Figure 12 - uploaded by Theo Notteboom
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Dry Port Development in Asia and other Regions: Theory and Practice, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
Context in source publication
Context 1
... between rail operators eager to get lucrative long distance traffic and maritime shippers eager to reduce shipping time and costs, particularly from Asia. The two largest North American railroads, UP and BNSF, derive a sizable share of their operating revenue from long distance intermodal movements originating from the Pacific Coast and bound towards the eastern part of the continent. Long distance intermodal rail corridors are also planned in a latitudinal fashion to Mexico. Kansas City Southern de Mexico (KCSM, a subdiary of Kansas City Southern; KCS) is building an USD 80 million intermodal terminal next to the port of Lazero Cardenas. KCSM plans to establish a new International Intermodal Corridor stretching 1,300 miles across Mexico to the border crossing at Laredo, Texas. At Laredo, the Kansas City Southern system that connects to major American rail hubs, namely Chicago and Kansas City, takes over (Randolph, 2008). KCS has also invested in the development of a new rail terminal at Richards Gabaur in Kansas City, a project supported by the setting of a logistics pole in a former military base. NAFTA rail corridors and the setting of inland hubs is thus a strategy that goes hand to hand, each element reinforcing the other. However, due to road congestion, infrastructure capacity issues and a surge in fuel price the advantages of the landbridge are being challenged, particularly for long distance trade. For instance, shipping a forty foot container from New York to Korea cost about USD 3,000 if the all-water maritime route through the Suez Canal is used and USD 9,000 if shipped by rail to a West Coast port and then across the Pacific. Thus, this form of rail intermodalism appears to have reached a phase of maturity. Still, the market segment of domestic (North American) rail intermodalism is expected to grow substantially as the only available alternative to long distance trucking. This will lean on the setting of a variety of inland terminals acting as load centers for the respective market areas. The United States alone has about 2,270 rail facilities rail performing some form of intermodalism by being able to move freight from rail to trucks. Although this appears to be a large number, only about 20% of these facilities handle a significant intermodal volume and less than 10% of them are true intermodal container terminals. The rest are local facilities fulfilling specific industrial, resources or manufacturing needs for bulk and break-bulk shipments. Thus, the North American system of operational intermodal rail terminals handling COFC and TOFC traffic accounts for about 188 facilities covering major inland markets (Figure ...
Citations
... Intermodal networks cannot fully function without the integration of key nodes within the transportation network. The keys nodes that ensure the smooth operation of every intermodal network are the seaport and the inland terminals or There is a proliferation of the number of containers handled by ports especially those in a good geographical location which has led to an increase in intermodal connectivity [11] and [12] proposed that terminal operators should implement strategic planning to facilitate intermodal transportation. ...
... Internalizing the external costs by charging CO 2 emissions is another policy measure still under discussion by the government and public. In line with the anticipated increase in demand for transporting maritime containers (De Langen et al., 2012), sea terminal operators are developing inland/barge service networks in order to extend gate services and enhance their competitiveness in the future hinterland distribution (Notteboom, 2009; Port of Rotterdam, 2013). Hinterland transport operators have initiated plans to co-operate hub-based in addition to the current point-to-point (shuttle) barge transport services, and share their fleets. ...
This paper presents a freight transport optimization model that simultaneously incorporates multimodal infrastructure, hub-based service network structures, and the various design objectives of multiple actors. The model has been calibrated and validated using real-life data from the case study of hinterland container transport of the Netherlands, where CO2 pricing, terminal network configuration, and hub-service networks are chosen as the design measures. Policy packages combining multiple types of policies show better network performance as compared with the optimal performance resulting from a single policy type. This illustrates the value of incorporating multiple types of policies simultaneously in freight transport optimization.
... Transporting a container through multiple modes of transport is called intermodal transport (Chopra and Meindl, 2007). As volumes grow, unimodal road transport between the port and its hinterland becomes less attractive (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2009) because of capacity issues (e.g., limited road capacity as well as limited availability of truck drivers). A shift to intermodal transport (the so-called modal shift) can result in cost savings and a reduced CO2 footprint. ...
