University of Gothenburg, School of Business, Economics and Law,
March 1, 2013
Global Containerized Maritime
Shipping: Emergence and
Divergence
Jean-Paul Rodrigue
Professor, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography,
Hofstra University, New York, USA
THE EMERGENCE OF
CONTAINERIZATION
Density of Ship Log Entries, 1750-1810
Maritime Shipping Routes and Strategic Locations
The Container as a Transport, Production and
Distribution Unit
Transport
Modes, terminals, intermodal
and transmodal operations
Production
Synchronization of inputs and
outputs (batches)
Distribution
Flow management (timebased), warehousing unit
Diffusion Cycle of Containerization
Diffusion Level
Niche markets
Massive diffusion
Network complexities
New (niche) services
Productivity gains
Network development
Productivity multipliers
Time
Containerization as a Diffusion Cycle: World Container
Traffic (1980-2011) and Scenarios to 2015
1000
900
Adoption
Acceleration
Peak Growth
1966-1992
1992-2002
2002-2008
Maturity
2008 Reference
800
Million TEU
700
600
Divergence
Depression
500
400
300
200
100
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
The K-Wave of Containerization
K-Wave
Traffic
A
Phase (Wave)
B
Maturity
Acceleration
Adoption
Peak Growth
Time
(Decades)
Transition (A)
Seasonal Cycle (B)
Years
Source: Guerrero and Rodrigue (2013)
Months
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis Parameters of Global
Container Ports, 1970-2010
Dissimilarity per number of classes
Dissimilarity dendrogram for 7 classes
10
6.74
E
9
7.52
D.2
8
9.36
D.1
7
10.20
C
6
B.2
16.10
5
B.1
18.92
A
4
30.69
3
31.50
2
High
58.06
0
20
40
Source: Guerrero and Rodrigue (2013)
60
80
Dissimilarity Level
Low
Fifth
Wave
Fourth
Wave
Third
Wave
Second
Wave
First
Wave
The First Wave of Containerization, 1970 – The Pioneers of the Triad
Pioneer ports setting
containerized operations in the
economic triad (North America,
Western Europe, Australia and
Japan).
Driver: Trade substitution
Source: Guerrero and Rodrigue (2013)
The Second Wave of Containerization, 1980 – Adoption in the Triad and its Periphery
Expansion of the triad and its
trade partners (Caribbean,
Mediterranean, Asian Tigers).
Driver: Adoption of
containerization
Source: Guerrero and Rodrigue (2013)
The Third Wave of Containerization, 1990 – Global Diffusion
Large diffusion in new
markets (Latin America,
Middle East / South Asia,
Southeast Asia).
Driver: Setting of global
supply chains. Setting of
transshipment hubs.
Source: Guerrero and Rodrigue (2013)
The Fourth Wave of Containerization, 2000 – Global Standard
The container as the
standard transport support
of the global economy.
Driver: Expansion of global
supply chains. China and
transshipment hubs.
Source: Guerrero and Rodrigue (2013)
The Fifth Wave of Containerization, 2010 – Peak Growth
Peak growth and the setting
of niches.
Driver: Spillover effect
and new transshipment
hubs.
Source: Guerrero and Rodrigue (2013)
Waves of Containerization, 1970-2010
Each wave lasts 8 to 10 years.
Hierarchical diffusion pattern.
Source: Guerrero and Rodrigue (2013)
DIVERGENCE: GLOBAL TERMINAL
OPERATORS AND TRANSSHIPMENT
HUBS
Typology of Global Port Operators
Stevedores
Horizontal integration (Port operations is the core business; Investment in
container terminals for expansion and diversification).
Expansion through direct investment.
PSA (Public), HPH (Private), HHLA (Public), Eurogate (Private), ICTSI (Private),
SSA (Private).
Maritime Shipping Companies
Vertical integration (Maritime shipping is the main business; Investment in
container terminals as a support function).
Expansion through direct investment or through parent companies.
APM (Private), COSCO (Public), MSC (Private), APL (Private), Hanjin (Private),
Evergreen (Private).
Financial Holdings
Portfolio diversification (Financial assets management is the main business;
Investment in container terminals for valuation and revenue generation).
Expansion through acquisitions, mergers and reorganization of assets.
DPW (Sovereign Wealth Fund), Ports America (AIG; Fund), RREEF (Deutsche Bank;
Fund), Macquarie Infrastructure (Fund), Morgan Stanley Infrastructure (Fund).
Factors behind the Interest of Equity Firms in
Transport Terminals
Asset (Intrinsic value)
Globalization made terminal assets more valuable.
Terminals occupy premium locations (waterfront) that cannot be substituted.
Traffic growth linked with valuation; same amount of land generates a higher
income.
Terminals as fairly liquid assets (perception).
Source of income (Operational value)
Income (rent) linked with traffic volume.
Constant revenue stream with limited, or predictable, seasonality.
Traffic growth expectations result in income growth expectations.
Diversification (Risk mitigation value)
Sectorial and geographical asset diversification.
Terminals at different locations help mitigate risks linked with a specific regional
or national market.
