07quicheversuscargo.pdf

(1)

The

Ralph

Wallace

Port

authoritiesintheUnitedStateshave tradition-allyfocusedtheirresources

on

thedevelopmentof

marineterminalsand related infrastructurefor

water-borne commerce.In recentyears,however,forceswithin

theport industryand thecommunitiesthey servehave

directed

many

port authorities to allocate land and

capital resources toward the development ofa broad

range of land usesunrelated towaterbornecommerce.

The

resulting increase in competition between mari-timeand non-maritimeusesforlimitedwaterfront land

resources (sometimes characterized as the struggle of "quiche versus cargo") is a source ofongoing debate

within theport industry.

Thisgrowing competition between maritimeand non-maritimeusesof the waterfront hasbeenconfined

pri-marily tothe Pacific coast. Dramatic growth in trade

with the Pacific

Rim

and rapidly growing real estate

markets havecombinedto exerttremendous

develop-ment

pressure

on

thescarcewaterfront land resources of

port authoritiesinmajorportcitiessuchas

Long

Beach,

LosAngeles,andOakland.

More

recently,however,this

issue has also begun to emerge in port cities in the

southeasternUnitedStates.Forinstance,

Tampa

faced

thisissue

when

itbegantheredevelopmentofthe Gar-risonTerminal,anaging general cargo1

facilitylocated on the eastern edge of the

Tampa

central business

district.

The

Garrison Seaport Center,astheprojectwill

beknown,willbeamixed-usecomplex anchoredby the

Florida Aquarium, anon-profiteducationaland

tour-Ralph Wallace is a graduate ofthe

UNC-Chapel

Hill

DepartmentofCityandRegionalPlanning.

He

iscurrently

an independentconsultantengagedintransportplanning

and economicanalysis,primarily within the portindustry.

From

1986to1991 hewasasenioreconomistatFrederic

R.Harris,Inc.,a

New

York-basedconsulting engineering

firmspecializinginport development.

ismfacilityfeaturingFloridaaquaticlife.

The

long-term

benefitsof theprojectareclear.

The

Garrison Seaport Centerwillgreatly expandthe offerings in

downtown

Tampa

by drawingresidentsandvisitors tothis

water-frontlocationduring eveningsandweekends.

Commer-cialdevelopmentof thesitewillprovide the

Tampa

Port Authority with a significantstream of revenue,which

canbeusedtofinancemaritime developmentprojects,

whilethecenterwillserve asthesiteoftheport'scruise

terminalcomplex.

The

decision to undertake this project raised

many

concerns within the port industry in the

Tampa

Bay region.Although theageand locationofthe Garrison

Terminallimiteditsusefulnessforgeneralcargo

opera-tions,itwasnonethelessanactivecargoterminal.

The

loss of this facility has constrained the

Tampa

Port

Authority's capacity tohandle general cargoata time

when

the port's cargo traffic is growing dramatically.

Capitalfundsand

Tampa

PortAuthoritystaffresources requiredfortheredevelopmentof theGarrison Termi-nalhasfurther limitedtheAuthority'sabilitytoperform

its

more

traditional functions.

The

Tampa

Port

Author-ityhas recognizedthatnon-maritime developmentwill

playan importantroleinitsfuture.

To

minimize

poten-tial conflictswith its traditionaldevelopment mission,

the

Tampa

Port Authority has included a

new

set of

policiestoguide itsnon-maritime development

activi-tiesinitsrecently-updatedstrategicplan.2

Thisarticlewillexamineseveralaspectsof the"quiche

versuscargo"debate,usingthe

Tampa

Port Authorityas

an example.

The

competition between maritime and non-maritime usesofthewaterfrontmustbe balanced with the economic benefits of traditional maritime

development and the unique spatial requirements of

marine terminals.

To

do this, a set of broad policy guidelinesfor the

management

of waterfront land

(2)

CAROLINA

PLANNING

Increasing

Competition

for

Waterfront

Land

Waterfront landisa scarceandvaluable resourcein

anyportcommunity.Conflict

among

various publicand privateusers of waterfront landisexpected. In recent

years,however, thelevelofconflictovertheappropriate use of waterfront landinportcommunitieshas

intensi-fied.Theseincreasingconflictsare theresultof

techno-logicaland economicchanges withinthe port industry

and changesinthe broaderdevelopment environment

withinwhichportauthoritiesoperate.

