Feasibility Study - Department of Transport

Feasibility Study 

Relocating motor vehicle importing 

and exporting to the Port of Geelong 

www.transport.vic.gov.au

This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced 

by any process except in accordance with the provisions 

of the Copyright Act 1968. 

© State of Victoria 2012 

Authorised by the Victorian Government, 121 Exhibition St, 

Melbourne Victoria 3000. 

If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible 

format, such as large print or audio please telephone Public 

Affairs Branch, Department of Transport on (03) 9655 6000. 

2 Feasibility Study Relocating motor vehicle importing and exporting to the Port of Geelong

Contents 

1. Purpose of this document 4 

2. The freight task 5 

3. Technical feasibility assessment 8 

4. Impacts and benefits 

of the Geelong option 15 

5. Delivery issues 18 

6. Geelong option – 

summary of key findings 19 

7. Alternative option – 

Webb Dock West 21 

10. Conclusions 25 

Feasibility Study Relocating motor vehicle importing and exporting to the Port of Geelong 3

1. Purpose of this document 

Background 

In February 2011, the Minister for Ports, the Hon Dr Denis 

Napthine, announced a feasibility study into relocating 

the import and export of motor vehicles from the Port of 

Melbourne to Victoria’s second largest port, the Port of 

Geelong. 

Consistent with its 2035 Port Development Strategy, the 

Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) has proposed 

consolidating current motor vehicle import and export 

activities at Webb Dock West within the Port of Melbourne, 

with capacity to handle all forecast imports and exports 

for at least 25 years, along with a significant proportion of 

on-wharf pre-delivery inspection (PDI) activity. 

The Port of Geelong provides a potential alternative 

location for the import and export of motor vehicles, 

and may have the benefit of delivering regional 

economic growth. 

In July 2011, the Department of Transport (DOT) released 

the Discussion Paper: Relocating motor vehicle importing 

and exporting to the Port of Geelong (“discussion 

paper”), which detailed the current automotive industry 

and supply chain, set out a concept proposal for an 

automotive terminal at Geelong, and invited submissions 

from interested parties. The discussion paper was 

developed in close consultation with the automotive 

industry, shipping lines, PoMC and the Port of Geelong. 

The discussion paper set out the policy drivers for 

investigating the possible relocation of motor vehicle 

importing and exporting to Geelong: 

• tackling road congestion, particularly on 

Melbourne’s freeways, arterial roads and port 

access roads 

• enhancing regional development 

• ensuring efficient automotive supply chains for 

imported and exported vehicles 

• supporting local vehicle manufacturing. 

There were 64 submissions received from a variety of 

stakeholders including motor vehicle manufacturers, 

shipping lines, peak bodies, local government, 

community groups and from the ports of Melbourne 

and Geelong. Stakeholder input and advice has been 

critical to developing a holistic understanding of the 

current industry and in identifying all the potential issues 

associated with relocation to Geelong. 


This feasibility study 

This feasibility study describes and 

quantifies the technical, economic, 

environmental and social feasibility 

of the proposal, and the associated 

impacts and benefits. It includes 

information in the following areas: 

• the freight task – describes and 

quantifies the current freight 

task and the forecast growth in 

the importing and exporting of 

motor vehicles 

• automotive supply chain – 

describes how the supply chain 

would work if motor vehicle 

import and export activities were 

relocated to the Port of Geelong 

• environmental, social and 

business impacts of relocation 

to Geelong 

• commercial and economic 

considerations – including cost 

impacts, employment benefits 

and suggested commercial 

models and governance 

arrangements. 

Webb Dock West represents an 

alternative to relocation in Geelong 

and is discussed at the end of 

this study. 

2. The freight task 

Motor vehicle imports and exports 

The discussion paper presented vehicle import and 

export forecasts to 2050, assuming ongoing local 

manufacturing at current levels. 

Industry submitters to the discussion paper generally 

supported the forecasts. 

The forecasts were reviewed during the feasibility study, 

including analysis of the impact of different scenarios for 

local manufacturing and exporting. 

Two demand scenarios are evaluated in this 

feasibility study: 

• imports and exports continue in line with the 

forecasts set out in the discussion paper 

• imports continue in line with the forecasts 

set out in the discussion paper but exports 

continue at a reduced level consistent with 

recent trends (approximately 40-50,000 vehicles 

exported annually). 

Related and general cargoes 

Motor vehicles are imported and exported on Roll-on 

Roll-off vessels (RoRo). Some of these vessels also 

carry a small proportion of general and break-bulk 

cargoes, including: 

• High and Heavy (HiHe) vehicles such as combine 

harvesters, tractors and excavators 

Demand forecasts adopted for this feasibility study 

2015 2020 2025 2035 2050 

Demand Task 1 – Import/Export 

Import Vehicles 375,000 472,000 560,000 790,000 1,252,000 

Export Vehicles 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 

TOTAL 485,000 582,000 670,000 900,000 1,362,000 

Demand Task 2 – Import/Export 

Import Vehicles 375,000 472,000 560,000 790,000 1,252,000 

Export Vehicles 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 

TOTAL 415,000 512,000 600,000 830,000 1,292,000 

Sources: Port of Melbourne Corporation 2010 (Total and CAGR to 2035), Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and 

industry discussions (Exports), Study team (2050 CAGR and forecasts to align with long term strategic port planning) 


• machinery and equipment such as generators, 

turbines, transformers, paper bales, train carriages 

and forestry machinery loaded on to wheeled trailers 

• project cargoes which can include very large and 

very heavy loads, such as pre-assembled plant. 

These trades would also relocate to the Port of Geelong 

and, in addition to the land area required for motor 

vehicle import and export, would require: 

• approximately five hectares of open-air and 

undercover storage areas to allow for inspection, 

processing, cleaning and storage prior to delivery 

to off-site long term storage or directly to customers 

• ramps, pavement strengths and overhead 

clearances capable of handling HiHe loads of at 

least 350 tonnes net. 

Corio Quay North and South are currently used for breakbulk 

trades including steel imports for the motor vehicle 

industry and exports of aluminium ingots from Alcoa. 

These existing break-bulk trades could share undercover 

and outdoor storage provided for other related trades, or 

could be relocated to other parts of the Port of Geelong, 

subject to acceptable commercial terms being reached 

with relevant parties. 

Ships and cargo exchanges 

RoRo vessels enable vehicles and 

other cargo to be driven off the 

vessel via side and stern ramps. It 

is expected that the average size of 

RoRo vessels will increase over time 

as outlined in the following table. 

The average number of vehicles 

exchanged per vessel call is also 

expected to increase over time, 

due to: 

• increases in ship size 

and capacity 

• reduction in the number of 

port calls per vessel as overall 

trade volumes increase and 

shipping lines seek to achieve 

efficiencies. 

