Barriers and Policy Instruments for Improved Intermodality · US railway firms will flood into the European market Development of intermodal units additional optimisation of the partly

Barriers and Policy

Instruments

for Improved Intermodality

Final Report Work Package 7Freight Transport

EU Research Project STEMMStrategic European Multi-Modal Modelling

August 1998

ECOPLAN project team

Stefan Suter (project co-ordinator)

René Neuenschwander

Research project STEMM, contract no. ST-96-SC.301, of the Transport Research and

Technological Development Programme 1994 - 1998 (4th Framework Programme), Strate-

gic Research

The elaboration of this report has been funded by the Swiss Ministry for Education andScience

Table of contents I

ECOPLAN

Table of contents

Table of contents ....................................................................................................................I

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................III

Executive summary .........................................................................S -1

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

1.1 Setting the stage ..........................................................................................................1

1.2 Definitions and objectives ............................................................................................2

1.3 Structure and content of the report .............................................................................2

1.4 Project organisation and acknowledgement................................................................3

2 Barriers for Improved Intermodality ..........................................4

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................4

2.2 A vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010........................................................7

2.3 The main findings of the TAFT survey .........................................................................9

2.3.1 Assessment of the main shortcomings of today’s CT through the Alps........9

2.3.2 Assessment of the main barriers for improved intermodality.......................10

2.4 The main findings of the Scandinavian survey ..........................................................13

2.4.1 Assessment of the main shortcomings of today’s CT..................................13

2.4.2 Assessment of the main barriers for improved intermodality.......................15

2.5 The main findings of the UK survey ...........................................................................17

2.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................20

3 Policy instruments for improved intermodality ....................22

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................22

3.2 Deregulation in the rail sector ....................................................................................24

II Table of contents

ECOPLAN

3.3 Adjustments in pricing of transport ........................................................................... 31

3.3.1 Mileage tax..................................................................................................... 31

3.3.2 Diesel tax........................................................................................................ 34

3.3.3 Fixed charges ................................................................................................. 37

3.3.4 Permit systems.............................................................................................. 39

3.3.5 Adjustments in the vehicle taxation .............................................................. 40

3.3.6 Subsidisation of intermodal transport services ............................................. 43

3.4 Regulations and enforcement.................................................................................... 45

3.4.1 Technical regulations and enforcement......................................................... 47

3.4.2 Social regulations and enforcement .............................................................. 49

3.5 Further instruments ................................................................................................... 52

3.5.1 Extension and improvement of the infrastructure for intermodal transport. 52

3.5.2 Improvements in the logistic performance.................................................... 53

3.5.3 Improvements in the information and communication systems.................. 56

3.5.4 Technical interoperability................................................................................ 57

3.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 59

Annex A: Results of the Interviews with Actors and Expertsof Transalpine Freight Transport (TAFT).........................................A - 1

Annex B: Results of the Expert Interviews on IntermodalTransport in Finland, Sweden and Norway....................................B - 1

Annex C: Results of the Interviews on Intermodal Transportin the United Kingdom.........................................................................C - 1

References ....................................................................................................................R - 1

Abbreviations III

ECOPLAN

Abbreviations

ATS Austrian SchillingCO2 Carbon dioxideCT Intermodal transportDB AG Deutsche Bahn AGDUSS Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-StrasseECMT European Conference of Ministers of TransportGVF Dienst für Gesamtverkehrsfragen (Service for Transport Studies, Fed-

eral Department of Transport, Communications and Energy of Switzer-land)

GVW Gross vehicle weightHGV Heavy goods vehiclesIM Infrastructure managerLo-lo Load-on load-offLPG Liquefied petroleum gasLRRP Linked rail road permitsNOx Nitrogen oxidePACT Pilot Actions of Combined TransportRo-ro Roll-on roll-offRU Railway undertakingst TonT&E European Federation for Transport and Environmenttkm Tonne kilometrettwkm (tax rate) per tonne of permissible total weight and kilometre drivenUIRR Union International des Sociétés Rail Route (Union of national piggyback

companies)VAT Value added taxvkm Vehicle-kilometre

ECOPLAN

Executive Summary S - 1

ECOPLAN

Executive Summary

1) Setting the stage

Work package 7 on policy instruments to improve intermodality has been divided into apassenger and a freight part. Here, we summarise the main findings of the freight part.Two objectives are in the centre of interest of work package 7:– The analysis of the barriers that hinder a more frequent use of intermodal services– The derivation of policy instruments to overcome these barriers

The findings of work package 7 have been used– to define the demands on the intermodal transport models, i.e. to show the types of

instruments for which an implementation in the models should be possible– to prepare a basic input for the different case studies by describing in a more general

way the instruments that are specified and tested within the case studies.

The following procedure has been chosen within work package 7:o In a first step, a literature survey has been carried out to summarise the evidence of

the barriers and policy instruments for improved intermodality.o Based on this survey a questionnaire for experts and actors of intermodal transport

has been elaborated.

o The questionnaire has been used to carry out the interviews in summer 1997. Themain features of the interview programme are the following:– scope: 61 persons have been interviewed– choice of interviewees: representatives of forwarding and haulage companies, in-

termodal operators, railway and ferry operators, representatives of the industry,port authorities, experts

– technique: mix of face-to-face and telephone interviews– area covered: the programme covered the three regions of the STEMM case stud-

ies, i.e. the United Kingdom, Scandinavia and the Alpine countries France, Italy,Austria and Switzerland

o The findings of the interviews have been the main input for the work package 7 report.

2) Barriers for improved intermodality

The interviewees have not only been asked to give their view of the shortcomings of cur-rent and the barriers for improved intermodal transport services. They also developed thecornerstones of their vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010. Though there havebeen differences in the views of the respondents some common lines could have beenidentified. The corresponding keywords concerning different characteristic features ofintermodal transport are summarised in table S-1.

S - 2 STEMM / WP7: Policy Instruments for Improved Intermodality

ECOPLAN

Table S-1: Vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010: Keywords

Feature Keywords

Structure of ter-minals, types oftrains

more direct trains (shuttle trains), increased importance of the gateway con-cept (hubs), large terminals in the economic centres of Europe, medium-sizedterminals in other areas, no Mega-terminals, rather decrease of number ofterminals, new techniques for pre and end haul (e.g. cargo sprinter, ringtrains), additional functions for the terminals („logistic centre“), importance ofports as multi-modal platforms

Transhipmenttechniques

no fundamental changes, vertical transhipment techniques remain dominant,automatisation as far as useful, development of small, flexible (modular) andcheaper equipment for smaller terminals

Role of railwayoperator

first increase of number then concentration process due to open access andincreased competition (alliances, mergers), railway companies will try to con-trol more than just the traction part of an intermodal transport, efforts to offerdoor-to-door services

Role of intermo-dal operators

role of organisers remains, concentration process resulting in a reduced num-ber of operators, partly undermining of the separation of container and piggy-back companies, new door-to-door services (now: only between terminals)

Role of road haul-age firms

further structural adjustment caused by cabotage in road haulage, i.e. morelarge and less small companies

New actors emergence of specialised traction operators on links with high transport vol-umes and from ports to the hinterland, additional „integrators“ and/or market-ing companies offering/selling the whole intermodal transport chain, additionalUS railway firms will flood into the European market

Development ofintermodal units

additional optimisation of the partly conflicting requirements: cheap, light,stackable and flexible in use; no development of new, non-standardised units,„renaissance“ of unaccompanied trailer services

Development ofprices

lower prices due to the liberalisation in the rail sector and the competitionpressure coming from road transport

Growth rate ofintermodal trans-port

increase of intermodal transport due to traffic generated by the new industrialorganisation in Europe (Eastern Europe) and the saturation of the capacity ofthe road network, share on total transport market will increase but remainmodest (approx. 10%)

Development oflogistics

computerised and Internet-based reservation and accounting systems, real-time and satellite-based tracking of trains/wagons/goods, solution of interoper-ability problems in the short term, generally increased use of telematics

The development in the direction described in table S-1 is hindered by a number of currentshortcomings of intermodal transport. The respondents especially mentioned the fol-lowing „top 5“ factors:


ECOPLAN

– low temporal reliability– high prices of intermodal services– insufficient customer-oriented information and communication– low cargo speed, too long travel time– low service quality (e.g. safety of goods, temporal flexibility, frequency of services)

Rather „hardware“ oriented potential shortcomings (e.g. number of terminals, extensionof the network) have been rated lower.Different reasons cause these shortcomings of intermodal services. On a scale reachingfrom 0 „unimportant“ to 10 „important“ the interviewees have made a ranking of thebarriers for improved intermodality. Table S-2 shows the results of the interview pro-grammes carried out in Alpine countries on transalpine freight transport (TAFT) and inScandinavian countries (SCAN).

Table S-2: Significance of different barriers for improved intermodality

Mean Value

Barrier for improved intermodality TAFT SCAN

Infrastructure, rolling stock, intermodal units and vessels

Bottlenecks in today’s rail and sea infrastructure (capacity, missing links) 5.6 8.0

Bottlenecks in today’s terminal and port infrastructure (capacity) 4.9 7.8

Shortcomings of the rolling stock (availability, dimensions, flexibility) 4.1 6.9

Shortcomings of the intermodal units (availability, sizes) 3.1 6.1

Shortcomings of the types of ships - 5.8

Technical interoperability

Insufficient standardisation of intermodal units 4.1 6.3

Interoperability problems between rail networks 6.4 7.0

Interoperability problems between types of ships - 6.2

Interoperability problems of transhipment techniques 2.4 6.8

Logistics, information and communication in intermodal transport

Low logistic performance in terminals 5.4 7.4

Limited use of advanced information and communication systems 6.6 7.9

Network and route management

Low co-ordination of timetables 7.3 7.9

Too few attractive train paths, landing stages 7.1 7.8

Too few direct trains / sea routes, too many mixed trains / sea routes 5.6 7.2

Missing open access to infrastructure (rail) 8.5 7.3


ECOPLAN

Organisational and institutional issues

Insufficient co-operation between the different actors of intermodal transport 6.1 8.1

Too low competition between the relevant actors of intermodal transport 8.0 6.9

Pricing and pricing structure

Non transparent, unsuitable pricing systems: rail part of intermodal services 8.3 8.2

Non transparent, unsuitable pricing systems: sea part of intermodal services - 7.5

Unsuitable pricing systems in the transport sector (e.g. missing internalisationof external costs), unsuitable regulations, insufficient enforcement (e.g. ofspeed limits), subsidisation causing distortion of competition

8.1 7.7

The three annexes to the final report of work package 7 contain in detail the argumentsleading to the rankings given in table S-2. Looking at table S-2 the following points arenoticeable:

o Technical barriers like for example the question of standardisation are rated lower thanbarriers concerning the general set-up for intermodal transport.

o There are distinct differences between the results of the two surveys coming from thefact that they look at different regions and different types of intermodal services:– The generally lower figures for transalpine intermodal transport probably reveal two

points: Transalpine transport is one of the most developed intermodal transportmarket in Europe. Furthermore, the Scandinavian sample of interviewees containedmore representatives of the industry who tend to be more critical than experts andintermodal operators.

– For transalpine transport the most relevant barriers are seen in organisational andinstitutional issues and in the current price signals and structures in intermodaltransport as well as in the transport sector as a whole. The missing internalisationof external costs in road transport has explicitly been mentioned by a number ofrespondents.

– In the Nordic countries „hardware“ barriers have been rated almost as high as bar-riers referring to organisational/institutional and pricing issues.

o In both surveys the need of customer-oriented information and communication sys-tems has been confirmed, and in both surveys, the potential distortion of competitionthrough subsidisation has been critically mentioned.

The UK based survey has used a slightly different questionnaire. The most importantfindings have been the following:

– The use of rail mode for multi-modal chains is more difficult than for ship and barge.

– The highest number of points has been awarded to the financial barriers (i.e. high in-vestment costs of the provision of intermodal services). Furthermore, the quality ofservice and organisational barriers have been rated comparatively high.

– Rather low figures have been allocated to technical interoperability problems and in-sufficient information systems.


ECOPLAN

3) Possible instruments

Starting from the analysis of the barriers instruments given in table S-3 has been devel-oped and discussed. They can all lead to a more frequent use of intermodal services.Thereby they contribute to general objectives of the Common Transport Policy, namely toa reduction of the harmful environmental effects of road freight transport and a loweringof congestion in the road network which again increases efficiency in road haulage.

Table S-3: Instruments to improve intermodality

D Deregulation inthe rail sector

A Adjustment ofpricing in trans-port

R Regulations andimproved en-forcement

F Further instru-ments

– deregulation in therail sector (incl. non-discriminatory ac-cess to the rail in-frastructure, trackuser charges)

– mileage tax for roadfreight transport

– tax on diesel fuel

– vignettes for specialregions

– passage charges

– permit systems(eco point system,linked rail-road per-mits)

– adjustment in thevehicle taxation

– different types ofsubsidisation of in-termodal services

– weight limits

– driving bans

– social regulations

– speed limits

in road haulage

– extension of theinfrastructure (rail,ports, terminals)

– improvements ofthe logistic per-formance in inter-modal transportchains

– improvements inthe use of advancedinformation andcommunication sys-tems

– initiatives to reduceinteroperabilitythrough standardi-sation

Table S-3 shows that a wide range of instruments to improve intermodality has beenidentified. Some of the instruments tackle very specific barriers whereas others affectseveral of them (e.g. the deregulation in the rail sector). Obviously, only packages ofseveral instruments will be able to substantially improve intermodality. It has been up tothe case studies to define those packages of instruments that fit the best the specificsituation and to test the contribution of the packages to an increase of intermodality.

Looking at the ranking of the different barriers three types of policy measures seem cru-cial for an improvement of intermodal services and should therefore be part of any policystrategy:

– the deregulation in the rail sector to increase competition in this sector

– pricing measures in the transport sector as a whole to adjust wrong price signals

– adjustments in the infrastructure for intermodal transport to provide the necessarycapacities.


ECOPLAN

1 Introduction 1

ECOPLAN

1 Introduction

1.1 Setting the stage

This report has been worked out within the EU research project Strategic European Multi-Modal Modelling (STEMM). This project pursued the following objectives:

– to identify and quantify the factors affecting modal split and route choice for passen-gers and freight, particularly where intermodal chains are available

– to develop methodologies for modelling intermodal chains for passenger and freighttransport

– to apply these methodologies to models representing mode and route choice for Euro-pean networks and particular case studies

– to examine barriers to intermodality arising from institutional and regulatory measures

– to utilise these models to examine and test policy instruments for increasing the useof intermodal methods of transport

– to prepare contributions to seminars at which results obtained from investigations ofdifferent types of policy instruments will be consolidated.

This report covers two of the objectives mentioned above:

o It investigates the shortcomings of current intermodal services and examines the bar-riers leading to these shortcomings.

o Based on the analysis of the barriers, policy instruments for improved intermodalityare developed.

The policy instruments described in this report have been applied in the different casestudies of the STEMM project, namely in the work packages 5, 6, 9A and 9B:

– Channel Tunnel Effects(1)

– Transalpine Freight Transport

– Scan-Link Corridor

– Nordic/North Sea Freight Study

The goals of the case were

– to test the applicability of the intermodal freight model developed within the STEMMproject and

– to estimate the potential effects of packages of policy instruments and of specificinstruments for improved intermodality respectively.

1 In this case study longer term logistical and locational effects have been in the centre of interest.

2 STEMM / WP7: Policy Instruments for Improved Intermodality

ECOPLAN

1.2 Definitions and objectives

If we speak in this report of „intermodality“ we start from the following basic defini-tion:(2) „A transport of goods within one and the same unit load device, with differenttransport modes including a mode change of the unit but not of the goods carried withinthe units. The unit load device may be a road vehicle or an intermodal unit.“ Starting fromthis definition „multi-modality“ would then mean that more than two different modesare used in one and the same transport. In the sense of a simplification we use in thisreport only the notion „intermodality“. Of course, our reflections also refer to multi-modaltransports.Starting from this definition three characteristic features of intermodal transport chainscan be identified:

– Two or more different transport modes are used.

– The goods remain during the whole transport in one and the same unit load device.The unit load devices may be containers, swap bodies, trailers or lorries.

– Rail and/or shipping replaces a possible road transport on the long distance of thetransport. Lorries are only used in the pick up and delivery.

Regarding the objective of policy instruments to increase the use of intermodal trans-port chains the third of the three characteristic features is of special interest:

– It is the objective that the share of rail and/or shipping on these longer distance oftransports increases whereas the share of road transport decreases.

– Air transport is intentionally not mentioned. It is not a goal of the policy instruments toincrease air freight transport.

For the justification of the two points stated above two arguments are normally broughtup in discussions on improved intermodality:

– A more frequent use of intermodal transport chain can contribute to an increase ofefficiency of the current transport system (e.g. by reducing congestion of motor-ways or by exploiting the relative advantages of the different transport modes).

– From the switch to less polluting transport modes a reduction of the negative effectsof transport on the environment and mankind can be expected (keyword: reduc-tion of external costs of land transport).

1.3 Structure and content of the report

The report consists of two major chapters and three annexes:

o In chapter 2 we summarise the main findings of the extensive interview programmecarried out within this work package of the STEMM project. The aim of the surveyswas to come to a better understanding of the importance and of the reasons behind

2 See Bukold S. (1996), Kombinierter Verkehr Schiene/Strasse in Europa, p. 21.

1 Introduction 3

ECOPLAN

the existing barriers for improved intermodality. The interview programme coveredthe same regions as the STEMM case studies do:

– the Alpine arc from the Ligurian coast to eastern Austria

– the Scandinavian countries Finland, Norway and Sweden

– the United Kingdom

Chapter 2 only summarises the most important findings of the three surveys. Muchmore detailed information is given in the three annexes:

– Annex A: Results of the Interviews with Actors and Experts of Transalpine FreightTransport (TAFT)

– Annex B: Results of the Expert Interviews on Intermodal Transport in Finland,Sweden and Norway

– Annex C: Results of the Interviews on Intermodal Transport in the United King-dom

o Chapter 3 describes possible policy instruments for improved intermodality. Startingpoints have been a literature survey and especially the results of the interview pro-gramme.

1.4 Project organisation and acknowledgement

The findings of this work package of the STEMM project are the result of a close co-operation of different partners:

o ECOPLAN has been responsible for the survey covering the Alpine countries (annexA). A number of actors and experts of transalpine freight transport have been inter-viewed based on a questionnaire developed by ECOPLAN.ECOPLAN is also the author of this final report of work package 7.

o The Institute for Transport Studies (ITS) of the University of Leeds has carried out theUK based survey (annex C). It has furthermore contributed to chapter 3 of this reportwith an input paper on the evidence of potential effects of different instruments forimproved intermodality.(3)

o VTT, SINTEF, TEMAPLAN and TOI have been responsible for the Scandinavian basedsurvey (annex B).

Finally, we would like to thank especially all the 61 participants of interview programme.Without their very valuable contributions this report couldn’t have been elaborated in itspresent form.

3 See Fowkes A.S. et al. (1998), Potential Effects of the Introduction of Policy Instruments: A Review of the

Evidence.


ECOPLAN

2 Barriers for Improved Intermodality

2.1 Introduction

The barriers for improved intermodal transport (CT) have been analysed in a large numberof studies in the recent years. More than 25 research projects within the 4th FrameworkProgramme and a Task Force established by the Commission in 1995 work on this sub-ject. As a result, the existing problems in the different parts of the transport chain of anintermodal transport are well known.

Against this background, the objective of this paper is not to produce a further list of bar-riers but to come to a better understanding of the importance the different actors of CTattribute to specific barriers at present and in the future.

This assessment is based on three interview programmes carried out in three differentregions in Europe. The three regions of the surveys correspond with the research areasof the case studies. The most important characteristic features of the three surveys aregiven below:

o Survey on Transalpine Freight Transport (TAFT)This survey bases on 15 face-to-face or telephone interviews carried out in spring andsummer 1997. The programme was co-ordinated with the work of the Working GroupTAFT of the COST action 328 „Integrated Strategic Networks in Europe“.(4)

The list of interviewees comprises all main actors involved in CT of TAFT:

– intermodal operators (UIRR companies (e.g. CEMAT, HUPAC etc.), Intercontai-ner/Interfrigo)

– a railway operator

– forwarding companies (Danzas, Ambrogio, Hangartner)

In most cases it was possible to talk with representatives of the management of thecompanies.

Furthermore, experts of TAFT covering the institutions and organisations mentionedbelow contributed to the survey:

– Studiengesellschaft für den kombinierten Verkehr

– European Centre for Infrastructure Studies

– COST action 328 „Integrated Strategic Networks in Europe“

– Working Group Combined Transport Switzerland

4 The WG TAFT looked at the actors, strategies and interlinkages in TAFT and intended to carry out a

survey in the same period of time. Therefore and because both teams wanted to avoid that the samepersons had been contacted twice the choice of the interview partners has been co-ordinated and thequestionnaires have been exchanged for information purposes.

2 Barriers for improved intermodality 5

ECOPLAN

Thus, the sample of interviewees covers persons who know about the difficulties ofthe provision of high quality intermodal services. It does not include potential users ofCT that don’t know the services in detail.

The TAFT survey was carried out by ECOPLAN , Environmental and Economic Stu-dies, Switzerland.

o Scandinavian based survey (SCAN)This survey covers the three Scandinavian countries Finland, Sweden and Norway. 32firms were involved in the interview programme carried out mostly over the telephonein autumn 1997. The sample can be described as follows:

Table 2-1: Structure of the Scandinavian sample of interviewees

All interviews Industry Forwarding/ transport

Transport Ports

Finland Sweden Norway Total Total Total Total Norway

Number of interviews 10 7 15 32 4 17 8 3

Employees (averageper interview)

983 1’482 434 853 950 988 401 87

The rather large sample allowed to work out country-specific and actor-specific diffe-rences. In the case of the latter, especially the differences in the points of view of theindustry on the one hand, and the forwarding and transport sector on the other hand,were of research interest.

The following institutes were responsible for the Scandinavian survey:– VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland– SINTEF Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norway– TOI, Institute of Transport Economics, Norway– TEMAPLAN AB, Sweden

o UK based surveyThe firms interviewed in this survey cover a wide range of company activities. Thefirms had been approached because it was known they had recent experience of atleast attempting to provide a multi-modal chain either singularly or, more often, inpartnership with others. It was not intended to be a random sample.

Though it proved difficult to arrange appointments, it has eventually been possible tomeet mainly senior managers within the companies. Even though the sample is only14 the outcome gave a wide range of companies who operate multi modal chains in-volving rail, sea and barge systems.

The breakdown of the 14 interviewed companies by main activity is as follows, thoughmost of those interviewed have been involved in more than one activity, and in morethan one part of a multi modal chain:


ECOPLAN

– Ferry company 3– Multi-modal operator 3– Terminal operators 2– Logistics companies 2– Deep sea container shipping company 1– Manufacturer 1– Freight forwarder 1– Combined transport operator 1

There is a potential bias in the UK sample toward ferry based multi-modal chains,which is counter-balanced by the surveys undertaken on the European mainland,especially the TAFT survey. Nevertheless, within the UK the shortest chain operatedby one of the respondents is a UK domestic movement of 130 km by rail taking 2hours, while the longest is over 3,000 km by sea to Turkey from the UK taking 11days.

The interviews were undertaken in the period May-September 1997 by the Institute forTransport Studies, University of Leeds.

Not surprisingly the findings of the three surveys widely vary due to several reasons anddifferences between the regions covered by the surveys referring to points like

– the development of transport infrastructure

– the importance of the different transport modes

– the development and quality of intermodal transport services

– the types of commodities transported („CT-affinity“)

– the composition of the sample of the interviewees

The detailed results of the three surveys are given in three annexes:

– Annex A: survey on transalpine freight transport (TAFT)

– Annex B: Scandinavian based survey (SCAN)

– Annex C: UK based survey (UK)

The main findings of the three annexes A, B and C are summarised in the sections 2.3,2.4 and 2.5 below.

In section 2.6 we derive our conclusions and discuss the consequences of the surveyresults for chapter 4 of this report where possible instruments for improved intermodalityare described.

In the surveys the interviewees have not only been asked to give their view of the short-comings of current and the barriers for improved intermodal transport services. They alsodeveloped the cornerstones of their vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010.The common lines of this vision are the content of the following section 2.2.(5)

5 Because the UK based survey used a slightly different questionnaire the description of a vision for in-

termodal transport bases on the TAFT and SCAN interview programmes only. The development of the


ECOPLAN

2.2 A vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010

Though there have been differences in the views of the respondents some common linescould have been identified. The corresponding keywords concerning different characteri-stic features of intermodal transport in 2010 are summarised in table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010: Keywords

Feature Keywords

Structure of ter-minals, types oftrains and ships

– more direct trains will run between terminals (shuttle trains), mixed trainwill remain important for inland transport

– both, RoRo and LoLo ships will remain important

– advanced logistic concepts like the Gateway Concept (bundling of transportflows in large terminals (hubs), re-formation of direct trains serving smallerterminals) will become more common

– large terminals will be concentrate in the economic centres of Europe, me-dium-sized terminals in other areas

– increases in terminal capacity will come from improved logistics and hand-ling technologies but not from additional Mega-terminals

– most of the respondents foresee a decrease of number of terminals but anincrease of capacity/efficiency and in some cases a specialisation

– the terminal of the future will offer additional functions and services andbecome „logistic centres“

– the ports will play a central role as multi-modal platforms (road, rail, sea)

– new techniques for pre and end haul on rail will become common (e.g.cargo sprinter, ring trains)

Transhipmenttechniques

– the question whether new techniques will emerge is answered controver-sially: some see no fundamental changes in this field of intermodal trans-port and believe that efficiency of existing techniques will be improved,others believe in the new techniques

– vertical transhipment techniques will remain dominant

– automatisation will expand, especially in large terminals

– the development of small, flexible (modular) and cheaper equipment forsmaller terminals is probable

Role of railwayoperator

– most respondents predict an increase of the number of operators; for manyinterviewees the increase is followed by a concentration process due toopen access and increased competition (alliances, mergers)

– it is believed that railway companies will try to control more than just thetraction part of an intermodal transport

– efforts to offer door-to-door services by railway companies or their subsidi-

vision was supported by part I of the questionnaire used in the TAFT and SCAN survey. A copy of thequestionnaire can be found in annex A, p. 59 ff.


ECOPLAN

ary companies

Role of intermo-dal operators

– the role of these companies as organisers of the whole intermodal chainwill remain

– as in the case of the railway operators a concentration process is foreseen

– the existing separation of container and piggyback companies will loosen

– intermodal operators will also offer door-to-door services (now: only betwe-en terminals)

Role of road hau-lage firms

the structural adjustment process in road haulage will go and be acceleratedby cabotage, i.e. more large and less small companies

New actors – specialised and low-price traction operators will emerge on links with hightransport volumes and from ports to the hinterland

– additional „integrators“ and/or marketing companies offering/selling thewhole intermodal transport chain will enter the market

– additional US railway firms will flood into the European market

Development ofintermodal units

– an additional optimisation of the partly conflicting requirements cheap, light,stackable and flexible in use is expected

– no development of new, non-standardised units is foreseen

– a „renaissance“ of unaccompanied trailer services is predicted

Development ofprices

– the majority believes in lower prices due to the liberalisation in the rail sec-tor and the competition pressure coming from road transport

– reasons for price increases are seen in environmental issues

Growth rate ofintermodal trans-port

– the large majority of respondents predicts an increase of the share; ne-vertheless, the share will remain modest (approx. 10%)

– the increase of intermodal transport will be due to traffic generated by thenew industrial organisation in Europe (Eastern Europe) and the saturation ofthe capacity of the road network

Development oflogistics

– it is believed that interoperability problems will be solved in the short term,in general an increased use of telematics is expected

– computerised and Internet-based reservation and accounting systems willbe common as well as real-time and satellite-based tracking oftrains/wagons/goods

The development in the direction described in table 2-2 is hindered by a number of barri-ers resulting in substantial shortcomings of current intermodal transport. These barriersand shortcomings have been in the centre of interest in the interview programmes. Thenext three sections summarise the views of the respondents with regard to these issu-es. We start with the results of the interview programme involving actors and experts oftransalpine freight transport.


ECOPLAN

2.3 The main findings of the TAFT survey

2.3.1 Assessment of the main shortcomings of today’s CT through the Alps

In a first step the actors and experts have been asked to make an assessment of themost important quality criteria of transalpine CT services in order to answer the question,why intermodal services are not used more frequently.To do so, the respondents could allocate in the table below a total of 100 points to indica-te (by the highest number) those fields where the main shortcomings of internationalCT are seen.

Table 2-3: Assessment of the main shortcomings of today’s intermodal trans-port

Max.score

Averagescore

o Transport speed, travel time 25 7.9

o Size of transport units (flexibility with regard to transport volumes) 10 2.3

o Payload of transport units 10 1.2

o Temporal reliability (guarantee of meeting deadlines, i.e. availability ofgoods and units in time at the destination terminal)

30 16.9

o Safety of goods (avoidance of damages, loss and theft) 25 4.4

o Transport prices 50 31.1

o Fair price structure and transparency of price structure 12.5 3.3

o Extension of network (covering of space by the network, good integrationof the terminals in the road network)

10 3.1

o Spatial flexibility (door-to-door services throughout Europe) 7.5 1.4

o Temporal flexibility (flexible departure time, business hours of terminals,quick access to goods after the arrival of the train)

25 6.4

o Communication and information (location of freight, on-line and real-timecommunication)

20 8.1

o Others: mentioned by individual interviewees

– lack of customer / market orientation of railway companies 50 5.6**

– future infrastructure limits 50 5.6**

– missing supply (services), too many actors to get in touch with, toolittle co-ordination*

25 2.8**

Total 100

* = mentioned in the context of inland CT

** = only mentioned by one respondent, i.e. the figures are not averages in the literally sense


ECOPLAN

Comments to table 2-3:

o The assessment of the interviewees that the (too) high prices and the insufficientreliability are the two major shortcomings of today’s CT corresponds with the resultsof similar studies.

o Behind the transport prices and the reliability, the low average speed of freight trainsand shortcomings in the field „communication and information“ got rather highscores.

o There is only one shortcoming, i.e. the temporal reliability, that all interviewees con-sider to be a relevant shortcoming of CT. Or in other words, to each other shortcomingat least one interviewee has allocated zero points - which indicates that the short-coming is unimportant in his view. It is quite surprising that this is even the case forthe prices of CT.

o The ranges between the maximum and the minimum number of points (reliability = 7,all others = 0) show that there are considerable differences in the assessment. The-se can partly be explained with the different fields of activity of the interviewees thatresult in differing view points of a specific shortcoming.

2.3.2 Assessment of the main barriers for improved intermodality

The assessment of the different barriers that cause the shortcomings identified in table2-3, is given in the six subsequent chapters in annex A, each of them covering a specifictype of barrier:

o In chapter 3 the question of bottlenecks in the infrastructure (terminals, rail infra-structure) and of potential shortcomings of the rolling stock and intermodal units isaddressed: Do such bottlenecks prevent a more frequent use of intermodal services?

o The fourth chapter of annex A deals with interoperability problems: Is, for example,the lack of standardisation of the intermodal units still a relevant issue, or is it ratherthe interoperability of rail networks?

o Insufficient logistics and the limited use of advanced information and communica-tion systems as potential barriers to development and use of intermodal services arediscussed in chapter 5.

o In chapter 6 the focus lays on aspects of the network management covering poten-tial barriers like:– the insufficient co-ordination of timetables between the railway companies– the too low availability of attractive train paths for intermodal trains, especially

shuttle trains– the fact that still too many trains are not direct trains but need time-consuming

shunting operations– the missing non-discriminatory access to the rail infrastructure


ECOPLAN

o Organisational and institutional aspects are the subject of chapter 7. A specialfocus is laid on competition and co-ordination issues. The question is: In which areasof intermodal transport and between which actors is too little co-ordination and/or toolittle competition?

o Chapter 8 of annex A finally looks at prices and pricing structure in intermodaltransport and in transport in general: In which parts of the intermodal transport chaindoes an inadequate pricing scheme prevent potential users to switch to CT? Are therepricing schemes in other parts of the transport sector that hinder the development ofCT?

A further focus of chapter 8 are regulations that indirectly affect the price structure inthe transport sector (e.g. social regulations on driving and rest times). The questionhere is: Is the way regulations in transport are designed and/or enforced a significantbarrier for improved intermodality?

The assessment of the potential barriers mentioned above is discussed in two steps inannex A:

o First, the significance the interviewees assign to each barrier is shown. In order toanswer the question whether a specific barrier is at present a rather important or rat-her unimportant obstacle for a higher productivity and therefore higher competitive-ness of CT, the interviewees made their rating by putting a tick in the correspondingbox of the scheme given below.

unimportant very important average

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

o In a second step, the main arguments and opinions to each barrier brought up bythe respondents are reproduced.

In this summary we only present the result of the first step. The second step containsvery detailed information making a summary not useful. For this information it is referredto annex A.

Figure 2-4 shows the significance the participants of the survey attached to the differentbarriers for improved intermodality. The bars correspond to the average values of the boxdepicted above.


ECOPLAN

Figure 2-4: Significance of the different barriers for improved intermodality

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Interoperability problemsof transhipment

Shortcomings of theintermodal units

Shortcomings of therolling stock

Limited standardisation ofintermodal units

Bottlenecks in the terminalstructure

Low logistic performancein terminals

Bottlenecks in the railinfrastructure

Too few direct trains, toomany mixed trains

Little co-operationbetween actors of CT

Interoperability problemsof networks

Insufficient informationand communication

Lack of availability ofattractive train paths

Insufficient co-ordinationof timetables

Limited competitionbetween actors of CT

Missing policy measuresto influence transport

Unsuitable price structurein CT

Missing of open access toinfrastructure

unimportant very important

Though there have been considerable differences in the ratings between the differentinterviewees figure 2-4 allows for some general remarks:

o One of the main findings is that technical barriers like for example the question ofstandardisation are much less important than barriers concerning the general set-upfor CT. According to the interviewees it is not the „hardware“ that above all preventsthe development of CT. The most relevant barriers are seen in organisational and insti-


ECOPLAN

tutional issues and in the current price signals and structures in CT as well as in thetransport sector as a whole.With regard to policy instruments for improved intermodality the findings summarisedin figure 2-4 mean that network improvements, additional terminals, standardised in-termodal units and so on may still be important for the further development of CT buta policy initiative that concentrates on these points is likely to fail. The provision of agood „hardware“ for CT is necessary but in no way sufficient.

o Figure 2-4 implies that a strategy and instruments to improve intermodality shouldabove all pay attention to the following points:– competition and co-ordination in each element of the transport chain but espe-

cially in the rail part of the chain should be strengthened– regulations and taxation must ensure that this competition is fair, i.e. that distor-

tions between transport modes and between different operators in the same modeare avoided

These conclusions confirm the policy strategies described in the Greenpaper on Fairand Efficient Pricing on the one hand, and in the Whitepaper on the Revitalisation ofEuropean Railways on the other hand.

o Looking at the different barriers it is obvious that suitable policy measures to reduceor even to remove these obstacles must be taken at different levels (EU, MemberStates, intermodal operators, railway companies etc.). However, remembering thepoints mentioned in the last paragraph, the role of the EU and the Member Statesis a crucial one. Many of the necessary measures at the lower levels will only be ta-ken if the general set-up is correspondingly designed.

2.4 The main findings of the Scandinavian survey

2.4.1 Assessment of the main shortcomings of today’s CT

Similar to the TAFT survey all respondents have been asked to rank the importance offactors preventing a more frequent use of multi-modal transport chains on a scale from 1(unimportant) to 10 (very important)

The most important factors for intermodal transport were, in order of importance:– - temporal reliability– - transport prices– - communication and information– - frequency– - transport speed and travel time– - safety of goods and– - temporal flexibility.


ECOPLAN

The mean values and the number of scores 1-10 are given in the table below.


The mean values of these factors differ slightly if we consider countries and businessareas of the interviewed firms:

o In the Finnish sample transport speed and travel time plays greater role than in thesamples of the other Nordic countries, especially when compared to Sweden. Thismight be because of the longer distance from the continent and the main transportmode which is sea.

o In the Swedish sample safety of goods appears to be more important than in othercountries. The reverse is the case for the fairness and transparency of price structure.

o In the Norwegian sample temporal flexibility and extension of networks are moreimportant than in the Swedish and Finnish samples.

o In general, industrial firms give higher rankings to nearly all factors than others do.

Average

Temporal reliability (keeping to timetables) 9,4

Transport prices 8,7

Communication and information (location of freight, real-time communication) 8,3

Frequency of departures 8,1

Transport speed, travel time 8,0

Safety of goods (avoidance of damages, loss and theft) 8,0

Temporal flexibility (flexible departure time, business hours of terminals) 8,0

Extension of networks (covering of space by the network, integration in road net) 7,4

Size of transport units (flexibility with regard to transport volumes) 7,3

Payload of transport units 7,3

Fair price structure and transparency of price structure 7,3

Spatial flexibility (door-to-door services throughout Europe) 7,1

Flexibility concerning size and payload of transport units 7,0

Placing responsibility for damage, etc. 6,7

Technical solutions 6,4


ECOPLAN

o In particular payload of transport units reaches the highest score (10). Industry findsalso frequency, transport speed, travel time and size of transport units more importantthan forwarding and transport firms do.

Annex B contains a more detailed presentation of the results, and especially of the diffe-rences between the three countries covered by the survey.

2.4.2 Assessment of the main barriers for improved intermodality

In the Scandinavian survey the same barriers were discussed with the interviewees as inthe TAFT survey (see section 2.3.2 above). Adjustments were made to take into accountshipping. Figure 2-6 summarises the assessment of different barriers in the Nordic sur-vey.

The most important existing barriers for improved intermodality are:

– the price when including rail in the intermodal chain

– co-operation between the operators of the chain’s components and

– infrastructure bottlenecks.