Changingdesignof marine terminals.

The

advent of

containerization significantly changed the design and

operation of general cargomarineterminals.

The

tech-nologicalchangesassociatedwithcontainerizationhave

generallyreducedthe

amount

of berth spaceandlabor

requiredtohandleagiven

volume

ofcargo.Conversely,

theareaneededforstorageandthe overallcapitalcost

ofmarineterminaldevelopmenthaveincreased

signifi-cantly. Containerization has rendered

many

older

gen-eralcargomarineterminals functionallyobsolete.

Origi-nallydesigned forhandling breakbulkcargo, these

fa-cilities are frequently located near urban centers on

constrainedsiteswithpoortruckaccess.

The

Garrison

Terminalin

Tampa

andthe

Columbus

StreetTerminal

inCharleston areexamplesofsuchfacilities.

Redevel-opment

interesthasfocusedonthesefacilitiesbecause

of their location near commercial centers and their

declining utility as active marine terminals.

As

cargo

volumesgrow andportactivity shiftsaway fromthese

olderfacilities,however,

new

andlargersitescapable of supporting

modern

terminaldevelopmentmust be

iden-tifiedandpreserved.

FinancialPressure onPortAuthorities.

The

need to

develop

new

marineterminals to

accommodate

changes

in shipping technology has resulted in a dramatic

in-creaseincapitalinvestment byportauthorities.

At

the

same

time, containerizationhas increased thelevelof competition between port authorities. This

competi-tionhasloweredtherates

port authorities charge shippinglines fortheuse

of their facilities.

To

remainfinanciallyviable

in thishighlycompetitive environment, port au-thorities have

begun

searchingforalternative

revenue sources.

Com-mercial development of appropriate waterfront

parcelshasthe potential

to generate substantial amountsof revenue while

requiring minimal

capi-talinvestmentonthe part

ofport authorities.

Increased PublicAwarenessofthe Waterfront. In

many

portcities,thewaterfront hastraditionallybeenviewed

asaneconomicresourcetobeexploitedforthe

develop-ment

of portfacilitiesandwater-dependent industries

suchasshiprepair.

The

successof

numerous

waterfront

redevelopmentprojectsundertakeninthe 1980s,most

notably Baltimore'sInnerHarbor, has transformedthe attitudes of government officials, private developers, andthegeneralpublicregarding appropriateuse ofthe waterfront.Heightenedinterestinalternative

develop-ment

ofthe waterfront,rangingfrom providingpublic accesstointensivemixed-usedevelopment,has placed

considerable pressure

on

portauthorities to consider

non-maritimeuseoftheir real estate.

More

StringentEnvironmentalRegulation.

The

devel-opment

of waterfront land is

among

the most highly regulatedactivities intheUnitedStates.Waterfront de-velopment is regulated by all levels of government,

which have applied increasingly strict standards over

time.

The

introductionof

more

stringentenvironmental standardshashadthreeeffects

on

waterfront develop-ment:

• the

amount

ofwaterfront landwhere developmentis permittedisreduced;

• _mitigationrequirementsadd_to_{the cost}_of

develop-ment

andfurtherreducethenet

amount

of waterfront propertyavailablefordevelopment;and

• the increased lengthoftheenvironmentalpermitting

processaddstocostofdevelopmentandincreases

fi-nancialrisk.

Regulations are designed to enhance and preserve

vitalwaterfront environmentalresources,suchas tidal

wetlands,which is clearly in the public interest.

One

consequenceofthese regulations,however,isthat pub-licand private bodiesengaged inwaterfront

develop-ment

have

become

increasinglyreluctant toyield their

(3)

existingdevelopmentrightsto alternativeusesforfear

thattheycannotbereplaced.

InstitutionalConflict

With

few exceptions, port

au-thorities inUnitedStatesoperate outsidethe structure

oflocalgovernment.

The

most

common

model

forport

management

in the southeastern United States is a

state-wideagency responsibleforthedevelopment and

management

ofpublicportfacilitieswithinvariouslocal

jurisdictionsthroughout thestate.Although free-stand-ingport authorities have

many

advantages,one

seem-inglyinevitableconsequence is alack of

intergovern-mental coordination between the port authority and

localcommunities. Thislackof coordinationoften

re-sults in thepoor integrationofport developmentinto

theland useand transportationplans oflocaland

re-gional governments, exacerbating conflicts over the

appropriate use of waterfront land. Forexample, the

Tampa

PortAuthority, a majortrafficgeneratorand a

keyelement ofthe regionaltransportation system,was

nota

member

oftheMetropolitan Planning

Organiza-tion

(MPO)

which directsoverall developmentof the

region'sroad network.

Land

Use

Policies

of

Port Authorities

The

decisiontodevelop or redevelopawaterfrontsite

whichissuitablefora marineterminal fora non-mari-time useshouldbeapproachedwithcaution.

Two

con-siderationsshould govern this decision: the particular

spatialrequirements ofmarineterminalsandthe

signifi-canteconomicbenefit that ports providetotheir

com-munities.

SpatialRequirementsofPorts

A

marine terminal serves as an interface between

waterborneand land-basedtransportation modes; wa-terfront locationistheprimaryspatialrequirement ofa marineterminal.Simplyproviding waterfrontaccessis

not sufficient, however.

A

site must offer deepwater

access tobe suitable.

A

deepwaterberth and an unob-structednavigationchannel (nolow-lyingbridges,power

lines or otheroverhead structures) linking the siteto

ocean shipping lanes must be constructed and

main-tainedina

manner

whichisboth economicallyfeasible

andenvironmentally sound. Providingdeepwateraccess

has

become more

difficult inrecentyears.First,ships are becominglarger.

One

of theconsequences of contain-erizationhasbeenan increaseinshipsize.Before

con-tainerization,atypicalgeneralcargoshipwas 600feetin

lengthand hadadraftoflessthan 35 feet.

The modern

containerships

now

callingatmajorportssuchas

Char-lestonand Norfolk

may

be over950feet inlengthand

have a draft in excess of 42 feet. Bulk ships areeven

larger.

Some

carrierstransporting coalbetween

Hamp-ton,Virginiaand

European

portshavedrafts inexcessof 55 feet.

The

wideranddeepernavigationchannelsand berthsneededto

accommodate

theselarger,

more

effi-cientvesselshasreducedthe

numberof

sitessuitablefor

modern

port operationsandsignificantlyincreasedthe costof portdevelopmentandmaintenance.

Compound-ingthisproblemare the increasingly stringent environ-mental regulations governing the dredging of naviga-tionchannelsandthedisposalofdredgespoils.Finally,

thereductionanddelayinfunding of navigationprojects

by the federal government, which through the U.S.

Army

CorpsofEngineers hashistoricallyassumed

re-sponsibilityfor development and maintenance of the

country'swaterwaysandnavigation channels,hasshifted

anincreasing share of thefinancial burden ontostate

andlocalport authorities.

Inaddition toadequate wateraccess,asitemustalso

provideaccess tolandtransportation.

The

sitemustbe

linked totheregionalhighwaysystem byalocalroadway networkwitha capacity,roadwaygeometry,andlevelof

service sufficient to support large volumes of truck

traffic.Marineterminals alsorequire directraillinksfor

the

movement

of conventional rail traffic. Because of growingvolumesofcontainertrafficmovingbyrail,itis

becomingincreasinglyimportantfor

modern

container

terminalstohaveaccess tointermodalrail facilities.3

Marine terminals also serveas storage facilities for

export cargoes awaitingships and imports stored for distribution.Thefactor thatmostoftenlimitsthe

through-putcapacity ofa marine terminalis theavailabilityof

tractsofland largeenoughtosupportsubstantial

stor-age.

As

previouslynoted, the

amount

of land area

re-quired for handling general cargo has increased with

containerizationand thegrowth inthe sizeofvessels.

Whileaberthforhandlingbreakbulk general cargo

may

onlyrequirefivetotenacres,ageneralruleof

thumb

for

the developmentofa large-scale container terminal is fiftyacresperberth.Furtherexpandingtheland require-mentsfor

modern

marineterminalsisthegrowingtrend towardlocating trade-related distributionfacilitiesand

intermodalrailyardsadjacenttocontainerterminals. Marine terminals are heavy industrial sites which

shouldbesituated in alow-performance, heavy

indus-trial use zone. Marine terminals typically operate 24 hours per day, generating significant levels of noise,

visualpollution,andtraffic. Inaddition,marine

termi-nals often handle and store hazardous materials and

shouldthereforebeisolatedfrom mostresidentialand commercialland uses.

