The Challenges of Freight Distribution in the New York Metropolitan Area: The Role of the Port Authority

Dr. Jean-Paul RodrigueDept. of Economics & GeographyHofstra UniversityHempstead, NY

http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/jean-paul_rodrigue/

Outline

■ Contemporary Changes in Global and Regional Freight Distribution

■ Freight Capital : New York / New Jersey■ The Role of the Port Authority of New York and New

Jersey

Share of Global GDP Growth, 1995-2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

China US Other Asia EU Japan Rest of theWorld

U.S. Trade in Goods and Services - Balance of Payments, 1970-2004 (billions of $US)

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Total

Goods

Services

Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade Routes, 2000-2003 (in millions of TEUs)

5.6

7.2

8.8

10.2

3.3

3.9

3.9

4.1

4.5

5.9

6.1

7.1

3.6

4.0

4.2

4.0

2.2

2.7

1.5

1.6

2.9

3.6

2.6

2.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2000

2001

2002

2003

Asia-USA

USA-Asia

Asia-Europe

Europe-Asia

USA-Europe

Europe-USA

Increases in U.S. Commercial Freight Shipments andRelated Growth Factors, 1993–2002

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Resident population

Employment

Tons of freight

Ton-miles of freight

Manufacturer's goods sales

Gross Domestic Product

Value of freight shipments

Wholesale goods sales

Retail goods sales

Changes in the Relative Importance of Logistical Functions in Distribution Systems

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Supply Driven

Demand Driven

Inventory

Transport System

Information System

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Container Traffic at Major East Coast Ports, 1990-2003 (TEU)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

1) New York/New Jersey

2) Charleston

3) Hampton Roads

4) Savannah

5) Miami

6) Jacksonville

7) Port Everglades

8) Baltimore

9) Wilmington

10) Palm Beach

11) Boston

12) Philadelphia

Millions

1990199520002003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

Freight Capital: New York / New Jersey

■ Freight capital• Population of 21.2 million (7.5% of the national population).• 2nd largest passengers and air freight gateway in the world.• 3rd largest container port in the US.• Largest public transit system in North America.

■ The gateway function• Large international terminals (port and airports).• Serves the Eastern Seaboard.

■ Local economy• Significant deindustrialization.• Service oriented.• High level of consumption.

Challenges of Urban Freight Distribution

■ Modal dependence• Trucking (80%).

■ Infrastructure• Bottlenecks.• Terminal access.

■ Operational limitations• Trucks (access and size limitations).• Rail (freight vs. passengers).• Maritime (depth).

■ Intermodal integration• Independent and fragmented transport networks.

Cargo Handled by the Port of New York, 1991-2003 (metric tons)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Mill

ions Bulk Cargo Exports

General Cargo Exports

Bulk Cargo Imports

General Cargo Imports

Distribution of General Cargo Operations, Port of New York, 1959, 1987 and 2000

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1959

1987

2000

New Jersey

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Staten Island

Container Traffic Handled by the Port of New York, 1991-2003

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Containers Handled

TEUs

Truck Freight Corridors

New Jersey

Long Island

New York

Brooklyn

Queens

State

n Island

Bronx

Manhatt

an

GWB

TNBWSB

TZB

VZB

TBBLT

HT

OCB

GTB BYB

Connecticut

JFK

LGA

EWR

About 70 million truck crossings per year

Major Crossing

23.2

2.0 1,000 of Trucks per Day (2000)

8.6

7.47.8

5.2

5.7

1.5 8.4

4.8

6.44.21.9

QMT

BBT

8.4

Rail Freight Corridors and Port Facilities!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")")

")")

")

")")

")

")

0 5 10 15 20 252.5Miles

New Jersey

Long Island

New York

Brooklyn

Queens

State

n Island

Bronx

Manhatt

an

Port Terminal

Intermodal Terminal

NJ Distribution Cluster

The Role of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

■ Comprehensive Port Improvement Plan (2000)• Two groups of options.

■ 1) Improving productivity / throughput of existing terminals• Dredging.• Ship / rail efficiency.

■ 2) New terminals• New facilities.• Land reclamation.

■ Inland option• “Freight villages”.• Port regionalization.

Channel Depth at Selected North American Ports, 1998 (in feet)

76

60

50

50

46

42

42

40

40

38

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Seattle

Long Beach

Halifax

Hampton Roads

Baltimore

Los Angeles

Oakland

Savannah

New York

Charleston

Jacksonville

1998

Phase I (2003)

Phase II (2009)

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

4 0 42 Miles

45

Navigation Channel

Control Depth (feet)

Intermodal Terminal

Container Port (proposed)

Major Highway

Proposed rail tunnel

4530

3737

37

45

45

40

43

40

45

40

37

Ambrose Channel

Main Ship Channel

Raritan Bay Channel

Arthur Kill Channel

Arthur Kill Channel

Kill Van KullChannel

Newark BayChannel

Upper Bay Channel

Hudson River

East River

45

The Narrows

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

land

New

Jer

sey

N

2

1

Howland Hook

Red Hook

South Brooklyn

3

1- Port Newark2- Port Elizabeth3- Global Marine

Albers Equal-Area Conic Projection

Intermodal Facilities and Navigation Channels of the Port of New York, 2003

Port Elizabeth

Howland Hook

Port Newark

Global Marine

Red Hook

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Daily Truck Movements (one way), 2001

0 60 120 180 240 30030km

Albany

CamdenWilmington

New HavenDavisville

New York

Boston

Baltimore

Washington

Potential RegionalBarge Port

LO/LO Barge Service

Reading

Syracuse

Inland Rail Terminal

Inland Rail Route

Worcester / Framingham

Hanover

Hartford / Springfield

Freight Cluster

Philadelphia

I95/New Jersey

Port Inland Distribution Network

Expressrail Lifts, 1991-2004

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Containers Handled by the Port of Albany – PIDN, April 2003, September 2004 (TEU)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Janua

ry

Februa

ryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

Octobe

r

November

Decem

ber

2003

2004

Potential Modal Split Changes Due to the PIDN

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2001

2020

Truck

Rail

Barge

Regionalization of Distribution

■ From freight clusters to “freight villages”

■ Freight cluster (A)• Agglomeration of unrelated

distribution activities.• Cheap land and highway

accessibility.• Duplication and redundancy.

■ “Freight village” (B)• Some level of functional

integration.• Sharing of facilities and

terminals.

DCA

B

Conclusion: Challenges in Freight Distribution

■ Global changes• New geography of production.• Imbalanced trade flows.

■ Local pains• Congestion.• Stressed capacities.

■ Challenges for the “freight capital” and the Port Authority• Throughput and distribution.• Port regionalization.• Modal shift: readjustment of freight flows.• Efficiency in distribution derived from the inland (hinterland).