[Publication] The Combined Transport Directive

This report presents a comprehensive analysis of intermodal freight transport infrastructure, operations, and connectivity across the European Union, drawing on multiple data sources and thematic studies.

Distribution and characterisation of the intermodal terminals in EU

The findings highlight the structural diversity and uneven distribution of intermodal freight infrastructure across the European Union. Germany emerges as a central hub for intermodal transport, accounting for 25–30% of all terminals. Its dense network and high frequency of short-haul movements reflect a granular distribution of nodes and extensive intermodal coverage. Rail infrastructure is widely available across the EU, present at 87–93% of terminals, while barge transport is accessible at 21–24%. Other modes such as Rolling Highway (RoLa), short-sea shipping, and ferry services remain scarce.

Analysis of a sample of 11 strategic terminals

Strategic location and multimodal connectivity are key enablers of terminal performance. Coastal access, central positioning along key corridors, and robust rail or inland waterway links contribute to strong intermodal networks. Eleven economically significant terminals examined in this study have received targeted financial support, notably through the Connecting Europe Facility and EU co-financed projects such as Porthos, FEDeRATED, PASS4CORE-IT, and ERFLS, among others. These terminals have adopted a wide range of advanced logistics solutions, including digital services for smart operations, traffic optimisation, real-time container tracking, advanced Terminal Operating Systems, automated block storage, remote-controlled gantry cranes, integrated Optical Character Recognition (OCR) gate systems, fully automated gate access, and eco-friendly vehicles. Expansion and modernisation efforts include road access improvements, CO₂ capture and transport projects, expanded operational areas, increased storage and handling capacity, enhanced rail networks and tracks, new high-bay storage facilities, remote-controlled ship-to-shore cranes with onshore power integration, and, at CLIP terminal in Swarzedz, a horizontal loading system for semi-trailers onto rail wagons without cranes.

Connectivity

Connectivity analysis reveals that Busto Arsizio-Gallarate, Madrid Abroñigal, and Praha-Uhříněves are among the top inland terminals in terms of weekly rail service frequency to major maritime and inland ports. Busto Arsizio-Gallarate demonstrates diversified connectivity, linking to Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp ports as well as German and Italian ports. Praha-Uhříněves shows more regionalised patterns, primarily connected to northern German ports. Madrid’s connectivity is largely confined within Spain, with most services directed to Valencia, reflecting the insular nature of the Spanish rail system and its non-standard track gauge. The distribution of regular rail-port services underscores the strategic role of Central Europe, with six of the ten most connected terminals located in this region.

Distances

Route distance analysis shows that the mean straight-line distance between origin-destination pairs is 602 km, with a median of 548 km. Road distances average 793 km (median 682 km), while rail distances average 797 km (median 749 km). The standard deviation of road distances is 591 km and for rail distances 525 km, indicating high variability in both cases. Both road and rail routes are significantly longer than straight-line distances, reflecting infrastructure and geographical constraints and routing inefficiencies. Rail routes are slightly longer than road routes on average, and the rail median overhead[1] (36.7%) exceeds the road median (24.5%), suggesting that rail paths may be less direct for typical trips. Mean overheads for both modes are similar, around 32%, indicating comparable detours for longer or more varied routes.

Seaport activity

In 2023, despite contraction in port freight, several key ports continued to play vital roles in sustaining Europe’s maritime logistics. Rotterdam remains the leading EU port, handling 11.9% of total throughput, followed by Antwerp-Bruges and Hamburg, each with distinct specialisations in liquid bulk, container traffic, and Europe-Asia trade. Ports such as Gdańsk, Algeciras, Amsterdam, Le Havre, Rouen and Paris, Marseille, and Constanța contribute to regional connectivity and diversification.

Truck movement

Truck movement analysis reveals significant variation in total distances across Member States, influenced by the number of routes and truck density per route. Italy, with twice as many routes as Spain, records over three times the total road distance run, indicating high truck activity. Germany and Lithuania show the shortest average edge[2] lengths, with Germany’s figures reflecting a highly connected network and Lithuania’s values shaped by its smaller geography and limited intermodal infrastructure. Overall, intermodal connectivity across the EU varies widely, shaped by geography, infrastructure, and modal integration, with Spain’s challenges highlighting the impact of systemic barriers on freight efficiency and network development.

Barriers and bottlenecks

Rail freight’s share of the European transport market has stabilised at around 17%, well below the EU’s 2030 goals, while inland waterways continue to lose ground. Infrastructure limits—such as restricted terminal capacity, short tracks, and port congestion—constrain modal shift. Terminal inefficiencies, low service frequency, and lower reliability than road transport weaken intermodal competitiveness. High transshipment costs, delays, and complex contracting further disadvantage short- and medium-haul flows where road retains cost and flexibility benefits.

The Combined Transport Directive has not kept pace with market needs, and data gaps hinder policy decisions. External shocks, such as energy price spikes and geopolitical disruptions, have highlighted supply chain vulnerabilities and raised costs for rail traction and terminal handling.

Areas of policy recommendation (more detailed in the corresponding section)

1. Clarify and modernise Combined Transport: Adopt a performance-based definition focused on external cost savings and maintain a terminal public register
2. Expand infrastructure and electrify networks: Develop urban-proximate terminals, invest in resilient cross-border infrastructure, resolve track gauge issues, and accelerate rail electrification with incentives for low-emission traction.
3. Improve terminal operations: Modernise equipment with EU funding, deploy integrated ICT systems for efficiency and security, and mandate service transparency to support informed modal choices.
4. Enhance service quality and reliability: Increase train frequency and 24/7 terminal access, implement real-time monitoring tools, and create a unified contracting framework for intermodal services.
5. Address cost and competitiveness: Offer financial incentives to offset transfer costs, support innovative load unit designs, and introduce road pricing to boost rail competitiveness.
6. Strengthen national frameworks and monitoring: Require Member States to set combined transport targets, implement harmonised EU-level data reporting, and establish regular reviews of the Directive.
7. Boost resilience to external shocks: Develop contingency plans for critical infrastructure and diversify routing options in transport contracts to mitigate disruption risks.
8. Enable regulatory flexibility: Introduce exemptions from driving bans for short road legs and ensure the Directive allows operational adaptability while upholding safety and environmental standards.

[1]     In this context, “overhead” refers to the additional distance traveled by a mode of transport compared to the straight-line (as the crow flies”) distance between the same two points.

[2]     Edge is a short traffic segment linking two nodes which are origin or destination of road freight.