The attack used here to calculate a port ‘s market portion, in footings of container throughput, is based on demand pick theoretical accounts, as applied in transit planning, for average pick and path pick. First, the pick of a container routing – that is, a sequence of container cargos and transportations from beginning to finish, and thereby the implied pick of a container port – is put into a larger model of conveyance decision-making.Then, the routing pick theoretical account itself is described, followed by a description of consequences of the standardization of the theoretical account for container conveyance to and from West Europe. Finally, practical applications are presented and discussed. The aim of the paper is to show the usage of a tool to turn to the issue of competition among container ports. Most applications of the theoretical account presented here concern the line drive transporting paths functioning West Europe.
A theoretical account on container port competitionFor its imports and exports of containerised ladings West Europe is served by the Far East transportation paths, the North American transportation paths and a figure of less of import north-south paths. Different combinations of deep-sea transportation lines, havens and manners of land conveyance can function the assorted parts of the mainland. Partss of West Europe can be served by a battalion of combinations or routings, and in world parts of the backwoods are served by routings utilizing each of the havens in the Antwerp-Hamburg scope. Looking from a port ‘s position, there appear to be great convergences between the backwoodss of the North Sea container ports. This besides demonstrates the great sum of competition bing among these ports ( see Figure 1 ) .The big grade of competition makes it hard to mensurate the impact on a port ‘s place, of alterations in its entree to the sea, in its ability to suit bigger ships, in its cargo- and ship-handling productiveness and in its entree to and from the backwoods by route, rail or waterway. This paper aims at showing how the logit theoretical account can be used to turn to the impact of such alterations in costs and quality of service.
The port-choice determination within transit planningIt should be noted that the routing pick for a container cargo, with the implied pick of a haven, is portion of a series of picks. In transit planning theoretical accounts ( De Dios Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1990 ) the undermentioned sequence of picks is distinguished:production-attraction: the pick to purchase or sell a certain type and sum of goods ;distribution: the pick to purchase from a certain group of providers or to sell to a certain group of clients ; andRouting: the pick to utilize a certain conveyance option.A determination taking to a alteration in transit costs or in quality of service of container conveyance to and from a certain part has its impact on all three stages. The impact of, for case, an addition in transit costs on production-attraction, for a peculiar backwoods part, will be negligible, given the little portion of such a cost alteration within entire logistics costs.
The cost increase itself might take to a displacement towards other ports, doing the impact even smaller.The impact of a cost alteration on distribution costs should be bigger and it could good be sufficient to do a alteration in trading spouses. Such a alteration, nevertheless, would merely count if it leads to a displacement from an abroad to an overland trading spouse or frailty versa.
Besides, this impact is most likely negligible. It can be concluded, hence, that the impact of such a cost alteration would merely count in routing pick determinations.With nautical container conveyance, the routing stage includes at least the following concatenation of picks:average pick in part of beginning ;pick of haven in part of beginning ;pick of ocean transportation service ;pick of haven in part of finish ; andaverage pick in part of finish.The shipper or receiving system of the goods, or its logistics service supplier, normally makes these determinations. On the port-choice issue, as is argued subsequently, the related costs and quality of service are aspects non known for all back-to-back stages or bonds.
However, the mathematical signifier chosen implies that merely differences in the values of properties play a function, so that the bonds in the concatenation with equal values can be discarded.TopHYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.
html # top # top ” of pageTHE ROUTING CHOICE MODELJustification of theoretical account and functional signifierGiven the flows of containers shipped from one part to the other, there are assorted techniques to turn to the routing pick. Some types of theoretical accounts originate from Operations Research ( Ronen, 1983 ) , where lading flows are allocated in a manner that optimises a certain nonsubjective map. By and large, such techniques do non include tradeoffs between cost and quality of service. Demand pick theoretical accounts are designed to cover explicitly with such tradeoffs and are hence considered to be more suited.Assorted theoretical accounts can depict demand for routing options and, hence, besides the distribution of demand over these options at either the disaggregate degree of single decision-makers or at the aggregative degree for groups of decision-makers. Oum ( 1989 ) compares such theoretical accounts on aggregative demand. The S-shaped market portion curve of the logit theoretical account constraints the predicted market portion between nothing and one, and is intuitively attractive and realistically depict the routing-switching behavior of decision-makers.An inexplicit premise of logit theoretical accounts is that the cross-elasticities of demand for one option, with regard to an property of any given option, are restricted to be equal.
