T h e

F i n n i s h

E n v i r o n m e n t

820en

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Satu Lähteenoja - Michael Lettenmeier - Arto Saari

Transport MIPS
The natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system

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

THE FINNISH ENV I RO N M E N T

820en | 2006

Transport MIPS
The natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system Satu Lähteenoja – Michael Lettenmeier – Arto Saari

Helsinki 2006

MINISTRY OF THE E N V I RO N M E N T

THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT 820en | 2006 Ministry of the Environment Environmental Protection Department Layout: Marjatta Naukkarinen Photo: Petri Kuokka The publication is available in the internet: www.environment.fi

ISBN 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF) ISSN 1796-1637 (online)

FOREWORD
Sustainable development calls for an improvement in eco-efficiency among human society as a whole and in all its actions. The environmental impact of the different forms of transport has traditionally been viewed and comparisons made from the standpoint of emissions and energy consumption. The MIPS (Material Input per Unit Service) indicator used in this study expands the perspective to the natural resource consumption during an entire life cycle, thereby bringing a new slant to the discussion on the environmental effects of transport and sustainable development. This study has formed part of a larger, two-stage FIN-MIPS Transport research project in which the natural resource consumption of the transport system and different modes of transport over entire life cycles have been studied. Case studies were made during the first stage of the project on maritime, air, rail, road and bicycle transport. In the second phase of the project, a study on local transport has been made as an adjunct to this study. In this study MIPS values were calculated for road, bicycle, rail, air, maritime and local transport in Finland by generalising the case studies. For the main part this report contains the same information as the report published in Finnish (Suomen ympäristö/Finnish Environment 820). However, to make comprehension easier, certain parts have either been added or omitted. The main financial supporters of the FIN-MIPS Transport project have been the Ministry of Transport and Communications and Ministry of the Environment. Further funds have been provided by the Finnish Road Administration, Finnish Maritime Administration, Finnish Rail Administration, Civil Aviation Authority, and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation has been responsible for the carrying out and coordination of the study. The project has been accomplished as part of the Ministry of the Environment’s Finnish Environmental Cluster Research Programme. Participants in the project’s steering group were Merja Saarnilehto, Mauri Heikkonen and Jarmo Muurman from the Ministry of the Environment, Saara Jääskeläinen, Raija Merivirta and Outi Väkevä from the Ministry of Transport and Communications, Arto Hovi from the Finnish Rail Administration, Niina Rusko and Mikko Viinikainen from the Civil Aviation Authority, Olli Holm from the Finnish Maritime Administration, Tuula Säämänen and Anders Jansson from the Finnish Road Administration, Otto Lehtipuu from VR Group, Pertti Pitkänen from Finnair, Maria Joki-Pesola from the City of Helsinki, and Arto Saari and Michael Lettenmeier from the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. The steering group has also acted as the support group for this study. The FIN-MIPS Traffic research project was headed by Dr. Arto Saari and coordinated by eco-efficiency consultant Michael Lettenmeier. The calculations for the study were carried out by Satu Lähteenoja. The techniques and research methods used were planned by Satu Lähteenoja, Michael Lettenmeier and Arto Saari, who also wrote the report. In addition to the contributions of the members of the steering group, significant support has been received from Senior expert Aarno Valkeisenmäki from the Finnish Road Enterprise, aircraft engine specialist Janne Pallonen from Finnair, traffic planning engineer Antero Naskila from the City of Helsinki’s Planning Department, development manager Harri Ajomaa from the Finnish Post Corporation, Business Excellence Manager Tuija Janakka from TNT Finland Oy, traffic coordinator Reijo Prokkola from the Finnish Road Administration, assistant manager Kirsti TarnanenSariola from the Finnish Port Association, Ilmo Mäenpää from the Thule Institute,

and those carrying out the FIN-MIPS Transport project’s case studies, namely Elviira Hakkarainen, Anni Nieminen, Kaisa Pusenius, Aino Rantanen, Suvi Talja and Leena Vihermaa. The contribution to the implementation and success of the project of all those mentioned has been considerable. In addition, valuable information for the accomplishment of the case studies has been supplied by numerous individuals in the employ of the Finnish Road Administration and the Finnish Road Enterprise. We wish to thank all those who participated in the implementation of the project. Hopefully, the study will help promote sustainable development within the transport sector! Helsinki, February 2006

Satu Lähteenoja

Michael Lettenmeier

Arto Saari 

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7
1.1 1.2

Background, purpose and design of the study .......................................... 7 Finland’s transport system ............................................................................. 8 Eco-efficiency and MIPS ............................................................................... 16
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5

2 Material and methods ......................................................................................... 16
2.1

Concept of eco-efficiency..................................................................... 16 Indicator of eco-efficiency: MIPS........................................................ 17 Reducing material flows ...................................................................... 18 Criticism of the MIPS method ............................................................ 19 Previous studies on the subject ......................................................... 19

2.2 2.3 2.4

Study material ................................................................................................. 20 Boundaries set for this study ....................................................................... 20 Main assumptions .......................................................................................... 21
2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5

Road transport ...................................................................................... 22 Bicycle transport ................................................................................... 23 Rail transport ....................................................................................... 23 Air transport ........................................................................................ 23 Maritime transport ............................................................................... 2 Road transport ...................................................................................... 26 Bicycle transport ................................................................................... 30 Rail transport ........................................................................................ 33 Air transport ......................................................................................... 3 Maritime transport ............................................................................... 3

2.5

Infrastructure material input allocation to transport ............................2
2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5

2.6 2.7

Choice of allocation methods applied in the study ................................ 36 Calculation examples ....................................................................................37 Natural resource consumption of road transport ...................................38
3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4

3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 38
3.1

MI values for road transport ............................................................... 38 Calculating natural resource consumption for a desired route .... 1 MIPS values for road transport by road and street category ......... 1 MIPS values on average for road transport in Finland................... 3 MI values for bicycle transport ..........................................................  MIPS values and calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route ................................................................................  MI values for rail transport ................................................................  Calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route 6 MIPS values per track type ................................................................. 7 Average MIPS values ........................................................................... 8

3.2

Natural resource consumption by bicycle transport ............................... 
3.2.1 3.2.2

3.3

Natural resource consumption by rail transport ..................................... 
3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4

Ministry of the Environment 

3.4

Natural resource consumption by air transport ...................................... 9
3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3

MI values for air transport ................................................................. 9 Calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route 0 Average MIPS values .......................................................................... 1 MI values for maritime transport ..................................................... 1 Average MIPS values .......................................................................... 2

3.5

Natural resource consumption by maritime transport ........................... 1
3.5.1 3.5.2

3.6

Natural resource consumption by Finland’s transport system .............3 Calculation examples for passenger traffic ..............................................7 Calculation examples for freight traffic .................................................... 67 Basis of the study ............................................................................................72 Main observations .........................................................................................73
5.2.1 5.2.2

4 Calculation examples ..........................................................................................7
4.1 4.2

5 Summary of results and conclusions ............................................................. 72
5.1 5.2

MIPS figures for different modes of transport ................................ 73 Overall consumption of natural resources by the traffic system . 76

5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Ways of reducing the material intensity of transport ............................. 76 Evaluation of reliability of results ............................................................. 82 MIPS as a measure of natural resource consumption by transport ....83 Proposals for further study ......................................................................... 8 In conclusion ................................................................................................... 8

References......................................................................................................................... 87 Appendix 1 MIPS values for road transport ...................................................... 91 Appendix 2 MIPS values for air transport .........................................................93 Appendix 3 Calculation of the natural resource consumption of freight transport by the TNT concern: examples ................. 98 Documentation page ................................................................................................. 101

6

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

1 Introduction

1.1

Background, purpose and design of the study
Traditionally, in environmental studies on transport the focus has been on emissions to the air, water and soil, and on energy consumption and noise pollution. In this study we have not concentrated on emissions, but on the natural resource consumption of transport. The method used is the so-called MIPS method (Material Input per Service Unit) developed by the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy in the early 1990s. With this method it is possible to relate the natural resources consumed to the resulting service performance, and to thereby obtain eco-efficiency values, for example, for different modes of transport, which allows for valid comparisons to be made. The study forms part of a more extensive FIN-MIPS Transport project. In this project the natural resource consumption in Finland in relation to the passengerand tonne-kilometres transported has been calculated. The first phase of the study focussed on five sub-areas of the transport system: road transport, rail transport, air transport, maritime transport, and bicycle transport. These case studies have been published in Finnish in separate reports in the Ministry of Transport and Communications’ series of publications in 200 and, so far, partly in English (Vihermaa et al. 2006, Saari et al. 2007). The case study on the local transport network and the natural resource consumption relating to its use was published in the same series in spring 2006. The FIN-MIPS Transport project results are needed for calculating MIPS values for products or services, or when comparative data is required on the natural resource consumption of different modes of transport during their life cycle. The aim of this study is to: • Generalise the case study results of the project on the consumption of natural resources by different modes of transport for the whole of Finland. • Produce calculation data and a method by means of which the natural resource consumption of a desired route or journey in Finland could be calculated. • Present different practical examples and through these compare the natural resource consumption of different modes of transport. • Consider ways of reducing the material intensity of the transport system. The report comprises five chapters. At the end of the first chapter (introduction) a general review of Finland’s transport system is given. In the second chapter the research material and methods are described. The third chapter deals with the results obtained for each form of transport, as well as at the level of the entire transport system. The method of calculation for calculating the MIPS values for each mode of

Ministry of the Environment

7

transport is also described. In the fourth chapter the results obtained are related to genuine situations by means of some calculation examples. The fifth chapter brings together the main conclusions, in addition to presenting some ideas as to how the material intensity of transport could possibly be reduced. In the MIPS study of the transport system it was necessary to make different assumptions to carry out the calculations. For this reason, it is good to bear in mind that the figures presented as results are not absolute truths, rather they describe well the magnitude of natural resource consumption by the different modes of transport in Finland. MIPS brings a completely new dimension to the discussion on the environmental impact of transport which broadens the perspective from its previous dimensions but which is, however, only one method among others.
1.2

Finland’s transport system
Finland’s transport system consists of the transport infrastructure, the traffic using this, and the norms and control measures (like taxes and laws) that control the transport sector. Road, rail, water and air transport form an integrated system which makes it possible for people to move, and goods to be transported, in an effective and purposeful manner (Finnish Road Administration 1999). The transport system is one of society’s basic structures. Its development is controlled by social policy objectives. The characteristics of the system are essentially affected by how well the different components and different forms of transport combine. This can be vastly influenced by developing the transport system through holistic cooperation between the different performers and not merely through isolated individual plans (Ministry of Transport and Communications 200). The transport system is used to meet the requirements for moving both people and goods. The total length of Finland’s traffic routes, which include public roads, streets, private roads, railways, water routes, the metro (underground) and tramways, is 70,000 kilometres (Ministry of Transport and Communications 200). The Ministry of Transport and Communications makes a comprehensive study of travel habits in Finland at six-year intervals. The most recent passenger transport study is from 1999 (Ministry of Transport and Communications 1999). The results of the latest passenger transport study, material for which was collected in 200–200 (Uusnäkki 200), were not yet available when this study was carried out. Partly for this reason there are figures that deviate from each other in the statistical data presented below. However, the magnitude of these reveals the situation in Finland extremely well.

8

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

nationally important road border crossing point winter harbour airport travel centre cargo terminal

Figure 1. Nationally important road, sea and air transport network (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2000: 17).

Trends in traffic
Traffic in Finland grew vigorously between the 1960s and the 1990s. During the economic depression growth momentarily slowed down but is now again in the region of 2– percent per annum. Figures 2 and 3 show the trends in performances in passenger and freight transport in Finland over the last few decades.

Ministry of the Environment

9

Trends in passenger traf c in 1960-2004 70 60 50 billion person km 40 30 20 10 0 1960 Passenger car traf c Bus/coach traf c Rail traf c Air traf c Maritime traf c

1965

1970

1975

1980 year

1985

1990

1995

2000

Figure 2. Trends in passenger traffic in 1960–2004 (Finnish Road Administration 2005a).

Trends in domestic traf c in 1960-2004

30 25
billion tonne km

20 15 10 5 0 1960

Road traf c * Rail traf c Maritime traf c

1965

1970

1975

1980 year

1985

1990

1995

2000

Figure 3. Trends in domestic freight traffic in 1960–2004 (Finnish Road Administration 2005a). * Road traffic comprises lorry and van traffic.

Transport today
In Finland around ,900 million passenger transport journeys are made per year. The total performance of passenger transport in 200 was 68, million passenger-kilometres, 9 percent of which consisted of road transport, the rest being spread over rail, water and air transport. The freight transport performance in 200 totalled 1.9 million tonne-kilometres (Finnish Road Administration 200a). Half of all passenger journeys are less than six kilometres in length (Ministry of Transport and Communications 1999). The share of public transport in domestic passenger transport is approximately 16 percent (Ministry of Transport and Communications 200). Two-thirds of freight transport performances consist of road transport and one-quarter of rail transport.

10

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Vehicular transport
The vehicular transport infrastructure is divided into public roads maintained by the Finnish Road Administration, and streets and private roads maintained by municipalities and the private sector. Public road transport can be considered to mainly consist of long-distance traffic and that on streets and private roads to constitute local traffic. The total length of Finland’s road network comes to around ,000 kilometres, of which approximately 78,000 kilometres, or 20 percent of the road network, consists of public roads. Most of 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 of a functional road classification into five categories: motorways (which are actually part of the class 1 main roads network), class 1 main roads (i.e. class 1 main roads other than motorways), class 2 main roads, regional roads, and connecting roads. There are some 63 kilometres of motorways in Finland (Finnish Road Administration 200b).

Length of entire road network (km)

Division of public roads

26,000 78,000 Municipal streets Public roads Private roads 350,000 66 %

11 % 6% Main roads, 1st class Main roads, 2nd class Regional roads Connecting roads

17 %

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

Finland’s public roads on average are used by 1,200 vehicles per 2 hours (Table 1). The overall transport performance on public roads in 2003 was 33 billion vehiclekilometres (Tiefakta 200; Yleiset tiet 1.1.200). Over 60 percent of the transport performances on public roads take place on class 1 main roads (including motorways) and class 2 main roads, and only 19 percent of transport performances take place on connecting roads, the length of which accounts for 66 percent of the entire public road network. Eighteen percent of transport performances take place on the motorways.

Table 1. Length, average daily traffic (ADT) and annual transport performance by road category (Yleiset tiet 1.1.2004). Motorway Length (km) ADT Transport performance (mill. vehicle-km/year) 794 20,621 5,976 Class 1 main road 7,780 3,611 10,255 Class 2 main road 4,686 2,501 4,277 Regional road 13,469 1,283 6,307 Connecting road 51,469 329 6,189 All public roads 78,198 1,200 33,004

Ministry of the Environment

11

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

Vehicles in 2003 2.6 % 9.6 % 0.4 % 0.6 % passenger cars 2,274,572 buses/coaches 10,358 vans 250,107 lorries 67,637 other vehicles 14,942 86.9 %

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

There are approximately 26,000 kilometres of municipal streets in Finland. Most of the streets were constructed from the 1970s to the 1990s. The majority of streets lead to residential properties, ensuring access to these by car. From these streets, traffic is conducted to collector streets, which then conduct the traffic to main streets. Sixtynine percent of all municipal streets are streets leading to residential properties, 27 percent are collector streets, and  percent are main streets (Finnish Road Administration 200b). Of the kilometres driven on these streets, around 70 percent are driven on main streets, 17 percent on collector streets, and 13 percent on streets leading to properties. The total transport performance on streets is approximately 1.8 million road-kilometres a year (Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT 200). Seventy-seven percent of Finland’s road network, or some 30,000 kilometres, constitutes private roads. Private roads have been constructed gradually according to local transport requirements and they are managed by their users. (Finnish Road Administration 200b.) Despite the length of the road network, the transport performance on private roads comes to only approximately one billion vehicle-kilometres a year (Tiefakta 200).

Bicycle transport
Statistics relating to cycling and the number of bicycles in Finland are not as precise as they are on other forms of transport. However, several assessments of these are available. According to the Ministry of Transport and Communications, 80 percent of Finns have a bicycle (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2001: 8). In this study the assessments used were made by the Association of Finnish Bicycle Manufacturers (200), who estimated that there are some 3.1 million bicycles which are ridden 1.3 billion kilometres a year (Hakkarainen et al. 200: 26). Thus, one bicycle is ridden approximately 20 kilometres a year. According to the 1999 passenger transport study, one out of ten journeys is made by bicycle, that is, the same number as made by public transport. Regional differences are great. In Oulu, cycling accounts for as much as 20 percent of all journeys made.

12

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

The most cycling takes place in municipalities with a population of 8,000–0,000 (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2001: , 13). Of trips made by bicycle, 76 percent are less than three kilometres long. Twenty-eight percent of passenger car journeys are also less than three kilometres. On short journeys the bicycle competes well with the passenger car in terms of speed and the bicycle is highly suitable as a means of transport on most such short trips. Men tend to use a passenger car more than women, whereas women more often use a bicycle or walk (Ministry of Transport and Communications 1999: 38-39, 8). Shared-use paths allow both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Finland has 12,000 kilometres of shared-use paths where cycling is permitted (Hakkarainen et al. 200: 27). Of these, ,730 kilometres are located alongside public roads, meaning that they are the Finnish Road Administration’s responsibility, and the others are the responsibility of municipalities (Finnish Road Administration 200a). A realistic target in cycling has been to raise the contribution of bicycle journeys to a quarter of all journeys. To make cycling an attractive alternative, residences, work places and services should be located close to each other. Additionally, an uninterrupted network of bicycle paths would be necessary. This does not, however, mean specific lanes for cyclists in every place, because streets and roads are safe for cyclists provided the speed of motorised traffic is low (Ojala 2000: 99).

Rail transport
Almost 60 million passenger-kilometres were covered on the railways in 2003. Rail transport accounts for around one percent of all passenger transport journeys in Finland. The passenger transport performance on the railways is 3,338 million passenger-kilometres, or approximately  percent of passenger transport journeys overall. Around one-quarter of Finland’s freight transportation takes place on the railways. In 2003 a total of 3. million tonnes of goods were transported by rail (Finnish Rail Administration 200). The length of Finland’s entire railway network (Fig. 6) is ,81 kilometres, of which ,63 kilometres consists of main track. Of the entire length of the railway network, 91.3 percent, or ,3 kilometres, is single-track and 8.7 percent, or 07 kilometres, is either double-track or multi-track. A total of 1,893 kilometres of single-track railway has been electrified, while all the double- or multi-track lines have been electrified. The entire line length, including sidings, is 8,707 kilometres (Finnish Rail Administration 200: 8).

Ministry of the Environment

13

Figure 6. Finland’s rail network (Finnish Rail Administration 2004: 9, adapted).

Air transport
The proportion of air transport in domestic passenger transport performances in 2000 was about two percent, and that of freight transport performances was around one percent. In international passenger transport the contribution of air transport was appreciably higher than in domestic passenger transport; in 2000 air transport accounted for 1 percent of Finland’s international passenger transport (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2002). In 2003 over 13 million passengers travelled by air in Finland, this being 0 percent more than 10 years previously (Civil Aviation Authority 200). The state-owned Finavia maintains 2 airports in Finland. At these airports, 27 runways are in use in winter and 33 in summer. The combined length of these runways is around 7 kilometres (Ministry of the Environment 2003). In this study not only the airports belonging to Finavia, but also those owned by the municipalities of Seinäjoki and Mikkeli, which have regular air transport, are included (see Fig. 1).

1

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Maritime transport
The majority of freight transport between Finland and other countries takes place by sea. In 2003 around 88 million tonnes of goods were transported between Finland and foreign destinations. The proportion of maritime transport in Finland’s exportation and importation in 2002, measured in tonnes, came to over 77 percent. In 2003 passenger traffic between Finland and foreign countries amounted to 1.6 million passengers. This figure includes both arriving and departing passengers. Most of Finland’s passenger traffic taking place between Finland and places abroad is destined for Sweden or Estonia (Finnish Maritime Administration 200). According to the Finnish Maritime Administration’s (200) statistics, 636 vessels measuring 1 metres at minimum were recorded in Finland’s registry of shipping in 200. By law, vessels of this length and longer have to be recorded in Finland’s regional register. This trade fleet was divided in 2001 into vessel types as follows: passenger vessels made up 3 percent of the total number of vessels, dry cargo vessels made up 20 percent, tankers approximately  percent, and other vessels some 1 percent. The proportion of Finnish vessels in the transportation performances of Finland’s maritime traffic, that is, tonne-kilometres, is approximately 20 percent (Finnish Maritime Administration 2002). Finland has over 0 ports handling foreign cargoes. Of these, 23 operate all year round (see Fig. 1). However, cargo transportation is clearly concentrated at the larger ports: in 2001 the ten largest ports handled 7 percent of all cargo traffic (Viitanen et al. 2003, cit. Lindqvist et al. 200: 1). Finland’s water traffic shipping channels comprise marine channels, inland water channels, and canals. The channels are maintained by the Finnish Maritime Administration. There are a total of 8,200 kilometres of coastal channels, of which cargo shipping channels (of depth .0–1.3 metres) amount to ,600 kilometres. The Finnish Maritime Administration maintains 2,000 safety devices in the channels, including lighthouses, buoys and channel markers. Public shipping utilities in Finland own nine ice breakers (Vesiväylät 200).

Ministry of the Environment

1

2 Material and methods

2.1

Eco-efficiency and MIPS
2.1.1

Concept of eco-efficiency
The concept of eco-efficiency has formed part of environmental discussions and studies for over a decade already. It means the efficiency of natural resource use, or in other words, the relationship between the benefit derived from a product or service and the natural resources consumed in achieving it. The basic concept can be condensed into two words: more from less (Rissa 2001, p 10). The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) opened up the concept to public discussion at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Council defined eco-efficiency as follows: ”Eco-efficiency is achieved by the delivery of competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life cycle to a level at least in line with the Earth’s estimated carrying capacity”. The eco-efficiency concept brings a new perspective to environmental protection. Traditionally, in environmental protection the accent has been almost entirely on hazardous substances and emissions endangering human health. According to Schmidt-Bleek (2002, p 67–70), this kind of traditional environmental policy which focuses on reducing proven hazardous substances cannot be efficient and preventative. Alongside studies on the toxicity of individual substances we ought to pay attention to the massive material flows used by and caused by mankind that are responsible, for example, for the environmental impact of energy consumption. Studying material flows initiated by mankind and reducing these is important because rapidly growing material flows alter the world’s ecological balance. This may have consequences we are not yet even aware of (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 23–26). According to the eco-efficiency concept, securing sustainable development necessitates a reduction in the material intensity of societies — known as dematerialisation. This requires a change in production and consumption habits by improving the efficiency of natural resource consumption. On a global scale, material flows need to be cut by around one-half of their present level. In addition, as there is a wish to divide prosperity evenly over the world, industrial countries must increase the efficiency of their natural resource consumption tenfold over the next few decades. This goal is called Factor Ten (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 177–190). This line of thought may also bring a long-awaited connection between the economy and the environment: by improving

16

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

the efficiency of material consumption not only the environment, but also money will be saved (Hoffrén 1999, p 13–1). In order to assess and study material consumption, we must be able to measure it reliably. As an indicator of eco-efficiency many alternatives have been put forward, one of which is the MIPS indicator used in this study.
2.1.2

Indicator of eco-efficiency: MIPS
At the beginning of the 1990s, the Wuppertal Institute in Germany began to develop an indicator with which it could be possible to reliably reflect the environmental impact of products and services from the material flow perspective. This indicator had to be clear and simple to use, it had to be suitable for processes, products and even 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 measures the eco-efficiency of a product throughout its life cycle, that is, the material consumption in relation to the benefit obtained from the product. The MIPS indicator is composed of an MI value (the material and energy consumption of the product or service throughout its whole life cycle) and an S value (the service unit of the product or service). MIPS is calculated by dividing the material input MI by the total amount of service performance (Autio & Lettenmeier 2002, p 1).

MIPS

MI S

Material Input Service unit

Material input (MI)
MI is the sum of the natural resource use throughout the entire life cycle of a product or service. The MI factor is a number embodying all the material amounts transferred during the processing of the raw material per weight unit of the raw material in question, including the material transfers required by the energy consumption involved. It would thus also include, for example, material transferred during ore quarrying and coal mining. The measurement unit is kg/kg, that is, kilograms material per kilograms raw material. The unit of energy input, especially the unit of electricity MI factors, is kg/kWh. To simplify calculation the Wuppertal Institute has already specified MI factors for different raw materials and forms of energy. By multiplying the amounts of materials in a product by the MI factor for each material the natural resource input for 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 MI factors belonging to these. By summing the MI results for different stages in the life cycle of a product, the material demand for each product can be obtained. Thus, the study extends to those components that the eye does not see, that is, it embraces the raw material manufacturing of the product until the end of its life cycle. According to the MIPS concept, material inputs are calculated separately in five different categories: abiotic materials, biotic materials, water, air, and earth movements in agriculture and forestry. Abiotic materials are solid mineral raw materials such as stone and ores from mines, quarries and smelting plants. Fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil and natural gas are also considered to be abiotic materials, as are all mineral deposits which have to be moved, for instance, in conjunction with quarrying, in addition to surplus excavation materials associated with, for example, the construction of buildings and roads (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 132–13).

Ministry of the Environment

17

Biotic materials include all plant biomass taken for human utilisation, that is, all cultivated, uncultivated, picked, gathered or otherwise beneficial plants. Animals also belong in this class, but in the case of animals reared by people the biomass of the food eaten by the animals (e.g. grass consumed by a cow) enters the calculations. Wild animals, fish and trees are also included among biotic materials (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 132–13). Water is included when it is removed from nature by technical means. Dammed water and rainwater, which are diverted from their original place as a consequence of human activities, are included. For instance, when calculating material flows for roads, all the rainwater falling on the asphalt is included, because it is prevented from being absorbed by a natural surface. Water quantities used in agriculture are also included in this category (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 132–13). Air is included when people change it chemically or physically. Only that part of the air which is changed is included in the calculations, for instance, the amount of oxygen used in combustion processes. Mechanically moved air, as for example air moved by a windmill or ventilator, is not taken into account (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 132–13). In agriculture and forestry, earth is moved through mechanical processes and erosion. In practice, erosion is generally used as the indicator. Research on this category is still continuing at the Wuppertal Institute, and MI factors have still to be announced, for example, for many agricultural products (Ritthoff et al. 2002).

