AURH - Analytical Atlas of freigth transport in NWE

ANALYTICAL ATLAS Freight transport
in North-Western Europe:
regional dynamics,
infrastructure and
inter-regional exchanges
Weastflows project - Action 1 - Deliverable 2 - September 2014

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.10
1.2 Maritime organisation.....................................................................................................p.12
1.3 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.30
2.2 Shannon-Limerick Gateway..........................................................................................p.32
2.3 Scotland...............................................................................................................................p.34
2.4 Liverpool and the west coast........................................................................................p.36
2.5 Greater London and central England.........................................................................p.38
2.6 Southern England.............................................................................................................p.40
2.7 Southern Netherlands......................................................................................................p.42
2.8 Benelux and Eastern France........................................................................................p.44
2.9 Western Germany............................................................................................................p.46
2.10 Northern France................................................................................................................p.48
2.11 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.56
3.2 Key interactions between geozones.............................................................................p.58
3.3 Modal analysis of interactions........................................................................................p.60
3.4 Dominant interactions by individual geozones..........................................................p.62
3.5 Transnational dominant interactions.............................................................................p.64
Conclusion
Rolling out new European dynamics........................................................p.68
Map index.............................................................................................................................p.71

North-Western Europe
NORWAY
Münster
DENMARK
Dortmund
NETERLANDS
Antwerp Dusseldorf
Köln
Den Haag
Lille
Shetland, Scotland Shetland
Dundee
UNITED
KINGDOM
Edinburgh
Newcastle upon Tyne
Sheffield
Cambridge
Chelmsford
Canterbury
Dunkerque
Amiens
Paris
Glasgow
Belfast
Aberdeen
Sunderland
Armagh
Carlisle
Lancaster
Dublin Leeds
Salford
Birmingham
Wolverhampton
Hereford
Bristol
London
Amsterdam
Brussel
Kassel
GERMANY
Frankfurt am Main
SWEDEN
Nürnberg
Mannheim
Stuttgart
Gent
BELGIUM
Charleroi
LUXEMBOURG
Dijon
Reims
Liège
Portsmouth
Caen
Angers
Southampton
Rennes
Nantes
Swansea
Augsburg
Le Havre
Cardiff
Plymouth
Luxembourg
Saarbrücken
Strasbourg
Freiburg im Breisgau
Metz
Galway
Limerick
Cork
Rouen
Le Mans
Tours
Brest
Nancy
Orléans
Mulhouse
Besançon
IRELAND
FRANCE
Cities
between 45,038 and
145,000 inhabitants
between 145,001 and
450,000 inhabitants
between 450,001 and
1,000,000 inhabitants
over 1 million inhabitants
Contextual information
Other European
countries
$
Data source powered by AURH
Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI
Km
Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl
®AURH -2013/06 4 Analytical atlas - Freight transport in North-Western Europe: regional dynamics, infrastructure and inter-regional exchanges - AURH - September 2014
AUSTRIA
ITALY
UNITED
KINGDOM
SWITZERLAND
NORTH SEA
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
ENGLISH CHANNEL
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
0 25 50 100
GeoWeastflows platform
November 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
ATLAS Major North-West European
freight infrastructures
Weastflows project - Action 1 - Deliverable 1 - June 2013
The Atlas of North-Western Europe freight
transport infrastructures
June 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

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

Part 1
Geographical analysis
of North-Western Europe

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

Commentaires
Fromto NgUridT Sd i3vi sdioivnision
infraVsetrnutciltautrioen n oeft wthoerk in the squares of the grid
(Sources : Weastflows project, AURH processing)

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Warszawa
"
"
"
European territorial organisation
$
Data source ©CorineLandCover2006; ©Powered by AURH
Km
®AURH -2013/06 0 50 100 200
Areas with the
highest densities
Areas with the
lowest densities
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Rome
Paris
Madrid
Berlin
London
Brussels
Wien
Oslo
Praha
Zagreb
Dublin
Budapest
Sarajevo
Stockholm
Kobenhavn
Ljubljana
Amsterdam
Bratislava
Luxembourg
en nombre d’habitants par km²
150 250 500 1 500 5 000 21 100
2 50
densités les plus faibles densités les plus fortes
Capitales et villes européennes Dissymétrie
Capitale européenne
Ville de plus de 1 million d'habitants
Éléments de contexte
number of inhabitants per square kilometre
lowest density highest density
2 50
European capitals and main cities Dissymmetry
Capital city
150 250 500 1 500 5 000 21 100
City over 1 million of inhabitants
Perimeter
Demographic dissymmetry
In 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.
Ligne de fracture
Densité de population
Ville entre 450 000 et
1 million d'habitants
Europe du Nord-Ouest
Dividing line
Population density
City between 450,000 and 1 million
inhabitants
North-West Europe
1.1

!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
$
!(
Data source ©CorineLandCover2006; ©Powered by AURH
®AURH -2013/06 !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Warszawa
!(
!(
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Rome
Paris
Madrid
Berlin
London
Brussels
Wien
Oslo
Praha
Zagreb
Dublin
Budapest
Sarajevo
Stockholm
Kobenhavn
Ljubljana
Amsterdam
Bratislava
Luxembourg
Km
0 50 100 200
Areas with the
highest densities
Areas with the
lowest densities
Densité industrielle
surface en m² / 1 000m² dédiée à l’industrie
5 7 12 20 43 175
densités les plus faibles densités les plus fortes
Volume total de marchandises
chargées et déchargées
Dissymétrie
0 2
Ligne de fracture
Europe du Nord-Ouest NUTS 2
maritimes
en milliers de tonnes, par NUTS 2
203 000
!(!(!(!(
Industrial density
area in m² dedicated to industry
5 7 12 20 43 175
lowest density highest density
Total volume of goods loaded
and unloaded
Dissymmetry
0 2
in thousands of tonnes per NUTS 2 area
Perimeter
Dividing line
North-Western Europe !(!(!(!(
Coastal NUTS 2
area
100 000
60 000
20 000
11 000
203,000
100,000
60,000
20,000
11,000
Industrial dissymmetry
Industrial 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.

"
Coastline of
the British and Irish Isles
$
Data source ©Eurostat 2010; ©Powered by AURH
Km
®AURH -2014/05 0 50 100 200
Baltic Arc
Mediterranean Arc
Atlantic
Coastline
North Range
Rome
Paris
Madrid
Berlin
London
Brussels
Wien
Oslo
Praha
Zagreb
Dublin
Warszawa
Budapest
Sarajevo
Stockholm
Kobenhavn
Ljubljana
Amsterdam
Bratislava
Luxembourg
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Maritime organisation
1.2
Range Nord
Arc Baltique Arc Méditerranée
Façade des Iles Britanniques
Façade Atlantique
North Range
Baltic Arc Mediterranean Arc
European maritime facades
North-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 Façades or maritimes
the Northern Range facade.
NUTS 2 maritimes Europe du Nord-Ouest
European coastlines
Perimeters
Coastline of the British and Irish Isles
Atlantic Coastline
Coastal NUTS 2 area

$
Data source Eurostat - 2012
Km
®AURH -2014/05 0 25 50 100
Amsterdam
North Range
900 Mt
Atlantic
Coastline
29,8 Mt
Coastline of
the British and Irish Isles
500 Mt
Paris
London
Dublin
Brussels
Luxembourg
Trafic total de marchandises
par principaux ports*
en milliers de tonnes, en 2012 Range Nord
Façades maritimes
400 000
100 000
50 000
10 000
1 000
Façade des Îles Britanniques
Façade Atlantique
Façade maritime
500 Mt Trafic total en millions de tonnes par
façade maritime
*sélection des ports ayant un trafic supérieur à
1 million de tonnes
Capitale
Total freight traffic
by main ports*
per thousand tonnes, in 2012 North Range
Maritime coastlines
400,000
100,000
50,000
10,000
1,000
Coastline of the British and Irish Isles
Atlantic coastline
Maritime coastline
500 Mt Total trafic in millions of tonnes per
maritime coastline
*selection of ports with a freight traffic
over 1,000 thousand tonnes
Capital city
Maritime port traffic
North-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.

