More than a year ago we recalled the forecast given by U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, and we’ve referred to it in a number of our commentaries since then. Secretary Mineta made no bones about it when he stated that projected increases in container volumes would require another 200 of the 361 U.S. ports to be set up to handle the influx in the coming years. To say that we’ve referred to it on a number of occasions would be putting it mildly. We’ve been harping upon it, as a matter of fact. We’ve stressed this eventuality in more than 60 of our commentaries, but in all our searches during that time, we failed to find any consultants or analysts acknowledging Mr. Mineta’s clairvoyance.

What we’re now finding, however, is that a number of hard-pressed localities have come to the realization that some pretty lucrative business has been steaming past their port facilities in search of more efficient ports-of-call. We’re seeing headlines touting the steps port authorities are now taking because of crowded conditions, delays and traffic congestion in and around the complexes they had anointed. We’re even reading now of the wisdom of using smaller vessels to offload cargo at smaller ports closer to end users. This type of reasoning is completely out of character for settled-in port officials. It would appear that they’ve been smitten by a sudden fit of logic … for a change.

In truth, although the only alternative to their myriad problems has been staring them in the face, nothing moved the brain trust in the U.S. until they noticed how overseas authorities were treating port congestion. New terminal locations in Belgium, Germany and the UK are already in advanced stages of development, and some of the largest carriers, notably Maersk, CMA CGM, Mediterranean Shipping Company, MOL and China Ocean Shipping Company are now convinced that the port complications in this country can only be solved by developing, owning and operating their own new terminals. It was just a question of time before they ran out of patience.

On the East and Gulf Coasts, Jasper County in SC, the Port of Jacksonville, the Port of Mobile’s Choctaw Point, and Texas City are evidence that Secretary Mineta’s prediction is being fulfilled, and we should be grateful that the above-mentioned carriers, along with SSA and Trans Pacific Container Service Corp., have taken the bull by the horns and are forcing the issue at those locations. Better late than never.

On the West Coast? Even though the LA/Long Beach port complex was the first to feel the painful, and often deadly effects of a gluttonous appetite, California authorities have convinced themselves that a $ 50 billion upheaval in the region is the only way to assure economic benefits for the state. They’re wearing blinders. Headier folks at Hutchison International Terminals and at New York’s Maher Terminals, both headquartered far from the madness, see things a lot more clearly. Hutchison is developing terminals in Punta Colonet and Lazaro Cardenas, South of the border, and Maher, in conjunction with the Canadian National Railway, is developing a container terminal North of the border at Prince Rupert in British Columbia. Meanwhile, as Asian carriers are laying plans to “run to daylight”, more than a dozen ideally positioned ports in California are in Limbo.