In theory, Charleston and Savannah could meld into a southeast Atlantic colossus rivaling the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. That, at least, is the theory.
Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
The ports of Charleston, S.C., and Savannah, Ga., are only 107 miles apart. But distance is about the only thing about the two that's close. In most other ways, they might as well be at opposite ends of the planet.
The neighboring states, with their ports as proxies, have battled each other over trade and maritime supremacy for decades. They have taken their fight to the legal system, the free market, and the court of public opinion. In the past, each has refused to attend maritime or trade events in the other's state. The contentiousness is as thick as the air on a humid Charleston summer night. "I've never seen anything like it in my 30 years in the business," said K.C. Conway, chief U.S. economist for Colliers International, a global real estate concern.
The ports seem to struggle even when they try to collaborate. In 2007, after years of the states fighting over control of property along the Savannah River in Jasper County, S.C., a bistate operating team spent $7.5 million, divided between the two, to buy 1,500 acres of land to build a container terminal approximately eight miles from the entrance to the river's shipping channel. The project would effectively create a third regional port and allow dredging to a 50-foot depth, deeper than either Charleston, at 45 feet, or Savannah, at 42 feet.
The deeper water would accommodate the large vessels many expect to be dominating global sea trade, notably through the expanded Panama Canal, over the decades. Today's canal configuration is capped at ships with 5,100 twenty-foot-equivalent (TEU) container units; when the widened and deepened canal opens in 2015, it will accommodate so-called post-Panamax ships with close to 13,000 TEUs. About 83 percent of containerships on order today are 8,000 TEUs or larger, according to U.K. consultancy Drewry.
Progress at Jasper has been agonizingly slow. Beyond the land purchase and several feasibility studies, little has happened. Fed-up county officials have demanded to take control of the project and pay for the terminal to be built. It is believed the work won't be done until 2025 or 2030.
NO ZERO SUM GAME
The irony is that Charleston and Savannah need not play a zero sum game. Each can succeed with its complementary strengths, and greater cooperation could create a monolith that dominates the fast-growing and increasingly export-oriented Southeast region, analysts said. Savannah has a superb logistics infrastructure, is close to the Atlanta and northern Florida markets, and has a strong agricultural commodity base. Charleston has the industry's most efficient loading and unloading operation, with 43 crane moves an hour, according to Colliers (Savannah is close behind at between 40 and 42 moves). Charleston, like Savannah, is tied into a vibrant regional manufacturing market—especially autos. It handles most of the sea commerce moving in and out of the Carolinas, and has a solid presence in Tennessee. Luxury automaker BMW North America, probably Charleston's highest-profile customer, transports 600 to 800 vehicles per day by rail from its factory in Spartanburg, S.C., to the port, some 200 miles away.
Conway of Colliers said that, with greater cooperation, the ports combined could handle 10 million TEUs per year by 2020. That would more than double the approximately 4.5 million combined TEUs handled in 2012. Savannah, at 2.9 million TEUs in 2012, is the nation's fourth-largest port, behind Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the Port of New York & New Jersey. Charleston, at 1.5 million TEUs, is the fifth. Los Angeles and Long Beach, adjacent to each other but also competitors, handled a combined 14 million TEUs last year.
The facilities could "complement each other to such a degree that they become the East Coast equivalent of Los Angeles and Long Beach," Conway said. However, they "keep tripping over each other for the same business," he said.
Ted Prince, who runs a Kansas City, Mo.-based consultancy bearing his name, said the ports' fierce rivalry will benefit liner companies, beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), and the ports themselves. "The competition between them will keep them focused, efficient, and customer-responsive," Prince said. The challenge will come if they abuse their dominant position and price like monopolies, Prince said. If that happens, liners and BCOs could, over time, migrate to smaller ports like Wilmington, N.C., and Jacksonville, Fla., he added.
In an early September interview at his Charleston office, James I. Newsome III, who left the top U.S. post at German liner giant Hapag-Lloyd in 2009 to run the South Carolina State Ports Authority, didn't say outright that the ports enjoy a duopoly in the region. But he could see where some could get that impression. "Both ports have things to offer, and they will be partners in the foreseeable future," he said.
The two ports, by virtue of their superior capabilities relative to other Southeast port locations, have a near lock on the region's commerce, Newsome said. They also have the traffic flows required to justify the billions of dollars in investments needed to stay competitive, he said. "Savannah and Charleston will be the winners," he said.
Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority, said the states have moved away from the political strife that has hindered the Jasper project. Beyond that, however, Foltz sees little need or opportunity for Georgia to cozy up to its northern neighbor. Los Angeles and Long Beach, like Seattle and Tacoma in Washington state, work because they function within the boundaries of their respective states, he said. A model like the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, which is run by a bistate agency, would be difficult to execute in the Southeast because of Georgia's diverse portfolio of port assets, which includes three ports and inland properties for development, he said.
The region and its shippers, BCOs, and liners are "best served by independent port authorities operating their respective assets as an economic development extension of their state" augmented by joint efforts to get Jasper up and running, Foltz said. He contended that there's little customer overlap between the ports.
HOW DEEP IS YOUR WATER?
One area where both ports are in the somewhat same figurative boat is water depth. Each has faced daunting political, environmental, and bureaucratic obstacles to deepening its channels and berths. Savannah hopes to get to 47 feet by 2016 or 2017. Charleston today can handle vessels with 48-foot drafts but only during periods of high tides that last roughly two hours. Liner companies spending fortunes to buy and maintain big ships don't want to wait for high tide or be forced to enter and exit a port at specific times, Newsome argues.
