AURH - Analytical Atlas of freigth transport in NWE

Weastflows project - Action 1 - Deliverable 2 - September 2014

ANALYTICAL ATLASFreight transport in North-Western Europe: regional dynamics, infrastructure and inter-regional exchanges

CONTENT

Executive summary....................................................................................................p.5

Part 1: geographical analysis of North-Western Europe.....p.7

About geographical analysis....................................................................................................p.8

1.1 European territorial organisation ...............................................................................p.101.2 Maritime organisation.....................................................................................................p.121.3 Organisation of transport infrastructure networks..................................................p.18

Part 2: focus on each of the eleven remarkable areas in North-Western Europe.............................................................................................p.25

About quantitative and qualitative analysis.........................................................................p.26

2.1 Ireland..................................................................................................................................p.302.2 Shannon-Limerick Gateway..........................................................................................p.322.3 Scotland...............................................................................................................................p.342.4 Liverpool and the west coast........................................................................................p.362.5 Greater London and central England.........................................................................p.382.6 Southern England.............................................................................................................p.402.7 Southern Netherlands......................................................................................................p.422.8 Benelux and Eastern France........................................................................................p.442.9 Western Germany............................................................................................................p.462.10 Northern France................................................................................................................p.482.11 Seine Gateway®................................................................................................................p.50

Part 3: analysis of interactions.......................................................................p.53

About the analysis of interactions..........................................................................................p.54

3.1 General analysis of interactions broken down by geozone..................................p.563.2 Key interactions between geozones.............................................................................p.583.3 Modal analysis of interactions........................................................................................p.603.4 Dominant interactions by individual geozones..........................................................p.623.5 Transnational dominant interactions.............................................................................p.64

ConclusionRolling out new European dynamics........................................................p.68

Map index.............................................................................................................................p.71

Analytical atlas - Freight transport in North-Western Europe: regional dynamics, infrastructure and inter-regional exchanges - AURH - September 20144

North-Western.Europe

Köln

Paris

London

Brussel

Birmingham

Dortmund

LeedsDublin

Glasgow

Nürnberg

Den Haag

Stuttgart

Frankfurt am Main

Gent

Lille

Dijon

Reims

Liège

Kassel

AngersNantes

Rennes

Münster

Belfast

Bristol

Salford

Swansea

Augsburg

Mannheim

Le Havre

Plymouth

Aberdeen

Strasbourg

Sunderland

Canterbury

Portsmouth

Chelmsford

Saarbrücken

Wolverhampton

Newcastle upon Tyne

Freiburg im Breisgau

Metz

Caen

Cork

Rouen

Tours

Brest

Nancy

Amiens

Galway

Armagh

Dundee

Le MansOrléans

Mulhouse

Besançon

Limerick

Hereford

Lancaster

Cambridge

Carlisle

Edinburgh

Cardiff

Southampton

Sheffield

Dunkerque

Amsterdam

Antwerp Dusseldorf

Charleroi

Luxembourg

IRELAND

FRANCE

GERMANY

BELGIUM

NETERLANDS

UNITEDKINGDOM

LUXEMBOURG

DENMARK

NORWAY

SWEDEN

AUSTRIA

ITALY

UNITEDKINGDOM

SWITZERLAND

NORTH SEA

ATLANTICOCEAN

ENGLISH CHANNEL

ATLANTICOCEAN

0 50 10025Km

Data source powered by AURHBoudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH -2013/06$

North-Western Europe

Contextual information

Other Europeancountries

Cities

over 1 million inhabitants

between 45,038 and 145,000 inhabitantsbetween 145,001 and 450,000 inhabitantsbetween 450,001 and 1,000,000 inhabitants

Shetland, Scotland Shetland

ATLASMajor North-West Europeanfreight infrastructures

Weastflows project - Action 1 - Deliverable 1 - June 2013

GeoWeastflows platformNovember 2013 - The interactive cartography tool developed by the Henri Tudor Public Research Centre in Luxembourg and AURH can be accessed free of charge through a simple registration at: http://geo.weastflows.eu

The Atlas of North-Western Europe freight transport infrastructuresJune 2013 - 47 maps bringing together context maps, maps by transport mode and regional maps. It can be downloaded on www.aurh.fr and www.aurhinweastflows.com

Analytical atlas - Freight transport in North-Western Europe: regional dynamics, infrastructure and inter-regional exchanges - AURH - September 2014 5

Development of ports and freight flow management have a strong correlation with the infrastructure network and its capacity to propose a panel of multimodal services that decrease the environmental impact of goods transport. Knowing the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats of this network is thus crucial, as well as deep knowledge of the main inter-regional goods exchanges. This is the goal of the work carried out by AURH in this report with a quantitative, qualitative and cartographical analysis of the transport infrastructures and regional dynamics. This publication is a part of the European Weastflows project (INTERREG IV B for North-Western Europe). This four-year project (2011-2014) is aimed at improving North-Western Europe logistics and freight transport as well as identifying alternative solutions to mitigate congestion in the Northern Range ports and traditional North-South roads. The scope of the study includes seven European countries (cf. map). It does not include the southern part of France, the northern part of the Netherlands, the eastern part of Germany and because of this, a part of the Northern Range, including Hamburg.

This Analytical Atlas is the second stage of work AURH has carried out for Weastflows. It follows The Atlas of Major North-West European Freight Infrastructures published in June, 2013. This atlas listed an inventory of transport infrastructures, including all types of goods and modes, whether they already existed or were planned. This second opus goes even further and readers will be invited to comprehend stakes concerning transport of goods in North-Western Europe, taking into account the infrastructures and looking at this from a sustainable development point of view. It raises the question of the massification of exchanges, of modal changes as well as the environmental impact freight transport has.

This deliverable uses data from the Geographical Information System (GIS) designed by AURH. This GIS data base, drawn up with the assistance of all partners in this project, is today considered as a reference work. It is a free of charge source of information on North-Western Europe freight transport infrastructures. OpenStreetMap is the main reference document and has been laid out and enriched to comply with Weastflows’ requirements. This data can be consulted, after registration, on the GeoWeastflows interactive cartography platform developed by AURH and the Henri Tudor Public Research Centre, a Weastflows partner, based in Luxembourg at the following link: http://geo.weastflows.eu

For this deliverable, AURH designed a method that uses GIS spatial analysis tools applied to the infrastructure network, and including, in particular:• development of a grid analysis for a geographical study of the network which points out

its concentrations;• definition of indicators to highlight strengths and weaknesses;• cartography of goods exchanged between North-Western Europe regions for a preliminary

matching with infrastructures.

This document is organised in three parts, each preceded by a methodological introduction.

The first part proposes a geographical analysis of North-Western Europe. It focuses on regional characteristics: demography, land use, the port network and transport infrastructures.

The second part presents a quantitative and qualitative analysis on the network of infrastructures. It concerns eleven remarkable strategic regional areas for freight transport. These areas were defined, in a collusive manner, at the beginning of the project. The Atlas had already included a series of maps at this scale.

Lastly, the third part focuses on the analysis and qualification of the main goods exchanged between regions in North-Western Europe. These interactions were analysed using a theoretical goods flow matrix structure. This matrix structure was designed by the Scottish partner, SEStran in the framework of Action 4 of the project on the analysis of freight demand. AURH integrated the data into the GIS.

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Geographical analysis of North-Western Europe

Part 1


About geographical analysis

This geographical analysis provides keys allowing readers to better understand territorial and maritime stakes of freight transport.It includes three parts: • demographic and industrial densities;• port organisation;• transport infrastructures using the grid analysis method.

Why use grid analysis?

The European Union statistical system is based on a territorial division shared by the entire European Union called NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics). This reference system has three stages of division from NUTS 1 to NUTS 3. It is based on administrative divisions of member States correlated to population weight. Because of this, there are large divergences from one country to another, in particular in terms of area, which generates disequilibrium when comparing two zones between themselves.

How does it work?

Knowing this, AURH has designed a specific grid variation that divides the North-West European area into 1,290 squares of 800 km2 each. This division is more precise than the NUTS reference system which divides the same area into 485 NUTS 3, with an average area of 1,650 km2. The size chosen corresponds to the area of the smallest German administration division, which is equivalent to districts or city districts. Each square then brings information stemming from crossing it with network infrastructures.

The grid analysis method was developed for roads, railways and inland waterways as well as for nodal elements such as ports, railway terminals and airports:• the infrastructure density was measured for networks by including each square in the

total length of the network ;• for nodal infrastructures (ports, railways terminal and airports), the density of infrastructures

was measure by the total number of nodes in each square.

By cross referencing this data, each square gives information indications on the accumulated lengths of intersected networks or the total number of nodal infrastrutures. In order to make the grid variation easier to read, a discretization of data into three classes was made, using the standard discretization method. Each class was qualified according to the following categorization: strong, average and weak for the infrastructure concentration level.

Some squares can belong to no class at all, and thus give “absence of data” information. This can mean two things:• either there are no infrastructures at all,• or there are no infrastructures adapted to mass freight transport.

Methodological interest of grid analysis

With grid analysis, you can:• exceed limitations of administrative divisions or traditional statistics,• supply a homogeneous data repository in which each area can be compared objectively

to the others,• cross reference data.

What grid analysis shows

Grid analysis methods, when applied to the analysis of transport infrastructures for each of the three modes inland waterways, and the associated nodal infrastructures (ports, railways terminal and airports) give a geographical analysis of freight transport infrastructures:• it highlights concentrated infrastructures,• it pre-identifies congested zones as well as sectors conducive to the development of

intermodality,• it highlights the continuities and discontinuities of the network.The grid analysis method focuses on territorial divergences by highlighting network densities.

Commentaires

9 Analytical atlas - Freight transport in North-Western Europe: regional dynamics, infrastructure and inter-regional exchanges - AURH - September 2014

From NUTS 3 divisionto grid division

Ventilation of the infrastructure network in the squares of the grid

(Sou

rces

: W

eastflo

ws p

roject, AU

RH p

roce

ssing)

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

0 100 20050Km

Data source ©CorineLandCover2006; ©Powered by AURH Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH -2013/06$

Areas with thehighest densities

Areas with the lowest densities

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"Rome

Paris

Madrid

Berlin

LondonBrussels

Wien

Oslo

Praha

Zagreb

Dublin

Sarajevo

Warszawa

Budapest

Stockholm

Kobenhavn

Ljubljana

Amsterdam

Bratislava

Luxembourg


Demographic.dissymmetryIn 2013, the European Union had 505.7 million inhabitants of which 35% live in North-Western Europe (sources Eurostat). Germany, France and the United Kingdom come in first as the most heavily populated Member States with respectively 80, 65 and 63 million inhabitants.

North-Western Europe has the most cities with a dense population: 216 inhabitants per square kilometre as compared with 117 inhabitants per square kilometre for the European Union as a whole.

Population breakdown has strong spacial divergences which seem like a fracture line dividing Europe into two distinct parts: •. in the East, the highest densities are found in five cities with over a

million inhabitants in the scope of our study: London, Birmingham, Paris, Brussels and Cologne;

•. in the West, countries with the lowest population densities include Spain, Portugal, as well as the Western sides of Ireland and France.

European territorial organisation

Ligne de fracture

Densité de population

Ville entre 450 000 et 1 million d'habitants

Ville de plus de 1 million d'habitants

en nombre d’habitants par km²

Capitale européenne

21 1005 0001 500500250150

Capitales et villes européennes Dissymétrie

densités les plus faibles densités les plus fortes502

Europe du Nord-Ouest

Éléments de contexte

Dividing line

Population density

City between 450,000 and 1 million inhabitants

City over 1 million of inhabitants

number of inhabitants per square kilometre

Capital city

21 1005 0001 500500250150

European capitals and main cities Dissymmetry

lowest density highest density502

North-West Europe

Perimeter

1.1

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"Rome

Paris

Madrid

Berlin

LondonBrussels

Wien

Oslo

Praha

Zagreb

Dublin

Sarajevo

Warszawa

Budapest

Stockholm

Kobenhavn

Ljubljana

Amsterdam

Bratislava

Luxembourg

0 100 20050Km

Data source ©CorineLandCover2006; ©Powered by AURH Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH -2013/06$

Areas with thehighest densities

Areas with the lowest densities

Densité industriellesurface en m² / 1 000m² dédiée à l’industrie

17543201275

Volume total de marchandises chargées et déchargées

Dissymétrie

densités les plus faibles densités les plus fortes20

Europe du Nord-Ouest NUTS 2 maritimes

203 000

!(!(!(!(

en milliers de tonnes, par NUTS 2


Ligne de fracture

Industrial densityarea in m² dedicated to industry

17543201275

Total volume of goods loaded and unloaded

Dissymmetry

lowest density highest density20

North-Western Europe!(!(!(!(

in thousands of tonnes per NUTS 2 area

Perimeter

Dividing line

Coastal NUTS 2area

100 000 60 000 20 000 11 000

203,000 100,000 60,000 20,000 11,000


Industrial.dissymmetryIndustrial density measures the space dedicated to industrial infrastructures in square metres in a 1,000 square metre area. This ratio allows us to visualise the area’s largest industrial basins.

The average North-Western Europe industrial density is 101 m2 per 1,000 m2. North-Western Europe’s largest industrial infrastructure densities are thus concentrated in the German Ruhr River Basin, the Parisian Basin in France and in the Manchester-Liverpool industrial basin in the United Kingdom.

Like the population, industry is not spread smoothly throughout the territory. It is located around a type of fault line that cuts Europe into two parts. Industrial infrastructures starting with Dublin, Paris and Northern Italy are completely concentrated along the European backbone to the East, with Poland and Austria, thus excluding Western Ireland and France as well as Spain. The heaviest maritime traffics are concentrated in the regions located to the East of this fault line, where demographic and industrial densities are the highest.

"

0 100 20050Km

Data source ©Eurostat 2010; ©Powered by AURH Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH -2014/05$

Baltic Arc

Mediterranean Arc

AtlanticCoastline

Coastline ofthe British and Irish Isles

North Range

Rome

Paris

Madrid

Berlin

LondonBrussels

Wien

Oslo

Praha

Zagreb

Dublin

Sarajevo

Warszawa

Budapest

Stockholm

Kobenhavn

Ljubljana

Amsterdam

Bratislava

Luxembourg"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"


European.maritime.facadesNorth-Western Europe is an area facing the sea. Its littoral is 26,000 km long. A third of the population, amounting to 61 million persons, lives near the coast and generates over 40% of the GDP.

