Hub and hinterland development in the BSR - TransBaltic

Towards an integrated transport system in the Baltic Sea Region
Case Study
on
HUB-AND-HINTERLAND DEVELOPMENT
IN THE BALTIC SEA REGION
Task 4.3 Sustainable Transport and Green Corridors
Task 4.3 leader:
Mrs Urszula Kowalczyk
Maritime Institute in Gdansk
Email: urszula.kowalczyk@im.gda.pl
Gdansk, Poland 2012
1

The study report is a part of activities in Task 4.3 (Sustainable Transport and Green Corridors)
within the framework of the TransBaltic Project
Gdansk, Poland 2012
The case study was compiled by:
Maritime Institute in Gdansk, Poland,
MIG – Maritime Institute in Gdansk, Poland
Marcin Burchacz
Urszula Kowalczyk
Witold Kuszewski
Karolina Sienkiewicz
Barbara Szwankowska
based on various sources including other TransBaltic Project Partners contribution:
1. Region Skåne
2. Region Västerbotten
3. Region Västra Götaland
4. TUHH – Hamburg University of Technology, Institute for Transport Planning and
Logistics, Germany
TransBaltic is co-financed by EU Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 with Region Skåne as Lead Partner
2

Table of contents
Table of contents ...................................................................................... 3
Table of figures ........................................................................................ 5
Introduction ............................................................................................. 7
1. Seaports as a nodal points of the Baltic Sea Region transport network ............... 9
1.1 Development factors behind Baltic seaports expansion .................................9
1.2 Accessibility challenges for container traffic development
in the Baltic Sea Region .................................................................... 13
1.3 Green corridor approach in the development and function of nodal points. ....... 20
2. Hub-hinterland operations by the Port of Göteborg and Hamburg related to BSR . 24
2.1 General remarks ............................................................................. 24
2.2 Rail shuttle system in the hinterland of the Port of Göteborg ....................... 25
2.3 Rail shuttle services in the hinterland of Port of Hamburg ........................... 32
2.4 Main conditions for development of intermodal network in the port hinterland .. 38
3. Container hub development: Port of Gdansk .............................................. 43
3.1 Main characteristics of the Port of Gdansk .............................................. 43
3.2 Development of containerisation in Poland
and in the Gdansk seaport – Deepwater Container Terminal ......................... 46
3.3 Pomeranian Logistics Centre – PLC ....................................................... 53
3

4. Container hub development: Port of Ust-Luga ............................................ 56
4.1 Russian Baltic Ports in national transport development strategy .................... 56
4.2 The Greater Port of St. Petersburg ....................................................... 58
4.3 Development of new locations ............................................................ 61
4.4 Development of Ust-Luga sea port ........................................................ 64
4.5 Russian Container market .................................................................. 70
4.6 Container handling facilities in the Ust-Luga seaport .................................. 72
4.7 Ust-Luga Logistics Centre .................................................................. 73
5. Conclusions and recommendations. ......................................................... 77
Literature .............................................................................................. 83
4

Table of figures
Fig. 1. Network of Baltic maritime ports ..........................................................9
Fig. 2. Trans-European transport network (TEN-T) — Priority axes and projects .......... 12
Fig. 3. Port of Göteborg and its hinterland and foreland connections ...................... 26
Fig. 4. The Port of Göteborg rail shuttle system ................................................ 27
Fig. 5. Location schematic of Nordic Logistics Centre towards infrastructure network .. 30
Fig. 6. Nordic Logistics Centre .................................................................... 31
Fig. 7. Direct trains to/from Umeå ............................................................... 32
Fig. 8. Port of Hamburg hinterland connections ................................................ 34
Fig. 9. POLZUG potential and existing rail routes in the Far East direction ................ 36
Fig. 10. Rail shuttle trains servicing Hamburg Port and its hinterland destinations ...... 37
Fig. 11. Port of Gdansk ............................................................................ 43
Fig. 12. Development of the global and the Baltic container market. ..................... 47
Fig. 13. Visualisation of DCT Gdansk container capacity development project. .......... 48
Fig. 14. Overseas routes Port of Gdansk – Shanghai ........................................... 49
Fig. 15. Current and planned container turnover in DCT Gdansk ........................... 49
Fig. 16. Delivery cost for a Polish import 2011 ................................................ 50
Fig. 17. Traditional liner shipping patterns .................................................... 51
Fig. 18. Pomeranian Logistics Centre ........................................................... 54
Fig. 19. Visualisation of Industrial-Logistics Park in Gdansk by the Goodman Company . 55
Fig. 20. Cargo throughput in Russian Baltic Ports (in thous. Tonnes) ...................... 56
Fig. 21. Port of St Petersburg turnover in 2006 -2009 ........................................ 61
Fig. 22. Seaports around Sankt Petersburg ..................................................... 62
Fig. 23. Seaport St. Petersburg - Bronka Container Terminal ............................... 62
Fig. 24. Location of Ust-Luga Port ............................................................... 65
5

Fig. 25. Commercial Port Ust-Luga – Layout ................................................... 66
Fig. 26. Universal Cargo Terminal ............................................................... 67
Fig. 27. Auto-Railway Ferry Complex (Client / Operator – Ust-Luga Branch FSUE
Rosmorpor) ............................................................................................. 68
Fig. 28. Multipurpose Terminal Yug-2 ........................................................... 69
Fig. 29. Russian container market ............................................................... 70
Fig. 30. Top-10 East Baltic container ports (TEU) ............................................. 71
Fig. 31. Ust-Luga container terminal investment plan........................................ 72
Fig. 32. Ust-Luga Container Terminal (Client / Operator – Baltic Container Terminal,
Public JSC ) ............................................................................................. 73
Fig. 33. Other investments accompanying the construction of Ust-Luga. ................. 74
Fig. 34. Ust-Luga Logistic Centre ................................................................ 74
Fig. 35. Railway access to the Ust-Luga port (Outline)....................................... 75
Fig. 36. Road access to the Ust-Luga port ...................................................... 75
6

Introduction
Ports represent a complex geographical relationship with various markets. Traditionally,
the hinterland of a port was physically captive, as shippers experienced few choices
regarding moving cargo to and from markets. With increasingly efficient inland transport
infrastructure, physical distance is no longer the sole criterion for a hinterland. Now the
port's potential hinterland can be defined as the area that can be reached at a cheaper
cost or shorter time than from another port. As a result, hinterlands overlap. Therefore
ports and carriage providers compete to service locations in these overlapping segments.
With the emergence of inland terminals, inland ports and dry ports, hinterlands are now
extended even further inland, adding to the complexity of the analysis of port economics
and logistics activities.
The objective of this study report was to present findings on Baltic hub and hinterland
developments focusing on Western Baltic ports of Göteborg and Hamburg, Southern Baltic
port of Gdansk and Russian port St. Petersburg, particularly its outer extension Ust-Luga.
Due to the recent economic slowdown, there has been a significant decline in
containerised cargo flows. However, in overall terms, the cargo throughput at Russian,
Polish and other mid and eastern Baltic ports has continued to increase over the last year,
even if the dynamics was rather moderate. And despite the risk of the prolonged negative
consequences of the crisis, there are likely to be many opportunities associated with the
Baltic ports development as this study attempts to prove.
Main topic areas of the study include:
Development factors behind Baltic seaports expansion,
Accessibility challenges for container traffic development in the Baltic Sea
Region,
Hub-hinterland operations by the Port of Göteborg and Hamburg,
Main conditions for development of intermodal network in the port
hinterland,
Container hub development: Ports of Gdansk and Ust-Luga
The report was compiled by the team of Maritime Institute in Gdansk in cooperation with
TransBaltic project partners within the framework of task 4.3 Sustainable Transport and
Green Corridors. It gives an overview of the current market conditions and opportunities in
7

the Baltic ports sector, focusing on the impact of global trends on the Baltic cargo flows
and hubs development in the frame global transport-logistics chains development. The
case studies were concentrated on ports with greatest development potential based on
their hinterland links with selected ports. The information was gathered during direct
meetings with maritime sector professionals, various debates and conferences and
complemented with the analysis of the existing publications.
8

1. Seaports as a nodal points of the Baltic Sea Region transport
network
1.1 Development factors behind Baltic seaports expansion
The Baltic Sea Region port system as well as European port system is versatile,
multifunctional organism, which features well-established large ports and a whole range of
medium-sized and smaller ports, each with its individual characteristics in terms of
hinterland markets served, cargo handled and unique location features. This exceptional
blend of different port types and sizes combined with a vast economic hinterland shapes
port significance and competition in the region. In order to fully benefit from the maritime
potential of the Baltic economy, some development factors and opportunities should be
taken into account.
Fig. 1. Network of Baltic maritime ports
source: Baltic Port Outlook 2030, BPO
In the early 1990s the Baltic ports started to witness a significant transition, triggered
initially by change in the political environment, which accelerated in the late 1990s. The
regions ports got embedded in the ever-changing economic and logistics systems and were

confronted with changing port governance structures as a result of globalization
processes 1 .
In Europe itself, the important factor of change was the increase in the number of Member
States of the European Union from 15 in the mid 1990s to 27 at present. Economic centres
in East and Central Europe as well as the Scandinavian region have taken up an important
position next to the traditional economic core of Europe. The increased participation of
these regions on the European economic scene opened possibilities for new transshipment
centres and inland transport corridors to emerge.
During the second half of the 1990s, the Europe – Far East trade became the most
important international trade route. The so called China factor had its full effect on liner
shipping and reoriented the focus of many container ports towards the East. This implied a
shift from the Atlantic Rim to the Suez route, thereby providing opportunity also for the
Baltic ports to participate in these trade flows.
Also only in 1996 started the exploitation of large post-panamax container vessels with the
introduction of the Regina Maersk with its official capacity of 6500 TEU 2 , which till now
have grown up to the capacity of 13 500 TEU of and more. Post-panamax vessels are
mainly operated on the Europe - Far East routes. Even more importantly, rapid vessel
developments have increased pressures on nautical access parameters and port handling
times which on the whole reduces the number of port calls per liner service and gives a
extra competitive edge to coastal deepwater ports such as Hamburg, Göteborg or Gdansk.
At the same time, logistics service providers, shipping lines and terminal operators have
gone through an unprecedented wave of consolidations. This has led to powerful global
terminal networks, carrier groups and third party logistics service providers to emerge.
This process was further enhanced by vertical integration strategies of many market
players contributing to the emergence of global carriers. As a result European seaports
increasingly have to deal with large port clients who possess a strong bargaining power in
relation to terminal operations and inland transport operations. The purchasing power of
large market players, reinforced by strategic alliances between them, is used to exercise
pressure on a port or group of ports 3 .
1 Notteboom, T.:Spatial dynamics in the container load centres of the Le Havre–Hamburg range. Zeitschrift für
Wirtschaftsgeographie 51 (2) 2007
2 Olivier, D., Slack, B.:Rethinking the port. Environmental Planning A38(8), 2006
3 Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W.:Structural changes in logistics: how will port authorities face the challenge?
Maritime Policy and Management 28(1), 2001
10

On the other hand, the European port system including the Baltic ports has been witnessing
an inflow of global terminal operators since the mid 1990s. Global companies such as DP
World from Dubai, PSA from Singapore, APM Terminals from Denmark and Hutchison Port
Holdings from Hong Kong have entered the European container handling business 4 . The
entry of large terminal groups has been supported by lower entry barriers following the use
of more open and transparent procedures used by port authorities or government agencies
with respect to the awarding of sea port sites to private terminal operators.
There can be also observed some significant advances in inland transport of the European
port system. European Transport Policy featuring modal shift and co-modality has been
implemented in order to stimulate the use of inland waterways, rail and short-sea
shipping. Rail transport has been liberalised in Europe through a series of EU Directives and
Regulations following the initial Directive 5 . The process has been slow in many countries,
but most European countries have already witnessed entrance of newcomers in the rail
industry market. The European Commission is also supporting the development of short-sea
shipping. The EC‘s short-sea policy is supported by the creation of Motorways of the Sea
(MoS) and funding mechanisms like the Marco Polo Program. The Commission has also set a
clear policy objective to remove any remaining administrative obstacles towards the
creation of an EU maritime space, which in effect will facilitate development of coherent
regional Baltic transport system with seaports as nodal points of the network.
Moreover, major changes have taken place in port governance around Europe. Port
authorities have gained a more autonomous status via commercialization and privatization
processes that were considered vital in view of decreasing efficiency and competitiveness
of the ports. The European Commission has taken steps towards a European port policy in
the beginning of 2000s and it has created a more European perspective on port and
transport policy issues in particular concerning port tariffs and financing, market access,
environmental regulation and the development of the trans-European transport network
(TEN-T) 6 .
4 Annual Review of Global Container Terminal Operators, Drewry Shipping Consultants, London, 2007
5 see the TransBaltic project report on „Implications of EU transport policy on development of sustainable
transport in the Baltic Sea Region‖, Gdansk, Poland 2010
6 Verhoeven P.:European ports policy: meeting contemporary governance challenges. Maritime Policy and
Management 36(1), 2009
11

Fig. 2. Trans-European transport network (TEN-T) — Priority axes and projects
Source: EuroGeographics 2001 for the administrative boundaries.
Finally, ports need to comply with ever higher regulatory and social requirements in the
field of environmental protection (e.g. the EC‘s Birds and Habitats Directives and the
Water Framework Directive), safety and security (e.g. the ISPS code). Rising environmental
and social concerns combined with complex environmental legislation result in time
consuming and complex port planning processes. Port authorities and port companies must
demonstrate a high level of environmental performance in order to ensure community
support and keep a license to operate. However, a ‗green‘ port management also plays an
increasing role in attracting trading partners and potential investors. Seaports with a
strong environmental and security record and a high level of community support are likely
to be favoured to win the competition 7 .
The above changes in the port environment have to a greater or lesser extent influenced
the competitive perspective for established transshipment centres, but at the same time
they have also enabled newcomers to enter the port and transport sector, potentially
affecting significance of seaports. All these global and European trends observed in the
7 Notteboom T.E.: Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container
port system: an update, Journal of Transport Geography, 2010
12

ecent years have also great impact on dynamic development of the Baltic ports and cargo
flows which results in economic growth of the entire region and the increase of its
importance as one of the global players.
1.2 Accessibility challenges for container traffic development in the
Baltic Sea Region
When analysing the hinterland extend and potential of the Baltic seaports we should view
the entire region as one of Europe‘s transport gateways. In a situation where there is no
cooperation between the ports and their activities, the hinterland is highly contestable as
several neighbouring transport gateways rival for the same cargo flows. The relevance of
using the transport gateway level is supported by the calling patterns in the liner service
networks of shipping lines and associated complementarity and competitive relationships
among the ports concerned and common hinterland among ports of the gateway 8 . The
economic and functional interactions between adjacent ports of the same gateway regions
are stronger and more complex in its nature.
In the last two decades port competition in Europe has intensified due to inland transport
corridor development which has allowed transshipment centres to access formerly captive
hinterland. Existing dense networks of direct rail and inland waterway shuttles to nearby
destinations are complemented by indirect inland services to more distant destinations
built around one or more inland hubs. Extensive cargo concentration on a selected few
links opens possibilities to benefit from economies of scale in inland shuttles through the
deployment of longer trains but even more likely to higher frequencies. Containers for the
more distant hinterland benefit from a port‘s strong local cargo base as local containers
often provide the critical mass for allowing frequent deep sea liner services 9 .
The rise of economic centres in the Baltic area has created opportunities to develop waterbased
and land-based transport networks which allow increased hinterland penetration.
This is largely benefited by port of Hamburg and Göteborg. Also new development
opportunities might arise for port systems in the Adriatic and the Black Sea as transport
gateways.
8 Notteboom T.: Complementarity and substitutability among adjacent gateway ports. Environment and
Planning A 41(3), 2009.
9 Notteboom T.E.: Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container
port system: an update, Journal of Transport Geography, 2010
13

