When we mentioned the ‘inevitable avenue’ in the previous commentary we were referring, of course, to our patented system of container terminal operations. Note the word ‘operations’. Until now we’ve been describing our patented system as a ‘high-density storage and retrieval system for intermodal containers’. That’s fairly descriptive but it still doesn’t say very much. A case in point … or rather, two cases in point:

1. Sunday’s issue of “The Times-Picayune” reported some terminal delays because of a hasty and unanticipated decision made by a carrier at the Port of New Orleans. Now as terminals go, the Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal is a pretty well-run operation. Considering what the folks down there have had to contend with recently, they get gold stars all around.

But since the Mediterranean Shipping Company switched its stevedoring operations from Ports America to Ceres Gulf, it has been nothing but lost time, aggravation and frustration for the truckers who service the terminal. The move ‘tripled’ the business at Ceres, and nearly ‘crippled’ the business at the port, the report said, by overwhelming the company’s operations to the point that it took truckers who transport cargo to and from MSC ships an entire day to drop off and pick up a container.

Is it a serious situation? Being notified that officials have admitted that around-the-clock efforts are being made to deal with the crisis, a trucking official was quoted as saying, “We’ve got to make this work because we can’t afford for the traffic to be moved to Mobile or Houston … I think everybody recognizes the volatility of the situation”.

2. In Sunday’s issue of the “Savannah Morning News”we saw this headline: ‘Lawmakers to study inland port idea’. We’re not giving out any gold stars for that one, though.

The story reads, in part, “As business at Savannah’s container port continues to grow, some state lawmakers want to look hundreds of miles away from the shoreline to keep the boxes moving. Before adjourning last month, the Senate approved creating a seven-member study committee to meet this year and discuss the possibility of a new inland port facility.

“The idea of an inland port, which has been the subject of academic studies in the past, involves pulling cargo containers as they come off the ships at the Savannah port and sending them by rail to a transfer facility somewhere in Middle or South Georgia. Trucks, which normally pick up the containers at the port, would instead pull up to the inland port and then drive off to distribution points from there.”

Senator Joseph Carter, who sponsored the resolution, had this to say. “With Georgia ports being as busy as they are, we’re trying to look at any way we can to expand their capacity”. He went on to say that an inland transfer facility could ease truck congestion in and around the Savannah port by redirecting the traffic to another part of the state.

Let’s talk a minute about how beneficial our patented system would have been in these two dissimilar cases.

In the first instance, our in-house delivery system would have kept every phase of terminal operations on an even keel. As we’ve mentioned in previous commentaries, our system eliminates all gate traffic because all trucks would be parked on site well in advance of scheduled deliveries. And because stored containers in slotted racks are preassigned sequentially to these trucks, no changes or disruptions in stevedoring operations would have hampered delivery operations.

One other significant point must be considered. Our system frees up large amounts of acreage and this created space assures that the terminal with its smooth and efficient operations would prove to be attractive to freight forwarders and agents as well as carriers. Increased volumes are readily and easily assumed as a result, and our higher rate of profit guarantees higher pay scales and welcomed employment opportunities. With reserve funding and personnel always on hand, and with greatly simplified and efficient terminal operations, hasty decisions … when and if deemed necessary …would have no adverse effects on terminal operations. Even if an unanticipated and hasty “move tripled business” there would be no hitches and no glitches.

Savannah’s case is entirely different. The Senate needs a “committee to meet this year and discuss the possibility of a new inland port facility”. That’s a good sign. It’ll never get off the ground as long as a committee is involved, and for the taxpayer’s sake, that’s the best thing that could happen to this resolution.

These lawmakers think nothing of committing millions … or maybe billions … for the construction of new railroads and highways. As we mentioned above, our system releases large tracts of land within existing terminals and because so much space is created, the need for inland ports and the expensive infrastructure necessary to sustain such inland terminals, would never be given a second thought.

What is it with those obsessed with the railroads? First of all, they’re not cheap. Secondly, it takes years and years for planners and engineers to put one in place. And thirdly, it’s much less costly to deliver by truck than it is to deliver by rail.

Setting aside the expense of the extra moves involved in rail shipment, the cost to deliver by truck is much, much less than the cost to deliver by rail. If you’ll recall, Mr. John Doherty, the Alameda Corridor Chief Executive put that question to rest a few months ago when he confirmed that trains “… can’t compete with trucks on trips under 800 miles. It takes $ 200 to truck a container 20 miles, but it’s $ 450 on a train”. No one has a better take on this than Mr. Doherty.

We reminded our readers some time ago that railroads have other natural handicaps. For instance, a train doesn’t have the luxury of changing its route. A trucker, on the other hand, can elect to take a detour because of the millions of crisscrossing miles of highways in this country, so that when new delivery opportunities present themselves, in faraway places, a truck can get there. Trains can travel only along existing tracks, and faraway places are out of the question. So … an inland ‘port’ “hundreds of miles away from the shoreline”? The committee had better nix that costly idea.