Download - OECD - Intermodal Freight Transport

Intermodal Freight TransportINSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS

TRANSPORT

ISBN 92-64-18394-977 2001 01 1 P

-:HSTCQE=V]X^YU:

Intermodal Freight TransportINSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS

«What is intermodal transport? What are its "institutional aspects"? What is effectiveintermodal transport policy and how does it differ from road transport policy or railtransport policy? Today's highly competitive global marketplace calls for a policyframework that can evolve to meet the expectations of users. This new report providesinsight into these and other issues.

TRANSPORT

www.oecd.org

All OECD books and publications are now available on line

www.sourceoecd.org

© 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 materialsand 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

INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came intoforce on 30th September 1961, 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 ofliving in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to thedevelopment of the world economy;

– to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in theprocess of economic development; and

– to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis inaccordance with international obligations.

The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France,Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countriesbecame Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan(28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973),Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland(22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). TheCommission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECDConvention).

Publié en français sous le titre :

TRANSPORT INTERMODAL DE MARCHANDISESAspects institutionnels

© OECD 2001Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtainedthrough the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris,France, Tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, Fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the UnitedStates permission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA, or CCC Online: www.copyright.com. All other applications forpermission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications,2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

3

FOREWORD

The OECD’s Road Transport and Intermodal Linkage (RTR) Research Programme for 1998-2000included a mandate for the establishment of an Intermodal Freight Transportation Advisory Group. Themandate continues the OECD’s commitment to review the current state of freight-related transportresearch covering all OECD Member countries and regions. Previous work carried out by the RTRProgramme has shown that economic growth and development require a greater effort on the part ofpublic sector transport regulators and infrastructure providers to meet the evolving expectations ofprivate sector shippers and service providers operating in a highly competitive global marketplace.

The Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group will examine key topics focusing on criticalaspects of the role of governments in promoting intermodal transport, including:

• Institutional aspects.

• Benchmarking and system performance measures.

• International freight corridor development

These topics are being addressed in sequence. The research agenda is intended to help define theelements of an intermodal freight transport system that makes efficient use of the various transportmodes involved in the management of supply chains from the producers of raw materials to theconsumers of final products. This report on Institutional Aspects of Intermodal Transport represents theinitial output of the Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group. It is published on the responsibilityof the Secretary-General of the OECD.

© OECD 2001

4

OECD RTR PROGRAMME

INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORT: INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS

Abstract

Industry has increasingly adopted an intermodal approach to the provision of transport servicesrequired by users. The main reasons for government involvement in intermodal transport policy are topromote the efficient use of infrastructure, facilitate improved services to users and addressenvironmental concerns associated with the use of individual transport modes. Intermodal policydevelopment is especially important where governments own transport infrastructure (such as portsand terminals) and transport business operations (such as rail freight operators). Even in countries witha high degree of reliance on market forces, governments need appropriate intermodal policies to beable to deal with efficiency, taxes and charges and environmental issues on a transport system basis.Organisational arrangements are important to intermodal policy development and operations.Intermodal transport policy units or other institutional arrangements tailored to intermodalrequirements can provide a greater policy focus and improve communications with industry as well aswithin government. OECD Member countries have developed a variety of policy instruments andmeasures which aim to improve intermodal transport outcomes. Further work is being undertaken todevelop benchmarks for intermodal performance and policy options to address remainingimpediments to intermodal efficiency.

© OECD 2001

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects ................................................................................. 7

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Background and tasks ...................................................................................................................................... 7Modal approaches are necessary prerequisites… but not sufficient ........................................................ 7Different approaches can be taken, depending on governmental involvement in transport

ownership/provision and transport operations .................................................................................... 8Policy instruments ............................................................................................................................................ 8Communication between intermodal transport policy units and other actors......................................... 8Performance-based outcomes ........................................................................................................................ 8Identification and removal of impediments.................................................................................................. 9

Chapter 1. The project .................................................................................................................................... 11

Background and tasks ...................................................................................................................................... 11Definition ........................................................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 2. Intermodal Transport Challenges.............................................................................................. 13

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 13Why promote intermodal policies? ................................................................................................................ 14Measuring the extent of intermodalism......................................................................................................... 15Specific problems concerning intermodal transport.................................................................................... 20

Chapter 3. Policies, Organisational Structures and Instruments: An Overview .................................... 23

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 23Intermodal policy statements ......................................................................................................................... 23Organisational structures ................................................................................................................................. 25Instruments........................................................................................................................................................ 25

Chapter 4. National Policies and Organisational Structures.................................................................... 29

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 29Austria ................................................................................................................................................................ 29Canada................................................................................................................................................................ 29Czech Republic ................................................................................................................................................. 30Finland ............................................................................................................................................................... 31Germany............................................................................................................................................................. 31Hungary .............................................................................................................................................................. 32Italy ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32Japan................................................................................................................................................................... 33Mexico ................................................................................................................................................................ 34The Netherlands ............................................................................................................................................... 34Norway................................................................................................................................................................ 35Switzerland ........................................................................................................................................................ 36United Kingdom................................................................................................................................................ 37United States..................................................................................................................................................... 37European Union ................................................................................................................................................ 38

© OECD 2001

Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects

6

Chapter 5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 41

Aim and rationale for intermodal transport ................................................................................................... 41Modal approaches are necessary… but not sufficient................................................................................. 41Different approaches can be taken, depending on governmental involvement in transport

ownership/provision and transport operations..................................................................................... 42Policy instruments............................................................................................................................................. 42Communication between intermodal transport policy units and other actors ......................................... 43Performance-based outcomes......................................................................................................................... 44Identification and removal of impediments .................................................................................................. 44

Annex 1: Policies and organisational structures in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom,the United States and the European Union .................................................................................. 45

The Netherlands................................................................................................................................................ 45Research and development............................................................................................................................. 49United Kingdom ................................................................................................................................................ 52United Kingdom intermodal traffic – Further statistics................................................................................ 61United States ..................................................................................................................................................... 62European Union ................................................................................................................................................ 66Non-member responses .................................................................................................................................. 70Slovak Republic................................................................................................................................................. 70Slovenia .............................................................................................................................................................. 70

Annex 2: Intermodal Freight Transportation Advisory Group ..................................................................... 71

Notes................................................................................................................................................................... 72

Tables

1. Intermodal transport in the Netherlands............................................................................................... 162. Intermodal transport in Canada .............................................................................................................. 173. Intermodal transport in the Czech Republic ......................................................................................... 174. Intermodal freight transport in the United Kingdom ........................................................................... 185. Intermodal transport in Japan.................................................................................................................. 186. EU Intermodal freight transport .............................................................................................................. 197. Explicit objectives of national governments with respect to intermodal transport ......................... 248. Legislation and regulations favouring intermodal transport, 1997 ..................................................... 26

Annex

A1. Toolkit for intermodal policy fields ........................................................................................................ 49A2. Intermodal transport in the Netherlands............................................................................................... 50A3. Intermodal transport in the Netherlands............................................................................................... 51A4. Freight facilities grants ............................................................................................................................. 60A5. Track access grants.................................................................................................................................... 60A6. Unitised/containerised tonnage imported or exported via the Channel Tunnel, 1996 .................... 61A7. Unitised/containerised automotive and other tonnage imported or exported via the Channel

Tunnel, 1996 ........................................................................................................................................... 61A8. Breakdown of inland water freight by type............................................................................................ 62

Figures

A1. Relationship between freight tonne-kilometres and GDP .................................................................. 57A2. Relationship between vehicle-kilometres and GDP ............................................................................ 58

© OECD 2001

7

INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORT: INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and tasks

This project on institutional aspects aimed to compare and assess the impact of differentorganisational structures on transport planning and intermodal policy development. The key focus wasthe government – rather than the private – sector. The starting point was the observation that transportpolicy and organisational arrangements have generally developed along modal lines, which may hinderthe adoption of a co-ordinated intermodal approach. The project was not aimed at identifying andremoving impediments to intermodal transport operations. These are properly matters for later work.

This report does not address whether one policy (or combination of policies) is more effective orappropriate than another, but rather provides a “toolkit” for setting up intermodal arrangements orevaluating organisational structures on intermodal transport.

Definition of intermodalism

Intermodalism is not limited to the promotion of a modal shift from road transport to other modes.It also stands for the promotion of improvements in the transport chain without modal shift. For thepurpose of this study, a fairly general and broad definition has been chosen.

Intermodalism implies the use of at least two different modes of transport in an integrated manner in a door-to-doortransport chain.

While the concept of intermodalism encompasses all freight movements involving two or more modesof transportation, the principal focus in this study was on movement of non-bulk and containerised freight.

Modal approaches are necessary prerequisites… but not sufficient

• Intermodal transport is hampered if the performance of any of the key transport modes isinadequate or if the linkages between modes are not efficient and reliable. Many of the policymeasures considered likely to promote “intermodalism” include – but are not limited to – mode-specific actions.

• In most countries, there is emphasis in the policy frameworks on promoting transport efficiencyand facilitating modal reform. While the approaches to achieving transport efficiencyimprovements differ, policy frameworks generally support competitive operating environments.

• In order to achieve improvements in efficiency and environmental outcomes that go beyondthose that can be realised by purely modal policies, many countries are now consideringtransport issues from the perspective of the whole door-to-door transport chain.

– It is difficult to design and implement “true” intermodal measures given that the costs can oftenbe considerable (and beyond the resources of individual users) while the benefits can be widelydispersed across a range of users and difficult to recover under current pricing systems.

© OECD 2001


8

Different approaches can be taken, 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 policydevelopment and the intermodal actions taken by their transport operations.

• In countries where there is increasing private ownership and/or operation of transportinfrastructure (as governments have withdrawn from involvement in commercial transportoperations), intermodal transport improvements are largely driven by industry interests (shippersand carriers) seeking to provide value-added services and find least-cost solutions totransportation problems.

• In countries with a high level of reliance on market forces and private infrastructure ownershipand operations, there are nevertheless a number of policy issues relating to the efficiency oftransport services, charging and taxing regimes and environmental aspects of transportinfrastructure and operations that require intermodal policy consideration.

Policy instruments

– Transport administrations with established and dedicated intermodal transport programmes andresources – such as a special action programme, a special task force, an intermodal transportpolicy unit or other similar organisational provisions – have developed more explicit and morefocused intermodal transport policies than have transport administrations having purely “mono”-modal units.

• Governments that are more interventionist or more directly involved in ownership of transportoperations are also likely to use regulatory measures such as licensing exemptions and drivingbans at specified times to favour intermodal transport. In countries with greater reliance onmarket forces, use of such regulatory instruments by government is limited.

Communication between intermodal transport policy units and other actors

• Intermodal policy development requires co-operative arrangements between government andthe private sector.

• Intermodal transport policies and improvements need to be developed co-operatively withmodal approaches to ensure that they are targeted at existing impediments and aimed at gettingthe linkages right.

– The likelihood of intermodal transport policy being successful depends on the relationshipbetween intermodal transport policy units (or other policy structures), industry advisory bodiesand other stakeholders.

Performance-based outcomes

– Possible organisational benchmarks can be identified, but it is extremely difficult to measure theeffectiveness of a policy and even more difficult to compare the effectiveness of policies indifferent countries. Instead, the approaches outlined provide a “toolkit” for countries whensetting up intermodal arrangements or considering organisational structures for intermodaltransport.

– The true value of intermodal approaches should be assessed in terms of performance “on theground”, rather than in terms of factors such as institutional arrangements alone.

– Intermodal projects should be evaluated on a “case-by-case” basis, working with the private andpublic sector organisations involved. Such an approach is similar to that adopted in many otheraspects of transport (such as safety) where macro indicators may not provide a reliable guide tothe effectiveness of individual programmes.

© OECD 2001

Executive Summary

9

Identification and removal of impediments

• Further work should concentrate on developing benchmarks for monitoring intermodalperformance of modes, modal combinations and modal interfaces and identifying policy optionsfor governments to address impediments to intermodal efficiency.

© OECD 2001

11

Chapter 1

THE PROJECT

Background and tasks

The OECD’s Road Transport and Intermodal Linkage (RTR) Research Programme for the 1998-2000period, included a mandate for the establishment of an Intermodal Freight Transportation AdvisoryGroup. The mandate continues the OECD’s commitment to review the current state of freight-relatedtransport research covering all OECD Member countries and regions. A number of conferences andseminars, organised or co-sponsored by the OECD and various stakeholders as part of the TRILOG(Trilateral Logistics) project, have shown that the economic growth and development dynamics requirea greater effort on the part of public sector transport regulators and infrastructure providers tounderstand and meet the evolving expectations of private sector shippers and service providersoperating in a highly competitive global marketplace.

The Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group has debated a wide range of public and privatesector concerns and issued a report to the RTR Steering Committee, which in turn authorised theAdvisory Group to proceed with the further investigation of three topics, selected from a list of possibleresearch areas. The key topics chosen focused on critical aspects of the governments’ role in promotingintermodalism, namely:

• Institutional aspects.

• Benchmarking and system performance measures.

• International freight corridor development.

Each of these topics is being addressed in sequence. The research agenda, separately andcollectively, is intended to help define the elements of an intermodal freight transport system thatmakes equitable and efficient use of the advantages of the various transport modes involved in themanagement of supply chains from the producers of raw materials to the consumers of final products.The members of the Advisory Group participating in the respective sub-group activities have benefitedfrom the results of the OECD TRILOG Conferences sponsored by the North American Task Force held inMexico City (1997), Toronto (1998) and Washington (1998), as well as the conferences organised by theAsia Task Force held in Tokyo (1998) and the European Task Force seminars held in Brussels (1998). Inaddition, the members have been involved in conferences on intermodal transport sponsored bynational industry associations, academic institutes and state and local government agencies, as well asvarious international finan ce institutions and other multilateral entities.

This report reflects contributions of participants at the sub-group meetings held in Paris in April andNovember of 1999 and written communications issued either preceding or following the discussions aswell as contributions received by the working group from other sources.

The project on institutional aspects aimed to compare and assess the impact of differentorganisational structures on transport planning and policy development. The key focus was thegovernment – rather than the private – sector. The starting point was the observation that transportpolicy and organisational arrangements have generally developed along modal lines, which may hinderthe adoption of a co-ordinated multimodal approach. The institutional aspects project was not aimed atidentifying and removing impediments to intermodal transport operations. These are properly mattersfor later stages of the work. The benchmarking part of the project will report on measures to assess the

© OECD 2001


12

performance of modes and modal combinations, while the freight corridors work will consider existingimpediments to intermodal transport and recommend improvements.

The tasks established for the project on institutional aspects included:

• The development of benchmarks to compare the effectiveness of different organisationalstructures in delivering cohesive transport policies.

• Comparing different national and international organisations and their mechanisms to developintegrated transport policy options.

• Assessing the extent to which countries are reviewing regulations to improve intermodaltransport, with consideration being given to the current state of play for transport policy making.

In the course of the project, it was determined that the first task was not completely feasible: it ispossible to identify benchmarks, but it is extremely difficult to measure the effectiveness of a policyand even more difficult to compare the effectiveness of policies in different countries. At any one time,many interacting policies (both modal and intermodal) are at play. Therefore, this report does notaddress whether one policy (or combination of policies) is more effective or appropriate than another,but rather provides a “toolkit” for setting up intermodal arrangements or evaluating organisationalstructures on intermodal transport.

Definition

Many concepts and definitions are used, depending on the context and objectives. For example, thenotion of “multimodal transport” is generally used for the carriage of goods by at least two modes. Thenotion of “intermodal transport,” as used in the common terminology in force within the European Union(EU), UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) and the European Conference of Ministers forTransport (ECMT), concerns the movement of goods in one and the same loading unit (e.g. a container) orvehicle which uses successively several modes of transport without handling of the goods themselves whilechanging modes. In the same terminology, the notion of “combined transport” is used for intermodaltransport of unitised cargo where the major part of the European journey is by rail and any initial or final legis carried out by road. For EU subsidy schemes, this definition is even more detailed.

In the light of the objectives that appeared to predominate in most of the countries studied in thisproject, it should be emphasised that, in this report, intermodalism refers to the goal of making the optimal use ofall the various modes of transportation. This notion assumes that the use of multiple modes for a single tripcan be advantageous from both an efficiency and environmental point of view. All freight movementsinvolving at least two or more modes of transportation, from a point of origin to a destination, cantherefore be defined as intermodal. The modes involved can encompass van and truck, railroad, bargeand ship, air cargo liner and pipeline.

Characterised in this way, intermodalism is not limited to the promotion of a modal shift from roadtransport to other modes. It also stands for the promotion of improvements in the transport chainwithout modal shift. For the purposes of this study, a fairly general and broad definition ofintermodalism has been chosen.

Definition

Intermodalism implies the use of at least two different modes of transport in an integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain.

While the concept of intermodalism encompasses all freight movements involving two or moremodes of transportation. It should also be emphasised that the principal focus in this study was on themovement of non-bulk and containerised freight.

© OECD 2001

13

Chapter 2

INTERMODAL TRANSPORT CHALLENGES

Introduction

Intermodal transport, in the context of the seamless movement of goods from origin to destination by two ormore modes, is a growing component of the transportation sector. With heightened emphasis on increasedproductivity and efficiency in the transportation industry, the importance placed by the manufacturingand service sectors on such concepts as “just-in-time” delivery, the shift towards e-business/e-commerceapplications and the ever-increasing movement towards a global economy, mode-specific approachesare no longer able to meet effectively the needs of shippers, manufacturers and consumers. Industry isnow thinking in terms of the management of the entire supply chain. In turn, governments are re-examining policies and legislative/regulatory frameworks to ensure that the provision and managementof transportation networks and infrastructure are able to meet the needs of the future.

This chapter presents the background to the development of intermodal policies; the ways inwhich such policies are being monitored and the challenges Member countries face in implementingtheir policies, particularly at an international level. It introduces the various approaches adopted byMember countries to policy setting, and points the way towards the conclusions presented in Chapter 5.Overall, it would appear that there is no set path to developing intermodal policy – different situationsrequire different approaches. While a prerequisite for effective and efficient intermodal transport isadequate performance of the individual modes, a mode-specific approach does not appear to besufficient to achieving efficient intermodal transport systems.

In the main, intermodal policies have developed out of a desire to improve the efficiency and theeffectiveness with which the entire transport network is used. Support of economic growth,improvement of transport cost effectiveness and reduction of environmental and social impacts werethe main justifications for the adoption of intermodal policies in Member countries. Promoting efficientlinkages between all modes of transport is widely considered to be a prerequisite to such a policy.

The development of intermodal indicators would be helpful in assessing the current state ofintermodalism and evaluating the success of past policies and instruments. However, Member countrydefinitions of what constitutes intermodal transport vary widely. This means that the indicators used tomonitor the success of individual policies also vary extensively, making data comparisons difficult andnot always meaningful. Countries which were able to provide data, did so in a mode-specific manner –there is a lack of true intermodal data. Most Member countries use narrow definitions of intermodaltransport, such as “containerised rail and marine volumes” and “modal split data”. It is doubtful thatmany countries could readily provide data concerning “true” intermodal volumes, i.e. the volume oftraffic, from point of origin to final destination, which moves on more than one mode of transport. Thislack of data comparability among countries indicates a serious problem if any further analytical work isto be undertaken.

Most OECD countries are concerned with the efficiency, related costs and performance ofintermodal transport, while cross-border issues are important in all OECD regions. One of the majorconcerns for European countries is the standardisation and uniformity of intermodal transportequipment and operations as well as the regulation of railways. There is also concern regarding the lackof harmonisation with respect to current technology. In North America, border-crossings, in terms ofmore efficient customs and clearance procedures, are paramount if intermodalism is to meet shipper

© OECD 2001


14

and carrier expectations. Outstanding issues concerning the harmonisation of weights and dimensionsand regional taxation regimes have to be addressed. In Japan, issues associated with being an islandnation (e.g. difficulties in negotiating more open and expeditious customs and border procedures withother countries) are a problem.

Why promote intermodal policies?

Until relatively recently, governments and non-government organisations (NGOs) werepreoccupied with mode-specific approaches to the movement of passengers and freight. In the caseof freight, while the transfer of goods from one mode to another in the process of movement fromorigin to destination has always existed, the emphasis on a seamless, efficient transfer has onlyrecently taken on importance. The advent of globalisation, “just-in-time” approaches to inventory forthe manufacturing and retail sectors, congestion, increasing environmental concerns, scarce resourcesand the current trend towards e-business/e-commerce applications are all challenges that thetransportation system is being forced to meet, and each of these challenges has in turn contributedto the recognition of the need for efficient, effective intermodal transport approaches andcorresponding policies.

The concept of “intermodal” transportation was introduced into the public policy arena in thelate 1970s. European governments recognised the advantages of intermodalism, having promotedefficient interfaces between passenger transport systems long before the safety aspects andenvironmental impacts associated with freight movements became issues of public concern. OECDMembers and governments in other parts of the world have also recognised the need for efficiencyimprovements in intermodal transportation and have adopted the principles of efficiency andsustainability in their legislative frameworks.

Intermodal transportation is at the heart of global trade and provides the arteries through whichfreight moves efficiently and cost-effectively across oceans, along coastal and inland waterways, throughports and terminals, on rail and by highways and roads. Global economic growth and developmentcould not be sustained without intermodal transport. Most of the world’s export-import trade is movedby ship – but also by a variety of other modes and equipment between ports and inland destinations.The volume and value of goods moved are increasing relative to changes in Gross Domestic Productand in response to the liberalisation of trade. The cost of transportation is decreasing in real terms inresponse to global competition among shippers and carriers and advances in technology. With theprojected growth of international trade and global logistics needs, the role of transport will becomeeven more important in the future.

As global freight transport volumes have increased, the external costs of traffic congestion,accidents, air pollution and noise have become more apparent, not only as an issue of concern for thequality of life, but also with respect to their potential for disrupting economic growth and mobility. As aresult, one of the major challenges facing the transportation industry is the need to introduce a moreefficient, modally integrated service which utilises spare capacity in other modes. One of the majorconcerns of OECD governments is that unless an efficient, modally integrated service can be achieved,road transport is likely to increase both its present market share and its external costs. It is becomingapparent that the policy instruments used for a “business-as-usual” approach cannot solve the futureproblems associated with transport. Changes leading to a more systematic and comprehensiveapproach are therefore required. Intermodalism is not a silver bullet, but it does present an importantpolicy tool which can enable this systematic and comprehensive approach to transportation and user-oriented services.

One of the main objectives in developing intermodal policy is to ensure that the entire freightdistribution network is used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Member countries consider thatthis should be done in a manner that supports continued economic growth while at the same timeminimising the impacts of distribution on society and the environment. In this way, a policy for intermodaltransport can support a policy for sustainable development. One prerequisite for such a vision is toensure that freight can interchange between modes smoothly, efficiently and at least cost – that the

© OECD 2001

Intermodal Transport Challenges

15

network is seamless and fully integrated. Achieving this goal calls for a regulatory and planning policyframework which is designed to encourage the development of an integrated freight infrastructure andensure a strategic system of intermodal transfer points and intermodal facilities at industry parks.

Better utilisation of railways, ports and shipping services can play a vital role in building asustainable freight distribution system. When used effectively, railways and shipping can in many casesoffer a more energy-efficient and less polluting means of freight carriage than road transport. Thetransfer of goods from road to alternative modes (modal shift) can also play a part in reducingcongestion and improving safety. If all modes perform well, industry benefits through the provision ofchoice, greater competition and potential cost savings, particularly on long-haul and internationaljourneys. In most instances, intermodal transport policies in Member countries are thus designed tostimulate:

• Modal shift from road transport to railways, inland waterways, coastal shipping and pipelines.

• An effective and efficient seamless transportation chain, for example by improving interoperabilityand the quality of the interfaces.

In order to achieve these objectives, policies cannot be aimed at the transport infrastructure orlogistic service providers alone. They also need to address factors influencing the choices made byshippers and various governmental organisations, particularly where those factors arise from inefficiencieselsewhere in the transport system.

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 thetrip to which it is best suited.

• Increasing economic productivity and efficiency, thereby enhancing the nation’s globalcompetitiveness.

• Reducing congestion and the burden on over-stressed infrastructure investments.

• Reducing energy consumption and contributing to improved air quality and environmentalconditions.

Before assessing the policies and organisational structures of Member countries, an effort wasmade to assess the share of intermodalism in total transport activities and to identify specific problemsin OECD countries.

Measuring the extent of intermodalism

Both quantitative and qualitative indicators should be considered in any assessment of thecurrent share of intermodalism. While quantitative indicators may provide a more objective picture,not all countries appeared to be in a position to readily supply the required data. To achieve truecomparability among Member countries, data would need to be harmonised. However, as a first step, inan effort to minimise both data compilation and the reporting burden, a very simple set of quantitativeindicators were collected.

Quantitative performance indicators

The following indicators were used by Member countries to monitor developments in intermodalfreight transport:

• Tonnes lifted by rail.

• Tonne-kilometres moved by rail.

• Tonnes lifted by inland shipping.

• Tonne-kilometres moved by inland shipping.

• Tonne-kilometres moved by coastal shipping.

• Tonnes lifted by maritime shipping.

© OECD 2001


16

• Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) by rail.

• TEUs by inland shipping.

• TEUs by coastal shipping.

• TEUs by maritime shipping.

Specific data were received from five countries: Canada, the Czech Republic, Japan, theNetherlands and the United Kingdom. In addition, the European Commission provided key statisticaldata relating to intermodal transport. These indicators relate to individual modes and do not considerthe transport chain as a whole.

It is difficult to reach any substantive conclusions regarding intermodal transport statistics in OECDcountries based on the information provided. In part, this is due to the paucity of data. It is also due tothe use of different definitions. For example, the Japanese statistics do not include internationalmaritime freight. Canada’s figures only include containerised freight. The EU figures report tonne-kilometres moved. It is clear that geographical differences will be a significant factor in understandingthe role of intermodal transport. Island countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan can beexpected to have a high proportion of international intermodal traffic, invariably by sea. In comparison,the Netherlands, while part of mainland Europe, has a river and canal system capable of handlingmodern transport requirements.

Table 1. Intermodal transport in the NetherlandsDefined as the share of container transport in total transport (domestic and international)

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 Europeancountries. Tonnes deep sea: international transport over sea to countries outside Europe. Tonnes pipeline: total tonnes per pipeline. Per-centage intermodal rail: the total weight of unitised goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the total of goods lifted by rail. Percentageintermodal deep sea maritime: total of all container expressed as a percentage of total maritime traffic. Percentage intermodal inland ship-ping: the total weight of unitised maritime goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the total of goods lifted by inland shipping. TEUs loadedrail/inland shipping: number of loaded TEUs transported by rail/inland shipping. International: import, export and throughput throughthe Netherlands. Domesestination within the Netherlands.

Source: Verkeer Economische Verkenningen, 1998-2003; Beleidseffect Rapportage, 1998. Further details on these intermodal volumes are provided in Annex.

1986 1995 1996 1997

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Total (domestic/international)

Tonnes road (millions) 456 545 547 3 573 7Tonnes rail (millions) 19 17 16 21 19 24Tonnes inland shipping (millions) 238 228 237 3 250 4Tonnes deep sea (millions) 195 209 203 14 212 15Tonnes short sea (millions) 127 134 152 9 163 9Tonnes pipeline (millions) 39 52 58 – 63 –Sub-total 1 074 1 185 1 213 6 1 280 8

TEUs TEUs TEUs TEUs

TEUs (domestic + international)

TEUs road (‘000) 3 478 3 659TEUs rail (‘000) n.a. n.a. 348 407TEUs inland shipping (‘000) n.a. n.a. 787 858TEUs short sea 862 1 486 1 618TEUs deep sea 1 420 2 879 3 162

© OECD 2001


17

At first glance, it would appear that the trends (over the period 1986-97) observed for Canada,Japan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom differ significantly:

• In the Netherlands, tonnages for both rail and inland shipping increased significantly. However,the proportion of intermodal transport, as measured by containerised shipments, remainedstable. In Canada, both tonnage (rail and maritime) and the proportion of intermodal transportincreased from a total of 6.5% in 1986 to 9.4% in 1997.

• In the Czech Republic, tonnages have fallen.

• In the United Kingdom, maritime tonnage has increased. Over the same period, the tonnagecarried by rail initially fell but is now recovering. While the tonnage carried by inland shippingfell slightly, its contribution to intermodal transport rose. For the years for which figures areavailable, the proportion of UK intermodal transport is approximately 20%, reflecting in part thesignificance of maritime-related intermodal transport for an island country.

Table 2. Intermodal transport in Canada

Notes: n.a.: not available. Tonnes: metric tonnes. Tonnes rail: total domestic and transborder (Canada/US) rail tonnage. Tonnes maritime: totalcoastal and international cargo handled. % intermodal: for rail, the share of total rail tonnage originating from/destined to Canadian port facili-ties. For maritime, maritime containerised tonnage as a share of total maritime tonnage handled. Proportion intermodal: the sum of railand maritime proportions. Includes double counts as most of the rail intermodal tonnage is also counted in the maritime sector.

Source: Transport Canada, Statistics Canada.

1986 1994 1995 1996 1997

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes rail (millions) 244 2.5 273 3.2 275 3.1 275 3.4 293 3.4Tonnes maritime (millions) 267 3.9 299 5.1 310 5.2 309 5.7 330 6.0

TEUs TEUs TEUs TEUs TEUs

TEUs rail (‘000) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.TEUs maritime (‘000) 876 1 404 1 385 1 509 1 672Proportion intermodal (%) 6.5 8.3 8.3 9.1 9.4

Table 3. Intermodal transport in the Czech Republic

Note: 1986 data relate to Czechoslovakia (not just the Czech Republic).n.a.: not available. Tonnes: metric tonnes. Tonnes rail: total domestic and interstate rail tonnage. Tonnes inland waterways: total inland water-ways cargo handled. % intermodal: for rail, the proportion of total rail tonnage; for inland waterways, the proportion of total inland waterwaystonnage handled. Proportion intermodal:* a weighted average of percentage intermodal in relation to total tonnes lifted (including only railand inland waterway transport; excluding road transport).

Source: Transport Annual Report.

1986 1994 1995 1996 1997

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes rail (millions) 297 n.a. 110 0.98 109 1.98 107 3.69 111 4.21Tonnes inland waterways (millions) 14.21 n.a. 4.94 0.24 4.38 0.55 3.18 0.57 1.75 0.98

TEUs TEUs TEUs TEUs

TEUs rail (‘000) 453 130 140 172 174TEUs marine (‘000) n.a. 0.99 1.9 1.5 1.51Proportion intermodal (%) n.a. 0.14 0.31 0.50 0.74Proportion intermodal* (%) n.a. 0.94 1.92 3.61 4.18

© OECD 2001


18

• In Japan, over the same period, tonnage related to rail decreased, while coastal shippingvolumes increased from 23 731 TEUs to 29 157 TEUs. But, the proportion of intermodal shipmentsdeclined slightly, from 9.6% in 1986 to 9.1% in 1997.

• The number of TEUs in both the Netherlands and Japan followed the same trends as tonnagefigures, because the TEUs calculation is based on tonnages.

Table 4. Intermodal freight transport in the United Kingdom

Notes: n.a.: not available. Tonnes: metric tonnes. Tonnes rail: the total weight of goods lifted by rail. This includes all domestic traffic and,in the figures for 1994-97 (inclusive), traffic through the Channel Tunnel (excluding Eurotunnel shuttle services). Tonnes maritime: all port traf-fic and Eurotunnel shuttle services (combined transport). This total includes some double counting since UK coastal shipping traffic (i.e. portto port) is counted at each port. Tonnes inland shipping: the total weight of goods lifted by internal, coastal shipping, foreign boats enteringUK inland waters and one port dedicated flow). Percentage intermodal rail: the total weight of unitised goods lifted that is destined for importor export via a rail connected port facility or the Channel Tunnel, expressed as a percentage of the total of goods lifted by rail. Percentageintermodal maritime: total of all container and ro-ro traffic expressed as a percentage of total maritime traffic. Percentage intermodal inlandshipping: the total weight of unitised maritime goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the total of goods lifted by inland shipping. TEUsmaritime: the figure is not wholly representative of total TEUs. It represents total containers and road goods vehicles including trailers. Pro-portion intermodal: a weighted average of percentage intermodal in relation to total tonnes lifted (tonnes rail (TR) x % intermodal + tonnesmaritime (TM) x % intermodal + tonnes inland shipping (TS) x % intermodal/sum TR,TM,TS).

Source: Transport Statistics Great Britain 1999; Transport Statistics Great Britain 1994, Intermodal Freight Transport – Key Statistical Data 1992-1997; WaterborneFreight in the United Kingdom (Transport Statistics Bulletin DETR).

1986 1994 1995 1996 1997

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes rail (millions) 138 n.a. 97 n.a. 101 n.a. 102 12 105 13Tonnes maritime (millions) 453 13 519 19 532 20 536 21 542 22Tonnes inland shipping (millions) 68 8 62 12 61 13 57 13 58 14


TEUs rail (‘000) n.a. n.a. n.a. 720 n.a.TEUs maritime (‘000) 4 730 7 420 7 970 8 230 8 980TEUs inland shipping (‘000) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.Proportion intermodal of total

tonnes (%) n.a. n.a. n.a. 19.3 20

Table 5. Intermodal transport in Japan

Notes: The term “tonnes” means the volume lifted by each mode. Therefore, when one door-to-door freight transport movement includes both rail andtruck segments, the freight volume is counted on both rail and truck modes and total freight tonnages are counted twice for such movements.1. The figures relate only to domestic freight volume.2. Figures include both bulk and container movements.3. They include both unimodal transport and intermodal transport.4. The figure in terms of TEUs is the quotient obtained by dividing total freight volumes by 18.5 tonnes per TEU; it does not mean the equivalent

numbers of freight containers.Source: Japanese Ministry of Transportation.

1986 1994 1995 1996 1997

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonne rail (millions) 87.2 2 78.9 1 76.9 1 73.6 1 69.2 1Tonne coastal shipping (millions) 440.7 8 555.8 9 548.5 8 546.9 8 541.4 8


TEUs rail (‘000) 4 698 4 251 4 143 3 961 3 728TEUs coastal shipping (‘000) 23 731 29 928 29 539 29 451 29 157Proportion intermodal (%) 9.6 9.8 9.5 9.1 9.1

© OECD 2001


19

• The intermodal data provided by Canada includes significant double counts, as a very largeproportion of the containerised tonnage is counted in both the rail and maritime figures.

The “total maritime” data submitted by each country is different. Thus the ratios indicatingproportions of intermodal tonnage in maritime shipping are not defined consistently. Because of thedifferences in the maritime data, the shares of intermodal traffic, in total, are also not comparable.

In the European Union (EU), unitised rail transport amounted to TEU 8 million in 1996. The totalamount of unitised transport in that year was estimated at 140–145 million tonnes and 50 billion tonne-kilometres. The 31.2 million TEUs loaded and unloaded represented approximately 14% of the cargohandled in EU ports in 1996. Unitised transport on inland waterways accounted for around 2 millionTEUs. The European Commission concluded that “the construction of intermodal transport statistics(according to the transport chain definition) raises a difficult conceptual problem because every singleconsignment is shipped by a specific transport chain”.1

1. Eurostat (1999), “Executive Summary”, Intermodal Freight Transport: Key Statistical Data 1992-1997, Luxembourg.

Table 6. EU Intermodal freight transport

1. UIRR: International Union of Combined Road-Rail Transport Companies.Source: Eurostat, UIC, UIRR, ICF, Sofres estimates, DGVII.

Total EU transport traffic (billion tkm, 1996) 2 640Road 1.16 (44%)Rail 0.21 (8%)Inland waterway 0.11 (4%)Sea (intra-EU) 1.08 (41%)Pipeline 0.08 (3%)

Total goods transport growth (1970-96) 2.6% per year

Total unitised traffic (million TEU, 1996)By EU railwaysOn inland waterwaysOn roadsBy sea (containers loaded/unloaded in ports)

n.a.8.2

2n.a.30.5

Total unitised traffic (million tonnes, 1996)By EU railwaysBy air (major EU airports traffic)On inland waterwaysOn roadsBy sea (containers loaded/unloaded in ports)

n.a.140/145

7.6n.a.n.a.240

Total unitised traffic (million tkm, 1996)RailRoadInland waterway

n.a.53.7n.a.4.7

Total unitised traffic growth (1994-96, UIRR1 members) 31% (tonnes)

Unitised traffic (% total tkm, by mode)RailInland waterwayRoadAir

n.a.30%n.a.n.a.

> 90%

Inland traffic of maritime containers (million TEU, 1996)RailInland waterwayRoad

21.316.9%

8.9%73.2%

Rail-sea (bi-modal) traffic 8 824 wagons

Road-sea (bi-modal) traffic 12 254 trucks

© OECD 2001


20

Nevertheless, the picture emerges that the share of intermodal transport appears generally to bebelow 10% of total freight transport in countries without substantial maritime trade.

Qualitative performance indicators

A number of qualitative indicators specifically relating to freight transport were also submitted forconsideration by Member countries. These included:

• Identification of capacity enhancements.

• Development of methods to measure congestion relief.

• Improvements in condition of infrastructure.

• Connectivity.

• Carrier dependability, speed and timeliness.

• Delivery flexibility.

• Reduction of operational restrictions on carriers.

• Increased safety and security of cargo movements.

• Provision of adequate infrastructure and facilities.

The Working Group noted that some of these proposed indicators related to capacity (aquantitative indicator), while others aimed to assess intermodal performance. Many contributors alsohighlighted problems associated with system reliability. The Sub-group on Benchmarking, which isundertaking the second stage of this project, will deal with the issues relating to indicators generallyand address the indicators outlined above in more detail.

Specific problems concerning intermodal transport

While recognising the advantages of an efficient, effective and seamless intermodal transportsystem, most Member countries have not yet achieved this goal. Until recently, both governments andNGOs have tended to focus on mode-specific approaches and solutions to transportation issues. As aresult, numerous cross-border problems have surfaced as regions and continents turn towards anintegrated transport system. Standardisation of infrastructure, and harmonisation of legislative andregulatory requirements, are primary obstacles in Europe, North America and Asia. While there hasbeen significant progress, in particular in the European Union, with respect to customs and immigrationprocedures, a number of problems remain in North America and the Pacific Rim.

Europe

In some European countries, significant obstacles to efficient intermodal transport are the lack of lowcost terminals; the need for specialised transport equipment; and regulation of the railways. To remedythis situation, some countries are considering allowing imports of terminal equipment and specialisedrolling stock for intermodal transport free of customs duties and other import restrictions and fees.However, the European countries are in some cases limited by EU legislation in the actions they can take.

Specific problems raised by participants in the institutional aspects project include:

• Switzerland identified the need for better infrastructure, improved quality of rail services and moreefficient pricing by mode.

• In Italy, it appears that the large number of bodies involved in the decision process createsobstacles to intermodal transport.

• Finland is encountering problems because transport operators use non-standard technicalsystems and have different labour practices. Friction costs are high because of lack ofinterconnectivity at the infrastructure level, the operations level and at the mode-dependentservices and regulations level. In addition, because of the country’s geography, intermodaltransport is limited in Finland.

© OECD 2001


21

• Similar geographical limits apply to Norway, where road transport is favoured. There is a need forincreased capacity for freight on rail, larger profiles in rail tunnels and more efficient terminals. Inaddition, the Norwegian maritime sector would benefit from better co-operation between portsand the concentration of traffic to selected ports in order to increase the frequency of arrivals. Inaddition, the EU Fourth framework project SCANDINET found that short- and long-distanceintermodal transport services are currently not satisfactorily integrated in Scandinavia.

• The United Kingdom wishes to see the removal of border-crossing delays, and advocates bettertransport access by operators to transport markets. It supports the liberalisation initiatives of theEuropean Commission. The United Kingdom also faces domestic problems which can arise whenrail freight has to share routes with passenger rail transport.

• In the Netherlands, a recent project in which the logistic chain of some 100 shippers wasinvestigated to assess the prospects for modal shift showed that a number of possibilities existfor intermodal transport. The project found that 80% of the goods flows investigated could changeto intermodal transport for the same price (or even cheaper) while the service level remains thesame. However, many shippers are unaware of the opportunities offered by intermodal transport.

The European Commission advocates greater liberalisation of the rail sector, which would lead toincreased quality in service standards. The Commission believes that improvements are needed withrespect to: interoperability between wagons used by different carriers; standardisation of electricitysupply, railway gauge and infrastructure; access to the Trans-European Rail Freight Network; anduniformity in the intermodal liability regime.

North America

The following issues were raised in the North American context:

• Problems concerning customs and border procedures.

• Harmonisation of weights and dimensions.

• Standardisation of equipment and the need for improved equipment (e.g. reinforced trailers toreduce structural damage during intermodal transfer).

• Labour issues in terms of agreements between carriers (e.g. the requirement to change traincrews when equipment crosses North American borders).

• Improved use of EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) and ITS (Intelligent Transport Systems)technology.

• The need for more strategically located intermodal terminals and facilities.

Japan and the Asia-Pacific region

Many of the problems identified in Europe and North America also apply to Member countries inAsia. The following issues were identified in the case of Japan:

• Disproportionately high land costs.

• Corridor development issues between domestic regions.

• Constraints associated with establishing new businesses.

• Issues associated with being an island nation (e.g. difficulties in negotiating more open customsand border procedures with other countries).

• Need for specialist regional intermodal facilities.

With respect to institutional aspects, few of the highlighted problems related to governmentalorganisation. However, the question arises whether institutional problems in the regulation of thespecific modes and reported shortcomings in infrastructure might be seen as a reflection of prevailingstructures within the governmental organisation. Structures need to be strongly focused on promotingthe required intermodal changes and solutions. Otherwise, they can appear to be an impediment tochange.

© OECD 2001

23

Chapter 3

POLICIES, ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES AND INSTRUMENTS:AN OVERVIEW

Introduction

The extent to which countries focus on intermodal freight as a means of enhancing overall freighttransport can be derived from the role which intermodal transport plays in their general transport policyframeworks, as well as in their organisational structures. With policies established, and organisationalstructures modified to administer these policies, countries may then develop, or adopt previouslydeveloped, policy instruments as a means of executing initiatives in furtherance of these policies.

A number of broad instruments have been identified by Member countries, such as legislative andregulatory instruments, subsidies, research and development programmes and internationalagreements. In North America and Europe, significant effort is being placed on harmonisation ofstandards in areas such as weights and dimensions, and customs and immigration procedures. EasternEuropean countries have enacted a number of agreements related to intermodal transport with theirneighbours. In addition, the use of direct and indirect subsidies to encourage intermodalism is anoften-used approach. Within the framework of its “Comprehensive Programme of Logistics Policies”(CPLP), Japan aims to provide one of the most convenient and attractive logistics services in the Asian-Pacific region, to reduce transport costs and to address negative externalities. Significant public andprivate sector research and development programmes are in place throughout the OECD.

This chapter summarises the intermodal freight policies of contributing OECD Member countries,the organisational elements established to administer these policies, and the policy instruments, ortools, designed to carry out these policies. It describes the organisational structures and policies of thecountries that participated in the study, and places each country’s organisational structure and policiesin perspective with those of other countries in their region. This summary is followed by a morecomprehensive review of these points, in the individual country contributions in Chapter 4.

Intermodal policy statements

Of the 28 OECD countries included in this review, 26 have either an explicit or an implicit policy or setof policies in place to promote intermodal freight transport.

Intermodal transport is encouraged by governments in various ways. In some countries, there is anexplicit policy on intermodal transport, demonstrated in formal policy documents, either specifically onintermodal transport or as part of wider (freight) transport policy papers. For example, the Netherlands has aspecific document (Transport in Balance), but is now switching towards intermodal transport as part of anintegrated and sustainable freight transport system. The United Kingdom considers intermodal transport aspart of its overall integrated freight policy (Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy). In other countries, there is nospecific explicit policy, or at least not explicitly laid down in formal policy papers. In some cases, the policy ismainly aimed at individual modes rather than at the intermodal chain as a whole.

