Skip to main content
Log in

A Model on Container Port Competition: An Application for the West European Container Hub-Ports

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Maritime Economics & Logistics Aims and scope

Abstract

The worldwide network of container transport services, both on land and at sea, is becoming increasingly fine-meshed. The growth in the number of intermodal transfer points on the land side, at the sea–land interface in the seaports and at the connecting points of liner services in transhipment ports leads to an increasing number of routing options for a container flow between two regions somewhere on the globe. This increase complicates forecasting the container throughput of a port in the traditional way by linking it directly to a specific hinterland area. In the approach presented here, a port is considered as a nodal point in a network of container routings, where the routings using a certain port add up to the port's container throughput. The model presented here is intended to explain the market share of the port's routings for each of the traffic zones or regions that comprise a port's potential hinterland. Explanatory variables include transport cost, transit time, frequency of service and indicators of quality of service. A logit model is used to quantify the routing choice and to derive from that a demand function to be used for port traffic forecasting and for the economic and financial evaluation of container port projects. The authors had the opportunity to calibrate logit models in the framework of the evaluation of the Maasvlakte-2 container port expansion project in the port of Rotterdam.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank Mr CJJ Eijgenraam and Mr R Saitua Nistal of the Netherlands Central Planning Bureau for their fruitful discussions on the estimation and use of the logit model.

  2. The data set was split into a set with regions close to the ports and a set with regions further from the ports. The coefficients were estimated for each set separately. The hypothesis of a constant cost coefficient over the sets was rejected by a Chow break test.

  3. This applies both to the transatlantic and Europe–Far East trade routes. The market share of Rotterdam in the latter is considerably greater than in the former. An explanation – going further than just ‘tradition’ – is that the port of Rotterdam is more accessible for the larger containerships on the Far East trade route than the other ports.

  4. In fact, a supply curve was constructed representing the port capacity of the existing terminal and the new expansion as a function of costs. By increasing port throughput of the terminals, port congestion will rise within the terminal and on the quays alongside, resulting in higher costs of using the port (see CPB et al, 2001a).

References

  • ATENCO. . 2001: Analysis of the cost structures of the main TEN ports. Public Final Report. Project funded by the European Commission under the transport RTD programme of the fourth Framework programme, see Section 3.6.1: North Sea container ports.

  • Blauwens, G and Van de Voorde, E . 1988: Time savings in commodity transport. International Journal of Transport Economics 15: 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bückmann, E and Veldman, S . 2000: A model on container port competition. Paper presented at SIG-2 International Workshop, Genoa.

  • CPB, NEI and RIVM. 2001a: Welvaartseffecten van Maasvlakte 2, Kosten-batenanalyse van uitbreiding van de Rotterdamse haven door landaanwinning. Koninklijke De Swart: 's Gravenhage (in Dutch).

  • CPB, NEI and RIVM. 2001b: Welvaartseffecten van Maasvlakte 2, Aanvullende kosten-batenanalyse van uitbreiding van de Rotterdamse haven door landaanwinning. Koninklijke De Swart: 's Gravenhage (in Dutch).

  • Dekker, T . 1999: Prognosemodel modal shifts containervervoer. In: Verkenningen 2020. Port of Rotterdam: Rotterdam (in Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dios Ortuzar, J and Willumsen, L . 1990: Modelling transport. John Wiley & Sons: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oum, TH . 1989: Alternative models and their elasticity estimates. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 24: 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, D . 1983: Cargo ships routing and scheduling: survey of models and problems. European Journal of Operations Research 12: 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sansom, T, Still, B and Nash, CA . 1999: Cross channel case study. Pricing European Transport Systems, Deliverable 9, Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds.

  • Simons, L and Veldman, S . 1992: Integrerend logistiek goederenonderzoek. A small scale Stated Preference Analysis with respect to the choice of liner shipping services on the trade route Northwest Europe–Far East. MERC: Rotterdam (in Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

  • Veldman, S . 1994: Aspects of port choice with container shipping. Roundtable Conference on Maritime Transport and Logistics in the new Europe. Gdansk University: Sopot.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Veldman, S., Bückmann, E. A Model on Container Port Competition: An Application for the West European Container Hub-Ports. Marit Econ Logist 5, 3–22 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100058

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100058

Keywords

Navigation