The mean values by country and by business area are given in annex B. The main fin-dings are:

o In the Swedish sample the most important barriers are networks and the too lownumber of international direct trains and mixed trains.

o In the Norwegian sample price seems to be not so important than in the othersamples, but information and communication, co-ordination of timetables, bottlenecksin today’s terminal and port infrastructure and availability of attractive train paths,ports and terminals are more important.

o In the Finnish sample especially price (when the main transport mode is rail) and co-operation between the operators of intermodal transport are the worst barriers.

o From the industrial point of view networks, price structure and bottlenecks in today’sterminal and port infrastructure are the worst barriers. Forwarding and transport firmsdo not consider networks as important barriers, but industry does. The price structureis a problem in rail transport but not in short sea shipping for industrial firms.

o Ports consider transhipment techniques worst barriers but co-operation and trainconnections have significant role too.


ECOPLAN


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Shortcomings of ship types


Interoperability problemsof ship types



Shortcomings of the rollingstock



Too few direct trains, toomany mixed trains**



Unsuitable price structurein CT (short sea)


Bottlenecks in the terminaland port infrastructure

Lack of availability ofattractive train paths*

Insufficient information andcommunication systems

Insufficient co-ordination oftimetables

Bottlenecks in today's roadand sea infrastructure


Unsuitable price structurein CT (rail)

very importantunimportant

* = lack of attractive ports and terminals in the Norwegian part of the survey

** = more direct shipping routes in the Norwegian part of the survey


ECOPLAN

2.5 The main findings of the UK survey

The UK based survey used a somewhat different questionnaire. Accordingly, the mainfindings con only partly be summarised in the same way as for the TAFT and SCAN sur-vey.

Details of answers to individual questions are given in annex C. The table below containsthe assessment of the significance of the barriers included in this survey.

Table 2-7: Significance of the different barriers for improved intermodality

Barrier Average weight

Quality of service (e.g. reliability, frequency of departures) 5.4

Infrastructure (capacity of the rail network, of port and of berth) 3.8

Technical interoperability (intermodal units, rolling stock, rail networks) 3.1

Finance (e.g. high investment costs, investment risks) 7.3

Information systems (e.g. booking systems, tracking of movement) 3.7

Road network management (e.g. access to terminals, weight restrictions) 2.4

Organisational barriers (suitable train paths, co-ordination between actors) 6.2

Other barriers (e.g. Channel Tunnel security) 0.6

Some problems were highlighted by a large number of respondents. These relate to thefollowing issues:

o The rail loading gauge, particularly in the UK, but to a lesser extent in other parts ofEurope.

o The provision of rail wagons capable of carrying the latest generation of contai-ners and swap bodies. These can be up to 45 feet (13.7m) long, 9ft 6in (2.9m) highand 2.6m wide. There are potential long term problems in the mis-match of deep seashipping container dimensions and those of intra-European container units.

o The other major barrier surrounded financing multi-modal chains, particularly seabased operations which do not receive support (bearing in mind that a North Sea ferrycosts $65-$100m to build). Where support is available, as is the case with rail freightfacilities and track access grants in the UK, the procedure is said to take too long be-fore decisions are reached.

o There are also problems relating to financial risk sharing among the partners in amulti-modal chain. Nationalised railway companies are usually delighted to provide atrain, for a fixed price per day, but reluctant to share losses in the start up period or toprovide equipment without guarantees. Even among the more commercially awareprivate companies there is a desire to push as much of the risk as possible on to otherpartners forming a chain.


ECOPLAN

In a next step it was analysed which of the multi-modal systems have the greatestbarriers. This question arose because unlike the TAFT survey in which most respon-dents were involved in rail-based inter-modal systems, many respondents in the UK sur-vey were using multi modal systems using rail, ferry and in some cases barges to movetheir traffic. This gave an opportunity to obtain an indication of the relative barrierspresented by the use of a system based on the use of rail, ferry or barge.

The results of the analysis are tabulated in table 2-8. The table reads as follows:– there were 14 respondents in total– 8 could reasonably be described as predominantly shipping companies or ferry termi-

nal operators (coded S)– 3 were rail based multi-modal operators (coded R)– the remaining 3 were made up of a manufacturer and two logistics companies

(coded O)

Of the shipping companies, only 6 had experience of the rail mode. Of the rail basedmulti-modal operators, only 2 had experience of the ship mode, and this was the case forthe three respondents coded O, too. Two of the shipping companies and one of the ‘O’companies had experience of the barge mode, and so their data on this is included forcompleteness, although it is obviously a very small sample.

The same 7 categories of barriers, as discussed shown in table 2-7 above (without„others“), were listed, together with an eighth which was now described as ‘Regulatory’,and was intended to cover regulations relating to multi-modal operations rather than tho-se aspects covered under ‘Road Network Management’. To begin with, each respondentwas asked to split 100 points over these 8 categories of barrier, in respect solely to therail mode. The more points allocated the greater the reason for not using a multi- modalchain with this mode.

The means of these point allocation is reported in the first four columns of table 2-8; i.e.one column for each of the three groups (R,S,O) and one column for the overall average(TOT). Bearing in mind these allocations, each respondent was then asked to similarlyallocate points (shown in columns 5 to 8 for ship mode and 9 to 11 for barge mode), forany non-rail-based mode of which they had experience. The allocations were to be relati-ve to those for rail mode, and so need not sum to 100. For two shipping companies whohad no experience of rail, and so had no rail allocation to relate to, their ratings for theship mode were scaled to give the same points total as that given by respondents whohad made a rail allocation.

The main findings in table 2-8 can be summarised as follows:

o Considering first the total points allocated, it is clear that use of the rail mode formulti-modal chains is more difficult than for ship or barge. Compared to the fixedmean allocation of 100 for rail, ship was only allocated a mean of 84 points and bargeonly 62 points. Within these figures, it is clear that rail operators feel that the difficul-ties of using the ship mode are only half of using the rail mode. From the shipping


ECOPLAN

companies’ point of view, however, there is little to choose between the difficulty ofusing rail or ship.

Table 2-8: Mean Point Allocations to Barriers to Multi-modal Use

Rail mode Ship mode Barge mode

Barrier R S O TOT R S O TOT R S TOT

Service quality 22 17 22 20 13 19 20 18 14 10 12

Infrastructure 8 19 25 17 13 14 17 15 6 30 14

Technical Inter-operability

4 13 20 13 1 6 7 5 5 5 5

Financial 41 16 15 22 13 23 25 22 5 10 7

Information sy-stems

4 9 5 7 3 7 7 6 6 0 4

Road networkmanagement

8 7 5 6 3 7 3 5 8 5 7

Organisation 6 10 3 7 6 6 0 5 5 0 3

Regulatory 7 9 5 8 3 10 3 8 15 0 10

Total points allo-cated

100 100 100 100 55 93 82 84 64 60 62

Sample size 3 6 3 12 2 8 2 12 2 1 3

Key: R = Railway operating company

S = Shipping company

O = Other respondent

o Looking next at the detailed figures for rail mode, the highest number of points wereawarded to the financial barrier. However, this was strongly affected by the veryhigh allocations given by rail operators to this barrier, the remainder feeling it was so-mewhat less of a difficulty. Closely in second place came service quality, with fairlygeneral agreement on its allocation. A little behind in third place was infrastructure.This time the rail operators did not perceive this as a great difficulty, but everyone elsedid. Some way behind in fourth place was technical interoperability. Again, the rail ope-rator did not see this as a great difficulty while everyone else did. The remaining barri-ers all received low allocations.

o Moving next to the detailed figures for the ship mode, finance again gains the highestmean allocation, and at the same number of points as for the rail mode. This time,however, it is everyone except the rail operators who feel it is a great difficulty. It ap-pears as though, in relative terms at least, the rail operators are underestimating thefinancial barriers to using the ship mode, whilst the shipping operators are underesti-


ECOPLAN

mating the financial barriers to using the rail mode. Clearly everybody thinks that theother person has things easier than them.The second highest allocation for the shipping mode is, once again, service quality,although here again the rail operators feel it is less of a problem than do the others,and indeed less of a problem than rail service quality. Again, third place goes to infra-structure, with fairly general agreement on this by all. We have thus had exact ag-reement on ordering of the three greatest difficulties in the case of each mode. Howe-ver, the matching does not proceed beyond there, since technical interoperability isnot perceived as a problem for ship. Indeed, all bar the top three barriers received lowallocation. As we have noted earlier, the overall affect is to show the ship mode assubject to less difficulties than the rail mode.

o Moving finally to the detailed figures for the barge mode, we must remember thatonly three respondents contributed to these and so they should not be taken too se-riously. However, it is plain that finance is not perceived as a difficulty for this mode.The highest allocation was for infrastructure, where its mean allocation is not muchlower than in the case of rail and ship modes. Second comes service quality, beyondwhich all barriers receive rather low mean allocations.

2.6 Conclusions

The summaries of the three surveys given in the preceding sections show the consider-able differences in the assessment of the shortcomings of today’s intermodal servicesas well as in the weighting of the barriers causing these shortcomings.

If we look first at the TAFT and SCAN survey that used almost the same questionnaireour conclusions go as follows:

o Technical barriers like for example the question of standardisation are rated lower thanbarriers concerning the general set-up for intermodal transport. The same applies tothe „hardware“ with the exemption of the infrastructure: The rolling stock, the unitsand the ship types seem to meet well the demand of the users.

o There are distinct differences between the results of the two surveys coming from thefact that they look at different regions and different types of intermodal services:– The generally lower figures for transalpine intermodal transport probably reveal two

points: Transalpine transport is one of the most developed intermodal transportmarket in Europe. And, the Scandinavian sample of interviewees contained morerepresentatives of the industry who tend to be more critical than experts and in-termodal operators.

– For transalpine transport the most relevant barriers are seen in organisational andinstitutional issues and in the current price signals and structures in intermodaltransport as well as in the transport sector as a whole. The price distortions causedby the missing internalisation of external costs in road transport has explicitly beenmentioned by a number of respondents.


ECOPLAN

– In the Nordic countries „hardware“ barriers have been rated almost as high as bar-riers referring to organisational/institutional and pricing issues.

o In both surveys the need of customer-oriented information and communication sy-stems has been confirmed, and in both surveys, the potential distortion of competitionthrough subsidisation has been critically mentioned.

The UK survey used a slightly different questionnaire. The most important findings arethe following:

– The use of rail mode for multi-modal chains is more difficult than for ship and barge.

– The highest number of points was awarded to the financial barriers (i.e. high invest-ment costs of the provision of intermodal services). Furthermore, the quality of ser-vice and organisational barriers was rated comparatively high.

– Rather low figures were allocated to technical interoperability problems and insuffi-cient information systems.

These findings serve as major inputs for the next chapter where policy instruments toovercome the various barriers to development and use of multi-modal chains arediscussed.


ECOPLAN

3 Policy instruments for improved intermodality

3.1 Introduction

As mentioned in chapter 1 the analysis of barriers for improved intermodality is the onemajor objective of this work package of the STEMM project. The other is the derivation ofuseful policy instruments to develop and increase the use of intermodal services.

In the preceding chapter the shortcomings of current intermodal transport services andthe barriers causing them turned out to vary considerably between the different regionsand transport flows covered by the three surveys. Accordingly, it cannot be the aim ofthis chapter to design the different policy instruments in detail. This will be the task of thecase studies where the situation and conditions of the transport system and the„regional environment“ will have to be taken into account.

In this chapter we only open the array of potential instruments starting from the findingsof chapter 2. The case study leaders will have to decide which instrument fits the re-gional circumstances and should therefore be chosen and tested in the respective casestudy. Thus, we do not say that the instruments presented below are under any circum-stances useful instruments to improve intermodality. This question has to answered inthe case studies.

Starting from the findings of chapter 2 on the barriers four groups of types of instrumentscan be distinguished. Each group is discussed in a separate section in this chapter:

o Deregulation in the rail sector (section 3.2)Instruments and policy measures of this field change the general set-up for intermodaltransport (CT). They tackle a large number of the barriers that have been identified anddiscussed in the evaluation of the rail-based surveys of chapter 2 (especially the TAFTsurvey). The most and directly affected are the following (see also the figures 2-4 and2-6):– the co-ordination of timetables and the availability of attractive train paths– the access to the rail infrastructure– the co-operation and the competition between the actors of CT– the prices and the price structure in CT

o Adjustments of pricing in transport (section 3.3)Under this title we discuss instruments and policy measures that influence directlythe prices in freight transport and approach the financial barrier for Ct as underlined inthe UK based survey.The key notions in this context are– the internalisation of external costs– adjustments in the taxation structure– the subsidisation of CT

3 Policy instruments for improved intermodality 23

ECOPLAN

o Regulations and enforcement (section 3.4)Instruments and policy measures in this group will deal with „non-pricing“ barriers.– weight limits– social regulations– speed limits

o Further instruments (section 3.5)This section contains the remaining barriers identified in chapter 2. These are– bottlenecks of the infrastructure– technical interoperability problems– insufficient logistics– limited use of advanced information and communication systems

The discussion of the instruments follows the scheme given below:

a) Description of the instrument:

The description of the instruments is based on the interviews carried out, on the inputs ofthe different partners of the STEMM-project and on an evaluation of the literature.Following the discussion above the level of detail of the description varies between twodifferent types of instruments:

o For the instruments to be taken at the national, regional or even local level theconcrete design has to be described in the case studies. Bottlenecks in the rail infra-structure, for example, may be a serious problem in one case study whereas in an-other it is a rather unimportant issue

o Instruments that should be taken at the European level are described in more detailbecause the case studies should take as far as useful the same assumptions as astarting points.

b) Effects of the instruments:

In a second step a first assessment of the likely effects of the instruments on possiblemodel inputs (e.g. parameters of the cost functions of the models) is given on behalf ofthe case studies. The reflections are again based on the interviews carried out, on theinputs of the different partners of the STEMM-project(6) and on the relevant literature.

For some instruments an assessment of the effects will exclusively be possible withinthe frame of a specific case study (e.g. tunnel charges).

6 See especially Fowkes A.S. et al. (1998), Potential Effects of the Introduction of Policy Instruments: A

Review of the Evidence.


ECOPLAN

3.2 Deregulation in the rail sector

a) Description

The Commission of the European Union has outlined the main elements of a deregulationin the rail sector in its Whitepaper on the revitalisation of the European railways (7) and indifferent Directives.(8) Looking at the huge number of publications we renounce repro-ducing in detail the different elements of the strategy.(9) Very briefly summarised, the keyelements of the strategy are the following:

o The railway companies should be enabled to act more according to commercial viewpoints. This requires an independent management and a financial revitalisation (i.e.a debt relief) of the companies.

o The operations should be separated from infrastructure in the provision of railwayservices. In the Directive 91/440/EEC, separate accounting within one company, i.e.not a complete separation into infrastructure and service providers, is considered tobe the minimum degree of deregulation.

o There should be non-discriminatory open access to the rail infrastructure(10) ac-cording to well defined rules that cover the following issues:– the licensing of railway undertakings– the allocation of train paths– the calculation and publication of infrastructure access fees

The relevant Directives do not lay down in detail how the key elements have to be im-plemented. They only prescribe the general principles - first of all the non-discrimination -that have to be observed when the Member States issue the national regulations.

In the case of the access user fees, for example, neither the Directive 91/440/EEC onthe development of the railway companies in the Community nor the Directive 95/19/EECon the allocation of train paths and the calculation of access user fees does stipulatehow the fees should be charged. However, the Directive 91/440 describes in article 8 theparameters to be taken into account in determining the fees:– the mileage– the composition of the train

7 See Commission of the European Union (1996), A strategy for the revitalisation of the European Rail-

ways.

8 See the Directives 91/440/EEC, 95/18/EEC and 95/19/EEC.

9 For a more extensive summary see Fowkes A.S. et al. (1998), Potential Effects of the Introduction ofPolicy Instruments: A Review of the Evidence, p. 4. The review places the emphasis especially on organ-isational issues.

10 According to the Directive 91/440/EEC the open access is limited to international groupings of railwaycompanies and to railway companies offering cross-border intermodal transport services. An extensionof open access to further railway services has been proposed.


ECOPLAN

– the speed– the axle load– the degree and period of utilisation of the infrastructureIt is not mentioned how and with what weight these parameters have to be incorporatedin the pricing of the infrastructure use.

Accordingly, the way the strategy of the Commission is implemented considerably dif-fers between the Member States. In the box below, we have summarised the main find-ings drawn from an overview of the state and the problems of the implementation of Di-rective 91/440/EEC.(11)

The overview of the state of implementation within different countries has shown

a) that many countries are late with the implementation though - or partly also because -various Member States have combined the implementation of the Directive with ageneral reform in the rail sector

b) that there are still substantial theoretical and practical problems with regard to theseparation of operations and infrastructure and the levy of an infrastructure accessfee

c) that one cannot expect that there will be a single solution for Europe.

The conclusions with regard to the points b) and c) are based on the following findings:

b) In general, it is believed that the separation of operations and infrastructure will bebeneficial in the long run. Firms will specialise in fields in which they are especially ef-ficient. This effect and an increased competition will result in gains of productivity andinnovation in the rail sector. An important prerequisite is that all companies competingfor access to the infrastructure are placed on equal footing.However, the transition of the rail sector from a centrally co-ordinated to a frag-mented, contract-regulated sector contains a noticeable number of dangers as thefollowing examples illustrate:

– effects on operating safety: no contracting firm will have a consistent overall view,each firm will only look for safety procedures in its immediate environment

– the settlement of conflicts in the allocation of train paths may be very complicated

– the close interrelation between the rail track and the development of the rollingstock speaks - at least at first sight - in favour of one single company being re-sponsible for the track design and the rolling stock specification

11 Source: ECMT (1997), The Separation of Operations from Infrastructure in the Provision of Railway Serv-

ices.For detailed information on the status of implementation see Prognos (1998), Examination of the im-plementation and impact of Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s Railways. Asummary of the report is given in a supplement to „transport europe“ - April 1998 of the europe infor-mation service (eis) .


ECOPLAN

– the economic risk that emerges from the monopolistic situation of the infrastruc-ture provider

– the risk that the infrastructure providers tend to overstate investment requirementsto the public authorities (especially when they fail to manage efficiently the existinginfrastructure

– the risk of losing network benefits (e.g. different and mutually not accepted tickets)

Furthermore, different approaches exist with regard to the calculation of the infra-structure user fees:

– The first approach favours the use of purely economic factors to determine theuser fees and rejects any policy considerations. Though, from a theoretical point ofview this approach may be convincing the practical implementation faces large dif-ficulties. On the one hand, the question on which costs the fees should be based(short-term or long-term costs, marginal costs, etc.) is discussed controversially.On the other hand, it will be difficult to estimate the relevant costs in real terms.Further problems may arise with the enforcement of non-discrimination and withthe fact that fees which are derived from economic factors may not correspondwith transport policy objectives (i.e. high fees versus an increase of the rail share inthe modal split).

– In the second, probably more realistic approach, the infrastructure user fees areconsidered to be an instrument of transport policy. Their level and the structurevary according to the specific objectives pursued (e.g. changing of modal split, de-veloping regional rail transport). The Netherlands, for example, have abandoned theidea of infrastructure fees in order to increase the competitiveness of rail (until theyear 2000, and not for the Freeways). In Norway, only freight transport has to paythe access fee. Passenger transport is not charged since passenger transport bybus is not subject to diesel excises.

So far, only Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden andthe United Kingdom have explicit charging systems.

Against this background, the Commission intends to propose guidelines on infrastructurecharges and on capacity allocation in the immediate future.

c) The separation of between transport services and infrastructure management is agood example to illustrate differences in the approaches of the Member States:

– The UK and Sweden have introduced a complete separation into two distinct legalentities. A far-reaching policy of deregulation (i.e. an organisational separation ofoperations and infrastructure) is furthermore pursued by Denmark, Finland France,Portugal, and the Netherlands.

– The second approach was to maintain an integrated enterprise but to form distinctbusiness units within it, each with some autonomy and certain financial responsi-bilities (Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Belgium).

– The third approach was to maintain a fully integrated railway with separate ac-counts as taken by Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg.


ECOPLAN

The differences between the national solutions make it difficult to define independently ofa case study the design of the instrument „deregulation in the rail sector“. However,there is some chance that these differences will be smaller in the case of cross-borderintermodal freight transport: The Community of European Railways and the Commis-sion have drawn up the European Rail Freightway concept(12) whose realisation wouldpresent an important step in the direction of a deregulation of the rail sector.

The corresponding study has selected two Study Freightway Corridors from BENELUX toItaly to develop the Freeway concept in a realistic environment:

– Corridor one: Italy (Gioia Tauro, La Spezia, Genova, Milan) - Modane - France (Dijon) -Quevy and/or Thionville / Luxembourg - Belgium (Antwerp)

– Corridor two: Italy (Gioia Tauro, La Spezia, Genova, Milan) - Domodossola and/orChiasso - Switzerland - Basel - Germany (Gremberg) - Emmerich - Netherlands(Rotterdam)

The two core components of the concept are(13)

o the open access for all operators: existing and new railway undertakings can profitfrom the non-discriminatory access rights

o the simplified use of the rail infrastructure: the simplification shall be achieved by– the establishment of One Stop Shops that regulate the non-discriminatory access

to the Freeways and ensure a simple and fast identification and allocation of trainpaths on a „use it or lose it basis“ (no slot trade)

– the definition of simple, attractive and transparent rules for the calculation of in-frastructure user fees (it is proposed that the fees are based on the transparentsummation of tariffs set by each infrastructure manager along a Freeway)

– new ways to guarantee an appropriate priority of freight transport in order toreduce border delays

For the assessment of the effects of the instrument „Deregulation in the rail sector“ wepropose to take the Freeway concept as a starting point because it especially refers tocross-border CT and because it has been described in more details than the „general“deregulation strategy of the Commission. We propose to assume that the MemberStates follow an offensive strategy with regard to the implementation of the Freewayconcept.

b) Effects of the instruments

Due to several reasons, an assessment of the quantitative effects of a deregulation inthe rail sector turns out to be extremely difficult:

12 See CER (1997), European Rail Freightways: Proposal to the Commission (DG-VII) and Commission of

the European Communities (1997), Transeuropean Freeways for Rail Transport.

13 The Freeway concept is described in detail in the documents mentioned in the footnote above. Werenounce on a extensive reproduction of the text of these documents.


ECOPLAN

o The discussion in chapter 3 and in this chapter has shown that a large number ofdifferent, partly opposing effects result from a deregulation in the rail sector like forexample:– lower traction costs because of productivity gains and innovation of specialised

firms (e.g. low-cost rolling stock)– higher frequencies of services if demand increases due to lower cost of CT. This

again would result in lower average waiting times in terminals.– shorter waiting times at national borders and higher temporal reliability because the

co-ordination of timetables is improved by One Stop Shops and because cross-border services are carried out by alliances of closely co-operating actors or by oneactor alone

– higher transaction costs because any deregulation in the sense of the descriptionabove will result in a large number of complex and time-consuming negotiationsand agreements (in the UK, for instance, a typical track access agreement be-tween Railtrack and an operator runs to 100 pages, plus the standard Railtrack Ac-cess conditions which run to a further 104 pages, plus an 38-page annex on therules for resolving dispute(14))

o Some of the effects will take effect immediately (e.g. shorter border delays) whereasothers will only be effective in the medium and longer term (e.g. productivity gainsinduced by the promotion of competition between the different operators).

o From the discussion above it is furthermore obvious that the effects strongly dependon the way the deregulation is implemented and on the starting point in the differ-ent Member States. Thus, the validity of across-countries comparisons is quite lim-ited.

From the literature and the interview programme carried out in STEMM some assess-ments of the potential effects of a deregulation in the sense of the Freeways conceptare available:

o The insights from the interview programme summarised in the section 2.2 „Vision ofintermodal transport in the year 2010“ are the following:

– Adjustment in the production form: The deregulation will lead to more efficientproduction forms in the rail part of CT. Shuttle trains, the Gateway concept(bundling of transport flows in large terminals, re-formation of direct trains servingsmaller terminals) and Hub&Spoke-systems will gain in importance, conventionaltraffic and intermodal services needing shunting operations will lose. Because theshuttle trains operate according to well-defined timetables the temporal reliability ofCT will considerably increase.

– Adjustment in the market structure: It is believed that new actors will enter themarket, especially for services from the sea ports to the hinterland. It is expectedthat the increasing competition will finally lead to a concentration process as ob-served in air transport: The less competitive operators will drop out of the market or

14 Source: Nash C. (1997), The separation of operations from infrastructure in the provision of railway serv-

ices - The British experience, p. 78.


ECOPLAN

only survive in alliances with strong partners. The same applies for the railwaycompanies: The smaller companies will have to co-operate more closely - as theItalian FS or the Swiss SBB will do it - to stand their ground against the big playerslike the Deutsche Bahn AG or the SNCF.

– Specialisation and full range offers: Both tendencies are expected to result froma deregulation of the rail sector. Whereas some firms will offer specialised services(e.g. only traction) others will offer the full range of services. These companies willaim at controlling the whole CT chain and thus offering in direct contacts with thepotential clients door-to-door services on certain axis (axis management by onesingle company or alliance).

To summarise: The increase in competition is expected to lead to a higher quality ofintermodal services (improved reliability, lower damages etc.) and to more market-oriented services. As far as prices are concerned it is believed that the road transportsector will remain the price leader. Accordingly, a decrease of prices in CT is probable(one interviewee mentioned the figure of 2% per year).

o In the study of the CER on European Rail Freightways the following effects havebeen assessed for the two Study Corridors from BENELUX to Italy:– the potential for cutting waiting times at borders: 79% and 62% for southbound

traffic and 31% and 15% for northbound traffic– the potential for an increase of average speed: approx. 20% for southbound traffic

and 4% for northbound traffic– Freeway charges: Early estimates, based on a mix of published and tentative infra-

structure tariffs suggest that the charges (for infrastructure alone) will be approx.20 to 50% of the current intermodal shuttle train prices (for infrastructure and trainoperations).

o An overview of scientific papers in the research project PETS (Pricing EuropeanTransport Systems) shows that most papers predict lower prices and welfare gainsfor the consumers as a consequence of deregulatory reforms.The conclusions of an econometric analysis carried out within the project confirm thisfinding. Unit revenues per passenger-km and train-km are found to be higher (by 13%and 78% respectively for Sweden and the UK) and unit cost per train-km to be lower(by 51%) for countries that have pursued a far-reaching deregulation policy with regardto the separation of operations and infrastructure.(15)

o Based on an analysis of the impact of open access on time delivery and reliability onthe one hand, and of the relation between temporal reliability and the freight rates onthe other hand, Fowkes et al. guess that access rights may be able to lower cost ofintermodal services by 10% as a result of more efficient use of assets.(16)

In the same study, the considerable potential of a better co-operation between the railcarriers to reduce border and network delays is illustrated with the example of the

15 Betancor O. (1997), Deregulation and Pricing, p. 90.

16 See Fowkes A.S. et al. (1998), Potential Effects of the Introduction of Policy Instruments: A Review of theEvidence, p. 24.


ECOPLAN

long holding times at the BR/Eurotunnel/SNCF exchange points at Dollands Moor andFrethun. The example shows the very little time lost in transitting France and the largestoppages at the exchange points. Seamless movement could reduce, or in somecases eliminate, this stoppage time: When suitable locos are accepted for use onroutes from Great Britain terminals through to the Channel Tunnel there will be littleneed for crew and loco changes, and trains could run from the UK hub at Wembley, toFrethun or even further into France without significant delay. Based on the analysis itis concluded that it should be possible to reduce transit times of inter-modal trains byat least 5% of total terminal to terminal times. This would have little effect on trainswithin France, but in would indicate that the transit times of Channel Tunnel freighttrains could be reduced by an average of 13% .Similar reductions may be possible on other corridors but it is more likely that mostborder crossings involve less delay. The best guess of Fowkes et al. from variousdata sources is that cross border traffic could save at least 5% of transit time as aresult of the introduction of seamless movement.

o In an analysis of the potential of combined transport for Austria it is assumed that thederegulation and privatisation in the rail sector could induce efficiency measures re-sulting in cost reductions in the rail part of combined transport of about 10 to 25%.The reductions of the total cost for combined transports of different distances aregiven as follows:(17)

reduction of rail transport distances

traction cost: 100 km 250 km 500 km 750 km 1'000 km

10% 3.8% 4.9% 6.1% 6.8% 10.0%

25% 9.5% 12.3% 15.3% 17.1% 20.4%

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: We propose to assume the following ef-fects of a deregulation of rail transport:– increase of average speed due to reduced border waiting times and improved train

paths planning trough the One Stop Shops– reduction of operating cost because of increase of competition and innovation– increase of reliability because of a better co-ordination between the relevant actors– increase of frequencies of departures due to an increasing demandIf no regional information is available about the extent of the different effects the figuresgiven above can be used as starting points.

We propose to assume first of all positive effects. The case studies should show whatimpacts on intermodality can be expected if deregulation results in a favourable changeof the general set-up for CT. Otherwise, we can’t speak of a policy instrument „for im-proved intermodality“.

17 See TransCare (1995), Strategiekonzept für den Kombinierten Verkehr in Österreich, S. 71. The cost

figures used in this study are based on analysis for Germany and Austria. Note: The figure 10.0%, under1'000 km, on the 10% row must be wrong because it implies that the non-rail share falls to zero!


ECOPLAN

3.3 Adjustments in pricing of transport

3.3.1 Mileage tax

a) Description

The missing internalisation of external costs of road transport was mentioned by severalparticipants of the interview programme. Because any of the external costs of roadfreight transport are quite closely related to the kilometres driven by a vehicle, a differen-tiated kilometre charge (or „mileage tax“) for heavy goods vehicles (HGV) would be avery suitable instrument to internalise the external costs of road freight transport.(18)

The rate of the mileage tax could be differentiated according to several aspects like thetechnology of the vehicles, the local traffic situation (congestion) or the environmentalsituation in the respective area/region - as proposed in the Greenpaper of the Commis-sion on Fair and Efficient Pricing in Transport.

The level of a Europe-wide mileage tax could be based on existing estimates of (marginal)external costs as given in the table below.

Table 3-1: Estimates of external costs of road freight transport, in ECU per1'000 tkm

Accidents Noise Air pollution CO2/others Total

IWW / Infras(19) 22.2 12.7 13.0 10.6 58.4

ECMT Task Force(20) 14.0 8.0 9.1 8.7 39.9

Dienst GVF (21) 6.6 14.4 41.7 - 62.7

The estimates of IWW / Infras and of the ECMT Task Force are Europe-wide averagevalues. There are considerable differences between the figures for the different Europeancountries.(22) The estimates of the Dienst GVF refer to Switzerland.

Keeping in mind these differences, two basic options can be distinguished with regard tothe implementation of a mileage tax:

18 A possible design of a Europe-wide mileage tax for road freight transport is given in ECOPLAN (1995), A

Mileage Tax for European Road Freight Transport.

19 Infras / IWW (1994), Externe Effekte des Verkehrs, p. 205. The estimates correspond to the average of17 European countries.

20 Perkins S. (1997), The Relevance of Valuation Indicators for Pricing Policy, p. 5. The figures are based onestimates of marginal external costs.

21 Estimates for Switzerland, Dienst für Gesamtverkehrsfragen (1993), Grundlagen zur Kostenwahrheit imVerkehr, updated with data of GVF for 1993 published in GVF-News (1995) and ECOPLAN (1996), Mone-tarisierung der verkehrsbedingten externen Gesundheitskosten.

22 In the study of IWW / Infras the range of the total costs per 1'000 tkms reaches from 29.3 ECU (Finland)to 101.7 ECU (France).


ECOPLAN

o Uniform tax rate: In this case, it is assumed that the rate of the mileage tax is thesame throughout Europe. Looking at the estimates of table 3-1 40 ECU per 1'000 tkmcould be used as starting point for the definition of a tax rate per vehicle kilometre(vkm). This tax rate should be differentiated for different weight categories of trucks(i.e. a tax rate per tonne of permissible total weight of the vehicle (ttw) and the kilome-tre driven).The figures in table 3-1 underestimate the external costs of road freight transport be-cause of lack of data for other fields of external costs and the specific methods usedto calculate the external costs. Therefore and also because it is the lowest of thethree estimates given in table 3-1, the tax rate of 40 ECU per 1'000 tkm will representa lower bound of possible rates.

o National tax rates: National tax rates could take into account the differences in theexternal cost estimates between countries. However, For the derivation of the taxrate the same definitions and information are needed on a national level.

A further differentiation of the mileage tax (e.g. according to the technology of the trucksor a higher tax rate for ecologically sensitive regions) is of course possible in both cases.

b) Effects of the instrument

There are three main effects of a differentiated mileage tax:(23)

o Increase of transport costsThe mileage tax increases the transport costs. If the tax rate is defined in ECU/ttwkmthe increase of transport costs differs between the different weight categories oftrucks.

o Adjustments in the composition of the vehicle fleetThe increase of the transport costs will set an incentive for the haulage companies toadjust the composition of the transport fleet. If the tax rate is defined in ECU/ttwkm theaverage financial burden per vehicle kilometre increases the higher the permissible to-tal weight of the vehicle is. The opposite is true if the financial burden per tonne kilo-metre is considered. In this case, the heavy trucks are relatively less affected. Theoverall effect may be a (very limited) tendency towards heavier trucks and light goodsvehicles that do not have to pay the mileage tax.Additional incentives and adjustment effects can be expected if the mileage tax isfurther differentiated (e.g. investments in „cleaner“ trucks if the tax rate is differenti-ated according to the emission abatement technology of the vehicle).

o Increase of the average loadIn order to reduce the increase of the costs caused by the mileage tax haulage com-panies will try to increase the average loading of their vehicles. However, this effect

23 See ECOPLAN (1997). Auswirkungen einer leistungsabhängigen Schwerverkehrsabgabe (LSVA) und der

Ablösung der Gewichtslimite im Strassengüterverkehr, p. 5 ff.


ECOPLAN

must not be overestimated because the very intense competition in the road freightsector already sets strong incentives to exploit possibilities for productivity gains.

Whereas it is very difficult to quantify the second and third effect mentioned above, theorder of magnitude of the increase of transport costs could be derived if the transportcosts of an „average truck“ of the different weight categories were known.

However, considerable differences in the characteristics of the freight transport sectorbetween the different Member States (e.g. size of the firms, taxation of the vehicles,salaries of the drivers) make it very difficult to carry out a sound assessment of the im-pacts of the mileage tax on transport costs and prices for the EU as a whole. For an as-sessment of the effects in the different Member States a more detailed analysis isneeded.In order to estimate the order of magnitude of the price effect on a European level and togenerate „European average figures“ it is inevitable to make rough and simplifying as-sumptions within the models used in about the „average European HGV“.

To give an example: In ECOPLAN (1995) the price increase caused by the mileage hasbeen assessed using the assumptions given in table 3-2 with regard to the average costsper vehicle kilometre.

Table 3-2: Assumptions for the assessment of the impact on transport prices

Parameter, assumption Comments

average costs in ECU/vkm:

veh. cat.: lower cost rate: upper cost rate:3.5 - 12t 1.00 1.2213 - 18t 1.06 1.2919 - 28t 1.10 1.3429 - 40t 1.19 1.46

lowest value of different German and Swiss estimatesof costs in the transport sector(24)

lower cost rate: 10% lower than the estimateupper cost rate: 10% higher than the estimate

market price: 80% of costs reduction due to overcapacities in the road transportsector and to the comparatively high cost level in Ger-many

share of the different categories on total vehiclekilometres:

veh. cat.: % of total vkm3.5 - 12t 10%13 - 18t 45%19 - 28t 25%29 - 40t 20%

derived from several country studies

24 See Kaus P., Bund Deutscher Fernfahrer (1994), Kosteninformationssystem im Strassengüterverkehr, p.

272, Ernst Basler & Partner (1995), Auswirkungen des EWR-Neins auf den Strassengüterverkehr, p. 39und ASTAG (1990), Die Selbstkosten im Werkverkehr.


ECOPLAN

With the assumptions in table 3-3 the impact of the mileage tax on the price of an aver-age vehicle kilometre can be estimated for the different vehicle categories. The results ofthese calculations are given in table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Price increase caused by a mileage tax of 0.012 ECU per ton of per-missible total weight and km (in % of average price per vkm)

category lower cost rate upper cost rate

3.5 - 12t 8.0 % 6.6 %

13 - 18t 17.7 % 14.5 %

19 - 28t 30.1 % 24.6 %

29 - 40t 57.3 % 46.8 %

weighted average of allcategories of HGV

28.6 % 23.4 %

Table 3-3 shows that the relative price increase is higher for heavy trucks than for ratherlight trucks. Two reasons are responsible for this effect:– the design of the mileage tax (tax rate is based on the permissible total weight of the

HGV)– costs per vehicle kilometre increase less than proportional with growing permissible

total weight.

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: The model input are higher costs per kmfor road freight transport. Starting point could be available estimates of external costs,e.g. the 40 ECU / 1'000 tkm mentioned above.

3.3.2 Diesel tax

a) Description

Instead of a taxation of the kilometres driven the fuel use could be the leverage point of aenvironmentally motivated taxation to influence driving behaviour and vehicle buying pat-terns.(25) It could be a tax on the fuel for heavy goods vehicles for instance in the form ofa CO2/energy tax as suggested by the EU Commission in May 1992. The tax rate couldbe differentiated according to the quality of the diesel (e.g. the sulphur content).

Table 3-4 shows that fuel is subject to a number of different taxes. Nevertheless, only ina few countries environmental concerns are reflected in the taxation of fuel. So far, it is

25 For a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of diesel tax in comparison with a mileage tax see

Perkins S. (1997), The Relevance of Valuation Indicators for Pricing Policy, p. 7 - 10 and ECOPLAN (1995),A Mileage Tax for European Road Freight Transport, p. 67 - 72.


ECOPLAN

first of all Sweden that has introduced fuel taxes that explicitly take into account the ex-ternal costs of transport.

In its work the ECMT Task Force on the Social Costs of Transport has developed a pro-posal of a diesel tax whose rate are based on estimates of marginal external costs.(26)

The Task Force took estimates of total and average external costs given in the literatureand tried to derive dynamic, marginal values from them (i.e. marginal values that takeinto account future changes in the external costs due to developments in the vehicle androad technology). Furthermore, the values of the Task Force differ between rural and ur-ban traffic.

In table 3-5, the required level of fuel charges for rural traffic is given if this dynamic ap-proach is followed. Furthermore, it is assumed that only half of the current external acci-dents will be internalised via diesel fuel charges, the other half via adjustments in thevehicle insurance premium.