Service unit (S)
In the MIPS concept, products and materials are seen as providers of a certain service or benefit: mankind does not need products merely for what they are, but for the services they perform. ‘Service unit’ means the benefit obtained from a product or service and it is always defined in each individual case. A service unit could be, for instance, a single wearing of an item of clothing, when clothes are the subject, or a passengeror tonne-kilometre, when forms of transport are being looked at. When the material input is divided by the service, beneficial products or systems produced by the same services can be compared with each other. This requires the service performance to be defined in the same way for all. Thus, for example, the consumption of natural resources by different modes of transport can be compared, when consumption by all forms of transport is correlated with passenger- or tonne-kilometres (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 113–119). When defining the service unit one easily arrives at a situation in which a particular factor causing environmental loading or natural resource consumption has to be divided among different benefits or recipients of benefits. In such a case one has to resolve the problem of on what basis such division is to be carried out, that is, in what way the adverse factor is to be allocated between the different solutions. In this study the most significant allocation question is the allocation of infrastructure material inputs between different types of users (see section 2.6).
2.1.3

Reducing material flows
The idea behind the MIPS method is to develop products and services ending in a quality service using fewer natural resources than previously. The goal is attained by either reducing the material input, MI, or by increasing the service performance, S. The MIPS indicator can be used as a tool in industrial product design, as well as in the planning of services, production plants, and infrastructure, and in ecological evaluations. An advantage of the method is that the products producing the same

18

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

service become comparable when the material inputs are calculated for the same service unit. In the future MIPS could be included in, for example, infrastructure planning in the same way as other environmental impact assessments at the early stages of planning. By using the MIPS approach one also can separate ecologically beneficial recycling and other processes from those that are ecologically problematical. In addition, one can assess the acceptability of aid to developing countries and technical projects (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 128). A concept closely associated with the MIPS indicator is that of the ‘ecological rucksack’. This means the mass of material transferred as a result of a product or service, but the mass of the product is not included in the calculation as it is in MI values. The ‘ecological footprint’, on the other hand, attempts to indicate the surface area required for producing the product or service (e.g. Rissa 2001).
2.1.4

Criticism of the MIPS method
The indicators given as measures of eco-efficiency have attracted not only interest, but also criticism. Before making use of the method one should understand what MIPS is able to accomplish and what it cannot. Schmidt-Bleek (2002, p 127) stresses, for example, that MIPS can only be defined for final products that generate services, and not for raw materials or individual materials. One inherent weakness of the method is that it does not differentiate between different materials in terms of harmfulness and toxicity of material flows to the environment. MIPS has been criticised on the grounds that it is incapable of reflecting the actual amount of environmental impact caused by a product, since it gives the same weight to all the materials, irrespective of their differing environmental effects (e.g. Koskinen 2001). On the other hand, it is not the purpose of MIPS calculations to replace other methods of assessing environmental impact, rather it is intended to supplement them from the materials intensity perspective (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 129). A further weakness of the method is its laboriousness and uncertainty. As with other life-cycle calculations, calculating MIPS values for even a slightly complicated service or product takes a lot of time and calls for numerous assumptions and estimates. Even the MI factors published as a starting point by the Wuppertal Institute (Wuppertal Institute 200) are the results of many estimates and generalisations. It is difficult to check the calculations behind the indicators, as the values have been calculated by many parties and also include estimates. The Wuppertal Institute has not published all the calculations behind its MI factors nor their reliability limits, which means the user has only limited opportunity to assess the reliability of the factors or to set limits to the results obtained through them. Depending on the target, successful calculations of MIPS values may also require a considerable amount of expert assistance.
2.1.5

Previous studies on the subject
MIPS is still a relatively young method. The studies relating to it are mostly those published by the Wuppertal Institute. The Wuppertal Institute has published reports on the transport sector, mainly on rail transport and shipping (e.g. Stiller 199). Only freight transport MI values have been published for road transport (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 66; Wuppertal Institute 200). As far as we know, nowhere else in the world has a MIPS study as broad as this one been made on transport.

Ministry of the Environment

19

In Finland the MIPS method was experimented with on a broad scale for the first time in 2000–2002 in the “Factor X – Entering markets eco-efficiently” project. In this project enterprises examined the natural resource consumption of their products and services. Companies and professionals in the environmental sector were trained in the application of the MIPS and Factor X concepts. As a consequence, MIPS values corresponding to Finland’s conditions were obtained on, for instance, office furniture and hip surgery (Autio & Lettenmeier 2002). The City of Helsinki Public Works Department’s MateriaEuro project investigated the natural resource consumption of street building and maintenance (Hänninen et al. 200). Studies based on the MIPS method have been published in Finland as masters’ and diploma theses on both traffic (Lindqvist 200; Nieminen 200; Vihermaa 200; Pusenius 200; Hellén 200; Hänninen 200) and other entities, including university buildings (Sinivuori 200) and the consequences of waste policy (Salo 200). In Finland the use of natural resources by the national economy as a whole is calculated on an annual basis. Finland’s Total Material Requirement (TMR) calculations also include material flows from transport (Mäenpää et al. 2000). Out of the five natural resource categories which are calculated separately in the MIPS concept, TMR includes the abiotic and biotic material inputs, together with erosion.
2.2

Study material
The bases for this study have been the previous FIN-MIPS project case studies on the eco-efficiency of the different modes of transport (Hakkarainen et al. 200; Lindqvist et al. 200; Nieminen et al. 200; Pusenius et al. 200; Talja et al. 2006; Vihermaa et al. 200). Basic data on material input, together with some case calculations, were obtained from these studies, referred to below as the case studies. In addition to the basic data obtained, a lot of other information on the different components of the transport system had to be gathered. Owing to the nature of the work, the material used has been extremely variable in terms of quality, and information was sought from numerous different sources. Most of the written sources are publicly available on the Internet. In addition, many statements and much information were obtained from experts in many fields, both verbally and by email. In the main, the calculations and generalisations were made on the basis of the existing case studies. Thus, the MI factors used for the calculations are principally those used in the case studies in the project.
2.3

Boundaries set for this study
The transport system is extensive and complex with many components which are difficult to define precisely. Especially in conjunction with such broad material calculations, however, the setting of limits has been unavoidable, due to the sheer laboriousness of the calculations. The availability of information has also affected the extent of the studies. Of the five different natural resource classes used in MIPS, only abiotic material, water and air consumption are studied. In the case studies biotic material consumption was also examined. However, as all forms of transport were found to have only a slight impact in regard to the consumption of biotic materials, the latter were left entirely out of this study. Road traffic has been divided into three components: that on public roads, that in municipal streets, and that on private roads. The vehicles were divided into six types. Motor cycles, for instance, were left out. Privately built forest (logging) roads, and

20

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

other roads to forests or summer cottages in a drivable condition, were omitted from the study, because forest roads were assumed to be mainly confined to forestry use, and summer cottage roads to be very little used. Out of the total length of private roads (30,000 km), 100,000 kilometres are thus included in this study. For municipal streets, main streets, collector streets, and streets going to residential properties were considered separately in relation to natural resource consumption (Pusenius et al. 200, p 16–22; Talja et al. 2006). In regard to pedestrian and bicycle traffic, only bicycle transport has been studied. The natural resource consumption of riding a bicycle has not been calculated for anything other than for bicycle lanes (Hakkarainen et al. 200, p 21). It is a simple matter to sharply restrict Finland’s internal rail traffic since there are fewer performers and rail classes than in road transport. Finland’s entire long-distance rail transport has been studied in conjunction with rail transport, as well as the Helsinki Metropolitan Area’s 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 of military and general aviation traffic were taken into account when dividing the infrastructure material input between the different branches of aviation. In addition to Finland’s internal air transport, the scope of the study also includes air traffic leaving Finland for destinations abroad (Nieminen et al. 200, p 11). In the calculation of the material input of the entire air transport system (see section 2..), only air transport taking place within Finland’s economic area has been taken into consideration. In the case of shipping, inland water transport has been left completely out of the picture. The contribution of log floating to Finland’s freight transport is of the order of one percent. Coastal shipping and recreational boating have also been omitted from the maritime transport picture, and the study has concentrated only on commercial transport going abroad. Among the harbours, only winter ones are included, while the only shipping channels included are the ones leading to winter harbours. Four types of vessels have been examined (Lindqvist et al. 200, p 10, 16). For the calculation of maritime transport overall, only movement within Finland’s economic area has been taken into account.
2.4

Main assumptions
In the FIN-MIPS Transport project case studies the eco-efficiency of Finland’s modes of transport has been investigated on the basis of some examples. An effort was made to select these examples to give as representative picture as possible of the main types in each sector in Finland. The results of the examples were processed and supplemented so that the presumed average MIPS values for the modes of transport were obtained, these reflecting Finland as a whole. The following sections present the main assumptions on which the calculations are based. In addition to setting limits to the transport system being investigated, numerous assumptions also had to be made in the calculations, among them the service life of the vehicles and their average ridership. Such assumptions were made in collaboration with the road and other administrations to ensure they were based on the best possible knowledge and expertise. However, no one can with any certainty be sure of, for example, the actual service life of the infrastructure, which is such an important factor from the standpoint of the results of the calculations. The most important assumptions made are shown in Table 2.

Ministry of the Environment

21

Table 2. The main assumptions concerning the use of infrastructure and means of transport. Means of transport Lifespan of infrastructure (years) 60 60 60 60 60 100 100 100 100 60 100 Based on the real volume of operations Passenger vessel 50 Capacity use of infrastructure Lifespan of means of transport Capacity use

Car Bus Van Lorry Bicycle Cargo train Long distance train Local train Metro Tramway Aircraft

Average daily traffic 270,000 km (ADT) of different road 1,000,000 km and street categories, 26 400,000 km – 38,600 vehicles/day 1,000,000 km ADT 300 bikes/day 0.5–3.0 mill. tonnes/yr 0.05–5.0 mill. pass. trips/yr ADT 11,000 pass./km ADT 52,500 pass./km ADT 3,800 pass./km 20 yrs 14,000,000 km 14,000,000 km Based on long distance trains

1.4 passengers 13 passengers 1 pass. or 200 kg 7, 14 or 21 tonnes (approx. 50%) 1 person 50% 20–60%, depending on rail traffic Based on yearly passenger

30 yrs ( depend- 53–89%, ing on aircraft depending on the type, 20–110 mill. route km) 30 yrs, high-speed craft 15 yrs 30 yrs 2,000 pass. (pass. ferry) 300 pass. (highspeed craft) 2,100–2,200 t (RoRo vessel) 8,300 t (oil tanker)

Cargo vessel

50

For the purposes of this study, the MI factor adopted for electricity was Finland’s average national electricity mix, as calculated by Nieminen et al. (200, appendix C). The abiotic MI factor for Finland’s average national electricity mix is 0.3 kg/kWh, for water, 189 kg/kWh, and for air, 0.22 kg/kWh. For the calculations in the study it was estimated that in Finland the precipitation is approximately 600 millimetres a year (Finnish Meteorological Institute 200).
2.4.1

Road transport
The studies of Pusenius et al. (200) and Talja et al. (2006) were the bases for calculating the MIPS values for road transport. Pusenius et al. (200, p 2–26) have from the very outset taken note of the generalised nature of their results, despite the study being based on actual cases. For the calculations in the report, Finland’s average traffic data have been used instead of local traffic data. The total amount of earth and other material moved has also been assessed on the basis of the national situation. The same goes for the utilisation of surplus excavation materials from cuttíngs in different types of roads. Talja et al. (2006) calculated the MIPS values for streets and private roads directly at the level of Finland as a whole. The MIPS values for road transport were calculated for a total of six road categories and three street categories. Six kinds of vehicles figured in the case studies: passenger car, van, bus/coach, light lorry, lorry with semi-trailer, and lorry with trailer. In this study the MI values calculated by Pusenius (200) were adopted and adapted.

22

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

2.4.2

Bicycle transport
In the study on the natural resource consumption of bicycle transport (Hakkarainen et al. 200) five different Helkama and Tunturi bicycle models were used. These included both steel- and aluminium-framed bicycles. Based on the examples, for generalisation purposes the natural resource consumption of the average Finnish bicycle was calculated by determining the number of aluminium- and steel-framed bicycles in Finland. Pathways for bicycle and pedestrian traffic, or shared-use paths, form a part of the material input of bicycle transport. Since these pathways are used by others in addition to bicyclists, thought had to be given to the allocation of the material input of the shared-use paths among the different users (see section 2..2.). The material input for bicycle transport also included the lighting of the shared-use paths (Hakkarainen et al. 200, p 39).
2.4.3

Rail transport
Vihermaa et al. (200) calculated the natural resource consumption for a one- and two-track railway line. In regard to rail transport, one locomotive, one wagon (for passengers) and one wagon (for freight) were studied. In the study the MIPS values for rail transport for the whole of Finland were already available. A generalisation had been made for each section of rail and the number of tracks and business category had been taken into account (Table 3). Additionally, equivalent case study MI values for those sections of rail used solely by freight trains had been used.
Table 3. Levels of business used for long-distance passenger and freight transport and the capacity use associated with these (see Vihermaa et al. 2005, p 17). Passenger transport Level of use Busy Average Little used Journeys/year ≥ 5,000,000 500,000 ≤ 50,000 Ridership % 60 35 20 Freight transport Net tonnes/year ≥ 3,000,000 1,500,000 ≤ 500,000 Capacity use % 50 50 50

The figures published by Vihermaa et al. (200) for rail traffic and its infrastructure partially formed the basis for the calculations made by Talja et al. (2006) for local train, metro, and tram transport. In this study the MIPS values calculated by Talja et al. (2006) for local train, metro and tram transport were used directly.
2.4.4

Air transport
In this study, air transport has been divided into four parts: domestic, European, holiday, and long haul. In addition, flights to places near to Finland were separated from European flights in general. ”Nearby areas” in this instance means mainly St. Petersburg and the Baltic states, together with Sweden’s eastern coast. The material input of local air transport includes the natural resource consumption of the infrastructure of airports, plus aircraft and their fuel consumption. The basis used for the MIPS value calculations for air transport was the study by Nieminen et al. (200) on the natural resource consumption of air transport. The air-

Ministry of the Environment

23

ports of Helsinki–Vantaa and Jyväskylä were chosen for the study. Jyväskylä airport represents well the average Finnish provincial airport (Viinikainen 200a), so that airports other than Helsinki–Vantaa were assessed on the basis of the one at Jyväskylä. In the case of foreign airports these were assumed to be equivalent to Helsinki–Vantaa airport (Nieminen et al. 200, p 11). This is a rough generalisation, but studying foreign airports would have been too laborious. In addition, the contribution of infrastructure to the material input of air travel decreases with distance, so that even an error in an assumption will decrease as the journeys increase. Nieminen et al. (200) studied six aircraft types, five of them being passenger aircraft. The natural resource consumption of aircargo transportation (kg/tonne-kilometre) can be obtained fairly reliably by multiplying the figures per passenger-kilometre by ten, since it is generally assumed that in air travel one cargo tonne is equivalent to ten passengers with their baggage (Rusko 200a). The natural resource consumption of those aircraft types for which examples have not been calculated was estimated by using the nearest equivalents among the cases recorded by Nieminen et al. (200). Finavia’s environmental planner Niina Rusko (200a) assisted with the evaluations. The following ridership percentages were used for air transport (Nieminen et al. 200, p ): - Domestic: 3% - European flights: 6.6% - Intercontinental flights: 73.1% - Holiday flights: 88.7% Most of the material input components were obtained directly from the examples furnished by Nieminen et al. (200). Fuel consumption per passenger-kilometre changes according to the length of the flight, so that it was calculated separately for the routes used as examples. Janne Pallonen (200), from Finnair, supplied information on the fuel consumption and emissions of each aircraft. In the results the MIPS values for the different routes and aircraft are given per passenger-kilometre and route. Based on the examples, it has been calculated how much natural resources per passenger-kilometre air transport consumed, on average, when flying from Helsinki to Finland’s nearby areas, Europe, holiday destinations, and distant countries. Finland’s average MIPS values take into account all types of aircraft and routes by weighting the consumptions of different aircraft and routes with the number of operations. Since the differences between foreign flights in terms of natural resource consumption per passenger-kilometre are smaller, it has been possible to determine the average MIPS values on the basis of sample routes.
2.4.5

Maritime transport
In the case of maritime transport only shipping destined for foreign ports has been studied. In regard to the ports it was assumed, as in air transport, that a foreign port is the same as the departure port in Finland. In the maritime transport case study four different kinds of harbours, four different kinds of vessels, and routes of different length, including ones from Finland to Tallinn and New York, were investigated. In this study, due to a lack of source data and the work involved in collecting such data, the average MIPS values for maritime transport were calculated by adapting the results from Lindqvist’s (200) case study. For calculating the annual overall consumption of maritime transport, it was necessary to determine how much abiotic resources the harbours, channels and vessels consume in Finland in total. In the case of ports, the study has been confined to winter harbours. Routes that have been included are those leading to winter harbours,

2

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

which amount to some 2,200 kilometres (Holm 200). The investigation of the natural resource consumption of vessels was limited, as with air transport, to Finland’s economic area. Information about the fuel consumption of vessels was obtained from the Lipasto information system of the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT 200), while other vessel consumption was assessed on the basis of such data and on the studies by Lindqvist et al. (200) and Stiller (199, p 30).
2.5

Infrastructure material input allocation to transport
Allocation questions in life-cycle studies
The purpose of life-cycle studies is to indicate the environmental loading or consumption of products or services in concrete numbers throughout the entire life cycle. In such studies one often faces a situation in which a particular adverse factor causing loading or consumption has to be divided up among different benefits or recipients of benefits. In such a case one is obliged to resolve the problem of on what basis this allocation is to be made, in other words in what way the adverse factor is to be allocated between the different benefits or yields. When the yields from a process are highly similar or comparable with each other, allocation can be made extremely simply and easily. By contrast, with complicated processes or systems the method of allocation may be particularly difficult, especially when it is not possible to easily put the yields or the benefits derived from these on a comparable basis. In the MIPS concept, questions of allocation appear when, for example, functionally or economically deviating results are obtained from certain processes, or when different service performances are obtained from a particular material input. A process or product chain may produce main products or by-products, and the quantitative and 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 of these have a use but allocating the material flows of forest harvesting between the different products calls for careful deliberation. The public infrastructure such as the streets of downtown Helsinki is used by, for instance, lorries, buses, passenger cars, bicyclists, people going to work or other pedestrians, as well as by people celebrating May Day. How, then, should the material input of the streets be allocated between those mentioned and other users? How can the material input due to water level regulation be allocated among such widely differing entities as electricity generation, flood control, and the recreational use of waterways? The basic literature on the MIPS concept deals with allocation questions but it is frequently unable to offer patent answers to them. For instance, recycling waste materials in general conserves material compared to the use of virgin raw material. Savings due to the recycling process are allocated in the MIPS concept to recycled products, which, when used for manufacturing, reduce the consumption of virgin raw materials (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 113–11). Savings brought about by the recycling process, on the other hand, are not assigned to the product whose wastes have been used to advantage. This allocation is defendable because the conservation of natural resources arises from the wastes being used as a raw material for a new product. Moreover, it would be difficult to predict in what quantity and form a durable product (e.g. television set, house or road surface) in particular can be, or can be desired to be, utilised as a raw material for another product. On the other hand, this method of allocation does not give any rewards if the manufacturer anticipates the recycla-

Ministry of the Environment

2

bility of its product already at the product-design stage and, for this reason may, for example, make use of a larger material input. Thus, taking decisions on allocation methods for which there is more than one truth is unavoidable. First, decisions have to be weighed up and then taken, and, finally, documented as perfectly as possible. In this and the following section the allocation options available to the different case studies within the FIN-MIPS Transport project have been documented, as well as reasons given regarding how and why the decision was taken on the final choice.

Alternatives considered in this study
In the FIN-MIPS Transport study the biggest allocation issues are those associated with the apportioning of the MI of infrastructure among the different forms of transport. No single correct answer to these questions exists. For instance, passenger traffic and freight traffic generally use the same roads and other infrastructure. The heavier goods vehicles command more of the road structure, take up more space, and are slower than passenger vehicles. At the same time, the lighter passenger vehicles, because of the high number of them, may exceed the capacity of the roads, thereby causing pressure for further road construction. Thus, in general, bases can be found for different allocation methods which vastly affect the end result and differences between the MIPS values for the forms of transport. The percentage of infrastructure in MIPS values for forms of transport is extremely significant, amounting to up to 90 percent of the entire consumption of the abiotic natural resources. Hence, a matter of paramount importance from the standpoint of the end result is what proportion of the material input of the infrastructure should be allocated to passenger transport and what to freight transport. Consequently, much thought was given to this aspect and different options were sought and very carefully weighed up for each mode of transport. The comparisons of the effects of allocation methods on MIPS values presented in this study were made on the basis of preliminary figures, or those obtained directly from the case studies. Hence, they are not exactly equivalent to the final results. The purpose of the comparisons is to bring out the importance of the selected allocation method on the results.
2.5.1

Road transport
In road infrastructure allocation the problem is how large a part of the life-cycle materials of a road can be apportioned to each of the different users, that is, light transport and heavy transport. In the case study (Pusenius et al. 200) this dilemma was approached in three ways: the wear and tear on the road during its life cycle was divided according to 1) road costs, 2) the gross weight of vehicles, and 3) average daily (2 h) traffic (ADT). Road-cost allocation was based on road costs published by the Finnish Road Administration. However, the expenditure is not evenly divided over the roads in the same way as materials consumption, so that it is not a viable allocation method and was thus deleted from the list of alternatives. As a third option, two other allocation methods were studied: the division of the construction layers of a road in a different way for the different forms of transport, and the weighting of the ADT with a so-called passenger car equivalence factor.

26

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Allocation according to road-layer consumption
In conjunction with road infrastructure allocation between light and heavy transport, a study was made on how heavy transport actually affects the sizing of the construction layers of a road (Fig. 7). The notion was that those parts of the road structure that are made thicker and stronger due to heavy transport should be allocated more to heavy transport. The other components of the road would be allocated more to passenger transport, because this is quantitatively superior and more roads are built primarily because of the increase in the volume of traffic (e.g. Ojala 2000, p 86–87). The study entailed perusing the instructions for road construction planning (e.g. Tammirinne et al. 2002; Pihlajamäki 2001; Finnish Road Administration 200c), and also interviewing experts from the Finnish Road Administration and Finnish Road Enterprise. Based on this scrutiny, it was discovered that many factors influence the designing of road structures and that these could not be unequivocally correlated with any particular vehicle category. According to Lehtonen (200), the supporting unbound layer in connecting and regional roads is thickened by 0 millimetres when the volume of heavy transport on the road rises 2. times. On class 1 main roads and class 2 main roads a similar increase in heavy transport calls only for thickening of the road surface, which does not contribute very much to the overall cost of the materials. The total thickness of the surface structure, in other words, the total amount of material required for this, in practice is determined by the tendency of the ground to suffer from frost damage and by the targets set for flatness: the higher the road quality, the more level the road surface has to be (Tolla 200).

Wearing course , bitumenous

AC, SMA, soft -AC Reinforcements AC bearing , Bitumen and composite stabilization Gravel , Sand Crushed rock Industry by -products Thermal insulation materials Reinforcements

Unbound layers

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

According to Tolla (200), the amount and quality of the foundations in Finland in practice determine the objectives set for road-surface flatness, and not the weight of traffic. In regard to the foundations, the most important factor determining the dimensions is the quality of the ground (strength and composition properties), together with the location of the road in the terrain (height of embankment, depth of cutting, land inclination, etc). Based on the foregoing, it was decided to leave allocation based on road construction out of the allocation alternatives under scrutiny.

Ministry of the Environment

27

Allocation based on vehicle gross weight
Pusenius et al. (200) have estimated the average weight of freight transport to be 1 tonne in the case of vans, 7 tonnes in the case of a light lorry, 1 tonnes in the case of a lorry with a semi-trailer, and 21 tonnes in the case of a lorry with a trailer (Pusenius et al. 200, p 30). In the case of vans, however, the figure given is not actually true. Transport expert Tuomo Heinonen (200) from Finnish Transport and Logistics (SKAL ry) says that vans hardly ever travel with a full load as assumed in the case study. With van transport, space is often more of a limiting factor than weight. Vans are often used for courier-type goods distribution in which small volumes of goods are transported and the load is equivalent to the number of calls that can be made in a day. In practice, nowhere near the maximum loads are carried in vans in terms of kilograms, rather the limiting factor is more often capacity than weight. Heinonen estimated the average load of vans as 100–200 kilos. The Finnish Post Corporation’s development manager, Harri Ajomaa (200), roughly estimated that the corporation’s vans carry an average of 00 kilograms of mail. The Finnish Post Corporation is one of Finland’s main enterprises in regard to van loads. Vans in private use most likely carry less in the way of loads than those owned by firms. Based on these assessments, it has been assumed in this study that the average load for vans is 200 kilograms. Gross vehicle weight (kerb weight of vehicle + weight carried) has thus been recalculated as follows: 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, 3 tonnes (see Pusenius et al. 200, p 32). These figures, multiplied by the average daily traffic (ADT) per road class, give the allocation division shown in Table .
Table 4. Allocation of road materials between vehicles according to gross weight. Motorway Pass. car Bus/coach Van Ll Ls Lt 31.4% 4.6% 4.0% 9.3% 11.2% 39.6% Class 1 main road 33.9% 5.0% 4.3% 13.7% 17.7% 25.4% Class 2 main road 33.9% 5.0% 4.3% 13.7% 17.7% 25.4% Regional road 35.5% 5.2% 4.5% 17.2% 19.4% 18.1% Connecting road 37.7% 5.6% 4.8% 18.8% 33.2% -

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 of passenger transport to road material consumption comes to around 0 percent, and that of freight traffic to around 60 percent. The allocation method sharply differs in relation to its results from the other two options. Thus, there are no grounds for it with respect to, for example, traffic planning. The RoadMIPS working group under the FIN-MIPS Transport project found this method of allocation to be unsuitable, so that it is no longer included in the final selection.

28

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Allocation based on average daily traffic (ADT)
This allocation method is the same as in the public road case study. Table  shows how road consumption is divided between the various vehicles when applying the national average daily traffic data for the road types to be studied (Pusenius et al. 200, p 32). The allocation to traffic on class 2 main roads was estimated as being the same as on class 1 main roads, on which most of the traffic moves. The allocation takes into account only the volume of traffic on the roads, not other characteristics such as size and speed, as these are quite variable.
Table 5. Allocation of different road-class material inputs between vehicles according to average daily traffic (ADT). Motorway Pass. car Bus/coach Van Ll Ls Lt 84.1% 1.2% 7.3% 2.2% 1.5% 3.7% Class 1 main road 84.1% 1.2% 7.3% 3.0% 2.2% 2.2% Class 2 main road 84.1% 1.2% 7.3% 3.0% 2.2% 2.2% Regional road 84.1% 1.2% 7.3% 3.6% 2.3% 1.5% Connecting road 84.1% 1.2% 7.3% 3.7% 3.7% -

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

Allocation according to ADT weighted by passenger car equivalence factor
According to the handbook of the Association of Finnish Civil Engineers (RIL16-1 1987, p 1), traffic flows composed of a mix of different vehicles can be made comparable by converting the numbers in the different vehicle groups into passenger car units using a certain equivalence factor. Heavy vehicles take up more space and, especially when driving uphill, are slower than other traffic, so that their effect is the same as adding a certain number of passenger cars to the traffic. Equivalence factors commensurate with the norms of the Finnish Road Administration and Finnish Road Enterprise for vehicles are as follows: Passenger car 1.0 Coach and lorry with two axles 2.0 Lorry with several axles 3.0 Motorcycle 0. According to Prokkola (200), this is an appropriate way of weighting heavy transport in the ADT, despite its being used only rarely nowadays. In road planning the socalled equivalence factor method is more often used for weighting heavy transport when calculating traffic loading (Finnish Road Administration 200c, p 2–2). In this method the number of vehicles in the various heavy transport categories is weighted with a factor according to how many times the vehicle exceeds the standard axle mass (100 kN for a single two-wheeled axle). The load factor does not, however, express heavy transport in terms of passenger cars, nor is there any factor for passenger cars. The equivalence factor is mainly used on roads used by an exceptionally large volume of heavy transport. Thus, the older, more simple passenger car equivalence factor method, in which the factors are converted into passenger car units (Table 6), is more suited to this study.

