International Car Operators (ICO) plans to build a multi-storage garage for 10,000 vehicles in Zeebrugge, Belgium

When space becomes a bottleneck: Why Europe's largest car port is building upwards instead of outwards

International Car Operators' announced investment in a 10,000-vehicle multi-storage garage in Zeebrugge marks more than just an infrastructural expansion. It symbolizes a fundamental paradigm shift in European automotive logistics, where the physical limits of horizontal expansion collide with the structural limitations of traditional business models. At a time when European car terminals are facing declining throughput volumes, geopolitical upheavals, and a fundamental shift in global trade flows, the question arises: Is vertical densification a future-oriented efficiency model or merely an expensive interim solution in a fundamentally unstable industry?

The triple crisis of European car terminals

European automotive logistics faces an unprecedented challenge resulting from the overlap of three fundamental shifts. First, Europe has transformed from a net exporter to a net importer of vehicles, with Chinese electric vehicles in particular reversing trade flows. In the first nine months of 2024 alone, Europe imported approximately 581,000 vehicles from China, while Chinese brands now represent eight percent of the European electric vehicle market. This fundamental reversal of historically evolved logistics structures requires a complete realignment of terminal capacities.

Second, European car terminals are suffering from a structural capacity decline, exacerbated by geopolitical turmoil. The Houthis' attacks in the Red Sea have led to a 72 to 75 percent reduction in container traffic through the Suez Canal since the end of 2023. For RoRo traffic, the rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope means an average 33 percent increase in transit times between Asia and Europe, tying up approximately five percent of global RoRo fleet capacity. These extended delivery times not only increase inventory levels at ports but also reduce available transport capacity on the world's oceans.

Third, the lack of space in urban port regions is exacerbating the structural shortage. The Port of Antwerp-Bruges, which includes Zeebrugge, recorded a 9.4 percent decline in vehicle throughput to 3.2 million units in 2024. At the same time, vehicle layover times in the terminals are increasing due to changing business models among automobile manufacturers, who are increasingly using port terminals as interim storage facilities for customer-specific finalization work. This development leads to a paradox: While the absolute number of vehicles is declining, the demand for storage space is increasing disproportionately.

The economic significance of these developments cannot be overestimated. Zeebrugge is Europe's largest car port and, together with Antwerp, handles over 2.3 million vehicles annually. ICO operates 300 hectares of terminal space there with approximately 120,000 parking spaces. A ten percent inefficiency in space utilization effectively means the loss of 12,000 parking spaces or approximately 230,000 vehicle movements per year, corresponding to a loss of revenue in the hundreds of millions of euros.

From infinite space to strategic scarcity: A brief history of terminal space

The development of European car terminals is inextricably linked to the globalization of the automotive industry after 1990. During this period, European manufacturers aggressively expanded into export markets, while Asian producers began to penetrate the European market. Zeebrugge emerged as the preferred hub, offering a unique combination of geographical proximity to major European car markets, direct motorway access, and generous land reserves.

The first major expansion phase occurred between 2000 and 2010, when ICO gradually expanded its land in Zeebrugge to over 200 hectares. During this period, the paradigm of horizontal expansion dominated: land was relatively inexpensive, and the efficiency of logistics processes was primarily optimized through minimal vehicle movements and direct ship-to-shore connections. Average land costs in port areas were significantly lower than those for inner-city commercial sites, making extensive land use economically rational.

The second phase, beginning in 2010, was characterized by densification strategies without abandoning the fundamental model of horizontal expansion. In 2018, ICO signed a concession agreement for an additional 54 hectares at the Bastenaken terminal, bringing the total area to 300 hectares. This expansion enabled the simultaneous handling of up to 16 ships and increased annual throughput capacity by 350,000 vehicles. At the same time, ICO invested in sustainability measures, including eleven wind turbines with a total capacity of 44 megawatts and 308 electric vehicle charging stations to accommodate the increasing proportion of battery-electric vehicles.

The third phase, which began around 2020 and was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, marks the transition to vertical densification. Several factors drove this development: First, the available land in established port areas reached their physical limits. The Port of Antwerp-Bruges has a total of 974 hectares dedicated to automotive logistics, but these areas are already largely utilized and limited by urban planning, environmental, and infrastructure restrictions.

Second, the opportunity costs of land use have risen dramatically. In densely populated port regions, automotive logistics increasingly compete with other uses such as container terminals, chemical logistics, and urban development. Implicit land costs have therefore risen to levels where structured parking solutions have become economically attractive. Market studies show that multi-storey garages become cost-effective at land prices of approximately three million euros per hectare, a threshold already exceeded in many European ports.

Third, the requirements of automakers changed fundamentally. The transformation to electromobility requires temperature-controlled storage, charging infrastructure, and expanded finishing options. At the same time, business models shifted from just-in-time deliveries to longer storage times for customer-specific configurations, increasing the average time a vehicle spends in the terminal from five to seven days to ten to twelve days.

The economics of height: actors, drivers and market logic behind the vertical strategy

ICO's decision to build a multi-storage garage with 10,000 parking spaces fits into a complex constellation of actors and economic mechanisms that fundamentally shape market behavior. The key players form a hierarchical system: At the top are port authorities such as the Port of Antwerp-Bruges, which, as concession holders, make strategic space decisions and set the regulatory framework. Terminal operators such as ICO, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen Kaisha, which is one of the world market leaders with a 14.7 percent market share of global RoRo capacity, operate at the second level.

The third tier consists of automobile manufacturers and their logistics service providers, who, as end customers, determine the demand side. ICO serves all major automobile manufacturers and 23 shipping companies, giving the company a pivotal position in European automotive logistics. This neutral market position enables ICO to function as a hub for a wide variety of trade flows, similar to Heathrow in air traffic.

The primary economic drivers of vertical densification can be systematized into four categories: First, the marginal costs of horizontal expansion increase exponentially, while the average costs of vertical solutions decrease with increasing volume. A conventional area expansion of 67 hectares would theoretically be necessary to accommodate 10,000 additional parking spaces at a density of 150 vehicles per hectare. With estimated land prices of four to six million euros per hectare in Zeebrugge, this would result in land costs of between 270 and 400 million euros. In contrast, the multi-storage garage, with estimated construction costs of four to five thousand euros per parking space, is likely to require total investments of four to five million euros, although the actual costs may be higher due to the complexity of large car garages.

Second, the proximity between berths and storage areas generates significant efficiency gains. ICO emphasizes that the planned garage will be located directly at the Bastenaken terminal, where vehicles only have to travel minimal distances between the ship and the storage area. This not only reduces CO2 emissions per vehicle by an estimated 60 to 80 percent compared to peripheral storage areas, but also accelerates throughput. With an annual volume of 2.3 million vehicles and an average of ten minutes of travel time saved through optimized positioning, this results in a theoretical savings potential of approximately 383,000 driving hours annually, which, based on an imputed hourly rate of €50 for personnel and equipment, corresponds to a value of €19 million.

Third, vertical densification enables more flexible land use. While horizontal spaces are typically used monofunctionally for vehicle parking, multi-story structures can integrate diverse functions: multi-level storage, finalization areas for technical modifications, charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, and quality control zones. This functional integration reduces internal transport routes and enables process synergies that are not feasible with dispersed land use.

Fourth, the investment responds to changing demand patterns in the automotive sector. The share of electric vehicles in European new car sales reached a record high of 17 percent in the first half of 2025, with China playing a dominant role as a production location. The logistics requirements for electric vehicles differ fundamentally from those for conventional vehicles: They require charging infrastructure, temperature-controlled storage for battery preservation, and advanced technical finalization. Multi-storey garages can meet these specialized requirements more efficiently than open spaces through controlled environmental conditions and integrated charging infrastructure.

