研究

Intermodal Logistics Policies in the EU, the U.S. and Japan
Intermodal freight transport is increasing globally and is a key policy challenge worldwide. However, national andregional policy settings and approaches differ. This investigation focuses on the European Union, the United States
and Japan.
Intermodal logistics must pursue a dual systems strategy optimizing the supply chain and linkages between partnercompanies, and optimizing the use of the multi-modal transport system to respond to economic criteria, environmental
concerns and growing highway congestion. Starting with the definition of intermodal freight logistics in terms of seamless door-to-door operations using successively at least two different modes - road, rail, waterway/sea or air -, thestudy sets the scene by summarising modal and intermodal freight shares in the EU, U.S. and Japan. It identifies thecommonalities and differences in policy goals and measures and analyses EU, US and Japanese programmes. Three
special initiatives - EU's Marco Polo Program and the US policies on Intermodal Connectors and Intelligent
Intermodal Freight Systems - are assessed as are the Japanese targeted policy actions on city, regional and international logistics. Emphasis is on what can be learnt from the practices and experiences in the three regions.

Keywords intermodal, logistics, policy, international, EU, US, Japan

ブックハード E. ホーン（財）運輸政策研究機構運輸政策研究所招聘研究員

Burkhard E. Horn
一橋大学大学院商学研究科教授

根本敏則
NEMOTO, Toshinori

1―― Introduction
Intermodal freight traffic is increasing globally. According to the World Bank, the number of intermodal containers passing through ports worldwide doubled over the last decade, with similar progressions
in intermodal air traffic, intermodal rail traffic and intermodal truck traffic. Indeed, the development of intermodal transport has become a key policy priority and challenge at global level. However, policy settings
and approaches differ from country to country and between the major three industrial regions EU, NAFTA and Asia.
In Europe, the prevailing tendency is to try to force intermodal policies through a top-down approach led
by the European Commission. In many EU member countries as well as Switzerland intermodal transport
is an important part and objective of sustainable transport policies often accompanied by modal shift actions
diverting freight traffic from road to rail and, where feasible, to coastal shipping and waterways. In NAFTA with the leadership of the United States, on the contrary, intermodal transport is driven by the market
and it is the business sector with large shippers and carriers, railway and shipping companies, forwarders
and integrators, etc. that has pushed intermodal use without major governmental subsidies. Asian
countries - including Japan - have been concentrating on developing, building and operating their unimodaltransport systems, and have only recently started to recognise the need for an overall intermodal transport
policy to serve the international and Asian freight flows and promote more balanced modal shares domestically.
While an intermodal systems view should be the basic reference, modal programs continue to be necessary
to build missing links and improve inefficient connections between modes. Even when pursuing intermodal
objectives through modal shifts from trucking to rail or coastal shipping, mode specific capacity and/or service improvements have to be envisaged. Rail, shipping and trucking are competitors, but they are also
partners in door-to-door intermodal operations.
In this paper, we review intermodal logistics policies in the EU, NAFTA and Asia concentrating on the
United States and Japan in NAFTA and Asia respectively, because they are the key motors of international
trade and economic activity in their regions. Although over the years there has been formal informationexchange between the trilateral governments and the European Commission as well, international
comparative studies of logistics policies and focused policy research have barely been done. However reference should be made to the extensive effort of an advisory group on intermodal freight transport established within the OECD, who subsequently published two reports dealing with institutional aspects (OECD002

運輸政策研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

研究(2001)) and benchmarking (OECD (2002)) of intermodal freight transport. Based on country submissions,these have very well documented the fragmented institutional picture in this sector and the lack of a common data base and agreed intermodal performance parameters. On top of it, the reports have highlighted the differences in the philosophies of how to deal with intermodalism where public and private interests are often in conflict.
Against this background our study hereunder focuses on recent key initiatives since 2000 in advancing intermodal logistics policies and elaborates on the structural elements underlying promising reform strategies.
We will first introduce the review framework and scope of intermodal logistics together with a comparative scoreboard covering the EU, the U.S. and Japan. We will assess the most salient policy features andprogamme developments. Then, by identifying the commonalities and differences in the policy settings andapproaches of the regions and by assessing their causes and effects, we will discuss what we can learn
from the most recent intermodal key programmes and experiences in the triad.

2―― Review Framework
2.1 Definition of intermodal logistics

As part of integrated advanced logistics and supply chain management, intermodal logistics is defined interms of seamless door-to-door freight transport operations using at least two different modes of transport.
In general the initial/terminal portions are short and by road, and the main long haulage of containers,
swap bodies, trailers or trucks is by rail, waterway, sea or air.
This concept1) is built on the following essential key notions:・ door-to-door transport2)
・ two or more transport modes - in essence road (truck), rail, water, air・seamless operation, i.e. predominant use of intermodal containers, swap bodies, etc., and no handlingof the goods themselves in changing modes.
An intermodal freight logistics strategy is expected to optimize the supply chain and linkages between partner companies. The question is how policy strategies and innovations in intermodal transport can bestreamlined with needs in logistics chains and operations; i.e. businesses' supply chain management. Froma legal and institutional perspective which continues to be very important in the three regions, a further
issue is how a new breed of freight transport governance can be developed in the face of the historicallyentrenched attitudes of competing modes, taking into account the interests of business and global supply
chains on one hand and the public and social policy goals of the governmental authorities on the other.
2.2 Modal and intermodal freight share

