Nature of Scope of Port Cities

8 Março 2018, 10:00 • Shiv Kumar Singh

General port cities: a reduced importance of port functions in the local economy, favouring central place functions but lowering port competitiveness. Major urban centres dominate this category, with financial poles (Tokyo, London), national and regional capitals (Bangkok, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Oslo, Dublin, Barcelona, Glasgow, Naples and Leixoes). It also shows the remotely located port cities of the Atlantic Arc and the Scandinavia Baltic areas;

Hub port cities: port functions dominate the local economy, through efficient port concentration but limited hinterland penetration. The only European major nodes to be compared to Asian ones are located in southern Europe: Lisbon, Piraeus (Athens), Thessaloniki. Asian port cities dominate this category due to the limitation of their hinterlands;

Hinterland port cities: port functions are important for a local economy specialized in industrial and logistic activities which serve large hinterlands. This is seen in Europe with port cities facing the lock-in effect of core regions (e.g., Le Havre, Marseilles with Paris; Genoa, Trieste with Milan, Turin; Valencia with Madrid). This is similar to the Asian cases of Busan, Kaohsiung, Taichung and Tianjin, which are also dependent on their close centralized markets (Seoul, Taipei, and Beijing);

Maritime port cities: port functions are limited compared to other urban functions but port activity is kept despite the pressure from the urban environment. Those port cities are found mostly in Japan, where the risk of congestion has been overcome by gigantic reclamation projects, and in northern Europe thanks to the downstream shift of port functions along estuaries (Maas delta for Antwerp and Rotterdam, Severn river for Bristol, Solent river for Southampton, Seine river for Rouen, Weser river for Bremen and Elbe river for Hamburg). Without such geographical advantage and territorial strategies, these port cities would have become without any doubt “general cities”, gradually losing their port function due to congestion.

Port choice becomes a function of the overall network cost and performance. The factors together in the demand profile of the port, the supply profile of the port and the market profile of the port. Typical port choice criteria include factors such as: (a) physical and technical port infrastructure, including nautical accessibility (for example draft); (b) terminal infrastructure and equipment, hinterland accessibility and intermodal offer; (c) geographical location vis-à-vis the main shipping lanes and the hinterland; d) port efficiency expressed as port turnaround time, terminal productivity and cost efficiency; (e) interconnectivity of the port (sailing frequency of deep-sea and feeder shipping services); (f) reliability, capacity, frequency and cost of inland transport services;
(g) quality and cost of auxiliary services such as pilotage, towage and customs;
(h) efficiency and cost of port management and administration (for example port dues);
(i) availability, quality and cost of logistic value-added activities (for example warehousing) and port community systems; (j) port security/safety and environmental profile; and (k) port reputation.