dry ports in european and north american intermodal rail

Report
DRY PORTS IN EUROPEAN AND NORTH AMERICAN
INTERMODAL RAIL SYSTEMS: TWO OF A KIND?
Jean-Paul Rodrigue
Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA
Theo Notteboom
ITMMA - University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy, Belgium
5th Asian Logistics Round Table & Conference
Vancouver, Canada, June 14-15 2012
The Charthouse Group
A Very Dry Port
INTRODUCTION:
THE ROLE OF DRY PORTS
The Charthouse Group
Theme setting
• ‘A dry port is an inland intermodal terminal directly connected to
seaport(s) with high capacity transport mean(s), where customers
can leave/pick up their standardised units as if directly to a
seaport’ (Roso, 2005; Roso et al., 2009)
• First mention of dry ports: Munford, 1980
• Academic research on dry ports has grown exponentially
• The terminology frenzy:
- dry ports, inland terminals, inland ports, inland hubs, inland logistics
centres, inland freight villages, inland clearance depots, inland container
depots, intermodal freight centers and inland freight terminals
The Charthouse Group
Dry ports in transport chains
Why Hinterland Transportation Matters?
Distance
Cost
Example: costs in euro per FEU-km in
Europe (Notteboom, 2009)
•
•
•
10%
shipping (Asia–N Europe): 0.05 - 0.19
truck: 1.5 - 4
Barge: 0.5 - 1.5
Port
80%
HINTERLAND
90%
FORELAND
20%
The Charthouse Group
Dry ports in supply chains
The Inland Logistics Funnel:
The “Last Mile” in Freight Distribution
Capacity
Funnel
Frequency
Funnel
Inland Terminal
HINTERLAND
Capacity
Gap
Frequency
Gap
GATEWAY
FORELAND
Economies of scale
Main Shipping Lane
INTERMEDIATE HUB
The Charthouse Group
Dry ports in supply chains
The Massification of Transportation in Inland Systems
Inland Load Center Network Formation
Port
Logistics Support
Port
Port
IT
IT
IT
Inland
Terminal
Corridor
Port-Centric
IT
IT
Inland
Port
Intermodal
Industrial Park
Direct truck
End haul
Rail / Barge
The Charthouse Group
Dry ports in supply chains
Asymmetries between Import and Export-Based
Containerized Logistics
Gateway
Distribution Customer
Center
Inland
Terminal
Import-Based
Many Customers
•Function of population density.
•Geographical spread.
•Incites transloading.
•High priority (value, timeliness).
Repositioning
Supplier
Export-Based
Few Suppliers
•Function of resource density.
•Geographical concentration.
•Lower priority.
•Depends on repositioning
opportunities.
The Charthouse Group
Inland Ports: Pick Your Challenge
Site and situation
Repositioning
Cargo rotation
Trade and transactional facilitation
Governance
The Charthouse Group
Main Governance Models for Inland Ports
Model
Single ownership
Characteristics
Implications
A public or a private actor Potential lack of flexibility in view to
entirely responsible for
changes (single mandate).
development and operations. Potential conflicts with surrounding
Single vision and conformity to
communities.
a specific role.
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 Slack & Comtois (2010)
The Charthouse Group
Aim of the paper
• Rail accessibility to gateway ports: at the heart of most dry ports
• Analysis of rail-based dry ports in North America and Europe
• Function of:
-
Regional and local governance and regulatory settings
Strategies of stakeholders involved
Spatial and functional relations with adjacent and or distant gateway ports
Dynamics in logistics network configurations
Specific competitive setting (e.g. barges in Europe)
The Charthouse Group
EUROPEAN AND NORTH AMERICAN
RAIL SYSTEMS
The Charthouse Group
Modal Split at Selected European Container Ports,
2007
Constanza
48%
47%
Marseille
5%
82%
Zeebrugge
12% 6%
55%
Bremerhaven
45%
37%
1%
59%
Le Havre
4%
84%
7% 9%
Road
Rail
Inland navigation
Antwerp
60%
8%
32%
Rotterdam
60%
9%
31%
Hamburg
66%
0%
20%
40%
32%
60%
80%
2%
100%
The Charthouse Group
Rail freight corridors in
Europe underline the need
for scale and concentration
(source: Rail Network Europe)
The Charthouse Group
Gateway port
Transhipment/interlining port
(transhipment incidence >75%)
Gateway port also handling
substantial transhipment flows
Multi-port gateway regions
1. Extended Rhine-Scheldt Delta
2. Helgoland Bay
3. UK SE Coast
4. Spanish Med
5. Ligurian Range
6. Seine Estuary
7. Black Sea West
8. South Finland
9. Portugese Range
10. North Adriatic
11. Gdansk Bay
12. Kattegat/The Sound
Multi-port gateway region
8
Main shipping route
12
11
2
3
1
Americas
West
Germany
6
South Poland/
Czech Republic/
Slovakia/Hungary
Increasing corridor-based
competition among multi-port
gateway regions
creates new opportunities for rail
…
Bavaria
Alpine region
Americas
Northern
Italy
South
France
7
10
5
9
Madrid and
surroundings
4
Main shipping route
Source: Notteboom (2009)
Middle East – Far East
The Charthouse Group
Modal Split at Selected North American Container
Ports, 2007
Lazaro Cardenas
44%
56%
Savannah
86%
Houston
31%
80%
Hampton Roads
20%
64%
Montreal
31%
48%
New York
52%
85%
Seattle
30%
Vancouver
14%
60%
58%
0%
20%
Rail (on / near dock)
70%
40%
San Pedro Bay
Road
42%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The Charthouse Group
The Charthouse Group
Systemic Differences between North American
and European Rail Systems
North America
Western Europe
Market dynamics
Fully liberalized since the 1980s.