16th Edinburg (Leith)
10th Tees and Hartlepool
Total 1.2 billion tonnes
= 62% of NWE traffic
4th : Grimsby and Immingham
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
$
Data source : Eurostat - 2012
Km
®AURH -2014/05 0 25 50 100
3rd : Amsterdam
1st : Rotterdam
2nd : Antwerpen
5th : Le Havre
20th Dublin
11th Liverpool
8th Milford Haven
14th Felixstowe
6th London
9th Southampton
19th Rouen
15th Ghent
16thDover
13th Zeebrugge
7th Dunkerque
12th Nantes-St Nazaire
17th
Ijmuiden
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.
Ranking of main seaports
in terms of freight traffic in 2012
! 20 first seaports
5 first seaports
Élément de contexte
Classement des ports maritimes
d’après leur trafic de marchandises en 2012
! 20 premiers ports
5 premiers ports
Port ranking: top 20

Port ranking: top 5 per country
2nd :Shannon Foynes
Total 44 Mt
= 89% of national traffic
3rd : Milford Haven
Southampton
$
Data source Eurostat - 2012
Km
®AURH -2014/05 0 25 50 100
5th: Tees and Hartlepool
Total 216 Mt
1st : Grimsby and Immingham
2nd : Port of London
2nd :Dunkerque
5th : Calais
1st : Le Havre
Total 167 Mt
1st : Rotterdam
2nd : Amsterdam
4th : Vlissigen
Total 520 Mt
Total 1 Mt
Total 223 Mt
4th : Rouen
4th :
3rd : Nantes Saint-Nazaire
3rd : Cork
1st : Dublin
4th :
Bantry Bay
5th :
Rosslare
1st : Duisburg
2nd : Krefeld
4th : Andernach
1st : Antwerpen
2nd : Zeebrugge
3rd : Ghent
4th : Ostend
5th : Liège
3rd : Ijmuiden
5th : Terneuzen
3rd : Koeln
5th :Wesel
This 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.
Classement portuaire, top 5 par pays
d’après leur trafic de marchandises en 2012
1er port
2ème au 5ème port
Pays concernés par le classement
Irlande Royaume-Uni France
Pays-Bas Belgique Allemagne
Port ranking, top 5 by country Contextual information
in terms of freight traffic in 2012
1st seaport
2nd to 5th port
Country
Ireland United-Kingdom France
The Netherlands Belgium Germany

Shetland, Scotland
Breakdown of import/export traffic
1st : Edinburg (Leith)
2nd : Tees and Hartlepool
5th : Rouen
4th : Glensanda
1st : Rotterdam
3rd :Amsterdam
2nd :Antwerpen
5th :Le Havre
3rd : Sullom
Voe
4th : Londres
$
Data source ©Ports Authority; ©Powered by AURH
Km
®AURH -2013/06 0 25 50 100
Shetland
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.
Trafic total
The en millions four leading de tonnes, exporting en 2011
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
430
276
70
30
Kingdom and European construction industries) and Sullom Voe (crude
oil).
They show goods production and distribution sites with regional, national or
European markets.
Part du trafic dédié à l’import
Part du trafic dédié à l’export
Classification import/export
Port majoritairement importateur
Top 5 des ports ayant la balance
commerciale à l’import
la plus excédentaire
Port majoritairement exportateur
Top 5 des ports ayant la balance
commerciale à l’export
la plus excédentaire
Total traffic
in millions of tonnes, in 2011
Import/export classification
430
276
70
30
Share of import traffic
Share of export traffic
Port that mainly imports
Top 5 ports with the highest
balance of trade when importing
Port that mainly exports
Top 5 ports with the highest
balance of trade when exporting

