intermodal freigt terminals

www.piarc.org2013R05EN

INTERMODAL FREIGHT TERMINALSCHALLENGES AND GOOD PRACTICES Technical Committee B.4 Freight Transport and Intermodality

The World Road Association (PIARC) is a nonprofit organisation established in 1909 to improve international co-operation and to foster progress in the field of roads and road transport.

The study that is the subject of this report was defined in the PIARC Strategic Plan 2007 – 2011 approved by the Council of the World Road Association, whose members are representatives of the member national governments. The members of the Technical Committee responsible for this report were nominated by the member national governments for their special competences.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their parent organizations or agencies.

This report is available from the internet site of the World Road Association (PIARC)http://www.piarc.org

Copyright by the World Road Association. All rights reserved.

World Road Association (PIARC)La Grande Arche, Paroi nord, Niveau 292055 La Défense cedex, FRANCe

International Standard Book Number 978-2-84060-315-3

Cover: World Road Association

statements

INTERMODAL FREIGHT TERMINALS CHALLENGES AND GOOD PRACTICES2

2013R05EN


2013R05EN

This report has been prepared by the working group B4.2 “Interfaces of freight transport with other modes” of the Technical Committee B.4 “Freight Transport and Intermodality” of the World Road Association (PIARC).

The contributors to the preparation of this report are:

Martin Ruesch (Switzerland, facilitator),Juan Carlos espinosa (Mexico),Mohammad R. Tayyaran (Canada).

The translation into French of the original version was produced by Transport Canada (Canada).

The translation into Spanish of the original version was produced by AMIVTAC (PIARC Mexico).

The Technical Committee was chaired by Hans Silborn (Norway). Benoit Cayouette (Canada) was the French and english-speaking secretary and Juan Carlos espinosa was the Spanish-speaking secretary.

The French version is available under the reference 2013R05FR; ISBN: 978-2-84060-316-0.


2013R05EN contents

eXecUtIVe sUmmary ........................................................................................................................7IntrodUctIon .....................................................................................................................................12

1. FreIght termInals In Intermodal transport chaIns .....................................161.1. Intermodal transport and the role of termInals ..........................................161.2. actors and theIr roles ....................................................................................................181.3. Key defInItIons......................................................................................................................191.4. marItIme and contInental Intermodal transport chaIns ..........................20

1.4.1. Maritime intermodal transport chains .................................................................................201.4.2. Continental intermodal transport chains .............................................................................21

1.5. shIp operatIng concepts ..................................................................................................221.6. traIn operatIng concepts ...............................................................................................231.7. termInal classIfIcatIon ..................................................................................................251.8. termInal servIces ...............................................................................................................281.9. termInal layout and elements ...................................................................................28

1.9.1. Seaport terminals ................................................................................................................281.9.2. Inland rail/road terminals ...................................................................................................321.9.3. Inland port terminals ..........................................................................................................34

1.10. termInal networKs ..........................................................................................................341.10.1. Terminal networks in North America and Mexico .............................................................351.10.2. Terminal networks in europe .............................................................................................371.10.3. Terminal network in Australia ...........................................................................................38

2. problems and challenges....................................................................................................402.1. IntroductIon .........................................................................................................................402.2. survey methodology ........................................................................................................402.3. survey results on problems and challenges ....................................................42

2.3.1. Importance by problem areas ..............................................................................................422.3.2. Importance of single problems by main areas .....................................................................43

2.4. problems IdentIfIed In other studIes ......................................................................492.4.1. Infrastructural problems .....................................................................................................492.4.2. Operational/management problems.....................................................................................512.4.3. Organizational problems ....................................................................................................522.4.4. economical problems...........................................................................................................52

2.5. conclusIons ...........................................................................................................................52


2013R05EN

3. good practIces .............................................................................................................................543.1. IntroductIon .........................................................................................................................543.2. overvIew on good practIces .........................................................................................553.3. termInal Infrastructure plannIng and desIgn ...............................................57

3.3.1. Terminal location planning and evaluation ........................................................................573.3.2. General terminal planning process .....................................................................................593.3.3. Terminal infrastructure planning and design .....................................................................603.3.4. Intermodal Rail/Road Terminal concepts ............................................................................623.3.5. Terminal sizing and capacity analysis of rail/road terminals ..............................................673.3.6. Terminal dimensioning and capacity analysis for seaport terminals ..................................683.3.7. Road Access principles ........................................................................................................703.3.8. Rail Access principles ..........................................................................................................713.3.9. Dry Port concept ..................................................................................................................723.3.10. Freight villages with intermodal access ............................................................................743.3.11. Standardization .................................................................................................................77

3.4. termInal operatIon and management ....................................................................783.4.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................783.4.2. Terminal Management Systems ...........................................................................................783.4.3. Terminal Security Systems ..................................................................................................793.4.4. Terminal Automation ...........................................................................................................813.4.5. Benchmarking and Key Performance Indicators (KPI) ......................................................843.4.6. Terminal management and organization measures to increase terminal capacity .............88

3.5. land use, envIronment and communIty Involvement ...................................893.5.1. Land Use Planning ..............................................................................................................893.5.2. environmental aspects .........................................................................................................933.5.3. Community Involvement .....................................................................................................99

3.6. InstItutIonal and fInancIal Issues .........................................................................1013.6.1. Intermodal Freight Network and Infrastructure Policy .....................................................1013.6.2. european Union Countries ................................................................................................1033.6.3. United Kingdom .................................................................................................................1033.6.4. North America ....................................................................................................................1043.6.5. Conclusions and Summary of Issues .................................................................................105

3.7. Intermodal fInancIng and fundIng ........................................................................1053.7.1. Conclusions and Summary of Issues .................................................................................112

3.8. health, safety, and labor rules and regulatIons .........................................113


2013R05EN

4. conclUsIons and recommendatIons ............................................................................1144.1. conclusIons .........................................................................................................................1144.2. recommendatIons .............................................................................................................1174.3. termInal Infrastructure and desIgn ....................................................................1174.4. termInal operatIon and management...................................................................1184.5. land use, envIronment and communIty Involvement .................................1184.6. InstItutIonal and fInancIal Issues .........................................................................1194.7. research needs ...................................................................................................................119

5. bIblIography / reFerences ................................................................................................121

appendIces ..........................................................................................................................................128

1. QUestIonnaIre on problems/challenges at FreIght termInals ............128

2. good practIce cases ...............................................................................................................149case 1 – Inland termInal basel/weIl, swItzerland and germany .................150case 2 – contaIner termInal hamburg altenwerder, germany .....................154case 3 – pIerpass, calIfornIa, usa .....................................................................................159case 4 - trImodal termInal genK, belgIum .................................................................162case 5 – “TRILOGIPORT” Intermodal facIlIty developped

by the walloon regIon and the port of lIege, belgIum ...................165case 6 - Intermodal bIlK termInal, hungary ............................................................167case 7 – super central port project, japan .................................................................170case 8 – road networK feasIble for InternatIonal logIstIcs, japan ..........173case 9 – greater vancouver short-sea contaIner

shIppIng- prefeasIbIlIty study, brItIsh columbIa, canada.................175case 10 – study on contaIner use In western canada, canada .......................180case 11 – burrard Inlet and roberts banK land use,

brItIsh columbIa, canada .................................................................................185case 12 – fraser rIver land use plan, brItIsh columbIa, canada ....................... 189case 13 – port north fraser (pnf) land use plan, brItIsh columbIa, canada .... 193case 14 – Intermodal fundIng at transport canada .................................................. 197case 15 – port of manzanIllo contaIner termInal, mexIco ................................... 201case 16 – port of veracruz, mexIco ........................................................................................ 204case 17 – alnabru Intermodal termInal, norway ........................................................ 207case 18 – raIlport scandInavIa, sweden .............................................................................. 210case 19 – locatIon evaluatIon for new gateway termInal, swItzerland .... 213case 20 – Intermodal raIl transport for waste logIstIcs, swItzerland ...... 216


2013R05EN eXecUtIVe sUmmary

Intermodal freight transport is growing faster than pure road or rail freight transport in many parts of the world. due to its efficiency and environmental benefits, intermodal transport is gaining more and more importance as a supplement and/or alternative to road-only transport. Intermodality is seen as one possible approach with a high potential to make freight transport more sustainable and to facilitate economic development.

Intermodal terminals – seaport and inland terminals – play a crucial role in providing efficient and reliable intermodal transport for deep sea shipping, short sea shipping, inland waterway and rail. many countries face infrastructural, operational and organizational problems and challenges at terminals which need to be addressed.

the work presented in this report is aiming to address these problems and challenges by providing good practices, standard requirements and recommendations for measures to solve these problems. the results support authorities (and private actors) to provide efficient and high quality terminals with respect to terminal infrastructure planning, design, operation, organization, management and funding as well as taking into account sustainability aspects.

from a survey, litterature review, and case studies we can derive the following conclusions:

• terminals play a crucial role in intermodal transport chains with respect to overall capacity, efficiency and quality of intermodal transport;

• the capacity, efficiency and quality of intermodal terminals depends on a number of factors including terminal design, terminal access, terminal services and operation, terminal organisation and management, the use of information and communication systems, and the regulatory framework and conditions. also relevant in this respect is the co-operation between the terminal operator and other actors as railway undertakings, infrastructure managers and pre- and end haulage transport operators;

• there are a number of challenges in intermodal freight transport as follows:

– infrastructure and equipment – e.g. congestion on terminal access roads, unsuitable terminal layout, insufficient railway access, one-sided access from main track;

– operation and management – e.g. lack of cooperation among stakeholders, Low influence by terminal operators on ship/train arrival;

– land use, environment, and community issues – e.g. air/noise pollution, lack of space for expansion, conflict with other land uses;


2013R05EN

– institutional and financing issues – e.g. missing intermodal terminal location/network policy, lack of steady and/or sufficient funding.

these issues have negative impact on the development of intermodal transport as a whole.

different types of measures can be considered to solve the problems and challenges identified :

• measures regarding infrastructure and equipment;• measures regarding operation and management;• measures regarding land use, environment and public involvement;• measures regarding institutional and financial issues.

In addition to the extension of infrastructure (which usually needs substantial investment), operational and organisational measures play an important role. during the planning and realisation phase it is important to consider land use and environmental requirements. terminal funding and a sound institutional framework also support efficient and attractive intermodal terminal networks. an important success factor for the implementation of measures is the cooperation between the stakeholders and the public involvement.

when developing measures and implementing good practices, the local framework conditions and the transferability have to be looked at. often no single measure but a bundle of different measures – of different types – are suitable to achieve substantial improvements. these measures are addressed at different target groups such as governments, terminal operators, intermodal service providers, and logistics and transport service providers and shippers.

regarding terminal infrastructure and design the following is recommended:

• limit the usually high investment costs by using a modular terminal design and approach with several modules;

• provide a high standard road connection with sufficient capacity between intermodal terminals and motorway network;

• design the railway access to the transhipment area from both sides to limit the shunting efforts and operational costs. for bigger rail/road terminals rail access must have enough capacity to allow rail arrivals and departures at the same time;

• the transhipment areas with loading tracks should be compatible with train length to avoid shunting;

• for intermodal sea and inland port terminals provide rail access where feasible;


2013R05EN

• on freight corridors a synchronization and coordination of terminal infrastructure planning and extension is needed to make the best use of the intermodal capacity along the corridor;

• technical standards for planning and design of seaport and inland terminals should be developed on international level to harmonize the infrastructure conditions. This is especially important for freight corridors;

• an integrated planning and design process is needed from market analysis to financing and implementation;

• consider the dry port concept to maximise the use of port assets, relief the port area from truck traffic and improve the hinterland connections.

regarding terminal operation and management the following is recommended:

• extend the standard loading /unloading procedure to floating loading/unloading procedure;

• use IT-based terminal capacity management systems to increase efficiency and quality of terminal processes;

• support automation and the use of advanced It-systems in big seaport terminals (including use of AGV’s) to improve efficiency and productivity;

• extend terminal operation times to weekends and nights to make better use of existing infrastructure where possible;

• create economical incentives to avoid traffic peak hours on access roads and to make better use of the terminal infrastructure;

• implement benchmarking and quality certification for terminal processes to increase efficiency and quality of terminal operations. Technical standards on processes and operation of intermodal terminals can support this;

• implement bonus/malus schemes for storage space to make better use of storage capacity;

• improve safety and security procedures to increase the attractiveness of intermodal transport.

regarding land use, environment and community involvement the following is recommended:

• promote integrated land use and transport planning and encourage greater proportionate use of rail to support modal shift from road to rail resulting in environmental benefits both at local and national scale;

• support the concept of “lean” and “compact” rail/road terminals in countries where sufficient space is not available. The increase in efficiency and productivity also generally reduces the environmental impacts;

• support the integration of intermodal terminals in freight villages / logistics areas to create synergies with other economic activities and increase the market potential for intermodal transport;


2013R05EN

• secure land at strategic locations for intermodal terminals (purchase or long term land lease agreements), taking into account terminal expansion requirements in the long term (incl. storage purposes);

• encourage land use compatibility to minimize conflicts between terminal lands uses and adjacent lands. consultations are highly recommended to realize the goals for the community and the intermodal facility;

• undertake consultation process with stakeholders during site evaluation and planning phase to increase community acceptance and market acceptance;

• evaluate site / location for new terminals systematically taking into account all relevant factors (accessibility, market potential, technical feasibility, environmental impact, cost-benefit analysis, etc.), using multi criteria evaluation. In doing so, the new/expanded terminal would have low negative social and environmental impacts;

• undertake environmental assessment studies to ensure appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., noise, pollution, nature conservation, ground water protection, etc.) are developed and implemented;

• develop best management practices, protocols, specific measures, etc. for handling dangerous goods and hazardous incidents including pollution prevention plans (e.g. spill prevention and cleanup plans, protection of groundwater, drainage).

regarding institutional and financial issues the following is recommended:

• develop an intermodal terminal transport network strategy / policy (with main hubs and regional terminals) which also provides the basis for funding;

• develop/enhance international agreements between countries on a freight corridor with minimum standards for intermodal terminals (especially infrastructure) when international design standards are not available;

• develop suitable co-funding schemes for intermodal terminals (which would otherwise not be economically viable);

• combine funding rules with the existence of a benchmarking and / or quality certification systems for terminal operation with provision of statistical data on supply and demand data of intermodal terminals;

• create steady, predictable, and continuous government funding/financing programs to fund intermodal projects. this will greatly help regional and municipal organizations as well as private sector to develop their long- and medium-term capital plans with greater certainty on the availability of funds for implementing their capital projects;

• encourage the use of public-private partnerships (p3’s) in funding intermodal terminals where market conditions are right (e.g., available expertise in evaluating p3 proposals and developing p3 agreements).


2013R05EN

by implementing these measures the good practices showed that the problems can be alleviated and substantial benefits achieved such as:

• improving the accessibility of terminals by road, rail or ship;• increasing efficiency of terminal processes and terminal productivity;• increasing quality of terminal services (and also over the whole intermodal

chain);• increasing capacity of terminals (with and without infrastructure investments);• mitigation of impacts on environment and residents (noise, pollution, use of

space, etc.);• reduction of energy consumption;• reduction of co2 emissions;• improving working conditions at terminals (safety, etc.);• improving security at terminals;• providing reliable and steady source of funding;• improving cooperation among stakeholders.

by realising these benefits intermodal transport is becoming a viable alternative, thus contributing to the efficiency and environmental sustainability of freight transportation.

the results support authorities (and private actors) to provide efficient and high quality terminals with respect to terminal infrastructure planning, design, operation, organization, management and funding as well as taking into account sustainability aspects.


2013R05EN IntrodUctIon

this report has been prepared to comply with the two themes of investigation retained in strategic plan 2008-2011 addressing interfaces of freight transport on roads with other modes within intermodal transport chains:

• from case studies involving different kinds of transport modes, review the aspects in the design and operation of interfaces which assist or are detrimental to the efficient intermodal transport of freight;

• provide an analysis of the case studies and recommendations for improving the efficiency of intermodal interfaces of freight transport.

context

Intermodal freight transport is growing faster than pure road or rail freight transport in many parts of the world. due to its efficiency and environmental benefits, intermodal transport is gaining more and more importance as a supplement and/or alternative to road-only transport. Intermodality is seen as one possible approach with a high potential to make freight transport more sustainable and to facilitate economic development.

Intermodal terminals – seaport and inland terminals – play a crucial role in providing efficient and reliable intermodal transport for deep sea shipping, short sea, inland waterway and rail. many countries face infrastructural, operational and organizational problems and challenges at terminals as important interfaces within intermodal transport chains, which need to be addressed.

In the period 2004-2007, pIarc technical committee 2.4 studied governmental measures to strengthen intermodal transport and produced the report entitled “Measures promoting alternatives to the road and intermodal terminals” (technical committee 2.4, 2007)). the study showed that intermodal transport contributes to:

• a better use of capacity of the whole transport system, • a relief from road freight transport on motorways and highways, • a reduction of environmental burdens, and • an increase in safety.

the above-noted study has been the basis for additional analysis of intermodal freight terminals that is presented in this report.

the work presented in this report is aiming to address these problems and challenges by providing good practices, standard requirements and recommendations for measures to solve these problems. the results will support


2013R05EN

authorities (and private actors) to provide efficient and high quality terminals with respect to terminal infrastructure planning, design, operation, organization, management and funding as well as taking into account sustainability aspects.

study objectives and scope

the objectives of this study as they relate to intermodal freight terminals are to:

• identify and verify the problems and challenges;• collect, analyze, and evaluate existing case studies/current practices relating to

intermodal freight terminals;• derive good practices and recommendations and report on the main results.

good practices have considerable and measurable positive effects (improving quality, improving efficiency, reduction of environmental burdens, etc.) on the transport system leading to an increase in the share of intermodal transport. good practices are based on real experiences (real world implementations, projects, concepts, strategies) or on promising research projects or prototypes that can be successfully implemented.

to establish an effective intermodal transport network that has fewer negative environmental impacts and responds to the growing freight transportation of goods, major collaborative measures for roads and other modes of transport, are necessary. the previous report by pIarc focused on measures that would lead to the removal of obstacles to intermodal transport and governmental measures promoting intermodal transport (technical committee 2.4, 2007).

based on the problems identified and the background of pIarc activities and the mandate of working group 4.2 within technical committee b4 (cycle 2008-2011), this report deals with issues related to interfaces of freight transport on roads with other modes. more specifically, this report deals with all aspects of freight terminals. the areas of work and the related scopes are shown in table 1, following page.


2013R05EN

table 1 - scope related to Intermodal FreIght termInalsarea scope

terminal Infrastructure planning and design

• road access,• access by other modes (sea, river and rail),• transhipment between modes,• terminal location planning (for suitable intermodal networks),• terminal layout planning and design for efficient and high

quality terminal operations, • requirements for standards for planning and design.

terminal operation and management

• terminal operation and handling to make the best use of capacity and improve efficiency and reliability,

• terminal management (incl. management of incoming traffic),• terminal organisation and administration,• cooperation between actors,• benchmarking / KpI’s (Key performance and quality

indicators).

environment, land use and public involvement

• land use planning, • environment and resources,• public involvement.

Institutional and financial issues

• terminal network policy (as part of intermodal policy),• terminal regulation ( incl. safety and security, labour and health

rules),• terminal financing and funding (including ppp),• monitoring (of efficiency and quality).

the study does not cover liability and insurance practices because this issue should be tackled on transport chain level.

this report covers seaport, inland port and inland rail/road terminals. the focus is on intermodal transport and not on multimodal transport (see definitions in chapter 1.6) and on measures that public authorities can affect (see the following chapter).

based on the information and material available and the case studies collected during the 2008-2011 cycle the focus is on developed countries. but the general principles and good practices for intermodal terminals are generally also valid for developing countries and countries in transition.

methodology

Information presented in this report results from the consultation with reference documents (listed at the end of the report) provided by committee members, searched on Internet or sent to the committee by other means including: persons external to pIarc, presentations made in international seminars, or presentation of national policies during committee meetings. additionally, a survey was conducted to determine and evaluate the state of knowledge and current practice for the areas of interest identified in table 1.


2013R05EN

based on the results of the analysis from the survey questionnaire as well as analysis and assessment of current/good practices obtained from the sources noted above, conclusions are drawn and recommendation are made to improve capacity, efficiency and quality of intermodal freight terminals.

report organisation

this report is organized in four main chapters:

• Chapter 1 describes different types of terminals and functions of intermodal terminals. It provides the theoretical background for readers who are not so familiar with intermodal transport and freight terminals;

• Chapter 2 highlights the problems and challenges related to intermodal terminals due to infrastructural, operational and organizational problems;

• Chapter 3 provides an extensive review and assessment of current/good practices in various areas of intermodal terminals including terminal planning and design, operation, management, land use and environmental issues, and institutional and financial issues;

• finally, chapter 4 provides conclusions and recommendation concerning the above-noted areas.


2013R05EN

1. FreIght termInals In Intermodal transport chaIns

1.1. Intermodal transport and the role oF termInals

various studies have identified capacity limitations in the intermodal transport networks, especially at terminals. also the road access for terminals can become critical due to capacity limitations and traffic congestion. this is especially true for intermodal terminals located in conurbations (e.g. in port cities or economic inland centers). additionally, the rail main haul can be critical due to capacity limitations on the rail network.

a terminal is a facility where cargo containers are transshipped between different transport modes for onward transportation (see figure 1). the transhipment may be between ships and rail, in which case the terminal is described as a maritime or seaport terminal. alternatively the transhipment may be between land vehicles, typically between train and truck, in which case the terminal is described as an inland terminal. they can also have inland waterway connections and are then becoming tri-modal terminals.

transhipment- rail transport- inland shipping- short sea shipping

end haul:- road- deep-sea

transhipment

pre haul:- road- deep-sea


transhipment

pre haul:- road- deep-sea


end haul:- road- deep-sea


transhipment

fIgure 1 - Intermodal transport chaIns

maritime terminals tend to be part of a larger port and the biggest maritime container terminals can be found situated around major harbors. Inland container terminals tend to be located in or near major cities, with good rail connections to maritime container terminals. both maritime and inland container terminals usually also provide storage facilities for both loaded and empty containers. loaded containers are stored for relatively short periods, whilst waiting for onward transportation, whereas unloaded containers may be stored for longer periods awaiting their next use. containers are normally stacked for storage, and the resulting stores are known as container stacks.

Intermodal terminals – seaport and inland terminals – play a crucial role in providing efficient and reliable intermodal transport for deep sea shipping, short sea, inland


2013R05EN

waterway and rail. moreover, they can handle land transport in an environmentally friendly manner.

fIgure 2 - Intermodal seaport, Inland port and Inland raIl/road termInals

the capacity, efficiency and quality of intermodal terminals depends on a number of factors including terminal design, terminal access, terminal services and operation, terminal organization and management, the use of information and communication systems, and the regulatory framework and conditions (see figure 3). also relevant in this respect is the co-operation between the terminal operator and other actors as railway undertakings, infrastructure managers and pre- and end haulage transport operators.

Terminal Design, Infrastructure and

Equipment

Terminal Services and Operation

Terminal Access by Road, Rail, Ship

Terminal-CapacityTerminal-Efficiency

Terminal-Quality

Terminal Organisation and

Management

Use of Information and communication

systems and security systems

Framework Conditions and

Regulation


Equipment




Terminal-Quality


Management




Regulation

fIgure 3 - factors InfluencIng termInal capacIty, effIcIency and QualIty

while terminals as interfaces are a key element in the intermodal chain, high quality and efficient intermodal transport very much depends on all elements in the chain. therefore it is crucial to look at the terminals from a cross-national view rather than from a general or national view. Important aspects for the users are accessibility, capacity, reliability, service and flexibility and costs.


2013R05EN

1.2. actors and theIr roles

Table 2 shows the actors and their roles in dealing with intermodal terminals.

table 2 - actors and theIr rolesactor role relating to intermodal terminals remarks

authorities (national level)

• transport policy and maybe specific intermodal transport policy;

• land use planning relating to terminal location and transport access on national level;

• co-financing terminal infrastructure based on regulation;

• approval of terminal projects relating to international and national regulations and standards (safety, environment, technical, etc.);

• monitoring and controlling of the fulfillment of requirements related to co-financing;

• provision and management of road infrastructure (motorway, highway, etc.).

different authority units can be involved.In different countries the roles can vary (also the distribution of responsibilities and tasks between the national, regional and local level).

authorities (regional and local level, incl. port authorities)

• regional and local transport policy and maybe specific intermodal transport policy;

• land use planning relating to terminal location and transport access on regional and local level;

• approval of terminal project relating to regional and local regulations and standards (e.g. road design standards, environmental standards);

• monitoring and controlling of the fulfillment of requirements related to co-financing;

• provision and management of road network on regional and local level (e.g. terminal access roads).

different authority units can be involved.In different countries the roles can vary (also the distribution of responsibilities and tasks between the national, regional and local level).

standardization bodies (Iso, cen, national)

• development and provision of standards relating to planning and design of terminals, terminal equipment, terminal services and processes;

• besides technical standards service quality standards play more and more an important role.

today, there are no standards on Iso or cen level. national standards and guidelines exist in austria, germany, mexico and are developed in switzerland.


2013R05EN

table 2 - actors and theIr roles (contInUed)actor role relating to intermodal terminals remarks

terminal operator

• Terminal management and operation;• controlling and monitoring of terminal

activities;• shunting services on the terminal;• pre- and end-haulage transport (in minor

number of terminals);• maintenance of infrastructure and

equipment.

In different terminals the distribution of tasks and responsibilities can vary.

railway Infrastructure managers

• provision and management of railway infrastructure;

• shunting services on the terminal (minor number of terminals);

• maintenance of infrastructure and equipment.

In different terminals the distribution of tasks and responsibilities can vary.

railway undertaking

• Main haul transport between terminals;• shunting services on the terminal.

shippers

• user of the terminal (transport on own account);

• pre- and end-haulage transport (transport on own account).

logistics and transport service providers

• User of the terminal; • customs handling;• pre- and end-haulage transport.

as shown in this table the main role of authorities is related to policy, land use planning, co-funding, approval of terminal projects, provision and management of road access and the provision of rail or sea access.

1.3. Key deFInItIons

this report uses the broad and well-accepted definitions of the terminology on combined transport prepared by the unece, the ecmt and the european commission (unIted natIons 2001). • Intermodality (or intermodal transport) is defined as “the movement of goods

in one and the same loading unit or vehicle which uses successively two or more modes of transport without handling of the goods themselves in changing modes” (UNITED NATIONS 2001);

• a terminal is defined as: “A place equipped for the transhipment and storage of Intermodal Transport Units” (unIted natIons 2001). when speaking of intermodal terminals, transfer points or interfaces are meant as well;

• multimodal transport is defined by the carriage of goods by two or more modes of transport. The goods are not necessarily in loading units (UNITED NATIONS 2001);


2013R05EN

• co-modality is defined as the efficient use of different modes on their own and in combination to achieve an optimal and sustainable utilization of resources (based on EC, 2006);

• Intermodal loading Unit (IlU) is defined as different types of load carriers used for intermodal freight transport. Included in the definition are swap bodies, semi-trailers and containers;

• hinterland is the area behind the port on which the port sends import and from which it draws export.

further definitions of technical terms can be found in the glossary.

1.4. marItIme and contInental Intermodal transport chaIns

as already mentioned freight terminals are an important part of intermodal transport chains. efficient terminal processes and services contribute to efficient and high quality intermodal door-to-door transport chains.

there are various types of intermodal transport chains using different modes as deep sea shipping, short sea shipping, inland waterway and rail for main haul and road for pre- and end-haulage. In specific cases also rail is possible for pre- and end-haulage.

we can divide maritime and continental intermodal transport chains which are described in the following sections.

1.4.1. maritime intermodal transport chains

Figure 4, following page, shows typical maritime intermodal transport chains with cargo in maritime containers also known as Iso-containers. this is the biggest market in intermodal freight transport. there are various main options depending on the mode of transport follows (nea, 2006):

• short sea feeder traffic consisting of the transport of maritime containers between continental regional port and continental main ports which are serviced by the intercontinental liner services. short sea shipping is also possible only between regional seaport terminals;

• hinterland movement of maritime containers via inland waterways or railways linking the seaport with inland terminals.


2013R05EN

MainSeaportterminal

Regional SeaportTerminal

Client

Deep SeaShipping

OtherContinent

Main haul byShort-Sea Shipping

Road*

MainSeaportterminal

Inland Rail/ Road Terminal Client

Deep SeaShipping

Main haul by Rail Road*

OtherContinent

MainSeaportterminal

Inland Port Terminal Client

Deep SeaShipping

Main haul byInland Waterway

Road*

OtherContinent

* In specific cases also rail possible

MainSeaportterminal

Regional SeaportTerminal

Client

Deep SeaShipping

OtherContinent


Road*

MainSeaportterminal


Deep SeaShipping

Main haul by Rail Road*

OtherContinent

MainSeaportterminal


Deep SeaShipping

Main haul byInland Waterway

Road*

OtherContinent


fIgure 4 - marItIme Intermodal transport chaIns (rapp trans 2010, based on nea 2006)

pre- and end-haulage is usually done by road transport. In some cases pre- and end-haulage can also be done by rail. In these cases the maritime containers are transported by rail from regional seaport terminals or from inland terminals by freight trains to private sidings of the client. such situations can be found especially in europe (e.g. germany, switzerland).

1.4.2. continental intermodal transport chains

Intermodal transport can also be used in continental freight transport flows. the figure 5, following page, shows typical continental intermodal freight transport chains. continental flows have their origin and destination within the continent and are usually door-to-door flows (nea 2006). the continental market is dominated by road haulage. In addition intermodal transport options are available using swap-bodies, semi trailers and 45-foot pallet wide containers.


2013R05EN

Seaportterminal

SeaportTerminal Client


Road*

Inland Rail/RoadTerminal


Road* Main haul by Rail Road*

Inland PortTerminal


Road* Main haul byInland Waterway

Road*


Client

Road*

Client

Client

Seaportterminal

SeaportTerminal Client


Road*

Inland Rail/RoadTerminal


Road* Main haul by Rail Road*

Inland PortTerminal


Road* Main haul byInland Waterway

Road*


Client

Road*

Client

Client

fIgure 5 - contInental Intermodal transport chaIns (rapp trans 2010, based on nea 2006)

1.5. shIp operatIng concepts

the introduction of the container in the 1960’s revolutionized the sea shipping by reducing the port stopping times and increasing the productivity of shipping (Isl, 1996). while conventional liner ships stopped 2/3 of their round trip time at ports, container ships reduced this time to 1/3 of the round trip time. the main reason was the faster loading and unloading of the ships with seaport container cranes. the containerization along with the rationalization of ship transport also led to an increase in ship sizes and in a reduction of the number of served seaports by one ship. on the other hand, this development led on the other hand to a concentration of shipping on main container ports.

In general, three ship port serving strategies can be identified (Isl 1996):

• load-center strategy: It is also named single-port, hub port, hub and spoke as well as shuttle service strategy. within this strategy a liner service serves only one main port within a port range. from this main port all the regions within this range are served by feeder sea ships, barges, trains or trucks. the catchment area of the main port is overlapping with the catchment areas of additional regional ports;

• multi-port-strategy: In this strategy a container liner service serves all the ports or at least all the main ports within a certain range. feeder sea shipping services are either not necessary or very limited. the hinterland transport distance by barge,


2013R05EN

train or truck is reduced to a minimum. each port has its own catchment area which in extreme cases is not overlapping;

• combined-strategy: as the name suggest, this strategy is a combination of the two strategies above.

today the most used strategy is the combined strategy. with a pure load center strategy the hinterland transport costs and the additional transhipment costs are usually higher than the additional sea shipping costs due to serving further ports. with a pure multi-port strategy the sea shipping costs are getting too high because of the long port stopping times.

the ship port serving strategies have an influence on seaport terminal design and operation. with the load-center strategy there are higher requirements for an efficient infrastructure and operation for the main or hub container ports.

1.6. traIn operatIng concepts

train operating concepts have an influence on the design and operation of an intermodal terminal. the classical railway production system between terminals can be seen in the following scheme:

fIgure 6 - productIon system for Intermodal transport (source: spInalp manual 2009)

for the rail part of the main haul the following production systems are relevant:


2013R05EN

table 3 - prodUctIon systems For raIl maIn haUlproduction

system scheme explanation

block trains

A B-Y BB-Z A-ZA A-X ZA-Z B-XAB AX

A B-Y BB-Z A-ZA A-C BE-D

EC

D

train consisting of one or more wagon blocks which runs between two terminals without intermediate marshalling of wagons or transhipment of loading units. the number of rail wagons is variable depending on the demand.

shuttle trains



EC

D

train consisting of a fixed number of wagons which runs between two terminals without intermediate marshalling of wagons or transhipment of loading units. the number of wagons does not vary with demand.

hub and spoke system



EC

D

network based on a centralized located terminal selected as a hub and all transports are directed through this terminal. the loading units are transshipped between trains or the wagons are marshalled or bundled between the train connections.

single Wagon traffic / Wagon groups



EC

D

railway transport of single waggons and waggon groups from private sidings to private sidings. the waggons or waggon groups are collected by freight trains and in marshalling yards long distance trains are formed which run to a marshalling yard close to the destination area. local freight trains are formed there and deliver the single waggons and waggon groups to different private sidings.

liner train



EC

D

trains consisting of a fixed set-up of waggons that run between the origin terminal and the destination terminal with stops at intermediate terminals along a corridor itinerary. that way, intermediate markets are covered.


2013R05EN

terminals with high transhipment volumes are usually connected with direct train service, either block trains or shuttle trains. the main difference between block and shuttle trains is that the shuttle trains are operating in fixed compositions and the block trains vary in length.

In some countries (e.g. switzerland) intermodal loading units are also transported in the single wagon traffic system. the trains are formed in marshalling yards for to the destination terminals. rail wagons with intermodal loading units are often transported in mixed freight trains.

Intermodal service providers that operate a high number of intermodal services between terminals often use a hub and spoke system where the terminals are connected via a hub terminal. shuttle trains bring intermodal loading units from spoke terminals to hubs where other shuttle trains go to other hubs or end terminals.

liner trains can have different operational concepts. the main characteristics are the intermediate terminal stops between an origin and destination terminal. liner trains are not very common today.

1.7. termInal classIFIcatIon

the main purpose of a terminal classification is that different terminal classes lead to different requirements with respect to location, design, equipment and operation of terminals (rapp trans 2005). terminals can be classified based on different criteria as connected modes, geographic location and business models (Quorum corporation 2007).

the main categories of intermodal freight terminals are port terminals (seaport and inland port or barge terminals) and rail terminals. these are shown in figure 7.

fIgure 7 - categorIes of port and raIl termInals (source: rodrigue and hatch, 2009)


2013R05EN

• port terminals. they are the most substantial intermodal terminals in terms of traffic, space consumption and capital requirements (Source: Rodrigue and Hatch, 2009). a container sea terminal provides an interface between the maritime and inland systems of circulation. the growth of long distance maritime container shipping has also favored the emergence of intermediate hub terminals, some having an offshore location. their purpose is mainly to transship containers from one shipping network to the other and they essentially have little, if any, hinterland connections. the terminal is used as a buffer while containers wait to be loaded on another ship. the containerization of inland river systems has led to the development of an array of barge terminals linked with major deep sea terminals with scheduled barge services. at the maritime container terminal, barges can either use regular docking areas or have their own terminal facilities if congestion is an issue. although barge to barge terminal container services are technically possible, they are not very common.

• rail terminals. at the start of the inland intermodal chain rail terminals are linked with port terminals (source: rodrigue and hatch, 2009). the fundamental difference between an on-dock and a near-dock rail facility is not necessarily the distance from the terminal facilities, but terminal clearance. while for an on-dock rail terminal containers can be moved directly from the dock (or the storage areas) to a railcar using the terminal’s own equipment, accessing a near-dock facility requires clearing the terminal’s gate (delays), using the local road system (congestion) and clearing the gate of the near-dock rail terminal (delays). the satellite terminal, the load center and the transmodal terminal all qualify as a form of inland port and are commonly designed to handle both COFC and trailers on flatcars (TOFC). for the satellite terminal, it is mainly a facility located at a peripheral and less congested site that often performs activities that have become too expensive or space consuming for the maritime terminal. rail satellite terminals can be linked to maritime terminals through rail shuttle or truck drayage (more common) services. a load center is a standard intermodal rail terminal servicing a regional market area. If combined with a variety of logistical activities, namely freight distribution centers, it can take the form of a freight distribution cluster (or freight village). the surge of inland long distance containerized rail traffic also require transmodal (rail to rail) operations as freight is moved from one rail network to the other. this can be done by switch carriers or trucking containers from one terminal to the other. eventually, dedicated rail-to-rail terminals are likely to emerge.

often a classification is used which divides the port terminals in seaport and inland port terminals and differentiates in addition the rail/road terminals. the explanations above are valid for such a classification as well. In this report we use a classification with three main categories seaport, inland port and rail/road terminals.


2013R05EN

terminals can be further characterized by the following criteria:

• spatial/Economic importance (International, National, Regional, Local);• connected modes (Ship, Barge, Rail, Road);• hub function with a certain share of ship/ship, rail/rail transport (100%, 75%, 50%,

25%, 0%);• loading units handled (Iso-containers, swap bodies, semi trailers, continental

Containers, Trucks);• transhipment technology (gantry cranes, reach stackers, roll-on/roll-off, horizontal

transhipment technology, vehicle related transhipment technology, etc.);• train operation concept (shuttle train, hub and spoke, waggon groups, single

waggons, liner train);• storage concept (long term, short term, internal, external, etc.);• size in Intermodal loading units per day Ilu/day (size categories: mega > 1,200

Ilu/day, large 480-1,200 Ilu/day, medium 120-480 Ilu/day, small 40-120 Ilu/day, mini <40 Ilu/day, rapp trans ag / Ivt ethz 2005).

Table 4 shows the most common types for the three main categories seaport terminals, inland port terminals and inland rail/road terminals (less common characteristics in brackets):

table 4 – termInal characterIstIcs For maIn categorIes

cri

teri

a m

ain

cate

gory

spat

ial/

econ

omic

im

port

ance

con

nect

ed

mod

es

loa

ding

uni

ts

hand

led

tran

ship

-men

t te

chno

l ogy

trai

n op

era t

ion

con c

ept

stor

age

conc

ept

size

seaport terminals

International national (regional)(local)

ship roadrail(barge)

Iso- containers (semi trailers)(trucks)

gantry cranes roll-on/ roll-off

shuttle train (liner train)(waggon groups)

short term internal(external)(long term)

mega large (medium) (small)

Inland port terminals

(Interna tional) national regional(local)

barge roadrail


gantry cranesroll-on/ roll-off

shuttle train (liner train)(waggon groups)(single waggons)

short term internal(external)(long term)

(large)medium small

Inland rail/road terminals

(Interna tional) national regionallocal

roadrail


gantry cranesreach stackers(roll-on/ roll-off)(horiz. transhipment technology) (vehicle related tranship-ment technology)

shuttle trainwaggon groups(single waggons)(liner train)

short terminternal(external)(long term)

(mega) large medium small)(mini)


2013R05EN

1.8. termInal serVIces

the following services are usually provided at intermodal freight terminals (based on rapp trans 2005b, ocean shipping consultants 2004):

• transhipment service (Loading/unloading of ships, barges, trains and trucks);• loading unit services (storage, repair, maintenance, cleaning, selling/leasing/

renting, damage control, etc.);• forwarding services (pre- and end-haulage, customs, transhipment at the client

side, etc.);• distribution services (Transport, Tracking & Tracing, etc.);• goods services (stuffing / stripping, unloading/loading, reloading, reefer handling,

dangerous goods handling, security control etc.); • administrative services (reporting, invoicing etc.).

the core business of a terminal is the transhipment of intermodal loading units between different modes or between the same modes. besides, the transhipment terminals usually provide added-value services relating to loading units, forward/transport and goods. In particular, storage of loading units has become an important business for terminal operators.

1.9. termInal layoUt and elements

1.9.1. seaport terminals

the most common deep sea terminals load/unload containers from the ship to the ground and by ship to shore gantry cranes. containers are then moved to a specific slot at the storage area by straddle carriers, manned or automated guided vehicles.

the purpose of a maritime terminal is to quickly load/unload container ships efficiently and at a low cost. a typical lay out is shown in figure 8, following page.


2013R05EN

fIgure 8 – marItIme Intermodal termInal layout (source: rodrigue 2009)

straddle carriers and cranes are the typical handling devices in ports today ( figure 9, following page, ItIp 2002).

straddle carriers can also be used for loading and unloading trucks and trains. In this case container stacks can only be container wide. straddle carriers are often used in medium size multi-modal facilities where speed of operation is important. they tend to have better operating cycle times than side loaders.

gantry cranes on the other hand allow for large container stacks to be stored in more space efficient manner than is possible with straddle carriers. they can also be used for loading and unloading trucks and trains. rubber tyred gantry cranes tend to be more expensive than straddle carriers but allow for higher levels of productivity.