Increasing ship sizes and cargo 

exchange rates will require longer 

berths, additional lay down 

and terminal space and greater 

stevedoring services per ship call 

in future. 

Forecast ship fleet adopted for this study 

Length 

Typical 

registered 

draught 

Typical 

beam 2010 2015 2020 2025 2035 2050 

(m) (m) (m) (% of car carrier ships calling at Melbourne) 

< 191 5 – 8 20 – 28 49 38 31 25 18 15 

191-210 8.8 32.2 34 37 39 40 39 36 

211-230 9.5 32.2 8 13 15 17 20 22 

231-250 11.3 32.2 6 8 10 12 16 19 

251-270 11.5 32.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

> 270 11.7 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Forecast vehicle exchanges per ship call 

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 

Average Vessel 

Size (CEU) 

6,117 6,250 6,368 6,432 6,496 6,517 6,538 6,559 

Vessel Exchange 18.6% 19.8% 21.0% 22.2% 23.4% 24.6% 25.8% 27.0% 

Average Vessel 

Exchange 

(Vehicles/visit) 

1,138 1,238 1,337 1,428 1,520 1,603 1,687 1,771 


Land-side supply chains 

The discussion paper described 

in detail the current supply chain 

for motor vehicle imports and 

exports, as summarised in the 

following diagrams. 

Exported vehicle supply chain 

Toyota’s export vehicles are 

transported directly from the 

production line to port up to 10 

days prior to export. Reliability of 

export vessel schedules is crucial for 

Toyota as shipments from Australia 

are linked to a global schedule of 

vessel movements. 

Imported vehicle supply chain 

Most imports are transported away 

from the port precinct within the three 

days ‘free storage’ offered by the 

terminal operators: 

• 40 per cent of vehicles are 

transported direct to dealers 

following PDI at on-wharf facilities 

• 60 per cent of vehicles are transported to offwharf 

facilities, mainly in Altona/Laverton for PDI 

prior to subsequent transport to dealers, or for 

long-term storage. 

The logistics approach chosen largely depends on the 

manufacturer’s business model. Some manufacturers aim 

to reduce delivery time and inventory holding costs by 

conducting on-wharf PDI and delivery within three days. 

Manufacturers that are less driven by delivery schedules 

or import cars which are not pre-sold are more likely to 

transport their vehicles to Altona/Laverton. 

As more of the industry aims to improve supply-chain 

efficiency and reduce inventory costs, the proportion 

of on-wharf PDI is likely to increase to 60 per cent or 

more over time. This is consistent with current practice 

interstate where new, purpose-built vehicle import 

facilities have been established at the Fisherman Islands 

Cargo Terminal at the Port of Brisbane and the Port 

Kembla Terminal at the Port of Port Kembla. 

Distribution of imported motor vehicles reflects 

the current population distribution of Melbourne. 

Approximately 60 per cent of vehicles are currently 

sold through dealers in the eastern and south-eastern 

suburbs, while the rest are sold in the west and north. 

In the future this will move closer to 50/50 given higher 

residential growth rates in the west and north. 

Production plant 

Car transport company 

Consolidation at 

export wharf 

Stevedore 

Ship 

A few only 

Most 

Dealer 

About 40 

per cent 

On wharf 

PDI 

A few 

Storage 

Dealer 

Ship 

Wharf stack 

(terminal 

operator) 

About 60 

per cent 

Off wharf 

site 

Most 

Off wharf 

PDI 

Dealer 

A few 

Dealer 

Storage 

Dealer 


3. Technical feasibility 

assessment 

Channel 

Key issues 

Submitters to the discussion paper raised a number of 

concerns regarding the Geelong shipping channel: 

• The long, narrow and one-way nature of the channel 

at Geelong could lead to congestion delays, 

worsening over time as ship numbers increase 

to meet likely medium to long term demand and 

capacity requirements. 

• Car-carrying vessels are high-sided and more 

susceptible to high winds. This could cause delays 

in accessing the channel in windy conditions and 

require more expensive tugs. 

• Car-carriers operate to global schedules and any 

delays caused by channel congestion could impact 

on international delivery times and increase costs. 

• The priority access regime which currently existing 

at the Port of Geelong for deep draught ships 

during high tide could delay access to the channel 

for car-carrier ships. At some other Australian ports, 

car-carriers can tend to have priority due to their 

fast turn around time. 

Issues assessment 

The declared depth of the channel into the Port of 

Geelong is 12.3 metres, which can cater to the largest 

forecast car-carrier/ RoRo vessel. The channel is 42.6 

kilometres long and 120 metres wide, and is a one-way 

channel for the majority of its length. 

Modelling undertaken by the Victorian Regional Channels 

Authority (VRCA) and supported by the Port Phillip Sea 

Pilots (PPSP) indicates that vessels would be able to 

safely transit the Geelong channel at wind speeds less 

than 15 knots without tug assistance. The modelling has 

also shown that the largest current car carrier vessels 

could safely transit the channel in wind speeds up to 25 

knots with tug assistance from Point Henry. 

There is nevertheless the possibility that ship’s masters, 

having ultimate responsibility for the safe navigation of 

vessels may be more conservative when accessing and 

traversing the channel, potentially requiring tugs for its 

full length or in winds less than 15 knots. 

More powerful specialised tugs would be required in the 

port. Towage costs at the Port of Geelong would be likely 

to rise slightly to cover the cost of the new tugs, and this 

cost increase would be shared by all port users. 

Further modelling undertaken by 

VRCA investigated the potential for 

congestion and delays in the channel 

taking into account a range of factors 

including forecast ship numbers, 

berth availability, tides and wind. 

This modelling allowed two ships to 

be transiting the channel at once, 

rather than the current practice of a 

single vessel transit, and found: 

• Channel utilisation increases 

from 39 per cent in 2015 to 

62 per cent to 2030 and 

would be the primary cause of 

future delays 

• Subject to three berths being 

constructed, with ultimate 

expansion to four, berth 

availability would not be a 

major cause of delay 

• Wind can significantly 

compound delays under 

adverse conditions 

By 2030, approximately half of all 

inbound car-carrying ships would 

be delayed. While most of these 

would experience delays of less 

than one hour, the remainder would 

be exposed to an average delay of 

more than four hours, and in some 

cases, delays under adverse wind 

conditions could be greater than a 

day as the port clears vessels. 

Quay & berths 

Key issues 

The quay must be of sufficient 

depth and width to safely handle the 

anticipated ship size in the mid to 

long term without tide assistance. 

Ideally the quay depth would 

match the channel depth to make 

navigation as simple as possible. 

There must be sufficient berth 

capacity, in terms of number and 

length of berths, to handle forecast 

ship call volumes and ship sizes. 

