A necessary evil

But it hasn't worked for any of them, and all remain plagued by congestion. It's simply a problem of too much traffic trying to use a finite amount of space; of demand exceeding supply.

Still looking at land side examples, the UK government is busy with a programme to expand prison capacity by building new prisons. The first is HMP Kennet, and by the time of its official opening at the end of January this year it was already overcrowded.

Examination of that, alongside the Thatcher and Livingstone models, appears to suggest the paradigm that effort expended on creating more capacity doesn't make more usable space; rather it makes more congestion, and makes it very quickly.

And where have we heard that before? That's right, here in our own ports industry. But, why should there be any reason for the shipping industry to be any different, especially when you consider what's causing the problem in the first place - and why.

Congestion is the problem child of those worthy parents prosperity and economic growth, occurring when demand soars and entrepreneurs rush to meet it, sending their goods through ports and terminals designed and built to suit material volumes existing in the past. But that's no criticism; in this context the past can be as recent as a year or 18 months ago - an age in terms of economic growth; closer to the blinking of an eye when considering expansion of a port, especially when the political and environmental dimensions are factored into the equation.

If it were easy to resolve congestion issues, then clearly congestion itself would have long ceased to exist.

So how can this knot be untied? The obvious answer would appear to be 'more'. More quayside length; more cranes; more boxes; bigger ships; deeper channels. But does any of that guarantee a solution to the problem? Arguably not. All it does is make it bigger, and perhaps move it into the hinterland, where 'more' incoming and outgoing trucks and trains have to use infrastructure once again created to suit material volumes existing in the past - except that this time 'ownership' of the infrastructure, and therefore of the problem, may rest outside the direct control of port operators.

That's not to say that considerable effort isn't being universally expended to expand ports. From Antwerp to Australia, port developments are coming through at breakneck speed. Examples are numerous. Geraldton in Australia is expected to ship ore from its upgraded berth five this month, and speed turnaround times; Newcastle is to be the subject of an AUS$447m ($400m) investment to create a third coal export terminal, with a capacity of 30m tonnes/year; last month we mentioned the coal terminals at Dalrymple Bay and Richards Bay.

Antwerp is deepening channels, adding 7.5m teu capacity and getting more efficient, say port officials, claiming theirs will be the only port in the Hamburg-Le Havre range that will be congestion-free for the next decade - nevertheless terminal operator Contargo introduced a Congestion Charge for containers in the terminal late last summer, and its new Deurganck terminal has yet to reach a quarter of its capacity.

The port should be ideally placed because of its hinterland opportunity, a location at the mouth of the Scheldt opening up a network of canals and rivers stretching deep into Europe. Three in ten containers passing through Antwerp in 2006 arrived or left by barge, with a consequent positive impact on road congestion.

Antwerp has also been able to offer more capacity because of cargoes it has lost, through no fault of its own - last year's changes in EU rules meant the sugar trade all but dissolved completely, and exports of steel to North America were significantly down.

But if 'more' is a solution, it can't be so on its own. It has to be allied with 'better' and 'faster'.

As Thomas Cullen of Transport Intelligence points out, it's all well and good for a port to increase its capacity by 10%, but that's immediately wiped out if trade grows by 10% or more. "In that case all the gains are lost, and the port is facing the same issues, but on a larger scale," he said.

Sticking with the Antwerp example, through its Intermodal Solutions project the port is determined to move 15% of cross-border containers by rail, has opened six new routes and expanded four existing ones. The links reach into France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and the volume of boxes using them is now up to 10% - but it stood at seven when the project began in 2005. As such it offers a fine example of the size of the mountain to be climbed - quite apart from the mountain being built still higher by continuing economic growth, and 75% of the Deurganck capacity to be realised.

Key to congestion can often be the trucks which service ports, says Mr Cullen. In the UK and US ordering of trucks is a key activity, and the portals that manage it are quite advanced in super-efficient ports. "Others must catch up; when they do it will make a substantial impact," he said.

The rail and truck problem is compounded by the increasing size of vessel, which causes peaks and troughs of container activity, with boxes having to be dealt with in thousands rather than in hundreds. "Where the peaks were tolerable, they are becoming intolerable, but nevertheless must be coped with," said Mr Cullen.