2013R05EN

23/173

FIGURE 9 - PORTIQUE ROULANT DU NAVIRE À LA CÔTE –

PORTIQUE ROULANT À PNEUMATIQUE–CHARIOT CAVALIER Composants d’un terminal Ces types de terminaux ont trois éléments essentiels qui devaient être étroitement liés afin d’obtenir un rendement optimal : longueur du poste d’accostage, type de grue pour les manœuvres de chargement et de déchargement de navires, superficie de la zone d’entreposage pour les conteneurs chargés.

Ces trois facteurs sont liés à la taille du navire, même s’il est rare qu’un navire à conteneurs décharge totalement dans un seul terminal. De façon générale, les transporteurs évitent que leurs navires chargent ou déchargent leurs conteneurs à un seul terminal. D’habitude, des de navires à conteneurs géants sur la côte pacifique américaine distribuent leurs marchandises entre Los Angeles/Long Beach, San Francisco/Oakland et Seattle/Vancouver, évitant ainsi des terminaux saturés à ces ports. Les terminaux maritimes ont d’autres composants délicats, notamment : zone d’entreposage de conteneurs sur châssis, portillon d’entrée et de sortie du terminal, mouvement interne des camions, mouvement interne ferroviaire, zones d’inspection des marchandises de conteneur (douanes et sécurité), zone d’entreposage de conteneurs réfrigérés, zone d’entreposage de conteneurs vides, zone pour les châssis vides, aires de bureau (contrôle et administration des entrées, ainsi que postes de triage), douanes.

Tous les composants interreliés dans un terminal à conteneurs fonctionneront efficacement seulement s’il y a suffisamment d’espace terrestre.

fIgure 9 - shIp to shore gantry crane – rubber tyred gantry crane - straddle carrIer

terminal components

these types of terminals have three critical elements that should be closely related in order to obtain an optimal performance:

• length of the berth;• type of crane for load and unload manoeuvres of ships;• surface area storage for loaded containers inland.

these three factors are related to ship size, even when a container ship rarely unloads totally in one terminal. generally, carriers avoid their ships load or unload their containers in only one terminal. typical case is cargo distribution of giant container ships at us pacific coast that spread their cargo between los angeles/long beach, san francisco/oakland and seattle/vancouver, avoiding saturated terminals in these ports.

maritime terminals have other sensitive components, including:

• storage area of container on chassis,• entrance/exit gates of terminal,• trucking internal movement,• railway internal movement,• inspection areas of container cargo (custom and security),• storage area of refrigerated containers,• storage area of empty containers,• area for empty chassis,• office areas (entrance control and administration, also yard offices),• customs.

all the inter-related components in a container terminal will operate efficiently only if there is sufficient land space.


2013R05EN

24/173

FIGURE 10 - TERMINAL PORTUAIRE MARITIME VALPARAISO (CHILI) Description de l’opération des terminaux maritimes Un fonctionnement efficace du terminal dépendra des conditions pour exécuter ces manœuvres, selon le volume des conteneurs.L’efficacité des terminaux repose sur trois composants : une organisation optimale de la zone, conformément aux conditions terrestres pour repérer adéquatement tous les éléments physiques au terminal ; une coordination étroite entre tous les acteurs impliqués dans les manœuvres de chargement/déchargement, ainsi qu’une discipline parfaite dans la séquence de ces interventions ; une surveillance et un contrôle rigoureux de ces interventions en utilisant des outils informatiques à haute capacité et à haute vitesse pour programmer de façon diligente les exigences en vue du bon fonctionnement du terminal.

L’exploitation d’un terminal maritime à conteneurs comprend les activités suivantes : une fois le navire accosté, le chargement/déchargement devrait commencer dès que possible en utilisant des grues ancrées dans le port d’attache. Il faut éviter d’utiliser des grues de bord à faible performance ; la grue enlèvera les conteneurs selon un ordre établi du plan d’arrimage du navire ; les conteneurs sont placés par terre, sur un châssis ou ramassés par un véhicule à plate-forme élévatrice le long de la ligne de chemin de fer dans un endroit préassigné ; après cette opération, le conteneur est retiré du plan d’arrimage du navire pour le charger sur le plan d’arrimage du chantier (coordonées et niveau de l’emplacement) ou du train (numéro et niveau de wagon). L’information de suivi se fait au moyen de commandes envoyées par radio et de systèmes informatiques avec des lecteurs optiques qui enregistrent le nombre de conteneurs marqués de codes à barres ; le chantier à conteneurs est divisé en deux parties. Une partie pour ceux qui ne font pas l’objet d’une inspection de sécurité, bénéficiant ainsi d’un dédouanement immédiat; et l’autre pour ceux qui font l’objet d’une inspection ou d’un balayage ; selon le progrès des formalités administratives pour émettre des certificats d’importation/exportation pour dédouaner le conteneur, le port communique avec le transporteur pour lui faire savoir qu’il peut ramasser le conteneur. De la même manière, le train quittera une fois que tous les conteneurs arrimés auront été dédouanés ; grâce à une communication constante, il ne devrait pas y avoir de file d’attente de tracteurs au régime de ralenti au terminal. Idéalement, le transporteur pourrait faire une utilisaiton efficace de ses tracteurs disponibles en laissant un conteneur chargé au terminal et en prenant immédiatement un autre conteneur chargé au moment de quitter. Toutefois, en réalité, de nombreux terminaux ne disposent pas de zones de stationnement pour les tracteurs de transit au moment d’être assignés à un conteneur ;

fIgure 10 - seaport termInal valparaIso (chIle)

description of maritime terminal operation

an efficient operation of the terminal will depend on the conditions for carrying out these manoeuvres in accordance with the volume of containers. terminal efficiency relies on three components:

• an optimal organization of the area, in accordance to land conditions for adequately locating all physical elements at the terminal;

• a close coordination between all actors involved in loading/unloading manoeuvres, as well as a perfect discipline in the sequence of these interventions;

• a rigorous monitoring and control of these interventions by using high capacity and high speed computer tools to timely program the requirements for the proper functioning of the terminal.

the operation of container maritime terminal ( figure 10) includes the following activities:

• once the ship docked, loading/unloading should start as soon as possible using cranes anchored in the dock. the use of low performance ship cranes should be avoided;

• the crane will remove the containers in accordance with an established order from the ship stowage plan;

• containers are placed on the ground, on a chassis, and a lifter picks it up along the railway line in a pre-assigned place;

• after this operation, container is removed from the ship stowage plan to charge it to the stowage plan of the yard (location coordinates and level) or of the train (car number and level). tracking information is done through commands sent by radio and using computer systems with optical readers that record number of containers marked with barcodes;

• container yard is divided into two parts. one for those not subject to security inspection thereby benefiting from an immediate release; and the other for those subject to inspection or scanning;


2013R05EN

• according to the progress of the paperwork to issue the import/export pediments to release the container, the port communicates with carriers to let them know they can pick up the container. In the same way, the train will leave once all stowed containers are released;

• with constant communication there should be no queue of idling tractors at the terminal gate. Ideally, the carrier could make an efficient use of their available tractors by leaving a loaded container in the terminal and immediately taking again another loaded container when leaving. however, in reality, many terminals do not have parking areas for in transit tractors while assigned a container;

• in the case of terminals located in highly efficient ports, there are railway intermodal stations near the port or in the port area, allowing the consolidation of double stack trains, which significantly increases port competitiveness by lowering hauling costs to their final destination;

• in parallel with the loading and unloading operations and stowage of a container in yard or platform, electronic release of cargo is carried out with the import bill of lading. In the absence of any security inspection, a container takes no more than two hours to exit the terminal.

1.9.2. Inland rail/road terminals

an inland rail/road terminal can be divided into a road part and in a rail part, which are connected physically and operationally in the transhipment area. Figure 11 shows schematics for two typical rail/road terminals with gantry cranes. terminals with reach stackers as main transhipment equipment have a different layout, because they need more space for manoeuvre.

the terminal above is a through-terminal which has a rail access on both sides. the terminal below is end-terminal, which has only one rail access on one side. train operation is more efficient and flexible in the through-terminal.

fIgure 11 - basIc layout for an Inland raIl/road termInal (source: gronalt et al. 2008)


2013R05EN

a rail/road terminal consists of the following elements:

• road access (1);• waiting area for trucks (2);• gate/check-in (incl. security control, customs etc.) (3);• rail access (incl. shunting tracks) (4);• transhipment area (with loading tracks, loading lanes, etc.) (5);• storage area (6);• check out (7);• area for handling dangerous goods (not specially shown in figure 11).

depending on the local situation and the transhipment equipment used (gantry cranes, reach stackers) the layout of the terminals can look very different. the processes at a rail/road terminal from the roadside can be summarized as follows:

• a truck with intermodal loading units arrives on the terminal access road and has maybe to stop at the waiting area;

• at the check-in gate the trucks and loading units are registered and controlled. also customs control may be carried out. the truck driver gets the location of the loading lane and the transhipment site;

• then the truck driver drives to the transhipment site and the intermodal loading units are transshiped from the truck to the railway wagon by gantry crane or reach stacker. This is done directly or via a storage lane;

• the truck is either loaded with new loading units and leaves the terminal or leaves directly the terminal via check-out gate.

the process at the rail/road terminal from the rail side can be described as follows ( figure 12, following page):

• arriving trains leave the main tracks and drive on the feeder tracks. the railway wagons are transferred to the loading tracks. If the loading tracks are shorter than the train, shunting becomes necessary to split the train in shorter parts to be put on the loading/unloading tracks;

• gantry cranes or reach stackers transship the loading units from the train to the trucks or trains (figure 12, following page); via storage lanes if available. Normal transshipment procedure or floating transshipment procedure is applied depending on the operational concept of the terminal. using the normal transshipment procedure the trains stay on the loading track. Using the floating procedure the trains are unloaded as quickly as possible and the loading units are put on a storage lane or area and the train leaves the loading track to be put on a storage tracks. later the train again will be transferred to the loading track where it is loaded;


2013R05EN

• after the transshipment the train will be put on the departure track; eventually shunting is again needed in the case of short loading tracks. before the departure, a security control takes place;

• the train leaves the terminal to drive to main track.

www.hupac.ch www.foets.com

26/173

au point d’entrée, les camions et les unités de chargement sont enregistrés et contrôlés. Un contrôle douanier pourrait également être effectué. Le chauffeur du camion obtient l’endroit de la voie de chargement et du site de transbordement ; le chauffeur conduit le camion au site de transbordement, et les unités de chargement intermodales sont transbordées du camion au wagon du train au moyen d’un portique roulant ou d’un gerbeur à tablier porte-fourche rétractable. Cela se fait directement ou par l’entremise de la voie d’entreposage ; le camion est chargé de nouvelles unités de chargement avant de quitter le terminal ou il quitte directement le terminal par le point de sortie.

www.hupac.ch

. www.foets.com

FIGURE 12 - PORTIQUE ROULANT – GERBEUR À TABLIER PORTE-FOURCHE RÉTRACTABLE Voici le processus dans un terminal ferroviaire/routier du point de vue du transport ferroviaire : les trains d’arrivée quittent les voies principales et roulent sur les bretelles. Les wagons sont transférés aux voies de chargement. Si les voies de chargement sont plus courtes que le train, l’aiguillage devient nécessaire pour diviser le train en des parties plus petites, qui sont ensuite placées sur les voies de chargement/déchargement ; les portiques roulants ou les gerbeurs à tablier porte-fourche rétractable transbordent les unités de chargement du train aux camions ou aux trains, éventuellement par le biais de voies d’entreposage. La procédure de transbordement régulière ou la procédure de transbordement flottant est appliquée selon le concept opérationnel du terminal. Au moyen de la procédure de transbordement normal, les trains restent sur la voie de chargement. Au moyen de la procédure de transbordement flottant, les trains sont déchargés aussi rapidement que possible et les unités de chargement sont placées sur une voie ou une zone d’entreposage, et le train quitte la voie de chargement pour être placé sur des voies d’entreposage. Plus tard, le train sera transféré de nouveau à la voie de chargement où il est chargé ; après le transbordement, le train sera placé sur la voie de départ; éventuellement, l’aiguillage est nécessaire une fois de plus dans le cas de courtes voies de chargement. Avant le départ, un contrôle de la sécurité est effectué ; le train quitte le terminal pour rouler sur la voie principale.

1.9.3. Terminaux portuaires intérieurs Les terminaux portuaires intérieurs ont un accès de barge, habituellement au moins un accès routier. La Figure 13 présente une disposition d’un terminal portuaire intérieur ayant un accès routier et ferroviaire, appelé un terminal trimodal. Les principales différentes par rapport à un terminal ferroviaire/routier sont les suivantes : un accès fluvial aux navires avec un port d’accostage (8), un portique roulant qui couvre également le poste d’accostage. (9)

fIgure 12 - gantry crane – reach stacKer

1.9.3. Inland port terminals

Inland port terminals have besides the barge access usually at least a road access. Figure 13 shows a layout of inland port terminal with road and rail access, a so called tri-modal terminal. the main differences to a rail/road terminal are:

• river access for ships with a berth (8);• a gantry crane which covers also the berth. (9)

fIgure 13 - basIc layout for an Inland port termInal (source: gronalt et al. 2008)

depending on the local situation the layout of the terminals can look very different. the process from the roadside and railside are similar to the rail/road terminals as described before. the ships are landing at the berth.

1.10. termInal netWorKs

regardless of where a terminal is located, it is entirely dependent on other terminals within a broader intermodal network to both receive and forward the traffic it handles (Quorum corporation 2007). terminal networks are defined by the terminal locations, the transport infrastructure between the terminals and the intermodal services between terminals.


2013R05EN

transport networks are defined by railway links, inland waterway links and sea links. Important factors for the economical viability of intermodal networks are balanced flows, a high utilization of train, ship or barge capacity and an efficient production of the main haul. Important factors for reliable intermodal services are a sufficient capacity of links and nodes of the network and an appropriate priority for freight trains, ships and barges in case of delays.

terminals can take over different functions within an intermodal network (e.g. hub or end of pipe terminals). In addition, they can share services, e.g. between seaport and inland terminals with respect to storage.

the following sections provide some examples on terminal networks.

1.10.1. terminal networks in north america and mexico

like freight terminals in many other countries, north american terminals are located near major highway and rail networks in order to support the efficient movement of freight. proximity to vast industrial regions would also help make the terminals a successful transshipment hub. as a result, a number of freight corridors have been developed in north america over the years that act as backbones of transportation networks linking major markets and shaping economic development.

ongoing deregulation combined with the north american free trade agreement (nafta) of 1994 have increased overall transborder freight traffic between canada, united states and mexico. the most extensive transborder corridors are ( figure 14, following page):

• the toronto-windsor-detroit-chicago corridor – one of the densest and most integrated corridors. about a third of the volume involves auto parts produced in southern ontario and in the border regions of mexico, which are used for low-cost car manufacturing in the southeast states. the mid-continent corridor also has an extension reaching Winnipeg, Manitoba;

• the Vancouver-Seattle corridor – In the Pacific Northwest and its counterpart the Los Angeles-San Diego-Tijuana corridor;

• the montreal-new york corridor – connects the Quebec-windsor corridor to the boston-washington megalopolis.


2013R05EN

fIgure 14 - maIn north amerIcan trade corrIdors (source: rodrigue et al, 2009)

even though north america has a network of highways connecting all the major metropolitan areas, it also has extensive long distance rail corridors ( figure 15) supported by an intermodal rail system, playing very significant role in commercial flows. rail freight in the united states has experienced a remarkable growth since deregulation in the 1980s with a 77% increase in tons-km between 1985 and 2003. the capacity of double stack trains is reaching up to 400 teu with a total length of well above 2 km. Intermodal rail accounts for close to 40% of all the ton-miles transported in the united states, while in europe this share is only 8% (rodrigue et al, 2009).

fIgure 15 - north amerIcan Intermodal raIl networK (source: rodrigue et al, 2009)


2013R05EN

mexico has intermodal freight network in both north-south and east-west directions (see figure 16). the north-south corridor is the most developed corridor in terms of transportation infrastructure (highway, railway, ports and intermodal terminals). It is stronger and more mature than the east-west corridor serving us/canada (80%), and central and south america (4.2%) markets. the east-west corridors are less developed and less mature due to mexico’s topography condition that makes transportation infrastructure costs very expensive. additionally, the asian (9.1%) and european (6.3%) markets are not as close as us/canada markets.

fIgure 16 - maIn freIght transportatIon Infrastructure (source: secretaría de comunicaciones y transportes)

1.10.2. terminal networks in europe

the european terminal network consists of more than 1,000 intermodal terminals including seaport terminals, inland port terminals and rail/road terminals.

Figure 17, following page, shows a section of the intermodal network in europe with the most important seaport terminals and inland terminals. also shown are the international hubs (or gateways) where train shuttles are connected. not shown on the map are the deep sea, short sea and inland waterway network.


2013R05EN

50 CT trains/day

Wien

Budapest

Roma

Paris

Madrid

Praha

Warszawa

Inland transport area

Sea and ferry porttransport areas

Ljubljana

Rotterdam

Valencia

Barcelona

Perpignan

Avignon

LyonNovara

Milano Verona

BolognaGenova

Livorno

La Spezia

Padova

Wels

GrazSalzburgMünchen

Singen

Basel

AntwerpenZeebrügge

LilleLe Havre

Marseille

GenkKöln

NeussDuisburg

Ludwigs-hafen

Nürnberg

Hamburg

LeipzigHannover

RostockLübeckBremerhavenWilhelmshaven

Bari

Napoli

Catania

Taranto

Gioia Tauro

Pamplona

Gdynia

Poznan

WroclawKatowice

Lisboa

Tarragona

Zaragoza

Trieste/Koper

50 CT trains/day

Wien

Budapest

Roma

Paris

Madrid

Praha

Warszawa





Ljubljana

Rotterdam

Valencia

Barcelona

Perpignan

Avignon

LyonNovara

Milano Verona

BolognaGenova

Livorno

La Spezia

Padova

Wels

GrazSalzburgMünchen

Singen

Basel

AntwerpenZeebrügge

LilleLe Havre

Marseille

GenkKöln

NeussDuisburg

Ludwigs-hafen

Nürnberg

Hamburg

LeipzigHannover

RostockLübeckBremerhavenWilhelmshaven

Bari

Napoli

Catania

Taranto

Gioia Tauro

Pamplona

Gdynia

Poznan

WroclawKatowice

Lisboa

Tarragona

Zaragoza

Trieste/Koper

Existent international hubs

fIgure 17 - Intermodal termInal networK In europe (partIal)

the main characteristics of the european intermodal network can be summarized as follows:

• very important rail connections are the port hinterland connections starting from bigger seaports as Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, Gioia Tauro, etc.;

• North-South intermodal rail connections are more important than east-west; especially trans-alpine connections;

• with the enlargement of the european union also the east-west connections are getting more important;

• capacity restraints can be found on the railway network and at terminals (incl. access roads); this has a negative impact on the development of intermodal transport.

1.10.3. terminal network in australia

the australian intermodal sector consists of two distinct subsystems (figure 18, following page), meyrIcK/arup 2006):

• a subsystem that primarily serves international imports and exports (the port-oriented system);

• a subsystem that is concerned primarily with the inter-state movement of non-bulk cargoes (the national system).

these systems are not entirely distinct. a number of terminals – yennora in sydney is an example – play an important role within both systems. but to a significant extent – and increasingly – the two systems operate independently of each other. In some states, there is a third recognizable element which tends to play a role in each of these systems, yet is clearly separate from both: an intra-state system.


2013R05EN

fIgure 18 - Intermodal termInal networK In australIa (meyrIcK/arup 2006)

the import/export subsystem is characterized by relatively small trains – often 600 m or less – and short haulage distances (sometimes as little as 20 or 30 km). many of the terminals involved in this subsystem are located either within or very close to ports. however, others – particularly export oriented, single commodity terminals such as narrabri in nsw or merbein in victoria – are located at some distance inland. at many of these terminals it is now possible to perform import/export related functions that have historically been undertaken in the port itself. customs and quarantine services can be provided at any terminal location. Import/export terminals with these facilities are commonly referred to as Inland clearance depots or Icds. what makes it an Icd is the customs bonded facilities, including the associated quarantine manning and security arrangements, which make it the commercial/regulatory point of import or export of cargo as opposed to the port through which it is physically exported or imported. an Icd can offer significant advantages to port operators and consignors and consignees of cargo. for the port, it offers the possibility of removing a proportion of container stacking and container handling and terminal activity from increasingly expensive quay-side land. this land can then be used for more remunerative purposes associated with servicing vessels. In addition, if the transport by rail from the port to the Icd is arranged effectively, road traffic movements within and around the port can be greatly reduced. this benefits not only the port itself, but other road users around the port. for consignors and consignees of cargo, the Icd represents the point of import and export of goods and therefore, depending on their terms of trade, a point at which payments can be made and received for those goods (see later also the dry port concept).

the domestic intermodal system generally involves the operation of significantly larger trains – the norm is 1,200 m, the aspiration is for 1,800 m – running over very much longer distances. these terminals are devoted primarily to the carriage of non-bulk


2013R05EN

freight on the australian rail network. the major hubs are in the state capital cities, but it is possible for strategically located regional terminals – at parkes, for instance, and possibly in the future at wodonga – to also play an important role. spatially, unlike the import/export system, which is essentially a set of spokes emanating from a port that serves as the hub of each cluster, the heart of a national system is more of a genuine network, with rail links connecting a series of nodes, one of which cannot be defined as a satellite of another. these terminals service the domestic market and therefore do not require customs and Quarantine presence or facilities.

a distinct intrastate network can be discerned in some states. the most obvious example is Queensland, where a well-defined system of intermodal terminals on the narrow-gauge is primarily devoted to the movement of goods between brisbane and both coastal and inland regional centers. however, a less fully articulated intrastate network can also be discerned in victoria, and also (less certainly) in western australia. In all three cases, the distinguishing feature is that the intrastate system is connected by rail links operating on a gauge other than standard-gauge.

2. problems and challenges

2.1. IntrodUctIon

for the selection and collection of good practice cases it is important to know the key problems and challenges regarding intermodal freight terminals. to identify the main problems and challenges related to terminals a survey was carried out among the world road association technical committee b4 members in 2009/10. within this survey the importance of predefined problems related to intermodal freight terminals were assessed, both for the situation today and for the future. the results have been completed and verified with the outcome of other studies dealing with these issues.

2.2. sUrVey methodology

the survey was carried out through a written questionnaire. the questionnaire included 4 main topics, that covered 22 problem areas and nearly 130 potential problems. In table 5, the main topics and problem areas are shown. Appendix 2 contains the complete questionnaire.


2013R05EN

table 5 - maIn topIcs and problem areas oF the sUrVeymain topics (4) problem areas (22)

1. Infrastructure and equipment

1.1 road access1.2 railway access1.3 water access1.4 terminal layout and design1.5 transhipment area

2. operation and management

2.1 terminal access2.2 terminal handling2.3 terminal management2.4 terminal organization and administration2.5 cooperation between actors

3. land use, environment and public involvement

3.1 land use3.2 environment3.3 resources3.4 community acceptance

4. Institutional issues and Financing

4.1 terminal network policy4.2 terminal security4.3 liability4.4 labor rules and safety4.5 planning procedures4.6 funding4.7 monitoring4.8 other regulations

each problem had to be assessed by experts relating to the scale of importance from very low = 1 to very high = 5. the assessment was done for the respondent’s country in general, and not for a single terminal. the respondents could also assess further problems not presented in the list. 12 countries from 4 continents (europe, north-america1, africa, australia2) filled in the questionnaire. these were: great britain, czech republic, spain, sweden, switzerland, hungary, belgium, canada, new zealand, burkina faso, mexico and australia.

for the problems, the problem areas and the main topics the weighted average importance scores were calculated. the results of the survey are not representative from a statistical point of view however, they give a good picture on the problems and challenges at seaport and inland terminals.

1 incl. mexico2 incl. new zealand


2013R05EN

the assessment methodology and questionnaire can be further used by transport authorities as a self assessment tool for the situation on intermodal freight terminals in their country.

In the following sections the main results are described and results from other studies are added for comparison and verification purposes. the results are more representative for europe as majority of responses came from european countries. main differences in other continents are also shown.

2.3. sUrVey resUlts on problems and challenges

2.3.1. Importance by problem areas

the following main problem areas have been identified by the respondents (based on weighted average points over problems > 3, either today or in the future, see table 6). for the ranking the higher value of the values today/future was taken. because of the aggregation over several problems and countries for one problem area, the average values by problem area are below.

table 6 - maIn problem areas relatIng Intermodal termInals

problem area Importance today (5 = max.)

Importance in the Future (5 = max.)

Increase (↑) / Decrease(↓) of

importance expected

1.4 terminal layout and design 3.04 3.61 ↑3.2 environment 3.10 3.58 ↑3.1 land use 3.47 3.57 ↑2.5 cooperation between actors 3.49 3.18 ↓1.2 railway access 3.30 3.47 ↑1.1 road access 2.89 3.43 ↑2.4 terminal organization/administration 3.34 3.25 ↓

4.5 planning procedures 3.32 2.52 ↓4.7 monitoring 3.13 3.29 ↑3.3 resources 2.98 3.28 ↑3.4 community acceptance 2.92 3.23 ↑1.5 transhipment area 3.00 3.21 ↑3.5 terminal network policy 3.18 2.97 ↓4.8 other regulations 3.11 3.00 ↓2.3 terminal management 3.02 2.98 ↓4.6 funding 2.83 3.01 ↑


2013R05EN

the main problem areas concern land use, environment and community involvement, the infrastructure and equipment, operation and management (2 main problem areas) and institutional issues and financing:

• with respect to land use, environment and community involvement, the main problems cover environmental issues (3.2), land use (3.1), resources (3.3), community (3.4) and terminal network policy (3.5). It is expected that these problem will increase in the future;

• with respect to infrastructure and equipment, the main problems cover terminal layout and design (1.4), railway access (1.2), road access (1.1) and transhipment area (1.5). It is expected that these problem will increase in the future;

• relating to operation and management, the main problems cover cooperation between actors (2.5) and terminal organization and administration (2.4). It is expected that these problem will decrease in the future;

• relating to institutional issues and financing the main problems cover planning procedures (4.5) and monitoring (4.7). It is expected that first one decreases and the second one increases in the future.

the following was observed for other continents vis-à-vis europe:

• problems relating to infrastructure and equipment seem to be less important in africa than in europe and other continents, especially capacity problems occur less in africa. In north america these problems seem to be bigger than in other continents. the railway access to freight terminals is a bigger problem in north america and australia. road access problems are the same on all the investigated continents. terminal layout and design is more critical in north america and less critical in Australia and Africa;

• problems relating to operation and management seem to be more important in north america than in europe, australia and especially in africa. terminal handling, management and organizational cooperation are more critical in north-america than in the other continents. In Australia terminal management seems to be less critical;

• problems relating to land use, environment and community involvement are more relevant in North America and less relevant in Australia and Africa;

• problems relating to institutional issues and financing are more relevant in North America and less relevant in australia. In north america labor rules and safety regulations and planning procedures are more critical. this is also valid for monitoring issues. terminal network policy, terminal security and liability are less critical in australia.

2.3.2. Importance of single problems by main areas

In addition to aggregated analysis presented in the previous section, the single problems by the main areas have been also analyzed. the single problems with average score >3.5 have been considered in the further analysis.


2013R05EN

Infrastructure and equipment

with respect to Infrastructure and equipment, the main problems are shown in table 7:

table 7 - maIn sIngle problems InFrastrUctUre and eQUIpment

single problemImportance

today (5 = max.)


Increase (↑) / Decrease (↓)

of importance expected

1.1.6 traffic jams on terminal access roads 3.5 4.5 ↑1.4.1 terminal layout does not match any

more the terminal function 3.4 4.4 ↑

1.4.8 missing extension options 3.1 4.0 ↑1.2.1 Insufficient rail access capacity 3.7 3.8 ↑1.4.3 terminal layout does not fit anymore

today’s requirements 3.5 3.8 ↑

1.4.4 only one sided access to loading tracks from the main track 3.1 3.8 ↑

1.5.3 loading tracks are not corresponding with train length 3.5 3.6 ↑

1.4.2 difference between operational concept of rail transport and terminal design

3.0 3.6 ↑

1.4.6 Insufficient shunting/marshalling yard 2.9 3.6 ↑

1.2.4 Insufficient infrastructure relating to railway dimensions 2.8 3.6 ↑

1.1.3 Insufficient truck parking capacity 2.7 3.6 ↑1.5.2 Insufficient storage capacity 2.7 3.6 ↑

most of the problems are related to the terminal layout in terms of not fitting the terminal function or the requirements any more. terminal function and requirements may have changed over time. at existing terminals the expansion options are often limited, which create problems with increasing demand. short loading tracks (< 700 m) often create inefficiencies because of high operational costs for shunting. other issues are the limited capacity and negative impacts on the quality of terminal services. these problems typically concern older terminals, which have been developed more than 15 or 20 years ago.

some problems are related to the road access. traffic jams on the access roads can reduce the accessibility for pre- and end-haulage. Insufficient truck parking capacity at the terminal can create truck traffic jams with a negative impact on the public roads around the terminal.


2013R05EN

other problems are related to the rail access. for example, there is not enough capacity on the access tracks or there is often only one sided access to loading tracks from the main track which creates a higher operational effort for the trains. with increasing demand often the marshalling options are not sufficient any more.

another problem often found is the limited storage capacity, which limits the operational flexibility and efficiency of the terminal.

It is expected that all these problems will increase in the future, because the gap between the requirements and the opportunities with existing infrastructure will increase.

compared to the situation in europe we observed the following for other continents:

• the terminal layout and design do not fit today’s requirements any longer. This appears to be more critical in North America;

• water access and dangerous goods facilities are less critical in Australia;• road access is less critical in north america.

operation and management

with respect to operation and management, the main problems are shown in table 8:

table 8 - maIn sIngle problems operatIon and management


today (5 = max.)




2.5.3 lack of cooperation between intermodal actors 4.0 3.4 ↓

2.5.1 communications problems/Inefficiencies between actors 3.8 3.4 ↓

2.5.5 low influence of terminal operator on train or ship arrival 3.6 3.4 ↓

2.5.2 not satisfying information in case of delays and incidents 2.6 3.5 ↑

2.2.2 Inefficient railway shunting necessary 3.2 3.6 ↑

2.3.8 Inefficient railway control procedures 3.5 3.5 ↑

2.1.1 long waiting times for trucks at entry gates 3.3 3.5 ↑


2013R05EN

one main problem observed in many countries is the lack of cooperation between the intermodal actors. a related problem is the insufficient communication between the actors, especially in case of incidents and delays. usually the terminal operator has no or a very limited influence on the arrival of ships, trains or trucks. this creates demand peaks and leads to a non-optimal use of the terminal capacity. however, it is expected that most of these problems will diminish because of the increasing use of information and communication technologies.

Another problem area is the railway operation; the efficiency and quality is reduced by additional shunting and time consuming safety control procedures. these problems will increase or at least remain stagnant in the future.

long waiting times for trucks at entry gates have a negative impact on the productivity of trucks used in pre- and end-haulage and increase those costs. It is expected that this problem will increase in the future.


• missing added value services, missing equipment for handling dangerous goods and poor inspection of container at arrival are more relevant in north america and less relevant in Australia;

• missing terminal management systems and insufficient terminal security systems are more relevant in north america and less relevant in australia. the same is true for the shortage of staff and equipment and missing bonus/malus schemes;

• inefficient administrative processes and delays due to customs clearance seem to be problem especially in north america.

land use, environment and community acceptance

with respect to land use, environment and public involvement the main problems are shown in table 9, following page:


2013R05EN

table 9 - maIn sIngle problems land Use, enVIronment and pUblIc InVolVement


today (5 = max.)

Importance in the Future (5 =

max.)



3.1.3 missing extension possibilities of existing terminals 3.8 4.1 ↑

3.2.5 pollution from incoming/outgoing traffic 3.6 4.0 ↑

3.1.2 missing space for new terminals 3.7 3.9 ↑3.2.2 noise emissions on road access 3.4 3.9 ↑3.2.1 noise emissions from terminal 3.5 3.7 ↑3.1.5 conflicts with other land use

purposes 3.3 3.7 ↑

3.2.3 noise emissions on railway access 3.0 3.7 ↑3.3.1 space use 2.8 3.6 ↑3.1.1 terminals not considered in land use

planning 3.6 3.5 ↑

3.4.2 negative community attitude because of environmental problems 3.3 3.6 ↑

from the land use perspective, the main problems are the missing expansion possibilities of existing terminals, missing space for new terminals and conflicts with other land use purposes. often the terminals are not integrated in the land use planning process. these problems are a barrier for the development of intermodal terminals.

from the environmental perspective, the noise emissions on road access roads and the terminals themselves are critical problems. given the extensive land area used by terminals, these problems are even more relevant when terminals are situated in urban areas and the housing developments come too close to existing or planned terminals.

the environmental problems and the limited profitability (especially for inland terminals) often cause a negative community attitude to secure land and realize intermodal freight terminals.

It is expected that all these problems will augment in the future. the space for new terminals is often limited and it has to compete against other city developments, thus creating pressure on freight and logistics activities.


• missing space for new intermodal freight terminals or the extension of existing terminals is more critical in North America and less so in Australia;


2013R05EN

• noise and pollution seem to be more critical in north america and less so in Australia;

• community acceptance for the settlement of transhipment facilities is higher in africa than in the other continents.

Institutional issues and financing

with respect to the institutional issues and financing the main problems are shown in table 10:

table 10 - maIn sIngle problems InstItUtIonal IssUes and FInancIng


today (5 = max.)

Importance in the Future

(5 = max.)

Increase (↑) / Decrease (↓)of

importance expected

4.1.2 missing intermodal terminal location policy 3.8 3.5 ↓

4.6.5 missing quality and/or efficiency requirements for terminal funding 3.8 3.3 ↓

4.1.1 missing intermodal terminal network policy 3.8 3.1 ↓

4.1.4 missing coordination of terminal development on corridors 3.7 3.6 ↓

4.7.3 missing benchmarking of quality and efficiency of terminals 3.2 3.7 ↑

4.7.2 missing monitoring of efficiency of terminals 3.3 3.6 ↑

the main problems are related to terminal network policy, monitoring and funding.

In terms of terminal network policy, the main problems are the missing intermodal terminal network and terminal location policy, and the missing coordination of terminal development on freight corridors. It is expected that these problems will decrease in the future as the transport policy community becomes more and more aware on freight and intermodal issues.

with respect to monitoring, there is a missing benchmarking of quality and efficiency of terminals and a missing monitoring of the efficiency of terminals. It is expected that these problems will increase in the future because of the increasing degrees of capacity utilization of intermodal freight terminals.

In terms of funding, there are usually no quality and/or efficiency requirements that are connected to public funding. It is expected that this problem will decrease in the


2013R05EN

future because, with the lack of public money, the funding initiatives will get more restrictive and more scrutinized by the governments.


• missing security rules and standards are more critical in Africa than in other continents;• terminal network and location policy, and terminal planning and planning

procedures seem to be a bigger problem in north america and a smaller problem in Australia;

• missing public funding and funding rules are more relevant in north america and less relevant in australia. too low funding rates are especially a problem in Australia and Africa;

• missing monitoring and benchmarking is more critical in north america but less so in australia.

2.4. problems IdentIFIed In other stUdIes

problems relating to intermodal freight terminals have been also identified in other studies (rapp trans ag, 2005a and 2005b, uIc 2007a and 2007b, nea et al. 2008 and others, see references in chapter 5). the following sections list these problems in terms of infrastructure, operational/management, organizational and economical issues. these are not meant to be comprehensive and do focus more on the situation in europe.

2.4.1. Infrastructural problems

terminals in general:

• unsuitable and insufficient road access;• lack of space for storage;• lack of exclusive parking area: generally insufficient parking space for trucks at the

gate and within terminal area;• high efforts for shunting due to unsuitable track topology and layout;• missing expansion options;• insufficient crane/handling capacity;• incompatible transport means / load units / terminal equipment + heterogeneity

of loading units induced by various needs (ex: tank, reefer, etc.) : problem occurs when necessary investments and adjustments to new developments were not done;

• poor railway connection between main line and terminal/port: possible bottleneck in the rail side accessibility of the terminal;

• breakdown / failure of terminal equipment: (e.g., breakdown of a gantry crane might paralyze the whole terminal);

• insufficient equipment / procedures for handling of dangerous goods: Dangerous goods are an increasingly important market for combined transport;


2013R05EN

• poor public acceptability for intermodal terminals in urban areas due to intense heavy vehicles traffic generated by terminals (inland terminals more efficient, from a business point of view, when located close to economic centers).

rail / road terminals:

• unsatisfactory infrastructure in gateway terminals: rail-to-rail transhipment has specific requirements concerning infrastructure and operations. When a terminal’s function is extended towards a gateway, adjustments might be necessary;

• unsuitable terminal location: the location of terminals is not always suitable or becomes less suitable over time. The development of goods flows may come to a point where a terminal location has to be changed;

• loading tracks length is not corresponding with train length: the shortening of trains, which then becomes necessary, results in additional efforts;

• one-sided access only to loading tracks from the main track: additional shunting processes especially when using new production systems (liner trains, etc.);

• difference between operational concept of rail transport and terminal design: a terminal that initially was designed to be served with wagon groups now is served with full trains, having different requirements, (e.g. track length and transhipment times).

seaport terminals:

• Insufficient capacity and/or capacity management issue:

– too long vessel time at berth: berth time is an important cost factor and is therefore to be minimized;

– long vessel waiting times/ re-scheduling due to port congestion: In peak times, vessels have to wait offshore before they are unloaded, which is due to capacity bottlenecks;

– physical limitation of fairways: Infrastructure development often does not keep pace with technical development of vessels;

– insufficient mooring space: A capacity bottleneck that has to be eased by (costly) extensions or through a shortening of berth time.

• Significant tidal impact on seaside terminal access: As with barge terminals the accessibility may be affected with tides.

• Non-flexible infrastructure for increasing ship size (Marketing of container terminals).

• much longer development lead time of terminals than vessel dimensions and containerization of traffic.


2013R05EN

2.4.2. operational/management problems

• restricted terminal opening times: the customer service is limited due to short or unsuitable opening hours, which might not comply with the consignor’s logistics concept. the restriction of opening times can also be restricted by the public administration.

• Missing or insufficient management of incoming trucks: the terminal transfer time of a truck can be shortened with a precise and direct guidance of an incoming truck to its position on the loading lane.

• Inefficient internal administrative processes: this problem includes all document handling, customs clearance and checks and controls. these processes can often be optimized. These inefficiencies directly result in higher costs for labor and a suboptimal usage of the infrastructure.

• Insufficient security management systems: there is demand for the protection of transport units against theft, and increase in sabotage and terrorist activities. the security provided by terminals is sometimes lagging behind.

• low awareness of terminal operators on environmental concerns: as measures for a better protection of the environment (air, soil, noise, light, energy) are often associated with additional costs, the operator follow only the minimum regulatory standards/levels.

• long waiting times for trucks at entry gate: caused by several reasons, this problem mainly leads to a longer transfer time and lower efficiency.

• manual communication and monitoring: where suitable automatic systems are useful, reliability, transfer time, flexibility, security and efficiency might be increased.

• Communication problems/inefficiencies between main-haul, terminal, pre- and end-haulage: direct, reliable real-time information among the stakeholders is often missing.

• poor inspection of containers on arrival: for liability and safety reasons all loading units have to be properly checked on arrival.

• Non-satisfactory information flow in case of delays, abbreviations, and incidents: often lack of appropriate information exchange technologies and standards between all participants in the intermodal transport chain contribute to further inefficiencies.

• poor real-time monitoring of operations: in case of operational incidents, reaction times are too long and no measures can be taken in case of an unrecognized delay or problem.

• delays due to customs spot checks and clearance.• shortage of pilots: pilots guide a vessel into the port area. shortage of pilots leads

to costly waiting time for vessels.• Ineffective towage: improperly towage may lead to problems during unloading

and loading, which leads to time delay.• lack of coordination between terminal authorities and host-city authorities.


2013R05EN

• Insufficient access buffer for terminal incoming truck, long truck queues disrupt local traffic.

2.4.3. organizational problems

• Unsuitable form of terminal organization: publicly-owned terminals tend to have a lower flexibility in decision-making and administration. In this case, investment decisions are bound to budget availability or 5-year plans. furthermore, public authorities may apply fees, which could lead to a difficult market situation of the terminal.

• Low influence of terminal operator on train arrival and departure: during scheduling of rail services, the terminal operator has only little influence. If the terminal operator transport operators are joint ventures, it is possible to negotiate the departure and arrival times (i.e. in a tender of the traction service).

• missing cooperation between terminal operators and logistic service providers (information exchange, time planning, etc.): the involved parties in intermodal transport chains try to optimize their own business instead a common effort of all actors for optimizing the whole combined transport system. missing cooperation results in inefficiencies in physical processes as well as in information and communication flows.