This is by and large seen as a strong restriction in the signifier of the theoretical account. The Translog demand map, for case, is the most widely used demand theoretical account without such a restriction and it is applied in average split issues with two manners ( Oum, 1989 ) . This type of theoretical accounts nevertheless is excessively complex, given the battalion of alternate picks applicable.The logit theoretical account for container routing optionsChoice of container routing and pick of portFor this analysis, the figure of bonds in the concatenation of container conveyance and reassign services of a door-to-door cargo, as described earlier, can be reduced without losing much explanatory power. The costs and quality of service facets of the pre- and on-carriage and of the port transportation in the state of the abroad trading spouse are most likely of negligible influence on the picks to be made at the West European terminal. The analysis therefore can be restricted to a concatenation of services at the European terminal, including the ocean-going sea-leg, the container transportation in port, and the inland conveyance.
The North Sea ports in the Hamburg-Le Havre scope serve the major portion of the container traffic to and from the West European continent. The present analysis, concentrating on the competitory place of the port of Rotterdam, involves, as a effect, the ports of Hamburg, Bremen, Rotterdam and Antwerp. The port of Le Havre is left out, as it is more of import as a rival of Antwerp. Smaller ports such as Amsterdam and Zeebrugge can besides be excluded given their little market portion. Shippers and receiving systems located in, say, Ludwigshaven have the pick to hold their containers, to or from the Far East, shipped and transferred via different combinations of:transporting line ;port of call ; andmanner of inland conveyance.With, say, 25 transportation lines, four ports of call and three manners of inland conveyance ( though non all combinations are relevant ) , the figure of different routings functioning a peculiar part easy exceeds 100.
For routings including a transhipment port, the figure of options is even greater.The chance of taking a routing depends on costs and quality of service facets such as theodolite clip and frequence of service of all viing routings. User studies by and large produce a longer list including facets such as dependability of service, handiness of EDI services, reactivity to client ‘s wants and so on. These factors were excluded as they can non be quantified at the appropriate degree of collection.The logit theoretical accountThe chance that shippers and receiving systems functioning a peculiar part choose routing R ( a combination of a port of transportation in West Europe, a transportation line and a manner of backwoods conveyance ) among the set of all possible routings, can be expressed as where Pm is the chance of taking routing m from all possible routings, r=1… M ; Um the ‘utility ‘ attached to route m ; and m the routing index.The chance Pm can be interpreted as the market portion of a routing in the set of routings functioning a peculiar part ( for the interest of simpleness, the index of the part is omitted ) .The public-service corporation mapThe value that shippers and receiving systems of a certain part attach to routing m is measured by its public-service corporation, expressed as a ( additive ) combination of all facets or properties of importance in the pick of path:where Dm is the silent person variable bespeaking whether shippers/receivers have a penchant for routing m ; Cm the transportation costs of routing m ( including cargo rate, handling charges, land conveyance costs, etc.
) ; Tm the theodolite clip for routing m ; and Fm the frequence of service of routing m.The explanatory variables Cm, Tm and Fm are referred to as properties ; 0m, 1, 2 and 3 are the coefficients of the public-service corporation map.By spliting the public-service corporation with the cost coefficient 1, the consequence becomes equal to the generalized cost of the option.
