Z
Z
Piedmont Triad
Inland Terminal
Charlotte Inland
Terminal
Z
Z
Port of Morehead City
Port of Wilmington
DRAFT | February 2011
NCSPA Port Business Case Project
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared on the basis of a scope of work agreed with the North Carolina State Ports
Authority. In preparing this report Moffatt & Nichol has used both internal and publicly available data
sources.
Moffatt & Nichol can accept no liability for the accuracy of data sourced in good faith from third party
sources. Moffatt & Nichol undertakes no obligation to notify recipients of events occurring after the date on
the front cover that might change the content or conclusion of this report. It should be noted that market
outlooks are based on currently observed market structures and their interpretation.
Moffatt & Nichol can also accept no liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose
other than for which it was commissioned and should not be relied upon for any other project without an
independent suitability analysis being undertaken and the prior written authority of Moffatt & Nichol being
obtained.
NCSPA Port Business
Case Study
Executive Summary
Presented to:
North Carolina State Ports Authority
February 2011
Prepared by:
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Statement of Report Findings
Report Background
Growth in containerized world trade, and expansion of the Panama Canal targeted for 2014, is prompting
ocean carriers to expand their fleets with ever larger vessels, which in turn requires ports to make
preparations to accommodate this trend. Ports that are not able to handle the increased volumes arriving on
larger ships are likely to lose shipping services to those facilities that are better equipped and capable,
thereby depriving regions of the benefits of low cost access to world trade. Given the mission of the North
Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSPA) is to enhance the economy of North Carolina and based on the
expected trends in the global containerized trade industry, Moffatt & Nichol was commissioned to review
NCSPA facilities to identify how coming shipping and port industry changes will affect their mission. This
report provides the NCSPA with a review of the future freight market, competing port infrastructure
expansion and shipping industry changes to help determine how existing NCSPA facilities are positioned and
what improvements should be made to accommodate these changes to improve how its ports maintain and
attract business.
According to the Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) at North Carolina State
University in Raleigh, NC, container activity is responsible for around 85% of NCSPA economic impacts when
measured in terms of output, employment and taxes. Containers moving to the Mid and South Atlantic
region includes discretionary cargo that could pass through different ports if the supporting transportation
infrastructure and waterway access is in place. Cargo moving in containerized form represents higher
sustained growth on a global trade basis to/from the US compared to cargo moving via bulk/breakbulk
shipping.
Existing NCSPA cargo-handling facilities, comprising the Port of Wilmington (POW), Morehead City (MHC) and
Radio Island (RI) collectively handle, or have potential to handle, a mix of different cargo types, including
containers, breakbulk and bulk commodities. POW regained lost container market share after the 2004 Cape
Fear channel deepening process and subsequent investment in berth improvements and new cranes. This
allowed the second CKYH – the Green Alliance string to commence calls, plus the Independent Container
Lines transatlantic service and a Maersk Line Central America service to relocate to POW. The ability to
attract additional container services to POW demonstrates how investment in port infrastructure increases
competitiveness.
NCSPA Economic Impacts
The key findings of the “Economic Contribution of the North Carolina Ports” study by ITRE are that the
container operations at POW contributed a total of 1.4% of North Carolina’s Gross State Product (GSP) of
$400.2 billion in 2008 and approximately 35% of North Carolina’s transportation and warehousing industry
output.
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 1
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
POW activities supported $473 million in tax revenues for the state and local governments, while NCSPA
activities supported 65,300 jobs in North Carolina, or about 2% of total employment in the state, with
container operations at POW accounting for approximately 89% of the 65,300 total jobs generated by NCSPA
activities.
While NCSPA’s container operations in overall terms accounts for a small fraction of overall state income and
employment, it is more than a third of the state’s transportation sector output and therefore a major part of
North Carolina’s economic infrastructure. NCSPA container activities directly generate 38,400 jobs. Direct
jobs are those jobs with local firms providing support services to POW, such as railroads, trucking companies,
longshoremen, dockworkers, administrative staff, agents, freight forwarders, warehouse operators, and
financial and legal services. These jobs are dependent upon this activity and would suffer immediate
dislocation if the port’s activity ceases. Another conservative estimate of an additional 19,900 jobs across the
state are either induced or are indirectly a result of NCSPA container activity.
In total, over 58,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs exist in North Carolina because of container activities at
POW. These jobs do not exist because of the port but they are supported by port activities due to the
provision of access to import and export trade with countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and South
America. It is likely that companies that depend on the low cost access to the global markets that NCSPA
offers would shift operations closer to other ports, and very likely out of state, if NCSPA were to cease
container operations.
Besides base jobs and other industries supported by base activities that would be impacted by the loss of
NCSPA port activity, there is potential for future business investment in North Carolina to be lost if there is
lack of investment in port activities and supporting infrastructure. In short, the likely potential economic
disruption that would result if POW were unable to remain a viable point of access for cargo imports and
exports is significant and very likely to have long-lasting effects.
Competitive Regional Market & Key Industry Dynamics
There is an established port market serving the Mid and South Atlantic region and NCSPA facilities remain an
integrated part of this competitive area. Ports in the region continue to look to serve their own respective
hinterlands but also rely on intermodal rail to ensure that more distant locations can also be served. This is
something the likes of Virginia Ports Authority (VPA) and Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) are doing more
successfully than NCSPA because of the lack of comparable hinterland rail connectivity from NCSPA ports.
Competing ports in this region are also investing in their facilities by improving equipment and infrastructure.
There are some obvious challenges as well. Savannah and Charleston, for example, need to ensure that they
successfully dredge the Savannah and Cooper rivers to be able to receive larger container ships in the future
and any delay they incur in this process will negatively impact the competitiveness of their port facilities.
It is imperative for NCSPA to be perceived as a competitive option and to do that the NCSPA facilities must
offer comparable water depth, terminal capacity, levels of efficient service and vastly improved hinterland
connectivity to service market demand in order to match other facilities in its competitive Mid and South
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 2
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Atlantic region. This investment is required for POW and/or MHC/RI to be more competitive against other
regional ports currently serving discretionary hinterland locations that are within NCSPA facility service areas.
If the overall trend in a container trade lane is for ship sizes to continue to increase, as is evident in those
cargo routes served by Mid and South Atlantic ports, then competitiveness offered amongst different ports
vying to receive ocean carrier calls will only intensify. Those facilities offering the deeper water, better
terminal operating efficiencies and pricing and benefitting from the stronger hinterland connectivity will
succeed in terms of attracting cargo.
There is unlikely to be a sudden change in the size of ships transiting the Panama Canal after completion of
the expansion in 2014. However, the ongoing trend for use of bigger ships will continue but it will remain
driven by volume demand and, depending on geographic location, capability of ports to handle larger
tonnage and the Panama Canal expansion will help increase the pace of this trend. The East Coast of South
America is, for example, a region generating strong cargo demand but the majority of its ports lack sufficient
water depth or infrastructure to receive ships that ocean carriers wish to deploy. Many of these ports are in
the process of developing facilities that will accommodate larger vessels. The permitting and construction
process is shorter than for US ports, so the completion of projects in Latin America markets will further
impact opportunities available to US ports which will not be able to accept the larger ships.
As such, the trend for deeper draft ships serving the US Mid and South Atlantic region will be driven by the
capability of the port infrastructure, which includes water depth.
Figure A notes the range of vessel drafts for various vessels entering the Port of Long Beach/Los Angeles
where the depth is not restrained. These two ports have been selected as a good example of where larger
container ships enter port facilities with no water depth restrictions. All elevations are measured relative to
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) because this is the controlling factor and does not account for tidal
influences, which can increase the draft capabilities of POW/MHC facilities by up to 2ft. Figure A shows how
the transition to larger vessels will affect the shipping opportunities available to the POW. Lines A through D
represent the vessel draft, channel depth (vessel draft plus 4 ft) and the percentage of 6,000 TEU to 8,000
TEU ships that can be typically accommodated at that depth. In review of NCSPA facilities, POW has a
channel depth of 42ft and MHC/RI has 45ft. Current ship transit criteria for NCSPA ports require 4ft of underkeel clearance, so this extra 4ft must be added to the vessel draft. For example, line A shows that 20% to 45%
of 6,000 TEU to 8,000 TEU vessels can access POW via its current 42ft channel (based on 38ft of water draft
and 4ft of under keel clearance).
If the channel at POW were deepened to 45ft, the same depth as MHC/RI, the POW would be able to receive
vessels needing 41ft of draft, this water depth almost triples the 8,000 TEU vessel potential to over 70%.
Going to a channel depth of 47ft to accept 43ft draft ships more than quadruples the ability to receive the
larger vessels to over 90% of the 8,000 TEU size classification.
This channel deepening process will be crucial to the NC ports remaining competitive. The channel depths
noted can be reduced by up to 2ft to account for tidal influences if restrictions on traversing the Cape Fear
River are enacted. However, shipping lines prefer to have no restrictions and this is an important factor that
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 3
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
can influence their decision relating to port selection, since early or late arrivals do not have to wait for the
tidal cycle.
Figure A: Typical Vessel Draft Analysis of Unimpaired Arriving Ships
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
99% to 100%
Line D
91% to 96%
Line C
10%
68% to85%
Line A
20%
Line B
30%
20%to 45%
40%
0%
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vessel Draft (ft) - Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)
Note: Add 4 ft to vessel draft to determine required channel depth for underkeel clearance
8000 TEU
7000 TEU
6000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
The major ocean carriers have existing shipping fleets and new tonnage on order to introduce larger ships
into service in the future to call to the US East Coast. Key trading routes, such as the East-West transpacific
All-Water via Panama Canal (and Asia to US East Coast via Suez Canal) and North-South routes from Latin
America, will see future demand necessitating the introduction of bigger ships. Ports on the East Coast that
offer up to 50ft of water depth, larger cranes, good road/rail access and sufficient terminal capacity will be
regarded as the preferred ports of call by shipping lines. For NCSPA to be competitive it will need to satisfy
the key criteria in the same way that other regional facilities are acting to remain viable gateway cargo
options.
1. There are some airdraft restrictions impacting ship access to POW and none at MHC. The existing
airdraft for POW is 170.5ft (186.5ft minus 16ft per OSHA) at the center of the access channel. The
16ft clearance is required for vessels to safely pass under Progress Energy Powerlines. As the gradual
trend towards larger ships occurs, this restrictive airdraft for container ships may impact the
competitiveness of NCSPA ports and may require mitigation.
As Section 3 of this report outlines, there are large-scale port improvement projects planned over the course
of the next 10-15 years along the East Coast. These plans include a mix of additional port capacity and
dredging to gain deeper water to serve larger ships likely to enter service along with improved road/rail
connections. Even though some ports may not be fully positioned to accommodate larger vessels, it is
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 4
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
evident that the industry as a whole is focused on this event and NCSPA needs investment in its ports and
supporting infrastructure in order to stay competitive.
Cargo Forecasts & Potential for NCSPA
Potential population growth in the state of North Carolina is one of the biggest factors influencing the need
for NCSPA to expand its ports. The strong outlook for population growth underlies the overall outlook for
higher future consumption trends, meaning that the development of NCSPA facilities to meet demand will be
less controlled by the activities of adjacent, competing ports and more by NCSPA being able to offer facilities
that allow shippers and ocean carriers to bring cargo to markets NCSPA serves more cheaply.
US container trades are expected to continue to grow. By 2030, US imports will have risen to almost 38
million TEU per annum, with US exports totaling nearly 31.5 million TEU, as Table A identifies. North Asia will
remain the largest trade lane, growing to 23.5 million TEU for imports and almost 13.5 million TEU for
exports.
Table A: Summary of US Import and Export Trade Lane Demand to 2030, in TEU
2010
Imports
Exports
16,614,334
11,809,325
2030
37,919,172
31,438,235
CAGR*
4.2%
5.0%
Note: Compound Average Growth Rate (CAGR) reflects the average annual growth in percentage terms.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol uses a process called the Least Cost Market Analysis (LCMA) to identify the least cost port
and mode of transportation to serve an inland hinterland market designated by zip code.
It is estimated that the 2010 container volumes at POW accounted for 31.8% of the total container demand
of the LCMA believed to be potentially available to the port. Of this total, 85% of the POW’s import container
volumes originate in North Asia and 60% of POW export container volumes are destined for shipment to
North Asia. Figure B shows the total potential container market opportunity for NCSPA based on the LCMA
analysis for the region in which NCSPA is the lowest-cost port.
Assuming that the share of container traffic per trade lane and direction (import and export) for POW is
maintained throughout the forecast period to 2040, base case projected container volumes using NCSPA port
facilities will increase to approximately 480,000 loaded TEU by 2030 and 600,000 loaded TEU by 2040. If the
historical share of empty containers handled remains around 33% of total loaded boxes, total case container
throughout for NCPSA is projected to be almost 640,000 TEU by 2030 and almost 800,000 TEU by 2040.
For comparative purposes, three alternatives were investigated. The scenario labeled “maintain current
facilities” is based on no improvements made by NCSPA. At the other extreme, “fully competitive facility”,
the scenario includes full intermodal rail connectivity and a deep water facility of at least 47ft and proper
landside infrastructure. The “moderate facility improvements” scenario assumes some marginal deepening
along with minor port and rail capacity improvements to maintain current market share.
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 5
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure B: NCSPA Loaded Container TEU Volume Forecasts to 2040 for Various Conditions
TEU
Maintain Current Facilities
TEU
Moderate Facility Improvements
TEU
Fully Competitive Facility Improvements
Addressable Market
Estimated Container Volumes
Source: NCSPA; MarAd; Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 6
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
With a current nominal container yard capacity of 500,000 TEU at POW, including berth and gate upgrades,
congestion is anticipated before 2025. Any ability to increase trade lane market share through improved
NCSPA facilities, such as water depth and intermodal rail connectivity improvements could see container
volume projections increase faster and put extra pressure on the existing facilities unless additional capacity
is made available.
Assessment of NCSPA Infrastructure
In order to deliver a summary of the market potential for POW and MHC/RI, Table B provides an overview of
the existing NCSPA port facilities for several key components, such as water depth, road/rail hinterland
connections and shipping dynamics.
Table B: Summary Assessment of NCSPA Port Infrastructure
Assessment
Summary
POW
•
•
Currently has 45ft channel depth at RI but
only 35ft at one third of MHC berths.
•
Nominal rail service and future road
connectivity will be improved if Highway 70
improvements are completed.
Improved rail service and development of a
nearby intermodal facility are the single
most important improvement to POW for
interim and future operations, along with
progressing to gain deeper channels.
•
Major facility upgrades
accommodate larger ships.
•
Could probably meet demands of a
dedicated user.
•
Road connectivity will be improved with
Skyway Bridge construction project.
•
Rail improvements required to minimize
impacts to Morehead City.
•
Improvements required to infrastructure to
increase berth capacity.
•
Deeper water needed – minimum of 45ft to
50ft necessary to accommodate larger
ships. As noted, 47ft is the recommended
minimum depth.
•
RI channel deepening possible – previous EIS
addressed 45ft depth. Deeper water (such
as 47 ft+) may be possible due to short
ocean channel and beneficial reuse of
material.
•
Planned channel realignment at entrance
will assist in current and future ship
maneuvers.
•
Cost of infrastructure would be significant to
develop a new terminal at RI or deepen
channel and improve berths at MHC.
Planned enlargement of the turning basin
will accommodate larger ships and meet
PIANC standards.
•
Capacity constraints at MHC/RI due to size
of property and a major hurdle for potential
investors.
•
Water Depth/Channel
MHC/RI
•
•
Future opportunities for the facility will be
strained unless channel improvements are
gained to accommodate larger ships –
notably deeper water (45ft to 50 ft),
improvements to the S-curve alignment
and enlargement of the turning basin.
required
Ocean bar will likely require blasting due to
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 7
to
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
Assessment
POW
MHC/RI
the presence of rock at the entrance
channel extending oceanward.
•
Road/Rail Inland
Connections
Shipping Dynamics
Market Potential
Larger ships have to carry lighter loads or
drop cargo elsewhere first to access POW if
deepening not performed. Likely outcome
is that POW will be relegated to serving a
small share of the available market through
5,000 TEU and smaller vessels.
•
Naturally deep channel in front of Berth 4
through 7 would require little dredging to
get to 45ft.
•
No airdraft restrictions at MHC
•
Current airdraft of 170.5ft may not be
sufficient for all vessels. As the gradual
trend towards larger ships occurs, a
restrictive airdraft for container ships
accessing
POW
would
impact
competitiveness.
•
Improved rail connections at competitive
rates to hinterlands essential.
•
Improved rail connections at competitive
rates to hinterlands essential.
•
Nearby intermodal facility to allow makeup of unit trains is essential.
•
Nearby intermodal facility to allow make-up
of unit trains essential.
•
Unit trains through Wilmington will impact
City due to current route and number of atgrade crossings.
•
Unit trains through MHC will impact City due
to location in center of road and number of
at-grade crossings.
•
NCDOT Road improvements planned would
improve connectivity.
•
•
Class 1 railroad, NCRR
investment required.
Completion of Highway 70 improvements
means RI will be located on the “right” side
and gain from improved roadway
connectivity.
•
Significant Class 1 railroad, NCRR and NCDOT
investment required
•
Current operating facilities not adequate for
container operations.
•
Major facility upgrades are required.
•
Deeper water and future hinterland
connectivity makes RI attractive to a
dedicated user but major investment is
required.
•
•
and
NCDOT
Larger ships entering service will reduce
serviceability for POW (containers and
bulk/breakbulk).
Better intermodal rail access and deeper
water of at least 47ft essential to allow
POW to be more competitive and help
increase container volumes.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 8
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
The Need for a Competitive Port in North Carolina
North Carolina needs a competitive port capable of handling larger ships and serve industry that is moving
closer to the supply chain to reduce shipping and transportation costs. The current estimated POW market
share, and the ability to serve more distant discretionary markets, is threatened by capacity and better
hinterland connections at competing Mid and South Atlantic regional ports.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) determines BEA regions as areas economically related, clustered
around centers of high residential and/or commercial economic activity. There are five BEA regions local to
NCSPA ports where an existing cost-competitive advantage is retained over other regional ports. However, if
these BEAs are not met by NCSPA due to a lack of hinterland infrastructure or inability of ships to call to POW
or MHC/RI, then other Mid and South Atlantic regional ports will quickly meet this cargo demand instead.
Previous investment in port and supporting infrastructure helped improve the regional competitiveness of
NCSPA facilities and POW gained container market share in the latter half of the past decade after the
channel deepening occurred in 2004. However, other Mid and South Atlantic ports continue to expand,
improve the quality of facilities and increase capacity. Therefore, to maintain competitiveness NCSPA has to
gain better hinterland connectivity to its intermodal rail services because improved access will further enable
its ports to compete more effectively for existing and future discretionary markets. This connectivity vastly
increases the competitive footprint of any port and is an essential component that must be provided.
The minimum water depth to access NCSPA cargo facilities should be 47ft, to accommodate 8,000 TEU-size
ships, which are anticipated to be the future container vessel workhorse. The opening of the enlarged
Panama Canal from 2014 will see shipping lines commence the transition to larger vessels for Asian services.
Although this process will be gradual, a shift is nonetheless expected. Without sufficient water depth and rail
connectivity, the state of North Carolina will be negatively impacted by a loss of shippers and ocean carrier
customers at its ports.
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 9
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Report Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
An option available to the NCSPA of doing nothing, or maintaining the status quo, is not realistic as
the opportunities available to the NCSPA are likely to be severely impacted by the industry
movement towards use of larger ships. The ocean liner fleet changes, coupled with the current
channel water depths at competing ports, could relegate NCSPA to competing to serve only for
smaller shipping lines. Without a deeper channel depth and better supporting hinterland
connections, major volume industries will relocate out of North Carolina to other states to be
closer to the supply chain to reduce their costs. This industrial migration is much more likely if
there is an absence of a viable port integrated into the regional and national logistics
transportation chain;
Besides base jobs and other industries supported by base activities that would be impacted by the
loss of NCSPA port activity, there is potential for future business investment in North Carolina to
be lost if there is lack of investment in port activities and supporting infrastructure. In short, the
likely potential economic disruption that would result if POW were unable to remain a viable point
of access for cargo imports and exports is significant and very likely to have long-lasting effects;
Current NCSPA ports are not positioned to accommodate the expected transition to larger vessels.
The opportunities to maintain current and acquire new services using larger ships will be impacted.
Smaller shipping lines are also likely to be negatively impacted by the increased capacity of bigger
shipping lines and face the potential threat of struggling to retain volumes themselves;
Increasing the channel depth from the current 42ft to depths equal to, or greater than, 47ft and
other possible channel improvements (such as the S-curve realignment and turning basin
enlargement) will allow NCSPA ports to remain competitive and expand opportunities. Deepening
to 50ft of water depth would place NCSPA ahead of many other regional facilities as it would then
allow all 8,000 TEU class ships to access its ports with no restrictions;
Each NCSPA port suffers from insufficient hinterland connectivity. Even if channel depth and port
infrastructure is improved, the current road and rail connections require major improvements to
help NCSPA attract additional business and generate additional volumes;
A viable rail connection with competitive rates to allow access to intermodal operations is the
single most important landside infrastructure improvement required to assist the NCSPA to
maintain/gain market share for containerized products;
NCSPA is threatened by the containerization of some bulk and breakbulk materials. These
commodities will be impacted by the transition to larger vessels as the container shipping
capacities increase and container service providers continue to target bulk/breakbulk materials;
The typical shipping industry standard for serving the East Coast will change with the opening of
the Panama Canal. The introduction of larger ships and the move towards a much greater share of
8,000 TEU vessels in service is expected over time. Almost all ports serving the US East Coast are
planning to deepen their channels to accommodate the deeper draft vessels by deepening access
channels to 47ft to 50ft depths;
The speed of change in vessel size and the economies of scale for ocean carriers that will prevail
from the use of bigger ships, will be dictated by many factors such as fuel prices, competitive
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 10
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
pressures from shippers, industrial/manufacturing requirements, speed of port infrastructure
improvements, cargo demands and the economy.
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page 11
NCSPA Port Business
Case Study
Report
Presented to:
North Carolina State Ports Authority
February 2011
Prepared by:
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Background to Project
Growth in containerized world trade, and expansion of the Panama Canal targeted for 2014, is prompting
ocean carriers to expand their fleets with ever larger vessels, which in turn requires ports to make
preparations to accommodate this trend. Ports that are not able to handle the increased volumes arriving on
larger ships are likely to lose shipping services to those facilities that are better equipped and capable,
thereby depriving regions of the benefits of low cost access to world trade.
Given the mission of North Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSPA) is to enhance the economy of North
Carolina, and on the basis of the expected trends in the global containerized trade industry, Moffatt & Nichol
was commissioned to review NCSPA facilities to identify how coming shipping and port industry changes will
affect their mission.
This report provides NCSPA with a review of the future freight market, competing port infrastructure
expansion and shipping industry operations to help determine how existing NCSPA facilities are positioned
and what improvements should be made to accommodate these changes to improve competitiveness of
ports’ to maintain and attract business.
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table of Contents
1.NCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network .............................................................. 1
1.1.
Objective of the Study .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.
Review of Previous Reports .................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.
Historic Development of NCSPA Cargo Volumes.................................................................................. 7
1.3.1.
Container Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.2.
Non-Container Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 9
2.NCSPA Economic Impacts........................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.
Background and Methodology ........................................................................................................... 13
2.2.
Output Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.
Employment Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 15
2.4.
Tax Impacts ......................................................................................................................................... 16
2.5.
Geographic Distribution of NCSPA Economic Impacts ....................................................................... 17
2.6.
Additional Considerations Concerning POW’s Contribution to the North Carolina Economy ........... 18
3.Forecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities ................................................................................. 22
3.1.
Sensitivities Influencing Cargo Forecasts............................................................................................ 22
3.1.1.
Internal forces............................................................................................................................. 22
3.1.2.
External forces ............................................................................................................................ 26
3.1.3.
Policy issues ................................................................................................................................ 90
3.2.
LCMA Trade Lane Analysis .................................................................................................................. 94
3.2.1.
US Container Trade Lane Forecasts ............................................................................................ 94
3.2.2.
LCMA Methodology .................................................................................................................... 97
3.2.3.
North Asia ................................................................................................................................. 101
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page i
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
3.2.4.
South East Asia ......................................................................................................................... 105
3.2.5.
Transatlantic ............................................................................................................................. 108
3.2.6.
East Coast South America ......................................................................................................... 112
3.2.7.
West Coast South America ....................................................................................................... 115
3.3.
NCSPA Container Forecasts to 2030 ................................................................................................. 119
3.3.1.
Methodology and Approach ..................................................................................................... 119
3.3.2.
Container Trade Lane Forecast Potential ................................................................................. 119
3.3.3.
NCSPA Container Forecast Summary ....................................................................................... 121
3.4.
NCSPA Bulk and Breakbulk Forecasts to 2040.................................................................................. 124
4.Port Opportunities/Obstacles .................................................................................................................. 127
4.1.
Existing Facility Analysis.................................................................................................................... 127
4.1.1.
Previous Capital Investment Supporting NCSPA Port Facilities................................................ 127
4.1.2.
Wilmington Harbor Channel Conditions................................................................................... 130
4.1.3.
Morehead City Harbor Channel Conditions ............................................................................. 135
4.1.4.
Port Berth Review ..................................................................................................................... 138
4.1.5.
Backlands Capacity ................................................................................................................... 141
4.1.6.
Existing / Programmed Road and Rail Connectivity ................................................................. 151
4.2.
Future Obstacles and Overcoming Bottlenecks ............................................................................... 157
4.2.1.
Channel Depth Requirements .................................................................................................. 158
4.2.2.
Channel Depth Alternatives...................................................................................................... 162
4.2.3.
Ship Maneuvering Study ........................................................................................................... 166
5. APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................ 181
5.1.
Container Trade Lane Market Potential ........................................................................................... 181
5.1.1.
North Asia Trade Lane Container Potential .............................................................................. 181
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page ii
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
5.1.2.
South East Asia Trade Lane Container Potential ...................................................................... 183
5.1.3.
Transatlantic Trade Lane Container Potential .......................................................................... 185
5.1.4.
Latin America Trade Lane Container Potential ......................................................................... 187
5.2.
Port Codes ........................................................................................................................................ 190
Figures
Figure 1.1: Summary Overview of POW Facilities ........................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2: Summary Overview of MHC Facilities ........................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.3: Comparison of GDP Growth and Selected Mid and South Atlantic Port TEU Volumes, 1981 2010 ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 1.4: POW Share of Mid and South Atlantic Loaded TEU Port Volumes, 1997 - 2010 .......................... 8
Figure 1.5: NCSPA Bulk & Breakbulk Combined Volumes, 2003 – 2010 in Tons .......................................... 10
Figure 2.1: North Carolina Regional Impacts Map for Output and Number of Jobs ..................................... 18
Figure 3.1: Employment growth in the US, North Carolina and Wilmington MSA ....................................... 23
Figure 3.2: Personal income growth in US and North Carolina, 2001-2010 ................................................. 23
Figure 3.3: New residential construction permits in North Carolina (12-month rolling sum), 1990-2010 ... 25
Figure 3.4: US industrial production by industry, 2005-2010 ....................................................................... 26
Figure 3.5: Retail sales, inventories and inventory/sales ratio, 1992 – 2010 ............................................... 29
Figure 3.6: Industrial Production, January 1967 – July 2009......................................................................... 30
Figure 3.7: Overview of Major Road and Rail Routes for Ports in Mid and South Atlantic Region............... 32
Figure 3.8: Impact of Size of Crane for Handling Containers to/from Larger Ships ...................................... 44
Figure 3.9: Development of Container Volumes at Mid and South Atlantic Ports, 1999 – 2009, in TEU ..... 47
Figure 3.10: Development of Share of Traffic in Mid and South Atlantic Region, 1999 – 2009, in %........... 48
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page iii
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.11: Summary of Global Container Fleet Based on Ship Size & LOA, Q3 2010................................. 60
Figure 3.12: Summary of Global Container Fleet by Size & Draft, Q3 2010 .................................................. 61
Figure 3.13: Confirmed Container Ship Orders by Size and Year of Delivery, Q3 2010 ................................ 63
Figure 3.14: Confirmed Container Ship Orders by Size and Operator, Q3 2010 ........................................... 65
Figure 3.15: Share of Bulk Global Ship Fleet and Order book by Size, Q3 2010 ........................................... 67
Figure 3.16: Share of Multipurpose Global Ship Fleet and Order book by Size, Q3 2010 ............................ 68
Figure 3.17: Share of Ro-Ro Global Ship Fleet and Order book by Size, Q3 2010......................................... 69
Figure 3.18: East – West Container Shipping Trade Routes Serving North America .................................... 70
Figure 3.19: Summary of Weekly Calls per Atlantic Port for East-West Trade Lanes, Q3 2010.................... 74
Figure 3.20: Summary of Weekly Calls per Atlantic Port for North-South Trade Lanes, Q3 2010 ................ 81
Figure 3.21: Key Container Shipping Line Routes with the Panama Canal as the Focal Point ...................... 84
Figure 3.22: Development of Transpacific and Transatlantic Container Volumes and Slot Capacity, 1995 –
2010, in ‘000 TEU........................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 3.23: Transportation Cost Examples from LCMA Modelling Process ................................................. 98
Figure 3.24: North Asia Trade Lane to POW – No Rail Improvements and 4,500 TEU Ship ....................... 102
Figure 3.25: North Asia Trade Lane to POW – No Rail Improvements and 8,000 TEU Ship ....................... 103
Figure 3.26: North Asia Trade Lane to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship.............. 104
Figure 3.27: North Asia Trade Lane to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship .............. 105
Figure 3.28: South East Asia – Current Least Cost Market Area ................................................................. 106
Figure 3.29: South East Asia Trade Lane to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship ...... 107
Figure 3.30: South East Asia Trade Lane to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship ...... 108
Figure 3.31: Transatlantic Trade Lane to POW – No Rail Improvements and 4,500 TEU Ship.................... 110
Figure 3.32: Transatlantic Trade Lane to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship .......... 111
Figure 3.33: Transatlantic Trade Lane to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship .......... 112
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page iv
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.34: East Coast of South America – Current Least Cost Market Area ............................................ 113
Figure 3.35: East Coast of South America Theoretical Call to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000
TEU Ship....................................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 3.36: East Coast of South America Theoretical Call to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000
TEU Ship....................................................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 3.37: West Coast of South America – Current Least Cost Market Area ........................................... 116
Figure 3.38: West Coast of South America Theoretical Call to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and
8,000 TEU Ship............................................................................................................................................. 117
Figure 3.39: West Coast of South America Theoretical Call to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and
8,000 TEU Ship............................................................................................................................................. 118
Figure 3.40: Market Demand & NCSPA TEU Volume Forecast Scenarios to 2040 ...................................... 123
Figure 3.41: Summary of Bulk and Breakbulk Cargo Forecasts for POW and MHC to 2040....................... 124
Figure 4.1: Competing Container Terminals with Similar “Last Mile” Road Configuration as POW ........... 129
Figure 4.2: USACE Wilmington District, Wilmington Harbor Channel Alignment ....................................... 134
Figure 4.3: Channel Alignment, Port of Morehead City .............................................................................. 136
Figure 4.4 Inset of MHC Facility................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 4.5 Current Leased Areas within POW boundaries .......................................................................... 140
Figure 4.6: Confirmation of Net Storage Area Potential ............................................................................. 143
Figure 4.7: Project Area for Container Terminal on Radio Island, Showing Areas on the Site Currently
Leased.......................................................................................................................................................... 144
Figure 4.8: Container Vessel Calls at POW in 2009 ..................................................................................... 147
Figure 4.9: Existing and Proposed Roadway System near POW ................................................................. 152
Figure 4.10: Existing Rail Route Through City of Wilmington (Route shown is approximately 13 miles) ... 153
Figure 4.11: Proposed and Planned US 70 Improvements between MHC/RI and I-95 (Super 70 projects)154
Figure 4.12: Proposed and Planned Roadway Connections to MHC/RI ...................................................... 155
Figure 4.13: Existing Rail Route Through Morehead City............................................................................ 156
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page v
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.14: Salinity at Wilmington Harbor ................................................................................................. 159
Figure 4.15: Cumulative Probability of Actual Vessel Draft – Panamax and Smaller Vessels ..................... 161
Figure 4.16: Cumulative Probability of Actual Vessel Draft – Post Panamax Vessels ................................. 162
Figure 4.17: Vessel Draft Analysis for Container Ships Arriving Unimpaired .............................................. 164
Figure 4.18: Wind Vector Applied to Transit Maneuvers ............................................................................ 168
Figure 4.19: Vessel Maneuvering Track Configuration ............................................................................... 171
Figure 4.20: Vessel Maneuvering Track Configuration – Existing Vessel Shown ........................................ 172
Figure 4.21: Inbound Maneuver – Existing Containership .......................................................................... 174
Figure 4.22: Inbound Maneuver – Existing Containership in Red; Future Containership in Gold .............. 175
Figure 4.23: Inbound Maneuver – Future Containership: No Environment in Gold; Flood Tide with 20 knots
Wind in Red; Ebb Tide with 20 knots Wind in Blue ..................................................................................... 176
Figure 4.24: Inbound Maneuver – Reach 4 ................................................................................................. 177
Figure 4.25: Outbound Maneuver – Future Containership in Red; Existing Containership in Gold ........... 179
Figure 5.1: LCMA by Port for North Asian Imports, 2010............................................................................ 181
Figure 5.2: LCMA by Port for Exports to North Asia, 2010 .......................................................................... 182
Figure 5.3: Hypothetical LCMA by Port for North Asian Imports, 2015 ...................................................... 183
Figure 5.4: LCMA by Port for South East Asia Imports, 2010 ...................................................................... 184
Figure 5.5: LCMA by Port for South East Asia Exports, 2010....................................................................... 184
Figure 5.6: Hypothetical LCMA by Port for South East Asian Imports, 2015 .............................................. 185
Figure 5.7: Share of Import Volumes by Port for Transatlantic Trade Lane, 2010...................................... 186
Figure 5.8: Share of Export Volumes by Port for the Transatlantic Trade Lane, 2010 ................................ 186
Figure 5.9: Hypothetical LCMA by Port for Transatlantic Trade, 2015 ....................................................... 187
Figure 5.10: Share of Import Volumes by Port for the ECSA Trade Lane, 2010 .......................................... 188
Figure 5.11: Share of Import Volumes by Port for the WCSA Trade Lane, 2010 ........................................ 188
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page vi
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 5.12: Hypothetical LCMA by Port for Latin America Trade, 2015 .................................................... 189
Tables
Table 1.1: Documents and Reports Reviewed by Moffatt & Nichol ............................................................... 5
Table 2.1: Output Impact of POW Container Operations ............................................................................. 14
Table 2.2: Employment Impact of POW’s Container Operations.................................................................. 16
Table 2.3: Tax Revenues Generated By POW Container Operations ............................................................ 17
Table 2.4: Regional Impacts Estimates .......................................................................................................... 17
Table 2.5: POW Containerized Volumes and Base Employment in Supported Industries............................ 19
Table 3.1: Overview of Free Trade Agreements............................................................................................ 31
Table 3.2: Comparison of Cargo Activities at Ports Serving the Mid and South Atlantic Region .................. 34
Table 3.3: Summary of Facilities at Ports Handling Containers in Mid and South Atlantic Region, 2010 .... 35
Table 3.4: Confirmed Information Relating to Expansion Projects in Mid and South Atlantic Region ......... 42
Table 3.5: Confirmed Channel Depths/Berth Depths for Container Ports on the US Atlantic Coast, Q3 2010
....................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 3.6: Reported 2009 Container Volumes and 2010 YTD Totals for Mid and South Atlantic Ports ....... 48
Table 3.7: Mid and South Atlantic Port Region – Bulk and Breakbulk Cargo ex Fuel, 2003 – 2010E ............ 49
Table 3.8: Mid and South Atlantic Port Region – Imports by Commodity, 2003 – 2010E ............................ 50
Table 3.9: Mid and South Atlantic Region - Exports by Commodity, 2003 – 2010E ..................................... 53
Table 3.10: Strenghts, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis of Competing Mid and South
Atlantic Ports ................................................................................................................................................ 55
Table 3.11: Historic Development Outlining Typical Container Ship Characteristics ................................... 59
Table 3.12: Container Fleet Operated by Top 20 Container Shipping Lines, Q3 2010 .................................. 62
Table 3.13: Typical Bulk Ship Characteristics ................................................................................................ 68
Table 3.14: Average Size of Ship Calling to Mid and South Atlantic Ports per Trade Lane, 2008 - 2010 ...... 71
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page vii
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.15: Largest Size of Ship Calling to Atlantic Ports per Trade Lane, Q3 2010...................................... 72
Table 3.16: Mid and South Atlantic Port Range - Deep Sea Trade Lanes Served .......................................... 73
Table 3.17: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Transatlantic Mediterranean, Q3 2010 ................... 75
Table 3.18: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Transatlantic North Europe, Q3 2010 ..................... 75
Table 3.19: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Asia All Water via Panama Canal, Q3 2010 ............. 77
Table 3.20: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Asia All Water via Suez Canal, Q3 2010 ................... 77
Table 3.21: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Mid East, Q3 2010 ................................................... 78
Table 3.22: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – RTW/Multi-Region, Q3 2010 ................................... 79
Table 3.23: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – North-South Profile, Q3 2010 .................................. 82
Table 3.24: Summary Development of Supply & Demand TEU Utilization for Transpacific and Transatlantic
Trades, 1992 - 2010 ....................................................................................................................................... 88
Table 3.25: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis of Transpacific and Transatlantic
Trade Lanes from a Port Perspective ............................................................................................................ 88
Table 3.26: NCSPA Cargo Currently Handled ................................................................................................ 92
Table 3.27: Key NCSPA Strategies Accompanying Confirmed Strategic Initiatives ....................................... 93
Table 3.28: US Import Container Trade Lane Forecasts to 2030, in TEU ...................................................... 95
Table 3.29: US Export Container Trade Lane Forecasts to 2030, in TEU ....................................................... 96
Table 3.30: Cost Components for Serving Zip Code 40505 from POW and San Pedro Ports ....................... 99
Table 3.31: Projected Size of LCMA Markets Potentially Available to NCSPA in TEU, Based on Current
Infrastructure and If Infrastructure Improvements Undertaken, 2010 to 2040 ......................................... 120
Table 3.32: Estimated 2010 Share of Regional LCMA (TEU) for NCSPA ...................................................... 121
Table 4.1: Completed & Planned Investment Projects Affecting NCSPA Facilities, from 2005 .................. 127
Table 4.2: Wilmington Harbor Authorized Channel Dimensions in Feet .................................................... 130
Table 4.3: Morehead City Harbor Authorized Channel Dimensions in Feet ............................................... 135
Table 4.4: Parameters Used in Yard Capacity Calculations ......................................................................... 141
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page viii
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 4.5: Radio Island Throughput Distribution and Model Parameters .................................................. 146
Table 4.6: Assumed Vessel Services for RI Based on 1 Million TEU Annual Throughput ............................ 148
Table 4.7: Assumed Vessel Services for Radio Island (1.2 million TEU Annual Throughput) ...................... 149
Table 4.8: Assumed Vessel Services for RI for 1.2 million TEU Annual Throughput, High Case Scenario ... 150
Table 4.9: Typical Container Ship Characteristics ....................................................................................... 160
Table 4.10: Typical Container Ship Characteristics Calling at POW ............................................................ 160
Table 4.11: Ship Drafts for Container Ships Calling at POW........................................................................ 161
Table 4.12: Comparison of Turning Basin Requirements per Container Ship Size Calling at POW............. 166
Table 4.13: Wilmington Harbor Authorized Channel Dimensions .............................................................. 166
Table 4.14: Summary of Environmental Conditions Applied and Subsequent Impact ............................... 167
Table 4.15: Vessel Characteristics of Design Vessels .................................................................................. 169
Moffatt & Nichol |
Page ix
NCSPA Infrastructure and Role in
Cargo Transportation Network
NCSPA Economic Impacts
Z
Z
Z
Forecast Volumes Moving
Through NCSPA Facilities
Z
Port Opportunities/Obstacles
APPENDIX
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
1. NCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
1.1.
Objective of the Study
The expansion of the Panama Canal in 2014 is going to fundamentally change the ports and shipping industry
in the US, especially for trade moving from Asia to North America in containers. Therefore it is imperative
that NCSPA understands how the expected changes in waterborne freight movement to the US East Coast
will be affected. Even more critical is an understanding of how these changes will impact NCSPA port facilities
and how its cargo-handling terminals compare to other adjacent competing Mid and South Atlantic ports
(between Hampton Roads (Virginia Port Authority (VPA), including Norfolk) to the North and Jacksonville to
the South).
This Study assesses the economic benefits to North Carolina that are attributable to the ports and will assist
the NCSPA and State in determining the possible next steps to meet changing industry conditions. In
particular, various scenarios have been reviewed and assessed that include taking no action (i.e. “doing
nothing”) through to making the necessary modifications to be a viable, competitive port facility for the State
and industry. This Report will provide the NCSPA with a snapshot of how the different possible scenarios will
impact its port operations and assist NCSPA in its future decision-making processes.
Strong focus is placed on the potential for NCSPA to look to increase the number of containers it handles
each year. This is because cargo moving in containerized form represents higher growth on a global trade
basis to/from the US, compared to traditional cargo moving via bulk and breakbulk shipping. The Institute for
Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC, has
estimated that container activity is responsible for supporting around 85% of NCSPA’s economic impacts
when measured in terms of output, employment and taxes.
The volumes of discretionary container cargo moving to/from the Mid and South Atlantic port region has a
choice of a number of different ports. Offering good transportation infrastructure and waterway access at a
competitive cost will dictate the success of ports in attracting containers. Bulk and breakbulk cargo is much
less discretionary because it is influenced more by the localized demands closer to the port. However, if the
changes cause industry to relocate, the need for the types of materials within the bulk/breakbulk
classification are also likely to be impacted. This Study also addresses NCSPA potential for bulk and breakbulk
cargo but a greater emphasis is placed on competitive requirements for attracting container traffic.
NCSPA handles containers at the Port of Wilmington (POW) on the Cape Fear River. The river is currently 42ft
deep with a 1,200ft turning basin, which is smaller than industry standards. As Figure 1.1 shows the current
container facility has a berth length of approximately 2,650ft but only 1,300ft is fully functional and capable
of utilizing its newest 100ft gage cranes. With the current channel conditions, the largest ship currently
calling at POW is a 4,900TEU vessel and it requires operational restrictions on vessel draft.
The channel is also constrained and the current shipping calling that are 965ft long are near the maximum
length that can traverse the “S” curve at the entrance to the Cape Fear River. As a consequence, these
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 1
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
restrictions severely limit the competitive position of POW to receive larger ships being introduced into
service after the Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014.
Figure 1.1: Summary Overview of POW Facilities
Source: NCSPA
The Port of Morehead City (MHC) does not currently service any container vessels and is utilized for bulk and
breakbulk goods. The channel is 45ft deep and there are three berths which are 45ft deep but the quay
lengths (of approximately 500ft and 1,000ft) are not sufficient to accommodate 5,000 TEU container ships.
The other berths offer water depths of 35ft to 41ft and are adequate for bulk and breakbulk ships, although
there are no container cranes.
As identified in Figure 1.2, MHC offers 5,500ft of continuous wharf across nine separate berths. Water depth
at Berths 1, 2 and 3 is 45ft, but between Berths 4 and 9 only 35ft to 41ft is available. MHC maintains four
cranes, including one 40-ton multipurpose bridge crane, two 115-ton gantry cranes, and one 125-ton mobile
crane. There is a fleet of 39 lift trucks with up 70,000lb capacities, capable of handling an array of cargo
types. MHC is an established cargo-handling operation but significant improvements are needed to make it
suitable for competitive container operations.
Radio Island (RI) is located adjacent to MHC and is partially developed for liquid bulk activities. It represents
an alternative terminal option that could be considered for utilization for other cargo operations but requires
improved rail and highway connections. The first section of highway improvement, the Gallant’s Channel
bridge, is underway but the rail connection and significant site improvements (total construction) are still
required along with the completion of an updated Economic Impact Statement (EIS) assessment.
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 2
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 1.2: Summary Overview of MHC Facilities
Source: NCSPA
After the Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014, it is expected that there will be changes to the size
of ships operated by ocean carriers. The current confirmed ship order book comprises a greater proportion of
larger ships being constructed for use in major container trade routes. As ships increase in size, the
opportunities available to NCSPA at POW and MHC will be reduced because these ports will not be able to
accommodate the larger ships without dredging to achieve deeper water. Continued growth of the All Water
Suez Canal option and increased demand on key North-South trades, such as to/from Latin America and
Brazil, are other examples of shifting industry dynamics impacting the competitive environment for all US
East Coast ports. The East and West coast ports in Latin America in key locations such as Brazil and Peru are
also adding, modifying or building container terminals with channel depths of 50ft that will accommodate
vessels with drafts of up to and including 46ft. Therefore, POW and MHC need to be best-placed from a
competitive perspective to maximize potential to successfully serve existing and future customers with
respect to container and bulk/breakbulk activities.
Moffatt & Nichol understands that there are several potential alternatives available to NCSPA and the
objective of this Study is to assess changing industry dynamics and provide cargo forecasts to allow NCSPA to
assess its preferred option for increasing future competitiveness from the following:
1. Maintain Current Facilities - No action; continue with the present course of action at POW and MHC;
2. Moderate Facility Improvements - Perform incremental improvements to existing POW container
facilities to determine how feasible the improvements are to extend the viability/life of POW as a
container terminal;
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 3
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
3. Fully Competitive Facility Improvements - Make improvements to existing POW container facilities
(i.e., build-out of the existing footprint, deepen channel, etc) to accommodate larger vessels (6,000
TEU to 8,000TEU) or make incremental improvements to existing POW container facilities to
maintain and possibly expand interim capacity while planned new container development is
completed elsewhere to accommodate larger vessels (6,000 TEU to 8,000TEU).
The key considerations undertaken by Moffatt & Nichol in this report includes an assessment of the following
items based on the current and potential opportunity offered at POW and MHC, together with any known
constraints regarding future development of these facilities to successfully meet changing shipping and
freight transportation dynamics:
•
•
1.2.
Using research completed by ITRE, a determination of the economic impact on North Carolina if
North Carolina does not have a port capable of receiving larger ships;
A comparison of existing port facilities and infrastructure improvements required to maintain a
viable competitive port able to receive larger ships.
Review of Previous Reports
Moffatt & Nichol has reviewed a number of previously produced reports to better understand the
competitive position retained by facilities handling containers and bulk/breakbulk operated by NCSPA.
Existing or known bottlenecks within the logistics transportation network, which includes waterway access to
NCSPA ports for ships, hinterland connections between NCSPA ports and origins/destinations of cargo and
the amount of capacity available at NCSPA terminals have also been assessed, along with other notable areas
of interest impacting NCSPA ports, including:
•
•
•
Cargo volumes – importance of NCSPA port facilities to the State of North Carolina, the origin &
destination of cargo moving through NCSPA facilities and potential cargo/markets not currently
served by NCSPA ports;
Influence of industry dynamics – relevant issues impacting the competitiveness of NCSPA facilities,
including:
o Shipping industry drivers (trade lanes served, ocean carrier strategies, ship size in service,
make-up of liner alliances/independent operators, development of ship size etc);
o Role of railroads and trucking in the State (with specific emphasis on how NCSPA facilities
are served);
o Costs of cargo moving to/from origin/destination through NCSPA operations;
o Role played by NCSPA in relation to the movement of cargo through Mid and South Atlantic
ports between origin and destination.
Capacity – understanding any existing bottlenecks at NCSPA facilities and the impact on regional port
competitiveness, specifically:
o Size of ships able to call at ports via access channels and at berths;
o Ports/terminals where cargo is handled or could be handled;
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 4
Port Business Case Study
o
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Road and rail transportation network linking NCSPA cargo facilities and hinterland
demand.
Table 1.1 provides a summary of the previously completed reports reviewed by Moffatt & Nichol, together
with a summary synopsis of content and any key conclusions.
Table 1.1: Documents and Reports Reviewed by Moffatt & Nichol
Report Title/Date
/Author
Summary Synopsis and Key Conclusions
Port of Wilmington Container
Yard Improvements Report
(Reach Stacker ALT)
A detailed assessment of POW’s ability to increase efficiency and throughput of containers to
maintain market share until a proposed new terminal development dubbed (at the time of the
report’s undertaking) in 2006 “Southport” became operational in, approximately, 10-years time.
Moffatt & Nichol
May 2006
As POW would remain NCSPA’s only container facility it needed to offer maximum efficiencies
possible while keeping expenditures to a minimum, which the port operator has continued to
seek. Moffatt & Nichol generated all necessary measures and associated required improvements
that would enable NCSPA to meet its objectives of operating an efficient interim POW while other
facilities were investigated and developed.
Economic Impact Study of the
North Carolina State Ports
Authority
Conducted to quantify the regional and state-wide economic impacts generated by the cargo,
vessel and barge activity at the public and private terminals in Wilmington and Morehead City.
The study estimated that in calendar year 2005, 84,833 jobs were related to maritime activity at
the NCSPA terminals in Wilmington and Morehead City, and the private terminals in Wilmington.
This included 4,899 direct jobs, 5,322 induced jobs (supported by the local purchases of the direct
jobs) and 1,214 indirect jobs (supported by the local purchases of firm’s dependent on marine
activity in the two ports). In addition, the study estimated 73,388 jobs that are related to port
operations with users of the ports, although the degree of dependence could not be precisely
estimated. The study also estimated $5.6 billion of economic activity in North Carolina generated
by the public and private terminals in addition to $317 million of direct business revenue
generated by providing maritime and transportation services to the cargo and vessel activity. The
average salary estimated for direct jobs of $42,721 was nearly 40% higher than the
manufacturing wage in North Carolina. A comparison to a previous study done in 2002 indicated
increases in economic impact were commensurate with increases in tonnage at the ports.
Martin Associates
June 2006
The Projected Economic Impacts
of the North Carolina
International Terminal
Martin Associates
March 2008
Uses the economic impact methodology developed for the 2006 study described above to
estimate the economic impact of the proposed NCIT. Based on CH2MHill input, the terminal was
assumed to begin operation in 2017 with 916 thousand TEU, reaching 3 million TEU by 2030. It
was assumed that modal split would be 50% rail and 50% truck. The terminal is projected to
generate 5,269 direct, induced and indirect jobs in the start-up year. By 2030 it was estimated
that 16,534 direct, induced and indirect jobs would be generated by the full build-out of 3 million
TEU. At full build-out personal income is projected to reach $1.1 billion annually and local
businesses are projected to receive $1.6 billion of direct annual revenue. State and local tax
revenues are projected to reach $115 million annually at full build-out.
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 5
Port Business Case Study
Report Title/Date
/Author
North Carolina State Ports
Authority Strategic Business Plan
FY 2010 – 2014
North Carolina State Ports
Authority
August 2009
Ports of Wilmington &
Morehead City Feasibility Report
Moffatt & Nichol
February 2010
North Carolina International
Terminal – Review of Planning
Concepts and Privatization
Options
PF Richardson Associates/TEC
Inc
June 2010
The Proposed North Carolina
International Terminal – A
Perspective (No Port Southport)
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Summary Synopsis and Key Conclusions
NCSPA developed a Strategic Business Plan in order to capture the changes in attitude and
thinking required to attain its vision of economic prosperity for North Carolina. This Strategic
Business Plan specifically provided organizational direction, identified growth opportunities for
both NCSPA and the State of North Carolina and suggested effective ways in which the
organization dealt with, and overcame, the serious impacts felt by the global economic recession
of 2009. Specific emphasis was placed on the ability, and placement, of NCSPA when the global
economy and international trade inevitably rebounded.
Provision of cargo throughput and operating performance forecasts at POW and MHC as part of
NCSPA bond offering documentation for Port Facilities Senior Lien Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A
and Series 2010B. The Report provided independent forecasts for prospective purchasers and
offered a high-level facility overview, a detailed macro economic outlook for global container
trade, confirmation of recent infrastructure investment by NCSPA, container and bulk/breakbulk
forecasts, supplemented by LCMA analysis of the port’s container market and a summary review
of NCSPA’s financial forecast.
Report provided a review of the development plan for NCIT prepared by CH2MHill. Identified cost
savings options that might make the project more attractive to private investors. While the report
found no major flaws in the development plan, it did evaluate alternative development scenarios
and identified capital cost reduction opportunities, largely impacting the phase one development
costs. These included adjusting the terminal footprint and reducing grading and site preparation
costs by using a containment dike to modify the wharf alignment. The report also proposes an
RTG concept for phase 1 as compared to the original plan’s use of RMG. Some changes in
assumptions were made, notably reducing the assumed rail share from 50% to 30% by phase
three. The net impact of these changes in a reduction in the capital cost estimate for phase one of
approximately $375 million. No significant cost changes were identified for phases two or three.
Opinion-based report generated to argue against the need for the proposed NCIT/Southport
development. The document was created to provide the North Carolina Governor’s Logistics Task
Force with what the report described as an evaluation of why POW could meet what it projected
to be future container demand.
Risingwater Associates
September 2010
Economic Contribution Study of
North Carolina State Ports
Authority, 2010
ITRE/NC State University
January 2011
The final report outlining the economic impacts will be published in February 2011. ITRE
estimated the impacts of both container and bulk handling activities generated by the NCSPA
cargo-handling facilities of POW and MHC. The report outlines that container activity is
responsible for around 80% to 90% of NCSPA’s economic impacts when measured in terms of
output, employment and taxes.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 6
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
1.3.
Historic Development of NCSPA Cargo Volumes
1.3.1. Container Traffic
Container volume growth at POW and other Mid and South Atlantic ports, as identified in Figure 1.3, has
historically been driven less by global and national macro economic variables and more by local market
demand, with infrastructure improvements at ports and to supporting inland connections and waterways
influencing cargo volumes at competing facilities.
Moving forward, Moffatt & Nichol believes that key macro factors, such as vessel fleet changes associated
with the widening of the Panama Canal, have the greatest potential to impact the competitive Mid and South
Atlantic port environment and the ability to retain and attract container traffic.
Figure 1.3: Comparison of GDP Growth and Selected Mid and South Atlantic Port TEU Volumes, 1981 - 2010
2,000
1,800
Index: 1981 = 100
1,600
1,400
1,200
Savannah
1,000
Norfolk
800
Charleston
600
Wilmington
400
Real GDP
200
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
0
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
As Figure 1.4 identifies, by the end of 2010 POW accounted for approximately 3.5% of the total loaded
container volumes handled at Mid and South Atlantic ports (including Norfolk (Virginia Ports Authority (VPA),
Charleston and Savannah). POW’s market share did decline between 1997 and 2004 as other competing
ports attracted greater volumes due to investment in infrastructure and facilities and improved their
respective port competitiveness.
However, POW recaptured the lost market share following investment and improvements in infrastructure
that included a channel deepening program in 2004, berth improvements and new cranes. These
improvements also helped to support the addition of a second CKYH service, which further increased POW’s
container volumes being handled.
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 7
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 1.4: POW Share of Mid and South Atlantic Loaded TEU Port Volumes, 1997 - 2010
Wilmington Share of Regional Total
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
Import
3.0%
Total
2.0%
Export
1.0%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
0.0%
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
The intense escalation of worldwide container traffic in the past decade began to slow in 2007. A full blown
worldwide economic recession started in late 2008 and significantly impacted international container trade
demand throughout 2009. Container shipping lines, major contributors to the ocean-going fleet capacity,
were heavily impacted by the global recession through falling demand volumes and lower freight rates,
resulting in significant financial losses, especially for 2009.
In the US, the West Coast felt the biggest brunt of the container downturn because of its large-scale
exposure to the transpacific trades, a shipping route significantly impacted by the weaker demand to move
Asian goods to the US to meet consumer demand. (The other trade lane to have endured the greatest losses
due to weaker demand was between Asia and Europe, via the Suez Canal, another key consumer-led route).
The West Coast, especially Southern California, has been the traditional gateway from Asia to the U.S. and
although around 65% of Asian-originated cargo presently enters the U.S. through West Coast port gateways,
two-thirds of the U.S. consumption demand is actually based east of the Mississippi, requiring that high
volumes of cargo be delivered to eastern destinations via the intermodal rail system.
Over the past decade, shippers have diverted an increasing percentage of cargo from the West Coast ports to
facilities on the East Coast to avoid increased regulation and cost issues and to maintain inventory levels
closer to consumption areas. The ocean carrier industry reacted positively in support of its shipper customers
by developing All-Water services from Asia to the US East Coast via the Panama Canal.
Hence, the Panama Canal expansion is a major factor that supports this eastward migration, and is forcing
East Coast ports to improve infrastructure to accommodate the newer, larger and deeper draft vessels
coming into service after the construction of the waterway in Panama is completed during 2014.
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 8
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
1.3.2. Non-Container Traffic Volumes
With respect to non-container traffic volumes at NCSPA facilities, there was short-term growth of 50% overall
between 2003 and 2006. However, for combined non-container volumes at POW and MHC there has been a
steady decline since 2006, as Figure 1.5 shows. This drop can be attributed to a number of factors, including
the slowdown in the US housing market, weaker demand in US auto manufacturing and sales, lower demand
for coal, less demand from a European customer for breakbulk wood pulp and the increased containerization
of traditional breakbulk commodities.
Bulk volumes at POW have been primarily driven by imports of chemicals, cement, and fertilizer related
products. There were sizable volumes of coal imports in FY2006 and FY2007, but these ceased thereafter.
Chemical imports have demonstrated the most consistent recent volumes, averaging 10.6% growth during
this same time, while import volumes of cement grew substantially during years of the housing boom but
have subsequently declined thereafter due to weaker demand in this sector overall.
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 9
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 1.5: NCSPA Bulk & Breakbulk Combined Volumes, 2003 – 2010 in Tons
5.5
Tons (Million)
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2.0
Break Bulk + Bulk
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
As the long-term demand for containers increases on a global basis, so does the need for port capacity and
vessel space to accommodate breakbulk commodities and project cargo. Terminal operators face a growing
dilemma of committing space for additional container throughput volumes at higher margins or protecting
traditional terminal space for breakbulk commodities that require greater acreage per ton handled.
However, some of the stress is being relieved by the transition from standard bulk / breakbulk cargo handling
to these goods being moved via containers due to favorable shipping rates. With the change to larger vessels,
the open capacity on container vessels could further this transition. It should also be noted that there has not
been any increase in the size of vessels handling bulk / breakbulk cargo.
With strong economies worldwide, sufficient volumes existed for both the container operators and the
breakbulk project cargo vessel operators to co-exist, enabling both segments of the ocean transportation
industry to earn good returns on their capital investments of vessels and terminal development. Ports with
sufficient property available to provide continued support for both lines of business would be successful in
leveraging breakbulk clients that are losing their facility options at other ports.
Commodities such as semi finished or finished aluminum and steel products, semi-bulk in large bags, and a
great variety of project cargos continue to embrace the use of breakbulk transport, as vessel designs and
improved cargo handling technologies evolve to provide more efficient stowage, better in-transit cargo
protection, and improved stevedore productivity. However, wood pulp, finished paper and dimensional
lumber are very quickly shifting to containers driven by lower ocean freight rates offered by the container
operators. The weak demand in the construction market continues to erode the steel, lumber and other
breakbulk commodities imported and exported. There will be a positive improvement in the demand for
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 10
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
these commodities as the effects of the 2009 global recession are overcome, although this recovery will be a
gradual and slow process, as 2010 identified.
Bulk cargoes are much more regional and commodity dependant than other types of cargoes. Thus, market
forecasting is dependent on a variety of factors that are difficult to predict in the long term. In addition to
geographic location dictating the preferred trading routes for these types of commodities, agriculture and
manufacturing-based regional economies, supporting rail infrastructure and the efficiencies of receiving
marine terminal capabilities have a tremendous impact in ensuring that bulk commodities are cost
competitive. On a nationwide basis across the US, market data suggests that most sectors of dry bulk cargo
are growing very minimally.
The economic crisis has impacted the import and export of bulk cargoes in a variety of ways, with bulk
commodities associated with the housing and construction industry declining. Other recent key trends
impacting those types of cargoes handled at POW and MHC include:
•
•
•
Fertilizer demand is derived from agricultural activity and is seasonally oriented. This seasonality
requires supporting storage capabilities as the application of fertilizer occurs in a relatively short
period of time each season. Rising natural gas prices have driven production of nitrogen bearing
fertilizers offshore. Therefore, future growth of imports of both liquid and dry nitrogen bearing
fertilizers can be expected to occur. Domestic pricing requirements, railroad capacity and the world’s
production of fertilizer have a strong impact on annual volumes moving via POW;
Grain production is largely weather dependent and the U.S. is a net exporter of grain. NCSPA facilities
are strategically positioned to handle imported grain in support of the swine and poultry industry in
North Carolina and it has seen recent increases in grain import due to higher inland transportation
costs. Wood chips, or “replenishable fuels,” have the potential for volume growth. Export to Europe
is likely because of Kyoto Accord requirements that are resulting in increased use of this commodity
as a source of fuel for electrical generation. Other producing segments of the world, including South
America and Canada will be competition for this business;
Coal production in the Appalachian Mountains peaked in 2001 at 110.6 million tons. Various burn
characteristics and increasing inland cost for Western U.S. sourced coal is creating opportunities for
the utility companies to source coal internationally. Capital investment in port properties would be
required for the Authority to participate in this commodity segment.
Summary Conclusion:
Existing NCSPA cargo-handling facilities continue to handle a mix of different cargo types, including
containers, breakbulk and bulk commodities. POW regained lost container market share after the 2004
channel deepening process and subsequent investment in berth improvements and new cranes (which
allowed the second CKYH – the Green Alliance string to commence calls). The ability to attract a second
major container service to POW confirmed how investment in the port increased its competitiveness and
the ability to attract new customers.
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 11
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Bulk volumes have grown in the recent past, driven by local hinterland import demand for chemicals,
cement and fertilizer. Breakbulk activity has decreased, though it is important to note that this is not
because of any specific lack of investment, failure to provide sufficient infrastructure or offer efficient
service levels. Instead, there have been forces that the port authority cannot directly control, such as the
slowdown in US automobile manufacturing and lower demand for coal, plus increased demand for
containerization of traditional breakbulk commodities.
The global recession that commenced in late 2008 and continued throughout 2009 severely impacted cargo
volumes being shipped on key trading routes, such as between Asia and the US, and met by ports in the
Mid and South Atlantic region.
In addition there are also other industry wide trends to consider, such as balancing the need to commit
space to products like breakbulk that simply need more land, or bulk commodities that generate
significantly higher totals of product but at much lower revenues because they are based on critical mass.
Moffatt & Nichol | 0BNCSPA Infrastructure and Role in Cargo Transportation Network
Page 12
NCSPA Infrastructure and Role in
Cargo Transportation Network
NCSPA Economic Impacts
Z
Z
Z
Forecast Volumes Moving
Through NCSPA Facilities
Z
Port Opportunities/Obstacles
APPENDIX
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
2. NCSPA Economic Impacts
2.1.
Background and Methodology
Moffatt & Nichol has included the key conclusions of the economic impact of the POW and MHC container
and bulk/breakbulk activities, based on research conducted by the Institute for Transportation Research and
Education (ITRE) at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC, a study which has been funded by NCSPA.
The final report outlining the economic impacts generated by cargo-handling activities at NCSPA facilities will
be published in February 2011. ITRE concluded that the container activity generated at POW is responsible
for contributing to 85% of North Carolina’s economic impacts when measured in terms of output,
employment and taxes.
The key findings of the “Economic Contribution of the North Carolina Ports” study by ITRE are that the
container operations in Wilmington in total contribute 1.4% of North Carolina’s Gross State Product (GSP)
and approximately 35% of North Carolina’s transportation and warehousing industry output. NCSPA activities
generate $473 million in tax revenues for the state and local governments and contribute towards 65,300
jobs in North Carolina, or about 2% of total employment in the state. Container operations at POW account
for approximately 89% of the 65,300 total jobs generated by NCSPA activities. While NCSPA’s container
operations in overall terms accounts for a small fraction of overall state income and employment, it is more
than a third of the state’s transportation sector output and therefore a major part of North Carolina’s
economic infrastructure. NCSPA container activities directly generate 41,100 jobs. Direct jobs are those jobs
with local firms providing support services to POW, such as railroads, trucking companies, longshoremen,
dockworkers, administrative staff, agents, freight forwarders, warehouse operators, and financial and legal
services. These jobs are dependent upon this activity and would suffer immediate dislocation if the port’s
activity ceases. Another conservatively estimated 19,900 jobs across the state are either induced or indirectly
a result of NCSPA container activity.
In total, over 58,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs exist in North Carolina because of container activities at
POW. These jobs do not exist because of the port but they are supported by port activities due to the
provision of access to import and export trade with countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and South
America. It is likely that companies that depend on the low cost access to the global markets that NCSPA
offers would shift operations closer to other ports, and very likely out of state, if NCSPA were to cease
container operations.
The estimates in the ITRE analysis are derived from IMPLAN® (IMpact analysis for PLANning) multipliers
provided by MIG, Inc. These multipliers are based on data compiled from a variety of sources, mostly local
and census information, as opposed to being estimated from national averages. IMPLAN® is widely used in
the analysis of the economic contribution of ports and other transportation facilities by most analysts.
Economic studies for ports in Georgia, Virginia and New York/New Jersey, to name a few examples, are also
based on IMPLAN® multipliers.
Moffatt & Nichol | 1BNCSPA Economic Impacts
Page 13
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Economic impact analysis typically consists of output, employment, income and tax revenues generated by
the activity being analyzed and are presented here in that order. The impacts are disaggregated into direct,
indirect and induced components:
•
•
•
2.2.
Direct impacts: result from firms that are directly engaged in the movement of goods through the NC
Ports;
Indirect impacts: represent spending by port-related firms on services provided by support
businesses (such as office supply companies, property maintenance, etc.);
Induced impacts: result from payroll expenditures from directly- and indirectly-related firms that
produce successive spending.
Output Impacts
North Carolina cargo facilities, POW and MHC, support $7.5 billion in output (gross revenues) by businesses
located in NC, of which $5.7 billion is due to container terminal operations at POW alone, as Table 2.2 shows.
Of this total, the majority is generated by imported goods, accounting for a 90% share, with exports
contributing just 10%.
Of note is the fact that container activity is responsible for generating around 85% of NCSPA’s economic
output contribution, with bulk and breakbulk accountable for the remaining 15% share.
Table 2.1: Output Impact of POW Container Operations
Output (US$)
Type of Goods
Container
Imports
Port
Direct
Indirect
Induced
Total
POW
2,907,520,000
942,350,000
1,306,840,000
5,156,710,000
MHC
148,180,000
48,970,000
37,090,000
234,240,000
POW
210,730,000
68,370,000
54,040,000
333,140,000
POW
330,430,000
139,170,000
88,470,000
558,070,000
MHC
572,200,000
243,790,000
91,190,000
907,180,000
POW
206,530,000
90,800,000
51,890,000
349,220,000
Bulk/ Breakbulk
Container
Exports
Bulk/ Breakbulk
Moffatt & Nichol | 1BNCSPA Economic Impacts
Page 14
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Output (US$)
Type of Goods
Port
Direct
Indirect
Induced
Total
POW Subtotal
3,655,210,000
1,240,690,000
1,501,240,000
6,397,140,000
MHC Subtotal
720,380,000
292,760,000
128,280,000
1,141,420,000
4,375,590,000
1,533,450,000
1,629,520,000
7,538,560,000
NCSPA Total
Source: ITRE, IMPLAN
North Carolina’s GSP in 2008 was $400.2 billion dollars, of which the total impact of container operations at
POW contributed 1.4% of this total. In addition, approximately 35% of North Carolina’s transportation and
warehousing industry output of $9.3 billion for 2008 was directly generated by container operations at POW.
2.3.
Employment Impacts
In total, NCSPA activities help support 65,300 jobs in North Carolina, or about 2% of total employment in the
state. The container operations at POW attribute approximately 89% of the 65,300 total jobs generated by
NCSPA activities, as Table 2.3 and the following overview summary indicate:
•
•
•
NCSPA container activities directly generate 38,400 jobs. Direct jobs are those jobs with local firms
providing support services to POW. These jobs are dependent upon this activity and would suffer
immediate dislocation if the port’s activity ceases. These direct jobs include employment with
railroads and trucking companies moving cargo to and from the marine terminals and private
terminals, longshoremen, dockworkers, administrative staff, agents, freight forwarders, warehouse
operators, as well as supporting financial and legal services;
The 7,800 indirect jobs represent employment generated in the state economy as the result of local
purchases by the firms directly dependent upon container seaport activity. These jobs include
employment retained in such examples as local office supply firms, equipment and parts suppliers,
maintenance and repair services, insurance companies, consulting and other business services. If
port operations were discontinued, these indirect purchases and the associated jobs and income
would also greatly decline;
Induced employment of 12,100 consists of jobs created locally and throughout the state economy
due to purchases of goods and services by those directly employed. These jobs are with private and
public sector goods and services providers to those directly employed. Production of these goods and
services would greatly decline if seaport activity ceases.
Moffatt & Nichol | 1BNCSPA Economic Impacts
Page 15
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 2.2: Employment Impact of POW’s Container Operations
Employment (Jobs: Full-time and Part-time)
Type of Goods
Container
Port
Direct
Indirect
Induced
Total
POW
36,900
6,900
11,300
55,100
MHC
400
300
300
1,000
POW
1,200
400
500
2,100
POW
1,500
900
800
3,200
MHC
600
1,100
800
2,500
POW
500
500
400
1,400
POW Subtotal
40,100
8,700
13,000
61,800
MHC Subtotal
1,000
1,400
1,100
3,500
41,100
10,100
14,100
65,300
Imports
Bulk/Breakbulk
Container
Exports
Bulk/Breakbulk
NCSPA Total
Source: ITRE, IMPLAN
2.4.
Tax Impacts
With respect to the impact of POW container operations in terms of taxes, corporate, personal, and business
taxes totaling $499 million were paid to state and local governments as a result of the goods moving through
NC ports.
Of this total of $499 million of tax revenue, approximately 95% was generated by container activities at POW,
as Table 2.4 indicates, with business sales tax and local business property tax representing the two largest
components by a significant margin and collectivity responsible for more than 85% of the POW container
total.
Moffatt & Nichol | 1BNCSPA Economic Impacts
Page 16
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
Table 2.3: Tax Revenues Generated By POW Container Operations
Tax Description
POW (US$)
MHC (US$)
Total (US$)
Business Sales Tax
238,416,000
11,894,000
250,310,000
Local Property Tax
170,011,000
8,508,000
178,519,000
State Corporate and Personal Tax
64,377,000
5,870,000
70,247,000
Total
472,804,000
26,272,000
499,076,000
Source: ITRE, IMPLAN
2.5.
Geographic Distribution of NCSPA Economic Impacts
Besides estimating the total statewide economic impacts of NCSPA’s activities, ITRE has used PIERS data to
estimate the economic impact distribution within North Carolina on a regional basis in order to show the split
between the different constituent parts of the state. PIERS is a global import and export information service
that provides port import export cargo and volume data. It is a division of UBM Global Trade, and a sister
company of The Journal of Commerce.
The results of this aspect of the ITRE research are identified in Table 2.5, which reflects the regional share
retained by both imports and exports and by POW and MHC to container and bulk/breakbulk commodities.
Figure 2.6 then outlines the geographic spread throughout North Carolina for both output and number of
jobs.
Table 2.4: Regional Impacts Estimates
Container
Imports
Bulk/Breakbulk
Container
Exports
Bulk/Breakbulk
Southeast
East
Northeast
Research
Triangle
Piedmont
Triad
Charlotte
West
POW
10%
6%
7%
16%
21%
22%
18%
MHC
25%
52%
23%
0%
0%
0%
0%
POW
32%
15%
8%
11%
15%
9%
9%
POW
26%
13%
3%
22%
13%
16%
8%
MHC
0%
3%
97%
0%
0%
0%
0%
POW
81%
14%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Source: ITRE, IMPLAN, PIERS
Moffatt & Nichol | 1BNCSPA Economic Impacts
Page 17
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 2.1: North Carolina Regional Impacts Map for Output and Number of Jobs
Output
$1.2B
12k jobs
$1B
10k jobs
Employment
$1.3B
13k jobs
$1.3B
7k jobs
$0.9B
10k jobs
$0.6B
5k jobs
$1.1B
8k jobs
Source: ITRE, IMPLAN, PIERS
2.6.
Additional Considerations Concerning POW’s Contribution to the North
Carolina Economy
An economic impact model estimates the number of jobs supported in the regional economy based on interindustry linkages. An examination of the types of products imported to, and exported from, POW provides an
indication of the types of industries supported by its activities and this in-turn allows some insight into the
composition of industry employment that POW’s activities support.
The results provided in Section 2.6 are direct estimates of the number of jobs in the top 20 industries
supported by container operations at POW, based on the IMPLAN® estimates in the Economic Contribution
study by ITRE. In total the IMPLAN® model estimates that a little over 58,000 jobs are supported by the
import and export container operations, with the top 20 industries accounting for a little over 47,000 jobs or
81% of the total estimated. The majority of these jobs are supported by imported container volumes through
POW.
Moffatt & Nichol | 1BNCSPA Economic Impacts
Page 18
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 2.5: POW Containerized Volumes and Base Employment in Supported Industries
IMPLAN Sector
Exports
Imports
Total
322
Retail Stores - Electronics and appliances
6
8,484
8,490
321
Retail Stores - Furniture and home furnishings
7
8,291
8,297
327
Retail Stores - Clothing and clothing accessories
15
5,655
5,670
329
Retail Stores - General merchandise
29
5,501
5,530
320
Retail Stores - Motor vehicle and parts
21
2,815
2,836
319
Wholesale trade businesses
224
2,232
2,456
325
Retail Stores - Health and personal care
12
1,887
1,898
360
Real estate establishments
74
1,628
1,702
413
Food services and drinking places
108
1,567
1,675
330
Retail Stores – Miscellaneous
14
1,362
1,376
323
Retail Stores - Building material and garden supply
13
1,295
1,308
Textile and fabric finishing mills
309
867
1,176
382
Employment services
51
860
911
328
Retail Stores - Sporting goods, hobby, book and music
7
657
664
394
Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners
39
574
613
Animal production, except cattle and poultry and eggs
543
25
568
388
Services to buildings and dwellings
38
481
519
397
Private hospitals
33
484
516
398
Nursing and residential care facilities
30
441
471
324
Retail Stores - Food and beverage
27
440
467
1,598
45,546
47,144
80
14
TOTAL
Source: Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Moffatt & Nichol
All but three of the top 20 industries (electronic, appliance and clothing retail and real estate establishments)
listed in Table 2.6 are considered to be part of the economic base of the North Carolina economy. This means
Moffatt & Nichol | 1BNCSPA Economic Impacts
Page 19
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
that the estimates provided offer a potential indication of base employment that could be lost if NCSPA port
facilities were permanently impaired and/or industry in the state relocates.
Some of these industries, such as furniture, are undergoing significant structural change, as the following
highlights, and these trends are included within Table 2.6. Operations and activities at POW directly impacts
sectors of employment, including, for example;
•
The furniture industry employed 61,000 people in North Carolina in 2003 but the total began to
decline as companies intensified manufacturing outsourcing to foreign locations and by 2009 slightly
less than 35,000 people were employed in this industry. Adjusting this industry to take into account
income generated from production and/or activities that are sold outside the region, it is estimated
that almost 24,000 employees should be considered part of the base employment. If POW could not
handle containers to support the furniture industry it is possible that more than the 8,297 jobs listed
under item 321 in Table 2.6 above would be lost because changes in competitive conditions due to
inadequate port infrastructure could motivate many companies to relocate;
To estimate the total loss of employment due to industrial dislocation that would likely result from POW
becoming permanently unable to handle containerized freight on larger vessels is a complicated and difficult
process, for a number of potentially relevant reasons, including:
•
•
•
Smaller vessels could still call at POW and provide some limited services that could support ongoing
activities in the various industries;
Specific industries could react differently to the change in freight movement services provided by
POW. For example, as the furniture industry increases its outsourcing, its activities in the US become
less like those of a manufacturer and more like those of a distributor. Distribution-oriented
enterprises are by definition more logistics-oriented;
While many of the jobs in the furniture industry are not likely to be entirely dependent on POW’s
activities, if the port became permanently unable to handle container vessels the industry could
conceivably relocate to another state in order to be near another port to enhance its distribution
efficiencies. In other words, the noted 24,000 furniture industry-related jobs could be lost if the port
were to cease handling container ships and the manufacturers were to relocate operations. This
scenario would relevant for each industry accepting goods through the port.
Aside from the 47,000 jobs listed in Table 2.6 that support the top 20 NC industries, many other industries
that are supported by base activities would also be impacted by the loss of income from the disruption.
There is even the potential for future business investment in North Carolina to be negatively impacted if a
lack of investment in port activities compromises current industrial and commercial requirements generating
employment.
In short, the likely potential economic disruption that would result if POW were unable to remain a viable
point of access for cargo imports and exports is significant and very likely to have long-lasting effects.
Moffatt & Nichol | 1BNCSPA Economic Impacts
Page 20
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Summary Conclusion:
In total, over 58,000 jobs in North Carolina are supported by container activities at NCSPA because NCSPA
provides access to export and import trade with countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and South
America.
According to ITRE estimates, the cessation of cargo-handling activities at NCSPA will have direct
consequences and the total effects will be discernible in North Carolina economic data and throughout the
entire state.
It is likely that companies that depend on the low cost access to the global markets that NCSPA offers
would shift their operations closer to other ports, potentially out of state, if NCSPA were to cease
container operations. This could have a permanent and wider spread effect than that estimated in the ITRE
report.
Moffatt & Nichol | 1BNCSPA Economic Impacts
Page 21
NCSPA Infrastructure and Role in
Cargo Transportation Network
NCSPA Economic Impacts
Z
Z
Z
Forecast Volumes Moving
Through NCSPA Facilities
Z
Port Opportunities/Obstacles
APPENDIX
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
3. Forecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
3.1.
Sensitivities Influencing Cargo Forecasts
Moffatt & Nichol has utilized a number of quantitative and qualitative sensitivities which influence the
container and non-container cargo forecasts to 2040. Section 3.1.1 to Section 3.1.3 outline these relevant
factors, which have been sub-divided into internal forces, external forces and policy issues.
3.1.1. Internal forces
3.1.1.1.
Local economic issues, including regional population growth forecasts and demographic
migration throughout the North Carolina region
Throughput cargo volumes at POW and MHC will continue to be driven predominantly by demand and
production output stemming from the local North Carolina consumer base and manufacturing industries.
Hence, economic indicators which signal the relative strength and weakness of these groups can help provide
guidance relating to the outlook for the commodity flow through NCSPA ports.
In terms of the local consumer base, employment growth in North Carolina has recently returned into
positive territory on a year-over-year (YOY %) basis, and has led the national average as noted in Figure 3.1.
It should be noted that despite this relative out-performance in growth, the State’s unemployment level is
currently equal to the national 9.6%, and has recovered from a trough level of 11.2% which was almost a full
1% weaker than the national low. However, the State has a $3.5 billion deficit and is expected to consider a
program of retirements and possibly redundancies that will see the level of unemployment increase.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 22
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.1: Employment growth in the US, North Carolina and Wilmington MSA
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Moffatt & Nichol
While perhaps not a signal of outright economic strength, the upturn in employment figures remain
suggestive of a level of stabilization and further corroborate the evidence of other national economic
indicators, such as retail sales and manufacturing output.
Moreover, the relative growth of the North Carolina employment sector suggests that the strength of the
local consumer should continue to remain in-line with the national average of the US, as Figure 3.2 shows.
Figure 3.2: Personal income growth in US and North Carolina, 2001-2010
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 23
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
In addition to the employment sector, the strength of the North Carolina consumer can be gauged by the
growth rate of personal income. In nominal terms, income growth in the State over the past three quarters
has increased by an average rate of 2.7% compared to the average 1.1% experienced nationally during the
same time period.
As a result, the relative strength in North Carolina’s personal income growth suggests that the local consumer
base should continue to produce demand for household related goods in-line with or greater than the
national average.
It is important to note that while the growth rates in both employment and income in North Carolina signal
that the worst of the economic recession is over, there is still some way to go to be completely free of the
downturn:
•
•
•
•
Pressure on employment sector is expected to continue through 2011 as a result of relatively slow
job growth (slow compared to previous post-recession periods) as well as increased layoffs from the
public sector. As a consequence, this does not indicate any significant increase in consumer spending
in the first half of 2011.
The possible termination of longer-term unemployment benefits if Congress fails to ratify extensions
could also have an adverse effect on the outlook for the local consumer sector. However the current
insured rate in North Carolina is 3.1% relative to the national average of 3.5%, thereby suggesting
that the State will fare better if such an event occurs.
Residential construction demand in North Carolina has declined dramatically over the past four years
and consequently the throughput volumes of construction-related commodities, including lumber,
handled at POW and MHC have also decreased.
As noted in Figure 3.3, new residential construction permits in the State have been at the lowest
levels experienced over the past 20 years, and while some improvement is expected, it will take an
average growth increase of 15% per annum over the next five years for permit levels to reach the
approximate average of 450,000 experienced over much of the past decade.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 24
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.3: New residential construction permits in North Carolina (12-month rolling sum), 1990-2010
Source: US Census Bureau; Moffatt & Nichol
Nevertheless, the population growth forecasts for North Carolina over the next decade are well above the
national average and, therefore, demand for housing and construction related goods is estimated to remain
stronger in the long-term, improving projections for construction-related commodities to be handled at
NCSPA facilities.
An indication of the relative strength of some other key industries which drive demand for cargo through the
North Carolina ports can be established by comparing the national industrial output statistics for those
respective industries, as illustrated in Figure 3.4, allowing some key conclusions to be drawn, including:
•
•
•
•
Pork and poultry industries are the top performers of those identified. This is because output from
these respective industries has remained relatively stable over the past three years, driven by strong
demand for meats from increasingly wealthier developing nations, particularly in East Asia and the
Middle East;
Pulp production appears to have picked-up following a slowdown in 2009. The long-term demand for
fluff pulp is estimated to remain strong;
Tire production in the US has also seen a marked rebound beginning in 2009 and has spawned
demand for rubber. The recovery can partially be attributed to the imposition of US tariffs on
Chinese produced tires;
Furniture production remains at historically low levels. While this may limit the prospect of export for
these commodities, it does imply the necessity of import substitution to meet demand.
One specific potential downside concerns frozen chickens. In September 2010 China imposed a tariff on
imported frozen chickens from the US, which it maintains is a result of the US imposing tariffs on tires
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 25
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
produced in China. Regardless of the complexities, Moffatt & Nichol estimates that US exports of this
commodity are likely to suffer as result in overall terms.
Figure 3.4: US industrial production by industry, 2005-2010
Source: US Federal Reserve; Moffatt & Nichol
Summary Conclusion:
NCSPA’s ports handle a wide range of different commodities that can expect to see a slow and steady
improvement in the volumes (breakbulk, bulk and containers in the short to medium term) due to the
influence of factors in North Carolina, such as personal income and stronger demand improvements in key
industries such as construction.
However, both POW and MHC need to maximize the quality of facilities offered and infrastructure
available to current and potential customers. For some cargo activities, notably containers, there are other
ports already able to serve key hinterlands within North Carolina, so it is imperative that NCSPA port
facilities fully maximize any advantages available, including favorable economics helping to serve future
cargo growth and demand.
3.1.2. External forces
3.1.2.1.
Key economic factors influencing cargo demand, such as outsourcing of manufacturing
and Free Trade Agreements
Over the Past 60 years world trade in manufactured goods has grown on average slightly twice as fast as
global gross domestic product. This means economic growth isn’t the only driver of trade growth. If anything,
there is a virtuous feedback cycle whereby trade growth drives economic growth, which in turn results in
more trading activity. The catalyst of this cycle is a confluence of structural trends that has increased both
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 26
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
the demand for and efficiency of trade. More efficient or lower cost trade allows the world economy to
reduce inefficiencies and therefore reach a higher level of output.
The main structural catalysts are shifting demographics, falling trade barriers and transportation
infrastructure improvements such as the containerization of trade. These factors induced companies to
relocate production facilities to areas with higher demand growth and/or lower labor costs. This trend is
referred to as outsourcing or off-shoring.
Outsourcing was a major driver of U.S. imported container volume growth over the past decade.
Consumption of goods was increasingly met by products made in other countries. This is fairly evident from a
few casual observations, such as the “jobless recovery” of 2001-2007, and North Carolina, long a U.S.
furniture manufacturing center, becoming for the first time a net importer of furniture in 2006. Most
outsourcing was and continues to be profit-motivated as opposed to simply focused on cost reduction
Developing economies have younger populations than mature industrialized nations. Younger people are
paid less than older people and also spend more of their income on goods than on services. Companies
operating in aging developed economies needed to shift their operations to countries with younger
populations because those markets were growing faster. It is difficult to sell products produced with
expensive developed market labor to workers in emerging markets earning far lower wages. Companies that
have moved their production operations offshore to access faster growing markets have also been able to
increase their profits by importing their foreign-made goods into the US. This has been helped by declining
transportation costs and increasing the reliability of supply chains.
Outsourcing of low-value products such as apparel and disposable plastic utensils began decades ago. This
has been extended to higher value goods such as furniture and automobiles and continues on a global scale.
Fiat plans to launch the conventional combustion engine version of its 500 model in America. The car will be
manufactured by Chrysler in Mexico, with engines supplied from a Michigan plant. Japanese companies have
been making new investments in China even as they continue to retrench and restructure at home. Nissan
Motors plans to open a design studio in Beijing in 2011 — the first Japanese automaker to do so in China.
Isetan Mitsukoshi, Japan’s largest department store, announced plans to open its fifth department store in
China next year, while closing a long-established store in Tokyo. Other Japanese retailers are also planning
their first outlets in China.
Data for domestic output and employment by manufacturing industries indicates this process is not yet
complete in the US either. An examination of employment trends in 17 manufacturing industries whose
output is usually transported as maritime freight indicates that since 1990 only three have reduced payrolls
by 60% to 80%. Lagging industries, such as automakers, have only reduced U.S. employment by 15% to 40%.
Only the food manufacturing industry, which seems to be the least vulnerable to outsourcing, has maintained
employment close to its 1990 level.
Companies whose products are frequently redesigned may find that outsourcing to Asia makes less sense
than to “near-source” to Mexico, Central America or the Caribbean. Seasonal apparel is a good example. New
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 27
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
apparel usually begins to show up on store shelves about six weeks before the next season begins.
Frequently redesigned products such as consumer durables could be delivered more cheaply if parts are
shipped to Central America or the Caribbean for final assembly.
Products that are intended solely for the U.S. market are also not good candidates for outsourcing to Asia
since the costs of a complex supply chain may outweigh the benefits of labor cost savings.
Thus, some of what was outsourced to Asia is likely to be relocated to near-source locations in North and
Central America, and possibly the Caribbean. It is possible U.S. industries that have not outsourced a lot so
far may do so, but that could conceivably be near-sourced as opposed to outsourced to Asia.
Outsourcing trends must be followed closely because they will be a major driver of change for the freight
movement supply chains. Some of that change may not benefit all segments of the transportation industry. If
some outsourced production is located in Mexico that would help railroad and trucking company volumes
grow, but not port volumes.
The outlook for the US economy in 2011 is positive if compared to 2010. By the end of the 2011 decisionmakers are likely to feel that the risk of falling behind their competitors exceeds the risk of committing to an
expansion or strategic development plan. Evidence that volumes in many, but not all, industries have
regained or surpassed their previous peaks will prompt the decisions to shift from cost-cutting to investment.
This is important because investment increases productivity and therefore growth. Moreover, the economies
of those regions with whom the US trades are growing supports US export growth and reinforces the
recovery trend in place.
While the economy for 2011 will sail more smoothly than in 2010, some potential obstacles remain in place
and worthy of note, including:
•
•
The real estate markets and the banking system are not fully recovered and stability may still elude
these sectors for some time after the rest of the economy has healed and moved on;
China’s unsustainable currency policy may be the greatest threat to full recovery of the US and global
economies. The longer the pegging to the US dollar policy is allowed to continue, the fewer the
options available to resolve matters with the least amount of volatility. China is too dependent on
export growth to allow the Yuan to appreciate to a more market-based value very quickly. On the
other hand, if China continues to de-industrialize other economies at the rate that it has over the last
decade (the US isn’t the only country to see manufacturing relocate to China), it will drain purchasing
power from the markets it depends on in order to keep developing. Meanwhile many emerging
market economies will suffer as the Federal Reserve takes actions that indirectly will lower the
exchange value of the dollar and worsen the effects of Yuan’s peg.
Figure 3.5 shows retail sales and inventories not adjusted for inflation since 1992. Retail sales peaked in
November 2007 and troughed during the December 2008 to April 2009 period. Since then retail sales have
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 28
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
been recovering and at the pace of the past 12 months, will regain the November 2007 peak in May of 2011.
This could happen sooner if the recent improvements in the labor market pick up some momentum.
However, it is important not to count too much on improving employment to boost retail sales. Credit card
delinquencies have peaked but remain close to historically high levels. Mortgage delinquencies remain close
to 10%, which is the historical peak. It will take some time for consumer finances to stabilize, even if
employment were to rise very quickly.
Inventories have reacted to retail sales with a lag, they reached a peak three months after sales peaked in
November 2007 and troughed seven months after sales troughed. Since November 2009 inventories have
increased, but far more slowly than sales. The inventory to sales ratio, shown on the right hand axis is past its
trough but still below trend. It seems that there is further inventory rebuilding to come as consumer
spending continues to hold up.
The poor consumer spending trends are evident in the industrial production and capacity utilization indexes
published by the Federal Reserve. Both troughed in the second quarter of 2009 and have been recovering
steadily. However, they remain well below average or trend levels. Given the current pace of recovery the
previous peaks of 2007 would not be reached until the middle of 2012.
Figure 3.5: Retail sales, inventories and inventory/sales ratio, 1992 – 2010
600
1.5
$ Billions
500
400
1
300
200
0.5
100
Inventory/Sales Ratio
2
700
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
Inventory
Retail Sales
Inventory/Sales Ratio (right axis)
Source: US Census Bureau
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 29
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Between industrial production, retail sales and inventory building trends, the economy is climbing out of the
deep recession during the 2008-2009 periods, as Figure 3.6 shows. This is quite remarkable considering that
consumers suffered a decline of house values and home ownership has been the core of household wealth
for decades. It is also notable because the banking system has been devastated by excess exposure to the
housing sector. Since the financial crisis began in 2008 banks have been reducing loan portfolios and leaving
little support for companies needing to finance inventories or make capacity investments.
In terms of projections for 2011, a 2.4% growth rate looks likely. This would be less than the 2.7% growth
rate that 2010 is likely to finish with, but the lower annual growth rate masks a pattern whereby growth in
the first half of the year is lower than in the second half. In short it looks like 2011 will be another story of
two halves – low growth to start with but acceleration as the year progresses. The key trading partners of the
US, Europe, Asia and Latin America are also likely to see a deceleration of growth which may have the
opposite pattern of the US. However, this deceleration is not likely to keep the US economy from
accelerating during 2011. This outlook bodes well for the overall freight movement industry, notably ports.
With low interest rates and inflation policymakers should not engage in practices to slow growth down
during 2011. As companies and public sector authorities gain confidence in the recovery, investment could
increase more than anticipated, with growth in investment spending likely to be higher than consumer
spending.
Figure 3.6: Industrial Production, January 1967 – July 2009
100
120
90
100
80
80
60
70
40
60
20
50
Jan-09
Jan-06
Jan-03
Jan-00
Jan-97
Jan-94
Jan-91
Jan-88
Jan-85
Jan-82
Jan-79
Jan-76
Jan-73
Jan-70
Jan-67
0
Capacity Utilization (left axis)
Industrial Production (right axis)
Source: Federal Reserve
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 30
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Global trade agreements help to facilitate trade. There have been nine such agreements completed between
1947 and 2008, which began with the Global Agreement on Trade and Tariffs at the Geneva Round and most
recently the failed Doha Round, which began in 2001. Other notable examples include the Maastricht Treaty
in Europe and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has contributed significantly to trade
growth impacting the US, as did China’s ascension to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, which
boosted demand for goods from that country to the US and Europe.
In 2007 the Business Roundtable estimated that 50% of world trade takes place under free trade agreements,
with about one-third of them having been established in Asia since 2001. Table 3.1 offers a summary of Free
Trade Agreements on a global basis. The US remains an important participant in the FTA process as both a
consumer and producer of commodities involving international shipment.
Table 3.1: Overview of Free Trade Agreements
FTAs negotiated globally
Aproximately 300
FTAs negotiated since 2002 in Asia-Pacific
119
Percentage of world trade occurring through FTAs
50%
Countries with which China is negotiating or has proposed FTAs
28
EU FTAs
US FTAs
21
10
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Summary Conclusion:
The role of trade barriers is worthy of mention because the signing of free-trade agreements help to
generate more cargo potential overall. However, all competing ports in the same region still need to
ensure efficient service levels are maintained at competitive prices and cargo demand hinterlands can be
effectively served. In essence, these are crucial factors which place NCSPA in the same position as any
competing port, seeking to attract additional cargo volumes and customers through being the most cost
effective and efficient facility to link hinterland demand of which shipping is the essential component.
Investment in any infrastructure and facilities supporting POW and MHC is needed to maintain or enhance
regional competitiveness and hinterland connectivity – requirements that are not going to change in the
future.
3.1.2.2.
Summary of Competing Mid and South Atlantic Ports
Ports fall into different categories as far as their natural market is concerned with the geographic location
and quality of facilities dictating which type of traffic they are competitive for attracting.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 31
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.7 provides a summary overview of the location of each port competing to serve Mid and South
Atlantic markets, plus the major Interstate road and rail connections currently provided. Savannah and
Norfolk enjoy the benefit of receiving rail service from both NS and CSX, with other listed ports seeing more
limited rail connections.
Figure 3.7: Overview of Major Road and Rail Routes for Ports in Mid and South Atlantic Region
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 32
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
It is important to note that many of the competing ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region handle more
than just containerized freight and offer facilities for general cargo, ro-ro, project cargo and forest products.
Of the listed terminals, only Seagirt (Baltimore), APM Terminals (Portsmouth/Virginia) and Garden City
(Savannah) state that the facilities are dedicated for containers and do not mix the operational activity.
The ability to offer stand-alone, dedicated facilities for different cargo handling does improve potential for
operating efficiencies and can mean productive use of land for box activities. However, there is a
requirement to ensure that all supporting infrastructure is in place and effectively contributes to the overall
competitiveness of the terminal.
The type of cargo being handled at a port will also influence the competitive environment:
•
•
Container trade handled by competing ports in the South Atlantic region varies to reflect cost and
time factors, road, rail and highway infrastructure, as well as long-standing patterns of trade
connecting regional shippers and certain industrial sectors with regional ports. It is important to
understand the inland regions served by the port, with markets in close proximity typically those
where the port retains the biggest competitive advantage and the highest market share among
competing ports. More distant inland regions, (such as the US Midwest for Atlantic ports), would be
more competitive regions, i.e. discretionary markets, and are frequently served by rail. These
discretionary markets are typically viewed as opportunities for growth by other ports. Shipping lines
publish schedules and make weekly calls at designated ports on a roundtrip voyage basis;
For bulk cargoes being shipped, port choice is driven by the hinterland requirements. This means that
the commodities are transported to where the end user needs it and is located. As such, the routing
option is not a decision of the shipping lines. In this respect the use of a port is dictated by where the
buyer needs/wants the cargo and cost to transport through the port itself. The other major
differential with bulk cargo is that once all facilities are in place at the port it is unlikely to move to
another facility unless the end-user’s geographic location changes.
It is, therefore, unsurprisingly that mixed-cargo use remains commonplace throughout many ports serving
the Mid and South Atlantic region, as Table 3.2 shows.
Ultimately the customers being served will help to dictate the optimal operating environment. Larger ships
seeing bigger load/discharge exchanges of containers will prefer a pure container-only facility but a shipping
line with more of a mixed-cargo service will require a facility capable of successfully handling all types of
cargo while a bulk carrying ship will need special equipment, such as a conveyor to dedicated storage
warehousing.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 33
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.2: Comparison of Cargo Activities at Ports Serving the Mid and South Atlantic Region
Port
Baltimore
Terminal
Containers
Breakbulk/General
Cargo/Project
Cargo
Seagirt

