euro freight

5/14/2018 Euro Freight - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/euro-freight 1/68

International Technology Exchange Prog

J U N E 2



NOTICE

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the factsand accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official

policy of the Department of Transportation.

The metric units reported are those used in common practice by the persons interviewed.They have not been converted to pure SI units because in some cases, the level of precision

implied would have been changed.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks ormanufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to thedocument.

The publication of this document was sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administrationunder contract number DTFH61-99-C00005. awarded to American Trade Initiatives, Inc. Any

opinions, options, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government, the authors’ parentinstitutions, or American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.



Technical Report Documentation P

1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-02-009 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Freight Transportation: The European Market5. Report Date

June 2002

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) Harry Caldwell, Randall K. Halvorson, Christina Casgar, Gene

Cleckley, Oscar de Buen, Jeff G. Honefanger, Ysela Llort, Michael D.

Meyer, Leo Penne, Gerald Rawling, Garry Tulipan

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No.(TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-99-C-0005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Office of Policy

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Donald W. Symmes, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract The purpose of the international scan was to investigate the issues, constraints, opportunities, and challenges

faced by the European Union (EU) in developing a policy of open boundaries and what strategies it uses to

implement the policy.

The panel met with government representatives, terminal operators, logistics providers, and shippers to gain

broad understanding of how the EU has attempted to develop a common market, and how the private sector

has responded. The group met with various industry and government representatives from the Netherlands,

Italy, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, and with representatives of the European Commission in Brussels.

Findings from this study could be relevant to the United States, Canada, and Mexico in developing a common

North American market. These lessons also are important for national and subnational investment decisions

relating to enhanced freight movement. Case studies of public/private sector freight investment initiatives in

the EU may be of particular interest.

17. Key Words

Intermodal freight movement, European Union, freight

logistics, mode share, terminal, interoperability.

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the publ

from the

Office of International Programs

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325

US Dept. of Transportation

Washington, DC 20590

[email protected]

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

64

22. Price

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/euro-freight 5/68i

Fr eight Tr anspor t at ion:The Eur opean Mar ket

Pr epar ed by t he Scanni ng Team:

Harry Caldwell (co-chair)

FHWA

Randall K. Halvorson (co-

chair)

Minnesota DOT

Christina Casgar

Foundation for IntermodalResearch and Education

Gene Cleckley

FHWA Resource Center,

Atlanta

Oscar de Buen

Secretaria de

Communicaciones y

Transportes

Mexico City

Jeff G. Honefanger

Ohio DOT

Ysela Llort

Florida DOT

Michael D. Meyer

Georgia Institute of

Technology

Leo Penne

AASHTO

Gerald Rawling

Chicago Area TransportationStudy

Garry Tulipan

Transport Canada

and

American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

&

Avalon Integrated Services, Inc.

for the

Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation

and

The American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials

and

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program(Panel 20-36)

of the Transportation Research Board

June 2002


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/euro-freight 6/68ii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGYEXCH AN GE PROGRAMS

The F HWA’s int ern at iona l program s focus on meetin g th e growing dem an ds of its

par tn ers a t t he Feder al, Stat e, an d local levels for a ccess to inform at ion on st at e-of-

th e-art technology and t he best pra ctices used worldwide. While the F HWA is

considered a world leader in highway transportation, the domestic highwaycomm un ity is very inter ested in th e adva nced technologies being developed by other

coun tr ies, as well as inn ovative organ izational an d fina ncing techniques used by th e

FH WA’s inter na tional coun ter par ts.

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCANNING PROGRAM

The In ter na tional Techn ology Scann ing Pr ogra m a ccesses an d evalua tes foreign

technologies a nd innovations t ha t could significan tly benefit U.S. highway

tr an sporta tion systems. Access t o foreign in novations is str ength ened by U.S.

participation in the technical committees of international highway organizations and

through bilateral technical exchange agreements with selected nations. The programhas undertaken cooperatives with the American Association of State Highway

Transportation Officials and its Select Committee on International Activities, and the

Tra nsport at ion Resear ch Boar d’s Nat iona l Highway Resear ch Coopera tive Program

(Panel 20-36), th e pr ivate sector, and academ ia.

Priority topic areas are jointly determined by the FHWA and its partners. Teams of

specialists in t he specific ar eas of expertise being investigated a re form ed an d sent to

coun tr ies where significant adva nces an d innovations ha ve been ma de in techn ology,

ma na gement pra ctices, orga nizat iona l stru ctur e, program delivery, an d fina ncing.

Team s usu ally include Federal a nd S ta te h ighway officials, privat e sector a nd

industry association representatives, as well as members of the academic community.

The FH WA has organized more th an 50 of these reviews an d dissemina ted r esults

na tionwide. Topics ha ve encompa ssed pa vement s, bridge const ru ction an d

maint enan ce, contr acting, inter modal tr ansport, organizational ma na gement, winter

road m aint ena nce, safety, int elligent tr an sporta tion systems, plann ing, an d policy.

Findin gs ar e recomm ended for follow-up with furt her resea rch an d pilot or

demonstration projects to verify adaptability to the United States. Information about

the scan findings an d results of pilot pr ograms ar e th en disseminated n at ionally to

Sta te a nd local highway tr an sporta tion officials an d th e privat e sector for

implementation.

This progra m h as r esulted in significan t impr ovements a nd sa vings in r oad pr ogramtechnologies an d pra ctices th roughout the United St ates, particular ly in the ar eas of

stru ctur es, pavements, safety, and winter road ma intena nce. Joint r esearch a nd

technology-sharing projects have also been launched with international counterparts,

fur ther conserving resources and a dvancing the st at e of the ar t.

For a complete list of Inter na tional Techn ology Scan ning t opics, and to order free

copies of th e r eport s, please see list on th e facing pa ge.

Website: www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Em ail: int ern at iona [email protected]


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/euro-freight 7/68iii

F H WF H WF H WF H WF H WA IN TERNAA IN TERNAA IN TERNAA IN TERNAA IN TERNATIONAL TECHN OL OGY EXCH AN GE REPORTSTIONAL TECHN OL OGY EXCH AN GE REPORTSTIONAL TECHN OL OGY EXCH AN GE REPORTSTIONAL TECHN OL OGY EXCH AN GE REPORTSTIONAL TECHN OL OGY EXCH AN GE REPORTS

Infrastructure

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and EuropeGeotechnology—Soil NailingInternational Contract Administration Techniques for Quality Enhancement-CATQEST

Pavements

Eu ropean Aspha lt Techn ologyEuropean Concrete TechnologySouth African Pavement TechnologyHighway/Commer cial Vehicle I nt era ctionRecycled Materials in Eu ropean H ighway Environm ents

Bridges

Eur opean Bridge StructuresAsian Bridge StructuresBridge Maintenance CoatingsEuropean Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability CountermeasuresAdvanced Composites in Bridges in Eur ope an d J apa nSteel Bridge Fabrication Techn ologies in Eu rope an d J apa n

Perform an ce of Concrete Segment al an d Cable-Sta yed Bridges in E ur ope

Planning and Environment

Eu ropean Int ermodal P rograms: Plan ning, Policy an d Techn ologyNat iona l Travel Sur veysRecycled Materials in Eu ropean H ighway Environm entsGeometr ic Design Pr actices for Eu ropean Roads

Safety

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany and the NetherlandsSpeed Man agement an d E nforcement Techn ology: Eu rope & Aust ra liaSafety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand

Road Safety Audits—Fina l ReportRoad Safety Audits—Case S tu diesIn novat ive Tra ffic Contr ol Technology & Pra ctice in E ur opeCommer cial Vehicle Safety Technology & Pr actice in E ur opeMethods an d P rocedur es to Reduce Motorist Delays in E ur opean Work Zones

Operations

Advanced Transportation TechnologyEu ropean Traffic MonitoringTraffic Mana gement a nd Traveler Inform at ion System sEuropean Winter Service TechnologySnowbreak Forest Book – Highway Snowstorm Count ermea sur e Manua l (Translated from Japanese)

European Road Lighting Technologies

Policy & Information

Em erging Models for Delivering Tran sporta tion Pr ogra ms an d ServicesAcquiring Highway Tran sporta tion In form at ion from Abroad—Han dbook Acquiring Highway Transp ort at ion Inform at ion from Abroad—Fina l ReportInternational Guide to Highway Transportation Information

All publications are ava ilable on the in ternet at w ww.internation al .fhwa.dot.gov


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/euro-freight 8/68iv

Co n t en t s

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. vi

Introduction.................................................................................................................. vi

General Observations.................................................................................................. vi

Lessons for North America .......................................................................................... ix

Recommendations for Further Studies........................................................................ xi

OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................................................................... 1

Context......................................................................................................................... 2

EUROPE IN A CHANGING GLOBAL MARKET: THE CHALLENGES.................................. 4

HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES................................................. 9

Private Sector Actions.................................................................................................. 9

Public Sector Actions .................................................................................................. 15Observations on the EU ............................................................................................. 22

Member State Response to the Challenges.............................................................. 23

Local Government Response ..................................................................................... 29

LESSONS FOR NORTH AMERICA ................................................................................. 31

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES ........................................................... 33

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS....................................................................... 35

Questions for EU Officials: Institutional and Policy Focus ......................................... 35Questions for EU Officials: Planning and Financing Focus........................................ 36

Questions for National Government Officials ........................................................... 37

Questions for Transportation Facility Operators........................................................ 39

Questions for Industry/Shippers................................................................................ 40

APPENDIX B: SCHEDULE OF TOUR AND PRIMARY EUROPEAN CONTACTS.............. 43

APPENDIX C: BIOGRAPHIC SKETCHES AND CONTACT INFORMATION ...................... 45

Endnotes.................................................................................................................... 48



CONTENTS

v

TABLES

1. Comparison of EU -15 an d Nort h America ................................................................. 2

2. Fr eight Tra nsport , EU-15 vs. United Sta tes, 1998 .................................................... 3

FIGURES

1. Tra nsport an d GDP Growth in EU, 1985-1999 .......................................................... 4

2. EU Tra nsport Infra str uctur e Cha llenges ................................................................... 63. EU Tr an sport System Fr eight Mode Split, 1970-1998 .............................................. 7

4. TEN -T Pr iorit y Corridor s .......................................................................................... 18

5. The Economic Hea rt of Eu rope ................................................................................. 26

6. Scenario Analysis in Nat ional Transportation Planning in the Netherlands ... .. .. 29


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/euro-freight 10/68vi

Ex e c u t i v e Su mma r y

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the international scan was to investigate the issues, constraints,

opport un ities, an d challenges faced by th e Eu ropean Un ion (EU) in developing a

policy of open bounda ries a nd t o lear n wh at str at egies it u ses to implement th e policy.

The Feder al H ighway Administr at ion (FHWA), th e Amer ican Association of Stat e

Highway an d Tra nsport at ion Officials (AASHTO), an d th e Na tional Coopera tive

Highway Research Program sponsored the scan. Members of the scann ing team

represent ed diverse interests an d concerns for both nat ional a nd int erna tiona l freight

movement in Nort h America. In a ddition to FH WA and AASHTO officials, the pa nel

included representa tives from t he n ational ministries of tran sport ation for Cana da

and Mexico; the departments of transportation for the States of Florida, Minnesota,

an d Ohio; th e metr opolitan pla nn ing organ ization (MPO) for the Ch icago

metr opolitan ar ea, the Foundation for Inter modal Research, and a university

professor in transportation planning and policy. These panel members are experts in

the areas of policy, planning, regulatory enforcement, freight logistics, and economic

development.

The pan el elected t o meet with government representa tives, terminal opera tors,

logistics providers, and shippers to gain a broad understanding of how the EU has

at tempted t o develop a common ma rket, a nd h ow the pr ivate sector ha s responded.

From May 28-Ju ne 10, 2001, the panel met with represent atives from th e na tiona l

ministry of tr ansporta tion for t he Neth erlands a nd from t he Eu ropean Commission in

Brussels; intermodal ra il terminal operators in the Nether lands, Italy, and

Switzerland; port officials in th e Neth erlands an d Ita ly; man agers of the Fr an kfurt

Airport; freight logistics companies in the Netherlands and Germany; and the

presiden t of an Austr ian t ru cking compan y.

Because of limited time, the panel did not meet with other government agencies andprivat e compan ies tha t could ha ve provided a broader perspective on t he issues facing

the development of a common European market — groups such as national railways,

inland water or coastal shipping firms, and the ministries of transportation for other

count ries. In addition, th e pan el was una ble to meet with n ongovern menta l

organizations represent ing environmenta l protection and susta inability issues.

Lessons from the st udy could be very relevant t o the United St ates, Can ada, an d

Mexico in developing a comm on North Amer ican ma rk et. In a ddition, these lessons

ar e importa nt for n ational and subnat ional investment decisions, as r elated to

enhanced freight movement within individual countries, serving primarily the

domestic mar ket. For example, case stu dies of public/privat e sector freight investmen tinitiat ives can provide useful lessons on how such initiat ives could be un dert ak en in

North America.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Globalization of the supply and distribution chain has created new opportunities and

challenges for the EU. The strategy of developing open borders, combined with

genera lly favora ble economic conditions, has r esulted in subst an tial increa ses in

pass enger a nd freight m ovement in Eu rope. The increased economic activity has


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/euro-freight 11/68vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

resu lted in increasing t ra ffic volumes, especially in tr uck m ovement s. Not

sur prisingly, congestion on the r oad n etwork a nd a ccess to inter modal ter mina ls/ports

ha s become a critical issue, especially in ur ban ar eas a nd a t critical na tur al

geographic barriers, such as the Alps and the English Channel. Given the historical

context of having many different national transportation systems (often designed

pur posely to limit cross-border movemen t for na tional defense pu rposes), th e

interopera bility within and between modal systems in Eu rope has also been, and willcont inue t o be, a m ajor cha llenge to th e Eu ropean Comm un ity. Import an tly,

tr ansporta tion policy at the EU level, as well as in th e Nether lands (and r eportedly in

other European countries), is linked to environmental/ sustainability/energy issues.

The importance of economic competition, especially in a global market, has, however,

raised economic development/productivity/accessibility to a comparable level of

importance.

Eu rope ha s responded t o the challenges of developing a cont inent al economic ma rk et

an d a supportive tr ansporta tion infrast ructur e in a variety of ways. The pan el

examined four levels of response.

Pr iva te sector (shippers /tru ckers /logis t ics com pa nies /term ina l operators): Th e

privat e sector (as broadly defined above) ha s responded t o th e ma rk et conditions

creat ed by th e EU/na tional governm ent regula tory context. It h as focused on

ra tionalizing ser vices an d operat ions with str at egies to increase economies of scale

(e.g., larger ships a nd ports, block tr ains /un it t ra ins/shut tles, freight villages,

intermodal consolidation terminals, etc.) Because many freight operations are capital

intensive, there seems to be a trend toward more hub operations, which require large

investmen ts in infrast ru ctur e and inform at ion techn ology. Int erm odal freight

movement (which curr ently has a very small market shar e) has been an increasingly

importa nt stra tegy in h andling increased freight movement an d is expected to

achieve even more. Pr ivate firm s ha ve supported a nd lobbied for great er r elaxat ion of

governm ent obstr uctions in the gener al ma rk et cont ext (e.g., customs regula tions),

but have sought to keep government out of areas that directly affect their own

operations.

Publ ic sector — European Union: The EU was est ablished to form a comm on

economic mar ket an d t o deal with history of conflict on th e cont inent . Coordin at ion of

the continent al tr ansporta tion system was one of the most importan t a nd first ar eas

of at ten tion. The E U h as severa l roles. It:

• Advocates common principles and interests

• Facilitates multicountry activities

• Coordinates mu lticoun tr y plan ning, policy, and resea rch activities

• Establishes EU vision a nd policy for EU/member sta te a ction

• Provides var ying levels of fun ding sup port for EU priority pr ojects

• Targets hum an resource development/tra ining in tr ansporta tion projects



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii

• Establishes legally binding rules and regulations for such things as safety and

vehicle cha ra cteristics (e.g., infra str uctur e ma na ger for r ailroads sh ould be

differen t from operat or)

• Monitors member na tion actions a nd, if necessar y, ta kes th em to Eur opean Cour t

Import an tly, however, th e implemen ta tion of EU policies, guidelines, an d r egulat ions

in ma ny policy issue ar eas is th e responsibility of member st at es.

The major focus of initial EU efforts was on developing free competition and

inter operability of tr an sporta tion systems, including promoting th e development of

necessary infrast ructur e a nd consistency in member nat ion laws. In a ddition, the EU

identified priority investment projects that would best enhance the connectivity and

interoperability of the European transportation system. These projects originally

focused on infra str uctur e development, but m ore r ecent ly have included system

man agement a nd intelligent tr an sport ation system (ITS) integration.

The EU ha s developed a Common Tran sport Policy tha t emp ha sizes a goal of

sustainable mobility. There is considerable current debate, however, on how to link

tr an sport goals and su sta inability/ener gy goals. The ma jor policy appr oach h as been

to establish target market shares for modes (e.g., the mode share will be what it was

in 1998). In par ticular, ther e is a h igh level of expectat ion a tt ached t o the a bility of

the national rail systems to shift freight movements away from trucks, with support

from the coastal shipping industry (and, in the case of the Netherlands, the inland

waterway system).

The E U pr ovides some fund ing for p rojects a nd feasibility stu dies, in pa rt icular to

levera ge contr ibutions from other sources. The EU investm ent projects ar e prioritized

from t he per spective of how import an t t he pr ojects a re t o a coordinat ed Eu ropean

transportation system. Many of these projects have important benefits to freight

movement. The EU tr an sport ation funding is part of the t ota l EU budget, which

comes from customs r evenues a nd va lue a dded t ax (VAT) revenues (which a re in

addition to what was ra ised before t he E U was created).

The panel was told that the buy-in on the EU priority projects from member

governments and from the private sector has been slower than expected because of a

slowdown in t he economy, an overestima tion of privat e investm ent inter est, an d

environmental concerns with some of the projects. However, in some cases, EU

member n at ions h ave used government funding to reduce the r isk to private

investmen t. The futu re r ole of EU govern an ce is a key issue cur ren tly being debat ed;

th e respective roles of th e EU versu s member na tions have not been a greed upon. As

noted a bove, member sta tes m ust agr ee to implemen t E U policies, which const ra insEU -wide implement at ion of policies th at ar e cont roversial (e.g., road pricing). Perha ps

of most importance, however, the EU has been advantageous for transportation in its

collective effort s to redu ce cross-border obsta cles an d in r aising tr an sporta tion issues

to international and national political levels.

