Impact of Panama Canal Widening on U.S. Highways?

[Grzrd]

Within the past ten days, I have seen several references to the anticipated 2014 completion of the project to widen the Panama Canal.  The anticipated opening has been used as a justification for building I-3 to support the Port of Savannah (http://savannahnow.com/opinion/2010-08-28/no-brainer) and to accelerate the completion of I-49 from the Port of New Orleans all the way to Kansas City (http://www.swtimes.com/special_reports/article_83924506-b78d-11df-ab48-001cc4c03286.html).

Also, GDOT director Vance Smith, Jr. has stated, "The Jimmy DeLoach Connector [from the Port of Savannah to I-95] arguably may be the most important 3.5 miles of highway ever built in Georgia." (http://expandingcapacity.transportation.org/unlocking_freight/states/GA_Unlocking_Freight_0610.pdf)  If you have ever driven the I-85/ I-285 "Spaghetti Junction" intersection, I think you realize what a bold statement that is about the Jimmy DeLoach Connector.

Is the 2014 Panama Canal widening a REALLY BIG THING that will dramatically increase freight traffic (with the consequential deteriorative effect on U.S. road infrastructure), or is it more in the line of being a "throw mud on the wall and hope it sticks" argument used by road proponents?

Relevant quote from above-linked article re I-49:

"Once finished, it could mean a gusher of freight traffic to and from the Port of New Orleans by 2014, when the widening of the Panama Canal is expected to be complete and double the freight capacity of that water passage.

"I-49 needs to be the main finger out of New Orleans all the way to Canada,"  said Curt Green of Texarkana, president of the multi-state I-49 Coalition. "The trucks and freight will roll like you've never seen before. It is the most likely route through the heart of the nation. ... The Port of New Orleans is a good member of the I-49 Coalition." "

Relevant quote from above-linked article re I-3:

"By 2014, new, larger ships will ply the trade routes between Asia and the Eastern Seaboard, with the expansion of the Panama Canal.

The bulk of goods that may be delivered at one time will also therefore greatly expand. Shorter drive times to Augusta could make that city a viable distribution center, expanding Savannah's capacity to move imported goods."

EDIT

Apparently, port dredging projects run into the same delays as highway projects: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9I01LNO0.htm

[mightyace]

IMHO I think it will change freight traffic patterns rather than add new traffic overall.

The biggest effect will not be on the roads but the railroads.  A significant amount of intermodal traffic uses the USA and/or Canada as a land bridge.  Container ships that are bigger than current Panamax unload freight on the west coast (LA, Seattle, Prince Rupert) and the containers are put on trains for the east coast. (Norfolk, Baltimore, NY, Boston, St. John)  The containers are then loaded on another ship for Europe.  This traffic will drop if not disappear after the new canal is opened.

As for roads, traffic for the west coast will still be unloaded there.  But traffic for the central or eastern US may be unloaded at Gulf Coast or East Coast ports.  And, where the haulage is short, particularly on the eastern seaboard truck will probably predominate over rail.  But, the difference will mainly be the transloading point i.e. Port of NY versus intermodal yard in NJ.

In conclusion, some roads will see a significant increase from the change and some will see a significant decrease.

[Grzrd]

IMHO I think it will change freight traffic patterns rather than add new traffic overall ... In conclusion, some roads will see a significant increase from the change and some will see a significant decrease.

So, for some roads it really will be a legitimate argument during discussions for the next reauthorization bill?

Can you offer any predictions as to which roads will see a significant increase from the change?

[mightyace]

I can't offer a national prediction as I don't know overall patterns but locally, near east cost and gulf cost terminals it will change.

For example, Norfolk Southern and CSX have a joint intermodal terminal in Croxton, NJ.  Traffic in and out of there will likely decrease while traffic in and out of the New York and New Jersey ports will increase as freight that was unloaded in LA and sent cross-country now comes to New York Harbor by boat.

Now, if the load is going to say Scranton, PA the route will be pretty much the same past the terminals.

A similar thing will happen across the east and gulf coasts.

[Grzrd]

IMHO I think it will change freight traffic patterns rather than add new traffic overall.

In a Sept. 5, 2010 article, Arkansas officials agree with you (although below quote is more in context of inland ports than I-49 and other highways):

"Many local and state transportation officials anticipate that the expansion of the Panama Canal, expected to be complete in 2014, radically will change shipping patterns between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

That could mean much more freight coming up through the Gulf of Mexico to the Port of New Orleans and ultimately up the Mississippi and Arkansas river systems.

Containerized freight, usually holding finished goods, might become a larger part of the mix of goods and commodities that make their way to inland ports. (http://www.swtimes.com/special_reports/article_f81e30ca-b791-11df-aa49-001cc4c03286.html)

[mgk920]

What percentage of today's ocean-going container ships will be able to fit through the upgraded canal?  Some of them are pretty big, indeed.

Mike

[J N Winkler]

We also need to know the net tonnage of the ships that are not currently able to go through the canal but will be able to when it is upgraded, and the proportion of those ships which were engaged in crossing-the-USA trade, in order to have some idea of the extent to which "land bridge" operations will be replaced by ocean voyages and canal transits.  Does anyone have any idea of the tonnage that currently crosses the US from coast to coast without being offloaded anywhere in the US?

[Grzrd]

Here is a Dec., 2008 White Paper prepared for Corps of Engineers on predicted impact of widening on U.S. ports: http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/docs/iwrreports/WhitePaperPanamaCanal.pdf.

On page 19, the report lists, based on controlling depths, U.S. ports that will affected by the widening.  One city whose absence from the list jumps out at me is New Orleans (even though a footnote mentions the possibility of construction of an offshore container terminal at the mouth of the Mississippi River).

My immediate layman's reaction is that this may be bad news for New Orleans (and to stay on topic, bad news in competition for $$$ for highway projects near that area of the Gulf Coast).

Any thoughts re impact on NOLA and related road projects?

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Here is a Dec., 2008 White Paper prepared for Corps of Engineers on predicted impact of widening on U.S. ports: http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/docs/iwrreports/WhitePaperPanamaCanal.pdf.

On page 19, the report lists, based on controlling depths, U.S. ports that will affected by the widening.  One city whose absence from the list jumps out at me is New Orleans (even though a footnote mentions the possibility of construction of an offshore container terminal at the mouth of the Mississippi River).

My immediate layman's reaction is that this may be bad news for New Orleans (and to stay on topic, bad news in competition for $$$ for highway projects near that area of the Gulf Coast).

Houston and Miami have passed New Orleans' port in amount tonnage passing through for awhile now.

[Grzrd]

Here is an executive summary of a study from a few years ago conducted by Cambridge Systematics for TxDOT re effect of PC widening on Texas ports and highways: http://www.camsys.com/pubs/freight_Panama%20Canal_ExecSum.pdf

Interestingly, they concluded that it would be important to develop the I-35 and I-69 Trans-Texas Corridor routes to handle anticpated increase in freight traffic.  I understand TTC is practically dead-in-water and opposition to I-69 in Texas is pretty strong.

Sounds like some pretty crowded roads in near future for Texas.

BTW, Cambridge Systematics is group assessing suitability of Lamar Avenue Corridor in Memphis for upgrade to Interstate 22.

[Chris]

The biggest effect will not be on the roads but the railroads.  A significant amount of intermodal traffic uses the USA and/or Canada as a land bridge.  Container ships that are bigger than current Panamax unload freight on the west coast (LA, Seattle, Prince Rupert) and the containers are put on trains for the east coast. (Norfolk, Baltimore, NY, Boston, St. John)  The containers are then loaded on another ship for Europe.  This traffic will drop if not disappear after the new canal is opened.

Interesting. I didn't thought much shipping from Eastern Asia to Europe would use the United States land bridge (via transcontinental railroads). Wouldn't it be faster / more efficient to ship goods like that via the Suez Canal? An even shorter route from Japan to Europe would be via the Arctic, but that one remains problematic, especially closer to the North Pole.

I've also read there is great interest to upgrade transcontinental railways between Europe and China via Kazakhstan and Russia. A major intermodal center is planned in Slovakia to handle the transition from ex-Soviet gauge to European gauge.

An interesting vessel is the Berge Stahl. It exceeds the maximum beam of a Panamax ship by a factor 2. Only two ports in the world can handle it; Ponta da Madeira in Brazil and Rotterdam in the Netherlands. It transports ore to Europe. One shipload requires 17 trains of 204 train wagons (3,468 train wagon loads) to fill the Berge Stahl. Over 500,000 passenger cars can be constructed out of a single Berge Stahl load.

