What is using more than one mode of transportation to move from origin to destination called?

Bills of lading

Bills of lading come in different forms. Both associations accept conventional or through bills of lading as well as a combined transport document (one that allows the carrying of cargo by different modes of transport). Neither association accepts groupage, freight forwarder's bills of lading or sea waybills. Such documents are not designed for international trade. Bills of lading issued under a charter-party must be on liner terms. As evidenced by the bill of lading, the cocoa must be ‘shipped on board’; those marked ‘received for shipment’ are not acceptable. Under FCC contracts, in the event of transshipment involving more than one bill of lading the seller should formally notify the buyer of the name of the last ocean-going vessel no later than four days before the ship arrives at the port of discharge. If the vessel has already arrived at the destination or the bills of lading are over three weeks old or claused (usually called ‘dirty’), they are not accepted. For CIF or C&F sales the bills of lading must be marked ‘freight paid’.

2.1 Selection of potential demand for the combined road-sea transport

A preliminary selection is carried out to identify origin-destination (OD) pairs that can be potentially interesting for the shift toward road-sea combined transport. Firstly, the geographical structure of Italy requires removing specific OD trips that is those occurring between the Northern regions (interzonal trips among Lombardia, Trentino Alto Adige, Valle D’Aosta, Piemonte, Friuli Venezia Giulia, and Veneto). Then, for the remaining ODs (excluding intrazonal trips), the following criteria are adopted for the selection:

minimum trip length: an OD pair can be potentially shifted from road-only transport to the combined road-sea transport if the trip length, computed as the shortest path between O and D on the road network, is higher than a threshold value. The threshold value, representing the minimum value for the convenience of combined transport, is fixed to 300 km according to the specifications and suggestions of the White Paper 2011 and ANFIA (Associazione Nazionale Filiera Industria Automobilistica) 2013 report:

(1)Lk>300km

where Lk is the minimum trip length for OD k by road-only mode, computed as the shortest path on the road network.

accessibility criteria: it considers the geographical position of origin and destination of the trip with respect to the port's location. The match between seaports and hinterland regions has been made according to the shortest path, as well as considering existing Ro-Ro services. The OD is selected if the minimum length of the road-only trip is larger than the sum of the access and egress distance to/from the starting/ending port considering the actual/new Ro-Ro services:

(2)Lk>Lik+Ljk

where Lik is the access trip length from starting zone O to port i, computed as the shortest path on the road network;

Ljk is the egress distance from starting port j to destination zone D, computed as the shortest path on the road network.

After this preselection phase, the potential ODs are selected based on the following two conditions (Fig. 2):

a condition based on the travel times, that is:

(3)tcombined+α≤troad

a condition based on costs:

(4)ccombined+β≤croad

where tcombined, troad are, respectively, the travel times of the combined road-sea transport and the road-only transport; ccombined, croad are, respectively, the transport costs of the combined road-sea transport and road-only transport; α and β are threshold values.

The ODs verifying both the conditions are finally selected as potential demand for the combined road-sea transport.

In order to compute the travel times required in Eq. (3), several activities of the road hauliers are considered:

Driving times and shipping times. The driving times are computed after finding the shortest path from the supply model with an average speed of 63 km/h (average speed for road-only transport, Nuzzolo, 2012). The shipping times are calculated from the data collected on arrival and departure times of the services operated by the shipping companies and provided by the Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport. Once the shipping times and their respective distances are known, it is possible to compute an average shipping speed that is adopted for the project scenarios involving new Ro-Ro services.

Drivers’ rest time. It is computed according to “Nuovo Codice della Strada” (Legislative Decree of 30 April 1992 No. 285 and subsequent amendments) within the Title V—Rules of behavior. Specifically, the reference is in Article 174. Considering one driver per trip: the maximum driving time is around 10 h per day; after 4.5 h of uninterrupted driving, a 45-min break is required; after 10 h of daily driving, with an intermediate break of 45 min, a rest period of 11 h is required.

Loading and unloading shipping times. This time is fixed to 1.5 h. It is a net value, not considering the waiting time before boarding into the ship.

