2014 Texas Port
Report
Working with others to provide safe and reliable transportation solutions for Texas
125 EAST 11TH STREET | AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-2483 | (512) 305-9500 | WWW.TXDOT.GOV
January 20, 2015
Fellow Texans,
Texas ports and shipping lanes have been vital to the Texas economy since our creation.
History has shown, however, that Texas has often taken a “hands-off” approach to investing in maritime
infrastructure.
Today, Texas ports are struggling to keep up with competitors in neighboring states who are leaping ahead
because these states are making strategic port investments.
Ironically, The Port of Charleston received a $1.3 billon commitment from South Carolina for port
development to process plastic resins produced in Texas.
Texas faces four major “mega-trends” that are drastically demanding more capacity from our ports and
shipping lanes. Those trends are: 1. Population explosion; 2. Dramatic growth of oil and gas production; 3.
Panama Canal’s new shipping lane and 4. Mexico’s robust economy (our number one maritime trading
partner).
For good reason, the Texas Legislature recognized the importance of the maritime system and asked TxDOT
to incorporate ports and waterways into transportation system planning. TxDOT has revitalized the Port
Authority Advisory Committee (PAAC) to develop a more strategic Port Capital Program. (The PAAC is working
with Texas ports to identify needs both “inside the gate” such as dock and storage improvements, as well as
“outside the gate” to address connectivity to the transportation system). TxDOT has also taken an in depth
examination of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in the GIWW Master Plan.
On behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation and my fellow commissioners, I am pleased to present
this report on the state of Texas ports. Texas is the nation’s leading export state and a leader in waterborne
trade. In order to maintain this position and serve our growing $1.5 trillion economy, it is imperative the state
seek ways to invest in the maritime system.
Sincerely,
Jeff Moseley
Commissioner, Texas Department of Transportation
CC: Greg Abbott, Governor, Texas
Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor, Texas
Joe Straus, Speaker, Texas House of Representatives
Texas Transportation Commission
OUR GOALS
MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM ▪ ADDRESS CONGESTION ▪ CONNECT TEXAS COMMUNITIES ▪ BEST IN CLASS STATE AGENCY
An Equal Opportunity Employer
The State of Texas’ Ports
A work in progress
Maritime Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ vi
CURRENT TRENDS IMPACTING TEXAS PORTS .................................................................. vi
TEXAS’S ROLE IN MARITIME TRADE ................................................................................. vii
TEXAS PORT ASSETS ......................................................................................................... viii
PORT AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................................... viii
FINANCING OF PORT INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................ix
TOPICS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION ............................................................................... x
SECTION 1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT AND AN OVERVIEW OF TEXAS PORT FACILITIES ..... 1
CLASSIFICATION OF TEXAS PORTS .................................................................................... 2
REMAINDER OF THE REPORT ............................................................................................... 7
SECTION 2 PORT ASSET MATRIX .............................................................................................. 8
TERMINAL ASSETS .............................................................................................................. 8
NAVIGATIONAL ASSETS ..................................................................................................... 11
HIGHWAY ASSETS ............................................................................................................. 14
RAIL ASSETS ...................................................................................................................... 17
INTERMODAL ASSETS ....................................................................................................... 20
CARGO HANDLING ASSETS .............................................................................................. 23
STORAGE ASSETS ............................................................................................................. 25
MARKET ASSETS ............................................................................................................... 28
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 31
SECTION 3 PORT QUESTIONNAIRES ...................................................................................... 32
BARRIERS TO GROWTH .................................................................................................... 32
PORT STRENGTHS ...............................................................................................................35
BETTER UTILIZING THE GIWW .......................................................................................... 37
VALUE OF THE PAAC AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT .................................. 40
VISIONS OF THE NEAR FUTURE AND HOW TXDOT CAN ASSIST ..................................... 42
VISIONS OF THE LONG-TERM FUTURE ...............................................................................44
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 48
SECTION 4 PORT FINANCE ..................................................................................................... 49
PORT ACCESS ACCOUNT FUND ........................................................................................ 49
TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONE (TRZ) ............................................................. 50
TEXAS MOBILITY FUND ..................................................................................................... 50
OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES ......................................................... 50
WATER RESOURCES REFORM & DEVELOPMENT ACT (WRRDA) OF 2014 .................... 51
i
PORT FUNDING TOOLS IN OTHER GULF STATES ............................................................ 54
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 56
SECTION 5 TOPICS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION BY THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION .............................................................................................................. 57
SOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 61
APPENDIX A OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MACROECONOMIC TRENDS AFFECTING TEXAS
PORTS ......................................................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX B UNDERSTANDING TEXAS’S MARITIME TRADE ................................................. 84
APPENDIX C PORT PROFILES ................................................................................................. 99
APPENDIX D GLOSSARY OF MARITIME TERMS ................................................................... 100
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Overview of Texas Ports in the TPA .............................................................................................. 5
Terminal Assets at Texas Ports ................................................................................................... 10
Navigational Assets at Texas Ports ............................................................................................. 13
Highway Assets at Texas Ports .................................................................................................... 16
Texas Ports Located in Rail Districts........................................................................................... 18
Rail Assets at Texas Ports ........................................................................................................... 19
Number of Loaded TEUs Handled at Texas Maritime Ports, 2012 ........................................... 20
Intermodal Assets at Texas Ports................................................................................................ 22
Cargo Handling Assets at Texas Ports ........................................................................................ 24
Storage Assets at Texas Ports ..................................................................................................... 27
Summary of Market Assets for Texas Ports ............................................................................... 30
Respondents to TxDOT’s 2014 TPA Questionnaire .................................................... ...............32
Self-Identified Barriers to Growth at Texas Ports ....................................................................... 34
Self-Identified Port Strengths ...................................................................................................... 36
How to Better Utilize the GIWW ................................................................................................... 39
Value of the PAAC and How It Can Be Improved ........................................................................ 41
Ports’ View of the Near Future and Opportunities for TxDOT’s Assistance .............................. 43
Vision of the Port in 20 Years and Its Service to the State of Texas ........................................ 46
Port Designations under the Water Resources Reform & Development Act of 2014 ............. 53
Top 10 Texas Exports: 2012-2013 ............................................................................................. 70
Top 10 Countries for Texas Exports: 2012-2013 ...................................................................... 70
Volume of Intermodal Containers (TEUs) Handled at U.S. Gulf of Mexico Ports ...................... 78
Landed Price of LNG at Select Locations around the World, November 2013........................ 80
Total Maritime Tonnage Handled by State (Short Tons), 2007-2011 ...................................... 85
Total Tonnage of Maritime Cargo Shipped (Short Tons), 2007-2011 ...................................... 86
Total Tonnage of Maritime Cargo Received (Short Tons), 2007-2011 .................................... 87
Total Intrastate Maritime Tonnage Handled by State (Short Tons), 2007-2011 ..................... 88
Texas’s Total Maritime Export Trade by Trading Partner (Short Tons), 2007-2011 ................ 89
iii
Texas’s Total Maritime Import Trade by Trading Partner (Short Tons), 2007-2011 ............... 90
Destinations of Cargoes Handled at Texas Ports, 2007-2011 ................................................. 91
Origins of Cargoes Handled at Texas Ports, 2007-2011 .......................................................... 92
Total Tonnage of Maritime Goods Originating from Texas, 2007-2011 .................................. 93
Total Tonnage of Maritime Goods Destined to Texas, 2007-2011 .......................................... 94
Texas’s Total Maritime Export Trade by Mexican Port (Short Tons), 2007-2011 .................... 95
Texas’s Maritime Exports to Mexico by Commodity, 2007-2011............................................... 96
Texas’s Maritime Trade with Mexico’s Ports (Short Tons), 2007-2011 ................................... 97
Texas’s Maritime Imports from Mexico (Short Tons), 2007-2011 ........................................... 97
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Texas’s Population Trends, 1993-2013 ..................................................................................... 66
Net Migration to Texas: 1993 – 2013 ........................................................................................ 67
Employment Growth in Texas: 2000 – 2013 ............................................................................. 68
Annual Employment Change in Texas by Industry: 2010 - 2013.............................................. 69
Operating Gas Wells in Texas, 1990 – 2012 ............................................................................. 72
Annual Natural Gas (Mcf) and Oil (Mbbl) Production in Texas, 1990 – 2012 ......................... 73
Tonnage of Cargo Transiting the Panama Canal and Originating from the
Eastern United States (Long Tons), FY 2000-FY 2012 ........................................................ 74
Tonnage of Cargo Transiting the Panama Canal and Destined for the
Eastern United States (Long Tons), FY 2000-FY 2012 ........................................................ 75
Destinations of Cargo Transiting the Panama Canal from U.S. Gulf Ports ............................... 76
Tonnage of Cargo Transiting the Panama Canal and Destined for U.S. Gulf Ports
(Long Tons), FY 2000-FY 2012 ............................................................................................. 77
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE STATE OF TEXAS PORTS
Texas ports are the state’s gateways to the world. The state’s port system moves many of
the products we sell and the goods we buy to sustain and grow our economy. The impact of
Texas ports is felt far beyond the Gulf Coast region. This is because Texas ports serve a
myriad of economic activities, from energy exploration and production to manufacturing to
agriculture to warehousing and distribution. These activities reach into every corner of the
state from the largest metropolitan economies to the smallest Texas towns and rural areas
and even to the individual household. Through Texas ports we ship the crops we grow, the
products we manufacture, the food we eat, the energy we need for our vehicles, and
countless other essential items we consume at home or use in business. Our ports are
important investments that require ongoing maintenance and, as demand dictates,
expansion. Despite their importance, Texas ports have maintained a relatively low-profile at
the state level, because they have historically addressed their needs at the local level.
