由 lltx1822 Bay Area Synergy: Can Deepening Cooperation with Shenzhen and Guangzhou Ports Solve Hong Kong’s Congestion Puzzle?
**
When Hong Kong’s port still has “long queues at sea” waiting to berth in open water anchorages, when container storage at the Kwai Tsing yards approaches physical limits, and when vehicle queues on cross-border channels stretch for kilometers, technological upgrades and internal reforms within a single port can hardly cure this systemic congestion. Within the “one core, two poles” port development pattern of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the efficiency advantages of Shenzhen’s port and the hinterland resources of Guangzhou’s port provide crucial external support for Hong Kong’s port to solve its predicament. Deepening cooperative synergy with the Shenzhen and Guangzhou ports is not merely about simple cargo diversion or resource sharing. It involves reconstructing division of labor, streamlining process connections, and achieving mutual recognition of rules to build a regional port cluster synergy where “1+1+1>3,” fundamentally alleviating the capacity pressure on Hong Kong’s port. However, whether this collaborative path can truly solve congestion still requires answering three core questions: To what extent can cooperation divert Hong Kong’s cargo flow and resource pressure? How can process integration eliminate efficiency losses in cross-border coordination? Can complementary division of labor avoid the internal friction of homogeneous competition?
I. Resource Sharing: Diverting Pressure, Breaking Hong Kong Port’s Physical Capacity Bottlenecks
One of the core causes of congestion at Hong Kong’s port is the saturation of infrastructure capacity due to scarce land resources – 279 hectares of yard area supporting an annual throughput of 42 million TEUs, with 24 deep-water berths operating at full capacity long-term. The resource redundancy of Shenzhen and Guangzhou ports provides a natural “relief space” for Hong Kong’s port. Sharing core resources like anchorages, yards, and berths across ports can directly alleviate Hong Kong’s physical congestion pressure.
(I) Anchorage and Berth Sharing: Diverting Vessel Berthing Pressure
The available anchorages around Hong Kong can only accommodate 30 large vessels. At the peak at the end of 2025, waiting vessels reached 28, nearing saturation, forcing some vessels to drift and wait in distant waters. In contrast, both Shenzhen’s Yantian Port and Guangzhou’s Nansha Port have ample anchorage resources. Yantian Port’s Dapeng Bay anchorage can accommodate over 40 large vessels, and Nansha Port’s Pearl River Estuary anchorage has an idle capacity of 30. By establishing a “Greater Bay Area Anchorage Coordinated Scheduling Platform,” when Hong Kong’s anchorage saturation exceeds 80%, part of the vessels can be automatically diverted to the idle anchorages of Yantian and Nansha Ports, achieving “anchorage sharing + near-shore berthing.” Drawing on the cooperative model of “one-time pilotage, one-time fee” in the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Dapeng Bay, diverted vessels do not need to repeat pilotage procedures, saving over 1 hour per voyage per vessel. The average vessel waiting time for berthing at Hong Kong’s port could be compressed from 3-5 days to 1-2 days.
Complementarity of berth resources is also highly effective. Most of Hong Kong’s 24 deep-water berths focus on international transshipment business. Meanwhile, 30% of Yantian Port’s 45 berths are dedicated to US and Europe mainlines, and 40% of Nansha Port’s 32 berths are suitable for domestic trade and Southeast Asia routes. Through “berth function complementarity,” Hong Kong could divert some direct-loading cargo for US and Europe mainlines to berth at Yantian Port and guide domestic transshipment cargo for loading/unloading at Nansha Port, while concentrating its own resources on serving high-value-added international transshipment business. Data shows that in the first half of 2025 alone, the “Shenzhen Shekou — Zhanjiang” combined port route diverted 15% of the cargo flow from Shenzhen’s western port area. Extending this model to Shenzhen-Hong Kong and Guangzhou-Hong Kong cooperation could reduce the berth utilization rate at Hong Kong’s port from the overloaded state of 105% to a reasonable level of 85%.
