Trans RINA, Vol 161, Part A4, Intl J Maritime Eng, Oct-Dec 2019


affecting transshipped container traffic in Taiwan. Although the Port of Kaohsiung is capable of maintaining its overall yearly container quantity of more than 10 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU), it has witnessed a gradual decline in its status as a transshipment port (MOTC, 2017).


The Port of Kaohsiung remains an attractive site for vessel-calling on the T/P route for North America. A considerable number of transshipment containers from Vietnam and the Philippines are transshipped at Kaohsiung. The main aim of this study was to determine criteria for maintaining the Port of Kaohsiung’s transshipment advantages in the future. The route deployment of container carriers at Kaohsiung and the different operating conditions for vessel allocation were examined, and a container ship transport cost model comparing the Port of Kaohsiung with neighboring transshipment ports was constructed to determine which would be more attractive as a docking site for vessels on the T/P route. The objectives of this study were thus to determine whether, compared with major neighboring ports. the Port of Kaohsiung offers cost advantages to attract route deployment and calling by mother ships, as well as to identify key operating conditions for maintaining its existing advantages and position as a regional hub port. Among the neighboring ports, Hong Kong handles more transshipment containers and is the major competitor of Port of Kaohsiung for carriers to select port of call in T/P route. This study thus chose Hong Kong as example to compare.


2.


TRANSFORMATION OF REGIONAL HUB PORTS


Intercontinental hub ports, also referred to as international hub ports, are characterized by a comprehensive range of container transshipment facilities and possess all trunk route types and an interconnected collection of feeder routes (Tai, 2012; Zheng, Fu & Kuang, 2017). Once an intercontinental hub port loses vessel-callings from major trunk routes, it also loses its position as a comprehensive hub and thus becomes a regional hub port retaining only part of its regional advantage. This has already occurred in a number of Asian container ports, such as those in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Changes in regional industrial structure have affected the status and competitiveness of these ports (Tai, 2012; MOTC, 2013).


Taiwan provides the most representative example of how industrial structure influences container ports and container


quantity growth. According to


Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting, and Statistics, Executive Yuan 2018 statistics, Before 1997, the traditional industry in Taiwan was oriented toward manufacturing sectors, followed by service sectors. This


A-382


trend has reversed since 1997, with 2017 government statistics indicating that the output value of service industries in Taiwan represented 64.14% of GDP, whereas the industrial sector was in second place with only 34.54% and other economic sectors (fishery, agriculture, and animal husbandry) represented less than 2%. This demonstrates considerable variation in the industrial structure, which has limited the growth of import and export container volumes. As shown in Figure 1, Taiwan has been affected by the outward movement of traditional industries since the late 1990s. Development of the country’s economy and industry and moving of its manufacturing sectors overseas have reached a new trend since 2010, in which the production trade value of overseas Taiwanese manufacturing companies exceeded that of domestic ones (see Figure 1).This impeded the growth of local import and export container volumes at Taiwanese ports, and subsequent container growth became increasingly reliant on transshipment activities. MOTC(2017) shows export trade values in Taiwan by main service categories over the past 10 years, based on statistical data from the United Nations, indicating that the Taiwanese transportation industry experienced slower growth after 2011, compared with other industries. As manufacturing companies in Taiwan shift their production bases to China and Southeast Asia, this has stimulated the development of their local industries and attracted investment in deep-water port construction, enabling large vessels to dock at local ports and deliver goods directly without having to transport containers on feeder vessels for transshipment at the Port of Kaohsiung. Consequently, large vessels are growing less reliant on deep-water ports in Taiwan.


The Port of Kaohsiung provides a real-life example of the process of transformation from an intercontinental to a regional hub port. The Port of Kaohsiung was formerly the main transshipment hub port in the Asia Pacific region, the largest container port in Taiwan situated on the Asian Pacific east-west routes, and, as the point of intersection for East Asian south-north routes, a major intercontinental hub port


as well. With the


containerization trend of the late 1960s, the Port of Kaohsiung introduced container shipping operations. As global trade and containerization grew, the Port of Kaohsiung further developed and expanded its container terminals, becoming one of the top three ports in the world in terms of container-loading capacity (see Figure 2). Since 2000, neighboring countries such as China and the Southeast Asian nations have gradually developed deep-water ports and terminals as well as mother ports and trunk routes to attract transshipment resources. Following major changes in Taiwan’s industrial structure, East Asian container shipping lines also began opting for coastal ports in China and Southeast Asia as their preferred docking sites, thus affecting the Port of Kaohsiung’s competitive status (Tai, 2012; MOTC, 2013; MOTC, 2017).


©2019: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166