This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Intermodal Freight Transport
© OECD, 2001. © Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE. All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction, lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material. All requests should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.
Intermodal Freight Transport
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
(508)7508400. In the United States permission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center. or CCC Online: www. Ireland. Italy. New Zealand (29th May 1973). – to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development. Poland (22nd November 1996). Mexico (18th May 1994).ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960. and – to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral. Sweden. Fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19. Turkey. 222 Rosewood Drive. Publié en français sous le titre : TRANSPORT INTERMODAL DE MARCHANDISES Aspects institutionnels © OECD 2001 Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the Centre fran çais d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC).com . All other applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications. Denmark. for every country except the United States. Danvers. Norway. 20.copyright. 75006 Paris. Finland (28th January 1969). rue des Grands-Augustins. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention). France. (33-1) 44 07 47 70. Hungary (7th May 1996). Australia (7th June 1971). . while maintaining financial stability. rue André -Pascal. Luxembourg. Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). France. Greece. Portugal. Switzerland. and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy. the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: – to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries. Germany. the Czech Republic (21st December 1995). non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria. Customer Service. 75775 Paris Cedex 16. Tel. MA 01923 USA. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964). France. the Netherlands. Iceland. and which came into force on 30th September 1961. 2. Belgium. Canada. Spain. the United Kingdom and the United States.
It is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. 3 © OECD 2001 . The Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group will examine key topics focusing on critical aspects of the role of governments in promoting intermodal transport. • Benchmarking and system performance measures. This report on Institutional Aspects of Intermodal Transport represents the initial output of the Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group. The research agenda is intended to help define the elements of an intermodal freight transport system that makes efficient use of the various transport modes involved in the management of supply chains from the producers of raw materials to the consumers of final products. including: • Institutional aspects.FOREWORD The OECD ’s Road Transport and Intermodal Linkage (RTR) Research Programme for 1998-2000 included a mandate for the establishment of an Intermodal Freight Transportation Advisory Group. • International freight corridor development These topics are being addressed in sequence. Previous work carried out by the RTR Programme has shown that economic growth and development require a greater effort on the part of public sector transport regulators and infrastructure providers to meet the evolving expectations of private sector shippers and service providers operating in a highly competitive global marketplace. The mandate continues the OECD ’s commitment to review the current state of freight-related transport research covering all OECD Member countries and regions.
OECD RTR PROGRAMME INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORT: INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS Abstract Industry has increasingly adopted an intermodal approach to the provision of transport services required by users. Organisational arrangements are important to intermodal policy development and operations. facilitate improved services to users and address environmental concerns associated with the use of individual transport modes. OECD Member countries have developed a variety of policy instruments and measures which aim to improve intermodal transport outcomes. Intermodal transport policy units or other institutional arrangements tailored to intermodal requirements can provide a greater policy focus and improve communications with industry as well as within government. Intermodal policy development is especially important where governments own transport infrastructure (such as ports and terminals) and transport business operations (such as rail freight operators). 4 © OECD 2001 . taxes and charges and environmental issues on a transport system basis. governments need appropriate intermodal policies to be able to deal with efficiency. Further work is being undertaken to develop benchmarks for intermodal performance and policy options to address remaining impediments to intermodal efficiency. The main reasons for government involvement in intermodal transport policy are to promote the efficient use of infrastructure. Even in countries with a high degree of reliance on market forces.
................ Chapter 3.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Modal approaches are necessary prerequisites… but not sufficient ..................TABLE OF CONTENTS Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects ................................................................................................ Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Chapter 2.............. United States............ Different approaches can be taken................................................................................................ Switzerland .............................................................................................. Germany......................................................................................................................................................... Organisational structures .................................................................................................................................... Identification and removal of impediments........................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ......................................................................................................... Austria ................................................................. Mexico ................................................................................................................. Definition .......... depending on governmental involvement in transport ownership/provision and transport operations .................... The Netherlands ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ........................................................................................................................ Intermodal Transport Challenges............................................................................................................................ United Kingdom...................................................................................... Hungary ........................................................................................ Norway............................................................................................................................................ Chapter 4....................................................................... Communication between intermodal transport policy units and other actors..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Background and tasks ........................................ Policy instruments ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Italy .................................................................................................................................................... Czech Republic ............................................................ Intermodal policy statements ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Measuring the extent of intermodalism................................... Japan .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Specific problems concerning intermodal transport......................... Performance-based outcomes ...................................................................................................................................................... Executive Summary ................................... Chapter 1........................................ 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 20 23 23 23 25 25 29 29 29 29 30 31 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 36 37 37 38 5 © OECD 2001 ............................................................................................... Canada.. Organisational Structures and Instruments: An Overview ..................... Why promote intermodal policies? ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... National Policies and Organisational Structures......................................................................... Finland ...................................................................... European Union ................................. Background and tasks .......................................................................................................................................................... The project ................................................................................... Instruments.............................................................................................................. Policies......................................................................................................................
........ Relationship between vehicle-kilometres and GDP ........ EU Intermodal freight transport ................................................................... A4.................................................... 1996 ........ the United Kingdom.......... Unitised/containerised tonnage imported or exported via the Channel Tunnel. 1996 ................ United Kingdom .............................................................................................. 57 58 6 © OECD 2001 ...................................................... Notes.............................. A6......................... 2.......................................................................................................... A8................................................................ United States .......... European Union .............................................. Breakdown of inland water freight by type...................................................... Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................................. the United States and the European Union .......................................... 7................................................................................... 8................................................ Relationship between freight tonne-kilometres and GDP . Explicit objectives of national governments with respect to intermodal transport ................................... 5........................ Intermodal transport in the Netherlands........................................................................... Intermodal transport in the Czech Republic .................................................. A2.................................................. Unitised/containerised automotive and other tonnage imported or exported via the Channel Tunnel.............................................................. Freight facilities grants .......................................................................................... Performance-based outcomes.............................. Track access grants............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Intermodal transport in Japan............................................................................................................................................................. Tables 1... Identification and removal of impediments ................... 6................................................................. Communication between intermodal transport policy units and other actors .................................. Intermodal transport in the Netherlands....... 1997 ......................................................... Annex 2: Intermodal Freight Transportation Advisory Group ......................................................................................... Research and development...... Intermodal freight transport in the United Kingdom .............................................................. Legislation and regulations favouring intermodal transport........................ Toolkit for intermodal policy fields ................................ Annex 1: Policies and organisational structures in the Netherlands.................................................................................................................................................... Policy instruments........................................ Slovak Republic.............................................. Different approaches can be taken................. Figures A1................................. A3........................................................................ A2........................................................................................ 16 17 17 18 18 19 24 26 49 50 51 60 60 61 61 62 Annex A1......................................... Intermodal transport in the Netherlands............................................................................................................................................................................................... Intermodal transport in Canada ............................................................ A5.... Non-member responses .................................................................................................................................................................. 41 41 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 45 49 52 61 62 66 70 70 70 71 72 Aim and rationale for intermodal transport ........................................................................................................... depending on governmental involvement in transport ownership/provision and transport operations......................................................................................... Modal approaches are necessary… but not sufficient........................................ 4................................... Slovenia ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The Netherlands.......................................Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Chapter 5....................................................................................................................................................................................... United Kingdom intermodal traffic – Further statistics......... A7............................................ 3....................................
Many of the policy measures considered likely to promote “intermodalism” include – but are not limited to – modespecific actions. policy frameworks generally support competitive operating environments. the principal focus in this study was on movement of non-bulk and containerised freight. which may hinder the adoption of a co-ordinated intermodal approach. a fairly general and broad definition has been chosen. It also stands for the promotion of improvements in the transport chain without modal shift. Definition of intermodalism Intermodalism is not limited to the promotion of a modal shift from road transport to other modes. The key focus was the government – rather than the private – sector. • In order to achieve improvements in efficiency and environmental outcomes that go beyond those that can be realised by purely modal policies. The project was not aimed at identifying and removing impediments to intermodal transport operations. © OECD 2001 7 . Modal approaches are necessary prerequisites… but not sufficient • Intermodal transport is hampered if the performance of any of the key transport modes is inadequate or if the linkages between modes are not efficient and reliable. • In most countries. many countries are now considering transport issues from the perspective of the whole door-to-door transport chain. but rather provides a “toolkit” for setting up intermodal arrangements or evaluating organisational structures on intermodal transport. This report does not address whether one policy (or combination of policies) is more effective or appropriate than another. For the purpose of this study. – It is difficult to design and implement “true” intermodal measures given that the costs can often be considerable (and beyond the resources of individual users) while the benefits can be widely dispersed across a range of users and difficult to recover under current pricing systems. Intermodalism implies the use of at least two different modes of transport in an integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain. These are properly matters for later work. While the approaches to achieving transport efficiency improvements differ. The starting point was the observation that transport policy and organisational arrangements have generally developed along modal lines.INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORT: INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and tasks This project on institutional aspects aimed to compare and assess the impact of different organisational structures on transport planning and intermodal policy development. there is emphasis in the policy frameworks on promoting transport efficiency and facilitating modal reform. While the concept of intermodalism encompasses all freight movements involving two or more modes of transportation.
Performance-based outcomes – Possible organisational benchmarks can be identified. intermodal transport improvements are largely driven by industry interests (shippers and carriers) seeking to provide value-added services and find least-cost solutions to transportation problems. but it is extremely difficult to measure the effectiveness of a policy and even more difficult to compare the effectiveness of policies in different countries. rather than in terms of factors such as institutional arrangements alone. working with the private and public sector organisations involved. there are nevertheless a number of policy issues relating to the efficiency of transport services. In countries with greater reliance on market forces.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Different approaches can be taken. © OECD 2001 8 . Policy instruments – Transport administrations with established and dedicated intermodal transport programmes and resources – such as a special action programme. • Governments that are more interventionist or more directly involved in ownership of transport operations are also likely to use regulatory measures such as licensing exemptions and driving bans at specified times to favour intermodal transport. the approaches outlined provide a “toolkit ” for countries when setting up intermodal arrangements or considering organisational structures for intermodal transport. – Intermodal projects should be evaluated on a “case-by-case” basis. • In countries with a high level of reliance on market forces and private infrastructure ownership and operations. depending on governmental involvement in transport ownership/provision and transport operations • Governments which have a high level of involvement in transport infrastructure ownership/ provision and transport operations need to be actively involved in intermodal policy development and the intermodal actions taken by their transport operations. use of such regulatory instruments by government is limited. Instead. an intermodal transport policy unit or other similar organisational provisions – have developed more explicit and more focused intermodal transport policies than have transport administrations having purely “mono”modal units. – The likelihood of intermodal transport policy being successful depends on the relationship between intermodal transport policy units (or other policy structures). – The true value of intermodal approaches should be assessed in terms of performance “on the ground”. Such an approach is similar to that adopted in many other aspects of transport (such as safety) where macro indicators may not provide a reliable guide to the effectiveness of individual programmes. industry advisory bodies and other stakeholders. Communication between intermodal transport policy units and other actors • Intermodal policy development requires co-operative arrangements between government and the private sector. • In countries where there is increasing private ownership and/or operation of transport infrastructure (as governments have withdrawn from involvement in commercial transport operations). a special task force. • Intermodal transport policies and improvements need to be developed co-operatively with modal approaches to ensure that they are targeted at existing impediments and aimed at getting the linkages right. charging and taxing regimes and environmental aspects of transport infrastructure and operations that require intermodal policy consideration.
modal combinations and modal interfaces and identifying policy options for governments to address impediments to intermodal efficiency. 9 © OECD 2001 .Executive Summary Identification and removal of impediments • Further work should concentrate on developing benchmarks for monitoring intermodal performance of modes.
separately and collectively. • Benchmarking and system performance measures. The members of the Advisory Group participating in the respective sub-group activities have benefited from the results of the OECD TRILOG Conferences sponsored by the North American Task Force held in Mexico City (1997). namely: • Institutional aspects. The key topics chosen focused on critical aspects of the governments’ role in promoting intermodalism. which may hinder the adoption of a co-ordinated multimodal approach. The key focus was the government – rather than the private – sector. These are properly matters for later stages of the work. is intended to help define the elements of an intermodal freight transport system that makes equitable and efficient use of the advantages of the various transport modes involved in the management of supply chains from the producers of raw materials to the consumers of final products. academic institutes and state and local government agencies. The benchmarking part of the project will report on measures to assess the © OECD 2001 11 . Each of these topics is being addressed in sequence. included a mandate for the establishment of an Intermodal Freight Transportation Advisory Group. as well as various international finan ce institutions and other multilateral entities. In addition. The Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group has debated a wide range of public and private sector concerns and issued a report to the RTR Steering Committee. Toronto (1998) and Washington (1998). A number of conferences and seminars. • International freight corridor development. selected from a list of possible research areas. organised or co-sponsored by the OECD and various stakeholders as part of the TRILOG (Trilateral Logistics) project. The research agenda. This report reflects contributions of participants at the sub-group meetings held in Paris in April and November of 1999 and written communications issued either preceding or following the discussions as well as contributions received by the working group from other sources. which in turn authorised the Advisory Group to proceed with the further investigation of three topics. as well as the conferences organised by the Asia Task Force held in Tokyo (1998) and the European Task Force seminars held in Brussels (1998). the members have been involved in conferences on intermodal transport sponsored by national industry associations. have shown that the economic growth and development dynamics require a greater effort on the part of public sector transport regulators and infrastructure providers to understand and meet the evolving expectations of private sector shippers and service providers operating in a highly competitive global marketplace. The project on institutional aspects aimed to compare and assess the impact of different organisational structures on transport planning and policy development. The institutional aspects project was not aimed at identifying and removing impediments to intermodal transport operations. The starting point was the observation that transport policy and organisational arrangements have generally developed along modal lines.Chapter 1 THE PROJECT Background and tasks The OECD’s Road Transport and Intermodal Linkage (RTR) Research Programme for the 1998-2000 period. The mandate continues the OECD’s commitment to review the current state of freight-related transport research covering all OECD Member countries and regions.
while the freight corridors work will consider existing impediments to intermodal transport and recommend improvements. air cargo liner and pipeline. depending on the context and objectives. concerns the movement of goods in one and the same loading unit (e. The modes involved can encompass van and truck. • Comparing different national and international organisations and their mechanisms to develop integrated transport policy options. For EU subsidy schemes. The tasks established for the project on institutional aspects included: • The development of benchmarks to compare the effectiveness of different organisational structures in delivering cohesive transport policies. This notion assumes that the use of multiple modes for a single trip can be advantageous from both an efficiency and environmental point of view. Definition Many concepts and definitions are used. the notion of “combined transport” is used for intermodal transport of unitised cargo where the major part of the European journey is by rail and any initial or final leg is carried out by road. a fairly general and broad definition of intermodalism has been chosen. It also stands for the promotion of improvements in the transport chain without modal shift. from a point of origin to a destination. For the purposes of this study. but rather provides a “toolkit ” for setting up intermodal arrangements or evaluating organisational structures on intermodal transport. At any one time. For example.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects performance of modes and modal combinations. it was determined that the first task was not completely feasible: it is possible to identify benchmarks.” as used in the common terminology in force within the European Union (EU). with consideration being given to the current state of play for transport policy making. In the course of the project. intermodalism refers to the goal of making the optimal use of all the various modes of transportation . can therefore be defined as intermodal. It should also be emphasised that the principal focus in this study was on the movement of non-bulk and containerised freight. in this report. it should be emphasised that. a container) or vehicle which uses successively several modes of transport without handling of the goods themselves while changing modes. While the concept of intermodalism encompasses all freight movements involving two or more modes of transportation. barge and ship. but it is extremely difficult to measure the effectiveness of a policy and even more difficult to compare the effectiveness of policies in different countries. many interacting policies (both modal and intermodal) are at play. All freight movements involving at least two or more modes of transportation.g. Therefore. this report does not address whether one policy (or combination of policies) is more effective or appropriate than another. the notion of “multimodal transport” is generally used for the carriage of goods by at least two modes. intermodalism is not limited to the promotion of a modal shift from road transport to other modes. Characterised in this way. © OECD 2001 12 . In the light of the objectives that appeared to predominate in most of the countries studied in this project. In the same terminology. • Assessing the extent to which countries are reviewing regulations to improve intermodal transport. Definition Intermodalism implies the use of at least two different modes of transport in an integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain. The notion of “intermodal transport. railroad. this definition is even more detailed. UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) and the European Conference of Ministers for Transport (ECMT).
and points the way towards the conclusions presented in Chapter 5. in terms of more efficient customs and clearance procedures. intermodal policies have developed out of a desire to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness with which the entire transport network is used. It introduces the various approaches adopted by Member countries to policy setting. Most Member countries use narrow definitions of intermodal transport. With heightened emphasis on increased productivity and efficiency in the transportation industry. particularly at an international level. It is doubtful that many countries could readily provide data concerning “true” intermodal volumes.e. did so in a mode-specific manner – there is a lack of true intermodal data. Countries which were able to provide data. This means that the indicators used to monitor the success of individual policies also vary extensively. In turn. Support of economic growth. While a prerequisite for effective and efficient intermodal transport is adequate performance of the individual modes. mode-specific approaches are no longer able to meet effectively the needs of shippers. in the context of the seamless movement of goods from origin to destination by two or more modes. the ways in which such policies are being monitored and the challenges Member countries face in implementing their policies. i. Industry is now thinking in terms of the management of the entire supply chain. This chapter presents the background to the development of intermodal policies. This lack of data comparability among countries indicates a serious problem if any further analytical work is to be undertaken. Overall. Promoting efficient linkages between all modes of transport is widely considered to be a prerequisite to such a policy. it would appear that there is no set path to developing intermodal policy – different situations require different approaches. There is also concern regarding the lack of harmonisation with respect to current technology. from point of origin to final destination. However. is a growing component of the transportation sector. making data comparisons difficult and not always meaningful. border-crossings. The development of intermodal indicators would be helpful in assessing the current state of intermodalism and evaluating the success of past policies and instruments. One of the major concerns for European countries is the standardisation and uniformity of intermodal transport equipment and operations as well as the regulation of railways. Most OECD countries are concerned with the efficiency. the importance placed by the manufacturing and service sectors on such concepts as “just-in-time” delivery. In North America. improvement of transport cost effectiveness and reduction of environmental and social impacts were the main justifications for the adoption of intermodal policies in Member countries. governments are reexamining policies and legislative/regulatory frameworks to ensure that the provision and management of transportation networks and infrastructure are able to meet the needs of the future. while cross-border issues are important in all OECD regions. such as “containerised rail and marine volumes” and “modal split data”. the volume of traffic. are paramount if intermodalism is to meet shipper © OECD 2001 13 . manufacturers and consumers. which moves on more than one mode of transport. related costs and performance of intermodal transport. the shift towards e-business/e-commerce applications and the ever-increasing movement towards a global economy.Chapter 2 INTERMODAL TRANSPORT CHALLENGES Introduction Intermodal transport. a mode-specific approach does not appear to be sufficient to achieving efficient intermodal transport systems. In the main. Member country definitions of what constitutes intermodal transport vary widely.
One of the main objectives in developing intermodal policy is to ensure that the entire freight distribution network is used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Why promote intermodal policies? Until relatively recently.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects and carrier expectations.g. modally integrated service can be achieved. but also with respect to their potential for disrupting economic growth and mobility. Changes leading to a more systematic and comprehensive approach are therefore required. The cost of transportation is decreasing in real terms in response to global competition among shippers and carriers and advances in technology. In Japan. difficulties in negotiating more open and expeditious customs and border procedures with other countries) are a problem. governments and non-government organisations (NGOs) were preoccupied with mode-specific approaches to the movement of passengers and freight. The concept of “intermodal” transportation was introduced into the public policy arena in the late 1970s. congestion. In the case of freight. efficiently and at least cost – that the © OECD 2001 14 . The advent of globalisation. the emphasis on a seamless. The volume and value of goods moved are increasing relative to changes in Gross Domestic Product and in response to the liberalisation of trade. Intermodal transportation is at the heart of global trade and provides the arteries through which freight moves efficiently and cost-effectively across oceans. efficient transfer has only recently taken on importance. while the transfer of goods from one mode to another in the process of movement from origin to destination has always existed. the external costs of traffic congestion. European governments recognised the advantages of intermodalism. road transport is likely to increase both its present market share and its external costs. As a result. along coastal and inland waterways. With the projected growth of international trade and global logistics needs. It is becoming apparent that the policy instruments used for a “business-as-usual” approach cannot solve the future problems associated with transport. the role of transport will become even more important in the future. Outstanding issues concerning the harmonisation of weights and dimensions and regional taxation regimes have to be addressed. issues associated with being an island nation (e. OECD Members and governments in other parts of the world have also recognised the need for efficiency improvements in intermodal transportation and have adopted the principles of efficiency and sustainability in their legislative frameworks. “just-in-time” approaches to inventory for the manufacturing and retail sectors. As global freight transport volumes have increased. air pollution and noise have become more apparent. Member countries consider that this should be done in a manner that supports continued economic growth while at the same time minimising the impacts of distribution on society and the environment. accidents. One prerequisite for such a vision is to ensure that freight can interchange between modes smoothly. a policy for intermodal transport can support a policy for sustainable development. Most of the world’s export-import trade is moved by ship – but also by a variety of other modes and equipment between ports and inland destinations. In this way. and each of these challenges has in turn contributed to the recognition of the need for efficient. Intermodalism is not a silver bullet. scarce resources and the current trend towards e-business/e-commerce applications are all challenges that the transportation system is being forced to meet. modally integrated service which utilises spare capacity in other modes. Global economic growth and development could not be sustained without intermodal transport. increasing environmental concerns. but it does present an important policy tool which can enable this systematic and comprehensive approach to transportation and useroriented services. one of the major challenges facing the transportation industry is the need to introduce a more efficient. effective intermodal transport approaches and corresponding policies. not only as an issue of concern for the quality of life. through ports and terminals. having promoted efficient interfaces between passenger transport systems long before the safety aspects and environmental impacts associated with freight movements became issues of public concern. One of the major concerns of OECD governments is that unless an efficient. on rail and by highways and roads.
