##### [Summary Report]{.underline}

# *"Without transport, it (the Single Market of the Union) would exist only in name. Without efficient, compatible, sustainable transport systems and operation, it obviously will not flourish."* \-\--European Commission, 1999

# 

# 

# **INTRODUCTION**

One of the important trends in international commerce over the past
decades has been the creation of common economic markets through the
relaxation and elimination of cross border barriers to passenger and
freight movements. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an
example of how several nations are developing such a market. The
European Union (EU), another such example, has more years of experience
in developing governmental and private sector strategies as part of a
transition to an open borders policy. **The purpose of this
international scan was to investigate the issues, constraints,
opportunities, and challenges faced by the European Union in developing
an open borders policy, and the strategies used in implementing this
policy**. **In addition, the scan was interested in identifying how the
transport industry** **is responding to this changing market**.

Freight logistics and governmental strategies to foster international
commerce involve very complex and specialized processes. Understanding
the motivation for logistics decisions and their response to different
economic influences is an important point of departure for investigating
how multi-national freight flows will reflect the characteristics of
economic markets. This scan thus purposely focused not only on
governmental policies and the steps in their development, but also on
how freight terminal operators and users of the transportation system
have responded to economic incentives/ disincentives.

The scan panel reflected a wide range of interests and concerns for both
national and international freight movement. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) jointly sponsored this scan. In
addition to FHWA and AASHTO officials, the panel included
representatives from the national ministries of transportation for
Canada and Mexico, the departments of transportation for the states of
Florida, Minnesota, and Ohio; the metropolitan planning organization for
the Chicago metropolitan area, the Foundation for Intermodal Research,
and a university professor in transportation planning and policy. These
panel members represented a diverse set of interests and expertise in
the areas of policy, planning, regulatory enforcement, freight logistics
and economic development.

The panel targeted selected government agencies, terminal operators,
logistics providers and shippers to gain a broad understanding of how
the EU has been attempting to develop a common market, and how the
private sector has been responding. Over a period of May 28-June 10,
2001, the panel met with representatives from the national ministry of
transportation for the Netherlands and from the European Commission in
Brussels; intermodal rail terminal operators and service operators in
the Netherlands, Italy, and Switzerland; port officials in the
Netherlands and Italy; managers of the Frankfurt, Germany airport;
freight logistics companies in the Netherlands and Germany; and the
president of an Austrian trucking company. The questions that served as
the basis for each visit are presented in Appendix A.

Given limited time, the panel did not meet with other governmental
agencies and private companies that could have provided a broader
perspective on the issues facing the development of a common European
market, groups such as national railways, inland water or coastal
shipping firms, and the ministries of transportation for other
countries. In addition, the panel did not meet with non-government
organizations representing environmental protection/sustainability
issues.

Lessons from this experience are very relevant to the U.S., Canada and
Mexico in developing a common North American market. In addition, these
lessons are important for national and sub-national investment decisions
as they relate to enhanced freight movement within individual countries,
serving primarily the domestic market. For example, case studies of
public/private sector freight investment initiatives as found in Europe
can provide useful lessons on how such initiatives could be undertaken
in North America.

# **The Context**

Before presenting the results of the scan tour, it is important to first
illustrate the important differences between the EU and North America.
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, there are some important distinctions
between the two. It is not surprising that the extent of road and rail
track is much greater in North America than it is in the EU given its
much larger land mass. The larger expanse of the U.S., for example,
results in the significantly greater average rail and truck trip
distance and greater rail mode split (measured in tonne-kilometers)
shown in Table 2. This table, however, indicates a substantial carriage
of freight by truck and short sea transport in the EU. This is
especially striking for truck movements given the short average trip
distances.

Table 1---Comparison of EU-15 and North America

  -------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------
                                         **EU-15**   **U.S.**   **CAN**   **MEX**

  Population (millions)                  375         270        31        

  Urban population (millions)            78          77         24        

  Area (million km^2^)                   3.24        9.6        10.0      

  GDP (EUR billion)                      7,586       7,760      771       

  Transport infrastructure investment as 1.1                              
  % of GDP                                                                

  Percent of household spending on       15.2        14.0       17.2      
  transport/communications                                                

  Ave. transport costs as % of value of  5-6         3-4        4-6       
  products transported                                                    

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

  Exports ( EUR billion; not including   936         1,019      350       
  intra-EU)                                                               

  Imports ( EUR billion; not including   1,023       1,301      311       
  intra-EU)                                                               

  Road network (million kms)             3,500       6,460      1,427     

  Rail network (million kms)             156         240        .05       
  -------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------

Source: *EU Statistical Pocketbook*, 2000

######## Table 2---Freight Transport, EU-15 vs U.S. 1998

+--------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|              | **B    |         | **Mode |       | **Ave   |       |
|              | illion |         | split  |       | dis     |       |
|              | tonne  |         | by     |       | tance** |       |
|              | -kms** |         | tonne  |       |         |       |
|              |        |         | -kms** |       | **      |       |
|              |        |         |        |       | (kms)** |       |
+--------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|              | **E    | *       | **E    | **U   | **EU    | **U   |
|              | U-15** | *U.S.** | U-15** | .S.** | -15\*** | .S.** |
+--------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| Road         | 1,254  | 1,499   | 44%    | 28%   | 110     | 685   |
+--------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| Rail         | 240    | 2,010   | 8      | 37    | 245     | 1,355 |
+--------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| Inland water | 121    | 521     | 4      | 10    | 280     | 767   |
+--------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| Pipeline     | 88     | 905     | 3      | 17    | 170     | 1,224 |
+--------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| Short sea    | 1,167  | 460     | 41     | 8     | 1,430   | na    |
+--------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---------+-------+

\* Reported in *EU Statistical Pocketbook* as number of kms per tonne

Source: www..europa.eu.int

(Note: 1 ton-mile = 1.46 tonne-kms)

The respective role of governments and of the private sector is an
important institutional difference between the two markets. In the U.S.,
for example, freight rail services have traditionally been owned and
operated by private firms (Conrail notwithstanding). In Europe, national
railways, in various ways connected to national governments, have been
the norm. European governments tend to be much more active in central
planning than the U.S. national government likely not only because of
the historical development of governance in both, but also because of
the relative size of the countries. And in Europe, although France and
Germany tend to have a large influence on the economic market and on
what happens in the EU, many other countries can play pivotal roles in
defining overall directions. In North America, the U.S., because of its
size and economic position, has the greatest level of influence.

Other differences between the EU and North America identified by those
interviewed include a more fragmented customer base in Europe,
language/cultural differences, different transport and labor
regulations, the use of value added tax (VAT) and customs revenues for
the EU budget, and historically different payment methods and financing
schemes.

Perhaps the largest difference between the two economic markets is the
large number of countries involved and the history that has defined
their relationship. With the North American market consisting of only
three countries, the level of complexity and institutional organization
that might be needed for coordinated action is much less than what one
would expect for a 15-nation economic and political union. In addition,
a long history of European conflict and competition has resulted in a
centuries-held perspective of national borders as protection against
incursions from neighboring countries. The removal of customs at the
national boundaries, the move toward a common currency and the many
other initiatives that have changed centuries of national prerogatives
in Europe represent a truly remarkable development in European, if not
world, history.

# **Europe in a Changing Global Market: The challenges**

The past 50 years have seen dramatic change in Europe; how the Europeans
see themselves and their role in the world. Starting with the Treaty of
Paris in 1951 that established the European Coal and Steel Community to
the latest Treaty of Nice, Europe has evolved institutional
relationships and frameworks that have created an economic powerhouse.
Important throughout these past 50 years was the creation of an internal
economic market that provided barrier free access to all member states.
Those interviewed during this scan used terms such as "harmonization"
and "liberalization" to describe the evolution of the domestic market.
In essence what they meant was the removal of barriers and constraints
to market access and movement within the European Union, resulting in an
integrated and commercially viable economic market second to none in the
world.

The 15 nations that currently make up the EU truly represent an
impressive economic market. With over 370 million people (6 percent of
the world population), the EU is the largest trading group in the world,
accounting for one fifth of global trade when counting movement of goods
within the EU. The value of trade in the EU is equivalent to 18 percent
of the 15 member state's gross domestic product. In the service sector,
the EU leads the U.S. in share of world trade, 24.9 percent to 20.1
percent (1998 dollars). The EU recognized early the opportunities
presented by a global market and the ingredients needed for competitive
success at the global level.

Figure 1 is perhaps the most telling testament to the success of the EU
in creating a vibrant economic market and the seeming impact of removing
intra-EU transport barriers. As shown in this figure, the rate of growth
in both goods and people movement has exceeded the growth rate in GDP;
this is especially the case for goods movement. The growth rate in goods
movement has averaged approximately 3 percent per year over the decade
of the 1990's. Although the positive

![](media/image1.png)

correlation between GDP growth and transport system usage has been known
for many years, the marked increase in goods movement as shown in Figure
1 is remarkable.

