Benchmarking Intermodal Freight Transport

What is efficient intermodal freight transport? How are "best practices" to be found? What measures
are being developed in OECD countries for assessing the relative efficiency of modes and modal
combinations? What opportunities exist to improve complex intermodal transport chains? How are
such opportunities identified and assessed?

Today’s highly competitive global market calls for intermodal transport systems that meet industry’s
expectations in efficiency and reliability as well as government’s sustainability expectations. While
benchmarking is a tool for achieving such objectives, how are these benchmarking exercises best
implemented? This report analyses illustrative benchmarking exercises to provide insights into these
important questions.
«
Benchmarking Intermodal
Freight Transport

Benchmarking Intermodal Freight Transport

OECD's books, periodicals and statistical databases are now available via www.SourceOECD.org, our online library.
This book is available to subscribers to the following SourceOECD theme:
Transport
Ask your librarian for more details of how to access OECD books online, or write to us at
[email protected]

www.oecd.org

ISBN 92-64-19742-7
77 2002 03 1 P

-:HSTCQE=V^\YW]:
Benchmarking Intermodal
Freight Transport

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into
force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
shall promote policies designed:
– to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of
living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the
development of the world economy;
– to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the
process of economic development; and
– to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in
accordance with international obligations.
The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries
became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan
(28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973),
Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland
(22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The
Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD
Convention).

Publié en français sous le titre :

Transport intermodal de marchandises
UNE ÉVALUATION COMPARATIVE

© OECD 2002
Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained
through the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris,
France, tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the United States
permission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400,
222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA, or CCC Online: www.copyright.com. All other applications for
permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal,
75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.
 FOREWORD

The mission of the OECD Programme of Research on Road Transport and Intermodal Linkages
(RTR) is to promote economic development in its Member countries by enhancing transport safety,
efficiency and sustainability through a co-operative research programme on road and intermodal
transport. To achieve this objective, the Programme recommends options for the development and
implementation of effective transport policies for Members, and encourages outreach activities for
non-member countries. All 30 Member countries participate in the Programme.

The 1998-2000 Programme included a mandate for the establishment of an Intermodal Freight
Transport Advisory Group. The Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group is examining key topics
focusing on critical aspects of the role of governments in promoting intermodal transport including:

• Institutional aspects.

• Benchmarking intermodal freight transport performance.

• Urban freight logistics.

• International freight corridor development.

These topics are being addressed in sequence. This report on Benchmarking Intermodal Freight
Transport represents the second output of the Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group,
following the 2001 report on Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects. It is published on
the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.

3
 ABSTRACT

IRTD NUMBER: E112021

The global marketplace requires integrated, intermodal transport systems. An important issue in
dealing with this challenge is to assess which mode or modal combination, including transfer points,
offers the “best” overall level of performance. Benchmarking is an instrument which can help answer
this question. It aims to improve performance by identifying best practices, analysing the reasons for
differences in performance and suggesting potential changes that could be introduced by decision
makers.

The issue of identifying appropriate benchmarks that could be applied to assess the relative
efficiency of transport chains was investigated by the Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group,
which was established by the Steering Committee for the Programme of Research on Road Transport
and Intermodal Linkages (RTR) in 1998. This is the second report prepared by the Group, following
its 2001 report Intermodal Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects.

The report summarises the outcomes of the analysis of benchmarks studied and used in OECD
Member countries, and provides recommendations to policy makers for conducting effective
benchmarking exercises to improve system performance.

Field classification Economic and administration; environment; traffic and transport planning.

Field codes 10; 72.

Keywords Decision process; economic efficiency; economics of transport; evaluation

(assessment); freight transport; intermodal transport (freight); logistics;
OECD.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 2. Issues in Benchmarking............................................................................................. 21

Chapter 3. Benchmarks to Assess the Performance of the Transport Chain............................... 29

Chapter 4. Development of Benchmarking Methods for Comparisons

of the Relative Efficiency of Modes.......................................................................... 43

Annex 1. Intermodal Freight Transportation Advisory Group..................................................... 75

Annex 2. Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms .......................................................................... 77
Annex 3. Performance Indicators in Canada................................................................................ 79
Annex 4. Performance Indicators in the Czech Republic ............................................................ 91
Annex 5. Transport in Central and Eastern European Countries ............................................... 103
Annex 6. Performance Indicators in Finland ............................................................................. 107
Annex 7. Performance Indicators in Japan................................................................................. 123
Annex 8. Performance Indicators in the Netherlands................................................................. 127
Annex 9. Performance Indicators in the United Kingdom......................................................... 133

5
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has an ongoing
commitment to freight-related transport research. The Programme of Research on Road Transport and
Intermodal Linkages (RTR) for the 1998-2000 period had three key elements:

• Multimodal transport strategies.

• Economic performance, transport infrastructure and management.

• Sustainable development.

The RTR Steering Committee established the Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group to
investigate four topics:

• Institutional aspects of intermodal transport.

• Benchmarking and system performance measures.

• Economic and fiscal instruments.

• International freight corridor development.

Each of the above topics is being addressed in sequence. Work on the subject of institutional
aspects has been completed, and the conclusions have been published in OECD (2001), Intermodal
Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects.

The overall focus of the work on “benchmarking” is centred on comparing the relative efficiency
of modes, modal combinations and modal interfaces. Government policy makers (along with transport
industry and logistics service providers) have an interest in the efficiency (including time, cost and
reliability), safety and sustainability of transport systems, although at a more aggregate level than the
private sector. The Working Group was asked to develop a vision for intermodal transport and to
identify appropriate benchmarks that could be applied to assess the relative efficiency of modes/modal
combinations and intermodal transfers, and to identify sources of inefficiency that could contribute to
modal choice.

In line with the original intent of the project, the benchmarking analysis also seeks to develop
policy options for governments to address impediments to intermodal transport efficiency,
encompassing institutional aspects, technology, including the role of intelligent transportation systems
(ITS) and infrastructure. As such, the focus is on organisational aspects, from a government public

7
policy perspective, rather than on the performance of industry players. The conclusions should be seen
as a guide to improving system performance, rather than a regulatory framework.

This report summarises the outcomes of the following tasks, with contributions from each of the
Member countries that were associated with the Working Group:

• A review of studies on benchmarking and the available data.

• An analysis of benchmarks used in Member countries to assess the performance of modes,

modal combinations and the performance of ports and terminals at the modal interface.

• An analysis of benchmarks currently applied by Member countries to key transport corridors

and commodities.

• A compendium of benchmarking studies available in Member countries.

• A summary of benchmarking methodologies.

Each of the four studies undertaken by the Advisory Group uses the following definition as a
baseline for intermodal transport:

Intermodalism implies the use of at least two different modes of transport in an

integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain.

While the concept of intermodalism encompasses all freight movements involving two or more
modes of transportation, the principal focus in this study was on movement of non-bulk and
containerised freight.

Overview

The global marketplace requires integrated, intermodal, single-waybill transport chains. An

important issue in dealing with this challenge is to assess which mode or modal combination is the
best. Benchmarking is an instrument which can help to answer this question.

Differences in the performance of various modes within the transport sector of a given country,
and between the transport systems of different countries, imply that there is a significant potential for
improvement. Ongoing technological advances and changes in institutional approaches ensure that this
potential is constantly evolving. The transportation sector is influenced and moulded by ongoing
economic, environmental and political (usually in the form of public finances) pressures to realise its
potential for improvement.

Benchmarking has been identified as a tool for identifying potential improvements in the
transport sector. It aims to improve performance by identifying best performance and best practices,
analysing the reasons for differences and suggesting potential changes that could be implemented by
decision makers.

The decision makers, or target groups, of these efforts include policy makers, infrastructure and
facility operators, shippers and transport operators. Each of these target groups is a unique, but at the
same time, essential component of the overall integrated transportation system. As such, each target

8
group has its own motivation for employing tools such as benchmarking to identify potential
improvements in the transport sector.

Lessons learned

Analysis of existing benchmarking studies has shown that different benchmarking methods are
used for different purposes. The methods chosen depend on the stakeholders and their objectives for
conducting the benchmarking exercise, since different objectives require different indicators.

Governments are responsible for national transportation and intermodal policy. Policy makers
want to know if the direction they are proceeding along is the right one, how their policies affect the
development of intermodal transport and how they compare to other countries. Included in these
considerations is the support of economic growth, facilitation of the competitive position of national
carriers in a global market, improved efficiency leading to decreased cost, and the reduction of
environmental and social costs.

Facility operators, such as terminal and other infrastructure operators, aim to operate as
efficiently as possible. Benchmarking offers an opportunity to compare the efficiency, service level
and cost of their operations to similar services offered by other operators on a national and
international scale.

Shippers make their choices based on the relative performance of the different transport modes.
Factors such as cost, transit time, reliability and services offered influence their choices. Comparative
analysis allows shippers to make sound decisions, based on their needs and priorities.

Transport operators need to know how their performance compares to other transportation
companies. In an era of global competitiveness and pressure from environmental and social concerns,
companies are increasingly interested in identifying, adopting and implementing recognised “best
practices”.

In conducting benchmarking exercises, care needs to be taken when drawing conclusions from
such applications, for two reasons. First, both supply chains and interactions between transport
policies and other driving forces of transport demand are becoming increasingly complex, and second,
there are limitations to availability of relevant and comparable data.

Global supply chains involving intermodal transport are longer, more complex and inherently
more expensive. In a just-in-time environment, all stakeholders are intent on identifying more efficient
and productive approaches to reduce transport costs and eliminate impediments to improved
efficiency. Comparative analysis and the identification of best practices is one tool to achieve this
objective.

Transport benchmarking has to take into consideration the complexity and interactions between
transport policy and the other driving forces between transportation supply and demand. This is a
complex scenario even when the analysis is limited to national and individual modal scenarios. When
dealing with intermodal transportation in an international context, the complexity of the interactions is
substantially magnified.

Benchmarking studies are limited in scope by the availability of data, in particular data that are
standard across the facilities or modes on which the comparative analysis is being made. Policy

9
makers, and other decision makers, must ensure that the conclusions drawn from a benchmarking
exercise reflect the limitations of the information and the approach used.

Analysis of existing benchmarking studies has shown that methodologies for benchmarking have
yet to be fully developed. The actual application of these methodologies is at the experimental stage,
particularly in terms of benchmarking performances of holistic supply chains, due to the complexities
of the supply chains and limitations in data availability.

The existing studies also show that there are many measurement issues to be resolved. In addition
to the limitations of data availability, aggregated benchmark results, which are often used in such
studies, can be misleading since changes in important factors may be buried in the aggregation
process.

It was encouraging to find that benchmarking exercises that were conducted under the
co-operation of relevant stakeholders could be regarded as successful examples.

Recommendations

One of the many difficulties in benchmarking intermodal activities is that the limits of the
intermodal transport chain are not clearly defined. Policy makers wishing to use benchmarking as a
tool should ensure that the objectives and scope of the exercise are clearly defined. This will help in
ensuring that conclusions, and development of future policy, correctly reflect the true outcome of the
benchmarking exercise.

The choice of indicators is crucial for benchmarking exercises. Policy makers must ensure that
indicators which are most appropriate for the objectives and scope of the exercise are used, although
the availability and reliability of the data must also be taken into account.

Given the complexity of benchmarking intermodal transport chains, shipper surveys could
provide valuable insight into the overall performance of such systems by identifying “what aspects are
most important to the shipper”. Benchmarking of these “aspects” to assess relative performance across
transport chains could assist the development of transport policy by laying the foundation for
performance improvement.

Benchmarking is one of many tools that can be used in the development of transport, and
intermodal, policies. The complexity of the interactions between transport policy and the other driving
forces influencing the supply and demand of transportation services must also be known, understood
and taken into account.

Benchmarking exercises are often most effective when comparing similar activities (for example,
gantry crane operations at two ports). Benchmarking may also be successful when comparing larger-
scale operations of similarity (for example, Class I rail freight service in two or more countries). It is
important to note that when using aggregate indicators such as, for example, tonne-kilometres or
revenue passenger kilometres, there are numerous micro-level indicators that make up the aggregate
indicator. The methodology may not be capable of addressing how best to improve micro-level
performance of the elements that comprise an intermodal chain.

To be effective, benchmarking should focus on the expected outcomes of the comparative

analysis. In order to improve performance, emphasis needs to be placed on “how to” address
underlying differences between the “home” organisation and the performance of its “competitor”. A

10
10% shift in own performance may fall short of ensuring competitiveness if efficiency levels continue
to be below those attained by other operators in the marketplace. Attention should be paid to selecting
key performance indicators for which data can be collected, and which have relevance to the
organisation’s outcomes. In undertaking benchmarking of transport activities, it is important that
primary stakeholders be involved in the exercise, both in the identification of the indicators and in the
analysis of factors contributing to lack of performance, including those requiring action by
governments.

Policy makers must be aware that the benchmarking exercise is only as good as the quality, and
availability, of the data that it is based on.

11
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background and objectives

This century will see a continuously evolving set of factors and pressures influencing the way in
which transportation systems will be expected to meet the requirements of a global marketplace. For
most of the 20th century, each of the modes evolved and functioned under a “modally” based
regulatory structure. With the advent of containerisation in the mid-1900s, deregulation during the last
two decades and the recent focus on logistics, global supply chains, e-commerce and advanced
information technology, the climate is rapidly shifting towards integrated transport single-waybill
shipments.

It is likely that the growth of intermodal freight transportation over the short to medium term will
be driven and challenged by four complex factors:1

• Measuring, understanding and responding to the role of intermodalism in the face of

changing customer requirements and “hypercompetition”2 of supply chains in a global
marketplace.

• The need to reliably and flexibly respond to changing customer requirements with seamless
and integrated co-ordination of freight and equipment flows through various modes.

• Knowledge of current and future intermodal operational options and alternatives, as well as
the potential for improved information and communications technology (ICT) and the
challenges associated with its application.

• Constraints on and co-ordination of infrastructure capacity, including policy and regulatory

issues, as well as better management of existing infrastructure and the broader considerations
concerning future investment in new infrastructure.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has an ongoing
commitment to freight-related transport research. The Programme of Research on Road Transport and
Intermodal Linkages (RTR) for the 1998-2000 period had three key elements:

• Multimodal transport strategies.

1. Intermodal Freight Transportation, Committee on Intermodal Freight Transport, TRB – 1999,

William DeWitt, University of Maryland, Jennifer Clinger, Louis Berger Group, Inc.
2. Worldwide competition between global supply chains.

13
 • Economic performance, transport infrastructure and management.

• Sustainable development.

The RTR role3 with respect to multimodal transport strategies is focused on helping Member
countries to meet national and international challenges in developing seamless transport systems. Key
projects in this area include:

• Trilateral Logistics (TRILOG).

• Influencing Road Traffic Demand.

• Implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).

• The Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group.

In determining its mandate, the Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group considered a range
of public and private sector transportation concerns. The RTR Steering Committee authorised the
Advisory Group to investigate four topics:

• Institutional aspects of intermodal transport.

• Benchmarking and system performance measures.

• Economic and fiscal instruments.

• International freight corridor development.

Each of the above topics is being addressed in sequence. Work on the subject of institutional
aspects has been completed, and the conclusions published in OECD (2001), Intermodal Freight
Transport: Institutional Aspects.

The overall focus of the work on “benchmarking” is centred on comparing the relative efficiency
of modes, modal combinations and modal interfaces. Government policy makers (along with transport
industry and logistics service providers) have an interest in the efficiency (including time, cost and
reliability), safety and sustainability of transport systems, although at a more aggregate level than the
private sector. The Working Group was asked to develop a vision for intermodal transport and to
identify appropriate benchmarks that could be applied to assess the relative efficiency of modes/modal
combinations and intermodal transfers, and to identify sources of inefficiency that could contribute to
modal choice. In line with the original intent of the project, the benchmarking analysis also seeks to
develop policy options for governments to address impediments to intermodal transport efficiency,
encompassing institutional aspects, technology, including the role of intelligent transportation systems
(ITS) and infrastructure. As such, the focus is on organisational aspects, from a government public
policy perspective, rather than on the performance of industry players. The conclusions should be seen
as a guide to improving system performance, rather than a regulatory framework.

3. “The Challenge for Transport in the New Century: How to Develop Sustainable Transport”,
presentation by Dr. Anthony Ockwell, OECD, at the Annual Conference on Sustainable Transport,
Alghero, Sardinia (Italy), 15-16 June 2000.

14
 It must also be noted that with respect to benchmarking government policies, it is first necessary
to clearly enunciate governments’ objectives, which may vary significantly across countries or even
between regional and central governments. These different objectives are evidenced, for example, by
the different objectives of road-pricing policies being considered and implemented in Member
countries.

This report summarises the outcomes of the following tasks, with contributions from each of the
Member countries associated with the Working Group:

• A review of studies on benchmarking and the available data.

• An analysis of benchmarks used in Member countries to assess the performance of modes,

modal combinations and the performance of ports and terminals at the modal interface.

• An analysis of benchmarks currently applied by Member countries to key transport corridors

and commodities.

• A compendium of benchmarking studies available in Member countries.

• A summary of benchmarking methodologies.

The list of members of the Working Group is provided in Annex 1.

Definitions4

One of the first objectives of the Intermodal Freight Transport Advisory Group was to agree on a
definition of “intermodal transport” that could be used throughout the four research projects
undertaken by the group. Many concepts and definitions are in use, depending on the context and
objectives. For example, the notion of “multimodal transport” is generally used for the carriage of
goods by at least two modes.

The notion of “intermodal transport” as used in the common terminology in force within the
European Union (EU), UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) and the European
Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) concerns the movement of goods in one and the same
loading unit (e.g. a container) or vehicle which uses successively several modes of transport without
handling the goods while changing modes.

In the same terminology, the term “combined transport” is used for intermodal transport of
unitised cargo when the major part of the European journey is by rail, and any initial or final leg is
carried out by road. For EU subsidy schemes, this definition is even more detailed.

In the light of the objectives that appeared to be predominant in most of the countries studied in
this project, we have chosen to emphasise that intermodalism refers to the goal of making the optimal
use of all the various modes of transportation. It assumes that the use of multiple modes for a single
trip can be better from an efficiency and environmental point of view. All freight movements
involving at least two or more modes of transportation, from a point of origin to a destination, can

4. Various terms and abbreviations have been used throughout this report. For a detailed glossary of
these terms, please refer to Annex 2.

15
therefore be defined as intermodal. The modes involved can encompass van and truck, railroad, barge
and ship, air cargo liner and pipeline.

This notion of intermodalism is not limited to the promotion of modal shift to achieve a more
efficient use of modes. It also comprises the promotion of improvements in the transport chain without
modal shift. For the purpose of this study, a fairly general and broad definition has been adopted.

Each of the four studies undertaken by the Advisory Group uses the following definition as a
baseline for intermodal transport:

Intermodalism implies the use of at least two different modes of transport in an

integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain.

While the concept of intermodalism encompasses all freight movements involving two or more
modes of transportation, the principal focus in the present study was on movement of non-bulk and
containerised freight.

Benchmarking is attracting serious attention because of the difficulty of defining, in the absence
of comparisons with other sectors, what constitutes “good” performance. In order to overcome this
difficulty, the performance of a given sector is compared to that of a reference sector, and this practice
is taking on increasing importance in competitive markets.

As a general rule:

The benchmarking process will provide meaningful comparisons of the most important
dimensions of intermodal performance in a way that provides insight into the reasons
for performance differences and lays the foundations for performance improvement.
Hence, it involves the establishment of a standard(s) against which the performance of
transport sectors, and government policies can be evaluated. It suggests first, the
choice of indicators of performance; second, the determination of the reference
sector; third, the measurement of indicators for the sector under consideration and the
sector which serves as a reference; and fourth, the comparison of the sector under
consideration against the reference sector.5

The underlying premise here is the availability of sound, quantitative information. Unfortunately,
in many cases, data that could be used as performance indicators for both the reference sector and for
the sector under consideration, may not be readily available in the public domain.6 Furthermore, a
large proportion of intermodal transport of goods takes place in more than one jurisdiction. Accurate
benchmarking of any aspect of the intermodal supply chain would require the availability of
standardised data – an obstacle that is almost impossible to overcome for most potential performance
indicators at the present time.

5. A more in-depth explanation of each of these facets can be found in Chapter 2 – Issues in
Benchmarking.
6. Even when the required information is available, it may be considered proprietary by the organisation
that could provide it (e.g. cost/revenue/traffic data related to port or other infrastructure providers). In
some cases, national statistical agencies may have confidentiality restrictions at increased levels of
disaggregation (e.g. traffic data by carrier). In many cases, the required data are simply not collected
or saved over time.

16
 Considering the very real problem of data availability, it is not a feasible ambition of this report
to provide “real” empirical data on benchmarking intermodal transportation in OECD countries.
Rather, the report aims to stimulate the development of benchmarks in Member countries to compare
the (economic and environmental) effectiveness and efficiency of modes, modal combinations and
modal interfaces by providing examples of practical experiences. It is also hoped that it will contribute
to the understanding of methodological issues related to benchmarking.

Challenges facing the transport sector

A well-functioning freight transport system is an essential element of a successful economy. In

transportation, smooth flows and profitability tend to be highly correlated. Smooth flows reflect
effective loading/unloading and transfer in terminals, reliable vehicle performance, a minimum of
starts and stops along the route, and high utilisation levels for the fixed assets required in the system.
Actions or conditions that interrupt trip flow or increase trip time typically add to the cost and erode
asset turnover. Conversely, modifications that improve flows and trip times usually reduce cost and
improve asset turnover.

In the coming years, the freight transportation system will face challenges requiring the
development of entirely new approaches to operations and planning. These challenges will not remain
static, and governments and service providers must be prepared to meet them in a flexible, responsive
manner. The factors that will drive the key issues and challenges affecting freight transportation in the
future include the following:

• Domestic and international freight demand will continue to grow. For example, distance
travelled by heavy trucks is expected to almost double from 1995 to 2020.7 The consumption
of goods will increase as new segments of the population enjoy more disposable income. The
incorporation of the former socialist republics into the world trade system and the expansion
of economic activities in developing countries will significantly augment the flow of goods
and merchandise. Pressure for increased economic competitiveness will grow as a
consequence of factors such as the economic unification of Europe, the resurgence of the
Asian economies and regional trade alliances such as NAFTA and APEC.

• Businesses and consumers are ordering goods with less lead-time and requiring predictable
delivery within ever-narrower windows of time. Freight transportation systems will have to
become more and more responsive to user needs and expectations as consumers continue to
demand greater control over the services they receive. This trend will be accentuated by the
availability of information systems and technologies that enable users to specify the kinds of
service they require and to integrate their operations effectively with the freight transport
system. As a result, users of the freight transportation system will be increasingly involved in
closely managed logistics chains, where customer decisions drive supply decisions relating
to quantities, location and delivery times.8 Continuous information about production
schedules is already being fed to suppliers, to arrange just-in-time (J-I-T) delivery of inputs
to the production schedule and final delivery to the customer within a guaranteed response

7. OECD, 2001, OECD Environmental Outlook.

8. The requirement to reduce inventory investment by reducing cycle time is decreasing reliance on
“push” systems, which are driven by the supply of materials and goods, and increasing reliance on
“pull” systems, in which actual demand triggers product flow.

17
 period. These trends present a challenge at the domestic level; in the context of the global
marketplace, the tensions placed on transportation systems are significantly exacerbated.

• Smooth product flow is maintained through flows of information and increased integration
of management processes by all participating organisations. Extra complexity is introduced
by any door-to-door service that relies on intermediate transfers of the shipment between
carriers/modes. The freight transportation system is increasingly turning to information
technology to help it increase both efficiency and productivity in an integrated system.
Steadily declining prices of new technology, combined with a growing awareness by the
industry of the benefits of these technologies, is leading to increased use of information
technology. However, as supply chains take on global dimensions, the integration of
complex technologies takes on added importance, especially considering the lack of
universal standards or harmonisation of systems. These challenges are not limited to those
technologies directly used by transportation service providers, but also affect government
(e.g. customs, immigration, regulatory agencies) and private organisations (e.g. brokers,
Third Party Logistics, infrastructure providers).

• In dealing with the growing volumes of domestic and international merchandise trade,
freight planners have to consider limitations on infrastructure. Additional infrastructure will
be increasingly difficult to obtain, and may even be considered undesirable in some
communities or regions. Economies or regions which are seen – or see themselves –
primarily as conduits between trading areas may be unwilling to expend the resources and
face the social costs of expanding their infrastructure to meet transportation demands. More
efficient use of existing infrastructure, and careful development of new infrastructure and
facilities,9 will become a key priority.

• Finally, the notion of “sustainable development” and, as applied to this sector, “sustainable
transportation”, will have significant long-term impacts on the transport industry.

The concept of sustainable development was introduced into mainstream thinking by the United
Nations’ Commission on Environment and Development in its 1987 report Our Common Future.10 In
this report, sustainable development was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Since 1987, the
concept has evolved to address specific issues in different sectors of the economy.

Internationally, there are various interpretations of the concept of “sustainable transportation”.

The Environment Directorate of the OECD has defined environmentally sustainable transportation as:

• “One that does not endanger public health or ecosystems and meets the needs for access
consistent with the use of renewable resources at below their rates of regeneration; and

• Use of non-renewable resources at below the rates of development of renewable substitutes.”

When viewed at the global level, sustainable transportation means finding solutions which satisfy
our economic, social and environmental goals. This is an extremely complex challenge that has major

9. Planners will be required to ensure that location and access to facilities such as transfer terminals will
significantly increase the efficiency of the transportation network.
10. Commonly referred to as the “Bruntland Report”, attributed to the chair of the Commission.

18
implications for global economies, the environment and society in both the developed and developing
world.

In summary, the challenges facing the transportation sector can be categorised as follows:

• The growing demand for freight transportation and logistics services, and the ability of the
physical and information infrastructure to meet these demands.

• The sometimes seemingly contradictory goals of meeting freight transportation demand and
sustainable transportation strategies.

• The impact of information technology on goods movement, and the issues surrounding the
integration of complex systems in order to increase, rather than impede, transport efficiency.

• Development of the necessary “connectivity linkages” in a global supply chain in which

transportation service providers will increasingly find themselves acting as both competitors
and partners on an ongoing basis.

Benchmarking is a tool which can help not only governments but also other stakeholder groups to
meet these challenges. The issues involved are discussed in Chapter 2.

19
 Chapter 2

ISSUES IN BENCHMARKING

Background

As stated in the introduction to this report, the 21st century will present multiple challenges for the
transportation sector. Governments, transportation service providers and associated organisations and
industries must be prepared, in a flexible and responsive manner, to meet those challenges. Public
decision makers are becoming more aware of the need to gain insights into the effectiveness of
specific policy measures, the extent to which certain goals have been achieved and to know which
aspects are measurable and which are not. At the same time, Parliaments and other interest groups are
increasingly calling for more transparent and cost effective measures. This requirement is reflected in
the growing use of performance indicators in the presentation of government budgets.

Benchmarking is essentially a learning process. It helps organisations to focus and drive for
consensus on what needs to be done and how to achieve it in an organised, rigorous manner. It can
provide the stimulus for improvement at all levels through an externally focused, competitive
assessment. It can also stimulate cultural change, by encouraging inward-looking organisations to look
outside and recognise that better practices are being utilised elsewhere. Benchmarking is primarily
used to identify better ways of doing things; in short, to identify “best practices”. Throughout the
exercise, gaps between how things are currently being done, and how they are done better elsewhere,
are identified.

Long-range strategies require organisations to continuously change and adapt to the market place
of today, while at the same time preparing for the challenges of the future. In order to achieve this,
they must understand that there is a need for change, determine the changes required and form clear
goals for how the organisation, and the operations of the organisation, will look once the changes are
made.

While individual companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) most certainly have a
stake in ensuring that their organisations follow “best practices”, government policy and decision
makers must also be aware of the consequences of having legislative and regulatory regimes which
impede, rather than facilitate, the competitive position of their national economy.

Furthermore, global issues such as sustainable development and climate change dictate that
countries can no longer implement policies in isolation. From a policy perspective, “best practices”
must now, in many instances, reach across national and regional borders.

Hence, it is necessary to assess the advancement of logistics from the viewpoints of both the
industry sector and society as a whole. Logistics performance indicators can be used to assess the
system, mainly from the following viewpoints:

21
 Consumers’ perspective (better services at lower prices):

• There is a need to evaluate the reduction in logistics costs, taking into account consumer
service levels provided by the logistics systems. In particular, the security level of
transported goods should be included in any consideration of service levels.

Shippers’ and logistics service providers’ perspective (better services at lower cost):

• Accurate evaluation of reductions in logistics costs in relation to the quality of logistics

services and transportation.

• Estimation of total logistics costs, including production, sales, collection, storage,

transportation and data processing.

• Selection of the most appropriate transportation service(s) from origin to destination by

assessing all the factors, including time, cost, reliability and flexibility.

Government perspective (balance between efficiency and environmental friendliness of logistics,

improvement in transport safety):

• Efficiency: efficient infrastructure development projects in terms of the advancement of

logistics.

• Deregulation and standardisation to enable improvements in logistics efficiency.

• Environmentally friendly logistics: comprehensive assessment of external costs of logistics

systems (i.e. air and noise pollution, congestion), and improvement in intermodal transport
systems.

• Improvement in transport safety.

In summary, different target groups have different objectives. These “different objectives” lead to
the requirement for specific performance indicators that will meet the organisational, financial, policy
or stockholder needs of the user. For example,11 transport policy makers are generally more interested
than shippers in macro data on modal split. They are also more interested in data concerning general
safety, environment and efficiency. Conversely, shippers have a greater interest than policy makers in
a micro-level comparison of the costs and performance of specific modal combinations for particular
merchandise streams. Transport service providers such as trucking companies focus on comparing
costs and revenues at the micro business level (e.g. owner’s road transport company vs. the average
road transport company). Terminal operators are interested, among other things, in container crane
efficiency.

As previously stated, benchmarking involves the establishment of a standard(s) against which the
performance of an industry can be judged. It suggests: i) the choice of indicators of performance;
ii) the determination of the reference sector; iii) the measurement of indicators for the sector under
consideration and the sector which serves as a reference; and iv) the comparison of the sector under
consideration against the reference sector.

11. The following examples are not an attempt to make strict distinctions, but rather to provide the reader
with broad general examples of user needs.

22
Choice of indicators of performance

When the performance of a sector is under scrutiny, one of the first tasks is to reach consensus on
the choice of indicators. As a rule, economists will choose indicators of efficiency/productivity, unit
costs or price changes. Financial analysts will use financial returns. Others will prefer safety or
environmental performance. All of these indicators are valid. The choice of a particular indicator will
depend, among other things, on the objectives of the analysis and the availability of data.

The choice of potential indicators in the transport sector can be overwhelming. The first order of
business is to ensure that analysts are clear on the objectives of the benchmarking exercise. Second,
they must ensure that the indicators are available and are reliable.

The United Kingdom and the Netherlands have provided examples of indicators used by policy
makers as a means to quantify and illustrate (i.e. to benchmark) progress in achieving stated policy
objectives. They are used to make informed policy decisions by government and to help the public
understand the impacts of decisions that both government and they make on the wider economy, the
environment and society. In developing indicators, the framework is set within which both public and
private decision makers can take appropriate action.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, a series of 15 headline indicators designed to demonstrate progress

towards sustainable development have been developed. These are:

Achieving a sustainable economy Total output of the economy (GDP and GDP per person)

Total and social investment as a percentage of GDP

Proportion of people of working age who are employed

Building sustainable communities Indicators of success in tackling poverty and social inclusion

Qualifications at age 19

Expected years of healthy life

Homes judged unfit to live in

Level of crime

Managing the environment Emissions of greenhouse gases

Days when air pollution is moderate or higher

Road traffic

Rivers of good or fair quality

Population of wild birds

New homes built on previously developed land

Prudent use of natural resources Waste and waste management

23
 Below these headline indicators lies a core set of 135 non-headline indicators. These indicators
describe more specific objectives and are linked to the specific policies and actions of government and
other sectors – for example, central and local government, the health service, manufacturing, the
freight industry and consumers. In relation to transport, the United Kingdom collects information on
the following set of core indicators:

• Freight transport intensity (ratio of total freight moved to GDP).

• Lorry traffic intensity (ratio of HGV mileage to GDP).

• Road traffic by type of vehicle (vehicle-km).

• Freight transport by mode (tonne-km).

• Energy consumption by road freight.

• Energy efficiency of road freight (energy consumption in relation to output measures as

tonne-km).

A wide variety of transport statistics are collected to construct these indicators. Statistics on use
can be classified by mode, relating to:

• Employment in transport and Retail Price Index.

• Environmental impacts.

• Safety.

• Vehicle stock.

This information is used to benchmark, for example, trends in accidents involving freight
vehicles, congestion, the relative success of different transport modes and the efficiency of use of
vehicles.

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the following performance indicators, among others, are used for the budget
of the Directorate-General for Freight Transport:

24
 Internal safety of road transport
Goal: Safe freight transport • Number of casualties caused by freight traffic
• Number of people injured by freight traffic who had to be hospitalised

Internal safety of railroads

• Number of casualties on railroad crossings

Internal safety of water

• Number of accidents in the North Sea
• Number of accidents on inland waterways

External safety
• Number of violations of standards relating to the transport of
dangerous goods
• Number of goods traffic emplacements meeting the requirements
Main ports and seaports
Goal: Strengthening the network of • Value added of main ports and seaports
freight transport • Employment at main ports and seaports

Functioning of the nodal points

• Growth of transhipment through main ports
• Growth of transhipment through nodal points
• Number of terminals in service

Quality of linkages
• Modal split in tonnes and tonne-kilometres
• Average flow speed on certain routes
• Indicators for capacity of infrastructure for other modalities
Healthy transport industry
Goal: Efficient freight transport • Value added of naval clusters
system • Value added of other sectors

Logistic efficiency
• Degree of utilisation per transport mode
• Share of logistic costs in total sales
Transport reduction
Goal: Sustainable freight transport • Number of projects leading to transport reduction

Silent and clean transport

• SOx emissions per transport mode
• NOx emissions per transport mode

In addition, a range of indicators are proposed by policy makers, semi-public organisations,

shippers, and transport industry and logistic service providers. These are listed in Annex 8. These
indicators show how different target groups have different objectives, each of which requires specific
indicators.

Chapter 3 presents a number of benchmarking studies that have been completed by Member
countries. Each of these reports considers, directly or indirectly, the choice of performance indicators.
Tables indicating available performance indicators, by country, are also available in Annexes 3-9 of
this report.

25
Choice of reference sector

The determination of an appropriate reference sector, in particular from a policy perspective, can
be a rigorous exercise. If the objective is to study the transportation sector as a whole, it must be borne
in mind that the sector is made up of several industry components. As a result, the reference sector
could be the average of the transportation sector, or all transport industries other than the selected one.
However, it could be argued that these comparisons have limited value since, for example, the air
industry has little in common with rail. In most cases however, benchmarking involves particular
aspects of the sector; for example, safety standards and related indicators, financial performance,
productivity or efficiency, to name but a few.

The performance of transport industries can be related to other sectors of the economy, in
particular the business component. The basis for the comparison is that transportation is a derived
demand, based on the rest of the economy, and that the performance of the transport sector can be
assessed in relation to that of the users of transport services. While economic and financial criteria can,
in theory, be measured for both the transport sector and the rest of the economy, safety and
environmental indicators of the transportation sector and other sectors of the business economy are not
easily comparable.

In the context of a global economy, benchmarking components of the transportation sector as

well as benchmarking whole transport corridors, across national lines, is becoming increasingly
relevant. Interest in such comparisons arises not only from the realisation that transport is a traded
service, but from an increased recognition that in order to achieve regional or global objectives, best
practices must be identified and applied across the board. However, difficulties arise in trying to gain
access to relevant data, the absence of which makes comparisons almost irrelevant.

The transportation sector is under constant pressure to improve. Policy makers, in searching for
ways to facilitate this improvement, have identified benchmarking as one of the tools available to
them. By identifying best practices in other countries and regions, policies can be formulated which
can stimulate such changes as improved efficiency, productivity, standards related to safety and
regulatory harmonisation. It is also the role of governments to put in place mechanisms that ensure the
continued competitive position of industries and transportation service providers. One of the biggest
advantages of benchmarking, if done properly, is that it is an ongoing, dynamic approach to
stimulating required change. However, quantitative indicators do not always fully reflect the complex
inter-relationships between transport policy and other factors that influence transportation and the
transport market, or between transportation supply and demand in general.

In some instances, in particular when dealing with policy-related concerns, the benchmarking
exercise will start with a “base-case” study, i.e. a detailed snap-shot of the situation as it currently
exits. One example of this would be a benchmarking study of intermodal transportation in an economy
where no clear intermodal policy exists. The reference sector in this case would be identification of all
factors that influence intermodal transport at a particular point in time, with the ultimate objective of
determining policy and other impediments (inappropriate or lack of infrastructure, facilities, and
equipment; intra-modal relationships, regulatory constraints, congestion, procedural constraints
e.g. customs, immigration, etc.) to the efficient movement of goods by more than one mode. Policy
makers also place a particular emphasis on general safety, environmental and efficiency data. The
“factors” influencing the efficient movement of goods can then be compared to policies or approaches
in other countries during the same period or can be followed over time as changes are implemented.
Appropriate (and available) indicators would be identified which could be used to measure the results
as changes are implemented.

26
Measurement issues

Many measurement issues are primarily a consequence of the availability and reliability of
appropriate performance indicators. Availability of performance indicators is influenced by such
factors as:

• Confidentiality constraints.

• Information is not collected.

• Information is not kept over time.

• Only partial information is collected and/or maintained over time.

• Differences in definitions of like concepts across jurisdictions or sectors.

• Changes in thresholds over time or across sectors.

• Jurisdictional constraints.

• Budget constraints.

Problems associated with the availability of required indicators become magnified when cross-
modal or international comparisons are undertaken.

Many of the factors that influence the availability of data also impact upon the reliability of
available information. For example, while state agencies or private sector enterprises may collect
certain data, budget constraints may preclude adequate editing and verification of the statistics. Other
factors, such as use of inappropriate or flawed methodological concepts or approaches (e.g. for
surveys) can seriously detract from the reliability of required performance indicators.

Even when indicators are available and are considered reliable, measurement issues arise during
their use. Some indicators are expressed as a ratio of a numerator over a denominator. When a sector is
compared with itself over time, numerators and denominators can be estimated with some degree of
certainty although care must be applied in their selection. In the transport sector, aggregate tonne-
kilometres or passenger-kilometres have long been seen as a good proxy for output, i.e. the
denominator. Their widespread use by transport analysts is based on their availability and ease of
utilisation. However, these measures may be deceptive, as changes in levels of service are buried in
the aggregation process. Analysts strongly recommend computing output measures, using the highest
level of detail possible (e.g. commodity, size of shipment, length of haul).

Difficulties also arise when one sector is compared with another. The measurement of
comparable/compatible denominators represents a major task. In safety, for example, it is difficult to
develop comparable measures of exposure across modes, making it difficult to compare the safety
performance of each mode with that of other modes. The same issue pertains to environmental
indicators, where fuel emissions can be computed by mode but not in terms of output.

While economic indicators by mode can be developed, these measures change over time and do
not necessarily accurately indicate comparative levels. Even among freight carriers that have
theoretically similar outputs – tonne-kilometres, for example – comparisons are misleading.

27
Difficulties are often compounded by the volatility of traffic data, which may have more to do with
problems related to data capture than with economic cycles.

On the numerator side of efficiency measures, i.e. in measuring input utilisation, issues arise from
the diversity of input used. The challenge is to develop composite measures of input utilisation. The
problem becomes more complex when the analyses are cross-modal in scope.12 When comparisons are
extended to the international scene, analysts must consider, for instance, the issue of price of labour,
which may reflect not only the relative wealth of each country but also different degrees of experience
and education.

Notwithstanding the many issues that arise with respect to measurement, effective benchmarking
exercises regarding the transport sector are possible and have been used effectively by decision makers
at all levels. It must be emphasised, however, that the objectives of the exercise must be well defined
and understood. Considerable research and effort must be expended to ensure the availability of data
to meet the needs of the exercise.

Comparison of the sector under consideration with the reference sector

It is only when measurement issues are resolved that meaningful comparisons can be made.
These comparisons can then be passed on to target groups; for example, policy makers, infrastructure
providers, shippers and transportation service providers. Decision makers must, however, be aware of
the limitations of the performance indicators used. They must also exercise keen judgement to ensure
that they do not draw conclusions that fall outside the objectives of the analysis, or misinterpret
results. As stated earlier, aggregate indicators such as tonne-kilometres or revenue passenger-
kilometres are comprised of a large number of micro factors.

Based on the comparative analysis, the identification of best practices followed elsewhere, and
the particular circumstances of the sector being studied,13 required changes can be identified and
implemented. Follow-up monitoring programmes can be used to identify whether these initiatives
have produced the desired results, or to raise the necessity for further changes.

12. For example, marine carriers utilise bunker “C,” a cheap fuel with a high BTU content. This problem
can be addressed by developing measures of BTU or petajoule content. The marine mode makes
extensive use of vessel chartering as a source of input, while trucking industries rely on resources
from outside the firm, for example owner-operators. However, such forms of input are not available in
other modes.
13. For example, the performance of a newly privatised carrier or sector cannot be effectively compared
with that of a carrier or sector which continues to enjoy state subsidies. Conversely, even commercial
enterprises may enjoy the benefits of indirect subsidies which affect aggregate performance indicators.

28
 Chapter 3

BENCHMARKS TO ASSESS THE PERFORMANCE

OF THE TRANSPORT CHAIN

Chapter 3 presents examples of benchmarking activity in a number of Member countries,14

including the reasons for undertaking the benchmarking activity and the approaches followed. The
primary performance indicators used are shown in the Annexes.

Benchmarking the logistics chain

In terms of the supply chain, it is possible to differentiate three types of benchmarks:

• Infrastructure performance.

• Asset performance.

• Service-level performance.

United Kingdom programme for benchmarking supply chain logistics

An important use of indicators is to highlight the key issues and objectives for sustainable growth
for industry to help firms to understand how their business practices affect not only their own
efficiency and competitiveness but also the wider objectives for the economy, the environment and
society. To this end, the UK Government has been working with the freight distribution industry to
develop a set of key performance indicators.

Infrastructure-based benchmarking

The amount, design and management of the transport infrastructure are of interest to both
government and industry. The government collects information on transport infrastructure in terms of
amount and type of infrastructure, costs of maintenance and repair and amount and type of traffic (and
hence extent of use). This information is used by government when deciding on the nature and level of
infrastructure development and on policies which influence modal choice, vehicles emissions, safety
improvements, enforcement levels, and so on. At the business level, it informs decisions on modal
choice. Annex 9 provides benchmark data for the UK transport infrastructure, by mode.

14. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Western Europe, Japan, the Czech Republic, Sweden. See
also, European Environment Agency, 2000, “Are We Moving in the Right Direction? – Indicators on
Transport and Environment Integration in the EU”, TERM 2000, and European Environment Agency,
2001, “Indicators tracking transport and environment integration in the EU”, TERM 2001.

29
Asset-based benchmarking

Asset and resource benchmarking have long provided a robust business management tool in the
drive for improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. This usually involves the examination of
business functions at the micro level. Such information is of value to government, since at the macro
level such information can be used to gauge industry competitiveness and performance against criteria
such as environmental performance and safety.

Improvement in efficiency, environmental and social performance is one of the key goals of the
UK Government’s Sustainable Distribution Strategy. The government has therefore established a
programme of work with the distribution industry to develop a series of key performance indicators
(KPIs) which can be used by individual companies to benchmark their transport performances with
financial and environmental benefits.

The first set of KPIs has been developed with the help of the Cold Storage and Distribution
Federation. These KPIs are used to measure transport efficiency within the food industry, in terms of
vehicle and energy utilisation, both at company and sector level.15 Five types of KPI have been
monitored successfully:

• Vehicle fill: measured by payload weight, pallet numbers and average pallet height.

• Empty running: measured as the number of miles the vehicle travelled empty and the number
of miles the vehicle travelled with only returnable items.

• Time utilisation: measured on an hourly basis as one of seven activities (running on the road;
rest period; loading or unloading; preloaded and awaiting departure; delayed or otherwise
inactive; maintenance and repair; and empty and stationary) over a 48-hour period.

• Deviations from schedule: measured as problem at collection point, problem at delivery

point, own company actions, traffic congestion, equipment breakdown and lack of driver.

• Fuel efficiency of tractor and trailer: measured as km per litre, ml fuel required to move one
standard industry pallet 1 km.

The programme of work for the next two years will see further extension of the KPI work within
the food distribution sector, and the launch of KPI initiatives with the construction, parcels, chemicals,
air freight, ports and automotive industries. In the case of the chemicals and automotive industries, the
work will examine the possibility of benchmarking both road and rail movements.

Benchmarking performance of intermodal transport in the Czech Republic

Infrastructure-based benchmarking

The Czech Government promotes intermodal transport using various measures, including
development of infrastructure. For this purpose, the government collects information on transport
infrastructure in terms of amount and type of infrastructure and amount and type of traffic. The

15. DETR (1999), Benchmarking Vehicle Utilisation and Energy Consumption: Measurement of Key
Performance Indicators, DETR Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme Energy Consumption
Guide 76.

30
government also collects information on the development of intermodal transport in order to evaluate
the effectiveness of policy measures. Annex 4 provides benchmark data for the Czech Republic.

Current state of intermodal transport in the Czech Republic

In the past, the terminal network in the Czech Republic was rather dense, consisting of
16 terminals. Due to the rapid decrease in production, and especially of exports, between 1992-96,
some terminals became redundant. Therefore, one of the most important operators, CSKD Intrans,
commenced reducing the number of terminals (six terminals were closed and two are being
modernised).

Currently, the most frequently used transport system is containerised freight. The use of the
swap-body (SB) system is also increasing. Articulated trucks are not used, but their operation in some
terminals is possible.

Existing terminal equipment meets the needs for containers, but only partly for swap-bodies.
Combined transport is focused on freight containers (20-40 feet), and in some terminals also on High
Cube 45 feet (HC).

Government support to intermodal transport

The principal programme for the intermodal transport area is described in the paper “System
Support of Combined Transport Development in the Czech Republic in 1999-2000/2005”, which has
as one of its objectives the partial transfer of freight from road transport to rail and water transport,
which are more environmentally friendly. The paper outlines the following objectives:

• Creation of an information system for electronic exchange and data transfer for combined
freight transport.

• Creation and implementation of UN/EDIFACT form.

• Development of a decision support system for intensified utilisation of combined transport.

• Investigation of infrastructure conditions of combined and integrated transport from the

standpoint of wider exploitation in transport and logistic systems.

• Research into changes in the vehicles fleet-split needed for combined transport use.

Development of the transportation infrastructure in the Czech Republic is focused on:

• Connection of the transport network between the Czech Republic and adjacent countries.

• Co-ordination of the development of international transport corridors.

Support programmes of the Czech Ministry of Transport and Communications are focused on the
following spheres:

• Purchase of special railway wagons for combined transport for Czech Railways (also for
other railway operators in the future).

31
 • Support of projects concerning new systems of combined transport and vehicles (e.g. swap-
bodies, semi-trailers).

• Modernisation of lifting mechanisms.

• Adaptation of vessels for combined transport.

• Modernisation of terminal and other buildings.

• Improving services in terminals.

In addition, the Czech Republic participates in Pan-European programmes concerning

development and support of combined transport.

Benchmarking exercises led by industry organisations in Europe

Service-based benchmarking

Service-level information is used by the distribution industry to compare performance either

within sections of the supply chain or across different supply chains and modes. Once aggregated,
such information can supply indicators of the efficiency of supply chains and hence provide a measure
of potential impacts on GDP. Hence, much of the work in this area has been carried out by industry
organisations.

Key performance indicators in the air-freight industry

Led by the Freight Transport Association, the European Air Shippers’ Council has developed key
performance indicators and best practice for the air-freight industry. This focuses on:

• Delivery to the airline.

• Collection by/delivery to the agent.

• Flown as booked.

• Arrived as agreed.

• Aircraft arrival.

• Collection.

The approach has been successfully applied in the air-freight market and an agreed set of
performance measures is now in place. The performance indicators established in this project will be
used by shippers to improve their decision making. The approach used in this project is demand-led
and focuses on service levels.

32
Key performance indicators in short-sea shipping

The European Shippers Council, the Freight Transport Association (United Kingdom), the
Maritime Forum (Sweden), the Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications of Sweden
and the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management of the Netherlands (and other
organisations) is undertaking a study to develop key performance indicators for the short-sea sector.

The project concerns the establishment, verification and dissemination of consistent service
performance indicators for freight transport and concentrates on short-sea shipping, rail and road. The
output from the project will provide European supply chain managers with a package of consistently
calculated performance standards that will allow the relative service-level performance of each freight
mode to be consistently compared on each of their European flow corridors. This removes a large
“step into the unknown”, thereby encouraging companies to shift away from their current mode
towards more sustainable modes, especially combined transport.

The key performance indicators will focus on:

• Time.

• Cargo care.

• Compliance.

• Customer service.

The short-sea shipping section of the project was implemented in 2001, principally focusing on
the freight corridor that links Rotterdam and Göteborg. On a Europe-wide, multimodal basis, use of
the approach developed in the project will help to identify commercially important freight flow
corridors, under-performing infrastructure and bottlenecks.

Best practice guide for collection and delivery of cargo at airports

The Airline Operators Committee Cargo, together with the British International Freight
Association, have established a working group to look at ways in which forwarders and transit shed
operators could improve the way in which they handle cargo arriving at and departing from Heathrow
Airport.16 The working group has developed a best practice guide for collection and delivery of cargo.
This covers guidance on scheduling of deliveries, dealing with missing packages and the vetting of
documentation and an agreed procedure for sharing wooden pallets. Statistics are collected on truck
dwell times at the transit sheds.

Benchmarking the output of logistics chains

In terms of outputs of the logistics chain, three types of benchmarks may be developed:

• Performance indicators on logistics costs.

• Logistics-related social costs and charges.

• Benchmarking on road safety.

16. AOCC and BIFA (1998), Heathrow Best Practices and Cargo Handling Guide, September.

33
Evaluation of logistics systems in Japan

Why develop logistics performance indicators?

Developing logistics performance indicators is essential to evaluating the efficiency and

sustainability of logistics systems, and to monitoring the implementation and outcome of logistics
policies. In particular, in developing performance indicators, it should be borne in mind that, while the
private sector’s goal is globalisation of business and optimisation of supply chains, government’s role
is to evaluate the performance of intermodal transportation and to reflect the result on future transport
policies and international policy co-ordination. In other words, logistics performance indicators should
be designed to reflect the different perspectives of the different stakeholders.

Ideally, comparative evaluation of logistics systems in different countries should be conducted

using the same performance indicators. However, data constraints make it extremely difficult to
conduct complete comparative evaluation of logistics systems. Therefore, logistics efficiency and
sustainability improvements can very often only be identified through partial evaluation. It is possible
to evaluate logistics systems in different countries by identifying best practices in some countries as
the standard evaluation criteria. It may also be possible to recommend more desirable policies by
examining logistics policies implemented in various countries to address the recent trend towards
globalisation and trade liberalisation.

Classification of performance indicators

Logistics costs and services

Logistics performance indicators can be classified into two types: cost indicators and quality
indicators.

Cost indicators include the following:

• Transport cost.

• Inventory cost.

• Sorting and packing cost.

• Packaging cost.

Quality indicators include the following:

• Knowledge of goods and customer services.

• Availability of goods.

• Lead-time from order to delivery, and its accuracy.

• Flexibility: response time to special orders.

• Ability to organise information: time, accuracy, and details of contents.

• Response and restoration time when a mistake or problem occurs.

34
 • Aftercare and response time (technical information, stocks of spare parts, repairs).

In any discussion of the performance of logistics systems, it is necessary to balance reduction in

logistics costs and the level of logistics services. Logistics costs include not only transport costs, but
also inventory, sorting, packing and production costs. Therefore, a reduction in transport costs will not
necessarily lead to a reduction in total logistics costs. Even in the relationship between logistics costs
and services, transport services include various factors (time-designated delivery, missed delivery,
delay and re-delivery, etc.), which affect inventory costs.

This makes the relationship between logistics costs and logistics services a complex one. As
shipping size becomes smaller, the shipping order becomes more frequent and the lead-time from
ordering to receiving becomes shorter, making fleet management more complicated. As a
consequence, loading factors decrease, and total transport costs increase. On the other hand, inventory
costs, which include safety and average inventory costs, decrease as transport frequencies increase and
lead-times become shorter.

Prices and consumer services

There is a need to evaluate the reduction in logistics costs not only from the viewpoint of price
reduction, but also from more comprehensive aspects such as consumer service quality and security of
transported goods. For example, supplying huge quantities of cheap goods using mass freight transport
is not always effective, because small retailers who do not need such large deliveries often play unique
and significant roles in the consumer goods market, with their better knowledge of goods, efficient
repair services and their own parts suppliers.

Cost indicators include prices of goods and annual expenses needed for purchasing (i.e. transport
expenses for shopping, e-commerce transmission expenses). Quality indicators include safety and
reliability of goods and reliable and timely delivery of goods.

Socio-economic costs and transport policies

When evaluating reduction in logistics costs, non-monetary and socio-economic costs such as
environmental costs should also be taken into consideration. These costs are often neglected by the
private sector, but they are borne by society. For example, as the number of vehicles rises due to
declines in loading rates of trucks, traffic congestion becomes worse and average vehicle speed
decreases. This results in an increase in vehicle emissions and aggravates air pollution. In such cases,
governments are expected to play a leading role in improving this situation by implementing effective
transport policies (e.g. regulations restricting trucks in certain areas, taxes imposed on heavy trucks,
etc.). Logistics performance indicators should be designed in such a way that they incorporate
indicators by which socio-economic costs can be evaluated.

The need for comprehensive evaluation of logistics systems

Traffic- and business-related cost indicators can easily be found and used in evaluating logistics
systems. For example, when average vehicle speed in an urban area is low, it is clear that the physical
distribution of goods is not operating at the optimal level of efficiency. However, by combining these
cost and quality indicators or by aggregating them into a regional or national average value, a more
comprehensive evaluation can be conducted.

35
Traditional logistics performance measures

Traditional performance indicators for logistics systems have largely relied on simple quantitative
measurements. While such simple measurements are convenient for conducting comparative analyses
among different nations, they are sometimes inadequate for comparing the efficiencies of supply
chains as a whole. For example, road transport has the highest energy consumption share among the
different transport modes. However, a simple modal shift from road to rail or sea does not directly
induce a decrease in energy consumption. These inter-urban modes generate huge volumes of feeder
truck transport. Therefore, the single modal approach is not adequate for assessing the real impact of
freight transport on the environment.

The need for new performance indicators

Door-to-door approach for intermodal transport

There is a need to develop new logistics performance indicators that better reflect actual
conditions of supply chains as a whole. In order to improve transport policies in a competitive market,
intermodal statistics that provide details on the volume and structure of transport flows are also
needed. Data on transport modes and loading units used, types of goods transported, and other
parameters of transport are required in order to enable comparative analysis with a single transport
mode. There are several types of indicators for intermodal transport systems. The following
discussions include some case studies in which several performance indicators are tested.

The door-to-door approach, which involves the direct transfer of goods of intermodal transport
from origin to destination, is preferred to evaluate the whole supply chains. Logistics costs depend on
the type of cargo and the conditions of transport, including distance and weight, and other services
such as handling at night or on holidays. The key factor usually depends on truck feeder transport
costs.

Table 3.1. Cost composition of intermodal chain from Southeast Asia to Japan

Percentages
Total 100.0
Southeast Asian terminal 37.2
Sea 35.2
Domestic inland cost in Japan 27.6
Note: Aggregates of 31 samples. Does not include inland transport cost in Asian countries.
Source: The Japan Institute of Logistics Systems (JILS).

36
 Table 3.2. Detailed composition of cost
Percentage JPY per container
Total 100.0 419 003
Southeast Asian terminal 37.2 155 843
Export inspection 1.8 7 358
Packaging 21.0 88 123
Loading 2.1 8 693
Transport to yard 6.6 27 824
Custom 3.9 16 436
Loading to ship 1.8 7 409
Sea transport cost 35.2 147 453
Terminal in Southeast 3.4 14 147
Asia
Sea transport 26.1 109 408
Domestic terminal 4.6 19 120
Others 1.1 4 778
Domestic inland cost in 27.6 115 707
Japan
Receiving 4.8 20 316
Unloading 9.6 40 051
Inspection 0.7 3 050
Customs 2.7 11 215
Inland transport 9.5 39 665
Other 0.3 1 410
Source: JILS.

Table 3.2 shows detailed composition of cost in the case of international sea and land transport. It
can be seen that handling costs in terminals are very high. In the case of domestic rail and road
transport, as shown in Table 3.3, the ratio of road feeder cost to the total intermodal transport cost is
high (48.7% in production goods and 32.1% in consumer goods). The road feeder cost includes total
cost of the road transport component:

− collection of freight from consignor and carriage to rail terminal for loading and
transport by rail; and

− collection of freight from rail terminal upon arrival and carriage to consignee.

Therefore, it is important in intermodal transport to identify not only the role of major trunk
transport by sea or rail but also the role of handling in terminals and road feeder transport. In addition,
when road transport costs are lowered, even intermodal transport becomes more attractive, although
there are constraints on delivery time.

Furthermore, in regard to the environmental impacts of intermodal transport, energy consumption

of total truck transport (single-mode transport) is not necessarily greater than intermodal transport,
when the feeder truck transport is longer and not only the fuel consumption of transport but also the
energy consumption of equipment and physical infrastructure is included.

37
 Table 3.3. Cost and time comparison between single modal (road) and intermodal (road and railway)
transport
Tokushima to Tokyo Kanagawa to Saitama
Product goods Consumer goods
Cost Case A Case B
JPY % JPY %
Road only 166 600 143 900
Intermodal 135 600 100.0 134 000 100.0
-Road 1 42 200 31.1 24 000 17.9
-Rail 69 600 51.3 91 000 67.9
-Road 2 23 800 17.6 19 000 14.2

Case A Case B
Time
Minutes Intermodal/Road only Minutes Intermodal /Road only
Road only 600 720
Intermodal 1 540 2.567 4 270 5.931
Source: Survey by Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Table 3.4. Energy consumption

Kcal/km
Length of door-to-door
100 km 200 km 500 km
Truck only 444 417 396
Intermodal: Rail short feeder 398 363 305
Rail only 557 436 363
Note: 1993 Estimates. Feeder 20 km on both sides.
Truck: trunk 80km/h, feeder 20km/h, load volume: 11 tonnes.
Source: Institute of Highway Economics (1993), Road Transportation: Energy and Environmental Problems.

Macro-cost on logistics

Transport costs represent a significant share of total logistics costs. For Japan, macro-logistics
costs represented some 10% of GDP in 1995, and transport costs accounted for 65% of logistics costs
at the sales delivery stage. Therefore, improvement of transport systems is a very important
component in improving the performance and international competitiveness of logistics systems in
Japan. In considering this, the interdependency between transport costs and inventory costs should
also be taken into account.

Table 3.5. Macro-cost on logistics

JPY trillion, FY 1998
Total 47.1
Transport 30.5
Stock 14.5
Management 2.1
GDP 494.4
Total cost/GDP 9.5%
Source: JILS.

38
 Table 3.6. Composition of logistics cost in manufacturing industry, 1997
Percentages
Total 100.0
Transport 58.9
Stock 20.1
Other 21.0
Source: JILS.

Efficient prices for transport in the Netherlands

Indicators of the social costs of various transport modes are available in the Netherlands. These
indicators can be useful in considering policy options for internalising the social costs, thereby
enabling a more appropriate distribution of costs and better modal choice based on full costs.

