OKAMOTO, Naohisa SATO, Takao 1 1-15m 5TEU 2251% 2 99.8%8 6 16 1,5 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 HongKong Singapore Kaohsiung Pusan Yokohama Kobe 1, 5 6,TEU 5,TEU 4,TEU 3,TEU 2,TEU 1,TEU 1,TEU 1973 1975 1985 1995 65 7 75 8 85 9 95 2 5 Containerization Year Book 199695 12 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn
Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn 13 2 2.1 1989 1 2.2 3
2.3 3 2.3.1 a b c a b c d a b c c1 c2 b1 b2 b a b 2.3.2 12 34 567 8 1 2 3 4 1 4 4-1 14 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn
4-2 123 4 2 5 6 7 8 2/36 3 3.1 2.3 1 2 3 4-1 4 4-2 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn 15
1997 11215 2.7G/T TEU2,7 OD 4-1 4-2 TEU 2, 1, 15 21 25 TEU 442TEU1843TEU i ii iiiteu TEU 4ab TEU 4a 4b ii TEU 2 3 3 TEU 2, 41 TEU 5 12.1+34./1*d/R 16.3 1, 3 4 5 6 1TEU 1 34TEU21TEU 1 6.76+17.6/1*d/R 8.5 2 4.7+1.1/1*d/R 4.9 4 2.56+5.96/1*d/R 2.9 5 2.18+4.93/1*d/R 2.4 drr1 5TEU 7%3 4 16 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn
2 1.12.2831 -.1487 2 9.492.6854 -.6511 3 8.192.5911-427 4 1.89.99-1.292 5 7.153.6663-2891 6 9.515 1.45-1.256 7 12.46 2.331-2.81 8 1.17 1.218-1.144 9 12.7 1.213-1.28 1 -.9132 4 -.2846 2 -.685 5-1.1114 3 -.7868 6-1.274 12t 4 3~5% 3% 3 1.1 4 15 2 82 5 14 3 32 6 5 a b c 1/2 16/362/36 N/T 5%4/5 1/5 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn 17
3.2 4 4 5TEU 2-15m -15m 321 4.1 1 3 21 21 1 A1 A2 A1A2 2 B B 3 C1 C2 C3 C4 4-1 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 4-2 D6 D6 5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 6 F2 F3 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 7 G1 G2 G2 G3 G4 8 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H1 H11 H12 18 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn
5 6 21 15TEU1.65% 211997237 TEU292TEU 25TEU 2 1 217-14m5TEU -15m5TEU 13 12 3 52 GDP1 GDPUS$ 21.1 3.5 5.397.3 GDPUS$ 1.831.8 4.14*1 6.994 1515 121 24 2 2444 5%21 29 4 2 12TEU3~5TEU 3~ 4TEU 11 292 TEU -15m 5TEU 3~ 4TEU 26TEU 12TEU 8 4.2 9b 1 25% TEU 25 25 1.1%.1% 2% 2% GDP GDP. 11 1 12 2 13 3 14 4 15 5 3 8 6 4 21 3 8 6 4 21 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn 19
Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn 2 3% 5% 5% 8 24 5.1%17 491 4.3 11 5TEU 29. 15.6 55.3 4.726.618.9 66.8 15.639 2.1 9.28.119.4 13.74.1 2.74.8 TEU % TEU 1TEU 1TEU 1TEU 1 2 3 4 5 6.7 47.5 19.4 16.5 9.9 1 137 357 667 862 133 588 4143 961 817 659 8.5 1493.1 641.2 73.9 2918.8 588 4143 585 497 299 6112 8.5 1493.1 39.1 428.3 526.8 2918.8 682 4829 773 657 6919 93.4 1742.8 516. 566.5 2918.8 977. 153. 294. 78.8 2793. 933.2 141.5 294. 78.8 2742.7 17.6 156.2 294. 78.8 292.3 4. 294. 369.2 8.7 4.7 84.8 9.2 78.8 3.7 294. 313.9 7.8 38.4 77.2 8.7 78.8 3.7 294. 3189.4 8.5 43.4 85.2 9.8 78.8
25.3 44.7 1.5 7 1TEU 1TEU 32TEU12 3513 688 4.4 5TEU 26TEU1997 1% 13 12.2 19.3 62.4 86.3 165, *156, 65, *146, 165, *156, 211, 1) 2) 3) 29..3 55.3 11.2 29. 66.8 4) 4-1) 55.3 4.7 26.6 18.9 15.6 4-2) 5) 1.4 13.6 15. 3.7 3.7 6).1.2.8 3.8 4.9 5.3 5.3 7) 8) 29. 6.6 8. 14.5.1.4 1. 1.3.8 1.6 1.8 1..5 5.4.3 6.6 11.3.2 2.1 8.2 13.7 4.1 6.4 8.1 2.7 4.8 9.1 9.7 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn 21
118.7 14 29. 19.3 248.758.4 2 159.6 5 5) 6) 12.8 3.4 16.2 34.8 1.2 7. 68. 7) 8) 3.4 1.2 7..2 5. 5..3 21.6 84.6 2.7 1.6 5 5.1 1) 2) 3).3 12.2 3.6 123.6 4) 4-1) 33.8 1.2 57.9 41.2 143.1 4-2) 27.3 3 7.6 9.6 7.5 7.5 1.6 1.6.1.5 1.4 1.7 1. 2.1 2.4 1.3.7 7..3 86.3 3.8.3 5.4 21.6 28.3 8.6 2.1 2.7 6.2 9.9 7. 19.5 1) 2) 3) 4) 4-1) 4-2) 5) 6) 7) 8) 29..1 175.4 89. 14.9.4.7 14.9 84.6 6. 3.5 6.1 66.1 16.7 21.3 15.8 15.8 2.4 29. 6.6 8. 14.5.3.1 1. 2.9 3.7 2.2 4.6 4.5 2.4 1.3 13.9.1 93.3 15.4.7 4.5 4.9 62.4 19.1 3.4 19.5 13.4 19.1.7 2.4 29. 19.4 6.1 248.7 29.2 22 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn
Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn 23 1 2 3 5.2-15m -15m8 1 EDI
4.3 4 1 [1989] No.7, pp.1-33 2[1994] 3 [1992] 11-13 4 [1997] 5 [1982] 212 6 [1986] 233 7 [1997] 8 [1996] 91998 1 [1997] 11 [1997] Effect of the Container Port Improvement for Large Scale Vessels By Naohisa OKAMOTO and Takao SATO Application of cost benefit analysis for infrastructure investment is discussed against the request to the efficiency improvement of infrastructure investment. But there are a few studies that evaluated the significance of port investment from the viewpoint of national/regional economies. In this study, a methodology for evaluation of port investment is constructed considering various factors. This evaluation methodology is applied not only to evaluate the effects for agency concerned with the port but also the effects to regional and national economies. Furthermore, necessity of the improvement of the international container port with large depth is discussed based on case study analysis. Key Words ; port investment evaluation, benefit incidence matrix, improvement of depth of the berth 24 Vol.1 No.2 1998 Autumn