The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts

and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official

policy of the Department of Transportation.

The metric units reported are those used in common practice by the persons interviewed.

They have not been converted to pure SI units because in some cases, the level of precision

implied would have been changed.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the

document.

The publication of this document was sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration

under contract number DTFH61-99-C00005. awarded to American Trade Initiatives, Inc. Any

opinions, options, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of

the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government, the authors’ parent

institutions, or American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 

FHWA-PL-02-009

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Freight Transportation: The European Market 

5. Report Date 

June 2002

6. Performing Organization Code 

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

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

Meyer, Leo Penne, Gerald Rawling, Garry Tulipan

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

American Trade Initiatives 

P.O. Box 8228 

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No.(TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-99-C-0005 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of International Programs 

Office of Policy 

Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes

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

16. Abstract

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

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

implement the policy. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the EU may be of particular interest. 

17. Key Words

Intermodal freight movement, European Union, freight 

logistics, mode share, terminal, interoperability. 

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

from the 

Office of International Programs 

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325 

US Dept. of Transportation 

Washington, DC 20590 

international@fhwa.dot.gov 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 

64

22. Price 

Free

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

i

Freight Transportation:

The European Market

Prepared by the Scanning Team:

Harry Caldwell (co-chair)

FHWA

Randall K. Halvorson (cochair)

Minnesota DOT

Christina Casgar

Foundation for Intermodal

Research and Education

Gene Cleckley

FHWA Resource Center,

Atlanta

Oscar de Buen

Secretaria de

Communicaciones y

Transportes

Mexico City

Jeff G. Honefanger

Ohio DOT

Ysela Llort

Florida DOT

Michael D. Meyer

Georgia Institute of

Technology

Leo Penne

AASHTO

Gerald Rawling

Chicago Area Transportation

Study

Garry Tulipan

Transport Canada

and

American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

&

Avalon Integrated Services, Inc.

for the

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

and

The American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials

and

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program

(Panel 20-36)

of the Transportation Research Board

June 2002
ii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

The FHWA’s international programs focus on meeting the growing demands of its

partners at the Federal, State, and local levels for access to information on state-ofthe-art technology and the best practices used worldwide. While the FHWA is

considered a world leader in highway transportation, the domestic highway

community is very interested in the advanced technologies being developed by other

countries, as well as innovative organizational and financing techniques used by the

FHWA’s international counterparts.

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCANNING PROGRAM

The International Technology Scanning Program accesses and evaluates foreign

technologies and innovations that could significantly benefit U.S. highway

transportation systems. Access to foreign innovations is strengthened by U.S.

participation in the technical committees of international highway organizations and

through bilateral technical exchange agreements with selected nations. The program

has undertaken cooperatives with the American Association of State Highway

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

Transportation Research Board’s National Highway Research Cooperative Program

(Panel 20-36), the private sector, and academia.

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

specialists in the specific areas of expertise being investigated are formed and sent to

countries where significant advances and innovations have been made in technology,

management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, and financing.

Teams usually include Federal and State highway officials, private sector and

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

The FHWA has organized more than 50 of these reviews and disseminated results

nationwide. Topics have encompassed pavements, bridge construction and

maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management, winter

road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning, and policy.

Findings are recommended for follow-up with further research and pilot or

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

the scan findings and results of pilot programs are then disseminated nationally to

State and local highway transportation officials and the private sector for

implementation.

This program has resulted in significant improvements and savings in road program

technologies and practices throughout the United States, particularly in the areas of

structures, pavements, safety, and winter road maintenance. Joint research and

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

further conserving resources and advancing the state of the art.

For a complete list of International Technology Scanning topics, and to order free

copies of the reports, please see list on the facing page.

Website: www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Email: international@fhwa.dot.gov
iii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE REPORTS

Infrastructure

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality Enhancement-CATQEST

Pavements

European Asphalt Technology

European Concrete Technology

South African Pavement Technology

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments

Bridges

European Bridge Structures

Asian Bridge Structures

Bridge Maintenance Coatings

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges in Europe

Planning and Environment

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy and Technology

National Travel Surveys

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads

Safety

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany and the Netherlands

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe & Australia

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand

Road Safety Audits—Final Report

Road Safety Audits—Case Studies

Innovative Traffic Control Technology & Practice in Europe

Commercial Vehicle Safety Technology & Practice in Europe

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European Work Zones

Operations

Advanced Transportation Technology

European Traffic Monitoring

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems

European Winter Service Technology

Snowbreak Forest Book – Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure Manual (Translated

from Japanese)

European Road Lighting Technologies

Policy & Information

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and Services

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad—Handbook

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad—Final Report

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information

All publications are available on the internet at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov
iv

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Sector Actions .................................................................................................. 15

Observations on the EU ............................................................................................. 22

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for EU Officials: Institutional and Policy Focus ......................................... 35

Questions for EU Officials: Planning and Financing Focus ........................................ 36

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes .................................................................................................................... 48
CONTENTS

v

TABLES

1. Comparison of EU-15 and North America ................................................................. 2

2. Freight Transport, EU-15 vs. United States, 1998 .................................................... 3

FIGURES

1. Transport and GDP Growth in EU, 1985-1999 .......................................................... 4

2. EU Transport Infrastructure Challenges................................................................... 6

3. EU Transport System Freight Mode Split, 1970-1998 .............................................. 7

4. TEN-T Priority Corridors .......................................................................................... 18

5. The Economic Heart of Europe ................................................................................. 26

6. Scenario Analysis in National Transportation Planning in the Netherlands ....... 29
vi

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

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

opportunities, and challenges faced by the European Union (EU) in developing a

policy of open boundaries and to learn what strategies it uses to implement the policy.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the National Cooperative

Highway Research Program sponsored the scan. Members of the scanning team

represented diverse interests and concerns for both national and international freight

movement in North America. 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 (MPO) for the Chicago

metropolitan area, the Foundation for Intermodal Research, and a university

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

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

development.

The panel elected to meet with government representatives, terminal operators,

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

attempted to develop a common market, and how the private sector has responded.

From 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 in the Netherlands, Italy, and

Switzerland; port officials in the Netherlands and Italy; managers of the Frankfurt

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

president of an Austrian trucking company.

Because of limited time, the panel did not meet with other government 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 was unable to meet with nongovernmental

organizations representing environmental protection and sustainability issues.

Lessons from the study could be very relevant to the United States, Canada, and

Mexico in developing a common North American market. In addition, these lessons

are important for national and subnational investment decisions, as related to

enhanced freight movement within individual countries, serving primarily the

domestic market. For example, case studies of public/private sector freight investment

initiatives can provide useful lessons on how such initiatives could be undertaken in

North America.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

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

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

generally favorable economic conditions, has resulted in substantial increases in

passenger and freight movement in Europe. The increased economic activity has
vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

resulted in increasing traffic volumes, especially in truck movements. Not

surprisingly, congestion on the road network and access to intermodal terminals/ports

has become a critical issue, especially in urban areas and at critical natural

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

context of having many different national transportation systems (often designed

purposely to limit cross-border movement for national defense purposes), the

interoperability within and between modal systems in Europe has also been, and will

continue to be, a major challenge to the European Community. Importantly,

transportation policy at the EU level, as well as in the Netherlands (and reportedly in

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

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

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

importance.

Europe has responded to the challenges of developing a continental economic market

and a supportive transportation infrastructure in a variety of ways. The panel

examined four levels of response.

Private sector (shippers/truckers/logistics companies/terminal operators): The

private sector (as broadly defined above) has responded to the market conditions

created by the EU/national government regulatory context. It has focused on

rationalizing services and operations with strategies to increase economies of scale

(e.g., larger ships and ports, block trains/unit trains/shuttles, freight villages,

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

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

investments in infrastructure and information technology. Intermodal freight

movement (which currently has a very small market share) has been an increasingly

important strategy in handling increased freight movement and is expected to

achieve even more. Private firms have supported and lobbied for greater relaxation of

government obstructions in the general market context (e.g., customs regulations),

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

operations.

Public sector — European Union: The EU was established to form a common

economic market and to deal with history of conflict on the continent. Coordination of

the continental transportation system was one of the most important and first areas

of attention. The EU has several roles. It:

• Advocates common principles and interests

• Facilitates multicountry activities

• Coordinates multicountry planning, policy, and research activities

• Establishes EU vision and policy for EU/member state action

• Provides varying levels of funding support for EU priority projects

• Targets human resource development/training in transportation projects
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii

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

vehicle characteristics (e.g., infrastructure manager for railroads should be

different from operator)

• Monitors member nation actions and, if necessary, takes them to European Court

Importantly, however, the implementation of EU policies, guidelines, and regulations

in many policy issue areas is the responsibility of member states.

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

interoperability of transportation systems, including promoting the development of

necessary infrastructure and consistency in member nation laws. In addition, the EU

identified priority investment projects that would best enhance the connectivity and

interoperability of the European transportation system. These projects originally

focused on infrastructure development, but more recently have included system

management and intelligent transportation system (ITS) integration.

The EU has developed a Common Transport Policy that emphasizes a goal of

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

transport goals and sustainability/energy goals. The major policy approach has been

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

in 1998). In particular, there is a high level of expectation attached to the ability of

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

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

waterway system).

The EU provides some funding for projects and feasibility studies, in particular to

leverage contributions from other sources. The EU investment projects are prioritized

from the perspective of how important the projects are to a coordinated European

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

movement. The EU transportation funding is part of the total EU budget, which

comes from customs revenues and value added tax (VAT) revenues (which are in

addition to what was raised before the EU was created).

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

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

slowdown in the economy, an overestimation of private investment interest, and

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

member nations have used government funding to reduce the risk to private

investment. The future role of EU governance is a key issue currently being debated;

the respective roles of the EU versus member nations have not been agreed upon. As

noted above, member states must agree to implement EU policies, which constrains

EU-wide implementation of policies that are controversial (e.g., road pricing). Perhaps

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

collective efforts to reduce cross-border obstacles and in raising transportation issues

to international and national political levels.

Public sector — EU member nations: The panel did not meet with representatives

of national governments, except for those of the Netherlands. The following

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

with during the scan. EU member nations are responsible for implementing EU
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix

policies and directives. There are differences of opinion on what is appropriate for a

common “European” purpose. Member states are often concerned about the position of

their own industries in the context of the EU, and thus it is often difficult to support

change because of institutional issues characteristic of each individual country (e.g.,

unions and national railway prerogatives). Some member nations seem to use the

same policy approach as the EU of targeting market shares in national transport

policy. In the case of the Netherlands, this approach is designed to increase market

share for inland water transportation and railroads. Public/private partnerships also

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

in these partnerships has been to invest in freight infrastructure — intermodal

terminals, ports, and rail corridors — and to provide loans for operations. There seems

to be a trend, encouraged by EU policy positions, of separating the ownership of the

freight infrastructure from those responsible for operations. The mode split and

pricing approach to transportation policy is a tacit recognition that governments

cannot “build their way out” of the transportation problems they are facing.

Public sector — local governments: Several examples were found where local

governments have financially supported the development of freight infrastructure.

Although several of these examples were unique to the situations local officials found

themselves in (e.g., Rotterdam as the gateway to Europe or decommissioned acreage

at a U.S. Air Force base in Frankfurt becoming a major economic generator for the

city), local officials were able to successfully link economic development objectives

with broader community goals. The region’s competitive advantage in a global, or at

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

LESSONS FOR NORTH AMERICA

The scanning team compiled the following lessons for the North American and U.S.

context:

1. Global market logistics rely 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 need has significant implications on the performance

measures used in system monitoring and in 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 that

could provide important public benefits. In some cases, such investment is being
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x

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 the private sector is provided incentives to choose what is best for their

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

sustainability, etc.). This notion was portrayed by the Europeans as making

market-driven policy decisions within a “public good” context. Interestingly, a longterm public policy focus in this context was around 10 years, whereas the private

sector focus was at most 5 years.

5. The focus of the overall policy was to make the best use of existing transportation

options (e.g., rail and inland water transportation) before developing new

transport networks. As one Dutch official stated, transportation system

management strategies come first, followed by pricing strategies, and finally

actions to construct new infrastructure.

6. 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

up front. Even so, the level of public investment in freight facilities and services

seems far greater in Europe than in North America (even with projects like the

Alameda Corridor in the United States).

7. 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-placed decisions. The European experience,

however, 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.).

8. The EU has served as an important forum for establishing consensus on strategies

for creating 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 discourse.

9. 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 suggests 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 before

the rail industry.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xi

10. The EU has incorporated human resource development/training as an important

component of any public/private initiative aimed at improving freight movements.

This work has been done primarily to raise the quality of life of the communities

that are affected by freight facilities and operations.

RECOMMENDATIONS 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 believes that many of the examples and initiatives found in Europe warrant

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

response to open markets can be followed. Some specific studies are:

1. Collaboration with a research center (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 North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) discussions to see if there are more effective means of trilateral

cooperation in regard to transportation decisions. For example, how should

improved water transportation opportunities be incorporated into ongoing

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 experiences with road pricing and relative success in

fostering mode shifts.

6. Investigation of the role of the MPO in freight transportation, especially 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 that

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, including 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.

1

Overview

“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. NAFTA is

an example of how several nations are developing such a market. The 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 EU 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 multinational freight flows will reflect the

characteristics of economic markets. This scan 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 regarding both

national and international freight movement. The FHWA and 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 MPO 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. During the period 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 (Directorate General of Energy and

Transport); intermodal rail terminal operators and service operators in the

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

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

and Germany; and the president of an Austrian trucking company.
2

OVERVIEW

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

(especially in Great Britain where the largest experiment in privatization has run

into difficulty), inland water or coastal shipping firms, and the ministries of

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

nongovernmental organizations representing environmental protection/sustainability

issues.

Lessons from this experience are very relevant to the United States, Canada, and

Mexico in developing a common North American market. In addition, these lessons

are important for national and subnational 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.

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

visits. Appendix B lists the tour schedule and contact information for the European

representatives. Appendix C contains biographical and contact information for the

scan team members.

CONTEXT

Before presenting the results of the scan tour, it is important to illustrate the main

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 United States, for example, results

in the significantly greater average rail and truck trip distance and greater rail mode

Table 1. Comparison of EU-15 and North America

North

EU-15 U.S. CAN MEX America

Population (millions) 375 270 31 97 398

Urban population (millions) 78 77 24 73 174

Area (million km2) 3.24 9.6 10.0 1.96 21.6

GDP (EUR billion) 7,586 7,760 771 574 9,105

Transport infrastructure investment as % of GDP 1.1 1.2 — 0.19 —

Percent of household spending on transport/communications 15.2 14.0 17.2 na —

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

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

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

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

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

Rail network (thousand km) 156 240 50 26.6 317

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

Source: EU Statistical Pocketbook, 2000
3

OVERVIEW

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.

The respective role of governments and of the private sector is an important

institutional difference between the two markets. In the United States, 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 not only because of

the historical development of governance in both, but also because of the relative size

of the countries. 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

United States, 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 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.

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

Billion tonne-km Mode split by Avg. distance

 tonne-km (km)

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

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

Rail 240 2,010 8 37 245 1,355

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 km per tonne.

Source: www.europa.eu.int.

(Note: 1 ton-mile = 1.46 tonne-km).
4

Europe in a Changing Global Market:

The Challenges

The past 50 years have seen dramatic change in Europe, including 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 EU, 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 more than 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 nations’ gross domestic product

(GDP). In the service sector, the EU leads

the United States in share of world trade,

24.9 percent to 20.1 percent (1998 dollars).

The EU seemingly 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, especially for goods movement. The

growth rate in goods movement has

averaged approximately 3 percent per year

over the decade of the 1990s. Although the

positive relationship between GDP growth

and transport system usage is a

phenomenon common to most countries, the

marked increase in goods movement as

shown in Figure 1 is remarkable.

Although this scan did not investigate the

overall causal linkage between economic

activity and the creation of an open market,

the economic success of the EU over the past

1985 = 100

Notes:

(1) passenger cars, buses & coaches, tram+metro, railways, air

(2) road, rail, inland waterways, pipelines, sea (intra-EU)

Source: EU Statistical Pocketbook, 2000

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

 1999

Passengers (1) (pkm)

Goods (2) (tkm)

GDP (at constant prices)

- - - -

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

170.0

160.0

150.0

140.0

130.0

120.0

110.0

100.0
5

EUROPE IN A CHANGING GLOBAL MARKET

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

market. Those interviewed observed that making the internal European market more

transparent has led to more transport demand. This, in turn, has resulted in

significant transportation challenges facing the EU and member nations. In

particular, 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 probably 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-km.

• 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

locations in the European transport network where significant congestion occurs

(see Figure 2 on next page). Providing additional capacity at these locations to

handle this congestion will require 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? High-speed rail has already affected air transport in common corridors.

Air France, KLM, and Sabena (when operating) do not provide air service between

Paris, Brussels, and Amsterdam because of the competition from the 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
EUROPE IN A CHANGING GLOBAL MARKET

6

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 some of the first member states have 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

Figure 2: EU Transport Infrastructure Geographic Challenges

Natural Barriers
EUROPE IN A CHANGING GLOBAL MARKET

7

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 etransport; 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. Seventy-five percent of these centers are

outsourced. 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 freight

division of Germany’s national railway, DB Cargo AG, bought the Dutch rail

freight subsidiary NS Cargo NV, and has formed new partnerships with BLS

Cargo of Switzerland and the Danish Railway’s DSB Goods to achieve economies

of operation). The changing economy has been a large challenge for European

freight shippers and operators because 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 the 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 with 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

current low mode

share for this type of

service. Approximately

1 percent of all

domestic freight

movement in the EU

as measured in tonnekm occurs by

intermodal transport.

Fourteen percent of

international goods

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

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1970 1980 1990 1995 1998

Road

Short sea

Rail

Inland water

Pipeline

%
8

EUROPE IN A CHANGING GLOBAL MARKET

intermodal transport. Several of those interviewed also expressed concern that the

quality and price of rail service, the operational difficulties in providing crossborder 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 both passenger and

freight travel. 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.
9

How Europe is Responding to the Challenges

In a market economy, public policies, and how they are 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?

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 also are 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. The scan team believes 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 snapshot 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. The Village handles

more than 10 percent of Italy’s intermodal traffic, 80 percent of which is international

intermodal traffic. More than 4 million tonnes of freight by rail and 7 million tonnes

of freight by truck passed through the Village in 1999. 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.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

10

Kombiverkehr: Established in 1969, this German company is one of the world’s

largest providers of intermodal transport services. With encouragement from the

German government, more than 250 European forwarders and transport companies

became 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 uses 28 block trains per day to serve

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 (a rolling highway service in Switzerland is also subsidized by

the Swiss government).

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 that 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 2

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

tonne-km.

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

distribution of containers to more than 50 ports in the Mediterranean, Adriatic Sea,

and Black Sea. This type of transshipment represents more than 95 percent of the

total freight movement in the port. When the original plan for a bulk cargo port was

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

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

provided approximately US$40 million for civil works construction, and the private

consortium provided some US$250 million for supporting infrastructure (e.g., cranes).

In 1995, the port served 50 vessels and handled 170,000 TEUs. In 2000, more than

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 nine 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
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

11

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

training initiative at the port.

Hupac/Trans Alp 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 at this critical location

depends on negotiations among many different parties. For example, until 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 two-thirds

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

freight movement through the French and Austrian Alps was handled by truck.

Through negotiated agreement, the Swiss truck weight limit was made consistent

with the European standard; however, the Swiss raised the road tax from US$90 per

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

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

through Switzerland. This demand has often caused queues of up to 10 km at the

Swiss border.

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

transport, offers a variety of transport services. It owns 2,300 rail cars, locomotives,

Port of Giaio Tauro, Italy: 1995—50 vessels/170,000 TEUs; 2001—3,000 vessels/2.6 million TEUs.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

12

and its own terminals. With a US$300 per truck subsidy from the Swiss government,

Hupac offers a rolling highway service that carries trucks and drivers across the Alps.

This service represents approximately 60 percent of the volume carried by Hupac,

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

trains between Italy and Germany/Belgium/the Netherlands. Given that Hupac can

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

and given that from an environmental perspective the rolling highway still relies 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.

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

also expressed caution about some of the hurdles that remain. These hurdles include

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 Hupac’s 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 the ninth busiest in the world. The management of the

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

and city governments and 29 percent held by private investors, including employees.

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 (e.g., Turkey). It provides management services for the Frankfurt Airport

and is enhancing its already formidable cargo logistics capabilities. Fraport leases

buildings and provides 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). Slightly more than 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 began reconstructing the rail lines and schedule reliability

declined dramatically. Not surprisingly, freight forwarders dropped the service.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

13

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. More

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

at reducing labor costs. The terminal operates 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. ECT

officials also have worked with clients and customs officials to expedite the customs

clearance process.

Plans are being made to expand 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. Concerted efforts to shift the

access mode share away from road transport to rail and barge have been partially

successful. In 1995, the respective mode shares of access modes were 53 percent for

road, 14 percent for rail, and 33 percent for barge; in 2000, the mode shares were 44

percent for road, 15 percent for rail, and 41 percent for barge. The shift has clearly

occurred in favor of barge. With the massive new investment in the Betuwe line (see

inset page 14), however, ECT officials are hoping that rail can take even more market

share from trucks.