Ministry of the Environment

29

Table 6. Allocation of road material input between different vehicle categories according to ADT weighted by a passenger car factor. In the allocation of lorries to the different road categories the same values have been used as in the allocation alternative commensurate with the ADT. A van is considered to be equivalent to a passenger car. Motorway Pass. car Bus/coach Van Ll Ls Lt 73.9% 2.1% 6.4% 3.9% 4.0% 9.8% Class 1 main road 74.4% 2.1% 6.5% 5.3% 5.8% 5.8% Class 2 main road 74.4% 2.1% 6.5% 5.3% 5.8% 5.8% Regional road 74.8% 2.1% 6.5% 6.4% 6.1% 4.0% Connecting road 74.9% 2.1% 6.5% 6.6% 9.9% -

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

This allocation method falls between two extremes, while, however, weighting passenger car traffic considerably more than heavy transport. There are no significant differences between these two allocation methods in the results for passenger car traffic, but in freight transport the difference is significant (Fig. 8).

Passenger transport abiotic MIPS
1.80 1.60 1.40

Goods transport abiotic MIPS
0.70

1.69

1.51
ADT

0.61 0.46 0.36

0.60

kg/person km

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

kg/tonne km

weighted ADT

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

ADT weighted ADT

0.26 0.20 0.14

0.21

0.34

passenger car

bus/coach

lorry

lorry with semitrailer

lorry with trailer

Figure 8. Differences due to allocation method in average abiotic MIPS values for traffic on public roads.

2.5.2

Bicycle transport
In the MIPS study on bicycle traffic questions of allocation apply mainly to the infrastructure, in other words the allocation of materials for shared-use paths between bicycle transport, pedestrians and other users. MIPS values obtained by two different allocation methods have been presented in the bicycle transport case study. These two allocation methods are extremes among the possible alternatives. Here we give a further, new allocation method, the results from which fall somewhere between the results of those in the case study. Lighting of the path has been calculated according to all the ridden kilometres in all the alternatives, even if the cycle lane is not entirely allocated to bicycles. Discussion about shared-use path allocation generated a great deal of debate regarding on whose terms cycle lanes have been constructed and are constructed. The existence of cycle lanes is often defended on the grounds of safety for cyclists. The reputation and popularity of separate cycle lanes as a safe thoroughfare is, however, open to doubt in the light of accident statistics. According to numerous studies,

30

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

cycling is safest alongside motorised traffic in streets and roads, and least safe on cycle lanes running alongside streets. Between these two extremes are cycle lanes that are separated from the street network. Similar observations on the safety of cycle lanes have been reported in Finland (Räsänen & Summala 1998) and North America (Aultman-Hall & Hall 1998; Aultman-Hall & Kaltenecker 1999), as well as in Germany (Monheim & Dandorfer-Monheim 1990). From the standpoint of increasing bicycling, however, the feeling of safety is at least as important as the actual safety. The Ministry of Transport and Communications’ bicycle policy programme (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2001) says that more cycle lanes are needed. Bicycle lanes enhance the attraction of cycling and at least the perception of safe cycling (Kallioinen 2002; Neuvonen 2002). When considering allocation based on safety aspects, it was said that bicyclists’ safety could also be improved by reducing the speed of motorised traffic. In a builtup area, for example, with speed limits of 30–0 kilometres per hour, cyclists could ride alongside the traffic without the necessity for separate lanes. Outside such areas, where the speed of motorised vehicles is clearly higher than that of cycles, there are more solid grounds from the safety and comfort angles for the provision of separate cycle lanes. In such areas cycle lanes are also frequently separated from roads, thereby reducing accidents between bicyclists and motorists (Räsänen & Summala 1998). On these bases, cycle lanes could be allocated differently in urban areas and less heavily populated areas. From the standpoint of the MIPS concept, it is simpler to allocate the infrastructure to its actual users, irrespective of for what reason and on whose terms the infrastructure has been constructed. Otherwise, one is required to consider cause-and-effect backgrounds for equivalent infrastructure use for other forms of transport, too, which would undermine the objective of creating MIPS values as an aid to MIPS calculations for other actions. Consequently, allocation methods based on safety concepts were abandoned. In the final discussion, the choice was made between three allocation methods. Of these, the third, in which cycle lanes are not allocated to cycles, was included to show that the matter of allocation method had been approached from a variety of different angles.

Allocation 1: Cycle lanes for cycles
In the first allocation method the material consumption of cycles, cycle lanes and lighting was included in the MIPS value (Hakkarainen et al. 200, p 28). In this instance ’cycle lane’ means half a shared-use path, i.e. a lane divided equally between cyclists and pedestrians. In this method of allocation, which is also the case study’s first option, the infrastructure is allocated to the entity that uses it. The starting point of the allocation method is that cycle lanes are designed from the bicyclists’ perspective. Robust, highprofile lanes give cycling the status of a genuine form of transport. Cycling along a cycle lane is felt to be a safer form of travel than cycling alongside motorised traffic. Many people, especially children, who are not overly familiar with road safety rules, use cycle lanes. Behaviour and attitudes towards bicycling learnt as a child are easily carried over into later stages of life (Neuvonen 2002, p 37, 8, 62). Using this allocation method, MIPS values are calculated in the following way: MI shared-use path-metre/year / 2 x 12,000 km + MI bicycle/year x 3,100,000 bicycles  1,300,000,000 passenger-km

Ministry of the Environment

31

Allocation 2: Evenly among all users
According to an extensive national physical exercise study (Suuri kansallinen… 2002), the network of bicycle and pedestrian pathways is the most popular place for physical exercise. These pathways are always open, and they are available to everyone. Additionally, they are located close to residential areas, and no charge is made for their use. According to the study, 26 percent of Finns use a shared-use path for taking physical exercise. The second most popular place, used by 21 percent of Finns, is a type of physical exercise facility such as a jogging track, ski trail or hiking trail. According to a questionnaire study carried out in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport and Communications’ Jaloin project (Jaloin 200), walking is the most popular form of travel. Approximately 33 percent of respondents jog or run, while some 27 percent use walking poles. Around 1 percent of respondents use in-line skates, or push prams or children’s pushchairs. Approximately 23 percent of respondents ski. Of the respondents in this study about 83 percent ride bicycles, at least sometimes. A clear majority (around 9%) engage in purposeful cycling, for example, for shopping, attending to affairs, or hobbies. Other important cyclist groups are those who cycle to work (approximately 3%), those who cycle to keep fit (32%), and those going for bike trips or otherwise cycle for recreational reasons (%). No statistics are available on how many people use shared-use paths for physical exercise. People also frequently make use of these pathways in various ways in different seasons, for example, people commuting to work at least partly use the pathways at different times of the day from walkers with walking poles. However, because the shared-use paths form important facilities for keeping fit, the material input must be divided among three different kinds of users. Based on the studies mentioned above, a three-metre-wide shared-use path can roughly be divided into three parts: one-third for walkers, one-third for cyclists, and one-third for others (exercisers and other users). In allocation method 2, MIPS values for bicycle transport are thus calculated in the following way: MI shared-use path-metre/year / 3 x 12,000 km + MI bicycle/year x 3,100,000 bicycles  1,300,000,000 passenger-km

Allocation 3: Cycle lane construction allocated to motorised transport
This allocation method rests on the assumption that cycle lanes are constructed primarily to improve smooth traffic flow of motorised traffic. Thus, cycle lanes can be considered to belong to the material input caused by motorists and are not included in cycle transport material input. No separate MIPS value has been calculated for cycling taking place on roads intended for motorised transport, since cycling demands so little room on normal roads. Support for this allocation method is presented above. Because of the problems caused by motorised traffic (noise, dust, etc), the forms of transport were separated from each other as motorised vehicles became more common. Bicycling and walking were then classed together, despite this being an entirely artificial division. The reason for the construction of cycle lanes was thus to improve the speed and flow of motorised traffic and not to ensure bicyclists’ safety. The system thus set up continues to influence traffic planning. Cycle lanes continue to be constructed alongside roads without any further thought being given to needs and traffic flow in cycling.

32

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

In the MIPS value for bicycle transport only the material inputs for cycles and lane lighting have been taken into account; the material input of cycle lanes has not been included. In this allocation method the MIPS for bicycle transport is calculated as follows: % MI lighting / year + MI bicycle / year x 3,100,000 bicycles  1,300,000,000 passenger-km Even before the final choice was made, this allocation method was felt to be an unsuitable alternative because even cyclists require some sort of infrastructure and here no share of the material input of the roads is calculated for them at all. Figure 9 shows the effect of the allocation method on the abiotic MIPS value for bicycle transport.
Bicycle transport abiotic MIPS using different allocation methods

0.60 0.50
kg/person km

0.55 0.38 allocation 1 allocation 2 allocation 3

0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

0.05

Figure 9. Effect of allocation methods on the abiotic MIPS value for bicycle transport.

2.5.3

Rail transport
In rail transport, allocation questions are connected with the habit of dividing up the railway network infrastructure between two different services — freight and passenger transport. Vihermaa et al. (200) studied four different allocation methods, these being based on gross weight, as well as on train, wagon and rolling stock axlekilometres. For the purposes of the FIN-MIPS Transport study, however, allocation based on wagon axle-kilometres was found by the RailwayMIPS working group to be confusing and unwieldy, since there are both 2- and -axle freight wagons (Vihermaa et al. 200, p 3). The final decision on the choice of an allocation method was made between the first three options. The results are well-founded and compatible with the results for other modes of transport studied in the project. Gross tonne-kilometre allocation was left out of the alternatives because the other options were unit-based and unit-based allocation has been deemed to better reflect actual users. Furthermore, the material intensity is primarily determined by the thickness of the construction layers of a line, and this is affected mainly by frost factors and not by the weight of the trains. In train-kilometre allocation the railway network infrastructure is divided evenly between the trains using it. Of the trains running in Finland, 6 percent are passenger trains and 3 percent are freight trains (Vihermaa et al. 200. p 16). The number of trains constitutes a significant factor in particular on quiet sections of track and during

Ministry of the Environment

33

rush hour periods, because the rail capacity is limited and may restrict the volume of rail traffic. However, the method does not take account of the fact that the trains are of differing lengths and that their speed varies. In wagon-kilometre allocation the infrastructure is divided evenly over the kilometres covered by the rolling stock (wagons). In terms of the volume of travel, 32 percent is passenger-kilometres and 68 percent, freight-kilometres. In other words, the ratio of goods (freight) transport to passenger transport is the reverse of what it is when calculated according to the number of trains. Train and rolling stock material allocations produce widely different results, especially in passenger transport (Fig. 10). Rolling stock kilometre allocation takes trains of differing length into account: long freight and night trains are heavier and slower than other kinds of trains and they take up more infrastructure than short, fast trains. In addition, the number of wagons on longer passenger trains is dictated by the length of the platforms, and thus also by the extent of the station infrastructure. This method of allocation, too, does not take into account the fact that trains differing in their speed occupy the infrastructure for periods of differing duration.
Passenger transport abiotic MIPS using different allocation methods 5.00 4.00 kg/ passenger km 3.33 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.70 1.37 train km wagon km total tonne km kg/ tonne km Goods transport abiotic MIPS using different allocation methods 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.40 0.54 train km wagon km total tonne km 0.52

Figure 10. Effect of allocation method on average MIPS values for rail transport in passenger and freight transport.

2.5.4

Air transport
Nieminen et al. (200) sought three alternative methods for allocating the infrastructure of an air transport area between its users. MTOW-weighted (maximum take-off weight, see Nieminen et al. 200, p 0) allocation had previously, however, been found to be an unsuitable alternative by the air transport working group of the FINMIPS Transport study. MTOW-weighting has been developed from the standpoint of collecting airport taxes and as it does not reflect the situation from the standpoint of natural resource consumption, it was dropped from the list of possible alternatives. The final selection of the allocation method to be used was made between operation allocation and passenger allocation.

Operation allocation
In operation allocation the air transport area infrastructure is divided evenly between all the operations (i.e. take-offs and landings). Thus, individual aircraft are considered to be users of the infrastructure. Although this method of allocation is clear cut, it does not take into account the wide variety of infrastructure construction require-

3

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

ments set by different aircraft, nor that the aircraft possibly occupy the infrastructure for different lengths of time, or consume it in different ways. However, use of the infrastructure is affected not only by the characteristics of an aircraft, but also by a range of other factors, such as controlling the air traffic and ground traffic moving in the air traffic area, and also the weather conditions. The infrastructure is always constructed with all the traffic in mind, making allocation based on the characteristics of an individual aircraft impossible. Additionally, fluctuations in demand are generally reacted to by changing the aircraft type, not by increasing or cancelling landing permits (Pitkänen 200).

Passenger allocation
In passenger allocation the infrastructure is divided evenly over the passengers using it. A common form of equivalence is used in the aviation sector whereby one passenger corresponds to one hundred kilos of air freight (Nieminen et al. 200, p 39). In this case, material input would be directly allocated according to the service unit, that is, the passenger- or tonne-kilometre. This kind of allocation does not, however, reflect the actual situation in the air transport area, in which machines are handled, not passengers or freight. Figure 11 shows the effect of the allocation method on the abiotic MIPS value on different routes.

Abiotic MIPS on different routes 0.6 0.5 kg/ person km 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Helsinki-Jyväskylä Helsinki-Jyväskylä Helsinki-Pariisi Helsinki-Las Helsinki-New York (235 km), ATR 72 (235 km), MD-80 (1536 km), A320 Palmas (4691 km), (6602 km), MD-11 B757 0.12 0.13 0.04 0.06 0.06

0.53 0.43

0.44

0.52

operation allocation passenger allocation

0.04

Figure 11. Abiotic MIPS value on different routes and with different aircraft using both methods of allocation (Nieminen et al. 2005).

2.5.5

Maritime transport
No significant allocation problems were experienced in the maritime transport case study, so that the questions were already resolved at that stage (Lindqvist et al. 200). The port infrastructure was apportioned directly to vessel visits because it was felt that each vessel requires port operations for a certain period of time, despite ports being designed for large ships. This allocation is equivalent to operation allocation for air transport. Allocation of the port infrastructure based on visits by vessels gives a higher material intensity for trips made by high-speed passenger craft than passenger allocation. The high-speed craft spends a relatively shorter time at sea, so that it pays more visits to the port. On the other hand, the majority of vessels plying the Helsinki-Tallinn route (all the high-speed passenger craft and most of the passenger-car ferries) spend the

Ministry of the Environment

3

night in harbour, so that the port capacity has to be designed according to the number of vessels that use it. In the relationship of vessel length to the length of the harbour, more attention ought to have been paid to differences in vessel size. However, calculations made on this basis would have proved extremely complicated. Besides, they would only have reflected the situation at the present time. Further, entering and leaving the harbour is confined to one vessel at a time, which may affect the allocation of the port capacity during busy periods. Another issue affecting allocation in maritime transport has been the construction of passenger-car ferries and RoPax (RoRo passenger) vessels, that is, freighters which also carry passengers, because the allocation of material inputs arising from the use of the port must be divided between the passengers and freight carried by such vessels. These problems were resolved earlier at the case study stage by allocating 20 percent of the infrastructure used to the freight carried by passenger-car ferries, and 80 percent to the passengers (Lindqvist et al. 200, p 0). Material inputs for which RoPax vessels were responsible were allocated in total to freight, because the increase due to passengers in the present situation can be regarded as insignificant. However, it should be borne in mind that the situation in both cases could change, for instance, due to market changes, in which case the allocation methods used now would have to be revised.
2.6

Choice of allocation methods applied in the study
The final choice of allocation methods was made at an ’allocation workshop’ to which all the researchers participating in the FIN-MIPS Transport project were invited, in addition to members of the steering group and working groups. The workshop took the form of a sort of card game: each option was written on a playing card to which the characteristics of that particular allocation method and its effect on the results were added. As the discussion progressed, the unsuitable alternatives dropped out of the ’game’ until only the ’winning alternatives’ for each mode of transport remained. Based on the discussion, the participants in the workshop decided to adopt operation allocation for air transport. This best reflects the actual situation in air transport, while also being fairly equivalent to the allocation used for maritime transport, in which the port infrastructure is directly divided by the number of vessel visits. Air and maritime transport are similar in the sense that their infrastructure is spot-like and one operation occupies the infrastructure for a certain length of time, irrespective of the size of the transport. According to Viinikainen (200b), the allocation methods equivalent to operation allocation in road transport would be ADT allocation and in rail transport, train-kilometre allocation. However, in the discussion it was maintained that the different transport systems are not fully comparable to each other. The participants in the workshop stated that those allocation methods reflecting the special features of each mode of transport as closely as possible were desirable, but, at the same time, it had to be possible to compare one with another. Following a lengthy debate, the participants opted for weighted ADT-type allocation in the case of road transport, and wagon-kilometre allocation for rail traffic, this being best fitted to the particular situation in each case. As with operation allocation, these allocation methods are unit-based. However, they do take account of the space requirements and other capacity use features of different vehicles or wagons. Bicycle transport differs from other forms of transport in that the database on the use of shared-use paths is rudimentary and no official statistics are available. Secondly, the allocation issues are different because the infrastructure is used by several different groups of users. Naskila (200) says that a shared-use path is used by many

36

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

more people than just pedestrians and cyclists. For bicycle transport the workshop decided to select an allocation method in which one-third of the pathway is allocated to cyclists. This method of allocation was stated to also take into account the winter period, when there is less cycle traffic. The results of this study are expressed from now on according to the chosen allocation methods referred to in this chapter. When examining the results, one should bear in mind that the effects of the allocation method applied are strongly reflected in them. Therefore, these results should not be thought of as the absolute truth, despite their indicating the order of magnitude of the natural resource consumption rather well. The variations in the results using the different allocation methods studied are shown in the case studies.
2.7

Calculation examples
Based on the results obtained, the natural resource consumption by different modes of transport on different routes was calculated. The purpose of the calculation examples is to indicate, using examples close to actual situations, how MIPS values are calculated and used, and to seek the most appropriate means of transport from the eco-efficiency perspective for the different routes. For some of the calculations on long-distance transport, published information on the distances between cities was used, ignoring precise departure and arrival points. Carrying out calculations at this level is fairly easy and information on distances is readily available. Slightly more time and effort are required for more precise, so-called door-to-door, calculations, which also include journeys by local transport. For short trips, which account for most of the journeys made by Finns, some typical journeys in densely populated and sparsely populated areas are presented. Some of the most typical journeys are made to work or school, as well as for shopping and leisure purposes (Ministry of Transport and Communications 1999). In the passenger transport calculations (section .1), the classification of streets and roads, the volume of traffic on railway lines and the number of tracks, the air route used on a journey, and the length of a route used by a ship, were all taken into account. When the type of route, or specific route factor, was not available or could not be determined, an average factor was used for the mode of transport in question. The calculation examples for freight traffic (section .2) were made in cooperation with the Finnish Post Corporation and TNT Suomi Oy. In the post examples, the amount of natural resources consumed by sending an average letter was calculated. The natural resource consumption of TNT consignments was quantified using four examples.

Ministry of the Environment

37

3 Results

Sections 3.1–3. present the results by mode of transport in four different ways: • Firstly, the MI values for the different components of the mode of transport are given collectively. In the same connection the total natural resource consumption of the mode of transport per year is given. • Secondly, the method of calculation is presented by which the natural resource consumption of the desired route for a certain form of travel can be calculated. • Thirdly, the calculated consumption for different route categories or routes is given in table form. • Finally, the average consumption of the mode of transport in Finland per passenger- and tonne-kilometre is given.
3.1

Natural resource consumption of road transport
3.1.1

MI values for road transport
Road transport applies to roads, streets and private roads. The consumption of six vehicle types has been studied for all kinds of roads. The MI values for vehicles and roads are shown in the following table.
Table 7. MIPS values for the vehicles studied per kilometre without infrastructure (Pusenius et al. 2005). Natural resource consumption of vehicles per driven km Vehicle type Passenger car Bus/Coach Van Lorry Lorry with semi-trailer Lorry with trailer Abiotic (kg) 0.14 0.45 0.18 0.31 0.67 0.77 Water (kg) 1.97 5.43 2.47 3.87 7.43 8.65 Air (kg) 0.18 0.72 0.26 0.46 1.11 1.17

38

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Table 8. Natural resource consumption of different road types per kilometre per year without traffic. To arrive at the consumption of a road-kilometre over the entire life cycle of the road the figures have to be multiplied by 60 years. (Sources: streets and private roads, Talja et al. 2006; main roads, own calculations based on Pusenius et al. 200; others, Pusenius et al. 200).
Natural resource consumption of roads per km per year Road class Connecting road Regional road Class 2 main road Class 1 main road Motorway Street to residences Collector street Main street Private road Abiotic (t) 591 939 2,586 2,586 11,630 278 501 1,092 109 Water (t) 4,358 5,258 12,215 12,215 19,519 7,852 12,485 15,285 2,400 Air (t) 6 8 19 19 37 7 17 21 1

The following table gives the MI values per kilometre of average road types. These have been calculated on the basis of the previous table by weighting the average with the total length of the road types.
Table 9. MI values for average road types without transport. MI values of average roads without traffic, per year Road class Average public road Average street Average private road Average route MI abiotic (t) 1,067 370 109 500 MI water (t) 5,918 9,442 2,400 5,540 MI air (t) 9 10 1 5

Road transport in Finland, which includes the public road, private road and street infrastructure, consumes a total of 113 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year, amounting to approximately 22 tonnes per person (according to Statistics Finland (200), Finland’s population in 2003 was ,220,000). A total of 109 million tonnes of water a year is consumed, or 201 tonnes per person per year. Equivalent figures for air are 12.1 tonnes a year and 2.3 tonnes per inhabitant per year. The major contributor to abiotic natural resource consumption is infrastructure. In the case of air the largest proportion is consumed by the traffic (Fig. 12). Section 3.6 gives the consumption of road transport in terms of each road category. Based on the selected method of allocation, the overall consumption by road transport is 77 percent for passenger transport and 23 percent for freight transport. In this division vans have been classified solely as freight transport.

Ministry of the Environment

39

abiotic

Roads (construction and maintenance) Vehicle manufacturing and removal Vehicle use

water

air

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Figure 12. Distribution of natural resource consumption by road transport between infrastructure and traffic.

Private roads and streets are not included in the previous figure, but the relationships as a whole would not change, even if these were to be included. Ninety-eight percent of the consumption of abiotic natural resources by private roads and 76 percent of the abiotic consumption by streets is due to the infrastructure. The greater the traffic contribution to abiotic natural resource consumption, the more traffic there is on the road. Eighty percent of the water consumption includes the infrastructure fraction and of this the greatest proportion is rainwater diverted from the original thoroughfare. The water consumption reveals the relationship between the total surface area of the infrastructure and the traffic using it. Ninety-nine percent of the water consumption by transport on private roads includes the road contribution, whereas 89 percent of the consumption by street transport is due to the infrastructure (Talja et al. 2006). Most of the air consumption is due to vehicle fuel consumption. Natural resource consumption by road transport can also be examined in terms of road category (Fig. 13).

abiotic

Roads (construction and maintenance) Vehicle manufacturing and removal Vehicle use

water

air

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Figure 13. Distribution of natural resource consumption by road transport. Includes both infrastructure and traffic. 

0

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

The contribution of road categories to natural resource consumption can be compared to the road category lengths and journey data in the introduction (Figures  and ). By comparing data one can conclude that the consumption of abiotic natural resources reveals not only the number of road kilometres travelled in the road category, but also the bulkiness of the road structure. For example, motorways, while amounting to only 0. percent of the total roads and streets included in the study, consume, however, approximately 10 percent of the abiotic materials. Private roads of light construction, accounting for around one-half of the roads and streets in the study, overall consume only slightly more abiotic natural resources than motorways as a whole. Water consumption by road transport reveals the relationship between the surface areas of the route categories. Connecting roads and private roads consume the most water because they have the most surface area, in other words a lot of rainwater runs off them. Air consumption, on the other hand, reveals the relationships between the volumes of traffic using the different road types: main streets carry the most vehicles, so that their air consumption is highest. Similarly, a lot of air is consumed by busy motorways and class 1 main roads.
3.1.2

Calculating natural resource consumption for a desired route
Natural resource consumption per passenger is calculated as follows:
MI vehicle ( kg / vehicle km) MIPS for particular route = length of route × number of passengers or transporte d mass

Passenger-kilometres can be obtained from vehicle-kilometres by dividing them by the number of passengers. Tonne-kilometre figures can be obtained in an equivalent fashion by dividing vehicle-kilometres by the mass transported (in tonnes). Depending on the level of accuracy desired, either the average figures or the ones for each road type given in Appendix 1 can be used. The ridership of the vehicle has a fundamental impact on the MIPS value. When calculating consumption for a bus or coach the figures per kilometre can be used as they are, but even then taking into account the ridership of the vehicle radically affects the figures. Similarly, in MIPS calculations for freight transport, factors based on the average vehicle ridership can be used. Such factors are calculated either according to the type of route (Sec. 3.1.3), or as national averages (Sec. 3.1.). In Section  some examples are presented of the consumption of natural resources along different roads by different forms of transport.
3.1.3

MIPS values for road transport by road and street category
Figures 1 and 1 give some examples showing how abiotic MIPS values can vary on different roads in passenger and freight transport. Precise MIPS values for each kind of route, including water and air consumption, as well as for all kinds of vehicles are given in Appendix 1.

Ministry of the Environment 

1

Abiotic natural resource consumption for different road categories by passenger traf c 8.00 7.00 6.00 kg/passenger-km 5.00 4.00 3.23 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 connecting regional road road 0.71 1.38 0.31 0.42 1.89 1.34 0.30 1.07 0.24 0.16 0.05 0.35 0.37 private road 1.56 1.65 1.58 1.44 0.32 average road Passenger car Bus/coach 7.19

class 2 class 1 motorwaymain street collector street to main road main road street residences

Figure 14. Abiotic MIPS values in the different road categories calculated per passenger-kilometre.

Abiotic natural resource consumption in different road categories by freight traf c 3.50 Lorry 3.00 2.50 kg/tonne-km 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 connecting regional road road class 2 class 1 motorwaymain street collector street to main road main road street residences private road average road 0.55 2.89

1.30 0.76 0.54 0.43 0.07

0.63

0.66

0.58

Figure 15. Abiotic natural resource MIPS values for a lorry without trailer in different road categories calculated per tonne-kilometre.

These figures show the fluctuation interval and size of the average abiotic MIPS values for road transport compared to the figures for each route category. The average MIPS values have been calculated by weighting the MIPS value for each type of road with the volume of traffic. In both passenger and freight transport, driving on private roads and connecting roads consumes the most abiotic natural resources. The least abiotic natural resources are consumed per kilometre when driving along main streets and motorways. 

2

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

3.1.4

MIPS values on average for road transport in Finland
The average MIPS values for road transport can be generalised for roads, private roads and streets by weighting the average MIPS values for the route categories with the journeys for the categories. Figures obtained by generalising in this way can be used, for example, when one desires to know the amount of natural resources consumed by a journey when travelling or transporting goods, irrespective of the road category. The results for passenger transport are given as vehicle- and passengerkilometres (Table 10). In freight transport the results are given as vehicle- and tonnekilometres (Table 11). For calculating passenger-kilometres, data from the 1998–1999 passenger transport study have been used, according to which there are an average of 1. passengers in passenger cars and 13 passengers in buses and coaches (Ministry of Transport and Communications 1999). When calculating tonne-kilometres it has been assumed that, on average, a van transports 200 kilograms of goods, a lorry, 7 tonnes, a lorry with a semi-trailer, 1 tonnes, and a lorry with a trailer, 21 tonnes (Pusenius et al. 200, p 30).
Table 10. Average natural resource consumption in passenger transport. Vehicle MIPS kg/vehicle-km abiotic (kg) Passenger car Bus/coach Van 2.02 4.22 2.16 water (kg) 20.33 42.05 22.70 air (kg) 0.19 0.76 0.28 MIPS kg/passenger-km abiotic (kg) 1.44 0.32 2.16 water (kg) 14.52 3.23 22.70 air (kg) 0.14 0.06 0.28

Table 11. Average natural resource consumption in freight transport. Vehicle MIPS kg/vehicle-km abiotic (kg) Van Lorry Lorry with semi-trailer Lorry with trailer 2.16 4.08 6.32 water (kg) 22.70 43.29 79.64 air (kg) 0.28 0.50 1.17 MIPS kg/tonne-km abiotic (kg) 10.78 0.58 0.45 water (kg) 113.51 6.18 5.69 air (kg) 1.39 0.07 0.08

4.88

31.97

1.20

0.23

1.52

0.06

In the figures obtained for each type of vehicle the average MIPS values for a lorry with a trailer is lower than for one with a semi-trailer because the number of lorries with trailers on connecting roads, private roads and streets leading to properties has been estimated as zero. In freight transport when vans are included an average of 0.2 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 6.3 kilograms of water, and 0.09 kilograms of air are consumed per tonne-kilometre. Taking vans into account raises the figure for freight transport because a van has been estimated as transporting on average only 200 kilograms of goods. Without vans, freight transport would consume on average only 0.37 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, .2 kilograms of water, and 0.07 kilograms of air per tonne-kilometre.