For the road transport cost required to compute both croad and the road component of ccombined, the study indicates that “Indicative reference values of the operating costs of the road haulage company on behalf of third parties” (Article 1, paragraph 250 of the Law of 23 December 2014, No. 190—Law 2015 stability), which reports the following methodological settings:

truck cost (purchase cost and depreciation);

cost of insurance, revisions, and property tax;

fuel cost;

salaries (depending on the working time of drivers, taking into consideration the average wage including transfers and overtime);

maintenance cost;

motorway tolls (on the basis of distances traveled on the motorway network and vehicle class);

company costs (estimated between 6% and 10% of the turnover).

The shipping fare is the average value paid by the road haulage company to travel on the ship. Specifically, an average unit shipping fare based on simulation of different existing domestic Ro-Ro services is computed as a function of the distance traveled. Such an approach is also used for the assessment of the shipping fare in the project scenarios.

3.2.2 Simulation of multimodal freight transport service

A simulation model has been set up, which addresses in detail the logistics, as elaborated above for all routes in the network. The modeling incorporates the multimodal transport flows; in the current schematization, the land phase transport has been simplified, it considers only a truck-based direct route from the major city of the different transport regions to the relevant port(s). The present model considers 32 ports, which serve 36 transport regions (represented by a centroid) in which freight is generated or consumed. At present, those 36 transport regions correspond to the provinces (or parts of). The input to the model consists of a set of existing or proposed service lines characterized by a route (covering more than two ports in case of multiport routes), ship size, service frequency, and cost data (provided by the cost model), and the O-D matrix for containerized freight. The Omnitrans transport software is used to handle the very large database; which describes the logistics of the total network, to compute the performance of the network; and to present results in particular formats. The software allows to present the performance results of the particular simulated service network in a variety of ways (maps, graphs, and tables), such results are illustrated below.

Information on internodal transport is contained in the O-D matrix. A graphical presentation can be very helpful in illustrating these relations. Fig. 6.16 illustrates the strongly centralized transport flows for three nodes (Sorong, Ambon, and Bitung) with very strong connections to Java and hardly any connection to other nodes.

Fig. 6.17 illustrates the loading of the network resulting from this proposed service network. Table 6.3 presents port statistics (loading, unloading, and transshipment) associated with the simulated transport system.

Table 6.3. Comparison existing (2013) and upgraded 2030 container service.

The simulation model keeps track of the loading, unloading, and transshipment of the containers for the simulated flow pattern. Fig. 6.18 presents a graphical image of the throughput at the various ports.

The optimal (least cost) network for 2030 was derived as a set of point-to-point connections, for each of which an optimal size and frequency shipping have been determined. The optimal network is served with 216 ships with sizes up to 5000 TEU. The distribution of the load to different ship sizes, for 2013 and 2030, is presented in Fig. 6.19: a considerable part of the load is carried by the larger ships.

Overall, a strong reduction (>50%) of (out-of-pocket) transport cost appears possible in the future (2030); this is based on the scale effect of fleet size and mix adaptations and improvement of logistic efficiency. Table 6.3 compares the main parameters of the 2013 existing situation (shipping costs computed with the cost model) and the 2030 scenario.

The composition of out-of-pocket costs, comprising ship operation cost and port handling, is expected to change drastically in the future. Both costs (average over the network) are estimated at about 50/50 at present; in the future, this is estimated to change to ship 1/3 versus port 2/3. In the longer term, port handling cost is expected to dominate the transport cost (on average for the Indonesian network). This puts emphasis on the important role of improving ports in the upgrading of maritime transport.

Transport

•

Ensuring a balanced utilization of transport modes in freight and passenger transport by reducing the share of road transport and increasing the share of maritime and rail transport.

Enhancing combined transport.

Implementing sustainable transport approaches in urban areas.

Promoting alternative fuels and clean vehicles.

Reducing fuel consumption and emissions of road transport with the National Intelligent Transport Systems Strategy Document (2014–23) and its Action Plan (2014–16).

Realizing high-speed railway projects.

Increasing urban railway systems.

Saving fuel using tunnel projects.

Removing old vehicles from traffic.

Implementing green port and green airport projects to ensure energy efficiency.

Implementing special consumption tax exemptions for maritime transport.