This littoral is composed of three maritime facades :• the British and Irish Isles facade with Ireland, England, Scotland and

Wales, • the Atlantic facade on the Western French coast which begins in Brittany

and goes until the South of Portugal border,• the Northern Range which goes from Le Havre to Hamburg.

Please note the North-West European division does not include the Atlantic facade or the Northern Range facade.

Maritime organisation

Façades maritimes


Europe du Nord-OuestNUTS 2 maritimes

Range Nord

Façade des Iles Britanniques

Arc MéditerranéeArc Baltique

Façade Atlantique


European coastlines

Perimeters

North Range

Coastline of the British and Irish Isles

Mediterranean ArcBaltic Arc

Atlantic Coastline

Coastal NUTS 2 area

1.2

0 50 10025Km

Data source Eurostat - 2012Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI ®AURH -2014/05$

North Range900 Mt

AtlanticCoastline

29,8 Mt

Coastline ofthe British and Irish Isles500 Mt

Paris

London

Dublin

Brussels

Amsterdam

Luxembourg


Trafic total de marchandisespar principaux ports*en milliers de tonnes, en 2012 Range Nord

Façades maritimes

400 000

1 000

100 00050 00010 000

Façade des Îles Britanniques

Façade Atlantique

Façade maritime500 Mt Trafic total en millions de tonnes par

façade maritime


Éléments de contexteCapitale

*sélection des ports ayant un trafic supérieur à 1 million de tonnes

Total freight trafficby main ports*per thousand tonnes, in 2012 North Range

Maritime coastlines

400,000

1,000

100,00050,00010,000

Coastline of the British and Irish Isles

Atlantic coastline

Maritime coastline500 Mt Total trafic in millions of tonnes per

maritime coastline *selection of ports with a freight traffic over 1,000 thousand tonnes


Contextual informationCapital city


Maritime.port.trafficNorth-Western Europe has 65 maritime ports with a freight traffic of over one million tonnes (sources Weastflows). They generate a total traffic density of over 1.5 billion tonnes annually. Nevertheless, the three North-Western Europe maritime coastlines have a heterogeneous number of ports and different traffic intensities.

The British and Irish Isles coastline has 43 ports generating a total amount of traffic of nearly 500 million tonnes of goods. Because the United Kingdom and Ireland are islands, the strong port grid on their coastlines is easily comprehensible.

The Atlantic coastline, with its main entrance port of Nantes-St Nazaire, has lesser traffic with 29.8 million tonnes of goods.

Lastly, most of North-Western Europe’s freight traffic is concentrated on the Northern Range coastline with ports generating heavy traffic of over 900 million tonnes. Rotterdam and Antwerp are the main ports.

It must be noted that :• All traffic on the Atlantic coastline as well as in the Northern Range is not taken into account here,

because of the scope of our study.• All freight traffic is taken into account in this analysis whatever the product may be.

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

0 50 10025Km

Data source : Eurostat - 2012Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI ®AURH -2014/05$

3rd : Amsterdam

1st : Rotterdam

2nd : Antwerpen

5th : Le Havre

4th : Grimsby and Immingham

16th Edinburg (Leith)

10th Tees and Hartlepool

20th Dublin

11th Liverpool

8th Milford Haven14th Felixstowe

6th London

9th Southampton

19th Rouen

15th Ghent

16thDover

7th Dunkerque13th Zeebrugge

12th Nantes-St Nazaire

17th

Ijmuiden

Total 1.2 billion tonnes= 62% of NWE traffic


Ranking of main seaportsin terms of freight traffic in 2012

! 20 first seaports

5 first seaports



Classement des ports maritimesd’après leur trafic de marchandises en 2012

! 20 premiers ports

5 premiers ports


Élément de contexte


In 2012, 20 North-Western Europe maritime ports had mass freight traffic exceeding 20 million tonnes (source: Eurostat). These top 20 ports generate a total traffic of 1.2 billion tonnes.

The five top ports in this ranking have 62% of total traffic. Excepting Grimsby-Immingham, located in the United Kingdom, four of these ports are located on the Northern Range coastline. •. Rotterdam comes in first place in North-Western European ports with

the highest amount of freight traffic: 400 million tonnes in 2012;•. Antwerp comes in second with 165 million tonnes;•. Amsterdam comes in third with 71 million tonnes;•. Grimsby-Immingham comes in fourth in this ranking with 60 million

tonnes;•. Le Havre is the fifth North-Western European port with 59 million tonnes.

London comes in sixth place.

It must be noted that all freight traffic is taken into account in this analysis whatever the product may be.

port.ranking:.top.20

0 50 10025Km

Data source Eurostat - 2012Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI ®AURH -2014/05$

Total 44 Mt= 89% of national traffic





Total 1 Mt

4th : Rouen

5th : Calais

2nd :Dunkerque

1st : Le Havre

3rd : Nantes Saint-Nazaire

4th : Southampton

3rd : Milford Haven

2nd : Port of London

5th: Tees and Hartlepool

1st : Grimsby and Immingham

3rd : Cork

1st : Dublin

4th : Bantry Bay

2nd :Shannon Foynes

5th : Rosslare

5th : Liège

3rd : Ghent4th : Ostend

1st : Antwerpen2nd : Zeebrugge

3rd : Ijmuiden2nd : Amsterdam

5th : Terneuzen

1st : Rotterdam

4th : Vlissigen

3rd : Koeln

5th :Wesel

2nd : Krefeld 1st : Duisburg

4th : Andernach


Classement portuaire, top 5 par paysd’après leur trafic de marchandises en 2012

Pays concernés par le classement

Irlande Royaume-Uni France

BelgiquePays-Bas Allemagne

1er port

2ème au 5ème port




Contextual informationPort ranking, top 5 by countryin terms of freight traffic in 2012

Country

Ireland United-Kingdom France

BelgiumThe Netherlands Germany

1st seaport

2nd to 5th port


port.ranking:.top.5.per.countryThis map presents the five largest maritime or interior ports in each country of North-Western Europe in terms of freight traffic. The total amount of freight traffic, in millions of tonnes, of the five highest ranked ports in each country is given and compared to the total maritime freight traffic of the country, except for Germany, as it only has interior ports on the North-West European perimeter.

The ranking of the five most important ports per country indicates the main North-Western Europe maritime entrance ports. The top five Belgian and Dutch maritime ports respectively concentrate 96% and 99% of their domestic freight maritime traffic. In Ireland, the top five ports share 89% of domestic traffic. The top five ports of Northern France, which is split into two parts by the North-Western Europe perimeter, generate a bit over one half of the French maritime freight traffic. Le Havre is the maritime entrance port of this Northern half of France, as well as being a complement to the Rouen sea port. Lastly, in the United Kingdom, the top five ports concentrate less than half of the total of domestic freight traffic. The Grimsby-Immingham port, England’s main maritime entrance port, is located north of London.


Shetland, Scotland

1st : Edinburg (Leith)

2nd : Tees and Hartlepool

5th : Rouen

4th : Glensanda

1st : Rotterdam

3rd :Amsterdam

2nd :Antwerpen

5th :Le Havre

3rd : SullomVoe

4th : Londres

0 50 10025Km

Data source ©Ports Authority; ©Powered by AURH Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH -2013/06$

Shetland

Trafic totalen millions de tonnes, en 2011

430

276

70

30

Part du trafic dédié à l’import

Part du trafic dédié à l’export

Classification import/export

Port majoritairement exportateur

Port majoritairement importateur

Top 5 des ports ayant la balance commerciale à l’export la plus excédentaire

Top 5 des ports ayant la balancecommerciale à l’importla plus excédentaire



Total trafficin millions of tonnes, in 2011

Import/export classification

430

276

70

30

Share of import traffic

Share of export traffic

Port that mainly exports

Port that mainly imports

Top 5 ports with the highest balance of trade when exporting

Top 5 ports with the highest balance of trade when importing




Each port’s freight traffic is broken down between the share of imported and exported traffic. Here, we want to differentiate profiles that import or export more as ports in order to locate the main entrance and exit freight ports in North-Western Europe.

The majority of Northern Range ports are import ports. The Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Antwerp and Le Havre ports all have the same proportional profile: nearly three quarters of traffic volume is imported as compared with a bit over a quarter that is exported. These are the main European freight entrance ports serving the hinterlands. On the United Kingdom scale, London is the main importing port, coming in fourth place in North-Western Europe.

The four leading exporting ports in North-Western Europe are located in the United Kingdom: • 1 in England, Tees and Hartlepool, • 3 in Scotland: Edinburgh, Glensanda (sand and gravel for United

Kingdom and European construction industries) and Sullom Voe (crude oil).

They show goods production and distribution sites with regional, national or European markets.


Breakdown.of.import/export.traffic

0 50 10025Km

Data source ©ESPO, ©Autorités PortuairesBoudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI ®AURH -2014/05$

2

1 113 5

2 3554

21

5

3

34

2

4 4

Le Havre

London

Immingham

Felixstowe

Dover

CalaisDunkerque

Zeebrugge

Antwerpen

Rotterdam

AmsterdamMilford Haven




Top 5 in port traffic according to ESPO, 2010

Type of freight

Container

LiquidBulk

Dry Bulk

RoRo

5 leading portsfor one or several types of freight1

Other port with a freight traffic over 1,000 tonnes

Port with two or more types of trafficin the ranking

Top 5 des trafics portuaires d’après ESPO, 2010

Catégories de marchandises

Conteneur

Vracliquide

Vrac solide

RoRo

5 premiers ports pour un ou plusieurs types de marchandises1

Autre port ayant un trafic supérieur à 1 million de tonnes

Port dans le Top 5 pour 2 types de marchandises ou plus




In order to pinpoint the specificities of the main maritime ports in our study, we ranked the ports according to the volume of traffic by type of goods transported: containers, liquid bulk, solid bulk, and roll-on/roll-off shipping (RoRo). The map presents port rankings per type of goods with the top five in each category.

On the 12 ports in this ranking, seven are located in the Northern Range and five in England. Rotterdam and Antwerp stand out as being in the top five for three types of goods: freight containers, liquid bulk and solid bulk. Rotterdam is the leading liquid and solid bulk port as well as the leading freight container port. Antwerp comes in second for freight containers, and in third and fifth place for liquid and solid bulk.Located on the same maritime facade, Le Havre and Zeebrugge are both in the top five for two types of goods. Le Havre comes in fourth for freight containers, just in front of Zeebrugge. Ports in the United Kingdom mainly deal with RoRo and bulk traffic. Other ports, Calais and Dunkirk on the Northern Range and Dover, London, Felixstowe, Immingham and Milford Haven on the Atlantic façade, are in the top five of the North-West European thanks to just one type of traffic volume.

port.ranking.per.type.of.goods

0 50 10025Km

Data sources: Weastflows project, powered by AURH ®AURH $ - 2014/06

Manchester ship canal

Thames

Seine Valley

Netherlands, Belgium and Rhine basin

Loire

Saône Valley

based on inland waterways with a CEMT class V and over

LowMedium

Type of inland waterway concentration*

High No data**

Inland waterway regions

Inland waterways concentration

North-West Europe area

Perimeter

Total length of network per square

*only are considered the relevant infrastructurefor high level of freight transportation**no data can mean no infrastructures or no infrastructures relevant for high level of freight transportation

Data sources: Weastflows project, powered by AURH


based on inland waterways with a CEMT class V and over

LowMedium

Type of inland waterway concentration*

High No data**

Inland waterway region

* only relevant freight transport infrastructures have been considered** no data can means no infrastructure or no infrastructure relevant for freight transport



basée sur la classification CEMT égal ou supérieure à V

BasseMoyenne

Concentration de voies navigables*

Forte pas de données**Région fluviale

Europe du Nord-OuestÉlément de contexte

* seules les infrastructures adaptées pour le transport de marchandises ont été prises en compte pour cette analyse** l’absence de données peut signifier qu’il n’y a pas d’infrastructure ou qu’il n’y a pas d’infrastructure adaptée pour le transport de marchandises


This map represents concentrations of inland waterways whose ECMT classification exceeds or equals V*, the relevant threshold value for mass freight transport.

This highlights the unequal breakdown of the large clearance inland waterway network, stemming from both natural and human factors. Ireland and Scotland have none, thus limiting the potentialities of modal changes to this mode, whereas Benelux and Germany have stronger network concentrations as well as longer continuities. France’s network is also much less developed, and characterised by the absence of continuity and connection with Belgian, Dutch and German networks. England has a nearly non-existing network which, nonetheless, does link country’s two main production and consumption basins to the sea: London to the North Sea with the Thames River and the Liverpool/Manchester region to the Atlantic Ocean via the Manchester Canal. We can identify two complementary networks: the Loire region on the Atlantic facade and the Saone Valley region with interconnections to inland waterways in the South of France.

* The ECMT classification indicates the seaworthiness level of the European network of inland waterways. It has seven classes, from I to VII.

Inland.waterway.network:.grid.analysis.method

Organisation of transport infrastructure networks1.3

0 50 10025Km

®AURH $ Data sources: Weastflows project, powered by AURH

- 2014/06

North East ofUnited Kingdom

South of United Kingdom

Seine Valley

Benelux and Rhine basin

South of Ireland

Saône Valley

Rhine Valley

Karlsruhe / Nuremberg axis

Belfast area

LowMedium

Type of road concentration*

High No data**

Road regions

Roads concentration





Perimeter


LowMedium

Type of road concentration*

High No data**Road region

* only relevant freight transport infrastructures have been considered** no data can means no infrastructure or no infrastructure relevant for freight transportation



BasseMoyenne

Concentration de réseau routier*

Forte pas de données**Région routière





Road.network:.grid.analysis.methodContrary to the inland waterway network, the road network is characterised by quite a homogeneous distribution in the area we studied. This maps shows that nearly all of North-Western Europe is equipped with a road network that is adapted to mass freight transport.

Urban centres with dense population levels thus logically have the densest road networks. This is the case, amongst others, of the Rhine River Basin, the Seine River Valley, the central and Southern parts of the United Kingdom, including Greater London, as well as the South of Ireland, with Cork and Waterford.

For France, the Seine River Valley stands out as being the axis with the highest number of road infrastructures both in intensity and continuity. At a European level, the South of the United Kingdom is the region with the strongest network densities. Benelux and the Rhine River Basin are characterised by a more homogeneous and regular distribution, well covering their areas. Four complementary areas were also identified: the Belfast region, the Saone River Valley, the Rhine River Valley in its French part as well as the Karlsruhe/Nuremberg axis. The last three allow Southern and Eastern Europe to be interconnected.

