A few years ago, Norman Mineta, the former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, correctly predicted a gradual increase in TEU activity in U.S. container ports. He reminded the industry that only 60 of 361 U.S. ports were set up to handle containers at that time, and he estimated that container handling facilities would be required in another 200 U.S. ports in order to handle expected growth. These extra ports would “spread the risk” by eliminating traffic congestion and air pollution in and around the larger container ports, spread the wealth, create employment opportunities, reduce transportation costs, and even reduce the cost of goods to consumers.

There have been some slight adjustments in growth rates along the way, but shipping activity in the intervening years have proven Mr. Mineta’s estimates to be true. Instead of taking steps to bring new container ports on line, however, port authorities in U.S. ports, eager to assimilate profitable TEUs, have been using stop-gap, “band aid” measures to cope with congestion and pollution. They seem quite content to continue shoveling sand against the tide. Apparently, the more critical the problems, the more their services will be in demand, and the more secure will be their positions … and salaries.

But the additional ports that Mr. Mineta hoped to see haven’t come about. At least not in the U.S. His words fell on deaf ears hereabouts but were heeded by outsiders. Since offering his advice to the industry, a new container terminal is taking shape on the West coast. But on Canada’s West coast not the U.S. West coast. Prince Rupert, in British Columbia, will draw heavily on shipments destined for U.S. consumers, and U.S. citizens will surely be denied most of the economic benefits.

Fortunately for nearby residents, a sizeable number of TEUs will be diverted from the LA/Long Beach port complex in the “Bay of Smoke”, and some degree of relief from traffic congestion and air pollution will be gained. But the employment opportunities and the chance to reduce transportation costs and the cost of consumer goods will all be lost.

Completing a pincer-like movement, Hutchison Port Holdings has begun the development of a container terminal in the Port of Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico. Hutchison management never does anything halfway, and in short order the positive effects of operations South of the border will be felt by the Southern California port communities. The negative effects, as described above, will also be felt. Too bad. In our faltering economy we could have used those jobs and those cost reductions.

But that’s not all. While we’ve been ignoring the events developing on the continent’s West Coast, outsiders have announced their intentions to develop, not one, but two ports on Canada’s East coast. In Nova Scotia, to be exact, a place where hardly anyone lives. Why would they do that? Well, for one reason, about 50 million consumers live in the Northeastern part of the U.S. … and for another, we haven’t had the good sense to heed Mr. Mineta’s advice.

We continually hear complaints about how the U.S. has “farmed out” to “foreigners” so much of what we’ve invented, designed, developed or improved. Shipbuilding, shipping, container terminal operations, you name it. But we didn’t “farm out” anything. We forfeited it all … to smarter folks.