2
ContentContent
Throughput in Antwerp, Rotterdam and Zeebrugge
Technological and spatial development of container facilities
Current issues
3
Top container port regions in the world
Container throughput in million TEU
Cluster Main container ports 1985 R 1990 R 1995 R 2000 R 2002 R 2004 R Pearl River Delta Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou 2.34 4 5.37 3 13.74 1 24.26 1 29.83 1 40.11 1 Singapore region Singapore, Tanjung Pelepas 1.70 7 5.09 4 11.85 2 17.46 2 19.47 2 25.35 2 Yangtze River Delta Shanghai, Ningbo 0.20 9 0.47 9 1.69 9 6.51 8 10.47 7 18.56 3 Rhine-Scheldt Delta Rotterdam, Antwerp, Zeebrugge 4.24 1 5.65 1 7.75 3 11.39 3 12.34 3 15.66 4 San Pedro Bay Los Angeles, Long Beach 2.25 5 3.71 5 5.40 5 9.48 5 10.63 5 13.10 5 Taiwan Kaohsiung, Keelung 3.08 2 5.45 2 7.67 4 10.51 4 11.61 4 13.03 6 Korean Twin Hub Busan, Gwangyang 1.16 8 2.35 8 4.50 7 8.22 6 10.53 6 12.75 7 Helgoland Bay Hamburg, Bremen 2.15 6 3.14 7 4.43 8 7.11 7 8.49 8 10.55 8 Tokyo Bay Tokyo, Yokohama 2.46 3 3.37 6 5.16 6 5.63 9 5.52 9 6.59 9
Source: ITMMA based on individual port data of CI Online 4
Top 15 European container ports (‘000 TEU)
1975 1985 1995 2001 2004 1000 TEU % 1000 TEU % 1000 TEU % 1000 TEU % 1000 TEU % 1 Rotterdam 1079 26.0% Rotterdam 2655 21.5% Rotterdam 4787 19.3% Rotterdam 6096 14.3% Rotterdam 8281 14.9% 2 Bremen 410 9.9% Antwerp 1243 10.1% Hamburg 2890 11.7% Hamburg 4689 11.0% Hamburg 7003 12.6% 3 Hamburg 326 7.8% Hamburg 1159 9.4% Antwerp 2329 9.4% Antwerp 4218 9.9% Antwerpen 6064 10.9% 4 Antwerp 297 7.1% Bremen 986 8.0% Felixstowe 1924 7.8% Bremen 2915 6.8% Bremen 3469 6.2% 5 Tilbury 232 5.6% Felixstowe 726 5.9% Bremen 1518 6.1% Felixstowe 2737 6.4% Gioia Tauro 3261 5.9% 6 Le Havre 231 5.6% Le Havre 566 4.6% Algeciras 1155 4.7% Gioia Tauro 2488 5.8% Algeciras 2937 5.3% 7 Felixstowe 230 5.5% Marseille 488 3.9% Le Havre 970 3.9% Algeciras 2152 5.0% Felixstowe 2625 4.7% 8 Southampton 199 4.8% Leghorn 475 3.8% La spezia 965 3.9% Genoa 1527 3.6% Le Havre 2150 3.9% 9 Zeebrugge 184 4.4% Tilbury 387 3.1% Barcelona 689 2.8% Le Havre 1523 3.6% Valencia 2137 3.8% 10 Genoa 162 3.9% Barcelona 353 2.9% Southampton 683 2.8% Valencia 1506 3.5% Barcelona 1911 3.4% 11 Marseille 94 2.3% Algeciras 351 2.8% Valencia 672 2.7% Barcelona 1411 3.3% Genoa 1629 2.9% 12 Barcelona 77 1.9% Genoa 324 2.6% Genoa 615 2.5% Piraeus 1202 2.8% Piraeus 1542 2.8% 13 Hull 76 1.8% Valencia 305 2.5% Piraeus 600 2.4% Marsaxlokk 1165 2.7% Marsaxlokk 1461 2.6% 14 Leghorn 66 1.6% Zeebrugge 218 1.8% Zeebrugge 528 