Canada’s Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Research
Consortium, Vancouver, British Columbia, May 2-4
2007
Corridors and the Maritime /
Land Interface: North America
and the Pacific
Jean-Paul Rodrigue
Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics &
Geography, Hofstra University, New York,
USA
Email: ecojpr@hofstra.edu
Paper available at:
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue
Mounting Capacity and Time Pressures in Global
Freight Distribution
■ Time is the essence…
• Surprising time underperformance:
• Only 63% of transpacific container vessels arrived on time at their
scheduled port calls.
• 53% for transatlantic port calls.
• The major factor behind delays is port congestion:
•
•
•
•
•
Multidimensional concept.
Physical docking capacity.
Transshipment capacity.
Storage capacity.
Inland capacity.
• Reinforce the importance of the maritime / land interface.
A Hard Pill to Swallow: The Emma Maersk
Logistics and the Acceleration of Freight
■ The velocity of freight
Speed barrier
Transshipment
Pull Logistics
Logistical threshold
Containerization
Push Logistics
Shipment
• Shipment and transshipment.
• No significant speed
improvements in recent
decades.
• Intermodal operations; the most
important element.
• Logistical threshold:
• Time based management of
distribution becomes a
possibility.
• From push (supply based) to
pull (demand based) logistics.
Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface
Maritime Freight
Distribution
Foreland (Shipping Network)
Inland Freight
Distribution
Port System
Gateways
Road
Rail
Corridors and Hubs
Hinterland (FDC)
Coastal / Fluvial
Foreland: Liner Shipping Networks
Regional
Port System
Conventional liner / break bulk services
Mainline services
Feeder services
Third order network
First order network
Second order network
Regional
Port System
Two Major Transpacific Pendulum Routes Serviced by
OOCL, 2006 (The Wal-Mart Express)
Vancouver
Seattle
Qingdao
Shanghai
Laem Chabang
Shekou
Ningbo
Hong Kong Kaohsiung
Northwest Express (NWX)
Pusan
Kobe Tokyo
Oakland
Los Angeles
40 Days
Nagoya
Singapore
49 Days
South China Express (SCX)
Note: Paths are approximate and transit time includes port time
Source: OOCL Web Site
Largest American Importers of Asian Goods Through
Maritime Container Transport, 2004 (in TEUs)
CVS (Eckerds)
Honda
Hamilton Beach
Toyota
Matsushita
Samsung
Payless ShoeSource
Ashley Furniture
Costco
Lowe's
Ikea
Sears (K-Mart)
Target
Home Depot
Wal-Mart
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Main North American Trade Corridors and
Metropolitan Freight Centers
Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
Winnipeg
Seattle
Halifax
Portland
Montreal
Minneapolis
Toronto
Boston
Detroit
Chicago
Salt Lake City
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Baltimore
San Francisco
Denver
Cincinnati
Kansas City
St. Louis
Norfolk
Charlotte
Los Angeles
San Diego
New York
Cleveland
Oklahoma Ci ty
Memphis
Phoenix
Atl anta
Charleston
Dallas
Hub
Gateway
Houston
New Orleans
Miami
The Hinterland Effect: Interdependencies and
Imbalances
■ Macro-economic and physical imbalances
• Globalization has made the economies of the Pacific Rim more
integrated.
• These interdependencies however come with acute imbalances.
• The core of these imbalances is at start macro-economic:
• Comparative advantages.
• Foreign direct investments.
• Debt and asset inflation.
• Macro-economic imbalances have an outcome in the physical
world of freight flows:
•
•
•
•
International trade.
Container flows.
Transportation rates.
Structure of long distance transport services.
The “Perpetual Motion” Machine: The Dynamics of
the World’s Most Significant Trade Relationship
USD
$ for goods
Unemployment
Investment
Goods
Interest Rates
Borrowing
Bonds (IOUs)
Reserves
China
$ for bonds
USD
Asset Inflation
Debt
United States
World’s 10 Largest Exporters and Importers, 2005
Belgium
Imports
Exports
Canada
Italy
United Kingdom
Netherlands
France
Japan
China
United States
Germany
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
Billions of $US
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade Routes,
1995-2006 (in millions of TEUs)
2006
14.5
2005
13.9
2004
4.9
4.3
12.4
2003
10.2
2002
8.8
2001
4.1
3.9
8.9
7.3
6.1
5.9
2000
5.6
3.3
1998
5.2
3.3 3.5 2.7 1.31.7
1995
4.0
0
9.9
4.2
3.9
7.2
12.7
4.5
7.3
5.6
2.6 4.2
1.8 3.3
Asia-USA
USA-Asia
Asia-Europe
Europe-Asia
USA-Europe
Europe-USA
5.2 1.7 3.2
4.9 1.7 2.9
4.2 1.5 2.6
4.0 2.7 3.6
3.6 2.2 2.9
3.5 2.8 2.31.21.4
10
20
30
40
50
2005-4
2005-2
2004-4
2004-2
2003-4
2003-2
2002-4
2002-2
2001-4
2001-2
2000-4
2000-2
1999-4
1999-2
1998-4
1998-2
1997-4
1997-2
1996-4
1996-2
1995-4
1995-2
$500
1994-4
1994-2
1993-4
Maritime Freight Rates (USD per TEU), 1993-2006
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
Asia - US
US- Asia
Asia - Europe
Europe - Asia
$0
Container Traffic at Major Transpacific Container
Ports: Mirror Images?