Ministry of the Environment 

3

3.2

Natural resource consumption by bicycle transport
3.2.1

MI values for bicycle transport
Table 12 gives the generalised MI values for a bicycle, cycle lanes, and cycle lane lighting in Finland (see Hakkarainen et al. 200). If information is desired on the natural resource consumption of a bicycle over its entire life cycle, the consumption calculated below for one bicycle should be multiplied by 20 years. If the total consumption of natural resources in one year is desired, the consumption calculated for one bicycle year should be multiplied by the number of bicycles, that is, 3.1 million.
Table 12. MI values for bicycle transport. Consumption by cycle lane in metres per year Abiotic (kg) Cycle lane Lighting Total 36 0.5 36.5 Water (kg) 597 244 841 Air (kg) 0 0.2 0.2

Consumption of average bicycle Abiotic (kg) Consumption of bicycle per year Consumption of bicycle per passenger-km 19 0.05 Water (kg) 1,805 4.30 Air (kg) 5.7 0.01

Bicycle transport in Finland, which takes into account both bicycles and cycle lanes, consumes a total of 0. million tonnes of abiotic natural resources per year. This is equivalent to 9 kilograms per person per year. In one year, 1.7 million tonnes of water is consumed, which is 3 tonnes per person. Air consumption totals 20,19 tonnes per year and  kilograms per person per year. Almost 90 percent of abiotic natural resource consumption is due to bicycle lanes (Fig. 16).

abiotic

434,760

59,458 Roads (cycle lane and lighting)

water

10,095,960

5,594,570

Manufacturing and disposal of bicycles

air

2,400

17,794

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Figure 16. Natural resource consumption in tonnes per year for bicycle transport as a whole, and the division of consumption between bicycle lanes and bicycles. 

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

3.2.2

MIPS values and calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route
Cycle transport in Finland consumes an average of 0.38 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 12.1 kilograms of water, and 0.02 kilograms of air per cycle-kilometre. The consumption for a particular journey can be calculated by multiplying these figures by the length of the route. If there are two persons on a bicycle, for example a child in a seat, the figures for the bicycle should be divided by the number of passengers to obtain the actual consumption per person. As with all forms of transport, the number of kilometres ridden on a bicycle fundamentally affects the MIPS value. The volume of bicycle traffic for Finland as a whole is only an estimate. In actual fact, the MIPS values for bicycle transport vary enormously in different areas. According to Talja et al. (2006), the average abiotic MIPS value for cycling in Helsinki is around half of Finland’s average figure, the figure for water decreases by 0 percent, and that for air remains almost the same. The average figures given here should be approached with caution, in the same way as the average figures given under the other modes of transport, because they are indicative.
3.3

Natural resource consumption by rail transport
3.3.1

MI values for rail transport
In this section the MIPS values for long distance and local transport on the railways are presented. Local transport includes tram and metro transport, in addition to the Helsinki Metropolitan Area’s local train transport (based on Talja et al. 2006). The annual natural resource consumption of rolling stock of various types, and of track sections, has been calculated on the basis of the average mix of electricity produced in Finland.
Table 13. Railway rolling stock MI values. The consumption of towing energy by a locomotive is applied to rolling stock consumption (Vihermaa et al. 2005, Appendix 10). Natural resource consumption of locomotive and rolling stock per driven kilometre Loco/rolling stock type Sr2 locomotive Ed-wagon Habinss freight wagon Table 14. MI values for track types . Natural resource consumption by rail type per kilometre per year Rail type Single track Double track MI abiotic (kg) 601 2,781 MI water (kg) 8,112 15,941 MI air (kg) 13 21 MI abiotic (kg) 0.2 1.2 1.0 MI water (kg) 10.6 418.9 340.7 MI air (kg) 0.01 0.46 0.40

Ministry of the Environment 

Rail transport in Finland, which includes long-distance and local transport railways and trains, consumes a total of .3 tonnes of abiotic natural resources per year. This means one tonne per person per year. In one year 286 million tonnes of water are consumed, or  tonnes per person. Air consumption by rail transport totals 39,000 tonnes per year, or 67 kilograms per person per year. When assessed by the selected allocation method, 32 percent of the consumption is due to passenger rail transport and 68 percent to freight transport. Helsinki’s tram and metro transport consumes a total of 161 tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 22 tonnes of water, and 31,000 tonnes of air (Talja et al. 2006).

Abiotic

Railway line and other infrastructure Rolling stock manufacturing and maintenance Use of rolling stock

Water

Air

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Figure 17. Distribution of natural resource consumption by rail transport between traffic and infrastructure.

3.3.2

Calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route
Figure 18 gives the MIPS values for Finland’s long-distance rail transport in passenger- and tonne-kilometres for each rail section. These figures are based on calculations by Vihermaa and others (200) and on the division of rail sections into three categories based on the volume of traffic on each section. The average natural resource consumption of a particular route can be calculated by applying the MIPS values for each kilometre. The average natural resource consumption by local transport along a particular route can be calculated by multiplying the MIPS values for each passenger-kilometre (Table 1) by the length of the route. 

6

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Figure 18. Differences in rail sections with reference to the consumption of abiotic natural resources by rail transport (figure by Satu Lähteenoja).

3.3.3

MIPS values per track type
Vihermaa and others (200) have calculated the natural resource consumption of rail transport on 1- and 2-track railway lines at various levels of transport density. In passenger transport, on a little-used track there are 0,000 passenger-transport journeys per year on average, on an average-used track, 00,000 passenger journeys per year on average, and on a busy track,  million passenger-transport journeys a year on average. In freight transport, on a little-used track there are 00,000 net tonnes of goods carried per year on average, on an average-used track, 1,00,000 net tonnes of goods per year on average, and on a busy track, 3 million net tonnes of goods per year on average. The following table shows the MIPS values based on the level of use. More precise information on the assumptions used in the calculations can be found in the case study by Vihermaa and others (200).

Ministry of the Environment 

7

Table 15. MIPS values for rail transport (based on Vihermaa et al. 2005, p 99100; Talja et al. 2006). Passenger transport MIPS values Abiotic (kg/ pass.-km) 1-track Little used Average Busy 2-track Little used Average Busy Local train Metro Tram Abiotic (kg/t-km) 1-track Little used Average Busy 2-track Little used Average Busy Little used Average Busy
3.3.4

Water (kg/pass.- Air km) (kg/pass.-km) 59.48 14.13 6.23 101.91 18.43 6.58 28.01 29.42 48.08 Water (kg/t-km) Air (kg/t-km) 20.93 12.68 10.69 32.39 16.56 12.53 25.28 14.12 11.46 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.07

3.22 0.34 0.05 14.74 1.49 0.17 0.53 0.29 0.36

Local transport MIPS values

Freight transport MIPS values

0.91 0.32 0.17 4.11 1.39 0.71 1.22 0.43 0.23

1-track line for freight transport only

Average MIPS values
In railway transport, based on the MIPS values for each section of rail, the average MIPS values for passenger and freight transport were calculated. The average figures were obtained by weighting the MIPS values for each rail type by its length. Rail sections serving solely freight transport were not included in the MIPS values for passenger transport. The figures do not include metro or tram transport. In passenger transport on average 1.2 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 29 kilograms of water, and 0.0 kilograms of air are consumed per passenger-kilometre (Table 16). In freight transport on average 0. kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 1.26 kilograms of water, and 0.02 kilograms of air are consumed per tonne-kilometre. These figures can be used, for example, when making a rough comparison at the national level or when calculating MI values for products when the average transport distance is known but not the precise routes. Because the location where the transportation is taking place vastly influences the results, this average may not necessarily tell us very much about the consumption of a route under scrutiny. 

8

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Table 16. Average MIPS values for passenger rail transport Average MIPS figures for rail traffic (kg/pass.-km) Abiotic Long-distance rail traffic Local rail traffic Average 1.37 0.53 1.20 Water 29.25 28.01 28.99 Air 0.04 0.03 0.04

3.4

Natural resource consumption by air transport
3.4.1

MI values for air transport
For calculating the MIPS values for air transport, the natural resource consumption of all of Finland’s airports per year was calculated, both as a whole and per operation. Section 2.. describes how the calculations were made. Natural resource consumption by aircraft manufacturing is shown in the following table. Take-off consumes more fuel compared to other flight activity and on short journeys the contribution of take-off is emphasised, so that it is not possible to offer any factors for fuel consumption based directly on distance.
Table 17. MI values for the manufacturing of certain types of aircraft (Nieminen et al. 2005, p 49). Aircraft ATR-72 MD-80 A320 B757 MD-11 MI kg/flight-km Abiotic 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.13 Water 0.52 1.22 0.96 0.85 1.17 Air 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Commercial aviation taking place within Finland’s economic area consumes a total of 1.2 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year. This amounts to 20 kilograms per person per year. Seventy million tonnes of water is consumed per year, amounting to 13 tonnes per person. The total consumption of air is 867,800 tonnes per year, or 166 kilograms per person per year. These figures include all the infrastructure used by civil aviation in Finland, consumption by aircraft manufacturing according to flight-kilometre, and fuel consumption by domestic air transport. The distribution of natural resource consumption between the infrastructure and air transport is shown in Figure 19. Approximately 92 percent of the consumption is due to passenger transport and 8 percent to air cargo (goods) transport. By examining only air transport limited to Finland’s economic area we exclude most of the air transport serving Finland. If we wish to calculate natural resource consumption by all the air transport serving Finland, we need to know the total fuel consumption of aircraft departing from, and arriving in, Finland. Half of the material input to this fuel consumption would be Finland’s and half that of the country at the other end of the route. However, this kind of data is not available for airlines other than Finnair.

Ministry of the Environment 

9

By making use of Finnair’s data, one can arrive at a rough estimate of the amount of fuel consumption remaining outside the study. In 2003 Finnair aircraft were engaged in a total of 9,000 operations: in conjunction with these a total of 7,000 tonnes of fuel was consumed, but this does not include the division referred to in the previous paragraph (Finnair 200). If the air consumption is calculated by applying the MI values of diesel on the fuel consumption of the aircraft, 1.76 million tonnes of air, or 30 kilograms per capita per year, were consumed by Finnair’s air transport. In one year, 7,000 tonnes of abiotic natural resources were consumed, or 13 kilograms per capita. Similarly, .3 million tonnes of water, or 1016 kilograms, were consumed. Air consumption due to Finnair’s fuel consumption is thus almost double, the consumption of abiotic natural resources is 60 percent, and water consumption, 8 percent, compared to consumption by air transport within Finland’s economic area.

Abiotic

Airports Aircraft manufacturing Aviation fuel consumption

Water

Air

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Figure 19. Distribution of natural resource consumption by domestic air transport.

The largest contributor to abiotic natural resource consumption by air transport is the airport infrastructure. In the case of water consumption the highest contribution is due to rainwater falling on tarmacked airfields. Aircraft manufacturing uses up so few natural resources in comparison to the overall consumption for air transport that it does not even appear in the figure. Most of the air consumption is related to aircraft fuel consumption.
3.4.2

Calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route
Natural resource consumption for a particular route can be calculated for different aircraft in a slightly different way. The difference appears in particular in the MIPS values for air consumption: most of the air consumption is due to fuel consumption, the amount per passenger-kilometre depending on the aircraft type and the travel time. Thus, it is not possible to offer as simple a chart for calculating MIPS values as with other forms of transport. The natural resource consumption of air transport has already been calculated for the different routes along which Finnair flies from Helsinki. MIPS values per passenger-kilometre and route with different aircraft have been calculated in Appendix 2. The aircraft used may change periodically and here there was a desire to portray differences occurring on the same route when operating different aircraft types. Not all of the examples are actual ones: for example, not all types of aircraft, either propeller turbine types or jets, are in use in Finland. Moreover, the aircraft types used on these routes do not have the same flying time as is assumed for some of the calculations. Consequently, actual flying times have not been obtained for all the calculated 

0

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

routes. If a desired route cannot be found in the table, either the MIPS values for a route of equivalent length, or average MIPS values for air transport, can be used. The latter are given in the next section.
3.4.3

Average MIPS values
Domestic flying in Finland on average consumes 0.6 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 26.6 kilograms of water and 0.28 of air per passenger-kilometre (Table 18). These figures have been obtained by weighting the MIPS values for each route by the number of aircraft types and the number of operators (Rusko 200b). For the study purposes, the aircraft types chosen were ATR72 propeller turbine aircraft and MD80 jets. Almost the same result is obtained by dividing the infrastructure material input evenly among the operators and weighting the aircraft and fuel consumption with the number of operators on the routes. On flights from Finland to Europe, on average 0.11 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 3. kilograms of water and 0.1 kilograms of air are consumed per passenger-kilometre. Average MIPS values for holiday and long-haul flights are shown in the following table, as are the figures for air cargo transport, which have been calculated by multiplying the figures for passenger transport by ten. MIPS values for specific flights are given in Appendix 2. The average MIPS figures to nearby areas have been calculated from the figures in Appendix 2. They are based on an equal proportion of propeller turbine and jet aircraft. In practice, the proportion may differ from this. However, the figures can still be used for rough comparisons.
Table 18. Average MIPS values for air transport on different flights. Passenger traffic (kg/pass-km) Where to (from Helsinki) Domestic Nearby areas Europe Holiday flight Long-haul flight Abiotic 0.56 0.47 0.11 0.04 0.06 Water 26.6 18.9 3.4 1.1 0.9 Air 0.28 0.34 0.14 0.07 0.13 Air cargo traffic (kg/tonnekm) Abiotic 5.6 4.7 1.1 0.4 0.6 Water 266 189 34 11 9 Air 2.8 3.4 1.4 0.7 1.3

3.5

Natural resource consumption by maritime transport
3.5.1

MI values for maritime transport
Natural resource consumption by maritime transport is attributable to harbours, shipping channels and vessels. Harbours consume around 8.3 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 26.6 million tonnes of water, and 291,000 tonnes of air per year. Shipping channels leading to winter harbours consume a total of 288,000 tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 200,000 tonnes of water, and 13,000 tonnes of air per year. Vessels plying routes within Finland’s economic area consume around 1.6 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 12 million tonnes of water, and 2.6 million tonnes of air per year.

Ministry of the Environment 

1

Maritime transport within Finland’s economic area consumes approximately 10 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year. This amounts to some 2 tonnes per person per year. A total of 0.8 million tonnes of water is consumed, equivalent to 7,800 kilograms per person. The air consumption comes to 3 million tonnes per year, or 70 kilograms per capita per year. The distribution of the natural resource consumption between the infrastructure and the maritime transport is shown in Figure 20. The allocation of natural resource consumption between passenger and cargo transport has been roughly assessed based on the vessels arriving at the ports (Finnish Port Association 200). An estimated 30 percent of maritime transport consumption is due to passenger transport and 70 percent to cargo transport. According to the MEERI database of the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), 802,280 tonnes of fuel a year is consumed. This includes consumption by both domestic and foreign vessels. According to Mäenpää (200), the vessels of Finnish shipyards consume approximately 1.28 million tonnes of fuel a year. Thus, limiting the calculations to Finland’s economic area leaves at least 0 percent of the fuel consumption by Finnish vessels outside the calculation. The use of vessels belonging to Finnish shipyards accounts for around 1.8 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 13. million tonnes of water, and  million tonnes of air per year.

Abiotic Harbours and channels Shipbuilding Air Use of vessels

Water

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Figure 20. Distribution of natural resource consumption by maritime transport in Finland’s economic area.

In maritime transport the infrastructure, that is, harbours and shipping channels, consumes most of the abiotic natural resources and water. Fuel consumption consumes the highest amount of air. Vessel manufacturing consumes energy in particular.
3.5.2

Average MIPS values
The generalisation of the data obtained by the case study (Lindqvist et al. 200) was made by such a rough calculation that no actual calculation data for consumption by a desired route emerged. As with other forms of transport, average MIPS values can also be used here at a general level. In passenger transport going from Finland to places abroad, on average 0.26 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 2.2 kilograms of water, and 0.31 kilograms of air are consumed per passenger-kilometre. In cargo transport on routes in areas close to Finland, an average of 0.7 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 3.13 kilograms of water, and 0.1 kilograms of air are consumed per tonne-kilometre. On European routes on average 0.12 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 0.71 kilograms of water, 

2

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

and 0.1 kilograms of air are consumed per tonne-kilometre. Similarly, on inter-continental routes 0.08 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 0.6 kilograms of water, and 0.1 kilograms of air are consumed per tonne-kilometre (Table 19). The average figures for European cargo transport take account of both oil tankers and RoRo vessels, whose consumption is very different. The following table also shows the average consumption of oil tankers and RoRo vessels (based on Lindqvist et al. 200, p 67).
Table 19. Average MIPS values for maritime cargo transport. Average MIPS figures for cargo traffic in kg/tonne-km Vessel RoRo vessel Oil tanker Average Destination all all Nearby areas Europe other continents Abiotic 0.14 0.04 0.75 0.12 0.08 Water 0.8 0.3 3.13 0.71 0.6 Air 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.1

3.6

Natural resource consumption by Finland’s transport system
Within the confines of this study, the transport system consumes per year approximately 130 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 1.6 billion tonnes of water, and 16.3 million tonnes of air. This amounts to 2 tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 280 tonnes of water, and 3 tonnes of air per person per year (Tables 20-22). Based on the allocation methods used in this study, 72 percent of the consumption of abiotic natural resources by the transport system is due to passenger transport and 28 percent to freight transport. According to Mäenpää and others (2000, p 1), the total consumption of natural resources by Finland in 1997 amounted to some 00 million tonnes. Based on this, the abiotic material consumption of the transport system would account for around 2 percent of Finland’s total material requirement (TMR). So large a percentage is influenced by the fact that in this study the material input of previously constructed infrastructure has been divided evenly over the whole life span of the infrastructure. Nowadays, not a large amount of infrastructure construction takes place. Thus, the present proportion of infrastructure construction in Finland’s TMR is lower than 2 percent. In the calculations of the total consumption of natural resources arrived at by Mäenpää and others (2000), civil engineering has in no year since 1970 consumed as much as the result obtained by this study. Approximately 7 percent of Finland’s public roads were, however, already in existence in the 190s, and by the start of the 1970s over 90 percent of the public roads had been constructed (National Road Administration 200b). The natural resource consumption due to the building of these roads is included in this study, so that in fact no conflict emerges between this study and that carried out by Mäenpää and others (2000).

Ministry of the Environment 

3

Table 20. Abiotic natural resource consumption by the transport system in one year. Abiotic natural resource consumption in one year Infrastruct. (mill. t) Public roads Private roads Streets Cycling Rail transport Air transport Maritime transport TOTAL 84.52 10.93 9.18 0.43 4.62 0.91 8.56 119 % Traffic (mill. t) 5.70 0.16 2.78 0.06 0.67 0.34 1.56 11 % Total (mill. t) 90.22 11.09 11.96 0.49 5.29 1.24 10.11 130 Per capita (t) 17.3 2.1 2.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.9 25,0 %

71 9 8 0 4 1 7 100

51 1 25 1 6 3 14 100

69 9 9 0 4 1 8 100

Table 21. Water consumption by the transport system in one year. Water consumption in one year Infrastruct. (mill. t) Public roads Private roads Streets Cycling Rail transport Air transport Maritime transport TOTAL 462.85 244.38 234.19 10.10 51.43 67.60 28.85 1,099 % Traffic (mill. t) 77.12 2.18 27.93 5.59 234.37 2.43 11.97 362 % Total (mill. t) 540.0 246.6 262.1 15.7 285.8 70.0 40.8 1,461 Per capita (t) 103.4 47.2 50.2 3.0 54.8 13.4 7.8 279.8 %

42 22 21 1 5 6 3 100

21 1 8 2 65 1 3 100

37 17 18 1 20 5 3 100

Table 22. Air consumption by the transport system in one year. Air consumption in one year Infrastruct. (mill. t) Public roads Private roads Streets Cycling Rail transport Air transport Maritime transport TOTAL 0.71 0.11 0.26 0.002 0.08 0.07 0.30 1.5 % Traffic (mill. t) 7.50 0.21 3.33 0.02 0.27 0.80 2.66 15 % Total (mill. t) 8.21 0.32 3.59 0.02 0.35 0.87 2.97 16.3 Per capita (t) 1.6 0.1 0.7 0.00 0.1 0.2 0.6 3.1 %

46 7 17 0 5 4 20 100

51 1 23 0 2 5 18 100

50 2 22 0 2 5 18 100

Figures 21 and 22 show the distribution of the total consumption of natural resources between traffic and infrastructure, as well as for the different forms of transport. 

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Natural resource consumption by traf c, million tonnes

Abiotic

119

11 Infrastructure Traf c

Water

1,005

362

Air 0%

2 20 % 40 %

15 60 % 80 % 100 %

Figure 21. Distribution of natural resource consumption between infrastructure and traffic.

Abiotic 4% 0% 9% 9% 69 % 1% 8%

Water 5% 3% Public roads 21 % Private roads 40 % Streets Cycle traf c Rail traf c 1% 12 % 18 % Air traf c Maritime traf c

Air 18 % 5% 2% 0% 22 % 2% 51 %

Figure 22. Distribution of natural resource consumption between different forms of transport

Ministry of the Environment 

When the distribution of natural resource consumption is compared to the division of passenger and freight transport performance (Fig. 2 and 3), the results can be considered logical. Ninety-four percent of passenger-transport journeys and 68 percent of freight-transport journeys include road transport, which consumes 90 percent of the abiotic natural resources. The consumption of abiotic natural resources first and foremost reveals the infrastructure mass demanded by the particular mode of transport, this mass being determined by surface area and thickness. Thus, for instance, harbours, which are of massive construction, consume more abiotic natural resources than private roads, despite the latter having a larger surface area. Similarly, while airports have larger surface areas than harbours, their abiotic natural resource consumption is markedly less than that of harbours. The distribution of water consumption (Fig. 22) is primarily associated with the surface area required by the mode of transport, since an appreciable fraction of water consumption is due to rainwater diverging from its original route. The contribution of private roads to water consumption is greater than the contribution of maritime transport. The use of water by rail transport, on the other hand, is linked to the utilisation of water for electricity generation. Consequently, the contribution of rail transport towards water consumption by the transport system is greater than its surface area contribution. Air consumption is in almost direct relationship to journeys, since it is primarily based on the use of fuel. Here, rail transport forms an exception. The contribution of rail transport to the volume of transport is greater than the contribution of rail transport to air consumption. This is influenced by, firstly, the energy efficiency of rail transport and, secondly, the proportion of electricity generated by means other than combustion in relation to the overall electricity consumed by rail transport. 

6

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006 

Calculation examples

This chapter shows how the MIPS values calculated in the study can be used in practice. Natural resource consumption has been calculated for different domestic routes using different modes of transport. In the calculation examples for passenger traffic the results were applied to practical situations of making a choice, so that at the same time it can be seen what mode of transport for a journey is the most eco-efficient. The calculation examples for freight traffic demonstrate how enterprises can benefit from the results of the study.
4.1

Calculation examples for passenger traffic
In the long-distance transport calculations, mainly the MIPS values for public roads have been used for vehicular traffic. Many journeys involve walking, which has not been taken into account. Almost all journeys generally include urban area transport at the start and end of the trip, but on longer journeys short trips along streets or private roads hardly affect the overall consumption. In some examples the consumption ‘from door to door’ has been calculated, while in others the consumption has been calculated only on a road map scale. The results of the calculations are given here. Example 1. One person’s journey from the centre of Helsinki to the centre of Hämeenlinna, Tampere, Oulu or Rovaniemi Options are passenger car, coach and train, and in all cases, except to Hämeenlinna, aeroplane. In this example the road sections have been studied only at the GT road map series scale of 1:200 000. The results are given in Figures 23-26. From the perspective of abiotic natural resource consumption, the passenger car is the worst option on all journeys. The vast difference between the passenger car and the other modes of transport is partially based on the fact that the passenger car consumption has been calculated per vehicle-kilometre, that is, it has been assumed that only one person is travelling. When travelling from Helsinki to Tampere, the train and coach are markedly more eco-efficient than the aeroplane. When going to Oulu or Rovaniemi, only the passenger car is obviously a worse option than the others in terms of its abiotic natural resource consumption. Concerning water consumption, the coach is the best alternative on all journeys. From the air consumption perspective the train is the best form of transport of all. But the amount of electricity used by the train, which was estimated based on Finland’s average national electricity production mix, must take into account high levels of water consumption, because of the large share of regulated hydropower in electricity production. For similar reasons, little air is consumed by a train in comparison to the other means of transport.

Ministry of the Environment 

7

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

152 kg/person per route

24

18

Abiotic

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

kg/person per route

711 kg/person per route 429

20 15 10 5

18

6 1

78 Water

0 Air train

abioottinen passenger car coach

Figure 23. Consumption of natural resources per person on the Helsinki–Hämeenlinna route.

300 kg/person per route kg/person per route 250 200 150 100 50 0 Abiotic

5,000 kg/person per route 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Water passenger car coach train prob. turbine

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Air

Figure 24. Consumption of natural resources per person on the Helsinki–Tampere route.

1,200 kg/person per route kg/person per route 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Abiotic

12,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Water passenger car coach train jet kg/person per route 10,000

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Air

Figure 25. Consumption of natural resources per person on the Helsinki–Oulu route.

1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Abiotic

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Water passenger car coach train jet

250 kg/person per route 200 150 100 50 0 Air

kg/person per route

Figure 26. Consumption of natural resources per person on the Helsinki–Rovaniemi route. 

8

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

kg/person per route

Example 2. Journey from Kurhila village (in Asikkala, 3 km north-west of Lahti) to the University of Oulu, calculated ‘from door to door’ Here calculations were made for four different modes of travel or combinations: 1. Train: Coach from Kurhila to Hämeenlinna  by train to Oulu  bus to the University of Oulu 2.Aeroplane: Taxi from Kurhila to Vääksy  coach to Helsinki–Vantaa Airport  flight to Oulu  bus to the university 3. Coach: Coach/bus all the way . Passenger car: One person by passenger car the whole way
Abiotic 933

kg 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 train 215

263

148

aircraft

bus/coach

passenger car

Water kg 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 10,838 7,687 824 train aircraft bus/coach passenger car 4,989

Air kg 200 160 120 80 40 0 178

95 18 train aircraft 31 bus/coach passenger car

Figure 27. Natural resource consumption per person on a journey from Asikkala to Oulu. The alternatives are designated according to the primary mode of travel involved.