However, as economic competition intensifies, many states are taking a more proactive role
in supporting and positioning their ports to attract new industry. The purpose of this report
is to familiarize the members and staff of the Texas Transportation Commission with the
member ports of the Texas Ports Association (TPA), as well as to provide an overview of
current issues, needs, and concerns among port administrators.
The information presented in this report was gathered during a series of visits to member
ports of the TPA between late-2013 and early-2014 by Texas Transportation Commissioner
Jeff Moseley and staff from TxDOT’s Maritime Division. Additional information was gathered
from questionnaires distributed by TxDOT to TPA members, along with TPA members
responding to other data requests from TxDOT. Supplemental sources of information
included trade data from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Maritime
Administration (MARAD), as well as data from each port’s website and the TPA’s website.
CURRENT TRENDS IMPACTING TEXAS PORTS
As of mid-2014, Texas ports are operating within an environment of strong demand and new
opportunities, much of which have been sparked by exploration and production in the
energy industry. However, strong population growth and general economic expansion in
Texas are also providing a firm underpinning to sustain this growth. On the horizon is the
completed Panama Canal expansion, which is anticipated to be a positive contributor to the
Texas economy and is expected to open in the next 18 to 24 months.
Among these trends, the dramatic growth of oil and gas production is currently having the
most significant impact on Texas ports. Ports in South Texas have seen a strong uptick in
their tonnage handled as they move frac sand, pipes, machinery, and other cargoes related
vi
to oil exploration and production in the Eagle Ford Shale. However, the impacts are not
limited to these ports. The Port of Beaumont is handling large volumes of crude oil
produced in Colorado and Wyoming and many private terminals are receiving oil and gas for
refining or processing. Producers of natural gas are also looking to export through a number
of new liquefaction facilities being planned along the Texas Gulf Coast. Additionally, billions
of dollars of private investment is being made along the Houston Ship Channel to build
petrochemical plants that will use the state’s cheap and abundant natural gas to produce
plastic resins for containerized export.
TEXAS’S ROLE IN MARITIME TRADE
Texas’s maritime activities have contributed greatly to the state’s wealth, employment, and
worker salaries. Within the maritime industry, Texas is among the nation’s leading states,
handling 15.8 percent of total U.S. cargo between 2007 and 2011. As the nation’s leading
export state, it is not surprising that Texas ports handled 20.1 percent of the nation’s total
export tonnage during this same period. Texas ports also received more than one-quarter
(26.7 percent) of the total foreign tonnage handled in the United States. Put another way,
the volume of maritime goods received by Texas ports and the state’s private terminals was
65 percent larger than the volume that was shipped out.
It is important to note that while Texas receives more goods than it ships, which implies a
state trade imbalance, much of this tonnage enters into the petroleum refining process and
is rendered into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other petroleum products that are sold
domestically and internationally. The refining process is a value-added activity that
generates wealth for Texas, which is only possible due to the imports of feedstock. Similarly,
chemicals are also imported to produce more sophisticated chemicals or products, which
are then exported, often never going further inland than the Texas Coast. In short, the
importing of goods into Texas ports is critical to the state’s economy and provides the
necessary inputs for value-added activities that generate wealth for the state rather than
reduce it.
Another important aspect of Texas’s maritime trade is the volume of its intrastate
movements, which occur mostly along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). Texas leads
the nation in the total volume of intrastate maritime cargo handled at 305.7 million tons
between 2007 and 2011. Texas’s interstate maritime trade plays a smaller role. For
example, less than 20 percent of the trade originating from Texas had a destination in
another U.S. state between 2007 and 2011. This high volume of intrastate trade (along
with interstate movements) is significant because every ton of cargo handled on Texas’s
waterways reduces or eliminates its need to utilize the state’s road, rail, or pipeline
networks. As a result, Texas’s coastwise maritime trade plays a key role in managing
congestion and reduces the need to build new transportation infrastructure. Additionally,
many of the cargoes moved on water are hazardous materials and maritime vessels provide
vii
the safest mode for their movement. Regardless of the origin or destination of the state’s
domestic maritime cargoes, TxDOT’s role as the non-federal sponsor of the GIWW means it
must closely follow the activities and needs along the waterway. During mid-2014, TxDOT
will release a GIWW Master Plan, which will assist TxDOT with developing its plans, policies,
and strategies over the coming years. Texas maritime trade is a key component of overall
freight movement in the state. The findings of this report as well as the GIWW Master Plan
will be incorporated in the state’s Freight Mobility Plan.
TEXAS PORT ASSETS
With 11 deep draft ports and several shallow water ports that handle commercial cargo,
Texas port infrastructure is geographically dispersed, significant in scale, and tailored to the
needs of its customers. To better inform the members of the Commission on the
characteristics of Texas ports, an infrastructure inventory of TPA members was developed.
The original asset matrix created for this high level overview became so extensive that it was
broken into eight components so it could be more easily understood. The eight components
of the asset matrix are:
• Terminal assets;
• Navigational assets;
• Highway assets;
• Rail assets;
• Intermodal assets;
• Cargo handling assets;
• Storage assets; and
• Market assets.
Despite their similarities, Texas ports differ so that no two ports are alike. In fact, Texas port
directors emphasize their ports’ uniqueness with the saying, “Once you have been to one
Texas port, you have been to one Texas port”. Although Texas’s port network is resource
rich, the sustained growth of the state’s economy has placed heavy demands on port
infrastructure. Many of the investments made in Texas ports were made decades ago and
years of heavy use are taking their toll. Unfortunately, the replacement or expansion of this
infrastructure will be neither quick nor cheap.
PORT AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRES
Earlier this year, TxDOT sent a questionnaire to TPA members to better understand the
conditions and issues at their port. The administration of each port was asked to respond to
questions around the various themes and their responses are summarized below:
• Barriers to Growth - Generally, the barriers reported by the ports could be grouped
into four categories: the need to build port infrastructure to respond to growing
demand; the need to replace infrastructure that is beyond its productive lifespan; the
need for maintenance dredging of ship channels and the GIWW or channel
viii
•
•
•
•
•
deepening or widening; and the need to build or replace landside infrastructure
serving the ports. Weaved throughout the discussion of many of the ports’ responses
was the need for additional funding sources.
Port Strengths - The ports’ wide-ranging responses reflected the diversity of Texas
ports, with regard to the services they offer, the value of their tenants, and their port
and channel infrastructure.
Better Utilizing the GIWW - All the responding ports viewed the GIWW as an important
component of serving their existing customers. Some ports have reported sizeable
increases of traffic on the GIWW that have been spurred by the oil and gas industry.
Almost all of the ports identified improvements to the GIWW or maintenance
dredging as very important. Most port authorities emphasized the need to continue
maintenance dredging of the GIWW and to bring it down to its authorized depth of 12
feet. There was also some interest on developing a Marine Highway along the GIWW
to encourage the shift of cargo from trucks to barges.
Opportunities to Improve the Port Authorities Advisory Committee (PAAC) - Many ports
urged TxDOT to use the PAAC less as a platform for disseminating information and
more as a tool for coordinating and promoting the mutual agendas of TxDOT and
Texas ports, as well as to promote the allocation of state funds for transportation
infrastructure improvements outside and, possibly, inside the ports.
How TxDOT Can Assist in the Near Future - The ports’ responses to this question
varied a great deal. Continuing TxDOT’s role as the developer of the state’s highway
infrastructure and maintaining good mobility was stated directly and indirectly. Many
ports envisioned TxDOT’s role as being a greater advocate for the port authorities’
interests. It was also suggested by some ports that TxDOT work with the PAAC and
the TPA to encourage the Texas Legislature to fund the Port Access Account Fund
established under Chapter 55 of the Texas Transportation Code.
Visions of the Long-Term Future - Texas ports were optimistic about their future and
the future of the Texas economy. As would be expected, most ports mentioned their
current and future role in regional and statewide economic development, job
retention, and job creation. Many of the ports also emphasized their desire to
continue serving their existing, as well as, future customers. Another common theme
in many of the responses was their future role in energy exploration, production, and
transportation. This future includes roughly $50 billion of investment in
petrochemical manufacturing along the Houston Ship Channel, as well as $30
billion along the Freeport Channel, that is happening now. Both Ports are members
of the same Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which will be tasked with
planning for the growth that will surely follow this future investment.
FINANCING OF PORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Although most ports are subdivisions of the State of Texas, Texas ports have not historically
received direct funding from the state for port infrastructure. The lack of state funding has
meant that Texas ports have become largely self-sufficient, barring federal funds that are
ix
usually targeted to channel dredging or homeland security. This self-sufficiency has also
meant that ports have developed a strong sense of autonomy and cautiousness.
During 2012, Texas ports spent in excess of $300 million of their own funds (through their
revenues or bonding authority) on capital expenditures. In 2001, the Port Access Account
Fund was created by the 77th Texas Legislature to provide funds for Texas ports to finance
security improvements, port infrastructure projects, and related studies. However, since
2001, the Texas Legislature has not appropriated funds to the Texas Port Access Account
Fund. In comparison, other states along the Gulf of Mexico (with the exception of Alabama)
are actively funding their ports to improve their competitiveness.
