The Next Box Wave: Can Containerization
Reinvent Itself?
Theo Notteboom
ITMMA - University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy, Belgium
Jean-Paul Rodrigue
Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA
Terminal Operators Conference Europe
EXECUTIVE SESSION 4: ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE, Antwerp, June 7-9 2011
The Charthouse Group
Do you really know me?
Innovation
Diffusion
The Charthouse Group
Just a partial (topless)
recovery.
Not a “full frontal”
recovery…
SITUATION REPORT EUROPE:
REASONS TO SMILE?
The Charthouse Group
Total European port throughput
European port traffic
2008-2010 = -5.2%
2008: 4.26 billion tons
2009: 3.76 billion tons (-11.7%)
2010: 4.04 billion tons (+7.4%)
Million tons of maritime traffic
1600
1400
2008
2009
2010
316 ports
1200
-3.9%
+1.4%
1000
800
600
352 ports
266 ports
-19.8%
400
200
+13.6%
135 ports
-14.0%
+10.3%
340 ports
-12.0%
+9.5%
-19.6%
+9.5%
0
Roro
Conventional
general cargo
Liquid Bulk
Dry Bulk
Containers
Cargo segment
The Charthouse Group
Non-anticipated traffic
gap of 15 million TEU
2009: - 14.4%
compared to
2008
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
2010: + 10.4%
compared to
2009
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
European port system
Hamburg-Le Havre range
Mediterranean range
UK range
Atlantic range
Baltic
Black Sea
Exponential trendline total traffic
2003
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
1985
Container throughput in million TEUs (78 ports)
Container volumes are bouncing back
The Charthouse Group
Market shares in the European
container port system
60%
Rising market share
Hamburg-Le Havre range
mainly due to Benelux ports.
50%
Hamburg-Le Havre range
45%
Mediterranean range
40%
UK range
35%
Atlantic range
Baltic
30%
Black Sea
Med ports are losing market
share, mainly due to weaker
position transshipment hubs
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
0%
1985
Share in total container throughput
55%
Black Sea port system loses
groundThe
due
to declining
Charthouse
Group
volumes at Constantza
Market shares in total European container traffic
Gateway port
Transhipment/interlining port
(transhipment incidence >75%)
Gateway port also handling
substantial transhipment flows
‘09: 1.2%
‘10: 1.3%
Finland
Norway
Multi-port gateway region
Sweden
Main shipping route
Estonia
‘09: 1.9%
‘10: 1.9%
Latvia
Russia
Lithuania
UK
Den.
Ireland
Americas
‘09: 7.2%
‘10: 7.1%
‘09: 0.8%
‘10: 1.2%
‘09: 14.9%
‘10: 14.9%
NL
Belarus
Poland
Germany
Belg.
‘09: 25.5%
‘10: 26.1%
‘09: 3.0%
‘10:
France2.9%
Americas
Switz.
Ukraine
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Austria
‘09: 1.5%
Hungary
‘10: 1.6%
‘09: 4.3%
‘10: 4.5%
Romania
‘09: 0.9%
‘10: 0.8%
Croatia
Bosnia&
Herz.
Serbia
Bulgaria
‘09: 7.3%
‘10: 7.4%
Portugal
Other ports
‘09: 29.8%
‘10: 28.6%
Mace.
Italy
Spain
Alb.
‘09: 1.5%
‘10: 1.6%
Turkey
Greece
Cyprus
Main shipping route
Algeria
Morocco
© 2011 T. Notteboom – ITMMA, University of Antwerp
Middle East – Far East
Tunisia
Malta
The Charthouse Group
Trade volumes per route to/from Europe:
Mixed results
Year on year change in trade volumes (basis = TEU)
Europe-SSA Northbound
Europe-SSA Southbound
Q1-2009
-4.2%
-1.3%
Q2-2009
-4.3%
-3.1%
Q3-2009
-7.1%
-1.8%
Q4-2009
3.5%
2.6%
Q1-2010
7.8%
5.7%
Q2-2010
2.5%
7.3%
Q1-2011
10.9%
27.5%
Q1-2011 vs. Q1-2008
30.7%
43.3%
Europe-Asia Westbound
Europe-Asia Eastbound
-22.1%
-15.6%
-22.2%
-1.6%
-13.2%
9.2%
-0.2%
29.1%
21.2%
23.0%
24.1%
0.6%
6.3%
4.3%
0.2%
8.6%
Europe-North America WB
Europe-North America EB
-16.9%
-29.0%
-21.6%
-35.0%
-15.0%
-25.6%
-6.5%
-6.6%
13.4%
12.3%
22.2%
16.0%
5.3%
8.1%
-1.1%
-13.3%
Europe-India/Middle East WB
Europe-India/Middle East EB
-12.1%
-4.1%
-7.4%
-0.6%
-0.5%
1.7%
4.7%
6.4%
18.1%
14.4%
20.1%
6.8%
15.4%
6.0%
24.9%
18.2%
Europe-South/Latin America NB
Europe-South/Latin America SB
-12.9%
-27.4%
-12.3%
-26.4%
-18.6%
-22.5%
2.7%
-0.8%
4.7%
47.5%
-5.1%
57.7%
13.7%
20.1%
0.9%
28.7%
Europe-Oceania NB
Europe-Oceania SB
-6.8%
-14.7%
-9.1%
-26.4%
-14.0%
-8.5%
-12.9%
-6.0%
-11.1%
19.6%
-2.3%
32.8%
2.4%
2.6%
-15.3%
4.1%
Source: based on data EELA and Container Trade Statistics
The Charthouse Group
Trade volumes per route to/from Europe:
geographical shifts
2010
2008
Geographical distribution of extra-European container
trade (dry and reefer) - year 2008 (based on data ELAA)
South and
Latin America
8,2%
Sub Saharan
Africa
5,0%
India/Middle
East
11,7%
North
America
19,2%
Oceania
1,8%
Asia
54,1%
Geographical distribution of extra-European container
trade (dry and reefer) - year 2010 (based on data ELAA)
South and
Latin America
8,1%
Sub Saharan
Africa
5,7%
India/Middle
East
13,1%
North
America
16,9%
Oceania
1,8%
Asia
54,4%
The Charthouse Group
Far from being a nobrainer…
LOOKING AT THE FUNDAMENTALS
The Charthouse Group
Intermodal Integration
Major Steps in Intermodal Integration
Advanced Containers
An enduring innovative process.
Advanced Terminals
Multiplying effect on an existing
Regionalization
technique.
Intermodal rail crane (1985)
An exercise in unintended
consequences?
Doublestacking; IBCs (1985)
From revolution to evolution?
Deregulation (1980s)
COFC (1967)
Transatlantic (1966); Containerships (1968)
Standardization (size and latching) (1965)
Containerization (1956)
TOFC (1950s)
Pallets (1930s)
Time
The Charthouse Group
Some Key Issues in Liner Shipping: Towards a
Revolution?
Herd behavior or
segmentation?
Renewed risk for
overcapacity.
18,000 TEU
vessels and its
ramifications on
ports.
Slow steaming:
using a green
argument to hide a
green ($) bottom
line?
Impact of bunker
price evolution and
low-sulphur fuel
Overcapacity
absorbing potential
is weakening
The Charthouse Group
Containerization as a Diffusion Cycles:
World Container Traffic (1980-2010) and Possible
Scenarios to 2015
1000
900
800
Million TEU
700
Adoption
Acceleration
Peak Growth
Maturity
1966-1992
1992-2002
2002-2008
2008 -
New (niche) services
Productivity gains
Reference
Network development
Productivity multipliers
Divergence
600
500
400
300
To what extent the
growth in 2010 is
attributed to
transshipment and
emerging markets?
Depression
Niche markets
200
Massive diffusion
Network complexities
100
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
The Charthouse Group
Container Usage during its Life-Span
16%
Ocean Transit
Terminal
16%
56%
A lot of waste to improve
upon.
Challenges for asset
management.
Inland Use
Repair
6%
6%
Idle or Empty
Repositioning
The Charthouse Group
Weighting Out versus Cubing Out: What is a
Proper Distribution of Containerized Assets?
Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers, 2008
(26.2 million TEU)
33%
6%
4%
6%
Regions follow
standards; they do not
set them.
20 Foot
40 Foot
40 Foot High Cube
Reefer
24%
27%
Regional
Other
Balance between retail,
intermediate goods and
commodities
The Charthouse Group
The Main Driving Forces of Containerization
Derived
Substitution
Economic and
income growth
Functional and
geographical
diffusion
Globalization
(outsourcing)
Fragmentation of
production and
consumption
New niches
(commodities and
cold chain)
Incidental
Trade imbalances
Repositioning of
empty containers
Induced
Transshipment
(hub, relay and
interlining)
Capture of bulk
and break-bulk
markets
The Charthouse Group
DERIVED: ORGANIC GROWTH IN THE
PIPELINE?
The Charthouse Group
Monthly Value of Exports or Imports, Selected
Traders, 2006-2011 (Jan 2006=100)
250
Trade has bounced back.
America’s consumption
engine sputtering.
China (Exports)
225
Japan (Exports)
Korea (Exports)
200
Germany (Exports)
USA (Imports)
175
Brazil (Exports)
150
125
100
75
Yes, but at what cost?
Mar-11
Jan-11
Nov-10
Sep-10
Jul-10
May-10
Mar-10
Jan-10
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Nov-06
Sep-06
Jul-06
May-06
Mar-06
Jan-06
50
The Charthouse Group
CRB Index (CCI), Monthly Close, 1970-2011
800
700
Paradigm shift in input costs…
Reaping the consequences of
monetary policy.
Could be positive for
containerization…
600
500
400
300
200
100
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
0
The Charthouse Group
Business Cycles and Misallocations
When “organic growth” is using a
lot of chemicals…
Second phase of the credit-driven
bust.
Credit-Driven
Boom
Normal Cycle
Peak
Credit-Driven
Bust
Credit-Driven Cycle
Trough
Expansion
Recession
Expansion
Depression
The Charthouse Group
SUBSTITUTION: STUFFING THE BOX WITH
SOMETHING DELICIOUS
The Charthouse Group
Looking Inside the Box: Accept all Substitutes…
Retail and
intermediate
goods
Commodities
(balancing)
Cold chain
(revenue)
The Charthouse Group
The Usual Suspect: China’s Share of the World
Commodity Consumption, c2009
Cattle
Oil
GDP (PPP)
Chickens
Wheat
Population
Soybeans
Rice
Nickel
Eggs
Copper
Aluminium
Zinc
Lead
Steel
Pigs
Coal
Iron Ore
Cement
9.5
10.3
13.6
15.6
16.6
19.4
24.6
28.1
36.3
37.2
38.9
40.6
41.3
44.6
45.4
46.4
46.9
47.7
53.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
The Charthouse Group
Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains: An
Emerging Complementarity
Cost / volume driver
Low frequency
Dedicated terminals
One way flows
Bulk Commodity Chain
Supplier
Port Point-to-Point
Customer
Consolidation
center
Time / flexibility driver
High frequency
General terminals
More balanced flows
Complementarity
Container
port
Pendulum
Services
Intermodal
terminal
Containerized Commodity Chain
The Charthouse Group
Continuous Commodity Index and Baltic Dry
Index, 2000-2011 (2000=100)
900
800
Continuous Commodity Index
Baltic Dry Index
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
The Charthouse Group
Continuous Commodity Index and Average
Container Shipping Rates, 1994-2011 (1994=100)
300
Continuous Commodity Index
Container Shipping Rates
250
200
150
100
50
The Charthouse Group
From Bulk to Containers: Breaking Economies of
Scale
Entry
Barriers
• Container as an independent load unit.
• Minimal load unit; one TEU container.
Required
Volumes
• Limited differences in scale economies for
a producer.
• Incremental / linear cost-volume function.
Market
Potential
• New producers (smaller).
• Product differentiation (larger variety).
The Charthouse Group
The Cold Chain: A Highly Constrained Niche
Conditional demand
• Each product has a specific perishability.
