673
1 INTRODUCTION
NAPAportsoriginatedanddevelopedprimarilydue
to their favourable geographical position at the
intersection of the traffic direction Adriatic‐Danube
region.ThemaintaskoftheAssociation‐comprising
ports of Ravenna, Venice, Trieste, Koper, Rijeka,
Monfalcone and Chioggia‐is to direct the ports to
operateintheint
ernationalmarketasasinglemulti‐
portsystem.Amongother,harbourmembersagreed
upon strengthening the links between transport
infrastructure of the North Adriatic transport route
andthePan‐Europeantransportcorridors,supporting
inclusionoftheCentralEuropeanTransportCorridor
intheTEN‐Tnetwork(Perkovičet al. 2013,NAPA
2016). Considering their common hinterland area,
NAPA ports act as mut
ually competitive port
systems. On the other hand, they are representing
common competitiveness toward other geo‐traffic
flowswheregoodsfromcountriesofMiddleEurope
aretransported.
The aim of the proposed paper, representing the
continuationofresearch(Kosetal.2016)istojustify
the redirection of the northern t
raffic flow by
redirecting cargoes to the Adriatic Sea, i.e. through
the ports of NAPA (the southern traffic flow).
Structural analysis was conducted by exploring
features of both traffic flows, by determining
representative services for both directions: from the
Northern and Southern European Traffic Flow Land
Segment Analysis as Part of the Redirection
Justification
S.Vilke,D.Brčić&S.Kos
UniversityofRijeka,Rijeka,Croatia
ABSTRACT:Naturalgeotrafficflowsactasoneofthemostimportantfactorsdirectlyaffectingredirectionsof
theworldtransportationroutes.Intermsofdoor‐to‐doormultimodaltransportchain,severalroutesfromFar
EasttowardEuropeandestinationsexist,withNorthernEuropeanrouteactingasprevailingone.Theproposed
pa
per elaborates possibilities of redirection of the traffic flow by directing cargoes to an alternative route
through the Adriatic Sea. The aim is to justify realisation of mentioned possibility in terms of land
transportation segment analysis, i.e. by analysing cargo transportation from ports to final destinations in
Central Europe, pla
ced in natural gravitational hinterland of ports of Northern Adriatic Port Association
(NAPA).Geo‐trafficandlogistics’analysesofNAPAportsarepresentedinthepaper.Containertrafficandits
trendascomparedwithNorthernEuropeanportsareanalysed.Thedevelopmentplansofinlandconnections
arepresentedinfunctionofjust
ificationofthetrafficflowredirection.Amodelfortheselectionandevaluation
oftheoptimalcontainertransportroutebyusingthemultiplecriteriaanalysis(MCA)hasbeenintroducedand
developed.ThemodelwasappliedfortheselectionoftherepresentativeserviceconnectingFarEast(origin)
andthecentralEurope(destination)bydet
ailedanalysisofthelandtransportationsegment.ThePROMETHEE
method was used for the model testing and evaluation. Summarised results are presented and discussed
tendingtoconfirmationofthetrafficflowredirectionjustification.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 11
Number 4
December 2017
DOI:10.12716/1001.11.04.14
674
Far East port of Shanghai as origin towards Central
European economic centre Munich as final
destination. Results are presented and discussed in
termsofredirectionjustification.Analyseshavebeen
made by employing economical, logistic, and
geographical and resource parameters representing
each direction, as shown in the corresponding
chapter. Findings regarding
optimal transport route
determination were verified with the MCA
application, employing the Preference Ranking
Organisation METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations
(PROMETHEE)andGeometricalAnalysisforInteractive
Aid (GAIA) methods. For this purpose, Visual
PROMETHEE software (Mareschal 2013) was used.
The importance of certain groups of criteria and
criteriarespectively,determined
inthemodelforthe
evaluation and selection of a container transport
route, together with parameters’ values of
appropriatecriteriaforthedefinedvariantsolutions,
were used as input data. Groups of criteria were
defined as economic, transport and environmental,
each occupying the appropriate share. Four possible
transportation services (variants of
both directions)
weredeterminedandanalysedthroughtheproposed
model. Findings showed significant bias toward the
southernlines,withbothroadandraillandtransport
component. The summary of findings represents
reasonablepathforfurtherresearchinthe proposed
direction.
2 GEO‐TRAFFICANDLOGISTICS’ASPECTOF
PORTSOFNAPA
In terms of operation and development of Northern
Adriatic ports and corresponding traffic direction,
elementary logistic advantage is their favourable
geographical position. Although ports of NAPA
originate from different countries, each operating
under its specific conditions, geographical location
and relational/respective hinterland are cause of
ports’ common features. NAPA ports are the
main
linkofthesoutherntrafficEuropeanflow,theshortest
natural direction Europe is connected with Asia,
Africa and Australia, linking two economically
complementaryworlds(Kos,Vilke&Brčić2016).
Development of relations in the port services
market has led to other traffic directions coming to
the fore, accentuating
the competitiveness problem
towards the southern traffic flow. The Northern
Atlantic traffic direction (the northern traffic flow)
acts as dominant, with final points being Western‐
European ports of Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp,
BremenandAmsterdam.Inspiteoflongerdistance,
engagement of the northern route is constantly
increasing. Greater distance is compensated
with
other logistic elements, such as contemporary roads
and railway network, developed application of
modern traffic technologies and cargo handling,
logisticandITnetwork,operationorganizationonthe
overall transportation path, active ports’ and
railways’commercialandpricingpolicy,etc.
Table1. Sea distances (in nautical miles) between ports of
Rijeka (Croatia), Trieste (Italy) and Hamburg (Germany),
andsignificantglobalports
_______________________________________________
PortRijeka Trieste Hamburg
_______________________________________________
PortSaid 1254 1294 3551
Bombay4315 4340 6620
Shanghai 8555 8589 10855
NewYork 4785
4 814 3535
Lagos4765
4 999 3720
BuenosAires 6955 6983 6665
Singapore 6275 6308 8585
HongKong7734 7768 10029
_______________________________________________
SeadistancesfromtheSuezChanneltoNorthern
Adriatic ports represents one third of the same
distance towards North Sea European ports.
Considering Northern and Western European ports,
sea distance from Far East ports and Northern
Adriatic ports is approximately 2 000 nautical miles
shorter,resultinginshortertravel/voyagetimeup
to
tendays(Table1).Consideringeconomicalaspectof
fuel expenses, this feature is furthermore expressed.
As for land cargo traffic directions, main Central
European industrial and commercial centres are
closer to the North Adriatic region for 400‐600 km
(Table 2). Despite presented facts, current traffic in
Adriatic region
is not suitable to its favourable
geographicaladvantages,sincethemajority of cargo
flows are transported through northern ports. In
general, goods originating from Danube region are
faster and/or with lower process transported by
longer but more contemporary lowland
transportation roads/lines, and slower and/or with
higher prices by using mountainous transportation
roads/lines towards geographically closer/nearer
NorthernAdriaticports.Besidestransportationprice,
dominant factor for selecting the traffic flow is the
transport speed. Two physically different distances
arebecomingeconomicallyequal,evenexpressingan
economic advantage of the longer transportation
path.
Table2.Railwaydistance(inkm)oftheNorthernAdriatic
and North European ports to specific Central European
economiccentres
_______________________________________________
Railway Rijeka Koper Trieste Hamburg Rostock
_______________________________________________
Budapest 592 634 626 1406 1166
Bratislava 602 650 639 1022 980
Prague 806 854 810 686 644
Vienna 580 599 584 990 984
Linz557 549 517 911 923
Munich 563 599 527 777 876
_______________________________________________
Thisnewlogisticandeconomicprinciplesleadto
changes in movement of cargo flows on the global
market, as well as strengthening of particular traffic
directionstothedetrimentofothers.Movementand
definition of cargo flows and creation of particular
traffic directions are nowadays governed by global
logistics and large
shipping companies according to
their interests. In European and global market, the
role of port systems considerably changed; certain
advantages and drawbacks are evaluated by traffic
and economic and political interests of individual
European countries. For instance, maritime cargo
transportationfromAsiatoMaltaemployingtheship
ofequalsize
andgeneralfeaturesismoreexpensive
than from the same origin to the port of Hamburg,
675
nevertheless the distance of the voyage. In general,
the price of the total transportation from Asia to
Hungary is approximately on the same level if it is
conducted through northern Adriatic or North
WesternEuropeanports.Inthisway,competitiveness
ofnorthernAdriaticportsishampered,whilethesole
selection
of these ports depends primarily on large
Asian carriers, as well as of European Union and
othercountriesgovernments’politics.
3 ANOVERVIEWOFNORTHERNADRIATIC
ANDNORTHERNEUROPEANPORTS’CARGO
TURNOVER
Reflection of business success and development
possibilitiesofeachportisthemovementofitscargo.
Also, in
order to achieve qualitative and long‐term
planning of future activities and development
strategy,thefirststepistomakedetailedanalysisof
itscargo flows movements, as well as to investigate
currentandpotentiallyfuturemarketofportservices.
Domestic traffic from the national foreign trade
represents secure substrate of
goods, subject to
relatively accurate planning of quality and quantity.
Transittrafficasnon‐commodityexportwhichcreates
aforeigncurrencyincomeisofinvaluableimportance
for ports’ operability and further development.
Transit countries can choose between several traffic
directions, therefore ports have to invest great
businessskillsinorder
topreserveacquiredpositions
and strengthening of their own business on the
internationalportservicesmarket.
Table3. Total turnover movement (in 000 tonnes)
through
North European ports and the ports of Rijeka,
Trieste,KoperandVenezia(2011‐2015)(PA2017,PANW
2017,PH2017,PK2017,PR2017,PROT2017,PTS2017,PBB
2017)
_______________________________________________
Ports2011 2012 2013 2014 2015diff.
(%)
_______________________________________________
Hamburg 132.2 130.9 138.1 145.1 137.8 4.2
Bremen 80.6 84.0 78.7 78.3 73.5‐8.8
Amsterdam 93.0 94.3 95.8 98.0 98.86.2
Rotterdam 434.5 441.5 440.5 444.7 466.4 7.3
Antwerp 187.2 184.1 191.0 199.0 208.4 11.4
Total 927.5 934.8 944.0 964.9 984.9 6.2
NAPA 101.0 100.9 108.0 107.7 115.3 14.2
_______________________________________________
The gravitational hinterland of NAPA ports
encompassesareasofAustria,Hungary,Slovakiaand
Czech Republic, South Germany and South Poland,
westernpartsofUkraineandRomania,easternparts
ofSwitzerlandandpartiallyBosniaandHerzegovina
andSerbia.InTable3,comparisonbetweenNorthern
European and NAPA ports’ total cargo turnover
movement
during recent years is presented.
ContainerturnoverispresentedinTable4.
DespitethatNAPAportsarerankedassmalland
medium‐sized ports when compared to world
relations,thereisevidentgrowthoftotalturnoverof
cargoes,higherthanintheNorthEuropeanports.
Table4. Container turnover movement (000 TEU)
through
NorthEuropeanportsandthroughtheportsof
Rijeka,Trieste,KoperandVenezia(2011‐2015)(PA2017,
PANW2017,PH2017,PK2017,PR2017,PROT2017,PTS
2017,PBB2017)
_______________________________________________
Ports
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 diff.
(%)
_______________________________________________
Hamburg
9.08.86 9.26 9.73 8.82‐2.1
Bremen5.96.12 5.84 5.80 5.55‐6.2
Rotterdam 11.9 11.87 11.62 12.30 12.233
Antwerp 8.7 8.64 8.58 8.98 9.6511.4
Total 35.5 35.48 35.29 36.8 36.252.2
NAPA 1.13 1.52 1.65 1.79 2.0178.5
_______________________________________________
Realized container turnover growth of North
Europeanportsinelaboratedperiodwas2.2%,while
the container traffic of NAPA ports grew by 78.5%.
Considering the increase of cargo flows via other
routes,especiallyintheproportionofHungarianand
Austrian cargoes, the necessity of joint action of
NAPAportstowardsthe
competitionisimposed.
4 DEVELOPMENTPLANSOFINLAND
CONNECTIONSBETWEENNAPAPORTS
RIJEKA,KOPERANDTRIESTE
Asstatedpreviously,functionalityofNAPAportsas
multi‐port gateway system is essential. In this
chapter, development plans for land interconnection
ofNAPAportsarepresented.
