nrp,

reigndettier dnanlatieciperats aain

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

e hint

ery imptitiveneing inlrminale worlave becregions

Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Research in Transportationhubs, inland logistics centers, inland freight villages, inland clearancedepots, inland container depots, intermodal freight centers and in-land freight terminals (Cardebring & Warnecke, 1995; Jaremskis &Vasiliauskas, 2007; Roso, 2005; Roso, Woxenius, & Lumsden, 2009and Wiegmans, Masurel, & Nijkamp, 1999). Thus, there seems to beno consensus on the terminology used.

Academic research on dry ports has grown exponentially in recentyears as exemplied by the special issues on dry ports in MaritimeEconomics and Logistics (vol. 14, 2012) and Research in Transporta-

dry port development in developing economies has gained signicantinterest in more recent years in line with the observed strong growthin hinterland transport needs. Ng and Gujar (2009a), Ng and Gujar(2009b) and Ng and Cetin (2012) analyze spatial and institutional as-pects associated with dry port development in India. Padilha and Ng(2012) discuss the Brazilian case, while Dadvar, Ganji, and Tanzi(2011) provide a feasibility study of establishing dry ports in Iran.Do, Nam, and Ngoc Le (2011) analyze conditions for constructingdry ports in Indochina, i.e. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Notteboomtion Economics (vol. 33, 2011). The rst mendemic literature goes back to 1980 (Munford,

Corresponding author at: Universiteit AntwerpenMaritime Management Antwerp (ITMMA), Kipdorp 59Tel.: +3232655149.

E-mail addresses: jean-paul.rodrigue@hofstra.edu (Jtheo.notteboom@ua.ac.be (T. Notteboom).

2210-5395/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.10.003having a high reliancetworks of seaports haveals, inland ports, inland

dardized units as if directly to a seaport.While the earliest studies on dry ports and inland facilities mainly

focused on developed economies (see e.g. Hayuth, 1980; Slack, 1999),

on trade. These nodes in the hinterland nebeen referred to as dry ports, inland termin1. Introduction: The prevalence of th

Inland distribution has become a vtion and a cornerstone in port compeport development is gradually shiftfocused on the development of port tenetworks. In many places around thterminal facilities in the hinterland hthe transport system, particularly inerland

ortant part of globaliza-ss (CEMT, 2001). Trans-and after a phase thats and maritime shippingd bimodal and trimodalome an intrinsic part of

text of 1982 provides an early denition of the dry port concept: aninland terminal to which shipping companies issue their own importbills of lading for import cargoes assuming full responsibility of costsand conditions and from which shipping companies issue their ownbills of lading for export cargos. In this paper we follow the denitionof Roso (2005) and Roso et al. (2009): a dry port is an inland inter-modal terminal directly connected to seaport(s) with high capacitytransport mean(s), where customers can leave/pick up their stan-Dry ports in European and North America

Jean-Paul Rodrigue a, Theo Notteboom b,c,a Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, United Statesb Institute of Transport and Maritime Management Antwerp (ITMMA), University of Antwec Antwerp Maritime Academy, Noordkasteel Oost 6, B-2030 Antwerp, Belgium

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 May 2012Received in revised form 24 October 2012Accepted 25 October 2012Available online 19 November 2012

Keywords:Dry portsRailNorth AmericaEurope

The development of inland fof maritime gateways arouEuropean hinterlands, the sforms and shapes. This papthe regional and local goverthe spatial and functional rework congurations, the spand the imperatives in rail oand North American dry portive transport and supply chtion of dry ports in aca-1980). A United Nations

, Institute of Transport and, B-2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.

.-P. Rodrigue),

rights reserved.intermodal rail systems: Two of a kind?

Kipdorp 59, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium

ht distribution systems has been an active strategy to promote the hinterlandthe world. While differences can be observed among North-American andng and development of rail-based dry ports in those regions come in manyemonstrates that the observed similarities and differences are the result ofce and regulatory settings, the types and strategies of stakeholders involved,ons with adjacent and or distant gateway ports, the dynamics in logistics net-c competitive setting (i.e. competition with trucking and barges in Europe)tions. In spite of the technical similarities brought by intermodalism, Europeanre functionally two of a kind since they play different roles within their respec-s.

Business & Management(2007), Rimmer and Comtois (2009) and Veenstra and Notteboom(2011) discuss spatial, operational and institutional issues related tobarge terminal network development along the Yangtze River inChina and its interaction with gateway Shanghai.

There are many reasons behind the growing attention for dry portdevelopment. The complexity of modern freight distribution, the in-creased focus on intermodal and co-modal transport solutions and ca-pacity issues appear to be the main drivers. While trucking tends to

be sufcient in the initial phase of the development of inland freightdistribution systems, at some level of activity, diminishing returnssuch as congestion, energy consumption and empty movements be-come strong incentives to consider the setting of inland terminals asthe next step in regional freight planning. Also the massication ofows in networks, through a concentration of cargo on a limited setof ports of call and associated trunk lines to the hinterland, has creat-ed the right condition for nodes to appear along and at the end ofthese trunk lines. The development of dry ports is in line with theport regionalization process, which is the latest stage of port systemdevelopment and characterized by the expansion of the hinterlandaccessibility through market strategies and policies (Notteboom &Rodrigue, 2005).

There is also a signicant distance/cost dichotomy between fore-lands and hinterlands since depending if space (distance) or cost isconsidered the relative importance of the hinterland signicantlychanges (Fig. 1). Maritime shipping has achieved remarkable econo-mies of scale, underlining its ability to transport cargo over long dis-tances and at a low unit cost. Economies of scale are much moredifcult to achieve over the hinterland and as trafc increases, trans-port networks near ports are getting increasingly congested. The unitcosts per FEU-km underline this situation. For example, the shipping

port in terms of modal preferences as the regional effect remainsfundamental.

5J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415price on the AsiaNorth Europe trade ranges between 0.05 and0.19 euro per FEU-km. The price for inland haulage per truck fromnorth European ports usually ranges from 1.5 to 4 euro per FEU-kmdepending on distance and weight. By barge the price ranges between0.5 and 1.5 euro per FEU-km (excluding handling costs and pre- andendhaul by truck) (Notteboom, 2009a). As the cost burden has shiftedfrom the seaside to the landside, inland freight distribution remainsone of the most salient issues in long distance freight distribution.

The evolution of inland freight distribution can be seen as a cyclein the ongoing developments of containerization and intermodaltransportation. The geographical characteristics linked with modalavailability, capacity and reliability of regional inland access have animportant role to play in shaping this development. As maritime ship-ping networks and port terminal activities become better integrated,particularly through the symbiotic relationship between maritimeshipping and port operations, the focus shifted on inland transporta-tion and inland terminal facilities and dry ports as fundamental com-ponents of this strategy. Thus, after a phase that relied on thedevelopment of port terminals and maritime shipping networks, theintegration of maritime and inland freight distribution systems hasfavored the setting of dry ports.