Since large disputable hinterlands are increasingly being served not only by the ports of
one gateway region, but by several gateway regions, the establishment of transport
corridors induces change in the relationship between gateways and their hinterland. On
the one hand, the inland penetration strategy is part of maritime gateways‘ objective of
increasing their cargo base. On the other hand, interior regions are recognizing that it is in
their interest to establish efficient links to as many gateways as possible. For example, the
Czech Republic is upgrading rapidly its trans-European corridors in particular, those
connecting Germany with South-Eastern Europe. This strategy not only prevents these
regions from becoming dependent on one specific gateway, it also improves the
accessibility of these economic centres. Hence, the links to more gateways implies more
routing options and flexibility for shippers and logistics service providers who want to
establish business in the region.
The connectivity of the Baltic region to overseas trading areas primarily relies on feeder
services to hub ports in to/from North Sea ports. The existing close relationship between
the Baltic port system and the main ports in the North Sea, in particular Hamburg and
Bremerhaven, is a prime example of how ports in different regions can actively develop
their mutual interdependence. In the last couple of years, terminal development in the
Baltic Sea is characterised by capacity growth. Terminals in Poland are equipped to handle
relatively large container vessels, despite the fact that every substantial share of the
ports‘ container volumes is feedered. On the whole, Baltic ports are preparing to welcome
more direct calls of main line vessels. This is particularly felt in the port system at the
entrance of the Baltic at the straits of Kattegat and the Sound. Ports like Göteborg and
Aarhus are already acting as regular ports of call on a few intercontinental liner services.
While the seaports have a good position to act as transshipment point for the Baltic on
many trade routes, the insertion of these ports as regular ports of call on the Europe–Far
East trade is now a fact. The large vessel sizes deployed on this route, the associated
reduction in the number of ports of call and the additional diversion distance make regular
direct calls to the Baltic gateway region viable in comparison to other trade routes 10 .
In general, the dynamics in the transhipment business have implications on freight
distribution patterns in Europe. Seaports are increasingly functioning not as individual
places that handle ships but as parts of supply chains and networks. Market players show
an increased network orientation and aim to maximize network effects and synergies.
10 Notteboom T.: Complementarity and substitutability among adjacent gateway ports. Environment and
Planning, 2009
14

Moreover, the container handling market remains far more concentrated than other cargo
handling segments in the European port system, as there are strong market-related
incentives for maintaining a relatively high cargo concentration level in the container
sector. Connectivity effects and aggregated service quality effects at particular seaports
within the gateway mean that a ‗natural‘ gateway for a certain hinterland region is not
necessarily the port closest to that hinterland region.
Cargo flows on the main transport routes is shaping the hinterland access of gateway
regions. A certain level of traffic concentration in a seaport system is required in order to
allow a modal shift from road transport sector to high volume transport modes such as rail
and short-sea shipping. Europe‘s long coastline and its specific geographical characteristics
are clear invitations to further develop short-sea and feeder networks in the Baltic Sea
based on mutual dependence among ports in the same and different regions.
However, local or immediate hinterlands remain the backbone of ports‘ cargo bases.
Functional system of gateway ports is driving the dynamics in large logistics nodes. The
creation of these nodes poses new challenges in the relations between seaports and their
hinterland. The challenge remains to increase the share of co-modal transport solutions on
short distances. The significant role of local hinterlands to ports‘ traffic bases and the
existing functional interactions between gateway ports and inland centres in regionallybased
logistics nodes have become important structuring elements in the European
transport network.
Regions often recognize that it is in their interest to establish efficient links to more than
one transport gateway area. The connections to more gateways imply more routing options
and flexibility for shippers and logistics service providers who want to establish business in
these regions. This process fuels competition for distant hinterlands between gateway
regions. The need for a high level of flexibility is also reflected in the complex networks
designed by logistics actors and transport operators. The success of the port is strongly
affected by the ability of the port community to fully exploit synergies with other
transport nodes and other players within the logistics networks of which they are part. This
observation demands closer coordination with logistics actors outside the port area and a
more integrated approach to port infrastructure planning. Individual ports are or should
increasingly benefit from potential port synergies at the level of transport gateway
regions. This includes port regionalization processes, coordination actions and the
establishment of hinterland access regimes. Port authorities can be facilitate development
15

of the port-hinterland interface and the structuring of hinterland networks, even though
their direct impact on the routing of cargo flows is limited 11 .
Since seaports are involved in providing logistics services to transshipment cargo,
hinterland characteristics remain fundamentally important in terms of logistics
attractiveness. If ports are serving both their own hinterland and overseas markets, the
extent to which a corridor is developed influences the number of logistics facilities in the
port area that serve their own hinterland markets. For poorly developed hinterland
corridors, the port would be ideally located for logistics facilities targeted to the
hinterland, on top of the logistics centres that are based in the port area for serving
overseas markets. On the other hand, in case of well developed corridors, logistics
facilities for import/export cargo might move closer to consumption and production in the
hinterland.
The hinterland connections of ports that are served by feeder connections also affect the
location possibilities that companies had for logistics facilities. When a port tranships
cargo to smaller ports with a poorly developed hinterland, economies of scale and scope
would make this port particularly attractive for locating logistics facilities targeted to
those overseas areas. Thus, the overseas port and their hinterlands would likely have
relatively few logistics facilities. In contrast, when the overseas port had strongly
developed corridors serving larger parts of its own hinterland, that port actually reduced
the logistics attractiveness of the port through which it was feeding. Logistics facilities
would then be located either in the area surrounding the overseas port, or in its
hinterland. Overtime, when cargo throughputs in such ports increased, they might be
directly served 12 .
Moreover, as maritime containerised transport continues to increase, seaport access from
the hinterland is increasingly important for the efficiency of the transport chains as a
whole. An answer to this issue is a dry port concept which is based on a seaport directly
connected by rail with inland intermodal terminals where shippers can leave and/or
collect their cargo in intermodal loading units as if directly at the seaport. Services such as
storage, consolidation, depot, maintenance of containers, track and trace, customs
clearance, etc. are available at the dry port. The quality of the access to dry port and the
11 Notteboom T.E.: Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container
port system: an update, Journal of Transport Geography, 2010
12 Rodrigue J.P, Notteboom T.: Foreland-based regionalization: Integrating intermediate hubs with port
hinterlands, Research in Transportation Economics 27(2010), 2010
16

quality of the road-rail interface determines the dry port's performance. Scheduled and
reliable high- capacity transport to and from the seaport is therefore necessary. Thus, dry
ports are implemented with the aim of improving the situation resulting from increased
container flows, and a focus on security and control by the use of ICT tools 13 .
The dry port extends the gates of the seaport inland, with shippers viewing the dry port as
an interface to the seaport and shipping lines. Conventional hinterland transport is based
on numerous links by road and only a few by rail, which is generally limited to serving
major urban centres at relatively large distances from the seaport. The implementation of
a dry port concept reduces the number of transportation links from/to the seaport.
Implementation of a dry port in a seaport's immediate hinterland increases seaport's
terminal capacity and with it comes the potential to increase productivity since bigger
container ships will be able to call at the seaport. With dry port implementation seaport's
congestion from numerous lorries is avoided because one train can substitute about 35
lorries in Europe. With reduced number of lorries on the roads congestion, accidents, road
maintenance costs and local pollution are reduced as well. The benefits from distant dry
ports derive from the modal shift from road to rail, resulting in reduced congestion at the
seaport gates and its surroundings as well as reduced external environmental effects along
the route 14 .
With globalization, the function of transshipment hubs has become increasingly dominating
for long distance transport, particularly freight distributions. Hubs have been emerging
since the mid-1990s within many global and regional port systems. These hubs tend to
possess excellent nautical accessibilities, are located in close proximity to major liner
shipping routes, with some at the intersection of north – south and east – west routes to
accommodate cargo flows, and often possess land reserve for future expansion. Terminals
are typically owned, in whole or in part, by carriers or multinational terminal operators
which efficiently use these facilities. Yet, the hubs do not occur in all port systems, but
around specific regions ideally suited for maritime hub-and-spoke distribution pattern,
thanks to geographical, nautical and market-related advantages. Some markets seem to
13 Roso V., Lumsden W., Woxenius K.: The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the hinterland,
Journal of Transport Geography 17(2009), 2009
14 Roso V.: Evaluation of the dry port concept from an Environmental perspective: A note, Transportation
Research Part D12(2007), 2007
17

offer the right conditions for the emergence of more than one transshipment hub, while
other port systems do not feature any offshore hubs 15 .
It is clear that the insertion of hubs within global shipping networks does not make the
mainland transshipment centres redundant. On the contrary, transshipment hubs multiply
shipping options and as such, they play fundamental roles in the optimization of vessel
movements. As hubs account for about 85% of the global transshipment traffic, they are
the points of convergence of regional shipping, essentially linking and interfacing global
and regional freight distribution systems 16 .
On the other hand, container port systems usually have to cope with higher volumes on
specific routes, thereby supporting the development of direct services that bypass
transshipment hubs. In other words, the insertion of hubs can turn out to be just an
intermediate stage in connecting to the global liner shipping networks. However, the
terminal operators in hubs mainly compete on basic resources such as location, nautical
accessibility and terminal infrastructure and on the terminal productivity they can offer in
terms of short vessel handling time. These competitive sources can rather easily be
imitated by competitors in neighbouring locations, thus making it very difficult to create
sustainable competitive advantages 17 .
Therefore, the hubs are integrated into to the regional shipping networks, where the
maritime foreland of the hubs functionally is acting as a hinterland. For various reasons,
for instance, deviation, small volume and niche hinterland, some ports are not that wellconnected
to the global long distance shipping network and show limited opportunities to
improve this connectivity, as shipping companies must consider effective configurations of
the networks that tend to focus on major gateways and existing hubs. The hub enables a
level of accessibility and such accessibility in cites them to look beyond their conventional
transshipment role. This includes actions to extract more values of cargo passing through
and, as such, get more economic rents out of transshipment facilities 18 .
Thus, hubs have better chances of consolidating their positions in liner service networks if
they can offer value-added services that go beyond mere transshipment activities. These
15 Notteboom T., Rodrigue J.P., Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime
Policy and Management, 32(3), 2005
16 Veldman S.J., Buckmann E.H.: A model on container port competition: an application for the west European
container hub-ports. Journal of Maritime Economics and Logistics, 2006
17 Wijnolst N., Wergeland T.: Shipping innovation. Alkmaar: Dynamar, 2008
18 Chang Y.T., Lee S.-Y., Tongzon J., Chou C.C., Chu C.W., Liang G.S.: Port selection factors by shipping lines:
different perspectives between trunk liners and feeder service providers. Marine Policy, 32(6), 2008
18

services should be based on attributes which are difficult to imitate by competitors, as
they rely on complex processes of continuous improvements and enhancements strongly
embedded within supply chain networks. Among the activities that can be involved,
container handling and customization offer opportunities to adapt products to regional
market characteristics, while keeping the advantage of mass production upstream.
Depending on the concerned supply chains, certain intermediate locations may be able to
integrate global production networks more effectively. The hub transshipment functions
are thus multiplied with its closer integration within supply chain management. Also, there
is an opportunity, particularly if transloading is already taking place, to interface different
container leasing markets, enabling better usage of containerized assets. Hence, shipping
companies can maintain their assets in constant circulation within their networks, while at
the same time regional leasing companies can maintain their assets within a more
bounded, but also more flexible market. By doing so, repositioning costs are also
consequently reduced. Another multiplier can be the possibility to custom-clear cargo
bound to a regional market at the hub 19 .
Moreover, if a core competence of the hub is based on a complexity of technologies and
skills, it will be difficult for competitors to imitate. Therefore, it will have a higher
probability of generating competitive advantages and less vulnerable position for the hub
concerned. Depending on regional geographical characteristics, namely deviation from
shipping routes, there are several reasons why hubs are likely to play more important roles
that go beyond conventional hub-feeder, interlining and relay functions. First of all,
economies of scale in shipping have reached a level seriously undermining capacity of some
ports, even those with significant hinterlands. Hubs offer advantages of consolidation,
while the consolidation of flows in a hub allows the development of artery routes served by
large main line vessels. In fact, the recent economic crisis can help hubs, in the sense that
shipping lines are looking for considerable savings given the nearly-immediate drop in
freight rates, so they have strong incentives for savings through route optimization.
Secondly, hubs are increasingly aware of the vulnerability of the transshipment business
since bound to the strategies of shipping lines. In essence, transshipment and relay/inter
lining traffic are linked to the decisions of shipping lines with regard to liner service
network optimization and in principle do not take place due to shippers‘ requirements.
However, the development of transshipment activities can give incentive to shippers to
19 Rodrigue J.P, Notteboom T.: Foreland-based regionalization: Integrating intermediate hubs with port
hinterlands, Research in Transportation Economics 27(2010), 2010
19

design their own distribution networks. This leads to strategies aiming at extracting more
value from cargo through stronger links with the regional port system. For example, the
development of distribution networks cantered on main distribution facilities near the hub
generates additional cargo flows to shipping lines. Hubs with a local cargo base can have
additional advantage when compared to offshore locations, as the former are in a position
to combine the transshipment functions with gateway functions 20 .
1.3 Green corridor approach in the development and function of nodal
points.
The green corridor approach implies a container terminal is a vital part of the transport
infrastructure since it is a nodal point within the logistics supply chains. Container
terminals are nodes that link with other inland transport modes such as motorways,
railways, and inland waterway systems. Container terminals have evolved from a cargo
handling point to a distribution centre with physical infrastructure serving as transport
hubs in the container supply chains. Hence, the container terminal becomes an interface
between the areas of production and consumption, attracting the attention of players in
the shipping and transport related areas. Container terminals link key actors in the
international container transport chain such as shippers, shipping lines and intermodal
transport operators. Container terminal operators handle the activities from receiving
containers to loading onto ships and from dispatching containers to discharging from ships.
In addition, container terminal operators undertake a series of planning activities such as
yard planning, quayside planning and vessels towing planning.
Introduction of green approach in the daily routines of the transport terminals as well as
its planning of its development can result in reduction of the negative impacts of
terminals‘ activities on the natural environment and contribute to overall improved
terminal performance.
Unlike regulatory requirements which are derived from the outside, a green practices
consist of operational processes that arise from within a terminal. A green practices are a
set of internal efforts at business planning and implementation. Green practices consist of
a business policy and a set of business processes that require terminals to assess their
environmental impacts, determine environmental goals, implement environmental
20 Notteboom T.E.: Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container
port system: an update, Journal of Transport Geography, 2010
20

operations, monitor goals attainment, and undergo management review. The first step in
green practices adoption is securing commitment of terminal and port managers to
environmental policies. Activities, supported by top management, incorporate premise for
continual improvement of pollution prevention and compliance with relevant
environmental legislation. The second green practices adoption step is the evaluation of
business operations and goal setting. During this stage, decisions on how to translate its
environmental policy into action and business priorities are made. The third stage of green
practices adoption should involve the creation of a management structure and linkage with
business partners to realise its environmental goals 21 . As green practices introduction is
also a tool to improve the terminal‘s environmental management, i.e. monitoring and
taking corrective action if necessary, is crucial for continuous environmental improvement.
A management review should take place to provide critical assessments, new
environmental concerns and recommendations 22 .
It should be noted that introduction of green practices in the terminal generates costs.
Resources are required at the stage of evaluation and goal setting because terminals have
to undertake extensive internal evaluations, employee training and plan development. On
the other hand, green approach can help terminals to assure that their management
practices conform to environmental regulations. Green practices also assist terminals to
scrutinise their internal operations, engage employees in environmental issues, continually
monitor for environmental improvement, and increase their knowledge about their
operations. All of these actions also can help terminals improve their internal operations
and achieve greater efficiencies. As these activities develop knowledge-based skills and
are difficult for competitors to imitate, green approach creates opportunities to gain
competitive advantage. Adoption of green practices also encourages terminal to use more
sophisticated environmental strategies that build on their basic environmental protection
principles. For example, terminals may implement life cycle cost analysis and assess their
activities at each stage of their value chain to determine business priorities and actions to
be taken. These advanced environmental strategies facilitate the integration of external
stakeholders in to business operations. Hence, adoption of green practices can eliminate
environmentally hazardous operating processes and redesign existing operating systems to
reduce lifecycle impacts. It offers an excellent opportunity to assess all aspects of their
21 Darnall N, Edwards D. Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: the role of
capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal 2006
22 Lun Y.H.Venus: Green management practices and firm performance: A case of container terminal operations,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2011
21