The underlying market mechanisms follow a logic of structural scarcity combined with a simultaneous shift in demand. European car terminals operate in an oligopolistic market dominated by a few large operators such as ICO, Wallenius Wilhelmsen, and UECC. This market structure leads to limited price competition, while quality and capacity competition are gaining importance. Terminal operators that increase their effective capacity through investments in vertical infrastructure can gain market share without having to engage in predatory price competition.

At the same time, the market is subject to asymmetric risk sharing between port authorities, terminal operators, and automobile manufacturers. Port authorities award long-term concessions and benefit from port fees regardless of actual capacity utilization. Terminal operators like ICO bear the full investment and capacity risk, but can realize synergistic benefits through vertical integration with the parent company NYK Line. Finally, automobile manufacturers largely externalize warehousing risks to their logistics partners while retaining control over strategic logistics decisions.

The capacity paradox: fewer cars, but more space required

The quantitative assessment of European automotive logistics reveals a paradoxical picture: Despite stagnating or declining vehicle volumes, capacity bottlenecks are intensifying. The Port of Antwerp-Bruges recorded a total throughput of 277.7 million tons in 2024, corresponding to growth of 2.3 percent. However, this growth was driven exclusively by containers, which increased by 8.9 percent. Ro-ro traffic, on the other hand, fell by 3.4 percent, with new vehicles declining by 9.4 percent to 3.2 million units. This trend continued despite the decline in absolute volumes and simultaneously increasing average laytimes.

The causes of this paradox are complex: First, the business models of automakers have fundamentally changed. Instead of shipping vehicles directly from the terminal to dealers, many manufacturers use the terminals as warehouses for customer-specific finishing touches. This includes the installation of special equipment, increasingly complex software updates, and the performance of quality control checks. These transformations from pure transit terminals to value-added centers increase dwell times by an average of 40 to 60 percent.

Second, disruptions in global supply chains are leading to increased inventory levels. The rerouting of shipping traffic around the Cape of Good Hope is not only extending transit times by an average of seven to 14 days, but is also making delivery times less predictable. Studies show that the reliability of schedules, measured as median delays, has deteriorated from less than two days before the crisis to four to six days. This uncertainty is forcing automakers to maintain higher safety stock levels, which increases the space required in port terminals.

Third, the transition to electromobility is exacerbating the space constraints. Electric vehicles require an average of 30 percent more space per unit than conventional vehicles, as fire safety clearances need to be increased and charging infrastructure requires additional space. An analysis of the European market for mechanical parking systems shows that the submarket for multi-story garages will expand at an annual growth rate of 14.8 percent until 2030, driven by the need to store electric vehicles securely and efficiently.

The financial implications of these developments are considerable. The European automotive logistics market had an estimated volume of approximately €85 billion in 2024, of which port terminals accounted for approximately 15 percent, or €12.8 billion. The average cost per vehicle traded in European terminals ranges between €200 and €350, depending on laytime and additional services. A ten percent decline in throughput, as recorded at Antwerp-Bruges in 2024, corresponds to revenue losses of approximately €65 to €110 million for the terminal operators operating there.

At the same time, operating costs are rising disproportionately. Energy costs for lighting, air conditioning, and charging infrastructure have increased by an average of 80 to 120 percent in real terms since 2021. Personnel costs have risen by approximately 15 to 20 percent due to a shortage of skilled workers and wage increases. The cost of capital for new investments has increased from less than one percent to three to four percent for prime borrowers since 2022 due to the European Central Bank's interest rate hike, making financing capital-intensive projects such as multi-storage garages more expensive.

The competitive situation is intensifying due to the geographical shift in trade flows. While traditionally German and French manufacturers were the main users of Belgian terminals, increasing volumes now come from Asian imports. China exported a total of 5.9 million vehicles in 2024, of which approximately 22 percent, or 1.3 million, were electric vehicles. Of these, approximately 35 to 40 percent went to Europe, corresponding to a volume of approximately 450,000 to 520,000 units. These Chinese imports compete directly with European production and fundamentally change the usage patterns of the terminals.