The port authority of Rotterdam has been the first to incorporate modal split obligations in concession contracts for container terminals. Given the increasing focus of port authorities on sustainable hinterland connectivity, other port authorities may also move in this direction. A reduced share of road transport in the modal split can increase competitiveness in the hinterland, secure better levels of road accessibility and reduce the carbon footprint of hinterland transport. Through in-depth interviews with the three major terminal operating companies in Rotterdam, this paper explores the effects of modal split obligations. The impact of modal split obligations in concession contracts ranges from an impact solely on terminal design to an effect on the business model that terminal operating companies apply in a specific port.
... The captive and most important hinterland served by the port of Barcelona is Catalonia: a region with 7.3 million inhabitants (16% of the Spanish population) that generates 19% of the GDP of Spain (Eurostat, 2011). In line with the proposition of Notteboom and Rodrigue (2009), truck transport has always been the dominant hinterland transport mode to serve Catalonia. Barcelona competes with other ports (Marseilles, Valencia, and Bilbao) to serve contestable hinterlands in Spain as well as France. ...
Improving intermodal connectivity is important for ports. However, developing new rail connections, especially in the contestable hinterland, is complex and requires substantial investments. Therefore, rail operators are reluctant to start new connections unless risks are limited. Port authorities can play a role in these hinterland connections to increase traffic to their ports. Barcelona is one of the leading port authorities in this respect, with a well developed hinterland strategy and a developing network of inland rail nodes. The Port Authority of Barcelona also invests in new rail shuttles, for instance between Barcelona and Lyon. This shuttle initiative is centre stage in this paper, as it may stand out as a best practise for port authority involvement in developing new rail connections. The paper starts with an introduction of the importance of intermodal transport for the development of hinterlands of ports. The second part will provide an overview of the hinterland strategy of Barcelona and describes in detail the participation of the port of Barcelona in the start-up phase of the intermodal connection to Lyon. The final section discusses the main conclusions from the case study with regard to the involvement of port authorities in the development of new intermodal transport services.
... These captive hinterlands provide a substantial volume that has spurred the development of these large ports (Notteboom, 2009). However, ports compete fiercely in contestable hinterlands. 1 Notteboom and Rodrigue (2009) propose that in the initial phase of port development (i.e. relatively small throughput volumes and destinations within a short distance from the port) trucking is dominant for serving the hinterland. ...
Port authorities generally focus on the development of the local port area and play a minor role in the development of port hinterlands, whereas shippers, forwarders, barge and rail operators have always been involved in the port-hinterland connection. The increasing importance of intermodal hinterland networks for the competitive position of ports has urged port authorities to become active in the hinterland. This new role has already been suggested by different academics. However, limited empirical evidence exists of port authorities taking stakes in inland terminals or developing transport services. Barcelona, as one of the leading port authorities in this respect, is used as a case study in this paper. The case study provides insight in the components and execution of the hinterland strategy of Barcelona. It shows that the strategy of the port authority of Barcelona and the consequent active involvement in the hinterland has had a significant impact on attracting container volumes from distant hinterlands and improving the accessibility of the port.
... The Virginia Inland Port is one the most well known inland ports in the United States, but the number of these facilities is increasing. Types of inland ports vary and are given different names (see Notteboom and Rodrigue 2009 for a summary of typology). European nations have been at the forefront, advancing larger, more integrated developments commonly known as "freight villages," although interest in this concept is increasing in the United States (Weisbrod et al. 2002). ...
... Intermodal transport has become a more important part of hinterland transport [20] , and many projects focusing on infrastructure construction, regulatory policy implementation, and technology development have been carried out by the governments, infrastructure providers, terminal operators, carriers, etc. in the last decade, in order to solve the capacity shortage problems and relieve the environmental problems via moving the freight from unimodal trucking to intermodal transport. To obtain insights in the development of intermodal hinterland transport in China and Europe, this paper presents a comparison study of the port of Shanghai, and the port of Rotterdam. ...