Pacific Asia
Anchorage
Tokaido
Yellow Sea
Rim
Dalian
YokohamaTokyo
Busan
Tianjin
OsakaKobe
Nagoya
2004 Traffic
Less than 2 million TEU
Quingdao
2 million to 4 million TEU
Prince Rupert
Shanghai
4 million to 7 million TEU
Ningbo
Sunan Delta
7 million to 10 million TEU
Taiwan / Fujian
Keelung
Pearl River Delta
Shenzhen
Yantian
Guangzhou
More than 10 million TEU
Kaohsiung
Puget Sound
Hong Kong
Vancouver
Fraser
Seattle
Tacoma
Portland
Manila
San Francisco Bay
Oakland
Laem Chabang
San Pedro Bay
Singapore
Los Angeles
Long Beach
Port Kalang Singapore
Tanjung Pelepas
Ensenada
Tanjung Priok
North American West Coast
Port Holdings as Elements of the Maritime / Land
Interface
■ Horizontal integration using fixed
assets
• Gain a foothold in a wide variety of
markets (strategic positioning).
• Capture value added activities
linked with inland distribution.
• Financial assets.
• Managerial expertise.
• Gateway access.
• Leverage.
• Traffic capture.
• Global perspective.
Global Port Terminal Ownership, 2001
Other Private
Port Authorities
Ocean Carriers
Global Port
Holdings
0
10
20
30
40
Share of global port container throughput
Share of global terminal ownership
50
Majort Port Holdings, 2007
Dedicated Maritime Container Terminals
APM Terminals
Dubai Ports World
Hutchison Port Holdings
Port of Singapore Authority
Eurogate
Stevedoring Services of America
Pacific Asia
Europe
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
Port Holdings at Transpacific Container Ports
Pacific Asia
Yellow Sea
Rim
14 (4)
AIG (American International Group)
Tokaido
5 (3)
APM (A.P. Moller Group)
DPW (Dubai Ports World)
EVG (Evergreen)
HAN (Hanjin)
HPH (Hutchison Port Holdings)
OOCL (Orient Overseas Container Line)
PSA (Port of Singapore Authority)
Sunan Delta
6 (2)
Pearl River Delta
16 (3)
SSA (Stevedoring Services of America)
Taiwan / Fujian
10 (6)
Puget Sound
9 (6)
San Francisco Bay
Singapore
8 (3)
San Pedro Bay
4 (3)
8 (6)
North American West Coast
Gateways and Hinterland Effect
Pacific Asia
North American West Coast
SEZ
Corridor
Inefficient Inland Freight Distribution
Efficient Inland Freight Distribution
Container Transport Costs from Inland China to US
West Coast ($US per TEU)
Land access to final
destination (USA)
Port handling (USA)
Maritime transport
Port handling (China)
Land access to port
(China)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
100.0
9
8
7
10.0
6
5
4
1.0
3
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2
1
0.1
0
Loaded (inbound)
Loaded (outbound)
Loaded Ratio (Outbound / Inbound)
Empty (inbound)
Empty (outbound)
Empties Ratio (Outbound / Inbound)
Millions
Containers Handled by the Port of Los Angeles, 19952006 (in TEU)
Port of Los Angeles / Long Beach, Inland Flows
Intra-terminal
On-dock rail
yards
Near-dock rail
yards
Alameda Corridor
Non-local
destination
16%
Non-local
destination
13%
Marine Terminal
Off-dock rail
yards
Rail
Non-local
destination
13%
Transloading
facility
Off-dock rail
yards
Non-local
destination
22%
Warehouse
Transloading
facility
Local destination 34%
Warehouse
Truck
Non-local
destination
2%
The “Agile Port” System (Maritime / Rail Container Terminal
Cluster)
On-dock rail terminal
Local & regional distribution
Dedicated Rail Corridor
National rail
distribution
Transloading
Local & regional
distribution
Port Terminal
Foreland
Inland Rail Terminal
Maritime / Land Interface
Hinterland
Container Port Traffic and Ownership of Major Rail Lines, 2005
Fraser
Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF)
Kansas City Southern (KCS)
Canadian National (CN)
Norfolk Southern (NS)
Canadian Pacific (CP)
Union Pacific (UP)
CSX Transportation (CSXT)
Other
Ferromex (FNM)
Vancouver
Tacoma
Seattle
Halifax
Portland
Montreal
Boston
New York/New Jersey
Wilmington (DE) Philadelphia
Baltimore
Oakland
Hampton Roads
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Wilmington (NC)
Charleston
Savannah
Jacksonville
Houston
Gulfport
New Orleans
Port Traffic in TEU (2005)
Less than 300,000
300,000 to 500,000
500,000 to 1,000,000
Port Everglades Palm Beach
1,000,000 to 3,000,000
Miami
More than 3,000,000
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
Potential Location of Major Transmodal Rail Facilities:
Maritime Gateways and Inland Hubs
Calgary
Vancouver
Seattle
Regina
Winnipeg
Tacoma
Montreal
Minneapolis
Chicago
Oakland
Kansas City
New York/New Jersey
St Louis
Hampton Roads
Memphis
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Dallas / Fort Worth
Houston
Charleston
Savannah
Maritime Rail Gateway
Transmodal Rail Hub
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
Conclusion: Improving the North American Maritime /
Land Interface
■ Transpacific trade
• Substantial rebalancing of the global economy.
• Emergence of global production networks.
• Imbalanced freight flows.
■ The Maritime / land interface
• An interaction between maritime shipping networks, gateways
and their corridors.
• Improving the velocity of freight from an intermodal and
transmodal perspective.
• The throughput of a gateway must be supported by the
throughput of its corridors (vice-versa).
• The introduction of a new generation of containerships (above
10,000 TEU) may force solutions.
The Future of the Maritime / Land Interface: Maritime Shipping
Companies taking Control of Inland Distribution?