Overall Observations

A vast amount of material and information was gathered on this scanning trip, and we strongly urge the reader to study the chapters concerning the EC, the Netherlands, and Germany for specific details and a better understanding of each country. Nevertheless, there were several important general observations and conclusions that emerged after considerable team discussion and analysis.

1. Intermodal freight planning and policy is truly in place at both the pan-European and national levels.

Despite tremendously challenging cultural and national differences, European intermodal freight transportation policy planning and program development involves a process that in general is mutually supportive at all levels of government. Such programs are focused to gain the maximum benefit for regional and pan-European economic, social, and environmental needs.

In contrast to the United States, where most of the public sector intermodal focus is on passenger-related intermodalism, the Europeans are well into the process of balancing both passenger and freight transportation needs together with the environment as the focus of attention. This creates the need for more discussion of freight intermodal alternatives, especially where transportation congestion along major highways causes environmental harm to surrounding areas.

2. Shorter distances force innovative intermodal system solutions.

With an average of 300 to 500 kilometer (186 to 310 mile) trip lengths, freight transportation distances are much shorter in Europe than in the United States and do not easily benefit from economies of scale and distance. As a result, many European intermodal transportation policies and programs require very innovative thinking to take advantage of distinctive modal characteristics and peculiarities, especially when considering traffic congestion and environmental constraints. Examples include greater emphasis on railroad, short sea shipping (better known in the United States as coastal shipping), and inland waterways to relieve highway congestion and pollution.

3. The planning process involves distinct public/private interaction and dialogue.

Relationships between European intermodal interests are slowly, but successfully evolving, especially with freight transportation. Recognizing that some issues are still the focus of very serious differences of opinion, a sense of working together, through dialogue, is beginning to give freight transportation a larger role in the overall needs of the national and EC infrastructure development.

4. Government funding is available for all modes.

Recognizing that the larger economic, social, and environmental issues are the driving forces behind passenger and freight transportation, public funds from the EC to member governments are provided for intermodal infrastructure as incentives for the private sector to shift more of its transportation needs from modal to intermodal systems. Within the member governments, funding is provided to the most cost-effective transportation investment, regardless of mode.

5. Environmental concerns heavily influence transportation policy.

Environmental concerns are clearly a significant, if not the most significant, factor driving transportation policies and investment decisions. Environmental constraints and "quality of life" issues have directed more attention to the better use of the rail and water modes, as well as better intermodal connections.

6. Pricing/cost structure is key to realizing full intermodal integration.

Rail, highway, water, and air modes have reached the point in the planning process where to a large extent they are seen as equal members. This is especially true where there is the clear need to link the modes to the existing and emerging demands of commercial activity. Each mode must pay its fair share in all respects. Such policies, although still a long way from the ideal, encourage intermodal policy and infrastructure development that is supported in part by a pricing system that recognizes both direct and indirect environmental costs of the various modes.

7. Efficient freight transportation requires planning at European and national levels.

In addition to the need to address internal problems of congestion, environment, and economics, there is a strong feeling at the EC and most national levels that failure to develop a compatible, equitable, and efficient intermodal transport system will result in an unacceptable loss of world market share. As a result, intermodal policy and facility plans have been developed at the EC and national levels to provide for efficient freight transportation.

8. Governments share risk with private sector.

Many of the more innovative intermodal systems and facilities are considered high-risk investments given their market and modal uncertainties. To overcome this risk factor, public and private entities agree to share such investments. For the public sector, the payoff is return on taxes and other forms of employment benefits. For the private sector, successful operations often help involved companies maintain a competitive edge within the marketplace at greatly reduced financial exposure. Such risk taking has seen some degree of success.

9. Trans-European networks for all surface modes and air provide the framework for investment.

These networks, developed for both modal and intermodal systems, provide a focus for limited EC transportation investments that support European economic development. The networks also provide member countries, local governments, and the private sector with a framework for their investment actions. Furthermore, these networks establish a common level of standards for infrastructure, equipment, and operations and provide a flexible tool for ensuring that the EC investment is part of an overall transportation strategy providing stimulus for the financing of projects by the private sector. All modes are included in this overall framework for an intermodal transportation system, as the Europeans are seeking to optimize the potential of each transportation mode.

10. Governments recognize freight transportation's role in economic competitiveness.

Recognition of the importance of freight transportation in supporting economic growth is clearly present at all levels of government. Many of these governments are struggling to change from traditional to newer business activities and technologies. Governments at both the EC and national levels are supporting intermodal freight transportation infrastructure improvements that link economic regions through coordinated transportation, environmental, and commercial policies and projects. Existing duplicative transportation between regions is generally recognized as no longer acceptable.

11. The need to share intermodal technology and standards is recognized.

Because of differences in intermodal equipment and technology standards between EC countries, the EC has established projects like SIMET (Smart InterModal European Transfer) that are designed to develop and help implement common standards and specifications for intermodal yards, including rail, highway, maritime, and inland waterways. Such harmonizing of standards is designed to accelerate improved operating efficiencies by sharing information and innovative technological developments.

Recommendations

1. The United States could benefit by identifying transportation infrastructure networks which are of "national" interest. This would help focus the nation's limited transportation resources on policies and projects that maximize transportation efficiencies of each mode to improve economic competitiveness throughout the nation. The National Highway System (NHS) and National Transportation System (NTS) are significant efforts that are under way which support this recommendation.

2. The United States should consider more innovative and focused funding mechanism policies for intermodal freight transportation (rail, highway, inland and coastal waterways, air) fundamental to our country's ability to improve our efficiency and compete internationally. This includes government's participation and facilitation of innovative intermodal investments that require longer-term risk-taking. Efforts such as the formation of the Innovative Financing Task Force by the FHWA and its proposed test and evaluation projects are positive steps toward addressing this recommendation.

4. Conversely, there is the need for American transportation government officials to visit other countries, especially those countries that are important trading partners with the United States, to become better informed about their intermodal transportation policies and programs. In the team's opinion, meeting with European counterparts and visiting innovative intermodal freight transportation facilities has immensely enhanced the scope and appreciation of potential United States applications.

In closing this section of the report, we again urge the reader to continue to the more detailed descriptions and explanations of policies within the EC, the Netherlands, and Germany.

1. Summary Report on the European Community

1.1 Background

The transportation policies being pursued by the European Community are very similar to those articulated in the United States' Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. While there are obvious differences in political structure and geography, the common goal of efficient, integrated surface transportation systems provides a good basis for sharing ideas on research and technology advancements and experiences in implementing intermodal systems. Before discussing the transportation policies of the EC and identifying opportunities for collaboration with the United States, some background on the EC is provided.

