Transportation Linkages Between Cities in China, Japan, and Korea
2) Characteristics of logistics and transportation linkages in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone
The Yokohama port processes most of the Chinese containers bound for Japan, followed by the Kobe, Nagoya, Osaka, and Hakata ports; in particular, the Yokohama and Kobe ports manage half of the total trading volume.
The Shanghai port handles most of the Japanese containers bound for China, followed by the Qingdao, Dalian, and Tianjin ports. The Shanghai and Qingdao ports process approximately 40% of the total trading volume.
China-Japan container demand is recording an explosive growth. Such growth is driven by products with high value–added (electronics and semiconductors). Thus, the basis for the creation of an express container transport system between Hakata and Shanghai has been established.
For the first time in 54 years, a regular direct route for maritime freight transport (express container shipping) between China and Japan was opened in November 2003.
The express container transport system between China and Japan is also called "Shanghai Super Express." It is a roundtrip route connecting the Hakata and Shanghai ports. It takes half the shipping time between Tokyo and Shanghai (from 8 to 4 days).
2) Characteristics of logistics and transportation linkages in the Pan
Chapter 3• Establishing Logistics and Transportation Linkages 89
<Table 3- 7> Container Transportation Volume Between Key Ports in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone (Korea → China; 2006)
Unit: TEU
Classification Gwangyang Ulsan Incheon Busan Pyeongtaek Subtotal Dalian 10,914 4,775 39,065 129,579 8,241 192,574 Qingdao 30,102 2,636 96,244 244,659 31,119 404,760
Tianjin
Port 4,433 354 1,828 35,419 30,974 73,008 Tianjin New
Tianjin
Port 13,664 4,543 43,173 186,836 1,207 249,423
Weihai 461 - 58,053 9,147 5,068 72,729
Yantai 116 2 45,978 22,315 5,256 73,667
Subtotal 59,690 21,310 284,341 627,955 81,865 1,066,661
※Shanghai 45,280 17,869 39,604 235,200 11,081 349,034
※Ningbo 21,122 8,918 16,001 84,182 56 130,279
Total 126,092 39,097 339,946 947,337 93,002 1,545,474
Source: Customs Office Trade Freight Statistics, 2007.
Note: The Shanghai and Ningbo ports are not included in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone.
Their information is included to demonstrate the overall logistics and transportation linkage trends.
<Table 3- 8> Container Transportation Volume Between Key Ports in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone (China → Korea; 2006)
Unit: TEU
Classification Gwangyang Ulsan Incheon Busan Pyeongtaek Subtotal Dalian 12,438 323 29,923 207,838 7,772 258,294 Qingdao 44,387 1,741 75,390 319,597 31,726 472,841
Tianjin Port 5,792 3,306 1,219 80,225 30,916 121,458 Tianjin New
Tianjin Port 13,379 624 29,472 374,320 72 417,867
Weihai 79 4 57,598 5,745 6,865 70,291
Yantai 27 134 43,458 14,499 5,760 63,878 Subtotal 76,102 6,132 237,060 1,002,224 83,111 1,404,629
※Shanghai 6,556 - 45,916 349,023 13,337 414,832
※Ningbo 1,508 578 8,032 119,430 - 129,548
Subtotal 84,166 6,710 291,008 1,470,677 96,448 1,949,009 Source: Customs Office Trade Freight Statistics, 2007.
Note: The Shanghai and Ningbo ports are not included in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone. Their information is included to demonstrate the overall logistics and transportation linkage trends.
The trading volume between key ports in China and Korea in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone was 3.5 million TEU. This made up approximately 70% of the total trading volume between the two countries in 2006. Freight from China was about 1.26 times bigger than that from Korea.
A study was conducted on the logistics movement between key ports in Japan and Korea. Results showed that freight was evenly distributed between the Fukuoka, Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, and Kobe ports in Japan.
At least 4/5 of the total freight was concentrated on Busan Port in Korea.
he trading volume between key ports in Japan and Korea was 1.1 million TEU. This accounted for approximately 60% of the total trading volume between the two countries in 2006.
Freight from Japan was about 1.16 times bigger than that from Korea.
<Table 3- 9> Container Transportation Volume Between Key Ports in Japan and Korea (Korea → Japan; 2006)
Unit: TEU
Classification Gwangyang Ulsan Incheon Busan Pyeongtaek Subtotal Fukuoka 2,769 - 51 107,039 11 109,870 Nagasaki 2 - - 2,901 - 2,903
Shimonoseki 78 - - 22,560 - 22,638
Kitakyushu 556 - 223 31,267 - 32,046
Subtotal 3,405 0 274 163,767 11 167,457
※Tokyo 4,437 2,118 4,856 78,369 73 89,853
※Yokohama 1,953 784 2,100 69,270 - 74,107
※Shimizu 553 893 376 30,652 - 32,474
※Nagoya 2,399 2,939 3,479 67,842 3,917 80,576
※Osaka 2,214 908 1,106 69,691 212 74,131
※Kobe 1,273 854 591 48,258 231 51,207
Total 16,234 8,496 12,782 527,849 4,444 569,805
Source: Customs Office Trade Freight Statistics, 2007.
Note: The Tokyo, Yokohama, and Kobe ports are not included in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone. Their information is included to demonstrate the overall logistics and
transportation linkage trends.