3.1 Various concepts of freight transport chains

The association of two or more modes of transport along a transport chain is now a mature and regular practice in the freight transport business (Lowe, 2005; Slack, 2001). Several reasons can be given for the utilization of such transport solutions. Firstly, the existence of obstacles of an either natural (e.g., mountains, rivers, oceans, etc.) or artificial (e.g., urban areas) nature that may impede the use of certain modes of transport and compel suppliers to use others to complete the journey (e.g., if there is a river to be crossed, a barge might be needed to convey goods between banks). Secondly, in recent decades, one has witnessed the growth of environmental awareness. One effect of this development is that within the European Union sustainable development is now at the very foundation of its long-term strategic development plans (European Commission, 2011). Given such a paradigm for development, the overconsumption of certain modes of transport, such as road and air transport, is not viable and must be curbed. Unsurprisingly, legal restrictions at either the European Union or Member State level that limit the utilization of certain modes of transport (commonly road and air transport) while promoting others (commonly sea, inland, and rail transport) have been advanced and established. Thirdly, there are situations where the utilization of a transport chain is either the only economic viable solution or the most competitive one. Each mode of transport has certain inherent technological properties, which make them the most suitable transport solution in given situations (e.g., whenever time is of crucial importance, air transport is normally used), leading to the association of several modes of transport in a chain. Furthermore, the optimal combination of the technological properties of different modes of transport in combination with flawless information flows may yield highly competitive transport solutions (e.g., the so-called freight integrators, such as FedEx or DHL, combine more than one mode of transport to deliver added-value transport solutions).

In the 1960s, the freight transport sector underwent profound transformation as the concept of containerization was gradually introduced in the market (DeWitt and Clinger, 2000). Whereas up to that point, goods had commonly been carried as bulk cargo, from that point onwards, containers became the standard loading unit, with goods being loaded in them. Standardization has led to significant time and cost reductions at the transshipment points (Slack, 2001), which in turn resulted in significant gains for the transport chains solutions.

Later, in the 1970s, a new phenomenon began sweeping the globe, leading to profound changes in societies and economies. The emergence of globalization and other worldwide phenomena has given rise to major changes in the demand for freight transport services. Companies have developed new supply chain management techniques (such as just in time or lean production), which not only resulted in a gradual increase of the quality standards for freight transport services, but have also given rise to longer and more complex transport networks. Suppliers have responded to these developments by bringing new transport solutions to the market, many of them involving multiple modes of transport in different configurations. Parallel to this, there has also been steady technological progress, making it possible to overcome multiple operational incompatibilities between modes of transport, reducing costs and increasing interoperability, and thus further increasing the appeal of the new transport chain solutions. To sum up, transport chains are not only a common feature of the world of freight transport today, but are also often the most suitable transport solution when one considers the existing restrictions and demand patterns.

The coexistence of transport solutions that make use of more than one mode of transport while applying different levels of organization has created a need for a taxonomy—both for scientific and legal purposes. Over the years, various definitions have been put forward in the international fora, mainly by international organizations, although academia has also made contributions in this area. Nevertheless, no consensus on a universal definition has been reached so far. Such a situation may be attributable to the fact that the research into and, indeed, interest in this form of freight transport is still in its early days and there has not been enough time, nor the shared knowledge, to come to a consensual definition (Bontekoning et al., 2004). Different authors tend to see the world through different lenses, leading them to create different definitions. As a result, a variety of concepts and definitions coexist today, some that are clearly distinct from the others, and others with overlapping or common features. The most common terms used to denote a transport solution involving two or more modes of transport are multimodal transport, combined transport, intermodal transport, comodality, and synchromodality. The question that naturally arises is whether these concepts refer to identical or similar transport solutions or de facto refer to different ones.

As far as the definitions proposed by international organizations are concerned, one of the first attempts at definition was by the United Nations in 1980, in the United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods (UNCTAD, 1980), where the following definition of multimodal transport was advanced:

international multi-modal transport is the carriage of goods by at least two different modes of transport on the basis of a multimodal transport contract from a place in one country at which the goods are taken in charge by the multimodal transport operator to a designated place for delivery in a different country.

This provides a somewhat broad definition of what multimodal transport is. Firstly, it recognizes the existence of a multimodal operator that is legally responsible for providing international freight transport services. Secondly, it has a legal dimension by considering the existence of a multimodal transport contract among the companies involved in the transport service. Thirdly, it only takes international carriage into consideration.

Some years later, in 1998, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ITF) proposed its own definition for multimodal transport (UNECE, 2001):

Multi-modal transport is a carriage of goods by at least two different transport modes.