Market portion of a container routing or container portThe comparative place of one container routing against another is expressed by the ratio of the chance that a shipper/receiver located in a certain part chooses routing m over the chance that he chooses routing n. By replacing m and N in equation 1, this ratio is given byThe chance ratio is therefore a map of the differences in properties, which, for assorted grounds, is a convenient signifier. If, alternatively of differences, a quotient signifier is applicable ( this is the instance where public-service corporation maps take a multiplicative instead than a additive signifier ) , information on more, or even all, bonds of the conveyance concatenation would be needed.
A quotient signifier of properties would besides necessitate informations on the absolute degree of their values.The coefficients of the differences in properties can be estimated by additive arrested development, after linearizing equation 3 by taking logarithms ( see equation 5 ) . In support of the difference signifier, Oum ( 1989 ) states that, with the ratio signifier, the pick of base routing n affects the empirical consequences, including ain and cross-elasticities of demand.
If a shipper/receiver attaches the same public-service corporation to routings m and N, the chance of taking either one is the same. In that instance, the difference of the public-service corporations is zero, taking to a value of the ratio Pm/Pn equal to 1. If measurings indicate that the value of 0m differs from zero and peers, for case, 0.
5, the state of affairs is different. If a client attaches a higher public-service corporation to routing m ( this can be expressed by allowing Dm=1 ) , and he is apathetic with regard to routing Ns ( Dn=0 ) , with all other values of the properties ( duty, clip, etc. ) equal, the right-hand side of equation 3 becomes e0.5=1.65. This means that the chance of taking routing m is 1.
65 times the chance of taking routing n. In instance there are no other routings, the likely market portion of routing m would be 1.65/ ( 1.65+1 ) =62 % alternatively of 50 % .The silent person variable Dm refers to facets non yet included in the properties, such as the comparative advantage of a certain routing or group of routings. These advantages or disadvantages concern, for case, routings utilizing a certain manner of conveyance or a certain group of transporting lines ( or combinations thereof ) , and associate to properties non explicitly included in the public-service corporation map, due to, for case, deficiency of information. One may besides believe of facets such as dependability of service or handiness of EDI services, applicable in certain routings.The absolute value of the coefficients reflects the sensitiveness of the portion of a routing to alterations in the differences of properties: the higher the value of the coefficient, the steeper the S-curve in Figure 2, bespeaking a high sensitiveness.
The ratio of the two coefficients indicates the tradeoff between two properties, such as, for case, the tradeoff between clip and costs.Finally, the market portion of a peculiar container port can be determined by normalizing the ratios against base routing Ns in such a manner that all portions add up to one, and later adding the ratios of all routings including the port in inquiry.TopHYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # top # top ” of pageVALUES OF COEFFICIENTSIn a old application of the logit theoretical account in a similar scene ( Buckmann and Veldman, 2000 ) , the values of the parametric quantities of the public-service corporation map were taken from surveies based on other state of affairss. This needfully leads to inaccuracies, as the coefficient values depend on the pick state of affairs, the geographical scene, the theoretical account specification, the method of appraisal and the degree of collection.Of the surveies considered, three concerned average split state of affairss ( Blauwens and Van de Voorde, 1988 ; Oum, 1989 ; Dekker, 1999 ) at aggregative degree and one survey dealt with the pick between line drive transportation services ( Simons and Veldman, 1992 ) at disaggregate degree, utilizing stated penchants.
Our engagement in a market survey ( CPB HYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # bib4 # bib4 ” et alHYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # bib4 # bib4 ” , 2001a,2001b ) for the Maasvlakte 2 undertaking of the port of Rotterdam, gave us the chance to farther trial logit models.1Continental backwoods flowsThe basic information of the Continental backwoods used here concerned container flows generated by 33 backwoods parts in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, and routed through the ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam, Bremen and Hamburg, covering together 83 % of the Continental backwoods of the port of Rotterdam.