Fig. 1. The space/cost dichotomy of forelands and hinterlands typical shares of sea

transport (foreland) and inland transport (hinterland) in the total transport chain.The setting of global supply chains and the strategy of Pacic Asiancountries around the export-oriented paradigm have been powerfulforces shaping contemporary freight distribution. Indirectly, this hasforced players in the freight transport industry (shipping companies,terminal operators, logistics providers) to examine supply chains as awhole and to identify legs where capacity and reliability are an issue.Once maritime shipping networks and port terminal activities havebeen better integrated, particularly through the symbiotic relation-ship between maritime shipping and port operations, inland trans-portation became the obvious focus and the inland terminal afundamental component of this strategy. This mainly took place inNorth America andWestern Europe, which tended to be at the receiv-ing end of many containerized supply chains where inbound logisticsdominate. The focus has also shifted to considering inland terminalsfor the early stages of global supply chains (outbound logistics),namely in locations having a marked export-oriented function.

Inland terminals have evolved from simple intermodal locationsto their incorporation within logistic zones. Inland terminals (partic-ularly rail) have always been present since they are locations fromwhich specic market coverage is achieved. Containerization has im-pacted this coverage through the selection of terminals that were ser-vicing a wider market area. This spatial change also came with afunctional change as intermodal terminals began to experience a spe-cialization of roles based on their geographical location but also basedon their location within supply chains. Dry ports in many cases havewitnessed a clustering of logistics sites in the vicinity, leading to aRail accessibility to gateway seaports is at the heart of the func-tioning and development of most dry ports around the world. Thispaper analyzes the setting and development of rail-based dry portsin North America and Europe. While developing economies areattracting a lot of attention from scholars in recent years, a compara-tive study on developed economies (such as North America andEurope) remains relevant. Hence, it allows to analyze the underlyingconverging and diverging trends in (rail-based) dry port settings andoperations in more mature economies who are pioneers in the appli-cation of the dry port concept. We argue that rail-induced dry portdevelopment, or alternatively dry port induced rail development,comes in many forms and shapes as a function of the regional andlocal governance and regulatory settings, the strategies of stake-holders involved, the spatial and functional relations with adjacentand or distant gateway ports, the dynamics in logistics network con-gurations, and the specic competitive setting (i.e. competition withtrucking and barges in Europe).

The paper is structured as follows: in the rst three sections thedriving forces for rail-based dry port development and the role ofdry ports in transport and supply chains are analyzed. Then, wefocus on rail and gateway port development in North America andEurope in search of distinctive characteristics and differences thatcould have an impact on dry port development. In the next sectionwe provide an assessment of dry port development in both conti-nents. The last section contains the conclusions and explores avenuesfor further research.

2. Driving forces for rail-based dry port development

Each dry port remains the outcome of modal availability and ef-ciency, market function and intensity as well as the regulatory frame-work and governance. The geographical characteristics linked withmodal availability and the capacity of regional inland access have animportant role to play in shaping the emergence and developmentof dry ports. Each inland market has its own potential requiring dif-ferent transport services. Thus, there is no single strategy for a dryprocess of logistics polarization and the creation of logistic zones.

They have become excellent locations for consolidating a range of an-cillary activities and logistics companies.

In addition to standard capacity and accessibility issues in the hin-terland, a dry port is a location actively integrated or in many casesstriving to be integrated within supply chain management practices.Actions to achieve this goal take many forms such as the agglomera-tion of freight distribution centers, custom clearance, container de-pots and third party logistical services. The dry port can also becomea buffer in supply chains, acting as a temporary warehousing facilityoften closely connected to the warehouse planning systems of nearbydistribution centers (Rodrigue & Notteboom, 2009). Purchasers caneven be advantaged by such a strategy since they are not paying fortheir orders until the container leaves the terminal, delaying settle-ment even if the inventory is nearby and available.

The emergence of dry ports in some cases underlines some de-ciency in conventional inland freight distribution that needed to bemitigated (Fig. 2). First, when a deep sea terminal facility has limitedland available for expansion, the intensication of activities at themain terminal triggers a search of lower land value locations supportingless intensive freight activities. Second, capacity problems in seaportareas appear to be one of the main drivers of dry port developmentsince a system of inland terminals increases the intermodal capacity

(Slack, 1999). They accommodate additional trafc and serve func-tions that either have become too expensive at the port such aswarehousing and empty container depots or are less bound to a loca-tion near a deep sea quay. A number of satellite terminals only have atransport function transshipping cargo from rail/barge to trucks andvice versa. Satellite terminals can also serve as load centers for localor regional markets, particularly if economic density is high, inwhich case they form a multi-terminal cluster with the main portthey are connected to through regular rail or barge shuttle services.For gateways having a strong import component, a satellite terminalcan also serve a signicant transloading function where the contents

Fig. 3. Functions of inland terminals.

6 J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415of inland freight distribution. Third, through long distance transportcorridors, dry ports confer a higher level of accessibility because oflower distribution costs and improved capacity. These high-capacity in-land transport corridors allow ports to penetrate the local hinterland ofcompeting ports and thus to extend their cargo base.

3. The function of dry ports within transport chains

A functional and added value hierarchy has emerged for dry ports. Inmany instances, freight transport terminals t within a hierarchywith afunctionally integrated inland transport system of gateways and theircorridors, where they service three major functions (Fig. 3); satelliteterminals (A), load centers (B) and transloading centers (C). These func-tions are not exclusive, implying that inland terminals can serviceseveral functions at once. For inbound or outbound freight ows, the in-land terminal is the rst tier of a functional hierarchy that denes itsfundamental (activities it directly services) and extended (activities itindirectly services) hinterlands.

Satellite terminals (A) tend to be close to a port facility, but mainlyat the periphery of its metropolitan area (often less than 100 km),since they mainly assume a service function to the seaport facilitiesFig. 2. Modal shift and inland freight diversion before (A) and afof maritime containers are transloaded into domestic containers ortruckloads.

Freight distribution clusters (load centers; B) aremajor intermodalfacilities granting access to well dened regional markets that includeproduction and consumption functions. It commonly corresponds to ametropolitan area where a variety of terminals serve concomitantlyintermodal, warehousing, distribution and logistics functions. Thesetend to take place in logistics parks and free trade zones (or foreigntrade zones). The inland terminal is thus the point of collection or dis-tribution of a regional market. The more extensive and diversied themarket, the more important is the load center. If the load center has agood intermediary location, such as being along a major rail corridor,then freight distribution activities servicing an extended market willbe present.

Transloading facilities (C) link large systems of freight circulationeither through the samemode (e.g. rail-to-rail) or through intermodalism(rail-to-truck, or even rail-to-barge). In the latter case, the inland terminalassumes the role of a load center. The origin or the destination of thefreight handled is outside the terminal's market area, a function similarto that of transshipment hubs in maritime shipping networks. Suchtransshipment terminals are often found near country borders inter (B) the insertion of an inland port and satellite terminal.

7J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415view of combining administrative processes linked to cross bordertrafc to value-added logistics activities. Although this function re-mains marginal in most parts of the world, ongoing developmentsin inland freight distribution, where the scale and scope of intermodalservices are increasing, are indicative that transshipment services arebound to become more prominent.

4. The function of dry ports within supply chains

Considering the potential mix of the functions of dry ports, vemajor criteria insure that they fulll efciently their role as an inter-face between global and regional freight distribution systems.

4.1. Site and situation

Like any transport facility of signicance, an inland port requiresan appropriate site with good access to the rail or the barge terminalas well as available land for development. Access to a large populationbase is of importance since it will be linked to the level of import andexport activities handled by the inland port. Transportation remainsthe most signicant logistics cost, underlining the importance of anaccessible location. Under such circumstances, distributors are willingto pay higher rents to take advantage of a logistics site that offersco-location with an intermodal terminal since this strategy enablesthem to reduce transportation costs, such as drayage, as well as im-prove their time responsiveness (lead time). Several dry ports alsohave an airport in proximity which can help support a variety offreight activities (e.g. the private Alliance Center in Texas which con-nects an airport to a freight rail facility to ship parts from Asia for theUS car assembly industry). At the same time, the location of severallogistics sites in the same region might trigger the development of in-termodal facilities to improve the connectivity to gateway ports andhinterland markets. As such, the development path of logistics sitesand intermodal terminals enhances a virtuous co-location cycle: in-termodal terminals need logistics sites in view of gathering an inter-modal cargo base while logistics sites need inland terminals forimproved intermodal connectivity.

4.2. Repositioning

Since most long distance trade (and some domestic) is supportedby containerization, there are numerous instances where a regionalmarket imports more than it exports (or vice-versa). Under such cir-cumstances, an inland port must provide the physical and logisticalcapabilities to insure that empty containers are repositioned efcient-ly to other markets if local cargo cannot be found. This can take theform of empty container depots and arrangements with freight for-warders to have slots available for repositioning.

4.3. Cargo rotation

Whether there are imbalances in container ows or not, an inlandport plays a key role in reconciling the inbound and outbound owsas quickly as possible. A common way involves a cargo rotationfrom import activities where containers are emptied to export activ-ities where containers are lled with goods. For container owners,let them be maritime shipping or leasing companies, a rapid turnoverof their assets is fundamental and will secure a continuous usage ofthe inland port. Effective repositioning and cargo rotations strategieswill insure higher revenue levels for both the container owners andthe dry port operators.

4.4. Trade facilitation

An inland port can also be a fundamental structure promoting

both the import and export sectors of a region, particularly for smallerbusinesses unable to achieve economies of scale on their own. Thelatter issue is a major concern particularly in developing countriessuch as India (Ng & Gujar, 2009a). The hinterland massication op-portunities offered by inland ports are associated with lower trans-port costs and a better accessibility. Through these, new marketopportunities become possible as both imports and exports arecheaper.

4.5. Governance

The way a dry port is owned and operated is indicative of its po-tential to identify new market opportunities and invest accordingly.In many cases, the commitment of a large private investor such as aport operator or a real estate developer can be perceived as a risk mit-igation strategy in addition to provide expertise in the developmentof facilities and related activities. Sections of a dry port can be sharedfacilities (e.g. distribution centers) so that smaller players can getinvolved by renting space and equipment. This also applies to the ap-propriate strategies related to each stage in the life cycle of an inlandterminal from its construction to its maturity where its potential hasessentially been taped off. The setting of a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) isalso an option to be considered. Dry ports and their associated logisticzones have a wide range of options in terms of their governancemodel. The ownership and the management of a dry port can be pub-lic, private or a combination of both (Table 1). As dry ports are longterm projects that are unlikely to be protable in their initial phase,they represent a high risk for private investors. Since among the ben-ets of inland ports are job creation and a better usage of regionaltransport infrastructures, they tend to be perceived as projects ofpublic benet.

5. Rail transport in Europe and North America

A rail-based dry port combines a railway terminal facility withsurrounding logistics and distribution activities and is well connectedto one or more gateway ports. In order to understand the setting andmarket environment for dry port development in Europe and NorthAmerica, it is essential to understand how the rail markets in bothcontinents are organized, which logistics and distribution conceptsare being applied and how the container port/gateway system is con-gured. In this section we elaborate on the rail freight markets whilethe next section brings the essentials on distribution systems and sea-port systems in containerized freight in both continents.

5.1. The European rail freight system

The development of container transport by rail in Europe has beenstrongly affected by EU policies focused on European integration and arail deregulation process. Before the early 1990s a geographically, po-litically and economically fragmented Europe prevented the realiza-tion of a greater European-wide integrated intermodal rail network(Charlier & Ridol, 1994). Since the mid-1990s the European inter-modal sector has undergonemajor changes as a result of liberalizationand with it the entry of new market players (see e.g. Gouvernal &Daydou, 2005 and Debrie & Gouvernal, 2006). The emergence ofa new generation of rail operators not only made incumbent rms(i.e. mostly former national railway companies) act more commercial-ly, but also led to the improvement in the endogenous capabilities ofthe railway sector. This in time could make rail a more widespreadalternative in serving the European hinterlands, although technicaland operational issues facing cross-border services continue to ham-per the efciency of international container trains (e.g. the standardi-zation of rail trafc management systems under the ERTMS schemeEuropean Rail TrafcManagement System). At present, a wide array ofrail operators make up the supply of rail products out of European

container ports. The largest players include DB Schenker Rail and

Table 1Main governance models for inland ports.Source: adapted from Slack and Comtois (2010).

Model Characteristics

Single ownership A public or a private actor entirely responsible fordevelopment and operations.

.ith

rm

8 J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415SNCF but many smaller players are also offering services.1 Despite in-creased competition in the market, rail is having difculties attractinga larger customer base and thus to increase its modal share (Table 1).

Hamburg's rail connections outperform all other ports in numbers(more than 160 international and national shuttle and block trainservices per week) and in trafc volumes by rail (1.89 million TEU in2008). Rotterdam (rail volume of 1 million TEU in 2008) and Antwerp(837,000 TEU) each have between 150 and 200 intermodal rail de-partures per week. Other European seaports with substantial rail vol-umes include Bremerhaven (867,000 TEU), Zeebrugge (675,000 TEU),Gothenburg (342,000 TEU) and La Spezia (300,000 TEU). Still, railtransport typically represents a small share in the land-based containerows of many European containers ports with German seaports andZeebrugge as the notable exceptions (Table 2). Smaller container portstend to seek connection to the extensive hinterland networks of thelarge seaports by installing shuttle services either to rail platforms inthe big container ports or to rail hubs in the hinterland.