Publ ic sector — EU mem ber na t ions: The panel did not m eet with represent atives

of na tional govern men ts, except for th ose of the Neth erlan ds. The following

observations were obtained from discussions with the other groups the panel met

with dur ing the scan. EU member n ations are responsible for implementing EU



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix

policies an d directives. Ther e a re differences of opinion on wha t is app ropriat e for a

comm on “Eu ropean ” pur pose. Member sta tes a re often concern ed about th e position of

th eir own indust ries in t he cont ext of th e EU, an d th us it is often difficult t o support

cha nge because of instit ut iona l issues cha ra cteristic of each individual coun tr y (e.g.,

unions an d n at ional r ailway prer ogatives). Some m ember n at ions seem to use t he

same policy approach a s the E U of tar geting mar ket sha res in na tiona l tran sport

policy. In th e case of th e Net her lands, this a pproach is designed to increa se ma rk etshar e for inland water t ra nsportat ion a nd r ailroads. Public/private par tner ships also

have been used to decrease the market share for trucks. In most cases, the public role

in these par tner ships has been to invest in freight infrastr ucture — inter modal

ter mina ls, ports, and ra il corridors — and to provide loan s for opera tions. Ther e seems

to be a t ren d, encour aged by EU policy positions, of separa ting t he ownersh ip of the

freight infrast ru ctu re from th ose responsible for opera tions. The mode split an d

pricing approach to transportation policy is a tacit recognition that governments

cann ot “build their way out ” of the t ra nsport at ion pr oblems th ey ar e facing.

Publ ic sector — local govern m ents: Severa l exam ples were foun d wher e local

governments have financially supported the development of freight infrastructure.Alth ough severa l of these exa mples wer e un ique to th e situ at ions local officials foun d

th emselves in (e.g., Rott erda m a s th e gateway to Eu rope or decomm issioned a creage

at a U.S. Air Force base in F ra nk furt becoming a m ajor economic gener at or for t he

city), local officials were able to su ccessfully link economic developmen t objectives

with broader comm un ity goals. The r egion’s compet itive advan ta ge in a global, or at

least a European, market was a key driving force in several of the examples seen.

LESSONS FOR NORTH AMERICA

The scan ning t eam compiled th e following lessons for th e Nort h American a nd U.S.

context:

1. Global mar ket logistics rely heavily on t he performa nce of infrastr ucture owned

an d operat ed by th e public sector. Under sta nding t he m otivat ion of logistics

decisions a nd t heir local implicat ions is a critical point of depar tu re for a na tional

or mu ltina tional effort on foster ing tr ade. Ident ifying freight bott lenecks, solving

them, and establishing market conditions that provide free access should be an

importa nt focus of regiona l, sta te, nat iona l, an d int ern at iona l plann ing/policy

efforts.

2. One of the most importan t concerns of freight tran sport users, and thus of

tr an sport officials ident ifying impr ovemen ts t o this system , is the r eliability of

service or t rip-mak ing. Speed of tr avel is import an t, but t he r esults of servicestra tegies examined as pa rt of this scan suggest t ha t system reliability is even

more important. This need has significant implications on the performance

measures used in system monitoring and in project prioritization.

3. The EU il lustrat es the importan ce of having an international an d nat ional policy

on investment in freight t ra nsportat ion. Pu blic and pr ivat e investmen t in freight

facilities h as occur red, an d cont inues to occur, in Eu rope. Public investm ent is

designed to act as a catalyst for private investment in services and facilities that

could pr ovide import an t public benefits. In some cases, such investmen t is being



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x

considered from a tr ue “system s” perspective (i.e., improvement s a re being m ade

in infrast ru ctur e tha t is out side of a n at ion’s boun dar ies, but t ha t will clearly

benefit th at n at ion’s indust ry).

4. Public investment targeted at freight movement should adopt a framework in

which th e privat e sector is pr ovided incentives to choose wha t is best for t heir

business within the context of achieving public goals (e.g., economic development,

sust aina bility, etc.). This notion was port ra yed by th e Eu ropean s as m ak ing

ma rk et-dr iven policy decisions with in a “pu blic good” cont ext. Int ere st ingly, a long-

ter m pu blic policy focus in th is cont ext was a round 10 year s, wher eas t he pr ivate

sector focus was a t m ost 5 yea rs.

5. The focus of the overa ll policy was to make th e best use of existing tra nsportat ion

options (e.g., ra il and in land water tr an sporta tion) before developing new

transport networks. As one Dutch official stated, transportation system

ma na gement str at egies come first, followed by pricing st ra tegies, an d fina lly

actions to constr uct new infra stru ctur e.

6. Pu blic budget and fina ncing mechan isms for funding freight projects exist in th eEU, although, as a percenta ge of total t ra nsport system investment , they are quite

limited. No debt finan cing was foun d in a ny of th e examp les discussed, an d for t he

very lar gest pr ojects (e.g., th e Betu we corr idor) little pr ivate invest men t occurr ed

up front . Even so, th e level of public investmen t in freight facilities a nd services

seems far greater in Eu rope than in North America (even with pr ojects like the

Alameda Corr idor in th e United St ates).

7. A critical role for mu ltina tional effort s is to foster open compet ition an d open

borders. Free access allows the market to take advantage of productivity

economies an d resu lts in m ar ket-placed decisions. The E ur opean experience,

however, suggests t hat ther e might h ave to be different mar ket incentives a ndrules for different segments of the transportation system (e.g., intermodal

ter mina ls, na tional r ail service, inlan d wat er, etc.).

8. The EU ha s served as a n importan t forum for establishing consensus on str ategies

for crea ting a n openly competitive mar ket in E ur ope. Such a foru m pr ovides the

instit ut iona l fra mework for developing a comm on m essage am ong govern men t

agencies an d a mong importa nt stak eholders a s it relates to economic

competitiveness. In addition, such a forum has ra ised t ra nsportat ion issues to the

level of na tiona l political discours e.

9. Interoperability and consistency in na tional laws and regulations a re importan t

ar eas for mu ltina tional concern. This leads t o a concern for consist ent applicationof inform at ion technology str at egies across borders. Although importa nt , however,

these issues should not overshadow much broader concerns for market-driven

policy and decision m ak ing. In a ddition, the EU experience suggests t ha t issues

such a s la ngua ge compa tibility, signa ge consisten cy, and ha ndling of paperwork

precede inform at ion technology concern s. In th e case of Eur opean freight

movement, the trucking industry seems to have dealt with these problems before

th e rail indu str y.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xi

10. The EU ha s incorporated hu man resource development /tr aining as an importan t

component of any public/privat e initiat ive aimed at improving freight movemen ts.

This work ha s been done pr imar ily to ra ise the qu ality of life of th e comm un ities

th at ar e affected by freight facilities a nd opera tions.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

The pan el identified many pr ospective studies that should be un derta ken t o fur ther

under stan d the chara cteristics of intern ational freight m ovement and t he ma rket

response t o chan ges in the institutional an d regulatory environmen t. In pa rticular,

the pa nel believes tha t m an y of the examples and initiatives found in Eur ope warra nt

follow-up examination, perhaps every several years, so that the longer-term market

response t o open ma rk ets can be followed. Some specific stud ies ar e:

1. Collaboration with a resear ch center (e.g., the Int ermodal Tran sport Research

Center in Ha mburg) to monitor the response of intermodal freight to nat iona l and

EU policies.

2. Examination of the results of EU ra tionalization of transportat ion infrastructure.For example, what ha ppens to ports or t erminals when the E U’s tr an sport plan

suggests that a smaller number of such facilities will better serve EU purposes?

3. Compar ison of Nort h American a nd EU productivity in freight tr ansporta tion, an d

the differing criteria for investment.

4. Review of existing forum s/mecha nisms for Nort h American F ree Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) discussions t o see if ther e ar e more effective mea ns of trilat era l

cooperat ion in regar d t o tra nsport at ion decisions. For exa mple, how should

improved water transportation opportunities be incorporated into ongoing

discussions? Are th ere d ifferent models for instit ut iona l decisions in Nort h

Amer ica? H ow do we get t ra de/comm erce groups involved in th ese discussions?

5. Continu ed monitoring of EU experiences with road pricing and r elative success in

foster ing m ode s hifts.

6. Investigation of the role of the MPO in freight tr an sport ation, especially issues

that have national implications. What are the expectations of the MPOs with

regard to such issues?

7. Investigat ion of public/private par tner ships for freight improvement projects. How

can pu blic investm ent be relat ed to public benefits?

8. Examination of adopting a systems perspective on freight tr ansportat ion t hatincludes not only a conceptu al model, but also reflects perform an ce mea sur ement .

9. Consideration of the role tha t technology innovation can play in intern ational and

na tional t ra de m ar kets, including n ot only physical m odificat ions to vehicles or

net work s, but also th e increasin gly import an t role for inform at ion technologies.

10. Exam inat ion of global freight flows, an d t he r elative importa nce of different

tr an sport flows to global tr ade m ovement .



Ov er v i ew

“With out tran sport, it (the S ingle Mark et of the Un ion) would exist only in n am e.

Without efficient, compatible, sustainable transport systems and operation,

it obviously will not flourish.”

—Eu ropean Comm ission, 1999

INTRODUCTION

One of the import ant tr ends in intern at ional commerce over the pa st decades has

been the creation of common economic markets through the relaxation and

eliminat ion of cross-border bar riers to passen ger a nd freight movemen ts. NAFTA is

an example of how severa l nat ions a re developing such a m ar ket. The EU, an other

such example, ha s more year s of experience in developing governm ent al an d privat e

sector st ra tegies as pa rt of a t ra nsition to an open border s policy. The pu rpose of this

international scan was to investigate the issues, constraints, opportunities, and

cha llenges faced by the E U in developing an open border s policy, an d t he st ra tegies

used in implement ing th is policy. In add ition, the scan was int erest ed in ident ifying

how the tra nsport industr y is responding to this changing market .

Freight logistics and governmental strategies to foster international commerce

involve very complex a nd specialized pr ocesses. Under sta nding th e m otivat ion for

logistics decisions an d t heir response t o differen t economic influences is an importa nt

point of depart ur e for in vestigating h ow mu ltina tional freight flows will reflect th e

characteristics of economic markets. This scan purposely focused not only on

governm ent al policies and t he st eps in th eir developmen t, but also on h ow freight

term inal operat ors a nd user s of the t ra nsportat ion system ha ve responded to

economic incentives/disincentives.

The scan panel reflected a wide range of interests and concerns regarding both

na tional an d inter na tional freight movement. The FHWA an d AASHT O joint ly

sponsored th is scan. In addition t o FHWA an d AASHTO officials, the pan el included

represent atives from the n at ional ministries of tr an sport ation for Can ada an d

Mexico, the departments of transportation for the states of Florida, Minnesota, and

Ohio; th e MPO for t he Chicago met ropolitan a rea , th e Foun dat ion for In ter modal

Resear ch, an d a u niversity professor in tr an sporta tion plann ing an d policy. These

panel members r epresented a diverse set of interests a nd expertise in t he ar eas of

policy, plann ing, regu lat ory enforcemen t, freight logistics, an d economic development .

The pa nel ta rgeted selected governm ent agencies, ter mina l opera tors, logistics

providers, an d shippers to gain a broad u ndersta nding of how the EU has been

at tempting to develop a common ma rket, a nd h ow the private sector ha s beenresponding. Dur ing th e period May 28-Jun e 10, 2001, th e pan el met with

represent atives from the n at ional ministry of tr ansporta tion for t he Neth erlands a nd

from the European Commission in Brussels (Directorate General of Energy and

Tran sport ); inter modal rail termina l operat ors a nd service operat ors in the

Netherlands, Italy, and Switzerland; port officials in the Netherlands and Italy;

managers of the Frankfurt Airport; freight logistics companies in the Netherlands

an d Germa ny; and the president of an Austrian tru cking compan y.



OVERVIEW

Given limited time, the panel did not meet with other governmental agencies and

privat e compan ies tha t could ha ve provided a broader perspective on t he issues facing

the development of a common European market, groups such as national railways

(especially in Great Br itain where t he largest experiment in pr ivat izat ion h as r un

into difficulty), inlan d wat er or coast al sh ipping firms, and th e minist ries of

transportation for other countries. In addition, the panel did not meet with

nongovernmental organizations representing environmental protection/sustainabilityissues.

Lessons from t his experience are very relevan t t o the Un ited Stat es, Cana da, and

Mexico in developing a comm on North Amer ican ma rk et. In a ddition, these lessons

ar e importa nt for n ational and subn ational investment decisions a s they relate t o

enhanced freight movement within individual countries, serving primarily the

domestic mar ket. For example, case stu dies of public/privat e sector freight investmen t

initiat ives as foun d in E ur ope can provide useful lessons on h ow such initia tives could

be undert aken in N ort h America.

Appendix A contains the questions that served as the basis for each of the European

visits. Appendix B lists t he t our schedule an d cont act inform at ion for t he E ur opean

repr esent at ives. Appendix C conta ins biogra phical and conta ct inform at ion for t he

scan team members.

CONTEXT

Before pr esenting the results of th e scan tour, it is import an t t o illustr at e th e ma in

differences between th e EU a nd N ort h America. As shown in Tables 1 an d 2, th ere a re

some importan t distinctions between t he t wo. It is not sur prising that the extent of

road and r ail track is much great er in North America t han it is in th e EU given its

much larger land mass. The larger expanse of the United States, for example, results

in th e significant ly greater average rail and t ruck tr ip distan ce an d greater ra il mode

Table 1. Comparison of EU-15 and North America

North

EU-15 U.S. CAN MEX America

Population (millions) 375 270 31 97 398

Urban population (millions) 78 77 24 73 174

Area (million km2) 3.24 9.6 10.0 1.96 21.6

GDP (EURbillion) 7,586 7,760 771 574 9,105

Transport infrastructure investment as % of GDP 1.1 1.2 — 0.19 —Percent of household spending on transport/ communications 15.2 14.0 17.2 na —

Avg. transport costs as % of value of products transported 5-6 3-4 4-6 8-9 —

Motorization (cars/1,000 people) 451 488 454 100 —

Exports (EURbillion; not including intra-EU) 936 1,019 350 166 1,535

Imports (EURbillion; not including intra-EU) 1,023 1,301 311 174 1,786

Road network (thousand km) 3,500 6,460 1,427 330 8,217

Rail network (thousand km) 156 240 50 26.6 317

Note: At the time these data were being collected, the rate of exchange for the Euro was 1.2 to 1U.S. dollar.

Source: EU Statistical Pocketbook, 2000



OVERVIEW

split (measu red in t onne-kilometers ) shown in Table 2. This t able, however, indicat es a

substan tial car riage of freight by truck an d short sea t ra nsport in th e EU.

The r espective role of governm ent s an d of th e privat e sector is an im porta nt

institutional difference between the two markets. In the United States, for example,

freight rail services have traditionally been owned and operated by private firms

(Conra il notwith sta nding). In E ur ope, na tional ra ilways, in var ious ways conn ected t o

na tiona l government s, have been th e norm. European government s ten d to be much

more active in cent ra l plann ing tha n t he U.S. na tional governm ent not only becau se of

th e hist orical developmen t of governa nce in both , but also becau se of th e rela tive size

of the count ries. In E urope, although Fr ance and Germa ny tend to have a lar ge

influence on t he economic ma rket an d on what happens in th e EU, ma ny other

coun tr ies can pla y pivota l roles in defining overall directions. In N orth Amer ica, th e

Un ited St at es, becau se of its size an d economic position, has th e grea test level of influence.

Other differences between the EU and North America identified by those interviewed

include a more fragmented customer base in Europe, language/cultural differences,

different tr an sport a nd la bor r egulat ions, the u se of VAT an d customs r evenues for

the EU budget, and historically different payment methods and financing schemes.

Perha ps th e largest difference between t he t wo economic ma rkets is the lar ge number

of countries involved and the history that has defined their relationship. With the

North Amer ican ma rk et consisting of only thr ee coun tr ies, the level of complexity an d

institutional organization that might be needed for coordinated action is much less

th an wha t one would expect for a 15-na tion economic and political u nion. In a ddition,a long history of Eur opean conflict and competition ha s resu lted in a cent ur ies-held

perspective of nat iona l border s as pr otection agains t incur sions from neighboring

coun tr ies. The rem oval of cust oms at th e na tional boun dar ies, th e move toward a

common currency, and the many other initiatives that have changed centuries of

na tiona l prerogatives in Eur ope represent a t ruly rema rka ble development in

European, if not world, history.

Table 2. Freight Transport, EU-15 vs. United States, 1998

Billion tonne-km Mode split by Avg. distance

tonne-km (km)

EU-15 U.S. EU-15 U.S. EU-15* U.S.

Road 1,254 1,499 44% 28% 110 685

Rail 240 2,010 8 37 245 1,355Inland water 121 521 4 10 280 767

Pipeline 88 905 3 17 170 1,224

Short sea 1,167 460 41 8 1,430 na

*Reported in EU Statistical Pocketbook as number of km per tonne.

Source: www.europa.eu.int.(Note: 1ton-mile = 1.46 tonne-km).



Eu r o pe i n a Ch a n g in g Gl o ba l Ma r k e t :Th e Ch a l l e n g e s

The past 50 year s have seen dr am at ic chan ge in E urope, including how the

Eur opeans see th emselves and their r ole in t he world. Sta rting with t he Treaty of

Par is in 1951 that established the Eur opean Coal and Steel Comm unity to the latest

Treaty of Nice, Europe has evolved institutional relationships and frameworks that

have created a n economic powerhouse. Importa nt thr oughout th ese past 50 year s wasthe creation of an internal economic market that provided barrier-free access to all

member stat es. Those interviewed during th is scan used ter ms su ch a s

“harmonization” and “liberalization” to describe th e evolution of th e domestic mar ket.

In essence, what they mean t was th e removal of barr iers and constr aints t o ma rket

access an d movement within the EU, resulting in a n int egrated a nd comm ercially

viable economic ma rk et second t o none in th e world.

The 15 nations tha t currently make up the EU tr uly represent a n impressive

economic mar ket. With more t ha n 370 million people (6 percent of the world

population), th e EU is t he lar gest tr ading group in t he world, accountin g for one-fifth

of global t ra de when coun ting m ovement of goods with in t he E U. The valu e of tr ade inth e EU is equivalent t o 18 percent of th e 15-

member nations’ gross domestic product

(GDP). In th e ser vice sector, the E U lead s

the Un ited Stat es in shar e of world tr ade,

24.9 percent t o 20.1 per cent (1998 dollars ).

The EU seemingly recognized early the

opportunities presented by a global market

and the ingredients needed for competitive

success a t th e global level.