0 50 10025Km

®AURH - 2014/06$ Data sources: Weastflows project, powered by AURH

Centre of United Kingdom

London area

Paris area

Belgium

Netherlands

Duisburg andRhine corridor

LowMedium

Type of railway concentration*

High No data**

Railway regions

Railways concentration





Perimeter

Luxembourgand Metz area

Mannheim andLudwigshafen


BasseMoyenne

Concentration de réseau ferroviaire*

Forte pas de données**Région ferroviaire







LowMedium

Type of railway concentration*

High No data**Railway region


Railway.network:.grid.analysis.methodAs is the case with the road network, the railway network is broken down in a quite homogeneous manner throughout the North-West European area, though some disequilibrium does exist.

Ireland and Scotland has the smallest concentrations as does Western France, where several zones have no railway infrastructures whatsoever. These regions, from this point of view, are in peripheral positions. It can quite logically be seen that the highest concentrations are found in densely populated urban centres. Areas identified are: Belgium and the Rhine River axis, Paris and its surrounding region, Greater London and the centre of the United Kingdom. They can differ from those identified for the road networks, which shows the absence of a systematic correlation between the ways in which these two networks were rolled out. Luxembourg and the region around Metz also have a dense concentration of networks. This area holds a central position in the continental part of the area we studied. Last but not least, we must not forget that the English, German and Belgian railway networks are among the densest in North-Western Europe.

0 50 10025Km

®AURH $ - 2014/06


Manchester - Liverpool - Leeds axis

London area

Newcastle and Durham

Seine Valley

Belgium, Netherlands and Rhine basin

Luxembourg and Metz area

Rhine Valley

Glasgow - Edinburgh axis

Shannon, Limerick and Cork

Portsmouth and SouthamptonBristol - Cardiff

LowMedium

Type of node concentration*

High No data**

Node regions

Nodes concentration


Perimeter


Data sources: Weastflows project, powererd by AURH

Total number of ports and railway terminals per square


basée sur les ports et les terminaux ferroviaires

BasseMoyenne

Concentration de noeuds*

Forte pas de donnée**Région de noeuds




Nodes region

based on port nodes and railway terminals

LowMedium

Type of node concentration*

High No data**





Transport.hubs:.grid.analysis.methodA geographical readout of the cumulated concentrations of port, railway and airport hubs highlights the regions of connection where the passage from one mode of transport to another could possibly be facilitated by the presence of infrastructures allowing load splitting. Eleven areas have been identified.

The Netherlands, Belgium and the Northern part of the Rhine River Basin are the first sub-assembly, both in continuity and in regularity, highlighting a dense concentration.

The Seine River Valley and Rhine River Valley make up two similar areas, which can be explained by the presence of two large rivers. The longitudinal breakdown of transport hubs highlights a predisposition to value a multimodal transport corridor, such as those found in the most Northern part of the United Kingdom: the Glasgow-Edinburgh axis and the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds axis. It also must be noted that the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds axis acts as an interface between the North and South of the country.

The four remaining areas, (London, Portsmouth, Luxembourg and Shannon-Cork), are the most compact but not the least dense, which brings us back to our hub logic. The position of the Luxembourg-Metz area must also be highlighted, as it is used as a central subsystem, as is the Rhine River Valley.

The cross analysis of industrial densities and population densities shows:

• in grey: the large European urban and industrial hubs, that are very dense and dynamic and are located near capital cities (Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam);

• in pink: the large North-West European industrial basins: in England, Manchester and Birmingham and in Germany, Manheim, Frankfurt, Karlsruhe and the Ruhr River basin;

• in purple: large population basins with little industry surrounding capital cities or large North-West European cities: the outskirts of Paris and the South of England;

• in hachuring: peripheral regions with a strong disequilibrium between densities, especially in Western France and in the West of the Seine River Valley where industry, usually food-processing, is strong though the population is weak.

The position of maritime entrance/exits allow us to relate industrial characteristics and population basins with dynamic exchanges of goods.

Paris

London

Dublin

Brussels

Amsterdam

Luxembourg

0 50 10025Km

Data source ©CorineLandCover 2006/AURHBoudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH -2013/06


Cross.analysis.of.densities

Croisement des densités industrielleset des densités de population

Porte d’entrée/sortie secondaire

Porte d’entrée/sortie principale

équilib

re ent

re les

niv

eaux

de den

sité

densité de population

élevée

densité industrielle

élevéedensité de population

faible

densité industrielle

faible

Portes d’entrée/sortie maritime des marchandises

Crossing of industrial density andpopulation density

Secondary entrance and exit way

Main entrance and exit way

balanc

e betw

en

indust

rial de

nsity

and po

pulatio

n

density

highest level of population density

highest levelof industrial

densitylowest level of

population density

lowest level of industrial

density

Inbound/outbound of maritime freight

population > industrie

industrie > population

population > industry

industry > population

Le croisement de données a été effectué à partir d’une sélection des densités industrielles et des densités de population supérieures à la moyenne. L’objectif, en croisant les deux types de densités est de mettre en évidence les zones où il a une corrélation/équilibre entre les densités démogra-phiques et industrielles et les zones où il y a une sur-représentation de l’une sur l’autre.

The data crossing was made using an above average selection of industrial and population densities. The aim was to cross the two types of densities to highlight areas where there is a correlation / balance between the two densities and the areas where there is an over-representa-tion of one over the other.

+++

+++

++

++--

+++

+++

++

++--





The accumulation of strong infrastructures allows us to identify several regional hubs. The Benelux / Rhine River Basin area is the most concentrated. It is characterised by a strong continuity of multimodal networks, leading it to be seen as a very connected region with heavy flows.

The Seine River Valley is one of the few regions, with Benelux and the Rhine River Basin, where modal changes could take place massively towards rivers and railways. The map however, highlights an insular region, poorly connected to the rest of Europe.

In the United Kingdom, three regions show strong road/railway concentrations. The Greater London region is connected to the continent by the Channel Tunnel, thus creating continuity with Benelux and the Rhine River Basin. Glasgow-Edinburgh holds a peripheral position, whilst the Centre of the United Kingdom region holds a central place for the United Kingdom, though a secondary one at the North-Western European scale.

Lastly, peripheral regions characterised by weak concentration have been identified: Western France, Ireland and the North of the United Kingdom.

0 50 10025Km

®AURH $ Data sources: Weastflows project, powered by AURH

- 2014/06

Centre of United Kingdom

London area

Seine Valley

Benelux and Rhine basin

Glasgow - Edinburgh axis

Saône Valley

Shetland, Scotland ShetlandConcentrations d’infrastructures*à partir du croisement des concentrations les plus élevées de réseaux et de noeuds



Concentrations multimodales

Concentrations bimodales

Concentrations mono-modales

Concentration forte de réseaux routier,ferroviaire et fluvial

Concentration forte de portset de terminaux ferroviaires

Concentration forte de réseaux routieret ferroviaire

Concentration forte de réseaux ferroviaire et fluvial

Concentration forte de réseau fluvial

Concentration forte de réseau routier

Pas de données**

Région d’infrastructure de transport

Concentrations cumulées d’infrastructures


Infrastructure concentrations*from crossing the highest network and nodal concentrations



Multimodal concentrations

Bimodal concentrations

Single mode concentrations

High concentration of road, railwayand inland waterway networks

High concentration of ports andrailway terminals

High concentration of road and railwaynetworks

High concentration of railway andinland waterway networks

High concentration of inland waterway networks

High concentration of road networks

No data**

Infrastructure region

Cumulated infrastructure concentrations

* only relevant freight transport infrastructures have been considered** no data can mean no infrastructures or no infrastructure relevant for freight transportation


Cross.analysis.of.infrastructure.concentrations

Part 2

Focus on each of the eleven remarkable areas

in North-Western Europe


About quantitative and qualitative analysis

Why use quantitative and qualitative analysis?

Quantitative and qualitative analysis completes The Atlas of Major North-West European Freight Infrastructures which presented the state of the existing and upcoming freight transport network. It is based on a series of indicators that highlight:• strengths and weaknesses of the infrastructure network;• the potential the network has to be sustainable;• under-used potentials that could identify alternative routes instead of the traditional

North/South routes.

What geographical areas are concerned by this analysis?

This analysis concerns eleven remarkable areas in North-Western Europe (NWE). They correspond to areas interesting Weastflows’ partners and highlight regions that are intense and/or strategic in the organisation of freight transport. For these reasons, some zones are not identified and thus are not included in a regional analysis (cf. map).

What data was used?

The analysis was carried out using data from the Geographical Information System built by AURH. Data included: road, railway and inland waterway networks, ferry routes, as well as remarkable hubs such as ports, railway terminals and airports. This basic data was then enriched with qualitative information such as population density, land use, port traffic, intermodality levels, projects of infrastructures and whether or not the network belonged to the strategic European network (TEN-T), thus allowing crossed analyses.

How were the indicators defined?

The indicators were defined through a dialogue with project partners in compliance with the following criteria:• their relevance in showing sustainability of the existing infrastructure network;• their capacity to ensure continuity with The Atlas of Major North-West European

Freight Infrastructures;• the availability and accessibility of data in the Geographical Information System.

What were the results?

A series of 57 indicators was drawn up. With these indicators, the key characteristics of the remarkable regional infrastructure network in each area can be described. Each of these areas has a specific sheet including:• a table with all the associated indicators and data, • a map with the main transport infrastructures, • and a comment on the characteristics of the area, the infrastructure network, remarkable

hubs as well as its strengths and weaknesses.The table below show in a synthetic manner the finality of the analysis and the type of indicators that correspond. A precise description of these indicators is presented pages 28 and 29.

Category Goal of the analysis Indicators

Regional characteristics

Key regional characteristics

• Area• Number of inhabitants• Density• Land use• Maritime port traffic

Networks (inland

waterways, railways and roads)

Accessibility and connectionContinuities and discontinuitiesSize of infrastructures

• Belonging to the central European network (TEN-T)

• Network density• Electrification of railway network• Share of motorways or dual

carriageways • ECMT classification (inland

waterways)

Hubs(Airports, ports,

railway terminals)

Accessibility and connectionIntermodality

• Level of intermodality• Proximity of strategic European

networks (TEN-T)• Number of hubs registered in the

central TEN-T core network• Ferry connections

Commentaires


Remarkable.regional.areas



Ensembles géographiques

Irlande

Shannon-Limerick Gateway

Écosse

Région du grand Londres et du centre de l’Angleterre

Sud de l’Angleterre

Liverpool et côte Ouest de l’Angleterre

Sud des Pays-Bas

Benelux et Est de la France

Ouest de l’Allemagne

Nord de la France

Seine Gateway®

Capitale

Ville principale et/ou ville portuaire



Main regions

Ireland

Shannon-Limerick Gateway

Scotland

Greater London and central England

Southern England

Liverpool and the west coast

Southern Netherlands

Benelux and Eastern France

Western Germany

Northern France

Seine Gateway®

Capital

Main city or port city

0 50 10025Km

Data source powered by AURHBoudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH -2013/06

Paris

London

Dublin

Brussel

Amsterdam

Luxembourg

Köln

MetzCaen

Cork

MainzRouen

Brest

Nancy

Leeds

Dover

Perth

Essen

Nantes

Calais

Dieppe

Galway

Lorient

Glasgow

Belfast

BristolCardiff

Grimsby

NürembergMannheim

DuisburgPlymouth

Kirkwall

Limerick

Aberdeen

StuttgartKarlsruhe

Edinburgh

Sheffield

Peterhead

Waterford

Tynemouth

Lancaster

Liverpool

Rotterdam

Strasbourg

Hartlepool

Birmingham

Portsmouth

Felixstowe

Manchester

Rosslare

Londonderry

Cherbourg

Southampton

Saint-Nazaire

Le Havre

DunkerqueLille

Charleroi Namur

Liège

DusseldorfDortmundOostende Brugge

Gent Antwerp

IRELAND

FRANCE

GERMANY

BELGIUM

NETHERLANDS

UNITEDKINGDOM

LUXEMBOURG

DENMARK

NORWAY

SWEDEN

AUSTRIA

ITALY

UNITEDKINGDOM

SWITZERLAND

Shetland, Scotland ShetlandShetland


Indicator Description

ID c

ard

AcreageArea Area.of.geographical.right-of-way

%.of.the.region Share.of.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE

DemographyNumber.of.inhabitants Number.of.inhabitants.in.the.geographical.area

%.of.inhabitants Share.of.inhabitants.in.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE

population.density Number.of.inhabitants.per.square.kilometre

Land use

Urbanised.land Total.urbanised.land.including.land.used.for.industry.and.transport

%.of.urbanised.land Share.of.the.urbanised.land.of.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE,.including.land.used.for.industry.and.transport

Dedicated.industrial.land Total.area.of.dedicated.industrial.land

%.of.dedicated.industrial.land Share.of.the.dedicated.industrial.land.in.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE

Maritime trafficMaritime.traffic Total.maritime.traffic.in.thousands.of.tonnes.

%.of.maritime.traffic Share.of.the.maritime.traffic.in.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE

Hub

s

Ports

ports Total.number.of.ports.(maritime.ports.and.inland.ports)Only main sites are considered

%.of.ports Share.of.ports.in.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE

Maritime.ports Number.of.maritime.ports

Ferry.ports Number.of.ports.with.ferry.links

Inland.ports Number.of.inland.ports

ports.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network Number.of.maritime.and.inland.ports.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network

ports.with.a.channel.that.is.over.15.m.deep Number.of.ports.with.a.channel.that.is.over.15.m.deep

Level of intermodality of ports

ports.with.over.three.modal.connections Number.of.ports.with.over.three.modal.connections.(river,.rail,.road,.pipeline)

ports.with.three.modal.connections Number.of.ports.with..three.modal.connections.(river,.rail,.road).

ports.with.two.modal.connections Number.of.ports.with..two.modal.connections.(rail.and.road).

Proximity of ports to the central RTE-T network

proximity.of.the.European.road.networkNumber.of.ports.near.a.European.level.road.network.(central.TEN-T.core.network)Proximity to a strategic network is calculated as being in a 10 km radius around the port

proximity.of.the.European.railway.network Number.of.ports.near.a.European.level.railway.network.(central.TEN-T.core.network).Proximity to a strategic network is calculated as being in a 10 km radius around the port

proximity.of.the.European.inland.waterway.networkNumber.of.ports.near.a.European.level.inland.waterway.network.(central.TEN-T.core.network)Proximity to a strategic network is calculated as being in a 10 km radius around the port

AirportsAirports Number.of.airports.with.freight.traffic

%.of.airports Share.of.airports.in.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE.

Airports.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network Number.of.airports.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network

Level of intermodality of Airports

Airports.with.a.rail/road.connection Number.of.airports.with.a.rail/road.connection

Lists and descriptions of indicators 1


Indicator Description

Hub

sProximity of airports to the central RTE-T network

proximity.of.the.European.road.network Number.of.airports.near.a.European.level.road.network.(central.TEN-T.core.network)Proximity to a strategic network is calculated as being in a 20 km radius around the airport

proximity.of.the.European.railway.network Number.of.airports.near.a.European.level.railway.network.(central.TEN-T.core.network)Proximity to a strategic network is calculated as being in a 20 km radius around the airport

proximity.of.the.European.inland.waterway.network Number.of.airports.near.a.European.level.inland.waterway.network.(central.TEN-T.core.network)Proximity to a strategic network is calculated as being in a 20 km radius around the airport

proximity.to.a.maritime.port Number.of.airports.near.a.maritime.portProximity to a maritime port is calculated as being in a 20 km radius around the airport

Railway terminalsRailway.terminals Number.of.railway.terminals

Maritime.and.inland.waterway.ports.with.a.railway.terminal.are.taken.into.account

%.of.railway.terminals Number.of.railway.terminals.integrated.into.the.central.TEN-T.core.network

Railway.terminals.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network Number.of.railway.terminals.integrated.into.the.central.TEN-T.core.network

Level of intermodality of railway terminals

Railway.terminals.with.a.sea/road.connection Number.of.railway.terminals.connected.to.a.maritime.port.and.to.the.road.network

Railway.terminals.with.an.inland.waterway/road.connection Number.of.railway.terminals.connected.to.a.river.port.and.to.the.road.network

Railway.terminals.with.a.railway/road.connection Number.of.railway.terminals.with.a.railway/road.connection

Proximity of railway terminals to the central RTE-T network

proximity.of.the.European.road.network Number.of.railway.terminals.near.a.European.level.road.network.(central.TEN-T.core.network)Proximity to a strategic network is calculated as being in a 20 km radius around a railway terminal

proximity.of.the.European.railway.network Number.of.railway.terminals.near.a.European.level.railway.network.(central.TEN-T.core.network)Proximity to a strategic network is calculated as being in a 20 km radius around a railway terminal

proximity.of.the.European.inland.waterway.network Number.of.railway.terminals.near.a.European.level.inland.waterway.network.(central.TEN-T.core.network)Proximity to a strategic network is calculated as being in a 20 km radius around a railway terminal

Net

wor

ks

Inland waterway network

Navigable.length.of.network Total.length.in.km.of.the.inland.waterway.network

%.of.navigable.inland.waterways Share.of.the.inland.waterway.network.in.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE

Density.of.navigable.inland.waterways Number.of.km.of.inland.waterway.network.for.a.1,000.km2.area

%.of.navigable.inland.waterways.with.a.large.clearance.(ECMT.class.equal.or.exceeding.V) Share.of.inland.waterway.network.with.a.ECMT.classification.exceeding.or.equalling.V

%.of.navigable.inland.waterways.registered.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network Share.of.navigable.inland.waterways.registered.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network

Railway network

Length.of.railway.network Total.length.of.railway.network.in.kmUnused railways are not taken into account

%.of.railway.network Share.of.the.railway.network.in.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE

Density.of.the.railway.network Number.of.km.of.railway.network.for.a.1,000.km2.area

%.of.electrified.railway.network Share.of.electrified.railway.network

%.of.railway.network.registered.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network Share.of.railway.network.registered.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network

Road network

Length.of.the.road.network Total.length.in.km.of.the.road.network.Only main roads that can be used to transport freight, are taken into account

%.of.road.network Share.of.the.road.network.in.the.geographical.zone.as.compared.with.the.total.in.NWE

Density.of.the.road.network Number.of.km.of.road.network.for.a.1,000.km2.area

%.of.motorways Share.of.motorways.in.the.road.networkThe motorway network corresponds to high-speed roads, including toll ways, that are accessed by a motorway junction

%.of.dual.carriageway.networkShare.of.the.road.network.that.is.a.dual.carriageway.or.motorwayThe motorway network corresponds to high-speed roads, which are accessed by a motorway junction, but are not toll ways. The dual carriageway network corresponds to roads with 2 lanes, with no tolls and with no motorway junction.

%.of.the.road.network.registered.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network Share.of.road.network.registered.in.the.central.TEN-T.core.network


Nodes Network

......port.nodes:.18.corresponding.to.7%.of.NWE ......Inland.waterways:.0.km.corresponding.to.0%.of.NWE.and.to.0.km.for.1,000.km²18 seaports 4 ferry ports 0 % are CEMT Class V and over

0 inland port 0 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

2 are major European ports (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

2 have a channel depth of over 51 feet (15m) ......Railway.network:.1,762.km.corresponding.to.4.5%.of.NWE.and.to.25,2.km.for.1,000.km²Level.of.intermodality proximity.to.strategic.networks ......7.9 % are electrified networks

0 port with more than 3 modes 3 ports are near the strategic road network 23.5 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

6 ports with 3 modes 1 port is near the strategic rail network

12 ports with 2 modes 0 port is near the strategic inland ......Road.network:.1,450.km.corresponding.to.10.6%.of.NWE.and.to.20,7.km.for.1,000.km²waterway network 68 % are motorway

32 % are dual carriageways or freeways

......Railway.terminals:.21.corresponding.to.4.8%.of.NWE. 42 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

0 railway bi-modal terminal is major European terminal (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

Level.of.intermodality proximity.to.strategic.network

20 with rail/road connection link to a seaport 0 terminal is near the strategic road network

0 with rail/road connection link to an inland port 0 terminal is near the strategic rail network

1 railway bi-modal (rail/road) terminal 0 terminal is near the strategic inland waterway network

.

......Airport.nodes:.8.corresponding.to.8.7%.of.NWE

2 are major European airports (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

Level.of.intermodality proximity.to.strategic.networks

0 airport with rail/road connection 2 airports are near the strategic road network

2 airports are near the strategic rail network

0 airport is near the strategic inland waterway network

Sources : The Atlas of Major North-West European Freight Infrastructures (Weastflows, AURH processing)

2 airports are near the maritime port

Identity card

Area Demography Land use Maritime traffic69,884.km².corresponding.to 4,076,557.inhabitants.corresponding.to 1,594.km².urbanised.land.corresponding.to.2.5%.of.NWE 42,325.Mt.corresponding.to8.6%.of.NWE 2.3%.of.NWE 183.km².dedicated.to.industry.corresponding.to. 3.1%.of.NWE.maritime.traffic

58.inhabitants.per.km² 11.5%.of.urbanised.land

Ireland2.1

!

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

Larne

Galway

Limerick

WaterfordRosslare Harbour

Londonderry

Dublin

Cork

ShannonShannon

$ 0 20 4010Km

Data source powered by AURH & ©Voies Navigables de France; ©European Commission, DG Move, TEN-Tec Information System; ©2012 National Geospatial Intelligence Agency©OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl;Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data ©OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl/ ®AURH -2014/05


Key characteristics

Located at the top of Western Europe, Ireland is characterised by population density and maritime traffic that are amongst the lowest in North-Western Europe.

Networks

The network of infrastructures is organised in a star shape from Dublin, the capital and largest city in the country. Only two types of transport are represented: road and railways. Network densities are amongst the weakest in North-Western Europe, approximately the same as in Scotland. Nevertheless, 42% of the road network is registered as a central European network which indicates that Ireland is well connected to the TEN-T network (only for this mode). The Irish railway network is poorly developed and the least electrified in North-Western Europe, with only 7.9%.

Hubs

Because it is an island, Ireland has a dense network of 18 maritime ports. Four of these ports have ferry connections; Three are registered in the TEN-T network and connected to the road network at a European level. However, only 1 of these ports is linked to the strategic railway network as identified by Europe. This is the Port of Dublin where the main railway terminal in this country is also located. Two ports have a channel that is over 15 m deep: Shannon and New Ross. This is a remarkable characteristic that Ireland shares only with the Southern part of the Netherlands.

Weaknesses

Ireland’s main shortcomings stem from the weakness of its road and railway networks. The railway network is poorly electrified and developed. There are discontinuities in the motorway network, in particular between Cork and Shannon and between Cork and Rosslare, showing a lack of connections between secondary urban centres.

Strengths

The proximity between ports and airports is the main strength in the Irish network as it facilitates connections between maritime and airport flows. This is the case in the ports of Dublin, Cork, and Shannon. These three ports have a European level. It must also be noted that container traffic could potentially be developed in the ports of Dublin, Waterford and Cork as well as short-distance maritime traffic, which would encourage modal changes.


Nodes Network

......port.nodes:.1.corresponding.to.0.4%.of.NWE ......Inland.waterways:.0.km.corresponding.to.0%.of.NWE.and.to.0.km.for.1,000.km²1 seaport 0 ferry port 0 % are CEMT Class V and over


1 is major European port (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

1 have a channel depth of over 51 feet (15m) ......Railway.network:.362.km.corresponding.to.0.9%.of.NWE.and.to.45,4.km.for.1,000.km²Level.of.intermodality proximity.to.strategic.networks ......26 % are electrified networks

0 port with more than 3 modes 1 port is near the strategic road network 50 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

0 port with 3 modes 0 port is near the strategic rail network

1 port with 2 modes 0 port is near the strategic inland ......Road.network:.384.km.corresponding.to.0.9%.of.NWE.and.to.48,2km.for.1,000.km²waterway network 80 % are motorways








.


0 is major European airport (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)


1 airport with rail/road connections 1 airport is near the strategic road network

0 airport is near the strategic rail network



1 airport is near the maritime port

Identity card

Area Demography Land use Maritime traffic7,968.km².corresponding.to 373,473.inhabitants.corresponding.to 146.km².urbanised.land.corresponding.to.0.2%.of.NWE 9,134.Mt.corresponding.to1.0%.of.NWE 0.2%.of.NWE 20.km².dedicated.to.industry.corresponding.to. 0.7%.of.NWE.maritime.traffic


Shannon-Limerick Gateway2.2

!

!

!

Galway

Limerick

Cork

ShannonShannon

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

Shannon-Limerick Gateway corresponds to a sub-assembly in Ireland located on the West, on the Atlantic coast. This zone has a weak population density and a strong share of industrial dedicated land, with 30% of urban space, which puts it at the top of the 11 geographical areas studied.

Networks

Railway network and road network densities in this part of the country are up to two times more than the national average. These two networks are well linked to the central TEN-T network: 50% of the railway network and 69% of the road network, which shows a good connection level, in spite of a secondary location.

Hubs

Shannon-Limerick Gateway has 1 major maritime port whose depth exceeds 15 m, Shannon Foynes*, and is a part of the central TEN-T network. This port is connected to a European level road network and linked to an airport that is thriving, though it is not registered in the TEN-T network. Nonetheless, this part of Ireland is lacking in multiple mode connections, in particular towards the railway mode.

* It counts six terminals including the Limerick port terminal.

Weaknesses

This region suffers from a lack of connections, both by road and by rail with the South of Ireland (Cork, Waterford and Rosslare). The weak population density is a handicap, as the fewer the people, the fewer the needs in freight transport. The Shannon Airport is also not registered in the central European TEN-T network, though the gateway project is based on this.

Strengths

One of the main strengths in this region is the gateway project between the two cities Shannon and Limerick which aims to encourage port and airport development. With a channel depth of over 15 m, the nautical qualities of the Shannon Port are definitely an asset, especially so as its western position makes it the first deep-water port on the Atlantic coastline of North-Western Europe. The large share of industrial dedicated land is also an asset for the gateway project.


Nodes Network

......port.nodes:.35.corresponding.to.13.6%.of.NWE ......Inland.waterways:.0.km.corresponding.to 0%.of.NWE.and.to.0.km.for.1,000.km²35 seaports 9 ferry ports 0 % are CEMT Class V and over



1 have a channel depth of over 51 feet (15m) ......Railway.network:.2,216.km.corresponding.to 5.6%.of.NWE.and.to.28,6.km.for.1,000.km²Level.of.intermodality proximity.to.strategic.networks ..... 20 % are electrified networks

0 port with more than 3 modes 3 ports are near the strategic road network 25 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

7 ports with 3 modes 4 ports are near the strategic rail network

28 ports with 2 modes 0 port is near the strategic inland ......Road.network:.1,042.km.corresponding.to.2.5%.of.NWE.and.to.13,4.km.for.1,000.km²waterway network 39 % are motorways





45 with rail/road connection link to a seaport 3 terminals are near the strategic road network

0 with rail/road connection link to an inland port 5 terminals are near the strategic rail network


.




0 airport with rail/road connections 3 airports are near the strategic road network





Identity card

Area Demography Land use Maritime traffic77,395.km².corresponding.to 5,159,128.inhabitants.corresponding.to 2,067.km².urbanised.land.corresponding.to.3.3%.of.NWE 30,295.Mt.corresponding.to9.5%.of.NWE 2.9%.of.NWE 328.km².dedicated.to.industry.corresponding.to. 2.2%.of.NWE.maritime.traffic


Scotland2.3

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

Larne

Perth

Glasgow

Aberdeen

Edinburgh

Peterhead

Tynemouth

Hartlepool

Belfast

Kirkwall

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

Scotland, like Ireland, is located in the Northern part of North-Western Europe, and has a weak population density. Its population and industrial density are concentrated in the Glasgow-Edinburgh axis and on the East coast.

Networks

As is the case for the population, road and railway infrastructure networks are located on the Glasgow-Edinburgh East/West axis. Its road and railway networks are among the weakest in North-Western Europe. A mere 20% of the railway network is electrified. Nevertheless, this network offers good connections toward the United Kingdom’s economic centres of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

Hubs

As is the case with Ireland, because it is an island, Scotland has a strong port network with 35 ports identified. Many of them however, are small fishing ports or local ferry ports. Nine ports have European level ferry links. Scotland has a remarkable number of railway hubs, most of which are located in ports, which shows a potential for intermodality development in the railway mode. Glasgow and Edinburgh have the only port and airport infrastructures of the central European network.

