Exploring Terminal Efficiency Along the Rhine-Alpine Corridor I II Exploring terminal efficiency along the Rhine-Alpine corridor How the Connecting Europe Facility can contribute to terminal efficiency Robert Wursten s3032183 March, 2015 Master thesis Economic Geography Radboud University Supervisor: dr. Rianne van Melik Panteia Supervisor: Drs. Arnaud Burgess Cover photo: Panteia stock photos III IV Preface Approximately four and a half years ago, I enrolled for the Bachelors degree in Human Geography and Spatial Planning. At that moment with the thought that I would certainly become a spatial planner and took the introductory course on human geography only for the broadening of my scope. It is in the first half of the first semester that I realized that the main focus of a human geographer fitted me more than a spatial planner, and so I decided to switch the scope of my Bachelors degree more towards this end. Not a very big decision, because in the end it was a combined Bachelors degree, but still a decision that brought me to where I am now, and leaded me to the Masters degree in Economic Geography I eventually enrolled in, and for which this thesis is my ultimate aptitude test. Where the choice between spatial planning and human geography was not as clear from the beginning as it was for other students, the same can not be said about my main interest point in geography. During the course of my study I have assessed different kinds of topics, varying from a regional vision for Zuid-Limburg to a qualitative analysis on why Google is interested in a new datacenter in Groningen. What is striking to see, is that the first ever scientific paper I wrote, for the course Academic Skills, has a lot of common ground with the last scientific paper I write, at least in the light of getting a degree, namely this Master thesis. This first paper I wrote about developments in the Port of Rotterdam. Now, four and a half years later and a lot of experiences and (academic) skills richer, my studentship comes to an end with the writing of this Master thesis, which also has to do with transport. Therefore, for me the circle is complete. Transport fascinates me. In the summer, I see a lot of (container) vessels pass Nijmegen through the Waal. I find it interesting where these vessels come from and where they go. This interest point resulted in the writing of this thesis, which tries to answer some current questions about inland container transport. With the outcome of this research, but also the process in which it is conducted, I am very pleased. Still, I am sure that this thesis could not have been realized in this way without the help of several persons. First of all, I am very thankful towards Rianne van Melik, my supervisor from the Radboud University. Although transport theory is not her ‘core business’, she helped me in the process where she could, by posing critical questions and her availability when I needed it. Critical when needed and indulgent when possible, which was a combination in a supervisor that I found very helpful to have around at set times. Furthermore, the company where I did my internship, Panteia in Zoetermeer, proved to be a true asset for this research. Not only have they pointed me towards a more concrete direction for the subject of this research, being part of Panteia also made it easier for me to get in touch with respondents and different documents, for which I am very grateful. A special thanks goes out to Arnaud Burgess, who is manager of the freight transport team and helped me with specific questions during my internship, and Joshua van Buuren, V who turned out to be a great critic and sparring partner. Also, I have to thank all the respondents that were willing to sacrifice some of their time to help me to collect my data. First of all, the numerous actors that delivered quantitative data that can not be found on internet. Furthermore, a special thanks go out to all the persons that made time for me to do a interview. The outcomes of this thesis would not have been brought to surface without the help of Jarl Schoemaker, Frans van den Boom, Marnix Vos, Hanneke Bruinsma, Eric Nooijen, Rien Geurts and mister Wilms. Last, I would like to say a special thanks to my family and friends who always supported me, not only during the writing of this Master thesis, but during the course of my entire study period. Here I also have to bring a thank you to my fellow interns at Panteia, Wouter, Marco, Tim, Mark, Bart and Michael, with who it was possible to discuss problems in the process of writing this thesis, but who also were always available to have thought opposing talks (Read: Football) during lunch and coffee breaks. So, writing this means the end of my studentship is near. A time of my life that I would not have wanted to miss out on. On the other hand, a new period in my life dawns and I can not wait to start this period. The only thing left for me now, is to wish you a happy reading of this thesis, and do not hesitate to contact me if you have specific questions about topics regarding this research. Robert Wursten March, 2015 VI Executive summary This research is conducted in the framework of the TEN-T regulations. TEN-T is European policy focused on more efficient transport in Europe. To do so, the EU came up with nine different corridors, which cross the entire European continent. To finance this policy, there is the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). In total, a budget of €26,2 billon has been allocated for TEN-T projects in member states of the European Union for the period 2014-2020. This is done on the basis of co- funding, where the EU finances up to 20% for works that need to be done. Different projects can be co-funded with the help of the EU. This research focusses on how CEF could contribute more to container terminal efficiency. Therefore, the aim of this research was to answer the following research question: To what extent can the Connecting Europe Facility contribute more to the transport efficiency of terminals in Europe? In order to do so, multiple steps were taken. First, it is important to have a theoretical overview of terminal efficiency and how this can be achieved. Terminal efficiency is best to be characterized as ‘the speed of container handling and consequent vessel turnaround’. This can be accomplished through four dimensions, according to existing literature. These dimensions are accessibility (with the indicators rail length, quay length and waterway access), capacity (with the indicator handling capacity), on-port facilities (with the indicator entering facilities) and port services (with the indicators number of cranes and barge lines to a mainport). These dimensions determine terminal efficiency. For one of the nine TEN-T corridors, the Rhine-Alpine corridor that runs from the seaports of Rotterdam and Antwerp through Germany and Switzerland to the port of Genoa, for all this indicators quantitative data is gathered. With the outcomes of this quantitative data, statistical tests were ran. It turns out that only a few terminals along the Rhine-Alpine corridor are optimized in terms of efficiency. Also, a few terminals score low on more than two indicators, but the most terminals only score low on one or two indicators. This is an indication that CEF can achieve an optimized container terminal efficiency with relatively little interventions. Next to whether the terminals possess the needed characteristics, there is also checked if the indicators affect the maximum handling capacity of a container terminal. This was the case for all the indicators, except for entering facilities and waterway access. Therefore, in future research it must be well argued if these indicators get included in a research, because it does not seem to affect terminal efficiency according to this research. This also means that, in order to increase terminal efficiency, CEF subsidy should be allocated to the other five on-site projects, in order to improve the efficiency VII of the terminal. Next to quantitative data, qualitative data was also used. Different relevant actors were interviewed in order to get to know their experiences with (European) subsidies, but also to get to know what they find the most important projects a CEF subsidy should be spend on. This led to interesting findings. First of all, the application for a CEF subsidy is too complicated. Interested parties decide not to write an application for a CEF subsidy after seeing the guide for applicants, which should clarify demands and the process of application for them. In fact, it does the opposite, by making it too complicated and not being to the point. The way the Dutch government does this, can be stated as an example for the European Union. This applications are way less complicated and does therefore not scare interested parties. What also was striking was that some of the respondents did not even know about the TEN-T program, so also the possibilities should be elaborated more on, for instance by the European Union itself. The container terminals are hesitant to hire a specialized company to handle this kind of business for them, because they are afraid the benefits will not outweigh the cost. Furthermore, the respondents are critical against the rate of co-funding for the CEF program. A rate of 20% means that they have to fund 80% themselves, which most of the time is too big of an investment for them.