From a network perspective, intermodal rail transport in Europehas undergone a transition from a meshed network to a star orhub-and-spoke network based on intermediate rail hubs and then -nally the replacement of the network by a system of direct lines. Forexample, the backbone of rail services out of the main European con-tainer ports is formed by direct point-to-point shuttle trains with aunit capacity ranging from 40 to 95 TEU per shuttle (Notteboom,2008). However, the protability of a lot of individual direct shuttletrains even to the immediate hinterland of European load centerports remains uncertain. In the past some carriers and rail operatorshave resolved the problems related to the uctuating volumes andthe numerous nal destinations by bundling container ows in railhubs in the immediate hinterland. Numerous hub-and-spoke railwaynetworks emerged in the 1990s. An example was the Qualitynet ofIntercontainer-Interfrigo (ICF) with Metz-Sablon in north-easternFrance as intermediate rail hub linking up the Rhine-Scheldt Deltaports with the rest of Western Europe. Such hub-and-spoke networkswere revealed to be vulnerable, as the volumes on the spokes couldbe affected by (a) newcomers entering the market in the aftermathof European rail liberalization and (b) increasing intermodal volumes

Single vision and conformity to a specic rolePublicprivate partnership Combines public planning of infrastructures w

private operational expertise.Public (local) interests represented

Landlord model Public ownership and private operations (a foLong term concession agreements.in seaports (Kreuzberger, 2005; Notteboom, 2009b).New railway operators often cherry-pick by introducing com-

peting direct shuttle trains on a spoke of a competitor's establishedhub-and-spoke network. This has a negative effect on cargo volumeson the spoke and can lead to a collapse of the whole hub-and-spokesystem. That is what happened to ICF's Qualitynet in 2004. The inter-modal trafc of the former Qualitynet hub in Metz is now handled bya set of direct shuttle trains going to fewer destinations. For eastern

1 For example, the Netherlands counts 14 licensed railway undertakings: DBSchenker Rail NL (the former national railway company NS, now part of DB Schenker),ACTS, ERS, Rail4Chem, Rotterdam Rail Feeding, Veolia-Cargo, B-Cargo, Fret SNCF, ITL,CTL, HGK, Crossrail, etc. Belgium counts 10 licensed operators: B-Cargo (former nationalrailway company), Crossrail Benelux, Trainsport AG, ACTS, RRF, SNCF Fret, Veolia Cargo,ERS, CFL-Cargo and DB Schenker Rail NL.and south-eastern Europe, services are centered on the hub in Sopron(Hungary). Rail hubs are progressively being abandoned. Neverthe-less, some of the new systems being set up by operators still includemassication centers. For instance, German intermodal operatorBoxXpress uses Gmunden in Germany to connect trains leaving fromBremerhaven and Hamburg. However, these types of terminals areonly massifying gateways on direct routes and do not act as interme-diate hubs for a large number of spokes.

5.2. The North American rail freight system

The container rail market in North America has been heavily af-fected by a signicant deregulation that unfolded since the 1970s.The Staggers Act (1980) proved to be a key piece of legislation in thecompetitiveness of transport by rail. The act liberated rate setting, re-laxed common carrier obligations and simplied merger applications(Dennis, 2000). The deregulation process resulted in productivityand volume increases, lower rates and a strong market consolidationthrough mergers and acquisitions. The North American rail transportsystem is very extensive, but at the same time shows a high level ofgeographical specialization with eight large rail carriers servicingvast regional markets (Rodrigue, 2008) (Fig. 4). It is also characterizedby a pronounced transnational ownership as both Canadian major railcompanies, CN and CP, own and operated networks in the UnitedStates while the American company KCS owned and operated net-works in Mexico under the name of KCS de Mexico.

Each carrier has its own facilities and railway tracks and thus itsown markets along the segments it controls. The rail system is theoutcome of substantial capital investments occurring over severaldecades with the accumulation of impressive infrastructure andequipment assets. The system was developed to support commodityows, particularly coal and grain. Competition has a strong regionalconnotation where over vast tracks of territory only two rail operatorshave intermodal terminals. However, the growth of intermodalismcreated issues about continuity within the North American rail net-work, particularly in the United States. Mergers have improved thiscontinuity but a limit has been reached in the network size of most

Implications

Potential lack of exibility in view to changes (single mandate).Potential conicts with surrounding communities.

Tendency to prioritize public interests over private interests.

of PPP). Managerial exibility between the owner, the site managerand the operators.Most of the risk assumed by private operators.rail operators. Attempts have been made to synchronize the interac-tions between rail operators for long distance trade with the setting ofintermodal unit trains. Often bilateral, trilateral or even quadrilateralarrangements are made between rail carriers and shipping companiesto improve the intermodal interface at the major gateways or at pointsof interlining between major networks.

In container transport, the double stack train is arguably the mostvisible characteristic of the North American intermodal system.Double stack trains gave signicant economies of scale and gained asignicant cost advantage over the trailer on at car system (TOFC).The double stack rail network beneted from the introduction ofpost-Panamax vessels on the Trans-Pacic trade route in the late1990s. The limitation of the Panama Canal locks made the combina-tion of a call of a post-Panamax container vessel at a West Coast con-tainer port plus onward transport by double stack train a valuable

option, compared to the all-water route (with Panamax vessels of upto 5000 TEU) from Asia to the US East Coast via the Panama Canal. Theexpansion of the Panama Canal with a new set of larger locks sched-uled to open in 2014 is likely to change the intermodal balance withinthe North America market, mostly by making the all-water route mostcost effective and thus expanding the hinterland of East Coast ports.

5.3. Systemic differences

There are a number of noticeable systemic differences betweenthe North American and European rail networks (Table 3). Next to

factors already discussed, it is worth mentioning that the Europeanrailway network is very much focused on passenger transport, notonly through a dense network of commuter trains but also via a grow-ing high speed network. With a few exceptions (such as theBetuweroute, a dedicated freight track between the port of Rotterdamand the Dutch/German border), freight and passenger trains use thesame infrastructure, with the latter having the highest priority. Thelack of dedicated tracks for freight transportation complicates the al-location of train slots to container shuttle trains, particularly in themain seaport regions of Europe and on commuter-heavy corridors.In contrast, the inuence of passenger transport on North Americandouble stack trains is very small.

Another key difference relates to the governance system in place.Railway companies in North America act as both infrastructure ownerand rail service operator. The rail liberalization process in Europe hasled to a separation between infrastructure management and railwayoperations. Railway undertakings now have to deal with the relevantrail infrastructure managers for acquiring the necessary train paths torun national or cross-border shuttle trains. The railway undertakingspay an infrastructure charge per ton-km to the infrastructure man-agers. Rail Net Europe (RNE) groups 37 railway infrastructure man-agers. The Path Coordination System of RNE aims to provideone-stop-shop solutions for pre-constructed paths on a set of Europeanrailway corridors, while the Charging Information System (CIS) givesinformation on the charges linked to cross-border train paths. Thus,the European rail network, unlike their North American counterparts,faces coordination issues among infrastructure managers and betweeninfrastructure managers and users, particularly when cross-border rail

Table 2Modal split in land-based container ows of some major European container ports.Source: own compilation based on data from respective port authorities and SchiffahrtHafen Bahn und Technik, No. 1 (2010), p. 68.

Seaport Total container throughput(including seaseatransshipment)

Road Rail Inlandbarge

Million TEU % % %

Antwerp (Belgium) 8.66 56.6 11.0 32.4Bremerhaven (Germany)a 5.50 34.0 62.9 3.1Constanza (Romania) 1.38 69.6 27.8 2.6Hamburg (Germany) 9.70 63.1 34.7 2.2Le Havre (France) 2.45 86.2 6.6 7.2Marseille (France) 0.85 81.0 13.0 6.0Rotterdam (the Netherlands) 10.83 57.0 13.0 30.0Zeebrugge (Belgium) 2.21 62.0 36.6 1.4

a Modal split gures for terminal operator Eurogate only.