2.1% Southampton 1164 2.7% Southampton 1441 2.6% 15 Bilbao 64 1.5% Southhamp 214 1.7% Marsaxlokk 515 2.1% La spezia 975 2.3% Zeebrugge 1197 2.1% Top 5 2344 56.4% Top 5 6769 54.8% Top 5 13448 54.3% Top 5 20656 48.5% Top 5 28078 50.4% Top 10 3350 80.6% Top 10 9038 73.1% Top 10 17911 72.4% Top 10 29851 70.0% Top 10 39839 71.5% Top 15 3727 89.7% Top 15 10450 84.6% Top 15 20841 84.2% Top 15 35768 83.9% Top 15 47108 84.6% TOTAL 4157 100% TOTAL 12358 100% TOTAL 24747 100% TOTAL 42622 100% TOTAL 55694 100% (47 ports) (47 ports) (47 ports) (47 ports) (47 ports)
5
Cargo throughput (‘000 TEU) in the Hamburg-Le Havre range
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2002 2004 2005 (est.) Rotterdam (NL) 1079 1901 2655 3666 4787 6275 6515 8281 9300 Hamburg (D) 326 783 1159 1969 2890 4248 5374 7003 7800 Antwerp (B) 297 724 1243 1549 2329 4082 4777 6064 6500 Bremen/Bremerhaven (D) 405 703 986 1163 1518 2752 2982 3469 3900 Le Havre (F) 232 507 566 858 970 1465 1720 2150 2100 Zeebrugge (B) 151 181 218 334 528 965 959 1197 1420 Dunkirk (F) 38 63 71 71 71 149 161 200 n.a. Rouen (F) 14 98 135 93 120 146 144 120 140 Amsterdam (NL) 32 72 79 69 91 53 45 52 n.a. Wilhelmshaven (D) 00006294143n.a. Ghent (B) 10101010 6102132n.a. Ostend (B) 000000915 9 Flushing (NL) 28 83 35 26 6 3 9 18 n.a. TOTAL 2612 5125 7158 9808 13322 20176 22760 28645
Source: data respective port authorities 6
Container throughput 1966-2005 (in 1000 TEU)
Antwerpen 10000 Rotterdam 50% 9500 Zeebrugge 9000 Antwerp - share in Hamburg-Le Havre range 45% Rotterdam - share in Hamburg-Le Havre range 8500 Zeebrugge - share in Hamburg-Le Havre range
8000 40% nge a
7500 e r
7000 35% vr a 6500 6000 30% 5500 g-Le H 5000 25% mbur
4500 a H
4000 20% n
3500 e i 3000 15% 2500 et shar k Container throughput in 1000 TEU throughput in 1000 Container 2000 10%
1500 Mar 1000 5% 500
0 0% 7 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Container distribution in the large load centres of the Hamburg - Le Havre range, TEU – 1997 and 2003
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Le Havre
11% Bremen 50% Hamburg 20% 16.0% 2003 31% 28% Antwerpen 40% 50% Rotterdam
30% 100%
49%
20% 38% 37% 90% 27% 30% 10% 16% 80%
0% 70% Europe America Africa Asia Australasia TOTAL
60%
50% 1997 25% 21.5% 40% 14% 31% 50% 23%
30%
20% 34% 34% 31% 30% 25% 10% 16%
0% 8 Europe America Africa Asia Australasia TOTAL
Container terminal development – history The early years of containerisation in Antwerp
Churchill Dock: Hessenatie-Neptunus Noord Natie Gylsen Havenbedrijf Pays etc..
