barge container

8/18/2019 BARGE CONTAINER

1/6

Container-On-Barge Port

Concept Paper

June 2008

This photo is from the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration website www.marad.dot.gov. Thephoto from 2005 shows a Osprey Line, LLC, tow barge moving the largest single container movement (375 containers)in the history of the U.S. Inland Waterway System. The 15-barge tow carried 750 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs)

from Memphis to New Orleans and Houston.


2/6

2

The Global Economy MovesBy Containers• “Containerization has revolutionized cargo

shipping. Today, approximately 90% of non-bulk cargo worldwide moves by containersstacked on transport ships. As of 2005,some 18 million total containers make over200 million trips per year. Source:“Containerization,” www.wikipedia.com

• “Today’s merchant fleet worldwide consistsof 3,375 containerships with a capacity of7.2 million Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit(TEU) containers. They are divided into fourdistinct categories: “feeder” ships, those that

carry less than a thousand TEUs and aredesigned to shuttle containers to and fromsmall ports to larger ports; “handy-size” ves-sels of one to three thousand TEUs;“Panamax” ships (maximum size for the Pa-nama Canal) of up to four thousand TEUs;and finally, “post-Panamax (up to 7,000TEUs and too big for Panama Canal).” Source: The Container Revolution, Salvatore R. Mer-cogliano, assistant Professor, the United States Mili-tary Academy at West Point.

The Growth of Container Shipments isStraining Ports, Railroads and Highways• “In 2004, the port of Los Angeles/Long

Beach alone accounted for 8.6 million con-tainers, or thirty-six percent of the more thantwenty-three million containers that moved inand out of the United States. That translatesto over 23,000 containers per day, with each

TEU capable of carrying up to twenty tons ofcargo—equal to loading/offloading approxi-mately forty-five freighters daily.” Source: TheContainer Revolution, Salvatore R. Mercogliano, as-sistant Professor, the United States Military Academyat West Point.

• “With the prediction that the volume of inter-national trade through our ports will double2001 volumes by the year 2020 and the vol-ume of containerized volumes might well tri-

ple within that time frame, our nation's infra-structure will be challenged to accommodatethis increase in freight movement, especiallygiven the growing congestion caused byother commercial and passenger traffic.”Source: American Association of Port Authoritieswww.aapa-ports.org

Photo: A Hanjin container ship from www.Hanjin.com.

PurposeThis concept paper is a preliminary investigation of the possibilities of a container-on-barge service

and requisite port facilities on the Ohio River. It is the hope of the Southeastern Ohio Port Authoritythat this report will be used to inspire government officials, business leaders and entrepreneurs tofurther investigate the possibilities of container-on-barge transportation in light of extraordinary fuelprices, congested freight corridors and the struggles of the State of Ohio to build and maintain a pri-marily truck-based freight transportation network.

The information contained in this report was assembled from cursory research over the Internet.

Although the source information is deemed reliable, the Southeastern Ohio Port Authority cannotvouch for its accuracy.

Photo: Hanjin Termial at Port of Long Beach, CA, fromWww.aapa-ports.org


3/6

3

• “Despite the increasing demand, North American container ports and their support-ing distribution network have not expandedcapacity to match the volume growth. Onestudy indicates that most major North Ameri-can ports are already operating at or nearfull capacity and will have significant capac-ity deficits by 2010 (National Chamber Foun-dation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce2003). Exacerbating the problem is the factthat railroad and truck carriers serving theports are also facing severe capacity short-ages ("Capacity Crunch Continues" 2004;Kulisch 2004b) and that supporting road in-frastructure suffers from increasing conges-tion problems (Federal Highway Administra-tion 2004; Texas Transportation Institute2004). The current capacity situation evenhas foreign shippers questioning imminent

North American capabilities to meet capacityrequirements (Armbruster 2004a).” Source:Michael Maloni and Eric Jackson, TransportationJournal, March 22, 2005

• “A two-week labor strike at U.S. West Coastports in 2002 stranded more than 200 shipsand 300,000 containers (Gooley and Cooke2002) because other ports did not have the

capacity to accommodate redirected ship-ments. The strike required presidential inter-vention as the delays cost an already weakU.S. economy $1 billion a day (Keane 2004).2004 peak season volumes at Los Angelesand Long Beach, the largest North Americanports, more than doubled projections, caus-ing severe congestion (Mongelluzzo2004b).” Source: Michael Maloni and Eric Jackson,Transportation Journal, March 22, 2005

• The growth in rail traffic threatens to createlog jams in the nation’s 140,000-mile net-work of rails. The U.S. Chamber of Com-merce predicts demand for freight cars willdouble in the next 25 years. An AssociatedPress story reported industry analysts areconcerned about a “meltdown.” “The dam-

age to the U.S. economy could climb to bil-lions of dollars. A lone train stopped in Chi-cago can force other trains to stop or slowas far away as Los Angeles or Baltimore.”Source: Michael Tarm, AP, “Busy U.S. Rail NetworkCreaking Under Strain,” Columbus Dispatch, June 11,2008

River Barges Could Reduce Loads on Con-gested Ports & Railroads• The Inland Waterway System allows freight

to be transported via the Intracoastal Water-way, Mississippi and Ohio rivers using towbarges. Via this network, freight can bemoved between Houston, Minneapolis, Chi-cago, and Pittsburgh.

Photo: Evergreen Ship at Port Newark/Elizabeth, NJ, fromwww.aapa-ports.org

Photo: Container ship at dock from www.portoflosangeles.org

Photo: double stack containers on rail from www.aapa-ports.com


4/6

4

• Shipping bulk freight via barge is typicallymore efficient than rail or truck transporta-tion. A 15-barge tow can move as muchbulk freight as 870 trucks. Source: PittsburghPort Commission

• Shipping containers via barge has beentried previously with mixed success. Oneof the biggest challenges is reaching a

critical mass of regular users. How do youget the container-on-barge service withoutmarket demand? Conversely, how do youcreate market demand without the con-tainer-on-barge service being readily avail-able?

• Osprey Line of Houston, Texas,(www.ospreyline.com) is a company that hasbeen shipping containers on barges (COB)for six years. According to Osprey Line’swebsite, the company’s COB service“connects Houston, Lake Charles, New Or-leans, Memphis, Chicago, Mobile, Pasca-goula, and other Gulf Coast and inland river

ports.” Osprey Line claims to have handledover 70,000 containers in the last two years.In 2004, Osprey opened a COB terminal inMemphis (www.portofmemphis.com). Os-prey runs a weekly route between New Or-leans and Memphis. Cincinnati and Pitts-burgh are listed as possible locations under“inducement based services.”

Special Challenges of the Ohio RiverThe journey from New Orleans to Belpre, Ohio,covers approximately 1,656 river miles. Nolocks and dams exist on the Mississippi River.Over 981 miles of the Ohio River, 21 locks anddams must be traversed by barge tows, includ-ing 14 locks over about 700 miles between Bel-

pre and the Mississippi River. Barge tows typi-cally travel about 100 miles a day, according toPrice Inland Terminal. Travel time between NewOrleans and Belpre, without any unusual delaysat the Ohio River locks would be between two tothree weeks. Source: McDonough Company and PriceInland Terminal

Map from http://sea-point.net.

Photo from www.ospreyline.com.

Graphic from www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us.


5/6

5

Proposed Ship-to-Barge Container Port atMouth of Mississippi• Sea Point is a floating deep-sea dock pro-

posed to be built at the mouth of the Missis-sippi River. The State of Louisiana is cur-rently considering issuing bonds in supportof the project. On one side of the port, deep-sea container ships would load and unload

containers. Overhead cranes would transferthe containers to and from the other side ofthe dock where the containers would beloaded on and unloaded from barges fortransport up and down the Mississippi Riveror the Gulf Coast.

Sea Point’s website reports the following:

• Standard hopper barges can carry 1,600short tons (2,000 lbs) on its 9’ draft. Astandard river box barge can carry 81twenty-foot containers or 50 combinedtwenty and forty-foot containers.Northbound barge tows routinely push 20loaded barges.

• Inland river shipping is more cost effec-tive than rail, which is more cost effectivethan trucks. However, inland river ship-ping up the Mississippi River requiresmore time. It takes nine days longer foran Asian shipment to reach New Orleansby way of the Panama Canal than byLong Beach, California. However, 4-to7-day delays from dock to railhead arenormal at Long Beach.