• missing added value services at terminals: added value services such as container repair, hiring and selling of containers, energy for refrigerated units, etc. enhance customer value and might be requested by terminal users.

• low level of information integration among port community: a port encloses a high number of players. The higher the integration, the higher the efficiency.

• limited integration of long range planning coordination between the terminal and the host-city.

2.4.4. economical problems

• high investment costs.• high terminal operation costs (especially security processes and operation).• high total terminal costs, port fees: several factors lead to high costs and negatively

affect the market position of a seaport terminal. there is no refund in case of a truck losing time in congestion at port.

• Low profit for terminal services.

2.5. conclUsIons

the survey results (chapter 3.3) and the literature review (chapter 3.4) show comparable results on key problems relating to intermodal freight terminals. the following table shows importance of the problem areas.


2013R05EN

table 11 - synthesIs oVer problemsmain topics (4) problem areas (22) Importance

1. Infrastructure and equipment

1.1 road access1.2 railway access1.3 water access1.4 terminal layout and design1.5 transhipment area

2. operation and management

2.1 terminal access2.2 terminal handling2.3 terminal management2.4 terminal organization and administration2.5 cooperation between actors

3. land use, environment and public involvement

3.1 land use3.2 environment3.3 resources3.4 community acceptance

4. Institutional issues and Financing

4.1 terminal network policy4.2 terminal security4.3 liability4.4 labor rules and safety4.5 planning procedures4.6 funding4.7 monitoring

problem areas with higher importance problem areas with lower importance

deficiencies can be found in all the investigated areas: land use, environment and community involvement, infrastructure and equipment, operation and management and institutional issues and financing:

• with respect to land use, environment and community involvement the main problems hover around environmental issues, land use, resources, community and terminal network policy. It is expected that these problem will augment in the future;

• in terms of infrastructure and equipment the main problems revolve around terminal layout, railway access, and road access and transhipment area. It is expected that these problem will augment in the future;

• as for the terminal operation and management, the main problems relate to cooperation between actors and terminal organization and administration. It is expected that these problem will improve in the future;


2013R05EN

• with respect to institutional issues and financing the main problems relate to planning procedures and monitoring. It is expected that first one will improve and the second one worsen in the future.

the top 5 problems by problem area are:

table 12 - top 5 problems by problem area

all these problems have a negative impact on capacity, efficiency and quality of intermodal freight terminals. because of the central role of terminals in intermodal freight transport chains there is also a negative impact on development of intermodal transport as a whole. these results are in line with problems identified in other studies.

Chapter 3 presents good/best practices, which addresses the problems and challenges identified above and provides recommendations to increase capacity, efficiency and quality of intermodal freight terminals.

3. good practIces

3.1. IntrodUctIon

within this chapter good practices relating to intermodal freight terminals are presented, especially covering

• terminal infrastructure planning and design,• terminal operation and management,


2013R05EN

• environment, land use and community involvement,• institutional and financial issues.

good practices should have considerable and measurable positive effects (improving quality, improving efficiency, reduction of environmental burdens, etc.) on the transport system leading to an increase in the share of intermodal transport. good practices should be based on real experiences (real world implementations, projects, concepts, strategies) or should be based on promising research projects or prototypes that can be successfully implemented.

sources for good practices are reports dealing with intermodal freight terminals and cases collected by experts of the b.4 committee.

within chapter 4 good practices are summarized by main area (see above). more information on specific cases is available in Appendix 2.

3.2. oVerVIeW on good practIces

Table 13 presents the good practice cases looked at in more detail and the topics covered relating to intermodal freight terminals.


2013R05ENta

bl

e 1

3 - o

Ve

rV

IeW

on

go

od

pr

ac

tIc

e c

ase

s

bes

t pra

ctic

e c

ases

1. Intermodal terminal base/Weil

2. container terminal altenwerder

3. pierpass

4. trimodal terminal genk

5. liège trilogiport

6. bilk Intermodal terminal

7. super central port project

8. International freight trunk network

9. short sea container shipping

10. container Use in Western canada

11. burrard inlet and robert banks land Use plan

12. Fraser river land Use plan

13. port northfraser river land Use plan

14. Intermodal Funding canada and Usa

15. seaport terminal manzanillo

16. seaport terminal Veracruz

17. alnabru terminal

18. railport gothenburg

19. location evaluation for a new gateway terminal

20. Intermodal rail transport for Waste logistics

term

inal

typ

es c

over

ed

seap

ort t

erm

inal

Inla

nd p

ortt

erm

inal

Inla

nd r

ail/r

oad

term

inal

are

asc

ope

term

inal

In

fras

truc

ture

pl

anni

ng a

nd

des

ign

roa

d ac

cess

acc

ess b

y ot

her m

odes

(sea

, riv

er,ra

il)

tran

ship

men

t bet

wee

n m

odes

term

inal

loca

tion

plan

ning

term

inal

lay

out p

lann

ing

and

desi

gn

stan

dard

s for

pla

nnin

g an

d de

sign

term

inal

o

pera

tion

and

man

agem

ent

term

inal

ope

ratio

n/ha

ndlin

g (in

cl. d

ata

tran

sfer

t)

term

inal

man

agem

ent

term

inal

org

anis

atio

n an

d ad

min

istr

atio

n

coo

pera

tion

betw

een

acto

rs

ben

chm

arki

ng/K

pI’s

envi

ronm

ent,

land

us

e an

d pu

blic

in

volv

emen

t

land

use

pla

nnin

g

envi

ronm

ent a

nd r

esso

urce

s

publ

ic in

volv

emen

t

Inst

itutio

nal a

nd

fina

ncia

l iss

ues

term

inal

net

wor

k po

licy

term

inal

regu

latio

n

term

inal

fina

ncin

g/fu

ndin

g

mon

itori

ng


2013R05EN

3.3. termInal InFrastrUctUre plannIng and desIgn

3.3.1. terminal location planning and evaluation

for the efficiency, quality and especially the economical viability the location of an intermodal seaport, inland port and inland rail/road terminal plays an important role. therefore a comprehensive and proper location planning is necessary taking into account relevant criteria.

the purpose of location planning and evaluation process (vss 2011, rapp trans ag/Ivt ethz 2005) is to identify a feasible and suitable terminal location which:

• possesses sufficient space (and consideration for future expansions);• allows an excellent access to the superior transport network (road, rail, inland

waterway, sea);• provides a sufficient market potential;• possesses an optimal location regarding the function;• makes an efficient terminal operation possible;• minimizes the negative impact on environment and society;• has low capital investment, operation and maintenance costs.

In the terminal location planning process, typically a macro-level location evaluation is carried out first followed by a micro location evaluation. the macro location evaluation is the spatial identification of a suitable terminal location on a continent, in a country or in a region. the micro location evaluation is the local identification of a suitable terminal location within a macro location region.

the process of a terminal location planning and evaluation can be seen in the following figure 19, following page (vss 2011, rapp trans ag/Ivt ethz 2005):


2013R05EN

Location Requirements

• Minimum Requirements /Exclusion Criteria

• Assessment Criteria

Location Search and Investigation

Rough Evaluation

Pre-selection of locations based on the most important assessment

criteria

In Depth Evaluation (incl. Sensitivity Analysis, Risk

Analysis, Proof of Feasibility)

of the pre-selected locations

Overall Assessment and Locationrecommendation

Market / Operator Requirements, Framework Conditions(incl. plan figures)

Simple Assessment Methods- Assessmen of

Advantages/Disadvantages- Index-Assessment- Ranking Summation Assessment- Simplified Multi Criteria Analysis

Complex Assessment methods- Multi Criteria Analysis- Comparison Value Assessment- Cost/Effectivenes Analysis- Cost-Benefit-Analysis

Economic Analysis- Return on Investment- Pay Back Period- Net Present Value

Location Basic Information (today / future)- Land use plans- Transport plans- Transport concepts- Terminal situation- Locations of shippers and

Logistics/transport serviceproviders

- properties and owners- Building regulation- Land use regulations- Topography / Geology- Land availability- Land prices- Position / Interest of

authorities- Surrounding- etc.

Negotiations withauthorities and land owners

General Operational Concept and Terminal layout

Feeb

ack

cycl

e





Rough Evaluation


criteria
















Feeb

ack

cycl

e

fIgure 19 - general process of termInal locatIon and evaluatIon plannIng (vss 2011)

based on the market needs and the terminal operator and the regulatory framework conditions the requirements and assessment criteria for the location planning and evaluation are defined. locations which do not fulfill the assessment criteria should be excluded from further investigations. the defined assessment criteria are the basis for both rough and in depth assessment.

a rough evaluation will only be carried out for locations that fulfill the minimum requirements. In case that none or not enough terminal location options meet the minimum requirements they have to be adapted within a feedback loop process.

for the in depth evaluation the most suitable locations after the rough evaluation are considered. at the micro location evaluation, preliminary concrete terminal layouts are needed. the in depth evaluation is usually based on more complex assessment procedures including sensitivity, risk and feasibility analysis.the feasibility study includes the analysis of the technical feasibility, the economic viability including the financing options, the legal feasibility and an evaluation of the political acceptance.

Important macro location criteria are regional potential / hub potential, location in railway network, integration in intermodal network, catchment area, connection to marshalling yards, land use, etc.


2013R05EN

Important micro location criteria are road and rail accessibility (inland waterway, sea), freight flows/local potential, availability of space, lot shape, extension possibilities, sensitivity of the area around the location and the access roads, legal restrictions, operation restrictions, land costs, building costs, political acceptance, etc.

the location planning and evaluation procedure shown in figure 19 can be applied to macro and micro location investigations. differences result in the level of detail of the investigation, the selection of the weighting of assessment criteria and the assessment methods used.

during the terminal location planning and evaluation processes all the relevant actors including terminal operator, railway infrastructure manager, railway undertaking, intermodal service providers, national transport authorities, regional and local authorities should be involved.

the location planning and evaluation approach was successfully applied in the good practice case “Location evaluation for a new gateway terminal in Zurich, Switzerland” (case 19 in Appendix 2). the socio-economic analysis and assessment lead to a suitable and feasible intermodal terminal location which is now secured in the regional and national transport plan.

3.3.2. general terminal planning process

Figure 20 shows the general procedure for terminal planning and design for new terminals or the extension of existing terminals (vss eK 8.04, 2011).

before the concrete terminal planning and design phase and the location evaluation (see previous section) a user needs analysis with a long term freight forecast is done.

the user needs analysis provides an important input for the macro location evaluation, in which the spatial choice of a suitable location is made under consideration of the location requirements.

In the framework of a planning study the terminal process and a rough terminal layout is carried out. this is important for the micro location evaluation, which takes into consideration also the surface needs (see also chapter 3.3.1).

subsequently, the possible investment and operation/business models have to be evaluated. at the same time the operation concept should be established and the layout and design be further developed. the financing analysis will take into account private and public financing/investment.


2013R05EN

fIgure 20 - general process of termInal plannIng (vss 2011)

finally, the definitive/final project is selected. It is important that the public is adequately informed throughout the planning process.

It is recommended to carry out after each planning phase a risk respectively a swot analysis and based on the results to decide on the further steps of the project.

the terminal planning and design process was successfully applied in the good practice case “Inland Terminal Basel/Weil, Germany and Switzerland” (Case 1 in Appendix 2).

3.3.3. terminal infrastructure planning and design

Important objectives of the terminal planning and design process are as follows (based on vss eK 8.04, 2011):

• provision of efficient and low cost transhipment services;• provision of client-oriented added value-services;


2013R05EN

• conception of effective and efficient terminal facilities, which can economically operated;

• good and safe working conditions for staff;• safe transhipment of loading units;• high security against thefts and terrorist attacks;• minimization of impact on residents;• minimization of environmental impact and risks; • optimization of use of financing means for investment, operation and maintenance

costs;• optimization of connection between road, rail, ship and inland waterway.

the concrete planning of a terminal consists of the following phases:

• basic information procurement;• preparation of a requirements catalogue;• definition of processes and internal and external interfaces;• design of layout and operational concept; • design of pre-project;• design of final project.

In parallel to the planning/design activities a business plan for the proof of the economic viability has to be prepared.

freight transportation is global and needs cooperation on international level. many different actors are involved during planning, realization and operation phase which makes it necessary to involve the relevant stakeholders in each phase. In addition to the local situation (existing infrastructure, regulations, standards, and specific conditions from the municipality) there are a number of factors that have big influence on the terminal layout and design:

• the transport concept (terminal function, connected modes, location in network, etc.);

• freight flow structure (volumes in tons and loading units, share of dangerous goods, number of connections/relations);

• share of intermodal transhipments by mode combination (road, rail, ship, inland waterway);

• handled types of loading units and their share (containers, swap bodies, semi-trailer);• transhipment technology (crane, reach stacker, roll-on-roll-of technology,

horizontal technology);• rail / ship operation concept;• longtime storage of loading units;• transhipment procedure: normal or floating procedure (rail terminals);


2013R05EN

• added value services (logistics services, maintenance, repair, lease/rent, customs, etc.);

• use of Ict and automation.

3.3.4. Intermodal rail/road terminal concepts

there are various terminal concepts applied in europe (uIc 2007). the differences can be attributed to cultural, economic or historical reasons. In spite of that, during the last 10 to 15 years, one terminal concept providing common or very similar features has become more and more popular across europe. this particular concept can be characterized as follows (uIc 2007):

• the terminals are built around a handling area ensuring the transfer between road and rail. this handling area is best described as a module which can be multiplied if more capacity is required. the handling area, with capacity to handle an annual volume of 120,000 to 150,000 units, typically has the following components:

– 4 railway tracks of 600 to 700 m each (or up to 750 m), – 1 driving lane and 1 loading/unloading lane for trucks, – 3-4 intermediate storage lanes, – 2 rail-mounted gantry cranes over all tracks and lanes;

• additionally these terminals provide 2 to 4 arrival/departure tracks adjacent to the facility or at nearby marshalling yards or rail stations;

• european rail/road terminals are used to allow all trucks entering the handling area. Consequently they also carry out live-lifts between truck and train;

• the check-in/check-out is usually a manual gate with desk service for drivers. today there is only a few exceptions with semi-automated clearance processes.

fIgure 21 - typIcal european raIl/road termInal concept

(cross-section, www.duss-terminal.de)

there is a trend in europe - and also in the u.s. - to compact intermodal freight terminals. the reasons behind this are the increasing land prices, lack of space, environmental reasons and the pressure to increase the productivity. examples for


2013R05EN

compact rail/road terminals with efficient transhipment services are the terminal basel/weil (Good Practice Case 1 in Appendix 2) and the Intermodal bIlK terminal (Good Practice Case 6, Appendix 2). one example of a compact seaport terminal is hamburg altenwerder (Good Practice Case 2, Appendix 2).

In europe intermodal systems have been established which are also suitable for short and medium distance based on a vehicle based roll-on / roll-off transhipment technology (rapp trans ag / Ivt ethz 2005).

roll-on and off container transport system (known as acts) is a horizontal transshipment system for handling containers from trucks to rail. the system consists of a road vehicle tipper chassis fitted with approved road - rail load transfer equipment using a hook or chain attachment; a rail wagon fitted with specially designed turntables, and container units, typically 5.95 meters long, with payloads varying between 13 and 28 tonnes and up to 30 cubic meters according to loading gauge. the acts mega fret version operates with 7.42 meters or 5.95 meters or 5 meters long containers with maximum volumes/payload of 34 m3/18 tonnes. the system does not need conventional fixed terminal installations and can be operated at any public goods station or private sidings positioned beside a 10 meter wide roadway.

53/173

d’installations fixes conventionnelles et peut être utilisé dans toute station de marchandises publique ou dans tout embarquement privé situé à côté d’une chaussée d’une largeur de 10 mètres.

FIGURE 22 - SYSTÈME ACTS

Le système est particulièrement approprié pour la charge partielle de train ou des flux de fret à petit volume ou encore le trafic qui nécessite des points d’origine ou de destination fréquemment changeants, et il convient à un large éventail de types de conteneurs, notamment les culbuteurs, les boîtes, les unités planes, les unités à rideaux latéraux, les camions-citernes et les unités réfrigérées. Le transfert des conteneurs du rail à la route est très rapide et peut être effectué par le conducteur du véhicule routier en moins de trois minutes, sans aucun équipement ou aide supplémentaire. Un système de verrouillage assure la sécurité des conteneurs durant le transport ferroviaire. Le système ACTS est utilisé avec succès lorsqu’il n’y a aucune installation de transbordement sur le site. Comme l’unité de transbordement fait partie du véhicule, la seule installation nécessaire est un espace suffisant pour entreprendre le processus de transbordement. Le système est utilisé dans un certain nombre de pays européens, notamment la Suisse, l’Autriche, l’Allemagne, la Hongrie et la Pologne. Les caractéristiques du système et la structure des coûts semblent faire de l’ACTS un système particulièrement intéressant pour les exploitations ayant de faibles niveaux de trafic et de flux régionaux de produits spéciaux ou industriels ou de déchets. À titre d’exemple, le système ACTS est utilisé avec succès dans les chaînes de transport logistique de déchets en Suisse (Bonnes Pratiques – cas 20, annexe II). La technologie de transbordement mobile est un autre système de transport intermodal basé sur une technologie de transbordement horizontal motorisé. Là encore, nul besoin de grues ni de gerbeur à tablier porte-fourche rétractable. Le système est utilisé en Autriche et en Suisse.

FIGURE 23 - TRANSBORDEMENT HORIZONTAL D’autres développements concernent la technologie de transbordement horizontal basé sur les wagons. Comparativement aux terminaux conventionnels, on n’a pas besoin de portiques roulants ni de gerbeurs à tablier porte-fourche rétractable. Ces systèmes sont déjà utilisés en France et on envisage de les utiliser également en Allemagne.

fIgure 22 - acts system

the system is particularly appropriate for part train load or smaller volume freight flows, or traffic which requires frequently changing points of origin or destination, and is suitable for a wide variety of container body types, including tipper, box, flat, curtain sider, tanker and refrigerated units.

the transfer of containers from rail to road is very fast and can be operated by the road vehicle driver in less than three minutes, with no additional persons or equipment required. a locking system ensures the safety of containers during rail transit.

acts is successful in operations where no transhipment facilities are available on site. as the transhipment unit is part of the vehicle the only facility needed is enough space adjacent to the rail track to undertake the transhipment process. the system is used in a number of european countries: e.g. switzerland, austria, germany, hungary and poland.


2013R05EN

the system characteristics and cost structure seem to make acts particularly interesting for operations with low levels of traffic and regional flows of special or industrial goods or waste. the acts system is for example successfully used in waste logistics transport chains in switzerland (Good Practice Case 20, Appendix 2).

mobiler transhipment technology is another intermodal transport system based on vehicle related horizontal transhipment technology. there are also no cranes or reach stackers required. the system is used in austria and switzerland.

53/173

d’installations fixes conventionnelles et peut être utilisé dans toute station de marchandises publique ou dans tout embarquement privé situé à côté d’une chaussée d’une largeur de 10 mètres.

FIGURE 22 - SYSTÈME ACTS

Le système est particulièrement approprié pour la charge partielle de train ou des flux de fret à petit volume ou encore le trafic qui nécessite des points d’origine ou de destination fréquemment changeants, et il convient à un large éventail de types de conteneurs, notamment les culbuteurs, les boîtes, les unités planes, les unités à rideaux latéraux, les camions-citernes et les unités réfrigérées. Le transfert des conteneurs du rail à la route est très rapide et peut être effectué par le conducteur du véhicule routier en moins de trois minutes, sans aucun équipement ou aide supplémentaire. Un système de verrouillage assure la sécurité des conteneurs durant le transport ferroviaire. Le système ACTS est utilisé avec succès lorsqu’il n’y a aucune installation de transbordement sur le site. Comme l’unité de transbordement fait partie du véhicule, la seule installation nécessaire est un espace suffisant pour entreprendre le processus de transbordement. Le système est utilisé dans un certain nombre de pays européens, notamment la Suisse, l’Autriche, l’Allemagne, la Hongrie et la Pologne. Les caractéristiques du système et la structure des coûts semblent faire de l’ACTS un système particulièrement intéressant pour les exploitations ayant de faibles niveaux de trafic et de flux régionaux de produits spéciaux ou industriels ou de déchets. À titre d’exemple, le système ACTS est utilisé avec succès dans les chaînes de transport logistique de déchets en Suisse (Bonnes Pratiques – cas 20, annexe II). La technologie de transbordement mobile est un autre système de transport intermodal basé sur une technologie de transbordement horizontal motorisé. Là encore, nul besoin de grues ni de gerbeur à tablier porte-fourche rétractable. Le système est utilisé en Autriche et en Suisse.

FIGURE 23 - TRANSBORDEMENT HORIZONTAL D’autres développements concernent la technologie de transbordement horizontal basé sur les wagons. Comparativement aux terminaux conventionnels, on n’a pas besoin de portiques roulants ni de gerbeurs à tablier porte-fourche rétractable. Ces systèmes sont déjà utilisés en France et on envisage de les utiliser également en Allemagne.

fIgure 23 - mobIler horIzontal transshIpment

other developments are related to rail wagon based horizontal transhipment technologies. compared to conventional terminals there is no need for gantry cranes or reach stackers. such systems are already used in france and there are also plans to use them in germany.

54/173

FIGURE 24 - TRANSBORDEMENT HORIZONTAL BASÉ SUR LES WAGONS

Aux États-Unis, les terminaux intermodaux sont habituellement construits selon un concept standard de base dans l’ensemble du pays et ils varient presque uniquement sur le plan de la capacité et de la taille (UIC 2007). Les facteurs qui déterminent en grande partie la disposition des terminaux sont l’organisation distincte du processus et les technologies de manutention généralement déployées (UIC 2007) : les terminaux intermodaux aux États-Unis se caractérisent par la manutention indirecte des unités de chargement intermodales. Les opérations côté camion et côté rail sont d’habitude complètement séparées. Le camion de livraison stationne les unités de chargement intermodales dans des zones de stationnement intermédiaires en vue de l’expédition ferroviaire, et ces unités sont ensuite transférées à la zone de manutention par les véhicules du terminal. Dans certaines installations, toutefois, les voies ferroviaires permettent aux camions d’entrer dans la zone de manutention pour un transbordement direct ou de levage des charges. Dans la plupart des cas, les voies ferroviaires bloquent certains créneaux pour la manutention directe d’unités intermodales pour éviter les interférences avec les mouvements internes ; les terminaux américains actuels comptent une opération basée sur les roues. Chaque unité de chargement intermodal est stationnée sur des roues, à l’espace de stationnement intermédiaire. Cela va de soi pour une remorque, mais les conteneurs restent sur le châssis utilisé pour leur transport routier. La série complète – conteneur sur châssis – est ensuite transportée par les tracteurs du terminal vers le chantier de manutention. Aucun gerbeur ni chariot élévateur à fourche n’est requis dans la zone de stationnement intérimaire. Le prérequis pour ce processus est que chaque client intermodal est membre d’une mise en commun de châssis, utilise la mise en commun de châssis de la voie ferroviaire et fait livrer sa propre flotte de châssis qui sera utilisée par la voie ferroviaire ; le “centre” du terminal, à savoir le chantier de manutention, présente aussi une conception standard. La capacité de manutention d’une installation est facilement augmentée en multipliant les modules de manutention. Chacun d’entre eux comprend les éléments suivants : - une voie de manutention, - une voie de stationnement pour les remorques et les conteneurs sur châssis qui seront transférés

aux wagons, - une voie de conduite pour les véhicules, - des portiques roulants mobiles à pneumatique qui couvrent le module de manutention au complet

pour effectuer le transbordement des unités ; les voies de stationnement ou d’appui pour le stationnement intermédiaire de séries de trains sont également nécessaires. Les voies ferroviaires américaines essaient de les placer de façon adjacente au terminal.

Ce concept de manutention de terminal donne lieu à une disposition typique adoptée par toutes les principales voies ferroviaires et mise en œuvre dans la plupart des terminaux intermodaux.

fIgure 24 - raIl-wagon based horIzontal transshIpment

u. s. intermodal terminals are usually built to a basic standard concept all over the country and vary virtually only in capacity and size (uIc 2007). what largely determine the layout of terminals are the distinctive process organization and handling technologies generally deployed (uIc 2007):

• intermodal terminals in the u.s. are characterized by the indirect handling of intermodal loading units. truck- and rail-side operations are usually completely separated. the delivery truck park the intermodal loading units for rail shipment in interim parking areas, and these units are subsequently transferred to the handling area by terminal vehicles. at some facilities, however, railways allow trucks to


2013R05EN

enter the handling area for direct or live-lift load transhipments. In most cases the railways block certain time slots for the direct handling of intermodal units to avoid interferences with internal movements;

• current u.s. terminals feature a wheel-based operation. every intermodal loading unit is parked on wheels on the interim parking spot. this is self-evident for a trailer, but containers remain on the chassis used for their road conveyance. the complete set – container on chassis – is then taken by terminal tractors into the handling yard. no reach-stacker or fork-lift truck is required at the interim parking area. the prerequisite for this process organization is that each intermodal customer is member of a chassis pool, uses one railway’s chassis pool, or has his own fleet of chassis delivered for use by the railway;

• the “heart” of the terminal, the handling yard, also features a standard design. the handling capacity of a facility is easily increased by multiplying the handling modules. each includes the following components:

– one handling track, – one parking lane for the trailers and chassis-mounted containers to be transferred onto wagons,

– one driving lane for vehicles, – mobile rubber-tyred gantry cranes spanning the entire handling module to enforce the transhipment of units;

• parking or support tracks for the intermediate parking of train sets are also required. u.s. railways try to locate them adjacent to the terminal.

this terminal handling concept results in a typical layout adopted by all major railways and implemented at most intermodal terminals.

55/173

FIGURE 25 - CONCEPT DE TERMINAL RAIL/ROUTE AMÉRICAIN TYPE (ICTF TERMINAL LOS ANGELES)

Selon les objectifs en matière de protection de l’environnement (pollution de l’air, utilisation des terres, bruit), on peut observer les tendances suivantes dans les concepts de terminal (UIC 2007) : disposition plus compacte des modules de manutention composés de portiques roulants à potence de grande portée et une série de voies de manutention sous le portique de la grue ; à cause de l’accès direct aux camions aux fins de manutention, on peut aussi entreprendre des levages ; mise en œuvre de portiques roulants encastrés. Ils assurent le transfert entre les camions et la zone d’entreposage intérimaire espacée pour les conteneurs. Les grands portiques roulants déplacent le conteneur entre cette zone et les wagons ; pour atteindre l’objectif de lutte contre la pollution de l’air, les lignes ferroviaires ont été forcées à passer d’un équipement de manutention au diesel à des portiques roulants sur rails alimentés par électricité et à réduire, voire éliminer, les mouvements de tracteurs à l’intérieur des terminaux.

Ces développements peuvent également mener à une réduction substantielle du coût d’investissement et de fonctionnement. Autre développement aux États-Unis : un système rail/route bimodal qui n’a pas besoin d’une infrastructure de transbordement vertical comme des grues ou des gerbeurs à tablier porte-fourche rétractable. Ce système est composé de trois éléments (www.railrunner.com) : châssis construit spécialement pour l’opération ferroviaire et routière, capable de porter des conteneurs ISO de 40’ à 53’ (expédition nationale) et de 20’ à 45’ (expédition internationale) (il y a également lieu d’utiliser une remorque) ; des boggies intermédiaires pour fournir un soutien ferroviaire entre deux châssis RailRunner sur une suspension pneumatique ; et des boggies de transition pour relier les châssis RailRunner au train ou à un autre wagon porte-rails standard.

FIGURE 26 - TECHNOLOGIE BIMODALE RAIL/ROUTE (WWW.RAILRUNNER.COM)

fIgure 25 - typIcal u.s. raIl/road termInal concept (Ictf termInal los angeles)

based on environmental objectives (air pollution, land use, noise) the following trends in terminal concepts can be observed (uIc 2007):


2013R05EN

• more compact terminal layout of handling modules composed with wide-span cantilever gantry cranes and a set of handling tracks under the crane portal;

• owing to the direct access of trucks to handling, yard live-lifts can also be undertaken;

• implementation of so called nested gantry cranes. they perform the transfer between lorries and interim storage spaced for containers. the large gantry cranes move the container between this area and the wagons;

• to meet the air pollution objective, the railways have been forced to shift from diesel-driven handling equipment to electrically-powered rail-mounted gantry cranes, and reduce or even eliminate terminal-internal tractor movements.

these developments also lead in a substantial reduction of investment and operation cost.

another development in the us is a bi-modal rail/road system which does not need vertical transhipment infrastructure as cranes or reach stackers. It consists of three elements (www.railrunner.com): purpose-built chassis for rail and highway operation, able to carry 40’ to 53’ domestic and 20’ to 45’ international Iso shipping containers (a trailer solution can also be made available); Intermediate bogies to provide rail support between two RailRunner chassis on air-ride suspension; and transition bogies to connect railrunner consists to locomotive power or to another standard railcar.

fIgure 26 - bImodal technology raIl/road (www.railrunner.com)

the railrunner intermodal terminal itself can be located nearly anywhere. all that’s required is an appropriate railroad siding, some gravel or concrete grading on and by the tracks and approximately 75 feet of maneuvering room for each unit or rail car. the system is in operation in the united states.


2013R05EN

56/173

Le terminal intermodal RailRunner peut être localisé presque n’importe où. Tout ce qu’il faut, c’est un embranchement rail-route approprié, un terrassement en gravier ou en béton sur les voies ou à côté de celles-ci et un espace de manœuvre d’environ 75 pieds pour chaque unité ou wagon porte-rails. Le système est en fonction aux États-Unis.

FIGURE 27 - TECHNOLOGIE BIMODALE RAIL/ROUTE (WWW.RAILRUNNER.COM)

Au Canada, les principes de conception des terminaux sont comparables à ceux des États-Unis, mais ils sont adaptés aux conditions réglementaires canadiennes. Ainsi, ils sont basés sur des classifications fonctionnelles, comme terminal « autonome », « satellite » et « polyvalent », et selon leur taille (Quorum 2007). Les exigences terrestres varient de 0,85 à 5,7 hectares, selon le type de terminal. La longueur des voies de transbordement peuvent varier de 200 à 1 700 mètres, selon le type de terminal. 3.3.5. Analyse des terminaux rail/route selon la taille et la capacité La capacité de transbordement d’un terminal intermodal rail/route en particulier est déterminé par les facteurs suivants (UIC, 2004, voir la figure 28) : infrastructure et superstructure : nombre et longueur des voies de transbordement ; nombre et type de dispositifs de manutention ; organisation du processus des terminaux : accès routier et ferroviaire, processus opérationnels ferroviaires, y compris le facteur de flux, l’organisation interne et le soutien TI ; type de services intermodaux : services de train-bloc, charges maritimes/continentales ; type et part d’unités de transport intermodal, par exemple part d’unités empilables ; semi-remorques ; comportement des clients et heures d’ouverture.

fIgure 27 - bImodal technology raIl/road (www.railrunner.com)

In canada terminal design principles are comparable to the us, but adapted to canadian framework conditions. they are based on functional terminal classifications as stand alone, satellite and general purpose terminal and their size (Quorum 2007). the land requirements vary depending on terminal type between 0.85 and 5.7 hectares. the length of the transhipment tracks can vary by terminal type between 200 and 1,700 meters.

3.3.5. terminal sizing and capacity analysis of rail/road terminals

the transhipment capacity of an intermodal rail/road terminal in particular is determined by the following influences (uIc, 2004, see figure 28):

• infrastructure and superstructure: number and length of transhipment tracks;• number and type of handling devices;• terminal process organization: road and rail access, railway operational processes

incl. flow factor, internal organization and IT support;• type of intermodal services: block train services, maritime/continental loads;• type and share of intermodal transport units, e.g. share of stackable units;• semi-trailers;• customer behavior and opening times.


2013R05EN

fIgure 28 - capacIty determInants of raIl/road termInals

In addition we have to distinguish between rail-road transhipments and other handling activities, which are not counted as part of the transport statistics though binding transhipment capacity like:

• rail-rail handlings in hub or gateway terminals,• operational handlings of units, which were not transshipped live-lifted between

truck and wagon,• depot handlings to treat storage and empty containers.

the transhipment capacity of an intermodal terminal is primarily determined by two limiting components: the total length of the handling tracks, and the number and efficiency of the handling equipment. the smaller of the two results has to be considered as the technical transhipment capacity if there are no other capacity limitations of the transport infrastructure to/from the terminal. the reader can consult uIc (2004) for further details on capacity calculations.

3.3.6. terminal dimensioning and capacity analysis for seaport terminals

total capacity of an intermodal terminal depends on the number of available anchor position and their characteristics. In turn, the capacity of each anchor position depends on the capacity of their critical elements.

length of the pier defines optimal size of container and of maximum volume of containers to be moved by ship (loading/unloading of loaded and empty containers).


2013R05EN

crane productivity (number of manoeuvres per hour), and average time for each manoeuvre is important as it determines ship waiting times and finally the business volume (average number of operations per month). the most important issue is the maximum number of possible manoeuvre per day as it defines maximum capacity for peak demand days.

fIgure 29 - ect delta termInal rotterdam

terminal capacity will also depend on storage capacity. paradoxically, load and unload capacity in a terminal increases as direct platform or railway cars manoeuvres are reduced.

direct load to platforms requires much skill by crane operators. In any case, even with a skilled crane operator, time for load or unload is slower. this type of manoeuvre benefits the shipper which spends less time in port but punishes the ship and the terminal.

nowadays, with the security measures that impose random inspections, transfer is done indirectly, through temporary storage in yard.

Indirect loading/unloading benefits both the terminal and the shipping line, without much penalizing the shipper (implies additional manoeuvre costs).

capacity of the loaded container storage yard depends on the available land and the number of levels of stowage. It also depends on the average release time of containers. to the extent that this time is short, the capacity will increase. release time depends on the procedures, inspection policy (percentage of inspections), the broker’s ability to handle online information with its customers and the local office.

capacity of empty containers yard depends solely on the available land and the number of levels, since the logic of this business is renting space to shipping lines.


2013R05EN

entrance/exit capacity of terminal is calculated based on the number of operations during peak hours, and the processing time required recognizing the tractor and the container when it enters or leaves the terminal. even in the highly efficient terminals there are small queues at the terminal entrance/exit. the problem becomes critical in terminals without efficient automated registration systems with enough capacity.

3.3.7. road access principles

It is recognized that the majority of cargo arriving and departing distribution centers located on rail connected sites will be by road transport. Intermodal rail freight is also based on final road deliveries to and from the rail terminal. as such, a successful terminal should be located close to and have clear and unconstrained access to major road and highway thoroughfares. this can be done through the following means (mds transmodal ltd, 2004):

approach routes from the trunk/motorway network to the rail freight terminal being suitable for handling large volumes of vehicles with varying length and gross weight that are planned to use the terminal;

• minimal environmental impact on other land uses on the approach routes to/from the terminal;

• connectivity to the trunk/motorway network. rail terminals should be located so that the trip time from the site to the highway network is minimized. the highway network is typically designed to accommodate large volumes of goods vehicles. In addition, the sooner a vehicle can reach its maximum cruising speed, the more efficiently it operates and the catchment area served by the terminal is maximized.

governments can play a major role for direct connection to highway system by ensuring adequate road access for existing port-related industrial areas, and continuing to plan for goods movement as an integral element in their road planning activities. one example for improving seaport terminal access roads is the “Road Network feasible for international logistics” (Good Practice Case 8, Appendix 2) or “Inland Terminal Basel/Weil” (Good Practice Case 1, Appendix 2).

It is important to take the opportunity whenever possible to add an efficient terminal access. like in the port of veracruz, mexico (Good Practice Case 16, Appendix 2), where a major sea port expansion is taken place by adding contiguous land, the existing road (and rail) access will be replaced by a new road (and rail) access at the new contiguous land avoiding city downtown congested areas.

while adequate access to the trunk routes is important, given the increasing levels of congestion of many roadway systems it is equally important to apply advanced traffic management systems to reduce traffic volumes during peak periods as much


2013R05EN

as possible. pierpass is a good example of such initiatives (Good Practice Case 3, Appendix 2). pierpass is a not-for-profit company created by marine terminal operators at the ports of los angeles and long beach in 2005 to address multi-terminal issues such as congestion, security and air quality. It imposes a “Traffic Mitigation Fee” on all cargo imported and exported through these two ports. to provide an incentive for shippers and truckers to use off-peak operations, this fee is refunded on all traffic that is handled through the marine terminal gates during off-peak hours.

3.3.8. rail access principles

already when looking at the optimal location of an intermodal terminal the rail access has to be taken into account. an optimal location of the intermodal terminal relating to the railway network is a key factor. especially the necessary number of available rail freight slots and the connection to the single waggon traffic network are important requirements. also the shunting options near a potential terminal location have to be taken into account, because they have an influence on necessary shunting facilities on the terminal.

especially important for efficient intermodal terminals are the following requirements (rapp trans ag/Ivt ethz 2005):

• two rail tracks for the intermodal rail access to increase operational rail reliability between rail main network and terminal location;

• rail access from both sides of the terminal to minimize shunting processes and to reduce the train dwelling time in the terminal;

• the rail transshipment tracks and also the feeder and transfer tracks should be sized to the maximum train length to avoid unnecessary shunting;

• there should be enough capacity for trains to be put aside (especially when the floating procedure is applied) and for empty wagons.

the horizontal and vertical design of the rail tracks should consider the most actual standards for rail engineering regarding intermodal terminals. a good example for terminal rail access design is the rail/road terminal basel/weil (Good Practice case 1, Appendix 2).

3.3.9. dry port concept

the transshipment volumes at intermodal seaport terminals are increasing on many continents. there are usually also limitations in the port hinterland road infrastructure, which cannot follow the port volume developments and the port capacity extensions. another problem is the pollution from road truck traffic from and to the seaports in the city areas.


2013R05EN

there is also an economic interest of the ports to increase the catchment area (incl. the port volumes) and to control the hinterland services to increase their efficiency and quality for the benefit of their customers.

one solution to solve this problem is the dry port concept. a dry port is defined as an intermodal terminal directly connected to seaports with high capacity transport means where customers can leave/pick up their standardized units as if directly to a seaport (in woxenius j. 2004).

Figure 30 shows the situation without and with dry port. In the situation without dry port the shippers are served directly by truck transport from the seaport. the trucks are driving through the port city and the surrounding communities, often on congested roads. a conventional inland terminal is served by regular train services from the port. a limited number of shippers are served from this terminal.

Without Dry Port

With Dry Port

Close

Midrange

Distant

Without Dry Port

With Dry Port

Close

Midrange

Distant

fIgure 30 - sItuatIon wIthout and wIth dry port (woxenius 2004)


2013R05EN

In the situation with dry port the shippers are served via dry port. trucks do not have to use the congested roads in the port city area and on the hinterland connections. the port hinterland flows are bundled and transported by efficient rail services there are 3 main types: close, midrange and distant dry port. the dry ports take over some functions of the seaport as customs clearance, security control, storage, maintenance and other services. therefore with a dry port the interface for the shipper is moved from the sea to inland.

different examples for the different types of dry ports can be found:

table 14 - eXamples oF dry ports (based on WoXenIUs 2004)dry port type connecting seaport remarks

Isaka dry port (tanzania) distant dry port dar es – salaam port

(800 km)

rail connection also serving neighbouring land-locked countries

Virginia Inland port (Usa) midrange dry port port of virginia

rail connection Increased the hinterland market substantially

edourd herriot port in lyon (France) midrange dry port port of marseille

(approx. 300 km)rail and barge connection

auckland Wiri Inland terminal (new Zealand)

close dry port port auckland (approx. 20 km)

rail connection road connection

so dry ports can make sense on short, medium and long distances. usually there is a cooperation between the dry port and seaport. the closer the dry port to the seaport the closer usually the cooperation. the dry port even may be owned and operated by the seaport. a good example for a dry port is the “Railport Scaninavia” in gothenburg (Good Practice case 18, Appendix 2).

the main benefits of the dry port concept can be summarized as follows:

• improved services for shippers (higher reliability, lower cost), especially for distant dry ports;

• increasing hinterland market / catchment area for the port;• increasing productivity of seaport terminals, by outsourcing of activities to the dry

port;• increasing business for railways;• less congestions on roads;• modal shift / less pollution.


2013R05EN

besides the general benefits to the ecological environment and the quality of life by shifting flows from road to rail, the dry port concept mainly offers seaports a possibility to increase the throughput without physical expansion as well as better services to shippers and transport operators (woxenius, 2004). the seaport cities, often also the principal of the port authority, are offered less road congestion or infrastructure investments. the real-world examples also show that dry ports can be introduced and are being introduced by several ports. therefore it is a win-win situation for most of the actors (shippers, ports, railway undertakings, authorities, etc.) except maybe the trucking companies. but also for them it is not very attractive to use heavily congested roads.

the dry port concept is transferable to other situations with congested port hinterland roads and there is willingness for cooperation with a fair share of costs and benefits. the dry port concept can also be implemented with an inland waterway connection instead or in combination with rail.

