PRESTUDY WP6 - TRANSPORT CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE:
Download
1 / 22

Contents - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 130 Views
  • Uploaded on

PRESTUDY WP6 - TRANSPORT CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE: STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW Multilevel multicriteria design of intermodal transport Freight Center networks. Contents. Introduction Stakeholders involved and their role in the decision making Transport corridor management

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Contents' - addison


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

PRESTUDY WP6 - TRANSPORT CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE:STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW Multilevel multicriteria design of intermodal transport Freight Center networks


Contents

Introduction

Stakeholders involved and their role in the decision making

Transport corridor management

Applicability to case studies

Findings on corridor management

Recommendations on management scheme

References


Introduction (1/2)

  • Corridor:

  • one or more transportation facilities

  • single pathway for the flow of goods (and people)

  • joined activity centres (interconnection or intermodal nodes, border crossing points & facilities)

  • land uses and / or supporting network included.

  • Corridor management structure:

  • linked to the management structure of nodes

  • single body responsible for the decision making

  • based on constitutional and regulatory framework approved by all stakeholder groups

  • local and regional authorities participate in the decision making

  • public and / or private bodies involved as advisory committees

  • international legislative framework enforced to achieve collaboration and bilateral agreements amongst stakeholders.


Introduction (2/2)

  • Three perspectives for the evaluation of transport corridor performance, involving public utility and private interest and apply both to nodes and corridors:

  • Infrastructure

  • quality of services

  • shipment volume of goods (transit capacity)

Oslo bus station

Norway

Port of Helsinki (Vuosaary Harbour), Finland

Flughafen Leipzig Halle

Germany

Vilnius airport Lithuania

Port of Constantza Romania

Armentieres Railway Station

France

Port of Thessaloniki Greece


Stakeholders involved in the decision making

The management of multi and uni-modal networks including transportation nodes and corridors requires smooth cooperation amongst multiple groups of stakeholders:

  • EU legislative actors

transport

regional development

environmental policy

equity

financing and allocation of resources.

European Commission’s objective goals concerning the development of transportation corridors:

Mutual implementation of EU standards.

Adoption of harmonized operational rules.

Cooperation of the involved Member States in terms of timing, investments, environmental assessments, choice of routes, etc.

national policies & strategies according to EU guidelines

regulatory framework

financing - infrastructure development and provision of services.

Utilization of initiatives according to EU directives and national government guidelines

Regional Transportation Plans and Urban Mobility Plans in harmonization with the relevant national plans and the strategic design.

efficient exploitation of public bodies’ supply provisions (infrastructure) and legislative-regulatory framework.

decision making in terminals - directly linked to the ownership status of the terminal (state-owned or private).

substantial participation of public in the decision making (D-M) process – increase of public acceptance but cannot assure the success of any transportation project

provision of technical support (e.g. chambers, public organizations, etc.) and the improvement of professional rights

  • National governments

  • Regional & local authorities

  • Operators

  • End users and non-governmental actors


Transport corridor management

  • public organizations (providing infrastructure and monitoring of legal compliance)

  • private sector or joint schemes: involved in the provision of transport services

  • investments for improving the corridor’s performance

  • standardization of procedures

  • common documentation for control and clearance and cost recovery actions

How?

Who?

  • develops and continues operation of a corridor

  • central control and coordination of stakeholders

What?


Transport corridor management

D – M framework

  • Transport operations

Decision making - management structure


Transport corridor management

Corridor management structure

  • Core aspects affecting the management of transportation networks:

  • EU regulatory framework (interoperability, safety and environmental protection)

  • Promotion of co-modality (development of TEN-T)

  • National characteristics (economy, development, population, geographical position, tourism, industry, commerce, etc).

  • Parameters affecting the choice of management structure:

  • Type of corridor

  • Possible activities

  • Participation


Transport corridor management

Typology of management structure

Parameters affecting the choice of management structure


Transport corridor management

Management structure schemes

  • Project coordination: based on governmental agency intervention (infrastructure expansion and maintenance) –private sector’s role limited to the enhancement of quality of services.

  • Legislative model for schemes with broad legislative competences that perform policy-making: promotion of bilateral and multilateral agreements bringing on the corridor’s importance (e.g. in TEN-T).

  • Consensus-building: mobilization of stakeholders’ support for corridor improvements and reforming of regulatory framework.

  • Public private partnerships (PPPs): improvement of the operation of services in the corridor - private sector involved in the managing of corridor’s infrastructure and facilities.


