Abstract
The present paper studies the bundling of road cargo flows of neighbouring seaports to a common hinterland. In specific cases, some hinterland flows can be too small to make bundling in a sufficient frequency possible. By combining the road freight flows of neighbouring ports, this problem can be solved. However, the additional cost of bundling and the loss of time need to be compensated for by a lower transport cost. The paper presents an empirical model for the 104 core Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) ports of the European Union (EU) and their 271 NUTS2 (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) hinterland regions that allows identifying opportunities for bundling as well as the direct and external cost effects. By including the value of time (VOT) of each transport mode, the generalised cost is also calculated. The result is a business model that helps port authorities, and other port actors, to identify bundling projects that will lower the direct, generalised and external costs of the hinterland connectivity, thus increasing the port attractiveness for port users as well as lowering potential aversion by the surrounding community to port operations that create hinterland nuisance.
Highlights
Seaports, defined as a geographical location where cargo changes transport mode, one of these being a seagoing vessel, are important drivers of the regional economy of which they are part
The present paper studies the bundling of road cargo flows of neighbouring seaports to a common hinterland
The paper presents an empirical model for the 104 core Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) ports of the European Union (EU) and their 271 NUTS2 (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) hinterland regions that allows identifying opportunities for bundling as well as the direct and external cost effects
Summary
Seaports, defined as a geographical location where cargo changes transport mode, one of these being a seagoing vessel, are important drivers of the regional economy of which they are part. When two supply chains have an equal out-of-pocket cost, the faster one has a lower generalised cost because less value is lost because less time is spent during the transport This discrete choice probability formula starts from the supply chain perspective of which a port is a part, PA being the probability that port A will be chosen rather than any of the competing ports. When a large port is treated as two (or more) separate ports, intuitively it is obvious that this should not change the probability of the other ports, but the discrete choice formula still leads to a different outcome This can be avoided by using a nested logit model [18]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