3.3.10. Freight villages with intermodal access

there is a trend in many countries that shippers outsource their logistics and transport activities. this results in a need for space for logistics and distribution platforms. such existing platforms have often land use and environmental conflicts. there is in many cases also the problem of limited accessibility of logistics and distribution platforms. the concept of freight villages was developed in the 1970’s and 1980’s in germany in order to solve structural, transport and environmental problems and creating synergies in the logistics and freight transport sector.

according to europlatforms3, a freight village is defined as a specific area where all the activities relating to transport, logistics and goods distribution – both for national and international transit – are carried out by various operators. In order to encourage intermodal transport for goods handling, a logistics centre should preferably be served by a variety of transport modes (road, rail, sea, inland waterway, air). other definitions put the cooperative element and the intermodal connection in the foreground: according to unece a freight village is a geographical grouping of independent companies and bodies which are dealing with freight transport (for example freight forwarders, shippers, transport operators, customs) and with accompanying services (for example storage, maintenance and repair), including at least a terminal.

accessibility by different transport modes is a key factor for freight villages. usually an intermodal terminal is part of the freight village providing access to the intermodal

3 european association of freight villages consisting of more than 50 freight villages (www.europlatforms.eu).


2013R05EN

transport network. It is also an interface between long distance and regional/local freight transport. sometimes also other definitions are used e.g. logistics parks.

The development of freight villages in Europe is very dynamic; in Western Europe alone, there are more than 100 freight villages (Infrastruktur- und projektentwicklungsgesellschaft mbh, 2007). Figure 31 shows network of freight villages in germany.

fIgure 31 - freIght vIllage locatIons In germany

In germany approximately 35 freight villages are in operation (2008) with around 1,300 enterprises and 45,000 employees. average size of a german freight village is around 150 hectares (15 to 500 ha). the main characteristics of a freight village are:

• concentration of logistics and transport service providers on an real estate;• peripheral location to conurbations;• very good accessibility by the transport system;• intermodal access (rail, inland waterway, ev. sea);• broad range of services:

– logistics, forwarding, warehousing, transshipment; – customs; – maintenance and repair; – ancillary services (restaurants, hotel, post, banking); – eventually city logistics platform with joint city delivery service provided by a neutral company.

there are different organizational solutions and business models possible as ppp or fully private ownership/management. often there is a freight village development


2013R05EN

company responsible for planning, marketing, sales and the coordination between private and public interests.

one example for a successful freight village based on a benchmarking study is bremen. the layout of this freight village is shown in the following figure. with 495 hectares it is one of the biggest freight villages in europe. there are 150 companies established with around 8,000 employees. an intermodal terminal is an important part of the freight village and also a port access is available. special is the city logistics platform with joint delivery to the city.

64/173

FIGURE 32 - DISPOSITION DE GVZ À BRÊME

D’autres exemples de plateformes logistiques incluent GVZ Nürnberg, Interporto Bologna, le terminal trimodal Genk (Bonnes pratiques – cas 4, annexe II), Trilogiport (Bonnes Pratiques – cas 5, annexe II) et le Super Central Port Project (Bonnes Pratiques – cas 7, annexe II). Les plateformes logistiques offrent les avantages suivants : territoire suffisant à des fins logistiques intenses avec un excellent accès de transport ; synergies entre les fournisseurs de services logistiques et les fournisseurs de services de transport ; synergies en matière d’aménagement de terrains (route, rail, énergie, télécommunications, etc.) ; interface entre le transport sur de longues distances et le transport régional/local ; concentration d’activités de fret et de logistique qui sont accessibles par différents modes ; synergies en matière d’aménagement de terrains (route, rail, énergie, télécommunications, etc.) ; diminution du conflit potentiel avec l’environnement et la société (habituellement une opération de 24 heures) ; réalisation plus rapide et plus facile des installations de logistique (faibles risques de planification) lorsque la plateforme logistique franchit le processus de planification urbain et est incluse dans les plans d’utilisation des terres.

Les plateformes logistiques appuient le transport intermodal en offrant un potentiel de volume concentré avec un accès intermodal et un transport routier à courtes distances avant et après le remorquage. Le concept des plateformes logistiques est également transférable à d’autres pays. Parmi les différentes questions, mentionnons la collaboration entre les autorités et les entreprises concernant la planification et les investissements ainsi que l’accès et l’intermodalité. 3.3.11. Normalisation Le rôle des normes est de fournir des exigences (par exemple, techniques, organisationnelles), des définitions, des lignes directrices, des codes de pratiques exemplaires et des méthodes de mesure. De nos jours, les normes officielles pour la conception de terminaux intermodaux ne sont pas uniformisées. L’Autriche a élaboré de telles normes, et la Suisse est en cours de le faire aussi.

fIgure 32 - layout gvz bremen

other examples for freight villages are gvz nürnberg, Interporto bologna, trimodal terminal genk (Good Practice case 4, Appendix 2), trilogiport (Good Practice case 5, Appendix 2) and the super central port project (Good Practice case 7, Appendix 2).

freight villages have the following benefits:

• sufficient land size for logistics-intensive purposes with excellent transport access;• synergies between logistics and transport service providers;• synergies in land development (road, rail, energy, telecom, etc.);• interface between long distance and regional/local transport;• concentration of freight and logistics activities which are accessible by different

modes;• synergies in land development (rail, road, energy, telecom, etc.);• low conflict potential with environment and society (usually 24 hours operation);• faster and easier realization of logistics facilities (low planning risks) when the

freight village passed the urban planning process and it is secured in the land use plans.

freight villages support intermodal transport by providing concentrated volume potential with an intermodal access and short distance road pre- and end-haulage.


2013R05EN

the concept of freight villages is also transferable to other countries. Key issues are the cooperation between authorities and enterprises regarding planning and investments and also the access and intermodality.

3.3.11. standardization

the role of standards is to provide requirements (e.g. technical, organizational), definitions, guidelines, codes of best practice and measurement methods. today, official standards for intermodal terminal design are not common. austria developed such standards and switzerland is in the process of doing so too.

considering the existing problems at terminals and the standardization activities, we have identified the following standardization needs with respect to intermodal terminals (IsIc, 2005):

table 15 - standardIZatIon needs relatIng to termInals (IsIc 2005)

Iso cen national standardisation

type of terminals seaport terminals

Inland Intermodal

terminals rail/road/ inland

waterway

seaport and inland

terminals

planning and design of terminalsterminal location planningterminal planning and designterminal construction and realizationterminal equipmentInformation and communication systemsIdentification systemstranshipment technologies automation of terminal internal transport processesterminal management systemssecurity systemsservices and processes at terminalsservices and processes (incl. security)

small needs medium needs big needs


2013R05EN

there are three areas of standardization needs for intermodal terminals (IsIc, 2005):

• planning and design of intermodal terminals, especially for inland terminals. the standardization needs are bigger for terminal location planning and terminal design than for terminal construction;

• terminal equipment, especially for It-systems supporting terminal management, operation, control and security, but also standards for new developed transhipment equipment and automation. security is generally more suitable for regulation than for standardization but standardization can also contribute to improving security (e. g., security measures for terminals design, security systems, etc.). however, these regulations must not affect competition against intermodal transport. additional standards have to be in line with these regulations;

• terminal processes and services (incl. terminal management), more on continent or world level than on national level.

3.4. termInal operatIon and management

3.4.1. Introduction

Intermodal transport has been compared to mono-modal transport interfaces between different modes. therefore efficient intermodal transport needs an excellent organization and operation (seidelmann 2010). the management of information flows over the whole transport chain is a big challenge. Information and communication systems can support information exchange and the physical handling of intermodal loading units or rolling stock. for intermodal transport chains information, booking and tracking and tracing systems are more and more used.

Information and communication systems also play an ever increasing role regarding the operation and management of intermodal terminals. main purposes of the Ict-systems are to optimize terminal operations and to increase the efficiency, quality and security of terminal operation and management. another trend is the automation of processes which started at big seaport terminals to increase the productivity of the terminals.

bigger terminal operators use terminal management systems. terminal security systems gained importance for seaport and inland terminals. terminal automation is especially important for seaport terminals.

3.4.2. terminal management systems

terminal management systems for intermodal rail/road terminals consist usually of the following components and modules: 1) train processing, 2) road truck transshipment, 3) crane work station, 4) mobile data captures, 5) storage and


2013R05EN

additional services, 6) statistical analysis, 7) billing system, 8) crane movement optimization. the system provides information to crane drivers, dispatcher and loading personnel the needed information.

66/173

3.4. EXPLOITATION ET GESTION DES TERMINAUX 3.4.1. Introduction Le transport intermodal a été comparé aux interfaces de transport monomodal entre différents modes. Par conséquent, pour assurer un transport intermodal efficace, il faut une excellente organisation et exploitation (Seidelmann 2010). La gestion des flux d’information dans l’ensemble de la chaîne de transport pose un défi de taille. Les systèmes d’information et de communication peuvent appuyer l’échange d’information et la manutention physique d’unités de chargement intermodales ou de matériel roulant. Pour les chaînes de transport intermodal, les systèmes d’information, de réservation, de suivi et de retraçage sont de plus en plus utilisés. Les systèmes d’information et de communication jouent un rôle de plus en plus important dans l’exploitation et la gestion de terminaux intermodaux. Les systèmes de TIC visent principalement à optimiser les activités des terminaux et à accroître l’efficacité, la qualité et la sécurité de l’exploitation et de la gestion des terminaux. Une autre tendance est l’automatisation des processus qui a commencé dans les grands terminaux portuaires maritimes afin d’accroître la productivité des terminaux. Les exploitants de terminaux de plus grande taille utilisent des systèmes de gestion des terminaux. Les systèmes de sécurité des terminaux ont gagné en importance pour les terminaux portuaires maritimes et les terminaux intérieurs. L’automatisation des terminaux est particulièrement importante pour les terminaux portuaires maritimes. 3.4.2. Systèmes de gestion des terminaux Les systèmes de gestion pour les terminaux intermodaux rail/route comprennent habituellement les éléments et les modules suivants : 1) traitement ferroviaire, 2) transbordement de camions, 3) poste de travail à bord d’une grue, 4) saisies de données mobiles, 5) services d’entreposage et services supplémentaires, 6) analyse statistique, 7) système de facturation, 8) optimisation des mouvements de grue. Le système fournit les renseignements nécessaires aux opérateurs de grue, aux répartiteurs ainsi qu’au personnel de chargement.

FIGURE 33 - SYSTÈME DE GESTION POUR LES TERMINAUXL RAIL/ROUTE (WWW.BERGHOF.COM)

Les systèmes de gestion des terminaux assurent la transparence de tous les processus opérationnels qui ont lieu au terminal. Grâce à la collecte de données électroniques et à la liaison avec les systèmes DP précédents, ils empêchent les intrants multiples, documentent les activités et assument la fonction de facturation et de surveillance des paiements. Le rendement et les services rendus ne sont plus négligés. De tels systèmes sont efficaces et rentables pour les terminaux intermodaux rail/route, petits et grands. Ils permettent également une meilleure orientation des processus de terminal et la manutention physique des unités de chargement intermodales et réduisent le temps d’opération des grues et d’exécution pour les camions. Le système permet une augmentation considérable de la productivité et de la fiabilité opérationnelle.

fIgure 33 - termInal management system for raIl/road termInal (www.berghof.com)

terminal management systems provide transparency to all operative processes at the terminal. by means of electronic data collection and by linking the previous dp systems it prevents multiple inputs, documents operations and assumes the function of invoicing and monitoring payments. performance and services rendered are no longer overlooked. such systems are efficient and profitable both for small and large intermodal rail/road terminals. It also allows a better steering of terminal processes and the physical handling of intermodal loading units and lead to shorter crane and leading times for trucks. the system ensures significant increases in productivity and operational reliability.

Ict-systems for the communication between terminals and the road pre- and end-haulage are under development. the main aim is to steer the incoming truck flow and optimize the terminal operation regarding train departures. test applications have shown an increase in efficiency and quality.

terminal management systems are successfully in operation at seaport terminals (e.g. container terminal hamburg altenwerder, Good Practice case 2) and at rail/road terminals (e.g. terminal basel/weil, Good Practice Case 1).

3.4.3. terminal security systems

security at intermodal terminals refer to the defence, law and treaty enforcement, and counterterrorism activities that fall within the maritime and land transport domain.


2013R05EN

the terrorist attack in new york in september 2001 triggered increasing security efforts in the whole world. subsequently the security requirements for supply chains, intermodal transport and terminals have been re-examined and revised.

by 1s july 2004, every port facility (including seaport terminals), which was serving ships on international voyages, had to demonstrate that it operated in compliance with the relevant solas code (International convention for the safety of life at sea) and Isps code (International ship and port facility security) requirements. these requirements affect the seaport terminal infrastructure, equipment and operation. dedicated risk analysis became necessary for all seaport terminals. examples of important measures and systems to improve the security at intermodal seaport terminals are:

• seaport terminal land access control;• control of consignment documents;• container scanning;• control of container seals;• installment of “restricted areas”;• control of seaport water access;• agreements with ships for security measures.

the Iso/pas 28000 standard, adopted in 2005, provides speci fications for security manage ment systems for the supply chain and gives organizations the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and improving a management sys tem for the security of the sup ply chain. Iso/pas 28001 provides best practices for procedures for the security of transport chains. Iso/pas 28004 provides further rules for the implementation of a security management system.

67/173

Des systèmes de TIC pour la communication entre les terminaux et le transport routier avant et après le remorquage sont en cours de développement. Le but principal est de guider le flux des camions entrants et d’optimiser le fonctionnement des terminaux concernant les départs de train. Les essais ont montré une augmentation de l’efficacité et de la qualité. Les systèmes de gestion des terminaux sont utilisés avec succès aux terminaux portuaires maritimes (par exemple terminal à conteneurs Hamburg Altenwerder, Bonnes Pratiques – cas 2) et aux terminaux rail/route (par exemple terminal Basel/Weil, cas de Bonnes Pratiques 1). 3.4.3. Systèmes de sécurité des terminaux La sécurité aux terminaux intermodaux englobe la défense, l’application de lois et de traités et les activités de lutte contre le terrorisme qui relèvent du domaine du transport maritime et terrestre. À la suite de l’attaque terroriste survenue en septembre 2001 à New York, des efforts accrus de sécurité sont déployés dans le monde entier. Subséquemment, les exigences de sécurité pour les chaînes d’approvisionnement, le transport intermodal et les terminaux ont été réexaminés et révisés. En date du 1er juillet 2004, chaque installation portuaire (y compris les terminaux portuaires maritimes), qui desservait des navires sur des voyages internationaux, a dû démontrer qu’elle était conforme aux exigences pertinentes du Code SOLAS (Convention internationale pour la sauvegarde de la vie humaine en mer) et du Code ISPS (Code international pour la sûreté des navires et des installations portuaires). Ces exigences touchent l’infrastructure, l’équipement et l’exploitation des terminaux portuaires maritimes. Une analyse de risque dédiée est devenue nécessaire pour tous les terminaux portuaires maritimes. Voici quelques exemples de mesures et de systèmes importants pour améliorer la sécurité aux terminaux portuaires maritimes :

contrôle de l’accès terrestre aux terminaux portuaires maritimes, contrôle des documents de consignation, balayage des conteneurs, contrôle des sceaux de conteneurs, établissement de « zones réglementées », contrôle de l’accès par voie navigable aux ports maritimes, ententes avec les navires pour des mesures de sécurité.

La norme ISO/PAS 28000, adoptée en 2005, prévoit des spécifications pour les systèmes de gestion de la sécurité pour la chaîne d’approvisionnement et fournit aux organisations les exigences pour établir, mettre en œuvre, entretenir et améliorer un système de gestion pour la sécurité de la chaîne d’approvisionnement. La norme ISO/PAS 28001 fournit des pratiques exemplaires pour les procédures de sécurité des chaînes de transport. La norme ISO/PAS 28004 fournit d’autres règles pour la mise en œuvre d’un système de gestion de la sécurité.

FIGURE 34 - SYSTÈMES DE BALAYAGE DE CONTENEURS DE CAMIONS

fIgure 34 - trucK contaIner scannIng systems

with respect to intermodal inland terminals, the european project Insectt (Intermodal security for combined transport terminals) dealt with risk analysis and measures to increase security at terminals (uIrr 2007). one important finding of this project was that a full security of an intermodal chain and terminal infrastructure


2013R05EN

reduces efficiency and has a negative impact on international trade and the competitive position of intermodal transport compared to road transport. It also became clear that the situation and framework conditions for inland terminals are not similar as in seaport terminals. security measures should therefore increase the security level without affecting the economic viability of intermodal transport. the Insectt project also produced a guideline for risk analysis for intermodal rail/road terminals (uIrr, 2007). some of the important measures and systems to improve the security at intermodal rail/road terminals are shown below (uIrr 2007):

• physical security measures (fence, security check inn, lights, etc.);• electronic security measures (video control, sensor alarm systems, automatic

communication with task forces, etc.);• security by provision of staff (security guards, etc.);• security measures for dangerous goods handling;• scanning of intermodal loading units and vehicles;• security check procedures for visitors;• electronic data exchange and control (EDI for improvement of control efficiency,

data exchange between intermodal partners);• regulations for truck traffic management on terminals (truck parking, truck

guidance, etc.);• security education and training.

the measures should also be linked to a concrete risk identified for a certain intermodal terminal based on a comprehensive risk analysis.

3.4.4. terminal automation

the requirements for intermodal terminal management and operation are increasing regarding efficiency, productivity, reliability, safety and security. among other options terminal automation or semi-automation can contribute to fulfill these increasing requirements (vauramo 2008).

automation in seaport terminals started in 1980’s with machine automation (cranes, drives), followed by smart features/intelligence since 1997 and then safety systems since 2005 (vauramo 2008). at the same time automation came into terminal logistics and control systems and terminal operating systems. usually there is a mixed application of automation and It. In existing terminals automation is usually introduced step by step. new terminals should be planned and designed taking into account the options of terminal automation.


2013R05EN

fIgure 35 - common structure of automated contaIner termInal (vauramo, 2008)

automation started especially at intermodal seaport terminals, where terminals handle bigger container volumes and the terminal management is more complex than at inland terminals. Increasing vessel sizes also increased the peaks in container volumes. the biggest container ports in singapore, shanghai and hongkong handle more than 20 million teu per year. at seaport terminals the composition of loading units (Iso-containers) is more homogenous than at inland terminals. therefore the automation degree at seaport terminals is higher than at inland terminals.

69/173

FIGURE 35 - STRUCTURE COMMUNE D’UN TERMINAL À CONTENEURS AUTOMATISÉ (VAURAMO, 2008) L’automatisation a commencé surtout dans les terminaux portuaires maritimes intermodaux, puisque ceux-ci reçoivent de grands volumes de conteneurs et nécessitent une gestion plus complexe que les terminaux intérieurs. La croissance de la taille des navires a également contribué à la hausse des volumes de conteneurs. Les plus grands ports à conteneurs à Singapour, à Shanghai et à Hongkong peuvent traiter plus de 20 millions d’EVP par année. Aux terminaux portuaires maritimes, la composition des unités de chargement (conteneurs ISO) est plus homogène qu’aux terminaux intérieurs. Par conséquent, le degré d’automatisation aux terminaux portuaires maritimes est plus grand qu’aux terminaux intérieurs.

FIGURE 36 - ECT TERMINAL ROTTERDAM (SOURCE : RAPP TRANS AG)

Les processus suivants peuvent être appuyés par automatisation ou semi-automatisation aux terminaux portuaires maritimes : identification automatique du camion/transporteur et de l’équipement pour l’équipement de manutention de conteneurs ; positionnement automatique des conteneurs, des équipements de transbordement et de transport ; transbordement automatique de conteneurs ; transport automatique de conteneurs entre différents emplacements sur le chantier de terminal (du navire à la zone de chargement/déchargement et d’entreposage) ;

fIgure 36 - ect termInal rotterdam (source: rapp trans ag)

the following processes can be supported by automation or semi-automation at seaport terminals:

• automatic identification of truck/carrier and equipment for the container handling equipment;

• automatic positioning of container, transhipment and transport equipment;

more capacity in the same space


2013R05EN

• automatic transhipment of containers;• automatic transport of containers between different locations within the terminal

yard (ship to loading/unloading and storage area);• automatic provision of real time information between operations management and

terminal;• automatic monitoring and reporting of all container and equipment movements;• automatic detection of dangerous materials (e.g. radio-active materials).

automatic identification and data transfer is a precondition of automation (ItIp 2002). Quite common is automated handling on container fields and the transfer of containers by automated guided vehicles (agv’s) between the storage area and the ship-to-shore cranes. there is a lot of automation potential in gantry cranes and straddle carriers. a further step is the automated loading and unloading of ships.

70/173

prestation automatique d’information en temps réel entre la gestion d’opérations et le terminal ; surveillance et rapport automatiques de tous les mouvements des conteneurs et des équipements ; détection automatique de matières dangereuses (par exemple, matières radioactives).

L’identification automatique et le transfert de données sont une condition préalable de l’automatisation (ITIP, 2002). Il est assez courant d’avoir une manutention automatisée sur les chantiers à conteneurs et le transfert de conteneurs par des véhicules guidés automatisés (VGA) entre la zone d’entreposage et les grues navire-terre. Il y a beaucoup de potentiel d’automatisation dans les portiques roulants et les chariots cavaliers. Une autre étape est le chargement et le déchargement automatisés de navires.

FIGURE 37 - VÉHICULES GUIDÉS AUTOMATISÉS

On a observé un exemple de mise en œuvre réussie de l’automatisation au terminal portuaire maritime Hamburg Altenwerder en Allemagne (Bonnes Pratiques, cas 2, Annexe II). Pour les terminaux intérieurs, les initiatives d’automatisation et de semi-automatisation visent particulièrement le processus de transbordement entre la route et le rail, les mouvements ferroviaires sur les chantiers de manœuvre et l’entreposage. Un objectif important est de réduire le temps de transbordement et le débit de traitement du train au terminal. Un autre objectif est d’accroître la productivité des portiques roulants (par exemple, par convoyeurs). Par contre, l’automatisation exige des coûts d’investissement substantiels. Voilà pourquoi elle convient d’habitude seulement aux gros terminaux intérieurs. Les processus suivants peuvent être appuyés par automatisation ou semi-automatisation aux terminaux intérieurs : identification automatique du camion/transporteur et de l’équipement pour l’équipement de manutention de conteneurs ; positionnement automatique des conteneurs, des équipements de transbordement et de transport ; transbordement automatique de conteneurs ; mouvement automatique de conteneurs sous la grue ; opérations automatiques sur rails ; prestation automatique d’information en temps réel entre la gestion d’opérations et le terminal ; surveillance et rapport automatiques de tous les mouvements des conteneurs et des équipements ; détection automatique des matières dangereuses (par exemple, matières radioactives).

Également dans les terminaux intérieurs, l’identification automatique et le transfert de données sont une condition préalable de l’automatisation. Différents systèmes techniques et prototypes ont été élaborés par l’industrie pour les terminaux rail-rail (porte d’entrée) et les terminaux rail-route. De nos jours, seule une poignée de terminaux à conteneurs ont automatisé les mouvements sur rails en raison du faible niveau d’automatisation dans les terminaux (les mouvements sur les routes ne sont pas automatisés, les opérations de transbordement sont contrôlées directement par des opérateurs).

fIgure 37 - automated guIded vehIcles

a successful automation implementation can be observed at the seaport terminal hamburg altenwerder in germany (Good Practice case 2, Appendix 2).

for inland terminals the automation and semi-automation initiatives address especially the transhipment process between road and rail, the rail movements on shunting yards and the storage. one important objective is to reduce the transhipment time and the train throughput time in the terminal. another objective is to increase the productivity of the gantry cranes (e.g. by conveyor systems). on the other hand automation requires substantial investment costs, which is usually suitable only for bigger inland terminals.

the following processes can be supported by automation or semi-automation at inland terminals:

• automatic identification of truck/carrier and equipment for the container handling equipment;

• automatic positioning of container, transhipment and transport equipment;• automatic transhipment of containers;


2013R05EN

• automatic movement of container under the crane;• automatic rail operations;• automatic provision of real time information between operations management and

terminal;• automatic monitoring and reporting of all container and equipment movements;• automatic detection of dangerous materials (e.g. radio-active materials).

also in inland terminals automatic identification and data transfer is a precondition of automation. different technical systems and prototypes have been developed by the industry for rail-rail (gateway) terminals and rail-road terminals.

today, only very few container terminals have automation of movements on rails due to low level of automation in the terminals (movements on roads are not automated, transhipment operations are controlled directly by operators).

the main benefits of automation and semi-automation are to increase the cost-effectiveness, optimize the operation and reduce the environmental burdens by:

• increasing data quality and reliability;• time savings for transhipment process;• increased gross crane utilization;• reducing waiting time for vehicles and yard prime movers by reducing the number

of unproductive moves;• minimizing the distances over which a container is handled within a terminal;• increasing productivity;• improved safety and security;• lower operation costs (incl. reduction of labor costs);• lower maintenance costs;• reducing energy costs;• reducing emissions;• minimizing surface needs (for a certain demand).

automation and semi-automation can achieve substantial cost and time benefits. besides the right layout, appropriate equipment, efficient processes and a high utilization of equipment and land automation is a further option to improve the productivity of a terminal. automation concepts themselves can have an influence on the terminal layout and design and especially on the handling equipment.

3.4.5. benchmarking and Key performance Indicators (KpI)

due to globalization, liberalization, competition, limited financial means and increasing customer requirements benchmarking in freight transport has become more important in the recent years (oecd 2002).


2013R05EN

performance indicators are quantifiable metrics that provide a method for measuring the efficiency of an operation. Key performance indicators are intended to control and manage the most critical success factors of an organization (posset et al. 2010).

there are different definitions for benchmarking. benchmarking can be defined as a systematic and continuing process of comparing the performance and quality of products, processes, services, strategies, policies, etc. based on clear targets and defined key performance indicators (KpI). benchmarking has been identified as a tool for identifying potential improvements in the transport sector (oecd, 2002). It aims at improving the performance by identifying best performance and best practices, analyzing the reasons for differences and suggesting measures that could be implemented by decision-makers.

the decision-makers, or target groups, of these efforts include policy makers, infrastructure and facility operators, shippers, logistics service providers and transport operators (oecd, 2002). each of these target groups is a unique, but at the same time, essential component of the overall transportation system. as such each actor group has its own motivation for employing benchmarking tools (see table 16).

table 16 - reasons and Interests For benchmarKIngactor reasons/Interest for benchmarking

govemment• assessing effects of policy on transport, etc.• assessing effects on economic growth• comparison to other continents, countries, regions

shippers• comparing cost and quality of different logistics and transport

chains• preparing sound choise/decision of transport options

logistics service providers • partly same reasons as shippers and as transport operators

transport operators • comparing own performance against performance of others• Implementing best practices and improving performance

Facility operator• comparing efficiency, service level and cost of operations (e.g.

in seaport and inland terminals)• Implementing best practices and improving performance

for governments benchmarking is clearly policy oriented. shippers want to compare quality and costs of freight transport services as a basis for decision-making. transport operators would like to compare their performance with others and improve the performance by implementing best practices. logistics services providers have partly the same reasons as shippers and transport operators. facility operators – for example terminal operators – aim at comparing efficiency and quality of their processes and services to improve their performance by best practices.


2013R05EN

there are also different benchmarking levels and topics for different actors (ecmt 2000):

Government (EU, National, Regional, Local)

Shippers, Client

Regulatory Framework, Policy, Infrastructure

Benchmarking Level Benchmarking TopicsActors

Strategies, Activities, Processes, etc.

(efficiency, productivity, etc.)

Products, Services, etc. (Quality and Cost)

Logistics and Transport Ser-vice providers(incl. forwarders, terminal oper. etc.)

Policy Level

Company Level

Customer Level

Horizontal BenchmarkingVertical Benchmarking

Focus

Government (EU, National, Regional, Local)

Shippers, Client

Regulatory Framework, Policy, Infrastructure

Benchmarking Level Benchmarking TopicsActors

Strategies, Activities, Processes, etc.

(efficiency, productivity, etc.)

Products, Services, etc. (Quality and Cost)

Logistics and Transport Ser-vice providers(incl. forwarders, terminal oper. etc.)

Policy Level

Company Level

Customer Level

Horizontal BenchmarkingVertical Benchmarking

Focus

fIgure 38 - levels and topIcs of benchmarKIng

Horizontal benchmarking means measurement on the same level; vertical benchmarking means measurement of organizations at other levels.

for intermodal freight terminals, benchmarking is mostly focused on company and customers level. the main objective is to benchmark performance and quality of processes and services in order to identify potential for improvement and implement measures.

cost, productivity, and operations efficiency and effectiveness are important indicators to measure terminal performance. as for quality of service, relevant indicators include reliability, flexibility accessibility, capacity, safety and security, environment and human resources.

the benefits of benchmarking are to increase the efficiency, productivity, quality and capacity of intermodal terminals. success factors for the implementation of benchmarking schemes are (ruesch, 2009):

• high-level commitment and willingness for improvement and change;• understand benchmarking as tool for improvement and not for control; • benchmarking scheme must cover main issues of intermodal terminals;• common agreed targets and performance indicators;• accessibility of external data (for comparison);• comparability of Indicators (not comparing apples and oranges!);


2013R05EN

• standardized and harmonized definitions and measurement;• monitoring for continuous improvement;• integration of staff and stakeholders.

there are potentially a vast number of indicators possible for benchmarking intermodal freight terminals (IsIc, 2005). the following table shows examples of suitable performance and quality indicators.

table 17 - eXamples oF perFormance and QUalIty IndIcators oF FreIght termInals

performance Indicators Quality Indicators• transhipment costs per Itu• utilization rate (%)• terminal productivity (teu/m2)• average dwell time of ships, trains and trucks• crane productivity (nb. of containers by hour)• average waiting times of trucks, trains, ships• ship rate (loaded and unloaded teu’s per crane per hour)• berth load (ratio between total annual throughput / total length of berth)• storage area productivity (teu/m2)• etc.

• reliability• flexibility• opening hours• damage frequency• loss frequency• added value services

(storage, etc.)• etc.

there are also indicators covering the environmental dimension such as energy consumption per loading unit, ghg-emissions per loading unit, space consumption per loading unit; as well as indicators that cover safety aspects such as accidents, injuries and fatalities.

these indicators are complementary, as they allow to measure efficiency of different types of operations, from the perspective of various actors, whose economic motivations may be contradictory.

for example, the shipping companies are interested to leave the port as soon as possible, avoiding waiting for an available anchor position. terminal operators are interested to handle the largest number of empty or loaded containers, as they charge according to number of manoeuvres.

KpI’s could also be used for quality certification. germanischer lloyd introduced the “Container Terminal Quality Indicator” (ctQI) which aims at measuring and improving terminal efficiency. In addition to the performance, it also covers external factors (e.g. hinterland connectivity), internal factors (hardware, set up of the terminal, etc.) and the management system (organization, responsibilities, education and training, etc.). the hhla container terminal in hamburg was the first facility in the world to receive the ctQI standard by germanischer lloyd (see Good Practice, case 2, Appendix 2). also the mexican ports of manzanillo and veracruz are


2013R05EN

currently implementing quality labels for their seaport terminals (see Good Practice, cases 15 and 16, Appendix 2).

also, the provision of funding to an intermodal terminal could be linked to the existence of a benchmarking system, quality certification, or the fulfillment of service quality standards (e.g. Iso, cen). the main reasons would be to guarantee a certain efficiency and quality of terminal processes and services and to use public funds effectively. It is therefore recommended to extend the funding rules with the existence of a benchmarking scheme, quality label or other service quality / performance standards.

3.4.6. terminal management and organization measures to increase terminal capacity

very often terminal operators find themselves in a situation where the terminal capacity is saturated and layout and process organization can no longer cope with the service requirements of intermodal operators, their customers and transport operators serving the terminal (dIomIs 2007).

the transhipment capacity of intermodal terminals can be enlarged by increasing the physical infrastructure or superstructure e.g. building of additional handling tracks, extensions of tracks, upgrading the rail and road side accessibility, extending the storage of buffer space or the acquisition of additional or more efficient cranes (dIomIs 2007).

an option besides enlarging the infrastructure of a terminal is to improve the operation and organization of an intermodal terminal. because infrastructure measure planning and implementation need some time this option has to be taken into account. within the dIomIs4 project good practices for the management of intermodal rail/road terminals have been looked at. the main determinants for intermodal terminal capacity have been outlined in section 3.3.5.

the following good practice measures for improving the capacity of intermodal rail/road terminals have been identified and investigated within the dIomIs project (see figure 39, following page).

substantial capacity improvements (30 to 50%) can be expected from increased flow factor, It-supported capacity management system, separation of road and rail-side handlings and punctual rail services in arrival. but also other measures as extended terminal opening hours, bonus-malus schemes etc., can contribute ton an increase of

4 dIomIs = developing Infrastructure and operating models for Intermodal shift


2013R05EN

intermodal terminal capacity by 10 to 20%. more information and good practice examples are described the dIomIs report “Best practices for the management of intermodal transport terminals” (uIc 2007).

by implementing these measures also the efficiency and quality of terminal operations will be improved.

Punctual rail services in arrival

ActionCapacity enlargement impact (%)

Prenotification-based task management

Separation of road- and rail-side handlings

Automated loading unit/wagon identification

IT-supported capacity management system

Bonus-malus incentives on use of infrastructure

Extended terminal opening hours

Supply of road trucking services by terminal

Management of “last mile” (section between terminal and network) by terminal operator

Increased flow factor (use of tracks for > 1 service)

Punctual rail services in arrival

ActionCapacity enlargement impact (%)

Prenotification-based task management

Separation of road- and rail-side handlings

Automated loading unit/wagon identification

IT-supported capacity management system

Bonus-malus incentives on use of infrastructure

Extended terminal opening hours

Supply of road trucking services by terminal

Management of “last mile” (section between terminal and network) by terminal operator

Increased flow factor (use of tracks for > 1 service)

5040302010 5040302010

fIgure 39 - measures to Increase capacIty of raIl/road termInals (dIomIs 2007)

3.5. land Use, enVIronment and commUnIty InVolVement

3.5.1. land Use planning

a land use plan serves as a guiding document for the development and expansion of intermodal facilities and the lands where these facilities are located. In most developed countries with intermodal freight transportation systems, a comprehensive land use plan is required. land use plans should communicate the long-term goals of the operator while strengthening future initiatives. the following four objectives are keystones of land use planning for intermodal facilities:


2013R05EN

• assist in strengthening land use coordination between operators, neighboring communities, port authorities (if applicable) and governments;

• illustrate the facility’s ability to accommodate future growth in an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable manner;

• use policy directions to link optimal land utilization with future growth opportunities; • identify the significance of regional and national transportation networks to the

ongoing and future success of the facility.

fIgure 40 - cn/moterm termInal In detroIt (source: dIft eIs, 2005)

the consideration of existing land and water uses, existing properties and their capacities and forecasts of future commodity volumes have a bearing in setting policies and other tools that may apply to land and waterborne intermodal facilities. the policies, which are a means of achieving planned objectives, are important tools in developing terminals. the procurement, operation and maintenance of facilities, land and water resources all occur within a complex physical and natural environment. consequently, land use master plans should include policies that will provide stakeholders with a framework for decision-making that considers the above objectives and communicate the long-term policies, practices, directions and objectives to all involved stakeholders and public parties.

land use plans can be centralized to include certain location-specific goals that enable customers, stakeholders, municipalities and government agencies to understand the governing principles that a company uses to manage land and water assets. It is highly essential for many terminals to capture the economic benefits associated with trade,


2013R05EN

whether it is local, national or international. these land use policy directions may include some of the following (Good Practice, Case 11, Appendix 2):

• optimization of limited land bases by:

– retaining the terminal’s existing industrial land use, – encouraging land use efficiency and operational productivity, – ensuring sufficient land exists for future expansions;

• manage terminal lands in a manner that ensures the safe, secure and efficient movement of goods;

• work closely with industries, authorities, the public and various levels of government to capitalize on economic opportunities to create jobs and land value;

• encourage land use compatibility to minimize conflicts between terminal lands uses and adjacent lands. consultations are highly recommended to realize the goals for the community and the intermodal facility.

canada

one of the important issues in terminal design and planning in canada is the potential destruction and fragmentation of lands as a result of construction of new terminals. these negative effects to a large extent are caused by urban expansion and demographics as well as competing land uses. other conflicting factors may include recreational and environmental pressures that may affect the expandability of a marine or inland terminal. a concept developed in the port north fraser (pnf), british columbia, land use plan is creating economic development areas (edas) in their marine port. these edas can identify constraints on current lands as well as determine the future supply and demand in a given region. they are also designed to enhance concentrated areas of economic activity within the region. edas may be comprised of (Good Practice, Case 13, Appendix 2):

• existing or identified industrial and commercial nodes and cargo-specific storage areas (logs in many cases);

• greenways, public access and recreational areas;• residential areas;• transportation (rail, road, marine, air).

strategic policy directions have been identified in a number of areas in the pnf land use plan, some of which are as follows:


2013R05EN

Industrial Policies• Protect the existing industrial land uses;• coordinate all industrial activities within a terminal’s jurisdiction to increase

efficiency;• utilize land public-private partnerships to secure industrial land;• maintain competitive leasing structures to continue with growth;• promote intermodal transportation as a feasible method of cargo shipment, while

integrating with other land use plans and foreign trade.

Commercial Policies• Encourage intermodal-related commercial, retail and residential areas;• encourage innovative landscaping to encourage commercial development;• include transportation systems (buses, light-rail) to support commercial usage on

terminal lands.

Cargo Storage Policies• Protect existing storage area to negate reduced future capacity;• establish practices symmetrically with industry best practices to accommodate

maximum cargo capacities;• create new and innovative procedures to storing cargo safely and efficiently.

Transportation• cooperate with municipalities to preserve and construct new adequate transportation

systems, including road and rail that are able to access the industrial sites;• reduce greenhouse gas and traffic congestion through efficient infrastructure and

equipment within terminal lands.

United Kingdom

In the uK, like many countries, road transport is likely to remain the most utilized method for freight movements. the uK government has recognized that it is highly important to identify the sites and routes (existing and future) that are critical to the development of intermodal transportation of goods. It is the goal of the authorities to locate developments that generate freight movement (including distribution and warehousing) away from urban centers to alleviate congestion. policies for freight movements in residential areas or town centers are generally restricted to commercial hours of operation. this can cause congestion during peak times, increased local pollution and discouraged investment in urban locations. these policies need to find a balance between stakeholder interests, including cargo carriers and local residents. In this manner, local economies and employment can be maintained while improving the overall quality of life in the region. agreements are set in place to promote cooperation between authorities, operators and businesses to ensure that freight routes, facilities planning, vehicle emissions and noise pollution all meet acceptable standards.


2013R05EN

with respect to ports, authorities work closely with the ports industry to develop effective plans and proposals to promote the role of ports as a large component of the sustainable distribution system. a number of policy directions related to intermodal freight include:

• particular care must be taken in allocating sites for port development to ensure viable areas are used to allow for positive economic and regeneration benefits;

• proper arrangements must be made for waste disposal from the shipping industry; • re-use disused wharves and basins and retaining boatyards and other services to

create options to increase shipping cargo capacity; • new waterside development proposals should be designed so as not adversely affect

inland waterways.

In 2004, the uK strategic rail authority (sra) published the strategic rail freight Interchange policy with the objective to inform stakeholders of the need for, the form, function, operating characteristics and role of strategic (i.e., large-scale) intermodal terminals. It also provides guidance on how these policies fit with the uK government objectives for the movement of freight by rail, environmental quality and the achievement of sustainable development. with respect to land use planning, it also promotes the integration of land use planning and transport planning and encouraging greater proportionate use of rail to support the planning system in the delivery of sustainable development as it would have a number of beneficial effects, including modal shift from road to rail and environmental benefits of taking freight off roads at both a local and national scale.

3.5.2. environmental aspects

every nation’s transportation system is highly important to maintain the flow of goods and freight and is crucial in augmenting the economic wellbeing of that country. at the same time, respecting the environment and the associated quality of life is a core value that must be respected when constructing and expanding intermodal facilities. the development of tools and partnerships to sustain resources and financial capability while protecting habitats is crucial to the positive development of freight terminals.

In order to ensure intermodal facilities are planned, designed, and implemented that respects environment, many countries (e.g., australia, canada. u.s., european union, china, India, russia) have enacted relevant regulations/laws that would require a project proponent to undertake appropriate environmental assessment (ea) analysis. In general, environmental assessment is a process to predict, evaluate and mitigate the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of proposed initiatives before they are carried out.


