Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
10 The primary objectives of this study can be defined as follows: ⢠Understand the constraints on the development of NAMH and their severity, ⢠Investigate alternative measures to address constraints, ⢠âGround truthâ both the constraints and potential miti- gation measures, and ⢠Identify realistic courses of action that can be implemented. One of the first tasks in assessing NAMH or SSS is to estab- lish a reasonable definition for âNorth American Marine Highways.â This research uses the following definition for âshort sea shippingâ adopted by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) Panel O-36: Freight service operations carrying either containerized or trailerized cargoes (or empties) via the coastal waters and river systems . . . and in particular those services where there is a true âintermodal choiceâ to be made by the shipper between moving units by water and using one or more land-based alternatives (i.e. highway and/or rail). (1) Coastwise movements and inland waterway movements are included in SNAME and most other definitions currently in use. Since the primary desired outcome of this study is to determine what, if anything, can be done to develop NAMH to a greater degree, it is prudent to exclude the following from the scope of the analysis: ⢠Operations between the lower 48 states and other U.S. states and territories (e.g., Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico). With the exception of air, there is no alternative to marine transport in these trade routes; therefore, there is no opportunity to divert cargo from another mode. (According to FHWAâs Freight Analysis Framework for 2002, 12.6% of the freight that crossed Alaskaâs state borders was carried by truck or rail, but this includes international shipments as well as domestic, and is heavily weighted in the outbound direction. (5) This presents minimal market opportunities.) ⢠Bulk commodities that are not commonly containerized or carried in highway trailers but would (and already do) move by water in large bulk ships or barges. This would exclude such commodities as ores, coal, crude oil, and minerals. ⢠Movements that are part of a rotation that crosses the ocean (e.g., pendulum services). In some cases, these rotations call at several Canadian and U.S. ports and are competition to the development of a healthy NAMH option, especially in the current environment where the major carriers are prac- tically desperate to attract cargo of any kind. ⢠Movements of freight by a company-owned vessel fleet that is not for hire to the general public. These shipments use privately owned facilities at either the origin or destination (typically the origin) and do not offer their services to third parties. Therefore, the development of these services is strictly tied to the needs and financial condition of one given company. In order to understand NAMH and what can be done to support their development, the authors have divided the sub- ject matter into the following seven topics: ⢠Ventures (both successful and unsuccessful) since 1990, ⢠Shipper requirements, ⢠Vessel considerations, ⢠Legislation aimed at encouraging NAMH, ⢠The European experience, ⢠Obstacles to further development of NAMH, and ⢠Miscellaneous important considerations. The geographic characteristics of a given service region affect the issues with which current and potential NAMH C H A P T E R 2 Research Approach
11 operators must grapple. Therefore, this analysis establishes the following service regions: ⢠Canadian domestic, ⢠West Coast (including United States-Canada), ⢠Gulf of Mexico, ⢠Great Lakes, ⢠East Coast (including United States-Canada), and ⢠Inland waterways. The research effort involved several distinct activities. These activities were designed to cover a broad spectrum of issues and then analyze them in the light of the opinions expressed by individuals intimately familiar with the issues involved. These activities included the following: ⢠Extensive literature review, ⢠Interviews with stakeholders with diverse interests and geographical locations (see Appendix A for interviewee characteristics), ⢠Review of legislative activity and discussions with congres- sional committee staffers, and ⢠Project panel review.