Hinterland accessibility
How
to
improve
the
hinterland
accessibility of the port of Rotterdam.
S.W. Valk 1513427
T ec hnische Universiteit DelftDelft University of Technology
FACULTY MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING
Department Maritime and Transport Technology Mekelweg 2 2628 CD Delft the Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15-2782889 Fax +31 (0)15-2781397 www.mtt.tudelft.nl
This report consists of ## pages and # appendices. It may only be reproduced literally and as a whole. For commercial purposes only with written authorization of Delft University of Technology. Requests for consult are only taken into consideration under the condition that the applicant denies all legal rights on liabilities concerning the contents of the advice.
Specialization: Transport Engineering and Logistics
Report number: 2015.TEL.7958
Title:
How to improve the hinterland
accessibility of the port of
Rotterdam
Author:
S.W. Valk
Titel: Het verbeteren van achterland bereikbaarheid van de haven van Rotterdam. Assignment: literature
Confidential: no
Initiator (university): Dr. R. R. Negenborn Supervisor: Dr. ir. F. Corman
2
Student: S.W. Valk Assignment type: Literature
Supervisor (TUD): Dr. Ir .F. Corman (TUD) Specialization: TEL
Report number: 2015.TEL.7958 Confidential: No
Subject: How to improve the hinterland accessibility of the port of Rotterdam. Accessibility of a port is a crucial performance measure to make sure that it is attractive and economically viable. The accessibility of main ports ( such as port of Rotterdam) could and should always be improved due to the ever increasing container flow.
Despite everybody agrees on this, a precise quantification of accessibility is hard to be put forward. Your assignment is to find a comprehensive description of accessibility, its perspectives and
quantification for mainports, and discuss measures which aid the accessibility of mainports, such as the port of Rotterdam.
The report should comply with the guidelines of the section. Details can be found on the website. The professor,
C
ONTENTS
1 Introduction 1 1.1 research question. . . 1 1.2 approach . . . 2 2 Definition 3 2.1 Base indicators . . . 4 2.2 Accessibility evaluation. . . 5 2.2.1 OBER . . . 5 2.2.2 Measuring . . . 62.3 Generalised transport cost . . . 7
2.4 Improving accessibility . . . 8
3 Accessibility in a port 10 3.1 General description of the port of Rotterdam. . . 10
3.1.1 Modal split over container traffic. . . 10
3.2 Current accessibility . . . 10
3.2.1 Growth. . . 12
3.3 Port of Rotterdam and the future . . . 13
4 Description case examples 14 5 Road 15 5.1 Autonomous road traffic . . . 15
5.1.1 Description . . . 15 5.1.2 Result . . . 15 5.1.3 Future . . . 16 5.1.4 Cost . . . 16 5.2 The Verkeersonderneming . . . 16 5.2.1 Description . . . 16 5.2.2 Result . . . 17 5.3 Spitsmijden. . . 17 5.3.1 Description . . . 17 5.3.2 Result . . . 17 5.3.3 Future . . . 17 5.3.4 Cost . . . 17 5.4 A15-Highwayplan. . . 18 5.4.1 Description . . . 18 5.4.2 Results. . . 18 5.4.3 Cost . . . 19 5.4.4 Future . . . 19 6 Rail 20 6.1 Third track Oberhausen-Emmerich. . . 20
6.1.1 Description . . . 20 6.1.2 Result . . . 20 6.1.3 Future . . . 20 6.1.4 Cost . . . 21 6.2 Rail incubator. . . 21 6.2.1 Description . . . 21 6.2.2 Result . . . 21 6.2.3 Future . . . 21 i
ii CONTENTS 7 Water 22 7.1 Floating crane. . . 22 7.1.1 Description . . . 22 7.1.2 Result . . . 22 7.1.3 Future . . . 22 7.1.4 Cost . . . 23
7.2 Lock waiting time optimisation. . . 23
7.2.1 Description . . . 23 7.2.2 Result . . . 23 7.2.3 Future . . . 23 7.2.4 Cost . . . 23 7.3 Nextlogic . . . 24 7.3.1 Description . . . 24 7.3.2 Result . . . 24 7.3.3 Future . . . 24
7.4 Barge service centre. . . 25
7.4.1 Description . . . 25 7.4.2 Result . . . 25 7.4.3 Future . . . 25 7.4.4 Cost . . . 25 7.5 Bargehub . . . 26 7.5.1 General descripition. . . 26 7.5.2 Container transferium. . . 26 7.5.3 Extended gate . . . 26
7.5.4 Inland terminal routing . . . 27
7.5.5 Result . . . 27
8 Comparative analysis 28 8.1 Intermodal . . . 28
8.2 Improvement categories . . . 29
8.3 Improving aspects of accessibility. . . 29
8.4 Mobility. . . 30
9 Conclusion 31 9.1 Defenition . . . 31
9.2 Port of Rotterdam. . . 32
9.3 Measures to improve the accessibility of the port of Rotterdam. . . 33
10Recommendations 34
1
I
NTRODUCTION
In the August of 2014 several ships are rerouted from the port of Rotterdam to the port of Antwerp due to congestion in the harbour [1]. Due to problems the waiting times for barges had risen to as high as 6 days. This had a very negative impact on the accessibility of the port Rotterdam.
Accessibility has a become an important point in port development. According toFerrari et al.[2],Slack,[3] andNotteboom and Rodrigue[4] this is due to the changing shape of competition. It has changed to competition between transport chains opposed to the old stage of port competition. Due to this ports are eager to enhance their hinterland transport services. When talking about a transport chain a lot more actors are involved. With a port terminal a relative limited number of actors are involved. With the transport chain a multitude of actors are involved e.g. terminal operators, freight forwarders, containers operators, port authority etcetera [5]. All these actors have there own goals and therefore cooperation is not always obvious [6], yet improving in accessibility is beneficial to them all.
1.1.
RESEARCH QUESTION
In this report a look is taken at different measure which improve the accessibility. The main research question of this report is stated as:
Which measures can be taken to improve the accessibility of the port of Rotterdam?
Several measure are discussed which aim to improve the port accessibility to the hinterland from a transport perspective. the port of Rotterdam is discussed as the port of reference. The modalities discussed are road, rail and water. The measure which shall be mentioned can be in a concept phase, merely a well described idea or already in practice. To answer this question first these sub questions will be answered:
• What is accessibility, how can it be defined?
• How can accessibility be measured?
• How can accessibility be improved?
The report focuses on the port of Rotterdam, thus a new set of sub questions arises
• What is the port of Rotterdam?
• What is the current state of accessibility in the port of Rotterdam?
• What can be expected in the future in the port of Rotterdam concerning accessibility? For every measure also several questions will be handled.
• What is the problem solved by the measure at hand?
• How is the problem solved by the measure at hand?
2 1.INTRODUCTION
• Who are involved with this measure?
With the last sub-questions focusing on the individual measures what lessons can be learned from the measures combined?
• What general overlap can be found from the measures?
1.2.
