the charthouse group the next box wave: can containerization reinvent itself? the next box wave: can...
TRANSCRIPT
The Charthouse Group
The Next Box Wave: Can Containerization Reinvent Itself?
Theo NotteboomITMMA - University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy, Belgium
Jean-Paul RodrigueDept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA
Terminal Operators Conference EuropeEXECUTIVE SESSION 4: ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE, Antwerp, June 7-9 2011
The Charthouse Group
Do you really know me?
Innovation
Diffusion
The Charthouse Group
SITUATION REPORT EUROPE: REASONS TO SMILE?
Just a partial (topless) recovery.Not a “full frontal” recovery…
The Charthouse Group
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Roro Conventional general cargo
Liquid Bulk Dry Bulk Containers
Mill
ion
tons
of m
ariti
me
traffi
c
Cargo segment
200820092010
340 ports
266 ports-19.8% -14.0% +10.3%+13.6%
+1.4%
+9.5%+9.5%
316 ports
352 ports 135 ports
-12.0%-19.6%
-3.9%
European port traffic2008-2010 = -5.2%
Total European port throughput
2008: 4.26 billion tons2009: 3.76 billion tons (-11.7%)2010: 4.04 billion tons (+7.4%)
The Charthouse Group
Container volumes are bouncing back
-5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 1
98
5
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Co
nta
ine
r th
rou
gh
pu
t in
mill
ion
TE
Us
(78
po
rts
)
European port system
Hamburg-Le Havre range
Mediterranean range
UK range
Atlantic range
Baltic
Black Sea
Exponential trendline total traffic
2009: - 14.4% compared to
2008
2010: + 10.4% compared to
2009
Non-anticipated traffic gap of 15 million TEU
The Charthouse Group
Market shares in the European container port system
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%1
98
5
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Sh
are
in to
tal c
on
tain
er t
hro
ug
hp
ut
Hamburg-Le Havre range
Mediterranean range
UK range
Atlantic range
Baltic
Black SeaMed ports are losing market share, mainly due to weaker position transshipment hubs
Rising market share Hamburg-Le Havre range
mainly due to Benelux ports.
Black Sea port system loses ground due to declining volumes at Constantza
The Charthouse GroupMiddle East – Far East
Main shipping route
Americas
Americas
Transhipment/interlining port (transhipment incidence >75%)
Multi-port gateway region
Main shipping route
Gateway port
Gateway port also handlingsubstantial transhipment flows
Market shares in total European container traffic
© 2011 T. Notteboom – ITMMA, University of Antwerp
UK
Germany
France
Belg.
NL
Ireland
Romania
Sweden
Spain
Croatia
Hungary
Czech RepublicSlovakia
SerbiaBosnia& Herz.
Alb.
Greece
Bulgaria
Turkey
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Norway
Finland
Ukraine
Belarus
Russia
Portugal
Mace.
Den.
Austria
Switz.
Italy
Poland
MoroccoAlgeria Tunisia
Cyprus
Malta
‘09: 25.5% ‘10: 26.1%
‘09: 14.9%‘10: 14.9%
‘09: 0.8%‘10: 1.2%
‘09: 3.0%‘10: 2.9%
‘09: 7.3%‘10: 7.4%
‘09: 1.5%‘10: 1.6%
‘09: 4.3%‘10: 4.5%
‘09: 1.5%‘10: 1.6%
‘09: 0.9%‘10: 0.8%
‘09: 1.2%‘10: 1.3%
‘09: 1.9%‘10: 1.9%
‘09: 7.2%‘10: 7.1%
Other ports‘09: 29.8%‘10: 28.6%
The Charthouse Group
Trade volumes per route to/from Europe: Mixed results
Source: based on data EELA and Container Trade Statistics
Year on year change in trade volumes (basis = TEU)
Q1-2009 Q2-2009 Q3-2009 Q4-2009 Q1-2010 Q2-2010 Q1-2011 Q1-2011 vs. Q1-2008Europe-SSA Northbound -4.2% -4.3% -7.1% 3.5% 7.8% 2.5% 10.9% 30.7%Europe-SSA Southbound -1.3% -3.1% -1.8% 2.6% 5.7% 7.3% 27.5% 43.3%
Europe-Asia Westbound -22.1% -22.2% -13.2% -0.2% 21.2% 24.1% 6.3% 0.2%Europe-Asia Eastbound -15.6% -1.6% 9.2% 29.1% 23.0% 0.6% 4.3% 8.6%
Europe-North America WB -16.9% -21.6% -15.0% -6.5% 13.4% 22.2% 5.3% -1.1%Europe-North America EB -29.0% -35.0% -25.6% -6.6% 12.3% 16.0% 8.1% -13.3%
Europe-India/Middle East WB -12.1% -7.4% -0.5% 4.7% 18.1% 20.1% 15.4% 24.9%Europe-India/Middle East EB -4.1% -0.6% 1.7% 6.4% 14.4% 6.8% 6.0% 18.2%
Europe-South/Latin America NB -12.9% -12.3% -18.6% 2.7% 4.7% -5.1% 13.7% 0.9%Europe-South/Latin America SB -27.4% -26.4% -22.5% -0.8% 47.5% 57.7% 20.1% 28.7%
Europe-Oceania NB -6.8% -9.1% -14.0% -12.9% -11.1% -2.3% 2.4% -15.3%Europe-Oceania SB -14.7% -26.4% -8.5% -6.0% 19.6% 32.8% 2.6% 4.1%
The Charthouse Group
Trade volumes per route to/from Europe: geographical shifts
Asia54,1%North
America19,2%
India/Middle East
11,7%
South and Latin America
8,2%
Sub Saharan Africa5,0%
Oceania1,8%
Geographical distribution of extra-European container trade (dry and reefer) - year 2008 (based on data ELAA)
2008 2010
Asia54,4%North
America16,9%
India/Middle East
13,1%
South and Latin America
8,1%
Sub Saharan Africa5,7%
Oceania1,8%
Geographical distribution of extra-European container trade (dry and reefer) - year 2010 (based on data ELAA)
The Charthouse Group
LOOKING AT THE FUNDAMENTALS
Far from being a no-brainer…
The Charthouse Group
Major Steps in Intermodal Integration
Pallets (1930s)TOFC (1950s)
Containerization (1956)Standardization (size and latching) (1965)Transatlantic (1966); Containerships (1968)
Deregulation (1980s)
Doublestacking; IBCs (1985)
COFC (1967)
Time
Inte
rmod
al In
tegr
atio
n Advanced TerminalsRegionalization
Advanced Containers
Intermodal rail crane (1985)
An enduring innovative process.Multiplying effect on an existing technique.An exercise in unintended consequences?From revolution to evolution?
The Charthouse Group
Some Key Issues in Liner Shipping: Towards a Revolution?
Renewed risk for overcapacity.
18,000 TEU vessels and its
ramifications on ports.
Slow steaming: using a green
argument to hide a green ($) bottom
line?
Overcapacity absorbing potential is weakening
Impact of bunker price evolution and
low-sulphur fuel
Herd behavior or segmentation?
The Charthouse Group
Containerization as a Diffusion Cycles:World Container Traffic (1980-2010) and Possible
Scenarios to 2015
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Milli
on T
EU Divergence
Adoption Acceleration Peak Growth Maturity
1966-1992 1992-2002 2002-2008 2008 -
Reference
Depression
To what extent the growth in 2010 is attributed to transshipment and emerging markets?
New (niche) servicesProductivity gains
Network developmentProductivity multipliers
Massive diffusionNetwork complexities
Niche markets
The Charthouse Group
Container Usage during its Life-Span
16%
16%
6%
6%
56%
Ocean TransitTerminalInland UseRepairIdle or Empty Reposi-tioning
A lot of waste to improve upon.Challenges for asset management.
The Charthouse Group
Weighting Out versus Cubing Out: What is a Proper Distribution of Containerized Assets?
27%24%
33%6% 4%
6%
Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers, 2008 (26.2 million TEU)
20 Foot
40 Foot
40 Foot High Cube
Reefer
Regional
Other
Balance between retail, intermediate goods and commodities
Regions follow standards; they do not set them.
The Charthouse Group
The Main Driving Forces of Containerization
Derived
Economic and income growth
Globalization (outsourcing)
Fragmentation of production and consumption
Substitution
Functional and geographical
diffusion
New niches (commodities and
cold chain)Capture of bulk and break-bulk
markets
Incidental
Trade imbalancesRepositioning of
empty containers
Induced
Transshipment (hub, relay and
interlining)
The Charthouse Group
DERIVED: ORGANIC GROWTH IN THE PIPELINE?
The Charthouse Group
Monthly Value of Exports or Imports, Selected Traders, 2006-2011 (Jan 2006=100)
Jan-
06
Apr-0
6
Jul-0
6
Oct-0
6
Jan-
07
Apr-0
7
Jul-0
7
Oct-0
7
Jan-
08
Apr-0
8
Jul-0
8
Oct-0
8
Jan-
09
Apr-0
9
Jul-0
9
Oct-0
9
Jan-
10
Apr-1
0
Jul-1
0
Oct-1
0
Jan-
1150
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250China (Exports)
Japan (Exports)
Korea (Exports)
Germany (Exports)
USA (Imports)
Brazil (Exports)
Trade has bounced back.America’s consumption engine sputtering.
Yes, but at what cost?
The Charthouse Group
CRB Index (CCI), Monthly Close, 1970-201119
7019
7019
7119
7219
7319
7419
7519
7519
7619
7719
7819
7919
8019
8019
8119
8219
8319
8419
8519
8519
8619
8719
8819
8919
9019
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1020
11
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Paradigm shift in input costs…Reaping the consequences of monetary policy.Could be positive for containerization…
The Charthouse Group
Business Cycles and Misallocations
Expansion Recession
Peak
Trough
Expansion
Credit-DrivenBoom
Credit-DrivenBust
Depression
Normal Cycle
Credit-Driven Cycle
When “organic growth” is using a lot of chemicals…Second phase of the credit-driven bust.
The Charthouse Group
SUBSTITUTION: STUFFING THE BOX WITH SOMETHING DELICIOUS
The Charthouse Group
Looking Inside the Box: Accept all Substitutes…
Retail and intermediate
goods
Commodities (balancing)
Cold chain (revenue)
The Charthouse Group
The Usual Suspect: China’s Share of the World Commodity Consumption, c2009
CementIron Ore
CoalPigs
SteelLeadZinc
AluminiumCopper
EggsNickel
RiceSoybeans
PopulationWheat
ChickensGDP (PPP)
OilCattle
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
53.247.7
46.946.4
45.444.6
41.340.6
38.937.2
36.328.1
24.619.4
16.615.6
13.610.3
9.5
The Charthouse Group
Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains: An Emerging Complementarity
Bulk Commodity Chain
Containerized Commodity Chain
Consolidationcenter
PortSupplier Customer
Intermodalterminal
Containerport
PendulumServices
Point-to-Point
Complementarity
Cost / volume driverLow frequencyDedicated terminalsOne way flows
Time / flexibility driverHigh frequencyGeneral terminalsMore balanced flows
The Charthouse Group
Continuous Commodity Index and Baltic Dry Index, 2000-2011 (2000=100)
Jan-0
0Ju
n-00
Nov-00Apr-
01
Sep-01
Feb-02
Jul-0
2
Dec-02
May-03
Oct-03
Mar-04
Aug-04
Jan-0
5Ju
n-05
Nov-05Apr-
06
Sep-06
Feb-07
Jul-0
7
Dec-07
May-08
Oct-08
Mar-09
Aug-09
Jan-1
0Ju
n-10
Nov-10Apr-
110
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900Continuous Commodity IndexBaltic Dry Index
The Charthouse Group
Continuous Commodity Index and Average Container Shipping Rates, 1994-2011 (1994=100)
Jan-9
4
Sep-94
Apr-95
Nov-95Ju
n-96Ja
n-97
Aug-97
Mar-98Oct-
98
May-99
Dec-99Ju
l-00
Feb-01
Sep-01
Apr-02
Nov-02Ju
n-03Ja
n-04
Aug-04
Mar-05Oct-
05
May-06
Dec-06Ju
l-07
Feb-08
Sep-08
Apr-09
Nov-09Ju
n-10Ja
n-11
50
100
150
200
250
300Continuous Commodity IndexContainer Shipping Rates
The Charthouse Group
From Bulk to Containers: Breaking Economies of Scale
• Container as an independent load unit.• Minimal load unit; one TEU container.
Entry Barriers
• Limited differences in scale economies for a producer.
• Incremental / linear cost-volume function.
Required Volumes
• New producers (smaller).• Product differentiation (larger variety).
Market Potential
The Charthouse Group
The Cold Chain: A Highly Constrained Niche
Conditional demand• Each product has a specific perishability.• Shelf life and revenue.• Demand conditional to qualitative attributes.
Load integrity• Reefers as the common load unit.• Packing, packaging and preparation.• Empty backhauls.
Transport integrity• Uninterrupted integrity of the transport chain (modes, terminals
and DC).• Specialized modes (speed) and terminals?
The Charthouse Group
Equal but Separate… The Reefer Ghetto (Away from Containers of Color…)
The Charthouse Group
INDUCED: TRANSSHIPMENT (THE GREAT SHUFFLE)
The Charthouse Group
The Global Transshipment Market
The Charthouse Group
How the Main Actors in Global Freight Distribution Influence Routing?
Top ten terminal operators: 65% of the world’s total container handlings
Container Terminal Portfolio of the Four Main Global Terminal Operators, 2010
The Charthouse Group
Sea-sea transshipment plays a role, particularly in Med and in relation to UK and Baltic…
Algeciras
Sines Cagliari
Gioia Tauro
Malta
Taranto
Piraeus
Le Havre
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Zeebrugge
Bremerhaven
Hamburg
Valencia
Barcelona
Influences on North Europe(1) Maasvlakte 2 effect +
JadeWeserPort, capacity in UK(2) Direct deepsea calls in Baltic
(cf. Gdansk)
Influences on South Europe(1) Direct calls in gateway ports (cf.
NAPA, Spain, etc..)(2) Competition Tanger Med Transhipment incidence:
North Europe = 24.2%Eastern Europe = 16.2%South Europe = 44.6%
The Charthouse Group
Pure transhipment hubs in West Med lose market share
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Sh
are
in T
EU
th
rou
gh
pu
t We
st-
Me
d
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance > 250 nm
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance 100-250 nm
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance < 100 nm
The Charthouse Group
Major ports and future terminal developments in non-EU Med ports: impact of a changing political landscape?
Container throughput in million TEU, capacity extensions in million TEU
Ambarli (Turkey)Traffic: 2.26 (2008)
Mersin (Turkey)
Haifa (Israel)Traffic: 1.39 (2008)
Beirut (Lebanon)Traffic: 0.95 (2008)
Port Said (Egypt)Traffic: 3.2 (2008)Capacity: +2.5 (2011)
Damietta (Egypt)Capacity: +4 (2012)
Misurata (Libya)Initial plans cancelled?
Enfidha (Tunisia)Capacity: +1 (2011)+2.5 (period 2011-2015)+2 (period 2015-2030)
Rades (Tunisia)Traffic: 0.3 (2007)
Djendjen (Algeria)Capacity: +2 (DP World)
Bejaia (Algeria)Traffic: 0.15 (2008)
Capacity: +2.5 (>2010)
Algiers (Algeria)Traffic: 0.5 (2007)
Capacity: +0.8 (2010)
Tanger Med IIAPMT/Akwa: + 3 mln TEU (2012)PSA: +2 mln TEU (2012)
Tanger MedAPMT: + 1.5 mln TEUEurogate: +1.5 mln TEU
The Charthouse Group
Pushing Atomization in the Hinterland and Massification in the Foreland
PORT FORELAND
PORT HINTERLAND Different momentums
Economies of scaleFunctional Integration
Hinterland-Based Regionalization
Foreland-Based Regionalization
Atomization
Massification
Capacity Frequency
CapacityGap
Economies of scale
FrequencyMitigation
The Charthouse Group
INCIDENTAL: LIVING IN AN ASYMMETRIC WORLD…
The Charthouse Group
Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade Routes, 1995-2009 (in millions of TEUs)
1995
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
4.0
5.2
5.6
7.2
8.8
10.2
12.4
12.4
15.0
15.2
14.5
11.5
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.7
5.0
5.6
6.9
2.8
3.5
4.5
5.9
6.1
7.3
8.9
10.8
15.3
17.2
16.7
11.5
2.3
2.7
3.6
4.0
4.2
4.9
5.2
5.5
9.1
10.1
10.5
5.5
1.2
1.3
2.2
2.7
1.5
1.7
1.7
2.1
2.5
2.7
2.9
2.5
1.4
1.7
2.9
3.6
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.8
4.4
4.5
4.3
5.3
Asia-USAUSA-AsiaAsia-EuropeEurope-AsiaUSA-EuropeEurope-USA
Empties; a breath of fresh air…
The Charthouse Group
Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning
Hinterland
Foreland
Inter-Regional Repositioning
(inland)
Global Repositioning
Inter-RegionalRepositioning
(coastal / fluvial)RegionalRepositioning
Port
Depot / Inland terminal
Freight Distribution Center
Cargo Rotation
The Charthouse Group
Asymmetries between Import and Export-Based Containerized Logistics
Many Customers• Function of population density.• Geographical spread.• Product customization.• Incites transloading.• High priority (value, timeliness).
Few Suppliers• Function of resource density.• Geographical concentration.• Lower priority.• Depends on repositioning
opportunities.
Gateway
Inland Terminal
DistributionCenter
Customer
Supplier
Repositioning
Import-Based
Export-Based
The Charthouse Group
Slow Steaming: What Hath You Brought Us?
More containerized inventory tied in transit.
More containers for the same flow capacity (10-30%?).
Externalization of costs (50% of the market concerns leased containers).
Challenging hinterland strategies (container rotation).
Are maritime shipping companies likely to own more or less containers in such a context?
The Charthouse Group
TERMINAL OPERATOR STRATEGY:IN SEARCH OF UNIQUE FEATURES?
The Charthouse Group
Going Green: Hypocrisy?
Low emission
vessel
Carbon neutral
Greensupply chain
The Charthouse Group
Going globalRegional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of the Twelve Largest Global
Terminal Operators (Hectares, 2010)
Hutchison Port Holdings
Port of Singapore Authority
Dubai Ports World
APM Terminals
Eurogate
Ports America
SSA Marine
Shanghai International Port Group
Cosco Pacific
Hanjin
ICTSI
CMA-CGM
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
AfricaAustraliaNorth AmericaSouth America / CaribbeanPacific AsiaSouth Asia / Middle EastMediterraneanEurope Atlantic
Changes in regional orientation?
The Charthouse Group
Building partnershipsComplexity in terminal ownership structures
Example for the Rhine-Scheldt Delta - 2010
DP World
PSAHUTCHISON PORT HOLDINGS
APM Terminals(AP Moller Group)
ANTWERP
Antwerp Gateway
PSA (Antwerp/
Zeebrugge)
MSC Home terminal
CHZ
APM Terminal
ZEEBRUGGE
ROTTERDAM
Rotterdam World Gateway(Maasvlakte 2)
Operational by 2013
ECT
APM Terminal Maasvlakte CMA-CGM
MSC
NYK
Terminal 1(Maasvlakte 2)
Operational by 2014
Minority Shareholding
Waal- and Eemhaven
Delta Terminal
Euromax phase 1
Majorityshareholding
ZIM Line
DP World Delwaidedock
North Sea Terminal
Europe Terminal
Deurganck Terminal
New World Alliance
CYKH Alliance
Antwerp International Terminal (AIT) Shipping Line
(Global) Terminal Operator
Terminal
Shanghai International Port
Group (SIPG)
Albert II-dock north (under construction)
Cosco Pacific
100%
20%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
50%
60%
30%
10%
100%
100%
100%
50%50%
100%
42.5%10%
20%
10%
35%
100%
65%
75%
25%
PORT
Financial Holding
Source: Notteboom & Rodrigue (2010)
The Charthouse Group
Filling the “gap”?
