Content uploaded by Rickard Bergqvist
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rickard Bergqvist on Dec 15, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Transport and logistics facilities expansion and social sustainability:
A critical discussion and findings from the City of Gothenburg, Sweden
Jerry Olsson
Department of Economy and Society, Human Geography Unit,
School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg
Anders Larsson
Department of Economy and Society, Human Geography Unit,
School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg
Johan Woxenius
Department of Business Administration,
School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg
Rickard Bergqvist
Department of Business Administration,
School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg
i
Working Paper Series
Logistics and Transport Research Group
No. 2016:2
Series editor
Professor Rickard Bergqvist
rickard.bergqvist@handels.gu.se
Tel.: +46 (0) 31 786 5241
Handelshögskolan vid Göteborgs universitet
School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg
Företagsekonomiska institutionen
Department of Business Administration
Industrial and Financial Management & Logistics
Logistics and Transport Research Group
P.O. Box 610
SE 405 30 Gothenburg
Transport and logistics facilities expansion and social sustainability:
A critical discussion and findings from the City of Gothenburg, Swe-
den
Abstract:
Ports’ importance for international trade and for local, regional, and national economies is often empha-
sized by port authorities, governments, and the business community alike. The argument goes that the
port has to grow for domestic industry to be competitive internationally and against other ports with over-
lapping hinterland. At the same time, port growth also generates more freight to be transported and stored,
putting stress on the city, its urban landscape and social sustainability. The aim of this report is to contrib-
ute with a critical discussion concerning the relationship between investments and expansions in
[transport] infrastructure and logistics facilities, national and local policies, and social sustainability. The
point of departure is that the port-city relationship is multifaceted and difficult to delimit spatially, but needs
to include factors such as institutions, governance, democratic planning processes, transparency, and
citizen participation. The management of road and rail links and the siting and management of major nodal
facilities such as port terminals and warehouses is crucial in this balance. This concern has both a very
local neighbourhood dimension and a wider urban dimension. At the local level, the direct interface with
communities and the urban landscape is at stake, while at the metropolitan scale, the impact of freight
networks and infrastructure on urban structure and performance is important. The work is funded by the
Foundation for Economic Research in West Sweden.
Keywords: Urban logistics, Port centric logistics, Social sustainability, Sustainable transport
@ 2016 Authors
ISSN 1652-1021 print
ISSN 1652-103X online
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... iii
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... iii
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Ports, risk management and social sustainability ........................................................... 2
1.2 Intersection of the freight sector with the urban fabric ................................................ 3
1.3 Aim and research question .............................................................................................. 4
2 A critical approach to present port-city relationships ........................................................... 5
2.1 The city’s and port’s intersection between local and global processes ........................ 5
2.2 Port expansion, internal composition of cities, and public opposition ......................... 5
2.3 Public-private sector roles and diverging interests between actors ............................. 7
2.4 Redefining the relationship between the port and the urban region ........................... 8
3 Laws and regulations for dangerous goods and infrastructure of national interest.......... 11
3.1 Risk in physical spatial planning .................................................................................... 11
3.2 Transport of dangerous goods and authorities involved ............................................. 11
3.3 Transport infrastructure and other facilities of national interest ............................... 12
4 Port of Gothenburg and risk picture in City of Gothenburg ................................................ 15
4.1 Planning, permissions and supervisions in Port of Gothenburg .................................. 15
4.2 Description of risk in City of Gothenburg ..................................................................... 16
5 Transport and logistics facilities expansion in the City of Gothenburg............................... 17
5.1 Transport infrastructure and other areas of national interest .................................... 17
5.2 Risks and accidents ........................................................................................................ 21
5.3 In-depth MMP for the sector transport of dangerous goods ...................................... 21
5.4 Present and future developments of transport and logistics facilities in/around the
Port of Gothenburg ................................................................................................................... 25
1.2 5.5 Hamnbanan – solution and problem at the same time ......................................... 28
5.5 Zone of influence in case of accident with dangerous goods ...................................... 34
6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 36
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 36
References ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix 1: Transport infrastructure of national interest in City of Gothenburg. .................... 43
Appendix 2: Primary road links in Gothenburg municipality. ..................................................... 44
Appendix 3: Fire and explosive activities in/around Port of Gothenburg, excluding the five port
terminals within the port area. ..................................................................................................... 45
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Different authorities’ responsibilities concerning transport and handling of dangerous
goods. ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Table 2: Freight handled in the Port of Gothenburg 1973–2014. .............................................. 15
Table 3: Dangerous activities located in close proximity to Port of Gothenburg. ..................... 21
Table 4: Calculation of the number of fatalities in an accident during the daytime with the most
dangerous substances in the proposed physical frame. ............................................................. 23
Table 5: Ongoing/decided and planned infrastructure projects in-/outside the Port of
Gothenburg area. .......................................................................................................................... 27
Table 6: Planning stages for the Eriksberg–Pölsebo Hamnbanan stage..................................... 30
Table 7: Public’s knowledge and attitudes about the Hamnbanan project (percent). .............. 32
Table 8: Issues concerning the Port of Gothenburg and Hamnbanan in news media in the City
of Gothenburg. .............................................................................................................................. 33
List of Figures
Figure 1: Transport infrastructure of national interest in City of Gothenburg. ......................... 18
Figure 2: Primary road links for transport of dangerous goods in City of Gothenburg, and fire
and explosive activities in/around Port of Gothenburg. ............................................................. 19
Figure 3: Recreational areas and facilities and areas with high natural value in and around the
Port of Gothenburg. ...................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4: Terminal locations within City of Gothenburg 2014 (percent). Source: Olsson &
Larsson, forthcoming. .................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 5: Catchment areas in case of rail or road accident along Hamnbanan. ........................ 35
Abbreviations
CAB County Administrative Board (Swedish: Länsstyrelsen)
CoG City of Gothenburg (Swedish: Göteborgs Stad)
MMP Municipal Master Plan (Swedish: Översiktsplan)
MZP Municipal Zoning Plan (Swedish: Detaljplan)
PBA Planning and Building Act (Swedish: Plan- och Bygglagen)
PoG Port of Gothenburg (Swedish: Göteborgs Hamn)
SCCA Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (Swedish: Myndigheten för
Samhällsskydd och Beredskap)
STA Swedish Transport Administration (Swedish: Trafikverket)
TRGG The Rescue Greater Gothenburg (Swedish: Räddningstjänsten)
1
1 Introduction
Often with good reasons, ports’ importance for international trade and for local, regional, and
national economies is often emphasised () by port authorities, governments, and the business
community alike (LVGL 2009; GP 2012a; Parola & Maugeri 2013; Monios 2015; Bergqvist et al.
2010; Bergqvist, 2007). The argument goes that the port has to grow for domestic industry to
be competitive internationally and against other ports competing for parts of its hinterland. At
the same time, port growth also generates more freight to be transported and stored, including
that of dangerous goods. The last years several freight transport accidents have occurred in
urban areas throughout the world, both with rail and truck (Yang et al. 2010; Ambituuni,
Amezaga & Werner 2015), causing material destructions, pollutions, and human fatalities, most
recently witnessed in the 2015 Tianjin port explosion in China (BBC 2015). In addition to this,
ports themselves are also closely tied to safety issues, as they are often lined with military in-
stallations, refineries, fuel tanks, pipelines, chemical plants, and cities with dense populations
(Merk & Dang 2013).
Whether freight transport accidents will become more common in urban areas is uncertain,
but we can rest assured it will happen again, either due to human or technical errors, poor
maintenance of infrastructure and rolling stock, or insufficient safety measures. While risk
awareness is high in physical planning, it could be questioned whether the public is aware of
the sometimes somehow ‘cynical’ risk calculation associated with planning:
”The risks of transport of hazardous goods are weighted against other society values
in the physical planning. It is not possible to build a society without risks. Often the
advantages of a close and accessible transport system outweigh the disadvantages
with the tiny likelihood of an accident with hazardous goods.” (STA 2014a, p. 3, own
translation from Swedish).
Furthermore, port activities and other transport related activities located close to populated
areas have become constrained by limited acceptance by the population due to its negative
impacts. Therefore port layout is important, as the boundary of the port area with the city could
be considered the area were most of the environmental impacts take place. If this boundary
touches a large population concentration, the intensity of port impacts will evidently be larger
(Merk and Dang 2013). When impacts touch surrounding municipalities, it implies a metropol-
itan or regional approach to these impacts. The issue is certainly contemporary and, in a long
article, the Washington Post highlights that ports are now conceived as “the new power plants”
not appreciated as a neighbour (DePillis, 2015).
There is also a governance component to the discussion above, as there are increasing calls for
better horizontal management between the transport sector, including port policy (Gilman
2
2003) and other sectoral policies (Stead 2008; Gil et al. 2011). In fact, there is increasing ac-
ceptance in transport policy-making that integrating decisions across different sectors of policy
are crucial to policy-making, especially as a way to achieve sustainable development goals. The
policy areas span from transport to health and environment via social cohesion and land-use
planning.
1.1 Ports, risk management and social sustainability
Risk assessment and reduction of transport of dangerous goods has been investigated from
different perspectives, often focusing on technology, within safety-related literature (see Jour-
nal of Hazardous Materials; Safety Science; Risk Analysis and specifically Fabiano et al. 2005;
Saat et al. 2014) but also taking a logistics perspective (see, e.g., Arnäs, 2007 and Arnäs & Wox-
enius, 2013). There is also an abundant economic literature on port performance, management
and governance, including management due to stricter environmental legislation (Olivier &
Slack 2006; Brooks & Pallis 2008; Saengsupavanich et al. 2009; Gupta, Gupta & Patil 2012; Ng
& Ducruet 2014). In many of these studies, the focus has changed from the local where the city
was a relatively demarcated phenomenon, to the relationship between the local and the global.
In sharp contrast to this port literature, social sustainability aspects and public participation
indicators of port–city relations are still much less researched in the port-city literature, the
exceptions being that on social corporate responsibility, port labour conditions, and communi-
cative aspects (e.g., maritime museums, cultural projects) (Merk & Dang 2013; Shiau & Chuang
2015; Litman 2015; see Wakeman 1996 for an exception). Another exception is literature fo-
cusing renewal of city-centre waterfront areas abandoned by ports (see, e.g., Hayuth 1982;
McCalla 1983; Hoyle 1989 and Hall 2007). The relative ignorance of social sustainability and
public participation in port-city literature is startling, at least for three reasons.
First of all, port-city relation is multi-objective in character, including different stakeholders,
and as with the environment social issues are becoming increasingly important around the
world, including that of transport of dangerous goods (Gilman 2004; Houston, Krudysz & Winer
2008; Yang et al. 2010). Except for the potential accident risk with freight transport, urban
freight transport also raises liveability issues (Cui, Dodson & Hall 2015). Road noise and traffic
in residential areas located close to ports affects liveability and property values, and residential
areas around ports are often inhabited by low-income and minority-ethnic communities
(Brockaway 2008; Grobar 2008).
Secondly, it is acknowledged that instruments in the spatial development policy area, namely
port land use planning, should be viewed as social sustainability instruments (Merk & Dang
2013). For example, the concept of social amplification of risk and the individual and social per-
ceptions of risk play a role in land use planning, where inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the
communication process may lead to rumours on risk magnitude. Finally, while the shape and
design of other projects and policies (place making, parks, bicycle lanes etc.) are subject to
3
increased community participation (Silberberg et al. 2013), this has, with the exception for wa-
terfront regeneration projects, not been used to the same extent in relation to port develop-
ment. One reason for this ‘shortcoming’ could be related to the somehow ‘stay away’ policy
from government intrusion in the freight sector, or as stated by the UK Government:
“It is a strength of the ports industry that each undertaking has statutory powers suited to its
needs. Commercial decisions, as well as responsibility for port operations, lie with those who
have these powers and the duties that go with them. It is not the Government’s job to run the
ports industry”. (DETR 2000, in Gilman 2003, p. 277).
While this ‘stay away’ policy represent a government position, it is stressed that ports both
need to serve (global) customers logistics demands and pay attention to the city’s demand for
sustainability (Wiegmans & Louw 2011; Daamen & Vries 2013).
1.2 Intersection of the freight sector with the urban fabric
”The modern Swedish city is more of a transport facility than a room for a plentiful and
lively city life”. (Franzén 2003, p. 33, own translation from Swedish).
The discussion in previous sections has highlighted several port-city related issues that need
further research, among other, empirical research on how various logistics facilities affect ur-
ban land use planning (Woudsma et al. 2008; Cidell 2010; Allen et al. 2012). The relationship
between transport and urban form has been widely discussed since the mid-1980s, but has
mainly affected passenger transport. There has been less comparable research regarding the
interactions between urban areas and freight transport activities.
Once a port investment or any major infrastructure investment is planned or decided, it is valid
to question whether social sustainability aspects have been assessed from the inhabitants’ per-
spective, including public participation. Have decisions been democratic and has there been
consensus among different stakeholders and affected parties? This can be problematic since
operators (e.g., port authorities) are often primarily interested in profit, while regulatory agen-
cies and politicians also have to ensure public and environmental safety (Merk & Dang 2013;
Ambituuni, Amezaga & Werner 2015).
Many negative impacts from freight transport are localised, taking place close to the port area
(noise and dust) and in the metropolis (emissions, congestion, and land use). This represents
an intricate port-city mismatch: the combination of benefits spilling over to other regions and
localised negative impacts. In other words, the positive effects are distributed in a wide circle
around the port, whereas the negative ones often stay within the vicinity of the port (Woxenius
2016) Another characteristic of ports is their space-intensity; they occupy a relatively large
share of the city land surface. Land use impacts often become prevalent in case of port devel-
opment projects, because they enter in competition for land with other land uses in the city.
4
1.3 Aim and research question
Based on an analysis of academic literature, official document and reports, and newspapers,
the aim of this report is to contribute with a critical discussion concerning the relationship be-
tween investments and expansions in transport infrastructure and logistics facilities, national
and local policies, and social sustainability. The point of departure is that the port-city relation-
ship is multifaceted and difficult to delimit spatially, but needs to include factors such as insti-
tutions, governance, democratic planning processes, transparency, and citizen participation.
Stemming from this, the overriding research question is: How do port cities balance legitimate
local concerns – such as social sustainability and democratic planning processes – with the need
for efficient and competitive city freight flows?
Crucial in this balance concern the management of road and rail links and the siting and man-
agement of major nodal facilities such as ports, intermodal terminals and warehouses. This
concern has both a local neighbourhood dimension and a wider urban dimension. At the local
level, the direct interface with communities and the urban landscape is at stake, while at the
metropolitan scale, the impact of freight networks and infrastructure on urban structure and
performance is important.
5
2 A critical approach to present port-city relationships
2.1 The city’s and port’s intersection between local and global processes
“The current state of port-city relations is diverse, but port-cities have one common
challenge: to increase the net positive impacts from their ports. This diversity of port-
city relations is determined by the relative weight of the port vis-à-vis the city, the
spatial constellation of the port (in or outside the city centre) and the development
perspective of the city” (Merk & Dang 2013, p. 7).
The above quote elucidates the ports’ and the city’s dual relationship, a relationship that in it-
self has largely changed from one characterised by close intertwining to one best described as
spatial and functional separations (Wakeman 1996). As the port and the city have gone through
land use transformations, the port has become increasingly encased by express-ways, gates,
and fences. As a result from this, the local benefits from port operations and the public’s and
authorities growing concern of negative externalities have received more attention (Hall 2009;
Lam & Notteboom 2014). Ports have generally been seen as an economic generator, but there
is no natural law saying that the ports can act as cash cow to the city:
“Rather than the economic hub around which a city's economy thrives, a port is often
the most voracious of welfare recipients, demanding constant and ever-increasing in-
fusions of public money to remain competitive.” (Wakeman 1996, p. 65).
In the context of globalisation and transport network centralisation, where ports increasingly
serve distant and dispersed carriers, shippers, and customers, a decreasing share of the hubs’
benefits may be materialised locally (Merk & Dang 2013), thereby loosing much of their direct
relationship with local stakeholders (Hall 2007; Jacobs, Koster & Hall 2011; Giuliano et al. 2012).
In such a situation the costs of port externalities are concentrated in the cities, while the ben-
efits are more widely dispersed.
2.2 Port expansion, internal composition of cities, and public opposition
Some authors (Wiegmans & Louw 2011; Daamen & Vries 2013) claim that the sustainability
discourse is often presented as an outside pressure on logistics and port operations. This should
come as no surprise, because both economic and environmental sustainability aspects have
received greater attentions and are likely to continue to do so due to further legislative re-
strictions and public opposition (Lam & Notteboom 2014).
While there are fair measures of a port’s economic achievements on different geographical
levels, these ‘achievements’ also bring several potential cumbersome repercussions and con-
6
flicts. Along with growing volumes and traffic to/from the port, the demand for land for expan-
sion is also growing (Gilman 2003), and port area expansion is crucial for today’s port develop-
ment (Merk & Dang 2013). Space-demanding logistics facilities (terminals, warehouses) are in-
creasingly concentrated in certain nodes (ports, airports) and along certain freight routes (in-
ter-city highways and railways) (Rodrigue, Comtois & Slack 2013). The demand for land results
in intrusion on surrounding environments, such as sensitive ecological milieus, agricultural land,
and port related facilities located adjacent to residential areas bring negative externalities close
to the public (DePillis, 2015). The position of a major port, for example, close to the city centre
will produce a very different set of planning, regulatory, infrastructure and broader institutional
management questions and problems than a port located in an urban periphery. Accordingly,
as many ports are located close to cities it has to be questioned at what level the port’s devel-
opment and expansion plans and needs can be met before public opposition sets in.
A port also generates freight traffic going through cities. Urban freight transport is also affected
by the location of economic activity, land use, sensitive environments, geographical conditions,
political and cultural values, composition of freight flows, infra-structure provision, and regula-
tory frameworks (Lindholm & Behrends 2012; Stathopoulos et al. 2012). For example, European
cities in general face more local freight problems compared to US cities given their older built
form, higher average population and land-use density, and greater share of small and inde-
pendent firms (Dablanc et al. 2014). Furthermore, the lack of political or public acceptance of
an instrument, restrictions imposed by pressure groups, and cultural attributes, such as atti-
tudes to enforcement, influences the effectiveness of instruments designed to improve urban
freight transport management (May et al. 2003).
As cities grow, alternatives to port land use emerge, often leading to conflicts to what prime
urban lands should be used for port functions. There are mainly three solutions for these port-
city land use conflicts: increasing land productivity of ports, port re-location, and alignment of
port and city land use plans. Land productivity rates among ports differ widely, indicating the
potential that exists for many ports to become more land productive. The average number of
TEUs handled per hectare per year show great differences (from 49,005 in South-East Asian
container terminals to 9,303 in North America (Drewry, 2010)), although these statistics might
be slightly deceptive because container terminals in some regions include functions not
counted in other regions. One example is U.S. container terminals, which have devoted large
parcels of lands to rail yards or ancillary facilities.
Higher land productivity of ports can also be reached through planning, regulation and the re-
location of non-essential functions. Higher densities can be reached by changing the layout of
terminals (e.g., land fill) to create longer quays and a larger terminal surface that makes the
terminal exponentially more productive. Certain container terminals manage to stack more
than five containers high in their container transfer area, facilitated by superior yard planning.
In Hong Kong multi-storey warehouses have been erected in order to rationalise space. Such
7
approaches would require changes in local regulation and building codes. Another approach
would be to relocate functions that do not need quay access; in various ports non-port related
firms have been granted land with access to water. As urban port land becomes scarcer, the
port might want to reserve future land for purely port-related functions, while relocating other
functions to other areas.
2.3 Public-private sector roles and diverging interests between actors
The division of roles between the private and public sectors is an important dimension. The
latter has traditionally acted as infrastructure funders, land use regulators and traffic managers
(Ogden 1992; Visser & Hassall 2010), but the provision of dedicated freight infrastructure has
periodically shifted between the sectors, towards the private one more so since the 1980s un-
der the global privatisation wave. The private sector which work under competitive pressure,
have financial imperatives to provide efficient freight movement at low prices, but they control
a more limited set of factors than governments. Wider considerations, such as regional and
national economic performance, environmental impact, and infrastructure regulation, may be
of less importance for private firms’ decision-making, and thus face pressure to externalise their
negative environmental and social costs. In contrast, governments also act to ensure that costs
imposed are reflected in the direct or indirect costs incurred by individual agents (Russo & Comi
2012; Wittlov 2012).
Ogden (1992) observed that governments often struggle to balance regulation of private firms’
activities against the need to leave operating decisions to firms, to support efficient outcomes
through competition. Thus governments seeking to manage urban freight may trade off these
priorities. While individual private firms may not be able to shape the institutional context,
larger firms, or groups, may collectively be able to influence urban freight policy through joint
lobbying for regulatory change or state investment in major shared infrastructure or facilities
(Hall & Hesse 2013).
Currently, there are indications that cost reductions in the privately owned part of the maritime
sector are facilitated by massive investments in the publicly owned part. The introduction of
ever-larger ships, for instance, significantly reduces the unit cost for shipping lines but is a true
cost driver for maritime administrations, ports and land-side infrastructure providers. Rodrigue
(2016) identifies disadvantages of scale and these costs are rarely passed on to the shipowners
as they would if the maritime sector was an integrated economic system.
The complexity of urban freight distribution and the presence of diverse stakeholders with di-
verging interests raise multiple critical institutional issues in planning for urban freight (Statho-
poulos et al. 2012). Visser, van Binsbergen and Nemoto (1999), Taylor (2005), and Stathopoulos
et al. (2012) have shown that varied stakeholders and their interlaced relationships need to be
considered in planning efficient urban freight transport. Tradition-ally, receivers, carriers, and
forwarders were identified as key stakeholders (Ogden, 1992), while Taylor (2005) suggests
8
that shippers, freight carriers, residents, and planners/regulators are the key stakeholders to-
day. Stathopoulos et al. (2012) also include urban and transport policy-makers. Research and
policy-making efforts that focus on a single type of agent are often in-adequate in providing
solutions to shared challenges. Instead a wider perspective that considers different actors, their
interconnected relationships, and their divergent preferences is essential (Stathopoulos et al.
2012), because different groups have varied and sometimes conflicting interests and objec-
tives, making it hard to address the interests of all stakeholders (Taniguchi et al. 2001).
2.4 Redefining the relationship between the port and the urban region
2.1.1 A broader meaning of sustainable ports
In her scrutiny of port developments over time and how to frame and achieve this within a
sustainability context, Wakeman (1996) criticise the strong concentration of available (and
needed) port facilities and services (berths, water depths, rail connections, freight value, mar-
ket share, etc.) as the standard indicators of vigorous port activity. While Wakeman does not
discredit these indicators (on the contrary), she argues such indicators can mis-measure the
impact of port development on an urban region. To put her argument forward, she refers to
Cobb, Halstead and Rowe (1995) stating that:
“They [standard indicators] do not distinguish between productive and destructive ac-
tivities, between sustainable and unsustainable ones. They do not witness the drop in
port-related employment nor a port’s grim isolation. In that sense, they are little meas-
ure of a port’s actual well-being”. (Cobb et al., 1995, in Wakeman 1996, p. 76).
Wakeman argues we need gauges to invoke the broader meaning of sustainable port develop-
ment to integrate port activities into the urban regional context, in particular where ports are
located close to the city. The narrow emphasis on competitiveness (infrastructure serving the
port industry), is short-term thinking. These investments are based on criteria that position a
port within international finance and shipping, forces that are defined outside the region. To
fund these investments many ports have either been privatised or leased out different port
facilities and activities. Although Wakeman wrote this close to 20 years ago, similar thought are
put forward today by port researchers. According to Lam and Notteboom (2014), a port with a
strong environmental record and a high level of community support is likely to be favoured as
it plays an increasing role in attracting customers, partners, and investors. Furthermore, Lam
and Notteboom (2014) argue that the growing concern about environmental impacts of ports
implies that port authorities can no longer take broad public support for port operations and
development for granted.