APPROACH
The first step of this report will be to create or find a definition to explain accessibility. Once a definition is found this can be used in the following report. The next step is to determine how accessibility can be measured, and following up, improved. These steps will be done in chapter2;
The report has chosen to focus the attention of these measures on the Port of Rotterdam, based upon practical reasons; The port is of worldwide significance and it is close to the location of the author. A general description of the port will be given in chapter3. This will entail a brief overview of the history, a look at the the current accessibility and further the future of the port.
With the foundation laid an template will be introduced to offer a consistent overview of the measures discussed, this is given in chapter4.
Following several measures are discussed using the template which aim to improve accessibility. The measure will be split by modality and will form chapter5,6and7. The list represents not all measures possible or being implemented but delivers an overview on various ways to achieve this either feasible or not.
In chapter8an analysis is given on the measures from previous chapters, focusing specifically on which common denominators can be found.
2
D
EFINITION
Accessibility is a word which changes like a chameleon depending at which are angle you look. If looking through the eyes of a urban planner, accessibility might be related to the number of jobs in an area. Yet through the eyes of an aid worker the difficulty of reaching the disaster area is also expressed by accessibility. Thus there are also many varying definitions of accessibility:
The potential of opportunities for interacting. (Hansen 1959)
The freedom of individuals to decide whether or not to participate in different activities.(Burns 1979)
The definition for accessibility is not easily formulated it is not only abstract, it also depends on the perspective of the actor.
Accessibility ... is a slippery notion .. one of those common terms everyone uses until faced with the problem of defining and measuring it. (Gould 1969)
If we shift the focus from the global definition of accessibility but more over to a transport perspective we get a more specific definition.
Accessibility has generally been defined as some measure of spatial separation of human activities. Essentially it denotes the ease with which activities may be reached from a given location using a particular transport system. (Morris
et al. 1978)
Still many more varying definitions have been formed:
Relative measure of the effort to travel via the fastest route. (Geertman and Ritsema Van Eck 1995)
Accessibility is the effort needed to travel with the desired mode of transport, and at a desired time through a desired route from one point to another.(Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1996)
Accessibility is a feature of an activity that is related to the space in which a collection of persons is situated, whom can choose a specific activity at an acceptable (time)cost as a destination from their original locations .(Dijst 1995)
Accessibility is a combination of the location relative to customers and suppliers (at different spatial scales, depending on the distance, or range over which maintain relations) and the presence of infrastructure.(Louter and Hilbers 1994) Accessibility relates tot the amount of money, time and trouble required to travel from the place of origin to the desired destination. (Hagoort 1999)
4 2.DEFINITION
Accessibility is the number of activities places (homes, jobs, services) by class of resistance to displacement to that zone (Egeter and Heringa 1991)
Accessibility is the ease with which people and goods can reach a range of amenities. (Vleugel and van Gent 1991)
Accessibility is a relative factor for the effort (ease) to reach a certain location from a chosen point, via the fastest route.(Friskus and Zandsteeg 1977)
Accessibility is the effort to visit a zone and/or to leave.(Bruinsma and Rietveld 1992)
For this report and due to the extensive research the following, mainly fromHilbers and Verroen 1993, shall be used:
The effort to reach a destination or the ability to reach multiple destinations, where the effort consists of the time, the cost and the quality.
Henceforth when spoken of accessibility this definition is used.
2.1.
B
ASE INDICATORS
The definition of accessibility formulated to an equations resolves to:
Accessi bi l i t y = cost[e] + ti me[s] + qual i t y (2.1) Were time and money are measurable in constant units, quality is not. Quality is an umbrella term, consisting but not limited to:
• reliability • comfort • ease of use • lack of restrictions • flexibility • governing
Quality is not quantifiable and has to be analysed on a case to case basis. Altough reliability in terms of the traveltime could be expressed with a number this is harder than it looks. A trafficjam may be a negative influence on the timefactor, when consistent the road connection is still reliable. It is easily understandable that fixing a pothole in the road improves the comfort but this is nearly impossible to quantify. With the increasing number of companies who use a JIT system, reliability is becoming ever more important[21]. This is mostly applicable in work related traffic where time is important, in non work related traffic movement the comfort of the movement is considered the most influential factor in the indicator of quality.
2.2.ACCESSIBILITY EVALUATION 5
2.2.
A
CCESSIBILITY EVALUATION
Evaluating accessibility is very complex. Accessibility is approachable from different perspectives and used in different ways. Due to this quantifying accessibility is not easy. There are reports and methods devised but these mostly focus on either accessibility in the sense activity based infrastructure measures, e.g the number of jobs in a 45 minute ratio, or solely on the accessibility between 2 points.
2.2.1.
OBER
In a series of studies from 1994 ordered by the Dutch ministry of Traffic and Waterstaat an approach is devised to universally measure accessibility[22]. The general approach according to the OBER reports consist of 5 steps.
Determine
The first step is to determine the main features. When speaking of a chain, the relevant features are the origins, destinations, travel times and the routes. When speaking of target group, it is relevant to determine the nature of the transport. a target group can be a number of things; a modality, good transport or personal. With person transport, the motive and characterises of the traveller are the main features. With goods transport the cargo and the transporter are important. The gives us one or more prototypes.
Selection
In step 2 a selection is made from the prototype’s, the relevant transports are determined.
Measure
For these prototypes the travel times, travel costs and quality factors are measured. This has to be comparable. When comparing a car to a bus the waiting times are also relevant, when a person travel by car he doesn’t to wait this is event which happens when using public transport. A good definition is needed to perform correct measurements.
Indicators
The previous measurement are to be summed in to the relevant indicator. It is important to note the possible difficulties here to create a relevant indicator, it is possible to stop after step 3 to have enough data to correctly asses the situation.
Combine
The last step is to combine the base indicator, time money and quality to a factor. When an increase in time gives a decrease in cost, the accessibility may be unchanged. The difficulty here to find determine the correct conversion factors. In some cases the cost maybe directly related to the time, this is usually the case in a professional setting. thus a possible summation is here evident, with professional good transport this is often the generalised travel cost.
This approach gives a very general plan on how to quantify accessibility, the focus of these step is on routes from a to b. In this report the hinterland accessibility of the Port of Rotterdam is evaluated, this is not close to being a simple a to b route. To apply these steps on an area instead of a point location, the study supplies 2 solutions. The best approach is to select a number of points and calculated the accessibility of these points. The indicators of these points are combined with the a weight factor of the flow from and to these points. More points increases the accuracy but also the complexity, the other option is to select merely one point. This solution is relatively inaccurate however in most cases enough to work with, as it is very difficult to generate the measurements for these points.
6 2.DEFINITION
2.2.2.
M
EASURINGTo get a more detailed overview of the measurements used in measuring accessibilityGeurs and van Wee 2001[24] have created a structured approach.
They argue that 3 perspectives of accessibility as given meaning to in chapter2measures can be identified.
Infrastructure based measures
Measures the performance of the transport infrastructure. e.g. the number of trains delayed, congestion probability, journey times etc.
Utility based accessibility measures
Mainly used in economic studies, whereas the utility based measures analyse the benefits individuals arrive from the land use transport system. Utility based accessibility measures interpret accessibility as the outcome of a set of transport choices. for example the total travel cost for an individual with a car and a highway will not benefit directly from a bus line, because he will use the car.