The German, French and Dutch governments have translated their ambitions with respect to thedevelopment of intermodal transport into explicit objectives, taken up in formal policy papers(Table 7). These objectives are specifically aimed at encouraging growth in intermodal transport.

© OECD 2001


24

Although this is not the case in the other countries mentioned in Table 7, this does not imply that thosecountries do not pursue a policy aimed at developing intermodal transport.

The need for intermodal transport differs among Member countries, and is influenced by theirgeography and demographic structure. For example, in sparsely populated Scandinavia, the need forintermodal transport is not as urgent as in some very densely populated regions, or in economies thatserve mainly as a transit country, such as Switzerland.

Few responding countries reported that they had no specific policy declarations to promoteintermodal transport and no intention of enacting intermodal policy guidance.

In all cases, emphasis on intermodal freight is a recent phenomenon, with few specific referencesto policies or programmes existing prior to 1990. For the 26 countries with intermodal policies, these arecategorised as either mode-specific or non-mode-specific; that is, intermodal policies may be enactedand applied to individual modes of freight transport, or may refer to intermodal initiatives, such asregional or continental intermodal networks or other common concerns of intermodalism.

Mode-specific policies are more commonly used in countries with a low population density or withgeographical constraints, such as are found in Scandinavia. Countries in Eastern Europe are alsoprimarily focused on developing policies which, through their influence on specific modes, areexpected to have a positive impact on intermodalism. Canada actively encourages the growth ofintermodal transport through the facilitation of market forces, and government focus from the point ofpolicy development continues to be primarily mode-specific.

Non-mode-specific policies are found in many of the countries which come under the umbrella ofthe European Commission. In some cases, countries have intermodal units that are charged with thelegislative and regulatory functions concerning intermodal transport. The United States also has anactive intermodal unit that considers non-mode-specific policies and approaches. In Japan, intermodalfreight policies are embedded within the framework of the “Comprehensive Programme of LogisticsPolicies” (CPLP).

Policy initiatives vary considerably in scope, intent and form. Those characterised as explicit inform generally encourage broadbased programme development, co-ordinated planning amongtransport modes, and focused intermodal research and development. They may address regulatoryreview and analysis of financial instruments, including cross subsidy analysis and cost allocation. Thesepolicies may also call for linkage of freight transport policy with other governmental concerns,principally energy conservation; optimisation of existing transport facilities, in lieu of adding capacity;environmental and community preservation; and public safety. Countries with implicit intermodalfreight policies typically cite a series of tasks focusing on some aspect of intermodalism. These may beconsolidated under an overarching intermodal freight directive. More often, they may also appear asdiscrete intermodal tasks incorporated within single-mode programmes, often without any direct

Table 7. Explicit objectives of national governments with respect to intermodal transport

Austria Contribute to a sustainable transport systemBelgium NoneCanada Facilitate the growth of intermodalismCzech Republic NoneFrance Double 1993 volume of intermodal freight (in million tonnes) by 2002Germany Triple 1994 volume of intermodal freight (30 million tonnes) to 90 million tonnes in 2010Italy NoneNetherlands Achieve a modal shift of 50 million tonnes (20 to rail, 20 to inland shipping and 10 to short sea)

in the period 1994-2010Spain NoneSweden No longer any explicit intermodal targetSwitzerland Shift long-distance transport from road to railUnited Kingdom Contribute to a sustainable transport systemUnited States Contribute to transport efficiency; reduce transport share in GDP

© OECD 2001

Policies, Organisational Structures and Instruments: An Overview

25

mechanism for co-ordination. In these cases, the overarching intermodal policy must be derivedthrough compilation and examination of individual work tasks.

Intermodal policy making is aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the door-to-door integrated transport chain. While the key driving forces for promoting intermodal transport differamong countries and over time, the primary goals centre on improving the efficiency and effectivenessof transport systems and infrastructure, environmental concerns and the promotion of operationsbusiness efficiency.

As a key prerequisite for effective intermodal transport is the adequate performance of individualmodes, it is not surprising that the modal approach to policy making continues to dominate in Membercountries. However, it would appear that additional approaches and measures specifically directedtowards intermodalism need to be applied if a truly effective integrated transport chain is to beachieved.

Organisational structures

Only a few of the contributing countries have specific intermodal transport units within theirtransport organisations. These separately established units may be mandated to perform staff functionsor may actually be line organisational units. Staff intermodal units typically perform a co-ordinating oradvisory function. Line units may exercise programme management, budget and legislativedevelopment functions, in addition to providing a co-ordination or advisory role. Line functionstypically require programme support, which may or may not be called for in the intermodal freightpolicy and its supporting instruments. In instances where policies call for establishment of intermodalunits within line agencies, with appropriate budgetary and staff support, the focus on intermodalism isexpected to be more effective than in the absence of these elements. Overall, it appears that countrieswith dedicated intermodal units have more explicit and focused intermodal policies than those withpurely mono-modal approaches.

More generally, contributing countries have incorporated intermodalism as a distributed function,by either expanding the scope of existing modal units or creating new units within existing modalorganisations. For those that have expanded the scope of existing units, intermodal staffing may belimited to collateral duties for existing staff or may include limited staff expansion. For those that havecreated new units, staff are generally assigned to work full time on intermodal transport issues.

Intermodal focus in Member countries appears to be confined to: i) national transportorganisations; and ii) non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with an interest in intermodal freight.Although national transport agencies remain charged with intermodal programme development andimplementation, NGOs, such as organisations of (private) terminal operators, may assume an advocacyrole, providing support to national transport agencies in promoting intermodalism. They may also assistin the development of regional and local policies promoting intermodalism and provide a point ofcontact for government agencies at all levels with an interest in intermodalism. Among the contributingcountries, there was little mention of regional intermodal policies, although some regional and localtransport agency interest was referenced in examining intermodal options.

Instruments

OECD Member countries use a variety of instruments to implement intermodal policies. Theseinclude regulatory and legislative initiatives, subsidies, and research and development.

Legislation and regulations

Varying levels of legislative and regulatory instruments are in place across Member countries toencourage and implement intermodal activity. In Europe, countries tend to favour regulations related tovehicle weights and dimensions. These initiatives encourage intermodal transport by allowingincreased loads and driving time.

© OECD 2001


26

Users of combined transport may be exempted from bilateral contingents and similar restrictionsfor foreign transport operators. These operators may also be granted additional bilateral transportlicences as a reward. In some countries, e.g. Austria, an extensive system of political and legislativemeasures is in place to promote combined transport, ranging from financial aid for the construction ofterminals to the purchase of specialised rolling stock. In Eastern Europe, many countries have signedbilateral agreements that encourage the use of combined transport. Countries such as the Netherlandshave specific objectives in terms of the encouragement and growth of this component.

In North America, the primary approach is to facilitate development of intermodal activity throughmarket forces, and to enhance competitiveness with policies such as deregulation and privatisation.Governments are also facilitating freight flows through approaches aimed, among others, at reducingintra-metropolitan congestion and associated transaction costs. Significant effort is targeted to theharmonisation of weights and dimensions across the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)countries, and the standardisation of customs and immigration procedures.

Japan favours measures that, through deregulation and the provision of alternative transportmodes, eliminate infrastructure bottlenecks and lead to sophisticated logistics systems and the use ofadvanced technology.

Subsidies

Both direct and indirect subsidies are used to encourage intermodal transport. In some instances,national governments provide direct financial support to intermodal transport. This can be in the formof financial backing to the private sector for the construction of terminals, the purchase of intermodalloading units or the reimbursement of operating deficits for intermodal rail transport. In most Membercountries, taxes and road usage fees of some form or another are applied to commercial road transportbecause commercial road vehicles use the highway network frequently and over very large distances.Intermodal transport is a less-intensive user of road infrastructure, an argument which is sometimesused to justify the development of pricing schemes which exempt intermodal transport from the taxesand fees directed to heavy and long-distance road use.

Research and development

While transport-related research and industry groups exist in a number of Member countries, feware specific to intermodal transport. Research and development organisations include governmentagencies, educational institutions and public-private groups.

Table 8. Legislation and regulations favouring intermodal transport, 1997

1. The maximum gross weight of road vehicles in Austria is generally 38 tonnes; however, for vehicles registered in the EU, it is 40 tonnes.2. Only in London at night. G = Germany, A = Austria, CH = Switzerland, NL = the Netherlands, S = Spain, F = France, UK = United Kingdom, I = Italy, B = Belgium, US = United States,CZ = Czech Republic.

G A CH NL S F UK I B US CZ

Max. gross weight of road vehicles (tonnes) 40 401 28 50 40 40 38 44 44 40 48

Exemption for 44-tonne vehicles, provided they are used for intermodal transport yes yes yes – yes yes yes – – no –

Driving ban for lorries on certain days or at certain times yes yes yes no yes yes no2 yes no no yes

Exemption for vehicles used for intermodal transport yes yes no – no no – no – – yes

© OECD 2001

Policies, Organisational Structures and Instruments: An Overview

27

Educational institutions and other research institutes often work in collaboration with government,assist government inquiries into specific transport problems and are engaged in the preparation andevaluation of policy options. Research conducted by universities on transportation can have a stronginfluence on policy makers. Areas of study include the optimisation of terminals, transport economicsand logistics. There is also a growing interest in ITS and other technologies.

Industry groups often provide a forum for communication between transportation professionalsfrom the private and public sectors.

© OECD 2001

29

Chapter 4

NATIONAL POLICIES AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES

Introduction

The following chapter addresses the policies, organisational structures and instruments of some16 OECD countries that participated in this study. Annex provides more detailed information on theNetherlands, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States and Japan.1

Austria

In recognition of the vital role played by combined transport in Austrian transport policy, inparticular by providing environment-friendly alternatives to pure road transport, a number of measureshave been introduced to support this policy. These measures include financial incentives as well as arange of political and legislative measures for the promotion of combined transport. Financial supportfor investments in combined transport may be granted under the programme for the promotion ofcombined freight transport by road, rail and inland waterways, which aims at transferring freighttransport from road to environment-friendly modes of transport. The programme, originally introducedin 1992, was recently prolonged from 1999 to the end of 2002. Eligible projects include, among others,combined transport terminals, loading equipment, cranes, containers, swap bodies and innovativetechnologies (new loading techniques, logistics) for improving combined transport. Austria has alsoprovided related financial investment support to a number of countries in the region and is in theprocess of introducing and improving information systems for intermodal transport.

Certain combined transport operations are considered to be of public interest and as such areordered and remunerated. Furthermore, fiscal incentives are provided for combined transport operations.

While road transport is subject to various restrictions (such as licences for non-EU vehicles, theecopoint system for transit through Austria for EU vehicles, driving bans at weekends and driving bansfor noisy trucks at night), combined transport enjoys wide exemptions from most of these limitations.Examples of regulatory measures in support of combined transport payload adjustment (higherpayloads for initial and terminal combined transport hauls than for road transport in general) includeliberalised corridors for rolling roads, specific exemptions from driving bans at weekends and at night,and supplementary permits for using combined transport.

The organisational structure of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation andTechnology is based on subject matter and modal division. Sections include Transport Policy andPlanning, Inland Transport, Road Administration, Aviation, Telecommunications and Innovation andTechnology.

Canada

Canada is currently in the process of defining specific policies to promote intermodal transport andIntelligent Transportation Systems. This is in line with Canada’s National Transportation Policy whichstates that a system that makes best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost

1. For other European countries, some useful information may be found in the ECMT Report “Report on the CurrentState of Combined Transport in Europe” (OECD, 1998)

© OECD 2001


30

is essential to serve the transportation needs of shippers and travellers. The approach to date has beento facilitate intermodal activity, primarily by making it as easy as possible for the marketplace tooperate. Policy interventions have generally been mode-specific; however, it is recognised thatintermodal transport has the potential to reduce the total cost of transportation and increase theefficiency and productivity of the transportation system. Good integration can increase capacity andreduce congestion and environmental impacts.

Canada’s intermodal vision started with implementation of the National Transportation Act – 1967.Clarification of this vision continued under the new Canada Transportation Act – 1996.

The organisational structures of both Transport Canada (the Department responsible fortransportation matters in Canada), and the Canadian Transportation Agency (a quasi-judicial bodywhich handles stakeholder issues) have evolved in a direction which facilitates intermodal approaches.Previously, the Departmental structure was organised along modal lines. Transport Canada’s divisionsare now organised along the lines of the Department’s principal objectives: safety and security; policydevelopment; and setting/maintaining national programmes.2 The Policy Group, which is responsiblefor modal policy development and decision making, is partially divided along modal lines: Marine,Surface (rail, motor carrier, highways, bus), and Air. The Evaluation and Economic Analysis directoratesare multimodal. There is no specific office dedicated to intermodal transport; however, all of the modaldirectorates are involved in intermodal issues. The Department works closely with a number of otherfederal and provincial departments and agencies, e.g. Natural Resources; Environment; Finance;Industry, Trade and Commerce; and External Affairs, among others. A separate federal body (theTransportation Safety Board) deals with safety issues, including accident investigation, for all modes.The Canadian Transportation Agency is tasked with a more legislative role, and acts as a quasi-judicialbody in matters of dispute between carriers and shippers.

A number of national and regional organisations promote and discuss intermodal transport. TheTransportation Association of Canada (TAC) has public and private sector members who discusstransportation issues while offering technical excellence in surface transportation infrastructure. TheCanadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) is a public sector organisation thatco-ordinates the administration, regulation and control of motor vehicles. There are also two regionalorganisations, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission (APTC) and the Western TransportationAdvisory Council (WESTAC), which provide information, analysis and a forum for discussion ontransportation issues. All freight carriers in Canada are owned and operated by the private sector.

The future of intermodalism is dictated by market considerations, and the Department iscommitted to facilitating market-based responses to demand for intermodal services. To this end,Transport Canada is involved in the development of ITS programmes, research and development whichwould lead to improved intermodal activity, and a number of Millennium conferences which areintended to bring together all transportation stakeholders and shippers.

Czech Republic

The Department for Public Transport plays a key role in matters of intermodal transport. Theprincipal activity of this Department is the creation of conditions to ensure the support,development and realisation of public passenger transport and combined transport systems inrelation to international agreements. There are five major private sector operators of combinedtransport in the Czech Republic. Since 1993, the government has not been involved in themanagement of these companies. The national railway authority – Czech Railways – has an interestin only one operator – Bohemiakombi LtD.

The principal programme in the intermodal transport area is headed: “System support of combinedtransport development in the Czech Republic in 1999-2000/2005”. This initiative aims to ensure a partial

2. Minister’s office, Policy, Communications, Programs and Divestiture, Safety and Security, Corporate Services andRegional Offices.

© OECD 2001

National Policies and Organisational Structures

31

transfer of road freight transport to rail and water modes of transport, which are more environment-friendly. Key goals include:

• Creation of an information system for electronic exchange and data transfer on freight transportfor combined transport.

• Creation and implementation of UN/EDIFACT form.

• Development of a decision support system for intensified utilisation of combined transport.

• Investigation of infrastructure conditions of combined and integrated transport from thestandpoint of wider exploitation in transport and logistic systems.

• Research related to changes in the vehicle-fleet needed for combined transport use.

Research activities related to intermodal transport over the period 1995-99 were financed throughthe Czech Ministry of Transport and Communications. Private organisations rarely participate inresearch activities, except when the research programme covers their respective areas of activity.

Since 1996, the state administration has contributed significant funding for a range of transport andintermodal projects, including to the Czech Railways for the construction of the Ro-La terminal atLovosice, the Lovosice-Dresden rolling motorway line, special railway wagons and the modification ofvessels for combined transport. In 1998-2000, the Ministry of Transport plans to provide CZK 941 millionin support of combined transport. Projects eligible for support include the purchase of railway wagons,a 30% state contribution to the purchase of swap bodies and lifting equipment and operating supportfor unaccompanied transport, and indirect investment support for the modernisation of national railcorridors I and II.

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.

• Exemptions from driving bans during holidays for road vehicles linked up with combinedtransport.

• Exemptions from Sunday or weekend driving bans for combined transport pick-up and deliveryoperations.

• Bilateral agreements with a number of countries in relation to exemptions for combined transport.

Finland

In Finland, transportation falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport andCommunications. The Goods Transport Unit deals primarily with intermodal transport, while the Vehicleand Environment Unit handles environmental issues.

The Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications boasts a very active research anddevelopment programme. Research focuses on promoting integration between different transportmodes and on increasing operational efficiency, e.g. transport telematics and organisational measures.The Ministry of Transport and Communications has, together with the Technology Development Centre,initiated two research and development programmes: TETRA and KETJU. TETRA is a three-yearprogramme dealing with the development of ITS. The three-year KETJU programme has the objective ofimproving operating conditions for logistic chains. Another programme in which Finland is involved isSCANDINET, which aims to create closer links between hinterland intermodal and ferry ro-roconnections in Scandinavian countries and between Scandinavia and the European continent.

Germany

Germany has a long tradition of political support for combined transport. Currently, publicinvestment planning has allocated a budget of more than DEM 4 billion (over EUR 2 000 million) toterminal building and improvements.

Combined transport pick-up and delivery operations to and from terminals are exempted fromsome restrictions that otherwise are applied to road transport.

© OECD 2001


32

Hungary

In Hungary, regulations on the development of intermodal transport have to be harmonised withthe Guidelines of the European Union. The Hungarian Government has also passed a resolution on“The concept of establishing and operating the Hungarian network of the European combined transportsystem”.

Pursuant to regulations and decrees:

• A foreign carrier operating combined transport may run its vehicles and carry containers, swapbodies and semi-trailers between railway combined transport terminals as well as ro-ro harbourterminals without holding an international freight transport licence as long as the transportdistance from the terminal does not exceed 70 kilometres. The same conditions apply toterminals located within 70 km of a border crossing point.

• Foreign carriers enjoy a 50% reduction in vehicle tax and are exempt from the use of aninternational road transport licence.

• Full exemption from vehicle tax applies to foreign trucks running on roads between railwaycombined transport terminals and inland waterway ro-ro harbours and the point of loading/unloading where such a haul is not longer than 70 km. The same applies where combinedtransport terminals are located within 70 km of a border crossing point.

Investment grants are planned for combined transport terminals and to enable railways topurchase special combined transport rolling stock. The road legislation allows exemptions fromweekend driving bans for combined transport.

Hungary has signed agreements on combined transport with neighbouring countries and othercountries that are of importance from the point of view of combined transport.

Italy

In Italy, laws 240/90 and 385/90 contain specific plans for the promotion of intermodal transport.Italy has signed the United Nations international agreement on intermodal transport (AGTC).

Several ministries and national authorities are involved in the transport sector, although theprimary agencies are the Ministry of Transport and Navigation and the Ministry of Public Works. TheMinistry of Transport and Navigation is responsible for rail, air and marine transport, including thenormal maintenance and operation of marine infrastructure. The Ministry of Public Works overseesmotor carriers, roads (including circulation and road safety) and the construction of ocean and inlandmarine infrastructure. The Ministry of Public Works relies on agencies and other bodies such as theNational Road Authority (ANAS) and 24 motorway concessionaires to implement its functions, while theMinistry of Transportation and Navigation relies on bodies such as the Italian Railway Company (F.S.).The Ministry of Transportation and Navigation has a specific unit for intermodal transport. In addition, aParliamentary Special Commission deals with problems related to transportation in general, withparticular attention devoted to the implementation of intermodal and multimodal transportdevelopment for both long-distance freight operations and freight and passenger transport at theregional and metropolitan level.

In Italy, the regions (and their administrative sub-divisions, the provinces and municipalities) areresponsible for the secondary transport network. The regions are also involved in the national transportplan by providing proposals and support via the State-Regions Conference. The national transport planis implemented by the Ministry of Transport.

The Italian Services Conference has been created to speed up the decision-making process. Thisconference facilitates the involvement of all interested administrations in the approval of proposals inthe transportation field put forward by the Ministry of Transportation and Navigation.

The Ministry of Transport has a specific unit on intermodal transport. In particular, this unit dealswith the technical and administrative implementation of programmes financed by the state, as definedby law 240/90. Furthermore, Italy is trying to achieve economic equilibrium through the application of

© OECD 2001


33

different taxation levels and tariffs policies across sectors. This result has been achieved even if theoptimisation of the costs for the transport companies and carriers are linked to transport distancesexceeding 500 km. Support is provided for combined transport through the building of terminals. Inaddition, combined transport pick-up and delivery operations are exempted from the weekend driving ban.

Japan

Japan’s intermodal freight policies are embedded in the framework of the “ComprehensiveProgramme of Logistics Policies” (CPLP, 1997). The goals of the CPLP are:

• To provide one of the most convenient and attractive logistic services in the Asia-Pacific region.

• To reduce transport costs so as not to diminish the international competitiveness of Japaneseindustries.

• To cope with negative externalities (environmental issues, safety) related to logistics in anappropriate manner.

The policy focuses on infrastructure and deregulation (safety, abolition of demand-supplyadjustment rules) and the realisation of a sophisticated logistical system (IT, standardisation, newtechnologies). CPLP is reviewed annually and has become the major action programme from thestandpoint of promoting intermodal freight transport.

The Japanese Government has set up an inter-Ministerial promotion conference (ComprehensiveLogistics Policy Promotion Conference: CLPPC) to discuss and implement CPLP. CLPPC includes14 ministries and agencies. The Ministries of International Trade and Industry (MITI), Transport (MOT)and Construction (MOC) play major roles as the secretariats of CLPPC. Although it has been decidedthat MOT and MOC will be merged in 2001, the details of this merger are still under discussion.

CLPPC five working groups: modernisation of logistics information technology; promotion ofpaletisation; promotion of intra-city freight transport efficiency; introduction of EDI, guidelines forpromoting the improvement of logistics bases. The Japanese Government has also set up localconferences (Local CLPPCs) in nine regions, which enable local governments and the private sector toparticipate in discussions on specific programmes at the local level.

General measures include:

• Deregulation: two items will be targeted from the standpoint of efficiency improvement:

– Abolition of demand-supply adjustment rules.

– The review of safety regulations to respond to international standards and technical innovation.

• Realisation of sophisticated logistical systems: including EDI, standardisation and new technologies.

• Improvement of infrastructure: logistics-related infrastructure will be improved, focusing on the abovepolicies.

Specific measures include:

• Intra-city logistics (alleviating traffic congestion and improving cargo-loading rates for trucks), inter-regional logistics (promotion of coastal shipping and railroad cargo transport, improvement ofarterial highways and the deregulation of the trucking industry).

• International logistics (improvement of marine container terminals and transport within ports,computerisation and simplification of customs clearance and other procedures, improvement ofhighways for the passage of ISO-standard containers, improvement of domestic marine transportof export cargo, promotion of international air-freight transport, and maintaining a stableinternational marine transport system).

Concrete actions for promoting intermodal freight transport include:

– Promotion of multimodalism by infrastructure improvement.

– Promotion of coastal shipping transport.

– Promotion of railroad cargo transport.

© OECD 2001


34

– Promotion of transport by inland waterways.

– Improvement of logistical bases.

– Utilisation of recent telecommunications innovation.

– Standardisation (pallets, containers).

– Improvement and operation of terminals (for cost-down and efficiency).

– Transport within ports (loading on Sundays).

– Domestic surface transport of import/export cargoes.

As for international or national level infrastructures, subsidies for local governments andinvestment loans and/or tax deductions are applied for various types of infrastructure investments.

Mexico

The Mexican Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT) is responsible for roadinfrastructure, transportation and communications. The organisational structure of the Department isprimarily oriented towards subject matter, although its Transport Division is structured along modallines. The Department does not have a dedicated intermodal office, and is not at this time consideringthe development of a specific intermodal strategy.

The Ministry of Communications and Transport supports research on containerised transport andmodal integration at ports through the Mexican Institute of Transport (IMT), a centre of research andtechnological development for transportation. One of the principal objectives of the MexicanGovernment is the privatisation of all freight carriers.

Mexico is concentrating on developing market forces in the field of transport services and onreducing government intervention to the extent possible. Substantial progress has been made in thesupply and productivity of all modes of transport. The strategic concept of the Mexican Government isto facilitate commercial movements of national and international shipbrokers and to reduce logisticcosts. Since this strategy has been quietly successful, the Ministry of Communications and Transportsees no reason to develop an explicit intermodal policy to improve the quality of the services andpromote integration between the different modes of transport.

The strategy for the transport sector is to create favourable conditions and remove the majorobstacles in the supply of transport services:

• To diminish the costs of transport services.

• To improve the quality of the services.

• To provide greater choice for users.

This policy consists of three pillars:

• The deregulation of road transport, maritime transport and, to a lesser extent, air transport tostrengthen the role of users in the relationship between shippers and carriers.

• The privatisation of transport companies: maritime transport has almost been privatised, and theprivatisation of railways and harbours is also almost finished.

• Participation of international investors in transport companies (joint ventures) and strategic andcommercial alliances.

The Netherlands

Intermodal transport comes under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works andWater Management. The Directorate-General for Freight Transport deals with freight transport. Theobjective of freight transport policy is to promote a safe, competitive and sustainable freight transportsystem and intermodal transport plays a vital role is achieving this goal. However, achieving this is notthe sole responsibility of government. On the contrary, a critical success factor is the willingness of the

© OECD 2001


35

private sector to take action. The government influences market forces in the direction of the desiredoutcome by stimulating, facilitating and regulating the market process.

Environmental concern was an important driving force in inciting the Dutch Government topromote intermodal transport. However, now that the road sector has drastically improved itsenvironmental performance, the assumption that a policy which aims at a modal shift of freighttransport from road to rail, water and pipelines, will always be good for the environment is no longerguaranteed to be right in all cases. A new driving force for the promotion of intermodal transport isaccessibility: the significance of freight transport for production and trade is undeniable and freighttransport to, from and through the Netherlands is of utmost socio-economic importance.

Intermodal transport policy is aimed at the optimisation and integration of the different links in thetransport chain. The stimulation of a modal shift from road transport to railways, inland waterways andshort sea and – in the future – underground tube transport systems will only be pursued if it can bedemonstrated that such a strategy is better for economic or environmental reasons. Achieving this goalcalls for a spatial structure, comprising multimodal infrastructure, nodal points and industry parks thatsupport intermodal transport. In addition to this policy approach which targets the supply side of thetraffic market, influencing the demand side of intermodal transport is also important; that is, influencingthe choices of shippers and logistic service providers. Intermodal policy is part of the DutchGovernment’s integrated freight transport policy.

The Directorate-General for Freight Transport consists of two inspectorates (Road, Maritime) andthree policy directorates: Transport Safety, Transport Sectors and General Freight Transport Policy.Within the Infrastructure, Ports and Intermodal Division of the General Freight Transport PolicyDirectorate, a small team is responsible for intermodal transport policy. Its activities are carried out inclose co-operation with a number of other ministries: Economic Affairs, Housing, Spatial Planning andEnvironment, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Finance.

In addition to the policies aimed at improving individual modes of transport which are applied bythe directorates responsible for transport modes, specific intermodal instruments used to achieve thegoals of a safe, competitive and sustainable freight transport system include:

• Stimulation of the development of terminals and transfer points (budget for rail infrastructure,e.g. the rail service centre Maasvlakte en Waalhaven in the Rotterdam region).

• Expansion of the capacity of the inland waterway network (e.g. budget for canals such asAmsterdam-Lemmer).

• Temporary Subsidy Arrangement for Rail and Inland Waterway Connections (connecting firms tothe main network).

• Stimulation of alternative transport systems for the future (studies and pilots on UndergroundLogistics Systems).

• Influencing the logistics behaviour of shippers (modal shift scans; “Transactie” – scans for moreefficient road transport; subsidy for the start-up of a Promotion Bureau for Short Sea Shipping).

• Trial involving longer and heavier trucks for transport to and from intermodal terminals.

• Special lanes for trucks.

• Use of telematics and projects aimed at the prevention of empty kilometres.

• Promoting physical planning favouring multimodal accessible business parks.

Additional information relating to the Netherlands can be found in Annex.

Norway

The Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications is responsible for issues related to roadtraffic, rail transport and civil aviation. The Ministry of Fisheries has responsibility for general marineinfrastructure, for regulations related to port infrastructure and sea-traffic measures. The Public RoadAdministration, the National Rail Administration and the Civil Aviation Administration all report to the

© OECD 2001


36

Ministry of Transport and Communications. The Coastal Administration reports to the Ministry ofFisheries. There is no particular office for intermodal transport. However, the Planning Section, PublicRoad and Environmental Issues, within the Ministry of Transport and Communications, is involved inlong-term multimodal planning. Intermodal transport will be given special attention in the NationalTransport Plan 2002-2011. Several other Ministries, e.g. Finance and Customs, Justice and the Police,Environment and Trade and Industry, also deal with issues related to freight transport.

The National Transport Plan 2002-2011 (NTP) represents the first step in a comprehensiveNorwegian intermodal policy. The following areas are discussed in the NTP:

• Institutional co-operation and reorganisation.

• Harmonisation of competition rules and state aid regimes, and development of common chargingand pricing principles.

• The need for improvements in infrastructure.

• Rail: increased capacity for freight, larger profiles in tunnels and more efficient terminals (nodes).

• Sea: concentrate traffic to selected ports.

• Improvement of local and regional network in order to strengthen local supply chains and thedistribution patterns around nodal points.

As part of its future transport plan, Norway is examining intermodal transport and the ResearchCouncil of Norway has a programme (Logitrans) that supports projects aimed at promoting intermodaltransport. The Institute of Transport Economics is carrying out a study on intermodal transport analysisfor the NTP.

Switzerland

Switzerland has a long tradition of receiving transit traffic between the north and the south ofEurope. In 1994, the population adopted a constitutional article to ensure that an important part offreight traffic would be shifted to rail. A 28 tonne maximum vehicle weight and bans on night driving andon Sunday driving have been introduced to limit the volume of road vehicles crossing the Alps.However, this policy has not been totally successful and has contributed to a deviation of traffic flows toavoid crossing Switzerland. In the framework of the agreement on land transport concluded with theEuropean Union (EU), Switzerland intends to adapt its political regulations to those of the EU and, inparticular, to gradually adapt its weight limit to those set out in European legislation. However, this willbe accompanied by a parallel increase in the taxes and fees paid by road transport with a view tocharging road transport operators the full costs generated by this mode of transport.

Swiss policy is now aimed at sustainable mobility, i.e. a sufficient level of mobility accompanied bya reduction of environmental degradation. Intermodal transport is one of the most important means toachieve this goal of sustainable mobility.

A number of obstacles need to be eliminated in order to increase the use of intermodal transport.Rail tunnels need to be enlarged, new terminals built and better planning of the use of locomotivesimplemented. Tariffs for individual transport modes need to be more efficient in ensuring that chargesto users fully reflect external costs.

Two offices are responsible for intermodal transportation. The Federal Office of Transport is incharge of formulating and implementing policies regarding intermodal transport. The Federal Office ofRoads deals with issues related to regulations, such as weights and dimensions, required rest periodsand vehicle safety standards. The regions do not deal directly with promoting intermodal transport, butare involved in infrastructure planning. Many private organisations have been created associatingindustry transport players, in order to improve and promote the quality of intermodal transport.

The promotion of intermodal transport entails developing the infrastructure, i.e. enlarging thecapacity of railways and terminals. The most important project is the realisation and financing of a newrailway through the Alps with tunnels through the Lötschberg and Gothard. In addition, the governmentcan subsidise combined transport operators and grant financial assistance for terminals and wagons for

© OECD 2001


37

intermodal transport. In this context, Swiss Federal Railways received a general subsidy ofECU 66 million. The system of government support is currently being revised, with the goal ofimproving competition among the various operators in the framework of the reform of the Swissrailways. In the new system, the subsidies will be used to lower the price of rail slots and to cover theuncovered costs of additional combined transport services, when these services are ordered by the state.

United Kingdom

Current transport policy in the United Kingdom is the result of an analysis of trends in UK transportdevelopment. If policies were not changed, traffic would grow by 46% and road freight traffic by 29% bythe year 2021. It was clear that a new policy was necessary to address the problems that would becaused by the predicted increased congestion and CO2 emissions, not least higher costs to business, arise in pollution and the potential for more accidents and greater disturbance of communities.

It is UK policy to promote intermodal integration. The United Kingdom’s vision is for its entirefreight distribution network to be used as efficiently and effectively as possible, in a manner whichsupports the continued economic growth of the country while at the same time minimising the impactsof distribution on society and the environment.

The UK’s Transport White Paper was published in July 1998. It contains policies and proposalsaimed at creating a better, more integrated transport system and at tackling the problems of pollutionand congestion. Responsibility for implementing the policy lies with both central and local government.Local authorities will set out their proposals for delivering integrated distribution and passengertransport over a five-year period within Local Transport Plans.

The White Paper has led to a number of follow-up papers intended to focus more closely onspecific policy proposals. “Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy” sets out how the government willpromote its policy for a more sustainable distribution system through partnership between central andlocal government and the distribution industry. It sets out an integrated approach to freightdistribution, to make best use of the entire freight infrastructure. It also highlights the significance ofstrategic planning in integrating freight distribution infrastructure within the land-use planningframework and promoting more efficient use of roads, railways, waterways and shipping lanes. Other“daughter” papers are being developed on ports, inland waterway and aviation. A “daughter” paper onshipping was developed in December 1997.

An important measure contained within the Transport White Paper is the requirement for localauthorities to consider opportunities for freight interchange facilities. Draft Planning Policy Guidancesets out how regional transport strategies can be used to facilitate their development.

The UK Government provides funding to firms in the form of Freight Facility Grants (FFGs) toencourage the movement of freight away from road and on to other modes. FFGs aim to offset some ofthe costs of the investment in infrastructure required by alternative distribution modes, consequentlyaverting one of the major reasons for maintaining existing practices and being unwilling to adopt newideas. The government is committed to extending Freight Facilities Grants to coastal and short seashipping.

Additional information relating to the United Kingdom can be found in Annex.

United States

In the United States, two acts support intermodal transport: the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991, and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The Office ofIntermodalism was created as a result of the above legislation, to co-ordinate all modal agencies in thepromotion of intermodal transport. The United States have made funds available for infrastructureprojects, the development of intermodal loading units and for financial support on certain non-profitroutes. On institutional aspects, the United States are working on a North America Freight FacilitationStrategy and the development of freight partnerships with the private sector. For infrastructuredevelopment, the United States are conducting studies of intermodal freight connectors on their

© OECD 2001


38

National Highway System, and intermodal freight capacity, including the marine transportation system.Chicago is doing a study on metropolitan area freight. Other initiatives on operations and safety areunderway; for example, a programme on international border clearance, a working group on intermodalfreight technology and ITS testing. Finally, the regulatory initiatives include studies on truck size andweight and container standards.

The Department of Transport administers a number of modal agencies. The Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), the Federal Railway Administration (FRA), the Marine Administration (MARAD),the Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)administer surface transportation, while the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration(NHTSA), the FHWA Motor Carrier Safety, the FRA Safety and the RSPA Pipeline Safety administersurface transportation safety. There are also other federal regulatory agencies that deal withtransportation issues, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, the Surface Transportation Boardand the US Maritime Board/Commission, whose responsibilities include economic (competition) andsafety aspects. The Army Corps of Engineers has an important role in the functioning of inlandwaterways and dredging of ports. Intermodal transportation in the United States has recently taken on ahigher profile, with the appointment of an Associate Deputy Secretary and Director to head a specificintermodal office. The staff is financed with resources from the Federal Highway Administration.Transportation agencies also work closely with other departments, in particular on environmentalissues. The United States and Canada have also created a joint non-governmental venture to developand administer the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

In addition to the modal agencies administered by the DOT, there are Metropolitan PlanningOffices for transportation, and Port Authorities, which are public entities. The VOLPE transport researchcentre in Boston is a federal-government-funded organisation that conducts research on differenttransportation matters, such as Global Positioning Systems activities and operator performanceanalysis. Several private organisations are involved to different extents in intermodal transport: theIntermodal Association of North America, the Containerization and Intermodal Institute and theIntelligent Transportation Systems Society. All freight carriers in the United States are owned andoperated by the private sector.

The establishment of an intermodal freight analysis framework is expected to help prepare thecase for further funding of freight-related activities in the next six-year re-authorisation processbeginning in 2002.

Additional information relating to the United States can be found in Annex.

European Union

The European Commission has clear goals to promote competition between modes of transportand haulage services by harmonising transport regulations. It also wants to create a European transportnetwork by improving the interoperability of different systems, and make better use of existinginfrastructure and internalise external transport costs.

The core purpose of the Common Transport Policy is to create a framework for sustainable mobility.Important goals of EU transport policy are:

• The creation of a liberalised and efficient internal transport market, with competition betweenmodes of transport and haulage services, based on the necessary degree of harmonisation ofnational transport regulations; basic components of this objective are the revitalisation of therailways and the liberalisation of port services.

• The development of the transport Trans-European Networks with the integration of nationaltransport networks into a European network by improving the interconnections and the technicalinteroperability of different systems.

• The integration of transport modes from unimodal to multimodal networks, so that more efficientuse is made of the infrastructure; in this respect it is especially important to establish a common

© OECD 2001


39

framework for the allocation of the costs of infrastructure use, while respecting the subsidiaryprinciple and specific national situations.

• To reduce, as far as possible, the negative effects that transport has on society, not only those onthe environment, but especially those produced by safety problems.

• To reinforce the external dimension of the Common Transport Policy in particular in relation toenlargement.

The policy objective behind the Commission’s action to promote freight intermodalism is shown inthe Communication Paper on “Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European Union”.3

The objective is: “to develop a framework for an optimal integration of different modes so as to enablean efficient and cost-effective use of the transport system through seamless, customer-oriented door-to-door services, whilst favouring competition between transport operators”. The integration of modes isaddressed at three levels: infrastructure and transport means, operations and use of infrastructure, andservices and regulations. The main objectives of this Communication are to identify existing frictioncosts in intermodal transport and to propose an action programme. The most important areas of actionrelate to:

• The establishment of a uniform intermodal liability regime.

• Standardisation of loading units.

• The creation of an electronic commerce market for intermodal transport.

• Integration of intermodal transport in supply chains.

Currently, competencies on intermodal issues are split between different units of the Directoratesof Land Transport (Combined Transport), Trans-European Networks and Infrastructure (TEN ofCombined Transport) and Development of Transport Policy and Research and Development (RTD andthe Intermodality Action Programme).

Within the offices of the European Commission, intermodal transport4 is handled by the Unit forAnalysis and Transport Policy Development of the Directorate for Research and Development andDevelopment of Transport Policy. Combined transport, as defined by the ECMT, is the responsibility ofthe Directorate of Inland Transport’s Unit for Freight.

The European Union has also shown its commitment to the promotion of intermodalism intransportation through legislation concerning the development of the Trans-European Networks,measures of liberalisation, the programme Pilot Actions on Combined Transport and research anddevelopment.

Additional information relating to the European Union can be found in Annex.

3. COM(97)243 final of 29.05.1997.4. Defined as any combination of at least two modes of transport.

© OECD 2001

41

Chapter 5

CONCLUSIONS

Aim and rationale for intermodal transport

• Intermodal policies aim to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the door-to-doorintegrated transport chain.

• Key driving forces for promoting intermodal transport differ among countries and vary over time.The main rationale for promoting intermodalism ranges from the efficient use of infrastructureand the promotion of operational business efficiency to environmental concerns.

Modal approaches are necessary… but not sufficient

• Intermodal transport is hampered if the performance of any of the key transport modes isinadequate or if the linkages between modes are not efficient and reliable.

• Since the current level of performance of individual modes is not satisfactory in many countries,it is understandable that modal approaches continue to dominate in many cases. Modalapproaches are needed to achieve efficiency gains as well as potential environmental and safetyimprovements in each mode’s operations.

• Modal approaches are also appropriate in areas where regulatory reform is required (e.g. railliberalisation in Europe).

• Many of the policy measures considered likely to promote “intermodalism” include mode-specific actions. For example, the promotion of a modal shift away from road to rail or inlandshipping focuses on improving the rail and waterway infrastructure in order to strengthen thecompetitive positions of these transport modes.

• In most countries, there is emphasis in the policy frameworks on promoting transport efficiencyand facilitating modal reform. While the approaches to achieving transport efficiencyimprovements differ, policy frameworks generally support competitive operating environments.In addition, there is increasing reliance on policies favouring more commercial approaches to theprovision of transport infrastructure and transport operations (including competition in thepricing and provision of transport services) which can be valuable tools in improving modaltransport efficiency.

• The key question is whether pursuit of modal policies alone will suffice to deal with thechallenges of the future, which include substantial growth in international and national goodstransport and the development of individual business-to-business and business-to-consumermarkets, facilitated by rapid growth in electronic commerce applications. While governmentshave tended to pursue modal policy approaches, industry has increasingly taken an intermodalapproach to provision of the services required by users.

• In order to achieve improvements in efficiency and environmental outcomes that go beyondthose that can be realised by purely modal policies, many countries are now consideringtransport issues more from the perspective of the whole door-to-door transport chain. Such a“chain approach” leads most often to different measures and captures the benefits from use ofthe most appropriate modes that are being sought by transport users and operators as well as by

© OECD 2001


42

governments. Such measures overlay modal policies, promote inter-operability and competitionbetween modes and fall into the domain of true “intermodal policies” in their broadest sense. Inmany transport administrations, this type of intermodal thinking, which focuses on integratedtransport, is already present in policy objectives; however, while the words are there, the deedsoften lag behind.

• It is difficult to design and implement “true” intermodal measures in a predominantly mode-specific world and it has to be recognised that the costs can often be considerable (and beyondthe resources of individual users) and relate to different transport operations (with differentownership structures), while the benefits can be widely dispersed across a range of users anddifficult to recover under current pricing systems. This is an area for policy development whichmay require a new type of logistical knowledge in government organisations. Governmentorganisations know a great deal about road, rail, waterways and sea-going shipping, but aregenerally less knowledgeable about logistical chains, and tend to focus less on the operationalefficiency of the transport system as a whole than on modal issues.

Different approaches can be taken, depending on governmental involvement in transport ownership/provision and transport operations

• The extent of government involvement in transport infrastructure and operations is another factorwhich influences the policy approach and priority assigned to intermodal policy developmentand implementation. In recent years, environmental concerns have placed greater focus on therole of intermodal transport.

• Governments having a high level of involvement in transport infrastructure ownership/provisionand transport operations, need to be actively involved in intermodal policy development andthe intermodal actions taken by their transport operations. This recognises that many of theintermodal issues which need to be addressed by government and private sector organisationsare likely to be related to facilities (such as ports and intermodal terminals) or operations (suchas combined transport involving rail services) which involve government ownership.

• In countries where there is increasing private ownership and/or operation of transportinfrastructure as governments have withdrawn from involvement in commercial transportoperations, intermodal transport improvements are largely driven by industry interests (shippersand carriers) seeking to provide value-added services and find least-cost solutions totransportation problems.

• In countries with a high level of reliance on market forces and private infrastructure ownershipand operations, there are nevertheless a number of policy issues relating to matters such as theefficiency of transport services, charging and taxing regimes and environmental aspects oftransport infrastructure and operations that require intermodal policy consideration. Moreover,governments play an important role in creating the regulatory framework in which intermodaltransport can develop, encompassing such diverse factors as safety and environmentalregulations, customs procedures and EDI.

Policy instruments

• Transport administrations with established and dedicated intermodal transport programmes andresources – such as a special action programme, a special task force, an intermodal transportpolicy unit or other similar organisational provisions – have developed more explicit and morefocused intermodal transport policies than have transport administrations with purely “mono”-modal units. Dedicated intermodal transport programmes also tend to adopt different types ofinstruments and develop different external relations than typical “mono”-modal units, thuscontributing to variety in the policy mix. Since there seldom is a silver bullet guaranteeing policyeffectiveness, variety can be beneficial.

© OECD 2001

Conclusions

43

• The relative weight of the key elements in the policy objectives is reflected in the types ofinstruments which are being applied in practice. In some countries, the justification for promotingintermodal policies and the type of instruments used focus on environmental issues and modalsplit while in others the centre of gravity is on efficiency and pricing instruments.

• The main policy instruments currently in use are:

– Strategic planning to integrate freight distribution infrastructure with land-use plans.

– Regulatory and legislative initiatives, including regulation of vehicle weights and dimensions.

– Economic instruments, such as taxes and charges.

– Financial assistance to government transport operations (e.g. ports and railways) to stimulatethe development of terminals and transfer points and support the purchase of intermodalequipment.

– Initiation, leadership and support for intermodal demonstration projects involving the privatesector.

– Financial incentives, including support for research and development.

• Governments that are more interventionist or more directly involved in ownership of transportoperations are also likely to use regulatory measures such as licensing exemptions and drivingbans at specified times to favour intermodal transport. In countries with greater reliance onmarket forces, use of such regulatory instruments by government is limited.

• A number of detailed country responses which can assist other countries interested in intermodalpolicy development provide examples of additional measures which go beyond the traditionaladministrative focus on transport infrastructure and regulations. 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 measuresfavouring intermodal transport efficiency (e.g. on multimodal connectivity and location ofbusiness parks and ports).

– Measures to ensure adequate co-ordination (such as bringing all modes under oneadministrative umbrella).

– Intermodal corridor analyses.

– Policies aimed at standardisation of loading units and other actions favouring interoperability.

– Policies promoting logistical efficiency analyses by shippers and improvement in efficiencythrough goods stream analysis.

– Monitoring of the economic and environmental performance of multimodal chains.

Communication between intermodal transport policy units and other actors

• Intermodal policy development requires co-operative arrangements between government andthe private sector. This is in part because intermodal services generally involve freight transfersbetween transport operations and infrastructure with different ownership structures. Majortransport infrastructure was originally publicly owned and it is only relatively recently thatgovernments in some countries have divested themselves of operational responsibilities formajor infrastructure such as motorways, airports and ports. However, road, aviation and maritimetransport services are generally undertaken by the private sector and there is an increasing trendtowards commercial rail operations and private sector management of rail infrastructure.

• Intermodal transport policies and improvements need to be developed co-operatively withmodal approaches to ensure that they are targeted at existing impediments and aimed at gettingthe linkages right. Co-operative arrangements can help to maintain a focus on the improvementssought by governments, such as: intermodal infrastructure at airports and ports; environmentalbenefits from improved intermodal services; harmonisation of operational practices andstandards; and interoperability in technology. They also can highlight the improvements sought

© OECD 2001


44

by users, such as: a wider range of transport options and therefore greater choice for users;increased reliability; and improved transport services at reasonable cost.

• The likelihood of intermodal transport policy being successful depends on the relationshipbetween intermodal transport policy units (or other policy structures), industry advisory bodiesand other stakeholders, including:

– The formation of industry advisory groups/government consultancy boards, with a clear roleand function, increases the probability of intermodal transport policies targeting the keyissues; such industry advisory groups are more effective if they have clearly defined tasks andreport directly to the minister responsible for transport.

– Intermodal transport policies stand a greater chance of being implemented if the industrybodies and intermodal transport policy units or other structures have clear lines ofcommunication with other government ministries, such as Finance, Environment, Trade, etc.

Performance-based outcomes

• Possible organisational benchmarks can be identified, but it is extremely difficult to measure theeffectiveness of a policy and even more difficult to compare the effectiveness of policies indifferent countries. Instead, the approaches outlined provide a “toolkit” for countries whensetting up intermodal arrangements or considering organisational structures for intermodaltransport.

• The true value of intermodal approaches should be assessed in terms of performance “on theground”, rather than in terms of factors such as institutional arrangements alone.

• 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.There is a lack of data on which an overall assessment could be made. Aggregate estimates offreight movement output (e.g. freight transport by rail in Europe) are not reliable indicators. Forexample, increases in intermodal transport volume may not show up in aggregate rail-freight dataif the increase in intermodal tonnage is offset by decreases in the volume of bulk freight and viceversa. Nevertheless, the emerging picture is that market share may not have changed significantlyin aggregate terms, although in some specific cases it has. However, in a growing overall transportmarket, even a stable market share would mean an increase in intermodal volumes.

• The probability of better information becoming generally available in the future is quite low,given that the private sector will be increasingly involved in intermodal transport (with relatedcommercial confidentiality concerns). In addition, changes in border controls may reduce someexisting data collections, and budget constraints in most countries will limit new collections toissues with the highest priority.

• Intermodal projects should be evaluated on a “case-by-case” basis, working with the private andpublic sector organisations involved. Such an approach is similar to that adopted in many otheraspects of transport (such as safety) where macro indicators may not provide a reliable guide tothe effectiveness of individual programmes.

Identification and removal of impediments

• Further work should concentrate on developing benchmarks for intermodal performance ofmodes, modal combinations and modal interfaces and identifying policy options forgovernments to address impediments to intermodal efficiency.

© OECD 2001

45

Annex 1

POLICIES AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES IN THE NETHERLANDS,THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Netherlands

Policy

The mission of the State’s freight transport policy, as developed by the Directorate-General for Freight Transport,is to contribute to a safe, competitive freight transport system, with the goal of sustainable economic development.Intermodal transport plays a vital role in achieving this goal. However, achieving sustainable development is not thesole responsibility of government. On the contrary, a critical success factor is the willingness of the private sector totake action. The government influences the direction of the desired outcome by stimulating, facilitating andregulating the market process.

In the Second Transport Structure Plan (STSP) 1989-90 of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and WaterManagement, intermodal transport was mentioned as a growing market. The basic assumption was the need toachieve sustainable development. In this respect, intermodal transport is a way of achieving both the underlyingeconomic objectives (accommodating transport growth and facilitating high-grade goods flows in order to promoteemployment and value-added services) and the environmental objectives (alternative to long-haul road haulage).

The STSP intermodal transport component was worked out in 1994 by a Task Force on Intermodal Transport ofthe Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. This Task Force prepared a Policy Paper on thePromotion of Intermodal Transport which set ambitious targets for intermodal transport:

• Rail: from 2.6 million tonnes of unitised freight in 1993 to around 25 million tonnes in 2015.

• Inland shipping: from 5.7 million tonnes of unitised freight in 1993 to around 25 million tonnes in 2015.

• Short-sea shipping: to at least maintain its share of the transport of maritime containers and to capture 50% of themarket currently served by road transport to specific short-sea shipping destinations from the Netherlands:this involves an increase from 4.3 million tonnes in 1993 to 13 million tonnes in 2015.

Intermodal transport in unitised freight flows over a distance in excess of 200 km should therefore increase from12.6 million tonnes in 1994 to around 63 million tonnes in 2015. The market share of intermodal transport shouldaccordingly rise from approximately 30% in 1993 to almost 60% in 2015. Available information on current intermodalvolumes is set out in Tables A2 and A3.

Achieving the objectives for intermodal transport was rated very important from the point of view of economicdevelopment and environmental quality. A sharp increase in road transport will necessarily reduce the accessibilityof the Netherlands and worsen the competitive position of its main ports. This may make the Netherlands lessattractive to international companies. As can be seen, traffic congestion can adversely affect the functioning of theeconomy.

The reduction in traffic movements and exhaust emissions (CO2, NOx) that would be achieved by the use of waterand rail transport emphasises the direct relationship between intermodal transport and the objectives forenvironmental quality set out in the Second Transport Structure Plan.

In 1996, the Dutch Government adopted a plan of approach on freight transport, called “Transport in Balance”.The starting point for the approach was an objective for economic growth of 3% per year to improve the generalsustainability or durability of the economy. Transport policy will also have to fully comply with this objective.

The policy objectives of “Transport in Balance” are:

• Reinforcement of the competitive position of sustainable transport, particularly rail, inland shipping and shortsea by, among other means, infrastructure initiatives.

• Reduction of the environmental load from road traffic by, among other means, technical measures andincreasing efficiency (kilometre reduction).

• Improvement of the accessibility of economic centres for goods traffic on the road.

© OECD


46

“Transport in Balance” is the freight-specific supplement to the plan “Working Together on Accessibility”. Itcontains a package of infrastructural improvements and extensions in the field of road and rail. “Transport in Balance”announced over NLG 200 million of additional infrastructure investments in inland waterways, NLG 60 million for railinfrastructure and NLG 60 million for miscellaneous measures (a total of NLG 320 million) to promote modal shift.Furthermore, “Transport in Balance” sets out many other measures encouraging greater recourse to transport byother modes (rail, inland shipping, short sea) and, whenever possible, restricting the nuisance factors caused by roadtransport.

Transferring goods from roads to other modes of transport, i.e. modal shift, was considered as one means ofalleviating the adverse impacts of road transport. However, other modes do not always offer a satisfactory alternative.For this reason, the aim is to ensure that as few empty kilometres are driven as possible and that vehicles cause aminimum of environmental damage. More efficient and cleaner road transport is thus also an important objective.

In “Transport in Balance”, emphasis is placed on strengthening the market share of environmentally responsiblefreight-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.

A third Transport Structure Plan is currently being developed, in which intermodal transport policy is viewed asa integral part of a high-quality and efficient goods transport system. Transport by rail or water instead of by road ispreferred when this is the best option from the point of view of utilisation of the available infrastructure capacity ofthe whole network or from the point of view of safety.

Environmental concern used to be a very important driving force behind the Dutch Government’s promotion ofintermodal transport. Now that the road sector has drastically improved its environmental performance, theassumption that a policy which aims at modal shift of freight transport from road to rail, water and pipelines, willalways be good for the environment is no longer guaranteed to be right in all cases. An important new driving forcefor the Dutch Government to promote intermodal transport is accessibility: the importance of freight transport forproduction and trade is undeniable. Freight transport to, from and through the Netherlands is of utmost socio-economic importance.

The new intermodal transport policy aims at the optimisation and integration of the different links in thetransport chain. The stimulation of a modal shift from road transport to railways, inland waterways and short sea and– in the future – underground tube transport systems will only be pursued if it can be demonstrated that this strategyis preferable for economic or environmental reasons. This calls for a spatial structure which comprises multimodalinfrastructure, nodal points and industry parks that support intermodal transport. For example, it is important todesign a port region in such a way that efficient performance is encouraged in all transport modes.

In addition to the policy approach outlined above, which is aimed at the “supply side” of the traffic market, it isalso important to stimulate the “demand side” of intermodal transport, i.e. to influence the choices of shippers andlogistic service providers.

Intermodal transport alone will not suffice to achieve a high-quality and sustainable transport system.Intermodal policy is just one component of the integrated freight transport policy of the Dutch Government. This iscertainly true when the expected growth of freight transport is considered. Forecasts for the Netherlands indicate anannual economic expansion of 2.75%, resulting in an increase in the volume of freight transport of 60% by 2010. In adensely populated country such as the Netherlands, the use of scarce space for logistics, industry, agriculture andresidential purposes is a topic of political debate. The expected growth will considerably intensify the struggle forspace and, combined with the need for sustainable development, calls for a rethinking of the role of transport andlogistics in the economy.

Traditionally, the Dutch Ministry of Transport has focused on traffic and infrastructural issues in order to optimisethe functioning of the traffic market. Simply stated, the approach has consisted of trying to keep the supply ofinfrastructure in line with rising demand. To move towards the goal of sustainability, the approach has to shift awayfrom this “provide-and-react” strategy, to a strategy of “anticipate-and-prevent”. In this approach, the policy domain,the traditional focus on traffic and infrastructure, is expanded considerably. It includes influencing the demand side,not only of the traffic market and the underlying transport demand by shippers, but also at the source of transport:the goods-market, i.e. decisions taken by consumers, producers and other governments.

The “anticipate-and-prevent’ strategy comprises three pillars that, taken together, can lead to a more “transport-efficient economy”:

– First, the endeavour to avoid transport that is, from an economic point of view, not strictly necessary. In otherwords, it should be possible to reduce the number of trips and the length of trips by measures such asreducing the volume of products, e.g. via reducing the water and air content of products; optimising theplanning of production processes, production and distribution locations; and logistical strategies whichmight result in slowing down the rise in demand for transport services.

• Second, transport that is nevertheless needed should use the most appropriate mode from an efficiency pointof view. The modal-shift scanning project shows that in many cases rail, inland waterways or short-sea shippingare viable alternatives to road transport and do not always cost more.

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

47

• Third, each transport mode accommodating the resulting traffic flows should be aiming at maximum efficiency.A better utilisation of capacity using technical measures and pricing policies and certain expansions of theinfrastructure are key factors in achieving this.

Promising policy directions

Better use of existing infrastructure, and selective provision of new infrastructure

Better use can be achieved by spreading demand more evenly over time and encouraging a switch to less-congested modes whenever possible. Better use of infrastructure will be achieved by technical and operationalmeasures (e.g. traffic management), but should be supported by pricing measures to reduce demand in peakperiods. The current road pricing plan ( “prisfitstarief”, i.e. peak tariff) is focused on a shift from peak periods to otherperiods in highly congested links on the infrastructural network. This current plan is a first step towards a more far-reaching pricing policy, aimed at charging prices that reflect the internal and external costs of various modes. On thispoint, Dutch policy is based on the EU proposals presented in the White Paper on Fair Payment for InfrastructureUse, although many questions are still open to debate.

However, where bottlenecks remain after the application of “peak tariff” pricing and after optimisation ofthe use of existing capacity with other measures, additional infrastructure should be considered. Such anapproach represents a change from past practice, when constructing new infrastructure seemed to be the firstand most obvious solution. Nevertheless, the Netherlands will spend USD 35 billion on infrastructure betweennow and 2010.

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.They need to take responsibility in making the economy more transport-efficient. In order to speed up this process,the Ministry is advocating a “logistical reporting and care system”. Such a system, which is comparable with the well-known quality systems, will be developed together with the industry branch organisations.

Of course, raising efficiency is not solely the responsibility of shippers. Consumers, too, should be made moreaware of the consequences of their behaviour. All citizens need to understand that ever-increasing requirements forsuch things as “Efficient Consumer Response” and shorter lead-times, as well as e-commerce, will in many casesserve to increase demand for transport capacity and could thus endanger sustainable development.

Promoting transport-efficiency-oriented physical planning concepts

The key notion here is that, if economic activities can be concentrated, transport flows and intermodal facilitiesin transport-economic corridors can lead to higher transport efficiency. The Netherlands have elaborated on this andhave chosen to give priority to a limited number of major economic freight corridors in addition to physical planningconcepts which are city/passenger transport oriented. The development of transport-efficient freight corridors needsto incorporate the construction of terminals allowing a seamless switch from one mode of transport to another.

A new policy vision is that new industrial parks should be accessible for multiple modes of transport. Animportant concept in this respect is “bundling”, which implies that new industrial plants should preferably be locatednear links with the hinterland. Furthermore, these industrial parks should preferentially be placed near terminalswhich are optimally located and easily accessible.

Mode-specific policies

Inland shipping

Improvement of the secondary waterway network is desirable to further reinforce the role of inland shippingwithin the borders of the Netherlands. While the large through-traffic routes (the main waterway network) areexcellent and have led to the success of the inland shipping sector operating to Germany and Belgium, thesometimes low quality of the secondary network of smaller waterways acts as a barrier to further expansion. Thewhole inland shipping sector was to be progressively liberalised by the year 2000.

The situation in ports is also important. In expanding or restructuring ports, access to all modes should beconsidered.

Short sea

Over the coming year, the accent in short-sea transport will be energetically placed on the development of thedemand side. A recent survey of shippers showed that potential users are still not fully aware of the possibilities of

© OECD 2001


48

short-sea transport. In addition, a number of prejudices are associated with short-sea shipping. A promotion plan iscurrently being developed to address these bottlenecks.

Rail transport

To improve the quality of freight transport by rail, the government promotes competition between freightcarriers. At the time being there is one national freight carrier and two small ones. Policy is therefore directedat 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 – a 160-km long freight rail connection between Rotterdam and Germany, currently underconstruction – will not only provide the necessary capacity for growth, but will also improve the quality and reducethe costs of rail transport. The Betuwe line is dedicated to freight transport and should lead to a substantiallyimproved and more competitive transport product.

Other programmes

Intermodal transport is promoted by a number of other programmes and actions. These include: a researchprogramme on underground tube transport systems; a project to improve logistic efficiency in companies; andseveral subsidisation schemes to promote intermodal transport equipment and connections. For example, to fosterawareness among shippers, the logistic chains of 100 shippers have been examined to explore the possibilities formodal shift.

Organisation

The Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management is divided into five directorates-general. TheDirectorate for Freight Transport encompasses two inspectorates, two project directorates and three policydirectorates: Transport Safety, Transport Sectors and General Freight Transport Policy. Within the Infrastructure, Portsand Intermodal Division of the General Freight Transport Policy Directorate, a small team is responsible forcombined transport policy. The team co-operates closely with a number of other Departments: Economic Affairs,Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Agriculture, and Finance.

Regional organisations promoting intermodal transport include the Foundation for Combined Transport,Rotterdam Internal Logistics, 5 Modes Distri Network, the Multimodal Transport Region Northern Netherlands andthe Multimodal Co-ordination and Assistance Point. In addition, an Association of Inland Terminal Operators hasrecently been created in the Netherlands to standardise intermodal transport where possible and co-ordinatedevelopments.

Instruments

In addition to policies aimed at improving individual modes as applied by the (modal) directorates for transportsectors, the specific intermodal policy instruments used to achieve the goals are:

– Stimulation of the development of terminals and transfer points (budget for rail infrastructure, e.g. theMaasvlakte en Waalhaven rail service centre in the Rotterdam region).

– Expansion of the capacity of the inland waterway network (e.g. budget for canals such as Amsterdam-Lemmer).

• Temporary subsidy arrangement for rail and inland waterway connections (connecting firms to the mainnetwork).

• Stimulation of alternative transport systems for the future (studies and pilots on underground logisticssystems).

– Influencing the logistical behaviour of shippers (modal shift scans; “Transactie” scans for more efficient roadtransport; subsidy for the start-up of a Promotion Bureau for Short Sea Shipping).

• Trial involving longer and heavier trucks for transport to and from intermodal terminals.

• Special lanes for trucks.

• Use of telematics and projects aimed at the prevention of empty kilometres.

• Promoting physical planning favouring multimodal accessible business parks.

Policy toolkit

Table A1 presents an overview of the different intermodal stakeholders and specific policies available to targetthese stakeholders.

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

49

Research and development

Research and development funding is an important instrument. The Netherlands counts several researchinstitutes, although none is specifically for intermodal transport.

The Transportation and Traffic Research Centre (AVV) is positioned within the Ministry of Transport, PublicWorks, Water Management on the knowledge side of the configuration formed by policy, knowledge andimplementation. The responsibility for developing policy lies with the central administration of the Ministry.

AVV is one of the biggest knowledge centres in the Netherlands in the field of traffic and transport by land andwater. In that capacity, AVV is engaged in the preparation and evaluation of policy under the auspices of the centraladministration and implementation division of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. Othertiers of government can make use of the knowledge that is available at the agency. AVV maintains close contacts withinstitutes, universities, and private organisations working in the same field. The agency acts as a representative ofthe Netherlands in international bodies that are involved in the development of knowledge and the disseminationof knowledge in the area of traffic and transport. AVV delivers “asked-for” and “not-asked for” advice for the Ministry.One of the tasks of AVV is the translation of fundamental/scientific research results to policy-relevant information.The Directorate General for Freight Transport is one of the clients of AVV and decides upon the direction of theresearch activities.

A new knowledge-centre was recently founded: Connekt is a public-private R&D centre for traffic and transport.It incorporates three existing organisations: Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS-NL), the Centre for TransportTechnology (CTT) and the Projects Bureau for Integrated Traffic and Transport Studies (PbIVVS). Connekt provides aforum where suppliers and users of knowledge and experience come into contact. When new knowledge needsdeveloping, this can be achieved via programmed research: at Connekt government, education/research andindustry participants collaborate to optimally develop and apply know-how. The Ministry of Transport pays half ofthe costs of the Bureau. The other half is paid by the private sector. Examples of Connekt projects oriented towardsintermodal transport include:

• Integration of networks and interchanges.

• FAMAS (multimodal project aimed at the container terminal of the future).

• New product/market combinations for water and rail freight transportation.

As one of its principal users and contributors, the Directorate-General for Freight Transport is able to influencethe direction of the Connekt programme.

The Trail Research School is a joint post-graduate Research School of the Delft University of Technology, ErasmusUniversity and the University of Groningen. Trail started officially on 1 January 1994 as the Netherlands ResearchSchool for Transport, Infrastructure and Logistics and involves the participation of specialist faculties of theuniversities. There are currently more than 200 researchers active at TRAIL, with more than 100 qualifying for PhDlevel. Twice a year, the Deputy Director-General of Freight Transport participates in a council to help ensure that theresearch is geared to policy needs. Examples of Trail’s research programmes are the Freight Transport Automationand Multimodality research programme and the Seamless Multimodal Mobility research programme, which bothcomprise several studies.