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

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

critical problems facing port and government officials. In response, the Dutch

government has invested heavily in the development of a freight-only rail line

ECT container port in Rotterdam: Robot haulers unload container ship.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

14

connecting Rotterdam to Germany. Part of the strategy for improved rail access to the

port was the creation of dedicated rail service centers for the port. In 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 service. 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 itself was changing. Container transport already held a significant market

share, and was likely to increase. Carriers were expected to concentrate on a limited

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

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

service. The proposed plan closed the 50 terminals and replaced them with two rail

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

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

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

destinations in Europe. The Dutch government built the track for this shuttle as well

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

stock for the shuttle operations.

The new rail service concept has been successful in increasing rail’s 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.

THE NETHERLANDS: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

FOR MORE EFFICIENT LOGISTICS

The Dutch government has adopted a national transportation

goal of reducing the amount of freight moved by truck. A

program called Transactie Modal Shift provides government

funds to shippers to conduct logistics scans and to develop

long-term plans for more efficient goods movement. Proposed

actions have included the development of new logistics

strategies (e.g., reduction in scheduled deliveries and improved

route planning), changes in transport technology (e.g., use of

sea containers), consolidation of freight distribution activities at

freight centers, and enhanced training to improve vehicle fuel

efficiency. From 1997 to 2000, 200 logistics efficiency scans, 100

mode shift scans, and 50 integrated scans were conducted,

resulting in 142 implemented projects. Seventy-five of the mode

shift scans showed the possibility of using intermodal services,

and in approximately 10 percent of these cases, such service

was cheaper than existing truck service. The largest mode shift

was from truck to inland water transport. The government

estimates that the implemented projects resulted in a reduction

of 72 million vehicle-km because of more efficient logistics

strategies and of 18 million vehicle-km because of targeted

mode shift strategies.

THE NETHERLANDS: CORRIDOR INVESTMENT IN THE BETUWE ROUTE CORRIDOR

The Betuwe Route corridor connects the port of Rotterdam to

Germany, 160 km to the east. As the busiest port in Europe,

Rotterdam is continually concerned with access to the port

terminals, and particularly in the context of EU and Dutch

national policy, of promoting non-truck access. The Betuwe

Route project is an approximate US$4 billion project that will

provide electrified freight-only twin rail tracks connecting to the

German national railway system. The Dutch national

government, private investors, and the EU are contributing

dollars to this project, which is expected to be completed in

2005. Considerable attention has been paid to community

impacts of the proposed route, with mitigation including

passing the tracks through tunnels, sunken sections, the

roofing of the most sensitive sections of the track, and added

insulation in 400 homes. There will be no at-grade crossings,

approximately 95 km of the rail line will be parallel to a major

motorway, and a freight shuttle service will provide easy

transfer of waterborne containers to rail or road. The Betuwe

project is one of the priority transport projects of the EU.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

15

•••

The previous case studies have focused on the provision of freight infrastructure or

the development of new freight services. The scan team also found that new

institutional arrangements are being developed between shippers and infrastructure

providers. For example, a new company called Rail4Chem has been formed by a

German forwarding company, a Swiss freight forwarder, and one of the world’s leading

chemical producers to run its own trains dedicated to chemical transport. Similarly, a

joint track access agreement among Swedish, German, and Danish rail infrastructure

operators and IKEA Rail AB, the rail freight subsidiary of Swedish furniture producer

IKEA, has resulted in IKEA running its own trains in these three countries.

As can be seen in the above examples, intermodal freight has been an important

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

during this scan. To make intermodal freight transport successful, however, a large

number of challenges must still be overcome. These challenges range from the ability

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

the ability of the railroads to provide scheduled service that is reliable (as noted by

Hupac and Frankfort Airport officials). Those making the shipping decisions, the

freight forwarders, will choose the services that are most reliable and cost the least.

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 reliability in service that is necessary to

achieve the desired level of market share.

PUBLIC SECTOR ACTIONS

Governments can influence economic market conditions in a variety of ways, 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 efforts of many different levels of government. Many

innovative and creative solutions to the problems encountered in improving mobility

and accessibility often surface from such collaboration. 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 EU — and resulting policies that

influence the transport market: The EU 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 that shared common

interests. The original motivation for establishing a common European market was to

emphasize the competitive advantages of being one economic unit rather than

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

with a long 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
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

16

competition within the Common Market and on promoting the interoperability of

transport services and operations among member states. The specific characteristics

of the EU 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 EU, 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 entire EU.

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 EU. One of the key principles now being

considered seriously is the implementation of road pricing. However, the exact nature
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

17

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.

Those concerned mainly with these goals

wanted the transport sector to have a

high target value for reduced road use. Those more concerned with the relationship

between the transport system and economic development/trade wanted to help

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

target in road-use reduction.

Advocating 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 multicountry 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. Thus, there seems to be some success in providing a

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

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

The greatest evidence of this consistency was the policy approach adopted by the EU

in its transport policy that was reflected in the Dutch national policy as well. The

approach simply is to establish target market shares for the different modal systems.

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

Netherlands that have been established for the year 2010, compared with 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 or will grow by 38

EU TRANSPORT POLICY PRIORITIES

FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS:

• European single sky

• Clean urban transport

• Sustainability

• Interoperability and intermodality

• Intelligent transport systems

• Maritime safety

Volumes for will grow by: 2010 2010

 (without policy) (with policy)

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

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

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

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

Maritime ------------------------------------------------ 34%---------------- 40%
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

18

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

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

ambitious and in many ways represent dramatic changes in the way freight moves in

Europe. Many of those interviewed questioned whether the rail industry can come

anywhere close to the targeted market share desired in the policy given historical and

industry-specific barriers.

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 ITS technologies on

existing infrastructure.

The European Commission recommends corridor projects, and the European

Parliament and Council choose which projects should be included on the basis of staff

input and political considerations. 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 on page 19.

Figure 4. TEN-T Priority Projects.

Trans-European

Transport Network

The 14 Priority Projects

1. High-speed train/combined transport N/S

2. High-speed train PBKAL

3. High-speed train south

4. High-speed train east

5. Betuwe Line, conventional rail/combined transp.

6. High-speed train/combined transp. France-Italy

7. Greek motorways Pathe and Via Egnatia

8. Multimodal link Portugal-Spain-Central Europe

9. Conventional rail Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer

10. Malpensa Airport, Milano

11. Oresund fixed rail/road link Denmark-Sweden

12. Nordic Triangle multimodal corridor

13. Ireland/United Kingdom/Benelux road link

14. West Coast Main Line
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

19

The EU provides

funds 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

increase EU participation to 20 percent for projects relating to the implementation of

ITS technologies. This plan 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 also has 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 multiyear 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 global

positioning system (GPS), 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 that have high potential for

substantial benefits.

It is of interest to note that most 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.

PRIORITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANS-EUROPEAN

TRANSPORT NETWORK (TEN-T)

The development of an integrated and interoperable continental transport network has been a

goal of the EU since its inception. The multimodal TEN-T consists of transportation infrastructure,

traffic management systems, and positioning/navigation systems. The priorities for selecting

transportation projects included:

• Establishment and development of connections, key links, and interconnections needed to

eliminate bottlenecks, fill in missing sections, and complete major routes;

• Establishment and development of infrastructure for access to the network, making it possible

to link island, landlocked, and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community;

• The optimum combination and integration of various modes of transportation;

• Integration of environmental concerns into the design and development of the network;

• Gradual achievement of interoperability of network components;

• Optimization of the capacity and efficiency of existing infrastructure;

• Establishment of and improvement in interconnection points and intermodal platforms;

• Improved safety and network reliability;

• Development and establishment of systems for the management and control of network

traffic and user information with a view to optimizing use of the infrastructure; and

• Studies contributing to improved design and better implementation of the TEN-T network.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

20

There was no

indication from those

interviewed whether

this was a conscious

decision on the part of

the EU (i.e., pushing

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, more than EUR 480 million was allocated for

education and vocational training. The scan team found examples of EU training

investment at some of the sites visited.

