DOCSLIB.ORG

Liberalisation and Structural Reform in the Freight Transport Sector in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Liberalisation and Structural Reform in the Freight Transport Sector in Europe LIBERALISATION AND STRUCTURAL REFORM IN THE FREIGHT TRANSPORT SECTOR IN EUROPE ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Paris Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This paper is part of the OECD work programme on trade and environment. Presented to the OECD Joint Session of Trade and Environment Experts, it was prepared by Dr. Werner Rothengatter, a consultant, under the supervision of Dale Andrew of the Trade Directorate. It has been made available on Internet under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD with the aim of bringing information on this subject to the attention of a wider audience. Copyright OECD, 1997 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 6 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Executive summary............................................................................................................................ 7 1. Regulation of the European transport market: 1950-1985.................................................................11 1.1 Historical roots of regulations and their development in selected countries ..................................11 1.2 Issues of the Rome Treaty and their reformulation in the Maastricht Treaty.................................12 1.3 Liberalisation and harmonisation.................................................................................................13 2. The liberalisation period: 1985-1994 ...............................................................................................15 2.1 Important steps in market liberalisation.......................................................................................15 2.2 Missing elements of a harmonisation policy................................................................................18 2.3 Deregulation in central European countries..................................................................................20 3. Regulation and taxation in EU countries, 1995 .................................................................................22 3.1 Taxation and tolling in the road sector.........................................................................................23 3.2 Regulations concerning road traffic and combined transport........................................................24 3.3 Licenses and quotas in international road transport and combined transport.................................26 3.4 Environmental regulations...........................................................................................................26 3.5 The EUR+3 countries, Norway and Switzerland..........................................................................27 4. Developments in road and rail transport and modal structure ............................................................30 4.1 Road transport in EUR15 ............................................................................................................30 4.2 Rail transport in EUR15..............................................................................................................33 4.3 Inland waterways and pipelines in EUR15...................................................................................35 4.4 Combined transport in EUR15 ....................................................................................................35 4.5 Developments in modal split in EUR15.......................................................................................37 4.5 EUR12 versus EUR+3, Norway and Switzerland ........................................................................38 4.6 Developments in the modal split in selected CEC Countries........................................................39 5. Conclusions......................................................................................................................................41 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................44 Tables Table 1.1 Common transport policy: the key events that followed the European Court of Justice judgement (road, rail and inland waterways)..........................................................................14 Table 2.1 Examples of changes observed in the CEC transport sector since 1989..................................21 Table 3.1 Taxation and tolling in the EU member countries, 1995........................................................24 Table 3.2 Truck and combined transport regulations in EU member countries ......................................25 Table 3.3 Truck exhaust emission standards, 1988 until after 1999.......................................................27 Table 3.4 Austrian regulations following entry into the EU ..................................................................27 Table 3.5 Heavy vehicle motorway tax in Switzerland..........................................................................29 Table 3.6 Harmonization of road freight taxation in Sweden with EU fiscal conditions (ECU per year) .......30 Table 4.1 Road freight transport in Europe, 1985-1994.........................................................................32 Table 4.2 Road freight transport in Europe, 1985-1994.........................................................................32 Table 4.3 Rail freight transport in Europe, 1985-1994 ..........................................................................34 Table 4.4 Rail freight transport in Europe, 1985-1994 ..........................................................................34 Table 4.5 Freight transport in CEC countries........................................................................................40 Figures Figure 4.1 Road freight and total transport in EUR15, 1970-1994 (tonne-km) ......................................31 Figure 4.2 Rail freight and total transport in EUR15, 1970-1994 ..........................................................33 Figure 4.3 Inland waterway and pipeline transport in EUR15, 1970-1994 (in tonne-km).......................35 Figure 4.4 Cross-border modal split for combined transport in selected countries, (based on tonne-km).......36 Figure 4.5 