In principle, the social costs of vehicular traffic embrace all the costs (direct and indirect)
associated with that traffic. A correction for market distortions caused by government intervention
should only be considered for those costs that are ignored by users in their mobility decisions and
which are passed on to society as a whole.

The marginal social costs (MSC) are the social costs arising when one additional vehicle or
vessel joins the existing traffic volume. By consistently confronting each and every mobility decision
as precisely as possible through marginal social costs – by means of a cost-effective pricing policy –
mobility can be regulated at the social optimum. Hence, an efficient pricing policy should lead to
enhanced efficiency in transport and to greater overall economic welfare.

Marginal social costs can be internalised in a variety of ways, of which government pricing
policy is just one. In the past, vehicle standards relating to emissions, noise and safety have proved to
be effective means of reducing the external costs of transportation.

Figure 3.1 shows the marginal costs associated with the various means of transportation of goods.
The marginal social costs are divided into infrastructure upkeep and operation costs, the external costs
of traffic incidents, noise nuisance and emissions. For each transportation mode, the variable charges
are added below the marginal social costs.

The cost-charge differential varies from about EUR 0.01 per tonne-km for inland shipping to
EUR 0.06-0.07 for aviation and small HGVs. No category of goods vehicles covers its external costs
through payment of variable user charges. The cost-charge differential (in EUR per tonne-km) is
currently greatest for the lightest category of HGVs and smallest for the articulated HGV. On long
hauls, served by rail, shipping and articulated HGVs, the differential is greatest for rail (about
EUR 0.03 per tonne-km) and least for inland barges and articulated HGVs (over EUR 0.01 per tonne-
km). In the case of air freight, there is a gap of about EUR 0.06 between the MSC and variable
charges, which amounts to the high external costs of airborne emissions.

39
 Figure 3.1. Marginal social costs and charges
EUR cents per tonne-kilometre (excluding congestion costs)

Source: Centre for Energy Savings and Clean Technology, Efficient Prices for Traffic.

Figure 3.2 shows the marginal social costs and the costs of infrastructure construction. Of the
fixed social costs, only the costs of infrastructure construction have been quantified, with no
consideration being given to the external costs of space occupation by parked vehicles, ecological
fragmentation and landscape deterioration. Given the considerable differences in the amount of
“parking” space occupied by the various vehicle categories, inclusion of the associated external costs
would lead to changes in the differences among the various modes of transport. Hence, the present
results underestimate the fixed costs.

As with marginal social costs, the construction costs per tonne-km decrease with the size of the
vehicle, ranging from about EUR 0.02 for a small HGV to about EUR 0.01 for an articulated HGV.
Rail freight is confronted with high construction costs of about EUR 0.07 per tonne-km, exceeding the
MSC. The costs of infrastructure for inland barges are about EUR 0.01 per tonne-km, about equal to
the MSC. The infrastructure construction costs for air freight are low (about EUR 0.003 per tonne-km)
compared to other modes of goods transport.

40
 Figure 3.2. Total social costs and charges
EUR cents per tonne-kilometre (excluding congestion costs)

Source: Centre for Energy Savings and Clean Technology, Efficient Prices for Traffic.

Road safety and benchmarking

Safety is a crucial factor in attaining sustainable development in the transport sector. There are
two sides to the road safety issue. One is the societal perspective: What are the impacts for society of
road crashes and victims? What should society do to reduce the problem? The other is the individual
perspective: How are road crashes influencing the life of citizens? What could a road user do to reduce
the problem? Difficulties arise because the two perspectives are radically different: what is clearly a
huge problem for society is often perceived as a small problem for the individual.

To date, no comprehensive benchmarking work has been carried out in the area of road safety.
However, the OECD and the World Road Association (PIARC) Road Safety Committee (C13) have
touched upon the problem and have produced some valuable documents. The EC, in its latest road-
safety programme, indicates the need for a better information system within the Union. This is a
necessary, but not sufficient, step towards benchmarking. The ETSC (European Traffic Safety
Council) has launched a project to construct road-safety performance indicators – a prerequisite for an
effective benchmarking activity in the area of road safety. Outside Europe, Australia is probably the
country which has the most experience in road-safety benchmarking.

41
 Chapter 4

DEVELOPMENT OF BENCHMARKING METHODS FOR

COMPARISONS OF THE RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF MODES

Framework for intermodal benchmarking

This chapter aims to provide potential users with a range of approaches that can be either used
directly, or modified to meet their own objectives.

Most of the existing work on benchmarking of transport activities uses partial productivity (PP)
analysis, such as labour or capital productivity (e.g. revenue tonne-kilometres per employee,
containers handled per hour). There are a number of reasons for this:

• Benchmarking studies are limited in scope by the availability of data, in particular, data
which are standard across the facilities or modes on which the comparative analysis is based.

• Such analyses appear to be more relevant when comparing activities at facilities that have
the same function (e.g. container yards) and which have similar operational, political and
geographic characteristics. These similarities provide the “level playing field” that allows:

− Policy makers to compare a specified activity or operation (e.g. container stacking

procedures in a container yard, administration required for entry at the yard gates,
crane capacity utilisation, stevedoring productivity, etc.) and establish that it requires
improvement.

− A designated “best practice” to be transferred from one jurisdiction to another and

result in a predictable improvement in efficiency.

In order to be an effective tool, the use of partial productivity measures is therefore limited to
instances of like operations and to analysis of specific and singular activities. In an intermodal context,
however, partial productivity cannot fully take into account all of the various operations and issues
involved.

When two jurisdictions have dissimilarities, and when it is desirable to benchmark the efficiency
of a sequence of activities or a group of operations, partial productivity measures have been shown at
times to be inadequate or misleading. For example, comparing Port C which is capital-intensive to
dissimilar Port L which is labour-intensive, using a capital productivity measure, might show that
Port L is more productive. Should Port L replace labour with capital, its (capital) productivity would
diminish whereas overall cargo handling would probably become more efficient. It is therefore vital
that the results of a benchmarking exercise be correctly understood and interpreted.

43
 When benchmarking a sequence of transport activities the likelihood of dissimilarities increases
markedly. Within an integrated transport chain, every difference in line-haul activity, cargo transfer
activity, border crossing operation, policy environment, route geography, commodity mix, etc., adds
an additional layer of complexity to a benchmarking exercise. A balanced approach must be used that
could allow, for example, the efficiency of transport activities of an island nation to be accurately
compared to those of a landlocked nation or for a credible comparison of various intermodal corridors.

In theory, the use of total factor productivity (TFP) analysis addresses these difficulties to some
extent by providing for the varying use of all factors of production. It must be emphasised, however,
that when referring to the benchmarking of intermodal activities, it is not intended that one operation
be applied to the entire analytical exercise.17

Total factor productivity is derived from cost data. An important consideration is that intermodal
services are provided by a number of carriers and, with the exception of shipping lines, carriers do not
generally provide publicly available information on the cost of intermodal services. Therefore, in
practice, the information required to apply this methodology would not generally be available. As
such, the use of TFP has been generally confined to the study of a particular modal sector, or
comparison of modal interfaces such as maritime ports. The analyses also tend to focus on activities
with similar jurisdictional characteristics (political, administrative, and geographical).

Essentially, TFP is calculated by dividing all outputs (weighted by revenue contribution) by all
inputs (weighted by cost shares). There are various ways to calculate TFP, but for an example, crude
TFP can be calculated as follows:

TFP(k)= Y(k)/ X(k)

for:

Y(k)=v1y1(k)+v2y2(k)+…vmym(k),Σvi=1

X(k)=w1x1(k)+w2x2(k)+…+wnxn(k),Σwi=1

where

Y(k) is an output index for Firm k

X(k) is an input index for Firm k

ym are output quantities

xn are input quantities

and vm and wn represent revenue and cost shares for the respective outputs and inputs.

17. It is not possible to conduct a credible TFP benchmarking exercise between modes and facilities, in a
number of countries, along an integrated supply chain, in a single operation. There are also a number
of other issues, such as border crossing delays, etc., that complicate this comparative analysis.
However, given the resources and adequate data, it would be theoretically possible to “benchmark”
the various modal components of an integrated transport chain and arrive at a set of “best practices”
for the entire chain.

44
 TFP analysis has a number of limitations. It is a high-level measure applied to a particular modal
component or facility within the transport chain. Insofar as the ultimate goal of any benchmarking
exercise is to improve one’s operations:

• Total factor productivity comparisons will not indicate where in the transport chain such
improvement is required.18

• Data requirements are substantial.19

• There is disagreement regarding which inputs and outputs must be considered and how they
are to be measured.

Although the second point above may suffice to impair any thorough TFP analysis of an
intermodal movement, it is the last point that truly limits the soundness of an accurate evaluation.

Inputs

Evaluating inputs: i) on a cross-modal basis; and ii) on an international basis, present the
following problems.

Cross-modal (or inter-modal)

Consider a comparison of two intermodal movements, one that is predominantly a truck

movement and the other that is predominantly a maritime movement. The types of fuel input for these
two movements are not the same, but they can be normalised using British Thermal Units (BTUs).

However, some modes have inputs that are not available to others, such as vessel chartering
which is available for ocean line-haul, or the use of owner-operators in the trucking industry. The
limits associated with driver hours in trucking are not present to the same degree in the rail and
maritime industries. There is no clearly accepted method of normalising such inputs.

Consider a second comparison of two intermodal movements, one with truck-maritime-rail

segments, and the other with only truck-rail segments. The presence of the extra modal interface in the
first movement presents an added complexity – the first productivity measure will have to include
elements related to the operation of port equipment, berthing and other port-related charges, and
pilotage requirements. Some composite measure of input utilisation must be developed, but again
there is no clearly accepted method for doing so.

18. One possible approach would be to target specific functions and to carry out specific benchmarking
analysis on these activities, and then re-evaluate the whole chain. For example, one element in an
intermodal movement would be gantry crane operations, so a “micro-analysis” might be completed on
this activity. Improvement in gantry operations, however, may not result in a significant improvement
in the TFP – perhaps the biggest impediment to an efficient movement is a lengthy customs clearance
process. Any change to the clearance process may affect other links of the chain so use of TFP to
improve the performance of an intermodal movement as a whole would be an iterative process.
19. In attempting to develop a series of performance indicators for the 2001 OECD report on Intermodal
Freight Transport: Institutional Aspects, it became clear that it was very difficult to obtain
standardised data across Member countries. Achieving a consensus on definitions for indicators
represents an additional challenge.

45
International

Expanding a benchmarking analysis to an international level requires an even greater degree of

sophistication. Most important are the complexities added at border crossings. For example, the input
portion of the productivity ratio must reflect customs clearance requirements. If train crews are
required to be changed at a border, the difference in costs for the skilled/unskilled labour will have to
be accounted for, and the price of labour may reflect not only the relative wealth of each country but
also different degrees of education and experience. Currencies, taxes, speed limits, weight and
dimension regulations are just some examples of issues that may need to be factored into the analysis.

Outputs

The use of aggregated freight tonne-kilometres as an output is inadequate in itself. The value of a
tonne-kilometre can vary with the type of commodity being shipped, and (particularly in the case of
rail or maritime movements) with the shipment distance. A distinction must be made if the movement
involves unprocessed bulk commodities rather than a high-value containerised merchandise. If the
movement is a long one, where the fixed costs associated with a tonne-kilometre are less than for a
short haul, this too must be accounted for in the analysis. Therefore as much detail as possible must be
used for output measures and their associated input measures should be similarly disaggregated.

Other measurement issues

A number of other measurement issues arise when attempting all-encompassing analyses like
TFP. These can be broken down into four main groups of issues relating to:

• Safety: There is little consensus in the designation of values for accidents, injuries and
fatalities. Further, the method of measurement of these can vary; for example, some
countries require death to occur within a certain time after an accident for it to be allocated to
that accident.

• Environment: Environmental issues are currently the subject of careful scrutiny by various
international groups. The costs associated with various pollutants, as well as those related to
congestion and interference, are all acknowledged to be deserving of consideration and
should be included in a thorough TFP analysis.

• Service quality: Even more obscure than safety and environment are costs or revenues
associated with service quality. These can include a broad spectrum of areas such as on-time
performance/service rates, use of electronic data interchange (EDI) and other technologies,
and customer satisfaction.

• Infrastructure: Costs associated with infrastructure development and maintenance are

difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Where they are available, the allocation of these costs
to a particular freight movement would involve quantifying the damage inflicted by that
movement relative to: a) damage by other freight and passenger movements; and
b) deterioration due to environmental factors.20

20. Allocation of infrastructure costs is a controversial domestic issue in many jurisdictions. International
agreement on an allocation framework would be difficult to achieve.

46
 The use of total factor productivity to analyse the performance of an intermodal movement may
be ideal in theory but may not be feasible in practice. Its use to evaluate modal interfaces may hold
greater promise, although measurement and definitional issues remain a significant challenge.21

The intermodal chain

One of the many difficulties in benchmarking intermodal activities is that the limits of the
intermodal transport chain are not clearly defined. The term can be, and has been, applied to the full
spectrum of transport activities – from the assembly of goods on the factory floor to their appearance
on the retailer’s shelf.

It is reasonable to argue that it is the performance of this entire chain that matters, and that
benchmarking of intermodal activity should include all elements of it. To do so would be immensely
complex, perhaps unmanageably so. While it is true in principle that a focus on anything less than the
full chain runs the risk of encouraging partial optimisation, in practice this risk may be small. For the
purpose of developing a benchmarking methodology, it is better to focus on a smaller but more
manageable set of activities.

At the other extreme, “intermodal” is often used as a synonym for intermodal road/rail, road/sea
or rail/sea operations.

For the purpose of benchmarking intermodal transport, the intermodal system may be defined as
those activities that occur between the point at which cargoes are consolidated (into containers) and
the point at which they are de-consolidated. This eliminates many of the most variable elements of the
transport chain, and concentrates on the major unitised movements that form the core of the
intermodal system as it is commonly understood.

Figure 4.1 indicates the broad range of activities that would be included in intermodal
benchmarking if this more limited definition were adopted. This transport chain involves the
transportation modes of sea, road and rail and all the interchange points – seaports, land intermodal
yards and terminals. The efficiencies of all the intermodal linkages are seen as the distinguishing
sections that separate the benchmarking of individual modes or terminals from the benchmarking of
the total supply chains. This section therefore concentrates on developing inter-connecting
performance indicators for each of the links of the supply chain and incorporating the single modal
and terminal performance indicators where appropriate.

It is possible to disaggregate the intermodal supply chain further than outlined in Figure 4.1. In
particular, the various intermodal exchange activities can be isolated and separately benchmarked to
gauge their impact on total supply chain performance.

Figure 4.2 shows this from an import perspective. This transport chain would include: sea
transport, ship to port wharf, wharf terminal, port warehousing, port warehouse exit terminal,
wharf/port road access, road operators, (and where relevant, direct rail siding on the wharf), urban
warehousing/de-consolidation (where de-consolidation takes place at which point, for the purposes of
this study, the supply chain ends), access roads to receiver’s distribution (typically urban road),
receiver’s receiving depot’s access, receiver’s receiving depot.

21. The solution to benchmarking intermodal services is to develop measures of cost of services, along
with service factors such as speed and reliability of services.

47
 Figure 4.1. Scope of activity included in intermodal benchmarking

Cargo Cargo
Consolidation Deconsolidation

Load to
Discharge Load to
Road Unload
from Rail Rail
Vehicle

Load to
Rail Road
Terminal
Storage

Load to
Road Rail
Terminal
Storage

Recieve
Deliver to Discharge Deliver to
at Port
Rail from Rail Road
Terminal

Terminal
Terminal
Storage
Storage

Transfer Transfer
to Ship from Ship

Similarly, from an export perspective, the transport chain for container traffic may include: exit
from an urban or inland supplier’s warehouse, urban transport or line-haul including access roads to
port, incoming terminal to port warehouse, wharf storage, port wharf loading to ship.

A major issue for intermodal benchmarking is the amount of detail collected and reported. For
example, a benchmarking study that carefully monitors each of the supply chain linkages outlined in
Figure 4.2 would be thorough, and very likely able to isolate the key factors affecting performance.
However, it may provide too much detail to allow easy understanding by its target audience. Hence,
reporting according to the framework outlined in Figure 4.1 may be more useful.

48
 Figure 4.2. Importers’ intermodal supply chain

SPACE/ POSITION IN G / TRAN SPORT

POSITION IN G / STACKIN G PICK UPS/
STACKIN G EN TRY TIMIN G

CRAN E
SH IP W H ARF DOCK TRUCK/
UN LOADIN G
STORAGE RAIL

AUTOMATION
AUTOMATION / DEDICATED /
CN S TIMES
EN TRY
URBAN WAREH OUSIN G
EN TRY WH ARF EXIT ACCESS URBAN ROUTES STORAGE
WAREH OUSE
WH ARF/ ROAD / ROAD ROADS DEDICATED LAN ES
UN LOADIN G
STORAGE OPERATOR TO H IGH WAY

AUTOMATION
exit access to EN TRY SLOTS
EXIT
line hau l highw ays LIN EH AUL URBAN URBAN
WAREH OUSE EN TRY
or rail term in al ROAD / RAIL ACCESS WAREH OUSE
LOADIN G TERMIN AL
ROADS

EXIT EN TRY
URBAN CUSTOMER
DELIVERY DEPOT

What to measure

If the objective suggested for this project is to be achieved, the benchmarking strategy must pay
attention to the monitoring and measurement not only of performance outcomes, but also of those
factors that are likely to be responsible for intermodal performance, or lack thereof.

To some extent, this is inevitably an iterative process. As the benchmarking process progresses,
understanding of what is most important in determining differences in performance will increase, and
the focus of attention can be refined. Although a literature survey did not reveal any former
benchmarking studies of intermodal performance, some of the earlier studies on performance of
elements of the chain do help to illuminate areas of likely importance. However, given the limited
amount of work that has so far been done in this area, it is almost certainly wise to maintain a general
measurement framework at this stage.

Such a framework is outlined in Figure 4.3, and used to structure the comments of the remainder
of this presentation. In the sections that follow, the approach has tended to err on the side of
inclusiveness. However, it is unlikely that any individual study will be able to cover all of the aspects
encapsulated within such an approach.

49
 Figure 4.3. Framework for intermodal performance analysis

OPERATING
INPUTS
ENVIRONMENT

EFFICIENCY EFFECTIVENESS
MEASURES PROCESSES MEASURES

CAUSAL ANALYSIS

FINANCIAL SERVICE
OUTCOMES OUTCOMES QUALITY

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

The focus of this discussion is on:

• Reasons for benchmarking the holistic supply chain.

• Outcomes for the entire intermodal transport chain.

• Measures of the performance of the main elements of this chain.

• The impact of key infrastructure and equipment inputs.

• The operating environment.

The aim is to achieve a manageable, like-with-like methodology for benchmarking intermodal

transport.

50
Partial analysis vs. holistic analysis

Traditional economic analysis of transport tasks looks at the different elements of the supply
chain on an individual modal basis. With only a limited analysis of each of the interfaces between the
key elements, such research produces, at best, a partial analysis of the interdependency of the total
supply chain. This approach is inadequate because it:

• Ignores interdependencies between the elements and the importance of the entire transport
chain for given tasks.

• Yields a partial assessment of performance.

• Ignores the fact that interfaces are important and can exert a significant influence on modal
choice and overall performance.

• Provides little or possibly inappropriate signals to the users of multi-transport services.

As a result, interest is growing in a system-wide analysis using a multi or intermodal framework

as the reference point for evaluating the efficiency of transport chains. This approach stresses not only
the performance of individual elements and linkages between them but also the need for system-wide
efficiency measures. Performance in this context needs to be assessed having regard to the technical,
pricing and dynamic efficiencies of the overall supply chain.

Efficiency in intermodal transport requires each mode and each terminal comprising the total
supply chain to operate in an efficient manner. To achieve this, each component of the total freight
transport chain must perform at that level which achieves maximum output level for the lowest cost.
Overall efficiency is obtained when these individual participatory efficiencies are combined in such a
manner that holistic efficiency is achieved.

Performance efficiency relates to how well the resources are being utilised. Performance
effectiveness relates to how well the goals of all the participants (shippers/customers/operators) of the
total transport chain are being attained. Efficiency is a minimiser or maximiser concept. Performance
effectiveness relates to desired achievements of the participants. Emphasis on customer service
requirements (such as price/costs, timeliness, loss and damage or any other goal that each of the
participants perceives to be important) will differ between participants and over different time periods.
Thus, in some instances, the supply chain may be efficient but not effective: i.e. there are no wasted
resources, but major goals of key participants are not being achieved.

Interdependencies of the holistic supply chain

When a transport chain is viewed in a holistic manner, maximum efficiency will only be achieved
if all modal and terminal operators are providing maximum service at minimal cost. If any service
provider is not attaining the optimum at their particular link of a particular transport chain, then the
entire intermodal freight service will fall below maximum efficiency. Further, when all participants of
the container transport supply chain are operating efficiently, there are compounding benefits that
result in higher supply chain efficiencies.

51
 Consequently, any generic benchmarking study of intermodal supply chains for container traffic
must first identify the weakest link of the particular supply chain corridor being benchmarked. As in
any chain, the weakest link determines the overall strength of the entire chain. Due to the
interdependencies of transport supply chains, the weakest link will impact differently depending on the
position it holds within the supply chain. For example, if the weak link occurs early in the transport
chain, then choices relating to immediate partners in the chain will be different from the most efficient
choice. These inefficiencies will compound throughout the chain. If the weak link occurs towards the
end of the supply chain, then choices relating to the ongoing partners of the chain will not be as
adverse.

Similarly, if one part of the chain is markedly more efficient due to superior managerial talents,
technology, etc., than the remaining links of the chain, then this “kink” in efficiency may be
detrimental to the overall efficiency of the total chain. For example, bottlenecks may occur and other
participants either backwards or forwards in the chain may suffer from lumpiness in delivery flows.

Dynamic inefficiencies may develop in that such shifts away from a particular junction may lead
to other modal or terminal links, which are the most efficient, being by-passed, and less efficient
(second-best) alternatives being used. In the longer term these less efficient modes or terminals will
compound inefficiencies along the entire transport chain. The stakeholders of these less efficient
transport links will attempt to maintain their market share, which may prevent the most efficient or
“first-best” transport link from being used for considerable periods. Further inefficiencies may
permeate outwards on either side of this link and compounding inefficiencies will occur along the total
transport freight chain. Not only will quality of service drop but costs will become distorted.

Measuring performance outcomes for the entire intermodal transport chain

Measuring outcomes of the supply chain is usually of considerable interest to users and other
stakeholders as it provides an indication of relative performance between the benchmarked services
(perhaps different corridors, trades or points in time). It is one of the most straightforward elements of
the intermodal transport chain to report.

Performance outcomes for the entire intermodal supply chain can be reported on three separate
levels:

• Key performance indicators of the transport chain as a whole (i.e. from commissioning to
decommissioning containers).

• Measures of the seamlessness of the “holistic” supply chain.

• Survey-based measures of customers’ perception of the supply chain.

Key performance indicators of intermodal supply

The major categories of performance indicators of the intermodal transport chain include:

• Pricing.

• Financial (including profitability).

52
 • Timing (including transit time, frequency of service and on-time reliability).

• Service quality (loss and damage control).

• Ease of use (including administration, asset management and human resources).

These factors are discussed below, including recommendations of preferred measures. Table 4.1
outlines the range of measures from each category that may be applied to intermodal container
benchmarking depending on circumstances and objectives.

Pricing outcomes
Pricing outcomes monitor the sum of the direct transportation charges paid by the user to move
the container from the point of commissioning to the point of decommissioning. Assuming that
intermodal operation will usually apply a through transport freight rate, this should be comparatively
straightforward to measure.

Some suggested measures include “freight rate per TEU” and “freight rate per FEU”. It may also
be desirable to obtain information on both dry and refrigerated containers.

Financial outcomes (including profitability)

It is useful to view the financial outcomes from both the user and the producer perspective, if
adequate information is available.

Financial measures from the producer perspective would include measures of profitability. It is
particularly useful to monitor profitability where there is reason to believe that one or more of the core
operations in the intermodal chain is explicitly or implicitly subsidised.

Information availability is likely to be a problem here. It is more likely that information will be
available for rail operators and port terminals than for road and shipping operators, but even in the
former cases it is far from certain. As the core enterprises involved in the intermodal transport chain
are capital-intensive, an asset-based ratio is probably the most appropriate measure of profitability.

Financial measures of users should include the sum of the direct freight charges plus any other
costs associated with transportation. These may include the cost of holding the inventory, losses
associated with any delays incurred and their own administration costs. The appropriate measures
include “rate of return on assets” (producer) and “total freight cost per TEU” (customer).

Timing
Three main temporal issues emerge in discussions of user choice in freight transport:

• Frequency of service.

• Transit time.

• Predictability or reliability.

53
 Table 4.1. Framework for intermodal performance analysis

Price Financial Timing Loss & damage control Ease of use Technical Asset management

Door-to-door Return on assets Total cycle time Ratio of L&D claims to total Invoicing accuracy Flexibilities In-transit privileges
(distance-based) (distance based) number of containers Scheduling/
carried (distance-/value- or Claims processing Equipment/
time-based per cycle) (insurance/damage) Computer links/
slottings

Door-to-door Return on equity Transit time variances Notification procedures to Shipment tracing/ Slotting ease Flexibility of routings
(value-based) (distance-based) shipper of L&D asset visibility

Door-to-door (time- Trading margin On-time performance Tracing abilities to pinpoint Feedback across all Equipment Technological
based) (sustainability factor) L&D within chain sections of the chain availability superiority in total
Courtesy levels chain

54
Willingness to Total freight cost Timeliness reliability Value of L&D claims to EDI/Common Equipment mobility Ability of negotiating
negotiate to customer (% level of reliability to total number of containers documentation Physical condition service changes
published or quoted carried (distance-/value- or of equipment
estimated time of time-based per cycle)
arrival)

Common insurance Knowledge of shipper’s Specialised Infrastructure

needs equipment compatibility
Shipper relationship
 In principle, measurement of service frequency is straightforward. However, there may be
practical difficulties. Consider, for instance, the case where three competing shipping lines each offer a
weekly intermodal service between an origin and a destination. Acting in its own right, each line will
offer one service per week to its customers. However, a freight forwarder operating in competition and
buying slots from each of the operators, could advertise three services per week.

Monitoring transit times is more straightforward. In keeping with the boundaries proposed in this
report, the relevant duration is from the time of container availability for collection at the point of
consolidation to the time of delivery at the point of de-consolidation.

Two dimensions of reliability warrant separate measurement: consistency can be measured as the
variance of the transit time referred to above; reliability will generally be far more difficult to measure
and relates to occasions on which a service that is offered and accepted is not delivered (this could
result, for instance, from short-shipment of booked cargoes; the appropriate measure is the percentage
of cargo for which failure occurs).

Loss and damage control

Loss and damage is often less important for containerised cargo than for general freight or even
break-bulk cargoes. However, losses and damage do occur and need to be measured in an intermodal
benchmarking study.

The core output measures relate to the ratio of the number of loss and damage claims per
container carried, and the value of loss and damage claims per container carried. However, if data are
available, it is also useful to identify reasons for loss or damage within the chain and to understand
how and when the shipper is notified about any associated problems.

Ease of use

Ease of use in the intermodal transport chain relates principally to administrative procedures such
as the simplicity of documentation. It also includes the error rate in invoicing clients, shipment tracing
capability and aspects of the relationship between the service providers and the client.

Appropriate measures include those outlined below and indicated in Table 4.1:

• The proportion of transactions performed by electronic data interchange (EDI).

• The number of documentary clearances required for a “typical” unit of cargo in transit.

• The number of documents that must be prepared for each unit of cargo.

The section below on key performance indicators of holistic supply chains focuses on ease of use
as these generally relate to the seamlessness of transfers between major transport modes in intermodal
container movements.

55
Key performance indicators: holistic supply chains

As discussed earlier, any generic benchmarking study of intermodal supply chains must develop
inter-connecting performance indicators for each of the links of the supply chain. In many instances,
these will focus on intermodal linkages and how these allow a seamless transfer of containers between
the different core transport modes (i.e. rail, road and sea transport).

The ability to provide an integrated intermodal transport service depends largely on the
compatibility of transportation equipment, the meshing of operating schedules and the extent of
commonality in administrative arrangements such as invoicing and other documentation using EDI or
manual methods.

Table 4.2 provides a list of the major aspects of the intermodal supply chain that will determine
the ease of transition between transport modes from the point of consolidation of containers to their
ultimate de-consolidation. The table shows that there are many administrative requirements, such as
billing, packaging and insurance, that need to be standardised to ensure an easy transition between
transport modes and thereby reduce freight costs and the potential for delays.

There are also a number of aspects of the intermodal transfer that are more difficult to alter in the
short term, yet are often critical to the overall performance of the intermodal freight services. These
include the meshing of schedules, for example between trucks and freight trains, and the flexibility of
lifting equipment to easily cater for containers of different dimensions.

Table 4.2 also suggests a number of measures of electronic data interchange (EDI).

Table 4.2. Indicators of the seamlessness of the holistic supply chain

Indicator Explanation

Meshing of schedules Measured in terms of time delays either per comparable section of the supply chain or
whole comparable supply chains.

Design compatibility Measures standardisation of equipment along length of chain.

Flexibility to cater for all container Measures the ability of each section of supply chain to accommodate any container
sizes along total length size. Measure of adaptability of equipment per section or entire length.

Complete asset visibility Measured by time and/or distance that container is visible (real time) over total time
and/or distance.

Common documentation Measures the number of separate items of documentation required.

Common EDI access to Measures the compatibility of EDI systems and the extent of access possible for each
documentation of the key stakeholders throughout the transport chain.

Equitable level of security Assesses whether all stakeholders have adequate and equitable security of cargo.

Common insurance Determines whether a single, or multiple, insurance policies are required.

Singular billing arrangements As per common documentation, measures the number of separate invoices required.

Singular customs requirements Assesses whether there are singular, all-inclusive customs and other border
requirements and fees.

Common packaging identifications Measures the number of items of separate identification required.

