Major changes in ports and marine shipping in the United States since 1960 resulted from (a) containerization, intermodalism, and increasing scale; (b) reduced rail and over-the-road freight shipping costs; (c) advances in freight logistics and information technology; and (d) the integration of world markets. Consequently, ports face great uncertainty, their benefits are increasingly dispersed and locally less significant, and their adverse impacts remain localized. Yet, fragmented and ineffective public responses remain rooted in a tradition of economies achieved through vast scale and long-lived, inflexible investments spurred by excessive (subsidized) competition. We propose a future-oriented research agenda to improve public policy toward ports through (a) reviews of other nations’ approaches, (b) comparative scholarly case studies of the economic roles of U.S. maritime ports and whether their institutional and funding arrangements match these roles, (c) prospective benefit-cost analyses of publicly funded port expansion plans, and (d) research to identify variables that affect ports and are amenable to policy influence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of Port Authorities . (1998, May 15). Port development financing and revenues [Online]. Available: http://www.aapa-ports.org
2.
Ansary, H. J. (1996). North American ports and the internationalization of world markets. In Intermodal freight terminal of the future (Transportation Research Circular No. 459, pp. 12-19). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
3.
Associated Press . (1997, November 16). Threat of foreign bilge water studied. Atlanta Journal Constitution, p. D4.
4.
Boschken, H. L. (1998). Global shift in container traffic and its implications for economic development along the American land bridge. Public Works Policy and Management, 2(4), 368-372.
5.
Bosworth, B. (1996). Inter-firm collaboration and industrial competitiveness. In D. C. Knudsen (Ed.), The transition to flexibility (pp. 111-123). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
6.
Bureau of the Census . (1973). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
7.
Bureau of the Census . (1988). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
Bureau of the Census . (1992). 1992 census of transportation, communications, and utilities [Online]. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available: http://www.census.gov.
9.
Bureau of the Census . (1996). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
10.
Bureau of the Census . (1997). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
11.
Bureau of Economic Analysis . (1998). Benchmark input-output accounts of the United States, 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
12.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics . (1997a). National transportation statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
13.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics . (1997b). Transportation statistics annual report 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
14.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics . (1997c). Transportation receipts and outlays in the federal budget: Fiscal years 1977-94. Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
15.
Campbell, S. (1993). Increasing trade, declining port cities: Port containerization and the regional diffusion of economic benefits. In H. Noponen, J. Graham, & A. R. Markusen (Eds.), Trading industries, trading regions: International trade, American industry, and regional economic development (pp. 212-255). New York: Guilford.
16.
Coch, C. A. (1996). Containment islands: A solution for ports and the environment. The Journal of Urban Technology, 3(2), 39-64.
17.
Cooper, J. (1995). Transforming the structure of the freight transport sector. In Report of the ninety-ninth round table on transport economics (pp. 89-147). Paris: The European Conference of Ministers of Transport.
18.
Corbett, K. S. (1996). Double or nothing: The big stakes of hub ports. The Journal of Urban Technology, 3(2), 1-10.
19.
Eakland, P. B. , & Roddin, M. (1996). Strategic assessment for the 1994 update of the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan. In Intermodal freight terminal of the future (Transportation Research Circular No. 459, pp. 54-65). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
20.
Eberts, R. W. (1998). Principles for government involvement in freight infrastructure. In Special report 252: Policy options for intermodal freight transportation (pp. 117-152). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
21.
Goss, R. O. (1998). British ports policies since 1945. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 32(1), 51-71.
22.
Helberg, D. (1996). Operating environment for today’s ports. In Intermodal freight terminal of the future (Transportation Research Circular No. 459, pp. 21-30). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Helling, A. (1997). Transportation and economic development: A review. Public Works Management and Policy, 2(1), 79-93.
25.
Helmich, J. S. , Wakemann, T. H., & Stewart, R. D. (1996). Technology, intermodal transportation, and port productivity: Throughput maximization and environmental sustainability. The Journal of Urban Technology, 3(2), 11-38.
26.
Johnson, B. (1998, May). Eastbound containers crunch comes early on the west coast. Marine Digest and Transportation News, 76(9), 12.
27.
Kalsaas, B. T. (1995, October). Just-in-time production, goods transport, and location related to urban and regional planning: A theoretical oriented case study of Japanese and Scandinavian cases in the automobile industry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Detroit, MI.
28.
Keeler, T. E. (1986). Public policy and productivity in the trucking industry: Some evidence on the effects of highway investments, deregulation, and the 55 MPH speed limit. American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings, 76(2), 153-158.
29.
Kennedy, R. (1997, October 13). New York harbor raises cargo traffic share. New York Times, p. B4.
30.
Lawson, A. M. (1997, December). Benchmark input-output accounts for the U.S. economy, 1992: Requirements tables. Survey of Current Business, 78, 22-47.
31.
Levy, C. J. (1995, August 30). Questioning the viability of New York in shipping. New York Times, p. B6.
32.
McDonald, K. A. (1999, February 12). Biological invaders threaten U.S. ecology: Waterways and farmland are being irreversibly altered by exotic plants and animals that are spread through global trade. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A15-A16.
33.
Navarro, M. (1997, May 26). Financial scrutiny for Port of Miami puts Dade County in the spotlight. New York Times, p. A5.
34.
Noponen, H. , Markusen A., & Driessen, K. (1997). Trade and American cities: Who has the comparative advantage?Economic Development Quarterly, 11(1), 67-87.
35.
Ogden, K. W. (1992). Urban goods movement: A guide to policy and planning. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
36.
Parris, K. (1992). Ports of salvation. Georgia Trend, 8(1), 34-38.
37.
Pavlik, C. E. (1996). Large firm strategies: Spatial patterns of production. In D. C. Knudsen (Ed.), The transition to flexibility (pp. 67-86). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
38.
Petersen, J. E. (1998). Public-sector financing in intermodal freight transportation. In Special report 252: Policy options for intermodal freight transportation (pp. 258-313). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
39.
Peterson, I. (1992, January 13). A harbor sees trains replace ships. New York Times, p. A12.
40.
Rijsenbrij, J. C. (1996). Automation: A process redesign. In Intermodal freight terminal of the future (Transportation Research Circular No. 459, pp. 148-157). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
41.
Sheppard, E. J. (1996). Obstacles to port operation and development: Dredging and other environmental constraints. In Intermodal freight terminal of the future (Transportation Research Circular No. 459, pp. 31-42). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
42.
Stopford, M. (1988). Maritime economics. London: Routledge.
43.
Storper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford.
44.
Strauss-Wieder, A. (1996, July-August). Technology review study: Identifying significant emerging technologies and understanding issues. TR News, No. 185, 12-15.
45.
Transportation Research Board . (1996). Paying our way: Estimating the marginal social costs of freight transportation. Washington: National Academy Press.
46.
Tripp, J.T.B. (1996). Cutting the Gordian knot: What can be done with the contaminated sediments in the Hudson estuary and the New York Bight apex?The Journal of Urban Technology, 3(2), 81-96.
47.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . (1997). Waterborne commerce of the United States, calendar year 1996, part 5: Waterways and harbors, national summaries. New Orleans, LA: Author.
48.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment . (1995). The technological reshaping of metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
49.
U.S. Department of Commerce . (1961). Commerce in 1961. Washington, DC: Author.
50.
U.S. Maritime Administration . (1998). U.S. public ports annual report [Online]. Available: http://marad.dot.gov
51.
Van de Voorde, E. (1995). Seaports, land use, and competitiveness: How important are economic and spatial structures? In D. Banister (Ed.), Transport and urban development. London: E and FN Spon.
52.
Vickerman, M. J. (1998, May-June). Next-generation container vessels. TR News, No. 196, 3-9.
53.
Walker, R. L. (1996, November-December). Cargo handling cooperative program: A public-private partnership fostering research and technology development among U.S.-flag ocean carriers. TR News, No. 187, 22-25.
54.
Weisbrod, R. E. (1996). Port trends: Growth, technology, and sustainability. The Journal of Urban Technology, 3(2), v-xi.
55.
Winston, C. , Corsi, T. M., Grimm, C. M., & Evans, C. A. (1990). The economic effects of surface freight deregulation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
