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 Lyon-Madrid 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 (Algeciras) 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 (Valencia - management structure. Including representatives Lyon - Ljubljana - Budapest), 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.