Figure 1 is perhaps t he m ost t ellingtesta ment to the su ccess of the EU in

creat ing a vibran t economic ma rket and t he

seeming impact of removing intra-EU

transport barriers. As shown in this figure,

th e ra te of growth in both goods an d people

movement ha s exceeded the growth ra te in

GDP, especially for goods movemen t. The

growth r at e in goods movement ha s

averaged appr oxima tely 3 percent per year

over t he d ecade of th e 1990s. Although th e

positive relat ionsh ip between GDP growthand t ra nsport system usa ge is a

phen omen on comm on to most coun tr ies, th e

ma rked increase in goods movement as

shown in F igure 1 is r emar kable.

Although this scan did not investigate the

overall causa l link age between economic

activity and t he creation of an open ma rket,

th e economic success of th e EU over t he pa st

1985 = 100

Notes:

(1) passenger cars, buses & coaches, tram+metro, railways, air (2) road, rail, inland waterways, pipelines, sea (intra-EU)

Source: EU Statistical Pocketbook, 2000

Figure 1: Transport and GDP Growth in EU, 1985-1999

Passengers (1) (pkm)Goods (2) (tkm)

GDP (at constant prices)

- - - -

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

170.0

160.0

150.0

140.0

130.0

120.0

110.0

100.0



EUROPE IN A CHANGING GLOBAL MARKET

several decades can certainly be attributed in part to opening or liberalizing the

ma rket. Those inter viewed observed tha t m aking the intern al Eur opean m ar ket more

tr anspa rent ha s led to more tra nsport deman d. This, in tur n, has r esulted in

significant tra nsportat ion cha llenges facing th e EU and member na tions. In

par ticular, the following challenges were identified by t hose int erviewed:

• The significan t increase in passenger a nd freight movement over th e past 20 year s

has led to high leve ls of conge stion on l ine-haul faci li t ies and at

transshipment po ints . Many motorways experience large delays, especially

within and near ur ban centers. Ports, airports, and r ail termina ls are especially

prone to peak congestion periods. This congestion is likely to get worse. Under

curr ent policies, freight tr an sport in t he E U is expected t o grow 40 percent by

2010, with t he h ighest growth expected for t he r oad sector (50 percent). In some

coun tr ies, th e increase will probably be even grea ter. In Germ an y, for example, the

German Ministry of Tran sport forecasts a growth in freight tr ansport between

1997 an d 2015 of 64 percent to 600 billion tonne-km.

• This congestion is m ost severe a t strategic geograph ic barriers that h inder

continental travel because of the “funneling” effect they have on traffic flow. For

example, the Alps, Pyren ees, an d En glish Ch an nel were ident ified as critical

locations in the European transport network where significant congestion occurs

(see Figur e 2 on next page). Pr oviding additional capa city a t t hese locat ions t o

han dle this congestion will require substa ntial investment .

• In m any cases, freight transport move men ts must share faci l i t ies with

passenger movements, often to the detriment of freight transport productivity.

Pas senger r ail service, which pr ovides frequ ent service between m ost E ur opean

cities, receives priority tr eat men t on m an y ra il lines. Becau se of th e need t o

coordinat e tr ain m ovements, freight tra ins ar e limited in length so that they do

not infringe upon the movement of passenger trains. Similarly, truck transportsha res t he r ight-of-way with pa ssenger vehicles. It is not un comm on to see long

queues of tru cks on m ajor m otorways int erm ixed with pa ssenger veh icles, waiting

for congestion t o clear. One of th e inter esting qu estions ra ised, but not a nswer ed,

during this scan was the likely impact of the high-speed rail network being

developed on its own right -of-way t hr oughout Eu rope. Will th is free a dditiona l

capacity on t he local r ail net work to provide for m ore productive freight ra il

service? High-speed rail ha s alr eady affected air t ra nsport in comm on corr idors.

Air Fr an ce, KLM, an d Sa bena (when operat ing) do not pr ovide air ser vice between

Par is, Bru ssels, an d Amst erda m becaus e of the compet ition from th e ra il service.

• Historically, national transport systems were designed in part for national defensepur poses, th us t he ph ysical design (e.g., ra il tra ck gauge) and opera tions

str at egies (e.g., ability to us e locomotives across n at iona l bounda ries) have often

been incompa tible. Ther e ar e 37 differen t combinat ions of rail gau ge/tu nn el

cleara nce/power syst ems in Eu rope. This legacy has left a significan t cha llenge to

modern Europe of providing a compatible transport netw ork that i s

interoperable .

• Similarly, th e historical developmen t of individua l nat iona l tra nsport s ystems h as

resulted in a level of transport infrastructu re deve lopmen t that varies




6

substantial ly across the EU . Some of the n ewest m ember s of th e EU (e.g.,

Spa in, Port ugal, Greece, an d Irela nd) ha ve significant n eeds for u pgra ded

tra nsport systems. Even some of the first member stat es have regions wh ere

adequat e tr an sport infra stru ctur e is lacking (e.g., the south ern part of Italy). The

cha llenge of providing a m inimu m level of tra nsport mobility across the E U is

exacerbat ed when one considers t he wide ra nge of tr an sport capa bility of th e

countries that are seeking membership in the EU, the so-called accession states.

• Transport pol icy is integral ly l inked to EU and n ational pol icies on

environment/sustainabi l i ty /energy . This is not sur prising given t ha t Eur ope

ha s recognized for some time th e import ant role tha t t ra nsport ha s in achievingeconomic growth , environm ent al qu ality, and comm un ity hea lth. However, this

linkage necessarily leads to different interpretations of what role transport will

have in achieving the many different goals established by the European

Parliament and/or national governments. For example, during the scan visit, there

was considerable debate in the media and among transport officials on what level

of reduction in vehicle-kilomet ers t ra veled was n ecessar y to achieve sust aina bility

goals. Tra nsport officials, with a seeming closer conn ection to t ra nsport ’s r ole in

economic developmen t, were, in th e m inds of those more concerned about

Figure 2: EU Transport Infrastructure Geographic Challenges

Natural Barriers




7

sust aina bility, not willing t o tar get significan t r eductions. In m an y ways, this

debat e could pr ovide the ba sis for Eu rope’s ability to achieve what it has

esta blished a s its desired sus ta inable futu re, while still rem ainin g economically

competitive.

• Th e changing g loba l economy is also pr oviding challenges t o the EU.

Globalization of production, procur emen t, a nd distr ibution; e-logistics a nd e-

tra nsport; and outsourcing of what tr aditiona lly had occur red inter nal t o a

compa ny or countr y have caused m an y govern men t a nd pr ivate sector officials to

reth ink what types of investmen t a nd a t wha t levels are necessary to rema in

compet itive. For example, th e Neth erlan ds is home t o 57 percent of all Eu ropean

distr ibution center s for U.S. compa nies. Sevent y-five percent of th ese center s a re

outsourced. This changing economy has especially affected logistics decisions,

which ha s led to new organizat ions a nd st ra tegies for redu cing th e logistics costs

associated with freight movement within E ur ope an d oversea s (e.g., th e freight

division of Germ an y’s na tional r ailway, DB Cargo AG, bought th e Dut ch ra il

freight subsidiar y NS Cargo NV, an d ha s form ed new par tn ersh ips with BLS

Cargo of Switzerland and the Danish Railway’s DSB Goods to ach ieve economiesof opera tion). The cha nging economy ha s been a lar ge cha llenge for Eu ropean

freight shippers and operators because different business customs and practices

ha ve been, an d still are, comm on in different p ar ts of th e EU.

• The key cha llenge for E U tr an sport policy is shown in Figure 3. Wherea s th e EU

and n ational government s ar e putt ing the greatest em phasis on sh ifting freight

mode shares from r oad t ra nsport to ra il and inland wat er, the h istorical pat tern s

of usage ha ve shown exactly th e opposite t ren ds. Freight rai l mode sh are has

decl ine d s ignif icantly over the past 30 years; inland w ater mode sh are

has dec l ined as w el l, al though not a t the same rate . All of th e govern men t

officials met with during the scan discussed the importance of rail and inland

water freight services, combined (i.e., inter modal) freight services, and th e u se of

road pr icing to

encour age a sh ift

toward t hese ser vices.

The emph asis on

intermodal freight

services is especially

interesting given t he

current low mode

share for this type of

service. Approximately

1 percent of all

domestic freight

movement in t he EU

as measur ed in t onne-

km occur s by

intermodal transport.

Fourteen percent of

international goods

tra nsport occurs by Figure 3: EU Transport System Freight Mode Split, 1970-1998

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1970 1980 1990 1995 1998

Road

Short sea

Rail

Inland water

Pipeline

%




interm odal tr an sport. Severa l of those interviewed also expressed concern t ha t the

quality and price of rail service, the operational difficulties in providing cross-

border service, and the organizational culture of the rail companies themselves

did not bode well for achieving this policy goal. In some sense, the “push” toward

ra il an d inland water for freight movements is an “experiment” in th e intera ction

of government policy, market response, and institutional capability. It will be

worth watching to see wha t h appens.

In su mm ar y, Europe faces man y of the sam e tr ansporta tion pr oblems found in North

America. Economic growth has resulted in significant increases in both passenger and

freight t ra vel. In the tra nsport sector, infra stru ctur e development an d operations

have not kept pa ce with th e trem endous increases in freight dema nd. The “common

market” concept ha s cert ainly resu lted in new cha llenges to th e tr an sport sector. The

following sections describe how both th e privat e sector a nd govern men ts in Eu rope

have responded to these challenges.



H ow Eu r o pe i s Re spo n d i n g t o t h e Ch a l l e n ge s

In a ma rk et economy, public policies, an d h ow th ey ar e implemen ted, can str ongly

influen ce the overall compet itiveness of individual firm s a nd of na tional economies.

This is tru e not only with direct int ervent ion st ra tegies such as t ax policy, but a lso

with other policies that establish the market conditions within which goods are

produced an d consu med. Certa inly, one of th e most imp ort an t factors in compet itive

production is the ability to transport people and goods in as safe and cheap a manneras possible. Given the level of economic growth in the EU described above, along with

the concomitan t challenges facing th e tra nsport system, wha t a re th e Eur opeans

doing to provide a tr ansport system th at will support a t ruly integrat ed comm on

market?

PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIONS

Shipper s, freight forwar ders, service pr oviders, logistics compa nies, and ter mina l

operat ors ar e responding to the changing cha ra cter of the E ur opean t ra nsport ma rket

in a va riety of ways. Imp ort an tly, th ey also ar e responding to ma rk et forces th at

tr anscend a ny individual na tiona l border or comm on ma rket bounda ry. The scan t eam

visited a very limited n um ber of facilities an d ser vice pr oviders in compa rison withall tha t exist in Eu rope. The scan tea m believes that , even with such a limited

exposure to the Eur opean private t ra nsport indust ry (broadly defined to include th ose

who use th e services as well as t hose who provide them ), th e sites visited provide a

good snapsh ot of how private firms, often in pa rt ner ship with governm ent agencies,

ar e responding to the dem an ds an d challenges of the economic ma rk et. The m ajor

observation from these visits is as follows:

Marke t pr essures are l ead ing to serv ice ra t iona l i za t ion s t ra teg ies

a im ed a t in creas ing economies o f sca le

Given t he capital-intensive na tur e of ma ny freight operations, and the savings tha t

can occur with the shar ing of costly infrastr ucture, the scan t eam saw ma ny instan ces

wher e large-scale investm ent s were m ade t o develop facilities tha t consolidat ed

opera tions. By developing wha t might be called “hub” operat ions, the per-unit cost of

transport is lowered. Some examples:

Qua d ran te Europa/Verona Freight Vi l la ge: The Verona (Ita ly) Fr eight Village is

one of th e lar gest consolidat ion centers in E ur ope, offering a wide variet y of services

to shippers, freight forwarder s, an d freight opera tors. Its locat ion a t t he int ersection

of ma jor m otorways an d ra il lines in north ern Ita ly ma kes it a n ideal location for

tr anssh ipment t o north ern E ur ope thr ough th e Brenner Pass. The Village handles

more tha n 10 percent of Ita ly’s inter modal tr affic, 80 percent of which is inter na tional

inter modal tr affic. More t ha n 4 m illion t onnes of freight by rail an d 7 million t onn es

of freight by tr uck pa ssed t hr ough th e Village in 1999. With over 2.5 million squa re

meters of space, the Village offers many different services to customers, including

interm odal tra nsshipment capabilities among rail, road, and air t ra nsport; customs

services (for non-EU shipments), warehousing facilities, forwarding and logistics

support facilities, an d gener al office space. The int erm odal tr affic passin g th rough t he

Village h eading t o Germa ny is facilitat ed grea tly by th e offered services.



HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

10

Kombiverkehr: Est ablished in 1969, th is Germa n compa ny is one of th e world’s

largest providers of intermodal transport services. With encouragement from the

Germa n government , more than 250 Eur opean forwar ders and t ra nsport compa nies

becam e sha reh olders in t he compa ny. In essen ce, Kombiverkeh r provides one-stop

shopping for an yone desiring to tr an sport goods via int erm odal tra nsport . Not only

does it ana lyze the tr ansport m ar ket to guara ntee th e lowest tra nsport cost to its

customers, but Kombiverkehr sta ff also orga nize an d cont rol the ser vices of allsuppliers. Inter modal services include block tr ain ser vice in Germ an y and in t he E U,

block tra in service to Germ an ports, an d rolling highway ser vices th roughout t he E U.

(A block t ra in is an entire t ra in dedicat ed to a part icular service an d destinat ion

versus a sh utt le train, which h as a fixed num ber of rail car s an d ru ns on a given

schedule.) Cur ren tly, Kombiverkeh r u ses 28 block tra ins per day to serve

appr oxima tely 60 ter mina ls/cities (plans call for 42 block t ra ins per day). Rolling

highway services, where th e entire t ruck is put on a ra il car and the driver st ays in

th e cab, is only used if th ere is a governm ent al su bsidy. Such a subsidy is provided by

one of the Germ an sta tes (Saxony), which is pr oviding a su bsidy unt il a new

motorway is finished (a r olling h ighway service in Switzerlan d is a lso subsidized by

the Swiss government).

Kombiverkehr also enter s into par tner ships with other organizations t o furt her

develop inter modal infra stru ctur e. In pa rt icular, it ha s par tner ed in ter minal pr ojects

in two Germa n port s to expan d inter modal ha ndling capa bility. (In one port, the

Germa n governm ent provided a substa ntial su bsidy for capa city expansion tha t was

frowned u pon by the EU, which is concern ed a bout port compet itiveness am ong EU

mem ber st at es.) In 2000, Kombiverkeh r p rovided services for th e movement of 2

million TEUs (equivalent to 900,000 truckloads), 21 million net tonnes, and 14 billion

tonne-km.

Port of Gioia Taur o/Med center Conta iner Termin al : The Por t of Gioia Tau ro,

located on t he sout hwest ern coast of Ita ly, is one of th e newest ports in th e world.

Inter estingly, it h as been developed primar ily as a tr anssh ipment port for t he

distribution of conta iners to more t han 50 port s in t he Mediterra nean , Adriatic Sea,

an d Black Sea. This type of tran sshipment r epresents m ore th an 95 percent of the

tota l freight m ovemen t in t he port. When t he origina l plan for a bulk cargo port was

not realized, the Italian government and a consortium of freight carriers invested in

the port as a new concept in Mediterra nean freight distribution. The government

provided a pproximat ely US$40 million for civil work s const ru ction, a nd th e privat e

consort ium provided some U S$250 million for support ing infras tr uctu re (e.g., cran es).

In 1995, the port ser ved 50 vessels and ha ndled 170,000 TEUs. In 2000, more tha n

3,000 vessels called at th e port an d 2.6 million TEUs were t ra nssh ipped. The

government and freight handlers are now investigating the possibility of marketing

the port as a n int ermodal gateway to Eur ope. A trip from Southeast Asia to

Rott erda m or H am bur g via sea would ta ke 20 da ys or 22 da ys, respectively. Delivering

the conta iners t o Gioia Taur o and using interm odal services via northern Italy an d

Switzerland would ta ke a total tr ip time of 14 days. There a re curr ently two train

departures per week to Milan from Gioia Tauro, with nine weekly departures from

Milan to Rotterdam. The government, with EU financial support, is improving rail

access to th is region of Ita ly, th us m ak ing inter modal service even more viable in th e

futu re. In a ddition, the port is working with th e Italian governm ent a nd t he EU to




11

establish a free trade zone within the port boundaries. The EU is sponsoring a major

tr aining initiative at the port.

Hup ac/Trans Alp S ervice: The Alps serve as a na tur al barr ier to the north-south

movement of goods through Europe. Given that Switzerland is not a member of the

EU, a coordina ted appr oach to providing a dditiona l capacity at th is critical locat ion

depends on n egotiat ions a mong ma ny differen t pa rt ies. For exam ple, un til 2000,

Switzerlan d did not allow tr uck weights over 28 metr ic tonnes, while in Eu rope the

weight limit was 40 m etr ic tonn es. Accordin gly, it wa s n ot s ur prising t ha t two-th irds

of the freight movement through Switzerland was by rail, whereas two-thirds of the

freight movement thr ough t he F rench an d Austr ian Alps was ha ndled by truck.Through negotiated a greement, the Swiss tr uck weight limit was ma de consistent

with th e Eu ropean sta ndar d; however, the Swiss raised the road ta x from US$90 per

truck to US$200 per truck to compensate for additional road damage. Even with this

increased cost, it was cheaper for German/Italian truck freight movement to go

thr ough Switzerland. This demand ha s often caused qu eues of up to 10 km a t t he

Swiss border.

In response to this market opportunity, the Hupac Group, a provider of intermodal

tr an sport, offers a var iety of tr an sport s ervices. It owns 2,300 ra il car s, locomotives,

Port of Giaio Tauro, Italy: 1995—50 vessels/170,000 TEUs; 2001—3,000 vessels/2.6 million TEUs.




12

an d its own ter minals. With a US$300 per tr uck subsidy from th e Swiss government ,

Hu pac offers a rolling highway service th at carr ies tru cks a nd dr ivers a cross th e Alps.

This service repr esent s appr oxima tely 60 percent of th e volume car ried by Hupa c,

with the other 40 percent being intermodal containers. Hupac currently offers shuttle

tr ains between Italy and Germ any/Belgium/the Nether lands. Given th at Hupa c can

carry three times more freight with intermodal services than with rolling highway,

and given that from an environmental perspective the rolling highway still relies ontr uck tr affic at either end of th e line-ha ul tr ip th rough t he Alps, Hu pac officials

consider inter modal service to be th e import ant ma rket for the futu re. A new ra il

tu nn el in t he Alps, par tially fun ded with t he n ew road ta xes, should provide more

direct rail service from Milan to Frankfurt, especially with EU investment to upgrade

ra il lines on either side of Switzerla nd.