The EC was created to provide a framework for a closer union of the European countries, in economic, social, and political terms. The founding members of what was then called the European Community, who signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957, are Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark joined in 1973, Greece in 1981, and Spain and Portugal in 1986 (see Figure 1: Map of the European Community). With the introduction of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, all borders between member states disappeared and people, goods, services, and capital can circulate free of internal barriers.

The EC is run by four institutions, representing the executive and legislative branches of government and the judiciary. These institutions are (1) the Council of Ministers, made up of representatives of member states; (2) the European Commission, the main executive institution; (3) the European Parliament; and (4) the European Court of Justice. The ministers who sit in the Council are directly responsible for their national governments. The European Parliament is directly elected by EC citizens. The president and the 16 other members of the European Commission are nominated by their governments and approved by the Council of Ministers. Legislation is introduced by the Commission, with the Council of Ministers' and the Parliament's approval required before it becomes law.

The transportation situation in the EC is not too different from that in the United States. The EC has seen significant growth in transportation (2.3 percent per year in freight and 3.1 percent for passengers between 1970 and 1990), while the investment in infrastructure has declined (1.5 percent of GDP in 1975 to about 1 percent in the 1980s). Demand is expected to increase about 25-30 percent between now and the year 2000, resulting in a shortfall in the level of infrastructure needed to meet the demand. Further, about 70 percent of freight is carried on the highways, with 15 percent by rail, 9 percent by inland waterways, and 6 percent by pipelines (see Figure 2: EC Freight Transport by Mode).

Figure 1: Map of the European Community

Figure 2: EC Freight Transport by Mode

1.2 Common Transport Policy (CTP)

Transportation has always been seen as a critical element in linking Europe, and the Treaty of Rome (1957) explicitly recognized this and called for the development of a common transport policy. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty further strengthened the recognition of the vital role of transportation in moving toward an economic union and required the development of trans-European networks. In late 1992, the EC officially adopted a "White Paper on The Future Development of the Common Transport Policy." While not having the force of law, the "White Paper" sets forth the framework for the development of future regulations and directives in the EC. A discussion of the CTP is important because it points out many of the similarities in transportation policy between the EC and the United States.

The CTP recognizes the problems created by the growth in transportation demand and the need for an integrated multimodal transportation solution. The guiding principle of the policy is "sustainable mobility," which attempts to achieve an optimum transportation system while recognizing social and environmental constraints. The primary objectives of the CTP are as follows:

As noted above, a critical objective of the CTP is developing integrated transportation systems, with particular emphasis on better connections between modes. To meet this objective, policies and actions are directed toward promoting the combined use of different modes (e.g., rail/sea, rail/inland waterway, truck/rail).

The first major policy area being pursued by the EC to encourage more integrated transportation is to establish a level playing field within and across modes. As part of this effort, much emphasis is now being placed on establishing consistent, community-wide taxation and charging principles for heavy goods transported by road. In addition to looking at excise duties on diesel fuel and vehicle taxes, serious consideration is being given to charging users infrastructure costs that incorporate external costs (i.e., environmental costs, accident costs, and traffic congestion costs). The "internalization of external costs" concept is thought to be necessary to encourage more use of combined transport, as well as to support the development of a sustainable transportation system. The importance placed on the environment will be a strong driving force toward the implementation of some form of pricing that incorporates external costs.

1.3 Trans-European Networks

A second major policy area is the development of trans-European networks, with the aim of establishing interconnections between the infrastructure of the different modes of transportation. Trans-European networks have been developed for high-speed trains, highways, combined transport (truck/rail), and inland waterways (see Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6). While separate networks exist for rail, inland waterways, and highways, the next step for the EC is to integrate these networks into a trans-European transportation system. These efforts are now underway, with much of the EC research budget being devoted to developing procedures to assist in creating an integrated transportation system.

The highway network is focused on the connection with the national networks through the construction of missing links and upgrading of existing links. In addition, standards and traffic management policies are being developed to insure consistent operations across these networks. The plan for the highway network calls for about 54,0000 km (33,750 miles) by the year 2002, with about 12,000 km (7,500 miles) yet to be built.

The combined transport network was initially established to provide a framework for a road/rail-based transportation system for diverting freight from the congested road network. At the outset, the development of the network involved the identification of traffic flows by road that, due to their volume or distance (generally greater than 400 km or 250 miles), offered the greatest potential for cost-effective intermodal movements. A total investment of about 2 billion ECU (in 1991 European prices) is required to complete the basic network, which includes some equipment purchase and terminal expansion (this cost estimate is only for those investments required to serve international traffic). It is estimated that this investment will result in a doubling of existing traffic (from about 4 percent to 8 percent of the freight market share). To achieve further traffic increases, new lines of capacity may be needed; however, this may be reduced as construction of the high-speed rail passenger system frees up existing rail capacity. The network would be constructed by a joint effort between the railways, the member states, and the EC (using the Infrastructure and Cohesion funds).

A network of inland waterways was developed on the basis of an economic and technical analysis of the existing waterway capacity to provide cost-effective service for containers and swapbodies. Though not extensive, possibilities exist to expand its coverage. What seems important here is that the combined transport network was broadened recently to include inland waterways, an area that may offer potential in the United States.

The EC is developing guidelines for a trans-European airport network, recognizing the need to integrate airports into an overall intermodal network and their role as nodes in the transportation system. These guidelines will include the identification of an airport network of European Community interest, including the connections with other networks (i.e., ground access to the airport). The airport network will include the following four components:

All the airports that fall within the description of these four components will be included in the trans-European airport network. Four sets of criteria will guide EC investment in projects that are part of this network. These include the following:

These networks were developed with input from the member countries, experts from industry, transportation operators, and users. The ultimate goal of the EC is to use these networks as the basis for development of a passenger and freight intermodal transportation system. In developing the networks, the EC role is one of promoting the connections between the various transportation networks of the member countries and not in developing infrastructure. The networks provide a flexible tool for ensuring that EC investment forms part of an overall transportation strategy. Networks allow member states freedom to act, however their actions must be consistent with the guidelines for the trans-European networks.

1.4 EC Funding

The EC has limited funding for transportation investments through an infrastructure fund, but does not intend to become a primary source of investment in place of the member states or the private sector. It is budgeted that a level of investment of around 400 billion ECU during the period from 1990 through 2010 is needed to ensure adequate functioning of these Trans-European Networks. This amount is reflected below in the bottom, right cell of Table 1.