Despite the lack of direct state funding, there are other potential financing tools available to
ports and the local governments that support them. A Transportation Reinvestment Zone
(TRZ) is a delineated, underdeveloped area, where a new transportation project is to be
built. Generally TRZs allow a sponsoring entity to capture incremental tax revenue so it can
be reinvested in a project designated within the zone. Another tool is the Texas Mobility
Fund. Initially established only for highways, the 83rd Texas Legislature expanded eligibility
for the Texas Mobility Fund to ports. However, port eligibility is dependent on passage of the
Constitutional amendment on the November 2014 ballot.
On June 10, 2014 the President signed the Water Resources Reform & Development Act
(WRRDA) of 2014, which was a bipartisan effort to address many of the funding shortfalls
and inefficiencies that ports experience when developing projects. USACE studies for
projects are now limited to three years in length. WRRDA also rectifies the allocation of the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMT) tax. One of the most important elements of the
WRRDA is that it stops the redirection of funds collected specifically for the purpose of
harbor maintenance. This change will occur incrementally, so that by FY 2025, 100 percent
of the revenue collected from the HMT will go to that purpose. WRRDA will also allocate
fixed percentages of the HMT Fund to ports with low tonnages (“emerging” ports), energy
intensive ports, and ports that have not received dredging funds over the past six years.
TOPICS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
The sections below identify key areas for future investigation and consideration by the Texas
Transportation Commission that were identified during the preparation of this report. Many
of these topics were identified by the TPA members during their interactions with TxDOT,
through the questionnaire of TPA members, and participation at a PAAC meeting held during
March 2014.
• Explore Infrastructure Investment Opportunities – Consider identifying categories of
key infrastructure improvements for ports that TxDOT can assist with (such as road
and rail access, overweight truck corridors, removal of at-grade rail crossings,
x
•
•
•
•
•
•
xi
inadequate air draft clearance, etc.) and request that ports submit competitive
proposals to TxDOT for funding those projects.
Provide Leadership for Texas’s Dredging Needs – As the state’s transportation
agency and the non-federal sponsor for the GIWW, Texas ports look to TxDOT to
provide leadership for the state’s dredging needs. This desired leadership is not
necessarily related to funding dredging projects. Rather, Texas ports are looking for
TxDOT to use its influence and take a proactive role in its relationship with the USACE
to actively promote dredging projects along Texas ship channels and the GIWW.
Port Infrastructure Funding - Texas is among a minority of U.S. coastal states that do
not provide state funds for their ports, with Louisiana and Florida being the most
active among Gulf ports. The most direct mechanism for providing funds for port
improvements would be for the Legislature to obligate funds to the Port Access
Account Fund, found in Chapter 55 of the Texas Transportation Code. While Texas
ports would benefit from infrastructure funding, especially the smaller ports, the
consensus is that they do not want new state funding for port infrastructure projects
if the funds must come at the expense of TxDOT’s traditional investment in landside
transportation projects. Expanded funding for all the ports’ needs is the desired goal.
Maintain a Transportation System Approach – TxDOT’s statutory and constitutional
responsibility is to build and maintain the state’s roadway network, but other
transportation modes can also be a means to reducing congestion and improving
mobility. Several Texas ports have expressed an interest in the development of a
marine highway along the Texas segment of the GIWW, which could encourage more
freight movements to occur along the GIWW and mitigate congestion along the
state’s roadway and railway networks at a relatively low cost and with fewer
environmental impacts.
Encourage Commodity Diversification at Texas Ports – Texas’s maritime trade is
highly dependent upon the petrochemical industry for the cargoes it handles. While
this specialization has unquestionably benefited Texas ports, it would also be
prudent to encourage growth in other commodity markets so that natural market
fluctuations have less impact on future cargo volumes.
Strengthen Relations with Local Port Authorities and Administration - The
Transportation Commission and TxDOT’s staff are currently entering into a new era of
coordination and collaboration with Texas port authorities. To advance these
relationships, TxDOT must understand the port authorities’ autonomy, their need to
remain profitable, and their unique competitive position, which includes intrastate
competition.
Pursue Further Study of Critical Maritime Issues – While this report discusses a
number of issues that are important to Texas ports, future topics for study include:
detailed maritime trade analyses at the regional, country, or commodity level;
opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships; and continued monitoring of critical
macroeconomic and maritime industry trends.
SECTION 1
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT AND AN OVERVIEW OF TEXAS PORT FACILITIES
Texas ports are the state’s gateways to the world. The state’s port system moves many of
the products we sell and the goods we buy to sustain and grow our economy. The impact of
Texas ports is felt far beyond the Gulf Coast region. This is because Texas ports serve a
myriad of economic activities, from energy exploration and production to manufacturing to
agriculture to warehousing and distribution. These activities reach into every corner of the
state from the largest metropolitan economies to the smallest Texas towns and rural areas
and even to the individual household. Through Texas ports we ship the crops we grow, the
products we manufacture, the food we eat, the energy we need for our vehicles, and
countless other essential items we consume at home or use in business. Our ports are
important investments that require ongoing maintenance and, as demand dictates,
expansion. Despite their importance, Texas ports have maintained a relatively low-profile at
the state level, because they have historically addressed their needs at the local level.