(II) Yard and Empty Container Sharing: Freeing Up Hong Kong’s Storage Space
40% of Hong Kong’s port yard space is occupied by empty containers, becoming a major constraint for laden container storage. Shenzhen and Guangzhou ports still have about 30% redundancy in empty container storage capacity. By building a “Greater Bay Area Empty Container Sharing Platform,” over 20% of Hong Kong’s empty containers could be guided to divert for storage at Yantian and Nansha Ports. For example, leveraging cross-regional logistics channels like “Gan Materials Entering Shenzhen,” Yantian Port could directly dispatch empty containers to inland ports like Ganzhou. This would both free up Hong Kong’s yard space and meet the container needs of inland export enterprises, achieving “off-peak scheduling of empty containers, cyclic use of resources.” Based on this calculation, empty container diversion alone could free up 540,000 TEUs of storage capacity at Hong Kong’s port. The average storage time for laden containers could shorten from 4.2 days to 2.8 days.
For laden container storage, models like “Combined Port” and “One Port Access” have verified the feasibility of cross-port sharing. The “Greater Bay Area Combined Port” reform promoted by Shenzhen Customs has opened 36 cross-customs zone routes, achieving “two ports as one” storage management. Enterprises can complete container handover procedures at feeder ports, with the hub port only responsible for loading/unloading and transshipment, cumulatively diverting 600,000 TEUs of cargo. If Hong Kong joins this system, extending part of the laden container storage function of Kwai Tsing Terminal to Yantian and Nansha Ports, and achieving seamless “storage — handling” connection via express barge services, could reduce the re-handling rate at Hong Kong’s yards from 2.3 times to below 0.8 times, and shorten per-container re-handling time from 45 minutes to 15 minutes.
(III) Collection and Distribution Resource Complementarity: Alleviating Cross-Border Transportation Pressure
70% of Hong Kong’s port cargo relies on cross-border trucking, causing chronic congestion on channels like Tsing Lek Bridge and Container Terminal Road. Shenzhen and Guangzhou ports have already established mature “sea-rail intermodal” and “river-sea intermodal” systems. Yantian Port’s Pingyan Railway Line and Nansha Port’s “One Port Access” rail-sea intermodal model can effectively divert Hong Kong’s collection and distribution pressure. For example, Hong Kong could guide cargo sources from the western Pearl River Delta to Nansha Port, reaching Hong Kong and Macao directly via “river-sea intermodal,” replacing cross-border trucking. Cargo from southern Jiangxi, southern Hunan, and other areas could be transshipped via Yantian Port through “sea-rail intermodal,” reducing vehicle flow on Hong Kong’s cross-border channels.
Data shows that Guangzhou Customs’ “One Port Access” model shortened the average cargo storage period from 5-7 days to within 2 days, saving over 300 yuan per TEU in logistics costs. Shenzhen Customs’ “Cross-Border One Lock” reform compressed clearance time by 30% and saved 28% in logistics costs. Connecting these collection and distribution models with Hong Kong could divert over 30% of Hong Kong’s cross-border trucking volume, reducing the average truck waiting time to enter areas around Hong Kong’s port from 2 hours to 45 minutes, and compressing queue lengths from 5 kilometers to within 1 kilometer.
II. Process Integration: Breaking Down Barriers, Enhancing Cross-Border Synergy Efficiency
The effectiveness of resource sharing relies on the support of process integration. Institutional differences and information barriers between Hong Kong and the Shenzhen/Guangzhou ports were once major obstacles to synergy. However, pilot projects like “one-time pilotage” and “smart clearance” have provided replicable experience. By deepening process synergy in clearance, scheduling, logistics, and other links, cross-border synergy efficiency losses can be minimized, truly transforming resource sharing into congestion relief.