Table 3-4: Taxation of diesel in OECD-countries (second quarter 1994)(27)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

CH A B D DK E F

GB

GR I

IRE J L N NL P S SF

US

A

CO2- / environmental tax

energy tax

extra charge on low qualitydiesel

special tax

VAT / turnover tax

exise tax

price before tax

ECU / litre

26 For a summary see Perkins S. (1997), The Relevance of Valuation Indicators for Pricing Policy.

27 Source: IEA (1994), Energy Prices and Taxes, second quarter 1994.


ECOPLAN

Table 3-5: Estimates of anticipated average charges in respect of rural traffic forinternalisation through a fuel charge, in ECU / litre(28)

Cost component Passenger car Freight (truck, van)

Petrol Diesel LPG Diesel

Infrastructure

Congestion

Accidents

Climate change

Air pollution

Noise nuisance

Total

Current average inEurope

EU minimum

0.28

-

0.20

0.12

0.02

0.04

0.65

0.48*

0.287*

0.35

-

0.24

0.13

0.03

0.05

0.80

0.32

0.245

0.22

-

0.16

0.08

0.01

0.03

0.51

n.a.

0.24

-

0.10

0.13

0.09

0.06

0.62

0.32

0.245

* = unleaded petrol

As in the case of the mileage tax it can either be assumed that the tax rate is the samethroughout Europe or it differs between the Member States.

If a uniform tax rate is assumed and if there is no mileage tax assumed whose tax levelis also defined with estimates of external costs we propose to start from an additionaldiesel tax of 0.62 ECU/litre diesel as given in table 3-5.

If there is also a mileage tax based on external cost estimates the diesel tax should onlycomprise externalities that are not included in the mileage tax. A useful distinction wouldbe that the diesel tax tackles greenhouse gas emissions whereas the mileage tax theother performance-dependent externalities. We propose to start from the idea of a com-bination of mileage and diesel tax.


The effects of the instrument that are relevant for the model inputs are quite similar tothose of a mileage tax.

The main differences between the two taxes refer to points that are not directly decisivefor the analysis of the impacts on transport flows in the multi-modal models of STEMM.

28 Source: Perkins S. (1997), The Relevance of Valuation Indicators for Pricing Policy, p. 9.


ECOPLAN

Such differences are for example:(29)

– different incentive effects– different differentiation options– differences in the implementation costs

If the same assumptions about the average costs per vehicle kilometre are used as inthe case of the example for a mileage tax above and if plausible assumptions about theaverage fuel use of the different categories of HGV are taken, the average price effect ofa diesel tax can be roughly estimated. The results of such an estimate are given in thetable below.

Table 3-6: Price increase caused by a diesel tax of 0.3 ECU/ l (in % of averageprice per vkm)

category lower cost rate upper cost rate

3.5 - 12t 18.5 % 15.2 %

13 - 18t 20.9 % 17.1 %

19 - 28t 23.1 % 18.9 %

29 - 40t 25.6 % 21.0 %

weighted average of allcategories of HGV

22.2 % 18.2 %

In comparison to the mileage tax the heavy trucks are much less affected. For the lighttrucks the impacts are higher.

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: The model input are higher cost per km.We propose to understand the diesel tax as a complement to a mileage tax for HGVtackling greenhouse gas emissions of road freight transport. If the diesel tax is under-stood like this national or better European proposals of a taxation of CO2-emissions couldbe the base for the definition of the diesel tax.

3.3.3 Fixed charges

a) Description

In general, fixed taxes (like for example the annual vehicle taxes) are not in favour of CT(see section 3.3.5 below). However, there are two types of more or less fixed chargesthat could be used to support CT:

29 Differences that are not relevant for the model input (e.g. implementation costs) are neglected. For a

broader comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of a mileage tax and a diesel tax respectivelysee ECOPLAN (1995), A Mileage Tax for European Road Freight Transport, section 4.4.3).


ECOPLAN

o Vignette for special regions/areas (e.g. the Alps): The basic idea corresponds withthe one of the Eurovignette. HGV using the motorways or other trunk roads of a re-spective region have to buy a vignette. As in the case of the Eurovignette, the periodof validity could reach from one day to one year.If the vignette is designed as an area licensing scheme, i.e. if all roads of the respec-tive region are subject to the vignette, HGV used for intermodal services could be ex-empted from the charge to prevent a deterioration of competitiveness of intermodaltransports starting or ending in the respective region.

o Charges per passage (tunnels, bridges): Each road transport passing the toll pointhas to pay the charge.

In both cases the level of the charge could take into account the uncovered infrastruc-ture costs and external costs.

Furthermore, it could be differentiated according to the emission abatement technologyof the vehicles and/or according to actual traffic and environmental situation (e.g. con-gestion, concentration of air pollutants).


The effects of the two instruments differ:

o In the case of the vignette transport costs increase for all transports using the roadinfrastructure that is subject to the vignette. The resulting cost increase depends onthe design of the vignette system (i.e. the period of validity of the vignette: daily,monthly and annual vignettes), the frequency the respective roads are used and thelengths of the transports.The effects of a vignette can only be assessed if corresponding information and dataare available. A general assessment is not possible but can only be carried out forspecific cases.

o The charges per passage increase the costs for all transports passing the toll point.The extent of the increase in comparison with the total costs of a transport dependson the total length of a transport. The longer the transport, the lower is the resultingcost increase.

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: This kind of regional taxes have to be de-signed within the case studies.


ECOPLAN

3.3.4 Permit systems

a) Description

o Eco point system: The eco points system is based on the idea of tradable permits:Every year a fixed amount of eco points is released. Each transport requires a well-defined number of eco points. The emissions of noise and air pollutants (e.g. CO2,NOx and/or CO) could serve as the basis for the assessment of the number of re-quired eco points: the more noise or pollutants are exhausted by the HGV the moreeco points are needed. In order to achieve a reduction of the emissions the valueequivalent to the total number of eco points for the preceding year is decreased by acertain percentage for the following year. The eco points could be tradable to increasethe efficiency of the system.Looking at the implementation costs an eco point system may first of all be a policyinstrument for certain corridors but not for road transport as a whole.

o Linked rail-road permits: The LRRP-system is also based on the idea of tradablepermits: The number of permits for road freight transports is linked with the demandfor goods transport by rail: Firms using rail for their transports receive tradable permitsfor road transports. The number of permits is linked to the ton-kilometres of the railtransports.(30) The haulage companies can use the permits themselves or can sellthem on a stock exchange to other companies. To assure the functioning of the stockexchange a certain percentage of the permits (e.g. 10%) should be available for trad-ing and therefore sold directly at the stock exchange. At the time of the implementa-tion of the system the total number of the tradable permits must be fixed according tothe amount of ton-kilometres of goods transport by rail and road in the correspondingyear. By keeping the total number of permits constant but raising the ratio betweenrail ton-kilometres and permits for road transports the desired shift from road to railcan be achieved. The ratio of the LRRP-system directly influences the modal split be-tween rail and road transport. Of course it is also possible to differentiate the systemaccording to the emission abatement technology of the vehicles (the "cleaner" the ve-hicle is the lower is the amount of permits required).As in the case of the eco point system, the LRRP-system is rather an instrument forspecific corridors than for the whole road transport system.

A similar approach has been pursued in the Council Directive 92/106/EEC: Article 6enables the Member State to grant a vehicle tax relief for vehicles used in intermodalservices. The Member States may set a flat rate for the tax relief or may determinethat tax relief depends on the extent rail is used (for the further discussion of vehicletax relieves see section 3.5 below).

30 A similar system is introduced in Austria: German haulage companies using certain services of com-

bined transport (e.g. the "Rollende Landstrasse" Regensburg - Vienna) get additional permits for importand export transports with Austria (Source: VKS (1995), VKS Handbuch des internationalen Stras-sengüterverkehrs, p. A-2).


ECOPLAN


The effects first of all depend on the amount of permits in the case of the eco point sys-tem and on the ratio in the case of the LRRP-system. Additional effects are caused bythe differentiation of the systems (e.g. incentives to use HGV with advanced emissionabatement technology if less eco points are used for cleaner HGV).

Analysis carried out on and after a meeting with the modelling expert of the STEMMproject team(31) has shown that the modelling of permit systems seems to be very diffi-cult, at least in the case of the model developed by MDS-Transmodal, due to the follow-ing reasons:

– eco point system: the effects of the system would have to be translated in changes inthe productivity of the haulage firms

– linked rail-road permits: it seems to be impossible to derive model inputs because themodel cannot identify the HGV using/not using intermodal services

Furthermore, permit systems do not correspond with the Common Transport Policy andthe freight transport policy outlined in the Greenpaper of the Commission. There is a con-flict between the „price-oriented“, internalisation/charging approach of the CTP and the„quantity-oriented“ approach of the eco point system: In the first approach the main ob-jective is to make road users pay social costs whereas in the case of the eco point sys-tem a certain emission reduction target has to be met. A combination of both approachesdoesn’t make sense.(32)

Conclusions on behalf of the case study: Against this background we don’t recom-mend a modelling of a permit system in the case studies but leave it up to the casestudy leaders to decide.

3.3.5 Adjustments in the vehicle taxation

a) Description

The annual kilometre performance of trucks used for pick up and delivery in CT is muchlower than for HGV used for long-distance transport: Whereas in long-distance transportan annual mileage of 130'000 km is a normal performance, trucks operating on short dis-

31 Meeting held in Leeds on 12th June 1996. At the meeting a preliminary list of possible policy instru-

ments for improved intermodality was discussed. The main objective of the meeting to identify thosetypes of policy instruments which can be handled with the transport models developed in STEMM andwhich not.

32 For a more detailed discussion of the two approaches and the combination options see ECOPLAN(1996), The economic effects of including external costs of road freight transport into infrastructure usercharges: a case study for the Alps, p. 37 ff.


ECOPLAN

tances (e.g. for CT) drive about five times less kilometres a year.(33) Accordingly, the im-pact of the vehicle taxation strongly differs between the two types of transport. An an-nual vehicle tax of 1’500 ECU, for example, results in costs of about 0.012 ECU/km and0.06 ECU/km respectively.The current taxation structure for HGV is one reason why the share of the fixed costsamounts to more than 70% in the case of vehicles used for delivery and pick-up opera-tions in CT but only to about 50% in the case of vehicles used for long-distance roadtransports.(34)

Thus, any adjustment of the taxation structure in the direction of a decrease of the an-nual vehicle tax - or of the time-dependent Eurovignette - and of an introduction or in-crease of performance-related taxes (e.g. mileage or diesel tax) would be in favour of CT.

Two different possibilities of an adjustment of the vehicle taxation could be distinguishedfor the assessment of the impact on CT:

o Option 1: In the sense of a short-term step one could assume that the reduction ofthe vehicle tax only applies to vehicles used in CT. The Council Directive92/106/EEC explicitly enables the Member State to exempt these vehicles from thenational vehicle taxes. A recent overview of the Commission has shown that onlyGermany, France, Italy and Austria have granted tax relieves with some practical im-pact. In the other Member States no action has been taken or the effects have beennegligible. Accordingly, the overall effect on CT has been insignificant.(35)

o Option 2: It could be assumed that a decrease of the annual vehicle taxes is anaccompanying measure to the introduction of a mileage tax (see section 3.3.1) orto the increase of the diesel tax (see section 3.3.2).In this case, the reduction of the vehicle tax could aim at a financial compensation infavour of the road haulage companies for the introduction of a mileage tax or of an in-crease of the diesel tax. The extent the vehicle tax is reduced then directly dependson the level of the mileage and of the diesel tax respectively. The revenues from themileage or diesel tax proposals given in the sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 would by far belarge enough to compensate for a complete removal of the vehicle tax. Therefore, theextent of the reduction of the annual vehicle tax can be chosen rather arbitrarily in thecase studies (e.g. a reduction by 20% as a lower bound and a reduction of 50% as anupper bound).

33 Source: Rothengatter W. (1997), Liberalisation and Structural Reform in the Freight Transport Sector in

Europe, p. 22.

34 See TransCare (1996), Rationalisierungspotentiale im Vor- und Nachlauf zum Kombinierten Verkehr, p.19.

35 See Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1997), Bericht der Kommission an den Rat über dieAnwendung der Richtlinie 92/106 des Rates vom 7. Dezember 1992 über die Festlegung gemeinsamerRegeln für bestimmte Beförderungen im kombinierten Verkehr zwischen Mitgliedstaaten in den Jahren1993 bis 1995, p. 4 ff.


ECOPLAN


The effects of an adjustment of the taxation structure as described above would stronglydiffer between the European countries because of the different tax levels throughoutEurope. The table below shows these differences for a HGV of a total weight of 40 t.

Table 3-7: The vehicle tax for a 40 t HGV in different European countries in 1995,in ECU p.a.(36)

- 500 1'000 1'500 2'000 2'500 3'000

AU

B

DK

SF

F

D

GR

IRE

I

LUX

NL

P

E

S

UK

ECU / year

country

Looking at the figures given in table 3-7 it is obvious that even in the case of Austria -with the highest vehicle tax in Europe - the share of the vehicle tax on the total cost pervehicle kilometre is rather low, i.e. less than 2% for a 40 t HGV. Thus, a reduction of thevehicle tax by 50% would result only in a modest decrease of road transport prices.In the case of vehicles used for CT the effect on transport costs and prices would besomewhat higher in relative terms (i.e. in percent) and considerably higher in absoluteterms (i.e. ECU per km).

In its strategic concept for combined transport in Austria, TransCare gives an estimate ofthe cost effects if the vehicle tax and other existing time-dependent taxes (e.g. theEurovignette) are replaced by distance-dependent road user charges at a level of 2 ATS

36 Source: UIRR (1996), stated in Rothengatter W. (1997), Liberalisation and Structural Reform in the

Freight Transport Sector in Europe, p. 23.


ECOPLAN

(0.144 ECU) and 4 ATS (0.288 ECU) per vehicle kilometre.(37) The resulting cost changesfor road and for CT are summarised in the table below.

transport distances

road user charge 100 km 250 km 500 km 750 km 1'000 km

road transport, 2 ATS -2.3% 6.7% 11.0% 14.4% 14.4%

road transport, 4 ATS 9.2% 19.6% 25.5% 31.6% 30.8%

intermodal, 2 ATS -3.5% -2.8% -2.2% -1.8% -1.4%

intermodal, 4 ATS -1.7% -1.4% -1.1% -0.9% -0.7%

The results illustrate the benefit that results for CT from a replacement of more or lessfixed taxes with distance-dependent road user charges. In the case of road transportonly short transports (i.e. 100 km) profit from the adjustment.

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: The instrument should only be taken intoaccount as accompanying measure of the introduction of distance-dependent charges -otherwise road transport would benefit from the tax relief. Due to the fact that vehicletaxation is fundamentally a national task we propose that the extent a the tax reductionis decided within the case studies.

3.3.6 Subsidisation of intermodal transport services

a) Description

Financial restrictions were underlined in the UK based survey as most important barriersfor improved intermodality. Nevertheless, even the respondents of this survey wereagainst subsidies for multi-modal systems as, with the exception of short term „priming“to reduce start risks in starting new services, they tend to be discriminatory.This attitude has been confirmed in the two other surveys: The recommendation was toact with restraint in the subsidisation of C because the justification of subsidies is limitedand because they cause undesirable distortions. Furthermore, it has been shown thatthere are different and more or less useful types of subsidies. These considerationsshould be taken into account in the assessment of the effects of instruments in the casestudies.For the analysis of the impacts of a subsidisation of CT a concrete description of thesubsidies is needed. A suitable base for the definition of possible subsidies for CT is thenew PACT Programme(38) that has been approved by the Commission on 24th July 1996.

37 See TransCare (1995), Strategiekonzept für den Kombinierten Verkehr in Österreich, p. 70.

38 PACT = Pilot Actions of Combined Transport.


ECOPLAN

The Commission proposes that the following actions in favour of CT could be subsidisedwith public funds:(39)

o feasibility studies for specific pilot axis (e.g. new links to Eastern European coun-tries)

o innovational measures concerning the following points:– investments in intermodal rolling stocks (provided that the rolling stock will at least

be used during five years on the respective axis)– investments in transhipment equipment for all modes– participation in the cost of the access to the rail and inland waterway infrastructure– commercial use of techniques, technologies and devices that have been tested and

approved in a EU research programme– measures in the fields of logistics, education and advertising of the PACT actions

The objective of the financial aid is to support specific CT projects in their initial phase.Accordingly, a time limit for the financial aid is recommended as well as a periodical con-trolling.

General contributions to uncovered operating costs of intermodal operators or railwaycompanies are not provided in the proposal. Thus, the main features of the PACT pro-gramme proposal of the Commission comply with the conditions under which the expertsand actors of CT included in the interview programme see subsidies positive.This kind of subsidisation could be justified by the fact that external costs of road trans-port are not internalised. The argument also found in the surveys runs as follows: Thesubsidies by lowering the prices in intermodal transport compensate the missing inter-nalisation in road transport which also results in the too low prices.

Another form of subsidies in favour of CT, the public financing of infrastructure projects,is implicitly treated in section 3.5.1 „Extension and improvement of the infrastructure forintermodal transport“ because most of the larger infrastructure projects can only be re-alised if they receive contributions from the public treasury.


The effect of the different types of subsidies first of all depends on the specific projectand on the amount of the subsidies. The financial aid of the Community is limited to 50%of the project cost in the case of the feasibility studies and to 30% in the case of theinnovational measures. Further contributions may be offered by the Member States.

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: Project specific subsidies can only be de-signed within the case studies. Here, recommendations are given with regard to moregeneral subsidisation scheme. Three different types of subsidies could be tested:

39 See Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1996), Mitteilung der Kommission über ein Aktion-

sprogramm zur Förderung des kombinierten Verkehrs.


ECOPLAN

– subsidies to reduce operating cost of intermodal services (e.g. subsidisation of trac-tion cost in the case of rail-based intermodal services)

– subsidies to reduce of track use cost for intermodal services– subsidisation of intermodal terminals resulting in lower cost for the mode changeIn all cases, the drawbacks of subsidisation mentioned above should be taken into ac-count in the assessment of the instrument.

3.4 Regulations and enforcement

This chapter deals with different types of regulations in the road freight transport that canbe designed - and / or enforced - more or less in favour of CT. From the point of view ofimproved intermodality technical regulations (i.e. the weight and the dimensions of thevehicles, see section 3.4.1) and regulations about the use of the HGV (i.e. social regula-tions, speed limits, driving bans, see section 3.4.2) are in the centre of interest.The starting point for the discussion is given in table 3-8. It contains an overview of thesituation in the Member States, Norway and in Switzerland with regard to some of themost relevant and not yet harmonised regulations.(40)

Table 3-8: Important regulations in freight transport in the Member States,Norway and Switzerland(41)

max. totalweight for

HGV(42)

special regula-

tions for CT(43)temporal driving

bans (44)special regula-tions for CT

speed limits in

km/h(45)

A 38 t 39 t with CT-trailers, 42 t withcontainers andswap bodies

Saturdays: 15.00 -24.00, Sundays0.00 - 22.00

and summer restr.

no ban within aradius of max. 65km to defined CTterminals

60 and 70

B 44 t - - - 60 / 90

40 Social regulations concerning driving/rest hours are not stated in table 4-8. All Member States (and Nor-

way) have adopted the respective regulations at EU level for international road transport in 1985 (CouncilRegulation (EEC) No 3820/85). In some countries (e.g. the Netherlands) the national regulations arestricter than at EU level.Also in the case of the dimensions of HGV (e.g. the length of the vehicles) a harmonisation has beenachieved with the introduction of the Council Directive 85/3/EEC.

41 Source: VKS (1997), VKS-Handbuch des internationalen Strassengüterverkehrs and draft Directive of theCommission on lorry bans (COM 98/115) as given in a supplement to „transport europe“ - March 1998of the europe information service (eis).

42 The weight limit given in the table normally refers to a vehicle with 5 axles. Exceptions are stated.

43 The special regulations normally refer to intermodal transports with 40’ ISO containers.

44 The regulations for the Sundays also apply to official public holidays.

45 The first figure shows the speed limits on roads out of built-up areas, the second on motorways or simi-lar trunk roads. The figures refer to heavy truck trailers. In many countries the speed limits are higher forarticulated lorries (first of all on roads out of built-up areas) and lower for transports of dangerous goods.In some countries the speed limits are even differentiated according to the technology of the trucks.


ECOPLAN

max. Total

weight for HGV

special regula-

tions for CT

temporal driving

bans

special regula-

tions for CT

speed limits in

km/h

D 40 t 44 t, within aradius of 150 kmfrom an CT termi-nal

0.00 - 22.00 onSundays

no ban within aradius of max. 200km from/to an CTterminal

60 / 80

DK 48 t* - no (exception:

Copenhagen at

night)

- 50 / 70

E 40 t 44 t no, regional bans

are possible

- 70 / 80

F 40 t 44 t Saturday 22.00 to

Sunday 22.00

- 60 - 80 / 90

GR 40 t 44 t - - 70 / 80

I 44 t - 08.00 - 22.00 and

07.00 - 24.00

(summer) on

Sundays, further

bans at defined

dates

shorter ban for

international CT

via terminal Ve-

rona

70 / 80

IRL 40 t 44 t** - - 56 / 96

L 44 t - for transit only:

from Saturday

21.30 (direction F)

and 23.30

(direction D) to

Sunday 21.45

no ban for CT

to/from Germany,

max. 200 km

to/from a terminal

75 / 90

NL max. 50 t*** - - - 60 / 80

P 40 t 44 t Saturday 15.00 -

22.00, Sunday

07.00 - 24.00 on

certain roads

- 70 / 80

FIN 40 t 44 t - - 80 / 80

S 60 t*** - - - 80 / 80

UK 38 t 44 t** (containers,

swap bodies piggy-

back)

- - 64 / 80 - 96

N max. 50 t*** - - - 60

CH 28 t 44 t to/from de-fined CT terminals(containers andswap bodies),radius 30 km

Sunday 0.00 -24.00, at night22.00 - 05.00

- 60 / 80

* = vehicle with 6 axles, ** = refers to combined transport rail / road*** = the total weight depends on factors like the total axle weight, the distance between the axles etc.


ECOPLAN

3.4.1 Technical regulations and enforcement

a) Description

Different policy measures and strategies in favour of CT can be summarised under this„policy instrument“:

o Lower total weight for HGV: The weight limit of 28 t for HGV in Switzerland is con-sidered to be the most important reason why the share of rail and CT on total transal-pine freight transport is that high on the Swiss corridors in comparison to the corridorsin France and Austria.We propose to renounce an assessment of the effects of this policy measure in fa-vour of CT. It is, in our view, unthinkable that the total weight of trucks will be reducedin the European Union. Looking at the current transport policy debate, for CT it is veryimportant that the permissible total weight for HGV is not raised generally - as pro-posed by the Commission but not accepted by the Council - but only for those trucksthat are used for CT (see the next point).

o Higher total weight for HGV used for intermodal services: Table 3-8 shows that inseveral European countries the permissible total weight for HGV used for pick-up anddelivery operations in intermodal services is higher than for „normal“ HGV. The differ-ence more than compensates the disadvantage for CT resulting from the fact that thetare weight of trucks used for intermodal transports is higher than of „normal“ trucks.

o Enforcement of existing weight limits: A considerable percentage of the HGV areoverloaded. On transit routes in Tyrol, for example, this is the case for about 13% ofall HGV with a total weight of more than 4 t.(46) The non-compliance with existingregulations leads to a distortion of competition between road and rail / CT in favour ofroad transport.

A further „policy measure“ that, however, cannot be modelled is the stability of regula-tions. As mentioned in section 3.3 of annex A, frequently changing regulations concern-ing the dimensions of HGV and trailers make investment decisions in CT more difficultand more risky. A freight transport policy in favour of CT should aim at a certain stabilityof the most relevant regulations (no increase of the length of trailers and the total weightof HGV).


Changes in the permissible total weight directly affect the productivity of the transportmode considered. A higher permissible total weight increases the net weight loaded andthus the transport performance per vehicle kilometre. In a competitive market lowertransport prices will result from the productivity increase.

46 Source: T&E (1995), Combined Transport - Ways towards a European Network, p. 59.


ECOPLAN

The effect of different weight limits on productivity and costs of road transport are con-siderable. To illustrate, an assessment of the effect of an increase of the weight limit inSwitzerland from 28 t to 40 t has yield for inland transport the results given in table 3-9.

Table 3-9: Productivity effect and transport cost reductions of an increase ofthe permissible total weight for HGV from 28 t to 40 t in Switzerlandfor different types of goods(47)

NST/R-Chapter of goods productivity effect cost effect

0 agriculture, wood, raw materials 28% -20%

1 other foodstuffs and fodder 27% -17%

2 solid mineral fuels 22% -11%

3 crude petroleum, petr. Products 35% -20%

4 ores, (iron+steel) waste 34% -23%

5 metal products 26% -14%

6 building materials 32% -22%

7 fertilisers 36% -22%

8 chemical products, paper pulp 29% -18%

9 vehicles, machinery, other products 27% -14%

all goods categories 29% -18%

For a similar assessment of the effects of an increased permissible total weight for HGVused in intermodal services, for example from 40t to 44t, information is needed about thechange of the average weight of an „average“ intermodal consignment. The increase ofthe average weight will of course be substantially lower than 4 tonnes because for manyintermodal transports - like for road transports - not the weight of the freight but ratherthe volume is the limiting factor, i.e. they „cube-out“ before they „weight out“.

Without these information an assessment of the cost effects is not possible. However,looking at table 3-8 one can assume that the effects of a Europe-wide introduction of ahigher permissible total weight for intermodal HGV would be rather limited because anumber of countries have already realised this measure in favour of CT. In any case, thehigher permissible total weight should not only refer to CT with 40’ ISO container but alsoto CT with swap bodies, „trailer-trains“.

So far, good reasons have been found for higher weight limits for HGV using intermodalservices. However, there is also a potential drawback as the example stated in the UKbased survey (see page 11 of annex C): The derogation in the UK, which allows themaximum weight of a HGV of 44 tonnes gross vehicle weight (GVW) when engaged onmulti-modal operations as compared to the normal 38 tonnes GVW, was criticised bymany respondents, especially shipping companies but also rail operators. One managing 47 Source: ECOPLAN (1997), Auswirkungen der leistungsabhängigen Schwerverkehrsabgabe und der

Ablösung der Gewichtslimite im Strassengüterverkehr, p. 37.


ECOPLAN

director described the derogation as “ill conceived and discriminatory”. His justificationfor the former was that it was ill-conceived because its purpose was said to give envi-ronmental benefits, by favouring multi-modal, whereas in practice it had led to many in-stances of lorries travelling long distances to rail terminals instead of the nearest port,which was the route formerly taken. In some cases, classic rail wagon load traffic be-tween private sidings had been switched to the intermodal rail service, with a road jour-ney at each end.

A stricter enforcement of the weight limits would, all other conditions left unchanged,result in a lower productivity for road transport. For an assessment of the productivityeffect again information must be available or assumptions must be made in the casestudies about the change of the average total weight of an „average“ truck.

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: It proposed to implement only a stricterenforcement of the existing weight limits resulting in a lower average weight of thetruckload. The higher GVW for HGV used in intermodal transport is already realised inalmost all EU Member States.If no information is available about the violation of weight limits in the respective region orcorridor, transparent assumptions have to be made.

3.4.2 Social regulations and enforcement

a) Description

Starting from table 3-8 a number of specific measures can be identified under this „policyinstrument“:

o Bans for HGV on Sundays and at night: Looking at the situation in Europe given intable 3-8 two options for possible policy measures can be made out:– extension of the existing driving bans on Sundays to further countries– introduction of driving bans at night, e.g. on certain corridors

o Better enforcement of the regulations on driving/resting hours: The regulationson driving and resting limit the distance of road transports that can be covered withjust one driver within a certain time period. Beyond this „critical“ distance the regula-tions result in an increase of road transport cost (see under letter b) below).It seems that under the competitive pressure in the road transport market singledriver operations on international corridors with uninterrupted driving for far longer thanallowed have become more frequent in the recent years. A recent survey of theCommission has shown that a better enforcement of the existing social regulations(48)

could contribute substantially to an improvement of road safety and to an increase of

48 Defined in the Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85.


ECOPLAN

fair competition in road haulage(49) - but also between the different modes. In the lastyears, an increase of non-compliance with the social regulations has been found.However, this evidence has at least partly been caused by the increase of control ac-tivities. Control activities for checking the regulations differ throughout Europe: Itseems that the control activities in France, the UK, the Scandinavian countries, Ger-many, Switzerland and Austria are stricter than in other countries.(50)

o Better enforcement of speed limits: It is common knowledge that the speed actu-ally driven by HGV often exceeds the speed limits given in table 3-8.In Austria, for example, the average speed of HGV on motorways is 83 km/h and 15%of the lorries drive faster than 94 km/h. An average speed of 77 km/h would corre-spond with the actual speed limits of 80 km/h for articulated trucks and 70 km/h fortruck trailers.(51)

The improved enforcement could either be based on more frequent control or a stricteruse of the speed-limiting device according to the Council Directive 92/6/EEC.


Driving bans can substantially improve the situation of CT in the competition with roadtransport. For road transports from Italy to Spain and back to Italy, for example, depar-tures after Wednesday are very unattractive because the French driving ban on Sundaysprevents a return trip in the same week and the weekend has to be spent in Spain. Nightdriving bans would improve the competitiveness of CT especially on routes than can becovered by rail in a one night-trip because these trips couldn’t be offered by road trans-port anymore.A Europe-wide driving ban for HGV on Sundays and first of all at night would result in alarge reduction of the capacity of the existing road infrastructure. Without substantialextensions and/or other countermeasures the congestion problem would sharply in-crease.The Commission does not share the view that lorry driving bans can contribute in a de-sirable way to an increase of intermodality and proposes a harmonisation of the drivingbans. In its draft Directive on lorry bans (52) it is stated that „the available evidence sug-gests that the (partial) removal of weekend driving restrictions would have negligible im-pact on total heavy goods vehicles movements. In the TAFT survey other evidence hasbeen found (see page 53 of annex A).

49 See Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1997), Bericht der Kommission über die Durchfüh-

rung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3820/85 über die Harmonisierung bestimmter Sozialvorschriften imStrassenverkehr im Zeitraum 1993-1994.

50 Rothengatter W. (1997), Liberalisation and Structural Reform in the Freight Transport Sector in Europe,p. 25.

51 Source: Knoflacher H., Schopf J.M. and Spiegel T. (1991, quoted in T&E (1995), Combined Transport -Ways towards a European Network, p. 59.

52 See European Commission (1998), Draft Directive of the Commission on lorry bans (COM 98/115) asgiven in a supplement to „transport europe“ - March 1998 of the europe information service (eis), p. 5.


ECOPLAN

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: Looking at the very low political chance ofthe latter, the lack of information about the effects and the problems of implementation inthe transport models which have been recognised in a project meeting we propose torenounce a further analysis of this policy measure in the case studies.

The effects of the regulations on driving and resting hours can best be shown on anexample: If a transport exceeds the distance of approximately 600 km the respectivehaulage company has five different options to handle with the limits set up by the regula-tions on driving and resting hours:(53)

– It can ignore the regulations and go the entire distance with one driver and only shortbreaks from driving. This solution is the least costly one (unless a fine has to be paid).

– It can carry out the transport with two drivers. This solution would practically doublethe personnel expenses which form an important part of the total cost per vehiclekilometre.

– It can comply with the regulations and interrupt the trip during the entire rest period ofthe driver. This solution results in a decrease of transport speed and of the vehiclefleet circulation. Both effects increase the cost of road transport.

– It can arrange a change of the driver en route. This solution is difficult to organise andonly works on corridors that are often used by the respective haulage company.

– It can switch from road transport to CT if there is an intermodal link at all.

A better enforcement of the speed limits would result in a lower average speed and ina lower reach of road transports with just one driver. Both effects improve the situationof CT in the competition with road transport.

There are some quantitative assessments available about the possible effects ofstricter enforcement of existing regulations:

o In a report prepared for the European Commission(54) it is assessed that a restrictionof the maximum speed to 90 km/h leads to– a reduction in fuel consumption and thus fuel costs of about 6%– an increase in the driving time (loaded and unloaded) of about 8%– an increase of the allowances of the drivers of 4% to 8% (depending on the level of

wages and expenses in the different Member States)

o According to TransCare, a reduction of the average speed of road freight transport by30% (caused for example by „no passing“ rules on motorways or stricter speed limitsand their enforcement respectively) would result in increases of transport costs forroad transport and CT as shown in the following table:(55)

53 Source: UIRR (1996), quoted in Rothengatter W. (1997), Liberalisation and Structural Reform in the

Freight Transport Sector in Europe, p. 24.

54 NEA (1997), Road Freight Transport, p. 100 f.

55 See TransCare (1995), Strategiekonzept für den Kombinierten Verkehr in Österreich, p. 67.


ECOPLAN

transport distances

transport mode 100 km 250 km 500 km 750 km 1'000 km

road transport 16.2% 15.0% 4.5% 21.3% 16.3%

intermodal 2.8% 2.3% 1.8% 1.4% 1.1%

In the same study the cost effects of a stricter enforcement of the existing socialregulations. The figures below show the changes in total transport cost that result ifthe driver ignores the existing social regulations („min. breaks“). The second line con-tains an assessment of the cost effect of the use of a second driver.

transport distances

100 km 250 km 500 km 750 km 1'000 km

min. breaks - -8.0% -4.5% -1.2% -17.6%

second driver - - - 25.1% 1.2%

o The European University Institute estimates that road transport cost would increaseby about 25% if all existing regulations (weight limits, social regulations and techni-cal standards) were actually met.(56)

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: A better enforcement of speed limitsshould be implemented. If no regional information is available about violation of existingspeed limits through road freight transport the figures given above can serve as startingpoints.The same applies for the better enforcement of social regulations. If it turns out to beimpossible to implement this policy measure directly within in the model the effects oncost as given above can be used.

3.5 Further instruments

3.5.1 Extension and improvement of the infrastructure for intermodaltransport

a) Description

Chapter 2 has shown that– in general the existing rail infrastructure does not hinder CT in its development but that

there are specific bottlenecks (e.g. capacity of transalpine crossings)– there are bottlenecks in the terminal and port structure in some parts of Europe

56 European University Institute (1992), quoted in Hey Ch. Et al. (1992), Dead End Road, p. 105.


ECOPLAN

These bottlenecks must be identified in the case studies. A general recommendationwith regard to an extension of intermodal infrastructure is impossible.


The effect is of course an extension of the capacity for CT due to different factors like– additional train paths, sea routes– higher speed– higher capacities of existing ports/terminals, new ports/terminals– lower waiting time in ports/terminalsetc.

The extension of the capacity will most probably lead to a higher productivity of CT.Whether and to what extent the productivity increase results in lower prices for CTstrongly depends on the way the extension of the infrastructure is financed.

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: Useful extensions of the intermodal infra-structure should be identified and integrated in the transport models. The extension andimprovement should affect the parameters mentioned above - if this is the case in thereal world (i.e. speed, capacity, length of links (the base tunnels through the Alps, for ex-ample, would result in considerably shorter rail links), effect on operating cost).

3.5.2 Improvements in the logistic performance

a) Description

Section 3.2 has dealt with possible improvements in the rail part of the CT chain causedby a deregulation strategy in the rail sector. In this section improvements in the otherparts of the chain are in the centre of interest, i.e. improvements in– the terminal organisation and management (administration, logistics)– the supply of additional services– the terminal hauls– the pre- and end-haul with road vehicles– the delivery and pick-up by train to and from smaller terminals/goods stations and

large firms with private sidings respectively

There is a large number of individual measures that can be taken first of all by the termi-nal operators and the forwarding and haulage companies to realise improvements in the


ECOPLAN

fields mentioned above (see also section 5.1 in annex A).(57) The relevance of the meas-ures stated below of course strongly differs between different terminals.

o terminal organisation and management

– higher efficiency in the handling of transport documents (e.g. better use of elec-tronic data processing, one central dispatch counter for the drivers at the entranceof the terminal for the handling of the documents)

– optimisation of the internal logistic chains (delivery by HGV, storage, loading oftrains)

– better spatial separation of different processes/functions within the terminals (i.e.loading/unloading and shunting)

– extension of the working hours

– multifunctional use of the terminal staff

o additional services within the terminals

– terminals as intermediate stores

– fast repair services, HGV maintenance services

– access to information and communication systems

– catering services, accommodation

o terminal hauls

– automatisation of terminal hauls

– replacement of old transhipment equipment

o pre- and end-haul with trucks

– optimisation of the employment of the HGV

– analysis of potential efficiency gains with the customer (e.g. price differentiation toreduce the peak load problem, price discount for reduced waiting times at the rampdue to a faster loading/unloading of the HGV)

– setting up of regional and neutral trucking-organisations

– taxi service of intermodal HGV

o delivery and pick-up by rail

– introduction of new types of trains like the CargoSprinter

– introduction of the automated coupling to reduce the time needed for shunting op-erations (e.g. Train-Coupling and -Sharing TCS)

– introduction of small and flexible transhipment techniques to enable a loading andunloading of intermodal units outside of terminals

57 For a detailed description of different options see for example TransCare (1996), Rationalisierungspo-

tentiale im Vor- und Nachlauf zum Kombinierten Verkehr.