Although this scan was not intended to examine the overall causal
linkage between economic activity and the creation of an open market,
the economic success of the EU over the past several decades can
certainly be attributed in part to opening or liberalizing the market.
Making the internal European market more transparent has lead to more
transport demand, thus leading to significant transportation challenges
facing the EU and member nations. The following challenges were
identified by those interviewed:

-   The significant increase in passenger and freight movement over the
    past 20 years has led to ***high levels of congestion on line-haul
    facilities and at transshipment points***. Many motorways experience
    large delays, especially within and near urban centers. Ports,
    airports, and rail terminals are especially prone to peak congestion
    periods. This congestion is likely to get worse. Under current
    policies, freight transport in the EU is expected to grow 40 percent
    by 2010, with the highest growth expected for the road sector (50
    percent). In some countries, the increase will likely be even
    greater. In Germany, for example, the German Ministry of Transport
    forecasts a growth in freight transport between 1997 and 2015 of 64
    percent to 600 billion tonne-kilometers.

-   This congestion is most severe at ***strategic geographic
    barriers*** that hinder continental travel because of the
    "funneling" effect they have on traffic flow. For example, the Alps,
    Pyrenees, and English Channel were identified as critical links in
    the European transport network where significant congestion occurs
    (see Figure 2). Providing additional capacity at these locations to
    handle this congestion requires substantial investment.

-   In many cases, ***freight transport movements must share
    facilities*** with passenger movements, often to the detriment of
    freight transport productivity. Passenger rail service, which
    provides frequent service between most European cities, receives
    priority treatment on many rail lines. Because of the need to
    coordinate train movements, freight trains are limited

> in length so that they do not infringe upon the movement of passenger
> trains. Similarly, truck transport shares the right-of-way with
> passenger vehicles. It is not uncommon to see long queues of trucks on
> major motorways intermixed with passenger vehicles, waiting for
> congestion to clear. One of the interesting questions raised, but not
> answered, during this scan was the likely impact of the high speed
> rail network being developed on its own right-of-way throughout
> Europe. Will this free additional capacity on the local rail network
> to provide for more productive freight rail service?

-   Historically, national transport systems were designed in part for
    national defense purposes, thus the physical design (e.g., rail
    track gauge) and operations strategies (e.g., ability to use
    locomotives across national boundaries) have often been
    incompatible. There are 37 different combinations of rail
    gauge/tunnel clearance/power systems in Europe. This legacy has left
    a significant challenge to modern Europe of ***providing a
    compatible transport network that is interoperable***.

-   Similarly, the historical development of individual national
    transport systems has resulted in a ***level of transport
    infrastructure development that varies substantially across the
    EU***. Some of the newest members of the EU, e.g., Spain, Portugal,
    Greece, and Ireland, have significant needs for upgraded transport
    systems. Even in some of the first member states, there are regions
    where adequate transport infrastructure is lacking (e.g., the
    southern part of Italy). The challenge of providing a minimum level
    of transport mobility across the EU is exacerbated when one
    considers the wide range of transport capability of the countries
    that are seeking membership in the EU, the so-called accession
    states.

-   Transport ***policy is integrally linked to EU and national policies
    on environment/ sustainability/energy***. This is not surprising
    given that Europe has recognized for some time the important role
    that transport has in achieving economic growth, environmental
    quality, and community health. However, this linkage necessarily
    leads to different interpretations of what role transport will have
    in achieving the many different goals established by the European
    Parliament and/or national governments. For example, during the scan
    visit, there was considerable debate in the media and among
    transport officials on what level of reduction in vehicle kilometers
    traveled was necessary to achieve sustainability goals. Transport
    officials, with a seeming closer connection to transport's role in
    economic development, were, in the minds of those more concerned
    about sustainability, not willing to target significant reductions.
    In many ways, this debate could provide the basis for Europe's
    ability to achieve what it has established as its desired
    sustainable future, while still remaining economically competitive.

-   The ***changing global economy*** is also providing challenges to
    the EU. Globalization of production, procurement, and distribution;
    e-logistics and e-transport; and outsourcing of what traditionally
    had occurred internal to a company or country have caused many
    government and private sector officials to rethink what types of
    investment and at what levels are necessary to remain competitive.
    For example, the Netherlands is home to 57 percent of

> all European distribution centers for U.S. companies. Seven-five
> percent of these centers are out-sourced. This changing economy has
> especially affected logistics decisions, which has led to new
> organizations and strategies for reducing the logistics costs
> associated with freight movement within Europe and overseas (e.g., the
> German national railway bought the Dutch rail freight unit to achieve
> economies of operation). The changing economy has been a large
> challenge for European freight shippers and operators where different
> business customs and practices have been, and still are, common in
> different parts of the EU.

-   The key challenge for EU transport policy is shown in Figure 3.
    Whereas the EU and national governments are putting greatest
    emphasis on shifting freight mode shares from road transport to rail
    and inland water, the historical patterns of usage have shown
    exactly the opposite trends. ***Freight rail mode share has declined
    significantly over the past 30 years; inland water mode share has
    declined as well, although not at the same rate***. All of the
    government officials met during the scan discussed the importance of
    rail and inland water freight services, combined (i.e., intermodal)
    freight services, and the use of road pricing to encourage a shift
    toward these services. The emphasis on intermodal freight services
    is especially interesting given the low mode share for this type of
    service currently. Approximately one (1) percent of all domestic
    freight movement in the EU as measured in tonne-kilometers occurs by
    intermodal transport. Fourteen (14) percent of international goods
    transport occurs by intermodal. Several of those interviewed also
    expressed concern that the quality and price of rail service, the
    operational difficulties in providing cross border service, and the
    organizational culture of the rail companies themselves did not bode
    well for achieving this policy goal. In some sense, the "push"
    toward rail and inland water for freight movements is an
    "experiment" in the interaction of government policy, market
    response, and institutional capability. It will be worth watching to
    see what happens.

In summary, Europe faces many of the same transportation problems found
in North America. Economic growth has resulted in significant increases
in travel, both passenger and freight. In the transport sector,
infrastructure development and operations have not kept pace with the
tremendous increases in freight demand. The "common market" concept has
certainly resulted in new challenges to the transport sector. The
following sections describe how both the private sector and governments
in Europe have responded to these challenges.

###### How is europe responding to the challenges?

In a market economy, public policies and how they area implemented can
strongly influence the overall competitiveness of individual firms and
of national economies. This is true not only with direct intervention
strategies such as tax policy, but also with other policies that
establish the market conditions within which goods are produced and
consumed. Certainly, one of the most important factors in competitive
production is the ability to transport people and goods in as safe and
cheap a manner as possible. Given the level of economic growth in the EU
described above, along with the concomitant challenges facing the
transport system, what are the Europeans doing to provide a transport
system that will support a truly integrated common market?

![](media/image2.wmf)

**Private Sector Actions**

Shippers, freight forwarders, service providers, logistics companies,
and terminal operators are responding to the changing character of the
European transport market in a variety of ways. Importantly, they are
also responding to market forces that transcend any individual national
border or common market boundary. The scan team visited a very limited
number of facilities and service providers in comparison with all that
exist in Europe. However, the scan team feels that even with such a
limited exposure to the European private transport industry (broadly
defined to include those who use the services as well as those who
provide them), the sites visited provide a good snap shot of how private
firms, often in partnership with government agencies, are responding to
the demands and challenges of the economic market. The major observation
from these visits is as follows.

###### Market Pressures are Leading to Service Rationalization Strategies Aimed at Increasing Economies of Scale 

Given the capital intensive nature of many freight operations, and the
savings that can occur with the sharing of costly infrastructure, the
scan team saw many instances where large-scale investments were made to
develop facilities that consolidated operations. By developing what
might be called "hub" operations, the per unit cost of transport is
lowered. Some examples:

*Quadrante Europa/Verona Freight Village*: The Verona (Italy) Freight
Village is one of the largest consolidation centers in Europe, offering
a wide variety of services to shippers, freight forwarders and freight
operators. Its location at the intersection of major motorways and rail
lines in northern Italy makes it an ideal location for transshipment to
northern Europe through the Brenner Pass. More than 4 million tonnes of
freight by rail and 7 million tonnes of freight by truck passed through
the Freight Village in 1999. The Village handles over 30 percent of
Italy's intermodal traffic, and more than 50 percent of its
international intermodal traffic. With over 2.5 million square meters of
space, the Village offers many different services to customers,
including intermodal transshipment capabilities among rail, road and air
transport; customs services (for non-EU shipments), warehousing
facilities, forwarding and logistics support facilities, and general
office space. The intermodal traffic passing through the Village heading
to Germany is facilitated greatly by the offered services.

*Kombiverkehr:* Established in 1969, this German company is one of the
world's largest providers of intermodal transport services. With
original encouragement from the German government, over 250 European
forwarders and transport companies are shareholders in the company. In
essence, Kombiverkehr provides one-stop shopping for anyone desiring to
transport goods via intermodal transport. Not only does it analyze the
transport market to guarantee the lowest transport cost to its
customers, but Kombiverkehr staff also organize and control the services
of all suppliers. Intermodal services include block train service in
Germany and in the EU, block train service to German ports, and rolling
highway services throughout the EU. A block train is an entire train
dedicated to a particular service and destination versus a shuttle
train, which has a fixed number of rail cars and runs on a given
schedule. Currently, Kombiverkehr utilizes 28 block trains per day
serving approximately 60 terminals/cities (plans call for 42 block
trains per day). Rolling highway services, where the entire truck is put
on a rail car and the driver stays in the cab, is only used if there is
a governmental subsidy. Such a subsidy is provided by one of the German
states (Saxony), which is providing a subsidy until a new motorway is
finished.