Market shares of freight transport by mode in EUR15, 1985-1994 (tonne-km).....................37 Figure 4.6 Road freight market shares in EUR12 and EUR+3...............................................................39 Figure 4.7 Market shares for road and rail in CEC countries, 1990 - 1994 (tonne km)...........................41 The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Richard Deiss, EU Commission, DG VII Gunther Ellwanger, UIC, Paris Carlos Fernandes, Technical University, Lisbon Tonney Fowkes, ITS, Leeds Lars Hansson, University of Lund Marco Ponti, University of Venice Farideh Ramjerdi, TOI, Oslo Stefan Suter, ECOPLAN, Bern Katalin Tanczos, Technical University, Budapest Stefan Winkelbauer, Technical University, Vienna Jaap-Jan Wondergem, NEA, Rijswijk Introduction and Executive summary Introduction The objective of this paper is to analyse the extent to which structural changes in the European freight transport market have been brought about by liberalisation and structural reform on the supply side, as advocated in European Union (EU) common policy. The former market regulation approach had little chance of survival, not being based on valid economic foundations. But the implementation of deregulation policy in the EU has been criticised as having favoured the road sector. On one hand, the liberalisation process started with road haulage which helped make this sector strong and competitive. On the other, there has been no serious attempt across the EU to harmonise the fiscal, environmental and safety regimes of all the competing sectors by setting appropriate prices and environmental/safety standards. In the United States the deregulation process started earlier, first in the airline industry (1978), then the railway industry (1980) and road haulage (1980). In contrast to European developments, the US railway industry has improved its market position: in terms of transport volume (tonne-km) and shares of the freight transport market. To explain this discrepancy, the national European railway companies have always referred to the structural differences in the European market, such as the long distances, spatially concentrated demand and concentration on profitable transport businesses. In a European context, however, some of these “natural” discrepancies between the US and the EU freight transport market disappear, and the question arises why the volume increases in international, long distance freight associated with the European single market have not benefited railways and inland waterways. Analysis of this question requires an in-depth look at the deregulation process and market developments in Europe. Therefore, this paper will concentrate only on freight transport by road, rail and inland waterways in an attempt to define why the European single market has not led to increased market share for railways and inland waterways. In the first section of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Masterarbeit
    MASTERARBEIT Titel der Masterarbeit The Social Benefits of Carfree Living Verfasserin Sabeth Tödtli angestrebter akademischer Grad Master of Arts (MA) Wien, 2011 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 066 664 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: 664 DDP Urban Studies UG2002 Betreuer: Diego A. Barrado Timón ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !"#$%&'$(!"#$%&'(" Im Bestreben einer 'Nachhaltigen Entwicklung' plädiert diese Masterarbeit für den Schwerpunkt auf 'Soziale Nachhaltigkeit', namentlich auf Lebensqualität und soziale Gerechtigkeit. Diese Forschungsarbeit befasst sich mit den 'Sozialen Vorteilen' einer reduzierten Automobilität. Im theoretischen Teil werden die möglichen Vorteile von reduzierter Automobilität identifiziert. Nebst ökologischen und wirtschaftlichen Vorteilen liegt das Potential vor allem in den Bereichen Gesundheit, Sicherheit, Komfort, Freiheit, Identität, Kultur, Ästhetik, Demokratie und Bürgerbeteiligung und Gemeinschaft. Der empirische Teil der Arbeit besteht aus zwei Fallstudien – zwei autofreien Wohnsiedlungen – in welchen diese potentiellen sozialen Vorteile untersucht und evaluiert werden: das Quartier Vauban in Freiburg, Deutschland, und die Autofreie Mustersiedlung Floridsdorf in Wien, Österreich. Die sozialen Vorteile, die von den Bewohnern am stärksten wahrgenommen werden sind Gemeinschaftseinrichtungen, gemeinschaftliche Aktivitäten, und die Möglichkeit in die Entwicklung und die Organisation der Siedlung miteinbezogen zu werden. Dieses Konzept der Mitbestimmung, sowie das starke Gemeinschaftsempfinden, bilden
    [Show full text]
  • European Modular System for Road Freight Transport – Experiences and Possibilities
    Report 2007:2 E European Modular System for road freightRapporttitel transport – experiences and possibilities Ingemar Åkerman Rikard Jonsson TFK – TransportForsK AB ISBN 13: 978-91-85665-07-5 KTH, Department of Transportation Strandbergsgatan 12, ISBN 10: 91-85665-07-X and urban economics SE-112 51 STOCKHOLM Teknikringen 72, Tel: 08-652 41 30, Fax: 08-652 54 98 SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM E-post: [email protected] Internet: www.tfk.se European Modular System for road freight transport – experiences and possibilities . Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate Swedish and Finnish hauliers’ experiences of using the European Modular System, EMS, which entails Sweden and Finland the use of longer and heavier vehicle combinations (LHV’s). In short, EMS consists of the longest semi-trailer, with a maximum length of 13,6 m, and the longest load-carrier according to C-class, with a maximum length of 7,82 m, allowed in EU. This results in vehicle combinations of 25,25 m. The maximum length within the rest of Europe is 18,75 m. Thus, by using LHV’s, the volume of three EU combinations can be transported by two EMS combinations. This study indicates that the use of LHV’s according to EMS have positive effect on economy and environment, while not affecting traffic safety negatively. Swedish hauliers have the possibility of using either the traditional 24 m road trains or 25,25 m LHV’s according to EMS for national long distance transports. Experiences of using EMS vehicle combinations are mostly positive. LHV’s according to EMS implies increased load area and flexibility compared to the 24 m road trains.
    [Show full text]
  • View Its System of Classification of European Rail Gauges in the Light of Such Developments
    ReportReport onon thethe CurrentCurrent StateState ofof CombinedCombined TransportTransport inin EuropeEurope EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS TRANSPORT EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF COMBINED TRANSPORT IN EUROPE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT (ECMT) The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) is an inter-governmental organisation established by a Protocol signed in Brussels on 17 October 1953. It is a forum in which Ministers responsible for transport, and more speci®cally the inland transport sector, can co-operate on policy. Within this forum, Ministers can openly discuss current problems and agree upon joint approaches aimed at improving the utilisation and at ensuring the rational development of European transport systems of international importance. At present, the ECMT's role primarily consists of: ± helping to create an integrated transport system throughout the enlarged Europe that is economically and technically ef®cient, meets the highest possible safety and environmental standards and takes full account of the social dimension; ± helping also to build a bridge between the European Union and the rest of the continent at a political level. The Council of the Conference comprises the Ministers of Transport of 39 full Member countries: Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.), Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. There are ®ve Associate member countries (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States) and three Observer countries (Armenia, Liechtenstein and Morocco).
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transport That Works: Insights from Germany
    PUBLIC TRANSPORT THAT WORKS: INSIGHTS FROM GERMANY Ralph Buehler, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA Rutgers Climate Panel 3: Climate Change and Transport in Europe Change Conference Overview Transport, Energy Use, & Climate Change Public Transport Demand in Germany and the USA Policies that Promote Public Transport Summary – Lessons for the USA Energy Use in Passenger Transport 3 Mode of Transport Energy Intensity/Efficiency Fuel Type Amount of Activity (number of trips; miles traveled) 4 100 120 140 160 180 20 40 60 80 0 1973 of Consumption Petroleum by End 1974 1975 1976 1977 1973 1978 1979 1980 1981 – 1982 1973) to relative (percent 2007 1983 1984 1985 1986 (Sources: ORNL, Energy 2008) Energy ORNL, Data Book, (Sources: 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 - 2002 Use Sector, 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Electric utilities Residential Industrial Transportation Commercial Relationship between Share of Urban Trips by Transit, Bicycle, and Foot and Per Capita Annual CO2 Emissions from Road and Rail Transport in Australia, Canada, the USA and the EU 2000-08 6.000 USA 5.000 Canada 4.000 Australia Ireland 3.000 Austria Denmark Sweden Spain Annual Tons of CO2 per capita per CO2 of Tons Annual Belgium Norway Emissions per Capita Finland 2 UK 2.000 France Netherlands Germany 1.000 Transport CO Transport Walk, Bike, Transit Share of Trips 0.000 0 10 20 30 40 50 R² = 0.74 Percent of trips by public transport, bicycle, and foot Sources: (Bassett, Pucher, Buehler, Thompson, & Crouter, 2008; BMVBS, 1991-2008; IEA, 2009) USA and Germany: similar trends in car ownership….
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Rail Freight in Europe: What Regulation Can and Cannot Do
    Development of rail freight in Europe: What regulation can and cannot do Belgium Case Study Professor Eddy Van de Voorde and Professor Thierry Vanelslander (University of Antwerp) Brussels, 11 December 2014 Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) asbl Rue de l’Industrie 42 Box 16 - B-1040 Brussels - Belgium Ph: +32 2 230 83 60 - Fax: +32 2 230 83 70 – [email protected] – www.cerre.eu Table of contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 2. Demand for rail freight transport ..................................................................................... 3 3. Supply on the rail freight market ................................................................................... 10 3.1 Market structure in Belgium .................................................................................. 11 3.2 Market structure in a number of neighbouring European countries ........................ 14 3.3 Xrail: alliance or cartel? ......................................................................................... 17 4. Regulation and competitive strategies ........................................................................... 18 5. Potential scenarios for the Belgian market .................................................................... 22 5.1 Scenario 1: the market structure remains unchanged ............................................. 23 5.2 Scenario 2: a de facto monopoly............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oward Improved Intermodal Freight Transport in Europe and the United States: Next Steps
