Corridors and the Maritime / Land Interface: North America and the Pacific
-
Upload
julie-avery -
Category
Documents
-
view
37 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Corridors and the Maritime / Land Interface: North America and the Pacific
Canada’s Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Research Canada’s Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Research Consortium, Vancouver, British Columbia, May 2-4 Consortium, Vancouver, British Columbia, May 2-4 20072007
Corridors and the Maritime / Corridors and the Maritime / Land Interface: North America Land Interface: North America and the Pacificand the Pacific
Jean-Paul RodrigueAssociate Professor, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA
Email: [email protected] available at:http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue
Mounting Capacity and Time Pressures in Global Freight Distribution
■ Time is the essence…• Surprising time underperformance:
• Only 63% of transpacific container vessels arrived on time at their scheduled port calls.
• 53% for transatlantic port calls.• The major factor behind delays is port congestion:
• Multidimensional concept.• Physical docking capacity.• Transshipment capacity.• Storage capacity.• Inland capacity.
• Reinforce the importance of the maritime / land interface.
A Hard Pill to Swallow: The Emma Maersk
Logistics and the Acceleration of Freight
■ The velocity of freight• Shipment and transshipment.• No significant speed
improvements in recent decades.
• Intermodal operations; the most important element.
• Logistical threshold:• Time based management of
distribution becomes a possibility.
• From push (supply based) to pull (demand based) logistics.
Push Logistics
Shipment
Transshipment
Pull Logistics
Containerization
Speed barrier
Logistical threshold
Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface
Port System
Foreland (Shipping Network)
Road Rail Coastal / Fluvial
Hinterland (FDC)
Corridors and Hubs
Gateways
Mari
tim
e F
reig
ht
Dis
trib
uti
on
Inla
nd
Fre
igh
tD
istr
ibu
tion
Foreland: Liner Shipping Networks
Conventional liner / break bulk services
Mainline services
Feeder services
First order network
Second order network
Third order network
Regional Port System
Regional Port System
Two Major Transpacific Pendulum Routes Serviced by OOCL, 2006 (The Wal-Mart Express)
Seattle
Oakland
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Kobe Tokyo
Pusan
Nagoya
Shekou
Qingdao
Shanghai
KaohsiungHong Kong
Singapore
Laem Chabang
Ningbo
Source: OOCL Web Site
49 Days
40 Days
Note: Paths are approximate and transit time includes port time
Northwest Express (NWX)
South China Express (SCX)
Largest American Importers of Asian Goods Through Maritime Container Transport, 2004 (in TEUs)
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000
Wal-Mart
Home Depot
Target
Sears (K-Mart)
Ikea
Lowe's
Costco
Ashley Furniture
Payless ShoeSource
Samsung
Matsushita
Toyota
Hamilton Beach
Honda
CVS (Eckerds)
Main North American Trade Corridors and Metropolitan Freight Centers
Miami
Boston
Dallas
Denver
Norfolk
Atlanta
Memphis
Halifax
Detroit
Toronto
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Seattle
Calgary
Edmonton
Winnipeg
Montreal
New York
Portland
Baltimore
Charlotte
Cleve land
St. Louis
San Diego
Vancouver
Charleston
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
New Orleans
Kansas City
Minneapolis
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Oklahoma Ci ty
San Francisco
Salt Lake City
Hub
Gateway
The Hinterland Effect: Interdependencies and Imbalances
■ Macro-economic and physical imbalances• Globalization has made the economies of the Pacific Rim more
integrated.• These interdependencies however come with acute imbalances.• The core of these imbalances is at start macro-economic:
• Comparative advantages.• Foreign direct investments.• Debt and asset inflation.
• Macro-economic imbalances have an outcome in the physical world of freight flows:
• International trade.• Container flows.• Transportation rates.• Structure of long distance transport services.
The “Perpetual Motion” Machine: The Dynamics of the World’s Most Significant Trade Relationship
Goods
Bonds (IOUs)
Asset InflationDebt
Reserves
Interest RatesUnemployment
$ for goods
$ for bonds
United StatesChina USD
USD
BorrowingInvestment
World’s 10 Largest Exporters and Importers, 2005
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Germany
United States
China
Japan
France
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Billions of $US
Imports
Exports
Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade Routes, 1995-2006 (in millions of TEUs)
4.0
5.2
5.6
7.2
8.8
10.2
12.4
13.9
14.5
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.9
2.8
3.5
4.5
5.9
6.1
7.3
8.9
9.9
12.7
2.3
2.7
3.6
4.0
4.2
4.9
5.2
5.6
7.3
1.2
1.3
2.2
2.7
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.6
1.4
1.7
2.9
3.6
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.3
4.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
1995
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Asia-USA
USA-Asia
Asia-Europe
Europe-Asia
USA-Europe
Europe-USA
Maritime Freight Rates (USD per TEU), 1993-2006
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
1993-4
1994-2
1994-4
1995-2
1995-4
1996-2
1996-4
1997-2
1997-4
1998-2
1998-4
1999-2
1999-4
2000-2
2000-4
2001-2
2001-4
2002-2
2002-4
2003-2
2003-4
2004-2
2004-4
2005-2
2005-4
Asia - US
US - Asia
Asia - EuropeEurope - Asia
Kobe
Tokyo
OsakaBusan
Ningbo
Nagoya
Manila
Dalian
Yantian
Tianjin
Keelung
Yokohama
Shenzhen
Shanghai
Quingdao
Singapore
Kaohsiung
Hong KongGuangzhou
Port Kalang
Laem Chabang
Tanjung Priok
Tanjung Pelepas
Tacoma
FraserSeattle
Oakland
Portland
Vancouver
Anchorage
Long BeachLos Angeles
Pacific Asia
North American West Coast
2004 Traffic
Less than 2 million TEU
2 million to 4 million TEU
4 million to 7 million TEU
7 million to 10 million TEU
More than 10 million TEU
Container Traffic at Major Transpacific Container Ports: Mirror Images?
TokaidoYellow SeaRim
Sunan Delta
Pearl River DeltaTaiwan / Fujian
Singapore San Pedro Bay
San Francisco Bay
Puget Sound
Prince Rupert
Ensenada
Port Holdings as Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface
Global Port Terminal Ownership, 2001
0 10 20 30 40 50
Global PortHoldings
Ocean Carriers
Port Authorities
Other Private
Share of global port container throughputShare of global terminal ownership
■ Horizontal integration using fixed assets• Gain a foothold in a wide variety of
markets (strategic positioning).• Capture value added activities
linked with inland distribution.• Financial assets.• Managerial expertise.• Gateway access.• Leverage.• Traffic capture.• Global perspective.
Pacific Asia Europe
APM Terminals
Dubai Ports World
Hutchison Port Holdings
Port of Singapore Authority
Eurogate
Stevedoring Services of America
Dedicated Maritime Container TerminalsMajort Port Holdings, 2007
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
Port Holdings at Transpacific Container Ports
Pacific Asia
North American West Coast
AIG (American International Group)
APM (A.P. Moller Group)
DPW (Dubai Ports World)
EVG (Evergreen)
HAN (Hanjin)
HPH (Hutchison Port Holdings)
OOCL (Orient Overseas Container Line)
PSA (Port of Singapore Authority)
SSA (Stevedoring Services of America)
TokaidoYellow SeaRim
Sunan Delta
Pearl River DeltaTaiwan / Fujian
Singapore San Pedro Bay
San Francisco Bay
Puget Sound16 (3)10 (6)
6 (2)
14 (4)5 (3)
8 (3)
9 (6)
4 (3)
8 (6)
Gateways and Hinterland Effect
Efficient Inland Freight DistributionInefficient Inland Freight Distribution
Pacific Asia North American West Coast
SEZ
Corridor
Container Transport Costs from Inland China to US West Coast ($US per TEU)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Land access to port(China)
Port handling (China)
Maritime transport
Port handling (USA)
Land access to finaldestination (USA)
Containers Handled by the Port of Los Angeles, 1995-2006 (in TEU)
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mill
ions
Loaded (inbound) Empty (inbound)
Loaded (outbound) Empty (outbound)
Loaded Ratio (Outbound / Inbound) Empties Ratio (Outbound / Inbound)
Alameda Corridor
Port of Los Angeles / Long Beach, Inland Flows
Marine Term
inal
On-dock rail yards
Near-dock rail yards
Off-dock rail yards
Transloading facility
Warehouse
Transloading facility
Warehouse
Non-local destination
Non-local destination
Non-local destination
Off-dock rail yards
Non-local destination
Non-local destination
Local destination
16%
13%
22%
13%
34%
2%Truck
Rail
Intra-terminal
The “Agile Port” System (Maritime / Rail Container Terminal Cluster)
On-dock rail terminal
Dedicated Rail Corridor
Local & regionaldistribution
Local & regional distribution
Maritime / Land Interface
National raildistribution
Foreland Hinterland
Port Terminal Inland Rail Terminal
Transloading
Miami
Boston
Houston
Halifax
Savannah
PortlandMontreal
Gulfport
Vancouver
Baltimore
Palm Beach
Charleston
New Orleans
Philadelphia
Jacksonville
Hampton Roads
Wilmington (NC)
Wilmington (DE)
Port Everglades
New York/New Jersey
Tacoma
Fraser
Seattle
Oakland
Long BeachLos Angeles
Container Port Traffic and Ownership of Major Rail Lines, 2005
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
Port Traffic in TEU (2005)
Less than 300,000
300,000 to 500,000
500,000 to 1,000,000
1,000,000 to 3,000,000
More than 3,000,000
Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF)
Canadian National (CN)
Canadian Pacific (CP)
CSX Transportation (CSXT)
Ferromex (FNM)
Kansas City Southern (KCS)
Norfolk Southern (NS)
Union Pacific (UP)
Other
Regina
Calgary
Memphis
Chicago
Winnipeg
St LouisKansas City
Minneapolis
Dallas / Fort Worth
Houston
Savannah
Montreal
Vancouver
Charleston
Hampton Roads
New York/New Jersey
Tacoma
Seattle
Oakland
Long BeachLos Angeles
Potential Location of Major Transmodal Rail Facilities:Maritime Gateways and Inland Hubs
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
Maritime Rail Gateway
Transmodal Rail Hub
Conclusion: Improving the North American Maritime / Land Interface
■ Transpacific trade• Substantial rebalancing of the global economy.• Emergence of global production networks.• Imbalanced freight flows.
■ The Maritime / land interface• An interaction between maritime shipping networks, gateways
and their corridors.• Improving the velocity of freight from an intermodal and
transmodal perspective.• The throughput of a gateway must be supported by the
throughput of its corridors (vice-versa).• The introduction of a new generation of containerships (above
10,000 TEU) may force solutions.
The Future of the Maritime / Land Interface: Maritime Shipping Companies taking Control of Inland Distribution?