• Shelf life and revenue.
• Demand conditional to qualitative attributes.
Load integrity
• Reefers as the common load unit.
• Packing, packaging and preparation.
• Empty backhauls.
Transport integrity
• Uninterrupted integrity of the transport chain (modes, terminals
and DC).
• Specialized modes (speed) and terminals?
The Charthouse Group
Equal but Separate… The Reefer Ghetto (Away
from Containers of Color…)
The Charthouse Group
INDUCED: TRANSSHIPMENT (THE GREAT
SHUFFLE)
The Charthouse Group
The Global Transshipment Market
The Charthouse Group
How the Main Actors in Global Freight
Distribution Influence Routing?
Top ten terminal operators: 65% of the
world’s total container handlings
Container Terminal Portfolio of the Four Main Global
Terminal Operators, 2010
The Charthouse Group
Sea-sea transshipment plays a role, particularly
in Med and in relation to UK and Baltic…
Hamburg
Rotterdam
Bremerhaven
Antwerp
Le Havre
Influences on North Europe
(1) Maasvlakte 2 effect +
JadeWeserPort, capacity in UK
(2) Direct deepsea calls in Baltic
(cf. Gdansk)
Zeebrugge
Barcelona
Sines
Valencia
Taranto
Cagliari
Piraeus
Algeciras
Gioia Tauro
Malta
Influences on South Europe
(1) Direct calls in gateway ports
(cf. NAPA, Spain, etc..)
(2) Competition Tanger Med
Transhipment incidence:
North Europe = 24.2%
Eastern Europe = 16.2%
South Europe = 44.6%
The Charthouse Group
Pure transhipment hubs in
West Med lose market share
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance > 250 nm
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance 100-250 nm
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance < 100 nm
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
0%
1975
Share in TEU throughput West-Med
100%
The Charthouse Group
Major ports and future terminal developments in non-EU
Med ports: impact of a changing political landscape?
Container throughput in million TEU, capacity extensions in million TEU
Enfidha (Tunisia)
Capacity: +1 (2011)
+2.5 (period 2011-2015)
+2 (period 2015-2030)
Djendjen (Algeria)
Rades (Tunisia)
Capacity: +2 (DP World)
Bejaia (Algeria)
Ambarli (Turkey)
Traffic: 2.26 (2008)
Traffic: 0.3 (2007)
Traffic: 0.15 (2008)
Capacity: +2.5 (>2010)
Mersin (Turkey)
Algiers (Algeria)
Traffic: 0.5 (2007)
Capacity: +0.8 (2010)
Beirut (Lebanon)
Traffic: 0.95 (2008)
Haifa (Israel)
Traffic: 1.39 (2008)
Tanger Med II
APMT/Akwa: + 3 mln TEU (2012)
PSA: +2 mln TEU (2012)
Tanger Med
APMT: + 1.5 mln TEU
Eurogate: +1.5 mln TEU
Damietta (Egypt)
Capacity: +4 (2012)
Misurata (Libya)
Initial plans cancelled?
Port Said (Egypt)
Traffic: 3.2 (2008)
Capacity: +2.5 (2011)
The Charthouse Group
Pushing Atomization in the Hinterland and
Massification in the Foreland
Capacity
Frequency
Hinterland-Based
Regionalization
PORT HINTERLAND
Capacity
Gap
Frequency
Mitigation
PORT FORELAND
Economies of scale
Different
momentums
Economies of scale
Functional
Integration
Foreland-Based
Regionalization
The Charthouse Group
INCIDENTAL: LIVING IN AN ASYMMETRIC
WORLD…
The Charthouse Group
Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade
Routes, 1995-2009 (in millions of TEUs)
2009
11.5
2008
6.9
14.5
15.2
2006
15.0
4.4
2004
12.4
4.2
10.2
4.1
8.8
2001
7.2
3.9
2000
5.6
3.3
1998
5.2
3.3
1995
4.0
0
3.5
10.8
4.5
4.2
3.5
4.0
2.2 2.9
2.7 1.31.7
9.1
5.2
4.9
6.1
3.6
10.1
5.5
8.9
5.9
10.5
15.3
7.3
3.9
5.3
17.2
4.7
12.4
2.5
16.7
5.0
2005
2002
5.5
5.6
2007
2003
11.5
2.1
2.5
4.3
2.7
4.5
4.4
3.8
1.7 3.2
1.7 2.9
1.5 2.6
2.7
2.9
3.6
Empties; a breath of
fresh air…
Asia-USA
USA-Asia
Asia-Europe
Europe-Asia
USA-Europe
Europe-USA
2.8 2.3 1.21.4
10
20
30
40
50
60
The Charthouse Group
Geographical Levels of Empty Container
Repositioning
Port
Hinterland
Depot / Inland terminal
Freight Distribution Center
Cargo Rotation
Regional
Repositioning
Inter-Regional
Repositioning
(coastal / fluvial)
Foreland
The Charthouse Group
Asymmetries between Import and Export-Based
Containerized Logistics
Gateway
Inland
Terminal
Distribution Customer
Center
Import-Based
Many Customers
•Function of population density.