Table A1. Toolkit for intermodal policy fields

StakeholdersPolicy

Government as suppliers

of public infrastructure

Government as physical planningauthority

Terminal operators

Shippers/producers

Transport service providers(road, rail, shipping)

Subsidisation of terminal development XSubsidisation for connecting firms to rail

and inland waterways X

Stimulation of R&D on new transport systems X X

Subsidisation of scans on modal choices and logistic efficiency and campaigns to raise the awareness of shippers X X

Pilot with longer and heavier trucks for transport to and from terminals X

Special lanes for trucks X

Promoting physical planning favouring multimodal business parks X

Subsidisation for demonstration of IT X

© OECD 2001

Interm

od

al Freig

ht Tran

sport: In

stitutional A

spe

cts

50

© O

EC

D 2001

rt

1997

al Million tonnes Containers % intermodal

D

T 397T 4 1.6 40 T 90 1.9 2

T 492

I

T 166 19T 15 3 20T 160 7 4S 29T 216 31 14T 161 15 9T 59 – –

T 776 74

T

T 573 37.7 7T 19 4.6 24T 250 8.9 4T 212 31 15T 163 15 9T 63 – –

1 268 97.2 8

n

Table A2. Intermodal transport in the NetherlandsDefined as the share of container transport in total domestic and international transpo

1986 1995 1996

Million tonnes % intermodal Million tonnes % intermodal Million tonnes Containers % intermod

omestic

onnes road 364 – 398 – 386 17.8onnes rail 5 n.a. 4 n.a. 4 1.4 35onnes inland shipping 84 n.a. 84 n.a. 87 1.7 2

otal 453 486 477 20.9

nternational

onnes road 92 148 161 18onnes rail 14 12 13 2 15onnes inland shipping 154 144 149 6 4ubtotalonnes deep sea 195 209 203 28 14onnes short sea 126 134 152 14 9onnes pipeline 39 52 58 – –

otal 620 699 736 68

otal (Domestic/International)

onnes road 456 545 547 17.8 3onnes rail 19 17 16 3.4 21onnes inland shipping 238 228 237 7.7 3onnes deep sea 195 209 203 28 14onnes short sea 127 134 152 14 9onnes pipeline 39 52 58 – –

1 072 1 184 1 213 70.9 6

.a. Not available.

Ann

ex 1

© O

EC

Table A3. Intermodal transport in the NetherlandsDefined as the share of non-road modalities in domestic and international and domestic container transport

ng: the total weight of goods lifted by inland shipping. Tonnesea to countries outside Europe. Tonnes pipeline: total tonnesed by rail. Percentage intermodal deep sea maritime: total maritime goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the totalnal: import, export and throughput the Netherlands. Domestic:

ed in containers: 3% = 2 million tonnes/68 million tonnes*100.land modalities: 9% = 2 million tonnes/26 million tonnes*100.

996 1997

inter-odal

Tonnes% inter-modal

18.77 1.6 78 1.9 8

22.1

1931 92 3 41 102

9 23 7 9 2429

21% 15 2041% 31 42

74

EUs TEUs

86 9947 161

62 30840 69786 1 61879 3 162

03 7 714

51

D 2001

Notes: n.a.: not available. Tonnes: metric tonnes. Tonnes rail: the total weight of goods lifted by rail during the given year. Tonnes inland shippishort sea shipping: transport over sea between the Netherlands and European countries. Tonnes deep sea: international transport over sper pipeline. Percentage intermodal rail: the total weight of unitised goods lifted expressed as a percentage of the total goods liftof all container expressed as a percentage of total maritime traffic. Percentage intermodal inland shipping: the total weight of unitisedof goods lifted by inland shipping. TEUs: loaded rail/inland shipping number of loaded TEUs transported by rail/inland shipping. Internatiowith 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 transport2. Intermodal transport is defined as the percentage of goods transported by rail in containers as a share of the total of goods transported by inSource : Verkeer Economische Verkenningen, 1998-2003; Beleidseffect Rapportage, 1998.

1986 1994 1995 1

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% inter-modal

Tonnes% m

DomesticTonnes road (millions) 17.8Tonnes rail (millions) n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.4Tonnes inland waterways (millions) n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.7Total (millions) 20.9

InternationalTonnes road (millions) 6 18Tonnes rail (millions) 1 13 1.8 8 2.1 9 2Tonnes inland shipping (millions) 2 21 4.9 23 5.6 24 6Sub-total 26Tonnes short sea (millions) 9 14Tonnes deep sea (millions) 14 28

Total 33 68

TEUs TEUs TEUs TEUs T

DomesticTEUs rail (“000) n.a. n.a. n.a.TEUs inland shipping (“000) n.a. n.a. n.a. 1Total

InternationalTEUs rail (“000) 123 181 218 2TEUs inland shipping (“000) 191 495 573 6TEUs short sea (“000) 862 1 4TEUs deep sea (“000) 1 420 2 8

Total 3 212 7 1


52

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 thatwere 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 trafficby 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. Incontrast, rail freight traffic fell to a low of 6% in 1994. Accompanying this growth in road traffic has been an increase inthe transport contribution to carbon dioxide emissions. Road transport is the fastest growing source of CO2 emissionsin the United Kingdom, the energy and industry sectors having succeeded in controlling their emissions ofgreenhouse gases. It was clear that a new policy needed to be developed to address the problems that increasedcongestion and CO2 emissions would cause, not least of these being higher costs to business, increased pollutionand 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 policiesand 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 seekto create a more sustainable transport system in the United Kingdom while at the same time ensuring that thissystem 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 outlinesfour 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 andeducation policies. In order to develop and implement specific policies and proposals, the White Paper madeprovision 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 specificpolicy proposals more closely. “Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy”2 sets out how, through partnership among centralgovernment, local government and the distribution industry, the United Kingdom will promote its policy for thedevelopment of sustainable distribution systems. The document sets out an integrated approach to freightdistribution, making the best use of the entire freight infrastructure. It also highlights the significance of strategicplanning in integrating freight distribution infrastructure within the land-use planning framework and promotingmore 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 long-term strategic vision for the British shipping industry. This paper sets out policies designed to reverse the decline inthe British merchant navy and aims to more fully integrate British shipping within the country’s wider economic andindustrial aims. The paper also announced the intention of the UK Government to extend the Freight Facilities GrantScheme 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 isconsidered to play a vital role in building a sustainable distribution system. Integration of the United Kingdom’sfreight distribution system can benefit industry, the environment and society. When effectively used, railways andshipping offer a more energy-efficient and less polluting means of goods distribution. The transfer of goods from roadto alternative modes can also play a part in reducing congestion. These modes also have better safety recordsthan 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 freightdistribution network used as efficiently and effectively as possible, in a manner which supports the continuedeconomic growth of the country while at the same time minimising the impacts of distribution on society andthe environment. One prerequisite for such a vision is to ensure that freight can interchange between modessmoothly, efficiently and with least cost – that the network is fully integrated. One of the foci of governmentpolicy is therefore to improve the integration of the freight distribution system. Government objectives forplanning which are designed to promote integration are set out below. The government has also elaborated a

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

53

strategy for major freight interchanges and has tasked the Highways Agency and Railtrack to identify opportunitiesfor new intermodal freight facilities.

• A strategy for major freight interchanges

The government paper “Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy” sets out a national policy framework within whichmajor freight interchanges can be planned and considered. This policy requires that, in the planning anddevelopment 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 caseswhere suitable spare capacity exists or can be created.

• Where new facilities or expansion involving new land take are required, that the criteria established in theUnited 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 nationalairports 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 Agencytogether with Railtrack have established a Memorandum of Understanding. They are undertaking a joint assessmentwhich 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 thestrategic importance of future intermodal terminal development.

• An aviation policy

Currently being prepared is an air transport “daughter” document that recognises the increasingly importantcontribution that aviation makes to the competitiveness and productivity of the UK economy. In conjunction withother documents, one theme of the air transport document will be the importance of strategic planning in integratingairfreight with other modes. New or expanding airport facilities require careful planning so that they are sited in themost sustainable locations supported by quality links with other modes, while minimising intrusion to localresidents.

• 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 yearsand will herald the start of a more proactive role for government through a “Ports Partnership” and improvements inthe regulation of ports within the framework of the Integrated Transport White Paper. The paper will promote portsas multimodal transport and distribution facilities, encouraging domestic/coastal shipping, better use of rail links andsustainable use of road links. It will reiterate the UK Government’s views on ports’ subsidies and its general supportfor 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 authoritieson the use of their statutory powers in the safe operation of their ports. It will be a voluntary code but a reserve powerallowing 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 ishandled 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 ofexisting infrastructure and promoting the use of inland waterways for freight traffic. There are approximately3 550 miles (5 700 km) of navigable non-tidal inland waterways in Britain. British Waterways (BW) is responsible forabout 2 000 miles (3 220 km), mostly canals; the Environment Agency about 500 miles (800 km), mostly rivers; and theBroads Authority 125 miles (200 km). The remainder is managed by 30 smaller navigation authorities. Waterbornefreight survives on only a few waterways, mainly broad waterways managed by British Waterways. The annual tonnagemoved is less than 1% of the national total.

© OECD 2001


54

• A planning policy

Since 1988, the UK Government has been issuing guidance to local authorities and others on national planningpolicies and the operation of the planning system in the form of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs), RegionalPlanning Guidance (RPG) and Minerals Planning Guidance notes (MPGs). RPG sets out broad strategic policies at theregional level where there are matters which, although not of national scope, apply across regions or parts of regionsand need to be considered on a scale wider than the area of a single authority.

The main purpose of RPG is to provide a regional framework for the preparation of local authority developmentplans. It sets out a broad development framework for the region over a 15 to 20 year period and will normally identifythe scale and distribution of provision for new housing and priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure,economic development, agriculture, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. However, in future, RPG will alsohave a broader spatial role informing other strategies and programmes. In particular:

• By virtue of incorporating a regional transport strategy, it will provide the regional context for the preparationof local transport plans.

• 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 authoritiesto consider opportunities for freight interchange facilities. Draft Planning Policy Guidance (PPG 11)4 sets outthe scope of regional transport strategies and how they will be prepared.

– New draft planning guidance (Planning Policy Guidance PPG 13)5 provides advice to local authorities on thepreparation of their development plans and in determining planning applications, local authorities should:

• Where possible, locate developments generating substantial freight movements such as distribution andwarehousing, particularly of bulk goods, away from congested central areas and residential areas.

• Encourage development which is, or can realistically be, served by rail or water and development with good(although where possible indirect) access to trunk roads and allocate appropriate sites.

• Promote sustainable distribution in developments and related uses which generate freight, looking at aspectssuch as design, scale and location, taking account of guidance in regional transport strategies on freightterminals, in particular multimodal terminals.

• Identify, and where appropriate protect, sites and routes, both existing and potential, which could be criticalin developing infrastructure to widen choices for both freight and passengers (such as interchange facilitiesallowing road to rail transfer or for water transport) and ensure that any such disused transport sites and routesare not unnecessarily severed by new buildings and non-transport land uses.

• On disused transport sites, consider uses related to sustainable transport first, before other uses.

• Identify, and where appropriate protect, realistic opportunities for rail or waterway connections to existingmanufacturing, distribution and warehousing sites adjacent or close to the rail network, waterways or coastal/estuarial ports.

Organisation

Government

The Department of Transport was merged in 1997 with the Department of the Environment to form theDepartment of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)6 with the aim of improving the quality of life bypromoting sustainable development at home and abroad, fostering economic prosperity and supporting localdemocracy.

The Railways, Aviation, Logistics and Maritime Transport Directorate-General brings together, under onecommand, issues to do with the transport of goods.

The Railways Directorate develops and implements international and domestic rail freight policy, includingChannel Tunnel operations. The directorate is responsible for delivering one of the principal objectives of thegovernment – to increase the volume of rail-borne freight. Additionally, it manages the Channel Tunnel Rail Linkproject (CTRL)7 which will provide a purpose built high-speed passenger and freight line for Channel Tunnel trafficthrough the south-east of England.

The Aviation Directorate promotes a safe, competitive and environmentally responsible air transport system. Itseeks to improve safety standards both in the UK industry and worldwide and it plays a major role in facilitating anincrease in European airspace. It has a responsibility for airports’ policy, aviation noise and environmental issues andit sponsors the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA is responsible for protecting the interests of consumers, ensuringthat environmental objectives are pursued and achieved, and operating air traffic control.

The Logistics and Maritime Transport Directorate carries out several functions. It is responsible for policy relatedto the road-haulage, shipping and ports industries. It aims to increase the contribution made by the British shippingindustry to the UK economy and environment. It is responsible for policy concerning the UK road-haulage industry

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

55

and the ports industry. It also provides a focus and wider policy framework for all the Department’s concerns andactivities relating to the United Kingdom’s national and international physical distribution systems. The Directorateseeks to promote both horizontal (modal) and vertical (energy efficiency, environmental performance, economicefficiency, land-use planning and social impact) policy integration. This role is cross-cutting since it seeks toco-ordinate policies across the Department.

• Regional government

At the Regional level, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), working through the Regional GovernmentOffices, have responsibility for preparing Regional Planning Guidance. This guidance must now include a regionaltransport strategy. RDAs must ensure that such strategies consider the scope for promoting the movement of freightby rail and water and provide a strategic steer on the role of airports and ports within their regions. Through thismechanism it is expected that the ability of the planning system to promote more integrated and sustainable freighttransport patterns can be enhanced – the key to improved intermodal freight movement. This system is currentlybeing put in place.

• Local government

At the local level, it is the responsibility of local government to produce local transport strategies, a keyingredient in the delivery of locally integrated transport. As part of their planning, local authorities will be requiredto protect and provide opportunities for rail freight and inland water freight development in Local Transport Plans.

• Government agencies and other government bodies

Various agencies operate alongside DETR. Their remit is more specifically geared to individual aspects ofgovernment policy:

• The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)8 is responsible for the licensing of drivers in Great Britain,the registration and licensing of vehicles and the collection of vehicle excise duty. This role assists in ensuringthat the road safety objectives of DETR are met.

• The role of the Highways Agency9 is to contribute to sustainable development by maintaining, operating andimproving the network in a manner which supports the government’s environmental, integrated transport andland-use planning policies. The Agency’s primary tasks in carrying out this role are to develop measures aimedat maximising the use of the existing network, to improve the quality of maintenance and provision of thenetwork, and to facilitate links with other transport modes.

• The Vehicle Inspectorate’s objective is to support improved road safety and environmental standards byensuring that motor vehicles are maintained to minimum statutory standards. This includes carrying out bothcompulsory and random roadside checks on road freight vehicles. Such roadside checks also involveinspection of vehicle tachographs and drivers’ hours.

• Great Britain is divided into six traffic area networks. A traffic commissioner heads each network and isresponsible for issuing operating licences for bus and lorry operating companies. Before an operating licencecan be granted, each company must attain specific criteria relating to financial standing, good repute and siteoperating conditions (including safety and environmental impact).

• Strategic Rail Authority. Since privatisation of the rail network, the rail industry has lacked both a focus for long-term strategic planning and a single organisation to ensure that standards are maintained and increased inboth the passenger and rail freight sector. In order to achieve this, the government is establishing a StrategicRail Authority (SRA)10 to ensure that the needs of both passenger and rail freight customers are met (theorganisation is already up and running in shadow form, pending the necessary legislation). The Strategic RailAuthority will be a statutory body that will bring together passenger and freight interests, promote betterintegration (passenger service and intermodal operations), promote rail freight and its infrastructure andprovide a clear strategic vision for future rail operation. The SRA will be responsible for reviewing the scopefor improving rail access to major UK ports in consultation with Railtrack11 (the infrastructure providers), railfreight operators, port owners and shipping companies. In addition, it will work closely with local authorities,regional planning bodies, regional development agencies, the Highways Agency and the equivalents inScotland and Wales to promote more effective integration between the rail freight sector and other freightindustries.

• The UK Government also established the Commission for Integrated Transport,12 a new independent body to:

– Provide objective advice to the government on the implementation of integrated transport policy.

– Monitor developments across transport and the environment.

– Review progress towards meeting transport objectives.

© OECD 2001


56

• British Waterways, a public corporation, takes a commercial approach to maximising the use of its waterwaysand property, consistent with the needs of conservation and recreation. The Environment Agency is primarilyan environmental regulatory body which manages the navigation of its rivers as an integral part of its othermanagement functions. The Broads Authority manages the Broads together with surrounding land as a nationalpark, combining its responsibility for navigation with conservation and recreation.

Research agencies

Over the past 15 years, the UK Government has been in the process of privatising its research agencies.Transport research is now carried out by independent research organisations which must bid for contracts throughcompetitive tender. The Department has an extensive research programme, spending GBP 49 million in 1999/2000on transport-related research. Research is geared towards the development and monitoring of government policy. Itmay be commissioned for a number of reasons: to monitor the impact of government policy; to provide informationwhich may be used to change existing policy; or propose new policy; or to provide information regarding the impactof proposed policy, whether United Kingdom or European Union. The Highways Agency carries out researchdesigned to assist it in the implementation of its duties to maintain and provide the primary route network (trunkroads and motorways). The government also funds programmes designed to promote best practice; such the EnergyEfficiency Best Practice Programme (EEBPP) and Powershift. The EEBPP provides advice on energy saving to allsectors, including freight transport. Powershift provides grant aid to companies seeking to purchase alternativelyfuelled vehicles. The grant is designed to offset the difference in purchasing costs of new technology and operatesuntil a market has been established for that technology.

Parliamentary procedure

Within the UK Parliament, select committees are responsible for scrutinising the work of governmentdepartments on behalf of the House of Commons. They advise on the procedures and domestic administration ofthe House and submit their recommendations and findings in reports to the House. There are currently16 departmental select committees that aim to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of governmentdepartments and specified public bodies. The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs select committee doesthis for DETR and associated public bodies including the Office of the Rail Regulator. It currently has 17 members.

Private organisations

Rail

Railtrack is responsible for maintaining and improving railway infrastructure throughout the United Kingdom. Ithas a duty to provide capacity for projected freight as well as passenger traffic level increases, allowing the rail freightoperating companies to take full advantage of the opportunities to transfer freight from road to rail. Railtrack hasundertaken feasibility studies to assess the scope for gauge enhancement on the major freight carrying routes. Workhas already been completed on the main route from North London to Glasgow, allowing the carrying of 9 foot 6 inchcontainers.

There are two major rail freight-operating companies in the United Kingdom: Freightliner and English, Welsh andScottish Railway (EWS).13 Both are keen to fully exploit the possibility of gaining domestic and internationalintermodal traffic. Recent investment by both companies has seen the construction of new container flat wagonscapable of carrying 9 foot 6 inch deep-sea containers and Thrall “Euro-spine” wagons to carry vehicle trailers over theUK’s currently somewhat restrictive loading gauge.

EWS has recently introduced an intermodal service between Widnes and Seaforth (Merseyside) and the ports ofHarwich and Purfleet (Essex), via Wembley. There are additional connections to other London terminals. A trainservice links Widnes and Seaforth to the rail hub at Warrington (Cheshire), from where overnight transits can be madeto the ports in East Yorkshire and Cleveland as well as to terminals in Scotland and South Wales.

EWS has also successfully completed a series of trials involving moving chemicals in lorry trailers on its“piggyback” service. Eurospine wagons, which carry near-standard road tankers were used; they are loaded on to thewagons using a crane or reach stacker. The chemicals were moved between Mossend and Seaforth and Mossend andWakefield on weekend journeys during July and August 1999. Cargoes included caustic soda, chalk slurry, bitumenproducts and sulphuric acid.

Ports

Ports provide conservancy services such as pilotage and run commercial port activity within their jurisdiction.Ports are either company owned (private control), local authority owned or are classified as “trust ports”(independent bodies which have been established by and for the benefit of local communities).

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

57

Instruments

Monitoring of government policy

The government has established indicators to monitor the success of its freight policy. Over the medium term,Government policy is to reduce the freight transport intensity of the economy. Two main measures have been chosen:

• The trend in total freight tonne-kilometres and GDP growth. This tracks the overall transport intensity of theeconomy.

• The trend in lorry vehicle-kilometres and GDP growth. This tracks the road transport intensity of the economy.

These trends are shown in Figures A1 and A2. In addition, the following indicators are also monitored:

• Energy consumption of road transport.

• Freight transport moved (tonne-km) by mode.

• Freight transport lifted (tonnes) 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 andthe corresponding GDP growth. This measure can be used to assess the overall 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 transportdemand, the growth in freight transport as measured in freight-tonne kilometres has tended to be slower than thatof GDP. This is not unexpected given the change in the balance of the economy away from heavy industry towardsthe growing service sector.

Figure A1. Relationship between freight tonne-kilometres and GDP

Lorry traffic intensity (vehicle-km) of GDP

Figure A2 reflects the relationship between lorry tonne-km in the United Kingdom over the previous 45 yearsand the corresponding GDP growth. This can be used to assess the overall lorry traffic intensity of the economy.

1953

110

1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997

105

100

95

90

85

80

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

Source: United Kingdom Government.

Index (1980 = 100) Index (1980 = 100)

Year1953

110

1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997

105

100

95

90

85

80

110

105

100

95

90

85

80


Index (1980 = 100) Index (1980 = 100)

Year

© OECD 2001


58

Although the freight carried by road, measured in tonne kilometres, has increased substantially over the past40 years as more tonnes have been carried over longer distances, the impact has been mitigated by increases inaverage payloads carried by lorries. Heavy Goods Vehicle mileage intensity has shown a downward trend in theUnited Kingdom since the mid 1960s.

The UK Government also collects a range of statistics regarding the transportation of freight by road, rail, sea andinland water and through ports and airports. Table 4 in the report provides figures for the proportion of domestic andinternational intermodal freight. These figures are incomplete because prior to 1996, the UK Government did notcollect specific information on containerised traffic moved by rail. Furthermore, the United Kingdom does not collectdata on the number of TEUs carried by inland shipping. Table A4 provides data on: tonnages of freight lifted by rail,maritime and inland water services; the percentages within each mode that are carried intermodally; and theproportion in relation to total freight that is intermodal (expressed as a percentage of total road, rail, maritime andinland water tonnage).

Maritime tonnage makes up the greatest proportion of tonnes lifted, with 22% of total maritime freight beingintermodal. Despite a decline in total inland water tonnage, the percentage that is intermodal has risen. Expressedas a percentage of total tonnes lifted, in 1997 intermodal transport accounted for 20% of all freight tonnes lifted.

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 governmentpolicy. Before all policies are developed, the government engages in a consultation procedure. A Green Paper ispublished setting out the government’s intention to develop policy in a particular area and raising a series ofquestions designed to elicit the opinion of stakeholders and the public in general. Additionally, seminars, workshopsand conferences are held to explore particular aspects in more detail. In the case of the Sustainable DistributionStrategy, workshops were held to explore the issues of intermodal transport, safety and the environment. Othergovernment departments are involved in a formal procedure of consultation and may be asked to help formulateparts of the policy where there are cross-departmental objectives. In the case of the Sustainable DistributionStrategy, the Department of Trade and Industry, Treasury, the Highways Agency, the Traffic Area Network and theDriving Standards Agency were particularly involved. The Cabinet Office is responsible for ensuring that all policiesare correctly integrated and take account of overarching government policy.