Port ranking per type of goods
Milford Haven Amsterdam
$
Data source ©ESPO, ©Autorités Portuaires
Km
®AURH -2014/05 0 25 50 100
2
1 1 1
3 5
2 3 5
5
4
2
1
5
3
4 3
2
London
Le Havre
4 4
Immingham
Felixstowe
Dover
Rotterdam
Zeebrugge
Dunkerque
Calais
Antwerpen
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.
Top 5 des trafics portuaires
d’après ESPO, 2010
Port dans le Top 5
pour 2 types de marchandises ou plus
Top 5 in port traffic
according to ESPO, 2010
Type of freight
Container
Liquid
Bulk
Dry
Bulk
RoRo
5 leading ports
1 for one or several types of freight
Port with two or more types of traffic
in the ranking
Other port with a freight traffic
over 1,000 tonnes
Catégories de
marchandises
Conteneur
Vrac
liquide
Vrac
solide
RoRo
5 premiers ports
1 pour un ou plusieurs types de marchandises
Autre port ayant un trafic
supérieur à 1 million de tonnes

1.3 Organisation of transport infrastructure networks
Inland waterway network: grid analysis method
$ Data sources: Weastflows project,
Km
powered by AURH
®AURH - 2014/06
0 25 50 100
Manchester ship canal
Thames
Seine Valley
Netherlands, Belgium
and Rhine basin
Loire
Saône Valley
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.
Inland waterways concentration
Type of inland waterway concentration*
Total length of network per square
based on inland waterways with a
CEMT class V and over
High Medium Low
No data**
Inland waterway regions
Perimeter
North-West Europe area
*only are considered the relevant infrastructure
for 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
* The ECMT classification indicates the seaworthiness level of the European network of inland waterways.
It has seven classes, from I to VII.
Type of inland waterway concentration*
based on inland waterways with a CEMT class V and over
High Medium Low
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
Concentration de voies navigables*

Road network: grid analysis method
Km
®AURH 0 25 50 100
powered by AURH
- 2014/06
North East of
United Kingdom
South of
United Kingdom
Seine Valley
Benelux
and Rhine basin
South of
Ireland
Saône Valley
Karlsruhe /
Nuremberg axis
Rhine Valley
Belfast area
square
No data**
infrastructure
transportation
infrastructures or
level of
Contrary 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.
Type of road concentration*
High Medium Low
No data**
Road region
Concentration de réseau routier*

Km
®AURH - 2014/06 0 25 50 100
powered by AURH
Railway network: grid analysis method
Centre of United Kingdom
London area
Paris area
Belgium
Netherlands
Duisburg and
Rhine corridor
As 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 Railways infrastructures concentration
whatsoever.
These regions, from this point of view, are in peripheral positions.
It can quite logically be seen that the highest Type concentrations of railway concentration*
are found in
densely populated urban centres. Areas identified Total length are: of network Belgium per square
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.
High Medium Low
No data**
Railway regions
Perimeter
North-West Europe area
*only are considered the relevant infrastructure
for high level of freight transportation
**no data can mean no infrastructures or
no infrastructures relevant for high level of
powered by AURH
Luxembourg
and Metz area
Mannheim and
Ludwigshafen
Type of railway concentration*
High Medium Low
No data**
Concentration de réseau ferroviaire*
Railway region

Transport hubs: grid analysis method
Bristol - Cardiff
$ Km
®AURH - 2014/06
0 25 50 100
powered by AURH
Newcastle and Durham
Manchester - Liverpool - Leeds axis
London area
Seine Valley
Belgium, Netherlands
and Rhine basin
Luxembourg
and Metz area
Rhine
Valley
Glasgow - Edinburgh axis
Shannon, Limerick
and Cork
Portsmouth and Southampton
terminals
No data**
infrastructure
transportation
infrastructures or
level of
A 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.
Type of node concentration*
High No data**
Concentration de noeuds*
basée sur les ports et les terminaux ferroviaires
Nodes region
based on port nodes and railway terminals
Medium Low

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
Amsterdam
Brussels
Luxembourg
Cross analysis of densities
Km
0 25 50 100
Data source ©CorineLandCover 2006/AURH
®AURH -2013/06
Crossing of industrial density and
population density
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
balance betwen
industrial density
of one over the other.
highest level
of population density
lowest level
of industrial
density
population >
industry
+++
++
- ++
-
lowest level of
population density
industry >
population
+++
Inbound/outbound of maritime freight
Main entrance and exit way
and population
density
highest level
of industrial
density
Secondary entrance and exit way

