Page 1

A new MoS concept for logistics: the dual port entity MoS Dimitrios Tsamboulas Professor National Technical University of Athens Department of Transportation Planning and Engineering


Motorways of the Sea (MoS),according to EU definition •

Connection of two ports of different countries

Concentrate flows of freight on sea-based logistical routes/ reduce road congestion

Improve existing maritime links

Establish new viable, regular and frequent maritime links for the transport of goods between Member States

Improve access to peripheral and island regions and States (enhance cohesion) 2


“Dual port entity” for MoS • Expansion of the existing MoS EU concept • Consideration of four ports in the same supply chain route • Connection of two of these ports with land modes • Operation of two MoS in one supply chain route 3


Origin of the concept • Ancient Greece- Ancient Corinth • “Diolkos”: land bridge connecting two gulfs: Saronikos and Korinthiakos

4


Description of “dual port entity” • 4 ports involved in the concept ▫ Ports A, B: ports constituting the dual port entity ▫ Port C,D: ports with existing or planned MoS ▫ Planned or existing MoS connections between ports A and C , B and D.

• “Land bridge”: land connection between dual port entity • Specific factors affect establishment and operation of MoS 5


Factors affecting establishment and operation of dual port entity • Ability of ports A, B to be organized as dual port entity • Land transport connections, level of services of “land bridge” • Land access to ports A, B • Maritime connections and MoS between ports A and C, B and D • MoS between ports C, D

Propose specific methodology 6


Methodology-Flow Chart Consists of 4 steps

7


Step 1 & Step 2 1)Area of interest  Define area of interest  Define MoS links in the area

2)Selection of ports to operate as “dual port entity”  Location of ports along the same supply chain  Ports’ level of services (operation, logistics and transshipment, productivity, use of information systems)

 Existing infrastructure- potential expansion of ports  Administrative procedures, ports’ organization structure

8


Step 3-Record data of the system Identify and record:  Distance between ports constituting dual port  Length of MoS links from ports  Existing transport infrastructure, operating characteristics and level of service between ports  Location of ports : located in the same or different countries

 Creation of database 9


Step 4-Evaluation of dual port entity • Analysis of two scenarios:  Transport corridor with the operation of the dual port entity MoS. Goods are transferred from port C to port A by maritime connection, then through the land bridge (by road or rail transport modes) to port B and then onwards with maritime transport to port D  Base case: Transport corridor without the operation of dual port entity. Goods are transferred from port C to port D with an MoS link (existing or planned)

• 4-step model • Trip generation: given, trip distribution and modal split not applied on this case (same origin-destination, modes of transport defined already) 10


Step 4- Evaluation of dual port entity • ssignment on the network:  estimate amount of volumes that dual port entity will handle  evaluate the proposed project

• stimation of generalized cost for alternative MoS routes

g = p + hTg • iscrete choice model for assignment of flows on the

11


Application of proposed methodology • Two case studies: 1)Dual port entity: Ports of Civitavecchia and Ancona, connection of ports of Barcelona and Patras 2)Dual port entity: Ports of Varna and Alexandroupolis, connection of ports of Novorossiysk and Limassol

• Two different transport modes for hinterland connection: road and rail

12


Case study 1: Dual port entity: port of Civitavecchia and Ancona Alternative routes: 1)Port of Barcelona-Port of Civitavecchia-Port of Ancona-Port of Patras (includes a dual port)

2) Port of Barcelona-Port of Civitavecchia-Port of Catania-Port of Patras (without dual port, based on existing MoS operating by Grimaldi-Minoan lines)

13


Case study 1: Dual port entity: port of Civitavecchia and Ancona -2 Barcelona-Civitavecchia-Ancona-Patras (road trip connecting dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

45.9 2109.5

Barcelona-Civitavecchia-Ancona-Patras (rail trip connecting dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

48 1969.3

Barcelona-Catania, Catania-Patras (trip without dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

62 1942.1 14


Case study 1: Dual port entity: port of Civitavecchia and Ancona -3 Results • Higher generalized cost in the case of road connection between the ports of dual port entity • Generalized cost in case of rail connection between ports of dual port entity: marginally higher than the one estimated without dual port. Routes equally attractive. • No existing direct rail connection between dual port entity: main reason for the previous result • Hinterland connections: significant factor affecting generalized cost 15


Case study 2: Dual port entity: Ports of Varna and Alexandroupolis Alternative routes: 1)Port of Novorossiysk-Port of Varna-Port of Alexandroupoli-Port of Limassol (includes a dual port entity)

2)Port of Novorossiysk-Port of Constantza-Port of Piraeus-Port of Limassol (without dual port entity, based on existing MoS for containers operating by ports of Novorossiysk and Limassol)

16


Case study 2: Dual port entity: Ports of Varna and Alexandroupolis - 2 Novorossiysk-Varna-Alexandroupolis-Limassol (road trip connecting dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

69 2198

Novorossiysk-Varna-Alexandroupolis-Limassol (rail trip connecting dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

73.9 2194.7

Novorossiysk-Constantza-Piraeus-Limassol (trip without dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

111.9 2225.5 17


Case study 2: Dual port entity: Ports of Varna and Alexandroupolis - 3 Results: • Establishment of dual port lower generalized cost of trip, for both rail and road connection between dual port entity • Higher generalized cost for the case of road connection between ports, compared to rail connection • Dual port: more attractive route compared to the one without it • As in case study 1, hinterland connections have significant impact on generalized cost 18


Conclusions • Distance, MoS links, transport infrastructure and location of ports are among the factors that should be identified before the establishment of a dual port project • Proposed methodology to evaluate project’s performance ▫ Estimate generalized cost of trip ▫ Discrete choice model for assignment of flows in the network. 19


Conclusions • According to application:  Mode of transport, infrastructure and frequency of land connections but also delays in direct Mos are critical factors affecting attractiveness of dual port entity.  Characteristics of the entire corridor (infrastructure and frequency of services of land and maritime connections) affect generalized cost of trip and so attractiveness of it.

20


Recommendations • Further investigation of necessary conditions for the viability of dual port entity.

21


Thank you!

22


TSAMBOULAS  

A new MoS concept for logistics: the dual port entity MoS Dimitrios Tsamboulas Professor National Technical University of Athens Department...

Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you