Container high-bay warehouses and container terminals: The logistical interplay – Expert advice and solutions - Creative image: Xpert.Digital

This innovative technology promises to fundamentally change container logistics. Instead of stacking containers horizontally as before, they are stored vertically in multi-tiered steel rack structures. This not only enables a drastic increase in storage capacity within the same space but also revolutionizes the entire processes in the container terminal.

More about it here:

• Container high-bay warehouses and container terminals: The logistical interaction – expert advice and solutions

Two ports, two routes: Koper vs. Zeebrugge in strategic comparison

A comparative look at two European car terminals pursuing different strategies to address capacity constraints illustrates the complexity of decision-making. The Port of Koper in Slovenia and the Bastenaken Terminal in Zeebrugge represent different market positions and strategic approaches, providing insightful insights into the advantages and disadvantages of vertical densification.

Luka Koper, the operator of the Slovenian port, invested approximately €18.9 million between 2017 and 2021 in the construction of a multi-storey garage with a capacity of 6,000 vehicles. This investment was co-financed by approximately 25 percent with EU funds from the Napa4Core project, reducing the net investment to approximately €14 million. The cost per parking space thus amounted to approximately €2,300 to €3,150, significantly lower than the €4,000 to €5,000 estimated for Zeebrugge. This cost difference can be explained by several factors: First, construction costs in Slovenia are approximately 30 to 40 percent lower than in Belgium. Second, the Koper garage is a relatively simple structure without sophisticated automation, whereas a more technologically advanced solution with integrated terminal operating systems is likely planned for Zeebrugge.

The economic logic of the Koper investment differs fundamentally from the situation in Zeebrugge. In 2016, Koper handled approximately 749,000 vehicles, ranking ninth among European car ports, significantly behind Zeebrugge with 2.8 million vehicles. The garage enabled an estimated capacity expansion of 162,000 vehicles annually at a throughput rate of 27 cycles per parking space per year. This corresponded to a capacity increase of approximately 22 percent, significantly higher than the eight to ten percent planned by ICO for Zeebrugge.

The difference is explained by the initial situation: Before the investment, Koper had only 8,000 covered parking spaces and operated almost exclusively with open-air parking. The multi-storey garage not only enabled capacity expansion but also improved the quality of its offerings, as many premium manufacturers prefer covered storage. Zeebrugge, on the other hand, already has extensive covered capacity and a highly developed infrastructure, so the new garage primarily serves to increase density and efficiency.

The strategic differences are also reflected in their positioning within the European port hierarchy. Koper developed into the most important car terminal in the Mediterranean and serves primarily as a gateway to Central and Southeastern European markets. Investing in covered capacity enabled Koper to gain market share from Western European ports that suffered from capacity constraints. Between 2016 and 2024, Koper increased its vehicle throughput by approximately 35 percent, while established ports such as Bremerhaven and Barcelona stagnated or shrank.

Zeebrugge, on the other hand, operates as a dominant hub with network effects. ICO serves 23 shipping companies and 75 automobile manufacturers, giving the terminal a central position in European logistics networks. The investment in the multi-storage garage is less about gaining market share than about defending the existing position against emerging competitors. With an estimated investment volume of €45 to €50 million and a capacity expansion of 10,000 parking spaces, the implied break-even point is a capacity utilization of approximately 75 percent over a period of 15 to 18 years, assuming average port fees of €250 per vehicle and 27 handling operations per year.

Another instructive comparison emerges from the Wallenius Wilhelmsen investment at the Bastenaken West Terminal, which was completed in 2022. Wallenius Wilhelmsen expanded its land by approximately 50 hectares and invested an estimated €180 to €220 million in three new berths and yard capacity. This corresponds to costs of €3.6 to €4.4 million per hectare, significantly higher than the historical average of €1.5 to €2.5 million. This investment illustrates that horizontal expansion is becoming increasingly prohibitively expensive, even for well-capitalized players.

