Benchmarking on Corridor Management Models

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

One of the objectives of the CLYMA project is the design of an intermodal management structure for the - axis, as a pilot system extensible to the whole corridor.

This benchmarking analyses the management models in 20 transport corridors throughout the world. The presented corridors include axis of different transport modes providing a wide vision of governance strategies in order to identify best practices and success factors for implementation.

STUDY ELABORATED BY: Institut Cerdà (2014)

The full document is accessible to the project’s Stakeholders Interest Group on the CLYMA website: www.clyma.eu Foreword Example of corridor data sheet

This benchmarking has analysed 20 diverse worldwide transport corridors as follows:

. Location: 11 European corridors, 3 African, 5 American and 1 Asian corridor. . Geographical scope: 14 trans-national corridors and 6 along a single country. . Transport modes: most of the selected corridors foresee intermodal connections on some of their hubs or logistics terminals, although the main transport mode can be railway, road or maritime, or inland navigation waterways. . Management bodies of the corridors: private managerial bodies (private companies), public entities (governmental authorities) and public-private associations or alliances based on different business partnerships are analysed.

On the right side of this page, a summary of one of the corridors analyzed, the Betuwelijn, has been included.

In this executive summary there is a summarised table that shows the main aspects of each corridor and shows the differences among them.

2 Overview of transport corridor analysed

Europe Railway Corridors

1 Betuwwlijn 2 Rhine-Alpine Corridor 3 North-Sea Mediterranean Corr. 4 Atlantic Corridor 5 Orient East - Med Corridor 6 Czech-Slovak Corridor 12 Trans-Siberian Railway 13 Alameda Corridor 14 NCRR Corridor 15 Heartland Corridor

Inland Waterways

7 Rhine Waterway 8 Danube Waterway 16 The Panama Canal Legend # Name of the Corridor 17 The Suez Canal

Rest of the world Martime Corridors

9 HAROPA – Ports de Paris Seine Normandie Inland Waterways and Maritime 10 Copenhagen Malmö Ports

Road, Rail and Maritime 11 East-West Transport Corridor 18 Mtwara Development Corridor 19 Maputo Development Corridor 20 West Coast Corridor

Legend # Name of the Corridor 3 Summary of managerial structures identified

FIELDS OF ACTION OF THE ORGANISATION

CORRIDOR

Governance structure

BODY BODY

SCOPE

strategy

Capacity Capacity

MAIN MODE MAIN

allocation

Financing

Planning & & Planning

Marketing & & Marketing

MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT

maintenance

Infrastructure Infrastructure

GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL

INTERMODALITY

communication

Legal Legal framework

Charges collection Charges

1. Betuwelijn KeyRail Private company with permanent staff

Rail

ands Netherl

EEIG group: Executive Board of Ministers +

2. Rhine- Management Board of National Infrastructure

EEIG

Alpine national Managers + Advisory Boards + Working Groups. The - RFC1

Corridor Railway organisation is supported by the European (Europe)

Commission Trans

EEIG group: Executive Board of Ministers +

3. North-Sea Management Board of National Infrastructure

EEIG

Mediterranea national Managers + Advisory Boards + Working Groups. The - RFC2

n Corridor Railway organisation is supported by the European (Europe)

Commission Trans

EEIG group: Executive Board of Ministers +

Management Board of National Infrastructure

4. Atlantic EEIG

national national Managers + Advisory Boards + Working Groups. The Corridor - RFC4

Railway organisation is supported by the European (Europe)

Commission

Trans

Executive Board (respective transport Ministers) +

5. Orient- -

RFC7 Management Board (infrastructure managers &

East Med

Boards allocation bodies) + 6 Working Groups + Secretariat + Trans

Corridor Railway national national

(Europe) 2 Advisory Groups

6. Czech- Executive Board of Ministers + Management Board of

RFC9

Slovak national National Infrastructure Managers + 2 Advisory Groups - Boards

Corridor Railway + 4 Working Groups

(Europe) Trans Central

Commissi

on for the State Members: 20 Commissioners (4 from each state

7. Rhine

national national Navigation member) + 10 Deputy Commissioners (2 from each Waterway -

of the state member)+ 10 Committees + 15 Working Parties (Europe)

Rhine - Trans

Inland Inland Navigation CCNR

11 Member States+10 Observer States. The board is

Danube

8. Danube composed of one president, one vice-president and

national national Commissi Waterway - one secretary. Also includes 11 officers of the Inland Inland on

(Europe) Secretariat for each Department.

Navigation

Trans

.

9. HAROPA -

HAROPA EIG (1 director from each port authority -Le

Ports de HAROPA

Navigat Havre, Rouen, Paris-)+ Department directors and Paris Seine EIG

France Secretariat interacting in all 3 port authorities

Normandie

Maritime & Maritime

Inland Inland

10.Copenhag - Copenhag Local authorities (Copenhagen and Malmö) and private en – Malmö en Malmö investors

Port Trans Port - CMP

national national

Maritime (Europe)

FIELDS OF ACTION OF THE ORGANISATION

CORRIDOR

Governance structure

BODY

SCOPE

strategy

Capacity Capacity

MAIN MODE MAIN

allocation

Financing

Planning & & Planning

Marketing & & Marketing

MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT

maintenance

Infrastructure

GEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL

INTERMODALITY

communication

Legal Legal framework

Charges collection Charges

East West

11. East-West - Transport Stakeholders member association.

Transport Corridor The governance structure is not

Corridor Trans Association - operative yet

national national

Rail and and Rail

maritime (Europe)

EWTCA

Chairman of the CCTT (President

Coordinating of the Russian

12. Trans- Council on Railways)+Management board

Siberian national Trans-Siberian (formed of infrastructure managers, -

Railway Railway Transportation association of forwarders,

- CCTT association of rail operators) + Trans

Secretariat + Working Groups

Alameda 7 members of the Board (2 from

Corridor

13. Alameda each port authority,2 from each city

Transportation Corridor council and 1 metropolitan

Railway Authority -

California authority)

ACTA

North Carolina Private company (shared with

14. NCRR Railroad state). 1 chairman+1

Corridor (US) Company - vicechairman+1 secretariat+10 local

North North Railway

Carolina Carolina NCRR representatives

- 15. Heartland Norfolk Private company with permanent

Corridor Southern - NS staff

Trans

Railway

national

The Board of Directors (1 general

Autoridad del administrator + 11 department

16. Panama

Canal de members) is designated by the Canal

Panamá – ACP public authorities of the Republic of

Panama Maritime

Panama

Board of Directors (1 chairman+13

Suez Canal 17. Suez Canal department directors) designated Authority -SCA

Egypt by the Egyptian government

Maritime

18. Mtwara -

No active

Development authority

Corridor Trans

national

and and lake

maritime

transport

Road, Road, rail,

Multi-stakeholders corporation: 12

Maputo Executive Directors (rail operators,

19. Maputo Corridor infrastructure managers, public

Development national Logistic transport department, port operator, -

Corridor Initiative - logistics, border security and cargo maritime

MCLI handling companies)+ 1 chairman

Road, rail and and Road, rail Trans

from each country

Directors Board (30 members Transportation policy members of West Coast

Alaska, California, Oregon and

20. West Coast Corridor

national Washington)+Executive Committee Corridor - Coalition - (Alaska and California Departments

Road, Road, rail, WCCC

of Transportation, and council

Trans maritime and and air maritime

association of Oregon)

Main findings

The review of the existing governance models worldwide shows that there is not a single management solution with regard to transportation corridors. Structures vary widely in terms of legal status, number of members, tasks and skills depending on the different corridor’s contexts: different lengths, geographical scope, stages of maturity, main modes, hinterland’s activity… Most common competence and Lessons learnt from the benchmarquing fields of actions . Setting a management structure can be challenging . Activities oriented to the establishment of an when countries involved have very dissimilar appropriate legal or regulatory framework, situations. aimed at setting a common framework for the different stakeholders as well as for the various . Encouragement of public-private consortia. countries involved in the corridor development. . Multinational organisations offer better . Planning and strategic concerns, in order to performance. ensure a harmonised development of the transport axis between countries and . Strong commitment of all the association infrastructure managers, and generating members is a key factor for the structure success. knowledge about the economic prospects of the corridor or its implementation plan. . Participation of different stakeholders’ members (administrators, customers, governments, businesses, . Marketing and communication processes, etc.) is very positive. both external (making the work publicly available and promoting the corridor) and . Transparency, external coordination and fluent internal (allowing a smooth communication, communication among all participants are essential. good practices exchange and identification of common and specific needs of the organisation . Studies and works developed by specific working members groups within a governance structure enable the monitoring of the work progress achieved Investment on infrastructure is rarely assumed by the management body, except for cases in which Although it is advised by the EU to build a corridor the manager is also the owner of the infrastructure management including all modes of transport, the (this only occurs in one-country corridors). benchmarking results show that the multi-modal approach of corridor management is significantly less usual than one-mode focused organisations. In fact, today there is no multimodal management structure for a specific corridor anywhere in the world.