Dundalk



North Locust
Point



South Locust
Point
Virginia
Ports Auth.
Forest
Products*
APM
Terminals
(Portsmouth)
Ro-Ro
Liquid/dry
bulks



Newport
News


Norfolk
International
Terminal

Portsmouth


NCSPA
POW





NCSPA
MHC




Charleston
Columbus
Street


North
Charleston


Wando
Welch


Garden City

Ocean
Terminal

Savannah
Brunswick
Jacksonville










Blount Island


Talleyrand


Dames Point







Note: * = includes wood pulp, paper products, lumber, plywood etc
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 34
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.3 provides a summary overview of the basic container-handling infrastructure provided at ports and
individual terminals that aim to serve the Mid and South Atlantic region.
Key competitive parameters outlined include size of each facility, water depth, length of quay for ship
berthing, number and size of cranes, availability of on-dock rail to help precipitate better intermodal
connectivity.
Table 3.3: Summary of Facilities at Ports Handling Containers in Mid and South Atlantic Region, 2010
Port
Terminal
Size
(acres)
Quay
Length
(feet)
Number of cranes
Est’d
Container
Capacity
On-Dock
Rail
(‘000
TEU)
Baltimore
VPA
Px
PPx
SPPX
Seagirt
284
3,127
1
4
--
400
Dundalk
570
9,492
9
--
--
750

North Locust Point
89
1,200
1
--
--
100

South Locust Point
79
3,194
3
--
--
200

APM Terminals
230
3,205
--
--
6
1,300

Newport News*
141
3,292
1
--
--
300

Norfolk
International
Terminal
800
7,300
--
--
15
2,100

Portsmouth**
285
4,515
--
9
--
1,300

Existing POW
200
6,768
4
4
--
500

(Portsmouth)
NCSPA
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 35
Port Business Case Study
Port
Terminal
Size
(acres)
Quay
Length
(feet)
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Number of cranes
Est’d
Container
Capacity
On-Dock
Rail
(‘000
TEU)
Charleston
Savannah
Jacksonville
Columbus Street
120
3,500
1
2
2
500

North Charleston
130
2,500
--
4
2
850

Wando Welch
325
3,800
--
4
6
1,650
1,200
9,693
--
17
2
2,500
Ocean Terminal**
200
5,768
1
--
--
150
Blount Island
754
5,280
5
3
--
700

Talleyrand
173
4,841
4
2
--
250

158
2,400
--
6
--
1,000

Garden City
Dames
(Trapac)
Point

Note: * = A breakbulk/ro-ro facility, all container operations centralized at other VPA facilities in August 2008. ** = Designated as a mixed-use facility,
handling containers, ro-ro and general cargo/breakbulk. *** = Listed as a potential option. Px = Panamax, PPx = Post Panamax, SPPX = Super Post
Panamax.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Although Table 3.3 provides a synopsis overview of the basic cargo-handling facilities at ports and terminals,
the following summary outlines key components for each competing ports serving the South Atlantic region.
Specific emphasis is highlighted in relation to two of the most important factors helping to influence this
competitiveness, and therefore potential ability to attract and retain cargo, of the different ports, namely
hinterland (road/rail) connectivity issues and maritime access for shipping.
•
Baltimore:
Baltimore is located close to the northern extremity of Chesapeake Bay on the Patapsco River. Its
location 150 miles further inland than other regional facilities means iti hinterland access is good
geographically, which is endorsed by its terminals being very close to I-95, with I-70 also within very
quick access and allowing a direct route to the Midwest. However, this port’s location does
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 36
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
necessitate a longer sailing time from the main shipping routes and to put the fact into perspective, a
ship sailing from (for example) Savannah to New York will need to account for an additional distance
of around 320 nautical miles for an inbound call added at Baltimore (and the same distance to exit).
The port offers a variety of cargo-handling facilities, covering containers, ro-ro, forest products and
project cargo across a wide-variety of terminals. Yet there are no-known large-scale plans to expand
capacity for any specific commodity based on the port authority’s confirmation that it possesses
sufficient tracts of land to undertake any expansion, if or when required.
The greatest challenge Baltimore faces in terms of connectivity is the necessity for CSX to establish
consistent rail connectivity through all bridges on existing corridors, such as:
o
o
o
The I-70/I-76 Corridor between D.C. and northwest Ohio (via Pittsburgh);
The I-95 Corridor between North Carolina and Baltimore (via Washington D.C.);
The Carolina Corridor between Wilmington and Charlotte, N.C.
With reported figures to complete the work in excess of $700 million, clearly significant investment is
required and even if achieved with the likes of New York/New Jersey immediately to the north and
Virginia to the south, significant port competition will remain.
•
Virginia Ports Authority:
The Virginia Port Authority (VPA) owns a major network of cargo handling marine terminal facilities
in the Hampton Roads region. VPA develops, maintains, and, through its affiliate VIT, operates
container and breakbulk cargo facilities.
Virginia International Terminals, Inc. (VIT), the not-for-profit affiliate of VPA, operates the VPA’s
three existing marine terminals in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia and its intermodal facility
located at Front Royal, Virginia. The construction of VPA’s fourth marine terminal, Craney Island
Marine Terminal (“Craney”), is in the design phase and is expected to add up to 5 million TEU of extra
container capacity as it is introduced on a phased-basis between 2022 and 2040.
In addition, the VPA recently signed a 20-year lease agreement with APM Terminals America that
effectively gives the agency control over all operations at the 291 acre terminal APMT Virginia, a
facility claimed by the port authority to be the “most technologically-advanced facility in the world.”
Regardless of the validity of this claim, the lease agreement does unify all marine cargo terminals in
the Hampton Roads harbor under VIT operating control for the next two decades.
The containerized cargo capacity for Hampton Roads port facilities, including APMT’s new terminal,
increased to over 4.0 million TEU in FY 2009. There is sufficient short-term capacity for growth above
the FY 2009 total port volume and the subsequent introduction of Craney Island in phases after 2022
means that the port is extremely well catered for in the future.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 37
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
The Port of Virginia is already well-positioned to receive deeper draft ships because of its existing 50
foot channels, no air draft restrictions, supporting terminals infrastructure and cranes capable of
servicing the largest ocean-going vessels in service.
The port’s terminals also benefit from substantial intermodal rail connections and services from both
NS and CSX, enabling the facilities to be competitive for those markets more distantly located from
the terminals. All locations where cargo is handled benefit from on-dock rail and the central rail yard
at NIT is currently undergoing a reconfiguration that is due to be completed in 2012 and provide an
annual capacity of 500,000 on-dock lifts. This is in addition to the 50-acre rail facility at PMT and the
large-scale operation at the APMT operation that has six tracks.
•
Charleston:
The Port of Charleston is primarily served by Interstate 26, which is just two miles from all of its
terminals. This connectivity also allows access to other key interstates, such as I-95, I-77, I-20, I-85
and I-40. The port maintains daily container express services from both NS and CSX, with both
railroads operating yards in Charleston. There is dockside rail access at the Columbus Street and
North Charleston terminals but not the Wando Welch facility which only offers access to rail via a
direct-dray system. While the port authority suggests that this drayage option allows for more
“generous cutoff times” there is a cost and time implication involved that should be noted and the
current method of operating is less preferable to a direct on-dock connection,
There are three terminals in Charleston that handle cargo:
o
o
o
Wando Welch Terminal is a 325 acre terminal which is the main container terminal in
Charleston. While it represents about 52% of the terminal acreage in Charleston, it is estimated
that it handles about 65% of the container volume. Wando Welch Terminal has 242.3 acres of
container storage space and 3,800 continuous ft. (1,128 m.) of berth space, making up four
vessel berths. These berths are served by 10 container cranes, six of which are Super PostPanamax, with the remaining four being Post-Panamax.
North Charleston Terminal is a 175 acre which represents about 28% of the total acreage and is
estimated to handle less than 25% of the total container volume. With almost 130 acres of open
storage, the North Charleston Terminal also handles breakbulk and ro-ro cargo. The terminal has
three container berths totaling 2,500 feet of berth space. There are six container cranes, two
Super Post-Panamax and four Post-Panamax.
Columbus Street Terminal is a 120 acre terminal which represents about 19% of the total
acreage and is estimated to handle less than 15% of the total container volume. Columbus Street
Terminal has 78 acres of open storage for containers and other cargo. With 3,500 feet of
continuous berth space it has six berths, two container berths and four breakbulk berths. There
are five container cranes at the terminal including two Super Post-Panamax, two Post-Panamax
and one Panamax.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 38
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
There are additional facilities for other types of cargo in addition to the container facilities, further
supporting the need to be able to offer capacity for loading/discharging a wide range of different
commodities in the Mid and South Atlantic region:
o
o
o
o
Union Pier Terminal, a dedicated breakbulk and ro-ro operation across four berths to give 2,470ft
of berthing, linked to I-26;
Veterans Terminal, a 100-acre bulk, breakbulk, project cargo and ro-ro facility located 1.5 miles
from I-26 and has rail service from both NS and CSX;
The Port of Georgetown, a dedicated breakbulk facility offering 1,800ft of quay across four
berths and specializing in the handling of metals, cement, chemicals, aggregates, paper/forest
products and ores, with direct access to Highway 17 and on-terminal rail support from CSX;
Recently announced plans for construction of a new intermodal terminal, with both NS and CSX
to get access.
The inner channel in Charleston was deepened to 45 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) in 2004,
and the Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a feasibility study of further deepening. There are no
serious airdraft issues in Charleston with the Cooper River Bridge offering 186 feet of clearance at
Mean High Water (MHW).
•
Savannah:
The two cargo-handling operations at Savannah, Garden City Terminal and Ocean Terminal, both
enjoy good road and rail connections. Immediate access to both I-95 and I-16 is available and both
facilities are served by NS and CSX. Garden City also offers an on-terminal ICTF to allow for
unrestricted double-stack access to a wide geographical area in the South Atlantic region and further
afield.
The Garden City Terminal in Savannah, operated directly by the Georgia Ports Authority, at 1,200
acres is the largest single terminal container operation in North America. The terminal has 9,693
linear feet of berth, comprising nine berths. Five berths have 42 feet depth alongside, while four
have 48 feet depth. These berths are served by 19 quay cranes, 17 of which are Post Panamax while
the remaining two are Super Post-Panamax. Garden City Terminal has two on-dock intermodal
terminals, one served by CSX and the other by Norfolk Southern. The facility represents the major
on-site investment project being undertaken by GPA, with its stated objective being to increase
container TEU capacity to around 6.5 million TEU
The main channel has a depth of 42ft at MLLW with a 7.5ft tidal range, which provides some
opportunity for larger vessels to serve the terminal, though clearly it is limited in terms of overall
vessel depth. There is a multi-year Army Corps of Engineers effort – The Savannah Harbor Expansion
Project (SHEP) evaluating the deepening of the main channel to 48ft MLLW.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 39
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
In November 2010 the Army Corps of Engineers released its Draft General Reevaluation Report and
Draft Tier II Environmental Impact Statement documents and the public comment period is expected
to run until the end of January 2011. GPA is hopeful that the SHEP will gain approval before the end
of 2011, with construction commencing thereafter and being completed by 2015.
The Garden City Terminal has nearby access to two Interstate Highways, with both I-16 and I-95 less
than six miles from the terminal. In addition, there are more than 20 major importer distribution
centers (DC) in the immediate vicinity of the Terminal, one of the largest such concentrations on the
east coast. This facilitates the rapid movement of containers from the terminal to the DC, with a
positive impact on terminal capacity and increases the competitiveness of the facility to shippers and
the ocean carrier industry.
GPA also operates or leases other facilities within its local area that specialize in different
commodities but which benefit from the similar hinterland connectivity, including
o
o
o
•
Mayor’s Point Terminal, a 22-acre operation with 1,750 ft of berthing for such products as wood
pulp, linerboard, plywood and paper products:
Colonel’s Island Terminal, a dedicated operation specializing in the ro-ro movement of
automobiles and the handling of agri-bulk commodities;
Marine Port terminals, a 145-acre terminal leased to Logistec Inc and handling a diverse mix of
bulk and breakbulk commodities.
Jacksonville:
Located in Northern Florida, the Port of Jacksonville handles a combination of container, automobile,
bulk, breakbulk and refrigerated cargoes, across a number of different terminals. The Blount Island
Terminal and Dames Point Terminal are connected to I-95 via seven miles of State Road 9A, while
Talleyrand Marine Terminal is located adjacent to I-95 directly.
There are three terminals at Jacksonville, as the following confirms:
o
o
Blount Island Terminal is a 754 acre terminal with about 250 gross acres (150 net) dedicated to
container operations with four container terminal tenants. The terminal also handles ro-ro,
breakbulk, project cargo and liquid bulks. Although it is located just nine nautical miles from the
Atlantic Ocean, with 5,280ft of berth offering a depth alongside of 40ft and 1,350ft of berth
having just 38ft of draft, the size of vessel able to call is clearly restricted.
Talleyrand Marine Terminal is located 21 nautical miles from the Atlantic Ocean on the St James
River and the 173-acre facility serves as the common user terminal for containerized cargo as
well as autos, liquid bulk and various breakbulk cargoes, including steel, lumber and paper, and a
variety of frozen and chilled goods. Talleyrand Marine Terminal has 4,800 feet of berth recently
deepened to 40 feet alongside, serviced by six container cranes (one 50-ton, two 45-ton, three
40-ton) as well as 120,000 square feet of refrigerated/freezer space. On-dock rail facilities are
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 40
Port Business Case Study
o
North Carolina State Ports Authority
operated by Talleyrand Terminal Railroad, Inc., which provides direct switching service for both
NS and CSX, plus this facility is located less than 30 minutes from Florida East Coast Railroad's
intermodal ramp;
Dames Point Terminal comprises 585 acres of land owned by the port authority, located just 10
nautical miles from the Atlantic Ocean and is the location of the port authority’s major
investment initiatives. It represents the site of the recently developed 158-acre MOL/TraPac
terminal, which has a stated capacity of 1 million TEU, and provides two 1,200ft berths with a
water depth alongside of 40ft. The facility is served by six Post-Panamax cranes (two 50 ton, four
40 ton). Dames Point is also the site of the planned 90-acre Hanjin Terminal, originally expected
to open in 2014, with a stated capacity of 800,000 TEU. This project has now stalled and the port
has said that the facility is now aiming to receive its first ship in 2016, not 2013. This decision
reflects yet another delay to the project and follows a one-year delay while Hanjin reached
agreement with the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union regarding staffing
requirements at the proposed automated terminal. While both Hanjin and the port authority
have publicly stated their commitment to the project, the continued delays do question if this
project will ever be constructed. In addition to these two container facilities, this terminal also
handles bulk aggregate cargo on a 34-acre land parcel.
The main channel in Jacksonville, which runs 23 miles from mouth of river to Talleyrand Terminal,
was recently deepened to 40ft, with plans outlined to seek 42ft in the short-term. The long-term
objective of the Authority is to achieve 48 feet by 2016 and it has stated that it intends to use the
delay to the Hanjin terminal to undertake this deepening project with the new container facility
opening. The dredging plan will require a $60 million jetty to control intra-coastal waterway flow for
navigation purposes and authorization by the Army Corps of Engineers, so the ability to finish the
deepening project by 2016 may also be questionable.
Based on the acreage available for containers, and a conservative estimate of 5,000 TEU per gross
acre, Jaxport would have a capacity exceeding 3 million TEU, and likely higher with additional
development and higher storage density. There are also a number of other cargo activities being
undertaken, enforcing the requirement for all ports in the South Atlantic to offer more than just
container operations.
While the federal channel along the St. Johns River is maintained at a depth of 40ft, USACE is
currently considering two harbor projects:
1. To improve the flow of the St. Johns River at Mile Point, where intra-coastal and river currents
pose navigational hindrances during certain tidal conditions. The Mile Point study is slated to be
released in early 2011;
2. To help meet the needs of larger cargo ships entering the container trades in the future,
especially after the Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014, USACE is undertaking what
Jaxport defines as a “comprehensive, years-long economic, engineering and environmental study
to find the optimum depth of Jacksonville's federal channel.” If favorable results are provided,
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 41
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
and these are currently unknown, the port authority is hopeful that the project completion could
coincide with the expansion of the Panama Canal. Deeper water would help better position
Jaxport as a potential first call for larger ships on All Water routes from Asia via the Panama
Canal and further outlines the potential competitive benefits available to ports benefitting from
investment in better quality facilities and infrastructure.
•
Mid and South Atlantic Port Regional Container Expansion:
With respect to known or confirmed container expansion plans at existing ports serving the South
Atlantic, there are several large-scale projects anticipated over the course of the next 10-15 years, as
Table 3.4 shows:
o
o
o
o
o
At Virginia the current box total of 4.7 million TEU per annum could be joined by up to 5 million
TEU introduced in phases between 2022 and 2040 as the Craney Island project is developed;
The Naval Base project at Charleston will increase the existing 3 million TEU capacity by 1.4
million TEU per annum, with the first phase from 2018;
The Georgia Ports Authority has confirmed plans to raise the Garden City terminal from the
current 2.5 million TEU per annum to around 6.5 million TEU by 2020;
Further expansion at Jacksonville will see around 800,000 TEU per annum of capacity added to
the current estimated figure of just under 2 million TEU per annum;
Baltimore has announced its belief that it retains an “adequate supply of land to support
anticipated cargo growth to 2045” and has no-known expansion plans publicly available.
Table 3.4: Confirmed Information Relating to Expansion Projects in Mid and South Atlantic Region
Port
Current Port TEU
Capacity – 2010
Expansion Summary Plans
Key Dates
Baltimore
1,450,000
No known specific expansion projects
Virginia
4,700,000
Craney Island – 5 million TEU
4-phased introduction
between 2022 and 2040
Charleston
3,000,000
Naval Base project – 1.4 million
TEU
From 2017
Savannah
2,500,000
Garden City expansion - 6.5
million TEU in total
By 2020
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 42
Port Business Case Study
Jacksonville
Jasper County
North Carolina State Ports Authority
1,950,000
New Hanjin terminal – 800,000
TEU
From 2016
N/A
Initial capacity of 550,000 – 1.1
million TEU. Ultimately could
develop 7 million TEU per annum
Operations currently
scheduled to commence
in 2025
Note: Expansion summary and Key dates based on information publicly available.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
In addition to these existing port expansions, the Jasper County project in South Carolina is also
worthy of inclusion. Based on current public information the proposed container terminal at Jasper
County has a scheduled opening in 2025. It is due to be built on 2,000 acres of land slated for
industrial development on the South Carolina side of the Savannah River, and is expected to offer 10
berths, a turning basin and road and rail infrastructure on approximately 1,100 acres of the site.
When completely built out, the Jasper terminal will have a capacity of 7 million TEU. In the first of
four phases, expected to be complete in 2025, the terminal will have two berths, six to eight ship-toshore cranes, rubber-tire gantry cranes to work the container stacks and a small, two-track
intermodal yard. It will be capable of handling between 1.2 million and 1.4 million boxes.
The Jasper site was acquired jointly by the Georgia and South Carolina ports authorities from the
Georgia Department of Transportation in July 2008. Although the two states own the land, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers holds a permanent easement on the property, which it uses to store dredge
spoils.
•
Role of Larger Cranes:
Another important factor influencing a terminal’s competitiveness, especially for container activities,
is the size of crane able to serve the ship. As a guide, Figure 3.8 outlines the typical differences
between Panamax, Post-Panamax and Super Post Panamax cranes in terms of the size of vessel that
can be handled. A generic rule of thumb is that larger ocean going ships require cranes that are taller
and have a longer reach across the ship.
As container ship sizes increase after the Panama Canal expansion is completed and larger ships are
transiting the waterway, there will be greater demand for Post Panamax and Super Post Panamax
cranes at terminals and less requirements for Panamax cranage.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 43
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.8: Impact of Size of Crane for Handling Containers to/from Larger Ships
Note: Number of containers each crane must span is offered as an indicative guide.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 44
Port Business Case Study
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Water Depth Issues:
As Table 3.5 identifies, the facilities handling containers on the eastern seaboard offer a range of
different water depths, and it is important to note that the restricting factor may be the port’s berth
or the access channel to reach the port’s terminals or in some instances a combination of both.
Looking at the Mid and South Atlantic region specifically, and based on current water depth offered,
VPA (through Norfolk and the APMT facilities) can receive the largest ships in service and are wellplaced to serve Super post-Panamax units after the Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014
and bigger ships continue to enter service.
Other competing ports are more limited. Charleston can also receive larger ships because of its
channel depth of 47ft and river channel and berth depth of 45ft at the Wando Welch facility,
although its other terminals offer just 40ft at the berth. By way of comparison, Savannah can provide
a consistent 42ft at the Garden City terminal and has some tidal range to assist but needs to dredge
its channel to accommodate larger ships. In fact, the port recently saw the shift of an MSC service
that incorporates ships of up to 8,400 TEU in size to Charleston where such units are able to be
accommodated.
The water depth to access POW is restricted and, as a consequence, the size of vessel that can be
accommodated is also lower, though it is also clear that with the exception of terminals at VPA, many
other ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region also need to attain deeper water to be in a position
to receive the projected larger vessels entering service in the future. With the trend for bigger ships
set to continue after 2014, the pressure on ports to be able to offer sufficient water depth in access
channels and at berths will only intensify and NCSPA facilities need to keep pace with this demand.
Table 3.5: Confirmed Channel Depths/Berth Depths for Container Ports on the US Atlantic Coast, Q3 2010
Port
Terminal
Boston
Conley Container Terminal
NY/NJ
Philadelphia
Wilmington DE
Channel Depth Range – ft Berth Depth Range - ft
35 – 40
35 - 45
Maher Terminals
45
45 – 50
APMT
45
45 – 50
Port Newark
45
40 – 50
Red Hook Marine
45
42
Global Terminal
45
43
NY Container Terminal
45
37 – 45
Packer Avenue
40
40
Tioga Marine Terminal
40
36
Tioga Cont. (ro-ro berth)
40
36
38 – 40
38
Port of Wilmington
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 45
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port
Terminal
Baltimore
Seagirt
36 – 50
45
Dundalk,
36 – 50
34 - 46
North Locust Point
36 – 50
34
South Locust Point
36 – 50
30 – 36
APM Terminals (Portsmouth)
50
49 – 56
Newport News
40
36 – 40
Norfolk International Terminal
50
50 – 55
Portsmouth
43
40
POW
42
42
35 – 45
35 – 45
Columbus Street
45
45
North Charleston
45
45
Wando Welch
45
45
42 – 44
42
Virginia
North Carolina
MHC/RI
Charleston
Channel Depth Range – ft Berth Depth Range - ft
Savannah
Garden City
Jacksonville
Blount Island
40
40
Talleyrand
40
40
Midport/Northport
45
38
Southport Container Terminal
45
44
Lummus Island
36 – 44
42
Seaboard Marine Terminal
36 – 44
50
Port Everglades
Miami
Note: Ports deemed as outside of the competitive region of the Mid and South Atlantic, such as Boston. NY/NJ, Port Everglades and Miami, are listed
for full comparisons and to highlight the need for deeper water depth on much of the US eastern seaboard.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
•
Container Volume Development:
With respect to the recent development of container volumes at ports competing to serve the South
Atlantic region, total container volumes have increased from almost 4.99 million TEU in 1999 to over
6.78 million TEU by the end of 2009, reflecting an average growth of 3.1% per annum.
Figure 3.9 provides an overview of traffic handled between 1999 and 2009 on an individual port
basis. The rapid development of containers moving through Savannah reflects growth of 11.5% per
annum, although the second-highest annual increases occurred at Wilmington, with 5.3%, albeit
from a low starting point, followed by just under 3% per annum at Hampton Roads. However,
Charleston (-2.2% per annum) and Jacksonville (-0.2% per annum) have all seen negative growth
during this 10-year period, while Baltimore has seen negligible increases of just 0.5% per annum.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 46
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.9: Development of Container Volumes at Mid and South Atlantic Ports, 1999 – 2009, in TEU
3,000,000
2,500,000
Baltimore
2,000,000
Hampton Roads
1,500,000
Wilmington(NC)
1,000,000
Charleston
Savannah
500,000
Jacksonville
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
-
Note: Jacksonville, Savannah and Wilmington report on a fiscal year basis. Volumes for 2009 are used because they reflected the last full year of traffic
available at the time of writing (Q4 2010).
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from AAPA data
In terms of the share of existing traffic retained by competing ports, based on volumes handled,
Figure 3.10 provides an outline of recent developments for the South Atlantic region. It can be seen
that this port range has accounted for a consistent 17%-18% of total US box throughput, which is
based on growth in the South Atlantic averaging 3.2% per annum as opposed to 2.9% for the US
overall.
The developing share retained by Savannah is unsurprising, based on the port’s rapid growth as the
dominant container facility in the region, from just over 15% to 35% during the assessment period.
This change has occurred largely at the expense of Charleston which has seen a share of over 30% in
1999 to around 17% by 2009.
By way of comparison, POW has seen a small, but steady, rise in share since 2003, albeit that the port
still only commands less than 5% of the regional container market. Hampton Roads has continued to
account for around 25% of total regional container activity, with Baltimore seeing a continued slow
decline away from 10% held in 1999 to about 7% during 2010.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 47
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.10: Development of Share of Traffic in Mid and South Atlantic Region, 1999 – 2009, in %
40.0%
35.0%
Mid & South Atlantic share of US
30.0%
Baltimore
25.0%
Hampton Roads
20.0%
15.0%
Wilmington(NC)
10.0%
Charleston
5.0%
Savannah
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
0.0%
Jacksonville
Note: Jacksonville, Savannah and Wilmington report on a fiscal year basis
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from AAPA data
Based on container volumes reported by ports serving the Mid and South Atlantic region, the
economic recovery during 2010 has aided ports to recover from the 2009 decline.
As Table 3.6 identifies, all regional facilities that release monthly or fiscal year data can point to a
major upturn in the number of containers handled, with all seeing double-digit percentage increases.
POW has recorded the largest overall percentage increase for its FY period to the end of June 2010,
albeit from the lowest starting total, with Savannah seeing the highest number of TEU handled.
It should be noted that the POW figure does not take into account the traditionally stronger peakseason surge for containers that has been included by Hampton Roads, Charleston and Savannah.
During 2010 there was an early peak season and it finished in August. This compares with the
traditional position in which the stronger growth normally continues to include September volumes.
Table 3.6: Reported 2009 Container Volumes and 2010 YTD Totals for Mid and South Atlantic Ports
Port
Reported 2009 Volumes
Reported 2010 Volume Data
525,296
No YTD info released
Hampton Roads
1,593,355
To End of Oct = +10.7%
Wilmington(NC)*
217,000
FY to End of June = +29%
Baltimore
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 48
Port Business Case Study
Port
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Reported 2009 Volumes
Reported 2010 Volume Data
Charleston
1,146,919
To End of Oct = +16.3%
Savannah
2,384,425
To End of Oct = +19.3%
754,352
End of FY Sept = +10%
Jacksonville
Note: * = Reflects loaded TEU total only. All other port figures are for all TEU activity, including empties. Data based on information available in Q3
2010.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from ports, AAPA.
•
Bulk and Breakbulk Cargo Volume Development:
With respect to bulk and breakbulk volumes handled at ports serving the Mid and South Atlantic
region, total trade (excluding fuel) has remained flat, with only nominal growth of just 0.1% per
annum since 2003, as illustrated in Table 3.7.
However, it is important to note that this overall weakness can be attributed to the reduction in
trade volumes over the past two years. Since 2008 demand for these goods has fallen dramatically as
a result of the collapse of the US construction and steel manufacturing industries as well as the onset
of the global recession. Though 2010 is has experienced a partial rebound (data through October)
import volumes remain approximately 20% below 2006’s high level which coincided with high activity
in US residential construction, global steel demand and agriculture consumption.
NCSPA facilities at POW and MHC have historically accounted for 10% of the identified districts.
Baltimore has traditionally been the largest, led by import volumes of salt and iron ore. General
cargo trade at Norfolk has grown the fastest, led by increases in exports of cereals. Growth achieved
at POW and MHC has been led by increases in coal and chemical imports and most recently grain
imports and fertilizer exports.
Table 3.7: Mid and South Atlantic Port Region – Bulk and Breakbulk Cargo ex Fuel, 2003 – 2010E
Tons (1,000s)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010E
11,303
11,806
12,034
12,301
11,048
11,831
7,032
9,723
-2.1%
Norfolk
3,791
3,685
4,822
5,600
6,124
6,722
4,896
5,141
4.4%
POW/MHC
2,874
3,502
3,812
3,640
3,859
3,913
3,590
3,813
4.1%
Charleston
5,751
6,067
5,806
7,185
5,619
4,448
3,439
4,043
-4.9%
Savannah
6,939
7,978
8,554
10,008
10,554
9,571
7,791
8,577
3.1%
Baltimore
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 49
Port Business Case Study
Tons (1,000s)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
North Carolina State Ports Authority
2008
2009
2010E
4,081
4,628
4,621
5,170
4,909
4,778
2,880
3,610
-1.7%
Total
34,739
37,667
39,649
43,903
42,112
41,263
29,629
34,906
0.1%
Share
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010E
Baltimore
33%
31%
30%
28%
26%
29%
24%
28%
Norfolk
11%
10%
12%
13%
15%
16%
17%
15%
MHC/POW
8%
9%
10%
8%
9%
9%
12%
11%
Charleston
17%
16%
15%
16%
13%
11%
12%
12%
Savannah
20%
21%
22%
23%
25%
23%
26%
25%
Jacksonville
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
10%
10%
Jacksonville
Source: US Census Bureau; Moffatt & Nichol
In terms of specific commodities handled by competing ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region,
the imports of minerals (excluding fuel) have historically accounted for 47% of the total weight of
imported general cargo commodities, as Table 3.8 shows. Other notable commodities continue to be
chemicals and fertilizers, and iron and steel.
POW and MHC have traditionally accounted for 11% of the regional import volume of general cargo
with high concentrations have been in chemicals, rubber and wood products. The NCSPA facilities
have increased their share of grain imports (primarily animal feed) and this cargo type should
continue to be a strong source of demand given the regional production of swine and poultry.
However, it appears that NCSPA ports have been losing share of the region’s noncontainerized
rubber imports, though in part these have been recovered through increased containerized volumes
at POW.
Table 3.8: Mid and South Atlantic Port Region – Imports by Commodity, 2003 – 2010E
(Tons 1000s)
2003
Ag incl Feed & Beverages
Minerals ex Fuel
Chemicals & Fertilizer
Plastics & Rubber
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010E
CAGR
1,130
1,390
1,711
1,890
1,529
1,402
1,546
1,845
7.3%
12,488
13,764
14,632
15,774
12,948
12,296
6,059
9,078
-4.5%
3,753
3,841
3,807
3,729
4,567
4,257
3,399
3,825
0.3%
433
447
468
395
320
228
145
230
-8.6%
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 50
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
(Tons 1000s)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010E
CAGR
24
32
45
14
16
13
32
32
4.3%
818
1,260
1,501
1,396
763
397
180
135
-22.7%
Paper & Pulp
1,383
1,393
1,303
1,627
1,711
1,670
1,259
1,331
-0.5%
Iron & Steel
3,237
4,035
3,009
4,085
2,641
2,366
1,540
2,148
-5.7%
Metals
327
351
519
487
212
159
174
27
-30.0%
Machinery
572
691
774
834
610
508
298
365
-6.2%
1,736
1,786
1,730
2,096
2,107
1,730
1,239
1,368
-3.3%
214
165
131
144
101
67
44
70
-14.7%
26,113
29,155
29,629
32,470
27,525
25,095
15,916
20,457
-3.4%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
CAGR
Ag incl Feed & Beverages
168
245
186
42
30
86
213
125
-4.1%
Minerals ex Fuel
550
730
974
915
835
720
421
380
-5.1%
1,043
1,148
1,123
1,133
1,574
1,425
1,359
1,486
5.2%
154
183
169
124
119
52
23
47
-15.5%
2
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
-23.8%
180
334
427
454
260
163
75
32
-21.9%
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
-21.3%
161
106
145
305
278
257
150
175
1.2%
1
2
3
2
1
0
0
0
-24.0%
12
2
1
4
15
2
2
2
-21.8%
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
14.6%
24
5
6
11
3
1
1
8
-14.3%
2,295
2,768
3,039
2,991
3,117
2,707
2,245
2,256
-0.2%
Textiles, Furs & Skins
Wood Products
Vehicles
Apparel & Consumer Goods
Total
North Carolina (Tons 1,000s)
Chemicals & Fertilizer
Plastics & Rubber
Textiles, Furs & Skins
Wood Products
Paper & Pulp
Iron & Steel
Metals
Machinery
Vehicles
Apparel & Consumer Goods
Total
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 51
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
(Tons 1000s)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010E
North Carolina Share
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Ag incl Feed & Beverages
15%
18%
11%
2%
2%
6%
14%
7%
4%
5%
7%
6%
6%
6%
7%
4%
Chemicals & Fertilizer
28%
30%
29%
30%
34%
33%
40%
39%
Plastics & Rubber
36%
41%
36%
31%
37%
23%
16%
21%
7%
32%
12%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
22%
27%
28%
32%
34%
41%
42%
24%
Paper & Pulp
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Iron & Steel
5%
3%
5%
7%
11%
11%
10%
8%
Metals
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
Machinery
2%
0%
0%
1%
2%
0%
1%
1%
Vehicles
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
3%
4%
8%
3%
1%
2%
12%
9%
9%
10%
9%
11%
11%
14%
11%
Minerals ex Fuel
Textiles, Furs & Skins
Wood Products
Apparel & Consumer Goods
Total
CAGR
Source: US Census Bureau; Moffatt & Nichol
Non-containerized export volumes through the Mid and South Atlantic region have become
increasingly related to the agriculture industry and the port facilities which have exposure to this
sector have experienced the strongest growth.
As Table 3.9 highlights, although POW and MHC handle limited volumes of these commodities, the
ports do see significant, and growing, volumes of wood product exports as well as fertilizers, which
have also been sources of strong regional growth.
Given the proximity of both POW and MHC to sources of lumber and a dedicated fertilizer production
operation, Moffatt & Nichol would expect that continued global demand for lumber, fertilizer and
frozen meats (though containerized at NC Ports) to continue to support export volumes through
NCSPA ports.
Nevertheless, the need to offer sufficient hinterland connectivity via road and rail and provision of
efficient port-handling operations remain a pre-requisite to maintaining a satisfied customer base for
NCSPA.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 52
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.9: Mid and South Atlantic Region - Exports by Commodity, 2003 – 2010E
(Tons 1000s)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010E
Ag incl Feed & Beverages
1,732
1,486
2,353
3,127
3,723
3,794
4,003
3,924
Minerals ex Fuel
1,307
1,199
1,356
1,523
1,526
960
690
916
Chemicals & Fertilizer
468
632
597
587
950
3,041
1,790
1,897
Plastics & Rubber
296
400
276
267
407
382
316
336
Textiles, Furs & Skins
136
132
87
137
161
149
106
131
Wood Products
570
848
787
852
1,126
1,252
1,328
1,674
2,060
1,979
2,301
2,581
3,428
2,281
2,066
2,009
Iron & Steel
737
353
422
345
554
1,144
1,291
1,001
Metals
113
94
104
106
133
172
178
207
Machinery
328
415
500
507
696
832
534
653
Vehicles
756
817
1,075
1,261
1,711
1,970
1,271
1,539
Apparel & Consumer Goods
122
155
160
140
172
191
139
161
Total
8,625
8,511
10,020
11,432
14,586
16,167
13,712
14,448
North Carolina (Tons 1000s)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
34
25
19
38
28
10
19
5
Minerals ex Fuel
0
0
8
0
0
0
3
60
Chemicals & Fertilizer
9
78
91
10
17
905
964
1,178
Plastics & Rubber
1
1
2
1
7
5
10
12
Textiles, Furs & Skins
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
11
35
41
45
63
97
91
181
140
Paper & Pulp
440
555
553
478
538
116
95
80
Iron & Steel
42
17
32
39
33
51
44
42
7
6
5
8
9
8
8
11
Paper & Pulp
Ag incl Feed & Beverages
Wood Products
Metals
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 53
Port Business Case Study
(Tons 1000s)
2003
2004
2005
2006
North Carolina State Ports Authority
2007
2008
2009
2010E
Machinery
3
3
8
4
3
8
5
5
Vehicles
4
5
5
4
5
6
9
10
Apparel & Consumer Goods
5
5
3
2
3
3
3
4
579
734
773
649
742
1,206
1,345
1,557
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Ag incl Feed & Beverages
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Minerals ex Fuel
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
Chemicals & Fertilizer
2%
12%
15%
2%
2%
30%
54%
62%
Plastics & Rubber
0%
0%
1%
0%
2%
1%
3%
3%
Textiles, Furs & Skins
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
2%
4%
8%
Wood Products
6%
5%
6%
7%
9%
7%
14%
8%
Paper & Pulp
21%
28%
24%
19%
16%
5%
5%
4%
Iron & Steel
6%
5%
8%
11%
6%
4%
3%
4%
Metals
6%
6%
5%
8%
7%
4%
4%
5%
Machinery
1%
1%
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
Vehicles
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
Apparel & Consumer Goods
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
Total
7%
9%
8%
6%
5%
7%
10%
11%
Total
North Carolina Share
Source: US Census Bureau; Moffatt & Nichol
Summary Conclusion:
There is clearly an established, and competitive, port market serving the Mid and South Atlantic region and
NCSPA facilities remain an integrated part of the competitive market. Ports in the region continue to look
to serve their own respective hinterlands but also rely on intermodal rail to ensure that more distant
locations can also be served, which is something the likes of VPA and Savannah are doing much more
successfully than NCSPA (which lacks comparable hinterland connectivity).
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 54
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Moreover, competing ports in this region are all looking to invest in their facilities, through improved
equipment and infrastructure. There are existing plans to increase container capacity and the Mid and
South Atlantic port region will not see a shortage of container space into the next decade based on known
and confirmed expansion strategies being adopted.
There are some obvious challenges as well. Savannah and Charleston, for example, need to ensure that
they successfully dredge the Savannah and Cooper rivers to be able to receive larger container ships in the
future and any delay incurred in the process will negatively impact the ability to receive larger ships
entering service.
For NCSPA facilities to improve competitiveness there is a need to at least offer comparable facilities to
other ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region. This is not currently being achieved, especially with
respect to intermodal rail. This is investment that needs to be made for the POW and/or MHC to be more
competitive to other regional ports currently serving hinterland locations that NCSPA facilities should be
looking to serve instead.
3.1.2.3.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats (SWOT) Analysis of Competing Regional
Ports.
Table 3.10 provides a summary Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats assessment of all
competing regional ports, which for the purpose of this assessment includes the San Pedro ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach (due to their high volumes of discretionary Asian cargo serving markets that the Mid
and South Atlantic ports seek to serve too).
Table 3.10: Strenghts, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis of Competing Mid and South
Atlantic Ports
Port
Baltimore
Strengths
Weaknesses
Deeper water at berths
(albeit access deviation is
an issue)
Deviation from open
water for ships
Loss of MSC traffic
Container volumes largely
underpinned by MSC
Some
issues
No known expansion
or
significant
investment plans
rail
Opportunities
capability
Diverse cargo base and
terminals
Virginia Ports Auth.
Deep water and good rail
Threats
Uncertainty over rail
double-stack
resolution
Limited local markets
Heartland
Corridor
More expensive port
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 55
Port Business Case Study
Port
Strengths
Weaknesses
access
Diverse
base
liner
customer
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Opportunities
Threats
aiding competitiveness
costs
Hinterland connectivity
greatly increases cargo
potential
Trend towards larger
(container) ships will
reduce liner customer
potential
Significant exposure to
container traffic, little
other cargo base
Large scale future capacity
– Craney Island and APM
Terminals
NCSPA – POW
Some
captive
customers
liner
Water
restrictions
depth
Poor rail connectivity
No investment in
hinterland from NCRR
and NCDOT
Water depth of 50ft
not attained
NCSPA – MHC
Better water depth and rail
service than POW
Not
currently
a
container terminal –
retrofit
would
be
required
New road bypass will
further
improve
hinterland connectivity
No investment in
hinterland from NCRR
and NCDOT
Better maritime location
than POW for shipping
access
Size of RI and cost to
develop property
50ft draft more likely
due to shorter length
needed and beneficial
use of dredge material
Water depth of 50ft
not attained
Use of Radio Island for
box activities
Charleston
Deeper
water
than
Savannah/Wilmington
Lack of Asian services
Competitive
rates,
deeper water – lines to
consider switch port
calls
Perception as secondchoice
port
to
Savannah
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 56
Port Business Case Study
Port
Savannah
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Secured MSC Golden Gate
string because ship (8,400
TEU) too large to access
Savannah
Loss of share of regional
volumes
Potential to serve
North Carolina markets
Lack of supporting DC
activity compared to
Savannah
Fast-growing
volumes,
critical mass of cargo and
customers
Deviation/location from
open water
Continue to grow share
of traffic, especially
from West Coast ports
Inability
to
finish
Savannah River dredge
program
Successful implementation
of supporting DCs
Current water depth
limits
Poor water depth/draft
restrictions
Staple future
provided
Hanjin/MOL
traffic
by
No improvements to
water depth
Higher
structure/union
presence
Diversion of cargo to
East
Coast
ports/stronger demand
for All Water option
Continued shift of
Asian cargo to East
Coast, especially after
2014
Diverse cargo base (not
just containers)
Jacksonville
New
terminals
Los
Angeles/Long
Beach*
Location to serve Asian
trades
Hanjin/MOL
Critical
mass
cargo/customers/DC’s
of
cost
Could gain from any ILA
East
Coast
issues
impacting ports
Note: * = Although the San Pedro ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are not located in the South Atlantic region, they are listed to ensure
completeness of research and because collectively around 40% of their cargo is discretionary from Asia and moves to markets US East Coast ports can
also serve.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
3.1.2.4.
Key Shipping Trends, including introduction of Larger Ships, Expansion of Panama Canal
and Operating Strategies of Ocean Carriers
Shipping Line Port Choice
There are a number of key factors that attract a shipping line to a port and this is somewhat generic for any
facility in almost any region. It is certainly applicable to the Mid and South Atlantic region in which
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 57
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
POW/MHC competes/would compete for container traffic and include the following (which are not listed in
any specific order):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geographic location – ability to be close to, and serve, hinterland demand;
Facility criteria requirements - water depth, size of terminal, cranes (size/type), capacity/future
expansion potential, security/environmental policy;
Operating capabilities – berth guarantees upon ship arrival, crane speed/capacity, productivity
guarantees, gate turn-times, hours of operating and working flexibility, yard equipment, use of
IT/EDI/technology;
Cargo demand potential and markets served – size of hinterland markets, future potential, ability to
help increase demand (through DC/warehousing, added value etc);
Competitive pricing – terminal handling charges, use of tugs/pilots, storage rent-free periods and
subsequent costs etc;
Inland transportation – provision of efficient and cost-effective road/rail connectivity between port
and regions of hinterland demand.
While this list of key factors is not exhaustive, it certainly helps to understand the assessment process that a
container shipping line will undertake when looking at which ports are to be called and in which order the
facilities will appear on the published schedule. POW (or MHC) is judged against the criteria and compared to
all other regional facilities also hoping to secure calls from the shipping line and shipper customers.
One alternative some shipping lines have considered is the development of dedicated terminals. This is
because this option does offer some benefits, such as:
•
•
•
•
Guaranteed access to berthing;
Guaranteed access to own terminal operation and thereby tailor the service to meet specific
operational needs/demands;
Better efficiencies gained by integrating the terminal into the liner operators wider service network,
which includes the ability to consolidate services in a central location;
A leverage tool to existing port operators during contract negotiations.
The strategy adopted by a container shipping line is the primary driver of the amount of market share a port
will command because, in somewhat simplistic terms, the ocean carrier is responsible for moving cargo
volumes to/from the port. This certainly applies to the Mid and South Atlantic region and the quality of
facilities, water depth and quality of hinterland connectivity represent the port’s ability to help influence the
decision-making process of shipping lines.
However, it is also worthwhile assessing the process from the perspective of the ocean carrier. It is important
to note that the ocean carrier strategy adopted will be slightly different depending on the shipping line in
question and the market itself. Nevertheless, key examples of the decisions a liner operator will look to make
can include:
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 58
Port Business Case Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Direct calls versus transshipping to/from a regional hub, All Water or direct transpacific etc;
Size, speed and type of ships deployed – fully cellular containerized, ro-ro etc;
Capacity provision – number of ships and amount of slots/capacity deployed;
Ship scheduling – weekly port calls, fixed-day scheduling, additional calls on inducement ;
Working independently or in alliances/partnerships with other ocean carriers;
Directly operating services or purchasing slots on other operator’s ships;
Choice of port and order of calls, plus volumes for each facility;
As a result of these basic choices, shipping lines look to best match known cargo demand with the most cost
effective manner of getting cargo from origin to destination. The ability of a port to offer good quality
infrastructure and competitive pricing is fundamental in helping to secure traffic, especially as the criteria
listed here is typical and would apply equally to NCSPA as any other operating terminal in the South Atlantic
region.
Historic Ship Size Development
Taking this basic criteria into account, probably the most noticeable trend impacting shipping line operations
historically, and which continues to be at the center of the industry is the development of ship size, especially
for the shipment of containers and this trend is of prime importance for any port looking to handle cargo
volumes.
As Table 3.11 identifies, the key characteristics of container ships show a continued increase in size and
overall dimensions. From smaller multipurpose units with capability to successfully carry boxes, to the
current behemoths linking Asia – Europe and Asia – US West Coast, ships have continued to increase. The
trend looks set to continue although there is a ceiling that will eventually be reached, curtailed by the need
for deeper water, larger cranes and long quays, factors that fewer ports are able to successfully
accommodate - the bigger the ship gets, the fewer the number of ports that can receive it.
Historically as ships have increased in size, the ports serving the vessels have also modified and updated their
supporting infrastructure and superstructure, which includes water depth at the berth and in access
channels, size of cranes and supporting equipment and terminal size, yard size and configuration and gatehouse operations. In essence the need to grow with the size of the ships, which have brought higher cargo
volumes, has been, and will remain, a challenge of port operators, authorities and agencies that own and
support cargo-handling facilities.
Table 3.11: Historic Development Outlining Typical Container Ship Characteristics
Year
Length (ft)
Beam (ft)
Design Draft (ft)
Gross Tonnage
1966
666
75
33
16,518
1976
951
105
43
55,889
1986
951
105
39
57,540
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 59
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Year
Length (ft)
Beam (ft)
Design Draft (ft)
Gross Tonnage
1996
1,043
141
46
81,488
2006
1,204
141
49
97,933
2012+
1,325
171
50
130,000
Note: Dimensions quoted are approximate, based on typical characteristics for vessel averages for year listed
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Container Fleet and Orderbook
With respect to the current global container fleet being operated, based on size of vessel and length of ship,
Figure 3.11 outlines the make-up of the existing position identified by the industry’s shipping lines. There is,
unsurprisingly, a clear trend in which the larger sized ships are much longer, and, by definition, bigger but the
vast majority of the existing fleet is concentrated in the size range of up to 6,000 TEU and with a length of
less than 1,000ft.
This further indicates that a much smaller proportion of the fleet in Q3 2010 is currently too large to call at
ports in the Mid and South Atlantic range but does highlight the known trend towards larger ships cascading
into new markets.
Figure 3.11: Summary of Global Container Fleet Based on Ship Size & LOA, Q3 2010
1,400
1,200
LOA (Feet)
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Vessel Size (TEU Capacity)
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from Clarksons
Another useful reference for the global container fleet that can be identified is the size of ship in relation to
water depth draft requirements. As expected, and shown in Figure 3.12, the larger vessels will need deeper
water and the majority of the existing fleet is under 8,000 TEU and require between 30ft and 50ft of water
depth. However, it is important to note that this overview includes the largest shipping line trade being
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 60
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
intra-Asia, which uses a high proportion of smaller ships, with only Asia-Europe trades serviced by the very
biggest vessels.
However, the Atlantic port region is seeing the size of vessels calling continue to grow and it should be noted
that the global container fleet is sufficient in size and critical mass to be able to introduce larger ships to
Atlantic ports if both cargo demand and port infrastructure (notably water depth) were able to
accommodate the vessels.
Much larger ships already exist on a global basis and while it is not reasonable to expect to see the very
largest ships in service calling to eastern seaboard facilities, due to growing cargo demand, it is prudent to
expect to see bigger units in the future. This means that there will be continued pressure on the port
infrastructure and dredging initiatives being completed in order to accommodate the larger vessels.
Figure 3.12: Summary of Global Container Fleet by Size & Draft, Q3 2010
60
Draft (Feet)
50
Dashed Line = 38ft Draft
Number of vessels above line represents
share of “design” draft, not actual.
40
30
20
10
0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Vessel Size (TEU Capacity)
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from Clarksons
As Table 3.12 identifies, the current world fleet for container ships surpasses over 9,600 vessels, giving a total
TEU slot space capacity in excess of 15 million TEU. The list of the top 20 ocean carriers highlights the existing
fleets and number of ships operated. MSC continues to rapidly expand its existing fleet. Maersk Line retains
the number one position, albeit that the gap between the two operators is currently small, with the Danish
operator’s container fleet totaling 401 units, compared to 394 for MSC and offering almost 1.75 million TEU
slots, with MSC currently at 1.64 million TEU.
The information is listed is for each shipping line on an individual basis and helps to also convey the depth of
tonnage potentially available, including to the key alliances in force, such as CKYH – The Green Alliance,
which remains a key customer of NCSPA.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 61
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
This fast-growing carrier alliance collectively controls 400 ships, over 1.6 million TEU and retains a share of
the global fleet that totals 10.3% and 4.1% share of ships in operation – these figures are comparable to both
Maersk Line and MSC (albeit that it should be remembered that the total ships and TEU slots provided are for
the global operations of all shipping lines listed).
Table 3.12: Container Fleet Operated by Top 20 Container Shipping Lines, Q3 2010
Shipping Line
Rank
World Fleet
Total Fleet
TEU
Total Fleet
Ships
% share of
fleet
15,826,349
9,646
% share of
ships
Maersk Line
Mediterranean Shipping
Co
1
1,748,950
401
11.1%
4.2%
2
1,635,758
394
CMA CGM SA
3
1,014,778
278
Evergreen Line
4
575,693
160
APL Co Pte Ltd
5
574,843
140
Hapag-Lloyd AG
6
567,942
129
Cosco Container Lines Ltd
China Shipping Container
Lines
7
546,819
148
10.3%
6.4%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.5%
4.1%
2.9%
1.7%
1.5%
1.3%
1.5%
8
467,167
123
Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd
9
424,089
92
Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd
10
373,938
97
OOCL
11
341,920
74
K Line
12
337,183
85
NYK Line
13
330,821
70
Hamburg Sud
14
324,951
96
Yang Ming
15
314,305
75
CSAV
Hyundai Merchant
Marine
Zim Integrated Shipping
Services
Pacific International Lines
Pte
16
288,426
90
3.0%
2.7%
2.4%
2.2%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.0%
1.8%
1.3%
1.0%
1.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.7%
1.0%
0.8%
0.9%
17
277,822
56
1.8%
0.6%
18
269,528
72
1.7%
0.7%
19
214,523
98
20
192,067
40
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
0.4%
CSAV NORASIA
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moving forward the demand for larger ships is an important consideration. This is because a larger container
ship that retains a high utilization will deliver better economies of scale for the shipping line. This means that
although the operating costs are higher for the ship, because it is carrying higher numbers of boxes the total
revenue gained less the higher operating costs will still deliver a more positive net gain to the ocean carrier.
This very basic outline applies to any container trade lane, including those routes served by Mid and South
Atlantic ports, and is an indication of why all ocean carriers remain keen for larger ships to be placed into
service if warranted by cargo demand.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 62
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
While the current orderbook of almost 3.65 million TEU represents 23% of the total current fleet of 15.8
million TEU slots, the role of larger container ships in the existing container order book is evident. Figure 3.13
outlines the size of confirmed new-builds and delivery by year, based on confirmed data available during Q3
2010 from ship yards and other acceptable sources of such data.
The order book figures show the future of the containership fleet continuing a trend towards larger vessels.
For example around 46% of the current order book capacity relates to vessels in excess of 9,500 TEU, and
many of the major global operators are investing in ships of this classification. For example, MSC has 24 ships
of 13,000 TEU and 13 orders for units in the 14,000 TEU size, which alone is likely to add around 490,000 TEU
of new slots. This carrier is not alone in its strategy, with Cosco preparing for 16 ships of 13,000 TEU and both
Maersk Line and Hanjin also waiting for nine units each.
Figure 3.13: Confirmed Container Ship Orders by Size and Year of Delivery, Q3 2010
120
Count of Vessel
100
80
60
2014
40
2013
20
0
2012
2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 13,000 14,000
2014
2
2013
1
17
5
2012
9
20
22
2011
8
8
17
25
2010
7
4
1
8
2
6
17
7
16
10
23
18
17
3
24
8
1
3
3
3
1
2011
2010
1
26
6
35
6
38
11
2
7
TEU Capacity
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from ship yards, PR Newswire, Alphaliner, Containerisation International
While this snapshot of the order book further emphasizes the continued shift in container shipping towards a
greater use of bigger container ships, it should be noted that the largest vessels are only for deployment
between Asia and Europe and, to a lesser extent, on the transpacific between Asia and the US West Coast.
This is because these are the only trade lanes where sufficient demand exists to have to move such high
volumes of containers on a per shipment basis. Moreover, this position is not going to change in the future,
which means that 14,000 TEU size ships will not be seen at ports on the US eastern seaboard for a very long
time.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 63
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
However, the introduction of larger ships on the two key trade lanes highlighted here does have an impact
on the cargo routes served by Mid and South Atlantic ports, including those with which NCSPA competes
with for cargo. This is because the existing vessels in service between Asia-Europe and in the transpacific will
be cascaded into other trade routes. This means that there will be a greater number of vessels in the 8,000
TEU size classification becoming available which can be moved into other routes, which could include cargo
routes served by Mid and South Atlantic ports.
At the same time many shipping lines are also continuing to order a high number of units in the 7,000 TEU to
9,000 TEU size range. For example, there are 38 confirmed orders for 7,000 TEU ships, 20 for 8,000 TEU and
45 for 9,000 TEU (if those orders from unknown parties are included – of this figure 39 can be attributed to
specific ocean carriers), all from a wide-range of different shipping lines, including some niche specialists like
Hamburg Sud, CSAV and Pacific International Lines (PIL).
This endorses the view that these ocean carriers see further opportunities in their specialist markets that
require the use of bigger ships or that they are seeking to enter into the core East-West trade lanes, like the
transpacific (and, thereby, after 2014 All Water via the Panama Canal to the US East Coast Atlantic region).
As Figure 3.14 shows, almost all major shipping lines have, or can make available, tonnage to deploy to
almost any East-West or North-South trade routes in the future, as needed, which naturally includes the All
Water option using the Panama Canal.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 64
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
Figure 3.14: Confirmed Container Ship Orders by Size and Operator, Q3 2010
90
Container Vessel Order Book by Capacity and Shipping Line
80
70
Count of Vessel
60
50
14000
40
13000
11000
30
10000
9000
20
8000
7000
10
6000
5000
6
20
8
2
1
8
2
9
9
3
2
6
6
7
5
16
10
1
4
22
10
5
14
4
7
9
6
5
2
2
6
5
3
4
5
6
6
2
9
Unkown
4000
3000
2000
7
25
24
4
3
6
2
5
Zim
Yang Ming
1
5
10
Wan Hai
UASC
STX-Pan Ocean
PIL
NYK
MSC
MOL
1
MISC
4
1
8
10
Maersk
K Line
HMM
Hapag Lloyd
Hanjin
Hamburg-Sud
Evergreen
CSAV
COSCON
CMA CGM
4
Logistical
Intermodal
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
13000
14000
China Shipping
APL
0
24
13
4
9
9
12
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from ship yards, PR Newswire, Alphaliner, Containerisation International
Many of the major ocean carriers remain tied to a high percentage of bigger new ships. This is because these
shipping lines will continue to look for opportunities to deploy new, larger ships in trade lanes that offer
potential for acceptable cargo utilization.
However, this means that those ports willing to be competitive will need to offer sufficient infrastructure in
the form of Post Panamax and Super Post Panamax cranes and water depth, ideally in the region of 50ft on
the US East Coast and South Atlantic region to receive these bigger ships. As such, any port not matching (if
not surpassing) competing facilities will not be viewed as an acceptable call location by the ocean carrier
industry.
It remains a delicate balance for shipping lines between ordering new tonnage, maintaining cost-effective
control of the freight demand/slot supply balance and wanting to see freight rates continue to rise without
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 65
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
any possible danger of over-commitment. This position was clearly seen during the 2009 global economic
recession when many shipping lines had committed to large-scale ordering of new ships but demand for slot
space suddenly fell, resulting in significant operating losses for the ocean carriers but still having to meet
costs for new tonnage and having to find a location in which such ships could operate. As a consequence a
high proportion of new ships were laid-up while waiting for cargo demand to return or existing orders were
unfulfilled or cancelled.
The current order books of the major container operators, as shown in Table 3.12, indicates which ocean
carriers have been more aggressive in the recent past. Moving forward, with confidence returning to the
shipping market during 2010 many ocean carriers are again looking to order new tonnage for the future, with
larger ships representing an integral part of the orders being placed.
Nevertheless based on the known shipping line fleets and order book data, it can be concluded that the
ocean carrier industry will continue to look to increase vessel size where demand allows, while seeking to
optimize the supply of TEU slot space with container demand. This will apply to all geographic regions,
including the Mid and South Atlantic region and those terminals with the deeper water and better
infrastructure will remain the preferred ports of call in the future.
On this basis, it is imperative for NCSPA to be viewed as a competitive option and to do that the NCSPA
facilities must offer comparable water depth, terminal capacity, levels of efficient service and acceptable
hinterland connectivity to service market demand as other facilities in its competitive Mid and South Atlantic
region seek to do. Failure to be viewed as a viable alternative to the likes of Charleston or Virginia, for
example, will see the port lose cargo and will exacerbate the struggle to secure additional cargo.
Non-Container Ship Fleet and Orderbook
The situation with respect to non-containerized ships is a little different because many of these vessels do
not operate on published schedules in the same way that the container ships do and are often carrying cargo
related to specific contracts.
This means that ships are chartered by the shipper directly, especially for the movement of specific bulk
product contracts and that the location of the shipper in the hinterland to the nearest port remains the
major driving factor influencing the shipping process. In addition this also means that the cargo is not
discretionary and able to move through other competing regional ports, especially once all supporting
facilities are in place to handle the cargo at the desired location.
However, the pressure on a port to offer good quality facilities, adequate water depth and efficient
hinterland connectivity does remain, regardless of the type of cargo, and this is a situation that is not going to
change in the future. Hence the hinterland requirements for bulk commodities moving through NCSPA
facilities will continue to dictate demand for port facilities within North Carolina.
Looking at the bulk shipping fleet on a global basis, in order to help highlight the pool of vessels available to
serve these cargo requirements, Figure 3.15 identifies that currently over 30% of vessels fall in the 15,001 –
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 66
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
35,000 deadweight (dwt – the largest weight that a ship can carry when fully loaded and the classification by
which non-container vessels are measured) classification. Moreover, a similar share of vessels fell between
50,001 – 100,000 dwt size.
In terms of the confirmed order book the demand is clearly for larger ships, with almost 50% currently falling
between 50,001 – 100,000 dwt and over 20% actually being even larger at more than 100,001+ dwt size in
size.
Figure 3.15: Share of Bulk Global Ship Fleet and Order book by Size, Q3 2010
60%
50%
40%
30%
Fleet
Orderbook
20%
10%
0%
0-15,000
15,001-35,000
35,001-50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001+
Note: Ship size based on deadweight (dwt)
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from Clarksons data
To put these vessel dwt sizes into perspective, Table 3.13 provides a typical overview of the likely length and
draft requirements for bulk vessels. While this information should be noted as covering the most likely
dimensions of vessel length and water depth requirements, because there will always be some degree of
variance based on specific ship design and construction, the summary offers a usable reference guide
nonetheless regarding the size of ships that bulk ports must look to cater.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 67
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.13: Typical Bulk Ship Characteristics
Size Range
Typical LOA Range - ft
Typical Draft Range - ft
0 – 15,000 dwt
350 – 520 ft
20 – 25 ft
15,0001 – 35,000 dwt
420 – 590 ft
23 – 30 ft
35,001 – 50,000 dwt
560 – 650 ft
30 – 33 ft
50,001 – 100,000 dwt
620 – 690 ft
32 – 40 ft
100,000 dwt +
680 – 820 ft
40 – 59 ft
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from Clarksons data
With respect to the multipurpose global ship fleet and order book, over 85% of all ships are less than
15,000dwt, as Figure 3.16 shows, reflecting that ports need to cater for units requiring less water depth than
other forms of shipping already identified.
Moreover, the current order book for this type of vessel reflects a similar trend for units of this same size
classification, with around 70% of future vessels 15,000 dwt and under.
As such, no significant change to the make-up of the current multipurpose fleet is anticipated in the short to
medium term, at least, and ports handling vessels of this classification will not be under any additional
pressure to cater for larger ships in the same way that container ships and, to a lesser extent bulk tonnage, is
increasingly in terms of typical ship size on a global basis. However, while the vessel fleet size is expected to
remain stable, the ability to provide good material handling capabilities (including equipment and terminal
area) and have hinterland connectivity so that cargo is able to efficiently reach its origin/destination markets
remains in place.
Figure 3.16: Share of Multipurpose Global Ship Fleet and Order book by Size, Q3 2010
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Fleet
40%
Orderbook
30%
20%
10%
0%
0-15,000
15,001-35,000
35,001-50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001+
Note: Ship size based on deadweight (dwt)
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from Clarksons data
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 68
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Of the global Ro-Ro ship fleet and order book, the units in service are also almost entirely smaller than
35,000 dwt. As Figure 3.17 identifies, currently over 70% of the existing fleet operated is less than 15,000 dwt
and over 60% of the known confirmed order book for ships of this type remain under the 15,000 dwt
threshold, with the remainder less than 35,000 dwt.
Once again, ports serving the ro-ro fleets will not be under pressure to offer deeper water in the short to
medium term as there will be no influx of larger units entering service. However, while water depth may be
less of an issue, the ability to provide good terminal efficiencies and have hinterland connectivity so that
cargo is able to reach its origin/destination markets remain in place. Any port failing to meet any of the basic
criteria will simply not be viewed as a competitive alternative, whether it is bulk, breakbulk or ro-ro
commodities that are being shipped.
Figure 3.17: Share of Ro-Ro Global Ship Fleet and Order book by Size, Q3 2010
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Fleet
30%
Orderbook
20%
10%
0%
0-15,000
15,001-35,000
35,001-50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001+
Note: Ship size based on deadweight (dwt)
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from Clarksons data
To put the size of these ships into perspective, the 0 – 15,000 DWT units are typically between 100ft – 600ft
in length and require a water depth of up to about 26ft, whereas the larger units of over 15,001 dwt have
lengths of between 500ft – 700ft, drawing a water depth of around 26ft to 32ft. It is important to note that a
large proportion of the bigger vessels comprise specialized pure-car-carriers (PCC) units.
Container Trade Route Analysis
Ports on the eastern seaboard of the United States, including NCSPA facilities, serve several key East-West
trade routes, including “All Water” options via the Panama and Suez Canals, as highlighted by Figure 3.18
which shows key East-West trade routes.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 69
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Competing facilities on the East Coast have traditionally served the transatlantic trades to/from North Europe
and the Mediterranean, but over the past 10 years number and frequency of Asian shipping line services
have significantly increased to meet demand in the US for Asian-sourced goods.
These different shipping line connections highlight the “connectivity” of a port with overseas trade regions.
Although Europe and the Mediterranean remain a key part of trade moving to/from US East Coast ports,
North and South East Asia have clearly taken a more dominant role.
Trades to/from North-South locations, such as Latin America, Australia/New Zealand and Africa are
significantly smaller in terms of vessel activity, deployment and volumes, often requiring niche specialism, for
example as Philadelphia has strived to develop with respect to handling refrigerated cargo.
Figure 3.18: East – West Container Shipping Trade Routes Serving North America
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Looking at the average ship size on a trade lane basis, Table 3.14 outlines the recent development of routes
served by Atlantic ports. In most cases the average size of ship operated has continued to increase, with the
Far East, Mediterranean and Mid East & Red Sea seeing the largest increases and the biggest average size of
container ship by Q3 2010.
Obviously this continued increase in size of vessel being operated means that the access channel and
berthing depth at terminals offered by ports must be sufficient draft naturally, or is dredged and maintained,
to allow the ships to continue to call.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 70
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Hence, any port that cannot offer deep enough water to meet the anticipated future size of ship likely to be
in service will cease to appear on the schedules offered by liner companies.
Table 3.14: Average Size of Ship Calling to Mid and South Atlantic Ports per Trade Lane, 2008 - 2010
Average ship size
Q3 2008
Q3 2009
Q3 2010
Far East
4,044
4,495
4,722
North Europe
3,087
3,112
3,199
Mediterranean
3,524
4,080
4,058
Caribbean/Central America
2,661
2,211
1,950
Mid East & Red Sea
3,874
4,388
4,530
North Coast of South America
2,083
2,082
2,298
East Coast of South America
2,560
2,895
2,921
Australia/New Zealand
2,638
2,824
2,824
West Coast of South America
1,530
1,043
1,088
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules Q3 2008 - 2010
Shipping line services operate with ships of a constant size in the string because the majority of the demand
for space is based on consistent contracts with shippers. This means that a service using 5,000 TEU vessels is
highly unlikely to include one vessel of 8,000 TEU in the string. Hence from a port perspective it will need to
be able to successfully accommodate all vessels in the service but the key point to note is that all of the ships
will be of approximately the same size.
Any ocean carrier will look to best match known demand for TEU space (for containers) on its ships with the
slot capacity of vessels in order to derive the most efficient operating methodology, while seeking any
economies of scale provided by using the largest ships possible. The same applies to a ro-ro vessel or any
other type of cargo to be moved.
Container services and shipping line schedules are more fluid than a bulk consignment that has been
chartered to fulfill the requirements of the cargo that needs to be moved as part of the pre-agreed contract.
So for ocean carriers carrying containers any opportunity to interchange tonnage to best suit demand
requirements will be undertaken, but only once the shipping line is confident that it will gain sufficient
utilization from the vessels in service. In short, if a container liner operator does not gain the generally
accepted minimum figure of 90% utilization, then it will seek to use a smaller ship or charter space from
another ocean carrier.
Moreover, if the overall trend in a trade lane is for ship sizes to continue to increase, as is evident in those
cargo routes served by Mid and South Atlantic ports, then competitiveness offered amongst different ports
vying to receive ocean carrier calls will only intensify. This position applies to NCSPA equally as to all other
ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region and those facilities offering the deeper water, better terminal
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 71
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
operating efficiencies and pricing and benefitting from the stronger hinterland connectivity will succeed in
terms of attracting cargo.
Based on Q3 2010 published container shipping line schedules, Table 3.15 provides a summary overview of
the largest individual vessel in service on each of the key trade lanes served by Atlantic ports, together with
the individual operator and the maximum vessel draft that the specific ship will require (assuming it is fully
loaded). There are several key conclusions to note:
•
•
•
The current largest vessel able to pass through the Panama Canal is generally accepted to be around
5,000 TEU to 5,500 TEU, depending on the exact vessel specifications, until the expansion is
completed in 2014;
The Suez Canal routing represents less of a bottleneck for ship size and the largest container ships
currently in service, of up to 15,000 TEU (on the Asia-Europe route) can pass through this waterway;
Ship sizes on North-South routes are generally smaller because of the restricting port infrastructure
and water depth available in ports in Latin America and Africa. As ports in Brazil, for example,
continue to dredge deeper, the largest vessels operated between North America and Latin America
will also get larger.
Table 3.15: Largest Size of Ship Calling to Atlantic Ports per Trade Lane, Q3 2010
Trade Lane
Largest Ship in
TEU
Transatlantic – Mediterranean
Transatlantic - North Europe
All Water – Panama*
All Water – Suez
Mid East
Other: Multi-region/RTW
East Coast of South America
West Coast of South America
Australia/New Zealand
Africa
East-West
5,117
6,742
5,500
8,400
5,980
8,200
North-South
5,050
4,809
3,100
3,022
Shipping Line
Operator
Maximum Vessel
Draft – ft
MSC
MSC
Yangming
MSC
NYK Line
Zim
44.4
47.5
44.4
47.6
42.3
47.6
MSC
MSC
Maersk Line
MSC
44.3
44.3
39.4
38.5
Note: * = The largest ship in service in Q3 2010, operated by Yangming, has a maximum vessel draft in excess of what can transit the Panama Canal. It
has to be assumed that the ship does not operate at its maximum vessel draft.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules Q3 2010
Ports on the Eastern seaboard of the United States serve a multitude of both East-West and North-South
deep-sea trade lanes, consisting of links to key locations including Asia, Europe and the Mid East.
Table 3.16 outlines each of the various container trade lanes that are linked to the Mid and South Atlantic
port range.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 72
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.16: Mid and South Atlantic Port Range - Deep Sea Trade Lanes Served
East-West Trade Lanes
North-South Trade Lanes
Transatlantic – Mediterranean
East Coast of South America (ECSA)
Transatlantic – North Europe
West Coast of South America (WCSA)
Asia All Water – via Panama Canal
Australia/New Zealand
Asia All Water – via Suez Canal
Africa
Mid East (& Red Sea, including India)
Round-the-World/Multi-region
Note: Regional/coastal services, such as to/from the Caribbean/Central America, have been excluded. The listed trade routes are regarded as deep sea
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
As Figure 3.19 shows, current shipping line strategy is to utilize a range of different ports on the Atlantic
Coast across a number of different trade routes being served. For the purposes of this assessment, all ports
on the Atlantic coast have been included because it is important to be able to understand that the Mid and
South Atlantic region remains part of a common two-region call being undertaken by shipping lines. Hence
exclusion of calls made at New York/New Jersey (NY/NJ) will not offer full completeness of port rotations and
first inbound/last outbound calls and strategies.
Indeed it can be seen that it is commonplace for NY/N J, Virginia Port Authority (VPA) and Savannah, for
example, to each see a higher proportion of weekly calls from shipping lines in overall terms.
However, these three ports do not satisfy all shipping line cargo demand, with a number of regional ports
also called regularly, endorsing the existing inability of the largest ports to serve all hinterland cargo demand
for East Coast ports.
In addition it can also be concluded from the current strategies regarding the shipping line calls to Atlantic
ports that:
•
•
•
•
•
Only NY/NJ, VPA, Charleston and Savannah serve all trade lanes, which is reflective of the higher
volumes handled at each of these facilities;
All Water routes via the Panama and Suez canals remains dominant in terms of the number of weekly
port calls being generated;
In the Mid and South Atlantic region, Charleston has a traditional role of serving the transatlantic
trades and this is reflected in its number of strings to/from North Europe, though the port is now
known to be heavily targeting Asian services as well.
Savannah has had great success in serving the Asian routes also therefore evident;
Shipping lines prefer to have several alternatives for serving overlapping hinterland regions rather
than just be restricted to a few port options. This ensures that some degree of bargaining position
remains and also allows them to offer different first-in or last-out ports of call where multiple strings
are offered;
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 73
Port Business Case Study
•
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
The importance of intermodal rail services and facilities remain of paramount importance to shippers
and ocean carriers because of the ability to serve discretionary and localized markets;
Moffatt & Nichol does not expect significant changes to the current position in the future, though
ports that continue to invest in capacity and operating efficiencies, while providing sufficient water
depth to meet the increase size of ships, and offer good inland road/rail/intermodal connectivity to
service hinterland demand will continue to be viewed as preferred gateways.
Figure 3.19: Summary of Weekly Calls per Atlantic Port for East-West Trade Lanes, Q3 2010
12
10
Mediterranean
8
North Europe
6
All Water - Panama
All Water - Suez
4
Mid East
RTW/Multi region
2
0
BOS
NYJ
PHL
BAL
VPA
WNC
CHS
SAV
JAX
PEV
MIA
Note: The same shipping line service will call to more than one port, so the total calls reflect multiple port calls in the same region on
each service string.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules
Looking at the liner shipping services on a trade lane basis in more detail, Table 3.17 through Table 3.20
provide an outline of the various shipping lines offering services on each East-West trade route.
The following information is provided for each example:
•
•
•
The full port rotation, in order of ports being called;
Which ports on the Atlantic Coast appear in schedules;
Which shipping lines provide ships per service (which is important because the ocean carrier
supplying ships then gets to influence the ports called and the order of the rotation).
As Table 3.17 identifies, between the Atlantic port region and Mediterranean, Maersk Line, MSC and, to a
lesser extent CMA CGM, remain the dominant operators, but calls are generally scheduled to both North and
South Atlantic regions.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 74
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.17: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Transatlantic Mediterranean, Q3 2010
Actual
Operator/grouping
Operation
Operator
Full Port Rotation
(no of ships)
Maersk Line/CMA CGM
MSC
MSC
Turkon
West
Med/
Amerigo Exp.
Med/US Loop
A
Med/US Loop
B
Maersk
CGM (2)
Turkon
Turkon
(3)/CMA
MSC
MSC
MXX, GIT, LIV, GOA, FOS, ALG, NYJ, NFK, SAV, MIA,
ALG, MXX
SPE, VLC, SNS, BOS, NYJ, BAL, NFK, SAV, CHS, VLC,
GIT, NAP, SPE
SPE, BCN, VLC, SNS, PEV, VER, ATM, HOU, NOL, FPT,
BCN, GIT, NAP, SPE
GEM, IST, IZM, SAL, NYJ, NFK, SAV, MER, GEM
Note: Atlantic ports called are listed in bold text. Information correct at time of writing. Shipping schedules are subject to change. Number of ships is
listed per operator if more than one shipping line is contributing tonnage because supply of vessels influences port choice and rotation.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules
Table 3.18 outlines published shipping line services between the Atlantic Coast and North Europe. This is a
mature trade lane and that is reflected in the number of well-established ocean carrier services and
operators. There is a mixture of independent operations, such as those offered by Maersk Line and MSC, but
also strings provided by major alliance groupings, such as the Grand Alliance (although Hapag Lloyd is the
provider of all ships in its GMX and GAX strings). Co-operation between shipping lines is also common-place
and is expected to continue.
Port coverage is again relatively well-spread, with both North and South Atlantic facilities often being called
on the same service.
Table 3.18: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Transatlantic North Europe, Q3 2010
Actual
Operator/grouping
Operation
Operator
Full Port Rotation
(no of ships)
ACL
ACL
ACL
GOT, ANR, LPL, HFX, NYJ, BAL, NFK, NYJ, HFX, LPL,
ANR, HAM, GOT
Evergreen/CKYH
grouping
TAE/TAS1
Evergreen
(2)/Hanjin (1)
ANR, BRV, RTM, LEH, NYJ, NFK, CHS, ANR
Grand Alliance
GMX
Hapag Lloyd
BRV, LEH, VER, ATM, HOU, NOL, CHS, THP, ANR,
BRV
Grand Alliance
GAX
Hapag Lloyd
BRV, CHS, MIA, HOU, SAV, NFK, ANR, THP, BRV
Grand Alliance/Zim
ATX
AES
(Transatlantic
Shuttle)
OOCL (2)/ Zim (1)
HAM, LEH, SOU, NYJ, NFK, CHS, RTM, HAM
Hapag Lloyd
ANR, NYJ, ANR
Hapag Lloyd
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 75
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Actual
Operator/grouping
Operation
Operator
Full Port Rotation
(no of ships)
ICL
ICL
ICL
ANR, LPL, CSR, WNC, ANR
Maersk Line
TA2
Maersk
MSC
N.Atlantic
MSC
BRV, CHS, HOU, NFK, RTM, FXT, BRV
BRV, FXT, ANR, LEH, BOS, NYJ, PHL, BAL, NFK, NYJ,
BRV
MSC/CMA CGM
S.Atlantic/Gulf/
Mexico/Victory
Bridge
MSC (6)/CMA CGM
(1)
BRV, LEH, CHS, SAV, PEV, FPT, VER, ATM, HOU,
NOL, FPT, SAV, CHS, ANR, FXT, HAM, BRV
Note: Atlantic ports called are listed in bold text. Information correct at time of writing. Shipping schedules are subject to change. Number of ships is
listed per operator if more than one shipping line is contributing tonnage because supply of vessels influences port choice and rotation.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules
The fast-growing All Water services from Asia are undertaken via the Panama Canal and Suez Canal, as Table
3.19 and Table 3.20 both show. According to PIERS data, the proportion of cargo moving from Asia to the US
using All Water shipping line services via the Panama and Suez canals has increased from 21% in 2003 to
around 29% by 2009. This is evidence of the changing dynamics of how the US Atlantic Coast region has
benefitted from the diversion of cargo from West Coast ports. Indeed, as Table 3.20 shows, there are a
number of well-established All Water strings via the Panama Canal being offered by almost all major alliance
groupings (CKYH – the Green Alliance, Grand Alliance, New World Alliance) and the biggest independent
ocean carriers, such as Maersk Line, MSC, CMA CGM and Evergreen.
In terms of port coverage, facilities in both North Atlantic and South Atlantic regions benefit from liner calls,
with NY/NJ, VPA and Savannah notable choices for ocean carriers.
However, with the Suez Canal offering no size restrictions for the current ships in service and the Panama
Canal expansion delivering the ability to allow ships of up to 12,000 TEU transit, once the scheduled
completion date of 2014 is met, there will be pressure on ports on the Atlantic Coast to be able to receive
bigger vessels.
This is because all shipping lines will be keen to extract better economies of scale available from a fullyutilized larger ship and ports that are able to receive the larger tonnage will be a more competitive option.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 76
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.19: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Asia All Water via Panama Canal, Q3 2010
Actual
Operator/grouping
Operation
Operator
Full Port Rotation
(no of ships)
CKYH grouping
AWE2/AWC
Cosco
SHA, NBO, YOK, LZC, CTB, SAV, NYJ, BOS, QIN, SHA
CKYH grouping
AWE3/AWY
Yangming
KHH, HKG, YTN, KHH, PUS, SAV, WNC, NYJ, KHH
CKYH grouping
AWE1/AWH
Hanjin
SHA, PUS, NYJ, WNC, SAV, PUS, PYO, QIN, NBO, SHA
CKYH grouping
AWE5/AWN
Hanjin, Yangming
CMA CGM
PEX3
CMA CGM
CSAV
AMEX
CSAV
CSCL/Evergreen
AAE1/AUE2
CSCL (4)/Evergreen
(3)
YTN, SHA, PUS, NYJ, NFK, SAV, KHH, YTN
CWN, SHA, PUS, BLB, MIT, HOU, MOB, MIA, JAX,
SAV, CHS, PTM, JEA, SIN, CWN
SHA, QIN, XGG, PUS, KIN, PEV, NYJ, CHS, CAU, CTG,
NBO, SHA
HKG, LZC, NYJ, NFK, SAV, MIA, LZC, SHA, XMN, YTN,
HKG
Evergreen
AUE
Evergreen
HKG, YTN, KHH, CCT, SAV, NYJ, BAL, CCT, TAI, HKG
Grand Alliance
NCE
NYK (8)/Hapag Lloyd
(1)
QIN, NBO, SHA, NYJ, NFK, SAV, PUS, QIN
K Line/MOL
AWE4/SVE
K Line
YTN, SIN, HFX, NYJ, NFK, JAX, SAV, SIN, HCM, SHK,
HKG, YTN
Maersk Line
TP7/TA3
Maersk
HKG, PUS, YOK, BLB, MIA, BRV, FXT, RTM, LEH, HFX,
NYJ, SAV, MIA, BLB, LAX, OAK, KHH, DCB, YTN, HKG
Maersk/CMA CGM
TP3/
Columbus
Maersk
CGM (9)
New World Alliance
NYX
APL (3)/HMM (5)
(8)/CMA
HKG, YTN, TPP, NYJ, NFK, SAV, TPP, HKG, YTN, SHA,
PUS, SEA, VAN, YOK, SHA, NBO, HKG
HKG, KHH, MIT, NYJ, NFK, SAV, JAX, MIA, MIT, BLB,
PUS, SHA, NBO, SHK, YTN, HKG
Note: Atlantic ports called are listed in bold text. Information correct at time of writing. Shipping schedules are subject to change. Number of ships is
listed per operator if more than one shipping line is contributing tonnage because supply of vessels influences port choice and rotation.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules
Table 3.20: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Asia All Water via Suez Canal, Q3 2010
Actual
Operator/grouping
Operation
Operator
Full Port Rotation
(no of ships)
Grand Alliance/Zim
SCE
Grand Alliance
AEX
MSC
Transpac
(Golden
Gate)
NYK
(3)/OOCL
(2)/Zim (3)
Hapag
Lloyd
(4)/OOCL (6)
MSC
SHK, HKG, KIN, NYJ, NFK, SAV, KHH, SHK
LCH, SIN, CMB, CAG, HFX, NYJ, SAV, NFK, NYJ, HFX,
CAG, JED, CMB, SIN, HCM, LCH
SHA, NBO, CWN, YTN, SIN, SLL, NYJ, BAL, NFK, CHS,
FPT, JED, SIN, CWN, HKG, SHA
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 77
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Actual
Operator/grouping
Operation
Operator
Full Port Rotation
(no of ships)
New World Alliance
SZX
SIN, CMB, NYJ, CHS, SAV, NFK, JEA, PKG, SIN
APL
Note: Atlantic ports called are listed in bold text. Information correct at time of writing. Shipping schedules are subject to change. Number of ships is
listed per operator if more than one shipping line is contributing tonnage because supply of vessels influences port choice and rotation.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules
The Mid East trades, including the Red Sea and Indian regions, is a well-established trading route that has no
size restrictions on the vessels in service. This is because access is via the Suez Canal and the transit waterway
can receive the largest vessels currently in service.
This trading route will benefit from growing demand in the Mid East, especially as the current liner schedules
incorporate cargo demand to/from India. However, with water depth a major issue at many Indian ports it
means that containers have to be transshipped at hub ports en-route, such as Colombo, or the size of ships in
service need to be restricted. This is currently what is happening, based on the largest ship in service
between the Mid East and Atlantic Coast ports being 5,980 TEU, which equates to a draft of around 42.5ft
and requires a channel depth of around 46.5ft depending upon under-keel clearances.
As Table 3.21 identifies, with two services Maersk Line is the largest ocean carrier in this trade. The company
centralizes all North Atlantic cargo at NYNJ and Norfolk (where there are facilities operated by, or developed
by, AP Moller sister-company, APM Terminals (APMT), with Charleston and Savannah securing one service
each for the South Atlantic region.
In addition, Savannah is well represented in this trade lane, appearing on all but one of the total number of
service strings.
Table 3.21: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – Mid East, Q3 2010
Operator/grouping
Operation
Actual Operator
(no of ships)
Full Port Rotation
Indamex (Hapag-Lloyd,
CMA CGM, NYK, OOCL)
ECNA
Hapag-Lloyd
(3)/CMA
(2)/NYK (2)
Maersk Line
MECL 1/SZX1
Maersk
CHS, NFK, NYJ, JEA, BQM, JNP, SLL, NYJ, CHS
Maersk Line
MECL 2/SZX2
Maersk
HOU, NFK, ALG, PSD, alt.JIB, JEA, CMB, SLL, JED,
AQB, PSD, ALG, NYJ, SAV, HOU
NSCSA
N.America
service*
NSCSA
HOU, SAV, WNC, NYJ, HFX, PSD, JED, MNQ, JEA,
JUB, DMM, SWK, BQM, MUM, JED, LIV, NYJ, BAL,
HOU
CGM
NYJ, NFK, CHS, SAV, PSD, JED, BQM, JNP, MUN,
PSD, DAM, NYJ
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 78
Port Business Case Study
Operator/grouping
UASC/Hanjin/K Line
Operation
MINA/IMU/SIA
Actual Operator
(no of ships)
UASC (6)/Hanjin (2)
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Full Port Rotation
NYJ, NFK, SAV, VLC, GOA, PSD, JED, KLF, BQM, JNP,
JED, PSD, SPE, GOA, BCN, VLC, ALG, NYJ
Note: Atlantic ports called are listed in bold text. Information correct at time of writing. Shipping schedules are subject to change. Number of ships is
listed per operator if more than one shipping line is contributing tonnage because supply of vessels influences port choice and rotation. The Mid East
region includes Red Sea and Indian ports. * = a 21-day frequency using multi-purpose vessels with some container carrying capacity.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules
There are several current shipping line services that utilize several major regions, most notably linking Asia
with North America before onward sailing to North Europe or the Mediterranean. For the purposes of this
assessment, these strings have been referred to as Round-the-Word (RTW) or Multi-Region, as Table 3.22
identifies.
The Atlantic port region represents an integral part of all schedules, with calls made on both eastbound and
westbound legs of the services. This enables Asian cargo to be discharged at US ports, before US goods
bound for North Europe/Mediterranean can be loaded, with the reverse happening on the return leg.
With this type of service covering a greater nautical distance than other trading routes previously identified,
it means that there is a need to utilize more ships to maintain a weekly frequency.
On almost all schedules, the ocean carriers are adopting calls in both the North and South Atlantic regions,
with NYNJ, Norfolk, Charleston and Savannah the preferred port partners though it is noticeable that the
first-in or last-outbound port of call is often varied on eastbound and westbound legs of the service.
This further reflects the need to maintain calls in both regions but means that competition between ports
situated in that area, such as Charleston and Savannah, is maintained to attract the liner operator’s calls, as
the ocean carrier looks to maintain leverage and secure more competitive costs and terms for undertaking
port calls.
Table 3.22: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – RTW/Multi-Region, Q3 2010
Actual
Operator/grouping
Operation
Operator
Ports called
(no of ships)
Evergreen
NUE
Evergreen
SHA, NBO, QIN, PUS, LAX, CCT, CHS, NFK, NYJ, ANR,
BRV, THP, RTM, LEH, NYJ, CHS, CCT, LAX, OAK, TOK,
SHA
Grand Alliance
PAX
Hapag Lloyd
YOK, KOB, KHH, YTN, HKG, DCB, KOB, NGY, TOK,
SEA, OAK, MIT, SAV, NFK, NYJ, HFX, THP, ANR, BRV,
RTM, HFX, NYJ, NFK, SAV, MIT, LGB, OAK, YOK
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 79
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Actual
Operator/grouping
Operation
Operator
Ports called
(no of ships)
New World Alliance
APX/CNY
MOL (6)/APL (6)
TOK, KOB, CWN, HKG, KHH, PUS, KOB, TOK, BLB,
MIT, MIA, JAX, SAV, CHS, NYJ, ANR, FXT, BRV, RTM,
LEH, NYJ, NFK, CHS, MIT, LAX, OAK, TOK
Zim
ZCS
Zim
DCB, HKG, NBO, SHA, PUS, BLB, KIN, SAV, NYJ, HFX,
TGN, HFA, PIR, LIV, GOA, TGN, HFX, NYJ, SAV, KIN,
LAX, OAK, DCB
Note: Atlantic ports called are listed in bold text. Information correct at time of writing. Shipping schedules are subject to change. Number of ships is
listed per operator if more than one shipping line is contributing tonnage because supply of vessels influences port choice and rotation. RTW/MultiRegion services are defined as strings calling to a combination of different regions, namely Asia, North America and North Europe/Mediterranean.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules
The North-South trades to/from the Atlantic Coast carry smaller volumes, use smaller ships and generate
fewer weekly calls. This is on account of smaller volume demand and a traditional situation that has seen
lower quality of facilities in some locations, ostensibly water depth, size of cranes and connectivity to the
cargo hinterlands.
As Figure 3.20 identifies, shipping lines are still utilizing a variety of ports across the Atlantic port range
overall but the number of weekly calls in total and for all ports is much lower than for the East – West trades,
reflecting lower overall demand.
Other notable conclusions include:
•
•
•
•
•
NY/NJ is the only port receiving vessels serving all trade lanes and its terminals also see the highest
number of calls overall;
Savannah and Philadelphia are on all schedules except to/from Africa;
Boston, Port Everglades and Miami all only seeing one weekly call (with each of these strings on
different trade routes);
Current use of smaller ships means that nearly all ports are viable options, though even the key
North-South trade lanes continue to see increases in ships deployed as the quality of facilities and
water depth in previously less-developed locations (such as Brazil) are seeing major improvements;
Key ports in Latin America, such as Santos in Brazil, are building and improving port facilities. Being
able to offer up to 50ft of water depth is part of the process in order to be able to accommodate
vessels of up to 8,000 TEU in size.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 80
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.20: Summary of Weekly Calls per Atlantic Port for North-South Trade Lanes, Q3 2010
3
2
ECSA
WCSA
Aus/NZ
1
Africa
0
BOS
NYJ
PHL
BAL
VPA
WNC
CHS
SAV
JAX
PEV
MIA
Note: The same shipping line service will call to more than one port, so the total calls reflect multiple port calls in the same region on each service
string. Intra-regional services are excluded.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules
With respect to the North-South trading routes that include the Atlantic Coast port range, these are outlined
in Table 3.23. It is noticeable that the number of different services is limited but the port range covered,
based solely on the overall number of different facilities utilized, is substantial.
In serving both the East Coast of South America and the West Coast of South America the ocean carriers are
calling to several ports in the same region, such as NYNJ, Philadelphia and Norfolk (on the Hamburg
Süd/Alianca/CSAV-Libra USEC-ECSA string) and Savannah, Charleston and Jacksonville on the MSC WCSA
service.
Obviously local cargo demand and type of cargo in the hinterlands each port serves will dictate where the
ships will call, but the use of smaller vessels requiring a more shallow water depth does allow a wider range
of ports to be considered.
Although not listed because it is an intra-regional service, POW does currently receive a weekly Maersk
Line string to/from Central America (Nicaragua and Honduras), that also calls at Miami, Savannah and VPA
using small 1,369 TEU size ships.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 81
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.23: Weekly Atlantic Liner Shipping Services – North-South Profile, Q3 2010
Operator/grouping
Operation
Actual
Ports called
East Coast of South America
Hamburg
Süd/Alianca/CSAV-Libra
USEC-ECSA
Hamburg
(2)/CSAV-Libra
(4)/Alianca (1)
NYK
ANS
NYK
MSC/CSAV-Libra
Loop A
MSC (5)/CSAV-Libra
(2)
NYJ, PHL, NFK, CHS, JAX, PEV, CAB, SUA,
SSZ, BUE, RIG, NAV, SSZ, RIO, SSA, SUA, PEC,
NYJ
NYJ, SAV, MIA, CAU, NAV, SSZ, VIX, SUC,
CAU, NFK, NYJ
NYJ, BAL, SAV, FPT, CAU, SSZ, RIO, SUA,
CAU, FPT, CHS, NFK, NYJ
Hamburg Süd/CSAV/ CCNI
ECNAWCSA/Americas
Hamburg
Süd
(2)/CSAV (2)/CCNI (2)
NYJ, BAL, CHS, PEV, CTG, MIT, GYE, CLL, SAI,
SVE, CLL, GYE, CTG, PEV, NYJ
MSC
US-WCSA
MSC
PHL, NYJ, CHS, SAV, JAX, FPT, PEV, CTB, BLB,
CLL, ARI, COR, VAP, BLB, CTB, CTG, FPT, PHL
Hamburg Süd/ Maersk
Trident/ Oceania
Maersk (3)/Hamburg
Süd (4)
CMA
Lines
PAD/NASP*
CMA
CGM
(5)/Marfret (1)
AMEX
MSC (4)/Safmarine
(4)/Maersk (1)
NYJ, BAL, NFK, CHS, FPT, CPT, PLZ, DUR,
CPT, NYJ
North
America/
West Africa*
Grimaldi
NYJ, BOS, DKR, COT, LAG, LOM, TEM, JAX,
BAL, NYJ
Süd
West Coast of South America
Australia/New Zealand
CGM/Marfret/US
Africa
MSC/Safmarine/Maersk
Line
Grimaldi Lines
PHL, SAV, CTG, BLB, AKL, SYD, MEL, TIU,
PCH, NPE,TRG, AKL, MIT, CTG, PHL
TIL, RTM, DKK, LEH, NYJ, SAV, KIN, MIT, PAP,
Lautoka, NOU, SYD, MEL, NPE, TRG, MIT,
KIN, SAV, PHL, TIL
Note: Atlantic ports called are listed in bold text. Information correct at time of writing. Shipping schedules are subject to change. Number of ships is
listed per operator if more than one shipping line is contributing tonnage because supply of vessels influences port choice and rotation. * = Frequency
of 14 days. ** = Frequency of 14 days while using multi-purpose vessels that have capacity to carry containers.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from published shipping line schedules
3.1.2.5.
Risk assessment in relation to serving the Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic markets
Traditionally, the Panama Canal routing has competed with intermodal rail service from West coast ports to
East Coast destinations and, to a lesser degree, with the Suez Canal. Asian services calling Atlantic ports have,
by and large, reached these ports by way of the Panama Canal.
The Canal’s limitations with respect to the length and width of vessels that may transit the Canal (i.e. Panama
class vessels – maximum TEU capacities of between 5,000 and 5,500 TEU) has led to the Canal Authority
undertaking an expansion of its facilities that will, from 2014, allow ships up to 12,600 TEU in size (according
to the Panama Canal Authority) to transit the waterway.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 82
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
However it is important to note that there is unlikely to be a massive or sudden change in size of ships
transiting the Panama Canal. Over time the trend for use of bigger ships will continue but it will remain
driven by volume demand and, depending on geographic location, capability of ports able to handle larger
tonnage. The East Coast of South America is, for example, a region generating strong cargo demand but its
ports lack sufficient water depth or infrastructure to receive ships that ocean carriers wish to deploy. As
such, the trend for deeper draft tonnage serving this region will only be driven by the capability of the port
infrastructure, including water depth.
By way of comparison, the US Atlantic Coast, and mid and South Atlantic port region, is different because
there are some ports already offering deeper water and larger cranes, couple with good hinterland
connectivity to cargo producing and consuming locations. On this basis it means that those facilities more
competitively placed, with the water depth and hinterland connectivity (such as VPA) are more viable options
than at POW which lacks these important competitive components.
As Figure 3.21 identifies, the location of the Panama Canal is clearly optimum to a number of major trade
routes on both the East-West and North-South axis on a global basis. The situation is mirrored to some
extent by the Suez Canal, which already has deeper water and plays a key role in maritime access
connectivity between key cargo production in Asia and consuming locations in Europe and North America.
The importance of the geographic position of the Panama Canal is only going to intensify in the future once
the expansion has been completed because it will allow, in time, larger ships to be introduced to meet
longer-term anticipated cargo demand.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 83
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.21: Key Container Shipping Line Routes with the Panama Canal as the Focal Point
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
For the US markets the enlarged Canal will help continue the viability of choice for trade wishing to shift from
West Coast ports to their East Coast counterparts that gained momentum as a reaction to the labor lock-out
at West Coast ports in the peak season of 2002 and resulted in the emergence of the All Water shipping
option from Asia to the East Coast.
Many shippers and ocean carriers wanted multiple options for serving the eastern regions of the US without
having to rely solely on the potential bottlenecks and disruption to supply chains that occurred when using
West Coast ports and intermodal rail. The shift of Asian cargo to the US East Coast is undeniable. In 2008 the
Panama and Suez Canals handled more than 28% of Asian trade in this manner, reflecting an increase on 21%
just 5 years earlier.
The All Water route is now a firmly established cargo option, with many shipping lines and alliances offering
direct services from Asia to the East Coast, most notably the CKYH Alliance, which provides five weekly
strings using ships in the 4,000 TEU – 4,500 TEU range. Almost all major liner companies linking Asia with the
US East Coast now offer All Water services, whether via the Panama or Suez canals.
The past increase in container ship sizes represented a problem for the Panama Canal, along with other
issues, including:
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 84
Port Business Case Study
•
•
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Size of ship that can actually transit;
Amount of ships that want to transit;
Growth of key shipping line routes via the Panama Canal.
The Panama Canal has stringent size limitations. The lock chambers are 33.5 meters (110 ft) wide by 320
meters (1,050 feet) long, with a usable length of 304.8 meters (1,000 ft), consequently meaning that the
largest container ship size that can safely transit is a maximum of around 5,000 TEU to 5,500 TEU, depending
on vessel design classification. Although there are slight variations in this figure depending on the exact
design specification of the ship itself, line of sight/vision through the canal and, of course, the locks, but this
is the generally accepted ceiling for ship size.
Therefore, as demand for access has increased ships have been limited in the size that can safely access the
transit waterway in Panama so shipping lines have been forced to introduce more frequent sailings and new
services – as the recent introduction of additional All Water strings has proved.
The confirmed expansion of the canal, due by 2014, brings the ability to introduce larger ships and with it
greater volumes of cargo. To put the position into context from the shipping line point of view, Moffatt &
Nichol research has indicated that for a 6,000 TEU size container vessel the saving by being able to use a
larger vessel with more containers (while taking into account ship operating costs etc) would be in the region
of 8% per service rotation – the figure rises to 16% if an 8,000 TEU size ship was employed, so the ability to
see ships as large as 12,000 TEU transiting the Canal offers potential for better economies of scale to be
obtained by the liner companies – assuming, of course, cargo demand warrants ships of this size being placed
into service.
From a shipping line perspective, the ability to utilize larger ships offers better economies of scale. Although
the operating costs for a larger ship are higher, the ability to carry greater box volumes generates revenues
that off-set the higher operating costs, ultimately allowing better results for the ocean carrier.
While the traditional role for the Panama Canal will not change in the future, there are also other (changing)
liner operating and cargo demand dynamics that mean the traditional role for the Panama Canal, as outlined
above, is going to be supplemented by factors that will be of relevance. Not least of which is the desire of
shipping lines to look for additional ports of call en-route between Asia and the US East Coast. Clearly, before
the economic difficulties of 2009, the speed of a liner service was one of the factors by which its
attractiveness was judged. Now, however, speed is less of an issue, with cargo utilization and schedule
integrity taking on a much more important role.
There are other reasons why Moffatt & Nichol believes that the Panama Canal will change current shipping
industry dynamics, which include:
•
The ability to serve Latin America by transshipping cargo at a Caribbean/Central America port will
enable additional cargo to be carried from Asia en-route to the US East Coast on larger ships. This
means extra containers loaded at Asian ports on services sailing to the Mid and South Atlantic region
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 85
Port Business Case Study
•
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
but will stop at a Caribbean/Central America port and exchange cargo that has moved from Latin
America. Clearly, demand for Latin America markets in the future will be of great attraction to all
ocean carriers but transshipping via a Caribbean/Central America hub means that a more expensive
deployment of ships to maintain regular strings can be off-set by transshipment using mother vessel
calls to a port like Cartagena and feeding cargo to key ports in South America. This option is
especially valid until ports in Latin America can receive calls directly from larger ships once improved
infrastructure and deeper water depths are available;
Existing import-export cargo of some Caribbean/Central American ports means shipping lines are
already interested in calling to service the local demand, plus the port has staple transshipment
cargo already. This helps to boost cargo utilization factors on ships;
An efficient terminal operation is integral to all shipping lines because they need to ensure that
schedule integrity is maintained, irrespective of slower steaming times now employed by ocean
carriers. The number of ships in a string is immaterial to the need to port calls to be made as
scheduled.
While the transatlantic is not currently impeded in terms of ships size or access, as applies to the Panama
Canal, this trade route is more mature than the transpacific All Water option via the Panama Canal and has
seen lower growth over the past 15 years, a trend that seems unlikely to drastically change.
This position is reflected in Figure 3.22 which shows how the total transpacific, which includes both the All
Water option and the cargo routes serving the US West Coast, has grown by an average of 6.6% per annum
between 1995 and 2010, to reach around 20 million TEU. This compares with average growth of 4.9% for the
transatlantic trades over the same time period, as the total trade reached almost 5.5 million TEU by the end
of 2010. However, growth has slowed more recently, with the 2000 to 2010 period reflective of 6% in the
transpacific and 4% for the transatlantic.
In terms of TEU slot capacity, the continued growth of the transpacific trade lanes between 2000 and 2005
saw a dramatic rise in the vessel slots being made available, further reflecting strong ordering of new and
larger ships. The emergence of the All Water option would also have greatly contributed to the trend for
more TEU capacity and helped see slots rise by an average of 6.8% between 1995 and 2010.
However, the latter part of the last decade did see the liner industry slow-down with its deployment in ship
space on the transpacific trade route, culminating in vessel slot capacity reaching the current capacity total of
around 30 million TEU slots to serve a market demand with volumes of 20 million TEU per annum. This
slowed annual growth of slot capacity to 6.1% per annum between 2000 and 2010.
The growth in transatlantic capacity was 4.4% between 1995 and 2010, though it too slowed between 2000
and 2010 to 3.7%, further reflecting the greater maturity of the trade lane and economies being served in the
US and North Europe/Mediterranean.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 86
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.22: Development of Transpacific and Transatlantic Container Volumes and Slot Capacity, 1995 –
2010, in ‘000 TEU
35,000
30,000
25,000
Transpacific - capacity
20,000
Transpacific - volumes
15,000
Transatlantic - capacity
10,000
Transatlantic - volumes
5,000
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
Notes: Figures for 2010 are estimated. Transpacific includes volumes moving via All Water routes from Asia. Transatlantic includes volumes moving
to/from both North Europe and Mediterranean and to/from North America.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Table 3.24 identifies that significant capacity remains in the transpacific trades, though it should be noted
that the position is reflective of both the All Water options (via the Suez and Panama canals) and services just
to the US West Coast. It is also evident that by the end of 2010 this trade lane will be back to its more
traditional utilization figure, of around 65%, as compared with the position five years ago when large-scale
ordering of new tonnage continued to occur.
It is hoped that the difficult economic trading conditions endured during 2009, in which almost every ocean
carrier saw significant losses, will be heeded and that rapid over-ordering of future tonnage does not occur
again. However, with the rebound in financial fortunes seen by the shipping lines in 2010 there are already
signs of growth in the existing container ship order book and the competitive nature of the ocean carrier
industry means that a repeat scenario cannot be completely excluded.
The transatlantic trades have been less volatile historically, with the ocean carrier industry maintaining a
utilization of between 70% and 75%. This position is not expected to change significantly in the future,
reflecting the mature level of the trade and stability being maintained. However, with shipping lines
continuing to seek better economies of scale from using larger vessels, the move towards 8,000 TEU vessels
is still likely because it will enable fewer ports of call to be made in each rotation, further emphasizing that
even in smaller trades those ports with the water depths of 50ft will be viewed as more competitive options.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 87
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.24: Summary Development of Supply & Demand TEU Utilization for Transpacific and Transatlantic
Trades, 1992 - 2010
Utilization - %
1995
2000
2005
2010
Transpacific*
65%
65%
54%
64%
Transatlantic
70%
73%
75%
75%
Note: * = Reflective of services between Asia/US West Coast via Transpacific Ocean and Asia/US East Coast via Panama/Suez canals
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
By way of a summary of these two key East-West trade lanes, Table 3.25 offers a summary Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats analysis of current and future operating dynamics. Where applicable,
the impact to the US South Atlantic region has been included and noted.
Table 3.25: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis of Transpacific and Transatlantic
Trade Lanes from a Port Perspective
Trade Lane
Transpacific
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Serves
higher-growth
Asian demand to US
All Water Panama ship
size restrictions to 2014
Growing US exports back
to Asia
Potential
Panama
Canal cost increases
Well-established trade
lane, significant volumes
USWC
ports
are
unionized/expensive
Panama Canal expansion
for
bigger
ships
–
potential for competitive
South Atlantic ports
Outsourcing
to
Mexico/India
changing
shipping
dynamics
No ship size restrictions
between Asia/USWC
Reliant upon efficient,
cost-effective rail services
Served by all
independent
alliance carriers
Operating inefficiencies
of West Coast ports
major
and
West Coast rail
congestion/ capacity
issues
Prone to larger cargo
demand and freight rate
fluctuations
Transatlantic
Well-established trade
Mature trade,
growth potential
lower
Russia
and
Mediterranean
potential
Eastern
growth
Weak cargo demand
between
North
America and North
Europe
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 88
Port Business Case Study
Trade Lane
Strengths
No ship-size restrictions
Weaknesses
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Opportunities
Threats
Growth of Suez Canal
services/demand
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Summary Conclusion:
There are several important considerations involving shipping line trends and activities of note to NCSPA.
Container ships continue to increase in size across all major trade lanes and the expansion of the Panama
Canal is going to help ensure shipping dynamics change in the future over a longer-term basis.
The major ocean carriers all have the shipping fleets and new tonnage on order to introduce bigger ships
into service in the future to call to the US East Coast. Key trading routes, such as the East-West transpacific
All-Water via Panama Canal (and Asia to US East Coast via Suez Canal) and North-South from Latin
America, will see future demand necessitating the introduction of bigger ships. Competing ports in the Mid
and South Atlantic region that offer 50ft of water depth, larger cranes, good road/rail access and sufficient
terminal capacity will be regarded as the preferred ports of call by shipping lines in the future. For NCSPA
to be competitive it will need to satisfy such key criteria in the same way that other region facilities seek to
remain viable gateway cargo options.
Non-container ships are less likely to see increases in vessel size, with the fleet and orderbooks for these
types of ships generally remaining more similar to the current dimensions. This will place less pressure on
ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region to seek deeper water to handle the units.
The Panama Canal is also likely to remain a key focal point within the shipping industry. While there will be
likely phased introduction of larger ships, there is also the potential for more cargo to be transhipped
between East-West and North-South trade lanes, further helping to entice more cargo to be shipped
through this waterway.
Growth in the transatlantic trade is likely to be lower than the transpacific routing, due to its maturity and
economies of countries involved in that higher cargo demand will still be generated more from Asia than
North Europe.
The key role for ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region is to be positioned and capable of receiving
larger ships in the future, while maintaining efficient service levels at competitive prices, with good
connections to inland locations of cargo origin/destination. Ports that are able to meet this criteria are the
facilities likely to be more successful in the future.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 89
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
3.1.3. Policy issues
3.1.3.1.
Objectives of State government agencies, including investment in infrastructure
(especially road/rail);
In response to House Bill 1005, Session Law 2007-551, the North Carolina Office of State Budget and
Management coordinated the development of a formal report entitled The Statewide Logistics Plan which is
aimed at addressing the state’s longer-term economic, mobility and infrastructure needs and identified
several port improvements and opportunities:
•
•
•
Identifying priority commerce needs;
Enumeration of transportation infrastructure actions, including multimodal solutions that will
support key industries vital to the state’s longer-term economic growth;
A timetable to meet identified needs, based on inputs received from stakeholders, including state
agencies, shippers, freight carriers and other private sector organizations.
Consequently, in December 2009 Governor Perdue signed Executive Order No.32, which established the
Governor’s Logistics Task Force, a process with the following goals and objectives:
•
•
•
•
•
Assess all existing resources and project future needs of the State’s multimodal transportation
systems, including aviation, highway, rail and transit, (as well as water, sewer and broadband
capabilities);
Investigate reductions or transfers of funds from existing governance structures to aid efficiency and
avoid duplication;
Identify regional programs and infrastructure that support industries vital to the State’s longer-term
economic viability;
Explore public-private partnerships in transportation and economic development that support the
overall plan;
Recommend short, medium and longer-range plans to the Governor and General Assembly which
will integrate their operation seamlessly and manage State funds more strategically.
To achieve these key objectives, four specialist subcommittees have been established in order to undertake
the process, with specific aims:
•
•
•
•
Best Practices – to examine successful logistics plans in other states and countries to help determine
what might work in North Carolina;
Governance – objectively looking at the organization of current state agencies dealing with logistics
matters;
Commerce – determine the emerging and existing agencies which are critical to North Carolina’s
economic development and how these industries can thrive;
Inland Port Design – relevant research teams and universities will assist in exploring the feasibility of
regional transportation hubs to improve the flow of goods and services throughout the State.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 90
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
In August 2010 the Department of Transportation in the State of North Carolina released its “Policy to
Projects” document, which outlined the proposed investment of transportation funding between 2011 and
2020, as the following key components outline:
•
•
•
Program and Resource Plan - revenue projections and proposed allocation of funds across all modes
of transportation for Construction and Engineering, Maintenance, Operations and Administration
from 2011-2020. Over this 10 year period the Department of Transportation is anticipating spending
around $45 billion in transportation funding. Over 60% of this amount is allocated for construction
and engineering and approximately 25% for maintenance, leaving 15% split between operating the
transportation network and administrative functions of the Department. In addition, there is a multiyear investment strategy for a subset of the Construction & Engineering Program. This strategy
illustrates the investment the Department considers the best balance among the goals of safety,
mobility and infrastructure health across different modes of transportation (aviation, bicycle and
pedestrian, ferry, highway, public transportation and rail). The strategy also establishes “Levels of
Service” and corresponding investment amounts to meet those levels. NCDOT staff recommended
allocating 15% of construction & engineering resources to non-highway modes. The remaining funds
are allocated to highway safety, mobility, and infrastructure health. The aim is to achieve a level of
service B for Interstate pavements, level of service B for highway mobility on the statewide and
regional tiers, and a level of service A for bicycle and pedestrian mobility on the statewide tier.
A 5-Year Work Program to identify proposed spending for 2011-2015 of approximately $23 billion
and a detailed impact of how the investment will be allocated at a program level. This amount is
being split as follows:
o 56% - improving mobility;
o 34% - improving what is deemed as the “health of the infrastructure;”
o 3% - improving safety.
Draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) lists the projects included in the 5 Year
Work Program and the Program & Resource Plan. It provides costs and schedules for each project.
The draft STIP was generated by applying the investment strategy described above to a prioritized list
of transportation needs identified by our stakeholders. Actual projects selected to meet this strategy
were subject to funding, legal, and scheduling constraints. After outreach to our stakeholders, the
Department will release the final STIP in the fall of 2011. Once adopted, changes to the 5 Year Work
Program or the Program & Resource Plan will require an amendment to be approved by the Board of
Transportation.
With respect to specific projects that involve the movement of freight in the state, the quality of road and rail
connections serving the port will impact the competitiveness of POW and MHC to attract cargo. Given that
the majority of the state’s population is located in the center of North Carolina, investment that improves rail
connectivity will have a much more positive impact than what will be offered by improved road connections.
However, it should still be assumed that shippers will want to see investment made in both modes of
transportation.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 91
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
There are several specific references to investment in rail in North Carolina in the NCDOT Policy to Projects
document, contained within the 5-Year Work Program. However the program is almost exclusively focused
on improving safety and promoting economic development for the operation of intercity passenger train
services, with the exception of the following:
“Industrial access – NCDOT provides financial incentive to business to locate or expand their facilities in North
Carolina. This grant funding helps to ensure companies have the railroad spur tracks needed to transport
freight. Projects are authorized based upon the amount of private investment, number of jobs created and
number of rail cars added to the network.”
3.1.3.2.
Aims and objectives of NCSPA
The NCSPA operates several well-established cargo-handling facilities, including maritime ports (POW and
MHC) and inland terminals at Charlotte and in the Piedmont Triad region in Greensboro, plus potential for
development at RI. The authority currently plays an important role in the flow of a diverse range of different
types of cargo, as Table 3.26 identifies.
Table 3.26: NCSPA Cargo Currently Handled
Type of Cargo
Where Currently
Handled
Basic Description
Bulk
POW & MHC
Flows or fits the shape of its container, such as dry cement or
fertilizer, can also be dry bulk or liquid bulk
Breakbulk
POW & MHC
Bundled, palletized, in bales or crates, or otherwise unitized, such
as coil steel, paper products or lumber. Handled using forklifts and
other specialized lift equipment
Containers
POW
Boxes cargo loaded into at point of origin. Containers then moved
by truck/rail to a port and onto a ship before sailing across the
ocean, being removed at a port and transported to shipper’s
preferred location by truck/rail. All activity undertaken with
container ever being unloaded
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
The overall strategic direction of the Authority, as identified by its leadership, is to maximize the utilization of
existing facilities through engineering of infrastructure, process improvements, and technology, before then
seeking to acquire and develop property to meet forecasted demand.
In order to meet this direction, three major strategic initiatives have previously been adopted, namely:
1. Achieve planned business and revenue growth, maximize utilization of existing facilities;
2. Maximize velocity and throughput capacity of existing ports facilities to accommodate planned
market growth, grow net operating income;
3. Successful and timely development of new terminal facilities to meet market demand.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 92
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
In more detail, the three initiatives adopted by NCSPA are utilizing specifically-identified strategies in order to
meet these objectives, as Table 3.27 explains.
Table 3.27: Key NCSPA Strategies Accompanying Confirmed Strategic Initiatives
Initiative
Key Confirmed Strategies
1
Integrated and collaborative planning process that focuses and drives and organizational commitment to
achieving business and economic development strategies
Competent and strategic execution of operations, capital, engineering and maintenance planning
Build consensus and develop partnerships with State agencies and economic development agencies
state-wide
Generate market demand to establish and support an intermodal service to Charlotte
2
A structured and enduring program/process to optimize operations and program management and
reliability of service
Implement appropriate technologies, new thinking and engineering, plus measure and reduce cost and
improve performance
Employee participation in process improvement and corrective action, and achieving customer service
benchmarks
3
Strategic and “on-point” communications with state-wide public outreach
Influential and persuasive advocacy at the State and Federal government level
Key members of NCSPA team and other influential participants fully involved
Development of a financial business model for projects that prove acceptable financial returns
Source: NCSPA, Moffatt & Nichol
POW is currently limited in its capabilities for localized expansion but has been the subject of an expansion
program aimed at increasing the throughput capacity of the existing container facility. This expansion is
aimed at meeting the demand of increasing container traffic, and correspondingly looking to increase
business and revenues at POW over the next ten years. The project includes:
•
•
•
•
Purchase of four new 100-ft gauge container cranes and other container handling equipment
(completed);
Purchase and implementation of a new terminal operating system to support a high density, high
velocity operation (completed);
Berth, dock, and paving improvements to accommodate post-Panamax vessels and higher
throughput capacity (ongoing);
Infrastructure improvements including yard paving, gate improvements, and utility enhancements
(planned).
MHC and Radio Island have previously been deemed to be well suited to handle the bulk and breakbulk
markets and recent capital project improvements have included completion of a new 177,000ft2 warehouse
at MHC to accommodate current cargo needs.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 93
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Summary Conclusion:
NCSPA is well-aware of the need to maximize its competitiveness as it strives to attract additional cargo.
The port authority has several well-defined objectives and it has previously invested in its facilities in order
to help meet its aims.
However, NCSPA needs assistance from other national and state bodies.
3.2.
LCMA Trade Lane Analysis
3.2.1. US Container Trade Lane Forecasts
Before assigning a share of containerized traffic potentially available to NCSPA, and irrespective of the need
for the port authority to have improved hinterland connectivity and shipping access available, the overall size
of future container traffic on a trade lane basis must be projected.
Table 3.28 provides a breakdown of the forecasted imported containers to be shipped to the US to 2030 on a
trade-lane basis, with the following key conclusions:
•
•
•
•
Average growth of 4.2% per annum is expected overall between 2011 and 2030, with almost 38
million TEU projected by the end of 2030 ;
North Asia will remain the largest trade lane by a significant distance, responsible for over23.5
million TEU by 2030, reflecting growth of 4.3% per annum,
South East Asia and South Asia the second and third largest trade lanes in terms of volumes, though
much lower than what is generated by North Asia;
Combining the Mediterranean and North Europe as the transatlantic trades will see total imports rise
to almost 3.7 million TEU per annum by 2030.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 94
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 3.28: US Import Container Trade Lane Forecasts to 2030, in TEU
Trade Lane
2009
2010
2020
2030
2011-2015 2011-2020 2011-2030
CAGR
CAGR
CAGR
151,533
154,284
237,561
307,013
6.2%
4.4%
3.5%
29,418
34,102
48,033
60,378
4.4%
3.5%
2.9%
Caribbean
267,948
278,039
373,858
452,724
3.9%
3.0%
2.5%
Cent. America
618,553
623,225
977,896
1,270,049
5.4%
4.6%
3.6%
9,182
9,282
13,371
16,694
4.6%
3.7%
3.0%
324,428
402,396
582,793
754,185
5.3%
3.8%
3.2%
1,397,026
1,534,545
2,066,704
2,526,607
4.0%
3.0%
2.5%
626,895
725,249
957,853
1,171,905
4.1%
2.8%
2.4%
Mexico
68,538
71,288
94,172
113,208
3.8%
2.8%
2.3%
Middle East
45,068
45,114
75,852
101,855
6.2%
5.3%
4.2%
8,716,702
10,225,237
17,477,325
23,570,441
6.9%
5.5%
4.3%
Other
20,026
32,895
36,580
42,425
1.7%
1.1%
1.3%
South Africa
37,852
44,477
59,480
73,033
3.9%
2.9%
2.5%
542,383
606,168
1,632,278
2,771,020
10.0%
10.4%
7.9%
1,378,593
1,488,636
2,575,445
3,969,759
6.1%
5.6%
5.0%
16,472
17,143
23,392
28,489
3.9%
3.2%
2.6%
315,355
322,252
520,688
689,387
5.9%
4.9%
3.9%
14,565,971
16,614,334
27,753,281
37,919,172
6.4%
5.3%
4.2%
Aus & NZ
Canada
EC Africa
ECSA
Europe
Med
North Asia
South Asia
Southeast Asia
WC Africa
WCSA
Total
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Table 3.29 outlines US container trade export volumes and annual growth until 2030, with total traffic
increasing to almost 31.5 million TEU because of the 5% per annum improvements. Notable key conclusions
include:
•
North Asia will remain the largest market, with traffic rising to 13.3 million TEU by 2030, reflecting
growth of 4.9%;
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 95
Port Business Case Study
•
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
North Europe continues to be the second largest market, with the 2030 total of 3.3 million TEU
increasing by 3.9% per annum over the forecast period. However, if the Mediterranean is also
included, total US export transatlantic volumes will reach almost 5.5 million TEU by the end of 2030;
Southeast Asia, with just under 6% growth, will see exports from the US rise to nearly 3.2 million TEU
but stronger growth of 8.4% per annum will be generated by demand in South Asia, notably India, for
US goods and this is an increase that will help to boost ships returning to Asia via the Suez Canal.
Table 3.29: US Export Container Trade Lane Forecasts to 2030, in TEU
Trade Lane
2009
2010
2020E
2030E
2011-2015 2011-2020 2011-2030
CAGR
CAGR
CAGR
233,064
249,511
377,241
586,005
4.4%
4.2%
4.4%
4,776
7,009
7,765
10,879
4.4%
1.0%
2.2%
Caribbean
710,375
832,777
1,138,424
1,711,712
3.9%
3.2%
3.7%
Cent. America
485,937
562,903
802,333
1,229,817
5.4%
3.6%
4.0%
20,462
24,814
45,527
79,247
4.6%
6.3%
6.0%
309,690
370,743
501,842
747,748
5.3%
3.1%
3.6%
1,173,579
1,544,259
2,160,363
3,319,373
4.0%
3.4%
3.9%
637,072
750,123
1,276,187
2,133,726
4.1%
5.5%
5.4%
41,303
57,416
68,300
98,670
3.8%
1.8%
2.7%
356,217
377,434
802,667
1,463,595
6.2%
7.8%
7.0%
4,684,402
5,106,425
8,404,032
13,343,252
6.9%
5.1%
4.9%
Other
64,378
76,139
102,210
152,403
1.7%
3.0%
3.5%
South Africa
43,630
61,841
92,021
147,582
3.9%
4.1%
4.4%
South Asia
414,661
408,886
1,031,497
2,047,247
10.0%
9.7%
8.4%
Southeast Asia
918,079
1,006,215
1,813,936
3,195,149
6.1%
6.1%
5.9%
WC Africa
107,231
127,492
303,623
596,963
3.9%
9.1%
8.0%
WCSA
218,284
245,340
369,235
574,867
5.9%
4.2%
4.3%
10,423,141
11,809,325
19,297,203
31,438,235
6.4%
5.0%
5.0%
Aus & NZ
Canada
EC Africa
ECSA
Europe
Med
Mexico
Middle East
North Asia
Total
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 96
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
3.2.2. LCMA Methodology
The LCMA process identifies the least cost port/mode of transportation option to serve any inland hinterland
market designated by a zip code. Figure 3.23 depicts the various ways a zip code, 40505, could be served by
two competing ports, which for the purposes of the example outlined compares if a container enters the US
via the West Coast ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach against the use of POW as a Mid and South Atlantic port.
In this example, zip code 40505 can be reached from either of the ports via truck or rail (using an intermodal
container transfer facility (ICTF) by one of four potential options:
1. All Water Panama Canal and all truck from POW;
2. All Water Panama Canal and rail Move from POW (Rail to Evansville, IN ICTF and then a local truck
drayage to zip code 40505);
3. Transpacific to West Coast and all truck from Los Angeles/Long Beach;
4. Transpacific to West Coast and rail from Los Angeles/Long Beach (rail to Evansville, IN ICTF and then
a local truck drayage to Zip 40505).
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 97
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.23: Transportation Cost Examples from LCMA Modelling Process
Note: Assumes a hypothetical rail link between POW and the ICTF in Evansville, IN. The rail option does include a rail and truck combination because a
final truck journey is required to deliver the container from the ICTF to the final destination.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Each of the different transportation routes outlined has an associated cost and for this example the total cost
to ship a box from the foreign country of origin to the final zip code destination comprises the following:
•
•
•
Ocean Cost (OC) – The ocean voyage cost for the shipment of a container takes into account key
influencing factors such as size of ship, sailing distance and speed, port rotations, fuel costs and canal
tolls;
Terminal Handling Costs (THC) – For import containers these represent the cost associated with
lifting a container from the ship, placing it in the container yard and processing it out the terminal
gate;
Inland Costs (IC) – Costs involved in delivering a container to its final destination. Components
include local drayage from the terminal yard to the on-dock or off-transfer site, to and from rail car
and truck drayage to the final destination.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 98
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Taking into account the relevant cost component for each of the specific scenarios for the movement of this
container, the least cost mode and gateway for serving Zip 40505 is from POW by rail, as Table 3.30 shows.
Table 3.30: Cost Components for Serving Zip Code 40505 from POW and San Pedro Ports
To Zip Code 40505 (Lexington, KY)
From POW
All Truck
Ocean Cost
$1,775
THC
$170
Trucking Cost to Zip 40505
$2,205
From SPB Ports
Rail
All Truck
Rail
$1,775
$884
$884
$170
$275
$275
Not Required
$6,848
Not Required
Rail Cost to ICTF then Truck to Zip 40505
Not Required
$877
Not Required
$2,095
Drayage from ICTF to ZIP
Not Required
$767
Not Required
$767
$4,150
$3,589
$8,007
$4,021
Total
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Summary Conclusion:
LCMA Process:
The LCMA process models a range of different cost sensitivities that impact the logistics transportation
chain, including ocean shipping, port activities and road/rail transport. This is achieved by repeating the
process outlined in the example serving zip code 40405 for all zip codes in the regions served by Mid and
South Atlantic ports, NS and CSX railroads and ICTFs.
Moffatt & Nichol’s approach for each container trade lane is to generate a base case map for all ports
located in the Mid and South Atlantic region. The same size of ship is used for all competing ports, but
slightly different ocean costs will be generated, based on extra/less sailing time needed to reach each port.
Then port costs for handling containers are included, plus costs for truck and rail access from the port to
the final zip code. This also means that ports with both NS and CSX access benefit from whatever is the
cheaper rail option and access to the ICTFs in both rail networks, but a port with only one railroad service
provider is restricted in terms of costs and network.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 99
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
LCMA Deliverables:
The deliverable is a color-coded map showing zip codes attributed to the port representing the lowest-cost
option. Once all the zip codes are grouped together a block of color for each port is then provided for
easier visual interpretation of how the region is split amongst different port LCMAs.
A different LCMA map is created for each container trade lane. This is undertaken so that differences in
components making up the trade lane can be shown. For example, the ocean cost for a North Asia shipping
service is different to transatlantic shipping services because the sailing cost is a higher proportion of the
total cost due to a greater distance that has to be sailed. Therefore, because the LCMA analysis is based
solely on the cost components of moving a container any changes to costs, even if very small, will impact
the overall results and this embedded sensitivity, although slight, is included within the modeling process.
Container Trade Routes:
Moffatt & Nichol has assessed the largest container trade lanes calling to the Mid and South Atlantic
region. It is possible to create LCMA maps for much smaller trades, such as from Australia/New Zealand or
the Mid East, but the amount of containers potentially available to POW/MHC on smaller trade routes is
limited and will be insufficient to warrant a ship calling to the ports. This is because there needs to be a
weekly critical mass of containers for a shipping line to make a call at a port, normally around 90% of the
total ship capacity. If there are insufficient containers to warrant a port call, then the container will be
dropped at another port where there is already a call being made and the containers will then be moved to
final zip code destinations using inland road/rail transport.
Scenarios:
Once the base case maps have been created it is possible to model different potential scenarios. For
example, for this project the size of the ship was increased to 8,000 TEU and for POW/MHC it was assumed
that improved intermodal rail services and access to different ICTFs are gained.
These differences change the make-up of the base case LCMA maps, with revision of the colored regions
for ports acting as the least-cost option for zip codes.
NCSPA Analysis:
In the LCMA analysis for NCSPA ports shown in Section 3.2.3 to Section 3.2.7 each container trade lane
map generated includes confirmation of the factors used in the scenario, including base case results and
revised scenario using larger ships, the NCSPA facility called (i.e. POW or MHC) and intermodal rail
infrastructure.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 100
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
3.2.3. North Asia
3.2.3.1.
Base Case POW
Taking into account the LCMA methodology, as outlined in Section 3.2.2, Moffatt & Nichol has generated two
different scenarios for POW in serving the North Asia trade lane:
•
•
Figure 3.24 assumes that 4,500 TEU ships are transiting the Panama Canal and calling at POW,
although there is no intermodal rail service from the port. It can be seen that the LCMA region for
POW is limited to localized trucking only, with more distant regions served by the likes of Savannah
and Norfolk because of their better intermodal rail connectivity;
Figure 3.25 assumes that 8,000 TEU ships are introduced to the same North Asia trade lane, with the
same assumption regarding POW’s lack of intermodal rail. There is relatively little difference in the
LCMA region applicable to POW.
This is because it is the intermodal rail connectivity issue that is helping to dictate the ability of competing
regional ports to serve more distant hinterlands and the better rail access via other Mid and South Atlantic
ports, especially Savannah and Norfolk, are allowing these ports to be more cost-competitive. In essence the
lack of intermodal rail and reliance upon localized trucking means that POW cannot compete with other
regional ports because of a lack of connectivity access.
If there are no improvements to intermodal rail access from POW, the port will continue to see cargo that it
could compete to attract move through other facilities in the Mid and South Atlantic region.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 101
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.24: North Asia Trade Lane to POW – No Rail Improvements and 4,500 TEU Ship
Base Case Wilmington: North Asia
5,500 TEU Transpacific, 4,500 TEU via Panama Canal to East Coast
No Intermodal Rail Service from Wilmington
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 102
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.25: North Asia Trade Lane to POW – No Rail Improvements and 8,000 TEU Ship
Base Case Wilmington: North Asia
8,000 TEU Transpacific and Via Panama Canal to East Coast
No Intermodal Rail Service from Wilmington
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
3.2.3.2.
Improved Intermodal Rail Connectivity for POW and MHC
With no intermodal rail connectivity to cargo consuming/producing hinterlands, the competitiveness of
NCSPA facilities are negatively impacted, resulting in ports being less able to compete with other regional
facilities.
However, if it is assumed that there are improvements to the quality of rail connectivity to/from NCSPA
ports, then the LCMA will generate significantly different results, as the following confirms:
•
Figure 3.26 assumes that 8,000 TEU ships are serving the North Asia trade route through the Panama
Canal but POW now benefits from improved, and competitive, intermodal rail connectivity via access
to the CSX network. The impact can clearly be seen, with better access to more distant hinterlands
previously served by other competing regional ports;
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 103
Port Business Case Study
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.27 also assumes that 8,000 TEU ships are in serve to/from North Asia through the Panama
Canal but for this example MHC and not POW was modeled. The difference is the use of the NS
intermodal network instead of CSX and the outcome is that NCSPA then becomes the least cost port
for serving additional key markets.
Figure 3.26: North Asia Trade Lane to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 104
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.27: North Asia Trade Lane to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
3.2.4. South East Asia
3.2.4.1.
Base Case POW
Figure 3.28 provides confirmation of the current LCMA for trade moving from South East Asia to the Mid and
South Atlantic region.
Based on existing services calling to regional ports, it can be seen that the lack of shipping lines calling to
POW from South East Asia means that the least-cost port options for serving North Carolina are Charleston
(for truck markets) and Savannah (for rail markets).
However, as Section 3.2.4.2 identifies, with improved hinterland connectivity and water depth, POW has
potential to be a least-cost port option for this trade lane. This means that if investment in infrastructure
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 105
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
supporting NCSPA is undertaken it will enable the authority’s ports to be more effective in competing to
increase container volumes, as Section 3.2.4.2 shows.
Figure 3.28: South East Asia – Current Least Cost Market Area
POW
Trade Lane : South East Asia
CSX Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
3.2.4.2.
Improved Rail Connectivity for POW and MHC
The South East Asia trade lane offers some scope to NCSPA for its facilities to serve cargo moving to more
distant hinterlands in the region, as the following confirms:
•
•
Figure 3.29 assumes that POW is able to receive an 8,000 TEU ship and that there is intermodal rail
connectivity available via the CSX network. This enables NCSPA to compete to serve hinterland
markets by both truck and intermodal rail, accessing local cargo areas close to the ports and more
distant hinterlands needing to use intermodal rail;
Figure 3.30 outlines the LCMA for the South East Asian import market to the US using 8,000 TEU
ships, with MHC selected as the port of call at NCSPA. The truck market served in North Carolina is
slightly larger in geographical size than if POW is utilized. It has been assumed that intermodal rail via
NS is also an option for shippers;
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 106
Port Business Case Study
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
The difference in rail markets that can be served is reflective of the different rail networks operated
by CSX and NS and the geographic locations each operator’s routing takes inland.
Figure 3.29: South East Asia Trade Lane to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship
POW
Trade Lane : South East Asia
CSX Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 107
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.30: South East Asia Trade Lane to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship
MHC
Trade Lane : South East Asia
NS Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
3.2.5. Transatlantic
3.2.5.1.
Base Case POW
As Figure 3.31 identifies, for the transatlantic trade lane POW is currently the least cost port for its local
hinterland truck markets only. Without improvements to its intermodal rail infrastructure more distant rail
hinterlands will continue to fall within the least cost auspices of other competing regional facilities, most
notably Savannah, which is shown to be the least-cost port for some hinterland markets within North
Carolina.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 108
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 109
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.31: Transatlantic Trade Lane to POW – No Rail Improvements and 4,500 TEU Ship
POW (4500 TEU)
Trade Lane : Trans-Atlantic
No Intermodal Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
3.2.5.2.
Improved Rail Connectivity for POW and MHC
Taking the projections of the transatlantic trade lane into account, Moffatt & Nichol has developed LCMA
maps for both POW and MHC, while assuming that container imports arrive in the Mid and South Atlantic
regions on larger ships. In the Base Case scenario for this cargo route, it was assumed that the existing
average size of around 4,500 TEU was applicable.
However, for the revised scenario in which rail improvements are made to give POW and MHC better
hinterland connectivity, it has also been assumed that the average ship size should be 8,000 TEU.
Taking into account these parameters, the following LCMA conclusions can be provided:
•
Figure 3.32 identifies the regions for which POW acts as the best-cost port. The local truck market in
North Carolina can clearly be seen and actually regains a little territory from the truck market for
which Norfolk was the lower-cost option in the Base Case scenario. However, it is the improved
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 110
Port Business Case Study
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
intermodal rail connectivity which really makes a difference because with access to the CSX network,
POW is able to draw upon a number of additional regions, including Charlotte (NC) and also in Ohio;
Figure 3.33 utilizes the same assumptions for size of ship and improved intermodal rail connectivity
but assumes MHC as the NCSPA port-of-call and not POW. The same truck market is served as the
revised POW option, but MHC has access to the NS network and not CSX and this is reflected in the
size of the rail market for which MHC can act as the lowest-cost port option.
Figure 3.32: Transatlantic Trade Lane to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship
POW (8,000 TEU)
Trade Lane : Trans-Atlantic
CSX Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 111
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.33: Transatlantic Trade Lane to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000 TEU Ship
MHC (8,000 TEU)
Trade Lane : Trans-Atlantic
NS Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
3.2.6. East Coast South America
3.2.6.1.
Base Case POW
Figure 3.34 identifies the current LCMA for the East Coast of South America trade lane, based on the ports
called by container shipping lines in Q3 2010.
There are no liner services currently calling at NCSPA facilities. Existing local cargo demand is not being met
by POW but instead through Charleston (for truck) and Savannah (for rail) offering better hinterland rail
connectivity and therefore serving as the lowest cost ports for hinterland markets, including some in North
Carolina.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 112
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.34: East Coast of South America – Current Least Cost Market Area
POW
Trade Lane : East Coast of South America
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
3.2.6.2.
Theoretical Call to POW and MHC
It is possible to model the impact on of potentially changing dynamics on an existing trade lane, both in terms
of core components of infrastructure and also ports of call. On this basis, Moffatt & Nichol has undertaken
the impact of a call to both POW and MHC as part of East Coast of South America import trades.
The basic assumptions adopted include that POW and MHC have improved intermodal rail connectivity and
that ocean carriers introduce ships as large as 8,000 TEU and these units can successfully call to NCSPA
facilities.
The following key conclusions can be stated:
•
Figure 3.35 assumes that a port call is made at POW. As a consequence of the improved intermodal
rail connectivity, the port creates significant changes to the least-cost Mid and South Atlantic
competitive port region for intermodal rail markets, as previously identified in Figure 3.34. The ability
of Jacksonville, Savannah and Virginia to compete for large part of the US Midwest markets are
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 113
Port Business Case Study
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
negatively impacted, with POW representing the best-cost port option for Columbus and much of
Ohio because of access gained to the CSX intermodal rail network;
Figure 3.36 uses the same basic parameters for ship size and access to improved intermodal rail. The
main difference is rail service provided by NS as opposed to CSX. The localized truck market and
more distant rail markets that MHC remains the least-cost port to serve both largely remain.
Figure 3.35: East Coast of South America Theoretical Call to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000
TEU Ship
POW (8,000)
Trade Lane : East Coast of South America
CSX Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 114
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.36: East Coast of South America Theoretical Call to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000
TEU Ship
MHC (8,000)
Trade Lane : East Coast of South America
NS Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
3.2.7. West Coast South America
3.2.7.1.
Base Case POW
It is possible to model the impact on of potentially changing dynamics on an existing trade lane, both in terms
of core components of infrastructure and also ports of call. On this basis, Moffatt & Nichol has undertaken
the impact of a call to both POW and MHC as part of West Coast of South America import trades.
The basic assumptions adopted include that POW and MHC have improved intermodal rail connectivity and
that ocean carriers introduce ships as large as 8,000 TEU and these units can successfully call to NCSPA
facilities.
Figure 3.37 identifies the current LCMA for the West Coast of South America trade lane, based on the ports
called by container shipping lines in Q3 2010.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 115
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
There are no liner services currently calling at NCSPA facilities, which is why any local market for POW is
served by Charleston via truck, with Charleston’s hinterland rail connectivity allowing it to be the lowest cost
port for some hinterland markets in North Carolina. Jacksonville also represents a strong least cost port for
some regions through the Mid and South Atlantic port market too.
For NCSPA ports, a lack of viable intermodal rail connectivity is allowing competing regional ports to serve
hinterlands for which it could be competitive. Quite simply, better rail access via other Mid and South
Atlantic ports, especially Jacksonville for this trade lane, allows ports other than POW to be more costcompetitive and serve regions that NCSPA could be a potential option to access, if it had improved hinterland
connectivity.
If there are no improvements to intermodal access from NCSPA ports, POW/MHC will continue to see cargo
that it could compete to attract, as identified in Figure 3.38 and Figure 3.39, move through other facilities in
the Mid and South Atlantic region.
Figure 3.37: West Coast of South America – Current Least Cost Market Area
POW
Trade Lane : West Coast of South America
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 116
Port Business Case Study
3.2.7.2.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Theoretical Call to POW and MHC
It is possible to assess the impact of a theoretical call to NCSPA facilities from Latin America. In this instance,
the West Coast of South America trades have been considered to outline the regions in which both POW and
MHC can be regarded as the least-cost port for imported containers, as the following concludes:
•
•
Figure 3.38 outlines the theoretical shipping line call option using POW and the improved rail
connectivity via the CSX network, with the result showing access to markets for NCSPA ports which
reach as far as some key areas of the US Midwest region;
Figure 3.39 assumes that MHC and not POW is the suggested port of call for the imported containers
on this trade lane. Access to the NS rail network enables access to a notable least-cost market area
from MHC, which is in addition to the existing local truck markets within North Carolina, which are
currently served by other Mid and South Atlantic ports.
Figure 3.38: West Coast of South America Theoretical Call to POW – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000
TEU Ship
POW (8,000)
Trade Lane : West Coast of South America
CSX Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 117
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.39: West Coast of South America Theoretical Call to MHC – Intermodal Rail Connectivity and 8,000
TEU Ship
MHC (8,000)
Trade Lane : West Coast of South America
NS Rail Service
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Summary Conclusion:
The LCMA analysis conducted indicates that NCSPA facilities act as the lowest-cost port of entry for a large
hinterland, though the ability to be competitive to attract cargo moving to these regions is strongly reliant
upon gaining deeper water to receive larger container ships and, most importantly of all, being able to
offer better intermodal rail connectivity.
This position is similar for every container trade lane modeled and emphasizes the key role that inland
intermodal rail access plays for a play in the Mid and South Atlantic region competing for discretionary
markets, especially for containerized cargo moving from North Asia to US markets via competitive ports in
the region where POW/MHC/RI are located.
Unless NCSPA can offer deeper water for larger ships and better intermodal rail connectivity, its ports will
not be competitive in retaining and/or attracting cargo for which it is the lowest cost regional port.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 118
Port Business Case Study
3.3.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
NCSPA Container Forecasts to 2030
3.3.1. Methodology and Approach
Based on the LCMA process completed in Section 3.2, Moffatt & Nichol estimates cargo volumes consumed
in the areas in which each port is identified as the point of entry in the lowest-cost supply chain for each
container trade lane.
The LCMA modeling process was undertaken using over 3,000 counties within the US, with a single zip code
designated as representative of the county. Since a BEA area comprises a number of counties, the amount of
cargo supplied to/destined from each BEA is estimated using measurements of GDP, population and income.
The LCMA is constructed using which BEA regions are “won” by POW or MHC on a lowest-cost basis and
aggregated demand represents the total market opportunity for the port, on the following. Other key
parameters include:
•
•
•
•
For the trade lanes which POW currently services, including North Asia, a market share capture
assumption is applied against the aggregate demand to produce a throughput estimate for POW;
For trade lanes currently not served by POW, including ECSA and WCSA, Moffatt & Nichol is
identifying the LCMAs of the competing ports to estimate the existing competitive structure;
A new set of LCMAs are then produced incorporating a hypothetical service call at POW (or MHC),
and thus a region belonging to POW is established;
The demand of this new hypothetical LCMA is then estimated, and a measure of market share
capture is applied against the total demand to produce the container volume forecast.
3.3.2. Container Trade Lane Forecast Potential
Taking into account the LCMA methodology and approach to outline the size of a container trade lane market
potentially available to NCSPA ports, Moffatt & Nichol has generated projections outlining the impact of
infrastructure improvements on the size of the LCMA market potential that NCSPA ports can compete to
attract, between 2010 and 2040. In short, if infrastructure improvements are made, NCSPA ports have a
much larger LCMA market to seek to attract.
Table 3.31 provides confirmation of the size of the LCMA market for which NCSPA facilities are currently
competing to attract, based on existing infrastructure and if POW/MHC had better intermodal rail traffic and
could successfully receive 8,000 TEU class ships:
•
Based on current NCSPA infrastructure, the size of the North Asia trade lane LCMA available in 2010
is just over 384,000 TEU. This trade lane LCMA region with no infrastructure improvements at NCSPA
ports is expected to reach 1.1 million TEU by 2040;
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 119
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
•
•
If NCSPA had improved infrastructure, the size of the LCMA region it could seek to attract is
increased to just under 2.2 million TEU in 2010, and rises to nearly 5.2 million TEU by 2040 if
infrastructure is improved;
For the transatlantic trades, the current port and inland connectivity infrastructure restricts the size
of the NCSPA LCMA to almost 71,000 TEU in 2010, whereas with improvements to water depth and
inland access the 2010 LCMA market could be as large as 208,432 TEU. By 2040, this trade lane is
projected to reach 123,188 TEU (based on the current facilities offered by NCSPA) but almost
330,000 TEU, if better intermodal rail and water depth are attained.
Table 3.31: Projected Size of LCMA Markets Potentially Available to NCSPA in TEU, Based on Current
Infrastructure and If Infrastructure Improvements Undertaken, 2010 to 2040
North Asia
2010E
2020E
2030E
2040E
Current
384,217
644,235
888,207
1,114,158
2,840,767
4,457,492
5,735,317
6,737,168
740%
690%
645%
605%
2010E
2020E
2030E
2040E
0
0
0
0
127,277
212,246
321,565
509,899
~
~
~
~
Transatlantic
2010E
2020E
2030E
2040E
Current
70,805
91,541
114,240
123,188
With Improvements
270,962
341,493
412,424
428,920
380%
370%
360%
350%
2010E
2020E
2030E
2040E
0
0
0
0
110,247
141,747
172,394
212,125
~
~
~
~
2010E
2020E
2030E
2040E
0
0
0
0
108,424
159,250
205,288
179,596
~
~
~
~
760%
720%
680%
650%
With Improvements
Percent Increase – Trade Lane
South East Asia
Current
With Improvements
Percent Increase – Trade Lane
Percent Increase – Trade Lane
East Coast South America
Current
With Improvements
Percent Increase – Trade Lane
West Coast South America
Current
With Improvements
Percent Increase – Trade Lane
Percent Increase in Potential Market - Total
Note: With improvements is defined as better intermodal rail connectivity and the ability to receive 8,000 TEU class container ships.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
A more detailed breakdown of the size of the LCMA regions by various container trade lanes is provided in
Section 5.1 of the Appendix.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 120
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
3.3.3. NCSPA Container Forecast Summary
Moffatt & Nichol has identified five separate BEA locations as being most representative of the hinterland
market that NCSPA’s port facilities can serve most effectively and these remain the basis of future container
projections:
•
•
•
•
•
Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC;
Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC;
Greenville, NC;
Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC;
Myrtle Beach-Conway-Georgetown, SC (Includes Wilmington, NC).
The total container demand generated within this region comprising both loaded import and export
containers was estimated to total approximately 680,000 TEU in 2010.
This total demand is calculated by aggregating all estimates for import and export container demand of the
five individual BEAs, using the following methodology:
•
•
Import Demand – using a combined measurement which incorporates GDP, population and income
growth applied against the MarAd data for import volumes by trading partner;
Export Demand – using the confirmed 2007 PIERS data as well as estimates of durables goods
manufacturing activity.
Using this data and approach, Moffatt & Nichol estimates that 2010 container volumes for POW accounted
for 31.8% of the total container demand of the LCMA believed to be potentially available. This share is
constructed from the observations by trade lane noted in Table 3.32 and consists of two key assumptions:
•
•
85% of POW’s import container volumes originate in North Asia;
60% of POW’s export container volumes are destined to North Asia.
Table 3.32: Estimated 2010 Share of Regional LCMA (TEU) for NCSPA
Imports
Exports
Total
Grand
N. Asia
Other
Total
N.
Asia
Other
Total
N Asia
Other
Total
LCMA
297,936
186,161
484,096
86,282
113,257
199,539
384,217
299,418
683,636
NCSPA
101,247
17,867
119,114
58,263
38,842
97,105
159,510
56,709
216,219
34.0%
9.6%
24.6%
67.5%
34.3%
48.7%
41.5%
18.9%
31.6%
NCSPA %
Source: NCSPA; MarAd; PIERS; Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 121
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Moffatt & Nichol has assumed that the share of container traffic per trade lane and direction (import and
export) for NCSPA is maintained throughout a forecast period 2011 – 2040, at just under 32% of the total
container demand of the LCMA believed to be potentially available and subsequently grows in line with the
total demand from the LCMA.
Under these set of assumptions, the base case forecast of container volumes to use NCSPA port facilities will
increase to approximately 480,000 loaded TEU by 2030 and 600,000 loaded TEU by 2040, as noted in Figure
3.40. This figure does not include a provision for empties but historically empty container volumes at POW
have equated to around 33% of total loaded boxes and it is reasonable to expect this trend to continue.
Hence the base case total container throughout for NCPSA is projected to be almost 640,000 TEU by 2030
and just under 800,000 TEU by 2040. There are other qualitative factors that help explain the rationale
behind the container forecasts in Figure 3.40:
Market Opportunity:
• The market opportunity is based on the potential LCMA region available to NCSPA ports;
• The presence of infrastructure improvements significantly expands the addressable hinterland of
NCSPA facilities.
Low Case Container Projections – Maintain Current Facilities:
• Assumes that first CYKH service leaves POW in 2014 following expansion of Panama Canal as
increased use of 8,000+ TEU size vessels are brought into service;
• Assumes second CYKH string leaves POW in 2020;
• No intermodal rail volumes are handled at POW.
Base Case Container Projections – Moderate Facility Improvements:
• Assumes that market share is maintained within the total addressable market opportunity;
• Implicit in this forecast is that additional services are attracted to POW as organic growth would only
support trade in-line with regional economic growth;
• Assumes that some use of existing intermodal connectivity is made as higher volumes promote a
shuttle-type service between POW and Charlotte, but remains relatively limited;
• Assumes channel depth is 45ft and vessel size does not increase to 8,000 TEU quicker than current
industry expectations.
High Case Container Projections – Fully Competitive Facility Improvements:
• Assumes channel depth can accommodate a greater proportion of larger vessels, including those in
the 8,000 TEU size classification, by 2017;
• Assumes that POW intermodal routing becomes fully integrated into CSX’s National Gateway service
by 2017, to complement access to the NS intermodal rail network;
• POW captures additional container volumes within the addressable market, above that captured in
the base case, by 2040;
• The share of POW’s regional market potential increases from the current 8.1% to 18% by 2040.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 122
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 3.40: Market Demand & NCSPA TEU Volume Forecast Scenarios to 2040
Source: NCSPA; MarAd; Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 123
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Summary Conclusion:
With total base case container throughput for NCPSA, based on loaded TEU and empty units, projected to
be in almost 640,000 TEU by 2030 and around 800,000 TEU by 2040, a current nominal yard capacity at
POW of approximately 500,000 TEU will be tested by the mid 2020s under the base case scenario.
However, the yard expansion as noted in Section 4 along with other improvements can expand the
footprint to meet the new requirements. Any ability to increase share of trade lane market share by
improved NCSPA facilities could see the container volume projections increase further.
3.4.
NCSPA Bulk and Breakbulk Forecasts to 2040
The NCSPA facilities at POW and MHC both represent well-established ports for the handling of bulk and
breakbulk commodities.
Figure 3.41 presents the development and forecast of throughput tonnage for both bulk and breakbulk cargo
at POW and MHC to 2040. It is reasonable to expect these volumes to remain relatively stable and grow on a
consistent basis. This is because bulk and breakbulk activity is serving mature markets and, therefore,
unlikely to see much volatility, especially as commodity demand is to largely satisfy hinterlands close to the
ports.
There is little, if any, discretionary cargo available that could potentially be handled at other ports in the
region, which is different from discretionary container demand that does have alternative gateways in the
Mid and South Atlantic region.
Figure 3.41: Summary of Bulk and Breakbulk Cargo Forecasts for POW and MHC to 2040
6.0
Tons (Million)
5.0
4.0
MHC Break Bulk
3.0
MHC Bulk
POW Break Bulk
2.0
POW Bulk
1.0
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011E
2013E
2015E
2017E
2019E
2021E
2023E
2025E
2027E
2029E
2031E
2033E
2035E
2037E
2039E
0.0
Source: NCSPA, Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 124
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
In generating the bulk and breakbulk cargo forecasts for POW and MHC to 2030, Moffatt & Nichol has taken
into account a number of key assumptions for each port and type of cargo. It is worth noting that there is
little overlap between the two ports in terms of the same commodities being handled, further identifying
that the existing cargoes are well-established activities serving local hinterland demand, as the following
highlights:
Assumptions for POW Bulk:
•
•
•
•
Chemicals – Upside potential is limited by tank capacity at the Vopak facility. Discussions with Vopak
suggested that utilization neared 95% with throughput of approximately 600,000 tons. The forecast
includes roughly 660,000 tons of chemicals and related product and assumes some increases in
utilization capabilities;
Grain – Primarily animal feed imports, and have risen sharply in part to high price for domestically
produced Ag products. Import volumes are estimated to increase by an average 1.3% in line with the
USDA annually during the forecast period. Global demand for frozen meats including swine and
poultry is assumed to be the primary driver of feed imports;
Cement – Import volumes associated with regional construction activity. The forecasts incorporate a
return to long-term historical levels by 2015, and reflect stabilization following the collapse and
recovery in the regional construction industry. Moffatt & Nichol estimates that budgetary pressures
will continue to weigh on infrastructure spending in the coming years;
Wood Chips – ICL woodchips have been destined to Turkey for use in particle board manufacturing
however, changes to the fumigation regulations have put a halt to shipments. NCSPA expects
shipments to recommence in 2013, which is a reasonable assumption, hence this factor has been
built into the forecast. Along with demand for construction materials, global us of biomass for fuel is
estimated to grow and is assumed to support demand for wood chips and wood pellets.
Assumptions for POW Breakbulk:
•
•
•
Metal Products ex Scrap – Import volumes associated with CSX’s track replacement program. By
2015 it is estimated that demand will drive import volumes to an historic average of 125,000 tons;
Wood Pulp – Export volumes of bailed pulp have declined dramatically as a result in shifts of both
the type produced and increased demand for fluff pulp. However, International Paper and Domtar
continue to produce bailed pulp for export, and an annual 100,000 tons of breakbulk pulp is included
in the forecast. Breakbulk throughput volumes at POW are determined by business decisions of the
producers and their carriers, and therefore given NCPSA relationship with existing clients, Moffatt &
Nichol has deferred to the Authority’s estimate;
Forest Products – Import volumes have fallen significantly as a result in lower demand from regional
construction activity, particularly in the residential sector. Building permits in North Carolina remain
near 20-year lows, however appear to have bottomed. The forecasts assume that demand returns to
average historic levels by 2015, and proceed to grow in-line with the North Carolina’s growth
estimates.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 125
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Assumptions for MHC Bulk:
•
•
•
Phosphate – Export volumes are estimated to increase by an average 1.5% annually during the
forecast period. This is reflective of the global growth in demand for fertilizer products as well as
increased production in China, South America and Northern Africa. Currency appreciation of
developing economies should continue to support export volumes;
Sulfur Products – Import volumes of sulfur products used for sulfuric acid is estimated to move in
line with demand for fertilizer products;
Scrap Steel Products – Used by Nucor for steel manufacturing, assumed to be driven by regional
construction demand. Therefore, within the forecast a return to average historic throughput is
assumed by 2015 with demand growing in line with North Carolina’s forecast estimates. Budgetary
constraints to keep q downward pressure on a full rebound in nonresidential construction.
Assumptions for MHC Breakbulk:
•
•
•
Rubber – Import volumes are handled in both breakbulk and containers, and shippers have used
both forms to hedge against swings in the relative rates. Regional tire demand is estimated to
continue to grow as a result of population growth, auto production and trade policies. Therefore,
though total demand is estimated to grow, there could be shifts to and from containers given the
preference of the shipper. The forecast assumes that by 2013 breakbulk volumes of rubber reach
approximately 130,000 and grow to roughly 170,000 by 2020;
Metal Products ex Scrap – Import volumes associated with the Norfolk Southern track replacement
program, with estimates for average annual growth of 1.9% reflecting the historic average;
Forest Products – Estimate to increase to historic average by 2015, following a rebound in regional
residential construction. Additional growth is expected in line with real State GSP estimates.
Summary Conclusion:
Future bulk and breakbulk cargo activities at both POW and MHC will continue to be largely driven by the
demand requirements of key shippers located in the local hinterlands of each port. This is cargo that is
largely not-discretionary, which means that there are few, if any, alternative ports competing to attract
the volumes.
The upside to NCPSA is that bulk and breakbulk is a relatively low-risk cargo unlikely to relocate to an
alternative port in the Mid and South Atlantic region is if the shipper relocates and re-establishes its
operation as well, which can be an expensive undertaking.
The downside to this position is that bulk and breakbulk is a well-established and mature port activity, so it
is unlikely to see higher levels of annual growth that can be offered by the handling of cargo moving in
containers.
Moffatt & Nichol | 2BForecast Volumes Moving Through NCSPA Facilities
Page 126
NCSPA Infrastructure and Role in
Cargo Transportation Network
NCSPA Economic Impacts
Z
Z
Z
Forecast Volumes Moving
Through NCSPA Facilities
Z
Port Opportunities/Obstacles
APPENDIX
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
4. Port Opportunities/Obstacles
4.1.
Existing Facility Analysis
4.1.1. Previous Capital Investment Supporting NCSPA Port Facilities
There has been some known recent previous capital investment projects aimed at improving POW’s ability to
handle container volumes and contributing to increasing the level of cargo throughput handled at the port
authority’s facilities.
Examples of some of these investments are outlined in Table 4.1 and include improvements made directly at
POW, the surrounding road and rail infrastructure and supporting warehouse/distribution developments
near to the port waterside facilities.
The purpose of the infrastructure investments outside of the port is to provide it with greater access to
hinterland markets via rail and truck. The importance of offering efficient and good quality road/rail
connections between the location of the marine facilities and the destination/origin of cargo are extremely
important, especially with other competing Mid and South Atlantic region ports seeking to also offer good
road and rail access to serve hinterlands markets.
Table 4.1: Completed & Planned Investment Projects Affecting NCSPA Facilities, from 2005
Where Investment Undertaken
Benefits and Outcome Objectives
Road
I-140 Wilmington Bypass
Improved port’s connectivity to I-40, a major thoroughfare
to the Raleigh-Durham region
I-73 Interstate
New Interstate Route which improves connectivity to
Greensboro
I-74 Interstate
Upgrade of existing route to interstate quality – improves
connectivity to I-85 and Charlotte
Gallants Channel Bridge
New Structure to provide access to future Havelock Bypass
to reduce traffic through Morehead City
Rail
Co-operative effort with CSX
New CSX rail initiative will provide improved connectivity
to the national gateway network, which links to the South
and Midwest regions
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 127
Port Business Case Study
Where Investment Undertaken
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Benefits and Outcome Objectives
Removal of clearance restrictions for double-stack
NCSPA Ports
Channel deepening
Deepening to 42ft allows POW to handle larger vessels
transiting the Panama Canal and replicates the same
depth as offered at Savannah
2,650ft of berth upgrade
Accommodates four new 100ft-gauge cranes and 42ft
channel depth
Yard handling equipment
New, large reach stackers allow five-high container
storage
Post Panamax cranes
Four 100ft-gauge cranes
Terminal operating system
Allows container tracking on behalf of customers
Available acreage
100+ acres of container yard
150 additional acres available for development
Distribution/Warehousing
At-Port Distribution Centers
75 acre warehouse/distribution facilities, comprising 5
facilities, rail-served, 10 miles from POW
Source: NCSPA
Moffatt & Nichol strongly believes that previous improvements made to NCSPA ports and the supporting
road and rail networks has helped POW to be more competitive and able to attract higher throughput
volumes, especially over the latter part of the past decade, such as the second CKYH Alliance container
service after 2004.
However, there is a need to continue to invest in all aspects of infrastructure and facilities serving cargo in
North Carolina, not just at the port directly, to help POW and MHC/RI maintain, and potentially capture,
greater regional share of the hinterland cargo market share. This is especially true because of investment
continuing at other Mid and South Atlantic ports and in neighboring states to the north and south.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 128
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
NCSPA has studied its “last mile” relative to other container terminals in the Mid and South Atlantic region.
Its conclusions suggested that four of a total of seven terminals studied had similar road configurations
leading to the approach of the gate, and as Figure 4.1 confirms, Moffatt & Nichols broadly agrees with this
opinion.
The distances from the terminals in Figure 4.1 in comparison to POW are slightly shorter, within only one or
two miles of a connecting interstate, less than what has to be undertaken for POW. Also, the distance from
POW’s gates to the interstate road system does pass through residential areas. Trucks are required to
traverse either Burnett Boulevard (a two lane road) in order to reach I-74, or Shipyard Boulevard and College
Road, four lane roads (two in either direction) with a series of stop lights in order to reach I-40.
Figure 4.1: Competing Container Terminals with Similar “Last Mile” Road Configuration as POW
Charleston
Columbus Street Terminal
North Charleston Terminal
Wando Welch Terminal
Virginia
Norfolk Intl Terminal
Portsmouth Marine
Newport News Marine
Savannah
Garden City Terminal
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
POW is approximately 75 miles from I-95 and 200 miles from I-85, the two large interstates which run NorthSouth through North Carolina. These are primary transportation corridors for both passengers and freight,
and within the State of North Carolina connect the largest population centers of Charlotte, Greensboro and
Raleigh/Durham. By comparison, the Port of Charleston is 50 miles from an I-95 connection as is the Port of
Norfolk and the Port of Savannah is approximately 10 miles away and the new connector will cut that to
approximately five miles. While not a significant difference relative to Norfolk and Charleston, POW is at a
slight disadvantage in terms of distance and time connectivity to I-95. The North Carolina port facilities are
also impacted by tourist traffic in the Summer months.
MHC is currently constrained from a road and rail perspective since both run through the middle of
Morehead City. NCDOT has recently let the Gallants Channel Bridge design and that project is underway.
However, until the Northern Carteret Bypass and Havelock Bypass is completed, this link would not be a
viable alternative to accessing MHC. In the meantime, all traffic would have to continue through Morehead
City and this route during the summer months with the tourism associated with the Outer Banks coastal
regions makes this section very difficult since it is more than six-miles from the port to beyond the
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 129
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
intersection of NC24 and is the only way out of MHC to gain access to US 70. I-95 is approximately 120 miles
from MHC along US70. After construction of the Gallants Channel Bridge, there would be an opportunity to
follow NC 101 but this roadway is a typical rural two-lane road and would not effectively reduce travel time.
Summary Conclusion:
Investment to POW infrastructure has helped the facility attract higher container volumes in recent years
and without the improvements it is highly likely that this is cargo that would have chosen an alternative
regional port instead.
Although the existing configuration at POW will be sufficient to accommodate higher cargo volumes, the
increase of containers moving by truck to/from POW could create a potential bottleneck at the south gate
and along the road where the containers enter and leave the port.
The recent investment for the Gallants Channel bridge at MHC is desperately needed to provide an
alternative route from MHC/RI to US 70 to eliminate having to route trucks through Morehead City. This
improvement in accessibility could help MHC in maintaining and attracting new volume.
4.1.2. Wilmington Harbor Channel Conditions
The authorized channel dimensions for Wilmington Harbor for the various different reaches are outlined in
detail in Table 4.1, based on information provided by the USACE Wilmington District.
Figure 4.2 provides a visual interpretation of the channel alignment in a map format.
Table 4.2: Wilmington Harbor Authorized Channel Dimensions in Feet
Channel
Name From
Ocean to
Upstream
Channel Channel
Length
Width
Baldhead Shoal
49,100
500
Channel bend
widener
-
-
Smith Island
5,188
BaldheadCaswell
1,987
Width1 Channel Required
Allowable
Total
at
Depth2 Overdepth Overdepth for Allowable
Widener
for Rock
Dredging
Dredging
or Basin
Inconsistencies
Depth
44
0
2
46
44
0
2
46
500
44
0
2
46
500
44
0
2
46
910
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 130
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
Channel
Name From
Ocean to
Upstream
Channel Channel
Length
Width
Width1 Channel Required
Allowable
Total
at
Depth2 Overdepth Overdepth for Allowable
Widener
for Rock
Dredging
Dredging
or Basin
Inconsistencies
Depth
Southport
5,363
500
44
0
2
46
Battery Island
2,588
500
44
0
2
46
Lower Swash
9,733
400
42
0
2
44
Snows Marsh
15,775
400
42
0
2
44
-
-
42
0
2
44
Horseshoe
Shoal
6,098
400
42
0
2
44
Reaves Point
6,531
400
42
0
2
44
Lower
3
Midnight
8,240
600
42
0
2
44
Upper
3
Midnight
13,736
600
42
0
2
44
10,825
600
42
0
2
44
-
-
42
1
2
45
Upper Lilliput
9,915
400
42
1
2
45
Keg Island
7,725
400
42
1
2
45
Channel bend
widener
Lower Lilliput
3
Channel bend
widener
610
560
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 131
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
Channel
Name From
Ocean to
Upstream
Channel bend
widener
Channel Channel
Length
Width
-
-
4,099
400
-
-
2,644
642
-
-
8,682
400
-
-
Upper
Brunswick
4,079
400
Forth East Jetty
8,874
400
Between
2,675
400
Anchorage
Basin
8,643
400
Mem. Bridge –
Hilton
RR
12,045
400
Lower
Island
Big
Channel bend
widener
Upper
Island
Big
Channel bend
widener
Lower
Brunswick
Channel bend
widener
Width1 Channel Required
Allowable
Total
at
Depth2 Overdepth Overdepth for Allowable
Widener
for Rock
Dredging
Dredging
or Basin
Inconsistencies
Depth
733
42
1
2
45
42
1
2
45
42
1
2
45
42
1
2
45
42
1
2
45
42
1
2
45
42
1
2
45
42
1
2
45
42
1
2
45
42
1
2
45
1,200
42
1
2
45
750
38
1
2
45
646
648
823
500
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 132
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
Channel
Name From
Ocean to
Upstream
Channel Channel
Length
Width
Width1 Channel Required
Allowable
Total
at
Depth2 Overdepth Overdepth for Allowable
Widener
for Rock
Dredging
Dredging
or Basin
Inconsistencies
Depth
Bridge
Hilton
RR
Bridge – 750’
upstream
750
200
750’
above
Hilton RR Br. –
Project Limit
5,955
250
Total Length in
Feet
211,250
Total Length in
Miles
40.0
800
38
1
2
45
34
1
2
45
Notes: 1Width shown is widest point at wideners and basins, and includes the channel width. Widened areas taper down through transition areas to
the adjacent channel widths. 2Channel depths are at mean lower low water. 3This channel reach includes the Passing Lane.
Source: Environmental Assessment – Wilmington Harbor, USACE Wilmington District, February 2000
2. Airdraft may be an issue at POW as the vessel sizes increase. The existing airdraft for POW at center
of channel is 170.5ft (186.5ft minus 16ft per OSHA in order to safely pass under Progress Energy
powerlines). This impediment may need to be addressed in order to accommodate the larger and
therefore taller container ships.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 133
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.2: USACE Wilmington District, Wilmington Harbor Channel Alignment
Source: USACE Wilmington District, Wilmington Harbor
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 134
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
Summary Conclusion:
The existing channel has two distinct reaches with different depths. The ocean channel has a depth of 44ft
and the Cape Fear River has a depth of 42ft.
Airdraft may be an issue to accommodate larger/taller vessels.
4.1.3. Morehead City Harbor Channel Conditions
With respect to the current channel conditions for accessing the cargo-handling facilities located at MHC,
Table 4.2 provides confirmation of the authorized length, width and depth dimensions for the different
reaches, with the channel depth based on water depth at MLLW and an allowance included for the turning
basin, based on confirmation provided by USACE.
In addition, Figure 4.3 outlines from a visual perspective the channel alignment for accessing the port’s
cargo-handling facilities and Figure 4.4 offers a more in-depth view.
Table 4.3: Morehead City Harbor Authorized Channel Dimensions in Feet
Channel
Length
Channel
Width
Channel
Depth1
Range A
34,850
450 to 650
47
2
49
Cutoff
3,700
600
45
2
47
Range B
6,900
400
45
2
47
Range C
3,200
400 to
2
1,350
45
2
47
East Leg
1,600
455 to 880
45
2
47
West Leg
2,650
775
35
2
37
Northwest Leg
2,650
120 to 1200
35
2
37
Channel Name From Ocean to
Upstream
Allowable
Total
Overdepth for Allowable
Dredging
Dredging
Inconsistencies
Depth
Notes: 1Channel depths are at mean lower low water. 2Includes turning basin 1,350ft in diameter
Source: USACE
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 135
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.3: Channel Alignment, Port of Morehead City
See Figure 4.4 for
additional detail of
MHC Facilities
Source: USACE
There are no airdraft issues associated with the MHC channel.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 136
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.4 Inset of MHC Facility
Source: NCSPA
The west leg (the portions in front of Berths 4 through 7) of the existing channel is a naturally deep channel
with sections having depths in excess of 47ft. The NCSPA has gotten approval for portions of the channel to
be deeper than the 35ft noted in USACE data published and the inset of the facility shows the location of the
approved depths in more detail.
Summary Conclusion:
The MHC ocean channel is relatively short compared to competing ports at only 6 miles and is 47ft in
depth. The section from the mouth of Bogue Inlet to the channel fronting Berths 1-3 has a depth of 45ft.
The section along Berths 4 through 7 varies from 35ft to 41ft in depth and Berths 8-9 are at 35ft. The
facility has two turning basins – one at the corner of Berth 7-8 with a depth of 35ft and one at the ‘Y’ of the
channel and the Newport River with a depth of 45ft.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 137
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
4.1.4. Port Berth Review
4.1.4.1.
Background
Cargo-handling facilities at both POW and MHC have been reviewed and an assessment of the existing
features and the upgrades required to accommodate larger vessels and deeper water at the face have been
generated. For both ports, depths between 45ft to 50ft at the face of the berth have been used as the
required parameters.
4.1.4.2.
POW
The current berths at POW proposed for container operations are Berths 7, 8 and 9 and each has a different
operational configuration. Working south to north, following are descriptions of the existing berths and the
impacts or improvements required to accommodate 45ft to 50 ft of water at the face:
Berth 9 is approximately 900ft long and currently accommodates 50ft and 100 ft gage cranes. The deck is
rated for 1,000 pound force per square foot (psf). This berth handles the majority of the container traffic
currently calling at POW. The structure was designed for 40ft of water at the face. In order to deepen the
channel to 45ft or 50ft, the structure would need to be analyzed to determine if 45ft is possible. A toe wall
would likely have to be added to get to 50ft of water.
Berth 8 currently has two areas; a recently constructed portion (400ft) and an existing portion (650ft). The
new portion accommodates 50ft and 100ft gage cranes, has a deck capacity of 1500 psf and is designed for
47ft of water depth. The old portion has poor serviceability due to the structural deficiencies, a deck load
rating of 500 pound force per square foot (psf), and accommodates only 32ft and 50ft gage cranes. This
portion of Berth 8 is scheduled for replacement and the new construction would match the new Berth 8
criteria. For the new portion of Berth 8 to accommodate 50ft of water depth, the structure would need to be
analyzed to determine if a toe wall was required or if the deepening resulted in an acceptable factor of
safety.
Berth 7 is 700 ft long and currently accommodates only 32ft and 50ft gage cranes. A portion of the deck
behind the back crane beam of the 32ft gage crane was reconstructed in 2000 and has a service load rating of
1000 psf. The portion of deck between the face and the back 32 ft gage crane beam (~38 ft wide) is only
rated for 540 psf. To bring this facility up to operational requirements for a container facility, the front 38ft
would have to be reconstructed along with the installation of a new back crane beam and rail for the 100ft
gage crane. Transit Shed 7 would have to be removed along with the ramps on either side of the transit shed.
The existing facility was designed for only 38ft water and a toe wall was already installed to accommodate
42ft. However, the new front section along with the new back crane beam could be designed to
accommodate 45ft to 50ft of water at the face and the retrofit or installation of a new toe wall, if required,
could be incorporated into the design. This would require the relocation of some product from Transit Shed 7
to other facilities.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 138
Port Business Case Study
4.1.4.3.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
MHC/RI
MHC/RI is comprised of two different land masses on either side of the Newport River. MHC is a bulk /
breakbulk terminal and RI is currently used for liquid bulk. MHC has 9 berths while RI has a T-head dock for
off-loading liquids.
The development of a turning basin at the ‘Y’ of the Bogue Inlet Channel and the Newport River would be
required for larger vessels since the impacts of enlarging the turning basin at the corner of Berth 7 / 8 would
be significant.
MHC Berths 1 through 3 are currently utilized to transfer bulk product. Berth 1 has a lay-down area
associated with its 500ft berth length while Berths 2 and 3 are served via a conveyor system located directly
adjacent to the berth. These three berths can accommodate 45 ft of water depth.
However, the configuration of these berths is not conducive to berthing container vessels longer than
approximately 950 ft (vessels of the larger classes of 6,000 TEU and up). The conveyor system also would
have to be removed to open up the waterfront. The installation of crane rails for 100 ft gage cranes would
also be required.
MHC Berths 4 through 9 are only able to accommodate 32ft gage cranes and are designed for 35 to 41ft of
water depth. Berths 5, 6, 7 are at 41ft and Berth 4 is at 35ft. The ability to deepen these berths to 45ft would
require a channel deepening study but it should be noted that the natural channel in this area has depths
exceeding 47ft of depth. In order to accommodate the larger container vessels the structures would need to
be analyzed to determine the retrofits required but this issue can be mitigated somewhat by the installation
of a waterside crane rail which would likely extend out into the current channel and berth area to retain as
much of the existing structure and to reduce the need for a toe wall.
However, extending into and deepening the channel will require the completion of an environmental impact
statement. Transit sheds would have to be removed to accommodate the installation of a back crane beam.
Due to the size of the MHC site, it is unlikely that there will be a need to utilize Berths 8 and 9 as the 2,600ft
of quay on Berths 4 through 7 provide the berth area needed and providing access along Berths 8 and 9
would just reduce yard capacity.
The only facilities at RI currently in use are a tank farm and a storage rail yard. In order to accommodate a
container facility, a berth and the associated infrastructure would have to be constructed. The site does not
require any surcharging, could be developed without impacting the current operations, could be configured
to suit a client for a long term lease and the dredged materials have a beneficial use for beach nourishment.
The site has been permitted for a facility but the permit has expired so either a new EIS would be required or
the agencies would have to be contacted to determine if another supplement could be performed. The
channel depth in front of Radio Island is 45 ft and will accommodate the larger vessels. Any new facilities on
the island could be designed with the possibility of going to 50ft of water depth in the future.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 139
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Summary Conclusion:
Figure 4.5 Current Leased Areas within POW boundaries
POW:
Figure 4.5 shows current leased areas within POW
boundaries.
Investment to POW berth infrastructure has helped
the facility attract higher container volumes in recent
years and the next phase of Berth 8 improvement
would provide the port with additional area to work
the smaller container vessels.
The reconstruction of the front 32ft along Berth 7 at
POW will provide the port with the space to
accommodate two of the largest vessels currently
calling on POW and will help them maintain and
attract business.
Any deepening beyond 47ft MLLW at POW may
require some retrofit to Berth 9.
The proposed channel improvements (alignment and
turning basin) coupled with the berth improvements
will significantly help POW remain a viable niche
port.
MHC/RI:
MHC/RI berths to accommodate container ships are
non-existent and would have to be constructed and
container cranes would have to be acquired or
moved.
Costs associated with developing berths of sufficient
capacity and depth will be high.
Source: NCSPA/Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 140
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
4.1.5. Backlands Capacity
In order to evaluate the viability of the current NCSPA facilities to be able to serve as a container operation, it
is necessary to determine the approximate capacities of each port.
A review and development of a high-level model to determine what throughput volumes each facility could
sustain on an optimal basis was completed.
For this analysis it has been assumed that the shipping vessels calling were able to access each site.
4.1.5.1.
POW Capacity
From work previously completed for NCSPA, Moffatt & Nichol developed a set of criteria to determine the
possible throughput for the upgrades proposed to the container operation.
It is assumed that future upgrades would maximize the potential of the container operations. A high level
analysis of the container yard capacity was developed for the POW based upon the previously developed
criteria, with the exception that a 1-over-5 stacking height was utilized for this evaluation. Reach stacker and
rubber tire gantry operations were reviewed.
Table 4.3 offers a summary overview of the key parameters used in the yard capacity calculation.
Table 4.4: Parameters Used in Yard Capacity Calculations
Throughput
Distribution
Dwell Time
(Days)
Storage Density
(TEU/Acre)
Reach Stacker Operations
RTG Operations
Import
47%
47%
Export
24%
24%
Empty
29%
29%
Import
5
5
Export
7
7
Empty
20
20
Import
120
440
Export
360
440
Empty
400
400
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 141
Port Business Case Study
Modeling
Factors
Storage
Utilization
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Reach Stacker Operations
RTG Operations
Vessel Peaking
90%
90%
Seasonal Peaking
90%
90%
Shape Factor
80%
80%
Import Utilization
85%
85%
Export Utilization
65%
85%
Empty Utilization
85%
85%
4.5%
4.5%
Chassis percentage
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
The resulting storage densities for the two operational modes are:
•
•
Reach Stacker Operation - Approximately 4,565 TEU/Acre of Net CY storage
RTG Operation - Approximately 7,125 TEU/Acre of Net CY storage
Figure 4.6 shows the proposed container yard and the current leased areas that would be impacted. The two
leased areas within the operations area can easily be relocated without impacting any significant long term
leases or other operations.
The available net storage area is highlighted in yellow in Figure 4.6. The storage area is estimated at 88 acres
and includes demolition of the Transit Shed 7 in the northwest corner of the highlighted area, demolition of
other buildings and relocation of short-term lease areas, and unpaved areas.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 142
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.6: Confirmation of Net Storage Area Potential
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Using the above parameters, the estimated annual throughput capacity for the considered storage
configurations are as follows:
•
•
Reach Stacker Operations: Approximately 400,000 TEU per year;
Rubber Tired Gantry Operations: 625,000 TEU per year.
These volumes could be increased by expanding the container yard area by moving empty containers to
vacant areas located east of River Road or by expanding the container yard to the north assuming that the
long term leases could be modified to allow the expansion and the impacts to the bulk and breakbulk could
be accommodated both operationally and financially. It is estimated that a maximum container throughput
of approximately 750,000 TEU could realistically be achieved at the POW with minimal changes to the plan or
operating criteria.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 143
Port Business Case Study
4.1.5.2.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
MHC / Radio Island Capacity
In looking at the facilities located at
MHC/RI, there are several factors to keep
in mind concerning the utilization of
Radio Island. Infrastructure items such
as being larger than the existing MHC
facility, having a previously approved
channel depth of 45ft along the berths
that could accommodate larger vessels,
the potential impacts to the bulk
conveyors at MHC, the major retrofits to
MHC facilities to accommodate larger
vessels, the project letting of the Gallants
Channel bridge and the Havelock Bypass
to improve connectivity out of Morehead
City should be weighed against the cost
to develop and render the site
operational. While the site is larger in
land mass, there are local residential
tenants on the island that will need to
mix with the port traffic. The Gallants
Channel bridge would allow direct access
to Radio Island and a way to reduce the
truck traffic across the high-rise structure
over the Newport River to access MHC.
Figure 4.7: Project Area for Container Terminal on Radio
Island, Showing Areas on the Site Currently Leased
Source: NCSPA/Moffatt & Nichol
Since MHC has several long term leases, the model was undertaken for RI to determine throughput capacity.
The available terminal area for Radio Island was assumed to be similar to the site previously defined within
the EIS but assumed some future expansion toward the north in order to maximize through-put volumes.
Figure 4.7 shows the assumed project area for the container terminal development overlaid with the current
lease map information provided by NCSPA. The two existing leases shown have long term agreements. The
first lease area, designated as 15 (the yellow area in Figure 4.7) is with PCS Phosphate. The PCS lease has
approximately 20 years remaining. The second lease area, designated as 17 (the blue area in Figure 4.7) is
with Carteret County and has about 25 years remaining. However, the PCS lease currently does not have
many active operations and therefore it is considered as a soft constraint. The project area in Figure 3.6 is
estimated to be approximately 130 acres in overall size.
The following two possible operational scenarios have been considered:
•
Rubber Tired Gantry Crane (RTG) Operation:
o RTG handling import, export and empty containers;
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 144
Port Business Case Study
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
o Side-pick/Top-pick handing empty containers.
Automated Stacking Crane (ASC) Operation:
o ASC mounted on railways handling import, export and empty containers;
o Side-pick/Top-pick handing empty containers.
The following assumptions and parameters have been used for the MHC/RI analysis:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Target terminal throughput of between 1 million TEU and 1.2 million TEU;
Berth to allow for berthing up to 8,000 TEU class vessels;
Total berth length 2,600 linear feet;
QC gross productivity: 30 moves per hour:
o Net productivity 35 moves/hr based on Wilmington vessel call data.
Average vessel call size 22% of vessel capacity;
TEU factor: 1.8 TEU/Container:
o RTG stacking mode - 6 wide, 1-over-5 for import and export containers;
o ASC stacking mode - 9 wide, 1-over-6;
o Empty stacking model - 8 wide, 5 high.
Intermodal Yard (IY) is assumed to be located off-terminal:
o IY throughput is about 25% of the terminal throughput.
Table 4.5 provides a summary overview of the key parameters used in the yard capacity calculation.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 145
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 4.5: Radio Island Throughput Distribution and Model Parameters
Throughput
Distribution
Dwell
(Days)
Time
Modeling
Factors
Storage
Utilization
RTG Operation
ASC Operation
Local Import
35%
35%
Local Export
15%
15%
Empty
25%
25%
IY Import (Off-terminal)
15%
15%
IY Export (Off-terminal)
10%
10%
Local Import
5
5
Local Export
7
7
Empty
20
20
IY Import (Off-terminal)
2
2
IY Export (Off-terminal)
5
5
Vessel Peaking
90%
90%
Seasonal Peaking
90%
90%
Shape Factor
80%
70%
Import Utilization
85%
85%
Export Utilization
85%
85%
Empty Utilization
85%
85%
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
The modeling factors that have been used can be defined as follows:
•
•
Vessel Peaking Factor: This factor accounts for the variation in terminal inventory due to vessel
arrivals/departures and vessel loading/unloading activities.
Seasonal Peaking Factor: This factor accounts for seasonal peaking, when a higher number of vessel
calls is expected than the rest of the year. Such a period typically occurs before the winter holiday
season.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 146
Port Business Case Study
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Container Yard Shape Factor: This factor accounts for the shape of the terminal. A square or
rectangular shape is considered having higher inherent utilization; other shapes provide lower
utilization.
In Table 4.5 the ASC operation has a lower shape factor than the RTG operation. This is because the irregular
shape has more impacts on the ASC layout as automated RMGs cannot be shared by multiple blocks thus
each block cannot be too long or too short. The RTG operation does not have such a constraint thus is more
flexible on the block size and a better use of the irregular area shape.
Berth Analysis
4.1.5.3.
Figure 4.8 shows all container vessels calls at POW in 2009. Among the total of 221 vessel calls,
approximately 50% represented 4,000 TEU vessels, with the share of 1,000TEU and 2,000TEU ship calls
collectively accounting for slightly more than 40%. This meant that the share of 5,000TEU vessel calls is less
than 10% of the overall total.
Figure 4.8: Container Vessel Calls at POW in 2009
Percent of Total
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Vessel Capacity (TEU)
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from NCSPA data
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 147
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
The vessels services in Table 4.6 are assumed in the calculation of the berth capacity, based on the actual
observed vessel size patterns at Wilmington and additional 8,000 TEU vessel calls assumed for Radio Island.
Table 4.6: Assumed Vessel Services for RI Based on 1 Million TEU Annual Throughput
Vessel Size
LOA (ft)
# Services/Week
Percentage On &
Off
# Cranes per Vessel
8,000
1,200
2
22%
4
5,000
950
1
22%
3
4,000
900
5
22%
3
2,000
600
1
22%
2
1,000
450
2
22%
2
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Each vessel is assumed to unload and load 22% of its capacity at Radio Island. This percentage is based on
total terminal throughput and total vessel capacity of Wilmington terminal in 2008 and 2009. Examining data
from other ports in the region also indicates similar percentages. The larger the vessel, the greater number of
quay cranes assumed for loading and unloading operations. The quay cranes are assumed to have gross
productivity of 30 moves per hour which is consistent to the observed quay crane productivity currently at
POW. There are also four hours mooring and unmooring time assumed for each vessel berthing.
This vessel schedule assumes the worst case scenario which has low percentage on and off at the port and
many smaller vessel calls as currently observed. In the future, the percentage on and off at the port and the
percentage of big vessel calls may be increased if the shipping company maximizes the throughput going to
this port as part of its optimized strategy for operating the port.
For the calculated berth occupancy at 49%, the annual terminal throughput is estimated at approximately 1
million TEU. This throughput is generated from the combined vessel services as shown in Table 4.5.
The berth length of 2,600 linear feet is large enough to simultaneously accommodate any combination of
two 4,000 TEU to 8,000 TEU vessels, or any combination of three 1,000 TEU to 2,000 TEU vessels, or one
8,000 TEU and two 1,000 TEU or 2000 TEU vessels. For typical container operation, the larger vessels have
the higher berth priorities over the smaller vessels.
4.1.5.4.
Container Yard Analysis
The gross acreage of the terminal is about 130 acres for the assumed project area. This leaves about 88 acres
of net container storage area (net CY) based on the following estimated area composition:
•
Berth area: 18 acres;
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 148
Port Business Case Study
•
•
•
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Gate: 5 acres;
Road: 8 acres;
Building, parking etc.: 10 acres;
Net CY: 88 acres.
To reach 1 million TEU of container capacity, it has been calculated that total static storage capacity of
approximately 31,000 TEU will be required. This requires approximately 81 acres of net CY for the RTG layout
and 87 acres of net CY for the ASC layout based on the following static density assumptions:
•
•
•
•
RTG stacking: 530 TEU/acre;
ASC stacking: 620 TEU/acre;
Empty stacking: 525 TEU/acre;
Wheeled: 93 TEU/acre.
Since the calculated net CY acreage required for 1 million TEU of container capacity is less than the available
acreage for both RTG and ASC operations, it is estimated that the container storage yard for both RTG and
ASC operations could reasonably support an annual box throughput of more than 1 million TEU.
4.1.5.5.
Sensitivity Analysis
This sensitivity analysis evaluates the berth and storage requirements to achieve 1.2 million TEU annual
container throughput.
Table 4.7 presents the assumed vessel schedule for generating 1.2 million TEU annual throughput. The
schedule still has two weekly services for the 8,000 TEU vessel but the number of weekly services for smaller
size of vessels are increased compared to the schedule shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4.7: Assumed Vessel Services for Radio Island (1.2 million TEU Annual Throughput)
Vessel Size
LOA (ft)
# Services/Week
Percentage On &
Off
# Cranes per Vessel
8,000
1,200
2
22%
4
5,000
950
2
22%
3
4,000
900
5
22%
3
2,000
600
2
22%
2
1,000
450
3
22%
2
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 149
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
The calculated berth occupancy is 61% for the vessel schedule in Table 4.7. The 61% berth occupancy is
generally considered at the high end for the planning purpose. However if the smaller vessels can wait for the
services at the port, the berth may support the annual capacity of 1.2 million TEU.
The schedule in Table 4.7 represents the worst case scenario based upon a small percentage of containers on
and off at the port and relatively high percentage of smaller vessels are assumed.
An optimistic vessel schedule, as shown in Table 4.8, is also created to only include 8,000 TEU vessels with
the increased percentage on and off each vessel call to replicate a dedicated port operation. It should also be
noted that with a dedicated facility, the percentage on and off could easily be higher and could reduce the
number of vessel calls while maintaining the higher throughput volumes. Even with the optimistic schedule
shown, the calculated berth occupancy is 39% and will not negatively impact operating efficiency. Therefore
the berth can support 1.2 million TEU within either of these scenarios.
Table 4.8: Assumed Vessel Services for RI for 1.2 million TEU Annual Throughput, High Case Scenario
Vessel Size
LOA (ft)
# Services/Week
Percentage On &
Off
8,000
1,200
5
29%
# Cranes per Vessel
4
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
For the 1.2 million TEU annual throughput the required net container yard is calculated at 97 acres for the
RTG operation or 105 acres for the ASC operation. The required area for this volume is slightly more than the
assumed available area in the project area. However, additional area is available or the operating criteria
could be modified (i.e. - the empty dwell time is relatively long) for a facility at RI to reasonably support a
maximum annual throughput of 1.2 million TEU.
While specific numbers for MHC were not modeled, an approximate evaluation to determine what
throughputs could be expected there was performed. Assuming that the bulk conveyor was retained along
with a small area along berths 8 and 9 to handle some breakbulk, this resulted in approximately 55 to 60
acres of available container storage area. Using the same densities and parameters used for the RI model, it
is reasonable to extrapolate that the MHC site could accommodate somewhere between 450,000 to 550,000
TEUs. This would require the long term leases at MHC to be broken or the service lines relocated and the
backlands redeveloped for a container facility. These projected volumes and the cost of the infrastructure
upgrades would make this option questionable.
Summary Conclusion:
All sites will require the development of backlands. POW’s facility upgrades would consist of the
expansion of existing container storage areas while the MHC/RI facilities require the development of
Greenfield /Brownfield sites to meet throughput projections
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 150
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
POW could reach approximately 750,000 TEUs with minimal improvement and this quantity should satisfy
the current facility needs for at least 15 years.
RI could potentially reach over 1.2 million TEU of capacity but the development of a Greenfield site is likely
to be cost prohibitive.
MHC could reach just over 500,000 TEUs but would require breaking long term leases and relocation,
removal of warehouses and reconstruction of backlands
4.1.6. Existing / Programmed Road and Rail Connectivity
Road and rail connectivity to/from any port is of vital importance so that an efficient and smooth flow of
cargo is maintained. Therefore the existing roadway and rail connections to NCSPA sites have been reviewed,
while the impacts of possibly adding or integrating an intermodal service into the current operations which
would accommodate unit trains has also been included in the assessment process for both POW and MHC/RI.
4.1.6.1.
POW
The issues associated with road access to POW are significant in that the distance from the port’s gates to the
interstate system is largely greater than competing ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region and passes
through residential and highly urbanized areas. These are factors impacting the competitiveness of POW.
However, the plan that NCDOT has put in place for the Skyway Bridge to access the port from the south
would have a significant impact for the port for truck traffic traveling along the US74 corridor. This project
would provide almost a direct connection to the port via a four-lane facility, as shown in Figure 4.9.
For I-40 truck traffic, the distance along I-140 over to River Road via the bypass and Skyway Bridge to access
the port from the south is more than double the distance than traveling along Shipyard Boulevard and
College Road. The time of year (such as during the tourist season) plays a bigger role in whether this
alternative route is utilized because the time differential may not vary much during certain times of the year.
Moffatt & Nichol has determined that the preferred route from the south gate at POW is east on Shipyard
Blvd, north on Carolina Beach Rd (Rt 421) to Front Street, and then connect to I-74 where trucks head west
on I-74 towards Charlotte, or head north continuing towards I-140 and I-40. This route requires traversing
several roads which are just two lanes wide. However, some trucks continue to use the Shipyard Blvd to
College Road to reach I-40 even though this route is approximately nine miles long with numerous traffic
lights, it is approximately seven miles shorter than the noted preferred route.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 151
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.9: Existing and Proposed Roadway System near POW
Source: NC Turnpike Authority
The rail connections and serviceability at POW are impacted by the route through the City of Wilmington.
Nearly every crossing within the City is an at-grade crossing and the rail takes a circuitous route which
impacts nearly every major thoroughfare through the city, as shown in Figure 4.10.
The speed of the train is noted to be a maximum of 10 miles per hour on the train charts and the speeds are
probably less than that due to the number of crossings and the sharp curves that must be navigated. Some of
the major thoroughfares within the city would be blocked for more than 12 minutes if a unit train was
assembled at the Wilmington yard. It would also take more than 80 minutes from the Port to clear the Davis
Yard at Navassa as train speed on the northern leg is limited since they have to approach the two river
crossings at stopping speed.
The safety, operational and functional impacts on city traffic of moving a unit train along the current route
would be severe and have a negative impact due to the long clear time at intersections. The line also passes
through residential areas so the noise impacts associated with moving the trains at night would have to be
dealt with.
In looking at the rail activity for the POW facility, it would be reasonable to assume a possible split of around
25% rail and 75% truck haul allocation for a facility with a throughput of 750,000 TEU. This equates to
approximately 460 unit trains (based on 6,000ft long trains) or 18 trains per week (nine out and nine in) with
100% double-stack cars.
If the percentage of cargo moving on rail was increased to 40%, this jumps to 736 unit trains or 28 trains per
week (14 in and 14 out). While this could be accomplished at night, the city would need to be aware of the
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 152
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
train schedule and the subsequent impact it could have on the community for rescue/fire/police action along
with associated traffic and noise issues.
Figure 4.10: Existing Rail Route Through City of Wilmington (Route shown is approximately 13 miles)
Source: Google Earth
In the review of the LCMA and competing ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region, the single most
influential hinterland factor for POW to attract additional cargo volume is the need to improve the rail
connection and/or utilization of rail to/from the port. These improvements could be undertaken through the
trucking of cargo to a nearby, out of town Distribution Center (DC) and warehousing complexes which has
approximately 3,300 acres of developments so the unit train issues are resolved or by making improvements
to the rail line.
An initial assessment completed by Moffatt & Nichol indicates that a truck shuttle service to a DC with an
Intermodal connection is the most feasible alternative. While this would solve the train issue for the City of
Wilmington, other improvements along the rail line would need to be resolved as the issues stated for the
City of Wilmington would still apply to those small towns located along the line.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 153
Port Business Case Study
4.1.6.2.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
MHC /RI
The roadway issues associated with “the last mile” pertaining to port access are a significant factor in the
competitive position retained by the ports. Previous research completed by Moffatt & Nichol involving MHC
and RI has highlighted how access remains a key obstacle to being able to attract business. The Gallants
Channel Bridge and the associated work for the Havelock Bypass are currently slated for completion in the
current NCDOT TIP. The addition of the Northern Carteret Bypass would complete the link to MHC / RI and
give the port a viable roadway connection. The completion of these facilities changes the previous
conclusions about truck access to and viability of these facilities.
All of the proposed improvements on the Super 70 Plan (extends from I-95 to Beaufort) greatly increase the
accessibility aspect via trucks to the MHC/RI facilities. These improvements would eliminate trucks having to
transit through towns currently located along US 70 and would increase the speed of delivery via truck. Of
particular note is the location of the Radio Island property. The development of this site would eliminate the
need to cross the two-lane high rise bridge between Morehead City and Beaufort.