Weaknesses

The network of infrastructures in the Northern part of the zone is the least developed. Consequently, it has not been identified in the TEN-T, even though there is heavy freight movement. For the railway network, Scotland suffers from capacity limited to the South of the United Kingdom, which impacts its connectivity with the rest of North-Western Europe. Lastly, in spite of a relatively large number of ports with ferry links, Scotland has very few connections of this type with other countries in the NWE zone.

Strengths

Strengths of the Scottish region include the existence of a relatively calm road network, as well as a large electrification programme on-going in strategic railway itineraries. There is a potential to expand short distance maritime links and encourage the development of intermodality both on railway and maritime modes.


Nodes Network

......port.nodes:.7.corresponding.to.2.7%.of.NWE ......Inland.waterways:.53.km.corresponding.to.0.5%.of.NWE.and.to.3,7.km.for.1,000.km²7 seaports 2 ferry ports 100 % are CEMT Class V and over


1 is major European port (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)

0 have a channel depth of over 51 feet (15m) ......Railway.network:.1 162.km.corresponding.to.3.0%.of.NWE.and.to.81,9.km.for.1,000.km²Level.of.intermodality proximity.to.strategic.networks ......39 % are electrified networks

0 port with more than 3 modes 1 port is near the strategic road network 40 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)


3 ports with 2 modes 0 port is near the strategic inland ......Road.network:.863.km.corresponding.to.2.0%.of.NWE.and.to.60,8.km.for.1,000.km²waterway network 78 % are motorways



0 railway bi-modal terminal is major European terminals (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)





.









Identity card

Area Demography Land use Maritime traffic14,180.km².corresponding.to 6,886,010.inhabitants.corresponding.to 2,053 km².urbanised.land.corresponding.to.9.1%.of.NWE 34,618.Mt.corresponding.to1.7%.of.NWE 3.9%.of.NWE 277.km².dedicated.to.industry.corresponding.to. 2.6%.of.NWE.maritime.traffic

486.inhabitants.per.km² 13%.of.urbanised.land

Liverpool and the west coast2.4

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

LeedsBradford

Sheffield

Fleetwood

Lancaster

ManchesterLiverpool

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

Located on the North-Western coast of England, the Liverpool/Manchester region is one of the most densely populated and most industrialised regions in North-Western Europe. It, however, has relatively weak maritime traffic density. This sector is concerned by a gateway project.

Networks

The transport infrastructure network has all 3 modes of land transport: roads, railways and inland waterways. At the scale of the British Isles, this is a remarkable achievement. The largest part of the infrastructure network is concentrated on a West/East axis between Liverpool and Manchester. A major railway axis linking Scotland to the South of England also goes through this region. Railway network densities are relatively high nonetheless and paradoxically, only a small part of the network is electrified.

Hubs

Four out of the 7 identified ports propose a tri-modal connection. Nevertheless, only 2 of them are located near a European level railway and road network: Liverpool and Lancaster. The ports propose many ferry connections with Ireland. The many ferry terminals are located near road and railways in the central TEN-T network.

Weaknesses

As like Scotland, the infrastructure network is limited because of the railway network which requires heavy investments to increase its capacity. Moreover, the small number of itineraries that link Liverpool and Manchester to Birmingham and London, the other English economic hubs, leads to congestion, also hampering the development of this zone.

Strengths

The main asset of these region is its gateway project, which aims to encourage use of the inland waterway mode for freight transport using the Manchester Ship Canal, which is currently underused. This project is justified by the zone’s western location, linked to the presence of the very large Liverpool Port and a dense population. This region can also count on a dense railway network which well serves the other urban centres in the country, leading to a potential in the development of multi-modal transport for freight.


Nodes Network

......port.nodes:.14.corresponding.to.5.4%.of.NWE ......Inland.waterways:.63,6.km.corresponding.to.0.6%.of.NWE.and.to.2,0.km.for.1,000.km²14 seaports 5 ferry ports 54.7 % are CEMT Class V and over



1 have a channel depth of over 51 feet (15m) ......Railway.network:.3,893.km.corresponding.to.9.9%.of.NWE.and.to.122,9.km.for.1,000.km²Level.of.intermodality proximity.to.strategic.networks ......53 % are electrified networks



8 ports with 2 modes 0 port is near the strategic inland ......Road.network:.2,467.km.corresponding.to.5.8%.of.NWE.and.to.77,9.km.for.1,000.km²waterway network 47 % are motorways








.




2 airports with rail/road connections 3 airports are near the strategic road network





Identity card

Area Demography Land use Maritime traffic31,666.km².corresponding.to 21,342,074.inhabitants.corresponding.to 5,766 km².urbanised.land.corresponding.to.0%.of.NWE 116,762.Mt.corresponding.to3.9%.of.NWE 12.1%.of.NWE 619.km².dedicated.to.industry.corresponding.to. 8.6%.of.NWE.maritime.traffic

674.inhabitants.per.km² 10%.of.urbanised.land

Greater London and central England2.5

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

"

!

!

!

!!

!

!

Leeds

Goole

Barnet

Ipswich

Bristol

Croydon

Bradford

Sheffield

Birmingham

Manchester

Bournemouth

Kingston upon Hull

London

Dover

Newport

GrimsbyLiverpool

Portsmouth

Southampton

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

Located in the South-Western part of the United Kingdom, this geographical area including Greater London and Central England up until Birmingham, is the country’s economic pulse. It concentrates the strongest population densities and comes in third place in North-Western Europe for maritime traffic. This region has an advanced gateway project: Thames Gateway.

Networks

Concerning transport infrastructures, this area is similar to that of Liverpool/Manchester in terms of density and characteristics of the network, with, for example, a navigable waterway. The Greater London and Central England railway network is nonetheless more compact and well developed, with over 50% of the network electrified.

Hubs

The Greater London and Central England region has a dense port network, with 14 ports, and 5 of them offer ferry links. Three ports are a part of the central TEN-T network: London, Felixtowe and Dover. These ports globally have a good level of intermodality with at least 3 types of modal connections. Five of the 7 regional airports are a part of the central TEN-T network. This is quite high as compared to other regions we have studied. One airport, the London City Airport, is located near a strategic port. There is also a European level railway terminal located in Birmingham.

Weaknesses

The main weakness this zone has stems from the longitudinal organisation of its infrastructure network on only one axis linking London to Manchester/Liverpool, which goes through Birmingham. Moreover, the road network seems to be less developed than that of other regions, with a mere 47% of motorways.

Strengths

This part of England is well connected to the continent by the English Channel, which helps mitigate the effects of insularity by offering a regional continuity with Europe, numerous ferry connections, in particular with France, Germany and the Netherlands. The Thames Gateway project is also an asset to promote intermodality.


Nodes Network

......port.nodes:.11.corresponding.to.4.3%.of.NWE ......Inland.waterways:.0.km.corresponding.to.0%.of.NWE.and.to.0.km.for.1,000.km²11 seaports 8 ferry ports 0 % are CEMT Class V and over



0 have a channel depth of over 51 feet (15m) ......Railway.network:.794.km.corresponding.to.2.0%.of.NWE.and.to.82,4.km.for.1,000.km²Level.of.intermodality proximity.to.strategic.networks ......72 % are electrified networks


3 ports with 3 modes 1 port is near the strategic rail network

8 ports with 2 modes 0 port is near the strategic inland ......Road.network:.707.km.corresponding.to.1.7%.of.NWE.and.to.73,4.km.for.1,000.km²waterway network 32 % are motorways








.









Identity card



Southern England2.6

!

!

"

!

!!

London

Barnet

Croydon

BournemouthPortsmouth

Southampton

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

Southern England, which includes the Portsmouth and Southampton ports, is located on the English Channel. This region can be characterised as under-represented in dedicated industrial zones, though its population density is one of the highest in North-Western Europe.

Networks

Its road and railway infrastructure network is one of the densest in North-Western Europe. It is organised in a star shape coming to and from London, which must be crossed when traveling to the North of the country. They railway network, with a 71% electrification rate, is the most developed one in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, a mere 10% of it is connected to the central European network (25% of the road network).

Hubs

As is the case in other regions in the United Kingdom and Ireland, Southern England has many ports and 11 of them have been identified. Eight of them offer ferry links only to France. The intermodality level of these ports however, remains limited. Thus, 3 of them offer a railway connection but only one of them, Southampton, belongs to the TEN-T network. Three airports have been identified and 2 of them are near a strategic railway network.

Weaknesses

The main weakness of this regional network concerns the poor integration of its infrastructure network into the central TEN-T network. Transport infrastructures, which all lead to London, are also a weakness, especially when traveling to the North of the country.

Strengths

Southern England has an interesting geostrategic position: near London, across from the Le Havre Port, one of the largest ports in North-Western Europe, and upstream from the Pas-de-Calais strait. This location allows it to play an important role in sourcing for the English capital, by developing in particular, short sea shipping. The railway network is well equipped and has a good potential for further development, especially as 3 ferry ports have a railway terminal: Portsmouth, Southampton and Newhaven.


Nodes Network

......port.nodes:.20.corresponding.to.7.8%.of.NWE ......Inland.waterways:.1,347.km.corresponding.to.12.0%.of.NWE.and.to.50,0.km.for.1,000.km²12 seaports 3 ferry ports 81 % are CEMT Class V and over

8 inland ports 75 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)



2 ports with more than 3 modes 8 ports are near the strategic road network 42 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)


9 ports with 2 modes 15 ports are near the strategic inland ......Road.network:.2,208.km.corresponding.to.5.2%.of.NWE.and.to.82,0.km.for.1,000.km²waterway network 99 % are motorways








.






2 airports are near the strategic inland waterway network



Identity card



Southern Netherlands2.7

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

Essen

Liège

Essen

Den Haag

Brussel

Amsterdam

Köln

Gent

Namur

Duisburg

Rotterdam

Terneuzen

Charleroi

AntwerpenDüsseldorf

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

The Southern part of the Netherlands has an extremely dense population and intense maritime traffic corresponding to one third of the total North-Western Europe traffic.

Networks

Consequently, the infrastructure network, including railways, roads and inland waterways is one of the densest and most developed in all of North-Western Europe. Some remarkable characteristics include: 81% of the inland waterway network is adapted for mass freight transport, with an ECMT class equal to or exceeding V; 75% of this network is a part of the TEN-T central network. Over 80% of the railway network is electrified and the road network adapted to freight transport is exclusively a motorway network.

Hubs

The Southern part of the Netherlands has 12 maritime ports and 8 inland waterway ports. A third of these ports are in the central TEN-T network and 2 maritime ports have channels that are over 15 m deep: Rotterdam and Amsterdam. The majority of these ports proposes advanced intermodality solutions. Two of them have over 3 types of modal connections: Amsterdam and Rotterdam. 9 of them have 3.

Weaknesses

The risk of congestion, due to the intensity of maritime traffic correlated with a very dense population, with ever increasing needs in travellers and freight mobility, are potential weaknesses. There is also little leeway for further development of existing infrastructures. Moreover, ports in this region are located downstream from the Pas-de-Calais strait, a high-risk sector for maritime traffic because of the intensity of its traffic volume.

Strengths

Because of its multimodal transport infrastructures which are the most developed in North-Western Europe, the Southern Netherlands is the most favourable and most operational region in North-Western Europe for the development of intermodality. This region benefits from efficient connections with all of North-Western Europe, including the United Kingdom, through intense short distance maritime links.


Nodes Network







0 port with 2 modes 21 ports are near the strategic inland ......Road.network:.4,503.km.corresponding.to.10.6%.of.NWE.and.to.45,5.km.for.1,000.km²waterway network 82 % are motorways







11 railway bi-modal (rail/road) terminal 7 terminals are near the strategic inland waterway network

.









Identity card

Area Demography Land use Maritime traffic105,747.km².corresponding.to 17,562,943.inhabitants.corresponding.to 9,768 km².urbanised.land.corresponding.to.15.4%.of.NWE 198,783.Mt.corresponding.to12.9%.of.NWE 10.0%.of.NWE 1,212.km².dedicated.to.industry.corresponding.to. 14.7%.of.NWE.maritime.traffic


Benelux and Eastern France2.8

"

!

"

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

Luxembourg

Nancy

Liège

Essen

Zürich

Paris

Brussel Köln

Metz

Gent

Mainz

Lille

Namur

Calais

BruggeDortmundDuisburgOostende

Dunkerque

Terneuzen

Charleroi

Antwerpen Düsseldorf

Strasbourg

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

The largest area studied, the region including Benelux and Eastern France has 10% of Western Europe’s population and 14.7% of its maritime traffic.

Networks

In the organisation of its infrastructure network, this region is similar to Western Germany combined with the Southern Netherlands (Rhine River axis), thus making up a parallel system. This region has a high level of inland waterways; nonetheless, only a third of this network is adapted to mass freight transport with an ECMT class equalling or exceeding V. Seventy % of the railway network is electrified and 48% of it is registered in the central TEN-T network, the largest share in all of North-Western Europe. The road network is, in its vast majority, made up of motorways.

Hubs

Like the Southern Netherlands, Benelux and Eastern France have a network of maritime and inland waterway ports that are amongst the highest in North-Western Europe. Twenty one ports have been identified, and over half of them are a part of the central TEN-T network. They have a good level of intermodality, as 17 of them have 3 intermodal connections. Four of the have more than 3. These ports are also very well connected to the road, railway and inland waterway networks on a European scale. Only 2 of the 3 airports in this zone are a part of the central European network. Moreover, a railway terminal has been identified in the central TEN-T network: the Bettembourg terminal in Luxembourg.

Weaknesses

The Benelux and Eastern France region has a large clearance inland waterway network that is one of the best developed in North-Western Europe. It however, is connected to a network and to hubs with a much lower capacity in the South-Western part of the zone we studied, compared with the Rhine River-Alps corridor, thus limiting possibilities of long distance mass freight transport.

Strengths

Strengths of this geographical area stem from its central position in North-Western Europe, where flow routes cross, as well as its good infrastructure network connection to the central European network. This area has a very high potential for development of intermodality.


Nodes Network

......port.nodes:.27.corresponding.to.10.5%.of.NWE ......Inland.waterways:.1,948.km.corresponding.to.18.0%.of.NWE.and.to.17,5.km.for.1,000.km²0 seaport 0 ferry port 80 % are CEMT Class V and over














.









