Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailers SKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010 Johan Woxenius 1 LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE Hinterland transport by rail i th diti f iti – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailers Johan Woxenius University of Gothenburg [email protected]Based upon articles co-authored with Rickard Bergqvist, University of Gothenburg, Violeta Roso and Kent Lumsden, Chalmers University of Technology SKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 th of February 2010 LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE Source: Tomas Dyrbye, Maersk Line
Transcript
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
1
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Hinterland transport by rail i th diti f iti– comparing the conditions for maritime
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
3
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Long term problems
Larger container flows and ships strain seaports and hinterland transportDevelopment of hinterland transport lags behind in terms of costs and capacityLess acceptance for road transport Less investments in road infrastructureConcentration and competition bet een portsbetween ports
Road-as-usual is not an option!
Photo: Maersk
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
An illustration: Maersk in the US
“The current shipping industry service model in which acceptance and pricing of end-to-end rates is driven overwhelmingly by the ‘market perception’ of port-to-port ocean leg vessel capacity supply p p p p g p y pp yand demand does not make sense any more”“the ‘bottlenecks’ and primary transportation cost drivers in North America have shifted from the ocean leg to the inland leg of the transport” “faster and more reliable service delivery based on less complex routes that are better managed and administrated” “we will stop using 66 rail ramps in North America and remove service from 18 inland destinations”“ d th b f il t d li k t t ifi“reduce the number of rail routes we use and link ports to specific service areas”“for inland destinations with high cargo volumes, there may be two or more ports of entry, while areas with less cargo would be served by a single port”
Source: American Shipper, January 2007
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
4
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Traditional hinterland transport
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
The dry port concept
Concious development of hinterland transportMoving shippers’ interface towards portsMoving shippers interface towards portsGoes beyond just transportationBenefits several actor categories
SeaportsShipping lines
ShippersLocal authorities
Rail operatorsRoad operators
Requires fair distribution of costs and benefits
The society as a whole
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
5
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
A distant dry port
Examples: Barcelona-Rotterdam, Isaka in Tanzania, ICDs in India
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Distant DPIsaka Dry Port, Tanzania
Isaka Dry Port
Dar es Salaam
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
6
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
A mid-range dry port
Examples: Virginia Inland Port, Edouard Herriot Port in Lyon
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Mid Range DPVirginia Inland Port, USA
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
7
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
A close dry port
21
4
3
5
7
8910
4
6
1 - 10
Seaport Road Rail CityShippers
1 10
Conventional intermodal terminalDry port
Examples: Alameda Corridor, Enfield in Sydney, Green Cargo FS Göteborg
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Close DP - Sydney, Australia
PlannedPlanned Inland portInland port
Port Botany
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
8
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE5
2
7
31
4
869
10
5
4
1 2 3
7
88
7
910 6
Seaport Road Rail CityShippers
1 - 10
Conventional intermodal terminalDry port
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Distant Mid-range Close
Seaports Less congestionSecure hinterland
Less congestionDedicated trainsSequenced loading
Less congestionSequenced loadingDirect loading ship-train
Shipping lines d f d
Lower costs Lower costs Lower costsand forwarders Improved service Improved service Improved service
Rail and inter-modal operators
More businessEconomies of scale
More businessDay trains
More businessDay trains
Road operators Less time in congested roads and gates
Less time in congested roads and gatesAvoiding env. zones
Less time in congested roads and gatesAvoiding env. zones
Shippers Improved port access Improved port access Improved port accessShippers Improved port access”Environment marketing”
Improved port access Improved port access
Seaport cities Less road congestionLand use oportunities
Less road congestionLand use oportunities
Less road congestionLand use oportunities
Society Modal shiftLess infrastructure
Modal shiftLess infrastructure
Less local emissions in the port city
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
9
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Why the Swedish example is interesting