1.5 Incentives for Combined Transportation

It is generally recognized that, due to the existing cost structures and short distances for most freight movements (90 percent of the goods in the EC are transported at distances less than 200 km or 125 miles), incentives are needed to move toward a higher market share for combined transport. These incentives are needed until more permanent measures are in place to ensure that the true costs of each mode are actually incurred (internalization of external costs).

As a result, the EC established a new program in 1993 for funding pilot projects at 3 million ECUs. The program was established to encourage the implementation of combined transport projects that are within the framework of the trans-European combined transport network. These pilot projects are supposed to bring together all participants in the combined transport chain (public and private) to create a permanent improvement in the quality of service. The projects must meet certain economic evaluations (e.g., sufficient demand to be fully subsidy-free within two years). The role of the public agencies is limited to initial assistance with the development of the project and support for a limited period during its operation, much like the IVHS program in the United States. The value to the public agencies is the opportunity to generalize on the results of the projects over the whole network and to test ideas for further development. Priority is given to road/rail projects, but inland waterway projects may also be included. Many of these projects are within congested corridors or corridors where truck restrictions currently exist.

The EC has established other incentives, such as allowing higher weight limits on trucks used in combined transport (44 tons rather than 40 tons) and allowing new railway operators into the combined transport market for international routes. The EC passed legislation allowing open access for new railway operators in the combined transport market (Directive 91/440). This directive establishes a separate management and accounting system for rail infrastructure with required charges to be levied on a non-discriminatory basis. While these incentives are important, it is generally recognized within the EC that unless changes are made in road pricing, only marginal contributions in removing trucks from the highways can be made through shifts to combined transport.

Terminal efficiency has been recognized as critical to making intermodal transportation a viable option. On a typical 600-700 km trip by combined transport, it is estimated that over 40 percent of the costs are generated by road trips (drayage) and terminal operations. As a result, the EC is supporting research on the development of a "Smart Intermodal European Transfer" (SIMET) terminal. This work will lead to the development of standards for a high-technology terminal of the future. The EC is also looking at improving ports in the western and southern periphery to make short sea shipping more cost-effective, particularly as an alternative to relieving the congestion on the north-south movements across the Alps (see Figure 7: Trucks Using Rail Over the Alps: Protecting the Environment). Finally, the EC is encouraging the creation of freight distribution centers. These centers can reduce the number of trips within urban areas through more efficient logistics practices. Germany is moving in this direction through the Guterverkehrszentren (GVZ) concept.

1.6 Conclusions

The EC, through its Combined Transport policy, is committed to developing intermodal transportation systems. The establishment of the trans-European networks for all modes of transportation recognizes that a more rational use of existing and future infrastructure is necessary, particularly considering the environmental constraints on the expansion of the transportation infrastructure. Much can be gained through a continued dialogue with the EC, especially as we consider our many similarities with them in (1) transportation policy development (i.e., ISTEA and the CTP), (2) the network basis for national infrastructure programs (i.e., NHS/NTS and trans-European networks), (3) research programs supporting intermodalism (i.e., road pricing, external costs, advanced communications systems for transmission and processing of information at all links in the intermodal chain), and (4) our similar constraints in funding and environmental matters. Areas that offer particularly high potential include the following:

To facilitate this dialogue and to achieve the benefits of shared experiences in intermodal policy implementation and research, the United States Department of Transportation should strongly consider establishing a formal working agreement with the EC.

Figure 7: Trucks Using Rail Over The Alps: Protecting The Environment

Reprinted, with permission, from Intermodal Transport, System Advantages Intelligently Linked, Deutsche Bahn AG.

The Netherlands has a rich tradition of transport and distribution. It is critically located as a European and world gateway and provides key access to the massive European market; indeed, nearly one-third of all the freight in Europe is transported through the Netherlands. It is densely populated, having some 15 million inhabitants. (If the United States were as densely populated, it would have 3.3 billion inhabitants instead of 250 million.)

Over the years the Netherlands has developed road, rail, and water networks, not only to serve its own internal needs, but to enhance its distribution system with the hinterland of Europe. In its programs to maintain and upgrade these networks, the Netherlands faces three major problems: limited financial resources, environmental concerns, and a lack of physical space.

Dutch policy concentrates on using the infrastructure efficiently while maintaining the environment and the quality of life. It also has to complement the growth and development in other European countries. The situation thus requires a broadly based, integrated traffic and transportation policy designed to create "sustainable solutions," or, striking a balance between individual freedom, accessibility, and environmental amenity.

The transportation master plan, policies, and programs for the Netherlands are detailed in the Second Transport Structure Plan (the First being in 1988), which was approved by the Council of Ministers in 1990, and extends to the year 2010. It was developed by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management, together with the Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning, and the Environment. It emphasizes cooperation with and between other ministries, the provinces, the municipalities, commerce and industry, and social organizations. The Second Transport Structure Plan is not only a policy document, but also identifies the network and programs for each mode, both for the Netherlands and as part of the European Union Plan.

2.2 Accessibility and Congestion

The transport industry (all inclusive) contributes 34 billion guilders to the national income and employs nearly 350,000 people. Much of this is associated with the world's largest seaport in Rotterdam, Amsterdam's Schipol Airport, and, to a lesser extent, the Port of Amsterdam.

Accessibility and competitive position of these engines of the Dutch economy are, however, causing great European concern. The same is true for the quality and cost of transport. These factors threaten the Netherlands' gateway position and they also influence the country's attractiveness as a location for business and industry.

The movement of goods by highway is increasing even faster than that of people. Unless rapid and effective steps are taken to encourage high standards of accessibility and increased transport of freight by rail and water, and to enhance the efficiency of road transport, truck ton-miles will nearly double by 2010. Since long-range highway plans envision essentially selective expansion of road capacity, rigorous mobility management and modal shifts are seen as critical.

2.3 The Environment

The Dutch acknowledge that measures to improve accessibility may not be compatible with environmental and quality-of-life goals. This potential conflict places some limits on the extent to which the transport system can be allowed to serve narrow economic goals; further, that economic growth which fails to accord quality of life its due importance will saddle future generations with a heavy environmental burden and, perhaps, even destroy future generations' chances of achieving the rising standards of living to which this generation itself aspires. This generation is thus challenged to find intelligent and creative solutions to transportation problems.

The Dutch vigorously support the transportation principles of the EC and take no small amount of pride in noting that the EC plans essentially follow Dutch policies and initiatives. They are concerned, however, that the path to free trade and transportation efficiency within the EC could be hindered by the somewhat protectionist attitudes of individual member states.