4.1 TheconstructionofthehighwayRijeka‐
Koper‐
Trieste
MinistryoftheEnvironmentandSpatialPlanningof
the Republic of Slovenia published National Spatial
Development Plan (NDSP) (LUZ 2011) for the
connectionbetween border‐crossing Jelšane with the
Koper‐Ljubljanahighway.Aftertheproposal,initial
highway point with the Republic of Croatia was
defined, while its merging is
foreseen in three
possible junctions: Postojna, Razdrto or Diva ča. The
length of the highway depends upon a specific
junction,andwillamount34to39km.Accordingto
theproject,thehighwayhastypicalcrosssectionwith
four lanes of 3.75 m in length. The project speed
amounts to
120 km/h, with minimal curvature of
horizontal radius being 750 m. There are nine
potential corridors of the Rijeka‐Trieste highway
routes,whicharediscussedintheframeofNSDP,as
presented on Figure 1. Three main and 6 additional
variants are noted for further discussion. According
tonorthern(‘Postojna’)variant,
highwaypassesfrom
IlirskaBistricato Postojna andtheKoper‐Ljubljana
highwayjunction.Thevariantimplyingconnectionin
Postojna consists of four additional variants.
Accordingtosecondvariant,thejunctionwithKoper
‐ Ljubljana highway is situated slightly south in the
Razdrtojunction,whileaccordingtosouthernvaria nt
thehighwaywould
endintheDivačajunction(near
theportofKoper).The‘Divača’variantincludestwo
additionalsub‐variants.
Nowadaysitseemsmorelikely(inpoliticalterms)
thatSloveniawillchoosethehighwayroutetowards
Postojna (Rupa‐Postojna section), producing a
676
highwaytriangle,with apexsituatedbetweenKoper
andLjubljana.
Figure1.Jelšane–Postojna/Razdrto/Divačahighwayroutes
(LUZ2011)
NDSPforeseestwo additional variants whichare
followingtherouteimmediatelyafterborderwiththe
Republic of Croatia from the Jelšane junction to the
IlirskaBistricajunction.Sub‐variantJelšane2ismore
promising due to its simpler technical‐exploitation
features.able.
4.2 TheconstructionoftherailwayRijeka‐KoperTrieste
Construction
of high‐speed railway from Northern
Italy to Ljubljana has been included in Italian and
Sloveniantransportation policies’ priorities as a part
of Priority Project No.6 of the Trans‐European
transport network (TEN ‐T), or Pan‐European
CorridorV,respectively(Figure2).
Figure2. Venice‐Trieste‐Ljubljana high‐speed railway
routeVenecija–Trst–(EC2017)
TheVenice‐Triestesectionoftherailwayshould
extend parallel with A4 highway and with existing
railway along the coastal lowland region. Designed
route envisages passing through the city of
Monfalconeandthroughthetunneltowardsplateau
ofVillaOpicina.TherailwouldextendalongVipava
valley to Ljubljana. In this
way, the rail corridor
would completely bypassed Trieste. The proposed
railway is quite demanding to construct. The most
problematic section is from Trieste rising to the
Ljubljanaplateau.Consideringterrainfeatures,ithas
been accepted that the new railway station will be
constructedneartheexistingonenearVillaOpicina.
Thislocationenablessimpleconnectionwithexisting
railway lines: two tracks towards Trieste, railway
fromtheVenicedirectionandLjubljana,andthetrack
towards Nova Gorica and Villach. From Villa
Opicina, the rail follows the highway and existing
railway line, descending 300 m to Monfalcone, with
anaverageslopeof1.5%.
Figure3. Rijeka – Koper – Trieste railway variants (IGH
2014)
Although not officially defined, the direction of
Rijeka‐Koper‐Trieste railway route has three
potentialoptions/variants(Figure3),asfollows:
Variant 1: Jurdani – Pivka train station – Divača
(51.688km),
Variant 2: Jurdani – Divača train station (66.630
km),
Variant 3: Jurdani – connection on
new Koper –
Divačarailwayline(66.980km).
Constructionofnewdouble‐trackfromtheDivača
train station towards Trieste is planned. New tracks
fromRijekaareplannedinawaythattheconnection
onplannedrailwayisrealized.Throughtheplanned
connection of Trieste‐Aurissina‐Palmanova‐
Venezia
with previously described railway variant,
interconnectionof ports ofRijeka,KoperandTrieste
is ensured. In this way, ports are connected on 6
th
TEN‐T network corridor. As for port of Rijeka, it
conjugatesonanewrailwayRijeka‐Zagreb(EC2017,
Dundović et al 2010, Vilke et al. 2011). These new
corridors’ variants are, among other indices (as
explained in the following text),used as parameters
forfurtheranalyses.
677
5 THEOPTIMALTRANSPORTROUTE
DETERMINATION
A prerequisite for the implementation of MCA in
transport planning is the determination of criteria,
theirimportanceandfunction.
Table 5. The model for the evaluation and selection of a
containertransportroute
Since preferences are perceived as subjective
factor, intentions of a decision‐maker (or group of
experts) are considered by definition of criterial
significancedependingontheirweightingcoefficients
(Roubens 1982). The model for the selection and
evaluationoftheelaboratedcontainertransportroute
that consists of groups of criteria and
criteria
respectivelyisshowninTable5.
For the purpose of the container transport route
selectionandtheMCAmethodapplication,groupsof
criteria have been defined according to the
informationobtainedfromanumberofexpertsinthe
fieldoftrafficandcargorouteplanning.Acoefficient
of importance (weighting
coefficient) has been
assigned to each criteria and group of criteria,
respectively,significanceofwhichwascomparedand
the weighting coefficients normalized. In this way,
theirsumamountsto100%,aswellastheweighting
coefficientsofcriteriawithinaspecificgroup.
5.1 Analysisandevaluationoftheoptimizationmodel
Twomaintrafficflowsweretakenintoconsideration.
PortofShanghaiwaschosenasreferenceoriginpoint,
with Munich as a final destination. As a
representative transhipment port for northern traffic
flow port of Hamburg was selected, while port of
Koperwaschosenforthesoutherndirection.Among
specified transport corridors
four representative
solutionshavebeenchosenasrankingvariants,with
railway and road inland transport connections
applied into the model. Analysing existing and
planned global container line services, the freight
transportationdirections (solutions)weredetermined
as representative, each defined by group of criteria,
criteriaandweightingcoefficients,respectively(Table
6).
A corresponding object function was assigned to
eachcriterion.Thevariantswerechosenasfollows:
VariantI:Shanghai–Koper–Munich(Truck)
VariantII:Shanghai–Koper–Munich(Train)
Variant
III:Shanghai–Hamburg–Munich(Truck)
VariantIV:Shanghai–Hamburg–Munich(Train)
The economic criteria C1 is expressed
quantitatively in accordance with the data received
from logistics and forwarding agents. The costs of
freight are the costs for the carriage of 1 forty‐foot
equivalent unit(FEU)
through the defined transport
routes expressed in USD. To criteria C2 and C3
appropriate weighting coefficients were assigned
accordingtoaratingscalefrom0to10.Thecostsof
exploitation include the costs of management and
maintenance of road routes Koper – Munich and
Hamburg – Munich and railway
lines respectively.
The possibility of developing logistics – business
zones in the region is concerning the inland areas
closetotheroadandrailconnections.
AtrafficcriterionC4evaluatesinteractionofroad
andrailtrackswith other transportbranches. It was
assessedmorefavourablyfornortherninlandroutes,
since they
fit more efficiently in the existing traffic
network.
Table6.Criteriaevaluationforvariantsolutions
678
Traffic criteria C6 and C7were calculated on the
basis of average speed of container carrier vessel,
typical for elaborated directions/services (21 knots).
Hence,timespentinnavigationamountsto21day‐9
hours‐7 minutes with sea distance of 10 775.6
nauticalmilesforthenortherntrafficflow.As
forthe
direction through Adriatic Sea, sea navigation time
amounts to 16 days‐22 hours‐50 minutes, with
distanceof8543.4nauticalmiles.
Safety of transport criteria for each variant was
assessed in accordance with existing land lines’
technical elements, especially data regarding total
distances along with longitudinal inclination
and
theircurvaturefeatures.
The environmental criteria (C10‐C15) were
obtained using (EWI 2014) software, providing
calculations of energy consumptions and emissions
duringeachtransporttype,includingterminalinter‐
operations. All environmental parameters were
calculated for complete Well‐To‐Wheels (WTW) fuel
cycles, comprising of Tank‐To‐Wheel (TTW) and
Well
‐To‐Tank(WTT)fuelcycleprocesses(EWI2014,
TIAXLLC2007).
5.2 Selectionoftheoptimaltransportroute
Theparametersofthecriteriadeterminedinprevious
chapter have been used for evaluation process of
transportroutes,inordertoselecttheoptimalvariant.
The values of the weighting coefficients of
group of
criteria and criteria respectively were obtained by
expertsinthefieldoftrafficandcargorouteplanning.
Figure4.Resultsofcontainertransportroutevariants’
MCA
Figure 4 presents obtained values for individual
variantsaswellastheirpositiveandnegativeflows.
Agraphicaloverviewofthenumericalvalues of net
flows is shown on Figure 5. The Variant 2 ranks as
optimalselectionwithavalue
ofthenetflowof0.35,
withtheVariant1onasecondplacewiththenetflow
valueof0.1.Bothvariantsrefertothesoutherntraffic
flow.
Figure5.OverviewoftheconductedMCA
In selecting of potential variants of the land
segment track, and in simultaneous combinations of
criteria, the best solution represents the railway line
Koper‐MunichorVariant2respectively.Moreover,
cargo flows which provide sea container transport
from Shanghai to Koper and land
transportation to
final destination are evaluated with positive values,
being convenient for selection. On the contrary,
Northern transport routes have negative net value.
Morefavourableresults recognizedinVariants2and
1 are a consequence of better evaluation of most of
criteria as compared with other two variants.
Evaluation of environmental
criteria represents the
crucial element for obtaining best results. Variants
comprising southern traffic flow (both types of
transport in land segment) achieved significantly
better results. Southern traffic flows are producing
considerablylessharmfulexhaustemissionsandless
energyconsumption.Southernroadvariantproduces
55tonsofCO2lessthanthe
northernone,whilethe
rail variant produces 45 tons less of CO2. SO2
emissionsarelowerfor476kg(roadvariant)andfor
478 kg (rail variant) respectively. NO emissions are
685kghigherintheroadvariantand656 kg higher
on the rail, when compared with the southern flow.
Southern flow energy consumption is lower for
736.879 MJ (road variant) and for 609.942 MJ (rail
variant),respectively.Summarizedresultsarelogical
considering involved distances; southern transport
corridorwiththeroadcomponentis4400kmshorter
than the northern one, while considering the rail
component,distancesavingamountsto
4338km.
Figure6.OverviewoftheMCAresultsin‘u,v’GAIA
plane
Directinterpretationofamulti‐criteriaanalysisin
a GAIA ‘u, v’ plane is shown on Figure 6. The
dispersionofvariants meanstheirdiversityinterms
of numerical values while clustering signifies the
similarities. The same applies
for the criteria:
mutually closer criteria have similar numerical
values. Variants 1 and 2 are directed towards right
planesidegivingpositiveresults,whilethedirection
ofdecisionaxis(C14/redvector)prioritizesVariant2.
Direction of majority of Variant 4 criteria vectors
impliesitsdominationovertheVariant3.Vectoraxes
of individual criteria are close or are coinciding,
meaning that they equally affect the respective
variant. Analogously,dispersed criteria are affecting
therespectivevariantwithdifferentintensities.
679
Although the Variant 2 (rail component of the
southernflow)isleastexpensive,thefinalsequenceof
variants was not affected by freight rates. For
instance,Shanghai‐KoperfreightperFEUamounts
to1800USD,being150USDlessthantheShanghai‐
Hamburgfreight.
Figure 7. Overview of the sensitivity analysis of MCA
results
Road transport of the same unit from Koper to
Munichamountsto1220USD,being425USDhigher
than Hamburg‐Munich route, nevertheless greater
distance (for app. 50%). Similarly, rail transport
freight per FEU is 115 USD higher on the Koper‐
Munich route, although the distance of this route is
more
than170kmsmaller.OnFigure7,alterationof
ranking with different weights of costs of freight
criterion is presented within the economic group of
criteria. The Weight Stability Interval (WSI) ranges
from0.13to22.02%,meaningthatVariant1willreach
the second ranking in MCA when the weight
coefficient (freight cost) exceeds the upper range
value.