The number of berths required 

to meet the forecast ship calls is 

as follows: 

• initially, two berths will 

be required 

• a third will be required 

from 2020 

• a fourth between 2045 

and 2050 

• depending on export volumes 

in the future, three berths may 

be sufficient. 

At least some of the berths should be 

capable of handling HiHe loads of at 

least 350 tonnes net. 


The Port of Geelong would be able 

to provide a total of four berths to 

meet demand out to at least 2050. 

This could be achieved through 

reclamation of land at Corio Quay 

South (further covered in the 

Land section). 

All berths could have side and rear 

ramp access except for Corio Quay 

North, which would have only rear 

ramp access. The quay would be 

wide enough to accommodate the 

widest forecast car carriers. 

All areas could have a handling 

capacity of 350 tonnes, though a 

specified area could be provided for 

heavier weights. 

Approximately 290,000 cubic 

metres of dredging would be 

required over 34.9 hectares of 

seabed at Corio Quay and its swing 

basin to deepen these areas from 

their current 11.0 metres to 12.3 

metres, highlighted in the shaded 

area of the following diagram. 

Area requiring dredging or 

reclaiming at Corio Quay 

Dredging works would be coordinated 

and funded by the VRCA 

and is likely to cost in excess of 

$10 million although the cost of 

positioning dredges into Australia 

could increase this cost significantly. 

Disposal of dredged material could 

occur at a pre-existing dredged 

materials disposal ground within Port 

Philip Bay, subject to environmental 

approvals. Initial investigations have 

not detected any contaminated 

sediments but further analysis would 

be required. 


Proposed South Corio depth 12.3m 

Total Area 34.6ha 

Total dredged area 27.3ha 

Total dredged material 260.674 m3 

Proposed Extension 

(7.3ha) 


Land 

Key issues 

Submitters to the discussion paper raised a number 

of concerns in relation to the land available at the Port 

of Geelong: 

• Industry estimates of land required for an effective 

and efficient terminal (including comparison with 

interstate terminals) ranged from 40-60 hectares. 

• There appears to be insufficient land to cater to 

current volumes and forecast growth in the import 

and export of motor vehicles. 

• There appears to be insufficient land to provide for 

on-wharf processing for between 60-85 per cent of 

imported vehicles, in line with industry preferences 

and forecasts. 

• The land available at the Port of Geelong is 

at different elevations and would be poorly 

configured, which is likely to lead to less efficient 

terminal operations. 

• Any proposal for an automotive terminal at Geelong 

should be based on the current practice of stacking 

cars at the terminal for priority delivery to their 

intended destination, with three days of free atwharf 

storage for imports and 10 days for exports. 

The relocation of related general cargoes creates 

an additional land requirement of five hectares of 

storage area, including under-cover storage for weather 

sensitive cargoes. 

Further minor land may be required for Customs and 

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service facilities. 


A total 24.8 hectare footprint could be 

provided adjacent to Corio Quay with 

17.5 hectares currently held by Ports 

Pty Ltd and a further 7.3 hectares 

added through land reclamation. 

However, it is likely there would only 

be useable land of approximately 

20 hectares, taking into account the 

suboptimal configuration of the site, 

the different levels and grades, the 

rail loop bisection and the need to 

provide underpasses. 

Initial investigations and consultation 

with land owners have identified an 

additional 10 hectares of land that 

could potentially be available west of 

Corio Quay Road. 

Analysis has shown that while other 

terminals around Australia are larger, 

they are not currently operating at 

full capacity and more intensive 

operations may require less land 

at Geelong. 

An evaluation was undertaken of 

the land likely to be required for a 

‘high intensity’ facility handling 

motor vehicle imports and exports, 

as well as related cargoes in both 

Demand Task forecasts, for each 

of three scenarios: 

• no on-wharf PDI 

• 40 per cent of vehicles undergo 

on-wharf PDI 

• 85 per cent of vehicles undergo 

on-wharf PDI. 

The results for Demand Task 1 

are shown in Table 4 below. Land 

requirements for Demand Task 2 

were around five per cent lower, but 

would constrain throughput in the 

event of higher export volumes or 

lower than expected efficiency. 

Potential land areas 

available at Port of Geelong 

In excess of 80 and possibly more 

than 100 hectares additional land 

would be required on-wharf in the ‘85 

per cent PDI’ scenario. As this area 

is not available at either Geelong 

or Melbourne, this option is not 

considered feasible. 

Land required at port – motor vehicle imports, exports & HiHe (ha): Demand Task 1 

2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 

Land available at Port of Geelong – useable 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

No on-wharf PDI 

total area required for imports/exports & HiHe 21.3 24.8 27.6 33.9 45.1 

land deficit (additional land required) 1.3 4.8 7.6 13.9 25.1 

40% on-wharf PDI 

total area required for imports/exports, HiHe and PDI 33.4 38.6 51.7 70.9 98.0 


85% on-wharf PDI 

total area required for imports/exports, HiHe and PDI 47.1 54.8 75.5 106.8 151.8 



Key 

Dual Gauge Rail Line 

Underpass 

CQS4 

Maximum Ship Length 264 m 

Potential Future Berth 

N 

Area 1 – 2.8 ha 

Area 2 – 3.2 ha 

Area 3 – 11.5 ha 

Area 4 – 7.3 ha 

TOTAL – 24.8 ha 

CQN Shed 3 

CQN Shed 2 

Maximum Ship Length 264 m 

1 Berth – 270 m Quayline 

CQN1 

CQS1 CQS3 

Ship Length 264 m Ship Length 264 m 

Area 4 

7.3 ha 

Hardstand Pavement 

Corio Quay Road 

Area 2 

3.2 ha 

Hardstand Pavement 

Area 1 

2.8 ha 

Area 3 

11.5 ha 

Cowies Creek 

Princes Highway 


In the ‘no on-wharf PDI’ scenario: 

• The existing land at Geelong is likely to be able to 

handle the initial volume of imports and current 

reduced export volumes until 2020 but not the 

higher export volume. 

• After 2020, given forecast growth in imports and/ 

or recovery of export volumes, up to 14 hectares of 

additional land/floor space needs to be secured to 

meet mid-to long-term demand to at least 2040. 

• This indicates that a multi-storey car park is likely 

to be required at Geelong, located either within 

the current port boundary or on land west of Corio 

Quay Road. 

• If a five storey car park were built on a 3.8 hectare 

footprint, this would provide for 10,000 vehicle 

spots which would be sufficient to cater for demand 

to 2035. Detailed cost estimates have not been 

prepared but using benchmark industry estimates, 

the construction could cost in the order of $135 – 

$150 million. 