On this trip the best option in regard to the consumption of abiotic natural resources and water would be to go by coach. From the air consumption standpoint the best alternative would be the train. A passenger car consumes over three times more abiotic natural resources than the other options. The flight alternative consumes markedly more water and air than the others.

Ministry of the Environment 

9

Example 3. Passenger journey from the University of Vaasa to the University of Joensuu’s geography department, calculated from ‘door to door’ In this example, calculations were made for five different modes of travel or combinations: 1. By train the whole way, the universities being within walking distance of the railway stations 2. By coach the whole way 3. By bus to Vaasa airport  flight from Vaasa to Helsinki  flight from Helsinki to Joensuu  bus to the university . By passenger car, one person alone . By passenger car, with the driver and one passenger in the vehicle Figure 28 shows the natural resource consumption per person for the route using five different modes of travel.
Abiotic kg 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 train bus/coach Water 21,358 15,771 5,639 1,082 train bus/coach aircraft alone in car 2,819 with 2 in car aircraft alone in car with 2 in car 195 705 457 523

1,046

kg 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

kg 200 160 120 80 40 0 train bus/coach 23 35

Air 169 93 47

aircraft

alone in car with 2 in car

Figure 28. Natural resource consumption per person on the Vaasa–Joensuu route using different travel options.

From the standpoint of the consumption of abiotic natural resources and water the best method of travel on this journey is the coach. Since the final section of the rail journey, Pieksämäki to Joensuu, has been categorised as a little-used section, travelling by train consumes more natural resources than making the trip in a car with two

60

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

passengers. From the air consumption perspective, the train and coach are the most eco-efficient alternatives, the aeroplane the least efficient. The mode of travel also greatly affects the length of the journey: by car the trip is 90 kilometres, when flying via Helsinki, 730 kilometres. Example 4. From Helsinki to Tallinn (Estonia) In this example, a trip from Helsinki to Tallinn has been calculated using three different options: 1. High-speed passenger craft 2. Passenger car ferry 3. Flight by propeller turbine aircraft The calculations include only the journeys by ship and aircraft, and not, for example, the journeys to the harbour or airport. Figure 29 shows the natural resource consumption of the options.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

120 kg/person per route 100 80 60 40 20 0 Abiotic 14 96 78 kg/person per route

4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 802 131

3656 kg/person per route

90

17

25

Water high-speed pass. craft passenger car ferry prob. turbine aicraft

Air

Figure 29. Natural resource consumption per person on the Helsinki–Tallinn route using different modes of travel.

On this trip, the passenger car ferry is the best alternative in regard to natural resource consumption. A high-speed passenger craft consumes more abiotic natural resources and markedly more air than an aeroplane. The consumption of abiotic natural resources and water for the most part is due to the infrastructure, that is, harbours and airports, which are assumed to be the same in Tallinn as in Helsinki. Air consumption is mainly a consequence of fuel consumption. Example 5. A trip by one person from Helsinki to St. Petersburg, calculations on a road map scale The figures in this example were calculated based on Finland’s conditions. Possible differences between these and conditions in Russia were not taken into account. Although in rail traffic there may be different performances on the Russian side, the infrastructure there is roughly similar to that in Finland. There may be sharper differences in road infrastructure and traffic performances. However, the example provides an insight into the differences between modes of travel. In this example, the natural resource consumption of the route has been calculated using five different travel options:

Ministry of the Environment

61

1. Coach 2. Train 3. Passenger car (one passenger) . Passenger car ferry . Jet Figure 30 shows the natural resource consumption of the route using different modes of travel. For the coach calculations the MI values for an average road have been used. The length of the route by passenger car is 393 kilometres and by coach, 00 kilometres. By air the journey is 12 kilometres. The length of the train route is 30 kilometres. The train journey was calculated on the basis of the actual capacity use from Helsinki to Vainikkala, and on the Russian side on the average MIPS values. The length of the route by passenger ferry was estimated as 370 kilometres. The calculations do not include journeys between the harbour, airport or railway station and the city centre.

kg 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 coach train 128 568

Abiotic 794

96

111

passenger car passenger car ferry Water

jet

kg 12,000
8,000 4,000

8,089

7,990

1,116
0 coach train

2,662 895
passenger car passenger car ferry Air 177 115 75 jet

kg 200 160 120 80 40 0 coach 24 10 train

passenger car passenger car ferry

jet

Figure 30. Natural resource consumption per person on the Helsinki to St. Petersburg route.

62

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

From the standpoint of the consumption of abiotic natural resources and water on this journey the best alternative is the passenger car ferry. The coach consumes almost as little, but in terms of air consumption the coach is an appreciably better option than the passenger car ferry. The train uses the least amount of air, but from the water consumption standpoint the train is the worst alternative. From an overall point of view, the best option would appear, based on this calculation, to be the coach. Example 6. Work trip from Matinkylä (Espoo) to Kumpula (Helsinki), calculated from ‘door to door’ In this example a work trip was examined within the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, with a length of approximately 1–19 kilometres, depending on the mode of transport. Six modes of travel or combinations were calculated for the route: 1. Alone in a car 19 km 2. By bus 18 km 3. By bicycle 1 km 4. By bus 12 km  by metro 4 km  by bus 2 km 5. By bus 12 km  by tram 7 km 6. Theoretical alternative: by metro 19 km (Matinkylä to Sörnäinen)  by bus 2 km

Ministry of the Environment

63

kg 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 25.5

Abiotic

3.2 passenger car bus

2.7 bicycle

4.2 bus + metro

5.4 bus + tram

5.6 western metro

kg 600 450 300 150 0 228

Water 560 346 111 13 128

passenger car

bus

bicycle

bus + metro

bus + tram

western metro

kg 4 3 2 1 0 passenger car bus 1.1 0.2 bicycle 3.6

Air

1.0

1.2

0.9

bus + metro

bus + tram

western metro

Figure 31. Natural resource consumption per person for a work trip (Espoo to Helsinki), using different modes of transport.

As a sixth alternative, the MIPS values for the natural resource consumption by the present metro were used for the so-called western metro that so far is in the planning stage. Figure 31 shows the results of this study. The different means of travel are named according to the most common form of transport on the journey. On this trip the bicycle is the best option in terms of abiotic resource and air consumption. From the water consumption perspective, the best alternative is the bus. Water consumption is affected mainly by diverted rainwater and by the use of electricity. Electricity for the metro, as also the tram, has been calculated according to the average national electricity mix, thereby emphasising the contribution of hydropower. From the standpoint of abiotic natural resource and air consumption the passenger car is far and away the worst alternative. Work trip MIPS values may appear small, but since the trip is made twice a day, 220 days a year, the figures and their differences are noteworthy. Work trips made by the passenger car in the example consume 11.2 tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year. Travelling by bus uses up 1,00 kilograms of abiotic natural resources a year. Accor-

6

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

ding to Mäenpää and others (2000), the overall consumption of natural resources by households in 199 came to well over 1 tonnes per capita (without the infrastructure contribution). A work trip of sufficient length, especially one made by passenger car, may well double a citizen’s total natural resource consumption. Example 7. A child’s -kilometre school journey in a rural and an urban area In this example, the natural resource consumption of a child’s -kilometre school trip one way in an urban area and in a sparsely populated part of the countryside is considered. The school journey in a sparsely populated area includes 1 kilometre of private road, 1 kilometre of connecting road, and 2 kilometres of regional roads. In a built-up area the school trip covers a total of 1 kilometre of residential streets, 1 kilometre of connecting streets, and 2 kilometres of main street. For both, the consumption of a school journey was calculated using four different travel variations: 1. By bicycle 2. Taken by car, one child aboard 3. Taken by car, three children aboard with 1. kilometres of extra driving to fetch the other children . Bus/coach 3 kilometres There are no cycle lanes along private and connecting roads, so that for the sparsely populated area the consumption of resources by cycling along 2 kilometres of cycle lane has been included. Similarly, roads going to properties generally lack a cycle lane. Consequently, the consumption of cycling in the urban area has been calculated based on a 3-kilometre cycle trip. For car travel, the length of the journey in both directions has been calculated. In this case the service applies to the passengers, that is, the driver has not been taken into account in the total number of people being transported. Thus, the consumption due to transporting one child has been calculated on the basis of the vehicle-kilometres of the passenger car. With three children on board, 1. kilometres of extra driving at the start of the trip has been calculated and the vehicle-kilometres have then been divided by three. The results are shown in Figures 32 and 33. To make comparison easier, the scales in the figures are identical.

Ministry of the Environment

6

40.0 kg/person per route 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.9 0.0

37 kg/person per route 600 450 300 150 0 37

564 kg/person per route

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.1

1.7

19

286

0.8

1.3 Abiotic

9

0.2 Air

Water bicycle by car, abioottinen 1 child by car, 3 children coach

Figure 32. Natural resource consumption per passenger of a child’s school journey using different modes of transport in a rural area.

40.0
kg/person per route kg/person per route kg/person per route

2.0 600 450 300 150 0 Water
bicycle by car, 1 child by car, 3 children coach

30.0 20.0 10.0 1.2 0.0 Abiotic 9.9 5.5 0.5

1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0

1.6

252 142 43 10

0.8

0.2 Air

Figure 33. Natural resource consumption per passenger of a child’s school journey using different modes of transport in an urban area.

The figures show how this kind of travel in urban areas consumes less natural resources than in rural areas. This is because there are more people in an urban area using the same infrastructure. Air consumption is roughly the same in rural areas and urban areas. When comparing modes of travel, it can be said that the bicycle and coach/bus are appreciably more eco-efficient alternatives than the passenger car, even with several children on board. Walking could also have been an option. However, the natural resource consumption of walking has not been calculated. In an urban area the coach/bus appears to be more eco-efficient than the bicycle, because average cycling figures have been used for calculating the consumption of a bicycle. MIPS values for cycling have only been calculated for Finland on average and for Helsinki. If separate MIPS values for cycling along main streets had been calculated, they would probably have been either lower, or of the same order of magnitude, as the MIPS values for a coach/bus on main streets. Leaving out the infrastructure required for bicycling wherever there is no cycle lane is problematic from the perspective of the MIPS method. In this study the contribution of no infrastructure other than cycle lanes has been calculated for cycling. Nevertheless, cyclists are one kind of road user benefiting from and using the roads, so that one should also calculate some sort of contribution towards road consumption from cyclists. This kind of thinking can also be taken further. If a schoolboy or girl walks a distance of one kilometre along a private road to a bus stop instead of being driven there, what amount of natural resources in actual fact are spared? At least the fuel consumption of the passenger car; but what about the infrastructure? It is easy to maintain that the road is, in any case, there, having once been built, so that the natural resource consumption due to the road does not need to be calculated in addition to the consumption by a car. However, there is no such thing as free infrastructure,

66

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

so that it would be best to allocate the consumption of the road to all types of users, where feasible. The kind of thinking directed towards the infrastructure could also be applied to public transport: for example, since the bus/coach is going to pass that way anyway, then I will not increase the consumption by travelling on it. However, in the long term, the bus/coach will not run at all, if I and others do not make use of it, and from the standpoint of the entire concept, thinking along these lines is unsustainable. There is also the same problem with the journey to school as with the journey to work: the MIPS values may look small but when the trip is made twice a day, 180 days a year, the figures and their differences begin to acquire more significance. For instance, transporting one child to school, as in this example, by passenger car in a rural area consumes 13.3 tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year. By contrast, the bus/coach consumes 70 kilograms of such resources over the same period of time.
4.2

Calculation examples for freight traffic
Example 8. Natural resource consumption caused by sending a letter Based on the results of this study it was calculated how much sending a letter in Finland on average consumes natural resources. The basic data were supplied by the Finnish Post Corporation (Suomen Posti Oyj); development manager Harri Ajomaa (2006) assisted with the calculations. Most of Finland’s ‘letter-kilometres’ take place by passenger car. The contribution of bicycles or postal workers’ delivery carts is not taken into account in this calculation. Approximately one-half of the post office’s 7000 delivery routes are covered by bicycle or on foot. Journeys between sorting offices are made by lorry. The most urgent long-distance mail goes by air, while vans are used mainly for deliveries to companies and for emptying public mail boxes, so that the contribution of these to the overall transportation is minimal. For calculating the MIPS values of transporting a letter, the average MIPS values for the vehicles were used. These figures are not, however, entirely commensurate with the actual situation, as the post office in practice uses all routes along which there is inhabitation. Town and city centres and densely populated urban areas form an exception to this, because in these areas postal deliveries take place by bicycle and on foot. The calculations also take note of the buildings used by the postal services. The surface area of all the buildings was divided by the annual number of letters to give the surface area per letter. For the MIPS values of buildings, the data on the Viikki Infokeskus (Sinivuori & Saari 2006) were used. On average, transporting a letter consumes 190 grams of abiotic natural resources, 7.8 kilograms of water, and 3 grams of air. Around 77 percent of the consumption of abiotic natural resources, 29 percent of the water consumption, and 7 percent of the air consumption was attributable to vehicles. Most of the water consumption was due to the hydropower needed for the electricity supply to the buildings (Fig. 3). The results were compared to the Finnish Post Corporation’s calculation of carbon dioxide consumption per transported letter. According to the post office, transporting a letter consumes approximately 3 grams of carbon dioxide (Postin ympäristökatssaus 200, p 8). The MIPS values result of 3 grams of air is equivalent to 7 grams of carbon dioxide per letter. The difference between the calculations is due to the fact that this study also takes account of the infrastructure in addition to the consumption of fuel by vehicles. Similarly, the buildings themselves have also been taken into consideration, and not only their energy consumption.

Ministry of the Environment

67

Break -down of abiotic natural resource consumption 2% 23 % van pass. car lorry aircraft properties

Break -down of water consumption 0% 10 % 5% 12 %

44 % 9%

van pass.car lorry aircraft properties

73 %

22 % Break -down of air consumption 1% 27 % 23 % van pass.car lorry aircraft propertie s

26 %

23 %

Figure 34. Break-down of the consumption of natural resources by a mailed letter.

The example indicates that sending a letter in Finland is equivalent, from the standpoint of its abiotic natural resource consumption, to a journey of well over 100 metres by passenger car. Transporting a letter to a letter box by passenger car multiples the consumption of natural resources several-fold. Thus, the fewer the trips made by car to post letters, the less natural resources are consumed by the sending of letters. Keeping the collection network for letters sufficiently dense therefore conserves natural resources. Equivalent phenomena have also been observed in the energy consumption of infrastructure changes in the retail trade (Kasanen and Savolainen 1992). Consumers’ journeys by passenger car are a more significant factor than trade logistics lorries, so that the increased passenger car journeys by consumers when a shop closes down clearly exceed the savings made by the cooperative business by closing the shop. Example 9: TNT’s transportation service operating in Finland and abroad TNT Suomi Oy forms part of the Express division of the TNT concern. Founded in Australia, the division now operates in over 200 countries. TNT Express transports some 3.3 million consignments a week, maintains a network of more than 900 of its own distribution points, runs 18,000 vehicles, and has 2 of its own aircraft (TNT 2006). The results of the study were applied to the calculation of natural resource consumption by TNT’s transport operations with the aid of a few examples. Quality manager Tuija Janakka (Janakka 2006) assisted in making the calculations. The following paragraphs describe the main points of the calculations and the results. Further details of the calculations can be found in Appendix 3. To make it possible to compare the natural resource consumption of different routes and consignments of varying sizes, the MIPS values were also converted to make them equivalent to consumption per tonne-kilometre.

68

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Deliveries in Finland In the case of transportation within Finland an attempt was made to determine the actual routes used by TNT’s vehicles when making deliveries. Information on how full the lorries were was known for almost all routes. Reliable estimates were made where information was missing. The actual number of kilometres driven was divided by the total load for each section of the route. From this the consumption of the consignment being studied was calculated. For the purpose of the calculations only transportation was taken into account and not, for example, TNT’s buildings, as in example 8. Turku to Rauma: 4.4 kg, delivered the next day at 12.00 In this example, the natural resource consumption was calculated for a . kilogram consignment from Turku to Rauma. The package was transported by van from the centre of Turku to TNT’s facility at Turku airport, and from the airport to Rauma by lorry carrying a total of 11 kilograms of goods. The return trip from Rauma to Turku, plus diversions en route, were also included in the route, making the total length of the journey 30 kilometres. For taking the consignment on this journey approximately 1 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 83 kilograms of water, and 1.8 kilograms of air were used. Calculated per tonne-kilometre, around 9 kilograms of abiotic natural resources,  kilograms of water, and 1.3 kilograms of air were consumed. Tuusula to Nurmes: 80 kg, delivered the next day at 15.00 A second example of a delivery made from Tuusula to Nurmes, in Finland, was calculated on the same principle as the previous example. The total length of the route was 860 kilometres and the consignment to be carried weighed 80 kilograms. Detailed information was not available on the route section from Kuopio to Nurmes, so that only the direct, one-way journey from Kuopio to Nurmes was used for the calculations. Consequently, the calculations are slightly lower than they would be in reality. Taking the consignment from Tuusula to Nurmes consumed around 8 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 9 kilograms of water, and 6.3 kilograms of air. In tonne-kilometres, this came to 700 grams of abiotic natural resources, 6. kilograms of water, and 90 grams of air. Transportation abroad The sample consignments transported abroad both went from Finland to Germany, one being sent by air, the other by road. On the foreign routes, the long-distance routes are direct transportation from depot to depot, that is, there are no deviations from the set route. Concerning the distribution, the situation is as in Finland, that is, the route followed depends on the day’s load. Information on the distribution contribution was not as precise as with deliveries in Finland, so that distribution was calculated only as a one-way direct journey to the recipient. This to some extent reduces the actual MIPS values. MIPS values from this study were used for foreign route sections in Sweden, and German values (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 66) for route sections in Denmark and Germany.

Ministry of the Environment

69

Järvenpää to Mannheim: 0.1 kg, delivered on the next working day An express delivery was taken from Järvenpää to Mannheim by air in one night. There were two flights on the route, the first from Helsinki to Liège with one stop-off at Stockholm, the second from Liège to Mannheim. For calculating the natural resource consumption of this route the actual extent to which the aircraft were full and the MIPS values for domestic flights were used. The length of the route was estimated as 2,100 kilometres. Transporting a consignment by air from Järvenpää to Mannheim consumed around 220 grams of abiotic natural resources, 10 kilograms of water and 110 grams of air. Per tonne-kilometre these worked out at 1.1 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 0 kilograms of water, and 00 grams of air. Kotka to Bremen: 114 kg, delivered within three days A consignment from Kotka to Bremen was taken by road, mainly using a lorry with a semi-trailer. The route ran through Sweden and the sea voyage took place on a RoRo vessel. The length of the direct route was estimated as 1,800 kilometres. Transporting the consignment by road from Kotka to Bremen consumed around 32.8 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 172 kilograms of water, and .6 kilograms of air. Per tonne-kilometre, 0.2 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 80 grams of water, and 20 grams of air were consumed. Evaluation of the results When the results were examined, it was found that the degree to which vehicles are filled vastly affects the consumption of natural resources. On a main route with depot to depot transportation the vehicles are generally fuller. When calculating consumption at the degree to which the vehicles are loaded it is important to know the actual length of the route, if the calculations are to be reliable. In Finland, the consumption calculated per delivery along the route depends a lot on how many goods or how much cargo is being carried altogether. The main route sections where large amounts of goods are transported from depot to depot in full vehicles do not raise the material input in the overall transportation, and they reduce the material input of the delivery in relation to the tonne-kilometres. The calculation examples differ radically from each other in regard to what component of the delivery consumed the most natural resources (Figures 3 and 36). The results calculated per tonne-kilometre in the examples supported the results of the study regarding the level of the average MIPS values, even though the fluctuating capacity use, at the same time, indicated that there may be appreciable differences in the eco-efficiency between individual cases. Among the domestic consignments the Tuusula to Nurmes route would appear to be the more eco-efficient one. The difference is primarily due to the fact that the Turku to Rauma route does not include any main route depot to depot transportation, but is composed solely of collection and distribution journeys in vehicles which are not as full as those used for main route transportation. In the case of the Turku to Rauma consignment a lorry was used for distributing and collecting only 17 kilograms of goods, which raises the material input per tonne-kilometre. Besides, the calculated route in the Nurmes consignment is shorter than in reality.

70

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Division of consumption of abiotic natural resources on different routes 0% Turku-Rauma Tuusula-Nurmes JärvenpääMannheim Kotka-Bremen collection main route delivery 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Figure 35. Distribution of abiotic natural resource consumption of the sample consignments. There is no main route depot to depot transportation on the Turku–Rauma route. On the Järvenpää–Mannheim route the main route transportation was by air.

Division of air consumption on different routes 0% Turku-Rauma collection main route delivery 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Tuusula-Nurmes JärvenpääMannheim Kotka-Bremen

Figure 36. Distribution of air consumption of the sample consignments. There is no main route depot to depot transportation at all on the Turku–Rauma route. On the Järvenpää–Mannheim route the main route transportation was by air.

Particularly with respect to the transportation abroad it was observed that speed also costs in terms of natural resources. When comparing the results per tonne-kilometre of the two sample consignments, it was observed that in regard to the consumption of abiotic natural resources, transportation by land is over  times more eco-efficient than air transport (factor ). In terms of water consumption the difference between the two examples is over 0 times (factor 8) and in the case of air consumption the factor is almost 17. An interesting observation on the Kotka to Bremen route was the fact that almost 90 percent of the abiotic natural resources consumption of the consignment was due to transportation by van from Kotka to Vantaa. This is partly because average tonne-kilometre MIPS values have been used for calculating the natural resource consumption on the German part of the route, and this may distort the relationships. By making the Kotka to Vantaa route section more effective the eco-efficiency of the consignment could, however, be considerably improved, and the difference between air and land transportation would then still increase.

Ministry of the Environment

71 

Summary of results and conclusions

5.1

Basis of the study
The purpose of this study was to give an impression of the natural resource consumption of Finland’s traffic system throughout its life cycle, both in terms of the different modes of transport and as a whole. The study formed part of the FIN-MIPS Traffic research project. Conducted mainly in 200-200, the project was financed by the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finnish Road Administration, Finnish Rail Administration, Finnish Maritime Administration, Finnish Civil Aviation Authority, and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. The project was accomplished by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. The study built on a sub-study on local traffic (Talja et al. 2006) and sub-studies based on case studies on the consumption of natural resources by road, bicycle, rail, air and maritime traffic (Pusenius et al. 200, Hakkarainen et al. 200, Vihermaa et al. 200, Nieminen et al. 200, Lindqvist et al. 200). By generalising the findings of the case studies, MIPS figures (material input per unit service) were calculated for three natural resource categories: 1. abiotic (nonrenewable) natural resources, 2. water (all water diverted from its natural route) 3. air (basically oxygen combustion). For each mode of transport average MIPS figures were obtained for passenger and goods traffic; these figures are presented in a summarised form in section .2.1. In addition, MIPS figures for different types of routes were determined (see section 3). The natural resource consumption by the traffic system is summarised in section .2.2 and dealt with in more detail in section 3.6. The infrastructure makes a large contribution to the MIPS figures for the consumption of abiotic natural resources and water by transport. Consequently, the assumptions for the use of the infrastructure and vehicles, and the infrastructure’s material input division, shared principally between passenger and goods traffic, are appreciable. Section 2. offers possible input allocation methods for different forms of transport and their impact on the results and section 2.6 the final selection decision of the allocation methods by the project’s steering group and the reasons for this choice. The main assumptions used in the study in relation to natural resource consumption by the infrastructure and modes of transport are given in section 2., as well as in the aforementioned case studies. The MIPS figures calculated in the study can be used for comparing different modes of transport, and for making decisions on (the use of) these, as well as for MIPS calculations on products and services, e.g. in enterprises. The report demonstrates

72

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

differences between different modes of transport and routes (sections 3.1 - 3.6) and the use of the resulted MIPS figures on different routes in passenger and goods traffic using calculation examples (Chapter ). In section .2 methods of reducing the material intensity and natural resource consumption of traffic are evaluated.
5.2

Main observations
5.2.1

MIPS figures for different modes of transport
When comparing Finland’s internal MIPS figures for passenger traffic it can be seen that from the standpoint of the consumption of abiotic natural resources the bus/coach, bicycle and metro are the most eco-efficient modes of transport (table 23). From the water consumption standpoint travelling by bus/coach is clearly the most ecoefficient option. In regard to air consumption cycling is the best alternative (table 23, figures 37-39).

Table 23. Average MIPS figures for passenger traffic in Finland. Average MIPS figures for passenger traffic in Finland (kg/passenger-km) Means of transport Passenger car Bus/coach Van Bicycle Train Metro Tram Aicraft Abiotic 1.44 0.32 2.16 0.38 1.20 0.29 0.66 0.56 Water 14.5 3.2 22.7 12.1 29.0 29.4 48.1 26.6 Air 0.14 0.06 0.28 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.28

Consumption of abiotic natural resources by different modes of passenger traf c 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 1.44 1.20

kg/pass.km

0.32

0.38

0.56 0.26 Train Domestic aircraft Ship to foreign port

Passenger car

Bus/coach

Bicycle

Figure 37. Comparison of average MIPS figures for abiotic natural resource consumption of passenger traffic.

Ministry of the Environment

73

Consumption of water by different modes of passenger traf c

35.0 30.0 25.0
kg/pass.km

29.0 26.6 14.5 12.1 3.2
Passenger car Bus/coach Bicycle Train Domestic aircraft

20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

2.4
Ship to foreign port

Fig. 38. Comparison of average MIPS figures for water consumption.

Consumption of air by different modes of passenger traf c 0.35 0.30 0.25 kg/pass.km 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Passenger car Bus/coach Bicycle Train Domestic aircraft Ship to foreign port 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.31

0.28

Fig. 39. Comparision of average MIPS figures for air consumption.

The average MIPS figures for travelling from Finland to other countries in Europe are not entirely comparable. The MIPS figures for flights to Europe do not include Finland’s nearby areas (Stockholm, St. Petersburg and the Baltic states). Flying to these destinations consumes appreciably more natural resources per kilometre than other European flights (table 2). Passengers do not generally travel by ship to anywhere except nearby areas, so that the MIPS figures for travelling to Europe by sea have not been separately calculated (table 2). On a rough basis, when travelling to areas close to Finland the ship is more eco-efficient than the aeroplane. On longer haul flights, the MIPS figures decrease.