9
2.1.2 Dialogue between the port, the city, and its inhabitants
Within the sustainability literature, the strong focus of economic competitiveness and growth
is challenged, instead defending the cohesiveness of urban civil society. How then can a dia-
logue between the port and the city be realised? This includes many aspects, such as taking
advantage of a place is natural environment and historic culture, which themselves are central
to the ‘sense of place’ and belonging that strengthens community awareness and fosters con-
cern for the port and the environment (Wakeman 1996). Furthermore, sustainability implies
democratic participation and decision making through mediation and open dialogue; it merges
the port into its locality and urban community as a part of everyday culture and economy
(Wakeman 1996). But how then should often excluded actors be included into port policy and
planning? Doing this requires going beyond the old definitions of urban renewal that redefined
public spaces such as decaying docklands and waterfront as prime opportunities for private
investment. The debate on port cities needs the voices of all constituencies and stakeholders
in order to cope with economic globalisation and to answer questions about local identity and
transformation.
11
3 Laws and regulations for dangerous goods and infrastructure of na-
tional interest
3.1 Risk in physical spatial planning
In physical planning transport risks are weighed against other societal values. Often the benefits
of having close and accessible transport outweigh the disadvantages of the small risks of a dan-
gerous accident to occur (Banverket 2006). There is no national norm in Sweden for "accepta-
ble risk”, but an assessment must be made in each case. The individual's propensity to accept
risk is often limited if it is not associated with self-interest, and therefore risk assessment is
mainly a task for society. No matter what the requirements are and what levels are considered
to be reasonable, the economic and political arguments always weigh heavily in the discussion
of risk acceptance (Banverket 2006).
Dangerous goods are substances and products that have properties that can harm people, en-
vironment, and property. A fearsome example is the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in Canada when
a derailing crude oil train caused 47 fatalities and an almost fully demolished village (The To-
ronto Star 2013). Annually about 10 and 3 million tons of dangerous goods are transported on
Swedish highways and railways, respectively, equivalent to 3 % of all goods transported (STA
2014). Oil-based products account for about 75 %. No fatalities involving dangerous goods by
rail have occurred in Sweden over the last 50 years, but during the period 2006–2012, 296
accidents and incidents were reported (90 % by road, 10 % by rail), where dangerous goods
were involved, mainly in connection with the loading/unloading of goods, derailments, and
leakages (STA 2014). The probability of an accident is partly due to the number of shipments
and the length of the journey, while the accident consequences will depend on the type of
dangerous goods and where and when the accident happens. The dangerous goods traffic a
limited part of the road network, mainly on roads and streets of a high standard, while rail
transport is usually considerably longer, equivalent to about 33 % of all transport work.
3.2 Transport of dangerous goods and authorities involved
Laws and regulations concerning the transport and handling of dangerous goods, which is dis-
tributed among many different authorities (Table 1), intend to maintain safety, reduce risk of
accidents, and limit damage to people, property and the environment in case of accidents (STA
2014). According to the PBA, municipalities shall take into account the risks associated with
land and buildings from the beginning of their plans.
12
Table 1: Different authorities’ responsibilities concerning transport and handling of dangerous goods.
Responsibility
Municipality
Physical planning; consider risks with transport of dangerous goods in line with
the PBA. Have responsibility for overall risk management.
County Administrative Board
To ensure that national interests are taken into account in different plans.
STA
Plan, build and maintain national networks so that transport can be performed
with least risk for humans, the environment, and property.
SCCA
Legislative framework on transport of dangerous goods: prevent accidents and
incidents and unlawful operation with dangerous goods in relation to transport.
Police
Permit for [un]loading in public spaces within densely built-up areas.
TRGG
Rescue operations at accidents with dangerous goods.
Swedish regulations on the transport of dangerous goods also follow international transport
rules and recommendations. Transport of dangerous goods by road and rail is regulated by the
Act and Ordinance on the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail. STA also makes risk
analysis and environmental impact assessments before constructing new transport infrastruc-
ture and give recommendations regarding safety distances to the built environment. A general
risk management policy for metropolitan areas has also been adopted by the County Adminis-
trative Board (CAB) concerning dangerous goods transport, but without exact distances, the
zones are dependent on site-specific characteristics. Finally, manufacturers, shippers, carriers,
drivers, receivers, and the person responsible for the transfer/storage of these substances have
a statutory responsibility for transport of dangerous goods to take place in the safest possible
way.
3.3 Transport infrastructure and other facilities of national interest
Swedish municipalities have a planning monopoly but to avoid sub-optimisation, they have to
consider national interests. These interests are particularly valuable and important for the
whole country and should, according to the Environmental Code, be protected against
measures that could harm their values or the possibility to use them for the intended purpose
(CoG 2009). It is primarily the responsibility of municipalities to ensure that national interests
are taken into account, while the CAB ensures that national interests are taken into account in
different plans. The CAB, in consultation with the local authority, also monitor how national
interests are met in the Municipal Master Plan (MMP), but the state can intervene if interests
are threatened. In situations where an area is of national interest for several incompatible pur-
poses, preference is given to the purpose/purposes found to be the most appropriate to pro-
mote long-term management of land, water, and the physical environment in general.
All ports of national interest in Sweden are based on the same criteria, namely: i) a comprehen-
sive port operation with a considerable freight activity with yearly volumes reaching a certain
level (or fulfilling the EU's criteria for being a TEN-T A-Port), ii) port/part of port which has par-
ticularly good location bound natural resources suitable for shipping, iii) port/part of port that
maintains or interacts with another facility of national interest, and iv) port/part of port that
handles special products where no equivalent alternative is available. A prerequisite for the
13
port's business is to ensure transport to/from the port takes place in an acceptable manner.
Thus as a place of national interest, also other facilities and activities deemed to be necessary
for the port's activities are identified as being of national interest (e.g., roads, railways, mar-
shalling yards, intermodal terminals, and certain industries).
It is important to pay attention early on to the risk aspects that are linked to transport to/from
ports, including interference zones along transport routes. Plan proposals which limit the pos-
sibilities for road/rail transport and therefore can have a negative impact on port operations
must be weighed against the national interest. At the same time, it is important to pay attention
to noise ratios (and air quality) to if new buildings are planned adjacent to the port, including
protective distances. This applies to both the port operations and the road/rail infrastructure.
Roads of national interest include roads that: i) are part of the Swedish TEN-T roads, ii) are
included in the national road network, iii) form connections between regional centres, iv) are
of particular importance to regional or interregional traffic, and v) connects communication
facilities of national interest. The land areas affected by the designated road network shall be
protected against measures that impede on the construction or the use of the road. The road's
function is the basis for the designation, which means that new housing or new activities should
not be located adjacent to major transport routes in such a way that the function can be com-
promised.
As for rail, national interests recognise current and planned railway construction and buildings
directly associated with rail traffic. In 2006, the then National Railway Infrastructure Authority
(Banverket) made a designation to accommodate the railways claim to land and water areas
for transport in 2030 (CoG 2009). The existing and planned rail installations of national interest
should be: i) of international importance and are/may be included in the EU's TEN-T, ii) of na-
tional, inter-regional, special regional significance or of particular importance for regional de-
velopment, iii) required for the redirection of traffic in certain situations, and iv) links a national
interest with other designated nodes, sites or areas of national interest (e.g., ports, airports).
15
4 Port of Gothenburg and risk picture in City of Gothenburg
The PoG (Figure 1), which is the largest port among the Nordic countries, has expanded con-
siderably last 40 years (Table 2). Around 60 % of all containers shipped to/from Sweden and
around 25 % of Sweden’s foreign trade go through the PoG (STA 2013). It is the only port which
can accommodate today’s largest container ships, and services around 140 destinations around
the world, including direct trans-ocean lines to Asia and America.
In line with the global trend, where port operations have moved from the public to the private
sector (Monios 2015), also the PoG has moved towards the landlord port model (World Bank
2007), wherein the public sector retains ownership while the terminal management and oper-
ations are leased to private operators.
Table 2: Freight handled in the Port of Gothenburg 1973–2014.
1973
1983
1993/94
2003
2013
2014
Containers (TEUs)
107 000
310 000
430 000
666 000
858 000
836 631
RoRo units
-
-
391 196
513 549
557 000
548 801
Energy products (tons)
18 370 000
16 047 000
17 582 000
17 295 000
20 400 000
19 230 000
Total volumes (tons)
25 642 000
23 881 000
27 008 000
33 274 470
38 900 000
37 120 000
Source: PoG 2015.
Activity in the PoG is growing, and 2009 the port was expected to at least double the amount
of goods within 20 years, of which the vision is that at least 50 % of the increase to/from the
port will go by rail (CoG 2009:72). This requires the expansion of yard areas and industrial rail
tracks in the port area. While a majority of the containers handled in the PoG is still transported
there by trucks, the share transported by rail has increased from 20,3 % in 2000 to 45,5 % in
2012 (PoG 2014). This is an outcome from PoG’s strategic work (cf. Bergqvist 2013, Bergqvist
2009) to develop train shuttles, numbering 26 at present. The shuttles have improved PoG’s
environmental benefits significantly. All shuttles, except for one, services destinations in Swe-
den.
4.1 Planning, permissions and supervisions in Port of Gothenburg
The PoG and its main access routes are of national interest since 2000 (LVGL 2009), and to
ensure the port's function in a coherent transport network, reliable road-/railway connections
are necessary, as well areas of industrial production, which is dependent on the proximity to
the port. As a basis for the municipality's spatial development, those aspects and features are
included in the national interest and the areas concerned. They are required to not significantly
hinder development or utilisation of the port, and a description of the competing national in-
terests and aspects in/near the port, which is of importance to the national interest. According
to the PBA, land and water shall be used for the purposes for which they are most suited, and
16
the Environmental Code shall be applied in the planning and siting of buildings (CoG 2009). In
addition, the port is also dealt with in the CoG’s MMP.
The port's location in central CoG requires the continued development of operations there, so
that related infrastructure and the continued construction of the city can be done in parallel.
In connection with the national interest of the PoG are activities that are directly related to the
activities of the port and its connecting infrastructure that should be considered as areas of
national interest for industrial production, such as handling/refining of oil, automobile or other
heavy items. Even areas of logistics and transshipment between different modes of transport,
logistics centres and intermodal terminals, must be regarded as being of national interest for
industrial production, as well as planned development areas for these activities.
4.2 Description of risk in City of Gothenburg
CoG’s changing activity character entail a complex risk picture. CoG’s current expansion is
based on urban densification through, amongst others, housing. CoG is characterised by large
areas of urban (multi-family/apartment buildings) and extensive transport and industrial activ-
ity. The population of around 500 000 and the many people, who are temporarily staying in the
municipality (commuting or visiting events), present a particular risk.
”In addition, the ever present risk for an accident with dangerous substances, e.g., poi-
sonous chemicals at factories, storage areas or during transport. If such an accident
leads to a rapid and large exhaust in or close to a populated ara, the consequences can
be considerable.” (TRGG 2011, own translation from Swedish).
The CoG’s terrain conditions, with steep mountains surrounding valleys that converge near the
Göta river estuary has led to major transport routes until today have been drawn up gradually
and expanded and strengthened through areas that are currently the most central parts. The
city wants to convert several of the older industrial and terminal areas into a mixed city or
personnel intensive areas, and is therefore located along transport routes for dangerous goods
(CoG 1997a). For example, Norra Älvstranden has changed from a shipyard and industrial area
into a cluster for high-tech companies, education, and residential areas. Along these routes are
also residential and working areas that under current conditions could not have been built
within today’s building free zones, and some transport routes would not have been allowed to
be built at all (CoG 1997a).
Some of the most prominent risks that could lead to major emergencies in CoG is the extensive
transport of dangerous goods. The numerous and large industrial establishments, including the
port, refineries, storage of petroleum products, and the marshalling yard, where there is large-
scale handling of hazardous substances, contribute to the risk character through its extensive
transport needs. The many large and heavily trafficked roads through the municipality – which
often take place in urban areas – represent a risk scenario in itself, and there is a constant
conflict between development interests and risks in physical planning.
