Short sea shipping in the US?


#41

Seriously Dude? USD 2000-2500 SAVINGS moving a box from LA to US Midwest inland destination? Do they even know the market rate to move that box door to door? Knock off the nonsense.

Besides, when Trumpolini and McCain get rid of that gnarly Jones Act stuff, it’ll be time for those Goldman Sachs financed Honduran flag inland tows manned by the finest Burmese indentured seamen, managed by Indian supts in Singapore, classed HR and docked in the Dominican Republic to reap some serious offshore income, that, if it’s existence ever comes to light (assuredly by accident), might be voluntarily declared eligible for US repatriation at the new 8% tax rate, or at worst treated as “carried interest” 15% tax rate returns … for the job creators. Or better yet, the income be miraculously be declared a “loss” incurred by serving the “difficult” US market place and all those crushing regulations like those that prohibit the discharge of oily waste upon inland rivers. Atop all that, it will be discovered by trial and error that the Burmese crew has to be fed from time to time, so a US taxpayer subsidy is clearly called for to ensure a container of Chinese made Christmas lights can get to Cincinnati on the cheap.

Of course by then the best jobs for Americans will be those $12/hr big box store positions, and we can all go to a Blackstone hedge fund owned clinic to use our new voucher paid health insurance policy, available across state lines on the old style “mandatory to be medically underwritten” basis - for those that qualify, which definitely isn’t losers, and isn’t anyone over the age of 42 either. (All others need not apply).

Have a nice day.


#42

There is money to be made in projects like this. Making studies for gullible port authorities. So many things wrong with the assumptions I don’t know were to start. Give you a few, 4 days longer ? Shanghai to Chicago via Prince Rupert or Long Beach, 17 days . via Mobile 35 via Savannah the same. Ocean Freight one Container West coast port about 1500 Via East Coast. 2500. Rail cost via WC 1500 EC the same. Longer more expensive don’t have to be a genius to figure that one out.

Main fallacy is the fact that existing gateways are not going to roll over and loose volume. Loosing cargo they will adjust to keep it. New canal locks will take the existing cargo and spread it on fewer larger ships. At best East Coast volumes will pick up 5 % in cargo destined East of the Mississippi that is not transit sensitive, even then railroads serving WC ports would have to let the volume go.

Boats3


#43

[QUOTE=Boats3;194104]There is money to be made in projects like this. Making studies for gullible port authorities. So many things wrong with the assumptions I don’t know were to start. Give you a few, 4 days longer ? Shanghai to Chicago via Prince Rupert or Long Beach, 17 days . via Mobile 35 via Savannah the same. Ocean Freight one Container West coast port about 1500 Via East Coast. 2500. Rail cost via WC 1500 EC the same. Longer more expensive don’t have to be a genius to figure that one out.

Main fallacy is the fact that existing gateways are not going to roll over and loose volume. Loosing cargo they will adjust to keep it. New canal locks will take the existing cargo and spread it on fewer larger ships. At best East Coast volumes will pick up 5 % in cargo destined East of the Mississippi that is not transit sensitive, even then railroads serving WC ports would have to let the volume go.

Boats3[/QUOTE]

The rest of the world is working to get heavy transport off the roads and onto the water, both for [U]environmental[/U] and economical reasons.

Just because something is cheap and “the way we have always done it” doesn’t mean it is the best way.
The negative attitude to anything new or different I detect here doesn’t augment well for the future of US shipping.

“Don’t no god damned foreigners come here and tell us that we don’t have the best (add your choice item) in the world”.


#44

Tell you what, go out to Bentonville AR and tell Wal Mart you are going to take two weeks longer and 1000 dollars more to move boxes in a environmentally friendly way. See how much cargo you lift. Besides, Vessel China to USWC or Canadian port transfer to rail on dock unload inland rail yard then short run truck to the warehouse is about as green as you can move anything. Shortest distances ocean and inland as well as fuel efficient methods. Road transport of containers in the US is limited to near port destinations, majority of container freight moves inland via Rail.

Boats3


#45

[QUOTE=Boats3;194121]Tell you what, go out to Bentonville AR and tell Wal Mart you are going to take two weeks longer and 1000 dollars more to move boxes in a environmentally friendly way. See how much cargo you lift. Besides, Vessel China to USWC or Canadian port transfer to rail on dock unload inland rail yard then short run truck to the warehouse is about as green as you can move anything. Shortest distances ocean and inland as well as fuel efficient methods. Road transport of containers in the US is limited to near port destinations, majority of container freight moves inland via Rail.