Among other issues which must be resolved across the EC are liberalization of the use of foreign carriers and fiscal harmonization relative to excise duties, fuel tax, vehicle taxation, and vehicle dimensions and weight. A side effect of fiscal harmonization is that it will improve the competitive position of environment-friendly modes of transport. Improvement of rail and waterway capability will enable part of the potential growth in highway traffic to be transferred.

Rapid and massive changes are taking place throughout Europe, resulting in both problems and opportunities. All these factors compel the Netherlands to continually assess its position in the EC transport policy with a view toward safeguarding Europe's advantage vis-a-vis other international economic blocs such as the United States and its NAFTA partners (Canada and Mexico), and Japan and other Asian countries such as South Korea, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia, which are experiencing high economic growth.

The following is an attempt to summarize and characterize the freight transportation modal scenarios forecast by the Dutch Ministry for 2010.

Motor Carrier

Seaport

Air

2.6 Combined Transport

The Transport Plan states that a large proportion of the growth in market share of rail and waterway freight will be concentrated in international container traffic and intermodal transport. The most promising routes are: (1) from Rotterdam to Germany and thence to Italy and Eastern Europe; (2) France and Spain; and (3) important intermodal markets and routings with Austria, Switzerland, Italy, and the countries of the Danube region. Success in these markets depends on the development and expansion of combined highway/rail, water/rail, and water/highway transport.

The Dutch feel that the trucking industry will need to be more active with rail and waterways. They believe that the major highway carriers and shippers need to participate financially and organizationally in the determination of haulage combinations and advanced logistical services aimed at improving the trucking industry's efficiency and routing control of freight traffic flows. In this regard, key social and economic policies related to road haulage are being developed by the government in conjunction with the industry's representative organizations.

The railways' role will lie in the area of container transport and in regular and shuttle freight services, with planned Rail Service Centers playing an important part. Four or five such centers are to be established over the next few years, with a long-term target of ten or more. This will require substantial investment, to which the government will contribute. It will also help fund the introduction of technologies for new container handling systems.

Waterways also play an effective part in a more integrated transport system. Around 25 percent of the containers transported between the Rotterdam area and Germany go by inland waterway, and container traffic on the waterways has grown in recent years, by about 20 percent. Much can be expected of combined road/water transport, given the development of roll-on/roll-off ferry services, and there are also good prospects for combined rail/water transport.

The government will support initiatives from local authorities and the waterway industry for the development of freight-distribution centers and inland terminals, and will seek to create the right framework in such areas as infrastructure and international regulation. In this connection, steps are being taken to improve EC regulations on cross-frontier traffic, including the necessary standardization.

Government funding totalling several million guilders will be needed over the next few years for combined-transport terminals serving the waterway network. Decisions on the need for further funding will depend on market development and the industry's own initiatives. A framework is being developed to assess such initiatives.

2.7 Spending Needs

Table 2, which follows, reflects the spending needs to 2010 set forth in the Second Transport Structure Plan. It should be emphasized that this is a needs estimate, not an authorized budget, and is now three years dated; however, it is an accurate depiction of the relative amounts necessary for modes and projects supporting a multimodal approach to transportation problems.

Collective Transport

Trunk Highways

Waterways

Rail Freight

Highway Safety

Urban Traffic

Incentives

behavior, combined transport, seaports etc.

Research/Stimulation 6.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . 168.9

Data, reprinted with permission, from The Second Transport Structure Plan, and confirmed by the Royal Netherlands Embassy in June 1994.

After consideration of several options to finance the construction and maintenance of its transportation needs, there is agreement between appropriate government entities that an Infrastructure Fund is the best means of providing the framework for implementing an integrated transportation policy. This enables priorities to be set in a more coherent fashion and optimizes the management and use of available resources.

The Fund, which combines the National Road Fund, the Mobility Fund, and the relevant sections of the Ministry of Transport budget, provides grants for the passenger and freight infrastructure, whether the projects are for highways, railways, waterways, air transport, or ports. Such grants will cover capital spending on new infrastructure, capacity expansion and improvements, replacement investment, maintenance, management, and project preparation, but not the purchase and operation of vehicles, vessels, or aircraft.

A large proportion of Fund expenditures relate to central government projects; grants to the railway infrastructure also will be a major item. Other grants go to local government and private companies, and there is provision for a limited but significant loan capability enabling peaks in capital spending on particular cases to be covered by borrowing on the capital market.

Fund income comprises general tax revenues, a proportion of motor-vehicle tax revenue, a proportion of the yield from petrol duty, contributions from outside bodies, and the income from tolls and the peak-hour surcharge on motor-vehicle tax.

In the Netherlands the equivalent of our Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is known as a Transport Region. While it does not yet have the formalized authority and planning responsibilities of an MPO, the functions and structure of the Transport Regions have been detailed in the national plan and are deemed critical to administration of the plan.

In addition to this government interaction, the Dutch plan also clearly states the need for the knowledge, skills, and experience of the various transportation carriers and organizations in the comprehensive planning process. It also notes that these forces are still too often fragmented, but that the state should be concerned with infrastructure provision and helping set frameworks. This process of establishing appropriate forums is very much a part of central government activity.

2.10 Conclusions and Observations

Direct comparisons between the transportation situations in the United States and the Netherlands are not easy, if for no other reason than the obvious differences in size, demographics, and the respective histories of transportation development. Nonetheless, there are important similarities at both political and operational levels, and we have much to learn from each other.

Transportation problems in the Netherlands are serious, are increasing, and in general are similar to ours in that highway congestion and adverse environmental impacts are at the core of the situation and have little or no prospect of improving without smarter use of freight transport systems, primarily through full modal usage, while allowing the freight sector to help the economy grow most efficiently.

In the Netherlands, strong direction, comprehensive planning, and truly intermodal funding are provided at the central government level, and the program is complementary to the greater European Community program. While the same degree of federal leadership from both legislative and executive sources may not be desirable in the United States political structure, it appears that the Dutch system of federal leadership has produced priority-based funding mechanisms and policies that promote and allow the fulfillment of intended intermodal transportation systems as part of total societal goals.

3. Summary Report on Germany

3.1 Background

With a combined population of 83 million since unification in 1990, Germany has recognized that the development of its transportation infrastructure, especially in the context of intermodalism, is one of its primary objectives for both economic growth and ensured compatibility with environmental and social enhancement. To achieve this, government regulations, programs, and projects at both the national and regional levels, in concert with overall EC objectives and the political and economic opening of Eastern Europe, are beginning to place heavy emphasis on increasing the share of environmentally friendly modes of rail and waterway transport in the growth of both passenger and freight transport operations.