•Geographical spread.
•Product customization.
•Incites transloading.
•High priority (value, timeliness).
Repositioning
Supplier
Export-Based
Few Suppliers
•Function of resource density.
•Geographical concentration.
•Lower priority.
•Depends on repositioning
opportunities.
The Charthouse Group
Slow Steaming: What Hath You Brought Us?
More containerized inventory tied in transit.
More containers for the same flow capacity (10-30%?).
Externalization of costs (50% of the market concerns
leased containers).
Challenging hinterland strategies (container rotation).
Are maritime shipping companies likely to own more or less
containers in such a context?
The Charthouse Group
TERMINAL OPERATOR STRATEGY:
IN SEARCH OF UNIQUE FEATURES?
The Charthouse Group
Going Green: Hypocrisy?
Carbon
neutral
Low
emission
vessel
Green
supply
chain
The Charthouse Group
Going global
Regional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of the Twelve Largest Global
Terminal Operators (Hectares, 2010)
CMA-CGM
ICTSI
Changes in regional
orientation?
Hanjin
Cosco Pacific
Shanghai International Port Group
SSA Marine
Ports America
Eurogate
APM Terminals
Dubai Ports World
Africa
Australia
North America
South America / Caribbean
Pacific Asia
South Asia / Middle East
Mediterranean
Europe Atlantic
Port of Singapore Authority
Hutchison Port Holdings
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The Charthouse Group
Building partnerships
Complexity in terminal ownership structures
Example for the Rhine-Scheldt Delta - 2010
HUTCHISON PORT
HOLDINGS
PSA
20%
Majority
shareholding
100%
Minority
Shareholding
ECT
MSC
50%
NYK
100%
100%
50%
Delta Terminal
Waal- and
Eemhaven
Euromax
phase 1
Rotterdam World Gateway
(Maasvlakte 2)
Operational by 2013
PSA
(Antwerp/
Zeebrugge)
CYKH
Alliance
50%
50%
New World
Alliance
60%
DP World
30%
10%
APM Terminal Maasvlakte
Terminal 1
(Maasvlakte 2)
Operational by 2014
ANTWERP
100%
100%
ROTTERDAM
Source: Notteboom & Rodrigue (2010)
100%
ZIM Line
42.5%
10%
MSC Home terminal
50%
North Sea Terminal
100%
Europe Terminal
50%
Deurganck Terminal
Antwerp International
Terminal (AIT)
DP World Delwaidedock
Shipping Line
(Global) Terminal
Operator
Antwerp Gateway
Terminal
Cosco Pacific
20%
CMA-CGM
10%
35%
65%
CHZ
APM Terminals
(AP Moller Group)
100%
Albert II-dock north (under
construction)
Shanghai
International Port
Group (SIPG)
25%
PORT
Financial Holding
75%
APM Terminal
ZEEBRUGGE
The Charthouse Group
Filling the “gap”?