(I) Clearance Integration: Eliminating Cross-Border Regulatory Barriers
Customs in the Greater Bay Area have launched multiple clearance coordination initiatives, laying the foundation for Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou cooperation. The “Cross-Border One Lock” reform enables automatic inspection and release of cross-border vehicles through electronic locks, implemented at 6 ports, covering 76 clearance points in the mainland and 13 in Hong Kong. The “Guangdong-Macao Joint One-Stop” inspection model at the Hengqin Port achieves “one queue, one release,” handling 8,500 vehicle crossings daily on average. Extending these models to major Hong Kong-Shenzhen and Hong Kong-Guangzhou ports could achieve “one declaration, one inspection, one release” between Hong Kong and mainland customs, compressing cross-border clearance time from 1.5 hours to within 30 minutes.
For transshipment trade, blockchain technology can achieve seamless document flow. Drawing on Shenzhen Yantian Port’s blockchain clearance practices, digitalizing documents like bills of lading and customs declarations onto a chain, with Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou customs sharing inspection information, transshipment cargo would not require repeated verification, shortening inspection time by 40%. As a port with 60% transshipment trade share, this reform alone could improve clearance efficiency for transshipment cargo by 35%, indirectly alleviating congestion pressure on yards and berths.
(II) Scheduling Coordination: Achieving Full-Chain Intelligent Linkage
The cooperative experience of “one-time pilotage” in the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Dapeng Bay waters has cumulatively reduced costs for enterprises by 650 million yuan, saving nearly 1 hour per voyage per vessel. Expanding this model to the entire Pearl River Estuary and establishing a “Greater Bay Area Port Intelligent Scheduling Platform” could integrate vessel AIS trajectories, berth status, and cargo flow data to achieve scheduling linkage among the three ports. For example, when Hong Kong’s port forecasts a cargo flow peak during a certain period, the platform could pre-schedule berth and yard resources at Yantian and Nansha Ports, guiding vessels to arrive off-peak. For urgent cargo, the platform could prioritize berthing and inspection arrangements, avoiding a “one-size-fits-all” wait.
Scheduling coordination can also optimize barge and truck capacity allocation. Currently, inland river barge routes in the Greater Bay Area already have dense coverage. Hong Kong could increase express barge services to Yantian and Nansha Ports, implementing “fixed departure times, priority berthing,” compressing cross-port transfer time to within 2 hours. Simultaneously, by sharing truck reservation information via the platform, guiding Hong Kong trucks and Shenzhen/Guangzhou trucks to travel during different peak times could avoid concentrated congestion on cross-border channels. Implementing intelligent scheduling could improve the overall transportation efficiency of the three ports by 30%, reducing the proportion of vessel non-operational waiting time at Hong Kong’s port from 45% to 25%.
(III) Logistics Information Interoperability: Breaking Down “Information Silos”
The “Port Community System” (PCS) planned by Hong Kong, if interconnected with Shenzhen Port’s smart port platform and Guangzhou Port’s “One Port Access” information system, could build a full-chain information sharing system covering the Greater Bay Area. Enterprises could complete all operations – vessel berthing applications, yard reservations, customs declaration/inspection, truck scheduling – through a single platform, with data synchronized in real-time to relevant departments of the three ports, avoiding duplicate entry and information asymmetry. For example, manifest information submitted by shipping companies 48 hours before vessel arrival could be simultaneously synchronized to Hong Kong Maritime, Shenzhen Customs, and Guangzhou Port Authority, completing navigation permits, inspection plans, and berth planning in advance, achieving “operations upon arrival, release upon handling.”
Information interoperability can also solve problems of cargo flow prediction and resource matching. By integrating cargo flow data, equipment status, and road traffic flow from the three ports, AI algorithms can accurately predict congestion points and adjust resource allocation in advance. For example, when predicting a surge in laden container arrivals at Hong Kong’s Kwai Tsing Terminal during a certain period, the platform could automatically guide part of the cargo to berth at Yantian Port, while simultaneously dispatching empty containers from Nansha Port to supplement Hong Kong’s container demand, avoiding concentrated congestion at the source.