2013R05EN

fIgure 41 - port freIght termInal In sudan (source: un environment programme, 2007)

as far as intermodal freight terminals are concerned, the environmental impacts include but are not limited to:

• air quality and pollutants emissions – e.g., carbon monoxide (co), nitrogen oxides (nox), ozone (o3), particulate matters (pm), sulfur dioxide (so2);

• vegetations and wetlands – i.e., impacts on hydrologic, habitat, and ecological functions;

• water quality – e.g., impacts on the quality of surface or groundwater, groundwater table levels, and floodplains; impacts from terminal surface runoff into the streams/rivers;

• animals and wildlife– i.e., impact on threatened and endangered species;• aquatic environment – e.g., impacts on the streams, rivers, etc. in terms of fish

habitat;• noise and vibration – e.g., impacts on sensitive land uses such as houses and

hospitals from train and truck volumes;• historical and archeological resources – e.g., impact on natural and cultural

materials that are of value for archaeological, paleontological, historic, scientific, or aesthetic interest.

the ea will evaluate the effect of the project on each of these environmental factors and, where impacts cannot be avoided, recommends appropriate mitigation measures to minimize such impacts. for instance, if the new terminal has the potential to increase surface runoff due to new paved areas, mitigation measures could include: expanding the stormwater drainage system and/or directing the runoff to an engineered on-site collection system before entering the system. other measures may include requirements for railroads to have pollution prevention plans (e.g., spill


2013R05EN

prevention, response, and training plans) to prevent impacts to stormwater, surface water and groundwater.

canada

an example of excellent use of environmental practices includes the port north fraser (near vancouver, canada) environmental management program. port north fraser (pnf) is a marine freight terminal that operates in a highly productive biological region. the location of the terminal and the adjacent estuary is home to one of the largest salmon runs in the world where habitat and fish conservation are extremely important to pnf’s daily terminal operations. as a result, pnf has designed a port habitat classification and coding system, which uses three color classes to identify areas of high biological productivity and diversity within the terminal region. as a result, the foreshore around pnf is color-coded into areas of high (red), moderate (yellow), and low (green) productivity and diversity. development is not usually allowed to occur in red areas, which includes habitat created as a result of compensation programs. development in yellow areas may be permitted if environmental mitigation and compensation requirements have been met. development is openly allowed in green designated areas as long as the design is deemed environmentally acceptable (Good Practice, Case 12 and 13, Appendix 2).

fIgure 42 - fIsh habItat compensatIon worKs for the new raIl-marIne termInal,

brItIsh columbIa, canada

another method of managing environmentally sensitive lands is by utilizing habitat compensation banking. pnf currently has two habitat compensation banks comprised of more than 5,500 m2 of marshes. In the process of habitat banking, habitat is created in advance of intermodal terminal development. these banks compensate for the development of commercial freight terminals and help mitigate


2013R05EN

any negative impacts that may affect land and marine environments. habitat banks are considered beneficial because larger habitat areas offer economies of scale when compared to smaller mitigation programs.

United states

large increases in freight tonnage throughout the world’s developed countries have led to a requirement to address greenhouse gas emissions in freight transportation, especially diesel vehicles, which is a huge source of toxic air contaminants. this growing amount of freight and air pollution comprises about one-third of united states transportation greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, freight transportation must meet new legislation and initiatives to make the systems more efficient while finding new funding for improved technologies.

the u.s. environmental protection agency (epa) has identified six key criteria pollutants for consideration in air quality impact assessments, which include co, nitrogen dioxides (no2), o3, pm, so2 and lead. of these, no2, o3, and pm are the greatest concern for the freight transportation sector.

epa has developed a spreadsheet-based modeling tool named drayfleet that calculates emissions from container drayage activities at ports. drayage trips are truck trips to move containers within port complexes and to and from intermodal transfer facilities and depots. drayfleet allows port planners to understand the impact on emissions of changing management practices, terminal operations, cargo volume, and technology upgrades.

there are currently four main types of freight transportation that include trucks, marine vessels, rail and airfreight. marine vessels and port equipment are the second largest source of freight emissions after trucks. In addition to cargo ships, ports have container cranes, forklifts, terminal tractors, container handlers, holsters and additional equipments, most of which are powered by diesel fuel. however, many modern container cranes have switched to electrical power and other equipment are mandated to use clean-diesel technologies.

a summary of emissions by different modes is shown below from 2005. trucks account for a large share of total emissions for both nitrates and particulate matter even though they have the strictest emissions regulations of all forms of freight transport. this is due to trucks carrying the highest volumes of cargo in the united states.


2013R05EN

fIgure 43 - summary of emIssIons by dIfferent modes, u.s. (source: fhwa, 2010)

In addition to the use of new technologies, there are a variety of operational and system management strategies that policy-makers employ to reduce emissions at ports/terminals. these usually take the form of local regulations and ordinances, congestion mitigation measures, or operational changes strategies, as described below.

shore power (“Cold Ironing”) – this measure is part of the anti-idling strategies to reduce emissions by cutting down on the time freight vehicles spend idling (sitting in one place with the engine running). cargo ships usually switch to their auxiliary engines to provide power for ship operations while they are in port. to address this problem, many ports are constructing shore power (also known as cold ironing) systems that provide clean electrical power to cargo vessels while they are in port. california, in general and the ports of los angeles and long beach in particular, are driving the development of this technology in the united states. cold ironing is a key part of the san pedro bay ports clean air action plan. under the plan, all major cargo terminals at the ports will be equipped with shore power by 2016.

reduced pickup and drop-off Idling for trucks – minimizing time spent idling during pickups and deliveries is another way to reduce emissions, particularly for delivery trucks operating in urban areas where they are likely to make several stops each day. many freight-generating businesses have adopted no-idle policies at loading facilities in partnership with the epa. some seaports, including los angeles and long beach, have implemented gate appointment systems whereby truckers are given a specific time window to pick up a container from the terminal. this strategy reduces unnecessary truck idling at the port gates.

Improved port operational strategies – some container terminals now require trucks to be fitted with radio frequency identification (rfId) tags so that the position of the truck can be monitored within the terminal, enabling terminal operators to


2013R05EN

better direct truckers to the appropriate place to pick up their cargo. another strategy is to maintain a chassis pool for truckers who are dropping off or picking up containers for more than one shipping line. most terminals own their own fleet of container chassis, so when a trucker needs to pick up his next load from another terminal he usually must find another chassis owned by the second shipping line. a shared pool of chassis eliminates this problem. the port of virginia, for example, contracts with a third party to maintain a chassis pool.

United Kingdom

with respect to diesel powered heavy goods vehicles (hgv) or vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, the united Kingdom imposed limits (1991) on co emissions, hydrocarbons (hc) and nox. these limits were set at a level of 20-30% lower then the standards at the time for hgv, forcing manufacturers to install emissions reduction technology on their vehicles. In 1993, the permitted levels of co, hc, and nox were reduced by 60%, 50% and 45% respectively, which also included new standards for particulate matter emissions. further tightening of standards occurred in 1996, which included new standards for pm emissions, cutting the pm limits by over 50% while introducing further reductions to nox emissions.

certain freight transportation companies have begun implementing recycled engine coolant systems that reduce the risk of hazardous coolants entering the environment. other companies have equipped their warehouse forklifts with particulate traps coupled with regeneration facilities used to clean particulate traps. this technology has improved the working environment for all warehouse staff by reducing the associated health hazards. by targeting hgvs and other freight-related equipment, the following specific environmental programs have been achieved:

• fuel efficiency through driver training and monitoring;• encouraging the transportation industry to improve efficiency and achieve standards;• encouraging new developments in vehicle technology to increase aerodynamics;• proper scheduling and routing of vehicles.

overall, the u.K. government has the goal of bringing together many different policies and initiatives to expand on their best practice programme. their energy efficiency best practice programme has delivered exceptional results while demonstrating 20% worth of cost-savings, accumulating across industrial, commercial and public sectors. the goal is to widen the energy efficiency best practice programme to better include the supply chain management and sustainable distribution systems. these systems comprise many aspects of pollution, waste reduction, recycling, safety, training, benchmarking, new technologies and overall performance improvements. this will help further the environmental goal of exploring innovation and best practices whenever possible in best environmental management practices.


2013R05EN

3.5.3. community Involvement

community involvement and public consultation is an important aspect in the planning, design and implementation of freight terminals. the project’s proponent should be mindful of the potential impacts the new and/or expanded terminal may have on the surrounding areas from environmental and societal perspective. as such, public engagement is crucial in garnering support for the project.

the main objective of consultation is to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. It needs to be planned as an integral part of overall project plans, not just an afterthought once proposals/policies have been developed. this will allow all the stakeholders to better understand the issues as well as the opportunities and challenges that exist as they move forward. some jurisdictions (such as united Kingdom, canada, usa) have legislative obligation to consult with the public for new developments.

consultation and engagement is a two-way process. It involves informing, listening and responding. It is also about asking people/stakeholders what their views and opinions are on issues and developments that affect them, their families, and their wider work and social communities. to achieve the goal of the consultation process, a number of steps/principles must be adhered to as follows (department of finance of australia 2010, nottinghamshire county council 2010).

• continuity – meaningful consultation with key stakeholders should be continuous and should start as early as possible. consultation should continue through all stages of the project, including when detailed design features are being finalized. This will assist in identifying and understanding potential problems and in designing and implementing better design. organizing pre-consultation with key stakeholders is invaluable and often helps to quickly identify the essential elements of a public engagement plan.

• targeting – the proponent must consider the scope of the project and consult widely to ensure consultation captures the diversity of stakeholders affected by the project. this includes capturing hard-to-reach and other community groups that have traditionally been neglected. for consultation with business stakeholders, industry associations and small business groups may be a good starting point. for community stakeholders, such as environmental groups and other interest groups, peak bodies may also be a starting point.

• consultation method – the best methods to use are determined by the target audience. a successful method with one target audience may not work as well on another occasion or with a different audience. It is important to remain flexible rather than to rely on a single favored technique.

• timeliness – timeframes for consultation should be realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide a considered response. Holiday periods and the end of


2013R05EN

the financial year should be avoided, particularly where stakeholders are small businesses. however, where it is necessary to consider a proposal promptly, some limitations on periods and timing of consultation may be unavoidable.

• evaluation and review – the project proponent should evaluate consultation processes and continue to examine ways of making them more effective. this may include examining the number and types of responses; and whether some methods of consultation were more successful than others. consultees need to know the results of the consultation itself, they need to know what decision was made as a result and they need to be able to see how their views were used in coming to the decision.

fIgure 44 - a typIcal publIc consultatIon sessIon

the negative community impacts, especially where the project is located near residential areas, could include noise pollution, increased traffic on adjacent roads, reduced community cohesion, relocation of homes/businesses, loss of farmland, reduced safety (e.g., pedestrian/truck conflicts, increased accidents) and negative visual impacts.

however, not all community impacts are negative. new terminal constructions create both permanent and construction jobs in the community thus contributing to the economy. for example, the new detroit Intermodal freight terminal (dIft) project in detroit, michigan, is estimated to generate approximately 620 construction jobs at its peak in 2014 and 4,500 permanent jobs statewide by 2030 including 2,360 jobs in the detroit area.

conclusion

many of the current/best practices listed above are part of land use and/or environmental policy framework, but are also part of a series of overarching goals


2013R05EN

including a balanced approach towards sustainable development of intermodal facilities. some of the best practice policies and initiatives may include the following:

• intermodal freight terminals must be part of and included in a comprehensive land use plan to ensure the community’s long-term transportation, economic and environmental objectives are properly accounted for and coordinated;

• enact/improve appropriate legislature requiring environmental assessment analysis to properly account for and mitigate the negative environmental and social impacts of intermodal terminals;

• explore innovative environmental mitigation techniques to minimize adverse environmental effects while improving and updating key policies;

• conserve habitat effectively by maintaining the ecosystems critical for environmental conservation;

• exercise responsible environmental stewardship of land and water areas so that terminal growth and development takes place in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner;

• address community acceptance issues and concerns regarding industrial development by conducting scientific studies regarding adverse community effects on terminal lands (i.e. noise, light, odor, dust, etc.);

• consult with other responsible authorities to finalize impact assessment reviews created by an environmental review committee. these reviews usually involve project expansions and large rehabilitation and maintenance projects;

• work with other agencies on mitigation strategies for those potential impacts that are beyond operator control such as activities subject to international regulations;

• improve the effectiveness of the intermodal facility’s development and environmental review process by minimizing project approval timelines and streamlining project approval procedures, where possible;

• engage the public by undertaking public consultation to obtain their feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

3.6. InstItUtIonal and FInancIal IssUes

3.6.1. Intermodal Freight network and Infrastructure policy

as the concept of intermodal transportation has progressed and grown over the past several years, so has the need for developing and promoting intermodal policies. one of the main objectives in developing intermodal policy is to ensure the entire freight distribution network is used as efficiently and effectively as possible. additionally, transport policies need to create the conditions conducive to a properly functioning market and reduce transport’s negative effects.

Intermodal transportation, for the most part, uses the same infrastructure and equipment as single-mode freight. therefore, for instance, a well-functioning


2013R05EN

highway system would be an asset to rail-truck freight as well as to all truck transport. as such, any issues concerning public sector programs, policies, and investment decisions relating to intermodal freight effectiveness and efficiency will largely be the same as those that are important for the effectiveness and efficiency of the freight services as a whole.

Intermodal transport is encouraged and supported by governments in different ways as the need for intermodal transport differs among countries, influenced by a number of factors including geography, demographics, and organizational structures. depending on the role of intermodal transport within the general transport policy of any given country, intermodal policy initiatives vary in scope, intent and form.

according to the organization for economic cooperation and development (oecd) report, of the 28 member countries included in its review of intermodal policy statements, 26 had either an explicit or implicit policy or set of policies in place to promote intermodal freight transport (oecd 2001).

various research, policy directions, and programs have been undertaken in the past and will continue to be developed now and into the future to find ways to improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of intermodal freight transport and make them more competitive and attractive. the key issues to be addressed include (european commission 2006) :

• developing a coherent network of modes and interconnections between the modes along high-density corridors;

• improving accessibility by rail, road or waterway transport to existing intermodal terminals in order to facilitate the integration of these modes and transfer between modes;

• improving the interoperability between different countries’ infrastructure and rolling stock. dealing with a variety of loading unit dimensions and different standards for transport means and infrastructure (often regulated differently by country and by mode) lowers the levels of interoperability between different modes, and produces congestion and inefficiencies at terminals;

• developing and increasing the use of Information and communication technologies (Ict) in the management and operation of intermodal terminals. the absence of a systematic network for data interchange along the entire intermodal transport chain is a source of high costs and service deficiencies. The implementation of generalized systems for electronic communication between different partners in the intermodal chain would improve operations at short notice along the route. the absence of systems enabling tracking and tracing during the whole journey across modes, does not allow for a quick detection of errors and false routings.


2013R05EN

3.6.2. european Union countries

In europe, the european commission has defined a number of measures to stimulate the sustainable development of the european transport system. these measures are expected to result in reduced congestion, fewer injuries in traffic accidents and less impact on the environment. some of the european transport activities that support the development of intermodal transport include (eIa 2005):

• co-financing of improvements in the Trans-European Network for Transport (ten-t) to speed up investments in infrastructure. ten-t consists of road, rail, and inland waterway infrastructure, seaports, airports and inland ports and traffic management systems;

• identifying principles for infrastructure charging in europe to ensure fair competition between modes, non-discrimination, transparency and technical interoperability;

• introducing reform policies as part of a strategy to revitalize the railway industry and to increase market share in international freight transport;

• setting out policies for the harmonization of technical standards to remove technical barriers for combining transport modes into one intermodal chain;

• facilitating and improving the organization of intermodal transport by means such as improving training and education, further technical standardization and reviewing intermodal liability;

• co-financing Research and Development projects with a pre-competitive nature, which stimulate intermodal technological developments and ensure widespread diffusion and uptake of european best practices.

there also exist national policies that allow higher road vehicle weights (i.e. 44 tonnes instead of 40) in intermodal chains. these will affect the competitiveness of intermodal transport and are therefore also by extension policies in favor of a modal shift towards intermodalism.

3.6.3. United Kingdom

It is uK policy to promote intermodal integration. the united Kingdom’s vision is for its entire freight distribution network to be used as efficiently and effectively as possible, in a manner which supports the continued economic growth of the country while at the same time minimizing the impacts of distribution on society and the environment.

the uK’s transport white paper was published in july 1998. It contains policies and proposals aimed at creating a better, more integrated transport system and at tackling the problems of pollution and congestion. an important measure contained within the transport white paper is the requirement for local authorities to consider opportunities for freight interchange facilities.


2013R05EN

the white paper led to a number of follow-up papers intended to focus more closely on specific policy proposals. Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy sets out an integrated approach to freight distribution and to make best use of the entire freight infrastructure.

this strategy requires that, in the planning and development of ports, airports and rail terminals - whether new or modified -four key objectives be observed (oecd 2001):

• to promote the contribution of major freight interchange (intermodal facilities) to national and regional competitiveness;

• to improve the operational and environmental performance of existing intermodal facilities;

• to encourage full and efficient utilization of existing interchange facilities in preference to expansion in cases where suitable spare capacity exists or can be created;

• where new facilities or expansion involving new land acquisitions are required, that the criteria established for the appraisal of transport projects be rigorously applied.

3.6.4. north america

In the united states, much work has been done on developing a north american freight facilitation strategy and the development of freight partnerships with the private sector. In terms of infrastructure development, the u.s. has conducted studies of intermodal freight connectors on their national highway system (nhs), and intermodal freight capacity including the marine transportation system.

various states in the u.s. have implemented regulatory measures to improve freight movement for truck traffic to/from port facilities or at international border crossings. for instance, at the port of new orleans, the roadway connected to the port is split half for general traffic and the other half for commercial vehicles (2 lanes each). In laredo, texas, the 8-lane commercial traffic only highway was built to serve the increasing trade at the border between mexico and texas.

canada has also defined specific policies to promote intermodal transport and Intelligent transportation systems. this is in line with canada’s national transportation policy, which states that a system that makes best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is crucial to serve the transportation needs of shippers and travelers. the future of intermodalism is dictated by market considerations, and the government is involved to facilitate market-based responses to demand for intermodal services. to this end, canada is involved in the development of Its programmes, research and development, which would lead to improved intermodal activity.


2013R05EN

3.6.5. conclusions and summary of Issues

national policies play a key role in the development of infrastructure networks and in integrating transport into the territorial planning process. this applies to all rail, road and waterway infrastructure and points of interconnection such as ports, terminals and logistics business parks, and also comprises maintenance and traffic management.

the success of intermodalism largely depends on the reliability and adequacy of the transportation modes (e.g., rail, road, etc.) that carry the goods. as such, many of the policy measures considered likely to promote “intermodalism” include mode-specific actions. for example, the promotion of a modal shift away from road to rail or shortsea shipping focuses on improving the rail and waterway infrastructure in order to strengthen the competitive positions of these transport modes.

transport administrations with established and dedicated intermodal transport programmes and resources – such as a special action programme, a special task force, an intermodal transport policy unit or other similar organizational provisions – have developed more explicit and more focused intermodal transport policies than have transport administrations having purely “mono”- modal units (oecd, 2001).

governments that are more interventionist or more directly involved in ownership of transport operations are also likely to use regulatory measures such as licensing exemptions and driving bans at specified times to favor intermodal transport. In countries with greater reliance on market forces, use of such regulatory instruments by government is limited (oecd, 2001).

3.7. Intermodal FInancIng and FUndIng

the economic health of any country is directly tied to its national transportation infrastructure system and its ability to provide for and maintain the efficient movement of freight. virtually every form of transportation supporting global trade requires that a connection be made at some point with another mode of transportation to meet transportation needs.

while in many countries ports, railroads, the trucking industry, and intermodal terminals are primarily owned and operated by the private sector, the infrastructure (i.e., highways) required to move the goods is owned and financed, for the most part, by the public sector. therefore, governments at all levels have a critical interest in the health of the freight transportation network due to its role as an important contributor to local, regional and national economic growth and productivity.

In addition, over the last several years there has been increasing discussions/involvements by governments in financing freight-oriented improvements, including


2013R05EN

investments by the public sector in private infrastructure as well as private sector investments in public infrastructure where a public benefit is identified.

the oecd has found that most industrialized countries, including the u.s., dispose of a few general policy instruments to support and develop intermodal transportation (oecd 2001):

• legislation and regulation have been used to establish a framework to govern the allocation of program funding for transportation projects (an example of this approach being the safetea-lu legislation explained in more detail in the following section);

• specific governmental subsidies have stimulated the development of terminals and transfer points and support the purchase of intermodal equipment;

• research and development programs have enhanced knowledge on intermodal issues and help to overcome the different bottlenecks.

the following sections describe different funding programs as well as financing initiatives and tools that exist in the united states, canada, and europe.

United states Federal Funding programs

the u.s. started to formally encourage and promote the development of intermodal transportation infrastructure through the 1991 u.s. Intermodal surface transportation efficiency act (Istea). In may 1998, the u.s. congress passed the successor transportation equity act for the 21st century (tea-21) authorizing highway, highway safety, transit and other surface transportation programs for a total of usd 218 billion over the 1998-2003 period.

the tea-21 was later succeeded by the safe, accountable, flexible, efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, a funding and authorization bill that governs united states federal surface transportation spending. the usd 244 billion measure, the largest surface transportation investment in the u.s. history, contains a host of provisions and earmarks intended to improve and maintain the surface transportation infrastructure in the united states, including the interstate highway system, transit systems around the country, bicycling and pedestrian facilities, and freight rail operations.

safetea-lu focuses on projects that can address the many challenges facing the country’s transportation system – challenges such as improving safety, reducing traffic congestion, improving efficiency in freight movement, increasing intermodal connectivity, and protecting the environment – as well as laying the groundwork for addressing future challenges.


2013R05EN

regional and state levels are responsible in practice to develop intermodal freight projects that meet the programs eligibility criteria. these projects then have to be included in the state transportation Improvement program and be consistent with the state-wide transportation plan in order to receive federal funding.

with respect to financing, the most common federal financing tools include loans, credit enhancements and debt financing through bonds. Table 18 summarizes current u.s. federal funding and financing programs (both within and outside the safetea-lu) that support intermodal freight terminal projects as well as the current amounts of funding and eligibility criteria for these programs.

table 18 - U.s. Federal FUndIng/FInancIng programs related to Intermodal FreIght termInals

Funding program eligibility safetea-lu

funding level Freight application

Federal Funding programscongestion mitigation and air Quality (cmaQ) Improvement program

funds transportation projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas that improve air quality. can be used for start up costs associated with operations (for up to three years).

$8.6 billion freight-related eligible projects include:• advanced truck stop

electrification systems;• construction of Intermodal

freight facilities that result in air quality improvements;

• on-road and non-road diesel engine retrofits;

• cost-effective congestion mitigation activities.

coordinated border Infrastructure program

provides funding to border states for projects that improve the safe movement of motor vehicles and cargo at or across the u.s. border with canada and mexico.

$710 million projects that facilitate/expedite cross border crossing, e.g.: • operational improvements

related to electronic data interchange and use of telecommunications

• safety enforcement facilities related to international trade.

environmental protection agency – brownfield redevelopment program

provides grants and loans for brownfield site cleanup.

n/a brownfield sites could be redeveloped for commercial, residential, and/or industrial uses, including intermodal facilities (e.g., rail-truck transfer facilities).


2013R05EN

table 18 - U.s. Federal FUndIng/FInancIng programs related to Intermodal FreIght termInals (contInUed)

Funding program eligibility safetea-lu

funding level Freight application

Federal Financing toolstransportation Infrastructure finance and Innovation act (tIfIa)safetea-lusection 1601

provides loans and credit assistance for major transportation investments of national or regional significance, including public intermodal freight facilities. safetea-lu expanded tIfIa eligibility to private rail projects.private sponsors are eligible.

safetea-lu authorizes $122 million per year to pay the subsidy costs of supporting federal credit under tIfIa.

freight-specific projects eligible for tIfIa include:• public or private rail facilities

providing benefits to highway users;

• Intermodal freight transfer facilities;

• access to freight facilities and service improvements, including ITS;

• surface transportation infrastructure modifications to facilitate intermodal interchange, transfer, and access into and out of ports.

rail rehabilitation and Improvement financing (rrIf)

loans and credit assistance to both public and private sponsors of rail and intermodal projects.private sponsors are eligible.

$35 billion; $7 billion is directed to short line and regional railroads.

acquisition, development, improvement, or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment and facilities.

private activity bonds safetea-lusection 11143

title xI section 1143 of safetea-lu amends section 142(a) of the Irs code to allow the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds for highway and freight transfer facilities.private sponsors are eligible.

up to $15 billion.

• rail-truck transfer facilities• port access projects• air quality initiative as part of

a larger infrastructure expansion

source: financing freight Improvements (2007)

In addition to the federal and state programs that are available to fund freight improvements there are other ways to raise dollars to fund freight improvements and/or match grant funds. these are essentially grouped in three major categories:

1. funding sources, which refers to dedicated revenue sources to support freight such as user fees/tolls and dedicated taxes;

2. financing tools that use debt such as general obligation bonds and tax-exempt facility bonds; and

3. institutional arrangements, which include public-private partnerships and tax-exempt corporations.


2013R05EN

of the options noted above, the public-private partnerships (also known as p3 or ppp) have been expanding rapidly around the world to build needed infrastructure especially in the case of freight investments. there are currently several active ppp markets around the world, including canada, India, australia and the uK.

the p3 refers to contractual agreements between public entity/government and business for the provision of assets and the delivery of services that allocates responsibilities and business risks among the various partners.

In a p3 arrangement, government remains actively involved throughout the project’s life cycle. the private sector is responsible for the more commercial functions such as project design, construction, finance and operations. p3s take a variety of forms, with varying degrees of public and private sector involvement – and varying levels of public and private sector risk. Figure 45 shows the different options of p3s.

In the case of freight investments, p3s are essential for project implementation for several reasons. first, the private sector is heavily invested in freight transportation, whether it is through ownership of infrastructure or by facilitating the movement of goods. second, unlike other transportation investments, much of the freight investments are on private property, which makes it difficult for allocation of public funding. third, the efficient movement of goods is important to both the private and public sectors. overall, the creation of partnerships can facilitate freight investments by leveraging scarce resources, and accelerating the benefits realized through these investments.

canadian Federal Funding programs

the government of canada has put in place a number of programs that are supporting transportation infrastructure since 1993. funding programs are designed to improve the national highway system by means of financial contributions to provinces and territories, municipalities and private sector companies, without which they would not be able to initiate a proper amount of highways project in order to obtain a safe, effective and efficient highway system.

In budget 2001, the government of canada announced its intention to provide $cad 600 million to support improved efficiency at canada’s borders. the border Infrastructure fund (2002-07) was implemented in cooperation with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, academic and research institutes, and with partners from the public and private sectors on both sides of the border.

another program established by the federal government is the $cad 600 million strategic highway Infrastructure program (2002-06) to address highway infrastructure needs. Intermodal projects were eligible under shIp.


2013R05EN

fIgure 45 - publIc-prIvate partnershIp optIons (source: www.pppcouncil.ca)

most recently, in 2007 the government announced an unprecedented, 7-year $cad 33-billion infrastructure plan, called building canada plan, that provides funding to meet the nation’s pressing public infrastructure needs. the tools of the plan include a number of flexible initiatives and targeted programs that balance regional needs with national priorities. with respect to the improvement of freight movement and intermodal transportation, the following funding programs within the bcp exist by means of providing financial contributions, as part of cost-sharing agreements, to provinces and territories, municipalities and the private sector:

• Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative (APGCI) – A $CAD 1 billion system of transportation infrastructure, including british columbia lower mainland and prince rupert ports, road and rail connections that reach across western canada and into the economic heartlands of north america, as well as major airports and border crossings;

• gateways and border crossings fund (gbcf) – a $cad 2.1 billion fund to improve the flow of goods between Canada and the rest of the world. This merit-based fund will enhance infrastructure at key locations, such as major border crossings between canada and the united states.

more details about the canadian and u.s. funding programs are presented in Appendix 2 (Best Practice, Case 14).


2013R05EN

Funding programs in France

the french government has implemented a number of measures to encourage the development of intermodal freight transportation. the following describes briefly each of these measures as they relate to intermodal terminals.

Table 19 provides a summary and an assessment of their overall effectiveness.

• Increase of authorized total charge for trucks. this measure allows truckers to carry a total charge of 44 tonnes during intermodal carriages instead of 40 tonnes during unimodal carriages.

• subsidies to rail-route terminals construction. central government provided investment grants (18,3 million euros in 2001) for infrastructure, information systems and management of intermodal terminals.

• subsidies to rail-sea terminals development. It constitutes a government’s will to support the development of intermodal facilities in ports. subsidies are often allocated to projects that involve private investments and mostly targeted to container capacity improvements.

• support to sncF’s operations. the french government supports operations of the société nationale des chemins de fer français (sncf) to encourage the transfer of freight from road to alternative modes. grants are allocated according to the volume carried in tones-km.

• pilot actions in combined transport (pact) program. this program has been created by the European Commission to finance innovative intermodal projects in europe. In france, 10 projects have been funded through this program: 7 relate to the implementation of intermodal lines and 3 relate to the improvement of interoperability between intermodal operators.

table 19 - programs sUpportIng IntermodalIsm In France

measure recipient In effect costs Inter-modal shift efficiency relevance

44 tones motor carriers 1986 to date low < 1m €/yr medium 1 to 5% high high

rail-route terminals aids

Intermodal operators 1994 to date high > 10m €/yr low < 1% low medium

rail-sea terminal aids

Intermodal operators; ports

recently implemented high > 10m €/yr high > 5% high high

support to sncf sncf 1995 to date high > 10m €/yr medium 1 to 5% low low

pact programmIntermodal

operators; ports; loaders; SNCF

1997 to date low < 1m €/yr low/medium high high

source: “Évaluation des politiques publiques du transport combiné rail-route”, conseil national de l’évaluation & commissariat général du plan, 2003.


2013R05EN

other Funding programs in europe

In some european countries only investment in terminal infrastructure (roadways, quays, rail tracks, terminal access) is eligible for co-funding. other countries also subsidize investment in cranes, mobile equipment and telematics. a common alternative to grants is to provide bank guarantees for loans or to create funds, which can be used interest-free.

terminal subsidies are often a part of the more general subsidies available for developing freight villages. such subsidies are aimed at creating the conditions for the most efficient use of infrastructure, and here intermodality is just one element. these programmes may, for example, also include efforts to encourage warehousing activities.

the european commission established the “Marco Polo” funding programme to subsidize alternatives to ‘road only’ freight services with a budget of € 102 million (2003 -2006) for the eu25. It provided grants for efforts to promote a modal shift from the road to sea, rail and inland waterways. following on from the success of this program, the eu launched the marco polo II programme, which is a continuation of the first marco polo programme. the marco polo II runs from 2007-2013 with a total budget of € 450 million. the programme will reduce pressure on the road freight sector, thereby contributing to a more efficient and sustainable transport system. the european commission estimates that for every one euro spent through the marco polo programme, at least six euros are generated in environmental and social benefits. comparable programmes are run at national level, for example in germany and Italy.

3.7.1. conclusions and summary of Issues

with the multitude of programs under safetea-lu and their associated terms and conditions, u.s. federal funding for highways and transit is complex and administratively demanding. however, that very complexity also allows for the flexibility to address different needs across the nation, both at the state and municipal levels.

united states has been active in the promotion of intermodal freight for more than a decade, yet there are still many remaining impediments and bottlenecks to intermodalism. for instance, it has been reported that despite these efforts, intermodal connections are generally reported to be the weakest links in the transportation system. furthermore, u.s. investments remain heavily directed towards modal networks.

some of the funding programs may not be eligible for multistate freight investments. federal funds such as those of u.s. and canada are allocated by formula and must be matched by state/province or local funds, making it difficult for states/provinces to invest in projects beyond their state boundaries.


2013R05EN

a couple of measures adopted by france present a high level of benefit in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and relevance: the increase of authorized total charge for trucks and the pact programs.

while the financing/loan programs greatly enhance the availability of funds to finance freight improvements, some are primarily targeted at major transportation improvements, which can limit their applicability in some regions. for instance, for tIfIa loans under safetea-lu projects must cost at least $50 million, or one-third of a state’s annual federal-aid apportionments, whichever is less. while some freight projects are large, multimodal projects that fit within this category are small and do not meet this threshold.

additionally, while the use of innovative financing tools has proven to be very useful to accelerate and implement transportation investments, some states are unable to use these tools due to either reaching the limits on the amount of debt that can be incurred, or not having the necessary legislation in place to use specific bonds.

p3’s are becoming a common tool to bring together the strengths of public and private sectors. In addition to maximizing efficiencies and innovations of private enterprise, p3’s can provide much needed capital to finance government programs and projects, thereby freeing public funds for core economic and social programs. at the same, care must be taken by the government agencies interested in entering into p3’s arrangement to ensure important issues such as contractual obligations, ownership, finance structure and terms and conditions of investment agreements are properly studied, and that their implications are well understood and addressed.

3.8. health, saFety, and labor rUles and regUlatIons

In most countries health and safety regulations are set by the government bodies in accordance with their respective health and safety acts/regulations. these regulations vary in scope and coverage. as these regulations depend on the most part on the economic, political, and social structure of any given country, it is not possible to provide best practices recommendations. however, a few examples are provided below to illustrate the scope and coverage from a few select countries.

In a number of countries appropriate labor codes/acts exist with the main objective to prevent accidents in the workplace with various rights and responsibilities identified for both employers and employees (e.g., canada, united states, united Kingdom). typically, employers have a general duty of care towards their employees to ensure their health, welfare and safety regardless of the mode of transport they are engaged. occupational health and safety training opportunities are provided to all employees to ensure they understand the rules and regulations and that they take reasonable care for their own health while at work.


2013R05EN

another example on the scope of these types of regulations is the freight containers. shipping containers pose various safety hazards due to their large size and heavy weight. additional risks are often presented when these containers are stacked – sometimes as many as 8 or 10 units high. as such, various localities impose height restrictions for stacking containers. additionally, in many jurisdictions (e.g., united Kingdom, canada) containers must be in good state of repair and efficient working order. In europe, standards relating to the structural strength, dimensions, and safety for intermodal swap bodies are set by the comité européen de normalisation (cen). the cen is a non-profit organization made up of thirty-one national members and is officially recognized as a european standards body by the european union. through its services it provides a platform for the development of european standards and other technical specifications including the unimpeded circulation of swap bodies throughout the transportation system in europe.

labor rules also vary from one country to another, often times even from one province/city to another within the same country. these rules/regulations typically cover the entire relationship between the employer, the employees and the labor unions, where applicable. for instance, in canada the public service labor relations act (pslra) sets the tone for labor relations in public service by:

• providing principles for effective labor-management relations; • providing for the freedom of association;• providing for certification of unions, collective bargaining, strikes, consultation,

and essential services;• providing for individual, group and policy grievances.

the management has the authority to guide or direct organizations to meet their objectives while employee rights are granted or obtained through legislation, policies and collective bargaining (collective agreements).

4. conclUsIons and recommendatIons

4.1. conclUsIons

from the review of the survey of the world road association members, literature review, and case studies we can derive the following conclusions:

• intermodal Transport is growing rapidly and gaining importance in many countries;• terminals play a crucial role in intermodal transport chains with respect to overall

capacity, efficiency and quality of intermodal transport;• capacity, efficiency and quality of intermodal terminals depends on a number of

factors, including terminal design, terminal access, terminal services and operation, terminal organization and management, the use of information and communication


2013R05EN

systems, and the regulatory framework and conditions. also relevant in this respect is the co-operation between the terminal operator and other actors as railway undertakings, infrastructure managers and pre- and end haulage transport operators.


Equipment




Terminal-Quality


Management




Regulation


Equipment




Terminal-Quality


Management




Regulation

fIgure 46 - factors InfluencIng termInal capacIty, effIcIency and QualIty

the survey of the pIarc b4 members revealed that there are a number of challenges in intermodal freight transport as follows:

• infrastructure and equipment – e.g. congestion on terminal access roads, unsuitable terminal layout, insufficient railway access, one-sided access from main track;

• operation and management – e.g. lack of cooperation among stakeholders, low influence by terminal operators on ship/train arrival;

• land use, environment, and community issues – e.g. air/noise pollution, lack of space for expansion, conflict with other land uses;

• institutional and financing issues – e.g. missing intermodal terminal location/network policy, lack of steady and/or sufficient funding.

these issues have negative impact on the development of intermodal transport as a whole.

different types of measures can be considered to solve the problems and challenges identified:

• measures regarding infrastructure and equipment;• measures regarding operation and management;• measures regarding land use, environment and public involvement; • measures regarding institutional and financial issues.


2013R05EN

In addition to the extension of infrastructure (which usually needs substantial investment), operational and organizational measures play an important role. during the planning and realization phase it is important to consider land use and environmental requirements. terminal funding and a sound institutional framework also support efficient and attractive intermodal terminal networks. an important success factor for the implementation of measures is the cooperation between the stakeholders:

• when developing measures and implementing good practices, the local framework conditions and the transferability have to be looked at;

• often no single measure but rather a bundle of different measures – of different types – are suitable to achieve substantial improvements. these measures are addressed at different target groups such as governments, terminal operators, intermodal service providers, and logistics and transport service providers and shippers.

the good practices reviewed showed that the problems can be alleviated and many benefits achieved, such as:

• improving the accessibility of terminals by road, rail or ship;• increasing efficiency of terminal processes and terminal productivity;• increasing quality of terminal services (and also over the whole intermodal chain);• increasing capacity of terminals (with and without infrastructure investments);• mitigation of impacts on environment and residents (noise, pollution, use of space,

etc.);• reduction of energy consumption;• reduction of co2 emissions;• improving working conditions at terminals (safety, etc.);• improving security at terminals;• providing reliable and steady source of funding;• improving cooperation among stakeholders;

by realizing these benefits intermodal transport is becoming a viable alternative to pure road transport, thus contributing to the efficiency and environmental sustainability of freight transportation.

the results support authorities (and private actors) to provide efficient and high quality terminals with respect to terminal infrastructure planning, design, operation, organization, management and funding as well as taking into account sustainability aspects.


2013R05EN

4.2. recommendatIons

In the report entitled: Measures promoting alternatives to the road and intermodal terminals (world road association, 2007) some general measures focusing on intermodal transport were already recommended, in particular those relating to intermodal policy, standardization, intermodal access and securing terminals in national transport plans including their road, rail and sea and barge access. the following recommendations complement those recommendations with the focus on intermodal terminals. however, it is important to note the following:

• some recommendations may not be applicable to all situations. for instance, in europe, due to high passenger demand and rail capacity constraints, priority is given to passenger rail over freight whereas in North America the reverse is true;

• not all recommendations have the same timeframe. recommendations pertaining to land use planning and/or environment typically take longer to be implemented and/or show results whereas those relating to terminal operations could be done in relatively short timeframe.

4.3. termInal InFrastrUctUre and desIgn

regarding terminal infrastructure and design we recommend the following:

• limit the usually high investment costs by using a modular terminal design and approach with several modules;

• provide a high standard road connection with sufficient capacity between intermodal terminals and motorway network;

• design the railway access to the transhipment area from both sides to limit the shunting efforts and operational costs. for bigger rail/road terminals rail access must have enough capacity to allow rail arrivals and departures at the same time;

• the transhipment areas with loading tracks should be compatible with train length (e.g. 750 m in Europe) to avoid shunting;

• for intermodal sea and inland port terminals provide rail access where feasible;• on freight corridors a synchronization and coordination of terminal infrastructure

planning and extension is needed to make the best use of the intermodal capacity along the corridor;

• technical standards for planning and design of seaport and inland terminals should be developed at international level to harmonize the infrastructure conditions. this is especially important for freight corridors;

• an integrated planning and design process is needed from market analysis to financing and implementation;

• consider the dry port concept to maximize the use of port assets, relief the port area from truck traffic and improve the hinterland connections.


2013R05EN

4.4. termInal operatIon and management

regarding terminal operation and management we recommend the following:

• extend the standard loading /unloading procedure to floating loading/unloading procedure (capacity increase without additional loading tracks by 30 to 40%);

• use IT-based terminal capacity management systems to increase efficiency and quality of terminal processes;

• support automation and the use of advanced It-systems in big seaport terminals (including use of AGV’s) to improve efficiency and productivity;

• extend terminal operation times to weekends and nights to make better use of existing infrastructure where possible;

• create economical incentives to avoid traffic peak hours on access roads and to make better use of the terminal infrastructure;

• implement benchmarking and quality certification for terminal processes to increase efficiency and quality of terminal operations. Technical standards on processes and operation of intermodal terminals can support this;

• implement bonus/malus schemes for storage space to make better use of storage capacity;

• improve safety and security procedures to increase the attractiveness of intermodal transport.