Division between infrastructure and operations in 1989Reasonably well functioning and large rail marketReasonably well functioning and large rail marketIntermodal terminal ownership and operations have changed dramatically Competition for containers between a few direct calls, feeder shipping and road/rail to continental portsContainer rail shuttles from Port of Göteborg are successful
25 shuttles and increasing10 different operatorsOften use small terminals as dryportsSome shuttles operated in a small scale and over short distances
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
11
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Dec 2008
Göt
ebor
gS
ourc
e: P
ort o
f G
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Rail shuttles of Port f G th b09 of Gothenburg,
May 2009
: Por
t of G
othe
nbur
g, M
ay 2
00
Source: Port of Gothenburg
Sou
rce:
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
12
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
The rail shuttle system ofPort of Gothenburg
25 Shuttles
10
9 New shuttles
Growth May 2009
Operators
10%
60% Market share May 2009
Growth May 2009 over May 2008
23
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
09 Rail operators of
: Por
t of G
othe
nbur
g, M
ay 2
00 Rail operators of Port of Gothenburg,
May 2009
Sou
rce:
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
13
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Rail container volumes, Port of Gothenburg, TEU
09: P
ort o
f Got
henb
urg,
May
200
Sou
rce:
Volume in May 2009 all-time high at 31 280 TEU
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Swedish port throughput, 1st quarter 2008
Wet bulk
Dry bulk
RoRo
Container
Other goods
Source: Skeppsmäklarnytt, No. 8, 2008
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
14
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Container Semi-trailer
Geographic transport market Transocean/deep sea/short sea Intra-European/short sea
Modal competition Air for deep sea legRail and road for feeder leg Rail and road + fixed connections
Business priority Utilising economies of scale Providing customer convenience
Port geography Few large hub ports + feeder ports
Many ports – partly bridge substitute
Hinterland depth Deep ShallowHinterland depth Deep ShallowTransport time/speed Fast FastPrecision Day HourOrder time Week Day/minuteFrequency Weekly Daily/hourlyMax ship size last 10 years +66% (Sovereign-Emma Maersk) +69% (at Dover)Transport service co-ordinator
Shipping line, line agent or sea forwarder
Shipper, road haulier or general forwarder
Cargo dwell time in port Days Accompanied – minutes or noneCargo dwell time in port Days pUnaccompanied - hours
Empty unit dwell time Days/weeks Hours/daysPort work content Substantial Limited
Rail technology Very simple – flat wagon/twist locks
Complicated – pocket wagon/king-pin box
Road technology Awkward at end points Simple and accessibleRoad-rail transhipment technology
Fairly simple – automation possible
Dimensioning factor in weight and handling
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Drivers for more semi-trailerson rail to and from ports
Internal ExternalCosts of road haulageCongestion
At port gatesIn port city traffic
Scale and concentration of flows
Image of road haulageShipper demandsPolitical pressure and regulationEmission caps
StenungsundNew rail technologyImage of road haulageLack of drivers
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
21
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Potential for rail transport of semi-trailers
100 000 annual semi-trailers further than 150 kms from the portthe portThe hinterland for semi-trailers and containers overlapsRelievs the city traffic and port’s gate congestion If 80 000 semi-trailers by rail
€30 million in turnover€3 million in cost savings (10 % b d i(10 % - based on experience from the container shuttle services)25 000-30 000 tons of CO2 reductions
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Road to and from oad to a d oPort of Göteborg, haulage distance
50 kms, 2004
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
22
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Truck flows to and from Port of
Karlskrona, 50 km l l h llocal haulage,
2004
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Example pof map Poland
- Number of trucks,trucks,
50 km local haulage
Hinterland transport by rail – comparing the conditions for maritime containers and semi-trailersSKEMA Workshop, Copenhagen, 18 February 2010
Johan Woxenius
23
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Hinterland rail in the last ten years
Adventageous macro factorsGlobilisation and increased tradeContinued containerisationEnvironmental concerns Fuel prices
Held back competitionShortage of trucks and driversCongestionImage
Productivity gainsInvestments Deregulation
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Hinterland rail transport in the recession
Immediate effectsDrop also in trans-ocean, domestic and intra-European flowsDrop in fuel prices, spare transport capacity availableRoad hauliers might choose not to subcontract the long haulEffect in Gothenburg – all-time high and 60% market share!
Short-run effectsBreath-space and time for reflectionGetting the business model and operations in orderAssessing new businesses and alliances
Long-run effectsWill trade recover? Freight rates?Will trade recover? Freight rates?Survival of shipping lines and rail operators dependent on economies of scale?Stimulation packages
• Favours domestic labour markets - revival of protectionism?• Investments in infrastructure?