Establishing 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. Examples of legally binding rules include

allowable vehicle weights, vehicle emission standards, aircraft noise standards, and

allowable trucker driving hours. If warranted, the European 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 initiated 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. 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, although 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.

CUSTOMS 2002

Realizing that the abolition of internal border checks requires enhanced clearances and

controls at external borders, the EU has adopted the following strategy, called Customs 2002,

for providing coordinated EU-wide external border controls:

• Identification of best practices among member states.

• Collection, analysis, and exploitation of data to combat fraud.

• Support for customs administrations to improve internal administrative structures (e.g., risk

analysis, post-importation audits, and computerization).

• Exchange of customs officials among member states.

• Training that disseminates best practices.

• Computerization of customs procedures throughout the EU.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

21

Giving special attention to enlargement of the EU: The EU has expanded

membership four times in its short history and is facing another such expansion in

the near future. Thirteen additional countries are seeking membership in the EU,

which makes it potentially the largest of such expansions.2

 If all 13 countries are

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 country must adopt and enforce the entire body of EU rules

and regulations, known as the acquis communautaire (approximately 100,000 pages).

Part of this acquis is a policy chapter on transport, known as the transport acquis,

which must be adopted in toto (see sidebar on page 22 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. A large

percentage of the assistance 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. More than 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. The EU budget provides EUR 22 billion for pre-accession support from

2000 to 2006, and EUR 57 billion for new member states from 2002 on. 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, more than

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 crossborder 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 is in the

middle of key debates on the economic and environmental future for the EU.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

22

ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

An important issue for the EU is enlargement (i.e., whether to admit membership to one or more of 13 aspirant countries).

Currently, these countries include Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,

Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Turkey. From the original six members (Belgium, France, Germany,

Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) who formed the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, the EU has

expanded to 15 countries currently (Demark, United Kingdom, and Ireland joined in 1973; Greece in 1981; Spain and

Portugal in 1986; and Austria, Finland, and Sweden in 1995). The 13 aspirant countries are following an accession

negotiations process, which determines the conditions under which each candidate will join the EU. Negotiations focus

specifically on the implementation and enforcement of the acquis communautaire (in certain cases limited transitional

arrangements may be possible).

The acquis communautaire consists of 31 chapters outlining priority economic and political conditions (in practice, for a

present member, some 80,000 pages of civil law and administrative procedures) that fall into three broad areas:

• Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the respect for and the protection

of minorities.

• Existence of a functioning market economy, as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market

forces within the EU.

• Ability to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of the political, economic, and

monetary union.

The core of the transport acquis is:

• Integration of the transport acquis into the national legal and administrative framework.

• Provision of administrative capacity, institutions, and budgets crucial to implement the transport acquis.

•· Enforcement of the acquis through a system of controls to ensure compliance established at the EU and national

levels.

Freight transport is featured throughout the 31 conditions of the acquis as parts of the following sections: free movement

of goods, transport policy, energy policy, customs, freedom of movement of persons (labor), free movement of capital,

freedom to provide services, corporate law, competition policy, etc. Matters such as transport equipment standards and

registrations, safety standards and workplace conditions, operator qualifications, transport networks and open access to

same, interoperability, structure of user taxes and fees, etc., are all components of the transport sector.

An overview of the enlargement process is contained in European Union Enlargement: A Historic Opportunity, which is

available from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Enlargement.

A Guide to the Transport Acquis is an informal document compiled by the DGTREN (formerly DG-VII), the EU’s Directorate

General for Transport & Energy. It summarizes current EU transport legislation as a resource for the public authorities of

candidate countries to use in preparing their position papers in support of their application for accession. At the same

time, several pre-membership funding programs are available through the Directorate General for External Relations for

use in support planning and analysis.

In the transport sector, a wide-ranging study resulted in the October 1999 report, Transport Infrastructure Needs

Assessment (for 11 of the 13 prospective member states), including a first definition of infrastructure components to extend

the TEN-T (Trans-European Transport Network) into the candidate countries.

Many smaller area studies have been funded, including, for example, Analysis of Rail Competitiveness in Central and

Eastern Europe, Need for a Common Pool of Combined Transport Equipment, Danube Corridor Development Plan, etc. In

some of these studies the scope has been extended to Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the former Yugoslavian

Republic of Macedonia.

In June 2001 leaders of the EU declared their aim of having the most promising of the candidates in position to

participate directly in elections to the 2004 European Parliament. A Report on Progress towards Accession by each of the

Candidate Countries is available from the Directorate General for Enlargement. For further information, consult the EU

website: <europa.eu.int/comm./enlargement>
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

23

The future role of EU governance is at the core of policy debates and will likely

remain so in the foreseeable future. The role 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 be 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). The approach of targeting market shares by

mode, however, 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 a consistent and coordinated transport

infrastructure within the EU. Several of those persons interviewed noted, however,

Inland shipping: An important means of freight distribution in Europe.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

24

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 for private investors. Those interviewed stated that it also was important to

have a specific project authority that has responsibility for project implementation

and is held accountable for program success.

Since the panel’s visit, the EU has published a revised transport policy: European

Transport Policy for 2010 – Time to Decide. The new policy concentrates on effecting a

shift of modal transport away from roads to more sustainable modes, while alleviating

the high level of traffic congestion on European roadways.

MEMBER STATE RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGES

The scan team visited a small number of countries, thus generalizations that apply to

all member countries of the EU are inappropriate. Some important observations can

be made, however, on how these countries have responded to the EU’s transport

policies as well as on their own policies/programs for improving freight transport. In

addition, these countries 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 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 the limited number of countries visited,

there seems to be 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 the latter is not a

member of the EU), the

scan team identified policy

approaches that were

supportive of the

overarching EU common

transport policy

framework.

DUTCH LAW FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The Netherlands has amended the

national environmental law to streamline

the environmental review process for

projects that are of national significance,

in particular, the Betuwe freight rail line

and a high-speed passenger rail line.

Projects of national significance must still

go through the environmental review

process, but by reducing the number of

required project justification documents,

the initial phases of this process are

shortened. Once the decision has been

made after the environmental process

to proceed with a project design and

the corresponding environmental

mitigation, local communities are asked

to sign an agreement to this decision.

Once these agreements are signed, the

implementation of the project cannot be

legally challenged.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

25

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 on the part of 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 have invested in the

transport system beyond their own borders. The Netherlands has invested in a highspeed 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 its transport system. The Port of Rotterdam has

invested in facilities in Hungary and the Czech Republic that make the port more

competitive in those markets. In EU countries, large investment has occurred and is

continuing to occur that is 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 its 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 are 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 were 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 US$4 billion commitment by the national

Intermodal transport: An important part of the EU strategy for freight mobility.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

26

Figure 5. The Economic Heart of Europe.

