CHANGING CURRENTS: FROM
PORT CITIES TO
PORT REGIONS
Teddy Kofman Harvard University Graduate School of Design
This document summarizes the findings of an independent study on the contemporary ways in which seaports influence cities and regions. It provides the context, background, and the research method used to examine aspects of contemporary phenomena in the shipping industry and how they are manifested spatially in cities and regions on the US Eastern Seaboard. While the case studies in the document focus on the US, they are indicative of global trends. Professor Peter Rowe was the project advisor in Fall, 2017 and Spring, 2018 at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design.
Table of Contents Introduction
A New Chapter in an Old Story: Shipping and Its Impact on Urbanization Chapter one
Ports and Global Shipping
Global Ports Port Transformation Port Hinterland Connectivity And Distribution Patterns Shipping: Economy Of Scale And Means, A Chronology Of Growth Shipping: Global Trends
Chapter two
Port - City Exchange
The Port And The City: 6 Phases Of Development Harbor Typology And Urban Form Phases Of Port Regionalization Fragmentation And Expansion: Port Regionalization Port of New York, New Jersey Western Trade Corridor Port-City/Volume-Population Ratios Port-City/Volume-Population Typologies Governance: Port Authority And The City
Chapter Three
Research Methodology: Ports and Urbanization on the US Eastern Seaboard
Spatial Patterns of Ports and Intermodal Facilities distribution on The US Eastern Seaboard Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina: Analysis of Port Network Facilities, Hierarchies Links and Bonds at the regional scale Richmond, VA and Norfolk, VA: Analysis of Port Network Facilities at the Urban Scale
Bibliography
Savannah, GA, Feb, 2017 Source: Teddy Kofman
A NEW CHAPTER IN AN OLD STORY: SHIPPING AND ITS IMPACT ON CITIES AND URBANIZATION For centuries seaports have been a crucial component of cities. Even today, ports give rise to cities and can cause their decline. Shipping, amongst the oldest industries still in existence, continues to be one of the most dominant industries that shape cities and urbanization as a whole. With 95% of manufactured goods transported by ships world-wide (WSJ, 2018), the shipping industry and its related facilities continues to rank amongst the clearest manifestations of globalization in urban and regional development. In the past 50 years, almost all large urban projects took place in former port sites and reclaimed waterfronts. From Baltimore to San Francisco, ports abandoned prime waterfront locations as they transformed and relocated, giving cities the opportunity to create and reinvent former urban cores. Recent changes in the shipping industry, and in the global logistics trade chain, mark a new chapter in an ancient story. Cities and regions are forced to adapt and comply with the shipping industry’s demands, including a new generation of mega-ships, the growth of cruise ships, ports in overcapacity, and the growth of inland ports. While some of these demands are not posed on cities for the first time, their combination creates new spatial conditions and organizational relationships cities must adapt to. New cities, existing cities, and regions continue to emerge and transform in direct response to the shipping industry. This study questions how, on the one hand, these cities and regions can leverage the resultant change to their benefit, and, on the other, what mitigative measures these transformations may entail. While acknowledging the wide range of actions and spatial manifestations the port-city relationship encompasses, this study will focus on one aspect of port and city
interaction, that of waterfront developments in relation to an existing urban core. Today ports influence cities spatially either through their disappearance, or their emergence. When ports relocate from the city’s waterfront, they vacate valuable land for development. In most cases this changes inner urban dynamics by creating another center of activity and providing a large stock of residential and commercial real estate to the city. Ports don’t disappear or shrink due to automation and major technological advancements. Rather, they transform in at least one of three ways; they grow tall on an existing site, move out of the core site to the water, or extend operations inland in the form of inland ports and intermodal facilities. These inland facilities are typically located near an existing population concentration, and as they grow they turn into industrial complexes, increase employment, and spur development. The processes of ports either vacating traditional locations or moving inland is in most cases a manifestation of growth and urbanization. With continuously growing volumes of maritime trade, these processes represent a need for more land. Ports relocate and fragment because they need more space, and because they need to compete with other ports that have more space. They drive urbanization in remote landlocked locations, and trigger development in urban waterfronts. The need for more land is by and large a result of growth in global trade and of several changes in the shipping industry, some of which are interconnected and elaborated on in the following study. It is crucial to understand the relationship between the city, the port authority, and the shipping industry, to understand the spatial and the societal result of these processes.
Chapter One
Ports and Global Shipping
Houston, TX, Jan, 2013 Source: Teddy Kofman
3669 GLOBAL SEAPORTS The world’s seaports construct the contours of all continents and map the world in aggregation. Each port is associated with a city which gives it an address and a geographic reference point. Nevertheless, ports have become local nodes in a global network, international
Source: NGA World Port Index 2017
agents operating within a regional. As Carola Hein notes, (2011) ports are connected to one another through trade but also through other networks - diasporas, ethnic and religious groups, artisans, slaves, etc. – “that relate people symbolically through kinship and other social ties.”
21
121
P o r t s t h a t a re Megaship Ready
P o r t s t h a t a re l i k e l y t o a d a p t , o r a re i n t h e p ro c e s s o f a d a p t i n g t o Megaships
PORT TRANSFORMATION Ports are in a constant state of flux as the shipping industry is constantly improving in its attempts to reduce shipping costs. Mega-ships are perhaps the most significant technological advancement since containers as it has direct influence on the morphology of the port within, and outside, its bounds. To
stay competitive, ports are required to accommodate these 400 meterlong and 60 meter-wide ships, or find other alternatives. These options entail extremely expensive and long-term investments with direct implications on the port’s surroundings.