Boats3[/QUOTE]

Yes I don’t doubt that you are right, since the US doesn’t give a damn about anything but $$$.

Questions re: the environmentally friendliness of railway transport:
How is the locomotive(s) powered, diesel or electric?
If electric; how is the power generated, Coal, gas or renewables?

Admittedly rail is less pollutive than road transport, even if diesel powered, but far less so than sea transport in terms of ton/miles.

The rest of the world is trying to clean up their act to save the planet, which also includes the US, while the Americans are the most polluting per capita on that same planet and may even become more so with the change of Government.

China is the biggest polluter in real terms, but it’s people pollutes less then half that of each American: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

China is also doing more to reduce pollution then nearly any other country, mainly because it has become such a major domestic problem: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35351597

Conclusion: Short sea shipping is good for the environment, good for mariner’s job prospects and good for maritime business prospect. Not good for Wal-Mart maybe.


#46

Rail transport in the US is a much better system then in Europe. We don’t have the diversity in systems and infrastructure that you have. It is slightly less efficient then short sea shipping should be but you have to remember that all the rail infrastructure already exists for the most part. It’s the fixed cost infrastructure that would be the biggest contributor for both modes. As for the efficiency, or environmental friendliness, the same GE engines that are being put on trains are being put on tugs, with ever increasing strict EPA regulations. I’d love short sea shipping to take hold, but unlike other markets, US operators face too much competition from other modes of transport, all with their own interested parties, that other markets don’t face.


#47

Will let your $$$ comment pass in deference to Norway. I worked for a Norwegian owner 20 plus years and have visited often. It’s a wonderful place. Few Europeans or Scandinavians have any understanding of American infrastructure. Scale of our inland operation very different than Europe. Most are familiar with ports few know anything about the broader supply chain.

One of the things I am involved with for a Asian Owner is carbon emission per ton mile. First Factor is mode of transport, next mileage. Real determining factor is utilization. Some ships move 2500 laden 40s others 5000 emission per ton moved dramatically different. Same with inland US. Rail diesel powered burns X amount of fuel per unit train X number of containers moved . I have never calculated consumption on North bound tows from New Orleans I have seen boats pushing hard against the current. I can’t believe it’s fuel efficient per container moved.

Point of my Origional reply, local governments in the US are clamoring for money to improve infrastructure “to be ready for big ships”. Fact is big container ships are not going to call every port and overall opportunity for service providers, pilots tugs longshoremen everybody involved is going to see reduced opportunity . Winners will be big box stores and a few surviving mega ship owners.

Boats3


#48

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;194131]Rail transport in the US is a much better system then in Europe. We don’t have the diversity in systems and infrastructure that you have. It is slightly less efficient then short sea shipping should be but you have to remember that all the rail infrastructure already exists for the most part. It’s the fixed cost infrastructure that would be the biggest contributor for both modes. As for the efficiency, or environmental friendliness, the same GE engines that are being put on trains are being put on tugs, with ever increasing strict EPA regulations. I’d love short sea shipping to take hold, but unlike other markets, US operators face too much competition from other modes of transport, all with their own interested parties, that other markets don’t face.[/QUOTE]

True, there are problem with different rail system in Europe at the moment.
In mainland Europe the track gauge is already of same standard, except in the former Soviet states and in Spain/Portugal, but the problem is different power standards (Trains in Europe are largely electrified) and most of all the signalling systems being different. The High Speed rail network now being rapidly developed will have a common European standard, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Europe

The rail system in North America is indeed extensive, but with many and diverse operators, which may complicate integration according to this Article: https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/north_american_intermodal_rail.html

In Europe the main Container Ports are served by a mixture of Rail, Road, River and Short Sea services.
Many of the Short Sea vessels are also able to use the navigable rivers and canals.

Using Sea/River ships enable the same vessels to operate in open waters and on rivers/canals, rather than “rafts of barges” being push by a single tug. This reduce the problems on fast flowing rivers and eliminating the need for transhipment for containers destined to inland ports.

Fact is big container ships are not going to call every port and overall opportunity for service providers, pilots tugs longshoremen everybody involved is going to see reduced opportunity . Winners will be big box stores and a few surviving mega ship owners.