Intermodal Transport Challenges network is seamless and fully integrated. an effort was made to assess the share of intermodalism in total transport activities and to identify specific problems in OECD countries. In most instances. Quantitative performance indicators The following indicators were used by Member countries to monitor developments in intermodal freight transport: • Tonnes lifted by rail. industry benefits through the provision of choice. Achieving this goal calls for a regulatory and planning policy framework which is designed to encourage the development of an integrated freight infrastructure and ensure a strategic system of intermodal transfer points and intermodal facilities at industry parks. for example by improving interoperability and the quality of the interfaces. as a first step. Before assessing the policies and organisational structures of Member countries. If all modes perform well. • Reducing energy consumption and contributing to improved air quality and environmental conditions. The transfer of goods from road to alternative modes (modal shift) can also play a part in reducing congestion and improving safety. inland waterways. To achieve true comparability among Member countries. • Tonnes lifted by maritime shipping. in an effort to minimise both data compilation and the reporting burden. coastal shipping and pipelines. thereby enhancing the nation’s global competitiveness. • Tonne-kilometres moved by rail. Better utilisation of railways. • Tonne-kilometres moved by inland shipping. not all countries appeared to be in a position to readily supply the required data. • An effective and efficient seamless transportation chain. Measuring the extent of intermodalism Both quantitative and qualitative indicators should be considered in any assessment of the current share of intermodalism. In order to achieve these objectives. particularly on long-haul and international journeys. When used effectively. They also need to address factors influencing the choices made by shippers and various governmental organisations. a very simple set of quantitative indicators were collected. intermodal transport policies in Member countries are thus designed to stimulate: • Modal shift from road transport to railways. While quantitative indicators may provide a more objective picture. © OECD 2001 15 . • Tonnes lifted by inland shipping. • Tonne-kilometres moved by coastal shipping. railways and shipping can in many cases offer a more energy-efficient and less polluting means of freight carriage than road transport. • Increasing economic productivity and efficiency. particularly where those factors arise from inefficiencies elsewhere in the transport system. policies cannot be aimed at the transport infrastructure or logistic service providers alone. data would need to be harmonised. ports and shipping services can play a vital role in building a sustainable freight distribution system. • Reducing congestion and the burden on over-stressed infrastructure investments. However. greater competition and potential cost savings. The benefits of intermodalism are considered as significant and offer the promise of: • Lowering overall transportation costs by allowing each mode to be used for that portion of the trip to which it is best suited.
In comparison.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects • Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) by rail. Intermodal transport in the Netherlands Defined as the share of container transport in total transport (domestic and international) 1986 Tonnes % intermodal Tonnes 1995 % intermodal Tonnes 1996 % intermodal Tonnes 1997 % intermodal Total (domestic/international) Tonnes road (millions) Tonnes rail (millions) Tonnes inland shipping (millions) Tonnes deep sea (millions) Tonnes short sea (millions) Tonnes pipeline (millions) Sub-total 456 19 238 195 127 39 1 074 TEUs 545 17 228 209 134 52 1 185 TEUs 547 16 237 203 152 58 1 213 TEUs 3 21 3 14 9 – 6 573 19 250 212 163 63 1 280 TEUs 7 24 4 15 9 – 8 TEUs (domestic + international) TEUs road (‘000) TEUs rail (‘000) TEUs inland shipping (‘000) TEUs short sea TEUs deep sea n. It is clear that geographical differences will be a significant factor in understanding the role of intermodal transport. 862 1 420 n. has a river and canal system capable of handling modern transport requirements. Further details on these intermodal volumes are provided in Annex. 16 It is difficult to reach any substantive conclusions regarding intermodal transport statistics in OECD countries based on the information provided.a. 1998-2003. Specific data were received from five countries: Canada. For example. the European Commission provided key statistical data relating to intermodal transport. International: import. • TEUs by inland shipping. Beleidseffect Rapportage. The EU figures report tonnekilometres moved. this is due to the paucity of data. Percentage intermodal inland shipping: the total weight of unitised maritime goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the total of goods lifted by inland shipping.a. Tonnes deep sea: international transport over sea to countries outside Europe. It is also due to the use of different definitions. Table 1. These indicators relate to individual modes and do not consider the transport chain as a whole. Domesestination within the Netherlands. In addition. Percentage intermodal deep sea maritime: total of all container expressed as a percentage of total maritime traffic. Percentage intermodal rail: the total weight of unitised goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the total of goods lifted by rail. n.a. export and throughput through the Netherlands. the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. • TEUs by maritime shipping. 3 478 348 787 1 486 2 879 3 659 407 858 1 618 3 162 Notes: n.a. Source: Verkeer Economische Verkenningen. • TEUs by coastal shipping. Tonnes short sea shipping: transport over sea between the Netherlands and European countries. Tonnes inland shipping: the total weight of goods lifted by inland shipping. invariably by sea. Tonnes: metric tonnes. n. while part of mainland Europe. Canada’s figures only include containerised freight. the Japanese statistics do not include international maritime freight. © OECD 2001 .: not available. In part. Island countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan can be expected to have a high proportion of international intermodal traffic. the Czech Republic.a. the Netherlands. Tonnes rail: the total weight of goods lifted by rail during the given year. 1998. Tonnes pipeline: total tonnes per pipeline. Japan. TEUs loaded rail/inland shipping: number of loaded TEUs transported by rail/inland shipping.
2 275 309 TEUs 3.94 140 1. • In the Czech Republic. While the tonnage carried by inland shipping fell slightly.98 0. reflecting in part the significance of maritime-related intermodal transport for an island country. Over the same period.31 1.4% in 1997. 110 4. Tonnes: metric tonnes.a. Proportion intermodal:* a weighted average of percentage intermodal in relation to total tonnes lifted (including only rail and inland waterway transport.5 n.a. it would appear that the trends (over the period 1986-97) observed for Canada.5 0. % intermodal: for rail.a.a.75 TEUs 4. Tonnes inland waterways: total inland waterways cargo handled.9 273 299 TEUs 3. % intermodal: for rail.3 n. tonnages for both rail and inland shipping increased significantly. Tonnes rail: total domestic and transborder (Canada/US) rail tonnage. Intermodal transport in the Czech Republic 1986 Tonnes % intermodal 1994 Tonnes % intermodal 1995 Tonnes % intermodal 1996 Tonnes % intermodal 1997 Tonnes % intermodal Tonnes rail (millions) Tonnes inland waterways (millions) 297 14. 876 6.61 174 1. n. 130 0. the share of total rail tonnage originating from/destined to Canadian port facilities.: not available. For the years for which figures are available.a. the Netherlands and the United Kingdom differ significantly: • In the Netherlands.4 5.2 5. Tonnes: metric tonnes.: not available.4 Notes: n.5 3. 1 672 9. n. In Canada.0 TEUs rail (‘000) TEUs maritime (‘000) Proportion intermodal (%) n.4 6. its contribution to intermodal transport rose. both tonnage (rail and maritime) and the proportion of intermodal transport increased from a total of 6. 1 404 8.74 4.51 0.98 0.98 TEUs rail (‘000) TEUs marine (‘000) Proportion intermodal (%) Proportion intermodal* (%) Note: 453 n. Table 3.69 0.1 n. • In the United Kingdom. the proportion of intermodal transport. Tonnes maritime: total coastal and international cargo handled.99 0.38 TEUs 1.55 107 3. Tonnes rail: total domestic and interstate rail tonnage. 1 385 8.21 n. for inland waterways. Source: Transport Annual Report.18 1986 data relate to Czechoslovakia (not just the Czech Republic). remained stable. Japan.a. 1 509 9.50 3.5% in 1986 to 9. Proportion intermodal: the sum of rail and maritime proportions.a. At first glance.94 TEUs 0. the proportion of total rail tonnage. However.92 172 1.a.a. For maritime. maritime containerised tonnage as a share of total maritime tonnage handled.1 275 310 TEUs 3.57 111 1.24 109 4.7 293 330 TEUs 3. tonnages have fallen. Source: Transport Canada.1 5. the proportion of UK intermodal transport is approximately 20%. maritime tonnage has increased.Intermodal Transport Challenges Table 2.18 TEUs 3.3 n. excluding road transport).9 0. 1986 Tonnes Intermodal transport in Canada 1994 Tonnes % intermodal 1995 Tonnes % intermodal 1996 Tonnes % intermodal 1997 Tonnes % intermodal % intermodal Tonnes rail (millions) Tonnes maritime (millions) 244 267 TEUs 2. as measured by containerised shipments.21 0. n. the tonnage carried by rail initially fell but is now recovering.a. the proportion of total inland waterways tonnage handled. n.14 0. © OECD 2001 17 . Statistics Canada.a. Includes double counts as most of the rail intermodal tonnage is also counted in the maritime sector.a.
Tonnes: metric tonnes. 3. from 9.a. 720 8 230 n. 4 730 n.a. while coastal shipping volumes increased from 23 731 TEUs to 29 157 TEUs. foreign boats entering UK inland waters and one port dedicated flow). Percentage intermodal inland shipping: the total weight of unitised maritime goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the total of goods lifted by inland shipping.9 555.5 3 961 29 451 9. Tonnes rail: the total weight of goods lifted by rail. 19 12 101 532 61 TEUs n.a.a.: not available.9 548. n.a. it does not mean the equivalent numbers of freight containers.a. 18 • The number of TEUs in both the Netherlands and Japan followed the same trends as tonnage figures. Therefore. coastal shipping.1 3 728 29 157 9. n. This includes all domestic traffic and. The figures relate only to domestic freight volume. tonnage related to rail decreased. Intermodal freight transport in the United Kingdom 1986 Tonnes % intermodal 1994 Tonnes % intermodal 1995 Tonnes % intermodal 1996 Tonnes % intermodal 1997 Tonnes % intermodal Tonnes rail (millions) Tonnes maritime (millions) Tonnes inland shipping (millions) 138 453 68 TEUs n.6 546. when one door-to-door freight transport movement includes both rail and truck segments.7 TEUs 2 8 78.1 Notes: The term “tonnes” means the volume lifted by each mode. 13 8 97 519 62 TEUs n. 7 420 n. But. The figure in terms of TEUs is the quotient obtained by dividing total freight volumes by 18. This total includes some double counting since UK coastal shipping traffic (i. It represents total containers and road goods vehicles including trailers. Source: Transport Statistics Great Britain 1999. Percentage intermodal maritime: total of all container and ro-ro traffic expressed as a percentage of total maritime traffic.TM.5 TEUs 1 8 73. the proportion of intermodal shipments declined slightly.a.2 440. expressed as a percentage of the total of goods lifted by rail.1% in 1997.9 TEUs 1 8 69. 20 Notes: n.a. Transport Statistics Great Britain 1994.8 4 143 29 539 9. Proportion intermodal: a weighted average of percentage intermodal in relation to total tonnes lifted (tonnes rail (TR) x % intermodal + tonnes maritime (TM) x % intermodal + tonnes inland shipping (TS) x % intermodal/sum TR. 8 980 n. traffic through the Channel Tunnel (excluding Eurotunnel shuttle services).a.e.a.a. They include both unimodal transport and intermodal transport. 4.6% in 1986 to 9.a. 1. over the same period. because the TEUs calculation is based on tonnages.a.2 541. Source: Japanese Ministry of Transportation.5 tonnes per TEU.a.8 TEUs 1 9 76. 20 13 102 536 57 TEUs 12 21 13 105 542 58 TEUs 13 22 14 TEUs rail (‘000) TEUs maritime (‘000) TEUs inland shipping (‘000) Proportion intermodal of total tonnes (%) n. • In Japan.a. Intermodal Freight Transport – Key Statistical Data 1992-1997.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Table 4. the freight volume is counted on both rail and truck modes and total freight tonnages are counted twice for such movements. n. © OECD 2001 .6 4 251 29 928 9.a. n. n. port to port) is counted at each port. TEUs maritime: the figure is not wholly representative of total TEUs. Figures include both bulk and container movements. in the figures for 1994-97 (inclusive).3 n. 2. Percentage intermodal rail: the total weight of unitised goods lifted that is destined for import or export via a rail connected port facility or the Channel Tunnel.TS). 19. 7 970 n. Table 5. Tonnes inland shipping: the total weight of goods lifted by internal. Tonnes maritime: all port traffic and Eurotunnel shuttle services (combined transport).4 TEUs 1 8 TEUs rail (‘000) TEUs coastal shipping (‘000) Proportion intermodal (%) 4 698 23 731 9. 1986 Tonnes % intermodal Intermodal transport in Japan 1994 Tonnes % intermodal 1995 Tonnes % intermodal 1996 Tonnes % intermodal 1997 Tonnes % intermodal Tonne rail (millions) Tonne coastal shipping (millions) 87. Waterborne Freight in the United Kingdom (Transport Statistics Bulletin DETR).
The “total maritime ” data submitted by each country is different.a. Because of the differences in the maritime data. The 31. Sofres estimates. • The intermodal data provided by Canada includes significant double counts. > 90% 21. Thus the ratios indicating proportions of intermodal tonnage in maritime shipping are not defined consistently. UIC.9% 8.7 n.a. DGVII. are also not comparable.a. The total amount of unitised transport in that year was estimated at 140–145 million tonnes and 50 billion tonnekilometres. 1996) By EU railways By air (major EU airports traffic) On inland waterways On roads By sea (containers loaded/unloaded in ports) Total unitised traffic (million tkm.08 0.7 31% (tonnes) n.5 n. 1996) Rail Road Inland waterway EU Intermodal freight transport 2 640 1. ICF. 30. 240 n. the shares of intermodal traffic.2 2 n.9% 73.a.a. 140/145 7. in total. UIRR: International Union of Combined Road-Rail Transport Companies.a. The European Commission concluded that “the construction of intermodal transport statistics (according to the transport chain definition) raises a difficult conceptual problem because every single consignment is shipped by a specific transport chain”.2 million TEUs loaded and unloaded represented approximately 14% of the cargo handled in EU ports in 1996. 1996) By EU railways On inland waterways On roads By sea (containers loaded/unloaded in ports) Total unitised traffic (million tonnes. 30% n.Intermodal Transport Challenges Table 6.6 n. n. Eurostat (1999).16 0. Total EU transport traffic (billion tkm. Intermodal Freight Transport: Key Statistical Data 1992-1997. unitised rail transport amounted to TEU 8 million in 1996. UIRR. 1996) Road Rail Inland waterway Sea (intra-EU) Pipeline Total goods transport growth (1970-96) Total unitised traffic (million TEU.08 2. Source: Eurostat.a. by mode) Rail Inland waterway Road Air Inland traffic of maritime containers (million TEU.1 1.a. 53. 1996) Rail Inland waterway Road Rail-sea (bi-modal) traffic Road-sea (bi-modal) traffic 1.6% per year n.a.2% 8 824 wagons 12 254 trucks (44%) (8%) (4%) (41%) (3%) Total unitised traffic growth (1994-96. In the European Union (EU). 4. 8.11 1.21 0. UIRR1 members) Unitised traffic (% total tkm.a.3 16. Luxembourg. “Executive Summary”. as a very large proportion of the containerised tonnage is counted in both the rail and maritime figures. 19 © OECD 2001 . Unitised transport on inland waterways accounted for around 2 million TEUs. n.
© OECD 2001 20 . with respect to customs and immigration procedures. effective and seamless intermodal transport system. which is undertaking the second stage of this project. The Sub-group on Benchmarking. Qualitative performance indicators A number of qualitative indicators specifically relating to freight transport were also submitted for consideration by Member countries. speed and timeliness. These included: • Identification of capacity enhancements. To remedy this situation. while others aimed to assess intermodal performance. • Reduction of operational restrictions on carriers. the picture emerges that the share of intermodal transport appears generally to be below 10% of total freight transport in countries without substantial maritime trade. Specific problems raised by participants in the institutional aspects project include: • Switzerland identified the need for better infrastructure. the operations level and at the mode-dependent services and regulations level. some countries are considering allowing imports of terminal equipment and specialised rolling stock for intermodal transport free of customs duties and other import restrictions and fees. • Provision of adequate infrastructure and facilities. Standardisation of infrastructure. will deal with the issues relating to indicators generally and address the indicators outlined above in more detail. both governments and NGOs have tended to focus on mode-specific approaches and solutions to transportation issues.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Nevertheless. intermodal transport is limited in Finland. • Improvements in condition of infrastructure. Friction costs are high because of lack of interconnectivity at the infrastructure level. Europe In some European countries. the European countries are in some cases limited by EU legislation in the actions they can take. in particular in the European Union. As a result. numerous cross-border problems have surfaced as regions and continents turn towards an integrated transport system. most Member countries have not yet achieved this goal. Until recently. the need for specialised transport equipment. because of the country ’s geography. The Working Group noted that some of these proposed indicators related to capacity (a quantitative indicator). significant obstacles to efficient intermodal transport are the lack of low cost terminals. Many contributors also highlighted problems associated with system reliability. • Development of methods to measure congestion relief. it appears that the large number of bodies involved in the decision process creates obstacles to intermodal transport. However. While there has been significant progress. and regulation of the railways. • Finland is encountering problems because transport operators use non-standard technical systems and have different labour practices. In addition. • Carrier dependability. • Connectivity. North America and Asia. are primary obstacles in Europe. • Delivery flexibility. • Increased safety and security of cargo movements. Specific problems concerning intermodal transport While recognising the advantages of an efficient. • In Italy. and harmonisation of legislative and regulatory requirements. a number of problems remain in North America and the Pacific Rim. improved quality of rail services and more efficient pricing by mode.
larger profiles in rail tunnels and more efficient terminals. Japan and the Asia-Pacific region Many of the problems identified in Europe and North America also apply to Member countries in Asia.g. the EU Fourth framework project SCANDINET found that short. • Harmonisation of weights and dimensions. and advocates better transport access by operators to transport markets. • The United Kingdom wishes to see the removal of border-crossing delays. In addition. • Improved use of EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) and ITS (Intelligent Transport Systems) technology. The Commission believes that improvements are needed with respect to: interoperability between wagons used by different carriers. which would lead to increased quality in service standards. access to the Trans-European Rail Freight Network. • Standardisation of equipment and the need for improved equipment (e. where road transport is favoured. Otherwise. There is a need for increased capacity for freight on rail. they can appear to be an impediment to change. In addition. North America The following issues were raised in the North American context: • Problems concerning customs and border procedures. the question arises whether institutional problems in the regulation of the specific modes and reported shortcomings in infrastructure might be seen as a reflection of prevailing structures within the governmental organisation. the requirement to change train crews when equipment crosses North American borders). standardisation of electricity supply. a recent project in which the logistic chain of some 100 shippers was investigated to assess the prospects for modal shift showed that a number of possibilities exist for intermodal transport. reinforced trailers to reduce structural damage during intermodal transfer).Intermodal Transport Challenges • Similar geographical limits apply to Norway. • Corridor development issues between domestic regions. many shippers are unaware of the opportunities offered by intermodal transport. • Issues associated with being an island nation (e. railway gauge and infrastructure. few of the highlighted problems related to governmental organisation. It supports the liberalisation initiatives of the European Commission. The project found that 80% of the goods flows investigated could change to intermodal transport for the same price (or even cheaper) while the service level remains the same. • Labour issues in terms of agreements between carriers (e. With respect to institutional aspects.and long-distance intermodal transport services are currently not satisfactorily integrated in Scandinavia. The United Kingdom also faces domestic problems which can arise when rail freight has to share routes with passenger rail transport. Structures need to be strongly focused on promoting the required intermodal changes and solutions.g. © OECD 2001 21 . However. The European Commission advocates greater liberalisation of the rail sector.g. • In the Netherlands. and uniformity in the intermodal liability regime. difficulties in negotiating more open customs and border procedures with other countries). However. The following issues were identified in the case of Japan: • Disproportionately high land costs. • The need for more strategically located intermodal terminals and facilities. • Need for specialist regional intermodal facilities. • Constraints associated with establishing new businesses. the Norwegian maritime sector would benefit from better co-operation between ports and the concentration of traffic to selected ports in order to increase the frequency of arrivals.
the organisational elements established to administer these policies. and customs and immigration procedures. This chapter summarises the intermodal freight policies of contributing OECD Member countries. to reduce transport costs and to address negative externalities. This summary is followed by a more comprehensive review of these points. in the individual country contributions in Chapter 4. or tools. Japan aims to provide one of the most convenient and attractive logistics services in the AsianPacific region. such as legislative and regulatory instruments. countries may then develop. © OECD 2001 23 . as well as in their organisational structures. In North America and Europe. subsidies. there is an explicit policy on intermodal transport. A number of broad instruments have been identified by Member countries. the use of direct and indirect subsidies to encourage intermodalism is an often-used approach. significant effort is being placed on harmonisation of standards in areas such as weights and dimensions. Intermodal transport is encouraged by governments in various ways. either specifically on intermodal transport or as part of wider (freight) transport policy papers. or adopt previously developed. French and Dutch governments have translated their ambitions with respect to the development of intermodal transport into explicit objectives. designed to carry out these policies. In other countries. and the policy instruments. policy instruments as a means of executing initiatives in furtherance of these policies. or at least not explicitly laid down in formal policy papers. In some countries. the Netherlands has a specific document (Transport in Balance). Eastern European countries have enacted a number of agreements related to intermodal transport with their neighbours. The German. Within the framework of its “Comprehensive Programme of Logistics Policies” (CPLP). there is no specific explicit policy. and places each country’s organisational structure and policies in perspective with those of other countries in their region. Significant public and private sector research and development programmes are in place throughout the OECD. taken up in formal policy papers (Table 7). ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES AND INSTRUMENTS: AN OVERVIEW Introduction The extent to which countries focus on intermodal freight as a means of enhancing overall freight transport can be derived from the role which intermodal transport plays in their general transport policy frameworks. demonstrated in formal policy documents. It describes the organisational structures and policies of the countries that participated in the study. In addition. Intermodal policy statements Of the 28 OECD countries included in this review. The United Kingdom considers intermodal transport as part of its overall integrated freight policy (Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy). the policy is mainly aimed at individual modes rather than at the intermodal chain as a whole. In some cases. With policies established. research and development programmes and international agreements. but is now switching towards intermodal transport as part of an integrated and sustainable freight transport system. and organisational structures modified to administer these policies. For example. 26 have either an explicit or an implicit policy or set of policies in place to promote intermodal freight transport. These objectives are specifically aimed at encouraging growth in intermodal transport.Chapter 3 POLICIES.
Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic France Germany Italy Netherlands Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States Explicit objectives of national governments with respect to intermodal transport Contribute to a sustainable transport system None Facilitate the growth of intermodalism None Double 1993 volume of intermodal freight (in million tonnes) by 2002 Triple 1994 volume of intermodal freight (30 million tonnes) to 90 million tonnes in 2010 None Achieve a modal shift of 50 million tonnes (20 to rail. In Japan. Those characterised as explicit in form generally encourage broadbased programme development. in sparsely populated Scandinavia. More often. co-ordinated planning among transport modes. Non-mode-specific policies are found in many of the countries which come under the umbrella of the European Commission. Countries with implicit intermodal freight policies typically cite a series of tasks focusing on some aspect of intermodalism. Countries in Eastern Europe are also primarily focused on developing policies which. These policies may also call for linkage of freight transport policy with other governmental concerns. with few specific references to policies or programmes existing prior to 1990. In some cases. often without any direct © OECD 2001 24 . that is. and focused intermodal research and development. Few responding countries reported that they had no specific policy declarations to promote intermodal transport and no intention of enacting intermodal policy guidance. Canada actively encourages the growth of intermodal transport through the facilitation of market forces. and government focus from the point of policy development continues to be primarily mode-specific. in lieu of adding capacity. These may be consolidated under an overarching intermodal freight directive. and is influenced by their geography and demographic structure. intent and form. reduce transport share in GDP Although this is not the case in the other countries mentioned in Table 7. such as are found in Scandinavia. They may address regulatory review and analysis of financial instruments. emphasis on intermodal freight is a recent phenomenon. The need for intermodal transport differs among Member countries. countries have intermodal units that are charged with the legislative and regulatory functions concerning intermodal transport. The United States also has an active intermodal unit that considers non-mode-specific policies and approaches. In all cases. For the 26 countries with intermodal policies. these are categorised as either mode-specific or non-mode-specific. optimisation of existing transport facilities. such as regional or continental intermodal networks or other common concerns of intermodalism. For example. are expected to have a positive impact on intermodalism. and public safety. this does not imply that those countries do not pursue a policy aimed at developing intermodal transport. or may refer to intermodal initiatives. Mode-specific policies are more commonly used in countries with a low population density or with geographical constraints.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Table 7. intermodal policies may be enacted and applied to individual modes of freight transport. or in economies that serve mainly as a transit country. the need for intermodal transport is not as urgent as in some very densely populated regions. through their influence on specific modes. intermodal freight policies are embedded within the framework of the “Comprehensive Programme of Logistics Policies” (CPLP). 20 to inland shipping and 10 to short sea) in the period 1994-2010 None No longer any explicit intermodal target Shift long-distance transport from road to rail Contribute to a sustainable transport system Contribute to transport efficiency. Policy initiatives vary considerably in scope. environmental and community preservation. such as Switzerland. principally energy conservation. including cross subsidy analysis and cost allocation. they may also appear as discrete intermodal tasks incorporated within single-mode programmes.
These include regulatory and legislative initiatives. staff are generally assigned to work full time on intermodal transport issues. Instruments OECD Member countries use a variety of instruments to implement intermodal policies. although some regional and local transport agency interest was referenced in examining intermodal options. Line units may exercise programme management. the focus on intermodalism is expected to be more effective than in the absence of these elements. there was little mention of regional intermodal policies.Policies. by either expanding the scope of existing modal units or creating new units within existing modal organisations. Among the contributing countries. the overarching intermodal policy must be derived through compilation and examination of individual work tasks. These separately established units may be mandated to perform staff functions or may actually be line organisational units. More generally. it is not surprising that the modal approach to policy making continues to dominate in Member countries. providing support to national transport agencies in promoting intermodalism. with appropriate budgetary and staff support. and research and development. Although national transport agencies remain charged with intermodal programme development and implementation. in addition to providing a co-ordination or advisory role. subsidies. the primary goals centre on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of transport systems and infrastructure. © OECD 2001 25 . budget and legislative development functions. environmental concerns and the promotion of operations business efficiency. These initiatives encourage intermodal transport by allowing increased loads and driving time. Intermodal policy making is aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the door-todoor integrated transport chain. They may also assist in the development of regional and local policies promoting intermodalism and provide a point of contact for government agencies at all levels with an interest in intermodalism. For those that have created new units. Staff intermodal units typically perform a co-ordinating or advisory function. In instances where policies call for establishment of intermodal units within line agencies. Overall. However. Organisational structures Only a few of the contributing countries have specific intermodal transport units within their transport organisations. it would appear that additional approaches and measures specifically directed towards intermodalism need to be applied if a truly effective integrated transport chain is to be achieved. While the key driving forces for promoting intermodal transport differ among countries and over time. Legislation and regulations Varying levels of legislative and regulatory instruments are in place across Member countries to encourage and implement intermodal activity. and ii) non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with an interest in intermodal freight. contributing countries have incorporated intermodalism as a distributed function. Intermodal focus in Member countries appears to be confined to: i) national transport organisations. such as organisations of (private) terminal operators. In these cases. it appears that countries with dedicated intermodal units have more explicit and focused intermodal policies than those with purely mono-modal approaches. may assume an advocacy role. NGOs. For those that have expanded the scope of existing units. countries tend to favour regulations related to vehicle weights and dimensions. Line functions typically require programme support. intermodal staffing may be limited to collateral duties for existing staff or may include limited staff expansion. As a key prerequisite for effective intermodal transport is the adequate performance of individual modes. which may or may not be called for in the intermodal freight policy and its supporting instruments. In Europe. Organisational Structures and Instruments: An Overview mechanism for co-ordination.
Intermodal transport is a less-intensive user of road infrastructure. NL = the Netherlands. provided they are used for intermodal transport Driving ban for lorries on certain days or at certain times Exemption for vehicles used for intermodal transport 40 401 28 50 40 40 38 44 44 40 48 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no – no – yes yes no yes yes no yes no2 – – yes no – no – no no – – yes yes 1. In Eastern Europe. Japan favours measures that. US = United States. however. the purchase of intermodal loading units or the reimbursement of operating deficits for intermodal rail transport. © OECD 2001 26 . Governments are also facilitating freight flows through approaches aimed. Users of combined transport may be exempted from bilateral contingents and similar restrictions for foreign transport operators. CZ = Czech Republic. national governments provide direct financial support to intermodal transport. Subsidies Both direct and indirect subsidies are used to encourage intermodal transport. Countries such as the Netherlands have specific objectives in terms of the encouragement and growth of this component. In North America. an extensive system of political and legislative measures is in place to promote combined transport. 2. and the standardisation of customs and immigration procedures. This can be in the form of financial backing to the private sector for the construction of terminals. educational institutions and public-private groups. B = Belgium. through deregulation and the provision of alternative transport modes. CH = Switzerland. an argument which is sometimes used to justify the development of pricing schemes which exempt intermodal transport from the taxes and fees directed to heavy and long-distance road use.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Table 8. many countries have signed bilateral agreements that encourage the use of combined transport. few are specific to intermodal transport. S = Spain. Research and development organisations include government agencies. Significant effort is targeted to the harmonisation of weights and dimensions across the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) countries. taxes and road usage fees of some form or another are applied to commercial road transport because commercial road vehicles use the highway network frequently and over very large distances. Legislation and regulations favouring intermodal transport. G = Germany. eliminate infrastructure bottlenecks and lead to sophisticated logistics systems and the use of advanced technology. Only in London at night. 1997 G A CH NL S F UK I B US CZ Max. Research and development While transport-related research and industry groups exist in a number of Member countries. gross weight of road vehicles (tonnes) Exemption for 44-tonne vehicles. and to enhance competitiveness with policies such as deregulation and privatisation. Austria. for vehicles registered in the EU. I = Italy. e. A = Austria. UK = United Kingdom. F = France. among others. In some countries. at reducing intra-metropolitan congestion and associated transaction costs. In most Member countries. ranging from financial aid for the construction of terminals to the purchase of specialised rolling stock. the primary approach is to facilitate development of intermodal activity through market forces. In some instances. The maximum gross weight of road vehicles in Austria is generally 38 tonnes. These operators may also be granted additional bilateral transport licences as a reward. it is 40 tonnes.g.
Industry groups often provide a forum for communication between transportation professionals from the private and public sectors.Policies. Organisational Structures and Instruments: An Overview Educational institutions and other research institutes often work in collaboration with government. transport economics and logistics. Areas of study include the optimisation of terminals. assist government inquiries into specific transport problems and are engaged in the preparation and evaluation of policy options. Research conducted by universities on transportation can have a strong influence on policy makers. There is also a growing interest in ITS and other technologies. 27 © OECD 2001 .
was recently prolonged from 1999 to the end of 2002. driving bans at weekends and driving bans for noisy trucks at night). Innovation and Technology is based on subject matter and modal division. and supplementary permits for using combined transport. These measures include financial incentives as well as a range of political and legislative measures for the promotion of combined transport. The organisational structure of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport. Financial support for investments in combined transport may be granted under the programme for the promotion of combined freight transport by road. Annex provides more detailed information on the Netherlands. some useful information may be found in the ECMT Report “Report on the Current State of Combined Transport in Europe” (OECD. Road Administration. Certain combined transport operations are considered to be of public interest and as such are ordered and remunerated. Sections include Transport Policy and Planning. Austria has also provided related financial investment support to a number of countries in the region and is in the process of introducing and improving information systems for intermodal transport. Examples of regulatory measures in support of combined transport payload adjustment (higher payloads for initial and terminal combined transport hauls than for road transport in general) include liberalised corridors for rolling roads. logistics) for improving combined transport. the United Kingdom. originally introduced in 1992. the ecopoint system for transit through Austria for EU vehicles. specific exemptions from driving bans at weekends and at night. Telecommunications and Innovation and Technology. in particular by providing environment-friendly alternatives to pure road transport. Aviation. containers. Furthermore. Inland Transport. loading equipment. Canada Canada is currently in the process of defining specific policies to promote intermodal transport and Intelligent Transportation Systems. swap bodies and innovative technologies (new loading techniques. This is in line with Canada’s National Transportation Policy which states that a system that makes best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost 1. the European Union. cranes. combined transport terminals. rail and inland waterways. organisational structures and instruments of some 16 OECD countries that participated in this study. a number of measures have been introduced to support this policy. which aims at transferring freight transport from road to environment-friendly modes of transport. among others. The programme. 1998) 29 © OECD 2001 . the United States and Japan. For other European countries.Chapter 4 NATIONAL POLICIES AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES Introduction The following chapter addresses the policies. fiscal incentives are provided for combined transport operations. combined transport enjoys wide exemptions from most of these limitations. While road transport is subject to various restrictions (such as licences for non-EU vehicles. Eligible projects include.1 Austria In recognition of the vital role played by combined transport in Austrian transport policy.
The Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) is a public sector organisation that co-ordinates the administration. © OECD 2001 . it is recognised that intermodal transport has the potential to reduce the total cost of transportation and increase the efficiency and productivity of the transportation system. Communications. Policy. e.2 The Policy Group. Finance. There is no specific office dedicated to intermodal transport. The principal programme in the intermodal transport area is headed: “System support of combined transport development in the Czech Republic in 1999-2000/2005”. analysis and a forum for discussion on transportation issues. development and realisation of public passenger transport and combined transport systems in relation to international agreements. There are also two regional organisations. The organisational structures of both Transport Canada (the Department responsible for transportation matters in Canada). bus). and Air. Safety and Security. Transport Canada is involved in the development of ITS programmes. The Department works closely with a number of other federal and provincial departments and agencies. Since 1993. Czech Republic The Department for Public Transport plays a key role in matters of intermodal transport. The national railway authority – Czech Railways – has an interest in only one operator – Bohemiakombi LtD. is partially divided along modal lines: Marine. the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission (APTC) and the Western Transportation Advisory Council (WESTAC). The principal activity of this Department is the creation of conditions to e nsu re the suppo rt. Minister’s office.g. and a number of Millennium conferences which are intended to bring together all transportation stakeholders and shippers. for all modes. and the Department is committed to facilitating market-based responses to demand for intermodal services. research and development which would lead to improved intermodal activity. Natural Resources. Clarification of this vision continued under the new Canada Transportation Act – 1996. Transport Canada ’s divisions are now organised along the lines of the Department’s principal objectives: safety and security. highways.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects is essential to serve the transportation needs of shippers and travellers. and External Affairs. The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) has public and private sector members who discuss transportation issues while offering technical excellence in surface transportation infrastructure. and the Canadian Transportation Agency (a quasi-judicial body which handles stakeholder issues) have evolved in a direction which facilitates intermodal approaches. This initiative aims to ensure a partial 30 2. Canada’s intermodal vision started with implementation of the National Transportation Act – 1967. The Evaluation and Economic Analysis directorates are multimodal. policy development. All freight carriers in Canada are owned and operated by the private sector. Programs and Divestiture. There are five major private sector operators of combined transport in the Czech Republic. the Departmental structure was organised along modal lines. Previously. which is responsible for modal policy development and decision making. Industry. Surface (rail. however. regulation and control of motor vehicles. To this end. including accident investigation. The approach to date has been to facilitate intermodal activity. primarily by making it as easy as possible for the marketplace to operate. all of the modal directorates are involved in intermodal issues. Corporate Services and Regional Offices. Good integration can increase capacity and reduce congestion and environmental impacts. A separate federal body (the Transportation Safety Board) deals with safety issues. Environment. A number of national and regional organisations promote and discuss intermodal transport. motor carrier. however. which provide information. the government has not been involved in the management of these companies. The Canadian Transportation Agency is tasked with a more legislative role. among others. and setting/maintaining national programmes. Trade and Commerce. The future of intermodalism is dictated by market considerations. and acts as a quasi-judicial body in matters of dispute between carriers and shippers. Policy interventions have generally been mode-specific.
g. Indirect support for combined transport is provided in the form of: • Exemptions from road tax law (16/1993) for road vehicles linked up with combined transport. • Creation and implementation of UN/EDIFACT form. the state administration has contributed significant funding for a range of transport and intermodal projects. Research focuses on promoting integration between different transport modes and on increasing operational efficiency. Research activities related to intermodal transport over the period 1995-99 were financed through the Czech Ministry of Transport and Communications. Since 1996. The Ministry of Transport and Communications has. Another programme in which Finland is involved is SCANDINET. public investment planning has allocated a budget of more than DEM 4 billion (over EUR 2 000 million) to terminal building and improvements. Combined transport pick-up and delivery operations to and from terminals are exempted from some restrictions that otherwise are applied to road transport. The Goods Transport Unit deals primarily with intermodal transport.National Policies and Organisational Structures transfer of road freight transport to rail and water modes of transport. • Exemptions from Sunday or weekend driving bans for combined transport pick-up and delivery operations. © OECD 2001 31 . including to the Czech Railways for the construction of the Ro-La terminal at Lovosice. The three-year KETJU programme has the objective of improving operating conditions for logistic chains. which aims to create closer links between hinterland intermodal and ferry ro-ro connections in Scandinavian countries and between Scandinavia and the European continent. Germany Germany has a long tradition of political support for combined transport. except when the research programme covers their respective areas of activity. together with the Technology Development Centre. Finland In Finland. a 30% state contribution to the purchase of swap bodies and lifting equipment and operating support for unaccompanied transport. • Exemptions from driving bans during holidays for road vehicles linked up with combined transport. Key goals include: • Creation of an information system for electronic exchange and data transfer on freight transport for combined transport. while the Vehicle and Environment Unit handles environmental issues. e. and indirect investment support for the modernisation of national rail corridors I and II. transportation falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport and Communications. the Lovosice-Dresden rolling motorway line. Private organisations rarely participate in research activities. Projects eligible for support include the purchase of railway wagons. the Ministry of Transport plans to provide CZK 941 million in support of combined transport. initiated two research and development programmes: TETRA and KETJU. • Investigation of infrastructure conditions of combined and integrated transport from the standpoint of wider exploitation in transport and logistic systems. special railway wagons and the modification of vessels for combined transport. • Development of a decision support system for intensified utilisation of combined transport. Currently. • Bilateral agreements with a number of countries in relation to exemptions for combined transport. In 1998-2000. • Research related to changes in the vehicle-fleet needed for combined transport use. which are more environmentfriendly. The Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications boasts a very active research and development programme. transport telematics and organisational measures. TETRA is a three-year programme dealing with the development of ITS.
Italy has signed the United Nations international agreement on intermodal transport (AGTC). • Full exemption from vehicle tax applies to foreign trucks running on roads between railway combined transport terminals and inland waterway ro-ro harbours and the point of loading/ unloading where such a haul is not longer than 70 km. Pursuant to regulations and decrees: • A foreign carrier operating combined transport may run its vehicles and carry containers. The national transport plan is implemented by the Ministry of Transport. swap bodies and semi-trailers between railway combined transport terminals as well as ro-ro harbour terminals without holding an international freight transport licence as long as the transport distance from the terminal does not exceed 70 kilometres. roads (including circulation and road safety) and the construction of ocean and inland marine infrastructure. Investment grants are planned for combined transport terminals and to enable railways to purchase special combined transport rolling stock. The Italian Services Conference has been created to speed up the decision-making process. the regions (and their administrative sub-divisions. with particular attention devoted to the implementation of intermodal and multimodal transport development for both long-distance freight operations and freight and passenger transport at the regional and metropolitan level. laws 240/90 and 385/90 contain specific plans for the promotion of intermodal transport. air and marine transport. regulations on the development of intermodal transport have to be harmonised with the Guidelines of the European Union.). The Ministry of Transport and Navigation is responsible for rail. this unit deals with the technical and administrative implementation of programmes financed by the state. Italy In Italy.S. • Foreign carriers enjoy a 50% reduction in vehicle tax and are exempt from the use of an international road transport licence. while the Ministry of Transportation and Navigation relies on bodies such as the Italian Railway Company (F. The Ministry of Transportation and Navigation has a specific unit for intermodal transport. This conference facilitates the involvement of all interested administrations in the approval of proposals in the transportation field put forward by the Ministry of Transportation and Navigation. including the normal maintenance and operation of marine infrastructure. the provinces and municipalities) are responsible for the secondary transport network. Several ministries and national authorities are involved in the transport sector. The Ministry of Public Works oversees motor carriers. The Ministry of Transport has a specific unit on intermodal transport. Hungary has signed agreements on combined transport with neighbouring countries and other countries that are of importance from the point of view of combined transport. Furthermore. a Parliamentary Special Commission deals with problems related to transportation in general. In particular. although the primary agencies are the Ministry of Transport and Navigation and the Ministry of Public Works. The same applies where combined transport terminals are located within 70 km of a border crossing point. The Hungarian Government has also passed a resolution on “The concept of establishing and operating the Hungarian network of the European combined transport system”. In addition. In Italy. The regions are also involved in the national transport plan by providing proposals and support via the State-Regions Conference. The same conditions apply to terminals located within 70 km of a border crossing point. as defined by law 240/90. The road legislation allows exemptions from weekend driving bans for combined transport. Italy is trying to achieve economic equilibrium through the application of © OECD 2001 32 .Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Hungary In Hungary. The Ministry of Public Works relies on agencies and other bodies such as the National Road Authority (ANAS) and 24 motorway concessionaires to implement its functions.
introduction of EDI. In addition. • Improvement of infrastructure: logistics-related infrastructure will be improved. safety) related to logistics in an appropriate manner. interregional logistics (promotion of coastal shipping and railroad cargo transport. standardisation and new technologies. CPLP is reviewed annually and has become the major action programme from the standpoint of promoting intermodal freight transport. General measures include: • Deregulation: two items will be targeted from the standpoint of efficiency improvement: – Abolition of demand-supply adjustment rules. promotion of paletisation. © OECD 2001 33 . and maintaining a stable international marine transport system). promotion of intra-city freight transport efficiency. • To reduce transport costs so as not to diminish the international competitiveness of Japanese industries. – The review of safety regulations to respond to international standards and technical innovation. Japan Japan’s intermodal freight policies are embedded in the framework of the “ Comprehensive Programme of Logistics Policies” (CPLP. improvement of domestic marine transport of export cargo. The Japanese Government has also set up local conferences (Local CLPPCs) in nine regions. The Japanese Government has set up an inter-Ministerial promotion conference (Comprehensive Logistics Policy Promotion Conference: CLPPC) to discuss and implement CPLP. Although it has been decided that MOT and MOC will be merged in 2001. standardisation. CLPPC includes 14 ministries and agencies. The Ministries of International Trade and Industry (MITI). Specific measures include: • Intra-city logistics (alleviating traffic congestion and improving cargo-loading rates for trucks). focusing on the above policies. abolition of demand-supply adjustment rules) and the realisation of a sophisticated logistical system (IT. • International logistics (improvement of marine container terminals and transport within ports. guidelines for promoting the improvement of logistics bases. • Realisation of sophisticated logistical systems: including EDI. Support is provided for combined transport through the building of terminals. the details of this merger are still under discussion. – Promotion of coastal shipping transport. combined transport pick-up and delivery operations are exempted from the weekend driving ban. 1997). • To cope with negative externalities (environmental issues.National Policies and Organisational Structures different taxation levels and tariffs policies across sectors. CLPPC five working groups: modernisation of logistics information technology. improvement of arterial highways and the deregulation of the trucking industry). improvement of highways for the passage of ISO-standard containers. The policy focuses on infrastructure and deregulation (safety. This result has been achieved even if the optimisation of the costs for the transport companies and carriers are linked to transport distances exceeding 500 km. – Promotion of railroad cargo transport. which enable local governments and the private sector to participate in discussions on specific programmes at the local level. The goals of the CPLP are: • To provide one of the most convenient and attractive logistic services in the Asia-Pacific region. promotion of international air-freight transport. Concrete actions for promoting intermodal freight transport include: – Promotion of multimodalism by infrastructure improvement. computerisation and simplification of customs clearance and other procedures. Transport (MOT) and Construction (MOC) play major roles as the secretariats of CLPPC. new technologies).
