The corridor approach is becoming progressively popular as a tool for implementing the EU transport policy. In March 2005, the European Commission and the railway sector agreed on a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the implementation of ERTMS (the European Rail Traffic Management System) on six European corridors. In October 2007, the European Commission published its \u201cFreight Transport Logistics Action Plan\u201d, which introduced the concept of \u2018green corridors\u2019 as a means to improve the efficiency and sustainability of freight transport in Europe.<\/p>\n
In November 2010, the European Parliament and the Council adopted EU Regulation 913\/2010 establishing a network of nine rail corridors along which, sufficient priority is given to international freight trains. In October 2011, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on the new TEN-T (trans-European transport network) policy, which introduced the concept of \u2018core network corridors\u2019 as an instrument to facilitate the coordinated implementation of the parts of the TEN-T with the highest strategic importance (core network).<\/p>\n
Corridor approach<\/b><\/p>\n
The main idea behind this approach is the differentiation of a specific corridor against others in relation to one or more attributes. To the extent that these attributes are considered desirable by market players, the definition of the corridor is expected to lead to attraction of cargo, the consolidation of which can bring about significant gains:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Improvements in efficiency through better use of resources, higher load factors and lower unit costs<\/p>\n
\u2022 Improvements in the competitiveness, and thus the possibilities of engagement, of modes like rail and waterborne transport which, over long distances, are environmentally friendlier than trucks<\/p>\n
\u2022 Mitigation of the serious congestion problem that road transport faces through the shift of cargoes away from European roads, thus producing positive externalities (reduction of transport time and improvements in reliability) to the other users of the road network<\/p>\n
\u2022 Additional environmental and financial gains resulting from optimisation in terms of energy use and emissions further enabled by the scale and length of such freight corridors (e.g. through the use of alternative clean fuels)<\/p>\n
\u2022 Limitation of the considerable investments needed for expanding the capacity of transport networks in an environment of budgetary consolidation and increasing public opposition to major transport infrastructure projects especially in the vicinity of urban areas<\/p>\n
Furthermore, when talking about international transport, the corridor approach addresses the fragmented nature of transport networks, especially rail, as it can deal with the haunting interoperability issues in geographical terms. At the same time, focusing on a subset of the network improves the chances of identifying workable solutions by limiting the overwhelming scale of the problem.<\/p>\n
Performance indicators<\/b><\/p>\n
In January 2010, the European Commission (DG MOVE) commissioned the Coordination and Support Action \u201cSuperGreen\u201d with the aim of obtaining support and recommendations on the concept of green corridors which, according to the Swedish Logistics Forum is characterised by:<\/p>\n
\u2022 a concentration of national and international freight traffic on relatively long transport routes<\/p>\n
\u2022 integrated logistics concepts with optimal utilisation of all transport modes (co-modality)<\/p>\n
\u2022 sustainable logistics solutions with documented reductions of environmental and climate impact, high safety, high quality and strong efficiency<\/p>\n
\u2022 efficient and strategically placed transhipment points, as well as an adapted, supportive infrastructure<\/p>\n
\u2022 a platform for development and demonstration of innovative logistics solutions, including information systems, collaborative business models and technology<\/p>\n
\u2022 harmonised regulations with openness for all actors<\/p>\n
The project involves 22 partners from 13 European countries, led by the National Technical University of Athens. A corridor benchmarking exercise through the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) lies at the heart of the project\u2019s activities.<\/p>\n
The benchmarking methodology developed by the project consists of deconstructing the corridor under examination into a number of typical transport chains, benchmarking these chains using a set of KPIs, and then aggregating the chain-level KPIs to corridor-level ones using proper weights for the averaging. A second level of aggregation combining all corridor-level KPIs into a single corridor rating was also foreseen initially. The rationale for such a rating was to cope with interactions between different KPI groups, as it is for example the case where measures introduced to improve performance in relation to one area might have adverse effects on another.<\/p>\n
On the basis of information including corridor length, population affected, freight types and volumes, transport modes involved, bottlenecks, and land use aspects (existence of urban and environmentally sensitive areas), a set of nine corridors were selected by the project to form the testing field for the methodology and the KPIs. The selection process ensured a geographic and modal balance; as well a mix of corridors exhibiting either advanced \u2018greening\u2019 characteristics or high \u2018greening potential\u2019.<\/p>\n
In terms of KPIs, they were selected from a long list of indicators consisting of five groups: efficiency, service quality, environmental sustainability, infrastructural sufficiency, and social issues. Through a cumbersome process involving four stakeholder workshops and a meeting of the project\u2019s Advisory Committee, their number was reduced to six.<\/p>\n
<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Benchmarking results<\/p>\n
<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/b>The lack of data combined with time and resource restrictions did not allow the assessment of three corridors. Inadequate data has also resulted in using value ranges for presenting the KPIs in place of weighted averages. Furthermore, the second level of aggregation concerning an overall corridor rating has also been abolished on the grounds that the weights needed for such calculation very much depend on the user (different users will propose different weights) rendering it a highly political issue.<\/p>\n
The very high variances observed are mainly due to different characteristics along the segments comprising the corridors. The very low speed of road transport was also surprising and probably signifies extended delays in terminals.<\/p>\n
A number of policy implications can be derived from the benchmarking work described above:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Corridor benchmarking is possible but we need to standardise the measurement and allocation of emissions if we want to develop operational KPIs used for benchmarking purposes<\/p>\n
\u2022 Even then, the definition of acceptable limits for KPI values requires due consideration of corridor specific conditions. This type of risk is eliminated when comparing KPI values over time for the same corridor<\/p>\n
\u2022 Data collection proves to be a serious problem. Relevant obligations imposed by the corridor management might be a solution. The formation of corridor specific stakeholder groups can be helpful in this regard. Automated telematic applications, able to provide cargo flow data without causing physical disruptions of the vehicle flows or other administrative bottlenecks, can also be useful<\/p>\n
\u2022 Aggregating chain-level KPIs to a single set of corridor- or segment-level ones is possible provided that an adequate sample of transport chains is examined under the same conditions. Otherwise, the use of value ranges is suggested<\/p>\n
\u2022 Aggregating corridor-level KPIs to an overall corridor rating should be omitted due to problems associated with the weights needed for such calculation and, more importantly, because it is a political issue best left for policy makers to decide<\/p>\n