How important is intermodal freight transport and logistics? This is not easy to answer in exact and quantitative form, for the simple reason that in most countries we lack true intermodal data; i.e. freight traffic
tonnages for door-to-door transport by at least two modes.
Table ― 1 sets the general scene for a broad comparison of EU-153) -- the United States -- Japan based ona few demographic and economic indicators, and confronts the respective overall road, rail and water
freight transport statistics. From the official tonne-kilometre data presented in the table the rather weak orvery weak role of rail transport in Europe and Japan is apparent. Rail in the U.S. seems to do well currently.
■ Table―1

Overall Comparison EU-15 -- U.S. - Japan

Population (millions)
Area (million sq km)
GDP (bn $ in PPP's)
Exports (bn $)Imports (bn $)Road freight (bn tonne km)
Rail freight (bn tonne km)
Inland shipping freight (bn tonne km)

EU
379
3.24
9,593
936
1,023
1,329
243
1,395

U.S.
278
9.4
10,143
1,019
1,301
1,499
2,093
1,025

Japan
127
0.38
3,364
402
348
307
23
242

Sources : ECMT, EU, OECD

研究

Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

運輸政策研究003

Table ― 2 presents official modal split data. There is relative over reliance on trucking especially in Japanand also in Europe. Short sea shipping (SSS) in the U.S. seems to be lagging behind, while inland waterways are quite well used.
■ Table―2

Modal split (%, t-km) EU-15 -- U.S. - Japan
EU
43.8
8.1
4.1
41.3
2.8

Road
Rail
Inland waterways
Coastal sea
Pipelines

U.S.
30.0
38.2
9.4
7.4
15.0

Japan
53.7
4.0
0.0
42.3
−

Sources : U.S.-BTS, EU, MLIT 1999/2000

The share of intermodal transport is assessed in Table ― 3 using different sources. As shown by the official European statistics and the estimated U.S. data, 'intermodal' rail is between one fourth and one fifthof total rail traffic. The U.S. freight rail system provides the intermodal 'landbridge' operation across thecountry and is an essential intermodal link for international trade serving the seaports as the major container gateways.
■ Table―3

Intermodal freight transport shares EU -- U.S. - Japan
Intermodal sharein % of total freight
8.6

Intermodal sharein % of water & sea freight
15.0- Netherlands in t

8.0

24.0

- U.K. in t

20.0

22.0

EU-15 in t-km

Intermodal sharein % of rail freight
25.8- Germany in t

>10.0
24.0
13.0

U.S. in t-km

19.0 - 30.0**30.0% if automobile transport on rail (around 11 %) is included;

In Japan we can rely on on ad hoc survey in 2000 covering certain commodities domestically transported for a very limited period (3 days), distinguishing 'road only' and 'road and sea or rail' in detail. Basedon the survey, half of rail traffic is intermodal using mostly 12 feet containers standardized by Japan
Railway, though overall rail share is relatively low. Owing to the geographical situation, Japan has a highwater/sea share, most of which is not intermodal, but water/sea only.
2.3 Intermodal policy measures

Public authorities are directly called upon to further develop intermodal logistics policies and to work on
specific intermodal actions and projects as well as the most efficient implementation strategies.
The government's role is primarily to assure a level playing field for the market, provide a coherent andinteroperable transport and logistics network of routes, corridors, ports, airports and terminals andpromote its optimized use meeting environmental requirements. Shippers and logistics service
pre-screening pre-clearance,
at exporting
one-stopbordershipper

containership

UN, ISOstandardized
business process■ Figure―1004

運輸政策研究border

AVI, AEI,
reservation

standardized
electronic
manifestgate(border)

container
terminal

railaroundthe
clockinteroperability

real-time navigating
and tracking

intermodal
terminal

truck

shippertransshipment network fortechnology
ISO containertransportation

Examples of intermodal policy measures

Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter研究providers will be mainly concerned with developing cost-efficient, and now more and more environmentfriendly, logistics schemes and customer-oriented value added services. The September 11 terrorist
attack has added a new priority on security measures that are affecting logistics procedures and operations.
Figure―1 presents examples of the variety of intermodal policy instruments and measures. In general, intermodal logistics policies comprise a combination of actions, which require co-operation among the
public authorities concerned.

3―― Reviewing Intermodal Logistics Policies
3.1 European intermodal policy

Many European governments emphasise the need for an intermodal transport and logistics policy to combat highway congestion and environmental problems, to increase overall traffic efficiency and profit from
benefits of co-ordinating modes. Nine European countries invest yearly about 450 million Euros inintermodal transport. The intermodal transport of containers, trailers and swap bodies has increased by
150% during the past decade.
The European Commission is a mighty defender and promoter of intermodality4) as part of theEuropean Union's Common Transport Policy for sustainable mobility. The policy vision is to develop a
structured approach to intermodal freight transport in the framework of a single transport market withadvanced harmonisation of regulations and competition rules.
Table ― 4 summarizes the key elements of the EU's basic intermodal policy. The declared goal is to optimise interdependence and complementarities of transport modes.
The EU policy recognises logistics to be a crucial factor of competitiveness. Taking into account the complex interaction of suppliers, manufacturers, retailers and consumers, intermodality should allow the integration of a broad range of transport services in the supply and distribution chains whereby well functioning information and communication technologies are indispensable. In other words the integration ofintermodal transport in supply chains is a key challenge. Noteworthy in this regard are also theemphasis on establishing a uniform intermodal liability regime and the intention to create an electroniccommerce market for intermodal freight logistics (E-logistics)■ Table―4