However, as economic competition intensifies, many states are taking a more proactive role
in supporting and positioning their ports to attract new industry. The purpose of this report
is to familiarize the members and staff of the Texas Transportation Commission with the
member ports of the Texas Ports Association (TPA). This report’s content should assist
readers with developing a baseline understanding of the volume and types of maritime
cargoes being handled at Texas ports, the ports’ existing infrastructure, and the current
needs and concerns among port administrators. The report will also briefly review port
funding mechanisms that are being utilized by other states in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as
the State of Texas’s current approach.
While the membership of the TPA represents almost the entire volume of commercial
maritime cargo handled at Texas’s public ports, it should also be noted that a large volume
of Texas’s maritime cargo (primarily liquid bulk) is handled at the state’s private terminals.
These private terminals play a significant role in Texas’s maritime industry and have a
symbiotic relationship with the public ports. One way in which private terminals contribute
directly to public ports is by providing revenue for their share of channel maintenance and
dredging. This private sector contribution reduces the overall burden of these activities on
the public ports. Another way private terminals assist is by generating significant activity in
the Texas maritime industry. As a result, Texas’s maritime industry has reached a scale
where it can handle essentially every customer need that arises, which has attracted the
interest of employers, shippers, and carriers from around the world. While, the state’s
public ports are the focus of attention within this report (with the exception of the Port of
Texas City), TxDOT will continue to monitor, engage, and collaborate with the state’s private
terminals as necessary. The role of private-sector maritime terminals in the Texas economy
cannot be overstated.
1
The data for this report were gathered during a series of visits to member ports of the TPA
between the fall of 2013 and the spring of 2014 by Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff
Moseley and staff from TxDOT’s Maritime Division. In addition to visiting Texas ports, TxDOT
staff and Commissioner Moseley visited other maritime stakeholders on each tour in order
to get a comprehensive view of the Texas maritime system. These stakeholders included
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), county judges, city
council members, and industry representatives.
The first port visit of the tour was Port Freeport, which included a tour of the Brazos River
Floodgates, led by staff from the USACE. The Brazos River Floodgates represent a
challenging intersection along the GIWW due to the narrow width of the gates, the angle of
alignment with the river, and a lack of mooring facilities that provide a safe point for barges
to tie off. These issues will be further explained in TxDOT’s GIWW Master Plan and Technical
Report, which will be released during the summer of 2014.
The ports included in this report also serve as the non-federal sponsor of their respective
ship channels, with the exception of the Ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur and Orange. The
Sabine Neches Navigation District (SNND) serves as the non-federal sponsor of the
channels for these ports and the Sabine Neches Waterway. 7he tour included a visit with
the SNND and a detailed tour of the 64-mile waterway that connects the three ports.
Additional information was gathered from questionnaires distributed by TxDOT to TPA
members, along with TPA members responding to other data requests from TxDOT.
Supplemental sources of information included trade data from the USACE and the U.S.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), as well as data from each port’s website and the TPA’s
website. This report was prepared with the assistance of the Center for Economic
Development and Research at the University of North Texas.
CLASSIFICATION OF TEXAS PORTS
The infrastructure characteristics of Texas ports differ widely based upon their geography,
the economic characteristics of the market they serve, and their leadership’s historic
decisions and investments. Therefore, the uniqueness of each Texas port makes it difficult
to classify them, but some generalized groupings are helpful for understanding their roles in
supporting the Texas economy. The tables found on Pages 13 and 14 provide an overview
of Texas ports and the sections below give a brief description of each field in the table:
1. Categorization – The most common categorization of ports is related to channel
depth. Ports that are served by a channel of 39 feet or deeper are termed “deep
draft” ports, ports served by a channel 25 to 38 feet deep are categorized as
“medium draft”, and those with a channel depth that is less than 25 feet are called
2
“shallow draft” ports. Generally, deep and medium draft ports handle both oceangoing and inland vessels (such as barges and tugs, etc.), while shallow draft ports are
usually limited to inland vessels or offshore supply ships. In this document, we have
created two other classifications. The first classification is based upon the volume of
tonnage handled, with the ports divided into three groupings:
•
•
•
Small – Up to 1,000,000 tons annually
Medium – 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 tons annually
Large – More than 10,000,000 tons annually
The second classification groups the ports according to the array of cargo handled.