[UptownRoadGeek]

Houston and Miami have passed New Orleans' port in amount tonnage passing through for awhile now.

If we're talking container cargo then yes. However, the Port of N.O. has already planned for increased container capacity and is working to take advantage of the canal widening. If we're talking about overall tonnage, the Port of South Louisiana (in New Orleans) ranks #1 followed by the Port of Houston at #2, and the Port of New Orleans at #7. Miami doesn't even make it into the top 15.

[mightyace]

Interesting. I didn't thought much shipping from Eastern Asia to Europe would use the United States land bridge (via transcontinental railroads). Wouldn't it be faster / more efficient to ship goods like that via the Suez Canal? An even shorter route from Japan to Europe would be via the Arctic, but that one remains problematic, especially closer to the North Pole.

As an avid follower of North American railroads, I know its being done but I don't know the extent.  My educated guess is that since the "transcontinental bridge traffic" is a fraction of the intermodal traffic that originates and/or terminates in the US, it is probably also a fraction of the worldwide total.

There is a small operation on the Panama Canal Railroad that also does the "coast to coast" bridge.  But, while it is (was?) commercially successful, it's a drop in the bucket.

I think the main companies that use it are those that would otherwise route through the Panama Canal.

[english si]

Interesting. I didn't thought much shipping from Eastern Asia to Europe would use the United States land bridge (via transcontinental railroads). Wouldn't it be faster / more efficient to ship goods like that via the Suez Canal? An even shorter route from Japan to Europe would be via the Arctic, but that one remains problematic, especially closer to the North Pole.

AFAICS, absolutely no freight gets off a ship after a cross-ocean voyage, gets on a truck or train, crosses a continent and boards another ship for a cross-ocean voyage - it's just bad economics! You might drive the goods across the continent, but I wouldn't be surprised if you sent boats the other way round the world to access that coast.

Eastern Asian ships to Europe either go via Suez, or the Cape of Good Hope - a large number of ships at Southampton are from China, etc with goods for the UK - there might be some that crosses the Irish Sea or even the English Channel (though I'd imagine most of that goes to somewhere like Rotterdam), via a different port, but that's a short drive and a short second crossing.

[mightyace]

AFAICS, absolutely no freight gets off a ship after a cross-ocean voyage, gets on a truck or train, crosses a continent and boards another ship for a cross-ocean voyage - it's just bad economics! You might drive the goods across the continent, but I wouldn't be surprised if you sent boats the other way round the world to access that coast.

Sorry, but you are mistaken.

Here are the FACTS:

Here's the link for the Panama Canal Railway freight service:
http://www.panarail.com/en/cargo/index.html

And the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Railway

I'll post one on the US/Canada land bridge when I find it.

EDIT:
Found this: (See pages 25 and 26)
http://www.transystems.com/industry_presentations/Pres_08_09_06/8-09-06%20JV%209th%20Annual%20Transportation%20Summit%20Dallas%20TX%20FINAL.pdf

and this:
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/appl3en/usalandbridge.html

The North-American Landbridge is also competing for a market share of the traffic between Europe and Asia. It requires for maritime shippers on average from 5 to 6 weeks to service the harbors of Tokyo and Rotterdam. With the Landbridge, this time is reduced to about 3 weeks with an 6 days railway journey across North America. Yet, this option is not much used as post panamax containership using the Suez Canal is the most cost effective and reliable option to service European markets.

and one more:
http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/intermod.htm#Movement_by_Rail

A "Land Bridge" train is one that carries through containers between North American east and west coast ports. For example, an ocean carrier may move container traffic between Asia and Europe in three legs-(1) Container ship Asia to U.S. west coast port; (2) land bridge train to east coast; (3) container ship from east coast to Europe-rather than face vessel size restrictions of the Panama Canal. Modern super container ships do not fit through the canal.

I could go on (and on) but I think that I've proved my point.

[mgk920]

I would think that pirates would be a serious worry on a Suez Canal routing, too.  Seriously.

Mike

[Chris]

It is. Piracy is also an issue in the waters around Indonesia, although less frequently in the media.

[english si]

Indeed, which is why a lot of European Navy vessels are around the Horn of Africa - protect the stuff from Asia.

