is LA's Port stranglehold ending?

[eldondre]

Next month, shipping giant AP Moeller-Maersk will make a move that would have been unlikely a decade ago. A line of 6,000-container ships that now goes to Southern California will dock in Seattle instead...For years, the Los Angeles container harbor and its adjacent port in Long Beach had a stranglehold on U.S. imports, serving as the point of entry for goods headed as far as Chicago and Miami. Together, the two handle four out of 10 containers that come to the U.S.

But container volume at Los Angeles was down 6% in 2008 and fell 32% in February from a year earlier. The hub of roughly 42,000 jobs is preparing for possible midyear budget cuts, and many longshoremen are working part-time. Other ports have seen large declines, too.

This drop in volume comes just as ports from Portland, Ore., to British Columbia are rolling out new infrastructure in a bid to grab more of the container business...
Prince Rupert Port in British Columbia was once a site for shipping timber and pulp out of Canada, but it reopened in 2007 to service container vessels from Asia. The port makes the case that with its rail connections, lack of urban congestion and shorter distance from Asia by sea, it shaves a day or two off of transport to places like the Midwest. "We service the heartland of North America," said Don Krusel, president and chief executive of the port. "We're 99 hours to Chicago, 133 hours to Memphis" by train. Mr. Krusel said the port, which handled roughly 180,000 containers last year, will expand its capacity to two million containers by 2014...And major interruptions at the Port of Los Angeles -- including a West Coast lockout of dockworkers in 2002 and a large backup at the port in 2004 -- made companies wary of working exclusively with Los Angeles.

Los Angeles Port's Rivals Make Gains - WSJ.com
and it doesn't even mention cardenas

[phillyaggie]

AFAIK, nobody is laying down new rail lines for 1000s of miles. So the options aren't going to be very huge; ports with good rail connections will continue to thrive, especially if they have a long-established reputation and business connections. LA is just too busy so it's not a bad idea if some of that business is shifted over to other ports. Similarly, New Orleans' business only shifted to Houston after Katrina hit even though Houston Ship Channel is perhaps a bigger port in terms of capacity than New Orleans. Now, that business shift is positioning Dallas as an inland port/transshipment hub for continer traffic with direct rail link to Houston (only 4 hours south). Dallas is also marketing its "inland port" services to LA in order to save them time and hassle. Paperwork and followup for imported containers can be handled at the huge southern Dallas hub from where later on, goods can be shipped onwards by rail or truck.

A lot of LA's air pollution problem is caused by its port-- the huge engines that run the ships aren't regulated by the Clean Air Act, for example; when they have to idle, the diesel engines emit huge amounts of particulates and sulfur oxides, and the Pacific air currents blows it all onto the city.

So if some of those ships move to other ports and don't have to idle as much at any port, overall that's a good thing for air pollution cause anyways.

[eldondre]

AFAIK, nobody is laying down new rail lines for 1000s of miles.

Actually, rail congestion is one of the reasons for the shift. KCS is working a long term plan for their Cardenas to KC line and just built a new line into Houston. UP is double tracking the sunset corrior from LA to El Paso (major sorting yard) and BNSF already double tracked Chicago to LA and has even begun triple tracking some segments and is in the process of shifting traffic away form Cajon pass. In an industry that's been burned by overbuilding before, they tend to be somewhat conservative...plus US tax and regulatory policy isn't friendly to capital intensive businesses.
In the east, CSX is double tracking it's Chicago to Florida route and NS is upgrading Harrisburg to Memphis and New Orleans. they're lookling for government money to build a VA to chicago route that would bypass Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. Sadly, PA doesn't seem to have any big plans such as shortening the route between Philly and Pittsburgh. Philly's one of the few ports served by 3 class I carriers.

Similarly, New Orleans' business only shifted to Houston after Katrina hit even though Houston Ship Channel is perhaps a bigger port in terms of capacity than New Orleans.

Houston was/is one of the most congested rail hubs in the country and until KCS rebuilt a route into Houston, UP had a monopoly on traffic there.

Now, that business shift is positioning Dallas as an inland port/transshipment hub for continer traffic with direct rail link to Houston (only 4 hours south). Dallas is also marketing its "inland port" services to LA in order to save them time and hassle. Paperwork and followup for imported containers can be handled at the huge southern Dallas hub from where later on, goods can be shipped onwards by rail or truck.

interesting, though it really seems to get back to the origins of dallas to begin with, which was a rail hub.

Overall, you're right. It won't kill LA but it will likely dampen growth there for years to come. Bear in mind LA is really and old fashioned port and hasn't been modernized like most of the Asian ports (mostly because of union opposition as I understandit) so theoretically it could handle more traffic.

[phillyaggie]

Dallas doesn't seem to be historically a major rail hub as much as Chicago or Kansas City. Dallas grew on the cattle trade earlier on and then on oil discovery in East Texas. Most of the major oil companies were in Dallas before they moved to Houston and still Exxon is HQ's in Dallas, for example. In early 20th century, Dallas prospered as a retail hub for the Southwest. Not sure how much railroad industry was here but doesn't seem like a lot of it is here right now. BNSF is HQ'd in Ft Worth but that's about it, I think.