Ports that regularly handle a large variety of cargoes (e.g. breakbulk, dry bulk,
intermodal (i.e. containerized), liquid bulk, roll on/roll off (RO/RO), etc.) are called
“comprehensive”. Examples of a comprehensive port are the Port of Houston, the
Port of Corpus Christi, and the Port of Beaumont. Ports that handle a smaller variety
of cargoes, but usually in high volumes, are called “specialized” ports. An example of
a “specialized” port would be the Port of Texas City, which almost exclusively handles
very large volumes of liquid bulk cargoes. Similarly, the Calhoun Port Authority could
be categorized as a specialized port, since it almost exclusively handles petroleum,
chemicals, and bauxite. “Niche” ports handle a few cargo or vessel types and do not
generally move large volumes of cargo. The Port of Palacios is one example of a
niche port. It handles very little commercial cargo, but it is the home port of a large
shrimping fleet and a tugboat and barge builder. The Port of Port Isabel is another
example a niche port. Although it is a medium draft port, the Port of Port Isabel,
primarily serves offshore supply ships and handles building materials. The final
classification in this field summarizes the types of cargo handled at each port:
breakbulk, dry bulk, liquid bulk, intermodal containers, offshore servicing, and fishing
and shrimping.
2. Tonnage Handled – The estimated annual tonnage handled at each port in short tons
(i.e. 1 ton = 2,000 lbs.). It is important to note that the volume handled at an
individual port often differs from federal maritime trade statistics, which often
provide aggregated data for multiple public ports and private terminals as a single
U.S. Customs port. U.S. Customs ports are geographical districts established under
U.S. Customs Regulations to identify where goods enter and leave the United States.1
While a Customs port may have a name such as “Galveston” the area within the
Customs port extends beyond just the Port of Galveston. Typically, many private
terminals are also included in this geographic area. U.S. Customs districts are
aggregations of U.S. Customs ports.
1
3
U.S. Customs districts and ports are listed by name and code in Schedule D, Classification of U.S. Customs Districts
and Ports for Foreign Trade Statistics. The geographic limits of each Customs district are published in the U.S.
Customs Regulations.
3. Channel Draft – The average, low-tide depth of the main ship channel serving a port
is the channel draft. Auxiliary ship channels will often have shallower drafts.
Because ship channels along the Texas coastline are constantly filling in with sand
from the seafloor, the actual depth along the entire channel is constantly in flux and
uneven. The natural process of sand flowing into the channel is often referred to in
the port industry as “shoaling” and the practice of removing the sand is called
“dredging”. The dredging of federally maintained ship channels in Texas, as well as
the dredging of the GIWW, is performed by the USACE.
4. Ownership – With the exception of the Ports of Texas City and Galveston, all ports in
the TPA are public navigation districts of the State of Texas. The Port of Galveston is
publicly-owned by the City of Galveston, while the Port of Texas City is private and
jointly owned by the Union Pacific Railroad and the BNSF Railroad. Texas’s private
terminals are owned by a multitude of firms.
5. Estimated Annual Economic Impact – The estimated annual economic impacts of a
port’s activities are significantly driven by the assumptions used when preparing the
analysis. For example, in some cases, the economic impacts represent only the
activities that occur within a port’s gates, while in other instances, the values
represent the impact of the entire maritime industry within a region, including private
terminals. Therefore, readers should be cautioned against comparing the figures of
one port against another, without being familiar with the full range of assumptions
that were made during each study (information that is not provided in this report). It
should also be noted that the estimates of economic impacts were not prepared as
part of this study and, in most cases, the economic impact studies were sponsored
by the port.
6. Specialties – The final column of the table lists the primary cargoes handled at each
port or other significant maritime activities.
4
Overview of Texas Ports in the TPA
Port
Port of Orange
Categorization
MD, S, N, BB
Tonnage
Channel
Handled†
Draft
94,504x
30
Ownership
Estimated Annual
Economic Impact‡
Public
$1,900,000g
Public
$122,000,000f
Specialties
Paper products, lay berthing, vessel
construction and repair.
Port of Beaumont
D, M, C, BB, DB
3,080,231b
40
Military equipment, forest products, steel,
bulk grain, crude oil, project cargo, potash,
and aggregate
Port of Port Arthur
D, SM, SP, BB
341,751e
40
Public
$128,000,000f
Forest products, iron and steel, dry bulk,
bagged and bailed cargoes, military cargo,
and project cargo.
Port of Texas City
Port of Galveston
D, L, SP, LB
D, M, C, CR, DB,
78,000,000x
4,786,576d
45
45
Private
$919,500,000g
Public
$3,060,700,000e
BB, IM
Crude oil, refined petroleum products, and
chemicals
Cruise ships, bulk grains, windmills, fresh
fruits, livestock, machinery, vehicles, paper
products, agricultural equipment, liquid bulk,
and project cargo.