Transport corridor management

Applicability to case studies (Leipzig airport)

  • Managed by a holding company - project coordination type of management model

  • Public-based scheme with regions and municipalities being the main shareholders

  • Advantages: fast decision-making processes - public sector participation and private sector’s development through the provision of transit and transport services

  • Management authority activities: planning and financing processes, no regulatory role

  • Private sector: responsible for operational activities.

  • PPP scheme for the attraction of local and regional logistics market players widening the transport network in the area


Transport corridor management

Applicability to case studies (Helsinki port)

  • Managed indirectly by the municipality of Helsinki (municipal private company) and under the landlord principle

  • The Finnish state supports local and regional development initiatives including logistics and trade

  • Project coordination type of management structure

  • Planning and investment processes assigned to the managing body without the direct involvement of other public or private actors

  • Fair and equal access of the private sector. Public sector should monitor but not highly intervene to the private sector’s operations

  • Interagency cooperation and coordination with view to infrastructure development


Transport corridor management

Applicability to case studies (Thessaloniki port)

  • (Th.P.A.) owns land and infrastructure from 2001 (concession by national government

  • Port operations performed by Th.P.A. but there are also several private actors operating in port area

  • Port development council: advisory board of stakeholders involved to port operations (assembled every month)

  • Apply to corridor management structure: combination of self-financing and planning together with promotion and monitoring

  • Combination of two types of corridor management (project coordination and consensus-building: balanced role allocation, between infrastructure development and establishing support networks


Transport corridor management

  • Applicability to case studies (Port of Constantza)

  • Landlord management model for the port

  • Strong point: compilation and adoption of a Master Plan

  • Better fits to a transport corridor PPPs and consensus-building type management structure

  • Partial management and full operations directly assigned to logistics-related companies

  • Management model tailored for mobilizing for funding and for optimal operational result

  • Consensus-building model with better collaboration and coordination framework due to the pluralism of stakeholders  enforcing the information exchange between stakeholders  triggering support from stakeholders for changes


Findings on corridor management (1/2)

  • Development and management of corridors associated with general processes planned by central governmental bodies

  • Degree of corridor efficiency depends on successful cooperation at various territorial levels:

  • environmental protection

  • energy conservation

  • modal split and competitiveness

  • improvement of accessibility and regulatory restrictions

  • Transport corridor management involves the managerial integration of many components (e.g. network, links and interconnection nodes)

  • Transport corridors are developed to:

  • Support regional economic growth

  • Provide transport and logistics services that enhance interregional trade


Findings on corridor management (2/2)

  • Two factors can cause significant inefficiencies in transport corridors: poor interconnection and lack of interoperability

  • D-M processes and implementation play an important role in: local regional and international scale

  • Corridor management: centralised or part of a complex decision making

  • Involvement of multiple public and private stakeholders: contradictory objective goals complicating the D-M process

  • D-M even more complicated in international corridors

  • The organization of corridor management is a dynamic processes which involves continuous monitoring and adjustments


  • A consensus-based Master Plan (role, duties, obligations and jurisdiction clearly determined) in complex organizations is very important

  • The coordination of the management structure should be performed in compliance with objectives set in the Master Plan to foster efficient strategy

  • Through the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the leading body (e.g. a general international and inter-governmental directorate) should be identified (e.g. elected) as coordinator

  • (MoU) – between the involved stakeholders to compose different views on the operational, business, financial, management, policy and decision making framework processes


  • World Bank (2005) suggests that the private sector should lead the management scheme where infrastructural and legislative needs are :

  • The facilitation of information between the stakeholders

  • The support of the suggestions by stakeholders that are geared towards the development of the transport corridor

  • The building of consensus between stakeholders regarding the fostering of initiatives

  • The private sector should take the lead if the existing infrastructure and framework are adequate, and focus should be made on operations and development

  • Role of leading partner not prevailing over the others but coordinating

  • Advisory groups for the management of the corridor are welcome and help towards the development of this transport corridor

  • Mechanisms should be used in order to attract more stakeholders around the management scheme (local or regional authorities, chambers of transport or commerce, infrastructure and equipment providers, shipping companies, terminal operators, information providers and truck operators)


References of study (1/3)

  • Adamos, G., Nathanail, E. & Zacharaki, E. (2012). Developing a Decision-Making Framework for Collaborative Practices in Long-Short Distance Transport Interconnection. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 48, 2012, pp. 2849–2859, Elsevier.

  • Arnold J., 2006. Best Practices in Management of International Trade Corridors. Transport Sector Board. 2006 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank

  • Arnold, J., 2004. Best practices in Corridor Management. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBDR), The World Bank.

