« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Container Transhipment and Demand for Container Terminal Capacity in Scotland
6. Conclusion
The introduction of ever-larger container ships is a reflection of ongoing trade growth requiring the transportation of vast numbers of containers. Container traffic increases faster than output, and transhipment growth is even more rapid than this as carriers, due to ship upsizing, reduce the number of direct port calls and move towards hub and spoke services.
The containerport market in Northern Europe is expected to continue its upward trend, with demand forecast to more than double over the 2001-2015 period. The most dynamic sector of this market is transhipment, which will generate demand for significant additional containerport capacity geared towards transhipment. Analysis of forecast containerport capacity in Northern Europe suggests that there is likely to be a need for additional capacity to serve, in particular, the UK import/export market, and the Baltic/Scandinavia transhipment markets. These constitute the most probable markets for Hunterston and Scapa Flow respectively. Pressure to provide additional capacity will intensify if, as expected, certain currently planned developments do not materialise.
Worsening port congestion and lack of sufficient deep-water capacity at existing port locations in the UK and on the Continent has led to private sector interest to develop new deep-water container terminal capacity in Scotland, at Hunterston and Scapa Flow. These two sites are not regarded as substitutes as they would in the main target different markets.
Internationally, governments tend to court, and in many instances finance, container terminal developments in that they offer an economy major benefits such as direct access to low cost global transport connections. Container-shipping hubs (and the global low cost transport connections they offer) act as an important lever for inward investment and as a tool to strengthen regional and global competitiveness. Indeed, it is difficult to see any downside from either development as far as the Scottish economy is concerned. This suggests that the relevant economic agencies, local authorities, and the Scottish Executive should continue to do all they can, together with the private sector, to help bring these schemes to fruition, including taking advantage of EU and UK financial support where this exists for such projects.
Environmental impacts will, of course, require separate, reasoned assessment. In this respect the Scottish hub port proposals are quite different from developments at established container port locations in the UK and North Continent, the latter suffering from acute difficulties in terms of road/rail access through densely populated and congested areas, lack of water depth which means major dredging requirements, and in many instances the absence of sufficient terminal land which can result in substantial reclamation to create new land. The strength of local opposition towards ongoing port expansion at established container port locations is another important factor to consider. In terms of safety at sea, vessel emissions/fuel consumption, transport movement and modal shift potential, the Scottish hub proposals also appear to offer the prospect of a more positive outcome.
« Previous | Contents | Next »