III. Complementary Division of Labor: Dislocated Development, From Homogeneous Competition to Synergistic Win-Win
Long-term homogeneous competition among Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou ports has led to resource waste and efficiency friction – all three ports focus on US and Europe mainlines and container transport, Hong Kong’s transshipment trade advantage has been diverted, and Shenzhen/Guangzhou’s hinterland resources have not been fully utilized. By clarifying positioning and achieving dislocated development of “Hong Kong strong in transshipment, Shenzhen strong in mainlines, Guangzhou strong in hinterland,” the resource allocation of the Greater Bay Area port cluster can be fundamentally optimized, reducing non-core business pressure on Hong Kong and allowing it to focus its efforts on solving congestion.
(I) Hong Kong: Focusing on High-Value-Added International Transshipment and High-End Services
Leveraging its free port policy and global shipping network advantages, Hong Kong should withdraw from some low-value-added direct loading/unloading business, specializing in high-value-added international transshipment, air-sea intermodal, and shipping services. For example, focus on developing international transshipment for high-end goods like precision electronic components and medical equipment. Utilizing the air port advantage of Hong Kong International Airport, create an integrated “air-sea intermodal” channel, achieving “terminal — airport” 4-hour direct transit. Simultaneously, vigorously develop high-end sectors like shipping finance, ship leasing, and arbitration legal services to increase per-container value-added and compensate for revenue gaps caused by cargo flow diversion.
Data shows that through the “MCC Qianhai” logistics model, Qianhai’s foreign trade can save $400 per TEU, reducing logistics costs by 30%. Hong Kong can learn from this model, providing customized logistics services for high-value-added goods, such as bonded warehousing, cross-border e-commerce consolidation, and supply chain finance, increasing the share of high-value-added goods from 38% to over 50%. Through division of labor, the operational complexity of Hong Kong’s port could decrease by 20%, core business efficiency could increase by 40%, and the structural pressure of congestion could be significantly alleviated.
(II) Shenzhen: Strengthening US and Europe Mainline and Smart Port Advantages
Shenzhen Port should focus on US and Europe mainline direct loading/unloading and smart port operations, diverting Hong Kong’s mainline transport pressure. With its 18-meter deep-water channel and 60% automated quay crane coverage, Yantian Port’s per-container handling efficiency is 15%-20% higher than Hong Kong’s, and logistics costs are 20%-30% lower, making it the preferred port for US and Europe mainlines in South China. In the future, it could further increase US and Europe route frequency, expand “sea-rail intermodal” hinterland, and extend its hinterland to Jiangxi, Hunan, and other areas through channels like “Gan Materials Entering Shenzhen” and “Guangdong Coal Entering Jiangxi,” diverting over 30% of Hong Kong’s US and Europe mainline cargo flow.
Simultaneously, Shenzhen’s smart port technology can be shared with Hong Kong, helping Hong Kong improve its automation and digitalization level. For example, replicating Yantian Port’s blockchain clearance platform and unmanned truck scheduling system to Hong Kong could assist in upgrading Hong Kong’s PCS system, achieving “technological synergy, efficiency co-creation.” Through division of labor and collaboration, Shenzhen Port’s annual throughput could increase from 33 million TEUs to 40 million TEUs, while Hong Kong could invest more resources in international transshipment and high-end services, forming a complementary pattern of “mainline transport + international transshipment.”
(III) Guangzhou: Consolidating Hinterland Hub and Domestic Trade Transshipment Position
Guangzhou Port should leverage its Pearl River Delta hinterland advantage, focus on domestic transport, Southeast Asia routes, and bulk cargo business, diverting Hong Kong’s near-sea route and domestic transshipment pressure. Nansha Port’s throughput exceeded 25 million TEUs in 2024, with Southeast Asia routes accounting for 45%. Through the “One Port Access” model, it has extended its hinterland to Guizhou, Hunan, and other areas, effectively承接 15% of Hong Kong’s near-sea route cargo flow and 20% of domestic transshipment cargo.