Leopold Dock 1967
The first container gantry crane of Hessenatie-Neptunus at the Churchill Dock in Antwerp
9 Container terminal development - History The early years of containerisation in Rotterdam
Waalhaven 1970s: start operations Unitcentre City Centre
Shift of ALL containers to Maasvlakte ? Not feasible ! (study of 1974)
Eemhaven •May 1966: Quick Dispatch - Prinses Beatrixhaven •August 1967: start operations ECT •1970: ECT Sea Land terminal 10 The handling of the first container vessels (Vessel of United States Lines)
11 Early solutions for container moves on terminals Source: Hinterland, no. 56, 1968
Side-loader
12
TheThe straddlestraddle carriercarrier
1968 1990s ‘ 1 over 3 ’ 13 Container terminal development -history Antwerp in the 1980s
1982: Delwaide Dock Hessenatie Noord Natie Seaport Terminals
Delwaide Dock
Terminal depth of 600 m
75% of total container throughput in 1989 14 Container terminal development - history Antwerp in the 1990s: on-stream facilities
1997: Noordzeeterminal
1990: Europaterminal
1999: upgrading Hessenatie terminal at Churchill dock
15 Spatial distribution of container throughput in the Antwerp port area
100%
Scheldt Terminals 90% Delwaide Dock Churchill dock 80% Other terminals (multipurpose)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% % in total container throughput Antwerp
10%
0% 1967 1975 1983 1989 1992 1995 1999 2001 2002 2003 16 Container terminal development - history Rotterdam in the 1980s
Maasvlakte 1984: first vessel at Delta Terminal (now DMU) City Centre
17 Container terminal development - history Rotterdam in the 1990s
Waalhaven Uniport (Morcon), Hanno Improved accessibility Maasvlakte City 1993: opening of DSL (now DDN) Centre
Plan Delta 2000-8 1996: first phase DDE 2000: first phase DDW 1990s: barge terminal, rail terminal, Distripark Maasvlakte, etc.. Eemhaven 2000: Maersk Delta b.v. Extention ECT terminal Opening RST 18 Spatial distribution of the container throughput in the Rotterdam port area (DD = diversion distance)
7000 Rotterdam - Maasvlakte (DD = 17 km)
6000 Rotterdam - Eemhaven & Waalhaven (DD = 40)
5000
4000
3000
2000 Container throughput in 1000 TEU Container throughput
1000
0 1988 1992 1995 1998 1999 19 Container terminal development - History Containerisation in Zeebrugge
Successes and failures of containerisation in Zeebrugge:
CAST dedicated terminal in inner port:
1991: Opening
1995: CAST moves out of Zeebrugge. Terminal is now used for RoRo
Flanders Container Terminal
1994: Start Flanders Container Terminal (0.6m TEU) by Seaport Terminals/Katoen Natie
2005: concession taken away after years of severe underutilization
OCHZ (now CHZ)
Success story
20 Container terminal development - history Zeebrugge in the 1990s
Deepsea container terminals (lolo) 1 = OCHZ - Hessenatie/IFB (now CHZ) 2 = FCT - Seaport Terminals/ Katoen Natie (1994-2005) 3 = CAST terminal (1991-1995) – inner port
Rail terminals I = Rail terminal inner port II = Shunting yard IFB III = Rail terminal outer port
2
1
3
21 ROTTERDAM Today
A 9 5 8 Planning area Maasvlakte 2 a 6 7
3 1 4 II III
b c C
Diepzeecontainerterminals 1 = RST (Rotterdam Shortsea Terminal) I B 2 = Home Terminal - ECT (Eemhaven) 2 3 = Hanno + Morcon (Waalhaven) 4 = ECT (Waalhaven) 5 = Delta Dedicated North (DDE) - ECT Gespecialiseerde spoorterminals 6 = Delta Dedicated East (DDE) - ECT I = RSC Rotterdam (Eemhaven) - NS Cargo/GHR 7 = Delta Dedicated West (DDW) - ECT II = ECT terminal Maasvlakte - ECT 8 = Delta Multi-User terminal (DMU) - ECT III = Rail Terminal West - ECT 9 = APM Terminals Distriparks Gespecialiseerde binnenvaartterminals a = Distripark Maasvlakte A = Barge terminal (Hartelhaven) - ECT b = Distripark Botlek B = Waalhaven Terminal en Barge Center Waalhaven (Waalhaven) - Waalhaven Groep c = Distripark Eemhaven C = Holland Terminals (Botlek) - Hessenatie 22
The Delta terminal complex at the Maasvlakte - Rotterdam
DMU
APM Terminals DDW
DDN DDE
New barge/SSS terminal (under construction)
Source ECT 23 AGV’s used on DDN, DDW and DDE (ECT) Maasvlakte Rotterdam
Source ECT 24 Container terminal development Future projects in Rotterdam
Euromax terminal (first phase 2007) P&O Nedlloyd (?)/ ECT
Second Maasvlakte (2013 ?)
