320 likes | 508 Views
The Bostwash Corridor: Global and National Dimensions. Jean-Paul Rodrigue Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA Email: ecojpr@hofstra.edu Paper available at: http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue.
E N D
The Bostwash Corridor: Global and National Dimensions Jean-Paul RodrigueAssociate Professor, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA Email: ecojpr@hofstra.edu Paper available at: http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue
Gateways and Corridors in Transportation and Regional Economics Theories and concepts about corridors Global cities and hierarchies Economic roles and functions Hinterlands Connectivity Flows and locations UPS Willow Springs Distribution Center, Chicago
Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface Foreland (Shipping Network) Maritime Freight Distribution Port System Gateways Road Rail Coastal / Fluvial Inland FreightDistribution Corridors and Hubs Hinterland (FDC)
Gateways and Hubs as Central and Intermediate Locations • Gateways & hubs • Nodes offering an accessibility to a large system of circulation. • Obligatory (semi) points of passage. • Convergence of transport corridors. • Centrality and intermediacy. • Gateways • Favorable physical location. • Intermodal and stable in time. • Hubs • Transmodal and subject to change. • Commercial decisions. • Delays vs. frequency of services. Intermodal Gateway Transmodal Hub
Hinterland Setting and Major Economic Regions North America Western Europe East and Southeast Asia Coastal concentration Landbridge connections Inland concentration Coastal gateways Coastal concentration Low hinterland access Gateway hierarchy Freight Corridor hierarchy Hinterland intensity
SEZ Corridor Gateways and Hinterland Effect Pacific Asia North American West Coast Efficient Inland Freight Distribution Inefficient Inland Freight Distribution
Corridors and Regional Development C B A Order Gateway Specialization and interdependency High Low High Low Flows
Supply Chains, Gateways and Corridors Global supply chains and production networks Continental integration Gateway choice APL Distribution Center, Shenzhen, China
Commodity Chains and Added Value High Globalization R&D Sales / Service Marketing Branding Added value Distribution Design Concept Manufacturing Logistics Low Commodity chain
Speed barrier Transshipment Pull Logistics Logistical threshold Containerization Push Logistics Shipment Logistics and the Acceleration of Freight
Gateways, Corridors and Competitiveness Emerging continental networks Trade barriers Strategic partners Interregional linkages International competition APL “Australia” entering San Francisco Harbor
Beware of Future Expectations: The Fallacies of Linear Thinking (Projected TEU Traffic, Port of NY/NJ)
Are You &*%@# Out of Your Mind? Projections for Container Port Volumes, 2020
Sectors of American Imports of Asian Goods Through Maritime Container Shipping, 2004 (in TEUs)
World Container Traffic, 1980-2005, and Guesses for up to 2020
Balance of Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade Routes, 1995-2006 (in millions of TEUs)
Main North American Trade Corridors and Metropolitan Freight Centers
Institutional Frameworks for Governance Political jurisdictions Transport networks and corporations Trading blocs and internal free trade Harmonization of regulations and practices “Maersk Sealand” Locomotive, Landers Yard (NS), Chicago
NAFTA Transborder Truck Flows and Traffic at US Ports of Entry, 2002
Is 53 the Magic Number? • New container specifications? • Economies of scale push towards a larger container: • Particularly for inland carriers. • Strong “legacy costs” (inertia): • Accumulated investments in modal and intermodal infrastructure. • The North American vs. the European standard: • ISO 40 footer: 12.027 m x 2.33 m. • NA domestic 53 footer: 16.15 m x 2.4 m. • European Intermodal Load Unit: 13.2 m x 2.4 m. • China will play a significant role in the decision. • The bottom line is likely to be the size that can be fitted on road transport systems, so 53 could be the “magic number”.
Public and Private Investments in Gateways and Corridors Financing corridor and gateway development Co-production and cooperation Bottleneck mitigation Multimodal Infrastructure Inland ports Regulatory preferences Fiscal regimes Translisft crane, NS Rutherford yard, PA