operations jointly, to minimise the shift of environmental deamges from one subsystem to
another and achieve greater organisational efficiency. Through continual environmental
and organisational improvement, terminals may enjoy further opportunities for
comparative advantage 23 .
Within the green approach there can be identified three key elements:
cooperation with supply chain partners,
environmentally friendly operations,
internal management support.
From the supply chain perspective, in order to create cooperation with the chain, there
should be developed a decision framework to evaluate alternatives to green practices
adopted by terminals that affects their external relationships with suppliers and
customers. Furthermore, a modelling approach should be used to optimise the logistics
operations in a green supply chain. These models and frameworks emphasise the
cooperation with supply chain partners and define a variety of characteristics and
attributes for green practices 24 .
Environmentally friendly operation could be identified using e.g. the tool of life-cycle
assessment. Adoption of green practices takes place by identifying material acquisition,
preproduction, production, distribution, and disposals as key measures to assess possible
green actions. These include materials used in product design for the environment,
product design process, supplier process improvement, supplier evaluation, and in bound
logistics processes 25 .
On top of that, it is essential that the internal management of the terminal supports the
introduction of green approach. In addition, it appears that commitment from senior and
mid-level managers, cross-functional cooperation with other entities which are also
important factors influencing internal environmental management. It can be seen, that a
number of benefits can be achieved by integrating environmental issues with corporate
strategy. In such a case, environmental protection activities are embedded in business
operations. Enhancing the business operations efficiently through green practices may
23 Hart SL.: A natural resource – based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review 1995
24 Sarkis J.: A strategic decision-marking framework for green supply chain management. Journal of Clear
Production 2003.
25 Walton SY, Handfield RB, Melnky ST.: The green supply chain:integrating suppliers into environmental
management process. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 1998
22

ing benefits to terminals. Thus, economic performance may be one of the drivers for
terminal to implement them. Potential advantageous gained include decreased cost of
energy consumption, material purchasing, waste treatment, and waste discharge.
Proactive green approach can prepare an enterprise for high performance through
improvement of environmental risk and the development of approach for continuous
environmental enhancement. Better environmental performance results in a competitive
advantage that is reflected in the economic profits 26 .
These three vital elements of the green approach connect environmental and economic
performance. They cannot be introduced to the strategy of any company, in this case,
transport terminal, if they do not bring any significant economic gains. The market gain
includes benefits based on the economy of scale and higher profits. This implies that
terminal throughput and profit can be used as performance indicators in the container
terminal industry. Another market gain are cost savings such as greater productivity or
lower operating cost due to reduced energy and material consumption. Hence, operating
cost can be used as another performance indicator from the perspective of container
terminal operations.
26 Zhu QH, Sarkis J.: Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of
green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprise. Journal of Management 2004
23

2. Hub-hinterland operations by the Port of Göteborg and Hamburg
related to BSR
2.1 General remarks
The increasing vertical integration in the supply chains has been observed in recent years.
Seaports attempt to apply different coordination strategies within competing transport
chains in order to attract or secure greater container flows, and they identify four kinds.
On the other hand, the increasing vertical integration of shipping lines meant to penetrate
logistical and supply chains results in seaports choices being increasingly determined by
hinterland factors such as intermodal infrastructure. Therefore an opportunity exists to
make profits through logistical services that can sometimes offer a better return than the
maritime activities. Nowadays cargo moves freely either to or from any inland point
beyond the port's traditional geographically delimited hinterland. This means that the port
can handle cargoes larger than its captive market area, such as it is in the case of Port of
Hamburg. The additional benefits include additional service options, more cargo, and
greater traffic densities which provide additional benefits for both local and distant users
of seaport facilities.
There is a visible trend towards using inland intermodal terminals to enlarge the hinterland
of the seaport and the integration of logistics services within the transport chain, as inland
costs both transport and value-added services have increased in importance to the door-todoor
cost. Many shipping lines therefore consider inland logistics as the most vital area still
left to cut costs. Due to this situation the port's role has changed from a monopoly to a
dynamic interlink and a subsystem in the logistics chain. Ports are required to drive and
not only react to developments in their hinterland and foreland. The extension of a port's
influence into the hinterland is one opportunity for port authorities to better influence the
future. However hierarchies in the transport chain are changing. Ports therefore need to
be active in extending or even maintaining their hinterlands 27 .
Hence, the next subchapters will attempt to analyse the specific case studies of Ports of
Göteborg and Hamburg in order to see how their hinterland intermodal connections
function and how they are actively being created. And it is the well-developed intermodal
network that makes these ports successful nodal points serving the Baltic transport system.
27 McCalla R.J.: Global change, local pain: intermodal seaport terminals and their service areas, Journal of
Transport Geography7(4), 1999
24

2.2 Rail shuttle system in the hinterland of the Port of Göteborg
Generally, in Sweden inland terminals can be built and owned by municipalities. The
interest of municipalities is in improving the transport chain, thus hoping to achieve twin
aims: increasing modal shift thus benefitting the environment, and increased
attractiveness for businesses to locate in the area, thus creating jobs and economic
development in the municipality and region. Sweden is therefore a clear case of bottom-up
development, although interestingly, while the developments are driven from the
perspective of the inland terminal site, the municipalities are not seeking to control the
flows themselves; indeed they seek actively to accommodate the seaport 28 .
This initially small level of vertical cooperation, where inland terminals are constructed
with the expectation of becoming integrated with their seaports, results from the
activities of the municipality, which are not entirely motivated by profit. Therefore the
seaport has a degree of negotiating power because the municipalities have less motivation
to sign deals with competing ports. However the seaports are now realising that increased
cooperation with inland terminals is in their own interest. Indeed, it may be that they have
realised that they need to sign deals with terminals to control container positioning before
shipping lines by pass the seaport and sign agreement directly with the inland terminals
themselves, therefore directly controlling their own hinterland access.
In order to achieve some level of control the Port of Göteborg has developed in the last
decade an extensive network of rail shuttle connection in its hinterland. The system
currently consists of rail shuttle trains to more than 20 different dry ports in Scandinavia
offered by 10 different rail operators. Over the years, shuttles have been added and
subtracted and the frequencies of services have varied over time. A few of the shuttles
operate once or twice a week in each direction, the majority 5–7 days a week and the most
frequent one operates 14 times a week in each direction. Most shuttles operate on
moderate distances typically dominated by road transport. However, the shortest shuttle,
about 10 km within Göteborg, serves a stuffing and stripping terminal, and a previous
service to Uddevalla, about 100 km from Göteborg, moved the stuffing and stripping
activities out of the port area 29 .
28 Lambert B., Monios J., Wilmsmeier G.: The directional development of intermodal freight corridors in
relation to inland terminals, Journal of Transport Geography 19(2011), 2011
29 Bergqvist R., Woxenius J.: Comparing maritime containers and semi-trailers in the context of hinterland
Transport by rail, Journal of Transport Geography 19(2011), 2011
25

Fig. 3. Port of Göteborg and its hinterland and foreland connections
Source: The Port in Short, Port of Göteborg, www.portgot.se
The current container rail shuttle services moved 340 000 TEU in 2008 with a turnover of
approximately 60 million EUR. The system handles about 55% of all containers to and from
Port of Göteborg. The current rail shuttle system decreases transport costs by about
6 million EUR annually. The system also relieves the streets of Göteborg and decreases CO 2
emissions by about 42 000 tons every year. In total, the system employs about 400 people.
The growth of the system has been driven by a systematic process that started with a
decision by the board of directors at Port of Göteborg that half of the growth in the
container segment should enter or leave the port by rail. The rail shuttle system has
surpassed this goal, and over the last 7–8 years has grown by about 15% annually 30 .
30 Bergqvist R., Woxenius J.: The Development of Hinterland Transport by Rail – The Story of Scandinavia and
the Port of Gothenburg, the International Business Research Conference, Jacksonville,Florida, 2009
26

Fig. 4. The Port of Göteborg rail shuttle system
Remarks: Numbers refer to dedicated port shuttles with daily rail services.
Source: The Port in Short, Port of Göteborg, www.portgot.se
The growth has occurred during a period of extraordinary growth in container liner
shipping and positive general trade outlooks. At the beginning of 2009 the Scandinavian rail
shuttle system had increased its market share to 45%, up from 40% compared to 2008, and
Port of Göteborg expects this share to grow even further, as proved by the figures for 2010
with a market share for rail of about 55%. Port of Göteborg also handles more than
500 000 RoRo units annually in terminals at both banks of the river Göta that flows through
the city. The dedicated RoRo freighters of shipping lines like DFDS or Lineand Cobel fret
call at the terminals on the north bank, where a substantial container terminal with a
throughput of 818 000 TEU in 2009 is also located. Stena Line uses its own terminals on the
south bank for both dedicated RoRo freighter sand ferries carrying passengers. The fleet of
27

vessels operated by Stena and deployed in Göteborg is primarily of RoRo/passenger
(RoPax) character. From Göteborg, Stena calls daily at Fredrikshamnin Denmark and Kielin
Germany 31 .
About 50 000 of the semi-trailers transported by Stena Line are transported via the
conventional intermodal terminal in the city centre, about 5km from the docks, for rail
transport through out Scandinavia by Cargo Net. The lease contract of the Stena terminal
in the city centre is soon to be renegotiated with the municipality of Göteborg and there is
a debate in the city on whether to move the terminal to the north bank.
Although most Swedish intermodal terminals can handle semi trailers, there is a technical
and logistics barrier in the sense that a relatively small proportion of semi-trailers are
fitted for vertical handling by gantry crane or reach-stacker, although even large volume
semi-trailers, so called mega trailers, can now be moved by rail.
In 2006, which is regarded as the last representative year, the total volume handled in the
RoRo terminals at the north bank was about 100 000 units for export and about 105 000 for
import. The semi trailers originate or have their final destination in one of 22 main
regions, defined by Port of Göteborg the catchments area around a major intermodal
terminal. The share of empty units has not been obtained in the statistics, but the work
content for the ports and the sea and rail operators is basically the same for loaded and
empty units. There are more than 20 Scandinavian regions involved in the transport of
semi-trailers, but the flows are far from evenly distributed between them.
Although some of the container shuttles connecting Port of Göteborg prosper at transport
distances of less than 150 km, the closest distance range is here deemed to be virtually out
of reach for semi-trailers on rail due to the semi-trailers‘ strict turn-around schedules.
Nevertheless, one semi trailer shuttle of just 50km was considered in 2004, as the
petrochemical industry in Stenungsund had to adhere to an emission cap when extending
their production facilities, but the shuttle has not been realised. Lacking special conditions
that foster the competitiveness of rail for very short distances, the 100 000 semi-trailers
transported further than 150 km should still be within competitive reach for rail 32 .
A major draw back for on-dock rail is that the RoRo handling is not concentrated in one
terminal as container handling is, but is instead spread around the port area. This impedes
the mix of container sand semi-trailers in the rail shuttle services; either the handling are
31 Thorén S.G.: General manager business area rail, Port of Gothenburg. Interview, 2010
32 Bärthel F.: Prestudy Rail Terminal Stenungsund, Chalmers University of Technology,Gothenburg, 2004
28

a in the port has to be designed for multipurpose handling, or these to wagons has to be
separated in to semi-trailers and containers. Both solutions require some investment,
planning and movement between the terminals on road or rail.
An alternative is to have different rail shuttles for the different load units. The most
favourable solutions, from a rail operator‘s perspective, is to combine different types of
load units in order to facilitate capacity utilisation and flexibility by mixing different
segments that ultimately lead to increased portability. This is also the current situation for
Port of Göteborg, as it has trials for different rail shuttles in which containers and semi
trailers are mixed in the trains.
A major issue for many European ports and for Port of Göteborg in particular is how to
design and develop the in-house rail terminal in order to improve the system based on the
distribution of containers and semi-trailers transported by rail. The different segments put
completely different demands on the handling operations and the design is essential for
the port‘s total efficiency. One key factor limiting the market potential of semi-trailers on
rail shuttles to and from Port of Göteborg is the lack of railway tracks. The Stena terminal
was designed for easy access for passengers by public transport or cars, as well as for truck
drivers, so there was little effort made to facilitate on-dock rail. There are no plans for
future rail connections at the current site, but relocation of the Stena terminals is under
discussion. The tracks along the northern bank are also used by Volvo Cars and the port
access track lacks capacity for a significant increase. There is a current planning process
for addressing this capacity problem, but new capacity will not be realised for many years.
While awaiting a direct solution in terms of infrastructure, there is a need to change the
way rail shuttles are consolidated and coordinated. Coordination is a key issue when the
containers and semi trailer segments differ significantly.
Over the last decade, the number of rail terminals in Sweden has grown, and recently
some of these terminals (e.g. Eskilstuna) have begun to use the term ‗‗dry port‘‘ in their
name. However none of these terminals fit either the dry port definitions, demonstrating
how the term can be used in industry without precise meaning.
In the past, the Port of Göteborg has not needed to be proactive in developing terminals to
extend its hinterland because other actors have been motivated to implement inland
terminals themselves. Recently, these a port has become more interested in a share of
control in the terminal operations. In return, the inland terminals gain brand association
and greater integration with the seaport, which it is hoped will be developed over time
into greater IT integration resulting in efficiency gains for the entire transport chain. The
29

port authorities have in the past been afraid of competition with inland terminals but some
are recognising that there are many benefits to cooperation.
One example of such a port – inland terminal cooperation can be the intermodal terminal,
Nordic Logistic Center (NLC) that has a direct access to Port of Göteborg. Since the
industry in Northern Sweden (i.e. the counties of Jämtland, Västernorrland, Västerbotten
and Norrbotten) to a great part contributes to the Swedish export, the southbound
transport flows are almost twice as big as the northbound, both for rail transport and sea
transport. But this is not the case for road transports that carries somewhat bigger
northbound flows than southbound. Rail transport count for about 60% of the total
transports in northern Sweden and this share might get even higher in the future since
there is a great demand for environmentally sustainable transport solutions. As the cost for
road transport raises, the relative cost for reloading goods decreases, making it profitable
to move goods from road to rail even for shorter transports. The key terminal, NLC, for
these kinds of intermodal transports in Northern Sweden was opened in Umeå in 2010.
Fig. 5. Location schematic of Nordic Logistics Centre towards infrastructure network
Source: www.nlc.se
NLC is located beside an intermodal terminal also a rail port 33 for the Port of Göteborg.
The capacity of the new non-stop trains Umeå – Göteborg equals that of 480 lorries per
week. It will reduce the road congestion and wear and cut the environmental impact of
33 The Port of Gothenburg has worked out a new concept called RailPort Scandinavia. The idea is to bring a
large number of train commuter stations in Sweden closer to the port by letting them handle customs
procedures, store-keeping, documentation and other services.
30

long goods transports. The rail port terminal covers approximately 30,000 square meters
and has room for around 1,000 shipping containers and 100 lorry trailers at the same time.
The new rail port terminal strengthens the position of Umeå as a natural transport and
logistics hub in Northern Scandinavia. Particularly the economy in the northern parts will
benefit from this. The export industry and trading companies with international products
in Northern Sweden are presented with new ways of rational goods handling and quick, on
time delivery-guaranteed transports.
Fig. 6. Nordic Logistics Centre
Source: www.nlc.se
With the rail port concept the business world in the northern parts gains direct access to
the largest supply of transports by sea among the Nordic countries. The Port of Göteborg
starts in Umeå.
The general increase in value of transported goods puts higher demands on the transport
quality. Considering that, and the more rigorous environmental requirements, intermodal
traffic presents clear advantages. With increased efficiency come competition, and thus a
market interest for new transport solutions with combined traffic as a core element. The
maps below show examples of new train set-ups.
31