4.5. land Use, enVIronment and commUnIty InVolVement

regarding land use, environment and community involvement we recommend the following:

• promote integrated land use and transport planning and encourage greater proportionate use of rail to support modal shift from road to rail resulting in environmental benefits both at local and national scale;

• support the concept of “lean” and “compact” rail/road terminals in countries where sufficient space is not available. The increase in efficiency and productivity also generally reduces the environmental impact;

• support the integration of intermodal terminals in freight villages / logistics areas to create synergies with other economic activities and increase the market potential for intermodal transport;

• secure land at strategic locations for intermodal terminals (purchase or long term land lease agreements), taking into account terminal expansion requirements in the long term (incl. storage purposes);

• encourage land use compatibility to minimize conflicts between terminal lands uses and adjacent lands. consultations are highly recommended to realize the goals for the community and the intermodal facility;


2013R05EN

• undertake consultation process with stakeholders during site evaluation and planning phase to increase community acceptance and market acceptance;

• evaluate site / location for new terminals systematically taking into account all relevant factors (accessibility, market potential, technical feasibility, environmental impact, cost-benefit analysis, etc.), using multi criteria evaluation. In doing so, the new/expanded terminal would have low negative social and environmental impacts;

• undertake environmental assessment studies to ensure appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., noise, pollution, nature conservation, ground water protection, etc.) are developed and implemented;

• develop best management practices, protocols, specific measures, etc. for handling dangerous goods and hazardous incidents including pollution prevention plans (e.g. spill prevention and cleanup plans, protection of groundwater, drainage).

4.6. InstItUtIonal and FInancIal IssUes

regarding institutional and financial issues we recommend the following:

• develop an intermodal terminal transport network strategy / policy (with main hubs and regional terminals) which also provides the basis for funding;

• develop/enhance international agreements between countries on a freight corridor with minimum standards for intermodal terminals (especially infrastructure) when international design standards are not available;

• develop suitable co-funding schemes for intermodal terminals (which would otherwise not be economically viable);

• combine funding rules with the existence of a benchmarking and/or quality certification systems for terminal operation with provision of statistical data on supply and demand data of intermodal terminals;

• create steady, predictable, and continuous government funding/financing programs to fund intermodal projects. this will greatly help regional and municipal organizations as well as private sector to develop their long- and medium-term capital plans with greater certainty on the availability of funds for implementing their capital projects;

• encourage the use of p3’s in funding intermodal terminals where market conditions are right (e.g., available expertise in evaluating p3 proposals and developing p3 agreements).

4.7. research needs

while research projects to date have addressed general issues relating to the improvement of the efficiency of intermodal terminals, more research is needed to address challenging as well as emerging issues such as: improving terminal operation and quality of service, increasing the use of information technologies for the management of terminals, and improving interoperability of terminals among different countries.


2013R05EN

regarding intermodal terminals the following research topics could be identified:

• methodologies and instruments for terminal network evaluation;• integrated and harmonized security in terminals and along the chain;• increasing sustainability in terminals and reduction of the carbon footprint of

terminal activities;• technological innovation applications (incl. automation);• improvement of the coordination and collaboration between actors;• increasing efficiency and quality of services; and• Ict applications.


2013R05EN

5. bIblIography / reFerences

• ballIs, a. “Introducing Level of Service Standards for Intermodal Freight Terminals”, trb 2003 annual meeting, washington d.c., 2003.

• db netz “Netzinfrastruktur Technik entwerfen; Bauliche Anlagen des kombinierten Verkehrs”, richtlinie 800.06, 2004.

• department of fInance, australIa “Best Practice Regulation Handbook”, 2010. (http://www.finance.gov.au/obpr/proposal/handbook/appendix-C-best-practice-consultation.html).

• ecmt “Transport Benchmarking”, proceedings of the paris conference, november 1999, paris, 2000.

• eIa “Intermodal Transport in europe”, brussels, 2005.• eIa “Security in Intermodal Transport”, Klaus ebeling, 2003.• eIa “Proposal document for setting minimum standards for terminals”, final

version, 1996.• eIa “Form for setting minimum standards and estimating costs for the construction

of intermodal terminals”, 1996• european commIssIon “Model for evaluation of terminal performance”,

report number 1.2.4., 1997.• european commIssIon “Terminal characterisation”, report number

1.1.3.a., 1997.• european commIssIon “Quality indicators for transport systems”, transport

research, fourth framework programme, strategic transport, brussels, 1998. • european commIssIon “Reform: Research on freight platforms and

freight organisation”, transport research, fourth framework programme, urban transport, brussels, 1999.

• european commIssIon “IMPULSe”, final summary report, brussels, 2000.• european commIssIon “ITIP. Innovative Technologies for Intermodal

transfer Points”, 2000.• european commIssIon “White Paper: european transport policy for 2010:

Time to decide”, brussels, 12.9.2001.• european commIssIon “Regulation (eC) No 725/2004 of the european

Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security”, brussels, 2004.

• european commIssIon “TRAPIST”, project report, brussels, october 2004.• european commIssIon “Final Report on european Commission

Programming Mandate M/340 in the Field of Services”, march 2005.• european commIssIon “Terms of Reference of the Commission Agreement to

follow the ISO activities in the domain security in the supply chain”, august 10 2005.• european commIssIon “Mid-term review of the european Commission’s

2001 transport White Paper”, brussels, 2006.• european commIssIon “Intermodal Freight Terminals: In search of

efficiency to support intermodality growth”, 2006.


2013R05EN

• european commIssIon “Consultation on the Future Trans-european Transport Network Policy”, commission working document, brussels com (2010) 212/7, 2010.

• eutp “Recommendations for policy and research activities: Phase II Deliverable D 4.1”, brussels, 2004.

• eutp “State of the art of conventional and innovative techniques in intermodal transport Deliverable D 1 (including annexes)”, brussels, 2004.

• federal hIghway admInIstratIon and mIchIgan department of transportatIon “Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) Draft environmental Impact Statement”, may, 2005.

• fv 2000 “Quality of Freight Villages Structure and Operations”, 1999.• gronalt, m., rojas-navas, t., posset, m., häuslmayer, h.,

hüttler, b. “Handbuch der österreichischen Container Terminals”, Internes dokument des Instituts für produktionswirtschaft und logistik der universität für bodenkultur, wien, 2008.

• herremans, a. “Merging Corridors and extended Gateways: The eNA”, gent university, 2009.

• hultÉn, l. “Benchmarking container terminals”, 1999.• IdIoma “Innovative distribution with Intermodal Freight Operation in

Metropolitan Areas”, best practice handbook. 2001.• InfrastruKtur- und projeKtentwIcKlungsgesellschaft

mbh “Güterverkehrszentren in Brandenburg und Berlin – Verkehrlicher und logistischer Startpunkt der eisenbahnverbindung in Baltikum, Potentiale und Anforderungen”, studie im rahmen des Interreg III b, 8. januar 2007.

• Inhotra “Interoperable Intermodal Horizontal Transhipment”, final management report, 2004.

• IntegratIon “Integration of Sea Land Technologies for an efficient door to door Intermodal Transport”, 2005.

• IQ “Intermodal Quality. Terminal characterisation”, deliverable 1, 3.7.1997.• IQ consortIum “Intermodal Quality Task 3.5”, brussels, 1998.• IQ consortIum “Intermodal Quality Deliverable 1: Model for evaluation of

terminal performance”, report number 1.2.4, brussels, 1998.• InstItute for shIppIng economIcs and logIstIcs “Beurteilung

alternativer Hafenanlaufstrategien im Containerseeverkehr am Beispiel der Hamburg-Antwerpen-Range”, bremen, 1996.

• Iso/pas 28000:2005, „Specification for security management systems for the supply chain”.

• ItIp “Innovative Technologies for Intermodal Transfer Points. Deliverable D1. State of the Art of conventional and innovative techniques in intermodal transport”, 2002.

• ItIp “Innovative Technologies for Intermodal Transfer Points. Deliverable D2. The intermodal terminal and its equipment: An attempt at the definition of success and failure”, 2002.


2013R05EN

• ItIp “Innovative Technologies for Intermodal Transfer Points”, deliverable d3, best practice handbook, 2002.

• ItIp “Innovative Technologies for Intermodal Transfer Points”, deliverable d4, Inventory and expert system on new technologies in intermodal transport, 2002.

• legato, p., gullI, d., trufIo, r., sImIno, r. “Simulation at a Maritime Container Terminal: Models and Computational Frameworks”, Italia.

• macharIs, c. et al. “Overview of intermodal terminals in Belgium”, brussels, 2005.

• mds transmodal ltd, 2004 “Assessment of Rail Freight Terminal Potential at Corby”, prepared for corby borough council, september 2005.

• meyrIcK and assocIates, arup “National intermodal terminal study”, prepared for the department of transport and regional services, february 2006.

• de mûelenaere “Towards more intermodality for freight transport in Flanders: network and spatial potentiality analysis”, 2010.

• mva, KombIconsult, Kessel + partner “Study on Infrastructure Capacity Reserves for Combined Transport by 2015”, report prepared for the uIc, 2004.

• nea, rapp trans ag, grupo clas, hacon “Terminal Study on the freight corridor Rotterdam Genova”, 2008.

• nea “Freight flows in an enlarging Europe: From Facts to Visuals”, rijswijk, october 2006.

• nottInghamshIre county councIl “Introduction to Public Consultation”, 2010. (http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/home/whatdoyouthink/consultationguides.htm).

• novacorp et al. “Great Vancouver Short Sea Container Shipping study”, pre-feasibility report, 2005.

• ocean shIppIng consultants “Marketing of Container Terminals”, 2004.• ocKwell, a. “Benchmarking the Performance of Intermodal Transport”, 2001.• Önorm “National Standards for planning and design of intermodal terminals”,

(austria, various documents).• oecd “Benchmarking Intermodal Freight Transport”, paris, 2002.• oecd “Intermodal Freight Transportation: Institutional Aspects”, paris, 2001.• pIarc technIcal commIttee c2.4 “Measures Promoting Alternatives to

the Road and Intermodal Terminals”, final report, 2007.• posset, m. et al “COCKPIIT – Clear Operable and Comparable Key

Performance Indicators for Intermodal Transportation”, vienna, 2010.• promIt “Promoting Innovative Intermodal Transport”, best practice handbook,

2009.• promIt “Promoting Innovative Intermodal Transport”, promotion strategy, 2007.• Quorum corporatIon “Container Use in Western Canada”, transport

canada and agriculture and agri-food canada, november 2007.• rapp trans ag et al. “Integrated Services in the Intermodal Chain”, task d:

Improving the quality of terminals, 2005.


2013R05EN

• rapp trans ag / Ivt ethz “Ausgestaltung von Terminals für den Kombinierten Verkehr (Design of terminals for combined transport) – Final Report”, zürich, 2005.

• rapp trans ag “Heutige und künftige Transportketten im Güterverkehr: Analyse und Normierungsbedarf”, forschungsauftrag vss 1999/255, 2002.

• rapp trans ag “Vor- und Nachlauf im Kombinierten Verkehr (Pre- and endhaulage in Combined Transport) – Final Report”, zürich, 2005.

• rodrIgue and hatch “terminal types”, 2009.• rodrIgue, j.-p. “Intermodal Terminals, Mega Ports and Mega Logistics”,

february 2009.• ruesch m. “Targets and application of benchmarking in intermodal freight

transport”, presentation held at the smart rivers conference 2009, vienna.• seIdelmann c. “40 Jahre Kombinierter Verkehr Strasse-Schiene in europa:

Vom Huckepackverkehr zum Intermodalen Transportsystem”, frankfurt am main, 2010.

• spInalp “Scanning the Potential of Intermodal Transport on Alpine Corridors”, manual, 2009.

• sIt “Safe & secure intermodal transport”, www.sitglobal.org, 2005• technIsche unIversIteIt delft “TeRMINeT”, netherlands, 2000.• tfK transport research InstItute “Benchmarking container

terminals”, gothenborg, 1999.• transport canada “Making Connections: Shortsea Shipping in Canada”,

january 2005.• trapIst-consortIum “TRAPIST - Tools and Routines to Assist Ports and

Improve Shipping: TRAPIST WP 11 Deliverable D 11.4. WP 11: Tools and Routines for Benchmarking Ports and Terminals”, brussels, july 2004.

• uIc “Developing Infrastructure and Operating Models for Intermodal Shift. Benchmarking Intermodal Rail Transport in the United States and europe”, report a4, february 2007.

• uIc “Developing Infrastructure and Operating Models for Intermodal Shift. Best Practices for the management of combined transport terminals”, report a4, february 2007.

• uIc “Developing Infrastructure and Operating Models for Intermodal Shift. International Coordination of combined transport development”, report a8, october 2007.

• uIc “Developing Infrastructure and Operating Models for Intermodal Shift. Report on combined transport in europe 2005”, report a11, november 2006.

• uIc-gtc “Study on Infrastructure Capacitiy Reserves for Combined Transport by 2015”, final report, freiburg. 2004.

• uIrr “Developing a Quality Strategy for Combined Transport”, final report, brussels, 2000.

• uIrr “Vorschläge der UIRR zur erhöhung der Sicherheit im Kombinierten Verkehr”, 2004.


2013R05EN

• uIrr “empfehlungen der UIRR zur Verbesserung der Gefahrenabwehr im Kombinierten Verkehr”, marco polo programm, brussels, 2007.

• uIrr “UIRR Risiko Analyse: Leitfaden für Terminals im Kombinierten Verkehr”, marco polo programm, brussels, 2007.

• unIted natIons “european Agreement on important international combined Transport Lines and related Installations (AGTC)”, geneva, 1991/2004.

• unIted natIons “Environment Programme: Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment”, new york and geneva, 2007.

• unIted natIons “Terminology of combined transport”, new york and geneva, 2001.

• van damme o. “Multimodal terminals: Analysis of good practices in Belgium”, 2010.

• vauramo p. “Automation in Container Terminals”, presentation held at promIt workshop on intermodal terminals in lisbon, 16th october 2008

• vss “Umschlaganlagen des Kombinierten Verkehrs: Grundlagen und Ausgestaltung”, normentwurf, stand april 2011.

• woxenIus, j. et al. “The Dry Port Concept – Connecting Seaports with their Hinterland by Rail”, göteborg, sweden, 2004.

• woxenIus, j. et al. “Terminals as part of the Swedish transport system”, göteborg, sweden, 2003.


2013R05EN

glossaryterm definition

agV automated guided vehiclecen european committee for standardizationctQI container terminal Quality Indicator

combined transport

Intermodal transport where the major part of the journey is by rail, inland waterways or seas and any initial and/or final legs carried out by road are as short as possible. (unece)

containergeneric term for a box to carry freight, strong enough for repeated use, usually stackable and fitted with devices for transfer between modes. (unece

dry portan inland terminal directly connected to seaport(s) with high capacity transport mean(s), where customers can leave/pick-up up their standardized units as if directly to a seaport (roso, 2004).

ea environmental assessmenteda economic development areaseIa european Intermodal associationeU european unioneuro-platforms european association of freight villages

Freight Village (also called logistics centre)

a freight village is a geographical grouping of independent companies and bodies which are dealing with freight transport (for example freight forwarders, shippers, transport operators, customs) and with accompanying services (for example storage, maintenance and repair), including at least a terminal. (unece)

gatewayan [intermodal] gateway is a nodal point (node), where continental flows are being transshipped onto other continental/intercontinental axes and vice versa (based on fleming and hayuth, 1994).

gantry crane

an overhead crane comprising a horizontal gantry mounted on legs which are either fixed, run in fixed tracks or on rubber tyres with relatively limited manoeuvre. the load can be moved horizontally, vertically and sideways. (unece)

hub central point for the collection, sorting, transhipment and distribution of goods for a particular area.

Ict Information and communication technologiesIlU Intermodal loading unit

Intermodal transport

the movement of goods in one and the same loading unit or road vehicle, which uses successively two or more modes of transport without handling the goods themselves when changing modes. (unece)

Isps International ship and port facility securityIso International standardisation organisationKpI Key performance Indicatorloading track track on which Itu’s are transshipped.


2013R05EN

glossaryterm definition

marshalling

the breaking up of freight train formations and the subsequent sorting of wagons into train loads for final destination, carried out at a marshalling or shunting yards. formation of freight wagons/block of wagons to trains or train formations, or splitting of trains to blocks or single wagons.

multimodal transport carriage of goods by two or more modes of transport. (unece)

naFta north american free trade agreement (nafta)oecd organisation for economic co-operation and developmentppp public private partnershipprivate siding direct rail connection to a company. (unece)

reach stacker mobile handling vehicle equipped with a spreader (for top lifting containers) and grappler arms for bottom lift swap bodies).

rolling road transport of complete road vehicles, using roll-on roll-off techniques, on trains comprising low-floor wagons throughout. (unece)

roll-on roll-off (ro-ro)

loading and unloading of a road vehicle, a wagon or an Itu on or off a ship on its own wheels or wheels attached to it for that purpose. (unece)

semi trailer

a non-powered vehicle for the carriage of goods, intended to be coupled to a motor vehicle in such a way that a substantial part of its load is borne by the motor vehicle. semi-trailers may have to be specially adapted for us in combined transport. (unece)

shunting

the process of moving rolling stock from one line to another, arranging vehicles and wagons in a certain order, to place a certain wagon or block of wagons in a desired position in a train, or to place them at the point of discharge or loading. hence shunter, shunting yard, shunting locomotive. sometimes also called marshalling or sorting.

solas International convention for the safety of life at seasss short seas shipping

straddle carrier a rubber-tyred overhead lifting vehicle for moving or stacking containers on a level reinforced surface.

swap body a freight carrying unit optimised to road vehicle dimensions and fitted with handling devices for transfer between modes, usually road/rail. (unece)

terminal a place equipped for the transhipment and storage of Itu’s. (unece)

teUtwenty-foot equivalent unit. a standard unit based on an Iso container of 20 feet length (6.10m), used as a statistical measure of traffic flows or capacities. (unece)

transship-ment moving Itu’s from one means of transport to another. (unece)UIc International union of railwaysUIrr International union of combined road-rail companies


2013R05EN

appendIces

1. QUestIonnaIre on problems/challenges at FreIght termInals

the following questionnaire was developed within the tc b.4 freight transport and Intermodality to identify the problems/challenges regarding intermodal freight terminals on country level. within this survey the importance of predefined problems related to intermodal freight terminals were assessed, both for the situation today and for the future. the survey was carried out through a written questionnaire in a number of countries in 2009/2010. the results are summarized in chapter 2 of the report.

the questionnaire included 4 main topics, which covered 22 problem areas and nearly 130 potential problems. In the following table the main topics and problem areas are shown.

this questionnaire can also be used for self assessment. please follow the following procedure to assess the problems relating to intermodal terminals in your country:

step 1 fill in your countrystep 2 fill in the name who was responsible for filling in the problem analysis

step 3

assessement for today’s situation please assess the importance of problems between 1 (very low importance) and 5 (very high importance please consider the whole situation in your country and not for one single terminal when you would like to specify your problem the do so under the section remarks when there are problems which are not mentioned than please use the last row ans specify the problem under remarks

step 4

assessement for the future situation (in 10 to 15 years) please assess the importance of problems between 1 (very low importance) and 5 (very high importance please consider the whole situation in your country and not for one single terminal when you would like to specify your problem the do so under the section remarks when there are problems which are not mentioned than please use the last row ans specify the problem under remarks


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

1.0

Infr

astr

uctu

re a

nd e

quim

ent

1.1

roa

d a

cces

s1.

11 In

suff

icie

nt ro

ad a

cces

s cap

acity

1.12

Insu

ffic

ient

truc

k ga

te c

apac

ity

1.13

Insu

ffic

ient

truc

k pa

rkin

g ca

paci

ty1.

14 In

suff

icie

nt in

fras

truc

ture

re

latin

g to

veh

icle

dim

ensi

ons

1.15

poo

r con

ditio

n of

road

acc

ess

infr

astr

uctu

re1.

16 t

raff

ic ja

ms o

n te

rmin

al a

cces

s ro

ads

1.17

oth

er ro

ad a

cces

s pro

blem

s (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der r

emar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

1.2

rai

lway

acc

ess

1.21

Insu

ffic

ient

rail

acce

ss c

apac

ity

1.22

Isuf

ficie

nt ra

ilway

shun

ting

capa

city

1.23

Insu

ffic

ient

railw

ay p

arki

ng

capa

city

1.24

Insu

ffic

ient

infr

astr

uctu

re

rela

ting

to ra

ilway

dim

ensi

ons

1.25

poo

r con

ditio

n of

railw

ay a

cces

s in

fras

truc

ture

1.26

mis

sing

ele

ctri

fica

tion

of ra

ilway

tr

acks

1.27

oth

er ra

il ac

cess

pro

blem

s (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der r

emar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

1.3

wat

er a

cces

s1.

31 In

suff

icie

nt w

ater

acc

ess c

apac

ity

1.32

Insu

ffic

ient

infr

astr

uctu

re

rela

ting

to sh

ip m

anoe

uvri

ng1.

33 In

suff

icie

nt in

fras

truc

ture

re

latin

g to

ship

dim

ensi

ons

1.34

poo

r con

ditio

n of

wat

er a

cces

s in

fras

truc

ture

1.35

oth

er w

ater

acc

ess p

robl

ems

(ple

ase

spec

ify

unde

r rem

arks

)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

1.4

term

inal

layo

ut

and

desi

gn1.

41 t

erm

inal

layo

ut d

oes n

ot m

atch

an

y m

ore

the

term

inal

func

tion

(e.g

. ga

tew

ay o

r hub

func

tion)

1.42

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

oper

atio

nal

cone

pt o

f rai

l tra

nspo

rt an

d te

rmin

al

desi

gn1.

43 t

erm

inal

layo

ut d

oes n

ot fi

t any

m

ore

the

toda

ys re

quire

men

ts (n

ot a

ny

mor

e st

ate

of th

e ar

t)1.

44 o

nly

one

side

d ac

cess

to lo

adin

g tr

acks

from

the

mai

n tr

ack

1.45

not

fle

xibl

e in

fras

truc

ture

to

incr

easi

ng sh

ip si

ze

1.46

Insu

ffic

ient

shun

ting/

mah

rsha

lling

yar

d

1.47

mis

sing

are

a an

d fa

cilit

ies f

or

dang

erou

s goo

ds

1.48

mis

sing

ext

ensi

on o

ptio

ns

1.49

oth

er p

robl

ems r

elat

ing

to la

yout

an

d de

sign

(ple

ase

spec

ify

unde

r re

mar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

1.5

tran

sshi

pmen

t are

a(in

clud

ing

stor

age)

1.51

Insu

ffic

ient

tran

ship

men

t ca

paci

ty (d

ue to

lim

ited

cran

e/re

ach

stac

ker c

apac

ity)

1.52

Insu

ffic

ient

stor

age

capa

city

1.53

loa

ding

trac

ks a

re n

ot

corr

espo

ndin

g w

ith tr

ain

leng

th

1.54

Inco

mpa

tible

tran

spor

t mea

ns

(laod

ing

units

, ter

min

al e

quip

men

t)

1.55

old

han

dlin

g eq

uipm

ent

1.56

oth

er p

robl

ems r

elat

ing

to

tran

ship

men

t are

a (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der r

emar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

2.0

ope

ratio

n an

d m

anag

emen

t2.

1 te

rmin

al a

cces

s2.

11 l

ong

wai

ting

times

for t

ruck

s at

entr

y ga

tes

2.12

lon

g w

aitin

g tim

es fo

r rai

lway

s at

term

inal

ent

ry2.

13 l

ong

wai

ting

times

for s

hips

at

term

inal

ent

ry2.

14 m

issi

ng o

r ins

uffic

ient

m

anag

emen

t of i

ncom

ing

truc

ks2.

15 s

igni

fica

nt ti

dal i

mpa

ct o

n se

a si

de te

rmin

al a

cces

s2.

16 s

igni

fican

t del

ays o

f tra

ins a

t te

rmin

als

2.17

sig

nifi

cant

del

ays o

f shi

ps a

t te

rmin

als

2.18

oth

er o

pera

tiona

l pro

blem

s re

latin

g to

term

inal

acc

ess (

plea

se

spec

ify

unde

r rem

arks

)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

2.2

term

inal

han

dlin

g2.

21 t

oo lo

ng w

aitin

g tim

es in

side

the

term

inal

2.22

Inef

fici

ent r

ailw

ay sh

untin

g ne

cess

ary

2.23

reg

ular

bre

akdo

wn/

failu

re o

f te

rmin

al e

quip

men

t2.

24 l

ow e

ffic

ienc

y/pr

oduc

tiviti

y of

te

rmin

al o

pera

tions

2.25

low

qua

lity

of te

rmin

al

oper

atio

ns2.

26 m

issi

ng a

dded

val

ue se

rvic

es

(e.g

. for

reef

er, s

tora

ge, e

tc.)

2.27

poo

r ins

pect

ion

of c

onta

iner

s at

arriv

al2.

28 m

issi

ng p

ossi

bilit

y/eq

uipm

ent f

or

hand

ling

dang

erou

s goo

ds2.

29 o

ther

ope

ratio

nal p

robl

ems

rela

ting

to te

rmin

al h

andl

ing

(ple

ase

spec

ify

unde

r rem

arks

)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

2.3

term

inal

m

anag

emen

t2.

31 m

issi

ng t

erm

inal

man

agem

ent

syst

ems

2.32

Insu

ffic

ient

secu

rity

man

agem

ent

syst

ems

2.33

low

use

leve

l fo

elec

tron

ic d

ata

proc

essi

ng2.

34 p

oor r

eal t

ime

mon

itori

ng o

f op

erat

ions

2.35

res

tric

ted

term

inal

ope

ning

tim

es2.

36 s

hort

age

of st

aff o

r equ

ipm

ent

2.37

mis

sing

bon

us/m

alus

sche

me

for

load

ing

unit

stor

age

2.38

Inne

ffic

ient

railw

ay c

ontr

ol

proc

edur

es2.

39 o

ther

ope

ratio

nal p

robl

ems

rela

ting

to te

rmin

al h

andl

ing

(ple

ase

spec

ify

unde

r rem

arks

)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

2.4

term

inal

or

gani

satio

n an

d ad

min

istr

atio

n

2.41

uns

uita

ble

term

inal

org

anis

atio

n m

odel

2.42

Inne

ffic

ient

inte

rnal

ad

min

istr

ativ

e pr

oces

ses

2.43

del

ays d

ue to

cus

tom

s cle

aran

ce

2.44

oth

er o

rgan

isat

iona

l pro

blem

s at

term

inal

(ple

ase

spec

ify

unde

r re

mar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

2.5

coo

pera

tion

betw

een

acto

rs2.

51 c

omm

unic

atio

ns p

robl

ems/

inef

ficie

ncie

s bet

wee

n ac

tors

2.52

not

satis

fyin

g in

form

atio

n in

ca

se o

f del

ays a

nd in

cide

nts

2.53

lac

k of

coo

pera

tion

betw

een

inte

rmod

al a

ctor

s2.

54 l

ack

of c

oord

inat

ion

betw

een

term

inal

ope

rato

r and

hos

t-city

au

thor

ities

2.55

low

infl

uenc

e of

term

inal

op

erat

or o

n tr

ain

or sh

ip a

rriv

al2.

56 m

issi

ng c

oope

ratio

n w

ith

hint

erla

nd te

rmin

als

2.57

Insu

ffic

ient

or u

ncom

plet

e pr

oces

s tra

ckab

ility

2.58

oth

er c

oope

ratio

nal p

robl

ems a

t te

rmin

al (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der

rem

arks

)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

3.0

lan

d us

e, e

nvir

onm

ent a

nd c

omm

unity

acc

epta

nce

3.1

land

use

3.11

ter

min

als n

ot c

onsi

dere

d in

land

us

e pl

anni

ng3.

12 m

issi

ng sp

ace

for n

ew te

rmin

als

3.13

mis

sing

ext

ensi

on p

ossi

bilit

ies o

f ex

istin

g te

rmin

als

3.14

uns

uita

ble

loca

tion

3.15

con

flic

ts w

ith o

ther

land

use

pu

rpos

es3.

16 o

ther

land

use

pro

blem

s (pl

ease

sp

ecif

y un

der r

emar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

3.2

envi

ronm

ent

3.21

noi

se e

mis

sion

s fro

m te

rmin

al

3.22

noi

se e

mis

sion

s on

road

acc

ess

3.23

noi

se e

mis

sion

on

railw

ay a

cces

s

3.24

pol

lutio

n fr

om te

rmin

al a

ctiv

ities

3.25

pol

lutio

n fr

om in

com

ing/

outg

oing

traf

fic3.

26 l

ight

em

issi

ons

3.27

low

aw

aren

es o

f ter

min

al

oper

ator

s for

env

ironm

enta

l con

cern

s3.

28 o

ther

env

ironm

enta

l pro

blem

s (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der r

emar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

3.3

res

sour

ces

3.31

spa

ce u

se

3.32

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

3.33

oth

er re

ssou

rces

pro

blem

s (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der r

emar

ks)

3.4

3.41

low

inte

rest

of c

omm

unity

in

settl

emen

t of t

rans

ship

men

t act

iviti

es

3.42

neg

ativ

e co

mm

unity

atti

tude

be

caus

e of

env

ironm

enta

l pro

blem

s

3.43

oth

er c

omm

unity

acc

epta

nce

prob

lem

s (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der

rem

arks

)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

4.0

Inst

itutio

nal i

ssue

s and

Fin

anci

ng4.

1 te

rmin

al n

etw

ork

polic

y4.

11 m

issi

ng in

term

odal

term

inal

ne

twor

k po

licy

4.12

mis

sing

inte

rmod

al te

rmin

al

loca

tion

polic

y4.

13 m

issi

ng te

rmin

al se

curi

ng in

land

us

e pl

anni

ng4.

14 m

issi

ng c

oord

inat

ion

of te

rmin

al

deve

lopm

ent o

n co

rrid

ors

4.15

mis

sing

coo

rdin

atio

n cr

oss

bord

er te

rmin

al d

evel

opm

ent

4.16

oth

er te

rmin

al n

etw

ork

polic

y pr

oble

ms

(ple

ase

spec

ify

unde

r re

mar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

4.2

term

inal

sec

urity

4.21

mis

sing

secu

rity

rule

s for

seap

ort

term

inal

s

4.22

mis

sing

secu

rity

rule

s for

inla

nd

term

inal

s

4.23

mis

sing

har

mon

ised

inte

rmod

al

term

inal

secu

rity

stan

dard

s

4.24

mis

sing

inte

rnat

iona

l agr

eem

ents

on

secu

rity

stan

dard

s

4.25

mis

sing

inte

gtra

tion

of se

curit

y as

pect

s in

natio

nal r

egul

atio

ns

4.26

too

hig

h se

curit

y re

quire

men

ts

whi

ch a

ffec

t the

qua

lity

and

effic

ienc

y of

term

inal

han

dlin

g4.

27 o

ther

term

inal

secu

rity

prob

lem

s (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der r

emar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

4.3

res

pons

ibili

ty4.

31 u

ncle

ar li

abili

ty ru

les f

or

hand

ling

inte

rmod

al u

nits

at t

he

term

inal

4.32

oth

er li

abili

ty p

robl

ems

rela

ting

to in

term

odal

term

inal

s (pl

ease

sp

ecif

y un

der r

emar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

4.4

labo

ur ru

les a

nd

safe

ty re

gula

tions

4.41

mis

sing

labo

ur re

gula

tions

for

term

inal

han

dlin

g

4.42

mis

sing

safe

ty re

gula

tions

for

term

inal

han

dlin

g

4.43

too

stric

t lab

our r

egul

atio

ns fo

r te

rmin

al h

andl

ing

4.44

too

stric

t saf

ety

regu

latio

ns fo

r te

rmin

al h

andl

ing

4.45

str

ong

infl

uenc

e of

uni

ons o

n la

bour

rule

s and

safe

ty re

gula

tions

4.46

reg

ular

stri

kes

4.47

oth

er la

bour

pro

blem

s re

latin

g to

inte

rmod

al te

rmin

als (

plea

se

spec

ify

unde

r rem

arks

)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

4.5

plan

ning

pr

oced

ures

4.51

mis

sing

stru

ctur

ed te

rmin

al

plan

ning

4.

52 m

issi

ng te

rmin

al p

lann

ing

proc

edur

es4.

53 o

ther

pro

blem

s re

latin

g to

in

term

odal

term

inal

pla

nnin

g (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der r

emar

ks)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

4.6

fund

ing

4.61

mis

sing

pub

lic fu

ndin

g of

seap

ort

term

inal

s4.

62 m

issi

ng p

ublic

fund

ing

of in

land

te

rmin

als

4.63

unc

lear

or i

nsuf

fici

ent f

undi

ng

rule

s/con

ditio

ns/c

riter

ia4.

64 m

issi

ng h

arm

onis

atio

n of

fu

ndin

g ru

les b

etw

een

coun

trie

s4.

65 m

issi

ng q

ualit

y an

d/or

eff

icie

ncy

requ

irem

ents

for t

erm

inal

fund

ing

4.66

too

low

fund

ing

rate

s

4.67

mis

sing

reim

burs

emen

t en

forc

emen

t4.

68 m

issi

ng u

se o

f ppp

4.69

oth

er p

robl

ems r

elat

ed to

in

term

odal

term

inal

fund

ing

(ple

ase

spec

ify

unde

r rem

arks

)


2013R05ENg

t2

– In

te

rFa

ce

s d

U t

ra

nsp

or

t r

oU

tIe

r d

e m

ar

ch

an

dIs

es

aVe

c d

’aU

tr

es

mo

de

s d

e t

ra

nsp

or

tFe

UIl

le

d’a

na

lyse

de

s pr

ob

lè

me

spr

oble

ms

Impo

rtan

ce

(toda

y)Im

port

ance

(fu

ture

)r

emar

ks (c

oncr

ete

desc

ript

ion

of

prob

lem

, if n

eces

sary

)x.

x pr

oble

m a

rea

x.xx

pro

blem

sve

ry lo

w1

23

45

12

34

5ve

ry h

igh

4.7

mon

itori

ng (f

rom

au

thor

ity v

iew

) 4.

71 m

issi

ng m

onito

ring

of q

ualit

y o

f te

rmin

als

4.72

mis

sing

mon

itori

ng o

f eff

icie

ncy

of te

rmin

als

4.73

mis

sing

ben

chm

arki

ng o

f qua

lity

and

effi

cien

cy o

f ter

min

als

4.74

mis

sing

mon

itori

ng o

f tar

iff

leve

ls4.

75 o

ther

pro

blem

s rel

ated

to

mon

itori

ng (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der

rem

arks

)4.

8 o

ther

regu

latio

ns4.

81 r

oad

acce

ss re

stric

tions

(wei

ght,

dim

ensi

ons,

driv

ing

bans

, etc

.)

4.82

ter

min

al o

pera

tion

rest

rictio

ns

(no

24h

oper

atio

n po

ssib

le)

4.83

oth

er p

robl

ems r

elat

ed to

oth

er

regu

latio

ns (p

leas

e sp

ecif

y un

der

rem

arks

)

Mai

n so

urce

s use

d:[1

] In

tegr

ated

Ser

vice

s in

the

inte

rmod

al c

hain

(ISI

C). F

inal

Rep

ort T

ask

D: I

mpr

ovin

g th

e qu

ality

of I

nter

mod

al T

erm

inal

s, D

G T

ReN

, Rap

p Tr

ans

et a

l., 2

005

[2]

Term

inal

Stu

dy o

n fr

eigh

t cor

rido

r Rot

terd

am-G

enov

a, N

ea e

t al.

2008


2013R05EN

2. good practIce cases

In Appendix 2 good practice cases are presented which cover terminal infrastructure, planning and design; terminal operation and management; environment, land use and public involvement and institutional and financial issues.

• case 1 – Inland terminal basel/weil, switzerland and germany• case 2 – container terminal hamburg altenwerder, germany• case 3 – pierpass, california, usa• case 4 – trimodal terminal genk, belgium• case 5 – “Trilogiport” intermodal facility developed by the walloon region and

the port of liege, belgium• case 6 – Intermodal bilk terminal, hungary• case 7 – super central port project, japan• case 8 – road network feasible for international logistics, japan• case 9 – greater vancouver short-sea container shipping- prefeasibility study,

british columbia, canada• case 10 – study on container use in western canada, canada• case 11 – burrard Inlet and roberts bank land use, british columbia, canada• case 12 – fraser river land use plan, british columbia, canada• case 13 – port north fraser (pnf) land use plan, british columbia, canada• case 14 – Intermodal funding at transport canada• case 15 – port of manzanillo container terminal, mexico• case 16 – port of veracruz, mexico• case 17 – alnabru Intermodal terminal, norway• case 18 – railport scandinavia, sweden• case 19 – location evaluation for new gateway terminal, switzerland• case 20 – Intermodal rail transport for waste logistics, switzerland


2013R05EN

case 1 – Inland termInal basel/WeIl, sWItZerland and germany

good practice topics: terminal Infrastructure planning and design, terminal operation and management

Key figures:• surface area: 40 000 m2

• number of gantry cranes: 3• number of reach stackers: 3• number of loading tracks: 6• number of loading tracks >500 m: 6• storage: 420 teu


2013R05EN

Issue observedthe intermodal transport volumes are growing in europe, especially on seaport hinterland connections and between important economic areas. additional terminal capacity was needed in the basel area and the extension of the existing terminal within the city was not possible. the land availability for transhipment purposes is limited in conurbations because of the high land prices and pressure from other land use plans. nevertheless a suitable lot was available on the previous shunting yard on the swiss/german border.

the terminal was put in operation in 1999 and extended in 2003. It is owned by db netz and operated by duss. the terminal was co-financed by the german government and the european union.

objectives the main objectives for the terminal basel/weil were high productivity, low transhipment costs, optimisation of investment costs, safe working conditions, low impact on residents and environment, optimisation of connection between rail and road.

descriptionthe terminal basel-weil is one of the most modern and compact inland terminals in Europe; relating to infrastructure design, equipment and operation and management. to limit the investment costs an approach with modules which follows the intermodal demand was chosen.

terminal Infrastructure planning and design the road access to the terminal is realised from the german side and from the swiss side. the distance from the terminal to the motorway is only 1.5 km.

The railway access is on both sides; to the north with all the tracks, to the south with 2 tracks. In future there will be a second entrance with two tracks in the south. a shunting yard is located besides the terminal.

the transhipment area consists of 6 loading tracks (570 to 650 m) and one truck charging lane (680 m). there are also 5 lanes for storage (430 to 656 m length). the transhipment capacity is about 155,000 loading units per year using the normal transhipment procedure (no floating transhipment procedure). because of the long loading tracks it is not necessary to divide the trains.

terminal operation and management the terminal management is supported by a terminal management system (blu). a modern terminal management system (blu) provides information to crane drivers, dispatcher and loading personnel the needed information.


2013R05EN

blu brings transparency to all operative processes at the terminal. by means of electronic data collection and by linking the previous dp systems blu prevents multiple inputs, documents operations and assumes the function of invoicing and monitoring payments. performance and services rendered are no longer overlooked. blu is efficient and profitable both for small and large intermodal rail/road terminals. the system ensures significant increases in productivity and operational reliability and it soon depreciates.

the blu system consists of the following components and modules: 1) train processing, 2) road truck transshipment, 3) crane work station, 4) mobile data captures, 5) storage and additional services, 6) statistical analysis, 7) billing system, 8) crane movement optimisation.

there is also a special check-in procedure incl. customs clearance because the terminal is situated on german/swiss border.

the terminal is operated by duss. the number of staff is about 120 (without customs and forwarders).

benefits the following benefits are important to be mentioned:

• high productivity and efficiency of transhipment process;• low impact on residents and environment;• bearable investment cost of the modules (which follows the demand);• safe working conditions.

For more information armin wenzel, duss, +41 61 63 89 898, [email protected] sänger, rapp regioplan gmbh, +49 7621 85 18 98, [email protected] april 2010 msr/sae


2013R05EN


2013R05EN

case 2 – contaIner termInal hambUrg altenWerder, germany

good practice topics: terminal infrastructure and equipment, terminal operation and management

cta terminal characteristics:• surface area: 1.1 mio m2

• today’s capacity: 2.4 mio teu p.a. • expected capacity: 3.0 mio teu p.a. • length of the main wharf: 1,400 m • gate : 16 lanes• waiting area: 104 lanes for tucks • coastal shipping gates: 4 services for major route, 1 service for short-distance sea

transport• number of gantry cranes: 15 • sorting manœuvres: 74 remote controlled vehicles• plugs for refrigerating containers: 2,100 • container depot : 30,000 teu


2013R05EN

characteristics of the intermodal rail terminal:a rail container terminal is available in the port. 700-m long rail lanes enable worker to handle block-trains or shuttle trains as a whole without any manœuvre.