Inclusive institutional acceptance This would include dimensions, specifications and testing for all general purpose,
of ISO standards. thermal, dry bulk, tank, small and other sized containers.

56
Key performance indicators: critical success factors

In transport benchmarking studies, it is advisable to carry out customer surveys to obtain

comparative data. Such surveys serve two purposes. First, they focus on overall customer
requirements, which are sometimes ignored in the search to identify what to benchmark. Second, they
provide an alternative source of data that can be used either to verify data provided by the service
providers or other sources or as a replacement if such data are not otherwise available, as is often the
case.

Customer surveys aim to establish “which aspects of the intermodal transport service are most
important to the shipper” and “to what level of satisfaction have these aspects been provided”. It is
possible to combine these themes and ask questions about critical success factors. Examining critical
success factors is equivalent to asking the question “what factors have had the greatest impact on the
performance of the shipper?”.

Shippers often differ in their critical success factors. The typical format used by companies to
identify their critical success factors relating to intermodal transportation include the following
questions:

• What is the most critical factor to my organisation’s success (e.g. customer satisfaction,
expense to revenue ratio, return on asset performance)?

• What factors are causing the most trouble (e.g. time delays, invoicing problems)?

• What services provided to my customers are directly related to the supply chain functions?

• What factors directly related to the supply chain functions affect my customer’s satisfaction?

• What specific operational problems have been identified in the supply chain?

• What are the major costs (or cost drivers) in the supply chain?

• Which functions in the supply chain represent the highest percentage of cost?

• Which functions in the supply chain have the greatest room for improvement?

• Which functions in the supply chain have the greatest effect (or potential) for differentiating
the organisation from competitors in the marketplace?

Answers to these questions should contribute to achieving the main purposes of an intermodal
benchmarking study; that is, to provide insight into the reasons for differences in performance and to
lay the foundation for performance improvement.

Performance measures of separate modal components

After examining the performance of the transport chain as a whole, it would be necessary to
consider its major elements to determine the main causes of good or poor performance. This would
involve examination of the major transport modes – sea, rail and road – and the interchange interfaces
at the port and at rail and/or road terminals.

57
 To undertake a thorough examination of every facet of each of the elements of the intermodal
transportation would require an extensive data collection exercise. It is likely that it would be very
difficult to collect such an exhaustive set of data and the effort may require more time and resources
than is often available for such studies. Thus, it would usually be better to refine the benchmarking of
intermodal components to a limited number of measures of the main elements of the transport chain,
plus any areas that have been identified in the holistic measures as either high priority to customers or
recording sub-standard performance.

Examining the core transport modes would involve repeating many of the questions that were
posed for the holistic transport chain – but targeted at the modal level. These include measurement of
price, financial performance (including profitability), timeliness, frequency of service, reliability and
the incidence of lost and damaged freight. It would also involve some process or efficiency measures
that are outlined below. It may also involve the ease-of use-questions, although some of these are more
relevant to the intermodal transport chain.

This section presents many of the measures that may be applied to the components of intermodal
transport supply chains. Total factor productivity is considered briefly before looking at the
application of partial productivity analysis to examine the performance of the terminals (i.e. port, rail
and road) as these are often the crucial elements of the intermodal supply chains that do not have
readily available comparable data. Benchmarking the transport modes, rail, road and sea, is
summarised in terms of the key measures across the categories of price, efficiency and service quality
(including timeliness, consistency, and loss and damage rates).

Measures of the productivity of shipping terminals

Benchmarking the performance of port services can be a very detailed exercise in its own right,
and many studies are available on this topic. Rather than discussing port benchmarking methodologies
in detail, attention is given to the possible scope of such studies, focusing on the most important
measures which should be included in intermodal benchmarking studies.

Key performance indicators could be compared for the following port related activities:

• Pilotage.

• Towage.

• Mooring and un-mooring.

• Stevedoring.

• Port authority/government services (e.g. providing channels, navigation aids and berths).

• The port-land interface.

For intermodal benchmarking studies, key performance indicators should first be reported for the
port activities in their entirety, and then individually for stevedoring and any other aspect that is
identified as a problem or high-priority area. Table 4.3 reports key performance indicators of total port
operations.

58
 Table 4.3. Indicators of the performance of total port activities

Cost Cost per TEU. This could be measured as the sum of the cost per TEU of
ship-based charges, shore-based charges, and government and port authority
charges.

Productivity – inherently terminal based TEU/hectare of land storage.

TEU/berth metre.

TEU/unit of handling equipment.

Timing Average time taken to discharge containers from their arrival at the berth to
their availability for collection.

Early/late ship arrival. This data can be broken down into ship arrival and
departure advice either at 24 hours or inside 24 hours as well as the ex post
measure of actual arrival and departures.

Reliability: Variance of discharge time outlined above.

Loss and damage Number of staff accidents per 100 employees or part thereof.

Absentee rate – hours absent as a proportion of hours worked.

Number of containers damaged per 100 handled.

Number of containers lost per 100 handled.

Value of loss/damage claims per annum.

The most useful indicators include the total port cost per TEU and the measures of timeliness. In
many cases, loss and damage are not major issues. Port productivity measures are often best viewed by
examining stevedoring performance.

Stevedoring performance

Many factors impact on the stevedoring performance of individual ports. Some of the major
factors include institutional arrangements and legislative requirements, ship characteristics, terminal
equipment and technological developments. As with all parts of the supply chain, stevedoring
productivity should be compared judiciously at all times. Geographic groupings can be more
accurately benchmarked than global benchmarks. Where port productivity is incorporated into the
supply chain, the benchmarks should reflect the port performance in conjunction with the wharf and
container park management as well as the land transport and land access connections. Shipping
companies are diversifying into the management of container wharves, container parks and even into
road fleets in order to have greater control and improve scheduling meshing over these sections of the
supply chain corridors.

A ready supply of data exists on stevedoring productivity throughout most of the world’s major
ports. Table 4.4 outlines common measures of capital and labour partial productivity measures of
stevedoring performance.

59
 Table 4.4. Partial productivity measures of stevedoring performance

Capital productivity measures

Crane rates Measures productivity on an individual crane basis. That is, the average number of
lifts or twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) moved over a set period (usually an hour)
by any individual crane.

Elapsed crane rate Number of containers or TEUs moved per crane per elapsed hour of operations. An
elapsed hour is calculated on the basis of the total time over which a ship is worked,
measured from first labour aboard to last labour ashore.

Net crane rate Number of containers or TEUs moved per crane per net hour of operations. A net
crane hour is calculated on the basis of elapsed time minus the time unable to work
the ship due to award shift breaks, ship’s fault, inclement weather, awaiting cargo,
industrial disputes, closed port holidays, or shifts not worked at ship operator’s
request.

Ship rates Measures productivity on a ship basis. That is, the average number of containers or
TEUs loaded or unloaded from the ship per hour by any individual crane.

Elapsed ship rate Number of containers or TEUs moved per ship per elapsed hour of stevedoring
operation.

Net ship rate Number of containers or TEUs moved per ship per net hour of stevedoring operation.

Ships handled – per wharf/pa Number of ships loaded and unloaded per wharf per annum.

Ships handled – per berth/pa Number of ships loaded and unloaded per berth per annum.

Labour productivity measures

Annual lifts per terminal employee Number of containers or TEUs moved per full-time equivalent terminal employee per
year. Terminal employees include all those engaged in terminal activities.

As indicated in Table 4.4, crane rates, net crane rates and crane down time measure the
productivity or efficiency of crane operations at wharves based on a time measure. In addition,
distance and ease-of-movement measures can be used to monitor the efficiency of crane usage. Some
measures that incorporate issues of distance and ease of movement include: berth metres per terminal
crane, crane spread and reach capabilities, crane height capabilities, crane flexibility, mobility, and
adaptability.

Two of the most commonly used capital productivity measures are the number of container
movements per net crane hour and the number of TEUs moved per net crane hour. Several of the other
more obvious partial productivity indicators for terminal efficiency are simply the inverse of the
infrastructure and equipment adequacy measures discussed already. These are:

• TEU/hectare of land storage.

• TEU/berth metre.

• TEU/unit of handling equipment.

Together, these will probably provide an adequate set of indicators of capital productivity.
Adding a measure of labour productivity should complete the set. An ideal measure of labour
productivity would be TEU/person-hour worked. However, the required data are unlikely to be readily
available, and it will probably be necessary to settle for thousand TEU per equivalent full-time
employee per annum.

60
 There are several measures of effectiveness (i.e. involving timing and service-quality issues) that
could be used in the port components of an intermodal transport study (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5. Measures of stevedoring effectiveness

Stevedoring timeliness
Ship turn around time Average time (hours) taken to load or unload ships.
Length of delivery/pick-up time prior to ship Minutes.
loading/unloading
Stevedoring reliability
Berth availability Measures proportion of ship arrivals where a berth is available within four
hours of the scheduled berthing time.
Stevedoring reliability rate Measures the proportion of ship visits where the average crane rate for
each ship is within two containers per hour (+or-) of the quarterly average
rate for the terminal. This rate provides a partial indicator of the variability of
stevedoring productivity at each port.
Cargo receival rate Cargo receival measures the proportion of receivals (exports) completed by
the stevedore’s cut-off time. It provides a partial indicator that can assist
forecasting performance of terminal. A consistent 100% rate shows a
reliability factor of 1.
Crane down time Number of hours a crane is not working for any reason when scheduled to
work as a proportion of hours it is scheduled to work.
Crane breakdown Number of hours a crane is broken down when scheduled to work, as a
proportion of hours it is scheduled to work.
Industrial action Number of hours lost to industrial disputes as a percentage of hours
worked.
Stevedoring loss and damage
Loss and damage Number of staff accidents per 100 employees or part thereof.
Absentee rate – hours absent as a proportion of hours worked.
Number of containers damaged per 100 handled.
Number of containers lost per 100 handled.
Value of loss/damage claims pa.

Similar to the measures for the entire intermodal transport chain, it is important to report data
across the categories listed in Table 4.5. This may involve a minimum set of key performance
indicators such as:

• Ship turnaround time.

• Berth availability.

• Stevedore reliability rate.

• Number of containers lost or damaged per 100 handled.

Stevedoring cost should be measured using the stevedoring charge per TEU. It may be necessary
at times to consider container stevedoring charges and shore-based reefer charges separately.

Timeliness indicators can be broadly divided into two classes: processing duration indicators, and
delays. An appropriate measure for processing duration is container dwell time in terminal. A proxy
for delays in ports is captured in the ship turnaround measure. Consistency of performance at the
process component level is best measured using the variance of the processing duration measures
outlined above (i.e. container dwell time in terminal).

61
Measures of the productivity of rail (and road) terminals

The traditional way of measuring the performance of rail or road terminals is to look at
turnaround time, plant utilisation and productivity within the terminal. Concepts such as delay are very
useful for analysing a whole range of impediments to on-time delivery which, at present, are not
captured by traditional performance measures. Terminal location, intermodal arrangements and
jurisdictions are very important. Those terminals that are the most innovative in using intermodal
solutions are the most successful in overcoming delay. Overcoming institutional and jurisdictional
impediments can lead to improved performance and the customer having a real perception of better
service. The measurement of these latter two impediments relates to all terminal operators for all
modes, and does not just concern rail.

The main procedures to examine (benchmark) for seamless transportation in rail terminals occur
at the intermodal interface. Procedures such as road-to-rail transfers, administrative communications
and connection times or scheduling meshing are very important. What happens at these interfaces
provides the clearest, most meaningful benchmarks for the terminal component of container supply
chains. The measurement of terminal performance should not be limited to what goes on inside the
terminal. The role that the terminal plays in the container supply chain is equally important.

The first traditional measure of rail terminal performance is turnaround time. Turnaround time
describes the time elapsed between when a truck enters a terminal to pick up or deliver a container and
when it leaves the terminal. Within the rail terminal there should be sufficient lifting capacity available
to minimise delay. In the case of rail terminals based on marshalling yards, turnaround is based on the
availability of locomotives for trip trains. Availability of a locomotive in the yard is not enough if it
does not have clearance to depart when its wagons are loaded. In this sense, trains can be delayed
waiting for clearance to depart within the rail terminal just as trucks can be delayed queuing outside
the terminal gates. Consequently, when benchmarking rail terminals it is necessary to be clear about
the definition of turnaround times.

Performance measures which include truck turnaround times within the rail or road terminals and
the wharves as well as the truck turnaround time between them can be easily measured if dedicated
access between container parks, wharf areas, rail terminals and urban road terminals are available.

The main areas of rail and road terminal performance that could be measured as part of an
intermodal transport benchmarking study are outlined in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6. Measures of rail and road terminal performance

Incoming/outgoing by road Incoming/outgoing by rail
Truck turnaround times Computerised efficiency of wagon movements
Automation at entry gates On-time terminal departures
Slotting availability Shunting times
Entry waiting times Locomotive availability
Shipment tracing capabilities Shipment tracing capabilities
Container dwell time in terminals Container dwell time in terminals
CNS and EDI links Crane and wagon harmony

62
Measures of rail performance

An intermodal transport benchmarking study should focus on a few core measures of rail freight
cost, productivity, timeliness and reliability. If major problems are identified with the rail line-haul
then it could subsequently be examined in more detail. On this basis, the three important quantifiable
process elements likely to impact on the efficiency of rail operations are:

• Train size.

• Equipment utilisation.

• Labour productivity.

While it may be suggested that information be collected on the maximum feasible train length,
not all trains will be of the maximum feasible size. As there are significant economies of scale in block
train operation, the actual size of train can have an important effect on intermodal economics. Thus,
the suggested measure is “actual average TEU/train”.

The number of trips made by each wagon is an important measure of capital utilisation. Although
this will obviously be affected by haulage distance, it will also be influenced by other operational and
management factors. It is therefore worthwhile specifically focusing on this aspect. The suggested
measure of equipment utilisation is wagon cycle time.

The preferred measure of labour productivity is TEU-km per full time employee.

As discussed earlier, timeliness indicators can be broadly divided into processing duration
indicators and delays. Suggested indicators for processing duration of line-haul container-rail services
are average train turnaround and TEU handled per train hour. “Average truck queuing time” could be
used to measure delays in the line-haul movement of containers by rail. As was the case for port
performance, consistency of performance at the process component level is best measured using the
variance of the processing duration measures outlined above.

It is possible to consider a much broader range of effectiveness measures of rail freight

movement of containers (Table 4.7). The choice of these measures would depend on the objectives,
scope and resourcing of the intermodal benchmarking project.

Measures of road performance

The measurement of line-haul road performance in moving containers is very similar to that
outlined above for line-haul rail freight. Given the highly competitive and efficient road transport
services in many countries, a wide range of indicators may be considered; however, only a few key
indicators are mentioned here, allowing scope for more detailed benchmarking if necessary.

From the point of view of diagnosing intermodal performance differences, the most important
element of road transport efficiency is the number of TEU per vehicle per annum. This will be affected
principally by four factors:

• Restrictions on operating hours.

• Length of haul.

63
 • The nature of haulage equipment.

• Road vehicle utilisation.

Table 4.7. Measures of the effectiveness of line-haul container rail services

Transit times

Train arrival within 10 minutes of schedule

Train departure within 10 minutes of schedule

Care of goods

Security of containers in transit

% of containers/per trip/per annum lost

% of containers/per trip/per annum damaged

Extent of insurance for loss and damage

% of claims in value to total revenue p.a.

Ease of administering claims

Time taken between claim and full settlement

In-transit storage privileges

Shipment tracing capabilities

Price

Administration efficiency

Ease of contact

Timely and acceptable replies to inquiries

Physical condition of equipment

Equipment availability

Wagon availability

Locomotive availability

Technological standards

Comparable road/rail cycle times

Invoicing accuracy

The first three of these factors are operating factors more relevant to the following sections .
Probably the most important aspect here is the extent to which road vehicles delivering a container to
an intermodal terminal (port or railhead) depart unloaded, and those that collect a container arrive
unloaded. The suggested measure is TEU loaded/unloaded per road vehicle at intermodal terminals.
Similar to the measures suggested for rail freight, an appropriate indicator of processing duration of
line-haul container road services is average truck turnaround. Average truck queuing time could be
used to measure delays in the line-haul movement of containers by road. As was the case for port
performance, consistency of performance at the process component level is best measured using the
variance of the processing duration measures outlined above.

64
Measures of ship performance

Although the ocean transport leg is an important part of the intermodal transport chain, whether
there is any point in attempting to measure the efficiency of this element is questionable. The
international mobility of ships and the relative ease of entry have led to a high degree of
homogenisation of shipping performance. The performance differences that do exist are generally
transitory, except for those that are dictated by the physical characteristics of port facilities used by the
vessels. These should be included in the benchmarking framework as infrastructure factors.

However, for the sake of completeness, it would be possible to collect information on a small
number of key performance indicators similar to those discussed for rail and road line-haul services.

The cost measure would be either cost per TEU or cost per TEU per 1 000 km travelled.

Ship productivity measures could include TEU kilometres per year or TEU handled per ship per
hour while an utilisation measure would be average stacking rates (i.e. average number of containers
per trip as a proportion of the maximum number of containers per trip).

Timeliness indicators could include frequency of service offered and transit time (in hours or
days). Reliability could be measured by the extent of delays in coming to berth (i.e. percentage of trips
in which arrivals were more than about 10% behind schedule). Other elements of delay may be
important in specific instances, but obtaining detailed data on them is generally difficult: their effect
can in any case be captured in the ship turnaround measure. Another measure of reliability may be
given by the variation in the average transit time compared to the scheduled transit time.

Accounting for the impact of different inputs to intermodal transport chains

The physical attributes of many aspects of the elements of an intermodal supply chain can have a
significant impact on productivity. For example, the amount of storage area at terminals will affect
both cost and productivity, with larger terminals generally requiring less handling than smaller
terminals. The main inputs that should be considered in an intermodal transport benchmarking project
may be split between infrastructure and equipment factors.

Infrastructure

Maritime access

Two elements of maritime infrastructure may have sufficient impact on the efficiency of the
intermodal transport chain to justify monitoring as part of a benchmarking study:

• Depth of approach channels.

• Berth availability.

The depth of water available in a port will constrain the maximum size of vessel that can be
deployed, and hence the ability to realise economies of scale on the ocean transport leg. To appreciate
the possible impact of this factor, data should be collected on “draft”.

65
 By far the most common cause of delays to shipping in the container transport industry is the lack
of berth availability. If the vessel cannot come to berth on schedule, the implications for the efficiency,
timeliness and predictability of intermodal transport movements are obvious. An intermodal
benchmarking study should therefore report measures of berth occupancy and the number of berths.
These two factors need to be considered simultaneously since the impact of berth occupancy on
expected delay depends on the number of berths. Berth length per thousand TEU handled is often used
as an alternative indicator of berth adequacy. This measure has the advantage of being readily
available from published data and unequivocal.

Modal interchange

The most important factor here is the adequacy of the storage area. Generous storage areas can
facilitate intermodal performance by reducing the number of within-terminal moves that are required
to handle containers. Hence, the appropriate measure should be thousand TEU per annum per hectare.

Rail transport

Two elements of rail infrastructure that may have sufficient impact on the efficiency of the
intermodal transport chain to justify monitoring as part of a benchmarking study are:

• Pathway availability.

• Topography.

The availability of pathways on the rail system can have a significant impact on the performance
of intermodal rail operations. This is especially the case where rail operators share track with
passenger movements (which are given priority on most networks). Pathways through systems that
share track with commuter trains can be a particular problem. Thus, an intermodal benchmarking
study should collect information to indicate the relevant priority of rail pathways and their impact on
scheduling and operations.

Some studies have also suggested that the topography of rail routes is also important. Clearly, in
extreme cases – for instance, where the terrain is very mountainous – topographical differences could
have a significant effect on transit times, fuel costs and rail maintenance. In general, however,
topography is unlikely to be sufficiently important to justify undertaking the difficult task of
developing an appropriate quantitative measure. This can be done by making appropriate assumptions
about differences in fuel consumption.

Road transport

The level of congestion on the road network will clearly have an impact on both efficiency and
reliability. The appropriate measure is “average travel speeds on relevant trunk road network”.
Particularly at maritime terminals, the quality of gate access is often cited as an important determinant
of road transport efficiency. A suggested measure is “TEU by road per gate lane”.

66
Equipment

Terminal

In principle, the quantity and quality of terminal equipment could significantly impact the
efficiency of intermodal operations. In practice, it is likely to be an issue only where the most
expensive items of equipment are concerned: the obvious case is that of container gantries in marine
terminals. Suggested measure: TEU handled per unit of equipment.

Rail

The maximum train capacity is likely to be the most important element here. This will be
determined by two factors: the maximum length of train that can be accommodated at the terminal and
along the routes that will be transited; and the ability to make use of double-stack technology.
Suggested measure: max TEU per train.

Road

Differences in road equipment are far more limited than differences in rail, and in this case are
likely to be reduced principally to whether or not double-bottom road vehicles can be used. Suggested
measure: proportion of double-bottom vehicles used.

Labour

Intermodal performance will be influenced by both the unit cost and the skill level of available
labour. Realistically, only the first of these is likely to be readily amenable to quantification. For most
exercises, a simple index of national wage levels for the transport industries will probably provide an
adequate indication of the influence of this factor. Suggested measure: unit labour costs, preferably in
the transport industry if available.

Accounting for the operating environment

For the most part, characteristics of the operating environment are unlikely to be readily
amenable to quantification. However, in some circumstances these may have a significant influence on
performance, and it would be wise to provide for a narrative of significant characteristics to be
included in any benchmarking study.

Physical

One dimension of the operating environment that is readily amenable to quantification is the
length of haul for the intermodal movement. Suggested measures: average length of inland haulage;
average length of sea transit.

67
Institutional

This may cover such factors as the nature of the organisations that control the intermodal chains
that are being benchmarked. For instance, are the rail operations effectively extensions of the
operations of ocean carriers, as tends to be the case in the major trans-continental movements in the
United States? Or are land transport operators – in particular, rail operators – the prime movers? What
role is played by third parties that are not aligned with the transport service providers (e.g. third-party
logistics providers and freight forwarders)?

The use of fixed time-windows for ship and train operations, and booked timeslots for trucks,
may be of interest.

Political and regulatory

Political and regulatory factors can also have a major influence on intermodal performance. For
instance, the willingness (or unwillingness) of some European governments to expose their rail
operations to competition is argued by some to have been a significant determinant in the relative
efficiency of European and North American intermodal operations. The attitudes of governments to
collective agreements on intermodal services may also warrant attention: the European Community,
for instance, does not allow liner shipping conferences to act collectively on the provision of
intermodal services, while the United States does.

In some circumstances – most particularly where non-EU countries are concerned, as in the Asia
to Europe land-bridging operations, or in new intermodal routes to Central Asian economies –
imperfect harmonisation of documentation requirements and inspection processes may be a major
constraint on intermodal performance.

Other aspects that may be relevant in particular cases are restriction on the operating hours of port
terminals; and regulations governing driving hours for truck drivers and locomotive crews.

Competitive forces within and between container supply chains

The total supply chain must supply a seamless, efficient service along its entire length. There is
little market incentive for co-ordination between participants because the same competitive elements
that encourage participants to be individually efficient discourage them from working together to
become collectively more efficient.

Therefore, while market forces work at the individual participatory level of competition to
stimulate greater efficiencies, there are few such incentives to stimulate the entire international supply
chain. Although this situation is changing, with shipping companies leading the movement of vertical
integration along supply chains, the extent of ownership along any international supply chain is still in
its infancy. Consequently, any benchmarking exercise on global transport supply chains needs to
include an institutional category. This category needs to list appropriate institutional, governmental
policies and industrial associations that work to stimulate overall seamlessness. A broader global level
of competition should be benchmarked that guides the total freight transport chain to overall efficiency
via seamlessness. Healthy competition thus can occur at the global level, stimulating the total chain,
and at the modal level, stimulating individual participants within each chain. Both elements need to be
benchmarked.

68
Applying intermodal benchmarking methodologies

This section briefly examines two issues which need to be considered when applying the
intermodal benchmarking methodologies outlined in the previous section. These are:

• Data sources for such studies.

• Examples that may be included to obtain “best practice” comparators.

A detailed examination of data sources or possible best practice ports is not provided, as the
selection of data and ports will depend on the objectives, scope and coverage of each particular
intermodal benchmarking study. Further, each intermodal benchmarking study would involve
extensive contact with customers and key service providers to determine what elements of the chain
should be benchmarked, which other supply chains should be involved and to collect data directly.

Overview of data sources

An intermodal benchmarking study would typically require data on:

• Three transport modes: rail, road and sea.

• Three terminal operations: ports, rail terminals and road terminals.

• Performance measures on each of the above services and for the entire chain spanning price,
financial viability, timeliness (frequency of service and transit time), reliability (measures of
punctuality), loss and damage rates and ease-of-use (mainly administrative) factors.

• Customers’ perceptions of service, including their critical success factors.

• Characteristics of the core infrastructure and equipment used.

• Operating characteristics for each of the separate intermodal transport supply chains being
benchmarked.

This will require an extensive data collection exercise, with budget, time and data constraints
demanding that priority be given to collecting a few key performance indicators across each of the
categories listed above.

It appears that no centralised database exists that can be drawn upon to provide all the data
required for meaningful intermodal transport benchmarking studies across countries.

As with the modal benchmarking studies we have identified in this report, data collection would
typically involve a mix drawing from:

• Statistics publicly reported by each of the service providers (e.g. port authority annual
reports).

• Other relevant studies published by third parties (e.g. government reports on transport
performance or industry or academic studies).

69
 • Specific data requests to service providers, often in survey format.

• Other previously private information that service providers are willing to release.

• Data provided by customers.

• Specific data requests of customers.

It would not be possible to undertake a meaningful intermodal benchmarking study without

collecting performance and background data directly from all the main service providers and
customers. The extent to which such studies could draw on published information provided by third
parties would depend on the nature and scope of each individual intermodal benchmarking study. This
would need to be examined on a country-by-country basis.

Case study of an integrated intermodal port

There are many geographic groupings that could provide interesting and meaningful intermodal
container transport benchmarking studies. For any such grouping, or indeed for any benchmarking
study, it is imperative to include an entity that can be considered as “best practice”. In this way, the
benchmarking study establishes the magnitude of performance improvement that other participants
should be capable of achieving and provides a guide to the practical steps that could be taken to
achieve these productivity improvements.

Port performance will be central to the effective intermodal operations of supply chains that
involve a sea transport component. Thus, it is important that intermodal container transport studies
include ports that have implemented leading practices to ensure effective intermodal integration.

A recent study carried out for the Australian Marine and Ports Group (MPG, 1998)22 by Tasman
Asia Pacific and Meyrick and Associates, examined measures to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of container and break–bulk ports. Examining measures to improve intermodal
integration was a central part of this study, which included an international fact–finding mission
covering eight leading ports: Vancouver, Seattle, Tacoma, London, Felixstowe, Rotterdam, Antwerp
and Zeebrugge.

Intermodal integration was a problem in all the ports visited in the MPG study. Port authorities
and service providers were generally well aware of the problems encountered by shippers and were
initiating a range of actions to improve the flow of cargo. However, many of the problem areas lay
outside their jurisdictions. The ports with the best record in achieving integration between modes took
a proactive approach to removing bottlenecks by bringing together parties with a mutual interest in
solving the problem or by directly providing services themselves. From an institutional perspective,
the most innovative solutions to this problem were found in Vancouver.

While Vancouver has many problems to be resolved within its transport chain, it does provide a
useful case study of what can be achieved through co-operation among the different players in the
chain. For immediate port–related problems, the Vancouver Port Corporation provides a particularly
useful role model as a strategic, whole–of–port collaborative manager. At the city level, the Greater

22. Marine and Ports Group (1998), Measures to Promote Effective and Efficient Container Port
Practices, report prepared by Meyrick and Associates and Tasman Asia Pacific for the Marine and
Ports Group of the Australian Transport Council, Canberra, October.

70
Vancouver Gateway Council provides a useful model of a formal attempt to co-ordinate transport
interests to lobby local government to help solve integration problems. At a higher regional level, the
most useful and frequently quoted model is that of WESTAC in Western Canada. By providing high-
quality, even–handed research and a forum where senior government, transport company and union
representatives can come together to openly discuss problem issues, WESTAC (the Western Transport
Advisory Council) has been uniquely successful in advancing awareness of the need to look at the
operation of the transport system as a whole.

While not replicating the findings here, the MPG report is recommended as a guide to identifying
leading container ports and understanding their intermodal co-ordination strategies.

Evaluation model

The common practice of overall benchmarking is to search for industry or functional activities or
outputs that can be classified as best in class, as world-class, or as representing best practice. The basic
premise of benchmarking is to learn something of value from someone or someplace else, something
that helps you perform more effectively or efficiently. The goal of most benchmarking activities is to
learn from the best.

Thus, a so-called intermodal evaluation procedure can be developed that incorporates critical
success factors that can be benchmarked with competitors. The benchmarking conditions for
comparing like with like have to be adhered to. Then, by reducing all criteria to monetary values an
arithmetic model can be used. Often, these models are difficult to apply due to problems in
accumulating appropriate data. As a consequence, raw data in the form of KPIs are often used.

Three steps are needed to construct an intermodal evaluation approach. These involve:

• Indicators of the modal split and the intermodal relation for all modes.

• Weights for the indicators.

• An aggregation rule to find one final value for the evaluation procedure.

The indicators should be relevant, complete, and quantifiable. In the best of cases, all indicators
should be measurable in monetary items. We have listed numerous indicators above and any of these
factors can be used within the model. For example, the following four indicators have been chosen for
simplicity:

• Price of transportation over total supply chain.

• Cost of total travel time.

• Cost of total waiting time.

• Value of container load.

As all indicators can be measured in terms of money, no transformation problems of

measurement or weightings are incurred before aggregating the values. The only information required
is the travel time, the probability of non-arrival, loss or damage insurance sum and a commodity
factor. Normally, evaluations are undertaken on specific and targeted components such as by routes or

71
corridors. Geographic groupings incorporating shipping lines, wharves, container parks, and access
roads or barge facilities could be benchmarked. Another section of supply chains where benchmarking
could be undertaken could include similar geographic road/rail land transport corridors in the United
States. Asian regional shipping lines and associated land transport functions may be another possible
component. If an aggregate supply chain is benchmarked, then the following model can be used. The
aggregation of the data would mean that the use of the results would have some limitations.