25 Container terminal development Future projects in Rotterdam
Euromax (5 m TEU; 2m TEU in first phase) Delta (Maasvlakte I) Maasvlakte II
26
Deepsea container terminals ANTWERP 1 = Noordzee Terminal - HNN 2 = Europa Terminal - HNN (situation on January 1, 2006) 3 = Delwaide Dock - P&O Ports (future MSC) 4 = Delwaide Dock – Home Terminal MSC/HNN 5 = Churchilldock - P&O Ports 6 = Churchilldock - HNN 7 = Hansadok - P&O Ports 8 = Deurganck Dock – Antwerp Gateway – P&O Ports Consortium (first phase operational since Sept. 2005) 9 = Deurganck Dock – HNN (first phase operational since A Dec. 2005) 10 = provisional planning zone Saeftinghe Dock 1 B
2 3
I
4 10
9 IV
5 8 II
7 6
Barge terminals for container traffic III A = Barge terminal Noordzeeterminal B = Barge terminal Europaterminal
Rail terminals for container traffic I = Cirkeldyck terminal – Belgian Rail II = Zomerweg terminal – Belgian Rail III = Schijnpoort terminal – Belgian Rail 27 IV = Main Hub – Belgian Rail
Actual container throughput compared to forecasted throughput as reported in various economic studies conducted in the 1990s
Actual throughput 6 Antwerp Port Authority (1990) 5,5 Cost-benefit analysis Second Scheldt terminal (1992) OSC and Marconsult (1993) 5 OSC (1995) OSC (1997) 4,5 Verbeke et al (1996) Cost-benefit analysis container dock west - working strategy 1 (1997) 4 Cost-benefit analysis container dock west - working strategy 2 (1997) 3,5 in TEU 3
ughput 2,5 o
Thr 2
1,5
1
0,5
0 06 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20 2008 2010 2012 2014
28
Deurganckdock (about 7 million TEU capacity) and proposed Saftingendock (20 berths)
Deurganckdock opened in July 2005
First operations: Antwerp Gateway - Sept 2005, HNN - Dec 2005
5.3 km quay walls, 44 gantry cranes, 14.5m draft, 326 ha
7 million TEU capacity
N N
H Y - A W A E S T P A G P R E W T N A 29
Picture of Deurganckdock November 2005
30 Cross-section of the river Scheldt - North Sea to locks of the Antwerp port eerteert eert lietliet liet HonteHonte Honte BathBath Bath BorsseleBorssele Borssele ZandvZandv Zandv HanswHansw Hansw TerneuzenTerneuzen Terneuzen ValkenisseValkenisse Valkenisse erperp twtw nn
Beam shipping lane > 500 m stem Astem A 500 m FlushingFlushing 300 m North SeaNorth Sea Dock syDock sy
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 km
31
Zeebrugge
Future extension
Concession APM terminals
CHZOCHZ – - HHNNNN/CMA-CGM Capacity: 0.8 million TEU
32
CurrentCurrent issuesissues
1. Functional interdependence and inter-port traffic
2. Structural changes in container handling market
3. Port competition and hinterland transportation
