Some seaports in the Southeastern U.S. have established intermodal "dry ports" hundreds of miles from the ocean. Why do they build them, and why are a growing number of importers and exporters using them?
Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
For most people, the term "seaport" evokes images of salt air, waves lapping at the hulls of ships, and busy docks piled high with containers. But in Southeastern states like North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, it could also bring to mind rolling hills, railroad tracks, and bustling intermodal yards. That's because port authorities in those states have established "dry ports," located hundreds of miles from the ocean, to handle some of the containers transiting their harbors.
Arrangements vary depending on the parties and locations involved. Usually, though, port authorities will arrange rail transportation between their marine terminals on the coast and the inland ports they own. Importers and exporters typically pay their ocean carrier an all-inclusive rate that includes inland transport.
The first of these seaport-owned facilities, established in the 1980s, were slow to gain traction. But the concept proved prescient, and today, seaport-owned inland ports, especially those in the Southeast, are thriving. Container volumes are steadily increasing, and shippers like BMW, Procter & Gamble, and The Home Depot are taking full advantage of their services. The model has been so successful, in fact, that several new inland ports have opened in the past five years, and at least one more is on the drawing board.
Why are inland intermodal ports in the U.S. Southeast gaining in popularity now? What benefits—and potential drawbacks—do they offer for importers and exporters? Here's a quick overview.
WHY GO INLAND?
Seaports typically develop inland ports to help them address several common challenges. Some are operational, while others are related to business development. The reasons include:
They need to increase yard capacity. As the number of containers unloading from today's bigger ships continues to grow, it takes longer to process and move those boxes out of terminals. The result is long container dwell times and insufficient turnover to make space for newcomers. "It's like somebody sitting at a table in a restaurant for four hours; you can't give that space to anyone else until they leave," says Dr. Walter Kemmsies, managing director, economist, and chief strategist for the industrial real estate company JLL's Ports, Airports, and Global Infrastructure practice. One way to address that, he says, is by quickly moving containers out of the terminal. But waterfront space is scarce, expensive, and subject to numerous restrictions on development. Moving some containers inland, where land is not only available at lower cost but may also be closer to the consignees, provides cost and efficiency benefits for both the seaport and importers. (Kemmsies notes that it's not always necessary to be far away; some seaport-owned "inland" ports, such as Baltimore's Tradepoint Atlantic, are quite close to the docks.)
They need to be competitive. Shippers can choose from any number of seaports as gateways for moving their containers, so ports have to compete for their business. By operating an intermodal facility at an inland location, port authorities say, they can help shippers use rail to bypass road congestion in urban seaport districts; shorten the distance between the plant or DC and the container pickup/dropoff location; and access scheduled, predictable service with large-scale capacity. All of this reduces shippers' transportation costs and uncertainty, which in turn enables port authorities to attract new business and capture additional volume from existing customers.
They need to protect their geographic market share. In the crowded East Coast market, seaports' hinterlands overlap. Depending on their product and location, importers and exporters in the Midwest could ship through multiple seaports at comparable costs. "Bringing the port to the customer" helps seaports compete for hinterland traffic, according to New Harbor Consultants' 2016 report Inland Ports: On Track for Growth."
They need to reduce congestion and environmental impact. Road congestion, which clogs streets and increases air pollution, is a problem around many U.S. seaports. Moving inbound and outbound freight by rail reduces both impacts. That's the thinking behind the Georgia Ports Authority's new Chatsworth facility, which will reduce the need for northwest Georgia shippers to route exports bound for Savannah, located in the state's southeast corner, through metro Atlanta by truck.
WHAT'S IN IT FOR SHIPPERS
For an inland port to be successful, the economic value proposition must be strong for all parties: the seaport that owns and operates it, the railroad that connects the inland and marine terminals, and the importers and exporters that move their containers through the inland port.
"Everybody should be able to jointly see a true growth opportunity," Kemmsies says. But shippers may be the linchpin. Commitments from large importers or exporters with consistent container volumes—what he calls "anchor tenants"—are critical to ensure that the facility has the minimum number of "lifts" needed to cover the railroad's operating costs, he says.
There are several reasons why importers and exporters might want to make those big commitments. Being able to pick up and deliver containers to a facility that may be just a few miles or minutes away, rather than travel 200-plus miles and several hours to a seaport, produces cost and time savings that are hard to overlook. There's also less traffic congestion out in the country, and some intermodal facilities receive and allow pickup of containers 24 hours a day, offering more flexibility than marine terminals typically do. The potential savings are so attractive that it's not unusual for shippers to locate DCs close to inland ports, as The Home Depot, Kohl's, Rite Aid, and Red Bull have done near the Virginia Port Authority's inland port in Front Royal.
One example of a shipper that saw the potential benefits of an inland port and made them a reality is the automaker BMW. The South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA) owned some land adjacent to a Norfolk Southern rail line in the town of Greer, 212 miles inland from the Port of Charleston. Nearby, BMW has a giant auto-assembly plant that was moving hundreds of import and export containers each day by truck. SCPA had long considered developing the parcel for intermodal use, but BMW, recognizing that reliable intermodal service could significantly reduce its costs and improve transportation efficiency, "pushed us to move forward," says Micah Mallace, director regional sales, South Carolina Ports.
Because Inland Port Greer is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the intermodal terminal can quickly process the 200-plus import containers that arrive every night via the Norfolk Southern, ensuring uninterrupted availability of parts at BMW's plant. Since Inland Port Greer opened in 2013, the railroad has moved over 180,000 containers for BMW, delivering them on a just-in-time basis to the assembly plant, which is served via a rail spur—no local trucking required.
LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP
While inland ports offer a number of advantages, importers and exporters should carefully weigh both the benefits and potential drawbacks before they make a commitment. First and foremost, perhaps, is to make sure the intermodal service on offer is regular, reliable, and cost-effective. Indeed, as the New Harbor Consultants report noted, shippers will use an inland intermodal port "if transit times, reliability, and cost are attractive compared to truck." In many cases, they are, and the inland ports consider that favorable comparison to be one of their major selling points.
Another consideration, JLL's Kemmsies says, is whether there may be service constraints. "A lot of inland ports will be served by only one railroad. Will you be getting away from expensive trucks and labor, only to fall into a situation where a lack of diversification is not in your favor?" he asks. Kemmsies advocates retaining the ability to reroute cargo "to maintain competitive strength as well as to improve reliability."
For shippers that are considering locating a DC close to an inland intermodal port, the availability of reasonably priced land with easy access to multimodal freight capacity is critical, Kemmsies says. But the biggest cost consideration right now is labor. "You want to know who else is located nearby. If the area you're looking at is not urban, four other DCs are there, and there's a limited labor pool, there will be lots of competition for labor." That can raise labor expenses, reducing or possibly eliminating the area's cost advantages.
And finally, trust but verify. Some inland ports do not function as advertised, according to Mallace. "When congestion, inflexible operations, limited working hours, unpredictable rail scheduling, or other such challenges become the norm at an inland port, the advantages quickly disappear," he cautions. "A correctly run inland port should reduce cost [for shippers] while at the same time improving the consistent flow of a supply chain."
MORE TO COME
Like their marine terminals, seaport-owned inland ports have seen steady growth in container volumes in recent years. The Virginia Inland Port at Front Royal, for example, set a new monthly record for container volume (including empties) in October 2018, handling 3,958 boxes, up nearly 18 percent over the same period in 2017. Front Royal may have been a victim of its own success; it recently received a $15.5 million federal grant to improve rail, road, and bridge infrastructure to ease traffic congestion.
Demand has been high enough, in fact, that several port authorities have built or will build additional inland terminals. Virginia, for example, added an inland port in Danville, near the West Virginia border. A new Procter & Gamble manufacturing plant nearby will soon join a customer roster that includes Rubbermaid, The Home Depot, and Family Dollar. South Carolina Ports opened a second intermodal facility, Inland Port Dillon, served by CSX, in April 2018. In North Carolina, the state port authority relaunched service via CSX from the Port of Wilmington to its Charlotte Inland Terminal. It also operates the Piedmont Triad Inland Terminal in Greensboro. And the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA), which started in 2013 with an inland port at Cordele, in the southern part of the state, opened the Appalachian Regional Port near Chatsworth, nearly 400 miles from the Port of Savannah, in August 2018. Among its biggest users are the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn.; car parts manufacturers; and carpet and flooring producers in northwest Georgia and eastern Tennessee. And there's more: In December 2018, GPA announced plans for the Northeast Georgia Inland Port near Gainesville, to open in 2021.
The number of inland ports will grow in the near future, Kemmsies predicts. Not only are they effective options for avoiding congested seaport environs, but they also can help to counter the effects of the truck shortage. "We need an alternative to tapped-out truck capacity. With electronic logging devices, it's becoming a lot harder to get truck capacity, and the hours-of-service restrictions on top of severely congested roadways are affecting how far truckers can go and come back on the same day," he says. Pair that with record-high import container volumes and increasingly big ships, and it looks like the need for inland intermodal ports will only grow.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."