17
5 Transport and logistics facilities expansion in the City of Gothenburg
5.1 Transport infrastructure and other areas of national interest
“Roads and railways create visible communication paths, which gives barriers within
the city and the natural areas.” (Banverket 2009:24, own translation from Swedish).
Except for the PoG in itself, there are seven roads classified as being of national interest in the
CoG, another five roads the STA believe should be classified as national interests, five railway
lines, and five railyards and intermodal terminals (Figure 1). Of these national interests, at least
eight of the twelve roads, one of the five railways, and all railyards and intermodal terminals
are, in one way or the other, directly connected to the PoG. Thus many of the transport infra-
structures of national interest are of importance for the port and its development plans.
Of the 26 road links classified as primary roads (or road sections) in CoG, around ten are directly
connected to or influence the PoG, especially Lundbyleden (but also Hisingsleden–Norrleden)
(Figure 1), which reached an average of close to 40 000 vehicles per day in 2013, are of great
importance for heavy traffic to the PoG, but also to reach logistics facilities and industries on
Hisingen Island (CoG 2009). There is a need for greater capacity along the entire route of His-
ingsleden–Norrleden, eventually four lanes will be needed (CoG 2009:78).
Turning to roads used for transporting dangerous goods. Of the main roads used for transport
of dangerous goods, the main ones are E6, E20, and Rv40 (Figure 2). Figure 2 shows that many
of the roads used for transport of dangerous goods are connected to the PoG. Finally, there are
also many other national interest located close to or within the PoG influence area (CoG 2009).
To start with, the MMP identifies areas of great value, national interests, and/or of general
interest for nature conservation and areas of natural beauty, cultural heritage and/or outdoor
activities. In this category, at least seven areas and activities are within the PoG’s influence area
would there become further port and transport infrastructure expansions (Figure 3) (CoG
2009).
18
Figure 1: Transport infrastructure of national interest in City of Gothenburg.
19
Figure 2: Primary road links for transport of dangerous goods in City of Gothenburg, and fire and explosive ac-
tivities in/around Port of Gothenburg.
20
Figure 3: Recreational areas and facilities and areas with high natural value in and around the Port of Gothen-
burg.
21
5.2 Risks and accidents
Fire and explosion dangerous activities require protection distance. The purpose of the in-
depth MMP for the sector of transport with dangerous goods is to provide a basis for planning
and permitting, among other things, the municipality to manage land use along transport
routes for dangerous goods. The risk range of 50 % mortality from the road for various events
shows that the incidents involving explosives and poisonous and flammable gases pose the
highest threat to humans, where the consequence distance for toxic gas ranges up to a few km
(CoG 2009).
The latest in-depth MMP for dangerous goods came in 1997 (CoG 2015), wherein substances
that can lead to serious implications regarding human life in an accident were the following: i)
mass explosives (dynamite), ii) compacting, liquefied or under pressure dissolved gases (pro-
pane, chlorine, ammonia), and iii) oxidising substances and organic peroxides mixed with (gas-
oline or crude form of explosive substances). In the risk and accident analysis between 2004–
2006, a large number of facilities classified as having high or low accident risk were identified
(Table 3).
Table 3: Dangerous activities located in close proximity to Port of Gothenburg.
Substance characteristics
Handling
Manufacturing
Storage
Depot/terminal
Total
Fire dangerous
Explosives
Poisonous
Environmental hazardous
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
12
11
9
9
4
4
4
4
29
28
26
26
Source: CoG 2009:123.
The locations of activities in the CoG classified as dangerous by the CAB are mainly clustered
in/around the port area (Figure 2). These activities pose a danger to accidents and can cause
serious damage to humans or the environment. Different scenarios for the local rescue services
in these facilities, where the activity itself is obliged to take action alone is not sufficient for
TRGG to prevent or limit. Nor is the municipal expected to handle these accidents alone, but
need help from owners/operators and TRGG.
5.3 In-depth MMP for the sector transport of dangerous goods
Actions taking place in urban space today will last for a very long time, while other activities are
more operational/dynamic and changing rapidly, for example transport of dangerous goods.
Accordingly, the associated problems are complex as they relate to a changing society where
transport and urban structure are fully integrated, or as stated by the CoG:
22
”A fundamental standpoint for this general plan is that city planning cannot be adapted
to the situation, which at a certain time considers transport of hazardous cargo or to
short-sighted projections of the situation. Instead, the general plan hsas to be directed
towards long-term robust frame, which considers transport demand and safety as eco-
logically sustainable development, general social economy, cultural historic aspects,
city planning etc. Transport has to be aligned with the city and the special values and
conditions.” (CoG 1997:8, own translation from Swedish).
Involved decision-makers have to consider traditional socio-economic aspects as issues of re-
source management in addition to urban issues and ethical and moral aspects, but also inter-
national treaties (which were strengthened by EU membership in 1995), and the business sec-
tor’s interests. Residents did not appear as a single interest group (the society represents resi-
dents) in the MMP for transport of dangerous, but it was mentioned that safety, and partly
security, for people who live and work in areas along transport routes for dangerous goods is a
main problem. However, according to the CAB and TRGG, adequate safety cannot be assured
if only internationally requirements are applied (CoG 1997). In relation to this, in the MMP for
transport of dangerous goods, two main critics from the referral bodies were revealed: the
difference between road and rail regarding the width of the building free zone at the transport
links, and the use of aversion curves as a basis for risk valuation. None of these comments led
to changes in the proposed plan, and two influential bodies (CAB, TRGG) eventually accepted
the proposed plan as the basis for CoG’s physical planning.
5.3.1 Distance between transport routes with dangerous goods and the built environment
To clarify the risk situation, a settlement free zone of 30 meters is recommended to be main-
tained around railways and primary transport routes for dangerous goods (CoG 2009). Along
railways, dense office buildings is allowed up to the 30 meters limit, while unifying residential
construction is allowed up to 80 meters from the railway. Along roads, the corresponding dis-
tances are 50 and 100 meters respectively. To build new buildings in settlement free areas
requires a risk analysis showing that the building is safe.
The assessment of the consequences and probabilities of accidents contain many un-certain-
ties. It is, as TRGG points out, not possible to adequately quantify events that both are very
rare, and has major consequences. It is problematic to base planning on such assessments (CoG
1997:25). Notwithstanding, the consequences of an accident in terms of fatalities during the
daytime, with the proposed physical settlement free zone were estimated to be rather severe
(Table 4).
1
1
The calculation referred to the "design event", taking into account both the probability and consequence.
23
Table 4: Calculation of the number of fatalities in an accident during the daytime with the most dangerous sub-
stances in the proposed physical frame.
Human fatalities
Substance
Railway
Road
Mass explosive substances (dynamite) with 15–25 ton/carriage & 15 ton/truck
125–200
~70
Flammable/inflammable gases (e.g. propane)
<10
<15
Poisonous gases (e.g. chlorine)2
~30
~25
Oxidised substances or organic peroxides
~200
~10
Source: CoG 1997.
While the number of fatalities shown in Table 4 may appear to be relatively high, it was pointed
out that the likelihood of accidents with these consequences is very small and therefore almost
unimaginable. However, in comparison with the MMP in 1993, the in-depth MMP in 1997
started from a new approach to manage risks associated with the transport of dangerous
goods, leading to the safe distance to decrease. In addition to purely scientific evidence of de-
creased distances, it cannot be ruled out that different interest groups and stakeholders have
been driving the issue based on their own interests.
5.3.2 Risk assessment for rail and road in relation to the built environment
The critique of the different distances for road and rail were justified for safety reasons when,
according to several commentators, it has not been scientifically proven that the railway is safer
than road. That is, bodies consulted expressed different distances for rail and road to built-up
areas. The most difficult, sensitive and therefore most controversial part of the risk analysis is
the valuation of human life and human suffering (CoG 1997). For instance, risks associated with
the transport of dangerous goods differ considerably from car and public transport occupants
in the sense that in the latter cases, people have voluntarily chosen to expose themselves to
risk. For most people public transport is also a much more positively loaded term than danger-
ous goods. The most serious consequence is likely to increase anxiety among the population
along the transport routes of dangerous goods. Another method for risk evaluation used in the
in-depth MMP (CoG 1997) was aversion curves (a method borrowed from Holland), which spec-
ify the tolerance for catastrophic accidents. According to the Dutch standard three aspects are
crucial for tolerance (CoG 1997), namely:
Fatalities per accident (public tolerance decrease markedly at 10 fatalities or more).
Level of voluntary involvement of those who are affected (those affected cannot influ-
ence the incident).
The activity’s perceived direct benefit for those who may be affected.
2
The risk area for death for chlorine is estimated at 400 m downwind.
24
It should be noted that the tolerance is extremely high for voluntary activities, which direct
benefits are perceived as large compared to an activity in which those affected have not chosen
to participate and/or do not perceive any direct benefits. The risk of being exposed to accidents
is also unequally distributed, all depending on where one lives and works.
The third risk assessment method, the socio-economic cost-benefit analysis, was considered to
be economically unreasonable due to the state's high standards for safety distances (CoG
1997:4). It would mean that valuable land would not be able to be exploited. Likewise, a special
or redirected transport route for dangerous goods (e.g. Hamnbanan) was considered to be eco-
nomically and environmentally unreasonable. As for roads, routes with traffic up to 100 000
vehicles per day alone with distance as a means to reduce the noise to an acceptable environ-
ment, required several hundred meters, which, due to economic and other reasons, could only
be accepted in peripheral parts of the city (CoG 1997). Reduced opportunities for urban densi-
fication would result in even further urban sprawl. For example, the risk of accidents involving
dangerous goods along the river was considered to be small, and there-fore housing develop-
ment right next to the river was allowed (CoG 1997). Thus compared with the 1990 decision on
the Norra Älvstranden, the distance from dense urban areas and routes for dangerous goods
decreased from 100 to 30 meters for the railway (CoG 1997:22).
5.3.3 Conflict between authorities and other interests
Problems concerning the transport of dangerous goods received serious attention in the mid-
1980s in connection with the planning of the redevelopment of the Norra Älvstranden (CoG
1997). Here conflicts between different interests and between different authorities became
clear. Safety was set against environmental and resource management and the municipality
with its holistic approach were of a different opinion than the safety preservation authorities.
The problem was highlighted in the work of the detailed portion of the MMP for other bor-
oughs. A proposal was made but after informal consultations, it was decided that the investi-
gation should be deepened and integrated into CoGs MMP. Another proposal for a detailed
MMP for the sector transport of dangerous goods was sent out in 1995 for consultation and
for public display in 1996. The comments led to additions, corrections and clarifications, but
not to any major change in the basic principles. Another area of conflict was (and still is) the
interests of the business sector, with its requirements following the principle of free movement
and minimum possible restrictions or costs for transport, often put forward by invoking inter-
national (e.g., EU) agreement on free movement (CoG 1997) .
5.3.4 Municipal and national policies for transport of dangerous goods
Although the municipality was willing to reserve broader settlement-free zones around the
central transport routes for dangerous goods in 1997 compared to many other cities in Sweden,
in reality distances actually declined in general (CoG 1997). The municipality also believed that
urban construction cannot be adapted to the situation at a given moment concerning transport
25
of dangerous goods. Transport must instead be adapted to the city and its special values and
conditions.
In the in-depth MMP for the sector transport of dangerous goods (CoG 1997) it is stated that it
would be appropriate to have a national policy on the transport of dangerous goods. One such
proposal was to give the Swedish Association of Local Authorities a mandate to use MMP as
the basis for a national policy. Furthermore, it was argued that the international regulations
should undergo a review, including additional restrictions or powerful controls.
5.4 Present and future developments of transport and logistics facilities in/around the Port of
Gothenburg
5.4.1 Location of present and future logistics facilities and other infrastructures
Of the 135 freight terminals in the CoG in 2014, a large majority (63 %) were located on the
Island of Hisingen, especially around the PoG area and areas in its close proximity (Figure 4)
(Olsson & Larsson 2015). A third terminal cluster area stretches from the central railway station
(including the intermodal terminal at Gullbergsvass), the wholesalers’ area (Partihallarna), and
Gamlestaden/Kviberg.