– Domestic surface transport of import/export cargoes. One of the principal objectives of the Mexican Government is the privatisation of all freight carriers. the Ministry of Communications and Transport sees no reason to develop an explicit intermodal policy to improve the quality of the services and promote integration between the different modes of transport. containers). air transport to strengthen the role of users in the relationship between shippers and carriers. – Standardisation (pallets. Since this strategy has been quietly successful. and the privatisation of railways and harbours is also almost finished. This policy consists of three pillars: • The deregulation of road transport. – Improvement and operation of terminals (for cost-down and efficiency). a critical success factor is the willingness of the © OECD 2001 34 . • The privatisation of transport companies: maritime transport has almost been privatised. The strategy for the transport sector is to create favourable conditions and remove the major obstacles in the supply of transport services: • To diminish the costs of transport services. The strategic concept of the Mexican Government is to facilitate commercial movements of national and international shipbrokers and to reduce logistic costs. Public Works and Water Management. – Improvement of logistical bases. competitive and sustainable freight transport system and intermodal transport plays a vital role is achieving this goal. The Ministry of Communications and Transport supports research on containerised transport and modal integration at ports through the Mexican Institute of Transport (IMT). transportation and communications. subsidies for local governments and investment loans and/or tax deductions are applied for various types of infrastructure investments. Mexico is concentrating on developing market forces in the field of transport services and on reducing government intervention to the extent possible. Mexico The Mexican Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT) is responsible for road infrastructure. Substantial progress has been made in the supply and productivity of all modes of transport. – Transport within ports (loading on Sundays). The Department does not have a dedicated intermodal office. • To improve the quality of the services. achieving this is not the sole responsibility of government. – Utilisation of recent telecommunications innovation. The Netherlands Intermodal transport comes under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. a centre of research and technological development for transportation. maritime transport and. to a lesser extent. The Directorate-General for Freight Transport deals with freight transport.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects – Promotion of transport by inland waterways. The organisational structure of the Department is primarily oriented towards subject matter. and is not at this time considering the development of a specific intermodal strategy. The objective of freight transport policy is to promote a safe. • To provide greater choice for users. On the contrary. However. • Participation of international investors in transport companies (joint ventures) and strategic and commercial alliances. although its Transport Division is structured along modal lines. As for international or national level infrastructures.
inland waterways and short sea and – in the future – underground tube transport systems will only be pursued if it can be demonstrated that such a strategy is better for economic or environmental reasons. The government influences market forces in the direction of the desired outcome by stimulating. Agriculture and Fisheries. A new driving force for the promotion of intermodal transport is accessibility: the significance of freight transport for production and trade is undeniable and freight transport to. Ports and Intermodal Division of the General Freight Transport Policy Directorate. a small team is responsible for intermodal transport policy. Intermodal policy is part of the Dutch Government’s integrated freight transport policy. Its activities are carried out in close co-operation with a number of other ministries: Economic Affairs.g. • Influencing the logistics behaviour of shippers (modal shift scans. Spatial Planning and Environment. Achieving this goal calls for a spatial structure. • Special lanes for trucks. Environmental concern was an important driving force in inciting the Dutch Government to promote intermodal transport. The stimulation of a modal shift from road transport to railways. However. Maritime) and three policy directorates: Transport Safety. Within the Infrastructure. The Public Road Administration. rail transport and civil aviation. specific intermodal instruments used to achieve the goals of a safe. nodal points and industry parks that support intermodal transport. e. water and pipelines. subsidy for the start-up of a Promotion Bureau for Short Sea Shipping). influencing the demand side of intermodal transport is also important. Housing. facilitating and regulating the market process. • Temporary Subsidy Arrangement for Rail and Inland Waterway Connections (connecting firms to the main network). the assumption that a policy which aims at a modal shift of freight transport from road to rail. • Use of telematics and projects aimed at the prevention of empty kilometres. Additional information relating to the Netherlands can be found in Annex. • Trial involving longer and heavier trucks for transport to and from intermodal terminals. the rail service centre Maasvlakte en Waalhaven in the Rotterdam region). “Transactie” – scans for more efficient road transport. • Expansion of the capacity of the inland waterway network (e. that is. The Directorate-General for Freight Transport consists of two inspectorates (Road. The Ministry of Fisheries has responsibility for general marine infrastructure. In addition to the policies aimed at improving individual modes of transport which are applied by the directorates responsible for transport modes. the National Rail Administration and the Civil Aviation Administration all report to the © OECD 2001 35 . • Promoting physical planning favouring multimodal accessible business parks. and Finance. Transport Sectors and General Freight Transport Policy. influencing the choices of shippers and logistic service providers.National Policies and Organisational Structures private sector to take action. budget for canals such as Amsterdam-Lemmer). from and through the Netherlands is of utmost socio-economic importance. now that the road sector has drastically improved its environmental performance. Intermodal transport policy is aimed at the optimisation and integration of the different links in the transport chain. will always be good for the environment is no longer guaranteed to be right in all cases. for regulations related to port infrastructure and sea-traffic measures. • Stimulation of alternative transport systems for the future (studies and pilots on Underground Logistics Systems). comprising multimodal infrastructure.g. Norway The Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications is responsible for issues related to road traffic. competitive and sustainable freight transport system include: • Stimulation of the development of terminals and transfer points (budget for rail infrastructure. In addition to this policy approach which targets the supply side of the traffic market.
this policy has not been totally successful and has contributed to a deviation of traffic flows to avoid crossing Switzerland. Public Road and Environmental Issues. • Improvement of local and regional network in order to strengthen local supply chains and the distribution patterns around nodal points. i. The Institute of Transport Economics is carrying out a study on intermodal transport analysis for the NTP. • Sea: concentrate traffic to selected ports. in particular. Tariffs for individual transport modes need to be more efficient in ensuring that charges to users fully reflect external costs. such as weights and dimensions. In 1994. Switzerland Switzerland has a long tradition of receiving transit traffic between the north and the south of Europe. The Federal Office of Transport is in charge of formulating and implementing policies regarding intermodal transport. to gradually adapt its weight limit to those set out in European legislation. the Planning Section. As part of its future transport plan. The regions do not deal directly with promoting intermodal transport. However. Several other Ministries. A 28 tonne maximum vehicle weight and bans on night driving and on Sunday driving have been introduced to limit the volume of road vehicles crossing the Alps. this will be accompanied by a parallel increase in the taxes and fees paid by road transport with a view to charging road transport operators the full costs generated by this mode of transport. Justice and the Police. Intermodal transport is one of the most important means to achieve this goal of sustainable mobility. enlarging the capacity of railways and terminals. Swiss policy is now aimed at sustainable mobility. and development of common charging and pricing principles. A number of obstacles need to be eliminated in order to increase the use of intermodal transport. Intermodal transport will be given special attention in the National Transport Plan 2002-2011. Two offices are responsible for intermodal transportation. • The need for improvements in infrastructure. Rail tunnels need to be enlarged. However. However. also deal with issues related to freight transport. is involved in long-term multimodal planning. Environment and Trade and Industry. Many private organisations have been created associating industry transport players. The most important project is the realisation and financing of a new railway through the Alps with tunnels through the Lötschberg and Gothard. In the framework of the agreement on land transport concluded with the European Union (EU). but are involved in infrastructure planning. In addition. Norway is examining intermodal transport and the Research Council of Norway has a programme (Logitrans) that supports projects aimed at promoting intermodal transport.e. Finance and Customs. larger profiles in tunnels and more efficient terminals (nodes). the government can subsidise combined transport operators and grant financial assistance for terminals and wagons for © OECD 2001 36 . required rest periods and vehicle safety standards. new terminals built and better planning of the use of locomotives implemented. in order to improve and promote the quality of intermodal transport. The Coastal Administration reports to the Ministry of Fisheries. e. The following areas are discussed in the NTP: • Institutional co-operation and reorganisation.g.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Ministry of Transport and Communications. i.e. The Federal Office of Roads deals with issues related to regulations. • Harmonisation of competition rules and state aid regimes. within the Ministry of Transport and Communications. The promotion of intermodal transport entails developing the infrastructure. the population adopted a constitutional article to ensure that an important part of freight traffic would be shifted to rail. There is no particular office for intermodal transport. Switzerland intends to adapt its political regulations to those of the EU and. a sufficient level of mobility accompanied by a reduction of environmental degradation. • Rail: increased capacity for freight. The National Transport Plan 2002-2011 (NTP) represents the first step in a comprehensive Norwegian intermodal policy.
the United States are working on a North America Freight Facilitation Strategy and the development of freight partnerships with the private sector. The UK ’s Transport White Paper was published in July 1998. the development of intermodal loading units and for financial support on certain non-profit routes. a rise in pollution and the potential for more accidents and greater disturbance of communities. The United States have made funds available for infrastructure projects. Draft Planning Policy Guidance sets out how regional transport strategies can be used to facilitate their development. railways. consequently averting one of the major reasons for maintaining existing practices and being unwilling to adopt new ideas. waterways and shipping lanes. in a manner which supports the continued economic growth of the country while at the same time minimising the impacts of distribution on society and the environment. For infrastructure development. traffic would grow by 46% and road freight traffic by 29% by the year 2021. It contains policies and proposals aimed at creating a better. On institutional aspects. It is UK policy to promote intermodal integration. Additional information relating to the United Kingdom can be found in Annex. to co-ordinate all modal agencies in the promotion of intermodal transport. The White Paper has led to a number of follow-up papers intended to focus more closely on specific policy proposals. Local authorities will set out their proposals for delivering integrated distribution and passenger transport over a five-year period within Local Transport Plans. It was clear that a new policy was necessary to address the problems that would be caused by the predicted increased congestion and CO2 emissions. not least higher costs to business. The UK Government provides funding to firms in the form of Freight Facility Grants (FFGs) to encourage the movement of freight away from road and on to other modes. It sets out an integrated approach to freight distribution. Other “daughter” papers are being developed on ports. In the new system. FFGs aim to offset some of the costs of the investment in infrastructure required by alternative distribution modes. The system of government support is currently being revised. Swiss Federal Railways received a general subsidy of ECU 66 million. In this context. United States In the United States. two acts support intermodal transport: the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. more integrated transport system and at tackling the problems of pollution and congestion. The Office of Intermodalism was created as a result of the above legislation. A “daughter” paper on shipping was developed in December 1997. when these services are ordered by the state.National Policies and Organisational Structures intermodal transport. inland waterway and aviation. Responsibility for implementing the policy lies with both central and local government. to make best use of the entire freight infrastructure. United Kingdom Current transport policy in the United Kingdom is the result of an analysis of trends in UK transport development. the United States are conducting studies of intermodal freight connectors on their © OECD 2001 37 . It also highlights the significance of strategic planning in integrating freight distribution infrastructure within the land-use planning framework and promoting more efficient use of roads. An important measure contained within the Transport White Paper is the requirement for local authorities to consider opportunities for freight interchange facilities. and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. “ Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy” sets out how the government will promote its policy for a more sustainable distribution system through partnership between central and local government and the distribution industry. The government is committed to extending Freight Facilities Grants to coastal and short sea shipping. the subsidies will be used to lower the price of rail slots and to cover the uncovered costs of additional combined transport services. If policies were not changed. The United Kingdom ’s vision is for its entire freight distribution network to be used as efficiently and effectively as possible. with the goal of improving competition among the various operators in the framework of the reform of the Swiss railways.
The Department of Transport administers a number of modal agencies. and make better use of existing infrastructure and internalise external transport costs. The United States and Canada have also created a joint non-governmental venture to develop and administer the Saint Lawrence Seaway.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects National Highway System. the FHWA Motor Carrier Safety. All freight carriers in the United States are owned and operated by the private sector. Chicago is doing a study on metropolitan area freight. The VOLPE transport research centre in Boston is a federal-government-funded organisation that conducts research on different transportation matters. while the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). the Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administer surface transportation. in this respect it is especially important to establish a common © OECD 2001 . Several private organisations are involved to different extents in intermodal transport: the Intermodal Association of North America. the Containerization and Intermodal Institute and the Intelligent Transportation Systems Society. the Marine Administration (MARAD). the regulatory initiatives include studies on truck size and weight and container standards. There are also other federal regulatory agencies that deal with transportation issues. The core purpose of the Common Transport Policy is to create a framework for sustainable mobility. a programme on international border clearance. in particular on environmental issues. • The development of the transport Trans-European Networks with the integration of national transport networks into a European network by improving the interconnections and the technical interoperability of different systems. It also wants to create a European transport network by improving the interoperability of different systems. for example. Finally. the FRA Safety and the RSPA Pipeline Safety administer surface transportation safety. including the marine transportation system. In addition to the modal agencies administered by the DOT. with the appointment of an Associate Deputy Secretary and Director to head a specific intermodal office. Other initiatives on operations and safety are underway. with competition between modes of transport and haulage services. such as Global Positioning Systems activities and operator performance analysis. The Army Corps of Engineers has an important role in the functioning of inland waterways and dredging of ports. the Surface Transportation Board and the US Maritime Board/Commission. a working group on intermodal freight technology and ITS testing. 38 • The integration of transport modes from unimodal to multimodal networks. so that more efficient use is made of the infrastructure. such as the Federal Aviation Administration. Additional information relating to the United States can be found in Annex. Transportation agencies also work closely with other departments. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). whose responsibilities include economic (competition) and safety aspects. European Union The European Commission has clear goals to promote competition between modes of transport and haulage services by harmonising transport regulations. The staff is financed with resources from the Federal Highway Administration. basic components of this objective are the revitalisation of the railways and the liberalisation of port services. which are public entities. Important goals of EU transport policy are: • The creation of a liberalised and efficient internal transport market. The establishment of an intermodal freight analysis framework is expected to help prepare the case for further funding of freight-related activities in the next six-year re-authorisation process beginning in 2002. there are Metropolitan Planning Offices for transportation. based on the necessary degree of harmonisation of national transport regulations. and intermodal freight capacity. Intermodal transportation in the United States has recently taken on a higher profile. the Federal Railway Administration (FRA). and Port Authorities.
the programme Pilot Actions on Combined Transport and research and development. • To reduce. competencies on intermodal issues are split between different units of the Directorates of Land Transport (Combined Transport).1997. Defined as any combination of at least two modes of transport. The integration of modes is addressed at three levels: infrastructure and transport means.3 The objective is: “to develop a framework for an optimal integration of different modes so as to enable an efficient and cost-effective use of the transport system through seamless. • Standardisation of loading units. The policy objective behind the Commission’s action to promote freight intermodalism is shown in the Communication Paper on “Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European Union”. The European Union has also shown its commitment to the promotion of intermodalism in transportation through legislation concerning the development of the Trans-European Networks. and services and regulations. 39 © OECD 2001 . Within the offices of the European Commission. operations and use of infrastructure. whilst favouring competition between transport operators”. as defined by the ECMT. while respecting the subsidiary principle and specific national situations. the negative effects that transport has on society.05. The main objectives of this Communication are to identify existing friction costs in intermodal transport and to propose an action programme. The most important areas of action relate to: • The establishment of a uniform intermodal liability regime.National Policies and Organisational Structures framework for the allocation of the costs of infrastructure use. is the responsibility of the Directorate of Inland Transport’s Unit for Freight. Currently. • The creation of an electronic commerce market for intermodal transport. 4. customer-oriented door-todoor services. • To reinforce the external dimension of the Common Transport Policy in particular in relation to enlargement. Trans-European Networks and Infrastructure (TEN of Combined Transport) and Development of Transport Policy and Research and Development (RTD and the Intermodality Action Programme). as far as possible. COM(97)243 final of 29. Additional information relating to the European Union can be found in Annex. • Integration of intermodal transport in supply chains. intermodal transport4 is handled by the Unit for Analysis and Transport Policy Development of the Directorate for Research and Development and Development of Transport Policy. but especially those produced by safety problems. 3. measures of liberalisation. Combined transport. not only those on the environment.
rail liberalisation in Europe). Modal approaches are needed to achieve efficiency gains as well as potential environmental and safety improvements in each mode’s operations.Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS Aim and rationale for intermodal transport • Intermodal policies aim to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the door-to-door integrated transport chain. facilitated by rapid growth in electronic commerce applications. • Key driving forces for promoting intermodal transport differ among countries and vary over time. Modal approaches are necessary… but not sufficient • Intermodal transport is hampered if the performance of any of the key transport modes is inadequate or if the linkages between modes are not efficient and reliable. While governments have tended to pursue modal policy approaches. • Modal approaches are also appropriate in areas where regulatory reform is required (e.g. While the approaches to achieving transport efficiency improvements differ. • The key question is whether pursuit of modal policies alone will suffice to deal with the challenges of the future. • Many of the policy measures considered likely to promote “intermodalism” include modespecific actions. The main rationale for promoting intermodalism ranges from the efficient use of infrastructure and the promotion of operational business efficiency to environmental concerns. which include substantial growth in international and national goods transport and the development of individual business-to-business and business-to-consumer markets. • Since the current level of performance of individual modes is not satisfactory in many countries. • In order to achieve improvements in efficiency and environmental outcomes that go beyond those that can be realised by purely modal policies. In addition. For example. it is understandable that modal approaches continue to dominate in many cases. Such a “chain approach” leads most often to different measures and captures the benefits from use of the most appropriate modes that are being sought by transport users and operators as well as by © OECD 2001 41 . the promotion of a modal shift away from road to rail or inland shipping focuses on improving the rail and waterway infrastructure in order to strengthen the competitive positions of these transport modes. many countries are now considering transport issues more from the perspective of the whole door-to-door transport chain. policy frameworks generally support competitive operating environments. industry has increasingly taken an intermodal approach to provision of the services required by users. there is emphasis in the policy frameworks on promoting transport efficiency and facilitating modal reform. there is increasing reliance on policies favouring more commercial approaches to the provision of transport infrastructure and transport operations (including competition in the pricing and provision of transport services) which can be valuable tools in improving modal transport efficiency. • In most countries.
© OECD 2001 42 . but are generally less knowledgeable about logistical chains. In recent years. Moreover. • In countries with a high level of reliance on market forces and private infrastructure ownership and operations. need to be actively involved in intermodal policy development and the intermodal actions taken by their transport operations. This is an area for policy development which may require a new type of logistical knowledge in government organisations. this type of intermodal thinking. thus contributing to variety in the policy mix. rail. • In countries where there is increasing private ownership and/or operation of transport infrastructure as governments have withdrawn from involvement in commercial transport operations. • It is difficult to design and implement “true” intermodal measures in a predominantly modespecific world and it has to be recognised that the costs can often be considerable (and beyond the resources of individual users) and relate to different transport operations (with different ownership structures). an intermodal transport policy unit or other similar organisational provisions – have developed more explicit and more focused intermodal transport policies than have transport administrations with purely “mono”modal units. intermodal transport improvements are largely driven by industry interests (shippers and carriers) seeking to provide value-added services and find least-cost solutions to transportation problems. Government organisations know a great deal about road. while the words are there. while the benefits can be widely dispersed across a range of users and difficult to recover under current pricing systems. the deeds often lag behind. is already present in policy objectives.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects governments. promote inter-operability and competition between modes and fall into the domain of true “intermodal policies” in their broadest sense. environmental concerns have placed greater focus on the role of intermodal transport. Different approaches can be taken. there are nevertheless a number of policy issues relating to matters such as the efficiency of transport services. encompassing such diverse factors as safety and environmental regulations. This recognises that many of the intermodal issues which need to be addressed by government and private sector organisations are likely to be related to facilities (such as ports and intermodal terminals) or operations (such as combined transport involving rail services) which involve government ownership. Dedicated intermodal transport programmes also tend to adopt different types of instruments and develop different external relations than typical “ mono”-modal units. • Governments having a high level of involvement in transport infrastructure ownership/provision and transport operations. In many transport administrations. variety can be beneficial. charging and taxing regimes and environmental aspects of transport infrastructure and operations that require intermodal policy consideration. governments play an important role in creating the regulatory framework in which intermodal transport can develop. however. which focuses on integrated transport. and tend to focus less on the operational efficiency of the transport system as a whole than on modal issues. depending on governmental involvement in transport ownership/provision and transport operations • The extent of government involvement in transport infrastructure and operations is another factor which influences the policy approach and priority assigned to intermodal policy development and implementation. a special task force. Such measures overlay modal policies. Since there seldom is a silver bullet guaranteeing policy effectiveness. Policy instruments • Transport administrations with established and dedicated intermodal transport programmes and resources – such as a special action programme. waterways and sea-going shipping. customs procedures and EDI.
aviation and maritime transport services are generally undertaken by the private sector and there is an increasing trend towards commercial rail operations and private sector management of rail infrastructure. Major transport infrastructure was originally publicly owned and it is only relatively recently that governments in some countries have divested themselves of operational responsibilities for major infrastructure such as motorways. the justification for promoting intermodal policies and the type of instruments used focus on environmental issues and modal split while in others the centre of gravity is on efficiency and pricing instruments. on multimodal connectivity and location of business parks and ports). including regulation of vehicle weights and dimensions.Conclusions • The relative weight of the key elements in the policy objectives is reflected in the types of instruments which are being applied in practice. use of such regulatory instruments by government is limited. including support for research and development.g. They also can highlight the improvements sought © OECD 2001 43 . This is in part because intermodal services generally involve freight transfers between transport operations and infrastructure with different ownership structures. Communication between intermodal transport policy units and other actors • Intermodal policy development requires co-operative arrangements between government and the private sector.g. – Policies promoting logistical efficiency analyses by shippers and improvement in efficiency through goods stream analysis. Co-operative arrangements can help to maintain a focus on the improvements sought by governments. environmental benefits from improved intermodal services. – Policies aimed at standardisation of loading units and other actions favouring interoperability. However. – Measures to ensure adequate co-ordination (such as bringing all modes under one administrative umbrella). • Intermodal transport policies and improvements need to be developed co-operatively with modal approaches to ensure that they are targeted at existing impediments and aimed at getting the linkages right. harmonisation of operational practices and standards. These include: – Development of longer-term visions and policy directions encompassing intermodal transport. – Promotion of regional and urban intermodal transport and plans and spatial planning measures favouring intermodal transport efficiency ( e. such as taxes and charges. • A number of detailed country responses which can assist other countries interested in intermodal policy development provide examples of additional measures which go beyond the traditional administrative focus on transport infrastructure and regulations. – Initiation. leadership and support for intermodal demonstration projects involving the private sector. • Governments that are more interventionist or more directly involved in ownership of transport operations are also likely to use regulatory measures such as licensing exemptions and driving bans at specified times to favour intermodal transport. ports and railways) to stimulate the development of terminals and transfer points and support the purchase of intermodal equipment. • The main policy instruments currently in use are: – Strategic planning to integrate freight distribution infrastructure with land-use plans. such as: intermodal infrastructure at airports and ports. – Financial incentives. In countries with greater reliance on market forces. airports and ports. – Monitoring of the economic and environmental performance of multimodal chains. and interoperability in technology. – Regulatory and legislative initiatives. In some countries. – Economic instruments. – Intermodal corridor analyses. – Financial assistance to government transport operations (e. road.
• Intermodal projects should be evaluated on a “case-by-case” basis. even a stable market share would mean an increase in intermodal volumes. However. the approaches outlined provide a “toolkit ” for countries when setting up intermodal arrangements or considering organisational structures for intermodal transport. increases in intermodal transport volume may not show up in aggregate rail-freight data if the increase in intermodal tonnage is offset by decreases in the volume of bulk freight and vice versa. • The extent to which the emphasis on combined transport and intermodal transport policy (particularly in Europe) has resulted in improved performance of non-road transport is not clear. Environment. industry advisory bodies and other stakeholders. • The true value of intermodal approaches should be assessed in terms of performance “on the ground”. working with the private and public sector organisations involved. such as Finance. freight transport by rail in Europe) are not reliable indicators. In addition. • The likelihood of intermodal transport policy being successful depends on the relationship between intermodal transport policy units (or other policy structures). rather than in terms of factors such as institutional arrangements alone. For example. including: – The formation of industry advisory groups/government consultancy boards. – Intermodal transport policies stand a greater chance of being implemented if the industry bodies and intermodal transport policy units or other structures have clear lines of communication with other government ministries. Instead. increases the probability of intermodal transport policies targeting the key issues. modal combinations and modal interfaces and identifying policy options for governments to address impediments to intermodal efficiency. • The probability of better information becoming generally available in the future is quite low. although in some specific cases it has. and budget constraints in most countries will limit new collections to issues with the highest priority. There is a lack of data on which an overall assessment could be made. etc. the emerging picture is that market share may not have changed significantly in aggregate terms. given that the private sector will be increasingly involved in intermodal transport (with related commercial confidentiality concerns). such industry advisory groups are more effective if they have clearly defined tasks and report directly to the minister responsible for transport. such as: a wider range of transport options and therefore greater choice for users. increased reliability. but it is extremely difficult to measure the effectiveness of a policy and even more difficult to compare the effectiveness of policies in different countries. Aggregate estimates of freight movement output (e.g. changes in border controls may reduce some existing data collections. with a clear role and function. and improved transport services at reasonable cost. 44 © OECD 2001 .Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects by users. Identification and removal of impediments • Further work should concentrate on developing benchmarks for intermodal performance of modes. Nevertheless. Performance-based outcomes • Possible organisational benchmarks can be identified. Trade. Such an approach is similar to that adopted in many other aspects of transport (such as safety) where macro indicators may not provide a reliable guide to the effectiveness of individual programmes. in a growing overall transport market.
Intermodal transport in unitised freight flows over a distance in excess of 200 km should therefore increase from 12. among other means. However.Annex 1 POLICIES AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES IN THE NETHERLANDS. intermodal transport is a way of achieving both the underlying economic objectives (accommodating transport growth and facilitating high-grade goods flows in order to promote employment and value-added services) and the environmental objectives (alternative to long-haul road haulage). • Short-sea shipping: to at least maintain its share of the transport of maritime containers and to capture 50% of the market currently served by road transport to specific short-sea shipping destinations from the Netherlands: this involves an increase from 4. infrastructure initiatives. technical measures and increasing efficiency (kilometre reduction). called “Transport in Balance”. Transport policy will also have to fully comply with this objective. Achieving the objectives for intermodal transport was rated very important from the point of view of economic development and environmental quality. On the contrary. The STSP intermodal transport component was worked out in 1994 by a Task Force on Intermodal Transport of the Ministry of Transport. particularly rail. In this respect.7 million tonnes of unitised freight in 1993 to around 25 million tonnes in 2015. The basic assumption was the need to achieve sustainable development. The market share of intermodal transport should accordingly rise from approximately 30% in 1993 to almost 60% in 2015.3 million tonnes in 1993 to 13 million tonnes in 2015. This may make the Netherlands less attractive to international companies. is to contribute to a safe. The starting point for the approach was an objective for economic growth of 3% per year to improve the general sustainability or durability of the economy. NOx) that would be achieved by the use of water and rail transport emphasises the direct relationship between intermodal transport and the objectives for environmental quality set out in the Second Transport Structure Plan. In the Second Transport Structure Plan (STSP) 1989-90 of the Ministry of Transport. • Inland shipping: from 5. Public Works and Water Management. Available information on current intermodal volumes is set out in Tables A2 and A3. As can be seen. traffic congestion can adversely affect the functioning of the economy. inland shipping and short sea by. a critical success factor is the willingness of the private sector to take action. competitive freight transport system. This Task Force prepared a Policy Paper on the Promotion of Intermodal Transport which set ambitious targets for intermodal transport: • Rail: from 2. Intermodal transport plays a vital role in achieving this goal.6 million tonnes in 1994 to around 63 million tonnes in 2015. The government influences the direction of the desired outcome by stimulating.6 million tonnes of unitised freight in 1993 to around 25 million tonnes in 2015. achieving sustainable development is not the sole responsibility of government. In 1996. The policy objectives of “Transport in Balance” are: • Reinforcement of the competitive position of sustainable transport. THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION The Netherlands Policy The mission of the State’s freight transport policy. Public Works and Water Management. as developed by the Directorate-General for Freight Transport. 45 © OECD . with the goal of sustainable economic development. THE UNITED KINGDOM. among other means. the Dutch Government adopted a plan of approach on freight transport. • Improvement of the accessibility of economic centres for goods traffic on the road. facilitating and regulating the market process. • Reduction of the environmental load from road traffic by. A sharp increase in road transport will necessarily reduce the accessibility of the Netherlands and worsen the competitive position of its main ports. The reduction in traffic movements and exhaust emissions (CO2. intermodal transport was mentioned as a growing market.
producers and other governments. in which intermodal transport policy is viewed as a integral part of a high-quality and efficient goods transport system. Simply stated. “Transport in Balance” announced over NLG 200 million of additional infrastructure investments in inland waterways. NLG 60 million for rail infrastructure and NLG 60 million for miscellaneous measures (a total of NLG 320 million) to promote modal shift. water and pipelines. whenever possible. not only of the traffic market and the underlying transport demand by shippers. the Dutch Ministry of Transport has focused on traffic and infrastructural issues in order to optimise the functioning of the traffic market. the approach has consisted of trying to keep the supply of infrastructure in line with rising demand. modal shift.75%.g. An important new driving force for the Dutch Government to promote intermodal transport is accessibility: the importance of freight transport for production and trade is undeniable. However. from an economic point of view. For example. Environmental concern used to be a very important driving force behind the Dutch Government’s promotion of intermodal transport. i. A third Transport Structure Plan is currently being developed. For this reason. taken together. The “anticipate-and-prevent’ strategy comprises three pillars that. and logistical strategies which might result in slowing down the rise in demand for transport services. decisions taken by consumers. In addition to the policy approach outlined above. it should be possible to reduce the number of trips and the length of trips by measures such as reducing the volume of products. not strictly necessary. i.e. optimising the planning of production processes. Intermodal transport alone will not suffice to achieve a high-quality and sustainable transport system. to a strategy of “anticipate-and-prevent”. other modes do not always offer a satisfactory alternative. it is important to design a port region in such a way that efficient performance is encouraged in all transport modes. the traditional focus on traffic and infrastructure. transport that is nevertheless needed should use the most appropriate mode from an efficiency point of view. inland shipping. In a densely populated country such as the Netherlands. agriculture and residential purposes is a topic of political debate. In “Transport in Balance”. production and distribution locations. Transport by rail or water instead of by road is preferred when this is the best option from the point of view of utilisation of the available infrastructure capacity of the whole network or from the point of view of safety. “Transport in Balance” sets out many other measures encouraging greater recourse to transport by other modes (rail. 46 © OECD 2001 . Forecasts for the Netherlands indicate an annual economic expansion of 2. the endeavour to avoid transport that is.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects “Transport in Balance” is the freight-specific supplement to the plan “Working Together on Accessibility”. e. Now that the road sector has drastically improved its environmental performance. Furthermore. Transferring goods from roads to other modes of transport. In this approach. It contains a package of infrastructural improvements and extensions in the field of road and rail. The new intermodal transport policy aims at the optimisation and integration of the different links in the transport chain. • Second. via reducing the water and air content of products. This is certainly true when the expected growth of freight transport is considered. but also at the source of transport: the goods-market. Intermodal policy is just one component of the integrated freight transport policy of the Dutch Government. calls for a rethinking of the role of transport and logistics in the economy. industry. can lead to a more “transportefficient economy”: – First. resulting in an increase in the volume of freight transport of 60% by 2010.e. emphasis is placed on strengthening the market share of environmentally responsible freight-transport operations and gaining in efficiency (fewer vehicle kilometres) and accessibility for road transport. The plan proposes 80 measures and projects for the period up to 2015. it is also important to stimulate the “demand side” of intermodal transport. More efficient and cleaner road transport is thus also an important objective. is expanded considerably. inland waterways and short sea and – in the future – underground tube transport systems will only be pursued if it can be demonstrated that this strategy is preferable for economic or environmental reasons. which is aimed at the “supply side” of the traffic market. short sea) and. from and through the Netherlands is of utmost socioeconomic importance. the policy domain. inland waterways or short-sea shipping are viable alternatives to road transport and do not always cost more. Freight transport to. combined with the need for sustainable development. i. the use of scarce space for logistics. In other words. To move towards the goal of sustainability. to influence the choices of shippers and logistic service providers. the aim is to ensure that as few empty kilometres are driven as possible and that vehicles cause a minimum of environmental damage. nodal points and industry parks that support intermodal transport. restricting the nuisance factors caused by road transport. was considered as one means of alleviating the adverse impacts of road transport. Traditionally. the assumption that a policy which aims at modal shift of freight transport from road to rail. will always be good for the environment is no longer guaranteed to be right in all cases. The stimulation of a modal shift from road transport to railways. the approach has to shift away from this “provide-and-react” strategy. The modal-shift scanning project shows that in many cases rail.e. It includes influencing the demand side. This calls for a spatial structure which comprises multimodal infrastructure. The expected growth will considerably intensify the struggle for space and.
should be made more aware of the consequences of their behaviour. Better use of infrastructure will be achieved by technical and operational measures (e. but should be supported by pricing measures to reduce demand in peak periods. In order to speed up this process. Greater responsibility of enterprises for more efficient logistics The scanning project has shown that modal-shift is possible for individual companies in the transport market. On this point. where bottlenecks remain after the application of “peak tariff” pricing and after optimisation of the use of existing capacity with other measures. these industrial parks should preferentially be placed near terminals which are optimally located and easily accessible. which implies that new industrial plants should preferably be located near links with the hinterland. Such a system. will in many cases serve to increase demand for transport capacity and could thus endanger sustainable development. too. In expanding or restructuring ports. i. Such an approach represents a change from past practice. All citizens need to understand that ever-increasing requirements for such things as “Efficient Consumer Response” and shorter lead-times. The development of transport-efficient freight corridors needs to incorporate the construction of terminals allowing a seamless switch from one mode of transport to another. each transport mode accommodating the resulting traffic flows should be aiming at maximum efficiency. The Netherlands have elaborated on this and have chosen to give priority to a limited number of major economic freight corridors in addition to physical planning concepts which are city/passenger transport oriented. access to all modes should be considered. Of course. Consumers. as well as e-commerce.g. The whole inland shipping sector was to be progressively liberalised by the year 2000. A new policy vision is that new industrial parks should be accessible for multiple modes of transport.Annex 1 • Third. This current plan is a first step towards a more farreaching pricing policy. Furthermore. Promoting transport-efficiency-oriented physical planning concepts The key notion here is that. the Ministry is advocating a “logistical reporting and care system”. An important concept in this respect is “bundling”. traffic management). raising efficiency is not solely the responsibility of shippers. A better utilisation of capacity using technical measures and pricing policies and certain expansions of the infrastructure are key factors in achieving this. the sometimes low quality of the secondary network of smaller waterways acts as a barrier to further expansion. The current road pricing plan ( “prisfitstarief”. While the large through-traffic routes (the main waterway network) are excellent and have led to the success of the inland shipping sector operating to Germany and Belgium. and selective provision of new infrastructure Better use can be achieved by spreading demand more evenly over time and encouraging a switch to lesscongested modes whenever possible. Mode-specific policies Inland shipping Improvement of the secondary waterway network is desirable to further reinforce the role of inland shipping within the borders of the Netherlands. transport flows and intermodal facilities in transport-economic corridors can lead to higher transport efficiency. Promising policy directions Better use of existing infrastructure. will be developed together with the industry branch organisations. the accent in short-sea transport will be energetically placed on the development of the demand side. aimed at charging prices that reflect the internal and external costs of various modes. additional infrastructure should be considered. However. the Netherlands will spend USD 35 billion on infrastructure between now and 2010. peak tariff) is focused on a shift from peak periods to other periods in highly congested links on the infrastructural network. if economic activities can be concentrated. Short sea Over the coming year. They need to take responsibility in making the economy more transport-efficient. when constructing new infrastructure seemed to be the first and most obvious solution. A recent survey of shippers showed that potential users are still not fully aware of the possibilities of 47 © OECD 2001 . The situation in ports is also important. although many questions are still open to debate. which is comparable with the wellknown quality systems.e. Dutch policy is based on the EU proposals presented in the White Paper on Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use. Nevertheless.
Organisation The Ministry of Transport. Rail transport To improve the quality of freight transport by rail. the Maasvlakte en Waalhaven rail service centre in the Rotterdam region). and several subsidisation schemes to promote intermodal transport equipment and connections. Rotterdam Internal Logistics. In addition. The Betuwe line – a 160-km long freight rail connection between Rotterdam and Germany. budget for canals such as AmsterdamLemmer). Spatial Planning and Environment. – Influencing the logistical behaviour of shippers (modal shift scans. • Temporary subsidy arrangement for rail and inland waterway connections (connecting firms to the main network). • Promoting physical planning favouring multimodal accessible business parks. the specific intermodal policy instruments used to achieve the goals are: – Stimulation of the development of terminals and transfer points (budget for rail infrastructure. Other programmes Intermodal transport is promoted by a number of other programmes and actions. In addition. Regional organisations promoting intermodal transport include the Foundation for Combined Transport. The Directorate for Freight Transport encompasses two inspectorates. • Use of telematics and projects aimed at the prevention of empty kilometres. These include: a research programme on underground tube transport systems. • Stimulation of alternative transport systems for the future (studies and pilots on underground logistics systems). an Association of Inland Terminal Operators has recently been created in the Netherlands to standardise intermodal transport where possible and co-ordinate developments. Housing. a number of prejudices are associated with short-sea shipping. Within the Infrastructure. a small team is responsible for combined transport policy.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects short-sea transport. Ports and Intermodal Division of the General Freight Transport Policy Directorate. – Expansion of the capacity of the inland waterway network (e. A promotion plan is currently being developed to address these bottlenecks. For example. the Multimodal Transport Region Northern Netherlands and the Multimodal Co-ordination and Assistance Point. © OECD 2001 . Public Works and Water Management is divided into five directorates-general. 5 Modes Distri Network.g. two project directorates and three policy directorates: Transport Safety. the logistic chains of 100 shippers have been examined to explore the possibilities for modal shift. Agriculture. e. “Transactie” scans for more efficient road transport. and Finance. the government promotes competition between freight carriers. currently under construction – will not only provide the necessary capacity for growth. a project to improve logistic efficiency in companies. At the time being there is one national freight carrier and two small ones. The team co-operates closely with a number of other Departments: Economic Affairs. to foster awareness among shippers. subsidy for the start-up of a Promotion Bureau for Short Sea Shipping). but will also improve the quality and reduce the costs of rail transport.g. Instruments In addition to policies aimed at improving individual modes as applied by the (modal) directorates for transport sectors. Transport Sectors and General Freight Transport Policy. Policy toolkit 48 Table A1 presents an overview of the different intermodal stakeholders and specific policies available to target these stakeholders. • Special lanes for trucks. Policy is therefore directed at lowering the barriers to entry for new commercial rail carriers in order to reduce the risks of entry to this (new) market. The Betuwe line is dedicated to freight transport and should lead to a substantially improved and more competitive transport product. • Trial involving longer and heavier trucks for transport to and from intermodal terminals.
The Transportation and Traffic Research Centre (AVV) is positioned within the Ministry of Transport. The responsibility for developing policy lies with the central administration of the Ministry. Stakeholders Policy Toolkit for intermodal policy fields Government as suppliers of public infrastructure Government as physical planning authority Terminal operators Shippers/ producers Transport service providers (road. The other half is paid by the private sector. Examples of Trail’s research programmes are the Freight Transport Automation and Multimodality research programme and the Seamless Multimodal Mobility research programme. Other tiers of government can make use of the knowledge that is available at the agency. In that capacity. which both comprise several studies. this can be achieved via programmed research: at Connekt government. Twice a year. the Deputy Director-General of Freight Transport participates in a council to help ensure that the research is geared to policy needs. the Directorate-General for Freight Transport is able to influence the direction of the Connekt programme. although none is specifically for intermodal transport. Connekt provides a forum where suppliers and users of knowledge and experience come into contact. There are currently more than 200 researchers active at TRAIL. education/research and industry participants collaborate to optimally develop and apply know-how. Water Management on the knowledge side of the configuration formed by policy. Examples of Connekt projects oriented towards intermodal transport include: • Integration of networks and interchanges. It incorporates three existing organisations: Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS-NL). • New product/market combinations for water and rail freight transportation. Public Works. As one of its principal users and contributors. AVV maintains close contacts with institutes. Trail started officially on 1 January 1994 as the Netherlands Research School for Transport. The Trail Research School is a joint post-graduate Research School of the Delft University of Technology. with more than 100 qualifying for PhD level. The Ministry of Transport pays half of the costs of the Bureau. shipping) Subsidisation of terminal development Subsidisation for connecting firms to rail and inland waterways Stimulation of R&D on new transport systems Subsidisation of scans on modal choices and logistic efficiency and campaigns to raise the awareness of shippers Pilot with longer and heavier trucks for transport to and from terminals Special lanes for trucks Promoting physical planning favouring multimodal business parks Subsidisation for demonstration of IT X X X X X X X X X X Research and development Research and development funding is an important instrument. One of the tasks of AVV is the translation of fundamental/scientific research results to policy-relevant information. Public Works and Water Management. AVV is engaged in the preparation and evaluation of policy under the auspices of the central administration and implementation division of the Ministry of Transport. and private organisations working in the same field. The Directorate General for Freight Transport is one of the clients of AVV and decides upon the direction of the research activities. Infrastructure and Logistics and involves the participation of specialist faculties of the universities. Erasmus University and the University of Groningen. The agency acts as a representative of the Netherlands in international bodies that are involved in the development of knowledge and the dissemination of knowledge in the area of traffic and transport. The Netherlands counts several research institutes. universities. AVV delivers “asked-for” and “not-asked for” advice for the Ministry. • FAMAS (multimodal project aimed at the container terminal of the future). When new knowledge needs developing. AVV is one of the biggest knowledge centres in the Netherlands in the field of traffic and transport by land and water. the Centre for Transport Technology (CTT) and the Projects Bureau for Integrated Traffic and Transport Studies (PbIVVS). rail.Annex 1 Table A1. knowledge and implementation. 49 © OECD 2001 . A new knowledge-centre was recently founded: Connekt is a public-private R&D centre for traffic and transport.
9 35 2 397 4 90 492 166 15 160 216 161 59 776 573 19 250 212 163 63 1 268 1. Not available.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Domestic Tonnes road Tonnes rail Tonnes inland shipping Total International Tonnes road Tonnes rail Tonnes inland shipping Subtotal Tonnes deep sea Tonnes short sea Tonnes pipeline Total Total (Domestic/International) Tonnes road Tonnes rail Tonnes inland shipping Tonnes deep sea Tonnes short sea Tonnes pipeline n. n. Intermodal transport in the Netherlands Defined as the share of container transport in total domestic and international transport 1986 1995 1996 Containers % intermodal Million tonnes 1997 Containers % intermodal Million tonnes % intermodal Million tonnes % intermodal Million tonnes 364 5 84 453 92 14 154 195 126 39 620 456 19 238 195 127 39 1 072 – n.9 40 2 15 4 14 9 – 19 3 7 29 31 15 – 74 37.7 28 14 – 70. 386 4 87 477 161 13 149 203 152 58 736 547 16 237 203 152 58 1 213 17.8 3.4 1.a.9 18 2 6 28 14 – 68 17.7 20.a.8 1.a.9 31 15 – 97. n.2 20 4 14 9 – 3 21 3 14 9 – 6 7 24 4 15 9 – 8 © OECD 2001 .6 1. 398 4 84 486 148 12 144 209 134 52 699 545 17 228 209 134 52 1 184 – n.7 4.a.a.6 8.4 7. 50 Table A2.
