TSAMBOULAS

A new MoS concept for logistics: the dual port entity MoS Dimitrios Tsamboulas Professor National Technical University of Athens Department of Transportation Planning and Engineering

Motorways of the Sea (MoS),according to EU definition •

Connection of two ports of different countries

•

Concentrate flows of freight on sea-based logistical routes/ reduce road congestion

•

Improve existing maritime links

•

Establish new viable, regular and frequent maritime links for the transport of goods between Member States

•

Improve access to peripheral and island regions and States (enhance cohesion) 2

“Dual port entity” for MoS • Expansion of the existing MoS EU concept • Consideration of four ports in the same supply chain route • Connection of two of these ports with land modes • Operation of two MoS in one supply chain route 3

Origin of the concept • Ancient Greece- Ancient Corinth • “Diolkos”: land bridge connecting two gulfs: Saronikos and Korinthiakos

4

Description of “dual port entity” • 4 ports involved in the concept ▫ Ports A, B: ports constituting the dual port entity ▫ Port C,D: ports with existing or planned MoS ▫ Planned or existing MoS connections between ports A and C , B and D.

• “Land bridge”: land connection between dual port entity • Specific factors affect establishment and operation of MoS 5

Factors affecting establishment and operation of dual port entity • Ability of ports A, B to be organized as dual port entity • Land transport connections, level of services of “land bridge” • Land access to ports A, B • Maritime connections and MoS between ports A and C, B and D • MoS between ports C, D

Propose specific methodology 6

Methodology-Flow Chart Consists of 4 steps

7

Step 1 & Step 2 1)Area of interest  Define area of interest  Define MoS links in the area

2)Selection of ports to operate as “dual port entity”  Location of ports along the same supply chain  Ports’ level of services (operation, logistics and transshipment, productivity, use of information systems)

 Existing infrastructure- potential expansion of ports  Administrative procedures, ports’ organization structure

8

Step 3-Record data of the system Identify and record:  Distance between ports constituting dual port  Length of MoS links from ports  Existing transport infrastructure, operating characteristics and level of service between ports  Location of ports : located in the same or different countries

 Creation of database 9

Step 4-Evaluation of dual port entity • Analysis of two scenarios:  Transport corridor with the operation of the dual port entity MoS. Goods are transferred from port C to port A by maritime connection, then through the land bridge (by road or rail transport modes) to port B and then onwards with maritime transport to port D  Base case: Transport corridor without the operation of dual port entity. Goods are transferred from port C to port D with an MoS link (existing or planned)

• 4-step model • Trip generation: given, trip distribution and modal split not applied on this case (same origin-destination, modes of transport defined already) 10

Step 4- Evaluation of dual port entity • ssignment on the network:  estimate amount of volumes that dual port entity will handle  evaluate the proposed project

• stimation of generalized cost for alternative MoS routes

g = p + hTg • iscrete choice model for assignment of flows on the

11

Application of proposed methodology • Two case studies: 1)Dual port entity: Ports of Civitavecchia and Ancona, connection of ports of Barcelona and Patras 2)Dual port entity: Ports of Varna and Alexandroupolis, connection of ports of Novorossiysk and Limassol

• Two different transport modes for hinterland connection: road and rail

12

Case study 1: Dual port entity: port of Civitavecchia and Ancona Alternative routes: 1)Port of Barcelona-Port of Civitavecchia-Port of Ancona-Port of Patras (includes a dual port)

2) Port of Barcelona-Port of Civitavecchia-Port of Catania-Port of Patras (without dual port, based on existing MoS operating by Grimaldi-Minoan lines)

13

Case study 1: Dual port entity: port of Civitavecchia and Ancona -2 Barcelona-Civitavecchia-Ancona-Patras (road trip connecting dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

45.9 2109.5

Barcelona-Civitavecchia-Ancona-Patras (rail trip connecting dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

48 1969.3

Barcelona-Catania, Catania-Patras (trip without dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

62 1942.1 14

Case study 1: Dual port entity: port of Civitavecchia and Ancona -3 Results • Higher generalized cost in the case of road connection between the ports of dual port entity • Generalized cost in case of rail connection between ports of dual port entity: marginally higher than the one estimated without dual port. Routes equally attractive.

• No existing direct rail connection between dual port entity: main reason for the previous result • Hinterland connections: significant factor affecting generalized cost 15

Case study 2: Dual port entity: Ports of Varna and Alexandroupolis Alternative routes: 1)Port of Novorossiysk-Port of Varna-Port of Alexandroupoli-Port of Limassol (includes a dual port entity)

2)Port of Novorossiysk-Port of Constantza-Port of Piraeus-Port of Limassol (without dual port entity, based on existing MoS for containers operating by ports of Novorossiysk and Limassol)

16

Case study 2: Dual port entity: Ports of Varna and Alexandroupolis - 2 Novorossiysk-Varna-Alexandroupolis-Limassol (road trip connecting dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

69 2198

Novorossiysk-Varna-Alexandroupolis-Limassol (rail trip connecting dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

73.9 2194.7

Novorossiysk-Constantza-Piraeus-Limassol (trip without dual port) Total travel time (hours) Generalized cost (€)

111.9 2225.5 17

Case study 2: Dual port entity: Ports of Varna and Alexandroupolis - 3 Results: • Establishment of dual port lower generalized cost of trip, for both rail and road connection between dual port entity • Higher generalized cost for the case of road connection between ports, compared to rail connection • Dual port: more attractive route compared to the one without it • As in case study 1, hinterland connections have significant impact on generalized cost 18

Conclusions • Distance, MoS links, transport infrastructure and location of ports are among the factors that should be identified before the establishment of a dual port project • Proposed methodology to evaluate project’s performance ▫ Estimate generalized cost of trip ▫ Discrete choice model for assignment of flows in the network.

19

Conclusions • According to application:  Mode of transport, infrastructure and frequency of land connections but also delays in direct Mos are critical factors affecting attractiveness of dual port entity.  Characteristics of the entire corridor (infrastructure and frequency of services of land and maritime connections) affect generalized cost of trip and so attractiveness of it.

20

Recommendations • Further investigation of necessary conditions for the viability of dual port entity.

21

Thank you!

22