Thesefourspatial requirements, deep-wateraccess,

excellent rail and roadwaytransportation access,

ade-quatelandarea,and isolationfromincompatibleuses,

greatly limit the

number

of sites suitable for marine

terminaldevelopment.

Even

in

Tampa,

whichenjoysan excellent naturalharbor, there are a surprisingly limited

number

ofsiteswhere marineterminaldevelopment is both economicallyandenvironmentallyfeasible.There aretwoconsequences ofthese stringentspatial

(4)

free-10

CAROLINA

PLANNING

ingthese areastobe developed or redevelopedfor non-maritimeuses.

On

theother hand,the scarcityof

suit-ablesites for marine terminal developmentheightens

the importance of landbanking appropriate sites for

marine-relateduses.

Economic ImpactofPorts

Historically, the development and

management

of

the nation'sportsystemwasoneofthefirst

responsibili-ties assumed by federal,state and local governments. Thisearlyandcontinuingpublicinvolvementinport de-velopmentisbased

on

thesignificanteconomicbenefits

ofanefficientportsystem.

The

economicbenefits

pro-vided byaportare twofold. Direct, indirectandinduced

economic activity result from port operations, while

industriesand consumerswithin theport's hinterland

regionbenefitfromtheefficienttransportationofraw

materials,finishedproducts,andconsumergoods through

theport.

Economic

ImpactofPortOperationsPorts are power-fuleconomicengineswhichgeneratesignificant levels

ofemployment,economicactivity,andtaxrevenue.

The

economicactivitiesassociatedwith port operationsconsist

ofboththe physicalhandling of cargoandtrade-related servicesthataredirectlyrequiredforthe

movement

of

cargo. These activities include ocean transportation; marine terminal operations, inland transportation by

truckand rail,warehousing anddistribution, customs-house brokering andfreightforwarding; insurance,

trade-related finance,and governmentagencies.

The

economicimpact ofportoperationsvarybythe typeofcargo being handled.Non-containerized general

cargo, the most labor intensive cargo to handle and transport,generatesthe highestlevelsofdirect

employ-ment. In contrast, the handling ofhighly mechanized

bulkcargoes,which predominateTampa'scargo

through-put,produces

much

lowerlevelsofemployment.

A

study oftheeconomicimpact ofthePort of

Tampa

on

the

Tampa

Bay region4 estimated that during its

1985-86fiscalyear, the portgenerated 68,000jobs in

direct,indirectandinduced

employment

within the

five-county port region, $1.4 billion in income, and $684

millionintaxrevenues.

To

placethis inperspective, the

surroundingfive-countyregionhadatotal

employment

approximately 768,000in1986.5Based

on

thisestimate, thePort of

Tampa

generated approximately8.8percent ofall

employment

in the region, making it oneofthe region'smostimportanteconomicforces.Becausethe

Portof

Tampa

is primarilyabulk port locatedwithin

oneofthelargest

employment

centersinthe

southeast-ern United States, its

employment

impact is small

compared

to

many

otherports.Portswhichare located

in smaller cities and handle substantial volumes of

containerizedandnon-containerized generalcargo (such

as Charleston, South Carolinaand Norfolk,Virginia) exert aprofoundinfluence

on

the regionaleconomy.In

thesecommunities,the port oftenrepresents themajor

share ofthe basic sectorofthe regionaleconomy,acting

astheprimary enginedrivingregionaleconomic devel-opment.

Economic

BenefitstoPortUsers

Beyond

theeconomic

impact ofport operations, ports alsofacilitatethe

effi-cienttransportation ofgoodsinandout ofthe region.

This is by far the Port of Tampa's most important

function.NeighboringPolkCountyisoneoftheworld

centers for the mining and processing of phosphate

fertilizermaterials.

The

rawmaterialsusedinthe

pro-duction offertilizer(such asliquidsulphurand

ammo-nia)areimportedthroughthePortof

Tampa.

Roughly

55 percent ofthe industry's output,intheformof phos-phate rockandfinished fertilizer,isshippedtoforeign anddomesticdestinationsthroughthe Port ofTampa.

The

Portof

Tampa

exports fresh grapefruitandother

citrusproductsgrowninthe region.It isalsothepoint of distributionforrefinedpetroleumproductsmovinginto central Florida and handles imports of lumber,steel,and

other inputs used bythe

re-gion'sconstructionand

manu-facturingindustries.

Guidelines

for

Non-Maritime Development

In light of the

many

eco-nomicbenefitsoftraditional

portactivity,the

Tampa

Port

Authority established the

promotionofwaterborne

com-merceas theprimarygoal of

its 1992 strategic plan.

The

Tampa

PortAuthority,

how-ever,has substantial real

es-tateholdings notsuitablefor

(5)

maritimecommerce. It has adoptedaseries of

guide-linesformarketingtheseassets.

• _SiteControland_SelectionPromotingmaritime

com-merceistheprimarygoalof thePort.Onlyrealestate

assets which are not suitable orneeded to support

maritime

commerce

arecandidatesfornon-maritime

development.

• CapitalInvestment

The

Tampa

PortAuthoritymust

make

substantialinvestmentsinportfacilitiesincoming yearsandhaslimited capitalfundsavailabletopursue

non-maritime development. Because ofits capital

constraints,non-maritimedevelopmentundertaken

bythePortmustbelargely self-financing.

• RevenueGeneration

A

keypurpose_ofnon-maritime

developmentistogenerate revenuestofinanceport

development.

The

Tampa

PortAuthority seeks

proj-ectswhichgeneratesignificantrevenuesandhavelow

operatingcosts.

•

Land

UseCompatibility

The

Port

isaheavyindustrial

activityand non-maritimeusesmustbeselectedand

sited soasnot to create potentialconflictswith the

Port'sexistingmarineuses.

• EnhancePortPerformance Certain_uses,such_as

dis-tribution facilities, enhance the marketability ofa

port.

Development

of suchfacilitiesisgivenpriority.

It appears certain that competition between mari-timeand non-maritimeusesof the waterfrontwill

con-tinuetogrowwithinport

commu-nities. Both port authorities and

localgovernmentsshouldtemper

theirenthusiasmfornon-maritime

developmentwith acareful

assess-ment

of the current and future

needs of the port industry. Ports

occupy an important position within theeconomies oftheir com-munities.Appropriatewaterfront

sites must be preserved through landbankingandzoningcontrols

toinsure thatthelong-term

spa-tialneeds of the portindustrycan bemet.

Once

the decision hasbeen

made

topermitdevelopmentofa

sitesuitableforportuse,the deci-sion isoftenirreversible,cp

Notes

'Cargois typically classifiedinto two broad categories: bulkand

general.Bulk cargoconsistsofcommodities, suchas petroleum

products, ironore, grain,andcoalwhichareloadedand discharged

fromshipsusingpipelines,conveyors,andsimilarmechanical han-dlingequipment.Bulkcommoditiestendtobe lowinvalueandare typicallytransportedinlargevolumesondedicatedvessels.General cargoconsistsof abroad rangeofhigher valuecommodities, suchas apparel, automobiles, foodstuffs,and machinery. General cargois furtherclassified according tohow it is packaged and handled during shipment. Breakbulk cargoispackagedinrelativelysmall units,suchas bags,pallets,ordrums. Thisisthetraditionalmeans

of transporting generalcargoandisvery laborintensive.

Container-izedcargoconsistsof generalcargo whichisloadedintospecially designmetalshipping containers for transport.Theuse of shipping containers(whichare similarinsizetotrucktrailers)permitsthe efficienttransferofcargobetweenship,truckandrailandgreatly

reduces the time and cost involved in ocean transportation of general cargo. Neobulkcargoconsistsof general cargo, suchas automobiles,lumberandsteel,which cannot bereadilyloadedinto containers,butwhosephysical characteristicsenablethecargotobe bundledintolargeunitsforefficienthandling.

2_Tampa_Port

Authority (PrimeInterests, Inc.andFrederic R. Harris,

Inc.),TampaPort AuthorityStrategicPlanUpdate.November1991. •'Intermodalrailreferstothe inlandmovementof trucktrailersand

containersonrailroadflatcars.Becauseof thelowercostof trans-portingtrailersandcontainerbyrail,thishasbecomean increas-inglyimportantmeansofmovingcontainerizedcargoto/fromports, particularlyifthe originor destination of thecargoismorethan500

milesfromtheport.

4_{University of}_South_Florida_Center_for_Economic

andManagement

Research,TheEconomicImpact ofthePortofTampa.July,1988. 5

U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,CountyBusiness Patterns-Florida, 1986. 1987.Thefive-countyTampa port region consistsof Her-nando,Hillsborough, Pasco,Pinellas,and Polkcounties.