Although Hupac officials foresee an important future for intermodal transport, they

also expressed caution about some of the hur dles tha t rema in. These hu rdles include

pass enger a nd r ail service sha ring t he sa me r ight-of-way, lack of inter opera bility

am ong the na tional ra ilways, th e str ength of labor unions in opposing new service

arrangements, language and legal differences among EU countries, and the decliningquality of service from the railroads (an internal study of Hupac’s own service showed

th at 85 percent of th e delay was cau sed on t he r ail port ion of th e tr ip).

Flugha fen/Car go Ci ty , Fra nk furt , Germa ny: Fra nkfurt Airport is th e busiest

car go airport in Eu rope and th e ninth busiest in t he world. The ma nagement of the

airport has been privatized, with 71 percent of the stock held by the national, state,

an d city governm ent s an d 29 percent h eld by private investors, including em ployees.

Fra port , the n am e of this new man agement st ru ctur e, has a dopted a str ong

entr epreneur ial approach to its business. It ha s a ggressively pur sued consulting

opport un ities in oth er coun tr ies, helping to finan ce, build, an d operat e airp ort s

elsewhere (e.g., Tur key). It pr ovides man agemen t ser vices for t he F ra nk furt Airport

an d is enh an cing its a lready form idable car go logistics capabilities. Fr aport leases

buildings an d pr ovides distribut ion a nd cargo han dling services in Ca rgo City, a ma jor

tr anssh ipment site for freight tha t was established in 1996 on lan d once used by the

U.S. Air Force (over 60 percent of th e freight m oving thr ough Fr an kfurt is

transshipped). Slightly more than 240 airlines, forwarding agents, and service

providers ar e us ing Car go City for a var iety of services. Fr aport work s closely with

prospective u sers of Car go City, providing services r an ging from pr epar ing site p lans

to brokering investment in the proposed facility. In addition, Fraport markets its

location as th e world’s first air/truck/train/ship port in the world with high-speed

train service, direct links to Germany’s au tobahn , access to the inland port on t he

Rhine, and a ir links t o more interna tiona l destinat ions th an any other Eu ropean

airport.

In 1997, Fraport developed its own interm odal r ail term inal an d worked with

Deutsche Bahn to provide rail service to the north. Called the “cargo sprinter,” this

service was a self-propelled consist that could handle five 40-foot containers. Two

tr ains opera ted every day. Dur ing th e first year, th e service obta ined 95 to 96 percent

schedule reliability, an d a ll the capa city was used. Dur ing th e second yea r of

operation, the railroad began reconstructing the rail lines and schedule reliability

declined dr am at ically. Not su rpr isingly, freight forwar ders dropped t he service.




13

Fr aport hopes to reinst itut e th is service, but only if schedule reliability can be

guaranteed.

Port of Rot terd am /Del ta Termi na ls /Ra i l Service Center : The Port of Rott erda m

is the largest port in Europe, serving as the major gateway to the continent. More

tha n 80 percent of all freight ha ndled in the port is destined to outside th e

Neth erlan ds. The evolut ion of the E ur ope Combined Term ina ls (ECT) complex at t he

port is an exam ple of the stra tegies adopted by interm odal term inal operat ors t o

become m ore efficient an d compet itive. In par ticular, th e Delta Term inal illustr at es

one of the most a dvanced t ermina l operat ions in th e world. The tr an sshipment

operat ion is fully aut oma ted with robot vehicles moving cont ainer s to an d from

vessels. More than US$250 million was invested in the automation, aimed primarily

at redu cing labor costs. The t erm inal operat es 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. ECT

officials a lso have work ed with clients a nd customs officials t o expedite t he customs

clear an ce process.

Plans ar e being ma de to expand the capa city of the Delta t ermina ls in an ticipation of

significan t growth in cont ainer tr an sport. However, ECT officials a re concerned about

th e bott lenecks crea ted by th e limited lan d-side access. Concert ed efforts t o shift t he

access mode sha re away from r oad t ra nsport to rail and barge have been par tially

successful. In 1995, the respective mode sha res of access m odes were 53 percent for

road, 14 percent for r ail, and 33 percent for ba rge; in 2000, th e mode shar es were 44

percent for r oad, 15 percent for r ail, and 41 per cent for ba rge. The sh ift h as clearly

occurr ed in favor of bar ge. With th e ma ssive new investmen t in t he Bet uwe line (see

inset p age 14), however, ECT officials ar e hoping tha t r ail can ta ke even m ore ma rk et

shar e from tru cks.

With more than 1 million ship movements annually serving the port, it is not

surprising that congestion on the access routes to the port has been one of the most

critical pr oblems facing port an d govern men t officials. In response, the Dut ch

governm ent ha s invested h eavily in th e development of a freight-only ra il line

ECT container port in Rotterdam: Robot haulers unload container ship.




14

conn ecting Rotter dam to Germa ny. Par t of th e str at egy for imp roved rail access to the

port was t he crea tion of dedicated r ail service cent ers for t he port . In t he m id-1990s,

approximately 50 different terminals and depots provided rail access throughout the

port . A private compan y approached the Dutch government with a plan t o rat ionalize

th is ra il service. This plan was ba sed n ot only on t he govern men ta l policy of shifting

access mar ket sha re away from road tra nsport, but a lso on th e realizat ion th at thema rket itself was changing. Conta iner tr an sport already held a significan t m ar ket

sha re, and was likely to increase. Carr iers were expected to concentr at e on a limited

number of ports, where port attractiveness depended on such things as accessibility

for vessels, reliable inland connections, cargo handling capability, and customer

service. The pr oposed plan closed th e 50 term inals a nd r eplaced them with t wo ra il

service centers at either end of the port. A rail shuttle service between these two

service centers was established with 100-TEU capacity per shuttle. Daily shuttle

train service was also instituted between the rail service centers and 37 different

destinations in Eu rope. The Dutch government built the tra ck for t his shut tle as well

as the two rail service centers. The private company pays rent and owns the rolling

stock for t he sh ut tle opera tions.

The n ew ra il service concept h as been successful in increa sing ra il’s market share,

alth ough not yet t o significan t levels. The opening of th e Betu we line is an ticipat ed to

increase the attractiveness of rail access to the port. Such attractiveness will be

necessary to achieve the government ’s goal of ra il achieving a 20 percent ma rk et

sha re in m ode of access by 2010.

THE NETHERLANDS: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPFOR MORE EFFICIENT LOGISTICS

The Dutch government has adopted a national transportationgoal of reducing the amount of freight moved by truck. Aprogram called Transactie Modal Shift provides governmentfunds to shippers to conduct logistics scans and to developlong-term plans for more efficient goods movement. Proposedactions have included the development of new logisticsstrategies (e.g., reduction in scheduled deliveries and improvedroute planning), changes in transport technology (e.g., use ofsea containers), consolidation of freight distribution activities atfreight centers, and enhanced training to improve vehicle fuelefficiency. From 1997 to 2000, 200 logistics efficiency scans, 100

mode shift scans, and 50 integrated scans were conducted,resulting in 142 implemented projects. Seventy-five of the modeshift scans showed the possibility of using intermodal services,and in approximately 10 percent of these cases, such servicewas cheaper than existing truck service. The largest mode shiftwas from truck to inland water transport. The governmentestimates that the implemented projects resulted in a reductionof 72 million vehicle-km because of more efficient logisticsstrategies and of 18 million vehicle-km because of targetedmode shift strategies.

THE NETHERLANDS: CORRIDOR INVESTMENT IN THE BETUWE ROUTE CORRIDOR

The Betuwe Route corridor connects the port of Rotterdam toGermany, 160 km to the east. As the busiest port in Europe,Rotterdam is continually concerned with access to the portterminals, and particularly in the context of EU and Dutchnational policy, of promoting non-truck access. The BetuweRoute project is an approximate US$4 billion project that willprovide electrified freight-only twin rail tracks connecting to theGerman national railway system. The Dutch nationalgovernment, private investors, and the EU are contributingdollars to this project, which is expected to be completed in

2005. Considerable attention has been paid to communityimpacts of the proposed route, with mitigation includingpassing the tracks through tunnels, sunken sections, theroofing of the most sensitive sections of the track, and addedinsulation in 400 homes. There will be no at-grade crossings,approximately 95 km of the rail line will be parallel to a majormotorway, and a freight shuttle service will provide easytransfer of waterborne containers to rail or road. The Betuweproject is one of the priority transport projects of the EU.




15

• • •

The pr evious case st udies ha ve focused on t he pr ovision of freight infrast ru ctur e or

th e developmen t of new freight services. The scan t eam also found th at new

institutional arr angement s ar e being developed between shippers an d infra stru ctur e

providers. For example, a new compan y called Rail4Chem ha s been formed by a

Germ an forwa rding compa ny, a Swiss freight forwa rder, an d one of th e world’s leading

chem ical pr oducers t o ru n its own tr ains dedicat ed to chem ical tr an sport. Similar ly, a

joint tr ack access agreement am ong Swedish, Germ an , and Danish ra il infra stru ctur e

operat ors an d IKEA Rail AB, th e ra il freight su bsidiary of Swedish furn itur e producer

IKEA, has resulted in IKE A runn ing its own tra ins in th ese thr ee count ries.

As can be seen in t he a bove exam ples, interm odal freight h as been a n importa nt

strategy for the facility operators, logistics company, and service providers visited

dur ing this scan . To ma ke int erm odal freight t ra nsport successful, however, a large

nu mber of challenges mu st st ill be overcome. These challenges ra nge from t he a bility

to handle large numbers of containers on terminal access routes (i.e., Rotterdam) to

th e ability of the r ailroads t o provide schedu led service th at is reliable (as n oted by

Hu pac an d F ra nkfort Airport officials). Those ma king t he sh ipping decisions, the

freight forwar ders, will choose th e services th at ar e most reliable an d cost t he least .

Thus, given the emphasis and expectations placed on the role of intermodal transport

by governm ent officials, it rem ains to be seen if th e necessar y service str uctur e an d

infrast ru ctur e will be in place to provide the r eliability in ser vice th at is necessary to

achieve the desired level of market share.

PUBLIC SECTOR ACTIONS

Governm ent s can influen ce economic ma rk et conditions in a va riety of ways, th rough

direct int ervention in ma rket pricing or t hrough th e provision of infrastr ucture a nd

services. J ust as in N ort h Amer ica, the economic an d tr an sport challenges facingEu rope requir e th e coordinat ed effort s of ma ny different levels of governm ent . Many

innovative an d creat ive solut ions t o th e problems encoun ter ed in impr oving mobility

and accessibility often surface from such collaboration. The following sections describe

what t he scan t eam found a t th ree levels of government planning and m an agement a s

they relate to the freight transport challenges described earlier.

Crea t ion o f an ins t i tu t iona l s t ruc tur e — the EU — an d resul t ing pol icies tha t

inf luence the t ranspor t ma rke t : The EU has h ad an importa nt impact on ma rket

conditions and on the regulatory environment for the movement of freight in the

European market. The intent of the original founding member countries (Belgium,

Fr an ce, Germa ny, Ita ly, Luxembourg, and th e Net her lands ) was to crea te closereconomic, social, an d political r elationships a mong th e na tions th at sha red comm on

interests. The original motivat ion for establishing a comm on Eur opean ma rket was to

emphasize the competitive advantages of being one economic unit rather than

separate competing entities, while at the same time providing a means of dealing

with a long h istory of conflict on th e cont inent . Tra nsport at ion policy was seen by the

foun ding mem bers, an d reinforced repea tedly by th e expanded m ember ship, as one of

th e key policy ar eas wh ere su bsta nt ial benefits could occur t hr ough E U-level action.

In p ar ticular, the m ajor th ru sts of initia l EU efforts wer e on developing free




16

competition within the Common Market and on promoting the interoperability of

transport services and operations among member states. The specific characteristics

of the EU r ole in t ra nsportat ion, and in part icular as t hey relate to freight tra nsport,

are as follows:

Es tab l i sh ing a common po l i cy fram ework: The Treat y of Rome, th e agreem ent

establishing th e str ucture of what is today the E U, recognized th e import ant role th at

tr an sport policy could play in developing a E ur opean comm on m ar ket. The Treat y

called for th e developmen t of a comm on tr an sport policy th at would pr ovide a

framework within which member countries could develop their own transport

networks, while at the same time improving the performance characteristics of the

European transport system as a whole. By providing compatible system

improvements whose benefits transcended any individual country, the EU was

targeting strategic investments whose net impact would be of benefit to the entire EU.

Given t hat na tiona l tra nsport net works serve as t he founda tion for the prospective

European network, it is not surprising that one of the initial challenges facing the EU

in the transport sector was establishing the interoperability of services and

infrastructure for trans-European travel.

Neil Kinn ock, Eur opean Commissioner for Tra nsport from 1995 to 1999, sum ma rized

th e key char acter istics of th e Comm on Tra nsport Policy in a 1999 progress r eport on

its a chievemen ts [Eur opean Comm ission, 1999]. The following sta tem ent s from th is

report provide a good sen se of th e key char acter istics of th is policy (emph ases added).

“Sustain able mobi l ity is th e core p ur pose of the Comm on Tra ns port Policy.

The Commission ha s been developing policy appr oaches t ha t will encoura ge the

establishm ent of publ ic /pr ivate inves tment and deve lopment partnerships .

The Comm unity ha s an obligat ion t o pursue m easur es to improve transport

safety .

(The) rail, road, maritime and aviation systems…mu st also be made

interoperable .

(It) is essentia l to make mu ch bet ter use o f what ex i s ts .

Intermodal i ty…could t ra nsform th e ease an d efficiency of movemen t.

Any pric ing an d charg ing sys tem must clearly and fairly relat e to the

infra stru ctur e an d externa l costs caused by use…

To protect th e legitimate interest of consum ers a nd competitors in t ra nsport a s

elsewhere, the compet i t ion rules th at help to susta in the vitality of the mar ket

system have to be applied.”

The pr inciples ar ticulated in th e Comm on Tra nsport Policy have guided EU policy

ma king an d ru le promulgat ion over t he pa st decade. As such, it has p rovided a

common point of departure for member nations in developing their own national

tr ansport policies and for esta blishing the tra nsport-related criteria tha t m ust be

sat isfied for new m ember s t o join t he E U. One of the k ey principles n ow being

considered seriously is th e implemen ta tion of road pricing. However, the exact n at ur e




17

of how this concept is to be applied is not

yet determined a nd is subject t o a great

deal of debate.

It is of interest t o note that during th e

scan visit, th e direction of fut ur e

transport policy was of great interest to

ma ny key stakeholders an d to the media.

In par ticular, one of the key point s of

disagreement was the level to which

tr an sport policy was t o be tied to

sust aina bility/ener gy conser vation goals.

Those concern ed ma inly with th ese goals

wanted t he tr an sport sector to have a

high ta rget va lue for redu ced road u se. Those more concern ed with t he r elationship

between the tr ansport system a nd economic development /tr ade wan ted to help

achieve sustainability/energy conservation goals, but with transport having a smaller

ta rget in road-use r eduction.

Advoca t ing comm on pr inc ip les and in terest s tha t can be re f l ec ted in na t iona l

policies: With in th e cont ext of adopted policies an d fram ework s, th e EU is a str ong

advocate for the coordinated development of national transport policies that are

consistent with each other and with EU positions. In some cases, the EU acts as a

cata lyst in coordina ting m ulticoun tr y plann ing, policy development, a nd r esear ch

activities. It was noteworthy that some of the principles put forth by the EU were

repeated in presentations by national ministry of transport officials, private service

providers, an d facility opera tors. Thu s, th ere seems to be some su ccess in providing a

channel for the consistent articulation of common goals and strategies at the different

levels of governance and corporate decision making that affect the transport market.

The grea test evidence of th is consistency was t he policy appr oach a dopted by the E U

in its t ra nsport policy tha t wa s reflected in th e Dut ch n at iona l policy as well. The

approach simply is to establish ta rget m ar ket sh ar es for the different modal systems.

For example, the chart below shows the growth rates for mode share in the

Nether lands t ha t h ave been esta blished for the year 2010, compa red with t he likely

scenar io if the t ra nsport policy is not followed. As sh own, road tr an sport will grow by

50 percent with out t he a ctions pr oposed in t he t ra nsport policy or will grow by 38

EU TRANSPORT POLICY PRIORITIESFOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS:

• European single sky

• Clean urban transport

• Sustainability

• Interoperability and intermodality

• Intelligent transport systems

• Maritime safety

Volumes for will grow by: 2010 2010

(without policy) (with policy)

Road transport----------------------------------------- 50%---------------- 38%

Railroads ----------------------------------------------- 13%---------------- 40%

Inland water ------------------------------------------- 25%---------------- 40%

Pipelines------------------------------------------------ 13%---------------- 13%

Maritime------------------------------------------------ 34%---------------- 40%




18

percent if such actions are implemented. Rail, inland water, and short sea transport

will grow at faster rates under the new policy scenario. These target values are very

am bitious a nd in m any ways represent dra ma tic chan ges in t he way freight moves in

Europe. Many of those interviewed questioned whether the rail industry can come

anywhere close to the targeted market share desired in the policy given historical and

indus tr y-specific barr iers.

Target ing s t ra teg ic inves tments to s igni f icant ly imp rove t ranspor t sys tem

performance: The Maa stricht Treat y in 1992 extended t he Treaty of Rome’s

benchma rk position on t he E U comm on tra nsport policy by foster ing the developmen t

of tran s-Eur opean n etworks in several infrastr ucture a reas, including tran sport.

Trans-European transport (TEN-T) networks were defined for high-speed trains,

highways, combined t ru ck/ra il tra nsport , an d inlan d wat erways. The scope of th e

TEN-T program encompasses hundreds of projects throughout the EU, ranging from

lar ge-scale infra str uctur e developmen t t o the a pplicat ion of ITS technologies on

existing infrastr ucture.

The European Commission recommends corridor projects, and the European

Pa rliam ent an d Council choose which pr ojects s hould be included on t he ba sis of sta ff

input an d political consider at ions. To provide some political su pport to th e pr ogra m,

th e EU identified 14 concepts/projects th at were t o receive highest pr iority. Figur e 4

shows these 14 pr iority investm ent s; th e crit eria for selecting these pr iority pr ojects

ar e shown in t he sidebar on page 19.

Figure 4. TEN-T Priority Projects.

Trans-EuropeanTransport Network

The 14 Priority Projects

1. High-speed train/combined transport N/S

2. High-speed train PBKAL

3. High-speed train south

4. High-speed train east

5. Betuwe Line, conventional rail/combined transp.

6. High-speed train/combined transp. France-Italy

7. Greek motorways Pathe and Via Egnatia

8. Multimodal link Portugal-Spain-Central Europe

9. Conventional rail Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer

10. Malpensa Airport, Milano

11. Oresund fixed rail/ road link Denmark-Sweden

12. Nordic Triangle multimodal corridor

13. Ireland/United Kingdom/Benelux road link

14. West Coast Main Line




19

The EU provides

funds t o leverage

project funding from

other sources. For

examp le, th e EU will

provide u p t o 50

percent for feasibilitystudies and u p to 10

percent for

const ru ction (85

percent for accession

coun tr ies, which at

this time include

Irela nd, Greece,

Portugal, and Spain).

