La croissance de la mobilité se focalise principalement sur deux types d'espaces que sont les grands corridors européens et les métropoles, pour la plupart noeuds de ces corridors. La mobilité constitue ainsi un enjeu essentiel pour le devenir même des métropoles et plus généralement des grandes villes. Dans ce contexte, la compréhension des interaction entre la forme des localisations (population et activités), l'organisation des réseaux de transport et les comportements de déplacement suscite à juste titre un intérêt jamais démenti depuis deux décennies. (extrait de l'introduction).
Privatization and deregulation are creating new governance structures, in which the role of the traditional port authority is being diminished and altered. This development raises a series of critical issues. What are the forces that transform the strategies and policies of port authorities? How do port authorities respond to these new opportunities raised by a mutation of maritime activities? What are the options offered to port authorities to adjust to a changing environment? These broad issues are addressed by examining the spatial dimensions of port authorities. Specifically we are concerned with centripetal and centrifugal forces as they affect the evolving governance structures. Particular attention is paid to major functions and competencies that may anchor port administrative responsibilities. Our study demonstrates that port authorities that will modify their governance relationships will contribute to shape the broader maritime industry.
China is the world’s leading generator of container traffic. Since the 1980s when China began to enter the world market economy and to allow its ports to lease their container terminals in various forms to international operators, all major port cities in China have been experiencing dramatic changes both spatially and organizationally in their port-city relationship. With reference to major port-cities in China such as Dalian, Tianjin, Ningbo, Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Qingdao, this article analyzes the spatial and organizational changes in the ports, their associated problems facing municipal governments, and the various ways local governments deal with the problems. It then introduces a pattern of spatial jumping in recent container terminal development found in a number of ports that suggest emerging spatial links between container ports and China’s special Economic and Technological Development Zones (ETDZs). To conclude, the paper discusses some theoretical underpinnings of these cases in light of classical port-city models, the globalization of production, and the new role of ports in urban and regional development.
The interplay between globalization and maritime transportation has been the focus of much attention. Under such a context, the port authority is often perceived as an entity increasingly under the pressure to cope with the demands of global maritime shippers and with local constraints pertaining to port development (e.g. better terminals, efficient inland distribution and environmental protection). This article investigates the relationships between global changes and the local challenges of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, one of the most diversified port authorities in the world. A wide array of facilities including office space, bridges and tunnels, industrial development zones, waterfront developments, airports, transit systems and, finally, port terminals are under its jurisdiction. It is argued that even if port activities represent a small share of the port authority’s assets, it has an enduring commitment to port development. From traditional responses such as terminal improvements and dredging, the port authority is developing new strategies aimed at port regionalization such as terminal access and inland distribution systems.
Seaports serve hinterlands. Various inland modes such as road, rail, inland waterways and pipeline are used to access the hinterland. The quality of the access to the hinterland differs between seaports and affects their competitiveness.The quality of the hinterland access depends on the behaviour of a large variety of actors, such as shipping lines, forwarders, the port authority and the national/state government. Together these actors create a hinterland access regime. The analysis of this regime is central in this paper.First, the relevance of hinterland access for seaports is briefly discussed. Second, the term ‘hinterland access regime’ is defined and a framework to analyse the quality of this regime presented. Third, survey results on the quality of the hinterland access regime in three seaport clusters, Rotterdam, Durban and the lower Mississippi port cluster (LMPC) are discussed. Fourth, opportunities to improve the hinterland access regime in these three ports are discussed. We finalise this paper with conclusions.
Against a background characterized by railways liberalization and by politics will to reduce road transport externalities, most major shipping lines have made announcements of their intention to integrate the inland segments of the intermodal chain of transport. What does it mean really? Why should the inland legs attract such intense attention from sea carriers? How will they adjust their strategies in each particular country where progress towards rail deregulation and privatization differ so widely? Such are the issues we propose to address in this paper.Our analysis will be based on a case study: Rail Link ( RL) which is a CMA-CGM subsidiary engaged in the development of rail extensions to the maritime core business of the company. The case is interesting because RL operates in two European countries, the UK and France, which are reacting to deregulation in opposite ways. We highlight the motivations lying behind the strategies which are developed in the UK and France. In both of these countries operators adopt a policy of co-operation and not of integration. On the one hand under the UK "liberal" concept, long-term contracts are being introduced and the commercial risk exposure is shared between the combined operator and the client. At the same time all the parties will derive benefits from the cost reductions, but the risk will exist that smaller shipping companies and smaller ports could be ousted. On the other hand in France, the commercial risk exposure […]
The merger in 1999 of two Scandinavian operators (Wilhelmsen Lines and Wallenius Lines) drew attention to a relatively sheltered niche of the influences of containerisation and the strategies of industrial actors grouped in alliances. Car carrying is a sector marked by fast rate of growth (from less than 500,000 vehicles carried in 1965 to 7.3 millions in 1986). This niche market permitted small shipping companies to maintain themselves in the maritime transport sector connecting the world main industrialized countries. The evolution of Wilhelmsen and Wallenius shipping lines, closely related to the creation of alliances in the maritime industry shows their relative marginalization from the traditional liner carriers. Simultaneously, their involvement in the freight transport business was reinforced, together with greater search for vertical and horizontal integration (preparation of vehicles, management of terminals, control of the land transport of the vehicles). Nevertheless, this niche market is subjected to capital intensive regroupings between fewer operators. Moreover, this market is affected by the relocation of firms as a substitute for direct imports. In view of this these specialized shipping lines face the competition of major container carriers that are extremely well adapted for carrying vehicles component parts.