Measuring value at city ports

Perseverance: Red Hook Terminal (pictured) is a clear case for maintaining port facilities in metropolitan areas. Credit: Red Hook Terminals Perseverance: Red Hook Terminal (pictured) is a clear case for maintaining port facilities in metropolitan areas. Credit: Red Hook Terminals

COMMENT: Should port development differ between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas? Definitely, in my view, writes Peter de Langen.

Some of the largest ports in the world are located in metropolitan areas, and quite often in central locations - think Barcelona, New York and Amsterdam – while others are located outside cities, such as Le Havre, Charleston, Richard’s Bay and Algeciras.

The pressure on land use is often high in metropolitan ports, with retail, housing or leisure, among others, clambering for use of the land.

From a public interest and policy point of view, land use should maximise ‘value for society’, without being influenced by external factors. So, tenants should be free to make a choice between using land for port activities or real estate development.

However, in most cases there are external factors that muddy the waters: open waterfront areas create huge value for residents, but when the waterfront is a public space, this value is not captured directly through payments of users. Likewise, transforming port land into urban real estate may cause a shift of transport from water to road, which has costs for society through more congestion and pollution.

There is a clear case for maintaining port facilities in metropolitan areas, even when the land value for urban real estate may be higher. However, all too often this argument is used for continued port operations without a clear value for society. Here, the efforts of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to maintain port activities in Brooklyn at the Red Hook terminal may be a case in point.

The location of a port in a metropolitan region also provides development options and competitive advantages over ports outside such areas. Important examples are cruise and marina activities, both high growth segments in port development. Other examples include recycling activities, car handling, warehousing and distribution activities, and new forms of manufacturing that are relatively small scale and without pollution. Metropolitan ports are often attractive locations for such activities.

These specific challenges for metropolitan ports have implications for port governance: full privatisation is generally not efficient given the importance of external factors, while there is a serious risk that the status quo will be maintained without question under a public sector port authority, instead of transitioning the port to focus on value for society. Such a transition may require shifting the revenue model away from port dues and towards new revenue streams, which can be a complicated move for a public sector port authority.


ShibataFenderTeam supports PIANC Young Professionals

As one of the world's leading fender specialist, we consider it our responsibility to do our part fo... Read more


Warrenpoint Port has commissioned a new crane and has commenced the refurbishment of two other crane... Read more

Bigger share of modal split envisaged for inland shipping in the Baltic Sea Region

A vision for inland waterway transport (IWT) in the Baltic Sea Region as well as means to strengthen... Read more

QTerminals reaches new container and cargo handling milestones in record time

Over two million containers and five million tonnes of cargo handled Read more

Bendezu Port Equipment delivered two GOTTWALD HMK 6407 B from BELGIUM to SPAIN

Bendezu Port Equipment GmbH, an international trading company offering second-hand port equipment, h... Read more

View all