6 ms·

Apropos the importance of building new container shipping ports in places that don’t have land scarcity, traffic, and well organized NIMBYs? Let me introduce yo

by BitLit 5y ago

Apropos the importance of building new container shipping ports in places that don’t have land scarcity, traffic, and well organized NIMBYs? Let me introduce you to the port of Prince Rupert in northern British Columbia. The port of Prince Rupert has 5 (as in “can be counted on one hand”) berths and transfers 1.2M containers per year. The port of Long Beach has 80 (yes, eight-zero!!!) berths and only transfers 8.1M containers per year. Long Beach transfers 100k containers per berth per year. Prince Rupert transfers 240k containers per berth per year.

vlovich123 5y ago
I wonder if the containers per berth number goes down as the number of berths increases in one port because other bottlenecks appear. I suspect adding more ports is actually a way to maintain efficiency here, but there's probably logistical challenges with that (skilled workforce, supply chain support, road network & other infrastructure to handle the volume, etc). There's probably also far more cost to adding a port than adding a berth.
- BitLit 5y ago
  Indeed. And Prince Rupert is probably an outlier since it has almost everything going for it in terms of ship-to-shore efficiency. With a population is ~12k, road traffic rounds to zero. This also shows that a large population isn’t required for a large port. But, more importantly Prince Rupert is well connected to the CN rail network. A rail connection is key for efficient intermodal shipping. And there aren’t many deep water harbours on the west coast with railways. Building rail or road connections to new ports wouldn’t be trivial.
mig39 5y ago
Prince Rupert is also physically closer to Asia (saves 2-3 days of sailing time), and has very little other sea traffic. The rail line is also expanding, and has very little non-port traffic. The port itself is protected by geography, and is one of the deepest natural harbours in the world. It's a neat place! Well, except for being one of the rainiest cities in Canada. Edit: If you're interested in this kind of thing, here's a drone video I shot last year, of Prince Rupert's container port: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DyG9wOWi0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DyG9wOWi0c
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  The daily and seasonal temperate variations are quite low. Seems like that would be good for smooth operations year around. https://weatherspark.com/y/298/Average-Weather-in-Prince-Rupert-Canada-Year-Round#Figures-Temperature https://weatherspark.com/y/298/Average-Weather-in-Prince-Rup...
  - mig39 5y ago
    Yes! On one hand, very little snow (and if there is snow, it melts soon enough). On the other hand, no real summer, either. Just rainy season, and less rainy season :-)
    - jetbooster 5y ago
      > Just rainy season, and less rainy season :-) Calling it British Columbia certainly tracks then!
- kelnos 5y ago
  To me, you're raising the question of: why are ports in locations like Long Beach and LA (and SF/Oakland)? They seem like terrible locations for ports. There's a lot of coastline on the western US. Why pick places where land is astronomically expensive, and transportation options aren't great? One reason I can think of is availability of labor, but how many people does it take to run a good-sized port? Not saying we build a new port out in the middle of nowhere, but a location where there is already a small- to mid-sized town nearby might be suitable. And also consider that the existing port locations have housing costs that are probably too high for many/most port workers anyway. It seems like we need more ports in the US in places similar to Prince Rupert.
  - vanattab 5y ago
    Maybe SF and LA are there because the area is a good port? Cities have been built near navigatable waterways since time immoral.
  - 5y ago

by BitLit 5y ago

vlovich123 5y ago

I wonder if the containers per berth number goes down as the number of berths increases in one port because other bottlenecks appear. I suspect adding more ports is actually a way to maintain efficiency here, but there's probably logistical challenges with that (skilled workforce, supply chain support, road network & other infrastructure to handle the volume, etc). There's probably also far more cost to adding a port than adding a berth.

BitLit 5y ago
Indeed. And Prince Rupert is probably an outlier since it has almost everything going for it in terms of ship-to-shore efficiency. With a population is ~12k, road traffic rounds to zero. This also shows that a large population isn’t required for a large port. But, more importantly Prince Rupert is well connected to the CN rail network. A rail connection is key for efficient intermodal shipping. And there aren’t many deep water harbours on the west coast with railways. Building rail or road connections to new ports wouldn’t be trivial.

mig39 5y ago

Prince Rupert is also physically closer to Asia (saves 2-3 days of sailing time), and has very little other sea traffic. The rail line is also expanding, and has very little non-port traffic. The port itself is protected by geography, and is one of the deepest natural harbours in the world. It's a neat place! Well, except for being one of the rainiest cities in Canada. Edit: If you're interested in this kind of thing, here's a drone video I shot last year, of Prince Rupert's container port: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DyG9wOWi0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DyG9wOWi0c

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
The daily and seasonal temperate variations are quite low. Seems like that would be good for smooth operations year around. https://weatherspark.com/y/298/Average-Weather-in-Prince-Rupert-Canada-Year-Round#Figures-Temperature https://weatherspark.com/y/298/Average-Weather-in-Prince-Rup...
- mig39 5y ago
  Yes! On one hand, very little snow (and if there is snow, it melts soon enough). On the other hand, no real summer, either. Just rainy season, and less rainy season :-)
  - jetbooster 5y ago
    > Just rainy season, and less rainy season :-) Calling it British Columbia certainly tracks then!
kelnos 5y ago
To me, you're raising the question of: why are ports in locations like Long Beach and LA (and SF/Oakland)? They seem like terrible locations for ports. There's a lot of coastline on the western US. Why pick places where land is astronomically expensive, and transportation options aren't great? One reason I can think of is availability of labor, but how many people does it take to run a good-sized port? Not saying we build a new port out in the middle of nowhere, but a location where there is already a small- to mid-sized town nearby might be suitable. And also consider that the existing port locations have housing costs that are probably too high for many/most port workers anyway. It seems like we need more ports in the US in places similar to Prince Rupert.
- vanattab 5y ago
  Maybe SF and LA are there because the area is a good port? Cities have been built near navigatable waterways since time immoral.
- 5y ago