Intermodal transport in the Netherlands
© OECD 2001
Domestic Tonnes road (millions) Tonnes rail (millions) Tonnes inland waterways (millions) Total (millions) International Tonnes road (millions) Tonnes rail (millions) Tonnes inland shipping (millions) Sub-total Tonnes short sea (millions) Tonnes deep sea (millions) Total
Defined as the share of non-road modalities in domestic and international and domestic container transport
1986 Tonnes % intermodal Tonnes 1994 % intermodal Tonnes 1995 % intermodal Tonnes 1996 % intermodal Tonnes 1997 % intermodal
17.8 1.4 1.7 20.9 18 2 6 26 14 28 68
18.7 1.6 1.9 22.1 92 23 19 3 7 29 15 31 74
6 1 2 9 14 33
31 9 21% 41%
41 9 20 42
Domestic TEUs rail (“000) TEUs inland shipping (“000) Total International TEUs rail (“000) TEUs inland shipping (“000) TEUs short sea (“000) TEUs deep sea (“000) Total
123 191 862 1 420 3 212
262 640 1 486 2 879 7 103
308 697 1 618 3 162 7 714
Notes: n.a.: not available. Tonnes: metric tonnes. Tonnes rail: the total weight of goods lifted by rail during the given year. Tonnes inland shipping: the total weight of goods lifted by inland shipping. Tonnes short sea shipping: transport over sea between the Netherlands and European countries. Tonnes deep sea: international transport over sea to countries outside Europe. Tonnes pipeline: total tonnes per pipeline. Percentage intermodal rail: the total weight of unitised goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the total goods lifted by rail. Percentage intermodal deep sea maritime: total of all container expressed as a percentage of total maritime traffic. Percentage intermodal inland shipping: the total weight of unitised maritime goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the total of goods lifted by inland shipping. TEUs: loaded rail/inland shipping number of loaded TEUs transported by rail/inland shipping. International: import, export and throughput the Netherlands. Domestic: with origin and destination within the Netherlands. 1. Intermodal transport is defined as the percentage of goods transported by rail in containers as a share of the total amount of goods transported in containers: 3% = 2 million tonnes/68 million tonnes*100. 2. Intermodal transport is defined as the percentage of goods transported by rail in containers as a share of the total of goods transported by inland modalities: 9% = 2 million tonnes/26 million tonnes*100. Source : Verkeer Economische Verkenningen, 1998-2003; Beleidseffect Rapportage, 1998.
Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects
United Kingdom Policy The Transport White Paper The United Kingdom’s transport policy developed out of a desire to do something about the worrying trends that were emerging from analysis of transport developments in the United Kingdom. The National Road Traffic Forecast (Great Britain) of 1997, predicted that, if policies were not changed, traffic would grow by 46% and road freight traffic by 29% by the year 2021. Over the past 20 years, road freight, as measured in tonne kilometres, had grown by 63%, being responsible for the carriage of 65% of all goods. There was no indication that this trend would change. In contrast, rail freight traffic fell to a low of 6% in 1994. Accompanying this growth in road traffic has been an increase in the transport contribution to carbon dioxide emissions. Road transport is the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom, the energy and industry sectors having succeeded in controlling their emissions of greenhouse gases. It was clear that a new policy needed to be developed to address the problems that increased congestion and CO2 emissions would cause, not least of these being higher costs to business, increased pollution and the potential for more accidents and greater disturbance of communities. The first Transport White Paper1 for 30 years was published in July 1998. “A New Deal for Transport” contains policies and proposals aimed at creating a better, more integrated transport system to tackle the problems of pollution, congestion, social inclusion and environmental impacts. The policies and proposals set out in the White Paper seek to create a more sustainable transport system in the United Kingdom while at the same time ensuring that this system is integrated across all modes of passenger and freight transport. Integration is the key concept that runs through the United Kingdom’s transport policy. The White Paper outlines four key integration policies; integration among different modes of transport, integration with the environment, integration with land-use planning at national, local and regional level and integration with wider health and education policies. In order to develop and implement specific policies and proposals, the White Paper made provision for a number of follow-up (daughter) papers. “Daughter” papers • A sustainable distribution policy Arising from the Transport White Paper have been a number of follow up papers intended to focus on specific policy proposals more closely. “Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy”2 sets out how, through partnership among central government, local government and the distribution industry, the United Kingdom will promote its policy for the development of sustainable distribution systems. The document sets out an integrated approach to freight distribution, making the best use of the entire freight infrastructure. It also highlights the significance of strategic planning in integrating freight distribution infrastructure within the land-use planning framework and promoting more efficient use of roads, railways, waterways and shipping lanes. • A shipping policy A new Shipping Paper3 “British Shipping: Charting A New Course” published in December 1999, sets out a longterm strategic vision for the British shipping industry. This paper sets out policies designed to reverse the decline in the British merchant navy and aims to more fully integrate British shipping within the country’s wider economic and industrial aims. The paper also announced the intention of the UK Government to extend the Freight Facilities Grant Scheme to coastal and short-sea shipping. • The UK policy for intermodal freight It is UK policy to promote intermodal integration. Better utilisation of railways, ports and shipping services is considered to play a vital role in building a sustainable distribution system. Integration of the United Kingdom’s freight distribution system can benefit industry, the environment and society. When effectively used, railways and shipping offer a more energy-efficient and less polluting means of goods distribution. The transfer of goods from road to alternative modes can also play a part in reducing congestion. These modes also have better safety records than road. Industry can benefit through the provision of choice, greater competition and potential cost savings, particularly on long-haul and international journeys. The United Kingdom ’s vision is to see its entire freight distribution network used as efficiently and effectively as possible, in a manner which supports the continued economic growth of the country while at the same time minimising the impacts of distribution on society and the environment. One prerequisite for such a vision is to ensure that freight can interchange between modes smoothly, efficiently and with least cost – that the network is fully integrated. One of the foci of government policy is therefore to improve the integration of the freight distribution system. Government objectives for planning which are designed to promote integration are set out below. The government has also elaborated a
© OECD 2001
strategy for major freight interchanges and has tasked the Highways Agency and Railtrack to identify opportunities for new intermodal freight facilities. • A strategy for major freight interchanges The government paper “Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy” sets out a national policy framework within which major freight interchanges can be planned and considered. This policy requires that, in the planning and development of ports, airports and rail terminals – whether new or modified –four key objectives are observed: • To promote the contribution of major freight interchanges to national and regional competitiveness. • To improve the operational and environmental performance of existing interchange facilities. • To encourage full and efficient utilisation of existing interchange facilities in preference to expansion in cases where suitable spare capacity exists or can be created. • Where new facilities or expansion involving new land take are required, that the criteria established in the United Kingdom for the appraisal of transport projects are rigorously applied. This policy is being taken forward in the development of our ports and airports policy documents. The national airports policy will outline proposals for air freight as well as passenger traffic. • Memorandum of Understanding In order to facilitate the integrating of the road network with major transport interchanges, the Highways Agency together with Railtrack have established a Memorandum of Understanding. They are undertaking a joint assessment which is intended to identify traffic flows large enough to support development of new intermodal freight facilities, with the aim of transferring road freight to rail. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority will advise the government on the strategic importance of future intermodal terminal development. • An aviation policy Currently being prepared is an air transport “daughter” document that recognises the increasingly important contribution that aviation makes to the competitiveness and productivity of the UK economy. In conjunction with other documents, one theme of the air transport document will be the importance of strategic planning in integrating airfreight with other modes. New or expanding airport facilities require careful planning so that they are sited in the most sustainable locations supported by quality links with other modes, while minimising intrusion to local residents. • A ports policy The UK Government was to publish a ports policy paper in 2000. It will be the first such review for over 30 years and will herald the start of a more proactive role for government through a “Ports Partnership” and improvements in the regulation of ports within the framework of the Integrated Transport White Paper. The paper will promote ports as multimodal transport and distribution facilities, encouraging domestic/coastal shipping, better use of rail links and sustainable use of road links. It will reiterate the UK Government’s views on ports’ subsidies and its general support for the EC Green Paper on Ports and Maritime Infrastructure. A Ports Industry Liaison Group will be established by government to include the ports and shipping industries, shippers, trade unions, local authorities and other relevant bodies in policy development and implementation. Work is currently in progress to publish a Marine Operations Code for Ports. This will guide harbour authorities on the use of their statutory powers in the safe operation of their ports. It will be a voluntary code but a reserve power allowing the government to intervene in failing harbour authorities is proposed. There are currently 617 ports in the United Kingdom, almost half of which are fishing ports. Container traffic is handled at 25 of these; roll-on, roll-off services operate from 37 ports. • An inland waterways policy An Inland Waterways “daughter” document is being drafted. It will include proposals on maximising the use of existing infrastructure and promoting the use of inland waterways for freight traffic. There are approximately 3 550 miles (5 700 km) of navigable non-tidal inland waterways in Britain. British Waterways (BW) is responsible for about 2 000 miles (3 220 km), mostly canals; the Environment Agency about 500 miles (800 km), mostly rivers; and the Broads Authority 125 miles (200 km). The remainder is managed by 30 smaller navigation authorities. Waterborne freight survives on only a few waterways, mainly broad waterways managed by British Waterways. The annual tonnage moved is less than 1% of the national total.
© OECD 2001
Draft Planning Policy Guidance (PPG 11)4 sets out the scope of regional transport strategies and how they will be prepared. Logistics and Maritime Transport Directorate-General brings together. before other uses. transport. • Identify. competitive and environmentally responsible air transport system. under one command. scale and location. Aviation. • On disused transport sites. It seeks to improve safety standards both in the UK industry and worldwide and it plays a major role in facilitating an increase in European airspace. However. or can realistically be. The Railways Directorate develops and implements international and domestic rail freight policy. Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) and Minerals Planning Guidance notes (MPGs). The directorate is responsible for delivering one of the principal objectives of the government – to increase the volume of rail-borne freight. • It will provide the longer term planning framework for the Regional Development Agencies’ (RDAs) strategies: – An important measure contained within the Transport White Paper is the requirement for local authorities to consider opportunities for freight interchange facilities. and where appropriate protect. It has a responsibility for airports’ policy. the UK Government has been issuing guidance to local authorities and others on national planning policies and the operation of the planning system in the form of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs). It is responsible for policy concerning the UK road-haulage industry 54 © OECD 2001 . It sets out a broad development framework for the region over a 15 to 20 year period and will normally identify the scale and distribution of provision for new housing and priorities for the environment. consider uses related to sustainable transport first. It aims to increase the contribution made by the British shipping industry to the UK economy and environment. in particular multimodal terminals. in future.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects • A planning policy Since 1988. taking account of guidance in regional transport strategies on freight terminals. served by rail or water and development with good (although where possible indirect) access to trunk roads and allocate appropriate sites. and where appropriate protect. agriculture. it will provide the regional context for the preparation of local transport plans. realistic opportunities for rail or waterway connections to existing manufacturing. economic development. The Logistics and Maritime Transport Directorate carries out several functions. sites and routes. waterways or coastal/ estuarial ports. aviation noise and environmental issues and it sponsors the Civil Aviation Authority. Organisation Government The Department of Transport was merged in 1997 with the Department of the Environment to form the Department of the Environment. infrastructure. fostering economic prosperity and supporting local democracy. The Railways. particularly of bulk goods. distribution and warehousing sites adjacent or close to the rail network. although not of national scope. RPG sets out broad strategic policies at the regional level where there are matters which. and operating air traffic control. • Identify. local authorities should: • Where possible. RPG will also have a broader spatial role informing other strategies and programmes. away from congested central areas and residential areas. looking at aspects such as design. The CAA is responsible for protecting the interests of consumers. issues to do with the transport of goods. minerals and waste treatment and disposal. it manages the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project (CTRL)7 which will provide a purpose built high-speed passenger and freight line for Channel Tunnel traffic through the south-east of England. shipping and ports industries. • Promote sustainable distribution in developments and related uses which generate freight. The main purpose of RPG is to provide a regional framework for the preparation of local authority development plans. • Encourage development which is. – New draft planning guidance (Planning Policy Guidance PPG 13)5 provides advice to local authorities on the preparation of their development plans and in determining planning applications. including Channel Tunnel operations. ensuring that environmental objectives are pursued and achieved. Additionally. both existing and potential. which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen choices for both freight and passengers (such as interchange facilities allowing road to rail transfer or for water transport) and ensure that any such disused transport sites and routes are not unnecessarily severed by new buildings and non-transport land uses. apply across regions or parts of regions and need to be considered on a scale wider than the area of a single authority. It is responsible for policy related to the road-haulage. locate developments generating substantial freight movements such as distribution and warehousing. Transport and the Regions (DETR)6 with the aim of improving the quality of life by promoting sustainable development at home and abroad. The Aviation Directorate promotes a safe. In particular: • By virtue of incorporating a regional transport strategy.
economic efficiency. • Great Britain is divided into six traffic area networks. The Agency’s primary tasks in carrying out this role are to develop measures aimed at maximising the use of the existing network. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). working through the Regional Government Offices. • Regional government At the Regional level. local authorities will be required to protect and provide opportunities for rail freight and inland water freight development in Local Transport Plans. it is the responsibility of local government to produce local transport strategies. the government is establishing a Strategic Rail Authority (SRA)10 to ensure that the needs of both passenger and rail freight customers are met (the organisation is already up and running in shadow form. It also provides a focus and wider policy framework for all the Department’s concerns and activities relating to the United Kingdom’s national and international physical distribution systems. to improve the quality of maintenance and provision of the network. 55 © OECD 2001 . operating and improving the network in a manner which supports the government’s environmental. the rail industry has lacked both a focus for longterm strategic planning and a single organisation to ensure that standards are maintained and increased in both the passenger and rail freight sector. In addition. promote rail freight and its infrastructure and provide a clear strategic vision for future rail operation. Their remit is more specifically geared to individual aspects of government policy: • The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)8 is responsible for the licensing of drivers in Great Britain. This guidance must now include a regional transport strategy. it will work closely with local authorities. The Strategic Rail Authority will be a statutory body that will bring together passenger and freight interests. environmental performance. The SRA will be responsible for reviewing the scope for improving rail access to major UK ports in consultation with Railtrack11 (the infrastructure providers). land-use planning and social impact) policy integration. pending the necessary legislation). As part of their planning. regional development agencies. regional planning bodies. • The UK Government also established the Commission for Integrated Transport. Since privatisation of the rail network. This role is cross-cutting since it seeks to co-ordinate policies across the Department. • The role of the Highways Agency9 is to contribute to sustainable development by maintaining.Annex 1 and the ports industry.12 a new independent body to: – Provide objective advice to the government on the implementation of integrated transport policy. • The Vehicle Inspectorate’s objective is to support improved road safety and environmental standards by ensuring that motor vehicles are maintained to minimum statutory standards. promote better integration (passenger service and intermodal operations). Before an operating licence can be granted. the Highways Agency and the equivalents in Scotland and Wales to promote more effective integration between the rail freight sector and other freight industries. port owners and shipping companies. RDAs must ensure that such strategies consider the scope for promoting the movement of freight by rail and water and provide a strategic steer on the role of airports and ports within their regions. each company must attain specific criteria relating to financial standing. the registration and licensing of vehicles and the collection of vehicle excise duty. Through this mechanism it is expected that the ability of the planning system to promote more integrated and sustainable freight transport patterns can be enhanced – the key to improved intermodal freight movement. • Local government At the local level. – Review progress towards meeting transport objectives. This includes carrying out both compulsory and random roadside checks on road freight vehicles. a key ingredient in the delivery of locally integrated transport. A traffic commissioner heads each network and is responsible for issuing operating licences for bus and lorry operating companies. good repute and site operating conditions (including safety and environmental impact). • Strategic Rail Authority. rail freight operators. The Directorate seeks to promote both horizontal (modal) and vertical (energy efficiency. • Government agencies and other government bodies Various agencies operate alongside DETR. – Monitor developments across transport and the environment. This role assists in ensuring that the road safety objectives of DETR are met. Such roadside checks also involve inspection of vehicle tachographs and drivers’ hours. This system is currently being put in place. In order to achieve this. have responsibility for preparing Regional Planning Guidance. and to facilitate links with other transport modes. integrated transport and land-use planning policies.
the UK Government has been in the process of privatising its research agencies. EWS has also successfully completed a series of trials involving moving chemicals in lorry trailers on its “piggyback” service. The chemicals were moved between Mossend and Seaforth and Mossend and Wakefield on weekend journeys during July and August 1999. bitumen products and sulphuric acid. local authority owned or are classified as “trust ports” (independent bodies which have been established by and for the benefit of local communities). Welsh and Scottish Railway (EWS). The Environment. whether United Kingdom or European Union. including freight transport. Parliamentary procedure Within the UK Parliament. consistent with the needs of conservation and recreation. It has a duty to provide capacity for projected freight as well as passenger traffic level increases. It currently has 17 members.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects • British Waterways. The government also funds programmes designed to promote best practice. The Department has an extensive research programme. EWS has recently introduced an intermodal service between Widnes and Seaforth (Merseyside) and the ports of Harwich and Purfleet (Essex). The Environment Agency is primarily an environmental regulatory body which manages the navigation of its rivers as an integral part of its other management functions. Work has already been completed on the main route from North London to Glasgow. which carry near-standard road tankers were used. 56 © OECD 2001 . takes a commercial approach to maximising the use of its waterways and property. Research is geared towards the development and monitoring of government policy. spending GBP 49 million in 1999/2000 on transport-related research. to provide information which may be used to change existing policy. Railtrack has undertaken feasibility studies to assess the scope for gauge enhancement on the major freight carrying routes. they are loaded on to the wagons using a crane or reach stacker. Recent investment by both companies has seen the construction of new container flat wagons capable of carrying 9 foot 6 inch deep-sea containers and Thrall “Euro-spine” wagons to carry vehicle trailers over the UK’s currently somewhat restrictive loading gauge. Ports are either company owned (private control). Transport and Regional Affairs select committee does this for DETR and associated public bodies including the Office of the Rail Regulator. combining its responsibility for navigation with conservation and recreation. There are currently 16 departmental select committees that aim to examine the expenditure. The EEBPP provides advice on energy saving to all sectors. The Highways Agency carries out research designed to assist it in the implementation of its duties to maintain and provide the primary route network (trunk roads and motorways). such the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme (EEBPP) and Powershift. allowing the carrying of 9 foot 6 inch containers. There are two major rail freight-operating companies in the United Kingdom: Freightliner and English. Ports Ports provide conservancy services such as pilotage and run commercial port activity within their jurisdiction. It may be commissioned for a number of reasons: to monitor the impact of government policy. allowing the rail freight operating companies to take full advantage of the opportunities to transfer freight from road to rail. administration and policy of government departments and specified public bodies. There are additional connections to other London terminals. The Broads Authority manages the Broads together with surrounding land as a national park.13 Both are keen to fully exploit the possibility of gaining domestic and international intermodal traffic. Powershift provides grant aid to companies seeking to purchase alternatively fuelled vehicles. select committees are responsible for scrutinising the work of government departments on behalf of the House of Commons. Eurospine wagons. from where overnight transits can be made to the ports in East Yorkshire and Cleveland as well as to terminals in Scotland and South Wales. via Wembley. Private organisations Rail Railtrack is responsible for maintaining and improving railway infrastructure throughout the United Kingdom. or propose new policy. Research agencies Over the past 15 years. A train service links Widnes and Seaforth to the rail hub at Warrington (Cheshire). or to provide information regarding the impact of proposed policy. a public corporation. They advise on the procedures and domestic administration of the House and submit their recommendations and findings in reports to the House. Transport research is now carried out by independent research organisations which must bid for contracts through competitive tender. The grant is designed to offset the difference in purchasing costs of new technology and operates until a market has been established for that technology. chalk slurry. Cargoes included caustic soda.
These trends are shown in Figures A1 and A2. This can be used to assess the overall lorry traffic intensity of the economy. In addition. the growth in freight transport as measured in freight-tonne kilometres has tended to be slower than that of GDP. • The trend in lorry vehicle-kilometres and GDP growth. Index (1980 = 100) 110 Relationship between freight tonne-kilometres and GDP Index (1980 = 100) 110 105 105 100 100 95 95 90 90 85 85 80 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 80 1997 Year Source: United Kingdom Government.Annex 1 Instruments Monitoring of government policy The government has established indicators to monitor the success of its freight policy. Figure A1. • Freight transport lifted (tonnes) by mode. Over the medium term. the following indicators are also monitored: • Energy consumption of road transport. This tracks the overall transport intensity of the economy. This measure can be used to assess the overall transport-intensity of the economy. 57 © OECD 2001 . Two main measures have been chosen: • The trend in total freight tonne-kilometres and GDP growth. • Freight transport moved (tonne-km) by mode. Freight intensity (total freight tonne-km) of GDP Figure A1 reflects the relationship between freight tonne-km in the United Kingdom over the last 45 years and the corresponding GDP growth. Lorry traffic intensity (vehicle-km) of GDP Figure A2 reflects the relationship between lorry tonne-km in the United Kingdom over the previous 45 years and the corresponding GDP growth. Government policy is to reduce the freight transport intensity of the economy. This is not unexpected given the change in the balance of the economy away from heavy industry towards the growing service sector. This tracks the road transport intensity of the economy. Apart from a period in the late 1970s when the start of North Sea oil production created a major new transport demand.
