STEMM: Barriers and Policy Instruments for Improved Intermodality: Freight Side

Transcription

1 _ STEMM / WP7: Policy Instruments for Improved Intermodality STEMM: Barriers and Policy Instruments for Improved Intermodality: Freight Side Commissioned by: The Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General VII for Transport, Bundesamt für Bildung und Wissenschaft (BBW), Information: Stefan Suter, suter@ecoplan.ch

2 Executive Summary _ s Executive Summary 1) Setting the stage Work package 7 on policy instruments to improve intermodality has been divided into a passenger and a freight part. Here, we summarise the main findings of the freight part. Two objectives are in the centre of interest of work package 7: The analysis of the barriers that hinder a more frequent use of intermodal services The derivation of policy instruments to overcome these barriers The findings of work package 7 have been used to define the demands on the intermodal transport models, i.e. to show the types of instruments for which an implementation in the models should be possible to prepare a basic input for the different case studies by describing in a more general way the instruments that are specified and tested within the case studies. The following procedure has been chosen within work package 7: o In a first step, a literature survey has been carried out to summarise the evidence of the barriers and policy instruments for improved intermodality. o Based on this survey a questionnaire for experts and actors of intermodal transport has been elaborated. o The questionnaire has been used to carry out the interviews in summer The main features of the interview programme are the following: scope: 61 persons have been interviewed choice of interviewees: representatives of forwarding and haulage companies, intermodal operators, railway and ferry operators, representatives of the industry, port authorities, experts technique: mix of face-to-face and telephone interviews area covered: the programme covered the three regions of the STEMM case studies, i.e. the United Kingdom, Scandinavia and the Alpine countries France, Italy, Austria and Switzerland o The findings of the interviews have been the main input for the work package 7 report. 2) Barriers for improved intermodality The interviewees have not only been asked to give their view of the shortcomings of current and the barriers for improved intermodal transport services. They also developed the cornerstones of their vision of intermodal transport in the year Though there have been differences in the views of the respondents some common lines could have been identified. The corresponding keywords concerning different characteristic features of intermodal transport are summarised in table S-1.

3 _ STEMM / WP7: Policy Instruments for Improved Intermodality Table S-1: Vision of intermodal transport in the year 2010: Keywords Feature Keywords Structure of terminals, types of trains Transhipment techniques Role of railway operator Role of intermodal operators Role of road haulage firms New actors Development of intermodal units Development of prices Growth rate of intermodal transport Development of logistics more direct trains (shuttle trains), increased importance of the gateway concept (hubs), large terminals in the economic centres of Europe, medium-sized terminals in other areas, no Mega-terminals, rather decrease of number of terminals, new techniques for pre and end haul (e.g. cargo sprinter, ring trains), additional functions for the terminals ( logistic centre ), importance of ports as multi-modal platforms no fundamental changes, vertical transhipment techniques remain dominant, automatisation as far as useful, development of small, flexible (modular) and cheaper equipment for smaller terminals first increase of number then concentration process due to open access and increased competition (alliances, mergers), railway companies will try to control more than just the traction part of an intermodal transport, efforts to offer door-to-door services role of organisers remains, concentration process resulting in a reduced number of operators, partly undermining of the separation of container and piggyback companies, new door-to-door services (now: only between terminals) further structural adjustment caused by cabotage in road haulage, i.e. more large and less small companies emergence of specialised traction operators on links with high transport volumes and from ports to the hinterland, additional integrators and/or marketing companies offering/selling the whole intermodal transport chain, additional US railway firms will flood into the European market additional optimisation of the partly conflicting requirements: cheap, light, stackable and flexible in use; no development of new, non-standardised units, renaissance of unaccompanied trailer services lower prices due to the liberalisation in the rail sector and the competition pressure coming from road transport increase of intermodal transport due to traffic generated by the new industrial organisation in Europe (Eastern Europe) and the saturation of the capacity of the road network, share on total transport market will increase but remain modest (approx. 10%) computerised and Internet-based reservation and accounting systems, realtime and satellite-based tracking of trains/wagons/goods, solution of interoperability problems in the short term, generally increased use of telematics The development in the direction described in table S-1 is hindered by a number of current shortcomings of intermodal transport. The respondents especially mentioned the following top 5 factors:

