Exploration of Future Container Transport to and from the Dutch Hinterland Assessing the Need for Future Policies

Home , Borsele, De Wolden, Leerdam, Lemsterland, Lingewaard, Maasgouw

Exploration of future container transport to and from the Dutch hinterland Assessing the need for future policies

Master Thesis

Systems Engineering Policy Analysis and Management

October 27th, 2011

Danitza Defares 1397303

Exploration of future container transport to and from the Dutch hinterland

Assessing the need for future policies

Master Thesis Project Faculty of Technology, Policy Analysis and Management Delft University of Technology

Date: October 27th, 2011

Author: D. L. (Danitza) Defares Student number: 1397303 E-mail address: [email protected] Program: Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management (SEPAM) Course: SPM5910 Master Thesis Project

Graduation Committee

Graduation Chair: Prof. Dr. Ir. L. A. (Lori) Tavasszy TU Delft, Faculty of Technology, Policy Analysis and Management, Transport and Logistics department

First Supervisor: Dr. J. A. (Jan Anne) Annema TU Delft, Faculty of Technology, Policy Analysis and Management, Transport and Logistics department

Second Supervisor: Dr. Ir. Drs. A.R.C (Alexander) de Haan TU Delft, Faculty of Technology, Policy Analysis and Management, Policy Analysis department

External Supervisor: Drs. A.C. (Arwen) Korteweg Port of Rotterdam Authority, Port Development Division, Modalities department

External Supervisor: Ir. M. (Maurits) van Schuylenburg Port of Rotterdam Authority, Port Development Division, Modalities department

Source cover picture: Binnenlandse Container Terminals Nederland (BCTN) b.v. BCTN Den Bosch

Preface

The final part of my master program Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management (SEPAM) at the Faculty of Technology, Policy Analysis and Management has been my master thesis research project. This thesis is the result of the research that I have conducted for in the last six months at the Port of Rotterdam Authority.

Before starting my project at the Port of Rotterdam Authority, this organization was number one on my list of organizations for conducting my final research project. First of all, my interest in ports and freight transport started with my internship for my Bachelor Program at the Kingston Wharves Limited, the Port of Jamaica in 2007. Next to that, the fact that my father is the general manager of the Port of Paramaribo in Suriname, my interest in this field kept on growing. Finally, the convenience of living just five minutes from the World Port Center was definitely a positive factor.

The main goal of my final project was to analyze the need for future measures regarding the inland terminal network in the Netherlands, since it is expected that the container flows to and from the Dutch hinterland will increase significantly in the next twenty to thirty years.

Many different people have assisted me during my research and have contributed to the project. I am very grateful for this and would like to thank all of them for their support. I especially want to thank my graduation committee. First of all I want to thank my first supervisor from the Delft University of Technology, Jan Anne Annema for his support, for the time he invested in reading the many versions of my thesis and for providing me with feedback every single time. Secondly, I want to thank Alexander de Haan for being my second supervisor and for ensuring that I did not lose sight of the policy analysis point of view during the research. Thirdly, I want to thank my first supervisor from the Port of Rotterdam Authority, Arwen Korteweg, who also read all the versions of my thesis and provided me with constructive feedback. We have invested a lot of time and energy in the completion of the database for the Dutch inland terminals. The fourth person whom I would like to thank for his support is Maurits van Schuylenburg, my second supervisor from the Port of Rotterdam Authority. Especially in the first phase of my project, he provided me with a lot of relevant studies and reports to prepare for the research. Finally, I would like to thank professor Tavasszy for being the chairman of my graduation committee as well as for providing me with useful information through an interview.

Besides the graduation committee, I would like to thank all the people that have provided information for my research. Staff members of the Port of Rotterdam Authority such as Roy Pigot, Nick van den Ende and Donald Baan have contributed a lot with regard to the data that was necessary for my research. Furthermore, Bob van Hell and Rene Kronieger who have helped a lot with the visualizations of the gap analysis. Next to that, the interviews with Peter de Langen, Bart Kuipers, Eric Nooijen and Johan Visser have been very helpful for my research. Finally, Mo Zhang, a PhD student at OTB has put a lot of energy and time in helping me with the application of a GIS- based network design and optimization model. Unfortunately, the results of this model were not used in my research.

Furthermore, I would like to thank all my colleagues at the Port Development division, especially those at the Modalities Department for sharing their thoughts with me and providing me with tips and feedback with regard to my project. Because of their kindness towards me, I have really enjoyed working at the Port of Rotterdam Authority.

Last but not least I want to thank my family and friends for supporting me and helping me where possible. Special thanks go to my parents for reading, checking and where necessary correcting the many pages of my thesis.

Danitza Defares

October 2011, Rotterdam

Management summary

Background of the research The quality and reliability of the hinterland transport by barge, rail and road is important for the competitive position of the Port of Rotterdam in the logistics chains and networks. The expectations are that the container volumes will grow because of the development of the Maasvlakte 2 and expected growth of world trade. For this reason, it is important for the Port of Rotterdam that the inland terminal network will be able to accommodate these growing container volumes, in order to maintain its leading position. Previous studies have shown that the inland terminal network will be able to accommodate the container flows to and from the Dutch hinterland until 2020. It is unclear how this will develop in the period after 2020. For this reason the following research hypothesis has been formulated: The current Dutch inland terminal network will possibly not be able to accommodate the expected container throughput to the hinterland by barge and rail in 2030 in the different future scenarios.

Scope of the research The scope of the research is defined by three elements. The most important scope of the research is the geographical scope; this scope is limited to the container transport between Rotterdam and the Dutch hinterland. In other words, flows with their origin and/or destination outside the Netherlands have been excluded. Furthermore the type of cargo is limited to containers and the transport network model that has been applied is the point-to-point model.

Research objective The background of the research, the hypothesis and the scope of the research led to the following research objective: to identify in what way the expected volume of containers to and from the Dutch hinterland in 2030 can be accommodated in an efficient manner. Recommendations will be made to the Port of Rotterdam Authority in what way the inland terminal network can be strengthened by applying the dynamic adaptive (DA) policy framework. The DA policy framework supports decision makers in taking the inherent future uncertainties of the volume of containers in 2030 into account. In order to accomplish the research objective, the following main research question was formulated: Which policy actions can contribute to strengthening the inland terminal network in order accommodate the expected container throughput in 2030?

Research approach With the aim of answering this question, the inland terminals that are currently active were identified first. This was necessary in order to be able to calculate the current capacity of the inland terminal network. Currently, there are 26 barge terminals, 6 rail terminals and 6 tri-modal terminals in the Netherlands. Together, these terminals form the Dutch inland terminal network and have a capacity of 4.744.000 TEU per year. Note that, in this report the capacity of a terminal refers to the approximate maximum throughput capacity of the terminal. In other words, the amount of TEU’s that a terminal can approximately handle per year. The second step that had to be taken in order to answer the main question was identifying the national container flows by barge, rail and road in 2008 between Rotterdam and the origins and destinations within the Netherlands. Based on this, the calculation of the total flow of containers to

iii and from the COROP regions resulted in 3.861.000 TEU in 2008. The modal split of the container flows within the Netherlands in 2008 was as follows:  Road transport – 2.523.000 TEU  Barge transport – 892.000 TEU  Rail transport – 446.000 TEU

The container flows of 2008 were the input for calculating the prognoses of container flows in different scenarios for 2030. The scenarios included:  Regional Community scenario – low growth WLO1 scenario  Global Economy scenario – high growth WLO scenario  Low growth scenario – low growth PoR2 scenario  Global Economy scenario – high growth PoR scenario

Based on the four scenarios, the total flow of containers will approximately be between 5 mln TEU and 12 mln TEU in 2030. The lower bound of this bandwidth is between 5 mln TEU and 7 mln TEU and the upper bound of this bandwidth is between 10 mln TEU and 12 mln TEU.

Identification of possible gaps in the Dutch inland terminal network Based on the capacity of the Dutch inland terminal network on the one hand and the expected container flows in 2030 on the other hand, possible gaps in the inland terminal network were identified. A gap occurs when the current capacity of the inland terminals (barge and rail) cannot accommodate the expected flows to and from inland terminals (barge and rail) in the low growth and high growth scenarios.

The gap identification has been done in two steps; first the known future capacity of the inland terminal network was compared to the expected container flows in 2020 and secondly to the expected flows in 2030. The known future capacity includes the capacity of terminals that are currently being developed and expansions of currently active terminals. The gap identification led to distinguishing two types of gaps: 1. Regions in which there are gaps in both the low growth and high growth scenarios 2. Regions in which there are no gaps in the low growth scenario, but there are gaps in the high growth scenario

Based on the occurrence of the gaps (when in time the gap will occur and in which scenario), the gaps have been prioritized as follows: 1. Regions in which there are gaps with the lower bound in 2020 2. Regions in which there are gaps with the upper bound of flows in 2020 3. Regions in which there are gaps with the lower bound of flows in 2030 4. Regions in which there are gaps with the upper bound of flows in 2030

According to this prioritization of the gaps is as visualized on the next page.

1 Welvaart en Leefomgeving (English: Welfare, Prosperity and Quality of the Living Environment) 2 Port of Rotterdam Authority

1 2 3 4 GAPS IN THE LOW GROWTH GAPS IN THE HIGH GROWTH GAP IN THE LOW GROWTH GAPS IN THE HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO IN 2020 SCENARIO IN 2020 SCENARIO IN 2030 SCENARIO IN 2030

Flevoland Overig Groningen Zuidoost Zuid-Holland Delfzijl en omgeving Zuidwest Gelderland Noord Friesland Noord Overijssel Zuidwest Drenthe Veluwe Zuidoost Noord-Brabant Utrecht Noord Limburg Midden Noord-Brabant Noordoost Noord-Brabant

The prioritization of the regions with gaps according to occurrence

Next to these prioritized regions, there are regions in which there are no inland terminals. The container flows transported by road to these regions can be lowered by shifting these flows to barge and rail terminals in adjacent regions with surplus capacity.

The adapted version of the dynamic adaptive policy framework Different uncertainties have been taken into account in the development of the scenarios. In order to deal with these uncertainties, dynamic adaptive approaches for policy making appeared. According to Marchau et. al. (2010) these DA approaches, “allow policy makers to cope with uncertainty by creating policies that respond with changes over time”.

In this project, the goal is to accommodate the container flows to and from the Dutch hinterland in an efficient way. Different policy options can be implemented to achieve this goal. One of these options is to strengthen the inland terminal network in such a way that the expected flows of containers can be accommodated sustainably and efficiently in 2030. This policy is also the basic policy in the dynamic adaptive (DA) policy framework is formulated as follows: Invest in strengthening the current inland terminal network taking the identified gaps into account; start with investing in eliminating the gaps in regions with the highest priority.

The DA policy framework has been adapted in order to fit the case of the inland terminal network. An actor’s/stakeholders analysis is added as well as possible strategic steps that can be taken to implement the basic policy. The input elements for the five strategic steps that have been formulated include policy actions, necessary conditions for success, external vulnerabilities and other uncertain factors. This led to the five strategic steps:

Step 1. Take a closer look at the identified gaps Step 2. Conduct research and analyses Step 3. Regional action 1 – logistics concepts Step 4. Regional action 2 – expansion of terminal(s) Step 5. Regional action 3 – develop new terminal(s)

There are questions that should be answered and actions that should be conducted in each of these steps before being able to move on to the next step. The logistics concepts include synchromodality, extended gates, transport network models such as the hub-and-spoke model and stimulating a modal shift from road transport to another mode of transport.

Conclusion: Policy actions to strengthen the inland terminal network The policy actions to strengthen the inland terminal network include:  Stimulate modal shift (from road to barge and rail) to inland terminals  Implement “orgware” logistics concepts  Expanding existing terminals  Developing new terminals

These policy actions are included in the five strategic steps mentioned above. The research has shown that it is advisable to follow the sequence of the policy actions above. Initial investments should be in the policy actions that aim for changes in the organization of the hinterland transport market; this includes organizing the transport in such a manner that a modal shift from road transport to barge and rail terminals within a 30 kilometer radius of regions with no terminals. Next to that they also include the previously mentioned logistics concepts such as synchromodality, extended gates or transport network models and more efficient use of the capacity of existing terminals. Cooperation between the different actors in the transport chain is necessary for implementing any of these logistics concepts.

The focus on policy actions that require physical changes should follow after the initial focus on the “organizational” actions. The actions that require physical changes should be conducted as follows: first the possibility to expand existing terminals should be analyzed. Secondly the policy to develop new terminals should be conducted, when all other policy actions did not contribute to strengthen and optimize the Dutch inland terminal network.

Based on the above, the main research question can be answered as follows:

The inland terminal network can be strengthened in order to accommodate the expected container throughput in 2030 by implementing one of the policy actions with the support of the five strategic steps and the DA policy approach. The initial policy actions should be carried out with the aim to eliminate the high priority gaps (gaps that already occur in the low growth scenario in 2020). This can be followed by the regions with currently no terminal or the regions that have been identified as a logistics hot spot. This decision can be made by continuously monitoring the expected container flows as well as regional economic developments. To recapitulate, when implementing any of the policy actions, external developments should be monitored and the policies should be adapted to respond to changes that occur over time.

Recommendations Next to answering the main question of the research project, there are several recommendations formulated for the Port of Rotterdam Authority as well as recommendations for future research. The recommendations to the Port of Rotterdam Authority are: 1. Continuously assess and monitor the container flows, since unexpected regional and economical development can lead to changes in the calculated container flows. 2. Start with eliminating the highest priority gaps, since these gaps already occur in the low growth scenario in 2020, by supporting existing plans to develop terminals in Flevoland and Zuidwest Gelderland. 3. Stimulate shifting container flows from regions with no terminal to inland terminals with a surplus capacity within 30 kilometer radius of these regions. Use existing infrastructure to implement this policy action.

4. Eliminate gaps in possible logistics hot spot regions; these regions are located in Noord- Brabant and Limburg and are regions with clustered logistics activities. 5. Stimulate bottom-up approach with regard to strengthening the inland terminal network; the demand for policy actions should come from the market in order to avoid strengthening the network in regions where there is little or no demand.

The recommendations for future research are: 1. Assess the applicability of the adapted DA policy framework so that it can be applied for other policy options 2. Conduct more in depth research with regard to the logistics concepts, focus on synchromodality. Attempt to operationalize this concept and clarify the role of the different actors in the hinterland transport market with regard to synchromodality 3. Apply other transport network models besides the point-to-point model that has been applied in this research. Possible other transport network models include the hub-and- spoke model, the circle line model and the satellite model. 4. Conduct more in depth research with regard to establishing one main actor group to focus on strengthening the inland terminal network 5. Set up an overall database for information on Dutch inland terminals; this research has shown that it is difficult to find unambiguous information regarding among others the throughput and capacity of a terminal.

vii

viii

Table of Contents

PREFACE ...... I MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... III LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 1 GLOSSARY ...... 3 READERS GUIDE ...... 5 1 INTRODUCTION...... 6

1.1 OVERVIEW ...... 6 1.2 THE CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ...... 8 1.3 THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ...... 10 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE...... 12 1.4.1 Knowledge gaps ...... 12 1.4.2 Objective ...... 12 1.5 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH ...... 14 1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 16 1.7 SCIENTIFIC, SOCIAL AND MANAGERIAL RELEVANCE ...... 17 1.8 SUMMARY ...... 18 2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ...... 20

2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 20 2.2 TYPE OF RESEARCH ...... 20 2.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 21 2.3.1 Research methods ...... 21 2.3.2 Constraints and drawbacks ...... 24 2.4 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 25 2.5 SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY...... 26 2.6 SUMMARY ...... 27 3 CURRENT INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK ...... 29

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 29 3.2 THE INLAND TERMINALS IN THE NETHERLANDS ...... 29 3.3 ACTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN HINTERLAND TRANSPORT ...... 32 3.4 THE CURRENT CAPACITY OF INLAND TERMINALS ...... 33 3.5 THE CONTAINER FLOWS BETWEEN THE PORT OF ROTTERDAM AND THE COROP REGIONS IN 2008 ...... 35 3.6 LOGISTICS CONCEPTS ...... 37 3.6.1 Transport network models ...... 38 3.6.2 Synchromodality ...... 39 3.6.3 Container transferium ...... 40 3.6.4 Tri-modal terminals ...... 41 3.6.5 Extended gates ...... 42 3.7 SUMMARY ...... 43 4 PROGNOSES CONTAINER FLOWS ...... 45

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 45 4.2 FUTURE SCENARIOS ...... 46 4.2.1. The WLO scenarios ...... 46 4.2.2. Scenarios developed by the Port of Rotteram Authority ...... 47

4.2.3. Additional approach to calculate prognoses container flows ...... 49 4.2.4. Reflection on approaches to calculate prognoses container flows ...... 51 4.3 PROGNOSES CONTAINER FLOWS WLO REGIONAL COMMUNITY AND GLOBAL ECONOMY SCENARIOS ...... 53 4.4 PROGNOSES CONTAINER FLOWS POR LOW GROWTH AND GLOBAL ECONOMY SCENARIOS ...... 55 4.5 BANDWIDTH PROGNOSES OF CONTAINER FLOWS 2030 ...... 57 4.6 MODAL SPLIT PROGNOSES OF CONTAINER FLOWS 2030 ...... 58 4.7 SUMMARY ...... 59 5 MATCHING CURRENT CAPACITY WITH DIFFERENT PROGNOSES...... 63

5.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 63 5.2. IDENTIFYING POSSIBLE GAPS ...... 64 5.2.1. Identifying possible gaps in 2020 based on known future capacity inland terminal network .... 65 5.2.2. Identifying possible gaps based on known future capacity inland terminal network 2030 ...... 67 5.3. PRIORITIZING IDENTIFIED GAPS ...... 69 5.4. REVIEW OF PLANS TO DEVELOP NEW TERMINALS ...... 72 5.5. POSSIBLE POLICIES ACTIONS TO STRENGTHEN THE INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK ...... 73 5.6. SUMMARY ...... 76 6 DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE APPROACH FOR POLICIES TO STRENGTHEN THE INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK ... 79

6.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 79 6.2. ADAPTED VERSION THE OF DA POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 80 6.3. EXPLANATION OF THE DA POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 82 6.3.1. Step I: Stage setting ...... 82 6.3.2. Step II: Assembling basic policy ...... 82 6.3.3. Step III: Specifying rest of policy ...... 83 6.3.4. Step IV: Implementation phase ...... 85 6.4. POSSIBLE STRATEGIC STEPS TO STRENGTHEN THE INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK ...... 89 6.5. APPLICATION OF STRATEGIC STEPS IN FOUR REGIONS ...... 91 6.5.1. Region with a high priority gap ...... 91 6.5.2. Possible logistics “hot spot” region ...... 92 6.5.3. Region without a terminal and plans to develop a new terminal ...... 94 6.5.4. Region without a terminal and no known plans to develop a new terminal ...... 95 6.6. SUMMARY ...... 98 7 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFLECTION ...... 102

7.1. CONCLUSIONS ...... 102 7.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 109 7.2.1. Recommendations to the Port of Rotterdam Authority ...... 110 7.2.2. Recommendations for future research ...... 111 7.3. REFLECTION ...... 113 7.4. SUMMARY ...... 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 120

APPENDIX A: COROP REGIONS ...... 126

APPENDIX A-1: OVERVIEW COROP REGIONS AND THEIR MUNICIPALITIES ...... 126 APPENDIX A-2: OVERVIEW COROP REGIONS AND TRAFFIC REGIONS ...... 129 APPENDIX A-3: NUTS CODES OF THE COROP REGIONS ...... 131 APPENDIX A-4: COROP REGIONS AND PROVINCES ...... 132 APPENDIX B: RESEARCH PHASES IN MORE DETAIL ...... 133 APPENDIX C: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE THREE MODES OF TRANSPORT ...... 137 APPENDIX D: THE MAIN INFRASTRUCTURE AXES ...... 139 APPENDIX E: THE ACTORS IN THE HINTERLAND TRANSPORT MARKET ...... 142 APPENDIX F: INLAND TERMINALS IN THE NETHERLANDS ...... 144

APPENDIX F-1: LIST OF TERMINALS ...... 144 APPENDIX F-2: LIST OF TERMINALS IN DEVELOPMENT / PLANNED TERMINALS ...... 147 APPENDIX G: CAPACITY CALCULATION OF TERMINALS ...... 148 APPENDIX H: CAPACITY COROP REGIONS ...... 151 APPENDIX I: DATA CONTAINER FLOWS 2008 ...... 153

APPENDIX I-1: CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS BY ROAD TRANSPORT IN 2008 ...... 153 APPENDIX I-2: CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS BY BARGE TRANSPORT IN 2008 ...... 155 APPENDIX I-3: CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS BY RAIL TRANSPORT IN 2008 ...... 157 APPENDIX I-4: TOTAL CONTAINER TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS BY RAIL TRANSPORT IN 2008 ...... 159 APPENDIX J: STEPS TAKEN TO INCORPORATE THE FLOWS FROM THE PORT OF ANTWERP ...... 161 APPENDIX K: MODELS USED FOR THE MOBILITY THEME WLO SCENARIOS ...... 171 APPENDIX L: PROGNOSES CONTAINER FLOWS ...... 173

APPENDIX L-1: GROWTH PERCENTAGES WLO AND POR SCENARIOS ...... 173 APPENDIX L-2: TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS IN 2030 WLO RC SCENARIO ...... 174 APPENDIX L-3: TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS IN 2030 POR LG SCENARIO ...... 176 APPENDIX L-4: TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS IN 2030 WLO GE SCENARIO ...... 178 APPENDIX L-5: TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS IN 2030 POR GE SCENARIO ...... 180 APPENDIX L-6: COMPARISON TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS FOUR SCENARIOS 2030 ...... 182 APPENDIX L-7: CONTAINER FLOWS FOUR SCENARIOS 2020 ...... 184 APPENDIX M: IDENTIFYING THE GAPS ...... 189

APPENDIX M-1: GAPS IDENTIFIED IN 2030 BASED ON CURRENT CAPACITY INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK ...... 189 APPENDIX M-2: GAPS IDENTIFIED IN 2020 BASED ON KNOWN FUTURE CAPACITY INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK...... 192 APPENDIX M-3: GAPS INDENTIFIED IN 2030 BASED ON KNOWN FUTURE CAPACITY INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK ...... 195 APPENDIX N: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 198 APPENDIX O: DATA INTERVIEWS ...... 202

APPENDIX O-1: INTERVIEW DR. BART KUIPERS ...... 202 APPENDIX O-2: INTERVIEW DR. JOHAN VISSER ...... 206

List of figures

FIGURE 1: GOAL TREE PORT OF ROTTERDAM AUTHORITY ...... 7 FIGURE 2: THE POSITION OF HINTERLAND TRANSPORT IN THE CONTAINER TRANSPORT CHAIN ...... 8 FIGURE 3: POINT-TO-POINT TRANSPORT NETWORK MODEL ...... 15 FIGURE 4: RESEARCH PHASES ...... 25 FIGURE 5: EXAMPLE OF A BARGE TERMINAL – BARGE CONTAINER TERMINAL DEN BOSCH ...... 30 FIGURE 6: EXAMPLE OF A RAIL TERMINAL – RAIL SERVICE CENTER GRONINGEN ...... 31 FIGURE 7: INLAND TERMINALS IN THE NETHERLANDS ...... 31 FIGURE 8: MOST IMPORTANT ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE CONTAINER TRANSPORT CHAIN ...... 32 FIGURE 9: CAPACITY OF INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK DISTRIBUTED IN THE COROP REGIONS IN 2011 ...... 35 FIGURE 10: CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS TRANSPORTED BY BARGE IN 2008 ...... 36 FIGURE 11: CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS TRANSPORTED BY RAIL IN 2008 ...... 36 FIGURE 12: CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS TRANSPORTED BY BARGE AND RAIL IN 2008 ...... 37 FIGURE 13: TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS TO AND FROM COROP REGIONS IN 2008 ...... 37 FIGURE 14: HUB-AND-SPOKE NETWORK MODEL...... 38 FIGURE 15: SATELLITE NETWORK MODEL ...... 38 FIGURE 16: CIRCLE LINE NETWORK MODEL ...... 39 FIGURE 17: SYNCHROMODALITY - SYNCHRONIZATION OF THE THREE MODES OF TRANSPORT ...... 40 FIGURE 18: ARTIST IMPRESSION OF THE CONTAINER TRANSFERIUM ALBLASSERDAM ...... 41 FIGURE 19: EXAMPLE OF A TRI-MODAL TERMINAL – BARGE AND RAIL TERMINAL BORN...... 42 FIGURE 20: ECT NETWORK OF EXTENDED GATES IN EUROPE ...... 42 FIGURE 21: NETWORK USED IN THE GIS-BASED NETWORK DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION MODEL ...... 51 FIGURE 22: TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS BETWEEN POR AND COROP REGIONS WLO RC SCENARIO 2030 ...... 55 FIGURE 23: TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS BETWEEN POR AND COROP REGIONS WLO GE SCENARIO 2030 ...... 55 FIGURE 24: TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS BETWEEN POR AND COROP REGIONS POR LG SCENARIO 2030 ...... 57 FIGURE 25: TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS BETWEEN POR AND COROP REGIONS POR GE SCENARIO 2030 ...... 57 FIGURE 26: COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED FUTURE MODAL SPLITS WLO AND POR SCENARIOS ...... 58 FIGURE 27: IDENTIFIED GAPS IN 2020 ...... 66 FIGURE 28: IDENTIFIED GAPS IN 2030 ...... 68 FIGURE 29: IDENTIFIED GAPS IN 2020 AND 2030 ...... 69 FIGURE 30: IDENTIFIED GAPS PRIORITIZED ...... 70 FIGURE 31: CATCHMENT AREA OF (FUTURE) DUTCH TERMINALS ...... 71 FIGURE 32: THE ADAPTED VERSION OF DA POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 81 FIGURE 33: POWER-INTEREST MATRIX ACTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS HINTERLAND TRANSPORT ...... 86 FIGURE 34: FRAMEWORK FOR STRATEGIC STEPS ...... 89 FIGURE 35: STRATEGIC STEPS TO STRENGTHEN THE INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK IN MORE DEPTH ...... 90 FIGURE 36: TERMINALS WITH DELFT EN WESTLAND IN THEIR CATCHMENT AREA ...... 94 FIGURE 37: WATERWAYS IN AND AROUND DELFT EN WESTLAND ...... 94 FIGURE 38: REGIONS WITH AGGLOMERATIE LEIDEN EN BOLLENSTREEK IN THEIR CATCHMENT AREA ...... 96 FIGURE 39: WATERWAYS IN AND AROUND AGGLOMERATIE LEIDEN EN BOLLENSTREEK ...... 96

xii

List of tables

TABLE 1: MODAL SPLIT 2010 MAASVLAKTE AND ROTTERDAM TERMINALS ...... 11 TABLE 2: MODAL SPLIT MAASVLAKTE TERMINALS 2010 AND TARGETS FOR 2035 ...... 11 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 1 ...... 18 TABLE 4: LIST OF EXPERTS OF THE EXPERT INTERVIEWS ...... 23 TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2 ...... 27 TABLE 6: MODAL SPLIT TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS BETWEEN POR AND COROP REGIONS 2008...... 36 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3 ...... 43 TABLE 8: GENERAL GROWTH PERCENTAGES POR 2030 ...... 49 TABLE 9: INPUT NECESSARY FOR THE GIS-BASED NETWORK DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION MODEL ...... 50 TABLE 10: FUTURE MODAL SPLIT CALCULATED WITH GIS-BASED NETWORK DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION MODEL...... 51 TABLE 11: GROWTH PER YEAR PERCENTAGES WLO SCENARIOS ...... 54 TABLE 12: MODAL SPLIT 2030 BASED ON PROGNOSES CONTAINER FLOWS WLO SCENARIOS...... 55 TABLE 13: GROWTH PER YEAR PERCENTAGES POR SCENARIOS ...... 56 TABLE 14: MODAL SPLIT 2030 BASED ON PROGNOSES CONTAINER FLOWS POR SCENARIOS ...... 57 TABLE 15: OVERVIEW OF TOTAL CONTAINER FLOWS BETWEEN THE POR AND COROP REGIONS FOR THE FOUR SCENARIOS IN 2030 ...... 58 TABLE 16: SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 4 ...... 59 TABLE 17: PLANS FOR EXPANDING CURRENT INLAND TERMINAL NETWORK ...... 65 TABLE 18: SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 5 ...... 76 TABLE 19: VULNERABILITIES OF THE BASIC POLICY ...... 84 TABLE 20: SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 6 ...... 98 TABLE 21: THE PROGNOSES OF CONTAINER FLOWS IN 2030 IN THE FOUR SCENARIOS OF NATIONAL TRANSPORT ...... 104 TABLE 22: IDENTIFIED GAPS PRIORITIZED ACCORDING TO OCCURRENCE ...... 105 TABLE 23: SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 7 ...... 114

xiii

List of Abbreviations

COROP Commissie Regionaal OnderzoeksProgramma (English: Commission on Regional Research Programme)

CPB Centraal Planbureau (English: Central Planning Office)

CT Container Transferium

DA Dynamic adaptive

EGS European Gateway Services

ET European Trend scenario (PoR scenario)

EVO Union of own transporters/carriers

GE Global Economy scenario (WLO and PoR scenario)

HLH European sea ports in the Hamburg – Le Havre range

HOP High Oil Price scenario (PoR scenario)

I&M Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (English: Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment)

KiM Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid (English: Institute for Transport Policy)

LG Low Growth scenario (PoR scenario)

MNP Milieu- en Natuur Planbureau (English: Environment and Nature Planning Office)

MV Maasvlakte

PoA Port of Antwerp (Authority) (Dutch: Havenbedrijf Antwerpen)

PoR Port of Rotterdam (Authority) (Dutch: Havenbedrijf Rotterdam)

PPP Public Private Partnership

RC Regional Communities scenario (WLO scenario)

RIVM Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (English: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment)

RPB Ruimtelijk Planbureau (English: Spatial Planning Office)

SE Strong Europe scenario (WLO scenario)

SOIT Subsidieregeling Openbare Inland Terminal (English: Subsidy Regulation Public Inland Terminals)

TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit (1 TEU is a container of 20 foot long and 8 foot wide)

TLN Transport en Logistiek Nederland (English: Union of freight carriers)

TM Transatlantic Market scenario (WLO scenario)

USP Unique selling point

VITO Vereniging van Nederlandse Inland Terminal Operators (English: Association of Dutch Inland Terminal Operators)

WLO Welvaart en Leefomgeving (English: Welfare, Prosperity and Quality of the Living Environment)

Glossary

Actor A social entity, person or organization, able to act or exert influence on a decision

Actor network More or less stable patterns of social relations between interdependent actors, which take shape around policy problems

Actor perception Image of the actor of the world around them, both of the other actors and networks and of the substantive characteristics of a policy problem

A-modality booking A-modality booking means that the transport mode is fixed for a specific modality beforehand.

Barge A non-motorized water vessel, usually flat-bottomed and towed or pushed by other craft, used for transporting freight. Dominantly used on river systems.

Capacity The maximum possible throughput of a terminal annually expressed in TEU’s

Consignee* A person or company to whom commodities are shipped. Officially, the consignee is the legal owner of the cargo.

Container* A large standard size metal box into which cargo is packed for shipment aboard specially configured ocean going containerships and designed to be moved with common handling equipment enabling high-speed intermodal transfers in economically large units between ships, railcars, truck chassis, and barges using a minimum of labour. The container, therefore, serves as the transfer unit rather than the cargo contained therein.

Gap A gap in the inland terminal network occurs when the current capacity cannot accommodate the expected future container flows. A gap is also referred to as a bottleneck.

Inland terminal An inland terminal is a node in the logistics chain where containers can be transshipped from one mode of transport to another.

Inland terminal network The collection of all nodes and links that are connected to/with each other and to/with the Port of Rotterdam

 Source: Hofstra University (2011)

Logistics hot spot1 A logistics hot spot is a COROP region with a strong cluster of companies with (inter)national distinctive activities, concentrated in logistics parks with good supporting physical infrastructure and related logistics support services. In many cases a logistics hot spot has distribution parks and other business parks where logistics activities are a large part of the business.

Links Links are infrastructural connections between nodes. Links can be roads, inland waterways, rails or pipelines.

Main port A main port is an area characterized by the presence of nodes of different transport modes (road, water, rail, air), of cooperation and coordination of the transport (24 hours a day with high frequency), a connection to an intercontinental (also European) transport network goods and people and the presence of logistics centres and a good information infrastructure. In the Netherlands there are two main ports: Rotterdam (especially with the seaport) and Amsterdam (with particular Schiphol airport, the seaport and also the junction Aalsmeer).

Node A node in the network is either an inland terminal or the main port.

Scenario2 A scenario is a coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can unfold.

Shipper The shipper is the person, company, producer, retailer or wholesaler that assigns/commissions/orders goods to be transported.

Stakeholder (Group of) actor(s) that has an interest or stake in a decision, but relatively little means to influence the decision making process or system

1 Source: TNO (2009) 2 Source: International Panel on Climate Change (2011)

Readers Guide

CHAPTER DESCRIPTION

First of all, the background and context of the research, container transport to and from the Dutch hinterland, is introduced. This is followed by the research problem and research objective. The research objective is based on the identified knowledge gaps. Furthermore, the scope of the 1. Introduction research is defined. Based on all of this, the main research question and four sub-questions follow. The chapter ends with the explanation of the scientific, social and managerial relevance of the research project.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish the research methods and approach that will be applied in order to conduct the qualitative research that has been introduced in the first chapter. The 2. Research decision was made to apply a multi-method approach to this practice-oriented research. These framework methods include desk research, expert interviews and scenario analysis. The constraints and drawbacks of these methods are also explained, followed by explaining the five phases of the research. The chapter ends with presenting the scientific credibility of the research.

The different inland terminals (barge -, rail -, barge and rail terminals) in the Netherlands are introduced. Their location and their capacity is identified. Based on the capacity of each terminal and their location, the capacity of the terminal network and the capacity of the COROP regions is 3. Current inland calculated. Furthermore, the main actors and stakeholders that are directly or indirectly involved in terminal network the hinterland transport market are presented. This is followed by briefly presenting three transport network models and describing four logistics concepts – synchromodality, extended gates, container transferium and tri-modal terminals. Finally, the container flows to and from the forty COROP regions in 2008 for the three modes of transport are presented in this chapter.

The prognoses of the container flows is calculated with two sets of growth factors, one is of the 4. Prognoses future CPB et. al. for the WLO scenarios and the other is of the PoR for its scenarios. The prognoses are container flows calculated for the low growth scenarios and the high growth scenarios. This is done in order to identify the plausible bandwidth of future container flows.

Now that the capacity of the current inland terminal network is clear and the bandwidth of the 5. Matching current future container flows is known, the possible gaps or bottlenecks in the network can be identified. capacity with The gaps are prioritized based on when they occur (in 2020 or in 2030 and in the low growth different prognoses scenario or in the high growth scenario or in both). The size of the gap (approximate amount of TEU’s) and the location of the regions with gaps are also taken into account.

The DA policy framework is adapted for container transport so that it can fit the project. When 6. DA policy taking a closer look at a gap, necessary factors such as physical space, infrastructural accessibility, framework and (surrounding) market size, efficiency measures and the role of the previously mentioned logistics strategic steps for concepts are taken into account to identify strategic steps. Further more policy actions including to strengthening expanding an existing terminal, shifting road transport to barge and rail terminals or developing inland terminal new inland terminals to reduce or eliminate a gap are presented. These actions will contribute to network strengthen the inland terminal network. Based on elements of the DA policy framework, five strategic steps are identified.

The results of the research project are presented in this chapter. It includes the answers to the four 7. Conclusions, sub-questions as well as the answer to the main research question. The recommendations are recommendations divided in recommendations for the PoR and recommendations for future research in general. In and reflection this chapter, the author also reflects on the process of the project; which obstacles were encountered during the project and how the author dealt with these obstacles.

1 Introduction 1.1 Overview

The Port of Rotterdam is one of the main ports and the largest logistics and industrial hubs of Europe. With an annual throughput of 430 million tons of cargo in 2010, Rotterdam is by far the largest seaport of Europe. The port is the gateway to a European market of more than 350 million consumers (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011).

The Port of Rotterdam Authority (PoR) manages, operates and develops the Rotterdam port and industrial area. As a public limited company, the PoR has two shareholders: the municipality of Rotterdam (70 5/6 %) and the Dutch State (29 1/6 %) (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011).

This research is conducted for the Modalities department within the Port Development Division of the Port of Rotterdam Authority. The core business of the Modalities department is hinterland accessibility and in its work, the department focuses on one of the PoR’s business goal, namely “optimal processing of landside transport”. Improving the accessibility is one of the spearheads of PoR’s Business Plan. The Modalities department is responsible for accessibility projects for road, rail, barge, pipelines and cables (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011).

Accessibility of the hinterland of the Port of Rotterdam is and remains one of the most important points of attention of the PoR. However, ensuring the long-term accessibility will be more difficult due to growing cargo volumes (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011). Additionally, the demand for sustainable and environmental friendly transport is increasing. The accessibility of the hinterland will be an increasingly important factor in the choice for a particular port. In order to ensure current and future customers a reliable, efficient and sustained hinterland connection, the PoR has to be prepared for the expected growth of container volumes.

The PoR foresees that the throughput of the amount of containers of the Port of Rotterdam will be doubled in the next 25 years. In other words, handling of containers will increase in importance for the port: in 2010 it is still 25% in throughput, in 2030, possibly 42% of the total quantity of goods will be containers (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011). Among others, the Maasvlakte 2 and expected economical growth will contribute to this increase in container throughput. Based on the analysis of trends and developments, four macroeconomic scenarios of the CPB, MNP and RPB – the WLO scenarios – were selected by the PoR. These scenarios were used as the input for four scenarios that were developed by the PoR: the Global Economy, European Trend, High Oil Price and the Low Growth scenario. In these scenarios the potential size and nature of container transshipment in the Port of Rotterdam have been calculated and range from 64 to 1293 million tons in 2030 (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011). From these numbers, it becomes clear that the PoR estimates that there will be growth in container throughput in all future scenarios.

Considering the expected growth in container throughput, the assumption is made by the PoR that the current Dutch inland terminal network does not have sufficient capacity in order to

3 This does not include direct deep sea transshipment

6 accommodate the future volumes of containers. A study that has been commissioned by the Ministry of Transport and Public Works4and conducted by Ecorys (2010) shows that the Dutch inland terminal network will be able to accommodate the container throughput until 2020; it is not shown what is expected to happen after 2020.

The Port Compass 2030 (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011) is a report in which the PoR describes its vision for 2030. Based on this report, the following goal tree is developed for the PoR, with the second layer goals as goals relevant for this project. This goal tree is visualized in Figure 1.

World’s safest, most efficient and sustainable port

Less harm to the Less hindrance to More efficient environment Better hinterland Better main port inhabitants (a.o. logistics (reduction of accessibility accessibility reduction of processes CO₂, SO₂ and NOx noise pollution) emissions)

Figure 1: Goal tree Port of Rotterdam Authority

The goal for the PoR is to be the world’s safest, most efficient and sustainable port. The five second layer goals or sub-goals of the PoR are relevant for the Modalities department as well as the departments of Port Development and Logistics. In this research the focus will be on the first two sub-goals of the PoR, with the expected growth of container volumes in mind. Hence, the aim of this research is to identify in what way the expected growth in container flows to and from the hinterland in 2030 can be accommodated efficiently. Next to that, the research aims to identify which policies could be implemented in the current inland terminal network in order to accommodate the container throughput in 2030. The policies will not only include infrastructural expansions, but for example also new logistics concepts.

The following topics will be described in this first chapter; in section 1.2 the context of the research problem will be described.

After the context of the research problem is clarified, the research hypothesis itself is addressed in section 1.3.

The aim of the research and the knowledge gaps that are intended to be eliminated by this research are presented in section 1.4

The research demarcation is described in section 1.5

4 The Ministry of Transport and Public Works is now the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

Section 1.6 presents the research questions. The research consists of one main question and nine sub-questions. By answering the sub-questions, the main question can be answered. Every sub- question is explained separately.

The scientific, social and managerial relevance of this research is presented in section 1.7.

The chapter concludes with a summary in section 1.8.

1.2 The context of the research problem

Hinterland transportation will rapidly increase until 2030 and main ports will become important elements in logistic chains and networks (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011). The quality and reliability of the hinterland connections will become more important for the competitive position of European ports. The position of hinterland transportation in the entire container transport chain is visualized in Figure 2.

SEA PORT HINTERLAND

Road transport Consignee

Sea port Sea port Intercontinental Shipper container sea transport container Road transport terminal terminal Road, rail or Inland barge transport terminal

Figure 2: The position of hinterland transport in the container transport chain

According to Van der Horst et. al. (2009) there are at least four reasons why hinterland connection is important for a seaport. These four reasons are presented below:

1. Hinterland transport costs constitute a large proportion of the total door-to-door costs. Research conducted by Notteboom and Winkelmans (2001) has shown that the share of hinterland transport costs in the total transport costs is averagely between 40% and 80%. The major difference between the lower and upper limit is due to the repositioning of empty containers. The high share of hinterland transport costs in total costs can partly be explained by cost reductions that have occurred on the sea side due to larger ships, mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances between carriers. Furthermore, hinterland transportation is relatively expensive because of the scale size of trucks, barges and trains compared to sea vessels. Lastly, the high costs are also due to the fact that most hinterland transport is done by the relative expensive mode of transport: road transport.

2. Seaports are trying to distinguish themselves from competitors, but the ‘space’ on the nautical side to develop unique selling points is limited; most ports ensure sufficient depth, a smooth and safe container handling and adequate terminal capacity. For a large part, ports in the HLH-range have the same contestable hinterland. According to De Langen (2007) contestable hinterland is the region where there is no single port with a clear advantage over competing ports. The ports in the Hamburg Le Havre-range (HLH-range) share the market in

this region. For this reason, these ports aim to offer hinterland connections as unique selling points. The inland waterway product is a unique selling point (USP) for the port of Rotterdam and the port of Antwerp. With regard to rail transport, the port of Hamburg differentiates from the other ports with its rail services.

3. It is essential to balance the growing volumes and the possibilities to expand the capacity of current hinterland infrastructure. Due to containerization and globalization, container transport will increase in the coming years. The increasing volumes of container throughput require sufficient capacity of the hinterland infrastructure as well as hinterland transport services. The capacity of hinterland infrastructure differs for each transport mode.

4. Hinterland connection is important for the establishment of port-related economic activities such as European distribution centers, “postponed manufacturing” and industrial activities in the port area. Studies have shown that distribution centers choose their location based on the presence of logistics service providers, multi-modal accessibility and the proximity to their market.

The topics mentioned above and therefore the importance of hinterland accessibility for the Port of Rotterdam is known by the PoR. For this reason, it includes the following approaches in its solution space to improve hinterland accessibility (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011):

 Organize hinterland transport more efficiently The capacity of vehicles and transport infrastructure are currently not fully utilized. The load factor of trucks, trains and ships is too often too low. During morning and evening the roads are congested. The prevention of inefficient transport, such as empty running of trucks, accounts for a large part to more efficient hinterland and sustainable transport. In addition to this, there is currently limited guidance on transportation around the port.

 Modal shift from road transport to rail and inland waterway transport The modal shift refers to shifting the mode of transport that is used for hinterland transportation and aims to increase the share of containers that is transported by rail and inland waterway transport. Next to that, the share of road transport has to decrease. In other words, another way to improve hinterland accessibility is to transport freight by rail or inland waterway transport instead of by road transport. The biggest shift from road to rail and inland waterway transport can assumingly be achieved by organizing container transport differently. Currently, many containers are sorted in the sea terminals and are transported directly to their destinations. However, sorting can also be done in the hinterland, for example on inland terminals or container transferia. Unsorted containers can be transported by inland waterway to hinterland locations such as Alblasserdam and be sorted on site.

 Expansion of inland terminal network Studies have shown that the current inland terminal network is able to accommodate the container throughput until 2020 (Bückmann, Korteweg, Tillema, & Van der Gun, 2010). The assumption is made that the inland terminal network will have to be expanded after 2020. The expansion can be done in two ways; by implementing new (tri-modal) terminals or by expanding existing terminals.

 Expansion of road network Several investments should be made in order to remove bottlenecks in the current road network and to make the network more robust and reliable in the future. Examples of these bottlenecks (missing links) are the “Nieuwe Westelijke Oeververbinding” (NWO, English: New Western River crossing Connection), which connects the A15 and the A20 and the “A4 Zuid” (English: A4 South). With these expansions of the capacity of the roads surrounding the port area will increase and there will be alternative routes. The alternative routes will contribute to more redundancy in the road system.

 Kilometer pricing (road pricing) The previous national government had the plan to implement road pricing; road pricing makes it possible to eventually achieve another (and much fairer) system in which is one does not pay for the possession of a car but for use of it (the kilometers that are driven). Next to that, cars that pollute more will be more expensive than clean and efficient cars (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2008). The aim of this governmental project was to reduce the road congestions, which would positively affect the Port of Rotterdam. However, the current national government has repealed the Kilometer Pricing Act in January 2011 (Kilometerheffing, 2011). The PoR can propose a similar road pricing system on the A15, in order to reduce the congestions there and improve the accessibility of the port.

This research will take all the above policies solutions into account, but the main focus will be on the possibilities to improve the Dutch inland terminal network. The assumption is made that improving the current inland terminal network, will contribute to the modal shift. However, the other solutions that have been proposed by the PoR are also briefly taken into account to see whether or not they are feasible.

1.3 The research hypothesis

Even though the current inland terminal network can accommodate the container throughput, the PoR faces the fact that most containers to and from the hinterland are currently transported by road. Hence, the assumption is made that the increase in the container throughput will probably lead to an increase in the use of this mode of transport in a business-as-usual scenario. If this is the case, the result will be more road congestions in short term and atmospheric pollution in longer term. In order to prevent this from happening and because of PoR’s goal to improve hinterland accessibility, modal split targets have been set for 2035.

A distinction is made for the modal split for hinterland transport of containers from the Maasvlakte terminals or from all Rotterdam terminals (including the Maasvlakte terminals). The modal split of 2010 for transport to and from the Dutch hinterland is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Modal split 2010 Maasvlakte and Rotterdam terminals

Mode of transport Maasvlakte terminals All Rotterdam terminals Road 48% 57% Barge 40% 33% Rail 12% 10% Source: Port of Rotterdam Authority (2011)

It is evident that most containers, from and to the Maasvlakte terminals and the remaining Rotterdam terminals, are currently transported by road. As mentioned above, there are targets for the modal split in 2035 for Maasvlakte 1 and 2 terminals with regard to inland container transport, which are presented in Table 2. It is important that these targets that are set and stated in the framework “Vision and Trust” will be met in 2035, even though the amount of container throughput will have increased by that time. Table 2 presents the current and future modal split for containers transported to and from the Maasvlakte terminals.