Treasury. maritime and inland water tonnage). Role of other government departments and stakeholders in the policy process Government departments and stakeholders are involved at an early stage in the development of government policy. with 22% of total maritime freight being intermodal. maritime and inland water services. the UK Government did not collect specific information on containerised traffic moved by rail. Although the freight carried by road. in 1997 intermodal transport accounted for 20% of all freight tonnes lifted. the Department of Trade and Industry. the Traffic Area Network and the Driving Standards Agency were particularly involved. 58 © OECD 2001 . The Cabinet Office is responsible for ensuring that all policies are correctly integrated and take account of overarching government policy. the government engages in a consultation procedure. Heavy Goods Vehicle mileage intensity has shown a downward trend in the United Kingdom since the mid 1960s. In the case of the Sustainable Distribution Strategy. safety and the environment. Maritime tonnage makes up the greatest proportion of tonnes lifted. Additionally. In the case of the Sustainable Distribution Strategy. sea and inland water and through ports and airports. the United Kingdom does not collect data on the number of TEUs carried by inland shipping. workshops and conferences are held to explore particular aspects in more detail. workshops were held to explore the issues of intermodal transport. Expressed as a percentage of total tonnes lifted. Table A4 provides data on: tonnages of freight lifted by rail. Despite a decline in total inland water tonnage. A Green Paper is published setting out the government’s intention to develop policy in a particular area and raising a series of questions designed to elicit the opinion of stakeholders and the public in general. The UK Government also collects a range of statistics regarding the transportation of freight by road. rail. These figures are incomplete because prior to 1996. Before all policies are developed. rail. has increased substantially over the past 40 years as more tonnes have been carried over longer distances.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Figure A2. the percentage that is intermodal has risen. Other government departments are involved in a formal procedure of consultation and may be asked to help formulate parts of the policy where there are cross-departmental objectives. Index (1980 = 100) 115 Relationship between vehicle-kilometres and GDP Index (1980 = 100) 115 110 110 105 105 100 100 95 95 90 90 85 85 80 80 75 75 70 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 70 1997 Year Source: United Kingdom Government. measured in tonne kilometres. seminars. Furthermore. the impact has been mitigated by increases in average payloads carried by lorries. the Highways Agency. Table 4 in the report provides figures for the proportion of domestic and international intermodal freight. the percentages within each mode that are carried intermodally. and the proportion in relation to total freight that is intermodal (expressed as a percentage of total road.
three new intermodal terminals have been opened to cater for the international rail freight market at Tilbury (Essex). The full guidance on provisional Local Transport Plans. TAG is designed to offset charges made for access to the network by the United Kingdom’s rail infrastructure provider. the Sustainable Distribution paper and the British Shipping paper. The plans will include future investment plans and propose measures to meet existing and projected local transport needs. The grant makes inland waterway transport more attractive to industry by enabling it to compete more effectively with road transport and thus allows businesses to have a viable alternative to transporting freight by road. As outlined above. clearly a success for private freight operators and for the policy of encouraging the transfer of freight to rail. it is difficult to determine the success rate at this early stage. However. In addition. businesses and community groups. Since 1996-97. The desire to see more freight transferred to other modes for all or part of its journey has only seen concrete policy action in the last couple of years. However the idea of building more and more new roads to try to match demand is outdated and ineffective. Success A coherent and integrated transport policy with a focus on intermodal integration is a new approach for UK policy.5% of the United Kingdom ’s road freight traffic to water (this includes coastal as well as inland waterways). Track Access Grant (TAG) was introduced in 1994. covering all modes. The level of rail-borne freight traffic in the United Kingdom has increased by 16% since 1997. Pilot studies have taken place to assess greater use of crawler lanes on hills for lorries. A common theme of all the aforementioned policy documents on transport in the last two years has been the need for a clear. grants worth a total of GBP 166. 59 © OECD 2001 . The White Paper referred to research that indicated that there may be potential to divert about 3. as already happens in London where barges move waste along the Thames to either landfill or Combined Heat and Power plant. multi-occupancy vehicle lanes and priority lanes for public transport and goods traffic. The existing motorway and trunk road network will be maintained and utilised to its optimum. There is also considerable interest on the part of the Commercial Narrow Boat Operators Association for relatively low-intensity. consequently averting one of the major reasons for maintaining existing practices and being unwilling to adopt new ideas. the Highways Agency has a “toolkit” of measures designed to make better use of the network. In formulating their plans. FFG is currently available for the development of rail and inland waterway operations. To complement FFG. the government will consider applications for FFG towards the development of intermodal sites. consequently. Railtrack. it must be recognised that rail freight still only accounts for about 8% of all freight movement and is unlikely to replace the lorry as the primary mover of freight. which should enhance the capability of our planning system to promote more sustainable distribution patterns in the longer term as a link between central planning and local transport plans. local authorities will consult with local transport operators. Local authorities will set out their proposals for delivering integrated distribution and passenger transport over a five-year period in Local Transport Plans (LTPs). but high-profile. FFG is intended to assist with the cost of investment in infrastructure required by alternative distribution modes. yet there is still much scope for improvement. They welcome proposals to extend the Freight Facilities Grant to short-sea shipping so that owners and operators such as themselves are able to carry out improvements to the infrastructure of existing docks. The plans form the basis of an integrated approach to local transport requirements and by consultation with neighbouring authorities a coherent regional and nation-wide policy. which was published in March 2000. British Waterways support all initiatives to get more freight onto inland waterways. the government has provided funding to firms in the form of a Freight Facilities Grant (FFG) to encourage the movement of freight away from road and on to other modes. To aid in this. while improvements will be implemented to deal with congestion pinch points and to integrate the road network with major transport interchanges in order to promote greater use of rail and water transport for freight. Responsibility for implementing an integrated transport policy designed to make intermodal freight operation a viable proposition lies with both central and local government.Annex 1 Government actions The UK Government is committed to extending Freight Facilities Grants to coastal and short-sea shipping as stated in the Integrated Transport White Paper. This development is also encouraged through Regional Planning Guidance. Hams Hall (Birmingham) and Daventry (Warwickshire). An important point is to question how success is defined. The national road network has played a dominant role in the distribution of goods in the United Kingdom for many years. This demonstrates that at this early stage there has been a success in this area. “joined-up” transport policy. but there is scope for extending the scheme to short-sea shipping. In addition. made clear that inland waterways can play a valuable role in freight strategies and authorities are expected to consider opportunities for new developments which can be served by inland waterways. There is also interest in using inner city canals to move construction materials and waste. freight movements utilising the narrow and broad canal networks.2 million have been awarded (Tables A4 and A5).
Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Table A4. Local highway authorities were required to produce provisional five-year plans by July 1999. • FFG – Freightliner has added low-deck “pocket” wagons to its fleet with the help of a grant of GBP 634 000. International issues For the United Kingdom. Thamesport and Seaforth. several domestic and international issues have already arisen that may be an impediment to continued progress.0 50. there is room to improve 60 © OECD 2001 . Track access grants Awarded (GBP million) 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 79. allowing it to carry 9 foot 6 inch containers within existing gauge constraints.1 50. together with a system which provides guaranteed international paths. • The Port of Felixstowe extended and improved its container-handling facilities with the help of a grant of GBP 1. It is a partner in the North East Inland Ports project which seeks to identify freight development opportunities and the provision of an intermodal transfer site for inland use. London is not included in this process since the London Mayor has a responsibility to produce an integrated transport strategy for London which is consistent with national policy objectives. subject to general principles governing track access charges and train path allocation. Implementation is a two-stage process.3 12. covering the period 2000-01 to 2004-05. Key issues for the success of an intermodal policy Although the United Kingdom ’s intermodal policy is relatively new. For these reasons. DETR’s partners in this include Railtrack. Highways Agency and Associated British Ports (ABP).5 37. the United Kingdom supports the broad aims of the European Commission’s infrastructure package and market access liberalisation.0 50.0 Available for freight grants Examples of grants given for intermodal traffic included: • TAG – Freightliner awarded GBP 1.0 Available for freight grants Table A5. the single most important obstacle to the provision of commercially viable international rail freight services in an expanding market is the inability of freight-train operators to gain unhindered access to other countries’ networks. On the basis of this resources were allocated from central government for the period 2000-01 only.42 million to move more than 20 000 boxes containing components for Jaguar’s Castle Bromwich (West Midlands) plant from the deep-sea ports of Felixstowe. Authorities then rolled their plans forward by one year and submitted full plans for 2001-02 to 2005-06 in July 2000.3 50.1 9. • British Waterways has launched a project to transport domestic waste on the River Lea to an incinerator at Enfield (North London). Freight facilities grants Awarded (GBP million) 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2. as they are a new initiative but the programme should be geared to delivering full LTPs in 2000.14 The success of local transport plans cannot yet be judged.6 10. There is a need for a greater degree of interoperability between different countries’ infrastructure and rolling stock. London boroughs will be required to produce local implementation plans in order to put the Mayor’s strategy into practice.4 3.8 million. Additionally. Once this is in place.5 11.
Annex 1 the efficiency of cross-border movements of freight trains with their train crew. Unitised/containerised tonnage imported or exported via the Channel Tunnel. Unitised/containerised automotive and other tonnage imported or exported via the Channel Tunnel. many passenger companies face franchise renewal negotiations. Table A6. Europe needs efficient and integrated port systems to compete in global markets and to encourage sustainable freight distribution through optimal utilisation of sea and inland waterways. 56. training and education in freight distribution – whether road. 1996 Excluding Eurotunnel “shuttle” services Channel Tunnel Rail freight tonnes All business import All business export Total 1 355 000 979 000 2 334 000 61 © OECD 2001 . The United Kingdom has used bilateral discussions with its French counterparts to maintain pressure on EWS International. In addition to issues facing the development of international rail-borne freight. Government officials obtain experience either through one of these courses or through secondment to industry. Secondments from industry to the civil service also occur. SNCF and Eurotunnel to improve cross-border freight services. In the next few years. p. road or inland waterway in the United Kingdom that has been imported. 1996 Excluding Eurotunnel “shuttle” services Channel Tunnel Rail freight tonnes Intermodal import Intermodal export Total Source : Origin and Destination Survey 1996. The United Kingdom will continue to support the EC Green Paper on ports and maritime infrastructure. Domestic issues Domestically. The Strategic Rail Authority will therefore need to address the issue of how to ensure that the infrastructure will be able to cope with this additional demand. United Kingdom intermodal traffic – Further statistics The definition of intermodal traffic used in Tables A6 and A7 covers all freight travelling by rail. non-discrimination and reasonable charging. the issue of port subsidy is significant to the United Kingdom. 878 000 698 000 1 576 000 Table A7. a much greater barrier remains the issue of market access. In order to make their case more attractive. or is destined to be exported. it is likely that many new services will be promised. which considers the possible development of a regulatory framework. rail or shipping – is carried out either by the industry itself or through specific university or institute courses. Delays incurred at border crossings damage the possibility of rail being relied upon over road to deliver goods on time. as a means of providing expert advice to the development or implementation of government policy. It is important to ensure that open access to the market is on the basis of transparency. through a maritime port or the Channel Tunnel. Although technical barriers are significant. the upsurge in rail freight activity may lead to track capacity problems and conflicts over track access rights between some train operating companies and freight operators. in order to establish a fairer market. aimed at a more systematic liberalisation of port services. Training and education in intermodal issues In the United Kingdom. Airfreight has not been included in the tables as the practice of “inter-lining” would misrepresent the true picture of intermodal airfreight.
congestion relief.00 10. the EU’s subsidiarity principle assigns the fundamental right to EU member states to act independently on major transport policy issues and projects. but do not guarantee. pavements. 1 925 miles of road links between highways. “Intermodalism ” has been advocated by many stakeholders.67 12. interconnected manner. In the United States.58 61. provision of limited funding support and programme evaluation and monitoring. Breakdown of inland water freight by type Million metric tonnes of freight 1986 1994 1995 1996 1997 Internal Coastal Foreign One-port Total 8 12 13 35 68 7. However.59 8.72 5. state and local governments’ compliance with proposed federal policy initiatives. State and local government entities cannot be expected to finance projects which go beyond their immediate needs and benefit a larger group of stakeholders. bridges. This office has a wider freight productivity objective but also deals with typically intermodal freight issues such as the establishment of an intermodal freight analysis decision framework. the US Congress also authorised intermodal connectors as eligible for federal funding support. WTO/GATS. marine terminals and airports were deemed essential to ensure a seamless national intermodal transport system. such as the US Department and the European Commission..25 32.48 60. EU/TEP.06 11.5 billion for the period ending in 2003. have transport policy functions assigned to them under the US Constitution (commerce clause) and the European Union Maastricht Treaty respectively. e.21 57. The federal conditions attached to programme and project funding ensure. For instance. The DOT includes all modes of transport. APEC.62 10. to reduce energy consumption and air pollution while promoting economic development and supporting the nation’s pre-eminent position in international commerce”. meeting social and environmental concerns and addressing broader transportation needs regarding safety and security as well as mobility and accessibility. Some of the federal policy initiatives may flow from multilateral trade agreements. public transit and intermodal facilities.16 a new Office of Freight Management and Operations was established in 1998.05 11. In a recent reorganisation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).86 6. rail yards.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Table A8. including the transportation system of the future. it is important to draw a distinction between the types of governmental systems responsible for various aspects of policy formulation and programme implementation.g.98 32.16 32. In the National Highway System Designator Act of 1995. that: “the National Intermodal Transportation System shall consist of all forms of transportation in a unified. ISTEA’91 established at the level of the Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation at DOT an Office of Intermodalism to co-ordinate the intermodal planning activities of modal administrations. which may require substantial funding support. The potential of intermodal freight transportation will depend largely on the ability of governments and industry to develop policies and programmes that are consistent with the overall goals of improving national and international competitiveness. © OECD 2001 . The ISTEA’91 legislative mandate was accompanied by an authorisation of funding of USD 155 billion over a six-year period. The legislative standard was stated broadly and permitted a wide interpretation of the Congressional intent. Consequently.75 8. Entities that have and continue to participate in the policy formation process include the following: • Council on Competitiveness – which has advocated a reorganisation of Congressional Committee structure to focus more effectively on intermodal transport issues. the Congress has declared in the ISTEA. a large number of stakeholders are involved in defining and advocating the respective interests. 62 • National Intermodal Commission – which advocated a reorganisation of departmental functions and programmes in support of intermodal transport. safety.74 9.46 United States The US Department of Transport (DOT) was formed in 1967. e. while state and local governments are responsible for policy.89 58. The federal share of funding is limited to certain programme categories. and was succeeded in 1998 by the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) which authorised additional funding of USD 217. programme and project implementation. the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). An integrated intermodal approach was adopted in 1991 at which time a policy on intermodalism entered into force with the enactment of ISTEA’91. it did not immediately lead to an integrated approach because the various modal administrations received their mandate through the Congressional authorisations. While large federal government structures. The federal government’s responsibility covers policy formulation.15 However. etc. the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).19 34.g.20 4.
and to help finance missing links in and connections to the transportation infrastructure networks. but increasingly in the global environment. the need for further improvements has been identified in the National Highway Designation Act of 1995 and a subsequent study detailing not only the gaps in the network of approximately 160 000 miles. counties and special districts. Each of the ten operating administrations has specific initiatives targeted at the freight stakeholders.Annex 1 • DOT Office of Intermodalism – which co-ordinates the freight related activities of the DOT’s commitment modal administrations (FHWA. However. These included connections to 615 freight terminals. planning and implementing projects rests with the 50 State Departments of Transportation. e. that may justify the expenditure of federal funds.). Exactly what part of the total amount (USD 504 billion) is intended for specific intermodal projects is not known at a federal level. to reorganise governmental functions. This is understandable. US federal. since maritime channels are open to both freight carrying vessels and pleasure craft. FRA. 63 © OECD 2001 . but also the critical connectors to the major intermodal terminals. the development of intermodal loading units which can be transported by all modes of transport. state and local government agencies have undertaken studies to understand the needs of the private sector. The interest in intermodal transportation is largely driven by industry interests (shippers and carriers) to find least-cost solutions to long-term transportation problems. except those related to safety and security concerns. RSPA). to establish public-private freight partnerships. to monitor the intra-regional and international freight flows. • Intermodal Association of North America – which co-ordinates industry interests and sponsors conferences. The organisational effectiveness of governments will be put to the test as further trade liberalisation efforts change the parameters (infrastructure) and variables (carrier operations) of the system. The United States Congress adopted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act on 18 December 1991. including 250 ports and terminals.g. logistics management or supply chain management. 206 rail terminals. These funds are linked in a flexible manner to various broadly defined programmes in the context of which financial contributions are made to infrastructure projects (construction and improvement of roads. • FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations – which is developing a programme of freight productivity. While the network is extensive and the expenditures significant. One of the reasons is that the projects which are eligible for federal support are selected by state and local governments. While the infrastructure networks are essentially complete. This Act made funds available for the development of the national transport systems for the period 1992-97. air traffic controllers monitor both cargo aircraft and passenger planes. Approval of the connectors as part of the National Highway System is still pending. tunnels. The public sector has facilitated the development of the competitive transport market through the construction of a vast highway network and the elimination of economic regulatory constraints. Most of the large shippers and carriers have corporate units responsible for intermodal transport although they may call these units by different names. towns. which together number almost 80 000 units of government. Although the Federal Highway Administration has significant responsibility for guiding the investment decisions. etc. However. prioritisation of projects has been delegated to the regional or state administrations and the local governments. Following the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). etc. the challenge for the 21st century is to redefine the governmental response capability to meet the evolving needs of the private sector which is competing not only in the domestic marketplace. 61 pipelines and 98 airports. MARAD. seminars and equipment expositions. The DOT strategic goals serve as the framework for the implementation of programmes and projects aimed at both passenger and freight transport. thousands of small cities. on a interim basis improvements are eligible for federal funding. • Intermodal Marketing Corporations – which help shippers and carriers in finding the most appropriate and least-cost intermodal transport solution. The report identified connections to 1 407 terminals. rail safety inspectors monitor both freight trains and passenger trains. the principal responsibility for analysing. highways serve both the trucking industry as well as passenger car owners and buses. including many intermodal initiatives. Freight analysis. the reimbursement of operating deficits for certain routes. and transport studies. With this. rail routes. planning and investment decisions are undertaken jointly in co-operation with affected government entities and private sector stakeholders. In the United States. except for critical connectors to intermodal terminals. The intense competition among industry shippers and carriers to establish long-term contractual relationships automatically leads to a search for ways to reduce the transport-related transaction cost for business. the challenge will be to further integrate the accomplishments of the North America Free Trade Agreement and to extend the policies and procedures to the partners of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. each administration has targeted specific freight projects with budget commitments and performance indicators. the 329 Metropolitan Planning Organizations. in co-operation with private parties. but these are not presented separately from the passenger-related concerns. in preparation for the next re-authorisation process.
The Department’s R&D plan supports the five strategic goals as well as three major categories of research needs. it made co-ordination and co-operation with other modal organisations pursuing similar objectives difficult. The first DOT Strategic Plan for 1997-2002 and Annual Performance Plans also include the co-ordinated R&D programmes of each of the administrations. • Enhanced Weather Services for Transport Users. communications. • Establishing technology-based public-private R&D partnerships in key areas of national and international concern. All eleven public-private partnership initiatives have a direct and indirect impact on freight productivity. For instance. With the enactment of ISTEA’91. The R&D programme is aimed at reducing the cost and extending the performance and life time of infrastructure. processes and procedures. The consolidated R&D Plan which is reflective of the broader vision. other levels of government. While the mode-specific R&D activities provided a focus and accountability. • Next-generation Surface and Marine Vehicles. crash worthiness. light weight materials and manufacturing technologies. The responsiveness to national need is met through the mandated functional responsibility to guide and shape the public investment in the transportation infrastructure through the conditioned disbursement of trust fund grants to other levels of government. Maintenance and Monitoring. responding to the particular needs of their own constituencies both within and outside the department. The R&D Strategic Plan identified six specific actions that the DOT will take over the five-year period to implement an effective management programme. brings greater consistency and cohesion to the separate initiatives and ensures cost effective use of the organisation’s resources. as well as to stimulate and accelerate innovative private sector participation. DOT was required to submit annually a consolidated Surface Transportation Research and Development Plan to Congress. transportation professionals and the general public. • Promoting the exchange of information on transportation R&D via an Internet “homepage” and tracking system. modelling and analysis. Another related effort is developing. namely the administrations”: • Operational missions. • Enhanced Freight Movement at Domestic and International Gateways. These actions are: • Implementing a management process for several major public-private R&D partnerships. • Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of DOT’s seven modal R&D centres and their programmes. The shipbuilding and ship structure programme is developing improvements in commercial ship design and in shipyard facilities. the private sector. Partnership initiatives have been identified in eleven areas. R&D is considered one of the most significant cross-cutting topics within the DOT and it influences and contributes to the activities of other federal agencies. the programme focuses on a clean diesel programme for light and heavy trucks and seeks to apply advanced technologies and concepts to improve dramatically the fuel efficiency of trucks while maintaining safety and performance characteristics. Specific activities will address energy conversion and storage. the various modal administrations have managed their own research and development (R&D) programmes. • Next-generation Global Air Transportation. while the remaining six require further definition and substantial interagency co-ordination. • National needs. • Terminal Security Systems. These initiatives are as follows: • Aviation Safety Research Alliance. • Accessibility for Ageing and Disabled Populations. as well as the academic and research community. • Creating expanded education and training programmes for students. • Transportation and Sustainable Communities. • Supporting multimodal-enabling research activities in areas such as human performance. detailing the common vision of a “One DOT” as well as the specific project initiatives of the ten modal administrations. • Physical Infrastructure Renewal.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Prior to and following the establishment of the DOT in 1967. emission controls. of which the first group of five represent existing and well-established (and funded) programmes. mission and goal statements of the DOT. • National Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure. • Regulatory functions. 64 © OECD 2001 . • Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. under the research agenda for the next-generation surface and marine vehicles.