Chapter 3• Establishing Logistics and Transportation Linkages 91
<Table 3- 10> Container Transportation Volume Between Key Ports in Japan and Korea (Japan → Korea; 2006)
Unit: TEU
Classification Gwangyang Ulsan Incheon Busan Pyeongtaek Subtotal Fukuoka 8,033 1,235 303 108,012 - 117,583 Nagasaki 72 846 - 1,502 - 2,420
Shimonoseki - - 9 22,597 - 22,606
Kitakyushu 4,766 900 186 36,752 - 42,604
Subtotal 12,871 2,981 498 168,863 - 185,213
※Tokyo 12,028 9,569 3,459 62,544 - 87,600
※Yokohama 3,501 1,632 5,623 86,017 1 96,774
※Shimizu 2,460 2,628 352 18,246 - 23,686
※Nagoya 5,905 6,960 4,238 63,168 2,479 82,750
※Osaka 13,939 5,295 2,231 93,075 374 114,914
※Kobe 5,211 1,331 2,049 63,993 460 73,044
Subtotal 55,915 30,396 18,450 555,906 3,314 663,981
Source: Customs Office Trade Freight Statistics, 2007.
Note: The Tokyo, Yokohama, and Kobe ports are not included in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone. Their information is included to demonstrate the overall logistics and
transportation linkage trends.
For the China-Japan freight transport, the volume of freight originating in China was significantly greater than that from Japan.
Container transportation statistics between China and Japan since 2004 were reviewed. Results showed that cargo movement between the two countries depended heavily on Shanghai Port for both final arrival and initial departure. In fact, Shanghai Port constituted approximately 45% of the total trading volume. The tendency of freight to be concentrated on the Shanghai and Qingdao ports persists.
The Dalian and Tianjin ports process around 10~12% of the China-Japan container volume in China; approximately 50%
of China-related trading in Japan is handled in the Yokohama and Kobe ports.
<Table 3- 11> Container Transportation Volume Between Key Ports in China and Japan (2005)
Unit: 1,000 TEU, %
China → Japan Japan → China Total Classification Trading
Volume Change Trading
Volume Change Trading
Volume Change
Tianjin 168 9.0% 124 2.2% 292 6.0%
Qingdao 296 13.5% 65 2.5% 361 11.3%
Dalian 220 -1.1% 86 -9.6% 306 -3.7%
※Shanghai 930 15.4% 441 22.9% 1,371 17.7%
※Ningbo, etc. 391 1.9% 134 -4.0% 525 0.3%
Subtotal 2,005 9.7% 849 9.2% 2,854 9.6%
Source: Eurostat, 2007.
The logistics network in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone was also analyzed. The analysis focused on the Dalian, Tianjin, and Lianyungang ports of China.
Results showed that Dalian Port managed cargo transport to and from Japan and Korea based on its coastal linkage with the Qingdao and Tianjin ports.
Clearly, the three hub ports in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone had poor direct connection with the key ports in Japan and Korea.
A feeder container shipping network between key hub ports should be built in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone. This will allow the efficient expansion of the region’s logistics linkage and enable securing stable transportation routes.
Except for the domestic coastal routes, Tianjin Port is directly connected to the Incheon and Busan areas of Korea. Qingdao Port is directly linked to the Northern Kyushu and Osaka areas of Japan.
Ultimately, the logistics network connection in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone is enabled mostly through arterial shipping routes. Such routes bring together hub ports such as the Shanghai and Busan ports. This suggests a heavy dependence on the international logistics network.
One characteristic of the airway transportation in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone is that passenger transport and freight transport for the China-Korea route were 3 and 3.7 times bigger than passenger transport and freight transport, respectively, for the Japan-Korea route.
Chapter 3• Establishing Logistics and Transportation Linkages 93
Key airports in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone
· China: Beijing, Tianjin, Dalian, Yantai, Weihai
· Korea: Incheon, Gimhae
· Japan: Fukuoka, Gumamoto, Kagoshima
For passenger transport between key airports in China and Korea, different local airports in Tianjin, Dalian, Yantai, and Weihai generated demand that was comparable to China’s Beijing Airport. In contrast, 90% of the demand in Korea was concentrated on Incheon Airport. No international routes were developed through Gimhae (Busan) except the connection to Beijing and Tianjin. There was practically no demand for international flight service through other local airports.
<Table 3- 12> Airway Transportation Volume Between Key Airports in the Pan Yellow Sea Zone (2005)
Unit: Persons, Ton
Classification Incheon Airport Gimhae Airport Subtotal Beijing Passenger 546,167 113,375 695,542
Freight 24,137 1,672 25,809
Tianjin Passenger 172,910 647 137,557
Freight 13,088 4 13,092
Dalian Passenger 77,045 - 77,045
Freight 3,815 - 3,815
Yantai Passenger 81,235 - 81,235
Freight 2,975 - 2,975
Weihai Passenger 36,679 - 36,679
Freight 590 - 590 Subtotal Passenger 914,036 114,022 1,028,058
Freight 44,605 1,676 46,281
Shanghai Passenger 634,868 125,248 760,116
Freight 57,231 2,090 59,321
Total Passenger 1,548,904 239,270 1,788,174
Freight 101,836 3,766 105,602
Source: Airportal (KCADA, 2008).
Note: Gwangju Airport has an operational international terminal. Note, however, that the number of international passengers to and from Japan and Bohai Gulf Zone of China is negligible, i.e., 700 per year.
The China-Korea freight transport between key airports in the