33 1. Functional interdependence and intra- and inter-port traffic Container exchanges over land - 1996 and 1999 - modal split in TEU
Rotterdam
Total 1996 : 569,492 TEU Road: 12.4% Rail : 12.7% Inland navigation: 74.9% +55% Total 1999: 881,000 TEU Road: 8.1% Rail: 14.8% Zeebrugge Inland navigation: 77.1% Antwerp Total 1996: 47,435 TEU Rail : 88% x3,6 Total 1999: 174,000 TEU Rail: 92% 34
2. Structural changes in the container handling market Scale increases in vessel size: evolution of the world cellular fleet 1991-2006
Jan 1991 Shares Jan 1996 Shares Jan 2001 Shares Jan 2006 Shares >5000 TEU 0 0.0% 30648 1.0% 621855 12.7% 2355033 30.0% 4000/4999 TEU 140032 7.5% 428429 14.4% 766048 15.6% 1339978 17.1% 3000/3999 TEU 325906 17.6% 612377 20.6% 814713 16.6% 892463 11.4% 2000/2999 TEU 538766 29.0% 673074 22.6% 1006006 20.5% 1391216 17.7% 1500/1999 TEU 238495 12.8% 367853 12.3% 604713 12.3% 719631 9.2% 1000/1499 TEU 329578 17.7% 480270 16.1% 567952 11.6% 596047 7.6% 500/999 TEU 191733 10.3% 269339 9.0% 393744 8.0% 438249 5.6% 100/499 TEU 92417 5.0% 117187 3.9% 132472 2.7% 114976 1.5% TOTAL 1856927 100.0% 2979177 100.0% 4907503 100.0% 7847593 100.0%
35 Source: BRS Alphaliner Fleet Report, September 2003
2. Structural changes in the container handling market Slot capacity operated by the top twenty carriers
January 1980 September 1995 January 2000 November 2005 Carrier Slot cap. Carrier Slot cap. Carrier Slot cap. Carrier Slot cap. 1 Sea-Land 70000 Sea-Land 196708 AP Moller - Maersk 620324 Maersk Lines 1620587 2 Hapag-Lloyd 41000 Maersk 186040 Evergreen 317292 MSC 733471 3 OCL 31400 Evergreen 181982 P&O Nedlloyd 280794 CMA/CGM Group 485250 4 Maersk 25600 COSCO 169795 Hanjin/DSR Senator 244636 Evergreen Group 458490 5 NYK Line 24000 NYK Line 137018 MSC 224620 Hapag Lloyd/CP Ships 413281 6 Evergreen 23600 Nedlloyd 119599 NOL/APL 207992 China Shipping 334337 7 OOCL 22800 Mitsui OSK Lines 118208 COSCO 198841 NOL/APL 331639 8 Zim 21100 P&OCL 98893 NYK Line 166206 Hanjin/Senator 315153 9 US Line 20900 Hanjin Shipping 92332 CP Ships / Americana 141419 COSCO 311644 10 APL 20000 MSC 88955 Zim 136075 NYK Line 303799 11 Mitsui OSK Lines 19800 APL 81547 Mitsui OSK Lines 132618 OOCL 236789 12 Farrell Lines 16400 Zim 79738 CMA/CGM 122848 CSAV Group 230699 13 NOL 14800 K-Line 75528 K-Line 112884 K Line 228612 14 Trans Freight Line 13900 DSR-Senator 75497 Hapag-Lloyd 102769 Mitsui OSK Lines 220122 15 CGM 12700 Hapag-Lloyd 71688 Hyundai 102314 Zim 201263 16 Yang Ming 12700 NOL 63469 OOCL 101044 Yang Ming 185639 17 Nedlloyd 11700 Yang Ming 60034 Yang Ming 93348 Hamburg-Süd 185355 18 Columbas Line 11200 Hyundai 59195 China Shipping 86335 Hyundai 148681 19 Safmarine 11100 OOCL 55811 UASC 74989 Pacific Int'l Lines 134292 20 Ben Line 10300 CMA 46026 Wan Hai 70755 Wan Hai Lines 106505 Slop capacity of top 20 435000 2058063 3538103 7185608 C4-index 38.6% 35.7% 41.4% 45.9% Share top 5 in top 20 44.1% 42.3% 47.7% 56.3% Share top 10 in top 20 69.1% 67.5% 71.7% 73.9%