Table 2: Modal split Maasvlakte terminals 2010 and targets for 2035

Mode of transport 2010 2035 Road 48% 35% Barge 40% 45% Rail 12% 20% Source: Port of Rotterdam Authority (2011)

National organizations such as Centraal Planbureau (CPB, English: Central Planning Office), Milieu- en Natuur Planbureau (MNP, English: Environment and Nature Planning Office) and Ruimtelijk Planbureau (RPB, English: Spatial Planning Office) as well as and the European Commission have developed different future scenarios concerning among others economic growth, international trade, population growth and demographics. Based on these scenarios the PoR has calculated different prognoses for container throughput. In all the PoR prognoses, the container throughput increases. In one of PoR’s prognosis, the amount of container throughput will be three times as much as the current amount. Thus it is necessary to be prepared for the future. One way to prepare for the future is to make sure that the inland terminal network will be able to accommodate the expected container throughput in 2030. However, improving the inland terminal network alone will not automatically lead to the modal split and other factors also have to be taken into account.

To summarize, the research hypothesis is as follows:

The current Dutch inland terminal network will possibly not be able to accommodate the expected container throughput to the hinterland by barge and rail in 2030 in the different future scenarios.

1.4 Research objective

According to Verschuren and Doorewaard (2010) “each research project aims to provide knowledge, insight and information that can contribute towards solving a problem”. In order to do this, the existing knowledge gaps have to be identified first. The gaps that have been identified based on the research context and the research hypothesis are described first, followed by the objectives of this research.

1.4.1 Knowledge gaps The main knowledge gap that has been identified in is the fact that it is unclear if the current inland terminal network will be able to accommodate the expected volume of containers after 2020. The assumption is made that this is not the case, because there will be a capacity shortage; nevertheless it is unclear where the bottlenecks are in the current network, what type of nodes (terminals) are missing and when to invest in improving the current network. Before being able to identify the bottlenecks, the current capacity of the inland terminal network as well as the expected container flows to the COROP regions in the Netherlands has to be known.

Even though it is assumed that it is necessary to improve the current inland network in order for it to be able to accommodate the container throughput in 2030, it is not certain that improving the inland network alone will lead to the modal shift in 2035; the extend of the impact that the improvements have on the modal shift is unclear.

A third knowledge gap is the fact that is it unclear what the effect of the other policies mentioned in the solution space of the PoR, besides improving the current inland terminal network, is on the hinterland transport of containers. This gap will also be taken into account.

Additionally, it is also unclear if and how different relative new logistics concepts such as synchromodality, container transferia, tri-modal terminals and extended gates can play a role in facilitating the growing container throughput.

Finally, the factors and uncertainties that have been taken into account to develop the different scenarios as well as the models that were used to calculate the prognoses for the different scenarios should be identified. Next to that the factors necessary for success which are needed in the dynamic adaptive approach for policy making also have to be identified.

1.4.2 Objective The main knowledge gap that will be attempted to be eliminated during this research is the gap that concerns the possible bottlenecks in the current inland terminal network. That is why one of the objectives of this research is to identify where the possible bottlenecks are, what type nodes are missing and when to invest in improving the current inland terminal network. The identification of these bottlenecks will be done by comparing the current capacity of the inland terminal network with the expected throughput of containers in different future scenarios. After these bottlenecks have been identified, an adapted version of the dynamic adaptive approach, which will be adapted in this project, will be applied in order to support the decision makers in the decision making process. Success factors that should be included in this DA approach will be identified during the research project.

Secondly, the gap with regard to the role of the four relatively new logistics concepts in the future network will be attempted to be eliminated. Whether or not these concepts can play a role in a future inland terminal network and what their role can be will be analyzed based on the background and aim of these concepts and expert opinions.

The third knowledge gap regarding the possible solutions for accommodating the future container flows to and from the hinterland in a sustainable and efficient way will be taken into account but is not one of the focus points during this project. The solution space that the PoR has developed will be briefly analyzed on its feasibility and during this project additional possible solutions can be proposed.

Note that one of the knowledge gaps that are mentioned in the previous section will probably not be eliminated by this research. This is the gap regarding the impact of improvements in the inland terminal network on the modal shift. In order to eliminate this gap empirical research is necessary, which cannot be done within this project. Empirical research is mainly based on observations; in other words, this gap can in the ideal case be eliminated after improving the current inland terminal network and observing whether or not the improvements have led to the modal shift in 2035. However, research can also be done by for example questionnaires in which different parties express their stated choices with regard to the mode of transport. Another approach is by applying a simulation model. Nevertheless, the gap will not be taken into account in this research project due to the time span of the project.

To summarize, several steps will be taken during the research project; first possible bottlenecks in the current inland terminal network will be identified. Secondly, if and how new logistics concepts (such as synchromodality, container transferia, tri-modal terminals and extended gates) can play a role in the future inland terminal network has to be assessed. Thirdly, where, how and when the current inland terminal network should be improved will be analyzed based on the identified bottlenecks and the possible role of the logistics concepts. And finally, an adapted version of the DA approach will be developed in order to support decision makers during the decision making process with regard to improving the inland terminal network. These steps lead to the following research objective:

The objective of this research is to make recommendations regarding the way the expected volume of containers to and from the Dutch hinterland in 2030 can be accommodated in an efficient manner.

The recommendations will be made to the Port of Rotterdam Authority in what way

the inland terminal network could be strengthened by applying the dynamic adaptive policy framework, which supports decision makers in taking the inherent future uncertainties of the volume of containers in 2030 into account.

1.5 Scope of the research

In order to be able to conduct the research within the available time, the scope of the research should be clearly defined. The research consists of different types of scopes; first of all there is a geographical scope. Next to that there is a scope for the type of transport model. Thirdly, there is scope for the type of initiatives and/or logistics concepts. Furthermore there is a scope for the type of cargo and finally there is an aggregation level.

The geographical scope of the research is limited to the Dutch territory of the captive hinterland of the Port of Rotterdam. The captive hinterland includes all destinations where a port has a market share that is dominant for these destinations (Van der Horst, De Langen, & Van der Lugt, 2009). In other words, the captive hinterland is the area where the Port of Rotterdam, in terms of network costs and times, outperforms its competitors. The captive hinterland of the Port of Rotterdam includes the Dutch territory as well as areas that are beyond national borders.

The main inland waterway market can be divided in three geographic segments, namely (a&s Management, Stichting Projecten Binnenvaart, Dutch Logistic Development, 2003): 1. The Rhine corridor: a corridor over 100 km on both sides of the Rhine The Rhine corridor can be divided in the (1) Lower Rhine – as far as Cologne/Bonn, (2) Middle Rhine – from Bonn up to Karlsruhe and (3) Upper Rhine – from Karlsruhe up to Basel in Switzerland. 2. The Rotterdam-Antwerp corridor: feeder transport of containers between the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp. 3. Domestic shipping: transport between the seaport and Dutch regions over a distance of between 50 and 250 km

Concerning the rail transport market, this can be divided in two markets, namely: 1. A domestic market 2. An international market, with Germany and Northern Italy as main destinations

The research project will only focus on domestic shipping and the domestic railway

market; the other corridors and destinations are not within the scope of the research. In other words, the scope is limited to the container flows from the Port of Rotterdam to the Dutch regions and vice versa. Container flows with international origin and/or destination are not within the scope of the research.

Regarding the transport network model; a basic point-to-point model is applied in this research. In other words, container flows are transported between their origin and destination by road, rail or inland waterway transport. In this model there is no transport between the terminals. Figure 3 visualizes this transport network model.

Terminal X

Terminal Y Port of Rotterdam

Terminal Z

Figure 3: Point-to-point transport network model

This research project only takes the basic point-to-point transport network model into account. Other transport network models such as the hub-and-spoke and satellite network model are not within the scope of the research.

With regard to the logistics concepts, there have been several logistics concepts and initiatives to encourage a modal shift in the last twenty years. The Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid (KIM, English: Institute for Transport Policy) (2009) divides these concepts or initiatives in three types: 1. “Hardware” logistics concepts; aim at a more efficient use of existing quay capacity with physical technologies, such as developing new ships, new terminals or new transfer techniques. 2. “Orgware” logistics concepts; aim at making the organizational, economic or administrative processes more efficient by using existing resources and existing technology. 3. “Software” logistics concepts; aim at more efficient use of hardware by using information and communication technology (ICT).

The research project will only focus on orgware and hardware logistics concepts; the software initiatives are not within the scope of the research.

There are different types of cargo that are transported to and from the Port of Rotterdam to the hinterland, and vice versa. The types of cargo are: 1. Bulk, both dry and wet; for example salt and oil. 2. Break-bulk; material stacked on pallets. 3. Containers; the fastest growing type of cargo.

The research will only focus on container transport between the Port of Rotterdam

and the captive hinterland. Transport of bulk and break-bulk is left out of the scope.

Finally, regarding the aggregation level, the COROP classification (Dutch: Coördinatie Commissie Regionaal OnderzoeksProgramma) is applied. The Netherlands is divided into 40 COROP areas, which are combinations of municipalities consistent with provincial boundaries (RIVM, 2007). Appendix A presents an overview of the forty COROP regions. Note that the container flows are not limited to the boundaries of the COROP regions, but that this classification is necessary in order to conduct the calculations.

1.6 Research questions

After explaining the context of the research problem, presenting the research problem itself, describing the research objective(s) and defining the scope of the research, the next step is to formulate the main question that will be answered during this research. There are also sub-questions that will contribute in answering the main question.

The main research question that will be answered in this project is:

“Which policy actions can contribute to strengthening the inland terminal network in order accommodate the expected container throughput in 2030?”

In order to answer this main question, several sub-questions will first have to be answered. These sub-questions are:

1. What is the current capacity of the inland terminal network?

This first sub-question is relevant in order to identify the gap between the current and the future network. The existing inland terminals will be mapped out and the sum of the capacity of each of these terminals can be considered to be the capacity of the network. By knowing what capacity the current inland terminal can accommodate, and by knowing the expected volume of container throughput, the shortcomings of the current inland terminal network can be identified.

2. a. What is the expected growth of container flows in 2030? b. What are the possible bottlenecks for the capacity of the network for the period after 2020?

In order to be able to answer this question, the current container flows to the different COROP regions should be identified. Assumingly, the expected growth in container flows will be distributed as the current flows; this means that it is possible to identify how the container throughput will be divided over the network. The expected container throughput can be calculated for different scenarios of both the WLO and the PoR based on the growth percentages that are known for these scenarios. With the future throughput on one hand and the current capacity of the inland terminal on the other hand, the possible bottlenecks of the network can be identified. When these bottlenecks are identified, the next step is to learn in what ways the bottlenecks can be eliminated. The bottlenecks are also referred to as gaps between the current inland terminal network and the expected flows of containers in 2030.

3. In what manner can the different (new) logistics concepts5 play a role in accommodating the growing container throughput?

Different logistics concepts have been implemented in the last ten years or are being currently implemented in order to improve the inland terminal network. The background and aim of these concepts will be briefly evaluated in order to be able to identify the effectiveness of the new logistics concepts. Whether these concepts can play a role and what role this is in the inland terminal network, is relevant for the development of the future network. The concepts that are taken into account are: synchromodality, tri-modal terminals, extended gates, container transferia. Attention will also be paid to bundling and cooperation concepts such as Brabant Intermodal.

4. Which strategic steps are necessary in order to strengthen and optimize the inland terminal network?

The DA policy framework will be adapted for this project. Elements of this framework will be used in order to identify the strategic steps that can be taken for strengthening of the inland terminal network. The focus of the strategic steps will initially be on the bottlenecks which have been previously identified. However, the steps can also be applied on a national level, since gaps that might be identified with current knowledge can change over time (changes in container flows for example). Factors necessary for success will include available physical space (capacity), market size (shippers in the vicinity), infrastructural accessibility (main infrastructure axes) and public - private partnership. To summarize, by applying the DA policy framework an overview of strategic steps that can be taken, taking different uncertainties into account can be provided. Furthermore, the attempt is made to provide knowledge as to when these steps should be taken and what should be done. This will include, but is not limited to, implementing of one of the logistics concepts, implementing new terminals or expanding existing terminals.

1.7 Scientific, social and managerial relevance

With regard to the scientific relevance of the research project, it will especially contribute to the role that scenarios have in policy making. Scenarios are developed in order to create a plausible image of the future, based on historic events and current trends and developments. By having different scenarios for the future, the key uncertainties are known. “To know, what you do not know” is better than “Not knowing, what you do not know”. In other words, it is important for policy makers to take into account the uncertainties for the future when making strategic decisions. This research will contribute to this body-of-knowledge on scenarios, by emphasizing on the fact that scenarios are not static futures and that different scenarios have to be taken into account during decision making processes. In this research both the low growth scenario as well as the high growth scenario is taken into account in order to have a bandwidth for the growth in container volumes.

Furthermore, the research project will also contribute to the dynamic adaptive (DA) approach for policy making developed by Marchau et. al. (2010). The DA policy framework will be adapted for

5 The logistics concepts include synchromodality, tri-modal inland terminals, extended gates and container transferia.

17 container transport to and from the Dutch hinterland. Until now it is mostly applied to passenger transport.

The social relevance refers to the aim to reduce road congestions and air and noise pollution caused by the transport system. According to the European Parliament (2008) atmospheric pollution has three main sources: transport, emissions from stationary sources and emissions caused by the production of electricity. The long-term result of the modal shift from road to rail or inland waterway will lead to less air and noise pollution. This will eventually contribute to public health. Next to that, the development of additional capacity in the network will stimulate regional economies and job opportunities. This will contribute to public welfare and will strengthen the position of the Port of Rotterdam as main port.

Finally, the managerial relevance of the project refers to the contribution of the results of this research to the decision making of the PoR. Based on the results, the PoR can decide in which projects it will invest and which projects have priority over others. Next to that, the outcome of the research is also relevant for other actors such as the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment.

1.8 Summary Chapter 1 is summarized in the table below.

Table 3: Summary of chapter 1

Topic Description Context of the research problem The hinterland transportation market is considered to be the context of the research problem. Since hinterland transport costs constitute a large proportion of the total door-to-door costs, organizing hinterland transport efficiently is an important performance indicator for sea ports. For this reason, the hinterland transportation market is becoming more important in the container transport chain and networks. Research hypothesis The current inland terminal network will possibly not be able to accommodate the expected container throughput to the hinterland by barge and rail in 2030 in the different future scenarios. Research objective The objective of this research is to make recommendations regarding the way the expected volume of containers to and from the Dutch hinterland in 2030 can be accommodated in an efficient manner. The recommendations will be made to the Port of Rotterdam Authority in what way the inland terminal network could be improved by applying the dynamic approach policy framework, which supports decision makers in taking the inherent future uncertainties of the volume of containers in 2030 into account.

Topic Description Scope of the research Geographical scope – Dutch part of the captive hinterland of the Port of Rotterdam:  Barge transport market: domestic shipping  Rail transport market: domestic railway market Type of transport network model – point-to-point transport network model Type of logistics concepts – hardware and orgware logistics concepts Type of cargo – containers Aggregation level – COROP regions Research questions Main question: “Which policy actions can contribute to strengthening the inland terminal network in order accommodate the expected container throughput in 2030?”

Sub-questions: 1. What is the current capacity of the inland terminal network? 2. a. What is the expected growth of container flows in 2030? b. What are the possible bottlenecks for the capacity of the network for the period after 2020? 3. In what manner can the different (new) logistics concepts play a role in accommodating the growing container throughput? 4. Which strategic steps are necessary in order to strengthen and optimize the inland terminal network? Scientific, social and managerial Scientific relevance – contribution to the body-of- relevance knowledge on the usefulness of scenarios in policy making. The awareness of uncertainties is important when making strategic decisions. The consequences that different organizations apply different factors and models to develop similar scenarios are analyzed and presented. Next to that the project will contribute to the dynamic adaptive approach for making decisions that have long- term consequences. The DA policy framework will be adapted for the freight transport market. Until now this framework has been applied to the passenger transport market.

Social relevance – the aim to reduce road congestions and air and noise pollution caused by the transport system, affects public health in long term. Next to that, additional capacity of the inland terminal network will stimulate regional economies and job opportunities.

Managerial relevance – the results of this research will contribute to the decision making of the PoR in which projects to invest and when to invest in these projects.

2 Research framework 2.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to establish the research methods and approach that are applied in order to conduct this qualitative research that has been introduced in the first chapter. The constraints and drawbacks of the chosen methods are also described as well as the scientific credibility of the research. Chapter 1 clarified (1) the context of the research problem, (2) the research problem itself, (3) the scope of the research, (4) the objective of the research and (5) the research questions. The next step is to identify a fitting research type to conduct this research and within this specific type of research, the methodology has to be defined. By doing this, the main objective of the research can be achieved and the research questions can be answered in a scientific and systematic manner.

The type of research that will be conducted will be explained in section 2.2. This includes the reasons why this specific type of research is chosen. By doing this, it becomes clear why

The approach of the research is multi-method; this means that more than two research methods are used to gather data. These methods are explained in section 2.3. The research methods include desk research, expert interviews and scenario analysis. The constraints and drawbacks of the chosen methods and the data collection are also presented in this section.

In section 2.4 the research design is presented and visualized. The research consists of 4 sequential phases and a fifth phase that is parallel to the four phases. Each of these phases is explained.

The scientific credibility of the research is described in section 2.5. The manner how this credibility is ensured is also explained in this section.

The chapter ends with the summary in section 2.6.

2.2 Type of research

The research that is conducted has exploratory characteristics and mainly relies on secondary research such as literature and/or data review, expert interviews and scenario analyses. Next to that, growth factors that were used for both the WLO as the PoR scenarios will be used to calculate future container flows to and from the different COROP regions in the GE and RC/LG scenarios.

Verschuren and Doorewaard (2010) distinguish two main types of research, namely theory-oriented and practice-oriented research. Theory-oriented research can either be theory-developing or theory- testing. This research however is a practice-oriented research; the research aims to provide “knowledge and information that can contribute to a successful intervention in order to change an existing situation” (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). In other words, this research aims to identify the knowledge and information that is necessary to improve the current inland terminal network so that it can accommodate the expected volume of containers in 2030.

As mentioned before, the assumption is made that there is a need for improving the current inland terminal network, since it will probably not be able to accommodate the expected container throughput in 2030 in the different future scenarios. Apparently there is a gap between the current situation (the current inland terminal network) and the desired situation (the future inland terminal network that is able to accommodate the expected container throughput).

2.3 Research methodology

In order to conduct the research, a structured approach is necessary. The approach of this research is a multi-method approach or methodological triangulation; in other words, more than two research methods are used to gather data and thus to ensure the validity of the research. The risk of relying on just one research method is that the results are one dimensional. In this project, three different research methods are applied: desk research, expert interviews and scenario analysis. These methods are explained in this section.

2.3.1 Research methods The main research method that will be used during this project is desk research. This will be supported by expert interviews. Next to that future container flows are calculated for different scenarios with the input of growth factors applied by the CPB et. al in the WLO scenarios and the PoR in its scenarios. These three research methods will all contribute to answering the sub-questions and as a result the main question.

Desk research The most important characteristic of desk research is that the material used has been produced by others (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). According to Verschuren and Doorewaard (2010) there are three categories of existing material that can be used for carrying out desk research, namely: literature, secondary data and official statistical material. The authors continue to explain the difference between the categories of material as follows: “Literature is understood to mean books, articles, conference proceedings and such works that contain the knowledge products of social scientists”. By secondary data they mean “empirical data compiled by other researchers” and finally, official statistical data is “understood to mean data gathered periodically or continuously for a broader public” (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). During this research project, all three categories of sources are used, rearranged, analyzed and interpreted.

First of all, the first sub-question “What is the capacity of the current inland terminal network?” can be answered by conducting desk research. Several studies have been done in order to map the capacity of the inland terminals. The information of these studies will be compared, combined and adapted to the current situation in order to have a clear overview of the capacity.

Both parts of the second sub-question “What is the expected growth of container flows in 2030?“ and “What are the possible bottlenecks for the capacity of the network for the period after 2020?” can also be answered by conducting desk research. The first part of this question will be answered by gaining insight in the current container volumes transported to and from the hinterland with the different modalities. For inland waterway transport and road transport the information will be retrieved from previous studies and from data of the CBS (statistical information). The limited data that is available for container volumes transported within the Netherlands by rail is retrieved from

Rail Cargo Information the Netherlands. Based on the current throughput volumes and the known growth percentages for the low growth and the high growth scenarios, the expected container flows to and from the COROP regions in 2030 can be calculated. By comparing the current capacity of the inland terminal network with the expected future flows of containers, possible bottlenecks can be identified. It might be the case that there are regions in which terminals currently do not use their full capacity or regions where road transport is still dominant. There is an opportunity for these regions to stimulate barge or rail transport. On the other hand, there might be regions where terminals are at the limit of their capacity or there are no terminals located at all. These regions can evolve in future bottlenecks if nothing is done now.

In relation to this second sub-question, additional expert interviews are also necessary; not only for their expert opinion on possible bottlenecks, but also to evaluate the information found in literature and reports regarding the growth of the container flows.

Furthermore, desk research is applied in order to answer the third sub-question “In what manner can the different (new) logistics concepts play a role in accommodating the growing container throughput?” The aim of these concepts will be retrieved from different previous studies. Based on the information from these studies, the advantages of a concept for the future network can be identified. By doing this, it will become clear if and how the concepts can play a role in accommodating the growing container throughput. With regard to synchromodality, there is limited written information available since it is a relative new concept. In order to analyze the strengths of synchromodality, expert interviews are also necessary. Their opinion on the other logistics concepts will also be requested.

Finally, desk research is also applied to conduct an actor analysis. The actor analysis is done in order to identify the critical actors in the hinterland transport market as well as actors that can influence this market. The actor analysis will also be an input for the DA approach for policy making.

Expert interviews Even though desk research has the important advantage for the researcher to be able to use a large amount of data quickly, for example within a certain time set, a disadvantage can be that the material used in principle has been gathered for purposes other than those the researcher intends to use it for (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). Because of this important disadvantage and to ensure the validity of the research, expert interviews are another research method that is applied. The shortcomings of the desk research, for example incomplete information, will be completed by expert knowledge.

All research sub-questions will be incorporated in the interviews, in other words the questions mentioned above as well as the fourth sub-question “Which strategic steps are necessary in order to strengthen and optimize the inland terminal network?” See Appendix N for the specific interview questions. In short, the experts are asked what their vision is on the growth in the container volumes and if there are regions in the Netherlands that will undergo higher growth than others. The experts are also asked how they see the future developments with regard to container transport to and from the hinterland, keeping the modal shift in mind. Thirdly, the role of the logistics concepts is also underlined during the expert interviews. Furthermore, their perception on the future inland terminal network is asked. Whether or not they observe possible capacity bottlenecks and how to cope with these bottlenecks and to what extend improving the current network will lead to a modal shift in

2035 is asked to the experts. And finally, their knowledge will be used to list the factors for success that will be necessary to develop the adapted version of the dynamic adaptive approach for policy making.

In order to be able to answer these questions, several experts will be interviewed in semi-structured interviews. In a semi-structured interview the topics are known beforehand and several key questions are structured according to the researcher’s preferred sequence. The key questions are open questions and during the interview the researcher asks more questions based on the answers of the person that is being interviewed (Baarda, De Goede, & Teunissen, 2005).

To be able to answer the questions, the experts must have knowledge in either the field of inland container transport, hinterland connections and/or policy making. The aim is to approach both scientific experts as well as practitioners from the inland container transport market such as members from Vereniging van Inland Terminal Operators (VITO, English: Association of Inland Terminal Operators) or other organizations

Table 4: List of experts of the expert interviews

Name Company/University Type of interview Date Prof. Dr. Ir. Lori Delft University of Technology and Semi-structured 24-06-2011 Tavasszy TNO telephone Dr. Bart Kuipers Erasmus University Semi-structured 27-06-2011 face-to-face Prof. Dr. Peter de University of Eindhoven and the PoR Semi-structured 29-06-2011 Langen face-to-face Dr. Johan Visser Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid Semi-structured 05-07-2011 (KiM) and OTB Research Institute, face-to-face Delft University of Technology Dhr. Eric Nooijen President of the Association of Inland Semi-structured 14-07-2011 terminal Operators (VITO) and telephone General manager of Osse Overslag Centrale

Scenario analysis Different actor groups, such as CPB, MNP, RPB and PoR, have made different scenarios for the future. Based on the prognoses that they have made for these scenarios regarding future container flows, growth factors were calculated for both the WLO low growth (RC) scenario and high growth (GE) scenario and the PoR low growth (LG) scenario and high growth (GE) scenario. In both cases the growth percentages per year is calculated to and from the forty COROP regions for the three modalities. Based on these expected flows to and from the COROP regions and the current capacity of the terminals in these regions gaps between current capacity and future flows can be identified for the different COROP regions.

Not only the prognoses that these actor groups have made will be analyzed, but also the input factors in order to develop the different scenarios and the models that they have applied. Next to that, another approach to calculate the future modal split is also analyzed. This approach is applied by M. Zhang, a PhD student at the OTB Research Centre in Delft, but is still in the first phase. In this

23 approach a GIS-based network design and optimization model is applied with the container flows of 2008 and transport and transshipment costs.

Based on the analysis of the different input factors and approaches to calculate future container flows, the bandwidth of future flows can be identified. This bandwidth refers to the bandwidth of future container flows, between the low growth scenarios and the high growth scenarios, to and from each COROP region. Furthermore, the expected modal split in these regions can also be estimated. Finally, by also knowing the approximate capacity of the current inland terminal network; basic policies can be developed as an input for the DA approach for policy making. From all of this, recommendations can be made to the PoR how to prepare for the expected container flows. It is important for the PoR not to invest too little or too much.

Note that, the application of different sets of growth factors to calculate the future container flows contributes to the validity of the results, since the bandwidth of the future flows will be applied. Next to that, the analysis of the approach of M. Zhang will also contribute to the validity of the results.

To summarize, the research method, scenario analysis will contribute to answering the sub-questions regarding the possible bottlenecks of the inland terminal network and the strategic steps to be taken in order to realize a possible future inland terminal network.

2.3.2 Constraints and drawbacks There are a lot of studies that have been carried out on the capacity of the inland terminal network and hinterland connections. However, most of these studies are taking the entire captive hinterland of the Port of Rotterdam into account. In other words, most information that is available information is also on terminals that cross the Dutch borders. Nevertheless, the approach of these studies and information from the studies that do focus on the terminal network within the Netherlands will be useful for conducting this research. The challenge will be to filter the information that is relevant for this project, since this topic has been covered a couple of times, but often for a different goal. In order to overcome this challenge the information will be evaluated during the expert interviews. Another constraint refers to limited literature on the relatively new logistics concepts such as synchromodality and container transferium. Again, experts that have been involved in the development of these concepts or have the knowledge on the concepts can be approached.

Additionally, the available statistical data from the CBS can be contaminated. For example, it is not mandatory for terminal operators to provide the CBS with data about their annual container throughput volumes. However, the CBS has average numbers of the annual container throughput volumes of all terminals, which they calculate with their own models. On the other hand, terminal operators publish numbers of their annual volumes on their website, which differ from the numbers of the CBS. Note that the numbers of the operators can also be contaminated. This challenge can be tackled by comparing the data from the CBS and the data from the operators with data that is available within the PoR and data from previous studies. Staff members of the PoR also have insight in what is probably contaminated data and what is not, based on their experience. These staff members will be approached for their knowledge.

Finally, it might also be difficult to contact the right experts and practitioners that are available for the expert interviews. In this case, scientists and lecturers from the Delft University of Technology

24 will be asked to participate. They will almost certainly have the knowledge that is necessary, from a scientific perspective or can refer to the proper sources for the questions. In this highly competitive hinterland transport market, it might also be the case that practitioners are not willing to share their information. The proposition will be made that their information will be handled anonymously.

Despite the constraints and drawbacks, the research can be conducted within the boundaries and scope that have been set in the previous chapter.

2.4 Research design

The five phases of the research projects are explained in this section. These phases are visualized in Figure 4. The first four phases are sequentially with possible feedback loops between the first two phases. The last phase is conducted simultaneously with the four other phases. The phases are visualized below. The tasks that are done in each phase are visualized in more detail in Appendix B.

Phase III: Phase IV: Phase I: Phase II: DA policy Conclusions, Data collection Data analysis framework and recommendations strategic steps and reflection

Phase V: Report

Figure 4: Research phases

Phase I: Data collection The data collection will be done in two ways; by means of desk research and expert interviews. Desk research will be done on the current capacity of the inland terminal network, the background and aims of the logistics concepts that have been previously mentioned and finally the possible bottlenecks of the current network. Next to that there will be desk research and expert interviews on the prognoses made by the government organizations and the PoR with regard to the container flows to and from the COROP regions. Furthermore, desk research is conducted to identify the current flows to and from the COROP regions. Finally, the expert interviews will also be used to find out in what ways future container flows can be accommodated in an efficient way.

Phase II: Data analysis The data which is collected in the first phase is analyzed in the second phase. The analysis focuses on the gaps in the current network, by applying the results of the calculations of future container flows as well as the data from the expert interviews. The calculations of the future container flows are done with the growth percentages per year for the different scenarios; in their turn, the growth percentages per year are calculated based on the prognoses for container flows done by the CPB et. al. and the PoR. At last, the role that the logistics concepts can have in the future network and the

25 necessary success factors for the adapted version of the DA policy framework that will be applied in the third phase will also be analyzed in this phase. In this phase the actors that should be included in the decision making process will also be identified.

Phase III: DA policy framework and strategic steps In the third phase, the DA approach for policy making will be adapted to fit the case of the future inland terminal network. The approach is mostly applied to passenger transport and will be adapted to the case of freight transport to and from the Dutch hinterland. The input for the DA policy framework will include, but is not limited to, the factors necessary for success, policy actions that can be taken and an actor analysis on a regional level. With the DA policy framework as input, several strategic steps that can be taken are identified. External vulnerabilities and opportunities as well as other uncertain factors should always be considered when the steps are carried out. Note that the steps are on a strategic level, which means that in case there is for example a missing terminal in a region, the specific size of the terminal will not be calculated.

Phase IV: Conclusions, recommendations and reflection The conclusions, recommendations and reflection will be made in the fourth phase of the project. The conclusions will include the answers to the main and sub-question and the applicability of the strategic steps to strengthen the inland terminal network. Next to that, the recommendations can include how the PoR can take carry out the strategic steps in order to improve the inland terminal network. Furthermore, the recommendations can also include policy actions with regard to future container transport to and from the Dutch hinterland, which do not include improving the inland terminal network. Finally, reflections will focus more on the obstacles that were encountered during the process of the project and how was dealt with these obstacles.

Phase V: Report The fifth and final phase consists of writing the master thesis and scientific article. It should be noted that this phase will be simultaneously with the other phases.

2.5 Scientific credibility

First of all, the multi-method research approach is one way to assure the scientific credibility of this research project; the use of different ways to gather data and different sources for this data contributes to the validity of the research. Furthermore, the sources that are used during this research are acclaimed sources; many of them are from governmental organizations or they are studies conducted for governmental bodies. In other words, the policy decisions have been made based on the same data that is used in this project.

The calculations of the container flows to and from the COROP regions for the three modalities that are conducted, based on the growth percentages of the WLO and PoR scenarios, will also contribute to the credibility of the research. Based on these calculations the modal split for the COROP regions can be identified. This can contribute to a higher validity than the general modal split for the Netherlands.

2.6 Summary Table 5 presents the summary of chapter 2.

Table 5: Summary of chapter 2

Topic Description Type of research This research is a practice-oriented research with exploratory characteristics; the research aims to provide “knowledge and information that can contribute to a successful intervention in order to change an existing situation” (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). Research methodology Research methods – The approach of this research is a multi-method approach; in other words, more than two research methods are used to gather data and thus to ensure the validity of the research. Three different research methods are applied, namely desk research, expert interviews and scenario analysis.

Constraints and drawbacks – It might be difficult to filter the relevant information from all available data. This will be evaluated during the expert interviews. Furthermore, it is possible that the right experts and practitioners are not available for the expert interviews. To overcome this challenge, scientists and lecturers from the Delft University of Technology will be contacted. Research design There are five main phases during this research: 1. Data collection – through desk research and expert interviews.

2. Data analysis – the quantitative data is analyzed and calculations are done with the growth factors of the WLO and PoR scenarios. In this phase the factors necessary for success for the DA policy framework become clear. Next to that, the actors and stakeholders that are involved in or influenced by the hinterland transport market are identified and analyzed.

3. Design – the DA policy framework is adapted for the container transport market, in particular for the policy on the future inland terminal network.

Topic Description Research design (continued) 4. Conclusions, recommendations and reflection – The conclusions will include the answers to the main and sub-question and the applicability of the strategic steps to strengthen the inland terminal network. The recommendations will include how the PoR can take carry out these strategic steps and what other policy actions can be carried out with regard to future container transport to and from the Dutch hinterland, which do not include improving the inland terminal network. Finally, reflections will focus more on the obstacles that were encountered during the process of the project and how was dealt with these obstacles.

5. Report – the fifth phase is simultaneously with the other phases and includes writing the master thesis for this project as well as the scientific article on synchromodality. Scientific credibility The scientific credibility is assured by applying a multi- method research approach. Next to that, the application of two different sets of growth percentages to calculate the future flows to and from the COROP regions contributes to the credibility of the research.

3 Current inland terminal network 3.1 Introduction

This chapter will present an overview of the current inland terminal network in the Netherlands and the capacity of this network. The inland terminal network does not only include inland terminals, which can be considered as the nodes of the network; it also includes the actors that are directly or indirectly involved and the links that connect the terminals. The network is not complete without the three modes of transport that transport containers to and from the terminals. The advantages and disadvantages of these three modes of transport that are used to transport containers to and from the hinterland are presented in Appendix C. The main infrastructure axes, or the links of the network, are presented and visualized Appendix D. This includes main roads, railways and inland waterways.

The current inland terminal of the Netherlands is presented in the next section. A distinction is made between rail terminals, barge terminals and tri-modal terminals.

The actors that are directly or involved in hinterland transport are presented in section 3.2.

Section 3.3 continues with elaborating on the capacity of the inland terminals.

The container flows to and from the hinterland, transported by road, barge and rail in 2008 are presented in section 3.6

Logistics concepts that will be analyzed in what ways they can have a role in the future network are presented in section 3.7. The background and aim of these concepts are analyzed. The logistics concepts include synchromodality, container transferium, tri-modal terminals and extended gates.

The eight section of this chapter describes the expected bottlenecks and problems that the current network of inland terminals will have in case no improvements are made.

The chapter ends with a summary in section 3.9.

3.2 The inland terminals in the Netherlands

Prior to presenting the inland terminals in the Netherlands, the meaning of inland terminals in this project is presented below in order to avoid any ambiguity.

Inland terminals are used for large volumes of container transport by barge and rail between the main port and the terminals in order to reduce the congestion around the main port and limit the use of space in the main port.

A distinction in terminals is made based on the type of modality; the different terminals and the services that they offer are:

1. Barge terminals Barge services to and from the main port (in the Netherlands this is the Port of Rotterdam and in some cases also to the Port of Amsterdam and the Port of Antwerp) 2. Rail terminals Rail services to and from the main port 3. Barge and rail terminals (also known as tri-modal terminals) a. Barge and rail services to the main port b. Barge services to the main port (maritime flows) and rail services to the European hinterland (continental flows)

Note that the different type of terminals all offer transshipment services for road transport. For this reason the barge terminals and rail terminals are considered to be bi-modal terminals, since they offer either barge and trucking services or rail and trucking services. The terminals for both barge and rail transport are also considered to be tri-modal terminals. A barge terminal, Barge Container Terminal Den Bosch is visualized in Figure 5 and a rail terminal, Rail Service Center Groningen in Veendam, is visualized in Figure 6.

Figure 5: Example of a barge terminal – Barge Container Terminal Den Bosch

Figure 6: Example of a rail terminal – Rail Service Center Groningen

Based on this distinction in terminals, there are 26 barge terminals, 6 rail terminals and 6 tri-modal terminals in the Netherlands. In Appendix F-1 a list of terminals, their location, type of modality and COROP region is presented. Next to that, several terminals are currently being developed and there are plans for other terminals. The list of these terminals is included in Appendix F-2.

The different inland terminals in the Netherlands are visualized in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Inland terminals in the Netherlands – Adapted from Buck Consultants International (2008)

3.3 Actors and stakeholders involved in hinterland transport

There are many different parties (actors and stakeholders) involved in hinterland transport – both public and private parties. In order to improve insight into the field of forces (perceptions, interests, means, etc.) an actor analysis is conducted. By doing this, the chance that important values or risks are forgotten is reduced (Enserink, 2011).

An overview of the most important actors that are involved in the chain of container transport from the sea port to the hinterland is provided in Figure 8. The explanation of these actors and other stakeholders that are not considered to be the most important, but should always be taken into account are presented in Appendix E. Obviously, the same actors are involved in transport in the flow of containers in the opposite direction. The overview is based on the hinterland chains of the three modes of transport and is adapted from De Langen & Van der Horst (2008).

Forwarder ACTORS (Agent) ACTORS IN THE IN THE HINTERLAND SEA PORT Trucking company Deep sea shipping Container Barge Shipper or companies stevedore operator consignee (carriers)

Railway company

Road haulage Terminal Terminal (trucking operator operator company) Rail operator

Waterway Port Customs/ Infrastructure authorities Authority Inspection suppliers

PUBLIC ACTORS

= ACTOR = CONTAINER FLOW

Figure 8: Most important actors involved in the container transport chain

The role and/or tasks of these actors are briefly explained below:

1. Deep sea shipping companies (carriers) – ship owners responsible for enormous incoming and outgoing freight flows in ports (including containers)

2. Container stevedore – responsible for handling and storage of containers at the seaport terminal 3. (Deep sea) Terminal operator – responsible for handling and storage of containers at the deep sea terminal 4. Trucking company, barge operator or railway company – offer transport services from the deep sea terminal to the inland terminal or to the consignee by road, inland waterway or rail. 5. Inland terminal operator – responsible for handling and storage of containers at the inland terminal 6. Shippers – production and trading companies generating freight transport flows 7. Waterway authorities – responsible for safe and efficient handling of shipping traffic 8. Port Authority – manages, operates and develops the port and industrial area 9. Customs / inspection – responsible for supervising and monitoring European laws and regulations on the import, export and transit of goods 10. Infrastructure suppliers – manages and supplies the infrastructure network

3.4 The current capacity of inland terminals

The first step in calculating the capacity of the inland terminals is identifying the terminals that are currently active, which type of terminals these are and also map out in which region they are located. The type of terminals and location of terminals have been identified in section 3.2.

After identifying the currently active terminals, the capacity of the current inland terminal network can be calculated. Before doing so, it is necessary to know the capacity of each terminal. The difficulty with the calculation of the capacity of the terminals however it the fact that there is no right or wrong way to calculate the capacity of a terminal; some terminal operators calculate their capacity based on the annual throughput, others based on the handling capabilities of their cranes. This fact is backed up by the experts during the interviews. In order to avoid any ambiguity, in this report, the capacity of a terminal refers to the approximate maximum throughput capacity of the terminal. In other words, the amount of TEU’s that a terminal can approximately handle per year.

The detailed list of terminals and their capacity is provided in this Appendix G. Different sources6 have been used in order to complete this list and several decisions and assumptions had to be made. These decisions and assumptions are:

1. The capacity of the terminals is rounded off to thousands. 2. The capacity of both inland waterway and rail terminals are taken into account. 3. The sum of the capacity of individual terminals in the same COROP regions is equal to the capacity of that region.

6 The sources include studies conducted by Ecorys (Landelijke capaciteitsanalyse binnenhavens - Nationaal beeld van het netwerk van binnenhavens op basis van actuele prognoses, 2010), Buck Consultants International (Perspectief van het inlandterminal netwerk in relatie tot het containertransferium - Basisrapportatge, 2008) and the websites of the terminals.

4. The capacity of the terminals located the Maasvlakte is not taken into account in the calculation of the capacity of the hinterland.

The capacity of an inland terminal is dependent on several variables such as the area of the terminal, the length of the quay, the amount of cranes, amount of reach stackers, the amount of empty stackers, and the dwell time of the containers. For rail terminals, the amount of tracks and the length of the tracks also have to be considered. The capacity of several terminals was unknown. In order to cope with this, terminals of which the above mentioned variables are known are used to estimate the capacity of the terminals of which the capacity was unknown. The estimations were done in different ways, in order to make them as accurate as possible. First of all, the relation between the terminal area and terminal capacity is in general at least 20.000 TEU per ha (10.000 m²). In some cases this can range to 30.000 – 40.000 TEU’s, depended on the number and type of cranes and the length of quay.

The capacity of the network is approximately 4.700.000 TEU per year. This means that all the inland terminals in the Netherlands can have a throughput of 4.700.000 TEU per year, when all assumptions and estimations are taken into account.

The study “Perspectief van inland terminals in relatie tot het container transferium” from 2008 showed that the capacity of the inland terminals that are members of the VITO (Vereniging van Inland Terminal Operators, English: Association of Dutch Inland Terminal Operators) was approximately 2.500.000 TEU (VITO, 2008). Note that the terminals in Moerdijk, Rotterdam and Amsterdam were excluded from this capacity. The expectation then was that the capacity would grow to 3.100.000 TEU in 2010. Compared to this, the calculated 4.700.000 TEU that has been calculated in this research seems overestimated. However, when the capacity of Moerdijk and Amsterdam (1.000.000 TEU) is excluded, then the capacity would be 3.700.000 TEU. At the same time, the quick win regulation for inland terminals, the planned investments to expand several inland terminals and the terminals that started operating in Alphen aan den Rijn and Venlo in 2010 were not included in the prognoses that were made in the previously mentioned study. Based on this, the calculation that has been done in this project is realistic.

When the capacity that has been calculated is translated to the COROP regions, the distribution of the capacity in 2011 is similar to Figure 9. The regions with zeros (0) are regions where there are no rail nor inland terminals located. For example Flevoland has a 0; this does not mean that there are no containers transported to and from Flevoland, is means that there are no containers transported by barge or rail to and from Flevoland. Furthermore, the amount of TEU’s in each region should be multiplied by 1000.

110 150 200 0 0 20 45 0 60 130 114 0 20 0 0 600 0 430 0 0 0 0 200 200 0 140 0 40 80 0 370 140 695 250 65 400 105 0

420

Figure 9: Capacity of inland terminal network distributed in the COROP regions in 2011

3.5 The container flows between the Port of Rotterdam and the COROP regions in 2008

The container flows that are presented in this section are the flows from the Port of Rotterdam to the hinterland and vice versa by road, barge and rail transport. The data that is used is from 2008, because in 2009 the Port of Rotterdam was suffering from the global financial crisis. Because of this, the container throughput was far less than it is in general. Note that CBS has no information on container flows transported by rail transport, since this data is not made public by rail transport companies. However, limited information on these flows is available from Rail Cargo Information Netherlands.

The following decisions were made when calculating the total flow of containers:

1. CBS makes a distinction between transport companies that carry out road transport services and individual truck drivers that offer the same services. The container flows done by road is a sum of these two types of road transport. 2. The flows of which both the origin and destination are Rotterdam are not taken into account. Thus for the COROP region Rijnmond, the container flows are to and from the traffic regions Overig Groot-Rijnmond, Rijnmond and Vlaardingen. 3. Corrections have been made to the container flows done by barge transport based on other studies that have published the flows and expert judgements of staff members of the PoR7. The numbers have also been rounded off to thousands for barge transport.

7 The experts include A. Korteweg, M. van Schuylenburg, D. Baan and N. van den Ende

4. Corrections have been made to the container flows to and from the different COROP regions that have the Port of Antwerp as their origin. These flows are excluded from the flows between the Port of Rotterdam and the COROP regions. The flows from the Port of Antwerp to the Port of Rotterdam (South-Holland) are not taken into account in these corrections. For a step by step explanation on how these corrections have been done, see Appendix J.

Taking these decisions into account, the calculation of the total flow of containers to and from the COROP regions resulted in 3.861.000 TEU in 2008. The modal split of the container flows is presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Modal split total container flows between PoR and COROP regions 2008

Road (TEU) Barge (TEU) Rail (TEU) Total (TEU) 2.523.000 892.000 446.000 3.861.000 Source: CBS (2009) and RailCargo (2010)

As stated earlier, the choice has been made to apply COROP regions for this research. However, the CBS uses traffic regions in its data; for this reasons the traffic regions are coupled to COROP regions. The list of these regions can be found in Appendix A-2. Furthermore, the more accurate container flows for each modality in 2008 can be found in Appendix I. The decision was made to round off the amount of TEU’s of container flows in the picture to thousands.

Figure 10 presents the containers transported by barge between the Port of Rotterdam and the COROP in 2008. Figure 11 presents the containers transported by rail between the Port of Rotterdam and the COROP regions in 2008. In both figures, the numbers visualized in the regions are the amount of TEU’s (x 1000).

10 0 35 122 15 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 55 0 39 0 13 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 52 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0

150 0 95 59 0 10 29 0 52 0 27 132 30 0 0 0

89 32

Figure 10: Container flows to and from COROP regions Figure 11: Container flows to and from COROP regions transported by barge in 2008 transported by rail in 2008

Figure 12 presents the containers transported by rail and barge between the PoR and the COROP regions in 2008. While, Figure 13 presents the total flow of containers between the PoR and the COROP regions in 2008. The numbers visualized in the regions are the amount of TEU’s, rounded off to thousands that were transported to and from that region by the three modalities. In both figures the numbers visualized in the regions are the amount of TEU’s (x 1000).

10 17 176 80 157 97 0 12 0 4 0 0 6 13 18 45 0 0 7 94 29 101 13 29 0 12 9 46 0 79 54 0 5 55 0 52 203 13 115 9 0 0 15 85 140 305 0 0 68 0 25 83 52 0 0 67 123 0 0 460 204 79

150 200 95 88 332 142 10 184 31 240 27 83 30 34 0 15

121 147

Figure 12: Container flows to and from COROP regions Figure 13: Total container flows to and from COROP transported by barge and rail in 2008 regions in 2008

3.6 Logistics concepts

There are currently four logistics concepts that might be able to contribute to the modal shift on the one hand and to accommodating hinterland container transport in an efficient and sustainable way on the other hand are being considered. Some background information and the aim of these concepts are presented in this section.

In the last couple of years, different logistics concepts have been developed and applied in order to shift container transport to barge and rail instead of road. Two examples of such concepts are AMSbarge (Amsterdam Barge Shuttle) and Barge Planning platform Hartelhaven (Kolkman, 2009). However, there have also been some concepts that have failed; Barge Express and Hinterlink: Lumpensammler are examples of two concepts that have failed (Kolkman, 2009).

The concepts that will be analyzed in this section are: synchromodality, container transferium, tri- modal terminals and extended gates.

Before analyzing these concepts, different possible transport networks will also be presented. The reason for doing this is because transport networks can also be considered to be logistics concepts.

3.6.1 Transport network models As mentioned in the scope of the research, the network model that is being applied in this project is the point-to-point transport network model. Other network models that can be applied in the hinterland transport market and can possible contribute to the modal shift as well are the hub-and- spoke network model, the satellite network model and the circle line network model. In all these models cooperation between different inland terminal operators is important.

In a hub-and-spoke network, the container flows are transported between the hub (a large terminal in a region for example) and the Port of Rotterdam. From the hub, the flows are distributed to different (smaller) terminals in the region. The same applies for the opposite direction. Just as the inland terminals, the hub is also located in the hinterland. Figure 14 visualizes a hub-and-spoke network. Brabant Intermodal B.V. is the collaboration between four terminals8 located in Noord- Brabant that will use the terminals in Moerdijk as their hub.

