“Flowpolis: The Form of Nodal Space”
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, November 2-4 2006
Intermodal Transportation
and Integrated Transport
Systems: Spaces,
Networks and Flows
Jean-Paul Rodrigue
Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics &
Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA
“There’s no business like flow business”
Email: ecojpr@hofstra.edu
Paper available at:
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue
Spaces, Networks and Flows in a Global
Economy
■ Globalization; a clustered and
spatially diffused process
• In terms of production and
consumption.
• Distribution is reconciling
spatially diverse demands for
raw materials, parts and finished
goods.
■ The backbone of globalization
• Networks are established to
support distribution.
• Nodes are regulating the flows
within networks.
• As international trade increases,
nodes have become strategic
locations.
The Emergence of a Nodal Space: First
Phase
■ The Transshipment Node
Load Break
Industrial
cluster
Warehousing lag
• Conventional international trade
environment.
• Some mobility of raw materials,
parts and finished goods.
• Many impediments (tariffs and
regulations).
• Trade as an attempt to cope with
scarcity.
• Nodes as constrained
locations for transshipment.
• Load break functions.
• Industrial clusters next to rail
yards.
• Port industrial complexes.
North America
Harbor Types of the World's Large and
Medium Sized Ports
Coastal Natural
Coastal Breakwater
Coastal Tide Gate
Open Roadstead
River Natural
River Basin
River Tide Gate
Lake or Canal
Japan
Western Europe
Coastal Natural
Coastal Breakwater
River Basins
River Tide Gates
Coastal Tide Gates
River Natural
Canal or Lake
Open Roadstead
The Emergence of a Nodal Space: Second
Phase
‘First mile’
Composition
Transport Chain
Transfer
Interchange
Decomposition
‘Last mile’
■ The Intermodal Node
• Higher mobility of the factors of
production (particularly capital).
• Better realization of comparative
advantages (mainly labor).
• Strengthening of the
transactional and legal setting.
• Emergence of intermodal
transportation, mainly
containerization.
• Nodes as locations promoting
the efficiency of different
transport networks.
• New terminals and new
locations.
• Increased velocity of the flows.
The North American Landbridge
The North American Landbridge
Fraser
Vancouver
Tacoma
Seattle
Halifax
Montreal
Portland
Minneapolis
Chicago
Salt Lake City
New York/New Jersey
Baltimore
Wilmington
Oakland
Kansas CIty
Hampton Roads
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Charleston
Savannah
El Paso
Jacksonville
Houston
New Orleans
Miami
Port Everglades
Altamira
Major Container Port
Major Rail Freight Distribution Center
Manzanillo
American Landbridge
Veracruz
Canadian Landbridge
Mexican Landbridge
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
The Emergence of a Nodal Space: Third
Phase
Flows
Network
Bulk shipping
Stage
■ The Logistical Node
Parts and raw
materials
Transport Chain
Supply Chain
High volumes
Low frequency
Unit shipping
Manufacturing
and assembly
Average volumes
High frequency
LTL shipping
Distribution
Low volumes
High frequency
Market
GPN
Market
• Fast growth of international trade
with the full realization of
comparative advantages.
• Geographical and functional
integration of production,
distribution and consumption.
• Commodity / Supply Chains.
• Transportation integrated in the
production / retailing process.
• Global Production Networks
(GPN).
• Nodes as logistical poles
where value added activities
are performed.
• Entirely new nodal locations.
Traffic at the 50 Largest Container Ports,
2003
Tacoma
Los Angeles
Hampton Roads
New York/New Jersey
Oakland
Charleston
Long Beach
Jeddah
San Juan
Dubai
Salalah Nhava Sheva
Colombo
Less than 2 million TEU
2 to 4 million TEU
4 to 7 million TEU
7 to 10 million TEU
Melbourne
More than 10 million TEU
Pacific Asia
Laem Chabang
Hong Kong
Port Kalang
Tanjung Pelepas
Singapore
Felixstowe
Europe
Antwerp
LeHavre
Quingdao
Guangzhou
Shenzhen Xiamen
Keelung
Kaohsiung
Tanjung Priok
Ningbo Shanghai
Busan
Osaka
Nagoya
Genoa
Barcelona
Kobe
Tokyo
Manila
Tanjung Perak
Tianjin
Dalian
Hamburg
Rotterdam Bremen/Bremerhafen
Valencia
Algeciras
Gioia Tauro
Piraeus
Nodes as Central and Intermediate
Locations
■ Gateways & hubs
Intermodal
Global
Gateway
Local
Regional
Centrality
Intermediacy
Transmodal
• Nodes offering an accessibility to a
large system of circulation.