Source: Author’s research and NGA World Port Index 2017
PORT HINTERLAND CONNECTIVITY AND DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS
The three major global economic regions present different patterns of connectivity to the hinterland and distribution of gateways. North America is characterized by land bridges, which connect the hinterland through major hubs, such as Chicago, Illinois, Alliance, Texas, and Charlotte, North Carolina. Most of the economic activity in North America is concentrated along the coast, with significant manufacturing
North America
in the hinterland. Western Europe has an extensive maritime network through its river system which provides high connectivity to the hinterland. As such, a large portion of the hinterland can be accessed through coastal gateways using medium distance corridors and various modes of transport such as rail, truck, and barge. As Jean Paul Rodrigue notes, (2006) almost all major European
Western Europe
Connection to Hinterland Freight Corridor Hierarchy Port Hierarchy Source: Adapted from Lee, S.W., D.W. Song and C. Ducruet (2008) “A tale of Asia’s world ports: the spatial evolution in global hub port cities”, Geoforum, Vol. 39, pp. 373-385., Jean Paul Rodrigue, 2017
capitals are interior cities located along rivers. East Asian hinterland is not well connected to its gateways, reinforcing the fact that most of its economic activity takes place along the coast. While the gateways are fully equipped with modern technology, the hinterland is not serviced efficiently by rail.
South and East Asia
S h i p p i n g C o n n e c t i v i t y I n d ex
M o st C o n n e c te d
Wo r l d S h i p p i n g Ro u te s
Source: World Bank 2004-2009
$4
Tr i l l i o n
95%
Wo r t h o f p ro d u c t s O f m a n u fa c t u re d m o ve d b y s h i p s i n g o o d s a re t ra n s p o r te d b y 2017 c o n ta i n e r s h i p p i n g
SHIPPING: ECONOMY OF SCALE AND MEANS, A CHRONOLOGY OF GROWTH
I nte r n a t i o n a l M a r i t i m e L o a d e d F re i g ht Vo l u m e 1 9 7 0 - 2 0 1 5
Source: Own adaptation and OECD, World Bank, Mearsk
34 – 3. PORTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE ADAPTATIONS
SHIP SIZE ON MAIN TRADE LANES IN 2014
Figure 3.1. Ship size on main trade lanes in 2014
Source: Own elaborations based on data in Dynamar 2015
The container ports system has over the last decades become more concentrated. This port concentration has led to some sort of hub and spoke-network, consisting of a limited number of large ports included in main intercontinental trade lanes, with a lot of smaller feeder ports connected to, and in some sense dependent on, this larger port. The emergence of such a hub-and-spoke network is connected to increasing vessel sizeDynamar, in the 2015 past. This is well illustrated by looking at the main ports that are included Source: OECD/ITF Based on data in the routes of the largest containerships in Asia and in North Europe, where the majority of calls is
SHIPPING: GLOBAL TRENDS The shipping industry is constantly looking for new ways to reduce costs. As such, ships try to make as few stops and trips as possible, reducing the duration of both to a minimum. Cargo ships will optimally dock at a location once at a point from which cargo can be easily shipped via trans-shipment and where there is a large local market. This desire to reduce costs, coupled with environmental concerns, has pushed the shipping industry to significant innovations in recent years, the most prominent one being the mega-ship. While these trends are contemporary phenomena, they underline the logic that drive the shipping industry for centuries, and as a result its relationship with the city.
Ultra Large Container Vessels (Mega-ships) With containerization ports began expanding and relocating as they needed more land and mechanization for their operation. Since the 1950’s containers have largely been considered the biggest technological advancement in the shipping industry after the steam ship. The emergence of ULCV (Ultra Large Container Vessels) or megaships, changed this. These 400 meter-long, and 60 meter-wide ships have more than doubled the capacity of containers and are considered more economic and environmentally friendly. To stay competitive and accommodate these
ships, ports and cities are required to expand and make significant changes and improvements such as raising bridges, dredging the seabed, construction of new berths, installation of new cranes, and the general improvement of infrastructure. These changes are extremely expensive and require large and long-term investment from cities and port authorities. Even if there is political will, these changes are not always possible due to environmental or spatial constrains, and ports are forced to find other alternatives.
Oocl Hong Kong, Largest Operating Cargo Vessel in 2017 Capacity: 21 TEU Length: 399.87 m (1,311.9 Ft) Width: 58.80 m (192.9 ft) Depth: 32.50 m (106.6 ft)
Automation Automation has been an ongoing concern in the port industry in recent years. Beginning with storage and logistics, more and more shipping related activities are being automated. While a 10,000 TEU ship had a crew of 120 people, a mega-ship with a carrying capacity of 20,000 TEU now has only 10. The world’s first fully automated container ship is being developed by the Norwegian companies Yara and Kongsberg and is about to be
launched in 2018. Automation in the shipping industry may have significant effects on its relationship with cities and inland logistics. Among other impacts, it will change the ratio of the physical footprint of the port to the number of its employees. Currently ports have a multiplier of 6—for every direct employee, there are 6 indirect ones. As this ratio changes, one can argue that cities, as a result, will have far less incentive to keep ports close by.
Shanghai Yangshan Deep Water Port
Consolidation and Alliances Mega-ships can achieve the desired economy and volume efficiently only when full, otherwise their operation cost is too high and there is no environmental justification to using such a large vessel. As a result of relentless price wars, and to maximize the ship’s capacity, shipping alliances are forming, triggering a consolidation process both in shipping companies, and as a result in ports. The top container carriers
reduced in number from 20 to 11 in the past years and are expected to continue to dwindle in the near future. Alliances are significant in terms of political influence as well. Ports, port authorities, cities and regions may become a captive of a few global players with tremendous influence. Currently three alliances are responsible for 79% of all global cargo shipping
Ocean Alliance
The Alliance
2M
350 Vessels
240 Vessels
193 Vessels
World’s leading shipping alliances
Port Growth With the exception of the early 1980’s, maritime freight has been significantly increasing globally for decades. While some ports are in decline, many others are suffering from overcapacity and are constantly growing. The primary reason for the port’s physical growth is rooted in the need to handle cargo quickly. This requires a process of loading and unloading which is out of sync with the speed in which the cargo is being distributed and vacated from port territory. Port authorities and cities continuously compete with one another for cargo ships by improving their logistical performance, expanding rail connections to various markets, and increasing their capacity to handle cargo. Each of these strategies has spatial implications on the host city and the region. There are three primary ways in which ports grow: expansion in place (vertically or horizontally), expansion to offshore hubs, and extension of port facilities to inland locations.
Expansion in Place (Vertical/Horizontal) This form of expansion is the most common. Ports that have access to land acquire adjacent lots and build
more storage facilities. Additionally, ports grow taller, stacking containers one over the other.
Expansion Inland/Regionalization When space is constrained, ports expand inland by the construction of inland ports. Port regionalization began in the early 2000’s, however in the past decade the number of inland ports has grown in an accelerated pace. This growth seems to correlate with the growth of maritime vessels, as pressures on sea ports increased to stay competitive by accommodating larger ships. Inland ports manifest a process of port fragmentation, or expansion in most cases. Intermodal facilities,
which have direct rail connection to seaports, are the ‘fragments’. These facilities’ function varies - from storage, to distribution, to customs and often serve as a combination of all the above. Easy and quick access to seaports, combined with locations where land is relatively cheap, attracts manufacturing facilities as well. As such, inland ports have evolved into industrial parks, and later trigger further employment and development.
Port of Hamburg
Alliance Texas, Inland Port
TYPOLOGIES OF PORT GROWTH PATTERNS Patterns of Port Growth
Expansion in Place
Inland Penetra�on
Ver�cal Expansion
Port of Charleston, USA Port of Norfolk, USA
Port of Savannah, USA Port of Ro�erdam, Netherlands
Expansion in Place
Inland Penetration
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Port of Savannah, USA
Port of Charleston, USA Port of Norfolk, USA
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Port of Savannah, USA
Source: Own Interpretation
Vertical Expansion
Port of Savannah, USA Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands
Reloca�on/Expansion in Water
Offshore Expansion
Port of Kobe , Japan
Port of Tema, Ghana
Port of Kobe, Japan Port of Tema, Ghana
Chapter Two
Port - City Exchange
Hamburg, Germany, Feb, 2018 Source: Teddy Kofman
PORT - CITY EXCHANGE While seaports are only in immediate contact with their host city, their influence stretches far beyond their limits. Seaports, and by extension their host cities, simultaneously link three regions, and as a result are part of three distinct processes which include the trade between port-cities and their region on land, portcities and their region on water, and port-cities as part of a global shipping line. The role of the port-city in each of the three processes is highly dependent on the relationship between the port and the city individually and on the ability of both entities to collaborate with one another. Ports, however, can’t be seen as a single entity. They are a network of logistic, intermodal and storage facilities, spread across hundreds of kilometers. Many of the facilities are built in proximity to existing population concentrations or drive the construction of new ones. While ports’ extensive infrastructure is rapidly
regionalizing, most worlds ports are located within cities (OECD 2014) and are closely interlinked with them. Port cities carry a legacy of urban interaction with infrastructure and industry, which consists of continuous attempts by the city to mitigate the negative effects on the one hand, and leveraging the positive ones on the other for its benefit. While historically ports were part of the urban fabric, with the advent of container shipping they expanded and grew apart from it to become a separate entity (Levinson 2016). In present days, the integration between the city and the port poses major challenge as the port is a source of noise, light, air and water pollution. Additionally, ports cause major congestion problems and often times are associated with unhealthy and unsafe urban environments. Nevertheless, ports are a major economic generator, bringing international character and culture to local municipalities, thus creating cosmopolitan environments.
Hamburg, Germany, Feb, 2018 Source: Teddy Kofman
THE PORT AND THE CITY: 6 PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT
After Brian Hoyle (1989, 2001), Dirk Schubert (2011) describes the six stages in which the port- city spatial relationship evolved. From the ancient and pre-industrial period, until the middle of the 19th century, there was almost no separation between the port and the city. Ports were the physical, economic, and social nerve center of the city. From the 19th century until the early 20th century, industrialization forced ports to expand, often through artificially constructed harbors and landfills. These expansions were influenced by geography and by proximity to railroads and telegraph lines (Brown 2009). Until the mid-20th century ship size and draft continued to grow, and with it specialized industrialization. The
development of new industries, such as crude oil and ore extraction, resulted in the need for larger sites and deeper sea beds. From the 1950’s until the 1980’s the process of containerization caused ports to need even larger sites and greater access to rail and trucks. During this period, ports abandoned their traditional sites in the urban core, completing their retreat from the city. Many of these sites remained abandoned through the 1970’s and the 1980’s (Savannah, Georgia for example), until waterfront redevelopment began. As manufacturing and various industries followed the ports to their new sites, or relocated to suburban areas, urban waterfronts became new sites for residential, recreational, and commercial activity.