Activity based infrastructure measures
This perspective focuses on the availability of opportunities with respect to their distribution in space and travel. e.g. the number of jobs available in a 45 minute radius.
They combine these perspectives with 4 components, namely spatial, transportation, temporal and individual.
Transport component
The transport components consist of 3 elements: the supply of infrastructure e.g. the location and number of roads, public transportation timetables etc; the demand of infrastructure e.g. coal transported from a to b; and the characteristics of this combinations e.g. travel time, cost etc.
Spatial component
The distribution of the elements in space, in other words someone who lives in the city centre has more access to most amenities versus living in the country.
Temporal component
This deals witch changes in the accessibility due to time. For example the morning traffic and the traffic at midnight and the opening times of shops.
Individual component
The individual opportunities. When speaking of people, older people needs are different compared to students. A bulk terminal has different needs compared to a container terminal.
These perspectives and components are set up in a table, giving table2.1. These measurements correspond to the indicators needed for the OBER approach.
Looking at the table the main interest of the report is the infrastructure-based measure, the activity and utility bases measure are not directly mentioned in the report. If we look at the matrix we see the measurements of the infrastructure-based are mostly quantifiable, the travelling speed; average travel time and peak hour effects. the measurement only speak of time, there is no measurements in this matrix which directly indicates the reliability of the system. The reliability is part of the temporal component, for example in the form of variance of travel-time. This requires a multitude of measurements.
2.3.GENERALISED TRANSPORT COST 7 Transport component Land-use component Temporal component individual component Infrastructure-based measures
Average traveltime Peak hour period Trip-based
stratification Vehicle hours lost in
congestion.
24-hr period. Travelling speed.
Activity-based measures
Travel time and/or travel cost between
locations of
activities.
Distribution of
opportunities in
space.
Travel time and costs may differ between hours of the day,
weekday and/or season. Accessibility is analysed at individual or household level. Satisfaction of the population. Utility-based measures
Travel costs between
locations of
activities, using
a distance decay
function.
Amount and spatial
distribution of
opportunities
Travel time and
costs may differ at different times.
Utility is estimated
for population
groups or at
individual level.
Table 2.1: Indicators for Measuring accessibility [23]
2.3.
G
ENERALISED TRANSPORT COST
Based upon the overview given in2.2.2fromGeurs and van Weean effort is made to quantify accessibility of the mainports, Schiphol and the port of Rotterdam, inKennisinstituut voor Mobileitsbeleid 2011. Focusing on their effort for the port of Rotterdam, they identified 5 userprofiles with each it’s own set of aspects. This is consistent with step 1 and 2 of the OBER approach from2.2.1.
Userprofile Aspects
Through traffic on road Accessibility in rush hour Good transport by modality Reliable traffic times
Low traffic cost Short travel time Multimodal
information exchange Employees, residents Etc. Reliable traffic times
Short travel time Passengers; cruise and ferry Reliable traffic times Recreational visitors Low traffic cost
Reliable traffic times
Table 2.2: Userprofiles identified byKennisinstituut voor Mobileitsbeleid
The detail level chosen for this visual representation is of NUTS 3 level, with the area consisting of the Netherlands, the Western part of Germany, the Northern part of France and Belgium. The amount of data needed to create a complete picture is extensive and complex, therefore they used the research firm NEA to assist in this task.
The last and optional step of the OBER approach is combine, here they have combined these factors in the generalised travel cost.
Firstly the cost, this is calculated with factors as fuel-use, deprecation, taxes, maintenance, business-cost etc. Secondly the traveltime losses, they have only take into account traveltime loss on the road, as for other modalities there isn’t data available. They have multiplied the congestion hours with the hourly cost. To account for the reliability in the generalised travel cost they have added a 25% penalty on rush hour congestion times compared to free-flow, again only for the road. No other quality factors have been taken into account, as they argue the quality factors are either equal among modalities and destinations or the amount of data needed is to great.
8 2.DEFINITION
(a) Travelcost road[25] (b) Travelcost using mainly waterways [25] Figure 2.1: Generalised travel cost [25]
These figures2.1show the generalised traffic cost from the port of Rotterdam to the respective regions. Figure (a)2.1ashows the cost during rush hour while using the modality road. The brightest yellow colour indicates 20e/tonne generalised travel cost, this increases in steps of 10e/tonne with the for-last a mere 5e/tonne increase and the last ranging from 76e/tonne up to 128e/tonne. The cost for the most of the Netherlands lies below 20e/tonne, while a relatively linear relation can be seen between cost and distance. Figure (b)2.1bshows the cost using the modality water. The colour-scheme is the same as figure (a). For the waterways most of the German Ruhr area is in the lowest cost segment, while the northern part of the Netherlands is significantly more expensive to reach compared to the modality road.
2.4.
I
MPROVING ACCESSIBILITY
There are different ways to improve accessibility, there is a gap in literature concerning the categorisation of these improvements measures. The categories provide a clarity when discussing these measures and make it able to group certain measures together. In this report 3 categories are identified in improving accessibility.
Build
Building or expanding new infrastructure to increase the throughput of the network.
Optimise
Optimise the flow to avoid bottlenecks and maximise utilisation of the network.
Organise
Adjust the flow before it enters the network.
By building or expanding new infrastructure you can easily increase accessibility however this comes at a price. Better use of the existing infrastructure is usefully a cheaper option. By guiding the flow the network can be better utilised and bottlenecks can be avoided. Optimising the flow has it’s limitations, if for instance we look at the temporal component with the rush hour peak. During rush hour the total capacity of the network is too low too handle the flow, even when guided with traffic jams will occur. In the words of Mao
2.4.IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY 9
Zedong: "Attack is the best defence". Actively adjusting the demand for the network, is an option which can’t be forgotten. Providing a financial incentive to avoid the rush hours, is an example of improving accessibility by organisation. The flow is adjusted before it enters the system. In other words the build and optimise handle the supply, while organise handles the demand.
3
A
CCESSIBILITY IN A PORT
The port of Rotterdam is chosen to serve as the reference port for this report. The reason Rotterdam is selected is due the close proximity of the author living in Delft, the newly build Maasvlakte 2 but mainly due to recent news about congestion problems at the ECT terminal.
In this chapter a general description is given of the port of Rotterdam. Furthermore the modalsplit is discussed as well as the current state of accessibility and the expected growth of cargo.
3.1.
G
ENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PORT OF
R
OTTERDAM
The port of Rotterdam finds its origins way back to the 13th century as a small fishing village. In the 18th century Rotterdam already was one of the largest port cities in the world, due to lots of traffic from Germany to Britain. However there wasn’t a direct connection to sea, ships had to navigate the delta of the Rhine which could take up to a week. In 1872 the Nieuwe Waterweg ("New Waterway") was build a 20 kilometres long canal from the city to the Northsea. The new canal dramatically improved the accessibility of the port and ensured Rotterdam status as a world port. During WWII the city centre was completely destroyed, leaving nothing but a few buildings. After the war the port was rebuild in direction of the sea, and by 1962 it could claim its title as "biggest in the world"[26]. The latest addition to the harbour is the Maasvlakte 2, a new port on reclaimed land. In July 2012 the first phase of the Maasvlakte 2 was completed and in 2015 the first terminals are finished[27]. The port of Rotterdam has shipped over 445 million tonne in 2014 [28], making it the biggest harbour in Europe however Shanghai, Singapore and Tianjin have surpassed the port over the years [29] . The port has a relatively large petrochemical industry, with large oil refinery’s in Pernis.