Intermodal
Performance (Speed, Reliability, Flexibility)
Liner shipping
Truckload
Air
LTLFreight rateto shipper
(gate-to-gate)
Impact slow steaming &transshipment
Polar routesDirect servicesFast shipsTrans-Siberian rail
The Charthouse Group
Filling the “gap”?Fast end-to-end services?
Multi-container platform for fast roro handling
Bron: Kvaerner Masa-Yards Technology
The Charthouse Group
• ‘Extended Gate’ concept of ECT (Hutchison Port Holdings)• ‘Terminal Operator Haulage’ concept of DP World
• Impact- Optimize capacity use at deepsea terminals- Lower environmental footprint and road congestion in/around port- Create a streamlined logistics solution for customers
Going inland Active involvement of terminal operators
vessel vessel
= direct truck = barge/rail shuttle= endhaul truck
Seaportterminal
Inland terminal
Inland terminal
Inland terminal
Seaportterminal
The Charthouse Group
Going inlandActive involvement of shipping lines: ‘Push strategy’
x B/L seaport X
y
x B/L seaport X
Second move by rail, barge or truck
B/L inland port
z Rail, barge (or truck)
x
y
Multi-port gateway region
CONTAINER PUSH STRATEGY
Source: Notteboom (2011)
The Charthouse GroupMiddle East – Far East
Main shipping route
Americas
Americas
Transhipment/interlining port (transhipment incidence >75%)
Multi-port gateway region
Main shipping route
Gateway port
Gateway port also handlingsubstantial transhipment flows
Gateway traffic (inland traffic excl. sea-sea transhipment) in major multi-port gateway regions
in Europe (TEU – figures 2008)
© 2011 T. Notteboom – ITMMA, University of Antwerp
UK
Germany
France
Belg.
NL
Ireland
Romania
Sweden
Spain
Croatia
Hungar
Czech RepublicSlovakia
SerbiaBosnia& Herz.
Alb.
Greece
Bulgaria
Turkey
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Norway
Finland
Ukraine
Belarus
Russia
Portugal
Mace.
Den.
Austria
Switz.
Italy
Poland
MoroccoAlgeria Tunisia
Cyprus
Malta
Rhine-Scheldt Delta16.8 mln TEU
North Germany9.2 mln TEU
Gdansk Bay 0.77 mln TEU
Seine Estuary1.9 mln TEU
Spanish Med3.9 mln TEU
Liguria4 mln TEU
North Adriatic:1.3 mln TEU
Black Sea0.54 mln TEU
SE East Coast UK6.3 million TEU
Marseille0.85 mln TEU
Portugal1.1 mln TEU
Core of “Blue Banana” + EDC effect
Immediate hinterlands remain the backbone of ports’ gateway
traffic..
.. but gateway regions increasingly vie
for distant contestable hinterlands
Flexibility is key
The Charthouse Group
Hardmodal
splittargets
feasible?
Going intermodalModal split targets of terminals
Source: Notteboom (2011)
• Supply chain practices• Pricing and quality of rail and
barge services• Infrastructure policy outside
port area (by government)
PrimarilyExogenous
• Dwell time fee system• Investments in on-terminal
barge and rail infrastructure• Pricing of moves to inland
transport modes• Information flow• Extended gate solutions
PrimarilyEndogenous
The Charthouse Group
Rail or barge
pricing
Rail or barge
service level
Port pricing
Port service
level
Going intermodalLinking pricing and non-pricing levers
across transport nodes and modes
Inland port
pricing
Inland port
service level
Non-pricing leversPricing levers
Pricing linkages
Service level linkages
Pricing/service level linkages between modes/nodes
Pricing/service level linkages at same mode/node
Source: Notteboom (2011)
The Charthouse Group
THE NEXT BOX WAVE OR THE NEXT BOX CRASH?
Ay caramba!Can I handle the load?
The Charthouse Group
Conclusion: Which Growth for Which Box?
Derived Substitution
Incidental Induced
The Charthouse Group
Thank you for your attention [email protected]