Identity card

Area Demography Land use Maritime traffic110,877.km².corresponding.to 38,775,874.inhabitants.corresponding.to 11,949 km².urbanised.land.corresponding.to.18.8%.of.NWE 0.Mt.corresponding.to13.6%.of.NWE 22%.of.NWE 1,745.km².dedicated.to.industry.corresponding.to. 0%.of.NWE.maritime.traffic


Western Germany2.9

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

Mainz

Nancy

Liège

Zürich

Hannover

Luxembourg

Köln

Metz

EssenBochumDortmund

NürnbergMannheim

Duisburg

Stuttgart

Karlsruhe

Düsseldorf

Strasbourg

Frankfurt am Main

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

The Western part of Germany corresponds to the most western area in North-Western Europe, without any coastlines, though it does have major hubs connected to the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam: Duisburg and Mannheim. This zone is very industrial and has a dense population, making it the main hinterland for the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam.

Networks

The network of infrastructures follows a North-South axis corresponding to the Rhine River Valley and making up an important link in the largest European multimodal transport corridor: the Rhine River Valley-Alps corridor which links Rotterdam to Genoa. The 3 modes of terrestrial transport are present with average network densities when compared with the rest of North-Western Europe. 80% of the inland waterway network is adapted for mass freight transport, with an ECMT class equal to or exceeding V; 90% of this network is a part of the TEN-T central network. These are remarkable statistics.

Hubs

Hubs, meaning ports, airports and railway terminals for this geographical area, are registered in and connected to the central TEN-T network. All of the ports and a third of the airports are near a strategic inland waterway network, a remarkable characteristic. Eight airports are near a strategic railway network. The vast majority of inland waterway ports propose intermodal connections, in particular between rail and waterways, with 31 railway terminals connected to the inland waterway mode. Moreover, the high number of 53 railway terminals proves the importance of this mode for freight transport in this geographical area.

Weaknesses

The main weakness of this geographical area is the intensity of freight traffic on the Rhine River axis in its North-South direction, with the associated risk of congestion, in particular, for the railway network.

Strengths

The Western part of Germany is an intersection between the North/South and West/East flows. The Rhine River axis is the junction between the West and East of Europe. Moreover, the high level of intermodality of inland waterway ports, coupled with high service levels found in waterway and railway infrastructures, bode well for the development of intermodality.


Nodes Network







3 ports with 2 modes 7 ports are near the strategic inland ......Road.network:.1,810.km.corresponding.to.4.3%.of.NWE.and.to.49.1.km.for.1,000.km²waterway network 89 % are motorways








.




0 airport with rail/road connections 1 airport is near the strategic road network





Identity card



Northern France2.10

!

"

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

Essen

Dunkerque

Paris

Brussel

Gent

Lille

Dover

Namur

Calais

BruggeOostende

Rotterdam

Terneuzen

Charleroi

Antwerpen

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

Located at the intersection between the United Kingdom, Benelux and Seine Gateway®, this geographical area, which includes the North-Pas-de-Calais and Picardy regions, totals 4.3% of the North-Western European population. It is one of the regions where maritime traffic is the weakest, totalling a mere 4%.

Networks

Its networks are part of the densest networks in North-Western Europe. This region totals 14% of inland waterways, a share that is almost identical to that of the Southern Netherlands. Nevertheless, only 17% of this network is adapted to mass freight transport, with an ECMT class that equals or exceeds V, as compared with 81% of the Southern Netherlands network. Northern France is well connected to the United Kingdom with the Channel as well as intense ferry links between Dover and Calais. This region is the starting point for an under-used border railway line between Dunkirk and Strasbourg, which allows transport to Europe’s economic heartland, without going through the congested capital city of Paris.

Hubs

Northern France has 3 maritime ports and 1 of them, Dunkirk, has a channel depth of over 15 metres. The analysis of railway hubs shows good interconnections between railways and inland waterways, with 12 railway terminals out of 19 offering this type of connection. This region has 2 railway terminals identified as being a part of the central TEN-T network: Calais, with the Eurotunnel and Dourges, which shows the importance of the railway mode for freight traffic.

Weaknesses

The main weakness of this region is its geographical proximity with the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam, which polarises European maritime traffic. Though it has a large inland waterway network, it is poorly adapted to mass freight transport.

Strengths

The strength of the Northern France region stems from its position as an interface between the 3 largest regions for maritime traffic in North-Western Europe: Seine Gateway®, the Greater London region and Benelux. Its infrastructure network, and in particular its railway network, also supports the development of multimodal transport for goods.


Nodes Network

......port.nodes:.21.corresponding.to.8.1%.of.NWE ......Inland.waterways:. 1,020.km.corresponding.to.9.3%.of.NWE.and.to.18,9.km.for.1,000.km²11 seaports 4 ferry ports 56 % are CEMT Class V and over














.


2 are major European airports (part of ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)







Identity card



Seine Gateway®2.11

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

"

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

Caen

Nantes

Dieppe

Barnet

Ipswich

Bristol

Croydon

Bournemouth

Cherbourg-Octeville

Paris

London

Rouen

Lille

Dover

Calais

Harwich

Le Havre

Oostende

DunkerquePortsmouth

Felixstowe

Southampton

$ 0 20 4010Km



Key characteristics

The regional Seine Gateway® area occupies a privileged geostrategic position upstream from the Pas-de-Calais strait. In Europe, this is the only region that has a major hub for maritime traffic: the Le Havre port. This region totals 7.2% of maritime traffic. Paris and its outskirts have the strongest population densities, whereas industrial activity is spread all along the Seine River Valley.

Networks

The transport infrastructure network is structured around a tri-modal axis linking Paris to a coastline. For all 3 modes, it can be compared to the Western part of Germany, both in terms of density and in terms of size. Figures in this table show a well-developed network, which is adapted to mass freight transport and well linked to the strategic TEN-T European network.

Hubs

Seine Gateway® stands out with 3 ports registered in the central TEN-T network: 2 maritime ports, Le Havre with a channel depth of over 15 m and Rouen, as well as an inland waterway port, Paris. This central network is completed with many multiple mode ports and platforms. Four ports have ferry connections with the South of England, which is a remarkable characteristic. With 26 identified railway terminals, Seine Gateway® finds itself at the same level as the Southern part of the Netherlands. Only 4 of them, however, are near a strategic railway, road or inland waterway network.

Weaknesses

The main weakness Seine Gateway® has is its peripheral location compared with Europe’s economic pulse, suffering from lack of efficient connections towards this region in general, and towards Eastern Europe in particular. Concerning infrastructures, the absence of a direct inland waterway connection between the main freight container Le Havre port and the Seine River, is also a handicap.

Strengths

We would like to point out two key strengths. The first one stems from its advantageous geographical position upstream from the Pas-de-Calais strait, as well as having a deep water port. The second one concerns the existence of a multimodal transport corridor from its coastline up to Paris. This region is also actively rolling out many structuring projects, including Paris-Normandy New Line, which will boost the offer of railway services for freight transport.

Le Havre

Antwerpen

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Grimsby

0 50 10025Km

Data sources:Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH -2013/06



Infrastructures du réseau central RTE-T

Caractéristiques maritimes

Secteur ayant de fortes densités d’infrastructures terrestres (tous modes) - Secteur privilégié pour le développement de l’intermodalité

Zone de croisement d’infrastructures

Secteur d’enjeux pour le développement de l’intermodalité

Terminal ferroviaire

Port avec un terminal ferroviaire

Port

Aéroport

Port ayant une profondeur de chenal supérieure à 15 m

Réseau d’infrastructure(rail, route, fleuve)

Caractéristiques territoriales

Principales liaisons ferries (plus de 6 rotations par jour)

Principales portes d’entrées maritimes



Infrastructures in the TEN-T core network

Maritime features

Sector with high terrestrialinfrastructure density (all modes) - Ideal locations to develop intermodality

Infrastructure crossing zone

High stakes sector in the development ofintermodality

Railway terminal

Port with a railway terminal

Port

Airport

Port with a channel depth over 15 m

Infrastructure network(rail, road and inland waterway)

Territorial features

Main ferry routes(more than 6 rotations per day)

Main maritime access route


Strengths.and.opportunities.of.the.infrastructure.network

The analysis of transport infrastructures and regional characteristics in each of our remarkable regional structures allows us to highlight qualities that the map on the left side of the page will try to synthesize. It gives three types of information:

•. the entire RTE-T central European network, including all modes of transport;

•. remarkable maritime characteristics;

•. regional characteristics.

Five lessons can be learnt from this:

•. Benelux and the Rhine River axis are privileged sectors to implement multimodal transport;

•. outside of these zones, there are very few places in North-Western Europe where mass freight transport other than by roads can be rolled out; these are regions with existing or planned gateways;

•. there is only one major maritime entrance port upstream from the Pas-de-Calais strait: the Le Havre Port;

•. Benelux and the Rhine River Valley must both be crossed to implement West/East corridors as they have a North-South alignment and many existing connection points;

•. modal changes, in particular with the British Isles, can be envisaged towards the maritime mode thanks to the extensive network of coastline ports.

Analysis of interactions

Part 3


About the analysis of interactions

Concerning the analysis of interactions

The analysis of interactions investigate the global volumes of freight exchanged from region to region in North-Western Europe. These movements are called “interactions” rather than flows, as it is impossible to trace the complete itinerary of the goods in question. The study however can:• show interactions between the various regions;• qualify and quantify exchanges of all types of goods by transport mode: railway, maritime,

inland waterway or roads;• identify the main zones that send and receive goods.

Interactions take place from geozone A towards geozone B. Itineraries that combine one or several transport modes are considered as being that many interactions. For example, an Antwerp-Paris flow with break bulk or intermediate reloading in Dourges will be counted firstly as an Antwerp-Dourges interaction and then as a Dourges-Paris interaction, without being able to know the zone in which the goods initially came from.

What is the analysis of interactions based on?

The analysis of interactions is based on the database gathered by SEStran, which can be seen in the “ Task 1 ” report: Freight Supply and Demand Analysis,” written by SEStran in June, 2014, in the framework of Action 4. Readers who would like further information on the methodology used to produce this information can refer to this report.This is a theoretical gravitational model that estimates movements of goods from one region to another, according to the dominant mode; these movements are called “interactions.” The goal of this method, in a nutshell, is to supply a “freight transport request” matrix from an origin to a destination, for each transport mode, (road, maritime, railway, inland waterway) in order to estimate the global amount of goods exchanged between two regions. All goods are considered according to their tonnage exchanged between geographical zones with no distinction whatsoever between products. These interactions are firstly expressed in tonnes. They are also expressed in tonnes-kilometre, by multiplying them by the theoretical distances from zone centre to zone centre. This unit of measure is especially useful for heavy goods.The data produced corresponds to 3,721 dominant movements of goods from one region to another, or interactions.

The SEStran model

For this model, North-Western Europe was divided into 61 geographical zones, called “geozones.” This crosscutting was based, in some cases, on the aggregate NUTS 3. Data produced has coherent totals and constraints in lines and columns when compared with the Eurostat source, which studies goods sent and received per NUTS zone. The reference year changes depending on the transport mode, and can be 2010, 2011 or 2012. For the Northern part of France, AURH has also assisted in fine-tuning this model for the road mode by comparing it with the SITRAM (interregional transport tables) data base. Freight data from the UK Department of Transport, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Office were also used to calculate the final data set.

From the SEStran matrix structures to the AURH map

The goal is to use this information with a geographical analysis to complete SEStran’s approach, to confer added value to it as well as comparing it to the infrastructures and corridors.

AURH has included the matrix structure produced by SEStran in the GIS by transforming the cells into geographical links. AURH’s added value to this was to translate this data into a cartographical report in this matrix structure.AURH, in its work, only used a part of the data produced by SEStran, and based its work on internal interactions in North-Western Europe. Complementary analyses will allow us to study freight flows between individual Weastflows zones and individual countries (or parts of or groups of countries) out with the Weastflows area.


!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Caen

Cork

Liège

Paris Reims

Dijon

Kassel

Amiens

London

Galway

Dublin

Ausburg

Belfast

Glasgow

Freiburg Nurnberg

Limerick, Shannon

Aberdeen

Dumfries

Besancon

Waterford

Inverness

Edinburgh

Luxembourg

Saarbrucken

Metz, Nancy

Gent, Brugge

Rennes, Brest

Koblenz, Mainz

Tours, Orleans

Le Havre, Rouen

Bristol, Exeter

Brighton, Dover

Cardiff, Swansea

Donegal, Dundalk

Koln, Bonn, Achen

Wrexham, Holyhead

Athlone, Mullingar

Londonderry, Antrim

Frankfurt, Wiesbaden

Strasbourg, Mulhouse

Birmingham, Coventry

Eindhoven, Maastricht

Newcastle, Middlesbrough

Dortmund, Bochum, Munster

Dusseldorf, Essen, Duisburg

Nottingham, Derby, Leicester

Leeds, Sheffield, York, Hull

Peterborough,Norwich, Ipswich

Liverpool, Manchester, Preston

Oxford, Southampton, Portsmouth

Rotterdam

Brussels, AntwerpAmsterdam, Utrecht

Strasbourg, Mulhouse

Saarbrucken

Colchester,Cambridge

Calais, Lille

Le Mans, Nantes, Angers

Enschede, Arnhem

Karlsruhe,Stuttgart, Mannheim

Perth, Dundee

0 50 10025Km

Data source powered by AURHBoudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH -2013/06$



Other Europeancountries

Zone

SEStran zone

Geometric centreof SEStran zone

Zone includinga capital

Shetland, Scotland

!Lerwick, Shetland

Shetland

Division.of.North-Western.Europe.into.61.geozones.(SEStran)

From matrix structures...

...to maps

Each line represents an interaction mentioned in a SEStran matrix structure cell. Internal NWE interactions are in red.


Total.volume.of.interactions

General analysis of interactions broken down by geozone

Liege

Paris

London

FreiburgNurnberg

Rotterdam

Brugge

Rennes

Lille

Koblenz

Tours

Le Havre

Bristol

Arnhem

Koln

Brussels

Amsterdam

Frankfurt

Birmingham Eindhoven

Cambridge

Nantes

Dortmund

Dusseldorf

Nottingham

Leeds

Stuttgart

Norwich

Liverpool

Oxford

0 50 10025Km

Data source: SEStranBoudaries AURH (d’après ESRI) ®AURH -2014/06


The total volumes of goods sent and received, by the 61 North-Western European geozones, allows us to identify the weight of goods exchanged, including all products and all types of transport modes. Exchanges with the rest of the world are taken into account here. North-Western Europe totals 6.8 billion tonnes of goods exchanged.From Shetland in Scotland with 5.8 tonnes on an annual basis, up to Rotterdam, with over 423 tonnes exchanged, a 1 to 70 ratio is shown, represented by the size of circles on the map.The average hovers between 100 and 110 million tonnes exchanged per region per annum. Metz and Tours are in this segment, as well as London and its neighbouring cities: Oxford, Peterborough and Cambridge.The “top five” is made up by the following regions:1/ Rotterdam (423 million tonnes), 2/ Dortmund (368 million tonnes),3/ Brussels (259 million tonnes),4/ Karlsruhe (241 million tonnes),5/ Dusseldorf (240 million tonnes).

Two large regions in the United Kingdom also exceed 200 million tonnes in goods exchanged: Liverpool and Leeds.

Volume total des interactionspar géozone, en kilo-tonnes annuelles

400 000

5 00050 000

100 000

Nom de la géozone Géozones ayant un volume d’interactions supérieures à 100 000 kt


Géozone


Total volume of interactionsby geozone, kilo-tonnes per annum

400,000

5,00050,000

100,000

Geozone name Geozone with a volume of interactions over 100,000 kt


SEStran geozone

Contextual informationSEStran maritime geozone centre

3.1


Share.of.internal.interactions.in.North-Western.Europe

Paris

London

Dublin

Brussels

Amsterdam

Luxemburg


Total volume of interactionsper geozone in kilo-tonnes per annum

400,000

5,00050,000

100,000

Percentage of interactions in North-Western Europe

Contextual information49,4 - 65,0

65,1 - 80,0

80,1 - 90,0

90,1 - 99,9

Almost all actions take place inside of North-Western Europe

Half of the interactions take place in North-Western Europe

Region with an international port or European transhipment region

Region with few interactions outside of North-Western Europe Insular or continental region


Geozone

Capital

per zone in % of total interactions in the zone

Volume total des interactionspar géozone, en kilo-tonnes par an

400 000

5 00050 000

100 000

Pourcentage des interactions ayant lieu à l’intérieur de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest

Éléments de contexte49,4 - 65,0

65,1 - 80,0

80,1 - 90,0

90,1 - 99,9

la quasi-totalité des interactions ont lieuà l’intérieur de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest

la majorité des interactions ont lieu à l’extérieur de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest

région ayant une porte d’entrée maritime d’envergure internationale ou région de transbordementrégion ayant peu d’interactions en dehors de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest,région insulaire ou région continentale


Géozone

Capitale

par géozone, en % des interactions totales de la zone

This analysis qualifies interactions by calculating the share of exchanges that take place in North-Western Europe as compared with the total number of exchanges. The goal is to qualify the nature of the main exchanges: are the interactions international or regional? Two types of regions can be identified: those which mainly exchange with the rest of the world and those which exchange mainly with NWE regions.Rotterdam is the only region that has more external exchanges than those inside the North-Western Europe region. With Brussels, Amsterdam and Le Havre, they make up a group of “connecting” regions to the rest of the world, with over a third of exchanges taking place with regions outside of North-Western Europe.Bruges/Ghent, Cardiff/Swansea, Limerick and so-called “frontier” regions in North-Western Europe such as Dortmund, Nuremberg and Dijon correspond to secondary portals, with 65 to 80% of internal North-Western Europe exchanges. The United Kingdom, Ireland and Eastern France are characterised by a heavy volume of exchanges within North-Western Europe.


Main.interactions.

Principales interactions* entre géozones

18 652 - 40 470

6 848 - 18 652

5 039 - 6 847

* les principales interactions correspondent aux interactions supérieures à 5 millions de tonnes

Géozone recevant ou émettant une ou plusieur(s) interaction(s) supérieure(s) à 18 Mt

Géozone



Centre de géozoneen kilo-tonnes par an

18 652 - 40 470

6 848 - 18 652Toutes les interactions

Major interactions* between geozones

18 652 - 40 470

6 848 - 18 652

5,039 - 6,847

* Main interactions represent interactions exceeding 5 million tonnes

Geozones receiving or emitting one or several interactions exceeding 18 mT

Geozone



Geometrical centre of Geozonein thousands of tonnes per annum

18,652 - 40,470

6,848 - 18,652All interactions inside North-Western Europe

Key interactions between geozones

The goal of this map is to highlight the dominant interactions inside North-Western Europe, including all types of goods and modes. The threshold value we used is five million tonnes per annum. One hundred and seventeen major interactions have been identified amounting to a total of 1.2 billion tonnes, which is 20% of goods exchanged inside NWE. These exchanges are only terrestrial.

These interactions can be described as belonging to three main sets:• the first set is a multinational one with 59 interactions totalling 662

million tonnes, portraying a West-East Rotterdam-Dortmund backbone, surrounding Duisburg, extremely dense in Belgium and in the Netherlands and linking Dortmund to Karlsruhe in its Southern part;

• the second set is a British one with 42 interactions totalling 375 million tonnes, on both sides of the Nottingham-Birmingham axis;

• the last set is a smaller French one, with 13 interactions totalling 107 million tonnes.

Gaps in major interactions are also visible on the map:• between France and the Rhine River system;• between the United Kingdom and the continent;• in the United Kingdom, between Newcastle and Edinburgh.This representation shows three bordering areas: Ireland, Scotland and the Centre-Eastern part of France.

3.2


Main.maritime.interactions.

in thousands of tonnes

Major maritime interactions* betweengeozones in North-Western Europe

*Main interactions representing interactions exceeding 500 kT

exceeds 2,500

between 1,200 and 2,500

Geozone receiving or emitting one or several maritime interactions exceeding 2,500 kT

All maritime interactions in North-Western Europe


Geozone


Geometrical centre of Geozone

Capital

en kilo-tonnes par an

Principales interactions entre géozones*à l’intérieur de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest

* les principales interactions maritimes représentent les interactions supérieures à 500 kilo-tonnes

supérieur à 2 500

entre 1 200 et 2 500

Géozone recevant ou émettant une ou plusieurs interaction(s) maritime(s) supérieure(s) à 2 500 kilo-tonnes

Toutes les interactions maritimes


Géozone


Centre de géozone

Capitale

This map focuses on maritime interactions. These interactions were not visible on the previous analysis as they did not reach the threshold value of five million tonnes per annum, which we chose for dominant interactions. Here, we have retained an annual threshold of 1.2 million tonnes per annum to indicate a relevant number of maritime interactions.

Thirty-three interactions were selected giving a total of 66 million tonnes. They concern the dominant exchanges between the United Kingdom and the European continent as well as a few intra-European transhipments: • Edinburgh-Rotterdam, with 4.6 million tonnes, is the leading maritime

interaction;• Le Havre-Rotterdam comes in second place with 3.7 million tonnes;• Leeds can be considered as a maritime hub, as it is connected to

Rotterdam, Calais and Zeebrugge.Connections between the Eastern facade of the United Kingdom and the Northern Range ports look like a set of parallel beams going North-West/South-East.Short maritime distances also exist, in particular between Newcastle and Leeds, Antwerp and Rotterdam, Brighton and Calais.From a lesser point of view, there are also interactions between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Cardiff, in the West, can be seen as a secondary hub, in front of Liverpool.It must be noted that France has no major maritime interactions with Ireland and the West of the United Kingdom.


Main.interactions.between.geozones.broken.down.by.transport.modes

Modal analysis of interactions

300 - 1 0001,001 - 1,996

985 - 1,8151,816 - 3,141

2,053 - 3,5003,501 - 4,389

872 - 1,5001,501 - 8,586

in million tonnes-km

Main interactions per mode* inside North-Western Europe

* Main interactions per mode were selected after having determined a significant threshold that is specific to each interaction mode in million tonnes per km

All interactions inside North-Western Europe


Geozone

Contextual informationGeometrical centre of Geozone

Capital

ROAD

MARITIME

RAILWAY

INLAND WATERWAY

300 - 1 0001 001 - 1 996

985 - 1 8151 816 - 3 141

2 053 - 3 5003 501 - 4 389

872 - 1 5001 501 - 8 586

en millions de tonnes-km

Principales interactions par mode* à l’intérieur de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest

* la sélection des principales interactions par mode a été établie d’après la détermination d’un seuil significatif et spécifique à chaque mode, en millions de tonnes-km

Toutes les interactions


Géozone

Éléments de contexteCentre de géozone

Capitale

ROUTE

MER

FER

FLEUVE

The two following maps consolidate the dominant interactions using transport modes. To facilitate long distance interactions, the volume of goods exchanged is compared to the distance covered and is measured in million tonne-kilometres (t-km).

The map on the right shows 15 to 20 major relations per mode and defines a significant threshold for each of them. This selection makes up a set of 68 relationships when interactions in both directions are added up.Rotterdam, with a third of interactions alone, impacts the map just like a symmetrical centre, with maritime interactions on one side and continental interactions on the other. The link between Rotterdam and the Karlsruhe region is the strongest intra North-West European relation, with 8.5 billion t-km in the inland waterways mode. Six other relationships with Rotterdam exceed 1.4 billion t-km.

Three railway links that stand out are: Dusseldorf-Dortmund, nearly two billion t-km, a significant road movement, with 4.4 billion t-km, Saarbrucken-Rotterdam and Metz/Lille as two parallel links.The centre of the United Kingdom stands out with very significant road mode interactions between Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham and Birmingham.

3.3


Modal.interaction.breakdown.per.geozone

0 50 10025Km

Data source: SEStranBoudaries AURH (d’après ESRI) ®AURH -2014/06

Dublin

Brussels

Amsterdam

Luxemburg

Paris

London


rail route

maritimefluvial

Mise en valeur de régions au-delà d’unseuil significatif pour chaque mode

Part de chacun des modes


Géozone


ROUTE : région où les interactions par voie routière sont > à 80%

MER : région où les interactions par voie maritime sont > à 85%

FER : région où les interactions par voie ferrée sont > à 15%

FLEUVE : région où les interactions par voie fluviale sont > à 8%

Capitale

par géozone, en % du volume total des interactions, en millions de tonnes-km en % du volume total des interactions

en millions de tonnes-km

railway road

maritimeinland waterway

Geozone exceeding a significant threshold for each mode

Share of each mode


Geozone


ROAD: geozone where road interaction > 80%

MARITIME: geozone where maritime intractions > 85%

RAILWAY: geozone where railway interactions > 15%

INLAND WATERWAYS: geozone where inland waterway interactions > 8%

Capital

in % of total volume of interactions in million tonnes-km

per geozone, in % of total volume of interactions in million tonnes-km

The map on the side represents, in tonnes-kilometre, the dominant modes per geozone. At a constant size, the sectional diagram highlights the angular modal shares. Additional information is given by colours to isolate some regions if the modal shares exceed remarkable threshold values.

Road transport, in terms of gross tonnage, dominates in 80% of exchanges. If tonnes-kilometre are taken into account with the base of 2.9 million units, without local exchanges, roads represent merely 17% on average, whereas the maritime mode becomes the dominant one, with 78%, as it covers longer distances. The two alternative transport modes, waterways and railways, both have very weak shares, close to 2%.

Strong inter-regional variations nonetheless do exist. Road transport is still dominant in the centre of France, England, Ireland and in Germany, except for the Rhine River basin.Nonetheless, there is an interesting type of co-modality in railways and inland waterways in Rhine River regions: Dusseldorf is the only zone where alternative transport modes equal road transport. Strasbourg stands out with 20% of the modal share for waterways, and Saarbrucken with 34% in the railway mode.


Inbound.dominant.interactions

Dominant interactions by individual geozones

Toward Shetland Isles

0 50 10025Km

Data source: SEStranBoudaries AURH (d'après ESRI) ®AURH -2014/06

London

Dublin

Glasgow

Waterford

Edinburgh

Rotterdam

Metz

Le Havre

Brussels

StrasbourgNantes

Dortmund

Leeds

Nottingham

Stuttgart

Shetland, Scotland

Interactions préférentielles entrantes* par géozone

2 3-4 5-6

Concentration d’interactions principalespar géozone, en nombre Europe du Nord-Ouest

Géozone


Centre de géozonesens de l’interaction préférentielle de la géozone d’émission vers la géozone de réception

* les interactions représentées sur la carte mettent en évidence le sens de l’interaction entrante priviélégiée depuis une géozone de départ vers une géozone d’arrivée. Dans le cas des interactions entrantes la concentration des interactions indiquent les régions qui émettent de la marchandise vers plusieurs régions.

Dominant inbound interactions* by geozone

2 3-4 5-6

Main concentrations of interactions by geozone, number North-Western Europe

Geozone


Geometrical centre of GeozoneDominant interaction direction from the emission geozone to the reception geozone

* Interactions shown on the map highlight the direction of the dominant inbound interaction from a departure geozone of to an arrival geozone.In the case of the concentration of the inbound interactions, interactions point out geozones which emit the goods toward multiple regions.

European interactions have previously been highlighted through quantitative analysis however do not mention geozones with weaker interactions. In the following analysis, all geozones have the same weight. For each geozone, only the largest entering or exiting interaction, in terms of tonnage, is listed.

On the preferential entering interactions maps, there are eight main hubs that stand out in terms of outreach:• firstly Karlsruhe, but also Rotterdam and Dublin which are the preferred

suppliers of at least four neighbouring regions;• Dortmund, Brussels, London, Nottingham and Leeds are the preferred

suppliers for three regions.

A few points can be noted on dominant interactions:• rarely transnational; only three cases out of 61: Rotterdam-Dusseldorf,

Luxembourg-Brussels, and the Shetland Islands-Rotterdam;• in addition to the above, four take place between non-adjoining regions:

Luxembourg towards Brussels, Enschede towards Rotterdam, Galway towards Dublin, and Cardiff towards Liverpool;

• they can be relatively strong (40% of interactions in all): Edinburgh towards Dundee, Londonderry towards Belfast, Donegal and Athlone towards Dublin.