Container flows were distinguished by manner of transport-but non farther by type ( full/empty ) -size ( 20 foot and other ) , trade good type and way ( incoming/outgoing ) .The explanatory variables tested included differences in conveyance costs, transport clip and frequence of service of the inland manners, and liner service frequence by haven and major trade path. The frequence of service variables were expressed as the reciprocal of the frequence, that is, the mean inter-arrival clip ( IAT ) of two back-to-back calls of a line drive service or of an inland conveyance manner. Besides included were the market portion of a port, as a placeholder for quality of service, and a set of dummy variables related to inland conveyance manners, sometimes in combination with a haven.The chance of taking a path to/from a certain part in the backwoods is defined by the ratio of the containers on that path to the entire sum of maritime containers transported to/from that part. This information was collected from national conveyance and port statistics.
Conveyance costs include the costs of transporting a container between the stack in a haven and the Centre of a backwoods part by route, rail or flatboat. For multi-modal conveyance, an allowance is made for conveyance by truck and the costs of transporting the empty container to a terminal. It should be noted that the sea cargo of the deep-sea trades has no influence on the cost variable in the logit map, as bearers apply the same duty to each of the Continental havens. Transport clip is the clip interval between going of a container from a haven and the reaching at the concluding finish in the backwoods, and frailty versa. Datas on costs and clip were collected from an international cargo forwarder, a flatboat operator and a railroad operator.The ‘IAT in port ‘ variable is an index based on the reciprocal of the mean figure of calls, which is relative to the mean figure of hebdomadal services naming at a port of the transatlantic and Europe-Far East trade paths. For a port with 10 lines naming hebdomadally on the Europe-Far East trade path, the IAT value would be 365/ ( 10*52 ) =0.
7 yearss. It is non clear what this clip interval means to a peculiar shipper/receiver and what he considers of import for his pick: the figure of calls offered by all operators, one operator, an Alliance, a pool or a combination of these? The figure of services linking with the peculiar ports in the Far East he is merchandising with? The IAT variable describes the fact that a peculiar port offering a great figure of services is thereby attractive. The index variable hence instead reflects the quality of service of a port.The ‘IAT of a backwoods manner ‘ is defined in a similar manner and it is relative to the mean figure of hebdomadal services of the peculiar backwoods manner between the selected port and the backwoods part. The market portion of a port is defined as the ratio of the backwoods throughput of a port to the entire backwoods throughput of all ports and is derived from port statistics.To gauge the theoretical account, an arbitrary base path was chosen: route conveyance between the port of Rotterdam and the backwoods part.
The differences in chance, costs, clip, IAT and market portion are all compared to this base routing ( see equation 5 ) .A considerable figure of theoretical accounts was tested, five of which are discussed here ( see Table 1 ) . In the first theoretical account, differences in costs, clip, IAT of inland conveyance manners and an inter-arrival index for line drive service frequence per port were taken as explanatory variables. Except for the clip variable, all coefficients appeared to hold the right mark and to be statistically important, holding a P-value of less than 5 % . Most likely, the low significance of the clip variable can be explained by the deficiency of differentiation between the different routings for this variable.
The explanatory power of the theoretical account, as given by the value of the adjusted R2, was instead low ( 0.11 ) .Assorted theoretical accounts were tested, and it appeared that importers and exporters located farther off from the ports had a different perceptual experience of time- and cost-related factors than the 1s located closer ( see Figure 3 ) . A Chow break-test2 confirmed this. To work out this job, the variables were split into a distance-dependent and a distance-independent portion.
This led to a better tantrum as it appears from theoretical accounts 2 to 5. In theoretical accounts 2 and 3, the mark of the changeless cost coefficient is positive, which seems inappropriate. However, the entire cost coefficient, the amount of changeless and variable portion, is negative for the scope of mean distances considered here.
The same applies to the ‘IAT in port ‘ coefficient in theoretical account 2.A farther betterment appeared to come from the replacing of the ‘IAT in port ‘ variable, being a placeholder for quality of service, by the market portion of ports. This variable is besides split up into a distance-dependent and a distance-independent portion. The mark of the combined market portion coefficient is positive. The changeless portion of the coefficient is non important.