Vis-a-vis the previous definition, this one only imposed the need for existing different modes of transport for a service to be considered multimodal transport. The same organization defined combined transport:

At the European level, combined transport has to be understood as an individual mode of transport which makes maximum use of the advantages of the various modes of land transport and short sea shipping, choosing those modes which are most suitable. Combined transport thus implies the organisation of intermodal door-to-door transport by transferring the goods from one mode of transport to another without changing the loading unit. To be more precise, combined transport is based on an Intermodal Transport Unit (ITU) in which the goods are transported from door to door by using the most adequate modes of transport:

the road for initial and terminal hauls only,

rail and/or inland waterways and/or short sea for the major part of the journey, the choice of modes depending on the itinerary, whereby the transfer between the different transport modes must be handled as efficiently as possible.

Combined transport therefore is an example for a rational network which combines the benefits of the various transport techniques and can be understood as a candidate for all evolutions or adaptations which help to improve the transport chain. Since combined transport is a means of shifting traffic off the road, it also helps to achieve the aim of sustainable mobility, as already pointed out in the White Paper on Transport issued by the European Union.

This definition reflects the beginning of political concerns with protection of the environment. Here, a number of comments may be made. Firstly, inherent in the definition is a significant political commitment to the promotion of sustainable development. As a result of this, the definition carries some bias toward certain modes of transport and ignores others (e.g., air transport is not even mentioned, reflect the increased environmental awareness). Secondly, it is oriented by the externalities produced by the transport service and not the transport service itself. Thirdly, it introduces the concept of the intermodal transport unit (for example, the container, swap body, semitrailers, etc.) as the key element in the development of this kind of transport, which is a relevant breakthrough. Fourthly, it introduces the term intermodal transport, but does not define it or provide any details about its nature. This term would be defined the following year, in 1997:

intermodal transport is the movement of goods (in one and the same loading unit or vehicle) by successive modes of transport without handling of the goods themselves when changing modes.

This definition assumes that intermodal transport involves at least two modes of transport, and considers that the goods are not directly handled during the journey. Instead they are packaged within unit loads—intermodal transport unit—which are the objects that are handled (Janić, 2001).

Also in 1997, the European Commission (EC) proposed its own definition for intermodal transport (European Commission, 1997):

intermodality is a characteristic of a transport system that allows at least two different modes to be used in an integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain. In addition, intermodal transport is a quality factor of the level of integration between different transport modes. In that respect more intermodality means more integration and complementarity between modes, which provides scope for a more efficient use of the transport system.

This definition represents a considerable step forward in the concept of intermodal transport, as it recognizes the need for some sort of integration and coordination between modes of transport for a transport service to be considered an intermodal one. In other words, the simple association of various modes of transport, without any integration level, should not be considered intermodal transport. Accordingly, this definition adds a new dimension to the intermodal transport service by considering intermodality as a quality variable of the integration level between modes of transport.a A point in contrast to the definition from ITF is that this one says nothing about the handling of the goods along the transport journey. Converse to the definition of ITF, it clearly states the need for the goods to be transported in an intermodal loading unit.

In the midterm review of the European Commission’s 2001 Transport White Paper, the Commission proposed the concept of comodality (European Commission, 2006):

the efficient use of different modes on their own and in combination.

This new concept places the emphasis on efficiency. As a matter of fact, the word efficiency is the only new aspect in comparison to the concept of multimodality. The explicit rationale is that the optimization of the modes of transport and the chain organization “will result in an optimal and sustainable utilisation of resources” (European Commission, 2006), promoting the ultimate goal of sustainable development in Europe.

In the body of scientific literature, the emphasis has been placed on the concept of intermodality (Janić, 2001; Panayides, 2002; Zografos and Regan, 2004; Lowe, 2005; Slack, 2001; Bontekoning et al., 2004), although definitions for the other terms do exist (e.g., Lowe, 2005 for multimodal transport; or Lowe, 2005 for combined transport). Table 3.1 presents some of those proposed definitions, as found by (Bontekoning et al., 2004) in their literature review concerning transport chains involving road and rail transport.

Table 3.1. Intermodal transport definitions

Source: Bontekoning et al. (2004).

Synchromodal transport is a concept that was recently proposed and promoted by Dutch scholars and practitioners (Tavasszy et al., 2010). The concept is yet to be adopted on a widespread basis, but it does have important elements that are worthy of discussion. Even so, several definitions have already been advanced:

The synchronisation of transport demand across the multi-modal transport system. Shippers make use of different modes of transport, in function of the transport demand, and switch between modes is possible (Tavasszy et al., 2010).

The coordination of logistics chains, transport chains and infrastructure, in such a way that, given aggregated transport demand, the right mode is used at every point in time (TNO, 2011).

Synchromodality occurs when the supply of services from different transport modes is integrated to a coherent transport product, which meets the shippers’ transport demand at any moment in terms of price, due time, reliability and/or sustainability. This coordination involves both the planning of services, the performance of services and information about services (Gorris et al., 2011, cited in Fan, 2013).

The combination of intermodal planning with real-time switching. Real-time switching refers to changing the container routing over the network in real-time to cope with transportation disturbances, such as service delays or cancellations (van Riessen et al., 2013).

Synchromodal transport can be achieved by making modality choices according to the latest logistics information, e.g., transport demands, traffic information, etc. (Li et al., 2013)

Synchromodal transport adds the concept of adaptive mode choice. In all previous concepts, there is a time gap between organization and coordination. Organization of the transport chain and contractualization of transport agents are done in advance, sometimes, weeks or even months before the actual transport takes place. The mode choice is made based on expectations as to the future situation and organization of the transport system. Later, when the transport begins, the initial plan is followed, regardless of the current conditions of the transport system. So, even if a better transport alternative could be found, it will not be used because the transport chain is fixed. Typically, changes only are made if the initial plan is proved to be unfeasible. Understandably, by ignoring the current conditions of the transport systems, the previous concepts are unable to deliver the most efficient transport solutions.

Synchromodal transport overcomes this limitation, as mode choice is made concurrent to production of the transport service, based on real-time information on the current conditions of the transport system (e.g., delays, congestion, reliability, transit times, pricing, availability, etc.). The fundamental idea is that informed decisions are better and more reliable. This concept blends together organization and coordination. On the one hand, the organization is brought as close as possible to the moment of production, enabling decisions to be based on up-to-date information; while, on the other hand, coordination periodically assesses whether the planned transport chain can be improved against the real conditions. Eventual problems or opportunities can be identified early and corrective measures can be implemented on time and with minimum impact. Consequently, the configuration of the transport chain is not fixed, but is continuously adapted to the real conditions of the transport system. The outcome is an efficient service that takes into account demand requirements and supply conditions.

Table 3.2 identifies the key elements of every definition listed previously. One can identify similarities between the definitions of various concepts; as well as differences between definitions of the same concept, particularly as far as intermodal transport is concerned.

Table 3.2. Key elements of selected definitions

Source: Reis, V., 2015. Should we keep on renaming a +35-year-old baby? J. Transp. Geogr. 46, 173–179, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.06.019.

There is therefore considerable dispersion and overlapping of the various concepts. Taking into consideration the definitions presented so far, both by the intergovernmental bodies and researchers, along with other definitions found elsewhere, we have developed Fig. 3.1, which attempts to show the hierarchical relationships between the concepts. It is, by its very nature, a simplistic version of the reality, and one that is susceptible to debate due to the diversity of definitions; nevertheless, we believe that it provides an interesting overview of the current body of literature.

Multimodal transport is the broadest concept of the four since it encompasses all kinds of transport chains solutions. The only requirement for a transport chain to be considered multimodal transport is the presence of at least two different modes of transport. In other words, it is an umbrella definition covering all the other concepts. The other three definitions are more restricted in the sense that they require some sort of organization or coordination—integration—between the modes of transport.

The difference between intermodal transport and the other two lies in the perspective from which the transport service is seen. The former places the emphasis on the level of integration, while the other two focus on sustainability issues. Indeed, intermodal transport is the concept where the need for integration is the most pronounced. For a transport service to be intermodal, a high level of integration is required. Integration is so important that may be used to measure the level of quality of the transport service.

For a transport service to be considered comodal or combined transport, it has to take a different perspective. The emphasis must be on sustainability and on optimizing the consumption of natural resources. Accordingly, in such transport services, integration is a requirement (but not the only one) for achieving the ultimate goal of minimizing the use of fossil resources. However, the definition of combined transport reveals greater concern in relation to this issue than the comodal concept. A combined transport should make extensive use of so-called sustainable modes of transport (rail, sea, or inland transport), while minimizing the other forms of transport (road and air transport). While it places an emphasis on achieving a sustainable transport solution, the comodal concept says that modes of transport should be used to maximum efficiency, thus opening the door to the utilization of not so sustainable configurations (as long as they are the most efficient ones).