Terminal Terminal

Terminal Port of Rotterdam Hub

Terminal Terminal Terminal

Figure 14: Hub-and-spoke network model

Another possible transport network is the satellite network. This network can somewhat be compared to the hub-and-spoke network. However, in the satellite network model, the satellite is located near the Port of Rotterdam and frequent barge shuttles between this satellite and the port transport the containers. The advantage of this model is the fact that the barges from the hinterland do not have to call at the sea terminals in the Port of Rotterdam. The container transferium, which is presented in section 3.6.3 is based on this transport model. Figure 15 visualizes the satellite network model.

Terminal Terminal

Satellite Port of Rotterdam

Terminal

Figure 15: Satellite network model

Finally, in the circle line model the container flows are collected from and/or distributed among different inland terminals. This model can particularly be applied to smaller terminals. The advantage is that the number of barges that are not fully loaded will decrease, since containers will be collected

8 The four terminals include Oosterhout Container Terminal (OCT), Barge Terminal Tilburg (BTT), Regionaal Overslag Centrum Waalwijk B.V. (ROC) and Inland Terminal Veghel B.V. (ITV).

38 from and/or distributed among several terminals. In a project that has been conducted in Amsterdam, it proved that this model can contribute to the modal shift on a small scale (Hes, 2007). Figure 16 visualizes the circle line model.

Terminal Terminal Terminal Port of Rotterdam

Terminal Terminal Terminal

Figure 16: Circle line network model

3.6.2 Synchromodality The core of synchromodal transportation is a better match between transport volumes and modalities in order to utilize unused capacity and as a result transport volumes can grow with fewer costs for and negative effects on the environment.

In their report “Implementatieroadmap synchromodaliteit” Gorris et. al. (2011) define synchromodality as follows:

“Synchromodality occurs when the supply of services between different modalities is tailored to a coherent transport product, which meets the transport demand of shippers at any moment in terms of price, timeliness, reliability and/or sustainability. This coordination involves both the planning of services, the performance of services and information about services”.

The main characteristics of synchromodal transportation are (Gorris, et al., 2011):

1. Cargo and destination are no longer fixed to one single mode of transport: the available capacity of transport and infrastructure and the nature of cargo jointly determine the choice for road, water, air or rail.

2. Growth in trade in this system leads to improved accessibility and sustainability as the industry itself will make greater use of water and rail transport as volume grows.

3. New control centres with high quality employment possibilities provide possibilities to bring together the flows of goods, synchronize the services and coordinate transport modes.

For the sake of clarity, the distinction between synchromodal transport and intermodal transport is as follows: Intermodal transport is moving goods in one and the same loading unit from origin to destination with two or more modes of transport without handling the goods themselves in changing modes. On the other hand, with synchromodal transport one can choose between the different modes of transport based on the current situation (low water level, urgent load, etc. based on real- time traffic and transportation information).

The picture below, adapted from Topsector Logistiek (2011), provides a good view of how synchromodality should look like: the synchronization of the three modes of transport.

Figure 17: Synchromodality - synchronization of the three modes of transport – source (Topteam Logistiek, 2011)

For synchromodality to be successful, it is important that all stakeholders in the transport chain are willing to share information with each other. For more information on the roadmap of synchromodality, one can read the “Implementatie roadmap synchromodaliteit” of Gorris et al. (2011).

3.6.3 Container transferium According to the PoR, “the basic idea behind a container transferium is to bring together container flows which are currently transported by road and to transport these by inland vessel between the sea terminals on the Maasvlakte and a hub terminal in the port of Rotterdam’s immediate hinterland. As a result, trucks will no longer need to travel right across the port and industrial area on the A15” (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011). In other words a container transferium is an inland terminal for the transhipment of containers just outside the port area (Warffemius & Francke, 2010).

The first container transferium will be located approximately 50 km east of the Port of Rotterdam in Nieuwland-Alblasserdam (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2009). The concept of the container transferium is comparable with the satellite transport network. On and around the CT there will be space for additional services such as empty depots and distribution centres. Furthermore, customs and other government agencies can effectively manage their inspection work on the CT complex. The anticipated ongoing capacity shortage at the sea terminals can be solved with the CT.

In short, the CT will offer four main products: truck-barge transhipment, barge-barge transhipment, empty depot and long-stay/storage. This is visualized in the artist impression below.

Figure 18: Artist impression of the container transferium Alblasserdam – source (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2009)

Even though there are many advantages for having a transferium in Alblasserdam, the PoR is aware that shifting 200.000 TEU from the A15 to inland waterway is quite limited in comparison to the expected container flow of 35 million TEU annually from the Maasvlakte. Next to that, terminal operators such as ECT and APMT, which have the biggest volume of containers, use their own network and next to that can also make use of the CT. Finally, road transport will remain one of the cheapest modes of transport; only customers willing to pay for reliability will use the CT.

3.6.4 Tri-modal terminals Trimodal inland nodes are designed to handle cargo between three modes: rail, barge and trucks. Important to underline is that trimodal terminal configurations do not necessarily shift cargo between all transport mode pairs. In Europe, for example, trimodal terminals handle a lot of cargo between the combinations barge-truck and rail-truck, but far less cargo is being shifted from barge to rail or vice versa (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2009).

Currently, there are approximately 7 tri-modal terminals in the Netherlands, namely in Venlo, Born, Stein, Oss, Tilburg, Veendam and Moerdijk. Note that tri-modal terminals can be classified in three different ways:

1. Rail and inland waterway infrastructure with limited services 2. Rail and inland waterway shuttle services to the port of Rotterdam 3. Rail services for continental (European) destinations and inland waterway services to the sea port

A tri-modal terminal, namely Barge and Rail terminal Born, is visualized in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Example of a tri-modal terminal – Barge and Rail Terminal Born

3.6.5 Extended gates The Extended Gate concept of ECT is a connection from ECT’s sea terminals to selected inland locations; it consists of document free, frequent and reliable transport between the sea and inland terminals (Tavasszy, Van der Lugt, Janssen, & Hagdom - Van der Meijden, 2010). In the Netherlands, the terminals in Moerdijk, Amsterdam and Venlo are within this network of extended gates of ECT. The picture below presents the ECT network of extended gates in Europe.

Figure 20: ECT network of extended gates in Europe – source www.europeangatewayservices.com

Next to ECT, APM Terminals Rotterdam also introduced extended gate access for containers to and from the Dutch and European hinterland at the Moerdijk Harbor (APM Terminals, 2011). APM Terminals’ customers are able to deliver their Rotterdam cargoes at the extended gate in Moerdijk where a depot is located. A shuttle service will be operated between the extended gate and the APM Terminals Rotterdam facility in the Maasvlakte by barge, avoiding road transportation on the A15. According APM Terminals (2011), the container transshipment service will receive preferential treatment at both terminals, including priority scheduling, and transport rates and storage costs can be potentially reduced as storage costs in Moerdijk are lower than they are at Maasvlakte. It will also be possible to deliver containers to the depot more than eight days ahead of cut-off times.

In general the concept of extended gates requires major changes with regard to the management of hinterland transport as well as the development of intelligent control of the hinterland network so that intermodal transport solutions can be organized and supported (Tavasszy, Van der Lugt, Janssen, & Hagdom - Van der Meijden, 2010). This concept can directly contribute to the modal split targets that the PoR has for 2035. Note that these concepts that are being developed by commercial organizations such as ECT and APM Terminals are competitors of the Container Transferium Alblasserdam of the PoR.

3.7 Summary The summary of chapter 3 is presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Summary of chapter 3

Topic Description Actors and stakeholders in the inland There are three main groups of actors, namely: terminal network 1. Actors in the sea port such as deep sea carriers, terminal operators and container stevedores. 2. Actors in the hinterland such as trucking companies, barge operators, railway companies and inland terminal operators. 3. Public actors such as waterway authorities, customs, port authorities and infrastructure managers. Current capacity of the inland The capacity of the network is approximately 4.700.000 terminal network TEU per year. This means that all the inland terminals in the Netherlands can currently have a throughput of 4.700.000 TEU per year. The following has been taken into account during the calculation of the capacity: 1. The capacity of the terminals is rounded off to thousands. 2. The capacity of the road network is not taken in to account, only the capacity of both inland waterway and rail terminals. 3. The sum of the capacity of individual terminals in the same COROP regions is equal to the capacity of that region. 4. The capacity of the terminals located the Maasvlakte is not taken into account in the calculation of the capacity of the hinterland.

Topic Description Container flows The total container flows from the Port of Rotterdam to the different COROP regions and vice versa was 3.861.000 TEU in 2008. For the three modalities the flows was as follows: 1. Road – 2.523.000 TEU 2. Barge – 892.000 TEU 3. Rail – 446.000 TEU Logistics concepts Transport network models that have been briefly presented are the hub-and-spoke, satellite and circle line transport models. These models can also be considered to be logistics concepts, but are not analyzed in depth. In this project, the point-to-point network model is applied. Furthermore, the logistics concepts that have been analyzed and evaluated are synchromodality, the container transferium in Alblasserdam, tri-modal terminals and the extended gates concept. It has become clear that each of these concepts has their own strengths and cannot be compared with each other in the sense that one is better than the other. Note that synchromodality is the only “orgware” concept, while the three other concepts require changes in / development of hardware (infrastructure).

4 Prognoses container flows 4.1 Introduction

The future is, without a doubt, uncertain. For this reason it is important to take uncertainties and unexpected developments into account. This is often done with scenarios. Scenarios provide different plausible views of the future. Decision makers, both from governmental organizations and private organizations, have been using scenarios as a useful strategic approach to take future uncertainties into account during decision making processes. According to Mahmoud et. al. (2009) scenarios are usually used “in the context of planning over long time horizons or short-decisions that have long-term consequences”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses the following definition for scenarios (IPCC, 2011): ‘‘A scenario is a coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can unfold.’’ This definition can be widely applied to other fields.

The four scenarios that have been developed by the CPB, MNP and RPB as well as the four scenarios that have been developed by the PoR are analyzed and briefly explained in section 4.2. An additional approach to calculate prognoses for future container flows is also presented and analyzed in this section. At the end of the section, the different approaches are compared and a decision is made which scenarios will be applied in order to calculate future containers flows and in a later phase identify possible gaps.

In section 4.3 the prognoses for the container flows for each modality to and from the COROP regions is calculated for the RC and GE scenario based on the growth factors calculated for these WLO scenarios.

In the fourth section, the prognoses for the container flows for each modality to and from the COROP regions are calculated for the PoR LG and GE scenario. The calculation of the prognoses is executed with the growth factors that have been calculated for each modality.

Since it is not possible to predict the one static state of the future, the bandwidth of container flows based on both prognoses (WLO and PoR) for the low growth and high growth scenarios is presented in section 4.5. Since the prognoses are calculated with two different sets of growth factors, the bandwidth of the container flows can be considered to be a plausible starting point for long term explorations.

In section 4.6 the desired modal split of 2035 is applied to the bandwidth of prognoses for container flows. By doing this, the measures that the PoR should take in order to realize this desired modal split can be identified.

Finally, chapter 4 is summarized in section 4.7.

4.2 Future scenarios

There are different ways to develop future scenarios; there is a wide range of factors and uncertainties that can be taken into account as well as different models and tools to calculate quantitative data.

In this section the WLO scenarios built by the CPB, MNP and RPB and the scenarios built by the PoR will be briefly analyzed. In this analysis, the factors and uncertainties that were taken into account while developing the scenarios as well as the model that was used are considered. The analysis is done in order to compare these scenarios with each other; both the WLO and the PoR have developed similar scenarios with prognoses for the future container flows, but these prognoses are in some cases different. First the WLO scenarios are analyzed and described, followed by the scenarios that were developed by the PoR.

Furthermore, an approach which is applied by M. Zhang, a PhD student at the OTB Research Centre in Delft is also analyzed. In this approach the PoR scenarios are used and the general growth percentages, which are not specified for the three modalities, are the input to calculate possible future modal splits for the regions.

4.2.1. The WLO scenarios

In 2003 the European Commission published “Four futures of Europe”, a study of four different scenarios on a European level. Based on this study, Dutch organizations have developed four scenarios for the Netherlands in 2040. These scenarios are the WLO (Welfare and Physical Surroundings) scenarios and have been developed by the CPB, MNP and RPB in 2006.

The WLO scenarios are developed around two key uncertainties (Janssen, Okker, & Schuur, 2006):

1. The extent to which countries are willing and able to cooperate internationally 2. The division between public and private responsibilities: more or less control by the government

Other important factors for the development of the WLO scenarios are population growth, including immigration and economic growth.

The WLO scenarios9 are briefly described below (Janssen, Okker, & Schuur, 2006): 1. Global Economy (GE) scenario – high economic growth and high levels of international trade. The European Union expands towards the east; countries such as Turkey and Ukraine will be members of the Union. 2. Strong Europe (SE) scenario – Europe is an influential player in the economic and political world stage. There is a lot of attention for international cooperation between countries. European institutions are successfully reformed and countries give up some of their

9 For a complete description of the WLO scenarios visit the website: www.welvaartenleefomgeving.nl

sovereignty. The economic growth is higher than in the Regional Communities scenario (explained below). 3. Transatlantic Market (TM) scenario – the extension of the European Union is not a political success; European countries solve their problems on a national level. On the other hand, trade between the United States and Europe is liberalized extensively. The economic growth is higher than in the SE scenario. 4. Regional Communities (RC) scenario – moderate economic growth and international trade liberalization will not take off. Countries value their own sovereignty which is why the European Union fails to implement institutional reforms.

The scenarios are developed for eight themes; (1) living / housing, (2) employment, (3) transport and mobility, (4) agriculture, (5) energy, (6) environment, (7) nature and (8) flood protection.

For this research project, a more in depth look has been taken into the theme mobility. Container transport is part of the theme mobility and the WLO scenarios have been adapted for container transport in 2006 in the CPB Memorandum (CPB, 2006). Important factors for mobility are international economic development, international trade, the Dutch gross domestic product (GDP)10, oil price and new technologies (improving efficiency and scale sizes). Furthermore, factors that can be used to some extent by the government or other parties to influence the development of mobility are spatial planning, provision of infrastructure and public transport, safety, environment (climate policy, environment policy), costs and prices and the market.

With regard to the models that were used in order to make prognoses for future container volumes, the economic characteristics of the scenarios were translated into freight transport by using the SMILE+ model. The most important starting points for international trade were determined by the CPB in consultation with the Port of Rotterdam Authority. In some cases manual corrections were done to the calculations of the model (Janssen, Okker, & Schuur, 2006). For a summarized overview of the coherence between the different models and approaches that were applied for the development of the WLO scenarios see Appendix K.

4.2.2. Scenarios developed by the Port of Rotteram Authority

Three of the WLO scenarios have been slightly adapted and prognoses of container throughput have been calculated and incorporated by the PoR. The prognoses have been calculated by TNO for the PoR with the TRANSTOOLS model.

TRANSTOOLS ("TOOLS for TRansport Forecasting ANd Scenario testing") is a European transport network model covering passenger and freight, as well as intermodal transport. It combines advanced modeling techniques in transport generation and assignment, economic activity, trade, logistics, regional development and environmental impacts (European Commission, JRC IPTS, 2008).

10 According to Investor Words, the gross domestic product (GDP) refers to “the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports” (2011).

By applying TRANSTOOLS to the container market segment, TNO has estimated potential container flows for the vision years 2020, 2030 and 2040. As a next step, the model output was checked against specific market knowledge within the Port of Rotterdam Authority. Based on this expert judgment, changes and additions were made where necessary. The changes and additions were based on (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2010):

1. the exploitation of the Betuweroute, 2. the Maasvlakte 2 and its new container terminals that will be operational, and 3. shifts in type of goods that will be transported by containers (the Netherlands will change from a producing country to a transit country; establishment of European Distribution Centers – EDC)

The final prognoses are thus a mix of model results (TRANSTOOLS) and estimations made by the PoR. With regard to the years between the three vision years, the assumption is made that the growth will be constant (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2010). The base year of these calculations was 2008 and the economic crisis has been taken into account. The experts took the development of the Maasvlakte 2 and the realization of new container terminals here, are also into account, since the Maasvlakte 2 is not yet included in the TRANSTOOLS model (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2010).

Note that the input factors and uncertainties are similar to those of the WLO scenarios, since the WLO scenarios were used as input for the PoR scenarios. The main difference between these two sets of scenarios is that the PoR has applied the TRANSTOOLS model and in addition made own estimations and assumptions. It was necessary to make estimations and assumptions since TRANSTOOLS cannot sufficiently deal with market developments such as the construction of the Maasvlakte 2. Furthermore, the experts have also taken the Betuweroute and the expected development of technology with regard to mega deep sea container vessels, which will assumingly lead to an increase in container volumes to and from the hinterland (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2010).

Although, the estimates are based on economic growth of different sectors, including the container market segment, they provide no information on the development of production capacity in certain sectors. The potency estimates for the container market segment are calculated by first estimating the development of freight volumes in the Hamburg-Le Havre range, followed by estimating Rotterdam's market share in this. (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2010).

While developing the first three scenarios, the PoR has made a deliberate choice not to develop extreme scenarios. Afterwards, the PoR felt the need to increase the bandwidth, and thus developed a fourth scenario with low economic growth as an opposite of the Global Economy scenario. The translation of the low growth scenario for container volumes was done in a similar manner as in the first three scenarios. The base year for these calculations is again 2008 and the economic crisis has also been taken into account the same way as the other three scenarios (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2010).

As a result, the four PoR scenarios are (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2011): 1. Global Economy (GE) scenario – similar to the GE scenario that is described in the WLO scenarios above. Trade patterns will change; Asia will become an important trade partner of Europe. 2. European Trend (ET) scenario – developed by the European Commission. This is a scenario of moderate economic growth and is widely used by European projects. It is based on existing and for the future known policies. Furthermore, the oil price will slightly increase in this scenario 3. High Oil Price (HOP) scenario – because of suddenly increasing oil prices in a short period of time, a rapid transformation to a sustainable economy can be realized. The economic growth can be compared with the ET scenario. 4. Low growth (LG) scenario – developed by the PoR as opposite of the GE scenario, and is characterized by low economic growth. It can be compared with the RC scenario that has been developed by the CPB et. al. in 2006.

4.2.3. Additional approach to calculate prognoses container flows

Next to the scenarios of the CPB et. al. and the PoR, there are several other organizations, such as the Port of Antwerp and Ocean Shipping Consultants, which have made prognoses for the growth in container throughput. Warffemius and Francke (2010) present an overview of the average annual growth that these organizations apply in order to be prepared for the future. Noticeably, the average annual growth range from approximately 3% to 11%; this emphasizes the how uncertain the future is. Again, the factors and assumptions that were used to come to these growth percentages differ.

In this report the different approaches that were applied are not studied in detail. One approach that is analyzed is the approach of Zhang (2011) the application of a GIS-based network design and optimization model. In this approach the future modal split is calculated based on the known container flows of 2008 and the prognoses of the future flow. These prognoses are calculated with general growth factors of the PoR. The growth percentages are not specified for each modality, and are presented in Table 8.

Table 8: General growth percentages PoR 2030

Year LG scenario (%) GE scenario (%) 2008 - 2020 3,3 6,3 2021 - 2030 1,9 3,8 Source: Port of Rotterdam Authority (2011)

After the flows to and from the COROP regions were known, the future modal split in these regions could be calculated. In order to calculate this future modal split in the COROP regions for the two scenarios, the following input was also required:

1. transhipment costs at the terminals 2. transport costs of the three modalities from the port of Rotterdam to the COROP regions 3. the distance between the port of Rotterdam and the COROP regions

Market sensitive information on transhipment costs of the different terminals is not publicly available. For this reason, a few assumptions had to be made based on several sources such as Decisio (2002), NEA (2003) and De Jong et. al. (2004). These sources all mention that the transhipment costs are on average between €20 and €30 for each container. The type of crane is not specified in these average costs. Based on this, Zhang (2011) assumes that the average transshipment cost is 12.93 euro per TEU per movement, and thus 25.86 euro per TEU per transshipment.

With regard to the transport costs, these are in terms of TEU-km of road and calibrated within predefined ranges (Zhang, 2011). The assumption is made that in case the costs change over time, the differences in costs for the use of the different modes of transport will have the same ratio as they currently have.

Finally, with regard to the distance between the Port of Rotterdam and the different COROP regions and their terminals, GEO map layers including rail, road and inland waterway which were modified by Zhang (2011) were applied.

Following the above assumptions and decisions, the GIS- based network design and optimization model could be applied. Table 9 presents the input that was necessary for the model.

Table 9: Input necessary for the GIS-based network design and optimization model

Input Source and remarks Geo map layers incl. rail, road, and inland JRC Transtools (JRC IPTS, 2005) modified by M. waterway (iww) Zhang (2011), and projected to WGS84 system Region division NUTS1/2/3 The Netherlands is divided into NUTS1/2/3 regions. For this model the NUTS 3 regions where used. These regions are similar to the COROP regions. See Appendix A-3 for the link between the NUTS 3 regions and the COROP regions (Eurostat, 2010). Terminal coordinators Railcargo (2009) Multimodal transport network This network was developed by M. Zhang Cost data Estimated by M. Zhang based on De Jong et. al. (2004), NEA (2003), Black et al. (2003) and Decisio (2002) Speed data Estimated by the author based on De Jong et. al. (2004), NEA (2003), Black et al. (2003) and Decisio (2002) Origin – destination (O/D) matrices Provided by the author of this thesis Source: Zhang (2011)

With the input and the network as it is visualized in Figure 21, the calculations could be executed. The aim of these calculations is to estimate the future modal split in each COROP region based on the prognoses of the container flows calculated with the growth factors of the PoR. The network that is used in the model is designed for this project and includes the domestic roads, rails, inland

50 waterways and inland terminals. The origins and destinations (O/D’s) are represented by centroids, also known as nodes, while the network is represented in a super network method with star- structure transhipment representation. This means that there is no transport between the inland terminals itself but between the inland terminals on the one hand and the port of Rotterdam on the other hand and vice versa.

Road

Rail

Terminal Inland waterway

Figure 21: Network used in the GIS-based network design and optimization model

Based on the calculations done with this GIS-based model, the general modal split in 2030 for the two PoR scenarios – low growth and high growth – is as it is presented inTable 10.

Table 10: Future modal split calculated with GIS-based network design and optimization model

Road transport (%) Rail transport (%) Barge transport (%) Low growth scenario 65 7 28 Global Economy scenario 62 8 30

4.2.4. Reflection on approaches to calculate prognoses container flows

Now that it is stated and presented that there are different approaches and models to develop scenarios with prognoses for future container volumes, it is necessary to reflect on these approaches and decide which prognoses to use in this project.

First of all, the WLO scenarios are developed by trusted national organizations and are currently used by the government and private and public organizations for policy making and strategic decisions. The fact that there different models were applied for estimating the future container flows within the Mobility theme, makes the estimations robust enough to take on for this project. Furthermore, Warffemius and Francke (2010) conclude that the bandwidth between the WLO RC and GE scenario for the future container flows is a plausible starting point for robust long term explorations. However, this does not mean that the future container flows will certainly be within this bandwidth. For this reason, the decision is made to not only use the prognoses based on the WLO growth percentages per year, but also apply those of the PoR scenarios to calculate the future container flows. The application of these two sets of growth factors will contribute to the plausibility of the expected flows, because the WLO scenarios and the PoR scenarios take similar factors and uncertainties into account, but the growth percentages per year differ somewhat. Furthermore, the PoR has contributed to the Mobility theme of the WLO scenarios of the CPB et. al. and the PoR scenarios in their turn are based on the WLO scenarios. The two sets of scenarios are thus in a way

51 intertwined with each other. Finally, the decision to also take the PoR prognoses into account is also because the PoR commissioned this project.

With regard to the approach applied by Zhang (2011), the decision was made to exclude this from this project. The main reasons for this decision were: 1. The terminals that were used in this approach do not consider all existing container terminals in the Netherlands 2. Several (dry) bulk terminals (such as ROC Maastricht and ROC Roermond, Kalle en Bakker) were taken into account in this approach 3. Several terminals that are not operational anymore (such as Den Ouden Regional Overslag Centrum) and terminals that are planned to be developed (such as ROC Haven Gennep BV) were taken into account in this approach 4. Terminals located in Rotterdam and/or the Maasvlakte (such as ECT Delta terminal and ECT Euromax terminal) are taken into account, while in the decision was previously made to exclude these terminals. 5. The approach incorporates transport costs for each modality and transshipment costs at the terminals; however, the assumption that the costs will be similar as they are nowadays and not taking oil prices into account makes the approach less credible. Costs developments are in any case uncertain, since they are sensitive to many other uncertain external factors such as oil prices and international trade which leads to freight volumes.

Due to the reasons mentioned above, the results from this approach present a biased representation of the reality and are thus not usable for this project. Because of limited available time, it was not possible to correct and change the terminal list in the GIS-based network design and optimization model. Next to that, this approach would be useful if the prognoses of the WLO or PoR scenarios were not specified for each modality.

Note that the approach itself is not a wrong approach; if the accurate terminals were taken into account and the assumptions of the transport and transshipment costs are accepted, then this approach can provide useful results. The fact that the flow estimations on each infrastructural link (road, rail and inland waterway) can be calculated and visualized is a positive feature of the approach, since the infrastructural bottlenecks can be identified in this manner.

The main difference between the three approaches is the fact that the CPB et. al. and the PoR have developed scenarios in which prognoses for future container volumes for each modality are estimated, by applying different methods. While, the approach of Zhang is a method to estimate future container flows for each modality based on the general growth percentages of the PoR. In other words, Zhang (2011) did not develop scenarios or estimated growth percentages for each scenario; the scenarios were given as well as the estimations for the container flows to and from the COROP regions.

When considering these three methods, there is no right or wrong way to estimate the prognoses for future container flows. It is more important that the input data that is used to conduct the calculations is the correct data. All the tools and models that are applied to estimate the prognoses lead to useful guidelines, but the future will remain unpredictable. For this reason and the reasons

52 mentioned why not to apply the method of Zhang, the decision is made to apply the prognoses made by the CPB in the WLO scenarios and those of the PoR in its scenarios. The focus is specifically on the low growth and high growth scenarios. It should be noted that the assumption is made that the growth percentages per year for each COROP region is conform the national growth percentages.

To summarize, the input for calculating the prognoses in flows to and from the COROP region for each modality in 2030 in both the WLO and the PoR low growth and high growth scenarios, was: 1. The known estimated flows in 2008 for each modality to and from these regions 2. The national growth percentages per year calculated for 2020 and 2030 for the WLO scenarios and the growth percentages of the PoR for the low growth and high growth scenarios

4.3 Prognoses container flows WLO Regional Community and Global Economy scenarios

As presented above, there are four WLO scenarios that have been developed by CPB, MNP and RPB in 2006. These scenarios take a range of factors such as demographics and economic growth into account. In a memorandum of December 2006, the CPB adjusted these scenarios for the container transport market (CPB, 2006). Although these scenarios are developed on a national level, an important assumption that is made is the fact that the expected growth is similar on a regional level and for each COROP region. Next to that, there are growth factors for each modality with regard to hinterland transport. The growth factors are divided into growth until 2020 and from 2020 until 2040. Since the growth factors are measured by percentages per year, the growth factor that is used to calculate the container flows in 2030 is the same as the one that is presented for 2020 – 2040.

The following formula was applied in order to calculate the growth percentage in 2020:

⁄

( ⁄ )

With regard to the growth percentage in 2030, the following formula was applied:

⁄

( ⁄ )

Table 11 presents the growth factors for each modality for both the RC as well as the GE scenario (CPB, 2006). The growth factors for the other WLO scenarios can be found in Appendix L-1.

Table 11: Growth per year percentages WLO scenarios

Modality – Growth / year (%) Year Road RC scenario GE scenario 2002 – 2020 2,8 6,0 2021 – 2040 0,8 4,3

Inland waterway RC scenario GE scenario 2002 – 2020 2,4 5,7 2021 – 2040 0,6 4,1

Rail RC scenario GE scenario 2002 – 2020 3,0 7,4 2021 – 2040 1,0 4,5 Source: CPB et. al. (2006)

The two steps that were taken to calculate the future flows for both scenarios were:

1. The growth percentages until 2020 were applied to the known container flows of 2008 in order to calculate the flows in 2020. The following formula was applied:

*( ) ( ) +

2. The flows for 2030 were calculated with the growth percentage until 2040 and the flows of 2020 that were calculated in the first step. The calculation of the expected flows in 2030 was done with the following formula:

*( ) ( ) +

Figure 22 visualizes the approximate total flow of containers in 2030 in the RC scenario, while Figure 23 visualizes the approximate flows in 2030 in the GE scenario. These flows include road, rail and inland waterway transport to and from the regions. The numbers in the regions visualized in the figures represent amount of TEU’s to and from those regions rounded off to thousands. See Appendix L-2 and Appendix L-4 for a more detailed and overview of these flows.

24 49 269 337 609 149 19 37 17 39 11 8 19 6 66 135 23 44 44 149 11 88 90 325 18 69 36 120 141 82 242 167 8 17 614 41 343 302 20 168 258 22 127 45 212 126 429 254 38 455 78 77 924 159 180 367 695 308 120 1.408 624 242

289 591 492 212 1.001 445 46 95 127 366 270 809 49 100 23 46

216 456

Figure 22: Total container flows between PoR and Figure 23: Total container flows between PoR and COROP regions WLO RC scenario 2030 COROP regions WLO GE scenario 2030

Based on the calculations for both WLO scenarios, the modal split in 2030 would be as it is presented in Table 12.

Table 12: Modal split 2030 based on prognoses container flows WLO scenarios

Road transport (%) Rail transport (%) Barge transport (%) Regional Community scenario 66 12 22 Global Economy scenario 64 14 22

4.4 Prognoses container flows PoR Low Growth and Global Economy scenarios

Similar to the WLO scenarios, the PoR scenarios are developed on a national level. However, the assumption is made that the expected growth on a regional level is similar to the national level and applies for each COROP region.

With regard to the growth percentages, these have been calculated and specified for each modality for the PoR Low Growth and Global Economy scenarios in 2030. These percentages are presented in Table 10. Similar to the WLO growth factors, the PoR annual growth percentages are split into growth until 2020 and after 2020. The growth factors for the other PoR scenarios can be found in Appendix L-1. The formulas for calculating the growth percentages per year for 2020 and 2030 are provided below.

The following formula was applied in order to calculate the growth percentage in 2020:

⁄

( ⁄ )

With regard to the growth percentage in 2030, the following formula was applied:

⁄

( ⁄ )

Table 13: Growth per year percentages PoR scenarios

Modality – Growth / year (%) Year Road LG scenario GE scenario 2008 – 2020 1,4 3,5 2021 – 2030 2,7 3,0

Inland waterway LG scenario GE scenario 2008 – 2020 4,5 7,0 2021 – 2030 1,0 4,5

Rail LG scenario GE scenario 2008 – 2020 6,5 9,6 2021 – 2030 2,6 4,4 Source: Port of Rotterdam Authority (2011)

The expected container flows in the PoR LG and the GE scenario have been calculated in the same way as was done for the WLO RC and GE scenario.

First of all the flows in 2020 where calculated by applying the formula:

*( ) ( ) +

Based on the outcome of the flows for 2020 the flows for 2030 were calculated as follows:

*( ) ( ) +

The approximate total flows after applying the growth percentages are visualized in Figure 24 for the PoR LG scenario and Figure 25 visualizes the flows for the PoR GE scenario in 2030. The flows are for the three modes of transport. The numbers in the regions visualized in the figures represent amount of TEU’s to and from those regions rounded off to thousands. See Appendix L-3 and Appendix L-5 for a more detailed and overview of these flows.

29 47 430 234 387 723 19 23 9 19 7 6 10 24 75 115 12 14 50 45 220 77 55 386 18 76 23 10 104 84 122 150 103 8 322 21 194 475 25 135 302 23 28 176 266 217 39 129 494 80 48 158 690 98 212 342 711 315 122 871 386 150

359 625 544 784 446 275 76 52 899 160 547 230 63 114 23 28

294 510

Figure 24: Total container flows between PoR and Figure 25: Total container flows between PoR and COROP regions PoR LG scenario 2030 COROP regions PoR GE scenario 2030

Based on the calculations for both PoR scenarios, the modal split in 2030 would be as it is presented in Table 14.

Table 14: Modal split 2030 based on prognoses container flows PoR scenarios

Road transport (%) Rail transport (%) Barge transport (%) Low growth scenario 57 18 25 Global Economy scenario 48 21 31

4.5 Bandwidth prognoses of container flows 2030

As previously stated, the future cannot be statically forecasted. Because of this, the decision has been made to use the bandwidth for the container flows calculated in the two different methods in the previous sections. This will contribute to the credibility of the research project.

The bandwidth for the low growth scenario refers to the difference in the prognoses of the WLO RC scenario and the PoR LG scenario. With regard to the high growth scenario, the bandwidth refers to the difference between both GE scenarios. Furthermore, there is also a bandwidth of container flows between the low growth scenarios and the high growth scenarios.

The total container flows for the four scenarios based on the two sets of growth factors are presented in Table 15. An overview of the flows per region is provided in Appendix L-6.

Table 15: Overview of total container flows between the PoR and COROP regions for the four scenarios in 2030

WLO RC scenario PoR LG scenario WLO GE scenario PoR GE scenario 2030 2030 2030 2030 Total container 5.776.894 6.793.908 11.958.439 9.984.977 flow (TEU)

It should be noted that even though the estimated bandwidth is known now, it remains a prognosis. External uncertainties can cause changes so that the container volumes in 2030 are not within the expected bandwidth.

4.6 Modal split prognoses of container flows 2030

When reflecting on the prognoses by the CPB et. al. and the PoR for the low growth and high growth scenarios, which have been calculated in the previous sections, it is noticeable that the prognoses for the total flows are not very different for the WLO scenarios on the one hand and the PoR scenarios on the other hand. However, when it comes to the total modal split the differences are more apparent. Figure 26 visualizes the differences in the modal split for two sets of scenarios. The difference is mainly because of the different growth percentages for each modality per year for each group of scenarios.

66% 64%

22% 22% 12% 14%

WLO RC Scenario WLO GE Scenario

57% 48%

= Road transport

21% 25% = Rail transport 18% 31%

= Barge transport PoR LG Scenario PoR GE Scenario

Figure 26: Comparison of estimated future modal splits WLO and PoR scenarios

It is important to realize that the future modal split as is presented in Figure 26 takes all previously made assumptions and uncertainties regarding the scenarios into account. This modal split will occur if no policy action is carried out. It shows how important it is to conduct policies in order to prevent a modal split as is presented in Figure 26. Before being able to identify which policy actions to undertake, the regions in which these actions should be carried out first have to be indicated. This is done in chapter 5 where the gaps in the current inland terminal network are identified and prioritized.

4.7 Summary The summary of chapter 4 is presented in Table 16.

Table 16: Summary of chapter 4

Topic Description

Future scenarios The CPB, MNP and RPB have developed four WLO scenarios for the Netherlands in 2040. These scenarios take among other uncertainties economic growth and demographics into account. The four WLO scenarios are: 1. Global Economy (GE) scenario – high economic growth and high levels of international trade 2. Strong Europe (SE) scenario – Europe is an influential player in the economic and political world stage. The economic growth is higher than in the RC scenario (explained below) 3. Transatlantic Market (TM) scenario – the extension of the European Union is not a political success; economic growth is higher than in the SE scenario 4. Regional Communities (RC) scenario – moderate economic growth and international trade liberalization will not take off

Topic Description

Future scenarios (continued) The PoR has based its own scenarios on three of the four WLO scenarios and has developed a fourth one. The four PoR scenarios are: 1. Global Economy (GE) scenario – similar to the GE scenario that is described in the WLO scenarios above. 2. European Trend (ET) scenario – moderate economic growth and the oil price will slightly increase. 3. High Oil Price (HOP) scenario – because of suddenly increasing oil prices in a short period of time, a rapid transformation to a sustainable economy can be realized. The economic growth can be compared with the ET scenario 4. Low growth (LG) scenario – developed by the PoR as opposite of the GE scenario, and is characterized by low economic growth. It can be compared with the WLO RC scenario Reflection on approaches to calculate The main difference between the three approaches is the prognoses fact that the CPB et. al. and the PoR have developed scenarios in which prognoses for future container volumes for each modality are estimated, by applying different methods. The CPB et. al. applied a combination of models for the WLO scenarios and the PoR used the TRANSTOOLS model and made changes to the results where necessary based on expert knowledge. On the other hand, the approach of Zhang is a method to estimate future container flows for each modality based on the general growth percentages of the PoR. In other words, Zhang (2011) did not develop scenarios or estimated growth percentages for each scenario; the scenarios were given as well as the estimations for the container flows to and from the COROP regions. The main flaw here was not the approach or method itself but the input data that was contaminated. Because of this, the results were not reliable and hence the decision was made to exclude them from this project. Based on the above, the decision was made to include both the prognoses of the CPB et. al. as well as those of the PoR. With these prognoses, the growth percentages per year can be calculated. Including both sets of prognoses will contribute to the credibility of the project.

Topic Description

Reflection on approaches to calculate To summarize, the input for calculating the prognoses in prognoses (continued) flows to and from the COROP region for each modality in 2030 in both the WLO and the PoR low growth and high growth scenarios, was: 1. The known estimated flows in 2008 for each modality to and from these regions 2. The national growth percentages per year calculated for 2020 and 2030 for the WLO scenarios and the growth percentages of the PoR for the low growth and high growth scenarios Prognoses container flows WLO RC The decision has been made to calculate the container and WLO GE scenario flows in the low growth scenario and the high growth scenario; these are respectively the RC and the GE scenario. The calculations of the future flows have been done with the growth percentages that have been identified per year for each modality and the known container flows of 2008. The growth factors are divided into growth until 2020 and from 2020 until 2040. Since the growth factors are measured by percentages per year, the growth factor that is used to calculate the container flows in 2030 is the same as the one that is presented for 2020 – 2040. After calculations, the total container flows in 2030 are as follows:  5.776.894 TEU in the RC scenario  11.958.439 TEU in the GE scenario Prognoses container flows PoR LG Similar to the WLO growth factors, the growth factors of and PoR GE scenario the PoR scenarios are divided into growth factors until 2020 and from 2020 until 2030. Nevertheless, the prognoses for the container flows for each modality could be calculated for the low growth and high growth scenarios, respectively the LG and GE scenario. The total container flows in 2030 are as follows:  6.793.908 TEU in the LG scenario  9.984.977 TEU in the GE scenario

Topic Description

Bandwidth of prognoses Due to the fact that the future cannot be predicted, the decision is made to calculate the prognoses for the future flows for the low growth and high growth scenarios, both for the WLO as well as for the PoR scenarios. The bandwidth of future flows is between 5 mln TEU and 7 mln TEU for the low growth scenario and between 9 mln TEU and 11 mln TEU for the high growth scenario. In other words, the expectations are that the total container flows to and from the COROP regions will be between 5 mln TEU and 11 mln TEU in 2030. Modal split prognoses of container When reflecting on the prognoses by the CPB et. al. and the flows 2030 PoR for the low growth and high growth scenarios, which have been calculated, it is noticeable that the prognoses for the total flows are not very different for these two sets of scenarios. However, when it comes to the total modal split the differences are more apparent. The modal split is as follows for the four scenarios: 1. WLO RC scenario a. Road – 66% b. Inland waterway – 22% c. Rail – 12% 2. WLO GE scenario a. Road – 64% b. Inland waterway – 22% c. Rail – 14% 3. PoR LG scenario a. Road – 57% b. Inland waterway – 25% c. Rail – 18% 4. PoR GE scenario a. Road – 48% b. Inland waterway – 31% c. Rail – 21% Note that the modal split for these scenarios will occur if no actions are carried out in order to shift containers transported by road to inland waterway and barge.

5 Matching current capacity with different prognoses 5.1. Introduction

When the different prognoses of the container flows in the four scenarios in Chapter 4 are compared with the current capacity of the inland terminal network, it is noticeable that there will be a shortage of capacity in most regions, predominantly in the high growth scenarios. However, currently there are terminals that are being developed and there are plans to expand several existing terminals. Furthermore there are also plans to develop new terminals. These plans are not taken into account in the identification of the gaps, since most of them are still in a conceptual phase; the capacity for example is not known yet, which makes it difficult to estimate the future capacity of the inland terminal network. Regarding this, policy makers can use the identified gaps to assess if the plans to develop a new terminal in a specific region is justified and they can also estimate the size of the terminal based on the identified gap. The plans are briefly reviewed but not analyzed in depth in this project. Appendix F-2 presents an overview of terminals that are in development and terminals that are planned to be developed.

With regard to the plans to expand some existing terminals and the terminals that are currently in development, the assumption is made that these terminals will be operational in 2020 and 2030 and the expansions will add to the current capacity of the inland terminal network. In other words, based on these plans, there is a known future capacity of the inland terminal network, which will be higher than it is at present.

In the next section, the known future capacity of each region will be matched with the bandwidth of the estimated flows for these regions in 2020 and 2030. An overview of container flows in 2020 is presented in Appendix L-7. The decision has been made to also compare the capacity with the flows in 2020 in order to prioritize the identified gaps. If a gap is already identified in 2020 for the low growth and high growth scenarios it has high priority to undertake actions.

The identified gaps are prioritized in section 5.3. As mentioned above, a region with a gap in both the low growth and high growth scenario in 2020 is labelled as a gap with high priority. Furthermore, regions with gaps in the low growth and high growth scenarios in 2030 also require attention. Finally, regions that have been categorized as logistics hot spots in the expert interviews will also be taken into account.

The chapter continues with briefly reviewing the plans to develop new terminals in section 5.4. As mentioned before, most of these plans are still in a conceptual phase. This means that the plans can possibly still be adapted. The outcome of this review will contribute to the possible policies that can be implemented to strengthen the inland terminal network.

These possible policies that can be implemented to strengthen the inland terminal network, and as a result possibly close the identified gaps are presented and explained in section 5.5. These policies include infrastructural measurements, implementing one of the previously mentioned logistics concepts or stimulate modal shifts. Finally, the chapter is summarized in section 5.6.

5.2. Identifying possible gaps

In this section the possible gaps are identified. A gap occurs when the current capacity of the inland terminals (barge and rail) cannot accommodate the expected flows to and from inland terminals (barge and rail) in the low growth and high growth scenarios. In order to be able to identify the gaps several decision were made. These decisions are:

1. The lower bound of the bandwidth of expected container flows as well as the upper bound of the bandwidth are rounded off to thousands.

2. In regions where there are currently no inland terminals, but there plans to develop terminals, the prognoses for road transport are used to identify the possible capacity of the terminals that are planned to be developed.

3. In regions in which there are currently no terminals and for which there are no known plans to develop terminals, the prognoses for road transport are applied in order to analyze whether a part of these flows can be shifted to nearby regions that do have an inland terminal (a radius of 30 km is applied).

4. The gaps are identified by comparing the current (and if applicable the future) capacity of the regions with both the lower bound of container flows and the upper bound of container flows. In other words the capacity is compared with the container flows in the low growth scenarios and the high growth scenarios. To be more specific, the lower bound of flows refers to the flows calculated in the WLO RC scenario and the upper bound of flows refers to the flows calculated in the PoR GE scenario.

5. Identified gaps smaller than 10.000 TEU are not considered to be gaps, since terminals can overcome this amount by applying more efficient measures such as shortening the container dwell time or by undertaking actions such as expanding an existing terminal in the region by lengthening the quay or acquiring an additional crane for example. Next to that, it is not feasible to develop a new terminal that is smaller than 10.000 TEU.

Two types of gaps have been identified, and ranked according to priority to undertake measures. The two gaps are:

1. Regions in which there are gaps with both the lower bound and the upper bound flows 2. Regions in which there are no gaps with the lower bound flows, but there are gaps with the upper bound flows

The gaps will be identified in two steps; first, the gaps are identified based on the known future capacity of the current inland terminal network in 2020. Secondly, the gaps are identified based on the known future capacity and the expected container flows in 2030. The known future capacity of the inland terminal network includes the plans for expanding existing terminals such as Container Terminal Nijmegen and Barge and Rail Terminal Born, as well as the terminals that are currently being developed and will be operational in 2030. These last terminals include among others the Container Transferium in Alblasserdam and Rail terminal Chemelot in Zuid Limburg. Table 17 provides an overview of the plans for expanding the current inland terminal network.

Table 17: Plans for expanding current inland terminal network

COROP region Terminal Plan Future capacity (TEU) Zuidoost-Drenthe Inland Port Coevorden – In development 30.000 Emlichheim Twente Combi Terminal Twente Expansion to 300.000 300.000 TEU Arnhem / Nijmegen Container Terminal Expansion to 250.000 250.000 Nijmegen TEU Zuidwest Gelderland Container Terminal Tiel In development 80.000 Kop van Noord Holland Westfriese Container In development Unknown Terminal Zuidoost Zuid Holland Container Transferium In development 200.000 Alblasserdam Zeeuws Vlaanderen Multipurpose Terminal In development 20.000 Mammoet Noordoost Noord Bossche Container Expansion with 450.000 Brabant terminal 50.000 TEU Osse Overslag Centrale Expansion with 30% Noord-Limburg Wanssum Intermodal Expansion to 200.000 460.000 Terminal TEU Midden Limburg Multimodale Terminal In development 20.000 Weert/Cranendonck Zuid Limburg Barge and Rail terminal Expansion with 35% 535.000 Born in TEU Rail Terminal Chemelot In development

With regard to the region Kop van Noord Holland, the Westfriese Container Terminal is currently being developed, but the capacity of this terminal is unclear. For this reason, the future capacity for this region is still 0 (zero) TEU which means that the container flows by road are applied in the identification of a possible gap.

The outcome of these two steps will provide an overview of the COROP regions that will not have sufficient capacity in 2030 to accommodate the container flows. The identification of the gaps, in both steps, can be found in Appendix M.

5.2.1. Identifying possible gaps in 2020 based on known future capacity inland terminal network As previously mentioned, in the first step the possible gaps are identified by comparing the known future capacity of the current inland terminal network with the estimated flows of containers to and from the COROP regions in 2020. Figure 27 visualizes the results of conducting the first step, which is comparing the expected container flows in the low growth and high growth scenario for 2020 with the known future capacity of the inland terminal network. See Appendix M for the sizes of the gaps. As previously mentioned, the container flows by road are used in the regions with no terminals.

These flows are visualized in the regions (grey in the visualizations) and should be multiplied by 1000 TEU.

2020 low growth 2020 high growth scenario scenario 95 119 14 25 7 4 11 8

35 59 51 14 24 56 57 6 16 11 27 17 29 93 159 195 30 61 198 51 104 30 32

16 53

Figure 27: Identified gaps in 2020

First of all, there are a lot of regions with no gaps in either the low growth or the high growth scenario in 2020. These regions are the green regions in the visualizations above. Even though there is no identified gap, there are plans to develop terminals in West Noord-Brabant, Groot-Amsterdam and Overig Zeeland. . Since there is no certainty whether or not these plans will be executed, they are not taken into account. However, it is wise to analyze whether or not it is necessary to develop new terminals in regions where there is no gap in either scenario.

Secondly, the first type of gap (regions in which there are gaps with the lower and upper bound of flows) is identified in two regions, namely Flevoland and Zuidwest-Gelderland. Based on the size of the gap, Flevoland has higher priority than Zuidwest-Gelderland.

Furthermore, the second type of gap (regions in which there are no gaps with the lower bound flows, but there are gaps with the upper bound flows) is identified in Overig Groningen, Noord-Friesland, Zuidwest Drenthe, Zuidoost Noord-Brabant and Noord Limburg. When only considering the size of

66 the gap, then Noord-Friesland requires the highest priority of these regions, since the gap in Noord- Friesland in the high growth scenario is higher than 100.000 TEU.

Finally, there are gaps in the regions with no terminals. These gaps are based on the expected container flows by road transport. In some of these regions, the container flows can be shifted from road transport to terminals within a radius of 30 kilometers in a neighboring region, since the catchment area of a terminal is approximately 30 kilometers (Hofstra, 2010). For example Agglomeratie Haarlem has an expected flow between 6.000 TEU and 11.000 TEU. A part of these flows can possibly be accommodated by the terminals in Groot-Amsterdam, Zaanstreek and IJmond, since these regions have no gaps.

As mentioned in the Introduction of this report Ecorys (2010) has conducted a study, commissioned by the Ministry of Transport and Public Works11, which has shown that the inland terminal network will be able to accommodate the container throughput until 2020. Based on the gap analysis that has been conducted for 2020, this can be confirmed for the low growth scenario for 2020 and partly for the high growth scenario. However, it should be noted that this confirmation takes into account all assumptions made regarding the capacity calculation and the uncertainties with regard to the prognoses for container flows.

5.2.2. Identifying possible gaps based on known future capacity inland terminal network 2030 In the second step, the known future capacity is compared with the expected container flows in the low growth and high growth scenarios for 2030. Similar to the gap identification for 2020, the flows transported by road are applied for the regions with no active terminals. These flows are visualized in the regions and should be multiplied by 1000 TEU. The identified gaps in 2030 are visualized in Figure 28 on the next page.

The visualizations clarify that there are hardly any gaps with the lower bound of flows (low growth scenario) in 2030. However, the amount of regions with no gaps in the high growth scenario is notably smaller than in the low growth scenario. Nevertheless, there are twelve regions with no gaps in either scenario. These regions are Zuidoost-Friesland, Zuidoost-Drenthe, Twente, Arnhem/Nijmegen, IJmond, Groot Amsterdam, Oost Zuid-Holland, Rijnmond, Zeeuws Vlaanderen, Overig Zeeland, Midden Limburg and Zuid Limburg.

With regard to the first type of gap, this is identified in four regions; next to Flevoland and Zuidwest Gelderland, which will already have a gap in 2020, Noord Friesland and Zuidoost Zuid-Holland also have a gap in the low growth and high growth in 2030. From these regions, Flevoland has the highest priority when the size of the capacity is the only factor that is being taken into account.

Similar to the identification of gaps in 2020, the second type of gap is identified in Overig Groningen, Zuidwest Drenthe, Zuidoost Noord-Brabant and Noord Limburg. Next to that this type of gap is also identified in the regions Delfzijl en omgeving, Noord-Overijssel, Veluwe, Utrecht, Midden Noord

11 The Ministry of Transport and Public Works is now the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

Brabant and Noordoost Noord-Brabant. In other words, there are more regions with the second type of gaps in 2030 than in 2020.

Also similar to the identification of the gaps in 2020, the expected container flows by road in 2030 are applied to the regions in which there are no terminals.

2030 low growth 2030 high growth 15 scenario scenario 337 13 244 19 23 8 6 10 7

44 55 184 18 36 13 62 83 8 20 10 25 22 17 120 150 13 212 38 78 266 48 41 98

40 28 106 70

80 93

60 333

Figure 28: Identified gaps in 2030

After the second step in identifying possible gaps in the current inland terminal network, the research hypothesis that the current inland terminal network will possibly not be able to accommodate the expected container flows in 2030, can be confirmed. Once more, this confirmation takes into account all assumptions made regarding the calculation of the capacity of the inland terminal network and the uncertainties with regard to the prognoses for container flows.

Based on this outcome, one would assume that the most obvious policy is to develop more terminals in order to eliminate the identified gaps. However, this is not the most favorable policy option according to the different experts that have been interviewed. According to them, using the capacity more efficiently can possibly contribute more than adding capacity by developing more terminals. Nevertheless, this policy option is elaborated on in the section 5.4. Before doing so, the identified gaps are prioritized next.

5.3. Prioritizing identified gaps

Based on the identification of the gaps in the previous section, the regions that have the highest priority are the ones that already have a gap in the low growth scenario in 2020. To recap, these regions are Flevoland and Zuidwest Gelderland. Note that the priority is based on the occurrence of the gap and not specifically on the size or location of the region in which the gap is identified.

According to the occurrence of the gaps, they are prioritized as follows: a. gaps in the low growth scenario in 2020 b. gaps in the high growth scenario in 2020 c. gaps in the low growth scenario in 2030 d. gaps in the high growth scenario in 2030

The combination of the scenarios with regard to the gaps in 2020 and 2030 are visualized in

Figure 29. In the visualization a distinction is made between the time of occurrence and the size of the gap in order to prioritize the gaps. In the visualization LG means low growth scenario and HG means high growth scenario.

2020 2030

Legend No terminal Combinations No gap LG AND No gap HG No gap LG AND (Gap HG > 10.000 TEU and Gap HG <= 50.000 TEU No gap LG AND Gap HG > 50.000 TEU Gap LG > 10.000 TEU and Gap LG <= 50.000 TEU Gap LG > 50.000 TEU

Figure 29: Identified gaps in 2020 and 2030

Based on the two steps to identify the gaps in and therefore based on the occurrence of the gap (in 2020 in low growth scenario or in the high growth scenario or in 2030 in the low growth scenario or in the high growth scenario), the gaps can be prioritized as is visualized in Figure 30.

1 2 3 4 GAPS IN THE LOW GROWTH GAPS IN THE HIGH GROWTH GAP IN THE LOW GROWTH GAPS IN THE HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO IN 2020 SCENARIO IN 2020 SCENARIO IN 2030 SCENARIO IN 2030

Figure 30: Identified gaps prioritized

The regions that are not included in the figure above have no gaps in 2030; the regions that have a gap in the high growth scenario in 2030 have no gap in 2020. The regions that are not presented above are the regions where there are no gaps. However, these regions should continuously be monitored, since the gap identification has been done with the uncertainties of the expected flows and the assumptions with regard to the capacity. Economic growth and new businesses for example are just two of the factors that should be monitored.

Next to the high priority regions, the experts have identified Noord-Brabant, Arnhem/Nijmegen and Limburg as booming regions. With regard to Arnhem/Nijmegen; there is no gap identified in either 2020 or 2030. Regarding Noord-Brabant, there is no gap in West Noord-Brabant after the two steps of identifying the gaps, but the other three COROP regions in this province have gaps in the high growth scenario in 2030. And finally, there is no gap in Midden Limburg and Zuid Limburg, but Noord Limburg has a gap in the high growth scenario in 2020 and 2030.

With regard to the so-called booming regions, the analysis has shown the following:

1. There is no gap in Midden Noord-Brabant, Noordoost Noord-Brabant 2. Zuidoost Noord-Brabant has a gap in the high growth scenario in 2020 3. Noord Limburg has a gap in the high growth scenario in 2020

These findings should also be taken into account when deciding in which region to start with eliminating the identified gaps. Furthermore, the regions in which there are no terminals should also be considered. Note that the catchment area of a terminal is approximately 30 kilometers (Hofstra, 2010). The catchment areas of the (future) Dutch terminals are visualized in Figure 31. In this visualization the road, railway and inland waterway infrastructure and links are not taken into account. When looking at this visualization, is becomes clear that the Dutch inland terminal network covers almost all regions and that in the southern part of the Netherlands (Zeeland, Noord-Brabant and Limburg) and in Noord- and Zuid-Holland the inland terminal network is quite dense.

To summarize, decision makers should take the following factors into account when deciding on the policy action to undertake in order to eliminate an identified gap:

1. the occurrence of the gap (when in time and in what scenario) 2. the ability to shift some of the flows to a neighboring region based on the catchment area 3. the location of the gap (in a “logistics hot spot” for example).

Terminal Active terminal Terminal in development Terminal catchment area Catchment area current terminals Catchment area terminal in dev. COROP regions

Figure 31: Catchment area of (future) Dutch terminals

Finally, with regard to the policy actions and/or measures that could be applied in order to eliminate the identified gaps, they include developing new terminals. For some of the regions there are plans to develop new terminals. These plans are reviewed briefly in the next section. The other possible policies are presented and explained in section 5.5.

5.4. Review of plans to develop new terminals

As stated before, there are regions in which there are plans to develop new terminals. A list of these terminals is presented in Appendix F-2. Based on the identified gaps, these plans are briefly reviewed in this section.

First of all, even though no gaps have been identified after the two steps, there are plans to develop terminals in:

 Groot-Amsterdam – Container Terminal Schiphol-Oost (intermodal)  Oost Zuid-Holland – Container Terminal Gouda (inland waterway)  Overig Zeeland – Verbrugge Container terminal (intermodal)

Since there are no gaps in these regions, it means that the plans for these terminals should be analyzed whether or not to continue developing these plans. It might not be feasible to develop new terminals in regions where there is sufficient capacity for the expected container flows. However, uncertainties with regard to increasing container flows to and from these regions should be monitored.

Next to these regions, there are plans for terminals in ten more regions. These regions are listed below and are split into regions in which there are currently terminals operational on the one hand and regions in which there are currently no terminals on the other hand.

There are currently terminals located in the regions listed below. There are also plans for new terminals in these regions.

1. Utrecht – Container Terminal Nieuwegein A gap in the high growth scenario in 2030 has been identified in Utrecht. 2. Zuidoost Zuid-Holland – Container Terminal Dordrecht This region has a high priority gap; a gap in the low growth and high growth scenario in 2020. The identification takes the capacity of the Container Transferium Alblasserdam which is currently being developed, into account. 3. Zuidoost Noord-Brabant – ROC Ekkersrijt

Zuidoost Noord-Brabant has a gap in the high growth scenario in 2020. 4. Noord Limburg – Trade Port Noord Venlo and ROC Haven Gennep A gap in the high growth scenario in 2020 has been identified in Noord Limburg. 5. Flevoland – Container Terminal Lelystad and Container Terminal Almere Flevoland is one of the regions with a high priority gap; a gap in both the low growth and high growth scenario in 2020

Next to the regions above, with currently active terminals and plans to develop new terminals, there are regions in which there are currently no terminals located. These regions are listed below. In all these regions there are plans to develop terminals. Note that for these regions, the flows that have been used to identify the gaps are the future flows of road transport.

1. Zuidwest Gelderland – Container Terminal Haaften There is a gap in the high growth scenario in 2020. The capacity of the Container Terminal Tiel, which is currently being developed, is taken into account in this identification. 2. Delft en Westland – Green Rail Terminal Bleiswijk This region is a region with a gap in the low growth and high growth scenario in 2020.

To recapitulate, when assessing whether or not the development of a terminal is justified, based solely on the results from identifying the gaps, then most of the plans to develop a new terminal would be justified. However, the expert interviews have shown that a denser inland terminal network does not lead to more efficient handling of containers to and from the Dutch hinterland. There are many other factors that should be considered in order to really justify the development of the new terminal. A few of these factors are:

1. The economic development in these regions should be monitored. The flows of containers might differ from the expected flows. For example the establishment of a large distribution center or a logistics center in a certain region will shift the expected flows. A new terminal should therefore be situated in such a way that the flows of containers are assured. 2. Support from actors is one of the most important factors necessary in order to put through a policy such as developing a new terminal. 3. A cost-benefit analysis has to be conducted and a business case should be developed. 4. The expected container flows can use the existing network; flows can be shifted no regions near the final destination of the flows. 5. Terminal operators can operate more efficiently which will have an impact on their capacity; this can lead to changes in the identified gaps, which means that the development of a new terminal cannot be justified.

As mentioned before, the preference is to eliminate the gaps with other policies besides building new terminals. These other policy actions are presented and explained in the next section.

5.5. Possible policies actions to strengthen the inland terminal network

As already stated, desk research as well as the interviews with the experts has shown that there are several possible policies that can be implemented in order to strengthen the inland terminal network. One of these policies, the development of new terminals, has been reviewed in the previous section. This section continues with elaborating on the other possible policies to strengthen the inland terminal network so that it will be able to accommodate the expected flows of containers.

The following criteria are often applied by the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment deciding whether or not to carry out a project or implement a policy (Visser, 2011):

 Legitimacy – the responsibility of the government  Effectiveness of the policy – contribution to national policy goals  Efficient for society – weights social costs and benefits

These three factors will be used as an input to assess the possible policies that will be presented in this section.

Expansion of existing terminals The first possible policy is to expand the capacity of existing terminals in order to cope with the growing volume of containers. This policy is especially supported by the experts, because according to them, a few relatively straightforward measures that do not require large investments can contribute to additional capacity. These measures could include the extension of the quay of an inland waterway terminal, acquisition of an additional crane or expansion of the physical area of the terminal. Since there is already infrastructural accessibility to the existing terminals, costs can be saved.

Next, this policy is assessed based on the three factors that are mentioned above.

 Legitimacy – expansion of the existing terminals is in the first place a task for the terminal operators. The (regional) government can support the policy financially for example.  Effectiveness of the policy – expanding the existing terminals will contribute to the national policy to transport containers to and from the Dutch hinterland more sustainable and efficiently.  Efficient for society – with regard to the social costs and benefits; by expanding an existing terminal, logistics activities are clustered instead of dispersed. Geographic clusters have shown to benefit the regions in which they are located as well as the firms within that cluster (Porter, 2003).

Stimulate modal shift In order to be clear, the modal shift does not only refer to shifting road freight transported by road to another mode of transport; in this case it also refers to shifting road transport from one region that has no active terminal to a terminal in a nearby region. For example, a terminal is currently being developed in Midden Limburg. Nevertheless, there is a gap in this region in 2030. There are terminals in both Noord Limburg as well as Zuid Limburg. By stimulating the modal shift, freight that would have been transported to and from Midden Limburg by road, can be shifted to Noord or Zuid Limburg. The infrastructural accessibility to the terminals is present, which means that there is limited investment in infrastructure necessary. The modal shift does need support from and cooperation between the different actors involved in the hinterland transport market. The three factors that are presented above are also applied to this policy.

 Legitimacy – the responsibility lies mainly to the private parties since it will be necessary for them to cooperate. However, central “control” from the government, one focal point, would contribute a lot to this policy.

 Effectiveness of the policy – this policy will definitely contribute to the national policy to stimulate transport by inland waterway and rail in order to make hinterland transport more environmental friendly.  Efficient for society – as previously stated, a modal shift will lead to more environmental friendly hinterland transport which will indirectly contribute to public health.

Implement logistics concepts The logistics concepts that have been previously mentioned (extended gateways, container transferium, synchromodality and tri-modal terminals) can contribute to strengthening the inland terminal network. The expert interviews have shown that there are sufficient tri-modal terminals in the Netherlands. Another container transferium is also not necessary. According to them, the “orgware” concepts extended gateways and synchromodality would contribute a lot to strengthen the inland terminal network. These concepts require almost no investments in infrastructure; they require cooperation between the different actors involved in the hinterland transport market, both private and public actors. However, the success of the container transferium that is currently in development should be monitored in order to decide whether or not to develop another transferium in a suitable region. Below the policy is briefly evaluated with the three factors.

 Legitimacy – the responsibility for cooperation between the private parties lies with these parties. However, similar to the policy with regard to the modal shift, a central governmental focal point would be helpful to implement the logistics concepts. The government can also support innovative logistics concepts by financing research for example.  Effectiveness of the policy – the two “orgware” logistics concepts will especially contribute to more efficient and sustainable hinterland transport. Next to that, they will also contribute to increasing the transparency in the hinterland transport market, which is currently quite opaque. Most actors are not willing to share, what they consider to be critical information for their business.  Efficient for society – since the logistics concepts will among others contribute to other sectors that depend on logistics processes; sectors such as High Tech Systems and Materials and Agro and Food.

Stimulate bundling of flows Bundling of flows is in a way similar to the modal shift policy; container flows can be transported to either a hub in a region or terminal operators from smaller terminals can cooperate in bundling their flows. This leads to more efficient hinterland transport. Just as with the “orgware” logistics concepts it is of utmost importance that the different actors involved in the hinterland transport market cooperate and share information. The policy is briefly evaluated with the three factors.

 Legitimacy – bundling of goods is in the first place the tasks of shippers and carriers. The government or other public parties should not have an active role in this policy; more a facilitating role. The government can facilitate in physical space or act as a “match making” actor between different private parties.  Effectiveness of the policy – bundling of flows is in a way similar to the modal shift policy; it will contribute to more sustainability in the hinterland transport market.

 Efficient for society – similar to implementing logistics processes, bundling of container flows will contribute to the success of other sectors. Furthermore, by bundling the container flows, the amount of half-full containers will be reduced which will lead to less transport.

Based on the assessment of the policy actions, it should be stressed that it is difficult to say that one is better than the other, since they all contribute to the national policies in their own way. Each of the policies requires a different approach. For this reason, the decision has been made to apply the dynamic adaptive (DA) approach for policy making in the next chapter.

5.6. Summary Table 18 presents a summary of chapter 5.

Table 18: Summary of chapter 5

Topic Description Identifying the possible gaps A gap occurs when the current capacity of the inland terminals (barge and rail) cannot accommodate the expected flows to and from inland terminals (barge and rail) in the low growth and high growth scenarios.

The identification of the gaps has been done in two steps. First the gaps have been identified for 2020 based on the known future capacity of the inland terminal network. And after that, possible gaps have been identified for 2030. With regard to the known future capacity, this includes the future capacity of terminals that currently have plans for expansion and terminals that are currently being developed.

Two types of gaps are distinguished and prioritized as follows: 1. Regions in which there are gaps with both the lower bound and the upper bound flows 2. Regions in which there are no gaps with the lower bound flows, but there are gaps with the upper bound flows

After these steps, there are a few regions in which no gap has been identified, which are Zuidoost-Friesland, Zuidoost-Drenthe, Twente, Arnhem/Nijmegen, IJmond, Groot Amsterdam, Oost Zuid-Holland, Rijnmond, Zeeuws Vlaanderen, Overig Zeeland, Midden Limburg and Zuid Limburg. Additionally, the regions in which there are no terminals are also taken into account by applying the expected container flows transported by road. Finally, the regions in which gaps have been identified are prioritized.

Topic Description Prioritizing gaps Based on the occurrence of the gaps (when in time the gap will occur and in which scenario), the gaps have been prioritized as follows: 1. Regions in which there are gaps with the lower bound in 2020 2. Regions in which there are gaps with the upper bound of flows in 2020 3. Regions in which there are gaps with the lower bound of flows in 2030 4. Regions in which there are gaps with the upper bound of flows in 2030

According to this prioritization, the regions with the highest priority are Flevoland and Zuidwest Gelderland.

Note that this prioritization does not take other factors such as the ability to shift flows to a terminal in a neighboring region within a 30 kilometer radius, and the region in which the gap occurs (for example in a logistics hot spot region).

To summarize, decision makers should take the following factors into account when deciding on the policy action to undertake in order to eliminate an identified gap: 1. the occurrence of the gap (when in time and in what scenario) 2. the ability to shift some of the flows to a neighboring region based on the catchment area 3. the location of the gap (in a “logistics hot spot” for example). Review of the plans to develop a new If the results from identifying the gaps were the only factor terminal taken into account when assessing whether or not the development of a terminal is justified, then most of the plans to develop a new terminal would be justified. However, the expert interviews have shown that a denser inland terminal network does not lead to more efficient handling of containers to and from the Dutch hinterland. Furthermore, there are many other factors that should be considered in order to really justify the development of the new terminal. These include but are not limited to monitoring the regional economic development, involvement of actors in the region and conducting cost- benefit analyses.

Topic Description Possible policy actions to strengthen Next to developing new terminals in order to strengthen the inland terminal network the inland terminal network, four other policies have been presented: 1. Expansion of existing terminals 2. Stimulate modal shift 3. Implement logistics concepts 4. Stimulate bundling of flows

These policies have been assessed by taking into account the following criteria: 1. Legitimacy – the role of the government 2. Effectiveness of the policy – contribution to national policies 3. Efficient for society – social costs and benefits

After assessing the policies, it is difficult to say that one is better than the other, since they all contribute to the national policies in their own way. For this reason, the decision has been made to apply the DA approach for policy making in the next chapter.

6 Dynamic adaptive approach for policies to strengthen the inland terminal network

6.1. Introduction

Chapter 4 introduced the two sets of scenarios for 2030 that have been developed by the CPB et. al. and by the PoR, namely the low growth and high growth scenarios. The bandwidth of these scenarios represents a range of possible futures. Different uncertainties have been taken into account in the development of the scenarios. In general, policy makers design a robust static policy; “a policy that is designed to produce favorable outcomes in most scenarios” (Marchau, Walker, & Van Wee, 2010). In this approach, futures that are not within the boundaries of the scenarios are not being considered. To deal with this, DA approaches for policy making appeared. According to Marchau et. al. (2010) these DA approaches, “allow policy makers to cope with uncertainty by creating policies that respond with changes over time”. In other words, the goal or direction is known beforehand and the policies can be adapted according to real time changes. In this project, the goal is to accommodate the container flows to and from the Dutch hinterland in an efficient way. Different policies can be implemented to achieve this goal, including strengthening the inland terminal network. With regard to this, there are several possible policy actions which have been presented and assessed in chapter 5.

The DA policy framework designed by Marchau et. al. (2010) will be applied to assess the possible policies and how to deal with uncertainties. This framework can be applied on different levels; national, regional and local. In this project the framework is used on a national level; the Dutch inland terminal network. Given that the framework is initially designed for passenger transport, some minor adaptations are incorporated, to fit the freight transport market. This is done in the next section.

In section 6.3 the DA policy framework is explained and applied in order to lay out which strategic steps can be taken in order to strengthen the inland terminal network in a way that it will be able to accommodate the expected flows of containers.

Based on the outcome of the DA policy framework, a possible strategic steps that can be taken in order to strengthen the inland terminal network is presented in section 6.4

In order to clarify the possible strategic steps, they will be applied to a region with a high priority gap, one of the so called “hot spot” regions and a region in which there is currently no active terminal in section 6.5. A recommendation will be provided with regard to the policy action that can be carried out in this region.

At last, the last section presents a summary of the chapter.

6.2. Adapted version the of DA policy framework

Since the DA policy framework is designed and applied for passenger transport policies, some minor adaptations are necessary in order to apply it to the freight transport market. First of all, with regard to passenger transport, the government can directly influence policies, given that it has public value. In contrast, with regard to freight transport there are a lot of private parties that have to be considered. Furthermore, the top-down approach from for example the governmental program SOIT (Subsidieregeling Openbare Inland Terminal – English: Subsidy Regulation Public Inland Terminal) has contributed to increasing the capacity of the inland terminal network, but this might have been achieved without government intervention (Decisio B.V., 2002). In other words, the freight transport market requires more public-private partnerships, than a top-down governmental approach. Finally, the adaptations to the framework were also incorporated for the applicability of the framework to the case of strengthening the inland terminal network in the Netherlands.

For these reasons the following two adaptations have been made to the DA policy framework of Marchau et. al. (2010):

1. The “Necessary conditions for success” and the “Policy actions” in the second step of the four-stage policy framework are considered to be two of the most important factors. They provide input to the “Strategic steps” that can be taken to implement the basic policy. In order for the policy to be accepted, all conditions for success have to be present; especially the conditions that can be assessed beforehand. 2. In the fourth step, the implementation phase, the focus is on the box “Other’s actions, Unforeseen events, Changing preferences”. The input for identifying the “Other’s actions” and “Changing preferences” is an actor and stakeholders analysis. Regarding the “Reassessment”, “Corrective Actions” and “Defensive Actions” are just briefly taken into account; recommendations will be provided in order to explain how to deal with these factors.

Figure 32 on the next page presents the adapted version of the DA policy framework.

I. Stage Setting IV. Implementation Phase Constraints

Other’s Actions Actor and Unforeseen Events stakeholders Objectives Options Set Changing analysis Preferences

Definitions of successs

II. Assembling Basic Policy

Necessary conditions for Policy actions success

Strategic steps

III. Specifying Rest of Policy

Mitigating Actions ies ilit rab Reassessment lne Vu in rta Ce Hedging Vulnerabilities Uncertain Vulnerabilities Actions Corrective Actions

Defensive Actions Shaping actions

Signposts Triggers

Figure 32: The adapted version of DA policy framework – adapted from (Marchau, Walker, & Van Wee, 2010)

6.3. Explanation of the DA policy framework

In this section, the four stages of the DA policy framework are explained and applied to this project.

6.3.1. Step I: Stage setting The first step of the framework involves the specification of the objectives, constraints and available policy options. The outcome of this step is the definition of success.

These factors are known in this project, and are briefly repeated below.

 Objective: Optimize and strengthen the hinterland accessibility so that the expected flows of containers can be accommodated sustainably and efficiently in 2030.  Constraints: Costs, spatial and environmental restrictions, local public resistance.  Available policy options: 1. Invest in strengthening the current inland terminal network taking the identified bottlenecks into account. 2. Invest in increasing the robustness of the main roads, rails and waterways around and between the main urban regions including the hinterland. 3. Stimulate better utilization of the capacity of the existing mobility system of roads, rail and waterways.

The outcome of these three factors is the definition of success, which includes the modal shift from road transport to inland waterway and rail transport and integration of additional capacity of the inland terminal network in the existing mobility network.

6.3.2. Step II: Assembling basic policy The basic policy exists of the necessary conditions for success and policy actions and can be formulated as follows:

Invest in strengthening the current inland terminal network taking the identified gaps into account; start with investing in eliminating the gaps in regions with the highest priority.

The necessary conditions for success are:

1. There should sufficient freight volume for the feasibility of the terminal. Since the prognoses take several uncertainties into account, the flow of containers should be monitored for each region. 2. Infrastructural accessibility is a must; in other words, a terminal should be accessible by road, barge and / or rail transport. This factor should be taken into account when the decision is to develop a new terminal given that development of infrastructural accessibility is costly as well as time consuming. 3. Availability of sufficient physical space in order to expand existing terminals or to develop new terminals. The availability of physical space can be assessed by conducting a sieve analysis. In this analysis all areas that are not suitable for the expansion of a terminal or development of a new terminal are eliminated. These areas often include protected areas,

housing areas and commercial areas. The policy maker has to identify all areas that are not suitable and evaluate whether or not the remaining areas can be used for the before mentioned purposes. 4. Local actors such as municipalities, inhabitants and small business owners should support the policy and should cooperate with each other. 5. Possibility for a Public Private Partnership (PPP) between different levels of public parties and private parties.

It is important that the conditions mentioned are indeed present. In case there is no infrastructural accessibility, a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to identify whether or not to invest in developing additional infrastructural links.

With regard to the policy actions, they are based on the actors that can undertake these actions:

1. Government a. Invest in infrastructural links (for example roads, inland waterways and rail) b. Invest in public transshipment infrastructure (develop new public inland terminals, subsidize expansion of existing terminals) c. Support / subsidize innovative logistics concepts (Dinalog, Topteam Logistiek)

2. Private parties a. Development of new inland terminals or expansion of existing terminals b. Cooperation with other private parties (bundling of container flows) c. Develop / implement innovative logistics concepts

3. Public Private Partnership (PPP) a. Finance projects

The necessary conditions for success and the policy actions provide information for the strategic steps that should be taken in order to implement the basic policy. In this case, the strategic steps refer to the steps that should be taken in order to strengthen and optimize the inland terminal network.

6.3.3. Step III: Specifying rest of policy The third step consists of the factors that make the policy dynamic and adaptive (Marchau, Walker, & Van Wee, 2010). In this step (1) the vulnerabilities of the policy are identified, (2) the actions that should be taken immediately or in the future are defined and (3) the signposts that should be monitored are defined.

The vulnerabilities of the policy can be either certain or uncertain; according to (Marchau, Walker, & Van Wee, 2010) “certain vulnerabilities can be anticipated by implementing mitigating actions, while uncertain vulnerabilities are handled by implementing hedging actions”.

Table 19 presents the vulnerabilities of the basic policy, which is formulated in section 6.3.2.

Table 19: Vulnerabilities of the basic policy

Vulnerabilities Mitigating/Hedging Actions Possible Signposts/Triggers/ Actions Certain: Mitigating actions: All regions with a gap would Clarify the alternative policy like to develop a new terminal. actions with their costs and benefits for each region Certain: Mitigating actions: Opposition from regional and  Offer incentives such as local actors (“not in my employment or business backyard”) opportunities  Promote the benefits with regard to regional development Certain: Mitigating action: The PoR can position itself as Lack of a focal point for Establish a organization that such a focal point; an development/implementation consists of representatives of information hub with regard to of policy public actors (such as the the hinterland transport Ministry of I&M) and private market (action). actors (such as terminal operators, shippers and interest groups) Uncertain: Hedging action: Spatial and regional Prioritize the plans and policies development plans make it according to their contribution difficult to conduct one of the to regional (and national) policy actions policies and welfare. Uncertain: Hedging actions: In case there are financial Sufficient financial support  Establish public-private shortages (trigger) to partnerships implement the policy, the PoR  Involve shippers in the can offer to invest or act as a governance structure landlord of a terminal (action). Uncertain: Hedging action: Monitor the economic Actual container flows might Do not start with developing development of regions. This differ from the expected new infrastructure such as new includes regions where there is container flows terminals, but invest in the no gap identified. In case for possibilities of implementing example a new distribution “orgware” logistics concepts center is established (trigger) in a region. Uncertain: Hedging action: Monitor the utilization of slots The availability of rail  Invest in more flexibility in by freight and passenger trains. infrastructure in order to acquiring time slots for In case there are insufficient transport the expected flows by freight transport slots for freight transport rail.  Develop a more efficient (trigger), research should be balance between freight done to identify the costs and and passenger rail benefits of dedicated tracks for transport freight transport, such as the  Support strategic alliances Betuweroute (corrective between rail terminal action) operators

6.3.4. Step IV: Implementation phase In the fourth and final step of the framework, the policy is implemented, after being agreed upon. As stated earlier, the reassessment, corrective actions and defensive actions are not explained in detail for this project.

With regard to the other box in the fourth step, the input that is necessary for other’s actions and changing preferences is an actor and stakeholder’s analysis. By conducting such an analysis, the power of an actor/stakeholder and its interest in the policy can be identified.

 The power of an actor/stakeholder (based on its resources such as financial resources). The power can either be high, medium or low. Note that even if an actor has relatively low power, it can still have high influence on the policy.

 Actor/stakeholder interest with regard to the policy. The support can be high, neutral or low. The interest is often related to the need of an actor/stakeholder with regard to the policy.

The actor analysis should include all actors involved in the hinterland transport market, which have been presented in chapter 3. Next to that, stakeholders relevant for each specific region have to be identified.

To continue with the Unforeseen Events, the following can be identified:

 the development of the new logistics concepts can be more rapidly than expected  new players can enter the hinterland transport market  the impact of the Maasvlakte 2, which will be operational in 2013, on the flows of containers

It is important that these unforeseen events, as well as the other’s actions and changing preferences are monitored annually. With regard to the actor and stakeholder analyses, it is wise to conduct these in more depth on a regional level, but also take nearby regions into account.

However, on a national level, the power-interest matrix of the most import actors and stakeholders, which were also presented in chapter 3, would look like Figure 33. The power and interest of these actors and stakeholders have to be taken into account when identifying the changes in preferences and their actions in the future. The position of the actors and stakeholders in this matrix is briefly explained.

r e Municipalities w o

Inhabitants and small p Ministry of I&M

business owners g Inland terminal i

Infrastructure H operators suppliers Shippers Port Authority

Low interest High interest

Barge operators Deep sea terminal Rail operators operators Trucking companies

Waterway authorities r

e VITO

Customs and w

o TLN

inspection p EVO w o L

Figure 33: Power-interest matrix actors and stakeholders hinterland transport

Municipalities and the Ministry of I&M The power of the Municipalities and the Ministry of I&M include financial resources (invest in infrastructure or innovative logistics concepts) and capabilities to influence procedures and regulations. This means that these actors have high power. The Municipalities are interested in strengthening the inland terminal network since it might contribute to regional development and economic growth. At the same time, the interest of the Ministry of I&M stems from the fact that this policy will contribute to the national policies and to national economic growth. With regard to the changing preference of the Municipalities, they might have interest and power regarding the policy but can decide to invest in another policy or project with higher priority, for example housing or education. This changing preference of the municipalities also applies to the Ministry of I&M.

Inland terminal operators The inland terminal operators have both high interest and high power with regard to the inland terminal network. First of all, an optimized and strengthened network will lead to more business opportunities for them. Yet, more terminal operators in their region will lead to more competition. The policy can have a positive or negative impact on the terminal operators. For this reason their interest is high. They also have high power, because investments in expanding their terminal also contribute to the policy and the objective of strengthening the network. Since this policy action is one of least costly actions compared to the others, the inland terminal operators have high power. Expanding their terminal is one of the actions that the terminal operators can carry out.

Shippers The main power of the shippers is the fact that they provide the container volumes; they are the ones that want their goods to be transported to and from the Port of Rotterdam. For this reason, their power is categorized as high. Furthermore, the shippers have the financial resources to invest in developing their own terminal. Regarding their interest in the policy, the shippers have high interest since they want their goods to be transported in an efficient manner; balance between costs and transport time. A more optimized and strengthened network will benefit their business. An important changing preference of the shippers is to transport more by road than by inland waterway or rail. Another changing preference is to shift to other main ports such as the Port of Antwerp which will change their entire logistics chain.

Port Authority The Port Authority has high power and high interest in the basic policy. A strengthened and optimized inland terminal network contributes to the accessibility of the hinterland and as a result to the position of the port in the HLH-range. With regard to the power, this is both financial (invest/support development/expansion of terminals) and in the relationships the Port Authority has with the other actors in the hinterland transport market. The Port Authority can position itself as a hub of information for the other actors in the hinterland transport market (action). Another action of the Port Authority is to increase the amount of terminals where it has the role of landlord.

Interest groups: VITO, TLN and EVO The interest groups have high interest in the policy since they are the advocates of the interest of their members. Yet their power is quite limited; they can offer advice to the policy makers and these policy makers can take this into account. The chance that they will have a changing preference is small.

Barge operators and rail operators The barge operators and rail operators are interested in this policy since it will lead to more business opportunities for them. If the inland terminal network is strengthened and optimized, they can carry out more frequent shuttles between a terminal and the main port for example. For this reason, the interest of the barge operators and rail operators is categorized as high. On the other hand, the barge and rail operators are dependent on the shippers and the inland terminal operators for business. For this reason they have limited power to influence the implementation of the basic policy.

Trucking companies The trucking companies have high interest in this policy, since an optimized and strengthened inland terminal network might lead to losses in business. Yet, their power is quite low since strengthening the inland terminal network is of national interest. A changing preference of the trucking companies is to shift their core business from long haulage transport to short haulage transport (from terminal to consignee and vice versa for example).

Inhabitants and small business owners The inhabitants and small business owners are important stakeholders to consider. With regard to the basic policy their interest is limited. Only when the policy directly leads to employment and business opportunities the interest in the policy can shift. On the other hand, the power of these actors is quite high. This group of actors can invoke their rights with regard to noise pollution and other environmental regulations. For this reason, the “not in my backyard” vision of these actors should be taken into account.

Infrastructure suppliers The infrastructure suppliers have high power since they are the ones that supply the necessary infrastructure for transport. An example of an infrastructure supplier is Rijkswaterstaat. An action of the infrastructure supplier might include investing in expansion and the redundancy of the road network, in the case of Rijkswaterstaat. This action might lead to more road transport instead of more inland waterway and rail transport. With regard to the interest of the infrastructure suppliers in the basic policy; it is quite low. This is because the inland terminal network is not part of their core business.

Deep sea terminal operators Initially the interest of the deep sea terminal operators will be low. The inland terminal network is not part of their core business. However, an action of the deep sea terminal operator might include starting a strategic alliance with an inland terminal operator or implement a logistics concept such as extended gateways. This might lead to for example dedicated shuttles between the deep sea terminal and the inland terminal. In this case, the interest of the deep sea terminal operator shifts from low to high interest. The same applies for the power of the deep sea terminal operators; it is initially low, but in case there is a business opportunity open for them with regard to an inland terminal, then their power increases since they have the finance to invest in for example developing an inland terminal network (action).

Waterway authorities and customs and inspection These actors have both low interest and low power with regard to the basic policy. Their main objective is to guarantee safe and efficient handling of shipping traffic (waterway authorities) and to supervise and monitor European laws and regulations on the import, export and transit of goods (customs/inspection). However, an action of customs can include easing the rules and regulation which can lead to more extended gateways and synchromodality.

6.4. Possible strategic steps to strengthen the inland terminal network

One of the elements of the adapted DA policy framework is to determine strategic steps can be taken. These steps are mainly based on the necessary conditions for success and the available policy actions. Five strategic steps that can be taken with regard to strengthening the inland terminal network are presented and explained in this section. Other elements of the DA policy framework should also be taken into account. The steps are developed for one “focal point” actor, such as the Port of Rotterdam Authority.

The five steps are: 1. Take a closer look at the gaps in the network 2. Conduct research and analyses 3. Regional action 1 – expansion of terminal(s) 4. Regional action 2 – logistics concepts 5. Regional action 3 – develop new terminal(s)

Note that it is not necessary to carry out all five steps. In some cases the inland terminal network is already strengthened in step 3 or 4.

External vulnerabilities and opportunities as well as other uncertain factors are should always be considered when taking the five steps. The input for these vulnerabilities, opportunities and uncertain factors was the DA policy framework. The framework for strategic steps is visualized in Figure 34.

External vulnerabilities Other uncertain and opportunities factors Technological Step 1 Unforeseen events developments 5 S

t p e e t p Sustained Economical 5 strategic 2 S container flows developments steps S Actor’s changing World trade te 3 p p te preferences 4 S Oil price Actor’s (future) Demographics actions

Figure 34: Framework for strategic steps

The five steps include questions that should be answered before continuing to the next step and necessary actions that should be carried out. The steps are presented in more detail in Figure 35.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Closer look at the Conduct research and

5 S identified gaps analyses t p e e t p

S 5 strategic 2 steps A: Decide on region

S Ø Start with high priority Q: Infrastructural te 3 p p gaps accessibility? te 4 S Q: Modal shift possible? A: Conduct cost and Ø Regions with no gaps benefit analysis or small gaps Q = question A: Conduct actor/ A = action Q: Active terminal in the stakeholder analysis * = continue with region of the gap or within Ø Possible PPP the next step or 30 km / no active Ø Possible opposing return to step 1 terminal? actors/stakeholders

Q: Sustained flow of A: Research on regional containers? development plans

A: Monitor innovative A: Identify product technological/logistics - segments (agricultural/ and economic chemicals/consumer developments (in the goods etc) regions)

Step 3* Step 4* Step 5 Regional action 1 - Regional action 2 - Regional action 3 - Logistics concepts Expansion of terminal(s) Additional terminal(s)

A: Implement A: Develop business case synchromodality (based A: Develop business case on outcome product A: Identify available Ø Determine type of segment identification) physical space terminal Ø Increase flexibility in Ø e.g. Conduct a SIEVE Ø Determine the size rail transport analysis Ø Stimulate a-modal of terminal booking A: Expansion of active A: Identify available terminal(s) physical space A: Stimulate the Ø Set up financial Ø e.g. Conduct a development of structure (PPP) additional extended gates SIEVE analysis Ø Stimulate cooperation A: Decide on action A: Develop new deep sea terminals Ø Expansion of physical terminal and inland terminal space Ø Set up financial Ø Stimulate information Ø Expansion of quay structure (PPP) sharing Ø Additional hardware

Figure 35: Strategic steps to strengthen the inland terminal network in more depth

6.5. Application of strategic steps in four regions

The decision has been made to briefly apply the strategic steps to Zuidwest Gelderland, and Zuidoost Noord-Brabant, Delft en Westland and Achterhoek. Reason for this decision is the fact that gaps have been identified in both regions and Zuidoost Noord-Brabant is identified as a possible logistics “hot spot” region. Furthermore, there is no terminal located Delft en Westland and Achterhoek, but the container flows transported between these regions and the PoR are expected to be enormous, so they are also taken into account. With regard to Delft en Westland, there are plans to develop a terminal in this region; however these plans are still in a conceptual phase. Note that, the emphasis is on applying the strategic steps briefly, since the analyses that are recommended in the five strategic steps will not be conducted.

6.5.1. Region with a high priority gap First of all, the five strategic steps are applied to Zuidwest Gelderland. The decision for Zuidwest Gelderland is based on the fact that this region has a high priority gap; a gap that already occurs in the low growth scenario in 2020.

Step 1: Closer look at the gaps in the region The gap in Zuidwest Gelderland is as follows:

 In 2020 – 30.000 TEU in the low growth scenario and 32.000 TEU in the high growth scenario  In 2030 – 40.000 TEU in the low growth scenario and 70.000 TEU in the high growth scenario

The identification of the gap included the capacity of the terminal that is currently being developed; Container Terminal Tiel (active terminal in the region in 2030). As mentioned before, there are plans to develop a new terminal, namely Container Terminal Haaften. However, since these plans are not certain, the strategic steps can be applied to the region.

With regard to active terminals within a radius of 30 km there are none, when the infrastructural links between Container Terminal Tiel and the nearest terminals (in Oss, ‘s-Hertogenbosch and Nijmegen) are taken into account. This means that it will be difficult to realize a modal shift to these nearby terminals.

Finally, regarding the sustained container flows; there is a strong presence of the agricultural sector (fruit trade) and wholesalers in this region; it accounts for one fifth of the national economy (ING Economisch Bureau, 2011). Assumingly this will remain the same, which means that the flows of containers will be presence. Next to that the prognosis is that there will be a slight increase in population in this region (KcBB, 2009), which can also be taken into account in sustained flows of containers.

Step 2: Conduct research and analysis Since the Container Terminal Tiel is active in this region, there is infrastructural accessibility. The infrastructural accessibility is by inland waterway and road. More in depth research should be done with regard to the class of barges and the prognoses for congestion on the road network surrounding this terminal.

The proposed analyses should be conducted in this step. Not only will the actor/stakeholder analysis contribute to identifying possible PPP’s, it will also contribute to the input for the other uncertain factors. Note that there are ten municipalities in Zuidwest Gelderland, which should all be taken into account; cooperation between all these municipalities is one of the key conditions for success.

Step 3: Regional action 1 – Logistics concepts With regard to the product segments in Zuidwest Gelderland, it consists mainly of agricultural products. Since there is limited rail accessibility in this region, full implementation of synchromodality will probably be difficult. Research should be done with regard to the extended gates concept.

Step 4: Regional action 2 – Expansion of terminal(s) In this step the possibility to expand the Container Terminal Tiel has to be identified. The most important necessary factors for such an expansion are financial support and physical space. Since the Container Terminal Tiel is currently being developed, the first action to undertake is to analyze whether this terminal can be developed with additional capacity. It will save costs if the terminal is developed with more capacity now, than to expand the terminal in a later phase.

Step 5: Regional action 3– Additional terminal(s) As mentioned above, there are plans to develop the Container Terminal Haaften. The assumption is made that these plans take most of the above researches and analyses into account. If this is not the case, the recommendation is made to conduct these researches and analysis. They might show that another policy action is more appropriate for this region. However, if the results show that this is not the case, then the business case of the Container Terminal Haaften should be developed and the specific location of the terminal should be decided upon. In order to do this, a sieve analysis or other analysis to eliminate physical space that cannot be used for the purpose of a terminal, is recommended.

6.5.2. Possible logistics “hot spot” region The strategic steps are also applied to Zuidoost Noord-Brabant. This region has been identified as a possible logistics “hot spot” region and has a gap in the high growth scenario in both 2020 and 2030

Step 1: Closer look at the gaps in the region The gap in Zuidoost Noord-Brabant is as follows:

 In 2020 – 16.000 TEU in the high growth scenario  In 2030 – 60.000 TEU in the high growth scenario

Rail Terminal Eindhoven is the currently active terminal in this region is, and has a capacity of 65.000 TEU. As mentioned before, there are plans to develop a new inland waterway terminal, namely ROC Ekkersrijt in Son en Breugel. However, since these plans are not certain, the strategic steps can be applied to the region.

With regard to active terminals within a radius of 30 km, the following have been identified:

1. Barge and Rail Terminal Tilburg in Midden Noord-Brabant has been identified. Note that the distance by road is approximately 30 km (use of the highways A58 and A65); the distance by inland waterway and rail should be calculated. Midden Noord-Brabant also has a gap in the high growth scenario, which makes it difficult to stimulate a modal shift to this region.

2. Inland Terminal Veghel is by road approximately 25 km (use of highways A2 and A50) from Rail Terminal Eindhoven. The distance by inland waterway should be calculated. Noordoost Noord-Brabant also has a gap in the high growth scenario, which makes it difficult to stimulate a modal shift to this region.

Finally, regarding the sustained container flows; the prognoses for this region is a slight decrease in population (KcBB, 2009), which might influence the flows of containers. Furthermore, high tech systems are prominent in the province Noord-Brabant; the share of Zuidoost Noord-Brabant is approximately 35%. Next to that, the sectors automotive, human health and ICT are all present in this region (SER Brabant, 2008). The assumption is made that these sectors will contribute to a sustained container flow. However, the external vulnerabilities and opportunities should be monitored.

Step 2: Conduct research and analysis Since the Rail Terminal Eindhoven is active in this region, there is infrastructural accessibility. The infrastructural accessibility is by rail and road. More in depth research should be done with regard to the inland waterway network in this region. Currently, barges of class II can utilize the network; this should probably be upgraded considering the economies of scale. Based on the plans to develop inland terminal ROC Ekkersrijt, there is possibly also infrastructural accessibility to the region by inland waterway transport.

The proposed analyses should be conducted in this step. Not only will the actor/stakeholder analysis contribute to identifying possible PPP’s, it will also contribute to the input for the other uncertain factors. There are twenty two municipalities in this region, all of which will influence the other uncertain factors. Next to that, important shippers and logistics companies in the regions should also be included in the actor/stakeholder analysis.

Step 3: Regional action 1 – Logistics concepts With regard to the product segments in Zuidwest Gelderland, it consists mainly of high tech systems, automotive and ICT products. Infrastructural accessibility to the region with regard to all modes of transport has been identified. Based on this, analysis should be done on the implementation of synchromodality. Research should be done with regard to the extended gates concept.

Step 4: Regional action 2 – Expansion of terminal(s) In this step the possibility to expand the Rail Terminal Eindhoven has to be identified. The most important necessary factors for such an expansion are financial support and physical space. Since rail terminals require a lot of physical space, it might be difficult to expand the terminal. More in depth research is necessary to assess this third step.

Step 5: Regional action 3– Additional terminal(s) As mentioned above, there are plans to develop ROC Ekkersrijt. The assumption is made that these plans take most of the above researches and analyses into account. If this is not the case, the recommendation is made to conduct these researches and analysis. They might show that another policy action is more appropriate for this region. However, if the results show that this is not the case, then the business case of ROC Ekkersrijt should be developed and the specific location of the terminal should be decided upon. In order to do this, a Sieve analysis or other analysis to eliminate physical space that cannot be used for the purpose of a terminal, is recommended.

