Transcript International Workshop on New Generation Port Cities and Global Supply... The University of Hong Kong, 12-14 December 2005

International Workshop on New Generation Port Cities and Global Supply Chains
The University of Hong Kong, 12-14 December 2005
New Port-Hinterland Relationships:
Experiences from North America
Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Hofstra University, New York
Email: [email protected]
Paper available at:
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue
Integration Forces Shaping Hinterlands
Geographical Integration
Functional Integration
Spatial fragmentation of production and
Logistics & SCM. Integration between
consumption. Exploitation of comparative maritime and inland transport systems.
advantages.
Physical Flows
S
M
D
1
2
Supplying
Manufacturing
Distribution
S
M
D
3
Origin / Destination Relationships
Supply / Demand Relationships
S
D
1
S
2
M
D
M
3
Global Production Networks
Information Flows
A “New” Geography of Port Hinterlands: The Three
Hinterlands of Port Regionalization
■ Phase of port regionalization
• Expansion of the hinterland through inland freight transportation
strategies.
• Port development at a higher geographical scale.
■ Macro-economic hinterland
• Which factors shape transport demand?
■ Physical hinterland
• What is the transport supply from a modal and intermodal
perspective?
■ Logistical hinterland
• How flows are organized considering the macro-economic and
physical hinterlands?
The New Port Hinterlands: The “Regionalized Port”
Interest rates, exchange rates, prices, savings,
production, debt
Consumption
Production
Terminal / DC
Link (mode)
Trade
Balanced flows
Imbalanced flows
Types of Hinterland
Macro-economic
Physical
Logistical
Concept
Transport demand
Transport supply
Flows
Elements
Logistical sites
(production and
consumption) as part
of GPNs
Transport links and
terminals
Mode, Timing,
punctuality and
frequency of services
Challenge
International division
of production and
consumption
Additional capacity
(modal and
intermodal)
Supply chain
management
The New Port Hinterlands
■ Macro-economic port regionalization in North America
• Tremendous growth in transport demand.
• Shifting comparative advantages; less production but more
consumption.
• De-industrialization, relocation and re-industrialization:
• The automotive industry is collapsing (GM, Ford, Delphi, etc).
• Platform companies; emerging organizational/logistical structure.
• Artificially induced demand; financial leverage; asset inflation
and debt.
The “Perpetual Motion” Machine: The Real Dynamics
behind the World’s Most Significant Trade Relationship
USD
Interest Rates
Borrowing
$ for goods
Unemployment
Goods
Investment
Bonds (IOUs)
Asset Inflation
Debt
United States
Reserves
$ for bonds
USD
China
World’s 10 Largest Exporters and Importers, 2004
Belgium
Imports
Exports
Canada
United Kingdom
Italy
Netherlands
France
Japan
China
United States
Germany
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade Routes,
2000-2004 (in million TEUs)
2004
11.8
2003
10.2
2002
8.8
2001
0
3.3
5
10
4.9
6.1
5.9
4.5
5.6
7.3
3.9
3.9
5.6
8.4
4.1
7.2
2000
4.3
3.6
15
4.2
4.0
1.8 3.0
Asia-USA
USA-Asia
Asia-Europe
Europe-Asia
USA-Europe
Europe-USA
1.7 2.9
1.5 2.6
2.7
3.6
2.2 2.9
20
25
30
35
The Physical Hinterland
■ Physical port regionalization in North America
•
•
•
•
Capacity demands from long distance trade.
Port ranges; lateral corridors of port competition / cooperation.
Gateways; logistical platforms.
Inland freight corridors.
Traffic at the 50 Largest Container Ports, 2003
Tacoma
Los Angeles
Hampton Roads
New York/New Jersey
Oakland
Charleston
Long Beach
Jeddah
San Juan
Dubai
Salalah Nhava Sheva
Colombo
Less than 2 million TEU
2 to 4 million TEU
4 to 7 million TEU
7 to 10 million TEU
Melbourne
More than 10 million TEU
Europe
Pacific Asia
Laem Chabang
Hong Kong
Port Kalang
Tanjung Pelepas
Singapore
Rotterdam
Hamburg
Tianjin
Dalian
Quingdao
Felixstowe
Antwerp
LeHavre
Guangzhou
ShenzhenXiamen
Keelung
Kaohsiung
Tanjung Priok
NingboShanghai
Busan
Osaka
Nagoya
Kobe
Tokyo
Genoa
Barcelona
Manila
Tanjung Perak
Valencia
Algeciras
Gioia Tauro
Piraeus
Traffic at Major North American Container Ports, 2003
St. John's
Vancouver
Fraser
Tacoma
Everett
Seattle
Montreal
Portland
Halifax
Saint John
Portland(ME)
Minneapolis
Boston
Albany
New York/New Jersey
Chicago
Salt Lake City
Oakland
Toronto
Baltimore
Wilmington Philadelphia
San Francisco
Kansas CIty
Richmond(VA)
TEU (2003)
Less than 100,000
100,000 to 300,000
Hueneme
Long Beach
Hampton Roads
Wilmington(NC)
Charleston
Savannah
San Diego
Los Angeles Ensenada
300,000 to 1 million
1 million to 2 million
El Paso
GulfportMobile
New Orleans
Freeport Lake Charles
Houston
Fernandina
Jacksonville
More than 2 million
Canaveral
Tampa
Miami
Manatee
Palm Beach
Port Everglades
San Juan
Mazatlan
Tampico
Altamira
Manzanillo
Veracruz
Lazaro Cardenas
Salina Cruz
ProgresoPuerto Morelos
Ponce
Millions
Cargo Handled by the Top 5 US Container Ports, 19842004 (in TEUs)
40
35
Deconcentration
Regionalization
30
58%
56%
54%
New York/New Jersey
25
52%
Charleston
Oakland
50%
20
Los Angeles
Long Beach
15
48%
Total
Top 5 share
10
46%
5
44%
0
42%
84
9
1
86
9
1
88
9
1
90
9
1
92
9
1
94
9
1
96
9
1
98
9
1
00
0
2
02
0
2
04
0
2
Major Modal US Gateways, 2003
Land Gateways
Port of BlainePort of Seattle
Seattle-Tacoma International
Exports Port Gateways
Exports
Imports
Imports
$54 billion
Air Gateways
Exports
Imports
$69 billion
$51 billion
Port of Sweetgrass
Port of Pembina
Port of Tacoma
Port of Champlain-Rouses Pt.
Port of Portland
Port of Alexandria Bay
Boston Logan Airport
Port of HuronJFK International Airport
Port of New York
Port of Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Chicago
Cleveland
Port of Detroit
Philadelphia International AirportNewark
San Francisco International Airpor
Port of Philadelphia
Port of Oakland
Port of Baltimore
Port of Norfolk Harbor
Los Angeles International Airport
Port of Otay Mesa Station
Port of Calexico-East
Port of Los Angeles
Port of Nogales
Atlanta
Port of El Paso
Dallas-Fort Worth
Port of Charleston
Port of Long Beach
New Orleans
Port of Morgan City
Port of Laredo
Port of Savannah
Port of Jacksonville
Port of Beaumont Port of New Orleans
Port of Houston
Miami International Airport,
Port of Corpus Christi
Port of Brownsville-Cameron
Port of Hidalgo
Port of Port EvergladesPort of Miami
The Three Main Gateways of North America
Gateway
System
Gateways
Total
Imports / Exports
share (%) ($ billions) 2003
Southern
California
Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long
Beach, Los Angeles International
Airport, Otay Mesa (Port of Entry)
15.2
226.5
74.8
New York /
New Jersey
JFK International Airport, Port of
New York / New Jersey
10.7
142.2
70.9
Detroit
Detroit (Port of Entry), Huron (Port
of Entry)
8.3
86.9
77.2
Trucking Corridors and Major Metropolitan Freight
Centers (more than 3,000 trucks per day)
Calgary
Vancouver
Seattle
Halifax
Portland
Montreal
Minneapolis
Toronto
Boston
Detroit
Chicago
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Baltim ore
San Francisco
Denver
Cincinnati
Kansas City
St. Louis
Charlotte
Los Angeles
San Diego
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Atlanta
Dallas
Houston
New Orleans
Tampa
Miami
Major Road Traffic Bottlenecks
Number of North American Ports by Channel Depth (feet)
26 - 30
31 - 35
36 - 40
41 - 45
46 - 50
51 - 55
56 - 60
61 - 65
66 - 75
Large
Medium
Small
71 - 75
Above 76
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
The Logistical Hinterland
■ Logistical port regionalization in North America
• Empty containers repositioning; coping with imbalances.
• Modal shift; coping with congestion and costs.
• Corridor flows; coping with the existing spatial structure along the
Boston – Washington corridor.
The Logistical Hinterland
■ Causes of the empty containers problem
• Global trade imbalances:
• A worsening of these imbalances in the US.
• Imbalances above 8.6 million TEU per year.
• 150,000 TEU per week.
• Repositioning costs:
• From surplus to deficit areas.
• East Coast to Asia: about $1,200 per TEU (2004).
• Manufacturing and leasing costs:
• Comparative differences.
• Used to be about $1,300 per TEU (2004).
• Recent increase to about $2,000 per TEU.
Container Repositioning Scales
Repositioning Costs
High imbalance
Container manufacturing cost
Low imbalance
Reshuffling
Storage depots
Gateways as reverse
logistics centers
Repositioning Distance (TEU – KM)
Containers Handled by the Port of New York, 2001-2004
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
Empty TEUs
Loaded TEUs
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
The Logistical Hinterland
■ Inertia in modal shift
• Does not occur as fast as expected.
• Transport economics hint at a gradual process.
• Reasons for inertia:
• Accumulated investments / stakes in modes and terminals.
• Management preferences.
• Proven reliability.
■ North American hinterlands and modal shift
• Particularly takes place at the fringe.
• A port competition through regional modal cooperation.
Principles of Modal Shift
Modal Share (A/B)
Inertia
Shift
Time
Maturity
Costs of Shipping a 40 foot Container to New York:
Towards a $100 per Barrel Logistics?
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
From Hong Kong
From Mexico
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
Barrel at $30
Barrel at $60
Barrel at $100
Some Short Sea Shipping Systems in North America
East Coast
Port Inland Distribution Network (New York, Boston, Albany).
Columbia Coastal; Several East Coast ports linked, new Philadelphia –
Baltimore container barge service.
Great Lakes
Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry. Rochester-Toronto Fast Ferry.
Gulf Coast
Teco Ocean Shipping; bulk commodities.
Osprey Lines; container-on-barge services in Texas, Mississippi River
service (Baton Rouge to New Orleans).
West Coast
Totem Ocean Trailer Express (Ro/Ro), Horizon Lines and Lynden
Transport (Alaska and Washington).
The Boston / Washington Port Hinterland
Albany Albany
Hanover
Virginia Inland Port
Reading
Springfield
East Hartford
WilmingtonCamdenCamden
New York / New JerseyBridgeport
Worcester
Framingham
Boston
Davisville
PIDN Barge Ports Rail Service Status
Active
Active
Study
Study
PIDN Rail Hub
30
60
120
180
Kilometers
240
Active
Rail / Road Terminal
Study
Study
Interstate
§
0
Barge Service Status
Active
Conclusion
■ What’s next for North American hinterlands?
• Anticipated growth of freight flows:
• Both in tons and tons-km.
• Additional demands on the capacity of modes and terminals to handle
them.
• Unlikely to take place.
• Imbalanced freight flows:
• Disequilibrium in the division of labor, trade, production and consumption.
• Short/medium term: additional pressures to manage the disequilibrium
(e.g. empties).
• Long term: rebalancing the flows and the hinterlands.
• Regionalization of hinterlands:
• Ports adapting to the freight flows reality.
• Attempt at re-balancing by offering a wider hinterland range.
The Northern East-West Freight Corridor
Ru
s
Haparanda/Tornio
Narvik
si
5,600 km
a
Halifax 8 Days
1 Day
600 km
0.3 Day
Narvik 0.6 Day Tornio
970 km
1 Day
9,870 km
1 Day Vainikkala
8.2 Days
Vostochny
Vostochny
Freight Transport Sequence
Finland
Oulu
Sweden
Vainikkala
St. Petersburg
Harbin
Lianyungang
Beijing
Scandinavian Segment
Zabaykalsk
Lanzhou
Canada
Ulaanbaatar
Arctic Bridge
Irkutsk
China
Mongolia
Northern Sea Route
Northwest Passage
Russia
Urumqi
Novosibirsk
Druzhba
Lokot
Astana
New York
Boston
Yekaterinburg
Presnogorkovka
Kazakhstan
Perm'
Archangel'sk
Haparanda/Tornio
Halifax
Oulu
Vologda
Vainikkala
St. Petersburg
Moscow
Transatlantic Segment
Rail Main Trunk (Broad Gauge)
Port
Rail Main Trunk (Standard Gauge)
Rotterdam
Gauge Change
Rail Terminal
Azimuthal Equidistant Polar Projection
Brest
Rail Connector (Broad Gauge)
Rail Connector (Standard Gauge)