Guangzhou’s inland waterway shipping advantage can also alleviate Hong Kong’s collection and distribution pressure. By optimizing the Pearl River waterway system and increasing barge route frequency from Nansha Port to various cities in the Pearl River Delta, achieving seamless “inland barge + seaport transshipment” connection could divert 25% of Hong Kong’s cross-border trucking volume. For example, cargo from Foshan, Zhongshan, and other cities could reach Nansha Port directly via inland barges and then transfer to ocean-going vessels for export without transshipping through Hong Kong, reducing both logistics costs and Hong Kong’s transport congestion.
IV. Synergy Challenges: Real-World Constraints, Not a “Master Key”
Although the potential for Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou port cooperation is immense, truly solving Hong Kong’s congestion still requires facing three major real-world challenges. Synergy is not a “one-click solution” master key but a systematic project requiring breakthroughs across multiple obstacles.
(I) Coordination Costs of Institutional and Regulatory Differences
Institutional differences between Hong Kong and the mainland in customs supervision, tax policies, data flow, etc., increase the difficulty of synergy. For example, Hong Kong’s free port policy and the mainland’s tariff supervision system need precise alignment to avoid “supervision gaps” or “duplicate supervision.” Cross-border data flow must comply with both sides’ privacy protection laws, posing challenges for port information platform interconnection. Although reforms like “Cross-Border One Lock” and “Combined Port” have made breakthroughs, achieving comprehensive synergy still requires establishing regular coordination mechanisms to balance efficiency and risk.
(II) Game of Interest Distribution and Responsibility Division
Port synergy involves multiple stakeholders like terminal operators, shipping companies, and government departments. Interest distribution and responsibility division are core points of contention. For example, Hong Kong terminal operators may worry that cargo diversion affects revenue, while Shenzhen and Guangzhou may be concerned about overly承担 storage and transportation costs. Meticulous negotiation is also needed regarding the division of responsibilities among government departments for pilotage rights, supervision authority, tax sharing, etc. Without a reasonable interest-sharing mechanism, synergy may become superficial and difficult to advance sustainably.
(III) Gaps in Infrastructure and Technical Standards Alignment
Differences in infrastructure and technical standards among the three ports still affect synergy efficiency. For example, Hong Kong’s port channel depth is 17 meters, differing from Yantian Port’s 18 meters and Nansha Port’s 16.5 meters, requiring tide-waiting operations for ultra-large vessels during cross-port diversion. The automation equipment standards of the three ports are not uniform, making data interfaces for intelligent scheduling platforms difficult to fully compatible. These technical-level alignment gaps need to be gradually resolved through unified standards and facility upgrades, difficult to achieve overnight in the short term.
V. The Path to Resolution: Building a Trinitarian Synergy System of “Mechanisms — Technology — Policy”
For Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou port cooperation to truly become the “antidote” for Hong Kong’s congestion, it must go beyond simple resource sharing. It requires building a trinitarian synergy system of “mechanism co-creation, technology empowerment, policy guarantee” to break synergy barriers and achieve the shift from “passive diversion” to “active synergy.”
(I) Mechanism Co-creation: Establishing Regular Synergy Governance Platform
Establish a “Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Port Synergy Development Committee,” composed of representatives from the three governments, port management departments, operators, and shipping enterprises, to coordinate planning layouts, resource allocation, and interest distribution among the three ports. Focus on advancing three tasks: First, formulate the “Greater Bay Area Port Synergy Development Plan,” clarifying the division of labor positioning and functional complementarity schemes for the three ports to avoid homogeneous competition. Second, establish an interest-sharing mechanism, distributing revenue generated from cross-port diversion among the three ports according to a certain proportion to ensure各方积极性. Third, set up a synergy special fund for public projects like infrastructure connection and technical standard unification.
Simultaneously, improve cross-departmental coordination mechanisms. At the customs level, expand the coverage of “Cross-Border One Lock” and “one-time inspection” to achieve integrated clearance supervision. At the maritime level, promote the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Dapeng Bay “one-time pilotage” model and establish a unified pilotage scheduling system across the entire area. At the transportation level, coordinate and advance cross-river channel constructions like the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Western Railway and the Lion洋 Channel to完善 the cross-border collection and distribution network.