    Toward Improved Intermodal Freight Transport in Europe and the United States: Next Steps Report of an Eno Transportation Foundation Policy Forum held November 18–20, 1998 Forum Sponsors: European Commission U.S. Department of Transportation Directorate-General VII (Transport) Office of Intermodalism and Federal Highway Administration Table of Contents Participants and Paper Authors ................................................................................... iv Preface ............................................................................................................................ v Forum Proceedings ........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Interoperability and Standardization ............................................................... 2 Standardization of Loading Units ............................................................................... 2 Standardization of Intermodal Information Systems ................................................ 3 Intermodal Liability Issues ................................................................................ 4 Current Liability Regimes............................................................................................ 4 Prospects for a New Liability Regime ......................................................................... 5 Liability and the Need for Information .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluierung Von Regelungen Für Den Gütertransitverkehr Durch Die Alpen
    GÜTERTRANSITVERKEHR Wilfried Puwein Evaluierung von Regelungen für den Gütertransitverkehr durch die Alpen Der europäische Nord-Süd-Verkehr konzentriert sich in den Alpen auf einige wenige Verkehrsachsen. Die Bevölkerung der betroffenen Täler empfindet vor allem den Lärm und die Abgase des Lkw-Transit- verkehrs, die ständig ihren Lebensraum ausfüllen, als unerträgliche Belastung. Ihr Widerstand gegen die Zunahme des Transitverkehrs, etwa mit Straßenblockaden, zwingt die Verkehrspolitik zu Lösungen, die ei- nerseits die Umweltbelastung in den Alpen verringern sollen und andererseits den freien Warenverkehr nicht beeinträchtigen. Die Alpenländer verfolgen hier verschiedene Ansätze. Frankreich bleibt bei einer liberalen Verkehrspolitik; das Autobahnnetz war aber von Anfang an bemautet, die Gebühren für die Be- nutzung der Alpentunnel wurden sehr hoch angesetzt. In der Schweiz wurde die Lkw-Gewichtsbeschrän- kung von einer Schwerverkehrsabgabe abgelöst. Österreich sah eine "Ökopunkteregelung" vor, diese Form der Kontingentierung der Transitfahrten wurde aber de facto 2003 aufgegeben. Anhand der Ent- wicklung des Transitverkehrs in den letzten Jahrzehnten lässt sich die Effektivität der Maßnahmen über- prüfen. Die Verkehrsminister der EU-Mitgliedsländer unterzeichneten am 12. Oktober 2006 das Protokoll "Verkehr" der Alpenkonvention. Damit können neue Maßnahmen gesetzt werden, die helfen sollen, das Problem des Lkw-Transitverkehrs im Alpenraum zu lösen. Dieser Beitrag ist eine aktualisierte und überarbeitete Fassung eines Artikels in der Zeitschrift
    [Show full text]
  • Putting European Transport on Track for the Future
    Putting European transport on track for the future #MobilityStrategy SUSTAINABLE AND SMART MOBILITY STRATEGY 2 Putting European transport on track for the future 1 OUR VISION 1. Mobility and transport matters to us all. From daily commuting to work, visiting family and friends, tourism, to the proper functioning of global supply chains for the goods in our shops and for our industrial production, mobil- ity is an enabler of our economic and social life. Free movement of people and goods across its internal borders is a fundamental freedom of the European Union (EU) and its single market. Travelling in the EU has led to greater co- hesion and a strengthened European identity. As the second-largest area of expenditure for European households, the transport sector contributes 5% to European GDP and directly employs around 10 million workers. 2. Whilst mobility brings many benefits for its users, it is not without costs for our society. These include greenhouse gas emissions, air, noise and water pollution, but also accidents and road crashes, congestion, and biodiversity loss – all of which affect our health and wellbeing. Past efforts and policy measures have not yet sufficiently addressed these costs. The transport sector’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased over time and represent now as much as a quarter of the EU’s total. 3. By far, the most serious challenge facing the transport sector is to significantly reduce its emis- sions and become more sustainable. At the same time, this transformation offers great opportunities for bet- ter quality of life, and for European industry across the value chains to modernise, create high-quality jobs, develop new products and services, strengthen competitiveness and pursue global leadership as other markets are moving fast towards zero-emission mobility.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Report on Combined Transport in Europe