A 50-foot depth will allow for unrestricted access to Charleston. However, that's unlikely to happen before 2018, and if forecasts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are accurate, closer to 2020. The Corps is halfway through a feasibility study to determine if the harbor should be deepened at all. Currently, New York, Baltimore, and Norfolk have 50-foot depths; a fourth port, Miami, is expected to reach that level by 2015.
South Carolina has taken what Newsome calls the unprecedented step of allocating $300 million in state money to fund the entire cost of the dredging. State taxpayers are already on the hook for $180 million; the balance would be spent only if federal funding to finance the remaining $120 million fails to come through. Newsome said the move underscores the state's commitment to deeper water, but he chafes at the idea of its citizens footing the additional tab for a project that has clearly shown regional and national economic benefits.
How important water depth becomes in a post-Panamax world remains to be seen. The rule of thumb is that each foot of vessel draft allows a ship to carry an additional 100 loaded containers. Newsome has said deep water is a port's new currency and is staking almost all of Charleston's future on it. Prince, by contrast, said water depth is not a major factor in a line's decision to call at a port, and that other elements like infrastructure capabilities and terminal throughput are more significant. J. Christopher Lytle, who was head of the Port of Long Beach before taking the top job at the Port of Oakland (Calif.) in May, said rail connections and an inland port network that radiates cargo hundreds of miles from a port are just as critical as water depth. Charleston's inland port, located in Greer, S.C., 212 miles from the port, opens for business on Oct. 14 on a limited scale. Savannah has an inland port operation at Cordele, Ga., about 190 miles west. Both Savannah and Charleston took their cues from the Virginia Port Authority, which in 1990 developed an inland port in Front Royal, about 220 miles from Norfolk.
Most important, each authority must have the portside network already in place, Lytle said. "They [the ports] have to show a developed infrastructure, not just an action plan," he said. Relationships with the eastern railroads that haul cargo from the water to inland ports for distribution by truck throughout the eastern half of the U.S. will be a key part of any port strategy, Lytle added. Transporting cargo to inland ports is not historically part of a railroad's business plan, he said.
What seems clear at this point is that vessel operators looking to maximize the value of expensive megaships are unlikely to make multiple calls along the East Coast. Some liners may choose just two ports, one in the North (either New York or Norfolk) and one in the south (Charleston, Savannah, or Miami). Foltz believes most liners will choose three ports: New York because of its enormous consumer base, Norfolk because it rules the geographic sweet spot midway between New York and the Southeast ports, and either Charleston or Savannah. Miami is considered the outsider because its location is too far removed from major population centers other than south and central Florida.
Conway of Colliers said a port doesn't have to throw in the towel if it never gets to 50 feet. The deep water only matters if a megaship is fully laden, he said. Besides, as Savannah has shown, the ability to carve out compelling service niches like logistics can overcome any depth deficiencies in a port's channel or berth, Conway said.
Newsome doesn't buy it. If the port's future lies with exports, then a 50-foot ship draft is essential for big vessels to load up with cargo that is heavier than the stuff coming into the U.S., he said. "After 2016, 13,000-TEU ships will become the norm. We have to be ready," he said.
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
The “series B” funding round was financed by an unnamed “strategic customer” as well as Teradyne Robotics Ventures, Toyota Ventures, Ranpak, Third Kind Venture Capital, One Madison Group, Hyperplane, Catapult Ventures, and others.
The fresh backing comes as Massachusetts-based Pickle reported a spate of third quarter orders, saying that six customers placed orders for over 30 production robots to deploy in the first half of 2025. The new orders include pilot conversions, existing customer expansions, and new customer adoption.
“Pickle is hitting its strides delivering innovation, development, commercial traction, and customer satisfaction. The company is building groundbreaking technology while executing on essential recurring parts of a successful business like field service and manufacturing management,” Omar Asali, Pickle board member and CEO of investor Ranpak, said in a release.
According to Pickle, its truck-unloading robot applies “Physical AI” technology to one of the most labor-intensive, physically demanding, and highest turnover work areas in logistics operations. The platform combines a powerful vision system with generative AI foundation models trained on millions of data points from real logistics and warehouse operations that enable Pickle’s robotic hardware platform to perform physical work at human-scale or better, the company says.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.
Progress in generative AI (GenAI) is poised to impact business procurement processes through advancements in three areas—agentic reasoning, multimodality, and AI agents—according to Gartner Inc.
Those functions will redefine how procurement operates and significantly impact the agendas of chief procurement officers (CPOs). And 72% of procurement leaders are already prioritizing the integration of GenAI into their strategies, thus highlighting the recognition of its potential to drive significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, Gartner found in a survey conducted in July, 2024, with 258 global respondents.
Gartner defined the new functions as follows:
Agentic reasoning in GenAI allows for advanced decision-making processes that mimic human-like cognition. This capability will enable procurement functions to leverage GenAI to analyze complex scenarios and make informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed.
Multimodality refers to the ability of GenAI to process and integrate multiple forms of data, such as text, images, and audio. This will make GenAI more intuitively consumable to users and enhance procurement's ability to gather and analyze diverse information sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and better-informed strategies.
AI agents are autonomous systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of human operators. In procurement, these agents will automate procurement tasks and activities, freeing up human resources to focus on strategic initiatives, complex problem-solving and edge cases.
As CPOs look to maximize the value of GenAI in procurement, the study recommended three starting points: double down on data governance, develop and incorporate privacy standards into contracts, and increase procurement thresholds.
“These advancements will usher procurement into an era where the distance between ideas, insights, and actions will shorten rapidly,” Ryan Polk, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Procurement leaders who build their foundation now through a focus on data quality, privacy and risk management have the potential to reap new levels of productivity and strategic value from the technology."