3.2 Federal Traffic Infrastructure Plan of 1992

To do this the national government has planned annual investments of roughly 25 billion deutsche marks in response to its Federal Traffic Infrastructure Plan of 1992

(FTIP '92). By year 2010, expected expenditures for these projects will total more than 493 billion deutsche marks (see Table 3 for more details). A large share of these funds is targeted to the states that joined the German Federal Republic in 1990.

Driving forces behind the need to improve Germany's transportation infrastructure are focused on the following factors:

As a preliminary step in developing a more integrated transportation policy, the federal government issued in 1990 a "Transport Policy of the Nineties." That policy identified the need for coordinated strategies that supported cooperative investments for transportation improvement, environmental protection and traffic safety, development and implementation of modern transportation technology (especially intermodal), and a coordinated market strategy that focused on rational use of modal transportation systems.

Total Investments 1991 - 2010

Under the FTIP '92, improvement of air transport was left primarily to the private sector, given national policies to privatize that sector of the transportation industry. For the other modes, however, government assistance included expanded use of intermodal facilities at inland ports and freight-distribution centers, new modal transportation technologies, and more use of advanced communications systems, including electronic data interchange.

Investment policies, in part, are focused on the following goals:

Policies established recognized the priority of the economic efficiency of these systems, conservation of the environment and energy, and regional and local planning issues and concerns. Furthermore, these policies needed to comply with the emergence of trans-European transportation networks, particularly major transportation corridors (see Figure 8: Foreign Lorries on German Roads).

Figure 8: Foreign Lorries on German Roads

With combined transport, federal policy is focused on shifting road traffic to the rail (see Figure 9: Germany's Plans for Intermodal Stations). This includes within the next few years dividing the national rail system into three distinct units, including operating, passenger, and freight, as a preliminary step in privatizing the system in the near future.

3.3 Freight Distribution Centers/Marine Transportation

With a key focus on the country's rail system, the federal government has recognized the need for and support of more than forty Guterverkehrszentren (GVZs) or freight distribution systems that connect two or more modes for improved intermodal transportation of domestic and international freight. The development of intermodal transfer facilities will involve the federal railroad, which will spend approximately four billion deutsche marks ($2.4 billion). These facilities will also accommodate short-distance transportation of freight within major urban areas. With longer-distance traffic, freight transportation will concentrate on the use of unit trains that will connect with these urban centers, using advanced information systems. (See expanded discussion of one GVZ in the Technologies section appearing next in this report.)

Ports, including deep sea and inland, are recognized as having considerable growth potential in freight traffic for both domestic and international commerce. This includes major investment measures for the national waterway network for more efficient and safer inland navigation. Particular emphasis will be placed on those inland waterway networks that support intermodal transport, especially as the majority of Germany's large cities have direct water connections to these inland waterways. Incentives to make these improvements will be given where highway connections can be developed, particularly at border-crossings within a radius of 150 km (94 miles) of inland ports.

Figure 9: Germany's Plans For Intermodal Stations

Reprinted, with permission, from Intermodal Transport, System Advantages Intelligently Linked, Deutsche Bahn AG.

To make this all happen, the short sea shipping industry organized to gain the attention of the intermodal industry, particularly cargo owners and deepsea intermodal carriers. As a first step, key transportation managers and decision makers from both short sea shipping and cargo were identified and persuaded to join the effort. Once on board, key strategic issues that would offer short sea shipping's viable alternatives to the more conventional transportation systems already in place were identified. Included were removing restrictive regulations between coastal nations that affected short sea shipping, introducing more modern technology on board vessels, educating other key decision-makers on the benefits of short sea shipping (including the environment), and establishing uniform operating standards.

Admittedly, progress toward increased use of short sea shipping for intermodalism is slow, but moving in the right direction. Other obstacles include continuing to integrate short sea shipping regulations into those of the overall transportation regulatory framework, at both the national and EC level. Operational standards are still being developed that require closer cooperation with marine terminal operators. And, by taking advantage of improvements brought about by newer vessel designs that permit oceangoing vessels to use more shallow river systems, potential new inland markets can be developed.

Figure 10: Examples Of Coastal Shipping

It is generally recognized that one of Germany's main reasons for meeting the economically competitive challenges of the past and the future is the long-established apprenticeship program that trains its future decision-makers and technical specialists. One such program is coordinated by the Academy for International Trade and Transportation in Bremen.

This two- or three-year program includes formalized training that combines formal education with on-the-job experience, ranging from transportation operations to third-party services and freight forwarding. With the close cooperation of Bremen's local international trade and transportation industry, students are encouraged to apply classroom theory to real-time operations when employed by participating companies. This includes several weeks in a foreign-country-based operation to gain other perspectives about the profession.

3.6 Other Observations

Discussions with both public and private transportation officials clearly indicated that Germany, as one of the leading economic centers of Europe, recognizes that complacency with transportation policies and investments is dangerous for the country's future. As a result, changes are taking place in that country that affect transportation policies, concepts, and technology at both national and local levels, notwithstanding the mandates that are being developed through the EC.

Specific forces driving this sense of urgency include modernization of the transportation infrastructure of former eastern states of that now-united country, the gradual shift from a formerly heavy industry-based economy to one that represents more subassembly production, and the opening of larger trade with Eastern Europe in context with the forces already taking place as a result of the EC. Furthermore, the overwhelming recognition of the environment controls much of the decision-making process, when it comes to developing more modern intermodal transportation systems.

To meet these challenges, it became quite apparent that one of the fundamental principles guiding the policy-making process was the need to improve cooperation between the various groups representing economic development and environmental interests. This was especially evident with the increased role of environmentalists in the planning and implementation process of upgrading and developing the country's transportation infrastructure. Despite often strong opposing viewpoints on specific policies and projects, consensus was reached early on in the development stage. Admittedly, much of the environmentalists' participation in that process was due to the growing strength of the Green Party in local and national politics; but the point was clear that consensus can be reached if all involved are willing to reach a common goal of improving the country's transportation system.

It was also evident that both government and industry were willing to make major investments in intermodal transportation to reduce the barriers of public/private relationships. A clear example of this is the eventual privatization of the national rail system to improve service. For Germany, this is a difficult problem given that country's strong underlying political support for public transportation.

Although not perhaps at the same scale as rail, the national government, in cooperation with local governments and the private sector, is urging greater use of short sea shipping and inland waterways to relieve highway congestion. Although use of this mode is still relatively small when compared to highways, the growing recognition that short sea and inland transportation is greatly underutilized is making slow but noticeable progress. This is especially true in more port and waterway improvements along major transportation corridors, most of which connect some of Germany's larger economic centers of activity.

