Advertisement

Containerized Freight Distribution in North America and Europe

  • Jean-Paul Rodrigue
  • Theo Notteboom
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 181)

Abstract

It is uncommon that country pairs would be directly connected by shipping services. The concept of “intermediacy” is thus important in regional or global freight distribution, as it addresses a whole range of network structures and nodes using to connect different market scales. In this chapter, the comparative intermediacy of transport nodes in Europe and North America is assessed over intermodal rail transport, and especially in container shipping. The respective cases of gateways, gateway port systems, and coastal and inland waterways are discussed. Each exemplifies a particular dimension of the intermediacy and freight regionalism that distinguishes North America and Europe.

Keywords

Supply Chain Container Port Panama Canal Logistics Service Provider Unit Train 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Berglund M, van Laarhoven P, Sharman G, Wandel S (1999) Third-party logistics: is there a future? Int J Logistics Manag 10(1):59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooks M (2008) North American freight transportation: the road to security and prosperity, Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks M (2009) Liberalization in maritime transport, International Transport Forum, OECD, Paris, p 31Google Scholar
  4. Brooks M, Trifts V (2008) Short sea shipping in North America: understanding the requirements of Atlantic Canadian shippers. Marit Policy Manag 35(2):145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Button K (1997) Lessons from European transport experience. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 55(31):157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charler JJ, Ridolfi G (1994) Intermodal transportation in Europe: of modes, corridors and nodes. Marit Policy Manag 21(3):237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coe NM, Hess M, Yeung HW-C, Dicken P, Henderson J (2004) ‘Globalizing’ regional development: a global production networks perspective. Trans Inst Br Geog 29(4):468–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Debrie J,Gouvernal E (2006) Intermodal rail in Western Europe: actors and services in a new regulatory environment. Growth Change 37(3):444–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drewry (2009) Container market 2009/2010: annual review and forecast, Drewry Shipping Consultants, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2009) Communication and action plan with a view to establishing a European maritime transport space without barriers [COM (2009) 11 final]. <http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/subpage_mpa_en.html#1>
  11. Eurostat (2009) Statistics in focus, 58, Eurostat, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleming DK, Hayuth Y (1994) Spatial characteristics of transportation hubs: centrality and intermediacy. J Transp Geogr 2(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frémont A, Franc P, Slack B (2009) Inland barge services and container transport: the case of the ports of Le Havre and Marseille in the European context. Cybergeo, Espace, Société, Territoire, article 437, http://cybergeo.revues.org/index21743.html
  14. Gouvernal E, Daydou J (2005) Container railfreight services in North-West Europe: diversity of organizational forms in a liberalizing environment. Transp Rev 25(5):557–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson E (2010) Time for a rethink. American Shipper, pp 32–37Google Scholar
  16. Levinson M (2006) The box: How the shipping container made the world smaller and the world economy bigger, Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Leinbach T, Capineri C (eds) (2007) Globalized freight transport: intermodality, E-commerce, logistics and sustainability, transport economic, management and policy series, Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  18. Lieb RC, Millen RA, Van Wassenhove LN (1993) Third party logistics services: a comparison of experienced American and European manufacturers. Int J Phys Distrib Logistics Manag 23(6):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kreuzberger E (2005) Hub and spoking in a process of changing bundling concepts of intermodal rail networks: current developments in the light of intermodal efficiency. In: Witlox F, Dullaert W, Vernimmen B (eds) Proceedings of the BIVEC-GIBET transport research day 2005, Nautilis, Ghent, pp 405–436Google Scholar
  20. Notteboom T (2006) The time factor in liner shipping services. Marit Econ Logistics 8:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Notteboom T (2007) Container river services and gateway ports: similarities between the Yangtze River and the Rhine River. Asia Pac Viewpoint 48:330–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Notteboom T (2008) Bundling of freight flows and hinterland network development. In: Konings R, Priemus H, Nijkamp P (eds) The Future of intermodal freight transport, operations, technology, design and implementation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 66–88Google Scholar
  23. Notteboom T (2009a) The relationship between seaports and the intermodal hinterland in light of global supply chains: European challenges. Round Table no. 143, OECD—International Transport Forum (ITF): Paris, pp 25–75Google Scholar
  24. Notteboom T (2009b) Path dependency and contingency in the development of multi-port gatewaygateway regions and multi-port hub regions. In: Notteboom T, Ducruet C, De Langen P (eds) Ports in proximity: competition and coordination among adjacent seaports, Ashgate, Alderschot, pp 55–74Google Scholar
  25. Notteboom T (2010) Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: an update. J Trans Geogr 18(4):567–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Notteboom T, Konings R (2004) Network dynamics in container transport by barge. Belgeo, 5:461–477Google Scholar
  27. Notteboom T, Rodrigue J-P (2007) Re-assessing port-hinterland relationships in the context of global supply chains. In: Wang J, Notteboom T, Olivier D, Slack B (eds) Ports, cities, and global supply chains, Ashgate, Alderschot, pp 51–68Google Scholar
  28. Notteboom T, Rodrigue J-P (2010) Foreland-based regionalization: integrating intermediate hubs with port hinterlands. Res Trans Econ 27:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2001) Short sea shipping in Europe, OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Paixao AC, Marlow PB (2002) Strengths and weaknesses of short sea shipping short sea shipping. Mar Policy 26:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Randolph D (2008) Preparing for the future Mexican land bridge to the United States. North American Transportation Competitiveness Research Council. Working Paper No. 6Google Scholar
  32. Rodrigue J-P (2006) Transportation and the geographical and functional integration of global production networks. Growth Change 37(4):510–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodrigue J-P (2011) Factors impacting North American freight distribution in view of the panama canal expansion. The Van Horne Institute, University of CalgaryGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodrigue J-P, Notteboom T (2009) The geography of containerization: half a century of revolution, adaptation and diffusion. Geo J 74:1–5Google Scholar
  35. Rodrigue J-P, Notteboom T (2010) Comparative North American and European gateway logistics: the regionalism of freight distribution. J Trans Geogr 18(4):497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Selviaridis K, Spring M (2007) Third party logistics: a literature review and research agenda. Int J Logistics Manag 18(1):125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Slack B (1996) Along different paths: intermodal rail terminals in North America and Europe. In: Proceedings of the 7th WCTR conference. World Conference of Transport Research Society, pp 123–131Google Scholar
  38. UNCTAD (2009) Transport Newsletter, No. 43, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/webdtltlb20092_en.pdf
  39. Van Klink HA, Van den Berg GC (1998) Gateways and intermodalism. J Trans Geogr 6(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vernimmen B, Dullaert W, Engelen S (2007) Schedule unreliability in liner shipping: origins and consequences for the hinterland supply chain. Marit Econ Logistics 9:193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Global Studies and GeographyHofstra UniversityHempsteadUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Transport and Maritime Management Antwerp (ITMMA)University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  3. 3.Antwerp Maritime AcademyAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations