Maritime Transportation and Inland Freight
Distribution: The Challenge of the Coast
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue
Dept. of Economics & Geography
Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/jean-paul_rodrigue/
Outline
■
■
■
■
1. Dislocation of Commercial Flows
2. Coping with Economies of Scale
3. Transforming Hinterlands
4. Conclusion: The Challenge of the Coast
1. Dislocation of Trade Flows
■ Differential growth
• New origins and different growth rates for freight.
■ The kindness of strangers
• Imbalanced trade and balance of payments.
■ What comes in does not come out
• Imbalanced freight flows.
■ Going with the flow
• A new reality for ports.
Share of Global GDP Growth, 1995-2002
25
20
15
10
5
0
China
US
Other Asia
EU
Japan
Rest of the
World
Increases in U.S. Commercial Freight Shipments and
Related Growth Factors, 1993–2002
Retail goods sales
Wholesale goods sales
Value of freight shipments
Gross Domestic Product
Manufacturer's goods sales
Ton-miles of freight
Tons of freight
Employment
Resident population
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
U.S. Trade in Goods and Services - Balance of Payments,
1970-2003 (billions of $US)
100
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Total
Goods
Services
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
19
74
19
72
19
70
0
Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade Routes,
2000-2002 (in millions of TEUs)
2002
7.82
2001
3.9
7.19
2000
3.86
5.59
0
3.25
5
6.17
5.93
4.53
10
4.16
4.02
2.72
2.71
3.8
Asia-USA
USA-Asia
Asia-Europe
Europe-Asia
USA-Europe
Europe-USA
3.62
3.59 2.19 2.94
15
20
25
30
Millions
Cargo Handled by the Port of New York, 1991-2003
(metric tons)
80
70
60
Bulk Cargo Exports
General Cargo Exports
Bulk Cargo Imports
General Cargo Imports
50
40
30
20
10
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Container Traffic at Major East
Coast Ports, 1990-2003 (TEU)
12) Philadelphia
11 !(
11) Boston
10) Palm Beach
1 !(
12 !(
9
8 !(
3
1990
1995
2000
2003
9) Wilmington
8) Baltimore
7) Port Everglades
!(
6) Jacksonville
5) Miami
2
4) Savannah
!(
3) Hampton Roads
4 !(
2) Charleston
6 !(
1) New York/New Jersey
10
7 !(!(
5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Millions
2. Coping with Economies of Scale
■ A heavyweight tendency
• Larger containerships.
■ Costs being externalized
• Pressures on transshipment and inland distribution.
■ Dredge it and they will come?
• The “race to the bottom”.
Five Generations of Containerships
First Generation (1956-1970)
Length Draft
135 m
Converted Cargo Vessel
Converted Tanker
200 m
<9m
< 30 ft
215 m
10 m
33 ft
TEU
500
800
Second Generation (1970-1980)
Cellular Containership
1,000 –
2,500
Third Generation (1980-1988)
3,000
250 m
Panamax Class
290 m
11-12 m
36-40 ft
4,000
Fourth Generation (1988-2000)
Post Panamax
4,000 –
5,000
275 –
305 m
11-13 m
36-43 ft
335 m
13-14 m 5,000 –
43-46 ft 8,000
Fifth Generation (2000-?)
Post Panamax Plus
The Largest Available Containership, 1980-2000 (in TEUs)
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Fourth Generation Containership (4,000 TEU), Le Havre
Average Cost per TEU by Containership Capacity and By
Route, 1997
700
Europe - Far East (11,500 miles)
Costs per TEU ($US)
600
Trans Pacific (8,000 miles)
500
Trans Atlantic (4,000 miles)
400
300
200
100
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Capacity in TEU
6000
7000
8000
Costs per TEU
Economies and Diseconomies of Scale in Container
Shipping
Capacity in TEU
Channel Depth at Selected North American Ports, 1998
(in feet)
Jacksonville
38
Charleston
40
New York
40
Savannah
42
Oakland
42
Los Angeles
1998
Phase I (2003)
Phase II (2009)
46
Baltimore
50
Hampton Roads
50
Halifax
60
Long Beach
76
Seattle
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
!(
!(
!(
Intermodal Facilities and Navigation Channels of the Port of New
York, 2003
!(
!(
(! !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( (!
!(
!( !( !(
!(!(
(! !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
37
(!!( !(
!(
37
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
45
Global
Marine
Port
Newark
!(
Red Hook
40
3
Port
Elizabeth
!(
South Brooklyn
45
!( !( !(!(
!(
(!!(
!(
Howland
Hook
!( !(
!(
(!
!(
Upper Bay
Channel
!(
2
Red Hook
!(
!(
!(
Albers Equal-Area Conic Projection
!(
43
Newark Bay
!( 40 Channel
1
!( !(
!(
Hudson River 45
!(
!(
(!