  • Christiansen, P., Johansen, B.G., Andersen, J. and Eidhammer, O. (2012). Case studies: Results and synthesis. Deliverable 5.2. CLOSER - Connecting LOng and Short-distance networks for Efficient tRansport

  • Commission Decision 2007/60/EC of 26 October 2006 establishing the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003.

  • Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways.

  • Eckhardt,J. & Rantala, J. (2011). Analysis and classification of logistics centres in global supply networks. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Logistics Research Network Conference. Southampton 7-9 September 2011, The University of Southampton

  • Eckhardt, J. (2012). Case study: Vuosaari Harbour, Port of Helsinki, Finland. In: Christiansen, P., Johansen, B.G., Andersen, J. and Eidhammer, O. Case studies: Results and synthesis. Deliverable 5.2. CLOSER - Connecting LOng and Short-distance networks for Efficient tRansport. Annex A. Detailed case reports. 28 p.


  • European Commission (2011). Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. COM (2011) 650 final/2. Brussels, Belgium.

  • European Commission (2011). Roadmap to a Single European Transport Arena –Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. White Paper of the European Commission. COM (2011) 144 final. Brussels, Belgium.

  • European Commission (2001). White Paper " European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide (CEC, 2001). Brussels, Belgium.

  • European Commission (2006). Keep Europe Moving. Sustainable mobility for our continent. Mid-term review of the European Commission’s 2001 transport White Paper. ISBN 92-79-02312-8. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.

  • Nagel I. (2012). Case study: Flughafen Leipzig-Halle, Germany. In: Christiansen P., Johansen B.G., Andersen J. and Eidhammer O. .Case studies: Results and synthesis. Deliverable 5.2 CLOSER – Connecting LOng and Short-distance networks for Efficient tRansport. Annex A. Detailed case reports, 26 p.

  • Nathanail, E., Adamos, G., Parra L., Ruiz-Ayucar, E., L’ Hostis, A., Blanquart, C., Olsen, S., Christiansen, P., Osland, O., Järvi, T., Svedova, Z. & Zan, B., (2011). Analysis of the Decision-Making Framework. In E. Nathanail & G. Adamos (Eds.) Deliverable D4.1. CLOSER – Connecting LOng and Short-distance networks for Efficient tRansport. CLOSER Project. Brussels, Belgium: CLOSER Consortium.


  • Nathanail E., Papoutsis K., Gogas M. and Adamos G. (2012). Case study: Thessaloniki Port, Greece. In: Christiansen P., Johansen B.G., Andersen J. and Eidhammer O. .Case studies: Results and synthesis. Deliverable 5.2 CLOSER – Connecting LOng and Short-distance networks for Efficient tRansport. Annex A. Detailed case reports, 59 p.

  • Nathanail E., Gogas M., Papoutsis K., and Adamos G. (2012). Case study: Constantza Port, Romania. In: Christiansen P., Johansen B.G., Andersen J. and Eidhammer O. .Case studies: Results and synthesis. Deliverable 5.2 CLOSER – Connecting LOng and Short-distance networks for Efficient tRansport. Annex A. Detailed case reports, 47 p.

  • Reiss R., Gordon R. Neudorff, L. and Harding J. (2006). Integrated Corridor Management Phase I concept Development and Foundational Research: Task 3.1 Develop Alternative definitions. Tech Memo. United States Department of Transportation

  • Ronty J., Nokkala M., Finnila K., (2011). Port ownership and governance models in Finland - Development needs & future challenges. VTT Working Papers, 164.

  • Szyliowicz, J. (2003). Decision-making, intermodal transportation and sustainable mobility: towards a new paradigm. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

  • Transportation Research Board - National Cooperative Highway Research Program, “Cooperative Agreements on Corridor Management”, Synthesis 337 – A synthesis of highway practice, Transport Research Board of National Academies (TRB), 2004

  • Williams, K.M. & Hopes, C., 2007. Guide for Analysis of Corridor Management Policies and Practices. Centre for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR).

  • World Bank (2005). Best Practices in Corridor Management. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).


Thank you very much for listening

Thank you very much for listening

Eftihia Nathanail, Transportation Engineer (MSc, PhD), Assist. Professor

Konstantinos Papoutsis, Transportation Engineer (MSc), Research associate

Michael Gogas, Transportation Engineer (MSc), Research associate

University of ThessalyDepartment of Civil Engineering

Transportation Engineering Laboratory38334, PedionAreosVolos, GreeceΤel. : +302421074164, +302421074131Fax: +3024121074131Cell. : +306944236236E-Mail:[email protected]


ad