• Obligatory (semi) points of
passage.
• Convergence of transport
corridors.
• Centrality and intermediacy.
■ Gateways
• Favorable physical location.
• Intermodal and stable in time.
■ Hubs
Hub
• Transmodal and subject to change.
• Commercial decisions.
• Delays vs. frequency of services.
Modal Gateways: Spaces of Flows
Land
■ Context
Logistics
• The logistical node is being
regionalized.
Border
Air
■ Land
Manufacturing
• Linked with borders.
• Often a simple transit function.
• Respective specialization.
■ Air
• Linked with metropolitan areas.
• Centrality and intermediacy.
■ Maritime
Maritime
• Linked with locations (sites) and
hinterlands.
• Integration with inland freight
distribution centers.
Major US Modal Gateways, 2004
Air Gateways
Exports
Land Gateways
Imports
Port of Blaine
$68 Billion
$64 Billion
Seattle-Tacoma International
Port of Seattle
Exports Port Gateways
Exports
Imports
Imports
$81 Billion
Port of Sweetgrass
Port of Pembina
Port of Tacoma
Port of Champlain-Rouses Pt.
Port of Portland
Port of Alexandria Bay
Port of Buffalo-Niagara FallsBoston Logan Airport
Port of Huron
Chicago
JFK International Airport
Port of Detroit Cleveland
Port of New York
San Francisco International Airpor
Port of Philadelphia
Port of Oakland
Port of Baltimore
Port of Norfolk Harbor
Los Angeles International Airport
Atlanta
Port of Los AngelesPort of Calexico-East
Port of Otay Mesa Station
Port of Nogales
Port of El Paso
Dallas-Fort Worth
Port of Charleston
Port of Long Beach
New Orleans
Port of Morgan City
Port of Laredo
Port of Savannah
Port of Jacksonville
Port of Beaumont Port of New Orleans
Port of Houston
Miami International Airport,
Port of Corpus Christi
Port of Brownsville-Cameron
Port of Hidalgo
Port of Port EvergladesPort of Miami
The Three Main Gateways of North America
Gateway
System
Gateways
Southern
California
Port of Los Angeles, Port of
18.3%
Long Beach, Los Angeles
International Airport, Otay Mesa
(Port of Entry)
$255.9
$77.8
New York / JFK International Airport, Port of 13.1%
New Jersey New York / New Jersey
$163.0
$75.8
Detroit
$97.9
$81.8
Detroit (Port of Entry), Huron
(Port of Entry)
Total
Imports / Exports
share (%) ($ billions) 2004
9.8%
Integrated Transport Systems: From
Fragmentation to Coordination
Factor
Cause
Consequence
Technology
Containerization & IT
Modal and intermodal
innovations; Tracking
shipments and managing fleets
Capital investments
Returns on
investments
Highs costs and long
amortization; Improve utilization
to lessen capital costs
Alliances and M & A
Deregulation
Easier contractual agreements;
joint ownership
Commodity chains
Globalization
Coordination of transportation
and production (integrated
demand)
Networks
Consolidation and
interconnection
Multiplying effect
Integrated Transport Systems: Intermodal
and Transmodal Operations
Intermodal operations Transmodal operations
Port container yard
Intermodal Terminal
MARITIME
On-dock rail
RAIL
Transloading
ROAD
DCs / CD
Thruport
Ship-to-ship
Integrated Freight Transport System
Three Emerging Nodal Spaces Supporting
Transmodal Flows
■ Transmodal Road
Modal segment
• Assumed by distribution centers.
• High potential for added value.
• From inventory management to flow
management.
■ Transmodal Rail
Added value
Time and cost savings
• Least investigated segment.
• Containerization forced integration
between rail systems.
■ Transmodal Maritime
• Offshore hubs.
• Transshipment-only terminals at
intermediate locations.
Modal segment
■ How transmodal nodes are inserted
within freight distribution systems?
