The Contribution of the Dry Port Concept to the Extension of Port Life Cycles

Chapter
Part of the Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series book series (ORCS, volume 49)

Abstract

Despite the temporary respite afforded by worldwide recession, limitations on port capacity still plague the container handling industry. At the same time, competitive pressures continue to mount on container ports. In recent years, the dry port concept has increasingly been applied, not only as a vehicle for overcoming capacity problems, but also as a deliberate attempt at expanding or reinforcing the hinterlands of container ports. The objective of this paper is to apply the Product Life Cycle to ports and to relate dry port development to the prolongation of the growth and/or maturity phases of a Port’s Life Cycle. In doing so, the dry port concept is explained by reference to both the literature and industry examples. The Product Life Cycle is then related specifically to container port development, and the prospect of dry ports exerting a positive impact on the Product Life Cycle of container ports is evaluated. The paper concludes by identifying the circumstances which are likely to characterize a successful implementation of the dry port concept, such that the desired effect of prolonging a port’s growth and/or maturity phases is achieved.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alker S, Joy V, Roberts P, Smith N (2000) The definition of brownfield. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(1):49–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard B (2007) Freight transport coursework. Journal of Commerce (New York) April 30Google Scholar
  3. Beresford A (2009) Dry Ports: A Comparative Study of the UK and Nigeria. CYTICMS and Department of LMS of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Presentation at the International Forum on Shipping, Ports and AirportsGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardebring PW,Warnecke C (1995) Combi-terminal and Intermodal Freight Centre Development. KFB Report (16), KFB-Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  5. Chase-Dunn C (1981) Interstate system and capitalist world-economy: one logic or two? International Studies Quarterly 25(1):19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christiansen M, Fagerholt K, Ronen D (2004) Ship routing and scheduling: status and perspectives. Transportation Science 38:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cordeau JF, Laporte G, Mercier A (2001) A unified tabu search heuristic for vehicle routing problems with time windows. Journal of the Operational Research Society 52:928–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cullinane KPB (2000) The competitive position of the port of Hong Kong. The Journal of the Korean Association of Shipping Studies 31:45–61Google Scholar
  9. Cullinane KPB, Khanna M(1999) Economies of scale in large container ships. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 33(2):185–208Google Scholar
  10. Cullinane KPB, Khanna M (2000) Economies of scale in large containerships: optimal size and geographical implications. Journal of Transport Geography 8(3):181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cullinane KPB, Wang Y (2009) A capacity-based measure of container port accessibility. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 12(2):103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cullinane KPB, Cullinane SL, Kwan R (2000) Logistics decisions in Southern China: mode choice. Hong Kong Logistics 2:4–7Google Scholar
  13. Cullinane KPB, Wang TF, Cullinane SL (2004) Container terminal development in mainland China and its impact on the competitiveness of the port of Hong Kong. Transport Reviews 24(1):33–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davoudi S (2003) European briefing: polycentricity in European spatial planning: from an analytical tool to a normative agenda. European Planning Studies 11(8):979–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Errington A (1994) The peri-urban fringe: Europe’s forgotten rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies 10(4):367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guan Y, Cheung RK (2004) The berth allocation problem: models and solutions. OR Spectrum 26(1):75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansen P, Oguz C, Mladenevic N (2008) Variable neighborhood search for minimum cost berth allocation. European Journal of Operational Research 191(3):636–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison R (2008) International Trade, Transportation Corridors, and Inland Ports: Opportunities for Canada. Pacific-Asia Gateway and Corridor Research Consortium (ed), Online Publication: http://www.gateway-corridor.com/roundconfpapers/documents/Harrison_Robert_Winnipeg.pdf, 13 pp
  19. HHLA [Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG] (2008) Expansion Plans in Film: Burchardkai Times Two. http://www.hhla.de/Expansion-plans.105.0.html?&no_cache=1&L=1, accessed September 12, 2010
  20. Imai A, Nishimura E, Papadimitriou S (2001) The dynamic berth allocation problem for a container port. Transportation Research B 35(4):401–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Imai A, Nishimura E, Papadimitriou S, Liu M (2006) The economic viability of container mega-ships. Transportation Research E 42(1):21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarˇzemskis A, Vasiliauskas AV (2007) Research on dry port concept as intermodal node. Transport 2007 XXII(3):207–213Google Scholar
  23. Kim KH, Moon KC (2003) Berth scheduling by simulated annealing. Transportation Research B 37:541–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Klink HA, Van Den Berg G (1998) Gateways and intermodalism. Journal of Transport Geography 6(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kotler P, Armstrong G (2004) Principles of Marketing, 10th edition. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  26. L¹evêeque P, Roso V (2002) Dry Port Concept for Seaport Inland Access with Intermodal Solutions. Masters Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  27. Park YM, Kim KH (2003) A scheduling method for berth and quay cranes. OR Spectrum 25(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. PoR [Port of Rotterdam] (2010) Maasvlakte 2. http://www.maasvlakte2.com/en/index/, accessed September 12, 2010
  29. Reichart T (1999) Bausteine der Wirtschaftsgeographie. UTB, BernGoogle Scholar
  30. Rodrigue JP (2006) Challenging the derived transport demand thesis: Issues in freight distribution. Environment & Planning A 38(8):1449–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roso V (2007) Evaluation of the dry port concept from an environmental perspective: a note. Transportation Research – Part D 12(7):523–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roso V, Woxenius J, Lumsden K (2008) The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography 17(5):338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rytköonen J (1999) The Risk of Maritime Traffic and Terminal Constructions in the Future. Presentation at the Joint Seminar on Ports and Maritime Environment in the Gulf of Finland (Espoo, Finland)Google Scholar
  34. Schäatzl L (1996) Wirtschaftsgeographie 1 – Theorie, 6th edition. UTB, PaderbornGoogle Scholar
  35. Storper M (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Thrift N (2004) Intensities of feeling: towards a spatial politics of affect. Geografiska Annaler – Series B 86(1):57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on Trade and Development] (ed) (1982) Multimodal Transport and Containerisation (TD/B/C.4/238/Supplement 1, Part Five: Ports and Container Depots). GenevaGoogle Scholar
  38. UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on Trade and Development] (ed) (1991) Handbook on the Management and Operation of Dry Ports. Online Publication: http://unctad.org/en/docs/rdpldc7_en.pdf, Geneva, 93 pp
  39. UNECE [United Nations Economic Commission for Europe] (ed) (1998) UN/LOCODE – Code for Ports and other Locations. Recommendation 16. Online Publication: http://www.unece.org/cefact/recommendations/rec16/rec16_ecetrd205e.pdf, Geneva, 9 pp
  40. Vis IFA, Koster RD (2003) Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: an overview. European Journal of Operational Research 147(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Y, Cullinane KPB (2008) Measuring container port accessibility: an application of the principal eigenvector method (pem). Maritime Economics and Logistics 10(1/2):75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whebella CFJ (1969) Corridors: a theory of urban systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiegmans B, Masurel E, Nijkamp P (1999) Intermodal freight terminals: an analysis of the terminal market. Transportation Planning and Technology 23:105–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yount KR (2003) What are brownfields? finding a conceptual definition. Environmental Practice 5(1):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang C, Wan Y, Liu J, Linn RC (2002) Dynamic crane deployment in container storage yards. Transportation Research B 36(6):537–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transport Research Institute – Edinburgh Napier UniversityEdinburghUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations