Download - Inland Terminals 2011
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
1/16
1
Embedding Inland Terminals in the European
Transport Network
Drs. Larissa van der Lugt
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Barcelone, 2011
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
2/16
2
Content
Urgency
Complying requirements
Analysis of actual situation
Findings and conclusions
End
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
3/16
3
Urgency from European perspective
Dynamics in our economic
system
Its all about productivity
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
4/16
4
Translated to transport network
Effective and efficient European Transport Network
Multi-port regions
Infrastructure connections,
Strategic locations,
Sufficient capacity
Effective use, well coordinated services
Efficient use, high utilization rates, bundling,coordination
Network and chain performance data
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
5/16
5
Urgency from operational perspective
Synchromodality
What is it?
What does it imply?
Multimodality available
High frequency
Reliable: time tables!
Information available Service availability
Service performance
Demand requirements
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
6/16
6
Main requirements
Inland terminals with sufficient scale from a network
perspective
Control out of ports
Governance structure for right incentives
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
7/16
7
Inland terminal network: scale considerations
Some calculations
To and from the port: sufficient frequency andscale
For a multimodal node: both rail and barge:minimum is about 300.000 TEU
For a rail terminal: 100.000 is minimumcapacity
From a terminal perspective only, otherminimum efficient scale could apply
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
8/16
8
Actual picture
Too many terminals
Too many actors
Different interests
Limited network focus of actorsinvolved
Example Netherlands
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
9/16
9
Another calculation: Rail
10 million TEU in Rotterdam
70% is inland, rest transshipment
Suppose 20% rail (actual about 11%)
Full trains, 80 TEU 55 destinations
160 trains a year per destination, not even one every day,
supposing that all containers are bundled over Rotterdambased terminals. Conclusion: too many destinations!
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
10/16
10
We have to avoid proliferation!
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
11/16
11
Control out of ports
Why?
Ports are at the crossing of the maritime network and the inland
transport network
Ports provide the scale to effectively and efficiently control
multimodal flows
Bundling of cargo already present
Information centrality
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
12/16
12
Control and governance is crucial
But: a variety ofmodels exists
Different ownership structures,resulting in:
Different economic drivers
Different directions of control
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
13/16
13
Some examples, their pros and cons
Veghel case: private terminal operator or transportcompany with local public area or site manager Focus at individual operations rather then network
Risk of too low a scale and limited integration with sea-port
Duisburg case: public autonomous body both being theterminal owner as the operator Large scale development possible: positive network effects
Mix of landlord function with operator function
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
14/16
14
Some more examples
ECT case: individual deep-sea terminal operator being the operator
of inland terminals Good integration out of seaport: scale economies possible
Absence of network effects for other port users and ports
in proximity
APB/TCB case: port authority partly owner of terminal, deep-seaterminal operator with share involved in neutral inland terminaloperator Good integration out of seaport
Network effects to be safeguarded by landlord
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
15/16
15
And even more
HHLA case: deep-sea terminal operator with inland rail terminals
as profit centers, in Germany JV with Eurogate, its nearestcompetitor
Control out of sea
Less integrative effects, but more network effects
Port of Liege: public landlord entity, with private operators,actively looking for partnerships with different ports
Control out of inland terminal, but intention to integrate with sea-port
Network effects possible
-
8/3/2019 Inland Terminals 2011
16/16
16
Concluding
At some level within Europe the responsibility forcoordination over competitive elements should beestablished and mandated as to safeguard:
Good governance in each terminal location resulting in goodmarket conditions, right incentives and balanced control forports
No proliferation of terminals, avoiding network fragmentation
Network performance information, facilitating furtherdevelopments and strategies