3.4


Outbound.dominant.interactions

0 50 10025Km


Paris

London

Dublin

Glasgow Edinburgh

Rotterdam

Le Havre

Brussels

Dortmund

Dusseldorf

LeedsLiverpool

Stuttgart

Towards Shetland IslesShetland, Scotland

Interactions préférentielles sortantes*par géozone

2 3 4-5

Concentration d’interactions principalespar géozone, en nombre Europe du Nord-Ouest

Géozone


Centre de géozonesens de l’interaction préférentielle de la géozone d’émission vers la géozone de réception

* les interactions représentées sur la carte mettent en évidence le sens de l’interaction sortante privilégiée depuis une géozone de départ vers une géozone d’arrivée. Dans le cas des interactions sortantes, la concentration des interactions indiquent les régions qui réceptionnent de la marchandise depuis plusieurs régions.

Dominant outbound interactions*by geozone

2 3 4-5

Main concentration of interactions by geozone, number North-Western Europe

Geozone


Geometrical centre of geozonedirection of dominant interaction from the emission geozone to the reception geozone

* Interactions shown on the map highlight the direction of the dominant inbound interaction from a departure geozone of to an arrival geozone.In the case of the concentration of the inbound interactions, interactions point out geozones which emit the goods toward multiple regions.

Seven main convergence hubs stand out on this map of preferential exiting interactions. Both analyses support each other: •. the Karlsruhe region dominates its five neighbouring zones, both in its

outreach as well as polarisation;•. in Ireland, Dublin tops the network though it does not enjoy any

preferential connections with Northern Ireland;•. Brussels, Rotterdam, Dortmund and London are key hubs.There is one difference with the previous map: Paris is a unique case, as its geozone brings in goods rather than sending them out.

A dozen of regional systems stand out when both maps are combined:•. the Rotterdam-Dortmund axis, turning around Dusseldorf, is the only

transnational network;•. Karlsruhe; with five branches, Dublin with four entering and three exiting

branches, and London with three branches, are all “star-shaped.”•. ten strong axes stand out including Edinburgh-Glasgow, Paris-Le

Havre, Calais-Amiens, as well as Leeds-Liverpool and Birmingham-Nottingham.

Scotland and Ireland share one characteristic: both have symmetrical, thus reciprocal interactions. However Scotland is not linked to the rest of the United Kingdom.


Dominant.transnational.inbound.interactions.and.key.outreach.hubs

ROTTERDAM : 15

BRUSSELS 14

Belfast : 3

CALAIS : 17

Liverpool : 3

0 50 10025Km


Toward Shetland IslesShetland, Scotland


Géozone


Centre de géozone

* les interactions transnationales entrantes mettent en évidence, au sein de l’ENO, la première interaction entrante de chaque géozone depuis une géozone non limitrophe et d’un pays différent

ROTTERDAM : 15

Belfast: 3

Pôle majeur d’éclatement de la marchandise et nombre d’interactions émises par la géozone

Pôle secondaire d’éclatement de la marchandise et nombre d’interactions émises par la géozone

sens de l’interaction préférentielle de la géozone d’émission vers la géozone de réception (hors du pays et non voisine)

Géozone émettant une ou plusieurs interactions transnationales

Interactions préférentielles transnationales entrantes*par géozone


Geozone

Contextual informationGeometrical centre of geozone

* interactions shown on the map highlight the direction of the inbound dominant interaction, in NWE, from a departure geozone to an arrival geozone.

ROTTERDAM: 15

Belfast: 3

Main load-splitting hub with highest number of interactions stemming from the geozone

Secondary load-splitting hub with highest number of interactions stemming from the geozone

direction of dominant interaction from the emission geozone to the reception geozone (out of the country and not adjacent)

geozone emitting one or several transnational interactions

Dominant transnational inbound interactions*by geozone

Transnational dominant interactions

On this double page, once again we are highlighting the largest inbound and outbound interactions for each geozone, in tonnage and for all transport modes. Two additional constraints have been applied: interactions must be transnational and between two non-neighbouring regions.From a quantitative point of view, the largest inbound transnational interaction is that of Rotterdam towards Saarbrucken, because of its large railway mode share.Three major goods distribution hubs have been identified:• Rotterdam which distributes 15 dominant transnational long-distance

interactions;• Brussels with 14;• Calais, which distributes 17 dominant interactions, though on a much

smaller scale, between 1 and 3.5%, except with the Shetland Islands, where this interaction soars to 13%.

Each of these three dominant interaction systems can be explained by its geographical position:• Rotterdam mainly interacts with the Rhine River area in Europe,

including Strasbourg and Metz;• Brussels towards France, Belgium and Luxembourg;• Calais towards the United Kingdom, except for Birmingham, Nottingham

and Peterborough.Ireland has distinct two sourcing zones a part from the United Kingdom: Belfast in the North and Liverpool in the South.

3.5


Dominant.transnational.outbound.interactions.and.key.convergence.hubs

ROTTERDAM : 22

Brugge : 7

BRUSSELS: 13

Eindhoven : 5

Belfast : 5

0 50 10025Km


Toward Shetland IslesShetland, Scotland


Géozone


Centre de géozone

* les interactions transnationales sortantes mettent en évidence, au sein de l’ENO, la première interaction sortante de chaque géozone vers une geozone non limitrophe et d’un pays différent

ROTTERDAM : 22

Brugge: 7

Pôle majeur de convergence de la marchandise et nombre d’interactions reçues par la géozone

Pôle secondaire de convergence de la marchandise et nombre d’interactions reçues par la géozone

sens de l’interaction préférentielle de la géozone d’émission vers la géozone de réception (hors du pays et non voisine)

Géozone recevant une ou plusieurs interactions transnationales

Interactions préférentielles transnationales sortantes*par géozone


Geozone


Geometrical centre of geozone

* Interactions shown on the map highlight the direction of the outbound dominant interaction, in NWE, from a departure geozone to an arrival geozone.

ROTTERDAM: 22

Brugge: 7

Main freight convergence hub with highest number of interactions received from the geozone

Secondary freight convergence hub with highest number of interactions received by the geozone

direction of dominant interaction from the emission geozone to the reception geozone (out of the country and not adjacent)

geozone receiving one or several transnational interactions

Dominant transnational outbound interactions*by geozone

Outbound dominant interactions determine six convergence hubs:• firstly, Rotterdam, which draws in 22 dominant long-distance

transnational interactions;• Brussels, which draws in 13 others;• and from a lesser point of view, Ghent, Belfast, Eindhoven and Dublin. On average, these dominant transnational interactions represent 5% of freight transport from the various geozones.

Areas with over 10% of outbound interactions include: Donegal-Belfast, which stands out in both directions, with 30% of interactions received by Donegal, the Shetland Islands towards Rotterdam, Inverness and Edinburgh towards Rotterdam, which were previously identified in the key maritime flows.

We can also note several key interactions such as Rotterdam-Dusseldorf, both ways, as well as Brussels towards Dusseldorf, reinforcing these hubs at all levels of analysis. Dusseldorf is the dominant transnational freight origin for Rotterdam and Brussels.

The Brussels towards Amsterdam interaction stands out because of its quantity (7Mt annually).

Conclusion


The Analytical Atlas, the second stage in work carried out by AURH for Weastflows, proposes, with a cartographical approach, a regional diagnostic for North-Western Europe. It accomplishes this using an innovative and exploratory analysis highlighting AURH’s geographical and geomathematical capacities.

This work points out out four key issues related to freight:• massification of exchanges;• traffic congestion;• sustainable development;• regional development.

Rolling out West/East multimodal high service level transport corridors on underused areas which bypass congested zones and connect secondary areas is one answer addressing these stakes. Europe has already partially given a response to this issue when it published, in October, 2013, its TEN-T corridor map. Four West/East corridors impacting the NWE territory thus were identified: • the “Atlantic Corridor” in its Le Havre-Mannheim and Le Havre-Strasbourg section;• the “North Sea-Mediterranean Corridor” in its “Cork-Dublin/Brussels” section;• the “North Sea-Baltic Corridor”• the “Rhine River-Danube Corridor,” which is a continuation of the “Atlantic Corridor.”

This European cartography is a preliminary result that must be studied and completed regarding work carried out in the Weastflows project. AURH’s next steps will include work on the analysis of bottle-necks in the infrastructure network, deeper knowledge on the aforementioned TEN-T corridors, identification of secondary corridors within NWE connecting peripheral areas, and connection points towards Eastern Europe.

Stakes involving freight transport at the North-Western European scale must be considered in a European context of contradictory dynamics (cf. map on the side): on one hand, the “Blue Banana” with its structuring North-South dynamics, and on the other, the emergence of a second upcoming and potential economic force, the “Orange Pumpkin.”

Ever since the Berlin Wall fell and borders were opened, the European backbone has gradually been shifting towards Eastern Europe. The global value stream and transfer of many industrial activities towards the East, in particular towards Poland or the Czech Republic, today have led to the highest GDP growth in Europe. Corridors and entrance and exit-ways from Central Europe will no longer be sufficient to accompany the economic development of countries in Eastern Europe. This raises the question of the strategic positioning the West has, in regards to its Eastern neighbours.

Though the “Blue Banana” or European backbone and now the “Orange Pumpkin” have become tangible realities, the connection of North-Western Europe to these driving and thriving regions is crucial to respond to the growing demand these countries have in raw material and consumer goods, to help balance the economics of these regions at the very Western side of European with those in the Centre and the East.

Setting up a network of sustainable gateways linked by corridors is thus a solution with high stakes. Here it is a question of etching the premises of a system of North-West European gateways now heading towards the East but including the West, which will boost global exchanges. From a local point of view, peripheral areas will be connected to global hubs with booming economies. From a global point of view, a new European freight traffic will be formulated, reinforcing the place North-West European ports hold as a necessary pivot which harnesses and organises the flows of global goods on this continent.

ROLLING OUT NEW EUROPEAN DYNAMICS

To learn more about the above map, consult the AURH note on stage n°2.


Transport.corridors.and.new.European.dynamics

Port ayant un trafic total supérieurà 50 millions de tonnes annuel


Corridors RTE-T concernantl’Europe du Nord-Ouest


Reste de l’Europe

Banane bleue (dorsale européenne)

Axe Ouest/Est de fortes densités(population et industrielle)

«Orange Pumpkin»(dynamique Est Européenne)

Dynamiques territoriales

Principale voie d’accés maritime

Tronçon de corridor orienté Ouest-Est

Tronçon de corridor orienté Nord-Sud

Ville connectée à un corridor

Capitale connectée à un corridor

Ligne de fracture des concentrationsdémographiques et industrielles

Port with a total traffic up to50 million annual tonnes


TEN-T corridors connectingNorth-Western Europe


Rest of Europe

Blue Banana (European backbone)

West/East axis of high density(population and industrial)

“Orange Pumpkin”(East european dynamic)

Territorial dynamics

Main maritime route access

West-East direction corridor section

North-South direction corridor section

City connected to a corridor

Capital connected to a corridor

Dividing line of populationand industrial concentrations

0 100Km

Data source powered by AURHBoudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODblCommission européenne, TENtec, ®AURH -2013/06$

Highest densities areaLowest densities area

Cork

Le Havre Lille

Metz

Dijon

BordeauxLyon

Dover

Liverpool/Manchester

BirminghamFelixstowe

Southampton

Strasbourg

Basel

Gênes

ManheimStuttgart

FrancfurtKölnDusseldorf

Hanover

AntwerpRotterdamZeebrugge

Gent

Liège

OsnabrückUtrecht

Calais

Belfast

Glasgow Edinburg

MarseilleVitoria

Bilbao

London

Dublin

Paris

Brussels

Amsterdam Berlin

Praha

Wien

Luxembourg

BudapestBratislava

Bern

Hamburg

To Bucharest(Romania)and the Black Sea

To Ostava (Bulgaria) and Ukraine

to Warsaw(Poland)and Belarus

To MadridLisbonAlgeciras

Bremerhaven

Immingham

MAP INDEX

•. North-Western Europe................................................................................................... p.4

•. Demographic dissymmetry.......................................................................................... p.10

•. Industrial dissymmetry.................................................................................................. p.11

•. European maritime facades........................................................................................ p.12

•. Maritime port traffic....................................................................................................... p.13

•. Port ranking: top 20..................................................................................................... p.14

•. Port ranking: top 5 per country................................................................................. p.15

•. Breakdown of import/export traffic.......................................................................... p.16

•. Port ranking per type of goods................................................................................. p.17

•. Inland waterway network: grid analysis method.................................................. p.18

•. Road network: grid analysis method....................................................................... p.19

•. Railway network: grid analysis method.................................................................. p.20

•. Transport hubs: grid analysis method..................................................................... p.21

•. Cross analysis of densities......................................................................................... p.22

•. Cross analysis of infrastructure concentrations.................................................... p.23

•. Remarkable regional areas......................................................................................... p.27

•. Strengths and opportunities of the infrastructure network................................ p.52

•. Division of North-Western Europe into 61 geozones (SEStran)..................... p.55

•. Total volume of interactions....................................................................................... p.56

•. Share of internal interactions in North-Western Europe................................... p.57

•. Main interactions .......................................................................................................... p.58

•. Main maritime interactions ......................................................................................... p.59

•. Main interactions between geozones broken down by transport modes..... p.60

•. Modal interaction breakdown per geozone............................................................ p.61

•. Inbound dominant interactions................................................................................... p.62

•. Outbound dominant interactions................................................................................ p.63

•. Dominant transnational inbound interactions and key outreach hubs........... p.64

•. Dominant transnational outbound interactions and key convergence hubs......................................................................................... p.65

•. Transport corridors and new European dynamics............................................... p.69

AURH.-.Town.planning.Agency.of.Le.Havre.and.Seine.Estuary.Area76063.Le.Havre.cedex.FRANCE

Tel:.+33.(0)[email protected]

www.aurh.fr.-.www.aurhinweastflows.com

Document.created.with.the.support.of.the.European.INTERREG.IV.B.programme.and.in.the.framework.of.the.European.Weastflows.project

This.assessment.report.is.the.second.contribution.of.AURH.for.action.1ʺAssessment.of.sustainable.transport.capacityʺ

www.weastflows.eu

published.by.AURH.-.September.2014.-.p

rinted.by.Snag.&.Centrale.France.+33.(0)2.32.74.06.90

Registration.of.copyright:.September.2014ISBN:.979-10-93006-04-8

Not.for.sale

With.the.kind.financial.support.of:

AURH - Analytical Atlas of freigth transport in NWE

Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Transcript of AURH - Analytical Atlas of freigth transport in NWE