ECOPLAN

Though the main efforts are required from the terminal operators and from forwardingcompanies there are also possibilities for the public authorities to contribute to the im-provements mentioned above:

– financial support of corresponding research and demonstration projects

– organisation of information exchange

– adjustments in the road infrastructure to improve the terminal access


The main effects of the measures are the following:

– lower time spent in the terminals

– reduction of the running time for delivery and pick-up trips

– reduction of the time needed for loading and unloading (at the customer)

– lower administrative costs

– lower costs for terminal lifts

– positive effect on reliability of intermodal transport services

According to the results of the interview programme and to the literature the potential forefficiency gains and therefore cost reductions is big:

o At the beginning of the nineties experts claimed that only 25% of the potential techni-cal capacity of terminals has been utilised.(58)

o At the symposium „Die Stellung kombinierter Verkehre Strasse/Schiene in geschlos-senen logistischen Ketten“ („The position of combined road/rail transports in the logis-tic chains“) of the „Deutsche Verkehrswissenschaftliche Gesellschaft“ a cost reduc-tion potential of 20 - 50% has been estimated. In the case of terminal hauls, for exam-ple, a target value of 15 DEM per haul (approx. 7.6 ECU) has been mentioned. Today,the costs per haul are on average clearly higher than 30 DM.(59)

o In a comprehensive analysis of the potentials for rationalisation in the pre- and end-haul as well as in terminal operations the following cost reductions have been calcu-lated for different types of CT:(60)

– container transport, delivery / pick-up 50 km to/from the terminal: 21% - 30%– container transport, delivery / pick-up 25 km to/from the terminal: 50% - 59%– swap body transport, delivery / pick-up 50 km to/from the terminal: 27% - 38%

58 See ECMT (1993), Possibilities and limitations of combined transport, p. 16.

59 See Arndt E.-H. (1997), Nicht „gotische Kathedralen“sind gefragt, sondern preiswerte Terminals, p. 326.

60 TransCare (1996), Rationalisierungspotentiale im Vor- und Nachlauf zum Kombinierten Verkehr, p. 26 ff.


ECOPLAN

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: Improvements in the logistic performanceresulting in lower cost for terminal activities should be implemented. If no regional infor-mation about the potential cost savings is available the figures given above can serve asstarting points.

3.5.3 Improvements in the information and communication systems

a) Description

The evaluation of the interview programme in chapter 2 and in the annexes has shownthat improvements in the information and communication systems are necessary for thefuture development of CT, less in the case of ship-based than in the case of rail-basedintermodal transport. It also made clear that this is a „now-issue“ or at least „short-term-issue“. Intermodal operators undertake considerable efforts to take profit from the pos-sibilities offered by the developments in the information and communication technolo-gies.These efforts refer for example to

– Internet-based information systems (timetables, prices, transport times, contact per-sons)

– computerised on-line reservation and booking systems

– real-time information concerning the localisation of goods

– communication between the actors involved in a door-to-door service

With the deregulation and the increase of competition in rail freight transport advancedinformation and communication systems will be one potential source to achieve competi-tive advantages. Improvements in this field will be a necessary condition for each opera-tor to remain in the market. The deregulated air transport market has proofed that theoperators develop and introduce customer-oriented systems if the general set-up is de-signed in a corresponding way.

Our conclusion therefore is:

– if there is a deregulation in the rail sector as described in section 4.2 and

– looking at the recent developments and on-going efforts of the intermodal operatorsand railway companies

we see little need for additional action by the public authorities beside a continuation andextension of the financial or organisational support of research and demonstration proj-ects as well as information exchange activities in this field. The PACT programme (seealso section 3.3.6), the 4th and 5th Framework Programme, the Task Force Intermodalityand the realisation of a European network of universities and institutes working on inter-modality (INTERACT) are - among further activities - suitable platforms at EU level .


ECOPLAN


Improvements in the information and communication systems first of all increase theservice quality but may also affect the productivity of CT. A modelling of improvementsin this field of CT would require that resulting cost decreases can be estimated.

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: We do not deny the importance of meas-ures to improve the use of advanced information and communication technology in CT.However, large efforts are currently made and will - at least in our view - soon result insteps ahead. Against this background and with regard to the modelling difficulties wepropose to renounce implementing this policy measure in the case studies.

3.5.4 Technical interoperability

a) Description

One result of the interview programme was that the existing interoperability problems ofcourse hinder the development of cross-border CT but do not represent one of the majorbarriers. It has been recognised that corresponding organisational measures could con-siderably reduce the consequences of the missing interoperability (e.g. changing of theengine and driver at national borders).

Nevertheless, it should remain a long-term objective to achieve as complete interoper-ability as possible with regard to– the railway infrastructure and equipment and– the railway staff.

At EU level different initiatives have been taken to reduce the interoperability problem,like for example the following:

– the Directive of the Council on the interoperability of the European network for highspeed trains

– the intention of the Commission to extend in close co-operation with the railways andthe industry the adjustment process from the high speed trains to conventional trains.

– the intention to develop European standards for railways, urban railways and tramsconcerning the rolling stock, components of the infrastructure etc. First results areplanned for the year 1998.(61)

61 See Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1996), Weissbuch - Eine Strategie zur Revitalis-

ierung der Eisenbahn in der Gemeinschaft, p. 29.


ECOPLAN


Two major effects can be distinguished:– reduction of border delays– price reductions because of an increase of competition in the locomotive and rolling

stock industry and because larger series of engines and wagons could be produced.

Conclusions on behalf of the case studies: The conclusions are similar to the ones insection 3.5.3: The importance of further improvement of the interoperability of networks,units and so on is not denied, ongoing efforts are supported. We therefore and becauseof foreseeable modelling difficulties propose to renounce analysing the effects of reducedinteroperability problems within the transport models applied in the case studies.


ECOPLAN

3.6 Conclusions

The main objective of chapter 3 has been to provide a major input for the different casestudies of the STEMM project, namely to describe in a general form possible instrumentsfor improved intermodality that are to be tested in the case studies.

This input is summarised in the table below.

Table 3-10: Summary of possible policy instruments for improved intermodality

Instrument Key words Implementation options

Deregulation in the rail sector (section 3.2)

Revitalisation of Euro-pean railways, Freight-ways Concept

non-discriminatory open access to infra-structure, track user charges, train pathsplanning and allocation by One Stop Shops

– increase of average speed

– reduction of operating cost,

– increase of reliability

– increase of frequency of departures

Adjustments in pricing of transport (section 3.3)

– Mileage tax distance-dependent tax for HGV increase of road haulage cost per kilometre,Europe-wide (or national) external cost esti-mates as basis for the definition of the taxrate

– Diesel tax increase of tax on diesel increase of variable cost of road haulage,designed as a Europe-wide - or national -CO2-tax on fuels

– Fixed charges vignettes for special regions, charges perpassage of corridors/regions

increase of passage cost, to be defined inthe regional context

– Permit systems eco points, linked rail-road permits not recommended for implementation andtesting in the case studies

– Adjustment in thevehicle taxation

lowering of fixed taxes as accompanyingmeasure to the introduction of a mileage tax

lowering of standing cost of HGV, extent oftax reduction to be decided in the casestudies

– Subsidisation ofintermodal services

subsidisation justified by a missing internali-sation of external cost in road transport andby transport policy goals

subsidies to reduce operating cost, trackuser cost, terminal handling cost, form andextent of subsidisation to be decided in thecase studies


ECOPLAN

Instrument Key words Implementation options

Regulations and enforcement (section 3.4)

– Weight limits better enforcement of existing limits, morefrequent controls

lower average net weight of truckload,assumptions to be made in the case studies,some information given above

– Social regulations better enforcement of regulations of drivingand rest time

decrease of average driving time of lorrydrivers, assumptions to be made in the casestudies, some information given above

– Speed limits better enforcement of existing speed limits,installation of devices limiting top speed.

decrease of average speed of HGV, assump-tions to be made in the case studies, someinformation given above

– Driving bans extension of Sunday and night driving bans not recommended for implementation andtesting in the case studies

Further instruments (section 3.5)

– Extension of infra-structure

extension and improvement of rail network,terminals, ports

to be defined in the regional context, affectscapacity, speed, operating cost, length oflinks

– Improvement in thelogistic performance

measures to be taken by the intermodaloperators (e.g. terminal management andorganisation)

due to differences in the in the initial situa-tion to be decided in the case studies, someinformation given above

– Improvement in theinformation andcommunication sys-tems

Internet-based booking systems, localisationof goods etc.

not recommended for implementation andtesting in the case studies

– Technical interoper-ability

reducing interoperability problems of net-works etc.

not recommended for implementation andtesting in the case studies

The table should be understood as proposals on behalf of the case studies. It is up to thecase study leaders to chose and design the instruments taking into account the casestudy specific conditions.

Annex A: Results of the Interviews with Actors and Experts of TAFT A - 1

ECOPLAN

Annex A:

Barriers to Development and Use of Multi-Modal Chains

Results of the Interviews with Actors and

Experts of Transalpine Freight Transport

(TAFT)

Carried out by:

ECOPLAN Economic and Environmental Studies

– Stefan Suter

– René Neuenschwander

A - 2 Annex A: Results of the Interviews with Actors and Experts of TAFT

ECOPLAN

Table of contents:

1 Introduction.............................................................................. A - 3

2 General assessment of today’s intermodal transport:The main shortcomings......................................................... A - 4

3 Infrastructure, rolling stock and intermodal units............ A - 73.1 Bottlenecks in the rail infrastructure ................................................................A - 7

3.2 Bottlenecks in today’s terminal structure......................................................A - 12

3.3 Shortcomings of the rolling stock...................................................................A - 17

3.4 Shortcomings of the intermodal units ............................................................A - 21

4 Technical interoperability.................................................... A - 234.1 Standardisation of intermodal units................................................................A - 23

4.2 Interoperability of networks............................................................................A - 25

4.3 Interoperability of transhipment techniques...................................................A - 28

5 Logistic performance and concepts, information andcommunication systems..................................................... A - 305.1 Logistic performance in terminals ..................................................................A - 30

5.2 Information and communication.....................................................................A - 32

6 Network management: Co-operation of the railwaycompanies .............................................................................. A - 356.1 Co-ordination of timetables and availability of attractive train paths ............A - 35

6.2 Direct trains versus mixed trains ...................................................................A - 38

6.3 Access to infrastructure.................................................................................A - 40

7 Organisational and institutional issues............................ A - 427.1 Co-operation between the actors of intermodal transport.............................A - 42

7.2 Competition between the actors of intermodal transport..............................A - 45

8 Pricing and price structure .................................................. A - 488.1 Price structure in intermodal transport...........................................................A - 48

8.2 Policy measures to influence prices in the transport sector .........................A - 53

9 Conclusions............................................................................ A - 57

Questionnaire................................................................................ A - 59


ECOPLAN

1 Introduction

In this annex A the results of the interview programme carried out with actors and ex-perts of transalpine freight transport are summarised. The interviews have been hold insummer 1997 based on a written questionnaire. The majority of the interviews wereface-to-face interviews, the rest has been carried out over the telephone. This meth-odology allowed to discuss the barriers for improved intermodality in much detail.(62)

During the same period of time the work within the COST action 328 „Integrated Strate-gic Networks in Europe“ was carried out. Within this action the Working Group Transal-pine Freight Transport (WG TAFT) looked at the actors, strategies and interlinkages intransalpine combined transport(63) starting from the following research questions:

– Which are the most relevant actors at the supply side of the combined TAFT-market?What is their function and strategic behaviour?

– What are the interfaces and how did they change within the liberalisation process?What are the strengths and weaknesses of the collaboration networks, especially in atransnational point of view?

– Which are the success factors for improved network synergies? Which policy implica-tions can be derived?

At least the third field of research corresponds to a large part to the content of workpackage 7 of the STEMM project. Furthermore, the researchers of the COST project alsointended to interview experts and actors of TAFT. Therefore and because both teamswanted to avoid that the same persons had been contacted twice the interview pro-grammes have been carried out in a co-ordinated way. The researchers of the COSTproject used their own questionnaire. The STEMM questionnaire was sent to them forinformation and co-ordination purposes.

The list of interviewees below covers both programmes. It shows that the sample com-prises all main actors involved in CT as well as some well recognised experts:(64)

Intermodal operators: CEMAT (I), Mr. P. Piccazzo and Mrs. F. Cataldi, commercialand marketing director

HUPAC (CH), Mr. T. Allemann, executive manager

Intercontainer (CH), Mr. Pinoli, marketing director, memberof the management (COST 328)

Kombiverkehr (D), Mr. W. Maywald, executive manager(COST 328)

NOVATRANS (F), Mr. P. Peyrard, in charge of studies

62 For each interview, detailed minutes have been produced.

63 See Infras (1997), Transalpine Combined Transport - Actors, Strategies and Interlinkages: An OverviewPaper, COST 328 ISINE, WG TAFT, Zürich.

64 The following actors were also contacted but could not participate in the interview programme: DBCargo, Bertschi AG, Spedition - Internationale Transporte


ECOPLAN

ÖKOMBI (AU), Mr. E. Possegger, marketing and productdevelopment

Railway operator: Schweizerische Bundesbahnen SBB, Mr. K. Zgraggen (headof the department for resources and partnerships) and Mr.F. Jäger (section infrastructure and service concepts)

Forwarding companies: Danzas AG, Mr. G. Lurati, vice executive manager, Euro-pean full load transport

Hangartner AG, Mr. K. Hangartner, executive manager andproprietor

Ambrogio SpA, Mr. L. Ambrogio, executive manager

Industry Migros, Mr. H. Kuhn, vice executive manager, head of thelogistics and transport department

Experts: Studiengesellschaft für den kombinierten Verkehr, Mr. Ch.Seidelmann, executive board member (COST 328)

European Centre for Infrastructure Studies, Mr. S. Bukold(COST 328)

Mr. B. Stone, chairman of COST 328

Working Group Combined Transport Switzerland, Mr. R.Meier, project co-ordinator administration of the Canton ofBern

With regard to the different functions and interests of the respondents it is no surprisethat their opinions about existing barriers for improved intermodality partly widely vary.These differences also appear when the interviewees express their view why in generalCT is not used more frequently, i.e. what the main shortcomings of today’s intermo-dal services are. The results of this general assessment are summarised in chapter 2.

The assessment of the different barriers that cause the shortcomings identified in chap-ter 2, is given in the six subsequent chapters, each of them covering a specific type ofbarrier:

– In chapter 3 we look at the question of bottlenecks in the infrastructure (terminals,rail infrastructure) and of potential shortcomings of the rolling stock and intermodalunits.

– Chapter 4 deals with interoperability problems.

– Logistics, information and communication systems are discussed in chapter 5.

– In chapter 6 the focus lays on aspects of the network management.

– Organisational and institutional aspects are the subject of chapter 7. A specialfocus is laid on competition and co-ordination issues.

– Chapter 8 finally looks at prices and pricing structure in intermodal transport and intransport in general.

– The conclusions of the discussion of the barriers are drawn in chapter 9.


ECOPLAN

The discussion in the different chapters follows three steps:

a) The first step consists of a very brief description of barriers for improved intermo-dality as given in the literature. The questions asked to the interviewees have been de-rived from this literature survey.(65) The questions are summarised in this first step.

b) The assessment of the potential barriers by the interviewees is subject matter of thesecond step:

b1) First, the significance the interviewees assign to each barrier is shown. In orderto answer the question whether a specific barrier is at present a rather impor-tant or rather unimportant obstacle for a higher productivity and therefore highercompetitiveness of CT, the interviewees made their rating by putting a tick in thecorresponding box of the scheme given below.In the chapters 3 to 8 the results of the interviews are presented in the followingway: The darker a box is shaded the more interviewees ticked off the corre-sponding box.(66) Furthermore, we show the average value of the ratings.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

b2) Subsequently, we summarise the main arguments and opinions to each bar-rier brought up in the interviews.

c) Based on the results of the steps 1 and 2 we draw our conclusions which will be aninput for the discussion of instruments for improved intermodality.

65 The main sources used for the literature survey were the following:

- Kearney A.T. (1989), Studie über die Perspektiven eines europäischen Netzes des kombiniertenVerkehrs

- ECMT (1993), Possibilities and Limitations of Combined Transport- Nijkamp P. et al. (1994), Missing Transport Networks in Europe- TransCare (1995), Strategiekonzept für den Kombinierten Verkehr in Österreich- T&E (1995), Combined Transport - Ways towards a European network- ECIS (1995), The Crisis of European Combined Transport- ECMT (1995), Combined Transport- Bukold S. (1996), Kombinierter Verkehr Schiene / Strasse in Europa- Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1996), Mitteilung der Kommission über ein Aktions-

programm zur Förderung des kombinierten Verkehrs- Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1996), Weissbuch - Eine Strategie zur Revitalis-

ierung der Eisenbahn in der Gemeinschaft- TransCare (1996), Rationalisierungspotentiale im Vor- und Nachlauf zum Kombinierten Verkehr- Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1997), Intermodalität und intermodaler

Güterverkehr in der Europäischen Union- European Commission, DG Transport (ed.) (1997), Smart intermodal European transport- Internationales Verkehrswesen (1997), Schwerpunkt Kombinierter Verkehr- CER (1997), European Rail Freightways: Proposal to the European Commission (DG-VII)

66 We have used this form of presentation because it allows a very easy readable visualization of the ans-wers. Because some of the respondents did not fill in all the boxes the total of answers given variesbetween the boxes. This quantitative evaluation (i.e. b1) does not comprise the actors and experts inter-viewed in the frame of the COST action because another questionnaire has been used. In the qualitativeevaluation (i.e. b2) they are of course included.


ECOPLAN

2 General assessment of today’s intermodaltransport: The main shortcomings

The use of intermodal services depends on the way the industry and forwarding compa-nies assess the possibilities and the performance of intermodal transport (CT). Transportusers that are faced with the choice of road or rail transport run through a step-by-stepdecision making process. Figure 2-1 shows the steps and the most relevant decisioncriteria of each step.

Figure 2-1: Mode choice decision process of forwarding companies (67)

Available transport options:- conventional rail transport (wagon load, WL) - intermodal transport (CT)- road transport (RT)

Quality criteria like:- reliability- frequency of departures- time needed for the whole transport- time of departure and arrival- transport information- service quality- safety

Characteristic features ofthe performance

Price-performance ratio(value for money)

1

2

3

Steps

WL CT RT

decisive

have aneffect on

Comments to figure 2-1:

– In a first step the forwarding company has to decide which transport modes can onprinciple meet the requirements of the shipper for a special transport. This decisionstrongly depends on the quality criteria of the different transport modes and will differaccording to the goods that have to be transported.

– Once the transport mode alternatives that are on principle available are defined, theprice-performance ratio determines the mode choice.

67 Source: Transcare und Studiengesellschaft für den Kombinierten Verkehr e.V. (1995), Strategiekonzept

für den Kombinierten Verkehr in Österreich, p. 60.


ECOPLAN

– If this ratio is quite similar for different transport modes, quality criteria again affectthe final mode choice.

In the interview programme the interviewees involved were asked to make an assess-ment of the most important quality criteria in order to answer the question, why intermo-dal services are not used more frequently. To do so, the interviewees could allocate inthe table below a total of 100 points to indicate (by the highest number) those fieldswhere the main shortcomings of international CT are seen.


max.score

averagescore

o transport speed, travel time 25 7.9

o size of transport units (flexibility with regard to transport volumes) 10 2.3

o payload of transport units 10 1.2

o temporal reliability (guarantee of meeting deadlines, i.e. availability of goodsand units in time at the destination terminal)

30 16.9

o safety of goods (avoidance of damages, loss and theft) 25 4.4

o transport prices 50 31.1

o fair price structure and transparency of price structure 12.5 3.3

o extension of network (covering of space by the network, good integration ofthe terminals in the road network)

10 3.1

o spatial flexibility (door-to-door services throughout Europe) 7.5 1.4

o temporal flexibility (flexible departure time, business hours of terminals,quick access to goods after the arrival of the train)

25 6.4

o communication and information (location of freight, on-line and real-timecommunication)

20 8.1

o others: mentioned by individual interviewees

– lack of customer / market orientation of railway companies 50 5.6**

– future infrastructure limits 50 5.6**

– missing supply (services), too many actors to get in touch with, too littleco-ordination*

25 2.8**

Total 100

* = mentioned in the context of inland CT

** = only mentioned by one respondent, i.e. the figures are not averages in the literally sense


ECOPLAN

Comments to table 2-2:

o The assessment of the interviewees that the (too) high prices and the insufficientreliability are the two major shortcomings of today’s CT corresponds with the resultsof similar studies.

o Behind the transport prices and the reliability, the low average speed of freight trainsand shortcomings in the field „communication and information“ got rather highscores.

o There is only one shortcoming, i.e. the temporal reliability, that all interviewees con-sider to be a relevant shortcoming of CT. Or in other words, to each other shortcomingat least one interviewee has allocated zero points - which indicates that the short-coming is unimportant in his view. It is quite surprising that this is even the case forthe prices of CT.

o The ranges between the maximum and the minimum number of points (reliability = 7,all others = 0) show that there are considerable differences in the assessment.These can partly be explained with the different fields of activity of the intervieweesthat result in differing view points of a specific shortcoming.


ECOPLAN

3 Infrastructure, rolling stock and intermodalunits

3.1 Bottlenecks in the rail infrastructure

a) Description of the barrier

The rail network connecting the important economic areas of Europe - and first of allthese areas are relevant for international CT - is in general well developed. If bottlenecksexist they are often caused by one of the following factors:

o National perspective in the network planning: To a large extent, the rail network inEurope is the result of national rail infrastructure planning. Rail infrastructure pro-grammes have often been developed and implemented in a segmented way, eachcountry just looking for its own solution without keeping an eye on the synergetic ef-fects of a co-ordinated proceeding. As a consequence, cross-border infrastructure israther underdeveloped and therefore many of the bottlenecks identified refer to cross-border connections.(68)

o Natural barriers: Natural barriers like the Alps and sea crossings are another poten-tial source for infrastructure bottlenecks. Because of the high costs (for example oftunnels or bridges) often only a limited number of links is realised. The resulting strongconcentration of the transport flows may lead to congestion problems.

o Use of the existing infrastructure: In many cases it is not the infrastructure itself(i.e. through limits in the maximum train length/weight determined by the gradient, thebend radius and/or the power supply or low profiles (or clearance gauges) on certainsections of a whole corridor) that causes the bottlenecks but the way the infrastruc-ture is used. In this context, two points are especially important for the capacities be-ing available to rail freight transport:

– the capacity reducing effect of the different speed of passenger and freight trains(if the two have to use the same track)

– the higher priority that is normally attached to passenger in comparison to freighttransport when available train paths are allocated

In the chapters 4 and 6 these issues will be discussed in detail.

Against this background the interviewees were asked to identify

– important missing links in the European rail network - if there are any at all

– frequently overburdened rail links („hot spots“)

68 See for example Nijkamp P. et al. (1994), Missing Transport Networks in Europe, p. 47.


ECOPLAN

b) Assessment: Results of the interview programme

b1) Significance of the barrier „bottlenecks in the rail infrastructure“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5.6

The rather varying assessment can be explained by the fact that the interviewees con-sidered different specific links in their field of activity (e.g. Novatrans stressing the over-burdened network of the Parisian region). The average value of 5.6 points reveals thatbottlenecks in the rail infrastructure are not seen as one of the major barriers for im-proved intermodality.

b2) Arguments and opinions

The main three arguments brought up in the interviews concerning bottlenecks in the railinfrastructure are the following:

o In general, no missing links have been identified with the exception of the insufficientextension of the infrastructure for rail traffic to Eastern European countries.

o In most cases the capacity of the existing network seems to be sufficient to meet thecurrent and future demand. However, some frequently overburdened pinch pointshave been identified:

– Some sections of the Brenner route (e.g. the lower Inntal) are used to capacity.On this route the number of the remaining free train paths is very limited (6 trainpaths per day) and will not allow for a significantly higher number of trains passingthe Brenner. One infrastructure bottleneck on the Southern part of the Brennerroute, a tunnel with an insufficient profile, should be removed in 1999. It was alsoassumed that a better allocation of the train paths could reduce the capacity prob-lem at the Brenner route.

– The Semmering crossing is a bottleneck for transit traffic from Italy to EasternEurope: Its profile is only 3.60 metres and the tonnage of trains passing this route islimited to 700t.

– On the Gotthard route - like in the case of the Brenner Route - free attractive trainpaths for CT (e.g. within the time period 7 p.m. to midnight for northbound traffic)seem to have become short.

– In the Parisian area large commuter flows limit the possibilities to introduce addi-tional rail services to and from terminals within this area.

– Further bottlenecks mentioned are the following: Spanish border (interoperabilityproblem caused by the different Spanish gauge), Modane (congested), the routefrom the Ruhrgebiet to Basle, the ferries for the traffic to Scandinavia and ingeneral the route Italy - UK (and vice versa).


ECOPLAN

o In the case of some transalpine rail corridors it is not the availability of train paths thatlimits the capacity but differences in the maximum train lengths and weights oncertain sections of one corridor. An example is the current situation on theLötschberg-corridor:– Swiss part of the corridor: 700m and approx. 1'750 t

– Italian part of the corridor: 550m and 1'200 t(69)

o The main concern of the interviewees expressed in the interviews does not refer tothe current situation but to the future development. If CT keeps growing, alreadynow severe capacity problems on important connections are foreseeable. There aresome doubts whether the necessary political decisions about the extension of rail in-frastructure will be taken in a sufficiently fast way to successfully cope with thegrowing transport volumes. The reason for this shortcoming is seen in the lack of awell-defined and long-term oriented rail strategy in many European countries and atthe European level.It is even feared that this situation might help along the future development of roadinfrastructure instead of rail infrastructure. The argument goes as follows: Once thecapacity limits for freight transport have become sufficiently pressing, politicians willfavour solutions that will improve the situation as soon as possible. It is believed thatthe realisation of rail infrastructure projects is still more time-consuming than for ex-ample the completion of a new motorway link.

c) Conclusions

So far, the capacity of the existing rail infrastructure has not been a major barrier for im-proved intermodality in freight transport. However, the situation on certain links will con-siderably change with any further substantial growth of rail transport.

Against this background and overlooking the results of the interviews three main fieldscan be identified in which policy instruments and strategies should have an effect:

o They should contribute to a more efficient use of the existing infrastructure re-sulting in an increase of the rail infrastructure capacity.

o At least on some selected routes, the priority attached to international freighttrains should be increased in the allocation process of available train paths.

o They should ensure that the future development of rail infrastructure is embedded ininternationally co-ordinated and long-term oriented rail strategy allowing theplanning and the realisation of projects within useful time periods.

69 The maximum train length has been reduced from 600m to 550m when a new electronic signalling

system was introduced. It will most probably be re-increased because the reduction was the conse-quence of a rashness in the planning.


ECOPLAN

3.2 Bottlenecks in today’s terminal structure


In a review of the current terminal structure two partly interconnected aspects are nor-mally in the centre of interest: the size and the number of terminals (density). The as-sessment of today’s terminal structure concentrates on these two points. The servicesoffered within the terminals are subject of chapter 5.

o Size of the terminals:As shown in chapter 2, the range of different terminal sizes (measured in loading unitsper year) is very large. Mega-terminals like for example the Roland-Terminal in Bremenor Hamburg-Billwerder have a capacity of several hundred-thousand units a year,whereas in small terminals only a very few units are on-/off-loaded per day. In the dis-cussion on terminal sizes the following arguments play an important part:

– The very large terminals have become under pressure because of the (too) highfixed costs per lift. These costs can only be covered if the very high volumes theterminals are designed to are achieved. This was not often the case in the lastyears.

– In the planning and conception of new terminals the potential intermodal transportvolume in the catchment area of the terminal has to be taken into account in astronger way than so far.

– New terminals should be located in the neighbourhood of large traffic generatorslike large forwarding companies and industrial plants. The terminal operators shouldtry to come to some kind of „self-commitments“ concerning future intermodaltransport volumes with these „local matadors“.

– Developments in the transhipment technologies resulting in substantially lower in-vestment costs and therefore costs per lift will make medium-sized and smallterminals more attractive, first of all as useful completion to larger terminals. Thelarger terminals are of course still necessary to bundle the transport flows to set upblock and shuttle trains.

o Density of the terminal network:In many European countries (e.g. Italy, Germany) the planning of the terminal networkwas somehow similar to the planning of the railway stations. The idea - first of all suc-cessfully promoted by politicians looking for the interest of „their“ regions - was to re-alise an exhaustive network of small and medium-sized terminals to realise some kindof „basic terminal supply“. This kind of „political“ planning was by no means suffi-ciently market-oriented and resulted in a rather inefficient production system in CT(e.g. too many shunting and/or reloading operations before the wagon and/or the unithas arrived at its destination).In the last 20 years countermeasures have been taken to come to a stronger bundlingof the transport flows allowing for more block- and shuttle-trains, i.e. those productionforms where rail has its advantages.


ECOPLAN

In the late eighties, there were significant differences in the use of the existing terminalcapacities in the European countries. Whereas the situation in Germany was very deli-cate, other countries still showed substantial capacity reserves (see figure 3-1). Capacitybottlenecks were identified for the following terminals:(70)

Germany: Munich, Cologne, Mannheim, Neuss, Wuppertal, Ulm

Italy: Busto Arsizio, Milano Rogoredo, Verona, Novara

Other countries: Basle, Antwerp

Figure 3-1: Non-used share of total terminal capacities in selected Europeancountries in the late eighties

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

other countries

Denmark

United Kingdom

Belgium

Austria

Netherlands

France

Germany

criti

cal s

ituat

ion

share of non-used capacities > 50%

Against this background the interviewees were asked to answer the following questionswith regard to their field of activity:

– Are there obvious bottlenecks in the location of terminals?

– Is the density of terminals too low, just right or too high?

– What is missing: large, medium-sized or small terminals? Does the terminal structurecorrespond with the needs of the market?

– If there are bottlenecks: what are the reasons (e.g. financing problems)?

70 Source: Kearney A.T. (1989), Studie über die Perspektiven eines europäischen Netzes des kombinierten

Verkehrs.


ECOPLAN


b1) Significance of the barrier „bottlenecks in the terminal structure“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4.9

In the view of the majority of the responding interviewees the existing terminal structuredoes not represent a relevant obstacle for the development of today’s CT. The averagescore of 4.9 is significantly lower than for other shortcomings. The rather high scores of 7points refer to specific actual situations or to future perspectives of certain terminals(e.g. very limited extension possibilities of terminals located in urban areas).

b2) Arguments and opinions

Only a very limited number of specific bottlenecks concerning the terminal structurehave been identified:

o An important bottleneck for transalpine CT is the terminal structure in Lombardia andespecially in the urban area of Milan. Beside the HUPAC terminal in Busto Arsiziothere is no other terminal for CT with a sufficiently high performance. The existingrather small terminals are located in central areas of the city of Milan and thereforeface serious congestion problems in the pre- and end-haul, i.e. the delivery and pick-upwith road vehicles. The disadvantages of this situation are obvious:

– The promising Gateway concept (bundling of transport flows in large terminals, re-formation of direct trains serving smaller terminals) can only be realised in BustoArsizio. If the transport flows to the different small terminals could be concentratedin another medium-sized or large intermodal terminal, an extension of the Gatewayconcept would be possible.

– The forwarding companies involved in CT have to be present in each of the differentterminals though the transport volume per terminal is rather low. A concentration ofthe transport flows to fewer terminals would result in economies of scale in theadministration of the transports.

o Further bottlenecks mentioned by the interviewees: The terminal Noisy-le-Sec inParis (is often congested) and the unsatisfactory situation in Oslo.

In more or less correspondence with the analysis in the literature the interviewees em-phasized the following shortcomings of today’s terminal structure and terminal planning:

o The reduction of the „political“ influence on the terminal planning is of vital inter-est for CT. Whereas politicians advocate the point of view „terminals first“, a usefulplanning of terminals should base on the guiding principle „traffic first“, i.e. terminalsshould be located close to large traffic generators (business parks, industrial sites).


ECOPLAN

In Germany, the Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Strasse (DUSS) is respon-sible for the planning of terminals with regard to the location and capacity of the ter-minals and the services offered within the terminal.(71) Terminals are only subsidisedwith public funds if the DUSS supports the corresponding concept. Among expertsthis kind of planning is considered to be a successful approach because it sets acounterpart to the „political“ planning of the terminal location.

o In the eyes of a majority of the interviewees the current terminal network in West-ern Europe with about 160 rail-road terminals is too dense. Too many small terminalsare operated. The transport volume per rail transport to and from a terminal should notfall below a certain lower limit (e.g. 10 wagons or 5 wagons per trip in the case of thecargo sprinter). Otherwise, the costs for rail traction to and from the terminal becometoo high.

Small terminals are not only a problem with regard to the rail traction costs but alsowith regard to the road pre- and end-haul. In too small terminals the „critical“ transportvolume for an efficient organisation of the pre- and end-haul is not achieved. The cor-responding trucks are by far not used to capacity. The result are high costs in this partof the CT chain (see also section 8.1).

The terminal network operated by Intercontainer has been mentioned as an illustrativeexample of this problem: Intercontainer serves about 1'600 stations and terminals inall Europe. However, 90 stations and terminals manage 80% of the total transportvolume.

o Terminals should be planned and realised in a way that their capacities (terminal area,transhipment capacity) can be adjusted to the demand for intermodal services asflexibly as possible. The provision of large capacities that are not used at present butmay be used in the future is considered to be a too risky strategy. If the planning andrealisation of terminals lives up to this guiding principle it is not very likely that furthervery big terminals will be built. The future rather belongs to medium-sized, flexible ter-minals that are well capable for development.

At present, the possibilities of development widely vary between the existing termi-nals and goods stations. Whereas some dispose of large areas that lie fallow, for oth-ers the development options are unfavourable (e.g. because of opposition of the localpopulation against additional truck traffic or very limited land reserves). A general as-sessment of the situation throughout Europe is not possible.

o Before additional terminal capacities are provided more efforts should be undertakento use the existing capacities more efficiently. The main objective should be tosmooth out the sometimes extreme peak loads in the terminal use. Some terminalsare more or less unoccupied during 80% of the operating hours.

71 Beside the terminal planning, the DUSS is also operator of 5 terminals, defines quality standards for all

terminals in Germany and evaluates the operators of terminals that are not run by the DB AG. The DUSSis owned by DB, Transfracht and Kombiverkehr, i.e. actors of intermodal transport.


ECOPLAN

c) Conclusions

The conclusions are very similar to those in section 3.1 because the current terminalstructure does not seem to be an important obstacle for the development of CT.

Accordingly, policy measures should first of all have an effect in the following fields:

o Existing terminals

– adjustments in the terminal structure to the market needs (e.g. reduce the numberof terminals called at)

– improvements in the operating of terminals

o Planning and realisation of new terminals

– wider consideration of regional/local potential for intermodal transports, less politi-cal influence

– more flexibility to adjust the terminal capacity to a changing demand (modular de-sign of the terminals)

– take into account land-use planning (accessibility from the road network, not in theneighbourhood of residential areas)


ECOPLAN

3.3 Shortcomings of the rolling stock


Railway companies have developed together with their suppliers wagons that first of allmeet their own national requirements, however in compliance with the standards definedby the UIC. Beside the railway companies, the piggyback companies and Intercontainermade and still make large investments in the rolling stock of CT. Whereas the wagons ofIntercontainer are some kind of „European type“, the uniformity of the wagons of thepiggyback companies is rather low.

Though the realisation of wagon pools between the relevant actors of CT has improvedthe situation, it is sometimes argued that the different ownership and the technical diver-sity of the wagons hinder the efficient use of the intermodal rolling stock and can there-fore be considered as a barrier for improved intermodality.

Accordingly, the following questions have been asked to the interviewees:

– Is there a shortage of rolling stock for intermodal transports and, if yes, what are thereasons?

– Is the flexibility of the use of the wagons sufficiently high (e.g. for different types ofintermodal units)?

– Is the existing rolling stock still the limiting factor with regard to travel speed?

– Is there enough international co-operation in the development of new wagons for in-termodal services?

– Is the development of an automated coupling still a relevant issue?


b1) Significance of the barrier „shortcomings of the rolling stock“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4.1

Only a few interviewees see in the rolling stock a relevant barrier for improved intermo-dality. They explain their rather high score of 7 or 8 points first of all by the problem of thefrequent changes in the intermodal unit dimensions calling for additional investments inthe rolling stock.

b2) Arguments and opinions:

There is no shortage of intermodal wagons in the sense that the railway companies andintermodal operators haven’t available a sufficiently large wagon fleet. The possibility torent wagons, the emergence of wagon pools between some of the intermodal actors and


ECOPLAN

finally the comparatively limited production costs and short procurement time allow foradjustments to a changing transport demand.

The existing difficulties rather refer to the following points than to the mere availability ofintermodal wagons:

o Insufficient fleet managementSome experts hold the opinion that - as a result of the protected rail market - first of allrailway companies dispose of too many wagons which lowers the incentive for an ef-ficient fleet management and can result in situations where the responsible depart-ment does not even know where the wagons actually are. The fact that the wagons ofprivate intermodal operators (e.g. Ambrogio, Bertschi) and also UIRR-companies (e.g.HUPAC, ÖKOMBI) have the much higher annual kilometre performance than thewagons of the national railway companies or their subsidiary companies - in the inter-views a ratio of 4:1 has been mentioned - seems to support this reproach.

o Suitable mix of wagonsSo far, the intermodal wagon being capable to carry all the different intermodal unitshas not or only very recently been developed (see the example of the MEGA-wagon ofHUPAC mentioned below). Accordingly, the better the wagon mix goes with the mix ofintermodal units to be transported, the higher is the rate of utilisation of the train ca-pacity.

o High percentage of old wagonsLike the rail rolling stock in general, the intermodal wagons can be used for a long time(about 25 years). Therefore, a large part of the wagon fleet in use are old wagons.Whereas from a financial point of view the use of old wagons is interesting becausethe wagons are fully depreciated, these wagons also have serious drawbacks:

– they have a high dead weight

– they are too noisy

– they are unsuitable for new intermodal units (see next point)

Altogether one may rather speak of a shortage of new wagons than of a generalshortage.

o Changing dimensions and standards of intermodal unitsNew developments concerning the intermodal units can directly affect the wagontechniques. To give some examples:

– With the emergence of high cube containers, the intermodal operators had to intro-duce a lower wagon to avoid profile problems.

– A similar problem cropped up with the increase of the maximum overall length oftruck trailers in the EU. On certain older wagons the intermodal units of the newtrailers could not be loaded anymore, or only one instead of two units. Because thepotential users of intermodal services wanted to take profit from the increase ofthe loading capacity of the longer units, the choice of the intermodal operators waseither to lose clients or to invest in new wagons.


ECOPLAN

– If the total weight of trucks were increased within the EU from 40t to 44t manywagons of the „Rolling Motorway“ could not be used anymore. Safety reasonslimit the maximum weight to 42t.