• surface area: 102 000 m² • rail lanes: 7 lanes, each 750 m long• rail gantry cranes: 4 gantry cranes with a 57,2 t capacity• waiting area: 2 lanes under gantry cranes• storage area for intermodal transport units and frames: 3 storage lanes, 300 teu

capacity

Issue observed hamburg port is the biggest port in germany and an important gateway for overseas transport to and from europe. the seaport container terminal hamburg altenwerder was built between 1997 and 2002 and taken into service in summer 2002. It connects deep sea/short sea shipping with road, rail and inland waterway. container terminal altenwerder (cta) is worldwide one of the most modern seaport terminals because of its high automatisation degree and its compact layout. cta is owned and operated by the hamburger hafen und logistik ag (hhla) (74.9 %) and hapag-loyd ag shipping lines (25.1 %). the hhla subsidiary combisped provides feeder services in the baltic region with its container terminal in lübeck (ctl) and direct landbridge by rail shuttle and truck to the overseas terminals in the port of hamburg. furthermore, the port is at the mouth of river elbe, which affords inland waterway movement of cargo, taking goods right inside the country.

there is a big competition between the ports at the north range of europe (ports of belgium, netherlands and germany). It is also a political aim to strengthen the position of the hamburg port. In order to keep up with growing volumes and to compete with rival ports, during the design process of the container terminal altenwerder (cta) in the mid-1990s, the focus was put on high capacity of the entire system. It is designed to handle future generations of large containerships and deliver high space productivity.


2013R05EN

objectives In the city of hamburg only limited space is available for the extension of port activities due to other city development activities (housing, etc.). the main objective was to create a compact terminal and increase the productivity by 30 to 50% compared to a conventional container terminal through a very high degree of automation and innovative software solutions.

descriptionloading and discharging of ships: loading and discharging of container ships at cta is performed semi-automatically by twin-trolley container bridges. then the boxes are moved by unmanned trucks, so called automatically guided vehicles (agv), to the storage area where they are shifted by rail-mounted gantry cranes. the entire system is software-controlled. from the main container storage area the boxes are moved to intermodal rail terminal Kth by dedicated shunter vehicles. the vehicles are radio data enabled to communicate with the control centre.

The intermodal rail terminal the intermodal terminal at cta is designed to handle rail transport of containers and swap bodies in combined cargo traffic. It is located on the site of container terminal altenwerder outside the duty-free zone.

at the Kth terminal four gantry cranes with swivelling trolleys are used for loading and unloading of block trains along six 700-metre long tracks. It is planned to install a fifth gantry crane to meet increasing demand.

other available services at the terminal include storage for empty boxes, holding areas for containers and truck chassis and maintenance/repair facilities.

just like the cranes on the quay the gantry cranes in the Kth terminal are manually controlled. the crane operator receives his tasks via radio data transmission from the control centre. he has access to all relevant information on a screen in the crane cab. at the pre-gate lorries are still being processed manually. freight data is written on an electronic tag which the driver uses to check in at the rail terminal. the It system then determines an optimised container location and assigns it to the box. the driver receives a routing to the location where he drops the consignment.


2013R05EN

Storage blocks and operation for the storage block, hhla had the idea of a second crane. at cta a larger gantry crane can “override” the smaller one, tremendously boosting productivity and flexibility.

It systems the complex operations and communication processes within the terminal required development of a new It concept. for device and transport control a software was developed which allows optimization in real time. the terminal control application is the core component of the system. It integrates all other packages. the software was developed in java and integrated during operation. the advanced It system makes it possible to transport two 20ft. containers at once and not only one. the ships are discharged in twin operation where two 20ft. containers are lifted simultaneously in one movement. the reverse direction requires two boxes for the terminal control system that are initially assembled for one or more storage blocks before being carried punctually by agv to the container gantry crane. from there the two small boxes are stacked together in a 40-ft row in the ship. this routing may sound simple but called for more than two years of work for hhla’s It department. the agv’s moreover, learned to move more intelligently at cta. Instead of being run in a fixed circle by a large induction loop, as during previous use, the agv’s now pursue the optimal course between the crane and storage with the aid of terminal software that locates and steers the agvs using altogether 15,000 transponders inside the th cta enclosure. the cooperation between the automated systems – gantry crane trolleys, automated guided vehicles and container storage blocks is a key factor for improving productivity and efficiency.

Staff the number of staff at cta is approximately 75% of a conventional terminal. currently 450 staff work on site, after the extension it will be 750.

Quality Certification germanischer lloyd certified the hhla facility with its new “Container Terminal Quality Inidicator” (ctQI) standard as the first in the world to receive this. this international standard measures a container terminal’s performance on the basis of speed, safety, cost efficiency and its hinterland links. on an international comparison, the testers highlighted the fact that cta in not only highly automated but also transparently structured, and notable for clear information and communication channels as well as targeted action towards goals. cta is continually driving terminal technology forward.

benefits the volume of standard containers has grown since the terminal was taken into service in summer, 2002. In the period between 2000 and 2008 annual growth in


2013R05EN

container throughput in hamburg averaged 11%. although the financial crisis and the critical economical development had also an impact on the container volumes in 2009. a high proportion of land transport flows from/to cta goes by rail. also the market share of hamburg cta of the north range terminals increased and with this its competitive position. the modern transhipment technology gives cta hamburg relating to productivity and space efficiency a worldwide leading position.

the main benefits of the advanced It-system and the compact terminal layout are:

• high terminal productivity (relating to infrastructure and equipment);• increased terminal efficiency;• speeding up of ship handling (by automation) and shorter ship lay times;• high utilisation rate of AGV’s;• reduction of energy consumption;• reduction of co2 emission;• high safety in container handling;• reducing wear and maintenance costs;• high Quality of terminal services.

For more information gerlinde john, hhla container terminal altenwerder gmbh, [email protected] www.hhla.de 22nd february 2010/msr


2013R05EN

case 3 – pIerpass, calIFornIa, Usa

good practice topics: terminal operation and management, environment, land use and public involvement

Issue observedsouthern california ports are the largest container port complex in the united states and have witnessed unprecedented growth over the last decade.

container traffic at the los angeles and long beach ports grew sharply between 2000 and 2004. by 2004, roads around the ports and marine terminals in the ports became severely congested.

local port and elected officials have discussed the increasing port-related impacts on surrounding communities such as traffic and air quality concerns. they have considered many measures to address these impacts, including proposals to open terminals at night and weekends. the goods movement task force has championed the off-peak hours concept. these proposals frequently stalled over questions about who should pay for operating extended gates, the legality of measures designed to regulate international commerce and the historic failure of past and current off-peak terminal operations to attract significant volumes of truck traffic.


2013R05EN

objectives the main objective is to reduce congestion and improve security and air quality.

descriptionpierpass is a not-for-profit company created by marine terminal operators at the los angeles and long beach ports to address multi-terminal issues such as congestion, security and air quality.

the offpeak program was launched in july 2005 with the support of state and local elected officials, local communities and cargo owners.

It administers the mtos collective imposition of a “Traffic Mitigation Fee” on all cargo imported and exported through the ports of long beach and los angeles. this fee is used to fund the incremental costs of the pierpass program’s extended terminal hours and will vary as the costs rise or fall. to provide an incentive for cargo interests and truckers to use off-peak operations, this fee is refunded on all traffic that is handled through the marine terminal gates during off-peak hours. It is also refunded on all intermodal cargo that is already charged a fee by the alameda corridor transit authority (acta).

under the offpeak program, all international container terminals in the two ports established additional shifts to deliver and receive containers (see www.PierPASStmf.org for the most up-to-date schedule).

as an incentive to use the offpeak shifts and to cover the added cost of the shifts, a traffic mitigation fee is required for most cargo movement during peak hours (monday through friday, 3 a.m. to 6 p.m.). see www.PierPASS-tmf.org for the most up-to-date schedule.

from july 2005 through april 2006, the tmf rate was $40 per teu (20-foot equivalent unit). on april 24, 2006, the tmf rate was adjusted to $50 per teu.

the net effect is that cargo passing through the gates between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m, pst monday through friday excluding holidays will be charged this fee. to avoid unnecessary paperwork and reconciliation, pierpass is in the process of promulgating rules to allow importers and exporters to enter into a credit agreement establishing an account with pierpass and to allow rail cargo paying an acta fee an exemption from paying up front.

benefits • during 2007 and most of 2008 – prior to the economic downturn – offpeak shifts

handled an average of 68,000 truck trips in a typical week, or about 40 percent of all container moves at the two ports on days with both peak and offpeak shifts. If


2013R05EN

the offpeak shifts were to be eliminated, most of these trips would take place in peak daytime traffic, causing heavy congestion and thus increasing air pollution. In the first quarter of 2009, OffPeak shifts handled an average of 54,000 trucks in a typical week;

• as of december 2008, more than 11.46 million truck trips have been diverted out of peak daytime hours since the start of the program in July 2005;

• taking a truck out of gridlocked traffic and allowing it to travel at higher speeds by driving at night reduces air pollution;

• according to the air quality model used by the california air resources board to project the state’s emission inventory;

• a truck that travels 10 miles at 5 mph produces 90% more pollution than the same truck traveling those same 10 miles at 55 mph;

• a truck traveling 5 mph produces 318% more particulate matter than when it travels at 55 mph;

• a truck produces a quarter pound of pollution every hour it idles. thus, every hour that a truck does not sit in a line idling reduces pollution by that amount.

the main benefits are:

• it spreads existing traffic across more hours;• it makes better use of valuable port assets;• it reduces turn times (pickup and drop-off) for the truck fleet and drivers;• it reduces truck traffic on I-710 and other California highways during commute

hours.

For more information www.pierpass.org 13th february 2010/msr


2013R05EN

case 4 - trImodal termInal genK, belgIUm

good practice topics: terminal infrastructure planning and design

124/173

Bonnes pratiques – Cas 4 - Terminal trimodal Genk, Belgique Thèmes : Infrastructure, planification et conception des terminaux

Question observée Le port de Genk a été créé en 1936. Outre le transbordement du charbon, de la marchandise générale et en vrac, il a été décidé en 1997 d’étendre l’aspect logistique du port et de créer une installation de transbordement de conteneurs. En 1998, un nouveau plan directeur a été élaboré pour la construction d’un terminal trimodal à conteneurs, desservi par le réseau de voies navigables intérieures, les chemins de fer et les routes. En 1999, la construction d’une plateforme logistique multimodale a été lancée. Le 20 avril 2000, Haven Genk a établi une liaison directe par barge à Antwerp. Puis en janvier 2001, Haven Genk a

124/173



124/173



Issue observed port of genk was founded in 1936. besides the transshipment of coal, general and bulk cargo, it was decided in 1997 to expand the logistics side of the business and to create a container transshipment facility. In 1998, a new master plan was developed for the construction of a trimodal container terminal, served by the network of waterways, railways and roads. In 1999, the construction of a multimodal logistics platform was launched. on april 10th 2000, haven genk introduced a direct barge link to antwerp. In january 2001, haven genk took another major step in intermodal transport by starting a direct rail link between genk and Italy. at the end of 2002, a direct barge connection haven genk-rotterdam was added. In 2003-2004, the railway infrastructure was modernised and the storage and transshipment capacity for intermodal transport was expanded. the same happened with the conventional cargo and bulk terminal in the course of 2006-2007.


2013R05EN

objective because of increasing intermodal transport and the location at an inland waterway a trimodal terminal was realised to increase the transhipment capacity for intermodal loading units.

description at the albert canal in the former coal port of genk a trimodal container terminal was built. the terminal was launched at the end of 1999 and has an area of 28,000 m², a quay length of 500 m and the ability to store 2,500 teu. It is the first trimodal terminal in flanders. the second is situated in willebroek and was launched in 2000.

genk-south is trimodal accessible by road, rail and water. by road there is a direct access to the e314 motorway and the nearby motorway e313. also in terms of waterways, genk is well equipped. the albert canal flows over a distance of 6 km right through the business area genk-south. this canal directly connects genk-south with the port of antwerp, the fourth largest port in the world.

genk is a trimodal port because it is part of the ten-t and a network with other european hubs. genk is also a location where there is a compaction of international investments. this gateway function means that regional policy should focus on the further development of the tri-modal node genk, but this has to be done consistent with the other clusters. the presence of these elements supports the gateway function of genk. the position of genk is enhanced as consolidation point for cargo currents coming from the four structural supporting elements. the position of these four elements is strengthened by their ability to benefit from the investment overflow in and around genk and to make use of all the logistics facilities available in genk.

haven genk is equipped with its own rail terminal directly connected to the network of the belgian railways. It is here that haven genk handles shuttle trains carrying containers, swap bodies and trailers as well as ad hoc expeditions of conventional railcars. haven genk is not only responsible for loading/discharging trains and railcars but also takes care of the formation of the trains. on the terminal area of 5 ha and 7 km of railtracks 4 reach stackers are handling intermodal loading units.

by combining different transport methods (water-road/rail-road), and given the close proximity of haven genk nv to the customer, the terminal can offer the following advantages:

• tailor made door-to-door delivery (no loss of warehouse staff time due to delays in road transport);

• punctual shuttle (water) connection;• an ecologically sound transport method; • no delays due to congestion on the access roads to the seaports.


2013R05EN

the barge terminal area is 7 ha and the quay length is 500 m. the transshipment capacity of the barge terminal is about 80,000 teu per annum. the storage capacity is 5,000 teu. two gantry cranes are handling Iso containers, both with a capacity of 50 t.

benefit the main benefits are:

• multimodal logistics centre with intermodal access;• trimodal terminal with connections between rail, road an inland waterway;• avoiding delays due to use of intermodal barge transport.

For more information port of genk, www.havengenk.be 15th april 2010/msr


2013R05EN

case 5 – “TrIlogIporT” Intermodal FacIlIty deVelopped by the Walloon regIon and the port oF lIege, belgIUm

good practice topics: terminal infrastructure planning and design

Issue observed the recent trade increase between europe and asia resulted mainly in an accelerated growth of container traffic on seaways. this growth might affect the capacity of the anvers port shortly and the port authorities of anvers and liege came to an agreement to use the port of liege to face the new demand.

objective the objective is to ensure a fluid and efficient logistic distribution of the freight once it reached the port through an improved cooperation between the ports of anvers and liege. concretely, the goal is to give the port of liege a new dimension and extra potential:

• to attract new businesses and carriers using the European seaways;• to adapt the Liege facility to its traffic progression and demand;• to develop new traffic route with an improved competitivity within the North

european logistic market.

another objective is to generate an economic pole and develop and attract expertise.

description the trilogiport rely on the developpement of an intermodal facility in the port of liege area. the project main features are a container terminal (road – rail- marine), logistic spaces and warehouses, third parties services as well as environmental integration zones. the strategic location of the facility, directly linked to the main highway network, to rail and airport facilities will allow optimal shipping of freight on trucks at the national and international levels.


2013R05EN

sponsoring agencies are the port autonome de liège and the groupement d’Intérêts Économiques.

benefit the 45 millions euros project is expected to be operational in late 2012. even though no benefits have been observed at this point, the groupement d’intérêt economique has came to agreements that will facilitate the implementation of the project.

For more information http://www.portdeliege.be/fr/pages/trilogiport.aspx


2013R05EN

case 6 - Intermodal bIlK termInal, hUngary

good practice topics: terminal infrastructure planning and design, terminal operation and management

terminal characteristics• surface area: 22.3 ha• number & length of loading tracks: 4 x 750 m• number of gantry cranes: 2• number of reach stackers: 3• storage capacity: 2,300 teu loaded, 3,000 empty teu • parking space units for trucks: 122• havaria area: 1x50 m rail lane• Offices: 2,500 m2

• staff: 78 employees

Issue observedbIlKKombI terminal is located in the xxIII. district of budapest among the main road no 5, the budapest-Kelebia electrified railway line, and the highway m0. bIlKKombI terminal started the operation in 2003. bIlKKombI is a market leader in handling containers from and to hungary: in the central / budapest region handled 65%, in hungary handled 45% of containers. existing problems are the


2013R05EN

limited capacity of the the railway access and the inefficient shunting process. bIlKKombI wants to play the main role in the hungarian market of intermodal transportation as well as in the central european region. the liberalization of the railway sector provided market opportunities for new intermodal services from and to hungary.

objectives the main objectives for the further development of the terminal were:

• increase of terminal capacity: construction of railway and loading track, and additional equipments;

• improvement of the quality of services: make services more professional, fast and reliable level the meet the requirements of the clients;

• expanding the range of the services: improvement more complex services with expanding road haulage, customs clearance and other agency activities.

descriptionInfrastructure and equipment: the capacity of the bIlK Kombiterminal is now 220,000 teu per year (unaccompanied intermodal transport). for the rolling motorway the capacity is 20,000 trucks per year. the full capacity of the terminal could not be used so far because of the limited capacity of the railway connections and the seasonal changes in demand. the rail capacity is especially insufficient due to single track on the railway line 150 between budapest and Kelebia (serbia).


2013R05EN

the capacity has been increased to 220,000 teu per year with the construction of 3 additional loading tracks of 750 m length and further 2 gantry cranes and reach stackers. also the storage area should be extended with another 20,000 m2.

operation the terminal is operated 24 hours a day and 7 days per week. the shunting of shuttle trains operated by hungarian state railway co. is inefficient and inflexible to handle intermodal demand. long technological time of changing staff and the lack of bIlKKombI direction of shunting process cause non optimal usage of the existing terminal infrastructure. It is also planned to take over the shunting procedures to make it more efficient. the quality of services will be improved by introducing a quality benchmarking system, a better It-connection to the customers and continuously training of employees.

benefits the main benefits:

• leader position on intermodal transport in the region;• growing up the traffic by increase of capacity and flexibility;• improve efficiency of terminal process with operating shunting service;• complex management of the domestic part of overseas transport chain of intermodal

transport;• successful extension of the terminal capacity.

For more information mr. zoltán Kemensi, ceo of bilkterminal ltd., 06-1-289-6000, budapest, [email protected], www.bilkkombi.hu 22nd february 2010/bf/msr


2013R05EN

case 7 – sUper central port project, japan

good practice topics: Infrastructure and equipment, operation and management


2013R05EN

Issue observed“Super Central Ports” are major ports in japan which have been designated by the japanese government. they are subject to advanced national efforts toward enhanced international competitiveness. under the effort, sea port terminals have been gradually upgraded to high-standard and operation hour at terminal gate will be extended to 24 hours.

objectivescost and service levels are expected to be better than major ports in other asian countries.

description1. develop next-generation container terminals at super central ports2. develop logistics centers in coastal areas

In order to sophisticate and improve efficiency of logistics, advanced grand-scale logistics area is going to be developed.

3. Integrated reform programs for container logistics program includes opening the gate for 24 hours and enhancing coastal shipping network, which are implemented by both public and private sectors. after the program ends, sustainable business is expected to be conducted by private sector.


2013R05EN

benefitsQuality improvement and customer satisfaction increase:

• competitive in cost and service with other ports in Asia;• 24-hour operations at gate.

efficiency improvements:

• operation with next-generation container terminals; • sophisticated grand-scale logistics center at coastal area;• enhanced coastal shipping network.

For more Informationministry of land, Infrastructure, transport, and tourism, “Document of future aspect regarding national land planning” http://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/point/21fy_reference.htmlministry of land, Infrastructure, transport and tourism, policy bureau, policy divisiontel: +81(0)3-5253-8111 (extension : 24233, 24234)yoshikazu Imanishi, ppps, n.e.s. building n wing 3rd floor, 22-14, sakuragaoka-cho, shibuya-ku, tokyo, japancontact: [email protected], +81(0)3-3477-201526th april 2010


2013R05EN

case 8 – road netWorK FeasIble For InternatIonal logIstIcs, japan

good practice topics: Infrastructure and equipment

Issue observedthere are not enough access roads between major ports/airports and expressways. also, there are bottlenecks blocking the traffic of freight vehicles loaded with international standard container (or “isotainer”) on the road, which prevent japan from increasing its international competitiveness.

objectives• develop access roads to major ports/airports (improve accessibility rate from 69%

of 2007 to around 90% that are standard level in the US and Europe);• eliminate bottleneck road segments that are impassable to freight vehicles loaded

with international standard container.

descriptiondevelop the access roads from major ports/airports to expressway exits so that accessibility will be improved to the level of the us and europe. also, eliminate the bottleneck road segments that block freight vehicles loaded with international standard container.

benefits• improved road access for intermodal terminal;• enhanced international competitiveness.


2013R05EN

For more Informationministry of land, Infrastructure, transport and tourism, “Document of future aspect regarding national land planning”http://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/point/21fy_reference.htmlministry of land, Infrastructure, transport and tourism, policy bureau, policy divisiontel: +81(0)3-5253-8111 (extension : 24233, 24234)yoshikazu Imanishi, ppps, n.e.s. building n wing 3rd floor, 22-14, sakuragaoka-cho, shibuya-ku, tokyo, japancontact: [email protected], +81(0)3-3477-201526th april 2010


2013R05EN

case 9 – greater VancoUVer short-sea contaIner shIppIng- preFeasIbIlIty stUdy, brItIsh colUmbIa, canada

good practice topics: Infrastructure and equipment, operation and management, land use and environment

the following is a summary of the 2005 report by novacorp International entitled: “Greater Vancouver Short-Sea Container Shipping Study” to study the feasibility of shortsea shipping in the vancouver area by assessing the conditions under which short-sea operations may be commercially viable. the study also examined whether short-sea operations can contribute to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Issues observedthe landside transportation network within the greater vancouver area is experiencing significant levels of congestion. available suitable land for major transportation network expansion is scarce and the costs are high. short-sea shipping is defined for purposes of this study as the intra-regional transfer of marine containers via water to/from greater vancouver’s deep-sea container terminals. this mode of container transport is being seen as a possible way in which to help accommodate expected traffic growth, ease some traffic congestion and assist in alleviating air pollution by moving additional freight by water.

descriptiongreater vancouver’s container industry is significant and on the verge of major expansion over the next two decades. forecasts of new deep-sea container terminal throughput growth over the next 20 years approach 300%. the intra-regional trucking of containers amongst the many and various industry facilities is currently the only means to meet the needs of the shipping lines, importers, exporters and logistics companies. greater vancouver, however, does have an opportunity, through short-sea shipping of a portion of this traffic, to keep transportation costs ‘reasonable’ and enhance the competitiveness of all area container terminals.

the following figure provides a general appreciation of the container generating deep-sea terminals that could, potentially, “drive” the short-sea service demand on any routes, which might eventually be established.


2013R05EN

Container Node Site Optionsa total of 18 sites (or site areas) were identified and investigated. the work focused on those that demonstrated the most advantages for the proposed service and associated container industry operations. the map in figure b) identifies the location and distribution of candidate sites and site areas from the lower reaches of the fraser river upstream to the most remote location in mission. It is divided into four sections:

• the “Lower Fraser River and North Arm” area; • the “Lower Central Fraser River” area; • the “Upper Central Fraser River” area; and • the “Upper Fraser River” area.

a number of sites were selected within each of these four areas for further analysis. the criteria used to identify which locations have the best potential to become

fIgure a - prImary contaIner generators for prospectIve short-sea servIces

fIgure b - prospectIve short-sea contaIner node sItes along the fraser rIver by area


2013R05EN

waterborne node routes for containers are included in the following categories:

• physical Characteristics and Site Suitability; • accessibility Issues; • operational Issues and Suitability; • development factors.

the five sites or site areas which met the most important criteria and which were focused on are listed below:

• coast 2000, with its direct water and rail access and its proximity to a large industrial area expected to become home to a variety of container industry companies;

• Fraser surrey docks area, with its existing infrastructure, water access and rail access and the variety of existing container industry businesses located in the neighborhood;

• port Kells/parsons channel area, with its location further up the river, limited land for related industry development and limited existing infrastructure;

• pitt meadows airport area, with its available land, location on the north side of the river and limited existing infrastructure; and

• tilbury –seaspan, with its proximity to a variety of industrial activity, existing rail access and location towards the mouth of the river and on the south side of the river.

Cost estimatesthe cost estimates developed for this study are intended as ‘order-of-magnitude’ projections used specifically to identify if, and under what conditions, the short-sea operations proposed could be commercially viable. depending on the operational routings and the number of containers transported in each direction, the annualized site development cost could vary cad$190-$290 per container for the 200 containers per round-trip scenario, and cad$270 -$400 per container for the100 containers per round-trip scenario.

Competitive assessmentfuture short-sea container shipping in greater vancouver will compete only with truck transport of marine containers over the foreseeable future, until any other options become available such as short-haul rail which would then only be available to/from one or selected locations. this has provided insight into the relative competitiveness of these two modes for intra-regional container transfer, which is summarized as follows:

• short-sea shipping becomes price competitive with trucking on specific routes when barge volumes are in the 200 containers per round-trip range;

• short-sea shipping becomes more competitive with trucking, and in some cases may offer pricing advantages, as volumes per round-trip exceed 200;


2013R05EN

• service reliability between the two competing modes will not have much differentiation except that short-sea operations will not be subject to unpredictable weather or road congestion delays.

emissions assessmentwhile cargo vessels are extremely efficient with regard to fuel use on a ton–kilometer basis, they are becoming noted for emissions other than carbon dioxide. comparative emissions between vessels and trucks, based on a recent european study, are summarized in table a) with the cargo vessel being the equivalent dead weight tonnage of a tow boat and barge.

Table a) - emissions from Trucks and cargo vessels (grams per Ton-km)co2 pm so2 nox vocs

Heavy Truck With Trailer 50 0.005 0.0093 0.31 0.025

cargo vessel < 2 000 dwt 30 0.02 0.51 0.72 0.016

the above table reflects emissions from bunker fueled ships. bunker fuel is the least expensive and dirtiest form of liquid fuel available. It is important to note that the emissions from canadian registered tugs are expected to generate lower emissions than the comparative numbers shown in table A).

Table B) presents the comparison of fuel consumption for truck and short-sea transport between the short-listed container terminal / short-sea container node pairs (or routings). the calculation is based on a two-teu haul by truck (the most efficient configuration) and a one hundred-teu haul by tow boat. shaded cells designate routings where short-sea fuel consumption, and therefore co2 and voc emissions, are lower than those for truck transport on a per teu basis under the conservative assumptions outlined above.

Table b) - Trucks & ToW boaT fuel consumpTion comparison beTWeen conTainer nodes (l/Teu)

Terminals → nodes coast 2000delta

Tilburyfraser surrey

pitt meadows

port kells

roberts bank 13.7 (8.16) 9.9 (8.16) 15.1 (10.9) 27.4 (16.3) 23.7 (16.3)

fraser surrey 7.6 (2.72) 5.7 (2.72) N/A 12.8 (5.4) 9.9 (5.4)

inner Harbor south shore 9.0 (13.6) 13.7 (13.6) 11.8 (16.3) 18.0 (21.8) 19.9 (21.8)

inner Harbor north shore 11.4 (13.6) 15.6 (13.6) 10.9 (16.3) 17.0 (21.8) 18.9 (21.8)

It is apparent that transfer between nodes in the outer harbor (i.e. along the fraser river to/from roberts bank at the mouth) by tow boat is consistently the most fuel efficient and, accordingly, these routings will have lower co2 and voc emissions


2013R05EN

for each container transported. operational volumes in the future will directly impact the extent to which environmental benefits are realized, with higher volumes resulting in greater benefits.

summary, conclusions, and benefitsthe key conclusions reached which are directly relevant to the objectives of the study, and to the future opportunity for short-sea shipping in greater vancouver, are summarized below:

• intra-regional short-sea container shipping in greater vancouver offers promising, commercially viable, private sector opportunities in the short to medium-term for specific short-sea container terminal locations on the Fraser River, if volume can be secured in the range of 200 containers per round trip or greater;

• it is critical for short-sea container terminals to be strategically located close to (or have sufficient land to establish) a variety of container industry facilities and businesses and to have, on-site or nearby, rail inter-modal capability;

• the “target market” for short-sea container services is that segment of container terminal throughput (inbound and outbound) that is not directly transferred to or from rail and, therefore, is delivered to/from regional container businesses;

• short-sea shipping, for selected terminal locations and routes and with sufficient volume, offers price competitiveness with trucking and some competitive advantages (likely to expand dramatically over time) in the areas of delivery time and delivery time reliability;

• it will be critical for short-sea service investors and proponents to invest the capital and make the long-term commitment necessary to establish reliability and confidence in the market place;

• it will be critical for the short-sea operator to secure sufficient base, container transfer volume commitments from nearby importers, exporters, agents and/or logistics companies to approach the annual volume ‘threshold’ levels required for commercial success;

• some environmental emission benefits will be achieved immediately, and dramatically enhanced as and when short-sea operations attract higher volumes of container traffic.

For more information “Greater Vancouver Short-Sea Container Shipping Study”, 2005. novacorp International, jwd group, royal lepage advisors Inc., trow associates2010/mt


2013R05EN

case 10 – stUdy on contaIner Use In Western canada, canada

good practice topics: terminal design, Institutional issues and financing

the following is a summary of the 2007 report by Quorum corporation entitled: “Container Use in Western Canada”, completed for transport canada to study three areas: inland terminals, shipper associations and cooperatives and issues relative to the tariff on International containers. the report focused on these areas and provided analysis relative to:

• container markets and flows including key market drivers and port transloading;• inland container terminals;• industry opportunities and challenges, including shipper associations, tariff

restrictions and regulatory involvement.

Issues observed total container handlings at canadian ports exceeded 4.3 million teus in 2006, with the majority (94%) handled at canada’s three principal container ports – vancouver, montreal, and halifax.

vancouver is canada’s largest container port and one of north america’s fastest growing container ports with total traffic having increased by more than 50%, as measured by teu handlings, since 2002. this growth has not come without its difficulties. western canadian industry in particular has been challenged to obtain access to adequate transportation capacity over the last few years. the situation is particularly acute with regard to the international container sector, where export sales have been lost and late delivery penalties incurred.

descriptionContainer Markets and Flowscontainerized imports continue to increase in volume faster than exports. this gap between imports and exports has created a surplus supply of empty containers to support export movements. over 50% of international containers depart by rail empty from alberta and manitoba and over 20% of containers leave saskatchewan empty, en route to export positions. the most important factor driving apparent shortages of container supply on the prairies is the low potential for profit available to shipping lines. shipping lines do not have sufficient incentive at current market prices to delay containers awaiting low revenue export loads. rather, they will opt to return the containers empty to their main revenue generating head haul markets in europe and asia, where a far better financial return can be found.


2013R05EN

The Inland Container Terminalmany have suggested the creation of inland terminals in various locations in canada as a solution for a perceived shortage of containerized transportation capacity. a quantitative analysis has shown that, much like other capital intensive operations, an inland container terminal (Ict) is highly sensitive to fluctuations in workload and revenue.

the network implications of any potential terminal that is being considered must factor greatly into all aspects of the planning and building of an Ict. this is primarily to ensure that the traffic types and volumes are capable of generating positive returns and are not placing a burden on other parts of the system. the network cost of implementing a new terminal into an intermodal system will typically exceed the terminal costs by a factor of 3 or more.

It is also important to appreciate the current total traffic flowing through the different terminals in the western canadian cities. displayed in figure a) are the total average traffic flows of both international and domestic traffic flowing through the terminal in each of the five cities where terminals are located. the edmonton – calgary corridor, where a high density of population exists is the largest with the smallest being in the saskatchewan terminal.

Terminal Design and Planningfor the purposes of this analysis three generic terminal classifications were used. each type has a different level of functionality and operational complexity that is driven by the type of traffic the terminal is intended to handle. the three classifications are:

• stand alone – this classification is a commodity, industry or customer specific terminal that is intended to handle either inbound or outbound loads. all of the loads would have similar service requirements or operating characteristics;

• satellite – a satellite terminal is a terminal facility that is essentially an extension of another larger intermodal facility. Inland ports and empty container yards are the primary examples;

• general purpose– this facility is intended to handle a mix of traffic types (inbound and outbound, domestic and international) that have a number of service and operating requirements.


2013R05EN

fIgure 1 - western canada Intermodal termInals locatIons – total traffIc volumes by cIty (2004-2006 average)

Terminals have three basic elements: the load-unload track and supporting storage; the staging and maneuvering space; and the gate, administrative support infrastructure, lighting, maintenance and other utilities. the load-unload modules are the basic train building areas of the terminal. based on the required staging and maneuvering area for “top pick” containers and the support areas, the minimum module size for a terminal is an area 340 feet long by 92 feet wide. the smallest facility (stand-alone small) consists of two of these modules. the largest (general-purpose medium) is based on 20 modules (two sets of 10 modules placed back-to-back). the working area in this case is 3,400 feet by 184 feet. the working tracks can be either run through (connected to the rail network at each end) or stub ended (connected only at one end).

there are a number of alternatives for lifting containers onto, as well as off, railcars. these range from the use of top-lift machines to gantry operations. the equipment used in all cases is a front-end top-lift machine similar to that of a taylor 974 ( figure 2).

fIgure 2 – taylor 974 top lIft machIne


2013R05EN

various facilities are required for the particular functions that will take place at each of the Icts. these facilities vary from basic utilities to surface or sub-drainage and different amenities to assist with terminal operations and site security. aside from the typical facility requirements like utility services and drainage, the Icts will also need various operating facilities to conduct their daily tasks effectively and efficiently. these operating facilities are discussed below:

• loader Fueling - a side loading container crane has been chosen to handle the containers at each of the six different terminals. loader fueling, although necessary, does not need to be an elaborate design. a simple concrete pad and accompanying elevated fuel tank with appropriate environmental protection (i.e. spill berm) will suffice.

• loader maintenance - the concrete pad installed for the loader fueling will also serve as an appropriate working area for any maintenance that needs to be done on the side loaders. to function properly, the loader fueling/maintenance pad should be a minimum of 6 meters x 9 meters in size.

• truck Wash - washing facilities for the road trucks which transport the containers to and from the Ict will not be included for a terminal of any size. there are many existing independent washing facilities for semi-tractor road vehicles at truck stops and fueling stations.

• truck scale - load limits for major streets and highways are regulated by provincial authorities and are especially important during spring thaw. for this reason, a truck scale has been included as a requisite operating facility for every Ict studied. several manufacturers offer an above-ground truck scale that can be easily installed on an existing pad or firm surface like in an ICT.

• Office and storage - these also do not need to be elaborate or permanent in nature. Containers or trailers that are converted into offices are all that is required. Similarly, a container is all that is required for storage. security at the Icts will depend on the location and the commodities handled at the particular site.

• gate - entrance gate security is included for all Ict designs. basic security will consist of a closed circuit television (cctv) camera to record the entrance and exit of individuals and of trucks. a separate trailer placed off-site to house the remote cctv monitors can also be included for added security if on-site tampering of monitors becomes an issue.

• Fence - as the volume of business and value of commodities handled at the Icts increases, perimeter fencing and gate barriers can be installed. It is assumed that a 3.6-meter high chain link fence will be installed on the full perimeter of the terminal for the stand alone medium Ict and larger.


2013R05EN

summary, conclusions, and benefitsthe traffic flow and market analysis performed for this study determined that, with the exception of 20 foot containers in saskatchewan where supply is very tight and periodic shortages do occur, there is not a shortage of available empty container equipment in western canada.

with respect to the Inland container terminal, it is recommended that the following be used as a checklist of conditions which any proposed inland container terminal must meet before it should be seriously considered for development:

• shipping lines must be committed to utilizing such facilities for storage, servicing and transloading of their containers to consolidate sufficient volume;

• railways must be committed to providing train service to the terminals with such commitment driven by the underlying economics for the railways;

• the location of the terminal must be such that immediate access to railway mainlines is available as well as clear and unconstrained access to major road and highway thoroughfares;

• local and provincial governments must be involved and supportive of the concept through the initial planning stages and the implementation;

• traffic must be incremental to and not a diversion from existing railway intermodal terminals.

For more information “Container Use in Western Canada: Inland Terminals, Container Utilization, Service and Regulatory Issues and the Optimization of Use in Western Canada”. november 2007. Quorum corporation. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/report-acg-containerusewesterncanada2007-html-menu-224.htm 2010/mt


2013R05EN

case 11 – bUrrard Inlet and roberts banK land Use, brItIsh colUmbIa, canada

Good Practice Topics: Land Use, Environment and Community Involvement; Institutional issues and financing

this is a summary of the land use plan for the port of vancouver. for more information see: “Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Land Use Plan, Attachment “A”, Burrard Inlet and Roberts Bank Plan”. 2008. vfpa.

Issues observedthe port of vancouver (i.e., the port) is canada’s largest port and is the most diversified port in north america. the port is managed by the vancouver port authority (vpa) and includes 25 major marine cargo terminals that collectively offer 57 berths, post-panamax capacity and on-dock rail facilities. the port plan is a land use plan that will serve as a guiding document for the ongoing development and utilization of port lands. vpa manages 500 hectares of land and 6,000 hectares of water along 233 kilometers of coastline from roberts bank through to burrard Inlet and Indian arm. these lands and waterways constitute the port of vancouver. Figure 1 shows the location of major terminals and facilities within the port of vancouver.

fIgure 1 – port of vancouver – major termInals and facIlItIes


2013R05EN

the port plan uses long-term forecast information to help identify terminal requirements and the land needed to accommodate associated port services and marine industries. total port throughput is expected to grow 2.3% per year from throughput of 73.5 million tonnes in 2004 to 106.4 million tonnes by 2020.

the port is expected to have a throughput of 4.6 million teus by 2020 representing a 6.5% annual growth rate from 2004 levels. to respond to growth opportunities, vpa has developed a phased container strategy that identifies priority infrastructure improvements to increase productivity and capacity at existing terminals, redevelop other terminals to handle containers and to build a new container terminal.

Land Use Policy Directionsthe vpa has developed land use policy directions for the port of vancouver to enable its customers, stakeholders, municipal neighbors, government agencies and the public to identify and understand the principles by which it intends to manage its land assets. land use policies in this plan refer to both vpa’s land and water areas. the general land use policy directions include the following:

• optimize the utilization of the port’s limited land base by retaining the port’s existing industrial land base and encouraging land use efficiency and operational productivity;

• encourage the utilization of port lands in a manner that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable;

• manage Port lands to facilitate the safe, secure and efficient movement of cargo and passengers;

• work with port industries, other port authorities, first nations, local governments, the gvrd and the province of british columbia to capitalize on economic opportunities generated by the Port for jobs and financial value both on and off port lands.

terminals at the port offer deep water, post-panamax capacity and have extensive on-dock rail facilities. the cargo terminals in the port are major contributors to canadian international trade and generate many of the port’s economic benefits. given the importance of cargo terminals in the port, it is essential that deep-water areas be protected, that the terminals continue to operate efficiently and competitively and that they are able to adapt and expand to changing market conditions.

the following shows excerpt policy directions in the vpa’s land use plan in various areas:

environment• work to continually improve and update vpa environmental policies and practices

while exploring innovative environmental mitigation measures and strategies to minimize the environmental impacts of growth;


2013R05EN

• maintain areas appropriate for environmental conservation and habitat enhancement within the Port of Vancouver;

• perform environmental due diligence reviews for ongoing operations as part of VPA’s environmental audit program;

• review current and future development projects to ensure they meet appropriate environmental criteria and create no significant residual adverse environmental effect on lands and waters under VPA management;

• work on implementation of an air emissions strategic plan including new technologies to reduce air emissions and an international sulfur emissions control zone for ocean vessels.

The Community• work cooperatively and proactively with municipalities and other governments

on matters of mutual interest, such as land use issues, the enhancement of the environment, and the safe and efficient movement of passengers and cargo through the region;

• consult with first nations in a distinct process in matters pertaining to the adoption and implementation of the port plan where first nations’ rights and title are impacted.

Transportation• develop policies and regulations to service expansion and improvement of the

transportation gateway;• protect the port’s shipping channels and navigable waterways to facilitate the safe,

secure and efficient movement of cargo and passengers;• improve the utilization of the port’s internal transportation infrastructure and its

connections to the regional transportation system;• work with transportation agencies and railways to find solutions that meet the

greater vancouver gateway’s need for increased capacity on the region’s road and rail networks for the movement of goods;

• encourage port use of the regional road network during evenings and weekends to lessen the impact on existing road capacity during the day.

Safety and Security• ensure that future land use and port development adhere to the port’s security

plan and adopted national regulations and legislation that implement international requirements;

• work with port businesses to assist them in complying with, security and safety regulations and requirements for both their port and off-site operations.

Land Use Designations and Planning Areasthe port plan establishes land use designations on all of vpa’s land and water areas. along with these designations, 11 distinct planning areas have been identified. when


2013R05EN

considering land use designations and the intent statements for the planning areas vpa was mindful of the existing municipal plans, zoning of adjacent lands, land use compatibility and potential for land use conflicts. based on these considerations, all port lands have been designated for a particular land use, thereby providing an indication of existing and future use. Figure 2 shows the locations of each area.

fIgure 2 – map of plannIng areas

Implementationvpa requires that projects or activities on vpa land and water be reviewed for potential adverse environmental effects (the environmental appraisal procedure, or “eAP”). the scope of environmental reviews includes development projects, maintenance projects, and activities that have a potential for adverse environmental effects, and is extended to the vpa’s own projects as well as to other users of vpa land.

• Summary, conclusions, and benefits• optimization of limited land bases by:

– retaining the terminal’s existing industrial land use, – encouraging land use efficiency and operational productivity, – ensuring sufficient land exists for future expansions; – manage terminal lands in a manner that ensures the safe, secure and efficient movement of goods;

– work closely with industries, authorities, the public and various levels of government to capitalize on economic opportunities to create jobs and land value;

– encourage land use compatibility to minimize conflicts between terminal lands uses and adjacent lands.