9J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415Fig. 4. The North American Rail System and major inSource: rail ownership data from Oak Ridge Nationaltermodal terminals (United States and Canada).

Laboratory.

services are concerned. Additionally, rail coordination issues in NorthAmerica are more advanced and involve interlining agreements aswell as railcar equipment pools such as TTX.

products. These RDCs typically function as rapid fulllment centersrather than holding inventories. The choice between the various dis-tribution formulas depends on among other things the type of prod-uct, the variability in demand for the product and the frequency of

Table 3Systemic differences between North American and European rail systems.Source: authors.

North America Western Europe

Market dynamics Fully liberalized since the 1980s. Introduction of doublestack technology as key development.

Liberalization process since early 1990s. Cross-border operationsfacilitated by corridor concept and Rail Net Europe.

Primary focus of the rail network Freight (dry bulk, containers, TOFC) PassengersGovernance Private ownership and operations of infrastructure and

rail servicesSeparation of infrastructure management (public) and rail operations(public or private)

Market players Consolidation to a handful of operators. End of monopoly of national railway companies. Consolidation(cf. DB Schenker Rail), but also entry of new smaller players.

Service area Each operator has a specic service area (East, West or Canada). Creation of trans-European railway operations by largest players(DB, SNCF); more niche markets for smaller players.

Distances Double stack trains cover distances of up to 3000 km. Typically between 300 and 1500 km, while shorter shuttle trainsmainly exist in inter-port trafc.

Train capacity 300500 TEU per double stack traina 40-95 TEU per train using at carsNetwork structure Direct shuttle trains bundled around major interlining hubs

(Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis and Memphis)Direct shuttle trains where possible. Hub-and-spoke network whereneeded (e.g. in connection to East/Central Europe)

a The longest double stack train ever was a Union Pacic train (2009) counting 287 wagons or about 1,150 TEU.

10 J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 4156. Distribution systems and gateways in Europe andNorth America

Rodrigue and Notteboom (2010) and Notteboom (2010) providean extensive analysis of distribution systems and related multi-portgateway port regions in Europe and North America. The main pointsare summarized in Table 4. When it comes to the distribution of over-seas goods (inbound logistics), a general distribution structure doesnot exist. Both in Europe and North America the conventional distri-bution networks shifted from a system of regional or even local distri-bution centers to central Gateway Distribution Center (GDC; a form ofport-centric logistics): in Europe typically a European DistributionCenter (EDC) covering all European Union countries and, in NorthAmerica, a large distribution center servicing a part of the continent,often divided by coast. In some market segments, local market de-mand has led companies to opt for Regional Distribution Centers orRDCs. Companies often opt for a hybrid distribution structure of cen-tralized and local distribution facilities. For instance, they use a GDCfor medium- and slow-moving products and RDCs for fast-moving

Table 4Comparison of gateway logistics in North America and Europe.Source: adapted from Rodrigue and Notteboom (2010).North America Western Europ

Distribution systems for importcargo

GDCs often divided per coast EDC (mainly inare dominant

Gateways location and function Near major markets Coastal gatewaCombination ofSome pure tran

Gateway system ConcentratedConcentration level increasingLimited number of gateways

Fairly concentrLe Havre rangeConcentrationgateways and(cf. Baltic+Me

Corridors Long distance rail Short and medMedium-distan

Hinterlands Economies of scale at terminalsLarge hinterlands both for gatewaysand inland ports.

Economies of sInland ports mo

Governance Private ownership and operationsLow impact of administrative borders

Public ownershPrivate operatiHigher impact ologistics develodeliveries. At present, the majority of EDCs in Europe are still optingfor a location in the Benelux region or northern France, but moreand more regions are vying for a position as attractive location forRDCs and potentially EDCs. In Europe, inland distances are more lim-ited, so maritime containers tend to move directly to their bound dis-tribution centers through inland ports. In North America, gatewaydistribution centers are dominantly around the Los Angeles/LongBeach, New York/New Jersey and Savannah clusters.

In North America, there is a high level of concentration of economicactivities along coastal areas (East and West coasts) with signicantresource and manufacturing hinterlands. Gateways tend to be thedominant markets and this for all the two major maritime facades,with the Gulf Coast playing a more marginal role, particularly for con-tainers. North America relies on a relatively small number of gatewaysand less developed port ranges have few chances to fully take part ininternational shipping networks. Long Beach/Los Angeles are themajor gateways along the Pacic Coast, mainly catering to Asian im-port cargo. Longitudinal long distance rail corridors, often taking theform of a landbridge, are servicing a continental hinterland articulatede Trend

Benelux) and EDC/RDC congurations Triple/double EDC for Europe.

ys linked to logistical platforms.gateway and transshipment function.sshipment hubs (particularly in Med)

In general status quoConvergence at level of logistical platforms:increased development of inland logisticalplatforms in North America

ated (particularly in the Hamburg-)level slightly decreasing: moreentry of new gateway regionsd)

Divergence in concentration levelFuture EU concentration level partly subjectto policy debate on infrastructure/corridordevelopment.

ium distance barge and truck.ce rail

Some convergence, but no double stack andreal landbridges in EU

cale at gateways.re constrained (thus more of them).

Convergence (more contested hinterlands,inland ports)Convergence hindered by ownership regulations(cf. EU: split between infrastructure/operations)

iponsf administrative borders in gatewaypment

Convergence towards PPPsReassessment of facilitating role of governmentsin gateway logistics

11J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415by major transportation and industrial hubs such as Chicago andKansas City. The major changes in North America's hinterlands, namelythe decline of the industrial belt (which has been monitored fordecades) and the industrialization of the sun belt are long term shiftsthat are reected in the gradual reorientation of the trafc. NAFTA alsofavors the setting of natural gateways and corridors, namely throughCanada (in particular Vancouver and Montreal) and Mexico (LazeroCardenas) and a reorientation of trafc ows (Brooks, 2008).

In Western Europe, the hinterland is not only intense along thecoastline but also in the interior, notably along the Rhine river systemand its tributary rivers (Main and Neckar), Bavaria in the South ofGermany, the economics centers around Milan in Northern Italy andMadrid in central Spain and major markets in Paris, the LiverpoolManchesterLeeds belt in the UK and the belt reaching from Austriato the growing production clusters in Hungary, the Czech Republicand Southern Poland. Moreover, large parts of the European economiccenters are somewhat remote from the main shipping lanes as is thecase for the countries around the Baltic. European gateways thereforeact as intermediary locations to reach inlandmarkets, even if many areimportant industrial centers (e.g. petrochemical industry). The hinter-land is accessed from coastal gateways such as Rotterdam, Antwerp,Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Le Havre, Barcelona, Marseille and Felixstoweby medium distance corridors involving a variety of combinations ofroad, barge (where available) and rail services. Almost all the majorEuropean capitals are interior cities located along rivers. Cargo concen-tration levels in the European port system are slowly declining, where-by nearly all port ranges fully participate in international shippingnetworks and whereby each port range consists of a unique blend ofload center ports and smaller facilities with a more local focus.

Although gateways are the fundamental structure of themaritimeland interface, terminals are the physical infrastructures throughwhichfunctional regionalism is shaped. In the next section we discuss theemergence of new relations between port terminals and their hinter-land with the setting of dry ports and distribution services in NorthAmerica and Western Europe.

7. Dry ports and their regions

Regional issues, namely how dry ports interact with their regionalmarkets, remain fundamental as they dene their modal characteris-tics, their regulatory framework and their commercial opportunities.Depending on the geographical setting and the structure, governanceand ownership of inland transport systems, dry ports have differentlevels of development and integration with port terminals.

7.1. Western Europe

It is in Western Europe that the setting of inland terminals is themost advanced with a close integration of port terminals with railshuttles and barge services. European integration processes have per-mitted the setting of more natural (commercially based) hinterlandsthat did not exist before. Since a good share of the European marketis inland, a growth in international trade required the setting of inter-mediary locations inland to help accommodate larger ows betweenports and their hinterland. Local hinterland logistics are taking theform of emerging logistics poles consisting of a set of gateway portsand logistics zones in the immediate hinterland. A large concentrationof dry ports can be found around the Rhine/Scheldt delta, which isEurope's most important gateway region with a total containerthroughput of 23.2 million TEU in 2011, andwhere the function of sat-ellite terminals is prominent (Fig. 5). Almost every European port hasan inland terminal strategy as a way to secure hinterland trafc.

A major concern in many European ports is the strong relianceof more local container volumes on trucks. While road haulage hasalways played amajor role in shaping competition among load centers

of the same multi-port gateway region for the immediate hinterland,intermodal transport is slowly but surely acquiring a strategic role aswell. Regional trunk lines enhance the location of logistics sites in sea-ports and dry ports and along the axes between seaports and dryports. Seaports are the central nodes driving the dynamics in such alarge logistics pole. The rise of dry ports and associated logistics corri-dors enhanced port regionalization processes (Notteboom&Rodrigue,2005). Logistics sites in the immediate hinterland typically greatlyvalue the exibility a multi-port gateway region offers in terms ofavailable routing options for import and export cargo (Notteboom,2010). In a logistics world confronted with mounting reliability andcapacity issues, routing exibility is a keystone for the logistics attrac-tiveness of a region. For example, the logistics attractiveness of largeparts of Belgium and the Netherlands for the location of European dis-tribution centers (EDCs) is partly due to the existence of and high con-nectivity in several efcient gateways in the Rhine-Scheldt Delta.

Rail-based dry ports are found throughout Europe, often linked tothe development of logistics zones. The rail liberalization process inEurope is supporting the development of real pan-European rail ser-vices on a one-stop shop basis. All over Europe, new entrants areemerging while some large former national railway companies havejoined forces. Rail terminals in Europe are mostly built and operatedby large railway ventures. The largest rail facilities have bundles ofup to 10 rail tracks with lengths of maximum 800 m per track. Railhubs are typically equipped to allow simultaneous batch exchanges(direct transshipment) through the use of rail-mounted gantry cranesthat stretch over the rail bundles.

In northwest Europe, rail networks and rail-based dry ports arebeing challenged by barge transport and bimodal barge/truck termi-nals which are taking up a very prominent role in dealing with gate-way trafc, particularly in the Benelux, northern France and partsof Western Germany (see also modal split gures in Table 2). Bargecontainer transport has its origins in transport between Antwerp,Rotterdam and the Rhine basin, and in the last decade it has alsodeveloped greatly along the northsouth axis between the Beneluxand northern France (Notteboom & Konings, 2004). Antwerp andRotterdam together handled nearly 5 million TEU of inland bargetrafc in 2010 or about 95% of total European container transport bybarge. Promising barging developments are also found on the Seinebetween Le Havre and the Paris region, in the Rhne/Seine basinbetween Marseille, Lyon and Dijon, on the Elbe and the Weser inNorthern Germany and on the Danube River out of the port ofConstanta. Fluviomar recently started barge services on the Po Riverconnecting the Port of Venice with Mantua and Cremona near Milan.

The increased focus on the hinterland gave impetus to specic co-ordination mechanisms among stakeholders (Van Der Horst & DeLangen, 2008) and hinterland access regimes (De Langen & Chouly,2004) in ports around Europe. Port authorities such as Rotterdam,Barcelona, Le Havre, Marseille, Antwerp and Lisbon all are actively en-hancing processes of port regionalization (see Notteboom, 2009b fora more detailed analysis). Market players have developed specicconcepts to reect the growing function of inland terminals. For ex-ample, some terminal operators in Europe are increasing their inu-ence throughout supply chains by incorporating inland terminals asextended gates to seaport terminals (Rodrigue & Notteboom, 2009).Container terminal operator ECT in Rotterdam (part of HutchisonPort Holdings) follows an active strategy of acquiring key inland ter-minals acting as extended gates to its deep sea terminals (Veenstra,Zuidwijk, & van Asperen, 2012). Through European Gateway Ser-vices, ECT offers shipping lines, forwarders, transport companiesand shippers a variety of services to facilitate the optimal ow of con-tainers between the deep-sea terminals in Rotterdam and the directEuropean hinterland. ECT bundles cargo, which allows for highly fre-quent inland barge and rail connections to various logistics hotspotsin the European hinterland. Container carrier Maersk Line wants topush containers into the hinterland supported by its terminal operat-

ing sister APM Terminals and its rail branch European Rail Shuttle

dry

12 J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415Fig. 5. Logistics polarization in the Rhine-Scheldt Delta: logistics zones, trimodal(ERS). Terminal operator DPWorld uses the concept of terminal oper-ator haulage to streamline intermodal operations on the Seine andRhne axes, while the large terminals of Antwerp Gateway (opensince 2005) and LondonGateway (open in 2012) are both linked to in-land centers.

The advantages of the above solutions are substantial: customerscan have their containers available in close proximity to their custom-er base, while the deep-sea terminal operator faces less pressure onthe deep-sea terminals due to shorter dwell times and can guaranteea better planning and utilization of the rail and barge shuttles. A closecoordination with shipping lines, forwarders and shippers is neededto maximize the possibilities for the development of integrated bun-dling concepts to the hinterland. We argue that extended gate andterminal operator haulage strategies will increasingly evolve frompoint-to-point services (i.e. from a seaport to an inland port andvice versa) to network services which rely on routing exibility offeredvia multiple inter-linked corridors.

7.2. North America

There have been large inland terminals in North America since thedevelopment of the continental railway system in the late 19th century.Their settingwas a natural processwhere inland terminals correspondedto large inlandmarket areas, commonly aroundmetropolitan areas com-manding a regional manufacturing base and distribution system. Al-though exports were signicant, particularly for agricultural goods, thissystem of inland terminals was mostly for domestic freight distribution,connecting manufacturing and resource regions. This has led to a notedhierarchy of distribution hubs within the North American economy(Fig. 6).With globalization and intermodalism twomain categories of in-land terminals have emerged in North America.

Source: updated and adapted from Notteboom (2000).

ports (i.e. rail, barge and truck), rail-based dry ports and barge-based dry ports.The rst is related to ocean trade where inland terminals are anextension of a maritime terminal located in one of the three majorranges (Atlantic, Gulf and Pacic) either as satellite terminals andmore commonly as inland load centers (e.g. Chicago). The second cat-egory concerns inland terminals mainly connected to NAFTA tradethat can act as custom pre-clearance centers. Kansas City can be con-sidered the most advanced inland port initiative in North America asit combines intermodal rail facilities from four different rail operators,foreign trade zones and logistics parks at various locations throughthe metropolitan area. Like Chicago, the city can essentially be per-ceived as a terminal.