... More inland intermodal terminals have been established along the Rhine River since the last decade. As presented by Notteboom (2009), the number of terminals increased from 41 in 1998 to 76 by 2002, and this number is still increasing. Furthermore, there are more inland terminals concentrating on complementarity between rail and barge transport. ...
World trade liberalization, developments in information technologies and enlargement in ocean shipping transport in the last two decades lead to an increasing demand of hinterland transport, and caused capacity shortage and environmental problems, especially in the metropolitan areas with large ports. Intermodal transport is recognized as an effective way to reduce congestion and pollution, and is promoted in the main export/import regions, such as China, and Europe since the 1990s. Many multi-participant multi-objective projects have been carrying out aiming to shift the cargo flow from unimodal trucking to intermodal transport. These projects mainly focus on infrastructure construction investment, technology development, and regulatory policy implementation. This paper presents up to date insights of intermodal transport development in port of Shanghai, port of Rotterdam and their hinterlands via a comparative study. The paper introduces the recently completed or underway projects carried out in both of the hinterland transport systems. The projects of each port hinterland system are summarized to a package of solutions. The paper concludes with the overall effects of these packages.
... These captive hinterlands provide a substantial volume that has spurred the development of these large ports (Notteboom, 2009). However, ports compete fiercely in contestable hinterlands. 1 Notteboom and Rodrigue (2009) propose that in the initial phase of port development (i.e. relatively small throughput volumes and destinations within a short distance from the port) trucking is dominant for serving the hinterland. ...
Port authorities generally focus on the development of the local port area and play a minor role in the development of port hinterlands, whereas shippers, forwarders, barge and rail operators have always been involved in the port-hinterland connection. The increasing importance of intermodal hinterland networks for the competitive position of ports has urged port authorities to become active in the hinterland. This new role has already been suggested by different academics. However, limited empirical evidence exists of port authorities taking stakes in inland terminals or developing transport services. Barcelona, as one of the leading port authorities in this respect, is used as a case study in this paper. The case study provides insight in the components and execution of the hinterland strategy of Barcelona. It shows that the strategy of the port authority of Barcelona and the consequent active involvement in the hinterland has had a significant impact on attracting container volumes from distant hinterlands and improving the accessibility of the port.
... These problems are for example reflected in the longer waiting times for inland barges in the port of Rotterdam. Since the sea vessels have priority above the inland barges, waiting time for barges up to 48 hours are no exception (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2009). This unreliability in the port complicates the barge planning process and increases the throughput times of barging. ...
Transportation is the action of the movement of goods and or human with emerging issues that gains more attention to be developed. This development in distribution related to the increase of human needs along with the advances of the technology, as well as the manufacturing industry in various sectors, such as electronics, automotive, and fashion. In order to improve the distribution process, the transshipment facilities are established in several areas within countries or region according to the location of facilities and potential customer to support the process, and to improve the distribution from the main terminal to the hinterland area with limited infrastructure and access. The establishing the proper intermodal terminals create a question of what is exactly the appropriate parameter for measuring the performance of a terminal, so eventually, it can be considered as a success terminal and is the parameter the factor of increasing the competitiveness among the terminal itself. This master thesis is research to find out what are the success factors of the intermodal terminals by comparing the condition of the intermodal terminals in Germany with terminals in Austria, France, and Italy as the sample of terminals in European countries. The measurement created based on the parameters that divided into physical and organizational parameters. The physical parameter contains three factors, which are infrastructure, facility, and rail system; while organizational parameters analyze factors related to the connectivity, management business aspects, and customer awareness. The thesis project using the quantitative method with R for Statistical Analysis as the tools. In the end, it leads to the conclusion of what is the success factor based on the indicators from each parameter, as well as the challenge in terms of measuring the effect of the parameter as the success factor of the intermodal terminal.