EU R 18 billion is

available between

2001 and 2006 totrigger an expected

EU R 60 t o 100 billion

in investment from

other sour ces.1

Historically, however,

from 1996 t o 1997 a

tota l of EUR 38

billion was spen t on TEN-T projects, with t he E U repr esent ing a 30 percent sh ar e.

The buy-in from member governments and the private sector on the priority projects

ha s been m ore m odest th an expected, par tly becau se of a slowdown in th e economy, an

overest ima tion of private sector fina ncial inter est in th e projects, an d in some cases,encoun ter ing environmen ta l problems with a pr oject. A proposal is expected to

increase EU participation to 20 percent for projects relating to the implementation of

ITS t echn ologies. This plan reflects th e importa nce th at EU officials a re p lacing on

th e r ole of techn ology-based system ma na gement . As st at ed by one official, “To

compet e, we mu st be h igh tech.” The EU also has encoura ged a regiona l systems

management approach that will provide integrated traffic control over large portions

of Europe’s transport network.

The EU has recently adopted a m ultiyear progra mm ing approach t o project

prioritization. A maximu m of 75 percent of th e budget will be allocated in th e

following way: 45 percent (of th e 75 per cent) will go to pr ojects wit h p ublic/pr ivat esector pa rt icipat ion, 20 percent t o the implemen ta tion of a cont inent -wide global

positioning system (GPS), an d 35 percent t o other t ra nsport projects, such as a ir

traffic control, ITS, rail bottlenecks, etc. A small amount will be set aside to provide

risk capital for pr ojects t hat ar e outside this progra m bu t t ha t h ave high potential for

substan tial benefits.

It is of inter est t o note th at most of th e TEN-T priorit y projects completed so far ar e

contained within one nation ’s border s. The m ultin at iona l projects, which pr esum ably

requ ire more coordinat ion a nd n egotiat ion, have not been implemen ted a s quickly.

PRIORITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANS-EUROPEANTRANSPORT NETWORK (TEN-T)

The development of an integrated and interoperable continental transport network has been agoal of the EU since its inception. The multimodal TEN-T consists of transportation infrastructure,traffic management systems, and positioning/ navigation systems. The priorities for selectingtransportation projects included:

• Establishment and development of connections, key links, and interconnections needed toeliminate bottlenecks, fill in missing sections, and complete major routes;

• Establishment and development of infrastructure for access to the network, making it possibto link island, landlocked, and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community;

• The optimum combination and integration of various modes of transportation;

• Integration of environmental concerns into the design and development of the network;

• Gradual achievement of interoperability of network components;

• Optimization of the capacity and efficiency of existing infrastructure;

• Establishment of and improvement in interconnection points and intermodal platforms;

• Improved safety and network reliability;

• Development and establishment of systems for the management and control of networktraffic and user information with a view to optimizing use of the infrastructure; and

• Studies contributing to improved design and better implementation of the TEN-T network.




20

There was no

indicat ion from t hose

interviewed whet her

th is was a conscious

decision on t he pa rt of

th e EU (i.e., push ing

projects first t hat were“easiest ” to show

progress toward

program goals) or

whether this was the

nat ural r esult of the

complexity of

multijurisdictional

implementation.

In addition to investment in infra stru ctur e, the E U ta rgets hum an r esource

developmen t a nd t ra ining as pa rt of its overa ll stra tegy of economic and s ocialcohesion. In 2000, for example, more than EUR 480 million was allocated for

education and vocational training. The scan team found examples of EU training

investment at some of the sites visited.

Es tab l i shing lega l ly b inding rules an d r egula t ions: In t he m ajorit y of policy

areas, the responsibility for implementing EU policies and guidelines rests with the

member states. Thus, in some ways, the level of effectiveness of EU policy guidance

depends on the willingness of member states to adopt the recommendations. In other

cases, binding ru les and r egulat ions a re u sed to guara ntee u niversa l implement at ion

of a policy, which is monit ored by t he EU. Exa mp les of legally bindin g ru les include

allowable vehicle weights, vehicle emission sta nda rds, aircraft n oise sta nda rds, an d

allowable trucker driving hours. If warranted, the European Commission can take a

mem ber st at e to the E ur opean Cour t for legal resolution. An exam ple of the r ole of the

European Court was a case initiated by the Dutch that challenged favorable pricing of

Germa n r ail services to the ports of Ha mbur g and Br emen. The resulting agreement

establishes maximum flow rates that can cross three border locations. A more recent

policy tha t h as a n import an t effect on t he E ur opean freight net work is a policy of

disassociating th e ma na gement/ownership of ra il infrastr ucture with t hose

responsible for operat ing freight services. The E ur opean Comm ission a lso monitors

member n ation aid to its own tr ansport indust ry to mainta in mar ket competition.

Perhaps the greatest success in establishing consistent application of EU rules was

the reduction in customs clearances at national borders. Prior to 1993, all truckerswere st opped at ea ch n at iona l border for cust oms checks, tax cleara nce, an d, in some

cases, vehicle inspection. On J an ua ry 1, 1993, all such n at iona l border checks wer e

abolished, alth ough s pot checks still occur for dr ugs a nd im migra tion enforcemen t.

The crea tion of free cross-border tr an sport was identified by almost a ll those

interviewed as one of the most import ant EU a ctions for creating a better m ar ket

environment for freight tr ansport.

CUSTOMS 2002

Realizing that the abolition of internal border checks requires enhanced clearances andcontrols at external borders, the EU has adopted the following strategy, called Customs 2002,for providing coordinated EU-wide external border controls:

• Identification of best practices among member states.

• Collection, analysis, and exploitation of data to combat fraud.

• Support for customs administrations to improve internal administrative structures (e.g., riskanalysis, post-importation audits, and computerization).

• Exchange of customs officials among member states.

• Training that disseminates best practices.

• Computerization of customs procedures throughout the EU.




21

Giving specia l a t t ent ion to enlargement o f the EU: The EU has expanded

membership four times in its short history and is facing another such expansion in

the near futu re. Thirteen a dditiona l count ries ar e seeking mem bership in th e EU,

which ma kes it potent ially th e largest of such expans ions.2 If all 13 coun tr ies are

added as mem bers, the E U’s total population would exceed 500 million. The process of

being adm itted as a m ember of the E U r eflects some of the actions t ha t h ave been

taken within the original membership to promote a more cohesive and coordinatedEurope. Each candidate country must adopt and enforce the entire body of EU rules

an d regulations, known as t he acquis com m unau taire (approxima tely 100,000 pa ges).

Par t of this acquis is a policy cha pter on t ra nsport, known a s th e tr ansport acquis,

which mu st be a dopted in toto (see sidebar on pa ge 22 for a more det ailed description

of th is pr ocess). The process of successful adoption includes t hr ee m ajor st ages:

• The tr ansport acquis mu st be incorporated int o the na tiona l legal system of the

candidat e coun tr y.

• The implementation of the transport acquis must occur by providing

administrative capacity, institutions, and budgets necessary to carry out this legal

basis.

• The enforcement of the transport acquis should provide the necessary controls and

penalties to ensure t hat the law is being complied with.

The E U a lso provides finan cial a ssista nce to can didat e a ccession countr ies. A lar ge

percentage of the assistance is assigned to helping candidate countries bring their

infra stru ctur e up to EU st an dards. In 2000, EUR 3.2 billion was ea rm ar ked for

helping th e can didat e coun tr ies. More t ha n E UR 1 billion was pr ovided to upgra de

tr ansporta tion a nd environmen ta l systems t o EU st anda rds. A progra m called Pha re

provided E UR 1.5 billion to modern ize and ada pt th e economies of th e a ccession

coun tr ies. The EU budget provides E UR 22 billion for pre-accession support from2000 to 2006, and E UR 57 billion for n ew mem ber st at es from 2002 on. Exam ples of

the types of studies undert aken by the P ha re pr ogram include the investigation of the

competitiveness of the rail system in eastern and central Europe, the application of

road t ra nsport char ges, costs of upgra ding each accession coun tr y’s tra nsport

infrastructure, forecasting traffic demand for 10 Pan-European transport corridors,

road and maritime safety, and the extent to which environmental concerns were being

addr essed within t he a ccession coun tr ies. Import an tly, 30 percent of th e Ph ar e budget

was allocated to human resource development. Between 1996 and 1999, more than

1,600 individuals in th e accession coun tr ies received tr ainin g.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE EUMuch of the effort at the EU for the past several decades has been on institution

building, tha t is, providing the institu tiona l stru ctur e th at can act as the founda tion

for th e EU concept of “one E ur ope.”The EU has clearly been advan tageous for t he

Eu ropean tr an sport sector. Not only ha s it foster ed th e rem oval of bar riers t o cross-

border tr avel (e.g., cust oms a t n at iona l border s), but it ha s also raised tr an sport policy

issues to th e inter na tional an d na tional levels of debat e. Tra nsport policy is in th e

middle of key debat es on the economic and en vironm ent al futu re for t he E U.




22

ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

An important issue for the EU is enlargement (i.e., whether to admit membership to one or more of 13 aspirant countries).Currently, these countries include Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Turkey. From the original six members (Belgium, France, Germany,Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) who formed the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, the EU hasexpanded to 15 countries currently (Demark, United Kingdom, and Ireland joined in 1973; Greece in 1981; Spain and

Portugal in 1986; and Austria, Finland, and Sweden in 1995). The 13 aspirant countries are following an accessionnegotiations process, which determines the conditions under which each candidate will join the EU. Negotiations focusspecifically on the implementation and enforcement of the acquis communautaire (in certain cases limited transitionalarrangements may be possible).

The acquis communautaire consists of 31 chapters outlining priority economic and political conditions (in practice, for apresent member, some 80,000 pages of civil law and administrative procedures) that fall into three broad areas:

• Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the respect for and the protectionof minorities.

• Existence of a functioning market economy, as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and marketforces within the EU.

• Ability to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of the political, economic, andmonetary union.

The core of the transport acquis is:

• Integration of the transport acquis into the national legal and administrative framework.

• Provision of administrative capacity, institutions, and budgets crucial to implement the transport acquis.

• · Enforcement of the acquis through a system of controls to ensure compliance established at the EU and nationallevels.

Freight transport is featured throughout the 31 conditions of the acquis as parts of the following sections: free movementof goods, transport policy, energy policy, customs, freedom of movement of persons (labor), free movement of capital,

freedom to provide services, corporate law, competition policy, etc. Matters such as transport equipment standards andregistrations, safety standards and workplace conditions, operator qualifications, transport networks and open access tosame, interoperability, structure of user taxes and fees, etc., are all components of the transport sector.

An overview of the enlargement process is contained in European Union Enlargement: A Historic Opportunity , which isavailable from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Enlargement.

A Guide to the Transport Acquis is an informal document compiled by the DGTREN (formerly DG-VII), the EU’s DirectorateGeneral for Transport & Energy. It summarizes current EU transport legislation as a resource for the public authorities ofcandidate countries to use in preparing their position papers in support of their application for accession. At the sametime, several pre-membership funding programs are available through the Directorate General for External Relations foruse in support planning and analysis.

In the transport sector, a wide-ranging study resulted in the October 1999 report, Transport Infrastructure Needs

Assessment (for 11 of the 13 prospective member states), including a first definition of infrastructure components to extendthe TEN-T (Trans-European Transport Network) into the candidate countries.

Many smaller area studies have been funded, including, for example, Analysis of Rail Competitiveness in Central andEastern Europe, Need for a Common Pool of Combined Transport Equipment, Danube Corridor Development Plan, etc. Insome of these studies the scope has been extended to Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the former YugoslavianRepublic of Macedonia.

In June 2001 leaders of the EU declared their aim of having the most promising of the candidates in position toparticipate directly in elections to the 2004 European Parliament. A Report on Progress towards Accession by each of the Candidate Countries is available from the Directorate General for Enlargement. For further information, consult the EUwebsite: <europa.eu.int/comm./enlargement >




23

The fut ur e r ole of EU govern an ce is at th e core of policy debat es a nd will likely

rem ain so in the foreseea ble fut ur e. The role of a centr al au th ority in t he form of th e

EU versus that of member states is the crux of the issue. In the transport sector, for

examp le, mem ber st at es still wield an im porta nt influen ce on t he overa ll effectiveness

of EU policy outcomes th rough th eir policy implem ent at ion responsibility. Consisten t

application of transport policies at the EU level requires the agreement of member

sta tes. The a doption of policies tha t a re cont roversial, or th at impa ct one group m ore

th an others (e.g., road p ricing), can be delayed while th e politics of accepta nce ar eworked out. One of the ways of providing political acceptance of such policies is to

str uctu re t heir im plement at ion so as t o achieve the ult imat e objective (e.g., shift in

mode sha re), but s till “hold ha rm less” the indu stry or sectors tha t h ave to respond.

For example, current road pricing proposals suggest that increased road prices that

will influence ma rk et t ra nsport decisions will be offset by redu ctions in t ax bur dens

to the r oad t ra nsport indust ry so tha t t he n et finan cial effect on t his industr y is close

to zer o.

The Common Transport Policy provides an important point of departure for the

developmen t of tra nsport policies in m ember na tions. Road pricing, for example,

which is very mu ch su pported by th e EU, is finding its way int o other t ra nsportpolicies (e.g., th at of the Net her lands ). The a pproach of ta rgeting m ar ket s ha res by

mode, however, raises significan t quest ions concern ing th e a bility of th ese m odes to

achieve th e desired levels. In t he E ur opean case, th is seems especially tru e for t he r ail

indus tr y. The qu ality of service provided and cont inuing int eropera bility issues n eed

to be addressed before such targets can be reached.

The EU provision of funding for stra tegic tra nsportat ion investmen ts is a n importa nt

component of th e str at egy of providing a consisten t a nd coordinat ed tr an sport

infrast ru ctur e within t he E U. Severa l of those persons inter viewed noted, however,

Inland shipping: An important means of freight distribution in Europe.




24

tha t t he assu mption of privat e sector interest in paying for a shar e of this investment

cost was t oo optimistic. Governm ent investm ent in th e projects was needed t o redu ce

the risk for pr ivat e investors. Those interviewed stat ed th at it also was import ant to

ha ve a specific project a ut hority th at ha s responsibility for pr oject imp lement at ion

an d is held accoun ta ble for program success.

Since the pa nel’s visit, the EU has published a revised transport policy: European

Transport Policy for 2010 – Time t o Decide. The n ew policy concen tr at es on effectin g a

shift of modal tr an sport a way from r oads to more sust aina ble modes, while alleviatin g

th e h igh level of tra ffic congestion on E ur opean roadways.

MEMBER STATE RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGES

The scan t eam visited a sm all num ber of count ries, thus genera lizations t hat apply to

all member count ries of the EU ar e inappr opriate. Some importa nt observations can

be ma de, however, on how these coun tr ies have responded t o the EU ’s tra nsport

policies as well as on t heir own policies/program s for impr oving freight tr an sport. In

addition, these countries have a long history of participation in trade and in the

movement of goods a nd ser vices, th us t his experience is poten tially valuable to th eNorth American context.

L inka ge to broad er societa l goals : The tr an sport policy cha llenge to the E U

coun tr ies, an d to the E U itself, is balancing the m an y differen t goals tha t h ave been

identified by policy mak ers a nd by th e public as being importa nt for t he futu re of th e

comm un ity. In par ticular, susta inability ha s been ident ified as one of th e overa rching

goals t ha t should guide invest men t policies. In some s ense, one of the differences

between t he na tional t ra nsport policy emphasis on intermodal tra nsport in Eu rope

an d of th at in North America is the linka ge to th ese broader goals. Sust aina bility,

energy conservation, and quality of life are driving forces for public policy interest in

inter modal tr an sport in E ur ope. Economic efficiency and pr oductivity tend t o be th emajor motivation in North America.

Consis tency wi th EU pol icies: Even with the limited number of countries visited,

there seems to be strong consistency between national government transport policy

an d EU p olicy. The lat est t ra nsport plan for the N eth erlan ds, for exam ple, highlights

th ose area s wher e th e Dut ch policies ar e consist ent with E U policies, in pa rt icular, in

the areas of road pricing; deregulation of the road transport market; liberalization of

the railways; safety, accessibility, and emission requirements for vehicles and vessels;

and electronic vehicle

tagging.3 In Italy, Germany,

and Switzerland (eventhough the lat ter is not a

member of the E U), the

scan t eam identified policy

approaches that were

support ive of the

overar ching EU comm on

transport policy

framework.

DUTCH LAW FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWThe Netherlands has amended thenational environmental law to streamlinethe environmental review process forprojects that are of national significance,in particular, the Betuwe freight rail lineand a high-speed passenger rail line.Projects of national significance must stillgo through the environmental reviewprocess, but by reducing the number ofrequired project justification documents,

the initial phases of this process areshortened. Once the decision has beenmade after the environmental processto proceed with a project design andthe corresponding environmentalmitigation, local communities are askedto sign an agreement to this decision.Once these agreements are signed, theimplementation of the project cannot belegally challenged.




25

Focus on tra nsport sys tem infra stru cture an d techn ology: The member states

recognize the import an ce of efficient t ra nsport at ion system s for t heir economies an d

for t he su ccess of th e EU. Ther e was a gener al un derst an ding on t he pa rt of all

government officials interviewed of the “bigger pictur e” of continent-wide

tr ansporta tion services and where t heir count ry’s tr an sport network or facility’s

operat ions fit into this bigger pictur e. In fact, the Dut ch have invested in t he

tr ansport system beyond t heir own borders. The Nether lands ha s invested in a high-speed rail project in Belgium, and ther e was some speculat ion tha t investmen t might

occur in Ger ma ny t o impr ove r ail ser vice, both of which would ben efit th e Dut ch

economy an d th e efficiency of its t ra nsport system. The Port of Rott erda m h as

invested in facilities in Hun gary an d th e Czech Republic tha t m ake t he port m ore

competitive in those markets. In EU countries, large investment has occurred and is

continu ing to occur tha t is a imed at improving the ph ysical tr ansport infra stru ctur e.

In a ddition, the a pplicat ion of adva nced ITS techn ologies for system m an agemen t, in

conjunction with corresponding investments by the transport industry for its own

operat ions, is considered to be one of th e more import an t fut ur e directions in system

investment.

Inves tment in freight infras t ructure: The coun tr ies visited seem t o provide grea ter

levels of public investment in freight infrastructure than are found in North America.

In ma ny cases, the government ’s focus was on pr oviding th e infrast ru ctur e (in some

cases leasing it to a concessiona ire) an d, where a ppropria te, providing loans t o those

operating services and terminals. The conditions for the latter support were most

often t ha t full access to these ser vices ha d to be allowed, and t ha t t he pu blic subsidy

did not diminish the competitiveness of the freight industry in the local market. The

most impressive example of such a n investment is the Betu we rail corr idor in the

Nether lands, which represents a US$4 billion comm itment by the n ational

Intermodal transport: An important part of the EU strategy for freight mobility.




26

Figure 5. The Economic Heart of Europe.

governm ent to rail freight . This level of investm ent was not t he n orm in th e countr ies

visited. Clearly, the Dut ch governm ent ha s a great er sen sitivity of, an d willingness t o

invest heavily in, freight infrastructure given its country’s location at th e hear t of

Europe’s economy (see F igure 5).

Emp ha sis on us ing ex i st ing infras t ru cture as much a s possib le , an d t hus a

governmenta l in t eres t in intermoda l t ranspor ta t ion: One of th e key ta rgets for

providing enhanced freight transport mobility is to use the existing multimodal

transport infrastructure more effectively. In the Netherlands, for example, ministry

officials stated that most improvements to transport system performance will come

first from operat iona l enh an cements, second from pricing, and finally from capa city

expansion. Freight t ra nsport policy has empha sized shifting ma rket shar es to modes

of tran sport tha t a re curr ently underu tilized, primar ily inlan d water, short sea, andra il tran sport in order to ma ximize the n um ber of altern atives available to system

user s. In t his cont ext, ma ny governm ent officials view int erm odal freight t ra nsport —

rail/truck, rail/barge, and truck/barge — as a n importan t m eans for a chieving modal

shifts. This is the case even though current ma rket shar e for interm odal freight

tr ansporta tion a nd r ail freight tr an sport ation is very small. Some government s ar e

providing m onetar y incentives to encour age t his sh ift. Germ an y, for exam ple, provides

th e following inducement s for t hose using inter modal tr an sport: redu ced road vehicle

taxes (currently EUR 2,500 – 3,500 per gener al freight t ru ck; zero for int erm odal

carr iage), allowance of grea ter vehicle weight (44 t onn es inst ead of 40 tonnes),




27

exemption from r oad dr iving ban s on h olidays and weeken ds, an d exemption from

cabota ge rules.

The empha sis on int ermodal tra nsport ha s also led to inter est in promoting better

tr anssh ipment capabilities at term inals an d ports. For exam ple, an EU Green Paper

on S ea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure ar gued tha t ports n eeded to be included in

the TEN-T program because of the importance of interconnection and interoperability

of national networks (EU ports handle approximately 30 percent of intra-EU freight

movement).4 Th e “rationalization ” of Europe’s ports from th e persp ective of which

port s should serve as t he pr imary gat eways to th e EU could potentially be a

significan t cha llenge (and cont roversy) given t he lar ge num ber of ports t ha t exist in

EU countries. The competitive nature among European ports leads one to suspect

th at effort s to rat iona lize port gateways from an EU per spective is going to be very

difficult.

Development o f a m ark et -dr iven t ra nspor t po l icy wi thin the context o f publ ic

interes t : Both EU officials a nd na tional officials st at ed th at th e focus of freight

tr ansport policy is on influencing th e tr an sport ma rket thr ough pr icing and financial

incentives th at influen ce the decisions of freight forwar ders as well as operat ors. To

some of those interviewed, this is a different approach th an what ha s been tr ied

previously, which was described as a “Thou sh alt… ” appr oach. Tha t is, governm ent

policies mandated that certain market responses would occur, but would not put in

place incentives or disincentives to obta in th is result . Perha ps th e best exam ple of

this m ar ket-driven t ra nsport policy is found in th e Germa n a nd Dut ch government al

subsidy programs for intermodal terminal developments and the logistics support

progra m in th e Netherlan ds where the ba sis for t he progra m is letting privat e firms

decide what is feasible, and then providing leverage capital to make the investment

decision economically viable. Dutch officials described this approach as using public

policy to au gmen t logistical efficiencies.

Road pricing is one of the corn erst ones of the m ar ket-driven t ra nsport policy. The E U

ha s adopted r oad pricing a s an importa nt lever for influencing mode choice. Member

countries have mirrored this focus. In the Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands, and

Luxembourg) coun tr ies, for example, cur ren t p assen ger pr icing schemes r ely on t oll

roads or lanes. The governments have proposed to implement a peak hour fee scheme

in 2003, an d a per k ilomet er cha rge by 2010. Pu blic opposition to th e peak hour fee

ha s resulted in a cha nge in stra tegy to implement a per kilometer usage fee by 2006.

Similar pricing schem es will be applied to use of freight road, ra il, an d inlan d wat er

infrastructure. To retain competitiveness of their transport industry, the governments

ha ve proposed to offset t hese increa sed costs by reducing tax bur dens in oth er pa rt s of

the transport business. The road pricing schemes remain controversial, so they stillmight not be implemented by the proposed schedule.

Publ ic /pr iva t e par tn erships a s an im por tan t component o f government

s t ra tegy for im plement ing t ra nspor t p o l icy: Almost all of the major projects

visited by th e scan tea m involved some form of part ner ship between t he pu blic and

privat e sectors. The following a re some exam ples:

• The Betuwe r ail freight corr idor in th e Neth erlands connecting the port at

Rott erda m with Germ an y is an examp le of how difficult it can be to crea te pu blic/




28

private partnerships (see inset, page 14). Initially, the Dutch government planned

to have substa ntial pr ivate investmen t in the pr ovision of the ra il infrastr ucture,

but later determined that such a commitment was not likely to occur. There is

some t hought a t t his time of selling the r ail infra stru ctur e to a pr ivat e concern

after 10 years. Part of th e operat ions of th e ra il line included t he const ru ction of

ra il service centers tha t were built with government funds bu t a re being mana ged

by a pr ivate firm. Another examp le of public/privat e coopera tion was t he port ’sinvestmen t in a ra ilroad bridge as par t of a stra tegy to increase ra il access to the

port.

• Both the Nether lands a nd Germ any h ave provided subsidies to inland freight

terminals where access is provided to all customers. In the Netherlands, 50

percent of the investment must be from private sources, 25 percent from the

na tional governm ent , and 25 per cent from th e provincial/local governm ent s. See

inset below for a description of the German intermodal terminal subsidy program.

• In It aly, th e new tr an sshipm ent port of Gioia Tau ro received nat iona l govern men t

investment in the port facilities themselves as well as in road and rail access

improvements. Private companies have provided much of the investment for the

port opera tions facilities.

• In Germ an y, the na tiona l government ha s par ticipated in t he pr ivat izat ion of the

Frankfurt Airport and provided the impetus (and subsidies) for freight forwarders

to crea te a th ird-par ty inter modal logistics compa ny.

In 1991, the E ur opean Comm ission issued a n on-discriminat ion directive tha t stat ed

th e owner of infrast ru ctur e could not be th e opera tor of services using th at

infrastructure. Government construction of rail lines or terminals will thus require

par tner ships with pr ivate firms t o operat e or ma nage t hese facilities.

GERMANY: PUBLIC FUNDING FOR INTERMODAL TERMINALS

The German government provides funds for construction or expansion of intermodal terminals that includesthe exchange of freight from truck to rail, inland barge, or coastal shipping. The following conditions apply tothis public financing:

• The terminal improvement must not be economically viable solely with private financing.

• The terminal operator must be different than the organization that owns the terminal.

• Open access to the terminal improvements will be allowed to all who desire to use the operation.

• An intermodal facility or facility expansion is planned in the region by one of the intermodal carriers.

• The funding recipient must commit to operating the facility for a specified period of time, which variesaccording to how much of the initial cost is borne by the recipient.

At least 20 percent of the government funding will come in the form of an interest-free loan, with the restbeing a construction grant. Eligible activities include loading and siding tracks, road connections, loadingequipment, support buildings, signalization, and automated vehicle identification (AVI) systems. Planningcosts up to 10 percent of the eligible construction costs also are also allowed. For the years 2000 and 2001,the government has spent DM 230 million on 10 such projects, out of a total national transport budget of DM17-18 billion.




29

Nat ional p la nning a nd ana lys i s for f reight inves tment r eflec t i ve o f

imp or tance a t ta ched to the role of t ra de an d th e t ranspor t indu s t ry to the

nat ion ’ s economy: The scan t eam visited only one nat iona l ministr y of tr an sport, in

the N etherlan ds. It is clear from th is visit t ha t, at least in the N etherlan ds, freight

tr ansport is a concern at the n ational level an d is approached in a very systema tic

an d a nalytical fashion. Perform an ce mea sures and economic indicators t ha t ar e

collected a s par t of a Eur opean tra nsport inform ation system a re u sed to monitorsystem performance over time. The analysis of freight transport futures was based on

scenarios that made different assumptions concerning the stability of European

progress t oward closer cohesion. For exa mple, the scenar ios included a sta tu s quo

(term ed divided Eu rope), a coordinat ed Eu rope, an d a E ur ope integra ted for global

competition. The r esults of this a na lysis as pr esented in t he n at ional t ra nsport plan

ar e shown in Figure 6. It also was int eresting to note t ha t t he m inistry itself is

organized into four directorat es genera l, one of which is dedicat ed to freight tr an sport.

Accordin g to those officials fam iliar with t he n at iona l tr an sport pla nn ing activities of

other EU countries, this attention to freight issues is similarly found in other

ministries (although t he N etherlan ds is considered to be a leader in such plann ing).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Similar t o experience in Nort h Amer ica, local govern men ts a t t he sites visited ha ve

played an important role in fostering those activities that result in economic

developmen t for t heir city or st at e. These r oles ra nge from expediting perm its an d

planning procedures to providing financial support for infrastructure development.

For th e facilities visited, local governm ent s h ad reconciled t he linkage bet ween

Figure 6. Scenario Analysis in National Transportation Planning in The Netherlands.

DE: Divided Europe

EC: Coordinated Europe

GC: Global Competition

M i l l i o n t o n k m s

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1995 1999 2020 DE 2020 EC 2020 GC

Pipeline

Inland water

Rail

Truck



HOW IS EUROPE RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

30

investment in economic development as manifested in freight distribution terminals/

centers and community goals.

It a lso is import an t t o note (to esta blish t he corr ect cont ext for our findings) tha t, in

some cases, local and pr ivate investm ent took a dvan ta ge of opportu nities not

available to oth er locat ions. In some sense, these opport un ities were “accidents of

history.” For example, the freight distribution center at Frankfort Airport, which is

strategically located within Europe and has tremendous opportunities for expansion,

is located on land used by the U.S. Air Force during the Berlin Air Lift. Much of the

infra stru ctur e investment a t th e new tr anssh ipment port a t Gioia Taur o was

originally built as a bulk commodity port that was never finished. Rotterdam ’s pre-

eminent position as a port gateway to Europe results from its strategic geographical

location.

Wheth er t ak ing advan ta ge of such opport un ities or st ar ting a new, however, th e local

government support for freight infra stru ctur e was primar ily aimed at en ha ncing the

relat ive compet itiveness of its comm un ity compar ed with other locations in th e

coun tr y an d/or in E ur ope. Some exa mples of the local governm ent role in freight

facilities h as included:

Port of Rot terd am : The port is mu nicipally owned a nd opera ted. As noted by a port

official, the port is ru n like a bu siness, but with a public pur pose. In th e business p lan

for t he port, this pu blic purpose is clearly defined as r ema ining th e str ong foun dat ion

for th e city’s economy (and, indeed, th e coun tr y’s — 20 percent of the Neth erlands ’

GDP is at tr ibuted t o the Port of Rotterd am an d Schipol Airport ). Port officials ar e

strongly supportive of investment s th at will mainta in Rotter dam as t he leading port

of Eu rope. For exa mple, th e port built a ra ilroad br idge because it r ealized the

bottleneck t hat port access represent s to futur e port a ctivities. Other port

investmen ts a re similarly aimed at en ha ncing th e competitive advanta ge of

Rott erdam over other ports.

Port of Gioia Tau ro: The port is a ma jor em ployer in south wester n It aly. Becau se of

its str ong economic impa ct, th e sta te a nd local governm ent s ha ve been very

support ive in helping th e port develop its plan s for expa nsion an d in providing

support for a ccess impr ovemen ts. Some of the fun ds pr ovided to the s ta te of Reggio

Calabr ia for economic development pur poses have been used t o impr ove th e position

of th e port.

Verona Freight Vi l la ge: The boar d of directors for th e F reight Village consist s of

th ree r epresen ta tives from t he cham ber of comm erce, th ree from th e City of Verona,

and three from the province. Local officials view the Village as one of the main

foun dat ions for th e economic success of the Verona region, an d t hey h ave devoted

considera ble ener gy to support ing its viability. This su pport includes providing

financial support for needed infrastructure as well as expediting planned expansions

thr ough t he plan ning appr oval process.

Fra nk furt Airport: The City of Frank furt is part owner of the m ana gement compa ny

th at is opera ting t he a irport. As such, it pr ovides policy guidance on wh at is desired

from th e comm unity’s point of view. City officials also h ave p ar ticipat ed closely with

th e air port in developing plan s for expa nsion of Car go City an d other economic

development opportunities at this site.



L e sso n s f o r N or t h A mer i c a

The scan ning t eam compiled th e following lessons for th e North American a nd U.S.

context:

1. Global mar ket logistics rely heavily on t he perform ance of infrastr ucture owned

an d operat ed by th e public sector. Under sta nding t he m otivat ion of logistics

decisions a nd t heir local implicat ions is a critical point of depar tu re for a na tional

or mu ltina tional effort on foster ing tr ade. Ident ifying freight bott lenecks, solvingthem , an d esta blishing ma rket conditions t hat provide free a ccess should be an

importa nt focus of regiona l, sta te, nat iona l, an d int ern at iona l plann ing/policy

efforts.

2. One of the most importan t concerns of freight tran sport users, and thus of

tr an sport officials ident ifying impr ovemen ts t o this system , is the r eliability of

service or t rip-mak ing. Speed of tr avel is importa nt , but th e resu lts of service

stra tegies examined as par t of this scan suggest t ha t system reliability is even

more import an t. This need h as significant implicat ions on th e types of

perform an ce measu res u sed in system m onitoring and in the criteria u sed for

project prioritization.

3. The EU il lustrat es the importan ce of having an international an d nat ional policy

on investment in freight t ra nsportat ion. Pu blic and pr ivat e investm ent in freight

facilities h as occur red, an d cont inues to occur, in Eu rope. Pu blic investmen t is

designed to act as a catalyst for private investment in services and facilities that

could pr ovide import an t public benefits. In some cases, such investm ent is being

considered from a true “systems” perspective (i.e., impr ovement s a re being m ade

in infra stru ctur e tha t is outside of a na tion ’s boundaries, but that will clearly

benefit tha t n at ion ’s economy).

4. Public investment t argeted at freight movement should adopt a fram ework in

which privat e firm s ar e provided incentives to choose wha t is best for t heir

business within a context of achieving public goals (e.g., economic development,

sustainability, etc.). This was portrayed by the Europeans as making market-

driven policy decisions within a “pu blic good” context. Interestingly, a long-term

public policy focus in th is context was ar ound 10 year s, wher eas th e pr ivate sector

focus was at most 5 year s.

5. The focus of the overa ll policy was t o make th e best use of existing tra nsportat ion

options (e.g., ra il and inla nd wa ter tr an sporta tion) before developing new

transport networks. As one Dutch official stated, transportation system

ma na gement str at egies come first, followed by pricing str at egies, an d fina lly by

actions to constr uct new infra stru ctur e.

6. Pu blic budget and finan cing mecha nisms for funding freight pr ojects exist in th e

EU, although as a per centa ge of tota l tra nsport system investmen t, they ar e quite

limited. No debt fina ncing was foun d in a ny of th e examples discussed, an d for t he

very lar gest pr ojects (e.g., th e Betu we corr idor) little pr ivate invest men t occur red

up front . However, even with th is, th e level of public investm ent in freight

facilities and services, and public policy attention to freight policy, seems far



LESSONS FOR NORTH AMERICA

greater in Eu rope tha n in North America (even with projects like th e Alameda

Corr idor in the U nited Sta tes).

7. A critical role for mu ltina tional effort s is to foster open compet ition an d open

borders. Free access allows the market to take advantage of productivity

economies a nd r esults in m ar ket-reflective decisions. The E ur opean experience

suggests th at ther e might ha ve to be different ma rket incentives and ru les for

different segments of the transportation system (e.g., intermodal terminals,

na tional r ail ser vice, inlan d wa ter, etc.).

8. The EU ha s served as a n importan t forum for establishing consensus on str ategies

for est ablishing an openly compet itive mar ket in E ur ope. Such a forum provides

the institutional framework for developing a common message among government

agencies an d a mong importa nt stak eholders a s it r elates to economic

competitiveness. In a ddition, such a forum has ra ised t ra nsportat ion issues to the

level of national political debate.

9. Interoperabil ity and consistency in national laws and r egulations a re importan t

ar eas for mu ltina tional concern. This leads t o a concern for consist ent applicationof informa tion techn ology stra tegies across border s. Although importa nt , these

issues sh ould not oversh adow mu ch broader concerns for ma rk et-driven policy and

decision making. In addition, the EU experience suggests that issues such as

language compatibility, signage consistency, and handling of paperwork precede

inform at ion t echn ology concern s. In th e case of Eu ropean freight movement , the

tru cking industr y seems to ha ve dealt with these problems more successfully than

the rail industry.

10. The EU ha s incorporated hu ma n resource development /tr aining as an importa nt

componen t of an y public/privat e initiat ive aimed a t imp roving freight m ovement s.

This tr ainin g has been done pr imar ily to ra ise the qua lity of life of th ecomm un ities tha t a re a ffected by freight facilities an d opera tions.



Re c o mmen d a t i on s f o r F u r t h e r St u d ie s

The pan el identified many pr ospective studies th at should be undert aken to fur ther

under stan d the chara cteristics of intern ational freight m ovement an d the m ar ket

response t o chan ges in the institutional an d regulatory environm ent. In pa rticular,

the pa nel believes tha t m an y of the examples and initiatives found in Eur ope warra nt

follow-up exam inat ion, perha ps every 2 to 3 years, so th at th e longer-term ma rk et

response t o open ma rk ets can be followed. Some specific stud ies of inter est include:1. Collaboration with resear ch centers in Eur ope (e.g., the Int ermodal Tran sport

Research Center in Ha mbur g) to monitor th e response of inter modal freight to

na tional an d EU policies.