3.1.1.
M
ODAL SPLIT OVER CONTAINER TRAFFICThe modal split for the port of Rotterdam (2013) is as follows 34.8% over water, 10.7% by train and 54.6% by road. The Rhine connection to the industrial Ruhr area of Rotterdam has ensured the large portion of barge traffic[30]. The main road connection is the A15. This single road connection runs from the tip of the Maasvlakte to the hinterland. However when this highway is jammed, no decent alternatives are available.
In comparison to the port of Hamburg where 38.6% is transported over the railnetwork [31]. The modal split of the rail network is relatively small. There is allot of rail potential due to the building of the Rotterdam-Germany rail connection, the Betuwe route in 2007.
3.2.
C
URRENT ACCESSIBILITY
In the August of 2014 several ships are rerouted to the port of Antwerp due to congestion in the harbor [1]. According to several news sources, barges have to wait very long at the seaterminals Euromax and ECT [32] [33] [34]. These waiting times are the result of several factors, ECT had problems with the new installations of cranes and IT system and due to unreliable planning of the large seagoing container ships extreme peaks where created. Due to these problems barges had to wait up to 6 days, several ships have decided to go to Antwerp, more trucks have been used, and several companies are reevaluating there supply line. There are number of actions taken to reduce the congestion at the terminals[35]; Some barges are being handled on the adjacent RTC terminal, and more containers are being bundled at MCT. The expectations is that these delays
3.2.CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY 11
are of a temporary nature and will not occur in the long term, when the IT systems and cranes of ECT are fully working. The following quote is the best description about the accessibility in the longer time frame:
Given the past growth, expected future growth, congestion of roads and increased pressure on the transport sector to move traffic from the road to other, more
sustainable, transport modes, hinterland accessibility is one of the main challenges for Rotterdam’s port. While there is substantial additional capacity in the
inland shipping system, and also additional capacity for rail transport, the highway infrastructure is congested, and capacity expansion is problematic given lack of space and limited societal support for new highway infrastructure, especially in the densely populated Rotterdam region. (de Langen 2012)
In figure2.1the generalised travelcost of the waterways and roadnetwork was given as created byKennisinstituut voor Mobileitsbeleid. From the same report other visualistations are given as a basis for the current state of accessiblity for the port of Rotterdam. In figure 3.1athe travel time of rail transport is set out versus the traveltime of the competing ports Antwerp and Hamburg. Green indicating shorter traveltime, red longer and a yellow colour indicating equal options. As been mentioned in2.2.1time and cost are not indepent in a professional setting, this chart should therefore give an indication in the rail hinterland of the port of Rotterdam. Visible in yellow is the rail corridor from Rotterdam to Genoa.
In figure3.1bthe travel-time of rail transport in 2008 is compared to the travel-time in 2004. This shows the improvement of travel time due to opening of the Betuweroute in 2007.
difference between generalised travelcost between water and road. From blue, waterways favourable to green road favourable
(a) Traveltime of railtransport from Rotterdam compared to Antwerp and Hamburg [25]
(b) Change in traveltime via rail between 2004 and 2008 [25]
12 3.ACCESSIBILITY IN A PORT
3.2.1.
G
ROWTHThe transport of containers is expected to grow in the coming years. In the period of 1985 to 2005 this annual growth was averaged 10% worldwide[37]. These grow rates are expected to continue until 2020.
Figure 3.2: TEU transported via Rotterdam source:Port authority of Rotterdam
In 2014 445 million TEU was transported through the Rotterdam harbour [38] , in 2030 this is expected to be around 600 million TEU [39]. These increased number of transports are putting an extra strain on the hinterland connections.
Figure 3.3: Traffic on the A15 source:Regiolab
The graph3.3shows the daily flow of vehicles of an eastbound lane as counted by a sensor in the botlektunnel[40]. The botlek The top row of dots represent the weekdays. The graphs shows an increase in average flow of vehicles from 13000 to 18000, which is only expected to grow further when the maasvlakte 2 will be fully functional. Without major improvements this leads to major road traffic problems[41].
The graph 3.4shows a selection of the same data set, focusing on the weeks. This shows clearly the temporal component of the traffic flow with the weekends having around 7500 vehicles passing the sensor, and on weekdays over 20.000. According to Rijkswaterstaat the traffic intensity has risen with 26% between 2000 and 2009. It is expected in 2020 there will between 72% and 111% more traffic compared to 2000 [42].
3.3.PORT OFROTTERDAM AND THE FUTURE 13
Figure 3.4: weekly traffic Botlek tunnel source:Regiolab
3.3.
P
ORT OF
R
OTTERDAM AND THE FUTURE
In the Port Vision 2030 the ambitions, goals and hurdles are set out for the future of the port of Rotterdam[39]. 4 scenarios are created, it is expected that the throughput will at least grow to 475 million tonnes in the most sombre scenarios and up to 750 million tonnes in the most optimistic scenario. The vision is to make Rotterdam in 2030 the most important port and industrial complex. A strong combination of the Global Hub and Europe Industrial Cluster. To realise this several actions have to be taken, one of these is to improve accessibility. prescribed as weakness in the SWOT analyses are; efficiency improvement needed in hinterland connections, and underdeveloped container rail market. The SWOT analysis not only provides weakness for accessibility but also an opportunity:The hinterland can be reached with all modes of transport.
To ensure a good accessibility in the future several points are mentioned. [43]
Making better use of the infrastructure. The network is not used at their full capacity, at peak times the
network is overloaded while there is ample capacity at other times. This should be solved by a better organisation of the flow.
A modal shift is needed, the growing flow of cargo should be handled via rail and waterways.
New infrastructure is needed, specifically the Blankenburger tunnel and a new pipeline route on Voorne
Putten. Concluding:
Growth is desired, one could say inevitable, but maintaining accessibility with growth is an important dilemma.
4
D
ESCRIPTION CASE EXAMPLES
In the following list several measure are introduced which should offer significant steps to improve the hinterland accessibility of the port of Rotterdam. The list represents not all measures possible or being implemented but deliver an overview on various ways to achieve this either feasible or not. The sub-questions concerning these measures are:
• What is the problem solved by the measure at hand?
• How is the problem solved by the measure at hand?
• Who are involved with this measure?
To achieve a consistent story several points will be handled, these are described in the list below. For every measure described it’s it is not always possible to answer every question posed either due to lack of information or due to lack of relevance.
• Description
– what is the problem?
– what is the solution proposed?
• Result
– What are the results expected to be?
– What factor of accessibility will be improved; time, cost or quality?
– What category of improvement is presented; build, improve or organise?
– How can these results be verified?
• Future
– Who are the (main) actors involved?
– What is the timescale?
– What is the main obstacle?
– What is the success guarantee?
• Cost
– What are the cost?
– What is the business plan?
The list is split up by modal thus road, water and rail. Some of the measure presented are improving a form of intermodal transport, these are thus relate-able to more than one chapter. The decision is made to place these to the most relevant modal present, in most cases water. this is done to limit the number of chapters as well as simplify categorisation.