In the ‘40 per cent of vehicles undergo on-wharf 

PDI’ scenario: 

• Any provision for on-wharf PDI would immediately 

exceed the 20 hectares of available useable land 

currently owned by Ports Pty Ltd. Therefore a 

further 14 hectares of additional land/floor space 

would be required at project start-up and up to 50 

hectares of additional floor space required to meet 

long-term demand. 

• This indicates that a very large multi-storey car 

park should be considered an essential part 

of any proposal to accommodate on-wharf PDI 

at Geelong. 

• If a five storey car park were built on a 10 hectare 

footprint, this would provide for 26,000 vehicle 

spots which would be sufficient to cater for 

demand to at least 2035. Detailed cost estimates 

have not been prepared but using benchmark 

industry estimates, the construction could cost in 

the order of $370 million. 

Terminal operations 

and access 

Key issues 

Submitters to the discussion 

paper raised a number of issues 

to be addressed in the layout and 

operation of an automotive terminal 

at the Port of Geelong, including: 

• The most efficient terminal 

design would enable each 

activity to be conducted at 

ground level within designated 

areas and using current industry 

‘stacking’ procedures, including 

imports, exports, PDI and high 

and heavy. 

• A land constrained terminal 

could create additional 

operating costs as a 

consequence of lower 

productivity and efficiency, 

and could increase 

wharf congestion. 

• Multi-storey car parks are 

predominantly used in landconstrained 

ports for vehicles 

with longer dwell times, such 

as exports. 

• The standard free storage dwell 

times of three days for imports 

and 10 days for exports need 

to be maintained to enable 

flexible and efficient utilisation 

of stevedoring and transport 

resources. Any reduction in 

these dwell times would create 

peaks in demand that other 

areas of the supply chain may 

be unable to meet. 

• The terminal would need to be 

multi-user and provide for 24/7 

open access with transparent 

charging arrangements allowing 

usage by any stevedore or PDI 

provider interested in servicing 

the automotive sector. 


While the three day and 10 day 

lay-down time could be shortened 

to increase capacity, it is considered 

that the current periods remain 

appropriate as the basis of design for 

any new facility at Geelong. These 

have been used in calculating land 

requirements in this study. 

A multi-storey car park could handle 

export volumes, any limited PDI 

conducted at port, as well as imports 

with longer dwell times at the port. 

An automotive terminal at Port of 

Geelong could operate 24/7 and 

provide for multi-user open access. 

Appropriate governance, project 

financing, delivery and performance 

requirements would need to be 

established in project agreements 

between the State and the private 

port owner, or in regulation. It is 

expected that the entity financing the 

terminal will recover its costs through 

user charges. 


Stevedoring 

Key issues 

Submitters to the discussion paper 

raised concerns about impacts 

on stevedoring operations if motor 

vehicle imports and exports are 

relocated to the Port of Geelong: 

• Pre-sorting of cars for easy 

distribution to dealers is 

essential to the achievement 

of an efficient supply chain 

and should be provided for 

in any terminal design and 

operational plan. 

• there appears to be insufficient 

lay down area adjacent to 

the port to maintain dealer 

mark priority stacking at 500 

cars per hectare taking into 

account forecast demand. 

This, combined with the 

segregation of operational 

areas and possible multi-storey 

car park, would lead to less 

efficient stevedoring practices, 

increased wharf congestion, 

double-handling and additional 

overtime, as well as increased 

risk of vehicle damage and 

safety issues – all of which 

would increase costs. 

• Co-location of motor vehicles, 

break-bulk and general cargo is 

important for flexible utilisation 

of stevedoring labour and 

equipment, keeping costs down 

and enabling resources to be 

deployed for other uses during 

quieter periods. By locating 

RoRo cargo to Geelong, but 

retaining the balance of general 

cargo at the Port of Melbourne, 

it is likely that duplication of 

stevedoring resources would 

result leading to increased costs 

to both streams of trade. Recent 

relocation of motor vehicle 

trades elsewhere in Australia 

have consolidated the trades in 

the same location. 


Assessment of land requirements 

undertaken for this study 

included provision for dealer 

mark priority stacking. 

Two stevedores currently service 

the motor vehicle industry in Victoria 

– Patrick Stevedores and POAGS. 

Both have a similar workforce size 

of around 200, employing a base of 

predominantly permanent staff plus 

casual positions.. 

There are insufficient facilities in 

Geelong to accommodate all the 

general cargo currently handled in 

Melbourne. As a result, there is likely 

to be duplication of equipment and 

other resources across Melbourne 

and Geelong, creating inefficiencies 

and higher stevedoring costs. 

It is likely that both stevedores would increase casual 

and permanent positions in Geelong, reduce number 

of permanent positions in Melbourne and increase the 

casual workforce in Melbourne. 

The use of a multi-storey car park would reduce 

stevedoring efficiency due to increased travel time and 

distance, requiring an extra gang to work each ship to 

ensure current dispatch schedules were maintained. It 

is likely that this would lead to a 10-15 per cent higher 

stevedoring cost. 

Pre-delivery inspection 

Key issues 


concerns regarding potential arrangements for PDI in 

the supply chain from Geelong: 

• There appears to be insufficient land available 

for PDI to be conducted at the port. Loss of this 

capability would lead to increased costs along the 

supply chain, including handling and inventory 

costs, with all motor vehicles requiring rehandling at 

off-wharf PDI facilities in Altona/Laverton, and less 

efficient supply chains. 

• Geelong is further away from the centre of the 

Melbourne metropolitan market, and would reduce 

the efficiency of the dealer distribution task (also 

addressed in the following section). 


An inability to conduct PDI at the port would: 

• impose a different supply chain model on the 

industry compared with practices elsewhere around 

Australia; reducing supply chain efficiency 

• prevent some manufacturers from implementing 

their ‘lean logistics chain’ business models 

• preclude other manufacturers from implementing 

this practice. 


All PDI would occur at existing facilities in Altona/ 

Laverton. The per-unit cost of the actual PDI activity is 

unlikely to increase, it is likely that storage and inventory 

costs would increase slightly costs. The transport 

and distribution task would also be less efficient, as 

discussed in the following section. 

If PDI activities are not relocated to Geelong, the 

employment benefits of the Geelong option are reduced. 

Transport & distribution 

Key issues 


concerns regarding potential impacts on the transport 

and distribution task to and from Geelong: 

• There would be an increase in the overall travel time 

and distance which in turn would lead to increases 

in fuel and labour costs, as well as additional capital 

expenditure in the extra fleet required to meet the 

increased freight task. 

• Current supply chains are optimised around a 

central distribution location (the Port of Melbourne), 

which enables flexible utilisation of transport 

vehicles including back-loading. Relocation to 

Geelong would decrease the number of runs per 

day, increasing capital and resourcing costs. 

• In order to reduce this impact there is potential 

to use larger more efficient car carriers on the 

line haul from Geelong to Altona, though some 

transport companies have indicated that the current 

configuration is the most optimal for full road 

network access. 

