THE GEOGRAPHY OF TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
| Model | Characteristics | Implications |
| Single Ownership | A public or a private actor entirely responsible for development and operations. Single vision and conformity to a specific role. | Potential lack of flexibility in view to changes (single mandate). Potential conflicts with surrounding communities. |
| Public - Private Partnership | Help combine public planning of infrastructures with private operational expertise. Public (local) interests represented. | Tendency to prioritize public interests over private interests. |
| Landlord Model | Public ownership and private operations (a form of PPP). Long term concession agreements. | Managerial flexibility between the owner, the site manager and the operators. Most of the risk assumed by private operators. |
Source: Adapted from B. Slack et C. Comtois (2010) « Identification des modèles de gouvernance d’un pôle logistique en lien avec la réalité québécoise », Aménagement d’un pôle logistique au Québec: cadre d’analyse de l’étude de faisabilité, Étude 1.2.
Inland ports and their associated logistic zones have a wider range of options than ports in terms of their governance model, where the landlord model prevails. The ownership and the management of an inland port can be public, private or a combination of both. Since an inland port is a long term project that is unlikely to be profitable in its initial phase, they represent a high risk for private investors. It is not surprising to realize that the largest private player in North America, CenterPoint Properties, is financially backed by a pension plan (CalPERS) where the time horizon for returns on investment is more long term. Since among the benefits of inland ports are job creation and a better usage of regional transport infrastructures, they tend to be perceived as projects of public benefit.