Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Tabl e 8. 3
Throughput volumes and network attributes of the world's 30 main container ports
Container
throughput
(000s TEU)
Maritime degree
Hub dependence (% TEU)
Rank
in
2006
Indirect links
Direct links
Indirect links
Direct links
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
Port
1
Singapore
24,792
12,943
591
439
210
154
11.5
6.5
21.1
32.3
2
Hong Kong
23,230
13,460
612
407
193
132
8.0
5.7
15.6
30.5
3
Shanghai
21,710
1,930
569
235
185
63
9.9
7.4
18.3
33.5
4
Shenzhen
18,468
1,032
1,224
103
177
30
6.8
6.3
50.0
52.5
5
Busan
12,030
4,725
502
328
180
110
8.8
6.7
13.4
19.7
6
Kaohsiung
9,774
5,063
456
294
127
90
13.9
7.1
31.2
40.9
7
Rotterdam
9,690
4,935
622
433
145
137
5.4
5.1
24.3
20.3
8
Dubai
8,923
2,247
394
233
143
55
8.8
4.9
17.3
18.3
9
Hamburg
8,861
3,054
874
443
123
117
8.1
6.6
25.6
27.7
10
Los Angeles
8,469
2,682
287
241
56
63
8.3
6.7
25.6
33.4
11
Qingdao
7,702
810
445
142
100
28
8.6
6.6
22.6
30.1
12
Long Beach
7,290
3,007
317
-
46
-
10.5
-
27.1
-
13
Ningbo
7,068
-
434
70
101
14
11.0
8.7
32.0
34.4
14
Antwerp
7,018
2,653
548
416
96
101
5.0
4.8
32.3
18.6
15
Guangzhou
6,600
-
236
50
31
14
13.0
8.6
41.2
53.8
16
Port Klang
6,320
1,409
473
264
134
54
15.0
7.1
27.3
62.4
17
Xingang
5,900
800
357
151
54
42
12.6
6.9
31.9
28.3
18
New York
5,092
2,269
324
300
75
63
4.6
4.5
15.3
28.1
19
Tanjung Pelepas
4,770
-
340
-
74
-
8.6
-
16.1
-
20
Bremerhaven
4,450
1,543
433
324
92
57
10.1
6.2
22.4
34.9
21
Laem Chabang
4,123
820
313
166
60
25
14.2
7.2
29.9
34.1
22
Xiamen
4,019
400
392
86
74
20
15.0
7.0
35.2
36.9
23
Tokyo
3,665
2,311
330
208
74
51
9.3
7.3
18.7
14.9
24
Jawaharlal Nehru
3,298
423
343
149
50
20
10.3
4.4
16.7
23.5
25
Algeciras
3,245
1,307
370
247
104
62
4.6
5.0
28.7
40.5
26
Dalian
3,212
-
340
113
69
24
9.0
6.4
24.0
19.5
27
Yokohama
3,200
2,334
389
318
100
86
10.1
6.5
17.2
19.5
28
Colombo
3,079
1,356
381
258
63
51
9.3
5.8
20.3
40.2
29
Felixstowe
3,000
2,042
415
369
64
86
8.0
6.0
28.0
21.5
30
Jeddah
2,964
827
341
256
59
41
8.2
5.6
43.7
45.4
Source: Calculated by author based on LMIU and Containerisation International
shipping lines since 1998 (Wang, 1998). Here, gateway and hub functions create
noticeable discrepancies along the hierarchy. For instance, European gateway ports
such as Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Felixstowe all enjoy wider global
connections than ports of equivalent throughput. Gateway ports are more likely to
drain vast hinterlands and thus to connect with a variety of overseas markets. In
comparison, hub ports have a simplified foreland because of narrowed hinterlands.
The relationship between the respective growth rates of traffic and indirect degree
remains quite significant with a coefficient of 0.74.
In terms of hub dependence, the direct vulnerability of some ports despite their
large throughput is evident. The traffic share of one direct link reveals a higher
Search WWH ::
Custom Search