Top Twelve Global Container Terminal Operators by
Equity-Based Throughput, 2010
Evergreen
7.0
SSA Marine
7.5
Modern Terminals
8.0
Ports America
8.1
China Merchants
8.9
MSC
9.9
COSCO
13.6
SPIG
19.5
APM Terminals
31.6
DPW
32.6
Hutchison Port Holdings
36.0
PSA
51.3
0
10
20
30
40
Million TEUs (2010)
50
60
Container Terminal Surface of the World's Major
Port Holdings, 2010
Container Terminals of the Four Major Port
Holdings, 2010
The Insertion of Intermediate Hub Terminals
85% of Transshipment Traffic
15% of Transshipment Traffic
Transshipment Volume and Incidence by Major
Ports, 2007-09
Asia – Mediterranean Corridor
Caribbean
Transshipment
Triangle
Northern Range
East Asia Cluster
Gateways and Transshipment Hubs: Different
Dynamics
Monthly Container Traffic (Jan 2005 =100)
CHALLENGES TO
CONTAINERIZATION
An Expected Shift in Containerization Growth
Factors
Derived
Substitution
Incidental
Induced
Economic and
income growth
Globalization
(outsourcing)
Fragmentation of
production and
consumption
Functional and
geographical
diffusion
New niches
(commodities
and cold chain)
Capture of bulk
and break-bulk
markets
Trade
imbalances
Repositioning of
empty containers
Transshipment
(hub, relay and
interlining)
Evolution of Containerships
Early Containerships (1956-)
A
500 – 800 TEU
(LOA – Beam – Draft)
137x17x9
Fully Cellular (1970-)
E
8
13
B
13
6
15
5
300x43x14.5
New Panamax (2014-)
366x49x15.2
17
C
6
10
12,500 TEU
20
6
D
397x56x15.5 ; 22–10–8 (not shown)
15,000 TEU
18,000 TEU
6
5
9
Post Panamax Plus (2000-)
Triple E (2013-)
4 containers high below deck
285x40x13
4,000 – 5,000 TEU
Post New Panamax (2006-)
A
10
9
6,000 – 8,000 TEU
D
5
4
290x32x12.5
Post Panamax (1988-)
C
8
6 containers across
4 containers high on deck
250x32x12.5
3,000 – 3,400 TEU
3,400 – 4,500 TEU
6
215x20x10
Panamax (1980-)
Panamax Max (1985-)
4
200x20x9
1,000 – 2,500 TEU
B
4
10
400x59x15.5
8
23
E
The Largest Available Containership, 1970-2013 (in
TEUs)
“Triple E” Class
(18,000 TEU)
20,000
18,000
16,000
E “Emma” Class
(12,500 TEU)
Ship Size in TEU
14,000
12,000
10,000
S “Sovereign” Class
(8,000 TEU)
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
L “Lica” Class
(3,400 TEU)
R “Regina” Class
(6,000 TEU)
Potential Impacts of Larger Containerships on
Maritime Transport Systems
Shipping Network
• Cascading of ship assets; Less port of call options;
Changes in the frequency of services; Increase in
transshipment.
Port Operations
• Dredging; Improved equipment; More yard storage.
Hinterland
• Increased congestion; Pressure to invest in
infrastructures; Modal shift; Setting of inland ports.
Fuel Consumption by Containership Size and Speed
400
350
Extra Slow
Steaming
Normal
Speed
Slow
Steaming
Fuel Consumption (Tons per day)
300
Ship Size (TEU)
250
4,000-5,000
5,000-6,000
200
7,000-8,000
8,000-9,000
150
9,000-10,000
10,000+
100
50
0
17
18
19
20
Source: adapted from Notteboom and Carriou (2009)
21
22
Speed (Knots)
23
24
25
Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade
Routes, 1995-2011 (in millions of TEUs)
2011
12.7
6.0
14.1
2010
12.8
6.0
13.5
2009
10.6
6.1
2008
13.4
2007
13.5
2006
13.2
2005
2004
9.0
2002
8.4
11.2
8.2
5.1
3.8
7.4
3.4
4.7
2.5 1.6 2.6
2000
7.3
3.5
4.7
2.5 1.7 2.7
6.1
1998
2.9
5.4
2.9
3.9
3.6
1996
4.0
3.6
2.6
1995
4.0
3.5
2.4 2.0 1.7 1.7
0
5
3.0
10
3.5
3.7
3.0
Asia-North America
North America-Asia
Asia-Europe
Europe-Asia
North America-Europe
Europe-North America
2.3 1.7 2.1
2.2 1.6 1.7
15
2.4
3.3
3.3
2.1 1.7 2.3
4.6
3.3
3.7
2.3 1.5 2.4
1997
3.5
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.8
2.6 1.4 2.6
2001
1999
4.4
4.3
6.9
3.4
4.5
9.3
4.1
3.6
5.0
2.8
2.5
5.2
13.0
4.5
3.1
2.8
13.5
4.7
10.6
2003
5.5
5.3
3.4
5.6
11.5
6.9
11.9
6.2
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Average Container Usage during its Life-Span
16%
16%
56%
6%
6%
Ocean Transit
Terminal
Inland Use
Repair
Idle or Empty Repositioning
Why Hinterland Transportation Matters? The Space /
Cost Dichotomy of Forelands and Hinterlands
10%
Port
80%
90%
HINTERLAND
FORELAND
20%
Distance
Costs
The Inland Logistics Challenge: The “Last Mile” in
Freight Distribution
Capacity
Funnel
Frequency
Funnel
Inland Terminal
HINTERLAND
Capacity
Gap
Frequency
Gap
GATEWAY
FORELAND
Economies of scale
Main Shipping Lane
INTERMEDIATE HUB
Main Routing Alternatives between the Pacific and
Atlantic
Main Routing Alternatives between East Asia and
Northern Europe
Conclusion: Potential Structure of the Global
Container Transport System