Target Ports: Madrid II

The strategy to penetrate the inner part of the purpose of ports to increase
its base load. Furthermore, the internal regions are recognizing that it is in
their interest to establish efficient connections to various ports as possible,
as exemplified by the Madrid region, and demand for diversification in the
use of ports in the Portuguese Atlantic coast.

The traditional view on the selection of the port considered as variables in

the model the physical attributes of the port, such as infrastructure,
geographical location, the efficiency of the port, the inter-connectivity,
quality and service costs, availability, quality and logistics costs, port
security, the reputation of the port and the hinterland. But the focus only on
the physical attributes of the port for the assessment of the competitiveness
of a port does not reflect the reality of the chains (global) supply.
Multinational companies have adopted multi-flexible organizational
structures on a global scale and many of the world's largest companies
created networks for large and globally dispersed supply chains involving
large.
The wide geographical distribution of sources of raw materials and
production versus smaller geographic distribution of sales is reflected in the
needs and demands of management in the transport chain.
Customer expectations are changing in the direction of pressing for greater
flexibility, reliability and accuracy and there is a growing demand for
products "custom", delivered at full speed with total reliability in delivery
the lowest possible cost. The focus is on supply chain excellence, with
customer service excellence and also lower cost.
It follows that European ports are increasingly competing not as
independent points of loading and unloading of ships, but as crucial links in
the global supply chain.
More than ever, the chain became important to analyze the competitiveness
of the port. This implies that the competitiveness of the port has become
increasingly dependent on external coordination and control by external
agents.
The choice of Oporto becomes increasingly a function of the cost of the
network that integrates and selection criteria of the Port are all related to
the network that appears as a node. The ports chosen are those that help to
minimize the total costs of the sea, port and inland costs and inventory of
boots.
In the same vein, the choice of the port should be considered as a byproduct
of choosing the path of logistics, ie the choice of Oporto becomes a function
of the global network.
The importance of supply chain competition between ports has clear
implications on the role of connections to the hinterland of the Port, which
became a key link in the effective elements of the supply chain, particularly
to ensure that the recipients' needs are fully met in cost, availability and
time distribution of goods.
In this scenario, the cost of transporting goods between origins and
destinations and the port (including the cost of handling) are just another
cost component in the delivery of the supply chain.
The implications for the port and the modal choice are very important:
shippers may choose more expensive ports or a more expensive solution of
transport when this is offset by the other chain costs.

The main costs to consider are

a) The time costs of assets (opportunity costs associated with capital tied up
in goods transported and depreciation costs of technical or economic
goods);
b) Inventory costs associated with emergency stocks;
c) indirect logistical costs related to quality aggregate in the transport chain
and the willingness of the various actors involved to adjust operations to
customer requirements.

There are two important issues in this change:

First, the growing concern about the lack of capacity at ports and ground
infrastructure, before the current crisis, caused the managers of the supply
chain began to choose the port and the mode of transport increasingly
based on reliability and capacity, along with the question of pure cost.
Secondly, the agents and operators of logistics networks are planning more
complex, they need a high level of reliability. The current development and
expansion of global supply chains and their intermodal transport systems
are much more dependent synchronization of different geographical scales.
The efficiency of the transport system can be seriously impaired if the
transfer between modes is conducted with constant delays, even though
they may be low transport costs, and is now a fundamental need for high
level synchronization.
In order to reduce the risk of major disruptions, logistics operators tend to
opt for flexible networks that offer multiple alternative routing. Do not put
all your eggs in one basket is an approach which requires that each port in
combination with its logistical channels, is in a weak position, where the
market will hardly forgive failures in performance of the system.
That is, the multiplicity of factors for selection of ports and the selection
criteria imply that the modal choice model port continues to be a very
difficult exercise.

Given the above, it becomes clear that the success of a port depends on the
ability to effectively integrate the networks of business relationships that
make their supply chains. In other words, the success of a port no longer
depends exclusively on their internal weaknesses and strengths, but is
increasingly determined by the capacity of the port community to fully
exploit synergies with the nodes in the hinterland and with other actors
within networks of logistics, including himself.

Although the development of corridors from the ports to a hinterland

increasingly deserves far more attention, the hinterland around inside
remain the backbone of ports, including the major European ports such as
Rotterdam and Antwerp.
About 40% of containers leaving or arriving at Antwerp by truck has its
origin or destination markets within 50 kilometers from the port. The class of
a longer distance to Rotterdam is 150 to 200 km radius. This is directly
related to the role of the port as a center located on the closest industrial
base.
A major concern of many ports is its strong dependence on the charges of
its nearest hinterland and so the road. Since intermodal transport is slow to
acquire a strategic role, but it is important as a way to create islands of
cargo hinterlands more distant relations of the diversification of the port and
reducing the dependence of their region.
A port with a charging stand strong local, sooner or later, is trying to
increase the penetration within the dynamic of its intermodal offering in
order to increase their catchment area. The increased scale of the port in
this way to increase its size, its capacity and frequency and extent of its
shipping lines. That is, the increased importance of the port and its
competitiveness depends on its success in broadening its hinterland.

The multiplication of runners brings a change in the relationship between

ports and their hinterlands.
On the one hand, the strategy of penetrating the inner part of the purpose
of ports to increase its base load.
Furthermore, the internal regions are recognizing that it is in their interest
to establish efficient connections to various ports as possible, as exemplified
by the Madrid region, and demand for diversification in the use of ports in
the Portuguese Atlantic coast.
This strategy not only prevents these regions become captive to a specific
port, but also improves the competitiveness and the conditions for
localization in economic centers within.

Thus, the connection to more ports mean more routes more options and
flexibility for shippers and logistics providers wishing to form a company in
the region.
That is, the performance profile of multiple corridors in terms of provision of
infrastructure (capacity), transport conditions (price and quality of transport
services) and control of logistics (ie supply chain) is a key attribute for the
competitive game between regions and between ports.

Not all ports are gateways in Europe, but have larger terminals are usually
owned by ocean carriers manage them efficiently, as is the case of
Marsaxlokk in Malta, Gioia Tauro in Italy and Algeciras in Spain, which act as
hubs in transhipment business.
These sites were selected to serve continents, not regions, for transhipment
to the crossing points of trade routes, and high levels of productivity and
cost control. They are usually located far from major hinterlands, which
have historically guided the selection of a port.

The total market share of the centers of transshipment of containers Europe

peaked in 2005 (12.2%), but since then began to decrease to 11.4% due to
volume growth in mainland ports, allowing the feasibility of transmission
lines directly without going through the hubs.
This has led some transhipment hubs such as Gioia Tauro and Algeciras to
develop rail transport services to the interior in order to capture and serve
the economic centers in the interior far more directly, while also trying to
attract business into the logistics port.

That is, the traffic growth that occurred before the crisis led to the
weakening of the position of transshipment ports in favor of a limited
number of major mainland ports, each connected to intermodal corridors.
The current crisis will slow this trend, but in future it is expected that the
ports of transhipment again lose importance and seek to increasingly be an
important component of hinterland, which for example Sines should not be
independent.

Adapted from the paper "The relationship between seaports and the
intermodal hinterland in light of global supply chains", Theo Notteboom,
2008.