November 20, 2007
  

Cargo Traffic, Private Investment Growing At U.S. Ports

Ken Orski

Forecasts predict a veritable tsunami of maritime cargo swamping U.S. port facilities in the years ahead. In the past 5 years container trade in North America has increased by 6.8%. It's projected to soar by 50% by 2015, from 48 million TEUs in 2005 to 72 million in 2015. (TEU stands for "twenty-foot equivalent unit," a standard measure of container capacity).

By 2020 North American ports and their associated intermodal systems will be severely congested, with demand exceeding current capacity by as much as 200% assuming current productivity and growth levels, predicts John Vickerman, an industry expert in planning and design of port, intermodal and freight logistics facilities.

How should U.S. ports respond to this challenge? Some observers suggest that the capacity problem would be solved if port authorities placed operations on a 24/7 basis, as many foreign ports are doing. But there are many good reasons why that would be impractical in the case of U.S. ports, claims Brooks Royster, former director of the Port of Baltimore. These constraints include local regulation and work rules limiting hours of operation, inadequate labor pool of longshoremen, and the need for some slack time to perform routine maintenance. Only Asian ports exceed the productivity of our own ports, Royster contends, and then only because many of them are transshipment ports that do not have to move containers "through a gate" as is the case with destination ports like ours.

In rare cases, large private shippers will take care of their growing needs for cargo processing by constructing their own marine terminals. The Maersk Terminal in Portsmouth, Virginia is the first such in the U.S. to be independently constructed and privately financed by a major shipping line. But in the great majority of cases, major improvements and expansion of physical port capacity and their intermodal connectors currently falls on the shoulders of local taxpayers.

For example, container fees have been used to fund construction of the Alameda Corridor freight rail expressway conecting the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (above, left); while "availability payments" would be used to help finance the Miami Port Tunnel, and the Port of Savannah Connector. Private concessionaires will invest in the projects up front and assume construction and performance risks. The public authority will pay the concessionaires an annual fee based on the condition and performance of the facility and its availability for public use. If maintenance, congestion levels, incident response or other stipulated performance measures are not met, the payments will be reduced.

A relatively new trend that may profoundly affect the future of port expansion is the growing willingness of private equity markets to invest in port facilities.

For example, last February, the AIG Global Investment Group bought long term leases to the Port of Newark terminal. The investment division of Deutsche Bank has bought Maher Terminals, the company that runs operations at the Port of Elizabeth in New Jersey. And the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund has taken over the lease from a shipping conglomorate to operate a terminal on Staten Island, N.Y.

In each case, the private investors are expected to inject new capital to improve the facilities and make them more productive. Even larger initiatives are in the offing. The Port of New Orleans is preparing a request for proposals (to be issued in 2008) inviting the private sector to participate in a one billion dollar program of facilities expansion including a new container terminal and a new cruise ship terminal.

Just as in the case of toll roads, the global capital markets have come to recognize that ports are a sound investment. Institutional investors with long-term investment horizons, such as pension funds, look upon these assets as a safe investment that offers future returns comparable to those from fixed income and real estate.

The growing scarcity of deep water port capacity and environmental obstacles to building new "greenfield" ports gives existing port facilities a large "revaluation" potential and more future pricing power — and thus makes them more attractive to private investors, speculates Robert Flanagan, Senior Vice President of First Southwest Company and former Secretary of Transportation in Maryland.

Three recent announcements underscore the interest of global capital markets in transportation infrastructure: Australia’s Macquarie Bank is planning to raise up to $8 billion to invest in European infrastructure assets as it continues its aggressive expansion in Europe, Middle East and North America. Called "European Infrastructure Fund III," it will be Macquarie's biggest single fundraising move in Europe, as it seeks to take advantage of plans by governments across Europe to privatize roads, airports and utilities. The Carlyle Group, one of the largest U.S. private equity funds, has announced that its Infrastructure Partners fund has raised $1.15 billion for investments in U.S. and Canadian transportation infrastructure projects. CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in the US ($245 billion in assets), has announced that it plans to shift up to $2.5 billion to a new infrastructure program focused on investments in new roads, bridges, ports, and water systems.

In announcing their decision, Charles Valdes, Investment Committee Chair, said CalPERS could become a major player in solving some pressing capacity problems related to transportation infrastructure.

CalPERS' action, which is the first such initiative by a major U.S. public pension fund, may augur similar moves by other pension funds.

Private investment in ports will be highlighted on the agenda of the North American Port and Intermodal Finance Investment Summit December 3-5 in Coral Gables, Florida. The Port of Tacoma's Jeannie Beckett, Senior Director, Inland Transportation, will be among panelists discussing new financing techniques in a Dec. 5 segment titled, "The Road Ahead."

TECHNORATI TAGS:

Comments

To the degree that the tsunami of shipping containers is delivering goods bound for U.S. consumers and manufacturers, providing the purchasers with the benefit of lower prices from overseas sourcing, it seems reasonable as a nationwide policy to seek ways to include the cost of port expansion in a mark up of the price of the specific goods that come through the ports. This approach seems better than, say, general taxation of property or sales. Suggests a national user fee calculated on inbound shipments by weight or volume or both?

All of the terminals purchased on rosey predictions of cargo import increases into the United States are currently running in the RED.

The investment houses ALL overpaid for their marine terminals by a factor of 2. In good times the terminals return 5% per year. There is going to be a great deal of red ink, and less than projected revenue, until and if the industry comes out of its slump.

There have been upper management firings, and other cutbacks, while contracts with steamship lines are being rewritten to increase revenues.

Currently there is a downturn in shipping. While this is part of the cyclical nature of the business, which is driven by consumer confidence, US spending, and the price of gas at the pump, it will be some time before the industry recovers.

That this downturn may be just beginning is demonstrated by the mortgage problems in the US housing market, continuing fall of us stock prices, and increased fuel costs.

The question begging an answer is who will pay for all of the projected imports when the import projections are based on outsourcing. There will be a corresponding slowdown or even drop in US jobs.

Add the baby boomers going into retirement, rampant illegal immigration sending hard currancy abroad, and government deficit spending's debt service, and the US can not be counted on to be the market of the future.

It may turn out that the countries with the job growth will be the markets to watch. China, India, Eastern Europe, South America, and even parts of Africa are developing middle classes with money to spend. The days of the United Stated consuming most of the world's products and produce may be approaching an end.

If that's the case US ports will struggle to maintain the levels of activity they currently have.

As for the ports controlled by investment houses, they badly need streamlining in their union workforces. This is the most out of control cost ports face. Union rules call for multitudes of people to be paid who aren't even on the job.

There is going to be a head on collision between the International Longshoreman's Association and the investment houses of epic proportions. A strike is inevitable and may be prolonged. This will add more red ink.

The bottom line is that the investment houses bought the union when they bought the terminals. If they can't tame the beast, the investments will all be loosers.

Post a comment

(We welcome your comments; they are screened for tone. See comment policy & tips for more information.)

Contributors
Media
Blogs
(The views therein do not necessarily reflect those of Cascadia Center)
Other Publications
Resources
CATEGORIES
ARCHIVES
SEARCH