5
R
OAD
5.1.
A
UTONOMOUS ROAD TRAFFIC
Figure 5.1: Googlecar prototype [44]
A vehicle that can drive itself.
5.1.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONThe self-driving car is expected to be fully functioning in the near function. The most famous variant being the Google driver less car which is claimed to be commercially available in 2017. Currently a test case is prepared by TNO to create a driver less truck[45]. The concept is to have a truck follow a truck which is controlled by a conventional driver [46]. An important argument of self-driven or intelligent cars is safety, a computer does not sleep and has a faster reaction time. In the last decade cars have become increasingly intelligent, for example pre-crash systems which automatically brake. The intelligent car systems will provide a platform for an array of improvements such as relaxing while "driving", crash prevention and traffic management.
5.1.2.
R
ESULTIntelligent vehicles obviously affect the quality aspect of accessibility. Being able to relax while being driven to your destination seems be very nice. However there is also a great possibility to reduce time loss, With the use of intelligent cars it is also possible to create a traffic management system not an infrastructure level but on the base level, the individual car. With VVC, vehicle to vehicle communications, or IVC infrastructure to vehicle communications[47][48], it is possible to reduce traffic jams by adjusting the cruise control of the vehicle. The traffic jam is damped out automatically, the digital variant of a matrix sign. This could have a significant effect on the road capacity, thus reducing time consuming traffic jams. The cost of such are systems will be significant on the other hand cost savings by reducing the number of truck drivers and hours lost due congestion will make these systems a sound economic investment.
Intelligent vehicles are the best example of an optimise measure to increase accessibility. By making vehicles communicate the distance between vehicles can be reduced, and by applying traffic management
16 5.ROAD
directly to the vehicle computer is possible to avert a number of vehicles, thus optimising flow.
5.1.3.
F
UTUREThe important actors are currently the manufactures of the cars or trucks and the Government. He main obstacle currently is the law. Determining who is responsible is difficult when a computer is controlling the car. In several countries tests are underway on the public road, an import actor is therefore the government to describe the future into law. It would be most convenient if these laws would be globally equivalent, thus reducing the number of standards which have to be uphold. Intelligent cars are the future and due to the wide global market, not only in the port, and many advantages its almost guaranteed to be common in the future.
5.1.4.
C
OSTThe cost for the autonomous vehicles or the smart systems are likely to be in the same order as non-autonomous vehicles or other smart systems. The development cost will be carried by the developers as this is potentially an enormous market many companies are currently researching this fields as are universities. With an autonomous vehicle like the Google car no change in infrastructure is needed. However it is deemed probable that in the future the infrastructure requirements are changed due to use of these vehicles.
5.2.
T
HE
V
ERKEERSONDERNEMING
Figure 5.2: verkeersonderneming [49]
Ensuring accessibility of Rotterdam on a small scale level.
5.2.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONDe Verkeersonderneming is the cooperation organisation of the municipality of Rotterdam, the Rotterdam city region, Port of Rotterdam Authority and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment.[49] The goal of the Verkeersonderneming is to make and keep accessible the city, port and Rotterdam region by smart use of the current roads, Smart Travelling and Smart Working. Allot of these initiatives are directed at person transport, initiatives as bike sharing ferry shuttles etc. This is due to the low density of people which makes public transport uneconomical. The Verkeersonderneming also support and develops initiatives for the transport and logistic sector. These initiatives focus on the organisational
Night driving
Promoting driving at night by discussing the benefits with transporters.
Cash reward
A project which pays a 1000€, for every truck which systematically avoids the rush hour for a whole year.
Truckload Match
Cooperation between transporters, which aims to reduce to empty trips. Currently 5 transporters of sea containers try to reduce empty trips by matching them with a return trip.
Truck parking
Truck parking spaces in the port area, normally trucks drive to their parking outside the harbour. Trucks are now closer to the port. Truck drivers who stay during the rush hours can save for a towel or other goodies.
5.3.SPITSMIJDEN 17
Truck spotting
Truck spotting, actively start a dialogue with transport agencies who are have a number of trucks active in rush hour.
The last one is evident of an organise measure by the Verkeersonderneming, they assist relatively small business with solutions. The solutions are for example driving at night, switching to barges, the Verkeersonderneming has knowledge and know how on this area and is willing to help these companies. The Verkeersonderneming focuses also on trafficmanagement, for instance toerit-doseer-installations to limit the number of trucks or cars entering the highway to ensure jam free highway.
5.2.2.
R
ESULTIn a 2011 simulation study by TrafficQuest ordered by The Verkeersonderneming, these traffic management alterations were tested. The results of this study suggests a positive effect of 2% on the total network in the evening rush hour, while the area around the A15 shows a decrease of 3% in evening and morning rushhour .
5.3.
S
PITSMIJDEN
Figure 5.3: Logo of Spitsvrij [50]
Tempting rush hour drivers to avoid the rush hour traffic
5.3.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONSeveral major and smaller "spitsmijden" or "peak-traffic-avoidance" programs have been organised in the Netherlands the last decade. By offering benefits to commuters who choice to avoid the rush hour by working at home, by using alternative transport or travel at an alternative time.
5.3.2.
R
ESULTBy offering these commuters a form of payment they are willing to avoid the rush hour. They accept the increase in time and reduction in quality in exchange for a reduction in cost. In the more global scheme the overall rush hour peak is reduced, this is good for the quality of the road connection. This is an example pur sang of an measure which tries to improve accessibility in the category organise. By trying to alter demand for accessibility instead of altering the supply in the form of capacity. in a recent spitsmijden project the results found a durable change in the travel behaviour of participants and a peak avoidance rate of 1-2% [50]. This number represent a monetary value of 5.4emillion. The participants were measured using a small device placed in the car, while the overall effect was measured by ANPR traffic camera’s. The effects where of this project were still visible after several months as the participants had permanently changed their travel pattern.
5.3.3.
F
UTUREA project as this should be set up by the local government, for example the province. The main benefits lie with the commuters during the rush hour. The recent project mentioned before was executed over a time span of 5 years, of which 2 years consist of getting the project of the ground and sorting out how to set it up. It is not expected that a spitsmijden project will be setup for the A15 regions, because as is mentioned before this road connection is being remodelled thus creating capacity.
5.3.4.
C
OSTThe budget for the recent project was set at 8.27emillion including set-up cost, the calculated benefits were in total 8.2emillion, it is deemed cost effective.
18 5.ROAD
5.4.
A15-H
IGHWAYPLAN
Figure 5.4: Part of the A15 which shall be rebuild [49]
Expanding and remodelling the highway around the port.
5.4.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONWith the ever increasing number of transport it is concluded that the current road infrastructure around Rotterdam is insufficient. In the program "Rotterdam vooruit" it was concluded in 2009 that by the time of 2020 upwards serious congestion problems would arise on the area around Rotterdam. Currently three major projects are underway around the A15 in which extra highway kilometres are build.
REDESIGN OF THEA15
The main highway, the A15, is not only expected to have an increase in the number of truck transports also the number of passenger travel is expected to rise due to newly build residential houses. Between the Maasvlakte and Vaanplein the entire A15 highway,which runs parallel to the harbour, will be widened and remodelled[51]. New highway lanes, rush hour lanes and lanes parallel to the highway will be build at various locations. A new Botlekbrige will be build to replace the old one. The expected finished date will be the end of 2015.37 km of highway will be equipped with a new trafficmanagement system.
BLANKENBURGTUNNEL
The most eye catching project is The Blankenburgertunnel[52]. The tunnel will build underneath The Scheur between the A15 and the A20 and gives a more western river crossing.
EXPANSION OF THEA15
The A15 currently ends in the east of the Netherlands, trucks and other vehicles travelling to Germany has to travel using secondary roads. In the this project the A15 will be expanded thus allowing a direct highway connection from the port of Rotterdam to the German hinterland[53].
5.4.2.
R
ESULTSThese project should ensure a congestion free A15 up to 2030, and a improved connection to the German hinterland. The building of the Blankenburgtunnel should ensure a more reliable road network, as there will be an alternative when calamities arises, which is likely as the A15 is accident prone. Furthermore the tunnel is estimated to save 300emillion travel-time-benefits and provide better access to regions to the direct north of the port.
These investments to build additional capacity on and around the A15 significantly reduces traffic jams. This is good for the reliability and also the time portion of accessibility. The tunnel is expected to reduce the number of kilometres a vehicle has to travel thus reducing travel time significantly. As mentioned earlier time in a professional setting is easily translated to money. if this is not taken into account the cost aspect of accessibility is negatively affect, the Blankenburgtunnel will demand a toll also the expanded A15 will likely charge a fee.
5.4.A15-HIGHWAYPLAN 19
5.4.3.
C
OSTThe project of remodelling the A15 including the traffic management system and new was the most one of the biggest projects of Rijkswaterstaat. The cost were estimated in the beginning at 1.5ebillion[54], the budget was increased to 2ebillion at the beginning of 2015[55]. The Blankenburgtunnel is estimated to cost around 1.1ebillion with 300 million thereof be supplied in the form of toll[56]. The expansion of the A15 is budgeted at 840emillion, also a toll system is in place set for 287emillion. The cost of the redesign and the tunnel will be paid in full by Rijkswaterstaat, excluding the toll, whereas for the expansion the Provincial government is paying 360 million and the local government 12.
5.4.4.
F
UTUREWith such large project many actors are involved, the financial side is run by the Governments and the contractors and their banks. On the practical side of the actors we find the local businesses to the north of Rotterdam, transporters and local residents and who will be benefit from these projects. However the environmental side is not pleased with these projects, the tunnel will run across a green area between Vlaarding en Maasluis [57]. The widening of the A15 has criticised due to exceeding air pollution norms.
It is expected for the remodelling of the A15 to be completed at the end of 2015. The tunnel will be finished around 2022-2024 and the expansion of the A15 to Zevenaar to be finished around 2017-2019.
6
R
AIL
6.1.
T
HIRD TRACK
O
BERHAUSEN
-E
MMERICH
Figure 6.1: Betuweroute[58]
Increasing the capacity on the German side of the rail route Rotterdam-Ruhr.
6.1.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONThe Betuweline is a double track freight route from Rotterdam to the German border at Zevenaar. At the German border to Oberhausen the track is also a double track rail but it also handles passenger freight, for example the ICE. The Emmerich-Oberhausen line has become as result of this a major bottleneck on the European corridor A between Rotterdam and Genoa. To solve this a third track will be constructed. The project consist of the laying of track over 70km, remodelling or rebuilding of: 11 stations, 47 bridges. also 55 crossings will be eliminated. Furthermore the track will feature the ERMT2 standard which is also applied on the Betuweroute.[59]
6.1.2.
R
ESULTIf the third track is realised place more trains can use the train route between Rotterdam and the Ruhr, also the high-speed ICE will have more room to achieve higher speeds. With the ERMT2 standard being applied it is no longer necessary to switch locomotives at the German border, saving time and money. [60] The category for this accessibility improvement is clearly, build, by building new infrastructure the total throughput of the rail network is increased. The main effect of this improvement to accessibility is visible in the factor quality. The quality increases by taken away hindrance of factors as changing trains and delays due to congestion. Cost and time are not negatively effected either.
6.1.3.
F
UTUREStarting from 2015 construction work is being done with serious hindrance for rail transport, the project will be finished by 2023.[61] Although the plans for expansion were longtime coming not until recently these steps have be taken. There were several obstacles, mainly political will, critics note that the waterways could handle
6.2.RAIL INCUBATOR 21
the rising flow of goods. While the German port of Hamburg has very good access to the German industrial area via rail.
6.1.4.
C
OSTThe total cost of this project amounts to 1.5ebn,746eM payed by the federal government,451efrom the state, 51efrom the EU and the rest is payed by Deutsche Bahn and other parties.[62]
6.2.
R
AIL INCUBATOR
Figure 6.2: Poster promoting the rail incubator project[58]
A project from the port authority to co-invest and provide marketing support for new railway lines[63].
6.2.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONThe South of Germany and eastern Europe has a lot of potential for access via train but currently the port of Hamburg is market leader is in that area. Currently the modal split of train traffic is lacking, with the Betuweroute finished there is potential for trains. The current situation in the rail market is believed to be one of chicken and the egg. Without the lines rail transport doesn’t offer a valid alternative to road or barge, and without container volume the railway lines cannot be profitable. To get a decent rail market of the ground the port of authority proposed to this by introducing the project Rail incubator. Rail incubator is a program which aims to increase the number of shuttle services and their frequency. It offers co-investment and marketing to the rail operator which should ensure a successful rail connection. in a may 2015 interview it is mentioned the port Rotterdam will initialise rail lines themselves[64]. This is either a oversimplification of the program or a step further as was originally intended with the project.
6.2.2.
R
ESULTWith the higher frequency of rail lines and more lines offered this should result in a competitive rail market, which can compete with the port of Hamburg in the south of Germany and eastern Europe. The goal is to obtain a modal split of 20% in 2030 by train. When the plan is successful it should improve the all aspect of hinterland accessibility by train. The time factor will be reduced as the frequency of shuttle services is increased, the cost factor is reduced as due to larger volumes trains become economically sound and due to increase in shuttle and the now more viable alternative to barge and road the total reliability of the network is increased.
6.2.3.
F
UTUREThe intentions of the project are that after 6 years the railway lines are financially self reliant. The cost of the project are not announced. With the notion that when a line becomes successful the port authority is also eligible for a part of the profits. The main obstacle is to gain a enough momentum to create a flourishing rail market.
7
W
ATER
7.1.
F
LOATING CRANE
Figure 7.1: floatingcrane[65]
A floating crane which is positioned on the seaside of the ship.
7.1.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONIn a study the concept of a floating crane is described[65]. With the increasing size of ships a floating crane could decrease the berth time of a vessel. A floating container is placed on the waterside of a vessel and loads the unloaded container directly on a barge destined for the inland barge terminal.
7.1.2.
R
ESULTThe use of an floating crane offers multiple possible advantages depending on the overall process. This could achieve reduced handling cost, increased berth capacity. and faster unloading. The biggest advantage is for seagoing vessels, with faster unloading the ship can be faster in and out of port, furthermore the berth capacity is increased. Thus here a time improvement. The advantage for the hinterland access lies in the in the optimisation. The container will be loaded on an barge headed for a hinterland terminal, thus avoiding the busy road infrastructure in the port. This is mainly an improvement in quality. The results are very depended on the use in real world, as this is only described in concept it remains uncertain.
7.1.3.
F
UTUREShipping companies have the most to gain with a floating crane. The terminal operators are the ones that will make the decision to buy a floating crane. Much care is needed optimising the stability of the floating crane. The crane should not move to much when working in close proximity with a quay crane lifting 2 heavy containers. With the surplus in capacity on the terminal and international shipping, it is not expected to be realised in the near future.
7.2.LOCK WAITING TIME OPTIMISATION 23
7.1.4.
C
OSTThe cost estimates requires an investment of 18 million euros, with an expected yearly use of 2600 hours the yearly operational cost are estimated at 4 million.
7.2.
L
OCK WAITING TIME OPTIMISATION
Figure 7.2: Locks and there respective distances[66]
By changing the speed barges travel minimise the waiting times at locks.
7.2.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONIn the connection between the port of Rotterdam and the port of Antwerp there a number of locks. Locks maintain the water on a certain level, so that inland vessels can navigate without the risk of grounding. Locks also cause congestion when the lock capacity is lower than the amount of vessels that want to pass the lock during a certain time. These congestion cause delays for the vessels, which lower the reliability of the waterway transport mode. The lock waiting times are expected to get as high as 3 hours. The paper of Hengeveld describes the concept of controlling the speed of incoming barges[66] . The vessels are delayed or sped up to create a green wave system, every ship arrives at lock and hopefully will spend a minimal time waiting.
7.2.2.
R
ESULTIf small alterations can be made to the speed of the vessel the expected waiting times can be reduced by 80%, . This obviously affects time factor of accessibility but more importantly this improves the quality. By removing or at least reducing the fluctuation the network will be more reliable. Without affecting the input or create extra capacity this is an example of an optimisation.
7.2.3.
F
UTUREAs with the Road infrastructure it is expected that the waterways will be monitored and controlled by systems, however the cost effectiveness has to be proven. The control of locks in the Netherlands are the task of Rijkswaterstaat. The users of the locks are the barge operators, they have the most to gain.
7.2.4.
C
OSTIt is unclear what the cost of the system are, as it also unclear what the system entails. More research can be done by investigating the potential benefits, cost and overall concept of the waterway management system.
24 7.WATER
7.3.
N
EXTLOGIC
Figure 7.3: Logo of Nextlogic[? ]
NextLogic is an information exchange platform currently in development [67].
7.3.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONNext logic is an information exchange platform being developed by multiple parties but mainly the Port of Rotterdam authority. It tries to tackle the problem of inefficient calls and long waiting times. Nextlogic will act as information exchange with up to date and real time information of containers, locations and destinations[68][69]. BREIN the central computing unit, will use this information to efficiently plan rotations and processing of barges at terminals and depots[67]. Different concepts of call size optimisations are used[70]:
Hub consolidating streams of containers via a Hub.
Hop barges uses multiple inland terminals.
Pull containers are unloaded on terminal A, whereas the containers destined for terminal b are internally
transported.
Push transport containers which are an originally planned for another barge.
7.3.2.
R
ESULTThe result of this is improvements in deployment of quays and cranes and more efficient ship deployment. This increases the reliability of inland container shipping. This is a prime example of optimisation as defined in chapter2.4, the existing infrastructure is used to it’s full potential due to the extra information.
7.3.3.
F
UTURENextlogic is currently in development with a full scale test planned for the end of 2015. The main actors are the terminal operators and barge operators. Here also the main hurdles shows, the operators have to accept to open up their information and place planning at an outside source.
7.4.BARGE SERVICE CENTRE 25
7.4.
B
ARGE SERVICE CENTRE
Figure 7.4: Logo of the Barge-service-Centre[71]
A Barge Service Centre henceforth known as BSC is a neutral barge terminal to be placed upon Maasvlakte 2[71].
7.4.1.
D
ESCRIPTIONIn the master thesis of R.F.J. Zuidgeest it is discussed if a space should be claimed on the Maasvlakte 2, which was at that time in the phase of master plan 4 [72]. In the thesis a simulation is made and different variants are calculated bases on stay times, following a business case is made at an optimal location. The basic concept of a BSC is a neutral barge terminal, which handles inland containers. The equipment such as cranes are especially designed for barges. On the BSC containers for multiple terminal can be (un)loaded. With the advantages being a reduction in small calls, decreased number of hops between terminals, a backup site in case of calamities and a possibility to handle empty containers.
7.4.2.
R
ESULTThis should result in increased efficiency of the barges and a more reliable chain. The paper describes building additional infrastructure to achieve this. These alterations should increase the quality for the accessibility.
7.4.3.
F
UTUREIt is decided not to include a BSC on the Maasvlakte 2, yet it is still possible to realise a BSC. Terminal operators have most to gain with a BSC, for every TEU send to the BSC 5 TEU extra seaside haul can be achieved. Due to the overcapacity by building Maasvlakte 2 it is not likely to be built in the near future. It is estimated by extrapolating container growth, the BSC will be feasible around the year 2035. The BSC is described from an academic standpoint it is likely that terminal operators see different.
7.4.4.
C
OSTThe cost of the BSC concept were calculated in detail for a location in the Hartelhaven. The investment cost are calculated with 2 design concepts, the investment cost are calculated at 42eand 48emillion. The cost for every TEU shipped are calculated to be 47.04e/TEU or 47.38e/TEU, including investment cost.
26 7.WATER
7.5.
B
ARGEHUB
Figure 7.5: mockup of the containertransferium in Alblasserdam [73]
A Bargehub in the Rotterdam port area.
7.5.1.
G
ENERAL DESCRIPITIONA Bargehub terminal this plan fully discussed in different papers [74],[75],[76],[77]. The basic idea is to create an terminal upstream from the port which bundles and sorts containers. This should reduce the number of bargecalls. an other option is reducing the inport truck traffic in the Rotterdam port. A bargehub is already realised upstream in Dordrecht.
7.5.2.
C
ONTAINER TRANSFERIUMA terminal in proximity to the port.
DESCRIPTION
A container transferium is a local terminal in proximity with the harbour [78]. By placing the terminal close to the port, the number of containers route applicable is large. The concept is to haul containers with barges from and to the major terminals in the port. The barges ferry frequently between the transferium and the terminals.
RESULT
The objective is to reduce the number of trucks on the A15. [79] By using barge transport to transport the containers to and from the port, less trucks are used in the busy port area. Other advantages come by bundling the containers, this reduces the number of barge movements needed in port which could really help reduce delays for barge operators. The concept of a transferium requires a serious investment, the objective of the transferium is to optimise the container flow.
FUTURE
Currently a container transferium is being built in Alblasserdam with an planned capacity of 200000 TEU/year[73]. The main actor is the owner of the transferium the Port authority, but the main users will be the barge operators and planning wise the terminal operators.
7.5.3.