Doubling lines is one thing, becase there is land ownership and right of way. Are there entirely new routes being laid down? Ports that have cross-country rail lines might get a doubling of the rail lines, but are new lines being laid to different ports? That's what I meant. There is competitive advantage already to LA if it's got robust cross-country rail connections.

As for the Dallas Logistics Hub coming up in the southern portion of Dallas County (where mostly the poor live):
Dallas Logistics Hub -

[eldondre]

there isn't a need for entirely new routes at this point, there's enough excess ROW out there. Current rail carriers carry double the amount of traffic on half the trackage that they did earlier in the post war period. New tracks are only being laid in straightening out old ones but it IS unlikely new ROW's will ever be laid in this country...well, that's not entirely true as BNSF did acquire new ROW along their transcon in case they ever need to lay a fourth track. Dallas was a major rail center but that was probably because of its status as a cattle center. Chicago is THE rail hub and that was by design. They recognized early one the importance of becoming a rail hub. KC is a secondary hub but growing in importance.

[phillyaggie]

well, thanks to this thread, i'm learning a bit of Dallas' rail history. You're right, it was somewhat of a rail hub in the past for passenger traffic. And I didn't know Amtrak still served Dallas on a long distance train route (the last route I was aware of was one connecting Dallas to Houston but that one stopped in the early 1990s); indeed there is a train connecting Dallas to Chicago...amazingly. I wonder how many people even use that service!

Thanks for the info. Here's some dallas historic rail info:

Museum of the American Railroad - A Brief History of Railroads in Dallas, Texas

[eldondre]

in Texas fashion, that route is protected by a bunch of loudmouths
Amtrak's Texas Eagle train - welcome aboard!

it also runs to LA via a car transfer to LA

[phillyaggie]

who you calling a loudmouth? :P

ok, i don't really identify myself as a true texan, so i'll let it slide. hehe


yeah, i looked up the route on amtrak web site but since it was way off topic to this thread i didn't post it.

[eldondre]

who you calling a loudmouth? :P

ok, i don't really identify myself as a true texan, so i'll let it slide. hehe


yeah, i looked up the route on amtrak web site but since it was way off topic to this thread i didn't post it.

being a loudmouth isn't all bad, world needs loudmouths too

[Dean]

Next month, shipping giant AP Moeller-Maersk will make a move that would have been unlikely a decade ago. A line of 6,000-container ships that now goes to Southern California will dock in Seattle instead..

For clarity, it probably should be noted for some that 6,000-container ships means ships that have an approximate capacity of 6,000 containers and not the number of ships. I'm pretty sure that it's only a part of the business that Maersk provides to the Southern California ports. The story probably originated from PR people associated with the Seattle port.
The PR people for ports, including Philadelphia, generally exaggerate news and selling points for their ports, even sometimes to the point of being disingenuous.
Philadelphia, for example, boasts connections to 3 class-1 railroads adjacent to the main port at Packer Terminal. The truth is that NS never successfully opened the new railyard at Mustin Field. The closest NS terminal is in Morrissville. CP Rail was out of it for a while after Ameriport closed, but now they operate out of the CSX yard. They're still not anywhere close to the volume they had when Ameriport was open.
When the PRPA was making the case for Southport Project, they were touting 500,000 port-related jobs. I don't know how they got that figure. Maybe if a local pizzeria delivers to someone at the port, it's suddenly a port-related job. I don't think the actual new port-related jobs figure will be anywhere near 500,000.
Those are just two examples of the hype that comes out of port PR.

[eldondre]

whatever happened to the NS railyard?
the shift to other ports on the west coast has been gradual so I don't see how the story is false. I didn't take the story to mean there were 6000 ships, just a line of big ships. the shift hasn't happened as suddenly as other ports had hoped, but it is happening. transportation changes are like tectonic plates.

[Dean]

whatever happened to the NS railyard?
the shift to other ports on the west coast has been gradual so I don't see how the story is false. I didn't take the story to mean there were 6000 ships, just a line of big ships. the shift hasn't happened as suddenly as other ports had hoped, but it is happening. transportation changes are like tectonic plates.

I never said the story is false, but I do think the title is a little hyped up and misleading. If a route or rotation of the smaller ships changes ports, it's not necessarily a death knell for the bigger port. The fact is that if a ship spends an extra day waiting for a berth, or there is some other delay or financial incentive, they might just as well call on a different port. You're right that transportation changes occur all the time. I don't think that LA or Long Beach are closing anytime soon.
So far as the NS yard at Mustin Field, it never opened successfully. Originally, NS and CP Rail shared the Ameriport facility, adjacent to CSX. Ameriport was, so far as I know, a part of the CSX property and operated by the DRPA. The new Mustin Field Intermodal Yard was supposed to replace Ameriport, which the DRPA closed. There were 12 union workers at Ameriport. The contract for operating Mustin Field was awarded to a west coast company, Pacific Rail? maybe, which opted to use non-union labor instead of hiring the former Ameriport crew. Those 12 guys from Teamsters 107 effectively prevented trucks from entering the new facility. So, the 16 million dollar Mustin Field rail yard just lies in desuetude. Nobody ever stepped in because, I think, no politician wants to be seen as anti-union.