7

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Table 24. Average MIPS figures for passenger traffic from Finland to places abroad. ”Nearby areas” means Stockholm, St. Petersburg and the Baltic states. Average MIPS figures for passenger traffic from Finland to abroad (kg/pass.-km) Mode of transport Ship Aicraft Aicraft Aicraft Destination Nearby areas Nearby areas Central and southern Europe Distant lands Abiotic 0.26 0.47 0.11 0.06 Water 2.42 18.90 3.36 0.91 Air 0.31 0.34 0.14 0.13

In goods traffic the most eco-efficient form of transport per tonne kilometre from the abiotic natural resources consumption perspective is the lorry with a trailer (table 2). In regard to air consumption the best alternative is the train. Calculated per tonne kilometre the van is the least eco-efficient mode owing to its average load being so small.
Table 25. Average MIPS figures for goods traffic in Finland. Average MIPS figures for goods traffic in Finland (kg/tonne-km) Mode of transport Van Lorry Lorry with semi-trailer Lorry with trailer On average in road traffic On average in road traffic without van Train Aircraft Abiotic 10.78 0.58 0.44 0.23 0.52 0.37 0.54 5.60 Water 113.5 6.2 5.7 1.5 6.3 4.2 15.3 266.5 Air 1.39 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.02 2.80

In international goods traffic the ship is a markedly more eco-efficient form of transport than the aeroplane because of its low fuel consumption (table 26).
Table 26. Average MIPS figures for goods traffic from Finland to places abroad. ”Nearby areas” means the Baltic states, Sweden’s eastern coast, and north-western Russia. Average MIPS figures for goods traffic from Finland to abroad (kg/tonne-km) Mode of transport Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Ship Ship Ship Destination Nearby areas Central and southern Europe Distant lands Nearby areas Central and southern Europe Distant lands Abiotic 4.70 1.10 0.60 0.75 0.12 0.08 Water 189.0 33.6 9.1 3.1 0.7 0.6 Air 3.4 1.4 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1

The method of allocating infrastructure material input is of fundamental significance to the results of the study (see section 2.). Among the allocation methods finally selected (see section 2.6), the operation based allocation methods used for air and maritime transport differ somewhat from the unit-based allocation used for road and rail traffic. In road and rail transport the amount of goods traffic affects the MIPS

Ministry of the Environment

7

figures for passenger traffic: with more goods traffic, in the infrastructure’s unit-based allocation the MIPS figures for passenger traffic decrease. In road and rail transportation it is not possible to relate passengers to goods as simply as in air transport, because goods and passengers are rarely transported in the same vehicle or train. However, the methods chosen reflect each form of transport in question as faithfully as possible, which can be considered more important than a general uniformity in the selected allocation methods.
5.2.2

Overall consumption of natural resources by the traffic system
The traffic system within the constraints of this study consumes a total of approximately 130 million tons of abiotic natural resources, 1.6 billion tonnes of water, and 16.3 million tonnes of air, a year. Per capita this amounts to 2 tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 280 tonnes of water, and 3 tons of air, per year (tables 20, 21 and 22). Based on the allocation methods used in the study, around 73% of the abiotic natural resource consumption by the traffic system is due to passenger traffic and 28% to goods traffic. A significant percentage of abiotic natural resource consumption by the traffic system comes from infrastructure provision. The contribution of the infrastructure to the abiotic MIPS figures of transport varied between 73% in the case of domestic air traffic and 99% in the case of private roads. The abiotic natural resource consumption primarily reveals the amount of earthworks and construction undertaken on behalf of the traffic. The abiotic natural resource consumption is equivalent to around 2% of Finland’s Total Material Requirement (TMR). In the study by Mäenpää et al. (2000) the contribution of transport to the total consumption of natural resources is appreciably smaller. The high figure obtained in this study is influenced by the fact that the previously constructed infrastructure is evenly applied across all the years of use. The amount of traffic infrastructure construction nowadays is, however, less than one might think from the average figures calculated in this study. The most important factors regarding water consumption are rainwater diverted from its normal route, and electricity consumption. With air consumption approximately 90% was due (with the exception of bicycle traffic) to energy consumption. Air consumption by traffic reflects carbon dioxide emissions fairly well.

5.3

Ways of reducing the material intensity of transport
The vast amount of soil moved is an important new perspective which material input calculation brings to the discussion on the environmental impact of transport. In this respect, the abiotic, or non-renewable, natural resource category can be considered the most significant and interesting of the MIPS figures produced by this study. The share of infrastructure to the overall natural resource consumption by traffic, especially of abiotic natural resources, was indeed found to be extremely high (see section 3.6). The upkeep of old roads consumes appreciably lower amounts of natural resources than the construction of whole new roads, so that the amount of further construction is fundamental to natural resource consumption by the transport system. From the relatively low MIPS figures for busy routes (see section 3.1.3), one might gain the impression that by increasing the amount of traffic on existing routes we could increase their eco-efficiency. When the traffic, i.e. the service unit, increases on existing traffic routes, the MIPS figures decline (see section 2.1.3). This does not,

76

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

however, mean a reduction in natural resource consumption as a whole. From the environmental aspect, it is the total consumption and not the size of the relative MIPS figures that is of relevance. This should be kept in mind when talking of the material intensity of transport. Higher eco-efficiency, in other words a lower MIPS figure, is not the same as less consumption of natural resources. This study therefore reinforces the viewpoint that in addition to eco-efficiency we must also aim for sufficiency (e.g. Schmidt-Bleek 2002: 109-111). Eco-efficiency is increased by e.g. the choice of vehicle based on the MIPS figures, and an increase in the capacity use of the vehicle or the infrastructure. In both cases, the natural resource consumption in relation to the performance falls. Sufficiency is promoted by endeavours to reduce the transport performance, when the consequence is a reduction in the overall consumption as well. Travelling by public transport in general consumes smaller amounts of natural resources per passenger kilometre than travelling by private car (table 10, table 23, and section .1). The eco-efficiency of the transport system thus improves when the public transport contribution to the overall traffic performance grows. In public transport as well the ridership of vehicles is important, because the MIPS figures rise as the ridership falls (see Vihermaa et al. 200: 21). Through their daily choices everybody can promote a reduction in natural resource consumption by opting for the most eco-efficient alternative among the available means of travel and by keeping the travel performance as small as possible. Also by making the use of passenger cars more effective and by planning journey chains, we can improve eco-efficiency. If two people travel to work in the same car instead of both using their own, in principle the consumption of natural resources by the journey is halved. If travelling together leads to extra driving, the savings are reduced, although they will most likely not entirely disappear (see figures 32 and 33). Reducing the total consumption of natural resources by transport is only possible if the growth in traffic performances ceases. Predictions on traffic performance growth increase the pressure to construct new roads, which increases abiotic natural resource and water consumption, as well as the traffic performance when new and better roads are introduced. According to Tapio (2002), there is a self-perpetuating connection between traffic predictions and performances which is difficult to break without effective policy instruments. Numerous results of this study indicate that speeding up traffic increases natural resource consumption in the form of energy consumption and/or infrastructure material inputs. For example, the straight road and rail lines demanded by fast transport connections, with their cuttings, do not leave much chance of avoiding terrain that is unfavourable from the construction standpoint, so that natural resource consumption per route kilometre rises (e.g. motorway in table 8 and modern double-track railway in table 1). Additionally, speed easily increases travelling and/or the length of journeys and thus the traffic and its natural resource consumption as a whole. In Finland, for instance, it is not possible to make weekend shopping visits to Central Europe by car, but it is possible by air and this is becoming increasingly popular. Air transport increases natural resource consumption in the form of increasing performances, despite being relatively eco-efficient per passenger kilometre in mode of transport comparisons (see tables 23 and 2). In air transport, the propeller turbine aircraft, thanks to its lower fuel consumption, has lower MIPS figures for air consumption than the faster jet aircraft. The MIPS figures for abiotic natural resource and water consumption are, however, higher in the propeller aircraft (see appendix 2), due to the allocation method used here. In operation allocation the natural resource consumption of airports is shared equally among the operators, so that the higher passenger-capacity jets are allocated less infrastructure per passenger. In goods transport fast transportation by air is much more consumptive than other modes of transport (tables 2 and 26, example 9 in section .2). In maritime transport

Ministry of the Environment

77

the express boat consumes considerably more natural resources than the slower passenger car ferry (see fig. 29), this being a result of the higher fuel consumption due to the increase in speed, among other factors. (Lindqvist et al. 200: 71). Within the constraints of the financing for this study, it was not possible to comprehensively estimate the relationships with material intensity of measures for reducing the environmental loading due to traffic. However, a few methods that have emerged in public forum are examined below from the natural resource consumption perspective.

Measures associated with material input (MI) of infrastructure
Benefiting from waste material in earthworks constructions: The share of the infrastructure in abiotic natural resource consumption by different modes of transport is appreciable (see figures 12, 16, 17, 19, and 21). The use of material from quarrying or excavating in road construction reduces the need for importing soil and stone materials for construction purposes. Another way of enhancing the eco-efficiency of road construction is to replace new building materials by waste raw materials, or by surplus materials, imported from elsewhere, for e.g. stones from the mining industry, coal and peat ash, metallurgical crushed slag, blast furnace sand and crushed concrete (Mäkelä & Höynälä 2000). There is at the moment little use of waste for making road foundations (see Hänninen et al. 200: 11). In accordance with the MIPS method, in relation to the material input attributable to imported waste raw materials and surplus materials only the possible handling and transportation of the material is taken into account, the MI figure for the material itself being zero (Schmidt-Bleek et al. 1998: 39). Similarly, the soil and stone materials removed from the construction site are calculated only once, so that their use as a construction material no longer affects the MIPS figures. The Ministry of the Environment in 2006 launched a development programme called “New materials technology for infrastructure construction” (UUMA). The aim of this programme is to increase the use of recycled materials and to reduce the use of natural resources and waste formation in civil engineering (Infrarakentamisen… 2006). Already in use in the other Nordic countries, the imposition of an excavation tax may help to promote the use of waste materials in earthworks, and thereby the eco-efficiency of infrastructure. Improving the capacity of traffic routes using methods other than construction: The contribution of infrastructure to the consumption of abiotic natural resources and water by the traffic system is considerable (see fig. 21). Most of the natural resource consumption by infrastructure is due to their construction, with just a small contribution coming from their upkeep (e.g. Hänninen et al. 200: -6; Vihermaa et al. 200: 29). On this basis the construction of new infrastructure increases the overall consumption of natural resources far more than does the maintenance of existing infrastructure. New roads tend to increase, rather than decrease, the amount of traffic (e.g. Tapio 2002), which again raises the total use of natural resources. Rather than building new roads, the capacity of existing ones can be uprated by ways of improvement having lower materials intensity. These ways could include, for instance, developing traffic arrangements at road junctions, constructing or designating overtaking lanes, diverting traffic to a parallel road, or investing in traffic control systems.

Measures associated with material input (MI) to traffic
Promoting the introduction of fuel-conserving motor vehicles: For promoting the introduction of energy efficient motor vehicles, one suggestion is to shift the emphasis of car taxation to a levy on carbon dioxide emissions, with a reduction in purchase tax. Once this has been accomplished, the lifespan of existing vehicles would be reduced

78

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

and the total fuel consumption would fall. The contributions of car manufacturing and car fuel consumption to vehicle abiotic natural resource consumption are both around five percent. In terms of air consumption, on the other hand, fuel consumption is the governing factor (fig. 12). Shortening the lifespan of vehicles would enlarge the relative and absolute contribution of vehicle manufacturing and reduce the proportion of the natural resource consumption due to the use of the vehicles. Reducing fuel consumption would decrease air consumption directly. On the other hand, shortening the lifespan of individual vehicles by, e.g., 20% would call for a fuel consumption reduction in the equivalent size class to prevent the consumption of abiotic natural resources from increasing. According to the Wuppertal Institute’s study, replacing a passenger car with a steel chassis by a car with an aluminium (alloy) chassis and consequently lower fuel consumption would require the vehicle to be driven over 00,000 km, for the increased manufacturing materials’ abiotic natural resource consumption to compensate for the lowered fuel consumption (Schmidt-Bleek 2002: 83-8). The lifespan of a bus/coach is appreciably longer than 00,000 km (see table 2), so that in this instance the increased use of aluminium can more easily be defended. Other innovations affecting vehicles: Various development trends are apparent in existing cars and on the car markets. A Smart-type small 2-person car in terms of its capacity answers an appreciable proportion of peoples’ travel needs (the average ridership in Finland is 1. passengers; see table 2). Thanks to its compact size, this type of car requires a somewhat smaller infrastructure and less parking space, at least in urban areas. However, the trend appears to be precisely the opposite: an increase in large vehicles (space wagons or people carriers, city Xs) is increasing natural resource consumption in the form of higher fuel consumption. Moreover, the space requirement of this kind of vehicle, both in traffic and when parked, is higher than average, thereby increasing the infrastructure requirement. The hybrid car (a combination of combustion engine and electric motor) saves fuel but requires fitting with an electric motor containing a lot of copper (which has a high MI value). While it is fair to assume a decline in air consumption by this kind of engine, owing to the increased use of copper the overall abiotic natural resource consumption is unlikely to decrease. Increases in the use of biofuels in vehicular traffic : The contribution of fuel consumption to abiotic natural resource consumption as a whole is of the order of five percent (see fig. 12). By using biofuels, we could lower this proportion. However, if the biomass for biofuels had to be cultivated for fuel use, it would also become necessary to examine biotic natural resource use (which is beyond the range of the present study). Not only that, but the abiotic material inputs in biomass cultivation would also have to be considered. Using biogas generated from wastes as a fuel would not have to include natural resource consumption due to cultivation, because with a raw material made from wastes only the natural resources for processing are taken into account (Schmidt-Bleek et al. 1998:39). With the use of biofuel, however, air consumption would remain at the same level, since oxygen is also used up when biofuel is burned. In the MIPS concept, air consumption does not change if renewable resources are used. Thus, this is not equivalent to the general practice of carbon dioxide emission calculation taking into account the carbon dioxide bound up in growth (closed carbon cycle).

Measures associated with service performance (S)
State support for unprofitable public transport: The running of public transport vehicles is not eco-efficient if they are empty because the MIPS figures rise as the ridership falls (e.g. Vihermaa et al. 200: 21). When public transport is examined in the network, maintaining schedules on some little-used runs through state funding can,

Ministry of the Environment

79

however, promote the use of the entire network. If public transport support reduces private car use, it promotes dematerialisation, because passenger car transport is the most highly consumptive form of passenger traffic (see table 23). Organised shared trips, taxis, and car sharing: Shared trips (see Pölkki 200) reduce the consumption of natural resources in direct proportion to the number of people sharing. They lessen the amount of both fuel and vehicles, as well as the infrastructure requirement and thus provide one means of lowering the MIPS figures in all the sub-areas. Car sharing not only reduces use of the infrastructure but also the number of cars and private car performances (see Meijkamp 1998). It thus brings down the MIPS figures in all the sub-areas. Development of logistics in goods transport: The examples of section .2 (figures 3-36) demonstrate how in long haul transportation a significant proportion of natural resources are consumed at the start and end of journeys with goods collection and delivery. Frequently, smaller vehicles have to be used for this chore whose full capacity is lower than with vehicles on the main depot to depot routes. It is therefore best to devote special attention to improving the efficiency of goods collection and delivery journeys.

System level solutions connected with several material intensity perspectives
Concentration of human community structure: It is generally assumed that by concentrating the human community traffic can be reduced compared to a situation where an equivalent amount of construction takes place outside the existing community structure (e.g. Ojala 2000). If concentrating the community structure increases the use of the existing traffic routes without the need for constructing new ones, it reduces the MIPS values of transport (see section 2.1.3). Concentrating the community structure can also reduce the overall natural resource consumption if it can be used to decrease traffic performances, and if it promotes the use and profitability of more eco-efficient modes of transport (see table 23). If, however, the community structure is intensified by constructing on weak soils, the material intensity of the infrastructure increases. In particular the consumption of abiotic natural resources may rise compared to a situation where construction takes place on sturdy, but more distantly located, ground. The “profitability” limit, especially from the abiotic natural resource consumption perspective, needs to be calculated in each case. The figures produced by this study permit such examinations to be made. Telecommuting: One purpose of telecommuting is the reduction of journeys between home and work place. Cutting down the number of journeys directly reduces natural resource consumption. Lessening the amount of journeys during the rush hour also reduces the pressure for bolstering up the infrastructure. However, if telecommuting increases the readiness to move to places a long way away and/or which require the use of a passenger car, then the increased travel cancels out at least part of the savings in natural resource consumption achieved by the telecommuting. Carfree zones: A carfree zone can reduce infrastructure materials input in two ways. The number of streets is less than normal, since the number of streets leading to properties decreases. Streets leading directly to residential properties are lighter in construction and materials intensity, but they are numerically greater (Talja et al. 2006). Secondly, devehicularisation makes the construction of narrower and lighter traffic routes than normal possible, for example within residential areas based on apartment buildings. In addition, devehicularisation may promote the use of other forms of transport to the passenger car, which consumes the most natural resources (see table 23). For example, in Austria the arrangement of parking outside apartment

80

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

block areas has been found to improve the profitability of public transport and to reduce traffic performance, i.e. journey length and quantity (Knoflacher 199). Retention and development of local services: Example 8 (section .2) on natural resource consumption by posting a letter (fig. 3) demonstrates that sending a letter in Finland is equivalent to the natural resource consumption of a passenger car trip of well over a hundred metres (see table 10). Taking a letter to a post box by passenger car would multiply the natural resource consumption of the delivery severalfold. Thus, the total use of natural resources remains the smaller the fewer letters are taken for posting by different vehicle journeys. Keeping the letter collection network at an adequate density conserves natural resources. An equivalent phenomenon has been observed in a study on the energy consumption which changes to the structure of the retail trade have led to (Kasanen and Savolainen 1992): The passenger car driver’s trips are a more important factor than trade logistics’ lorry trips and the extra journeys for consumers caused by the closing down of shops appreciably exceed the savings gained by the central cooperative. Ways of shopping and distribution (e.g. e-commerce and home delivery) that reduce the consumers’ need to drive thus promote dematerialisation. Favouring of locally grown food and other products produced in the vicinity: The use of products produced locally in principle lowers the product transportation intensity and in that respect also the materials intensity. However, there are various kinds of preconditions associated with this. The transport chain’s eco-efficiency is radically affected by the collection and delivery journeys at the start and end of each transportation (fig. 3-36). If, for example, procuring or consuming locally grown food increases the passenger car or van journeys, with their high materials intensity (see tables 11 and 23), the extra performances may increase the materials intensity of the products. Secondly, food transported from afar is more favourable in terms of its materials intensity to locally grown food, if the latter, owing to local growing conditions, requires extra material inputs like the heating of greenhouses (see Schmidt-Bleek 2002: 172-173). The MIPS value for long haul shipping between continents is relatively low (table 26), so that foodstuffs grown in Finland in less favourable conditions may be less eco-efficient, despite the shorter journey. Replacing the modes of transport by a more eco-efficient alternative: Replacing road and air transport by rail and water transport has been put forward as a means of, for example, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The effect of replacing modes of transport is here considered from the natural resource consumption angle: - Passenger transport by vehicle consumes more abiotic natural resources and air than rail transport (table 23 and examples 1,2  and 6 in section .1), even though exceptions do turn up when specific road categories are examined (see appendix 1). Rail transport uses more water than vehicular traffic, because regulated hydropower plays an important part in Finland’s electricity generation. A change in the method of generating electricity may radically affect the MIPS figures for rail traffic, especially in terms of water consumption (see Vihermaa et al. 200: 19). Travelling by bus/coach uses up abiotic resources and water to a far less extent than rail traffic: air consumption is, however, higher (table 23). When there are several passengers in a car, the latter’s eco-efficiency improves (see fig. 28). If increasing rail traffic calls for additional construction to the rail infrastructure, the abiotic natural resource consumption may not necessarily decrease, because modern two-track lines are material intensive (table 1). If, however, road investments of equivalent capacity are avoided, lower amounts of natural resources will be consumed by the rail investment. - A domestic flight consumes on average less abiotic natural resources and more air than a train journey (table 23). The differences between travelling by air and

Ministry of the Environment

81

by passenger car are less pronounced. When travelling to nearby areas (Stockholm, St. Petersburg, Baltic states) the ship is slightly more eco-efficient than the aeroplane (table 2). On the Helsinki – Tallinn route the aeroplane consumes, however, less abiotic natural resources and air than the express boat (fig. 29). - The relationships between the MIPS figures of different modes of transport are different in goods traffic. Lorry transport consumes on average slightly less abiotic natural resources and appreciably less water than goods train transport, but goods train transport consumes less air (table 2). - In goods traffic air transport is generally a less eco-efficient option (tables 2 and 26, figures 3 and 36). Domestic maritime cargo deliveries were not studied in the FIN-MIPS Transport project due to their low level of significance (Lindqvist et al. 200: 10). If Finland’s coastal traffic is considered similar to cargo ship traffic going to areas close to Finland, the MIPS figures for its abiotic natural resource and air consumption are higher than in road and rail transport, while the figure for water is of the same order of magnitude as in road transport, but lower than in rail transport (tables 2 and 26). Hence, transferring domestic goods transport to the sea within the current system framework would not conserve much natural resources. The aforementioned comparisons indicate that there are differences between modes of transport and it is thus possible to achieve savings in natural resource consumption by choosing the best means available. However, there are no fundamental bases from the natural resource consumption standpoint for replacing vehicle and air transport by rail and maritime transport.
5.4

Evaluation of reliability of results
The purpose of this study was to formulate MIPS figures applying to the whole of Finland. The source data came from FIN-MIPS research project case studies on the different modes of transport, which vary from the standpoint of their level of examination, so that the level of scrutiny for Finland as a whole also varies. As with life cycle studies in general, in the different parts and stages of this study it has been necessary to make numerous generalisations and assumptions affecting the results. Below, the most important generalised figures for factors possibly affecting results reliability are given. In the first stage of the research, the natural resource consumption of the different modes of transport and route categories have been assessed using case studies. Generalisations for e.g. road transport were made based on sample subjects for each road category. An effort has been made to choose the sample roads from the National Road Administration’s register so that they are as representative as possible. In addition, in the calculations national average data was used, for example for foundation construction, so that the generalised results can be assumed to be approximately correct. In the rail transport case studies two sections of track were analysed and the consumption of the rail network was calculated on the basis of these. Generalisations at an equivalent level were also made for air and maritime transport. The results of the case studies for streets and private roads were directly generalised for the level of Finland as a whole. While the average figures obtained as results primarily portray the rough dimensions of resource consumption, the study assists us in forming an impression and an understanding of the composition of the natural resource consumption of Finland’s traffic system. The aim of the study was to generate results on different modes of transport which could be compared. Different kinds of transport systems are partially limited in different ways. However, with each mode of transport an effort was made to pinpoint the

82

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

factors significantly affecting consumption and to concentrate on these. For example, calculations dot not have to be made for service stations. The same goes for car parks which, however, are taken into account in air traffic calculations. In air traffic these were assumed to be factors significantly affecting abiotic natural resources, but in road traffic they were considered to be of almost no importance whatsoever. To test the assumption mentioned in the preceding paragraph a swift evaluation was made of the abiotic natural resource consumption of service stations and car parks. If one assumes there are 2000 service stations in Finland and that each of them in terms of its consumption is equivalent to the railway station (with the exception of railings and lifts) on which Vihermaa et al. (200) made their calculations, the service stations would together consume around one million tons of abiotic natural resources a year. This is most likely too high a figure, because the majority of service stations are of the self-service type, which is of far lighter construction than a railway station. In relation to car parks it was assumed, most probably also going to the extreme, that each passenger car also requires two parking spaces, one of which is on the owner’s property (not included in the calculation) or parked on the street outside, in which case they contribute towards street or road consumption. Thus, two million parking spaces at most remain to be considered. If the area of one parking space is 12 m2 and the natural resource consumption for a street (3 kg/m2/a) is used as the MI value, the parking spaces also consume a total of around one million tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year. If two million tonnes are divided by the vehicular traffic performance (approx. 0 billion passenger kilometres a year), then the abiotic natural resource consumption per passenger kilometre would rise by about three percent (around 0 g more). Thus, the change in the MIPS figures would be slight. Equivalent rough calculations have been made in other modes of transport in order to discover what is significant and what not. The results can therefore be assumed to be comparable. One important factor from the interpretation standpoint is the lifespan chosen for the infrastructure for the various modes of transport. These vary from 0 years in the case of harbours and marine channels to 100 years with airports and railway lines (table 2). Various lifespan estimates were tested in the sensitivity examinations of the case studies forming part of the FIN-MIPS Transport project and it was found that the lifespan selected radically affected the results. No-one can be sure of the actual lifespan of an infrastructure in advance. Hence, it is only possible to arrive at estimates. The assumed lifespans in the study are based on evaluations by experts in the various transport infrastructure administrations, so that they can be considered the best possible assessments.
5.5

MIPS as a measure of natural resource consumption by transport
Applying the MIPS method to the transport system brings a new perspective to the discussion on the environmental impact and eco-efficiency of traffic. The most important new aspect concerns taking abiotic natural resource consumption into account. A strongpoint of the MIPS method is its simplicity: products and services differing from each other can be made comparable by changing their natural resource consumption into kilos using a value designed for the purpose. At its best, the method can be applied to simple, easily limited product or service chain modelling, for example for comparing different consumer goods. However, the traffic system is anything but simple and easily limited. Not all the statistics and other data needed for calculations were available, making it necessary to use estimates as well.

Ministry of the Environment

83

In this study, the natural resource consumption has been calculated in three out of the five natural resources categories. Two categories, biotic natural resources and erosion, were omitted from the appraisal, since they were shown to be of little significance where transport was concerned. Despite the results not being directly equivalent to those obtained using the traditional environmental indicators, the consumption of abiotic natural resources, water, and air demonstrates the significant scale on which mankind interferes with the functioning of nature and makes its own use of natural resources. In the study, passenger kilometres or tonne kilometres have been used as the service unit for the MIPS figures. Even though these service units provides the best possible comparability between different modes of transport, we must remember that different modes of transport always differ from each other and are thus not entirely comparable. For example, an aeroplane goes directly from one place to another, whereas a train, bus or coach, passenger car or lorry can offer stop-offs and the serving of intermediate municipalities (to differing extents). Secondly, the speed and travelling time are fundamental service viewpoints from the mode of transport aspect which it was impossible to take into account when choosing the service performance for this study. On the other hand, calculating materials input based on passenger kilometre and tonne kilometre makes it possible to compare performances where we can then, as an extra criterion, take into consideration matters other than the time required for the journey or the transportation. For example, in the calculation examples for passenger traffic (section .1) the journey time is easily combined with the results presentation and in example 9 for goods traffic (section .2 and appendix 3) the speed of transportation forms part of the comparison. Results obtained with the MIPS method can frequently be compared with cost effectiveness calculations. The costs and improvements in material intensity do not directly correlate but, for example, efficiency improvement measures instead of new road construction would also reduce costs.
5.6

Proposals for further study
In this study the overall consumption of natural resources by the transport system has been calculated by restricting the system in certain respects. Part of the system remained outside the scope of the study. In the future it would be interesting to determine how much the traffic components - such as the motorcycle or helicopter - remaining outside the scope of the present study consume natural resources. In association with water traffic domestic traffic and inland water traffic remained beyond the scope of the project. For inland water traffic, especially in connection with log floating and barge transportation, as also in relation to forest roads (logging roads), it would be interesting to study in a more general way the materials inputs required by transportation in the wood processing sector and to relate these to other materials input to the wood processing industry. The results obtained by this study may be modified when the amount of traffic or the relationships between vehicles change. MIPS values for transport require periodical updating in relation to these basic data if they are to remain up-to-date. In the FIN-MIPS Transport project some thought has been given to how MIPS could be applied as a part of planning and where its place on the planning side would be. This study, however, as such generates basic and background data on the treatment of the subject, and a great deal of extra research is therefore still needed. At the same time it would be interesting to study the effect of community structure on materials intensity. Especially in large cities, a lot is talked about the dispersal of the community structure and in scattered communities the amount of traffic is also growing.