Another example of Germany's clear understanding of the importance of transportation improvement is demonstrated by the close cooperation and sharing of risk in developing new and emerging technologies for both mobility and communication. All modes receive financial and other forms of support necessary to develop leading technologies necessary to maintain a competitive edge, especially in view of fast-changing trade patterns. In particular, ISETEC (see Technologies section which follows), technologically oriented intermodal rail transfer facilities, and the development of GVZs represent primary examples of sharing the risk between the public and private sector.

4. Technologies

The scanning team visited or was informed of several important examples of advanced intermodal technologies and operational concepts that could offer American government and private sector transportation operators additional insights to improve similar operations here in the United States. Although it was not the intent of the scanning trip to focus most of its attention on these technological concepts, the team felt that a brief mention of these operations complemented the scanning review goals.

4.1 Rotterdam's Delta Terminal

The Port of Rotterdam's ECT (European Container Terminals) Delta terminal, in collaboration with Sea-Land Services, developed what could be considered one of the world's most technologically advanced marine intermodal terminals. Constructed on filled land near the entrance to the Port of Rotterdam, this terminal is operated, to a large extent, by advanced computer applications and controls.

More than fifty automated guided vehicles (AGVs), which carry containers without drivers, shuttle containers from dockside gantry cranes to a container yard equipped with 24 automatic stacking cranes, rail-mounted cranes that store and retrieve containers until they are ready to be loaded on trucks, railcars, or other vessels. For optimum handling efficiency, deployment of the AGV fleet is centrally coordinated and synchronized with the motions of the cranes. Equipped with navigation systems, the vehicles are able to position themselves with an accuracy of plus or minus 3 cm (see Figure 11: Delta Terminal's Automated Stacking Cranes and Vehicles).

Figure 11: Delta Terminal's Automated Stacking Cranes And Vehicles

Reprinted, with permission, from Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Figure 12: Various Views Of Delta Terminal's Automated Operations

Several German seaports pooled research and development funds and human resources in order to develop advanced marine terminal intermodal container-handling technologies and concepts to increase the efficiency and profitability of German seaports. The partners, which include BLG Bremen Warehouse Company, Bremen; DAKOSY Datenkommunikations-system GmbH, Hamburg; dbh Datenbank Bremische Hafen GmbH, Bremen; Eurokai, Hamburg; HHLA Hamburger Hafen-und Lagerhaus, Hamburg; along with close cooperation of the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology, developed the concept of the Container Terminal 2010. The concepts and technologies for that terminal involve advanced port-communications systems, terminal-planning systems, and cargo-handling systems. The goal is to coordinate shipping lines, agencies, forwarders, trucking companies, railways, and customs into one centrally-controlled system that speeds the flow of containers in, through, and out of the marine terminal, and improves maintenance and repair. This information is automatically collected and interpreted aboard straddle carriers, forklifts, and gantries, and then sent by radio to a central electronic data processing (EDP) system (see Figure 13: ISETEC's Plan for Container Terminal by the Year 2010).

For the German marine container industry to remain competitive, ISETEC serves as a role model whereby collective R&D efforts result in reducing the cost of implementing new and emerging systems and technologies necessary.

Figure 13: ISETEC's Plan For Container Terminal by the Year 2010

4.3 Bremen Guterverkehrszentren (GVZs)

In Bremen, Germany, the scanning team visited one of the leading intermodal freight transfer or distribution centers in Europe, in terms of size and number of companies involved. In many respects, the Bremen facility is a prototype for the more than forty other GVZs planned for Germany within the next few years. They serve as transfer points where short- and long-distance surface/freight traffic meet. Once fully operational, GVZs should transfer major distribution activities from the inner core of congested major urban areas to more water, rail, and highway-accessible areas just outside those urban areas (see Figures 14 and 15).

In essence, these GVZs are industrial areas where various freight transport enterprises are located, all of which remain independent, retaining their legal and economic autonomy. Services include consolidation, value-added and distribution services, vehicle and container repair, fueling stations for both cars and trucks, vehicle rental (car, truck, and container), government offices, banks, a motel, and an up-to-date truck and car wash that can handle four trucks at one time (80 percent of the water from this activity is recycled).

Entrepreneurial spirit, characterized by the GVZ concept, encourages voluntary cooperation among different carriers and facility service providers. For example, the Bremen GVZ as a whole was able to reduce its truck trips to the inner area of Bremen by almost 15 percent by rationalizing between all members the delivery and pickup of freight. Furthermore, this form of transportation rationalization has been extended to reduce the number of empty containers that normally would move to and from the GVZ.

Plans for this particular facility started more than twenty years ago, with the first tenant in place in 1984. To date, the project to date has cost more than DM 500 million ($294 million). Half of the investment was made by the State of Bremen for infrastructure and environmental preservation measures, the other half by private sector participants. Located a few kilometers from Bremen's marine cargo terminals, the 1.2 million square meter facility has more than 200,000 square meters of covered storage space. An additional 2 million square meters of farmland is designated for future development. Forty companies with almost 2,000 jobs, including 200 trainees, were in operation in 1993, representing about twenty different types of transportation and distribution activities. It is expected that an additional 4,500 jobs will eventually be located there with an additional 500 trainees. More than 3,000 highway trucks and 1,500 private cars use the facility every day.

The German National Railroad (DB) has a major intermodal container transfer station on the site, operated by a private company on behalf of the railroad. This includes four tracks (each 700 meters long, or one train length) and two portal cranes for an annual capacity of more than 230,000 units. By 1994, the German postal service will establish a major freight station there, taking advantage of the site's unique intermodal distribution service capabilities.

Figure 14: Aerial View of Bremen's GVZ (upper left) and its Proximity to the Port

Reprinted, with permission, from the Ports of Bremen/Bremerhaven, Germany.
 

Figure 15: View of Bremen's GVZ Intermodal Yard

Reprinted, with permission, from the Ports of Bremen/Bremerhaven, Germany.
 

Organizationally, the Bremen GVZ is a private, limited company under German law. All companies located at the facility must be corporate members of the GVZ, with each member having one vote at company meetings. The exception to this rule is the German Railroad and the State of Bremen, with a total of six votes. Cooperative activities among its members include joint purchase of raw materials and supplies and the exchange of equipment and labor, when the circumstances require such actions. All business activities are tied together by a single electronic data interchange (EDI) system to increase the efficient flow of information and other forms of communication.