Overview of elements of intermodal policy in the EU

Infrastructure- Intermodal design of Trans-European
Networks (TEN)- Missing links: Intermodal priority projects- Design of intermodal transferpoints

Technology- IT system, ITS- Satellite based communication system- EDI- Value-added logistics services (esp.E-logistics)

Rules, Standards- Intermodal competition rules- Intermodal liability,work regulations- Common charging and pricing- Interoperable systems & equipment (esp.
load units)

The EU's White Paper (2001) on European transport policy for 2010 proposes to take measures whichshould make the market shares of the modes of transport return by 2010 to their 1998 levels. The basic policy directions and means are:・ charging and pricing,・ revitalising road alternative modes, and・ targeted TEN (Trans European Network) investments.
Against the background of a predicted 50% trucking increase from 1998 to 2010, the basic challenge is to
reduce road congestion. The aim is to link up sea, inland waterways and rail and utilize the still
untapped capacities of short-distance coastal shipping and inland waterways. One improvement proposal
is therefore to develop "motorways of the sea" as part of the Trans-European Network; i.e. shipping links
providing by-passes around the land bottlenecks in the Alps and the Pyrenees. Innovative port services
and operations are also supported.
Another focus is on testing and implementing innovations in logistics concepts and systems, harmonisingand standardising intermodal loading units (pallets, containers and swap bodies) and creating the right technical conditions for stimulating the development of "freight integrators" specialising in the integrated, seam-

研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

運輸政策研究005

less transport of full loads at European and world level.
As a follow-up to PACT (Pilot Actions for Combined Transport) which terminated in 2001, a start-up initiative for intermodal services is being launched in 2003, the new Marco Polo programme. The aim is to
shift freight from the road to other more environment-friendly modes and to improve the operation of theentire intermodal chain. The programme supports actions in the freight transport, logistics and other relevant markets to contribute to return to 1998 modal share levels by helping to shift the expected
increase in international road freight traffic of 12 billion tkm per year to short sea shipping, rail and inland
waterways or to a combination of modes.
The programme aims to support operations and services directly and offers incentives for the industry. It
is based on calls of proposals. It is designed to last up to 2010 and has a budget envelope of 75 million
Euros. All segments of short sea shipping, rail and inland waterway freight markets are eligible. The threedifferent types of action are presented in Table ― 5 together with the conditions of funding5).
The concrete modal shift projects would typically consist of new services in the non-road freight market.
They should be viable on their own within a period of three years. The catalyst actions are oriented
towards new innovative solutions and would tackle existing structural market barriers such as setting up"motorways of the sea" schemes, pools for tri-modally compatible containers, one-stop international freightrail services or intermodal logistics IT systems. Finally the common learning actions would concern
exchange of know-how, training, improved procedures at sea and inland ports, adapting transport systems
to meet logistics needs, shippers' intermodal understanding and awareness and similar initiatives. It will
be interesting to observe the outcome of the Marco Polo programme. The results of all these actions will
be monitored and experience will be disseminated.
■ Table―5

Actions and support conditions of EU's Marco Polo programme

Modal Shift-concrete projects & operations
Aid to start-up services-- 1 Euro subsidy per 500 t-km shifted-- min subsidy 0.5 million Euro
Subsidy up to 30%-- ancillary infrast. 20%
Subsidy up to 3 years, viable after subsidy

Catalyst actions- break-through solutions
Overcome structural barriers-- innovative-- min subsidy 1.5 million Euro
Subsidy up to 35%-- ancillary infrast. 20%
Subsidy up to 4 years, viable after subsidy

Common learning- better knowledge & methods
Co-operation, sharing of know-how,mutual training-- min subsidy 0.25 million Euro
Subsidy up to 50%
Subsidy up to 2 years

The implementation of intermodal initiatives will also depend on the image of intermodal logistics
amongst shippers and marketing efforts promoting intermodal logistics as a competitive businessadvantage and as an effective tool in up-to-date supply chain management. A better understanding of shippers of the pros and cons of intermodal logistics operations is often necessary.
A successful example of such efforts has been the Dutch programme of business level logistics scans carried out amongst 100 pre-selected shippers (of originally 600 companies altogether) to introduce cost-effective intermodal solutions at micro level targeting the companies' specific business activities. Based on voluntary, clearly defined contractual agreements between companies and the Ministry of Transport, the scans
were financed by 75% by the government and 25% by the individual companies. Independent logistics specialists were employed to assess in detail profitable intermodal opportunities in companies' logistics activities and business practices. The results were that 80 companies out of 100 - including many SME's - hada realistic potential to improve their intermodal practice, with often surprising benefits down to transportdistances of 150 km or so.
3.2 American intermodal policy

The efficient logistics system in the North America is indispensable for the North America Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) involving the U.S., Canada and Mexico. These three countries are required to harmonize their logistics policies and procedures, and to make the logistics systems interoperable.
Because of the size of its economy and its central geographical location the U.S. has a factual leadership
position and has taken initiatives in enhancing intermodal logistics and transport in the region including
cross-border facilitation, and this is in spite of the tightened security situation. Indeed there are basically
few conflicts of interests among the three countries in integrating the logistics systems concerned. This is
why we focus on the American policies from now on.

006

運輸政策研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

研究The original milestone of American intermodalism was the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA '91) which provided the legislative framework to develop "a National
Intermodal System that shall consist of all forms of transportation in a unified, inter-connected manner ...".
The benefits of intermodalism were expected to be lower transport costs - through the use of the most suitable mode for individual segments of the entire transport chain - increased national productivity and efficiency, more efficient use of existing infrastructure and lower environmental impacts. Some flexibility forintermodal funding was introduced together with the possibility of joint public/private investments. The
Office of Intermodalism was created at the highest executive level of the Department.
Nevertheless intermodal transport and logistics was and is largely driven by the industry through its search
for least cost solutions. Market deregulation and competition among shippers and carriers reduced the transport-related transaction costs for business. Most of the large shippers and carriers have now corporate units
responsible for intermodal transport, logistics or supply chain management.
However, there were and are still a number of impediments to intermodalism:・ inadequate infrastructure to accommodate double stack rail services,・ congestion on access roads serving intermodal terminals and ports,
・ operational inefficiencies at terminals, including EDI system usage,・ regulations resulting delays and costs when building new facilities,
・ impacts of changes in ship design on ports and intermodal facilities,
・ financial bottlenecks both in private and public sectors, and・institutional constraints - customs, domestic and foreign partner relationships, governmental datarequirements.
In 1998, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted.
The challenge was to meet the evolving needs of the private sector which was competing not only in thedomestic market place, but increasingly in the global environment. In particular it was necessary to integrate the accomplishments of NAFTA agreed in 1994. The expanding trade and investment opportunities
had significant impacts on trans-border transport between the three countries, and raised challenges specifically for intermodal operations. Intermodal rail has a clear advantage at border crossings; trains can be prechecked and sealed inland prior to the border location, and electronically tracked passing the border atfull speed. Trucks on the other hand are still individually handled at border locations and stopped for customs, documentation, inspection and clearance, and very often further delayed by qeueing andspreading congestion. Therefore the US Federal Highway Administration has recently promoted the development of the Border WIZARD model as a common platform for traffic management strategies and border facilities at the Mexican and Canadian frontiers.
Table ― 6 summarizes the essential elements of the U.S intermodal policy6). Note its basic philosophy:
・ Intermodal is industry and market driven, and・Government acts as a convener and catalyst, i.e. few public sector interventions, few governmental initiatives.
■ Table―6

Overview of elements of intermodal policy in the U.S.

Infrastructure- National corridor development- NHS intermodal freight connectors- Intermodal cargo hubs
- Co-ordinated border infrastructure program

Technology- ITS intermodal freight program- Intermodal border clearance- R&D

Rules, Standards- Freight facilitation strategy- Freight partnerships- Freight analysis decision framework- Education & training- Standards, "size & weight" of containers

Within this overall policy two targeted programs deserve special mention:
・ NHS ("National Highway System") intermodal freight connectors, and・ ITS intermodal freight program.

As part of TEA-21, NHS freight connectors, i.e. public roads leading to seaports, airports and major intermodal
terminals, were assessed by the Department of Transportation. The aim was to see how land access to U.S. intermodal cargo hubs could be facilitated. Ultimately, connectors to 517 freight terminals - port, rail, pipeline - and99 major freight airports were selected for enhancement and improvement, altogether 1222 miles inlength. Table― 7 shows some of the major selection criteria used to identify these intermodal connectors.

研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

運輸政策研究007

■ Table―7

Intermodal connector selection criteria in the U.S.

Airports

100 trucks/day in each direction or
100,000 tons/year arriving or departing> 50,000 TEU's/year,
500,000 tons bulk /year or
100 trucks/day in each direction> 50,000 TEU's/year or
100 trucks/day in each direction
100 trucks/day in each direction

Ports

Rail terminals
Pipelines

Up to 2001/2, total funding for the construction and improved traffic operation of intermodal connectors
was about U.S. $ 1.5 bn through Federal, State, local and private sources and the new draft federal legislations starting in 2004/2005 foresee a funding level of U.S. $ 3 bn. Note however the difference between
the U.S. and EU financial terminology and approaches. The investment focused U.S. programme is basedon co-funding principles involving tax revenue sources, grants, loans, bonds, user fees, etc. in afinancing package for the individual intermodal connector concerned. On the contrary, the service oriented
Marco Polo programme of the EU subsidizes, for a three year starting phase, intermodal transport
operations which for the main part are financed from income through the services delivered.
A few spectacular intermodal projects - Alameda, Maine, Washington State, New Jersey, New York City were also undertaken. The Alameda Corridor is a project of national significance serving the ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles, major gateways for Asian trade. The ports, the railway companies and multiple
public authorities joined to finance and build the 20-mile grade-separated intermodal freight rail corridor
from the ports to the inland intermodal rail yards. The operations of three freight rail lines could be concentrated and streamlined and local trucking between ports and rail facilities was reduced. 200 railway
grade crossings were eliminated and congestion, air and noise pollution decreased. The 2.4 billion U.S. $project was financed through a private/public partnership by bonds - i.e. railway container charges - anda mix of local, port, state and federal grants and loans.
The second initiative concerns the improvement of intermodal freight operations through an increased useof information technology and ITS - Intelligent Transport Systems. The aim is to enhance the reliability,
responsiveness and security of the intermodal freight system. Opportunities to accelerate the applicationof ITS to intermodal freight movements are investigated including operational tests and demo projects.
These center on the development of an ITS architecture and standards, especially for freight identification
technologies to ensure interoperability and security controls. Intermodal freight applications of ITS aim at:
・ Supply chain management - e.g. door-to-door shipment,
・ Node management - e.g. rail terminal, port, and airport management, and・ Link management -e.g. tracking and asset management of trucks chassis, rail equipment, vessels.
Figure ― 2 presents the focus areas for ITS intermodal developments. With the increased pressure for supply chain logistics and just-in-time deliveries, public/private collaboration is warranted to stimulate efficiency

Business
Strategy

Buildpublic/private
collaboration

Intermodal
architecture &standards

Intermodal
Operation

Supply Chain
door-to-door
controlInteroperable
freight ID
technology

Node Mngmnt
access,gates,clearance

Information
Technology

Link Mngmnt
in-transit
visibility■ Figure―2
Three action levels for ITS/Intermodal freight initiatives
Source: DOT, Office of Intermodalism008

運輸政策研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

研究and innovation in the intermodal freight transport process. It is needless to say that the September 2001
terrorist act has added a dramatic requirement for security controls and precautions to be taken in thefreight industry. IT and ITS technologies can deliver both efficient and reliable control means.
International co-operation and standardization are clearly necessary.
To conclude, the U.S. executive and legislative bodies are discussing the renewal of the next long-termtransportation legislation to start in 2005. Several different drafts of the forthcoming legislation have been
put forward and, as usual, discussions about funding and taxation are at the forefront. Broadly speaking,freight mobility, global connectivity, security and border infrastructure are amongst the priority goals. Also,emphasis is on domestic short sea and waterway shipping. When the final version of this legislation isenacted in 2004, it is likely that these broad policy goals will have been maintained.
3.3 Japanese logistics policy

In Asia bi- and multilateral talks have started to reach Free Trade Agreements. The major challenges arecustom duties and other trade barriers such as quantitative restrictions. The issue of the logistics systemin the region is rarely touched upon yet, even though Asian countries, mostly separated by sea, are in abasically advantageous position to establish an efficient and environmentally friendly intermodal logistics
system.
According to the OECD report prepared by the Asian Task Force (2003), several countries including
Singapore, Korea and Japan have developed well defined comprehensive logistics policies. Most of thecountries, however, have mode specific freight transportation policies, while Malaysia and thePhilippines explicitly refer to the importance of intermodality. Clearly, it will take some time to have aregion-wide intermodal logistics policy in Asia. In this paper therefore, we concentrate on reviewing
Japanese logistics policies as an Asian case study.
About the same time as the EU's intermodality communication, the Japanese Government decided on the"Comprehensive Program of Logistics Policies." The goal is to strengthen competitiveness by promoting
integrated logistics. Note, as such, Japan does not have an "intermodal" policy, but clearly there are many
elements and features that address the intermodal challenge.
The Japanese program is rich in content and proposes a wide range of actions and improvements. It was
designed to enhance and strengthen Japan's national and international logistics base to offer one of themost convenient and attractive logistics services in the Asian-Pacific region. Business and industry
should be able to profit from efficient logistics services and the general public should benefit from
improved environmental and social framework conditions.
Table ― 8 summarizes the key elements of this policy agreed at a Cabinet meeting in April 1997.
■ Table―8

Overview of elements of intermodal policy in Japan

Infrastructure- Co-operation between modes- Elimination of bottlenecks- Development of international hubs
- Development of intermodal terminals

Technology- IT applications, computerization- ITS, GPS- EDI- SCM, E-commerce- New transport technologies

Rules, Standards- Less government interventions- Simplifying regulations- Abolishment of demand/supply regulation- Facilitation of logistics market- Pricing mechanism- Standards, codes, pallets, containers

Three levels of logistics systems were distinguished, each involving a number of intermodal elements:
・city logistics - rationalizing door-to-door deliveries, use of railway and inland waterway, waste logistics,

improved terminal transport,
・regional logistics - modal role-sharing, promotion of coastal shipping and related equipment, promotionof rail cargo, access roads to other modes, and・international logistics - container terminals and cargo handling, import/export procedures; domestic landtransport of marine containers and larger semi-trailers, expansion of domestic coastal shipping; promotionof competitive international sea and air cargo transport..
In July 2001, the "New Comprehensive Program of Logistics Policies" was issued to take stock of experienceand achievements so far and to update aims, targets and measures against the background of the研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

運輸政策研究009

changing situation worldwide, in the Asian hemisphere and domestically. The general orientation of the
program was realigned towards an internationally competitive logistics market and system emphasizing costand environmental dimensions. Ways and means are better co-operation and partnerships between
logistics stakeholders, a fair and competitive logistics market and the enhancement of logistics infrastructure.
The rather unique feature of the Japanese policy and program is setting of quantitative targets allowing verification of measures, monitoring and follow-up of results achieved. Table―9 provides a summary of someresults of the 2001 logistics policy as published in the first two follow-up reports in 2002 and 2003.
■ Table―9

Japanese logistics policy targets and achievements so far

Target indicator
Modal shift to rail & coastal shipping

Goal
50%

Year
2010

Time ship arrival - cargo ready for port exit

2 days2005% of airports & ports reached in 10 min from highway

90%

2015

Palletized ratio of cargo

90%

2005

Result so far
2000 : 39.6%
2002 : 38.6%
1998 : 3.6 days
2002 : 3 or 4 days
2001 : air46%, port33%
2003 : air56%, port39%
2002 : 77%

4―― Commonalities and Differences
4.1 Comparison

In reviewing European, American and Japanese policy statements, we find a high degree of commonality. Policies are formulated within a general political framework aiming at sustainable development i.e. economic growth and environmental progress with global competitiveness as a primary goal.
Within this framework, the rationale of intermodality requires a seamless integrated transport network. It
aims at a balanced use of the total freight logistics system. Note however intermodal transport and logistics policies are not solely confined to modal shift actions, e.g. diverting freight traffic off the road to other surface modes. Intermodal policies also involve measures that enhance the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks.
We have found that the policy intentions pursue the same broad directions:・(efficiency) global competitiveness, supply chain logistics through seamless intermodal door-to-door operations,
・(sustainability) environmental and societal enhancement through the improved use of the multimodal transport system, and・(innovation) systematic applications of advanced technologies and innovation in intermodal facilities andoperation, emphasis on international standardization.
It is notable that there is strong common worldwide interest in standardization, especially standardizing
load units, containers, pallets. The EU has now proposed a European intermodal loading unit (EILU), a unit
optimized for the transport of palettes, and similar developments are going on in Japan. The EU estimatesthat the number of road vehicles required to transport the same amount of goods would be reduced byabout 25%, if all fully loaded ILU's were to be replaced by fully loaded EILU's.
Although overall policy directions are similar, emphases differ:
・EU's main concern is the environmental issue, highway congestion, and technology improvements andinnovations,・U.S. stress global connectivity and trade, leading role of industry, market treatment of modes, and energy problem, and・Japan's policy aims at competitiveness, increasingly in the Asia-Pacific market , and environmental andsocietal needs.
Table ― 10 summarizes key goals and related policy measures in the triad. Especially in the face of growing road congestion and more stringent environmental standards, modal shifts diverting trucks off the road.
are being targeted. In comparison, the intermodal logistics policies of the EU, the U.S. and Japanfavour different policy instruments. The EU is focusing on operations and services (including subsidies)010

運輸政策研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

研究and has emphasized technology developments and innovations through its large Framework Research
Programmes. The U.S. at the federal level is using co-funding mechanisms to stimulate intermodal
infrastructure projects, Freight Corridors, and projects of national significance with emphasis on intermodal
connectors as well as tracking and security technologies including joint ITS intermodal programs.
Japan's logistics policy is a "comprehensive" package where all modes participate and contribute, setting
quantitative targets and following them up. To fulfill them, Japan has recently launched an extensive modal
shift action programme.
■ Table―10

EU

Goals and related policy measures
Goals- Towards rail and coastal shipping-12 billion t-km off the road annually

U.S.

- International efficient supply chain- Developing intermodal facilities

Japan- 50 % share for rail and coastal shipping targeted- Developing city & regional logistics

Policy measures- Trans-European Networks- Incentives through subsidies- ITS and E-logistics- Infrastructure oriented projects- Co-funding approach and partnerships- Technology applications- Comprehensive, multi-modal package- Regulatory reform measures- Technology applications and standardization

As to direct or indirect emphasis on modes, the U.S. and the EU seem to go hand in hand. The development of short sea shipping and, as far as possible, waterways is a clear priority, with the U.S. currently
in a less advantaged situation with a 7.4% t-km share compared to EU's 41.3% for coastal shipping or Japan
being in the 42% range. The U.S. is targeting the short haul intermodal potential and is at the same timeassessing the changes needed in their port structures, should the Panama Canal be up-graded to be usedby larger vessels. Japan is also working on expanding its port structure, trying to re-establish their competitiveness vis-a-vis other container ports in the Asia-Pacific region. As to rail, the intermodal situation in
the U.S. is far superior to that of the European countries that now have set new goals increasing their funding levels (albeit predominantly for passenger rail), while JR Freight has been concentrating on certain
express routes and niche markets.
A somewhat neglected challenge in some overall logistics policy statements is the issue of intermodal logistics in urban and metropolitan areas, i.e. city logistics with intermodality in mind. Note most freight nodes,
distribution centers and intermodal transfer points - ports, airports, railway terminals - are located in cities,
generating important freight flows with impacts in terms of congestion, livability and pollution.
Notable is the case of Chicago where all the major U.S. and Canadian railroads interchange in the urban
area, with 1.2 million containers annually moved by trucks over the local road and expressway network.
Therefore a substantive intermodal infrastructure and improvement project is now being implemented to
improve transshipment, access to facilities and regional distribution.
4.2 Policy implications

The decision making process on public policies should be transparent so that stakeholders could
understand and support them. This is the case with intermodal logistics policies. In order to successfully
implement the policies, we have to make shippers and logistics service providers aware of the goals andpolicy measures.
In this respect the EU provides some useful information. Their studies demonstrate what kind of social costsavings may accrue from the use of intermodal freight transport and logistics. The following figures convince us of the merit of intermodality:
・Intermodal freight transport results in 60-80% lower accident figures and 40-50% lower CO2 emissions
than road transport,
・Overall social cost saving is 33 - 72% compared to road transport, and・1 Euro external cost saving for 85 t-km shifted from road to rail, for 52 t-km to inland waterway, for 50
t-km to coastal shipping.
What can be said about eligible intermodal projects? The U.S. intermodal connectors and the Marco Polo
programmes provide some figures:
・Infrastructure funding aid, at federal level, for the construction and/or traffic management of access roads
to intermodal terminals and hubs, if road traffic flows are >100 trucks/day in each direction or the port

研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

運輸政策研究011

has >50 000 TEU's/year (U.S. context), and・With the minimum subsidy set at 0.5 million Euros and a rate of 500 t-km shifted for 1 Euro subsidy, eachindividual European modal shift project accepted would move at least 250 million t-km off the road.
At present we cannot identify a common thread in project eligibility, since the projects will have different
outcomes in the regions concerned and since some constraints, e.g. financial ones7), may have a dominating
influence.
We believe the target setting, project implementing and annual monitoring approach set in motion in theJapanese decision making process is positive and productive. We have little knowledge on the mechanism
in which the logistics measures influence stakeholders' behaviors and bring benefits. With the usual cyclesof plan-do-see completed, we could accumulate useful empirical information for future logistics planning.
To widen the constituency of the intermodal logistics sector, joint efforts and coalitions are necessary involving the full range of stakeholders. In the U.S., in the U.K. and also in Japan, such initiatives are being
undertaken, involving the logistics industry and local and regional (state, prefecture) governments (e.g.
transport and land use planning agencies). There is still much room for working on a common perspectiveof an efficient intermodal network for container transport between the ports and major inland destinations,especially in Asia.
A better public awareness of the sustainability issue (Kyoto agreement) should help to prepare a fertile
ground for more co-operation amongst stakeholders and at the same time expanding the intermodal share.
Green logistics management has been adopted by a number of European transnational corporations, suchas BASF in Germany and Unilever in the Netherlands, and the recently adopted eco-certification system
in Japan for medium and small sized enterprises are good examples.

5―― Conclusions
In our market economies cost, transport time and environmental criteria will dominate the individual choiceof modal or intermodal chain logistics, rather than top-down regulatory management and policy pressure
at governmental level. This is reflected by the rather mixed and often disappointing results of modal shiftactions so far. Note the still growing modal share of trucking in Japan or the limited impact of the EU's former PACT incentive programme (1997 - 99) which achieved just a 1% modal shift of combined transport.
On the other hand, due to growing market demand, the domestic intermodal rail share in the U.S. hasgrown by an annual 5% for more than a decade.
In the face of the lagging modal shift results, we have found that there is a growing tendency towards multimodal funding for dedicated infrastructure and missing intermodal links as an overall cost-effective andan environmentally and socially welcome way to go forward. The U.S. program for intermodal connectors
and freight corridors, the EU's intermodal priority infrastructure projects and the French and German policy changes towards multimodal financing from ETC toll collections, point to a changing recognition of theurgency to enhance the long-term functioning of the total multimodal transport system.
For intermodal logistics to be efficient, the application of IT systems - ICS and ITS - along the intermodaltransport chain is absolutely essential so as to enhance the quality, time reliability and security of intermodal
freight services. The information system is the glue that holds the intermodal logistics system together andallows to efficiently manage the supply chain.
Several R&D projects have been carried out in the U.S. and the EU to support smart border facilitation andpromote innovative solutions for seamless shipping-port-hinterland operations and freight deliveries, respectively. However, the actual state of practice is still underdeveloped both for tactical intermodal operational
management and companies' supply chain planning processes, albeit to a lesser extent in cargo tracking
and tracing. The joint use of a common logistics data base at logistics hubs combined with up-to-date intermodal traffic and terminal management schemes could provide substantial improvements especially around
Asian ports where port access problems may account for 30% of total international transport costs. It is likely that the European Marco Polo programme and the American ITS/intermodal freight initiative will stimulate progress in this area.

012

運輸政策研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

研究As to Asia proper, it is our assessment that Japan together with Singapore and Korea should take the leadto establish groundwork for an area-wide common intermodal logistics policy with special considerationof the market and logistics needs in China.
Our comparative policy review has shown that we can indeed learn from differing intermodal policyemphases and directions in the other regions. As a decision support tool, and to benefit from more detailed
international analyses of intermodal projects and experience, it would be worthwhile to select and assemble data on a few global logistics indicators for monitoring and benchmarking, focusing on key featuresof intermodal logistics. This could be effectively done through the network of international organizations
active in global trade and transport, and now security as well, for which an enormous amount of data arenow being collected and exchanged.
The policies discussed in this paper dated mostly from before the September 2001 event. So the intermodaland global security issue that now dominates many international discussions between governments andbetween industry representatives, is scarcely addressed in the intermodal policy statements referred in thisreview. It will of course play an important role in the new American transportation legislation. The effectof these considerations and the measures taken so far by the U.S. on trade facilitation, customs,
inspections, productivity, costs, etc is substantial. All modes and the entire supply chain are concerned. While at first sight intermodal logistics is at an disadvantage, there are potential supply chain benefits as well. New control and tracking technologies are applied or being tested as are new global trade
procedures. It is likely that these will also have an effect on domestic intermodal logistics.