Figure 4: Terminal locations within City of Gothenburg 2014 (percent). Source: Olsson & Larsson, forthcoming.
26
Similar to many other ports in the world, a challenge for the PoG is the lack of land for logistics
activities which has rail connection. But it is not only the port in itself that demand land for
expansion, as the port is growing in terms of handled freight, the areas surrounding the port
are attractive for logistics facilities location.
”There is considerable demand for establishment for acitivites requiring port proximity.
Examples are transshipment terminals, empty container storage and maintenance
workshops.” (PoG 2012:26, own translation from Swedish).
The CoG is among the most attractive locations to establish logistics facilities in Sweden. Next
coming 20 years, 5 million m2 of logistics facilities are going to be developed in CoG, whereof
more than 1 million m2 in/around the PoG (Table 5). This is expected to generate thousands of
job opportunities (GP 2015b). Furthermore, except for newly planned logistics facilities, other
port related projects, either ongoing or projects planned for in a longer time perspective are
shown in Table 5. This gives an indication of what the port authority deem necessary to invest
in for the port to continue to develop and grow in the future.
“The trend is that container vessels get ever larger. (…) It implies that the number of
containers increases and soon, they cannot be stored in the port”. (Kårestedt, GHAB
CEO, in Intelligent Logistik, No. 7, 2010: 19, own translation from Swedish).
27
Table 5: Ongoing/decided and planned infrastructure projects in-/outside the Port of Gothenburg area.
Ongoing/decided
0–10 years
Beyond 10 years
Railway
Hamnbanan: from single to double tracks
New railway bridge: double tracks
Railway connection to Halvorsäng
New track to Skagerrak terminal
Increased capacity and rail track changes in Skandia and Höke
RY
Strenghten capacity to Arendal area
100 % double track Hamnbanan
Expansion of Arken IT/stuffing area
Track to new land area in Ardalsbergen
Track to Risholmen
Expansion of Arken IT and Älvsborg RY
New port ar-
eas
Arendal 2 (between Älvsborg and Arendal terminals)
Risholmen 1 & 2
Risholmen 3 (expansion of Torshamnen)
Road
Tankgate viaduct
Expansion of crossing Oljevägen/Nordatlanten/Arendals allé
Expansion of HCT between terminals and nearby logistic areas
Expansion of Hisingsleden
Halvors road link
New road between Sörredsmotet and Arendal terminal
New road to Risholmen
Logistics area
Tankgate area (250 000 m2)
Halvorsäng (400 000 m2)
Logistics centre (565 000 m2)
West of Halvorsäng, South Ardalsberget
Terminal
space
in port area
with railway
connection
Extended railway electrification to terminals
Extending IT at Älvsborg RY
Railway connection south of Nordatlanten
Close Nordatlanten, new terminal south of Skandia
RY
New terminal south of Arken IT
Restore tracks in car terminal
Additional connection for loading of energy products
South of Skandia RY i anslutning to container-/car-/rorotermi-
nal
Port terminals
Possible to expand in present areas next 10 years
Berths, cranes
3 new super post-panamax cranes (container termi-
nal)
Berth expansion at container terminal and energy port
IT: Intermodal terminal. RY: Railyard. Source: PoG 2012:25–28.
28
1.2 5.5 Hamnbanan – solution and problem at the same time
Among the ongoing and planned transport infrastructure projects in the CoG, one project is of
central importance for the PoG ability to grow and develop, namely the capacity upgrading of
the today 8.8 kilometer long single dedicated freight railway track Hamnbanan (Figure 1). While
the Hamnbanan project has not even received a fraction of attention among the public com-
pared to the infrastructure package of West Sweden or the debate preceding the implementa-
tion of the road charge (tax) system in 2013, the Hamnbanan project is essential for the PoG
and several other industries. The remaining part of this chapter deals with this project and the
new Marieholm bridge project.
5.4.2 Hamnbanan at present and motives to upgrade Hamnbanan
There are several good reasons to focus attention on Hamnbanan railway track. To begin with,
traffic on the present single track has increased faster than expected (CoG 2009). By the end of
the first decade of the 21st century, the forecast was that the amount of freight would double
within 10–20 years and the capacity ceiling was estimated to be sometime shortly after 2010
(CoG 2009). At present the limited capacity on Hamnbanan restricts efficient freight transport
to/from the PoG and industries on Hisingen Island. Possible increase in demand is from 50 trains
per day at present to 125 trains per day in 2022.
Furthermore, Hamnbanan make up a barrier between different neighbourhoods, especially on
the southern part of Hisingen Island. At present Hamnbanan creates a barrier along Norra
Älvstranden, which is enhanced further by the road Lundbyleden. Hamnbanan is also located
near settlements. The bulk of the track runs through a mixed urban landscape, and two thirds
of the route runs parallel to a major road, Lundbyleden (Figure 2).
”Hamnbanan passes through inner parts of Gothenburg and constitute a barrier be-
tween boroughs. In South Hisingen, Hamnbanan is a visible barrier.” (CoG 2009:70,
own translation from Swedish).
Thirdly, and related to the former, Hamnbanan cannot be seen as an isolated system, but as
part of the Swedish railway system (Banverket 2006), as well as being a part of the city. For
example, the increase in shipments from PoG also greatly affects freight transport on the other
rail sections and shunting on Sävenäs marshalling yard. Traffic on the Hamnbanan is also sus-
ceptible to interference due to single track and on Marieholm bridge – the only dedicated
freight rail link across Göta Älv river – causing traffic stops which have major consequences for
the PoG and the industry on Hisingen (Banverket 2006). Hamnbanans limited capacity also re-
stricts the transfer of freight from less environmentally friendly modes (road) to rail, a transfer
the PoG has been very successful in. Finally, the aim to go through tunnels is, according to STA
(2015c) to improve the environment (less noise, improved environment) and remove the bar-
rier the present track constitutes while the Hamnbanan remains there.
29
5.4.3 Democratic decision process, planning and communication of the Hamnbanan project
In 2016 in relation to the proposed plans to finance new tramlines in CoG (and how much of
this should be financed by the city and by the national government), one of the members of
the Traffic Committee expressed the following:
“Johan Nyhus also considers democracy aspects and establish the decisions in the pub-
lic. – We use the experiences from the West Swedish Infrastructure Package and it is
possible to do differently and better. Now it is urgent, urgent although we know that
the construction time is very long. To spend some time on democracy in the beginning
of an issue does not need to prolong the building process”. (GP 2016c, own translation
from Swedish).
The quote above illustrates a deficiency in how the planning process is, at least for some pro-
jects, managed and carried out (it is difficult to know how far back such a top-down planning
culture goes back in time), where both a democratic planning process and transparence are
lacking, as well as citizen participation. It should come as no surprise if proposed projects are
then met by public opposition.
In 2006, dangerous goods accounted for about 5 % of the transport on Hamnbanan (a much
larger amount is transported by road) (Banverket 2006; CoG 1997). These shipments were
mainly destined for the refineries located in/around the PoG. Southwest of the bridge of Älvs-
borg are large areas of port operations, including oil tanks. Moreover, Rya forest is wedged
between the port terminals (Figure 3). To reduce the risks and barriers that arise from Hamn-
banan, in 2008 a feasibility study on alternative railway routes was carried out. The longer op-
tion that was brought up, a stretch on Hisingen northern parts was not considered relevant for
further investigation (CoG 2009). Instead, it was concluded that the current route next to the
existing Hamnbanan with a possible tunnel section was feasible, and that the course should be
designed to minimise impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
The Hamnbanan rail project is made up of two separate stages: the Eriksberg–Pölsebo stage
where construction is planned to start in 2018 and be completed in 2022, and the Pölsebo–
Skandiahamnen stage, where construction is planned to start in 2017 and be finished in 2018
(STA 2015a). In addition to these two stages, of central importance are the Kville railway yard
project (project finished in 2015/2016) and the Marieholm bridge project (project planned to
be finished in spring 2016) (STA 2015b). The remaining part of this section concentrates on the
30
Eriksberg–Pölsebo stage. The planning of the Eriksberg–Pölsebo stage has, as shown in Table
6, followed all required planning stages related to transport infrastructure projects.
3
Table 6: Planning stages for the Eriksberg–Pölsebo Hamnbanan stage.
Planning stage
2005
Feasibility study on new Hamnbana
2011
Railway assessment survey
2013
1st attitudinal survey concerning the Railway plan
2014
City Planning develop a MZP for the area around Hamnbanan
2014/2015
Consultation with CoG
2015
Exhibition/auditing of Railway plan
2015
2nd attitudinal survey concerning the Railway plan
2015
Referral bodies submit opinions on the Railway plan
2015
Adjustment of final Railway plan
2016
Approval request of Railway plan from CAB
2016
Settlement review at STA
2016
Referral bodies receive feedback on STAs settlement review
2016
New auditing and exhibition of Railway plan
2016
Opportunity to appeal
2018
Start of project
2022
Completion of project
Source: Banverket 2006; STA 2014b; 2015c;e; 2016.
When the rail plan for the Eriksberg–Pölsebo stage was out on public exhibition and audit in
2015, the public, property owners, agencies, and organisations had the opportunity to submit
their opinions on the plan. It was, however, also established that only some opinions could lead
to minor changes in the proposed plan (STA 2015c). At the same time, a child impact survey,
where children were interviewed about their itineraries, dangerous and nice places was con-
ducted. The results would provide a basis for continued work to create safe spaces.
In 2011, previous to the exhibition and audit in 2014/2015, several referral bodies (Gothenburg
Region Association of Local Authorities; City Council of CoG; CAB in Västra Götaland country;
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) submitted their opinions about the STAs railway
investigation and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Eriksberg–Pölsebo section. STAs
assessment considered three different corridor alternatives on the said section. All bodies
opted for the T alternative, that is, double track in a new section (partly in tunnels) north from
3
In 2013, amendments to the Roads Act and the Act on Railway Construction were introduced. This meant,
among other things the planning of transport infrastructure takes place in a cohesive planning process (STA
2015d). As the project also brings significant environmental impacts, an environmental impact assessment
should also be conducted.
31
the present track. While the T alternative was more expensive, its benefits in terms of develop-
ment opportunities were found to be much greater. No citizen brought forward any views or
opinions or suggested an alternative solution to the proposed one.
Of importance for many of the referral bodies consulted was that the expansion took place in
a sustainable manner with respect to the environmental impact and social development in the
area around the track. This meant that it was the alternative resulting in least negative environ-
mental impacts and barrier effects should be the main alternative. It was claimed that the T-
alternative would almost eliminate the barrier effect, physically as well as from a disturbances
and accident risks, as well as enabling opportunities to develop areas around the track, such as
parks, and reduce socio-economic inequalities (CoG 2011; LVGL 2011). A disadvantage with the
T-alternative, put forward by CAB (2011) was the difficulty to execute rescue operations in case
of an accident inside the tunnel. STA decided to go ahead with the T-alternative in their contin-
ued planning in late 2011 (STA 2011).
5.4.4 The public’s knowledge and attitudes toward Hamnbanan and STA
Two attitudinal surveys have been performed by the STA to obtain information about required
communication efforts as well as to get insights about the public’s attitudes towards the pro-
ject. Of special interest was to find out local residents' concerns about the project, both during
the construction stage and after the project had been completed. The results from the surveys
in 2013 (based on 400 telephone interviews) and in 2015 (based on 600 telephone interviews)
in the areas around Pölsebo and Eriksberg are presented in Table 7.
32
Table 7: Public’s knowledge and attitudes about the Hamnbanan project (percent).