[Stephane Dumas]

Wasn't possible to send some of the merchandise from countries like South Korea and Japan to use the Trans-Siberian railroad from Vladivostock to Europe?

[Troubleshooter]

I don't see much impact on roads, because of the time ships take to get from place to place. Trucks are faster.

[mightyace]

Wasn't possible to send some of the merchandise from countries like South Korea and Japan to use the Trans-Siberian railroad from Vladivostock to Europe?

It's possible, it may even be going on.  But one has to remember that the Trans-Siberian is at most 2 tracks and has limited capacity.  (<100 trains per day)

[Stephane Dumas]

It's possible, it may even be going on.  But one has to remember that the Trans-Siberian is at most 2 tracks and has limited capacity.  (<100 trains per day)

From what I read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#Developments_in_shipping they tried to get some merchandises by train. Also, there a map showing some deviation routes and spurs of the Trans-Siberian railway.

[Grzrd]

Here is report of S.C. Sen. Graham complaining about Port of Charleston being left out of recent funding.  How does that relate to highways?  If the Port of Charleston brings in $45 billion per year, I suspect its decline would affect funding for S.C. highways:

"Posted: Sep 01, 2010 5:46 PM EDT
Updated: Sep 01, 2010 6:56 PM EDT
By Tracey Amick  bio | email

CHARLESTON, SC (WCSC) - The Port of Charleston is the fourth busiest port on the East coast. It brings in $45 billion every year and employs more than 260,000 workers across South Carolina.

But ships are getting bigger, and if the port is not dredged soon, Senator Lindsey Graham says the port could die.

"The deepest ship now during right circumstance has a five-foot cushion from keel to the sand bottom of the harbor and five feet to the Ravenel bridge," said Graham.

Graham says the Obama administration funded dredging studies for all the other East coast ports, but not Charleston. And once the Panama Canal is widened in 2014, even larger ships will be coming to the East coast .... State Ports Authority CEO Jim Newsome says the port needs to dredge to a level where the ships don't have to depend on high tide to move in and out.

"You don't want to depend on a tide, because you have to make an appointment to go through the Panama Canal and you don't want to wait if you miss your appointment. Shipping lines expect unfettered access to a port because that's what they have throughout the world, Asia and Europe, and they want that here," said Newsome.

Since other East coast ports like Savannah received funding, they're  further along in the dredging process. The Port of Charleston has finished the first step with the Corp of Engineers, but can't take the next step to start the dredging study without the federal funding.

"The study is a 3-to-4 year enterprise, $400,000 is the first chunk of money," said Graham.

Then comes design, construction and maintenance. In all it's close to a $300 million project, but Graham says considering the money the port brings in, it's well worth it.

Dredging could take 10 years, but Newsome says as long as we move now we'll survive, since Charleston has advantages, like a wider harbor..." (http://www.live5news.com/Global/story.asp?S=13084625)

[mgk920]

One *BIG* problem with using the Trans-Siberian Railroad is that Russian railroads are 100% incompatible with those of both China and central and western Europe.  The track gauge is 1520 mm in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union and 1435 mm (standard gauge) in China and central and western Europe (a difference of 85 mm) and they use incompatible coupling standards.  Also, even thought they share a track gauge, Chinese equipment is mostly incompatible with central and western European railroads, the coupling standards are different (China uses North American style AAR 'knuckle' couplers while Europe uses 'buffer and chain' coupling) and loading gauges are far smaller in Europe.

Chinese equipment is nearly 100% compatible with the railroads of North America.

There are serious proposals to build a standard-gauge (1435 mm) railroad between China and Europe.  If built, it would run south of Russia.

Mike

[Grzrd]

One *BIG* problem with using the Trans-Siberian Railroad is that Russian railroads are 100% incompatible with those of both China and central and western Europe.  The track gauge is 1520 mm in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union and 1435 mm (standard gauge) in China and central and western Europe (a difference of 85 mm) and they use incompatible coupling standards.

IIRC, isn't the difference in track gauge somewhat of a Cold War relic?  In other words, wasn't the difference by design in order to frustrate  a theoretical  overwhelming "blitzkrieg" advance by invading forces of another nation?  Also, I think at one time Spain intentionally had a wider track gauge than the other EU nations; is that still the case?