Kombiverkehr also enters into partnerships with other organizations to
further develop intermodal infrastructure. In particular, it has
partnered in terminal projects in two German ports to expand intermodal
handling capability (in one port, the German government provided a
substantial subsidy for capacity expansion; this was frowned upon by the
EU, which is concerned about port competitiveness among EU member
states). In 2000, Kombiverkehr provided services for the movement of two
million TEUs (equivalent to 900,000 truckloads), 21 million net tonnes,
and 14 billion tonne-kilometers.

*Port of Gioia Tauro/Medcenter Container Terminal*: The Port of Gioia
Tauro, located on the southwestern coast of Italy, is one of the newest
ports in the world. Interestingly, it has been developed primarily as a
transshipment port for the movement of containers from one vessel to
other vessels that distribute the containers to over 50 ports in the
Mediterranean, Adriatic Sea and Black Sea. This type of transshipment
represents over 95 percent of the total freight movement in the port.
When the original plan as a bulk cargo port was not realized, the
Italian government and a freight carrier consortium invested in the port
as a new concept in Mediterranean freight distribution. The government
provided approximately USD \$40 million for civil works construction and
the private consortium provided over USD \$250 million for supporting
infrastructure (e.g., cranes). In 1995, the port served 50 vessels and
handled 170,000 TEUs. In 2000, over 3,000 vessels called at the port and
2.6 million TEUs were transshipped. The government and freight handlers
are now investigating the possibility of marketing the port as an
intermodal gateway to Europe. A trip from southeast Asia to Rotterdam or
Hamburg via sea would take 20 days or 22 days, respectively. Delivering
the containers to Gioia Tauro and using intermodal services via northern
Italy and Switzerland would take a total trip time of 14 days. There are
currently two train departures per week to Milan from Gioia Tauro, with
9 weekly departures from Milan to Rotterdam. The government, with EU
financial support, is improving rail access to this region of Italy,
thus making intermodal service even more viable in the future. In
addition, the port is working with the Italian government and the EU to
establish a free trade zone within the port boundaries. The EU is
sponsoring a major training initiative at the port.

*HUPAC/Trans Alps Service*: The Alps serve as a natural barrier to the
north-south movement of goods through Europe. Given that Switzerland is
not a member of the EU, a coordinated approach to providing additional
capacity has to depend on negotiations among many different parties. For
example, up to 2000, Switzerland did not allow truck weights over 28
metric tonnes, while in Europe the weight limit was 40 metric tonnes.
Accordingly, it was not surprising that 2/3's of the freight movement
through Switzerland was by rail, whereas 2/3's of freight movement
through the French and Austrian Alps is handled by truck. Through
negotiation and compromise, the Swiss truck weight limit has been made
consistent with the European standard; however, the Swiss raised a road
tax from USD \$90 per truck to USD \$200 per truck to compensate for
additional road damage. Even with this increased cost, it was cheaper
for Germany/Italy freight movement to use Switzerland. This demand has
often caused queues of up to 10 kilometers at the Swiss border.

In response to this market opportunity, the HUPAC Group, a provider of
intermodal services, offers a variety of transport options. It owns
2,300 rail cars, locomotives, and its own terminals. With a USD \$300
per truck subsidy from the Swiss government, HUPAC offers a rolling
highway service that carries trucks and drivers across the Alps. This
represents approximately 60 percent of the volume carried by HUPAC; the
other 40 percent is intermodal containers. Given that HUPAC can carry
three times more freight on intermodal services than rolling highway,
and given that from an environmental perspective the rolling highway
still relies on truck traffic at either end of the line-haul trip
through the Alps, HUPAC officials consider intermodal service to be the
important market for the future. A new rail tunnel in the Alps,
partially funded with the new road taxes, should provide more direct
rail service from Milan to Frankfurt, especially with EU investment to
upgrade rail lines on either side of Switzerland. HUPAC currently offers
shuttle trains between Italy and Germany/Belgium/The Netherlands.

Although HUPAC officials suggest an important future for intermodal
transport, they also expressed caution about some of the important
hurdles that yet remain. These included passenger and rail service
sharing the same right of way, lack of interoperability among the
national railways, the strength of labor unions in opposing new service
arrangements, language and legal differences among EU countries, and the
declining quality of service from the railroads (an internal study of
their own service showed that 85 percent of the delay was caused on the
rail portion of the trip).

*Flughafen/Cargo City, Frankfurt, Germany*: Frankfurt airport is the
busiest cargo airport in Europe, and ninth busiest in the world. The
management of the airport has been privatized, with 51 percent of the
stock held by the national, state and city governments, and 49 percent
held by private investors. Fraport, the name of this new management
structure, has adopted a strong entrepreneurial approach to its
business. It has aggressively pursued consulting opportunities in other
countries, helping to finance, build and operate airports elsewhere.
They provide management services for the Frankfurt airport, and are
enhancing their already formidable cargo logistics capabilities. They
lease buildings and provide distribution and cargo handling services in
Cargo City, a major transshipment site for freight that was established
in 1996 on land once used by the U.S. Air Force (over 60 percent of the
freight moving through Frankfurt is transshipped). Just over 240
airlines, forwarding agents, and service providers are using Cargo City
for a variety of services. Fraport works closely with prospective users
of Cargo City, providing services ranging from preparing site plans to
brokering investment in the proposed facility. In addition, Fraport
markets its location as the world's first air/truck/train/ship port in
the world with high speed train service, direct links to Germany's
autobahn, access to the inland port on the Rhine, and air links to more
international destinations than any other European airport.

In 1997, Fraport developed its own intermodal rail terminal and worked
with Deutsche Bahn to provide rail service to the north. Called the
"cargo sprinter", this service was a self-propelled consist that could
handle five 40-foot containers. Two trains operated every day. During
the first year, the service obtained 95 to 96 percent schedule
reliability and all the capacity was used. During the second year of
operation, the railroad reconstructed the rail lines and schedule
reliability declined dramatically. Not surprisingly, freight forwarders
dropped the service. Fraport hopes to reinstitute this service, but only
if schedule reliability can be guaranteed.

*Port of Rotterdam/Delta Terminals/Rail Service Center*: The Port of
Rotterdam is the largest port in Europe, serving as the major gateway to
the continent. Over 80 percent of all freight handled in the port is
destined to outside the Netherlands. The evolution of the Europe
Combined Terminals (ECT) complex at the port is an example of the
strategies adopted by intermodal terminal operators to become more
efficient and competitive. In particular, the Delta Terminal illustrates
one of the most advanced terminal operations in the world. The
transshipment operation is fully automated with robot vehicles moving
containers to and from vessels. Over USD \$250 million was invested in
the automation, aimed primarily at reducing labor costs. The terminal
operates seven days per week, 24 hours per day. ECT officials have
worked with clients and customs officials to expedite the customs
clearance process. Plans are being made to expand substantially the
capacity of the Delta terminals in anticipation of significant growth in
container transport. However, ECT officials are concerned about the
bottlenecks created by the limited land side access. There has been a
concerted effort to shift the access mode share away from road transport
to rail and barge. This strategy has been partially successful. In 1995,
the respective mode shares of access modes were road (53%), rail (14%),
and barge (33%); in 2000, the mode shares were road (44%), rail (15%)
and barge (41%). The shift has clearly occurred in favor of barge. With
the massive new investment in the Betuwe line (see inset), however, ECT
officials are hoping that rail can take even more market share from
trucks.

With over one million ship movements annually serving the port, it is
not surprising that congestion on the access routes to the port has been
one of the most critical problems facing port and government officials.
In response, the Dutch government has heavily invested in the
development of a freight-only rail line connecting Rotterdam to Germany.
Part of the strategy for improved rail access to the port was the
creation of dedicated rail service center for the port. By the
mid-1990s, approximately 50 different terminals and depots provided rail
access throughout the port. A private company approached the Dutch
government with a plan to rationalize this rail access. This plan was
based not only on the governmental policy of shifting access market
share away from road transport, but also on the realization that the
market was changing. Container transport already held a significant
market share, and was likely to increase. Carriers are concentrating on
a limited number of ports, where port attractiveness depends on such
things as accessibility for vessels, reliable inland connections, cargo
handling capability and customer service. The plan closed the 50
terminals and replaced them with two rail service centers at either

end of the port. A shuttle service between these two service centers was
established with 100 TEU capacity per shuttle. Daily shuttle train
service was also instituted between the rail service center and 37
different destinations in Europe. The Dutch government built the
infrastructure for the port shuttle and the two rail service centers;
the private company pays rent and owns the rolling stock for the port
shuttle operations. The new rail service concept has been successful in
increasing market share, although not yet to significant levels. The
opening of the Betuwe line is anticipated to increase the attractiveness
of rail access to the port. Such attractiveness will be necessary to
achieve the government's goal of rail achieving a 20 percent market
share in mode of access by 2010.

As can be seen in the above examples, intermodal freight has been an
important strategy for the different facility operators, logistics
company, and service providers visited. However, it seems clear that to
make intermodal freight transport successful, a large number of
challenges need to be faced. These challenges range from the ability of
handling large numbers of containers on terminal access routes (i.e.,
Rotterdam) to the ability of the railroads to provide scheduled service
that is reliable (i.e. HUPAC and Frankfort Airport). Those making the
shipping decisions, the freight forwarders, will choose those services
that are most reliable at minimal cost. Thus, given the emphasis and
expectations placed on the role of intermodal transport by government
officials, it remains to be seen if the necessary service structure and
infrastructure will be in place to provide the level of market share
that is desired.