The intermodal evaluation model (IEM) is valued by the following formula:

(1) IEM = (α ⋅ d 1 ) + (β ⋅ d 2 ) + (γ ⋅ d 3 ) + (δ ⋅ d 4 )

or specified for modes, routes and commodities:

( ) ( ) ( ) (
(2) IEMi,r,c = α i ,r ,c ⋅ d 1,i ,r ,c + β i ,r ,c ⋅ d 2,i ,r ,c + γ i , r ,c ⋅ d 3,i ,r ,c + δ i ,r ,c ⋅ d 4 ,i ,r ,c )
with:

IEM= value calculated by the intermodal evaluation model

i = index of the transportation mode
r = index of the route
c = index of the container
α = container rate factor
d1 = price of transportation
β = travel time in hours
d2 = cost of travel time in terms of money per hour and per container
γ = waiting time in hours
d3 = cost of waiting time in terms of money per hour and per container
δ = probability of non-arrival, loss or damage
d4 = value of the container contents in terms of money (may be on a per ton basis).

The dimension of the value IEM is money per container. Equations (1) and (2) are only specified
for one transport mode on the route r for the container c. This is only one part of the evaluation model,
which has to take into account all modes I on all routes r and also all types of containers c. Therefore,
all evaluations I, r, c of the total network are summed as shown:

(3) IEM= M1 . IEM1 + M2 . IEM2 + …M1 . IEM1 → min (or max depending on variables used)

subject to:

G
(4) M i = ∑m
g =1
i ,c

72
 where:

IEM= value calculated by the intermodal evaluation model

M = volume of all containers c = (I,…, C) in the network transported by mode I (in tonnes).

The purpose of this model is to estimate the best set of transport modes and terminal connections
for the overall container supply chain. For cost efficiency the equation has to be minimised, but if
other indicators are used the function may need to be maximised (e.g. a service quality indicator).

The model as presented uses no weights but again, depending on the service quality indicators,
various weightings can be incorporated in the equation as only a simple additive aggregation rule
applies. Various computer-based models have typically incorporated this simple model to handle large
amounts of data. The model needs to be used with caution as the data are often difficult to collect in
standardised forms.

This approach was developed for measuring performances of the road and rail transport industries
and ports of Australia. The aim was to examine their performance relative to that of their competitors
and to identify areas for improvement, thereby providing advice to policy makers on possible policy
options for improving performance through industry reforms (BIE, 1992).23

In practice, applying the model in its complete form was difficult due to problems of data
availability, as well as different approaches to measuring inputs and outputs. Therefore, the model was
applied in a modified form, focusing on those indicators which were most relevant to the objectives of
the government and industries in measuring performance.

23. Bureau of Industry Economics, Australia, International Benchmarking/International Performance

Indicators (1992-1995).

73
 Annex 1

INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP

Chairman: Fred Heuer (the Netherlands)

Members of the Sub-Group on Benchmarking

Garry Tulipan (Chairman) Canada

Catherine Kim Canada
Brigitte Parent Canada
Miroslav Capka Czech Republic
Miroslav Kubasek Czech Republic
Shunsuke Otsuka Japan
Hiroyuki Yamamoto Japan
Satoru Mizushima Japan
Shigenori Kenzaka Japan
Hideaki Iwasaki Japan
Ryuichi Yoshimoto Japan
Fred Heuer Netherlands
Henriëtte Noordhof Netherlands
Marjolein Masclee Netherlands
Matthias Rinderknecht Switzerland
Rolf Zimmermann Switzerland
Elizabeth McDonnel United Kingdom
Judith Ritchie United Kingdom
Harry Caldwell United States
Siegbert Schacknies United States
Robert Radics United States
Kerstin Sterner European Commission
Martine Sophie Fouvez ECMT
Anthony Ockwell OECD Secretariat
John White OECD Secretariat
Yuri Furusawa OECD Secretariat

75
 Annex 2

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS

Abbreviations:

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

UIRR International Union of Combined Road-Rail Transport Companies
ECMT European Conference of Ministers of Transport
C Freight container
SB Swap body
ST Semi-trailer
HC High cube
Ro-La Rolling motorway
AGTC European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related
Installations
EU European Union
IT Intermodal transport
TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit
FEU Forty-foot Equivalent Unit

Terms

(European Commission – Directorate General for Transport):

Multimodal transport: Carriage of goods by at least two different modes of transport.

Intermodal transport: The movement of goods in one and the same loading unit or vehicle which uses
successively several modes of transport without handling of the goods themselves in changing modes.
Combined transport: Intermodal transport where the major part of the European journey is by rail and any
initial and/or final legs carried out by road are as short as possible.
Rolling Road: Transport or complete road vehicles on low-floor wagons.
Accompanied transport: Transport of complete road vehicles via another mode of transport (e.g. by ferry or
train) accompanied by the driver.
Unaccompanied transport: Transport of road vehicles or part vehicles through another mode of transport
(e.g. by ferry or train) not accompanied by the driver.

77
Roll-on-roll-off “Ro-Ro”: The facility for a road vehicle to be driven on and off a ship or, as in the case of
rolling road, a train.

Lift-on-lift-off “Lo-Lo”: Loading and unloading of ITU using lift equipment.

Intermodal transport unit (ITU): Containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers suitable for intermodal transport.

Semi-trailer: Any vehicle intended to be coupled to a motor vehicle in such a way that part of it rests on the
motor vehicle and a substantial part of its weight of the load is borne by the motor vehicle. These may have to be
specially adapted to be used in combined transport.

Loading unit: Container or swap body.

High cube container: Container of standard ISO length and width but with extra height – 9’6” (2.9m) instead of
8” (2.44m). For the time being, this only applies to 40’ containers.

Swap body: Freight carrying units not strong enough to be stackable, except in some cases when empty or top-
lifted. Used only in rail/road movements.

Terminal: Place where a modal change takes place.

78
 Annex 3

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN CANADA

The following series of tables provides information on all modes of freight transport in Canada
for the years 1990, 1993, 1995 and 1998. Data have been provided wherever possible although, due to
the unavailability of some data, there are inevitably some statistical gaps in the tables.

Table A3.1. Comparative table of modes of transport, 1998

Indicators, 1998 Road Rail Shipping Air
Domestic freight moved (million tonne-km) 76 694 Aggregate 35 800 594.3
domestic and
international
Domestic freight moved – containers n.a. 28 500 n.a. n.a.
(million tonne-km)
International freight moved (million tonne-km) 61 396 Aggregate 1 871 500 195.1
domestic and
international
International freight moved – containers n.a. 4 600 n.a. n.a.
(million tonne-km)
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonnes)1 42/67 47/27 11/6 <1
Percentage share international traffic (tonnes)1 13/30 20/16 67/54 <1
Energy consumption and pollution per tonne-km n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lading factor and degree of utilisation n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1. Canadian trucking data are available only for the for-hire trucking industry. It is estimated that private trucking accounts for
60-70% of commercial trucking in Canada. The first value shown is modal share using the for-hire figure for trucking. The
second value shown is modal share using an estimated value for total trucking; this estimate is the for-hire figure divided by a
factor of 0.35.

79
 Table A3.2. Rail freight
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight moved (billion tonne-km)1 See notes
Domestic freight lifted (million tonnes) 191.8 180.9 203.0 202.4
2
Domestic freight moved – containers (billion tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. 28.5
Domestic freight lifted – containers lifted (million tonnes) 7.1 6.7 10.6 13.3
Domestic freight lifted – No. of containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight moved (billion tonne-km) See notes
International freight lifted (million tonnes) 50.5 59.7 72.1 82.4
International freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. 4.6
(billion tonne-km)3
International freight lifted – containers (million tonnes) 2.9 2.9 4.5 4.7
Percentage share of domestic traffic4 48/28 49/29 48/28 47/27
Percentage share of international traffic4 16/14 19/16 19/16 20/16
Energy consumption & pollution per tonne-km See following rows
Fuel intensity (tonne-km per litre)5 n.a. n.a. 135 n.a.
Energy demand (petajoules)6 89.5 n.a. 80.9 n.a.
GHG emissions (grams per tonne-km)5 n.a. n.a. 20 n.a.
GHG emissions (megatonnes) 5.640 5.645 5.966 6.355
Carbon dioxide 5.008 5.013 5.298 5.643
Methane 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.007
Nitrous oxide 0.626 0.626 0.662 0.705
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne (CAD/tonne) 25.56 25.33 23.78 23.18
Price per tonne (CAD/tonne-km) 0.0241 0.0233 0.0227 0.0227
Lading factor and degree of utilisation n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accidents7 903 1 025 1 276 1 075
Accidents per million train-miles 13.2 13.4 16.4 14.2
GHG: Greenhouse gas.
1. Cannot disaggregate domestic and international values. Aggregate figures are: 248.4, 256.3, 280.5 and 299.5 for the years
listed. In 1998 Class I traffic accounted for 268.7 billion t-km; 74% of this was associated with domestic traffic.
2. Includes traffic between Canadian maritime ports (maritime imports and exports) and other Canadian points.
3. Represents rail movements across the Canada-US border.
4. Canadian trucking data is available only for the for-hire trucking industry. It is estimated that private trucking accounts for
60-70% of commercial trucking in Canada. The first value shown is modal share using the for-hire figure for trucking. The
second value shown is modal share using an estimated value for total trucking; this estimate is the for-hire figure divided by a
factor of 0.35.
5. Estimates.
6. Data available for passengers and freight.
7. Includes 48, 80, 71 and 68 accidents involving passenger trains for the years listed, since some of these may have involved
collisions with freight trains.

80
 Table A3.3. Air freight
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic cargo (tonne-km) 472 798 013 423 975 342 396 080 464 594 336 935
Domestic enplaned cargo (tonnes)1 317 623 281 551 223 592 462 964
Domestic freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International cargo (tonne-km) 265 800 165 193 706 641 248 373 727 195 053 188
International enplaned cargo (tonnes)2 85 017 80 323 97 331 92 861
International freight lifted – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight lifted – value n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Enplaned belly-hold cargo (tonnes) 305 950 297 332 341 210 373 991
Enplaned freighter cargo (tonnes) 93 104 76 515 55 567 73 614
Percentage share of domestic traffic <1 <1 <1 <1
Percentage share of international traffic <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy demand (petajoules)3 185.2 n.a. 185.1 n.a.
GHG emissions (megatonnes) n.a. 6.805 8.000 n.a.
Carbon dioxide n.a. 6.600 7.759 n.a.
Methane n.a. 0.004 0.005 n.a.
Nitrous oxide n.a. 0.201 0.236 n.a.
Total accidents 498 422 390 386
Fatal accidents 47 48 52 31
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lading factor and degree of utilisation n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
GHG: Greenhouse gas; enplaned cargo: cargo which is loaded as well as traffic stopping over at an airport.
Note: Figures represent cargo mass shipped by level 1 and 2 charter and major scheduled carriers. Regional/local operators are
not required to submit cargo data. Figures represent 90% sample of level 2 carriers.
1. Total mass of enplaned cargo destined for Canadian airports.
2. Total mass of enplaned cargo destined for the United States and other international airports.
3. Data available for passengers and freight.

81
 Table A3.4. Road transport
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight moved (million tonne-km)1 54 701 51 977 65 806 76 694
Domestic freight moved – containers (million tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1
International freight moved – total (million tonne-km) 23 070 32 636 44 205 61 396
International freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Percentage share international traffic n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
HGV mileage intensity (base: 1980 = 100) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1
Domestic tonnes lifted (thousand tonnes) 149 327 140 383 167 425 177 829
International tonnes lifted (thousand tonnes)1 24 919 33 018 43 515 56 102
Tonnes moved (thousand tonne-km)1 77 770 727 84 613 208 110 010 741 138 090 057
Average length of haul (km) 446 488 522 590
Average load: rigid (tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Average load: articulated vehicles (tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Empty/ light running n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Percentage share of domestic traffic2 37/63 38/63 40/65 42/67
Percentage share of international traffic2 8/20 10/25 12/27 13/30
Number of collisions involving heavy trucks3 causing n.a. 8 658 8 591 n.a.
fatalities or injuries
Fatal collisions n.a. 516 465 n.a.
Straight-truck n.a. 204 159 n.a.
Tractor-trailer n.a. 319 314 n.a.
Personal injuries collisions n.a. 8 142 8 126 n.a.
Straight-truck n.a. 4 673 4 492 n.a.
Tractor-trailer n.a. 3 573 3 756 n.a.
Fatalities in collisions involving heavy trucks 695 615 581 n.a.
Straight-truck 257 249 175 n.a.
Tractor-trailer 438 366 406 n.a.
Injuries in collisions involving heavy trucks 14 042 11 949 12109 n.a.
Straight-truck 882 6757 6 522 n.a.
Tractor-trailer 5 960 5 192 5 587 n.a.
Lading factor: rigid n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lading factor: articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Fuel consumption (litres per 100 km)
Gasoline trucks 13.3 n.a. 13.3 n.a.
Light and medium diesel trucks 21.9 n.a. 21.6 n.a.
Heavy diesel trucks 41.3 n.a. 40.6 n.a.
Fuel intensity (tonne-km per litre)4 n.a. n.a. 24 n.a.
5
Energy demand (petajoules) 645.4 n.a. 771.1 n.a.
GHG emissions (grammes per tonne-km)4 n.a. n.a. 114 n.a.

82
 Table A3.4. Road transport (cont’d.)
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Average speeds
Motorways (70 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Dual carriageways (70 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Single carriageways (60 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Urban roads (40 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Urban roads (30 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Vehicle safety – VI/testing failure rate (%) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
6
Emission standards (thousand tonnes)
NOx n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PM10 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Note: 1990 data available second week of August 2000. 1998 data available in October 2000.
1. Includes only Canadian domiciled for-hire Class I and II carriers (carriers earning gross annual intercity revenues of
CAD 350 000 or more (1987), CAD 500 000 or more (1988-89), CAD 1 million or more (1990-96). Starting in 1997, includes
long-distance carriers with annual revenues of CAD 1 million or more, i.e. carriers with at least 50% of revenues coming from
long-distance (>80 km) movements. Local carriers’ activity not captured due to methodological changes (NAICS criteria) making
historical comparison inexact (underestimated level of intra-provincial traffic) for the years shown. Private trucking is estimated
to account for 60-70% of commercial trucking activity but is not included in the table.
2. Canadian trucking data is available only for the for-hire trucking industry. It is estimated that private trucking accounts for 60
to 70% of commercial trucking in Canada. The first value shown is modal share using the for-hire figure for trucking. The
second value shown is modal share using an estimated value for total trucking; this estimate is the for-hire figure divided by a
factor of 0.35.
3. Heavy truck: > 4.536 kg.
4. Estimates. Diesel trucks – for-hire.
5. Energy demand for gasoline trucks and for diesel cars and trucks.
6. Data might be available.

83
 Table A3.5. Maritime freight
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight moved (billion tonne-km)1 n.a. n.a. 39.0 35.8
Domestic containerised traffic (thousand units) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
2
International freight moved (billion tonne-km) n.a. n.a. 1 769.4 1 871.5
International containerised traffic (thousand units)3 1 232 1 258 1 534 1 959
Domestic freight lifted (million tonnes) n.a. (See data for coastwise traffic)
International freight lifted (million tonnes) 232.3 224.2 260.0 279.5
4
Total international bulk traffic (million tonnes) 172.4 166.2 192.8 204.8
Percentage share domestic traffic5 15/9 14/8 12/7 11/6
Percentage share international traffic5 76/66 71/59 69/57 67/54
Total domestic combined transport (thousand units) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total international combined transport (thousand units) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total coastwise traffic (million tonnes)6 60.3 50.0 50.5 48.3
Total unitised short-sea and near-sea traffic (thousand units) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total inland water traffic (million tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Marine accident figures
Vessels involved in accidents, excluding fishing vessels7 586 398 384 279
8
Deaths 15 4 21 27
Injuries8 63 51 46 43
Fuel intensity (tonne-km per litre)9 n.a. n.a. 311 n.a.
Energy demand (petajoules)10 107.3 n.a. 102.8 n.a.
GHG emissions (grammes per tonne-km)2 n.a. n.a. 9 n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1. Estimate. Represents shipments between Canadian points (including domestic trans-shipment for international destinations).
2. Estimates.
3. Containers loaded and unloaded. Includes empty units.
4. Includes grains, mineral and mine products, and liquid bulk. Transport Canada, Economic Analysis.
5. Canadian trucking data is available only for the for-hire trucking industry. It is estimated that private trucking accounts for
60-70% of commercial trucking in Canada. The first value shown is modal share using the for-hire figure for trucking. The
second value shown is modal share using an estimated value for total trucking; this estimate is the for-hire figure divided by a
factor of 0.35.
6. As defined by the United Kingdom, as opposed to “domestic freight lifted”.
7. Includes Canadian and foreign flag vessels.
8. Shipping accidents and accidents aboard ship, excluding fishing, passenger and ferry vessels.
9. Estimates. Domestic use by eastern carriers.
10. Data available for passengers and freight.

84
 Table A3.6. Vessel arrival by registered tonnage

Number of vessels
Net registered tonnage1 (tonnes) (arrivals)
1990 1993 1995 1998
Tankers
1 – 4 999 2 804 1 950 1 835 1 881
5 000 - 19 999 1 456 1 299 1 220 1 212
20 000 - 99 999 174 174 252 315
100 000+ 16 13 28 24
Ro-Ro vessels2
1 - 4 999
5 000 - 19 999
20 000+
Fully cellular container vessels
1 - 4 999 34 34 82 129
5 000 - 19 999 774 689 844 1 012
20 000+ 153 147 163 436
Other dry cargo vessels
1 - 4 999 31 635 28 097 29 321 23 127
5 000 - 19 999 11 005 10 329 11 172 11 098
20 000 - 99 999 1 180 1 418 1 358 1 408
100 000+ 0 0 0 0
Total 54 755 50 149 52 792 46 366
1. Deadweight tonnes as submitted by the United Kingdom are not available for Canadian data.
2. Ro-Ro vessels not consistently distinguished from other vessels for the time series. Ro-Ro arrivals for 1995 and 1998 were
generally comparable in number to tanker arrivals.

85
 Table A3.7. Canada’s top three container ports: Montreal
1990 1993 1995 1998
Total domestic tonnage 7 606 481 5 088 611 5 690 481 5 848 390
Of which: Bulk 7 225 741 4 799 408 5 339 087 5 315 476
Container & Ro-Ro 227 242 191 152 248 193 246 520

Total international tonnage 13 518 950 10 718 055 12 913 115 15 158 615
Of which: Bulk 6 962 014 3 831 790 4 693 508 4 842 013
Container & Ro-Ro 5 435 577 5 753 386 6 945 858 8 449 173

Quayage (total length of berths) n.a. n.a. n.a. 3 000 m1

Draught (metres) n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.71
Total container area (hectares) 60 68 70 70
No. of cranes 13 13 13 14
TEU per metre quay n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hectare n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane intensity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per crane hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane productivity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accident rate n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Ro-Ro: Passenger motor cars and vehicles and other motor vehicles.
Note: Total domestic and international tonnages include bulk, containerised and general cargo. Montreal, Vancouver and
Halifax handle a large majority of Canada’s container traffic, therefore tables for Canada’s fourth and fifth largest container ports
have not been developed.
1. Current situation, www.port-montreal.com

86
 Table A3.7. Canada’s top three container ports: Vancouver
1990 1993 1995 1998
Total domestic tonnage 3 193 805 2 547 410 2 504 656 1 412 840
Of which: Bulk 3 015 601 2 515 612 2 360 119 1 398 540
Container & Ro-Ro 16 744 2 061 100 0

Total international tonnage 61 337 335 56 330 323 66 936 165 69 263 575
Of which: Bulk 58 182 624 51 122 222 60 518 685 59 462 523
Container & Ro-Ro 2 656 686 3 767 773 4 504 193 7 202 657

Quayage (total length of berths) n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 107 1

Draught (metres) n.a. n.a. n.a. 15.851
Total container area (hectares) n.a. n.a. n.a. 921
No. of cranes n.a. n.a. n.a. 131
TEU per metre quay n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hectare n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane intensity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per crane hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane productivity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accident rate n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Ro-Ro: Passenger motor cars and vehicles and other motor vehicles.
Note: Total Domestic and International tonnages include bulk, containerised and general cargo. Montreal, Vancouver and
Halifax handle a large majority of Canada’s container traffic, therefore tables for Canada’s fourth and fifth largest container ports
have not been developed.
1. Current situation.

87
 Table A3.7. Canada’s top three container ports: Halifax
1990 1993 1995 1998
Total domestic tonnage 4 009 746 2 885 076 2 569 492 2 625 149
Of which: Bulk 3 624 813 2 615 743 2 352 121 2 360 345
Container & Ro-Ro 309 794 237 299 159 500 166 982

Total international tonnage 12 827 478 11 293 243 10 783 929 10 859 585
Of which: Bulk 8 857 315 7 962 819 7 013 726 7 151 024
Container & Ro-Ro 3 853 802 3 227 704 3 679 669 3 675 111

Quayage (total length of berths) 1 822.5 1 822.5 1 822.5 1 822.5

Draught (metres) n.a. n.a. n.a. 15.31
Total container area (hectares) 50.17 48.57 48.57 48.57
No. of cranes 5 7 7 7
TEU per metre quay n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hectare n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane intensity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per crane hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane productivity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accident rate n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1
Percentage containers moved by rail 80 80 70 70
Ro-Ro: Passenger motor cars and vehicles and other motor vehicles.
Note: Total Domestic and International tonnages include bulk, containerised and general cargo. Montreal, Vancouver and
Halifax handle a large majority of Canada’s container traffic, therefore tables for Canada’s fourth and fifth largest container ports
have not been developed.
1. Current situation, www.portofhalifax.ca

88
 Table A3.8. Length of national rail, road and inland waterway networks
Kilometres

Inland
Year Rail1 Road2
waterway
1990 84 567 n.a. n.a.
1991 83 701 n.a. n.a.
1992 83 363 n.a. n.a.
1993 83 225 24 000 n.a.
1994 82 178 n.a. n.a.
1995 79 081 24 450 n.a.
1996 77 684 n.a. n.a.
1997 77 111 24 400 n.a.
1998 76 618 24 240 n.a.
1. In track-kilometres. The length of the rail system in route-kilometres in 1998 was
50 430 km.
2. The table shows Canadian National Highway System (NHS) in route-kilometres.
The NHS is defined as any existing, primary routes that provide for inter-provincial
and international trade and travel by connecting as directly as possible a capital city
or major provincial population/commercial centre in Canada with: i) another capital
city or major provincial population or commercial centre; ii) a major port of entry or
exit to the US highway network; iii) another transportation mode served directly by
the highway mode. In 1998 approximately 70% of the NHS was two-lane. More
generally, length of public roads in two-lane equivalent kilometres (all road surface
types) was 888 898 km in 1991 and 901 903 km in 1998. A "two-lane equivalent" is
a length of road measured as if there were only two lanes, e.g. a one-kilometre
stretch of road with two regular lanes and one passing lane down the middle counts
as 1.5.
Source: Transport Canada, Economic Analysis

Table A3.9. Growth of domestic traffic by road, rail and inland water, 1990-98
Billion tonne-km
Inland
Year Road1 Rail2
waterway3
1990 54.7 n.a. n.a.
1991 47.7 n.a. n.a.
1992 47.8 n.a. n.a.
1993 52.0 n.a. n.a.
1994 60.1 n.a. n.a.
1995 65.8 n.a. 39.0
1996 71.5 n.a. 36.4
1997 72.2 n.a. 39.2
1998 76.7 n.a. 35.8
1. Includes only Canadian domiciled for-hire Class I and II carriers (carriers earning
gross annual intercity revenues of CAD 350 000 or more (1987), CAD 500 000 or
more (1988-89), CAD 1 million or more (1990-96). Starting in 1997, includes long-
distance carriers with annual revenues of CAD 1 million or more, i.e. carriers with at
least 50% of revenues coming from long-distance (>80 km) movements. Local
carriers activity not captured due to methodological changes (NAICS criteria)
making historical comparison inexact (underestimated level of intra-provincial traffic)
for the years shown. Private trucking is estimated to account for 60-70% of
commercial trucking activity but is not included in the table.
2. Tonne-kilometres for domestic and international traffic cannot be distinguished for
the time series. See Table A3.11 for total traffic values (domestic + international).
3. Values shown are for domestic traffic (traffic between Canadian points through
Canadian and foreign waters) and not for inland shipping per se. In Canada, inland
shipping would tend to refer to shipping within the St. Lawrence Seaway and the
Great Lakes – data for these waters are not designated specifically in existing data
sources, but values could be retrieved if required.

89
 Table A3.10. Growth of total traffic by road, rail and water, 1990-98
Billion tonne-km

Inland
Year Road1 Rail
waterway2
1990 77.8 248.4 n.a.
1991 70.6 260.5 n.a.
1992 72.9 250.7 n.a.
1993 84.6 256.3 n.a.
1994 101.9 288.4 n.a.
1995 110.0 280.5 1 808.4
1996 121.1 282.5 1 813.1
1997 130.9 306.9 2 030.0
1998 138.1 299.5 1 907.4
1. Includes only Canadian domiciled for-hire Class I and II carriers (carriers earning
gross annual intercity revenues of CAD 350 000 or more (1987), CAD 500 000 or
more (1988-89), CAD 1 million or more (1990-96). Starting 1997: Including long-
distance carriers with annual revenues of CAD 1 million or more, i.e. carriers with at
least 50% of revenues coming from long-distance (>80 km) movements. Local
carriers activity not captured due to methodological changes (NAICS criteria)
making historical comparison inexact (underestimated level of intra-provincial traffic)
for the years shown. Private trucking is estimated to account for 60-70% of
commercial trucking activity but is not included in the table.
2. Includes tonne-kilometres worked in international and foreign waters. Tonne-
kilometres allocated to Canadian waters for 1995-98 are as follows: 178.0 B,
172.9 B, 186.9 B and 188.0 B.

90
 Annex 4

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

The following tables provide information on all modes of freight transport in the Czech Republic
for the years 1990, 1993, 1995 and 1998. Data have been provided from: Czech Statistical Yearbook
(data from 1990, 1993), Transport Yearbook (data from 1995, 1998) and other sources (Czech
Railway Yearbook, Transport Research Centre projects, etc.). Some data are not available. Almost all
data from 1990 are valid for former Czechoslovakia, not only for the Czech Republic.

Table A4.1. Comparative table of modes of transport, 1998

Shipping
Indicators, 1998 Road Rail (inland Air
waterways)
Domestic freight moved (million tonne-km) 17 931 8 195 14.8 0.636
Domestic freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(million tonne-km)
International freight moved (million tonne-km) 15 980 10 514 899.6 54.126
International freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(million tonne-km)
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonnage) 89.62 10.33 <1 <1
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonne-km) 71.54 28.39 <1 <1
Percentage share of international traffic (tonnage) 33.24 64.86 1.76 <1
Percentage share of international traffic (tonne-km) 60.23 36.17 3.39 <1
Energy consumption (GJ/tonne-km)/ 0.00051/ 0.00055/ 0.00059/ 0.14/
Pollution per tonne-km (g/tonne-km) 0.094 0.0181 0.069 9.20
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price (USD/tonne-km) 0.0825 0.0425 n.a. n.a.
Lading factor and degree of utilisation n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1. Diesel traction only.
Source: Czech Statistical Yearbook 1998, Transport Yearbook 1999.

91
 Table A4.2. Rail freight
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight moved (million tonne-km) 26 7481 12 570 10 493 8 195
Domestic freight lifted (million tonnes) n.a. 70.0 54.6 51.1
Domestic freight moved – containers (million tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Domestic freight lifted – containers (million tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Domestic freight lifted – No. of containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight moved (million tonne-km) 14 4021 12 520 12 293 10 514
International freight lifted (million tonnes) 170.52 53.8 54.3 53.7
International freight moved – containers (million tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Domestic and international freight lifted – containers 3 506 1 016 1 365 2 227
(million tonnes)
Domestic and international freight lifted – No. of containers 583 645 113 556 140 000 83 6863
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonne-km) 83.45 53.85 41.08 31.34
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonnes) n.a. n.a. 8.75 10.33
Percentage share of international traffic (tonne-km) 56.96 44.18 41.12 29.86
Percentage share of international traffic (tonnes) n.a. n.a. 79.40 64.86
Energy consumption & pollution per tonne-km See following rows
(covers not only freight rail, but total rail transport)
Fuel intensity (tonne-km per litre) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Energy demand (petajoules) n.a. n.a. 16.532 10.305
GHG emissions (grams per tonne-km) 0.018 0.018 0.021 0.018
GHG emissions (thousand tonnes), diesel traction only ~738.5 ~456.5 ~476.5 331.458
Carbon dioxide (thousand tonnes) 738 456 476 331
Methane (thousand tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.028
Nitrous oxide (thousand tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.430
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne (USD per tonne) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne (USD per tonne-km) 0.025 0.029 0.036 0.043
Lading factor and degree of utilisation n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accidents n.a. 2 255 2 288 2 582
Accidents per million train-kilometres n.a. 0.045 0.045 0.059
Note: For containers transport, data are available only for total volume of container transport, and cannot be divided into
domestic and international transport. GHG: Greenhouse gas.
1. Estimate.
2. Domestic and international transport.
3. Number of railway wagons loaded by containers and swap-bodies.
Source: Czech Statistical Yearbook 1998, Transport Yearbook 1999.