36 Source: compiled from BRS Alphaliner and Containerisation International
2. Structural changes in the container handling market
Concentration at the port demand side
Strategic alliances, mergers, acquisitions
MSC: 2 million TEU in Antwerp
Maersk Sealand: 1.5 million TEU in Rotterdam
CMA-CGM: 0.4 million TEU in Zeebrugge
Shipping lines enter the stevedoring business
Rotterdam: Maersk Line (APM Terminals) and P&O Nedlloyd (Euromax)
Antwerp:
MSC (MSC Home Terminal JV with PSA HNN)
Cosco Pacific, CMA-CGM and P&O Nedlloyd (Antwerp Gateway)
Zeebrugge: CMA-CGM (35% in CHZ)
37 Felixstowe Hamburg Harwich Thamesport Bremerhaven Tilbury Rotterdam Southampton Antwerp Zeebrugge Le Havre Zeebrugge (joint(Port -Svyeneturrgey m– ejot iCMAnt ve-ntCGM)ure with CMA-CGM) Dunkirk = Eurogate = Hutchison PH Venice = PSA (incl. HNN) Genoa = P&O Ports Ravenna = APM Ports Marseilles (joint(Port -Sveyneturrgey m– et CMA-CGM) Livorno joint venture with CMA-CGM) La Spezia Lisbon Salerno Sines (Verdere betrokkenheid Cagliari PSA is een vraagteken) Gioia Tauro Cagliari Algeciras (sinds eind 2002) Marsaxlokk 38 Source: Notteboom (Port Synergy) 2. Structural changes in the container handling market ROTTERDAM
1967: founding of ECT by five stevedoring companies in order to cope with high capital requirements and risks 1992: merger ECT - Unitcentre (Delta 2000-8) 1998: new shareholder structure for ECT 2000: Hutchison acquires shareholding in ECT 2001: Maersk Delta bv starts operations (now APM Terminals) 2004: Hutchison full owner of ECT 2005: ECT acquires Uniport
39
2. Structural changes in the container handling market ANTWERP
The first wave 1987: founding of ACT (Müller-Thomson Antwerp and Havenbedrijf Pays) 1988: CMB acquires Hessenatie (combination with Gylsen) 1989: Katoen Natie acquires Seaport Terminals
The second wave 2000: P&O Ports acquires the container activities of Seaport Terminals 2000: P&O Ports acquires ACT/MT 2000: Hessenatie and Noord Natie announce to join forces 2001: PSA acquires a majority stake in Hesse Noord Natie (HNN)
Now PSA full owner of HNN, PSA in competition with DP World to acquire P&O Ports Antwerp Gateway consortium: P&O Ports, P&O Nedlloyd, CMA-CGM, Duisport, Cosco Pacific 40 2. Structural changes in the container handling market ZEEBRUGGE
1991-1995: Dedicated terminal CAST
1994-2005: Seaport Terminals operates Flanders Container Terminal (did not get hold of concession in Antwerp !)