The different strategies also reflect different risk assessments regarding future market developments. Koper focused on moderate growth in an emerging market and chose a cost-effective, scalable solution. Zeebrugge, on the other hand, is preparing for a scenario in which absolute volumes stagnate or shrink, while simultaneously increasing demands for storage capacity and flexibility. In this context, the multi-storage garage is a hedge against structural uncertainty, allowing ICO to respond to various market scenarios without making irreversible misinvestments in extensive space expansion.

How regulatory pressure and space constraints are reshaping terminal strategy

Investing in vertical densification raises fundamental questions about the long-term profitability and strategic robustness of this capital allocation. Critics point to several structural risks that challenge the economic logic of the multi-storage garage.

First, there is a risk of structural overcapacity in the European car terminal sector. Vehicle production in Europe would reach approximately 11.4 million units in 2024 under the pessimistic scenario or 13.5 million under the optimistic scenario, well below the historical peak of over 17 million units before 2008. At the same time, production is increasingly shifting toward electric vehicles, which tend to have shorter supply chains, as manufacturers seek to minimize transport risks for expensive batteries. A study by the International Council on Clean Transportation predicts that the share of locally produced electric vehicles in Europe could rise from approximately 65 percent currently to over 80 percent by 2030, which would structurally dampen demand for port terminals.

Second, technological disruptions could fundamentally challenge the business models of car terminals. The development of autonomous vehicles could, in the medium term, lead to vehicles driving directly from the production site to the end customer, without intermediate storage in port terminals. Although this vision still seems speculative today, all major automakers are investing heavily in autonomous driving technology, with initial applications for closed logistics areas already being implemented. Reducing the average storage time from ten to five days would effectively halve the demand for parking spaces.

Third, there are considerable doubts about the financial viability of the investment under realistic utilization scenarios. With estimated construction costs of €45 to €50 million, annual operating costs of approximately €3 to €4 million for personnel, maintenance, and energy, and a calculated depreciation period of 25 years, this results in annual capital service costs of approximately €5 to €6 million. With an utilization rate of 80 percent and 27 handling operations per year, this corresponds to 216,000 vehicle movements. The break-even fee per vehicle is thus approximately €42 to €46, which represents approximately 15 to 20 percent of the average total terminal fees. This leaves only limited margins for profitability and no buffer for fluctuations in utilization.

Fourth, environmental aspects raise controversial questions. While ICO emphasizes CO2 reduction through shortened transport routes, critics overlook the significant emissions generated by the construction of the multi-storey garage. A typical concrete structure of this size generates approximately 8,000 to 12,000 tons of CO2 equivalents during the construction phase, corresponding to the emissions of approximately 40,000 to 60,000 vehicle transports. Assuming a saving of 50 kilograms of CO2 per vehicle through optimized logistics, it would take 160,000 to 240,000 vehicle movements to amortize the construction emissions, corresponding to approximately nine to twelve months of full capacity utilization.

Fifth, there are concerns about the flexibility and adaptability of vertical structures. While horizontal spaces can be relatively easily converted for alternative uses, multi-story car garages are highly specialized structures with little potential for conversion. In the event of a structural decline in demand in the automotive sector, these assets would become stranded assets with a residual value significantly below their acquisition costs. This lack of flexibility represents a significant strategic risk in times of fundamental transformation in mobility.

Sixth, the financing of the investment raises questions about risk sharing. ICO, as a subsidiary of the capital-rich NYK Line, can finance the investment from within the group, something smaller terminal operators cannot. This could lead to market consolidation, displacing less capital-intensive players. The oligopolistic market structure would thus further intensify, with potentially negative effects on prices and service quality for end customers.

Apologists for vertical consolidation, however, point to several counterarguments. First, they argue that the investment should not be seen as a speculative bet on volume growth, but rather as a necessary adaptation to changing market conditions. The structural shift toward longer storage times and higher-value services requires a transformation of the terminal infrastructure, regardless of the development of absolute volumes. The multi-storage garage enables ICO to position itself as a premium provider with expanded value-added services, which justifies higher margins.

