1 / 27

Economic Viability of Feeder Service for Bridgeport

Economic Viability of Feeder Service for Bridgeport. Presented to: SNAME Annual Meeting. Management & Transportation Associates, Inc. October 25, 2001. General Conclusions. A waterborne feeder service is economically and technically viable.

broderickc
Download Presentation

Economic Viability of Feeder Service for Bridgeport

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Economic Viability of Feeder Service for Bridgeport Presented to: SNAME Annual Meeting Management & Transportation Associates, Inc. October 25, 2001

  2. General Conclusions • A waterborne feeder service is economically and technically viable. • Diverting trucks to a barge service is environmentally friendly; mitigating exhaust emissions and noise and reducing road congestion while improving highway safety. • Creates jobs in the region

  3. Adequate volume of containers available to support a marine feeder service between Port of NY/NJ and Bridgeport • Bridgeport is ideal location - if - the marine and land assets are developed appropriately • Port close to shipping lanes • Ideal access to I-95 • Availability of port properties • Adequate nearby upland areas • Great location as regional distribution center • Upland areas such as Remington Park, Father Panick Village and Lake Success can be developed as intermodal freight distribution centers

  4. PANY/NJ PIDN By Water CT, MA, Albany Phil, Camden By Rail Up state NY, Pitt

  5. Bridgeport Harbor

  6. Uplands Remington Park Father Panick Village BRMC

  7. Labor’s attitude, cost and working conditions are critical in both Ports. Will require future negotiations • The Feeder Service should reduce 33,000 tractor-trailers annually from the most congested part of I-95 • By 2020, at least 73,000 trucks • By 2040, 170,000 tractor-trailers • Trucking Cos; shortage of drivers today

  8. Feeder Service Proposal: • Daily service between PANY&NJ piers and Bridgeport • Roll on / Roll off handling the containers at the ports • Stevedoring cost most effective as long as there is adequate space in the Bridgeport

  9. Tug/Barge (Ro/Ro)

  10. Lift-on/Lift-off operation will not produce the economic advantages required – governmental subsidy would required • No shore crane(s) required in Bridgeport • Ramp(s); hostlers; fork lift truck plus facilities (pavement, bulkhead, fencing, utilities, etc)

  11. Lift On / Lift Off Vessel with Container Shore Cranes

  12. Current facilities in Bridgeport not fully utilized – Could start feeder service immediately • Existing tug and barge equipment can be leased to prove the viability of the service, prior to any significant capital expenditures • Container volume should grow to 60-80 boxes on each day or 15,000 to 20,000 boxes annually in each direction • Provides comparable service to today’s trucking

  13. Creation of waterfront employment • Additional job opportunities at intermodal distribution centers and other businesses • New jobs will cut across broad section of the community

  14. Top Loader

  15. Initial economic incentives may be required to get the feeder service started • With anticipated increases in truck traffic on highways, marine feeder services will be the least-cost, most environmentally friendly alternative. Test trips should be run to confirm the operational aspects of the service

  16. Yard Hostler

  17. Yard Hostler and a Ramp

More Related