[ArcticSplash]

I can't really see how Phila ports could increase that much in traffic when half the state of NJ is a port (our only regional competitor), and even upgrading our rail connection to Chicago would be superseded if NJ did the same thing. We couldn't even figure out where to move the produce terminal, much less make room for more port traffic and not have increased rail traffic interfere with the locals.



Wouldn't happen anyway because the port unions are very cantankerous and we have the highest concentration of NIMBYs in the planet here.

[Dean]

I found it strange that state Rep. Bill Keller made such a big noise in the media about the food center not moving into the Navy Yard, where port interests were and with which I agreed, but has been silent about the Mustin Field situation. I don't think there are very many union workers at the food center, if any.
Traffic for the port is out there, but there's a lot of competition. I really like the Philadelphia port and I really hope it can achieve a lot of success. Then again, what do I know? I'm just a poor truckdriver.

[eldondre]

I never said the story is false, but I do think the title is a little hyped up and misleading. If a route or rotation of the smaller ships changes ports, it's not necessarily a death knell for the bigger port.

It, perhaps, hypes the change more than it should but it's not trying to predict the LA ports are dying (though I do think it implies the other ports will geta larger share of growth in the future). Here's another excerpt from the article

No one is predicting the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach will lose their spot as the country's largest port complex by volume -- its proximity to the vast Southern California market is enough to ensure major business for years to come. But "because they were the first there, they were the first target" by West Coast upstarts, said Paul Bingham, an economist at IHS Global Insight.

It's amazing how many jobs the unions have cost Philadelphia over the years.

[ArcticSplash]

I found it strange that state Rep. Bill Keller made such a big noise in the media about the food center not moving into the Navy Yard, where port interests were and with which I agreed, but has been silent about the Mustin Field situation. I don't think there are very many union workers at the food center, if any.
Traffic for the port is out there, but there's a lot of competition. I really like the Philadelphia port and I really hope it can achieve a lot of success. Then again, what do I know? I'm just a poor truckdriver.

It might also have to do with the fact that we have a drawbridge that gets in the way (Tacony) which has rendered all the ports north of it virtually unusable and the river still has to be dredged, though the Betsy fixed that problem further south (but there's still a buncha dormant piers there now).

Out of all the port space we used to have, what's left anymore... 20%? The piers near me in Tacony have all been reclamated now and so have almost all of the ones between here and Kensington.


There's a shipping company that had a building on the pier next to Pennypack On The Delaware that looks like a fire recently gutted it out a few years ago. Curious George I am... I walked through it... a lot of the documents in the building are actually quite intact... I found lots of sea cargo receipts for Hershey going back to the late 70s, punched cards, and stuff going forward as recently as the mid 90s. Looks like the pier must have been still in use up until last decade.



We could re-energize the ports here but we'd need some serious love from Harrisburg to get then to exercise eminent domain power. Otherwise, environmental groups will stop everything. Plus, development funds from the Feds. No private company seems to want to contribute capital to add additional port capacity here, although they would love it if we did have the capacity.

[Dean]

The hot spot is the Southport project. It's an area between the Packer Terminal and the Navy Yard. They say it would double the space that Packer currently has. Southport seems to be a go and supposedly already has commitments from potential users. Dredging is also a go with PRPA bearing all of the costs. Meanwhile, NJ is building a shiny new port in Paulsboro.

[ZARK]

Mayfairmeat wrote; It might also have to do with the fact that we have a drawbridge that gets in the way (Tacony) which has rendered all the ports north of it virtually unusable and the river still has to be dredged, though the Betsy fixed that problem further south (but there's still a buncha dormant piers there now).

As I read this, I started thinking of the port in the area of Richmond and Lehigh ave. What with the hugh rail ROW to that area, it would be ideal for new port facilaties, and not have to contend with the Tacony/Palmyra bridge.

[eldondre]

As I read this, I started thinking of the port in the area of Richmond and Lehigh ave. What with the hugh rail ROW to that area, it would be ideal for new port facilaties, and not have to contend with the Tacony/Palmyra bridge.

I think there are two problems with this. Frist, Philadelphia doesn't think in terms of transportation (meaning, Chicago might be willign to split the bill to rehab this ROW) and second, they'got to revive the southern ports first, I'd think. OTOH, I think Port Richmond is a direct connection to CSX.

[desolate]

I think there are two problems with this. Frist, Philadelphia doesn't think in terms of transportation (meaning, Chicago might be willign to split the bill to rehab this ROW) and second, they'got to revive the southern ports first, I'd think. OTOH, I think Port Richmond is a direct connection to CSX.

It is. There's still an active yard at Port Richmond with moving freight daily down the Lehigh Viaduct coming from Tioga Terminal and the industry between the river and 95 all the way up to Bridesburg.


But, yuo could still convert half to a park.