Jump to content

Port of Charleston


Spartan

Recommended Posts

All this means is that Charleston will have to up its effeciency and increase capacity. Its just more competition in an lready competitive industry. The new SC-GA port authority just insures that SC gets its share of the money coming from Savannah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Amapper provides some good points, though, krazee. Granted, this will not be the death of the Port of Chas, but it can spell a downgrade in economic momentum that the city had. It also may not be the only port in the state, but it is the central port of SC that handles the most tonnage and has the best highway access thus far. Operations, administration, and central customs are all HQ'd in Chas...if traffic is veered away, those agencies might decide to move where most of the action is.

And krazee, I have to disagree with you on Savannah gaining the upper hand. Savannah will indeed see more traffic and business because of the extra visibility with the largest container ships. As more super-container ships dock at this port, they'll also have the opportunity to use Savannah's across the river, if the other terminal is not available.

Indeed, the Daniel Island issue severely degraded the port's ability to expand, and those incompetent state legislatures and local leaders should be put to task when the shipping economy of Chas begins to fade.

There has been some good news, however. The Army Corps of Engineers approved the old Navy base terminal! :thumbsup: The permit lists 26 conditions, the most notable being that an access road linking the terminal with Interstate 26 must be built before the terminal can open. The three-berth port is projected to open in 2013. It is designed to handle the equivalent of 1.4 million 20-foot-long shipping containers a year. Check out the link below:

Army Corps OKs terminal

Great, all we have to do now is hurry up and wait while our legislature debates different ideas on how fund the project when they should have already had the money set aside, ready to be used the moment the port cleared all of the red tape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

^ Very true. One can only imagine exactly how long and tedious the process will be before we start actually seeing the construction crews for the new terminal, access road, and I-26 widening.

For further news on the joint GA-SC terminal from the link below, the U.S. Senate approved a bill that includes a requirement that ACE studies the feasibility of building a new cargo port on the South Carolina side of the Savannah River. This bill was actually a provision that was inserted into the Water Resources Development Act by Lindsey Graham at the request of Mark Sanford. The study will cost $1 million, and the cost will be covered by both SC and GA. The legislation directs the ACE to study any navigation-related improvements that would be needed along the Savannah River to support a container port. It also would remove easements that allow the government to use the Jasper site for dredge disposal.

Folks, I think this will actually show the problems with building this port as opposed to concentrating efforts to expand the port of Chas. This map is shown in the article:

bizlede_.jpg

Do you see the route ships have to traverse just to reach the Savannah port? Ships have to make treacherous journeys through narrow channels...imagine adding the current port traffic in these channels to support an even larger terminal? I really do think they're trying to fit a square peg into a circle hole.

I think this shows how imperative it is for our state legislature to quit stalling on the Chas port, the access road, and I-26 improvements.

U.S. Senate orders port study

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Very true. One can only imagine exactly how long and tedious the process will be before we start actually seeing the construction crews for the new terminal, access road, and I-26 widening.

For further news on the joint GA-SC terminal from the link below, the U.S. Senate approved a bill that includes a requirement that ACE studies the feasibility of building a new cargo port on the South Carolina side of the Savannah River. This bill was actually a provision that was inserted into the Water Resources Development Act by Lindsey Graham at the request of Mark Sanford. The study will cost $1 million, and the cost will be covered by both SC and GA. The legislation directs the ACE to study any navigation-related improvements that would be needed along the Savannah River to support a container port. It also would remove easements that allow the government to use the Jasper site for dredge disposal.

Folks, I think this will actually show the problems with building this port as opposed to concentrating efforts to expand the port of Chas. This map is shown in the article:

bizlede_.jpg

Do you see the route ships have to traverse just to reach the Savannah port? Ships have to make treacherous journeys through narrow channels...imagine adding the current port traffic in these channels to support an even larger terminal? I really do think they're trying to fit a square peg into a circle hole.

I think this shows how imperative it is for our state legislature to quit stalling on the Chas port, the access road, and I-26 improvements.

U.S. Senate orders port study

Ships travel up & down that "narrow" channel daily, without incident, and Charleston still fell to #4. Also, the area outlined for the new port is nowhere near as big as shown by your attached map. So.....

Bi-state cooperation is essential for both GA & SC ports. NY & NJ have doen it with great success. No reason why that success can't be duplicated here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ The question is, will that success be the downfall of a major port? BTW, this isn't an issue of Chas falling to #4, but if SC leaders hope that Chas doesn't fall even more, it will be imperative to look at improving the port there, THEN concentrate on the SC-GA port.

What is really interesting is that most of the people here who support the joint port (at a possible detriment to the Chas port) are not Chas area residents or natives. <_< I wonder if people understand the significance of Chas' port?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charleston isn't going anywhere. Its still the #1 port for the Carolinas. It will be many years before they complete the studies needed to build this new port. Charleston has plenty of time to play catch up, if our legislature can get it in gear (seems like they are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to be a Charleston area native or resident to understand the importance of the Port of Charleston; it's a major economic engine for the entire state. Just because I'm for the development of this port in no way means that I don't support the state's main port. The fact is, if our state legislature had beefed it up some time ago so that it was still 2nd on the East Coast, we probably wouldn't even be worried about how this joint port could potentially negatively affect the Port of Charleston; we wouldn't be having this discussion. The issue isn't an additional port, it's failing to increase capacity for our main port. The two are not mutually exclusive projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I agree to a point. There is no reason that SC shouldn't capitalize on the Atlanta shipping market.

I was thinking that an Atlanta connection had to be a part of why Savannah gets more traffic than Charleston. Everything can't possibly come through Hartsfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hopefully, an expansion of the port at the Wando Welch Terminal in Mount Pleasant will help it to regain its #2 spot. The State Ports Authority reported yesterday that it will convert a 25-acre parcel at the terminal into a refrigerated container yard. It is one of two equal-sized tracts of undeveloped land the SPA owns at the terminal. The combined 50 acres represent the last expansion sites available to the SPA until it opens the proposed terminal at the old Navy base in North Charleston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think that investing in Charleston will not be a good solution for the long haul. Charleston is too built up as it is, and at some point there just isnt going to be enough room. I think that it makes more sense to have two ports that are high on the list but not at the top, rather than just one that is on top. I think that in order to successfully compete as a state, we need to invest more heavily in Georgetown by building new rail connections to the rest of and enhancing highway connections to the rest of SC to make it a more viable port for larger commercial ships. Maybe we need to rethink that inland port idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the GA/SC port is part of the process, and a good direction for our states to make. Maybe we need to have a joint ports authority like the Ports Authority of NY/NJ? Or maybe a joint ports authority with NC?

But unless something like that happens, we need to have more than one decent sized port so we can remain competative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree Spartan. Why should the state invest in failed or minor ports that aren't demonstrating potential when we have a major port already in competition with other ports on the Eastern seaboard? Also, we're seeing significant investments in all other major ports that are competing with Chas, from Norfolk and Hampton Roads to Savannah and Jacksonville. None of their other respective states are looking at other ports because the cities are "too built up".

I'm pleased with the expansion, but it will be a just a needed small step. The Navy base terminal seems to be on track again, as long as the additional I-26 overpass/port access road can be built.

Like krazee said, with Dubai seriously looking into pumping $600-700 million into Orangeburg, it would be wise to build more rail infrastructure in conjunction with Chas port expansion. Georgetown is just too isolated to be a viable, expanding port. The GA/SC is another consideration, but that resource is still 10-20 years away from being built and running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree Spartan. Why should the state invest in failed or minor ports that aren't demonstrating potential when we have a major port already in competition with other ports on the Eastern seaboard? Also, we're seeing significant investments in all other major ports that are competing with Chas, from Norfolk and Hampton Roads to Savannah and Jacksonville. None of their other respective states are looking at other ports because the cities are "too built up".

I'm pleased with the expansion, but it will be a just a needed small step. The Navy base terminal seems to be on track again, as long as the additional I-26 overpass/port access road can be built.

Like krazee said, with Dubai seriously looking into pumping $600-700 million into Orangeburg, it would be wise to build more rail infrastructure in conjunction with Chas port expansion. Georgetown is just too isolated to be a viable, expanding port. The GA/SC is another consideration, but that resource is still 10-20 years away from being built and running.

But I contend that Georgetown is in the very situation that its in because there hasn't been any serious investment in this port facility. If there were adequate road and rail access there, then it wouldn't be so "isolated." I'm not suggesting we abandon Charleston or anything, just invest more money in the other port. Diversify.

The other major ports along the east coast have a significant advantage that Charleston lacks- they are all on major rivers or waterways. The Cooper River is a tidal river. At some point they will run into problems expanding the port, be it because of new growth, environemtnal restrictions, or a general lack of space. It won't be tomorrow, but I think it will impact Charleston before it impacts the other ports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the logistics industry.