(!
!(
1- Port Newark
2- Port Elizabeth
3- Global Marine
!( !(
East River !(
40 !(
!(
!(
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Daily Truck Movements (one way), 2001
Kill Van Kull
Channel !(
Howland Hook
45
Arthur Kill Channel
The Narrows
!(
!(
Navigation Channel
Ambrose Channel
45
!(
30
Main Ship Channel
!(
(!
!(
!(
45
Control Depth (feet)
Intermodal Terminal
!(
37
Arthur Kill Channel
!(
37
Container Port (proposed)
Raritan Bay Channel
!(
Major Highway
4
2
0
4 Miles
Proposed rail tunnel
3. Transforming Hinterlands
■ The flexibility and adaptability of supply chains
• Growing functional integration.
■ Between a port and a hard place
• New hinterland structures.
■ The intermodal coast
• Regionalization and modal shift.
Functional Integration of Supply Chains
Maritime
Distribution
Land Distribution
Shipping
Agent
Stevedore
Rail / Trucking
Freight
Forwarder
Depot
Economies of scale
Shipping Line
Custom
Agent
Megacarrier
Level of functional integration
Trucking
Changes in the Relative Importance of Logistical
Functions in Distribution Systems
Demand Driven
Inventory
Transport System
Information System
Supply Driven
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The Spatial Development of a Port System
Phase 2: Penetration and hinterland capture
Phase 1: Scattered ports
LAND
SEA
Phase 3: Interconnection & concentration
Phase 4: Centralization
Phase 5: Decentralization and insertion ‘offshore’ hub
Phase 6: Regionalization
Load center
Interior centre
Freight corridor
Deepsea liner services
Shortsea/feeder services
Regional load centre network
Pendulum Route: OOCL Container Services on the North
Atlantic, 1997
Atlantic Ocean
Boston
New York
Norfolk
Savannah
Jacksonville
Houston
Miami
Felixstowe
Bremenhaven
Rotterdam
Le Havre
NAX-1
NAX-2
National Trade Areas, Articulation Points and Major Land
Freight Gateways of the United States
Articulation Point
Land Freight
Gateway
Trade Area
Corridor
Continuous and Discontinuous Hinterlands
Port A
Continuous hinterland Port A
Discontinuous
hinterland Port A
'Island' formation
Discontinuous
hinterland Port B
Port B
Continuous hinterland
Port B
Core of the service area
Middle section of the service area
Outer section of the service area
Maritime load centre
Inland terminal
Port Inland Distribution Network
Albany
Syracuse
Boston
Hartford / Springfield
Worcester / Framingham
New Haven
Davisville
I95/New Jersey
New York
Reading
Potential Regional
Barge Port
Philadelphia
Hanover
Inland Rail Terminal
Wilmington
Camden
LO/LO Barge Service
Inland Rail Route
Baltimore
Freight Cluster
Washington
0
30
60
120
180
240
300
km
Potential Modal Split Changes Due to the PIDN
2020
Truck
Rail
Barge
2001
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Modal Split for Container Traffic, Rhine Delta, 1995-2000
Antwerp
Road
Rail
Inland navigation
Rotterdam
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The Rhine Delta Port System: Mature Regionalization
0
25
50
100
150
Seaport in Rhine-Scheldt Delta
Inland Container Terminal (barge
or multimodal)
Growth region European
Distribution (outside seaport system)
Harlingen
Leeuwarden
Kilometers
200
Drachten
Alkmaar
Beverwijk
Groningen
Veendam
Meppel
Zaandam
Amsterdam Kampen
Hillegom
Utrecht
Almelo
Netherlands
Hengelo
Ede
Zutphen
Valburg
Nijmegem
Gorinchem
Oss
Oosterhout
Germany
Emmerich
Den Bosch
Duisburg
Moerdijk
Tilburg
Gennep
Zeeland Seaports
Dortmund
Krefeld
Zeebrugge
ANTWERP
Helmond Venlo
Duesseldorf
Deurne
Ostend
Neuss
Meerhout
Ghent
Dormagen
Born
Genk
Willebroek
Cologne
Wielsbeke
Stein
Grimbergen
Bonn
Brussels
Avelgem
Belgium
Liège
Lille
Delta seaport system with
multi-zone polarisation
ROTTERDAM A. a/d Rijn
Andernach
Valenciennes
France
Koblenz
Lux
Mertert
Conclusion: The Challenge of the Coast
■ A changing geography of maritime and inland distribution
• Global changes:
• New geography of production.
• Imbalanced trade flows.
• Regional gains:
• Consumption and distribution.
• Local pains:
• Congestion.
• Stressed capacities.
■ The challenge of the coast
• Port regionalization.
• Modal shift: readjustment of freight flows.
• Efficiency in distribution derived from the hinterland.