Second, vertical densification offers an option for future growth without irreversible land-use decisions. Should volumes increase unexpectedly, the garage could be retrofitted or expanded. Should they decrease, the horizontal areas remain available for alternative uses. This flexibility has an intrinsic value that is not adequately captured in traditional capital value calculations.

Third, critics underestimate the regulatory constraints under which port terminals operate. Environmental regulations, noise protection regulations, and urban planning restrictions are making horizontal expansion increasingly impossible, regardless of its economic advantages. In this context, vertical densification is less a strategic option than a regulatory necessity.

Three scenarios for the future: Between growth, stagnation and decline

The medium- to long-term development of European car terminals will be determined by the interaction of several megatrends, the respective impact of which is subject to considerable uncertainty. Three distinct scenarios can be conceptualized, each with different implications for the profitability of investments in vertical densification.

In the optimistic scenario, European automobile production stabilizes at around 13 to 14 million units annually, with the share of locally produced electric vehicles rising to 75 percent by 2030. The transition to electromobility proceeds in an orderly manner, supported by massive public investments in charging infrastructure and purchase incentives. Geopolitical tensions in the Red Sea ease from 2026 onwards, allowing normal routes through the Suez Canal to become usable again. In this scenario, vehicle volumes through European terminals would grow again from 2027 onwards, driven by robust intra-European trade flows and a recovery of Asian exports to Europe to a normalized level of 600,000 to 700,000 units annually. Under these conditions, ICO's investment would pay for itself within 12 to 15 years and generate attractive returns thereafter.

In the medium baseline scenario, European automobile production stagnates at around 12 million units, while the structure of trade flows undergoes fundamental shifts. China establishes itself permanently as a net importer to Europe with volumes of 800,000 to 900,000 units annually, substituting traditional export volumes of European manufacturers to Asia. The transformation to electromobility is proceeding more slowly than politically intended, with the share of battery-electric vehicles reaching only 60 percent by 2030. The fault lines in the Red Sea persist with intermittent escalations, making structurally longer transit times and higher inventory levels in terminals the new normal. In this scenario, the ICO investment would generate just sufficient returns to cover the capital costs, but without enabling attractive excess returns. The payback period would be 18 to 22 years.

In the pessimistic scenario, the structural decline of the European automotive industry accelerates. Production falls below eleven million units by 2030, driven by lost competitiveness against Chinese manufacturers and structurally weak demand due to changing mobility preferences of younger generations. European manufacturers are increasingly relocating production to North Africa and Eastern Europe to optimize cost structures, reducing the importance of traditional seaport terminals. At the same time, breakthroughs in autonomous vehicle technology are leading to shorter storage times and more direct supply chains. In this scenario, the ICO investment would be a partial bad investment, with a value significantly below its acquisition cost. The garage would likely never reach more than 60 percent capacity utilization and generate continuous losses.

Which of these scenarios materializes depends on factors that can only partially be influenced by decision-makers in automotive logistics. Key uncertainties include regulatory developments at the EU level, particularly regarding import tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, which vary between 10 and 45 percent. Higher tariffs would dampen Chinese volumes but also force European manufacturers to invest more heavily in local electric vehicle production, which could have a different impact on demand for port terminals.

A second critical factor is the development of battery technology. Breakthroughs in solid-state batteries could fundamentally change the cost structures of electric vehicles and ensure their competitiveness with combustion engines even without subsidies. This would accelerate electrification and potentially increase demand for specialized storage and charging facilities in terminals. Conversely, persistent technological issues or safety concerns with batteries could delay the transformation and keep conventional vehicles relevant for longer.

A third factor concerns geopolitical developments and trade policy. An escalation of trade conflicts between Europe, the US, and China could lead to further fragmentation of global supply chains. In such a scenario, auto terminals might function less as global hubs and more as regional distribution centers for localized production networks. This would increase the importance of flexibility and multifunctionality in terminal infrastructures.

Technological developments in terminal automation could further increase the efficiency of vertical structures. Advances in artificial intelligence enable optimized vehicle placement, minimizing storage times and maximizing throughput. Next-generation terminal operating systems integrate predictive analytics that calculate optimal storage strategies based on historical data and real-time information. Such systems could increase the effective capacity of a multi-storage garage by 10 to 15 percent without physical expansion.