• Over-dimensional transport providers have 

expressed concern regarding the extra travel time 

imposed by the less direct over-dimensional routes 

from the Port of Geelong, specifically height and 

weight restrictions. 


Transport constitutes a major proportion of the overall 

supply chain cost. The kilometres travelled in the overall 

distribution task would increase by 70 per cent. In 2015, 

this would be equivalent to an additional 20 million gross 

tonne kilometres, with this figure rising to 100 million 

gross tonne kilometres by 2040. 

Average travel times between 

Geelong and Altona/Laverton based 

on 2010 data, have been modelled 

at 47 minutes, versus 19 minutes 

between Melbourne and Altona/ 

Laverton. As such, all imports 

would be exposed to an additional 

average cost of approximately $88 

resulting from the longer and less 

efficient transport task as well as a 

distribution point that is no longer 

central to the market. 1 

Exports to the Port of Geelong 

would experience an average travel 

time of 46 minutes, compared with 

the current 20 minutes to the Port 

of Melbourne, and a transport cost 

increase of $43 per vehicle. 

Additional capital costs would also 

result with transport companies 

needing to purchase more trucks 

given a loss of back-haul and 

triangulation opportunities. 

Rail is not considered a costcompetitive 

option for the distribution 

of motor vehicles in Victoria. 

A preliminary finding of this feasibility 

study is that there is insufficient 

land available to accommodate all 

imports, exports, PDI and related 

trades, without the acquisition of 

additional land and construction of a 

multi-storey car park. 

The cost and complexity of 

constructing a large multi-storey car 

park indicates that on-wharf PDI is 

not feasible in the event of relocation 

to Geelong. 

1. This cost represents a weighted average 

of transport cost impacts across all 

imported motor vehicles. However the 

actual cost impact will be higher on those 

motor vehicles currently delivered direct 

to dealer (approximately 40 per cent), with 

a lower cost impact for the remaining 60 

per cent of motor vehicles delivered from 

depots in Altona/Laverton. 


4. Impacts and 

benefits of the 

Geelong option 

Cost impacts to the motor 

vehicle industry 

The previous sections of this 

feasibility study set out likely 

impacts in each element of the 

supply chain in the event of 

relocating motor vehicle imports 

and exports to Geelong. 

The following table summarises the 

estimated costs of these impacts, 

with relocation of import and export 

activities to the Port of Geelong, 

but with all PDI activities occurring 

off-wharf at Altona/Laverton. The 

table also provides a comparison 

of forecast costs at Geelong with 

current arrangements. 

All elements of additional cost 

have been identified, including 

extra costs of towage and channel 

access; recovering the cost 

of capital investment in wharf 

and terminal infrastructure; and 

additional stevedoring, transport and 

distribution costs. 

It is envisaged that the terminal access component of 

the costs below includes a ‘facility access charge’ which 

would be used to recoup costs of the capital expenditure 

over a 35 year return period. 

The costs below have been compiled through 

information provided by various industry stakeholders 

and independent research and analysis. They do 

not represent actual charges and should be treated 

as indicative. 

The estimated increase in costs per vehicle forecast for 

2015 are as follows: 

• For the 40 per cent of imports that are currently 

delivered direct to dealer from the port, an 

additional cost per vehicle of $198 would apply. 

• For the 60 per cent of imports that are currently 

delivered from Altona/Laverton, an additional cost 

per vehicle of $133 would apply. 

• On average, the additional cost per vehicle for 

imports would be approximately $159. 

• Exports would incur an additional cost of $108 

per vehicle. 

Applying these estimated cost increases to the forecast 

demand, in 2015 the total additional cost to industry for 

the first year of operation would be approximately $71.4 

million. In 2050 this additional operational cost would 

rise to approximately $211 million. 

Summary of cost impacts per vehicle 

Costs Current supply chain Geelong with off-wharf PDI 

Channel and towage $21.84 $39.82 

Wharfage & terminal access $57.45 $95.25 

Stevedore services $60.00 $68.95 

Melbourne on-wharf PDI & 

transport (40%) 

$145.00 N/A 

Off-wharf PDI & transport (60%) $210.50 $278.90 

Transport costs (exports) $34.00 $77.00 

TOTALS 

Melbourne on-wharf PDI & 

transport (40%) 

Off-wharf PDI & transport imports 

(60%) 

$284.29 N/A 

$349.79 $482.92 

Exports costs $173.29 $281.02 


Economic impact assessment 

Benefit Cost Analysis 

A Benefit Cost Analysis comparing the Port of 

Melbourne with relocation to Geelong generates an 

overall negative Net Present Value (NPV) of -$48.03 

million. The results indicate that there would be net direct 

costs as a result of relocation. 

Wider Economic Impacts 

An assessment of the wider economic benefits such 

as agglomeration, increased State output and labour 

market impacts indicates only minimal benefits 

principally associated with an uplift in labour productivity 

could be attributed to the project. 

Employment generation 

The supply chain involved in importing and 

exporting motor vehicles supports approximately 

1,000 jobs, including: 

• 20 jobs in port and terminal management 

• 400 permanent and casual jobs in stevedoring 

• 500 jobs in on- and off-wharf PDI activities 

• 150 jobs in distribution and transport. 

Relocating the import and export activities and on-wharf 

PDI to the Port of Geelong could have the potential to 

relocate a significant proportion of these jobs, resulting 

in direct and indirect employment benefits in the 

Geelong region. 

However, the findings of this feasibility study indicate 

that if motor vehicle and related trades were relocated 

to Geelong, but not PDI, then: 

• Approximately 20 new jobs would be created in 

port and terminal management 

• As the majority of the break-bulk trade would 

remain in Melbourne, the number of stevedore 

positions created would be less than currently exist 

in Melbourne. 

• The combined number of stevedore positions 

created would be approximately 160 permanent and 

100 casual ‘new’ jobs in Geelong A proportion of 

the new jobs are likely to be filled by existing workers 

living in Melbourne’s west who would commute to 

Geelong. As such there would be a proportional 

reduction of permanent positions in Melbourne. 

• No jobs associated with PDI activities would 

relocate to Geelong. 


Bulk ship customers in the 

Port of Geelong 

While some bulk ship customers within the Port of 

Geelong consider that the proposal could result in 

improvements to port services, some have expressed 

concern that the relocation of the car trade could impact 

on the current priority regime for deep draught ships, 

which require high tide access to the channel and berths. 

• A small number of new jobs 

would be created in transport 

and distribution, but existing 

contractors and drivers would 

continue to be employed in the 

first instance. 

• Jobs would grow as the freight 

task increases over time. 