(II) Technology Empowerment: Building a Unified Smart Synergy Platform
Based on Hong Kong’s PCS system, Shenzhen’s smart port platform, and Guangzhou’s “One Port Access” system, integrate and build a “Greater Bay Area Port Smart Synergy Platform” to achieve data interoperability, scheduling linkage, and service unification. The platform should have three core functions: First, full-chain information sharing, connecting data interfaces for vessels, cargo, yards, clearance, etc., achieving “one declaration, sharing throughout.” Second, intelligent scheduling and matching, using AI algorithms to optimize vessel berthing, yard allocation, and capacity scheduling for optimal resource allocation. Third, a unified service portal, providing enterprises with “one-stop” services for berthing applications, customs declaration/inspection, truck reservations, etc., reducing operational costs.
Simultaneously, promote technical standard unification. Develop unified standards for Greater Bay Area port automation equipment, electronic locks, data formats, etc., to achieve cross-port equipment interconnection. Promote technologies like blockchain and digital twins to build a trusted data-sharing environment, solving cross-border data flow challenges. For example, using blockchain technology to achieve cross-port mutual recognition of documents like manifests and bills of lading, reducing repeated verification and improving synergy efficiency.
(III) Policy Guarantee:完善 the Institutional Support for Synergy Development
Introduce “Greater Bay Area Port Synergy Development Support Policies,” providing guarantees in terms of clearance facilitation, tax incentives, and funding support. In clearance, implement “zero tariffs, zero barriers” for cross-port transshipment cargo and simplify inspection procedures. In taxation, provide tax reductions or subsidies to port enterprises and shipping companies participating in synergy. In funding, establish a 5 billion yuan synergy development fund to support infrastructure connection, technology platform construction, talent cultivation, etc.
Simultaneously, optimize cross-border factor flow policies. Simplify cross-border passage procedures for mainland trucks and crew, implement measures like “cross-border truck special visas” and “crew cross-border rotation facilitation.” Expand the coverage of policies like “Northbound Travel for Hong Kong Vehicles” and “Northbound Travel for Macao Vehicles,” allowing cross-border trucks to operate at multiple ports within the Greater Bay Area to enhance collection and distribution flexibility. Additionally, strengthen environmental policy coordination, unify the three ports’ vessel emission standards and green port construction standards, and promote cross-port sharing of green equipment like electric container trucks and LNG-powered vessels.
Conclusion
Deepening synergistic cooperation with the Shenzhen and Guangzhou ports is not meant to weaken Hong Kong’s port’s international status. It is about allowing Hong Kong to shed the capacity pressure of low-value-added business through complementary division of labor, resource sharing, and process integration, concentrating resources to consolidate its core advantages in high-value-added international transshipment and high-end shipping services. Judging from practical results, models like “Combined Port” and “One Port Access” have proven that synergistic cooperation can effectively divert cargo flow, improve efficiency, and alleviate congestion – if the Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou synergy system is fully implemented, vessel waiting time for berthing at Hong Kong’s port could shorten by 40%, yard turnover efficiency could increase by 35%, cross-border clearance time could be compressed by 50%, and the core pain points of congestion would be significantly alleviated.
However, it must be清醒 recognized that synergistic cooperation is not a “master key” to solving Hong Kong’s congestion. It needs to combine with Hong Kong’s port’s internal reforms – only by integrating external synergy with internal automation upgrades and operational model innovation can structural congestion be fundamentally resolved. In the future, with the continuous improvement of the Greater Bay Area’s “one core, two poles” port development pattern, Hong Kong’s port will no longer be a “lonely port” bearing pressure alone, but a “hub core” synergizing with the Shenzhen and Guangzhou ports, jointly building a more resilient and efficient world-class port cluster. In this transformation, Hong Kong’s port’s congestion dilemma will not only be solved but will also achieve a metamorphosis from “scale expansion” to “quality enhancement,” continuing to consolidate its status as a top global international shipping center and providing solid support for the smooth flow of trade in the Greater Bay Area and globally.