6.5.3. Region without a terminal and plans to develop a new terminal The strategic steps are also applied to Delft en Westland. There is currently no terminal located in this region, but there are plans to develop a terminal in this region. Since these plans are still in a conceptual phase, the decision has been made to assume that the plans will not be carried out in 2030. In order to identify the gap, the container flows that are expected to be transported by road are applied.

Step 1: Closer look at the gaps in the region The gap in Delft en Westland is as follows:

 In 2020 – 195.000 TEU in the low growth scenario and 198.000 TEU in the high growth scenario  In 2030 – 212.000 TEU in the low growth scenario and 266.000 TEU in the high growth scenario

When looking at the catchment area of the terminals nearby Delft en Westland, it becomes clear that this region is within the catchment area of the Port of Rotterdam and all of its terminals. The terminal in Alphen aan den Rijn in Oost Zuid-Holland also has a part of Delft en Westland in its catchment area. See Figure 36 for clarification. Next to that, the canal Delftse Schie connects Delft with the Port of Rotterdam. This is visualized in Figure 37 .

Figure 36: Terminals with Delft en Westland in their Figure 37: Waterways in and around Delft en Westland catchment area – Source: European waterways (2010)

With regard to the sustained container flows; the prognoses for this region is an increase in population similar to the national prognoses (KcBB, 2009), which might influence the flows of containers. Furthermore, Westland is especially known for its horticulture and greenhouse industry, which will assumingly contribute to a sustained flow of goods between the region and the Port of Rotterdam. Furthermore, Westland is one of the five green port clusters of the Netherlands

(Greenport Holland, 2011). Nevertheless, the external vulnerabilities and opportunities that might influence the sustained flow should be monitored.

Step 2: Conduct research and analysis Since there is currently no active terminal in this region, the infrastructural accessibility is mainly by road. Next to that the Delftse Schie can contribute to accessibility by inland waterway. More in depth research should be done with regard to the barge classes that can use the inland waterway network in this region. It might be necessary to upgrade the Delftse Schie with regard to the economies of scale. The plans to develop an inland terminal in this region include a rail terminal in Bleiswijk. Research should be done if this is possible, since a rail terminal requires a large area of land. The proposed analyses that should be conducted in this step include the actor/stakeholder analysis. Not only will this analysis contribute to identifying possible PPP’s, it will also contribute to the input for the other uncertain factors. There are three municipalities in this region, all of which will influence the other uncertain factors. Next to that, important shippers and logistics companies in the regions should also be included in the actor/stakeholder analysis.

Step 3: Regional action 1 – Logistics concepts With regard to the logistics concepts in this region, it will be difficult to implement synchromodality since there are no inland terminals located in this region. However, if the decision is made to develop a terminal in this region, it might be interesting to apply a satellite transport model in which the terminal in Delft and Westland serves as a satellite for the Port of Rotterdam.

Step 4: Regional action 2 – Expansion of terminal(s) This step can be neglected in this region, since there is no active terminal located here. Next to that the region is located near the main port, which leads to the question whether it will be more feasible to build an inland terminal here than to use road transport. Research should be done in order to answer this question.

Step 5: Regional action 3– Additional terminal(s) Finally, step five refers to the plans to develop the rail terminal in Bleiswijk. The fact that there are plans, even though in a conceptual phase, means that policy makers had previously identified a gap in the network here or they expect that there is a market in this region. Research should be conducted whether or not it is feasible to develop an inland terminal here.

6.5.4. Region without a terminal and no known plans to develop a new terminal The strategic steps are also applied to Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek. There is currently no terminal located in this region and the assumption is made that this will also be the case in 2030. In order to identify the gap, the container flows that are expected to be transported by road are applied.

Step 1: Closer look at the gaps in the region The gap in Leiden en Bollenstreek is as follows:

 In 2020 – 93.000 TEU in the low growth scenario and 159.000 TEU in the high growth scenario

 In 2030 – 120.000 TEU in the low growth scenario and 150.000 TEU in the high growth scenario

When looking at the catchment area of the terminals nearby Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek, it becomes clear that this region is within the catchment area of the terminal in Alphen aan den Rijn in Oost Zuid-Holland has Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek in its catchment area. Next to that, the terminals in the regions IJmond Zaanstreek and Amsterdam all have a part of Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek in their catchment area. See Figure 38 for clarification. Next to that, the Oude Rijn connects Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek with Alphen aan den Rijn. This is visualized in Figure 39.

Figure 38: Regions with Agglomeratie Leiden en Figure 39: Waterways in and around Agglomeratie Bollenstreek in their catchment area Leiden en Bollenstreek

With regard to the sustained container flows; the prognoses for the Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek is an increase in the population (KcBB, 2009), which might influence the flows of containers. Furthermore, this region is especially known for its flower bulb cultivation, hence the name Bollenstreek (English: bulb region). Similar to Westland, the Bollenstreek is also one of the five green port clusters in the Netherlands (Greenport Holland, 2011). This means that it is expected that there will be a sustained flow of goods between the region and the Port of Rotterdam. Again, it should be stressed that the external vulnerabilities and opportunities that might influence this expected sustained flow should be monitored.

Step 2: Conduct research and analysis Since there is currently no active terminal in this region, the infrastructural accessibility is mainly by road. Next to that the Oude Rijn can contribute to accessibility by inland waterway. More in depth research should be done with regard to the barge classes that can use the inland waterway network in this region so that the region can use the inland terminal in Alphen aan den Rijn. The proposed analyses that should be conducted in this step include the actor/stakeholder analysis. Not only will this analysis contribute to identifying possible PPP’s, it will also contribute to the input for the other uncertain factors. There are twelve municipalities in this region, all of which will

96 influence the other uncertain factors. Next to that, important shippers and logistics companies in the regions should also be included in the actor/stakeholder analysis.

Step 3: Regional action 1 – Logistics concepts Considering the application of one of the logistics concepts in this region, the absence of inland terminals will make it difficult to implement synchromodality. Something similar to the extended gate concept might be interesting for the bulb cultivation industry; customs for example can be done at the location of the bulb cultivation company instead of at the main port. This will contribute to the efficiency in an industry that is sensitive to time.

Step 4: Regional action 2 – Expansion of terminal(s) This step can be neglected in this region, since there is no active terminal located here. Next to that the region is located near several main ports, including the Port of Rotterdam, the Port of Amsterdam and Schiphol Airport, which leads to the question whether it will be more feasible to develop an inland terminal here than to use road transport. Research should be done in order to answer this question.

Step 5: Regional action 3– Additional terminal(s) Similar to third step, this step can be neglected in this region, since there is no active terminal located here. The location of the region near several main ports as well as inland terminals will probably make it unfeasible to develop a new terminal in here. However, the economic development of the region should be monitored in order to make a sound decision regarding developing an inland terminal in this region.

6.6. Summary Chapter six is summarized in the Table 20.

Table 20: Summary of chapter 6

Topic Description Adapted version of the DA policy Since the DA policy framework is designed and applied for framework passenger transport policies, some minor adaptations are necessary in order to apply it to the freight transport market.

The adaptations include: 1. The “Necessary conditions for success” box in the second step of the four-stage policy framework is considered to be one of the most important factors. In order for the policy to be accepted, all conditions for success have to be present; especially the conditions that can be assessed beforehand. 2. In the fourth step, the implementation phase, the focus is on the box “Other’s actions, unforeseen events, changing preferences”. The input for identifying the “Other’s actions” and “Changing preferences” is an actor and stakeholders analysis. Explanation and application of DA The DA policy framework consists of four steps: policy framework 1. Setting the stage In this step the objective, constraints and policy options are specified. The outcome of these factors is the definition of success. In this case the objective is to optimize and strengthen the hinterland accessibility so that the expected flows of containers can be accommodated sustainably and efficiently in 2030. 2. Assembling basic policy In the second step, the necessary conditions for success are formulated as well as the possible policy actions that can be conducted. With regard to the basic policy, this is formulated as follows: Invest in strengthening the current inland terminal network taking the identified gaps into account; start with investing in eliminating the gaps in regions with the highest priority. An additional element in this step is the identification of strategic steps that can be taken in order to implement the policy successfully.

Topic Description Explanation and application of DA 3. Specifying rest of policy policy framework (continued) In this step the vulnerabilities of the basic policy are identified as well as the actions that can be taken in order to overcome these certain and uncertain vulnerabilities. The certain vulnerabilities include opposition from the local actors and regions wanting to develop new terminals. Regarding the uncertain vulnerabilities; these include the fact that container volumes might differ from the prognoses and the availability of rail transport. 4. Implementation phase Unforeseen events, other’s actions and changing preferences have to be identified in this phase. In order to do this, conducting an actor/stakeholders analysis is wise. This analysis is briefly conducted and the actors/stakeholders with high power and high interest have been identified. These actors/stakeholders are: (1) municipalities, (2) the Ministry of I&M, (3) inland terminal operators, (4) barge and rail operators, (5) shippers and (6) the Port Authority. The actors/stakeholders with low power/high interest, high power/low interest and low power/low interest are also presented. Their possible actions and changing preferences have been identified and the impact on the basic policy has been clarified. Possible strategic steps regarding Five strategic steps that can be taken in order to strengthen strengthening the inland terminal the inland terminal network have been identified. The network steps are developed for one “focal point” actor. The five steps are: 1. Take a closer look at the gaps in the network 2. Conduct research and analyses 3. Regional action 1 – logistics concepts 4. Regional action 2 – expansion of terminal(s) 5. Regional action 3 – develop new terminal(s)

There are questions that should be answered and actions that should be conducted in each of these steps before being able to move on to the next step.

Topic Description Possible strategic steps regarding The following elements of the DA policy framework should strengthening the inland terminal always be taken into account when carrying out the steps: network (continued) 1. External vulnerabilities and opportunities – technological developments, economical developments, world trade, oil price and demographics. 2. Other uncertain factors – unforeseen events, container flows, actor’s changing preferences, actor’s actions. Strategic steps applied to Zuidwest The five strategic steps are applied to Zuidwest Gelderland, Gelderland because it has a high priority gap. Since the steps are applied briefly, more research and analyses is necessary. However, two of the policy actions that should be researched in more detail are the expansion of Container terminal Tiel, which is currently being developed and the plans to develop Container Terminal Haaften. Strategic steps applied to Zuidoost The five strategic steps are applied to Zuidoost Noord- Noord-Brabant Brabant, because it is identified as a logistics “hot spot” region and it has a gap in the high growth scenario in 2030. Since the steps are applied briefly, more research and analyses is necessary. However, one of the policy actions that can be researched into more depth is the possible modal shift to regions nearby (Midden Noord-Brabant – Barge en Rail terminal Tilburg and Noordoost Noord- Brabant – Inland terminal Veghel). Strategic steps applied to Delft en The five strategic steps are applied to Delft en Westland, Westland since this region is one of the regions where the flows that will be transported by road are expected to be high. Next to that, there are plans for developing a rail terminal in this region. Research should be done to assess whether this plan is feasible. Note that, the steps have been applied briefly, so more in depth research and analyses will be necessary. An example of a policy action for this region, in case a new terminal is developed, is the application of the satellite transport model, in which the region is a satellite for the Port of Rotterdam.

100

Topic Description Strategic steps applied to Leiden en The five strategic steps were also applied to the Bollenstreek Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek. The expected flows by road transport have been applied to this region since there is no active terminal here and there are no known plans for the development of a new terminal. With its location near Alpherium, the inland terminal in Alphen aan den Rijn and the main seaports of Rotterdam and Amsterdam as well as to Schiphol airport, it will assumingly not be feasible to develop a terminal in this region. However, to confirm this assumption, more in depth research should be done. As is the case for the regions mentioned above, more research and analyses should be done in order to be able to decide on a policy action in this region.

101

7 Conclusions, recommendations and reflection

Chapter seven presents the answers and conclusions to the research questions as well as some recommendations and a personal reflection on the process. The main research question as well as the sub-questions is answered in the first section. In the second section recommendations are provided to the Port of Rotterdam. Next to these recommendations, there are also recommendations concerning future research. Finally, some reflections are done on the process of the project in section three.

7.1. Conclusions Prior to answering the main question; “In what manner can the inland terminal network be strengthened in order accommodate the expected container throughput in 2030?” and thus fulfill the previously formulated research objective, the answers to the different sub-questions are provided in this section. The section briefly goes over the rationale behind these sub-questions and the assumptions and decisions that were necessary in order to answer these questions. In answering the questions, all assumptions and decisions that were taken during this research are taken into account.

The sub-questions are presented below, according to the order in which they were presented and answered.

1. What is the current capacity of the inland terminal network?

The first sub-question was relevant in order to identify the gap between the current capacity and the expected flows of containers in 2020 and 2030. In other words with the estimated current capacity, the future capacity could be calculated based on known plans for expanding terminals and the capacity of terminals that are currently being developed. This known future capacity could then be compared to the expected container flows in different scenarios for 2020 and 2030.

The current capacity was estimated by calculating the sum of the inland terminals that are currently operational in the Netherlands. In this report, the capacity refers to the approximate maximum amount of TEU’s a terminal can put through annually. The infrastructural capacity of roads, railways and inland waterways were not considered in this project. Furthermore, the capacity of the deep sea terminals in the Port of Rotterdam and the Port of Amsterdam are also excluded from the calculation of the capacity of the inland terminal network.

The most important assumptions that were taken in order to calculate the capacity of the inland terminal network was with regard to the unknown capacity of several terminals. Research has shown that the capacity of an inland terminal is dependent on several variables such as the area of the terminal, the length of the quay, the amount of cranes, the amount of reach stackers, the amount of empty stackers, and the dwell time of terminals. For rail terminals, the amount of tracks and the

102 length of the tracks also have to be considered. Based on this, the capacity of the terminals with unknown capacity was estimated. The estimations were then assessed based on the scheduled barge and rail shuttles and by expert judgment of staff members of the PoR.

Other assumptions and decisions that were taken are explained in more detail in chapter 3. After all assumptions and decisions were taken, the current capacity of the inland terminal (barge and rail) network of the Netherlands could be calculated and is 4.700.000 TEU per year. This means that all the inland terminals in the Netherlands can have a throughput of 4.700.000 TEU per year.

2. a. What is the expected growth of container flows in 2030? b. What are the possible bottlenecks for the capacity of the network for the period after 2020?

The second sub-question had two parts. First of all the expected flows of containers from the Port of Rotterdam to the COROP regions and vice versa in 2030 in the low growth and high growth scenarios of the CPB et. al. and PoR had to be calculated. An important decision that was made was to limit the container flows to the Dutch hinterland. In other words, flows with their origin and/or destination outside the Netherlands have been excluded. Secondly, the estimations had to be compared with the capacity that had been estimated earlier.

Before being able to estimate the container flows in the low growth and high growth scenarios, the flows from 2008 had to be identified first. This was done with CBS data, information from Rail Cargo and expert knowledge within the PoR. Since the research is limited to the national container flows, the flows that have the Port of Antwerp as origin and/or destination were excluded from the flows to and from the COROP regions. Based on this, the total flows of containers to and from the COROP regions in 2008 were approximately 3.861.000 TEU and were distributed as follows:  Road transport - 2.523.000 TEU  Barge transport – 892.000 TEU  Rail transport - 446.000 TEU

The most important assumption that was made is that the growth in the different COROP regions will be similar to the national growth; no distinction is made for each region. For example, the national growth percentage for road transport is 2,8% per year until 2020 for the RC scenario; this percentage is applied to calculate the container flows to and from the forty COROP regions.

To summarize, the input that was necessary in order to estimate the flows for the WLO and PoR low growth and high growth scenarios for 2030 were: 1. the flows from 2008 (from the CBS and Rail Cargo) 2. the growth percentages of the PoR and the WLO low growth and high growth scenarios, which are presented in respectively Table 11 and Table 13 in chapter 4

103

The table on the next page presents the estimated flows of containers to and from the COROP regions in 2030 for the four scenarios (WLO low growth and high growth scenario and the PoR low growth and high growth scenario).

Table 21: The prognoses of container flows in 2030 in the four scenarios of national transport

WLO RC scenario PoR LG scenario WLO GE scenario PoR GE scenario 2030 2030 2030 2030 Road transport 3.813.000 3.899.000 7.720.000 4.780.000 Barge transport 1.261.000 1.668.000 2.592.000 3.143.000 Rail transport 702.000 1.226.000 1.646.000 2.063.000 Total 5.776.000 6.793.000 11.958.000 9.985.000

Based on the four scenarios, the total flow of containers will approximately be between 5 mln TEU and 12 mln TEU in 2030. The lower bound of this bandwidth is approximately between 5 mln TEU and 7 mln TEU, which refers to the low growth scenarios, while the upper bound is between 10 mln TEU and 12 mln TEU. The bandwidth was used to identify the possible gaps in the inland terminal network. It should be noted that even though the estimated bandwidth is known now, it remains a prognosis. External uncertainties can cause changes so that the container volumes in 2030 are not within the expected bandwidth.

The bottlenecks of the inland terminal network refer to the gaps between the capacity of the inland terminal network on the one hand and the prognoses of the flows of containers in 2020 and 2030 on the other hand. In other words, a gap occurs when the capacity of the inland terminals (barge and rail) cannot accommodate the expected flows to and from inland terminals (barge and rail) in the low growth and high growth scenarios.The gaps have been identified in two steps. First the known future capacity of the inland terminal network was compared with the expected flows in 2020, followed by applying the known future capacity of the inland terminal network to the expected flows in 2030. This known future capacity includes the capacity after expanding existing terminals and the capacity of terminals that are currently being developed. In both steps the gaps have been identified with the bandwidth of the future flows. Note that, bottlenecks caused by locks and infrastructural capacity is not taken into account.

Two types of gaps have been identified, and ranked according to priority to undertake measures. The two types of gaps are: 1. Regions in which there are gaps in both the low growth and the high growth scenario 2. Regions in which there are no gaps in the low growth scenario, but there are gaps in the high growth scenario

The gaps have been prioritized according to their occurrence; in other words, the regions with gaps in the low growth scenario in 2020 have the highest priority, followed by regions with gaps in the high growth scenario in 2020. These regions are then followed by the regions with gaps in the low growth and gaps in the high growth scenario in 2030. Moreover, the ability to shift the container flows to terminals within a radius of 30 kilometers from the region with an identified gap should also

104

be taken into account in future research. However, this is not the case in the table on the next page; here the gaps are prioritized based solely on their occurrence.

Table 22: Identified gaps prioritized according to occurrence

Highest priority Second highest priority Third highest priority Lowest priority (Gaps in low growth (Gaps in high growth (Gaps in low growth (Gaps in high growth scenario 2020) scenario 2020) scenario 2030) scenario 2030) Zuidwest Gelderland Overig Groningen Zuidoost Zuid-Holland Delfzijl en omgeving Flevoland Noord Friesland Noord Overijssel Zuidwest Drenthe Veluwe Zuidoost Noord-Brabant Utrecht Noord Limburg Midden Noord-Brabant Noordoost Noord-Brabant

Next to the prioritization according to occurrence of the gaps, the size of the gaps and the location of the regions where gaps are identified should also be taken into account. For example, the southern regions of the Netherlands have been identified as possible logistics hot spot regions. The regions include Noord-Brabant and Limburg. In 2020 gaps have been identified in Zuidoost Noord-Brabant and Noord Limburg in the high growth scenario. Furthermore, in 2030 there are also gaps identified in Noordoost - and Midden Noord- Brabant. This means that the possible logistics hot spots will not be able to accommodate the expected container flows in the high growth scenarios.

It should be noted, that the expected container flows by road to and from the regions in which there are no terminals should be monitored. The ability to shift these flows to terminals within a radius of 30 kilometers from these regions should also be taken into account.

Furthermore, it is important to realize that there are regions where no gap has been identified; however, regions close to their maximum capacity in the low growth scenario in especially 2020 should be monitored. These regions include Delfzijl en omgeving, Zuidoost Friesland, Veluwe and Midden Limburg. In the high growth scenario for 2020 Zaanstreek is also a region that has no gap, but is close to its maximum capacity.

To conclude answering the second sub-question, the identification of the gaps confirms the research hypothesis that the current inland terminal network will possibly not be able to accommodate future container flows in 2030. This confirmation takes all assumptions with regard to the capacity of the inland terminal network and uncertainties with regard to the development of the scenarios and the calculation of future container flows, into account.

105

3. In what manner can the different (new) logistics concepts play a role in accommodating the growing container throughput?

The logistics concepts included synchromodality, tri-modal terminals, container transferium and extended gates. Furthermore, different transport network models have been introduced as well, even though they were excluded from this research. The network models included hub-and-spoke, satellite and circle line model.

The expert interviews have shown that the initial focus should be on the “orgware” concepts, namely synchromodality and extended gates and less on the “hardware” concepts such as developing new terminals. According to the experts, there are for now sufficient tri-modal terminals in the Netherlands, and for now the focus should not be on developing another container transferium.

With regard to the extended gates concept, there are currently two located in the southern part of the Netherlands (Moerdijk and Venlo). For this reason, the North of the Netherlands has been mentioned as a possible location for this concept. The COROP regions here (Overig Groningen, Noord Friesland and Delfzijl en omgeving) have gaps in the high growth scenario in 2020 and 2030. It is difficult to say if implementing an extended gate will contribute to closing these gaps. However, implementing an extended gate in one of these regions will possibly contribute to strengthening the overall inland terminal network.

Furthermore, more research is necessary in order to fully identify the role of synchromodality in the inland terminal network. The “growing pains” of this concept should be eliminated first. They include, but are not limited to more insight in product segments, more flexibility with regard to booking time slots for rail transport and information sharing between actors involved in the hinterland transport market. Furthermore, the role of the PoR in this concept is not clear yet; this is also one of the factors that should be clarified before the role of synchromodality in the future inland terminal can be identified.

Finally with regard to the different transport network models that have been excluded for this research, the possibilities for applying one of these models should be assessed. This can start with assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Brabant Intermodal and identify were in the network a similar concept can be implemented.

To summarize, especially the “orgware” logistics concepts can contribute to strengthen the inland terminal network and optimize the supply chain. With regard to the “hardware” concepts, the initial focus should be on expanding existing terminals before considering developing new terminals. Furthermore, implementing one of the concepts is a policy action that has been assessed for the dynamic adaptive (DA) policy framework. However, the logistics concepts require more in depth research and analyses on a regional level; this is also taken into account in the strategic steps that can be taken in order to strengthen and optimize the inland terminal network.

106

4. Which strategic steps are necessary in order to strengthen and optimize the inland terminal network?

The DA policy framework has been adapted and includes two additional factors, namely: (1) to identify the strategic steps that can be taken in order to strengthen and optimize the future inland terminal network so that it can accommodate the expected flows of containers and (2) to conduct an actor and stakeholders analysis in order to identify possible unforeseen events, changing preferences and other’s actions.

The necessary conditions for success as well as the policy actions in step 2 of the DA policy framework are, next to an actor’s/stakeholders analysis, the most important input elements for the strategic steps. The actors/stakeholders analysis is also the input for identifying unforeseen events, changing preferences and other’s actions.

To summarize, all these elements served as input for formulating five strategic steps that can be taken to strengthen and optimize the inland terminal network. The steps are formulated with one central actor in mind and should be initially applied to the regions with identified gaps. The steps are explained below.

Step 1. Take a closer look at the identified gaps This step includes deciding with which region to start; it is recommended to start with the regions in which the highest priority gaps have been identified. After this, active terminals in this specific region with the gap, or active terminals within a radius of 30 kilometers should be identified. Based on the size of the gap and the capacity of the possible active terminals in the regions, actions such as possible modal shift to terminals within a 30 kilometer radius or expansion of the active terminals should be analyzed. During this step, as well as the other steps, the innovative technological and logistics developments as well as the (regional) economic developments should be monitored.

Step 2. Conduct research and analyses In this step research and analyses should be done on the available infrastructural accessibility in the region that was decided upon in step 1. Furthermore, regional spatial and development plans should be assessed, followed by conducting cost and benefit analyses with regard to the possible policy actions that can be taken. Another analysis that has to be conducted is the actors/stakeholders analysis. By conducting this analysis the possible public-private-partnerships (PPP’s) as well as the possible opposing actors/stakeholders can be identified. This analysis also serves as an input for the “other uncertain factors” that should be taken into account want carrying out the five steps. Finally, research should be done on the product segments in general and on a regional level. The results from this research will serve as input for implementing synchromodality.

Note that it is not necessary to go through all of the next three steps. If the inland terminal network is already strengthened in a certain region after step 3, then the policy maker can repeat the steps for another region. If this is not the case, the policy maker should continue with step 4. The same applies to step 4; either repeat the steps for another region or continue to step 5.

107

Step 3. Regional action 1 – logistics concepts This step regards implementing one of the logistics concepts. The research and analyses, which were previously conducted, serve as input in this step. This includes having knowledge on the product segments, available infrastructural accessibility and sustained container flows. Before the logistics concepts can be implemented, several actions have to be conducted. The actions include increasing the flexibility in rail transport and stimulate a-modal booking (booking transport for a container without setting the mode of transport beforehand). Furthermore, the cooperation between deep sea terminals and inland terminals should be stimulated as well as information sharing between actors involved in the hinterland transport market.

Step 4. Regional action 2 – expansion of terminal(s) In this step, a business case for expanding an existing terminal in the chosen region has to be developed. Furthermore, there should be physical space available in order to implementing the action. Based on the spatial and regional development plans the available space can be identified. Environmental factors should also be taken into account. In this step, the policy makers should decide in what way the terminal can be expanded. The actor/stakeholder analysis will contribute to the setting up possible PPP’s.

Step 5. Regional action 3 – develop new terminal(s) In the fifth and final step, the focus is on developing new terminals. Similar to the third step, a business case has to be developed and a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted. For the development of a new terminal, physical space, infrastructural accessibility and sustained container should all be present. The results of an actor/stakeholder analysis will contribute to identifying possible PPP’s.

The following elements of the DA policy framework should always be taken into account when carrying out the steps: 1. External vulnerabilities and opportunities – technological developments, economic developments, world trade, oil price and demographics. 2. Other uncertain factors – unforeseen events, container flows, actor’s changing preferences, actor’s actions.

The strategic steps and the external factors are presented in Figure 34. The strategic steps are presented in more detail in Figure 35.

Now that the four sub-questions have been answered, the main research question can be answered as well. To recapitulate, the main question of this research project was formulated as follows:

“Which policy actions can contribute to strengthening the inland terminal network in order

accommodate the expected container throughput in 2030?”

108

Several policy actions to strengthen the inland terminal network have been presented in chapter 6. These actions include:

 Stimulate modal shift from road transport to barge and rail terminals within a 30 kilometer radius  Implement “orgware” logistics concepts  Expanding existing terminals  Developing new terminals

As mentioned before, the policy actions were included in the five strategic steps that can be taken in order to strengthen the inland terminal network. Based on the expert interviews, as well as the desk research, it is advisable to hold on to the sequence of the policy actions above. Initial investments should be in the “orgware” policy actions to strengthen the inland terminal network; this includes organizing the transport in such a manner that a modal shift from road transport to terminals within a 30 kilometer radius of regions with no terminals. Next to that the “orgware” policy actions also include the previously mentioned “orgware” logistics concepts such as synchromodality, extended gates or transport network models and more efficient use of the capacity of existing terminals. Cooperation between the different actors in the transport chain is necessary for implementing any of the “orgware” logistics concepts. The focus on the “hardware” policy actions should follow after the initial focus on the “orgware” actions. These “hardware” actions should be conducted as follows: first the possibility to expand existing terminals should be analyzed. Secondly and only if all other policy actions did not contribute to strengthen and optimize the Dutch inland terminal network, the policy to develop new terminals should be conducted.

Taking this knowledge into account, the main question of this research can be answered as follows:

7.2. Recommendations

This section presents several recommendations with regard to efficient transport to and from the Dutch COROP regions. The recommendations will be made to the Port of Rotterdam Authority. Next to that, there are also recommendations for future research.

109

7.2.1. Recommendations to the Port of Rotterdam Authority The recommendations to the Port of Rotterdam Authority also apply to other public actors such as the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment are presented and explained below:

1. Continuously assess and monitor the container flows 2. Start with eliminating the highest priority gaps 3. Stimulate shifting container flows from regions with no terminal to terminals within 30 kilometer radius 4. Eliminate gaps in possible logistics hot spot regions 5. Stimulate bottom-up approach with regard to strengthening the inland terminal network

Continuously assess and monitor container flows One of the most important recommendations to the Port of Rotterdam Authority is to continuously assess and monitor the container flows. As mentioned before, the prioritization of the gaps has been done according to the occurrence of the gap. However, the gap analysis has been conducted with the expected container flows for 2020 and 2030. In case the container flows shift or differ from the volumes that are expected, the gaps might differ too. Furthermore, the uncertainties that have been taken into account in the development of the scenarios should also continuously be assessed. Questions like how these uncertainties develop in reality and how these changes affect the expected container flows should be taken into account during this assessment. Especially the growth prognoses for rail transport and barge transport within the Netherlands should be critically assessed, since the prognoses made by the CPB et. al. differs from the prognoses made by the PoR.

Start eliminating the highest priority gaps The second recommendation to the PoR is to start with eliminating the highest priority gaps according to occurrence. This high priority gap according to occurrence (in the low growth scenario in 2020) has been identified in region Flevoland and Zuidwest Gelderland. There are plans for developing terminals in both regions, respectively Container Terminal Almere, Container Terminal Lelystad and Container Terminal Haaften. It is recommended to support these plans which are currently in a conceptual phase, so that they can be conducted and the network is strengthened in these regions. However, the possibility to expand the existing terminals in these regions should be assessed first.

Stimulate shifting flows by road transport from regions with no terminals Furthermore, the regions with currently no active terminals, and no known plans for developing a new terminal in the future, should also be monitored. The focus should be on the regions where the expected container volumes are relatively high such as Delft en Westland, Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek, Achterhoek and Kop van Noord Holland. By implementing bundling concepts or one of the previously mentioned transport network models to shift some of the expected flows by road transport to neighboring regions with terminals within a radius of thirty kilometers, these flows can be accommodated. The Port of Rotterdam Authority is recommended to identify its role in implementing these logistics concepts, especially in the regions where the expected container flows by road transport is relatively high and use the existing infrastructure; for example the Delftse Schie for inland waterway transport between the PoR and Delft en Westland.

110

Eliminate gaps in the possible logistics hot spots The Port of Rotterdam should also consider the logistics hot spots of the Netherlands and the plausible size of the identified gaps. A logistics hot spot is a region where logistics activities are clustered; transport and logistics companies and distribution parks are located in these regions. Given that the southern regions of the Netherlands have been identified as the logistics hot spots it is recommended to include these regions when conducting research with regard to strengthening the inland terminal network in this region. However, when looking at the catchment area of the Dutch terminals in these regions, it is clear that the network is already dense here. This means that the policy actions in these regions should not include developing new terminals, but possible expansion of existing terminals and implementation of logistics concepts. The expert interviews have shown that developing a new terminal should not be the first policy action to conduct. For this reason, the possibilities for expansion of existing terminals and implementation of logistics concepts should be taken into account first. Since there are different types of terminals located in these regions, the logistics concept synchromodality might contribute to efficient hinterland transport in the southern regions of the Netherlands.

Stimulate bottom-up approach with regard to strengthening the inland terminal network The final recommendation to the Port of Rotterdam Authority concerns the fact that the PoR should not impose the policy actions; the interviews have shown that the demand for the actions should come from the market. In other words, the policy actions should not be imposed top-down, but should be stimulated bottom-up. Yet, the PoR should monitor the economical developments in the different regions and the developments of the logistics concepts and react to this. ECT and APMT have developed their extended gates and PoR should try to respond to these developments, by for example monitoring different external developments and investing in possible policy actions. Furthermore, the PoR can also invest in or support research projects that are conducted regarding innovative logistics concepts. It is recommended to join forces with for example Dinalog and Top team Logistiek, since these two organizations conduct and support research project in among others the logistics field.

7.2.2. Recommendations for future research With regard to the recommendations for future research, these are presented and explained below:

1. Assess the applicability of the adapted DA policy framework 2. Conduct more in depth research with regard to the logistics concepts, focus on synchromodality 3. Apply other transport network models besides point-to-point model 4. Conduct more in depth research with regard to establishing one main actor group to focus on strengthening the inland terminal network 5. Set up an overall database for information on Dutch inland terminals

Assess the applicability of the adapted DA policy framework Future research is also necessary in order to assess the applicability of the adapted version of the DA policy framework. This version of the framework can for example also be applied to other policy options besides strengthening the inland terminal network. These policy options are mentioned in the DA policy framework and some of them are included in the solution space of the PoR with regard to strengthen the hinterland accessibility of the PoR. The outcome of applying the adapted DA policy

111 will clarify the vulnerabilities, policy actions and strategic steps that can be taken for these policy options. All results can be compared with each other and based on cost-benefits analyses and contribution to national policies, a more sound decision can be made what policy actions can be taken to optimize the hinterland accessibility. Furthermore, the DA policy framework as well as the results from the gap analyses can support policy makers from for example the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment with regard to the third draft of the quick win regulation to strengthen the Dutch hinterland. The DA policy framework can be used as to formulate criteria to select the plans of the quick win regulations.

Conduct more in depth research with regard to the logistics concepts, focus on synchromodality Regarding the logistics concepts, especially synchromodality should be further developed and the obstacles for successfully implementing this concept should be eliminated. This means that more research should be done on the product segments that are currently being transported in containers. Next to that, research should be conducted in order to identify the role of the PoR in the implementation of synchromodality. The position of other market players with regard to synchromodality should also be assessed. How do these actors perceive this concept and how can this concept be operationalized are questions that should be answered during a more in depth research. The research should also focus on possibilities to make the information in the hinterland transport market more transparent. Actors and stakeholders in the hinterland transport market should be encouraged to share their information with each other.

Apply other transport network models besides point-to-point model Moreover, research should be done with regard to the transport network models that have been excluded from this research; hub-and-spoke, satellite and circle line model. In this research, the basic point-to-point model has been applied. However, by implementing one of the other network models the inland terminal network can be optimized without developing additional terminals. The network models require a different organizational approach.

Conduct more in depth research with regard to establishing one main actor group to focus on strengthening the inland terminal network Furthermore, research should be done on the possibility of establishing one main actor group that will focus on strengthening the inland terminal network. This group should have representatives of public organizations as well as private organizations and should not have the intention to make profit. The main purpose of such an organization can be to bundle knowledge and make policy decisions that will be positive for all actors in the hinterland transport network.

Set up an overall database for information on Dutch inland terminals Finally, it is recommended to develop an overall database for information on Dutch terminals. The information at least should include the maximum capacity of a terminal, the area size, length of a quay and/or rails, the type of services and the annual throughput of a terminal. Before this can be done, a clear definition of “the capacity of an inland terminal” is necessary in order to ensure uniformity. This also applies to the manner the “throughput of an inland terminal” is calculated. In the database a distinction should be made with regard to the throughput for the three modes of transport.

112

7.3. Reflection

As many projects, there were a few obstacles that were encountered during this project; in this section, the reflection on these obstacles and in what way they were dealt with is presented below. Next to that, there are a few decisions that have been made during this project that might be different in case the project is conducted again. These decisions are also presented below.

First of all, information about the Dutch terminals had to be gathered. The information included, but is not limited to, the location and size of the terminal, the terminal operator, potential plans for expansion, as well as the terminal’s throughput in 2008. Especially the throughput was difficult to examine, since most terminal operators are not willing to share this, according to them, sensitive information. One of the terminal operators stated that he had contributed to student researches in the past, but his information had been misused by other parties. Fortunately, the CBS has this information; however, the information was not completely accurate and was available for road transport and inland waterway transport. It is not mandatory for terminal operators to provide the CBS with their throughput numbers (Visser, 2011), which makes it difficult to have an accurate database. For this reason, the decision has been made to take data from reports that have recently been published and expert judgment on the container flows to and from the different inland waterway terminals, into account. This step of gathering information of the different terminals eventually took more time than was anticipated at first. On the other hand, it was a very critical step in the process, since calculations for the future container flows were based on the flows from 2008. With regard to the capacity of the terminals, several assumptions and decisions had to be made as well, since there is not one fixed way to calculate the capacity of a terminal. Some terminal operators count the amount of movements while others count the handling amount. All the decisions and assumptions that were taken have been mentioned in chapter 3. Because of this, it should be stressed that the capacity that has been applied in the research is not the most accurate capacity; it is more an estimation. Yet, this does not affect the credibility of the research, since the steps that were taken into research were structured and contribute to the goal of the research.

An important decision that was made in this project was to limit the container flows to the Dutch hinterland. In other words, the origin and destination of the containers were either the Port of Rotterdam or one of the forty COROP regions. In reality it is difficult to separate the container flows in this way, since the Dutch terminals also handle containers with an origin or destination in other European countries. However, since the basic point-to-point transport network model was the basis of this research, the decision to limit the research to the Dutch hinterland did not influence the credibility of the results. Nevertheless, if this research would be conducted again, it is advisable to include other container flows besides the Dutch flows.

Another decision that was made was to use the COROP classification of the Netherlands; in this classification, the Netherlands is divided in forty different regions. These regions were used for the identification of the current container flows as well as the future flows. It is known that the flows are not limited to the boundaries of the regions, but the classification was necessary in order to be able to conduct the research. In the catchment areas of the terminals, the boundaries of the COROP regions are neglected. In other words, a gap that has been identified in one of the COROP regions can be eliminated by a terminal within a radius of approximately thirty kilometers in another region. This

113 has been included in the strategic steps that have been developed in order to eliminate the identified gaps and thus the decision to use the classification COROP regions has been taken into account.

When reflecting on the research approach that has been applied in this research, it was appropriate in order to answer the main and sub-questions of this research project. First the container flows of 2008 were calculated between the Port of Rotterdam and the forty COROP regions. This was followed by calculating the growth percentages per year for the low growth and high growth scenarios of the PoR and the CPB et. al. The flows of 2008 and the growth percentages were the input for calculating the future container flows. Finally the future flows were compared with the capacity of the inland terminal network in order to identify possible gaps in the network. In case this research project had to be conducted again, the same approach would have been applied.

To conclude, with regard to the chosen research methods; the methods were adequate for conducting this research and answering the main research question. However, in case this research would have been conducted again, the application of a network design and optimization (simulation) model should be considered. With a model, trend breaking changes such as unexpected regional developments or oil prices can be incorporated and the effect of these changes on the container flows can be observed. In this way, the researcher can develop his or hers own scenarios instead of applying existing scenarios. The data from this research project can be the input for such a model. Note that the application of existing scenarios in this research did not harm the credibility of the results.

7.4. Summary A summary of chapter 7 is presented in Table 23.

Table 23: Summary of chapter 7

Topic Description Current capacity Dutch inland After all assumptions and decisions were taken, the current terminal network capacity of the inland terminal (barge and rail) network of the Netherlands could be calculated and resulted in 4.700.000 TEU per year. This means that all the inland terminals in the Netherlands can have a throughput of 4.700.000 TEU per year. Future container flows The bandwidth of the future container flows in the four scenarios for 2030 is as follows:  The total flow of containers will be between 5 mln TEU and 12 mln TEU in 2030.  The lower bound of this bandwidth is between 5 mln TEU and 7 mln TEU  The upper bound of this bandwidth is between 10 mln TEU and 12 mln TEU. The lower bound of flows refers to the low growth scenarios and the upper bound of flows refers to the high growth scenarios.

114

Topic Description Possible gaps in the Dutch inland A gap occurs when the current capacity of the inland terminal network terminals (barge and rail) cannot accommodate the expected flows (barge and rail) in the low growth and high growth scenarios.

The identification of the gaps has been done in two steps. First the gaps have been identified for 2020 followed by the gap identification for 2030.

Two types of gaps are distinguished, namely: 1. Regions in which there are gaps with both the lower bound and the upper bound flows 2. Regions in which there are no gaps with the lower bound flows, but there are gaps with the upper bound flows

According to this prioritization, the regions with the highest priority are Flevoland and Zuidwest Gelderland.

115

Topic Description Role of the logistics concepts The logistics concepts included synchromodality, tri-modal terminals, container transferium and extended gates. Furthermore, different transport network models have been introduced as well, even though they were excluded from this research. The network models included hub-and- spoke, satellite and circle line model.

Especially the “orgware” logistics concepts can contribute to strengthen the inland terminal network and optimize the supply chain. With regard to the “hardware” concepts, the initial focus should be on expanding existing terminals before considering developing new terminals.

Furthermore, implementing one of the concepts is a policy action that has been assessed for the dynamic adaptive (DA) policy framework. However, the logistics concepts require more in depth research and analyses on a regional level; this is also taken into account in the strategic steps that can be taken in order to strengthen and optimize the inland terminal network. Strategic steps to strengthen the The five strategic steps are formulated with one central Dutch inland terminal network actor in mind and should be initially applied to the regions with identified gaps. The five steps are:

1. Take a closer look at the identified gaps 2. Conduct research and analyses 3. Regional action 1 – logistics concepts 4. Regional action 2 – expansion of terminal(s) 5. Regional action 3 – develop new terminal(s)

There are questions that should be answered and actions that should be conducted in each of these steps before being able to move on to the next step.

116

Topic Description Recommendations to the Port of The recommendations to the Port of Rotterdam Authority Rotterdam Authority also apply to other public actors such as the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. These recommendations are: 1. Continuously assess and monitor the container flows 2. Start with eliminating the highest priority gaps 3. Stimulate shifting container flows from regions with no terminal to terminals within 30 kilometer radius 4. Eliminate gaps in possible logistics hot spot regions 5. Stimulate bottom-up approach with regard to strengthening the inland terminal network Recommendations for future The recommendations for future research are: research 1. Assess the applicability of the adapted DA policy framework 2. Conduct more in depth research with regard to the logistics concepts, focus on synchromodality 3. Apply other transport network models besides point-to-point model 4. Conduct more in depth research with regard to establishing one main actor group to focus on strengthening the inland terminal network 5. Set up an overall database for information on Dutch inland terminals Reflection Several topics were reflected upon in order to assess the lessons learned from this project:

The difficulty to gather information on inland terminals. The information concerned among others the annual throughput of the terminals and the capacity of the terminals. For this reason one of the recommendations for future research is to develop an overall database for information on terminals.

The decision that was made in this project was to limit the container flows to the Dutch hinterland. In reality it is difficult to separate national and international container flows in this way. However, since the basic point-to-point transport network model was the basis of this research, the decision to limit the research to the Dutch hinterland did not influence the credibility of the results. Nevertheless, if this research would be conducted again, it is advisable to include the international container flows.

117

Topic Description Reflection (continued) The decision that was made was to use the COROP classification of the Netherlands, which divides the country in forty regions. Even though it is known that the container flows are not limited to the boundaries of these regions, the classification was necessary in order to be able to conduct the research. In the catchment areas of the terminals, the boundaries of the COROP regions are neglected.

The research approach that has been applied in this research; the chosen approach was suitable to answer the main and sub-questions of this research project. In case this research project had to be conducted again, the same approach would have been applied.

The research methods; the chosen methods were adequate for conducting this research and answering the main research question. However, in case this research would have been conducted again, the application of a network design and optimization (simulation) model should be considered, since a model makes it possible to change one variable such as unexpected oil prices and observe the effect of these changes on the container flow. In this way, the researcher can develop his or hers own scenarios instead of applying existing scenarios. Note that the application of existing scenarios in this research did not harm the credibility of the results.

118

119

Bibliography a&s Management, Stichting Projecten Binnenvaart, Dutch Logistic Development. (2003). Basisdocument containerbinnenvaart. Rotterdam: Commissioned by Centraal Bureau voor Rijn- en Containerbinnenvaart, Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer van het Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat & Nationaal Initiatief Duurzame Ontwikkeling.

APM Terminals. (2011, July 4). APM Terminals Rotterdam introduces smart shuttle service to avoid traffic jams. Press release .

Baarda, D., De Goede, M., & Teunissen, J. (2005). Basisboek Kwalitatief onderzoek, Handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van kwalitatief onderzoek. Groningen/Houten: Wolters-Noordhoff bv.

Black, I., Seaton, R., Ricci, A., & Enei, R. (2003). 'Final Report for RECORDIT: Actions to Promote Intermodal transport.

Buck Conslultants International. (2008). Perspectief van het inlandterminal netwerk in relatie tot het containertransferium - Basisrapportatge. Nijmegen: Buck Consultants international commissioned by Projectgroep Randstad Urgent Containertransferium.

Bückmann, E., Korteweg, A., Bozuwa, J., Volkerink, B., & Van Veen, M. (July, 2008). Sectorstudie van zee- tot binnenhaven. Rotterdam: ECORYS NV Commissioned by Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit.

Bückmann, E., Korteweg, A., Tillema, H., & Van der Gun, M. (2010). Landelijke capaciteitsanalyse binnenhavens - Nationaal beeld van het netwerk van binnenhavens op basis van actuele prognoses. Rotterdam: ECORYS NV Commissioned by Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat.

BVB. (2011). Bureau Voorlichting Binnenvaart. Opgeroepen op June 25, 2011, van Over de binnenvaart: http://www.bureauvoorlichtingbinnenvaart.nl/over/basiskennis/vaarwegen

CBRB. (2011). Centraal Bureau voor de Rijn- en Binnenvaart. Opgeroepen op May 20, 2011, van Centraal Bureau voor de Rijn- en Binnenvaart: http://www.cbrb.nl/home

CBS. (2009). Data Dutch container flows in 2008.

CBS Statline. (2010, November 22). Statline Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Opgeroepen op July 10, 2011, van Lengte van wegen; naar wegkenmerken en gemeente: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=70806ned&D1=0- 7&D2=0,3,13,42,69,92,264&D3=0,2,4,6,l&VW=T

CPB. (2006). Aanpassing WLO scenario's voor het containervervoer. In P. Besseling, J. Francke, & R. S. Nistal, CPB Memorandum. Centraal Planbureau in samenwerking met Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer Rijkswaterstaat en Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid.

De Jong, G., Bakker, S., & Pieters, M. (2004). Hoofdonderzoek naar de Reistijdwaardering in het Vervoer van Goederen over de Weg',. Pittsburgh: RAND Corporation.

De Langen, P. (2007). Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands; the case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, vol. 7, nr. 1 , 1 - 14.

120

De Langen, P. (2011, June 29). The future inland terminal network. (D. Defares, Interviewer)

De Langen, P., & Van der Horst, M. (2008). Coordination in hinterland transport chains: a major challenge for the seaport community. Maritime Economics and Logistics, vol. 10, no. 1‐2 , 108‐129.

Decisio B.V. (2002). Tussenevaluatie Subsidieregeling Openbare Inland Terminals. Uitgevoerd in opdracht van: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Directoraat Generaal Goederenvervoer.

ECT. (2010). European Gateway Services. Opgeroepen op July 20, 2011, van Extended Gate Services: http://www.europeangatewayservices.com/nl- NL/ourservices/extendedgateservices/Pages/default.aspx

Enserink, B. (2011, February 7). Policy Analysis of Multi-Actor Systems. Lecture 2 .

European Commission. (2011). European Commission Mobility & Transport. Opgeroepen op May 20, 2011, van Keeping Europe Moving: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm

European Commission, JRC IPTS. (2008). TRANS TOOLS. Opgeroepen op August 29, 2011, van European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies: http://energy.jrc.ec.europa.eu/transtools/

European Waterways. (2010). Water-ways.net. Opgeroepen op October 18, 2011, van Netherlands, Delftse Schie, Rijn - Schie - Kanaal, Vliet, South-Holland: http://www.european- waterways.eu/e/info/netherlands/delftse_schie_rijn_schie_kanaal.php

European Waterways. (2010). Water-ways.net. Opgeroepen op October 18, 2011, van Netherlands, Oude Rijn, Oude- Woud- & Heimanswetering, Braassemermeer, Zuid-Holland: http://www.european- waterways.eu/e/info/netherlands/oude_rijn_leidse_rijn.php

Eurostat. (2010). A revised urban-rural typology (Tables and graphs). In Eurostat, Eurostat regional yearbook 2010 (p. Chapter 15). Luxembourg: European Union.

EVO. (2011). EVO. Opgeroepen op May 20, 2011, van Alles over EVO: http://www.evo.nl/site/over- evo

Goossens, Y. (2008, June). European Parliament. Opgeroepen op March 1, 2011, van Air and Noise Pollution: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/expert/displayFtu.do?

Gorris, T., Groen, T., Hofman, W., Janssen, R., Van Meijeren, J., Oonk, M., et al. (2011). Implementatieroadmap Synchromodaliteit. TNO, Connekt & Dinalog commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment.

Greenport Holland. (2011). Greenport Holland. Opgeroepen op October 18, 2011, van Vijf greenports: http://greenportholland.com/greenport-holland/vijf-greenports?id=1157#

Hes, M. (2007). Sustainable Hinterland connections by barge. Amsterdam: Port of Amsterdam, StratMos project.

Hofstra, L. (2010). Spreiding achterlandknooppunten, De rol van de Rijksoverheid op mogelijke leemtes en overlap. Breda: NHTV Breda in opdracht van de Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat.

121

ING Economisch Bureau. (2011, Mei). Gelderse groei langzaam vooruit - Arnhem/Nijmegen koploper. Regio ING Economisch Bureau .

Inland Links. (2011). Algemene Info Barge & Rail Terminal Born B.V. Opgeroepen op September 1, 2011, van Inland Links: http://www.inlandlinks.eu/nl/Terminals/view/228

Inland Links. (2011). Algemene Info Osse Overslag Centrale B.V. Opgeroepen op September 1, 2011, van Inland Links: http://www.inlandlinks.eu/nl/Terminals/view/225

IPCC. (2011, May 16). IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Opgeroepen op August 1, 2011, van Definition of Terms Used Within the DDC Pages: http://www.ipcc- data.org/ddc_definitions.html

Janssen, L., Okker, V., & Schuur, J. (2006). Welvaart en Leefomgeving - Een scenariostudie voor Nederland in 2040. The Hague: Centraal Planbureau, Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau en Ruimtelijk Planbureau.

JRC IPTS. (2005). Transtools. Joint Research Centre - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

KcBB. (2009). Kenniscentrum voor Bevolkingsdaling en Beleid. Opgeroepen op September 15, 2011, van Digitaal Basisboek Bevolkingsdaling - Zuidwest Gelderland: http://www.bevolkingsdaling.nl/basisboek/zuidwest-gelderland.aspx

KcBB. (2009). Kenniscentrum voor Bevolkingsdaling en Beleid. Opgeroepen op September 15, 2011, van Digitaal Basisboek Bevolkingsdaling - Zuidoost Noord-Brabant: http://www.bevolkingsdaling.nl/basisboek/zuidoost-noord-brabant.aspx

KcBB. (2009). Kenniscentrum voor Bevolkingsdaling en Beleid. Opgeroepen op October 18, 2011, van Digitaal Basisboek Bevolkingsdaling - Delft en Westland: http://www.bevolkingsdaling.nl/basisboek/delft_en_westland.aspx

KcBB. (2009). Kenniscentrum voor Bevolkingsdaling en Beleid. Opgeroepen op October 18, 2011, van Digitaal Basisboek Bevolkingsdaling - Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek: http://www.bevolkingsdaling.nl/basisboek/agglomeratie_leiden.aspx

Kilometerheffing. (2011, May 5). Kilometerheffing Nederland. Opgeroepen op July 4, 2011, van Kilometerheffing berekenen 2012: http://www.kilometerheffingnederland.com/nl/

Kolkman, J. (2009). Binnenvaart en containerlogistiek - Leerervaringen uit het buitenland en van andere modaliteiten voor afhandelingsproblematiek in de zeehaven. The Hague: Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid.

Konings, R. (2009). Intermodal Barge Transport: Network Design, Nodes and Competitiveness. Delft: TRAIL Thesis Series nr. T2009/11, the Netherlands TRAIL Research School.

Krupe, S., Quak, H., & Verweij, K. (2009). Quick scan: overzicht van netwerk logistieke hot spots in Nederland. Delft: TNO in opdracht van het Ministerie van Economische Zaken.

122

Kuipers, B. Blue ports: Knooppunten voor de regionale economie - Onderzoek naar de economische belangen van de Nederlandse Binnenhavens. Delft: TNO, commissioned by De Nederlandse Vereniging van Binnenhavens (NVB).

Mahmoud, M., Liu, Y., Hartmann, H., Stewart, S., Wagener, T., Semmens, D., et al. (2009). A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making. Environmental Modelling & Software , 798 - 808.

Marchau, V., Walker, W., & Van Wee, G. (2010). Dynamic adaptive transport policies for handling deep uncertainty. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol 77 , 940 - 950.

Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. (2011). Ontwerp Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte - Nederland concurrerend, bereikbaar, leefbaar en veilig. The Hague: Rijksoverheid.

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2008). Basisrapportage Anders Betalen voor Mobiliteit. The Hague: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat.

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2004). Nota Mobiliteit Binnenvaart 2005 – 2020 . The Hague: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat.

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. (2011). Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Opgeroepen op May 20, 2011, van Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment: http://www.ministryofinfrastructureandtheenvironment.nl/

NEA. (2003). Onderzoek Kosten per uur in de Binnenvaart. Rijswijk: NEA.

Nooijen, E. (2011, July 14). The future inland terminal network. (D. Defares, Interviewer)

Notteboom, T. (July, 2007). Inland waterway transport of containerised cargo: from infancy to a fully- fledged transport mode. Journal of Maritime Research, Vol. IV, No. 2 , 63 - 80.

Notteboom, T., & Winkelmans, W. (2001). Structural changes in logistics: how do port authorities face the challenge? Maritime and Policy Management, Vol. 28 , 71 – 89 .

Overheid.nl. (2011). Overheid. Opgeroepen op May 20, 2011, van Wat is de gemeente: http://www.overheid.nl/zowerktdeoverheid/wievormendeoverheid/degemeente

Port of Antwerp. (2008). Het containerachterland in 2008 (Beknopte nota). Antwerpen: Havenbedrijf Antwerpen.

Port of Rotterdam Authority. (2011). Annual Report 2010. Rotterdam: Port of Rotterdam Authority.

Port of Rotterdam Authority. (2011). Havenbedrijf Rotterdam. Opgeroepen op May 16, 2011, van Havenontwikkeling: http://www.portofrotterdam.com/nl/Havenbedrijf/organisatie/Pages/havenontwikkeling.aspx

Port of Rotterdam Authority. (2011). Havenbedrijf Rotterdam. Opgeroepen op May 20, 2011, van Container Transferium: http://www.containertransferium.com/over_het_ct.html

Port of Rotterdam Authority. (2011). Port Compass - Havenvisie 2030. Rotterdam: Port of Rotterdam Authority.

123

Port of Rotterdam Authority. (2009, August 10). Port of Rotterdam Authority. Opgeroepen op July 26, 2011, van BCTN naar een miljoen TEU: http://www.portofrotterdam.com/nl/actueel/pers-en- nieuwsberichten/Pages/20090810_01.aspx

Port of Rotterdam Authority. (2010). Potentieraming Goederenstromen. Rotterdam: Port of Rotterdam Authority.

Port of Rotterdam Authority. (2009, August 10). Press release: BCTN naar een miljoen TEU. Opgeroepen op September 1, 2011, van Port of Rotterdam Authority: http://www.portofrotterdam.com/nl/actueel/pers-en-nieuwsberichten/Pages/20090810_01.aspx

Port of Rotterdam Authority. (2009, June 24). Press release: Container Transferium definitief naar Alblasserdam.

Porter, M. (2003). The Economic Performance of Regions. Regional Studies, Vol. 37 .

Quispel, M., Kindt, M., & Schoemaker, J. (2010). A4 over Water, regio Midden-Holland - Eindreportage. NEA.

RAI Vereniging. (2011, February 1). RAI Vereniging - Rijwiel & Automobiel Industrie. Opgeroepen op July 4, 2011, van Dossier beprijzen: http://www.raivereniging.nl/dossiers/beprijzen/beprijzen/wet- kilometerbeprijzing-ingetrokken.aspx

Rail Cargo. (2009). Overview Intermodal terminals Europe. Opgeroepen op March 2010, van Rail Cargo Information Netherlands: http://www.railcargo.nl/index.cfm/menuid/6/hoofdcat/78/subcat/261/Product/2752

Rail Cargo. (2010). Rail Cargo Information Netherlands. Opgeroepen op May 20, 2011, van About Rail Cargo Information Netherlands: http://www.railcargo.nl/english

Rail Cargo. (2010). Spoor in cijfers 2010. Rijswijk: Rail Cargo information Netherlands.

Rijkswaterstaat. (2011). Rijkswaterstaat - Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. Opgeroepen op July 10, 2011, van Wegbeheer in Nederland: http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/wegen/feiten_en_cijfers/wegbeheer/

RIVM. (2010, September 22). COROP-gebieden 2011. Opgeroepen op May 15, 2011, van Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning, Nationale Atlas Volksgezondheid: http://www.zorgatlas.nl/thema-s/gebiedsindelingen-en-topografie/gebiedsindelingen/corop- gebieden/

RIVM. (2007, February 20). RIVM. Opgeroepen op April 21, 2011, van COROP-gebieden 2005: http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/object_map/o1334n22203.html

Rodrigue, J. P. (2011). Hofstra University. Opgeroepen op August 15, 2011, van The Geography of Transport Systems - Glossary: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/glossary.html#9

Schrijver, J., Op de Beek, F., Bleijenberg, A., Immers, B., Kuipers, B., Passier, G., et al. (Ferbruary, 2008). Tweede Maasvlakte - Visie Verkeer en Vervoer 2020 – 2033. Delft: TNO, Mobiliteit en Logistiek Commissioned by Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, Projectorganisatie Maasvlakte 2.

124

SER Brabant. (2008). Advies - Internationale kredietcrisis;doorwerking naar de regionale economie. 's Hertogenbosch: SER Brabant.

Tavasszy, L. (2011, June 24). The future inland terminal network. (D. Defares, Interviewer)

Tavasszy, L., Van der Lugt, L., Janssen, G., & Hagdom - Van der Meijden, E. (2010). Verkenning Synchromodaal Transportsysteem - Bijlage. Delft: TNO in opdracht van Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.

TLN. (2011). Transport en Logistiek Nederland. Opgeroepen op May 20, 2011, van Organisatie TLN: http://www.tln.nl/TLN_organisatie_nl.html

Topteam Logistiek. (2011). Partituur naar de top - Adviesrapport Topteam logistiek. Topteam Logistiek.

Van Beek, F., Flikkema, H., Francke, J., Besseling, P., Groot, W., Nijland, H., et al. (2006). Achtergrond document Mobiliteit - WLO scenarios. CPB.

Van der Broek, F., De Gier, M., Kindt, M., & Van der Meu, S. (December, 2010). Nederland als één logistiek netwerk in 2015. Zoetermeer: NEA Submitted to Centraal Bureau Rijn- en Binnenvaart, FENEX, Rail Cargo information Netherlands, Transport en Logistiek Nederland.

Van der Horst, M., De Langen, P., & Van der Lugt, L. (2009). Een bereikbaar achterland langs vier wegen - Achterlandbereikbaarheid als organisatie vraagstuk. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam made possible by Transumo, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV, Academic Centre TransPORT, Nieuwsblad Transport.

Van Uden. (2010). Alpherium. Opgeroepen op August 10, 2011, van Alpherium B.V. - Reactieformulier: http://www.alpherium.nl/

Verschuren, P., & Doorewaard, H. (2010). Designing a research project, second edition. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.

Visser, J. (2011, July 5). Future inland terminal network. (D. Defares, Interviewer)

VITO. (2008). Perspectief van Inlandterminals in relatie tot containertransferium’. In opdracht van het Havenbedrijf Rotterdam.

VITO. (2011). Vereniging van Nederlandse Inland Terminal Operators. Opgeroepen op May 20, 2011, van Doelstellingen: www.vito-nederland.nl

Warffemius, P., & Francke, J. (2010). Achterlandcongestie en de rol van vervoer over water voor mainport Rotterdam. The Hague: Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid.

WebFinance, Inc. (2011). Definition GDP. Opgeroepen op August 29, 2011, van InvestorWords : http://www.investorwords.com/2153/GDP.html

Zhang, M. (2011). Technical report: Visualization of terminal capacity and estimation of terminal throughput in scenario PoRA-RC and scenarioPoRA-GE. Delft.

125

Appendix A: COROP regions

Appendix A-1: Overview COROP regions and their municipalities

No. COROP region Municipalities 01 Oost-Groningen Bellingwedde, Menterwolde, Oldambt, Pekela, Stadskanaal, Veendam, Vlagtwedde 02 Delfzijl en omgeving Appingedam, Delfzijl, Loppersum 03 Overig Groningen Bedum, Ten Boer, Eemsmond, Groningen, Grootegast, Haren, Hoogezand-Sappemeer, Leek, De Marne, Marum, Slochteren, Winsum, Zuidhorn 04 Noord-Friesland Achtkarspelen, Ameland, Het Bildt, Boarnsterhim, Dantumadiel, Dongeradeel, Ferwerderadiel, Franekeradeel, Harlingen, Kollumerland en Nieuwkruisland, Leeuwarden, Leeuwarderadeel, Littenseradiel, Menaldumadeel, Schiermonnikoog, Terschelling, Tytsjerksteradiel,Vlieland 05 Zuidwest-Friesland Gaasterland-Sloten, Lemsterland, Súdwest-Fryslân 06 Zuidoost-Friesland Heerenveen, Ooststellingwerf, Opsterland, Skarsterlân, Smallingerland, Weststellingwerf 07 Noord-Drenthe Aa en Hunze, Assen, Midden-Drenthe, Noordenveld, Tynaarlo 08 Zuidoost-Drenthe Borger-Odoorn, Coevorden, Emmen 09 Zuidwest-Drenthe Hoogeveen, Meppel, Westerveld, De Wolden 10 Noord-Overijssel Dalfsen, Hardenberg, Kampen, Ommen, Staphorst, Steenwijkerland, Zwartewaterland, Zwolle 11 Zuidwest-Overijssel Deventer, Olst-Wijhe, Raalte 12 Twente Almelo, Borne, Dinkelland, Enschede, Haaksbergen, Hellendoorn, Hengelo, Hof van Twente, Losser, Oldenzaal, Rijssen-olten, Tubbergen, Twenterand, Wierden 13 Veluwe Apeldoorn, Barneveld, Ede, Elburg, Epe, Ermelo, Harderwijk, Hattem, Heerde, Nijkerk, Nunspeet, Oldebroek, Putten, Scherpenzeel,Voorst, Wageningen 14 Achterhoek Aalten, Berkelland, Bronckhorst, Brummen, Doetinchem, Lochem, Montferland, Oost Gelre, Oude IJsselstreek, Winterswijk, Zutphen 15 Arnhem/Nijmegen Arnhem, Beuningen, Doesburg, Druten, Duiven, Groesbeek, Heumen, Lingewaard, Millingen aan de Rijn, Nijmegen, Overbetuwe, Renkum, Rheden, Rijnwaarden, Rozendaal, Ubbergen, Westervoort, Wijchen, Zevenaar 16 Zuidwest-Gelderland Buren, Culemborg, Geldermalsen, Lingewaal, Maasdriel, Neder- Betuwe, Neerijnen, Tiel, West Maas en Waal, Zaltbommel 17 Utrecht Amersfoort, Baarn, De Bilt, Bunnik, Bunschoten, Eemnes, Houten, IJsselstein, Leusden, Lopik, Montfoort, Nieuwegein, Oudewater, Renswoude, Rhenen, De Ronde Venen, Soest, Stichtse Vecht, Utrecht, Utrechtse Heuvelrug, Veenendaal, Vianen, Wijk bij Duurstede, Woerden, Woudenberg, Zeist 18 Kop van Noord- Anna Paulowna, Drechterland, Enkhuizen, Harenkarspel, Den Helder, Holland Hoorn, Koggenland, Medemblik, Niedorp, Opmeer, Schagen, Stede Broec, Texel, Wieringen, Wieringermeer, Zijpe 19 Alkmaar en omgeving Alkmaar, Bergen, Heerhugowaard, Heiloo, Langedijk, Schermer 20 IJmond Beverwijk, Castricum, Heemskerk, Uitgeest, Velsen

126

No. COROP region Municipalities 21 Agglomeratie Haarlem Bloemendaal, Haarlem, Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude, Heemstede, Zandvoort 22 Zaanstreek Wormerland, Zaanstad 23 Groot-Amsterdam Aalsmeer, Amstelveen, Amsterdam, Beemster, Diemen, Edam- Volendam, Graft-De Rijp, Haarlemmermeer, Landsmeer, Oostzaan, Ouder-Amstel, Purmerend, Uithoorn, Waterland, Zeevang 24 Het Gooi en Blaricum, Bussum, Hilversum, Huizen, Laren, Muiden, Naarden, Weesp, Vechtstreek Wijdemeren 25 Agglomeratie Leiden Hillegom, Kaag en Braassem, Katwijk, Leiden, Leiderdorp, Lisse, en Bollenstreek Noordwijk, Noordwijkerhout, Oegstgeest, Teylingen, Voorschoten, Zoeterwoude 26 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage, Leidschendam-Voorburg, Pijnacker- Nootdorp, Rijswijk, 's-Gravenhage Wassenaar, Zoetermeer 27 Delft en Westland Delft, Midden-Delfland, Westland 28 Oost-Zuid-Holland Alphen aan den Rijn, Bergambacht, Bodegraven- Reeuwijk, Boskoop, Gouda, Nieuwkoop, Rijnwoude, Schoonhoven, Vlist, Waddinxveen 29 Groot-Rijnmond Albrandswaard, Barendrecht, Bernisse, Binnenmaas, Brielle, Capelle aan den IJssel, Cromstrijen, Dirksland, Goedereede, Hellevoetsluis, Korendijk, Krimpen aan den IJssel, Lansingerland, Maassluis, Middelharnis, Nederlek, Oostflakkee, Oud- Beijerland, Ouderkerk, Ridderkerk, Rotterdam, Schiedam, Spijkenisse, Strijen, Vlaardingen, Westvoorne, Zuidplas 30 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland Alblasserdam, Dordrecht, Giessenlanden, Gorinchem, Graafstroom, Har dinxveld-Giessendam, Hendrik-Ido-Ambacht, Leerdam,Liesveld, Nieuw- Lekkerland, Papendrecht, Sliedrecht, Zederik, Zwijndrecht 31 Zeeuws-Vlaanderen Hulst, Sluis, Terneuzen 32 Overig Zeeland Borsele, Goes, Kapelle, Middelburg, Noord- Beveland, Reimerswaal, Schouwen-Duiveland, Tholen, Veere, Vlissingen 33 West-Noord-Brabant Bergen op Zoom, Breda, Drimmelen, Etten-Leur, Geertruidenberg, Halderberge, Moerdijk, Oosterhout, Roosendaal, Rucphen,Steenbergen, Woensdrecht, Zundert 34 Midden-Noord- Aalburg, Alphen-Chaam, Baarle-Nassau, Dongen, Gilze en Rijen, Goirle, Brabant Hilvarenbeek, Loon op Zand, Oisterwijk, Tilburg, Waalwijk, Werkendam, Woudrichem 35 Noordoost-Noord- Bernheze, Boekel, Boxmeer, Boxtel, Cuijk, Grave, Haaren, Brabant 's-Hertogenbosch, Heusden, Landerd, Maasdonk, Mill en Sint Hubert, Oss, Schijndel, Sint Anthonis, Sint-Michielsgestel, Sint- Oedenrode, Uden, Veghel, Vught 36 Zuidoost-Noord- Asten, Bergeijk, Best, Bladel, Cranendonck, Deurne, Eersel, Eindhoven, Brabant Geldrop-Mierlo, Gemert-Bakel, Heeze- Leende, Helmond, Laarbeek, Nuenen, Gerwen en Nederwetten, Oirschot, Reusel-De Mierden, Someren, Son en Breugel, Valkenswaard, Veldhoven, Waalre 37 Noord-Limburg Beesel, Bergen, Gennep, Horst aan de Maas, Mook en Middelaar, Peel en Maas, Venlo, Venray 38 Midden-Limburg Echt-Susteren, Leudal, Maasgouw, Nederweert, Roerdalen, Roermond, Weert

127

No. COROP region Municipalities 39 Zuid-Limburg Beek, Brunssum, Eijsden-Margraten, Gulpen-Wittem, Heerlen, Kerkrade, Landgraaf, Maastricht, Meerssen, Nuth, Onderbanken, Schinnen, Simpelveld, Sittard-Geleen, Stein, Vaals, Valkenburg aan de Geul, Voerendaal 40 Flevoland Almere, Dronten, Lelystad, Noordoostpolder, Urk, Zeewolde

Source: RIVM, (2007)

128

Appendix A-2: Overview COROP regions and traffic regions

Number COROP region Number Traffic region 1 Oost-Groningen 1 Oost-Groningen 2 Delfzijl en omgeving 2 Overig Delfzijl e.o. 3 Delfzijl & Eemshaven 3 Overig Groningen 4 West-Groningen 5 Groningen (gem.) 4 Noord-Friesland 6 Overig Noord-Friesland 7 Harlingen 5 Zuidwest-Friesland 8 Zuidwest-Friesland 6 Zuidoost-Friesland 9 Zuidoost-Friesland 7 Noord-Drenthe 10 Noord-Drenthe 8 Zuidoost-Drenthe 11 Zuidoost-Drenthe 9 Zuidwest-Drenthe 12 Zuidwest-Drenthe 10 Noord-Overijssel 13 Noord-Overijssel 11 Zuidwest-Overijssel 14 Zuidwest-Overijssel 12 Twente 15 Twente 13 Veluwe 16 Veluwe 14 Achterhoek 17 Achterhoek 15 Arnhem/Nijmegen 18 Aggl. Arnhem/Nijmegen 16 Zuidwest-Gelderland 19 Zuidwest-Gelderland 17 Utrecht 20 Utrecht 18 Kop van Noord-Holland 21 Kop van Noord-Holland 19 Alkmaar en omgeving 22 Alkmaar en omgeving 20 IJmond 23 Overig Noordzeekanaalgebied 24 IJmuiden/Velsen 21 Agglomeratie Haarlem 25 Aggl. Haarlem 22 Zaanstreek 26 Zaanstreek 23 Groot-Amsterdam 27 Overig Groot-Amsterdam 28 Amsterdam 24 Het Gooi en Vechtstreek 29 Gooi en Vechtstreek 25 Agglomeratie Leiden en 30 Aggl. Leiden en Bollenstreek Bollenstreek 26 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage 31 Aggl. 's-Gravenhage 27 Delft en Westland 32 Delft en Westland 28 Oost-Zuid-Holland 33 Oost Zuid-Holland 29 Groot-Rijnmond 34 Overig Groot-Rijnmond 35 Overig Rijnmond 36 Rotterdam 38 Vlaardingen 30 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland 39 Overig Zuidoost Zuid-Holland 40 Dordrecht 41 Zwijndrecht 31 Zeeuws-Vlaanderen 42 Overig Zeeuws-Vlaanderen 43 Terneuzen/Axel 32 Overig Zeeland 44 Overig Zeeland (excl Vlissingen) 45 Vlissingen

129

Number COROP region Number Traffic region 33 West Noord-Brabant 46 Overig West-Brabant 47 Moerdijkgebied 34 Midden Noord-Brabant 48 Midden Noord-Brabant 35 Noordoost Noord-Brabant 49 Noordoost Noord-Brabant 36 Zuidoost Noord-Brabant 50 Zuidoost Noord-Brabant 37 Noord Limburg 51 Noord-Limburg 38 Midden Limburg 52 Midden-Limburg 39 Zuid Limburg 53 Zuid-Limburg 40 Flevoland 54 Flevoland

130

Appendix A-3: NUTS codes of the COROP regions

NUTS 1 Code NUTS 2 Code NUTS 3 (COROP regions) Code Noord Nederland NL1 Groningen NL11 Oost Groningen NL111 Delfzijl en omgeving NL112 Overig Groningen NL113 Friesland NL12 Noord Friesland NL121 Zuidwest Friesland NL122 Zuidoost Friesland NL123 Drenthe NL13 Noord Drenthe NL131 Zuidoost Drenthe NL132 Zuidwest Drenthe NL133 Oost Nederland NL2 Overijssel NL21 Noord Overijssel NL211 Zuidwest Overijssel NL212 Twente NL213 Gelderland NL22 Veluwe NL221 Zuidwest Gelderland NL224 Achterhoek NL225 Arnhem/Nijmegen NL226 Flevoland NL23 Flevoland NL230 West Nederland NL3 Utrecht NL31 Utrecht NL310 Noord-Holland NL32 Kop van Noord-Holland NL321 Alkmaar en omgeving NL322 IJmond NL323 Aggl. Haarlem NL324 Zaanstreek NL325 Groot-Amsterdam NL326 Het Gooi en Vechtstreek NL327 Zuid-Holland NL33 Aggl. Leiden en Bollenstreek NL331 Aggl. ‘s Gravenhage NL332 Delft en Westland NL333 Oost Zuid-Holland NL334 Rijnmond NL335 Zuidoost Zuid-Holland NL336 Zeeland NL34 Zeeuws-Vlaanderen NL341 Overig Zeeland NL342 Zuid Nederland NL4 Noord-Brabant NL41 West Noord-Brabant NL411 Midden Noord-Brabant NL412 Noordoost Noord-Brabant NL413 Zuidoost Noord-Brabant NL414 Limburg NL42 Noord Limburg NL421 Midden Limburg NL422 Zuid Limburg NL423

131

Appendix A-4: COROP regions and provinces

Provinces NUTS 3 (COROP regions) Groningen Oost Groningen Delfzijl en omgeving Overig Groningen Friesland Noord Friesland Zuidwest Friesland Zuidoost Friesland Drenthe Noord Drenthe Zuidoost Drenthe Zuidwest Drenthe Overijssel Noord Overijssel Zuidwest Overijssel Gelderland Twente Veluwe Zuidwest Gelderland Achterhoek Arnhem/Nijmegen Flevoland Flevoland Utrecht Utrecht Noord – Holland Kop van North Holland Alkmaar en omgeving IJmond Aggl. Haarlem Zaanstreek Greater Amsterdam Het Gooi and Vechtstreek Zuid – Holland Aggl. Leiden and Bollenstreek Aggl. ‘s Gravenhage Delft en Westland Oost Zuid-Holland Rijnmond Zuidoost Zuid-Holland Zeeland Zeeuws-Vlaanderen Overig Zeeland Noord – Brabant West Noord-Brabant Midden Noord-Brabant Noordoost Noord-Brabant Zuidoost Noord-Brabant Limburg Noord Limburg Midden Limburg Zuid Limburg

132

Appendix B: Research phases in more detail

Phase III: Phase IV: Phase I: Phase II: DA policy Conclusions, Data collection Data analysis framework and recommendations strategic steps and reflection

Phase V: Report

Phase I: Data collection

Desk research Expert interviews

Identification inland Growth of container terminals (location, flows modality, capacity)

Future developments Current capacity container transport inland terminal network

Role of logistics Aim and background concepts of logistics concepts

(Future) inland Current flows to terminal network and from COROP regions

Performance indicators framework Prognoses container flows WLO and PoRA scenarios

133

Phase II: Data analysis

Identification of Possible policies to Role logistics Scenario analysis gaps in current strengthen network concepts network

Evaluate different Distinction in approaches to gaps estimate future flows

Regions with gaps

Calculate growth percentages WLO and PoR scenarios Prioritize gaps Future flows PoRA and WLO low and high growth scenarios COROP regions

Reflect on different approaches

Bandwidth of prognoses

134

Phase III: DA policy framework and strategic steps

Adapt DA policy Apply DA policy Identify strategic framework framework steps

Step I: stage Identify external setting vulnerabilities and opportunities Step II: Assembling basic policy Identify other uncertain factors Step III: Specifying rest of policy

Step IV: Implementation phase

Identify power and interest actors/ stakeholders

135

Phase IV: Conclusions, recommendations and reflection

Reflection on the Conclusions Recommendations process

Future steps Answer to the regarding sub-questions strengthening the Inland terminal network Answer to the main research question Future research

Phase V: Report

Thesis Scientific article

136

Appendix C: Advantages and disadvantages of the three modes of transport

Containers from the Port of Rotterdam to the hinterland and vice versa are transported either by road, train or barge. Each of these modes has its strengths and weaknesses with regard to among others capacity, transport speed and infrastructural network. Based on a price/ quality ratio, the shipper chooses his door-to-door transportation; the choice of modality is subordinate to this first choice.

First of all, road transport is the most flexible mode of the three modes due to the high density of the road infrastructure network. It is strong on short distances – national transport – and trucks have a relatively high speed, which leads to short transport times. Road transport is also cheaper than barge and rail transport. Finally, investments in new trucks are relatively low. However, the downside of road transport is that it is sensitive to road congestions and weather conditions and there are speed restrictions by law. Furthermore, road transport has high carbon dioxide emissions compared to barge and rail transport and high fuel consumption. Last but not least, the capacity of trucks is quite limited compared to the other modes. Trucks generally have a capacity of 2 TEU with a maximum total weight of 50 tons.

Barge transport is strong on both medium and long distances due to its high reliability and fuel efficiency. It is not expensive if the distances are relatively long and door-to-door solutions are possible. Besides the high level of safety, barges have the ability to carry large volumes at once. Direct transhipment from deep-sea ships to barges (and vice versa) is one of the most important factors that distinct barge transport from the other two modes of transport. Finally, barge transport is less harmful to the environment than road and rail transport (lower carbon dioxide emissions). Nevertheless, as is the case for all modes of transport, barge transport also has its weaknesses; barges have a (relative) low speed and the inland waterways are subjected to natural constraints such as water level variations. Next to that, barge transport is not flexible because of its dependency on inland waterways and the density of inland terminals. There are also infrastructure bottlenecks that negatively influence barge transport; these are limited lock operating hours and bridges. Finally, the investments in new barges are high.

At last, rail transport is strong on long distances – international, European. Trains have the ability to carry large volumes and heavy goods and have an average speed between the speed of barges and trucks. Rail transport offers reliable shuttle services, because of the fixed schedules. In addition, electrical trains are the least harmful to the environment. The limited rail infrastructure network is one of the downsides of rail transport; not all areas are accessible. Moreover, the rail infrastructure has limited capacity, since passenger transport has priority compared to freight transport. Finally, rail transport relies on other modes of transport for pre- and post transport, which leads to high transhipment costs.

The table on the next page presents a summary of the general characteristics of road, barge and rail transport (Van der Horst, De Langen, & Van der Lugt, 2009).

137

Summary of the general characteristics of road, barge and rail transport

Road Barge Rail Scale Approximately 25 ton; 32 – 500 TEU per 80 – 180 TEU per train 2 TEU per truck vessel Speed Around 60 – 70 km/h Around 15 – 20 km/h; Around 40 – 50 km/h depended on current strength and flow Cost structure  No transhipment  Relative high  Relative high costs at the transhipment costs transhipment costs destination  No transhipment  Transport costs per  Relative high costs at the kilometre lower variable costs destination than road transport  In some cases high  Very low transport infrastructure costs costs per kilometre Position in the market Strong in door-to-door Strong position in Strong for large flow transport, especially ‘large flow’ cargo that and heavy cargo and for destinations within is not time critical loads more than 100 a radius of 300 km km from the port. Ability to access Good Limited Limited different destinations Reliability Good, however Good, however water Limited; different destinations in urban levels create safety and voltage areas are sensitive to uncertainties systems in rail road congestions infrastructure and lagging liberalization in some countries lead to low average punctuality.

138

Appendix D: The main infrastructure axes

The main infrastructure axes in the Netherlands can be divided according to the modes of transport. The inland terminals, which can be considered as nodes that connect the axes to each other are also included in this overview.

Road infrastructure axes

The Netherlands has a very dense road network; with a total length of approximately 137.347 km public roads in 2010. This can be subdivided into 5.109 km highways, 7.861 km provincial roads and 124.377 km of other (local) roads (CBS Statline, 2010).

The infrastructure managers are divided according to the road classification. The highways are managed by Rijkswaterstaat, most provincial roads by the provinces and the local roads by municipalities or water boards (Rijkswaterstaat, 2011).

The most important roads in the road network, with regard to freight transport in the Netherlands are:  6 east to west highways – A2, A7, A12, A15, A58 and A59  4 north to south highways – A7/A4, A27/A6, A2 and A73/A50/A28

Note that next to the above highways, all other roads are necessary in order to transport containers from the port of Rotterdam to the final receiver. The figure below visualizes the main road infrastructure axes in the Netherlands. In this figure, the bold red lines represent the roads that are planned to be broadened, while the lines with arrows represent the additional links for 2040 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2011).

Road infrastructure network of the Netherlands

139

Inland waterway infrastructure axes

The Netherlands have approximately 5046 km of waterways, of which 4800 km are suitable for freight transport. The main transport axes and main waterways have a total length of 1400 km (BVB, 2011). Because of its strategic location in the Rhine-Scheldt Delta, the port of Rotterdam is connected through the Rhine with 25.000 km inland waterway network in Europe.

Even though the capacity of the inland waterway network seems to be sufficient, the network faces problems and bottlenecks with regard to dredging, locks and bridges (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2004).

Because of its location at the mouth of several major European rivers like the Rhine, Maas and Scheldt, the Netherlands is the gateway to the hinterland Europe. Besides these rivers, the Netherlands has many canals and lakes that connect the major cities. As a result, the Netherlands has a dense network to transport goods by water (BVB, 2011).

The dotted lines in the figure below present the inland waterway network in the Netherlands. The bold blue lines represent the inland waterway infrastructure of which the profile will be adapted (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2011).

Inland waterway network of the Netherlands

140

Rail infrastructure axes

The Netherlands has an extensive network of rail infrastructure which is used for passenger and freight transport. The network has a total length of 6823 km, calculated as single tracks. The total net length is 2888 km, of which 1982 km are double track or more (Rail Cargo, 2010). ProRail is railway infrastructure manager in the Netherlands.

Additional capacity for rail transport is created by the Betuweroute. This is a 160 km long railway line for freight trains that runs from the Port of Rotterdam to the German border (Rail Cargo, 2010). The Betuweroute is exclusively for freight trains and does not need to be shared with trains of the Dutch Railways (NS) and other railway companies for passengers, which is the case for the rest of the railway network. Keyrail is the infrastructure manager for the Betuweroute.

Not only do ProRail and Keyrail manage the network, they are also responsible for the allocation and distribution of the capacity and they carry out the traffic control. In order to use the railway network, carriers have to pay a fee to these infrastructure managers.

Next to the main railways, the total rail infrastructure also consists of rail terminals for the handling and transshipment of containers and facilities for loading and unloading of rail freight.

The dotted lines in the figure below visualize the current rail infrastructure network of the Netherlands. The lines with arrows represent the links that will be added to the network before 2040. Furthermore, the dark green bold lines represent plan study areas for intensification of train services and infrastructural measures according to the “Programma Hoogfrequent Spoorvervoer” (English: Program for High Frequent Rail transport) (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2011).

Rail infrastructure network of the Netherlands

141

Appendix E: The actors in the hinterland transport market

The following actors can be involved in all logistics chains, no matter what modality:

1. Shippers – production and trading companies generating freight transport flows 2. Shipping agent – organizes the container transport for the shippers 3. Deep sea shipping companies (carriers) – ship owners responsible for enormous incoming and outgoing freight flows in ports (including containers) 4. Ship broker – representative of the shipping company in the port 5. Stevedore – responsible for handling and storage of containers at the seaport terminal 6. Inland terminal operator – responsible for handling and storage of containers at the inland terminal 7. Logistics service providers – execute complex transport services for shippers 8. Customs – responsible for supervising and monitoring European laws and regulations on the import, export and transit of goods 9. Port Authority – manages, operates and develops the port and industrial area 10. Waterway authorities – responsible for safe and efficient handling of shipping traffic

The following additional actors are involved in hinterland transport by road:

11. Road transport companies – offer transport services by road and transport containers between the deep sea terminal and the receiver

The following additional actors are involved in hinterland transport by barge:

12. Barge transport companies – offer transport services by inland waterway and transport containers between the deep sea terminal and the inland terminal 13. Individual skippers – offer transport services by inland waterway and transport containers between the deep sea terminal and the inland terminal 14. Road transport companies – offer pre- and post transport services by road and transport containers between the inland terminal and the receiver

The following additional actors are involved in hinterland transport by rail:

15. Rail freight transport companies – offer transport services by rail, traction, locomotives and wagons 16. Wagon rental companies – offer dedicated wagons 17. Rail expeditors – are capable of bundling smaller shipments into complete trains 18. Intermodal operators – companies that operate freight trains and are the risk owners for the transport of the containers. These companies purchase capacity from the rail freight transport companies. 19. Rail terminal operators – transshipment companies that are specialized in the transshipment of containers, swap-bodies and trailers.

142

Next to the actors that are involved in hinterland transportation, there are also stakeholders that are indirectly involved in or influenced by hinterland transportation. These stakeholders are:

1. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment – “is committed to improving quality of life, access and mobility in a clean, safe and sustainable environment” (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 2011) 2. Regional governments (municipalities) – has to ensure adequate housing, a smooth flow of traffic, and overall wellbeing of inhabitants (Overheid.nl, 2011) 3. European Commission, Mobility and Transport – EU transport policies aim at fostering clean, safe and efficient travel throughout Europe, underpinning the internal market of goods throughout the EU (European Commission, 2011) 4. VITO – represents almost all (medium) large terminal operators in the Netherlands (VITO, 2011) 5. TLN (Transport en Logistiek Nederland, English: Union of freight carriers) – the largest and leading interest group for the freight transport and logistics services sector in the Netherlands (TLN, 2011) 6. EVO (Union of own transporters/carriers) – represents the logistics interest of companies that transport goods (EVO, 2011) 7. CBRB (Central Bureau voor de Rijn en Binnenvaart) – represents employers and inland shipping companies (CBRB, 2011) 8. Rail Cargo Information Netherlands – “the information centre for rail freight transport in the Netherlands. The organization promotes the use of rail freight transport to shippers, logistic service providers, freight forwarders and shipping lines” (Rail Cargo, 2010) 9. Research institutes (universities) – conduct studies on sustainable, efficient and innovative ways to transport goods to and from the hinterland.

143

Appendix F: Inland terminals in the Netherlands

Appendix F-1: List of terminals

COROP region Location / logistics hub Terminal Modality Oost-Groningen - - - Delfzijl en omgeving Delfzijl Container Terminal Wijnne & Inland waterway Barends Overig Groningen Westerbroek MCS Westerbroek Inland waterway Veendam Groningen Railport N.V. Inland waterway – rail Noord-Friesland Harlingen Harlinger Overslag en Inland waterway Veembedrijf (HOV) Leeuwarden Rail Terminal Friesland Rail Zuidoost-Friesland Heerenveen HCL Heerenveen Inland waterway Zuidoost-Drenthe - - - Zuidwest-Drenthe Meppel Multimodaal Container Services Inland waterway (MCS) Meppel Coevorden Euro Terminal Coevorden Rail Noord-Overijssel Kampen ROC Kampen Inland waterway Twente Hengelo Combi Terminal Twente Inland waterway Veluwe Harderwijk Container Terminal Harderwijk Inland waterway Arnhem/ Nijmegen Nijmegen Container Terminal Nijmegen Inland waterway Utrecht Utrecht Container Terminal Utrecht Inland waterway Ijmond Beverwijk Container Terminal Beverwijk Inland waterway IJmuiden Container Stevedoring IJmuiden Short sea – Inland waterway Zaanstreek Zaandam CTVrede-Steinweg Zaandam Inland waterway Groot-Amsterdam Amsterdam SCS Multiport Inland waterway Amsterdam CT Vrede – Steinweg Inland waterway – Amsterdam rail Amsterdam Amsterdam Container Terminal Deep sea – inland (ACT) waterway – rail Amsterdam Amsterdam Multipurpose Deep sea – inland Terminal waterway – rail Oost-Zuid-Holland Alphen aan den Rijn Overslag Terminal Alphen Inland waterway

144

COROP region Location / logistics hub Terminal Modality Groot-Rijnmond Rotterdam Waalhaven Botlek Terminal Short sea – Inland waterway Rotterdam Waalhaven Barge Center Short sea – Inland waterway Rotterdam Pernis Combi Terminal Inland waterway - rail Rotterdam Rail Service Center Rotterdam Rail Rotterdam Rail Service Center Maasvlakte Rail Rotterdam Steinweg Beatrix terminal Inland waterway – rail Rotterdam ECT Delta Deep sea – inland waterway – rail Rotterdam ECT City Terminal Deep sea – inland waterway – rail Groot-Rijnmond Rotterdam Euromax Terminal Deep sea – inland waterway – rail Rotterdam APM terminal Deep sea – inland waterway – rail Ridderkerk Groenenboom Inland waterway Containertransferium Ridderkerk Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland Gorinchem Logistiek Centrum Gorinchem Inland waterway Overig Zeeland Vlissingen Kloosterboer Container Short sea – Inland Terminal Vlissingen waterway Zeeuws-Vlaanderen Westdorpe Multipurpose Terminal Short sea – Inland Westdorpe waterway Terneuzen Zeeland Container Terminal Inland waterway Terneuzen Bertschi Railterminal Rail West-Noord-Brabant Bergen op Zoom Markiezaat Container Terminal Inland waterway Bergen op Zoom Overslag Terminal Bergen op Inland waterway Zoom Moerdijk Moerdijk Container Terminal Deep sea – inland (MCT) waterway – rail Moerdijk Delta Marine Terminal Deep sea – inland waterway – rail Oosterhout Oosterhout Container Terminal Inland waterway Roosendaal Jan de Rijk Rail Midden-Noord- Tilburg Barge en Rail Terminal Tilburg Inland waterway – Brabant rail Waalwijk ROC Waalwijk Inland waterway Noordoost-Noord- Den Bosch Bossche Container Terminal Inland waterway Brabant Oss Osse Overslag Centrale Inland waterway - rail Veghel Inland Terminal Veghel Inland waterway Zuidoost-Noord- Eindhoven Rail Terminal Eindhoven Rail Brabant

145

COROP region Location / logistics hub Terminal Modality Noord-Limburg Wanssum Wanssum Intermodal Terminal Inland waterway Venlo Trimodal Container Terminal Inland waterway – (TCT) Venlo rail Venlo Cabooter Railcargo Rail Zuid-Limburg Stein Container Terminal Stein Inland waterway – rail Born Barge en Rail Terminal Born Inland waterway – rail Flevoland Urk Barge Terminal Urk Inland waterway

146

Appendix F-2: List of terminals in development / planned terminals

COROP region Location / logistics Terminal Modality In hub development/ planned Zuidoost-Drenthe Coevorden Inland Port Coevorden- Inland waterway i/d Emlichheim Arnhem/Nijmegen Doesburg Container Terminal Inland waterway P Doesburg Arnhem/Nijmegen Valburg Container Terminal Valburg Rail P Zuidwest-Gelderland Haaften Container Terminal Haaften Inland waterway P Zuidwest-Gelderland Tiel / Medel Container Terminal Tiel Inland waterway i/d Utrecht Nieuwegein Container Terminal Inland waterway P Nieuwegein Kop van Noord- Hoorn Westfriese Container Inland waterway i/d Holland Terminal Kop van Noord- Enkhuizen Container Terminal Inland waterway P Holland Enkhuizen Groot-Amsterdam Haarlemmermeer Container Terminal Inland waterway P Schiphol-Oost – rail Delft en Westland Bleiswijk GreenRail Terminal Rail P Bleiswijk Oost Zuid-Holland Gouda Container Terminal Gouda Inland waterway P Zuidoost-Zuid- Alblasserdam Containertransferium Inland waterway i/d Holland Alblasserdam Zuidoost-Zuid- Dordrecht Containerterminal Inland waterway P Holland Dordrecht Zeeuws- Vlaanderen Westdorpe Multipurpose Terminal Short sea – inland i/d Mammoet waterway Overig Zeeland Vlissingen Verbrugge Container Deep sea – inland P Terminal waterway – rail Noordoost-Noord- Cuijk Multipurpose Terminal Inland waterway i/d Brabant Cuijk Zuidoost-Noord- Son en Breugel ROC Ekkersrijt Inland waterway P Brabant Noord-Limburg Venlo Trade Port Noord Venlo Rail P Noord-Limburg Gennep ROC haven Gennep Inland waterway P Midden-Limburg Budel Multimodale terminal Inland waterway i/d Weert/Cranendonck – rail Zuid-Limburg Geleen Railterminal Chemelot Rail i/d Flevoland Lelystad Container Terminal Lelystad Inland waterway P Flevoland Almere Container Terminal Almere Inland waterway P

147

Appendix G: Capacity calculation of terminals

area (m²) area

Inland terminal terminal Inland Current (m) quay of Length cranes of Number reach of Number stackers empty of Number stackers (if rails of Number applicable) on rails of Length terminal Capacity (TEU/year) capacity Future Overslag Terminal 200.000 Alphen SCS Multiport 236 100.000 Amsterdam CT Vrede-Steinweg 500 400.000 Amsterdam Amsterdam Container 541633 9 500.000 Terminal (ACT) Amsterdam 300000 150 2 1000 100.000 Multipurpose Terminal Markiezaat Container 12500 125 0 3 0 40.000 Terminal Overslag Terminal 20.000 Bergen op Zoom Container Terminal 90.000 Beverwijk Barge en Rail Terminal 145000 300 4 2 2 6 1500 300.000 Born Euro Terminal 29000 525 0 2 0 5 4200 130.000 Coevorden Container Terminal 20.000 Delfzijl Bossche Container 45000 300 2 1 2 190.000 240.000 Terminal Rail Terminal Eindhoven 65.000 Logistiek Centrum 80.000 Gorinchem Container Terminal 20.000 Harderwijk Harlinger Overslag en 1 40.000 Veembedrijf (HOV) HCL Heerenveen 20.000 Combi Terminal Twente 125000 390 2 1 5 130.000 300.000

148

Inland terminal terminal Inland (m²) area Current (m) quay of Length cranes of Number reach of Number stackers empty of Number stackers (if rails of Number applicable) on rails of Length terminal Capacity (TEU/year) capacity Future Container Stevedoring 8000 340 24.000 IJmuiden ROC Kampen 15470 100 2 1 0 20.000 Rail Terminal Friesland 70.000 Multimodaal Container 32000 140 1 1 1 60.000 Services (MCS) Meppel Moerdijk Container 23300 2 3 2 70.000 Terminal (MCT) Delta Marine Terminal 198200 600 5 3 1 1 100 400.000 Container Terminal 30000 175 2 1 2 140.000 250000 Nijmegen Oosterhout Container 30000 325 2 2 0 120.000 Terminal Osse Overslag Centrale 70000 550 2 1 0 2 300 100.000 Groenenboom 40.000 Containertransferium Ridderkerk Jan de Rijk Roosendaal 15500 100 45.000 Container Terminal Stein 6000 1000 1 100.000 Zeeland Container 33000 350 1 0 0 40.000 Terminal Bertschi Railterminal 1 3 450 20.000 Barge en Rail Terminal 45000 650 1 3 1 2 1200 200.000 Tilburg Barge Terminal Urk 8000 20.000 Container Terminal 22000 200 1 1 0 200.000 Utrecht Groningen Railport N.V. 11930 130 0 2 2 4 3000 200.000 Inland Terminal Veghel 20824 240 0 2 0 80.000 Trimodal Container 8000 155 1 4 0 3 1800 250.000 Terminal (TCT) Venlo Cabooter Railcargo 8500 1 2 2 300 10.000 Kloosterboer Container 70000 2 140.000 Terminal Vlissingen ROC Waalwijk 13000 190 1 1 0 50.000

149

Inland terminal terminal Inland (m²) area Current (m) quay of Length cranes of Number reach of Number stackers empty of Number stackers (if rails of Number applicable) on rails of Length terminal Capacity (TEU/year) capacity Future Wanssum Intermodal 45000 350 2 1 2 140.000 200.000 Terminal Multipurpose Terminal 15000 400 2 0 0 45.000 Westdorpe MCS Westerbroek 34600 185 1 2 0 150.000 CT Vrede-Steinweg 15000 100 1 0 0 45.000 Zaandam Waalhaven Botlek 100500 300 2 2 2 240.000 Terminal Barge Center Waalhaven 64000 225 2 5 1 200.000 Pernis Combi Terminal 140 1 2 4 1400 100.000 Rail Service Center 4 5 8 6000 400.000 Rotterdam Steinweg Beatrix 262300 1750 10 5 0 3 3000 500.000 terminal B.V. Euromax Terminal 84000 1500 4 3 6 4500 5.000.000 APM terminal 100000 14 0 3 2.700.000 ECT Delta inland 72000 370 3 shipping terminal ECT City Terminal 59300 1400 9 1 1 Rail Service Center Maasvlakte

150

Appendix H: Capacity COROP regions

COROP region Terminal Capacity Capacity COROP terminal (TEU) region (TEU) Delfzijl en omgeving Container Terminal Wijnne & Barends 20.000 20.000 Overig Groningen MCS Westerbroek 100.000 350.000 Groningen Railport N.V. 200.000 Noord-Friesland Harlinger Overslag en Veembedrijf (HOV) 40.000 110.000 Rail Terminal Friesland 70.000 Zuidoost-Friesland HCL Heerenveen 20.000 20.000 Zuidwest-Drenthe Multimodaal Container Services (MCS) 60.000 190.000 Meppel Euro Terminal Coevorden 130.000 Noord-Overijssel ROC Kampen 20.000 20.000 Twente Combi Terminal Twente 130.000 130.000 Veluwe Container Terminal Harderwijk 20.000 20.000 Arnhem/ Nijmegen Container Terminal Nijmegen 140.000 140.000 Utrecht Container Terminal Utrecht 200.000 200.000 Ijmond Container Terminal Beverwijk 90.000 114.000 Container Stevedoring IJmuiden 24.000 Zaanstreek CTVrede-Steinweg Zaandam 45.000 45.000 Groot-Amsterdam SCS Multiport Amsterdam 100.000 600.000 CT Vrede – Steinweg Amsterdam 400.000 Amsterdam Container Terminal (ACT) 500.000 Amsterdam Multipurpose Terminal 100.000 Oost-Zuid-Holland Overslag Terminal Alphen 200.000 200.000 Groot-Rijnmond Groenenboom Containertransferium 40.000 40.000 Ridderkerk Waalhaven Botlek Terminal 240.000 Barge Center Waalhaven 200.000 Rail Service Center Rotterdam 400.000 Steinweg Beatrix terminal B.V. 500.000 Pernis Combi Terminal 100.000 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland Logistiek Centrum Gorinchem 80.000 80.000 Overig Zeeland Kloosterboer Container Terminal 140.000 140.000 Vlissingen Zeeuws-Vlaanderen Multipurpose Terminal Westdorpe 45.000 105.000 Zeeland Container Terminal 40.000 Bertschi Railterminal 20.000

151

COROP region Terminal Capacity Capacity COROP terminal (TEU) region (TEU) West-Noord-Brabant Markiezaat Container Terminal 40.000 695.000 Overslag Terminal Bergen op Zoom 20.000 Moerdijk Container Terminal (MCT) 70.000 Delta Marine Terminal 400.000 Oosterhout Container Terminal 120.000 Jan de Rijk Roosendaal 45.000 Midden-Noord- Barge en Rail Terminal Tilburg 200.000 250.000 Brabant ROC Waalwijk 50.000 Noordoost-Noord- Bossche Container Terminal 190.000 370.000 Brabant Osse Overslag Centrale 100.000 Inland Terminal Veghel 80.000 Zuidoost-Noord- Rail Terminal Eindhoven 65.000 65.000 Brabant Noord-Limburg Wanssum Intermodal Terminal 140.000 400.000 Trimodal Container Terminal (TCT) Venlo 250.000 Cabooter Railcargo 10.000 Zuid-Limburg Container Terminal Stein 120.000 420.000 Barge en Rail Terminal Born 300.000 Flevoland Barge Terminal Urk 20.000 20.000

Total capacity inland terminal network / COROP regions (excl. 6.739.000 6.739.000 Maasvlakte terminals)

Note that the regions that are not listed in this overview are the regions in which there are currently no terminals located. This means that these regions currently have no capacity for transshipment of containers transported by barge or rail.