Other business impacts 

Port of Geelong users 

The Port of Geelong principally 

handles bulk cargoes, including 

woodchips, fertilisers, petroleum 

products and grain, as well as 

break-bulk cargoes. These trades are 

generally compatible with each other, 

and share facilities and buffers to 

surrounding sensitive uses. 

The introduction of motor vehicle 

imports and exports would create 

potential for conflict between trades, 

particularly with respect to the risk of 

damage to motor vehicles by other 

products. With the grain terminal 

adjacent to Corio Quay, the attraction 

of birds to this area could also 

result in damage to vehicles. These 

problems are being experienced in 

other ports around Australia where 

the motor vehicle trades have colocated 

with bulk trades and industry. 

Investigations conducted for this 

feasibility study indicate there would 

be some risk of potential business 

interruption and cost to existing Port 

of Geelong occupiers. 

Current break-bulk imports and exports – 

Corio Quay 

Current trades importing and exporting through Corio 

Quay would be directly impacted if the car trade relocates 

to Geelong. Steel coils are imported through Corio Quay 

South for the manufacturing of motor vehicles, with the 

steel stored undercover at berth. This storage facility 

would be removed as part of a Corio Quay development 

and another facility would need to be identified. 

Alcoa also produces aluminium ingots at its smelter at 

Point Henry for export through Corio Quay North. 

Subject to the parties reaching a commercial agreement 

to develop other facilities, the trades could be relocated 

within Geelong. Alternatively the products could be 

handled through Melbourne. The potential cost impacts 

of these options have not been quantified. 

Environmental and social issues 

The development and operation of a motor vehicle 

import and export facility at the Port of Geelong 

could have minor direct and indirect effects on the 

environment, including: 

• removal of native flora and fauna on project lands, 

including sea grass in areas to be dredged 

• indirect effects of dredge plumes and shipping 

operations on locations remote from actual 

project activities 

• disturbance and disposal of potentially 

contaminated materials in Corio Quay and on 

other project land 

• increased greenhouse gas emissions resulting from 

additional truck travel in the distribution task. 

Preliminary investigations indicate that impacts on the 

terrestrial and marine environments are likely to be 

acceptable and manageable. However, more detailed 

investigations would need to be undertaken to satisfy the 

requirements of State environmental consent processes. 

Preliminary investigations into potential social 

and amenity issues indicate that impacts would be 

low to moderate: 

• Shell Parade/Corio Quay Road and Mackey 

Street/Princes Highway would be the preferred 

access routes and would avoid trucks using local 

residential streets 


• minor road upgrades would be required to meet 

safety requirements for the car-carrying truck fleet 

accessing the port 

• VRCA’s existing channel access and boating safety 

education program would adequately address 

marine safety issues 

• visual impacts would be evaluated in any required 

statutory approvals process 

• truck trips per day (one-way) in the port precinct 

would increase as shown below. 

Road congestion effects 

Relocation to Geelong would not perceptibly reduce 

congestion over the West Gate Bridge or on port access 

roads. The movement of motor vehicles represents only 

five per cent of the total port-related truck movements, 

which in turn represent approximately three per cent 

of traffic on the M1 and over the West Gate Bridge. 

Therefore, motor vehicle trades represent around 0.1 per 

cent of traffic on the West Gate Bridge. 

Truck numbers may reduce slightly if longer transport 

vehicles for the line-haul from Geelong to Altona/ 

Laverton are introduced. However, these vehicles are 

unlikely to be suitable for the distribution task to dealers 

on smaller local roads. 

Additional truck trips per day from car trade growth 

5. Delivery issues 

A number of issues would need to 

be addressed to achieve the 

successful and timely relocation of 

motor vehicle imports and exports 

to the Port of Geelong. 

Timing 

Relocation of motor vehicle 

trades to Geelong would need 

to be coordinated with other port 

development proposals within the 

Port of Melbourne. It is understood 

that the earliest possible date that 

relocation of the motor vehicle trades 

could be required is around 2014/15. 

Planning, design, approvals, 

procurement and construction 

of a facility would need to be 

completed within three to four 

years. This timeframe is considered 

tight but achievable. 

2020 2030 2050 

Port to Compound 35 50 98 

Compound to Dealer 42 63 128 

Factory to Port 10 11 12 

Total 87 124 238 

Ownership, access, 

competition and pricing 

The Port of Geelong is privately 

owned. If the motor vehicle trades 

were relocated to the port, the State 

would need to enter into binding 

project agreements with the port 

owner, its agents and financiers 

to ensure that an adequate level 

of service is provided to the 

motor vehicle industry, including 

expansion of the facility over time to 

accommodate forecast growth. 

The Government would draw on 

similar experiences in reaching 

agreements, eg. Public-Private 

Partnerships, in structuring the 

project agreements. 

The automotive handling and 

logistics services industry is 

concentrated in the hands of a few 

related and integrated companies. 

This includes terminal operation, 

stevedoring and PDI. 

Most industry submitters to the 

discussion paper supported a 

model whereby an independent 

operator develops and manages 

the facility at Geelong and 

makes it available on an open 

access arrangement, reflecting 

arrangements at other motor vehicle 

port terminals around Australia. 


It is envisaged that similar 

to other Australian ports, an 

independent pricing monitor such 

as a competition authority would 

be the appropriate body to monitor 

prices and charges at the port. 

Further consideration of the most 

appropriate regulatory framework 

is required. The Victorian Essential 

Services Commission may have a 

role to play in this regard. 

Statutory approvals 

The development of the Port of 

Geelong to handle motor vehicle 

and related trades would require 

consents under a number of 

State and Commonwealth 

legislation, including: 

• Coastal Management Act 1995 

(Vic) – approval for dredging, 

spoil disposal and land 

reclamation would be required 

• Planning and Environment Act 

1987 (Vic) – planning scheme 

amendment for the area of 

land to be reclaimed would be 

required. The City of Greater 

Geelong is the relevant planning 

and responsible authority for the 

subject land at present 

• Environment Effects Act 1978 

(Vic) – a referral under this 

Act would be required, 

to determine whether an 

Environment Effects Statement 

(EES) would be needed 

• Environmental Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 

1999 (Cth) – referral of the 

proposal to the Commonwealth 

Minister for decision on whether 

a formal assessment and review 

process may be required. 

To date, no potentially significant 

environmental impacts have been 

identified on the marine or terrestrial 

environment. However, there is a risk 

that as new information comes to 

hand during future site and project 

investigations this could alter the 

initial assessment. 

6. Geelong option – 

summary of key findings 

This section summarises the 

key findings of feasibility investigations into 

relocating motor vehicle imports and 

exports to the Port of Geelong. 

Feasibility assessment 

Corio Quay could be redeveloped to provide sufficient 

berth and quay capacity to meet long-term demand for 

motor vehicle imports and exports and related trades 

The Geelong channel has sufficient depth for the 

forecast largest ship and capacity for initial ship 

numbers. However, by 2030 the one-way nature of the 

channel would result in delays to 50 per cent of in-bound 

car-carrying vessels. These vessels would experience 

an average of four hours delay, with adverse wind 

conditions exacerbating delays. 

The 20 hectares of available and useable land at grade 

within the Port of Geelong at project commencement 

would be sufficient to handle all imports and current 

reduced export volumes (around 40,000) until around 

2020, as well as providing five hectares of outdoor and 

undercover storage for related trades. 

An additional 15 hectares of useable land/floor space 

would be required to cater for demand to 2040. This 

could be achieved by: 

• acquisition of additional project land, most likely the 

land between the Melbourne-Geelong rail corridor 

and Princes Highway, and 

• construction of a multi-storey car park on the 

acquired land, or over Corio Quay South, or both, at 

an estimated cost of between $135-150 million. 

The multi-storey car park space would more likely 

be used for handling vehicles with longer dwell times 

at the port, such as exports and longer-term storage 

of imports. 


Stevedoring services would be less efficient due to the 

need to manage vehicles within the multi-storey car park, 

increasing stevedoring costs by 10-15 per cent. 

There is insufficient land at the Port of Geelong for 

any on-wharf PDI. The cost of additional multi-storey 

car park space is likely to be prohibitive, and industry 

would probably choose to conduct all PDI at existing or 

expanded facilities at Altona/Laverton. 

The project could be delivered through a series of 

project agreements between the State and the private 

owner of the Port of Geelong, its agents and financiers, 

which ensure that industry would be provided with an 

adequate level of service, including expansion of the 

facility over time to meet demand. 

Regulatory models are available to achieve an adequate 

level of competition, access, price control and regulation 

of the activities. 

Impacts and benefits 

The Geelong option would increase costs in most 

elements of the supply chain in comparison to the 

current arrangements at Port of Melbourne. The following 

are the estimated cost increases: 

• Channel and towage fees – $18 per vehicle 

• Recovery of capital investment in assets – 

$38 per vehicle 

• Stevedoring – $9 per vehicle 

• Average transport and distribution costs for imports 

– $88 per vehicle 

• Average transport costs for exports – 

$43 per vehicle 

• Off-wharf PDI processing – $6 per vehicle 

As such, the average additional cost per vehicle for 

imports would be approximately $159, and $108 per 

vehicle for exports. The total cost impact to industry 

across the entire supply chain would be in the order of 

$71.4 million in the first year of operation and while this 

would decrease in real terms per vehicle over time it 

would still be $211 million in 2050. 

Lack of on-wharf PDI would prevent 

some manufacturers from achieving 

their current ‘lean logistics chain’ 

models, and preclude others from 

implementing this practice. 

Introduction of motor vehicle imports 

and exports at the port could restrict 

the operations of existing bulk and 

break-bulk port users and occupiers. 

The potential environmental and 

social impacts of the option appear 

low to moderate, and manageable. 

If the automotive importing and 

exporting is relocated 

to Geelong the following direct 

employment benefits could result: 

• terminal operations – 

approximately 20 

fulltime equivalent (FTE) 

positions required 

• stevedores – 260 permanent 

and casual positions 

• PDI – no new positions with 

all PDI processing done in 

Altona/ Laverton 

The Geelong option has a negative 

net present value, reflecting the 

increased overall cost to industry 

and the limited economic and 

employment benefits created by 

the proposal. 


7. Alternative option – 

Webb Dock West 

Whilst this study focuses on the 

technical, environmental, social and 

economic feasibility of relocating the 

import and export of motor vehicles 

to Geelong, an alternative potential 

site for the automotive trade exists 

at Webb Dock West in the Port of 

Melbourne. A summary of this option 

is provided below. 

Technical feasibility 

Channel 

• The existing channel and swing 

basin are of sufficient depth 

and width to accommodate the 

anticipated ship sizes. 

• The Port Phillip channel is 

wider, two-way, and has a 30- 

60 minute shorter transit time 

than the Geelong channel. Tug 

assistance would not be required 

in the channel, but would 

continue to be required for larger 

vessels to assist with berthing 

under highwind conditions. 

• There is sufficient and reliable 

channel capacity in the long 

term to avoid delays for car 

carriers and other vessels. 

Quay and berths 

• Dredging would be required within Webb Dock 

to accommodate car carriers. Sediments are 

uncontaminated and may be disposed at a preexisting 

dredged materials disposal ground under 

existing approvals. 

• The estimated capital cost to develop Webb Dock 

West is similar to the capital investment required to 

develop berths in Geelong. 

• The proposal includes three berths capable of 

simultaneously accommodating two 235 metre 

long vessels and a 265 metre long vessel. The 

berths would also support different operating 

capabilities (e.g. stern ramp, side ramp, 

lift-on lift-off crane access) and would allow the 

berths to be used by other trades in the future. 

• Three berths for car carriers would meet 

requirements for at least 30 years. 

• The Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) would 

to recover the cost of dredging and berth works 

through increased wharfage and rental charges. 

Land including PDI 

• PoMC would develop Webb Dock West with up 

to 45 hectares of flat, useable land, which would 

include an area of port land at the northern end of 

Webb Dock. 

• This option is likely to provide sufficient capacity 

for the automotive and HiHe sectors until at least 

2035, with provision for more than 40 per cent onwharf 

PDI. 

• Further land is available for expansion of activities 

at the northern end of Webb Dock. 


Terminal operations and access 

• There are a number of different terminal ownership 

and operational models currently in the Port of 

Melbourne. Consolidating operations at Webb Dock 

West provides an opportunity to achieve economies 

of scale and productivity improvements and to 

provide a consistent open access arrangement. 

• PoMC intends to act as landlord to a single terminal 

operator providing multi-user open access to the 

terminal for stevedores, and common access for 

automotive vessels to all automotive berths. 

• An automotive terminal at WDW could operate 24/7 

and retain the three-day lay down time for imports 

and 10 days for exports as standard practice. 

Stevedores 

• Webb Dock West would be established as an 

open access terminal allowing any stevedoring 

company interested in the automotive trade to 

enter and operate. 

• A single terminal would enable the consolidation 

of resources handling passenger and commercial 

vehicles, break-bulk and general RoRo cargo all in 

the same location. 

• Stevedores would be able to continue to use dealer 

mark priority when discharging import ships for all 

pre-sold cars. 

• Current stevedore permanent, semi-permanent 

and casual positions would remain, with number of 

positions expected to increase in line with growth 

in demand. 

Transport and distribution 

• Transport and distribution 

patterns would remain similar 

with potential for more efficient 

use of truck movements to result 

through consolidation 

of the industry. 