Air
Impact slow steaming &
transshipment
Freight rate
to shipper
(gate-to-gate)
Polar routes
Direct services
Fast ships
Trans-Siberian rail
LTL
Truckload
Intermodal
Liner shipping
Performance (Speed, Reliability, Flexibility)
The Charthouse Group
Filling the “gap”?
Fast end-to-end services?
Multi-container platform for fast roro handling
Bron: Kvaerner Masa-Yards Technology
The Charthouse Group
Going inland
Active involvement of terminal operators
• ‘Extended Gate’ concept of ECT (Hutchison Port Holdings)
• ‘Terminal Operator Haulage’ concept of DP World
Inland
terminal
vessel
vessel
Seaport
terminal
Seaport
terminal
Inland
terminal
Inland
terminal
• Impact
= direct truck
= endhaul truck
= barge/rail shuttle
- Optimize capacity use at deepsea terminals
- Lower environmental footprint and road congestion in/around port
- Create a streamlined logistics solution for customers
The Charthouse Group
Going inland
Active involvement of shipping lines: ‘Push strategy’
B/L seaport X
x
x
B/L seaport X
Second move
by rail, barge or truck
y
Multi-port gateway region
x
CONTAINER PUSH STRATEGY
B/L inland port
y
z
Source: Notteboom (2011)
Rail, barge (or truck)
The Charthouse Group
Gateway traffic (inland traffic excl. sea-sea
transhipment) in major multi-port gateway regions
in Europe (TEU – figures 2008)
Core of “Blue
Banana” +
EDC effect
Gateway port
Transhipment/interlining port
(transhipment incidence >75%)
Gateway port also handling
substantial transhipment flows
Multi-port gateway region
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Main shipping route
Estonia
Immediate hinterlands remain
the backbone of ports’ gateway
traffic..
Latvia
Russia
Lithuania
UK
Den.
Ireland
Belarus
Gdansk Bay
0.77 mln TEU
Americas
SE East Coast UK
6.3 million TEU
North Germany
9.2 mln TEU Poland
NL
Germany
Belg.
Slovakia
Seine Estuary
1.9 mln TEU
Flexibility is key
France
Americas
Austria
Switz.
Marseille
0.85 mln TEU
Liguria
4 mln TEU
Hungar
North Adriatic:
1.3 mln TEU
Romania
Black Sea
0.54 mln TEU
Croatia
Bosnia&
Herz.
Serbia
Bulgaria
Spanish Med
3.9 mln TEU
Portugal
Ukraine
Rhine-Scheldt Delta
16.8 mln TEU
Czech Republic
.. but gateway regions
increasingly vie
for distant contestable
hinterlands
Mace.
Italy
Spain
Alb.
Portugal
1.1 mln TEU
Turkey
Greece
Cyprus
Main shipping route
Algeria
Morocco
© 2011 T. Notteboom – ITMMA, University of Antwerp
Middle East – Far East
Tunisia
Malta
The Charthouse Group
Going intermodal
Modal split targets of terminals
Primarily
Exogenous
Primarily
Endogenous
Source: Notteboom (2011)
• Supply chain practices
• Pricing and quality of rail and
barge services
• Infrastructure policy outside
port area (by government)
• Dwell time fee system
• Investments in on-terminal
barge and rail infrastructure
• Pricing of moves to inland
transport modes
• Information flow
• Extended gate solutions
The Charthouse Group
Going intermodal
Linking pricing and non-pricing levers
across transport nodes and modes
Pricing levers
Port
pricing
Non-pricing levers
Port
service
level
Pricing linkages
Service level linkages
Rail or
barge
service
level
Rail or
barge
pricing
Inland
port
pricing
Source: Notteboom (2011)
Pricing/service level
linkages at same
mode/node
Pricing/service level
linkages between
modes/nodes
Inland
port
service
level
The Charthouse Group
Ay caramba!
Can I handle
the load?
THE NEXT BOX WAVE OR THE NEXT BOX
CRASH?
The Charthouse Group
Conclusion: Which Growth for Which Box?
Derived
Substitution
Incidental
Induced
The Charthouse Group
Thank you for your attention !
theo.notteboom@ua.ac.be
jean-paul.rodrigue@hofstra.edu
The Charthouse Group