Management structures Member States EXECUTIVE BOARD Art.8(1) Regulatory Authorities - Define general objectives bodies Among the analysed legal and institutional options for - Supervise / take measures of implementation of the corridor plan and the investment planning. corridor management, several corridors (most of them

EEIG railway European corridors) are managed by MANAGEMENT BOARD Art.8(2) Infrastructure ONE-STOP-SHOP Art.13(1) managers - Define the implementation plan for the corridor. Single place to request and - Coordinate works and investments. receive information about cross- associations with the same organizational structure Allocation bodies - Establish the legal status and organizational border infrastructure capacity. (according to Regulation (EU) 913/2010, for Rail Freight structure. Corridors governance). The structure of these

management organizations, as well as the main tasks Advisory group Advisory group Applicants of each of its bodies, is schematized in the following Terminals Art.8(7) Railways Art.8(8) Terminal owners / Railway Undertakings image (DG Move, 2011). managers Source: DG Move (2011) 6 Conclusions for the Lyon-Madrid axis

The Mediterranean Corridor Global project is a Regardless of these legal implications, a multi- multi-modal transport corridor (covering roads, rail level governance perspective (with assembly, lines, ports and airports) which crosses Europe boards and a secretariat) is suggested as it from East () to West (Ukrainian border). ensures the involvement of the managing It is one of the corridors of the TEN-T Core members while allowing wide participation of Network and includes the Rail Freight Corridor 6 stakeholders in lower statements of the (RFC6) and the ERTMS corridor D ( - management structure. Including representatives Lyon - - ), which shall be of the Member States concerned, regional integrated into the multi-modal TEN-T. representatives (when approaching a narrow scope of the corridor) and public and private Recommendations to be taken into account in the entities is strongly advisable. creation of a management structure for the Mediterranean Corridor are the establishment of a The establishment of working groups which multi-stakeholder and trans-national can focus on particular topics related to the association, as it broadens the scope of action corridor (rail infrastructure, rail capacity and rail of the corridor from a specific part of the slots, road capacity, terminals, ERTMS and infrastructure to other issues such as hinterland interoperability, accompanying measures, cross- connections, cross-border interoperability, financing, rail freight and passenger traffic) have harmonised cross-border processes and proved to be efficient tools for monitoring the promotion of the global axis. corridor progresses on a stable basis.

There are different options for the legal form of the Existing management structures for RFC6 and organization, being associations and EEIGs the ERTMS corridor D should be considered in order most usual in Europe. The choice of one option to avoid overlapping of government structures in rather than others depends on the expected level the same corridor. In that sense, the existing of members’ commitment or legislation concerns working groups and the new ones can be (for example, an EEIG is subject to European assembled in order to avoid duplication of works instead of national regulations). but following up the studies started.

7 CLYMA project consists of the implementation of theCLYMA corridor approachproject consists to a section of the ofimplementation the of Mediterraneanthe corridor approach corridor to a ,section concretely of the to the WesternMediterranean part of the corridor corridor and, specificallyconcretely toto thethe LyonWestern-Madrid part Axis. of the corridor and specifically to the Lyon-Madrid Axis. The project comprises of studies and actions on the organizationThe project and comprises optimal implementationof studies and actions of the on the TENorganization-T network and, takingoptimal into implementation account long ofterm the perspectives,TEN-T network environmental, taking aspectsinto account and associatedlong term needs,perspectives, as well as environmental studies that promote aspects environmental and associated sustainability,needs, as well resource as studies efficiency that promote and low -environmentalcarbon transportsustainability, within an resource integrated efficiency transport and concept. low-carbon This shouldtransport stimulate within the an deployment integrated transportof the Green concept. This Corridorshould stimulate concept. the The deployment project also of the intends Green to developCorridor a managerial concept. structureThe project alsofor the intends to intermodaldevelop corridor.a managerial structure for the intermodal corridor.