2. Examination of the results of EU ra tionalization of transportat ion infrastructure.

For example, what ha ppens to ports or ter minals when t he EU ’s tra nsport plan

suggests that a smaller number of such facilities will better serve EU purposes?

3. Comparison of North American and EU productivity in freight tra nsportat ion and

the differing criteria for investment.

4. Review of existing forum s/mechanisms for NAFTA discussions to see if ther e ar emore effective means of trilateral cooperation in regard to transportation

decisions. For exam ple, how should impr oved water tr an sporta tion opportu nities

be incorporated into ongoing discussions? Are there different models for

instit ut iona l decisions in Nort h America? How do we get t ra de/comm erce groups

involved in th ese discussions?

5. Continu ed monitoring of EU experience with r oad pricing and su ccess in mode

shifts.

6. Investigation of the role of the MPO in freight t ra nsportat ion, especially issues

tha t have na tiona l implicat ions. What ar e th e expecta tions of the MP Os with

regard to such issues?

7. Investigat ion of public/private par tner ships for freight improvement projects. How

can pu blic investm ent be relat ed to public benefits?

8. Examina tion of adopting a systems perspective on freight tr ansporta tion,

including not only a conceptu al m odel, but also one t ha t r eflects perform an ce

measurement .

9. Consideration of the role tha t technology innovation can play in intern ational and

na tional t ra de m ar kets, including not only physical m odificat ions to vehicles or

net work s, but also the in creasingly import an t r ole for in form at ion t echn ologies.

10. Exam inat ion of global freight flows an d th e relat ive importa nce of differen t

transport flows to global trade movement.



POSTSCRIPT

The terrorist attacks against the United States onSeptember 11, 2001, highlight another critical aspect ofhow international border crossings must be viewed. Thefocus of this scan was on international freight movementand on easing the transport constraints of an open

market. National security and the consequences ofgroups or individuals taking advantage of open borders

to bring harm to targets within a country have alwaysbeen of great concern to security agencies. The events ofSeptember 11th will only magnify these concerns. Althoughthe scan did not investigate the European strategies forborder security, the scan team believes the topic of

maintaining national security in the context of a NAFTAmarket is worthy of further study.



A P PE NDIX A :i n t e r v i e w q u es t i on s

QUESTIONS FOR EU OFFICIALS: INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY FOCUS

The prima ry intent of these questions was t o understa nd th e history of, and current

situa tion with, th e influen ce of EU policies and actions on freight m ovement in

Eu rope. This set of quest ions focused on t he ins titu tional str uctu re a nd policyframework for EU decisions (and responses from the market).

Primary Questions

1. Please discuss how EU freight policies ar e form ulated an d implemented. What a re

the curr ent EU freight policies as th ey relate to freight m ovement within t he E U?

As th ey relate to tra de with non-EU na tions in Eur ope? As th ey relate to tra de

with North America?

2. What were the major freight-related challenges faced by the EU dur ing its

creation (e.g., institutional relationships, regulatory consistency, financial needs,

environmen ta l policies, opera tional str at egies, etc.)?

3. Ha s th e existence of the EU chan ged policies or operating considerations for

freight movement a mong mem ber n at ions? If so, how?

4. What has been the effect of EU policies (e.g., the rem oval of trade bar riers an d

tar iffs) on t he a mount and type of freight shipped an d on the meth od of shipment?

5. Border crossings can be major bottlenecks in a continent al tra nsportat ion system.

To wha t exten t h as t he E U a chieved regulat ory un iform ity for border crossings in:

– customs clear ances at na tiona l borders?

– tr uck size and weight?

– labor and safety regulations?

– national defense considerations?

– public health?

What differences still remain and how will they be dealt with? How are these

issues dealt with for non-EU-member border crossings?

6. What problems has an open borders policy creat ed for freight logistics an d for

infra stru ctur e providers?

7. With hindsight, what should ha ve been done differently to more effectivelyconsider freight movement within the context of the EU?

8. What issues do you see challenging freight m ovement within the EU ? Where do

you see comm on points of inter est bet ween th e EU a nd N AFTA na tions? Are n ew

or st ronger t ra nsat lantic relat ionships needed to deal with futu re freight needs?



APPENDIX A

36

Secondary Questions

1. Are freight facilitation issues faced by the E U the sa me or different t han issues

addressed individually by members prior to the development of the EU?

2. To what extent does the EU focus on regiona l (within Eur ope) tr ansport issues as

compa red with t he EU as a whole?

3. To what extent do nationa l bounda ries serve to define economic subma rkets? Or

has the concept of an economic market now transcended national boundaries?

4. Are ther e economic, safety, vehicle size/weight , driver ut ilizat ion regu lations th at

govern EU freight movements (outside the context of border crossings)? If so, how

are these regulations developed and applied? How do these regulations and

taxation policies affect pricing?

5. To what extent h ave the var ious modal providers of tr ansporta tion services

cooperat ed in developing comm on technology stan dar ds? What ha s been t he r ole of

the EU or individual national governments in fostering such cooperation?

6. Is there an y EU policy aimed at diverting freight movement from one mode to

an oth er (e.g., from highway t o rail or wat er)? If so, how does t he EU or mem ber

nations participate in developing and implementing such policies?

QUESTIONS FOR EU OFFICIALS: PLANNING AND FINANCING FOCUS

The pur pose of these questions was t o under stan d th e role of the EU in t he plann ing

an d fina ncing of tr an sporta tion infrast ru ctur e. The focus was to be on pr ocess, dat a,

an alysis, and r espective roles of the pu blic and pr ivate sectors.

Primary Questions

1. What m ajor changes from the freight t rends of the past 25 year s are you expecting

over t he n ext 25 year s? What ar e th e ma jor d riving forces (e.g., time-sensitive

delivery and e-commerce) behind these trends?

2. What role does the EU have in identifying tran sporta tion system bottlenecks and

in solving them ?

3. What type of data on freight volumes is collected? Who has responsibility for what

types of data? How are t hese dat a used for system ma na gement decisions?

4. Are performa nce measures used to monitor t he performa nce of the tra nsportat ion

system as it relates to freight mobility? If so, what are they and how are they

developed? Do EU m embers h ave th eir own tr ansporta tion system perform an ce

mea sur es as t hey relat e to freight m ovemen ts? If so, how do th ey relate t o EU

measures?

5. What t ypes of forecasting methods or a pproaches ar e typically used to predict

futur e freight m ovemen t with in an d beyond t he E U? Who does th is forecast ing?

6. The EU is known as an internat ional leader in linking infrastr ucture investment

planning to broader societal goals relating to sustainable development,



APPENDIX A

37

environmen ta l quality, etc. How have su ch considera tions been incorpora ted int o

th e plann ing an d decision m ak ing for freight facilities?

7. How are freight facilities having interna tional significance financed? Does the E U

play a r ole in secur ing necessary finan cing? What types of governm ent subsidies

ar e provided for capital impr ovemen ts a nd opera tions of freight facilities (rail,

aviation, water, trucking, intermodal, etc.)?

8. What r ole does the privat e sector play in identifying importan t investm ents? In

desired policies? Or in funding projects?

9. What int elligent t ra nsportat ion system (ITS) technologies have proved most

useful in enha ncing freight p roductivity in th e EU? What ha s been th e role of th e

EU in foster ing such t echn ology applicat ions? Wha t fut ur e ITS a pplicat ions will

receive increasing att ention from government an d indust ry?

Secondary Questions

1. How ar e local, provincial, nat ional, and intern at iona l comm unities and groups

incorpora ted int o the plan ning pr ocess for freight facilities improvement s th athave international impacts (such as port facilities)? How is planning and

implement at ion done for multina tion tr ansporta tion corr idors?

2. Have increasing freight volumes led to innovative and creative uses of

tr an sporta tion infrast ru ctur e (e.g., freight exclusive lanes, pricing schemes, tim e-

of-day use and bans, etc.)?

3. How are competing interests between passenger and freight use of the

tr an sporta tion system dealt with (e.g., ra il facilities or r oads)? Do pas senger

railroads have a long-term strategy that includes a potentially larger role for

freight movement?

4. How does research and development on freight issues of interest to the EU get

funded? Do the public and pr ivate sectors sha re r isks in th is research?

QUESTIONS FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

Primary Questions

1. Has th e existence of the EU changed your countr y’s policies or operating

consider at ions for freight movement ?

2. What ha ve been the trends in your government al financing of freight-related

tra nsportat ion infrastr ucture? For example, what has been t he investment h istoryin ports, airports, inlan d wat erways, roads, int erm odal term inals, etc.?


incorpora ted int o the plan ning pr ocess for freight facilities improvement s th at

have international impacts (such as port facilities)? How is planning and

implement at ion done for multina tion tr ansporta tion corr idors?

4. How are freight facilities th at have intern ational significance financed? To wha t

extent does the existence of the Common Market help in securing necessary



APPENDIX A

38

fina ncing? What types of governm ent subsidies ar e provided for capita l

impr ovement s a nd operat ions of freight facilities (ra il, aviation, water, tr ucking,

intermodal, etc.)?

5. Europe is known as an international leader in l inking infrastr ucture investment

planning to broader societal goals relating to sustainable development,

environmen ta l quality, etc. How ha ve such consider at ions been incorpora ted in to

th e plan ning a nd decision m ak ing for freight facilities?

6. Are performa nce measures used to monitor t he performa nce of the tra nsportat ion

system as it relates to freight mobility? If so, what are they and how are they

developed? If so, how do they relat e to EU syst em per form an ce measu res?

7. How are investmen ts in freight facilities evaluated in th e context of their r ole in

international trade? For example, are benefit/cost analyses used in such

evalua tions? If so, how ar e benefits as sessed?

8. How ar e freight movement considerations incorporated into the planning for

major highways?


tr an sporta tion infrast ru ctur e (e.g., freight exclusive lanes, pricing schemes, time-


10. What ma jor chan ges from th e freight tren ds of the past 25 years a re you expecting

over th e next 25 years? Wha t ar e th e ma jor driving forces behind t hese tr ends?

Secondary Questions

1. What h as been th e effect of globalization of the mar ketplace on th e freight

industr y in your count ry? On t he freight indust ry in th e EU? Wha t h ave been th e

corr esponding effects on your count ry’s tra nsportat ion system? On thetra nsportat ion system in Europe?

2. What effect do road congestion a nd t ra nsportat ion bottlenecks ha ve on logistics

and equipment usage? Does congestion on the road network act as a “pricing”

mechanism to encoura ge the use of altern ative modes?

3. What t ypes of forecasting methods or a pproaches ar e typically used to predict

futur e freight movement ? Who does th is forecast ing? And how are t hese forecast s

ma de consistent with an y that ar e done by the EU?

4. What r ole does the privat e sector play in identifying importan t investments? In

desired policies? In funding projects?


useful in enha ncing freight pr oductivity in t he EU ? What ha s been th e role of our

governm ent a nd/or t he E U in foster ing such technology applicat ions? Wha t futu re

ITS applications will receive increasing attention from government and industry?

6. How are competing interests between passenger a nd freight use of the

tr an sporta tion system dealt with (e.g., rail facilities or r oads)? Do passen ger



APPENDIX A

39


freight movement?

7. Have business to business (B2B) an d business to customer (B2C) stra tegies had

any impact on the location of business activities in the EU? Has the EU or any

nat ional governm ent under tak en a ny policy initiative relat ing to “guiding” or

“managing” the r esulting tran sporta tion impa cts of these business str at egies?

QUESTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITY OPERATORS

Primary Questions

1. How ha s the movement of freight t hr ough your facility chan ged over the past 25

years (by mode, if appropriate)? Specifically, has the creation of the EU caused

significan t cha nges in freight movement an d/or in th e way you view your

bus iness ? If so, how?

2. What ha s been th e effect of the removal of trade barriers and ta riffs on t he

amount and type of freight shipped and on the method of shipment? How do

differing r egulat ory a nd ta xation policies am ong Eur opean n at ions affect logistics

decisions?

3. What types of access constr aints do you experience at your facility?


incorporated into the planning process for freight facility improvements that have

inter na tional impa cts (such as p ort facilities)? What is your involvement in th e

planning for multina tion tra nsportat ion corr idors?

5. How are investmen ts in freight facilities evaluated in th e context of role in

international trade? For example, are benefit/cost analyses used in such

evalua tions? If so, how ar e benefits as sessed?

6. How are freight facilities having inter na tiona l significance financed? What a re th e

respective roles of the EU ? Your na tional govern men t? The provincial or local

govern ment ? Your a gency? Specifically, wha t t ypes of governm ent su bsidies a re

provided for capital im provement s a nd opera tions of freight facilities (ra il,

aviat ion, water, tr ucking, inter modal, etc.)? What role does t he privat e sector play

in ident ifying import an t in vestmen ts? In d esired policies? Or in funding pr ojects?


useful in enh an cing th e productivity of freight movement at your facility? In

par ticular, how ha ve such t echn ologies been used t o impr ove land-side access toyour facility? What ha s been your role and t ha t of th e EU in foster ing such

technology applicat ions? What fut ur e ITS applications will receive increa sing

att ention from government and indust ry?

8. How ar e the ra pid cha nges in Int ernet-based logistics affecting the movement of

freight in the EU, and in particular the freight using your facility?

9. Have business to business (B2B) an d business to customer (B2C) e-comm erce

strategies had any impact on the location of business activities in the EU? Has the



APPENDIX A

40

EU or any n ational government under ta ken a ny policy initiative relating to

“guiding” or “managing” the resulting tra nsportat ion impa cts of these business

strategies?

10. What ma jor chan ges from th e freight tren ds of the past 25 years a re you expecting

over th e next 25 years? Wha t ar e th e ma jor driving forces behind t hese tr ends?

Secondary Questions

1. What effect do road congestion a nd t ra nsportat ion bottlenecks ha ve on logistics


mechanism to encoura ge the use of altern ative modes?


tr an sporta tion infrast ru ctur e (e.g., freight exclusive lanes, pricing schemes, time-


3. What ha s been th e effect of larger a nd deeper draft ships on port business? Has

th is effect cha nged th e distribut ion of freight movement am ong var ious port s?

4. How has r ail intermodal service grown in Eur ope in r ecent history and what are

the projected t rends? Wha t a re t he m ajor cha nges occurr ing in th e ra il freight

industry, and what is causing these changes?

5. To what extent is investment occurr ing in inland an d coasta l waterway systems as

(1) a distribution system within Europe and (2) as an access system to

international trade centers?

6. What ar e the trends in conta inerizat ion versus other t ypes of car go moving

thr ough ports in Eur ope?

QUESTIONS FOR INDUSTRY/SHIPPERS

Primary Questions

1. Has t he existence of the EU changed your (or your industry’s) policies or operating

consider at ions for freight movement am ong m ember EU na tions? If so, how? How

has it affected freight operations with non-EU nations?

2. What ha s been the effect of EU policies (e.g., the r emoval of trade bar riers an d

tar iffs) on t he a mount and type of freight shipped and on t he m ethod of shipment ?

What do you consider t o be the single biggest benefit from th e EU with regar d to

freight opera tions? What do you consider t o be th e most significan t r ema ining

barrier to more efficient freight operations within the EU?

3. Border crossings can be major bottlenecks in a continent al tra nsportat ion system.

To wha t exten t h as t he E U a chieved regulat ory un iform ity for border crossings in:

– customs cleara nces at nat ional borders?

– tru ck size and weight?

– labor and safety regulations?



APPENDIX A

41

– national defense considerations?

– public health?

What differences still remain and how will they be dealt with? How are these

issues dea lt with for n on-EU-mem ber border crossings? To wha t exten t h ave

various m odal providers of tr an sporta tion services cooperat ed in developing

comm on technology stan dar ds? Wha t h as been t he r ole of th e EU or individualna tional governm ent s in foster ing such coopera tion?

4 . What cha llenges has an “open border s” policy crea ted for freight logistics? For

those responsible for providing transportation facilities and infrastructure?

5. With hindsight, what should ha ve been done differently to more effectively

consider freight movement within the context of the EU?

6. What m ajor changes from the freight t rends of the past 25 year s are you expecting

over th e next 25 year s? What ar e th e ma jor driving forces behind t hese tr ends?

7. How are freight facilities having interna tional significance financed? Does the E Uplay a r ole in secur ing necessary finan cing? Wha t t ypes of govern men t su bsidies

ar e provided for capital impr ovemen ts a nd opera tions of freight facilities (rail,

aviat ion, water, tr ucking, inter modal, etc.)? What role does t he privat e sector play

in ident ifying import an t in vestmen ts? In d esired policies? Or in funding pr ojects?


useful in enha ncing freight p roductivity in th e EU? What ha s been th e role of th e

EU in foster ing such techn ology applicat ions? Wha t h as been th e role of indu str y

in foster ing such t echn ology applicat ions? What futur e ITS a pplicat ions will

receive increasing att ention from government an d indust ry?

9. How does research and development on freight issues of interest to the EU getfunded? Do the public and pr ivate sectors sha re r isks in th is research?

Secondary Questions

1. What effect do road congestion a nd t ra nsport ation bottlenecks have on logistics


mechanism to encoura ge the use of altern at ive modes?


tr an sporta tion infrast ru ctur e (e.g., freight exclusive lanes, pricing schemes, tim e-


3. How are competing interests between passenger and freight use of the

tr an sporta tion system dealt with (e.g., ra il facilities or r oads)? Do pas senger


freight movement?

4. What has been th e effect of globalization of the economy on your business? What

ha s been th e effect on E ur ope’s transportation system?



APPENDIX A

42

5. How are the r apid chan ges in In tern et-based logistics affecting your business? The

movement of freight in the EU?

6. Ha s the r apid integra tion of Inter net-based logistics into business decision

ma king ha d an y impact on the locat ion of wher e business a ctivities occur in th e

EU? Has t he EU or a ny na tiona l government undert aken an y policy initiative

relating to “guiding” or “managing” the r esulting tran sport ation impacts of these

business stra tegies?

7. What ha s been th e effect of larger a nd deeper draft ships on port business? Has

th is effect cha nged th e distribut ion of freight movement am ong var ious port s?

8. How has r ail intermodal service grown in Eur ope in r ecent history and what are

the projected t rends? Wha t a re t he m ajor cha nges occurr ing in th e ra il freight

industry, and what is causing these changes?

9. To what extent is investment occurr ing in inland an d coasta l waterway systems as

(1) a distribution system within Europe and (2) as an access system to

international trade centers?

10. What ar e th e tr ends in conta inerization versus other t ypes of car go moving

thr ough ports in Eur ope?



