Shoot first, aim later

At the White House, through an inter-agency initiative called “We can’t wait”, the Obama administration has identified a handful of port projects that will see expedited treatment of their various governmental reviews and permitting processes.

Closer to home, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (one of the ports where channel deepening approvals have been fast-tracked) is now accelerating its plans for modifications to the Bayonne Bridge – where the current vertical clearance is a constraint on port calls by bigger vessels.

It’s worth noting that the port projects that can’t wait (according to the Feds) were announced before the identification of some three dozen yet to be identified non-maritime infrastructure improvements. These road and rail projects will also be included in the broader infrastructure initiative.

Fast-tracking is good… I think. However, any meaningful chunks of funding will hopefully not be appropriated based on “shoot first and then aim.” A new study from the Institute for Water Resources (an analytics arm within the US Army Corps of Engineers) on port and waterway modernisation highlights the importance for US ports to accommodate these future workhorses of trade.

Here’s the dilemma: the study’s authors readily admit, in its preface, that uncertainty abounds. The director of the IWR, Robert A Pietrowsky, writes: “It will probably take some years before it is clear exactly what changes to cargo flow, and its supporting transportation network, will result from the new locks.” He goes on to acknowledge that transformative game-changers – like the advent of containerisation itself, some 56 years ago – are mainly recognised after the fact, rather than being readily predictable.

Other recent studies that I’ve seen highlight the economies of scale in the bigger neo-panamax vessels-one pointed out that a half full 12,000 teu vessel will cost a carrier the same as a panamax vessel with 80% utilisation. If the carriers actually take such findings to heart, would they sail with partial loads (and reduced drafts)? If so, then what about all the fast-tracking?

As I’ve asked before, the Feds should be looking at a fuller infrastructure picture in the face of various trade flow scenarios. If such a holistic view encompasses deep draft ports up and down the coast, then bring on the dredgers.