Fig. 7. Direct trains to/from Umeå
Source: www.nlc.se
2.3 Rail shuttle services in the hinterland of Port of Hamburg
The Port of Hamburg is well established among the North Sea ports, particularly in respect
of the market share gains, and it offers very good development perspectives in the near
and long-term future. Due to its geographical location, Hamburg is a natural interface
between East and West Europe. Furthermore, Hamburg is well positioned for the fast
developing Europe – Far East trades.
The Port of Hamburg increased its total container handling volumes to 78,4 mln tonnes in
2010 compared to 71,2 mln tonnes in 2009. Within the North-Range 34 , Hamburg proved the
highest gain compared to Bremerhaven, Antwerp and Rotterdam, and improved
consequently also its market share among those competing ports. In order to cope with the
34 North Range are the North Sea ports such as Antwerp, Rotterdam, Bremen and Bremerhaven, and Hamburg
32

challenges in this highly competitive port range, the Port of Hamburg has to adapt its landand
sea-side infrastructure to assure the highest standards and quality to serve both the
development in vessel sizes and the expected growth in handling volumes.
It is estimated, that Port of Hamburg will have annual average growth rates of 9,4% until
2015, while at the same time the annual growth rate for the whole North-Range is assumed
at almost 8%. For Hamburg this assumption results in a total handling potential of about 18
million TEU in 2015, provided that the necessary capacities inside the port, but also in the
sea and land access will be prepared 35 .
In order to cope with the future challenges in the container market, the Port of Hamburg is
continuously updating and improving its „Port Development Plan― and „Special Investment
Programme‖. The ―Port Development Plan‖ analyses every five years the current situation
and the development potentials of the Port of Hamburg and plans future extension
measures for the port based on this analysis. In the foreground are the extensions of the
capacity of the existing container terminals as well as the preparation of additional
capacities in the other parts of the port. Additionally, hinterland connections and services
are considered as well due to Hamburg‘s role not only as a major container port with an
appropriate hinterland infrastructure but also as a logistic hub. Here, priorities are given
to the improvement of the rail connections, the necessary depth and maritime access, and
extension of road links.
The existing capacities of the container terminals are being gradually extended. The
HHLA 36 Container Terminal Altenwerder, as one of the world most modern terminal, was
introduced into the market in 2002, and meanwhile there are four berths operating. By
2010, the capacity of the Altenwerder Terminal had been increased to 3 million TEU per
year. The HHLA Container Terminal Burchardkai is Hamburg‘s biggest terminal. By 2010 the
container capacity increased up to 5,2 million TEU. The Tollerort Terminal has a capacity
of more than 2 million TEU. The Container Terminal of the Eurogate Group in Hamburg
restructuring measures and a westward expansion will increase the capacity to 5 million
TEU.
In addition to the existing terminals, it is planned the Container Terminal Steinwerder at
the area of the Central Freeport to be built, adding 3,5 million TEU capacity to the
35 Survey of the container port development in Germany, ISL, 2007.
36 HHLA - Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG operates three container terminals at the Port of Hamburg:
Altenwerder, Burchardkai and Tollerort
33

existing one. And another terminal is planned which will be called Container Terminal
Moorburg close to the Altenwerder Terminal. However, this is envisaged as a long-term
project to be realised after 2015.
The fairway adaptation takes place on need-to-need basis, due to the trend of bigger
vessels seizes, particularly on the Far East trades, a further deepening of the river Elbe
was necessary to allow those large container ships an unrestricted access to the Port of
Hamburg. This adaptation allows vessels with a draft of up to 13,5 m and with a draft of
14,5 m to call the Port of Hamburg.
Besides internal restructuring of bottlenecks and the introduction of new road signs, the
crossport motorway link A252, which is part of the Trans-European Road Network, is a key
measure to connect the A7 motorway net of Hamburg to the A1 on the east. This high
capacity east-west connection provides a better access from the port area to the
supraregional and Trans-European long-distance road network. Moreover, this link will
relieve the port related roads from pure transit traffic.
The river Elbe is an essential commercial shipping route that provides a vital transport link
for Central Europe, connecting the Czech Republic, Poland, Eastern Germany and the
region around Berlin with the Port of Hamburg. With regard to container transport by
inland navigation it is crucial that the river Middle and Upper Elbe have sufficient depth.
Therefore, the programme to expand the Elbe as a federal waterway has been prepared.
Source: Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG
Fig. 8. Port of Hamburg hinterland connections
34

For the Port of Hamburg rail transport is the most important hinterland transport mode.
Nearly 30% of all container hinterland traffic is transported by rail. In long-distance traffic
this share is even 70%. Within the City of Hamburg the Port Railway is responsible for the
railway infrastructure. The number of trains per day was expected to double by 2010.
Consequently, a modernisation and development programme has been set up to achieve
the required capacity demand from 200 trains per day to 500 trains per day in 2015.
What is more, shippers are nowadays more and more focusing on environmentally
sustainable transports. Ecology plays a role in marketing their products especially in
Europe. They are not only looking for ‗green‘ production but also for ‗green‘ logistics.
Moreover, customers want to be in control of and promote quality and environmental
protection, in a measurable way and using a standardized system.
Maritime shipping and railways are considered to be the most environmentally friendly
modes of transporting overseas cargo. According to EU‘s White Paper EU set out a roadmap
for reducing Europe‘s dependence on imported oil and cutting carbon emissions in
transport by 60% by 2050. The European Commission wants to increasingly shift freight
from roads to green modes. By 2030, 30% of all goods that are transported more than
300 km by lorry today, and about half of them by 2050, should be forwarded either by rail
or ship. In the future, large volumes of goods should be forwarded primarily with the most
efficient modes of transport or the most efficient combination of modes. In Europe, the
length of the high-speed rail network alone is to be tripled over the coming 20 years. In
addition, seaports are to be given efficient hinterland connections and, along with the
airports, linked along the European core network to the rail system and, whenever
possible, to the inland waterway systems.
POLZUG rail shuttle service
Currently POLZUG Intermodal is a global rail operator running a container service between
the northern European container ports of Hamburg, Bremerhaven and Rotterdam and their
hinterland of Poland and Eastern Europe. The POLZUG network, with its terminals, offices,
subsidiaries and agents in Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan, extends even
beyond the CIS to Mongolia and Afghanistan. The company has its representative offices
also in South Korea, the United States and South America.
The company was established in order to avoid waits of several days for trucks at the
German-Polish border and to improve the connection between the Hamburg container
35

terminals and the Polish hinterland. Thus Spedition Egon Wenk, HHLA and the Polish State
Railways PKP started a regular container block-train service between the Port of Hamburg
and Warsaw. Today Polzug Intermodal GmbH with its stakeholders HHLA, PKP Cargo (Polish
State Railways) and DB Mobility Logistics AG (each with 33,3%) is one of the fastest growing
companies in European rail traffic. Eight terminals in Poland‘s economic centres are served
by regular block-train links with the North Sea ports of Hamburg, Bremerhaven and
Rotterdam 37 .
Since Eastern Europe is integrating itself ever more strongly into the world economy
HHLA´s Polzug Intermodal GmbH subsidiary is right at the forefront of Poland´s economic
boom 38 . In case of Poland POLZUG expects an increase in the handled volumes. The Polish
trade exchange is growing and POLZUG is eager to participate in this growth. POLZUG‘s
main target is to further improve its own terminal infrastructure in Poland, which has been
crucial element in POLZUG‘s 20-year development. In August 2011 the operator opened
new modern hub terminal in Kornik/Poznan.
Fig. 9. POLZUG potential and existing rail routes in the Far East direction
Source: PKP Cargo
What is more, one of the most active investors in Eastern European countries such as
Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic etc. is Korea. The country has in this area many
manufacturing plants which are quickly developing their production volume. POLZUG is
37 POLZUG Intermodal GmbH on-line
38 Intermodal‘s supra-national network of transport solutions for every container. HHLA
36

cooperating with many of them, (Daewoo, LG, Samsung etc.) as a partner in rail
transportation.
The growth rates of HHLA‘s Polzug Intermodal GmbH rail subsidiary have reported a steep
increase from 75 000 to 120 000 TEU in 2006. In 2007 the company boosted its transport
volume by a further 23 000 TEU to 143 000 TEU, corresponding to a growth rate of almost
20%.
PKP Cargo, the Polish largest rail operator as a partner of POLZUG Intermodal established a
fast container train network in Poland connecting Polish ports with main economical
centres in Poland with:
Express Trains – transport within 24 hours,
Scheduled trains - (fixed train timetable),
Local trains connected with network,
Constant tracking and tracing – high security of consignments
Fig. 10. Rail shuttle trains servicing Hamburg Port and its hinterland destinations
Source: POLZUG Intermodal GmbH
One of the great advantages of using rail transportation in Europe, especially block trains,
is that rail terminals near a production factory can be used as interim storage of containers
to allow just-in-time delivery and customs clearance outside seaport and factory.
Intermodal rail transport operators like POLZUG can provide depot holding of empty
containers at their terminals and EDI reporting of container moves, both features most
valuable for shipping lines, helping them to reduce empty runs. This also has a clear
environmental advantage in comparison to road transport. For example, a block train with
electric traction provided by POLZUG Intermodal partners from Hamburg to Gądki with 35
x 40‘‗ containers emits only 30% of the CO 2 compared to 35 trucks on the same route.
37

The Polzug system has proved its competitiveness towards the competing carriers, Baltic
feeders and trucking. Polzug Intermodal therefore remains market leader in cross-border
traffic with Poland and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). For the future too,
Polzug Intermodal can expect substantial increases in volumes. Special attention is paid to
expansion of the company‘s own national terminals and further extension eastwards 39 .
As it happens, many container terminals in Europe have to modernize and upgrade their
rail handling facilities in order to prepare for expected handling growth, relieve quayside
congestion and promote environmentally friendly hinterland transport. If not, increasing
demand for container handling in North Sea ports may lead to further capacity constraints
within port infra and suprastructure 40 .
2.4 Main conditions for development of intermodal network in the port
hinterland
Both ports of Göteborg and Hamburg owe their success to well-developed intermodal
hinterland connections, specifically rail shuttles and an increase in the handling capacities
of containerised cargo. However, there are still significant opportunities to reap the
benefits of rail transport for the large flows of semi-trailers to and from European ports,
and trends point in the direction of more semi-trailer trains. There are obviously large
differences between container shipping and RoRo shipping and rail is admittedly more
competitive in the hinterland transport of containers than in the transport of semi-trailers.
Yet, the issue is highly relevant for Europe at large, with a similar mix of containers in
deep sea and short-sea shipping and semi trailers in short-sea shipping. A well-developed
hinterland system based on rail shuttles has the potential to strengthen overall door-todoor
logistics efficiency, strengthen the short-sea shipping segment and produce an overall
environmentally efficient transport chain. The necessary conditions for growth and
development are technical innovations and implementations related to rolling stock and
handling that especially in ports contribute to short lead-times and efficient handling.
When this evidence is combined, it is clear that the potential for semi trailers on rail is
substantial, and can have an important future role in ensuring a competitive and
sustainable logistics system—under the conditions that such transport is able to cope with
the various challenges.
39 HHLA
40 Lee Nam Yeon, a representative of POLZUG Korea office.
38

What is more, many of the Europe‘s dry ports and rail shuttle services have developed and
prospered during the recent years‘ booming demand, supported by macro trends like
outsourcing and globalisation. The current economic slowdown poses new challenges to the
future development and design of intermodal hinterland systems. As the immediate need
to supply transport capacity for increased demand is reduced, more focus can be put on
improving existing business. The development of the scope of business has thus expanded
in an attempt to increase revenues and counter balance the crisis. By expanding the scope
of services to the semi-trailer segment, more emphasis is put on efficiency as a tool to
achieve increased profitability.
When analysing the specific cases of Hamburg and Göteborg and development of their
hinterland connections as well as the entire system of multimodal facilities and logistics
organisation, some conclusions and recommendations can be drawn from their experiences
and practices that could translate into actions taken by aspiring ports of Gdansk and
Ust-Luga. They can be summarised in the following points, which are discussed further
below:
effective planning and development of intermodal nodes
institutional incentive scheme
financing infrastructure related to intermodal facilities
developing logistics service providers and logistics professionals
development of information technology
regulatory and administrative issues
Collaboration between the port and intermodal facilities is crucial for the success of port.
However, in the past, the planning and development of port and logistics centres has been
approached in an isolated manner. The problem basically boils down to an insufficient
understanding of logistics centres in regional ports and a lack of integrated planning. There
is a need for a systems-oriented approach to planning and developing ports, associated
logistics centres in port areas, and city functions to meet the demands of shippers, port
users, and citizens. In this regard, for the development of logistics centres in port areas,
more attention must be paid to the development of city-related functions, international
conventions and other related facilities as well. In turn, building convention centres or
trade related facilities would provide new sources of commercial impact for the port
industry in the Baltic Sea region.
39

Developing intermodal facilities requires a long construction period and large investments.
Considering the examples from successful ports, tax incentives and other supporting
schemes are essential for developing the logistics centres. Ports and relevant government
agencies should accordingly support international logistics service providers through tax
incentives and other schemes to attract their operations in their port regions. A measure
to provide land at affordable prices by exploiting intensive utilization of land by
constructing high rise building can be an option. Another measure for the Baltic Sea
economies to induce as many multinational firms and logistics companies as possible to the
port areas is that the government and port authorities should lower land related costs in
developing the vast land areas. Although lowering the cost of land will likely mean much
slower returns on investment, cheaper land costs could help to differentiate the port from
other emerging competitors by attracting more investors into the logistics centre.
Subsequent growth in port region‘s employment and tax revenues will be expected.
Financing the development of logistics facilities in port regions poses a number of major
problems. Since the volume of port traffic in the Baltic Sea region will continue to grow for
many years to come, the ports must make massive and sustained capital investments to
meet the demand. In addition, a particular consideration should be given to the additional
investments required to replace existing older and deteriorating infrastructure in many of
this region‘s ports. The physical conditions of existing port facilities are several decades
old and will be unable to meet the minimum standard that will be required of port services
in the future. Furthermore, progress towards the privatization of the port and related
facilities has to be continued. This will bring greater operational efficiency, reduced
labour costs and less bureaucracy through the invisible power of free enterprise. But
before promoting participation of the private sector, a clear and systematic framework for
regulation and supervision has to be established to restrict monopolistic and unfair
practices that might be exercised by the private sector.
Professional logistics services should be promoted by attracting global logistics providers
for new logistics centres in ports. In response to lean production and distribution systems,
the trend towards outsourcing of logistics services continues. The specialized service
providers, so-called third-party logistics (3PL) service providers, offer global firms many
advantages, including reducing the need for capital investment, reducing working capital
needs, and enabling penetration into new markets more quickly and with less capital. The
quality of 3PL‘s services is considered to be an important factor in attracting new logistics
centres in their countries. In line with this trend, ports in the Baltic Sea region must
attract and develop word-class providers of customized logistics services in order to attract
40

global firms to set up their logistics centres in the region. In regards to the 3PL industry,
efforts will have to be made to identify those companies, which have the highest potential
for operating logistics centres and also to promote the 3PL industry at the local level.
Given the reality that most Baltic Sea economies lack a professional 3PL industry, the
future success of logistics centres depends critically on the promotion of the 3PL industry.
It is commonly recognized that ports play a critical role in their countries‘ trade growth.
Therefore, a number of ports have taken steps to improve the quality of their services, and
to provide basic logistics and communications infrastructure in order to reap the benefits
of e-commerce. Due to the increasing importance of the development of IT and
information systems to control logistics activities, expenditure on IT and information
system is expected to surpass inventory-carrying costs in its priority next to transportation
costs in the logistics chain 41 . This fact represents a fundamental shift in logistics strategy
toward information intensive control system from asset-intensive strategies, such as
warehousing and inventory level. Information technology, especially internet-based
systems, is increasingly being employed in all logistics services. As shippers become more
attuned to sophisticated supply chain management, ports will be faced with challenges to
overcome. The growing power and ćspeed of information processing is reshaping the port
industry. The application of e-commerce in ports could contribute to the efficiency of
international trade. The availability of common-user and robust e-commerce-based
administrative and commercial services in the ports of the Baltic Sea region would allow
them to connect to the IT networks of administrations, shipping lines and other transport
operators. Of course, scalable systems with certain core functions are needed in order to
cater to the different needs of a wide range of ports and terminals serving developing
countries‘ trade.
Consequently, to develop logistics centres in regional ports, there must be a high level of
institutional support, with fewer regulations for its logistics centres. Indeed, ports with
high institutional support and few regulations usually exhibit a high degree of development
in logistics areas. Therefore, legal and institutional issues must be addressed before
establishing logistics centres in port areas. The main emphasis will be on the development
of a legal and institutional framework for the building of logistics centre in port regions. As
to the legal aspects regarding logistics centres in ports, institutional schemes should be
made to improve the conditions and simplify the administrative procedures affecting
41 Anderson D.L, House R.G.: Logistics and Material Handling systems in the U.S.: Trends and future
Outlook, Logistics Perspective, July 1990
41

logistics centres. Experiences around the world also show that the existence of an
effective institution plays a crucial role in building logistics centres in ports 42 .
42 Šakalys A., Palšaitis R.: Development of intermodal transport in new European Union states, TRANSPORT, Vol
XXI, No 2, 2006
42