In the long term, evidence points to a fundamental transformation of the port economy. European ports are evolving from pure logistics hubs into integrated industrial clusters in which production, processing, and distribution are spatially concentrated. This development favors investments in multifunctional infrastructure such as multi-storage garages that can integrate various functions. At the same time, however, capital intensity and thus barriers to market entry are increasing, which is likely to lead to further consolidation in the industry.

Vertical densification as insurance against unpredictability

International Car Operators' planned investment in a 10,000-vehicle multi-storage garage in Zeebrugge represents more than a pragmatic response to space constraints. It marks a turning point in the strategic direction of European automotive logistics, in which the paradigms of the 20th century—horizontal expansion, economies of scale through volume, optimization through geographical proximity to automotive production—are being replaced by new imperatives: vertical densification, flexibility in usage concepts, integration of value-added services, and resilience to structural uncertainties.

The economic rationale for this transformation is robust, but not without ambiguity. Vertical densification solves the fundamental problem of space scarcity in established port areas, where land prices of three to six million euros per hectare make conventional expansion prohibitively expensive. With estimated costs of 4,000 to 5,000 euros per parking space and the potential to accommodate 1,000 to 1,500 parking spaces per hectare, multi-story structures achieve cost parity with horizontal expansion even at moderate land prices. The additional benefits—reduced internal transport routes, integrated charging infrastructure, and weather-protected storage—further enhance the economic attractiveness.

At the same time, the risks should not be underestimated. Payback periods of 15 to 22 years in realistic scenarios are long, especially in an industry undergoing fundamental transformation. The inflexibility of highly specialized infrastructures creates stranded asset risks, the materialization of which could result in significant asset losses. The implicit bet on the continued relevance of traditional port terminals in an era of potentially disruptive technologies—autonomous vehicles, additive manufacturing, changing mobility preferences—entails strategic uncertainties.

There are several implications for policymakers. First, port development strategies should consider vertical densification as an equal option to horizontal expansion and reduce regulatory hurdles for multi-story structures. This includes simplified permitting procedures, adjustments to building codes, and possibly financial incentives for sustainable construction methods. Second, the long payback periods and high capital intensity require stable regulatory frameworks that ensure investment security for decades. Uncertainties regarding environmental regulations, customs regimes, or port concessions increase risk premiums and could discourage necessary investments.

For business leaders in automotive logistics, the key challenge lies in balancing the necessary adaptation to changing market conditions with avoiding irreversible misinvestments. Optional and modular approaches that enable gradual expansions reduce risks. Cooperation between terminal operators for the shared use of expensive infrastructure could reduce capital costs. The integration of digital technologies to optimize space utilization should be prioritized, as it increases flexibility without requiring massive capital investments.

For investors, the auto terminal sector represents a complex risk-return profile. Structural uncertainties justify risk premiums on the cost of capital, implying return expectations of eight to twelve percent. At the same time, established terminal operators with diversified customer portfolios and integration into global logistics chains offer defensive qualities that are attractive in times of macroeconomic volatility. The consolidation dynamic could also generate takeover premiums for well-positioned players.

The long-term significance of the ICO investment transcends its immediate financial implications. It demonstrates the ability of established players to adapt to fundamentally changed market conditions without falling into defensive passivity. In an industry characterized by uncertainty and transformation, this adaptive capacity could be the decisive competitive advantage that distinguishes long-term success from structural decline. The multi-storage garage in Zeebrugge is thus less a bet on the future of automotive logistics than an insurance policy against its unpredictability—a strategic option in a world of structural volatility.

Markus Becker

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Head of Business Development

LinkedIn

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

contact me under Wolfenstein ∂ Xpert.digital

call me under +49 89 674 804 (Munich)

LinkedIn
 

Our EU and Germany expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More about it here:

• Xpert Business Hub

A topic hub with insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
• Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations