Round 1, Consensus 1 Analysis

Of the total 33 returned responses, 27 agreed, 4 disagreed and 2 were not sure how to answer. The importance of the first question in Round 1 of the Dry Port Delphi is to determine if the Delphi candidates consider that Dry ports is an appropriate solution for solving container terminals‘ capacity problem, reducing port congestion and over delays. If the Delphi panel had returned a disagreement result for Round 1, Question 1 statement, it may have had a result of altering the perception of the research theory itself which is based on determining decision policies for building Dry Ports as a suggested solution for capacity problems. In the first instance the agreement result of this statement indicates that the Dry Ports could be a possible solution. The following text will analyse some of the opinions retuned by the panel members.

Agree Arguments:

Agree Arguments: Thread A

“Dry Port is one of the alternatives available”

“It’s an alternative especially for old port congestion and restriction of hinterland”

Agree Arguments: Thread B

“It differs from port to port depending on conducting feasibility study that will compare between marine expansions and establishing dry ports”

“I think, investing in the main ports is important also so, invest in both parallel”

Agree Arguments: Thread C

116

“Due to limited spaces in ports therefore dry ports are the new lungs for maritime ports”

“No available spaces now in maritime ports” “It may solve the capacity problem”

Agree Arguments: Thread D

“Because it might help to reduce the volume of containers in the port and meanwhile to reduce logistics cost to the factories located in its area” “In-addition of better choices for the allocation of logistics services in the hinterland connections”

There were four main threads of opinions identified among the opinions returned in agreement with Round 1, Question 1. Of the 33 returned responses, 27 agreed that dry ports are the most suitable solution for the capacity problem and for reducing port congestion. Nevertheless, this opinion seems to include some objections. Consequently, the overall result is that dry ports could be an appropriate solution but with considerations that need to be further addressed and examined. It is significant to identify those considerations for any further research, future policy recommendations or developmental strategies regarding investing in Dry Ports.

The Thread A opinion agreed that dry ports are a solution, but not the only solution which is a true and logical outcome. It was discussed in the literature review that dry ports are one of the suggested solutions; there are six alternative solutions which are physical expansion, using automation and new technology, improving the utilization of the available resources, floating and dry docks and investing in Dry ports.

Thread B opinion discusses the importance of investing in the marine port itself as well as dry ports, and experts refer to physical expansion, which is also one of the suggested solutions. But this research seeks a solution that appears and can be applicable in many ports where there is no space for expansion due to

117

hinterland or landlocked countries. This means that the operators are restricted with space expansion and also searching for a solution with a reasonable cost. The opinion in thread C accentuates the importance of dry port implementation, which is already applied and proved successful in some ports around the world. In addition, experts argued about space limitations in many ports, especially old ones; therefore, dry ports are the new ‗lungs‘ for maritime ports in order to cope with the increasing number of handled containers, port congestions and delays. Thread D arguments take a different approach on the agreement as they highlight the fact of allocating logistic services in the hinterland connections and reducing logistic costs to the factories located in its area. Meanwhile, this means a shift of large number of container outside port area.

Disagreement Arguments: Disagree Arguments: Thread A

“Dry port are only a small part of the solution and only applicable in certain instances”

“It depends on the context - dry ports might or might not be most suitable” “It is not necessarily the "most" suitable solution”

Disagree Arguments: Thread B

“Dry ports especially close dry ports are cost adding nodes, they are useful as short term solution but not long term”

The disagreement arguments were divided into two threads: Thread A‘s opinion was that dry ports might or might not be the most suitable solution depending on the situation, but this argument does not contradict with this research theory, because this research is about identifying policies that assist terminal operators in taking such strategic decisions. Therefore, it could be very successful to some terminals and not for another, but the significance here is to take the right decision.

118

Thread B opinion assumes that costs of implementing dry ports especially a close dry port will be a cost adding node, it will be useful as a short term solution. Henttu et al. (2010) tried to find out if a dry port solution could decrease costs of transport, especially external costs. They concluded in their research that was applied to the city of Kouvola (Finland), the financial and environmental impacts (CO2 emissions, congestion, accidents and noise) of a dry port implementation decreased total costs of transport in terms of both the internal and external costs. Cost-efficiency of the transport system can be improved with dry port implementation. They suggested using more distant dry ports than a dry port situated near the seaport.