Фрагмент из кейса
Still waiting to hear back on Newcastle container terminal |
Материал из категории News of logistics (in English) |
11.05.2013 21:51 |
A container terminal at Low-cost access to a container terminal is a vital ingredient in the successful future of any economic region worldwide – container ports drive new supply chains, markets and infrastructure.
If there are valid reasons for not building a container terminal at It is relevant to consider why the former Sixteen years ago, BHP was proposing to build a container terminal on the site but, unexpectedly, gave it to the NSW government, in 2001, which dumped the proposal. The state government accepted ownership of the site’s industrial contamination after 84 years of steelmaking. Last year, the Australian government claimed that a No evidence has been provided in support this claim. The Australian government says its 1.2 million TEU intermodal terminal at Moorebank is necessary for expanding Port Botany container terminal. The intermodal terminal ”would provide a major boost to national productivity, helping to reduce business costs and the adverse environmental and social impacts of road transport, as well as creating jobs in south west Sydney”. These claims are said to be backed by a “significant amount of research”. Unfortunately, this research has been redacted from the ”Moorebank Detailed Business Case”. Consequently, it is not possible to test the Australian government’s claims for the proposed Moorebank intermodal terminal. Moreover, Port Botany’s traffic congestion is simply being transferred to Moorebank – seeMoorebank Intermodal’s Key Assumptions Requires Deeper Scrutiny, April 2013. Other than for the area served by the small By 2030, annual container movements are expected to be 5 million TEU – up from 2 million TEU in 2012 to 7 million TEU. At 1.2 million TEU, the Moorebank intermodal terminal is too small and will be unable to cope with Port Botany throughput, which in 2020 is estimated to be 3.2 million TEU. Both the Australian and NSW governments support an intermodal terminal at Eastern Creek; and both support a freight rail by-pass of The likely route is from Glenfield in south western Eastern Creek would be capable of handling all of It would not be necessary to maintain multiple, small-scale intermodals scattered throughout Paying for the freight rail line between Glenfield and The outer wester If rall was to absorb 30% of the forecast growth in Since the Australian and NSW governments are unwilling to examine the economic implications to NSW of a freight rail by-pass of Sydney and a single intermodal terminal for all of Sydney’s requirements at Eastern Creek, and they cannot justify their opposition to a Newcastle container terminal, perhaps it’s time for the Australian Productivity Commission and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take an interest.
Source: Последние похожие материалы:
Более поздние похожие материалы:
|
Последние новости на сайте
Пример материалов из категории "Задачи по логистике"
Facebook-страница
Фрагмент из задачи
Результаты тестов
Последние результаты | ||
---|---|---|
<-->Стоит ли Вам выбирать профессию менеджера по логистике? | 64.00 % | |
<->(Лог-М) Тема 10. Складська логістика (10 тест.завдань) | 40.00 % | |
<->(Log) Test 01. Warehouse and Logistics (10 tests) | 90.00 % |
Перейти к тестам |