Dec 2004: OCHZ (now CHZ) under full ownership of PSA-HNN
2005: competition between CMA-CGM and APM Terminals for concession former Flanders Container Terminal
2005: CMA-CGM acquires minority shareholding in CHZ
2006: APM Terminals will start operations
41
2. Structural changes in the container handling market The attitude of the port authorities Rotterdam Municipal Port Management:
Model of ‘one big player’ (i.e. ECT)
Dedicated terminals, but preferably with shareholding ECT
Antwerp Port Authority:
Model of strong internal port competition
Not eager to allow dedicated terminals
Past practices:
strong divergence between Rotterdam and Antwerp
Today’s practice:
Market dynamics resulted in more or less same market structure
Antwerp: 2 main players (P&O Ports, PSA), involvement shipping lines
Rotterdam: 2 main players (ECT, APM), involvement shipping lines 42 3. Port competition The ‘orange boomerang’
Source: Cushman & Wakefield, Healey & Baker 43
3. Port competition Port dynamics in the Med
Med ports going north ?
.. Odessa Trieste . Koper Venice. ... Koper .. Ilyichevsk .Ravenna Genoa .. Ravenna Genoa .... La Spezia .. Constanza Fos . Leghorn Varna . .. Ancona .. .. Bar Civitavecchia.. Barcelona .. Haydarpasa.. Armaport .. Haydarpasa ...Kumport Naples . Taranto ThessalonikiGemlik Salerno...... Valencia .. .. Cagliari Izmir .. Gioia Tauro .. .. Piraeus Main shipping lane Mersin .. Algeciras .. Algeciras Lattakia . Malta .. . Limassol .. ..Tartous Beirut .. Haifa .. Ashod .. Alessandria .... Damietta .. Port Said
44 3. Port competition Existing and planned container ports in northern Europe
Wilhelmshaven
Bremerhaven Hamburg UNITED KINGDOM HOLLAND Amsterdam Felixstowe
Harwich Rotterdam Tilbury Zeeland Seaports Thamesport Zeebrugge Southampton
Dunkirk Gent Antwerp
GERMANY Large load centersBELGIUM (> 11.25 million million TEU TEU throughput throughput in 2003) in 2004) Le Havre Medium-sized load centers (500,000(500,000 to 11.25 million million TEU) TEU) Small container ports (<200,000 TEU in 2003)2004) Rouen New (proposed) terminal developments in non -hub ports: - Ceres terminal - Amsterdam (open since 2001) - Westerscheldt Container Terminal - Flushing (2009?) - JJadeWeserPortade Port - Wilhelmshaven- Wilhelmshaven FRANCE - Dibden Bay – Southampton (project cancelled) - Bathside Bay - Harwich - London Gateway - river Thames - Quai de Flandres - Dunkirk 45 3. Port competition Amsterdam & Westerscheldt Container Terminal - Flushing
WCT – Flushing Will be operated by PSA-HNN Still in planning phase Open in 2010? Capacity: >2 million TEU
Amsterdam Operated by NYK Indented berth for 2-sided handling Open since 2001 First services in 2005 (Grand Alliance) Capacity: 0.95 million TEU
46 3. Port competition The market share of Rotterdam (basis= TEU in 1999)
Hamburg Bremen
Rotterdam
Antwerpen
Le Havre
> 90% 70%-90% 50%-70% 30-50%
15-30% 5-15% <5% niet beschikbaar 47 3. Port competition The market share of Antwerp (basis= TEU in 1999)
Hamburg Bremen
Rotterdam Antwerp
Le Havre
> 90% 70%-90% 50%-70% 30-50%
15-30% 5-15% <5% not available 48 3. Port competition Discontinuous character of a port’s service area
Kilometers 0 25 50 100 150 200
Netherlands ROTTERDAM Discontinuous Port A Continuous hinterland Port A hinterland Port A
'Island' formation