The last, and current, phase of the port- city relationship follows two types of spatial distribution. The first is the further separation of the port from the city, to the extent that ports and cities become completely independent entities. In economic terms, ports become regional and global entities (Rotterdam, Antwerp for example), while port cities “continue to develop as non-port cities” (Marshall 2001). The second is the transformation of specialized cargo ports into cruise ports. This transformation allows the port and city to remain in proximity and even re-establishes the links between the two (for example Tampa, Florida, and Barcelona, Spain).
I
II
III
Pre-industrial Stage
Expanding port-city
Expanding port-city
e I: Phase I: the 19thUn�l Century the 19th Century
Phase II: 19th Century-Early 20th Century
Phase II: Phase II: 19th Century-Early 19th Century-Early 20th 20th Century Century
Phase II: Mid of 20th Century
Phase I Mid of
Phase II: I: 19th Century-Early 20th the 19th Century Century Stage dustrial Stage Preindustrial
Phase II: 19th Century-Early 20th Century Expanding port city
Phase II: Phase II: Mid of20th 20th Century 19th Century-Early Century Expanding port Expanding city port city
Phase II: Modern-Industrial Mid of 20th Centuryport city
Phase II Moder Mid of 2 city
Until the 19th Century
e IV: Phase IV: ’s-1980’s1960’s-1980’s
IV
Phase IV: 1970’s-1990’s
19th Century-Early 20th Century
Phase IV: Phase IV: 1970’s-1990’s 1970’s-1990’s V Modern-Industrial port
city Expanding port city
Mid 20th Century
Phase IV: 1990’s-2010’s Modern-Industrial port VI city
Phase 1990’s Modern city
Expanding port city dustrial Stage
Expanding port city
Phase IV: IV: s-1980’s eaves waterfront Port1970’s-1990’s leaves waterfront
Phase IV: Redevelopment of 1970’s-1990’s waterfront
Phase IV: Phase IV: Redevelopment Redevelopment of of 1990’s-2010’s 1970’s-1990’s waterfront waterfront
Phase IV: Renewal of port city 1990’s-2010’s links and Globaliza�on
Phase I Renew 1990’slinks a
Redevelopment of eaves waterfront waterfront
Redevelopment of waterfront
Renewal of port city Redevelopment of waterfront links and Globaliza�on
Renewal of port city links and Globaliza�on
Renew links an
Port leaves waterfront
Redevelopment of waterfront
idual ports Individual ports1960’s-1980’s Hinterland Extension
dual ports Hinterland Extension
Hinterland Extension
Source: Modified after Brian Hoyle (2000), Dirk Schubert (2011)
Renewal of port city links and globalization
1970’s-1990’s Hinterland Extension Hinterland Extension
1990’s-2010’s Interconnec�on and Concentra�onInterco
Interconnec�on and Concentra�onIntercon Interconnec�on and Concentra�on Hinterland Extension
Harbor Typologies Harbor Typologies
HARBOR TYPOLOGY AND URBAN FORM The relationship between ports and cities, and ports and regions, can be a defining one for both. Because of the dynamic nature of all entities, this relationship is not fixed and is in constant flux, unlike the relationship between urban environments and most industries. This constant change occurs over decades, due to the scale and complexity of port and Harbor Typologies city management and operation. Harbor Typologiesports and The relationship between
regions/cities has several spatial has been changing and as ports leave Costal, Natural manifestations, from inland ports and prime urban locations, waterfronts Harbor Typologies Natural industrial parks, to waterfronts. are reintroduced to Costal, cities as an It is necessary to create a distinction amenity. The nature of waterfront Harbor Typologies between the port-city relationship, development is a function of the and the city-waterfront relationship. spatial relationship between the port Historically, the waterfront was an and the urban core. The location of industrial area, and cities turned the port, depending on its harbor primarily inwards. Thus, the port type, not only determines the type of Costal, Natural Costal, Breakwater became synonymous with the equipment required to operate it, but Costal, Tide Gates waterfront in a negative context. also its ability to physically connect to Costal, Tide Gates Costal, Natural Costal, Breakwater Costal, Landfil Over the past 50 years, this approach the city. Kingston, Jamaica
Kingston, Jamaica
Kingston, Jamaica
Cherbourg, France
Mumbai, India
Kingston, Jamaica
Mumbai,AlIndia Jubail Commercial Sea Port, Saudi Arabia
Cherbourg, France
Cherb
Cost
Cher
Cos
Al Jubai
Costal
Jacks
Rive
Jacks
Rive
Harbor Typologies
Coastal Natural
Coastal Tide Gates
Kingston, Jamaica
Kingston Jamaica
Costal, Natural Kingston, Jamaica
Costal, Natural Kingston, Jamaica
Cherbourg, France
Costal, Natural
Costal, Breakwater
Coastal Breakwater
aica
Cherbourg France
ural
Coastal Landfill
Mumbai India
River Basins
Cherbourg, France
Jubail Commercial Sea Port, Saudi Arabia Mumbai,AlIndia
Jacksonville, Florida
Costal, Breakwater
Landfil Costal, Costal, Tide Gates
River, Natural
Al Jubail Commercial Sea Port, Saudi Arabia
Costal, Breakwater
Costal, Landfil
Jubail Commercial Sea Port, Saudi Arabia Mumbai,AlIndia
Jacksonville, Florida
Landfil Costal, Costal, Tide Gates
River, Natural
River Natural
Jacksonville Florida Al Jubail Commercial Sea Port, Saudi Arabia
Jacksonville, Florida
Costal, Tide Gates
River, Natural
Cherbourg, France
Mumbai, India
Jacksonville, Florida
Costal, Breakwater
Landfil Costal, Costal, Tide Gates Jacksonville, Florida
Costal, Tide Gates
River, Natural
Brugge Belgium
Bremen, Germany
River, Basins
River, Natural
River Tide Gates
Bremen, Germany
Brem
River, Basins
Rive
River, Basins
Rive
Bremen, Germany
Bremerhaven, Germany
River, Tide Gates Brugge, Belgium
Yangs
Canal or Lake Bremerhaven, Germany
Brugge, Belgium
Ope
Bremen, Germany
River, Basins
River, Tide Gates
Canal or Lake
Ope
Open Roadstead Source: World Port Index 2017 Source: World Port Index 2017
, France
reakwater
a
Gates
Al Jubail Saudi Arabia
Al Jubail Commercial Sea Port, Saudi Arabia
Bremen, Germany
Costal, Landfil
River, Basins
Source: WPI (2000) Jacksonville,and Florida own interpolation Bremen, Germany River, Natural
River, Basins
Bremerhaven Germany
Brem
Canal/Lake
Mumbai, India
Mumbai, India
Bremen Germany
Cherbourg, France
Bremerhaven, Germany
River, Tide Gates Bremerhaven, Germany
River, Tide Gates
Shanghai China Brugge, Belgium
Yangshan Port , Shanghai, China
Canal or Lake
Open Roadstead
Yang
Individual Individual ports ports Port Port leaves leaves waterfront waterfront Individual Port leavesports waterfront
Redevelopment Redevelopment of of Redevelopment of Hinterland Hinterland Extension Extension Hinterland waterfront waterfront waterfront Extension
Renewal Renewal of port of port city city Renewal of port city Interconnec�on Interconnec�on and Concentra�on and Concentra�on and Concentra�on links links and Globaliza�on andInterconnec�on Globaliza�on links and Globaliza�on
PHASES OF PORT REGIONALIZATION Individual Individual ports ports Individual ports
Consolida�on
Individual Ports
Hinterland Hinterland Extension ExtensionExtension Hinterland
Interconnec�on Interconnec�on and Concentra�on and Concentra�on Interconnec�on and Concentra�on
Consolida�on and offshore Ac�vity
Hinterland Extension
Interconnection and Concentration
Consolida�on Consolida�on Consolida�on
Consolida�on Consolida�on and offshore and offshore Ac�vity Ac�vity Ac�vity Consolida�on and offshore
Inland Inland Penetra�on Penetra�on Inland Penetra�on
Consolida�on Consolida�on Consolida�on
Consolida�on Consolida�on and offshore and offshore Ac�vity Consolida�on and Ac�vity offshore Ac�vity
Inland Inland Penetra�on Penetra�on Inland Penetra�on
Consolidation Offshore Hub Offshore hub
Offshore Offshore hubOffshore hub hub Port Port
Port
Port Port
Logis�cs Logis�cs center center Logis�cs center Logistic Center Logis�cs center LandLand Freight Freight line line Land Freight line Land service Freight line Line Feeder Feeder service service Feeder DeepDeep sea service seaDeep service sea service Feeder service Feeder Service Offshore Offshore hub Offshore hub hub Port Port
sea service Deep Sea Service
Port
Source: Modified after Jean-Paul Rodrigue (2005) Logis�cs Logis�cs center center Logis�cs center LandLand Freight Freight line Landline Freight line
Consolidation and Offshore Activity
Inland Penetration
In
FRAGMENTATION AND EXPANSION: PORT REGIONALIZATION The expansion inland through Free Trade Zones and multi-modal facilities allows ports to overcome local land constraints and reach new networks of distribution. Locally,
most large ports suffer from various constraints as a result of overloading local road and rail infrastructure and producing noise and air pollution. The largest constraint they face is the
lack of land in their current locations. Regionalization allows ports to bypass such constraints, while reaching out to new markets and industries inland.
TYPOLOGIES OF INLAND PORTS
Gateway
Industrial Gateway
Storage
Gateway
Storage
Rail toto Truck Rail Rail Rail to Truck Truck to Rail
Rocky Mount, NC Typologies of Inland Ports
TypologiesUrban of Area Inland Ports Urban Area
Urban Area Seaport
Seaport
Seaport Industry
Industry Industry
Source: Author’s Interpretation
Gateway
Rail Rail Rail to toRail Truck to RailRail to Rail Truck to Rail Truck to Rail
Greer, SC, Dillon, SC
Transfer Hub Transfer Hub
Transfer Hub
Rail to Rail toRailRail Rail to Rail Rail to Truck Rail to TruckRail to Truck
Front Royal, VA
Mul�-Use Multi-Use Mul�-Use Urban Inland Port Urban Inland Port Urban Inland Port Rail to Rail Rail to Truck
Rail Rail Air to to Rail Rail to Truck Air to Rail
Rail to Rail Rail to Truck Air to Rail
Alliance,TX, Charlotte,NC
PORT OF NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY WESTERN TRADE CORRIDOR Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, North Baltimore Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville Norfolk Southern, CSX Yards
Kansas City, MI
Montreal, Toronto Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse CSX Pittsburgh
Norfolk Southern
Industrial Valley
Cleavland, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, OH PA PA
Maritime Terminals and Facilities
Newark, NJ
PORT-CITY/VOLUME-POPULATION RATIOS Ports tend to own large pieces of land in prime locations in most major port cities, and thus could be seen at times as a competitive entity, with interests that conflict with the city’s. The more the ratio of port throughput volumes to
population size favors the port, the more regional the port is, and the more political power it has over the city. It is common that ports target the metropolitan region as their main market for goods. In addition, they need the city for the
Port area in comparison to municipal area and distance from the city
provision of labor, infrastructure and general services. According to an OECD report on port cities (2014) in some cases the city receives only 5% of port revenue, while the rest is distributed across the region and international carriers.
Port Area In Comparison To Municipal Area And Distance From Population Concentration
Ro�erdam 65%
Far
Source: Author’s interpolation
Antwerp 35%
LA/Long Beach 1.5%
Genoa 4.3 %
Santos 0.2%
Close
PORT-CITY/VOLUME-POPULATION TYPOLOGIES Port Volume Small Small
Medium Medium
Large Large
Small Small
City Size By Population
Coastal Port Town
Regional Port Town
Major Port Town
Regional City
Regional Port City
Major Port City
World Port City
Port Metropolis
Coastal Metropo-
Medium
Medium
Large
Large
Port City
Port
Source: Ducruet, CityC. and S.W. Lee (2006), “Frontline Soldiers of Globalisation: Port-City Evolution and Regional Competition”, Geojournal, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 107-122.
GOVERNANCE: PORT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY In most western countries, and particularly in the US and Canada, port authorities are public authorities. Public authorities are a form of special purpose authority that concentrate on one function area, as opposed to general purpose authorities which govern cities and townships and have multiple function areas. According to Peter Hendee Brown (2011), public authorities are among the most common forms of governance in the US, and historically were proven to be one of the most resilient, versatile, and adaptable ones. From the 1950’s until the early 2000’s the number of public authorities has almost tripled, and very few of them went out of business since their establishment. According to Brown, the authority’s flexibility is a result of two major factors which give it the freedom that other general-purpose authorities lack. The first is that they are not subject to debt limit or voter choice, as their board members are nominated by the state. The second is that they are not subject to the
same employment and procurement restrictions as cities. As a result, the organization lends itself more easily to public-private partnerships, it is more flexible and enables major public facilities to develop more quickly. In many cases, public authorities are a way for cities to create a new line of credit and bypass internal hierarchies. As ports gradually separated from the city, port authorities began acting as real estate developers and planners as well as managers of various modes of transportation. Port authorities had to acquire land, plan, and develop their new sites, and decide how to develop the old land in the middle of the urban core. As port authorities expanded their operations, their role in the city had also changed. Politically and financially, port authorities had more power and influence as they had more land to develop in the most strategic urban location. As challenging as it was, this was an opportunity for the port authority to reinvent itself as an organization, and
for the city to leverage the necessary urban change for the completion and improvement of public facilities. The flexibility and autonomy of the port authority allows it to adapt quickly to the demands of the shipping industry. The city on the other hand, in most cases, remains captive and is forced to mitigate the negative aspects of port expansion, from increased traffic congestion to air pollution. The port ownership structure is a crucial component in port-city relations. It determines the level of flexibility the port and the city have to execute major projects collaboratively, negotiate over land, and make joint decisions. This directly translates into their respective abilities to adapt as their needs change. The four major structures of port ownership vary in their proportion of public and private ownership, and in the amount of common property they allow for.
TYPES OF PORT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES
Port Ownership Models Public Public
Uncommon
Service Port
(India, Sri Lanka)
State/Municipality
Ministry of transportation, and/or Communication
Complete ownership of all port facili�es, land and equipment*, provision of all port services and labor
Port Authority
Public
Tool Port
(France, USA)
State/Municipality
Ministry of transportation, and/or Communication
Ownership, maintanance, development of port superstructure**and equipment
Port Authority Private
Labor and services through consessions, licenses, or rent
Most Common
Common
Public
Landlord Port
(Netherlands, Belgium)
Private Service Port (UK, New Zealand)
Private
Private
State/Municipality
Ministry of transportation, and/or Communication
Private Ownership
Port Authority Private
Port Authority
Uncommon
* Equipment uncludes: cranes, vans, forkli�s, etc. * Equipment includes: cranes, vans, forklifts, etc. ** Superstructure includes: buildings, roads, common amene�es, etc.
** Superstructure includes: buildings, roads, common amenities, etc.
Source: Worldbank Port Reform Toolkit , 2007, Lourdes Trujillo Gustavo Nombela, 1997
Source: World bank Port Reform Toolkit , 2007, Lourdes Trujillo Gustavo Nombela, 1997
Ownership of land and superstucture (buildings, etc). Provision of managment and regulatory framework SLabor and services and operarions , ownership of all equipment.
Complete ownership of all port facili�es, land and equipment, provision of all port services and labor
Chapter Three
Research Methodology: Ports and Urbanization on the US Eastern Seaboard
Houston, TX, Jan, 2013 Source: Teddy Kofman
I
MAPPING OF ALL PORT RELATED FACILITIES
Mapping all port related facilities on the US Eastern Seaboard include primarily inland ports, intermodal hubs, storage, and logistic facilities.
II IDENTIFYING CONCENTRATIONS OF FACILITIES TO REVEAL DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
The patterns that emerge from this study reveal repetitive layers of agglomeration towards the east. The first layer consists of large facilities along the water’s edge, including the ports themselves. The second layer is mainly smaller intermodal facilities, primarily distribution hubs. The third layer has large concentrations of facilities and is located around 300 km from the shore. This pattern repeats, such that in between the large concentrations, small or medium size facilities are distributed.
6< 3-6 1-3
III
REVEALING REGIONAL HIERARCHIES
Focusing on the region south of Chesapeake Bay, Virginia bonds and dependencies between the major cities and towns were identified to reveal flows of goods. Through this study, Charlotte, North Carolina appears as a regional center. This finding corresponds to a national analysis of freight flows, which also positions Charlotte as a regional hub.
Richmond
Roanoke
220,289
99,897
Winston Salem Greensboro High Point 640,453
Norfolk Durham/ Raleigh
721,896
Network Centrality Charlo�e 842,051
Wilmington 111,223
Road Connection Rail Connection
246,393
Hospitals
Education
Number of major institutions
Number of major institutions
Durham/Raleigh
Norfolk
Charlotte
Richmond
Winston Salem Greensboro High Point
Richmond
Winston Salem Greensboro High Point
Durham/Raleigh Norfolk
Richmond
Roanoke
Charlotte
Roanoke
Wilmington
Wilmington
Employment
Port / Port related Related Facilities
Number of major employers from top state employers
Number of major facilities
Charlotte
International Airport
Norfolk
Charlotte
Seaport
Winston Salem Greensboro High Point
Durham/Raleigh Richmond
Winston Salem Greensboro High Point Roanoke Wilmington
Durham/Raleigh Roanoke Wilmington
Richmond
IV
MAPPING PLANNED INLAND PORTS
Each of the seaports in the region is experiencing some of the previously described growth processes. All of the ports either began or are in the process of constructing inland ports, improving rail connections, and improving port infrastructure. The first regional inland port was Greer, which increased its local population by 10% since its opening in 2013.
Rocky Mount, NC
Front Royal, VA
Year: 2019 Prime Use: Transport Hub Acres: Expected Jobs: 150-300 (Direct ) Expected Jobs State-Wide: 1,500 Local Population: 55,466 Investment: $272 Million
Year: 2017 Prime Use: Storage Acres: 161 Local Population: 15,153
Hurt, VA
Port of Norfolk, VA
Year: 2016 (Announced) Prime Use: Gateway/Transport Hub Acres: 800 (Industrial park), 150 (Intermodal) Expected Jobs: 175-250 (Direct Intermodal) Local Population: 1,265 Investment: $70-$100 Million
Forthcoming Projects: Craney Island Terminal APM/Mearsk Terminal
Dillon, SC
Greer, SC
Year: 2018 Prime Use: Gateway Acres: 3,400 (Industrial park) 150 (Intermodal) Local Population: 961 Investment: $40 Million
Year: 2013 Prime Use: Gateway Acres: 50 Local Population: 27,000 (2013, Opening) 29,000 (2016)
Palmetto Intermodal, SC
Port of Charleston, SC
Year: 2018 Prime Use: Transport Hub
Forthcoming Projects: Seabed Deepening to 55 ft New Crane installation
Front Royal, VA Year: 2017 Prime Use: Storage Acres: 161 Local Popula�on: 15,153
28
Km
m 6K
175
160 Km
Hurt, VA
Norfolk, VA
273 Km
Year: 2016 (Announced) Prime Use: Gateway/Transport Hub Acres: 800 (Industrial park), 150 (Intermodal) Expected Jobs: 175-250 (Direct Intermodal) Local Popula�on: 1,265 Investment: $70-$100 Million
Forthcoming Projects: Craney Island Terminal APM/Mearsk Terminal
m 0K
17
Rocky Mount, NC
een
Greer, SC
City
290
Year: 2013 Prime Use: Gateway Acres: 50 Local Popula�on: 27,000 (2013, Opening) 29,000 (2016)
190 Km
Qu
Exp
Km
Dillon, SC
185
Km
m 0K
32
Year: 2018 Prime Use: Gateway Acres: 3,400 (Industrial park) 150 (Intermodal) Local Popula�on: 961 Investment: $40 Million
Palme�o Intermodal Year: 2018 Prime Use: Transport Hub
Km
Charlo�e, NC
0 18
Year: 2019 Prime Use: Transport Hub Acres: Expected Jobs: 150-300 (Direct ) Expected Jobs State-Wide: 1,500 Local Popula�on: 55,466 Investment: $272 Million
Charelston, SC
res s
, NC
Morehead, NC Wilmington, NC
V
URBAN FORM AND DISTRIBUTION OF PORT FACILITIES : REVEALING HIERARCHIES WITHIN EACH TOWN/CITY
This stage of the study allows a focus on the neighborhood scale to see the effect port related facilities have on the surrounding built environment. While local data is necessary to pursue this phase of the research, this is an attempt to reveal the hierarchies between port related facilities based on the number of transit modes in each facility.
Richmond, VA
Norfolk, VA
During this research, several inland ports and seaports were surveyed to reveal general typologies and patterns. Below is the summary of the US Examples: Inland Ports
State
City/Town Gateway
Storage
GatewayStorage
Storage Gateway
Transfer Hub
Gateway
Rail to Truck
Rail to Truck Rail to Rail Truck to Rail
Rail to Rail Truck to Rail Truck to Rail
Rail to Rail Rail to Truck
Rail to Rail Truck to Rail
Norfolk Virginia
Richmond Front Royal Hurt Rocky Mount Morehead
North Carolina
Wilmington Charlotte Dillon
South Carolina
Greer Charleston
Texas
Alliance
New Jersey
Newark
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh Harrisburg
Ohio Missouri
Cleavland Kansas
Industrial Gateway
Storage
Rail to Truck
Transfer Hub Gateway Rail toto Rail Rail Rail Rail to Truck Truck to Rail
Transfer Hub
Mul�-Use Mul�-Use Transfer Transfer Hub Urban Inland Port Urban Hub Inland Port Rail Rail to Rail to Rail Rail Rail to Truck to Truck
Air to Rail
Typologies of Inland Ports Typologies of Inland PortsTypologies of Inland Typologies Portsof Inland Ports Urban Area
Urban Area
Urban Area
Urban Area
Seaport
Seaport
Seaport
Seaport
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Rail to Rail Rail to Truck
Rail to Rail Rail to Truck Air to Rail
Urban Inland Port Mul�-Use Mul�-Use Urban Inland Port Urban Inland Port Rail to Rail Rail to Truck Air to Rail
Rail to Rail Rail to Truck Air to Rail
Patterns Patterns of Port ofGrowth Port Patterns Growth of Port Growth
Sea Ports
State
City/Town Expansion Expansion in Placein Place Expansion Expansion in in Place Place
Inland Penetra�on Inland Penetra�on Inland Inland Penetra�on Penetra�on Ver�calVer�cal Expansion Expansion Ver�cal Ver�cal Expansion Expansion
Reloca�on/Expansion Reloca�on/Expansion inReloca�on/Expansion Reloca�on/Expansion Water in Water in in Water Water
Vertical Expansion Offshore Expansion Expansion inBrazil Place Inland Penetration Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Rio Rio de de Janeiro, Janeiro, Brazil Brazil Port of Port Charleston, of Charleston, USA Port Port USA of of Charleston, Charleston, USA USA Port of Port Savannah, of Savannah, USA Port Port USAof of Savannah, Savannah, USA USAPort of Port Kobeof, Japan Kobe , Japan Port Port of of Kobe Kobe Port ,of , Japan Japan Port Tema, ofGhana Tema, Ghana Port Port of of Tema, Tema, Ghana Ghana Port of Port Savannah, of Savannah, USA Port Port USAof of Savannah, Savannah, USA USA
Norfolk Virginia
Richmond Front Royal Hurt Rocky Mount Morehead
North Carolina
Wilmington Charlotte Dillon
South Carolina
Greer Charleston
Texas
Alliance
New Jersey
Newark
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh Harrisburg
Ohio Missouri
Cleavland Kansas
Port of Port Norfolk, of Norfolk, USA USA Port Port of of Norfolk, Norfolk, Port USA USA of Port Ro�erdam, of Ro�erdam, Netherlands Port Port Netherlands of of Ro�erdam, Ro�erdam, Netherlands Netherlands
BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, P. (2009). America’s waterfront revival: Port authorities and urban redevelopment (City in the twenty-first century book series). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Cerceau, Juliette, Nicolas Mat, Guillaume Junqua, Liming Lin, Valérie Laforest, and Catherine Gonzalez. “Implementing industrial ecology in port cities: international overview of case studies and cross-case analysis.” Journal of Cleaner Production74 (2014): 1-16. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.050. Delsalle, Bruno “Synthesis and conclusions: Mega-ships and City Port Dialogue”, AIVP, Malaga June Ducruet, César, and Sung-Woo Lee. “Frontline soldiers of globalisation: Port–city evolution and regional competition.” GeoJournal67, no. 2 (2006): 107-22. doi:10.1007/s10708-006-9037-9. Ferrari, C., Merk, O., Bottasso, A., Conti, M., Tei, A. (2012), “Ports and Regional Development: a European Perspective”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/07, OECD Publishing http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k92z71jsrs6-en Gordon Wilmsmeier, Regional Hub Port development – The Case of Montevideo, Uruguay, Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh Napier University, 2011 Hein, Carola. Port cities: dynamic landscapes and global networks. London; New York: Routledge, 2011 Hoyle, Brian Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront, American Geographical Society, Geographical Review, Vol. 90, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 395-417 International Transport Forum, The impact of Mega-Ships, OECD Publishing, 2015 International Transport Forum, Port Hinterland Connectivity, OECD Publishing, 2015 Kannan, Ammar, Chief Executive Officer at Terminal Investment Limited, Interview, 10.20.2017
Levinson, Marc. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016. Meijers, Evert J. Synergy in polycentric urban regions: complementarity, organising capacity and critical mass. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2007. Marshall, R., & Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities. (2001). Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. London ; New York: Spon Press. Monios, Jason, Rickard Bergqvist, and Johan Woxenius. “Port-centric cities: The role of freight distribution in defining the port-city relationship.” Journal of Transport Geography66 (2018): 53-64. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.11.012. Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2010) “Foreland-Based Regionalization: Integrating Intermediate Hubs with Port Hinterlands”, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 19-29. Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2005) “Port Regionalization: Towards a New Phase in Port Development”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 297-313. Rodrigue, Dr. Jean-Paul. The Geography of Transport Systems. London; New York Routledge, 2017 OECD, The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities, OECD Publishing, 2014 “Congestion in Hamburg highlights the impact of mega-ships and bad weather.” The Loadstar. November 17, 2015. Accessed January 20, 2018. https://theloadstar.co.uk/congestion-hamburg-highlights-dangers-mega-vessels/.