**Public Sector Actions**

Governments can have a significant influence on market conditions,
either through direct intervention in market pricing or through the
provision of infrastructure and services. Just as in North America, the
economic and transport challenges facing Europe require the coordinated
effort of many different levels of government. In addition, this effort
can consist of many innovative and creative solutions to the problems
encountered in improving mobility and accessibility. The following
sections describe what the scan team found at three levels of government
planning and management as they relate to the freight transport
challenges described earlier.

###### Creation of an Institutional Structure\--the European Union\--and Resulting Policies that Influence the Transport Market

The European Union has had an important impact on market conditions and
on the regulatory environment for the movement of freight in the
European market. The intent of the original founding member countries
(Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) was
to create closer economic, social, and political relationships among the
nations who shared common interests. The original motivation for
establishing a common European market was to emphasize the competitive
advantages of working as one economic unit rather than as separate
competing entities, while at the same time providing a means of dealing
with a long history of conflict on the continent. Transportation policy
was seen by the founding members, and reinforced repeatedly by the
expanded membership, as one of the key policy areas where substantial
benefits could occur through EU-level action. In particular, the major
thrusts of initial EU efforts were on developing free competition within
the Common Market and on promoting the interoperability of transport
services and operations among member states. The specific
characteristics of the EU role in transportation, and in particular as
they relate to freight transport, are as follows:

***Establishing a common policy framework***: The Treaty of Rome, the
agreement establishing the structure of what is today the European
Union, recognized the important role that transport policy could play in
developing a European common market. The Treaty called for the
development of a common transport policy that would provide a framework
within which member countries could develop their own transport
networks, while at the same time improving the performance
characteristics of the European transport system as a whole. By
providing compatible system improvements whose benefits transcended any
individual country, the EU was targeting strategic investments whose net
impact would be of benefit to the common market. Given that national
transport networks serve as the foundation for the prospective European
network, it is not surprising that one of the initial challenges facing
the EU in the transport sector was establishing the interoperability of
services and infrastructure for trans-European travel.

Neil Kinnock, European Commissioner for Transport from 1995 to 1999,
summarized the key characteristics of the Common Transport Policy in a
1999 progress report on its achievements.\[European Commission, 1999\]
The following statements from this report provide a good sense of the
key characteristics of this policy (emphases added).

"**Sustainable mobility** is the core purpose of the Common Transport
Policy.

The Commission has been developing policy approaches that will encourage
the establishment of **public/private investment and development
partnerships**.

The Community has an obligation to pursue measures to improve
**transport safety**.

(The) rail, road, maritime and aviation systems...must also be made
**interoperable**.

(It) is essential to **make much better use of what exists**.

**Intermodality**...could transform the ease and efficiency of movement.

> Any **pricing and charging system** must clearly and fairly relate to
> the infrastructure and external costs caused by use...
>
> To protect the legitimate interest of consumers and competitors in
> transport as elsewhere, the **competition** rules that help to sustain
> the vitality of the market system have to be applied."

The principles articulated in the Common Transport Policy have guided EU
policy making and rule promulgation over the past decade. As such, it
has provided a common point-of-departure for member nations in
developing their own national transport policies, and for establishing
the transport-related criteria that must be satisfied for new members to
join the Union. One of the key principles that is now being considered
seriously is the implementation of road pricing. However, the exact
nature of how this concept is to be applied is not yet determined and is
subject to a great deal of debate.

It is of interest to note that during the scan visit, the direction of
future transport policy was of great interest to many key stakeholders
and to the media. In particular, one of the key points of disagreement
was the level to which transport policy was to be tied to
sustainability/energy conservation goals (and thus having a high target
value for reducing road use) versus recognizing the important role that
the transport system has for economic development and trade [in the
context of]{.underline} sustainability/energy conservation goals (and
thus having a smaller target value).

***Advocates common principles and interests that can be reflected in
national policies***: Within the context of adopted policies and
frameworks, the EU is a strong advocate for the coordinated development
of national transport policies that are consistent with each other and
with EU positions. In some cases, the EU acts as a catalyst in
coordinating multi-country planning, policy development and research
activities. It was noteworthy that some of the principles put forth by
the EU were repeated in presentations by national ministry of transport
officials, private service providers, and facility operators. There thus
seems to be some success in providing a channel for the consistent
articulation of common goals and strategies at the different levels of
governance that affect the transport market.

The greatest evidence of this consistency was the policy approach
adopted by the EU in its transport policy and reflected in the Dutch
national policy as well. The approach simply is to establish target
market shares for the different modal systems. Thus, for example, the
following growth rates for mode share in the Netherlands have been
established for the year 2010, compared to the likely scenario if the
transport policy is not followed. As shown, road transport will grow by
50 percent without the actions proposed in the transport policy, 38
percent with such actions. Rail, inland water and short sea transport
will grow at faster rates under the new policy scenario. These target
values are very ambitious and in many ways represent dramatic changes in
the way freight moves in Europe. Based on those interviewed as part of
the scan, there is some question as to whether the rail industry can
come anywhere close to the targeted market share desired in the policy
due to historical and industry-specific barriers.

[2010 (without policy)]{.underline} [2010 (with policy)]{.underline}

> Road transport 50% 38%

*Volumes for* Railroads *will grow by* 13% 40%

> Inland water 25% 40%
>
> Pipelines 13% 13%
>
> Maritime 34% 40%

***Targeting strategic investments to significantly improve transport
system performance***: The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 extended the Treaty
of Rome's benchmark position on the EU common transport policy by
fostering the development of trans-European networks in several
infrastructure areas, including transport. Trans-European transport
(TEN-T) networks were defined for high-speed trains, highways, combined
truck/rail transport, and inland waterways. The scope of the TEN-T
program encompasses hundreds of projects throughout the EU, ranging from
large-scale infrastructure development to the application of intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) technologies to existing infrastructure.

The Commission recommends corridor projects, and the Parliament and
Council choose which projects should be included based on staff input
and political considerations. In order to provide some political support
to the program, the EU identified 14 concepts/projects that were to
receive highest priority. Figure 4 shows these 14 priority investments;
the criteria for selecting these priority projects are shown in the
sidebar.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.760416666666667in" height="4.7375in"}

The EU provides funds that are designed to leverage project funding from
other sources. For example, the EU will provide up to 50 percent for
feasibility studies and up to 10 percent for construction (85 percent
for accession countries, which at this time include Ireland, Greece,
Portugal, and Spain). EUR 18 billion is available between 2001 and 2006
to trigger an expected EUR 60 to 100 billion in investment from other
sources.[^1] Historically, however, from 1996 to 1997 a total of EUR 38
billion was spent on TEN-T projects, with the EU representing a 30
percent share. The buy-in from member governments and the private sector
on the priority projects has been more modest than expected, partly
because of a slowdown in the economy, an overestimation of private
sector financial interest in the projects, and in some cases,
encountering environmental problems with a project. A proposal is
expected to be made to increase EU participation to 20 percent for
projects relating to the implementation of intelligent transportation
systems (ITS) technologies. This reflects the importance that EU
officials are placing on the role of technology-based system management.
As stated by one official, "to compete, we must be high tech." The EU
has also encouraged a regional systems management approach that will
provide integrated traffic control over large portions of Europe's
transport network.

The EU has recently adopted a multi-year programming approach to project
prioritization. A maximum of 75 percent of the budget will be allocated
in the following way: 45 percent (of the 75 percent) will go to projects
with public/private sector participation, 20 percent to the
implementation of a continent-wide GPS system, and 35 percent to other
transport projects, such as air traffic control, ITS, rail bottlenecks,
etc. A small amount will be set aside to provide risk capital for
projects that are outside this program, but which have high potential
for substantial benefits.

It is of interest to note that all of the TEN-T priority projects
completed so far are contained within one nation's borders. The
multinational projects, which presumably require more coordination and
negotiation, have not been implemented as quickly. There was no
indication from those interviewed whether this was a conscious decision
on the part of the EU, i.e., pushing

those projects first that were "easiest" to show progress toward program
goals, or whether this was the natural result of the complexity of
multijurisdictional implementation.

In addition to investment in infrastructure, the EU targets human
resource development and training as part of its overall strategy of
economic and social cohesion. In 2000, for example, over EUR 480 million
was allocated for education and vocational training. The scan team found
examples of EUR training investment at some of the sites visited.

***Establishes legally binding rules and regulations***: In the majority
of policy areas, the responsibility for implementing EU policies and
guidelines rests with the member states. Thus, in some ways, the level
of effectiveness of EU policy guidance depends on the willingness of
member states to adopt the recommendations. In other cases, binding
rules and regulations are used to guarantee universal implementation of
a policy, which is monitored by the EU. If warranted, the Commission can
take a member state to the European Court for legal resolution. An
example of the role of the European Court was a case initiative by the
Dutch that challenged favorable pricing of German rail services to the
ports of Hamburg and Bremen. The resulting agreement establishes maximum
flow rates that can cross three border locations. Examples of legally
binding rules include allowable vehicle weights, vehicle emission
standards, aircraft noise standards, and allowable trucker driving
hours. A more recent policy that has an important effect on the European
freight network is a policy of disassociating the management/ownership
of rail infrastructure with those responsible for operating freight
services. The European Commission also monitors member nation aid to its
own transport industry to maintain market competition.

