A road map for explorative scenario creation on Belgian rail freight transport development

Abstract

The starting point of this article is the weak usage of rail freight in Belgium and Europe, both as a sustainable mode of land transportation in itself as well as a part of the intermodal chain. The results are obtained by transversal research on rail freight transport in Belgium, taking into account the European context. This interdisciplinary research develops a road map for the creation of three integrated scenarios: a best case, medium case and worst case scenario for rail freight development, based on a detailed SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunities, threats) analysis. It includes the most probable future developments for rail freight transport and hinterland connections. These developments are obtained from literature review and discussions with a heterogeneous panel of experts in the fields of (i) optimal corridor and hub development, (ii) macroeconomic impact, (iii) sustainability, (iv) effective market regulation and (v) governance and organization for a well-functioning intermodality. The Delphi approach is used in combination with a survey analysis. Frequency tables and the H-index allow defining a ranking and selection of SWOT elements. The obtained scenarios allow future research to quantify and measure the impact of future developments and decisions towards the Belgian rail freight market.

Life cycle assessment of rail freight transport in Belgium

“…Moreover, the lack of intermodal terminals results in a weak access to the railway network and thus the lack of direct links of the rail freight market. Finally, the lack of interoperability between railway networks of different countries as a consequence of the lack of standardisation in Europe of the railway infrastructure causes difficulties in the rail freight transport in long distances (Troch et al 2017). Considering the above, the growth in rail freight transport promoted by the European authorities presents a number of major challenges that may involve the need to expand the railway network, leading to a chain of environmental consequences that should be studied.…”

Analysis of the barriers to multimodal freight transport and their mitigation strategies

“…Fifth, the MFT is also influenced by the delivery characteristics of companies, such as the freight weight, its dimensions, location, and the customers' needs [28][29][30][31]. Finally, the national transportation networks of neighbouring nations should be highly interoperable to establish MFT on a global scale [32]. The present work identifies all potential MFT barriers related to the previously listed elements of MFT.…”

“…Globally, MFT might be challenged by the lack of interoperability across national rail networks, if neighbouring countries have differences in rail infrastructure standards [32]. The following discusses four interoperability-related barriers.…”

“…In rail transport, the loading gauge represents the maximum height and width of rail vehicles when loaded. Therefore, if countries use different loading gauges and weight limits, operating freight trains across their railway networks is hindered by the inability of trains to pass safely through bridges and tunnels [19,32,112]. Compared to the Americas, Asia and Europe are linked by railway networks that use different railway systems, lacking common railway standards [15].…”

Urban logistics and spatial territorial intelligence indicators: State-of-the-art, typology and implications for Latin American cities

“…Edge indicators can be related to road, fluvial or railway infrastructures (air and sea are not examined herein since we focus on urban and periurban areas, and they would be considered in a general freight accessibility for interurban and international transport). However, fluvial and rail capacity estimation in urban areas remains little studied, but methods to estimate the capacity (in the number of vehicles or available travel times) of railway (Pavone, 1997;Laroche, 2014;Troch et al, 2017) and fluvial (Lendjel and Fishmann, 2014) infrastructures can be determined at an urban, periurban or local (i.e. less than 150 km from main cities) level when it relates to urban logistics.…”