• Forecast congestion around the 

Port of Melbourne and Dynon 

precinct will reduce transport 

efficiency for movement of cars 

from WDW, and increased use 

of off-peak truck movements 

likely to result. 

• The development of Webb 

Dock West for the automotive 

import and export trade would 

have relatively little impact on 

overall traffic along arterial 

routes such as on the West Gate 

Bridge. Over time an increased 

percentage of on-wharf PDI 

would slightly reduce truck 

numbers heading west over 

the bridge. 

Cost impacts 

• The capital investment required 

at Webb Dock West is similar 

to that required to develop 

Geelong. Full recovery of 

the capital cost by Port of 

Melbourne Corporation would 

increase car import and export 

costs by a similar amount as a 

Geelong development 

• The Port of Melbourne 

Corporation’s initial assessment 

of the cost impact of the Port 

Licence Fee on the car industry 

is approximately $12 per car. 

• Whilst there are additional 

costs arising from the capital 

investment at Webb Dock West, 

efficiency and productivity gains 

resulting from consolidation, 

including transport, would lead 

to less overall cost to industry 

when compared with relocation 

to Geelong. 

Industry views 

Industry submitters understand 

that development at the Webb 

Dock West will increase costs for 

the automotive industry and more 

recently it has been made aware 

of the impact of the Port Licence 

Fee. Nevertheless the industry 

have indicated that consolidation 

at Webb Dock West is the preferred 

solution as it meets many of their 

requirements for an efficient motor 

vehicle terminal, including: 

• a large, flat parcel of land with 

provision for on-wharf PDI for at 

least 25 years 

• proximity to market 

• two-way channel with capacity 

to cater to increased demand 

over the mid- to long-term 

• co-location with general cargo 

and break-bulk trades. 




8. Conclusions 

Feasibility 

The relocation of importing and 

exporting of motor vehicles and 

related trades from the Port of 

Melbourne to the Port of Geelong 

is likely to be technically feasible, 

environmentally acceptable, and 

could meet industry forecast demand 

for at least 25 years, provided extra 

storage area is provided by the 

acquisition of additional land and the 

construction of a large multi-storey 

car park. 

Provision of additional space for 

on-wharf PDI is likely to be more 

expensive than transporting vehicles 

to existing facilities at Altona/Laverton. 

The proposal would cause certain 

and/or quantifiable impacts: 

• Higher costs would be incurred 

across the supply chain, 

including recovery of all capital 

investment, higher piloting 

costs, higher terminal operating 

and stevedoring costs, plus 

additional transport and 

distribution costs. The additional 

cost is in the order of $159 per 

vehicle for imports and $108 per 

vehicle for exports. 

• Multiplying these costs by the 

total number of imports and 

exports forecast for the year 

2015, this would equate to an 

additional $71.4 million cost 

in the supply chain for the 

importing and exporting or 

motor vehicles in Victoria. 

• The ‘no on-wharf PDI’ model 

would prevent manufacturers 

from maintaining and expanding 

their current lean logistics chain 

models for dealer delivery direct 

from port. It also prevents other 

manufacturers from adopting 

this practice in future. 

• By 2030 approximately 50 per 

cent of car carrier vessels would 

be subject to average delays 

of four hours while waiting for 

channel access. 

• Total kilometres travelled in the land-side distribution 

task would increase by 70 per cent, with a similar rise 

in greenhouse gas emissions from this activity. 

• Current stevedore operations for break-bulk and 

general cargo trades at the Port of Melbourne 

would become less efficient and productive due to 

the loss of a significant share of their business to 

the Port of Geelong. 

The option would also pose or be subject to a number 

of key risks: 

• Ensuring adequate capacity and efficiency of 

port and terminal services would be subject to 

complex agreements between the State and private 

operators, causing risk of delays in supply or suboptimal 

governance, competition, access 

or performance. 

• The one-way, narrow and long nature of the 

Geelong shipping channel poses a risk of 

significant additional delays to shipping schedules 

in adverse wind conditions, which occur five per 

cent of the time. 

• The introduction of a relatively sensitive use could 

restrict the operations of other businesses within 

the Port of Geelong. 

• The project delivery timeline is tight, and delays 

could impact on both motor vehicle trades as well 

as international container trades. 


Policy drivers 

Addressing each of the potential key policy drivers in turn: 

Tackling road congestion, particularly on 

Melbourne’s freeways, arterial roads and port 

access roads 

Relocating motor vehicle imports and exports to the 

Port of Geelong would not deliver any significant or 

perceptible improvement in congestion on key roads 

such as the M1, West Gate Bridge or port precinct roads, 

because transport of motor vehicles only comprises a 

very small proportion of all road traffic. 

Enhancing regional development 

Establishment of a motor vehicle facility at the Port of 

Geelong would create approximately 180 new permanent 

and 100 casual and part-time jobs in 2015-16, which 

would grow as the freight task increases over time. 

Ensuring efficient automotive supply chains for 

imported and exported vehicles 

Relocating motor vehicle imports and exports to the Port 

of Geelong would not improve any aspect of the supply 

chain. Rather the proposal would significantly adversely 

impact the supply chain efficiency and productivity, as 

set out in detail elsewhere in this study. 

Supporting local vehicle manufacturing 

Relocating motor vehicle imports and exports to the Port 

of Geelong would not provide any particular support 

to the Victorian motor vehicle manufacturing industry 

and would have some negative impact on export 

competitiveness. 

Comparison with the 

Port of Melbourne option 

This feasibility study does not present a full business 

case comparison between options at the ports of 

Geelong and Melbourne. However, the following 

observations are made: 

• The Webb Dock West option provides a less 

complex, flat site that is more easily developed to 

meet demand for at least 25 years. 

• Whilst industry accepts that 

the Webb Dock West option is 

likely to cause cost increases 

due to the cost of capital, this 

option would enable industry to 

maintain and improve supply 

chain efficiencies through 

establishment of additional 

on-wharf PDI facilities, and the 

consolidation of activities at one 

site within the Port of Melbourne. 

Summary 

On balance, this study 

concludes that: 

• The Port of Geelong presents a 

sub-optimal solution to meeting 

the current and future needs of 

the Victorian motor vehicle 

industry, especially when 

compared with the alternative 

site available at Webb Dock 

West in the Port of Melbourne. 

• The potential regional economic 

benefits are limited and do 

not appear to justify imposing 

significant costs and an 

alternative business model and 

logistics chain on the motor 

vehicle industry. 

• The Port of Geelong option 

poses or is subject to a number 

of significant risks which at 

this stage are not sufficiently 

quantified, but collectively 

appear to present unnecessary 

risk to Government and industry. 


www.transport.vic.gov.au 

Authorised by the Victorian Government, 121 Exhibition Street, Melbourne. 

DOT6888/12

Feasibility Study - Department of Transport

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?