Perhaps the greatest success in establishing consistent application of
EU rules was the reduction in customs clearances at national borders.
Prior to 1993, all truckers were stopped at each national border for
customs checks, tax clearance and in some cases vehicle inspection. On
January 1, 1993, all such national border checks were abolished; spot
checks still occur for drugs and immigration enforcement. The creation
of free cross border transport was identified by almost all those
interviewed as one of the most important EU actions for creating a
better market environment for freight transport.

***Special Attention Given to Enlargement of the EU***: The EU has
expanded membership four times in its short history. It is facing
another such expansion in the near future. Thirteen countries have
sought membership in the EU, which makes it potentially the largest of
such expansions.[^2] With all 13 countries added as members, the EU's
total population would exceed 500 million. The process of being admitted
as a member of the EU reflects some of the actions that have been taken
within the original membership to promote a more cohesive and
coordinated Europe. Each candidate must adopt and enforce the entire
body of EU rules and regulations, known as the *'acquis communautaire'*
(representing over 100,000 pages). Part of this *acquis* is a policy
chapter on transport, known as the *transport acquis*, which must be
adopted en toto (see appendix B for a more detailed description of this
process). The process of successful adoption includes three major
stages:

-   The *transport acquis* must be incorporated into the national legal
    system of the candidate country.

-   The implementation of the *transport acquis* must occur by providing
    administrative capacity, institutions, and budgets necessary to
    carry out this legal basis.

-   The enforcement of the *transport acquis* should provide the
    necessary controls and penalties to ensure that the law is being
    complied with.

The EU also provides financial assistance to candidate accession
countries, of which a large percentage is assigned to helping candidate
countries bring their infrastructure up to EU standards. In 2000, EUR
3.2 billion was earmarked for helping the candidate countries. Over EUR
1 billion was provided to upgrade transportation and environmental
systems to EU standards. A program called Phare provided EUR 1.5 billion
to modernize and adapt the economies of the accession countries. From
2000 to 2006, EUR 22 billion for pre accession support, and from 2002
on, EUR 57 billion for new member states has been provided for in the EU
budget. Examples of the types of studies undertaken by the Phare program
include the investigation of the competitiveness of the rail system in
eastern and central Europe, the application of road transport charges,
costs of upgrading each accession country's transport infrastructure,
forecasting traffic demand for 10 Pan-European transport corridors, road
and maritime safety, and the extent to which environmental concerns were
being addressed within the accession countries. Importantly, 30 percent
of the Phare budget was allocated to human resource development. Between
1996 and 1999, over 1,600 individuals in the accession countries
received training.

***Observations on the EU***

Much of the effort at the EU for the past several decades has been on
institution-building, that is, providing the institutional structure
that can act as the foundation for the EU concept of "one Europe". The
EU has clearly been advantageous for the European transport sector. Not
only has it fostered the removal of barriers to cross border travel
(e.g., customs at national borders), but it has also raised transport
policy issues to the international and national levels of debate.
Transport policy in the EU is in the middle of key debates on the
economic and environmental future for the Union.

However, it is very much the case that the future role of EU governance
is at the core of policy debates, and will likely remain so in the
foreseeable future. The respective roles of a central authority in the
form of the EU versus that of member states is the crux of the issue. In
the transport sector, for example, member states still wield an
important influence on the overall effectiveness of EU policy outcomes
through their policy implementation responsibility. Consistent
application of transport policies at the EU level requires the agreement
of member states. The adoption of policies that are controversial, or
that impact one group more than others (e.g., road pricing), can become
delayed while the politics of acceptance are worked out. One of the ways
of providing political acceptance of such policies is to structure their
implementation so as to achieve the ultimate objective (e.g., shift in
mode share), but still "hold harmless" the industry or sectors that have
to respond. For example, current road pricing proposals suggest that
increased road prices that will influence market transport decisions
will be offset by reductions in tax burdens to the road transport
industry so that the net financial effect on this industry is close to
zero.

The Common Transport Policy provides an important point of departure for
the development of transport policies in member nations. Road pricing,
for example, which is very much supported by the EU, is finding its way
into other transport policies (e.g. that of the Netherlands). However,
the approach of targeting market shares by mode raises significant
questions concerning the ability of these modes to achieve the desired
levels. In the European case, this seems especially true for the rail
industry. The quality of service provided and continuing
interoperability issues need to be addressed before such targets can be
reached.

The EU provision of funding for strategic transportation investments is
an important component of the strategy of providing consistent and
coordinated transport infrastructure within the EU. However, several of
those interviewed noted that the assumption of private sector interest
in paying for a share of this investment cost was too optimistic.
Government investment in the projects was needed to reduce the risk to
private investors. Those interviewed stated that it was also important
to have a specific project authority that is enabled with the
responsibility for project implementation and is held accountable in
order for the program to be successful.

###### Member State Response to the Challenges

The scan team visited a limited number of countries, thus
generalizations that apply to all member countries of the EU are not
appropriate. However, in the countries visited, some important
observations can be made on how they have responded to the European
Union's transport policies, as well as on their own policies/programs
for improving freight transport. In addition, the countries visited have
a long history of participation in trade and in the movement of goods
and services, thus this experience is potentially valuable to the North
American context.

*Linkage to broader societal goals*: The transport policy challenge to
the EU countries, and to the EU itself, is balancing the many different
goals that have been identified by policy makers and by the public as
being important for the future of the community. In particular,
sustainability has been identified by the EU and by many member
countries as one of the overarching goals that should guide investment
policies. In some sense, one of the differences between the national
transport policy emphasis on intermodal transport in Europe and of that
in North America is the linkage to these broader goals. Sustainability,
energy conservation, and quality of life are driving forces for public
policy interest in intermodal transport in Europe. Economic efficiency
and productivity tend to be the major motivation in North America.

*Consistency with EU policies*: Even with a limited number of countries
visited, there seems to be a strong consistency between national
government transport policy and EU policy. The latest transport plan for
the Netherlands, for example, highlights those areas where the Dutch
policies are consistent with EU policies, in particular, in the areas of
road pricing; deregulation of the road transport market; liberalization
of the railways; safety, accessibility, and emission requirements for
vehicles and vessels; and electronic vehicle tagging.[^3] In Italy,
Germany, and Switzerland (even though it is not a member of the EU), the
scan team identified policy approaches that were supportive of the
overarching EU common transport policy framework.

*Focus on transport system infrastructure and technology*: The member
states recognize the importance of efficient transportation systems for
their economies and for the success of the EU. There was a general
understanding from all government officials interviewed of the "bigger
picture" of continent-wide transportation services, and where their
country's transport network or facility's operations fit into this
bigger picture. In fact, the Dutch invested in the transport system
beyond their own borders. The Netherlands has invested in a high speed
rail project in Belgium, and there was some speculation that investment
might occur in Germany to improve rail service, both of which would
benefit the Dutch economy and the efficiency of their transport system.
The Port of Rotterdam has invested in Hungary and the Czech Republic in
facilities that make the port more competitive to freight in this
market. Large investment has occurred and is continuing to occur in EU
countries aimed at improving the physical transport infrastructure. In
addition, the application of advanced ITS technologies for system
management, in conjunction with corresponding investments by the
transport industry for their own operations, is considered to be one of
the more important future directions in system investment.

*Investment in* *freight infrastructure*: The countries visited seem to
provide greater levels of public investment in freight infrastructure
than found in North America. In many cases, the government's focus was
on providing the infrastructure (in some cases leasing it to a
concessionaire) and where appropriate providing loans to those operating
services and terminals. The conditions for the latter support was most
often that full access to these services had to be allowed, and that the
public subsidy did not diminish the competitiveness of the freight
industry in the local market. The most impressive example of such an
investment is the Betuwe rail corridor in the Netherlands, which
represents a USD \$4 billion commitment by the national government to
rail freight. This level of investment was not the norm in the countries
visited. Clearly, the Dutch government has a greater sensitivity of, and
willingness to invest heavily in, freight infrastructure given its
country's location at the heart of Europe's economy (see Figure 5).

*Emphasis on* *using existing infrastructure as much as possible, and
thus a governmental interest in intermodal transportation*: One of the
key targets for providing enhanced freight transport mobility is to use
the existing multimodal transport infrastructure more effectively. In
the Netherlands, for example, Ministry officials stated that most
improvements to transport system performance will come first from
operational enhancements, second from pricing and finally from capacity
expansion. Freight transport policy has emphasized shifting market
shares to modes of transport that are currently underutilized, primarily
inland water, short sea and rail transport, in sum, maximizing the
number of alternatives available to system users. In this context,
intermodal freight transport\--rail/truck, rail/barge, and
truck/barge---is viewed by many government officials as an important
means for achieving modal shifts. This is the case even though current
market share for intermodal freight transportation and rail freight
transportation is very small. Some governments are providing monetary
incentives to encourage this shift. Germany, for example, provides the
following inducements for those using intermodal transport: reduced road
vehicle taxes (currently EUR 2,500 -- 3,500 per truck; zero for
intermodal carriage), allowance of greater vehicle weight (44 tonnes
instead of 40 tonnes), exemption from road driving bans on holidays and
weekends; and exemption from cabotage rules.