The consequence is still hapless in footings of the value of R2 ( see model 3 ) .The inclusion of mode-specific dummy variables appeared to take to farther betterment ( see model 4 ) . By including silent persons, the ‘IAT of backwoods manners ‘ variable is no longer important. The silent persons for rail conveyance and inland waterway conveyance ( IWT ) have both negative marks, connoting that less container flows use these manners than explained by the other variables, such as the cost difference. The silent persons can be interpreted as a placeholder for quality of service of these manners, with rail conveyance hiting lower than IWT.Further informations analysis revealed that a great figure of containers is shipped between Rotterdam and Antwerp by flatboat. The account of this phenomenon lies in the pattern of dispatching containers with Bill-of-Lading ‘Antwerp ‘ in Rotterdam and transporting them to Antwerp by flatboat. In this theoretical account, the positive mark of the clip variable is non as expected ; this variable is hence dropped from the concluding theoretical account.
In the concluding theoretical account, theoretical account 5, the cost variable is non statistically important, but is included in order to be used for prediction intents. The Bill-of-Lading silent person besides remains since informations research has demonstrated its significance. The cost coefficient varies between -0.0045 and -0.0016, depending on the distance between backwoods part and ports ( see Figure 4 ) .Transhipment flowsBy and large, the pick of a transhipment port is made by the transportation line and it is non of direct importance to the shipper/receiver. Apart from the port of beginning or finish, users can non act upon this pick straight by, for case, calling a port in the Bill of Lading, as is the pattern with merchandiser draw.
The user, nevertheless, values the pick of a transhipment port on the footing of the impact it has on the value of its properties, such as costs and transit clip. Through the interactions between users and bearers, the choice of a good transhipment port is rewarded by a higher market portion.A similar statistical analysis was conducted for the pick of transhipment port.
Given the competitory state of affairs among transhipment ports, we needed to spread out the geographical range by including the seven major ports, that is, the four major continental ports, two UK transhipment ports ( Felixstowe and Southampton ) and Le Havre, every bit good as 14 West European feeder parts, bring forthing together 88 % of Rotterdam ‘s transhipment volume. The staying 12 % concern containers transhipped between the West European major ports themselves and containers generated by feeder parts outside West Europe.Transhipment flows were assessed on the footing of incoming and surpassing flows through the hub-ports, the ship call forms of feeder services linking hub-ports and feeder countries, and the mean capacities of the ships used on these services by each transportation line. The entire volume to/from a transhipment port was assumed to be distributed over the feeder services naming at the port harmonizing to the one-year capacity of the service. Per feeder service, the volume was assumed to be distributed over the abroad backwoods parts harmonizing to the figure of calls to that part. Finally, the container flows to/from each abroad part were checked against the container throughput of its port.Feeder flows between the major ports themselves were discarded. The costs of these flows are non charged straight to shippers and receiving systems, as they are included in the ocean-sea cargo.
Feeder costs for ports outside the Continental port scope, nevertheless, are charged to the shippers/receivers on top of the ocean-sea cargo. For the UK ports, a difference in ocean-sea cargo has to be adopted excessively, as they face a deep-sea cargo rate degree in surplus of the Continental ports, due to the weaker place of shippers and receiving systems vis-a-vis bearers. The conveyance costs include the mean costs of transporting a container between the stack in one of the transhipment ports and the stack in the port of the abroad part, therefore including terminal handling charges. For the UK ports, the difference in ocean-sea cargo rate was besides included. The information was collected from transporting lines.
The quality of feeder services, in footings of seafaring clip, differs merely somewhat among the different transhipment ports, while the frequence of service is similar. These variables were hence non included in the analysis. Since some ports are visited more frequently than others, the entire figure of calls of feeder services differs among transhipment ports and is therefore included as a variable. Its value is based on the hebdomadal ship call forms of all feeder services.Lapp as in the analysis of the Continental backwoods, the market portion of a hub-port is included as a placeholder for quality of service. It is defined as the ratio of the entire container throughput of a port to the entire throughput of all seven ports. The informations have been collected from port statistics.Similar theoretical accounts were tested as for the pick of the Continental ports ( see Table 2 ) .