One particular aspect of transport chain solutions concerns the way goods are handled between modes of transport. Both the multimodal and comodal transport definitions make no reference to this issue, whereas the other concept definitions tend to agree on the need for the use of loading units (containers or others). In other words, what is effectively handled are the loading units and not the goods themselves. This requirement is only natural, bearing in mind that the need for integration underlies both concepts. The utilization of (standard) loading units is a key issue in achieving higher integration levels and reducing time and energy resources at the transshipment points. Thus, the need for the use of using loading devices is more a consequence than a requirement.

Finally, the newest concept—synchromodality—makes use of the most recent technological advancements to introduce visibility into the transport system. Indeed, the identification of more efficient alternatives depends on the ability to spot them, which requires monitorability along the entire transport system. Visibility is a necessary condition, but not the only one. One must also be able to change, at minimal cost, the configuration of the transport chain; this calls for additional flexibility in choosing and adapting transport modes.

The success and validity of a research or professional endeavor largely rests on the use of clear and precise definitions and concepts. A precise definition allows for clear identification of what lies within and outside the endeavor’s boundaries and also reduces the scope for ambiguity. Furthermore, dubious or not-so-clear definitions that are open to interpretation or misinterpretation make it more difficult to define the object of analysis, which may lead to wrong assessments. Clearly, the current diversity of definitions around the concept of transport chain does not contribute to achieving these desired goals.

The focus herein shall be on the concept of intermodal transport. Intermodal freight transport should be understood as a concept of freight transport where at least two different modes of transport participate in an integrated manner. This definition consists of three key conditions: firstly, the existence of a single transport contract ruling the entire transport service; secondly, the presence of at least two different modes of transport; and thirdly, the need for some sort of integration among the agents participating in the transport service.

The second condition is already met by all the definitions given here. An intermodal transport is a transport service involving at least two modes of transport. The connection between the two consecutive modes of transport is ensured through a transshipment terminal where goods are handled and shifted between vehicles; they can also be stored or undergo any other activity allowed under the transport contract terms.

The third condition is the most important one for distinguishing an intermodal transport from any other type. Integration can be understood as the existence of coordination or alignment between the modes of transport, and can take place at different levels, namely, technological (when agents decide to move toward a higher level of interoperability); procedural (when agents decide to align and standardize processes along the transport chain); or legal (when agents decide on simple and fair mechanisms to compensate clients for eventual losses). Integration is of paramount importance because it generates synergies among the modes of transport allowing them to achieve levels of performance that otherwise would be unattainable.

Integration is not something that emerges spontaneously along a transport chain; on the contrary, it is the result of the work of a specialized agent that actively seeks and promotes that integration. This agent is known as a Freight Integrator or, in some cases, a Freight Forwarder. This agent has the mission of, firstly, arranging and assembling the transport chain that best fits the client’s demands and, secondly, managing the transport chain so that it actually delivers the expected performance. So, in practical terms, the freight integrator serves as an intermediary between the client and the transport providers.

The first condition is only mentioned in the definition proposed by the United Nations for multimodal transport. An intermodal transport service should also act as a single entity in legal liability situations. While it may provide the necessary cohesion in terms of leadership, a freight integrator cannot legally bind independent companies. Indeed, an intermodal transport chain may be made up of a set of independent companies (for example, with each one contributing a single mode of transport). In such situations, the necessary legal cohesion is only given through the existence of a single contract that binds all agents to the same terms and conditions, thus requiring them to behave as a single entity. Naturally, in cases where one agent owns the various modes of transport, this situation does not exist, simply because the single entity is already given, as it owns the modes of transport involved (as is the case with the so-called Integrators, such as DHL or TNT).