Introduction of double stack technology as
key development.
Liberalization process since early 1990s. Crossborder operations facilitated by corridor
concept and Rail Net Europe.
Primary focus of
the rail network
Freight (dry bulk, containers, TOFC)
Passengers
Governance
Private ownership and operations of
infrastructure and rail services
Separation of infrastructure management
(public) and rail operations (public or private)
Market players
Consolidation to a handful of operators.
End of monopoly of national railway
companies. Consolidation (cf. DB Schenker
Rail), but also entry of new smaller players.
Service area
Each operator has a specific service area
(East, West or Canada).
Creation of trans-European railway operations
by largest players (DB, SNCF); more niche
markets for smaller players.
Distances
Double stack trains cover distances of up to
3000km.
Typically between 300 and 1500km, while
shorter shuttle trains mainly exist in inter-port
traffic.
Train capacity
300-500 TEU per double stack train
40-95 TEU using flat cars
Network
structure
Direct shuttle trains bundled around major
interlining hubs (Chicago, Kansas City, St.
Louis and Memphis)
Direct shuttle trains where possible. Hub-andspoke network where needed (e.g. in
connection to East/Central Europe)
The Charthouse Group
EUROPEAN AND NORTH AMERICAN
DRY PORTS
The Charthouse Group
Gateway Logistics in
North America and Europe
Distribution
systems for
import cargo
Gateways –
location and
function
North America
GDCs often divided per coast
Near major markets
Gateway system
Concentrated
Concentration level increasing
Limited number of gateways
Corridors
Long distance rail
Hinterlands
Economies of scale at
terminals
Large hinterlands both for
gateways and inland ports.
Governance
Private ownership and
operations
Low impact of administrative
borders
Western Europe
EDC (mainly in Benelux) and
EDC/RDC configurations are
dominant
Coastal gateways linked to
logistical platforms.
Combination of gateway and
transshipment function.
Some ‘pure’ transshipment hubs
(particularly in Med)
Fairly concentrated (particularly in
the Hamburg- Le Havre range)
Concentration level slightly
decreasing: more gateways and
entry of new gateway regions (cf.
Baltic + Med)
Short and medium distance barge
and truck.
Medium-distance rail
Economies of scale at gateways.
Inland ports more constrained
(thus more of them).
Public ownership
Private operations
Higher impact of administrative
borders in gateway logistics
development
Trend
Triple/double EDC for Europe.
In general status quo
Convergence at level of logistical
platforms: increased development of
inland logistical platforms in North
America
Divergence in concentration level
Future EU concentration level partly
subject to policy debate on
infrastructure/corridor development.
Some convergence, but no ‘double
stack’ and real landbridges in EU
Convergence (more contested
hinterlands, inland ports)
Convergence hindered by ownership
regulations (cf. EU: split between
infrastructure/operations)
Convergence towards PPPs
Reassessment of facilitating role of
governments in gateway logistics
The Charthouse Group
Dry ports in Europe
Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine / Scheldt Delta
The Charthouse Group
Dry ports in Europe
• Coordination mechanisms (Van Der Horst and De Langen,
2008) and hinterland access regimes (De Langen and Chouly,
2004)
• Port regionalization processes of port authorities
- Rotterdam, Barcelona, Le Havre, Marseille, Antwerp, etc..
• Inland terminal concepts by market players
- ‘extended gates’ and ‘terminal operator haulage’ (Rodrigue and
Notteboom, 2009, Veenstra et al., 2012)
- ‘Push’ strategies of shipping lines
- From point-to-point services to network services which rely on
routing flexibility
The Charthouse Group
The Charthouse Group
Main Advantages of Co-location for a Dry Port
Factor
Advantages
Real estate
Lower land acquisition costs. Higher acquisition capital. Joint
land use planning.
Specialization
Rail company; terminal development and operations.
Real estate promoter; logistic zone development and
management.
Interdependency
Respective customers. Joint marketing.
Drayage
Priority gate access. Shorter distances. More delivery trips.
Higher reliability.
Asset utilization
Better usage level of containers and chassis. Chassis pools.
Empty container depots.
Information technologies
Integration of terminal management systems with inventory
management systems.
The Charthouse Group
Conclusion: The Regional Effect on Dry Ports
• The setting of dry ports:
- Dominant paradigm in hinterland transportation; massification
pressures on the inland segment of freight distribution.
- Clustering of logistics sites in the vicinity, leading to a process of
logistics polarization and the creation of logistic zones.
The Charthouse Group
Conclusion: The Regional Effect on Dry Ports
• Observed regional effects:
-
Risk of overinvestment
Hub-and-spoke vs. direct rail shuttles
Modal opportunity differences (barge & rail).
Initiators (rail operators / real estate developers vs. local
governments).
- Insertion in supply chains.
• No two dry ports are the same
- Best practices can only be applied successfully if one takes into
account the relative uniqueness of each dry port setting.
- European and North American dry ports are functionally two of a
kind
The Charthouse Group
Photo: Dries Verbraeken
Thank you for your attention !
The Charthouse Group

similar documents