The emphasis on intermodal transport has also led to interest in
promoting better transshipment capabilities at terminals and ports. For
example, an EU Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure
argued that ports needed to be included in the TEN-T program because of
the importance of interconnection and interoperability of national
networks (EU ports handle approximately 30

percent of intra-EU freight movement)[^4] The "rationalization" of
Europe's ports from the perspective of which ports should serve as the
primary gateways to the EU could potentially be a significant challenge
(and controversy) given the large number of ports that exist in EU
countries. The competitive nature among European ports leads one to
suspect that efforts to "rationalize" port gateways from an EU
perspective is going to be very difficult.

*Development of a market-driven transport policy within context of
public interest*: Both EU officials and national officials stated that
the focus of freight transport policy is on influencing the transport
market through pricing and financial incentives that influence the
decisions of freight forwarders as well as operators. To some of those
interviewed, this is a different approach than what has been tried
previously, which was described as a "Thou shalt... " approach. That is,
government policies mandated that certain market responses would occur,
but would not put in place incentives or disincentives to obtain this
result. Perhaps the best example of this market-driven transport policy
is found in the German and Dutch governmental subsidy programs for
intermodal terminal developments and the logistics support program in
the Netherlands where the basis for the program is letting private firms
decide what is feasible, and then providing leverage capital to make the
investment decision economically viable. This was described by Dutch
officials as using public policy to augment logistical efficiencies.

Road pricing is one of the cornerstones of the market-driven transport
policy. The EU has adopted road pricing as an important lever for
influencing mode choice. Member countries have mirrored this focus. In
the Benelux countries, for example, current passenger pricing schemes
rely on toll roads or lanes. The governments have proposed to implement
a peak hour fee scheme in 2003, and a per kilometer charge by 2010.
Public opposition to the peak hour fee has resulted in a change in
strategy to implement a per kilometer usage fee by 2006. Similar pricing
schemes will be applied to use of freight road, rail, and inland water
infrastructure. In order to retain competitiveness of their transport
industry, the governments have proposed to offset these increased costs
by reducing tax burdens in other parts of the transport business. The
road pricing schemes remain controversial, so they still might not be
implemented by the proposed schedule.

*Public/private partnerships as an important component of government's
strategy for implementing transport policy*: Almost all of the major
projects visited by the scan team involved some form of partnership
between the public and private sectors. Examples include:

-   The Betuwe rail freight corridor in the Netherlands connecting the
    port at Rotterdam with Germany is an example of how difficult it can
    be to create public/private partnerships (see inset, page xx).
    Initially, the Dutch government planned to have substantial private
    investment in the provision of the rail infrastructure, but later
    determined that such a commitment was not likely to occur. There is
    some thought at this time of selling the rail infrastructure to a
    private concern after 10 years. Part of the operations of the rail
    line included the construction of rail service centers that were
    built with government funds, but are being managed by a private
    firm. Another example of public/private cooperation was the port's
    investment in a railroad bridge as part of a strategy increase rail
    access to the port.

-   Both the Netherlands and Germany have provided subsidies to inland
    freight terminals where access is provided to all customers. In the
    Netherlands, 50 percent of the investment must be from private
    sources, 25 percent from the national government and 25 percent from
    the provincial/local governments. See inset on the following page
    for a description of the German intermodal terminal subsidy program.

-   In Italy, the new transshipment port of Gioia Tauro received
    national government investment both in the port facilities
    themselves, as well as in road and rail access improvements. Private
    companies have provided much of the investment for the port
    operations facilities.

-   In Germany, the national government has participated in the
    privatization of the Frankfurt airport and provided the impetus (and
    subsidies) for freight forwarders to create a third party intermodal
    logistics company.

In 1991, the European Commission issued a non-discrimination directive
that stated the owner of infrastructure could not be the operator of
services using that infrastructure. Government construction of rail
lines or terminals will thus require partnerships with private firms to
operate or manage these facilities.

*National planning and analysis for freight investment reflective of
importance attached to the role of trade and the transport industry to
the nation's economy:* The scan team only visited one national ministry
of transport, this for the Netherlands. However, it is clear from this
visit that at least in the Netherlands, freight transport is a concern
at the national level and is approached in a very systematic and
analytical fashion. Performance measures and economic indicators that
are collected as part of a European transport information system are
used to monitor system performance over time. The analysis of freight
transport futures was based on scenarios that made different assumptions
concerning the stability of European progress toward closer cohesion.
For example, the scenarios included a status quo (termed divided
Europe), a coordinated Europe, and a Europe integrated for global
competition. The results of this analysis as presented in the national
transport plan are shown in Figure 6. It was also interesting to note
that the ministry itself is organized into four Directorates General, of
which one is dedicated to freight transport. According to those familiar
with the national transport planning activities of other EU countries,
this attention to freight issues is similarly found in other ministries
(although the Netherlands is considered to be a leader in such
planning).

![](media/image2.wmf)

###### Local Government Response

Similar to experience in North America, local governments at the sites
visited have played an important role in fostering those activities that
result in economic development for their city or state. These roles
range from expediting permits and planning procedures to providing
financial support for infrastructure development. For the facilities
visited, local governments had reconciled the linkage between investment
in economic development as manifested in freight distribution
terminals/centers and community goals.

It is also important to note (in order to establish the correct context
for our findings) that, in some cases, local and private investment took
advantage of opportunities not available to other locations. In some
sense, these opportunities were "accidents of history." For example, the
freight distribution center at Frankfort Airport, which is strategically
located within Europe and has tremendous opportunities for expansion, is
located on land used by the U.S. Air Force during the Berlin Air Lift.
Much of the infrastructure investment at the new transshipment port at
Gioia Tauro was originally built as a bulk commodity port that was never
finished. Rotterdam's pre-eminent position as a port gateway to Europe
is due to a strategic geographical location. However, whether taking
advantage of such opportunities or starting anew, the local government
support for freight infrastructure was primarily aimed at enhancing the
relative competitiveness of their community compared to other locations
in the country and/or in Europe. Some examples of the local government
role in freight facilities include:

*Port of Rotterdam*: The port is municipally owned and operated. As
noted by a port official, the port is run like a business, but with a
public purpose. From the business plan for the port, this public purpose
is clearly defined as remaining the strong foundation for the city's
economy (and indeed the country's---20 percent of the Netherlands' GDP
is attributed to the Port of Rotterdam and Schipol Airport). Port
officials are strongly supportive of investments that will maintain
Rotterdam as the leading port of Europe. For example, the port built a
railroad bridge because it realized the bottleneck that port access
represents to future port activities. Other port investments are
similarly aimed at enhancing the competitive advantage of Rotterdam over
other ports.

*Port of Gioia Tauro*: The Port is a major employer in southwestern
Italy. Because of its strong economic impact, the state and local
governments have been very supportive in helping the port develop its
plans for expansion and in providing support for access improvements.
Some of the funds provided to the state of Reggio Calabria for economic
development purposes have been used to improve the position of the port.

*Verona Freight Village*: The Board of Directors for the Freight Village
consists of three representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, three
from the City of Verona, and three from the Province. The Village is
viewed by local officials as one of the main foundations for the
economic success of the Verona region, and have devoted considerable
energy to supporting its viability. This includes providing financial
support for needed infrastructure as well as expediting planned
expansions through the planning approval process.

*Frankfurt Airport*: The City of Frankfurt is part owner of the
management company that is operating the airport. As such, it provides
policy guidance on what is desired from the community's point of view.
City officials have also participated closely with the airport in
developing plans for expansion of Cargo City and other economic
development opportunities at this site.

#### Lessons for North America and Role of Domestic Freight Transportation Investment in International Freight Movement

The following lessons for the North American and U.S. context result
from this scan.

1.  Global market and logistics relies heavily on the performance of
    infrastructure owned and operated by the public sector.
    Understanding the motivation of logistics decisions and their local
    implications is a critical point of departure for a national or
    multinational effort on fostering trade. Identifying freight
    bottlenecks, "solving them", and establishing market conditions that
    provide "free access" should be an important focus of regional,
    state, national, and international planning/policy efforts.

2.  One of the most important concerns of freight transport users, and
    thus of transport officials identifying improvements to this system,
    is the reliability of service or trip-making. Speed of travel is
    important, but the results of service strategies examined as part of
    this scan suggest that system reliability is even more important.
    This has significant implications on the types of performance
    measures used in system monitoring and in the criteria used for
    project prioritization.

3.  The EU illustrates the importance of having an international and
    national policy on investment in freight transportation. Public and
    private investment in freight facilities has occurred, and continues
    to occur, in Europe. Public investment is designed to act as a
    catalyst for private investment in services and facilities could
    provide important public benefits. In some cases, such investment is
    being considered from a true "systems" perspective (i.e.,
    improvements are being made in infrastructure that is outside of a
    nation's boundaries, but that will clearly benefit that nation's
    industry).

4.  Public investment targeted at freight movement should adopt a
    framework in which private sector is provided incentives to choose
    what is best for their business within context of achieving public
    goals (e.g., economic development, sustainability, etc.). This was
    portrayed by the Europeans as making market-driven policy decisions
    within a "public good" context. In addition, the focus of the
    overall policy was to make best use of existing transportation
    options (e.g., rail and inland water transportation) before
    developing new transport networks. Interestingly, a "long-term"
    public policy focus in this context was at most 10 years, whereas
    private sector focus was at most five years.

5.  Public budget and financing mechanisms for funding freight projects
    exist in the EU, although as a percentage of total transport system
    investment, they are quite limited. No debt financing was found in
    any of the examples discussed, and for the very largest projects
    (e.g., the Betuwe corridor) little private investment occurred
    upfront. However, even with this, the level of public investment in
    freight facilities and services seems far greater in Europe than in
    North America.

