by road need good alternative routes

Development Objectives for the Midnordic Corridor for 2020
Objective
1 MIDNORDIC IS A LOGISTICS QUALITY CORRIDOR FOR EASTBOUND EXPORTS
The area has well-performing and safe transport connections to the most important
border crossings of imports and exports and destinations in Russia
INDICATOR
Transport time h
Transport costs €
Export volume t/a
The Midnordic Corridor creates cooperation-oriented and competitive transport
chains to the Russian markets
2 MIDNORDIC IS SELF-SUFFICIENT IN LOGISTICS SERVICES
Logistics service companies located in the Midnordic regions provide sufficient and
high-quality services serving the needs of local business life
3 RAIL FREIGHT TRANSPORT HAS A MAJOR SHARE IN MIDNORDIC LOGISTICS
An increase in the share of rail freight transport decreases traffic congestion and
environmental impact
Rail freight terminal services enable developing competitive rail freight in domestics
transport as well
4 MIDNORDIC IS A COMPETITIVE LOCATION FOR EXPORTING INDUSTRIES
Midnordic is a competitive location for exporting industries
- Forest, machinery, food, and chemical products industries
Value of production in
transport and
warehousing €
Company satisfaction in
surveys %
Share t/tkm %
Number of rail freight
terminal and their
throughput t/a
Value of production and
exports €/a

Suggested Actions for Developing East-west Midnordic Corridor Transport Routes
N:o DESCRIPTION
1a Improvement of cross-border traffic between Finland and Russia
Improvement of speed and safety at road connections, especially in Russia
Faster cross-border procedures
1b
Improvement of export cooperation to Russia and development of export concepts in
collaboration with Midnordic partners
Setting up Nordic export partner group
Utilisation of logistics centres in combining exports flows of SMEs
Studies on further potential in logistics synergies
2 Enhancement of logistics service markets
3a
3b
4a
4b
Studies on adequancy of service supply
Ensuring of prerequisites of logistics service providers
Preparation for transfer of rail freight transport from Vainikkala to Imatrankoski route
Improvement of rail track between Imatra and Imatrankoski
After significant traffic growth, improvement of Pieksämäki - Parikkala track
Taking advantage of new opportunities in rail freight logistics
Potential launch of combined transport service to Russia, potential of rail freight development by
new capacity along the Oulu-Helsinki railroad, container freight transport concepts and terminals,
increase in rail freight competition
Follow-up and enhancement of prerequisites of Midnordic exporting industries
Removal of bottlenecks along major export and import routes

FURTHER INFORMATION
• Regional Council of Central Finland
Traffic Engineer: Pekka Kokki
E-mail: pekka.kokki@keskisuomi.fi
Phone: +358-40-595 0006
• Report available at
www.keskisuomi.fi/kuljetusselvitys
• NECL II project homepage: www.midnordictc.net