2013
2015
Have knowledge about the project
60
73
Attitudes about the project
Positive/very positive
Neither positive or negative
Negative/very negative
Don’t know/no opinion
45
17
21
17
62
28
10
13
Impression how the project is handled by the STA
Positive/very positive
Either positive or negative
Negative/very negative
Don’t know/no opinion
8
16
10
66
31
56
13
-
Have had direct contact with STA concerning the project
Yes
No
3
97
2
98
Feel worried about the situation before the project start
No worries
Worried to some extent
Don’t know/no opinion
70
25
5
72
23
5
Worried about the situation after project completion
No worries
Worried to some extent
Don’t know/no opinion
72
20
8
76.5
15.5
8
Have taken part of information concerning the project
Yes
No
58
42
78
22
Source: STA 2013; 2015f.
The awareness of the project increased in 2015, while negative concerns had declined and at-
titudes had become more positive. Also the public's impression of the planning and manage-
ment of the project had improved since 2013. It was also found that it was mostly families with
children and women who still felt concern, particularly regarding noise, messiness, and
transport of dangerous goods amidst people. Among the negative experiences, bad infor-
mation and communication is mentioned, and that the management does not listen to the
people. In 2013, worries prior to the project start mainly included noise pollution, explosions,
traffic disruption, and how the local environment, schools, and pre-schools would be affected
during construction. Some also worry that one of the parks would be destroyed. Worries about
the situation after the project had been completed were mainly related to vibrations, noise,
destructions of park, increased traffic, and transport of dangerous goods.
The survey in 2013 showed the most common source of information about the project had
been through media (58 %), while 42 % had not taken part of any information at all. Of those
taking part of information, most critique was directed towards the STA. Of special concern was
whether the information given was useful and/or sufficient. Of those who had been in contact
33
with the STA concerning the project, as many as 42 % were either quite disappointed or very
disappointed about the STA’s perceptiveness. Finally, 58 % of those who had been in contact
and how they felt about their ability to influence the project were very disappointed.
5.4.5 Hamnbanan and Port of Gothenburg in news media
The last decade, actors such as the public, interest groups and the business community in CoG
have raised their voices concerning the Hamnbanan railway connecting the PoG, and its poten-
tial positive and negative consequences (GP 2015a). While Hamnbanan and PoG have not re-
ceived even a fraction of public attention in news media compared with the planned rail tunnel
(Västlänken) in the CoG and the conflicts and public confusion it has brought with it (GP 2016a-
b;d), Table 8 shows the newspaper articles in the city’s largest daily newspaper that concerns
Hamnbanan and PoG (often in relation to each other).
Table 8: Issues concerning the Port of Gothenburg and Hamnbanan in news media in the City of Gothenburg.
2005–2015
Capacity expansion of Hamnbanan and/or new railway bridge across the river
26
Railway relocation and/or railway in tunnel due to:
Safety reasons, release of land [not available because of safety reasons], re-
lease land for public transport, creation of physical barriers
21
Exposure to negative externalities, and release and handling of hazardous materials
14
Vehicle accidents/incidents
10
Importance for industry ex-/import and competition
10
Threats of terror attacks
2
Environmental benefits
2
Evacuation planning
1
Political resistance to expand the capacity on Hamnbanan
1
Communication with the public
1
Total
88
Source: GP 2004; 2005a-e; 2006a-c; 2007a-g; 2008a; 2009a; 2010a-h; 2011a-f; 2012a-c; 2013a-d; 2014a-b; 2015a-
d.
Table 8 shows that the issues concerning Hamnbanan and the new railway bridge is divided
between two ‘opposing’ camps, one camp is in strong favour of the projects and the other
camp is more hesitant and/or very critical. The issues dealt with the most concerns Hamn-
banan’s (and Marieholm’s railway bridge) capacity expansion (which is also related to im-
portance for industry) – foremost brought forward by the business community and politicians
– and the issue concerning rail track relocation/railway tunnel (including safety reasons), which
is expressed by a greater number of interest groups. Issues concerning exposure to negative
externalities, together with vehicle accidents/incidents, evacuation planning, and threats of ter-
ror attacks are also dealt with quite frequently. In sharp contrast to the critical voices concern-
ing the Västlänken infrastructure package (GP 2016a) or the debate preceding the introduction
34
of the congestion charging system in CoG, it may seem surprising that a project of this magni-
tude, connecting Scandinavia’s largest and most important export and import port, has not
received more attention the last 10 years.
5.5 Zone of influence in case of accident with dangerous goods
Notwithstanding the probability of an accident involving dangerous goods along Hamnbanan is
extremely low (even more so as this is a dedicated rail track, not operating on tracks together
with passenger trains, and also partly go through tunnels), it is not possible to guarantee this,
and this risk, no matter how unimaginable it is, is a risk the public is anxious and worried about
(see STA 2013; 2015f). One can even question to what extent inhabitants most exposed to
transport of dangerous goods have been informed by the stakeholders involved in the project
about different risk scenarios. As far as we (the authors) are concerned, no thorough infor-
mation about different accident scenarios along Hamnbanan has been made public. It can also
be questioned what would have come out of the project (even in the planning stage), had such
accident scenarios been included in a democratic and transparent planning process with citizen
participation.
Knowing that a risk range of incidents involving explosives, poisonous, and flammable gases
pose the highest threat to humans, and the consequence distance for toxic gas can reach up to
a few kms (CoG 2009). Figure 5 shows that even within a distance of 250 and 500 m from
Hamnbanan, the zone of influence are relatively large, not to mentions the quite substantial
area and population exposed if the distance from Hamnbanan is set at one kilometer.
For example, one of the areas located close to both Lundbyleden and Hamnbanan is Lundby
borough (Figure 5). The borough had almost 8000 inhabitants in 2014, whereof 21 % had for-
eign background
4
(compared to 25.5 % for the CoG), and the average income was considerably
lower compared to the average for the CoG (CoG 2015b;d). A large majority of the population
(75 %) live in rented apartments (the average for the CoG is 54 %). Lundby has a mixed land use
with a balance between housing and workshops, and there are 37 kindergartens and 11 primary
schools in the area.
4
Excluding inhabitants born in Sweden with parents born abroad.
35
Figure 5: Catchment areas in case of rail or road accident along Hamnbanan.
36
6 Conclusion
The aim of this report has been to contribute with a critical discussion concerning the relation-
ship between investments and expansions in transport infrastructure and logistics facilities, na-
tional and local policies, and social sustainability in cities. The overriding research question in-
vestigated has been: How do port cities balance legitimate local concerns – such as social sus-
tainability and democratic planning processes – with the need for efficient and competitive city
freight flows?
Ports and other logistics and transport related facilities and activities are often handling dan-
gerous and hazardous goods, and they often also take up extensive areas of valuable land
within or in close proximity to cities. Due to this, densely populated areas are exposed to dif-
ferent negative externalities, including both the objective and subjective risk of accidents.
One should not diminish or discredit the importance of ports or the freight transport sector in
general, nor port authorities’ wish and logic to grow and expand, which in itself necessitates
investment in additional transport infrastructure capacity. But it is important to discuss how
port related issues should be managed and how port cities maneuver between two often con-
flicting goals, namely: how to increase the net positive impacts from ports and, how to deal
with its inhabitants concerns about negative externalities, social cohesion, and a move towards
a more sustainable society. Ultimately it is a question about what kind of cities we want to live
in: what should urban land be used for and who is going to decide this?
While it is possible to draw several conclusions based on the discussion and findings in this
report, many of them possible to relate to the theoretical literature and previous empirical
studies, the major conclusion related to the situation in the CoG is the following: Planning is
primarily a top-down process, mainly in the hands of policy makers and planners, while com-
munity participation is limited. A complete democratic and transparent planning process is lack-
ing. From a planning and a technocratic perspective this is, to some extent, understand-able,
given the historic and present evidences of indecision in relation to large infrastructure pro-
jects, either resulting in very drawn out processes or that planned projects come to a standstill.
However, today’s planning process may prove to be difficult to follow in the future if public
opposition becomes stronger, especially since both urban environmental and social cohesion
issues are becoming increasingly important, not only in Sweden but throughout the world.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Foundation for Economic Research in West Sweden for
making it possible to carry out research for this report. The authors would also like to thank the
Foundation for their generosity in allowing an extended deadline for the Final report.
37
References
Allen, J., Browne, M. and Cherrett, T. 2012. Investigating relationships between road freight transport,
facility location, logistics management and urban form. Journal of Transport Geography, 24: 45–
57.
Ambituuni, A., Amezaga, J. M. and Werner, D. 2015. Risk assessment of petroleum product transporta-
tion by road: A framework for regulatory improvement. Safety Science, 79: 324–335.
Arnäs, P.O. 2007. Heterogeneous Goods in Transportation Systems: A Study on the Uses of an Object-
Oriented Approach. PhD Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology.
Arnäs, P.O., Woxenius, J. 2013. Approach for Handling Heterogeneous Goods in Intermodal Freight
Networks-Revisited. 13th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR), Rio de Janeiro, July
15-18: 1-16.
Banverket. 2006. Förstudie Ny Hamnbana. BRVT 2006:02-01.
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). 2015. China explosion: Dozens killed in Tianjin port blasts. [Re-
trieved 2015-08-14]
Bergqvist, R., 2007, Studies in Regional Logistics – The Context of Public-Private Collaboration and
Road-Rail Intermodality, Logistics and Transport Research Group, Department of Business Admin-
istration, BAS Publishing, Göteborg, Sweden
Bergqvist, R., 2009, Hamnpendlars betydelse för det Skandinaviska logistiksystemet, BAS Publishing
Bergqvist, R., 2013, Hinterland Transport in Sweden - the Context of Intermodal Terminals and
Dryports, in R. Bergqvist, G. Wilmsmeier and K. Cullinane (eds.), Dryports – A global perspective,
challenges and developments in serving hinterlands, Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp. 13-28, ISBN
978-1-4094-4424-4
Bergqvist, R., G. Falkemark and J. Woxenius, 2010, Establishing intermodal terminals, International
Journal of World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research (WRITR), 3(3): 285-302
Brockway, D. 2008. The impact of general aviation airport on surrounding land patterns: Richard Lloyd
Jones JR. airport. PhD-thesis. Faculty of the Graduate College, Oklahoma State University: Stillwa-
ter.
Cidell, J. 2010. Concentration and decentralization: the new geography of distribution in US metropoli-
tan areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3): 363–371.
Cobb, C., Halstead, T. and Rowe, J. 1995. If the GDP is up, why is America down? Atlantic Monthly,
276.
CoG (City of GöteborgGothenburg). 1997b. Översiktsplan för Göteborg fördjupad för sektorn trans-
porter av farligt gods. Bilagor 1-5.
CoG (City of GöteborgGothenburg). 2009. Översiktsplan för Göteborg. Del 3. Göteborgs Stad: Göte-
borg.
CoG (City of GöteborgGothenburg). 2015. Farligt gods. http://goteborg.se/wps/portal/invanare/by-
gga-o-bo/kommunens-planarbete/oversiktlig-planering/fordjupningar-och-tillagg/farligt-
gods/!ut/p/z1/hY7RCoIwGEafpRfY_49abpcTUtRIBUHdTWisJegWKg16-
uwBou_ucM7FBwoaULZ7DaZbB2e7ceNWHa8FTUseUol5LCJMqqyILtk5j2MK9b9AbRp_TCKkoIZ-
Iv42ESQsQMp5wBjjByYE1CG0EqtTWX6PSNvvuQE167ue9Uweb-
lmh8d4T45wZNVk0PKfmnSxy9wGSEUmH/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/ [Retrieved 2015-11-12]
CoG (City of GöteborgGothenburg). 1997. Översiktsplan för Göteborg fördjupad för sektorn transpor-
ter av farligt gods. Dnr: 758/92. Stadsbyggnadskontoret i Göteborg.
CoG (City of GöteborgGothenburg). 2013. Luftkvaliteten i Göteborg. Göteborgs Stad: Göteborg.
CoG (City of GöteborgGothenburg). 2015. Buller och ljud. Göteborgs Stad: Göteborg.
CoG (City of GöteborgGothenburg). 2015. Stadsdelspresentationer i Powerpoint. Områdesfakta –
Stadsdelspresentationer. Göteborgs Stad: Göteborg. http://www4.goteborg.se/prod/G-info/sta-
tistik.nsf [Retrieved 2015-08-27]
CoG (City of GöteborgGothenburg). 2015. Statistisk Årsbok Göteborg 2015. Stadsledningskontoret: Gö-
teborg.
38
CoG (City of GöteborgGothenburg). Dnr:758/92. Stadsbyggnadskontoret i Göteborg.
Cui, J., Dodson, J. and Hall, P.V. 2015. Planning for urban freight transport: An overview. Transport Re-
views, 35(5): 583–598.
Daamen, T.A. and Vries, I. 2013. Governing the European port-city interface: institutional impacts on
spatial projects between city and port. Journal of Transport Geography, 27: 4–13.
Dablanc, L., Ogilvie, S. and Goodchild, A. 2014. Logistics sprawl: differential warehousing development
patterns in Los Angeles, California, and Seattle, Washington. TRB, Transportation Research Rec-
ord, 2014, 17p.
de Langen, P., Nijdam, M. and van der Horst, M. 2007. New indicators to measure port performance.
Journal of Maritime Research, 4(1): 23–36.
DePillis, L. 2015.Ports Are the New Power Plants — at Least in Terms of Pollution. As Shipping Traffic
Rises, Activists Try to Keep the Air in Adjacent Neighborhoods from Getting Worse. The Washing-
ton Post, November 24.
DI (Dagens Industri). 2012. Miljardsatsning av Göteborgs hamn. 2012-10-10.
DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2015. Stort pådrag efter explosion i norsk tunnel. 2015-07-15.
Drewry. 2010. Container market 2010/11 – Annual review and forecast – Incorporating the container
forecaster – 3Q10. Drewry Shipping Consultants.
Fabiano, B., Currò, F., Reverberi, A.P. and Pastorino, R. 2005. Dangerous goods transportation by road:
from risk analysis to emergency planning. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 18:
403–413.
Franzén, M. 2003. ’Jane Jacobs och den urbana offentligheten’, In Johansson och Sernhede (Eds.). Ur-
banitetens omvandlingar. Kultur och identitet i den postindustriella staden. Daidalos: Göteborg. pp.
33–47.
Gil, A., Calado, H. and Bentz, J. 2011. Public participation in municipal transport planning processes –
the case of the sustainable mobility plan of Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal. Journal of Transport
Geography, 19: 1309–1319.
Gilman, S. 2003. Sustainability and national policy in UK port development. Maritime Policy & Manage-
ment, 30(4): 275–291.
Giuliano, G. Redfearn, C., Agarwal, A. and He, S. 2012. Network accessibility and employment centres.
Urban Studies, 49(1): 77–95.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2004. Krockarna mellan bil och tåg ökar kraftigt. 2004-12-10.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2005a. Hamnbanan går som på räls. 2005-02-28.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2005b. Allt fler bostäder i utsatta områden. 2005-10-03.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2005c. Höghus till Hisingen och Kallebäck. 2005-04-2
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2005d. Ventiler tas bort från Shells gasolvagnar. 2005-06-16.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2005e. Flytta godstrafiken utanför stadskärnan. 2005-06-17.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2006a. Dyrt med nya tågspår på Hisingen. 2006-03-09.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2006b. Tågstopp i Göteborg hamn i natt. 2006-07-11.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2006c. Industrilarm: Göteborgs Hamn stryps av dåliga förbindelser. 2006-
0711.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2007a. Hamnen ska bli dubbelt så stor. 2007-01-15.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2007b. Fastnade i spåret. 2007-05-29.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2007c. ”Fullständigt oacceptabelt förslag”. 2007-06-19.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2007d. Hårda fjärdrar orsak till tågurspårningar. 2007-09-14.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2007e. Klart med bommar på Oljevägen. 2007-09-26.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2007f. Kresotförbud hot mot järnvägen. 2007-10-17.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2007g. Hamnen kräver utbyggd järnväg. 2007-12-14.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2008a. Alliansen väljer nya vägar före rälsen. 2008-09-11.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2009a. Hamnbanan prioriteras. 2009-01-14.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2010a. Bygg bort Hamnbanans flaskhals i Marieholm. 2010-02-08.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2010b. S: Effektiv infrastruktur viktig för ett gott liv. 2010-03-14.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2010c. Näringsliv vill bygga ut Hamnbanan. 2010-08-10.
39
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2010d. Börja bygga nya älvförbindelsen nu. 2010-06-18.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2010e. Enbart järnväg löser inte hamnens problem. 2010-10-07.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2010f. Fel om hamnens godstransporter. 2010-10-09.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2010g. Var rädd om hamnen! 2010-10-19.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2010h. Nya Hamnbanan riskerar att bli en katastrof. 2010-12-16.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2011a. Hamnbanans nya sträckning ineffektiv. 2011-01-03.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2011b. ”Fruktansvärd blunder” av Trafikverket. 2011-04-28.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2011c. Regeringen måste prioritera Hamnbanan. 2011-05-31.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2011d. Totalstopp på hamnbanan. 2011-07-09.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2011e. Stora risker med Hamnbanan. 2011-10-31.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2011f. Många frågor återstår om Hamnbanan. 2011-11-08.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2012a. Nyinvigd terminal redan för liten. 2012-04-21.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2012b. Hamnbanan blir dubbelspår tidigare. 2012-09-20.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2012c. Containertåg spårade ur i hamnen. 2012-10-23.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2013a. Frågorna hopar sig efter tågkrasch. 2013-07-07.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2013b. Sätt fullt fokus på godsbanorna. 2013-08-15.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2013c. Tåg med råolja exploderade. 2013-11-08.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2013d. ”Missförstånd” om dubbelspår. 2013-11-27.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2014a. Så blir nya tunneln genom Eriksberg. 2014-03-07.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2014b. Flytande kvarter i nya Frihamnen. 2014-04-15.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2015a. Nedgrävd hamnbana ger plats för bostäder. 2015-06-17.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2015b. 2000 nya jobb i Göteborg. 2015-06-22.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2015c. Gräv ner hela Hamnbanan – minska segregationen. 2015-07-15.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2015d. Fler pålästa medborgare höjer rösten om trafiken. 2015-08-05.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2016a. Länsstyrelsen – Göteborgs stads lydiga redskap. 2016-01-18.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2016b. Västlänken. Dåliga kompromisser löser inte problemen. Ändra Västlän-
kens dragning. 2016-02-02.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2016c. Här är nya spårvägarna staten vill vara med och betala. 2016-02-08.
GP (Göteborgs-Posten). 2016d. Viktigare med ny järnväg till Oslo än till Haga. 2016-02-12.
Grobar, L.M. 2008. The economic status of areas surrounding major U-S. container ports: Evidence
and policy issues. Growth and Change, 39(3): 497–516.
Gupta, A.K., Gupta, S.K. and Patil, R.S. 2005. Environmental management plan for port and harbor pro-
jects. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 7(2): 133–141.
Hall, P. 2007. The future of the metropolis and urban form. Regional Studies, 41(1): 137–146.
Hall, P. and Hesse, M. 2013. Cities, regions, and flows. Routledge: London.
Hall, P.V. 2007. Seaports, Urban Sustainability, and Paradigm Shift. Journal of Urban Technology, 14(2):
87-101.
Hall, P.V. 2009. Container ports, local benefits and transportation worker earnings. GeoJournal, 76:
67–83.
Hayuth, Y. 1982. The Port-Urban Interface: An Area in Transition. Area, 14(3): 219-224.
Houston, D., Krudysz, M. and Winer, A. 2008. Diesel truck traffic in low-income and minority communi-
ties adjacent to ports: Environmental justice implications of near-roadway land use conflicts.
Transportation Research Record, http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2067-05
Hoyle, B.S. 1989. The Port-City Interface: Trends, Problems and Examples. Geoforum, 20(4): 429-435.
http://goteborg.se/wps/portal/invanare/miljo/miljolaget-i-goteborg/luft/luftkvaliteten-i-gote-
borg/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLM-
nMz0vMAfIjo8ziAwy9Ai2cDB0N_N0t3Qw8Q7wD3Py8ffydg4z0wwkpiAJKG-AAjgb6Bbm-
higB_fc2Q/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/ [Retrieved 2015-08-27]
http://goteborg.se/wps/portal/invanare/miljo/miljolaget-i-goteborg/buller-och-
ljud/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLM-
nMz0vMAfIjo8ziAwy9Ai2cDB0N_N0t3Qw8Q7wD3Py8ffyDXcz1wwkpiAJKG-AAjgb6Bbm-
higCbvd4b/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/#htoc-0 [Retrieved 2015-08-27]
40
IACP (International Association of Cities and Ports). Homepage. http://www.aivp.org/en/members-
and-objectives/ [Retrieved 2015-08-14]
Jacobs, W., Koster, H. and Hall, P. 2011. The location and global network structure of maritime ad-
vanced producer services. Urban Studies, 48(13): 2749–2769.
Johansson, T. 2003. Den frånvarande staden. In Johansson and Sernhede (Eds.). Urbanitetens omvand-
lingar. Kultur och identitet i den postindustriella staden. Daidalos: Göteborg. pp. 11–31.
Lam, J.S.L. and Notteboom, T. 2014. The greening of ports: A comparison of port management tools
used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Reviews, 34(2): 169–189.
Lindholm, M. and Behrends, S. 2012. Challenges in urban freight transport planning – a review in the
Baltic Sea Region. Journal of Transport Geography, 22: 129–136.
Litman, T. 2015. Well measured. Developing indicators for sustainable and livable transport planning.
Victoria Transport Planning Institute: Victoria.
LVGL (Länsstyrelsen Västra Götalands Län). 2009. Riksintresset Göteborgs Hamn. Rapport 2009:6.
Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands Län.
May, A.D., Jopson, A.F. and Matthews, B. 2003. Research challenges in urban transport policy.
Transport Policy, 10: 157–165.
McCalla, R.J. 1983. Separation and Specialization of Land Uses in Cityport Waterfronts: The Cases of
Saint John and Halifax (Canada). Canadian Geographer, 27(1): 48-61.
Merk, O. and Dang, T. 2013. The effectiveness of port-city policies: A comparative approach. OECD Re-
gional Development Working Paper 2013/25.
Miljöförvaltningen Göteborgs Stad, 2014. Luftkvaliteten i Göteborgsområdet Årsrapport 2014. R
2015:6. Miljöförvaltningen: Göteborg.
Ng, A.K.Y. and Ducruet, C. 2014. The changing tides of port geography (1950–2012). Progress in Hu-
man Geography, 38(6): 785–823.
Ogden, K.W. 1992. Urban freight: The forgotten agenda. Monash University: Monash.
Olivier, D. and Slack, B. 2006. Rethinking the port. Environment and Planning A, 38(8): 1409–1427.
Olsson, J. och Larsson, A. 2015. Terminalstrukturer och tillgänglighetsindikatorer för godstransporter.
Resultat från en pilotstudie i Västra Götaland. Göteborgs universitet: Göteborg.
Parola, F. and Maugeri, S. 2013. Origin and taxonomy of conflicts in seaports: Towards a research
agenda. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8: 114–122.
PoG (Port of Göteborg). 2012. Generalplan Göteborgs hamn 2035. Ytterhamnarna.
PoG (Port of Göteborg). 2014. Volumes in the Port of Göteborg. http://www.goteborgshamn.se/Om-
hamnen/Volymer-och-godsfloden/ [Retrieved 2014-10-02]
PoG (Port of Göteborg). No year. Railport Scandinavia.
Rodrigue, J-P. (2016) The Disadvantages of Scale. Presentation at the breakfast seminar: Shipping –
Advantages, disadvantages and opportunities, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, January 11.
Rodrigue, J-P. and Notteboom, T. 2009.The terminalization of supply chains: reassessing the role of
terminals in port/hinterland logistical relationships. Maritime Policy & Management, 36(2): 165–
183.
Rodrigue, J-P., Comtois, C. and Slack, B. 2013. The geography of transport systems. Routledge
Rohács, J. and Simongáti, G. 2007. The role of inland waterway navigation in a sustainable transport
system. Transport, 22(3): 148–153.