Members of the GVZ's supervisory board include three representatives of the administrative departments of the State of Bremen, four representatives of the companies located at the facility, one representative from German Rail, and one independent expert. The board makes decisions on new establishments, services, public relations, infrastructure projects, and cooperation with new GVZ projects in other major transportation centers nationally and internationally. The Bremen GVZ cooperates with other planned GVZs throughout Germany and Europe to develop uniform operating standards for this sector of the intermodal industry. Examples include Montpellier, France; Barcelona, Spain; and Berlin, Dresden, Rostock, Magdeburg, Frankfurt, and Nuremburg, Germany.

4.4 Cologne Container Transfer Facility

The scanning team also visited one of Germany's most modern rail intermodal transfer facilities, located adjacent to a major highway a few miles outside of Cologne. This facility is the culmination of similar facilities started in 1969 in response to the increased rail use of containers by shippers. Planning started in the mid-1980's and today uses some of the most modern and technologically efficient intermodal handling equipment recently developed in Germany. It serves today as a prototype for the more than 40 similar facilities planned for Germany by the year 2010. Opened in 1991, the facility is presently being expanded, completion of which is expected by 1997. By then more than 125 million DMs will have been invested in that facility by the German government (see Figure 16: Sketch of Cologne's Intermodal Yard).

There are three container-handling overhead cranes in operation, two of which use rotating headers for increased efficiency of loading and unloading. Both units use specially designed hoisting systems that prevent swinging of the containers. Each crane can handle more than 30 units per hour, with a lift capacity of 41 tons. Conventional extra heavy lift mobile units are used throughout the facility to accommodate operations when the main container cranes are in operation. All access ramps and roads are now or are in the process of being paved with concrete to ensure safe transportation around the facility (see Figure 17: Different Views of Cologne's Intermodal Yard).

Figure 16: Sketch of Cologne's Intermodal Yard

Figure 17: Different Views Of Cologne's Intermodal Yard

The facility presently handles about 1,800 units daily, including 200 intermodal container storage places. Given growth trends, and with account taken for days of operation per year, annual capacity is expected to reach 450,000 units. Intermodal transfer operations take place between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., a period of time which was established to best accommodate the growing use of just-in-time distribution practices.

There was only one limitation to this well conceived intermodal facility that the team noticed. Despite its location adjacent to a major highway or autobahn, direct access between the two is currently not possible. Trucks must follow local streets for several miles before gaining access to the autobahn. The German government has recognized this problem and has included new direct-access ramps to the autobahn from the intermodal facility in their improvement program.

4.5 SIMET (Smart InterModal European Transfer)

Because of the diversification of intermodal equipment and technology standards within the EC and the rest of the world, the EC, working through the Directorate-General for Transport (DG VII-A-4), has established a program that proposes common specifications for intermodal operations that are the most cost efficient. This includes management systems that take advantage of new and emerging information technologies like EDI and global communications.

To that end, a consortium of public and private companies have agreed to pool their technical and human resources. Outcome of the program will include a better definition of transport requirements, based mostly on the results of existing studies, inventory of the most promising technical solutions that facilitate intermodal transport, design and assessment of the most efficient methods of rapid loading and unloading, and, finally, developing specifications for integrating the new concepts and standards and modifications in existing EC operations such as Rotterdam's ECT and Germany's GVZ.

Persons Met With During Intermodal

Scanning Trip to Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany

by Date and Location

September 13, 1993 - Brussels, Belgium

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Egidio Leonardi
Chief, Division of Research

J.A. Laranjeira-Anselmo
Assistant Chief, Division of Research

Giorgio Gulienetti
Division of Research

Cesare Bernabei
Division of Research

Cathal O'Cionnaith
Administrator, Short Sea Shipping

Rodolfos Papaioannou
Director

Wolfgang Elsner
Head of Data and Statistics

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE

Anton van der Lande
Director of Public Affairs
Europe and North Africa

Johan van Berlo
Feeder Planning Manager
Europe Region

THE EC COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN BELGIUM

Ann Vandenhende
Coordination Officer

September 14, 1993 - Brussels, Belgium

EUROPEAN COMBINED TERMINALS (ECT)

Rudy P.A. Hoorweg
Container Division Director

Wouter den Dulk
Chairman, Executive Board

J.C. Rijsenbrig
Director
Delta Container Division

PORT OF ROTTERDAM

Lou B.M. Bracco Gartner
Senior Advisor
Directorate Commercial Development

Pieter Struijs
Management Board
Executive Directorate Shipping and Safety

SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.

John J. van de Merwe
Vice President & General Manger
Europe

Roger E. Roels
Vice President Operations
Atlantic Division

Nick De Raadt
Inter Program N.V.
Consultant to Sea-Land Service

CITY OF ROTTERDAM

Dr. R.M. Smit
Vice Mayor and Commissioner for The Port

Harry J.A. van de Braak
Director, Foreign Affairs

September 16, 1993 - Zoetermeer, The Netherlands

DUTCH TRANSPORT (TRUCK) OPERATORS ASSOCIATION

M.G.W. Hallmans
Managing Director

Frank J.D. Wiegerink
Deputy Director and Strategy Officer

R.E.G. Ravenhorst
Manager of Intermodal Planning & Policy

DUTCH ORGANIZATION FOR NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL ROAD TRANSPORT (NIWO)

Robert Tekke
Executive Officer

NEA TRANSPORT RESEARCH AND TRAINING

Ben Janssen
Project Manager

Bas Rouvroye
Consultant

September 16, 1993 - Amsterdam, The Netherlands

PORT MANAGEMENT OF AMSTERDAM

George Keet
Director of Real Estate (Port Development)

Wim Ruijgh
Director of Marketing

DUTCH NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY

Ed. P.J. Smulders
Director

September 17, 1993 - The Hague, The Netherlands

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, PUBLIC WORKS
AND WATER MANAGEMENT OF THE NETHERLANDS

A.B.M. van der Plas
Permanent Secretary

B. Westerduin
Director General, Transport

W.A. van Zijst
Manager Intermodal Transport

Wim J. Stam
Director, Harbor Logistics and Infrastructure

Henry M. Vlasveld
Senior Advisor International Affairs

J.R.M. Sitskoorn
High Speed Rail Program Officer

J.W. Oosterwijk
Director of Public Transport

Robin van Es
Senior Advisor
Harbours, Logistics, Telematics

A.T. KEARNEY & COMPANY

Pieter Klapwijk
Manager, Dutch Branch

HOLLAND INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION COUNCIL

Ben G. Radstaak
Executive Vice President

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Rafael Fermoselle, Ph.D.
Counselor for Commercial Affairs
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service

September 20, 1993 - Hamburg, Germany

ASSOCIATION OF HAMBURG PORT ENTERPRISES

Dr. Wilhelm Voss
Executive Director
Port of Hamburg Association for
Terminal Operators