8

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

An attempt is being made to intensify the community structure by constructing new residential areas between the existing ones, which may reduce the material intensity of traffic but at the same time increase the use of natural resources for construction, if it becomes necessary to build on areas with poor foundations. One interesting area of further study would be to compare the results of this study with other methods for measuring natural resource intensity, such as the ecological footprint. The ecological footprint is a measure reflecting the land surface area demand of consumption either directly or as carbon dioxide emission compensation. In this study it was observed that the use of water by traffic is closely correlated with the traffic’s surface area requirement, while air consumption is closely correlated with the carbon dioxide emissions produced. By converting the results obtained here into surface area based, firstly, based on the water consumption of the mode of transport and, secondly, based on the compensation of carbon dioxide emission due to air consumption, it would be possible to obtain data on the ecological footprint of Finland’s traffic which could be used in comparisons. It would be interesting to compare the results with the ecological footprints for traffic used by the Global Footprint Network. Within the framework of the FIN-MIPS Transport project, the transport system and different modes of transport have been studied thoroughly. Natural resource consumption by transport can be considered high from the standpoint of both the national economy and, for instance, the overall consumption of natural resources by households. It really would be interesting to obtain comprehensive materials flow data from other sectors of consumption. Then we could give some thought to the possibilities of dematerialising consumption and to angles of approach and the policy instruments required for dematerialisation.
5.7

In conclusion
In the light of the results of the study, natural resource consumption by traffic is appreciable, for example in relation to Finland’s Total Material Requirement (see section 3.). Reducing the overall consumption would require a reduction in the amount of traffic performance. This could, in the present situation, be regarded as a challenge, since transport performance has almost constantly risen over the last few decades (see figures 2 and 3). A material intensive traffic system can be considered one cause of a way of life and a society headed in an unsustainable direction, or at least as an underlying factor. On the other hand, material intensive traffic can also be considered a consequence of an unsustainable way of life and society, since traffic is not a purpose in itself, rather it is one kind of community “support activity”. Even if a material intensive traffic system is regarded as merely the result of a way of life and society, the situation can be considered disturbing. Since the abiotic natural resource consumption of the community’s “support activity” is responsible for one quarter of the total consumption of natural resources, it may be that our society is on the way towards “The tower of Babel” (Van Dieren 200), at which the society will suffocate and collapse in the constantly escalating need for resources called for by growth maintenance. Van Dieren (200) sees a large dematerialisation (factor 10) as an opportunity for achieving a sustainable society and way of life. In such a case the transport system must also be vastly dematerialised from its present level. According to Gudmundsson and Nielsen (1999), the consumption of solid (equivalent to abiotic) materials during a passenger car’s life cycle in Denmark could at best be reduced by 71% (factor 3.6) by 200 and the carbon dioxide emissions (equivalent in principle to air consumption) by 88% (factor 8,3).

Ministry of the Environment

8

Even if a traffic system is nothing more than a community support activity, its active dematerialisation can be considered an objective from the sustainable development perspective. The aim of this project has been to study and analyse the natural resource consumption of the traffic system and to provide basic data for endeavours to steer the traffic system in a more sustainable direction. The accomplishment of this change will be left to future practioners.

86

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

R e f e re nces

Ajomaa, Harri (200). Finnish Post Corporation. Email communication 21.6.200. Ajomaa, Harri (2006). Finnish Post Corporation, development manager. Verbal communication 10.1.2006. Association of Finnish Bicycle Manufacturers (200). Polkupyöräalan taskutieto 2004. (The bicycle sector’s pocket book 200, in Finnish.) 10 pp. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.teknologiateollisuus. fi/files/88_Taskutieto200.pdf> Aultman-Hall, Lisa & Hall, Fred L. (1998). Ottava-Carleton commuter Cyclist on- and off-road incident rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30 (1998), 29-3. Aultman-Hall, Lisa. & Kaltenecker, M.Georgina (1999). Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention 31 (1999), 67–686. Autio, Sakari & Michael Lettenmeier (2002): Ekotehokkuus – Business as Future. (An eco-efficiency guide for business, in Finnish.) Dipoli-raportit/Dipoli-reports C, environmental education. 80 pp. University of Technology, TKK Dipoli, Espoo 2002. Civil Aviation Authority (200): Ilmailulaitoksen lentoliikennetilasto 2003. (Civil Aviation Authority air transport statistics, in Finnish.) Available in pdf-format: <http://www.ilmailulaitos.fi/files/fcaa/liikennetilastot_pdf/Lentoliiikennetilasto2003.pdf> Ehrola, Esko (1996). Liikenneväylien rakennesuunnittelun perusteet. (Basics of planning of traffic route construction, in Finnish.) 36 pp. Rakennustieto (Building Information), Tampere. Finnair Oyj (200). Ympäristöraportti 200. (Environment report 200, in Finnish). 13.12.200. <http:// www.finnairgroup.com/konserni/konserni_10_3_1.html> Finnish Maritime Administration (2002). Meriliikenne Suomen ja ulkomaiden välillä 2001. (Marine traffic between Finland and foreign countries 2001, in Finnish.) Merenkulkulaitoksen tilastoja /2002. Statistics of the Finnish Maritime Administration.111 pp. Helsinki. Finnish Maritime Administration (200). Tilastoja (Statistics, in Finnish). <http://www.fma.fi/palvelut/ tietopalvelut/tilastot/index.php> 28.8.200. Finnish Meteorological Institute (200). Ilmastollinen vertailukausi 1970-2000. (Climatic comparison period 1970-2000, in Finnish.) <http://www.fmi.fi/saa/tilastot_100.html#6> 29.6.200. Finnish Port Association (200). Website. <www.satamaliitto.fi>. 31.10.200. Finnish Rail Administration (200): Suomen rautatietilasto 2004. (Finland’s Rail Statistics 200, in Finnish.) Finnish Rail Administration, Helsinki. 3 pp. Finnish Road Administration (1999). Tietoa teistä ja tieliikenteestä. (Information on roads and road transport, in Finnish.) 78 pp. Helsinki. Finnish Road Administration (200a).Tieliikenteen liikenne- ja henkilösuoritteet 1998-2003. (Road transport and passenger performances 1998-2003, in Finnish.) Tiedote (Memo) 11.2.200.  pp. Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki. Finnish Road Administration (200b). Yleiset tiet vuosina 1940-2004. (Public roads in 190-200, leaflet, in Finnish.) Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki. Finnish Road Administration (200c). Tierakenteen suunnittelu. (Road construction planning, in Finnish.) 7 pp. Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki. Finnish Road Administration (200a). Tilastoja (Statistics, in Finnish). <http://www.tiehallinto.fi/servlet/page?_pageid=68&_dad=julia&_schema=PORTAL30&kieli=fi&menu=97&_pageid=71&linkki= 88&julkaisu=61&kieli=fi> 3.11.200. Finnish Road Administration (200b). Yksityisten teiden kunnossapito. (Private road maintenance, in Finnish.) 60 pp. Finnra. Helsinki. <http://www.tiehallinto.fi/pls/wwwedit/docs/6090.pdf> 11.8.200. Gudmundsson, Henrik ja Thomas S. Nielsen (1999). Extended Summary of Reduction of Environmental Pressure from Car Transport – case study of eco-efficiency in the Danish transport sector. In: Factor 4 and 10 in the Nordic Countries – The Transport Sector – The Forest Sector – The Building and Real Estate Sector – The Food Supply Chain. TemaNord 1999: 28. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Available from: <www.mst.dk/udgiv/Publications/1999/87-7909-237-3/html/default_eng.htm> Hakkarainen, Elviira, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (200). Polkupyöräliikenteenaiheuttama luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomessa (PyöräMIPS). [Bicycle MIPS – Natural Resource Consumption in Finnish Bicycle Traffic, in Finnish] Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja /200. Ministry of Transport and Communications, Helsinki, Finland. Available from: <http://www.mintc.fi/julkaisut> Hänninen, Salla (200). Luonnonvarojen käyttö katurakentamisessa. (Consumption of natural resources in street construction, in Finnish.) Diploma thesis. Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Espoo. Hänninen, S., Hellén, S., Lettenmeier, M. & Autio, S. (200). MateriaEuro – Luonnonvarojen käyttö Helsingin katujen rakentamisessa ja ylläpidossa. [MateriaEuro –Natural Resource Use in Street Construction and Maintenance in Helsinki, in Finnish]. Helsingin kaupungin rakennusviraston julkaisuja 1/200. City of Helsinki Public Works Department, Finland. Available from: <http://www.hkr.hel.fi/julkaisut/julkaisut200.html> Heinonen, Tuomo (200). Finnish Transport and Logistics SKAL ry, Technical department. Verbal communication. 30.6.200. Hellén, Sanna (200). Katujen ylläpidon luonnonvarojen kulutus. (Natural resource consumption of street maintenance, in Finnish.) Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki, Department of Economics, Helsinki. 82 pp.

Ministry of the Environment

87

Hoffrén, Jukka (1999). Talous hyvinvoinnin ja ympäristöhaittojen tuottajana – Suomen ekotehokkuuden mittaaminen. (The Economy as a generator of prosperity and environmental harm – measuring Finland’s eco-efficiency, in Finnish.) Tilastokeskus tutkimuksia / Statistics Finland, studies 226. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki. 13 pp. Holm, Olli (200). Finnish Maritime Administration. Email communications 26..200 and 7.11.200. Infrarakentamisen uusi materiaaliteknologia – UUMA (2006). Ministry of the Environment. <www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=16218&lan=FI> 28.1.2006. Jaloin (200). Kevyen liikenteen edistäminen Suomessa. (Promotion of light traffic in Finland, in Finnish.) <http://www.tieliikelatos.fi/jaloin> 20.8.200. Janakka, Tuija (2006). TNT Suomi Oy. Email communications 13.1.2006 and 16.1.2006 Kallioinen, Johanna (2002): Pyöräilyn institutionaalinen asema liikennesuunnittelussa. VATT-keskustelualoitteita 267.(Institutional status of cycling in traffic planning. VATT discussion initiatives 267, in Finnish.) The Government Institute for Economic Research (VATT). 163 pp. Kasanen, P. & Savolainen, M. (1992). Jakelujärjestelmän ja kuluttajan roolin muutosten vaikutus energian kulutukseen. [Influence on the energy consumption of changes in the distribution system and in the role of consumers, in Finnish.] University of Helsinki Department of Social Psychology, energy publications 7/1992. Knoflacher, Hermann (199). Kaupungin ja liikenteen harmonia. Vapaus autolla ajamisen pakosta. (Harmony between the city and traffic. Freedom from driving a car, in Finnish.) Liikenneturva, Liikennesuunnittelun Seura ry. 120 pp. Koskinen, Heli (2001): MIPS ja ekologinen selkäreppu tuotteiden potentiaalisten ympäristövaikutusten vertailun menetelmänä – ongelmakohtien tarkastelu. (MIPS and the ecological rucksack as a method of comparing the potential environmental impact of products – an examination of the problematic aspects, in Finnish.) Pro gradu –tutkielma (Master’s thesis). 9 pp. University of Helsinki Department of Limnology and Environmental protection science, Helsinki. Lehtonen, Kari (200). Finnish Road Enterprise. Email communication 20.6.200. Lindqvist, Aino (200). MIPS-laskennan käyttökelpoisuus Suomen meriliikenteen ekotehokkuuden määrittämisessä. (Applicability of MIPS calculations for determining the eco-efficiency of Finland’s maritime transport, in Finnish.) Pro gradu-tutkielma (Master’s thesis). University of Helsinki Department of Geography, Helsinki. Lindqvist, Aino, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (200): Meriliikenteen aiheuttama luonnonvarojen kulutus (MeriMIPS). [Natural resource consumption by maritime transport (MeriMIPS), in Finnish]. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 8/200. Ministry of Transport and Communications, Helsinki. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.mintc.fi/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService%23Dlvm/ cm/pub/showdoc.p?docid=1971&menuid=97&channelitemid=12000> Mäenpää Ilmo, Artti Juutinen, Kauko Puustinen, Jari Rintala, Helmi Risku-Norja, Sami Veijalainen & Mikko Viitanen (2000). Luonnonvarojen kokonaiskäyttö Suomessa. (Total material requirement in Finland, in Finnish.) Suomen ympäristö 28, Helsinki. Mäenpää, Ilmo (200). Thule-institute, Helsinki. Information given in email message. 16.12.200. Mäkelä, Harri ja Harri Höynälä (2000). Sivutuotteet ja uusiomateriaalit maarakenteissa. Materiaalit ja käyttökohteet. (Side-products and recycled materials in earthworks. Materials and applications, in Finnish.) TEKESin teknologiakatsaus 91/2000. TEKES, Helsinki 2000. Meijkamp, Rens. (1998). Changing consumer behaviour through eco-efficient services: an empirical study of car sharing in the Netherlands. Business Strategy and the Environment 7 (1998): 23-2. Ministry of the Environment (2003). Lentoasemien ympäristölupien erityispiirteet. Työryhmän mietintö. (Special aspects of airport environmental permits. Working group report, in Finnish.) Ministry of the Environment report no.118, Helsinki. Ministry of Transport and Communications (1999): Henkilöliikennetutkimus 1998-1999. (Passenger transport study 1998-1999, in Finnish.) Ministry of Transport and Communications 3/99, Helsinki. Ministry of Transport and Communications (2000). Kohti älykästä ja kestävää liikennettä 2025. (Towards intelligent and sustainable transport 202, in Finnish.) Ministry of Transport and Communications 7 pp. Helsinki. Ministry of Transport and Communications (2001): Uutta pontta pyöräilyyn – ehdotus pyöräilypoliittiseksi ohjelmaksi. (New stimulus for cycling – a proposal for a cycling policy programme, in Finnish.) Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja /2001. Ministry of Transport and Communications. Helsinki. Ministry of Transport and Communicaticons (2002). Väylät 2030. Väestön ja elinkeinoelämän haasteet liikenneväylien pidolle. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön ohjelmia ja strategioita 1/2002. (Roads 2030. Road maintenance challenges for the populace and the business sector. Ministry of Transport and Communications programmes and strategies 1/2002, in Finnish.) Ministry of Transport and Communications. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.mintc.fi/www/sivut/dokumentit/julkaisu/strategiat/2002/vaylat2030.pdf> Ministry of Transport and Communications (200). Ministry of Transport and Communications website, in Finnish. <http://www.lvm.fi/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService%23Dlvm/cm/pub/showdoc. p?docid=2098&menuid=176> 29..200. Monheim, Heiner & Rita Dandorfer-Monheim (1991). Straßen für alle – Analysen und Konzepte zum Stadtverkehr der Zukunft. Trier: Archiv für Stadt- und Verkehrsplanung an der Universität Trier. Naskila, Antero (200). City of Helsinki Planning Department. Verbal communication 6.9.200.

88

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Neuvonen, Samuli (2002). Kevyen liikenteen käyttöön vaikuttavat tekijät. (Factors affecting the use of light transport, in Finnish.) Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki Department of Limnology and Environmental Protection, Helsinki. Nieminen, Anni (200). Luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomen lentoliikenteessä. (Natural resource consumption by Finland’s air transport, in Finnish.) 116 pp. Diploma thesis. Helsinki University of Technology. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Espoo. Nieminen, Anni, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (200): Luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomen lentoliikenteessä (LentoMIPS). [Natural resource consumption by Finland’s air transport (LentoMIPS), in Finnish.] Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 7/200. Ministry of Transport and Communications. 130 pp. Edita, Helsinki. Available in pdf-format : <http://www.mintc.fi/scripts/cgiip.exe/ WService%23Dlvm/cm/pub/showdoc.p?docid=1971&menuid=97&channelitemid=11999> Ojala, Kari (2000). Kestävän yhdyskunnan käsikirja.(The sustainable community handbook, in Finnish.) 22 pp. Jyväskylä. Pallonen, Janne (200). Finnair Oyj. Email communication. 29.8.200. Pihlajamäki, Jari (2001). Liikennerasituksen laskeminen. TPPT menetelmäkuvaus. (Calculating traffic stress. Description of the TPPT method, in Finnish.) 21 pp. Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT, Building and built environment. Pitkänen, Pertti (200). Finnair Oyj. Verbal communication.1.8.200. Pölkki, Minna (200). Organisoitu kimppamatka maksaisi 3 euroa. (Organised car sharing would cost 3 euros, in Finnish.) Helsingin Sanomat newspaper 27.11.200, A13. Postin ympäristökatsaus (200). (Finnish Post Corporation’s environmental review.) 16 pp. Prokkola, Reijo (200). Finnish Road Administration. Verbal communication. 2..200. Pusenius, Kaisa (200): Suomen yleisten teiden ja tieliikenteen luonnonvarojen kulutus – tutkimusmenetelmänä MIPS. (Natural resource consumption of Finland’s public roads and road transport – MIPS as a study method, in Finnish.) 96 pp.+ appendices. Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki, Department of Geography, Helsinki. Pusenius Kaisa, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (200): Luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomen tieliikenteessä (TieMIPS). [Natural resource consumption by Finland’s road transport (TieMIPS), in Finnish.] Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja /200. Minstry of Transport and Communications. 122 pp. Edita, Helsinki. Available in pdf-format : <http://www.mintc.fi/scripts/cgiip.exe/ WService%23Dlvm/cm/pub/showdoc.p?docid=1971&menuid=97&channelitemid=1199> Räsänen, Mikko & Heikki Summala (1998). Attention and expectation problems in bicycle-car collisions: an in-depth study. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30 (1998), 67-666. RIL16-1 Liikenne ja väylät I (1987). (Transport and roads, in Finnish.) Association of Finnish Civil Engineers (RIL). 333 pp. Helsinki. Rissa, Kari (2001). Ekotehokkuus – enemmän vähemmästä. (Eco-efficiency – more out of less, in Finnish.) Ministry of the Environment. 208 pp. Edita, Helsinki. Ritthoff, M., Rohn, H., Liedtke, C. & Merten, T. (2002). Calculating MIPS. Resource productivity of products and services. Wuppertal Special 27e. Available from: <www.mips-online.info> Rusko, Niina (200a). Civil Aviation Authority. Verbal communication 1.10.200. Rusko, Niina (200b). Civil Aviation Authority. Email communications 1.10.200 and 20.10.200. Saari, Arto, Michael Lettenmeier, Kaisa Pusenius & Elviira Hakkarainen (2007). Influence of vehicle type and road category on natural resource consumption in road transport, Transportation Research Part D, 12 (1), 23-32. Salo, Ville (200). Jätepolitiikan vaihtoehtojen luonnonvarojen kulutus pääkaupunkiseudulla. (Natural resource consumption of waste policy alternatives in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, in Finnish.) Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki, Department of Economics, Helsinki. Schmidt-Bleek Friedrich, Stefan Bringezu, Fritz Hinterberger, Christa Liedtke, Joachim Spangenberg, Hartmut Stiller & Maria J. Welfens (1998). MAIA. Einführung in die Material-Intensitäts-Analyse nach dem MIPS-Konzept. Berlin, Basel, Boston: Birkhäuser. Schmidt-Bleek, Friedrich (2002). Translated into Finnish and edited by Michael Lettenmeier. Luonnon uusi laskuoppi – ekotehokkuuden mittari MIPS. (Nature’s new accountancy – eco-efficiency measurement MIPS, in Finnish.) 311 pp. Gaudeamus, Helsinki. Sinivuori, Paula (200). Kahden Helsingin yliopiston rakennuksen luonnonvarojen kulutuksen selvittäminen MIPS-laskennan avulla. (Determination of natural resource consumption by two buildings at the University of Helsinki using MIPS-calculations, in Finnish.) Master’s thesis. 91 pp. University of Helsinki, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Helsinki. Sinivuori, Paula ja Arto Saari (2006): MIPS analysis of natural resource consumption in two university buildings. Building and environment 41(5), 67-668. Statistics Finland (200). Vuoden 2003 tiedotteet. (Press releases of 2003, in Finnish.) <http://www.stat. fi/ajk/tiedotteet/v2003/27vrms.html> 9.10.200 Stiller, Hartmut (199). Materialintensitätsanalysen von Transportleistungen (1). Seeschiffahrt. Wuppertal Papers 0/199. Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie. 8 pp. Suuri kansallinen liikuntatutkimus (2002). [Finnish National Sports Study, in Finnish. ] . SLU:n julkaisuja /02. Finnish Sports Federation. 2 pp. Talja, S., Lettenmeier, M. & Saari, A. (2006). Luonnonvarojen kulutus paikallisessa liikenteessä – Menetelmänä MIPS [Natural Resource Consumption of Local Transport According to the MIPS Concept]. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 1/2006. Ministry of Transport and Communications, Helsinki, Finland. Available from: <http://www.mintc.fi/julkaisut>

Ministry of the Environment

89

Tammirinne, Markku, Aarno Valkeisenmäki & Esko Ehrola (2002). Tierakenteiden tutkimusohjelma 19942001. Yhteenvetoraportti. (Road structure research programme 199-2001. Summarised report, in Finnish.)Tiehallinnon selvityksiä 36/2002. 112 pp. Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki. Tapio, Petri (2002). The Limits to Traffic Volume Growth. The Content and Procedure of Administrative Futures Studies on Finnish Transport CO2 Policy. Acta future fennica no. 8. Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku, Finland. Tiefakta 2004 (200). (Road facts 200, in Finnish.) 8. pp. Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki. TNT (2006). TNT Suomi Oy.< http://www.tnt.com/country/fi_fi.html> 27.1.2006. Tolla, Panu (200). Finnish Road Enterprise. Personal email message 1.6.200. Uusnäkki, Harri (200). Ministry of Transport and Communications. Email communication 20..200. Van Dieren, Wouter (200). The Limits to Growth and the Tower of Babel or How arts can tell a scientific story better. Powerpoint presentation. Factor 10 –Symposium 2.11.200. House of Design, Hällefors, Sweden. Vesiväylät (200). Vesiväylät – osa kuljetusketjua. (Water routes – part of the transport chain, in Finnish.) Finnish Maritime Administration. Edita, Helsinki. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.fma.fi/palvelut/tietopalvelut/esitteet/vesivaylat_esite_fi.pdf> 19.8.200. Vihermaa, Leena (200). Suomen raideliikenteen ekotehokkuus MIPS-laskentaa hyödyntäen. (Eco-efficiency of Finland’s rain transport making use of the MIPS concept, in Finnish.) Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Helsinki. Vihermaa, Leena, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (200). Luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomen rautatieliikenteessä (RautatieMIPS). (Natural resource consumption in Finnish railway transport [Railway MIPS], in Finnish.). Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 6/200. Ministry of Transport and Communications, Helsinki, Finland. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.mintc.fi/julkaisut> Vihermaa, Leena, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (2006). Natural resource consumption in rail transport: A note analysing of two Finnish railway lines. Transportation Research Part D 11 (3), 227-232. Viinikainen, Mikko (200a). Civil Aviation Authority. Verbal communication 23..200. Viinikainen, Mikko (200b). Civil Aviation Authority. Verbal communication 6.9.200. Viitanen, Mikko, Tapio Karvonen, Johanna Vaiste & Hannu Hernesniemi (2003). Suomen meriklusteri. (Finland’s maritime cluster, in Finnish.) Teknologiakatsaus 10/2003. 191 pp. TEKES, Helsinki. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (200). LIPASTO-tietojärjestelmä. (LIPASTO database, in Finnish.) <http://lipasto.vtt.fi> 9.10.200. Wuppertal Institute (200). <http://www.mips-online.com> .6.200. Yleiset tiet 1.1.2004. Public roads in Finland 1.1.2004 (200). Tiehallinnon tilastoja - Finnra Statistics 2/200. 9 pp. Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki.

90

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Appendixes

MIPS values for road transport.
Passenger car MIPS values MI/vehicle-km abiotic (kg) Connecting road Regional road Class 2 main road Class 1 main road Motorway Main street Collector street Street to residences Private road Average road Bus or coach MI/vehicle-km abiotic (kg) Connecting road Regional road Class 2 main road Class 1 main road Motorway Main street Collector street Street to residences Private road Average road Van MI/vehicle-km abiotic (kg) Connecting road Regional road Class 2 main road Class 1 main road Motorway Main street Collector street Street to residences Private road Average road Light lorry MI/vehicle-km abiotic (kg) Connecting road Regional road Class 2 main road Class 1 main road Motorway Main street Collector street Street to residences Private road Average road 9.07 3.88 5.33 3.78 3.03 0.48 4.41 4.64 20.23 4.08 water (kg) 68.51 23.85 27.56 20.28 8.43 6.45 109.49 129.60 449.28 43.29 air (kg) 0.56 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.60 0.57 0.66 0.50 MI/tonne-km abiotic (kg) 1.30 0.55 0.76 0.54 0.43 0.07 0.63 0.66 2.89 0.58 4.56 1.96 2.68 1.91 1.53 0.26 2.23 2.35 15.01 2.16 water (kg) 34.79 12.46 14.31 10.67 4.75 3.76 55.28 65.33 334.05 22.70 air (kg) 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.32 0.41 0.28 MI/tonne-km abiotic (kg) 22.78 9.80 13.41 9.56 7.67 1.32 11.15 11.73 75.03 10.78 9.21 4.02 5.46 3.92 3.16 0.62 4.56 4.79 20.60 4.22 water (kg) 70.07 25.41 29.12 21.84 9.99 8.02 111.29 131.44 456.06 42.05 air (kg) 0.82 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.73 0.72 0.86 0.83 0.92 0.76 MI/passenger-km abiotic (kg) 0.71 0.31 0.42 0.30 0.24 0.05 0.35 0.37 1.58 0.32 4.52 1.93 2.65 1.88 1.50 0.22 2.19 2.31 10.07 2.02 water (kg) 34.29 11.96 13.82 10.18 4.25 3.26 54.78 64.83 223.96 20.33 air (kg) 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.24 0.23 0.27 0.19 MI/passenger-km abiotic (kg) 3.23 1.38 1.89 1.34 1.07 0.16 1.56 1.65 7.19 1.44

Appendix 1

water (kg) 24.49 8.54 9.87 7.27 3.04 2.33 39.13 46.31 159.97 14.52

air (kg) 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.14

water (kg) 5.39 1.95 2.24 1.68 0.77 0.62 8.56 10.11 35.08 3.23

air (kg) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06

water (kg) 173.94 62.30 71.57 53.37 23.75 18.81 276.41 326.67 1,670.25 113.51

air (kg) 1.52 1.37 1.38 1.35 1.31 1.31 1.65 1.58 2.04 1.39

water (kg) 9.79 3.41 3.94 2.90 1.20 0.92 15.64 18.51 64.18 6.18

air (kg) 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.07

Ministry of the Environment

91

MIPS values Lorry with semi-trailer MI/vehicle-km abiotic (kg) Connecting road Regional road Class 2 main road Class 1 main road Motorway Main street Collector street Street to residences Private road Average road Lorry with trailer MI/vehicle-km abiotic (kg) Connecting road * Regional road Class 2 main road Class 1 main road Motorway Main street Collector street Street to residences* Private road * Average road 6.12 8.29 5.98 4.84 1.02 6.91 4.88 MI/vehicle-km abiotic (kg) Incl. vans Without vans water (kg) air (kg) water (kg) 38.62 44.17 33.25 15.48 12.52 161.10 31.97 air (kg) 1.22 1.23 1.21 1.18 1.18 1.38 1.20 MI/tonne-km abiotic (kg) 0.29 0.39 0.28 0.23 0.05 0.33 0.23 MI/tonne-km abiotic (kg) 0.52 0.37 water (kg) 6.3 4.2 air (kg) 0.09 0.07 water (kg) 1.84 2.10 1.58 0.74 0.60 7.67 1.52 air (kg) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 13.81 6.03 8.19 5.88 4.75 0.93 6.82 7.17 30.55 6.32 water (kg) 104.38 37.40 42.96 32.04 14.27 11.31 159.90 188.90 675.55 79.64 air (kg) 1.25 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.12 1.11 1.32 1.28 1.41 1.17 MI/tonne-km abiotic (kg) 0.99 0.43 0.59 0.42 0.34 0.07 0.49 0.51 2.18 0.45 water (kg) 7.46 2.67 3.07 2.29 1.02 0.81 11.42 13.50 48.25 5.69 air (kg) 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.08

Freight transport on average

* MIPS values for a lorry with a trailer were not calculated in this study for connecting roads, streets to residences and private roads because it was considered that a vehicle of this kind does not use such road classes.