Rosa, V.D., Gebhard, M., Hartmann, E. and Wollenweber, J. 2013. Robust bi-directional logistics net-
work design under uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics, 145(1): 184–198.
Russo, F. and Comi, A. 2012. City characteristics and urban goods movements: A way to environmental
transportation system in a sustainable city. Procedia – Social and Behvavioral Sciences, 39: 61–73.
Saat, M.R., Werth, C.J., Schaeffer, D., Yoon, H. and Barkan, C.P.L. 2014. Environmental risk analysis of
hazardous material rail transportation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 264: 560–569.
Saengsupavanich, C., Coowanitwong, N., Gallardo, W.G. and Lertsuchatavanich, C. 2009. Environmen-
tal performance evaluation of an industrial port estate: ISO14001, port state control-derived indi-
cators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2): 154–161.
41
Shiau, T-A. and Chuang, C-C. 2015. Social construction of port sustainability indicators: a case study of
Keelung Port. Maritime Policy & Management, 42(1): 26–42.
Silberberg, S., Lorah, K., Disbrow, R. and Muessig, A. 2013. Places in the making: How placemaking
builds places and communities, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology. http://dusp.mit.edu/cdd/project/placemaking.
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2015b. Södra Marieholmsbron. http://www.trafikver-
ket.se/nara-dig/Vastra-gotaland/projekt-i-vastra-gotalands-lan/Marieholmsforbindelsen/Marie-
holmsbron/ [Retrieved 2016-02-03]
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2013. Rapport Hamnbanan 2013. Projektnummer: TRV
2010/21715. Trafikverket: Borlänge.
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2014a. Säkra transporter av farligt gods.
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2014b. Hamnbanan. Järnvägstunner gör att Eriksberg kan ut-
vecklas.
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2015a. Tidplan. http://www.trafikverket.se/nara-dig/Vastra-
gotaland/projekt-i-vastra-gotalands- lan/Goteborg-Hamnbanan/Tidplan-/ [Retrieved 2016-02-03]
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2015c. Hamnbanan Göteborg. Delen Eriksberg–Pölsebo, ok-
tober 2015.
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2015d. Planläggningsbeskrivning. Hamnbanan, Göteborg. Pöl-
sebo–Skandiahamnen.
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2015e. Hamnbanan Göteborg. Dubbelspår Eriksberg–Pöl-
sebo.
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2015f. Attitydundersökning Hamnbanan 2015. Projektnum-
mer: TRV 2013/45076. Trafikverket: Borlänge.
STA (Swedish Transport Administration). 2016. Nytt informationsblad om ny granskning av järnvägs-
plan. http://www.trafikverket.se/nara-dig/Vastra-gotaland/projekt-i-vastra-gotalands-lan/Gote-
borg-Hamnbanan/Nyhetsarkiv-Hamnbanan-/2016-02/nytt-informationsblad-om-ny-granskning-av-
jarnvagsplan/ [Retrieved 2016-02-11]
Stathopoulos, A., Valeri, V., & Marcucci, E. 2012. Stakeholder reactions to urban freight policy innova-
tion. Journal of Transport Geography, 22: 34–45.
Statistics Sweden. 2015. Total varuimport, varuexport och handelsnetto. År 1975–2014.
http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__HA__HA0201__HA0201A/ImportEx-
portSnabbAr/?rxid=b870a0c8-bc4e-43e8-9690-9fa30f12c8aa [Retrieved 2015-08-10]
Stead, D. 2008. Institutional aspects of integrating transport, environment and health policies.
Transport Policy, 15: 139–148.
Stojanovic, T.A., Smith, H.D.O. and Wooldridge, C.F. 2006. The impact of the habitats directive on Eu-
ropean port operations and management. GeoJournal, 65: 165–176.
Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R.G., Yamada, T. and van Duin, R. 2001. City logistics: Network modelling and
intelligent transport systems. Elsevier: Oxford.
Taylor, M. 2005. The city logistics paradigm for urban freight transport. http://www.grif-
fith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/81397/infrastructure-18-taylor.pdf
The Toronto Star (2013) Lac-Megantic train explosion, http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/que-
becexplosion.html. Accessed 2016-03-12.
Tongzon, J. 2001. Efficiency measurement of selected Australian and other international ports using
data envelopment analysis. Transportation Research A, 35(2): 107–122.
TRGG (The Rescue Greater Gothenburg). 2011. Risk- och olycksanalys. Risktopografiska förutsättningar
för Räddningstjänsten Storgöteborg. Räddningstjänsten: Göteborg. Dnr: 0064/11.
Visser, J. and Hassall, K. 2010. What should be the balance between free markets and a not so ‘Invisi-
ble Hand’ in urban freight regulation and land use: Dutch and Australian experiences. Procedia –
Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2(3): 6065–6075.
Visser, J., van Binsbergen, A. and Nemoto, T. 1999. Urban freight transport policy and planning review.
Paper presented at the first International Symposium on City Logistics, Cairns, Australia.
42
Wakeman, R. 1996. What is a sustainable port? The relationship between ports and their regions.Jour-
nal of Urban Technology, 3(2): 65–80.
Wiegmans, B.W. and Louw, E. 2011. Changing port-city relations at Amsterdam: A new phase in the
interface? Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4): 575–583.
Wittlov, A. 2012. Urban freight transport: Challenges and opportunities. In Wolmar (Ed.). Urban freight
for livable cities. Capito AB: Stockholm. pp. 8–11.
World Bank. 2007. Port reform toolkit. World Bank: Washington D.C.
Woudsma, C., Jensen, J.F. and Kanaroglou, P. 2008. Logistics land use and the city: A spatial–temporal
modeling approach. Transportation Research Part E, 44(2): 277–297.
Woxenius, J. (2016) Review of port-city interactions, Devport 2016, Le Havre, France, 19-20 May.
Yang, J., Li, F., Zhou, J., Zhang, L., Huang, L. and Bi, J. 2010. A survey of hazardous materials accidents
during road transport in China from 2000 to 2008. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 184(1–3): 647–
653.
43
Appendix 1: Transport infrastructure of national interest in City of
Gothenburg.
Roads
1. E6 (TEN-T väg): Oslo – Göteborg – Trelleborg.
2. Rv40 (TEN-T väg): Göteborg – Jönköping.
3. E45 (TEN-T väg): Göteborg – Trollhättan – Karlstad.
4. E6.20: Klareberg – Hisingen – Älvsborgsbron – Åbromotet.
5. E6.20: Lundbyleden mellan Ringö- och Bräckemotet.
6. E20: Göteborg – Stockholm.
7. Stadstjänaregatan/Kruthusgatan vid Göteborgs kombiterminalbangård.
Roads which should be complemented according to the Swedish Transport Administration
8. Oljevägen, mellan Ivarsbergsmotet och Arendal.
9. Arendalsvägen, mellan Arendal och Torslandavägen (Lv 155).
10. Hjärtholmsvägen, mellan Arendalsvägen och Hamneviksvägen.
11. Hamneviksvägen, mellan Hjärtholmsvägen och Torslandavägen (Lv 155).
12. Halvors länk (planerad) mellan Ytterhamnsmotet och Hisingsleden (väg E 6.20).
Railways
13. Hamnbanan (TEN-T bana).
14. Bohusbanan.
15. Norge-Vänerbanan.
16. Västra Stambanan.
17. Västkustbanan.
Railyards and intermodal terminals
18. Kvillebangården.
19. Pölsebobangården.
20. Älvsborgsbangården.
21. Skandiabangården.
22. Gullbergsvass i anslutning till Göteborg Central.
Source: CoG 2009.
44
Appendix 2: Primary road links in Gothenburg municipality.
1. E6/E20: Kungsbackaleden mellan Gullbergsmotet och Mölndals kommungräns via Olskroks-
, Ullevi-, Gårda-, Örgryte- och Kallebäcksmotet.
2. E6: Kungälvsleden mellan Ringömotet och Kungälvs kommungräns via Tingstads-, Backa-,
Bäckebol-, Kärra-, Klarebergs-, Jordfalls- och Rödbomotet.
3. E6.20: Norrleden, Angeredsleden mellan Klarebergsvägen och Agnesbergsmotet via Ange-
redsbron
4. E20: Alingsåsleden mellan Olskroksmotet och Partille kommungräns via Ånäs-, Munke-
bäcks-, Torpa- och Fräntorpsmotet.
5. E6.20: Söderleden, Västerleden, Hisingsleden, Norrleden mellan Mölndals kommungräns
och Klarabergs- vägen, via Sisjö-, Järnbrotts-, Frölunda-, Tynnereds-, Fiskebäcks-, Hagenmo-
tet – Gnistängstunneln – Gnistängs-, Kungsstens-, Rödastensmotet – Älvsborgsbron – Ivars-
bergs-, Bräcke- och Vädermotet.
6. E6.21: Lundbyleden mellan Ringö-, Brunnsbo-, Leråkers- och Brantingsmotet.
7. Väg 40: Boråsleden mellan Kallebäcksmotet och Mölndals kommungräns via Delsjömotet.
8. E45: Oscarsleden mellan Rödastens- och Jaegerdorffsmotet.
9. E45: Marieholmsleden, Angeredsleden och Trollhätteleden mellan korsningen Falutorget
och Ale kommun-gräns via Gullbergs-, Marieholms-, Lärje- och Agnesbergsmotet.
10. Väg 155: Öckeröleden mellan Vädermotet och Lilla Varholmens färjeläge via Oljevägs- och
Syrhålamotet.
11. Oljevägen.
12. Arendalsvägen.
13. Tankgatan.
14. Nordatlanten.
15. Sörredsvägen.
16. Björlandavägen mellan Sörredsvägen och Hisingsleden.
17. Assar Gabrielssons väg.
18. Lilla Kongahällavägen mellan Jordfallsmotet och väg 587.
19. Väg 587: mellan Rödbomotet och kommungränsen mot Ale kommun (Jordfallsbron).
20. Slakthusgatan.
21. Gamlestadsvägen mellan Slakthusgatan och Ånäsmotet.
22. Klarebergsvägen.
23. Majnabbegatan mellan Jaegerdorffsmotet och Stena Lines Tysklandsterminal.
24. Hjalmar Brantingsgatan mellan Brantings- och Frihamnsmotet.
25. Frihamnsviadukten.
26. Lundby Hamngata mellan Frihamnsviadukten – Stena Railferry färjeläge.
Source: CoG 2009.
45
Appendix 3: Fire and explosive activities in/around Port of Gothen-
burg, excluding the five port terminals within the port area.
Company No. of units Type of activity
1. Gryaab Ryaverket och bergrum 1 Storage
2. Syrhåla 1 Storage
3. Göteborg Energi AB, Bergrum A, Skarvik 1 Storage
4. Nordic Storage AB, Rya 1 och Rya 2 2 Storage
5. Rya kraftvärmeverk 1 Storage
6. Norsk Hydro Olje AB 1 Storage
7. Skanexplo AB 1 Storage
8. Preem (Produktionsanläggning Arendal) 1 Storage
9. St1 Refinery AB, Skarvik 1 Storage
10. Svenska Statoil AB 1 Storage
11. Univar AB 1 Storage
12. Vopak Logistics Nordic AB, Skarvik 1-3 & 4 4 Storage
13. AGA Gas AB 1 Handling/manufacturing
14. AB Nynäs Petroleum, Raffinaderi 1 Handling/manufacturing
15. Preem Petroleum AB, Preemraff Göteborg 1 Handling/manufacturing
16. Shell Raffinaderi AB 1 Handling/manufacturing
17. Göteborg Energi AB, Rya Nabbe Depå 1 Depot/terminal
18. Nynäs AB, Skarvik 1 Depot/terminal
19. Preem Petroleum KB depå, Skarviksdepån 1 Depot/terminal
20. Nordic Storage AB, Skarvik 1-3 3 Depot/terminal
21. Sävenäs rangerbangård 1 Handling
22. Ferroprodukter AB 1 Manufacturing
Totalt 28
Source: CoG 2009.