E
XTENDED GATEDESCRIPTION
A direct route to a number of hinterland terminals[80] . ECT is currently operating a number of Extended gates, these are inlandroute under control of the sea terminal. Furthermore these terminallinks have AOE status, which means the containers don’t have to clear customs until the terminal.
RESULTS
Traditionally the container transport is arranged by the customer with the extended gate concept the terminal operator handles the transport between the sea terminal and the inland terminal. This results in less trucks picking up individual containers at the port. Furthermore by using the economies of scale the barge transport can be cheaper. This investment result in a optimisation of the flow while reducing cost.
7.5.BARGEHUB 27
FUTURE
In the future terminals outside the Netherlands will also be assigned AEO, which further simplifies crossing the border.several terminal operators are developing these extended gate[41].
7.5.4.
I
NLAND TERMINAL ROUTINGDESCRIPTION
Figure 7.6: Round trip including a hub
Different concepts of networklinks are being researched by inland terminals to ensure a frequent and high quality link with the seaport. A concept is a Hub and spoke solution. One central terminal acts as a hub where all containers from and to the seaport are collected[81]. Another is roundtrip, a barge will pass all the terminals on his way to the seaport. This ensures that every inland terminal has a frequent line to the seaport. A combination of the two concepts is also an option. The hub is the beginning and endpoint of a roundtrip. These concepts ensure a frequent and high quality service to terminals who are in itself too small to operate.
7.5.5.
R
ESULTThe barge hub concept requires a sizeable investment in port facility inland, thus improving accessibility in the categories build, the factor of accessibility here involved is quality. It can not be concluded that the use of barge transport will lead to reduced cost, however the reduced number of truck active in the harbour have a positive effect on congestion and air quality of the port.
8
C
OMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
8.1.
I
NTERMODAL
Every different modality has its own drawbacks, for instance truck traffic is environmentally unfriendly and has congestion problems while barge and rail traffic lacks reach. But against these drawback the provided benefits; trucks can deliver on every location while rail and barge traffic offers capacity and more cost effective long distance hauls. With intermodal transport it is possible to combine these benefits and drawbacks to improve the accessibility. For example using a barge instead of truck to transport a container and using a truck to deliver it to the final destination provides cost savings.
The cost savings of intermodal transport are directly relatable to the factor cost of the definition of accessibility. However the extra transshipment steps required provide difficulty in improving accessibility most importantly the quality. The extra steps add cost, time and organisational problems, with every extra step the reliability of the connection decreases. The following five organisational problems have been identified byBrewer et al.:
Liability since the goods are handled by different modes of transport and often different carriers, it is rather
difficult to determine everyone’s liability in the agreement.
Documentation which contains the ability to provide shippers to find the location of their consignments at
any time, and also the clearance of customs at international borders.
Intermodal intermediaries , deregulation and privatisation over the last two decades have removed various
obstacles in the field of intermodal ownership and operations, but there are still challenges.
Regulatory issues which have made a large development over the last two decades; however, there are still
many differences between various parts of the world. Equality in regulations is therefore another challenge in the field of intermodal transportation.
Intermodal futures although the container is dominant in intermodal transportation, different units of transport
may be attractive, like the use of pallets for small pieces. There are more fields that one has to be aware of in the future of intermodal transportation.
In allot of cases an intermodal solution is beneficial, as the Verkeersonderneming advises. Intermodal transport provides multiple benefits one of which it is deemed more environmental friendly[83]. With new measures, as the barge hub, much more use is made of the intermodal options, and in the future other hindrances will be taken away thus enabling a more widely use of intermodal transport.
8.2.IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES 29
8.2.
I
MPROVEMENT CATEGORIES
With all the measures previously mentioned what connections can be made?
Build Optimize Organise
Autonomous travel x Verkeersonderneming x x Highway plan x Spitsmijden x Third track x Rail Incubator x Floating crane x Lock times x Nextlogic x BSC x x Bargehub x x
Table 8.1: Measures set out against the categories given in2.4
Looking at table8.1containing the most fitting categories from the mentioned measures, we see 4 measures in the build category. These represent an investment of severalebillion. While the measures present in the category of optimise are costing more in the region of tens of million this without the outlier of autonomous travel. The organise category can be estimated to be significantly less compared to the previously mentioned. The Verkeersonderneming, an organise measure, has allot of small scale projects which are in order of multitude of thousandse. Obviously the expected results of measures are in the same range as their respective investment, when something is expensive the return should be significant. With building new infrastructure the most money is involved but the estimated results are the greatest as is the likelihood of success of these results.
Most of these measures can be categorised as an optimisation. With every change of flow by either a changed input or a change in the network itself the optimum changes, thus an optimisation is often applicable. With organising the flow the results become more unsure, as one tries to manipulate the masses. These measures are mostly only used were the network is truly on its maximum capacity and the temporal component is mostly to blame. The results of these measure are often on a short term, hard to predict and hard to measure.
8.3.
I
MPROVING ASPECTS OF ACCESSIBILITY
Cost Time Quality
Autonomous travel 0 0 ++ Verkeersonderneming 0 0 + Highway plan - + + Spitsmijden 0 0 + Third track 0 0 + Rail Incubator + + + Floating crane - + + Lock times 0 + + Nextlogic + + + BSC + 0 + Bargehub + + +
Table 8.2: Improvments of the measures set out against the definition of accessibility given in2.4
As the traveltime of containers on a vessel is in the order of magnitude of days saving an hour on hinterland transport is insignificant. None of the measures mentioned has as primary focus to reduce accessibility by reducing the travel time. The primary focus of the measures lies in reducing congestion, as this a form of waste. As mentioned in section2.2.1, time in a professional setting is easily converted to cost. For every vehicle hour lost in congestion an hour of cost has been made.
30 8.COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
All of the measures mentioned improve the quality factor of accessibility. This is not a surprise as this consist of a multitude of factors and therefore one is likely gonna be improved. As mentioned in the introduction reliability has become an important point, with a transport chain instead and intermodal transport it is key to have a reliable network. Practically all of these measures have a direct or indirect positive impact on the reliability of the transport chain.
8.4.
M
OBILITY
Most of the measure mentioned in the list focus in improving the hinterland accessibility from Rotterdam towards Germany. As can be seen in figures2.1. The reason for this is obvious as this is where the money is so to speak, but some areas still have a very poor accessibility. These "white-spots" are far away from rail or barge terminals but have the economic potential to justify one. The prime examples mentioned are the area surrounding Weert and the Westland[84], these areas do have the presence of significant economies and containers transport but lie on a considerable distance over 20-30km from their respective terminals. Several project are directed at these areas, for example the Westland:
Highway expansion
In 2016 the A15 should be opened which should offer a shorter and lest congested route from the Westland and the port of Rotterdam[85].
Multi modal connection
The project Fresh Corridor which offers multimodal solutions for fruits, vegetables and other fresh products, has opened "Fresh Corridor 7"[86]. This entails a barge connection from Uniport, located in the centre south bank of the port, to Hoek van Holland on the northern bank of the port.
With these projects at least 20km of the route is depending on truck traffic. The report furthers notes that with 3 large parties a terminal initiative could be feasible, as the smaller parties will be able to join.
