North American Marine Highways (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

65 To succeed, a North American Marine Highway must pos- sess two major characteristics: • It must provide a time/cost tradeoff that is competitive with that of other modes (particularly trucking), and • It must be reliable and as seamless as possible. (1, 2, 3, 11) The most important attributes in a shipper’s choice of mode are preference for remaining with the current service, travel time, and cost. (3, 14) Specific requirements noted in the literature are as follows: • Must think in terms of door-to-door deliveries and con- sider the whole supply chain. (4) The ability of the trans- portation system to provide reliable door-to-door services across continents, countries, and modes of transporta- tion is becoming increasingly important to the private- sector freight industry. (5, 10) Shippers want an integrated transport package. (10, 14) • Service would have to be at least weekly. (4) For domestic 53-foot truck service, second-day service is the lowest pos- sible level. (6) Some studies indicate one-third of shippers want daily service; another one-third want 2–3 times per week. (7) Same-day service is technically impossible and should be left for trucks. Second-day delivery should be the aim of intra-regional coastal service and is possible with both the high-speed and fast ferries. (8) Some (motor) carriers felt that daily frequency would be a requisite in high-volume corridors, while others believed that two- to three-day ser- vice frequency would be adequate, particularly in the early stages of service development. (9) Frequency is a key vari- able to many shippers. (11) Many interviewees indicated that in order to compete effectively with trucks, NAMH operations must offer regularly scheduled service. A min- imum requirement of container shippers was weekly. (5) Frequency of departures has a significant positive effect on the allocation of cargo shipments toward the option pro- viding the greatest frequency. (13) • Fixed-day departure. (10) The result has been a shift away from a focus on speedy transit times to more of a priority placed on cargo integrity, timeliness (not necessarily speed), and reliability. This phenomenon will tend to favor a cost- effective, reliable, NAMH service. (4) • Transit time and frequency of service are key factors. (10, 11, 14) Must minimize dwell time in port. (11) • In some cases, must compete with frequent train service. (4) • In Canada, focus on import cargo. (4) In U.S., focus on domestic cargo. (2, 9) • Consider self-propelled vessels and frequent service to speed up deliveries. (12) • Major customers should be the truckers and intermodal marketing companies. (2) • Being fast is not as critical as being reliable. (2, 13, 14) • There was a strong consensus that a NAMH service fully integrated into the domestic transportation system must be set up for 48-ft and 53-ft trailers and/or containers (2, 9). • Motor carriers tended to be more interested in using their own equipment for a NAMH operation and consequently looked at Ro/Ro trailer vessel operations as being more attractive than Lo/Lo containership operations. (9) • Ground carriers interviewed frequently used domestic rail intermodal service as a benchmark for cost and service com- parisons to a NAMH shipping alternative. (9) • Marine carriers will have to provide marine containers. Motor carriers are generally willing to provide highway trailers if used in a roll-on/roll-off vessel service, but not marine containers, seeing that as the role of the ocean car- rier or perhaps a third-party provider. (9) • Customs clearance was perceived to be more difficult for shipping than for trucking and this perception may be more of a barrier than expected. Efforts must be under- taken to convince the Department of Homeland Security to reduce the advance notification requirements on NAFTA- originating shipments to terms more suitable to their geo- graphic proximity. (10) • Service must be complementary to trucking. (2) A P P E N D I X C Tabulation of Shipper Requirements

• Time-sensitive shippers need good system to track/manage freight. (11) • Service must be as easy to use as trucking. (11) • Late cut-offs and early deliveries will be important to make the NAMH service competitive. (11) One barge company takes exception to two aspects (at least for inland shipments): This company believes that reliabil- ity is a “red herring” and scheduled service is a myth and unnecessary. (15) References For Appendix C 1. Higginson, James K., “Great Lakes Short Sea Shipping and the Domestic Cargo-Carrying Fleet,” Transportation Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, Winter 2007, pp. 38–50. 2. Reeve, J.G., “Markets for Short-Sea Shipping in the United States.” Presented at NSRP Short Sea Shipping Workshop, Orlando, FL, April 19–20, 2007. Available at http://advancedmaritimetechnology. aticorp.org/short-sea-shipping/nsrp-pdmt-short-sea-shipping- workshop-april-19-20-2007-presentations/2A_Reeve_Markets. pdf as of June 30, 2009. 3. Cross Harbor Freight Movement Major Investment Study, New York City Economic Development Corporation, New York, May 2000. Available at http://www.crossharborstudy.com/finalrep.pdf as of July 7, 2009. 4. Frost, J.D., D. Hawking, P. Morin, and R. Hodgson, Short Sea Ship- ping Market Study, Transport Canada, Transportation Develop- ment Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada, September 2005. Available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/innovation/tdc/projects/marine/a/5563.htm as of July 1, 2009. 5. Short-Sea and Coastal Shipping Options Study, Final Report, I-95 Corridor Coalition, Rockville, MD, November 2005. Available at http://advancedmaritimetechnology.aticorp.org/short-sea-shipping/ SSS%20Study%20-%20I95%20Cooridor%20Coalition.pdf as of July 1, 2009. 6. Mottley, R., “SCOOP Promotes Short-Sea Shipping,” American Shipper, Vol. 48, No. 12, December 2006, pp. 78–80. 7. Kruse, B., “Comments on Potential Short Sea Shipping Market for the West Coast.” Presented at NSRP Short Sea Shipping Work- shop, Orlando, FL, April 19–20, 2007. Available at http://advanced maritimetechnology.aticorp.org/short-sea-shipping/nsrp-pdmt- short-sea-shipping-workshop-april-19-20-2007-presentations/2B_ Kruse_Markets.pdf as of July 1, 2009. 8. High Speed Ferry and Coastwise Vessels: Assessment of a New York/ Boston Service, Center for the Commercial Deployment of Trans- portation Technologies, Long Beach, CA, May 2003. Available at http://advancedmaritimetechnology.aticorp.org/short-sea-shipping/ NY_Boston_Final.pdf as of June 30, 2009. 9. Four Corridor Case Studies of Short-Sea Shipping Services: Short- Sea Shipping Business Case Analysis, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., August 15, 2006. Available at http://advancedmaritimetechnology.aticorp.org/ short-sea-shipping/DOT_SSS_final_report_v2_11.pdf as of June 30, 2009. 10. Brooks, M.R., J.R. Hodgson, and J.D. Frost, Short Sea Shipping on the East Coast of North America: An Analysis of Opportunities and Issues, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, March 31, 2006. Avail- able at http://advancedmaritimetechnology.aticorp.org/short- sea-shipping/ShortSeaShipping_dalhousie.pdf as of July 1, 2009. 11. Analysis of the Potential Market for Short Sea Shipping Services over the Ports of Fall River and New Bedford, Massachusetts Depart- ment of Business and Technology and Seaport Advisory Coun- cil, Fairhaven, MA, March 29, 2006. Available at http://advanced maritimetechnology.aticorp.org/short-sea-shipping/fall%20river %20and%20new%20bedford.pdf as of June 30, 2009. 12. Fenimore, B., “Barge Ahead,” Traffic World, July 26, 2004, pp. 32–33. 13. Brooks, M.R. and V. Trifts, “Short Sea Shipping in North America: Understanding the Requirements of Atlantic Canadian Ship- pers,” Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 35, No. 2, April 2008, pp.145–258. 14. Frost, J. and M.A. Roy, Study on Potential Hub-and-Spoke Container Transhipment Operations in Eastern Canada for Marine Movements of Freight (Short Sea Shipping). Transport Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, April 2007. Available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/policy/report/ acf/tp14876/menu.htm as of September 10, 2009. 15. Philip, C., “The Future of Intermodal Transportation in Memphis and the Mid-South Region (Conference).” Presented at Univer- sity of Memphis, Memphis, TN, November 9, 2007. Available at http://cifts.memphis.edu/12007_11-09_Ingram_Barge_Future_of_ Intermodal_Transportation_cep.ppt as of July 1, 2009. 66