Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 327–357 | Cite as

Logistical rivalries and port competition for container flows to US markets: Impacts of changes in Canada's logistics system and expansion of the Panama Canal

Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Shipments of container imports are heavily concentrated in a number of ports, which has resulted in pressures on logistics networks. Partly in response to such pressures, several new routes are being developed to gain access to US markets. One involves the port of Prince Rupert; the other is the expansion of the Panama Canal. The purpose of this article is to estimate prospective traffic flows through these logistics channels for container shipments to US markets. An optimization model is developed that accounts for congestion and demand uncertainty. It determines the optimal route, ship size, port and hinterland shipping channels based on cost minimization. Our results show that inter-port competition is very intense. Prince Rupert can become an important rival of US ports and routes and the expansion of the Panama Canal can have similar impacts.

Keywords

container shipping optimization models inter-port competition 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. ACP. (2006) Proposal for the expansion of the Panama Canal. 24 March, http://www.pancanal.com/eng/plan/documentos/propuesta/acp-expansion-proposal.pdf, accessed 18 July 2008.
  2. Allison Padova Economic Division. (2006) Trends in containerization and capacity at Canadian ports. 30 January, http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0575-e.pdf, accessed 6 May 2008.
  3. Asteris, M., Collins, A. and Jones, D. (2009) Container, congestion and the global recession: The case of north-west Europe. Paper presented at International Transport Economics Conference; 15–16 June, Minneapolis, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Army Corps of Engineers. (2007) IWR, Port_DistancesTable_05_11_05.mdb, made available 2007.Google Scholar
  5. Association of American Railroads. (2008) Railways Performance Measures. Performance report, http://www.railroadpm.org/Performance%20Reports, accessed 2 May 2009.Google Scholar
  6. Blonigen, B.A. and Wilson, W.W. (2006) International Trade, Transportation Networks and Port Choice. Report, May, http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0105_1430_2103.pdf, accessed 12 January 2009.
  7. Blonigen, B.A. and Wilson, W.W. (2008) Port efficiency and trade flows. Review of International Economics 16 (1): 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonney, J. (2009) Trade winds. Journal of Commerce, 23 March: 10–13.Google Scholar
  9. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (2007) National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study. Final report, September, http://www.camsys.com/pubs/AAR_RRCapacityStudy.pdf, accessed 29 August 2008.
  10. Christensen Associates. (2008) A study of competition in the U.S. freight railroad industry and analysis of proposals that might enhance competition, Madison, http://www.stb.dot.gov, accessed 20 February 2009.
  11. Fan, L. (forthcoming) Optimization model and risk analysis for global supply chain in container shipments: imports to United States. Unpublished PhD dissertation, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA, in press.Google Scholar
  12. Fourer, R., Gay, D.M. and Kernighan, B.W. (2003) A Modeling Language for Mathematic Programming, 2nd edn. Toronto: Curt Hinrichs.Google Scholar
  13. Hessel, E. (2009) Fixing her port in the storm. Logistics 24 August: 76.Google Scholar
  14. Leachman, R.C. (2008) Port and model allocation of waterborne containerized imports from Asia to the United States. Transportation Research Part E 44: 313–331, http://www.sciencedirect.com, accessed 20 September 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lloyd's List. (2008a) Prince Rupert Port sees rapid increase in box traffic. News, 7 November, p. 4.Google Scholar
  16. Lloyd's List. (2008b) US container volumes slide as recession hits imports. News, 13 November, p. 18.Google Scholar
  17. Lloyd's List. (2009) West side story: A tale of boom and bust. Edition, 763, Australia, 2 April, pp. 8–11.Google Scholar
  18. Luo, M. and Grigalunas, T. (2003) A spatial-economic multimodal transportation simulation model for US coastal container ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 5: 158–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mercator Transport Group. (2005) Forecast of Container Vessel Specifications and Port Calls within San Pedro Bay. Final report, http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/REPORT_SPB_Vessel_Forecast.pdf, accessed 6 June 2008.
  20. NCHRP. (1998) Multimodal Corridor and Capacity Analysis Manual. Washington DC National Academy Press, Report 399.Google Scholar
  21. O’Keefe, D. (1998) Canada's East Coast container ports, do they compete with or complement one another in the race for North American Container Traffic? Proceeding of the Canadian Transport Research Forum, 33rd Annual Conference; 25–28 May 1998, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Woodstock, ON: CTRF/GRTC.Google Scholar
  22. O’Keefe, D. (2003) The Future for Canada-U.S. Container Port Rivalries. Research paper, March, http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/54F0001X/54F0001XIE2003.pdf, accessed 3 January 2008.
  23. O’Kelly, M.E. and Bryan, D.L. (1998) Hub location with flow economies of scale. Transportation Research B 32 (8): 605–616, http://www.sciencedirect.comaccessed 25 January 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Port of Houston Authority. (2008) Maritime operations, Bayport container terminal, http://www.portofhouston.com/maritime/container/bayport/bayport.html, accessed 20 November 2008.
  25. Port of Prince Rupert. (2009) A vision for the future, http://www.rupertport.com/development.htm, accessed 28 Jan 2009.
  26. Port of Prince Rupert. (2008) Cargo traffic steady, despite global economic decline, http://www.rupertport.com/pdf/newsreleases/port%20of%20prince%20rupert%202008%20performance%20nr.pdf, accessed 30 Jan 2009.
  27. Salisbury, M. (2003–2007) Containerized ocean trade. Journal of Commerce, Vol. 4–8, p. 44, 36, 41, 33, 36.Google Scholar
  28. The Tioga Group, Inc. (2007) Maritime Transportation System: Trends and Outlook. Report submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  29. The Tioga Group, Inc. (2008) Containerized Intermodal Goods Movement Assessment: North American Logistics Chain Transportation Issues and Trends. 1st Edition Research Report.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Maritime Administration. (2008) Trade statistics: U.S. waterborne foreign container trades by U.S. custom ports, http://marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/data_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm, accessed 20 June 2008.
  31. Wilson, W.W. and Dahl, B. (2008) Container Shipping: Rail and Ocean Shipping Rates. Fargo, ND, USA: North Dakota State University. Report.Google Scholar
  32. Wilson, W.W. and Dahl, B. (2009) Delay costs in grain shipments on the Mississippi river. Paper presented at International Transport Economics Conference; 15–16 June, Minneapolis, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Wilson, W.W. and Benson, D. (2008) Analysis of Container Flows: World Trade, US Waterborne and Commerce and Rail Shipments in North American Markets. Fargo, ND, USA: North Dakota State University. Report.Google Scholar
  34. Wilson, W.W. and Sarmiento, C. (2008) Container Demand in North American Markets: A Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis. Fargo, ND, USA: North Dakota State University. Report.Google Scholar
  35. Wright, R. (2009a) Slide in trade leaves a glut of capacity. Financial Times 26 May.Google Scholar
  36. Wright, R. (2009b) Monster ships may turn into big liabilities. Financial Times 26 May: 21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transportation & Logistics Program, North Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agribusiness and Applied EconomicsNorth Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA
  3. 3.Transportation & Logistics Program, North Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA

Personalised recommendations