Boatnerd Discussion Forum

The biggest detriment to container shipping on the lakez is the short shipping season. No shipper will want to use it if they know they will have to change the mode of moving containers. I wish the port of Burns Harbor much success in their container shipping project, but every attempt in the past failed, due to competition from the railroads and the short shipping season.

Cleveland has a container liner of sorts, but I think it is subsidized by the tax payers in Cleveland. Pretty hard to compete with trucks or railways

I agree with you guesty, while I think it would be cool to see an increase in container traffic, I think speed will be an issue. Every time you transload you are losing between 3-7 days in transit. This means going from Montreal to Chicago could take up to 12 days. If that same ship hits Baltimore, New York, or any other East Coast port it will take 1 day to leave the ship and 1-2 days to truck to Chicago. Not many shippers are willing to give up 10 days.

Not to mention moving from a 10K-15K TEU ship that can service the USEC to needing a 1K TEU ship to be able to fit down the seaway. Seaway traffic for containers is just more expensive.

[quote=guesty post_id=266025 time=1720213463]
Call me a pessimist, but I see lots of negatives that they will have to overcome. First, it can only offer seasonal service for international cargo. Second, only small, more expensive to run feeder vessels will be able to transit the seaway. Third, in this world of deregulated transportation, railroads and truckers are free to cut their rates to maintain their market share out of east coast ports. Fourth, even with the congestion they sometimes suffer, railroads and truckers can still get a container from Europe to Chicago several days faster than a feeder ship transferring containers and then sailing up the Seaway can.

Don't forget that Chicago spent $15 million in the late 1970's on a container port (Iroquois Landing) that failed to attract any substantial container business. That's $65 million in today's dollars. The recent article on the news page didn't seem to mention the level of investment

I can see some niche containerized traffic using the Great Lakes, but will it be profitable enough to support the investments? Time will tell. But it's hard to compete against ports that have 50 foot or more water depth to the docks and giant automated cranes, for general international container traffic. As for domestic traffic, its hard to compete with truckers in regards to rates and transit times.

I do wish them luck, but I think they have an uphill battle.
[/quote]

Having seen the various attempts at generating container traffic over the past several decades back to the 1970s, I fully agree with your assessment.

Call me a pessimist, but I see lots of negatives that they will have to overcome. First, it can only offer seasonal service for international cargo. Second, only small, more expensive to run feeder vessels will be able to transit the seaway. Third, in this world of deregulated transportation, railroads and truckers are free to cut their rates to maintain their market share out of east coast ports. Fourth, even with the congestion they sometimes suffer, railroads and truckers can still get a container from Europe to Chicago several days faster than a feeder ship transferring containers and then sailing up the Seaway can.

Don't forget that Chicago spent $15 million in the late 1970's on a container port (Iroquois Landing) that failed to attract any substantial container business. That's $65 million in today's dollars. The recent article on the news page didn't seem to mention the level of investment

I can see some niche containerized traffic using the Great Lakes, but will it be profitable enough to support the investments? Time will tell. But it's hard to compete against ports that have 50 foot or more water depth to the docks and giant automated cranes, for general international container traffic. As for domestic traffic, its hard to compete with truckers in regards to rates and transit times.

I do wish them luck, but I think they have an uphill battle.

What does anyone think about this container port idea? I'm kind of hoping with Duluth and Milwaukee it might start some Great Lakes container traffic along with the International stuff.