For rail access, the rail yard adjacent the RI site could be utilized for storage and the development of an
intermodal facility could be included on the current Radio Island property to provide complete rail service.
The rail bridge over the Intra-Coastal Waterway would have to be upgraded.
Figure 4.11: Proposed and Planned US 70 Improvements between MHC/RI and I-95 (Super 70 projects)
Source: NCDOT / Kimley-Horn
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 154
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
The development of DCs is also possible due to the large tracts of vacant land. These projects would provide
almost a direct connection to the port via a four-lane facility, as shown in Figure 4.11 and 4.12. This would
also increase the capacity of US 70 to the coast as trucks headed to the port would be removed from that
traffic route. The funding of the highway projects are in outer years with the Gallant’s Channel bridge project
being the only project let for final design.
Figure 4.12: Proposed and Planned Roadway Connections to MHC/RI
Source: NCDOT
The rail connections and serviceability at MHC are impacted by the route through the center of Morehead
City. As Figure 4.12 identifies, it is approximately 3.5 miles from the port to the point where the train crosses
Arendell Street and every crossing is an at-grade crossing.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 155
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.13: Existing Rail Route Through Morehead City
Note: Route shown is approximately 3.5 miles.
Source: Google Earth
The speed of the train is noted to be a maximum of 10 miles per hour on the train charts and the speeds are
probably less than that due to the number of crossings. Arendell Street is the major thoroughfare through
the City and the median crossings would be blocked for more than 12 minutes if a unit train was assembled
at either the MHC or more likely a Radio Island rail yard. It would also take about 20 minutes from MHC to
clear the median crossing on the east end of Morehead City. The safety, operational and functional impacts
on city traffic of moving a unit train along the current route would be severe and have a negative impact due
to the long clear time at intersections.
The line also passes through residential areas so the noise impacts associated with moving the trains at night
would have to be dealt with. The only possible scenario to remedy this situation would be to remove the
median crossings and install a grade separation at two or three locations along the line. Doing this would
eliminate the at grade conflicts or at-grade crossings could be left in place between the grade separations
with the understanding of rescue and safety personnel that the train movements could be overcome by
utilizing the grade separations.
In looking at the rail activity for the MHC/RI facility and assuming the RI facility was developed to
accommodate a through-put of 1,100,000 TEU, it is reasonable to assume a split of 30% rail and 70% truck
haul allocation. Assuming double stack capability, this equates to about 810 unit trains (6,000 ft long) or
about 30 unit trains per week (15 out and 15 in). If the percentage of cargo moving on rail was increased to
40%, this jumps to 1,080 unit trains or 42 trains per week (21 out and 21 in).
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 156
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
While this could be accomplished at night, the city would need to be aware of the train schedule and the
impacts it could have on the community for rescue/fire/police action along with the associated traffic and
noise issues and the grade separations would need to be programmed and installed.
Summary Conclusion:
POW:
As noted in the LCMA and port competition commentary in Section 3, the development of a viable rail
connection is the single most important item that will help NCSPA facilities to be competitive.
The current rail alignment and configuration will severely impact traffic within the City of Wilmington. A
system where smaller trains are made-up outside of Wilmington city limits into unit trains is an option
needing further study to determine feasibility. This alternative will require investment by NCRR or CSX to
provide better rail connections and service to POW.
The road connectivity to POW has been improved by the US 140 bypass and connection to US 17 providing
a route around the City of Wilmington and College Road. The future Skyway Bridge will provide another
link to provide almost direct access to the POW.
MHC/RI:
The MHC rail access through the middle of Morehead City will remain an issue as there is no way to
realistically construct a rail bypass. The only alternative is the development of a truck shuttle via the
Gallants Channel bridge and Northern Carteret Bypass to the east side of the Intra-Coastal waterway,
which can then serve potential distribution centers in the hinterlands and the loading of containers/trailers
onto railcars. However, the development of the Northern Carteret Bypass is not currently funded and any
rail connection would require investment by NCRR or NS to provide adequate rail service to MHC.
The Gallants Channel bridge, Northern Carteret Bypass and Havelock Bypass would allow MHC/RI to
maintain and attract additional business and the funding for these projects along with the other Super 70
projects would need to be procured for development and/or construction.
4.2.
Future Obstacles and Overcoming Bottlenecks
All cargo projections for future volumes at NCSPA facilities and other relevant drivers, such as shipping
industry developments, have been assessed. In conjunction with the LCMA process, this has helped to
determine potential additional cargo that could be attracted to the port and which obstacles and constraints
will need to be overcome. More importantly, if the future obstacles and bottlenecks are not overcome, then
the potential / likely loss of cargo can be assumed.
In achieving this objective it remains imperative that the relationship of connectivity and its effects on the
ability of the port to retain/attract cargo are fully understood, especially in relation to existing and potential
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 157
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
cargo volumes and type of cargo (containers and bulk/breakbulk) accessing the Mid and South Atlantic region
port market.
4.2.1. Channel Depth Requirements
All channel depths and drafts are measured relative to MLLW which is the average of the lower low water
height of each tidal day observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch. The required river channel depth is
typically 4ft more than the vessel draft and the ocean channel is typically 6ft more than the vessel draft to
account for squat, roll, waves and other ship movements during transit to provide the appropriate underkeel
clearance. With respect to accepted channel depth requirements for shipping access to a port or terminal,
ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 107, entitled “Ship Channel Design and Operation”
confirm this draft vs. channel depth clearance:
•
•
•
•
•
The depth of the project design channel should be adequate to safely accommodate ships with the
deepest drafts expected to use the waterway. Normally, depth is based on the development of one
or more design ships with an appropriately loaded or ballasted draft. Selection of the design ship and
project design depth is determined by an economic analysis of the expected project benefits
compared with project costs;
The two most commonly used methods for channel depth selection are the Permanent International
Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) guidance report and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
engineering manuals;
The design details of these two methods are very similar. Site-specific wind, wave, and ship motion
are evaluated with the use of vessel simulators or other mathematical or physical model;
The PIANC method, used to estimate channel depth for concept design, is presented in PIANC (1997),
page 20. This supplement states the following:
o Depth is estimated from:
 at-rest draft of the design ship;
 tide height throughout transit of the channel;
o squat;
o wave-induced motions;
o a margin depending on type of bottom;
o water density and its effect on draught (draft).
The values for draught (draft), which include water density effects, squat, wave-induced motions,
and margin, are additive. After the depth / draught (draft) ratio has been calculated, it should be
checked to ensure that it is not less than a safe minimum. A minimum of 1.10 should be allowed in
sheltered waters, 1.3 in waves up to 1.0 m in height, and 1.5 in higher unfavorable waves.
Another consideration worthy of note is the ability to see an increased draft due to freshwater conditions.
Measurement data of salinity recorded near the water surface at the POW terminal has been obtained and
generated the exceedance curve outlined in Figure 4.13, with the following key conclusions noted:
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 158
Port Business Case Study
•
•
•
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Salinity exceeds 5 ppt less than 50% of the time and exceeds 10 ppt less than 25% of the time;
It should be noted that since these are surface measurements, the average salinity through the water
column is likely to be higher since saline water is denser;
A vessel’s displacement will increase about 2.5% in freshwater, resulting in about one foot of
additional draft required;
A detailed analysis of wave-induced motions was not performed, but an additional 2ft allowance of
channel depth is provided to accommodate wave motions in the ocean channel. This seems to be on the
low side as the PIANC minimum recommendation for waves up to 1m would result in an increase of over
7ft of allowance for wave motions for a vessel drafting 38ft (1.3 times with waves versus 1.1 times draft
without waves). However, since vessels are currently safely transiting with this 2ft allowance at both
Cape Fear and Bogue Inlet, it may be acceptable for these locations.
Figure 4.14: Salinity at Wilmington Harbor
100%
90%
80%
Percent Exceedance
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Salinity (ppt)
Source: PIANC, US Army Corps of Engineers
4.2.1.1.
Impact of Typical Ship Characteristics
Table 4.9 provides confirmation of typical ship characteristics for containerships, with a comparison to known
ships calling at the Port of Long Beach to validate the generic vessel dimensions. By way of comparison Table
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 159
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
4.10 offers data relating to two of the largest vessels that currently call at POW, with specific emphasis
outlined for water depth requirements.
Table 4.9: Typical Container Ship Characteristics
Beam (ft)
POLB
Clarkson
LOA (ft)
Draught (ft)
TEU Class
Avg
Min
Max
Avg
Min
Max
Avg
Min
Max
6,000
940
892
1,044
132
107
140
45
38
48
7,000
1,021
943
1,157
135
131
142
47
40
49
8,000
1,091
1,016
1,214
142
140
150
47
43
49
9,000
1,107
1,036
1,292
145
140
150
48
43
49
10,000
1,130
1,104
1,148
148
140
150
49
48
49
11,000
1,161
1,138
1,191
149
148
150
51
49
51
12,000
1,192
1,192
1,192
150
150
150
51
51
51
13,000
1,276
1,199
1,304
180
168
185
51
51
51
14,000
1,200
1,200
1,200
168
168
168
51
51
51
6,000
912
901
962
133
132
133
46
38
46
8,000
1,073
1,016
1,096
141
141
141
48
48
48
Source: Clarksons, Moffatt & Nichol
Table 4.10: Typical Container Ship Characteristics Calling at POW
Ship
TEU
LOA (ft)
Beam (ft)
Draft (ft)
YM New Jersey
4,920
964.6
105.6
39.4
Hanjin Nagoya
4,024
949.8
105.6
44.3
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Taking into account known information relating to water depth and ship draft requirements of container
vessels, Moffatt & Nichol has undertaken a specific assessment of actual ships calling at POW, based on
length, share of containers to be loaded/discharged and the difference in maximum and minimum water
depth.
This summary has determined actual maximum and minimum draft needed by the ships for both arrival and
departure. A comparison has also been conducted for non-container vessels as well, with Table 4.11 outlining
the position for vessel calls.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 160
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 4.11: Ship Drafts for Container Ships Calling at POW
POW Ship Calls - Container Vessels
MAX Depth
MIN Depth
Vessel Length
% Containers
Arrival
Departure
Arrival
Departure
500-600
600-800
800-900
900+
80%
48%
100%
100%
35.4
39
38.7
38.7
34.8
39.4
39.7
39.4
15.7
21
26.3
27.6
18.4
21
26.3
28.2
POW Ship Calls - Other Vessels
MAX Depth
MIN Depth
Vessel Length
% Containers
Arrival
Departure
Arrival
Departure
500-600
600-800
800-900
900+
20%
52%
0%
0%
35.1
39.0
na
na
35.1
39.4
na
na
13.1
21.0
na
na
13.8
11.0
na
na
Note: All dimensions relate to feet
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from NCSPA Base Data
Figures 4.14 and Figure 4.15 outline the actual known drafts of vessels making their first call at the Port of
Long Beach in recent years. This information is very useful in helping to determine real shipping water depth
requirements based on vessel size and TEU carrying capability because the ships arriving would not have
experienced any draft restrictions due to the large channel depths present. As such it is possible to enable a
useful comparative analysis to be completed.
Figure 4.15: Cumulative Probability of Actual Vessel Draft – Panamax and Smaller Vessels
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Draft (ft)
5000 TEU
4000 TEU
3000 TEU
2000 TEU
1000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 161
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
Figure 4.16: Cumulative Probability of Actual Vessel Draft – Post Panamax Vessels
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Draft (ft)
8000 TEU
7000 TEU
6000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Summary Conclusion:
The published design drafts of vessels are not good indicators of the actual arrival / departure drafts. In
order to arrive at an optimal channel depth, these actual arrival / departure drafts should be analyzed to
determine the relative percentage of vessels that can safely transit to either terminal for various proposed
channel depths.
4.2.2. Channel Depth Alternatives
Three interior channel MLLW depths (42ft, 45ft and 50ft) have been assessed with respect to their impact on
the ability of various sized vessels to call at NCSPA’s cargo-handling facilities. These alternatives represent the
existing (42ft), the minimum (45ft) and the ultimate channel depth (50ft). See Figure 4.15 for additional
information. As stated previously, both the Cape Fear River and Bogue Inlet will accommodate vessels with a
draft 4ft lass than their respective channel depths of 42ft and 45ft. It should be noted that the port of entry
is largely irrelevant in this assessment because the aim is to specify the water depth required for ships
entering a port where there are no draft restrictions (which is why the Port of Long Beach was used as a good
indicative example).
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 162
Port Business Case Study
4.2.2.1.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Existing 42ft Channel
For the existing 42ft channel depth at POW, and using the PIANC recommended minimum for water depth to
draft ratio of 1.1, a typical maximum vessel draft of 38 feet MLLW can be accommodated. However, based
on discussions with the Cape Fear Pilots, vessels usually transit the river at 11-12 knots. For the typical
maximum length of vessels (Panamax vessels in the 4,000 TEU to 5,000 TEU size range) currently serving the
Wilmington terminal, this would result in a maximum squat at MLLW of over 3ft, which in combination with a
recommended safety clearance of 2ft for sandy bottoms and accounting for fresh water effects would limit
vessels to approximately 37 to 38ft ft of water depth draft. Thus, these vessels have to undertake one of the
following sailing options:
•
•
•
•
•
Arrive at reduced drafts;
“Ride” the tide;
Transit more slowly;
Accept a lower safety clearance;
Some combination of all of these.
Consequently it can be concluded that the 42ft channel depth available will cause restrictions on these
vessels transiting the channel. This can be validated when looking at Figure 4.13 which notes that about 45%
of the 5,000 TEU vessels and just over 60% of the 4,000 TEU ships arrive at Port of Long Beach with drafts of
37 to 38ft.
In addition, Figure 4.16 indicates that larger vessels have significantly lower percentages arriving with such
drafts – only 20% for 8,000 TEU vessels.
4.2.2.2.
Proposed 45ft Channel
If the POW channel is deepened to 45ft then approximately 70% of the typical arrivals at the Port of Long
Beach for a 5,000 TEU vessel would arrive with acceptable drafts of 39ft to 40ft. However, the total falls to
less than 50% of a 6,000 TEU ship and just 25% of an 8,000 TEU unit for acceptable drafts under the 45ft
channel. Thus, some restrictions, such as load and/or water depth, will still need to be applied for these
larger vessels to call at a port with a 45ft channel depth. MHC currently has 45ft of water depth available, but
there remains a need to develop costly infrastructure to allow this facility to be able to receive container
ships and offer a competitive and efficient level of service.
4.2.2.3.
Proposed 50ft Channel
If the channel is deepened to 50ft then, for all practical purposes on the basis of typical container ships in
service, almost all vessels (98%) up to 8,000 TEU in size could arrive without any restrictions being placed on
the vessel or cargo loads.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 163
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Business Case Study
Figure 4.17: Vessel Draft Analysis for Container Ships Arriving Unimpaired
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Line B
68% to85%
Line A
20%to 45%
20%
10%
0%
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Line C
91% to 96%
30%
39
40
41
Line D
99% to 100%
40%
42
43
44
45
46
Vessel Draft (ft) - Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)
Note: Add 4 ft to vessel draft to determine required channel depth for underkeel clearance
8000 TEU
7000 TEU
6000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
4.2.2.4.
Proposed 47ft Channel
Since deepening the channel to 50ft may be problematic from environmental and cost viewpoints and the
45ft channel severely limits the ability to accommodate a significant portion of fully laden 8000 TEU vessels,
the minimum preferred channel depth would equate to 47ft MLLW - the same depth sought by the Georgia
Port Authority for the Savannah River. This depth would accommodate over 90% of all vessels in the 8000
TEU vessel class and smaller. Therefore, if for nothing more than economic reasons alone, the 47ft channel
would likely prevail as the best overall depth for either facility.
Summary Conclusion:
In order for larger vessels to safely transit to the POW, the inner and outer channels will likely have to be
deepened. The existing 45ft inner and 47ft outer channel at MHC would allow for larger ships to access
portions of MHC and RI.
However, the optimal depth would be a 50ft inner channel for both facilities although a 47ft inner channel
(and an appropriately deepened outer channel) would allow approximately 90% of all vessels in the 8,000
TEU class in service still have access to either terminal.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 164
Port Business Case Study
4.2.2.5.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Channel Width and Turning Basin Requirements
Water depth is only one important factor influencing the size of ship that can call at a port. The width of an
access channel and the space available via a turning basin are also if importance. The official ASCE Manuals
and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 107, noted as “Ship Channel Design and Operation,” endorses this
view and states the following:
•
•
•
Channel widths should be designed to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vessels that are
expected to use the channel. The minimum channel width will depend on the size and
maneuverability of the vessels, channel shape and alignment, traffic congestion, wind, waves,
currents, visibility, quality and spacing of navigation aids, and whether one-way or two-way traffic is
required;
Channel widths have to provide for the width of the maneuvering lane, clearances between vessels
when passing, and bank clearances, particularly in a restricted channel;
A set of values for channel-width selection is presented in PIANC report “Approach Channels, A Guide
for Design” Supplement to Bulletin No. 95, June 1997.
Applying this typical approach criteria to the interior channels at POW yields a one-way width of about 300ft
for the largest vessels currently calling at the port and about 660ft for two-way traffic. Given that the existing
channel is 400ft wide it can be interpreted as one-way traffic only for the larger commercial vessels with an
additional 100ft of width to allow for passing of recreational or small commercial vessels. The existing passing
lane of 600ft, though, is on the low side, but if used intermittently, or vessels slow when passing, then it is
likely to be acceptable to allow shipping safe access to/from the current cargo berths.
For 6,000 TEU and 8,000 TEU vessels, the main channel needs to be widened by approximately 95ft and
125ft, respectively, while the passing lane requires widening by 200ft and 250ft for the two vessel sizes,
respectively, for a similar level of service. If vessel traffic increases, the additional widening will likely be a
required objective.
With respect to the turning basin, a minimum of 1.25 times the length of a ship is typical, with 1.5 times the
length a more desirable figure. On this basis, Table 4.11 compares both the acceptable and desirable turning
basin lengths for the largest ship currently calling at NCSPA facilities and also for both 6,000 TEU and 8,000
TEU vessels.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 165
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Table 4.12: Comparison of Turning Basin Requirements per Container Ship Size Calling at POW
Vessel Length
Acceptable Turning
Basin
Desired Turning
Basin
965ft
1,200ft
1,500ft
6,000 TEU ship
1,044ft
1,300ft
1,570ft
8,000 TEU ship
1,214ft
1,520ft
1,820ft
Current largest ship
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Summary Conclusion:
In order for larger vessels to safely transit to POW the channel will likely have to be widened and the
turning basin enlarged.
4.2.3. Ship Maneuvering Study
An initial study has been undertaken by Moffatt & Nichol in order to examine the effects of bringing existing
and larger containerships from the entrance of the Cape Fear River approximately 42,600ft along the
waterway in order to berth at the NCSPA cargo-handling facilities located at POW.
Due to the current configuration of this waterway a particular focus of the impact caused by the bend at
Battery Island has been included.
4.2.3.1.
Existing Navigation Conditions
The existing navigable channel of the Cape Fear River varies in width from 400ft to 500ft for the areas
examined in this report and it has an approximate depth of 44ft.
Table 4.12 outlines the authorized channel dimensions for the sections of Wilmington Harbor that have been
evaluated in this analysis.
Table 4.13: Wilmington Harbor Authorized Channel Dimensions
Channel Name From Ocean to
Upstream
Baldhead Shoal
Channel
Length
Channel
Width
Width at Widner or
Basin
Channel
Depth
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
49,100
500
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
44
Page 166
Port Business Case Study
Channel Name From Ocean to
Upstream
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Channel
Length
Channel
Width
Width at Widner or
Basin
Channel
Depth
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
-
-
910
44
Smith Island
5,188
500
44
Baldhead –Casswell
1,987
500
44
Southport
5,363
500
44
Battery Island
2,588
500
44
Lower Swash
9,733
400
42
Channel Bend Widener
Source: USACE
According to local pilots, ship speeds up river are approximately 11-12 knots and no tug assistance is
provided for the areas examined in this assessment.
4.2.3.2.
Environmental Conditions
Table 4.13 provides a summary of the key environmental conditions applied as part of ships maneuvering
activities and the subsequent impact of the outcome during the vessel sailing process. Figure 4.17 offers an
outline of the wind vector also applied to a shipping transit maneuver.
Table 4.14: Summary of Environmental Conditions Applied and Subsequent Impact
Condition
Impact
Winds
The tight turn between Battery Island and Lower Swash
presents the largest obstacle in manoeuvring a larger
containership up the Cape Fear River. A conservative wind
direction, which is applied beam on to the containership
Currents
Currents are tidal driven and assumed to follow the
direction of the channel. Flood current is assumed at 1.5
knots; while Ebb current is 2.5 knots
Waves
Waves were not considered in these analyses
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 167
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.18: Wind Vector Applied to Transit Maneuvers
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
4.2.3.3.
Fast-Time Analysis
Moffatt & Nichol has utilized the fast-time, autopilot simulation software SHIPMA, developed by MARIN
(Maritime Research Institute Netherlands) to perform a cursory computer-based simulation of the approach
and departure maneuvers required for the larger containerships at the Cape Fear River entrance.
The SHIPMA software uses a mathematical description of the hydrodynamics of a given vessel to simulate the
maneuvering of the ship in approach channels and harbors. The hydrodynamic vessel description includes
vessel response to waves, current forces, turning radius, maximum engine speeds and rudder angles. In
model formulation and hydrodynamics the software is identical to the “full mission bridge” simulators used
for pilot training. The fast time simulator uses an autopilot algorithm in place of the human pilot to simulate
control of the vessel. While the autopilot routine is no substitute for a human pilot, it does allow
maneuvering simulations to be conducted quickly and for less expense.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 168
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
The model uses the autopilot to control the vessels’ propeller, rudder, and tugs. The hydrodynamic model
accounts for shallow water effects, bank suction effects, and forces due to winds, currents, and waves. A
description of the desired maneuver is input by specifying the coordinates of an ideal track line. For each
segment of the track, the user specifies desired vessel speed and orientation, the number and power of tugs,
and the autopilot settings. The autopilot settings control such factors as pilot reaction time, look ahead
distance, primary control method (rudder, propeller, or tugs), and the program then steps through the
maneuver with the autopilot routine determining the required propeller speed, rudder angle, and tug
commands. Fast-time simulations can act as a screening tool to identify the most critical conditions. In the
case of the present study, the tool is used to evaluate potential difficulties encountered by transiting the
larger, 8,000 TEU, containership up and down river.
4.2.3.4.
Vessel Characteristics
The principal dimensions outlining the key characteristics for existing 5,000 TEU ships and larger 8,000 TEU
vessels are outlined in Table 4.14. However, because the ship characteristic data is limited to whatever is
provided by the software developer exact dimensions could not be used.
Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Study the level of information modeled is sufficiently detailed in order
to generate usable conclusions.
Table 4.15: Vessel Characteristics of Design Vessels
Container Ship
Existing – 5,000 TEU
Future – 8,000 TEU
LOA (ft)
948
1,043
LBP (ft)
896
988
Beam (ft)
105.6
140.4
Depth (ft)
69.6
79.1
Draft (ft)
39.4
41.0
Displacement (tons)
66,700
117,200
Dead Weight Tonnage (tons)
59,500
84,000
Source: Moffatt & Nichol, derived from MARIN data
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 169
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
The mathematical vessel models provided by MARIN describe the hydrodynamic and handling characteristics
of the ships used in the simulations. These models are based on measurement data from model tests and
validated with model maneuvering tests, thereby allowing those to be used for the whole speed range
between slow astern to full speed ahead during normal ship maneuvering.
4.2.3.5.
River Bathymetry
The bathymetry of the river is based on Corps of Engineers (COE) survey files for the appropriate reaches of
the Cape Fear River.
4.2.3.6.
Simulation Methodology
The SHIPMA simulations compare the relative maneuverability between the existing and future
containerships transiting the existing channel. A vessel maneuver simulation case is determined to be a
“success” when the vessel navigates its course with little or no deviation from its intended track. The process
includes such parameters as acceptable under keel clearance which takes vessel squat into consideration.
Each inbound simulation covers almost 43,000 ft of distance traveled from the entrance to the Lower Swash.
The vessel begins its course just outside of Baldhead Shoal at a speed of 10 knots; the vessel then transits
past Smith Island, Baldhead-Caswell, and up the Southport channel. The vessel slows to approximately 7-8
knots for the turn at Battery Island and proceeds 1,000 meters along the Lower Swash channel before the
maneuver is terminated. The navigable turns past Lower Swash do not impose any immediate concern and
are not analyzed.
Figure 4.18 and Figure 4.19 present a basic description of the vessel maneuver. The ideal, user defined, trackline which the vessel is programmed to follow is in located in the center of each channel.
Each outbound simulation covers the same 43,000ft distance as the inbound track path, only with direction
reversed. The vessel begins its course at 10 knots and slows to 7-8 knots for the turn at Battery Island; once
the turn is completed, the vessel regains speed to approximately 10 knots for the remainder of the transit.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 170
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.19: Vessel Maneuvering Track Configuration
Source: US Army Corps of Engineers
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 171
Port Business Case Study
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.20: Vessel Maneuvering Track Configuration – Existing Vessel Shown
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 172
Port Business Case Study
4.2.3.7.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Results of Inbound Maneuvers
Figure 4.20 presents the inbound maneuver of the existing containership with no environmental conditions
applied. This maneuver provides a calibration that the existing containership is able to maneuver successfully
within the existing bathymetry in the SHIPMA program. The 43,000ft track is separated into four reaches,
each of around 10,750ft in length, which provide greater graphical detail of the maneuver.
Figure 4.21 outlines the inbound maneuver of the future containership superimposed on the track plot of the
existing containership; no environmental criteria are applied. Results indicate the tactical turning radius and
maneuvering capabilities of the larger container vessel result in the vessel traveling on top of the existing
channel limits in Reach 4 (Battery Island).
Figure 4.22 provides confirmation of the combined track plots of the inbound maneuver with the future
containership for flood and ebb currents with an East South East wind of 20 knots.
Figure 4.23 offers presents a close up of Reach 4 and indicates that for Flood and Ebb current maneuvers, the
vessel transits approximately 264ft outside of the existing channel boundaries. Expanding the channel
boundaries to accommodate for this sharp turn would make the turning maneuver for future container
vessels possible.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 173
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.21: Inbound Maneuver – Existing Containership
Note: Plots are arranged Left to Right: Overall Track Plot; Reach 1; Reach 2; Reach 3; Reach 4.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 174
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.22: Inbound Maneuver – Existing Containership in Red; Future Containership in Gold
Note: Plots are arranged Left to Right: Overall Track Plot; Reach 1; Reach 2; Reach 3; Reach 4.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 175
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.23: Inbound Maneuver – Future Containership: No Environment in Gold; Flood Tide with 20 knots Wind in Red; Ebb Tide with 20 knots Wind in Blue
Note: Plots are arranged Left to Right: Overall Track Plot; Reach 1; Reach 2; Reach 3; Reach 4.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 176
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.24: Inbound Maneuver – Reach 4
Note: Hatched area indicates vessel has transited outside of existing channel boundaries.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 177
Port Business Case Project
4.2.3.8.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Results of Outbound Maneuvers
Figure 4.24 presents the outbound maneuver of the existing containership superimposed on the track plot of
the future containership; no environmental criteria are applied.
As with inbound maneuvers, the turn at Battery Island poses the largest obstacle for vessel maneuvering. The
existing vessel approaches the bend on the high side of the channel, transits past Battery Island on the apex
of the turn, and then exits wide to the Southport channel.
The future containership encroaches on all the existing channel limit boundaries for the maneuver which
excludes applied environmental conditions. It is reasonable to assume the maneuver would become more
difficult and the vessel would transit outside the channel boundaries with environmental conditions applied.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 178
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Figure 4.25: Outbound Maneuver – Future Containership in Red; Existing Containership in Gold
Note: Plots are arranged Left to Right: Overall Track Plot; Reach 4; Reach 3; Reach 2; Reach 1.
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 179
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Summary Conclusion:
The SHIPMA numerical modeling tool indicates that the existing channel alignment at the Battery Island
Reach is not satisfactory to safely transit an 8,000 TEU vessel.
Moffatt & Nichol | 3BPort Opportunities/Obstacles
Page 180
NCSPA Infrastructure and Role in
Cargo Transportation Network
NCSPA Economic Impacts
Z
Z
Z
Forecast Volumes Moving
Through NCSPA Facilities
Z
Port Opportunities/Obstacles
APPENDIX
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
5. APPENDIX
5.1.
Container Trade Lane Market Potential
Section 5.1 is an expansion of the summary outlined in Section 3.3.2.
5.1.1. North Asia Trade Lane Container Potential
Moffatt & Nichol estimates that container volumes on the North Asia trade lane associated with the
respective LCMA regions of the East Coast ports totaled approximately 6.8 million in 2010. Figure 5 outlines
the share of imported traffic for this trade lane by port of import for the US East Coast, while Figure 5.2
shows the likely share for exported volumes per eastern seaboard port.
With respect to cargo demand originating in the NCSPA LCMA region is estimated to account for 7% of the
total import demand of the identified region, and 4% of the total export demand.
Therefore, it is estimated that within the POW LCMA, there is currently a total demand for North Asian
container volumes of 385,500 TEU, roughly double that of estimated 170,000 North Asian loaded container
currently handled at POW.
Figure 5.1: LCMA by Port for North Asian Imports, 2010
4%
23%
49%
NY/NJ
Baltimore
2%
Norfolk
7%
Wilmington
Charleston
14%
Savannah
1%
Miami
Total 2010 = 4,500,000
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 181
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Figure 5.2: LCMA by Port for Exports to North Asia, 2010
14%
27%
NY/NJ
0%
Baltimore
Norfolk
33%
14%
8%
Wilmington
Charleston
4%
Savannah
Miami
Total 2010 = 2,300,000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Under the hypothetical scenario, where ship size on the North Asia trade lane averages 8,000 TEU, and
where the NCSPA ports have intermodal connectivity using the CSX intermodal rail network, the LCMA region
for NCSPA expands dramatically.
Based on this set of assumptions, total import demand for the NCSPA LCMA is estimated to increase to 2.2
million TEU by 2015, or 32% of the total 7.2 million. As Figure 5.3 shows, NYNJ captures share from
Baltimore, while NCSPA is likely to attract share of the market primarily from Norfolk and Savannah.
If the assumed intermodal connection is ignored and just the larger ship size is included, the LCMA region for
NCSPA in 2015 is estimated to account for approximately 302,000 TEU, or roughly equal to the current level
of demand.
As a consequence, it can be concluded that it is the ability of NCSPA’s cargo-handling capabilities to connect
via intermodal rail is one of the key factors determining the ability of ports in North Carolina to attract
greater volumes of container traffic. It remains important to be able to effectively receive, and service, larger
ships but the influence of hinterland transportation connections is clearly evident with respect to helping
extend the boundaries of the LCMA regions for which NCSPA remains the least-cost port.
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 182
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Figure 5.3: Hypothetical LCMA by Port for North Asian Imports, 2015
1%
13%
4%
38%
NY/NJ
Baltimore
Norfolk
32%
Wilmington
11%
1%
Charleston
Savannah
Miami
Total 2015 = 7,200,000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
5.1.2. South East Asia Trade Lane Container Potential
The South East Asia trade lane via the All Water route through the Panama Canal remains an important
option that ports in the Mid and South Atlantic region continue to compete to secure.
On a wider eastern seaboard basis, as Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 both currently show, there is an estimated
1.3 million TEU of demand moving to/from the South East Asia region that is currently handled at ports on
the US East Coast.
In more specific detail, the ports of NYNJ and Savannah appear to serve the regions of strongest demand,
suggesting that these facilities act as the most northern and southern preferable ports of call on this trade
lane. At the same time, VPA also serves a significant volume of demand in the Mid and South Atlantic region.
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 183
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Figure 5.4: LCMA by Port for South East Asia Imports, 2010
33%
41%
NY/NJ
Norfolk
Charleston
3%
Savannah
23%
Total 2010 = 815,000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Figure 5.5: LCMA by Port for South East Asia Exports, 2010
23%
NY/NJ
52%
18%
Norfolk
Charleston
Savannah
7%
Total 2010 = 535,000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
While NCSPA ports currently do not serve a South East Asian container service, Moffatt & Nichol estimates
that there is potential that NCSPA facilities could do so in the future, assuming that the ports are able to be a
competitive option in the region and are able to benefit from required infrastructure development needed to
meet this overall objective.
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 184
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Under a hypothetical set of assumptions, most importantly including intermodal connectivity to/from NCSPA
facilities, and an average vessel size of 8,000TEU by 2015, POW’s potential LCMA could account for
approximately 133,000 TEU of demand, or 7% of regional total, as noted in Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.6: Hypothetical LCMA by Port for South East Asian Imports, 2015
31%
40%
NY/NJ
Baltimore
0%
5%
Norfolk
Wilmington
17%
Charleston
7%
Savannah
Total 2015 = 1,900,000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
5.1.3. Transatlantic Trade Lane Container Potential
The total container volumes associated with the LCMA regions of the major East Coast ports for the
transatlantic trade lane was just under 1.5 million TEU in 2010, as identified by Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8, with
a relatively even split between import and export box traffic.
The LCMA region where NCSPA is currently the lowest-cost port option accounts for approximately 10% of
the total identified demand. Hence there is a potential market available to the port authority of around
150,000 TEU per annum.
Although POW has been successful in securing the ICL service, it should be noted that the majority of the
potential container volumes that NCSPA could be handling is still moving through other Mid and South
Atlantic ports, notably Savannah and, to a lesser extent, Norfolk.
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 185
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Figure 5.7: Share of Import Volumes by Port for Transatlantic Trade Lane, 2010
3%
23%
50%
NY/NJ
Baltimore
3%
Norfolk
6%
Wilmington
8%
Charleston
7%
Savannah
Miami
Total 2010 = 775,600 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Figure 5.8: Share of Export Volumes by Port for the Transatlantic Trade Lane, 2010
13%
30%
NY/NJ
Baltimore
31%
5%
10%
7%
Norfolk
Wilmington
Charleston
4%
Savannah
Miami
Total 2010 = 719,600 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Based on the growth outlook for transatlantic container trade volumes, Moffatt & Nichol estimates that total
TEU traffic moving between the US and Europe through the identified ports could total approximately 1.75
million by 2015, as identified by Figure 5.9.
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 186
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
This forecast scenario has assumed that the average vessel capacity continues to increase from the existing
average size of 4,500 TEU in 2010, with the introduction of ships up to 8,000 TEU by 2015.
By being able to accommodate the larger vessels, the LCMA for POW and NCSPA increases quite considerably
compared to the position in 2010 and it is estimated by Moffatt & Nichol that NCSPA could attract a share of
this trade of up to 14%, or approximately 245,000 TEU, based on the LCMA assessment and the ability of
NCSPA facilities to handle larger ships and offer improved intermodal rail connectivity to/from the port.
Figure 5.9: Hypothetical LCMA by Port for Transatlantic Trade, 2015
10%
40%
19%
NY/NJ
Baltimore
Norfolk
4%
Wilmington
Charleston
14%
8%
5%
Savannah
Miami
Total 2015 = 1,748,000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
5.1.4. Latin America Trade Lane Container Potential
The combined total demand for imported container volumes from the South American trade lanes, of East
Coast South America (Figure 5.10) and West Coast South America (Figure 5.11), moving to the US is
estimated to be approximately 715,000 TEU for all geographic regions served by competing ports on the US
Gulf and East Coasts.
Overall, given the proximity enjoyed by the Port of Houston in serving existing shipping services to Latin
America, this port reflects the largest least-cost facility, as defined by the respective port LCMA assessments
of the two North-South trade lanes.
In general, the northern ports of New York and Baltimore and southern ports of Savannah, Jacksonville and
Houston enjoy the largest market potential for South American import trade. The southern-mid Atlantic
including Norfolk, Charleston and therefore Wilmington appear to be capable of serving comparatively
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 187
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
smaller regions. This is reflected by the fact that the estimated demand within the LCMA areas for Norfolk
and Charleston, the areas closest to NCSPA and which represents the amount of cargo that NCSPA will be
competing to attract, totals approximately 70,000 TEU per annum.
Figure 5.10: Share of Import Volumes by Port for the ECSA Trade Lane, 2010
20%
NY/NJ
5%
51%
Baltimore
8%
Charleston
4%
3%
Savannah
6%
3%
Norfolk
Jacksonville
Miami
Houston
Total 2010 = 397,000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Figure 5.11: Share of Import Volumes by Port for the WCSA Trade Lane, 2010
22%
52%
10%
7%
2%
7%
NY/NJ
Baltimore
Charleston
Jacksonville
Miami
Houston
Total 2010 = 316,700 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 188
Port Business Case Project
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Based on the outlook for Latin America trade with the US, Moffatt & Nichol estimates that total container
demand through the identified ports on the US East Coast and Gulf Coast could reach almost 1.7 million TEU
in total by 2015, as shown by Figure 5.12. This figure is based upon import and export containers moving
to/from both the ECSA and WCSA regions, with the Port of Houston remaining the dominant gateway facility,
based on the least-cost analysis.
Although no NCSPA port currently services Latin America trade lanes, it is estimated that the LCMA for POW
will generate around 12% of the total volume by 2015, approximately 209,000 TEU. This is interesting
because it means that NCPSA could attract the third largest share of these trade lanes, behind both the ports
of Houston and NY/NJ. More specifically, this estimated share would propel NCSPA to being the largest port
serving these key North-South trades in the Mid and South Atlantic region, surpassing both Savannah (an 8%
share) and Jacksonville (a 7% share).
Therefore, this north-south trade route offers a significant opportunity for incremental throughput growth
for NCSPA, though it would only be gained on the basis that sufficient water depth exists to successfully
receive ships of up to 8,000 TEU in size and can offer efficient intermodal rail hinterland connectivity.
Figure 5.12: Hypothetical LCMA by Port for Latin America Trade, 2015
16%
45%
1%
3%
NY/NJ
Baltimore
12%
Norfolk
Wilmington
3%
8%
5%
Charleston
Savannah
7%
Jacksonville
Miami
Houston
Total 2015 = 1,690,000 TEU
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 189
Port Business Case Project
5.2.
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Port Codes
The following table is of port codes used in the container shipping profile in Section 3.1.2.2.
Port code
AAR
ABJ
ACJ
ADH
ADL
ADN
AKL
ALG
ALY
AMB
AMS
ANF
ANR
APA
AQB
ARG
ARI
ASH
ASS
ATM
BAL
BAQ
BAT
BCK
BCN
BEI
BEL
BIK
BIO
BIS
BJL
BLB
BLF
BND
BNE
BNK
BOL
BOM
BOS
BQM
BRM
Port name
Aarhus
Abidjan
Acajutla
Abu Dhabi
Adelaide
Aden
Auckland
Algeciras
Alexandria
Ambarli/Avcilar
Amsterdam
Antofagasta
Antwerp
Apapa (Lagos)
Aqaba
Argentia
Arica
Ashdod
Assaluyeh
Altamira
Baltimore
Barranquilla
Bata
Brunswick
Barcelona
Beirut
Belem
Bandar Imam Khomeini
Bilbao
Bissau
Banjul
Balboa
Bluff
Bandar Abbas
Brisbane
Bandar Khomeini
Puerto Bolivar
Boma
Boston
Port bin Qasim
Bremen
Country
Denmark
Cote d'Ivoire
El Salvador
UAE
Australia
Yemen
New Zealand
Spain
Egypt
Turkey
Netherlands
Chile
Belgium
Nigeria
Jordan
Canada
Chile
Israel
Iran
Mexico
USA
Colombia
Equatorial Guinea
USA
Spain
Lebanon
Brazil
Iran
Spain
Guinea Bissau
Gambia
Panama
New Zealand
Iran
Australia
Iran
Ecuador
Congo (D.R.)
USA
Pakistan
Germany
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 190
Port Business Case Project
Port code
BRS
BRV
BUE
BUN
BWN
CAB
CAD
CAG
CAL
CAS
CAU
CCT
CHE
CHS
CIO
CKY
CLL
CMB
CNR
CNZ
COR
COT
CPT
CSR
CTB
CTG
CTN
CWN
DAL
DAM
DAR
DCB
DDC
DHR
DKK
DKR
DMM
DOU
DUB
DUR
DXB
EDK
ELD
EMD
ESE
Port name
Bristol
Bremerhaven
Buenos Aires
Buenaventura
Belawan
Puerto Cabello
Cadiz
Cagliari
Caldera
Casablanca
Caucedo
Colon Container Terminal
Chennai
Charleston
Corinto
Conakry
Callao
Colombo
Chanaral
Constantza
Coronel
Cotonou
Cape Town
Chester (Pa)
Cristobal
Cartagena
Castellon
Chiwan
Dalian
Damietta
Dar-es-Salaam
Dachan Bay
Degrad de Cannes
Dutch Harbor
Dunkirk
Dakar
Dammam
Douala
Dublin
Durban
Dubai (Port Rashid)
El Dekheila
East London
Emden
Ensenada
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Country
UK
Germany
Argentina
Colombia
Indonesia
Venezuela
Spain
Italy
Costa Rica
Morocco
Dominican Republic
Panama
India
USA
Nicaragua
Guinea
Peru
Sri Lanka
Chile
Romania
Chile
Benin
South Africa
USA
Panama
Colombia
Spain
Taiwan
PRC
Egypt
Tanzania
China
French Guiana
USA
France
Senegal
Saudi Arabia
Cameroon
Ireland
South Africa
UAE
Egypt
South Africa
Germany
Mexico
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 191
Port Business Case Project
Port code
EVE
EVM
FNA
FND
FOR
FOS
FPT
FRE
FRP
FUJ
FUQ
FXT
GEB
GEM
GIT
GIZ
GOA
GOT
GUM
GYE
HAI
HAM
HAV
HAY
HCM
HFA
HFX
HKG
HKT
HNK
HNL
HOD
HOU
HUA
IBB
IKF
ILK
IMB
IQQ
INC
ITJ
IZM
IST
JAX
JEA
Port name
Everett (Washington)
Everett (Mass.)
Freetown
Fernandina (FL)
Fortaleza
Fos
Freeport
Fremantle
Fraser River Port
Fujairah
Fuqing
Felixstowe
Gebze
Gemlik
Gioia Tauro
Gizan
Genoa
Gothenburg
Guam (Naha)
Guayaquil
Rio Haina
Hamburg
Havana
Haydarpasa (Istanbul)
Ho Chi Minh City
Haifa
Halifax (NS)
Hong Kong
Hakata
Hitachinaka
Honolulu
Hodeidah
Houston
Huangpu
Imbituba
Izmit Korfezi (Eyvap)
Ilyichevsk
Imbituba
Iquique
Inchon
Itajai
Izmir
Istanbul
Jacksonville
Jebel Ali
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Country
USA
USA
Sierra Leone
USA
Brazil
France
Bahamas
Australia
Canada
UAE
PRC
UK
Turkey
Turkey
Italy
Saudi Arabia
Italy
Sweden
Japan
Ecuador
Dominican Republic
Germany
Cuba
Turkey
Vietnam
Israel
Canada
Hong Kong
Japan
Japan
USA
Yemen
USA
PRC
Brazil
Turkey
Ukraine
Brazil
Chile
South Korea
Brazil
Turkey
Turkey
USA
UAE
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 192
Port Business Case Project
Port code
JED
JIB
JKT
JNP
JUB
KAN
KEE
KHH
KHI
KIN
KLF
KOB
KOC
KOP
KUA
KUM
KUN
KWS
KWT
KWY
LAG
LAP
LAR
LAU
LAX
LCH
LEH
LEI
LGB
LGN
LGU
LIB
LIM
LIO
LIS
LIV
LOB
LOM
LPA
LPL
LQN
LST
LTK
LUA
LUD
Port name
Jeddah
Djibouti
Jakarta
JNPT
Jubail
Kandla
Keelung
Kaohsiung
Karachi
Kingston
Khor al Fakkan
Kobe
Kochi
Koper
Kuantan
Kumport (Istanbul)
Kunsan
Kawasaki
Kuwait
Kwangyang
Lagos
La Pallice
La Rochelle
Lautoka
Los Angeles
Laem Chabang
Le Havre
Leixoes
Long Beach
Longoni
La Guaira
Libreville
Limassol
Puerto Limon
Lisbon
Leghorn
Lobito
Lome
Las Palmas (Gran Canaria)
Liverpool
Lirquen
Launceston
Lattakia
Luanda
Luderitz
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Country
Saudi Arabia
Djibouti
Indonesia
India
Saudi Arabia
India
Taiwan
Taiwan
Pakistan
Jamaica
UAE
Japan
India
Slovenia
Malaysia
Turkey
South Korea
Japan
Kuwait
South Korea
Nigeria
France
France
Fiji
USA
Thailand
France
Portugal
USA
Mayotte
Venezuela
Gabon
Cyprus
Costa Rica
Portugal
Italy
Angola
Togo
Spain
UK
Chile
Australia
Syria
Angola
Namibia
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 193
Port Business Case Project
Port code
LVN
LVW
LYG
LYT
LZC
MAL
MAT
MBA
MCV
MDC
MDV
MEJ
MEL
MER
MIA
MIS
MIT
MLO
MLW
MNQ
MNS
MOB
MOJ
MON
MPM
MRN
MRS
MTA
MTD
MTR
MUM
MUN
MVD
MXX
MZT
NAH
NAM
NAP
NAT
NAV
NBO
NDB
NEW
NFK
NGY
Port name
Le Verdon
Longview
Lianyungang
Lyttelton
Lazaro Cardenas
Malaga
Matarani
Mombasa
Mindelo
Marina di Carrara
Male
Mejillones
Melbourne
Mersin
Miami
Misurata
Manzanillo
Malabo
Monrovia
Port Sultan Mina Qaboos
Manila South Harbour
Mobile
Moji
Montoir
Maputo
Marin
Marseille
Manta
Matadi
Montreal
Mumbai
Mundra
Montevideo
Marsaxlokk
Mazatlan
Naha
Namibe
Naples
Natal
Navegantes
Ningbo
Nouadhibou
New Westminster
Norfolk (Va)
Nagoya
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Country
France
USA
PRC
New Zealand
Mexico
Spain
Peru
Kenya
Cape Verde
Italy
Maldives
Chile
Australia
Turkey
USA
Libya
Panama
Equatorial Guinea
Liberia
Oman
Philippines
USA
Japan
France
Mozambique
Spain
France
Ecuador
Congo (D.R.)
Canada
India
India
Uruguay
Malta
Mexico
Japan
Angola
Italy
Brazil
Brazil
PRC
Mauritania
Canada
USA
Japan
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 194
Port Business Case Project
Port code
NKC
NNS
NOL
NOU
NOV
NPE
NPL
NSA
NYJ
OAK
ODS
OJS
OMZ
ONN
OSA
PAI
PAP
PCH
PCR
PDG
PEC
PEN
PEV
PHB
PHL
PIP
PIR
PKG
PLD
PLS
PLU
PLZ
PMD
PMH
PNG
PNR
POG
PPR
PRA
PRQ
PRV
PSD
PSP
PSU
PTM
Port name
Nouakchott
Newport News (Va)
New Orleans
Noumea
Novorossiysk
Napier
New Plymouth
Nansha
New York/New Jersey
Oakland
Odessa
Oranjestad
Omaezaki
Onne
Osaka
Paita
Papeete
Port Chalmers
Puerto Cortes
Pointe des Galets
Pecem
Penang
Port Everglades
Philipsburg
Philadelphia
Pipavav
Piraeus
Port Klang
Portland
Point Lisas
Port Louis
Port Elizabeth
Puerto Madryn
Portsmouth (Va)
Paranagua
Pointe Noire
Port Gentil
Port-au-Prince
Praia
Puerto Quetzal
Prince Rupert
Port Said
Port of Spain
Port Sudan
Port Tanger Med
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Country
Mauritania
USA
USA
New Caledoonia
Russia
New Zealand
New Zealand
PRC
USA
USA
Ukraine
Aruba
Japan
Nigeria
Japan
Peru
Tahiti
New Zealand
Honduras
France (Reunion Island)
Brazil
Malaysia
USA
St.Maarten, NA
USA
India
Greece
Malaysia
USA
Trinidad
Mauritius
South Africa
Argentina
USA
Brazil
Republic of Congo
Gabon
Haiti
Cape Verde
Guatemala
Canada
Egypt
Trinidad
Sudan
Morocco
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 195
Port Business Case Project
Port code
PUS
PYO
QIN
RCM
REY
RIG
RIJ
RIO
ROU
RTM
SAI
SAL
SAV
SCT
SDG
SEA
SEN
SEP
SET
SFS
SHA
SHE
SHK
SHT
SIN
SJJ
SJU
SLL
SMZ
SNS
SOH
SOK
SOR
SOU
SPE
SPI
SSA
SSZ
STB
STC
SUA
SUC
SUV
SVE
SVI
Port name
Pusan
Pyongtaek
Qingdao
Richmond (Va)
Reykjavik
Rio Grande do Sul
Rijeka
Rio de Janeiro
Rouen
Rotterdam
San Antonio
Salerno
Savannah
Santa Cruz (Tenerife)
San Diego
Seattle
Sendai
Sepetiba
Sete
Sao Francisco
Shanghai
Shelbourne
Shekou
Shantou
Singapore
Sharjah
San Juan (Puerto Rico)
Salalah
Shimizu
Sines
Sohar
Sokhna
Sorel
Southampton
La Spezia
San Pedro
Salvador
Santos
Setubal
Santo Tomas de Castilla
Suape
Puerto Sucre
Suva
San Vicente
San Vicente
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Country
South Korea
South Korea
PRC
USA
Iceland
Brazil
Croatia
Brazil
France
Netherlands
Chile
Italy
USA
Spain
USA
USA
Japan
Brazil
France
Brazil
PRC
Canada
PRC
PRC
Singapore
UAE
USA
Oman
Japan
Portugal
Oman
Egypt
Canada
UK
Italy
Cote d'Ivoire
Brazil
Brazil
Portugal
Guatemala
Brazil
Venezuela
Fiji
Chile
Cape Verde
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 196
Port Business Case Project
Port code
SVL
SWK
SYD
TAC
TAL
TAR
TCI
TEM
TGA
TGN
THE
THP
TIL
TIU
TKD
TMK
TMM
TOK
TPC
TPF
TPP
TRG
TRS
TUT
TXG
ULS
USD
USH
VAN
VAP
VCE
VDC
VER
VGO
VIC
VIX
VLC
VSK
WEL
WMS
WNC
WVB
XGG
XMN
YKK
Port name
Savona (Vado Ligure)
Shuwaikh
Sydney
Tacoma
Talcahuano
Taranto
Tin Can Island (Lagos)
Tema
Tanga
Tarragona
Thessaloniki
Thamesport
Tilbury
Timaru
Takoradi
Tomakomai
Tamatave
Tokyo
Tampico
Tampa
Tanjung Pelepas
Tauranga
Trieste
Tuticorin
Taichung
Ulsan
Umm Said
Ushuaia
Vancouver
Valparaiso
Venice
Vila do Conde
Vera Cruz
Vigo
Port Victoria
Vitoria
Valencia
Visakhapatnam
Wellington
Willemstad
Wilmington (NC)
Walvis Bay
Xingang
Xiamen
Yokkaichi
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Country
Italy
Kuwait
Australia
USA
Chile
Italy
Nigeria
Ghana
Tanzania
Spain
Greece
UK
UK
New Zealand
Ghana
Japan
Madagascar
Japan
Mexico
USA
Malaysia
New Zealand
Italy
India
Taiwan
South Korea
Doha
Argentina
Canada
Chile
Italy
Brazil
Mexico
Spain
Seychelles
Brazil
Spain
India
New Zealand
Curaçao
USA
Namibia
PRC
PRC
Japan
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 197
Port Business Case Project
Port code
YOK
YTI
YTN
ZAE
ZEE
ZLO
Port name
Yokohama
Yantai
Yantian
Zarate
Zeebrugge
Manzanillo
North Carolina State
Ports Authority
Country
Japan
PRC
PRC
Argentina
Belgium
Mexico
Source: Moffatt & Nichol
Moffatt & Nichol | APPENDIX
Page 198
Prepared by:
Z
Z
Z
Z
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 160
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
P| 919. 781. 4626 F| 919. 781. 4869
www.moffattnichol.com