Figure A2. Relationship between vehicle-kilometres and GDP

1957

115

1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997

105

100

95

90

85

70

110

75

80

115

105

100

95

90

85

70

110

75

80


Index (1980 = 100) Index (1980 = 100)

Year1957

115

1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997

105

100

95

90

85

70

110

75

80

115

105

100

95

90

85

70

110

75

80


Index (1980 = 100) Index (1980 = 100)

Year

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

59

Government actions

The UK Government is committed to extending Freight Facilities Grants to coastal and short-sea shipping asstated in the Integrated Transport White Paper, the Sustainable Distribution paper and the British Shipping paper.The grant makes inland waterway transport more attractive to industry by enabling it to compete more effectivelywith road transport and thus allows businesses to have a viable alternative to transporting freight by road. TheWhite Paper referred to research that indicated that there may be potential to divert about 3.5% of the UnitedKingdom’s road freight traffic to water (this includes coastal as well as inland waterways). In addition, thegovernment will consider applications for FFG towards the development of intermodal sites. This development isalso encouraged through Regional Planning Guidance, which should enhance the capability of our planning systemto promote more sustainable distribution patterns in the longer term as a link between central planning and localtransport plans.

The full guidance on provisional Local Transport Plans, which was published in March 2000, made clear thatinland waterways can play a valuable role in freight strategies and authorities are expected to consider opportunitiesfor new developments which can be served by inland waterways.

British Waterways support all initiatives to get more freight onto inland waterways. They welcome proposals toextend the Freight Facilities Grant to short-sea shipping so that owners and operators such as themselves are ableto carry out improvements to the infrastructure of existing docks. There is also considerable interest on the part ofthe Commercial Narrow Boat Operators Association for relatively low-intensity, but high-profile, freight movementsutilising the narrow and broad canal networks. There is also interest in using inner city canals to move constructionmaterials and waste, as already happens in London where barges move waste along the Thames to either landfill orCombined Heat and Power plant.

The national road network has played a dominant role in the distribution of goods in the United Kingdom formany years. However the idea of building more and more new roads to try to match demand is outdated andineffective. The existing motorway and trunk road network will be maintained and utilised to its optimum, whileimprovements will be implemented to deal with congestion pinch points and to integrate the road network withmajor transport interchanges in order to promote greater use of rail and water transport for freight. To aid in this, theHighways Agency has a “toolkit” of measures designed to make better use of the network. Pilot studies have takenplace to assess greater use of crawler lanes on hills for lorries, multi-occupancy vehicle lanes and priority lanes forpublic transport and goods traffic.

A common theme of all the aforementioned policy documents on transport in the last two years has been theneed for a clear, “joined-up” transport policy. Responsibility for implementing an integrated transport policydesigned to make intermodal freight operation a viable proposition lies with both central and local government.Local authorities will set out their proposals for delivering integrated distribution and passenger transport over afive-year period in Local Transport Plans (LTPs). In formulating their plans, local authorities will consult with localtransport operators, businesses and community groups. The plans will include future investment plans and proposemeasures to meet existing and projected local transport needs, covering all modes. The plans form the basis of anintegrated approach to local transport requirements and by consultation with neighbouring authorities a coherentregional and nation-wide policy.

Success

A coherent and integrated transport policy with a focus on intermodal integration is a new approach for UKpolicy. The desire to see more freight transferred to other modes for all or part of its journey has only seen concretepolicy action in the last couple of years; consequently, it is difficult to determine the success rate at this early stage.An important point is to question how success is defined. The level of rail-borne freight traffic in the United Kingdomhas increased by 16% since 1997, clearly a success for private freight operators and for the policy of encouraging thetransfer of freight to rail. In addition, three new intermodal terminals have been opened to cater for the internationalrail freight market at Tilbury (Essex), Hams Hall (Birmingham) and Daventry (Warwickshire). However, it must berecognised that rail freight still only accounts for about 8% of all freight movement and is unlikely to replace the lorryas the primary mover of freight. This demonstrates that at this early stage there has been a success in this area, yetthere is still much scope for improvement.

As outlined above, 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. FFG is intended to assist with the costof investment in infrastructure required by alternative distribution modes, consequently averting one of the majorreasons for maintaining existing practices and being unwilling to adopt new ideas. FFG is currently available for thedevelopment of rail and inland waterway operations, but there is scope for extending the scheme to short-sea shipping.

To complement FFG, Track Access Grant (TAG) was introduced in 1994. TAG is designed to offset charges madefor access to the network by the United Kingdom’s rail infrastructure provider, Railtrack.

Since 1996-97, grants worth a total of GBP 166.2 million have been awarded (Tables A4 and A5).

© OECD 2001


60

Examples of grants given for intermodal traffic included:

• TAG – Freightliner awarded GBP 1.42 million to move more than 20 000 boxes containing components forJaguar’s Castle Bromwich (West Midlands) plant from the deep-sea ports of Felixstowe, Thamesport andSeaforth.

• FFG – Freightliner has added low-deck “pocket” wagons to its fleet with the help of a grant of GBP 634 000,allowing it to carry 9 foot 6 inch containers within existing gauge constraints.

• The Port of Felixstowe extended and improved its container-handling facilities with the help of a grant ofGBP 1.8 million.

• British Waterways has launched a project to transport domestic waste on the River Lea to an incinerator atEnfield (North London). It is a partner in the North East Inland Ports project which seeks to identify freightdevelopment opportunities and the provision of an intermodal transfer site for inland use. DETR’s partners inthis include Railtrack, Highways Agency and Associated British Ports (ABP).14

The success of local transport plans cannot yet be judged, as they are a new initiative but the programme shouldbe geared to delivering full LTPs in 2000. Implementation is a two-stage process. Local highway authorities wererequired to produce provisional five-year plans by July 1999, covering the period 2000-01 to 2004-05. On the basis ofthis resources were allocated from central government for the period 2000-01 only. Authorities then rolled their plansforward by one year and submitted full plans for 2001-02 to 2005-06 in July 2000. London is not included in thisprocess since the London Mayor has a responsibility to produce an integrated transport strategy for London whichis consistent with national policy objectives. Once this is in place, London boroughs will be required to produce localimplementation plans in order to put the Mayor’s strategy into practice.

Key issues for the success of an intermodal policy

Although the United Kingdom’s intermodal policy is relatively new, several domestic and international issueshave already arisen that may be an impediment to continued progress.

International issues

For the United Kingdom, the single most important obstacle to the provision of commercially viableinternational rail freight services in an expanding market is the inability of freight-train operators to gain unhinderedaccess to other countries’ networks, subject to general principles governing track access charges and train pathallocation. For these reasons, the United Kingdom supports the broad aims of the European Commission’sinfrastructure package and market access liberalisation.

There is a need for a greater degree of interoperability between different countries’ infrastructure and rollingstock, together with a system which provides guaranteed international paths. Additionally, there is room to improve

Table A4. Freight facilities grants

Awarded(GBP million)

1996-97 2.51997-98 11.11998-99 9.51999-00 37.32000-01 50.0 Available

for freight grants2001-02 50.0

Table A5. Track access grants

Awarded(GBP million)

1996-97 79.41997-98 3.61998-99 10.31999-00 12.12000-01 50.0 Available

for freight grants2001-02 50.0

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

61

the efficiency of cross-border movements of freight trains with their train crew. Delays incurred at border crossingsdamage the possibility of rail being relied upon over road to deliver goods on time.

The United Kingdom has used bilateral discussions with its French counterparts to maintain pressure on EWSInternational, SNCF and Eurotunnel to improve cross-border freight services. Although technical barriers aresignificant, a much greater barrier remains the issue of market access.

In addition to issues facing the development of international rail-borne freight, the issue of port subsidy issignificant to the United Kingdom. Europe needs efficient and integrated port systems to compete in global marketsand to encourage sustainable freight distribution through optimal utilisation of sea and inland waterways. The UnitedKingdom will continue to support the EC Green Paper on ports and maritime infrastructure, which considers thepossible development of a regulatory framework, aimed at a more systematic liberalisation of port services, in orderto establish a fairer market. It is important to ensure that open access to the market is on the basis of transparency,non-discrimination and reasonable charging.

Domestic issues

Domestically, the upsurge in rail freight activity may lead to track capacity problems and conflicts over trackaccess rights between some train operating companies and freight operators. In the next few years, many passengercompanies face franchise renewal negotiations. In order to make their case more attractive, it is likely that many newservices will be promised. The Strategic Rail Authority will therefore need to address the issue of how to ensure thatthe infrastructure will be able to cope with this additional demand.

Training and education in intermodal issues

In the United Kingdom, training and education in freight distribution – whether road, rail or shipping – is carriedout either by the industry itself or through specific university or institute courses. Government officials obtainexperience either through one of these courses or through secondment to industry. Secondments from industry tothe civil service also occur, as a means of providing expert advice to the development or implementation ofgovernment policy.

United Kingdom intermodal traffic – Further statistics

The definition of intermodal traffic used in Tables A6 and A7 covers all freight travelling by rail, road or inlandwaterway in the United Kingdom that has been imported, or is destined to be exported, through a maritime port orthe Channel Tunnel.

Airfreight has not been included in the tables as the practice of “inter-lining” would misrepresent the true pictureof intermodal airfreight.

Table A6. Unitised/containerised tonnage imported or exported via the Channel Tunnel, 1996

Excluding Eurotunnel “shuttle” services

Source : Origin and Destination Survey 1996, p. 56.

Channel Tunnel Rail freight tonnes

Intermodal import 878 000Intermodal export 698 000Total 1 576 000

Table A7. Unitised/containerised automotive and other tonnage imported or exported via the Channel Tunnel, 1996

Excluding Eurotunnel “shuttle” services

Channel Tunnel Rail freight tonnes

All business import 1 355 000All business export 979 000Total 2 334 000

© OECD 2001


62

United States

The US Department of Transport (DOT) was formed in 1967. The DOT includes all modes of transport.15 However,it did not immediately lead to an integrated approach because the various modal administrations received theirmandate through the Congressional authorisations. An integrated intermodal approach was adopted in 1991 at whichtime a policy on intermodalism entered into force with the enactment of ISTEA’91. The ISTEA’91 legislative mandatewas accompanied by an authorisation of funding of USD 155 billion over a six-year period, and was succeeded in 1998by the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) which authorised additional funding ofUSD 217.5 billion for the period ending in 2003. ISTEA’91 established at the level of the Associate Deputy Secretaryof Transportation at DOT an Office of Intermodalism to co-ordinate the intermodal planning activities of modaladministrations. In a recent reorganisation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),16 a new Office of FreightManagement and Operations was established in 1998. This office has a wider freight productivity objective but alsodeals with typically intermodal freight issues such as the establishment of an intermodal freight analysis decisionframework.

The federal government’s responsibility covers policy formulation, provision of limited funding support andprogramme evaluation and monitoring, while state and local governments are responsible for policy, programme andproject implementation. The federal share of funding is limited to certain programme categories, e.g. pavements,bridges, safety, congestion relief, public transit and intermodal facilities. In the National Highway System DesignatorAct of 1995, the US Congress also authorised intermodal connectors as eligible for federal funding support. Forinstance, 1 925 miles of road links between highways, rail yards, marine terminals and airports were deemedessential to ensure a seamless national intermodal transport system. The potential of intermodal freighttransportation will depend largely on the ability of governments and industry to develop policies and programmesthat are consistent with the overall goals of improving national and international competitiveness, meeting social andenvironmental concerns and addressing broader transportation needs regarding safety and security as well asmobility and accessibility. However, it is important to draw a distinction between the types of governmental systemsresponsible for various aspects of policy formulation and programme implementation. While large federalgovernment structures, such as the US Department and the European Commission, have transport policy functionsassigned to them under the US Constitution (commerce clause) and the European Union Maastricht Treatyrespectively, the EU’s subsidiarity principle assigns the fundamental right to EU member states to act independentlyon major transport policy issues and projects. The federal conditions attached to programme and project fundingensure, but do not guarantee, state and local governments’ compliance with proposed federal policy initiatives.

Some of the federal policy initiatives may flow from multilateral trade agreements, e.g. the North America FreeTrade Agreement (NAFTA), the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), EU/TEP, APEC, WTO/GATS, etc., whichmay require substantial funding support. State and local government entities cannot be expected to finance projectswhich go beyond their immediate needs and benefit a larger group of stakeholders.

“Intermodalism” has been advocated by many stakeholders. In the United States, the Congress has declared inthe ISTEA, that: “the National Intermodal Transportation System shall consist of all forms of transportation in aunified, interconnected manner, including the transportation system of the future, to reduce energy consumptionand air pollution while promoting economic development and supporting the nation’s pre-eminent position ininternational commerce”.

The legislative standard was stated broadly and permitted a wide interpretation of the Congressional intent.Consequently, a large number of stakeholders are involved in defining and advocating the respective interests.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 tofocus more effectively on intermodal transport issues.

• National Intermodal Commission – which advocated a reorganisation of departmental functions andprogrammes in support of intermodal transport.

Table A8. Breakdown of inland water freight by typeMillion metric tonnes of freight

1986 1994 1995 1996 1997

Internal 8 7.05 6.59 5.74 4.75Coastal 12 11.16 8.98 9.25 8.19Foreign 13 32.06 32.67 32.00 34.62One-port 35 11.58 12.48 10.21 10.89

Total 68 61.86 60.72 57.20 58.46

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

63

• DOT Office of Intermodalism – which co-ordinates the freight related activities of the DOT’s commitmentmodal administrations (FHWA, FRA, MARAD, RSPA).

• FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations – which is developing a programme of freightproductivity, including many intermodal initiatives, in preparation for the next re-authorisation process.

• Intermodal Association of North America – which co-ordinates industry interests and sponsors conferences,seminars and equipment expositions.

• Intermodal Marketing Corporations – which help shippers and carriers in finding the most appropriate andleast-cost intermodal transport solution.

The interest in intermodal transportation is largely driven by industry interests (shippers and carriers) to findleast-cost solutions to long-term transportation problems. The intense competition among industry shippers andcarriers to establish long-term contractual relationships automatically leads to a search for ways to reduce thetransport-related transaction cost for business. Most of the large shippers and carriers have corporate unitsresponsible for intermodal transport although they may call these units by different names, e.g. logistics managementor supply chain management, etc.

The United States Congress adopted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act on 18 December 1991.This Act made funds available for the development of the national transport systems for the period 1992-97. Thesefunds are linked in a flexible manner to various broadly defined programmes in the context of which financialcontributions are made to infrastructure projects (construction and improvement of roads, rail routes, tunnels, etc.),the development of intermodal loading units which can be transported by all modes of transport, the reimbursementof operating deficits for certain routes, and transport studies.

Exactly what part of the total amount (USD 504 billion) is intended for specific intermodal projects is not knownat a federal level. One of the reasons is that the projects which are eligible for federal support are selected by stateand local governments, in co-operation with private parties. With this, prioritisation of projects has been delegatedto 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),US federal, state and local government agencies have undertaken studies to understand the needs of the privatesector, to monitor the intra-regional and international freight flows, to establish public-private freight partnerships,to reorganise governmental functions, and to help finance missing links in and connections to the transportationinfrastructure networks.

The public sector has facilitated the development of the competitive transport market through the constructionof a vast highway network and the elimination of economic regulatory constraints, except those related to safety andsecurity concerns. While the infrastructure networks are essentially complete, except for critical connectors tointermodal terminals, the challenge for the 21st century is to redefine the governmental response capability to meetthe evolving needs of the private sector which is competing not only in the domestic marketplace, but increasinglyin the global environment. The organisational effectiveness of governments will be put to the test as further tradeliberalisation efforts change the parameters (infrastructure) and variables (carrier operations) of the system. In theUnited States, the challenge will be to further integrate the accomplishments of the North America Free TradeAgreement and to extend the policies and procedures to the partners of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.

While the network is extensive and the expenditures significant, the need for further improvements has beenidentified in the National Highway Designation Act of 1995 and a subsequent study detailing not only the gaps in thenetwork of approximately 160 000 miles, but also the critical connectors to the major intermodal terminals, that mayjustify the expenditure of federal funds. The report identified connections to 1 407 terminals. These includedconnections to 615 freight terminals, including 250 ports and terminals, 206 rail terminals, 61 pipelines and98 airports. Approval of the connectors as part of the National Highway System is still pending. However, on a interimbasis improvements are eligible for federal funding.

Although the Federal Highway Administration has significant responsibility for guiding the investment decisions,the principal responsibility for analysing, planning and implementing projects rests with the 50 State Departmentsof Transportation, the 329 Metropolitan Planning Organizations, thousands of small cities, towns, counties andspecial districts, which together number almost 80 000 units of government. Freight analysis, planning andinvestment decisions are undertaken jointly in co-operation with affected government entities and private sectorstakeholders.

The DOT strategic goals serve as the framework for the implementation of programmes and projects aimed atboth passenger and freight transport. Each of the ten operating administrations has specific initiatives targeted atthe freight stakeholders, but these are not presented separately from the passenger-related concerns. This isunderstandable, since maritime channels are open to both freight carrying vessels and pleasure craft, air trafficcontrollers monitor both cargo aircraft and passenger planes, rail safety inspectors monitor both freight trains andpassenger trains, highways serve both the trucking industry as well as passenger car owners and buses. However,each administration has targeted specific freight projects with budget commitments and performance indicators.

© OECD 2001


64

Prior to and following the establishment of the DOT in 1967, the various modal administrations have managedtheir own research and development (R&D) programmes, responding to the particular needs of their ownconstituencies both within and outside the department. While the mode-specific R&D activities provided a focus andaccountability, it made co-ordination and co-operation with other modal organisations pursuing similar objectivesdifficult. With the enactment of ISTEA’91, DOT was required to submit annually a consolidated Surface TransportationResearch and Development Plan to Congress, detailing the common vision of a “One DOT” as well as the specificproject initiatives of the ten modal administrations. The first DOT Strategic Plan for 1997-2002 and AnnualPerformance Plans also include the co-ordinated R&D programmes of each of the administrations.

R&D is considered one of the most significant cross-cutting topics within the DOT and it influences andcontributes to the activities of other federal agencies, other levels of government, the private sector, as well as theacademic and research community. The consolidated R&D Plan which is reflective of the broader vision, mission andgoal statements of the DOT, brings greater consistency and cohesion to the separate initiatives and ensures costeffective use of the organisation’s resources. The Department’s R&D plan supports the five strategic goals as well asthree major categories of research needs, namely the administrations”:

• Operational missions.

• Regulatory functions.

• National needs.

The responsiveness to national need is met through the mandated functional responsibility to guide and shapethe public investment in the transportation infrastructure through the conditioned disbursement of trust fund grantsto other levels of government. The R&D programme is aimed at reducing the cost and extending the performanceand life time of infrastructure, as well as to stimulate and accelerate innovative private sector participation.

The R&D Strategic Plan identified six specific actions that the DOT will take over the five-year period toimplement an effective management programme. 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.

• Promoting the exchange of information on transportation R&D via an Internet “homepage” and trackingsystem.

• Establishing technology-based public-private R&D partnerships in key areas of national and internationalconcern.

• Supporting multimodal-enabling research activities in areas such as human performance, communications,modelling and analysis.

• Creating expanded education and training programmes for students, transportation professionals and thegeneral public.

Partnership initiatives have been identified in eleven areas, of which the first group of five represent existingand well-established (and funded) programmes, while the remaining six require further definition and substantialinteragency co-ordination. These initiatives are as follows:

• Aviation Safety Research Alliance.

• Next-generation Global Air Transportation.

• National Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure.

• Next-generation Surface and Marine Vehicles.

• Intelligent Vehicle Initiative.

• Accessibility for Ageing and Disabled Populations.

• Enhanced Freight Movement at Domestic and International Gateways.

• Enhanced Weather Services for Transport Users.

• Physical Infrastructure Renewal, Maintenance and Monitoring.

• Terminal Security Systems.

• Transportation and Sustainable Communities.

All eleven public-private partnership initiatives have a direct and indirect impact on freight productivity. Forinstance, under the research agenda for the next-generation surface and marine vehicles, the programme focuses ona clean diesel programme for light and heavy trucks and seeks to apply advanced technologies and concepts toimprove dramatically the fuel efficiency of trucks while maintaining safety and performance characteristics. Specificactivities will address energy conversion and storage, emission controls, crash worthiness, light weight materials andmanufacturing technologies. The shipbuilding and ship structure programme is developing improvements incommercial ship design and in shipyard facilities, processes and procedures. Another related effort is developing,

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

65

testing and installing affordable, highly efficient, low-or-zero emission shipboard fuel-cell power and propulsionsystems.

Research towards enhanced freight movement at domestic and international gateways continues theactivities authorised under TEA-21, namely the National Corridor Planning and Development Programme andthe Co-ordinated Border Infrastructure Programmes. The process of moving freight is becoming increasinglyinformation-intensive, particularly for cross-border traffic, and advanced communication technologies haveimproved the efficiency of moving freight. The partnership involves Canada and Mexico, as well as the respectivestate and provincial governments, metropolitan planning organisations and private sector interest groups. Thepartnership initiatives includes activitie such as demonstrations and pilot projects, technology applications andassessments, system architecture and standards and information exchange among all partners and stakeholders. TheFHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations has the lead role in managing the R&D activities in addition tothe preparation of a comprehensive freight analys is decision framework.

Another element of the DOT R&D strategy which is particularly important to ensuring organisationaleffectiveness over time supports the development and implementation of transport-related education and trainingprogrammes. It calls for the continuing investment in the skills and abilities of the 10 million professionals andworkers responsible for designing, constructing, operating, maintaining and managing the national transportationsystems. The DOT has developed a comprehensive National Transportation Education Strategy aimed at allinstitutional stakeholders and individuals seeking careers in the transport sector. One element of this strategy, theGarrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Programme, seeks to provide information about promisingcareers in transportation to over 1 million students of all ages and to encourage them to improve their mathematics,science and technology skills.