Cross analysis of infrastructure concentrations
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.
d’infrastructures* Shetland, Scotland Shetland
Km
®AURH 0 25 50 100
powered by AURH
- 2014/06
Centre of United Kingdom
London area
Seine Valley
Benelux
and Rhine basin
Glasgow - Edinburgh axis
Saône Valley
concentrations
noeuds
routier,
routier
fluvial
routier
d’infrastructures
transport
transport
pour cette
n’y a pas
d’infrastructure
Infrastructure concentrations*
from crossing the highest network
and nodal concentrations
Multimodal concentrations
High concentration of ports and
railway terminals
High concentration of road, railway
and inland waterway networks
Bimodal concentrations
High concentration of road and railway
networks
High concentration of railway and
inland waterway networks
Single mode concentrations
High concentration of inland waterway
networks
High concentration of road networks
Cumulated infrastructure concentrations
Infrastructure region
No data**
* only relevant freight transport infrastructures have
been considered
** no data can mean no infrastructures or no
infrastructure relevant for

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 connection
Continuities and discontinuities
Size 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 connection
Intermodality
• 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
NETHERLANDS
Amsterdam
NORWAY
Oostende Brugge Dortmund
Köln
Karlsruhe
Peterhead
Londonderry
Southampton
l’Angleterre
Main regions
Ireland
Shannon-Limerick Gateway
Scotland
Liverpool and the west coast
Greater London and central England
Southern England
Southern Netherlands
Benelux and Eastern France
Western Germany
Northern France
Seine Gateway®
Main city or port city
Capital
Km
0 25 50 100
Data source powered by AURH
®AURH -2013/06
Paris
London
Dublin
Brussel
Luxembourg
Metz
Caen
Cork
Mainz
Rouen
Brest
Nancy
Leeds
Dover
Perth
Essen
Nantes
Calais
Dieppe
Galway
Lorient
Glasgow
Belfast
Cardiff Bristol
Grimsby
Mannheim Nüremberg
Duisburg
Plymouth
Kirkwall
Limerick
Aberdeen
Stuttgart
Edinburgh
Sheffield
Waterford
Tynemouth
Lancaster
Liverpool
Rotterdam
Strasbourg
Hartlepool
Birmingham
Portsmouth
Felixstowe
Manchester
Rosslare
Cherbourg
Saint-Nazaire
Le Havre
Dunkerque
Lille
Charleroi Namur
Liège
Dusseldorf
Gent Antwerp
IRELAND
FRANCE
GERMANY
BELGIUM
UNITED
KINGDOM
LUXEMBOURG
DENMARK
SWEDEN
AUSTRIA
ITALY
UNITED
KINGDOM
SWITZERLAND
Shetland, Scotland ShetSlahnedtland

Lists and descriptions of indicators 1
Indicator Description
ID card
Acreage
Area Area of geographical right-of-way
% of the region Share of the geographical zone as compared with the total in NWE
Demography
Number 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 traffic
Maritime 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
Hubs
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 network
Number 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 of the European inland waterway network
Number of ports near a European level inland waterway network (central TEN-T core network)
Airports
Airports 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

Indicator Description
Hubs
Proximity 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 of the European inland waterway network Number of airports near a European level inland waterway network (central TEN-T core network)
Proximity to a maritime port Number of airports near a maritime port
Proximity to a maritime port is calculated as being in a 20 km radius around the airport
Railway terminals
Railway 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 of the European inland waterway network Number of railway terminals near a European level inland waterway network (central TEN-T core network)
Networks
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 km
Unused 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 network
The motorway network corresponds to high-speed roads, including toll ways, that are accessed by a motorway junction
% of dual carriageway network
Share of the road network that is a dual carriageway or motorway
The 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

Identity card
Area Demography Land use Maritime traffic
69,884 km² corresponding to 4,076,557 inhabitants corresponding to 1,594 km² urbanised land corresponding to 2.5% of NWE 42,325 Mt corresponding to
8.6% 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
2.1 Ireland
Nodes Network
P ort nodes: 18 corresponding to 7% of NWE Inland waterways: 0 km corresponding to 0% of NWE and to 0 km for 1,000 km²
18 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 km²
Level 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 km²
waterway 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

!
!
!
!
!
!
"
!
Larne
Galway
Limerick
Waterford
Rosslare Harbour
Londonderry
Dublin
Cork
SShhaannnnoonn
$0 10 20 40
Km
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.