Discontinuous ANTWERP hinterland Port B Port B Continuous hinterland Belgium Port B Core of the service area Middle section of the service area Avelgem Outer section of the service area
Maritime load centre
Inland terminal
France Source: Notteboom & Rodrigue (2005) Lux
49
Distribution per distance class of inland container transport by road - 1998
30
25 Antwerpen
20 Rotterdam
15 truck
10
5 % in total hinterland transport of containers by % in total hinterland 0 0-25 >350 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-125 126-150 151-175 176-200 201-225 226-250 251-275 276-300 301-325 326-350 Distance class in km 50 Container modal split for load centres in the Le Havre – Hamburg range - in %, excluding sea-sea transhipment
Rail Road Barge 1998 2001 2003 1998 2001 2003 1998 2001 2003 Rotterdam 14,5% 13,0% 10,0% 51,3% 48,7% 50,0% 34,2% 39,0% 40,0% Antwerp 7,8% 8,8% 9,5% 64,5% 61,3% 59,5% 27,7% 29,9% 31,0% Le Havre 14,3% 11,4% 12,4% 84,6% 85,3% 82,8% 1,3% 3,1% 4,8% Zeebrugge 34,4% 41,9% 40,2% 50,6% 48,8% 55,1% 15,1% 9,2% 4,7% Dunkirk 9,0% 13,5% 20,5% 90,0% 82,5% 76,7% 1,0% 4,0% 2,7% Hamburg 29,7% 28,7% 28,7% 70,1% 69,9% 69,8% 0,2% 1,4% 1,7% Bremerhaven 33,1% 36,0% 30,6% 65,0% 62,0% 67,3% 1,9% 2,0% 2,0%
Source: data respective port authorities 51 Inland ports in north-western Europe (source EFIP)
52
Rail networks
Liberalisation has increased number of container shuttle operators
10 in the Netherlands, 4 in Belgium
Cherry-picking
Collapse of hub-and-spoke networks (replaced by selection of direct shuttles), e.g. NEN, Qualitynet, ..
53 The East-West axes of P&OFelixstowe Ports Hamburg and HPH? Harwich -Barge and rail Thamesport -Role Duisburg ! Bremerhaven Tilbury Rotterdam Southampton Antwerp Zeebrugge Le Havre The North-South axis of (joint(Port -Svyeneturrgey m– ejot iCMAnt ve-ntCGM)ure with CMA-CGM) Eurogate: -Rail ! Boxxpress.de, Sogemar = Eurogate (cf. Hannibal Express) -Terminal Dortmund, Interporti = Hutchison PH Venice = PSA (incl. HNN) Genoa = P&O Ports Ravenna = APM Ports Marseilles (joint(Port -Sveyneturrgey m– et CMA-CGM) Livorno joint venture with CMA-CGM) La Spezia Lisbon Salerno Sines (Verdere betrokkenheid Cagliari PSA is een vraagteken) Gioia Tauro Cagliari Algeciras (sinds eind 2002) Marsaxlokk 54 Source: Notteboom (Port Synergy)
Logistics polarisation in the Benelux
Harlingen Kilometers Leeuwarden Groningen 0525 0100150200 Drachten Veendam
Seaport in Rhine-Scheldt Delta Alkmaar Meppel Inland Container Terminal (barge Zaandam or multimodal) Beverwijk Amsterdam Kampen Almelo Hengelo Growth region European Hillegom Distribution (outside seaport system) Utrecht Netherlands Ede Zutphen ROTTERDAM A. a/d Rijn Delta seaport system with Valburg multi-zone polarisation Gorinchem Nijmegem Oss Oosterhout Den Bosch Emmerich Germany Zeeland Seaports Moerdijk Tilburg Gennep Duisburg Krefeld Dortmund Zeebrugge ANTWERP Helmond Venlo Ostend Deurne Neuss Duesseldorf Ghent Meerhout Genk Born Dormagen Willebroek Wielsbeke Stein Cologne Grimbergen Brussels Bonn Avelgem Belgium Liège Lille
Andernach Valenciennes Koblenz
France Mertert Lux Source: Notteboom 55 Future site of TriLogiPort – Port of Liège
Site of 100ha, including 12ha for container terminal (1850 quay)
90 ha owned by Région wallonne (Hermalle-sous-Argenteau), but since June 11, 2004 under the authority of Port Autonome de Liège. 56
Thank you for your attention ! Any further questions: [email protected]
57