Because of differences in the service life of wagons (up to 25 years) and intermodalunits or trucks (about 5 years) intermodal operators have a strong interest that thedimensions of the units remain unchanged for a certain time period - or at least be-come predictable. This would make investment decisions easier and allow for a longerand therefore more profitable use of the wagons in CT. It is obvious that the truckbuilding industry is much more in favour of changing dimensions resulting in an addi-tional demand for new vehicles.

o Development of new wagonsAt first sight, the diversity of intermodal wagons may call for more or stricter regula-tions by the UIC. However, the development of innovative wagon concepts is onepossibility for intermodal operators to achieve advantages in the competition withother operators and with road transport.The development of the MEGA-wagon of HUPAC is an illustrative example of thispossibility. This wagon with a substantially lower loading area is capable to transporttrailers as well as swap bodies and containers.A rather free competition between the operators and the renunciation of unnecessaryregulations have a stimulating effect on the rolling stock industry. Examples fromthe USA show that intermodal wagons could be much cheaper (one expert mentioneda cost-ratio of 3:1 between Europe and the USA).Though many interviewees emphasize the potential of technical developments theyfirst of all refer it to improvements of the existing concepts and not to „more so-phisticated“ solutions, like for example bi-modal transport systems („roadrailer“). Theautomated coupling, another often mentioned technical development, is not consid-ered to be of major importance for international CT but rather for inland traffic and forthe pre- and end-haul by rail (e.g. to private sidings of large traffic generators).

o Expensive maintenance workWith regard to the cost situation in CT, maintenance cost for the rolling stock shouldbe as low as possible. In this context the interviewees point to two specific aspects:

– Outsourcing of maintenance work: Some see a cost reduction potential if first ofall railway companies would outsource the maintenance of their wagons becausethey could profit from the competition between corresponding companies.

– High tech wagons: The development of „high tech“ wagons (e.g. wagonsequipped with disk brakes and constructed for speeds of 140-160 kph) will result inmore frequent and more expensive maintenance works. Some interviewees doubtwhether these additional costs can be covered looking at the prices in road trans-port and so, in their view, no substantial improvements of intermodal services willresult. This finding should be kept in mind when efforts are made to increase thespeed of freight trains to enlarge the capacity of a given rail track that is used byfreight and passenger trains.


ECOPLAN

c) Conclusions

Looking at the rather low significance of this potential barrier and at the fact that in thisspecific area of CT market forces are quite effective, there’s no urgent call for actionthrough the public authorities.Certain structural adjustments (e.g. the replacement of old wagons and probably the re-duction of the wagons in use) can be expected if the level of competition in the rail freighttransport market is increased.

From the point of view of existing and future intermodal operators the general set-up forCT is more important than specific policy measures. With regard to investments in therolling stock the following aspects of the general set-up are of high relevance:

– a liberalisation of the rail sector (e.g. less national but more international standards) toachieve lower rolling stock prices

– a certain stability in the definition of dimensions for trucks - first of all with regard tothe total length and the total weight - and by this for intermodal units

– a clear strategy concerning the problem of the different speed of freight and passen-ger trains (increase the speed of freight trains or separate as much as possible thetwo forms of rail transport


ECOPLAN

3.4 Shortcomings of the intermodal units


The most important shortcoming of intermodal units is well known, namely the fact thatoverseas containers are not fully palletizable (i.e. if Europallets are used much space re-mains unused because the of the Anglo-Saxon dimensions of the containers and themetric dimensions of the pallets).

Looking at the prices of swap bodies and containers and the private ownership it can beassumed that the supply of units more or less satisfies the demand. However, despitethe large variety of different units, the unit meeting all of the requirements listed belowhas not been produced so far:– low dead weight– cheap– stackable

The following questions have been asked:

– Is there a shortage of intermodal units (availability of containers and swap bodies)?

– Do the existing intermodal units meet the requirement of the transport market (i.e.different sizes, different potential uses, forming of large units by several smaller units,usable as store units)? What units have the best future perspective?

– Is the problem that containers and swap bodies cannot be put together on one trainrelevant and if yes still unsolved (different requirements with regard to shunting)?


b1) Significance of the barrier „shortcomings of the intermodal units“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3.1

The assessment widely corresponds with the findings of the literature. The intermodalunits are no barrier for improved intermodality.


The interviewees emphasize that the market forces determine the development of theintermodal units. The consequences are:

– There is no shortage in Western Europe. However, in Eastern European countries thedissemination of swap bodies and to a lesser extent also of containers is much lower.Unaccompanied piggyback transports are more or less only carried out if a WesternEuropean haulage company providing of swap bodies is involved.


ECOPLAN

– The units are designed according to the market needs.

c) Conclusions

Looking at the low significance of this „barrier“ for improved intermodality and the factthat it is first of all up to the actors of CT themselves to become active, we see no ne-cessity for the public authorities to take any policy measures in this field.


ECOPLAN

4 Technical interoperability

4.1 Standardisation of intermodal units


This potential barrier is closely related to the ones discussed in the sections 3.3 and 3.4.In the literature it is often mentioned that the large variety of intermodal units calls foradditional international standardisation to make the use of the units throughout Europeeasier by reducing the number of types of units.

In this context the following questions have been asked to the actors in CT:

– Have there been any progresses in the standardisation of intermodal units? Where isthe largest need for standardisation at present?

– Are there still national initiatives in the development of new intermodal units that arenot internationally co-ordinated (e.g. bi-modal concepts)?

– Are there any developments that could result in additional standardisation problems(e.g. changing of truck width, volume transport containers of shipping lines)?


b1) Significance of the barrier „Standardisation of intermodal units“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4.1

The majority of the interviewees doesn’t believe that the development of CT has beenstrongly affected by an insufficient standardisation of the intermodal units. The highscores in the assessment refer to the effects the dimensions of the units have on theuse of the rolling stock (see section 3.3).


Those interviewees that consider the question of the standardisation to be of rather lowsignificance emphasize the fact that the main dimensions of intermodal units are alreadystandardized, i.e. the position of the device to fix the unit on the wagon.Furthermore, the variety of intermodal units is an expression of the different needs ofusers of intermodal services. An additional standardisation could result in a less cus-tomer-oriented situation.

The other interviewees again point to the direct effect that new developments whichchange the dimensions of the intermodal units can have on the use of the rolling stock


ECOPLAN

(see section 3.3). An additional standardisation is wished to reduce the risks connectedwith investments. Furthermore, the problem „suitable wagon mix“ mentioned in section3.3 would lose much of its relevance.

So far, the intermodal operators themselves haven’t tried to influence the development ofswap bodies to avoid interoperability problems with their rolling stock. They rather ad-justed their wagon fleet to the new situation. Some interviewees suggest that intermodaloperators should become more active in this field and should. They could, for example,try to affect in a co-ordinated way the development of intermodal units with a corre-sponding price structure for their services: They could demand lower/higher prices forintermodal units that more/less easily go with the existing rolling stock.Thus, if there is an important standardisation problem there is also room for action for theintermodal operators and not only for the corresponding public authority.

c) Conclusions

Apart from the need of certain temporal stability concerning the dimensions for trucksand by this for intermodal units (see section 3.3) we don’t consider additional standardi-sation efforts in the field of the intermodal units to be a very important issue for the fu-ture development of CT.


ECOPLAN

4.2 Interoperability of networks


Beside the intermodal units, the rail network is the other often mentioned area of interop-erability problems for cross-border CT. The problems exist as a consequence of the na-tional perspective taken in the development of the rail networks in Europe. They refer topoints like the following:

– differences in the electric power supply: there are about 12 different railway voltagesthroughout Europe

– differences in the signalling techniques, train protection systems and safety standards

– differences in the gauges (e.g. Spain and Russia) and profiles(72)

(– differences in the maximum train lengths and weights, see section 3.1)

Whereas the last interoperability problem affects only a part of international rail trans-ports in Europe, the first two are relevant for almost all cross-border freight connections.The consequences are well known:

o Border delaysAt national borders the engines and engine drivers have to be changed. From a techni-cal point of view this process is neither complicated nor very time-consuming. It couldbe carried out within a very few minutes.Much more demanding is the organisational aspect. In order to guarantee verysmooth border crossings the two railway companies involved would have to co-ordinate the circulation of their engines and drivers. It seems that this co-ordinationhasn’t had a very high priority among the national railway companies in the case of in-ternational freight transport. In many cases, the long border stops are not caused by alack of co-ordination in the allocation of train paths (see sections 6.1 and 6.2) but bythe provision of engines at the right place and time.

o National equipment standards for enginesThe standards concerning the equipment of engines are not internationally harmonisedbut differ between the European countries. Because of two reasons this situationmost probably results in rather high prices for engines:

– The international competition in the rolling stock industry is lower than it could bebecause the national regulations favour national manufacturer that are more famil-iar with the national standards.

– If the standards were the same larger series of the same engine could be built. It isprobable that in the production economies of scale would occur resulting in lowerprices for the engines.

72 A map with the different profiles of the rail network used by intermodal transport is given in Kearney

A.T. (1989), Studie über die Perspektiven eines europäischen Netzes des kombinierten Verkehrs, p. 35.


ECOPLAN

To get an assessment of the today’s significance of this barrier for improved intermodal-ity interviewees have been asked whether there have been any progresses in the lastyears to overcome interoperability problems between the different national rail networks.


b1) Significance of the barrier „Interoperability of networks“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.4

At first sight it seems that there is a considerable disagreement in the assessment of thesignificance of this potential barrier for improved intermodality. However, that is onlypartly the case because the two groups of interviewees only point to two different as-pects of the problem:

o The interviewees with a rather high score emphasize the fact that at present there areconsiderable border delays which contribute to the low average speed of rail freighttransport.

o The other group of interviewees doesn’t deny these border delays but wants to under-line that the border delays are not caused by the mere necessity to change the en-gines and drivers but by the way this change is managed. In their view, the problem ofthe missing interoperability itself is not very relevant.However, one interviewee points out that for the border delays other reasons than thechanging of the engines and drivers are more important (e.g. insufficiently co-ordinatedallocation of train paths (see section 6.1) or customs controls at the EU external fron-tiers).

Both groups of course fully agree that a European rail network without interoperabilityproblems would be in favour of cross-border CT.


The main argument brought up in the interviews refers to the question which of the in-teroperability problems are and will remain really relevant because they are not easy tosolve.

A majority of the interviewees holds the opinion that the existing interoperability problemscertainly deteriorate the competitiveness of international rail transport compared withroad transport where the same vehicles and drivers can drive through every Europeancountry. However, it is believed that the organisational problem to provide an engine withan engine driver at the border at right time could and would be solved if there is a stronginterest of the actors involved in the respective transport.In their view, this interoperability problem will lose some of its significance in future be-cause of the following reasons:


ECOPLAN

o According to the current EU freight transport policy cross-border CT is one of the mainareas where the open access of licensed railway undertakings (RUs) to the rail infra-structure will be introduced. It can be expected that the new possibilities will increasethe competition on the main intermodal links. Intermodal operators will take efforts toincrease the service quality of CT. They will look for co-operation with RUs that can ei-ther ensure a smooth changing of the engine and engine drivers at the national bor-ders or provide of engines that are capable to drive on the different sections of an in-ternational link (e.g. multi-current engines, diesel engines). For some of the operators itmay even become interesting to buy engines for themselves.

o As long as the traction of freight trains has been limited to the home country of therailway companies it made not much sense for them to invest in multi-current en-gines. The possible additional demand for multi-current engines may result in lowerprices for these engines because larger series can be produced.

o In intermodal freight transport there is a trend towards scheduled freight services(e.g. shuttle trains). This development will simplify the planning of the use of the en-gines. Looking at the demanding logistic challenges forwarding and transport compa-nies face and solve today, it is hard to imagine that the task to make available a en-gine at a pre-defined time and place remains that difficult to solve. Some intervieweeseven point out that changes of the engines at national borders facilitates the planningof the use of the engines.

The removal of the other interoperability problems, i.e. the different gauges in some coun-tries, the different profiles and the different maximum train lengths and weights, will bemore expensive because in some cases the rail infrastructure must be adjusted.

c) Conclusions

In our view, the arguments of the majority of the interviewees seem convincing. If openaccess is introduced successfully some of the network interoperability problems will loseof their importance.

This does of course not mean that political measures increasing the interoperability arenot welcomed. Any harmonisation in this field is in favour of cross-border intermodaltransport. But we propose to lay the focus on the general set-up for intermodal transportinstead of discussing specific interoperability problems.


ECOPLAN

4.3 Interoperability of transhipment techniques


Looking at the recent and future developments in the transhipment technologies and theintermodal units the question arises whether new potential barriers for CT have resultedand/or will result from these developments.

Thus, the following questions have been asked:

– Are there technical interoperability problems with regard to different transhipmenttechniques in terminals (mainly caused by different types of intermodal units)?

– What transhipment techniques do meet the requirements of the market the best andhave the best future perspectives?


b1) Significance of the barrier „Interoperability of transhipment techniques“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2.4

Obviously, for the large majority of the interviewees the transhipment technology is notan important interoperability issue.


Not interoperability questions but the following aspects have been assessed to be rele-vant with regard to the transhipment technologies:

o Costs per terminal lift (see section 8.1)

o A majority of the interviewees holds the opinion the existing transhipment techniquesmeet the requirements of the market. Rather than a need to develop fundamentallynew devices there is a need to improve the performance of the existing techniques tolower the costs per terminal lift.Some interviewees point to the need for the development of small, more flexible andcheap transhipment techniques to meet the requirements of small but growing termi-nals.

o The handling within the terminals is still a relevant source of damages to the unitsand the freight. In this field improvements in the transhipment technologies would bewelcomed.


ECOPLAN

c) Conclusions

Efforts in this field of CT should not refer to interoperability aspects but to two other is-sues:

– Technical improvements of the existing transhipment techniques are needed to lowerterminal lift costs.

– Research and development of rather new techniques should especially pay attentionto a modular design to achieve a high flexibility with regard to differences in the trans-port volumes (for this point see also section 3.2).


ECOPLAN

5 Logistic performance and concepts, informa-tion and communication systems

5.1 Logistic performance in terminals


Whereas the road haulage companies offer complete and advanced logistic servicepackages the logistic performance within terminals is often criticised. It is claimed that inmany cases only a very limited part of the potential technical capacity of the terminals isactually used. The criticism mainly refers to the following points:

o Organisation of movements: The peak hour problem causes inefficiency in the ter-minal lifts and in the delivery/collection by road vehicles. Another potential source ofproductivity losses is an inadequate spatial organisation within the terminals (e.g. thespatial separation of the functions loading/unloading, reloading and shunting).

o Administrative service: Rather than the handling of the units it is the processing ofthe corresponding documents that excessively prolongs the time spent in the termi-nal.

o Services offered: Sometimes it is complained that terminals offer a too limited rangeof services. Terminals should become multifunctional centres offering beside the purehandling further services like for example storage, repairs and maintenance of unitsand trucks, access to information and communication systems etc.

o Working hours: A part of the peak hour problem can be put down to restrictions inthe working hours. Though, for example, trains arrive between 2.00 and 4.00 a.m.cranage does not start before 6.00 a.m.

Against this background the interviewees have been asked which of the following re-proaches are justified:

– lack of advanced logistic concepts and industrial management in the terminal itself(optimisation of handling, storage, identification of goods/units)

– limited business hours for delivery and picking up of goods

– limited use of advanced handling techniques resulting in high costs for transhipment(e.g. fully automated handling systems)

– insufficient solution of the peak hour problem

Furthermore, we wanted to know whether there are large differences in the logistic per-formance - and therefore in the efficiency - between different types of terminals or differ-ent types of operators?


ECOPLAN


b1) Significance of the barrier „Logistic performance in terminals“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5.4

There are quite large differences in the rating of the significance of shortcomings in theterminal logistics. For some interviewees future improvements are essential, for othersthe logistic performance isn’t a barrier at all.


The results of the interviews confirm the points stated above. The increasing necessityto offer additional services within the terminals, a better spatial organisation and particu-larly the peak hour problem have been stressed. The latter is considered to be unsolvedbecause many terminals are more or less deserted during 80% of the working hourswhereas the peak period is characterised by congestion and too long waits.However, it is emphasized that this unsatisfactory situation, though mainly caused bythe loading and unloading time schedule of the industry, is also the result of too little ef-forts of the intermodal operators and of the forwarding companies:

– So far, none of the intermodal operators included in the interview programme has triedto establish a train service with a departure time in the off-peak period (e.g. at noon)on easy terms for the industry, i.e. with substantial price reductions for users of thisoff-peak offer.(73)

– Forwarding companies could be more active and develop together with their clientsnew logistic concepts to change loading/unloading time patterns. Adjustments in thestructure of the clients, i.e. more clients with time insensitive goods, could also resultin a shift of a part of the transports from the peak to the off-peak period.

c) Conclusions

Looking at the logistic progresses in the transport sector as a whole, the necessity ofadvanced logistic concepts in medium-sized and large terminals is given. First of all theterminal operators but also the forwarding companies engaged in CT are faced with realchallenges.

With corresponding research studies, pilot- and demonstration projects and with adjust-ments in the general set-up for CT which increase the incentive for terminal operators todevelop innovative logistic solutions, the public authorities can contribute to the neces-sary progresses.

73 Currently, ÖKOMBI examines the market potential of such an offer.


ECOPLAN

5.2 Information and communication


So far, information supply in combined transport has been considered to be insufficientwith regard to the information needs of the users of intermodal services and with regardto the possibilities of advanced information and communication systems.

The shortcomings have been seen in the following points:

– non existence of a general information and communication system used by all or atleast by the main actors involved in CT

– absence of computerised booking systems

– lack of supervised execution of the CT chain

– unsatisfactory passing on of information (e.g. sending or receiving parties are not in-formed when delays occur on an intermodal transport)

– too limited use of advanced information technologies in the administrative processingof CT (e.g. order processing, electronic invoicing, electronic way-bills etc.)

In order to find out whether the situation has significantly changed or not the followingquestions have been asked to the actors and experts of CT:

– Have there been any significant areas of progress in the use of advanced informationand communication systems (e.g. permanent location of freight, control of return ofunits, computerised reservation systems, use of INTERNET)?

– Are there still important administrative shortcomings in CT (e.g. rules for accompany-ing papers, missing of electronic way-bills, treatment of customs papers)?


b1) Significance of the barrier „Information and Communication“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.6

The average value of 6.6 reveals the quite high importance the interviewees attach to theshortcomings mentioned above. The rating is for example higher than those of the short-comings concerning the infrastructure. The services offered do still not meet the usualstandard in the transport sector though the shortcomings have been known for years.


ECOPLAN

The rather low ratings come from representatives of forwarding companies. The twomajor points in their reasoning are the following:

– If the temporal reliability of CT is improved, some of the information needs will lose ofimportance: As long as a train is not delayed it is not important to know the exact lo-cation of the freight. Accordingly, efforts should first of all be taken to improve the re-liability and not to establish highly sophisticated information systems.

– There is a certain danger that technocrats and experts define the requirements andthe design of information systems by looking at the possibilities of today’s technolo-gies. However, the only relevant point of view are the needs of the customers whichare first of all practically orientated ( „need to know“ instead of „nice to know“). Tak-ing this point of view the optimum system is probably rather simple but reliable.


All interviewees agree that the application of modern information and communicationtechnologies in CT does by far not make the most of the potential and possibilities ofthese technologies. They characterise the current situation as follows:

o The piggyback companies (UIRR companies) and the private intermodal operatorshave been much more active in the development of adequate information and com-munication systems than the railway companies. The reason is seen in the fact thatthey are „closer“ to the market. The next step will be to supply on-line-contacts withthe clients for information about timetables, prices, free spaces on trains, the locationof freight on trains and in terminals and for computerised booking.

o The blame for the current shortcomings and problems is put on the railway compa-nies. Their traditionally national point of view favoured the development of national in-stead of international solutions with the result that not the performance of the existingsystems is the main problem but the interface between the different systems. How-ever, it is admitted that the co-ordinated development of a common information andcommunication system is a very complex problem that cannot be solved very quickly.Looking at this fact on the one hand and at the very fast technological development ofinformation and communication technologies on the other hand there is a certain dan-ger that co-ordinated solutions will again be out-of-date when they are finally intro-duced.

o The criticism of the railway companies not only refers to the development of corre-sponding systems but also to the their communication and information behaviour:

– Available information is not passed on to the intermodal operators quickly enough.The direct link from the railway companies to the intermodal operators and viceversa is a general weak point in the exchange of information.

– Representatives of piggyback companies complain that they collect and processdata and information also needed by the railway companies without being rewardedwith lower traction prices for these. It is also believed that the railway companiesdo not exploit the best possible the information provided by the intermodal opera-tors.


ECOPLAN

– There are some doubts whether all the information the railway companies want tohave are really necessary to carry out an intermodal transport - first of all in thecase of block trains.

Despite the difficulties mentioned above and the fact that this barrier for improved inter-modality has now been discussed for years it is generally expected that there will be asubstantial improvement of the situation in the near future because

– different actors of CT undertake large efforts to increase the service quality for theirclients (e.g. client service centre of the DB)

– the problem of the interfaces of the different systems is subject of research projects(e.g. the CESAR-project of Kombiverkehr, HUPAC and CEMAT)

– in a more deregulated rail freight transport market the information management will bea potential source of advantages in the competition with other players acting in thismarket.(74)

c) Conclusions

Though this barrier for improved intermodality has been known for years and despite thelarge advances in information and communication technologies, the situation is still un-satisfactory. Too many different systems that can hardly communicate with each otherare in use.

Accordingly, policy measures to reduce this barrier should especially concentrate on theinterface problem and here again on the interface between the piggyback companies andintermodal operators on the one hand and the railway companies on the other hand.

Though the efforts have to be taken from the actors directly involved in the market thereare options for the authorities to contribute to an improvement of the situation

– through corresponding research, pilot and demonstration projects

– through the general set-up for CT setting more or less incentives for the actors to de-velop user-friendly service offers.

74 The deregulation can also have a negative impact on the development co-ordinated solutions: Because

the different actors will see each other rather as competitors than as partners the will to co-operate andexchange information will decrease.


ECOPLAN

6 Network management: Co-operation of therailway companies

6.1 Co-ordination of timetables and availability of attractivetrain paths


So far, the question of attractive train paths for intermodal transports has been dis-cussed from an infrastructure point of view (see section 3.1). It has been pointed to thefact that the capacity of the existing infrastructure largely depends on the way the railnetwork is managed.

In transalpine cross-border CT, one railway company is normally responsible for the or-ganisation of the whole rail part of the transport. The offer it can make to the respectiveintermodal operator strongly depends on the behaviour of the other railway companiesinvolved. Thus, the management of the national rail networks and the way this manage-ment is internationally co-ordinated are key factors for the successful realisation of in-termodal service links:

o They determine whether train paths within attractive periods of time are available atall.

o The better the co-ordination between the railway companies works the smoother arethe changes of the trains from one national rail network into another (less border de-lays).

Accordingly, the following two questions have been asked to the experts and actors ofCT:

– Is the co-ordination of timetables between the national railway companies satisfac-tory?

– Are enough attractive train paths available for CT in the timetables of railway compa-nies?


b1) Significance of the barriers

Co-ordination of time tables:


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7.3


ECOPLAN

Availability of attractive train paths:


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7.1

The large majority of the interviewees assigns a high significance to the two closely in-terconnected barriers.


Though from the organisational and institutional point of view the co-operation is well es-tablished and works fine the outcome is not satisfactory in the eyes of the interviewees.The following points are advanced:

o Priority given to passenger transport in allocating paths: A general rail transportpolicy problem is the high priority given to passenger transport in comparison to freighttransport. A satisfactory co-ordination of timetables for international freight trains isimpossible the different railway companies - or only some of them - first of all see topassenger trains when train paths are allocated.

o Behaviour of the railway companies: Some interviewees believe that the railwaycompanies could do much more to gain international freight transports if they wouldadjust their behaviour in different respect:

– Because the railway companies earn the largest part of their money with domestictransport they try to optimise their performance on the home market. Only if cross-border CT were a profitable business for the railway companies, they would havean incentive to undertake more efforts in its favour. In this context, the reproachthe railway companies would know too little about the costs caused by the differ-ent types of transport (see section 8.1) becomes very important - if it is true.

– Though they see the complexity of the co-ordination of timetables and of the inter-national train paths planning process, clients of the railway companies (e.g. inter-modal operators) complain that these processes take too much time (up to oneyear). An inquiry concerning the availability of train paths and traction prices is an-swered after a time period far beyond market needs (6 - 12 months).

A general assessment of the availability of attractive train paths is not possible becausethere are significant differences between different connections and markets. The follow-ing have been mentioned in the interview programme:

o Examples for unsatisfactory situations are the connections between France and Ger-many and vice versa caused by an insufficient co-operation between SNCF and theDB AG which also affects the rail transports from/to France to/from Eastern Europe.Rail transports to and from Eastern Europe face in general much more problems withregard to co-ordinated timetables.

o Rather good examples are transalpine rail transports (e.g. UK/France - Italy andBENELUX - Italy).


ECOPLAN

In general, the situation for intermodal trains of which a large part are part are block /shuttle trains is better than for conventional freight trains.

c) Conclusions

So far, the general set-up in rail transport and the signals coming from national transportpolicies set only very limited incentives for the railway companies to undertake large ef-forts for a better international co-ordination of cross -border (intermodal) freight transport.Accordingly, train paths with attractive departure times taking account of the customer’sspecific logistic requirements and seamless changes from one national rail network intoanother are in limited supply.

On the one hand technical and infrastructure related measures (e.g. specific freight linksto disentangle passengers and freight rail transport, longer and heavier trains) can con-tribute to an improvement of the situation, on the other hand the misleading incentivesmentioned above should be adjusted in the following direction:

o Rethinking the priorities given to the different types of rail transport: Also in amore deregulated rail transport market and with an increase of the „entrepreuneurialfreedom“ of the railway companies, the priorities the Member States give to freightand passenger transport will have a significant influence on the availability of attrac-tive train paths for cross-border CT. Because the corresponding guideline of theCommission leaves much room for manoeuvre to the Member States(75) a certainharmonisation should be considered.

o Integrated chain management: The understanding of the different sections of across-border rail (intermodal) transport as consecutive and individual links should beadjusted. Especially in the train paths planning process one should more think in com-plete connections (e.g. Milan - Rotterdam) and not in individual sections.To achieve this objective the realisation of open access to the rail infrastructure and atrain path allocation mechanism that is not controlled by the national railway compa-nies but by independent infrastructure managers are important prerequisites.

75 See article 4 of the Directive 95/19/EEC on the allocation of train paths and the calculation of infra-

structure user charges (priority for traffic according to public service obligations).


ECOPLAN

6.2 Direct trains versus mixed trains


In general, the productivity of rail freight transport is higher the less shunting, loading,unloading and reloading operations are necessary.In order to assess the current situation and to get information for possible countermea-sures the following two questions have been asked in the questionnaire:

– Are there still too many mixed trains (i.e. trains with conventional and intermodal wag-ons) and shunting operations in CT?

– Would a closer co-operation between railway companies allow for more internationaldirect trains?

b) Assessment: Results of the interviews

b1) Significance of the barrier „Direct trains versus mixed trains“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5.6

The assessments reveals the increasing share of block / shuttle trains in international CTand in transalpine CT especially, thus the potential barrier loses of its importance. Thefigures below may illustrate for some intermodal operators how large the share of shuttletrains currently is:– HUPAC: 80%– CEMAT: 60%– Intercontainer: 60%


In general it is argued that it is not the insufficient co-operation of the railway companiesthat prevents the realisation of more direct trains in cross-border CT. The problem is seenin the price structure of the railway companies (see section 8.1) which does not accu-rately reflect the low costs a direct train causes in comparison to a mixed train stoppingat several stations / terminals.

Further arguments brought up in the interviews are the following:

o In this context, the role of the intermodal operators is more important than the one ofthe railway companies. They have an own interest to realise an additional/new shuttletrain link if the goods volume is high enough. If this is not the case they could co-operate to achieve the goods volume needed for an additional/new (joint) shuttle trainlink. The incentive to co-operate will increase when the international rail freight trans-port is deregulated (see section 7.1).


ECOPLAN

o Though the trend is towards direct trains, mixed trains can be a useful solution if theconventional wagons can be put together to a group with the same final destination inthe frame of a hub&spoke system.

c) Conclusions

Looking at the limited significance of this barrier and at the fact that once the general set-up for CT is adjusted it can be left to the market to determine the best „production tech-nologies“ of CT, useful specific policy measures to increase the number of direct trainscannot be identified.


ECOPLAN

6.3 Access to infrastructure


So far, there is no open access for national railway companies to the rail infrastructure inthird countries throughout Europe.

However, the conditions for open access of licensed RU (railway undertakings licensedaccording to the Directives 95/18/EEC) to the rail infrastructure of the Member States isone of the core topics of the strategy of the Commission to revitalise the European rail-ways.(76)

According to the Commission, international intermodal freight transport will be the trail-blazer in this new orientation of the common rail transport policy. A first step is plannedfor 1 January 1998 when the first two freeways for rail freight transport are possibly putinto service.(77) On these freeways a non-discriminatory open access to the infrastruc-ture for licensed RU will be realised.(78) The Commission believes that the freeways couldbecome a very important element of the CT system because in the course of time, moreand more Freeways should be realised.(79)

Against this background the interviewees have been asked what impacts they expect ifopen access was realised.


b1) Significance of the barrier „Access to infrastructure“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8.5

The average value of 8.5 is the highest rating of all of the potential barriers. The missingcompetition in the rail part of an intermodal transport is considered to be the pivotal bar-rier for improved intermodality.

76 See the Commission’s corresponding White Paper and the Directives 91/440/EEC. The other core topics

are the independence of the management, the financial revitalisation of the RU and the functional spea-ration between infrastructure and transport services. A broader overview of the state of discussion andimplementation of the liberalisation strategy is given in section 3.2.

77 The two corridors could be those identified in the study of the Community of European Railways onbehalf of the Commission, i.e. the two „Study Freightway Corridors“ from BENELUX to Italy (via Ger-many - Switzerland and France respectively).

78 For a detailed description of the freightway or freeway concept see CER (1997), European Rail Freight-ways: Proposal to the European Commission (DG-VII) and Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaf-ten (1997), Transeuropäische Freeways für den Schienengüterverkehr.

79 See Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1997), Intermodalität und intermodalerGüterverkehr in der Europäischen Union.


ECOPLAN


The interviewees emphasize the fact that there is no competition between the railwaycompanies. Also between the intermodal operators competition is rather limited. In manycases preferential treatment is given to the national piggyback companies in the nationaltrain path allocation processes.

Several important impacts are expected from a realisation of open access - all of themcaused by the increase of competition in the rail sector:

o Lower traction prices: At least in the long run, the interviewees believe in a substan-tial decrease of the traction prices.

o Increase of transparency with regard to the traction prices: The existing structureof traction prices strongly lacks of transparency for the clients of the railway compa-nies (see section 8.1). Open access will force the railway undertakings to improve thecurrent situation.

o Market-oriented behaviour of the railway companies: The lack of customer- andmarket-oriented behaviour of the railway companies has been mentioned as one ofthe main reasons for the shortcomings of CT (see chapter 2). Some interviewees be-lieve that only with the „competition effect“ of open access it will be possible tochange the behaviour of the railway companies.

o New perspectives for large forwarding companies: If once freeways are realised itcould become attractive for large forwarding companies to buy themselves enginesas long as they are not satisfied with the performance of the railway companies.

The great importance the interviewees attach to the open access sharply contrasts withthe doubts some of them have concerning the probability and the extent of its realisation:

– On the one hand, they don’t see a responsible authority having the political power thatis necessary to impose international freight freeways.

– On the other hand, they have no confidence in the will of the national railway compa-nies to support the realisation of open access. Some of the interviewees suspect therailway companies of creating „system traffic“ to fill up the remaining free train paths.In their view, the objective should be to prevent the railway companies from having astrong influence on the allocation of the train paths.

c) Conclusions

The missing open access to rail infrastructure and therefore the monopolistic position ofthe national railway companies on their home market is assessed to be the core barrierfor improved intermodality. No other barrier has achieved a higher rating in the interviewprogramme.Accordingly, for a large majority of the interviewees the realisation of open access is anecessary condition for any substantial increase of the competitiveness of CT. However,looking at the current developments in different countries there are large doubts whetherthe liberalisation will be as far-reaching as it should be.


ECOPLAN

7 Organisational and institutional issues

7.1 Co-operation between the actors of intermodal transport


Looking at the different modes and actors involved it is obvious that CT requires moreorganisational efforts than for example pure road transport. A close co-operation be-tween the actors is crucial for the competitiveness of intermodal services. The need forco-operation first of all refers to the interfaces between the different modes and actors.

To get information about shortcomings in the co-operation of intermodal actors the fol-lowing questions have been asked in the interview programme:

o Where do you see the main lack of co-operation between the many actors in CT?

– in the co-operation between companies offering different types of CT (e.g. containerand piggyback companies)

– in the co-operation between the different national piggyback companies?

– in the co-operation between road haulage companies and companies operating theterminals

– in the co-operation between the intermodal operators and the railway companies?

– in further aspects of co-operation?

o Should there be a vertical integration between different companies in the CT sector toachieve a better productivity?


b1) Significance of the barrier „Co-operation between the actors of intermodaltransport“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.1

The differences in the assessment reflects the fact that there are also large differencesin the quality of the co-operation depending on what actors are involved (see below).


If the CT chain as a whole is considered, a rather negative picture has been drawn: Sofar, nobody has really been interested in optimising the whole CT chain. There is only a


ECOPLAN

limited interest to work together. Neither railway companies nor the UIRR-companieshave shown a profit maximising behaviour with regard to the whole CT transport chain(„there is no shareholder value culture“). Losses have often been covered by publicfunds. Only fully private intermodal operators offering door-to-door services have astrong business interest for the whole chain.

Accordingly, each actor only looks for his part and is interested to maximise his share ontotal revenues by setting a high price for its performance

– the railway companies for traction

– the terminal operators for the terminal lifts

– and the road haulage firms for the pre- and end-haul.

Looking at the co-operation of the different actors the opinions of the interviewees can besummarised as follows:

o Co-operation between the intermodal operators: The co-operation between theUIRR-companies is generally quite good. Some interviewees even think that there isprobably too much co-operation and too little competition because the possibilities ofthe national piggyback companies to offer services in third countries is very limited.Concerted efforts to develop common services (e.g. joint trains of several operators toincrease the capacity utilisation of the trains) have become more frequent in the re-cent past. The companies have realised that - as in the case of air transport - the morethe rail sector will be deregulated the more vital alliances will be.

o Co-operation between the intermodal operators and the railway companies: Theco-operation between these two actors seems to be more difficult. The somehowstrained relationship is illustrated by the example of a UIRR-company who uses about80% of its communication efforts for contacts with the railway companies and only20% for contacts with their clients. The ratio that should be exactly the other wayaround.Some intermodal operators complain that the railway companies consider them to berather competitors than clients. The difficulties in the co-operation probably base on apotential for conflicts that exists because of differences in the idea of the role of therailway companies in CT:

– For intermodal operators the main task of the railway companies is to offer cheapand reliable traction services.

– The railway companies themselves are not interested in this very limited role be-cause with the traction alone no substantial value added can be gained. It is unfa-vourable for the railway companies if the question of cost is concentrated on thisisolated part of the transport chain. With open access, this limited role would be-come even less attractive because the competition between the railway undertak-ings would refer only to the traction prices and by this tend to lower the tractionprices.

Against this background, it is doubted whether railway companies really want to offercheap and reliable services for intermodal operators. The two following behaviour pat-


ECOPLAN

terns that will make a successful co-operation with the intermodal operators evenmore difficult seem to be more realistic:

– The railway companies will continue to favour conventional rail transports wherethey manage the whole transport. There is some suspicion that the railway compa-nies tend to give the highest priorities to trains of their own direct clients.

– It is expected that railway companies will try to expand their CT business in the„classical“ fields of the intermodal operators. They will try to be involved in a largerpart of the transport chain.

o Co-operation between UIRR and road haulage companies: None of the interview-ees has pointed to specific problems in the co-operation between these two actors. Ifthe UIRR-companies start and/or continue to offer door-to-door - and not only terminal-to-terminal - services themselves there may emerge some tension between the re-spective companies and a part of their owners, i.e. road haulage firms.

c) Conclusions

The general problem that has been identified is the lack of real incentives to co-operate.

Distinguishing by actor the largest difficulties are seen in the co-operation of intermodaloperators and the railway companies because of conflicting interests. In the currentsituation, there should either be some kind of „systems manager“ acting at the interfacebetween the intermodal operators and the railway companies or more vertically inte-grated companies.

If once open access is realised, the shortcomings in the co-operation will probably besolved by the market forces. It can be expected that different actors having the sameinterests will set up general alliances or will closely co-operate on certain links (e.g. Milan- Rotterdam). The relationship between the railway companies and the intermodal opera-tors will probably become more conflicting because railway companies will have an inter-est to control a larger part of the CT chain.


ECOPLAN

7.2 Competition between the actors of intermodal transport


From experiences in other transport sectors and for other transport modes it is wellknown that a liberalisation and strengthening of competition can have substantial effectson productivity and prices.(80) At present, the state of deregulation in the rail sector is farbehind the corresponding development in air and road transport. This „backlog“ of railtransport is considered to be one of the most important reasons why the productivity hasgrown much faster in air and road transport in comparison with rail transport. The Com-mission and the Member States have taken a number of policy initiatives to introducecompetition elements in the rail sector.

Looking at this development the interviewees have been asked in what respect the CTmarket should be more deregulated to realise more competition in CT:

– open access to the railway infrastructure?

– free competition in the pre- and end-haul with road vehicles?

– liberalisation of terminal access for road haulage companies?

– further aspects of deregulation?


b1) Significance of the barrier „Competition between the actors of intermodaltransport“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8.0

The assessment reflects the great importance the interviewees attach to the existenceof competition in the different elements of the CT chain. The average value of 8.0 is oneof the highest ratings given by the participants of the interview programme.


The interviewees describe competition as basic prerequisite for market-oriented and in-novative behaviour in each part of the CT chain. Looking at the current situation the fol-lowing picture has been painted:

o The strongest and most important lack of competition is seen in the rail part of the CTchain (see section 6.3).

80 See for example Rothengatter W. (1997), Liberalisation and Structural Reform in the Freight Transport

Sector in Europe or Betancor O. et al. (1997), Deregulation and Pricing.


ECOPLAN

o Competition in the pre- and end-haul with road vehicles seems to be quite intense.Forwarding companies involved in CT often work together with contractors they choseout of the haulage companies operating in the respective region.A certain potential for additional competition might be realised if the pre- and end-haulwas organised by the terminal operator (e.g. an UIRR-company). In this case, it is theoperator who choses the haulage company to carry out the transport. However, it isdoubted whether the terminal operators have the capabilities to manage this de-manding task as well as the forwarding companies do it today. Furthermore, a con-flicting situation between the UIRR-companies and a part of their owners (i.e. the for-warding companies) would result.

o The introduction of a „competition element“ in the terminal lifts Is more difficult torealise. Competition rather works between the terminals and would increase if tech-nological developments in the field of the handling gears result in lower cost per lift.

There are different signs that competition in CT has increased in the last years:

o New actors have entered the lucrative markets. The co-operation of shipping and rail-way companies (as in the case of ERS (European Rail Shuttle)), for example, results inan increase of competition in the core field of activity of Intercontainer, i.e. CT fromand to sea ports.

o Some of the national UIRR-companies try to expand their activities in „third“ coun-tries.

o Additional competition will result from the general development in CT that the differentactors involved wish to control a larger part of the transport chain (see also section7.1).

Looking at these developments and the efforts of the EU and the Member States to fur-ther strengthen competition in CT, most of the interviewees emphasize the high impor-tance of regulations and rules that ensure a fair competition between the actors in-volved.In the current situation several sources of unfair competition have been identified:

o Though from a political point of view public subsidies in favour of CT may be desirableand necessary, they cause distortions in the competition if only selected actors re-ceive the state aid. Fully private intermodal operators, for example, complain aboutsubsidies for terminals of UIRR-companies because this enables these companies tooffer (too) low prices for terminal lifts (see also section 8.1).

o A similar discrimination results for fully private intermodal operators if their competi-tors, the subsidiaries of the - not yet privatised - railway companies, can shift theirdeficit to the parent company.

o Finally, unfair competition occurs if railway companies give preferential treatment totheir subsidiaries in the train path allocation process or if they charge lower tractionprices for them.

If these imperfections in competition cannot be removed it will become extremely diffi-cult to bring fully private actors to enter the market, i.e. to realise one of the objectives ofthe policy strategy at EU-level.


ECOPLAN

c) Conclusions

Growing competition has brought some innovation and movement in the CT market. Theongoing policy initiatives at EU-level and in the Member States will result in a further in-crease of the competitive pressure, if they are well implemented. A crucial requirementfor a successful implementation are regulations and rules that ensure equal treatment ofthe different actors, i.e. fair competition between the actors.

There are two areas where the compliance with fair competition is of special importance:

– The realisation of European rail freeways and the definition and enforcement of ac-cess rules: The more independent the infrastructure manager is the lower is the dan-ger of any discrimination - if open access is realised at all. A solution where the influ-ence of the national railway companies remains very strong is not suitable to dispelthe concerns of fully private intermodal operators and potential private investors thatwish to enter the market.

– The same is true if public funds are allocated in a way that they favour only some ofthe actors in the CT market.


ECOPLAN

8 Pricing and price structure

8.1 Price structure in intermodal transport


From table 2-2 we know that the interviewees consider the prices to be the most impor-tant shortcoming of today’s CT. The prices charged to the user is the sum of the pricesfor the different parts of the transport chain, i.e. the prices for– rail traction– terminal handling and– pre- and end-haul with trucks

Furthermore, the prices for the loading units and the rolling stock affect the end userprices in CT.

The mere level of the prices is just one element of the assessment that prices are a ma-jor barrier for improved intermodality. Others, like for example the transparency of theprices charged, also influence the judgement. Accordingly, the interviewees have beenasked a bundle of questions concerning prices in CT:

o Is there any need for a change of the structure of tariffs in CT?

o Is there enough transparency in the cost and tariff structure applied by the differentactors (e.g. railway companies and their subsidiary company)?

o Are different pricing principles in use according to the type of CT or according to dif-ferent countries?

o What pricing principles would you prefer?– charging by the wagon load?– charging by the transport unit?– charging by train?– charging by gross tonnage?

o Should tariffs of CT vary over time (e.g. during the week) in order to use terminal ca-pacities in a more efficient way?


b1) Significance of the barrier „Price structure in intermodal transport“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8.3


ECOPLAN

The rating fully corresponds with the findings in the literature and the results given in ta-ble 2-2. The majority of the interviewees believes that the current price level and struc-ture is a very important obstacle for the development of CT. In comparison to other barri-ers, the opinions of the different experts and actors do not differ widely from each other.


The answers are summarised according to the different parts that determine the enduser prices for CT services. The prices of the loading units and the rolling stock havebeen subject of the sections 3.3 and 3.4.

Traction prices:

o Price level: Most of the interviewees believe that the price level is too high and thatthere is a substantial potential for productivity gains and therefore lower prices. Thefollowing points have especially been mentioned concerning the price level:

– The costs for engines and engine drivers are too high in comparison to road trans-port (see also section 4.2).

– In the past, the railway companies have increased the traction prices for intermodaltrains without simultaneous improvements of the service quality. Furthermore, in-termodal operators complain that they do not sufficiently profit from productivitygains the railway companies make because of preliminary work carried out by theintermodal operator themselves (e.g. completion of freight documents, way-billsetc.). One probable reason why these cost reductions are not passed on is seen inthe little knowledge railway companies seem to have about their cost (see the nextparagraph).

o Transparency of prices: The insufficient transparency of the traction prices chargedby the railway companies is the other main criticism of the intermodal operators. It re-fers to two different aspects:

– Intermodal operators believe that some of the railway companies don’t know thecosts of their different services and products. Because there is no sound cost ac-counting system that can be controlled by third parties intermodal operators sus-pect that the traction prices for intermodal transports are too high and that theyhave to pay for services they not make use of, i.e. that there is internal cross-subsidisation in disfavour of CT. This suspicion also arises from the fact that trac-tion prices for different destinations vary in a way that intermodal operators cannotsee any useful rules how the prices have been calculated.Furthermore, it is believed that railway companies charge too high traction pricesfor CT and too low prices for more labour-intensive „production forms“, like for ex-ample wagon load transport, because they want to keep their too numerous em-ployees busy instead of adjusting the company structure.

– A lack of transparency is also observed in the traction prices the railway compa-nies offer to their clients. In cross-border CT the operators sometimes not evenknow what the share is that the different railway companies involved in a transport


ECOPLAN

get from their total expenditure for rail traction. This missing transparency givesfree reign to the problem of unfair competition mentioned in section 7.2.

o Pricing principles: As far as pricing principles are recognisable at all for the intermo-dal operators they make the following reservations and comments:

– Some of the interviewees hold the opinion that traction prices are still too strongly„cost-oriented“ and too little „market-oriented“ with the result that the offers of therailway companies are too often „out of market“.(81) They do not speak in favour oftraction prices that do not cover the cost. But they wish that the railway compa-nies better take account of the situation on the transport market and first of all tryto lower their cost to be able to offer competitive prices.

– Most of the intermodal operators involved in the interview programme consider thepricing of the railway companies to be too complicated and would favour a simplersystem.Big customers prefer a pricing per train taking into account the length/weight of thetrain and the engines used (commercial risk: customer). Smaller clients favour apricing per loading unit differentiating between loaded and empty units (commercialrisk: railway company).

– In the interviews some very specific points have been criticised:

- too high prices charged for empty units(82) which aggravates the problem of un-balanced transport flows between different regions

- good clients with large and regular transport volumes should receive better con-ditions

- certain price differentiation should be examined (e.g. lower prices for slowertrains, or less attractive train paths)

The railway company involved in the interview programme does not take the view sum-marised above. It pointed to the fact the today’s traction prices in CT are very low. CT isconsidered to be a very unprofitable business.

Prices for terminal services:

Like in the case of the traction prices most of the interviewees believe that the currentprices for terminal services are rather high and cost saving potentials should be exploitedeven if the overall effect on CT prices would be quite limited (see chapter 2).The following arguments have been brought up in the interviews:

o In some terminals too big cranes have been bought. The lower transport volumes thanexpected and the high costs of the cranes result in high costs per lift.

o Further factors causing high costs per lift have been identified especially in ports: therather old equipment, the mentality of the workers and the influence of the unions.

81 The point mentioned in section 7.1 that each actor in intermodal transport tries to maximise his share on

total revenues is probably another explanation for the (too) high traction prices.

82 On the other hand some of the interviewees believe that the railway companies more or less neglectthe costs for empty back trips when the costs and prices for wagon load transport are calculated.


ECOPLAN

o Representatives of forwarding companies believe that the rather monopolistic situa-tion of the UIRR-companies in their own country has prevented them from fightingstrongly enough against rising costs. As a consequence, the overhead costs of thecompanies seem to be too high and therefore also the price they can offer for theirservices.

o As mentioned in chapter 5 the terminal operators but also forwarding companies haveput too little efforts in attempts to reduce the peak-load problem for terminal opera-tions. A smoother distribution of pick-up and delivery could result in lower capacityneeds with regard to the handling equipment but also in lower costs in the pre- andend-haul with trucks (see next point).

Prices for the pre- and end-haul with road vehicles:

Potentials for cost savings are finally also seen in the pre- and end-haul with road vehi-cles. Different factors contribute to the (too) high prices for this element of the CT chain:

o Because of the peak-load problem the trucks for pre- and end-haul are used only dur-ing limited time periods in the morning and in the afternoon. If the owners of the truckdo not find additional possibilities to use their vehicles, the trucks are by far not run-ning to capacity which increases the revenues needed per kilometre driven.

o These fixed costs are also affected by the rather high share of fixed taxes on thetaxation of trucks which favours vehicles used for long-distance transport in compari-son to vehicles used in the pre- and end-haul of CT (see section 8.2).

o Attempts to reduce the peak-load problem are only one possibility to increase the useof the trucks in the pre- and end-haul of CT. A closer co-operation of the forwardingand haulage companies (e.g. the realisation of regional trucking pools) could also con-tribute to a more efficient use of the vehicles.

o Finally, the too little transport volumes of small terminals cause a too high share ofempty back-trips. From the point of view of an efficient organisation of the pre- andend-haul, terminals should have a certain minimum transport volume. Tendencies „tobring rail closer to the clients“, i.e. the development of small transhipment techniquesmaking it possible to serve small stations with CT, can result in a situation where the„critical mass“ for an efficient pre- and end-haul will not be achieved.

c) Conclusions

Looking at the share of the different cost categories mentioned under b2) on the totalcost of an intermodal transport (see chapter 2), measures to reduce the high rail tractionprices should have first priority.If the objectives of the current policies at EU-level and in some Member States to reformEuropean railways are realised a marked improvement can be expected:

o The separation of operations from infrastructure as required by the European legisla-tion (Directive 91/440/EEC) will force the railway companies to establish at least anaccounting system that distinguishes between the planning and management of theinfrastructure and the operation of services. Thus, the reproach that some of the rail-


ECOPLAN

way companies know too little about the costs of their will lose of importance. Onecan also expect that the transparency of the prices will increase because the infra-structure access fees will have to be published.

o The realisation of open access to the rail infrastructure will force the railway under-takings to develop more market-oriented pricing principles. Again, the problem of toolittle transparency will lose of its significance.


ECOPLAN

8.2 Policy measures to influence prices in the transport sec-tor


Whereas in the section 8.1 the prices in CT itself were in the centre of interest, this sec-tion deals with policy measures that affect prices in the transport sector as a whole.

In the centre of interest are the following issues:

o Road transport: Because long-distance road transport is the main competitor ofcross-border CT policy measures that result in increasing prices for this type of trans-port improve the competitiveness of CT.The Greenpaper „Towards Fair and Efficient Pricing in Transport“ indicates the direc-tion in which taxation of road freight transport should go according to the Commission:– the user- and polluter-pays-principle should be realised, i.e. road freight transport

should bear its internal and external costs– the structure of existing tax systems should be adjusted by bringing charges closer

to the point of use (i.e. more kilometre charges and less fixed charges)– there is a need for more differentiation in tax systems (e.g. a differentiation of the

tax rates according to the emission abatement technology of the vehicles).Beside taxation, regulations like speed limits and driving/rest times for driversand their enforcement are the other important field of possible measures in favour ofCT.(83)

o Rail transport / terminal services: Here the question is if there is a further need forpublic financial support and how this support can be justified. If the need is seen posi-tively the question is what forms of subsidies should be chosen (e.g. operational sub-sidies, public aid to infrastructure).

To get answers to these different points the following questions have been asked to theinterviewees:

– Are the low prices in the road haulage sector (first of all long distance journeys) a mainbarrier for improved intermodality.

– How do you assess the impact of different regulations in the transport sector (e.g.social regulations concerning driving hours, weight limits) and their enforcement on theprices in road transport?

– Do you see useful and not useful public subsidies in favour of CT?

83 The impact of technical regulations have been discussed in section 3.3.


ECOPLAN


b1) Significance of the barrier „Policy measures to influence prices in the transportsector“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8.1

First of all the representatives of the UIRR-companies among the interviewees believethat the current regulations and the way they are enforced are a very important barrierfor improved intermodality. The average value of 8.2 is one of the highest of the wholeinterview programme.


In general, the points of view concerning policy measures to influence prices in transportsector vary widely. Representatives of forwarding companies are much more critical ofmeasures in favour of CT and/or disfavour of road transport. They fear that the neces-sary pressure on the railway companies to increase their productivity would decrease.The measures would only result in higher prices for rail services and therefore not lead toa shift from road transport to CT.

The answers of the interviewees can be summarised as follows:

o Road transportWith regard to taxation the main cornerstones of the strategy given in the Commis-sion’s Greenpaper have not been challenged:

– There is a widespread agreement that each transport mode should bear the cost itcauses. The concept of an internalisation of external costs is not denied.

– It is recognised that the high share of fixed taxes is a disadvantage to CT. Partialexemptions from these taxes for CT or an adjustment of taxation resulting inmore distance-dependent charges should be considered.

The interviewees also emphasize the importance of regulations:

– Bans on driving for trucks on Sundays or at night (like in Switzerland) strongly fa-vour CT. It is believed that railway companies should take even more profit of thisadvantage.One interviewee points to the fact that these regulations lead to an inefficient useof the existing road network.

– The weight limit in transalpine freight transport through Switzerland is consideredto be decisive for the high share of CT on the Swiss corridors.Great importance is also attached to higher weight limits in the pre- and end-haulwith trucks. The difference should at least make up for the higher weight of the ve-hicles used in CT.


ECOPLAN

– Finally, the regulations concerning driving/rest times for truck drivers and theenforcement of the speed limits for trucks are seen as very favourable for CT be-cause they noticeably affect long-distance road transport.

There is agreement that it is not the regulations that are missing but that rather theenforcement is the problem. It is believed that a stricter enforcement would be a veryeffective policy measure in favour of CT.

o Rail transport / terminal servicesThe answers to the question of more and less useful subsidies vary considerably, atleast for some types of subsidies. Rather uncontested is only the need of publicfunds to finance large infrastructure projects (e.g. new rail links, tunnels, bridges).With regard to other types of subsidies the interviewees can be split up in two groups:

– The experts and actors of CT that advocate subsidies for CT first of all argue withthe state of imbalance in the freight transport sector: Subsidies for CT, or at leastfor the „rail part“ of CT are justified as long as there is no internalisation of externalcosts in road freight transport. Public funds for terminals are seen as one possibleform of subsidisation.

– The interviewees that are critical of subsidies emphasize the distortion effect ofpublic funds. On the one hand a distortion between the transport modes, and onthe other hand distortion of competition between different operators in the samemode.(84) Subsidies for terminals of railway companies, their subsidiaries or UIRR-companies are criticised because they undermine the competitiveness of fully pri-vate operators. At least in matured markets like transalpine transport there is noneed for such subsidies. Much more important is the general set-up for CT.

If one should find some common ground on which to base the question of publicfunds, it might be the following:

– One should not try to give everyone a slice of the cake, i.e. the subsidies shouldnot be distributed according to the „watering-can principle“. From this point ofview, subsidising of uncovered operating costs is not an adequate form to supportCT.

– Instead, the public aid should be clearly targeted and market-oriented. Concreteprojects of all categories of intermodal operators (UIRR-companies, fully privateoperators) could be supported with once-and-only contributions or loans at prefer-ential rates after having been subject to financial appraisal.

– Rather accepted are subsidies to support the start-up of new traffic, i.e. a well de-fined initial aid for new links (e.g. to Eastern Europe). Accordingly, there should be atime limit on the financial aid. Again, the subsidies should flow in specific projectsalong the new axes.

84 Similarly, subsidies for the operation of Rolling Motorways are criticised because they can undermine

the competitiveness of unaccompanied intermodal transport.


ECOPLAN

c) Conclusions

The answers of the interviewees show that in their view

– there is a need for action to take or to adjust policy measures that influence directlythe prices in the transport sector

– these measures are expected to have a perceptible positive impact on the competi-tiveness of CT.

Though there is some disagreement as to how the measures should be designed in de-tail, the following cornerstones of corresponding policy efforts are more or less uncon-tested:

– correction of the existing imbalance in the freight transport sector (internalisation ofexternal costs)

– adjustments in the taxation structure of road freight transport (reduce the share offixed taxes and increase the share of performance-related taxes)

– stricter enforcement of existing regulations

– act with restraint in the subsidisation of CT - especially as soon as road freight trans-port pays for its external costs - (no additional distortions, clear and non-discriminatoryrules for subsidisation)


ECOPLAN

9 Conclusions

In figure 9-1 we have summarised the significance the participants of the interviews haveattached to the different barriers for improved intermodality. The figure shows the aver-age values as given in the respective schemes in the preceding sections.


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



Shortcomings of therolling stock


Bottlenecks in the terminalstructure


Bottlenecks in the railinfrastructure

Too few direct trains, toomany mixed trains



Insufficient informationand communication

Lack of availability ofattractive train paths

Insufficient co-ordinationof timetables



Unsuitable price structurein CT




ECOPLAN

Though there have been considerable differences in the ratings between the differentinterviewees figure 9-1 allows for some general remarks:

o One of the main findings is that technical barriers like for example the question ofstandardisation are much less important than barriers concerning the general set-upfor CT. According to the interviewees it is not the „hardware“ that above all hindersCT in its development. The most relevant barriers are seen in organisational and insti-tutional issues and in the current price signals and structures in CT as well as in thetransport sector as a whole.With regard to policy instruments for improved intermodality the findings summarisedin figure 9-1 mean that network improvements, additional terminals, standardised in-termodal units and so on may still be important for the further development of CT buta policy initiative that concentrates on these points is likely to fail. The provision of agood „hardware“ for CT is necessary but in no way sufficient.

o Figure 9-1 implies that a strategy and instruments to improve intermodality shouldabove all pay attention to the following points:– competition and co-ordination in each element of the transport chain but espe-

cially in the rail part of the chain should be strengthened– regulations and taxation must ensure that this competition is fair, i.e. that distor-

tions between transport modes and between different operators in the same modeare avoided

These conclusions confirm the policy strategies described in the Greenpaper on Fairand Efficient Pricing on the one hand, and in the Whitepaper on the Revitalisation ofEuropean Railways on the other hand.

o Looking at the different barriers it is obvious that suitable policy measures to reduceor even to remove these obstacles must be taken at different levels (EU, MemberStates, intermodal operators, railway companies etc.). However, remembering thepoints mentioned in the last paragraph, the role of the EU and the Member Statesis a crucial one. Many of the necessary measures at the lower levels will only betaken if the general set-up is correspondingly designed.


ECOPLAN

STEMMStrategic European Multi-Modal Modelling

Research project within the Research, Technological Development and DemonstrationProgramme in the Field of Transport of the European Commission („4th Framework Pro-gramme“)

Work package 7: Policy instruments for improved intermodality

Questionnaire on Intermodal Transport

Structure: The questionnaire consists of two parts:

– Part I: In part I we would like you to describe the cornerstones ofa personal vision of intermodal transport in the year2010.

– Part II: Starting from this vision we wish to discuss in part II themain existing barriers or obstacles for improved inter-modality. The discussion should also provide information onthe most important strategies and policy measures to over-come these barriers.

Company Background:

Name of the company:

Interviewee:

Position:

Telephone:


ECOPLAN

Part I: Cornerstones of your vision of intermodal transport inthe year 2010

There are a lot of reports and articles analysing different aspects, advantages and dis-advantages of intermodal - or combined - transport. However, what is often missing is arather clear picture of the main characteristics of future intermodal transport. Therefore,we would like to start this questionnaire, asking you

What is your vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010?

We would like you to develop your vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010, apply-ing the two following assumptions with regard to the general set-up of transport policy:

o Prices of road freight transport will increase (order of magnitude: 20%) as a con-sequence of additional variable charges for the operation of heavy goods vehicles (e.g.in order to internalise external costs caused by HGVs).

o The market for railway freight transport will be deregulated: The main character-istics of this deregulation are– the free access to the railway infrastructure and terminals for qualified operators– the establishment of a system for the allocation of railway infrastructure capacities

(„train paths“) and for the charging of infrastructure fees that is independent of to-day’s national railway companies.

We thank you very much if you could cover all or most of the following characteristicfeatures of intermodal transport in your vision:

o What will be the structure of terminals (e.g. density, capacities) and what types oftrains (e.g. direct block trains, shuttle trains) will mainly be used.

o What transhipment techniques will dominate?

o How many railway operators will remain on the market? Do you expect new com-petitors on the market for railway traction (like for example CSX)? Will there be a closeinternational co-operation between railway companies?

o What will be the role of the UIRR - piggyback companies (Novatrans, Hupac, CEMATetc.) in the future?

o What will be the role of haulage companies?

o Will new companies enter the market for intermodal transport (like NDX or ERS)?

o What will be the development with regard to the intermodal units (containers, swapbodies, trailers)? What are the „units of the future“?

o How will prices for intermodal transport develop?

o What will be the growth rate of intermodal transport?

o What development do you expect concerning the logistics of intermodal transport(incl. the use of advanced information and communication technologies)?


ECOPLAN

Vision of intermodal transport in 2010: Page for your remarks

Keywords of the vision in general:

Keywords to the different features of intermodal transport:

o Terminal structure and types of trains:

o Transhipment techniques:

o Railway operators:

o Piggyback companies:

o Haulage companies:

o New companies:

o Intermodal units:

o Prices:

o Growth rate:

o Logistics, information and communication systems:


ECOPLAN

Part II: Existing barriers for improved intermodality

In this second part we come back to today’s problems and policy options and would liketo discuss the most relevant ones in some more detail. In your vision you may alreadyhave given answers to some of the following questions. These questions will be left outin the interview.Besides asking questions concerning specific barriers for improved intermodal transportwe would like to know your view of the significance of the different barriers.

0) General assessment of intermodal transport

Could you allocate in the list below a total of 100 points to indicate (by the highest number)those fields where you see the main shortcomings of international intermodal transport?

o transport speed, travel time

o size of transport units (flexibility with regard to transport volumes)

o payload of transport units

o temporal reliability (guarantee of meeting deadlines, i.e. availability ofgoods and units in time at the destination terminal)

o safety of goods (avoidance of damages, loss and theft)

o transport prices

o fair price structure and transparency of price structure

o extension of network (covering of space by the network, good integra-tion of the terminals in the road network)

o spatial flexibility (door-to-door services throughout Europe)

o temporal flexibility (flexible departure time, business hours of terminals,quick access to goods after the arrival of the train)

o communication and information (location of freight, direct communica-tion at any time and everywhere)

o others:

Total 100


ECOPLAN

1) Infrastructure, rolling stock and intermodal units

1a) Bottlenecks in today’s rail infrastructure

o Questions

Are important rail links missing (e.g. special freeways forgoods transport by rail)?

Are important rail links frequently overburdened causingbottlenecks when trains enter the network (examples, ifpossible)?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of bottlenecks in today’s railwayinfrastructure with regard to the productivity of intermo-dal transport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1b) Bottlenecks in today’s terminal structure

o Questions

Are there obvious bottlenecks in the location of terminals?

Is the density of terminals too low, just right or too high?

What is missing: large, medium-sized or small terminals?Does the terminal structure correspond with the need ofthe market?

If there is a bottleneck: what are the reasons (e.g. financ-ing problems)?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of bottlenecks in today’s termi-nal structure with regard to the productivity of intermodaltransport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1c) Shortcomings of the rolling stock

o Questions

Is there a shortage of rolling stock for intermodal trans-ports and why (e.g. problem of financing or ownership)?


ECOPLAN

Is the flexibility of the use of the wagons sufficiently high(e.g. usable for different types of intermodal units)?

Is the existing rolling stock still the limiting factor with re-gard to travel speed?

Is the development of an automated coupling still a rele-vant issue?

Is there enough international co-operation in the devel-opment of new wagons for intermodal services?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of the shortcomings of today’srolling stock with regard to the productivity of intermodaltransport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1d) Shortcomings of the intermodal units

o Questions

Is there a shortage of intermodal units (availability of con-tainers and swap bodies)?

Do the existing intermodal units meet the requirement ofthe transport market (i.e. different sizes, different potentialuses, forming of large units by several smaller units, usableas store units)? What units have the best future perspec-tive?

Is the problem that containers and swap bodies cannot beput together for one train still unsolved (different re-quirements with regard to shunting)?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of the shortcomings of intermo-dal units with regard to the productivity of intermodaltransport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1e) Further barriers

Do you see any further important barriers for improvedintermodality caused by bottlenecks in the infrastructureand shortcomings of the rolling stock and the in-termodal units?


ECOPLAN

2) Technical interoperability

2a) Standardisation of intermodal units

o Questions

Have there been any progresses in the standardisation ofintermodal units (first of all swap bodies)? Where is thelargest need for standardisation at present?

Are there still national initiatives in the development ofnew intermodal units that are not internationally co-ordi-nated (e.g. semi-trailers plus rail boogies as bi-modal con-cepts)?

Are there any developments that could result in additionalstandardisation problems (e.g. changing of truck width,volume transport containers of shipping lines)?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of the incomplete standardisa-tion of intermodal units with regard to the productivity ofintermodal transport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2b) Interoperability of networks

o Questions

Has there been any progress to overcome interoperabilityproblems of the different national rail networks:– different power supply (changing of locomotives)– different signal technology(– different gauges (only a problem between F and E?))

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of interoperability problems ofthe rail networks with regard to the productivity of inter-modal transport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


ECOPLAN

2c) Interoperability of transhipment techniques

o Questions

Are there still technical interoperability problems with re-gard to different transhipment techniques in terminals(mainly caused by different types of intermodal units)?

What transhipment techniques do meet the requirementsof the market the best and have the best future perspec-tives?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of interoperability problems interminal operations with regard to the productivity of in-termodal transport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2d) Further barriers

Do you see any further important barriers for improvedintermodality caused by technical interoperability prob-lems?


ECOPLAN

3) Logistic performance and concepts, informationand communication systems

3a) Logistic performance in terminals

o Questions

Whereas the road haulage companies offer complete andadvanced logistic service packages the logistic perform-ance within terminals is often criticised. To which of thefollowing aspects do these reproaches especially apply to?

– lack of advanced logistic concepts and industrial man-agement in the terminal itself (optimisation of hand-ling,storage, identification of goods/units, ) resulting amongother things in too low turnround rate of the intermodalunits

– limited business hours for delivery and picking up ofgoods

– limited use of advanced handling techniques resulting inhigh costs for transhipment (e.g. fully automated han-dling systems)

– insufficient solution of the peak hour problem

Are there large differences in the logistic performance -and therefore in the efficiency - between different types ofterminals or different types of operators?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of the logistic performance interminals with regard to the productivity of intermodaltransport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3b) Information and communication

o Questions

Have there been any significant progresses in the use ofadvanced information and communication systems (e.g.permanent location of freight, control of return of units,computerised reservation systems, use of INTERNET)?

Are there still important administrative shortcomings in in-termodal transport (e.g. rules for accompanying papers,missing of electronic way-bills, treatment of customs pa-pers)?


ECOPLAN

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of shortcomings in the informa-tion and communication systems with regard to the pro-ductivity of intermodal transport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3c) Further barriers

Do you see any further important barriers for improvedintermodality caused by the limited use of advanced in-formation and communication systems


ECOPLAN

4) Network management

4a) Co-operation of railway companies

o Questions

Is the co-ordination of timetables between the nationalrailway companies satisfactory? Is it still causing relevantborder delays

Are enough attractive train paths available for intermodaltransport in the timetables of railway companies?

Would a closer co-operation between railway companiesallow for more international direct trains?

Are there still too many mixed trains and shunting opera-tions in intermodal transport?

What would be the impacts of a complete realisation of„free access“ to railway infrastructure?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of above problems with regardto the productivity of intermodal transport?

– co-ordination of timetables


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

– availability of attractive train paths


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

– more international direct trains/ reduced number ofmixed trains


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

– „free access“


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4b) Further barriers

Do you see any further important barriers for improved in-termodality in the field of network management?


ECOPLAN

5) Organisational and institutional issues

5a) Co-operation between the actors of intermodaltransport

o Questions

Where do you see the main lack of co-operation betweenthe many actors in intermodal transport?– in the co-operation between companies offering dif-

ferent product types (container and piggyback compa-nies)

– in the co-operation between the different national piggy-back companies?

– in the co-operation between road haulage companiesand companies operating the terminals

– in the co-operation between the intermodal operatorsand the railway companies?

– in further aspects of co-operation?

Should there be a vertical integration between differentcompanies in the intermodal transport sector to achieve abetter productivity?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of a closer co-operation betweenthe actors of intermodal transport with regard to the pro-ductivity of intermodal transport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5b) Competition between the actors of intermodaltransport

o Questions

In what respect should the market be more deregulated tointroduce more competition in intermodal transport?– liberalisation of terminal access for road haulage com-

panies, free competition in pre- and end-haulage?– „free access“ to the railway infrastructure?– further aspects of deregulation (e.g. cabotage)?


ECOPLAN

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of deregulation measures to re-duce market entrance barriers with regard to the produc-tivity of intermodal transport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Do you see any further important organisational and insti-tutional barriers for improved intermodality?


ECOPLAN

6) Pricing and price structure

6a) Price structure in intermodal transport

o Questions

Is there any need for a change of the structure of tariffs inintermodal transport?

Is there enough transparency in the cost and tariff struc-ture applied by the different actors (e.g. railway companiesand their subsidiary company)?

Are different pricing principles in use according to type ofintermodal transport or according to different countries?

What pricing principles would you prefer?- charging by the wagon load?- charging by the transport unit?- charging by train?- charging by gross tonnage?

Should tariffs of intermodal transport vary over time (e.g.during the week) in order to use terminal capacities in amore efficient way?

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of the prices and price structurewith regard to competitiveness of intermodal transport?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6b) Policy measures to influence prices in the trans-port sector

o Questions

Do you see useful and not useful public subsidies in favourof intermodal transport?

Are the low prices in the road haulage sector (first of alllong distance journeys) by far the main barrier for improvedintermodality.

How do you assess the impact of different regulations inthe transport sector (e.g. social regulations concerningdriving hours, weight limits) and their enforcement on theprices in road transport?


ECOPLAN

o SignificanceWhat is the significance of measures to adjust prices inthe transport sector in favour of intermodal transports?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Do you see any further important barriers for improved in-termodality in the field of pricing and price structure?

Annex B: Results of the Scandinavian based Expert Interviews B - 1

VTT / SINTEF / TEMAPLAN AB / TØI

Annex B:


Results of the Expert Interviews on Intermo-

dal Transport in Finland, Sweden and Nor-

way

Carried out by:

o VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

– Heikki Kanner

– Risto Hyppönen

– Arto Nokelainen

o SINTEF Civil and Environmental Engineering

– Jorgen Rodseth

– Solveig Meland

o TEMAPLAN AB

– Mats Lundin

– Pontus Aberg

o TØI Institute of Transport Economics

B - 2 Annex B: Results of the Scandinavian based Expert Interviews


– Siv Ingebrigtsen

– Inger-Anne Saetermo



Table of contents:

0 Summary.....................................................................................B-4

1 Introduction ................................................................................B-5

2 Vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010 .................B-52.1 Summary .................................................................................................................. B-52.2 Vision in Finland ........................................................................................................ B-62.3 Vision in Norway....................................................................................................... B-72.4 Vision in Sweden..................................................................................................... B-11

3 General assessment of intermodal transport....................B-123.1 Summary ................................................................................................................ B-123.2 General assessment in Finland.............................................................................. B-153.3 General assessment in Norway ............................................................................ B-143.4 General assessment in Sweden ............................................................................ B-16

4 Existing barriers for improved intermodality.....................B-174.1 Summary ................................................................................................................ B-174.2 Finland..................................................................................................................... B-214.3 Norway ................................................................................................................... B-214.4 Sweden................................................................................................................... B-24

Appendix 1: Mean values by country of sample .....................B-26

Appendix 2: Mean values by interviewee type.........................B-27

Appendix 3: Mean values and counts of scores.......................B-28



0 Summary

This expert interview was carried out as a part of STEMM WP7 survey. The question-naire is based on the ECOPLAN model, but there were some minor changes in the ques-tions due to domestic circumstances and needs. It covered 32 firms in Finland, Swedenand Norway. Interviews took place in the autumn 1997.

The questionnaire included vision and general assessment of intermodal transport andexisting barriers for improved intermodality.

Vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010 will be:– Capacity problems will increase the size of terminals.– Ports will be important places and they will work also as logistic centers in intermodal

chains..– The role of intermodal units will increase and there will not be any special technical

development but minor changes.– Block-trains will dominate the future multi-modal systems.– Number of railway operators will increase and more co-operation is used.– Advanced telematic solutions and automatic identification systems will increase the

productivity in the whole transport chain.

The most important factors for intermodal transport were, in order of importance:– temporal reliability– transport prices– communication and information– frequency– transport speed and travel time– safety of goods and– temporal flexibility.

The most important existing barriers for improved intermodality are:– the price when including rail in the intermodal chain;– co-operation between the operators of the chain’s components; and– infrastructure bottlenecks.



1 Introduction

This expert interview was carried out as a part of WP7 survey. It covered 32 firms inFinland, Sweden and Norway. Interviews took place in the autumn 1997.

The questionnaire is based on the ECOPLAN model, but there were some minor changesin the questions due to domestic circumstances and needs. Interviews were carried outmostly by telephone, but the questionnaire was faxed or posted in advance.

Number of interviews and some background information are given in the table below.Appendixies give detailed interview data. The questionnaires used are written in Finnish,Norwegian and Swedish and are not included as an appendix. Anyway other appendixeshelp readers to understand what was included in the questionnaires.

2 Vision of intermodal transport in the year2010

2.1 Summary

Capacity problems will increase the size of terminals. In the name of productivity thesebigger terminals will be located spatially more sparsely. Ports will be important placesand they will work also as logistic centers in intermodal chains. Trucks and cranes willdominate transhipment techniques.

The role of intermodal units will increase and there will not be any special technical de-velopment but minor changes. Swap bodies might increase their modest share but therole of trailers will also stay important.

MEAN VALUES ALL INTERVIEWS Industry Forwarding and

transport

Transport Ports

Finland Sweden Norway Total Total Total Total Norway

Number of interviews 10 7 15 32 4 17 8 3

Employees

(averages per interview)

983 1482 434 853 950 988 401 87

Turnover in the year 1996

(million FIM/SEK/NOK)


1143 2590 978 130

Turnover in the year 1996

(million ECU)


191 630 221 314 266 409 199 29



Block-trains will dominate the future multi-modal systems. Number of railway operatorswill increase and more co-operation is used. Competition will decrease the prices for in-termodal transports.

Advanced telematic solutions and automatic identification systems will increase the pro-ductivity in the whole transport chain and make it easier for the customer to trace hisshipments. Quality factors become more important.

2.2 Vision in Finland

o Structure of terminals and types of trains

Number and capacity of terminals in ports and in some inland locations will increase. Theenvironmental factors are crucial. Changes in the terminal structure and activities cantake place therefore. The terminals will concentrate on the same areas. Communica-tion/traffic areas, logistic centres will be created.

Block trains to main points in Europe and from Finnish ports to Finnish inland terminalsand Russia will become more common. The Helsinki-Tampere-Oulu-Kemi line will carrysome intermodal traffic but the volumes are expected to be small. The train types do notchange a lot. Instead the loading capacity may increase.

o Transshipment techniques

The lifting capacity of the trucks increases and the reach stacker become more com-mon. Techniques will be focused on containers and trailers. Those techniques will be-come common which take speed, tracking and damage risk into consideration. Big vol-umes will lead to construction of automated terminals.

o Railway operators

Co-operation increases and pricing becomes a more advantageous. There will be 2-3 op-erators in traffic between EU and Finland. Russia's traffic may have effect on the greaternumber of the operators. International co-operation will increase between railway com-panies. Competition increases because of deregulation of railway transport. The numberof operators might increase also in Finland. International alliances will exist. The railwaycompanies of the different countries will ally. Deregulation will bring in new entrepreneursto the special areas.



o Piggyback and haulage companies

Biggyback companies role will be more important and significant in long distance trans-ports. Speed, flexibility, working time regulations and pollutant regulations are crucial fac-tors.The role of sea transport will be increasing and the average length of road transports willdecrease. The role of road transport companies will increase with short distancesbecause the shipment size becomes smaller.More small companies whose capacity is small will come. They will come onto the mar-ket with advantageous prices.The railway and road transport companies must ally so that the transport chain would bewhole.

o Development of the intermodal units

There will not be changes in units. The present units will survive. The measures andforms may change. The use of the swap bodies will increase at the expense of the oth-ers and the significance of the trailers will be emphasised also and will grow.Stackable swap bodies will be developed.

o Development of prices

Rail prices will decrease due to increase of efficiency and competition but not as rapidlyas in other transport modes. They will become smaller relatively with respect to otherprices. It’s also possible that prices rise uniformly from the effect of the environmentalissues. The market situation will determine the prices.

o Growth rate of intermodal transports

The growth up to the year 2010 will be about 2 - 3% per year for international transportand this will represent faster growth than for other transport modes. In Finland the trans-ports are not often suitable for railways because of short trips. The restricted possibilitiesto use will prevent big growth.

o Development of the logistics of intermodal transport

More exact real-time automatic tracking will become common. In the identification of thegoods/units bar codes and tags become common. Telematics systems will develop totrack the conditions of a unit/transport. Tracing and tracking will be possible to a cus-tomer from his own terminal.Development of the quality of the whole chain of intermodal transports will become moreimportant. Also the environmental issues will create pressure in this direction.

2.3 Vision in Norway



The results from this part are presented as a summary of the answers given by the 14interviewees that responded to these questions. The results are presented for eachquestion as a summary of the answers given by all respondents.

o Effects of limited infrastructure capacity

The majority of respondents said that limited capacity in transport infrastructure willhave a positive influence on development of multi-modal transport. Capacity of the railsystem and terminals is expected to be a problem, as well as capacity of road and portterminals. Capacity restraints will also reduce the flexibility of multi-modal transport op-erations.

In the rail network there is a potential conflict of interest between passenger and freighttrains, until freight trains can operate on separate networks.

o Development in terminal structure

The majority of the interviewees answer that they believe that the number of terminalswill decrease, and that the average size of a terminal will increase accordingly. Ac-cordingly many expressed the importance of terminals being more cost-efficient.

A limited number of high capacity, integrated multi-modal terminals (hubs), will act asnodes in high-capacity transport networks. The terminals should be located so that theycan serve both road, rail and sea transport. Such terminals should ideally be located rightoutside bigger urban/metropolitan areas.

Some of the interviewees expect a development towards more specialised terminals,and perhaps also an increase in the number of terminals, to reduce feeder or distributiontraffic carried out by polluting trucks.

o Type of trains

The majority (9 out of 14) answer that Block-trains will be dominating in the future multi-modal systems. These trains will travel between the hubs of the network, as describedabove.

For domestic transport in Norway the volumes of goods is so limited, that other solutionsbased on freight commuter or mixed trains will be more convenient. In co-operation be-tween the Scandinavian countries block trains can be built up for transport to ContinentalEurope.



o Type of ships

A majority of the interviewees answer that ro-ro will be the dominating type of ship in seatransport between Norway and the Continent. Ro-ro ships will also be used in feeder traf-fic. Today this transport is primarily based on combined passenger and trailer ferriesto/from Denmark and Germany in combination with more conventional lo-lo ships. Aspart of a multi-modal chain it is of importance that the load units as far as possible arestandardised so that they can be used by all transport modes.

Lo-lo ships are expected to serve long distance and intercontinental traffic, based on con-tainers as load units. Some answers however that they expect that both ro-ro and lo-loships will be used, and some of them have the opinion that new concepts in ship designwill come before 2010.

o Which load units will be dominating in the future ?

Most answers include more than one type of load unit. Semitrailers are most frequentlymentioned. Swapbodies are also frequently mentioned, by 7 of the inter-viewees, whileperhaps a little surprisingly one third of respondents have containers on their list.

o New transhipment techniques

Most of the interviewees are of the opinion that new transhipment and cargo handlingtechniques will be developed before 2010.

New techniques for faster loading and unloading is important. Chassis trucks for move-ment of swapbodies within the terminal areas, conveyors etc will be in use. More spe-cialised equipment for handling different types of goods and load units might come.Automation of goods handling and standardisation of equipment as well as load units isimportant.

o Piggyback -companies future role

Just over half of the interviewees have answered this question, which most likely is aresult of piggyback not being very relevant in Norway.

o Co-ordination and co-operation / New actors

A closer integration and co-operation between the actors in the multi-modal chain is ex-pected. The transport companies will play a more important role than they do today, es-pecially on door-to-door transport. There will be tighter relations between transport com-panies and the terminals in the multi-modal chain. The other modes will increase theirmarket share, while road transport will loose market shares.



New companies will come, and there will be companies specialising on multi-modaltransport. There is reason to expect deeper structural changes in the transport market,and the number of actors will decrease, those being left will be bigger multinationalcompanies or smaller specialised companies. Rail companies will offer total transportconcepts, and there will be a closer co-operation between sea and land transport compa-nies.

o Development of prices compared to other transport modes

Most interviewees are of the opinion that cost and prices for multi-modal transport willdevelop in a positive direction compared to the separate transport modes, especially roadtransport.

Prices have to be reduced significantly if multi-modal transport shall be more competitive.It is therefore an assumption that multi-modal transport solutions must be more costefficient. Most important will be to reduce the terminal and transhipment costs.

o Development in transport volume and market share

Almost all of the interviewees expect both volume and market share for multi-modaltransport to increase.

o Expected development of advanced IT- and transport telematic solutions for usein multi-modal transport

All experts agree that advanced IT- and transport telematics systems will be of increas-ing importance in the years to come, and that these tools will be a must for realisation offuture efficient multi-modal transport solutions.

Almost all interviewees mention tracing and tracking systems as very important. This willalso be the situation for fleet management systems, satellite communication and GPS-systems. EDI, booking and information systems are also considered to be of great im-portance. The direct connection to the customers IT-systems will be more important.

Automatic registration of weight and measures in terminals, issuing of freight docu-ments etc will also be of importance.



o The most important factors for multi-modal transport to succeed

The answers to this question is covering a wide range of factors or measures, of whichthe three most frequent answers are:

1. Information technology

2. Price / cost efficiency

3. Development of transport infrastructure and terminals

2.4 Vision in Sweden

An indication of the vision of intermodal transport can be based upon the assessmentfrom the seven Swedish companies. To measure this vision you can use a structure of11 different characteristic features.All the Swedish companies are forwarding and transport companies.A rough conclusion of the comments (visions) of this features from these companieswas as follows:

1. The structure of terminals will change in such a way that the terminal density willdecrease and at the same time the capacity in the terminal will increase.

2. The transhipment techniques will be dominated by trucks and cranes. That meansLo-Lo techniques.

3. The number of railway operators will increase and also the co-operation betweenthem will increase.

4. The future role of piggyback companies is uncertain. In special O/D relation thissystem may increase.

5. Haulage companies on different networks (road, rail and sea) will complete eachother more in the future.

6. New intermodal transport companies will enter the market.

7. There will also be new combinations of existing companies.

8. The number of containers, swap bodies and trailers (Lo-Lo units) will increase.

9. The prices of for intermodal transport will decrease.

10. The growth rate of intermodal transport will be 10-20 %.

11. The logistics of intermodal transport will be implemented by using more tools in theIT-field.



3 General assessment of intermodal transport

3.1 Summary

In this part of the survey, all respondents were asked to rank the importance of factorsconcerning multi-modal transport, on a scale from 1 to 10. The most important factors forintermodal transport were, in order of importance:

– temporal reliability– transport prices– communication and information– frequency– transport speed and travel time– safety of goods and– temporal flexibility.

Mean values and the number of scores 1-10 are given in the table below.

0. General opinion concerning intermodal

tr.

Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Temporal reliability 9,4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 7 20

Transport prices 8,7 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 5 9 12

Communication and information 8,3 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 11 11 3

Frequency 8,1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 3 3

Transport speed, travel time 8,0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 9 7 6

Safety of goods 8,0 0 0 0 0 4 2 5 7 7 7

Temporal flexibility 8,0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 11 11 3

Extension of networks 7,4 0 0 2 2 2 2 5 8 7 4

Size of transport units 7,3 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 4 3 2

Payload of transport units 7,3 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 7 1 2

Fair price structure and transparency of price str. 7,3 0 0 2 0 6 2 6 7 4 5

Spatial flexibility 7,1 2 0 1 0 4 2 5 10 5 3

Flexibility concerning size and payload of trans-

port units

7,0 0 0 1 3 3 4 5 10 5 1

placing responsibility for damage, etc 6,7 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 5 1 1

Technical solutions 6,4 0 1 0 2 6 5 10 7 1 0



The mean values of these factors differ slightly if we consider countries and businessareas of the interviewed firms. Mean values by country are given in the picture belowand by business area in the picture on the next page.

In the Finnish sample transport speed and travel time plays greater role than in otherNordic coutries’ samples especially when compared to Sweden. This might be becauseof the longer distance from the continent and the main transport mode which is sea.

In the Swedish sample safety of goods appears to be more important than in other cou-tries’ samples. The reverse is the case for the fairness and transparency of price struc-ture.

In the Norwegian sample temporal flexibility and extension of networks are more impor-tance than in the Swedish and Finnish samples.

In general industrial firms give higher rankings to nearly all factors than others do.

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0

Technical solutions

Placing responsibilityfor damage, etc

Flexibility concerningsize and payload of

Spatial flexibility

Fair price structure andtransparency of price

Payload of transportunits

Size of transport units

Extension of networks

Safety of goods

Temporal flexibility

Transport speed, traveltime

Frequency

Communication andinformation

Transport prices

Temporal reliability

TOTAL

FINLAND

SWEDEN

NORWAY



In particular payload of transport units reaches the highest score 10. Industry finds alsofrequency, transport speed, travel time and size of transport units more important thanforwarding and transport firms do.

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

Technical solutions

placing responsibilityfor damage, etc

Flexibility concerningsize and payload of

Spatial flexibility

Fair price structureand transparency of

Payload of transportunits

Size of transportunits

Extension ofnetworks

Safety of goods

Temporal flexibility

Transport speed,travel time

Frequency

Communication andinformation

Transport prices

Temporal reliability

TOTAL

Industry

Forward. and tr.

Transport

Ports



3.2 General assessment in Finland

The very clear “TOP 3” factors are:

1. Temporal reliability 9,7

2. Transport prices 9,3

3. Transport speed, travel time 8,9

Co-operation needs and several loadings and unloadings causes also high ratings tosafety of goods and communication and information.

3.3 General assessment in Norway

The mean value for all 4 groups of respondents is calculated (Industry, Forwarders,Transport Companies and Ports), giving the following ”TOP 5”, factors and scores:

1. Temporal reliability 9.5

2. Temporal flexibility 8.7

3. Transport – price level 8.5

4. Communication and information 8.5

5. Frequency 8.1

5. Travel time 8.1

The difference between groups for each factor is quite limited. In many cases the scoreswithin one group are more widely spread, than between groups. Following is a shortpresentation of the results for each of the 13 questions.

o Travel time

Travel time is given an average score of 8.1, which adds to the importance of time fac-tors that appears in the table above. This factor is given the highest score by industry(9.0), lowest by ports (6.7).

o Frequency

Frequency has got an average score of 8.1, indicating that time is an important factor.Highest score is again given by industry (9.0), and lowest by transport companies, in-cluding shipping companies (7.4).

o Flexibility concerning size and payload of transport units

The average score of this factor was 6.6, which places it next to the bottom of the list.The spread between groups is also limited, scores ranging from 5.8 by transport compa-



nies to 7.60 by forwarders. However within both these groups there are companies giv-ing a score up to 9.0 on this question.

o Temporal reliability

Temporal reliability is on top of the list above, and no further comments are necessary.

o Safety of goods

Safety of goods got an average score of 7.5. Forwarders and transport companies got anaverage score of 7.0 and 7.2, while industry’s score is 9.0. The relatively low priority ofgoods safety by the transport industry might be a little surprising. On the other handports give this factor a higher priority, 8.0. These results might reflect that most damageoccurs in the terminals, not during transport.

o Transport prices – level / structure

The price level is on the “TOP 5” list. From the detailed results it is interesting to notethat transport industry gives this factor a higher score than the industry, respectively 9.2for forwarders, 7.0 for industry. It is very interesting to note that the highest individualscore in industry is 7.0, while there in all three groups of transport industry are individualscores of 10.

When it comes to price structure, the average score is lower than for price level in allfour groups, but for this factor as well there are individual scores of 10 both for forward-ers, transport and ports.

o Extension of networks

Extension of networks has an average score of 8,07. Between groups the score variesfrom 6.6 for forwarders to 9.4 for the transport companies. When it comes to single re-sults, there is a wide variation, from a lowest score of 3 by a forwarding company to amaximum of 10 also given by a forwarder.

o Spatial flexibility

This factor got an average total score of 7.5, varying from 7.0 for forwarders to 8.5 forindustry. The single results for this group is also wide spread, over the same area as forquestion 3.8.



o Temporal flexibility

This is also one of the “TOP 5”. The group score is ranging from 8.0 to 9.0, the last scoregiven by forwarders.

o Communication and information

The average score for this factor is 8.5 with a highest score of 9.0 for industry. Thespread of results between groups is modest, but for single results the score varies from5 (forwarder) to 10 (transport company). It is interesting to compare this result with theanswers on question 2.13 -Vision about future multi-modal transport, where IT and com-munication is ranged as the most important factors for fulfilling the vision of future multi-modal transport.

o Technical solutions

The average score for this factor is 5.9, which is the lowest score of all factors. Thescore is highest for industry, 7.5, while the score for the other three groups varies from5.4 to 5.8. This might be a little surprising as technical solutions, and especially lack ofstandardisation in this field, often are considered to be a bottleneck in multi-modal trans-port.

o Possibility for placing responsibility for damage

The average score is 6.7. Highest score is given by industry, 8.5, while the three groupsof actors in the transport industry give a score from 6.0 – 6.8 on this question. This mightindicate that damage is felt as a greater problem for the transport users than for thetransport industry. These results is very much reflecting the results presented in 3.5,concerning safety of goods.

3.4 General assessment in Sweden

In this field the “TOP 3” most important factors are: (The mean value of significance inbracket)

1. Temporal reliability i.e. availability of goods in time at the destination terminal (9,0).

2. Safety of goods i.e. avoidance of damages, loss and theft (8,7).

3. Communication and information (8,0).



4 Existing barriers for improved intermodality

4.1 Summary

The most important existing barriers for improved intermodality are:

1. the price when including rail in the intermodal chain;

2. co-operation between the operators of the chain’s components; and

3. infrastructure bottlenecks.

Co-ordination and co-operation between modes needs very good information and com-munications. Telematics will have a significant role to play in this. The table below liststhe greatest barriers:

Mean values by country and by business area are given in the pictures on the followingpages. The order is the same as in the table above.

Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6a) Price structure (the main transport mode is rail) 8,2 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 8 9 5

5a) Co.operation between the actors of intermodal transports 8,1 0 0 1 1 1 3 4 4 10 8

1a) Bottlenecks in today's rail road and sea infra 8,0 0 0 0 3 0 1 5 8 9 4

3b) Information and communication 7,9 0 0 1 0 1 1 6 11 6 4

4a) co-ordination of timetables 7,9 0 0 2 0 1 2 3 11 7 5

1b) Bottlenecks in today's terminal and port infra 7,8 0 0 0 1 1 7 2 6 10 4

4a) availability of attractive train paths (+port&term in NOR) 7,8 0 0 2 1 1 2 5 6 5 8

6b) Policy measures to influence prices in the transport sector 7,7 0 0 2 1 1 1 6 8 7 4

6a) Price structure (the main transport mode is short sea) 7,5 0 0 3 1 2 1 4 8 7 4

3a) Logistic performance in terminals 7,4 1 0 1 1 4 0 4 9 8 3

4a) free access 7,3 0 0 1 2 4 3 4 8 6 3

4a) more intern. direct trains/reduced number of mixed

trains(+sea routes in NOR)

7,2 0 0 4 0 2 3 6 6 5 4

2b) Networks 7,0 0 1 2 0 3 4 5 8 5 2

5b) Copetition between the actors of intermodal transports 6,9 1 0 1 4 1 3 8 7 4 3

1c) Shortcomings of the rolling stock 6,9 0 0 2 4 2 5 5 3 8 2

2c) Transshipment techniques 6,8 0 1 2 2 5 4 1 8 6 2

2a) Units 6,3 0 1 3 5 2 5 4 6 1 4

2b) ship types 6,2 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 0 1

1d) Shortcomings of the intermodal units 6,1 0 0 6 3 5 2 5 5 4 1

1d) Shortcomings of the ship types 5,8 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 1 1 2



In the Swedish sample the most important barriers are networks and the number of in-ternational direct trains and mixed trains.

In the Norwegian sample price seems to be not so important than in the other samples,but information and communication, co-ordination of timetables, bottlenecks in today’sterminal and port infrastructure and availability of attractive train paths are more impor-tant.

In the Finnish sample especially price (when the main transport mode is rail) and co-operation between the operators of intermodal transport are the worst barriers.



0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

1c) Shortcomings ofthe ship types

1d) Shortcomings ofthe intermodal units

2b) Ship types

2a) Units

2c) Transshipmenttechniques

1c) Shortcomings ofthe rolling stock

5b) Copetitionbetween the actors of

2b) Networks

4a) More intern. directtrains/reduced

4a) Free access

3a) Logisticperformance in

6a) Price structure(main transport mode

6b) Policy measuresto influence prices in

4a) Availability ofattractive train paths

1b) Bottlenecks intoday's terminal and

4a) Co-ordination oftimetables

3b) Information andcommunication

1a) Bottlenecks intoday's rail road and

5a) Co.operationbetween the actors of

6a) Price (maintransport mode is rail)

TOTAL

FINLAND

SWEDEN

NORWAY



0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

1c) Shortcomings of theship types

1d) Shortcomings of theintermodal units

2b) ship types

2a) Units

2c) Transshipmenttechniques

1c) Shortcomings of therolling stock

5b) Copetition betweenthe actors of intermodal

2b) Networks

4a) more intern. directtrains/reduced number of

4a) free access

3a) Logistic performancein terminals

6a) Price structure (maintransport mode is short

6b) Policy measures toinfluence prices in the

4a) availability ofattractive train paths

1b) Bottlenecks in today'sterminal and port infra

4a) co-ordination oftimetables

3b) Information andcommunication

1a) Bottlenecks in today'srail road and sea infra

5a) Co.operationbetween the actors of

6a) Price structure (maintransport mode is rail)

TOTAL

Industry

Forw. and tr.

Transport

Ports



From the industrial point of view networks, price structure and bottlenecks in today’sterminal and port infrastructure are the worst barriers. Forwarding and transport firmsdon’t consider networks as important barriers as industry does. Price structure is prob-lem in rail transport but not in short sea for industrial firms.

Ports consider transshipment techniques worst barriers but co-operation and train con-nections have significant role.

We now turn to consider the individual samples.

4.2 Finland

Pricing and price structure in rail transport is absolutely the most significiant barrierin the Finnish survey. Both industry and forwarding companies find it in the same way.

Co-operation between the actors of intermodal transport has to be improved greatly.

Price and co-operation also need more attention with more advanced information..

4.3 Norway

This part of the survey is focussed on what measures will be necessary if one shallreach the future situation as described in part 2, Vision of intermodal transport in the year2010. All 15 interviewees answered these questions, ranging the importance of the fac-tors on a scale from 1 to 10. The questions in this part is divided in the following sixgroups:– Infrastructure– Technical interoperability– Logistics, information and communication– Network management– Organisational and institutional issues– Pricing and price structure

We also present a common “TOP 5” list for all questions in this third part, giving a rank-ing as follows:

1. Information and Communications 8.7

2. Co-operation of railway companies 8.7

3. Bottlenecks in terminal and ports 8.6

4. Availability of attractive train paths 8.5

5. Bottlenecks in rail, road and sea infrastructure 8.5



In the following presentation the results, both for each single question as well as eachgroup, is shortly commented.

o Infrastructure

Bottlenecks in today’s rail, road and sea infrastructure? Removal of bottlenecks inthe transport infrastructure is considered important. This question is rated with an aver-age score of 8.5. Mean values for the different groups are ranging from 7.0 for industry to9.4 for the forwarders. Lowest score for a single respondent is 6 (industry), highest is 10(forwarders and transport companies)

Bottlenecks in today’s terminal and port infrastructure? Bottlenecks in terminals andports has been given an average score of 8.6, Mean values for the groups varies fromvaries from 7.5 for the ports to 9.4 for the transport companies. Industry considers thesebottlenecks more important than both ports and forwarders.

Shortcomings of the rolling stock? Forwarders and transport companies both give anaverage score of 8.0 on this question, while ports only give a score of 5.5. Total meanvalue is 7.5.

Shortcoming of the ship types? Average score for all groups is 5,8. While industry,forwarders (mean=3.8) and ports obviously consider this a minor problem, transportcompanies has an average score of 8.3. The high score in this group can be explained bythe fact that the shipping companies are included in this group.

Shortcoming of the intermodal units? The average total score on this question is 5.9,indicating that this is not one of the most important questions. Highest score, 7.5 is givenby ports, while lowest score, 4.4 is given by forwarding companies. Single scores arewidely spread, from 3 to 10.

Under section 2, question 13, the interviewees were asked to list the three most impor-tant factors for multi-modal transport to succeed. Development of transport infrastruc-ture and terminals was one of the “TOP 3” factors. Removal of bottlenecks both intransport and terminal infrastructure is also on the list of the most important measures toreach the visions in this third part, as presented above.

o Technical interoperability and standardisation

Interoperability of transport units. Average score for this factor is 6.7, ranging from5.5 for industry to 8.0 for ports. Single scores ranges from 3 (transport industry) to 10(ports and transport industry).

Co-ordination of power supply and signalling systems. Average score for these fac-tors is 6.2, varying from 5.2 for forwarders to 7.5 by the industry.



Importance of standardised ship types for intermodal efficiency. Average score forthis factor is 6.2. Highest score, 7.8 is given by transport companies, and the score ofthe shipping companies is in average 8.0.

Importance of transhipment techniques in terminals. Transhipment techniques haveobtained a total mean of 7.1, ranging from 6.2 for transport companies to 9.0 for ports.These results might indicate that the transport companies today have a limited experi-ence of being an integrated part of a multi-modal transport chain. The high score of theports reflects the fact that port terminals act as transhipment terminals in multi-modaltransport, handling goods to/from all modes; road and rail as well as sea transport.

o Logistics, information and communications

Importance of logistic performance in terminals. Logistic performance in terminalshas got an average score of 7.9. Average score for transport companies is 7.6, while thethree other groups all has a mean score of 8.0.

Importance of information and communication systems. The mean score of thisquestion is 8.7. Transport industry has the highest score; 9.2, while the rest of the groupsall have an average of 8.0. No single interviewee has given a score under 7.0. These re-sults underline the importance of information and communication systems for efficientmulti-modal transport, and is very well corresponding with the ranking of factors ormeasures presented in the vision part, chapter 2.13.

o Network and terminal management

Importance of co-ordination of timetables (train). The average score of this questionis 8.7, varying from 8.0 for ports to 9.0 for forwarders. Lowest single score is 8.0. Thisconfirms the general impression of to days lack of co-ordination.

Availability of attractive train paths, ports and terminals. Average score is 8.5,ranging between 8.0 for industry to 8.8 for forwarders. In opposition to the above ques-tion, the score of single interviewees are covering all the range from 4 to 10.

Importance of more direct trains and shipping routes. Average score is 7.7, varyingfrom 5.5 for industry, to 8.8 for transport companies. For shipping companies the averageis as high as 9.5.

Importance of free access to the rail network for multi-modal efficiency. Averagescore is 7.8. Highest score for this factor is 8.6 for transport companies, while industryonly gives an average of 6.0.



o Organisational and institutional issues

Co-operation between the actors of multi-modal transport. Total average score is8.5. While industry gives a score of 6.0, all actors from the transport sector gives a highscore, ranging from 8.7 to 9.0

Competition between the actors of intermodal transport. Average score is 7.2,ranging from 5.5 for industry to 7.8 for forwarders. These results indicate that actors ofthe transport sector tend to be more positive to co-operation than to competition in thismarket.

o Pricing and price structure in multi-modal transport

Importance of price level, main mode = rail. Price level in multi-modal transport isgiven an average score of 7.9. The score of forwarders is 8.4, while all other groups havean average of 7.5 on this question. The single answers vary between 3 and 10.

Importance of price structure, main mode = rail. Average score on this question is7.2. Forwarders obtain the highest score, as in the above question; 8.0, while the othergroups ranges from 6.5 to 7.0.

Importance of price level, main mode = sea. Average score is 7.3, while the averagegroup score varies from 6.5 for industry, and 7.5 for the other three groups. Transportcompanies and ports gives the same score as for prices of rail transport.

Importance of price structure, main mode = sea. Average score is 7.2, which is ex-actly the same as for rail transport price structure. Lowest score for industry, 5.5, high-est for forwarders, 8.0 which is also the same as for rail transport prices as presentedabove.

Importance of policy measures to influence prices in the transport sector. The av-erage score on this question is 7.8. Both forwarders and ports give a high score; respec-tively 8.6 and 8.0, while industry has a score of 5.5.

4.4 Sweden

The existing barriers are structured in six main groups.

1. Infrastructure.

2. Technical interoperability.

3. Logistics, in formation and communications.

4. Network management.

5. Organisational and institutional issues.

6. Pricing and price structure.



In the infrastructure field the most significant barrier is bottlenecks in today’s rail,road and sea infrastructure (8,1).

In the technical interoperability field the most significant barrier is the incompletestandardisation of intermodal units with regard to the productivity of intermodaltransport (8,1).

In the logistics field the most significant barrier is the lack of information and com-munication (7,4).

In the network management field the most significant barriers are lack of availabilityof attractive train paths (8,4) co-operation of railway companies (8,3) and co-ordination of timetables (8,1).

In the organisational and institutional issues the significances are not so importantcompared with the issues above.

In the pricing and price structure field finally the most significant component is theprice structure in intermodal transport (8,1).



Appendix 1: Mean values by country of sampleSTEMM EXPERT INTERVIEWS MEAN VALUES FINLAND SWEDEN NORWAY TOTAL

0. General opinion concerning intermodal tr.Transport speed, travel time 8,9 6,7 8,1 8,0

Frequency 8,1 8,1

Size of transport units 7,7 6,7 7,3

Payload of transport units 7,7 6,7 7,3

Flexibility concerning size and payload of transport units 7,8 6,7 6,6 7,0

Temporal reliability 9,7 9,0 9,5 9,4

Safety of goods 8,2 8,7 7,5 8,0

Transport prices 9,3 8,4 8,5 8,7

Fair price structure and transparency of price str. 7,4 5,9 7,8 7,3

Extension of networks 7,2 6,4 8,1 7,4

Spatial flexibility 6,8 6,7 7,5 7,1

Temporal flexibility 7,4 7,4 8,7 8,0

Communication and information 8,1 8,0 8,5 8,3

Technical solutions 7,0 6,7 5,9 6,4

placing responsibility for damage, etc 6,7 6,7

1. Infrastructure1a) Bottlenecks in today's rail road and sea infra 7,2 8,1 8,5 8,0

1b) Bottlenecks in today's terminal and port infra 7,5 6,7 8,6 7,8

1c) Shortcomings of the rolling stock 6,6 6,0 7,5 6,9

Shortcomings of the ship types 5,8 5,8

1d) Shortcomings of the intermodal units 6,2 6,1 5,9 6,1


2. Technical interoperability2a) Units 5,5 6,7 6,7 6,3

2b) Networks 7,3 8,5 6,2 7,0

ship types 6,2 6,2

2c) Transshipment techniques 6,5 6,6 7,1 6,8


3. Logistics, information and communicatiions3a) Logistic performance in terminals 7,4 6,6 7,9 7,4

3b) Information and communication 7,1 7,4 8,7 7,9


4. Network management4a) Co-operation of railway companies

* co-ordination of timetables 6,5 8,3 8,7 7,9

* availability of attractive train paths (+port&term in NOR) 6,7 8,1 8,5 7,8

* more intern. Direct trains/reduced number of mixed trains(+searoutes in NOR)

5,6 8,4 7,7 7,2

* free access 6,8 6,9 7,8 7,3


5. Organisational and institutional issues5a) Co.operation between the actors of intermodal transports 8,4 7,0 8,5 8,1

5b) Copetition between the actors of intermodal transports 6,6 6,7 7,2 6,9


6. Pricing and price structure6a) Price structure in intermodal transport

* the main transport mode is rail transport 9,2 8,1 7,5 8,2

* the main transport mode is short sea 8,0 7,0 7,3 7,5

6b) Policy measures to influence prices in the transport sector 8,1 6,9 7,8 7,7



Appendix 2: Mean values by interviewee typeSTEMM EXPERT INTERVIEWS MEAN VALUES TOTAL Industr

yForwarding and transport Transport Ports

0. General opinion concerning intermodaltr.Transport speed, travel time 8,0 9,3 8,0 8,1 6,7

Frequency 8,1 9,0 8,6 7,4 8,0

Size of transport units 7,3 9,0 6,9 8,0

Payload of transport units 7,3 10,0 6,7 8,0

Flexibility concerning size and payload of transport units 7,0 8,3 7,1 6,4 6,0

Temporal reliability 9,4 9,5 9,4 9,7 9,0

Safety of goods 8,0 8,8 8,1 7,3 8,0

Transport prices 8,7 8,0 9,0 8,3 9,0

Fair price structure and transparency of price str. 7,3 8,3 7,1 6,9 8,3

Extension of networks 7,4 8,3 6,8 8,3 8,0

Spatial flexibility 7,1 5,8 7,2 7,7 6,7

Temporal flexibility 8,0 6,5 8,1 8,6 8,3

Communication and information 8,3 8,5 8,2 8,6 8,0

Technical solutions 6,4 7,8 6,4 5,9 5,7

placing responsibility for damage, etc 6,7 8,5 6,8 6,0 6,7

1. Infrastructure1a) Bottlenecks in today's rail road and sea infra 8,0 8,0 8,3 7,1 8,0

1b) Bottlenecks in today's terminal and port infra 7,8 8,3 7,6 8,6 7,5

1c) Shortcomings of the rolling stock 6,9 6,5 7,1 7,1 5,5

Shortcomings of the ship types 5,8 5,0 3,8 8,3 5,5

1d) Shortcomings of the intermodal units 6,1 5,5 5,9 6,1 7,5


2. Technical interoperability2a) Units 6,3 4,3 6,4 7,1 8,0

2b) Networks 7,0 8,5 7,0 6,6 5,5

ship types 6,2 5,5 5,0 7,8 6,0

2c) Transshipment techniques 6,8 7,0 6,9 5,6 9,0


3. Logistics, information and communica-tions3a) Logistic performance in terminals 7,4 6,5 7,6 7,0 8,0

3b) Information and communication 7,9 8,0 7,8 8,3 8,0


4. Network management4a) Co-operation of railway companies

* co-ordination of timetables 7,9 6,8 8,4 7,4 8,0

* availability of attractive train paths (+port&term inNOR)

7,8 6,7 8,2 7,3 8,5

* more intern. direct trains/reduced number of mixedtrains(+sea routes in NOR)

7,2 4,8 7,7 7,1 8,5

* free access 7,3 5,8 7,6 7,7 6,5


5. Organisational and institutional issues5a) Co.operation between actors of intermodal transports 8,1 7,3 8,2 8,1 8,7

5b) Copetition between the actors of intermodal trans-ports

6,9 5,0 7,4 7,0 7,0


6. Pricing and price structure6a) Price structure in intermodal transport

* the main transport mode is rail transport 8,2 8,5 8,5 7,5 7,0

* the main transport mode is short sea 7,5 5,5 7,9 7,5 7,5

6b) Policy measures to influence prices in the transportsector

7,7 6,8 7,8 8,0 8,0



Appendix 3: Mean values and counts of scoresSTEMM EXPERT INTERVIEWS MEAN NUMBER

RATING: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

0. General opinion concerning intermodal tr.Transport speed, travel time 8,0 6 7 9 5 2 3 0 0 0 0

Frequency 8,1 3 3 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0

Size of transport units 7,3 2 3 4 3 1 1 0 2 0 0

Payload of transport units 7,3 2 1 7 3 0 3 0 1 0 0

Flexibility concerning size and payload of transportunits

7,0 1 5 10 5 4 3 3 1 0 0

Temporal reliability 9,4 20 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Safety of goods 8,0 7 7 7 5 2 4 0 0 0 0

Transport prices 8,7 12 9 5 4 0 2 0 0 0 0

Fair price structure and transparency of price str. 7,3 5 4 7 6 2 6 0 2 0 0

Extension of networks 7,4 4 7 8 5 2 2 2 2 0 0

Spatial flexibility 7,1 3 5 10 5 2 4 0 1 0 2

Temporal flexibility 8,0 3 11 11 4 0 2 0 0 0 1

Communication and information 8,3 3 11 11 6 0 1 0 0 0 0

Technical solutions 6,4 0 1 7 10 5 6 2 0 1 0

placing responsibility for damage, etc 6,7 1 1 5 2 1 2 3 0 0 0

1. Infrastructure

1a) Bottlenecks in today's rail road and sea infra 8,0 4 9 8 5 1 0 3 0 0 0

1b) Bottlenecks in today's terminal and port infra 7,8 4 10 6 2 7 1 1 0 0 0

1c) Shortcomings of the rolling stock 6,9 2 8 3 5 5 2 4 2 0 0

Shortcomings of the ship types 5,8 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 4 0 0

1d) Shortcomings of the intermodal units 6,1 1 4 5 5 2 5 3 6 0 0


2. Technical interoperability

2a) Units 6,3 4 1 6 4 5 2 5 3 1 0

2b) Networks 7,0 2 5 8 5 4 3 0 2 1 0

ship types 6,2 1 0 4 1 0 2 3 1 0 0

2c) Transshipment techniques 6,8 2 6 8 1 4 5 2 2 1 0


3. Logistics, information and communicatiions

3a) Logistic performance in terminals 7,4 3 8 9 4 0 4 1 1 0 1

3b) Information and communication 7,9 4 6 11 6 1 1 0 1 0 0


4. Network management

4a) Co-operation of railway companies

* co-ordination of timetables 7,9 5 7 11 3 2 1 0 2 0 0

* availability of attractive train paths (+port&term inNOR)

7,8 8 5 6 5 2 1 1 2 0 0

* more intern. direct trains/reduced number ofmixed trains(+sea routes in NOR)

7,2 4 5 6 6 3 2 0 4 0 0

* free access 7,3 3 6 8 4 3 4 2 1 0 0


5. Organisational and institutional issues

5a) Co.operation between the actors of intermodaltransports

8,1 8 10 4 4 3 1 1 1 0 0

5b) Copetition between the actors of intermodaltransports

6,9 3 4 7 8 3 1 4 1 0 1


6. Pricing and price structure

6a) Price structure in intermodal transport

* the main transport mode is rail transport 8,2 5 9 8 6 1 0 0 1 0 0

* the main transport mode is short sea 7,5 4 7 8 4 1 2 1 3 0 0

6b) Policy measures to influence prices in thetransport sector

7,7 4 7 8 6 1 1 1 2 0 0

Annex C: Results of the UK based Interviews C - 1

Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds

Annex C:


Results of the Interviews on Intermodal

Transport in the United Kingdom

Carried out by:

Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of Leeds

– G. Tweddle

– Dr. A.S. Fowkes

C - 2 Annex B: Results of the Scandinavian based Expert Interviews


Table of contents:

1 Introduction.................................................................................C-3

2 Main Findings .............................................................................C-4

3 Responses to Individual Questions .......................................C-43.1 Company Information ...............................................................................................C-43.2 Significance of Quality of Service as a Barrier to Using Multi-modal Systems......C-63.3 Significance of Infrastructure as a Barrier to Using Multi-modal Systems.............C-73.4 Significance of Technical Interoperability as a Barrier to Using Multi-modal

Systems ....................................................................................................................C-83.5 Significance of Finance as a Barrier to Using Multi-modal Systems ......................C-93.6 Significance of Information Systems Provision as a Barrier to Using Multi-modal

Systems ..................................................................................................................C-103.7 Significance of Road Network Management as a Barrier to Using Multi-modal

Systems ..................................................................................................................C-123.8 Significance of Organisational Barriers to Using Multi-modal Systems ...............C-133.9 Significance of Other Barriers to using Multi-modal Systems ..............................C-143.10 Which Multi-Modal System Have Greatest Barriers.............................................C-15

4 Improving Multi-Modal Chains............................................. C-17

5 Open Discussion ..................................................................... C-18



1 Introduction

The firms interviewed as part of the ITS input into the WP7 survey covered a wide rangeof company activities and, even though most interviews were conducted in the UK, theyincluded meetings with managers who were Irish, Danish, Belgium, French and Italiannationals. In addition, the headquarters of the firms involved were even more widelyspread, including additionally the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden. The firms hadbeen approached because it was known they had recent experience of at least attempt-ing to provide a multi-modal chain either singularly or, more often, in partnership with oth-ers. It was not intended to be a random sample.

It was clear, from the response to requests for interviews, that the subject of multi-modal chains was an issue currently being assessed by many firms. Though it proveddifficult to arrange appointments, we were eventually able to meet mainly senior manag-ers within the companies. They included three Managing Directors and three GeneralManagers, most of the other interviewees being operations or commercial managers anddirectors. Even though the sample was only 14 the outcome gave a wide range of com-panies who operate multi modal chains involving rail, sea and barge systems. In someadditional cases, firms who were unwilling to be interviewed did give comments duringphone calls and correspondence and this information has been taken into account in thereport. Together with other similar surveys conducted by continental partners, we feelthat a meaningful insight has been gained.

The breakdown of the 14 interviewed companies by main activity was as follows, thoughmost of those interviewed were involved in more than one activity, and in more than onepart of a multi modal chain:-

– Ferry company 3– Multi-modal operator 3– Terminal operators 2– Logistics companies 2– Deep sea container shipping company 1– Manufacturer 1– Freight forwarder 1– Combined transport operator 1

There is a potential bias in the UK sample toward ferry based multi-modal chains, whichshould be counter-balanced by the surveys undertaken on the European mainland. Nev-ertheless, within the UK the shortest chain operated by one of the respondents was a UKdomestic movement of 130 km by rail taking 2 hours, while the longest was over 3,000km by sea to Turkey from the UK taking 11 days. The interviews were undertaken in theperiod May-September 1997 by Mr G Tweddle, accompanied on two occasions by DrA.S. Fowkes.



2 Main Findings

Details of answers to individual questions are given below, but some problems werehighlighted by a large number of respondents. These relate to the rail loading gauge, par-ticularly in the UK, but to a lesser extent in other parts of Europe, and the provision of railwagons capable of carrying the latest generation of containers and swap bodies. Thesecan be up to 45 feet (13.7m) long, 9ft 6in (2.9m) high and 2.6m wide. There are potentiallong term problems in the mis-match of deep sea shipping container dimensions andthose of intra-European container units.

The other major barrier surrounded financing multi-modal chains, particularly sea basedoperations which do not receive support (bearing in mind that a North Sea ferry costs$65-$100m to build). Where support is available, as is the case with rail Freight Facilitiesand Track Access grants in the UK, the procedure is said to take too long before deci-sions are reached.

There are also problems relating to financial risk sharing among the partners in a multi-modal chain. Nationalised railway companies are usually delighted to provide a train, for afixed price per day, but reluctant to share losses in the start up period or to provideequipment without guarantees. Even among the more commercially aware private com-panies there is a desire to push as much of the risk as possible on to other partnersforming a chain.

3 Responses to Individual Questions

The questionnaire was designed to form part of a semi-structured interview as the objec-tive was to elicit the respondents’ views. In fact the list of barriers to the provision ofmulti-modal chains proved to be very comprehensive, respondents indicating little thathad not previously been considered.

3.1 Company Information

Questions in part 1 asked for the volume of traffic moved by the firm being interviewed,in total and on the case study corridors defined in STEMM. In each case the currentmode and route were established together with the second best if the current were notavailable. We later asked whether firms had started a multi-modal service in the last fiveyears and this was so in all cases. The fact that all the respondents had developed amulti-modal chain in the last few years should not be taken as the norm as the choice ofsample was deliberately directed at firms known to be involved in multi-modal services.



The total traffic handled by the firms interviewed was considerable, though within thesample there was a significant amount of double counting. This resulted from the firmsbeing in various overlapping partnerships. In particular, most of the large multi-modal op-erators ship units on their own ferries as well as their rivals and such traffic tends to becounted by both operators when quoting figures.

Most respondents were involved in traffic on more than one corridor in the case studies,and one operator was involved in all corridors (a second soon will be). It was also clearfrom answers to question 2 that some flows use several case study corridors, such asCross Channel or Scan Link plus Trans Alpine.

Question 3 examined current and alternative methods on each of the sample routesgiven. Generally the second alternative was the nearest ferry route which could acceptthe type of equipment being used. If there was not a close alternative for containers,then it was likely that road trailers would be the second best option. For most flows inthe sample, the Channel Tunnel would involve a significant detour, so the through railservices were not often considered.

One or two companies offered in-house road/sea container services (one included bargesystems in its transport portfolio), many of which connected with rail services whichwere obtained separately on a slot basis (ie individual slots for boxes were booked asrequired). Most multi-modal chains are offered by a partnership in which a ship is pro-vided by one member and others provide container or road equipment. Answers to Q4and Q5 show that, increasingly, the privatised rail companies in the UK, and the inter-modal train companies on the continent (such as Combined Transport Limited and Novo-trans) are willing to join a partnership to provide the rail element.

Question 6 asked about the provision of new multi-modal chains in the last five years. Allthe respondents had introduced at least one, though in some cases this was specificallyon behalf of a single consignor. In all cases they claimed that the new chains had beensuccessful. However, answers to Q6 revealed that many had not achieved the volumesof traffic that had been anticipated, and the financial results varied from acceptable toloss making. In some cases the losses were acceptable in the medium term as thecompany, or group of companies wished to offer a complete range of international serv-ices to customers. Nevertheless it was clear that margins in transport generally are verylow and this restricts mangers degree of risk taking when considering new services ormethods. The results of ‘getting it wrong’ were clearly demonstrated by the demise ofBell Lines during the course of the survey. The industry as a whole was aware of thepotential use of multi-modal chains, but generating partnerships to operate them takestime and effort so the services tend to have relatively long gestation periods.



3.2 Significance of Quality of Service as a Barrier to UsingMulti-modal Systems

In the second part of the questionnaire, various potential barriers to the provision and useof multi-modal chains were considered. The general consensus was that the barriersfrom the users’ stand point were primarily organisational, financial and the difficulty ofproviding an adequate quality of service. In order that we can assess the significance ofa barrier, respondents were asked in question 7 to rate whether or not a particular barrierwas important on a scale from 0 to 10.

Barrier:- 7a Quality of Service Average weight 5.4

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number 2 3 1 2 2 2 2

Question 7a specifically asked about quality of service issues. Operators felt that main-taining reliability was not easy, but that this was more important than transit time. Re-spondents also made clear that rail services had a much greater reliability problem thansea and water based services. In general, ships are only delayed on a very small numberof sailing’s per year by weather, though those which have to pass through locks tend tosuffer additional delays from defects to lock gate mechanisms and congestion.

It was claimed that two rail based freight services had been won from rail by ferry com-panies because of reliability problems. One was trainload steel between the UK andScandinavia via the Channel Tunnel, and the other automotive materials and productsfrom Scandinavia to Holland. Both flows were now using long sea routes. Most respon-dents, other than rail related, rated the barrier for quality of service by rail based systemsas high as 8 or 9 with sea based systems much lower. One respondent also stated alarge differential between the current UK situation and what his organisation had experi-enced in the rest of Europe.

The relative importance of transit time, reliability and cost of transport to the user clearlyvary considerably. Traffic currently using international rail services, especially classicwagonload, tends to be cost sensitive. Such flows consist mainly of low value productsand goods intended for storage near to customers. Even so, some respondents felt thatquality of service was an even greater barrier for shippers when considering multi-modalchains than it was for operators to provide such services. In most other cases respon-dents thought the significance of most barriers the multi modal services were about thesame for both operators and shippers.



3.3 Significance of Infrastructure as a Barrier to Using Multi-modal Systems

Barrier:- 7b Infrastructure. Average weight 3.8

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number 1 3 5 1 1 2 1

A number of issues were discussed under this heading. Generally it was felt that net-work capacity was not a major issue. However, there were a series of minor problemssuch as: roro ferries available having insufficient capacity; not being able to accessberths at the most desirable times (because they were occupied by another vessel); andlocks, such as on the Humber at Hull and Immingham, restricting the size of vessel andpotential for switching vessels between routes.

Some individual ports were felt to suffer from port congestion, though sometimes in han-dling one type of intermodal traffic and not others. For example, while Dublin had amplecapacity for roro based traffic, the lolo berths were congested. Italian ports as a wholewere working at near capacity for container handling and the Eastern Mediterraneanports were felt to be not particularly efficient. The capacity of lolo cranes at a number ofports throughout Europe limit the weight of containers handled on some routes

Rail capacity in general was not currently a problem, but concern was expressed aboutthe ability of the rail network to cope given proposed increases in both passenger andfreight traffic, together with increased speed differentials limiting train paths. Most cur-rent problems of rail capacity relate to terminals, many of which are sited in metropolitanareas and, as a result, are subject both to congestion for cartage vehicles and to pres-sure to limit opening times.

The performance of individual intermodal terminals varied, some being badly designed, orhaving insufficient capacity to store empty units. The cost of transfer was still signifi-cant, and an important determinant of the competitive distance for multi-modal systems.Within the UK, the main problems related to congestion at the Willesden and TraffordPark terminals serving the Channel Tunnel services, and road congestion around theseand other terminals. A lack of a service to a terminal in South Wales was an issue forseveral respondents, but it was otherwise felt that there were sufficient terminals.

In some cases it was felt that ports which did not include an intermodal rail terminal forsea/rail transfer resulted in lost opportunities for multi-modal chains. In the UK, both theTees and Immingham handle large numbers of containers but lack integrated rail termi-nals. In the case of the Tees there is a terminal a few miles from the port at Wilton, butthe additional cost of a road movement combined with the short rail haul within the UKmeans the rail option is not commercially competitive.

Regarding shipping, there was sufficient roro berth capacity overall, though some portswere fairly heavily utilised at the most appropriate times for the longer sea ship arrivalsand departures. Existing shipping companies generally were able to obtain access to



suitable berths, though a long term commitment was often required before constructionof a new facility. As many terminals were ‘single user’, contracted to one shipping line,the possibility of a new entrant gaining access to a prime route was unlikely.

Regarding network planning of multi-modal chains, respondents were against wide scaleplanning. They thought that transport and logistics firms would be best able to assessthe needs of manufacturers and consignors. Nevertheless it is clear that generating amulti-modal chain involving a number of partners is not a simple business matter.

The major problem with infrastructure related to the rail loading gauge, mainly but notexclusively in the UK, and to the cost and delay in changing rail gauge in the case of Ibe-rian traffic. As traffic expands to Russia, similar problems are likely to arise. Respon-dents’ answers overlapped the next question, 7c, on technical inter-operability, becausethe loading gauge issue had the effect of limiting the routes on which containers of vari-ous dimension were able to be used.

Ideally shippers and operators would like to be able to send containers and swap bodiesup to 45 feet (13.7m) long virtually anywhere in Europe, with a height of at least 9 feet,(2.75m) and preferably 9 feet 6 inches (2.9m). These are classified as C30 and C45 unitsby the rail operators. Similarly with piggyback services, which should ideally be able tocarry 4 metre high semi-trailers mounted on rail wagons throughout the main Europeanrail network. The lack of ability to carry high cube boxes and standard semi-trailers islimiting the volume of intermodal traffic using rail, particularly in the UK. One shippingcompany interviewed had moved 20% of its containers through the Haven (Felixstowe,Ipswich, Harwich) ports by rail, but had now converted to 9 feet high boxes (mostly 45feet long) and so no longer used rail in the UK.

3.4 Significance of Technical Interoperability as a Barrier toUsing Multi-modal Systems

Barrier:- 7c Technical Interoperability. Average weight 3.1

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 1

Just over half of our interviews were with shipping related companies, where most of theinteroperability problems did not affect them directly, but manifested themselves in thequality of service provided by the railway companies. Thus multiple changes of locomo-tives and crew produced extended rail transit times and poor levels of reliability. Thecosts of such changes were only partly absorbed in the rates because the extendedtransits also affect the utilisation of transport equipment such as containers and railwagons.

The literature review clearly demonstrated that through working of inter-modal trains pro-vides much higher average speeds, eliminating the dead time waiting to change locos



which the railways try to utilise effectively, at the expense of transit times. This con-trasts with current North American practise where intermodal trains with guaranteeddelivery times are provided with additional traction units so that if one or two fail thisdoes not unduly affect the train’s performance.

The major concern in this area was the interoperabilty of equipment. The ability to usestandard containers, swap bodies and piggyback trailers was felt to be very important asthis gave flexibility and high productivity. Even different designs of classic steel wagonscan produce problems for routing and loading, and rail wagons also have a variety ofspeed limits, the lowest determining the train speed. Wagon compatibility was seen aproblem which could be resolved in the medium term.

The contrast with the regulations which apply to road vehicles was evidenced, where themost popular large articulated and draw bar outfits which comply with the Constructionand Use regulations in one European country are accepted in all the others. This is notthe case for rail, where rail wagons may have an RIV certificate but are not accepted bysome rail networks. One case concerns the swing deck piggyback wagons owned byTiphook, which are accepted for operating within the restricted UK loading gauge, and ina number of European countries. However, as they are not accepted by SNCF they can-not be used for international traffic through the Channel Tunnel.

The demise of the train ferry from Dover to Dunkirk means that it is not possible to sendmost hazardous goods by rail wagon to the Continent. The Channel Tunnel can only ac-cept cargo of a low hazardous nature. This problem may in future apply to other routeswhere long tunnels replace train ferries. Some former train ferry hazardous cargo does goby sea in containers using various ferry routes to Rotterdam and Zeebrugge, where it isloaded to rail inter-modal services, but most has been lost to road vehicles on both sidesof the Channel.

3.5 Significance of Finance as a Barrier to Using Multi-modalSystems

Barrier:- 7d Financial. Average weight 7.3

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number 2 4 4 4

Finance was thought to be the major barrier to the provision of multi-modal services of alltypes. Generally those engaged in rail based systems felt that they faced greater finan-cial barriers than did shipping companies, and vice versa. However, with the capital costof a typical roro ferry being $65m to $100m, and a set of container wagons £0.8m, itseems the sea based services have much larger financial barriers to surmount. This as-sumes the presence of existing rail track for the required route. If a new rail route has tobe built (in whole or part), then a major financial barrier is created.



In general, respondents were against subsidies for multi-modal systems as, with theexception of short term ‘priming’ to reduce risks in starting new services, they tend to bediscriminatory. Several operators interviewed felt that subsidies being given to BrittanyFerries and Sea France are wholly unjustified given that these operators are in directcompetition with several other unsubsidised lines on routes from the UK or Ireland toBelgium, France and Spain. They felt much the same way about the indirect support be-ing given to inter-modal rail operations through the Channel Tunnel, though were less an-tagonised by Eurotunnel using its skills in the ‘city’ to avoid bankruptcy.

Some degree of discrimination was also exist felt with regard to port charges in Germanyand the Low Countries. This is the result of many ports still being in some form of publicownership, in some cases treated as utilities. On the other hand, ports in the UK andmany other European countries worked on a commercial basis.

Schemes which allowed the purchase of specific environmental benefits are generallymore acceptable. One of the earliest of these was the Freight Facilities Grant introducedin the UK in 1974. Those who were eligible for this grant complained of bureaucracy anddelay, though the main complaint was that it did not apply to long sea ferries to UK ports,which probably generated much greater environmental benefits than rail through theChannel Tunnel. A similar scheme has been introduced in the Netherlands.

As part of the privatisation of the UK rail industry, track access grants were made avail-able to rail operating companies to help encourage switch of mode to rail. Again these arenot easy to obtain, and lack transparency because the amount is not made public. As aresult, a shipping company contracting for movement of containers to a port is not madeaware of the extent of grant available to the rail operator, making negotiations between agroup of partners more complex. Nevertheless, in the case of relatively short rail dis-tances within the UK, many potential intermodal rail flows will require one of the abovegrants in order for them to become viable, given current levels of road haulage charges.

All multi-modal chains involve high fixed cost elements, whether this is a ship, a barge ora train, plus the cost of an intermodal terminal or port infrastructure. Even when only theoperating costs are considered, the system requires a reasonably high volume if it is tobe viable, and this may take some time to build up. Utilisation of the equipment, includingthe containers, has a major effect on competitiveness.

Many multi-modal chains are based on a flow of existing traffic. Both ERS and NDX aresetting up rail intermodal networks in Europe using their own group’s deep sea trafficfrom the ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam and Hamburg as a base. Similarly, deep sea ship-ping companies, such as MSC, offer intra-European sea movement along with the hub-bing of deep sea containers from ports such as Rotterdam and Felixstowe.



3.6 Significance of Information Systems Provision as a Bar-rier to Using Multi-modal Systems

Barrier:- 7e Information System. Average weight 3.7

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number 1 3 4 2 1 1 2

In general, the view was that information systems were not a major barrier. However, itwas clear that most shipping lines had more advanced systems than rail, and in particu-lar the systems in ports (though these varied in quality) were much more advanced thanin rail terminals. A couple of respondents stated that terminal, or port, systems must be‘bespoke’ software because of variation in terminal design. In some parts of Europe pa-per documentation systems are still used.

Of more concern was the lack of responsiveness of rail operators to the information pro-vided. Complaints include: long delays to wagons cut out of trains; wagons not providedfor booked containers; and even train cancellations at short notice. These were seen asimportant factors in rail reliability which required management action, even with currentlyavailable information, and may account for a differential between the reliability of thetrains run as opposed to the reliability of the service as received by the shipper.

Most shipping companies used their own computerised booking system where they op-erated a contract train, usual treating it a another ‘ferry’ as far as the software develop-ment was concerned. This is acceptable for a small number of routes, but if shippingcompanies become involved in a complex network the current software may prove to beinadequate.

Operation of interval liner and shuttle trains is thought to improve rail reliability and effi-ciency, while direct transhipment minimises costs and shortens transit times. The latterdoes require good information systems if seamless movement between modes, andbetween services, is to be achieved. The software should be able to direct the transfer ofeach unit taken from a ship to either a rail wagon or barge direct, in real time.

At present most IT packages worked ‘in house’ with little automated transfer betweenthem. In this respect the railways have available their Hermes information system whichkeeps track of the movement of equipment, though this is primarily historic rather thanreal time data. In the long term, IT would probably benefit from a standard protocol toallow communication between a large number of individual company systems and multi-ple interfaces.

Improved information systems may also help in other aspects of multi-modal chains. Asvolumes increase, security is becoming a potential problem. Some Italian terminals ap-parently give cause for concern. There is also the issue of determination of where andwhen damage has occurred to equipment as it passes between operators.



3.7 Significance of Road Network Management as a Barrierto Using Multi-modal Systems

Barrier:- 7f Road Network Management. Average weight 2.4

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number 8 1 1 1 2 1

Road network management affects multi-modal chain operations in two contrastingways. In the case of restriction on long distance road freight, notably permit systems andarea or distance limitations, rail should benefit as consignors switch modes in order toovercome restrictions. Historical evidence indicates that, after initial problems, manyshippers and hauliers adopt ‘permit avoidance’ measures, which minimise the modeswitch effects. Lorry time bans extend transits and increase road operators’ costs be-cause of loss of vehicle utilisation, while lorry weight or size limits affect costs more di-rectly, again to the benefit of rail based multi-modal systems and to a lesser extentlonger sea ferry routes and barge systems.

On the other hand, most respondents were of the opinion that most restrictions on themovement of freight were likely to be imposed in and around metropolitan areas. If theserestrictions affected operation of intermodal terminals, as they are likely to do, then railbased multi-modal systems would be placed at a disadvantage compared to directmovement by lorry. In many cases the latter could avoid restricted areas.

Restrictions may either directly affect terminal operations, such as restrictions on open-ing hours, or affect urban road networks generally. These latter include time or weightbans on roads within the metropolitan area. These would severely hamper movement toterminals located within or close to built up areas. A high proportion of rail terminals maybe affected as a result.

One derogation in the UK, which allows the maximum weight of a HGV of 44 tonnesGVW when engaged on multi-modal operations as compared to the normal 38 tonnesGVW, was criticised by many respondents, especially shipping companies but also railoperators. One managing director described the derogation as “ill conceived and dis-criminatory”. His justification for the former was that it was ill-conceived because itspurpose was said to give environmental benefits, by favouring multi-modal, whereas inpractice it had led to many instances of lorries travelling long distances to rail terminalsinstead of the nearest port, which was the route formerly taken. In some cases, classicrail wagonload traffic between private sidings had been switched to the intermodal railservice, with a road journey at each end. His justification for the latter was that it onlyapplies to rail, mainly using the Channel Tunnel, not to long sea ferries which compete forAnglo-European traffic. In the case of Anglo-Danish, traffic application of the derogationto ferries would be particularly effective as the maximum weight of HGVs in Denmark isover 44 tonnes. This would allow a minimum of vehicles to use the shortest direct ferryroute, from a suitable port, minimising the environmental impact both in the UK andDenmark.



If reduced weight restrictions were applied to both intermodal and road generally, thecosts of each would be increased by similar percentages.

The views expressed resulted in a wide range of ratings, from road network manage-ment favouring multi-modal (here coded as a barrier of zero significance) to a barrierrated as 8. The latter was mainly based on potential restriction on movements from ter-minals. It was generally felt that network management measures would reduce flexibilityfrom the viewpoint of the shippers (increasing manufacturing costs), and a better courseof action would be to improve rail competitiveness. Otherwise the only option offeredmay be a slow costly service.

3.8 Significance of Organisational Barriers to Using Multi-modal Systems

Barrier:- 7g Organisational Barriers. Average weight 6.2

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number 2 1 3 2 4 2

Organisation was seen as a major barrier affecting the use of only rail based multi-modalsystems. In general, sea based systems had significance ratings of only between 3 and5, whereas for rail the rating was between 7 and 9. Firms found negotiating with one railnetwork difficult. Having to deal with a number of different networks for an internationalmovement added to the complexity, partly because nationalised rail networks do notgenerally work well together whereas shipping companies are happy to agree vesselsharing deals.

Primary problems surrounded finding suitable train paths for cross border movement, andthe charges imposed for short distances travelled on some networks. In the case of UKtraffic the costs for movements on SNCF and SNCB, together with the well publicisedcosts of using the Channel Tunnel for though rail movement, effectively preclude thegrowth of Anglo-German rail traffic. The commercial awareness of the nationalised railnetworks was considered to be low, and increased competition between operators onthe European network is the way forward according to some respondents.

Open access is not of direct relevance to many multi-modal companies. Given the ex-tensive networks used they are unlikely to be able to operate trains effectively, excepton one or two routes. The set-up costs for such an operation are thought to be high (suchas gaining a safety case), so on-rail competition is seen as the main way of reducingcosts and increasing service quality.

In the case of intermodal traffic, shippers can book slots on trains provided by intermedi-aries such as Intercontainer, CTL or ACI for UK traffic. Bookings can be on a spot basisor long term space allocation. Nevertheless, these intermediaries experience the samedifficulties when negotiating with the railway companies.



The situation within the UK following privatisation is somewhat different. There are sev-eral examples of shippers and logistics companies developing partnership arrangementswith rail operating companies, (EWS, Freightliner and DRS) together with terminal opera-tors to provide an intermodal service. These are usually justified by one partner providinga base load of traffic, which it already controls, to which it is intended to attract additionalflows of goods.

Not everything is straightforward even in the UK. Respondents gave several examples ofbeing unable to access the terminals they preferred, those terminals belonging to RfD(the remaining nationalised railfreight business) had not become involved in any partner-ships, though some respondents had enquired about access to some RfD terminals. Ingeneral, negotiations with Railtrack had provided acceptable, if not ideal, train paths in ashort time, and improvements to the timings could be made in timetable reviews.

Many potential freight services within the UK can only be viable with the assistance ofeither a Freight Facilities Grant or a Track Access Grant from the UK Department of Envi-ronment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), and has proved to take a long time before adecision is made. As a result, a number of trials have been undertaken to test the tech-nology, but regular services await decisions on the level of grant aid.

In the case of sea and ferry services, many shipping companies preferred to operatetheir own dedicated terminals, in many cases purpose built for their ships and using theirown IT systems. Usually port authorities were happy to provide such facilities provided along term commitment was entered into. Even when traffic did not justify a dedicatedterminal, competition between ports for traffic has resulted in common user roro berthsbeing made available, usually operated by the port authority.

Although the organisation of some ports was better than others, the only significantproblems mentioned by respondents related to the eastern Mediterranean. One shippingcompany had only resolved port problems in Turkey by purchasing a terminal, and puttingin place an in-house management team.

3.9 Significance of Other Barriers to using Multi-modal Sys-tems

Barrier:- 7h Other Barriers. Average weight 0.57

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number 1 1

Few respondents added any additional barriers to those discussed under previous head-ings. One involved the interaction of passenger and freight traffic on the same vessels,as a significant proportion of revenue came from duty free spending by passengers.When this is withdrawn the viability of some long sea routes may be in doubt.



Other barriers were route or location specific, and included such items as Channel Tunnelsecurity, a ban on the use of Maafi flats in the port of Liverpool, and repair of equipmenten route.

Several respondents felt that European rail lacks long term direction and business plan-ning. An overall strategy was required rather than short term fiscal decisions of individualnations affecting national rail network policies.

3.10 Which Multi-Modal System Have Greatest Barriers

Unlike the survey undertaken by Swiss colleagues in which most respondents were in-volved in rail-based inter-modal systems, many respondents in the UK survey were usingmulti modal systems using rail, ferry and in some cases barges to move their traffic. Asa result it was felt this gave an opportunity to obtain an indication of the relative barrierspresented by the use of a system based on the use of rail, ferry or barge. Air was in-cluded as part of question 8 in the questionnaire but none of the respondents had anysignificant experience of using this mode.

Responses to question 8 are tabulated in Table 3.1, which is fairly complex and so will bedescribed in detail. There were 14 respondents in total, of which 8 could reasonably bedescribed as predominantly shipping companies or ferry terminal operators (coded S), 3were rail based multi-modal operators (coded R) and the remaining 3 were made up of amanufacturer and two logistics companies (coded O). Of the shipping companies, only 6had experience of the rail mode. Of the rail based multi-modal operators, only 2 had ex-perience of the ship mode, and this was the case for the three respondents coded O,too. Two of the shipping companies and one of the ‘O’ companies had experience of thebarge mode, and so their data on this is included for completeness, although it is obvi-ously a very small sample.

The same 7 categories of barrier, as discussed in sections 3.2 to 3.8 above, were listed,together with an eighth which was now described as ‘Regulatory’, and was intended tocover regulations relating to multi-modal operations rather than those aspects coveredunder ‘Road Network Management’. To begin with, each respondent was asked to split100 points over these 8 categories of barrier, in respect solely to the rail mode. The morepoints allocated the greater the reason for NOT using a multi- modal chain with thismode.



Table 3.1 Mean Point Allocations to Barriers to Multi-modal Use

Rail mode Ship mode Barge mode

Barrier R S O TOT R S O TOT R S TOT

Service quality 22 17 22 20 13 19 20 18 14 10 12

Infrastructure 8 19 25 17 13 14 17 15 6 30 14

Technical Inter-operability

4 13 20 13 1 6 7 5 5 5 5

Financial 41 16 15 22 13 23 25 22 5 10 7

Information sy-stems

4 9 5 7 3 7 7 6 6 0 4

Road networkmanagement

8 7 5 6 3 7 3 5 8 5 7

Organisation 6 10 3 7 6 6 0 5 5 0 3

Regulatory 7 9 5 8 3 10 3 8 15 0 10

Total points allo-cated

100 100 100 100 55 93 82 84 64 60 62

Sample size 3 6 3 12 2 8 2 12 2 1 3

Key: R = Railway operating company

S = Shipping company

O = Other respondent

The means of these point allocation is reported in the first four columns of Table 3.1; i.e.one column for each of the three groups (R,S,O) and one column for the overall average(TOT). Bearing in mind these allocations, each respondent was then asked to similarlyallocate points (shown in columns 5 to 8 for ship mode and 9 to 11 for barge mode), forany non-rail-based mode of which they had experience. The allocations were to be rela-tive to those for rail mode, and so need not sum to 100. For two shipping companieswho had no experience of rail, and so had no rail allocation to relate to, their ratings forthe ship mode were scaled to give the same points total as that given by respondentswho had made a rail allocation.

Considering first the total points allocated, it is clear that use of the rail mode for multi-modal chains is more difficult than for ship or barge. Compared to the fixed mean alloca-tion of 100 for rail, ship was only allocated a mean of 84 points and barge only 62 points.Within these figures, it is clear that rail operators feel that the difficulties of using the shipmode are only half of using the rail mode. From the shipping companies’ point of view,however, there is little to choose between the difficulty of using rail or ship.



Looking next at the detailed figures for rail mode, the highest number of points wereawarded to the Financial barrier. However, this was strongly affected by the very highallocations given by rail operators to this barrier, the remainder feeling it was somewhatless of a difficulty. Closely in second place came Service Quality, with fairly generalagreement on its allocation. A little behind in third place was Infrastructure. This timethe rail operators did not perceive this as a great difficulty, but everyone else did. Someway behind in fourth place was Technical Interoperability. Again, the rail operator did notsee this as a great difficulty while everyone else did. The remaining barriers all receivedlow allocations.

Moving next to the detailed figures for the ship mode, Finance again gains the highestmean allocation, and at the same number of points as for the rail mode. This time, how-ever, it is everyone except the rail operators who feel it is a great difficulty. It appears asthough, in relative terms at least, the rail operators are underestimating the financial bar-riers to using the ship mode, whilst the shipping operators are underestimating the fi-nancial barriers to using the rail mode. Clearly everybody thinks that the other personhas things easier than them.

The second highest allocation for the shipping mode is, once again, Service Quality, al-though here again the rail operators feel it is less of a problem than do the others, andindeed less of a problem than rail service quality. Again, third place goes to Infrastruc-ture, with fairly general agreement on this by all. We have thus had exact agreement onordering of the three greatest difficulties in the case of each mode. However, thematching does not proceed beyond there, since Technical Interoperability is not per-ceived as a problem for ship. Indeed, all bar the top three barriers received low alloca-tion. As we have noted earlier, the overall affect is to show the ship mode as subject toless difficulties than the rail mode.

Moving finally to the detailed figures for the barge mode, we must remember that onlythree respondents contributed to these and so they should not be taken too seriously.However, it is plain that Finance is not perceived as a difficulty for this mode. The high-est allocation was for Infrastructure, where its mean allocation is not much lower than inthe case of rail and ship modes. Second comes Service Quality, beyond which all barri-ers receive rather low mean allocations.

4 Improving Multi-Modal Chains

In part 3 of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to describe a potential chain,preferably on one of the case study corridors, indicating what would be the most attrac-tive technology, route, partners and finance. In most cases such a chain already existed,and respondents comments on what they would like to change if they were startingafresh revealed possible miscalculation which they would not otherwise admit too, or theeffects of evolutionary changes to the service over time.



The most pertinent factors were:

– Desire to send by rail containers up to 45 feet long and 9 feet 6 inches high, particu-larly a problem in the UK, but also on many continental routes.

– Extending the UK’s 44 tonne GVW limit, at least for container movements to ports.– The use of larger and faster ferries, capable of handling containers stacked two high

on Maafi flats in order to improve productivity.– Easier access to, and a more commercial attitude by the railway networks.– Rail charges for short distances through intermediate countries, and the Channel Tun-

nel, a major problem on some routes. As a result, multi-modal operators concentrateon long haul rail services (UK-Italy) rather than shorter routes (UK-Germany via Franceand Belgium), especially where they involve a number of rail networks

– Balancing flows on many routes would improve cost effectiveness; currently emptymovements to re-loading point are excessive.

– Would like to be able to use swing deck rail piggyback wagons for traffic to the conti-nent. Otherwise they would welcome standardisation of rail wagons.

– Preference for the provision of river berths for roro ferries rather than passing throughlocks.

5 Open Discussion

The final part of the interview took the form of an open discussion in which respondentswere invited to firstly offer an ideal scenario which would encourage the development ofmulti-modal chains, and then were asked about the use of subsidised rail services (inmany cases in partial competition with sea services offered by their own company).

Many respondents re-iterated their view that the main thing which would encourage de-velopment of multi-modal chains was an improvement in the performance of the rail net-works, both cost reductions and service quality improvements. They felt it would be niceto be approached by train operating companies willing to propose a variety of servicesrather than having to ask if one could be provided. The loading gauge problem in the UKwas again said to be a major barrier.

Many respondents clearly felt that shipping was neglected. The financial and policymeasures (notably 44 tonne lorries) favouring the Channel Tunnel were compared to analmost total lack of support for shipping. This resulted in mixed feelings about the use ofsubsidised rail services. Many would use them if they could make money, but some feltsea should be treated the same as rail. There was concern about the long term provisionof subsidised services in general, not just rail.

References R - 1

ECOPLAN

References

Arndt E.-H. (1997)Nicht „gotische Kathedralen“sind gefragt, sondern preiswerte Terminals,in: Internationales Verkehrswesen, Fachzeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis 6/97,Schwerpunkt Kombinierter Verkehr, p. 321 - 340.

Betancor O., Campos J., De Rus G, Tovar B. and Arana J. (1997)Deregulation and Pricing,Sub-Report of the EU-research project PETS (Pricing European Transport Systems),Version No 3, Las Palmas and Leeds.

Bukold S. (1996),Kombinierter Verkehr Schiene / Strasse in Europa,Eine vergleichende Studie zur Transformation von Gütertransportsystemen, Frankfurtam Main.

CER - Community of European Railways (1997)European Rail Freightways: Proposal to the European Commission (DG-VII),Brussels

ECIS - European Centre for Infrastructure Studies (1995)European Combined Transport: Passe-partout or Placebo,A status report, Rotterdam.

ECIS - European Centre for Infrastructure Studies (1995)The Crisis of European Combined Transport,ECIS Workshop on 6 April 1995, country reports, Rotterdam.

ECMT - European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1993)Terminology of Combined Transport,Paris.

ECMT - European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1995)Combined Transport,Hearing of Combined Transport Organisations and Companies, Paris.

ECMT - European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1996)Transport: New problems, new solutions,13th International Symposium on Theory and Practice in Transport Economics, 9 - 11May 1995 in Luxembourg, Paris.

ECMT - European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1997),Trends in the Transport Sector 1970 - 1995,Paris.

R - 2 References

ECOPLAN

ECMT - European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Economic Research Centre(1997)The Separation of Operations from Infrastructure in the Provision of Railway Services,Report of the one hundred and third Round Table on Transport Economics held in Parison 13th - 14th June 1996, Paris.

ECMT - European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Economic Research Centre(1993)Possibilities and limitations of combined transport,Report of the ninety-first round table on transport economics, held in Paris on 24th-25th

October 1991, Paris.

ECMT European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1993)Possibilities and Limitations of Combined Transport,Round Table 91, Paris.

ECOPLAN (1995)A Mileage Tax for European Road Freight Transport,sub report within the EU Research Project „External Costs of Transport and Internali-sation, Bern.

ECOPLAN (1996)The economic effects of including external costs of road freight transport into infra-structure user charges: a case study for the Alps,Short study prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General for Economicand Financial Affairs, Economic Service, Bern and Brussels.

ECOPLAN (1997)Auswirkungen der leistungsabhängigen Schwerverkehrsabgabe und der Ablösung derGewichtslimite im Strassengüterverkehr,GVF-Auftrag Nr. 287, Bern.

European Commission, Directorate General Transport (ed.) (1997)Smart intermodal European transport - SIMET,Transport Research EURET Intermodal Transport No. 3, Brussels.

Fowkes A.S., Tweddle G. and Dunkerley (1998)Potential Effects of the Introduction of Policy Instruments: A Review of the Evidence,Institure for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Report 7.1, Ref. 6 Version 2.1,Leeds.

Hey Ch., Hickmann S., Geisendorf S. and Schleicher-Tappeser R. (EURES) (1992)Dead End Road,Klimaschutz im europäischen Güterverkehr, Ein Greenpeace Szenario,Commissioned by Greenpeace, Freibug i. Br.

References R - 3

ECOPLAN

INFRAS (1997)Transalpine Combined Transport,Actors, Strategies and Interlinkages - An Overview Paper,COST 328 ISINE, WG TAFT, Zurich.

Internationales Verkehrswesen (1997)Schwerpunkt Kombinierter Verkehr,with contributions of different authors, volume (46) 6/97.

Kearney A.T. (1989)Studie über die Perspektiven eines europäischen Netzes des kombinierten Verkehrs,im Auftrag der Gemeinschaft der Europäischen Bahnen, in Zusammenarbeit mitLogitech, Abschlussbericht,

Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1996)Mitteilung der Kommission über ein Aktionsprogramm zur Förderung des kombiniertenVerkehrs,Vorschlag für eine Verordnung (EG) des Rates über die Gewährung von Gemein-schaftshilfen für Aktionen zur Förderung des kombinierten Güterverkehrs, KOM(96)335 endg., Brüssel.

Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1996)Weissbuch - Eine Strategie zur Revitalisierung der Eisenbahn in der Gemeinschaft,KOM(96) 421 endg., Brüssel.

Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1997)Bericht der Kommission über die Durchführung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3820/85über die Harmonisierung bestimmter Sozialvorschriften im Strassenverkehr im Zei-traum 1993-1994,18. Bericht der Kommission über die Anwendung der Sozialvorschriften im Strassen-verkehr, KOM (97) 698 endg., Brüssel.

Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1997)Bericht der Kommission an den Rat über die Anwendung der Richtlinie 92/106 des Ra-tes vom 7. Dezember 1992 über die Festlegung gemeinsamer Regeln für bestimmteBeförderungen im kombinierten Verkehr zwischen Mitgliedstaaten in den Jahren 1993bis 1995,KOM(97 372 endg., Brüssel.

Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1997)Intermodalität und intermodaler Güterverkehr in der Europäischen Union,Ein Systemansatz für den Güterverkehr, Strategien und Aktionen zur Verbesserungder Effizienz, der Dienste und den Nachhaltigkeit,Mitteilung der Kommission an den Rat, das Europäische Parlament, den Wirtschafts-und Sozialausschuss und den Ausschuss der Regionen, KOM(97) 243 endg., Brüssel.

R - 4 References

ECOPLAN

Michaletz T. (1994)Wirtschaftliche Transportketten mit modularen Containern,Logistisches Konzept zur intermodalen Umverteilung des Güterverkehrsaufkommens,Schriftenreihe der Bundesvereinigung Logistik, Nr. 33, München.

Nash C. (1997)The separation of operations from infrastructure in the provision of railway services -The British esperience,in: ECMT (1997), The Separation of Operations from Infrastructure in the Provision ofRailway Services.

NEA (1997)Road Freight Transport,The Single Market Review, Subseries II: Impact on Services, Volume 5,Commissioned by the European Commission, London.

Nijkamp P., Vleugel J.M., Maggi R. and Masser I. (1994)Missing Transport Networks in Europe,Aldershot.

Perkins S. (1997)The Relevance of Valuation Indicators for Pricing Policy,Paper prepared for the EU DG VII seminar „Valuation and Internalisation of TransportExternalities“, organised by ISIS for the QUITS Programme, held in Rome 10 April1997.

Posch K.-H. und Schneider K. (1994)Hochleistungsterminal: Ein innovatives System zur Leistungssteigerung im Kombinier-ten Verkehr,in: ZEV + DET Glas. Ann. 118 (1994) Nr. 2/3 Februar/März.

Prognos (1998)Examination of the implementation and impact of Directive 91/440/EEC on the devel-opment of the Community’s Railways,Study for the European Commission (DGVII) and the International Union of Railways(IUC), Brussels.

Riessberger K. und Schneider K. (1993)Leistungssteigerung im Kombinierten Ladungsverkehr,in: ZEV + DET Glas. Ann. 117 (1993) Nr. 8 August.

Rothengatter W. (1997)Liberalisation and Structural Reform in the Freight Transport Sector in Europe,OECD Joint Session of Trade and Environment Expers, Karlsruhe and Paris.

References R - 5

ECOPLAN

T&E - European Federation for Transport and Environment (1995)Combined Transport - Ways towards a European network,T&E 95/11, Brussels.

TransCare - Umweltverträgliche Verkehrskonzepte GmbH (1996)Rationalisierungspotentiale im Vor- und Nachlauf zum Kombinierten Verkehr,Kurzfassung, Wiesbaden.

TransCare - Umweltverträgliche Verkehrskonzepte GmbH und Studiengesellschaft fürden Kombinierten Verkehr e.V. (1995)Strategiekonzept für den Kombinierten Verkehr in Österreich,Kurzfassung, Wiesbaden.

VKS - Vereinigung Deutscher Kraftwagenspediteure (1997)VKS-Handbuch des internationalen Strassengüterverkehrs,Bonn.

Welty G. (1994)Truckers are some of our best customers,in: Railway Age, April 1994.

Documents

Barriers and Policy Instruments for Improved Intermodality · US railway firms will flood into the European market Development of intermodal units additional optimisation of the partly