Search results

One of the main difficulties in developing new intermodal transport solutions is finding the right business model. Though business models have received limited attention in the existing intermodal research, several authors have pointed out the importance of business models in the intermodal context.

Existing intermodal literature discusses several types of different business. The current study takes an in-depth look at The Own-Account Model, its strengths and weaknesses through two empirical examples.

The chapter investigates this model by analysing the business model in practice, for example actors, roles and responsibilities, risk distribution and contracts.

Research is conducted using a qualitative approach with two case studies. Osterwalder’s (2004) framework for business models is applied to analyse the empirical cases.

The roles and responsibilities of the actors are described. For the parties to be willing to “invest into” the new intermodal solution, long-term contracts are required. The shipper controls the channel, but has to rely heavily on the transport operators for their expertise and resources.

The analysis has found that the model can be used to avoid many of the difficulties in setting up a new intermodal solution, such as ensuring the base volume or having the overall control over the intermodal chain.

Better understanding of this type of business model allows authorities to better support the development of intermodal transport through policy measures. The results obtained also improve the understanding of how intermodal transport is performed in practice.

This contribution describes the urban freight structure in the Zurich area, the possibilites and the potential for rail and intermodal transport. It contains results from studies made for the authorities of the city and the canton of Zurich and also from European research projects. It also notes supporting measures and framework conditions to reach a modal shift from road to rail based transport.

This chapter focuses on strategies to initiate a shift in mobility behaviour away from private cars towards a combination of more environmentally friendly transport modes including public transport, ride- and car sharing or even completely carbon-free modes like walking and cycling. The requirement for such a shift is that people must be able to actually choose between different travelling options and combine them within an intermodal mobility network. Here, shared mobility has a considerable potential to fill the gap between public and individual transport options.

This chapter summarises results from different studies on shared mobility from the providers’, the users’ and the political perspective. The user’s perspective is based on an empirical study comparing car sharers’, car drivers’ and public transport users’ attitudes and mobility patterns.

The empirical findings from the case study have shown that shuttle trips by car in general, and to the train station in particular, are an important field of action for improving the environmental impact of intermodal trips. The study has also shown that car sharing enables people to live without a private car by using different transport modes for different purposes. As the majority of car sharers report needing a car only one to three times a month, they have a very small carbon footprint compared to the average car owner.

Mobility patterns are determined by local transport options as well as by personal routines. Hence, current changes due to new shared mobility options seem to have a considerable direct impact on how people organise their daily lives on the one hand and an indirect impact on their living costs on the other hand, since private cars have an important share of private household costs.

From an environmental perspective, any incentives to encourage people to choose alternative forms of transport over their private cars would seem to be particularly effective. Thus, understanding the behaviour and needs of multi- and intermodal travellers is an important step towards sustainable mobility. Acknowledging that most travellers still need a car every now and then, car sharing is an essential addition to public transport systems, supporting both public transport use and carbon-free mobility like walking and cycling.

This chapter provides a critical discussion of air to rail mode substitution. Environmental impacts, intermodal competition and integration are considered, examining advantages and disadvantages as well as opportunities and constraints.

Both operation and life-cycle analysis perspectives show that high-speed rail (HSR) is much ‘greener’ than air transport (per seat-km or per passenger-km) provided that the former achieves high load factors and the latter lower load factors and that freed runway capacity is not reused. HSR travel time is its main competitive advantage against air transport, and a 600-km flight is arguably the current limit for robust intermodal effects.

The potential for air–HSR integration at the airport relies on various service, business and technical constraints. Even when it is successful, its environmental benefit appears to be marginal, if not negative, if airport capacity is reused for longer flights. In the current context, such integration appears more like a business opportunity for airlines, airports and train operators rather than a sustainable option. Yet the environmental benefit of integration may be larger within potential integrated transport policies.