The first theoretical account includes the ‘difference in costs ‘ , ‘market portion ‘ and ‘number of calls at the major ports ‘ as explanatory variables. The adjusted R2 value was 0.64, which is rather high compared to Continental backwoods flows. Merely the cost variable appears to be statistically important ; the market portion variable shows the incorrect mark.
Both the figure of calls and the market portion variable are placeholders for ‘quality of service ‘ in a port and are therefore extremely correlated. Since both of them were non statistically important, a theoretical account including merely one brace of these variables was tested.The split of the variables in a distance-dependent and a distance-independent portion led to assorted consequences: an addition in the value of R2, but by and large lower t-values.
The market portion variables once more show the incorrect mark ( see model 2 ) . In the concluding signifier, the distance-dependent portion of the market portion was discarded due to the low t-value. The cost variable was non statistically important in theoretical account 3, but it was kept for prediction intents.Decisions on statistical trialsIn most theoretical accounts, explanatory variables such as differences in costs, frequence index and port market portions appear to be statistically important, both in absolute footings and when divided by the mean distance to the ports.
The impact of differences in theodolite clip is weak and the most likely account of this is the deficiency of differentiation in the differences in clip.The market portion variable, nevertheless, requires some attending. On the one manus, it corresponds to frequence of service or, in its mutual signifier, to IAT. On the other manus, it includes facets related to the supply side. A port with comparatively low port call costs ( divergence costs of main-line, cargo-handling costs and handiness for big ships together cause differences in port-related costs ) is attractive for transporting companies as port of call.Therefore, in their interactions with shippers and receiving systems, transporting companies may name more at these low-priced ports, than what would be expected sing backwoods costs and quality of service facets merely. Price-setting patterns and market forces oblige bearers non to know apart between the major continental ports.
3 If a certain port is more attractive to operators, they merely name at that place more frequently and accept the higher inland conveyance costs. The common pattern of ‘carrier draw ‘ offers them the instrument to accomplish the preferable frequence of their port call form.The addition in container traffic volumes leads to a combination of an addition in the size of ships deployed and in the frequence of service, which as such fuels a farther addition in traffic volumes.
In the literature, the latter consequence is referred to as the Mohring consequence ( Sansom HYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # bib10 # bib10 ” et alHYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.
palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # bib10 # bib10 ” , 1999 ) .TopHYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # top # top ” of pageAPPLICATIONS OF THE MODELThree applications of the logit theoretical account for container port planning intents are discussed. The first concerns the port of Gdynia in Poland, where container throughput crucially depends on the competitory place of feeder line conveyance against land conveyance.
This state of affairs concerns a tradeoff between a low-cost-low-quality routing against a high-cost-high-quality routing.The appraisal of a tradeoff between costs and quality of service is the nucleus of the container throughput forecast. The illustration is based on the application of plausible premises instead than on statistical measurings. The 2nd illustration concerns a survey on the impact of a alteration in port-cost recovery on the market portions of the major North Sea container ports. The coefficients used are taken from other state of affairss. The 3rd illustration concerns the appraisal of market portion as a map of alterations in generalized costs of the Maasvlakte 2 undertaking in the port of Rotterdam.Forecasting container throughput in the port of Gdynia, PolandPolish havens face competition from other foreign ports and from each other. Ocean-going container traffic can be routed to and from Polish parts straight through Polish ports, indirectly transhipped through North Sea ports linking with Polish ports and indirectly through North Sea ports over land.