3. Container hub development: Port of Gdansk
3.1 Main characteristics of the Port of Gdansk
The Gdansk port is a major international transportation hub situated in the central part of
the southern Baltic coast, which ranks among Europe's fastest growing regions. According
to the European Union transport policy documents the Port of Gdansk is to play a
significant role as a key link in the Trans-European Transport Corridor No. 6 connecting the
Nordic countries with Southern and Eastern Europe 43 .
Fig. 11. Port of Gdansk
Source: Port of Gdansk Authority SA
In general, Port is heavily influenced by the fluctuations in the global markets and it is
being reshaped with regard to its functions and spatial attributes; its functions are
diversifying, its modern capacity is being developed to meet demand, the use of port space
is changing- some areas gain municipal functions. In the coming years, the port‘s
investment plans include many vital projects regarding development of modern
infrastructure und suprastructure for both general and bulk cargo.
The Port Authorities aim to take maximum advantage of the port's geographical and
economic location in order to ensure its sustainable and rational growth as a universal port
offering value-added services. The major strength of the Port is the capacity for
43 Port of Gdansk website, www.portgdansk.pl
43

developing deep-water cargo handling facilities providing services to the biggest vessels
that can enter the Baltic Sea. There is a possibility of widening the deep-water part of the
port through the construction of new quays on land reclaimed from the sea. Another
advantage is the central location of the port on the southern coastline of the Baltic Sea.
The above-mentioned factors coupled by the economic potential of the port's hinterland
and the Baltic Region are favourable to the development of distribution activities 44 .
The Port of Gdansk is composed of two principal sections with naturally diverse operational
parameters: the inner port stretched along the Dead Vistula and the port canal, and the
outer port, built in the 1970‘s, offering direct access to the Gulf of Gdansk.
The inner port offers a comprehensive range of terminals and facilities designed to handle
containerised cargo, passenger ferries and Ro-Ro vessels, passenger cars and citrus fruit,
sulphur, phosphorites and other bulk cargo. The other quays fitted with versatile
equipment and infrastructure are universal in use and enable the handling of conventional,
general as well as bulk cargo such as rolled steel products, oversize and heavy lifts, grain,
artificial fertilizers, ore and coal. The outer port performs its operations on piers, quays
and cargo handling jetties situated immediately on the waters of the Gulf of Gdansk. This
section of the port offers state-of-the-art facilities suited to handling energy raw materials
such as liquid fuels, coal and liquefied gas.
General cargo is handled in the inner port as well as in the outer port. The inner port
facilities are suited to handling general cargo and include quays such as Oliwskie, Wislane,
Szczecinskie, Przemyslowe, Rudowe, Weglowe and Obroncow Westerplatte, and also the
quays of the Duty Free Zone with a modern citrus fruit handling base. The quays of the
Gdansk port have universal character and provide the handling of general cargo, including
cargo packed in pallets, bags and big bags as well as oversize and heavy lifts, rolled steel
products and hazardous cargoes. Additionally, the Port of Gdansk provides the border
veterinary inspection. They are located in the outer port at the DCT and in the inner port
near the Gdansk Container Terminal.
Container handling at the Port of Gdansk is concentrated in the inner port at the
Szczecinskie Quay operated by the Gdansk Container Terminal (GTK) and at the Deepwater
Container Terminal (DCT) situated in the outer port. These terminals operate mainly
feeder and short sea shipping services. The Deepwater Container Terminal is designed to
accommodate the largest vessels that can enter the Baltic Sea i.e. post-panamax vessels.
44 http://www.portgdansk.pl/about-port/
44

Both GTK and DCT offer a variety of integrated terminal and holder depot operations: a
full range of container handling and services, stuffing and stripping, repairs and cleaning,
reefer plugs for refrigerated containers.
Ro-ro vessels services are located at the quays of the Duty Free Zone and state-of-the-art
Westerplatte Ferry Terminal. A ro-ro ramp is also available at the Polferries Terminal
operated by the Polish Baltic Shipping Co. offering regular ferry connections to Sweden,
and additionally at the Deepwater Container Terminal.
The Duty Free Zone is located within a short distance of the entrance to the inner port,
operates the handling of motor vehicles from manufacturers in the Far East and European
countries. The Duty Free Zone facilitates the storage of imported goods free of customs
duty and guarantees, quota and tax for an unlimited period of time. Picking up and
customs clearance of goods in batches is also available. Registration of goods supplied to
and picked up from the Duty Free Zone is implemented by means of an IT system.
The Coal Terminal is thoroughly mechanized and tailored to handling coal directly from
railcars onto ships, or indirectly with the use of open storage yards. Coal exports are
handled by the dedicated Coal Terminal situated in the outer port, whereas both exports
and imports are handled at the quays of the Gorniczy Basin in the inner port.
Handling of liquid fuels and liquefied gas is offered in the outer port in two designated
state-of-the-art terminals. Additionally, fuel and base oils are handled at the Obroncow
Poczty Polskiej Quay in the inner port.
Balancing the modes of transport system operating in the Port of Gdansk depends on the
fulfilment of strategic objectives of transport development in Poland, including increasing
role of intermodal transport system. This requires taking actions to overcome existing
barriers and on the other hand, to effectively encourage the development of sustainable
transport. The main areas, in which it is necessary to take effective actions include 45 :
improving the relatively poor quality of rail services. For this purpose it is
necessary to take proper action such as modernization of railway lines,
shorten the transportation time of regular trains with intermodal units,
45 Mindur L., Wronka J.: Transport intermodalny w Polsce, log forum.net, vol. 3, 2007
45

providing scheduled times for trains, monitoring the links and provide
current information on shipments to customers 46
making rail tariffs more competitive against road transport costs. The main
activities in this area mean: the introduction of flexible pricing and
discounting policies by the PKP Group and other railways carriers, providing
budget subsidies for intermodal transport operators, providing income tax
allowance for companies using intermodal transport solutions and for
terminal operators, tax exemption for car carriers employed for delivery
cargo units to and from the terminals, implementation of restrictive
measures which reduce demand for a long distance road traffic 47
development of intermodal transport networks in Poland, supported by
public funds, as a first step in building a modern logistics and transport
infrastructure,
establishing logistics centres and modernization of intermodal terminals
located in the seaports and in the rail network;
ensuring harmonization and standardization of intermodal loading units, the
increase in development of intermodal transport to / from Scandinavia 48 .
3.2 Development of containerisation in Poland and in the Gdansk seaport
– Deepwater Container Terminal
The most dynamic growth observed in seaports all over the world involves container
turnovers. This trend has also affected the Gdansk port. Shipping containers play a key role
in facilitating and maintaining trade globalization by lowering transportation costs and
providing more choices for the location of manufacturing, logistics and distribution centres
through the world. The global as well as the Baltic container turnover increases and it
favours quickly developing regional competitiveness.
46 Antonowicz M., Zielaskiewcz H.: Transport intermodalny jako ogniwo rozwoju kolejowych przewozów
towarowych w Unii Europejskiej, Infrastruktura Transportu, nr 3, 2008
47 Cisowski T., Stokłosa J.: Transport intermodalny na bliskie i średnie odległości, Eksploatacja i Niezawodność,
nr 3, 2008
48 Mindur, L., Wronka, J.: Transport intermodalny w Polsce, log forum.net, vol. 3, 2007
46

Fig. 12. Development of the global and the Baltic container market.
Source: Actia Forum
The analysis of the situation on world and regional container market is crucial for
understanding the changes and the trend in container turnover. Forecast shows that the
countries of the Baltic Sea region will experience a dynamic growth in cargo turnover
between 2010 and 2030. Poland gained the biggest growth rate on container market over
the year 2011 and it amounted nearly 600%, its market position keeps growing. It is useful
to notice that predictions inform about increase in traded maritime volumes, particularly
in container handling. These trend applies to the entire Baltic Sea region and volume
change amounts from 4,4% in Estonia to 50% growth in cargo turnover in Poland.
Poland today is one of the fastest developing economies in the EU and certainly the leader
of Central and East Europe‘s accession into world markets 49 . International container trade
is an essential component for this ongoing success.
No small part of this growth is owed to Deepwater Container Terminal (DCT), located
within the boundaries of Port of Gdansk. It was opened in October 2007 as a deep-sea
container terminal located on Poland‘s northern coastline at the heart of trade routes
between the Baltic Sea region, Europe and the wider world. The terminal possesses stateof-the-art
facilities and large surrounding tracts of land ready for further development.
Currently the terminal operates with the facilities erected during this first phase including:
an 800 by 315 metre pier, offering 650 metres of quay up to 16,5 metres in depth. The
terminal has the longest rail sidings in Poland, with two individual kilometre-long tracks
49 Thinking outside the box. Ports & Harbours, Issue 6-2011
47

able to handle full block trains; and a truck park sized for up to 100 truck and trailer
vehicles that arrive via the A1 motorway.
DCT Gdansk offers ideal conditions to handle all types and sizes of vessels. It benefits from
the longest rail terminal in Poland, offering excellent rail connections, and a 200ha
logistics park adjacent to the terminal. Both the terminal and rail facilities have significant
expansion capabilities, which will allow DCT to compete effectively with north-range ports
servicing the Baltic Sea Region. In the mid-term, DCT Gdansk will also develop as a
gateway to the whole of Central and Eastern Europe as it is located closer than northrange
ports of Germany and Benelux.
Fig. 13. Visualisation of DCT Gdansk container capacity development project.
Source: Deepwater Container Terminal Gdansk
In January 2010, the DCT Gdansk received the largest container vessel ever to call Poland
when the Maersk Taikung of 8200 TEU (length 1 089 ft; beam 141,7 ft; draft 47,5 ft)
arrived from the Far East. It was the start of the weekly Maersk Line‘s AE10 service with
Maersk post-panamax ships sailing on from China and calling at Gdansk with cargo to be
further transhipped to feeders onto their final destinations in Russia and Finland or Polish
hinterland.
In 2009, when many other terminals were experiencing double digit container turnover
decrease due to the recession, the DCT achieved a 70% growth in volume. In 2010 the
terminal experienced a 180% growth in annual turnaround. In 2010 the terminal handled
450 000 TEU and by 2012 handling of one million TEU per year is expected.
48

Fig. 14. Overseas routes Port of Gdansk – Shanghai
Source: Deepwater Container Terminal Gdansk
In 2011 the entire Gdansk port handled 6,2 million tonnes of containerised cargo. The
launch of a direct service from the Far East resulted in a 113% increase in the port's
container turnover in 2010. Turnover of 685 thous. TEU in 2011 meant a further increase,
of 34% in container handling, of which 63% of total handled containers were brought to DCT
by ocean-going vessels.
Fig. 15. Current and planned container turnover in DCT Gdansk
Source: Deepwater Container Terminal Gdansk
49

DCT Gdansk currently works with nearly 15 shipping lines, more than 300 freight
forwarders and two independent rail operators. The authorities are determined to increase
its focus on attracting additional deep sea services as well as more feeder connections.
Shortly after the AE10 contract has been signed, two new RTG cranes were ordered and
options for additional equipment purchases are continuously considered.
The advantage of DCT is its perfect location, with a 17 m deep approach channel and
16,5m along the berth. Ships calling DCT do not require ice-class construction, even during
harsh winter conditions. Containers destined to Russia and Finnland can be shipped from
DCT further to the Baltic Sea ports using smaller feeder vessels, which are readily
available.
DCT Gdansk has a unique position at the doorstep of the strongest growth area of Europe,
when delivery costs per unit transported are considered.
To Warsaw To Poznan To Katowice
Fig. 16. Delivery cost for a Polish import 2011
Source: DCT Gdansk
Maersk call has already initiated two new feeder services from Gdansk to St. Petersburg
and to the Finnish ports of Kotka and Helsinki. The approach to DCT is not complicated
even for a vessel of post-panamax size. There is ample space to manoeuvre with a 650m
turning circle. The navigation conditions are excellent.
50

Fig. 17. Traditional liner shipping patterns
Source: Deepwater Container Terminal Gdansk
In May 2011 the container line‘s new 15 500 TEU E-class vessels, which are the largest
vessels in the world Maersk Elba soon followed by Maersk Eleonora arrived in Gdansk from
the Far East, each delivering almost double the volume of Maersk Line‘s previous runners.
Therefore, the terminal will require then new infrastructural capacity, and have to create
additional yard space. In the years to come the terminal will also need new berths and new
moorings are planned around the specs of Maersk‘s future Triple E-class ships.
This milestone has marked the growing potential of Poland‘s economy. The
containerisation factor means container ports are very much an expression of a country‘s
competitiveness on the global market, and it is increasingly being recognised how
important it is for Poland to be independent from foreign ports regarding the access to
international markets 50 . The development of Gdansk as a major hub means gaining a more
competitive edge by dealing directly with importers and exporters, securing the market.
The Far East A-10 service might be just the beginning of future expansion towards regular
links with the Americas, India and Middle East.
Thanks to the regular calls of large container vessels to the port of Gdansk, it has become
a key part of the maritime trade route between European Union and China. What is more,
50 Deepwater Container Terminal Gdansk
51

the proximity of Gdansk to the rest of Central and Eastern Europe makes it an ideal site to
support the rapidly growing economies of its neighbours. Until recently, almost all the
region‘s container traffic was handled by Port of Hamburg, before being forwarded on to
Poland by road and rail, and in some cases smaller feeder vessels to other ports in the
Baltic Sea area. The increased expense of this extra inland transhipment, especially to
easternmost destinations such as St Petersburg, led to higher prices when the goods were
sold domestically. DCT Gdansk‘s proximity to the region coupled with lower labour and
manufacturing costs when compared with its German competitor means future
redistribution of Baltic cargo flows 51 . In the next decade, as the containerised cargo
volume grow, there will emerged other ports and hubs on the Baltic Sea attracting deepsea
calls, however, DCT as the first one on the South Baltic will have the strongest market
position in the future and has a chance to remain the biggest container terminal in the
region and take over the role of Hamburg on the Baltic coastline. Advantages of shipping
via DCT Gdansk versus North Sea Terminals 52 :
ability to lower stevedoring costs for Baltic sea cargo,
ability to use deep draught vessel to lower slot cost,
ability to restructure feeder connections to lower feeder costs,
ability to lower the inland delivery costs for polish and central Europe
destinations,
ability to implement long term development strategies for the central-east
Europe and Baltic Sea Region.
However, there should be considered many factors and conditions that may and probably
will influence development of DCT as well as containerisation process as a whole. Up till
now, in many cases, policymaking in the logistics sector has hardly paid attention to ‗soft‘
factors such as policy to develop professionalism and manpower in the logistics industry.
On the other hand, to do business in foreign markets, there is a need to handle a variety of
factors, including the new and uncontrollable economic environment, laws and systems,
social and cultural values and behavioural standards, the structure of the market, as well
as desired service levels and the quality of usable information. Thus, in order to meet the
demand of these global companies, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of
51
Thinking outside the box. Ports & Harbours, Issue 6-2011
52 Moysen Jean Jacques, DCT Gdansk
52

logistics service providers, and to develop a solid workforce of logistics professionals.
However, there still many obstacles for the development of containerisation in Poland to
be overcome, including:
lack of coherent maritime policy in Poland and the long-term plans for port
development,
no national strategy for integrating the various ports to increase the
competitiveness of polish ports and the whole maritime industry,
unsatisfactory state of road and rail infrastructure restricting the ports
accessibility,
shortage of adequate infrastructure for intermodal terminals in ports
hinterland,
administrative difficulties connected with the customs clearance of cargo in
ports,
excessive number of inspections that prevent harmonious clearance in ports
(one national audit should be created),
VAT rate of 23% for some services provided in ports (in EU, there is 0% rate
for port services),
exemption from property tax for the port infrastructure is questioned by
local authorities 53 .
3.3 Pomeranian Logistics Centre – PLC
The next step in the development of DCT Gdansk is the transformation of 100 hectares
adjacent to the terminal into a logistics park to provide the terminal with dedicated
logistics facilities and additional functions. Pomeranian Logistics Centre (PLC) will be
constructed in cooperation with Goodman Group, a logistic hub management company with
ties to DCT Gdansk‘s shareholders, and will be the first of its kind on mainland Europe. PLC
will offer up to 500 000 square metres of warehousing space and 40 000 square metres of
offices accessed by rail and road links, as well as being within 18 km of the international
Gdansk Lech Walesa Airport.
53 DCT Gdansk - Baltic revolution, (http://www.slideshare.net/DCT_Gdansk)
53

Goodman, selected as a managing operator for investment and management of 110 ha, will
develop a logistics centre on the plot of 1 090 000 square metres located in direct vicinity
to DCT. City of Gdańsk through Gdansk Economic Development Agency Ltd. (InvestGDA) is a
partner of that planned investment which contain logistics projects, storage and
distribution, industrial and energy projects.
The Industial-Logistics Park in Gdansk is currently the largest logistics investment in
Northern Poland. The investment will support the capacity development of the DTC
Gdansk, that is the most modern and up –to-date container terminal in the Southern Baltic
area.
Pomeranian
Logistics Centre
Fig. 18. Pomeranian Logistics Centre
Source: Deepwater Container Terminal Gdansk
The multi functional LC will be financed by the Goodman Group. The advantage of the
location will be a direct connection with a modern deepwater container terminal,
convenient location in the vicinity of the major way-out road to Warsaw (S7) and motorway
(A1) and possibility to establish a relevant free customs area.
The project of the Pomeranian Logistics Centre in which the Australian investments of the
Goodman Group play a key role, will strengthen the position of Poland in foreign trade,
especially in the goods exchange with the Asian markets.
54

Fig. 19. Visualisation of Industrial-Logistics Park in Gdansk by the Goodman Company
Source: Deepwater Container Terminal Gdansk
That ultramodern investment is extremely important as a place for larger foreign
investments. In Western Europe some ports are capable of generating up to 20% of
employment for the city and its neighbourhood. Therefore, the investment will make the
port and the city of Gdansk considerably more attractive place for investment in any kind
of economic and industrial activity, thus creating more jobs.
The development of the Pomeranian Logistics Centre will find a strong support in
modernisation and new investments in local and regional transport and communication
infrastructure, particularly such projects as Sucharskiego Route, tunnel under Martwa
Wisła and Gdansk Southern Ringroad.
Favourable location of the planned logistic centre will attract many local, national and
international clients. The flexibility and operability will allow offering tailor-made storing
facilities, distribution areas, office premises or back yards.
55

4. Container hub development: Port of Ust-Luga
4.1 Russian Baltic Ports in national transport development strategy
The Russian Federation transport strategy indicates as its priorities an increase of the
foreign trade share handled by the national ports. This will require expanding Russian
seaport capacity and improving the inland waterways infrastructure by building new ports
and reconstructing the existing berths and cargo terminals. The aim was to expand
seaports capacity to 542 mln tonnes of foreign trade cargo by 2010.
Traditionally, St. Petersburg has been the dominant Russian Baltic port, boasting a vast
maritime heritage (cargo throughput in Russian Baltic Ports - see the fig. 19. However, due
to the close proximity of the city and the limited water depth it is restricted. That‘s the
main reason for the authorities to seek a transformation, with more focus on cleaner
cargoes, namely containers and cars and cruise, as well as land redevelopment. Some
cargo developments have been stopped because they are environmentally undesirable. In
consequence, other ports are being promoted in locations where there is more space away
from the congestion of St. Petersburg and yet close enough to serve its needs and to tie in
to the main road and rail infrastructure.
Fig. 20. Cargo throughput in Russian Baltic Ports (in thous. tonnes)
Source: Ust-Luga Company. St. Petersburg 2009
The ―Maritime Transport Sub-Programme‖ envisages that Russia‘s seaports should be
capable of handling 774 mln tonnes per year in 2015. Federal funding for the port industry
is distributed between top-priority projects defined by:
Transport Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2030 (adopted in 2008),
Federal Target Programme for ―Russia‘s transport system development in
2010-2015‖.
56

The new port at Ust-Luga is the most advanced of these developments, with several
terminals already in operation. There are also some other new ports being considered on
the northern shore of the Gulf of Finland, namely the ports of Vyborg and quite recently
constructed Primorsk and Vysotsk.
The Russian economy as market – oriented economy can experience considerable
fluctuations, not all of them positive. In fact, the global trade recession has had a negative
impact on both state-driven and privately developed projects, many of which have had to
be suspended 54 .
Due to the downturn in the global economy in 2009, federal funding for seaport
infrastructure had to be substantially reduced. This affected berth reconstruction,
dredging and other projects aimed at renovating the state infrastructure in almost every
Russian seaport. These projects are likely to be restarted as the economic situation
improves 55 . Despite the slump, federal property development is continuing at a number of
sites, for example at Ust-Luga. Furthermore, projects that have been commissioned by the
Russian Federation President or will be continued, for example the Baltic Pipeline System 2
(BPS-2) terminal projects at Ust-Luga.
Some of the scheduled Maritime Transport Sub-Programme projects have been suspended.
This has affected for example the reconstruction of federal port property in St. Petersburg
and Vyborg 56 . Also private-sector port and terminal development projects are being
delayed because of the decreasing cargo traffic and the reduced demand for new
capacities in the near future.
The situation of Russian Baltic ports was more promising in 2010, when the prospects of
recovery in the world economy and trade were observed. Trade flows passing through the
seaports of Russia in 2010 increased by 5,9% as compared with 2009 to 525,85 million
tons. 57 . Transshipment of dry cargo rose by 6,6% to 211,5 million tons, including: container
traffic by 30,1% to 32,91 million tons, timber by 9,1% to 6,59 million tons, break bulk and
packaged cargo almost doubled totalling 5,470 million tons.
54 Russia – Opportunities for UK-Based Companies in the Ports Sector UK Trade and Investment 2010.
55 ibidem
56 ibidem
57 Association of Commercial Seaports, press release 18 Jan.2011
57

Exports volume rose by 5% to 404,19 million tons, imports increased by 43,8% to 39,34
million tons, transit cargo rose by 2.7% to 45.96 million tons, while short sea trade volume
dropped by 7,5% to 36,35 million tons.
Operators of marine terminals of North-western Basin handled 227,59 million tons of cargo,
1,9% up from the previous year. Dry cargo throughput increased by 9,6% to 82.77 million
tons. Throughput of Big Port of St. Petersburg rose by 15,2%, to 58 million tons, of the port
of Kaliningrad by 11,8%, to 13,83 million tons, of the port of Ust-Luga by 13,7% to 11,78
million tons 58 .
4.2 The Greater Port of St. Petersburg
Saint-Petersburg is the largest Russian port on Baltic. Its dynamics is indicative for the
whole market. The Greater Port of St. Petersburg at the head of the Gulf of Finland and on
the River Neva is strategically well placed to service the city. St. Petersburg is Russia‘s
second-largest port handling all types of cargo at over 70 berths. It has a well-developed
transport accessibility namely the road, rail and other infrastructure. Most of the time
navigation can be continued all year, although typically in 3-4 winter months the Nevska
Bay is covered with ice and sailing can go on with the assistance of ice-breakers. Sankt
Petersburg port and the city expansion have resulted in congestion in the built-up areas,
causing delays to road and rail connections. In connection with the expected increase in
ports turnover, the individual port authorities plan to extend their available cargo
capacities.
Saint-Petersburg – ―old‖ port:
First Container terminal – increasing capacity from 1100 thous to 1600 thous
TEU,
Petrolesport – increasing capacity from 650 to 2300 th. TEU, +800 thous.
tonnes of Ro-Ro cargo,
First Stevedoring Company – 790 thous tonnes capacity Ro-Ro terminal
launched +1500 thous. tonnes reefer capacity,
Forth Stevedoring Company – development of 1500 thous TEU container
capacity,
58 Portnews - on line 3 Jan. 2012. Russian seaports‘ cargo throughput up 5,9% in 2010 to 525,85m tons
58

Second Stevedoring Company – adding 1300 thous tonnes of Ro-Ro capacity +
other cargo capacity,
Third Stevedoring Company – car terminal launched in 2008
Saint-Petersburg – outer port:
Moby Dick – terminal extension to around 1400 thous TEU container capacity,
Fenix (Forum) – developing new terminal around 1400 thous TEU container
capacity +2400 thous tonnes of Ro-Ro cargo,
National Refrigeration Company – 1100 thous TEU container capacity + 2600
thous tonnes Ro-Ro capacity + around 300 thous cars capacity,
Lomonosov Cargo Terminal – 1000 thous TEU container capacity + around 300
thous cars capacity
The main terminal operators in St. Petersburg:
Sea Port of St. Petersburg - the largest operator and includes the first,
second, third and fourth stevedoring companies. With a total quay length of
6000m of quay and over 34 berths, the terminal can handle most types of
cargo, including containers. Vessels up to 60 000 dwt with a maximum
draught of 11m can be accommodated. In 2008, the overall cargo
throughput was 11m tonnes. Sea Port of St Petersburg is owned by Universal
Cargo Logistics Holding BV (Netherlands), which also has interests in Ust-
Luga.
Petrolesport - a privately owned terminal, with 10 berths stretching over a
length of 1500 m. They handle containers, ro-ro, forest products, general
cargo and refrigerated goods.
Cruise Terminal: recently constructed on the 100 ha of newly reclaimed
land at Vasilyevsky Island.
The way forward for St. Petersburg is the expansion and modernisation around cleaner port
operations and cargoes. There is already a focus on containers, ro-ro and cruise.
The Onega Terminal expansion project (Stage 3) has been promoted by terminal operator
OMG Group at a project cost of 950 mln Rbl. The project is for the landside development
(not including the berths) of a 600 000 TEU per year-capacity container terminal and a rail
link to the Avtovo station.
59

Petrolesport JSC announced its port-development strategy in 2008, with a total investment
cost of 886 mln USD for the following projects:
container terminal development will expand the current capacity of
650 000 TEU per year to an estimated capacity of 2-2,5 mln TEU. The
project started in 2007 with the modernisation of existing facilities and the
creation of new handling areas through land reclamation. Dredging is being
undertaken to accommodate ships up to 12 m draft. There will be a reefer
container stuffing/stripping facility, as well as rail terminal connections.
construction of a new deepwater berth, and the reconstruction of the
existing one, at the RoRo terminal, with modernisation of the storage
space.
expansion of the reefer terminal, increasing the existing storage capacity of
20 000 tonnes of deep-frozen products to at least 40 000 tonnes, it mean
one of the largest in Russia.
port infrastructure developments, including a new office and utility
buildings, a new Customs zone with an inspection facility for 145
containers, and a new Customs inspection complex for 500 containers.
Sea Port of St. Petersburg JSC (OAO Morskoy Port St. Petersburg) has a development
programme for new port facilities aimed at expanding handling capacity to 20 million
tonnes per year. The projects in progress are 59 :
container terminal at Berth 101 on the territory of the fourth stevedoring
company. Phase 1 has a projected capacity of 350 000 TEU. Further
expansion will increase the terminal‘s capacity to 1,5 million TEU.
RoRo terminal project was started in 2009 on the territory of the first
stevedoring company. It has a projected capacity of 1mln tonnes per year,
with new roofed storage facilities, a rail viaduct and a road overpass to be
constructed.
car terminal is being built on the territory of the third stevedoring company.
Phase 1 is already operable, but remains unused because of the decline in
59 Vitaly Chernov: Container volumes keep on rising. PortNews on line 1 August 2010
60

car imports. Phase 2 expansion will enlarge the capacity to 170000 cars per
year with a land area of 10 ha.
reefer terminal is to be developed on the territory of the first stevedoring
company with a projected capacity of 1-1,5 mln tonnes of cargo per year.
Marine Façade (Morskoy Fasad) is developing a new passenger and cruise terminal along
with significant property development on the St. Petersburg seafront, including land
reclamation.
The container terminal is situated in the Neva Bay, inside the great flood barrier. It will
have a 1 kilometre-long container quay. Further transport of the containers will be
handled by railroad and trucks. The terminal will handle 1 000 000 TEU annually, which
will make it one of Russia's largest and most important import terminals for container
transport.
Fig. 21. Port of St Petersburg turnover in 2006 -2009
4.3 Development of new locations
Pressure on increasing vessel size and environmental issues resulted in new ports and
terminals locations further down the Gulf of Finland.
In 2009, development of the outer harbours, especially for containers and RoRo has been
adopted. Investments of up to 248 mln Rbl from the federal and city budgets and private
capital are planned for 2010-2025. These new port areas will be located in the Bronka –
Lomonosov area and will cover 476 ha of land, of which 382 ha will be reclaimed from the
sea. Terminal capacities have been projected for 2025 at 49 mln tonnes for Bronka, 9,5
mln tonnes for Kronshtadt and 11,5 mln tonnes for Lomonosov. This will require substantial
dredging of the clay sea bed, which is largely in shallow water.
61

Fig. 22. Seaports around Sankt Petersburg
Bronka is planned to be a multi-purpose port comprising a 3 mln TEU per year container
terminal and 2,6 mln tonnes per year RoRo terminals. Operated by Phoenix Ltd, it is
located next to Bronka railway station. Some 41,5 ha have been assigned for the initial
stage, later to be expanded by reclaiming 80 ha. Phase 1 is estimated to cost
36 500 mln Rbl, including over 10 500 mln Rbl from the federal budget.
Fig. 23. Seaport St. Petersburg - Bronka Container Terminal
62

Universal Port Project at Lomonosov is being carried by Baltimor, which currently operates
seven berths leased from the Navy. The project involves 35 ha of land reclamation and the
construction of 16 berths along 4500 m of new quayside. Container, car, metal, perishables
and timber terminals will be constructed, as well as adjacent logistics facilities (150ha). It
is planned to be fully operational by 2020, with an initial throughput of 1mln tonnes per
year, increasing to 6 mln tonnes of cargo over five years. The required investment is
estimated to be 1200 mln USD and will be financed by the consortium‘s own funds and loan
money.
Lomonosov Cargo Terminal was started by Yantar JSC. Commercial Sea Port JSC, now has a
50% shareholding. The expansion plans are for a 1 mln TEU per year container terminal and
a car terminal with a capacity of 300 000 vehicles per year, all constructed on 70 ha of
reclaimed land. Phase 1 was scheduled to start in 2010, but has been delayed. The project
requires a dredged channel, new berths in a port basin, and associated equipment and
infrastructure including railway connections.
Moby Dick Container Terminal at Litke Base, Kronshtadt on Kotlin Island is the thirdlargest
container terminal in the Greater Port of St. Petersburg and is co-owned by Global
Ports Investments and Container Finance (Finland). The project started in 1997 and Phase
1 and Phase 2 are in operation, with a capacity of 180 000 TEU. Phase 3 is planned to
increase capacity to 500 000 TEU by 2013 on the 50 ha terminal.
Vysotsk is 160km northwest of St. Petersburg and has facilities for handling dry bulk and
oil, mainly for export.
Vyborg is close to the border with Finland and there is scope for modernising this multipurpose
port. However, the berths are old, the water depth is limited and the land is
restricted to a narrow strip for cargo handling and storage. Port modernization will
increase capacity up to 3 mln. tonnes, including around 100 thous TEU containers
Primorsk is 120km northwest of St Petersburg and linked to the Baltic Pipeline System. It
has been operating since 2001 as one of Russia‘s crucial oil-export ports.
SCP Primorsk – container & Ro-Ro terminal:
700 thous TEU container capacity
2 000 thous tonnes Ro-Ro cargo capacity
SCP Primorsk - Oil-Chemical Terminal for tank-container handling:
1 200 thous TEU capacity
63

