Developing Higher Berth Productivity: Comparison of Eastern Adriatic Container Terminals

  • Bojan Beškovnik Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transportation Portorž
  • Elen Twrdy Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transportation Portorž
  • Sanja Bauk Maritime faculty Kotor, University of Montenegro
Keywords: container terminal, berth, infrastructure, productivity, eastern Adriatic

Abstract

This paper analyses changes of berth infrastructure and suprastructure by global container terminals (CTs) and by four eastern Adriatic ports in the last decade. The emphasis is on understanding whether CTs at Koper, Trieste, Rijeka and Bar achieved higher berth utilisation and productivity per ship-to-shore (STS) crane and if so, how and whether their development is in line with the global trend in CT berth productivity. On this basis a comparison model of twenty selected global CTs is used for productivity comparison as a first step in the process of analysing subsystem productivity. The study shows that four eastern Adriatic ports made different decisions, but with the same goals in reaction to the increased flow of containers via the Adriatic Sea transport route. Their main goal was to increase berth productivity by controlling the eventual subsystem overcapacity. According to observations, the Port of Koper is running at the subsystem’s upper level, while CTs in Trieste, Rijeka and Bar operate with certain degree of berth infrastructural, and suprastructural overcapacity.

Author Biographies

Bojan Beškovnik, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transportation Portorž
Department for transport technology and logistics; assistant prof.
Elen Twrdy, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transportation Portorž

Department for transport technology and logistics; Prof.

Sanja Bauk, Maritime faculty Kotor, University of Montenegro
Ass. prof.

References

Song L, Cherrett T, Guana W. Study on berth planning problem in a container seaport: Using an integrated programming approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2012;62(1): 119-128.

Drewry Maritime Research. Container Market Annual Review and Forecast 2017/18. London, UK: Drewry Shipping Consultants Limited; 2017.

ISL Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics. Shipping Statistics and Market Review 2017. Bremen, DE: ISL Limited; 2017.

Twrdy E, Batista M. Competition between container ports in the northern Adriatic. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering. 2014;4(4): 363-371.

Sys C, Blauwens G, Omey E, Van De Voorde E, Witlox F. In Search of the Link between Ship Size and Operations. Transportation Planning and Technology. 2008;31(4): 435-463.

Kim K-H, Lee H. Container Terminal Operation: Current Trends and Future Challenges. In: Lee CY, Meng Q. (eds.) Handbook of Ocean Container Transport Logistics. Cham, CH: Springer International Publishing; 2015.

Ho M-W, Ho K-H. Risk Management in Large Physical Infrastructure Investments: The Context of Seaport Infrastructure Development and Investment. Maritime Economics & Logistics. 2006;8(2): 140-168.

Koh Y-K. Optimal investment priority in container port development. Maritime Policy & Management. 2001;28(2): 109-123.

Novaes A-N, Scholz-Reiter B, Durski Silva V-M, Rosa H. Long-term planning of a container terminal under demand uncertainty and economies of scale. Pesquisa Operacional. 2012;31(1).

Nishimura E, Imai A, Papadimitriou S. Berth allocation planning in the public berth system by genetic algorithms. European Journal of Operational Research. 2001;131(2): 282-292.

Zhou P, Kang H-G. Study on Berth and Quay-crane Allocation under Stochastic Environments in Container Terminal. Systems Engineering — Theory & Practice. 2008;28(1): 161-169.

Imai A, Nishimura E, Hattori M, Papadimitrioud S. Berth allocation at indented berths for mega-containerships. European Journal of Operational Research. 2007;179(2): 579-593.

Vacca I, Salani M, Bierlaire M. An Exact Algorithm for the Integrated Planning of Berth Allocation and Quay Crane Assignment. Transportation Science. 2013;47(2): 148-161.

Bierwirth C, Meiselb F. A follow-up survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in container terminals. European Journal of Operational Research. 2015;244(3): 675-689.

Li Y, Zhu D, Wang Y. The optimization of utilization of container terminal, berth – the case of X container terminal Ltd (XCT). BioTechnology: An Indian Journal. 2014;10(18): 10530-10536.

Stojaković M, Twrdy E. A decision support tool for container terminal optimization within the berth subsystem. Transport. 2016;31(1): 29-40.

Bassan S. Evaluating seaport operation and capacity analysis-preliminary methodology. Maritime Policy & Management. 2007;34(1): 3-19.

Luka Koper. Annual report for 2006. 2007. Available at: https://www.luka-kp.si/eng/annual-reports

Trieste Marine Terminal. Annual statistics. 2017. Available at: http://www.trieste-marine-terminal.com/it/statistiche

Dundović Č, Hlača B. New concept of the container terminal in the Port of Rijeka. Scientific Journal of Maritime Research. 2007;21(2): 51-68.

Luka Koper. Annual report for 2016. 2017. Available at: https://www.luka-kp.si/eng/annual-reports

Port of Rijeka. Financial report for 2016. 2017. Available at: http://www.lukarijeka.hr/_Data/Files/196_2017022813108829/Godi%C5%A1nji%20fin.%20izvj.2016.-nerevid.nekosolid.pdf

Published
2019-08-10
How to Cite
1.
Beškovnik B, Twrdy E, Bauk S. Developing Higher Berth Productivity: Comparison of Eastern Adriatic Container Terminals. PROMET [Internet]. 2019Aug.10 [cited 2019Oct.15];31(4):397-05. Available from: https://traffic.fpz.hr/index.php/PROMTT/article/view/2929
Section
Articles