During the early 1990s, with the backdown of ocean transportation lines linking ports in the Baltic, the first option has practically disappeared. Forecasting port-throughput in a port like Gdynia, every bit far as deep-sea containers are concerned, hence implies calculating the portion of the transhipment routing via North Sea ports within the sum.From interviews with shippers and receiving systems, it appeared that both routing options were used at the same time, with market portions per part changing with the geographics of the state: lower portions for the Gdynia option for the southern and western parts of the state and higher portions for the eastern and northern parts. It was decided to use a logit theoretical account, as a precise limit of the backwoods parts could non be assessed.The parametric quantities of the logit theoretical account were derived from premises on the value of clip ( Veldman, 1994 ) and costs ; clip and IAT differences were used as explanatory variables. Given the value of clip, that is, the ratio of the coefficients of the public-service corporation map, the absolute value of the coefficients had to be established. Statistical testing of the theoretical account was non possible.Therefore, some wide trials were made by changing the absolute value and comparing the ensuing throughput degrees with the bing 1.
This process resulted in a set of plausible parametric quantity values. Subsequently, future market portions were assessed by utilizing the latter together with predicted values of the explanatory variables. In this manner, sensitiveness analyses could be carried out, utilizing alternate premises with regard to the impact of envisaged alterations in boundary line crossing processs, new rail services and route substructure.
It may be clear that, when port throughput is more sensitive to displacements in market portions than to growing of the entire container demand, some wide appraisals with the logit theoretical account are justified, despite the missing values of coefficients either statistically calibrated or taken from other pick state of affairss.Appraisal of the impact of alterations in pricing policy on port market portionsIn the European Union, the present system of pricing larboard substructure with regard to be recovery is a mixture of national policies. In a survey of the European Commission on this issue ( ATENCO, 2001 ) , a figure of instance surveies were developed. One of them had, as nonsubjective, to measure the impact of a new pricing policy on market portions of container ports.The survey concerned the North Sea container ports in the Antwerp-Hamburg scope.
To run into the marks of a policy of full port-cost recovery, charges for port entree ( dredging ) would hold to increase by euro 0.4, 1.2, 4.8 and 4.8 per TEU for the ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp, Bremen and Hamburg, severally. To measure the impact on port market portions, it was assumed that the addition in costs would non be absorbed by the sea cargo, but to the full charged to the shippers and receiving systems.The lone manner to quantify this impact is to measure a relation between monetary value and market portion of container routings for the assorted parts of the Continental backwoods of the North Sea ports.
Information on the existent pick of container routings was available, but no information on the pick properties and parametric quantities of the logit map.The application of the theoretical account can be better explained by taking the logarithm of equation 3:As a consequence of a alteration in port costs by C, the public-service corporation of routings m and N will alter, depending on the ports used in the two routings. The alteration in routing ratios can be expressed as:The ratios of the routings as experienced in the yesteryear can be used as a placeholder for the existent values of Pm/Pn.
To measure the alteration in market portion of the assorted routings and thereby of the ports, merely coefficient 1 has to be known as this appears in equation 6. A value of -0.035 was taken, derived from literature on average split ( ATENCO, 2001 ) .The absolute value of the chosen coefficient is well larger than those ensuing from the statistical appraisals mentioned above, taking to a greater sensitiveness of the market portion to monetary value alterations. It should be noted that the theoretical account discussed here did non include a frequence or market portion variable that interacts with the cost variable, enlarging its impact, as discussed subsequently.The consequence of the above-named alterations in port costs would take to alterations in port market portions of 3.2 % , 1.
2 % , -4.3 % and -4.2 % for Rotterdam, Antwerp, Bremen and Hamburg, severally.In practical state of affairss, this attack seems acceptable as a first wide indicant of the impact of alterations in port costs on port market portions. The result, nevertheless, is non really convincing, given the deficiency of cognition on the value of coefficients. The illustration that follows overcomes this defect.The Maasvlakte-2 undertakingThe future container-throughput market portion of the port of Rotterdam can be assessed as a map of cost differences in the instance the Maasvlakte-2 undertaking is carried out and the one where it is non.