A P PE NDIX B :sc h ed u l e o f t o u r a n d

pr i ma r y e u r ope a n c o n t a c t s

THE NETHERLANDS (MAY 28-30)

Kees A. Van de Gr aa f

Ministr y of Tra nsport , Public Works a nd

Water Management

Directorate General for Freight

Transport

Nieuwe Uitleg, 1

2500 EX, The H agu e

+31 7 351 14 60

E-mail: kees.vdgra [email protected] w.nl

Jakob van Hekke

Ministr y of Tra nsport , Public Works a nd

Water Management

Directorate General for Freight

Transport

Nieuwe Uitleg, 1

2500 EX, The H agu e

Edgar Kasteel

Holland Inter na tiona l Distribution

Council

25, Koninginn egracht

2514 AB, The Ha gue

+31 7 311 88 22

E-ma il: e.kast [email protected] or www.hid c.n l

Ren e A. Luijcx

Port of Rott erda m

Galvanistraat, 15

Port N um ber 320

3002 AP, Rott erda m

+31 1 252 18 07

www.port.rotterdam.nl

EUROPEAN UNION, BRUSSELS (MAY 31-JUNE 1)

Floros Stasinopoulos

Eu ropean Comm ission, DG-VII

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Bru ssels

+32 2 296.84.19

E-m ail: floros.sta sin [email protected] .int

John Hu gh Rees

European Commission

Directora te Genera l for Ener gy and

Transport

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Bru ssels

+32 2 296.84.04

E-ma il: john -hugh .rees @cec.eu.int

Keith Keen

European Commission

Directorate-General for Energy and

Transport

Rue de la Loi 200B-1049 Bru ssels

+32 2 296.34.69

E-ma il: keith .keen @cec.eu.int

Kerstin Sterner

European Commission

Directora te Genera l for Ener gy and

Transport

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Bru ssels

E-ma il: ker st in.st ern [email protected]



APPENDIX B

44

ITALY (JUNE 4-6)

Domenico Bagala

Operations Manager

Medcenter Conta iner Termina l89013 Gioia Taur o

+39 966.714289

E-mail: domenico.baga la@cont ship-

it.com

Tiziana Murgia

Port Aut hority of Gioia Taur o

C.da Lamia

89013 Gioia Taur o

+39 966 504658

E-mail: aut.portuale.tiscalinet.it

Clara Keller

CEMAT

Via Valtellina, 5-7

20159 Milan o

+39 2 66895.241

E-mail: pu brel@cema t.it

Michela Merlo

Consorzio ZAI

Quadrant e EuropaVia Somma campa gna, 637137 Verona

+39 45 8622060

E-mail:

cons orzio.zai@qua dr an teeu ropa .it

SWITZERLAND (JUNE 6)

Caludio Ghiringh elli

Hupac Interm odal

Viale R. Ma nzoni, 6CH-Chiasso

+41 91 6952888

E-mail: cghiringh elli@hu pa c.ch

GERMANY (JUNE 7-8)

Wolfgan ag Tru mpp

Flughafen Ma in AG

Car go City Sout h, Bldg. 640D-60547 Fran k a m Ma in

+49 69 6 90-6 63 48

E-mail: www.cargocity-frankfurt.de

Klaus Peter Remus

Flughafen

Fran kfurt Main AG

Car go City Sout h, Bldg. 640

D-60547 Fran kfurt a m Main

+49 69 6 90-6 63 45

E-mail: www.frankfurt-airport.com

Gerhard Welker

Fra port AG

60547 Fra nkfurt a m Main

+49 69 6 90-7 83 79

E-mail: www.fraport.de

Rainer Mertel

Kombiverkehr

Ludwing-Landmann-Str. 405

D-60486 Fran kfurt a m Main+49 69 7 95 05 1 40

E-ma il: rm er tel@kombiverkeh r.de



APPENDI X C :b io gr a ph i c s k et c h e s a n d

c on t a c t i n f o r ma t i o n

Harry B. Caldwe ll (Co-chair) is th e Chief of Inter modal F reight for th e U.S. Federal

Highway Admin istra tion (FHWA) of the U.S. Depar tm ent of Tra nsport at ion (DOT). He

advocat es concerns of car riers a nd sh ippers in U.S. tr an sport policies an d program san d develops legislat ive str ategies to enhan ce freight a nd interna tional t ra de

tr ansport. Mr. Caldwell speaks frequent ly throughout North America on tra de

tr ansporta tion, economic development , an d institut iona l reform . He m ana ged the

“Stra tegic Investment Analysis” for all U.S. highways and bridges from 1988 to 1998.

He au thored the 1994 Readiness Assessm ent of North American transport systems for

intern ational tra de. He a lso ma na ged th e U.S. “borders and corridors program” to

enha nce trade t ra nsport with Mexico and Can ada . He is cur rent ly cha rged with

developing a compr ehen sive, mu ltimodal program to enha nce Nort h Amer ican freight

pr oductivity (sched uled for comp letion in 2002). Mr. Caldwell developed t he “Highway

Economic Requirements System” for infrastr ucture a ssessment a s well as the “Freight

Analytical Fr am ework,” a multimodal systems an alysis tool to underst and freightflows an d an alyze mitigation str at egies. He is curr ent ly developing dynam ic border

simu lation softwar e to facilitat e freight flows across Nort h American border s. A

professiona l geograp her, Mr. Caldwell has been with th e FH WA for 28 years an d h as

been actively involved for t he pa st severa l year s in inter na tional affairs. He

frequent ly repr esent s th e U.S. DOT in inter na tional policy and technical discussions.

Randy Halvorson (Co-chair) is Director of the Minnesota DOT’s (Mn/DOT) Program

Delivery Group. This group is r esponsible for a broad r an ge of plan ning a nd

operational activities, including all statewide highway investments and modal

program s. Recent plann ing effort s include completion of a st at ewide “Freight Flow

Study.” Pr ior t o assu ming his curr ent position, Mr. Ha lvorson held a nu mber of

positions a t Mn/DOT, including Assista nt Comm issioner for th e Tran sporta tion

Resear ch an d Investm ent Man agemen t Division (TRIM) from 1998 to 1999, Assista nt

Division Dir ector of TRIM from 1994 to 1998, Director of th e Tra ns it Office (1985-

1994), and Director of National Relations (1983-1985). He has a Bachelor ’s and a

Master’s degree in Political Science from t he U niversity of Minnesota . He is a n a ctive

member of several national transportation organizations, including the

Tran sporta tion Research Boar d’s (TRB) Comm ittee for t he St udy of Fr eight Ca pacity

for t he N ext Cent ur y.

Christina T. Casgar is the E xecut ive Director for t he Founda tion for Int erm odal

Resear ch and E ducat ion. Ms. Casga r directs t he work of th is nonprofit Foun dat ion,

which is a subsidiar y of th e In ter modal Association of Nort h America. The Foun dat ion

addresses th e interests of interm odal carriers a nd sh ippers a s an inform at ion source

for industry statistics, intermodal policy issues, and linking public officials with

industry leaders to address intermodal challenges. Prior to directing the Foundation,

Ms. Casgar was th e Sta ff Officer for Marine a nd In term odal Research at the Nat iona l

Academ y of Sciences/Tra nsport at ion Resear ch Board in Wash ington, D.C. Ms. Casga r

also spent 7 yea rs workin g with th e Port of Wilmington, Delawar e. She h as a BA from

the University of Arizona and a Master ’s degree in Ma ritim e Policy from t he

Un iversit y of Delawar e.



APPENDIX C

46

Gene Cleckley is Director of th e Federa l Highway Admin istra tion’s (FHWA)

South ern Resour ce Cent er in Atlant a, Georgia. Mr. Cleckley has a st rong background

in environm enta l issues a nd is a n a vid supporter of the Lat in American Trade

Tran sporta tion Study (LATTS), a m ultistat e initiative of the South eastern

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (SASHTO). LATTS focuses

on multistate, multimodal analysis of institutional, operational, and infrastructure

challenges at the regional level. Mr. Cleckley is involved in addressing issues of growing international trade and means of balancing needs for regional economic

growth , safety, and comm un ity livability.

Oscar de Bue n is hea d of th e Toll Roads U nit a t t he Ministr y of Comm un icat ions

an d Tran sport in Mexico, where h e is responsible for th e developmen t of the t oll road

system , including its fina ncial, opera tional, techn ical, an d comm ercial as pects. Mr. de

Buen also is responsible for nationwide highway infrastructure planning and for

developing r oad projects for privat e pa rt icipation. Mr. de Buen ha s a Civil

En gineering degree from t he Na tional University of Mexico an d a Ma ster ’s degree in

Tra nsport at ion from t he Ma ssachu sett s In stitu te of Techn ology. Mr. de Buen is a

member of various local professional societies and has taught transportation-relatedsubjects at several u niversities in Mexico.

Jeff G. Hone fanger is the Ma na ger of the Ohio Depart ment of Tran sport at ion

(ODOT), Special H au ling Perm its Section. This position ha s st at ewide responsibility

for issuing per mits for every Oversize an d Overweight vehicle tr aveling in Oh io. This

position is also responsible for all commercial vehicle activities for which ODOT has

interest and involvement, including coordination with other State agencies. Prior to

th is assignm ent , he was th e Deput y Director of th e Division of Rail Tran sporta tion for

ODOT. Mr. Honefanger ha s a Business degree a nd Par am edic Science degree from

Clark Techn ical College and a tt ended Witt enberg Un iversit y. He is a mem ber of th e

American Associat ion of Sta te Highway a nd Tr an sporta tion Officials (AASHTO)

Subcommittee on Highway Transport, and he chairs the AASHTO National Oversize/

Overweight Vehicle Issues Task Force. Mr. Honefanger also serves on the Ohio

Governor ’s Motor Ca rr ier Advisory Committ ee, Multi-Sta te Per mit Gr oup, Ohio

Comm ercial Vehicle Inform at ion Syst em N etwork (CVISN) Comm ittee, Great Lake

Sta tes CVISN Mainstr eaming Group, an d the Mu lti-stat e Permit Group.

Ysela Llort is the Stat e Tran sport ation Planner for th e Florida Depart ment of

Tran sport ation. In h er capacity as chief planner she oversees the stat ewide systems

plan ning fun ctions for th e F lorida DOT. Prima ry r esponsibilities include execut ive-

level policy formulation and interpretation as well as working with the numerous

transportation planners, including metropolitan planning organizations, to obtain

consen sus on th e needs a nd pr iorities of th e sta te. Ms. Llort ha s been with t he F loridaDOT since August of 1994. Pr ior t o her work t her e she ser ved 9 year s with t he

Virginia DOT a s Assistant District En gineer for Plann ing and Operations in th e

nort her n Virginia port ion of the Wash ington, D.C., metr opolitan ar ea. She h as work ed

in both p rivat e an d pu blic sectors, including in developmen ta l ban king. Ms. Llort is a

graduate of Duke University where she earned a degree in economics. She has a

double Master ’s degree from Clemson University in City and Regional Planning and

in Tran sporta tion Engineering.



APPENDIX C

47

Michael D. Meye r (Report Facilitator) is Professor and former Chair of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. From 1993 to 1998 Dr.

Meyer was Director of Transporta tion P lann ing and Developmen t for t he st at e of

Massachusett s wher e he was responsible for sta tewide plannin g, project development ,

tr affic engineering, an d tra nsporta tion r esearch. Prior t o th at h e was a professor in th e

Department of Civil Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dr.

Meyer h as writt en more th an 120 technical ar ticles and ha s aut hored or co-auth orednu merous textbooks on t ra nsporta tion plann ing, policy an d educat ion; environmen ta l

impact a na lysis; an d int ermodal t ra nsporta tion. Dr. Meyer r eceived h is Bachelor’s degree

in Civil Engineering from the University of Wisconsin, a Master ’s degree in Civil

Engineering from Northwestern University, and his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from MIT.

He is a registered pr ofessiona l engineer in t he St at e of Georgia.

R. Leo Penn e is Program Director for In term odal an d Indu stry Activities with th e

American Associat ion of Stat e Highway a nd Tran sporta tion Officials (AASHTO). He is

responsible for issues involving freight transportation by all modes — ra il, tr uck,

aviation, port s, and wat erways — an d for liaison with indu str ies having significan t

inter ests in freight m ovement. H e sha res t he r esponsibility for developing an dcomm un icat ing th e case for th e economic benefits of tra nsporta tion an d for

demonstr at ing the linka ge between tra nsporta tion a nd economic development . Mr. Penne

has initiated and carried out programs for advocacy, policy development, and research in

ar eas su ch as tr an sport at ion, economic developmen t, urban developmen t, environmen ta l

protection, public finance, tr aining, and t our ism, and ha s writt en a nd edited books,

reports, and ar ticles on t hese su bjects. He ha s held positions dealing with issues of

str at egy and policy an alysis for th e Sta te of Nevada , the U.S. Depart ment of Comm erce,

and the National League of Cities. He holds degrees in Political Science from Seattle

University and t he Un iversity of Wash ington a nd h as served as an adjunct faculty

member at th e University of Maryland Baltimore County.

Gerald Rawling is the Director of Operations Analysis with the Chicago Area

Transporta tion Stu dy (CATS), which focuses on freight /interm odal r esearch an d

plann ing. In his curr ent position he has r esponsibility for developing and directing t he

freight mobility program. Mr. Rawling also has been involved in the development of

freight-related initiatives with several regional agencies, civic interest groups, etc., and

ha s supported similar initiatives at u niversities in t he Chicago region. He h as 25 year s of

experience in the areas of freight mobility, regional freight planning and operations

an alysis, an d int ermodal st udies. Mr. Rawling is published widely and has made

numerous presentations before most regional and national associations representing the

freight industry. He was co-author of a paper, “Mainstream ing Intermodal Freight Into

the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process,” which was t he winner of the

Transportation Research Board’s 1998 Pyke-Johnson awar d.

Garry Tulipan is Acting Director of th e Motor Ca rr ier Policy Branch of Tra nsport

Can ada . In t ha t position h e helps develop an d implement motor carrier policies for

Can ada an d NAFTA. Pr ior t o this, he was Chief of Surface and Marine St at istics an d

Forecasts, Economic Analysis Division. Mr. Tulipan a lso served 16 month s a s special

consu ltan t a t th e Organ isation for Economic Co-opera tion an d Developmen t in Par is. He

holds a BA in E conomics, a BS in Social Science, an d an MBA, all from University of

Ottawa.



APPENDIX C

48

SCAN TEAM CONTACT DATA

Harry Caldwell (FHWA Co-cha ir)

Chief, Intermodal Freight

Office of Freight Man agemen t &

Operations

Federal Highway Administration400 Seven th St ., S.W.

Wash ingt on, D.C. 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9215

Fax: (202) 366-3302

E-ma il: ha r ry.caldwe ll@fhwa .dot.gov

Rand all K. Halvorson (AASHTO Co-

chair)

Director, Pr ogra m Delivery Gr oup

Minnesota DOT (MS 120)

395 John Ireland Blvd.

St . Pau l, MN 55155-1899

Tel: (651) 296-1344

Fax: (651) 296-6135

E-mail: ra nd y.ha lvors [email protected] at e.mn .us

Christ ina Casgar, Execut ive Director

Founda tion for Inter modal Resear ch an d

Education

7501 Greenwa y Cent er Dr., S-720

Greenbelt , MD 20770-6705

Tel: (301) 982-0691 or 982-3400 x 29

Fax: (301) 982-4815

E-ma il: tina .casga r@inter modal.org

Gene Cleckley

FH WA Resour ce Center

61 Forsyt h St ., S.W. (Su ite 17-T26)

Atlant a, GA 30303

Tel: (404) 562-3570

Fax: (404) 562-3701

E-mail: ma ry.sha [email protected]

Oscar de Bue n

Jefe de la Unida d de Aut opista s de Cuota

Secretaria de Communicaciones y

Transportes

Dr. Bar ra gan 635, 3er P isoColonia Nar varte

Mexico, D.F.C.P. 03020

MEXICO

Tel: (011-52) 5519-3013

Fax: (011-52) 5538-1905

E-m ail: odebu en @sct.gob.mx

Jeff G. Honefange r

Manager, Special Hauling Permits

Section

Ohio DOT

1610 W. Broad St .

Colum bus, OH 43223

Tel: (614) 351-5520

Fax: (614) 728-4099

E-ma il: jeff.honefan [email protected] at e.oh.u s

Ysela Llort

Florida DOT

605 Suwan ee St. (MS 57)

Tallah as see, FL 32399-0450

Tel: (850) 414-5235

Fax: (850) 921-2291

E-ma il: ysela.llort @dot.st at e.fl.us

Michae l D. Meyer

School of Civil & Environmental

Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology

790 Atla nt ic Dr.

Atlan ta , GA 30332

Tel: (404) 385-2246

Fax: (404) 894-2278

E-ma il: mm [email protected] ech.edu



APPENDIX C

49

Leo Penn e

Pr ogram Director for Inter modal

Transportation

AASHTO

444 N. Capitol St., N.W. (Suite 249)

Washington, D.C. 20001

Tel: (202) 624-5813Fax: (202) 624-5806

E-mail: lpenn e@aa sh to.org

Gerald Rawling

Chicago Area Tr an sport ation St udy

(CATS)

300 W. Ada ms

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: (312) 793-3469

Fax: (312) 793-3481

E-ma il: gra wling@cat sm po.com

Garry Tulipan

Actin g Direct or

Motor Ca rr ier Policy Bran ch, Tra nsport

Canada

Place de Ville, Tower C (27 th Fl., Area A)

330 Spar ks St.

Ott awa, Ont . K1A 0N5

CANADA

Tel: (613) 998-1914

E-ma il: tulip [email protected]



ENDNOTES

1 The E U r eceives its r evenues from four ma jor sour ces: 14 percent of th e revenu e

comes from levies on agr icultu ra l products from non-member coun tr ies an d from

customs du ties; 35 per cent comes from a VAT on goods sold; an d t he rem aind er comes

from a percent age cont ribut ion from each m ember coun tr y reflecting its r elative gross

national product (GNP).

2 The coun tr ies seeking member ship include Bu lgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Repu blic,

Est onia, Hu ngar y, Malta , Latvia, Lith ua nia, Poland, Roma nia, th e Slovak Repu blic,

Slovenia, an d Turkey.

3 Ministr y of Tra nsport , Public Work s, an d Wat er Man agemen t. 2001. Na tional Tra ffic

an d Tran sport Plan for the Nether lands, 2001-2020. The Ha gue, the Nether lands.

4 Eu ropean Comm ission. 1998. Green Paper on S ea Ports an d Maritim e Infrastructure.

Report C3-16-98-740-EN -C, Luxembour g.



Office of International ProgramsFHWA/US DOT (HPIP)400 Seventh Street, SWWashington, DC 20590

Tel: 202-366-9636Fax: 202-366-9626

[email protected]

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-PL-02-009

HPIP/06-02(7M)EW

euro freight

Documents