6 CONCLUSION
Logisticprinciplesoftheglobaltransportationmarket
areputtingnaturalfeaturesofthecertainareainthe
backgroundintheprocessoftrafficcargodirections’
selection.Thetendencyoftheproposedpaperwasto
elaborate other features potentially affecting the
selection
of the particular transportation route. Two
representative cargo directions were analysed,
originatingintheFarEastbutdivergingattheexitof
theSuezChannel,tofinallyfinishinEuropeaninland:
TheprevailingonewithNorthernEuropeanportsas
transhipment points, and other passing through
Northern Adriatic ports. Conducted structural,
comparative and MCA analyses and corresponding
models showed that the possible redirection of the
certain share of cargo transportation can be firmly
justifiedbycomprisingeconomic,transportationand
environmental influential factors. Several studied
transportation variants which were defined in the
paper. The optimal container transport route
connectingtheFarEastand
CentralEurope wouldbe
the one which takes into consideration the inland
railway transport Koper – Munich. This route has
beennamedthesoutherntrafficflow,withregardtothe
northern direction passing through North European
ports.Theproposedredirectionrepresentsreasonable
contribution to sustainable transportation
improvements, setting NAPA ports,
their
development and their mutual commitment at the
forefront.
REFERENCES
Dundović,Č.,Vilke,S.&Šantić,L.(2010)Thesignificance
ofhigh‐efficiency railwayZagreb‐Rijekafor the portof
Rijeka development. Pomorstvo – Scientific Journal of
MaritimeResearch.24(2):165‐188
EcoTransit World Initiative (EWI). (2014) Ecological
Transport Information Tool for Worldwide Transports:
MethodologyandDataUpdate.Hanover:
IVEmbH.
EuropeanCommission(EC2017)[Online]Priorityprojects.
Availableat:http://bit.ly/2o5YCg6(01January2017)
Institut IGH (IGH) (2014). Studija okvirnih mogućnosti
povezivanja sustava sjeverno jadranskih luka
željezničkomprugomvisokeučinkovitosti.Zagreb:IGH.
Kos,S.,Vilke,S.&Brčić,D.(2016)RedirectionoftheWorld
Traffic Flow Far East – Europe via the Adriatic Sea.
ATINER’sConferencePaperSeries,No:TRA2016‐1985.
Athens:ATINER
Ljubljanski urbanistični zavod (LUZ) (2011) Dopolnjena
pobuda za Državni prostorski načrt za odsek AC
Postojna/Divača‐Jelšane. Technical Report. Ljubljana:
LUZ
Mareschal,B.(2013)VisualPROMETHEE1.4.Framingham:
VPSolutions.
North
Adriatic Ports Association (NAPA) (2017) [Online]
Availableat:www.portsofnapa.com/(05February2017)
Perkovič, M., Twrdy, E., Batista, M., Jankowski, S. &
Gucma,L.(2013)TheIncreaseinContainerCapacityat
Sloveniaʹs Port of Koper. International Journal on
Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
(TransNav).7(3):441‐448.
Port of Amsterdam (PA). (2017) [Online] Available at:
www.portofamsterdam.com(09February2017)
Port of Antwerpen (PANW). (2017) [Online] Available at:
www.portofantwerp.com(11February2017)
Port of Hamburg (PH). (2017) [Online] Available at:
www.hafen‐hamburg.de/(11February2017)
PortofKoper(PK).(2017)[Online]Availableat:www.luka‐
kp.si(05February2017)
Port
of Rijeka (PR). (2017) [Online] Available at:
www.lukarijeka.hr(09February2017)
Port of Rotterdam (PROT). (2017) [Online] Avaiable at:
https://www.portofrotterdam.com(05February2017)
Port of Trieste (PTS). (2017) [Online] Available at:
www.porto.trieste.it(03February2017)
PortsofBremen& Bremerhaven(PBB).(2017)Availableat:
www.bremenports.de/en(01February2017)
Roubens,M.
Preferencerelationsonactions andcriteriain
multi‐criteria decision making. // European Journal of
OperationalResearch,10(1982.),pp.51‐55.
TIAXLLC.(2007)Fullfuelcycleassessment:well‐to‐wheels
energyinputs,emissions,andwaterimpacts.Consultant
Report.Cupertino:TiaxLLC.
Vilke, S., Šantić, L. & Glad, M.
(2011) Redefining of the
Rijeka Railway Junction. Promet – Traffic &
Transportation.23(6):443‐451.