6.  A critical role for multinational efforts is to foster open
    competition and open borders. Free access allows the market to take
    advantage of productivity economies and results in market-reflective
    decisions. However, the European experience suggests that there
    might have to be different market incentives and rules for different
    segments of the transportation system (e.g., intermodal terminals,
    national rail service, inland water, etc.).

7.  The EU has served as an important forum for establishing consensus
    on strategies for establishing an openly competitive market in
    Europe. Such a forum provides the institutional framework for
    developing a common message among government agencies and among
    important stakeholders as it relates to economic competitiveness. In
    addition, such a forum has raised transportation issues to the level
    of national political debate

8.  Interoperability and consistency in national laws and regulations
    are important areas for multinational concern. This leads to a
    concern for consistent application of information technology
    strategies across borders. Although important, however, these issues
    should not overshadow much broader concerns for market-driven policy
    and decision making. In addition, the EU experience suggested that
    issues such as language compatibility, signage consistency, and
    handling of paperwork precede information technology concerns. In
    the case of European freight movement, the trucking industry seems
    to have dealt with these problems more successfully than the rail
    industry.

9.  The EU has incorporated human resource development/training as an
    important component of any public/private initiative aimed at
    improving freight movements. This has been done primarily to raise
    the quality of life of the communities that are affected by freight
    facilities and operations.

## Recommendation for Further Studies

The panel identified many prospective studies that should be undertaken
to further understand the characteristics of international freight
movement, and the market response to changes in the institutional and
regulatory environment. In particular, the panel feels that many of the
examples and initiatives found in Europe warrant follow-up examination,
perhaps every two to three years, so that the longer term market
response to open markets can be followed. Some specific studies of
interest include:

1.  Collaboration with research centers in Europe, e.g., the Intermodal
    Transport Research Center in Hamburg, to monitor the response of
    intermodal freight to national and EU policies.

2.  Examination of the results of EU "rationalization" of transportation
    infrastructure. For example, what happens to ports or terminals when
    the EU's transport plan suggests that a smaller number of such
    facilities will better serve EU purposes?

3.  Comparison of North American and EU productivity in freight
    transportation, and the differing criteria for investment.

4.  Review of existing forums/mechanisms for NAFTA discussions to see if
    there are more effective means of tri-lateral cooperation in regard
    to transportation decisions. For example, how should improved water
    transportation opportunities be incorporated into on-going
    discussions? Are there different models for institutional decisions
    in North America? How do we get trade/commerce groups involved in
    these discussions?

5.  Continued monitoring of EU experience with road pricing and success
    in mode shifts.

6.  Investigation of the role of the MPO in freight transportation,
    especially those issues that have national implications. What are
    the expectations of the MPOs with regard to such issues?

7.  Investigation of public/private partnerships for freight improvement
    projects. How can public investment be related to public benefits?

8.  Examination of adopting a systems perspective on freight
    transportation. This includes not only a conceptual model, but also
    reflects performance measurement..

9.  Consideration of the role that technology innovation can play in
    international and national trade markets. This includes not only
    physical modifications to vehicles or networks, but also the
    increasingly important role for information technologies.

10. Examination of global freight flows, and the relative importance of
    different transport flows to global trade movement.

##### Appendix A: Interview Questions

[Questions for EU Officials/Institutional and Policy Focus]{.underline}

The primary intent of these questions was to understand the history of,
and current situation with, the influence of EU policies and actions on
freight movement in Europe. This set of questions focused on the
institutional structure and policy framework for EU decisions (and
responses from the market).

# Primary Questions

1.  Please discuss how EU freight policies are formulated and
    implemented. What are the current EU freight policies as they relate
    to freight movement within the EU? As they relate to trade with
    non-EU nations in Europe? As they relate to trade with North
    America?

2.  What were the major freight-related challenges faced by the EU
    during its creation, e.g., institutional relationships, regulatory
    consistency, financial needs, environmental policies, operational
    strategies, etc.?

3.  Has the existence of the European Union changed policies or
    operating considerations for freight movement among member nations?
    If so, how?

4.  What has been the effect of EU policies (e.g., the removal of trade
    barriers and tariffs) on the amount and type of freight shipped and
    on the method of shipment?

5.  Border crossings can be major bottlenecks in a continental
    transportation system. To what extent has the EU achieved regulatory
    uniformity for border crossings in:

> \--customs clearances at national borders?
>
> \--truck size and weight?
>
> \--labor and safety regulation?
>
> \--national defense considerations?
>
> \--public health?

What differences still remain and how will they be dealt with? How are
these

issues dealt with for non-EU member border crossings?

6.  What problems has an "open borders" policy created for freight
    logistics and for infrastructure providers?

7.  With hindsight, what should have been done differently to more
    effectively consider freight movement within the context of the EU?

8.  What issues do you see challenging freight movement within the EU?
    Where do you see common points of interest between the EU and NAFTA
    nations? Are new or stronger transatlantic relationships needed to
    deal with future freight needs?

# Secondary Questions

1.  Are freight facilitation issues faced by the European Union the same
    or different than issues addressed individually by members prior to
    the development of the EU?

2.  To what extent does the EU focus on regional (within Europe)
    transport issues as compared to the EU as a whole?

3.  To what extent do national boundaries serve to define economic
    submarkets? Or has the concept of an economic market now transcended
    national boundaries?

4.  Are there economic, safety, vehicle size/weight, driver utilization
    regulations that govern EU freight movements (outside the context of
    border crossings)? If so, how are these regulations developed and
    applied? How do these regulations and taxation policies affect
    pricing?

5.  To what extent have the various modal providers of transportation
    services cooperated in developing common technology standards? What
    has been the role of the EU or individual national governments in
    fostering such cooperation?

6.  Is there any EU policy aimed at diverting freight movement from one
    mode to another, e.g., from highway to rail or water? If so, how
    does the EU or member nations participate in developing and
    implementing such policies?

[Questions for EU Officials/Planning and Financing Focus]{.underline}

The purpose of these questions was to understand the role of the EU in
the planning and financing of transportation infrastructure. The focus
was to be on process, data, analysis and respective roles of the public
and private sectors.

# Primary Questions

1.  What major changes from the freight trends of the past 25 years are
    you expecting over the next 25 years? What are the major driving
    forces (for example, time-sensitive delivery and e-commerce) behind
    these trends?

2.  What role does the EU have in identifying transportation system
    bottlenecks and in solving them?

3.  What type of data on freight volumes is collected? Who has
    responsibility for what types of data? How is this data used for
    system management decisions?

4.  Are performance measures used to monitor the performance of the
    transportation system as it relates to freight mobility? If so, what
    are they and how are they developed? Do EU members have their own
    transportation system performance measures as they relate to freight
    movements? If so, how do they relate to EU measures?

5.  What types of forecasting methods or approaches are typically used
    to predict future freight movement within and beyond the EU? Who
    does this forecasting?

6.  The EU is known as an international leader in linking infrastructure
    investment planning to broader societal goals relating to
    sustainable development, environmental quality, etc. How have such
    considerations been incorporated into the planning and decision
    making for freight facilities?

7.  How are freight facilities having international significance
    financed? Does the EU play a role in securing necessary financing?
    What types of government subsidies are provided for capital
    improvements and operations of freight facilities (rail, aviation,
    water, trucking, intermodal, etc.)?

8.  What role does the private sector play in identifying important
    investments? desired policies? or in funding projects?

9.  What intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies have
    proven most useful in enhancing freight productivity in the EU? What
    has been the role of the EU in fostering such technology
    applications? What future ITS applications will receive increasing
    attention from government and industry?

# Secondary Questions

1.  How are local, provincial, national and international communities
    and groups incorporated into the planning process for freight
    facilities improvements that have international impacts (such as
    port facilities)? How is planning and implementation done for
    multi-nation transportation corridors?

2.  Have increasing freight volumes led to innovative and creative uses
    of transportation infrastructure, e.g., freight exclusive lanes,
    pricing schemes, time-of-day use and bans, etc?

3.  How are competing interests between passenger and freight use of the
    transportation system dealt with, e.g., rail facilities or roads? Do
    passenger railroads have a long-term strategy that includes a
    potentially larger role for freight movement?

4.  How does research and development on freight issues of interest to
    the EU get funded? Do the public and private sectors share risks in
    this research?

**[Questions for National Government Officials]{.underline}**

[Primary Questions]{.underline}

1.  Has the existence of the European Union changed your country's
    policies or operating considerations for freight movement?

2.  What have been the trends in your governmental financing of
    freight-related transportation infrastructure? For example, what has
    been the investment history in ports, airports, inland waterways,
    roads, intermodal terminals, etc.?

3.  How are local, provincial, national and international communities
    and groups incorporated into the planning process for freight
    facilities improvements that have international impacts (such as
    port facilities)? How is planning and implementation done for
    multi-nation transportation corridors?

4.  How are freight facilities that have international significance
    financed? To what extent does the existence of the Common Market
    help in securing necessary financing? What types of government
    subsidies are provided for capital improvements and operations of
    freight facilities (rail, aviation, water, trucking, intermodal,
    etc.)?

5.  Europe is known as an international leader in linking infrastructure
    investment planning to broader societal goals relating to
    sustainable development, environmental quality, etc. How have such
    considerations been incorporated into the planning and decision
    making for freight facilities?

6.  Are performance measures used to monitor the performance of the
    transportation system as it relates to freight mobility? If so, what
    are they and how are they developed? If so, how do they relate to EU
    system performance measures?

7.  How are investments in freight facilities evaluated in the context
    of their role in international trade? For example, are benefit/cost
    analyses used in such evaluations? If so, how are benefits assessed?

8.  How are freight movement considerations incorporated into the
    planning for major highways?

9.  Have increasing freight volumes led to innovative and creative uses
    of transportation infrastructure, e.g., freight exclusive lanes,
    pricing schemes, time-of-day use and bans, etc?

10. What major changes from the freight trends of the past 25 years are
    you expecting over the next 25 years? What are the major driving
    forces behind these trends?

# Secondary Questions

1.  What has been the effect of globalization of the market place on the
    freight industry in your country? On the freight industry in the EU?
    What have been the corresponding effects on your country's
    transportation system? On the transportation system in Europe?

2.  What effect does road congestion and transportation bottlenecks have
    on logistics and equipment usage? Does congestion on the road
    network act as a "pricing" mechanism to encourage the use of
    alternative modes?

3.  What types of forecasting methods or approaches are typically used
    to predict future freight movement? Who does this forecasting? And
    how are these forecasts made consistent with any that are done by
    the EU?

4.  What role does the private sector play in identifying important
    investments? desired policies? in funding projects?

5.  What intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies have
    proven most useful in enhancing freight productivity in the EU? What
    has been the role of our government and/or the EU in fostering such
    technology applications? What future ITS applications will receive
    increasing attention from government and industry?

6.  How are competing interests between passenger and freight use of the
    transportation system dealt with, e.g., rail facilities or roads? Do
    passenger railroads have a long-term strategy that includes a
    potentially larger role for freight movement?

7.  Have B2B and B2C business strategies had any impact on the location
    of business activities in the EU? Has the EU or any national
    government undertaken any policy initiative relating to "guiding" or
    "managing" the resulting transportation impacts of these business
    strategies?

## Questions for Transportation Facility Operators

### [Primary Questions]{.underline}

1.  How has the movement of freight movement through your facility
    changed over the past 25 years (by mode, if appropriate)?
    Specifically, has the creation of the European Union caused
    significant changes in freight movement and/or in the way you view
    your business? If so, how?

2.  What has been the effect of the removal of trade barriers and
    tariffs on the amount and type of freight shipped and on the method
    of shipment? How do differing regulatory and taxation policies among
    European nations affect logistics decisions?

3.  What types of access constraints do you experience at your facility?

4.  How are local, provincial, national and international communities
    and groups incorporated into the planning process for freight
    facility improvements that have international impacts (such as port
    facilities)? What is your involvement in the planning for
    multi-nation transportation corridors?

5.  How are investments in freight facilities evaluated in the context
    of role in international trade? For example, are benefit/cost
    analyses used in such evaluations? If so, how are benefits assessed?

6.  How are freight facilities having international significance
    financed? What are the respective roles of the the EU? Your national
    government? The provincial or local government? Your agency?
    Specifically, what types of government subsidies are provided for
    capital improvements and operations of freight facilities (rail,
    aviation, water, trucking, intermodal, etc.)? What role does the
    private sector play in identifying important investments? desired
    policies? or in funding projects?

7.  What intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies have
    proven most useful in enhancing the productivity of freight movement
    at your facility? In particular, how have such technologies been
    used to improve land side access to your facility? What has been
    your role and that of the EU in fostering such technology
    applications? What future ITS applications will receive increasing
    attention from government and industry?

8.  How are the rapid changes in Internet-based logistics affecting the
    movement of freight in the EU, and in particular the freight using
    your facility?

9.  Have business to business (B2B) and business to customer (B2C)
    e-commerce strategies had any impact on the location of business
    activities in the EU? Has the EU or any national government
    undertaken any policy initiative relating to "guiding" or "managing"
    the resulting transportation impacts of these business strategies?

10. What major changes from the freight trends of the past 25 years are
    you expecting over the next 25 years? What are the major driving
    forces behind these trends?

### [Secondary Questions]{.underline}

1.  What effect does road congestion and transportation bottlenecks have
    on logistics and equipment usage? Does congestion on the road
    network act as a "pricing" mechanism to encourage the use of
    alternative modes?

2.  Have increasing freight volumes led to innovative and creative uses
    of transportation infrastructure, e.g., freight exclusive lanes,
    pricing schemes, time-of-day use and bans, etc?

3.  What has been the effect of larger and deeper draft ships on port
    business? Has this effect changed the distribution of freight
    movement among various ports?

4.  How has rail intermodal service grown in Europe in recent history
    and what are the projected trends? What are the major changes
    occurring in the rail freight industry, and what is causing these
    changes?

5.  To what extent is investment occurring in inland and coastal
    waterway systems as 1) a distribution system within Europe and 2) as
    an access system to international trade centers?

6.  What are the trends in containerization versus other types of cargo
    moving through ports in Europe?

**[Questions for Industry/Shippers]{.underline}**

[Primary Questions]{.underline}

1.  Has the existence of the European Union changed your (or your
    industry's) policies or operating considerations for freight
    movement among member EU nations? If so, how? How has it affected
    freight operations with non-EU nations?

2.  What has been the effect of EU policies (e.g., the removal of trade
    barriers and tariffs) on the amount and type of freight shipped and
    on the method of shipment? What do you consider to be the single
    biggest benefit from the EU with regard to freight operations? What
    do you consider to be the most significant remaining barrier to more
    efficient freight operations within the EU?

3.  Border crossings can be major bottlenecks in a continental
    transportation system. To what extent has the EU achieved regulatory
    uniformity for border crossings in:

> \--customs clearances at national borders?
>
> \--truck size and weight?
>
> \--labor and safety regulation?
>
> \--national defense considerations?
>
> \--public health?
>
> What differences still remain and how will they be dealt with? How are
> these issues dealt with for non-EU member border crossings? To what
> extent have various modal providers of transportation services
> cooperated in developing common technology standards? What has been
> the role of the EU or individual national governments in fostering
> such cooperation?

4.  What challenges has an "open borders" policy created for freight
    logistics? For those responsible for providing transportation
    facilities and infrastructure?

5.  With hindsight, what should have been done differently to more
    effectively consider freight movement within the context of the EU?

6.  What major changes from the freight trends of the past 25 years are
    you expecting over the next 25 years? What are the major driving
    forces behind these trends?

7.  How are freight facilities having international significance
    financed? Does the EU play a role in securing necessary financing?
    What types of government subsidies are provided for capital
    improvements and operations of freight facilities (rail, aviation,
    water, trucking, intermodal, etc.)? What role does the private
    sector play in identifying important investments? desired policies?
    or in funding projects?

8.  What intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies have
    proven most useful in enhancing freight productivity in the EU? What
    has been the role of the EU in fostering such technology
    applications? What has been the role of industry in fostering such
    technology applications? What future ITS applications will receive
    increasing attention from government and industry?

9.  How does research and development on freight issues of interest to
    the EU get funded? Do the public and private sectors share risks in
    this research?

### 

### [Secondary Questions]{.underline}

1.  What effect does road congestion and transportation bottlenecks have
    on logistics and equipment usage? Does congestion on the road
    network act as a "pricing" mechanism to encourage the use of
    alternative modes?

2.  Have increasing freight volumes led to innovative and creative uses
    of transportation infrastructure, e.g., freight exclusive lanes,
    pricing schemes, time-of-day use and bans, etc?

3.  How are competing interests between passenger and freight use of the
    transportation system dealt with, e.g., rail facilities or roads? Do
    passenger railroads have a long-term strategy that includes a
    potentially larger role for freight movement?

4.  What has been the effect of globalization of the economy on your
    business? What has been the effect on Europe's transportation
    system?

5.  How are the rapid changes in Internet-based logistics affecting your
    business? The movement of freight in the EU?

6.  Has the rapid integration of Internet-based logistics into business
    decision making had any impact on the location of where business
    activities occur in the EU? Has the EU or any national government
    undertaken any policy initiative relating to "guiding" or "managing"
    the resulting transportation impacts of these business strategies?

7.  What has been the effect of larger and deeper draft ships on port
    business? Has this effect changed the distribution of freight
    movement among various ports?

8.  How has rail intermodal service grown in Europe in recent history
    and what are the projected trends? What are the major changes
    occurring in the rail freight industry, and what is causing these
    changes?

9.  To what extent is investment occurring in inland and coastal
    waterway systems as 1) a distribution system within Europe and 2) as
    an access system to international trade centers?

10. What are the trends in containerization versus other types of cargo
    moving through ports in Europe?

[^1]: The EU receives its revenues from four major sources: 14% of the
    revenue comes from levies on agricultural products from non-member
    countries and from customs duties; 35% comes from a value added tax
    (VAT) on goods sold; and the remainder comes from a percentage
    contribution from each member country reflecting its relative GNP.

[^2]: The countries seeking membership include: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech
    Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Malta, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
    Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Turkey.

[^3]: Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management. 2001.
    National Traffic and Transport Plan for the Netherlands, 2001-2020.
    The Hague, Netherlands.

[^4]: European Commission. 1998. Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime
    Infrastructure. Report C3-16-98-740-EN-C, Luxembourg