92

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

MIPS for flights by ATR72 aircraft on different routes in Finland. ATR airdraft are not used on all routes at present. Thus, not all the flying times given are real ones.
Flying time h abiotic 1.58 1.67 1.08 0.83 1.33 1.25 1.50 1.17 1.08 1.33 0.67 0.92 0.67 1.08 0.67 1.33 0.83 0.83 0.67 0.67 1.08 0.83 1.04 0.50 0.58 0.54 0.62 0.91 29.79 29.72 30.02 29.99 29.74 29.85 0.43 29.53 0.55 29.77 0.44 29.57 0.17 0.23 0.16 0.22 0.21 0.32 0.31 0.23 0.23 0.95 29.91 0.26 0.67 29.80 0.24 0.86 29.90 0.26 0.73 29.62 0.17 475 164 191 184 227 118 298 270 187 79 87 173 285 0.54 29.77 0.23 182 0.59 29.74 0.22 229 0.53 29.54 0.16 434 0.69 29.61 0.17 422 0.76 29.76 0.22 353 13,778 18,003 24,219 11,629 10,003 19,163 5,711 8,552 5,802 15,226 6,371 20,523 8,847 8,916 4,353 4,529 10,380 8,209 0.54 29.83 0.26 127 7,010 0.65 29.76 0.22 235 10,684 0.70 29.57 0.16 645 27,261 143 80 60 100 103 128 87 79 110 49 68 50 88 50 111 64 64 46 47 80 63 2.65 29.98 0.17 2,373 26,832 149 water air abiotic water air MIPS kg/passenger-km MI kg/person per route

From

To

Distance

Helsinki

Enontekiö

895 km

Helsinki

Ivalo

922 km

Helsinki

Joensuu

359 km

Helsinki

Jyväskylä

235 km

Helsinki

Kajaani

463 km

Helsinki

Kemi/Tornio

608 km

Helsinki

Kittilä

820 km

Appendix 2 MIPS values for air transport

Helsinki

Kokkola/Pietarsaari

391 km

Helsinki

Kuopio

336 km

Helsinki

Kuusamo

647 km

Helsinki

Lappeenranta

191 km

Helsinki

Maarianhamina

287 km

Helsinki

Mikkeli

194 km

Helsinki

Oulu

515 km

Helsinki

Pori

214 km

Helsinki

Rovaniemi

695 km

Helsinki

Savonlinna

297 km

Helsinki

Seinäjoki

300 km

Helsinki

Tampere

145 km

Helsinki

Turku

151 km

Helsinki

Vaasa

349 km

Ministry of the Environment

Helsinki

Varkaus

275 km

93

9 Flying time h abiotic 1.58 1.67 0.92 0.39 0.46 0.35 0.31 0.27 0.36 0.41 0.31 0.56 0.48 0.55 0.32 0.50 0.29 0.43 20.26 21.12 21.04 20.16 20.41 0.43 0.72 0.69 0.40 0.47 144 317 122 148 132 181 101 233 184 143 78 83 140 190 169 310 287 238 104 4,780 9,279 12,101 16,219 7,842 6,789 12,876 3,947 5,857 4,006 10,256 4,380 13,771 6,030 6,078 3,062 3,177 7,036 5,612 171 7,233 0.67 1.08 1.25 1.50 0.92 0.92 1.33 0.67 0.92 0.67 1.08 0.67 1.33 0.83 0.83 0.67 0.67 0.92 0.83 0.40 0.69 0.55 0.54 0.48 0.62 0.33 19.81 20.30 0.47 20.47 0.35 19.92 0.68 20.65 0.52 20.41 0.64 20.66 0.49 19.90 0.43 20.21 0.43 20.06 0.38 19.78 0.47 19.90 0.51 20.04 0.44 20.34 0.48 20.15 0.46 19.78 0.27 424 18,237 1.41 19.97 0.27 1,265 17,877 water air abiotic water air 241 246 140 108 163 187 223 142 139 198 106 137 106 165 107 199 129 129 104 104 140 128 MIPS kg/passenger-km MI kg/person per route

MIPS for flights by MD80 aircraft on different routes in Finland. MD80 airdraft are not used on all routes at present. Thus, not all the flying times given are real ones.

From

To

Distance

Helsinki

Enontekiö

895 km

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Helsinki

Ivalo

922 km

Helsinki

Joensuu

359 km

Helsinki

Jyväskylä

235 km

Helsinki

Kajaani

463 km

Helsinki

Kemi/Tornio

608 km

Helsinki

Kittilä

820 km

Helsinki

Kokkola/Pietarsaari

391 km

Helsinki

Kuopio

336 km

Helsinki

Kuusamo

647 km

Helsinki

Lappeenranta

191 km

Helsinki

Maarianhamina

287 km

Helsinki

Mikkeli

194 km

Helsinki

Oulu

515 km

Helsinki

Pori

214 km

Helsinki

Rovaniemi

695 km

Helsinki

Savonlinna

297 km

Helsinki

Seinäjoki

300 km

Helsinki

Tampere

145 km

Helsinki

Turku

151 km

Helsinki

Vaasa

349 km

Helsinki

Varkaus

275 km

MIPS for flights from Finland to nearby areas by ATR72 and MD-80 aircraft.

From abiotic 0.5 0.5 1 10.97 6.46 11.64 10.81 9.95 31.44 7.83 33.93 0.48 550 0.20 135 0.47 365 0.20 116 0.44 137 0.21 107 4,434 4,119 4,677 14,778 5,214 22,600 0.43 112 2,660 0.21 110 4,519 1 1.17 1.17 1.25 1 1.33 1.33 MD-80 0.83 ATR 72 0.20 MD-80 0.78 ATR 72 0.25 MD-80 0.36 ATR 72 0.28 MD-80 0.27 ATR 72 0.27 MD-80 0.70 27.91 0.47 68 2,708 ATR 72 0.81 37.69 0.26 78 3,656 25 45 85 176 79 166 96 223 134 319 water air abiotic water air

To

Distance

Flying time h

Aircraft

MIPS kg/passenger-km

MI kg/person per route

km

Helsinki

Tallinn

97

Helsinki

Tallinn

97

Helsinki

St. Petersburg

412

Helsinki

St. Petersburg

412

Helsinki

Riga

381

Helsinki

Riga

381

Helsinki

Stockholm

470

Helsinki

Stockholm

470

Helsinki

Vilnius

666

Helsinki

Vilnius

666

Ministry of the Environment

9

96 Flying time h abiotic 2.50 3.83 1.92 2.58 2.33 3.17 2.33 2.67 2.00 3.17 5.50 3.08 1.75 3.08 3.33 1.67 2.50 2.75 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 3.36 3.33 3.39 3.38 3.34 0.12 3.43 0.10 3.35 0.11 3.42 0.11 3.39 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.11 3.38 0.15 0.11 3.38 0.15 0.10 3.34 0.13 0.10 3.32 0.13 217 155 168 126 199 337 202 105 201 225 103 158 183 0.10 3.34 0.14 153 0.10 3.34 0.14 170 0.11 3.38 0.15 121 0.10 3.32 0.13 262 0.11 3.36 0.14 161 5,113 8,716 3,790 5,509 4,947 7,213 5,036 5,205 3,944 6,179 10,087 6,498 3,116 6,418 7,418 3,187 4,930 5,938 water air abiotic water MIPS kg/passenger-km MI kg/person per route air 217 336 165 225 203 277 203 231 172 275 478 269 150 268 292 143 216 240

MIPS for flights by A320 aircraft on different routes in Europe.

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

From

To

Distance km

Helsinki

Amsterdam

1,521

Helsinki

Barcelona

2,627

Helsinki

Berlin

1,123

Helsinki

Brussels

1,648

Helsinki

Budapest

1,479

Helsinki

Dublin

2,175

Helsinki

Düsseldorf

1,509

Helsinki

Frankfurt

1,538

Helsinki

Hamburg

1,168

Helsinki

London

1,825

Helsinki

Madrid

2,949

Helsinki

Milano

1,940

Helsinki

Moscow

909

Helsinki

Paris

1,913

Helsinki

Rome

2,230

Helsinki

Warsaw

940

Helsinki

Vienna

1,459

Helsinki

Zürich

1,779

MIPS for flights by B757 aircraft on different leisure flight routes.
Flying time h abiotic 3.58 5.92 3.75 3.58 6.17 4.17 12.67 4.42 3.33 8.83 2.92 0.04 1.07 0.07 90 0.04 1.08 0.08 279 7,141 2,388 0.05 1.10 0.08 99 2,423 0.04 1.09 0.08 135 3,375 0.05 1.11 0.09 389 9,281 0.04 1.07 0.07 129 3,383 230 720 244 181 501 158 0.04 1.08 0.07 194 5,055 346 0.04 1.05 0.07 114 3,121 197 0.04 1.06 0.07 118 3,166 207 0.04 1.06 0.07 190 5,133 333 0.04 1.05 0.07 114 3,149 197 water air abiotic water air MIPS kg/passenger-km MI kg/person per route

From

To

Distance km

Helsinki

Athens

2,993

Helsinki

Dubai

4,840

Helsinki

Hania

2,980

Helsinki

Kos

2,960

Helsinki

Las Palmas

4,700

Helsinki

Malta

3,150

Helsinki

Miami

8,335

Helsinki

Murcia

3,092

Helsinki

Nice

2,198

Helsinki

Toronto

6,600

Helsinki

Verona

2,240

MIPS for flights by MD11 aircraft on different intercontinental routes.
Flying time h abiotic 10.08 9.83 9.58 8.58 9.42 7.75 8.92 13.67 9.58 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.88 0.90 0.93 0.91 0.06 0.91 0.06 0.93 0.06 0.91 0.06 0.92 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.06 0.91 0.13 water air MIPS kg/passenger-km MI kg/person per route abiotic 497 484 473 424 466 391 443 658 474 water 7,439 7,171 7,026 6,172 7,006 6,040 6,684 9,597 7,105 air 1,063 1,038 1,013 914 997 832 947 1,416 1,013

From

To

Distance

Helsinki

Bangkok

8,188

Helsinki

Hong Kong

7,816

Helsinki

Kanton

7,680

Helsinki

New York

6,608

Helsinki

Osaka

7,735

Helsinki

Beijing

6,825

Helsinki

Shanghai

7,400

Helsinki

Singapore

10,300

Ministry of the Environment

Helsinki

Tokyo

7,831

97

Turku-Rauma 4.35 kg MI kg/vehicle-km MI kg/consignment

Appendix 3 Calculation of the natural resource consumption of freight transport by the TNT concern: examples.

98 Road class average 31 216 2.16 22.70 0.28 1.35 14.17 Route km Load kg Abiotic Water Air Abiotic Water Air 0.17 class 1 main road 320 411 3.78 20.28 0.49 12.82 68.68 1.66 351 tonne-km 1.53 Total kg / consignment Total kg / tonne-km 14.2 9.28 82.8 54.26 1.8 1.20 MI kg/vehicle-km MI kg/consignment Road class average class 1 main road motorway class 1 main road average 863 tonne-km 69.04 146 441 84 28,000 16,800 3,300 92 28,000 100 751 2.16 5.88 4.75 3.78 4.08 Route km Load kg Abiotic Water 22.70 32.04 14.27 20.28 43.29 Air 0.28 1.14 1.12 0.49 0.50 Total kg / consignment Total kg / tonne-km Abiotic 22.97 1.55 1.14 7.95 14.43 48.03 0.70 Water 241.81 8.42 3.42 42.58 153.22 449.46 6.51 Air 2.97 0.30 0.27 1.03 1.77 6.34 0.09

Route

Vehicle

Turku-Airport (both ways)

van

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Airport-Rauma-Airport (whole route)

light lorry

TOTAL

Tuusula-Nurmes 80 kg

Route

Vehicle

Tuusula-Vantaa (whole route)

van

Vantaa-Turku

lorry with semitrailer

Turku-Kuopio

light lorry

Kuopio-Nurmes

light lorry

TOTAL

Järvenpää-Mannheim 0.1 kg

MI kg/vehicle-km

MI kg/consignment

Route average 40 751 2.16 22.70 0.28 0.01

Vehicle

Road class

Route km

Load kg

Abiotic

Water

Air

Abiotic

Water 0.12

Air 0.00

Järvenpää-Vantaa (both ways) average in Finland average in Finland average in Finland Load t average 2062 tonne-km 0.21 2 0.0001 0.98 7.07 kg/tonnne-km 0.23 Total kg / consignment Total kg / tonne-km 0.00 0.22 1.07 250 43,000 27.6 1309 13.8 1,300 38,700 27.6 1309 13.8 470 12,900 27.6 1309 13.8 0.10 0.09 0.02

van

Vantaa-Stockholm

aircraft

4.77 4.40 0.76

0.05 0.05 0.01

Stockholm-Liège

aircraft

Liège-Mannheim

aircraft

Mannheim

van

0.00 10.05 48.73

0.00 0.11 0.51

TOTAL

Ministry of the Environment

99

100 MI kg/vehicle-km MI kg/consignment Road class class 1 main road class 1 main road motorway Load t 213 average (Finland) average (Germany) average average 1,814 tonne-km 206.80 52 0.114 120 0.114 0.98 0.98 560 0.114 0.98 560 0.114 0.45 0.114 0.21 1.30 5.69 7.07 7.07 7.07 kg/tonne-km 0.11 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.23 Total kg / consignment Total kg / tonne-km 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.01 32.77 0.16 0.03 0.36 0.45 0.10 0.04 172.36 0.84 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.57 0.02 84 28,000 4.75 14.27 1.12 95 28,000 5.88 32.04 1.14 120 1,800 3.78 20.28 0.49 Route km Load kg Abiotic Water Air Abiotic 28.77 2.27 1.62 Water 154.11 12.39 4.88 Air 3.71 0.44 0.38

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Kotka-Bremen 114 kg

Route

Vehicle

Kotka-Vantaa

light lorry

Vantaa-Turku Harbour

lorry with semitrailer

Naantali-Kapelskär

ferry

Kapelskär-Helsingborg

lorry with semitrailer

Helsingborg-Hannover

lorry with semitrailer

Hannover-Bremen

lorry with semitrailer

Bremen-Destination

van

TOTAL

D OCUMENTATION PAGE
Publisher Author(s) Title of publication Publication series and number Theme of publication Parts of publication/ other project publications Abstract Ministry of the Environment Satu Lähteenoja, Michael Lettenmeier, Arto Saari Transport MIPS – Natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system The Finnish Environment 820en Environmental Protection The publication series of the ministry of transport and communication (www.mintc.fi/julkaisut) contains the case studies of the FIN-MIPS Transport project (all in Finnish language): Road MIPS (54/2005), Bicycle MIPS (55/2005), RailwayMIPS (56/2005), Flying MIPS (57/2005), MaritimeMIPS (58/2005) and Local Transport MIPS (14/2006). This publication is a summary of the results of the FIN-MIPS Transport research project conducted mainly in 200405. Funding for the project was provided by the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Finnish Public Road Administration, the Finnish Rail Administration, the Finnish Marine Administration, the Finnish Civil Aviation Administration and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. Overall responsibility for the project lay with the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. For the main part this report contains the same information as the Finnish version. However, to make comprehension easier, certain parts have either been added or omitted. The study calculated the MIPS values (material input per unit service) of the Finnish transport system including road, rail, air, maritime and local traffic. This was achieved by generalising the case studies made during the project. The MIPS values were calculated in three input categories: abiotic resources, water and air; according to the differing infrastructure classes or routes. Average figures for the whole of Finland were also calculated. The average MIPS values per domestic passenger kilometre varied between 0.29 kg for metro and 2.16 kg for van for abiotic resources, between 2.8 kg by bus and 48.1 kg for tram for water, and 0.02 kg for cycling and 0.28 kg by plane for air. The respective values per ton kilometre in domestic freight transport for abiotic resources ranged between 0.23 kg for a full trailer truck and 10.8 kg by van, for water between 1.68 kg for a full trailer truck and 266 kg by plane, and for air between 0.02 kg for train and 2.8 kg by plane. Calculations were also made for international air transport as well as maritime transport. Infrastructure share in the MIPS values for abiotic resources and water consumption proved significant, illustrating the relevance of allocation of material inputs between passenger and freight transport. The report demonstrates possible allocation methods for the different transport modes and their influence on the results. The decision on the final allocation methods made by the steering group of the project is presented and explained. The MIPS values given in this study are useful in comparing different modes of transport in a situation where a decision is required and for calculating MIPS values of products and services, e.g. in companies. The report provided calculation examples to illustrate the differences between alternative modes of transport and the use of MIPS figures for certain routes for passenger and freight transport. Total annual resource consumption by the Finnish transport system per capita comes to 130 million tons of abiotic resources, 1367 million tons of water, and 17 million tons of air. The share of street and road transport for the entire transport system is 87 % of the abiotic resources, 70 % of water and 76 % of air. The final part of the report considers the means for decreasing the material intensity and resource consumption of transport. Relevant means are constructing less and resource-efficient infrastructure, decreasing the amount of traffic, increasing the ridership of vehicles and making choices between alternative means of transport. Keywords Financier/ commissioner Eco-efficiency, natural resources, consumption, life-cycle, MIPS, traffic, transport, transport system Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finnish Public Road Administration, Finnish Rail Administration, Finnish Marine Administration, Finnish Civil Aviation Administration, Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. ISBN (pbk.) No. of pages 104 Financier of publication Ministry of the Environment ISBN 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF) Language English ISSN (print) Restrictions For public use ISSN (online) Price (incl. tax 8 %) Date 2006

Ministry of the Environment

101

K U VAILULEHTI
Julkaisija Tekijä(t) Julkaisun nimi Julkaisusarjan nimi ja numero Julkaisun teema Julkaisun osat/ muut saman projektin tuottamat julkaisut Tiivistelmä Ympäristöministeriö Satu Lähteenoja, Michael Lettenmeier, Arto Saari LiikenneMIPS – Suomen liikennejärjestelmän luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomen ympäristö 820en Ympäristönsuojelu Sarjassa Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja (www.mintc.fi/julkaisut) on julkaistu FIN-MIPS Liikenne -hankkeen osatutkimukset TieMIPS (54/2005), PyöräMIPS (55/2005), RautatieMIPS (56/2005), LentoMIPS (57/2005), MeriMIPS (58/2005) ja Paikallisen liikenteen MIPS (14/2006). Julkaisussa esitellään yhteenveto FIN-MIPS Liikenne -tutkimushankkeen tuloksista. Pääosin vuosina 2004-2005 toteutetun hankkeen rahoittajat olivat ympäristöministeriö, liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, Tiehallinto, Ratahallintokeskus, Merenkulkulaitos, Ilmailulaitos ja Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto. Hankkeen toteutti Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto. Tämä raportti on pääosin saman sisältöinen kuin suomenkielinen julkaisu. Joitain muutoksia on kuitenkin tehty ymmärtämisen helpottamiseksi. Tässä tutkimuksessa laskettiin Suomen liikennejärjestelmän eli maantie-, rautatie-, lento-, meri- ja paikallisen liikenteen MIPS-luvut (material input per unit service, luonnonvarojen kulutus suhteessa hyötyyn) hankkeen case-tutkimuksista yleistäen. MIPS-luvut laskettiin kolmessa luonnonvaraluokassa (abioottiset luonnonvarat, vesi ja ilma) väyläluokka- tai reittikohtaisesti sekä maata kattavina keskiarvoina. Suomen sisäisen henkilöliikenteen keskimääräiset MIPS-luvut henkilökilometriä kohden vaihtelevat abioottisissa luonnonvaroissa metron 0,29 ja pakettiauton 2,16 kg:n välillä, veden kulutuksessa linja-auton 2,8 ja raitiovaunun 48,1 kg:n välillä ja ilman kulutuksessa polkupyörän 0,02 ja pakettiauton ja lentokoneen 0,28 kg:n välillä. Suomen sisäisen tavaraliikenteen vaihteluvälit ovat tonnikilometriä kohden laskettuna 0,23 (täysperävaunurekka) - 10,8 (pakettiauto) kg abioottisia luonnonvaroja, 1,68 (täysperävaunurekka) - 266 (lentokone) kg vettä ja 0,02 (juna) - 2,8 (lentokone) ilmaa. MIPSlukuja laskettiin lisäksi kansainvälisestä lento- ja laivaliikenteestä. Väyläinfrastruktuurin osuus liikenteen abioottisten luonnonvarojen ja veden kulutuksen MIPS-luvuista on suuri. Tämän vuoksi infrastruktuurin materiaalipanosten allokointi lähinnä henkilö- ja tavaraliikenteen kesken on merkittävä kysymys. Raportti esittelee eri liikennemuodoille mahdolliset panosallokointitavat, niiden vaikutukset tuloksiin ja hankkeen ohjausryhmän tekemän allokointitapojen lopullisen valintapäätöksen perusteluineen. Tutkimuksen tuottamia MIPS-lukuja voidaan käyttää eri liikennemuotojen vertailuun valintatilanteissa sekä tuotteiden ja palvelujen MIPS-laskentaan esimerkiksi yrityksissä. Raportti havainnollistaa liikennemuotojen välisiä eroja ja MIPS-lukujen käyttöä erilaisilla reiteillä henkilö- ja tavaraliikenteessä esimerkkilaskelmien avulla. Suomen liikennejärjestelmän aiheuttama luonnonvarojen kokonaiskäyttö on vuotta kohden laskettuna 130 miljoonaa tonnia abioottisia luonnonvaroja, 1367 miljoonaa tonnia vettä ja 17 miljoonaa tonnia ilmaa. Ajoneuvoliikenteen osuus luonnonvarojen kokonaiskäytöstä on abioottisten luonnonvarojen kulutuksessa 87 %, veden käytössä 70 % ja ilman kulutuksessa 76 %. Raportin loppuosassa pohditaan keinoja liikenteen materiaali-intensiteetin ja luonnonvarojen kulutuksen pienentämiseksi.Merkittäviä keinoja ovat infrastruktuurin vähäinen ja luonnonvaroja säästävä rakentaminen, liikennesuoritteiden pienentäminen, liikennevälineiden täyttöasteen nostaminen ja liikennevälineiden valinta. Asiasanat Rahoittaja/ toimeksiantaja Ekotehokkuus, luonnonvara, kulutus, elinkaari, MIPS, liikenne, kuljetus, liikennejärjestelmä Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto,Ympäristöministeriö, Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, Tiehallinto, Ratahallintokeskus, Merenkulkulaitos, Ilmailulaitos. ISBN (nid.) Sivuja 104 Julkaisun kustantaja Ympäristöministeriö ISBN 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF) Kieli Suomi ISSN (pain.) Luottamuksellisuus Julkinen ISSN (verkkoj.) Hinta (sis.alv 8 %) Julkaisuaika 2006

102

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

P RESENTATIONSBLAD
Utgivare Författare Publikationens titel Publikationsserie Publikationens tema Publikationens delar/ andra publikationer inom samma projekt Sammandrag Miljöministeriet Satu Lähteenoja, Michael Lettenmeier, Arto Saari Trafik-MIPS – förbrukningen av naturtillgångar i Finlands trafikssystem (LiikenneMIPS – Suomen liikennejärjestelmän luonnonvarojen kulutus) Miljön i Finland Nr 820en Miljövård Delundersökningarna i projektet FIN-MIPS Trafik har publicerats i serien Kommunikationsministeriets publikationer (www.mintc.fi/julkaisut):Väg-MIPS (54/2005), Cykel-MIPS (55/2005), Järnväg-MIPS (56/2005), Flygplans-MIPS (57/2005), Fartygs-MIPS (58/2005) och Lokaltrafikens MIPS (14/2006). I undersökningen beräknades användningen av naturtillgångar i Finlands hela trafiksystem per transportprestation, d.v.s. serviceenhet (Material Input per Service Unit, MIPS). Utifrån delundersökningarna i projektet FIN-MIPS Trafik beräknades skilt för vägtrafiken, tågtrafiken, luftfarten, sjöfarten och den lokala trafiken användning av ickeförnybara naturtillgångar, vatten och luft efter farledsklass eller linje samt genomsnittet för hela landet. Dessutom beräknades MIPS-värden för den internationell flyg- och sjöfarten. Innehållet i denna rapport motsvarar i huvudsak den finskspråkiga versionen.Vissa ändringar har emellertid gjorts för att förbättra läsbarheten. Trafikledernas och den övriga infrastrukturens andel av trafikens användning av naturtillgångar är stor. Därför är det av stor betydelse för slutresultatet hur till exempel insatserna av naturtillgångar för infrastrukturen fördelas mellan olika användare. I rapporten presenteras därför hur dessa materialinsatser i de olika trafikslagen kan fördelas mellan person- och godstrafik och hur de slutligen fördelades. I rapporten presenteras också andra bakgrundsuppgifter för MIPS-värdena. De MIPS-värden som togs fram i undersökningen kan användas vid jämförelse av olika trafikslag samt för beräkning av ekoeffektiviteten för produkter och tjänster till exempel i företag. I rapporten åskådliggörs skillnaderna mellan trafikslagen och användningen av MIPS-värden på olika rutter i person- och godstrafiken med hjälp av exempel. Finlands trafiksystem använder i genomsnitt per år och invånare 25 ton icke-förnybara naturtillgångar, 262 ton vatten och 3 ton luft. Huvuddelen används av fordonstrafiken. Till slut dryftas medel att minska trafikens materialintensitet och förbrukningen av naturtillgångar.Viktiga medel är att bygga mindre infrastruktur, att spara naturtillgångar vid byggandet, att minska mängden trafikprestationer, att öka trafikmedlens fyllnadsgrad och att välja rätt trafikmedel. Datum 2006

Nyckelord Finansiär/ uppdragsgivare

Ekoeffektivitet, naturresurser, konsumtion, livslängd, MIPS, ekologisk ryggsäck, trafik, transport, trafiksystem, materialeffektivitet Finlands naturskyddsförbund, miljöministeriet, kommunikationsministeriet,Vägförvaltningen, Banförvaltningscentralen, Sjöfartsverket och Luftfartsverket. ISBN (hft.) Sidantal 104 ISBN 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF) Språk Finska ISSN (print) Offentlighet Offentlig ISSN (online) Pris (inneh. moms 8 %)

Förläggare

Miljöministeriet

Ministry of the Environment

103

820en

T h e

F i n n i s h

E n v i r o n m e n t

Transport MIPS - Natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Transport MIPS The natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system
This report highlights the amount of natural resources which transport consumes in Finland. MIPS values (Material Input per Unit Service, i.e. life-cycle scale natural resource consumption in relation to the benefit achieved) have been calculated in three resource classes (abiotic natural resources, water and air) for specific infrastructure types and routes and as average figures for the whole of Finland. MIPS values are also given for international maritime and air transport. The report also explains the background and calculation procedures of the values given. For example, the allocation of the material input of the transport infrastructure between passenger and goods traffic is a relevant issue because the contribution of infrastructure to the MIPS values of transport is appreciable. The MIPS values given can be used for comparing different modes of transport to support choices made by consumers or companies. FIN-MIPS Transport project results can be used by companies when calculating MIPS values for their products or services. The report illustrates the use of the values given in various calculation examples for passenger and goods transport. On average, the Finnish transport system uses 25 tonnes of non-renewable natural resources, 262 tonnes of water, and 3 tonnes of air, per capita per year. The FIN-MIPS Transport research project was carried out, mainly in 2004-2005, by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. The main financial supporters of the project have been the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Further funds have been provided by the Finnish Road Administration, Finnish Maritime Administration, Finnish Rail Administration, Civil Aviation Authority, and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.

The publication is available in the Internet: www.ymparisto.fi ISBN 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF) ISSN 1796-1637

.....................................................
MINISTR Y OF THE ENVIRONMENT PL 35, 00023 VALTIONEUVOSTO