Finally, two comments about the way goods should be handled throughout the transport chain and the need for arranging sustainable transport solutions. Firstly, the handling of goods is not a relevant issue for defining an intermodal transport chain. The point is that an intermodal transport solution has to compete in the market with other transport solutions; therefore, it must be as competitive as possible. If the use of loading units results in greater competitiveness, then they will naturally be used. However, if otherwise the direct handling of goods is the most appropriate, then there is no reason for them not to be handled. Ultimately, it is the competitive pressure that dictates the use or not of loading units. A second comment has to do with concern with the sustainability of a transport solution. Here too, the degree of sustainability is not a condition for being deemed intermodal transport. Sustainability must be attained by deploying the correct policies, so that the most competitive transport solutions are also the most sustainable ones.

Results

The benefits in investing in improved nonmotorized infrastructure are broad and the supporting infrastructure can boost the numbers of people walking and cycling. Moreover, as walking and cycling are important links in the multimodal transport network and key elements of a car-light lifestyle, they improve the integration of transport networks. Good infrastructure also helps improve the safety of vulnerable road users, particularly in relation to motorized road users but also by reducing crime. The benefits are also economic: evidence suggests that in areas with many pedestrians and cyclists, businesses experience higher sales figures. In addition, as walking and cycling are good for health, employees take fewer sick days and are more attentive. In addition, in areas with good cycling access, property values are higher. Finally, more people walking and cycling means that there are fewer vehicles on the streets, which reduces pollution.

10.3.3 Operational TDM interventions

Operational measures are practices designed to manage/influence trips through enhanced choices and traveller information about these choices, such as real-time dynamic information and variable highway speed controls. For example, multimodal transport systems use new technology to provide information on a ‘combined transport system that stitches each roadway, railway, airway and waterway to produce an integrated travel solution within a smart city’ (Smartcity, 2019), that can be used to find the most convenient way to travel for a particular journey. Such systems are developing rapidly in ‘smart cities’ such as London and Singapore, where unified public transport authorities aim to deliver seamlessly integrated multiple modes, including metro, buses, light rail, and taxis.

Four recent technical innovations in transport operational measures have important implications for any attempt to slow city transport: smart road pricing, performance-based parking pricing, dynamic road management, and mobility as a service (MaaS) (Cohen, 2018). First, smart road pricing allows authorities to impose charges on motorists (or autonomous vehicles) that vary over space and time, and by type of vehicle. The major obstacle to the implementation of smart road pricing is political, as drivers may object to the collection of data about their movements. However, with the possible advent of autonomous vehicles, opposition to smart road pricing is less likely, as all AVs will have tracking devices. Such pricing has the potential to reduce congestion and improve road safety and air quality, though it might also have a regressive impact if poorer residents pay the same rates as richer residents.

Second, related to smart road pricing is ‘performance-based parking pricing’, a technique for varying the price of street parking in real time to manage parking demand effectively. When used to achieve an 85 per cent occupancy for parking, this can help reduce the number of cars cruising for parking and hence increase public transport speed and reliability as well as enhance safety for people walking and cycling (Shoup, 2018). This type of parking pricing can be used in conjunction with the removal of minimum parking requirements in zoning ordinances (see Section 9.2.3).

Third, ‘dynamic road management’ enables transport managers to change road characteristics depending on traffic and environmental factors. This already exists on many city roads, for example, reducing speed limits after a crash or in foggy conditions. The fourth recent technical innovation, MaaS, has significant potential to encourage a switch to the ‘slower’ modes if implemented with this goal in mind. Advanced versions of MaaS provide travellers with a personally tailored door-to-door journey plan that matches their needs. Payment could be made to a single provider, and any changes in mode would be made seamlessly. Adjustments could be made instantly in response to any variation in circumstance (e.g. equipment failure). Whilst MaaS might encourage a shift to public transport, there is also the risk that it could reduce physical activity if motorised trips replace walking. The impact of MaaS in terms of slowing will depend largely on the availability of non-car options.

Transformation in Singapore

The transformation of land transport in Singapore from the crude, informal public transport services competing on limited, poorly maintained streets and roadways at independence (1965), to today’s high-quality multimodal transport system was the result of integrated planning both across modes and between transport and land use. The transformation required close collaboration among multiple stakeholders. These included government agencies responsible for town planning, land development, all land transport modes, the private sector, and citizens. This collaborative process continues to even today (Box 9.7).