The TEA-21 legislation authorised USD 192 million for university transportation research over a six-year period. such as inland water transportation. the publication of reports and peer-reviewed technical papers on research findings. One of its faculty members has published an authoritative textbook (now in its 4th edition) in co-operation with the Eno Transportation Foundation. which support a nation-wide network of ten regional university-based research consortia consisting of six to 12 universities each. and in collaboration with other experts from the private and public sector. Several DOT administrations also manage their own professional service academies. The National Transportation and Education Programme comprises four elements: • Introducing transportation concepts in elementary and secondary school curricula. It calls for the continuing investment in the skills and abilities of the 10 million professionals and workers responsible for designing. the Garrett A. highly efficient. seeks to provide information about promising careers in transportation to over 1 million students of all ages and to encourage them to improve their mathematics. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Programme. A number of TRB committees deal specifically with multimodal freight transportation issues. urban planning. the US Coast Guard Academy (USCG). For instance. The FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations has the lead role in managing the R&D activities in addition to the preparation of a comprehensive freight analys is decision framework. The complex originated with an act of Congress in 1863 as a private. community colleges and industrial training institutes to enhance the quality of instruction. the administration of contract research programmes and special studies requested by DOT and the US Congress. Since 1987. low-or-zero emission shipboard fuel-cell power and propulsion systems. metropolitan planning organisations and private sector interest groups. business management. many provide transportation courses in the context of degree programmes in civil engineering. The TRB Executive Committee has extended invitations to foreign colleagues to join as members or as friends on any of the technical committees or task forces. Among the more than 3 000 institutions of higher learning in the United States. public administration. The DOT also supports the operation of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council. One element of this strategy. Another element of the DOT R&D strategy which is particularly important to ensuring organisational effectiveness over time supports the development and implementation of transport-related education and training programmes. • Enhancing mid-career training opportunities for transportation professionals to stay abreast of the latest concepts and technology. Together these and other institutions provide the DOT with a readily accessible source of knowledge and ideas for improving the effectiveness of the nation’s transportation agencies and organisations. every DOT administration maintains close relationships with a number of universities and colleges specialising in research and training in the respective mode of transportation. operating. among others. namely the National Corridor Planning and Development Programme and the Co-ordinated Border Infrastructure Programmes. Research towards enhanced freight movement at domestic and international gateways continues the activities authorised under TEA-21. constructing. which is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The DOT has developed a comprehensive National Transportation Education Strategy aimed at all institutional stakeholders and individuals seeking careers in the transport sector. technology applications and assessments. The partnership initiatives includes activitie such as demonstrations and pilot projects. the DOT has been investing in the University Transportation Centers (UTC) Programme. economics and international trade. intermodal freight 65 © OECD 2001 . the National Institute of Highways (FWHA). The TRB fulfils its mission through the work of its 190 standing committees and task forces addressing all modes and aspects of transportation. namely the US Merchant Marine Academy (MARAD). motor vehicle size and weight. but was published through the above-mentioned non-governmental organisation.Annex 1 testing and installing affordable. • Collaborating with vocational schools. the US Merchant Marine Academy has emphasised intermodal freight transportation as part of its Center on Global Freight Logistics. The collaboration between the Council of Logistics Management and Michigan State University (CLM/MSU) and DOT/FHWA was highlighted earlier in this report. Each of the regional consortia focuses on the unique transportation needs of the region. system architecture and standards and information exchange among all partners and stakeholders. particularly for cross-border traffic. freight transportation planning and logistics. self-governing body dedicated to the advancement of science and technology and available to advise the federal government upon request. The process of moving freight is becoming increasingly information-intensive. The TRB also hosts annual meetings which typically attract 8 000 professionals from throughout the United States and approximately 10% from abroad. maintaining and managing the national transportation systems. Many of the faculty members have also made significant multidisciplinary contributions. The partnership involves Canada and Mexico. as well as the respective state and provincial governments. The 500-page book is not a government document. environmental science. and advanced communication technologies have improved the efficiency of moving freight. • Promoting the creation of transportation college degree programmes based on multidisciplinary curricula with an international focus. science and technology skills. In addition to the UTCs.
It was also a part of the Common Transport Policy Action Programme (1995-2000):18 “Better integration of transport modes is essential. ports and channels. freight transport regulation. was joined by the TEN policy layer. requesting that environmental protection requirements become a component of other policies. as far as possible. in this respect it is especially important to establish a common framework for the allocation of the costs of infrastructure use. Thus. while respecting the subsidiarity principle and specific national situations. In the wake of the Single Market Act. • To reduce. among other elements. basic components of this objective are the revitalisation of the railways and the liberalisation of port services. • Finally. the insufficiencies of a modal approach became more apparent than ever. In 1986. to reinforce the external dimension of the Common Transport Policy. TRB operates an online computerised file of transportation research information available to all US and foreign members and the public at large. international transportation and trade.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects transport. so that more efficient use is made of the infrastructure.19 The core purpose of the Common Transport Policy is to create a framework for sustainable mobility. When the Community obtained competencies over infrastructure and environment. the TransEuropean Networks (TENs) concept was launched and made its way into the Treaty of the Union. the EC’s transport policy was modally oriented. This move upgraded the legal status on which Community infrastructure support measures had developed through the 1980s. For many years. among others. which already included combined transport. the negative effects that transport has on society. the mainstream body of the Common Transport Policy. which sought a level playing field between the transport modes. The need to promote intermodalism is also highlighted and progress is assessed in the updated version of the Common Transport Policy rolling programme. urban goods movement. with competition between modes of transport and haulage services. local and regional rail freight transport. This process was triggered by the evidence of capacity problems in the existing networks. in particular in relation to enlargement. The need to integrate environmental considerations into transport policy could not but reinforce this process. and made the development of an intermodal approach necessary. The intermodal vision of the Commission has been consistently expressed by basic policy documents. • The integration of transport modes from unimodal to multimodal networks. This will mean greater recourse to environmentally friendly and energy-saving modes offering unused or potential capacity. The frequent interaction of transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sector and academia in the context of committee meetings.20 It is the following: “to © OECD 2001 . It also wants to create a European transport network by improving the interoperability of different systems. 66 The policy objective behind the Commission’s action to promote freight intermodalism is shown in the Communication on “Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European Union”. The implementation of the Internal Market and the run-up to European Monetary Union have. but especially those produced by safety problems. • The development of the transport Trans-European networks with the integration of national transport networks into a European network by improving the interconnections and the technical interoperability of different systems. not only those on the environment. and particularly in the road and air transport networks. starting with the “White Paper on the Future Development of the Common Transport Policy”17 of 1992 where the development of integrated transport systems was a priority. contributed to the rapid growth of freight transport and to an increase in the length of the trips made. freight transportation data. and so as to develop the internal market. Important goals of EU transport policy are: • The creation of a liberalised and efficient internal transport market. panel discussions or special research projects ensures a steady flow of information on best practices and leads to organisational effectiveness at all levels of government. more modal connections and greater interoperability”. based on the necessary degree of harmonisation of national transport regulations. the Single Market Act gave the Community direct competencies in the field of environment. The initial competencies of the EC referred to the internal market and to the need to ensure the free provision of transport services across the borders between EU member states. European Union Policy The European Commission has clear goals to promote competition modes of transport and haulage services by harmonising transport regulations. make better use of existing infrastructure and internalise external transport costs.
• Integration of intermodal transport in supply chains. Railway management is a public matter. competencies on intermodal issues are split between different units of the Directorates of Land Transport (Combined Transport) Trans-European Networks and Infrastructure (TEN of Combined Transport) and Development of Transport Policy and Research and Development (RTD and the Intermodality Action Programme). • Guaranteeing administrative autonomy to the railways. and services and regulations. • Separating the management and control of the railway infrastructure from the operation of transport services by railway companies. Organisation At present. as defined by the ECMT.Annex 1 develop a framework for an optimal integration of different modes so as to enable an efficient and cost-effective use of the transport system through seamless.22 the promotion of combined transport23 and the Framework Programme for RTD. in response to the need to stimulate and improve the co-ordination of European research and to increase industry participation with the aim of bridging the gap between the scientific and the operational world. this right was only to be ensured for international groupings of railway companies. whilst favouring competition between transport operators”. The Commission’s services are currently preparing a report on the progress of the implementation of this action programme. together with Eurostat. Liberalisation of rail transport Some measures of liberalisation were addressed to combined transport (first road/rail then road/inland navigation). the Task Force provides a focal point for the wide range of stakeholders who have an interest in intermodal transport. The most important areas of action relate to: • The establishment of a uniform intermodal liability regime. 67 © OECD 2001 . • Guaranteeing railway companies which perform cross-border combined transport right of access to the railway nets of the EU member states. a lack of competitive forces is one reason for this development. railway operation a private one. customer-oriented door-to-door services. For unimodal freight and passenger railway transport.25 Comparisons of performance will also be facilitated by the benchmarking exercises now in preparation at the Commission. The railways in most European countries have long been state-owned. is the responsibility of the Directorate of Inland Transport’s Unit for Freight. are working to increase the availability of statistical data concerning intermodal freight transport. the EU issued Directive 91/440. operations and use of infrastructure.24 The Commission services (Transport DG). The industry showed a need to launch demonstration projects to accelerate the take-up of research results. • Standardisation of loading units. intermodal transport21 is handled by the Unit for Analysis and Transport Policy Development of the Directorate for Research and Development and Development of Transport Policy. The Task Force is to reflect on how to move from a modal approach to an integrated door-to-door operational approach. As result of government involvement and lack of competition. The main objectives of this Communication are to identify existing friction costs in intermodal transport and to propose an action programme. • The creation of an electronic commerce market for intermodal transport. In July 1991. many railway companies do not operate very efficiently and carry a considerable financial burden. The Community also allowed tax exemptions for road vehicles used in combined transport and state aid possibilities for equipment and infrastructure terminals. This directive was intended to facilitate the adaptation of the railways to the needs of the market and to increase their efficiency by: • Improving the financial structure of the railway companies. The Task Force Transport Intermodality was launched in 1995. The integration of modes is addressed at three levels: infrastructure and transport means. Combined transport. Within the offices of the European Commission. While doing so. as witnessed by its recent publication on the subject. The market share of European rail freight has decreased in the past 25 years. Instruments The Community has also shown its commitment to the promotion of intermodalism in transport through the legislation concerning the development of the Trans-European Networks. According to the European Commission.
improving interoperability and ensuring access to the networks. priorities and broad lines of measures. In 1996. Since the adoption of the Treaty on the Union in 1992. inland ports and intermodal terminals which is currently being discussed by the Community institutions. The amounts directly devoted to combined transport by these different funds are very limited. In practice. A point which needs attention for the large-scale introduction of competition on the rail tracks to be successful is the lack of harmonisation in the field of technology and regulations.31 In the guidelines for programmes of the Cohesion and Structural Funds for the period 2000-06. which are of an administrative nature. safety requirements differ between countries. and identifying projects of common interest. rail transport in all European countries remains exclusively in the hands of the national railways. Of more relevance are those devoted to railways that would reach 62% in the case of the TEN budget line. In the meantime. capacity allocation. intermodal transport operators can select the most efficient and convenient rail transport supplier. The package of measures intends to achieve further progress in the fields of charging. a railway package28 put forward by the Commission. the first practical steps have been taken in the direction of competition on the railway net in the form of “rail freight freeway” initiatives. The freight freeways are expected to usher in positive developments for the European intermodal transport situation. 16% in the case of the Structural Funds and 23% for the Cohesion Fund. is in discussion at the Council. The first three aspects. Ways of resolving these obstacles are actively being sought. the Trans-European Networks programme attempts to further develop these networks with activities aimed at linking national networks. concerning seaports. and from EUR 4 to EUR 6 billion through the Structural Funds. but a vision on the location of junction points has so far been left to the industry and to national and regional governments. The aim is to achieve better quality in the services provided. and among the priorities listed are found: the optimum combination and integration of the various modes of transport and the establishment of and improvement in interconnection points and intermodal platforms. according to a concept developed by the European Commission. and largely backed by the European Parliament. showing its concern about the current modal balance and requesting that priority be given to intermodal and combined transport systems. This is the purpose of an amendment to the TEN Guidelines.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Progress in the implementation of the various parts of the European Directive varies across countries. It should be noted that the European Parliament introduced a rule in the regulation on TEN financial support according to which at least 55% of the TEN transport budget line funds should be devoted to financing either railways or combined transport projects. EUR 4. there yet to be any genuine competition on the rail tracks. implemented in the European member States. it is not possible for conventional equipment to cross a border if the overhead wire voltage or the track gauge changes. For example. The latter funds only provide support to regions and states whose development is lagging behind. up to EUR 9 billion through the Cohesion Fund. was the White Paper on Competitiveness Growth and Employment. have been or will soon be. In the field of legislation.2 billion will be made available for TEN transport projects through the TEN transport budget line. The Guidelines include maps and criteria for the identification of projects of common interest belonging to the Combined Transport Network. telecommunication and energy distribution. If an intermodal operator wants to set up an international line. European infrastructure policy thus far lacks a coherent framework for terminal sites. existing rail and waterway networks will be modernised and expanded. The most important road and inland waterway routes have been developed at the European level. Europe has an extensive network for transport. however. the Community adopted Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network30 defining objectives. 68 © OECD 2001 .27 On these freeways. he is obliged to negotiate with the railway companies of the countries through which the route will pass. the Directive on the interoperability of high-speed trains is a model to follow. In this sense. One of the stated objectives is to encourage intermodalism. In the period 2000-06. the Commission sets out its priorities. In the context of the transport programme. To achieve further progress. The Trans-European Networks (TENs) The Commission’s policy response to the recession of 1992/1993 and the subsequent rise in unemployment. which saw the TENs as an important instrument for the achievement of economic growth and the reduction of unemployment. separation of infrastructure management and operation and licensing.26 A majority of EU countries have taken the first steps to open up certain corridors. and that at most 25% could be used to finance road projects. Intermodal transport could gain from a coherent TEN vision at the European level between industry and governments as to the location of important junction points and as to clear criteria for the public funding of terminals. Since the locomotives of the railways in one country provide no service in other countries. This right of access to the railway networks has not yet been implemented in all countries. The price-quality ratio of rail transport is expected to improve once European Directive 91/440 and the subsequent legislation29 has been implemented by the EU member states and genuine competition can take place. Several countries consider that this lack of harmonisation in legislation and regulations represents a major obstacle to the growth of intermodal transport.
A close link has also been established between RTD projects and the PACT projects (Pilot Actions for Combined Transport). • Promoting the use of advanced technology in intermodal transport. Certain aspects of the project organisation have been improved. several tasks within the key action on “Sustainable mobility and intermodality” of the Fifth Framework Programme relate directly to the different areas of friction costs identified in the policy-setting Communication on “Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European Union” and in its action programme. The Community provides support to the development of intermodal transport through targeted projects of research and technological development. PACT allocates funding for: • Investments in intermodal equipment and transhipment facilities. The first PACT programme ran from 1992 to 1996. On the basis of the task force activities. which will benefit the competitiveness of the sector as a whole. The general objective of this programme is to contribute to intensifying the use of intermodal transport wherever it is economically feasible in the long term (as an alternative to unimodal road transport). EU member states and industry. feasibility studies of certain pilot routes are financed. in addition to two concerted actions. and it provides results to be used in the design of policies. thanks to this. Fourth Framework Programme (FP4) for RTD (1994-98) The Transport Programme of FP4 included 30 research projects aimed at the improvement of the quality of terminals and of the network. financial support is terminated. Research results are used in the revision of the TEN guidelines and in the preparation of legislation on combined transport. Founded in 1995. The task force is now being replaced with thematic networks that will make the link between the European Commission. one on logistics and one on transfer points. If a project has not led to the desired results within the agreed period or if it proves not to be economically viable. Results are used as input in DG Transport policy: preparation of the revision of the TEN guidelines. Research The relationship of the research and policy units is a two-way relationship: it draws inspiration from policy for future research projects. They are felt to be positive incentives to the development of intermodal transport. During this period. The core mandate of this task force was to improve co-ordination of existing and planned research activities as well as to highlight priorities for future research. In addition. Task Force on Transport Intermodality The “Task Force on Intermodality” is the instrument through which stakeholders from industry and academia have been able to influence the content of the research programmes and the policies derived from them. The task force has launched clustering activities with other research fields of the Community. The new PACT programme will again run for five years. 69 © OECD 2001 . competition in the provision of intermodal transport services will become more intense. The RTD activities of the European Community are basically organised through the Framework Programmes.Annex 1 Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (the PACT programme) The European Commission started the Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT) programme in 1992. The programme was set up to supplement and support the activities related to the creation of the Trans-European Networks. The industry feedback showed a need to launch demonstration projects in order to accelerate the take-up of research results. Under the PACT programme. For instance. The budget is ECU 35 million for the entire duration. • Improving the accessibility of infrastructure. • Commercial operation of new technologies and techniques. both on price and on service aspects. On the other hand. Transport research gained importance with the Fourth Framework Programme. from 1997 to 2001. in particular with Telematics Applications and Industrial Technologies Programmes. • Improving access to the sector of intermodal transport for transport companies. and specific objectives have been formulated which can be summarised as follows: • Improving the competitiveness of intermodal transport as compared to unimodal road transport. and the revision of regulations and directives on combined transport. Projects can be subsidised for a maximum of three years. the new programme more strictly monitors the execution of projects. 99 projects received a total of nearly ECU 20 million. The Trans-European Networks and PACT programmes have borne many fruits and are expected to continue to do so in the near future. it set up round tables with international associations of stakeholders in intermodal freight and passenger transport and produced a number of reports. future research requirements have been defined.
• New organisational structures for commercial and operational activities in combined transport to help develop international ro-la and ro-ro systems.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects The Joint Call on Intermodality. fiscal incentives and exemptions for combined transport. • Transport of goods in and around cities. provides for the development and modernisation of railway lines which complement the existing railway transport system. Slovenia provides financial support. 780/96. from the works of the Task Force on “Transport Intermodality”): • Socio-economic scenarios for intermodal freight transport. Land transport and Marine Technologies (DG RTD). Fifth Framework Programme (FP5) for RTD (1998-2002) Research on Intermodal Freight Transport in FP5 can be found mostly in three key actions: Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality (DG Transport). • The transfer of customs clearance of complete trains to the dispatch and destination terminals of combined transport. Non-member responses Responses received from the Slovak Republic and Slovenia are set out below. five priority areas of research have been defined for the development of intermodal freight transport and logistics (resulting. The “National Programme for the Development of Rail Transport Infrastructure”. • Intermodal transport management systems. launched in December 1997. Slovenia Slovenia has signed the “Transport Agreement between the Republic of Slovenia and the European Union”. was another example of collaboration between research fields (DG Transport and DG Information Society). As a result. Inside the key action “Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality”. 70 © OECD 2001 . A number of initiatives related to combined transport policies are currently underway. Under resolution No. the following issues are being addressed: • The conditions for state contribution to the price of transport in the Ro-La system for the period 1998-2000. in which it agreed to take all steps necessary to develop and promote combined transport and ensure that in the future all transport operations are performed under more environmentally friendly conditions. • Interoperability and transfer points. the Commission launched 13 projects in autumn 1998 (eight of which dealt with freight transport). and Systems and Services for the Citizens (DG Information Society). Posts and Telecommunications has a dedicated section for combined transport. and for the modernisation of facilities and equipment in terminals. to a large extent. Slovak Republic The Ministry of Transport. • To extend exemptions from bans on driving during holiday periods for combined transport operators. • Freight transport services. adopted in 1995.
Annex 2 Annex 2 INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP Chairman: Fred Heuer (The Netherlands) Members of the Sub-Group on Assessing the Institutional Aspects of Intermodalism Garry Tulipan Brigitte Parent Miroslav Kubasek Shunsuke Otsuka Yuri Fursusawa Shinri Sone Yosuke Wakabayashi Marjolein Masclee Henriette Noordhof Matthias Rinderknecht Elizabeth McDonnell Kevin Swarbrick Harry Caldwell Vincent Pedret-Cusco Bert Schacknies Anthony Ockwell Maj Theander John White (Canada) (Canada) (Czech Republic) (Japan) (Japan) (Japan) (Japan) (Netherlands) (Netherlands) (Switzerland) (United Kingdom) (United Kingdom) (United States) (European Commission – DGVII) (US/DOT/FHWA) (OECD Secretariat) (OECD Secretariat) (OECD Secretariat) 71 © OECD 2001 .
uk 14.htm 2. www. France.uk 11. index. COM(97)243 final of 29 May 1997. 20. COM(95)302 of 12 December 1995. COM(98)480 final of 22 July 1998. Defined as any combination of at least two modes of transport. www.htm 8.uk 13.uk 7.detr. www. Luxembourg.uk/itwp/index. www. 19. These will show in blue when viewed using Word 97 or above and the optional hyperlink setting is active.uk 10.gov. COM(98)716 of 21 December 1998.shipping.gov. “The Common Transport Policy Action Programme 1995-2000”. 27.uk 9.gov. “The Common Transport Policy.uk/c onsult/ppg13/index. 30.uk 15. 23.cfit. www. www. www. Directives 95/18 on operating licences. 18.gov. 21.Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects Notes 1. Germany. Official Journal L 277 of 14 July 1998. Austria.dot.gov.fhwa. This document contains hotlinks to DETR and other Web site addresses. Luxembourg.gov. 1692/96 on the Community Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. A strategy for revitalising the Community’s railways. Communication on “Cohesion and Transport”.htm 3. 2196/98 of 1 October 1998 concerning the granting of Community financial assistance for actions of an innovative nature to promote combined transport. www. 29.railtrack.detr.uk 12.gov. 24.gov.uk/itwp/susdi st/index. Decision 182/1999/EC of 22 October 1998 concerning the 5th Framework Programme for RTD (1998-2002). www.gov 16.dvla. United Kingdom-Sopron (still under discussion) will link United Kingdom to Hungary. Official Journal L49 of 25 February 1999.ews-railway. Belifret (Belgium.htm 6.co.htm 4. as well as the railways package in discussion.uk/ctrl /rotemap.co.railways. COM(96)421 final of 30 July 1996. “The Future Development of the Common Transport Policy”. 22. www. COM(92)494 of 2 December 1992. Spain). North-South (the Netherlands.detr.gov. www.abports. Decision No.cnc. Italy.gov. 72 31.detr.detr. Decision No. 25.uk/c onsult/ppg11/2. © OECD 2001 . 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996. “Intermodal Freight Transport: Key Statistical Data 1992-1997”.gov.detr.highways.dot. 26. Italy). Regulation (EC) No.planning.htm 5. OOPEC 1999. Switzerland.gov 17. 28. Sustainable Mobility: Perspectives for the Future” . Scanways (3 EU Nordic countries and Norway). www.sra.co.planning. and 95/19 on allocation of capacity and pricing. www. www. Official Journal L228 of 9 September 1996. www. COM(98)806. www.detr.
LES ÉDITIONS DE L'OCDE. rue André-Pascal. 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16 IMPRIMÉ EN FRANCE (77 2001 01 1 P) ISBN 92-64-18394-9 – No. 51649 2001 . 2.