HAMBURG HARBOR AND WAREHOUSE, INC.(HHLA)

Peter Dietrich
Assoc. of Hamburg Port Enterprises, and
President and Executive Chairman, HHLA

Bernd H. Moldt
Director
Central Division Marketing

Andreas C. Wegerif
Marketing Coordinator

ASSOCIATION OF GERMAN COASTAL SHIPPERS

Dr. Hans Jürgen Stöcker
Chairman

FREE AND HANSEATIC CITY OF HAMBURG

Dr. Dirk Kersten Behrendt
Head of Port and Shipping Division
State Ministry of Economic Affairs

Gunther Bonz
Director of Port Planning

HAMBURG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Hartwig Serchinger
Head of Transport Department

September 21, 1993 - Hamburg, Germany

COMMITTEE OF GERMAN SEAPORT FREIGHT FORWARDERS

Rolf Winterberg
President

Kurt-Jürgen Schimmelpfeng
Executive Director

Wolfgang Piehler
Board Member

Robert Volkl
Board Member

Hans J. Willam
Board Member (Danzas GMBH)

GERMAN SHIP OWNERS ASSOCIATION

Detlef Meenke
Commercial Relations and Policy Division

ISETEC (HAMBURG PORT CONSULTING DIVISION)

Friedrich Clauss
Technical Specialist, ISETEC

HAPAG-LLOYD

Ulrich Kranich
Director, Operations Europe

September 22, 1993 - Bremen, Germany

FREE HANSEATIC CITY OF BREMEN
MINISTRY FOR PORTS, SHIPPING AND FOREIGN TRADE

Dr. Gerd Marcus
Deputy Director

Uwe Will
Managing Director
Foreign Trade and Port Promotion

Michael Skiba
Foreign Trade and Port Promotion

PORT OPERATING COMPANY OF BREMEN/BREMERHAVEN

Bengt van Beuningen
Public Relations Manager

GUTERVERKEHRSZENTREN (GVZ) BREMEN

Ralf Langhorst
Managing Director GVZ and Langhorst Co.

GERMAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND
TRANSPORTATION ACADEMY

Dr. Volker Veddige
Dean of Studies

Manfred Winkler
Dean of Seminars

Rolf Achnitz
Instructor

September 23, 1993 - Bonn, Germany

GERMAN FEDERAL MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

Ferdinand von Peter
Director of Combined Transport
and Intermodal Affairs

DEUTSCHE BUNDESBAHN

Josef Fink
Group Manager
Cologne Intermodal Terminal

September 24, 1993 - Frankfurt, Germany

TFG TRANSFRACHT

Berndt Wesp
Manager
Marketing and Communications

Matthias Malicke
Manager National Sales

TRANSFRACHT COMBI MARITIME (TCM)

Jos Van den Wyngaert
Director
TCM Benelux

Daniel Müller
Sales Manager

Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Port of Rotterdam

Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Port of Amsterdam

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Port of Hamburg

Hamburg, Germany

Port of Bremen

Bremen, Germany

Combined Truck, Rail, Port and Industrial Terminal

Cologne, Germany

Truck-Rail Intermodal Container Facility

Frankfurt, Germany

Appendix III

European Intermodal Policy Review: Questionnaire

1. What is the process by which existing and emerging European intermodal transportation policies, systems, technologies, and facilities are developed and implemented?

Which of these have potential application, and/or offer examples for the United States under similar intermodal transportation development circumstances and issues?

2. What is the working relationship between the private sector and government (local, regional, national, and European Community) in the development and implementation of intermodal transportation policies and projects?

3. How were conflicting issues resolved during the development and implementation of European Commission policies and regulations affecting intermodal transportation?

What are the similarities between Europe's local, national, European Community-wide, and international actions, and the United States' regional, state, national, and NAFTA?

4. How have the following issues helped shape policy development in intermodal transportation?

a. environmental concerns and energy conservation;

b. physical and operational constraints;

c. economic development goals.

Is there a relationship between these transportation system issues and European professional training and education programs, including internships and apprenticeship programs? In what way?

5. How are the European Commission's intermodal policies and projects, both short- and long-term, adhered to at different levels of government (local, state, national) and by the private sector?

6. What are the mechanisms for resolving differing interests of the individual transportation modes when establishing efficient intermodal systems, including those now in operation and in the future?

7. Based on your experiences thus far in developing and implementing European intermodal policies and practices, what are the key changes you might make if you had the opportunity to do it over again?

Acknowledgments

Special acknowledgement is due all the European transportation ministries, contractors, and researchers for their gracious hospitality and for generously sharing their time and expertise with the scanning team. In addition, the following persons helped arrange specific meetings, facility visits, and other supportive activities:

Raymond Dodge, Senior Administrative Assistant

Direction Generale Des Transport, European Commission

Bernd H. Moldt, Director, Central Division Marketing

Port of Hamburg

Jean-Luc Renaus, European Market Development

Burlington Northern Railroad

Issac Shafran, Director of Transportation Engineering

Louis Berger International

Eduard Sjerp, Counselor for Transportation

Royal Netherlands Embassy

Bryan Stone, Market Research Manager

Andreas Wegerif, Marketing Coordinator

Port of Hamburg

Bernd Wesp, Manager, Marketing and Communications

TFG Transfracht

Uwe Will and Michael Skiba, Foreign Trade and Port Promotion

Port Operating Company of Bremen/Bremerhaven

Henry Vlasfled, Senior Advisor, International Affairs

The Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management

Ferdinand von Peter, Director of Combined Transport and Intermodal Affairs

German Federal Ministry of Transport

Thanks are also given to FHWA's Office of International Programs for technical assistance and funding of this valuable project.

It was agreed that a large part of this successful effort was attributable to the preparation and professionalism of the Transportation Technology Evaluation Center (TTEC) at Loyola College in Maryland. TTEC coordinated the team, provided logistical support, and edited this publication.

This scanning effort would not have been possible without the invaluable contributions of those mentioned above.

Bibliography

Commission of the European Communities, The Future Development of the Common Transport Policy: A Global Approach to the Construction of a Community Framework for Sustainable Mobility, Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 3/93.

The Netherlands Ministry of Transport and Public Works; Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment, Second Transport Structure Plan, Part D: Government Decision, 1990.

The German Federal Minister of Transport, Federal Traffic Infrastructure Plan 1192; Decision by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany of 15 July 1992.

Commission of the European Communities, Synopses of the Share Cost Projects Supported Under EURET Programme, Directorate-General for Transport, April 1992.