Compared to Europe, North American dry ports tend to be larger,but covering a much more substantial market area. Most of theNorth American dry ports initially developed were intermodal facili-ties acting as nodes of convergence for regional freight distributionenabling a modal shift away from road and freight diversion awayfrom congested areas. These two key paradigms have been expandedwith a more comprehensive approach leaning on the principle ofco-location. As dry port projects become increasingly capital intensiveand prone to risk because of their size and required equipment and in-frastructure, the need for a higher value proposition is now set on theprinciple of co-location, many of which are public private partner-ships. Several recent logistic zone projects in North America are capi-talizing on the planning and setting of a new intermodal rail terminaldone concomitantly with a logistics zone project. This co-locationpartnership fundamentally acts as a lter for the commercial potentialof the project as both actors must make the decision to go ahead withtheir respective capital investment in terminal facilities and commer-cial real estate. The most common actors in a typical co-located dryport project involve a railway operator and a commercial real estatedeveloper, or a local public development ofce.

13J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415The success of the co-location model in North America is linked tothe market opportunities of the intermodal terminal through a set ofvalue propositions:

Real estate: Logistic zone projects tend to occupy a large amount ofspace to accommodate existing and anticipated freight distributionactivities. Most co-located projects occupy at least 250 acres andseveral projects are well above 1000 acres. Larger projects tend tohave lower land acquisition costs. Also, since co-located projects in-volve at least two large players, a commercial real estate developerand a railway company, they are able to tap into capital pools withbetter conditions than a smaller actor (e.g. interest rates). For in-stance, CenterPoint Properties is owned by the pension fundCalPERS (California public employees' retirement fund), enablingaccess to long term capital pools. Another important aspect is thata co-located logistic project enables the joint planning of facilities.

Specialization: A co-location project enables both actors involved tofocus on their core competencies, creating multiplying factors. Forinstance, the rail company can focus on terminal development andoperations while the real estate promoter can develop and managethe freight distribution facilities.

Interdependency: both the terminal operator and freight distribu-tion activities at the logistic zone are their respective customers,implying that both partners have vested interests in the efciencyof their operations. The possibility of joint marketing where thelogistic zone is promoted as a single intermodal package is also

Fig. 6. Main container ports, trade corridors and distribution HubsSource: Container port data from Containerization International. Dcommon since the terminal is sold as a value proposition to poten-tial customers.

Drayage: a co-location project offers notable operational advan-tages for drayage, not just because of close proximity, but be-cause trucks can have a priority access through the terminal'sgates (e.g. pre-registration, advance notication, RFID). Drivers areable to perform more deliveries per day and the reliability of thesedeliveries improves.

Asset utilization: Intermodal transportation assets are capital inten-sive and there are pressures to increase their utilization level toachieve better returns on investments. Containers and chassis tendto be the assets that are the most prone to such strategies, namelythrough the setting of chassis pools and empty container depots.

Information technologies: A co-location project offers the possibilityto jointly plan information systems for terminal operations and therelated supply chains, creating a community system where userscan have access to real time information about the status of theirshipments. Both terminal operations and their related supply chainbenets.

While co-location dry port projects have been particularly preva-lent in North America, one drawback is that co-located logistics activ-ities are dependent on the performance of the rail terminal as well asthe level of service offered by the rail operator. If for any reason therail operator has other priorities within its network, then the efcien-cy of the co-located logistic zone is compromised.

in North America.istribution hubs data from Cushman and Wakeeld (2009).

Notteboom, T. (2009a). An economic analysis of the European seaport system, reportprepared for the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO). Antwerp: ITMMA.

14 J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 4158. Implications for managerial practice

This paper analyzed the setting and development of rail-based dryports in North America and Europe. Rail-induced dry port develop-ment, or alternatively dry port induced rail development, comes inmany forms and shapes as a function of the regional and local gover-nance and regulatory settings, the strategies of stakeholders involved,the spatial and functional relations with adjacent and or distant gate-way ports, the dynamics in logistics network congurations, andthe specic competitive setting (i.e. competition with trucking andbarges in Europe). The setting of dry ports has been a dominant par-adigm in the development of hinterland transportation as the growthof maritime transportation and its economies of scale have placedpressures on the inland segment of freight distribution. The prospectsfor dry ports remain positive with large continental markets likeNorth America and Europe relying on a network of satellite terminalsand load centers as a fundamental structure to support hinterlandfreight movements, particularly their massication. This entailed theemergence of extended gates and extended forms of supply chainmanagement in which inland terminals play an active role. As thepressure on port regions increases in terms of freight ows passingthrough them and associated environmental effects, dry ports willbe even more important in maintaining efcient and sustainablecommodity chains. It can also be expected that resources will play agreater role within containerized trade with inland terminals, againunderlining unique regional characteristics. This implies a set ofrepositioning strategies where inland terminals play a fundamentalrole either to improve the efciency of this repositioning, by provid-ing better cargo rotation opportunities, or by acting as an agent thatcan help promote containerized exports.

Like several stages in intermodal transport development, such as inport infrastructure, there is a potential of overinvestment, duplicationand redundancy as many inland locations would like to claim a stakein global value chains. This appears to be the case in Western Europewhere an abundance of inland terminals, particularly within theRhine/Scheldt delta, is indicative of an over-competitive environmentand of the ambitions of local and regional authorities to establish lo-gistics hubs for Europe. Also, the vulnerability of hub-and-spoke net-works in rail transport makes the position of intermediate rail hubsuncertain: a shift to a system of direct shuttle trains might make therail hub redundant and faces the logistics companies around the hubwith a declining connectivity to gateway ports. A fundamental aspectthat distinguishes European dry ports from North American dry portsremains the barge option. In addition of permitting the setting oftrimodal inland ports with typically a stronger role for barges thanfor rail, it supports amassication of inland distribution in the absenceof double-stacking capabilities for rail as well as additional transportand routing options.

In North America, because of a different ownership and gover-nance structure, the setting of a dry port, at least the intermodal ter-minal component, is mostly in the hands of rail operators. Eachdecision thus takes place with much more consideration being placedon market potential as well as the overall impact on their networkstructure and operations. The decision of a rail company to build anew terminal or to expand existing facilities commonly marks themoment where regional stakeholders, from real estate developers tologistics service providers, readjust their strategies. In some instances,state/provincial or local governments will come with dry port strate-gies adjusting to existing commercial decisions in the hope to createmultiplying effects.

The development of dry ports around the world has clearlyunderlined an emerging functional relation of port terminals andtheir hinterland. Based upon their regional setting, dry ports assumea variety of functions with co-location with logistical zones a domi-nant development paradigm. They are likely to be more important el-

ements within supply chains, particularly through their role of bufferNotteboom, T. (2009b). The relationship between seaports and the intermodal hinter-land in light of global supply chains: European challenges, round table no. 143.Paris: OECD - International Transport Forum (ITF).

Notteboom, T. (2010). Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regionsin the European container port system: An update. Journal of Transport Geography,18(4), 567583.

Notteboom, T., & Konings, R. (2004). Network dynamics in container transport bybarge. Belgeo, 5(4), 461477.

Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. -P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase inport development. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), 297313.

Padilha, F., & Ng, A. K. Y. (2012). The spatial evolution of dry ports in developing economies:The Brazilian experiences.Maritime Economics & Logistics, 14(1), 99121.

Rimmer, P. J., & Comtois, C. (2009). China's container-related dynamics, 19902005.GeoJournal, 74(1), 3550.

Rodrigue, J. -P. (2008). The Thruport concept and transmodal rail freight distribution inwhere containerized consignments can be cheaply stored, waiting tobe forwarded to their nal destinations. While the interest in dryports has increased we have to be aware that no two dry ports arethe same. Each dry port is confronted with a local/regional economicand a geographical and regulatory setting which not only dene thefunctions taken up by the dry port, but its relations vis--vis seaports.Best practices can only be applied successfully if one takes into ac-count the relative uniqueness of each dry port setting. In spite of thetechnical similarities brought by intermodalism European and NorthAmerican dry ports are functionally two of a kind since they play dif-ferent roles within their respective transport and supply chains.

References

Brooks, M. (2008). North American freight transportation: The road to security and pros-perity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Cardebring, P. W., & Warnecke, C. (1995). Combi-terminal and intermodal freight centredevelopment. Stockholm: KFB-Swedish Transport and Communication ResearchBoard.

CEMT (2001). Land access to seaports, round table 113. Paris: CEMT.Charlier, J., & Ridol, G. (1994). Intermodal transportation in Europe: Of modes, corri-

dors and nodes. Maritime Policy and Management, 21(3), 237250.Cushman, & Wakeeld (2009). New Age of Trade: The Americas. Industrial white paper

for NAIOP Research Foundation, January 2009.Dadvar, E., Ganji, S., & Tanzi, M. (2011). Feasibility of establishment of dry ports in

the developing countriesThe case of Iran. Journal of Transportation Security, 4(1),1933.

De Langen, P. W., & Chouly, A. (2004). Hinterland access regimes in seaports. EuropeanJournal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 4(4), 361380.

Debrie, J., & Gouvernal, E. (2006). Intermodal rail in Western Europe: Actors and ser-vices in a new regulatory environment. Growth and Change, 37(3), 444459.

Dennis, S. M. (2000). Changes in railroad rates since the Staggers Act. TransportationResearch Part E, 37, 5569.

Do, N. -H., Nam, K. -C., & Ngoc Le, Q. -L. (2011). A consideration for developing a dryport system in Indochina area. Maritime Policy and Management, 38(1).

Gouvernal, E., & Daydou, J. (2005). Container railfreight services in North-West Europe:Diversity of organizational forms in a liberalizing environment. Transport Reviews,25(5), 557571.

Hayuth, Y. (1980). Inland container terminal function and rationale. Maritime Policyand Management, 7(4), 283289.

Jaremskis, A., & Vasiliauskas, A. V. (2007). Research on dry port concept as intermodalnode. Transport, 22(3), 207213.

Kreuzberger, E. (2005). Hub and spoking in a process of changing bundling concepts ofintermodal rail networks: current developments in the light of intermodal efciency.In F. Witlox, W. Dullaert, & B. Vernimmen (Eds.), Proceedings of the BIVEC-GIBETTransport Research Day 2005 (pp. 405436). Ghent: Nautilis.

Munford, C. (1980). Buenos Aires Congestion and the dry port solution. Cargo SystemsInternational: The Journal of ICHCA, 7(10), 2627.

Ng, A. K. Y., & Cetin, I. B. (2012). Locational characteristics of dry ports in developingeconomies: some lessons from Northern India. Regional Studies, 46(6), 757773.

Ng, A., & Gujar, G. C. (2009a). The spatial characteristics of inland transport hubs:evidences from Southern India. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(5), 346356.

Ng, A. K. Y., & Gujar, G. C. (2009b). Government policies, efciency and competitiveness:the case of dry ports in India. Transport Policy, 16(5), 232239.

Notteboom, T. (2000). De invloed van ruimtelijke en logistieke ontwikkelingen in hetvoorland-achterlandcontinum op de positie en functie van zeehavens, Ph.D.thesis, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, 724 p.

Notteboom, T. (2007). Container river services and gateway ports: similarities betweenthe Yangtze River and the Rhine River. Asia Pacic Viewpoint, 48(3), 330343.

Notteboom, T. (2008). Bundling of freight ows and hinterland network development.In R. Konings, H. Priemus, & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), The future of intermodal freighttransport, operations, technology, design and implementation (pp. 6688). Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.North America. Journal of Transport Geography, 16(4), 233246.

Rodrigue, J. -P., & Notteboom, T. (2009). The terminalization of supply chains:Reassessing port-hinterland logistical relationships. Maritime Policy and Manage-ment, 36(2), 165183.

Rodrigue, J. -P., & Notteboom, T. (2010). Comparative North American and EuropeanGateway Logistics: The regionalism of freight distribution. Journal of TransportGeography, 18(4), 497507.

Roso, V. (2005). The dry port concept Applications in Sweden, proceedings of logisticsresearch network.Plymouth: International Logistics and Supply Chain Management.

Roso, V., Woxenius, J., & Lumsden, K. (2009). The dry port concept: Connecting containerseaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography, 27(5), 338345.

Slack, B. (1999). Satellite terminals: A local solution to hub congestion? Journal ofTransport Geography, 7, 241246.

Slack, B., & Comtois, C. (2010). Identication des modles de gouvernance d'un plelogistique en lien avec la ralit qubcoise. Amnagement d'un ple logistique auQubec: cadre d'analyse de l'tude de faisabilit, tude 1.2.

Van Der Horst, M. R., & De Langen, P. W. (2008). Coordination in hinterland transportchains: A major challenge for the seaport community.Maritime Economics & Logistics,10, 108129.

Veenstra, A., & Notteboom, T. (2011). The development of the Yangtze River containerport system. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 772781.

Veenstra, A., Zuidwijk, R., & van Asperen, E. (2012). The extended gate concept for con-tainer terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics,14(1), 1432.

Wiegmans, B., Masurel, E., & Nijkamp, P. (1999). Intermodal freight terminals: An analysisof the terminal market. Transportation Planning and Technology, 23, 105128.

15J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Business & Management 5 (2012) 415

Dry ports in European and North American intermodal rail systems: Two of a kind?1. Introduction: The prevalence of the hinterland2. Driving forces for rail-based dry port development3. The function of dry ports within transport chains4. The function of dry ports within supply chains4.1. Site and situation4.2. Repositioning4.3. Cargo rotation4.4. Trade facilitation4.5. Governance

5. Rail transport in Europe and North America5.1. The European rail freight system5.2. The North American rail freight system5.3. Systemic differences

6. Distribution systems and gateways in Europe and North America7. Dry ports and their regions7.1. Western Europe7.2. North America

8. Implications for managerial practiceReferences