By increasing the costs of the port of Rotterdam vis-a-vis its rivals, containers are rerouted to viing ports. By consistently increasing the costs of containers go throughing through the port of Rotterdam, the market portion of routings via Rotterdam becomes smaller.The market portion is assessed in an iterative manner. An addition in costs leads to a lessening in market portion, which leads to a farther lessening through the market portion variable and so on. For the estimated values, this procedure appears to meet, ensuing in a demand curve ( see Figure 5 ) .
By fiting the demand curve with the future supply of the port of Rotterdam without the Maasvlakte-2 undertaking, one obtains a footing for the appraisal of economic benefits related to routing cost nest eggs of this project.4Consequences from the above theoretical accounts ( CPB HYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.
html # bib5 # bib5 ” et alHYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # bib5 # bib5 ” , 2001b ) show that, by increasing the costs of utilizing the port of Rotterdam visa-vis viing ports by NLG 60 ( EURO 27 ) TEU, the market portion of the container traffic in the West European continent will be halved. For transhipped containers, a halving appears to match to a monetary value addition of NLG 40 ( EURO 18 ) TEU.Once the undertaking is considered feasible from the socio-economic point of position, the inquiry arises as to what extent the investing can be recovered through duties. The demand curve was hence besides used to measure the fiscal impact of alternate port cost recovery strategies.TopHYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.
palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # top # top ” of pageDecisionWorld container-handling capacity is increasing fast with investings in enlargement of bing ports and building of new 1s. Many surveies are conducted to calculate demand, but small attending is paid to methodological analysis.
Given the strong addition in demand, the truth of port capacity prognosiss has non been excessively large an issue and, given the deficiency of statistical informations, non much attending has been paid to methodology. As growing rates in a figure of parts are diminishing and as the primary container ports in some parts are worsening in importance both in relation and absolute footings, things alteration and penetration in calculating container market portions is considered more of import.The theoretical model of transit planning theoretical accounts offers a good starting point for larboard demand modeling and its application is merely hampered by scarceness of informations. Ports are portion of a world-wide web of container conveyance services, which is going progressively more fine-meshed.
Measuring a port ‘s function and market portion in such a web means that a portion of the web has to be singled out without loss of consistence.A logit theoretical account is an of import tool for the appraisal of container port market portions in state of affairss where viing ports have a big convergence in backwoods. The major restraint in the usage of logit theoretical accounts concerns cognition of the proper theoretical account specifications and related coefficients, as it is non ever possible to graduate theoretical accounts. In such fortunes, standardization can be done at an aggregative degree or with stated penchant analysis.Consequences of the appraisal were presented for the market portions of the port of Gdynia in the container flows in Polish parts ( Veldman, 1994 ) . A logit theoretical account was applied to measure the market portions of the Polish parts in combination with a great sum of adept opinion. Essential in this appraisal was the tradeoff between costs and clip of the routing options.
The coefficients of the logit map were based on a set of premises instead than being calibrated by revealed or declared penchants.In a 2nd survey ( ATENCO, 2001 ) on the appraisal of the impact of container port pricing policies on port market portions, a logit theoretical account was besides employed, refering this clip the West European container ports. The parametric quantities of the logit theoretical accounts were derived from the literature on average split. The deficiency of decently estimated coefficients was considered as a major drawback.
Most attending in this paper focused on the container port market portion appraisal of the port of Rotterdam ( CPB HYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # bib4 # bib4 ” et alHYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.palgrave-journals.
com/mel/journal/v5/n1/full/9100058a.html # bib4 # bib4 ” , 2001a,2001b ) , where an extended statistical analysis was performed to gauge the parametric quantities of a logit theoretical account for pick of West European container ports.Apart from the usual variables such as costs and clip differences, a quality of service variable, related to market portion, was besides adopted. These variables were statistically important and therefore used for prediction intents. The cost variable was non merely used for port market portion forecasts as such, but besides as a footing for economic analysis ( Internet Explorer in order to calculate what would go on with and without the Maasvlakte-2 undertaking, utilizing the result as a footing for measuring economic benefits ) , every bit good as for the appraisal of the impact of alternate port-cost recovery strategies.