the great lakes and st. lawrence · 2013. 3. 25. · the great lakes and st. lawrence seaway...
TRANSCRIPT
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway Example: Purpose of Study
“To Assess New Cargoes in Relation to Both Shippers Demand Requirements and the Potential of Carriers to Meet those Requirements.”
Key Issues: – Competitive Environment – Potential Cargo Markets – Technology Options – Vessel Operations
INLAND NAV COP WORKSHOP September 19, 2007 2
l la.ntlt Ocnn
- High Scenario
200 -£-Low Scenario
~TEMS Scenario
c: ~ 180 +---------------------------------------~~----~~------~~~--------------------~ c: 0..... .... CIS
~ 0..
~ 170 +---------------------~~~~~~~------------------------------------------------~
Population Growth 2010 to 2050: 18°/ o (0.42/per year) 150 +-------~------~----~------~------~-------r------~------~------~------r-----~
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
- High Scen ario
110 +-----1 _._,Low Scen ario
i ~Terns Scenario.
0
] 100 +-------------------------------------------~~~~--~~--------------------------~ t:......._., c ~ 90 +-------------------------~~~~~------------------------------------------------1 ]~
Employment Growth 2010 to 2050: 38°/ o (0.82/per year)
70 +-------r------,------~-------r------~------~------r------,------~-------r------~
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
GLSLS Area Gross Domestic Product Forecast
-
18 ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
- High Scenario
14 +-------l _._.Low Scenario
~Terns Scenario ~ 12 +---~================L-----------------~~--------~~~~--------------------~ 0 0 gN 10 +-----------------------------~~--.-~--------~--~~------------------------~ c 0
=·s 8 +-----------------~~~~~-4~------------------------------------------------~ .5 -
4 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
2 t-------------------------~==================================~ GDP Growth 2010 to 2050: 103°/ o (1.78/per year)
o +-----~----~----~----~---=~====~====~====~~====~====~==~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
1500
U.S. Exports and Imports (1950-2000)
2000 +----------------------------------------------1r-~
• Ex ports (includes reex ports )
• Imports
1ooo -o-Ex ports & Imports
0 -+--
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
U.S. Exports & Imports by International Region (1950-2000)
II700
600 • Canada
500 • Latin America
-o-Europe 400
• Asia 300
Africa)I(
200 • Other
100
0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Trade is an Increasing Component of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
• 1950 less than 10% of GDP was from trade
• 2050 more than 50% of GDP will be from trade
“Globalization is radically changing the economy”
INLAND NAV COP WORKSHOP September 19, 2007 10
New Economy Businesses
1. Computer Industry 2. Biotech Industry 3. Telecommunications Industry 4. Medical/Pharmaceutical Industry 5. Electronics/Robotic Industry 6. Chemical/Oil related products-plastics 7. Metallurgical Products 8. Industrial/Business Processes
Common Characteristics • High Value Added • Just-In Time • Containerized/Palletized Loads
INLAND NAV COP WORKSHOP September 19, 2007 II
45
_40 fl)
:::» w 35 1
s:::: 0 30
~ 25 (.)
:E 20 ca...
115...
C1)
s:::: ca 10-s:::: 0
5(.)
0
0
United States (1980-2005)
y = 5.3316x- 20.896
R2 = 0.9837
2 4 6 8
GOP (Trilli on of 2000 USO)
10
•
12
Canada (1980-2003)
y =7.6642x - 2.559
R2 =0.9778
0.2 0.4 0.6
GOP (Trillion of 2000 USO)
•
0.8
-rJ)
;:::>
14 ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
12 +-----1 - High Scenario
..._.Low Scenario
~ 10 ~Terns Scenario
~ • +-----------------------------------~~--~~~--------~~==~------------------~
2+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Canadian Container Growth 2010 to 2050: 133°/o (2.14/per year)
o t---~----~----~====~==~====~====~==~====~====~==~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
180 ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
160 +---~--------------t---------------------------------------------~------~ - H igh Scenario
..._Low Scenari o
~Terns Sc enario
c:.....-(.) ~ "'"' ~ 80
E-< ... vc: -~
60 .... c: 0 u 40
20
US Container Traffic Growth 2010 to 2050: 177°/ o (2.52/per year) 0
2000 2005 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
GR£Dji.AND (DENJ
ASIARUSSIA
CJ GLSLS Study AIM
ec..r.m OMdfng u.. For 'Swt"CJ - "WNt Couf Potft• end 'P.,_•toGLSLS R ....
Infrastructure Constraints: The Evolution of the Container Ship
Second Generation
= - ----------...-~--------Third Generation
1970 - Present 1, 000 Containers 25' - 30' Draft
1975 - Present 2,000 Containers 30' - 35' Draft
1985 - Present 3 ,500 - 4,400 Containers 38' - -44' Draft
1988 - Present 4,400 - 5,500·ContafnefS 41'- 45' Draft
1996- Present >6,000 Containers 42' - 47' Draft
2000 - Present >9000 Containers 45' - so· Draft
Ma)O< Highway Congestion Areas by 2020. These will Increase by 50% by 2050.
('TEMS Fottcast)
us Department of TransportationFE!!leral f-tghvr.Jy Adminislratial Office of Freight Management and Operations Frei!tltAnalysis Framework
National Highway System Estimated Peak Period Congestion
(2020)
NHS Highways --Below Capacity
AppJ:<>achint; Capacity
- Exceeding Cap1.city
Norlh American Rail System : Critical Congestion Ateas.
c " +-----:-:1~ ~ ~ "'+---+--+-__..;;; ~
~ "'+---+---11--+---t-.....
fin d Mi~si~sippi
Yards
would find E astern mar ke ts
Salt Lake City Denver Phoenix Twin Cities Kansas Dallas-Ft. Worth Chicago St. Louis Memphis New Orleans Detroit
CoiOOlbus Atlanta Buffalo Pittsburgh
West Coast Ports East Coast Ports
Seattle Oakland New York Baltimore Miami 73
1330 1265 1018 1780 1675 2076 1507 742 372 2458 2334 2401 1666 2041 1930 1203 1115 1796 1868 1803 1621 1194 1071 1474 2194 1803 1434 1580 1390 1415 2066 2130 2019 793 704 1392 2117 2053 1828 955 832 1226 2390 2087 1795 1106 917 1053 2721 2272 1903 1314 1124 894 2359 2396 2285 613 2420 2458 2347 462 2428 2453 2252 535 2668 2474 2225 871 2616 2653 2542 398 2544 2582 2443 370
Eastern IUilroads n eed 'West e1·u railroad
maximum ra il hauls a1·e only jus t compe titive
lntumedia te mar k ets are too sh ort to be
Vancouver Prince Rupert Halifax Montreal Twin Cities Chicago St. Louis Memphis New Orleans Toronto Detroit Toledo Buffalo
1809 2192 2209 2592 2260 2797 2532 3070 2863 3428
1865 1255 1455 846 1648 1135 1786 1310 1994 1631
2738 3121 2501 2884 2463 2846 2758 3141
861 338 1084 561 1222 617 923 397
Future Infrastructure Needs
• AIR: The Midwest and Northeast U.S. needs to develop and maintain extensive express air services.
• TRUCK: With respect to the trucking industry, road improvements are needed to improve truckload movement times due to the rapid growth of auto traffic and highway congestion.
• RAIL: For rail, significant investments to improve infrastructure for intermodal growth has been critical to improve the flow of traffic in the Midwest.
• WATER: This is one of the few transport modes in the Midwest that currently has capacity to spare; both the Mississippi/Ohio River and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway systems. Infrastructure is needed for this mode to develop an intermodal capability.
INLAND NAV COP WORKSHOP September 19, 2007 23
Vessel Type Vessel Configuration Cost per Transit Days, Halifax to FEU-Mile Chica o
COB 159-FEU Ro/Ro $0.21 8 1/2 days stream lined, or 310-FEU Lo/Lo $0.11 11 d standard
SMALL SHIP 90-FEU Ro/Ro 20-kts $0.45 5 1/2 days
175-FEU Lo/Lo 20-kts $0.23
LARGE SHIP 342-FEU Ro/Ro 20-kts $0.23 5 1/2 days
665-FEU Lo/Lo 20-kts $0.12
PACSCAT 105-FEU Ro/Ro 20-kts $0.71 5 1/2 days 105-FEU Ro/Ro 40-kts $1.26 3 1/2 da
FAST FERRY 47-FEU Ro/Ro 20-kts $1.17 5 1/2 days 47-FEU Ro/Ro 40-kts $2.03 3 1/2 d
RAILRAIL 100-FEU Conv Train - $0.36 3d3 days
TRUCK 1 FEU Single Driver $1.75 2 3/4 days
INLAND NAV COP WORKSHOP September 19, 2007 25
LOCAL TRUCKING
INLAND PORT
WATER RAIL SHUTTLE
SEAPORT
U.S. Originated Tonnage by Commodity Category For Surface Modes of Transportation
Truck: 98.8%
Containerizable
D INTERMODAL . RAIL D TRUCK
80,000,000 +------------------------------
~Uncongested Mod Growth 1/)
~ 60,000,000 +----------------- ---=~~,._:;:________ I "" Congested Low Growth
u.
- Congested Mod Growth
- Congested Hi Growth
40,000,000 +------
30,000,000 +----.---...------.---~-----r----.------.----,,----..----..--------4
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
Year
4 .5%
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
~
~
~ /
~ ~/
----:::: ~Congested- Rail
- Congested- Water
1 ~ Uncongested- Rail
~Uncongested- Water
0.0% 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
Ship Modal Shifts ere evenly Belenc:ed
Most PACSCAT shift c:omes from Truc:k
Most COB shift c:omes from Rail
COB PAC SCAT
UNCONGESTED- MIDRANGE GROWTH 2010
654 612 644,170 823,554 1,441,748 1,934,960 286 565 368 178 634 343 845 224 127 231 159 302 286 634 388 477
GLSLS Forecast Loaded FEU'sSummary
644 170 882 643 2 134 607 3 183 636 286,565 373,180 762,729 1,174,656 127 231 166 196 3 7 4 61 0 557 768
LOW AND HIGH GROWTH SENSITI2005
VITIES for
2010 CONGESTED SHIP SCENARIO
2030 2050 OW GROWTH 644 170 858 200 1835 896 2 700 821
. Geraldton
A R I 0 LEGEND White CollstM P!lt1s
• GLSLS P!lt1s
~~MvflimodM F.,;ili!N
AIHa ofHighway 11fK1 Rei Cot!ge$/lon
ATLANnc OCEAN
........ ·····
WISCONSIN
I \
( \,1 MAINE ."''
\ i
LEGEHD
ptldfk ~stCOIIst Potts
GtSLSPotts
Chic:4go to Canada Flow
ATLANTIC OCEAN
Toronto i 1
' ...~~a~. / ~ ~ ._. Rochester
MICHIGAN J Nanti~oke ) NEW YORK . / . l /'. / .~ Iii ,. ~ _"l,Jii; fP'-:'....... - . ...-· : ~~ t,(M""~>-'- . ..
~ ,~ . '-------------.. -, ,/,.. Erie
MASS.
CON. Rl.1
PENNSYLVANIA OHIO
Base and future year demand for Freight Ferry and PACSCAT
Year
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Freight Ferry
Traffic
94,607
114,501
138,584
167,738
203,036
245,775
Market Share
4. 70°/o
4. 70°/o
4. 70°/o
4. 70°/o
4. 70°/o
4. 71 °/o
PACSCAT
Traffic
165,443
200,221
242,315
293,269
354,952
429,627
Market Share
7 .66°/o
7 .66°/o
7 .66°/o
7 .67°/o
7 .67°/o
7 .67°/o
Conclusion
• Analysis of future market conditions suggests that the water mode will play a major role in moving not just bulk, but neobulk and container traffic.
• It is capacity limitations, and rising supply costs that make water mode more attractive, but by using new technologywater can become more attractive
• If investment fails to occur, in particular the highway network, increasing diversion to rail and water is inevitable.
• Given the private ownership of rail, and the public ownershipof water, considerable leadership in intermodal coordination and collaboration will be needed to maximize the throughputof the US transportation system.
INLAND NAV COP WORKSHOP September 19, 2007 38
Thank youThank you
INLAND NAV COP WORKSHOP September 19, 2007 39