The Oil Products Terminal was officially inaugurated in 2008, with a Phase 1 capacity of
8,4 mln tonnes per year. Phase 2 has a capacity of 17 mln tonnes per year. The completed
project will have a capacity to handle 24,6 mln tonnes of oil products per year.
4.4 Development of Ust-Luga sea port
Commercial Sea Port of Ust-Luga is the most successful example of the new port. The
multipurpose Ust-Luga merchant sea port is under construction in the Luga Bay of the Gulf
of Finland. Ust-Luga port is situated practically at the border of the Russian Federation and
the European Union. It is linked with the transport network of the Northwest region that
plays a significant role in organization of transit shipments within the frames of the
European transport infrastructure.
The deep water area of the port (17 m) together with the short ship channel (3,7 km)
make Ust-Luga port the only Russian port on the Baltic Sea capable of admitting dry-cargo
vessels with the deadweight of up to 75 thous tons and tankers with the deadweight of up
to 120 thous tons. The second ship channel providing roundabout ship traffic will be built
by 2010.
The Ust Luga port can be available for shipping activities almost all-year-round. An ice
channelling period lasts for around 40 days. Icebreaker assistance is practically required
only in the heaviest frost. In ordinary winters it is possible to carry out in-channel
operation with an ice-class tug. A significant advantage of the new port is the fact that the
cargo flows go to the port by-passing the extremely congested transport hub of Saint
Petersburg.
64

Port of Ust-Luga
Fig. 24. Location of Ust-Luga Port
In 1992 Ust-Luga Company JSC was established in order to develop the port in the Luga
Bay, but for several years the project did not proceed. As a consequence, it was decided in
2000 to restructure the large-scale port investment project by segmenting it into terminal
investment projects to be financed by major shippers and exporters. Ust-Luga Company
JSC is an industrial developer. The largest project being currently implemented is the
construction of Ust-Luga merchant seaport. The port is managed by Ust-Luga Company JSC
for Port Business Development.
Despite recent slowdown of the world economy, the port does not intend to cease its
investment program. New terminals are being built. Ust-Luga port is the largest
infrastructural project in Russia. It includes:
Sea Commercial Port Ust-Luga,
Complex development of enclosed areas (CDA) – 6 interrelated clusters
Initially Ust-Luga Company JSC had shares in all the terminal projects under development,
later selling most of them to the main stockholder.
Ust-Luga Company JSC, acting as the port developer, has established joint-stock companies
to develop separate terminals within the port on the basis of one company for each
terminal. Similar solution was applied to the port infrastructure, such as road and rail
connections. The port has been planned as a multi-user port to handle over 20 types of
cargo, with an overall capacity of 120 mln tonnes per year and six terminals already in
65

operation. Rosmorport is responsible for the port basin development and is the developer
of the port facilities that are funded by the federal budget. They include:
Channels and fairways,
Port basin,
Territory and berths of the ferry terminal,
Vessel traffic system,
Border crossings,
Navigation aids.
Fig. 25. Commercial Port Ust-Luga – Layout
Source: Port of Ust-Luga website
There are seven terminals currently operating in Ust-Luga port:
Coal Terminal,
Universal Cargo Terminal (UPK),
European Sulphur Terminal,
Auto-Railway Ferry Complex,
Multi-purpose Terminal Yug-2 (MPK Yug-2)
Factor‘ Timber Terminal.
Terminal of Bulk Cargoes
66

Terminals under construction:
Multi-Purpose Terminal Yug-2 (MPK Yug-2) – extension,
Ust-Luga Container Terminal,
Bunker Terminal,
General Cargo Terminal,
Oil Terminal,
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Terminal.
Universal Terminal (UPK) is part of Universal Cargo Logistics Holding ВV, a transport
holding with other interests in Sea Port of St. Petersburg JSC and Taganrog Commercial Sea
Port JSC. UPK has a 585m quayside to handle vessels up to 70000 dwt with 14 m draught. It
has a land area of 13,7 ha and handles imports and exports of general and breakbulk cargo.
Fig. 26. Universal Cargo Terminal
Source: Port of Ust-Luga website
Factor Timber Terminal is a private project, operating since 2002, with 125 m of quayside
and 27,9ha of land. There are plans to expand from the current 250 000 tonnes per year to
2,5 mln tonnes by 2015. This would involve constructing several berths to increase the
quayside to 887 m, more open storage facilities, and road and rail access ways.
Rail Ferry Terminal operated by Rosmorport is a part of the West – East transport corridor.
The ferry service between Ust-Luga – Baltiysk – German ports is a federal project and a link
in the East – West transport corridor. The project aims developing two ferry terminals (for
rail and trucks/cars) to handle RoRo, car/car & truck carriers, rail ferries and rail & truck
ferries to operate the routes between Ust-Luga and Baltiysk and Ust-Luga and German
ports. The terminal currently has a 10 m-deep basin, with a double berth over 429 m of
67

quayside. The land area is 32,5ha and there is a rail yard and rail station consisting of 16
tracks 8,7 km in total length to handle railcars and complete customs formalities. The
projected capacity is 3,5 mln tonnes of rail cargo and 2 mln tonnes of road cargo per
year 60 . The complex is designed for transshipment of rolling machinery, mostly new
motorcars as well as containers and general cargoes. When the terminal reaches its design
capacity, it will transship over 4.6 mln. tons of export-import cargoes per year.
Fig. 27. Auto-Railway Ferry Complex (Client / Operator – Ust-Luga Branch FSUE Rosmorpor)
Source: Port of Ust-Luga website
Ust-Luga is a good alternative for searching new export routes, bypassing the overloaded
St. Petersburg transport hub. Exporting vehicles via Ust-Luga has become a new and very
valuable experience for the port and its stakeholders and clients. The first Ural trucks for
export were shipped from the Ust-Luga Port in January 2012. The first 120 trucks were
sent by the Danube Highway to Bremerhaven (Germany). From there the cargo is
transferred to the Hoegh Trooper cargo vessel for delivery to the customer. Transportation
services are provided by Hoegh Autoliners A/S Shipping Company (Norway). This is a
positive signal to Russian manufacturers seeking new opportunities to deliver their
products to foreign markets. The first 120 trucks were sent by the Danube Highway to
Bremerhaven (Germany). From there the cargo will be transferred to the Hoegh Trooper
cargo vessel for delivery to the customer. Transportation services are provided by Hoegh
Autoliners A/S Shipping Company (Norway). The vehicles were delivered for loading to the
automobile/railroad ferry connection. This terminal is used to import Toyota, Lexus,
Hyundai, Kia and Subaru vehicles to Russia as is the multipurpose Yug-2 Transshipment
Centre in Ust-Luga.
60 http://www.bpoports.com/303.html
68

Fig. 28. Multipurpose Terminal Yug-2
Source: Port of Ust-Luga website
Multi-Purpose Terminal Yug-2 (MPK Yug-2) is a PPP project supported by the RF Investment
Fund. The total cost is 8 400 mln Rbl, including a federal investment of 2011 mln Rbl. The
developer and operator is Ust-Luga Company JSC, with Ust-Luga Commercial Sea Port JSC
in charge of the project. The terminal handles RoRo cargo, including new cars, containers
and general cargo. The quayside is 1,5 km in length and the land area is about 100 ha.
Construction is continuing and full capacity of 4,7m tonnes per year is scheduled for 2012,
with a throughput of 500 000 new cars and storage capacity of 13000 cars at a time. A
logistics centre is planned for the adjacent plot and this will be used for cars as well as for
container stuffing/stripping.
At present, Ust-Luga port is the fastest developing port in the Russian Federation. The
volume of cargo transhipment has grown by 21,6% over the past six months. After reaching
its full capacity in 2018, the port will handle around 180 million tons of various cargoes.
This year, in view of the port‘s growth rate and demand for human resources, a subsidiary
of Ust-Luga Company JSC is launching the construction of a new city for 34 500 residents
for the port workers and their families. In addition, Ust-Luga Company JSC is carrying out
design work to develop an industrial area next to the new port.
Industrial activity is inevitably damaging for the environment. Construction of such largescale
facilities as a multipurpose sea merchant port will affect the ecology of the region,
therefore the Ust-Luga Company concentrates on ecological policy on minimization of the
environmental damage and compensation of the negative consequences. To minimize the
negative impact of the construction upon underground, surface water and soil there have
69

een organized temporary grounds for wastes collection and storage with their subsequent
exchange by a licensed organization 61 .
4.5 Russian Container market
Russia is concerned about exporting goods other than raw materials. The Group‘s Global
Ports Investments Plc (GPI) terminals are located in the Baltic and Far East basins and
constitute key gateways for Russian container imports and exports and oil products
exports. In 2010, GPI stevedoring companies saw an 81% increase o 62 f container handling
operations to that of 2009. Container terminals have seen a dramatic increase in its cargo
turnover. In 2010, the group handled 1 095 625 TEU, 59 463 Ro-Ro cargo units (including
cars) and 19,2 million tons of other cargo (including oil cargo). Container terminals of
Global Ports have almost regained the pre-crisis cargo turnover, and in 2011 in line with
the trends in the Russian container market the growth will continue. More intensive return
of volumes ca be expected, taking into account the investment program of the group and
the efforts of the terminals to expand their client base 63 .
Total Russian container market grew from approximately 748 thousand TEUs in 2000 to
4 126 thousand TEUs in 2010 demonstrating a growth of 18,6% per year.
Source: ASOP, Drewry Maritime Research
Fig. 29. Russian container market
61 http://www.ust-luga.ru
62 http://www.bpoports.com
63 http://www.porttechnology.org/news/global_ports_container_terminals_see_huge_rise_in_cargo_turnover -
on line 17 Feb. 2012
70

The post crisis recovery of container traffic in Russian ports after reflects the high
potential of the market. In 2011 the traffic was by 28% higher than in 2010. The imports of
Russian ports in the Baltic Sea increased by 20% and exports by 18%.
Fig. 30. Top-10 East Baltic container ports (TEU)
Source: Drewry Maritime Research
The Baltic ports are located close to Russia‘s major consumption centres, including
Moscow. Ports of the Baltic Sea Basin handled 68% of Russian container traffic. The
container market in Russia to grow by around 25% in 2011 and anticipates Russian
container volumes to grow on average by 18,8% per year between 2010-2013 64 . Container
turnover in the Russian ports increased by more than 5 times, in the past 10 years, the
market grew on average by 20% per year. Initially in Russia there were only two specialized
container terminals: PBC in St. Petersburg and VICS in the Far East.
However, one of the biggest and most recurrent issues surrounding the prospects for
redeveloping ports in Russia is the relationship with Customs. Slow and complicated
paperwork, discrepancies, constant updates and lack of electronic interaction make
Russian Customs procedures very difficult to accommodate in an efficient port-operating
framework. The Customs authorities have considerable influence, having the power, for
example, to control cargo flows by restricting or closing borders or ports. They also collect
large amounts of revenue, although during the recession they have collected less and are
therefore looking for other sources of income. However, there are some signs of
64 Drewry estimation
71

improvement, with attempts to consolidate Customs posts at the borders from more widely
dispersed offices 65 .
4.6 Container handling facilities in the Ust-Luga seaport
Ust-Luga Container Terminal in the southern part of Ust-Luga port is a PPP project
developed by National Container Company (NCC) and co-investor Eurogate, which has a
20% share in the terminal. Construction started in 2007 to develop terminal capacity of
3 000 000 TEU, with a possible further expansion to 6 000 000 TEU. The overall investment
by NCC up to 2020 is expected to be around 800 mln USD with federal investment around
110 mln USD. Phase 1 completion has been planned for 2012.
Fig. 31. Ust-Luga container terminal investment plan
Already the 179 m long geared feeder ship Maersk Vancouver of 1700 TEU capacity has
made a test call at the recently-opened Ust-Luga Container Terminal 66 . The ship unloaded
144 containers at ULCT, operated by National Container Company, before proceeding to
First Container Terminal (also operated by NCC) in Saint Petersburg. In 2011, the ship
brought to FCT its anniversary millionth TEU, and at the start of 2012 it took on board the
largest ever export container volume Maersk has loaded since the shipping line started
Saint Petersburg operations. Before ULCT opened in October, it was speculated that
Maersk would be the first caller, but so far only Unifeeder has been calling, with fixed
weekly calls that started on 29 December 2012.
65 Accessing International Markets: Russia. Opportunities for UK –based companies in the ports sector UK Trade
& Investment 2010
66 SeaNews on-line. Published: 10 February 2012
72

Fig. 32. Ust-Luga Container Terminal (Client / Operator – Baltic Container Terminal, Public JSC )
Source: Port of Ust-Luga website
Client / Operator – Ust-Luga Company, Public JSC Investor – Ust-Luga Company, Public JSC
partly financed from Investment Fond of Russian Federation. Due to direct involvement of
the Ministry of transport of the Russian Federation and Russian railways JSC, intensive work
is already under way to reconstruct external approaches to the port, motorways and
railway tracks connecting Ust-Luga port with major traffic arteries. Due to reserve
territories Ust-Luga port can develop northward in the direction of Soika peninsula.
4.7 Ust-Luga Logistics Centre
In line with the development of Ust-Luga port also other investments are planned. They
will speed up the activity of handling Russian foreign trade cargo.
Ust-Luga is the only port in Russia with opportunities to build logistic centre within port
boundaries close to sea terminal. The Sea port Ust-Luga distance to St. Petersburg is
153 km and to Moscow 830 km. There are plans to build a warehousing logistic center
(WLC) in the immediate proximity to the port. The center will ensure more intensive
development and higher throughput capacity and will also produce a synergy effect for all
terminals of the southern part of Ust-Luga port.
73

Fig. 33. Other investments accompanying the construction of Ust-Luga.
Fig. 34. Ust-Luga Logistic Centre
Source: GULFTAINER Co Ltd
Russian terminal operator National Container Company (NCC) has established rail operator
company NCC Logistics. The new rail service will provide block trains to and from NCC
terminals, as well as local delivery by truck from rail station at destination to consignee‘s
warehouse and empty return back to port. Since May, 2011 the service has worked in a test
mode, which indicated the high demand for block trains dispatched from First Container
Terminal (FCT), Port of St. Petersburg. From July, 2011 NCC Logistics operates trains from
FCT to Logistika-Terminal (NCC‘s dry port), Moscow and the Kaluga region. Setting up of
own rail operator is a logical step of NCC‘s business development which enhances
74

efficiency and competitive advantages of NCC group as a whole. The new logistics division
will integrate rail and port services and secures accuracy of container delivery to clients.
Future block trains are also planned for Ust-Luga Container Terminal.
Source: GULFTAINER Co Ltd
Fig. 35. Railway access to the Ust-Luga port (Outline)
Fig. 36. Road access to the Ust-Luga port
Source: GULFTAINER Co Ltd
Ust-Luga Logistic Centre will be the largest LC in the North-West of Russia with total
internal cargo throughput up to 6 mln tonnes per year. LC will increase production
capacity of Yug-II terminal and will provide:
75

additional storage space for imported cars,
PDI services,
open storage, warehousing with temperature control,
loading and unloading of containers,
deconsolidation, packaging and labelling
76