2010/mt


2013R05EN

case 12 – Fraser rIVer land Use plan, brItIsh colUmbIa, canada

good practice topics: land use, environment and Institutional issues

Issues observedwith approximately 227 km of shoreline, the port authority’s jurisdiction (extending along the south arm of the fraser from the strait of georgia to Kanaka creek at maple ridge and along the pitt river to the mouth of pitt lake) borders from west to east the municipalities of richmond, delta, new westminster, surrey, coquitlam, port coquitlam, pitt meadows, maple ridge, and langley (as shown in figure 1).

fIgure 1 – fraser rIver port authorIty jurIsdIctIon

objectives• to establish policies for the guidance of future land and water use within fraser

River Port Authority’s (FRPA) jurisdiction; • to maintain and expand the economic trading activity and the competitive economic

advantage of Fraser Port through its effective, efficient management;• to balance the effective and competitive operation of the port with responsible

stewardship of the river within frpa’s jurisdiction.

descriptionterminals at fraser port serve both deep-sea and coastal vessels and accommodate diverse types of cargo. In 1999, over 25.5 million tonnes of various types of cargo passed through fraser port.


2013R05EN

Current transportation systemsground transportation is a vital component of fraser port that complements and interfaces with water transportation and river-related activity. shipping and trade-related industries and businesses rely on effective, intermodal transportation systems to move goods and materials between suppliers, processors, distributors and the various markets they serve. the ground transportation system comprises a highway network, river crossings, rail lines, and border crossings. there is also a system for moving goods by air.

In general, port-related facilities at fraser port have easy access to highway networks. currently, the province and municipalities are considering the planning and development of the south and north perimeter routes (see figure 2), which would greatly enhance the movement of goods to and from fraser port. additional river crossings are currently being considered by various provincial agencies in locations designed to alleviate limited bridge capacity and to enhance overall traffic flow and the movement of goods. the rail network throughout the lower mainland is also illustrated in figure 2. this system is of critical importance to operations throughout fraser port.

fIgure 2 – ground transportatIon

Principal issuesa variety of land uses compete for uplands adjacent to the river. protection of the port’s economic vitality and growth must be balanced with land use designations and the communities’ needs and desires such as public access to the river. the port authority must be mindful of facilitating a balance between a variety of competing


2013R05EN

uses, including environmental, recreational, tourism, industrial and commercial interests, at a time when there are more demands than ever to access and use the river.

Future considerations and needsglobal, national and regional economic and market forces will shape the future of fraser port. Import, export and domestic cargo volumes, measured against potential terminal capacities, form the basis for the determination of land and water use requirements to be set out in the frpa land use plan. the study period is for the twenty years from 2000 to 2020.

the port authority can make a number of provisions for increases in deep-sea commodity volumes, which are forecasted for the study period. these can occur in the following ways:

• by developing new terminals on FRPA-administered lands (Fraser Richmond);• by expanding the capacities of existing terminals through additional berths,

additional land and buildings, additional cargo handling and loading equipment such as container cranes and conveyers, rail facilities and improvements to off-site infrastructures;

• by “partnering” with the private sector in the re/development of terminals on private sites;

• by promoting, the development of new locations with opportunities for deep-sea berthing and by participating in land acquisition and/or joint venture programs in those locations.

summary, conclusions, and benefitsthe consideration of existing land and water uses, existing properties and their capacities and forecasts of future commodity volumes has resulted in a series of policies and other tools for land and water use. consequently, frpa land use plan includes a set of policies that will provide frpa with a framework for decision-making that considers these important factors. table a) below provides an excerpt summary of the policies associated with frpa’s land use plan.

For more information “Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Land Use Plan, Attachment « B », Fraser River Land Use Plan”. 2008. vfpa.2010 / mt


2013R05EN

category Intent objective politicy

dee

p-se

ate

rmin

al U

se

the port authority is developing a site at its fraser richmond property that will provide for deep- sea terminals that handle bulk or break-bulk cargos.

to provide river access and berthing opportunities to maintain and enhance existing facilities and protect potential terminal locations along the fraser river

develop, maintain and/or operate facilities facilitate and accommodate river access

gro

und

tran

spor

tatio

n

continued improvements to regional road systems, rail networks, river crossings and border crossings are required for the continued growth of fraser port’s activities within expanding national and regional economies.

to support the improvement and enhancement of the ground transportation infrastructure serving fraser port.to encourage the forging of seamless linkages between various modes of transportation, including water, rail, road and air.

support initiatives, in conjunction with governmental infrastructure authorities, to ensure that improvements to rail and highway transportation systems benefit the efficiency of fraser port operations.ensure the safe and efficient passage of deep-sea vessels through fraser port

port

ope

ratio

ns a

nd n

avig

atio

n

In the national interest, frpa is mandated to advance international trade by facilitating competitive port operations.

to promote and facilitate competitive, deep-sea terminal activities that advance international trade.to facilitate coastal shipping activities in support of local and regional trade.to promote the maintenance of a safe and efficient standard of river navigation.

ensure that existing and future capacities of frpa’s deep-sea and coastal terminals and waterlot areas are protected, improved and maintained to effective and efficient standards.promote the continued maintenance of safe and effective navigation within fraser port.

env

iron

men

t

to safeguard the environmental quality of the estuary, fremp plays an important role in coordinating the effective environmental management of foreshore areas.

to ensure that development and operations on frpa- administered uplands, and within its river jurisdiction, are consistent with generally accepted principles of environmental protection and sustainable development.

use best management practices for the purposes of habitat enhancement and protection, as well as for the mitigation of environmental impactsfollow frpa’s policies, which promote environmental protection and sustainable development in areas of its jurisdiction.


2013R05EN

case 13 – port north Fraser (pnF) land Use plan, brItIsh colUmbIa, canada

good practice topics: land use, environment and community Involvement, Institutional issues

Issues observedpnf’s plan embraces the theme of the living, working river. the port plan contains goals, principles and policies that will help ensure the port’s continued economic role, while maintaining and enhancing its significant environmental qualities. the overall goal of the plan is to take a balanced approach to waterfront development that maintains and enhances waterlots for port-related activities. as such it protects industrial uses from incompatible uses, while providing opportunities for other uses in other strategic locations.

pnf encompasses the north and middle arms of the fraser river, extending from twentieth street in new westminster to the strait of georgia. the port borders on the cities of vancouver, burnaby, richmond, and new westminster. all of pnf’s revenues are reinvested locally in port operations to ensure an efficient and competitive environment for domestic and coastal traffic.

objectives• develop a clear vision and a set of goals for the future development of PNF;• establish a series of principles and policies in support of these goals;• establish area designations for current and future water and land use activities; and• provide procedures for monitoring, updating and amending this plan.

fIgure 1 – boundarIes of north fraser port authorIty


2013R05EN

descriptionVision and goalsthroughout pnf’s public involvement process, the theme of the living, working river was embraced as a major guiding principle for the development of the port’s land use plan. the plan’s key principles are as follows:

• call upon the port to implement competitive strategies to preserve the north arm as a major river highway and to examine more innovative revenue sources to support core business operations;

• encourage the port to continue to work collectively with other agencies to implement and institute policies, while increasing the effectiveness of all management practices;

• emphasize the need to achieve sustainable land use and the importance of the port’s commitment to take a lead role in ensuring that all development in the estuary is environmentally sound;

• confirm and enhance the Port’s current strategic objectives and environmental goals; and

• emphasize the importance of the living working river in balancing desired economic, environmental and social goals.

Water and land use policiesthroughout the public process, water and land use policies were developed to support the plan’s key principles. these policies are grouped into port-led policies (those over which the port has jurisdiction) and advisory policies (those which require the cooperation of the port and other stakeholders).

one of the key issues addresses by this land use plan is the gradual erosion and fragmentation of the port’s industrial waterfront lands by increasing urban pressure and the encroachment of competing land uses. the concept of port related economic development areas (edas) arose from the fraser river environmental management plan’s (fremp) 1991 port and Industrial development strategy, which identified pressures on water-dependent industrial land, trends in land supply and demand, and made recommendations to support water-dependent industry. port edas are therefore designed to maintain and enhance areas of concentrated industrial or commercial economic activity within the north fraser. as such they are comprised of:

• existing or identified industrial nodes (concentrations of water dependent industries);• existing or identified commercial nodes and log storage areas;• greenways/public access and recreation;• residential areas; and• transportation.


2013R05EN

the main commercial policies associated with commercial nodes are as follows:

• encourage intermodal-related commercial, retail and residential areas;• encourage innovative landscaping to encourage commercial development;• include transportation systems (buses, light-rail) to support commercial usage on

terminal lands.

one of pnf’s key strengths is its central location and direct access to the strait of georgia. pnf also has the unique advantage of direct proximity to a well-developed road, rail and air transportation infrastructure, as well as a major metropolitan population. transportation policies include the following:

• work with adjacent municipalities to ensure that rail and road access to industrial properties are preserved;

• reduce greenhouse gas and traffic congestion through efficient infrastructure and equipment within terminal lands.

environmental Managementpnf operates in a highly productive biological area. the fraser river and the estuary are home to one of the largest salmon runs in the world. as a result, pnf has designed a port habitat classification and coding system, which uses three color classes to identify areas of high biological productivity and diversity within the terminal region. as a result, the foreshore around pnf is color-coded into areas of high (red), moderate (yellow), and low (green) productivity and diversity. development is not usually allowed to occur in red areas, which includes habitat created as a result of compensation programs. development in yellow areas may be permitted if environmental mitigation and compensation requirements have been met. development is openly allowed in green designated areas as long as the design is deemed environmentally acceptable.

In conjunction with the port’s public and industrial working groups, a number of environmental policies were developed during the land use plan process. these polices include the following:

• continue to take a leadership role in managing the environment of the north and middle arms of the fraser river. work for the improvement of the overall estuarine environment (water quality, habitat, fish and wildlife) in cooperation with other agencies in the estuary;

• continue to take a responsible role in implementing best management practices in all areas including port construction, pollution control, log storage and habitat creation and enhancement. operate the port’s habitat compensation banks in a responsible manner.


2013R05EN

summary, conclusions, and benefitsdeveloped in concert with the canadian environmental assessment office, transport canada and canadian port authorities (cpa) across canada, the regulations are to improve consistency, transparency and the overall quality of environmental assessments by canadian ports. one of the advantages of the new cpa ea regulations will be the ability of the port to develop standardized environmental reviews. these will allow the port to control environmental approvals for routine maintenance projects on an in-house basis and to achieve faster turnaround times for the majority of smaller scale projects. the land use plan will be flexible and receptive to new ideas and changing conditions. the plan’s goals, policies and actions will be monitored, evaluated and refined on an annual basis. pnf will explore options for involving the public in its environmental management and land use planning activities.

For more information “Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Land Use Plan, Attachment “C”, Port North Fraser Land Use Plan”. 2008. vfpa.


2013R05EN

case 14 – Intermodal FUndIng at transport canada

good practice topics: Institutional Issues and financing.

program period Funding application

canada strategic Infrastructure Fund 2002-2007 $2 billion

transportation infrastructure that helps movement of goods and people on canada’s national highway system, or highways that connect to the nhs and mainline rail network (including intermodal projects).

border Infrastructure Fund 2002-2007 $600 billion Infrastructure that supports improved

efficiencyat canada’s bordersstrategic highway Infrastructure program

2002-2006 $600 billion highway infrastructure including Intermodal projects

Issues observednorth america’s economy and way of life are directly tied to its national transportation infrastructure system. this report summarizes the funding programs in the united states and canada to help finance the construction of such infrastructure.

objectivesto provide an overview of financing and funding transport infrastructure in canada and u.s. in the context of freight transport.

descriptionU.S. Federal Funding Programsa variety of financing tools have been identified in the u.s. at both the federal and state level, including tools that leverage federal resources by encouraging private sector participation in intermodal freight transportation improvements, such as grants or federal-aid apportionments, loan and credit enhancement programs, and tax expenditure financing programs.

specific programs under the safe, accountable, flexible, efficient transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; SAFETEA-LU) that can effectively be applied to intermodal freight projects are described as follows:

• transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation act (tIFIa): this program provides credit assistance on flexible terms directly to public and private sponsors of major surface transportation projects to assist them in gaining access to the capital markets. during the 2005-2009 period, tIfIa provided a total of usd 670 million of contract authority and authorized the secretary to collect fees from borrowers to fund up to 33% of project costs. eligibility for freight facilities


2013R05EN

include: public freight rail facilities or private facilities providing public benefit for highway users; intermodal freight transfer facilities; access to such freight facilities and service improvements to such facilities including capital investment for intelligent transportation systems (Its). an explicit goal of the tIfIa program is to induce private investment in transportation infrastructure. projects must cost at least usd 50 million or 1/3 of a state’s annual apportionments whichever is less and be supported by user charges or other dedicated revenue streams (e.g., investments from other levels of government, private sources).

• congestion mitigation and air Quality (cmaQ) Improvement: this program funds projects that improve air quality by reducing carbon monoxide (co), volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen (nox) and particulate matter in a clean air act nonattainment and maintenance areas. Intermodal freight projects are eligible for grant under this program if they demonstrate reduced traffic emissions. CMAQ provided usd 8.6 billion for the 2005-2009 period.

• rail rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program (rrIF): this program provides credit assistance, in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees to public or private sponsors of intermodal and rail projects. the aggregate amount of outstanding loans and guarantees to be made under this program is usd35 billion over the 2005-2009 period, with usd7 billion reserved for projects primarily benefiting short line and regional railroads. Eligible projects include the acquisition, development, improvement, or rehabilitation of intermodal rail equipment or facilities, including track, bridges, yards and shops.

Canadian Federal Funding Programsthe following table presents a brief overview of the infrastructure funding programs in canada.

most recently, in 2007 the government of canada announced an unprecedented, 7-year $33-billion infrastructure plan, called building canada plan, that will provide funding to meet the nation’s pressing public infrastructure needs. the tools of the plan include a number of flexible initiatives and targeted programs that balance regional needs with national priorities. with respect to the improvement of freight movement and intermodal transportation, the following funding programs within the bcp exist by means of financial contributions, as part of cost-sharing agreements, with eligible recipients:

• Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative (APGCI),• gateways and border crossings fund (gbcf).


2013R05EN

Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor InitiativeapgcI is a $1 billion system of transportation infrastructure including road and rail connections that reach across western canada and into the economic heartlands of north america, as well as major airports and border crossings. It is an integrated set of investment and policy measures focused on trade with the asia-pacific region. Its mission is to establish canada’s asia-pacific gateway and corridor as the best transportation network facilitating global supply chains between north america and asia.

examples of Inter-modal projects funded under the apgcI

• roberts bank rail corridor,• sry rail barge ramp,• north shore and south shore trade areas,• mountain view apex container terminal,• vantern and deltaport short sea shipping berths.

Gateways and Border Crossings Fundthe $2.1 billion gateways and border crossings fund is intended to improve the flow of goods between canada and the rest of the world. this merit-based fund will enhance infrastructure at key locations, such as major border crossings between canada and the united states.

at least $400 million from this fund is devoted to the construction of the new access road linking highway 401 to the new bridge crossing between windsor and detroit, the busiest gateway for canada-united states trade, and one of the most significant commercial trade corridors in the world. Investments in trade-related infrastructure is designed to:

• improve the efficiency and safety of gateways and trade corridors, eliminating bottlenecks and reducing congestion;

• optimize the use of all transportation modes and improve the integration of inter-modal connections;

• minimize environmental impacts.

examples of Inter-Modal Projects funded Under the GBCF • Global Transportation Hub, Regina, Saskatchewan;• Canadian Plaza and Bridge Enhancements at the Blue Water Bridge;• Richmond Terminals Multipurpose Gateway Improvements;• hudson bay railway line rehabilitation project.


2013R05EN

benefitsproviding continuous and reliable source of funding for freight transport;helping the national economies of Canada and US;encouraging private sector participation in intermodal freight transportation improvements.

Further Informationhttp://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/surface-menu.htmhttp://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.cahttp://www.tc.gc.ca/canadasgateways/apgci/index.html

2010/mt


2013R05EN

case 15 – port oF manZanIllo contaIner termInal, meXIco


Issues observedthe port of manzanillo is located in the state of colima within the city of the same name, at the pacific coast of mexico. It is a world class sea port that provides service to central mexico through an east-west trade corridor, as well as to mexico-us trade corridors. It has a total of 14 terminals (100% private investment) with a total of 17 docking positions, including a container terminal with 4 docking positions (320 meters long, 16 meters deep). In 2008, the port moved 1.4 million teus and in 2009 dropped to 1.1 million teus. the port has rail (including double stack services) and road access.

the city of manzanillo had a population of 137,842 in 2005, according the national Institute of statistics, geography and Information technology (InegI). the port is an important job source for the city of manzanillo. the port is within the city limits and has an important interaction with the city traffic operations. the city of manzanillo and the port authority have a coexistence agreement to address port-city interaction.

objectives• improve seaport terminal land access infrastructure;• minimize city traffic impact due to seaport truck traffic;• improve the quality of services at terminals;• offer seaport terminal quality services and prices according to international

standards.

descriptionInfrastructurethere is an ongoing port access road infrastructure project to build (i) a grade separated interchange just in front of the main port entrance, as well as (ii) widening the main port access road along the pez vela-manzanillo bypass stretch. along this stretch of road (iii) a truck parking facility will be built to meter the trucks accessing


2013R05EN

the port, to prevent city traffic grid-lock at rush hours, caused by trucks waiting in line trying to access the port.

Quality LabelIn addition to these ongoing infrastructure projects, the federal government, through the ministry of communications and transportation (sct), has on its 2007-2012 transportation program the aim to encourage seaport and maritime transportation competitiveness to offer quality services and prices according to international standards. one of the actions taken was to start an aggressive seaport quality program called “Quality label” for containerized cargo at seaports with container terminals. the initial ports to implement the “Quality Label” project were altamira (to be completed in 2010), manzanillo, lázaro cárdenas and veracruz. these last three seaports started the implementation process in 2010. In the case of manzanillo the project is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2011.

the “Quality Label” project includes: i) development of a coordination mechanism among the stakeholders to guaranty quality port services. It is based on agreements among the complete logistics-chain stakeholders. Quality is measured through agreed standards; ii) guaranty port customers the committed services including the right to submit claims and be compensated if the services were not delivered as agreed. the commitments are voluntarily accepted by the port service providers.

the expected benefits from the “Quality label” projects are: i) better seaport image as logistics platform, fulfilling clients and investors expectations; ii) integrates the seaport community, promoting coordination and teamwork; quality increase on rendered services, encouraging continuous improvement of processes and unique information platforms.

the sct secured consultant services from the port of barcelona to implement the “Quality Label” project for the port of manzanillo and veracruz. the project has 3 phases: i) diagnosis; ii) design and instrumentation; and iii) close, including knowledge transfer to the management entity for appropriate follow-up and control.

benefits• the expected benefits from the access infrastructure improvements include: more

efficient seaport access from the land side; minimum friction between seaport generated truck traffic and city traffic making an efficient and safe movement of people and goods;

• The expected benefits from the “Quality Label” projects are: i) better seaport image as logistics platform, fulfilling clients and investors expectations; ii) integrates the seaport community, promoting coordination and teamwork; quality increase on rendered services, encouraging continuous improvement of processes and unique information platforms.


2013R05EN

Further InformationAdministración Portuaria Integral de Manzanillo www.puertomanzanillo.com.mx/php/esp/ 2010/jce


2013R05EN

case 16 – port oF VeracrUZ, meXIco


160/173

Bonnes pratiques – Cas 16 - Port de Veracruz, Mexique Thèmes : Infrastructure, planification et conception des terminaux, Exploitation et gestion des terminaux

Port of Veracruz

.

Réseau routier Ligne ferroviaire Ferrosur

Existing Port

New PortNew Rail Acess

New Road Acess

Questions observées Le port de Veracruz est situé dans l’État de Veracruz, qui se trouve dans la ville du même nom, sur la côte du golfe du Mexique. Il s’agit d’un port maritime de calibre mondial qui offre des services au centre du Mexique par l’entremise d’un corridor commercial est-ouest, ainsi que des corridors commerciaux Mexique-États-Unis. À l’heure actuelle, le port compte, en tout, 18 terminaux dotés de 18 postes d’amarrage (12 à 14 mètres de long), y compris deux terminaux à conteneurs. Le port de Veracruz est le deuxième port commercial en importance à l’échelle nationale pour ce qui est du mouvement annuel de conteneurs. En 2008, le port de Veracruz a transporté 716 000 EVP et, en 2009, ce chiffre a connu une baisse, en passant à 564 000 d’EVP. Le port est doté d’un accès ferroviaire et d’un accès routier. Il est desservi par deux compagnies de chemin de fer.

Total des EVP annuels du port de Veracruz


Issues observedthe port of veracruz is located in the state of veracruz within the city of the same name, at the golf of mexico coast. It is a world class commercial sea port that provides service to central mexico through an east-west trade corridor, as well as to mexico-us trade corridors. as of today, it has a total of 18 terminals with a total of 18 docking positions (12 to 14 meters deep), including 2 container terminals.

the port of veracruz is the second most important commercial port in terms of annual container movement at national level. In 2008, the port of veracruz moved 716 thousand teus and in 2009 dropped to 564 thousand teus. the port has rail and road access. the port is served by two railway companies.

veracruz as municipality had a total population of 512,310 in 2005, according the national Institute of statistics, geography and Information technology (InegI). the port is within the city limits and has an important interaction with the city traffic operations. the existing road and rail access go through the city creating important traffic congestion, pollution and safety problems. the city of veracruz and the port authority have a coexistence agreement to address port-city interaction.

HigHwAy Network Ferrosur rAilwAy

160/173


Port of Veracruz

.


Existing Port


New Road Acess




total of teu per year in the port of veracruz


2013R05EN

objectives• increase seaport capacity;• improve seaport terminal land access infrastructure (road and rail);• minimize city traffic impact due to seaport truck traffic;• improve the quality of services at terminals;• offer seaport terminal quality services and prices according to international

standards.

descriptionInfrastructureto address the existing and natural conflicts between the port of veracruz operations and the city of veracruz, mainly due to rail and truck access through the dense urban areas, there is an ongoing expansion project to the north of the existing port facilities to incorporate 10 additional terminals, including 2 additional container terminals (1,440 meters long berth for 4 docking positions for an estimated annual capacity of 2.5 million teus), and 36 additional docking positions (including the 4 for container ships), 18 meters deep. the new rail access is 19.2 kilometers double track and includes a railcar classification yard. the new road access is 13.5 kilometers long. both new accesses will remove all commercial rail and truck traffic out of the dense urban areas avoiding mixing of urban traffic with port related commercial traffic. the cost estimate for this ambitious project is 3.5 billion usd and to be completed in 3 years, considering public (1/3) and private (2/3) investments.

160/173


Port of Veracruz

.


Existing Port


New Road Acess




port of veracruz north expansIon project

In addition to these ongoing infrastructure projects, the federal government, through the ministry of communications and transportation (sct), has on its 2007-2012 transportation program the aim to encourage seaport and maritime transportation competitiveness to offer quality services and prices according to international standards. one of the actions taken was to start an aggressive seaport quality program called “Quality Label” for containerized cargo at seaports with container terminals. the initial ports to implement the “Quality Label” project were altamira (to be completed in 2010), manzanillo, lázaro cárdenas and veracruz.


2013R05EN

these last three seaports started the implementation process in 2010. In the case of veracruz the project is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2011.

Quality Labelthe “Quality Label” project includes: i) development of a coordination mechanism among the stakeholders to guaranty quality port services. It is based on agreements among the complete logistics-chain stakeholders. Quality is measured through agreed standards; ii) guaranty port customers the committed services including the right to submit claims and be compensated if the services were not delivered as agreed. the commitments are voluntarily accepted by the port service providers.

the expected benefits from the “Quality Label” projects are: i) better seaport image as logistics platform, fulfilling clients and investors expectations; ii) integrates the seaport community, promoting coordination and teamwork; quality increase on rendered services, encouraging continuous improvement of processes and unique information platforms.

the sct secured consultant services from the port of barcelona to implement the “Quality Label” project for the port of manzanillo and veracruz. the project has 3 phases: i) diagnosis; ii) design and instrumentation; and iii) close, including knowledge transfer to the management entity for appropriate follow-up and control.

benefits• the expected benefits from the access infrastructure (road and rail) improvements

include: more efficient seaport access from the land side; minimum friction between seaport generated truck traffic and city traffic making an efficient and safe movement of people and goods;

• the expected benefits from the “Quality Label” projects are: i) better seaport image as logistics platform, fulfilling clients and investors expectations; ii) integrates the seaport community, promoting coordination and teamwork; quality increase on rendered services, encouraging continuous improvement of processes and unique information platforms

Further Informationadministración portuaria Integral de veracruz sa de cv (www.apiver.com/apiver/index.php)2010/jce


2013R05EN

case 17 – alnabrU Intermodal termInal, norWay

good practice topics: terminal Infrastructure planning and design, land use

Key figures:• 13 loading tracks• storage: 1,100 teu • 32,000 m long lanes, 168 shunting points• round the clock operations (since 2006)• theoritical capacity: 700,000 teu• 120 employees


2013R05EN

Issue observedIn 2008 more than 12 million tons of freight were transported by rail during 2008. jernbanverket aims at doubling freight capacity by the year 2020 and trebling by 2040.

the alnabru terminal plays a key role in the norwegian intermodal network. the number of handled teu’s increased from 295,000 (2002) to 535,000 teu (2008).

Important facts and figures of the terminal are:

forecasts expect for the alnabru terminal 1,000,000 teu in 2020 and 1,500,000 teu in 2040. with short term measures the today capacity can be increased by some 30%.

the short term measures are:• terminal north: new loading area constructed, existing area expanded; • main gate and access area expanded from two to four inbound lanes and from two

to three outbound lanes;• control booths and Weigh-in-Motion system installed;• depot capacity expanded.

objectives the mandate for a project study was to establish a concept for terminal expansion which fulfils the long-term freight strategy and allows for step-by-step development in accordance with market trends.

descriptionthe project challenges were:

• rails and sleepers are generally of poor quality;• there are currently five different signalling systems in use. Age and quality of

systems vary;• insufficient capacity on internal roads, with several level crossings;• terminal expansion means capacity on access tracks leading to the terminal must

also be expanded; • the terminal infrastructure must be upgraded to accomodate 600 m long trains;• space for clearing and handling snow;• the terminal is ideally placed from a logistic point of view, but there is little scope

for expansion of the terminal area;• there are some165,000 inhabitants in the areas surrounding the terminal. this

entails a strong local emphasis on environmental concerns;• local campaign to open the Alna river;• several functions currently located in the terminal area must be relocated;• stabling area for idlecars;


2013R05EN

• maintenance shops for cars and locomotives;• Jernbaneverket’s maintenance base with stabling area for rolling stock;• activities not directly connected to intermodal rail transport will not be given

priority inside the terminal area.

the terminal development must:

• ensure that the terminal is fully functional and has sufficient capacity during all development phases;

• utilize available areas optimally both inside and outside the terminal;• fulfill the long-term freight strategy;• provide low terminal life-cycle costs and optimal investment flexibility.


• securing the operation during the expansion phase;• low impact on residents and environment;• bearable investment cost of the modules (which follows the demand).

For more information jernbanverket, www.jernbaneverket.no30st december 2010 / msr

the recommended terminal concept for 2040 is the following:

a first development step 2013/14 -2019/20 is


2013R05EN

case 18 – raIlport scandInaVIa, sWeden


166/173

Bonnes pratiques – Cas 18 - Installation ferroviaire-portuaire Scandinavia, Suède Thèmes : Infrastructure, planification et conception des terminaux ; Exploitation et gestion des terminaux

166/173


Issue observedthe port of göteborg saw the potential for rail shuttles in 1998 to increase the hinterland, to secure the hinterland volumes and to proactive limit bottlenecks in terminals and hinterland.

the strategy for the port development was to develop the port of göteborg as a hub connecting intermodal sea and rail transport: railport scandinavia


2013R05EN

objectives the challenges and objectives were:

• convince the market;• adapt to local preconditions;• cooperation along the transport chain;• proof of service.

166/173


descriptionthe railport scandinavia is a business concept that encompasses:

• intermodal rail shuttles between the port of göteborg and inland terminals and feeder ports (daily rail shuttles to 25 destination, more than 50% of the terminal container volumes);

• road marshalling to/from inland terminals and feeder ports;• initiatives for increased reliability, productivity and services;• marketing.

the railport scandinavia is based on cooperation between:

• the Port of Göteborg;• inland terminals and feederports;• rail operators and haulers;• infrastructure holder “Banverket”.

the railport scandinavia moves the port interface to the inland, consolidates volumes to one hub and increases service range in the hub (and the inland terminals).

services and functions:• connects inland destinations with the port of göteborg and daily departures to/from

export- and import regions;


2013R05EN

• facilitates a rational and reliable handling of goods flows; • secures the flow, lead times and access to containers, etc.;• cost efficient storage of goods close to the end customer;• custom facilities at raIlport terminals enables decreased administration and

delayed payment of VAT and custom fees;• raIlport aim at developing logistic solutions and services to support existing

local industry and new establishment; • rail transportation decreases the negative environmental impact of goods

transportation.

167/173

Question observée Le port de Göteborg a constaté le potentiel pour les navettes ferroviaires en 1998 afin d’accroître l’arrière-pays, d’assurer les volumes de l’arrière-pays et de limiter de façon proactive les goulots d’étranglement dans les terminaux et l’arrière-pays. La stratégie pour le développement portuaire consistait à développer le port de Göteborg pour en faire une plaque tournante qui relie le transport intermodal maritime et ferroviaire : port ferroviaire Scandinavia. Objectifs Les défis et les objectifs étaient les suivants : convaincre le marché, s’adapter aux préconditions locales, collaboration tout au long de la chaîne de transport, preuve de service.

Description Le port ferroviaire Scandinavia est un concept d’affaires qui englobe : navettes ferroviaires intermodales entre le port de Göteborg et les terminaux intérieurs et les ports de collecte (navettes ferroviaires quotidiennes vers 25 destinations, plus du double des volumes des terminaux à conteneurs) ; agencement de routes en direction et en provenance des terminaux intérieurs et des ports de collecte ; initiatives pour l’augmentation de la fiabilité, de la productivité et des services ; marketing.

Le port ferroviaire Scandinavia repose sur la collaboration entre : le port de Göteborg, les terminaux intérieurs et les ports de collecte, les exploitants ferroviaires et les transporteurs, le titulaire de l’infrastructure, « Banverket ».

Le port ferroviaire Scandinavia déplace l’interface portuaire vers le mode routier, regroupe les volumes dans une seule plateforme et augmente la gamme de services dans la plateforme (et les terminaux intérieurs). Services et fonctions connexion des destinations terrestres au port de Göteborg et départs quotidiens en direction et à destination des régions d’exportation et d’importation ; faciliter une manutention nationale et fiable des flux de marchandises ; garantir la fluidité, les délais d’exécution et l’accès aux conteneurs, etc. ;


• gives inland destination access to import- and export markets;• gives small and medium sized companies the large companies logistic capabilities;• reduces the negative impact of transports on the environment;• reduces cost of transportation;• increases the competitive strength of the RAILPORT-terminal region;• strengthens the port of göteborg through consolidation of goods volumes.

For more information railport scandinavia, per Öfverman, [email protected] december 2010 / msr


2013R05EN

case 19 – locatIon eValUatIon For neW gateWay termInal, sWItZerland

good practice topics: terminal Infrastructure planning and design, environment, land use and public Involvement, Institutional and financial issues

169/173

Bonnes pratiques – Cas 19 - Évaluation de l’emplacement pour le nouveau terminal d’entrée, Suisse Thèmes : Infrastructure, planification et conception des terminaux ; Environnement, utilisation des terres et participation du public ; Questions institutionnelles et financières

pr

Strassenbereich

Umschlag/Zwischenlagerung

Kranbahn

12345

67A

Gleis 138

Kranbahn

31.5 m 700 m 269.5 m

Ortsgüteranlage

Bf. Killwangen-Spreitenbach

Wasserfassung

RBL

Kran 1 Kran 2

Mut

sche

llens

trass

e

16 m

3 6.5

m

41 m

12.5

m

Gleis 141B Ausziehgleis





Rough Evaluation


criteria
















Feeb

ack

cycl

e





Rough Evaluation


criteria
















Feeb

ack

cycl

e





Rough Evaluation


criteria
















Feeb

ack

cycl

e





Rough Evaluation


criteria
















Feeb

ack

cycl

e


2013R05EN

169/173

Bonnes pratiques – Cas 19 - Évaluation de l’emplacement pour le nouveau terminal d’entrée, Suisse Thèmes : Infrastructure, planification et conception des terminaux ; Environnement, utilisation des terres et participation du public ; Questions institutionnelles et financières

pr

Strassenbereich

Umschlag/Zwischenlagerung

Kranbahn

12345

67A

Gleis 138

Kranbahn

31.5 m 700 m 269.5 m

Ortsgüteranlage

Bf. Killwangen-Spreitenbach

Wasserfassung

RBL

Kran 1 Kran 2

Mut

sche

llens

trass

e

16 m

3 6.5

m

41 m

12.5

m

Gleis 141B Ausziehgleis





Rough Evaluation


criteria
















Feeb

ack

cycl

e





Rough Evaluation


criteria
















Feeb

ack

cycl

e

170/173

Question observée Le terminal intermodal actuel à Zurich doit être fermé en raison d’intentions incompatibles de développement d’infrastructure et de développement urbain. En même temps, les volumes croissants de transport intermodal devraient augmenter de 4 à 8 % par année au cours des 20 prochaines années. Les services de navette vers les ports maritimes du nord de Rotterdam, d’Antwerp, de Brême et de Hambourg sont particulièrement importants. Pour les flux intermodaux d’importation et d’exportation, il faut créer une porte d’entrée ou un terminal central pour fournir des services aux terminaux régionaux. Objectifs Pour le terminal de porte d’entrée, une micro évaluation des emplacements et une étude de faisabilité étaient nécessaires, y compris une analyse socio-économique et une analyse des impacts de l’utilisation des terres. La capacité du terminal devrait être d’environ 1 000 EVP par jour ; on prévoit 70 % de transbordement rail-rail et entre 20 et 30% des unités de chargement seront dirigées dans le réseau de trafic à wagon unique. Description On a utilisé une approche d’évaluation systématique des emplacements, en fonction d’une analyse à critères multiples et d’une analyse des impacts de l’utilisation des terres (voir l’ordinogramme). L’évaluation a porté sur les principaux domaines suivants : l’accessibilité, la durabilité pour une disposition idéale (taille du lot, forme du lot, etc.), le respect des exigences d’utilisation des terres, l’impact sur l’environnement (bruit, pollution, etc.), les coûts (investissement, opération), les risques (restrictions opérationnelles, acceptation politique, etc.). Huit options d’emplacements spécifiques ont été étudiées. Différentes dispositions de terminal ont été élaborées, en tenant compte des conditions locales. Le processus d’évaluation susmentionné a été suivi.

Après l’évaluation préliminaire, deux emplacements ont été jugés les plus convenables et faisables : A1 (Dietikon/Spreitenbach) à Limmattal, B1 (Otelfingen/Buchs) à Furttal.

Après l’évaluation de fond, l’emplacement A1 a clairement obtenu la meilleure évaluation globale. Voici les principales raisons :

accessibilité (surtout la connexion ferroviaire dans la gare de triage), meilleure observation des exigences d’utilisation des terres, incidence plus faible sur l’environnement, coûts moins élevés (surtout les coûts du service ferroviaire).

New Location

Old Location

New Location

Old Location

Issue observedthe existing intermodal terminal in zurich has to be closed due to unsuitable infrastructure and city development intentions. at the same time increasing intermodal volumes are expected, growing 4 to 8% per year in the next 20 years. especially important are the shuttle services to the seaports of the north range as rotterdam, antwerp, bremen and hamburg. for the intermodal import/export flows a gateway or hub-terminal is needed providing services to regional terminals.

objectives for the gateway terminal a micro location evaluation and a feasibility study was needed which also included a socio-economic and land use impact analysis. the terminal capacity should be around 1,000 teus per day, 70% rail-rail transhipment is expected and 20 to 30% of the loading units are going into the single wagon traffic network.

descriptiona systematic location evaluation approach was used based on a multi-criteria-analysis and a land use impact analysis (see flow chart). main assessment areas were accessibility, suitability for ideal layout (lot size, lot shape, etc.), fulfillment of land use requirements, impact on environment (noise, pollution, etc.), cost (investment, operation), risks (operational restrictions, political acceptance, etc.).


2013R05EN

8 micro locations options in two valleys have been investigated. different terminal layouts have been developed taking into account the local conditions. the evaluation process shown before was followed.

after the rough evaluation two locations turned out to be the most suitable and feasible:

• A1 (Dietikon/Spreitenbach) in the Limmattal;• B1 (Otelfingen/Buchs) in the Furttal.

after the in depth evaluation location a1 got clearly the better overall assessment. the main reasons were:

• accessibility (especially the rail connection to the marshalling yard);• better fulfillment of the land use requirements;• lower impact on the environment;• lower costs (especially rail operation costs).

based on the evaluation results location a1 was secured in the regional and national transport plan. the terminal layout planning and design project is going on. the realisation is planned until 2015/16.


• procedures and methods suitable;• location found which is suitable and feasible;• location now secured in regional and national transport plan.

the political discussion was difficult (local negative effects against national/regional positive effects by modal shift from road to intermodal transport). therefore stakeholder involvement is important from the beginning of the planning process.

For more information martin ruesch, rapp trans ag, uetlibergstrasse 132, 8045 zürich, phone: +41 43 268 60 43, e-mail: [email protected] 2011 / msr


2013R05EN

case 20 – Intermodal raIl transport For Waste logIstIcs, sWItZerland

good practice topics: terminal Infrastructure planning and design, terminal operation and management, environment, land use and public Involvement.

172/173

Bonnes pratiques – Cas 20 - Transport ferroviaire intermodal pour la logistique des déchets, Suisse Thèmes : Infrastructure, planification et conception des terminaux ; Exploitation et gestion des terminaux ; Environnement, utilisation des terres et participation du public

Market share rail in % Market share road in %Market share rail in % Market share road in %

Issue observedIn the eastern part of switzerland a new waste incineration plant was realised in the canton of thurgau. this is a region with about 195,000 inhabitants within 66 communities. the new incineration plant resulted in longer distances for waste transport for household and industrial waste collection. there was a strong political


2013R05EN

will for an efficient and ecological waste logistics and transport concept with the use of rail transport.

objectives the main aim of the waste logistic concept was an increase in efficiency and a reduction of environmental burdens in the whole waste logistics of the region. transhipment should be realised at existing public goods stations using transhipment technology which does not require gantry cranes or reach stackers.

descriptionthe solution was an integral disposal system consisting of the following elements:

• intermodal roll-on/off technology for horizontal transhipment between truck and rail. a standard acts container (27 m3) is used on the waste collecting tour (household waste) with a specialised truck, equipped with a compactor;

• 5 regional intermodal transfer points at public goods stations. when full, the acts container is driven to one out of 5 road-rail transfer points (intermodal terminals) (cus), where the container is transhipped onto a rail wagon, and an empty container transhipped back on the truck. this actually only needs a rail track next to a paved area. The transshipment is done by the on the truck installed hydraulic mechanism;

• 3 regional waste treatment facilities: parallel to the public waste collection tours there are 3 facilities (RAZ) where private firms can bring their bulky waste themselves. these points are equipped with a compactor. when needed a truck takes the full containers to one of the intersection places nearby for transshipment to rail;

• also the waste collection areas and tours have bee optimized. 130 containers were in use in the year 2008.

benefits the integral waste disposal system based on intermodal rail transport and existing public goods stations turned out to be suitable and feasible. the following benefits are important to be mentioned:

• more than 50% rail share (before 0%);• increasing payload of trucks (about 50%);• higher collection performance;• reduction of collection vehicles by 50%;• reduction of truck-km (20%);• reduction of overall costs (8-10%).

during the planning and realisation public involvement of stakeholders was important. Positive effects could be reached for all stake-holders; higher efficiency and lower costs for waste handling; less noise and air pollution cheaper fees for waste disposal, less traffic (esp. near the incineration plant). the solution is in general


2013R05EN

transferable in situation with a sufficient railway network. It is also possible with inland waterway instead of rail.

For more information http://www.kvatg.ch/logistik-ies-001-040202-de.htmwww.bestufs.net → BESTUFS II - Best Practice Handbook 4 Update 2008 Part III, waste transport and logistics in urban areashttp://www.actsag.ch/

intermodal freigt terminals

Documents

road transport

transport canada canada

freight terminalschallenges

role of terminals

french version

tayyaran canada

original version

amivtac piarc mexico