2.2 Shannon-Limerick Gateway
Identity card
7,968 km² corresponding to 373,473 inhabitants corresponding to 146 km² urbanised land corresponding to 0.2% of NWE 9,134 Mt corresponding to
Nodes Network
P ort nodes: 1 corresponding to 0.4% of NWE Inland waterways: 0 km corresponding to 0% of NWE and to 0 km for 1,000 km²
1 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 km²
Level 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 km²
waterway network 80 % are motorways
waterway network
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

!
!
!
Galway
Limerick
Cork
Shannon
$0 10 20 40
Km
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.

2.3 Scotland
Identity card
Nodes Network
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
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
waterway network
0 airport with rail/road connections 3 airports are near the strategic road network

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
Larne
Perth
Glasgow
Aberdeen
Edinburgh
Peterhead
Tynemouth
Hartlepool
Belfast
Kirkwall
$0 10 20 40
Km
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.

2.4 Liverpool and the west coast
Identity card
486 inhabitants per km² 13% of urbanised land
Nodes Network
P ort 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 km²
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 km²
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 km²
0 railway bi-modal terminal is major European terminals (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)
waterway network

!
!
Bradford Leeds
!
!
!
!
!
Sheffield
Lancaster
Fleetwood
Liverpool Manchester
$0 10 20 40
Km
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.

2.5 Greater London and central England
Identity card
31,666 km² corresponding to 21,342,074 inhabitants corresponding to 5,766 km² urbanised land corresponding to 0% of NWE 116,762 Mt corresponding to
674 inhabitants per km² 10% of urbanised land
Nodes Network
P ort 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 km²
14 seaports 5 ferry ports 54.7 % are CEMT Class V and over
waterway network
2 airports with rail/road connections 3 airports are near the strategic road network

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
Manchester
!
!
!
!
Southampton
! !
!
Leeds
Goole
Barnet
Ipswich
Bristol
Croydon
Bradford
Sheffield
Birmingham
Bournemouth
Kingston upon Hull
London
Dover
Newport
Grimsby
Liverpool
Portsmouth
$0 10 20 40
Km
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.

2.6 Southern England
Identity card
Nodes Network
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 km²
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 km²
waterway network

Barnet
!
!
"
!
Southampton
! !
London
Croydon
Bournemouth
Portsmouth
$0 10 20 40
Km
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.

2.7 Southern Netherlands
Identity card
Nodes Network
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 km²
waterway network
2 airports are near the strategic

Den Haag
!
"
!
!
Antwerpen
!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
Essen
Liège
Essen
Brussel
Amsterdam
Köln
Gent
Namur
Duisburg
Rotterdam
Terneuzen
Charleroi
Düsseldorf
$0 10 20 40
Km
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.

2.8 Benelux and Eastern France
Identity card
12.9% of NWE 10.0% of NWE 1,212 km² dedicated to industry corresponding to 14.7% of NWE maritime traffic
Nodes Network
18 inland ports 55 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ network)
4 ports with more than 3 modes 17 ports are near the strategic road network 48 % are part of main European network (part of the ʺTEN-T coreʺ 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 km²
11 railway bi-modal (rail/road) terminal 7 terminals are near the strategic inland
waterway network
5 airports are near the strategic

AURH - Analytical Atlas of freigth transport in NWE

AURH - Analytical Atlas of freigth transport in NWE

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à AURH - Analytical Atlas of freigth transport in NWE

Similaire à AURH - Analytical Atlas of freigth transport in NWE (20)

Plus de AURH - Agence d'urbanisme Le Havre - Estuaire de la Seine

Plus de AURH - Agence d'urbanisme Le Havre - Estuaire de la Seine (20)

Dernier

Dernier (14)

AURH - Analytical Atlas of freigth transport in NWE