    2018 Report on Combined Transport in Europe January 2019 2018 REPORT ON COMBINED TRANSPORT IN EUROPE Publication: UIC-ETF Design: Ludovic Wattignies Printer: ACINNOV’ Legal deposit: January 2019 ISBN 978-2-7461-2798-2 Warning No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or distributed by any means whatsoever, including electronic, except for private and individual use, without the express permission of the International Union of Railways (UIC). The same applies for translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any method or procedure whatsoever. The sole exceptions - noting the author’s name and the source -are «analyses and brief quotations justified by the critical, argumentative, educational, scientific or informative nature of the publication into which they are incorporated» (Articles L 122-4 and L122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code). © International Union of Railways (UIC) - Paris, 2019. Content Foreword by the UIC Combined Transport Group Chairman ................... 4 1. Rail/road combined transport in Europe at a glance ........................ 5 2. General framework and key elements of combined transport in Europe ............................................................................................ 10 2.1. Rail and intermodal transport in the European freight market ...........................10 2.2. Definition, market structure and key elements of combined transport .............16 3. The European rail/road combined transport market – facts and figures ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transport Taxes and Charges in Europe an Overview Study of Economic Internalisation Measures Applied in Europe
    Transport taxes and charges in Europe An overview study of economic internalisation measures applied in Europe BY: Arno Schroten (CE Delft), Peter Scholten (CE Delft), Lisanne van Wijngaarden (CE Delft), Huib van Essen (CE Delft), Marco Brambilla (TRT), Marco Gatto (TRT), Silvia Maffii (TRT), Frank Trosky (Planco), Holger Kramer (ISL), Reinhard Monden (ISL), Damaris Bertschmann (INFRAS), Maura Killer (INFRAS), Anne Greinus (INFRAS), Vitalie Lambla (PMR), Kareen El Beyrouty (Ricardo), Sofia Amaral (Ricardo), Tom Nokes (Ricardo), Ancelin Coulon (Ricardo) March - 2019 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport Directorate A — Policy Coordination Unit A3 — Economic analysis and better regulation Contact: Rolf Diemer E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels 1 4.K83 - Transport taxes and charges in Europe - March 2019 EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you) LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 ISBN 978-92-79-99561-3 doi: 10.2832/416737
    [Show full text]
  • Ruling of Austria's Federal Administrative Court
    Ruling of Austria’s Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) on the planned third runway for Vienna International Airport (Schwechat). 2 February 2017 (Original in German) Executive Summary (from Climate Blog of Columbia Law School1) Plans for a third runway at the Vienna-Schwechat airport were first submitted for review by the government of Lower Austria (one of Austria’s 9 regions) in March 2007. (In early February) the Lower Austrian government’s approval of those plans was struck down by Austria’s Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) because authorizing the runway would do more harm to the public interest than good, primarily because it would be contrary to Austria’s national and international obligations to mitigate the causes of climate change. Before arriving at its decision, the court examined expected changes in future air traffic, the emissions impacts of those changes, and the extent to which it would be possible for the airport to control or otherwise limit various sources of emissions. It also considered the economic benefits of the additional runway, the adverse impacts of climate change on Austria, and the state of Austria and Europe’s effort to reduce emissions generally and from air traffic. After reviewing several estimates, the court concluded that a third runway would increase Austria’s annual CO2 emissions by between 1.79 and 2.02% by 2025. This is at odds, the court noted, with Austria’s 2020 transport sector emissions reduction target of 2.25%. The court also observed that short-term gains in the form of commerce or jobs were easily outweighed by the likely economic consequences of a destabilized climate.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Report on Combined Transport (CT)
    2020 Report on Combined Transport (CT) Press conference © BSL Transportation Consultants GmbH & Co. KG 2020 KG Co. & GmbH Consultants Transportation BSL © Brussels, 28 October 2020 1 Schedule Top Time Topic Responsible 1 14:30 – 14:33 Introduction Majorie van Leijen 2 14:33 – 14:38 Why UIC supports Combined Transport? Sandra Géhénot 3 14:38 – 15:08 Insides of the current CT market Mathias Lahrmann 4 15:08 – 15:13 Political dimension and the need to develop CT Ralf-Charley Schultze 5 15:13 – 15:18 CT's contribution to achieving the transport objectives Eric Lambert 6 15:18 – 15:30 Q&A, summary Majorie van Leijen © BSL Transportation Consultants GmbH & Co. KG 2020 KG Co. & GmbH Consultants Transportation BSL © 2 Please follow the rules below for the web-based press conference ◼ If you are not the speaker, your device’s mic and camera’s will be turned off during the entire session. ◼ The Q&A chat room will be opened during the entire session. Please keep your messages short and to the point and only for topics relevant to the session. ◼ The host will follow the Q&A chat room during the session and will forward the questions of general interest to the moderator. All remaining questions will be answered later on. ◼ Please stay focused, avoid multitasking. ◼ Please consider that the session will be recorded. The record will only be used by the host and will not be distributed or published in any way or form. THANK YOU AND ENJOY THE PRESS CONFERENCE! © BSL Transportation Consultants GmbH & Co. KG 2020 KG Co.
    [Show full text]