Centralization is where efficiency is gained. That's why the largest port on the East Coast is "the combined ports of New York and New Jersey". They share a road, rail and management system because they are close enough to become one port complex. Georgetown isn't close enough. We shouldn't divide our resources.

The Charleston port needs to be expanded with the Navy Yard land, in my opinion.

Who are the customers of the port? Manufacturers? No, not really. They benefit from efficient ports, but don't pay ports directly. Who does? Shipping Companies / Ocean Carriers (Maersk, OOCL, etc). The customers that ports aim to attract, that they win and lose, are the vessel operators. They choose which ports their vessels will call.

They make this choice based on costs of terminal fees, efficiency (how many containers can the port load / unload per hour), connectivity to inland points, congestion (or preferably, lack thereof), harbor depth, etc. If vessels have to wait around, that costs them money. Vessels are expensive to operate, they need to be on the water not sitting in port or at anchor.

The Port of Charleston needs to expand in order to have these favorable characteristics to attract steamship lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York and New Jersey also share the only logical harbor in that area. Thats a slightly different scenario. Where does Charleston expand after the Naval Yard? After Wando? The Cooper only goes so far inland... And what if our ports arent as effecient as they could be"? There is not rail access to the East Cooper area. Downtown is difficult to get trains in and out of (though not impossible). I agree that Charleston needs to become more efficient. But what is the problem with having two equally efficient ports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You lose economies of scale. It's like this:

You have a family of 6 living in one house, but the house is a little too small. Your total monthly expenditure is $3000/mth.

Can you then logically get two smaller houses, and run two separate households, for $1500/mth each? No. You will need two sets of appliances, two lawnmowers, two sets of utilities (each with minimum charges), two meals each night, etc and each won't be half the cost of the previous single one from before.

Korea has one main container port (Busan). Thailand has Laemchabang. France has Le Havre. Best to focus on one main one and get the economy of scale.

Consolidation is the way to go. In Savannah, ships have to go way upriver. We have a much more efficient natural set-up IF we wanted to use it.

Problem is, people that live in Charleston now are "lifestyle" people mostly, they aren't concerned about having a working city. Trucks, oh my no! Ships spoiling my view, how horrible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do you propose using the set up that Charleston has? I know none of us are experts on Port planning, but just for the sake of argument lets talk :)

Economies of scale are all well and good, but they also ultimately answer to geography in this case, which is not on our side. The way I see it, the good spots for new ports are limited, especially with demand for waterfront living at an all time high in Charleston. We have room to continue investing in Charleston for the time being. But You can't use the peninsula any more, there's too much real estate demand for property there. You can't use the Ashley. There is a ton of land on the Cooper still owned by the Navy. If memory serves, the terminal on Daniel Island was shot down because the residents didn't want trucks driving around on their island (I could be wrong about that one). I honestly don't know how far upstream.

So given what I know, to me, it looks like the situation is somewhat limited in terms of expansion. After expansion is ruled out you must improve efficiency. I know the port to not have the most efficient break-bulk system, not enough direct rail connections. That could be fixed and it can be improved. But it seems to me at some point in the future we're going to be limited in how much infrastructure can be put into Charleston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eventually we would run out, but not anytime soon. I live in Singapore. It is the WORLD'S #1 port in terms of number of containers handled per year.

It's a small island nation. The amoung of waterfront land they use for terminal use is probably the same or not much more than Wando plus peninsular Charleston plus the Cooper River / Navy base side. Of course, some work needs to be done by our senators and other Washington reps to free up some of that ex-Navy base area. More cranes and automation can do the rest.

But, as you stated, port design isn't my specialty. Certainly we can beat Savannah (with their very inefficient river set-up)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The Port of Charleston can prosper by increasing the density of it's operation similar to some Chinese ports, building more warehousing to accommodate shipping companies and transitioning to a more rail based method of moving shipping containers.

Warehousing is on the way big time with the Dubai company's complex in Orangeburg County and the 9 million square feet Ross Perot's son is building in Summerville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Steamship lines (vessel owners) are the customers of ports, not consumers.

Steamship lines want their vessels worked quickly (efficiency, cranes, and berth space) and they want containers to be able to come and go from the port easily and at the lowest possible cost (road and especially rail connections).

With planning and community acceptance, Charleston could have held it's #4 in the US / #2 on the East Coast position. Didn't happen and now we're seeing the results.

If you're a Yankee that sold your house in NJ and retired here for "quality of life" - you don't care if there is a viable economy here or not. Close the whole port down, it brings too many trucks to the roads while you are trying to get groceries right? Lots of people think like that and contributed to the situation today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.