Cross-Docking Distribution Center
Distribution Center
Suppliers
Before Cross-Docking
Suppliers
LTL
Receiving
Sorting
Customers
After Cross-Docking
Shipping
TL
Cross-Docking
DC
TL
Customers
UPS Willow Springs Distribution Center,
Chicago
Rail Transmodal Operations: The Thruport
■ Market fragmentation
• Mainly retail / consumption related.
• Reconcile the high volume
requirements of markets with the
time sensitive requirements of
distribution.
Thruport
Gateway
■ Ownership fragmentation
D
C
B
A
• Rail companies have their facilities
and customers.
• They have their own markets along
the segments they control.
• Interchange is the major problem.
• The distribution potential of each
operator is expanded.
• Network alliances.
Minneapolis / St. Paul
13.98 M TEU
Chicago
Kansas City
St. Louis
Memphis
Dallas / Fort Worth
Mi-Jack Stack-Packer (Thruport Terminal)
Offshore Hubs: A New Nodality
■ Offshore hubs
Pendulum
Route B
Short Sea
Shipping
Offshore Hub
Pendulum
Route A
• Dilemma between market coverage
and operational efficiency.
• An adaptation of shipping routes.
• Improvement in the frequency and
the timeliness of services.
• Emergence of new nodes at strategic
locations.
■ Major factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
Location.
Depth.
Land availability.
Labor costs.
Hinterland access.
Ownership.
Ports with the Highest Transshipment
Function, 2004
0
5
Port Klang
2.6
Dubai
Piraeus
5.3
25
Transshipment share
Volume (M TEU)
55%
0.6
57%
57%
0.9
1.4
Colombo
20
50%
3.2
Sharjah
15
50%
Kaohsiung
Las Palmas
10
70%
1.6
Panama (2)
72%
81%
1.9
Algeciras
2.5
85%
Taranto
0.7
86%
Kingston
1
86%
Damietta
1
Malta
Cagliari
Port Said
87%
90%
1.4
0.5
90%
0.7
90%
Singapore
Salalah
2.1
Gioia Tauro
30%
95%
3.1
Tanjung Pelepas
Freeport
91%
19.4
95%
96%
3.3
1.1
98%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Las Palmas: At the Crossroad of
Transatlantic Shipping
■ Emergence of an offshore hub
• Above 600,000 TEU (2005).
• An intermediacy node along major
maritime routes and major
markets; relay transshipment.
• Deviation effect:
Las Palmas
• Minimal for: circum-Africa /
Western Europe, Mediterranean /
Central America, Europe-Med. /
South America.
• Algeciras:
• Biggest competitor.
• Net advantage (low deviation) for
the Mediterranean / North
America route).
Global Port Operators: Using Nodes to
Control Global Flows
■ A change in emphasis
• Conventional perspective based on geostrategy:
• “Whosoever commands the sea commands trade;
whosoever commands the trade of the world
commands the riches of the world, and consequently
the world itself”. Sir Walter Raleigh (c1610).
• An emerging perspective based on accessibility,
flows and commercial interests.
• Controlling terminals and the major gateways of
the global economy:
• Through alliances and investments.
• Deriving wealth through added value extracted from
global flows.
• A “nodal strategy” where stake holding is based on
locations along major commodity chains.
Global Port Operators: Using Nodes to
Control Global Flows
■ Horizontal integration using fixed
assets
• Gain a foothold in a wide variety of
markets.
• Financial assets.
• Managerial expertise.
• Gateway access.
• Leverage.
• Traffic capture.
• Global perspective.
Global Port Terminal Ownership, 2001
Other Private
Port Authorities
Ocean Carriers
Global Port
Holdings
0
10
20
30
40
Share of global port container throughput
Share of global terminal ownership
50
Major Port Holdings, 2006
APM Terminals
Dubai Ports World
Hutchison Port Holdings
Peninsular and Oriental Ports
Port of Singapore Authority
Pacific Asia
Europe
Conclusion: Emergence of a Global Nodal
Space
■ The logistical node
• Central and intermediate locations; gateways or hubs.
• Geographical and functional integration brought by the
emergence of global production networks:
• Extension and complexity.
• Control and synchronization of flows.
• Effectively captures and adds value within global supply chains.
• Competition (between and within nodes).
■ Challenges and opportunities
•
•
•
•
Congestion (offshore hubs and port regionalization).
Integration (intermodal and transmodal).
Energy prices (logistical friction).
Macro-economic changes (trade imbalances).