4 Executive Summary _ low temporal reliability high prices of intermodal services insufficient customer-oriented information and communication low cargo speed, too long travel time low service quality (e.g. safety of goods, temporal flexibility, frequency of services) Rather hardware oriented potential shortcomings (e.g. number of terminals, extension of the network) have been rated lower. Different reasons cause these shortcomings of intermodal services. On a scale reaching from 0 unimportant to 10 important the interviewees have made a ranking of the barriers for improved intermodality. Table S-2 shows the results of the interview programmes carried out in Alpine countries on transalpine freight transport (TAFT) and in Scandinavian countries (SCAN). Table S-2: Significance of different barriers for improved intermodality Mean Value Barrier for improved intermodality TAFT SCAN Infrastructure, rolling stock, intermodal units and vessels Bottlenecks in today s rail and sea infrastructure (capacity, missing links) Bottlenecks in today s terminal and port infrastructure (capacity) Shortcomings of the rolling stock (availability, dimensions, flexibility) Shortcomings of the intermodal units (availability, sizes) Shortcomings of the types of ships Technical interoperability Insufficient standardisation of intermodal units Interoperability problems between rail networks Interoperability problems between types of ships Interoperability problems of transhipment techniques Logistics, information and communication in intermodal transport Low logistic performance in terminals Limited use of advanced information and communication systems Network and route management Low co-ordination of timetables Too few attractive train paths, landing stages Too few direct trains / sea routes, too many mixed trains / sea routes Missing open access to infrastructure (rail)

5 _ T STEMM / WP7: Policy Instruments for Improved Intermodality Organisational and institutional issues Insufficient co-operation between the different actors of intermodal transport Too low competition between the relevant actors of intermodal transport Pricing and pricing structure Non transparent, unsuitable pricing systems: rail part of intermodal services Non transparent, unsuitable pricing systems: sea part of intermodal services Unsuitable pricing systems in the transport sector (e.g. missing internalisation of external costs), unsuitable regulations, insufficient enforcement (e.g. of speed limits), subsidisation causing distortion of competition The three annexes to the final report of work package 7 contain in detail the arguments leading to the rankings given in table S-2. Looking at table S-2 the following points are noticeable: o Technical barriers like for example the question of standardisation are rated lower than barriers concerning the general set-up for intermodal transport. o There are distinct differences between the results of the two surveys coming from the fact that they look at different regions and different types of intermodal services: The generally lower figures for transalpine intermodal transport probably reveal two points: Transalpine transport is one of the most developed intermodal transport market in Europe. Furthermore, the Scandinavian sample of interviewees contained more representatives of the industry who tend to be more critical than experts and intermodal operators. For transalpine transport the most relevant barriers are seen in organisational and institutional issues and in the current price signals and structures in intermodal transport as well as in the transport sector as a whole. The missing internalisation of external costs in road transport has explicitly been mentioned by a number of respondents. In the Nordic countries hardware barriers have been rated almost as high as barriers referring to organisational/institutional and pricing issues. o In both surveys the need of customer-oriented information and communication systems has been confirmed, and in both surveys, the potential distortion of competition through subsidisation has been critically mentioned. The UK based survey has used a slightly different questionnaire. The most important findings have been the following: The use of rail mode for multi-modal chains is more difficult than for ship and barge. The highest number of points has been awarded to the financial barriers (i.e. high investment costs of the provision of intermodal services). Furthermore, the quality of service and organisational barriers have been rated comparatively high. Rather low figures have been allocated to technical interoperability problems and insufficient information systems.

6 Executive Summary _ Q 3) Possible instruments Starting from the analysis of the barriers instruments given in table S-3 has been developed and discussed. They can all lead to a more frequent use of intermodal services. Thereby they contribute to general objectives of the Common Transport Policy, namely to a reduction of the harmful environmental effects of road freight transport and a lowering of congestion in the road network which again increases efficiency in road haulage. Table S-3: Instruments to improve intermodality D Deregulation in the rail sector A Adjustment of pricing in transport R Regulations and improved enforcement F Further instruments deregulation in the rail sector (incl. nondiscriminatory access to the rail infrastructure, track user charges) mileage tax for road freight transport tax on diesel fuel vignettes for special regions passage charges permit systems (eco point system, linked rail-road permits) adjustment in the vehicle taxation different types of subsidisation of intermodal services weight limits driving bans social regulations speed limits in road haulage extension of the infrastructure (rail, ports, terminals) improvements of the logistic performance in intermodal transport chains improvements in the use of advanced information and communication systems initiatives to reduce interoperability through standardisation Table S-3 shows that a wide range of instruments to improve intermodality has been identified. Some of the instruments tackle very specific barriers whereas others affect several of them (e.g. the deregulation in the rail sector). Obviously, only packages of several instruments will be able to substantially improve intermodality. It has been up to the case studies to define those packages of instruments that fit the best the specific situation and to test the contribution of the packages to an increase of intermodality. Looking at the ranking of the different barriers three types of policy measures seem crucial for an improvement of intermodal services and should therefore be part of any policy strategy: the deregulation in the rail sector to increase competition in this sector pricing measures in the transport sector as a whole to adjust wrong price signals adjustments in the infrastructure for intermodal transport to provide the necessary capacities.