• Sea Point reports rail shipment is the mostexpensive leg of a container’s journey. SeaPoint estimates $1,100 to $1,200 per con-tainer can be saved by way of COB transportto Memphis vs rail shipment from California.Source: Sea Point www.sea-point.net

Photo from www.ospreyline.com

Graphic from http://sea-point.net

U.S. Maritime Administration Vision“The greater use of America’s Marine High-ways is one answer to congestion on our high-ways and railroads. The use of vessels couldreduce major bottlenecks, such as bridgesand tunnels, as well as congested interstates,such as I-95 which parallels the U.S. Atlantic

coastwise routes. Properly developed, the Ma-rine Highway can greatly relieve the increasedstress on the overall transportation system.The use of Marine Highways can reduce over-all fuel consumption and limit the amount of airpollution. Moreover, studies have shown thefuel efficiency and pollution reduction benefitsby switching to newer, environmentally friendlyvessels.“ Source: “A Vision for the 21st Century: TheMaritime Administration and the U.S. Marine Transpor-tation System,” U.S. Department of Transportation,Maritime Administration, www.marad.dot.gov

Fuel Usage ComparisonMarine Highway 1 Barge =456 40’ Containers = 75 Barrels of OilRail 228 Railcars DBL Stacked =456 40’ Containers = 300 Barrels of OilTruck 456 Trucks =456 40’ Containers = 645 Barrels of Oil

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration


6/6

6

• Ensuring terminals have equipment, facili-ties and technical know-how to move con-tainers.

Equipment Requirements“In order to be cost efficient, a terminal re-quires sufficient space to store the containers,a 20-30-ton overhead crane or a mobile crane,

spreader bars for 20 and 40 foot containers, a20-30-ton container forklift and groundstrength sufficient to support the concentratedwheel points of the forklift carrying a loadedcontainer. Know-how in working and stowingcontainers is essential.• Ground Storage. A terminal is typically re-

quired to provide 2.5 times the ground stor-age to work a vessel.

• Cranes. A 20-ton crane would be able tolift most highway-weight containers, but a

30-ton crane would handle most over-weight containers. Mobile cranes have re-duced the start up costs for a terminal en-tering this market

• Container Forklift. Container forklifts aremore efficient for moving the containerswithin the port terminal.”

“Obstacles to starting a COB service are moreeconomic than technical. Perhaps it would beeven more accurate to say that the obstacles

are more business practices than businesscosts. Starting a COB service where a tradi-tional bulk barge operation exists presents aclassical ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma. Carrierssay that if there is a demand, they will providethe service. Shippers say that if there were aservice they would use it. There is a role forthe public sector to move both the chicken andthe egg as close to each other as possible.”

- Container-On-Barge Pre-Feasibility Study, Final Re-port, Port of Pittsburgh Commission, July 2003

Next Steps in Ohio1. ODOT assistance to conduct a detailed

feasibility and market research study.2. Building Ohio Jobs grant assistance to

provide an existing port with required in-frastructure and equipment.

3. Demonstration project to aggregate de-mand and prove concept.

Learning from the Port of PittsburghThe Port of Pittsburgh commissioned a“Container-On-Barge Pre-feasibility Study” thatwas released in July of 2003. It can be found atwww.port.pittsburgh.pa.us/docs/cobreport-june26-final.pdf

Some pertinent highlights are listed below:• “COB service is a widely used and rapidly

growing means of transportation throughout

Europe, the Pacific Northwest and Asia.”• “Successful COB operators are not only suc-

cessful towing operations, but they are suc-cessful logistical operations that combinetransportation modes, promoting COB in anintegrated way.”

• The ports of Houston and New York havesuccessfully accessed federal CongestionMitigation and Air Quality funds from theTransportation Efficiency Act for intermodalenhancements.

• The report recommended a demonstrationproject as the next step to promote COB.

COB Problems Identified• The need for easily obtainable, prompt infor-

mation on barging costs, transit times, andintermodal connections.

• The lack of a one-stop provider for intermo-dal bookings, scheduling, customer serviceand bills of lading.

• Questions of insurance responsibility whenhandling multiple shipments on one barge.

• Dunning and existing barges to handle con-tainers.

• Barge operators are reluctant to establishCOB service on the Ohio River because ofthe number of locks and the unreliability thatlocks introduce to the logistics chain.

• Container owners and shippers are very in-terested in turn-around time. It may be nec-essary to create pools of containers at ornear ports to allow quick loading of outboundcontainers.

Photo from www.ospreyline.com

barge container

Documents