5. Conclusions and recommendations.
The recent world tendencies in cargo transport are heading towards deployment of large
and fast container ships and reducing the number of ports of call. As a result of reduced
number of calls, the total costs of cargo handling in the sea ports can be substantially
decreased and the total time required for port operations can be shortened. However this
can be realistic only if the critical mass of cargo per call is achieved. The ports of call
(hubs) should be located in the regions where the industrial activity is concentrated and
the connectivity network with the hinterland is well developed. The reduced number of
ports may result in substantial obstacles, related for example to imbalanced import-export
volumes or insufficient concentration of cargo in the regions of vast distances between
ports. The selection of the port of call (hub) should take into consideration the following
conditions 67 :
factors related to the cargo, i.e. the volume of cargo flows, dispersion of
cargo,
port‘s conditions, i.e. port equipment for cargo handling and maintenance,
transshipment costs, accessibility of container terminals,
appropriates of the route, i.e. distance between ports, strait passages,
winter conditions,
marketing requirements.
The main factors that determine the demand for integrated transport and logistics services
are dynamics of the global economy and international exchange of commodities,
globalization of freight flows and sophistication of delivery schemes, as well as the need to
optimize transportation, storage and distribution costs.
As a consequence of reduced number of ports of calls/hubs on the large container ships
journeys, feeder services have to be involved in order to handle the cargo between the
hub and the regional ports avoided by the main maritime service.
The capacity of a containership within one voyage can be used several times, and thanks to
such arrangement the price based on lower costs can be reduced. The global liner
operators‘ strategy is to deploy ever larger containerships. Their services require not only
67 Salomon A.: Wykorzystanie Transportu Morskiego w Przewozach Multimodalnych. Prace Wydziału
Nawigacyjnego Akademii Morskiej w Gdyni, nr 24, Gdynia 2010
77

adequate concentration of cargo volume, but also full integration of the transport chain,
which apart from the liner service itself, consists of feeder services and land transport
connecting the port with its hinterland.
The multimodal transport via sea links has its own specificity in Europe. The North Sea,
The Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea have a very dense network of ferry and ro-ro
services. Also the short-sea shipping is intensively promoted in EU in order to shift some
volumes of cargo from motorways to the sea. For that purpose the idea of motorways of
the sea was introduced since 2001, meaning as a logistic chain based on maritime
transport, which could be an alternative for the road transport, due to high frequency,
relatively low transport costs, short transport time and simple procedures.
For years the logistics activities concern was the optimization of services offered to the
clients in terms of costs, duration of delivery, reliability. Since the ecology has recently
invaded the transport and logistics activities, it has to be seriously considered because it‘s
not just a new fashion. Additional criteria came into focus, namely the aspect of
―greenery‖, meaning minimization of the impact on the environment. This may collide
with previous priorities of logistics and change the main criteria of logistics processes.
Nevertheless, the requirements of ecology should prevail over all traditional principles. It
is not fair to force the transport providers administratively to switch, within a very short
time, into new engines or exchange the entire transport mean, because they cannot adapt
to newly introduced restriction on gas emission 68 . It has nothing to do with the ecology,
since many transport means are practically and technically still not useless, but
withdrawing them means breaking the existing ones still in sufficient running condition and
producing new one fulfilling the restricted requirements. It leads to the wastage of large
volumes of resources and energy and it indicates that the ecological criteria dominate the
economy totally and as a consequence the transport costs may rise endlessly. Green
ecology is very costly and in consequence, it my throw the European industry and transport
providers into a dramatically disadvantaged position towards their competitors from other
countries and regions. The main focus should be on sustainability.
Development of efficient transport logistics chains, from the location of resources and
manufacturing to the receivers of final products, is a right solution but the large
international decision and distribution centres, constituting the base of logistics chains,
are yet to be established in the Central-East Europe, which is still engrossed in transport
68 Interview with Marek Tarczyński, the President of Polish Chamber of Forwarding and Logistics
78

and forwarding rather than in really large logistics processes. The terminals, even if being
named logistics centres, are in fact just storage-distribution terminals of local or regional
coverage.
Creating a real and efficient transport systems require a long term vision and adequate
strategy, consequently implemented. It has to be remembered that the investment process
in infrastructure takes years to be finalised. The appearance of the largest logistics
operators was based on national service providers supported by the state or capital groups.
The Central-East Europe‘s players should keep this experience in mind, when aiming to
develop modern logistics solutions.
The world's top three shipping lines have all committed to order outsize next-generation
vessels that are up to 2500 TEU larger than any existing container ship. Maersk, CMA CGM
and MSC have decided to put into operation the containerships of 16 000 and more TEU and
other lines will most probably follow. The world's major container ports have to be
prepared to handle them offering the best quality service. New port/hubs emerging in the
Baltic Sea are exposed to enormous challenge since it‘s not a matter of adapting or
enlarging the existing infrastructure but generally it requires building the facilities from
the scratch (including the whole infra- and suprastructure, equipment) in completely new
location, like in Gdansk or Ust-Luga. Most of these new ships will be deployed to the Far
East-Europe trade and in particular to the Far East-Northern Europe route, since this highvolume
long-haul trade will offer carriers the largest advantages in terms of economies of
scale.
On the Far-East to Northern Europe trade lane, the main Far Eastern ports in China, Hong
Kong, Singapore or Malaysia shouldn‘t have problems to handle ships of 16 000 –
18 000 TEU, thanks to earlier heavy investments in new and upgraded deep water
container ports. Almost every port in the area that handles already 14 000 TEU ships,
hence they should manage to handle even larger vessels. The conditions are different in
Europe, where ports In Europe, where ports are older and where planning and
development processes take much longer but even though northern Europe's ports are
certainly able to handle ultra large vessels, some ports might at least come close to their
limit of capability. For Baltic ports the challenge is more complicated. Sea ports of the
Baltic Sea Region so far played a regional and feeder role in cargo transport integrated
with the land transport system.
Despite already existing terminals and facilities in the ports on the northern Range
terminals in the Baltic Sea Area cannot be ruled out as future ports of call for large
79

container ships. In particular Göteborg, Gdansk, Aarhus and may be Ust-Luga might be
selected by some world container operators as permanent ports of call and gradually
develop into a real regional or even global hub. Göteborg and Gdansk already see weekly
large container ships calls from Maersk Line and continue investments in order to upgrade
their facilities for large vessels. Direct large-scale deep sea services to the Baltic are a sort
of exception proving the rule and such trend should prevail in the future. Container
terminals need to be well prepared to facilitate the significant increase in large container
ships fleet. The container terminals in Baltic ports receiving already the large container
vessels can substantially shorten the final hinterland transport. It fulfils the requirements
of the global logistics chain approach, when the long haul service from Asia to Baltic is
considered. On top of that, it is a perfect solution to cope with road congestion to/from
existing hubs in Central-East Europe, since it is the closest location to the final
destination, which means:
no feeder costs
no transshipment cost
lower inland transport cost
lower CO 2 emissions
shorter transit time
Efficient transport system linking sea ports and coastal agglomerations with their national
and Central-East Europe is a crucial condition of efficient performance of the supply chain.
To develop further the idea of Baltic hubs, all infrastructure projects ‖beyond the gate‖,
improving rail and road connectivity with the port terminals, should be consequently
implemented and completed within reasonable time, especially all developments including
key elements of the related core network will help to incorporate the Baltic hubs into the
global supply chain. Rail is admittedly more competitive in the hinterland transport of
containers than in the transport of semi-trailers. Container terminals in Europe have to
modernize and upgrade their rail handling facilities in order to prepare for expected
handling growth, relieve quayside congestion and promote environmentally friendly
hinterland transport.
The recent development of maritime transport in the Baltic Sea region (BSR) is driven by a
large increase in shipping volumes accompanied by uncertainties related to the
geographical structure of demand development. New and improved land transport
connections are expected to introduce new corridor competition for maritime corridors.
80

Moreover the present structure of transit flows via the Baltic Sea countries will
substantially change due the development of Russian port capacity in the Baltic area and
other transport corridors.
The future role of maritime transport in the transport chain should increase in line with
the current EU transport policy considering sea ports as vital elements of focused of the
core network.
With the impact of the world crisis on freight shipping patterns, the pressure on
establishing safe, efficient and high quality trans-ocean transportation possibilities
increased. Customers became increasingly interested in complementary possibilities for
transhipment in the BSR. Further development of the existing transhipment ports in
Goteborg and Aarhus as North Sea Baltic Hubs and development of new hubs directly at the
Baltic coast (Gdansk, Ust-Luga) can reduce the pressure on congested European ports.
On the whole, Baltic ports are preparing to welcome more direct calls of main line vessels.
Shipping lines choice of port of call does however depend on a variety interrelated factors
but first of all a development of Baltic hubs requires a larger market potential in a wider
catchment area than the respective domestic markets to generate a critical freight volume
adequate to deep sea calls. Anyway the advantage of developing Baltic hubs in Gdansk or
Ust-Luga is to large extent bound to their domestic market demand.
While the seaports have a good position to act as transshipment point for the Baltic on
many trade routes, the insertion of these ports as regular ports of call on the Europe–Far
East trade is now a fact. The large vessel sizes deployed on this route, the associated
reduction in the number of ports of call and the additional diversion distance make regular
direct calls to the Baltic gateway region viable in comparison to other trade routes.
Some ports are not that well-connected to the global long distance shipping network and
show limited opportunities to improve this connectivity, as shipping companies must
consider effective configurations of the networks that tend to focus on major gateways and
existing hubs. Local or immediate hinterlands remain the backbone of ports‘ cargo bases.
Functional system of gateway ports is driving the dynamics in large logistics nodes. The
creation of these nodes poses new challenges in the relations between seaports and their
hinterland. The challenge remains to increase the share of co-modal transport solutions on
short distances. Since seaports are involved in providing logistics services to transshipment
cargo, hinterland characteristics remain fundamentally important in terms of logistics
attractiveness.
81

Opportunities exist in both the public and private sector. Considering the use of containers
not as widespread as might be expected in a country as large and as powerful as Russia,
there are expectations of growth in this area. Specifically, logistics through the ports is
still fairly underdeveloped and it can be assumed that there is significant opportunity for
improvement.
The cargo turnover of many Baltic ports is heavily dependent on Russian foreign trade
transshipments through these ports (esp. the Baltic States ports). The ports strategy and
infrastructure are being developed with the hope of attracting Russian transit.
Nevertheless not all ports can become hubs if their domestic market is very limited.
Practically only the Polish market is capable of creating substantial demand based on inner
consumption.
The BSR countries within the EU structures have substantial freedom in creating their own
national policy and strategy of transport development, what not always bears positive
effects in practice. Remaining conservative approach of transport providers in new EU
members towards the solutions in competition area, is still a serious barrier of
sustainability. The states and the transport providers as well often underestimate the
importance of innovation in economical development. However, the upgraded quality of
transport services and improvement of transport network infrastructure, mainly thanks to
EU financing, are a good example of positive effects of the national paths of transport
policy implementation in the BSR states.
Any intervention in the transport sector must be based on a long-term vision for the
sustainable mobility of people and goods, because policies of a structural character take a
long time to implement and must be planned well in advance 69 .
69 A sustainable future for transport: Towards an integrated, technology-led and user-friendly system,
(COM(2009) 279 (final) of 17 June 2009), Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2009
82

Literature
A sustainable future for transport: Towards an integrated, technology-led and user-friendly system,
(COM(2009) 279 (final) of 17 June 2009), Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union, 2009
Accessing International Markets: Russia. Opportunities for UK –based companies in the ports sector
UK Trade & Investment 2010
Anderson D.L, House R.G.: Logistics and Material Handling systems in the U.S.: Trends and future
Outlook, Logistics Perspective, July 1990
Annual Review of Global Container Terminal Operators, Drewry Shipping Consultants, London, 2007
Antonowicz M., Zielaskiewcz H.: Transport intermodalny jako ogniwo rozwoju kolejowych
przewozów towarowych w Unii Europejskiej, Infrastruktura Transportu, nr 3, 2008
Association of Commercial Seaports, press release 18 Jan,2011
Bärthel F.: Prestudy Rail Terminal Stenungsund, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, 2004
Bergqvist R., Woxenius J.: Comparing maritime containers and semi-trailers in the context of
hinterland Transport by rail, Journal of Transport Geography 19(2011), 2011
Bergqvist R., Woxenius J.: The Development of Hinterland Transport by Rail – The Story of
Scandinavia and the Port of Gothenburg, the International Business Research Conference,
Jacksonville,Florida, 2009
Chang Y.T., Lee S.-Y., Tongzon J., Chou C.C., Chu C.W., Liang G.S.: Port selection factors by
shipping lines: different perspectives between trunk liners and feeder service providers. Marine
Policy, 32(6), 2008
Cisowski T., Stokłosa J.: Transport intermodalny na bliskie i średnie odległości, Eksploatacja i
Niezawodność, nr 3, 2008
Darnall N, Edwards D. Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: the role
of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal 2006
DCT Gdańsk - Baltic revolution, (http://www.slideshare.net/DCT_Gdansk)
Deepwater Container Terminal Gdansk
Hart SL.: A natural resource – based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review 1995
Intermodal‘s supra-national network of transport solutions for every container. HHLA
Interview with Marek Tarczyński, the President of Polish Chamber of Forwarding and Logistics.
Lambert B., Monios J., Wilmsmeier G.: The directional development of intermodal freight corridors
in relation to inland terminals, Journal of Transport Geography 19(2011), 2011
Lee Nam Yeon, a representative of POLZUG Korea office.
Lun Y.H.Venus: Green management practices and firm performance: A case of container terminal
operations, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2011
McCalla R.J.: Global change, local pain: intermodal seaport terminals and their service areas,
Journal of Transport Geography7(4), 1999
Mindur, L., Wronka, J.: Transport intermodalny w Polsce, log forum.net, vol. 3, 2007
Notteboom T., Rodrigue J.P., Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development.
Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), 2005
Notteboom T.: Complementarity and substitutability among adjacent gateway ports. Environment
and Planning, 2009
Notteboom T.E.: Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European
container port system: an update, Journal of Transport Geography, 2010
83

Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W.: Structural changes in logistics: how will port authorities face the
challenge? Maritime Policy and Management 28(1), 2001
Notteboom, T.: Spatial dynamics in the container load centres of the Le Havre–Hamburg range.
Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 51 (2) 2007
Olivier, D., Slack, B.: Rethinking the port. Environmental Planning A38(8), 2006
Rodrigue J.P, Notteboom T.: Foreland-based regionalization: Integrating intermediate hubs with
port hinterlands, Research in Transportation Economics 27(2010), 2010
Roso V., Lumsden W., Woxenius K.: The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the
hinterland, Journal of Transport Geography 17(2009), 2009
Roso V.: Evaluation of the dry port concept from an Environmental perspective: A note,
Transportation Research Part D12(2007), 2007
Russia – Opportunities for UK-Based Companies in the Ports Sector UK Trade and Investment 2010.
Šakalys A., Palšaitis R.: Development of intermodal transport in new European Union states,
TRANSPORT, Vol XXI, No 2, 2006
Salomon A.: Wykorzystanie Transportu Morskiego w Przewozach Multimodalnych. Prace Wydziału
Nawigacyjnego Akademii Morskiej w Gdyni, nr 24,Gdynia 2010
Sarkis J.: A strategic decision-marking framework for green supply chain management. Journal of
Clear Production 2003
SeaNews on-line. Published: 10 February 2012
Survey of the container port development in Germany, ISL, 2007
Thinking outside the box. Ports & Harbours, Issue 6-2011
Thorén S.G.: General manager business area rail, Port of Gothenburg. Interview, 2010
Veldman S.J., Buckmann E.H.: A model on container port competition: an application for the west
European container hub-ports. Journal of Maritime Economics and Logistics, 2006
Verhoeven P.:European ports policy: meeting contemporary governance challenges. Maritime Policy
and Management 36(1), 2009
Vitaly Chernov: Container volumes keep on rising. PortNews on line 1 August 2010
Walton SY, Handfield RB, Melnky ST.: The green supply chain: integrating suppliers into
environmental management process. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management 1998
Wijnolst N., Wergeland T.: Shipping innovation. Alkmaar: Dynamar, 2008
Zhu QH, Sarkis J.: Relationships between operational practices and performance among early
adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprise.
Journal of Management 2004
Websites:
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs
http://www.bpoports.com
http://www.bpoports.com/303.html
http://www.polzug.de/
http://www.portgdansk.pl/about-port/
http://www.porttechnology.orghttp://www.slideshare.net/DCT_Gdansk
http://www.ust-luga.ru
84