Yes you are right, it is VERY unlikely that the new Mega ships (20000+ TEUs)will call at multiple ports on the North American continent. A much more likely scenario is two or three Mega ports on each coast, (or on the Bahamas or Cuba and WC Mexico) with transshipment from there by feeder ships, rail and road to smaller ports and inland destinations)
If the environmental impact gets to carry any weight in the planning, short sea shipping will be a part of this future.

China is already bypassing the US when it comes to investment in “green” technology and development, not only at home but worldwide: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/china-takes-global-lead-in-clean-energy-report/3420180.html

They are also way ahead in high speed rail and low emission shipping development. If you don’t want to be left behind it is time to look at a better way to handle transportation at home.


#49

The US doesn’t care about being left behind in 10 years if there’s money to be made today.

In the meantime regular folk watch opportunity slipping away and feel like theyre caught in a vise crushing them.

That’s the way it is Ombugge, and no facts, no truth, no lecturing or “liberalsplaining” is going to change it.

There is a huge propaganda industry wound into US politics that works to keep it that way for the benefit of those that want it that way, and use the pressure on the citizenry to advantage. Yeah ! the crowds eat - it - up !!!

The political, and ultimately policy, discussions in the US are so bad now that it is as if the Chief calls up the bridge in mid passage and says,"Hey Skipper, the stern tube seal done blown out and we’re flooding. Do us all a solid and when you can ring up SBE so we can inflate the backup and figger out a plan before the bilge pump motor goes under… ". To which the Captain replies, “Sounds like fake news to me…” And hangs up.

The depth of the effect is inexplicable in general, and particularly to Europeans, especially Norwegians, who for the taxes they pay, have a government that shares the cake pretty well for the benefit of assorted fjord and city dwellers such as yourself.

So take those because it’s environmentally friendly theories of coastwise shipping in the US and stick 'em where that liberal environmental sunshine doesn’t shine. Ain’t gonna happen this side of The Revelation.


#50

Can I have an order of Freedom Fries with that?


#51

Ain’t gonna happen this side of The Revelation.

Should that read “Revolution”??


#52

Boats3


#53

The whole train ocean containers too

Boats3


#54

Inland barge transport is big business in Europe, mostly by self-propelled barges of a large variety of types: http://www.inlandnavigation.eu/media/18267/Vessels.jpg

There are a push to switch to LNG as fuel for inland barges in Europe: http://www.inlandnavigation.eu/news/innovation/lng-as-fuel-and-cargo-for-inland-navigation/

The switch to LNG as fuel is well underway: http://www.inlandnavigation.eu/news/innovation/launch-of-first-dutch-lng-refit-inland-container-vessel/

Incl. for barges to carry other types of fuel: http://www.inlandnavigation.eu/news/innovation/clean-ships/

And it looks like there is an interest in learning from the Europeans even in the US: http://www.portvision.com/news-events/press-releases-news/container-on-barge-comes-of-age

Want to know more about European Inland Transport?: http://www.inlandnavigation.eu/home/


#55

Shipping by train is a lot cheaper than truck for high volume shippers. Low volume shippers pay train freight rates that usually exceed truck rates, often by double or triple.
It’s easy to ship by truck, truck common carriers, and thousands of truck brokers are anxious to give you competitive quotes. The railroads don’t even want to talk to low volume shippers. There are very few rail freight brokers, and they do not want small volume customers either.

The problem with short sea shipping is the high longshore handling costs. Those make trucking cheaper than short sea shipping.


#56

Here is the European definition of Short Sea Shipping: http://www.shortsea.info/definition.html

Maybe more interesting for a future US Short Sea market is the Short Sea/River trade, which is well developed in Europe and serve ports along the coast as well as river ports and the main inland waterways: http://www.shortsea.info/more-informations-sea-river-shipping.html

Container Feeder service from the main hubs to ports within and outside continental Europe, such as UK, Ireland Norway, Iceland and North Africa is also well developed. Rotterdam Port is a good example: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/connections-logistics/liner-services/short-sea-shipping-in-europe

Well maybe after the Trump “Revolution” it will be possible to develop something like this in the US??


#57

[QUOTE=tugsailor;194163]The problem with short sea shipping is the high longshore handling costs. Those make trucking cheaper than short sea shipping.[/QUOTE]

Yes I agree that the present way cargo are handled in US ports make Short Sea Shipping very difficult to implement. Inbuilt resistance to changes are well known.

Union resistance to changes “killed” UK ports back in the 1960/70s. It became cheaper to ship goods to Continental ports and truck them to the UK by Ro/Ro ferries and the Chunnel then to have ships delayed for days/weeks due to strikes in UK ports.

Is that what is about to happen to US ports as well?: https://www.flexport.com/blog/port-automation-oakland-rotterdam/


#58

this subject has been discussed several times before in the forum and while the concept of coastwise shipping of containers seems like it would be good for traffic congestion in the major road corridors there are too many other negatives to the idea namely being:

  1. unless any ship carrying these cargoes is very fast, the transit times for the cargoes to the final destinations would be longer than if transported only by road or possibly a rail/road combination
  2. harbor taxes and fees that would not otherwise need to be added to the costs
  3. longshore union contracts which we know are exorbitantly costly
  4. the ships need to be US built thus new construction requiring financing with title XI support
  5. double or even triple handling of the boxes before they finally get delivered
  6. trucks still required to take boxes from and to terminals further congesting ports and the road connections in the cities which the whole idea is supposed to fix
  7. need to build or expand existing container terminals to handle this traffic and the added costs of that
  8. the need for tracking cargoes and the potential for boxes to become lost or seriously delayed in transit

frankly, the simplest fix to freeway congestion in and around the major cities caused by commercial trucks transporting cargo between consigners and consignees is best helped by mandating that no trucks use the freeways during peak traffic periods which in most cases is during the daylight hours. All parties would be far better served in the semi trucks with their trailers only move through cities late at night through the very early morning.

now for the concept of using feederships to move boxes from hubs out to smaller ports, most of the same negatives also apply plus if the hubs are foreign based then the feederships would not be US vessels and there goes any mew jobs for us Americans here. I would also think that most shipping companies would rather eat one very big port charge than lots of little charges and let the buyers worry about the highway congestion situation. Simply no incentive for them nor any benefit to the US maritime if all feederships are foreign flagged.


#59

[QUOTE=ombugge;194159]Should that read “Revolution”??[/QUOTE]

No. The Revelation at the end of time.

Because US business will take that long to put ANYTHING in place that is intended to be “environmentally friendly” that costs one cent before it is somehow required by law.

And given the state of US politics, it will take that long to have any such policy or law in place.

And given the ability in the US to make multimillion dollar political campaign influencing “contributions” without disclosing the donor base, as well as the new methods to foster misinformation, disinformation, misdirection, deception and just flat out lie in order to influence US politics … well, no one is going to produce any “environmental” measures that add cost to the process. Man, that pussy environmental stuff is the new Communism.

Party’s over dude. Facts don’t matter here anymore. Deal done. Pack your bags because if you’re gonna insist on beating that environmental drum in the US nowadays, you’ll be dealt with like Sophie Scholl or an Edelweiss Pirate kid in 1944 Cologne.

Now for all the horse feathers and variants, we done beat this topic like friggin’ dead because in the US road / rail combo smokes water for basically all inland moves. Boats3 explained it and it’s the truth. I did too, abt 3 months ago same thread.

Give it up Ombugge. Ain’t gonna happen until road diesel costs about $18 a liter, and we’ll just invade someplace and take the oil before it gets that high. And anyone at MARAD pushing a higher cost alternative will be made to walk the plank. It’ll fit the pattern.

Sorry state of affairs, and perhaps off a tad, but it is an accurate enough outline.


#60

Now for all the horse feathers and variants, we done beat this topic like friggin’ dead because in the US road / rail combo smokes water for basically all inland moves. Boats3 explained it and it’s the truth. I did too, abt 3 months ago same thread
.

Dear Mrs. +A465
We regret to inform you of the loss of your loved one +A465B. He went far too soon. He dared to engage a large vortex of logical fallacy but got too near the event horizon and was sucked in. He engaged with logic, facts, nuanced reasoning but was met with only pointless droning prolixity and hyperlinks. Some might say it was a mistake to speak reasonably even in the face of a supercilious font of blather but is it ever a mistake to fight the good fight? I think not. Please accept this ceremonial monkey fist with sincere thanks from a grateful forum.