Note1) See ECE, ECMT, EU, OECD2) either carried out by one 3PL or mega logistics provider, or through a coordinated chain of multiple mode or area specific logistics
providers
3) European Union with 15 Member countries4) "intermodalism" in U.S. terminology5) The subsidies are paid by the EU and provided to the project/action consortia (including, as the case may be, operators, modal agencies, manufacturers, shippers, R&D institutions, etc.) The round figure of subsidy of 1 Euro per 500t-km shifted was set by the EU
Commission and is related to the potential cost savings for the society brought about by the sole or intermodal use ofwater/coastal shipping or rail transport instead and in place of road transport alone.
6) The U.S. transportation policy itself is best summarized in a statement of the former Transportation Secretary Rod Slater (Feb 1997Jan 2001) "...to produce a safe and sustainable transportation system that is international in reach, intermodal in form, intelligent incharacter and inclusive in service."7) There are considerable differences in the respective budget envelopes. In the framework of the next 6 year SAFETEA legislation the
U.S. intermodal connector program has a planned 3 bn U.S.$ budget alone at federal level, while Marco Polo has a 75 million Euros
budget for the next three years.

Bibliography.
International comparison:
OECD, Intermodal Freight Transport : Institutional Aspects, OECD, Paris, 2001
OECD, Benchmarking Intermodal Freight Transport, OECD, Paris, 2002.
European policies:
EC, White Paper: European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide, Brussels, 2001.
European Parliament, Report on the Commission White Paper, December 2002.
EC, Intermodal transport: The Marco Polo programme. Proposal for granting community financial assistance to improve the environmental
performance of the freight transport system, COM(2002) 54 final. Official Journal, Brussels, May 2002.
AEA Technology Environment, Evaluation of the implementation of Council Regulation 2196/98 (PACT). Final Report for the EC DG Energy
and Transport, Oxon/Brussels, November 2000.
EC, European Commission promotes Short Sea Shipping and new intermodal equipment to fight congestion, Press release, Brussels, April
2003.
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Modal shift project, The Hague, The Netherlands. May 2000.
American policies:
AASHTO, Freight-rail bottom line report, Washington, D.C., 2002.
Cambridge Systematics, Challenges and opportunities for an ITS/Intermodal freight program, Cambridge, 1999.

研究

Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winter

運輸政策研究013

NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Programme), Financing and improving land access to U.S. intermodal cargo hubs, NCHRP
Report 497, TRB. Washington, D.C. , 2003.
U.S. DOT, NHS intermodal freight connectors: A Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., July 2000.
U.S. DOT. BTS ( Bureau of Transportation Statistics), North American trade and travel trends, Washington, D.C., 2001.
Japanese policies:
Japanese Government, Comprehensive program of logistics policies, Authorized by Cabinet Meeting in 1997
Japanese Government, New comprehensive program of logistics policies, Authorized by Cabinet Meeting in 2001
Ministry of Land, Transport and Infrastructure, National Freight OD Survey 2000, Japan, March 2002
Japanese Government, 1st follow-up report of the logistics policies, 2002
Japanese Government, 2nd follow-up report of the logistics policies, 2003
The Asian Task Force, Logistics Developments Supported by ICT and ITS in the Asia -Pacific Region, OECD & Institute of Highway
Economics, 2003
T. Nemoto, Planning Intermodal Freight Transport System in Asia, Journal of Logistics and Shipping Economics, No 37, 2003 (in Japanese)
Transport Ecology Mobility Foundations, Report on modal shift model projects, 1999 (in Japanese)（原稿受付 2004年3月9日）

EU，アメリカ，日本におけるインターモーダル・ロジスティクス政策

効率的で環境にやさしい物流の実現のために，インターモーダル輸送が政策課題として着目され始めている．しかし，各国，各地域の政策目的，手段は異なっている．本稿では，EU，アメリカ，日本のインターモーダル・ロジスティクス政策を比較，分析する．
インターモーダル・ロジスティクスは，川上から川下までのサプライチェーンの最適なマネジメントおよび，混雑や環境上の問題を抱える多くの輸送手段の最適な利活用を目指している．本稿では，インターモーダル輸送を定義した後に，各国の同輸送分担率を比較した．さらに，各国のインターモーダル・ロジスティクス政策の目的，手段における類似点，相違点を明らかにした．その際，EUのマルコポーロ・プログラム，アメリカのインターモーダル結節点・プログラム，インターモーダル情報システ
ム・プログラム，日本の都市，地域，国際ロジスティクス政策を検討し，それら政策実施の経験からの教訓をとりまとめた．
キーワード ； インターモーダル，ロジスティクス，政策，国際輸送，EU，アメリカ，日本

この号の目次へ014

運輸政策研究Vol.7 No.4 2005 Winterhttp://www.jterc.or.jp/kenkyusyo/product/tpsr/bn/no27.html
研究