The National Transportation and Education Programme comprises four elements:

• Introducing transportation concepts in elementary and secondary school curricula.

• Collaborating with vocational schools, community colleges and industrial training institutes to enhance thequality of instruction.

• Promoting the creation of transportation college degree programmes based on multidisciplinary curricula withan international focus.

• Enhancing mid-career training opportunities for transportation professionals to stay abreast of the latestconcepts and technology.

Since 1987, the DOT has been investing in the University Transportation Centers (UTC) Programme, whichsupport a nation-wide network of ten regional university-based research consortia consisting of six to 12 universitieseach. Each of the regional consortia focuses on the unique transportation needs of the region. The TEA-21 legislationauthorised USD 192 million for university transportation research over a six-year period. In addition to the UTCs,every DOT administration maintains close relationships with a number of universities and colleges specialising inresearch and training in the respective mode of transportation. The collaboration between the Council of LogisticsManagement and Michigan State University (CLM/MSU) and DOT/FHWA was highlighted earlier in this report. Amongthe more than 3 000 institutions of higher learning in the United States, many provide transportation courses in thecontext of degree programmes in civil engineering, business management, public administration, economics andinternational trade, urban planning, environmental science, among others.

Several DOT administrations also manage their own professional service academies, namely the US MerchantMarine Academy (MARAD), the US Coast Guard Academy (USCG), the National Institute of Highways (FWHA).Together these and other institutions provide the DOT with a readily accessible source of knowledge and ideas forimproving the effectiveness of the nation’s transportation agencies and organisations. Many of the faculty membershave also made significant multidisciplinary contributions. For instance, the US Merchant Marine Academy hasemphasised intermodal freight transportation as part of its Center on Global Freight Logistics. One of its facultymembers has published an authoritative textbook (now in its 4th edition) in co-operation with the Eno TransportationFoundation, and in collaboration with other experts from the private and public sector. The 500-page book is not agovernment document, but was published through the above-mentioned non-governmental organisation.

The DOT also supports the operation of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National ResearchCouncil, which is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy ofEngineering. The complex originated with an act of Congress in 1863 as a private, self-governing body dedicated tothe advancement of science and technology and available to advise the federal government upon request. The TRBfulfils its mission through the work of its 190 standing committees and task forces addressing all modes and aspectsof transportation, the publication of reports and peer-reviewed technical papers on research findings, theadministration of contract research programmes and special studies requested by DOT and the US Congress. TheTRB also hosts annual meetings which typically attract 8 000 professionals from throughout the United States andapproximately 10% from abroad. The TRB Executive Committee has extended invitations to foreign colleagues to joinas members or as friends on any of the technical committees or task forces.

A number of TRB committees deal specifically with multimodal freight transportation issues, such as inland watertransportation, freight transportation planning and logistics, motor vehicle size and weight, intermodal freight

© OECD 2001


66

transport, freight transport regulation, urban goods movement, ports and channels, freight transportation data, localand regional rail freight transport, international transportation and trade, among others.

TRB operates an online computerised file of transportation research information available to all US and foreignmembers and the public at large. The frequent interaction of transportation researchers and practitioners from thepublic and private sector and academia in the context of committee meetings, panel discussions or special researchprojects ensures a steady flow of information on best practices and leads to organisational effectiveness at all levelsof government.

European Union

Policy

The European Commission has clear goals to promote competition modes of transport and haulage services byharmonising transport regulations. It also wants to create a European transport network by improving theinteroperability of different systems, make better use of existing infrastructure and internalise external transportcosts.

The initial competencies of the EC referred to the internal market and to the need to ensure the free provisionof transport services across the borders between EU member states. For many years, the EC’s transport policy wasmodally oriented.

When the Community obtained competencies over infrastructure and environment, the insufficiencies of amodal approach became more apparent than ever. In 1986, the Single Market Act gave the Community directcompetencies in the field of environment, requesting that environmental protection requirements become acomponent of other policies. In the wake of the Single Market Act, and so as to develop the internal market, the Trans-European Networks (TENs) concept was launched and made its way into the Treaty of the Union. This move upgradedthe legal status on which Community infrastructure support measures had developed through the 1980s. Thus, themainstream body of the Common Transport Policy, which sought a level playing field between the transport modes,was joined by the TEN policy layer, which already included combined transport, and made the development of anintermodal approach necessary. The need to integrate environmental considerations into transport policy could notbut reinforce this process.

This process was triggered by the evidence of capacity problems in the existing networks, and particularly in theroad and air transport networks. The implementation of the Internal Market and the run-up to European MonetaryUnion have, among other elements, contributed to the rapid growth of freight transport and to an increase in thelength of the trips made.

The intermodal vision of the Commission has been consistently expressed by basic policy documents, startingwith the “White Paper on the Future Development of the Common Transport Policy”17 of 1992 where thedevelopment of integrated transport systems was a priority. It was also a part of the Common Transport Policy ActionProgramme (1995-2000):18 “Better integration of transport modes is essential. This will mean greater recourse toenvironmentally friendly and energy-saving modes offering unused or potential capacity, more modal connectionsand greater interoperability”. The need to promote intermodalism is also highlighted and progress is assessed in theupdated version of the Common Transport Policy rolling programme.19

The core purpose of the Common Transport Policy is to create a framework for sustainable mobility. Importantgoals of EU transport policy are:

• The creation of a liberalised and efficient internal transport market, with competition between modes oftransport and haulage services, based on the necessary degree of harmonisation of national transportregulations; basic components of this objective are the revitalisation of the railways and the liberalisation ofport services.

• The development of the transport Trans-European networks with the integration of national transportnetworks into a European network by improving the interconnections and the technical interoperability ofdifferent systems.

• The integration of transport modes from unimodal to multimodal networks, so that more efficient use is madeof the infrastructure; in this respect it is especially important to establish a common framework for theallocation of the costs of infrastructure use, while respecting the subsidiarity principle and specific nationalsituations.

• To reduce, as far as possible, the negative effects that transport has on society, not only those on theenvironment, but especially those produced by safety problems.

• Finally, to reinforce the external dimension of the Common Transport Policy, in particular in relation toenlargement.

The policy objective behind the Commission’s action to promote freight intermodalism is shown in theCommunication on “Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European Union”.20 It is the following: “to

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

67

develop a framework for an optimal integration of different modes so as to enable an efficient and cost-effective useof the transport system through seamless, customer-oriented door-to-door services, whilst favouring competitionbetween transport operators”. The integration of modes is addressed at three levels: infrastructure and transportmeans, operations and use of infrastructure, and services and regulations. The main objectives of thisCommunication 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.

• Standardisation of loading units.

• The creation of an electronic commerce market for intermodal transport.

• Integration of intermodal transport in supply chains.

The Commission’s services are currently preparing a report on the progress of the implementation of this actionprogramme.

Organisation

At present, competencies on intermodal issues are split between different units of the Directorates of LandTransport (Combined Transport) Trans-European Networks and Infrastructure (TEN of Combined Transport) andDevelopment of Transport Policy and Research and Development (RTD and the Intermodality Action Programme).

Within the offices of the European Commission, intermodal transport21 is handled by the Unit for Analysis andTransport Policy Development of the Directorate for Research and Development and Development of TransportPolicy. Combined transport, as defined by the ECMT, is the responsibility of the Directorate of Inland Transport’s Unitfor Freight.

The Task Force Transport Intermodality was launched in 1995, in response to the need to stimulate and improvethe co-ordination of European research and to increase industry participation with the aim of bridging the gapbetween the scientific and the operational world.

The Task Force is to reflect on how to move from a modal approach to an integrated door-to-door operationalapproach. While doing so, the Task Force provides a focal point for the wide range of stakeholders who have aninterest in intermodal transport. The industry showed a need to launch demonstration projects to accelerate thetake-up of research results.

Instruments

The Community has also shown its commitment to the promotion of intermodalism in transport through thelegislation concerning the development of the Trans-European Networks,22 the promotion of combined transport23

and the Framework Programme for RTD.24

The Commission services (Transport DG), together with Eurostat, are working to increase the availability ofstatistical data concerning intermodal freight transport, as witnessed by its recent publication on the subject.25

Comparisons of performance will also be facilitated by the benchmarking exercises now in preparation at theCommission.

Liberalisation of rail transport

Some measures of liberalisation were addressed to combined transport (first road/rail then road/inlandnavigation). The Community also allowed tax exemptions for road vehicles used in combined transport and state aidpossibilities for equipment and infrastructure terminals.

The market share of European rail freight has decreased in the past 25 years. According to the EuropeanCommission, a lack of competitive forces is one reason for this development. The railways in most Europeancountries have long been state-owned. As result of government involvement and lack of competition, many railwaycompanies do not operate very efficiently and carry a considerable financial burden.

In July 1991, the EU issued Directive 91/440. This directive was intended to facilitate the adaptation of therailways to the needs of the market and to increase their efficiency by:

• Improving the financial structure of the railway companies.

• Guaranteeing administrative autonomy to the railways.

• Separating the management and control of the railway infrastructure from the operation of transport servicesby railway companies. Railway management is a public matter, railway operation a private one.

• Guaranteeing railway companies which perform cross-border combined transport right of access to the railwaynets of the EU member states. For unimodal freight and passenger railway transport, this right was only to beensured for international groupings of railway companies.

© OECD 2001


68

Progress in the implementation of the various parts of the European Directive varies across countries. The firstthree aspects, which are of an administrative nature, have been or will soon be, implemented in the Europeanmember States.

This right of access to the railway networks has not yet been implemented in all countries. In practice, railtransport in all European countries remains exclusively in the hands of the national railways. If an intermodaloperator wants to set up an international line, he is obliged to negotiate with the railway companies of the countriesthrough which the route will pass. Since the locomotives of the railways in one country provide no service in othercountries, there yet to be any genuine competition on the rail tracks.

In the meantime, however, the first practical steps have been taken in the direction of competition on the railwaynet in the form of “rail freight freeway” initiatives, according to a concept developed by the European Commission.26

A majority of EU countries have taken the first steps to open up certain corridors.27 On these freeways, intermodaltransport operators can select the most efficient and convenient rail transport supplier. The aim is to achieve betterquality in the services provided. The freight freeways are expected to usher in positive developments for theEuropean intermodal transport situation. To achieve further progress, a railway package28 put forward by theCommission, and largely backed by the European Parliament, is in discussion at the Council. The package ofmeasures intends to achieve further progress in the fields of charging, capacity allocation, separation of infrastructuremanagement and operation and licensing. The price-quality ratio of rail transport is expected to improve onceEuropean Directive 91/440 and the subsequent legislation29 has been implemented by the EU member states andgenuine competition can take place.

A point which needs attention for the large-scale introduction of competition on the rail tracks to be successfulis the lack of harmonisation in the field of technology and regulations. For example, it is not possible for conventionalequipment to cross a border if the overhead wire voltage or the track gauge changes. In the field of legislation, safetyrequirements differ between countries. Ways of resolving these obstacles are actively being sought. In this sense, theDirective on the interoperability of high-speed trains is a model to follow. Several countries consider that this lack ofharmonisation in legislation and regulations represents a major obstacle to the growth of intermodal transport.

The Trans-European Networks (TENs)

The Commission’s policy response to the recession of 1992/1993 and the subsequent rise in unemployment, wasthe White Paper on Competitiveness Growth and Employment, which saw the TENs as an important instrument forthe achievement of economic growth and the reduction of unemployment.

Europe has an extensive network for transport, telecommunication and energy distribution. Since the adoptionof the Treaty on the Union in 1992, the Trans-European Networks programme attempts to further develop thesenetworks with activities aimed at linking national networks, improving interoperability and ensuring access to thenetworks. In 1996, the Community adopted Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transportnetwork30 defining objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures, and identifying projects of common interest.One of the stated objectives is to encourage intermodalism, and among the priorities listed are found: the optimumcombination and integration of the various modes of transport and the establishment of and improvement ininterconnection points and intermodal platforms. The Guidelines include maps and criteria for the identification ofprojects of common interest belonging to the Combined Transport Network.

In the period 2000-06, EUR 4.2 billion will be made available for TEN transport projects through the TENtransport budget line, up to EUR 9 billion through the Cohesion Fund, and from EUR 4 to EUR 6 billion through theStructural Funds. The latter funds only provide support to regions and states whose development is lagging behind.The amounts directly devoted to combined transport by these different funds are very limited. Of more relevanceare those devoted to railways that would reach 62% in the case of the TEN budget line, 16% in the case of theStructural Funds and 23% for the Cohesion Fund.31 In the guidelines for programmes of the Cohesion and StructuralFunds for the period 2000-06, the Commission sets out its priorities, showing its concern about the current modalbalance and requesting that priority be given to intermodal and combined transport systems.

In the context of the transport programme, existing rail and waterway networks will be modernised andexpanded. It should be noted that the European Parliament introduced a rule in the regulation on TEN financialsupport according to which at least 55% of the TEN transport budget line funds should be devoted to financing eitherrailways or combined transport projects, and that at most 25% could be used to finance road projects.

European infrastructure policy thus far lacks a coherent framework for terminal sites. The most important roadand inland waterway routes have been developed at the European level, but a vision on the location of junctionpoints has so far been left to the industry and to national and regional governments. Intermodal transport could gainfrom a coherent TEN vision at the European level between industry and governments as to the location of importantjunction points and as to clear criteria for the public funding of terminals. This is the purpose of an amendment tothe TEN Guidelines, concerning seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals which is currently being discussedby the Community institutions.

© OECD 2001

Annex 1

69

Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (the PACT programme)

The European Commission started the Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT) programme in 1992. Thegeneral objective of this programme is to contribute to intensifying the use of intermodal transport wherever it iseconomically feasible in the long term (as an alternative to unimodal road transport). The programme was set up tosupplement and support the activities related to the creation of the Trans-European Networks. Under the PACTprogramme, feasibility studies of certain pilot routes are financed. In addition, PACT allocates funding for:

• Investments in intermodal equipment and transhipment facilities.

• Commercial operation of new technologies and techniques.

• Improving the accessibility of infrastructure.

Projects can be subsidised for a maximum of three years. If a project has not led to the desired results within theagreed period or if it proves not to be economically viable, financial support is terminated.

The first PACT programme ran from 1992 to 1996. During this period, 99 projects received a total of nearlyECU 20 million. The new PACT programme will again run for five years, from 1997 to 2001. The budget isECU 35 million for the entire duration. Certain aspects of the project organisation have been improved. For instance,the new programme more strictly monitors the execution of projects, and specific objectives have been formulatedwhich can be summarised as follows:

• Improving the competitiveness of intermodal transport as compared to unimodal road transport, both on priceand on service aspects.

• Promoting the use of advanced technology in intermodal transport.

• Improving access to the sector of intermodal transport for transport companies; thanks to this, competition inthe provision of intermodal transport services will become more intense, which will benefit thecompetitiveness of the sector as a whole.

The Trans-European Networks and PACT programmes have borne many fruits and are expected to continue todo so in the near future. They are felt to be positive incentives to the development of intermodal transport.

Research

The relationship of the research and policy units is a two-way relationship: it draws inspiration from policy forfuture research projects, and it provides results to be used in the design of policies. Research results are used in therevision of the TEN guidelines and in the preparation of legislation on combined transport. On the other hand,several tasks within the key action on “Sustainable mobility and intermodality” of the Fifth Framework Programmerelate directly to the different areas of friction costs identified in the policy-setting Communication on “Intermodalityand 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 ofresearch and technological development. The RTD activities of the European Community are basically organisedthrough the Framework Programmes. Transport research gained importance with the Fourth Framework Programme.

Fourth Framework Programme (FP4) for RTD (1994-98)

The Transport Programme of FP4 included 30 research projects aimed at the improvement of the quality ofterminals and of the network, in addition to two concerted actions, one on logistics and one on transfer points.

Results are used as input in DG Transport policy: preparation of the revision of the TEN guidelines, and therevision of regulations and directives on combined transport. A close link has also been established between RTDprojects and the PACT projects (Pilot Actions for Combined Transport).

Task Force on Transport Intermodality

The “Task Force on Intermodality” is the instrument through which stakeholders from industry and academiahave been able to influence the content of the research programmes and the policies derived from them.

The core mandate of this task force was to improve co-ordination of existing and planned research activities aswell as to highlight priorities for future research. Founded in 1995, it set up round tables with internationalassociations of stakeholders in intermodal freight and passenger transport and produced a number of reports.

The task force has launched clustering activities with other research fields of the Community, in particular withTelematics Applications and Industrial Technologies Programmes. On the basis of the task force activities, futureresearch requirements have been defined. The industry feedback showed a need to launch demonstration projectsin order to accelerate the take-up of research results. The task force is now being replaced with thematic networksthat will make the link between the European Commission, EU member states and industry.

© OECD 2001


70

The Joint Call on Intermodality, launched in December 1997, was another example of collaboration between researchfields (DG Transport and DG Information Society). As a result, the Commission launched 13 projects in autumn 1998(eight of which dealt with freight transport).

Fifth Framework Programme (FP5) for RTD (1998-2002)

Research on Intermodal Freight Transport in FP5 can be found mostly in three key actions: Sustainable Mobilityand Intermodality (DG Transport), Land transport and Marine Technologies (DG RTD), and Systems and Services forthe Citizens (DG Information Society).

Inside the key action “Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality”, five priority areas of research have been definedfor the development of intermodal freight transport and logistics (resulting, to a large extent, from the works of theTask Force on “Transport Intermodality”):

• Socio-economic scenarios for intermodal freight transport.

• Interoperability and transfer points.

• Intermodal transport management systems.

• Freight transport services.

• Transport of goods in and around cities.

Non-member responses

Responses received from the Slovak Republic and Slovenia are set out below.

Slovak Republic

The Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications has a dedicated section for combined transport. Anumber of initiatives related to combined transport policies are currently underway. Under resolution No. 780/96, thefollowing issues are being addressed:

• The conditions for state contribution to the price of transport in the Ro-La system for the period 1998-2000.

• The transfer of customs clearance of complete trains to the dispatch and destination terminals of combinedtransport.

• New organisational structures for commercial and operational activities in combined transport to help developinternational ro-la and ro-ro systems.

• To extend exemptions from bans on driving during holiday periods for combined transport operators.

Slovenia

Slovenia has signed the “Transport Agreement between the Republic of Slovenia and the European Union”, inwhich it agreed to take all steps necessary to develop and promote combined transport and ensure that in the futureall transport operations are performed under more environmentally friendly conditions.

The “National Programme for the Development of Rail Transport Infrastructure”, adopted in 1995, provides forthe development and modernisation of railway lines which complement the existing railway transport system, andfor the modernisation of facilities and equipment in terminals. Slovenia provides financial support, fiscal incentivesand exemptions for combined transport.

© OECD 2001

Annex 2

71

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 (Canada)

Brigitte Parent (Canada)

Miroslav Kubasek (Czech Republic)

Shunsuke Otsuka (Japan)

Yuri Fursusawa (Japan)

Shinri Sone (Japan)

Yosuke Wakabayashi (Japan)

Marjolein Masclee (Netherlands)

Henriette Noordhof (Netherlands)

Matthias Rinderknecht (Switzerland)

Elizabeth McDonnell (United Kingdom)

Kevin Swarbrick (United Kingdom)

Harry Caldwell (United States)

Vincent Pedret-Cusco (European Commission – DGVII)

Bert Schacknies (US/DOT/FHWA)

Anthony Ockwell (OECD Secretariat)

Maj Theander (OECD Secretariat)

John White (OECD Secretariat)

© OECD 2001


72

Notes

1. www.detr.gov.uk/itwp/index.htm

2. www.detr.gov.uk/itwp/susdi st/index.htm

3. www.shipping.detr.gov.cnc. index.htm

4. www.planning.detr.gov.uk/c onsult/ppg11/2.htm

5. www.planning.detr.gov.uk/c onsult/ppg13/index.htm

6. This document contains hotlinks to DETR and other Web site addresses. These will show in blue when viewedusing Word 97 or above and the optional hyperlink setting is active. www.detr.gov.uk

7. www.railways.detr.gov.uk/ctrl /rotemap.htm

8. www.dvla.gov.uk

9. www.highways.gov.uk

10. www.sra.gov.uk

11. www.railtrack.co.uk

12. www.cfit.gov.uk

13. www.ews-railway.co.uk

14. www.abports.co.uk

15. www.dot.gov

16. www.fhwa.dot.gov

17. “The Future Development of the Common Transport Policy”, COM(92)494 of 2 December 1992.

18. “The Common Transport Policy Action Programme 1995-2000”, COM(95)302 of 12 December 1995.

19. “The Common Transport Policy. Sustainable Mobility: Perspectives for the Future”, COM(98)716 of21 December 1998.

20. COM(97)243 final of 29 May 1997.

21. Defined as any combination of at least two modes of transport.

22. Decision No. 1692/96 on the Community Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network,Official Journal L228 of 9 September 1996.

23. Regulation (EC) No. 2196/98 of 1 October 1998 concerning the granting of Community financial assistance foractions of an innovative nature to promote combined transport, Official Journal L 277 of 14 July 1998.

24. Decision 182/1999/EC of 22 October 1998 concerning the 5th Framework Programme for RTD (1998-2002), OfficialJournal L49 of 25 February 1999.

25. “Intermodal Freight Transport: Key Statistical Data 1992-1997”, OOPEC 1999, Luxembourg.

26. A strategy for revitalising the Community’s railways, COM(96)421 final of 30 July 1996.

27. North-South (the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy), Scanways (3 EU Nordic countries and Norway),Belifret (Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Spain). United Kingdom-Sopron (still under discussion) will linkUnited Kingdom to Hungary.

28. COM(98)480 final of 22 July 1998.

29. Directives 95/18 on operating licences, and 95/19 on allocation of capacity and pricing, as well as the railwayspackage in discussion.

30. Decision No. 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996.

31. Communication on “Cohesion and Transport”, COM(98)806.

© OECD 2001

LES ÉDITIONS DE L'OCDE, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16

IMPRIMÉ EN FRANCE

(77 2001 01 1 P) ISBN 92-64-18394-9 – No. 51649 2001

Download - OECD - Intermodal Freight Transport

Top Related