152

Appendix I: Data container flows 2008

Appendix I-1: Container flows to and from COROP regions by road transport in 2008

COROP region Total TEU 2008 (CBS) Oost-Groningen 12.608 Delfzijl en omgeving 6.972 Overig Groningen 20.113 Noord-Friesland 21.643 Zuidwest-Friesland 7.282 Zuidoost-Friesland 15.972 Noord-Drenthe 3.734 Zuidoost-Drenthe 7.880 Zuidwest-Drenthe 7.213 Noord-Overijssel 39.381 Zuidwest-Overijssel 14.453 Twente 65.798 Veluwe 79.483 Achterhoek 60.857 Arnhem/Nijmegen 66.378 Zuidwest-Gelderland 92.519 Utrecht 242.423 Kop van Noord-Holland 32.330 Alkmaar en omgeving 12.503 IJmond 18.063 Agglomeratie Haarlem 5.547 Zaanstreek 28.984 Groot-Amsterdam 161.783 Gooi en Vechtstreek 16.420 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek 97.341 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage 31.097 Delft en Westland 172.040 Oost Zuid-Holland 101.684 Groot-Rijnmond 459.784 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland 249.844 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 18.091 Overig Zeeland 89.146 West-Noord-Brabant 314.768 Midden-Noord-Brabant 71.547 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 67.033

153

COROP region Total TEU 2008 (CBS) Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant 73.755 Noord-Limburg 86.084 Midden-Limburg 23.101 Zuid-Limburg 40.441 Flevoland 61.066 Unknown 16.919

Total 3.014.080 Source: CBS (2009)

154

Appendix I-2: Container flows to and from COROP regions by barge transport in 2008

Total TEU 2008 after COROP region Total TEU 2008 (CBS) modification Oost-Groningen - - Delfzijl en omgeving 5.104 10.000 Overig Groningen 40.302 35.000 Noord-Friesland 11.358 15.000 Zuidwest-Friesland - - Zuidoost-Friesland - - Noord-Drenthe - - Zuidoost-Drenthe - - Zuidwest-Drenthe 55.346 55.000 Noord-Overijssel 6.879 10.000 Zuidwest-Overijssel - - Twente 53.347 55.000 Veluwe 10.198 10.000 Achterhoek - - Arnhem/Nijmegen 15.007 90.000 Zuidwest-Gelderland - - Utrecht 104.962 70.000 Kop van Noord-Holland 16 - Alkmaar en omgeving - - IJmond 45.104 50.000 Agglomeratie Haarlem - - Zaanstreek 35.415 70.000 Groot-Amsterdam 54.882 55.000 Gooi en Vechtstreek - - Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - - Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage 2.582 - Delft en Westland - - Oost Zuid-Holland - - Groot-Rijnmond 903.082 900.000 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland 986 - Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 12.269 30.000 Overig Zeeland 12.412 10.000 West-Noord-Brabant 21.602 120.000 Midden-Noord-Brabant 50.661 75.000 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 139.166 190.000 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant 24 -

155

COROP region Total TEU 2008 (CBS) Total TEU 2008 after modification Noord-Limburg 68.327 70.000 Midden-Limburg - - Zuid-Limburg 71.901 120.000 Flevoland - -

Total 1.720.928 2.040.000 Source: CBS (2009)

156

Appendix I-3: Container flows to and from COROP regions by rail transport in 2008

COROP region Total TEU 2008 (CBS) Oost-Groningen - Delfzijl en omgeving - Overig Groningen 122.000 Noord-Friesland 65.000 Zuidwest-Friesland - Zuidoost-Friesland - Noord-Drenthe - Zuidoost-Drenthe

Zuidwest-Drenthe 39.000 Noord-Overijssel - Zuidwest-Overijssel - Twente - Veluwe - Achterhoek - Arnhem/Nijmegen - Zuidwest-Gelderland - Utrecht - Kop van Noord-Holland - Alkmaar en omgeving - IJmond - Agglomeratie Haarlem - Zaanstreek - Groot-Amsterdam - Gooi en Vechtstreek - Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage - Delft en Westland - Oost Zuid-Holland - Groot-Rijnmond - Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland - Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen - Overig Zeeland - West-Noord-Brabant - Midden-Noord-Brabant 29.000 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant - Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant 27.000 Noord-Limburg 132.000

157

COROP region Total TEU 2008 (CBS) Midden-Limburg - Zuid-Limburg 32.000 Flevoland -

Total 446.000 Source: Rail Cargo (2010)

158

Appendix I-4: Total container to and from COROP regions by rail transport in 2008

COROP region Road (TEU) Barge Rail Total flows (TEU) (TEU) 2008 (TEU) Oost-Groningen 12.608 0 0 12.608 Delfzijl en omgeving 6.972 10.000 0 16.972 Overig Groningen 20.113 35.000 122.000 177.113 Noord-Friesland 21.643 15.000 65.000 101.643 Zuidwest-Friesland 7.282 0 0 7.282 Zuidoost-Friesland 15.972 0 0 15.972 Noord-Drenthe 3.734 0 0 3.734 Zuidoost-Drenthe 7.880 0 0 7.880 Zuidwest-Drenthe 7.213 55.000 39.000 101.213 Noord-Overijssel 39.381 10.000 0 49.381 Zuidwest-Overijssel 14.453 0 0 14.453 Twente 65.798 55.000 0 120.798 Veluwe 79.483 10.000 0 89.483 Achterhoek 60.857 0 0 60.857 Arnhem/Nijmegen 66.378 90.000 0 156.378 Zuidwest-Gelderland 92.519 0 0 92.519 Utrecht 242.423 70.000 0 312.423 Kop van Noord-Holland 32.330 0 0 32.330 Alkmaar en omgeving 12.503 0 0 12.503 IJmond 18.063 50.000 0 68.063 Agglomeratie Haarlem 5.547 0 0 5.547 Zaanstreek 28.984 70.000 0 98.984 Groot-Amsterdam 161.783 55.000 0 216.783 Gooi en Vechtstreek 16.420 0 0 16.420 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek 97.341 0 0 97.341 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage 31.097 0 0 31.097 Delft en Westland 172.040 0 0 172.040 Oost Zuid-Holland 101.684 0 0 101.684 Groot-Rijnmond 459.784 900.000 0 1359.784 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland 249.844 0 0 249.844 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 18.091 30.000 0 48.091 Overig Zeeland 89.146 10.000 0 99.146 West-Noord-Brabant 314.768 120.000 0 434.768 Midden-Noord-Brabant 71.547 75.000 29.000 175.547 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 67.033 190.000 0 257.033 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant 73.755 0 27.000 100.755 Noord-Limburg 86.084 70.000 132.000 288.084 Midden-Limburg 23.101 0 0 23.101

159

Barge Rail Total flows COROP region Road (TEU) (TEU) (TEU) 2008 (TEU) Zuid-Limburg 40.441 120.000 32.000 192.441 Flevoland 61.066 0 0 61.066 Unknown 16.919 0 0 16.919

Total 3.014.080 2.040.000 446.000 5.500.080

Sources: CBS and Rail Cargo Information Netherlands

160

Appendix J: Steps taken to incorporate the flows from the Port of Antwerp

The following steps were taken in order to incorporate the container flows originating in the Port of Antwerp (PoA) to the COROP regions and vice versa. The flows from the PoA in 2008 are known for the Dutch Provinces, and not for the COROP regions. These flows are distributed over the COROP regions. The table below presents the total modal split to the Dutch provinces in 2008.

Modal split Port of Antwerp to the Dutch provinces

Province Total flow (TEU) Inland waterway (%) Rail (%) Road (%) South-Holland 802.800 78 7 15 North-Brabant 211.100 38 0 62 Zeeland 193.300 58 0 42 North-Holland 111.900 79 0 21 Limburg 101.200 49 0 51 Gelderland 55.800 41 0 59 Overijssel 13.400 35 0 65 Friesland 9.600 0 0 100 Utrecht 6.800 24 0 76 Flevoland 6.500 0 0 100 Groningen 2.600 10 0 90 Drenthe 1.200 0 0 100 Source: Port of Antwerp (2008)

Since the flows are known for the provinces and not for the COROP regions, the flows from the port of Rotterdam to these regions were used to calculate the division of the flows over the COROP regions within a province. Based on this division (percentage of flows to a region within a province) the flow to that specific region was calculated for the flows from the port of Antwerp. For example; within the province Groningen, the flows of total road transport to and from the Port of Rotterdam were as follows:  Oost-Groningen – 32%  Delfzijl en omgeving – 18%  Overig Groningen – 51% Based on this division, the total flows to and from the Port of Antwerp for road transport, 2340 TEU, were split for these regions. In regions where there are no inland terminals, there are no flows coming or going to the Port of Antwerp by rail or barge.

Before conducting these calculations, the flows to each province have to be calculated for each modality. The table bellows gives an overview of the flows for each modality. This calculation has been done with the known percentages that are presented above. The high scores for inland waterway for both North-Holland and Zeeland are due to the shuttles between the PoA and terminals in Terneuzen, Vlissingen and Amsterdam. Because of this, the flows to these regions are not taken into account in the correction of the flows from the PoA. Furthermore, the inland waterway and rail flows between the PoA and the PoR are also excluded from the corrections. With regard to the flows executed by road transport to South-Holland; these are distributed over the regions excluding Groot-Rijnmond.

161

Province Road PoA (TEU) Barge PoA (TEU) Rail PoA (TEU)

Groningen 2.340 260 0 Friesland 9.600 0 0 Drenthe 1.200 0 0 Overijssel 8.710 4.690 0 Gelderland 32.922 22.878 0 Utrecht 5.168 1.632 0 Noord-Holland 23.499 88.401* 0 Zuid-Holland 120.420 626.184* 56.196* Zeeland 81.186 112.114* 0 Noord-Brabant 130.882 80.212 0 Limburg 51.612 49.588 0 Flevoland 6.500 0 0 Total * Not taken into account.

Road transport to and from the PoA and the COROP regions

Province Road COROP region Road PoR Percentage Road PoA Road after PoA (TEU) PoR flows (TEU) subtraction (TEU) road (TEU) Groningen 2.340 Oost-Groningen 13.000 33% 761 12.240 Delfzijl en omgeving 7.000 18% 410 6.591 Overig Groningen 20.000 50% 1.170 18.830 Friesland 9.600 Noord-Friesland 22.000 49% 4.693 17.307 Zuidwest-Friesland 7.000 16% 1.493 5.507 Zuidoost-Friesland 16.000 36% 3.413 12.587 Drenthe 1.200 Noord-Drenthe 4.000 21% 253 3.747 Zuidoost-Drenthe 8.000 42% 505 7.495 Zuidwest-Drenthe 7.000 37% 442 6.558 Overijssel 8.710 Noord-Overijssel 39.000 20% 1.716 37.284 Zuidwest-Overijssel 14.000 7% 616 13.384 Twente 66.000 33% 2.903 63.097 Veluwe 79.000 40% 3.475 75.525 Gelderland 32.922 Achterhoek 61.000 28% 9.128 51.872 Arnhem/Nijmegen 66.000 30% 9.877 56.123 Zuidwest-Gelderland 93.000 42% 13.917 79.083 Utrecht 5.168 Utrecht 242.000 5.168 236.832 -

162

Province Road COROP region Road PoR Percentage Road PoA Road after PoA (TEU) PoR flows (TEU) subtraction (TEU) road (TEU) Noord- 23.499 Kop van Noord- 32.000 12% 2.725 29.275 Holland Holland Alkmaar en omgeving 13.000 5% 1.107 11.893 IJmond 18.000 7% 1.533 16.467 Agglomeratie 6.000 2% 511 5.489 Haarlem Zaanstreek 29.000 11% 2.469 26.531 Groot-Amsterdam 162.000 59% 13.793 148.207 Gooi en Vechtstreek 16.000 6% 14.638 1.362 Zuid-Holland 120.420 Agglomeratie Leiden 97.000 15% 17.915 79.085 en Bollenstreek Agglomeratie 's- 31.000 5% 5.725 25.275 Gravenhage Delft en Westland 172.000 26% 31.767 140.233 Oost Zuid-Holland 102.000 16% 18.839 83.161 Groot-Rijnmond 460.000 - 460.000 - Zuidoost-Zuid- 250.000 38% 46.173 203.827 Holland Zeeland 81.186 Zeeuwsch- 18.000 17% 13.657 4.343 Vlaanderen Overig Zeeland 89.000 83% 67.529 21.471 Noord- 130.882 West-Noord-Brabant 315.000 60% 78.083 236.917 Brabant Midden-Noord- 72.000 14% 17.848 54.152 Brabant Noordoost-Noord- 67.000 13% 16.608 50.392 Brabant Zuidoost-Noord- 74.000 14% 18.343 55.657 Brabant Limburg 51.612 Noord-Limburg 86.000 58% 29.789 56.211 Midden-Limburg 23.000 15% 7.967 15.033 Zuid-Limburg 40.000 27% 13.856 26.144 Flevoland 6.500 Flevoland 61.000 6.500 54.500 -

Total 474.039 2.997.000 2.522.961

163

Barge transport to and from the PoA and the COROP regions

Province Iww PoA COROP region Iww PoR Percentage Iww PoA Iww after (TEU) (TEU) PoR flows (TEU) subtraction iww (TEU) Groningen 260 Oost-Groningen - - - - Delfzijl en omgeving 10.000 22% 58 9.942 Overig Groningen 35.000 78% 202 34.798 Friesland 0 Noord-Friesland 15.000 - - 15.000 Zuidwest-Friesland - - - - Zuidoost-Friesland - - - - Drenthe 0 Noord-Drenthe - - - - Zuidoost-Drenthe - - - - Zuidwest-Drenthe 55.000 - - 55.000 Overijssel 4.690 Noord-Overijssel 10.000 13% 625 9.375 Zuidwest-Overijssel - 0% - - Twente 55.000 73% 3.439 51.561 Veluwe 10.000 13% 625 9.375 Gelderland 22.878 Achterhoek - - - - Arnhem/Nijmegen 90.000 100% 22.878 67.122 Zuidwest-Gelderland - - - - Utrecht 1.632 Utrecht 70.000 100% 1.632 68.368 Noord- 88.401 Kop van Noord- - - - - Holland Holland Alkmaar en - - - - omgeving IJmond 50.000 42% 36.834 13.166 Agglomeratie - - - - Haarlem Zaanstreek 70.000 58% 51.567 18.433 Groot-Amsterdam* 55.000 - - 55.000 Gooi en Vechtstreek - - - - Zuid-Holland 626.184 Agglomeratie Leiden - - - - en Bollenstreek Agglomeratie 's- - - - - Gravenhage Delft en Westland - - - - Oost Zuid-Holland - - - - Groot-Rijnmond - - - - Zuidoost-Zuid- - - - Holland - Zeeland 112.114 Zeeuwsch- 30.000 - - 30.000 Vlaanderen* Overig Zeeland* 10.000 - - 10.000 * Not taken into account.

164

Province Iww PoA COROP region Iww PoR Percentage Iww PoA Iww after (TEU) (TEU) PoR flows (TEU) subtraction iww (TEU) Noord- 80.212 West-Noord-Brabant 120.000 31% 25.001 94.999 Brabant Midden-Noord- 75.000 19% 15.626 59.374 Brabant Noordoost-Noord- 190.000 49% 39.585 150.415 Brabant Zuidoost-Noord- - - - - Brabant Limburg 49.588 Noord-Limburg 70.000 37% 18.269 51.731 Midden-Limburg - - - - Zuid-Limburg 120.000 63% 31.319 88.681 Flevoland 0 Flevoland - - - -

Total Total 2.040.000 892.339

Rail transport to and from the PoA and the COROP regions

Province Rail PoA COROP region Rail PoR Percentage Rail PoA Rail after (TEU) (TEU) PoR flows (TEU) subtraction rail (TEU) Groningen - Oost-Groningen - - - Delfzijl en omgeving - - - Overig Groningen 122.000 - 122.000 Friesland - Noord-Friesland 65.000 - 65.000 Zuidwest-Friesland - - - Zuidoost-Friesland - - - Drenthe - Noord-Drenthe - - - Zuidoost-Drenthe - - - Zuidwest-Drenthe 39.000 - 39.000 Overijssel - Noord-Overijssel - - - Zuidwest-Overijssel - - - Twente - - - Veluwe - - - Gelderland - Achterhoek - - - Arnhem/Nijmegen - - - Zuidwest-Gelderland - - - Utrecht - Utrecht - - -

165

Province Rail PoA COROP region Rail PoR Percentage Rail PoA Rail after (TEU) (TEU) PoR flows (TEU) subtraction rail (TEU) Noord- - Kop van Noord- - - - Holland Holland Alkmaar en - - - omgeving IJmond - - - Agglomeratie - - - Haarlem Zaanstreek - - - Groot-Amsterdam - - - Gooi en Vechtstreek - - - Zuid- 56.196 Agglomeratie Leiden - - - Holland* en Bollenstreek Agglomeratie 's- - - - Gravenhage Delft en Westland - - - Oost Zuid-Holland - - - Groot-Rijnmond - - - Zuidoost-Zuid- - - - Holland Zeeland - Zeeuwsch- - - - Vlaanderen Overig Zeeland - - - Noord- - West-Noord-Brabant - - - Brabant Midden-Noord- 29.000 - 29.000 Brabant Noordoost-Noord- - - - Brabant Zuidoost-Noord- 27.000 - 27.000 Brabant Limburg - Noord-Limburg 132.000 - 132.000 Midden-Limburg - - - Zuid-Limburg 32.000 - 32.000 Flevoland - Flevoland - - -

Total 56.196 Total 446.000 446.000

* Not taken into account.

166

Modal split container flows PoA

COROP region PoA PoA road PoA PoA iww PoA rail Total PoA Total PoA road modification iww modification 2008 2008 modification Oost-Groningen 761 1.000 - - - 761 1.000 Delfzijl en 410 - 58 - - 467 - omgeving Overig 1.170 1.000 202 - - 1.372 1.000 Groningen Noord-Friesland 4.693 5.000 - - - 4.693 5.000 Zuidwest- 1.493 1.000 - - - 1.493 1.000 Friesland Zuidoost- 3.413 3.000 - - - 3.413 3.000 Friesland Noord-Drenthe 253 - - - - 253 - Zuidoost- 505 1.000 - - - 505 1.000 Drenthe Zuidwest- 442 - - - - 442 - Drenthe Noord- 1.716 2.000 625 1.000 - 2.341 3.000 Overijssel Zuidwest- 616 1.000 - - - 616 1.000 Overijssel Twente 2.903 3.000 3.439 3.000 - 6.343 6.000 Veluwe 3.475 3.000 625 1.000 - 4.101 4.000 Achterhoek 9.128 9.000 - - - 9.128 9.000 Arnhem/ 9.877 10.000 22.878 23.000 - 32.755 33.000 Nijmegen Zuidwest- 13.917 14.000 - - - 13.917 14.000 Gelderland Utrecht 5.168 5.000 1.632 2.000 - 6.800 7.000 Kop van Noord- 2.725 3.000 - - - 2.725 3.000 Holland Alkmaar en 1.107 1.000 - - - 1.107 1.000 omgeving IJmond 1.533 2.000 36.834 37.000 - 38.366 39.000 Agglomeratie 511 1.000 - - - 511 1.000 Haarlem Zaanstreek 2.469 2.000 51.567 52.000 - 54.036 54.000 Groot- 13.793 14.000 - - - 13.793 14.000 Amsterdam Gooi en 1.362 1.000 - - - 1.362 1.000 Vechtstreek Agglomeratie 17.915 18.000 - - - 17.915 18.000 Leiden en Bollenstreek Agglomeratie 's- 5.725 6.000 - - - 5.725 6.000 Gravenhage

167

COROP region PoA PoA road PoA PoA iww PoA rail Total PoA Total PoA road modification iww modification 2008 2008 modification Delft en 31.767 32.000 - - - 31.767 32.000 Westland Oost Zuid- 18.839 19.000 - - - 18.839 19.000 Holland Groot-Rijnmond ------Zuidoost-Zuid- 46.173 46.000 - - - 46.173 46.000 Holland Zeeuwsch- 13.657 14.000 - - - 13.657 14.000 Vlaanderen Overig Zeeland 67.529 68.000 - - - 67.529 68.000 West-Noord- 78.083 78.000 25.001 25.000 - 103.084 103.000 Brabant Midden-Noord- 17.848 18.000 15.626 16.000 - 33.473 34.000 Brabant Noordoost- 16.608 17.000 39.585 40.000 - 56.193 57.000 Noord-Brabant Zuidoost-Noord- 18.343 18.000 - - - 18.343 18.000 Brabant Noord-Limburg 29.789 30.000 18.269 18.000 48.059 48.000 - Midden- 7.967 8.000 - - - 7.967 8.000 Limburg Zuid-Limburg 13.856 14.000 31.319 31.000 - 45.174 45.000 Flevoland 6.500 7.000 - - - 6.500 7.000

Total 476.000 249.000 725.000

168

Modal split flows PoA and PoR 2008

COROP region Total Total road PoA Total Total iww Total Total rail road PoA 2008 modified iww 2008 rail 2008 PoA modified PoA modified Oost-Groningen 12.240 12.000 - - - - Delfzijl en omgeving 6.591 7.000 9.942 10.000 - - Overig Groningen 18.830 19.000 34.798 35.000 - 122.000 Noord-Friesland 17.307 17.000 15.000 15.000 - 65.000 Zuidwest-Friesland 5.507 6.000 - - - - Zuidoost-Friesland 12.587 13.000 - - - - Noord-Drenthe 3.747 4.000 - - - - Zuidoost-Drenthe 7.495 7.000 - - - - Zuidwest-Drenthe 6.558 7.000 55.000 55.000 - 39.000 Noord-Overijssel 37.284 37.000 9.375 9.000 - - Zuidwest-Overijssel 13.384 13.000 - - - - Twente 63.097 63.000 51.561 52.000 - - Veluwe 75.525 76.000 9.375 9.000 - - Achterhoek 51.872 52.000 - - - - Arnhem/Nijmegen 56.123 56.000 67.122 67.000 - - Zuidwest-Gelderland 79.083 79.000 - - - - Utrecht 236.832 237.000 68.368 68.000 - - Kop van Noord-Holland 29.275 29.000 - - - - Alkmaar en omgeving 11.893 12.000 - - - - IJmond 16.467 16.000 13.166 13.000 - - Agglomeratie Haarlem 5.489 5.000 - - - - Zaanstreek 26.531 27.000 18.433 18.000 - - Groot-Amsterdam 148.207 148.000 55.000 55.000 - - Gooi en Vechtstreek 14.638 15.000 - - - - Agglomeratie Leiden en 79.085 79.000 - - - - Bollenstreek Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage 25.275 25.000 - - - - Delft en Westland 140.233 140.000 - - - - Oost Zuid-Holland 83.161 83.000 - - - - Groot-Rijnmond 460.000 460.000 - - - - Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland 203.827 204.000 - - - - Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 4.343 4.000 30.000 30.000 - - Overig Zeeland 21.471 21.000 10.000 10.000 - - West-Noord-Brabant 236.917 237.000 94.999 95.000 - - Midden-Noord-Brabant 54.152 54.000 59.374 59.000 - 29.000 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 50.392 50.000 150.415 150.000 - - Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant 55.657 56.000 - - - 27.000 Noord-Limburg 56.211 56.000 51.731 52.000 - 132.000 Midden-Limburg 15.033 15.000 - - - - Zuid-Limburg 26.144 26.000 88.681 89.000 - 32.000

169

COROP region Total Total road PoA Total Total iww Total Total rail road PoA 2008 modified iww 2008 rail 2008 PoA modified PoA modified Flevoland 54.500 54.000 - - - -

Total 2.522.961 2.521.000 892.339 891.000 - 446.000

170

Appendix K: Models used for the Mobility theme WLO scenarios

The text in this appendix is from the “Bijlage B4.1 Modellen voor verkeer en vervoer uit Achtergrond Document Mobiliteit” (Van Beek, et al., 2006).

Voor de ramingen van de mobiliteit en het verkeer voor de vier toekomstscenario’s van de WLO zijn voor verschillende onderdelen, diverse modellen gebruikt. In onderstaand schema wordt weergegeven hoe het deel van de informatiestromen (invoer en uitvoer) tussen de verschillende modellen dat, betrekking heeft op de mobiliteitsontwikkeling, heeft gelopen.

Primos De Primos®-prognose beschrijft toekomstige ontwikkelingen in de bevolkingsopbouw, de huishoudenssamenstelling en de woningbehoefte. Primos® staat voor PRognose-, Informatie-, en MOnitoring Systeem. Met dit model kunnen de bevolkingsprognoses ook ruimtelijk worden verdeeld.

171

Facts Het personenautomodel FACTS-II is gebruikt om prognoses te geven voor het autobezit, de brandstofprijzen en -kosten en van de vaste, variabele en totale autokosten. FACTS (Forecasting Airpollution by Car Traffic Simulation) is een model voor het prognotiseren van het autobezit, - gebruik, brandstofverbruik, kosten en emissies.

LMS Het Landelijk Modelsysteem Verkeer en Vervoer is een complex systeem van gedesaggregeerde rekenmodellen voor het maken van prognoses voor de personenmobiliteit voor de middellange en lange termijn. Het model berekent nieuwe evenwichtssituaties in het transportsysteem, die resulteren na een reeks van gedragsaanpassingen van reizigers op wijzigingen in omstandigheden. Het model berekent ook omvang van de verkeersstromen en de congestie op het wegennet. Voor gedetailleerde informatie wordt verwezen naar de diverse publicaties van de Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer over het Landelijk Model Systeem.

SMILE Het Strategisch Model Integrale Logistiek en Evaluatie is in 1997 in opdracht van de Adviesdienst voor Verkeer en Vervoer van het Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat ontwikkeld. SMILE is een scenarioverkenner voor het goederenvervoer waarmee beleidsmaatregelen die ingrijpen op de economie, logistiek en transportsector kunnen worden geëvalueerd. Het model berekent de consequenties van wereldwijde economische en logistieke ontwikkelingen voor goederenstromen in en door Nederland.

172

Appendix L: Prognoses container flows

Appendix L-1: Growth percentages WLO and PoR scenarios

Growth percentages per year WLO scenarios

Modality – year Hinterland transport (Mld tonkm) Growth percentage per year Road RC SE TM GE RC SE TM GE 2002 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 2020 5,1 6,4 7 8,8 2,8% 4,1% 4,6% 6,0% 2040 6 11,5 11,4 20,5 0,8% 3,0% 2,5% 4,3%

Inland waterway RC SE TM GE 2002 3,3 3,3 3,3 3,3 2020 5,1 6,5 7,1 8,9 2,4% 3,8% 4,3% 5,7% 2040 5,7 10,9 11,2 20 0,6% 2,9% 2,6% 4,1%

Rail RC SE TM GE 2002 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 2020 2,4 3,7 3,7 5,1 3,0% 5,5% 5,5% 7,4% 2040 2,9 6,6 6,3 12,4 1,0% 3,3% 3,0% 4,5% Source: CPB Memorandum (2006)

Growth percentages per year PoR scenarios

Modality – year Hinterland transport (mln ton) Growth percentage per year Road LG HOP ET GE LG HOP ET GE 2008 33 33 33 33 2020 39 40 47 50 1,4% 1,6% 3,0% 3,5% 2030 51 45 61 67 2,7% 1,2% 2,6% 3,0% 2040 59 48 72 81 1,5% 0,6% 1,7% 1,9%

Inland waterway LG HOP ET GE LG HOP ET GE 2008 23 23 23 23 2020 39 40 47 52 4,5% 4,7% 6,1% 7,0% 2030 43 56 72 81 1,0% 3,4% 4,4% 4,5% 2040 46 72 93 110 0,7% 2,5% 2,6% 3,1%

Rail LG HOP ET GE LG HOP ET GE 2008 8 8 8 8 2020 17 17 21 24 6,5% 6,5% 8,4% 9,6% 2030 22 27 31 37 2,6% 4,7% 4,0% 4,4% 2040 26 40 41 54 1,7% 4,0% 2,8% 3,9% Source: Port of Rotterdam Authority (2011)

173

Appendix L-2: Total container flows to and from COROP regions in 2030 WLO RC scenario

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Oost-Groningen - 18.139 - 18.139 Delfzijl en omgeving 14.132 10.581 - 24.713 Overig Groningen 49.460 28.720 192.092 270.272 Noord-Friesland 21.197 25.697 102.344 149.238 Zuidwest-Friesland - 9.069 - 9.069 Zuidoost-Friesland - 19.650 - 19.650 Noord-Drenthe - 6.046 - 6.046 Zuidoost-Drenthe - 10.581 - 10.581 Zuidwest-Drenthe 77.724 10.581 61.406 149.711 Noord-Overijssel 12.718 55.928 - 68.647 Zuidwest-Overijssel - 19.650 - 19.650 Twente 73.484 95.229 - 168.713 Veluwe 12.718 114.880 - 127.598 Achterhoek - 78.602 - 78.602 Arnhem/Nijmegen 94.681 84.648 - 179.330 Zuidwest-Gelderland - 119.414 - 119.414 Utrecht 96.095 358.243 - 454.338 Kop van Noord-Holland - 43.836 - 43.836 Alkmaar en omgeving - 18.139 - 18.139 IJmond 18.371 24.185 - 42.556 Agglomeratie Haarlem - 7.558 - 7.558 Zaanstreek 25.437 40.813 - 66.249 Groot-Amsterdam 77.724 223.713 - 301.437 Gooi en Vechtstreek - 22.674 - 22.674 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - 119.414 - 119.414 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage - 37.789 - 37.789 Delft en Westland - 211.620 - 211.620 Oost Zuid-Holland - 125.461 - 125.461 Groot-Rijnmond - 695.324 - 695.324 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland - 308.361 - 308.361 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 42.395 6.046 - 48.441 Overig Zeeland 14.132 31.743 - 45.875 West-Noord-Brabant 134.250 358.243 - 492.493 Midden-Noord-Brabant 83.376 81.625 45.661 210.662 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 211.973 75.579 - 287.552 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant - 84.648 42.512 127.160 Noord-Limburg 73.484 84.648 207.837 365.969

174

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Midden-Limburg - 22.674 - 22.674 Zuid-Limburg 125.771 39.301 50.385 215.456 Flevoland - 81.625 - 81.625

Total 1.259.121 3.810.679 702.237 5.772.037

175

Appendix L-3: Total container flows to and from COROP regions in 2030 PoR LG scenario

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Oost-Groningen - 18.545 - 18.545 Delfzijl en omgeving 18.696 10.818 - 29.514 Overig Groningen 65.435 29.364 335.500 430.298 Noord-Friesland 28.043 26.273 178.750 233.066 Zuidwest-Friesland - 9.273 - 9.273 Zuidoost-Friesland - 20.091 - 20.091 Noord-Drenthe - 6.182 - 6.182 Zuidoost-Drenthe - 10.818 - 10.818 Zuidwest-Drenthe 102.826 10.818 107.250 220.894 Noord-Overijssel 16.826 57.182 - 74.008 Zuidwest-Overijssel - 20.091 - 20.091 Twente 97.217 97.364 - 194.581 Veluwe 16.826 117.455 - 134.281 Achterhoek - 80.364 - 80.364 Arnhem/Nijmegen 125.261 86.545 - 211.806 Zuidwest-Gelderland - 122.091 - 122.091 Utrecht 127.130 366.273 - 493.403 Kop van Noord-Holland - 44.818 - 44.818 Alkmaar en omgeving - 18.545 - 18.545 IJmond 24.304 24.727 - 49.032 Agglomeratie Haarlem - 7.727 - 7.727 Zaanstreek 33.652 41.727 - 75.379 Groot-Amsterdam 102.826 228.727 - 331.553 Gooi en Vechtstreek - 23.182 - 23.182 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - 122.091 - 122.091 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage - 38.636 - 38.636 Delft en Westland - 216.364 - 216.364 Oost Zuid-Holland - 128.273 - 128.273 Groot-Rijnmond - 710.909 - 710.909 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland - 315.273 - 315.273 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 56.087 6.182 - 62.269 Overig Zeeland 18.696 32.455 - 51.150 West-Noord-Brabant 177.609 366.273 - 543.881 Midden-Noord-Brabant 110.304 83.455 79.750 273.509 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 280.435 77.273 - 357.708 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant - 86.545 74.250 160.795 Noord-Limburg 97.217 86.545 363.000 546.763

176

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Midden-Limburg - 23.182 - 23.182 Zuid-Limburg 166.391 40.182 88.000 294.573 Flevoland - 83.455 83.455

Total 1.665.783 3.896.091 1.226.500 6.788.374

177

Appendix L-4: Total container flows to and from COROP regions in 2030 WLO GE scenario

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Oost-Groningen - 36.720 - 36.720 Delfzijl en omgeving 29.045 21.420 - 50.465 Overig Groningen 101.657 58.139 450.381 610.178 Noord-Friesland 43.567 52.019 239.957 335.544 Zuidwest-Friesland - 18.360 - 18.360 Zuidoost-Friesland - 39.780 - 39.780 Noord-Drenthe - 12.240 - 12.240 Zuidoost-Drenthe - 21.420 - 21.420 Zuidwest-Drenthe 159.747 21.420 143.974 325.141 Noord-Overijssel 26.140 113.219 - 139.359 Zuidwest-Overijssel - 39.780 - 39.780 Twente 151.034 192.778 - 343.811 Veluwe 26.140 232.557 - 258.698 Achterhoek - 159.118 - 159.118 Arnhem/Nijmegen 194.601 171.358 - 365.959 Zuidwest-Gelderland - 241.737 - 241.737 Utrecht 197.506 725.211 - 922.717 Kop van Noord-Holland - 88.739 - 88.739 Alkmaar en omgeving - 36.720 - 36.720 IJmond 37.758 48.959 - 86.718 Agglomeratie Haarlem - 15.300 - 15.300 Zaanstreek 52.281 82.619 - 134.900 Groot-Amsterdam 159.747 452.875 - 612.622 Gooi en Vechtstreek - 45.899 - 45.899 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - 241.737 - 241.737 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage - 76.499 - 76.499 Delft en Westland - 428.395 - 428.395 Oost Zuid-Holland - 253.977 - 253.977 Groot-Rijnmond - 1.407.583 - 1.407.583 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland - 624.233 - 624.233 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 87.135 12.240 - 99.375 Overig Zeeland 29.045 64.259 - 93.304 West-Noord-Brabant 275.927 725.211 - 1.001.138 Midden-Noord-Brabant 171.365 165.238 107.058 443.661 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 435.674 152.998 - 588.672 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant - 171.358 99.675 271.033 Noord-Limburg 151.034 171.358 487.298 809.690

178

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Midden-Limburg - 45.899 - 45.899 Zuid-Limburg 258.500 79.559 118.133 456.192 Flevoland - 165.238 - 165.238

Total 2.587.905 7.714.168 1.646.476 11.948.549

179

Appendix L-5: Total container flows to and from COROP regions in 2030 PoR GE scenario

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Oost-Groningen - 22.733 - 22.733 Delfzijl en omgeving 35.217 13.261 - 48.479 Overig Groningen 123.261 35.995 564.250 723.506 Noord-Friesland 52.826 32.206 300.625 385.657 Zuidwest-Friesland - 11.367 - 11.367 Zuidoost-Friesland - 24.628 - 24.628 Noord-Drenthe - 7.578 - 7.578 Zuidoost-Drenthe - 13.261 - 13.261 Zuidwest-Drenthe 193.696 13.261 180.375 387.332 Noord-Overijssel 31.696 70.095 - 101.791 Zuidwest-Overijssel - 24.628 - 24.628 Twente 183.130 119.351 - 302.481 Veluwe 31.696 143.979 - 175.674 Achterhoek - 98.512 - 98.512 Arnhem/Nijmegen 235.957 106.090 - 342.046 Zuidwest-Gelderland - 149.662 - 149.662 Utrecht 239.478 448.986 - 688.465 Kop van Noord-Holland - 54.939 - 54.939 Alkmaar en omgeving - 22.733 - 22.733 IJmond 45.783 30.311 - 76.094 Agglomeratie Haarlem - 9.472 - 9.472 Zaanstreek 63.391 51.150 - 114.542 Groot-Amsterdam 193.696 280.380 - 474.075 Gooi en Vechtstreek - 28.417 - 28.417 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - 149.662 - 149.662 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage - 47.361 - 47.361 Delft en Westland - 265.224 - 265.224 Oost Zuid-Holland - 157.240 - 157.240 Groot-Rijnmond - 871.450 - 871.450 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland - 386.469 - 386.469 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 105.652 7.578 - 113.230 Overig Zeeland 35.217 39.784 - 75.001 West-Noord-Brabant 334.565 448.986 - 783.552 Midden-Noord-Brabant 207.783 102.301 134.125 444.208 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 528.261 94.723 - 622.984 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant - 106.090 124.875 230.965 Noord-Limburg 183.130 106.090 610.500 899.720

180

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Midden-Limburg - 28.417 - 28.417 Zuid-Limburg 313.435 49.256 148.000 510.691 Flevoland - 102.301 - 102.301

Total 3.137.870 4.775.927 2.062.750 9.976.547

181

Appendix L-6: Comparison total container flows four scenarios 2030

COROP Region WLO RC PoR LG WLO GE PoR GE scenario scenario scenario scenario Oost-Groningen 18.501 18.916 37.452 23.187 Delfzijl en omgeving 24.012 28.773 49.044 47.499 Overig Groningen 269.729 429.658 609.070 722.471 Noord-Friesland 149.702 233.540 336.482 386.238 Zuidwest-Friesland 8.324 8.510 16.850 10.432 Zuidoost-Friesland 19.026 19.452 38.515 23.845 Noord-Drenthe 5.664 5.791 11.467 7.099 Zuidoost-Drenthe 11.329 11.583 22.934 14.198 Zuidwest-Drenthe 149.043 220.211 323.789 386.494 Noord-Overijssel 69.606 75.148 141.318 103.649 Zuidwest-Overijssel 20.231 20.685 40.955 25.356 Twente 168.239 193.909 342.831 301.117 Veluwe 127.409 134.247 258.332 176.094 Achterhoek 78.408 80.165 158.725 98.269 Arnhem/Nijmegen 179.688 212.225 366.691 342.710 Zuidwest-Gelderland 119.540 122.219 241.991 149.819 Utrecht 454.604 493.832 923.272 689.442 Kop van Noord-Holland 44.252 45.244 89.582 55.461 Alkmaar en omgeving 17.977 18.380 36.393 22.531 IJmond 43.498 50.065 88.631 77.565 Agglomeratie Haarlem 8.297 8.483 16.797 10.399 Zaanstreek 66.152 75.464 134.721 115.177 Groot-Amsterdam 301.750 331.873 613.256 474.468 Gooi en Vechtstreek 22.126 22.622 44.791 27.731 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek 119.542 122.222 241.996 149.823 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage 38.204 39.061 77.339 47.881 Delft en Westland 211.972 216.723 429.107 265.665 Oost Zuid-Holland 125.704 128.522 254.471 157.546 Groot-Rijnmond 695.324 710.909 1.407.583 871.450 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland 308.099 315.005 623.702 386.141 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 48.959 62.798 100.423 113.879 Overig Zeeland 46.587 51.879 94.747 75.894 West-Noord-Brabant 492.366 543.751 1.000.881 783.390 Midden-Noord-Brabant 211.422 274.444 445.215 445.815 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 288.731 359.089 591.077 625.187 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant 126.641 160.265 269.982 230.314 Noord-Limburg 365.907 546.585 809.552 899.171

182

COROP Region WLO RC PoR LG WLO GE PoR GE scenario scenario scenario scenario Midden-Limburg 22.724 23.233 46.001 28.479 Zuid-Limburg 215.224 294.200 455.708 509.842 Flevoland 82.381 84.227 166.768 103.248

Total 5.776.894 6.793.908 11.958.439 9.984.977

183

Appendix L-7: Container flows four scenarios 2020

WLO RC scenario 2020

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Oost-Groningen - 17.057 - 17.057 Delfzijl en omgeving 13.290 9.185 - 22.474 Overig Groningen 46.515 26.242 174.749 247.505 Noord-Friesland 20.051 24.119 93.104 137.273 Zuidwest-Friesland - 7.674 - 7.674 Zuidoost-Friesland - 17.541 - 17.541 Noord-Drenthe - 5.222 - 5.222 Zuidoost-Drenthe - 10.445 - 10.445 Zuidwest-Drenthe 73.519 9.139 55.862 138.521 Noord-Overijssel 12.531 51.960 - 64.491 Zuidwest-Overijssel - 18.652 - 18.652 Twente 68.922 87.932 - 156.853 Veluwe 12.531 105.252 - 117.783 Achterhoek - 72.288 - 72.288 Arnhem/Nijmegen 89.723 78.214 - 167.936 Zuidwest-Gelderland - 110.210 - 110.210 Utrecht 91.388 330.050 - 421.438 Kop van Noord-Holland - 40.798 - 40.798 Alkmaar en omgeving - 16.574 - 16.574 IJmond 17.599 22.949 - 40.549 Agglomeratie Haarlem - 7.650 - 7.650 Zaanstreek 24.639 36.974 - 61.613 Groot-Amsterdam 73.519 206.542 - 280.061 Gooi en Vechtstreek - 20.399 - 20.399 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - 110.213 - 110.213 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage - 35.223 - 35.223 Delft en Westland - 195.429 - 195.429 Oost Zuid-Holland - 115.894 - 115.894 Groot-Rijnmond - 641.057 - 641.057 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland - 284.053 - 284.053 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 40.101 6.052 - 46.153 Overig Zeeland 13.367 29.923 - 43.290 West-Noord-Brabant 126.986 330.168 - 457.154 Midden-Noord-Brabant 79.366 75.467 41.539 196.372 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 201.061 70.226 - 271.287 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant - 77.563 38.674 116.237 Noord-Limburg 69.149 78.335 189.073 336.557