Box 9.7

Transformation of Land Transport in Singapore

For the 2013 Master Plan, Singapore worked towards the vision of a “People-Centered Land Transport System.” The focus was on “Enhancing Your Travel Experience” by listening to the voices of people and putting them at the heart of the land transport system. In reviewing the Master Plan (LTMP), LTA reached out to many Singaporeans, from public transport commuters to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, from youths to the elderly and less mobile, and from those passionate about environmental issues as well as academics. Views were sought on how best to improve travel experience by receiving feedback from 1700 plus contributors. Over 400 face-to-face meetings were held during five months in 2012. Today, comments from over 3,500 contributors are received daily. Online consultation took the form of surveys and discussion forums as well as an LTMP review email address to which Singaporeans could send their comments. Questions were posed to get the dialog going such as: “What would encourage you to travel off-peak to work? Would you be open to alternatives to owning a car, such as car-sharing or car-pooling? What would encourage you to walk or cycle to the MRT station or bus interchange?” Grassroots representatives also conducted their own workshops and surveys with residents and shared their insights and ideas.

The formation of Land Transport Authority in Singapore signaled a paradigm shift in the approach toward transport and land-use planning and development and transport operations.

8.3.1 Definitions, Characteristics, and Categories

According to Leitner and Harrison (2001), “An inland port is a physical site located away from traditional land, air and coastal borders with the vision to facilitate and process international trade through strategic investment in multi-modal transport assets and by promoting value-added services as goods move through the supply chain.” While this definition is useful, there is no reason why an inland port cannot be located at the border between two countries, such as Mexico and the United States. Furthermore, inland ports are often located at or adjacent to major international airports. More recently, Cullinane et al. (2012) claim consensus has not been reached on a definition of a dry port.

Richard S. Allen, founder and chief executive of The Allen Group, drawing on Heitman, the real estate management firm, suggests there are seven key attributes of an inland port: (1) access to a major container seaport; (2) intermodal transport facilities served by a Class I railroad; (3) 1000 or more acres of land; (4) foreign/free trade zone status; (5) access to a local metropolitan market; (6) accessibility to major interstate highways; and (7) access to a strong local labor pool (Allen, 2008). Note: the reference to “interstate” highways reveals an American perspective.

Focusing on provision of various supply chain services, Walter and Poist (2004) define an inland port as an “intermodal port that would facilitate international and domestic commerce, as well as provide support for export and import opportunities by consolidating at a single source all services related to trade, licensing, loading, storage, light assembly and bonding.” They studied a variety of active and inactive inland ports, concluding that: “The more active inland ports appeared to have major private investors, large populations nearby, and air transportation facilities. The lack of one or more of these attributes would seem to make inland port development a riskier venture without considerable evidence otherwise of strong demand for its services.” Notably, Walter and Poist (2004) do not specify how “large” the nearby population needs to be.

Roso et al. (2009) describe three types of inland ports, based largely on distance to the nearest port. Distant inland ports are driven by opportunities to exploit the economies of moving large volumes of freight vast distances via rail. Midrange inland ports are generally within a distance from the port for trucking to be viable. However, frequency and volume of freight movements enable these facilities to serve as consolidation hubs for rail services as well as intermodal (rail-truck) terminals. Close inland ports focus largely on easing traffic congestion on the roads near the port. Looking ahead, at least three of the inland ports analyzed later are distant inland ports. Building on the distance from seaport categories, Bask et al. (2014) note that all three types enable freight forwarders to improve their service to shippers. They all can also reduce costs for trucking firms by trimming time spent waiting (perhaps with engines idling and emissions spewing) on congested roads and in terminals.

Inland ports also vary in terms of private versus public sector financing. Cullinane et al. (2012, p. 10) suggest: “There is scope for both private and public sector involvement in all aspects of ‘dry port’ development and implementation.” As will soon be seen, the inland ports analyzed in Section 8.4 vary dramatically in terms of dependence on government funding.

Abstract

Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is a concept for the future of mobility. It attracts transportation researchers in recent times and invites businesses to test its market feasibility. The key aspect of MaaS is the integration of multimodal transport information services, which remind us of a project from years ago about journey planning systems. This chapter offers to revisit an FP7 funded project with survey of journey planning system and assesses it against the current state-of-play of journey planning systems as referred in MaaS. Much development such as dynamic data supply, multimodality information and digital map presentations have improved with technologies such as broadband generation and personal mobile devices' capabilities. However, the challenge for MaaS market uptake remains as similar to journey planning system products. Simply said, the product or service on offer from a trip planning is perhaps not as attractive as the function of the trip: to arrive at destination.