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 order to maximize the number of alternatives available to system

users. In this context, many government officials view intermodal freight transport —

rail/truck, rail/barge, and truck/barge — 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 general freight truck; zero for intermodal

carriage), allowance of greater vehicle weight (44 tonnes instead of 40 tonnes),
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

27

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 the 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. Dutch officials described this approach 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 (Belgium, the Netherlands, and

Luxembourg) 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. 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

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. The following are some examples:

• 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/
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

28

private partnerships (see inset, page 14). 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 to 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 below for a description of the German intermodal terminal subsidy program.

• In Italy, the new transshipment port of Gioia Tauro received national government

investment in the port facilities themselves as well as in road and rail access

improvements. Private companies have provided much of the investment for the

port 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.

GERMANY: PUBLIC FUNDING FOR INTERMODAL TERMINALS

The German government provides funds for construction or expansion of intermodal terminals that includes

the exchange of freight from truck to rail, inland barge, or coastal shipping. The following conditions apply to

this public financing:

• The terminal improvement must not be economically viable solely with private financing.

• The terminal operator must be different than the organization that owns the terminal.

• Open access to the terminal improvements will be allowed to all who desire to use the operation.

• An intermodal facility or facility expansion is planned in the region by one of the intermodal carriers.

• The funding recipient must commit to operating the facility for a specified period of time, which varies

according to how much of the initial cost is borne by the recipient.

At least 20 percent of the government funding will come in the form of an interest-free loan, with the rest

being a construction grant. Eligible activities include loading and siding tracks, road connections, loading

equipment, support buildings, signalization, and automated vehicle identification (AVI) systems. Planning

costs up to 10 percent of the eligible construction costs also are also allowed. For the years 2000 and 2001,

the government has spent DM 230 million on 10 such projects, out of a total national transport budget of DM

17-18 billion.
HOW EUROPE IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

29

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 visited only one national ministry of transport, in

the Netherlands. 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 also was interesting to note that the ministry itself is

organized into four directorates general, one of which is dedicated to freight transport.

According to those officials 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).

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

Figure 6. Scenario Analysis in National Transportation Planning in The Netherlands.

DE: Divided Europe

EC: Coordinated Europe

GC: Global Competition

Million ton kms

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1995 1999 2020 DE 2020 EC 2020 GC

Pipeline

Inland water

Rail

Truck
HOW IS EUROPE RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES

30

investment in economic development as manifested in freight distribution terminals/

centers and community goals.

It also is important to note (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 preeminent position as a port gateway to Europe results from its strategic geographical

location.

Whether taking advantage of such opportunities or starting anew, however, the local

government support for freight infrastructure was primarily aimed at enhancing the

relative competitiveness of its community compared with other locations in the

country and/or in Europe. Some examples of the local government role in freight

facilities has included:

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. In 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. Local officials view the Village as one of the main

foundations for the economic success of the Verona region, and they have devoted

considerable energy to supporting its viability. This support 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 also have participated closely with

the airport in developing plans for expansion of Cargo City and other economic

development opportunities at this site.
31

Lessons for North America

The scanning team compiled the following lessons for the North American and U.S.

context:

1. Global market logistics rely 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 need 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 that

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 economy).

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

which private firms are provided incentives to choose what is best for their

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

sustainability, etc.). This was portrayed by the Europeans as making marketdriven policy decisions within a “public good” context. Interestingly, a long-term

public policy focus in this context was around 10 years, whereas the private sector

focus was at most 5 years.

5. The focus of the overall policy was to make the best use of existing transportation

options (e.g., rail and inland water transportation) before developing new

transport networks. As one Dutch official stated, transportation system

management strategies come first, followed by pricing strategies, and finally by

actions to construct new infrastructure.

6. 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

up front. However, even with this, the level of public investment in freight

facilities and services, and public policy attention to freight policy, seems far
32

LESSONS FOR NORTH AMERICA

greater in Europe than in North America (even with projects like the Alameda

Corridor in the United States).

7. 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. 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.).

8. 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.

9. 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, these

issues should not overshadow much broader concerns for market-driven policy and

decision making. In addition, the EU experience suggests 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.

10. The EU has incorporated human resource development/training as an important

component of any public/private initiative aimed at improving freight movements.

This training has been done primarily to raise the quality of life of the

communities that are affected by freight facilities and operations.
33

Recommendations 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 believes that many of the examples and initiatives found in Europe warrant

follow-up examination, perhaps every 2 to 3 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 trilateral cooperation in regard to transportation

decisions. For example, how should improved water transportation opportunities

be incorporated into ongoing 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 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,

including not only a conceptual model, but also one that reflects performance

measurement.

9. Consideration of the role that technology innovation can play in international and

national trade markets, including 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.
34

POSTSCRIPT

The terrorist attacks against the United States on

September 11, 2001, highlight another critical aspect of

how international border crossings must be viewed. The

focus of this scan was on international freight movement

and on easing the transport constraints of an open

market. National security and the consequences of

groups or individuals taking advantage of open borders

to bring harm to targets within a country have always

been of great concern to security agencies. The events of

September 11th will only magnify these concerns. Although

the scan did not investigate the European strategies for

border security, the scan team believes the topic of

maintaining national security in the context of a NAFTA

market is worthy of further study.
35

APPENDIX A:

interview questions

QUESTIONS FOR EU OFFICIALS: INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY FOCUS

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 EU 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 regulations?

– national defense considerations?

– public health?

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

issues dealt with for non-EU-member border crossings?

6. What problems has an open borders policy 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?
APPENDIX A

36

Secondary Questions

1. Are freight facilitation issues faced by the EU 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 with 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

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 (e.g., 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 are these 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,
APPENDIX A

37

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? In

desired policies? Or in funding projects?

9. What intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies have proved 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 multination transportation corridors?

2. Have increasing freight volumes led to innovative and creative uses of

transportation infrastructure (e.g., freight exclusive lanes, pricing schemes, timeof-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

Primary Questions

1. Has the existence of the EU 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 multination 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
APPENDIX A

38

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, timeof-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 marketplace 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 do 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? In

desired policies? In funding projects?

5. What intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies have proved 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
APPENDIX A

39

railroads have a long-term strategy that includes a potentially larger role for

freight movement?

7. Have business to business (B2B) and business to customer (B2C) 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

1. How has the movement of freight through your facility changed over the past 25

years (by mode, if appropriate)? Specifically, has the creation of the EU 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 multination 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 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? In desired policies? Or in funding projects?

7. What intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies have proved 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
APPENDIX A

40

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

1. What effect do 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, timeof-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

Primary Questions

1. Has the existence of the EU 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 regulations?
APPENDIX A

41

– 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? In desired policies? Or in funding projects?

8. What intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies have proved 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

1. What effect do 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, timeof-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?
APPENDIX A

42

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?
43

APPENDIX B:

schedule of tour and

primary european contacts

THE NETHERLANDS (MAY 28-30)

Kees A. Van de Graaf

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and

Water Management

Directorate General for Freight

Transport

Nieuwe Uitleg, 1

2500 EX, The Hague

+31 7 351 14 60

E-mail: kees.vdgraaf@dgg.minvenw.nl

Jakob van Hekke

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and

Water Management

Directorate General for Freight

Transport

Nieuwe Uitleg, 1

2500 EX, The Hague

Edgar Kasteel

Holland International Distribution

Council

25, Koninginnegracht

2514 AB, The Hague

+31 7 311 88 22

E-mail: e.kasteel@hidc.nl or www.hidc.nl

Rene A. Luijcx

Port of Rotterdam

Galvanistraat, 15

Port Number 320

3002 AP, Rotterdam

+31 1 252 18 07

www.port.rotterdam.nl

EUROPEAN UNION, BRUSSELS (MAY 31-

JUNE 1)

Floros Stasinopoulos

European Commission, DG-VII

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Brussels

+32 2 296.84.19

E-mail: floros.stasinopoulos@cec.eu.int

John Hugh Rees

European Commission

Directorate General for Energy and

Transport

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Brussels

+32 2 296.84.04

E-mail: john-hugh.rees@cec.eu.int

Keith Keen

European Commission

Directorate-General for Energy and

Transport

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Brussels

+32 2 296.34.69

E-mail: keith.keen@cec.eu.int

Kerstin Sterner

European Commission

Directorate General for Energy and

Transport

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Brussels

E-mail: kerstin.sterner@cec.eu.int
APPENDIX B

44

ITALY (JUNE 4-6)

Domenico Bagala

Operations Manager

Medcenter Container Terminal

89013 Gioia Tauro

+39 966.714289

E-mail: domenico.bagala@contshipit.com

Tiziana Murgia

Port Authority of Gioia Tauro

C.da Lamia

89013 Gioia Tauro

+39 966 504658

E-mail: aut.portuale.tiscalinet.it

Clara Keller

CEMAT

Via Valtellina, 5-7

20159 Milano

+39 2 66895.241

E-mail: pubrel@cemat.it

Michela Merlo

Consorzio ZAI

Quadrante Europa

Via Sommacampagna, 637137 Verona

+39 45 8622060

E-mail:

consorzio.zai@quadranteeuropa.it

SWITZERLAND (JUNE 6)

Caludio Ghiringhelli

Hupac Intermodal

Viale R. Manzoni, 6

CH-Chiasso

+41 91 6952888

E-mail: cghiringhelli@hupac.ch

GERMANY (JUNE 7-8)

Wolfganag Trumpp

Flughafen Main AG

Cargo City South, Bldg. 640

D-60547 Frank am Main

+49 69 6 90-6 63 48

E-mail: www.cargocity-frankfurt.de

Klaus Peter Remus

Flughafen

Frankfurt Main AG

Cargo City South, Bldg. 640

D-60547 Frankfurt am Main

+49 69 6 90-6 63 45

E-mail: www.frankfurt-airport.com

Gerhard Welker

Fraport AG

60547 Frankfurt am Main

+49 69 6 90-7 83 79

E-mail: www.fraport.de

Rainer Mertel

Kombiverkehr

Ludwing-Landmann-Str. 405

D-60486 Frankfurt am Main

+49 69 7 95 05 1 40

E-mail: rmertel@kombiverkehr.de
45

APPENDIX C:

biographic sketches and

contact information

Harry B. Caldwell (Co-chair) is the Chief of Intermodal Freight for the U.S. Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). He

advocates concerns of carriers and shippers in U.S. transport policies and programs

and develops legislative strategies to enhance freight and international trade

transport. Mr. Caldwell speaks frequently throughout North America on trade

transportation, economic development, and institutional reform. He managed the

“Strategic Investment Analysis” for all U.S. highways and bridges from 1988 to 1998.

He authored the 1994 Readiness Assessment of North American transport systems for

international trade. He also managed the U.S. “borders and corridors program” to

enhance trade transport with Mexico and Canada. He is currently charged with

developing a comprehensive, multimodal program to enhance North American freight

productivity (scheduled for completion in 2002). Mr. Caldwell developed the “Highway

Economic Requirements System” for infrastructure assessment as well as the “Freight

Analytical Framework,” a multimodal systems analysis tool to understand freight

flows and analyze mitigation strategies. He is currently developing dynamic border

simulation software to facilitate freight flows across North American borders. A

professional geographer, Mr. Caldwell has been with the FHWA for 28 years and has

been actively involved for the past several years in international affairs. He

frequently represents the U.S. DOT in international policy and technical discussions.

Randy Halvorson (Co-chair) is Director of the Minnesota DOT’s (Mn/DOT) Program

Delivery Group. This group is responsible for a broad range of planning and

operational activities, including all statewide highway investments and modal

programs. Recent planning efforts include completion of a statewide “Freight Flow

Study.” Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Halvorson held a number of

positions at Mn/DOT, including Assistant Commissioner for the Transportation

Research and Investment Management Division (TRIM) from 1998 to 1999, Assistant

Division Director of TRIM from 1994 to 1998, Director of the Transit Office (1985-

1994), and Director of National Relations (1983-1985). He has a Bachelor’s and a

Master’s degree in Political Science from the University of Minnesota. He is an active

member of several national transportation organizations, including the

Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Committee for the Study of Freight Capacity

for the Next Century.

Christina T. Casgar is the Executive Director for the Foundation for Intermodal

Research and Education. Ms. Casgar directs the work of this nonprofit Foundation,

which is a subsidiary of the Intermodal Association of North America. The Foundation

addresses the interests of intermodal carriers and shippers as an information source

for industry statistics, intermodal policy issues, and linking public officials with

industry leaders to address intermodal challenges. Prior to directing the Foundation,

Ms. Casgar was the Staff Officer for Marine and Intermodal Research at the National

Academy of Sciences/Transportation Research Board in Washington, D.C. Ms. Casgar

also spent 7 years working with the Port of Wilmington, Delaware. She has a BA from

the University of Arizona and a Master’s degree in Maritime Policy from the

University of Delaware.
APPENDIX C

46

Gene Cleckley is Director of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)

Southern Resource Center in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Cleckley has a strong background

in environmental issues and is an avid supporter of the Latin American Trade

Transportation Study (LATTS), a multistate initiative of the Southeastern

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (SASHTO). LATTS focuses

on multistate, multimodal analysis of institutional, operational, and infrastructure

challenges at the regional level. Mr. Cleckley is involved in addressing issues of

growing international trade and means of balancing needs for regional economic

growth, safety, and community livability.

Oscar de Buen is head of the Toll Roads Unit at the Ministry of Communications

and Transport in Mexico, where he is responsible for the development of the toll road

system, including its financial, operational, technical, and commercial aspects. Mr. de

Buen also is responsible for nationwide highway infrastructure planning and for

developing road projects for private participation. Mr. de Buen has a Civil

Engineering degree from the National University of Mexico and a Master’s degree in

Transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. de Buen is a

member of various local professional societies and has taught transportation-related

subjects at several universities in Mexico.

Jeff G. Honefanger is the Manager of the Ohio Department of Transportation

(ODOT), Special Hauling Permits Section. This position has statewide responsibility

for issuing permits for every Oversize and Overweight vehicle traveling in Ohio. This

position is also responsible for all commercial vehicle activities for which ODOT has

interest and involvement, including coordination with other State agencies. Prior to

this assignment, he was the Deputy Director of the Division of Rail Transportation for

ODOT. Mr. Honefanger has a Business degree and Paramedic Science degree from

Clark Technical College and attended Wittenberg University. He is a member of the

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Subcommittee on Highway Transport, and he chairs the AASHTO National Oversize/

Overweight Vehicle Issues Task Force. Mr. Honefanger also serves on the Ohio

Governor’s Motor Carrier Advisory Committee, Multi-State Permit Group, Ohio

Commercial Vehicle Information System Network (CVISN) Committee, Great Lake

States CVISN Mainstreaming Group, and the Multi-state Permit Group.

Ysela Llort is the State Transportation Planner for the Florida Department of

Transportation. In her capacity as chief planner she oversees the statewide systems

planning functions for the Florida DOT. Primary responsibilities include executivelevel policy formulation and interpretation as well as working with the numerous

transportation planners, including metropolitan planning organizations, to obtain

consensus on the needs and priorities of the state. Ms. Llort has been with the Florida

DOT since August of 1994. Prior to her work there she served 9 years with the

Virginia DOT as Assistant District Engineer for Planning and Operations in the

northern Virginia portion of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. She has worked

in both private and public sectors, including in developmental banking. Ms. Llort is a

graduate of Duke University where she earned a degree in economics. She has a

double Master’s degree from Clemson University in City and Regional Planning and

in Transportation Engineering.
APPENDIX C

47

Michael D. Meyer (Report Facilitator) is Professor and former Chair of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. From 1993 to 1998 Dr.

Meyer was Director of Transportation Planning and Development for the state of

Massachusetts where he was responsible for statewide planning, project development,

traffic engineering, and transportation research. Prior to that he was a professor in the

Department of Civil Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dr.

Meyer has written more than 120 technical articles and has authored or co-authored

numerous textbooks on transportation planning, policy and education; environmental

impact analysis; and intermodal transportation. Dr. Meyer received his Bachelor’s degree

in Civil Engineering from the University of Wisconsin, a Master’s degree in Civil

Engineering from Northwestern University, and his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from MIT.

He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Georgia.

R. Leo Penne is Program Director for Intermodal and Industry Activities with the

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). He is

responsible for issues involving freight transportation by all modes — rail, truck,

aviation, ports, and waterways — and for liaison with industries having significant

interests in freight movement. He shares the responsibility for developing and

communicating the case for the economic benefits of transportation and for

demonstrating the linkage between transportation and economic development. Mr. Penne

has initiated and carried out programs for advocacy, policy development, and research in

areas such as transportation, economic development, urban development, environmental

protection, public finance, training, and tourism, and has written and edited books,

reports, and articles on these subjects. He has held positions dealing with issues of

strategy and policy analysis for the State of Nevada, the U.S. Department of Commerce,

and the National League of Cities. He holds degrees in Political Science from Seattle

University and the University of Washington and has served as an adjunct faculty

member at the University of Maryland Baltimore County.

Gerald Rawling is the Director of Operations Analysis with the Chicago Area

Transportation Study (CATS), which focuses on freight/intermodal research and

planning. In his current position he has responsibility for developing and directing the

freight mobility program. Mr. Rawling also has been involved in the development of

freight-related initiatives with several regional agencies, civic interest groups, etc., and

has supported similar initiatives at universities in the Chicago region. He has 25 years of

experience in the areas of freight mobility, regional freight planning and operations

analysis, and intermodal studies. Mr. Rawling is published widely and has made

numerous presentations before most regional and national associations representing the

freight industry. He was co-author of a paper, “Mainstreaming Intermodal Freight Into

the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process,” which was the winner of the

Transportation Research Board’s 1998 Pyke-Johnson award.

Garry Tulipan is Acting Director of the Motor Carrier Policy Branch of Transport

Canada. In that position he helps develop and implement motor carrier policies for

Canada and NAFTA. Prior to this, he was Chief of Surface and Marine Statistics and

Forecasts, Economic Analysis Division. Mr. Tulipan also served 16 months as special

consultant at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris. He

holds a BA in Economics, a BS in Social Science, and an MBA, all from University of

Ottawa.
APPENDIX C

48

SCAN TEAM CONTACT DATA

Harry Caldwell (FHWA Co-chair)

Chief, Intermodal Freight

Office of Freight Management &

Operations

Federal Highway Administration

400 Seventh St., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9215

Fax: (202) 366-3302

E-mail: harry.caldwell@fhwa.dot.gov

Randall K. Halvorson (AASHTO Cochair)

Director, Program Delivery Group

Minnesota DOT (MS 120)

395 John Ireland Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55155-1899

Tel: (651) 296-1344

Fax: (651) 296-6135

E-mail: randy.halvorson@dot.state.mn.us

Christina Casgar, Executive Director

Foundation for Intermodal Research and

Education

7501 Greenway Center Dr., S-720

Greenbelt, MD 20770-6705

Tel: (301) 982-0691 or 982-3400 x 29

Fax: (301) 982-4815

E-mail: tina.casgar@intermodal.org

Gene Cleckley

FHWA Resource Center

61 Forsyth St., S.W. (Suite 17-T26)

Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel: (404) 562-3570

Fax: (404) 562-3701

E-mail: mary.shaw@fhwa.dot.gov

Oscar de Buen

Jefe de la Unidad de Autopistas de Cuota

Secretaria de Communicaciones y

Transportes

Dr. Barragan 635, 3er Piso

Colonia Narvarte

Mexico, D.F.C.P. 03020

MEXICO

Tel: (011-52) 5519-3013

Fax: (011-52) 5538-1905

E-mail: odebuen@sct.gob.mx

Jeff G. Honefanger

Manager, Special Hauling Permits

Section

Ohio DOT

1610 W. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43223

Tel: (614) 351-5520

Fax: (614) 728-4099

E-mail: jeff.honefanger@dot.state.oh.us

Ysela Llort

Florida DOT

605 Suwanee St. (MS 57)

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Tel: (850) 414-5235

Fax: (850) 921-2291

E-mail: ysela.llort@dot.state.fl.us

Michael D. Meyer

School of Civil & Environmental

Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology

790 Atlantic Dr.

Atlanta, GA 30332

Tel: (404) 385-2246

Fax: (404) 894-2278

E-mail: mmeyer@ce.gatech.edu
APPENDIX C

49

Leo Penne

Program Director for Intermodal

Transportation

AASHTO

444 N. Capitol St., N.W. (Suite 249)

Washington, D.C. 20001

Tel: (202) 624-5813

Fax: (202) 624-5806

E-mail: lpenne@aashto.org

Gerald Rawling

Chicago Area Transportation Study

(CATS)

300 W. Adams

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: (312) 793-3469

Fax: (312) 793-3481

E-mail: grawling@catsmpo.com

Garry Tulipan

Acting Director

Motor Carrier Policy Branch, Transport

Canada

Place de Ville, Tower C (27th Fl., Area A)

330 Sparks St.

Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0N5

CANADA

Tel: (613) 998-1914

E-mail: tulipag@tc.gc.ca
50

ENDNOTES

1

 The EU receives its revenues from four major sources: 14 percent of the revenue

comes from levies on agricultural products from non-member countries and from

customs duties; 35 percent comes from a VAT on goods sold; and the remainder comes

from a percentage contribution from each member country reflecting its relative gross

national product (GNP).

2

 The countries seeking membership include Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,

Estonia, Hungary, Malta, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the 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, the Netherlands.

4

 European Commission. 1998. Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure.

Report C3-16-98-740-EN-C, Luxembourg.

	
	
	




	
 

!

 	
	!"#$%


& ##'())'%)()

*& ##'())'%)#)

	
	
	
+,-.
-

,,,-	
	
	
-,-.
-