92
 Table A4.3. Air freight
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic cargo (thousand tonne-km) 2 017 24 81 636
Domestic enplaned cargo (tonnes) 4 252 120 310 1 656
Domestic freight moved-containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International cargo (thousand tonne-km) 55 706 26 344 33 392 54 126
International enplaned cargo (tonnes) 19 871 10 789 17 252 12 532
International freight lifted – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight lifted – value n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Enplaned belly-hold cargo (tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Enplaned freighter cargo (tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonnes) n.a. n.a. <1 <1
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonne-km) <1 <1 <1 <1
Percentage share of international traffic (tonnes) n.a. n.a. <1 <1
Percentage share of international traffic (tonne-km) <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy demand (petajoules) n.a. n.a. 6.681 7.340
GHG emissions (grammes per tonne-km) 5.11 n.a. 6.28 9.20
GHG emissions (thousand tonnes) ~294.7 n.a. ~211.7 503.684
Carbon dioxide 294 n.a. 211 503
Methane n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.044
Nitrous oxide n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.640
Total accidents n.a. 16 8 10
Fatal accidents n.a. 4 3 1
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lading factor and degree of utilisation n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
GHG: Greenhouse gas; Enplaned cargo: cargo which is loaded as well as traffic stopping over at an airport.
Source: Czech Statistical Yearbook 1998, Transport Yearbook 1999.

93
 Table A4.4. Road transport
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight moved (million tonne-km) 6 7281 10 1041 14 695 17 931
Domestic freight moved – containers (million tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
2 1 1
International freight moved – total (million tonne-km) 10 092 15 156 16 572 15 980
International freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
HGV mileage intensity (base: 1990 = 100) 100 109 123 149
Domestic tonnes lifted (thousand tonnes) n.a. n.a. 566 017 443 370
International tonnes lifted (thousand tonnes) n.a. n.a. 12 779 27 518
Tonnes moved (thousand tonne-km) 16 820 25 260 31 268 33 911
Average length of haul (km) n.a. 90.9 107.5 n.a.
Average load: rigid (tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Average load: articulated (tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Empty/light running n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonnes) n.a. n.a. 90.79 89.62
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonne-km) 20.99 43.29 57.53 68.59
Percentage share of international traffic (tonnes) n.a. n.a. 18.58 33.24
Percentage share of international traffic (tonne-km) 39.91 53.48 55.44 58.21
Number of collisions involving heavy trucks causing
fatalities or injuries (1999 only)
Fatal collisions n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Straight-truck n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Tractor-trailer n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Personal injuries collisions n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Straight-truck n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Tractor-trailer n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Fatalities in collisions involving heavy trucks n.a. n.a. n.a. 135
Straight-truck n.a. n.a. n.a. 95
Tractor-trailer n.a. n.a. n.a. 40
Injuries in collisions involving heavy trucks n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 073
Straight-truck n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 616
Tractor-trailer n.a. n.a. n.a. 457
Lading factor: rigid n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lading factor: articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Fuel consumption (litres per 100 km)
Gasoline trucks n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Light and medium diesel trucks n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Heavy diesel trucks n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Fuel intensity (tonne-km per litre) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Energy demand (petajoules) n.a. n.a. 34.236 17.192
GHG emissions (grammes per tonne-km) 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.094
GHC emissions (thousand tonnes) ~2 318.5 ~3 108.5 ~3 962.5 3 178.426
Carbon dioxide 2 318 3 108 3 962 3 178
Methane n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.302
Nitrous oxide n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.124

94
 Table A4.4. Road transport (cont’d.)
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Average speeds
Motorways (70 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Dual carriageways (70 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Single carriageways (60 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Urban roads (40 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Urban roads (30 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Vehicle safety – VI/testing failure rate (%) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Emission standards (thousand tonnes)
NOx n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PM10 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1. Estimate.
2. Domestic and international transport.
Source: Czech Statistical Yearbook 1998, Transport Yearbook 1999.

95
 Table A4.5. Inland waterways
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight moved (million tonne-km) 575 487 353 14.8
Domestic containerised traffic (thousand units) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight moved (million tonne-km) 734 637 995.2 899.6
International containerised traffic (thousand units) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Domestic freight lifted (thousand tonnes) 5 060 3 737 2 770 223
International freight lifted (thousand tonnes) 1 175 982 1 670 1 454
Total international bulk traffic (million tonnes) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonnes) n.a. n.a. <1 <1
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonne-km) 1.79 2.09 1.38 <1
Percentage share of international traffic (tonnes) n.a. n.a. 2.43 1.76
Percentage share of international traffic (tonne-km) 2.90 2.25 3.33 3.28
Total domestic combined transport (thousand units) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total international and domestic combined transport n.a. 0.41 1.900 1.490
(thousand units)
Total coastwise traffic (million tonnes) -- -- -- --
Total unitised short-sea and near-sea traffic -- -- -- --
(thousand units)
Total inland water traffic (million tonnes) 6.370 4.906 4.440 1.677
Inland waterways accident figures
Vessels involved in accidents, excluding fishing vessels n.a. n.a. 32 16
Deaths n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Injuries n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Fuel intensity (tonne-km per litre) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Energy demand (petajoules) 0.763 0.658 0.836 0.538
GHG emissions (grammes per tonne-km) 0.041 0.043 0.037 0.069
GHG emissions (thousand tonnes) ~54.1 ~48.1 ~48.1 30.085
Carbon dioxide 54 48 48 30
Methane n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.005
Nitrous oxide n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.080
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Source: Czech Statistical Yearbook 1998, Transport Yearbook 1999.

96
 Table A4.6. Types of vessel registered in the Czech Republic
Number of vessels
Type of vessel 1990 1993 1995 1998
Freight motor ships n.a. n.a. 80 79
Tow and push boats n.a. n.a. 278 294
Tow and draught tow-boats n.a. n.a. 175 154
Source: Czech Statistical Yearbook 1998, Transport Yearbook 1999.

Table A4.7. Length of national rail, road and inland waterway networks
Kilometres
Inland
Year Rail Road
waterway
1980 9 499 56 263 n.a.
1985 9 468 55 933 n.a.
1990 9 451 55 892 303
1991 9 454 55 873 n.a.
1992 9 439 55 874 n.a.
1993 9 441 55 912 303
1994 9 413 55 922 n.a.
1995 9 430 55 875 303
1996 9 430 55 489 n.a.
1997 9 430 55 576 n.a.
1998 9 430 55 393 303
Source: Czech Statistical Yearbook 1998, Transport Yearbook 1999.

Table A4.8. Evolution of domestic traffic by road, rail and inland water, 1990-98
Million tonne-km
Inland
Year Road Rail
waterway
1990 n.a. n.a. n.a.
1991 n.a. n.a. n.a.
1992 n.a. n.a. n.a.
1993 n.a. 12 570 487
1994 12 147 10 991 409
1995 14 696 10 330 353.0
1996 14 100 10 493 165.5
1997 17 046 9 796 27.8
1998 17 931 8 195 14.8
Source: Czech Statistical Yearbook 1998, Transport Yearbook 1999.

97
 Table A4.9. Evolution of total traffic by road, rail and water, 1990-98
Billion tonne-km
Year Road Rail Water
1990 23.3 59.5 4.4
1991 17.4 46.0 3.9
1992 14.0 44.2 3.0
1993 13.0 22.6 1.2
1994 23.6 22.8 1.2
1995 31.3 22.6 1.3
1996 30.1 22.3 1.1
1997 40.6 21.0 0.8
1998 33.9 18.7 0.9
Source: Czech Statistical Yearbook 1998, Transport Yearbook 1999.

Table A4.10. Length of tracks, stock capacities and operating hours in terminals
Terminal Length of Number of Loading Length of Stock Operating
crane crane loading tracks length other tracks capacity hours
track tracks
Unit (m) (m) (m) (TEU)
Operator: CSKD Intrans a.s. – 7 terminals
Brno - Horni Herspice 270 3 3 x 340 - 408 6.00-18.00
Ceske Budejovice 265 2 2 x 270 2 x 370 450 non-stop
Lovosice 190 2 2 x 190 383 286 6.00-18.00
Ostrava – Privoz 200 2 2 x 200 3 x 250 162 6.00-18.00
Pardubice 205 1 205 2 x 270 300 6.00-18.00
Praha - äLåNRYnakl.nadr. 215 3 3 x 215 346 255 non-stop
Prerov - Horni Mostenice 132 1 280 - 66 6.00-18.00
Operator: Metrans a.s. – 2 terminals
Praha Uhrineves none - 7 x 600 2 300 3 000 non-stop
Lipa u Zlina none - 2 x 250 2 700 1 000 non-stop
Operator: Hudson Cargo a.s. – 1 terminal
Breclav none - build - 1 250 7.00-17.00
Operator: Bohemiakombi spol.s.r.o. – 1 terminal – Rolling motorway
Lovosice Ro-La none - 2 x 550 564+720 0 non-stop

98
 Table A4.11. Terminal loading equipment characteristics
Terminal Mechanism No. Spreader lifting Grapple arms Loading units
capacity lifting capacity manipulated
Unit (tonnes) (tonnes)
Operator: CSKD Intrans a.s. – 7 terminals
Brno - Horni Gantry crane 1 32 27 C 20’-40’ max
Herspice 36t); SB (max 27t)
HC 45’
Gantry crane 1 36 27 ST(max 27t)
Stacker 2 16 - C 20’, 40’
Ceske Budejovice Gantry crane 1 40 24 C 20’-40’ (max
36t); SB(max 24t),
ST(max 30t)
Lovosice Gantry crane on tyres 24 - C 20’, 40’,
PD 25, PD32 2 32 -
Single side loading fork 2 24 - C 20’
truck
Ostrava - Privoz Gantry crane on tyres 25 - C 20’-40’ (max
36t); SB (max 24t)

PD 25, PD38 2 38 24 ST(max 27t)

Pardubice Gantry crane on tyres 25 - C 20’, 40’; SB

PD 25, PD38 2 38 24 (max 24t)

Praha - äLåNRY Gantry crane on tyres 25 - C 20’, 40’ (max

nakl.nadr. 28t); HC; SB (max
PD 25, PD38 2 38 24
24t)
Prerov - Horni Gantry crane on tyres 1 25 - C 20’-40’ (max
Mostenice 20t); HC
Operator: Metrans a.s. – 2 terminals
Praha Uhrineves Stacker 2 40, 55 35 C 20’-40’ (max
36t); SB (max
24t); HC
(superstacker) ST(max 27t)
Lipa u Zlina Stacker 1 25 - C 20’-40’ (max
36t); HC; SB (max
36t);
Jib (mobile) crane 2 16, 20 - ST (max 36t)
Operator: Hudson Cargo a.s. – 1 terminal
Breclav Jib (mobile) crane 1 20 - C 20’
Operator: Bokemiakombi spol.s.r.o. – 1 terminal – rolling motorway
Lovosice Ro-La Ro-Ro ramp 2 - - -

99
 Table A4.12. Terminal service characteristics

Year Loading Bonded

Terminal Entry Forwarding Stocking
founded capacity warehouse
Unit (TEU)
Operator: CSKD Intrans a.s. – 7 terminals
Brno - Horni Herspice 1976 850 x x x x
Ceske Budejovice 1979 490 x x x x
Lovosice 1977 800 x x
Ostrava - Privoz 1976 250 x x x
Pardubice 1982 500 x x x x
Praha - äLåNRYnakl.nadr. 1974 420 x x x x
Prerov - Horni Mostenice 1973 100 x x x x
Operator: Metrans a.s. – 2 terminals
Praha Uhrineves 1991 1 000 x x x x
Lipa u Zlina 1995 450 x x x x
Operator: Hudson Cargo a.s. – 1 terminal
Breclav 1996 150 x x x x
Operator: Bohemiakombi spol.s.r.o. – 1 Ro-La terminal
Lovosice Ro-La 1994 250 vehicles x

Table A4.13. Length of tracks, stock capacities and operating hours in river ports
Terminal Number of
Length Length of
crane Length of Stock Operating
of crane other
loading loading tracks capacity hours
line tracks
tracks
Unit (m) (m) (m) (TEU)
CESKE PRISTAVY A.S. – 4 river ports
Decin – Stare Loubi 340 2 415 - 5 000 m2 6.00-20.00
Melnik – Topulky none - 550+220 - 600 7.00-17.00
Praha Holesovice 170 2 2 x 210 - 250 6.00-18.00
Usti n/L – pristav Krasne Brezno 190 3 560+475+190 - 7 500 m2 6.00-20.00

Table A4.14. River ports: loading equipment characteristics

Terminal Mechanism No. Hook lifting Grapple arms Loading units
capacity lifting capacity manipulated
Unit (tonnes) (tonnes)
Decin – Stare Loubi Gantry crane 1 32 - Packages only
Praha Holesovice Gantry crane 1 40 - C 20', 40'; HC
Usti n/L – pristav Krasne Brezno Gantry crane 1 40 - Packages only
Melnik – Topulky Stacker 1 40 - C 20', 40'; HC

100
 Table A4.15. River ports: service characteristics
Terminal Year Loading Customs Bonded Forwarding Storage of
founded capacity warehouse facilities empty units
Unit (TEU)
CSPL a.s. – 1 river port
Decin - Stare Loubi 460 x x x
Ceske S tVWDY\a.s. – 2 river ports
Praha Holesovice - rented 1991 400 x x x x
to a.s. Contrans
Usti n/L -Krasne Brezno, Packages x x
SURYR]ý63/
Eurokai a.s. – 1 river port
Melnik - Topulky 2 500 x x x x

Table A4.16. Share of intermodal transport in total transport in the Czech Republic
Year
Transport modes Units
1995 1996 1997 1998
Goods transported Million tonnes 583.83 685.74 521.48 470.89
Road Volume Billion tonne-km 31.28 23.17 40.64 33.91
% share of total transport % 83.75 86.13 82.16 80.79
Goods transported Million tonnes 108.86 107.25 111.38 110.28
Rail Volume Billion tonne-km 22.62 22.34 21.01 18.76
% share of total transport % 15.62 13.47 17.55 18.92
Goods transported Million tonnes 2.15 3.96 4.69 5.29
Volume Billion tonne-km 0.447 0.565 0.654 0.731
By containers Million tonnes 1.36 1.74 1.89 2.07
By swap-bodies, semi-trailers Million tonnes 0.09 0.17 0.23 0.29
IT by rail
By accompanied transport Million tonnes 0.7 2.05 2.57 2.93
% share of railway transport % 1.98 3.69 4.21 4.80
% share of total transport % 0.31 0.50 0.74 0.91
% share of total IT % 98.90 99.55 99.62 99.66
Goods transported Million tonnes 4.39 3.18 1.83 1.68
Inland waterways Volume Billion tonne-km 1.32 1.35 0.74 0.82
% share of total transport % 0.63 0.40 0.29 0.29
IT by waterways Million tonnes 0.024 0.018 0.018 0.017
% share of waterways transport % 0.55 0.57 0.98 1.7
IT by waterways
% share of total transport % 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003
% share of total IT % 1.10 0.45 0.38 0.34
Goods transported Million tonnes 0.018 0.014 0.014 0.013
Air Volume Billion tonne-km 0.033 0.026 0.027 0.056
% share of total transport % 0.00258 0.00176 0.00221 0.00223
Goods transported Million tonnes 697.098 796.184 634.704 582.863
Total
Volume Billion tonne-km 55.25 46.89 62.42 53.55
Goods transported Million tonnes 2.174 3.978 4.708 5.307
Total IT
% share of total transport % 0.31 0.50 0.74 0.91
Source: MT, Czech Railways; 1999.

101
 Table A4.17. Development of combined transport in the Czech Republic, 1993-2000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Terminals/Terminals per thousand square km
Road-railway Pcs 17 16 16 15 15 16 11 11
Per thousand sq. km Pcs 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.14 0.14
Of which:: Ro-La Pcs 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Per thousand sq. km Pcs 0 0.012 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
Railway-water Pcs 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Per thousand sq. km Pcs 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051
A) – Railway combined transport – unaccompanied
a) Freight containers1
Thous. pcs 113.5 130.2 140.0 172.4 174.0 181.0
Million tonnes 1.01 1.009 1.36 1.74 1.89 2.07
% change -32.3 0.0 +34.7 +27.9 +8.6 +9.5
a1) Of which: international
Total Million tonnes 0.57 0.6 0.90 1.27 1.42 1.59
Of which: import Million tonnes 0.13 0.17 0.30 0.51 0.54 0.58
export Million tonnes 0.34 0.26 0.36 0.55 0.58 0.58
transit Million tonnes 0.1 0.17 0.24 0.21 0.30 0.43
a2) Of which: interstate
Total Million tonnes 0.44 0.4 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.48
b) Other unaccompanied transport (swap-bodies, semi-trailers)
Total Million tonnes 0.025 0.072 0.09 0.17 0.23 0.29
Number of pieces2 Thous. pcs 0.95 1.09 1.45 2.58 9.68 11.5
Total unaccompanied (a+b = A)
Total A) Million tonnes 1.035 1.729 1.45 1.91 2.12 2.26
B) Railway combined transport – accompanied (Ro-La)5
Vehicles Thous. pcs 0.939 23.57 85.24 94.81 89.11 99.98
Goods carried on Million tonnes 0.027 0.719 2.557 2.686 2.575 2.934
vehicles
C) Total railway combined transport (A+B)
Million tonnes 1.041 1.73 2.15 3.96 4.69 5.29
Total
% change -30,5 +66,2 +124,2 +184,1 +118,4 +112,7
3 3
Railway IT volume Mln. t-km 446.8 565.4 654.3 731.3
D) – Water combined transport
Thous. pcs 0.41 0.99 1.9 1.5 1.51 1.49
Million tonnes 0.005 0.012 0.023 0.018 0.018 0.017
% change -68.8 +140 +91.7 -21.8 +0.66 -1.3
Intermodal transport in the Czech Republic (C+D)
IC4 Thous. pcs 113.5 131.19 141.9 173.9 75.51 82.49
ST+SB4 Thous. pcs 0.95 1.09 1.45 2.58 9.68 11.5
Accompanied vehicles Thous. pcs 0.939 23.57 85.24 94.81 89.11 99.98
Million tonnes 1.046 1.74 2.173 3.978 4.708 5.307
Total IT in CR
% change -31.0 +48 +24.8 +83.0 +18.3 +12.7
1. Only loaded containers.
2. Estimate.
3. Not available.
4. Estimate Ro-La.
5. Estimate by Ministry of Transport.
Source: Ministry of Transport, Czech Railways.

102
 Annex 5

TRANSPORT IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Table A5.1. Transport development in Central and East European Countries, 1970-98
Billion tonne-km
Bulgaria 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 13.9 17.7 18.2 14.1 7.8 7.7 7.8 8.6 7.5 7.4 6.2
Road* 7 13.1 13.5 13.8 7 8.5 10 11 15.5 14.1 14.5
Inland waterways 1.83 2.61 2 1.61 0.84 0.46 0.36 0.73 0.63 0.68 0.71
Total 22.73 33.41 33.7 29.51 15.64 16.66 18.16 20.33 23.63 22.18 21.41

Czechoslovakia 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992

Railways 55.9 66.2 66.1 59.4 44
Road 10.1 21.3 21.5 23.3 14
Inland waterways 2.43 3.59 4.36 4.42 2.98
Total 68.43 91.09 91.9 87.12 60.98
Note: On 1 January 1993, Czechoslovakia was divided into the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.

Czech Republic 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Railways 25.2 22.8 22.6 22.2 20.7 19.5
Road* 13 22.7 20.8 30.1 40.6 33.9
Inland waterways 1.26 1.19 1.32 1.1 0.78 0.91
Total 39.46 46.69 44.72 53.4 62.08 54.31

Slovak Republic 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Railways 13.9 12.3 13.7 11.9 12.4 11.8
Road* 5.5 4.9 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.8
Inland waterways 0.84 0.85 1.23 1.6 1.52 1.53
Total 20.24 18.05 20.13 18.7 19.12 18.13

Estonia 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 5.1 5.9 6.5 7 3.6 4.2 3.6 3.8 4.2 5.1 6.1
Road* 2.4 4.2 4.4 4.5 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.8 3.8
Inland waterways 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 7.51 10.11 10.91 11.5 5.1 5.3 5 5.4 6.1 7.9 9.9

103
 Table A5.1. Transport development in Central and East European Countries, 1970-98 (cont’d.)
Billion tonne-km
Hungary 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 19.8 24.4 21.8 16.8 10.0 7.7 7.7 8.4 7.6 8.1 8.2
Road* 5.8 11.4 12.7 15.2 12.8 13.4 13 14.2 14.7 15.0 17.0
Inland waterways 1.76 2.15 2.14 2.04 1.6 1.62 1.35 1.26 1.34 1.64 1.56
Total 27.36 37.95 36.64 34.04 24.4 22.72 22.05 23.86 23.64 24.74 26.76

Lithuania 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 13.6 18.2 20.9 19.3 11.3 9.9 8 7.7 8.1 8.6 8.3
Road* 3.4 6.9 7.4 7.3 5 6.9 4.6 5.2 4.2 5.1 5.6
Inland waterways 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total 17.12 25.25 28.47 26.76 16.35 16.85 12.63 12.92 12.31 13.71 13.91

Latvia 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 15.5 17.6 19.9 18.5 10.1 9.9 9.5 9.8 12.4 14 13.0
Road* 2.9 5.1 5.9 5.9 2.5 1.3 1.4 1.8 2.2 3.4 4.1
Inland waterways 0.05 0.09 0.3 0.29 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18.45 22.79 26.1 24.69 13 11.2 10.9 11.6 14.6 17.4 17.1

Poland 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 99.3 134.7 118 81.8 57 63.3 64.7 69.1 67.4 68.7 61.2
Road* 15.8 44.6 36.6 40.3 42 40.7 45.4 51.2 56.5 63.7 69.5
Inland waterways 2.3 2.33 1.41 1.03 0.75 0.66 0.79 0.88 0.85 0.93 1.10
Total 117.4 181.63 156.01 123.13 99.75 104.66 110.89 121.18 124.75 133.33 131.8

Romania 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 48.1 75.5 64.1 48.8 24.2 21.9 21.6 24.2 24.3 22.1 16.6
Road* 5.2 11.8 27.9 29 15.7 15.4 18.3 19.7 19.8 21.8 15.8
Inland waterways 1.35 2.35 2.35 2.09 1.89 1.59 1.9 3.11 3.77 4.33 4.20
Total 54.65 89.65 94.35 79.89 41.79 38.89 41.8 47.01 47.87 48.23 36.6

Slovenia 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 3.3 3.9 4.3 4.2 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.6
Road* 2.1 3.9 4.7 4.9 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.9 3.1
Inland waterways 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5.4 7.8 9 9.1 5.4 5.1 4.7 5.3 4.9 5.5 5.7
* From 1997, national and international traffic by vehicles registered in the country.

104
 Table A5.2. Freight transport: modal shares in Central and East European Countries, 1970-98
Percentages
Bulgaria 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 61.2 53.0 54.0 47.8 49.9 46.2 43.0 42.3 31.7 33.4 29.0
Road* 30.8 39.2 40.1 46.8 44.8 51.0 55.1 54.1 65.6 63.6 67.7
Inland waterways 8.1 7.8 5.9 5.5 5.4 2.8 2.0 3.6 2.7 3.1 3.3

Czechoslovakia 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 81.69 72.68 71.9 68.18 72.15
Road 14.76 23.38 23.4 26.74 22.96
Inland waterways 3.551 3.941 4.74 5.073 4.887
Note: On 1 January 1993, Czechoslovakia was divided into the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic

Czech Republic 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 63.9 48.8 50.5 41.6 33.3 35.9
Road* 32.9 48.6 46.5 56.4 65.4 62.4
Inland waterways 3.2 2.5 3.0 2.1 1.3 1.7

Slovak Republic 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 68.7 68.1 68.1 63.6 64.9 65.1
Road* 27.2 27.1 25.8 27.8 27.2 26.5
Inland waterways 4.2 4.7 6.1 8.6 7.9 8.4

Estonia 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 67.9 58.4 59.6 60.9 70.6 79.2 72.0 70.4 68.9 64.6 61.6
Road* 32.0 41.5 40.3 39.1 29.4 20.8 28.0 29.6 31.1 35.4 38.4
Inland waterways 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hungary 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 72.4 64.3 59.5 49.4 41.0 33.9 34.9 35.2 32.1 32.7 30.6
Road* 21.2 30.0 34.7 44.7 52.5 59.0 59.0 59.5 62.2 60.6 63.5
Inland waterways 6.4 5.7 5.8 6.0 6.6 7.1 6.1 5.3 5.7 6.6 5.8

Lithuania 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 79.4 72.1 73.4 72.1 69.1 58.8 63.3 59.6 65.8 62.7 59.7
Road* 19.9 27.3 26.0 27.3 30.6 40.9 36.4 40.2 34.1 37.2 40.3
Inland waterways 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

Latvia 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 84.0 77.2 76.2 74.9 77.7 88.4 87.2 84.5 84.9 80.5 76.0
Road* 15.7 22.4 22.6 23.9 19.2 11.6 12.8 15.5 15.1 19.5 24.0
Inland waterways 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

105
 Table A5.2. Freight transport: modal shares in Central and East European Countries, 1970-98 (cont’d.)
Percentages
Poland 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 84.6 74.2 75.6 66.4 57.1 60.5 58.3 57.0 54.0 51.5 46.4
Road* 13.5 24.6 23.5 32.7 42.1 38.9 40.9 42.3 45.3 47.8 52.7
Inland waterways 2.0 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8

Romania 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 88.0 84.2 67.9 61.1 57.9 56.3 51.7 51.5 50.8 45.8 45.4
Road* 9.5 13.2 29.6 36.3 37.6 39.6 43.8 41.9 41.4 45.2 43.2
Inland waterways 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 4.5 4.1 4.5 6.6 7.9 9.0 11.5

Slovenia 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Railways 61.1 50.0 47.8 46.2 48.1 45.1 48.9 54.7 53.1 47.3 45.6
Road* 38.9 50.0 52.2 53.8 51.9 54.9 51.1 45.3 46.9 52.7 54.4
Inland waterways 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
* From 1997, national and international traffic by vehicles registered in the country.
Source: UIC, ECMT, national statistics, Eurostat.

106
 Annex 6

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN FINLAND

The following series of tables provides information on all modes of freight transport in Finland
for the years 1980, 1985, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. Data have been
provided wherever possible although, due to the unavailability of some data, there are inevitably some
statistical gaps in the tables.

Table A6.1. Tonnes in goods transport, 1980-99

Million tonnes
1980 1985 1990 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Total 437.6 470.3 106.01 557.5 124.31 527.6 495.1 510.6 530.4 539.1

Railway transport2 29.8 30.8 34.6 37.9 40.2 39.4 37.7 40.3 40.7 40.0
- Domestic . . 21.2 23.3 23.7 21.9 21.6 23.6 23.6 23.2
- International . . 13.4 14.6 16.5 17.5 16.1 16.7 17.1 16.8

Road transport3 342.0 372.0 . 446.6 . 404.8 374.4 383.1 400.1 410.8

Waterway transport 65.7 67.4 71.3 72.9 84.0 83.3 82.9 87.1 89.5 88.2
- Domestic4 16.3 15.4 12.4 8.5 9.8 12.1 12.6 11.9 12.9 10.7
- International 49.4 52.0 58.9 64.4 74.2 71.2 70.3 75.2 76.6 77.5

Air transport 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
- Domestic 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
- International 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding errors.
1. Excluding road transport.
2. Since 1995, wagonload tonnes.
3. Statistics revised in 1995.
4. Including domestic shipping, floating and dredged quantities.
Source: Civil Aviation Administration, Finnish Maritime Administration, Finnra, Statistics Finland, VR-Group Ltd.

107
 Table A6.2. Tonne-kilometres in goods transport, 1980-99
Million tonne-km
1980 1985 1990 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Total 184 298 206 927 242 854 229 874 231 091 235 147 223 800 210 368

Railway transport1 8 335 8 067 8 357 9 259 9 949 9 293 8 806 9 856 9 885 9 753
- Domestic . . . . . 5 936 5 699 6 258 6 313 6 380
- International . . . . . 3 357 3 107 3 598 3 572 3 373

Road transport 18 400 20 800 26 300 25 000 25 700 23 200 24 100 25 400 26 500 26 475
- Vans, lorries < 3.5 t 500 700 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900
- Lorries2 > 3.5 t 17 900 20 100 25 400 24 100 24 800 22 300 23 200 24 500 25 600 25 600

Water transport 153 669 176 051 210 588 200 426 201 573 202 912 183 904 176 907
- Domestic 5 194 4 181 4 031 3 384 3 599 3 276 3 646 3 340 3 238 3 119
- Shipping 3 395 2 692 2 970 3 020 3 290 2 870 3 326 2 950 2 923 2 832
- Floating 1 789 1 479 1 051 354 299 366 280 380 288 276
- Dredged quantities 10 10 10 10 10 40 40 10 27 10
- International 145 607 169 283 203 390 193 874 194 281 196 232 183 877 170 670

Air transport 53 84 157 181 216 231 258 319 300 351
- Domestic 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2
- International 51 82 154 179 213 228 256 316 297 349
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding errors.
1. Since 1995, wagonload tonnes.
2. Statistics revised.
Source: Civil Aviation Administration, Finnish Maritime Administration, Finnra, Statistics Finland, VR-Group Ltd.

Table A6.3. Emissions of vehicles and motor-driven machines in Finland, 1998

Emissions CO HC NOX Particles SO2 Pb CO2
1 1
Total emissions (thousand tonnes) 450 180 252 50 90 0 57 300
National transport total 319 60 226 12 19 . 16 300

Road transport 275 45 118 7 0 . 11 000

- Cars 243 36 69 2 0 . 6 300
- Vans 15 3 8 1 0 . 1 100
- Buses 5 2 11 1 0 . 800
- Lorries 12 4 30 3 0 . 2 800

Other modes of transport1

- Trains 0.6 0.2 4.0 0.1 . . 300
- Vessels 25.9 9.7 65.4 1.9 18.2 . 2 800
- Aircraft 2.2 0.2 1.3 . 0.1 0 400
- Motor driven machines 15.1 4.5 37.1 3.2 0.6 . 1 900

Proportion of total emissions (%) 71 33 90 24 21 . 28

Note: Statistics revised in 1998.
1. Estimate.
Source: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Statistics Finland.

108
 Table A6.4. Accidents
Traffic deaths according to cause of death statistics, 1980-97
1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19962 1997
Total (number) 743 679 825 767 762 636 607 574 521 575

Railway transport 24 18 32 25 21 11 17 22 18 14
Other land transport1 589 561 680 640 636 516 507 455 448 491
Water transport 125 95 109 99 97 100 82 90 53 65
Air transport 5 5 4 3 8 9 1 7 2 5
Note: Due to differing definitions, etc., the figures in this table differ from those presented in the context of the respective modes
of transport.
1. Number of persons killed in road, level crossing and other overland traffic accidents.
2. Statistics revised in 1996.
Source: Statistics Finland.

Table A6.5.Goods transport by rail, 1980-98

Thousand tonnes
1980 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
1
Total 29 574 34 562 32 587 37 869 40 150 39 387 37 717 40 321 40 740
By type of consignment
- Full wagon load 29 085 33 112 31 206 36 109 38 414 39 387 37 717 40 321 40 740
- Smalls 489 1 450 1 381 1 760 1 736 - - - -

National transport . 21 192 19 758 23 237 23 679 21 903 21 565 23 603 23 613
By type of consignment
- Full wagon load . 19 742 18 377 21 477 21 943 21 903 21 565 23 603 23 613
- Smalls 489 1 450 1 381 1 760 1 736 - - - -

International transport . 13 370 12 829 14 633 16 471 17 484 16 152 16 718 17 127

Tonnes in transit transport . . 5 385 6 359 6 216 4 105 3 234 3 368 2 948

Av. length of transport (km) 280.8 237.9 238.1 242.0 244.6 236.0 233.5 244.5 242.8
1. Since 1995, full-wagon consignment.
Source: VR-Group Ltd.

109
 Table A6.6. Goods transport by rail, 1980-98
Million tonne-km
1980 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total1) 8 335 8 357 7 848 9 259 9 949 9 293 8 806 9 856 9 885
By type of consignment
- Full wagon load 8 169 7 877 7 431 8 737 9 413 9 293 8 806 9 856 9 885
- Smalls 166 480 417 522 536 - - - -

National transport . . . 5 590 6 003 5 936 5 699 6 258 6 313

- By type of consignment
- Full wagon load . . . 5 068 5 467 5 936 5 699 6 258 6 313
- Smalls . . . 522 536 - - - -

International transport . . . 3 669 3 946 3 357 3 107 3 598 3 572

Transit transport . 480 417 1 386 1 483 911 612 652 578

Av. length of haul (km) 280.8 237.9 238.1 242.0 244.6 235.9 233.5 244.5 242.8
1. Since 1995, full-wagon consignment.
Source: VR-Group Ltd.

Table A6.7. Energy consumption of rail transport, 1985-98

1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total (petajoules) 4.20 3.79 3.691 3.70 3.89 4.11 3.98 3.771 3.95 3.97

Consumption of electricity
- Million kWh 290 340 3501 3601 3751 395 4201 4201 450 470
1 1
- Petajoules 1.04 1.22 1.26 1.30 1.35 1.42 1.51 1.51 1.62 1.69

Consumption of diesel oil

- Million litres 88.9 72.3 68.4 67.7 71.6 75.7 69.6 63.8 65.8 64.3
- Petajoules 3.16 2.57 2.43 2.40 2.54 2.69 2.47 2.26 2.33 2.28
1. Revised figures.
Source: VR-Group Ltd.

110
 Table A6.8. Energy consumption and emissions of rail transport, 1998
Energy consumption Co Hc
Energy consumption
GJ/a % t/a % t/a %
Total 3 870 521 100.0 588 100.0 232 100.0

Passenger transport 1 427 086 36.9 137 23.3 40 17.2

- Electric locomotives 695 109 18.0 29 4.9 4 1.7
- Diesel locomotives 388 839 10.0 88 14.9 31 13.4
- Change operations/Diesel locomotives 28 044 0.7 7 1.3 3 1.5
- Local transport 315 094 8.1 13 2.2 2 0.8

Goods transport 2 435 375 62.9 449 76.4 191 82.4

- Electric locomotives 640 005 16.5 27 4.5 4 1.5
- Diesel locomotives 1 472 862 38.1 338 57.4 149 64.1
- Change operations/Diesel locomotives 322 508 8.3 85 14.5 39 16.8

Locomotives only 8 060 0.2 2 0.3 1 0.3

- Electric locomotives 663 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
- Diesel locomotives 7 397 0.2 2 0.3 1 0.3

Electrical transport 1 650 871 42.7 69 11.7 9 4.0

Diesel transport 2 219 650 57.3 520 88.3 222 96.0

NOX Particles CO2

Emissions
t/a % t/a % t/a %
Total 3 970 100.0 110.7 100.0 280 465 100.0

Passenger transport 772 19.4 30.6 27.6 105 142 37.5

- Electric locomotives 81 2.0 9.8 8.8 43 198 15.4
- Diesel locomotives 614 15.5 14.6 13.2 40 149 14.3
- Change operations/Diesel locomotives 39 1.0 1.7 1.6 2 102 0.7
- Local transport 37 0.9 4.5 4.0 19 693 7.0

Goods transport 3 185 80.2 79.9 72.2 174 727 62.3

- Electric locomotives 75 1.9 9.1 8.2 40 000 14.3
- Diesel locomotives 2 656 66.9 50.9 45.9 110 557 39.4
- Change operations/Diesel locomotives 454 11.4 20.0 18.0 24 170 8.6

Locomotives only 13 0.3 0.3 0.2 596 0.2

- Electric locomotives 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41 0.0
- Diesel locomotives 13 0.3 0.3 0.2 554 0.2

Electrical transport 193 4.9 23.3 21.1 102 933 36.7

Diesel transport 3 777 95.1 87.4 78.9 177 532 63.3
Source: VTT – Technical Research Centre of Finland.

111
 Table A6.9. Accidents
a) Accidents connected with railway traffic, 1998
Number of people killed or seriously injured
Number of accidents
Killed Injured Total
Total 75 24 14 38
Collisions 9 0 0 0
- Train traffic 4 0 0 0
- Shunting 5 0 0 0
Derailments 10 10 10 20
- Train traffic 4 10 9 19
- Shunting 6 0 1 1
Level-crossing accidents 39 11 2 13
- With safety equipment 11 3 2 5
- Without safety equipment 28 8 0 8
Fire in railway vehicles 13 0 0 0
Other accidents 4 3 2 5
Source: VR-Group Ltd.

b) Victims in railway traffic, 1990-98

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total killed and injured 58 56 46 40 41 32 21 37 38
Passengers 5 15 4 5 4 4 6 3 19
- Collisions and derailments1 - 2 - - - - 6 - 18
- Other accidents 5 13 4 5 4 4 - 3 1
Railway employees 7 2 4 5 7 1 1 6 2
Other 46 39 38 30 30 27 14 28 17

Total killed 36 34 31 20 30 17 12 21 24
Passengers - 9 1 - 3 1 3 1 10
- Collisions and derailments - - - - - - 3 - 9
- Other accidents - 9 1 - 3 1 - 1 1
Railway employees 2 1 3 - 3 1 1 1 1
Other 34 24 27 20 24 15 8 19 13

Total seriously injured 22 22 15 20 11 15 9 16 14

Passengers 5 6 3 5 1 3 3 2 9
- Collisions and derailments - 2 - - - - 3 - 9
- Other accidents 5 4 3 5 1 3 - 2 0
Railway employees 5 1 1 5 4 - - 5 1
Other 12 15 11 10 6 12 6 9 4
1. Includes falling off a moving train.
Source: VR-Group Ltd.

112
 Table A6.10. Tonnes and tonne-kilometres in road transport, 1991-98
Lorries registered in Finland
1991 1992 1993 1994 19951 1996 1997 1998
Total tonnes (thousand)
National transport 453 400 . 446 600 . 404 750 374 438 383 135 400 131
- Hire or reward 273 000 . 279 100 . 278 585 262 071 259 055 276 158
- Own account 180 400 . 167 500 . 126 164 112 367 124 080 123 972

Total tonne-km (million)

National transport 23 800 23 800 24 100 24 800 22 339 23 174 24 511 25 611
- Hire or reward 18 100 . 19 300 . 19 657 20 610 21 739 22 944
- Own account 5 700 . 4 800 . 2 681 2 563 2 772 2 668
1. Statistics revised in 1995.
Source: Finnish National Road Administration, Statistics Finland.

Table A6.11. Energy consumption and emissions

a) Fuel consumption by Finnish road transport, 1990-98, tonnes/year
1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total 3 508 960 3 399 462 3 251 920 3 355 604 3 309 705 3 280 484 3 451 356 3 487 728

Cars 2 127 389 2 113 679 2 000 954 2 011 906 1 993 835 1 930 682 2 002 456 2 001 089
Vans 350 829 347 071 325 832 339 879 339 052 333 731 350 298 364 070
Buses 240 920 230 643 222 654 240 656 232 166 239 032 246 192 243 052
Lorries 789 822 708 070 702 479 763 163 744 652 777 040 852 411 879 517
Source: VTT – Technical Research Centre of Finland.

113
 b) Fuel consumption and emissions of road transport by automobile type, 1998
Consumption Fuel consumption CO HC NOX Particles
t/a % t/a % t/a % t/a % t/a %
Total 3 487 728 100.0 274 790 100.0 45 467 100.0 117 945 100.0 6 742 100.0
Cars 2 001 089 57.4 242 990 88.4 36 314 79.9 68 660 58.2 2 256 33.5
- Diesel 240 030 6.9 3 496 1.3 1 080 2.4 4 598 3.9 1 438 21.3
- With catalyser 725 306 20.8 47 009 17.1 5 412 11.9 6 435 5.5 120 1.8
- Other 1 035 754 29.7 192 485 70.0 29 822 65.6 57 626 48.9 698 10.4

Vans 364 070 10.4 14 619 5.3 2 534 5.6 8 276 7.0 726 10.8
- Diesel 317 093 9.1 3 414 1.2 1 182 2.6 5 683 4.8 702 10.4
- With catalyser 3 873 0.1 295 0.1 25 0.1 44 0.0 0 0.0
- Other 43 104 1.2 10 911 4.0 1 327 2.9 2 549 2.2 24 0.4

Buses 243 052 7.0 5 002 1.8 2 179 4.8 10 818 9.2 930 13.8
Lorries 879 517 25.2 12 179 4.4 4 440 9.8 30 190 25.6 2 830 42.0

Emissions CO2 CH4 N20 SO2

t/a % t/a % t/a % t/a %
Total 10 952 732 100.0 2 355 100.0 1 113 100.0 286 100.0
Cars 6 273 583 57.3 1 833 77.8 893 80.3 236 82.7
- Diesel 755 596 6.9 31 1.3 70 6.3 7 2.5
- With catalyser 2 272 626 20.7 452 19.2 707 63.5 94 33.0
- Other 3 245 361 29.6 1 350 57.3 116 10.5 135 47.2

Vans 1 145 380 10.5 71 3.0 72 6.5 16 5.5

- Diesel 998 187 9.1 23 1.0 65 5.9 10 3.3
- With catalyser 12 134 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.3 1 0.2
- Other 135 058 1.2 47 2.0 4 0.3 6 2.0

Buses 765 111 7.0 128 5.4 40 3.6 7 2.6

Lorries 2 768 658 25.3 323 13.7 108 9.7 26 9.3

114
 Table A6.12. Road traffic accidents, 1980-98
1980 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Accidents known to police
- Involving personal injury 6 790 10 175 7 882 6 147 6 245 7 812 7 274 6 980 6 902
- Provided from traffic insurance 80 999 107 553 91 043 81 518 83 748 84 867 81 511 81 168 87 1732

Killed
Number 551 649 601 484 480 441 404 438 400
- Accidents per 100 000 inhabitants 11.5 13.0 12.0 9.5 9.4 8.6 7.9 8.5 7.8
- Accidents per 100 million auto-km 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9

Injured1
Number 8 442 12 758 9 899 7 806 8 080 10 191 9 299 8 957 9 097
- Accidents per 100 000 inhabitants 177 255 196 154 158 199 181 174 176
- Accidents per 100 million auto-km 32 32 23 19 19 24 22 21 20
1. 1995: statistics revised in 1995.
2. Preliminary data.
Source: Motor Insurer’s Centre, Statistics Finland.

Table A6.13. Vessel arrivals in Finnish harbours, foreign traffic, 1980-98

1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
All vessels total
- Number 22 594 26 571 25 734 27 352 28 180 28 849 30 129 28 559 30 650 31 646
- Net-ton 58 303 140 864 149 816 149 555 156 405 148 105 166 161 167 378 172 098 177 788
(thousand)

Finnish
- Number 10 408 10 702 10 013 9 755 10 509 11 039 12 124 12 023 12 710 13 051
- Net-ton 33 231 70 282 74 664 73 366 83 588 89 607 106 069 108 878 108 039 112 669
(thousand)

Direct from abroad

- Number 17 048 19 905 19 503 21 122 21 456 22 432 23 699 22 891 25 203 26 255
- Net-ton 44 068 102 500 112 418 119 238 117 003 111 934 127 711 131 338 144 923 148 690
(thousand)

Finnish
- Number 7 693 8 004 7 766 7 602 7 542 8 443 9 436 9 646 10 914 11 188
- Net-ton 24 444 51 977 58 339 60 429 63 608 69 327 83 258 86 826 94 421 96 061
(thousand)
Source: Finnish Maritime Administration.

115
 Table A6.14. Vessel arrivals, foreign traffic, by type of vessel, 1998

Vessels registered Vessels registered Total

in Finland in other countries

Tonnage Cargo Tonnage Cargo Tonnage Cargo

No. No. No.
net tonnes net tonnes net tonnes
Total 13 051 112 669 19 582 18 595 65 119 19 487 31 646 177 788 39 069

Passenger vessels 467 435 0 1 173 1 574 0 1 640 2 009 0

Passenger/car ferries 5 833 88 102 872 5 112 31 491 643 10 945 119 593 1 515
Train ferries 87 466 119 199 1 253 399 286 1 719 518
Cargo ferries 3 397 14 862 2 849 2 990 11 409 2 045 6 387 26 271 4 894
Containers ships 0 0 0 690 2488 679 690 2 488 679
Bulk carriers 325 1 613 3 254 338 2 495 1 995 663 4 108 5 249
Other dry cargo vessels 1 825 2 498 1 157 6 580 10 028 6 881 8 405 12 526 8 038
Tankers 533 3 596 6 911 1 282 4 189 6 200 1 815 7 785 13 111
Other vessels 584 1 097 4 420 231 192 645 815 1 289 5 065
Source: Finnish Maritime Administration.

Table A6.15. Goods transport on domestic waterways, 1980-98

a) Million tonnes
1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total, all goods 16.28 12.36 10.46 8.99 8.48 9.78 12.05 12.58 11.85 12.88

Goods transport
- Total 8.73 8.04 7.05 6.89 6.91 8.49 10.48 11.42 10.44 11.72
- Oil products 5.64 3.83 3.69 4.19 4.11 4.81 4.49 6.00 5.76 4.61
- Other goods 1.98 1.99 1.65 1.44 1.40 1.54 1.73 1.95 1.94 2.64
- Dredged quantities 1.11 2.22 1.71 1.26 1.40 2.14 4.26 3.47 2.74 4.47

Floating
- Total 7.55 4.32 3.41 2.10 1.57 1.29 1.57 1.16 1.41 1.16
- River floating 1.41 0.66 0.60 - - - - - - -
- Bundle floating 6.14 3.66 2.81 2.10 1.57 1.29 1.57 1.16 1.41 1.16
Source: Finnish Maritime Administration.

116
 b) Million tonne-km
1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total, all goods 5 184 4 032 3 560 3 323 3 383 3 599 3 240 3 649 3 344 3 238

Goods transport
- Total 3 395 2 981 2 731 2 819 3 029 3 300 2 870 3 365 2 967 2 950
- Oil products 3 064 2 452 2 293 2 411 2 605 2 786 2 340 2 667 2 386 2251
- Other goods 321 519 418 398 414 504 490 659 568 672
- Dredged quantities 10 10 20 10 10 10 40 39 13 27

Floating
- Total 1 789 1 051 829 504 354 299 370 284 377 288
- River floating 438 244 219 - - - - - - -
- Bundle floating 1 351 807 610 504 354 299 370 284 377 288
Source: Finnish Maritime Administration.

Table A6.16. Goods transport in international traffic by sea

a) Imports and exports by sea, thousand tonnes, 1980-98

1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total 49 370 58 872 58 895 59 848 64 436 74 243 71 158 70 289 75 182 76 593
- By Finnish vessels 21 062 20 355 20 147 20 970 25 256 28 882 28 877 29 642 32 183 32 896
- Share % 42.7 34.6 34.2 35.0 39.2 38.9 40.6 42.2 42.8 42.9

Imports
- Total 31 470 34 825 32 277 32 090 32 560 38 637 37 036 36 944 39 018 39 069
- By Finnish vessels 14 428 13 103 12 146 12 668 15 911 18 114 18 066 18 693 20 158 19 581
- Share % 45.8 37.6 37.6 39.5 48.9 46.9 48.8 50.6 51.7 50.1

Exports
- Total 17 900 24 047 26 618 27 758 31 876 35 606 34 122 33 345 36 164 37 524
- By Finnish vessels 6 633 7 252 8 001 8 302 9 345 10 768 10 811 10 949 12 025 13 315
- Share % 37.1 30.2 30.1 29.9 29.3 30.2 31.7 32.8 33.3 35.5
Source: Finnish Maritime Administration.

117
 b) Million tonne-km in foreign goods transport, 1985-98
1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total 167 614 145 607 168 064 157 355 169 283 203 390 193 874 194 281 196 232 183 877
- By Finnish vessels 59 715 24 084 26 448 31 992 34 038 38 357 43 690 40 975 36 945 38 796
- Share % 35.6 16.5 15.7 20.3 20.1 18.9 22.5 21.1 18.8 21.1

Imports . 76 064 87 905 77 708 64 882 75 071 73 947 78 685 78 803 73 654
- By Finnish vessels . 11 932 14 671 19 834 19 435 22 514 25 130 24 789 22 757 22 950
- Share % . 15.7 16.7 25.5 30.0 30.0 34.0 31.5 28.9 31.2

Exports . 69 543 80 159 79 647 104 401 128 319 119 927 115 596 117 429 110 223
- By Finnish vessels . 12 152 11 777 12 158 14 603 15 843 18 560 16 186 14 188 15 846
- Share % . 17.5 14.7 15.3 14.0 12.3 15.5 14.0 12.1 14.4
Source: Finnish Maritime Administration.

Table A6.17. Means of transport imported by sea, 1980-98

1980 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total (tonnes) 2 016 541 3 751 518 3 644 380 4 259 517 5 407 275 5 486 438 6 529 560 7 996 700 7 704 730

Cars (No.) 443 678 502 715 458 917 427 295 444 708 445 790 454 949 471 991
Buses (No.) 6 660 14 532 18 241 25 390 19 667 13 590 14 163 15 177 15 950

Lorries
- Number 59 393 57 508 61 534 81 648 98 138 105 110 106 926 125 011 129 144
- Cargo (tonnes) 851 301 887 303 929 209 1 140 688 1 490 293 1 549 698 1 575 050 1 843 115 1 839 044

Trailers
- Number 19 275 77 706 73 528 80 914 98 925 108 084 122 972 145 426 152 714
- Cargo (tonnes) 262 198 1 011 499 898 501 1 009 186 1 310 229 1 527 285 1 758 705 2 106 853 2 177 833

Containers < 20 foot

- Number 41 488 64 687 69 996 84 384 93 262 86 560 85 364 102 306 110 554
- Cargo (tonnes) 554 004 851 438 786 215 890 358 1 009 871 979 392 1 077 372 1 315 347 1 327 879

Containers > 20 foot

- Number 13 775 50 743 57 428 79 695 102 208 111 290 133 113 157 982 135 286
- Cargo (tonnes) 196 062 591 247 587 210 809 245 1 144 659 1 326 430 1 649 846 2 081 328 1 792 290

Other
- Number 6 703 23 807 25 113 28 021 28 867 27 862 30 645 41 379 37 740
- Cargo (tonnes) 152 976 410 031 443 245 410 040 452 223 463 633 468 587 650 057 567 684
Note: Including cargoes.
Source: Finnish Maritime Administration.

118
 Table A6.18. Energy consumption and emissions in water transport, 1998
Energy consumption CO HC NOx
Consumption
GJ/a % t/a % t/a % t/a %
Total 37 467 197 100.0 25 908 100.0 9 704 100.0 65 393 100.0
- Harbours 3 792 250 10.1 501 1.9 188 1.9 6 393 9.8
- Waterways 28 704 002 76.6 2 817 10.9 1 381 14.2 53 135 813
- Free-time boats 2 357 240 6.3 22 140 85.5 7 969 82.1 1 250 1.9
- Fishing and working boats 1 847 550 4.9 394 1.5 130 1.3 3 003 4.6
- Icebreakers 766 156 2.0 56 0.2 37 0.4 1 612 2.5

Particles SO2 CO2

Emissions
t/a % t/a % t/a %
Total 1 925 100.0 18 201 100.0 2 758 761 100.0
- Harbours 147 7.6 2 158 11.9 282 644 10.2
- Waterways 1 329 69.0 15 654 86.0 2 109 616 76.5
- Free-time boats 339 17.6 69 0.4 172 584 6.3
- Fishing and working boats 64 3.3 105 0.6 138 698 5.0
- Icebreakers 46 2.4 214 1.2 55 221 2.0
Source: Technical Research Centre of Finland.

Table A6.19. Accidents: water transport

Shipwrecks, 1993-98
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
All shipwrecks, total 87 62 61 49 54 58
Finnish vessels, irrespective of the territory of waters 60 51 39 40 42 46
Foreign vessels on Finnish territory 27 11 22 9 12 12

Stranding or touching
- Total 37 23 25 27 29 28
- Finnish vessels, irrespective of the territory of waters 22 14 11 25 21 19
- Foreign vessels on Finnish territory 15 9 14 2 8 9

Collision
- Total 18 6 22 14 12 14
- Finnish vessels, irrespective of the territory of waters 10 4 14 7 8 13
- Foreign vessels on Finnish territory 8 2 8 7 4 1

Fire, explosion
- Total 2 3 4 3 5 3
- Finnish vessels, irrespective of the territory of waters 2 3 4 3 5 3
- Foreign vessels on Finnish territory - - - - - 0

Leaks and damaged cargo

- Total 4 3 4 1 6 1
- Finnish vessels, irrespective of the territory of waters 4 3 4 1 6 1
- Foreign vessels on Finnish territory - - - - - 0

Other accidents
- Total 26 27 6 4 2 12
- Finnish vessels, irrespective of the territory of waters 22 27 6 4 2 10
- Foreign vessels on Finnish territory 4 - - - - 2
Source: Finnish Maritime Administration.

119
 Table A6.20. Traffic by Finnish air carriers, 1980-98
Thousand tonne-km
1980 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total carriage
Total 380 257 1 015 836 906 836 937 542 1 055 776 1 160 866 1 226 5091) 1 380 207 1 463 456
- Passenger 189 756 859 289 764 347 756 160 839 714 929 915 968 1141) 1 061 485 1 166 979
- Freight & mail 52 766 156 547 142 489 181 382 215 992 230 951 258 3891) 318 722 296 477

Domestic traffic
Total 48 250 86 202 77 384 71 638 74 695 79 517 86 2341 96 525 110 112
- Passenger 46 109 84 130 75 387 69 492 72 038 76 761 83 5501 93 600 107 222
- Freight & mail 2 141 2 072 1 997 2 146 2 557 2 756 2 6841 2 925 2 890

International scheduled traffic

Total 194 272 488 563 458 254 590 409 729 780 910 156 944 890 1 073 045 1 136 888
- Passenger 143 647 347 398 337 070 422 950 526 949 686 237 694 014 763 374 847 124
- Freight & mail 50 625 141 165 121 184 167 459 202 861 223 919 250 876 309 671 289 764

International non-scheduled traffic

Total 137 735 441 071 371 198 275 495 251301 171 193 195 3851) 210 637 216 456
- Passenger - 427 761 351 890 263 718 240 727 166 917 190 5501) 204 511 212 633
- Freight & mail - 13 310 19 308 11 777 10 574 4 276 4 8291) 6 126 3 823
1. Revised figures
Source: Civil Aviation Administration.

Table A6.21. Carriage of freight and mail at Finnish airports, 1980-98

Tonnes
1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total
Mail, loaded and unloaded 8 528 14 294 13 900 16 347 16 361 17 473 18 236 18 724 20 627 22 262
Freight, loaded and unloaded 37 450 70 608 62 353 59 499 65 900 79 784 84 837 90 103 94 618 91 487

Domestic carriage
Mail, loaded and unloaded 3 258 5 977 6 272 7 555 7 468 7 884 8 031 7 745 8 974 9 445
Freight, loaded and unloaded 12 933 16 110 11 718 10 341 9 081 10 233 10 100 10 058 10 509 9 975

International carriage
Mail, loaded and unloaded 5 270 8 317 7 628 8 792 8 893 9 589 10 205 10 979 11 653 12 817
Freight, loaded and unloaded 24 517 54 498 50 635 49 158 56 819 69 551 74 737 80 045 84 109 81 512
Source: Civil Aviation Administration.

120
 Table A6.22. Air transport: energy consumption and emissions
Consumption, 1998 Energy consumption CO HC NOx
GJ/a % t/a % t/a % t/a %
Total 14 230 323 100.0 3 068 100.0 393 100.0 3 220 100.0

Domestic flights 5 176 598 36.4 446 14.5 154 39.2 1 272 39.5
International flights, departed 4 372 197 30.7 380 12.4 112 28.5 1 422 44.2
International flights, arrived 2 004 230 14.1 256 8.3 69 17.6 317 9.8
Over-flights 2 603 607 18.3 228 7.4 35 8.9 203 6.3
General aviation 73 691 0.5 1 758 57.3 23 5.8 6 0.2

Emissions Particles SO2 CO2 Pb

t/a % t/a % t/a % t/a %
Total . . 263 100.0 1 058 829 100.0 0 0.0
Domestic flights 96 36.6 385 235 36.4 0 0.0
International flights, departed . . 81 30.9 325 373 30.7 0 0.0
International flights, arrived . . 37 14.2 149 152 14.1 0 0.0
Over-flights . . 48 18.4 193 757 18.3 0 0.0
General aviation . . 0 0.0 5 313 0.5 1.0 100.0
Source: Civil Aviation Administration.

Table A6.23. Accidents: air transport

Accidents involving Finnish aircraft, 1980-98
1980 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Scheduled and non-scheduled traffic
Aeroplanes 35 49 54 55 54 55 56 55 60
Aircraft hours 83 428 147 500 139 475 134 235 144 710 155 700 165 350 173 000 190 180
Serious aircraft accidents - - - - - - 1 - -
Aircraft accidents - 2 - - - - - - -
Killed - - - - - - 1 - -
Severely injured - - - - - - - - -

General aviation
Aeroplanes 505 782 776 746 725 711 704 677 671
Aircraft hours 85 201 125 500 101 250 99 925 97 500 92 510 91 970 93 470 88 020
Serious aircraft accidents 3 2 6 3 5 7 3 1 2
Aircraft accidents 19 21 20 18 7 14 9 10 12
Killed - 2 1 6 - 2 - - -
Severely injured 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2

Gliding
Aeroplanes 305 377 376 364 365 369 369 374 373
Aircraft hours 35 690 36 850 36 750 33 800 32 700 31 700 31 300 34 000 24 700
Serious aircraft accidents 3 1 4 - 2 - 2 - 2
Aircraft accidents 19 19 8 13 11 8 6 6 7
Killed 3 - - - - - - - -
Severely injured 1 1 4 - 1 - 1 - 2
Source: Civil Aviation Administration.

121
 Annex 7

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN JAPAN

Traditional performance indicators

Table A7.1. Public investment by transportation

Fiscal year 1993 1994 1995 1995 1995/93
(JPY billion) (JPY billion) (JPY billion) (%) (%)
Total 17 561 16 144 17 100 100.0 -2.6

Road 15 059 13 989 14 448 84.5 -4.1

Railway 664 615 736 4.3 10.8
Port 1 280 1 125 1 424 8.3 11.3
Airport 558 415 492 2.9 -11.8
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Table A7.2. Final energy consumption, 1995

Million kilo-litres oil equivalent
Total 388

Transport 94
Livelihood 102
Industry 192
Source: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

Table A7.3. Final energy consumption, by transport mode, 1995

10 billion kcal
Passenger Freight Total
Total 51 309 35 795 87 104

Road 42 486 31 973 74 459

Rail 4 213 295 4 508
Sea 1 853 3 000 4 853
Air 2 757 527 3 284
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

123
 Table A7.4. Final energy consumption, by transport mode and transport volume
Percentages
Energy Transport
volume
Passenger
Total 100.0 100.0
Passenger car 69.0 47.0
Bus 2.0 5.0
Rail 7.0 29.0
Others 22.0 19.0

Freight
Total 100.0 100.0
Own truck 46.0 13.0
Commercial truck 43.0 40.0
Rail 1.0 4.0
Sea 8.0 43.0
Air 1.0 0.2
Source: Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Performance indicators in “Comprehensive Programme of Logistics Policies” (CPLP)

CPLP was decided by the Cabinet on 4 April 1997. CPLP includes all logistics policies in Japan,
one major set of policies of which are intermodal freight transport policies. CPLP has since been
annually reviewed by related ministries and the progress of CPLP has been reported to the Cabinet. As
the implementation period of CPLP will finish at the end of FY2001 (i.e. the end of March 2002), the
nenewed version of CPLP has been decided by the Cabinet in June 2001. Under strong constraints of
data collection, it is extremely difficult to evaluate, by using performance indicators, the outcome of
implementing CPLP for supply chains as a whole. Hence, the following six performance indicators
have been adopted in CPLP, in addition to other traditional performance indicators such as length of
improved highways and number of removal of congestion points:

• Performance indicators for urban logistics:

− Lading rate will be improved to 50%.

− Average vehicle speed during rush hours will be improved to 25km/h.

• Performance indicator for inter-urban logistics:

− The portion of the population that can be reached by land transport in a half-day
round-trip from sea-terminals will be improved to 90%.

• Performance indicator for international logistics:

− Processing time for customs clearance will be shortened to around two days.

• Performance indicators for standardisation:

124
 − The use of standardised pallets will be increased to 30%.

− The ratio of unit-loading will be increased to 90%.

Summary statement of the original CPLP

In carrying out the Programme, Japan will set up the following specific targets in each logistic
fields; we will make the utmost efforts to realise these targets, contingent on obtaining the necessary
co-operation of local public entities and private enterprises.

l. In regard to logistics in the major metropolitan areas, we aim to improve total lading rate to 50%
by the beginning of the 21st century by taking measures such as: increasing the ratio of commercial
trucks, promoting computerisation and joint-delivery, and reforming commercial practice.

In order to mitigate traffic congestion, we will promote the following measures: increasing traffic
capacity, implementation of regional TDM measures, improving efficiency, and promoting logistics
systems carried out by private enterprises. We aim to improve, by the beginning of the 21st century,
the rush-hour driving speed to 25 km per hour in the densely populated areas of the three major cities.

2. In regard to inter-urban transport, in order to promote the use of coastal shipping transport, we
aim to increase to around 90%, by the beginning of the 21st century, the portion of the population that
can be reached by land transport in a half-day round-trip from sea-terminals.

3. In regard to international logistics, we aim at placing, by the year 2001, the level of cost and
service related to harbours to the level that is not internationally inferior.

In particular, in regard to cargo containers imported by sea, we aim at shortening, by the year
2001, the time of clearance to around two days (at present it requires four to five days from arrival at
the port to departure from the container yard). In addition, we aim to reduce the total domestic
transport cost for import/export containers by 30%(compared with the cost if the present situation had
continued), by the beginning of the 21st century, by measures such as improving international
container terminals.

4. In regard to standardisation, we aim at increasing the present overall palletisation rate (currently
around 20%) to around 30% by taking the following measures: increasing unit-loading (to pack,
transport, and store in accordance with the unit standard so as to be suitable for mechanised loading
and unloading of cargo) ratio to around 90% (currently around 70%), by the year 2001, and promoting
the use of pallets to shippers in the manufacturing industry and to the logistics industry.

Note: These targets should be regarded as merely references, due to the limitation of available data,
and because improvements depend not only on the government but also on the private sector, whose
efforts are indispensable in certain fields.

125
 Figure A7.1. Transport demand, supply and loading rate

100 million tonne-km Loading rate

Loading rate %
8.00 % 50.0
47.1 47.1 46.6
45.7 44.8
7.00 45.0
6.48 6.57 6.57 6.86
6.25 40.0
6.00
35.0
Transport capacity
5.00
30.0

4.00 25.0
2.95 3.06 3.06 3.01 3.07 20.0
3.00
15.0
2.00
10.0
1.00
5.0

0.00 Transport volume 0.0

Note: Loading rate is the ratio of the actual goods moved to the maximum tonne-km that would be achievable if the vehicles,
whenever loaded, were loaded to their maximum carrying capacity.
Source: Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Figure A7.2. Overall palletisation rate

Percentages

30.0
23.1 23.5 23.5 23.9
25.0 22.2
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

1. Palletisation rate is the rate of palletised volume to the whole palletisable volume.
2. 1996 figure is average of 23 areas of industry. For other years, figures are average of 25 industries.
Source: JILS, Survey report on palletisation.

126
 Annex 8

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN THE NETHERLANDS

Proposed indicators

The following tables show indicators which are proposed in the Netherlands by various target
groups.

Table A8.1. Policy makers

Aggregate performance indicators • Journey time index (true origin to final destination)
• Average cost index
• Reliability index
Environmental performance of the • Emission (NOx, CO2)
different modes/modal
• Fuel consumption
combinations
Efficiency and use of infrastructure • Average use of road, inland waterway and rail network
• Length of road, inland waterway and rail network
• Average travel speed on road, inland waterway and rail network
• Growth and growth potential of road, inland waterway and rail network
• Congestion / risk
• Costs of maintenance and repair of the road, inland waterway and rail network

Safety per mode • Number of deaths/accidents

External costs (per mode) • Infrastructure costs

• Safety
• Noise
• Emissions

127
 Table A8.2. Semi-public organisations
Terminal efficiency • Handling time per container
• Number of container cranes
• TEU per container crane
• Movements per hour
• Crane-intensity
• Movements per crane-hour
• Net crane-productivity
Use of space • Stackable height
• Deposit area
• Total container area in hectares
Handling cost and revenue • Cost per container per handling
• Cost per container for stacking
• Cost for renting the container
• Revenue per container
Service level • Reliability
• Facilities (quayage, maximum draught, deposit area, container-cranes)
• Average waiting time
• Level of technology / EDI
• Number and frequency of connections (to other terminals)

Table A8.3. Shippers

Relative performance of the • Total logistic costs (production, sales, collection, storage, transport)
intermodal chain
• Transit time from true origin to final destination
• Reliability
• Flexibility
• Risk of damage

128
 Table A8.4. Transport industry and logistic service providers
Transport company performance • Return on assets
• Return on equity
• Trading margin etc.

Degree of utilisation of vehicle • In volume: measured by payload of weight, pallet numbers and average pallet
height
• In distance/empty running: measured as the number of miles the vehicle travelled
empty and the number of miles the vehicle travelled with only returnable items
• In time: measured on hourly basis as one of seven activities (running on the road,
rest period, loading or unloading, preloaded and awaiting departure, delayed or
otherwise inactive, maintenance and repair, and empty stationary) over a 48-hour
period

Schedule adherence and • Problem at collection point and/or delivery point

deviations from schedule
• Own company actions
• Traffic congestion on major corridors and at border crossings
• Equipment breakdown
• Lack of personnel
• Availability of required infrastructure (terminals, access roads, right-of-way,
highways, short-line rail services)
• Availability of appropriate equipment at terminals
• Operating procedures at ports and terminals

Fuel efficiency • Measured as km per litre

• Measured as ml. fuel needed to move one standard industry pallet 1 km

Relative performance of the • Timing: transit time, frequency of service and on time reliability
intermodal chain
• The total logistics costs and service in relation to the level and quality of logistics
services
• Efficient, seamless transfers between modes
• Use of integrated enterprise systems
• Compatibility of technology in different global regions
• Use of ITS to speed transport, improve connectivity, reduce congestion
• High asset utilisation, leading to lower cost of operation, leading to lower freight
rates

Harmonisation / regulation • Harmonised vehicle weights and dimensions

• Harmonised safety regulations
• Harmonised labour regulations
• Immigration policies (leading to such issues as trucking companies not able to hire
drivers from other countries during periods of driver shortage)
• Conflicting policies between government departments leading to tensions in
transportation system

129
 The following series of tables provides information on all modes of freight transport in the
Netherlands for the years 1990, 1993, 1995 and 1998. Data has been provided wherever possible
although, due to the unavailability of some data, there are inevitably some statistical gaps in the tables.

Table A8.5. Comparative table of modes of transport, 1998

Indicators, 1998 Road Rail Shipping Air
Domestic freight moved 29 230 848 8 909 -
(million tonne-km)
Domestic freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(million tonne-km)
International freight moved 10 579 3 008 24 941 1.17
(million tonne-km)
International freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(million tonne-km)
Percentage share of domestic traffic (tonnage) 73 22 26
Percentage share of international traffic (tonnage) 27 78 74
Energy consumption and pollution per tonne-km 391 1.4 30
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne/km 0.27 0.09 0.04
Lading factor and degree of utilisation Int 54.2% n.a. n.a.
Dom. 41.5 %

Table A8.6. Rail freight

Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight moved (million tonne-km) 721 790
Domestic freight lifted (million tonnes) 1994: 4.3 4.3 4.6
Domestic freight moved – containers (million tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Domestic freight lifted – containers lifted (million tonnes) 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.7
Domestic freight lifted – No. of containers (in loaded TEU) n.a. n.a. 1996: 58 69
International freight moved (million tonne-km) 1996: 2 295 3 008
International freight lifted (million tonnes) n.a. 1994: 13.6 15.2 20.6
International freight moved – containers (million tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight lifted – containers (million tonnes) 1.3 1.4 2.1 3
Percentage share of domestic traffic n.a. 24% 22% 18%
Percentage share of international traffic n.a. 76% 78% 82%
Energy consumption & pollution per tonne-km See following rows
Fuel intensity (tonne-km per litre) n.a. n.a. 74.6 81.5
Energy demand (petajoules) n.a. n.a. 1.3 1.4
GHG emissions (grams per tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
GHG emissions (megatonnes) /million kg n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Carbon dioxide 58 47 44 50
Methane (CH4) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Nitrous oxide 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne (NLG/tonne) 3.93 4.25 5.24
Price per tonne (NLG/tonne-km) n.a. n.a. 0.11 0.09
Lading factor and degree of utilisation n.a. n.a. 368 tonne/train 390 tonne/train
Accidents n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accidents per million train-miles n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
GHG: Greenhouse gas; fuel intensity: total million tonne-km/million litres of fuel; energy demand: petajoules: only diesel traction,
passenger transport included.
Source: BER, 1998, VEV, 1998, Tib-Monitor April 2000, CBS, Statistiek van het Goederenvervoer.

130
 Table A8.7. Length of national rail, road and inland waterway networks
Kilometres

Inland
Year Rail Road
waterway
1990 2 780 4 586
1992 104 831 4 586
1996 2 795 113 419 4 586
1998 2 805 116 093 4 586
Source: CBS, Statistiek van het Goederenvervoer 1998.

Table A8.8. Growth of rail and road networks in the Netherlands since 1990
Kilometres
Year Rail Year Road
1990 2 780 1990
1991 1991
1992 1992 104 831
1993 1993
1994 1994
1995 2 795 1995
1996 2 795 1996 113 419
1997 2 805 1997
1998 2 805 1998 116 093

Table A8.9. Growth of domestic traffic by road, rail and inland water, 1994-98
Billion tonne-km
Year Road Rail Inland water
1994 26 617 857 6 976
1995 28 010 721 6 930
1996 28 737 778 6 884
1997 28 330 814 8 316
1998 29 230 848 8 909

Table A8.10. Growth of total traffic by road, rail and water, 1994-98
Billion tonne-km
Year Road Rail Water
1994 9 713 1 949 23 012
1995 10 482 2 295 22 561
1996 10 049 2 385 22 624
1997 10 463 2 621 25 974
1998 10 579 3 008 24 941
Source: Statistiek van het Goederenvervoer 1998.

131
 Annex 9

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

The following series of tables provides information on all modes of freight transport in the
United Kingdom for the years 1990, 1993, 1995 and 1998. Data have been provided wherever possible
although, due to the unavailability or commercial nature of some data, there are inevitably some
statistical gaps in the tables.

Table A9.1. Comparative table of modes of transport, 1998

Indicators, 1998 Road Rail Shipping Air
Domestic freight moved (million tonne-km) 155 430 17 400 57 200 n.a.
Domestic freight moved – containers 51.39 n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight moved (million tonne-km) 8 058 n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. 4 035 n.a.
Percentage share of domestic traffic 65 5 23 <1
Percentage share of international traffic n.a. 1 98 (1995) 1
Energy consumption & pollution per tonne-km n.a. Figures only for n.a. Figures only for
passenger and passenger and
freight freight
combined combined
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lading factor and degree of utilisation 0.65 (artic) n.a. n.a. n.a.

0.54 (rigid)

133
 Table A9.2. Rail freight
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight moved (billion tonne-km) 15.8 13.8 13.3 17.4
Domestic freight lifted (million tonnes) 138.2 103.2 99.3 97.0
Domestic freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Domestic freight lifted – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Domestic freight lifted – No of containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight moved (billion tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1
International freight lifted (million tonnes) <1 <1 1.4 3.1
International freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight lifted – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Percentage share of domestic traffic 6 5 5 5
Percentage share of international traffic <1 <1 <1 1
Energy consumption & pollution per tonne-km ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lading factor and degree of utilisation n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accidents n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Key: ✖ – figures only available for passenger and freight traffic combined; n.a. – not available; tonnes – metric tonnes;
international freight lifted – traffic through the Channel Tunnel (excluding Eurotunnel “shuttle” services); percentage share of
domestic traffic – total goods lifted by rail expressed as a percentage of all domestic goods lifted; percentage share of
international traffic – total goods lifted by rail on an international journey expressed as a percentage of all international goods
lifted; lading factor and degree of utilisation – ratio of the actual goods moved to the maximum tonne-km achievable if the
vehicles, whenever loaded, were loaded to their maximum carrying capacity; accidents – deaths on the railway cannot be
desegregated between freight and passenger companies.
1. Until 1995, a relatively small amount of international rail traffic was carried on the Dover to Dunkirk train ferry operated by
Railfreight Distribution. This amount is negligible and the service was discontinued upon opening of the Channel Tunnel.

The rail freight sector in the United Kingdom has undergone radical change over the period in
question. Trainload Freight, the freight division of British Rail, was privatised in the early 1990s and
there are now two principle rail freight operators in the United Kingdom – EWS and Freightliner. In
terms of the data required, in most cases these has simply not been collected; however, since
privatisation, the data are subject to commercial confidentiality and, while the operating companies
may collect this for their own purposes, they are not released for general consumption. As with all
freight modes, the United Kingdom does not calculate figures relating to reliability or price per tonne.
The figures given for rail are for financial rather than calendar years; this does not significantly detract
from the validity of the figures.

134
 Table A9.3. Air freight
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight Moved (tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Domestic freight moved – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight moved (tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight lifted (thousand tonnes) 1 093 1 276 1 587 1 989
International freight lifted – containers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight lifted – value (GBP million) n.a.1 n.a.1 n.a.1 100.22
Domestic freight lifted (thousand tonnes) 50 52 65 50
Total belly-hold (thousand tonnes) n.a.* n.a.* n.a.* 670
Total freighter (thousand tonnes) n.a.* n.a.* n.a.* 1550
Percentage share of domestic traffic <1 <1 <1 <1
Percentage share of international traffic <1 <1 1 1
Energy consumption & pollution per tonne-km ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
Accidents n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Price per tonne n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lading factor and degree of utilisation n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Key: ✖ – figures only available for passenger and freight traffic combined; n.a. – not available; tonnes – metric tonnes, freight
lifted – weight of goods handled regardless of distance carried, percentage share of domestic/international traffic – total
goods uplifted (weight of goods handled) by air expressed as a percentage of all domestic/international goods uplifted;
accidents – figures for accidents involving air freight cannot be separated from passenger figures; lading factor and degree of
utilisation –ratio of the actual goods moved to the maximum tonne-km achievable if the vehicle, whenever loaded, were loaded
to their maximum carrying capacity.
1. Figures are not available for the given years up to 1998, but the United Kingdom can provide figures for “international air
freight by value” for 1992: GBP 53.03 million, 1994: GBP 66.76 million and 1996: GBP 94.06 million; “total belly-hold” for
1992: 980 000 tonnes, 1994: 1.23 million tonnes and 1996:1.33 million tonnes; “total freighter” for 1992: 340 000 tonnes,
1994: 460 000 tonnes and 1996: 560 000 tonnes.

The statistical data available for United Kingdom air freight are, as with rail freight, governed by
commercial sensitivity and source data not being collected. While the United Kingdom calculates both
domestic and international freight moved, air freight is not included in the calculations used to define
total UK freight moved due to possible distortions resulting from interlining.

In the United Kingdom, foreign operators carry the majority of international freight. Around 70%
of all air freight travels in the belly-hold of passenger aircraft. This link explains why
London-Heathrow and London-Gatwick are the dominant UK freight-handling airports. Other UK
airports have and are developing freight operations, in particular for major air-freight carriers.

135
 Table A9.4. Road transport
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Domestic freight moved (million tonne-km) 132 968 131 453 146 713 155 430
Domestic freight moved – containers 44.04 39.79 50.67 51.39
(million tonne-km)
International freight moved – total 5 413 6 098 7 284 8 058
(million tonne-km)
International freight moved – containers1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Percentage share international traffic n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
HGV mileage intensity (base: 1980 = 100) 99 96 93 93
Tonnes lifted (thousand tonnes) 1 687 000 1 574 708 1 658 409 1 679 434
Tonnes moved (thousand tonne-km) 132 968 864 131 453 034 146 713 580 155 430 806
Average length of haul (kilometres) 79 83 88 93
Average load: rigid (tonnes) 3 3 3 3
Average load: articulated vehicles (tonnes) 10 10 10 10
Empty/light running 29.8 29.1 29.4 27.8
Accidents involving HGVs – fatal and serious 5 100 4 000 3 700 3 500
casualties
Lading factor: rigid 0.58 0.55 0.56 0.54
Lading factor: articulated 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.65
Average fuel consumption per tonne-km 22 21 22 23
Average speeds
Motorways (70 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. 59 59 59
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. 57 56 54
All articulated vehicles n.a. 57 56 55
Dual carriageways (70 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. 55 56 58
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. 52 53 53
All articulated vehicles n.a. 54 55 55
Indicators 1990 1993 1995 1998
Single carriageways (60 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. 42 44 44
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. 40 42 42
All articulated vehicles n.a. 42 45 45
Urban roads (40 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. 34 34
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. 33 34
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. 31 32
Urban roads (30 mph speed limit)
Rigid 2 axles n.a. n.a. 32 31
Rigid 3/4 axles n.a. n.a. 30 30
All articulated vehicles n.a. n.a. 30 29

136
 Table A9.4. Road transport (cont’d.)
Vehicle safety – VI/testing failure rate (%)2 21.9 25.5 25.6 25.0
Emission standards (thousand tonnes)
NOx 441 n.a. 345 n.a.
PM10 32 n.a. 24 n.a.
Key: n.a. – not available; tonnes – metric tonnes; domestic freight moved – goods moved with an origin and destination
within the United Kingdom (expressed in tonne/km = the weight of the load multiplied by the distance it travels); international
goods moved – goods that raise a customs document with either an origin or destination outside the United Kingdom
(expressed in tonne-km); lading factor – ratio of the actual goods moved to the maximum tonne-km achievable if the vehicle,
whenever loaded, were loaded to their maximum carrying capacity; accidents involving HGVs – fatal and serious casualties
represents approximate figures only; HGV mileage intensity – The relationship between the trend in vehicle tonne-km and the
growth of GDP; weight bands – rigid vehicles: 3.5-36 tonnes, articulated vehicles: 7.5-44 tonnes (70% of articulated vehicles
are 36+ tonnes).
1. The IRHS cannot distinguish between swap bodies and containers.
2. The Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) undertakes the enforcement and checking of the HGV fleet in the United Kingdom. The number
of annual tests performed on HGVs has remained around 700 000 for the last few years. Of these, approximately
200 000 vehicles record an initial failure. This represents a fall in the failure rate over the past ten years.

Road freight accounts for just over 80% of all goods lifted in the United Kingdom. There are
currently around 420 000 licensed HGVs in the United Kingdom; this figure has remained relatively
constant for the last few years, although maximum vehicle weight is now 41 tonnes on six axles for
general use and 44 tonnes on six axles25 for journeys to and from a rail head.

The United Kingdom does not collect data on the number of containers moved by road in the
United Kingdom, that have been imported or are destined for export. Figures for NOx and PM10
emissions are not available for 1993 and 1998 as the data for HGVs cannot be distinguished from total
vehicle emissions. Figures are available for the remaining two years as part of additional work done
for the department.

25. The UK Government recently announced that 44 tonnes on six axles would be allowed for domestic
use. A date for their introduction is yet to be announced.

137
 Table A9.5. Maritime freight
Indicators 1990 1993 19951 19981
Domestic freight moved (billion tonne-km) 55.7 51.2 52.6 57.2
Domestic containerised traffic (thousand units) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International freight moved (billion tonne-km) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
International containerised traffic (thousand units) 2 605 2 879 3 419 4 035
Domestic freight lifted (million tonnes) 172.3 159.3 179.1 176.9
International freight lifted (million tonnes) 319.6 346.9 369.1 391.6
Total international bulk traffic (million tonnes) 222.9 242.0 251.9 257.4
Percentage share of domestic traffic 25 24 23 23
Percentage share of international traffic n.a. 99 98 n.a.
Total domestic combined transport (thousand units) 1 013 1 272 1 356 1 543
Total international combined transport (thousand units) 2 855 3 082 3 312 3 975
Total coastwise traffic (million tonnes) 122.3 121.5 140.0 144.5
Total unitised short-sea and near-sea traffic (thousand units) 4 141 4 375 4 857 5 669
Total inland water traffic (million tonnes) 6.0 6.4 6.6 4.3
Marine accident figures – deaths and injuries to crew members 600 411 341 361
Marine accident figures – deaths and injuries to passengers 52 135 87 135
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Key: n.a. – not available; domestic traffic –sum of coastwise and one-port traffic; bulk traffic – non-packaged dry and liquid
shipments capable of being handled by pipeline, elevator, grab or similar forms of equipment; containerised traffic – number of
containers (does not include Ro-Ro traffic); combined transport – the use of two modes simultaneously (active and passive),
including Ro-Ro services; coastwise shipping – goods loaded or unloaded at a port in the United Kingdom and transported to
or from another UK port; one-port traffic – comprises dredged sand and gravel, traffic to off-shore installations, materials for
dumping at sea.
1. Figures for 1995 and 1998 include estimates for smaller ports

138
 Table A9.6. United Kingdom: ship arrivals by type and dead-weight
Number of vessels
Dead-weight (tonnes) 1990 1993 1995 1998
Tankers
1 – 4 999 17 459 15 961 15 837 13 995
5 000 – 19 999 3 796 4 260 4 602 4 790
20 000 – 99 999 3 450 3 061 3 155 3 081
100 000+ 927 692 674 663

Ro-Ro vessels
1 – 4 999 64 348 64 157 70 433 64 351
5 000 – 19 999 10 578 12 242 17 367 21 549
20 000+ 299 333 393 207

Fully cellular container vessels

1 – 4 999 2 585 1 589 1 706 1 561
5 000 – 19 999 905 1 127 1 376 2 093
20 000+ 2 111 2 254 2 635 3 137

Other dry cargo vessels

1 – 4 999 43 931 34 315 36 428 33 452
5 000 – 19 999 5 630 3 241 3 625 4 295
20 000 – 99 999 2 389 1 505 1 531 1 844
100 000+ 539 182 239 293

Total 158 947 144 919 160 001 155 311

Key: Tonnes = metric tonnes; tankers – includes oil, gas, chemical and other specialised tankers, Ro-Ro vessels – passenger
and cargo vehicle carrying vessels; fully cellular container vessels – vessels that only carry containers; other dry cargo
vessels – including reefer, general cargo, and single and multi-deck cargo vessels.

139
Infrastructure: the United Kingdom’s five largest ports

The location of the United Kingdom’s five largest ports can be seen below:

None of the other indicators are readily available on a port by port basis in the United Kingdom.

In common with other modes the United Kingdom is unable to provide figures for the reliability
and costs of maritime freight and port traffic. However, the United Kingdom is able to provide data on
all the other indicators.

In terms of movement through UK ports, the majority of tonnage is comprised of bulk traffic.
This steadily increased between 1990 and 1998, by an overall increase of 15% to 257.4 million tonnes
in 1998. There have been fluctuations within the bulk traffic total; for example, crude oil shipments
have risen over the period while other bulk liquid traffic has begun to decline in recent years.

Containerised traffic (units) has increased more significantly over the same period, by 54% to just
over 4 million units. This represents a strong growth in container movement, notwithstanding the
opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1994.

In terms of combined international and domestic total tonnage, London is the largest port. A
major factor of this is the growth in the last few years of traffic through the port of Tilbury.

140
 Table A9.7. London
1990 1993 1995 1998
Total domestic tonnage 26 506 19 811 22 860 19 581
Of which: Bulk 26 481 19 684 22 856 19 557
Container & Ro-Ro 2 2 4 20

Total international tonnage 31 641 31 121 28 502 37 729

Of which: Bulk 22 047 21 733 18 357 23 137
Container & Ro-Ro 6 197 6 537 7 066 11 185

Quayage n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Draught n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total container area n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
No. of cranes n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per metre quay n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hectare n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane intensity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per crane hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane productivity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accident rate n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Table A9.8. Tees and Hartlepool

1990 1993 1995 1998
Total domestic tonnage 7 596 8 174 8 04 11 023
Of which: Bulk 7 577 8 074 8 270 10 955
Container & Ro-RO 0 2 1 3

Total international tonnage 32 651 34 567 37 772 40 430

Of which: Bulk 29 092 29 086 31 006 34 478
Container & Ro-RO 2 031 2 817 4 924 4 455
Quayage n.a. n.a. 7 854 m n.a.
Draught n.a. n.a. 1 759 m n.a.
Total container area n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
No. of cranes n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per metre quay n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hectare n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane intensity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per crane hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane productivity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accident rate n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

141
 Table A9.9. Grimsby and Immingham
1990 1993 1995 1998
Total domestic tonnage 6 837 8 085 9 595 9 696
Of which: Bulk 6 827 8 009 9 551 9 661
Container & Ro-Ro - - 2 3

Total international tonnage 33 250 33 206 37 195 38 691

Of which: Bulk 25 552 27 005 29 042 28 991
Container & Ro-Ro 5 174 4 925 6 082 7 947

Quayage n.a. n.a. 3 803 m1 n.a.

1
Draught n.a. n.a. 806 m n.a.
Total container area n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
No. of cranes n.a. n.a. n.a. 172
TEU per metre quay n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hectare n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane intensity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per crane hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane productivity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accident rate n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1.From a report “Supply and Demand in the GB Ports Industry”, by MDS Transmodal. Published in November 1996, this may
not reflect the current situation.
2. This data is not collected by DETR. It is sourced from the ABP Web site.

142
 Table A9.10. Forth
1990 1993 1995 1998
Total domestic tonnage 10 709 10 717 14 730 15 690
Of which: Bulk 9 990 10 399 14 388 14 670
Container & Ro-Ro 6 142 332 347

Total international tonnage 14 724 15 658 32 353 28 711

Of which: Bulk 13 147 14 432 29 512 27 154
Container & Ro-Ro 738 677 572 556

Quayage n.a. n.a. 1 4816 m1 n.a.

1
Draught n.a. n.a. 1 315 m n.a.
Total container area n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
No. of cranes n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per metre quay n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hectare n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane intensity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per crane hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane productivity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accident rate n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1. From a report “Supply and Demand in the GB Ports Industry”, by MDS Transmodal. Published in November 1996, this may
not reflect the current situation.

143
 Table A9.11. Southampton
1990 1993 1995 1998
Total domestic tonnage 11 918 10 130 13 177 12 368
Of which: Bulk 11 893 10 099 13 138 12 324
Container and Ro-Ro - 15 38 44

Total international tonnage 16 931 20 809 19 07 21 891

Of which: Bulk 13 843 16 081 12 869 16 034
Container and Ro-Ro 3 033 4 79 5 967 5 576

Quayage n.a. n.a. 6 090 m1 8 146 m2

Draught n.a. n.a. 1 027 m1 n.a.
Total container area n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
No cranes n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per metre quay n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hectare n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane intensity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Movements per crane hour n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crane productivity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Accident rate n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
TEU per hour n.a. n.a. n.a. 136*
Reliability n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1. From a report “Supply and Demand in the GB Ports Industry”, by MDS Transmodal. Published in November 1996, this may
not reflect the current situation.
2. This data is not collected by DETR. It is sourced from the ABP Web site.

Corridor studies

There has been only one specific corridor study carried out as part of the EC INSPIRE project.
This project is looking at links between Ireland and mainland Europe for unit load cargoes, namely
containerised traffic and that moving as Ro-Ro unit. A significant use is made of mainland
United Kingdom as a land-bridge for the transhipment of cargoes. The study identifies the size and
routes of present flows and estimates the traffic that transits mainland United Kingdom which
potentially could move by sea. The final report is now available.

Additional information26

From 1995, figures are for the length of the Railtrack network. Since privatisation, Railtrack has
been responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the United Kingdom’s railway infrastructure.
Rail network figures are for financial years as opposed to calendar years. Figures for the road network
include all motorways, trunk roads, principle, class 2 and class 3 roads.

26. All data in this section is sourced from Transport Statistics Great Britain 1999 (ISBN 0 11 552163 1)
GBP 30 from The Stationery Office Publications Centre, PO Box 276, London, SW8 5DT.

144
 The length of the inland waterway network represents the total length of commercial waterways
in the United Kingdom.

Table A9.12. Length of national rail, road and inland waterway networks
Kilometres
Year Rail Road Inland
waterway
1990 16 584 358 034 1 192
1991 16 558 359 966 n.a.
1992 16 528 362 310 n.a.
1993 16 536 364 212 n.a.
1994 16 542 364 966 n.a.
1995 16 666 366 999 1 153
1996 16 666 368 821 n.a.
1997 16 656 369 867 n.a.
1998 16 659 371 603 n.a.

Table A9.13. Modal share of freight transport

Billion tonne-km
Year Road Rail Water
1990 136.3 15.8 55.7
1991 130.0 15.3 57.7
1992 126.5 15.5 54.9
1993 134.5 13.8 51.2
1994 143.7 13.0 52.2
1995 149.6 13.3 53.1
1996 153.9 15.1 55.3
1997 157.1 16.9 48.1
1998 159.5 17.4 57.2

145
 Figure A9.1. Growth of the UK road network, 1990-98

Kilometers

375 000
370 000
365 000
Road km
3600 00
3550 00
350 000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Figure A9.2. Growth of domestic traffic by road, rail and inland water, 1990-98

Billion tonne-km

200

150
Road
100 Rail
Water
50

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

146
OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16
PRINTED IN FRANCE
(77 2002 03 1 P) ISBN 92-64-19742-7 – No. 52413 2002