184

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Midden-Limburg - 20.950 - 20.950 Zuid-Limburg 118.541 36.435 45.836 200.812 Flevoland - 75.951 - 75.951

Total 1.192.799 3.516.005 638.837 5.347.642

PoR LG scenario 2020

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Oost-Groningen - 14.465 - 14.465 Delfzijl en omgeving 16.859 7.789 - 24.647 Overig Groningen 59.005 22.254 259.250 340.509 Noord-Friesland 25.435 20.453 138.125 184.013 Zuidwest-Friesland - 6.508 - 6.508 Zuidoost-Friesland - 14.875 - 14.875 Noord-Drenthe - 4.429 - 4.429 Zuidoost-Drenthe - 8.857 - 8.857 Zuidwest-Drenthe 93.261 7.750 82.875 183.886 Noord-Overijssel 15.896 44.063 - 59.960 Zuidwest-Overijssel - 15.818 - 15.818 Twente 87.429 74.569 - 161.998 Veluwe 15.896 89.257 - 105.153 Achterhoek - 61.303 - 61.303 Arnhem/Nijmegen 113.816 66.328 - 180.143 Zuidwest-Gelderland - 93.462 - 93.462 Utrecht 115.928 279.892 - 395.821 Kop van Noord-Holland - 34.598 - 34.598 Alkmaar en omgeving - 14.056 - 14.056 IJmond 22.325 19.462 - 41.787 Agglomeratie Haarlem - 6.487 - 6.487 Zaanstreek 31.256 31.355 - 62.610 Groot-Amsterdam 93.261 175.154 - 268.415 Gooi en Vechtstreek - 17.299 - 17.299 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - 93.464 - 93.464 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage - 29.870 - 29.870 Delft en Westland - 165.730 - 165.730 Oost Zuid-Holland - 98.282 - 98.282 Groot-Rijnmond - 543.636 - 543.636 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland - 240.886 - 240.886 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 50.870 5.132 - 56.002

185

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Overig Zeeland 16.957 25.375 - 42.332 West-Noord-Brabant 161.085 279.993 - 441.078 Midden-Noord-Brabant 100.678 63.998 61.625 226.301 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 255.051 59.554 - 314.605 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant - 65.776 57.375 123.151 Noord-Limburg 87.717 66.431 280.500 434.648 Midden-Limburg - 17.766 - 17.766 Zuid-Limburg 150.373 30.898 68.000 249.271 Flevoland - 64.409 - 64.409

Total 1.513.097 2.981.681 947.750 5.442.528

WLO GE scenario 2020

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Oost-Groningen - 24.538 - 24.538 Delfzijl en omgeving 19.263 13.213 - 32.476 Overig Groningen 67.422 37.751 288.838 394.011 Noord-Friesland 29.063 34.697 153.889 217.649 Zuidwest-Friesland - 11.040 - 11.040 Zuidoost-Friesland - 25.234 - 25.234 Noord-Drenthe - 7.513 - 7.513 Zuidoost-Drenthe - 15.026 - 15.026 Zuidwest-Drenthe 106.565 13.148 92.334 212.046 Noord-Overijssel 18.164 74.749 - 92.913 Zuidwest-Overijssel - 26.833 - 26.833 Twente 99.901 126.499 - 226.400 Veluwe 18.164 151.415 - 169.579 Achterhoek - 103.995 - 103.995 Arnhem/Nijmegen 130.052 112.519 - 242.570 Zuidwest-Gelderland - 158.549 - 158.549 Utrecht 132.466 474.811 - 607.277 Kop van Noord-Holland - 58.693 - 58.693 Alkmaar en omgeving - 23.844 - 23.844 IJmond 25.510 33.015 - 58.525 Agglomeratie Haarlem - 11.005 - 11.005 Zaanstreek 35.714 53.190 - 88.905 Groot-Amsterdam 106.565 297.132 - 403.697 Gooi en Vechtstreek - 29.346 - 29.346 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - 158.553 - 158.553

186

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage - 50.671 - 50.671 Delft en Westland - 281.145 - 281.145 Oost Zuid-Holland - 166.725 - 166.725 Groot-Rijnmond - 922.228 - 922.228 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland - 408.641 - 408.641 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 58.126 8.706 - 66.832 Overig Zeeland 19.375 43.047 - 62.422 West-Noord-Brabant 184.064 474.982 - 659.046 Midden-Noord-Brabant 115.040 108.567 68.658 292.266 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 291.435 101.028 - 392.463 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant - 111.583 63.923 175.506 Noord-Limburg 100.230 112.693 312.513 525.437 Midden-Limburg - 30.139 - 30.139 Zuid-Limburg 171.824 52.416 75.761 300.000 Flevoland - 109.264 - 109.264

Total 1.728.943 5.058.144 1.055.917 7.843.003

PoR GE scenario 2020

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) Oost-Groningen - 17.304 - 17.304 Delfzijl en omgeving 22.478 9.317 - 31.796 Overig Groningen 78.673 26.621 366.000 471.295 Noord-Friesland 33.913 24.468 195.000 253.381 Zuidwest-Friesland - 7.785 - 7.785 Zuidoost-Friesland - 17.795 - 17.795 Noord-Drenthe - 5.298 - 5.298 Zuidoost-Drenthe - 10.596 - 10.596 Zuidwest-Drenthe 124.348 9.271 117.000 250.619 Noord-Overijssel 21.195 52.712 - 73.907 Zuidwest-Overijssel - 18.922 - 18.922 Twente 116.572 89.204 - 205.776 Veluwe 21.195 106.775 - 127.970 Achterhoek - 73.335 - 73.335 Arnhem/Nijmegen 151.754 79.346 - 231.100 Zuidwest-Gelderland - 111.805 - 111.805 Utrecht 154.571 334.827 - 489.398 Kop van Noord-Holland - 41.389 - 41.389 Alkmaar en omgeving - 16.814 - 16.814

187

COROP region Barge Road Rail Total (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) (TEU/year) IJmond 29.767 23.281 - 53.048 Agglomeratie Haarlem - 7.760 - 7.760 Zaanstreek 41.674 37.509 - 79.183 Groot-Amsterdam 124.348 209.531 - 333.879 Gooi en Vechtstreek - 20.694 - 20.694 Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek - 111.808 - 111.808 Agglomeratie 's-Gravenhage - 35.732 - 35.732 Delft en Westland - 198.257 - 198.257 Oost Zuid-Holland - 117.571 - 117.571 Groot-Rijnmond - 650.336 - 650.336 Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland - 288.165 - 288.165 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 67.826 6.139 - 73.965 Overig Zeeland 22.609 30.356 - 52.964 West-Noord-Brabant 214.780 334.947 - 549.727 Midden-Noord-Brabant 134.238 76.559 87.000 297.797 Noordoost-Noord-Brabant 340.068 71.243 - 411.311 Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant - 78.686 81.000 159.686 Noord-Limburg 116.956 79.469 396.000 592.425 Midden-Limburg - 21.253 - 21.253 Zuid-Limburg 200.497 36.962 96.000 333.459 Flevoland - 77.051 - 77.051

Total 2.017.462 3.566.897 1.338.000 6.922.359

188

Appendix M: Identifying the gaps

The data that has been used in order to identify the gaps is presented in this appendix. The first part consists of the gaps that have been identified for 2030 based on the current capacity of the inland terminal network. In this part the expansions of the inland terminal network are not taken into account. The second part presents the gaps that have been identified for 2020 and 2030 based on the known future capacity; the capacity when the current expansion plans have been carried out and the terminals that are currently being developed are operational. In the identification of the gaps, gaps smaller or equal to 10.000 TEU are not considered to be gaps (green). Furthermore, a distinction is made between gaps smaller or equal to 50.000 TEU (orange) and gaps larger than 50.000 TEU (red).

Appendix M-1: Gaps identified in 2030 based on current capacity inland terminal network Based on the capacity of the current inland terminal network, there are seven regions where no gap is identified. An overview of these regions is presented in the table below. It is notable that in the regions Groot-Amsterdam, Oost Zuid-Holland and Overig Zeeland there are plans to develop new terminals. With regard to Zuidoost Friesland and Zeeuws Vlaanderen, there is a small gap in with the upper bound of flows, but the size of the gap is negligible. Note that the

Regions with no gaps

COROP Region Current Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Zuidoost 20.000 18.000 18.000 -1.000 4.000 Friesland Groot- 600.000 78.000 194.000 -522.000 -406.000 Amsterdam Ijmond 114.000 19.000 46.000 -95.000 -68.000 Oost Zuid- 200.000 126.000 158.000 -74.000 -42.000 Holland Overig Zeeland 140.000 14.000 35.000 -126.000 -105.000 West-Noord- 695.000 134.000 335.000 -561.000 -360.000 Brabant Zeeuws 105.000 42.000 106.000 -63.000 1.000 Vlaanderen

There are two types of gaps, categorized according to their priority. These gaps are:

1. Gaps in both the low growth and the high growth scenario; in other words, gaps with the lower bound of flows and the upper bound of flows.

2. Gaps in the high growth scenario; in other words, no gaps with the lower bound of flows and gaps with the upper bound of flows.

189

The regions in which these two gaps have been identified based on the current capacity of the inland terminal network are presented in the next pages.

Gaps with both the lower bound and the upper bound flows The regions with the highest priority are the regions where gaps already occur in the low growth scenario. Note that within this type of gap the priority to undertake measures can be ranked according to the size of the gap. The larger the gap is, the higher the priority to undertake measure is of course. The regions in which this type of gap is identified are listed in the table below.

Regions in which there are gaps in all future scenarios

COROP Region Current Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Zuidoost Zuid- 80.000 308.000 386.000 228.000 306.000 Holland Flevoland 20.000 82.000 103.000 62.000 83.000 Noord 110.000 123.000 354.000 13.000 244.000 Friesland

In the regions that are in the following table, there are gaps in both the low growth and the high growth scenarios. The difference between these regions and the regions above is that there are currently no terminals located in the regions below. The gaps have been identified based on the expected container flows transported by road in 2030. In other words, the 44.000 TEU transported to and from Kop van Noord-Holland in the low growth scenario refers to the container flows by road.

Regions with currently no terminals in which there are gaps in all future scenarios

COROP Region Current Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Zuidwest - 120.000 150.000 120.000 150.000 Gelderland Delft and - 212.000 266.000 212.000 266.000 Westland Kop van - 44.000 55.000 44.000 55.000 Noord-Holland Midden- - 23.000 28.000 23.000 28.000 Limburg

In some of these regions there are a new terminal is currently in development, which means that these regions will have a known capacity. More in depth elaboration on these regions is done in the second part.

190

No gaps with both the lower bound flows and gaps with the upper bound flows The second type of gap refers to the regions in which there are no gaps with the low growth scenario but the gap occurs in the high growth scenario. The regions in which this type of gap is identified are presented in the table on the next page.

Regions with no gaps in the low growth scenario and gaps in the high growth scenario

COROP Region Current Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Noord-Limburg 400.000 281.000 793.000 -119.000 393.000 Overig Groningen 350.000 241.000 687.000 -109.000 337.000 Zuidwest- Drenthe 190.000 139.000 374.000 -51.000 184.000 Noordoost Noord- 370.000 213.000 530.000 -157.000 160.000 Brabant Arnhem/Nijmegen 140.000 95.000 236.000 -45.000 96.000 Midden Noord- 250.000 130.000 343.000 -120.000 93.000 Brabant Zuidoost Noord- 65.000 43.000 125.000 -22.000 60.000 Brabant Twente 130.000 73.000 182.000 -57.000 52.000 Zuid-Limburg 420.000 176.000 460.000 -244.000 40.000 Zaanstreek 45.000 26.000 65.000 -19.000 20.000 Delfzijl en 20.000 14.000 30.000 -6.000 15.000 omgeving Noord-Overijssel 20.000 13.000 33.000 -7.000 13.000 Veluwe 20.000 13.000 33.000 -7.000 13.000 Utrecht 200.000 97.000 241.000 -103.000 41.000

Similar to the regions in which there are gaps in both scenarios, there are some regions above where there are plans to expand a terminal, or a new terminal is currently in development. More in depth elaboration on these regions is done in the next part.

191

Appendix M-2: Gaps identified in 2020 based on known future capacity inland terminal network

In order to identify the gaps in 2020, the known future capacity is applied. The assumption is made that the expansions of currently active terminals and the development of new terminals will be done in 2020.

Regions with no gaps

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Delfzijl en 20.000 13.000 22.000 -7.000 2.000 omgeving Zuidoost Friesland 20.000 18.000 18.000 -2.000 -2.000 Zuidoost Drenthe 30.000 10.000 11.000 -20.000 -19.000 Twente 300.000 69.000 117.000 -231.000 -183.000 Veluwe 20.000 13.000 21.000 -7.000 1.000 Arnhem/Nijmegen 250.000 90.000 152.000 -160.000 -98.000 Utrecht 200.000 91.000 155.000 -109.000 -45.000 IJmond 114.000 18.000 30.000 -96.000 -84.000 Zaanstreek 45.000 25.000 42.000 -20.000 -3.000 Groot Amsterdam 600.000 74.000 124.000 -526.000 -476.000 Oost Zuid-Holland 200.000 116.000 118.000 -84.000 -82.000 Zeeuwsch- 125.000 40.000 68.000 -85000 -57000 Vlaanderen Overig Zeeland 140.000 13.000 23.000 -127000 -117000 West-Noord- 695.000 127.000 215.000 -568000 -480000 Brabant Midden Noord- 250.000 121.000 221.000 -129.000 -29.000 Brabant Noordoost Noord- 450.000 201.000 340.000 -249.000 -110.000 Brabant Midden Limburg 20.000 21.000 21.000 1.000 1.000 Zuid Limburg 535.000 165.000 296.000 -370.000 -239.000

Regions in which there are gaps in all future scenarios

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows lower bound upper bound (TEU) (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Zuidwest 80.000 110.000 112.000 30.000 32.000 Gelderland Flevoland 20.000 76.000 77.000 56.000 57.000

192

Regions with currently no terminals in which there are gaps in all future scenarios

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Delft en - 195.000 198.000 195.000 198.000 Westland Kop van Noord - 35.000 59.000 35.000 59.000 Holland

Regions with no gaps in the low growth scenario and gaps in the high growth scenario

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Overig Groningen 350.000 222.000 445.000 -128.000 95.000 Noord Friesland 110.000 113.000 229.000 3.000 119.000 Zuidoost Noord- 65.000 39.000 81.000 -26.000 16.000 Brabant Noord Limburg 460.000 258.000 513.000 -202.000 53.000

Regions with currently no terminals and no known plans to develop a terminal

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Oost- - 14.000 25.000 14.000 25.000 Groningen Zuidwest- - 7.000 11.000 7.000 11.000 Friesland Noord-Drenthe - 4.000 8.000 4.000 8.000 Zuidwest - 16.000 27.000 16.000 27.000 Overijssel Achterhoek - 61.000 104.000 61.000 104.000 Alkmaar en - 14.000 24.000 14.000 24.000 Omgeving Agglomeratie - 6.000 11.000 6.000 11.000 Haarlem Gooi en - 17.000 29.000 17.000 29.000 Vechtstreek

193

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Agglomeratie - 93.000 259.000 93.000 259.000 Leiden en Bollenstreek Agglomeratie - 30.000 51.000 30.000 51.000 ‘s Gravenhage

194

Appendix M-3: Gaps indentified in 2030 based on known future capacity inland terminal network

In some regions, in which there are gaps identified based on their current capacity, there are plans to expand existing terminals. This means that the future capacity of these regions is known, and the gaps are smaller than identified at first or there is no gap at all. These regions are presented in the next tables.

Regions with no gaps

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Zuidoost Friesland 20.000 19.000 24.000 -1.000 4.000 Zuidoost Drenthe 30.000 11.000 14.000 -19.000 -16.000 Twente 300.000 73.000 182.000 -227.000 -118.000 Arnhem/Nijmegen 250.000 95.000 236.000 -155.000 -14.000 IJmond 114.000 19.000 46.000 -95.000 -68.000 Groot-Amsterdam 600.000 78.000 194.000 -522.000 -406.000 Oost Zuid-Holland 200.000 126.000 158.000 -74.000 -42.000 Zeeuws 125.000 42.000 106.000 -126.000 -105.000 Vlaanderen Overig Zeeland 140.000 14.000 35.000 -126.000 -105.000 West-Noord- 695.000 134.000 335.000 -561.000 -360.000 Brabant Midden Limburg 20.000 23.000 28.000 3.000 8.000 Zuid Limburg 535.000 176.000 460.000 -359.000 -75.000

The previous table shows that after the development of a terminal in Zuidoost Drenthe and the expansion of the terminals in Twente and Arnhem/Nijmegen these regions have no gaps anymore.

Regions in which there are gaps in all future scenarios

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Noord 110.000 123.000 354.000 13.000 244.000 Friesland Zuidwest 80.000 120.000 150.000 40.000 70.000 Gelderland Zuidoost Zuid- 280.000 308.000 386.000 28.000 106.000 Holland Flevoland 20.000 82.000 103.000 62.000 83.000

195

The gap in Zuidoost Zuid-Holland has been reduced due to the 200.000 TEU capacity of the Container Transferium Alblasserdam.

Regions with currently no terminals in which there are gaps in all future scenarios

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Kop van Noord - 44.000 55.000 44.000 55.000 Holland Delft en - 212.000 266.000 212.000 266.000 Westland

Regions with no gaps in the low growth scenario and gaps in the high growth scenario

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Delfzijl en 20.000 14.000 35.000 -6.000 15.000 omgeving Overig Groningen 350.000 241.000 687.000 -179.000 337.000 Zuidwest- Drenthe 190.000 139.000 374.000 -51.000 184.000 Noord-Overijssel 20.000 13.000 33.000 -7.000 13.000 Veluwe 20.000 13.000 33.000 -7.000 13.000 Utrecht 200.000 97.000 241.000 -103.000 41.000 Zaanstreek 45.000 26.000 65.000 -19.000 20.000 Noordoost Noord- 450.000 213.000 530.000 -237.000 80.000 Brabant Midden Noord- 250.000 130.000 343.000 -120.000 93.000 Brabant Zuidoost Noord- 65.000 43.000 125.000 -22.000 60.000 Brabant Noord-Limburg 460.000 281.000 793.000 -119.000 333.000

196

Regions with currently no terminals and no known plans to develop a terminal

COROP Region Future Lower bound of Upper bound Gap with Gap with capacity flows (TEU) of flows (TEU) lower bound upper bound (TEU) flows (TEU) flows (TEU) Oost- - 19.000 23.000 19.000 23.000 Groningen Zuidwest- - 8.000 10.000 8.000 10.000 Friesland Noord-Drenthe - 6.000 7.000 6.000 7.000 Zuidwest - 20.000 25.000 20.000 25.000 Overijssel Achterhoek - 78.000 98.000 78.000 98.000 Alkmaar en - 18.000 36.000 18.000 36.000 Omgeving Agglomeratie - 8.000 10.000 8.000 10.000 Haarlem Gooi en - 22.000 28.000 22.000 28.000 Vechtstreek Agglomeratie - 120.000 150.000 120.000 150.000 Leiden en Bollenstreek Agglomeratie - 38.000 48.000 38.000 48.000 ‘s Gravenhage

197

Appendix N: Interview questions

Interview questions Prof. L. Tavasszy The goal of this interview with prof. Lori Tavasszy is to obtain a better view on the concept “synchromodality” and to find out his vision on (1) the growth of container flows, (2) future developments of container transport to and from the hinterland (modal shift 2035), (3) the role of the different logistics concepts in accommodating these container flows and (4) the (future) inland terminal network.

1. Synchromodality The degree of cooperation between actors will affect the success of synchromodality. The collaboration between shippers and carriers is emphasized.

In addition, a distinction is made between three groups of actors / stakeholders: (1) shippers / 3PLs & 4PLs, (2) carriers and (3) infrastructure managers (e.g. ProRail, Rijkswaterstaat and terminal operators) a. There are several challenges and steps that have to be taken before synchromodality can be realized. Some of these challenges are the cooperation between actors, bundling of cargo and services, integration of information systems and adjustment of legislation. Based on these challenges, you can judge when synchromodality can be applied? b. How should the current inland terminal network (in Netherlands) be adapted to be in order to facilitate synchromodality? Are there deficiencies in the current inland terminal network? If so, where are these deficiencies? And what are the shortcomings? c. What role can the PoR play in the cooperation between the different actors and stakeholders?

2. The growth of container flows Different prognoses have been made (based on the WLO scenarios) with regard to the growth of container flows. In the highest growth scenario, the number of containers to and from the hinterland in 2035 will be three times as much than currently. a. What are your expectations regarding the container flows? Do you believe that the flows in the Netherlands will indeed grow as is expected in the scenarios? b. Are there regions in the Netherlands where the growth of container flows will be higher than other regions? If so, which regions? What are the reasons that the growth to and from these regions will be higher than other regions?

3. Future developments in container transport to and from the hinterland The PoR aims for the following modal split for the Maasvlakte 1 and 2 terminals in 2035: 35% road, 45% inland waterway and 20% rail transport. a. What measures can be taken by the PoR so that these targets can be achieved? b. In recent years different steps have been taken to increase the use of barge and rail transport (such as the SOIT programme for new inland terminals). However, there has been little change in the modal split. What is your opinion on the cause of the relatively constant modal split?

4. The role of logistics concepts: container transferium, tri-modal terminals, European gateway services Several logistics concepts have been developed in recent years; the PoR has been involved in the development of the container transferium in Alblasserdam. The goal is to shift a large proportion of

198 containers transported by road on the A15 (200,000 TEUs per year) to barge shuttle services between the port and the transferium. a. Will such a container transferium have the intended impact on the modal shift? How can shippers be encouraged to use the transferium instead of using the road?

Currently, the inland terminal network of the Netherlands has approximately 7 tri-modal terminals (including Venlo, Born, Stein, Oss, Tilburg, Veendam, and Moerdijk). b. Is it necessary to invest in the development of more tri-modal terminals? If so, based on what factors should the decision be made to invest in tri-modal terminals instead of rail or barge terminals?

ECT has developed the concept “extended gate services”, where it is possible to transport containers directly by rail or barge to the hinterland and handle the customs and inspections at the inland terminal. In the Netherlands, the inland terminals where the service is offered are in Venlo and Moerdijk c. What is your view on this concept? Will it indeed lead to cost and time savings for shippers? Is it necessary for more terminals to provide this service in the Netherlands? How can this best be organized?

5. The (future) inland terminal network The assumption is made, based on the studies of among others Ecorys, that the current inland terminal network will probably have insufficient capacity to accommodate container flows after 2020. Expanding the inland terminal network is seen as a necessity in order to accommodate the future container flows and to stimulate the modal shift.

a. What is your view on the assumption that it is a necessity to expand the (capacity of the) current inland network? b. There are two basic measures that can be taken in order to expand the current inland terminal network: (1) existing terminals can be expanded or (2) new terminals can be developed. Which of these two options will be more effective for the expansion of the capacity of the network? c. The logistics concepts that have been previously mentioned can also play a role in the future inland terminal network. Do you expect more container transferia / tri-modal terminals / extended gateways in the future inland terminal network? Is there a priority in the development of these concepts?

One of the deliverables of this project is a conceptual framework to assess (1) where in the network to invest (location), (2) when to invest (time) and (3) in which project / logistics concept to invest (development of new terminals, expansion of existing terminals etc). This is on a strategic level.

Some key performance indicators that have been identified until now are among others (1) available space (capacity), (2) market size (number of shippers in a specific region), (3) infrastructural accessibility (main infrastructure axes), (4) public, private partnerships and (5) role public actors (invest / lobby with the government / subsidize).

d. Is there a specific rank of importance between these performance indicators? e. Are there more / other performance indicators that also have to be taken into account?

199

Interview questions Prof. P. de Langen, Dr. J. Visser, Dr. B. Kuipers and Drs. E. Nooijen

The goal of this interview is to find out the interviewee’s vision on (1) the growth of container flows, (2) future developments of container transport to and from the hinterland (modal shift 2035), (3) the role of the different logistics concepts in accommodating these container flows and (4) the (future) inland terminal network.

In order to place the topic in its context, it is necessary to briefly reflect on the anticipated growth and future development of container flows to and from the hinterland (questions 1 and 2). However, the focus of the interview is on the role of the logistics concepts in accommodating the expected growth in container flows and the (future) inland terminal network (questions 3 and 4).

The available time for the interview will be distributed as follows: 15 minutes for questions 1 and 2 and 45 minutes for questions 3 and 4.

1. The growth of container flows Different prognoses have been made (based on the WLO scenarios) with regard to the growth of container flows. In the highest growth scenario, the number of containers to and from the hinterland in 2035 will be three times as much than currently. a. What are your expectations regarding the container flows? Do you believe that the flows in the Netherlands will indeed grow as is expected in the scenarios? b. Are there regions in the Netherlands where the growth of container flows will be higher than other regions? If so, which regions? What are the reasons that the growth to and from these regions will be higher than other regions?

2. Future developments in container transport to and from the hinterland The PoR aims for the following modal split for the Maasvlakte 1 and 2 terminals in 2035: 35% road, 45% inland waterway and 20% rail transport. a. What measures can be taken by the PoR so that these targets can be achieved? b. In recent years different steps have been taken to increase the use of barge and rail transport (such as the SOIT programme for new inland terminals). However, there has been little change in the modal split. What is your opinion on the cause of the relatively constant modal split?

3. The role of logistics concepts: container transferium, tri-modal terminals, European gateway services Several logistics concepts have been developed in recent years; the PoR has been involved in the development of the container transferium in Alblasserdam. The goal is to shift a large proportion of containers transported by road on the A15 (200,000 TEUs per year) to barge shuttle services between the port and the transferium. d. Will such a container transferium have the intended impact on the modal shift? How can shippers be encouraged to use the transferium instead of using the road?

Currently, the inland terminal network of the Netherlands has approximately 7 tri-modal terminals (including Venlo, Born, Stein, Oss, Tilburg, Veendam, and Moerdijk). e. Is it necessary to invest in the development of more tri-modal terminals? If so, based on what factors should the decision be made to invest in tri-modal terminals instead of rail or barge terminals?

200

ECT has developed the concept “extended gate services”, where it is possible to transport containers directly by rail or barge to the hinterland and handle the customs and inspections at the inland terminal. In the Netherlands, the inland terminals where the service is offered are in Venlo and Moerdijk f. What is your view on this concept? Will it indeed lead to cost and time savings for shippers? Is it necessary for more terminals to provide this service in the Netherlands? How can this best be organized?

4. The (future) inland terminal network The assumption is made, based on the studies of among others Ecorys, that the current inland terminal network will probably have insufficient capacity to accommodate container flows after 2020. Expanding the inland terminal network is seen as a necessity in order to accommodate the future container flows and to stimulate the modal shift.

d. Is there a specific rank of importance between these performance indicators? e. Are there more / other performance indicators that also have to be taken into account?

201

Appendix O: Data interviews

Appendix O-1: Interview Dr. Bart Kuipers Date: 27-06-2011 Time: 16:00 – 17:15

Groei containerstromen Dr. Kuipers denkt niet dat er een groei van 3 keer zo veel als nu zal plaatsvinden. Hij denkt wel dat er structuur veranderingen zullen plaatsvinden; er is nu meer import in de haven dan export. Dit zal veranderen. Het gevoel is dat de aan en afvoer gaat veranderen naar meer hoogwaardige Duitse export goederen (nu gaat er veel laagwaardig eruit: leeg, oud-papier).

Regio: Brabant, Limburg zal meer groeien. Zie hiervoor ook LCA studie. Die verdriedubbeling gelooft Dr. Kuipers niet erg in. Demografische factoren zullen een rol spelen. Gelooft ook in near sourcing (Oost Europa). Demografische factoren in China zullen ook een invloed hebben op de containerstromen. De stromen zullen wel doorgroeien maar niet zo snel. Marktverzadiging, je kunt niet nog meer uit China halen. Nu al 90% en dit kan niet 150% worden.

Samenvattend zijn de belangrijke redenen: demografische factoren, marktverzadiging, near sourcing en logistieke factoren.

In Zuid Nederland zijn de logistieke booming regio’s. In het bijzonder West Noord-Brabant tussen Rotterdam en Antwerpen. Dit gebied is erg interessant en zal ook flink groeien.

Toekomstige ontwikkelingen containertransport Het HbR heeft de belangrijkste maatregel al genomen; de terminal operators moeten deze verhouding waarmaken Bedrijven als ECT moeten dit realiseren. ECT is bezig met synchromodaliteit en extended gates. ECT weet van heel veel containers wat er in zit en waar het heen moet. Halen met extended gates iets uit de markt. Expediteurs zijn nu mogelijk bezig met een extended gates netwerk in het achterland. Dit concept lukt niet met carrier haulage. Als de expediteurs dit niet doen, wie gaat het dan realiseren? Synchromodaliteit? Wie wordt de operator? Dat is volgens Dr. Kuipers de expediteur.

De eis in de concessie ligt op de goede plek. APMT begonnen met pull - push innovatie. Heeft een enorm inzicht door de samenwerking met MAERSK. Dit zijn de partijen die het het beste kunnen doen. ECT zet met extended gates services een mooi product in de markt. Voordelen: minder containers op de deep sea terminal, capaciteit neemt toe, minder CO2 (frequent op barge), dichter bij de klant. De nadelen als extra handling ECT bij inland overslag wordt minder.

Container transferium is prima, maar het HbR wordt door bedrijven ingehaald. ECT moet gefaciliteerd worden en niet gedwarsboomd worden door het HBR met een initiatief door Duisburg. ECT problemen met HbR, ook door maasvlakte 1 en 2 configuratie. ECT raakt hierdoor mogelijk tot 45% van zijn klanten kwijt. Container transferium is een nood oplossing. Er zullen niet meer transferia komen, het heeft zo lang geduurd voordat deze gerealiseerd kon worden.

Om de targets te bereiken is het container transferium maar een kleine speler, in vergelijking met wat de bestaande spelers (ECT, APMT) doen.

202

Oorzaak stabiele modal split: Er is heel laat dedicated inland barge vervoer naar de deep sea terminals gekomen. Daarnaast is het wegvervoer product met de lage kosten en flexibiliteit interessant. De crisis is op een vervelend moment gekomen voor de binnenvaart. Je kunt nog niet zeggen dat het beleid de vruchten heeft afgeworpen. De echte congestie is nog niet groot genoeg op de dag, waardoor vervoerders nog niet geneigd zijn een andere modaliteit te gebruiken in plaats van wegvervoer. De congestie is daarnaast ook vooral terminal gerelateerd. Bedrijfsinterne redenen zijn ook belangrijk redenen die gerelateerd zijn aan de terminal congestie (ziekteverzuim bij ECT, ploegendienst en organisatorische zaken). Met dedicated binnenvaart en dedicated spoor kan de modal split wel gehaald worden. Elektrisch spoor is verreweg het meest milieuvriendelijk, dus Betuwelijn kan een rol gaan spelen.

Dr. Kuipers gelooft meer in innovatie als pull-push, milieu vriendelijke vrachtwagens; meer in regulering van het HBR dan in subsidies.

Pull-push: vroeger trok (pull) je alles eruit nu gooi je de capaciteit van het achterland vol. Een groot deel van de 6 dagen dat de containers op de deep sea terminal staan, als je 1 dag hier weghaalt en naar het achterland verplaatst.

Op de deepsea terminal wordt een container soms wel 3 keer verplaatst omdat net de container eronder nodig is. Veel onnodige handling dus.

Rol logistieke concepten Container transferium is maar een klein deel van de modal shift. Je hebt 3 belangrijke segmenten, de internationale containers (doorvoer containers) – is de focus van ECT en APMT (extended gates).

Intermodale netwerk (tri-modale) terminals – containers voor de rest van NL.

Container transferium – de containers die met als eindbestemming Groot Rotterdam heeft, maar geen gebruik kan maken van de A15. Dit is een publieke, private samenwerking (PPS) concept, moet nog bewezen worden. Wanneer de A15 weer ideaal is, is dan het container transferium nog nodig? Of wordt het dan een ‘gewone’ inland terminal?

European gateway services is een concept dat een enorme impact hebben. APMT zal waarschijnlijk ook met een concept komen.

ECT bespaart ook veel kosten met extended gates. Ze bieden grote volumes. Een van de grote bonussen is flexibiliteit. Logistiek van een inland terminal is flexibeler dan een deep sea terminal.

3 stromen: import (productie proces), doorvoer (direct naar het buitenland) en wederuitvoer (opslaan in een DC dicht bij een inland terminal) en na een tijd uitvoeren naar het buitenland. Wederuitvoer groeit hard en uitvoer van in NL geproduceerde producten daalt.

De innovatie van ECT is niet alleen transport maar ook douane.

Tri-modale terminals: geen absolute must om in nog meer tri-modale terminals te investeren. Er is wel 1 plek, Valburg bijvoorbeeld. Er is misschien nog ruimte voor 2 tri-modale terminals, namelijk Bergen op Zoom of Oosterhout. Als Valburg een grote multimodale terminal krijgt, dan gaat dit ten koste van terminals in de omgeving zoals Venlo.

203

Amsterdam wordt ook een grote tri-modale terminal voor het noorden van het land. ACT is het noorden voor tri-modale terminal. Op de grote stromen nog Arnhem – Nijmegen. Dit is misschien een interessante locatie.

Samenvattend: om synchromodaliteit te faciliteren is het niet nodig om meer tri-modale terminals aan te leggen.

Het succes kan gerealiseerd worden door met een hoge frequentie met volle schepen en treinen containers te vervoeren. Voorwaarde om te investeren in een tri-modale i.p.v. rail of barge terminals is het kunnen schakelen, en volume stromen. Volumes zijn in het noorden niet zo groot. Als er in Amsterdam een grote draaischijf gemaakt wordt is er niet een tweede nodig in Meppel. Misschien Veendam eventueel. “Volumes” is het toverwoord. Hoogwaardige volumes in het bijzonder. Je wilt de containers in beweging houden. Je wilt je container laten dobberen, zodat het precies op tijd bij de klant arriveert. Niet onnodig stil staat. Ook een belangrijke voorwaarde is transparantie (IT).

Visie op het concept extended gates is enorm positief. Is gerelateerd aan innovatie. Van pull naar push. Al het “geshop” (verschillende calls) in terminals in de haven moet stoppen. Schepen in 1 keer volgooien en naar het achterland vervoeren.

Toekomstige inland terminal netwerk Bij de Rotterdamse haven grote terminals erbij, met dedicated shuttles/infra (binnenvaart en spoor) kan voldoende bereikt worden. In NL zullen best een aantal terminals bijkomen. Tiel is ook een goede locatie. Misschien als je een grootschalige terminal in Arnhem-Nijmegen dan heb je al heel wat. Of Moerdijk. Of Amsterdam. Tot nu toe zijn veel initiatieven mislukt in het noorden vanwege de stromen. Als er onvoldoende stromen zijn, dan mislukt een initiatief.

De capaciteit van het netwerk is niet het probleem. Met kleine maatregelen is het wel te ondersteunen. Valburg zou een Duisburg “achtige” locatie kunnen zijn, is een sterke binnenvaart hub; een soort container transferium.

Voorwaarde is duurzame volume, excellente ligging op de stromen. Blijven de distributie centras er? Die zijn namelijk verantwoordelijk voor 20% van de stromen. De ruimte voor DC’s is schaarser dan de ruimte voor uitbreiding terminals.

Waar kan je 10 gemiddelde DC’s neerzetten? Dordrecht, Moerdijk (wel 30). Veel in West-Brabant. Berg op Zoom, Zeeland sea ports. De motor achter de Nederlandse export zijn de DC’s (wederuitvoer).

NL wordt steeds minder een productie land. Wederuitvoer stijgt, klassieke productie daalt. De regio’s investeren in logistieke draaischijf functie.

Nadruk ligt op bestaande terminals uitbreiden, deze liggen namelijk al op de juiste plekken. Enkele grote terminals (zoals in Amsterdam) erbij zou kunnen, maar geen kleine. Terminals zijn net kannibalen; ze “eten” elkaar op. De een gaat ten koste van de ander. Meer extended gates. Hier ziet Dr. Kuipers succes in. Kleine terminals zullen weinig bijdragen aan de modal split. De extended gates zullen meer bijdragen. Met betrekking tot tri-modale terminals; misschien een paar erbij. De kans op een paar binnenvaart terminals is groter dan op spoorterminals in NL.

204

Container transferium; het blijft bij die ene. De grote stromen van APMT en ECT gaan via hun eigen netwerk. Is meer een noodverband.

2 systemen met grote langzame schepen die heel langzaam gaan of licht gewicht snelle schepen met 1000 TEU. De tweede zouden de toekomst kunnen worden.

Conceptual framework Conceptual framework valt uit investeren in de verschillende terminals.

 Tri-modale terminals  Bi-modale terminals  Container transferium

De genoemde performance indicatoren moeten als volgt gerangschikt worden (naar belangrijkheid):

1. Marktomvang/ marktontwikkeling (volumes) 2. Infrastructurele ontsluiting (dit is een noodzaak) 3. Rol publieke actoren – REGULEREN is belangrijk. Investeren ook. Je moet iets willen als publieke actor. Initiatief – reguleren. Subsidiëren niet zo zeer. Een proactieve overheid. Als de gemeente positief is, dan is ruimte minder belangrijk. Dat komt dan wel. Zie bijvoorbeeld het container transferium; omdat het HBR het wilde (een overheid BV) is het gekomen. 4. Beschikbare ruimte 5. PPS – laagste prioriteit; ECT doet het ook allemaal zelf

Andere performance indicatoren:

IT. Dit is belangrijk voor informatie uitwisseling. Partijen zijn nog geneigd informatie waarmee ze winst kunnen boeken (ik weet het en jij niet, dus ik kan er geld mee verdienen) voor zich zelf te houden. Voor het algemene belang is het beter om te delen.

De vraag is wie synchromodaleit gaat doen?

Een van de partijen waar Dr. Kuipers veel van verwacht zijn de expediteurs. Zij hebben van 70% van de stromen en de IT in huis. In wezen kunnen ze ook extended gates en synchromodaliteit ontwikkelen. Een paar expediteurs kan ook samen met een initiatief komen.

205

Appendix O-2: Interview Dr. Johan Visser Date: 05-07-2011 Time: 09:15 – 11:15 uur

Het interview met Dr. Johan Visser was meer een ongestructureerd gesprek dan een interview. De vragen die vooraf waren opgesteld hebben wel als richtlijnen gediend, maar tijdens het gesprek zijn er veel meer onderwerpen ter sprake gekomen.

Korte inleiding

Johan is voor het KiM bezig met onderzoek naar het knooppunten beleid; kijkt meer naar gebieden dan naar terminals. De markt is hier leidend en dat moet gestimuleerd worden door het Rijk.

Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe terminals kost enorm veel energie van zowel de publieke als de private sector. De doorlooptijd voor dergelijke projecten is ook erg lang. Een voorbeeld hiervan is het container transferium; de doorlooptijd is nu al bijna 5 jaar.

Het KiM maakt geen visies, maar doet onderzoek voor beleid.

Tip: het rapport van Decisio – Evaluatie SOIT regeling. Hierin staat een manier in hoe de witte (en ook grijze) vlekken te berekenen. De SOIT regeling is een voorganger van de Quick Wins regeling.

Het eindrapport van het knooppuntenbeleid wordt in september verwacht. Hiervoor heeft Johan een kaart geplot waarin cirkels (marktomvang) om de terminals getekend zijn. Een minpunt van deze methode is dat het de afstand over de weg niet mee neemt. Is er bijvoorbeeld een terminal aan de linkeroever van de rivier, dan neemt het een gebied met een bepaalde straal op als marktgebied, zonder er rekening mee te houden of er een brug in de omgeving is. Voor hetzelfde geldt, ligt er 10 km verderop een brug.

Interview vragen

Groei containerstromen Wat betreft het GE scenario: de vraag is waar komt de te verwachten groei vandaan: in Nederland zullen we met z’n allen niet zoveel meer consumeren. Het is ook belangrijk te kijken naar de economische groeipotentie van de regio’s ipv de nationale prognoses volgens een sleutel regionaal te differentieren.

Voor scenario’s is het belangrijk om altijd een bandbreedte aan te houden. Na de economische crisis vroeg met zich af of de scenario’s niet aangepast moesten worden. Dit hoeft niet, aangezien het binnen de bandbreedte blijft. Het CPB is momenteel bezig met het ontwikkelen van nieuwe scenario’s, deze zullen over een jaar of 2 klaar zijn.

Modal shift Dr. Visser is positief verrast dat het HbR zich zo actief bezig houdt met de modal shift doelstelling. Het is goed dat het HbR met andere partijen een gezamenlijk doel heeft, en daarbij rekening houdt met het milieu e.d., maar het moet de core business niet uit het oog verliezen; niet op andermans stoel gaan zitten. Het HbR moet doen waar het goed in is en niet zelf een terminal gaan bouwen bijvoorbeeld, de landlord positie die zij aannemen in bijv. Alphen is een goede aanpak. Via een

206 concessie leg je de verantwoordelijkheid bij de concessiehouder. Verder moet het HbR uitkijken dat de modal shift geen doel op zich wordt. Het is een middel om binnen de milieuruimte te blijven. Het moet ook niet zijn dat het HbR met de modal shift ambities zijn klanten “wegjaagt”.

Als het past binnen de verantwoordelijkheden van het HbR, kan het een landlord positie innemen. Niet andermans verantwoordelijkheden overnemen. Hiermee echt uitkijken, want het is geen basistaak van het HbR.

Het HbR is nu wel zakelijker dan voorheen; het is minder politiek gedreven. De weg naar concessies is de juiste weg.

Bundelingconcepten Bundeling is in de eerste plaats een zaak van de verladers en de vervoerders. Het HbR moet hierin geen actieve rol nemen, maar meer een faciliterende rol. Dit kan op 2 manieren: (1) ruimtelijk faciliteren en (2) “match making” zodat partijen elkaar kunnen vinden.

Vanuit de markt moeten verschillende concepten ontwikkeld worden.

Er zijn 2 opties:

 of een grote marktpartij kan stromen bundelen (monopolist)  of kleine partijen gaan samenwerken (dit heeft vaak met de marktsituatie te maken, externe bedreigingen zoals de economische crisis, 911)

De “last mile” in container transport is vaak problematisch.

Bundeling is een manier om schaalvergroting te genereren.

Er zijn 2 vormen van samenwerking:

 horizontaal  verticaal (keten); zoals ECT het doet met EGS binnen de eigen keten

Synchromodaliteit kan overkomen als “oude wijn in nieuwe zakken”, als het om intermodaliteit gaat. Vernieuwende bij synchromodaliteit is dat het de nadruk legt op de regie. De combinatie van logistieke regie en intermodaliteit biedt meer kansen voor spoor en binnenvaart. Anderzijds, centrale regie past niet meer in deze tijd (Unilever bijvoorbeeld kan dit niet). Centralisatie van regie is complex, wellicht onmogelijk en vraag is of het effectief is. Dioelstelling om regie naar Nederland halen is erg ambitieus. Kan dit wel? Heeft bijvoorbeeld Keuhne + Nagel een centraal regie systeem? Is dit wel in Nederland? Een centraal regie systeem in Nederland levert natuurlijk wel voordelen op voor Nederland.

Belangrijk is dat de europese commissie hierin ook erg ambitieus is. De Europese Commissie heeft aangegeven in 2050 50% van het goederenvervoer langer dan 300 km met de binnenvaart en spoor te willen doen. Voor het maritiem achterlandvervoer gaat dat nog wel lukken maar voor het continentaal vervoer is dit behoorlijk lastig.

207

De binnenvaart wordt steeds gevoeliger voor waterstanden (als gevolg van global warming). Het is dan handig als er op een zelfde corridor ook spoorvervoer mogelijk is. Dit wordt in sommige gevallen aangeboden. Er kan dan flexibel tussen de modaliteiten verschoven worden. Dit is het idee van synchromodaliteit.

Maar is synchromodaliteit haalbaar voor heel Nederland? Vanuit het perspectief van I en M is het moeilijk te realiseren. Vanuit het perspectief van de Rotterdamse haven is dit wel haalbaar. Maar bijvoorbeeld Eindhoven zou dit niet kunnen realiseren, want er is geen spoorlijn naar het zuiden, of er is beperkte capaciteit (personenvervoer heeft voorrang).

3 varianten van tri-modale terminals:  3 modale aansluiting (infrastructureel)  3 modale services / diensten  Binnenvaart diensten zijn Nederland en spoordiensten zijn continentaal gericht

Bij Oss en Tilburg is het spoor meer continentaal gericht.

Synchromodaliteit is ook moeilijk te realiseren omdat het spoor niet zo flexibel is. Vervoerders moeten anderhalf jaar vooraf een slot reserveren. Hierdoor kan er niet flexibel omgegaan worden met onverwachte veranderingen.

Men moet niet eerst investeren in fysieke maatregelen en afwachten wat de markt doet, maar omgekeerd.

Toekomstig netwerk Er zijn nog plannen voor 10 extra terminals. Bijvoorbeeld Lelystad. De vraag is echter, is het zeker dat er daar vraag is? De stromen moeten in de gaten gehouden worden.

Het dekkingsgebied in Brabant is al hoog; West- en Midden Brabant worden redelijk bediend maar nog. een klein gaatje in de omgeving van Weert.

De jaarvolumes van de terminals; dit is gevoelige informatie. Het CBS heeft wel cijfers, maar dit is enorm vervuild. De terminals tellen namelijk de volgende stromen: (1) wat binnenkomt via binnenvaart en overgeslagen wordt op wegvervoer en (2) wat binnenkomt via wegvervoer en uit gaat via wegvervoer.

Het CBS zou moeten verplichten dat de terminals de overslagvolumes bekend maken (aan het CBS). Wettelijk mag het CBS dit verplichten, maar mag het CBS de gegevens niet doorspelen aan derden (vanwege bedrijfsgevoelige informatie).

Conceptual framework 2 manieren om een conceptual framework te realiseren:

 De kaart met de marktomvang van de terminals en de witte vlekken identificeren (top-down benadering)

208

 Criteria (consistent verhaal) aan de hand van kostenbaten analyse, volume, marktvragen. Is het fysiek uitvoerbaar? Doelbereik: wat wil je hiermee bereiken? Wat is het doel van het HbR? Ook moet er draagvlak zijn.

Criteria die het Ministerie van I en M meeneemt bij het beslissen om een project uit te voeren:

 Legitimiteit: heeft het rijk een verantwoordelijkheid  Effectief voor het beleid (halen van beleidsdoelstellingen)  Efficiënt voor de maatschappij (matschappelijke kosten en baten afgewogen

Stappen: eerst een kader uitstellen en daarna de hoofdvragen hierin stellen.

Extended Gates vs. Container transferium Het container transferium is neutraal. Het is een voorportaal van de haven, terwijl EGS een voorportaal is voor ECT.

209