Port of Houston
D, L, C, IM, BB,
35,825,450a
45
Public
$178,504,000,000e
DB, LB, CR
Consumer goods, plastics, iron and steel,
iron/steel products, fertilizers, beverages,
cereals and cereal products, stone, plaster,
cement, vehicles, etc.
Port Freeport
D, M, C, DB, BB,
IM
24,537,964ᵇ
45
Public
$17,944,500,000e
Project cargo, clothing, fresh fruits and
vegetables, rice, paper goods, plastic resins,
aggregate, autos, windmill components.
Categorization Key: D = Deep draft; MD = Medium draft; S = Shallow draft; SM = Small, M = Medium; L = Large; C = Comprehensive; SP = Specialized; N =
Niche; BB = Breakbulk; DB = Dry Bulk; LB = Liquid Bulk; IM = Intermodal Containers; CR = Cruise; OF = Offshore Servicing; FS = Fishing and Shrimping
† Only includes tonnage handled at the port. Does not include nearby, unaffiliated facilities, such as private terminals. ‡ May include economic impacts from
nearby, unaffiliated terminals.
Note: Dates: a Calendar Year (CY) 2013; b Fiscal Year (FY) 2013; c CY 2012; d FY2012; e CY 2011; f CY 2005; g CY 2004; x year not available.
5
6
Overview of Texas Ports in the TPA (Continued)
Port
Port of Palacios
Calhoun Port Authority
Categorization
S, SM, N, FS
MD, M, SP, LB,
Tonnage
Channel
Handled†
Draft
0
4,572,765d
12
36
Ownership
Estimated Annual
Economic Impact‡
Public
Public
$41,223,913h
$7,000,000,000g
Public
$6,600,000,000e
DB
Port of Victoria
S, SM, SP, LB,
Port of Corpus Christi
S, SM, N
D, L, C, LB, DB,
Shrimping, vessel construction and repair
Liquid and dry bulk chemicals, fertilizers,
petroleum products, and bauxite
5,288,199x
12
DB
Port of West Calhoun
Specialties
Chemicals, grains, rice, cotton, liquid and
dry fertilizers, sand, and gravel
N/A
89,454,480a
12
45
Public
N/A
Public
$13,120,800,000e
BB
N/A
Crude oil, fuels and other petroleum
products, bauxite, alumina, dry bulk,
grain, chemical, breakbulk, and military
cargoes.
Port of Port Mansfield
S, SM, N
5,230e
Port of Harlingen
S, SM, N, DB,
900,000x
Port of Port Isabel
LB
MD, S, N, DB,
50,000x
3
12
36
Public
$11,324,814f
Recreational fishing, scrap metal
Public
$19,349,446f
Liquid fertilizer, sand, aggregates, fuel,
Public
$85,600,000f
raw sugar, cotton, sorghum, and corn.
Offshore servicing, concrete, sand, and
Public
$2,024,900,000e
OF
Port of Brownsville
D, M, SP, BB,
DB, LB, OF, FS
aggregate
5,536,689c
42
Steel, fuels, waxes, lubricants, limestone,
asphalt, minerals, grains, bauxite, scrap
metal, electrical poles, windmill
components, etc.
Categorization Key: D = Deep draft; MD = Medium draft; S = Shallow draft; SM = Small, M = Medium; L = Large; C = Comprehensive; SP = Specialized; N =
Niche; BB = Breakbulk; DB = Dry Bulk; LB = Liquid Bulk; IM = Intermodal Containers; CR = Cruise; OF = Offshore Servicing; FS = Fishing and Shrimping
† Only includes tonnage handled at the port. Does not include nearby, unaffiliated facilities, such as private terminals. ‡ May include economic impacts from
nearby, unaffiliated terminals.
Note: Dates: a Calendar Year (CY) 2013; b Fiscal Year (FY) 2013; c CY 2012; d FY2012; e CY 2011; f CY 2005; g CY 2011; x year not available
Note: Port Mansfield did not handle any commercial cargo between 2007 and 2010; N/A denotes data not provided or available.
REMAINDER OF THE REPORT
The next section of this report provides an overview of a port asset matrix (i.e. a summary
table), which will help readers understand the capabilities, infrastructure, and equipment
present at each port. Section 3 summarizes findings of returned questionnaires from TPA
membership. Section 4 provides a brief overview of Texas port finance options, including a
survey of the port finance activities of other states along the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, Section
5 offers a list of topics for future consideration by the Commission. The appendices of this
report provide an overview of the major macroeconomic trends or factors that are currently
influencing activities at Texas ports, along with a state-level analysis of Texas’s maritime
trade flows, as they relate to tonnage, commodities, and trading partners.
7
SECTION 2
PORT ASSET MATRIX
With 11 deep draft ports and several shallow water ports that handle commercial cargo,
Texas’s port infrastructure is geographically dispersed, significant in scale, and tailored to
the needs of its customers. To better inform the members of the Commission on the
characteristics of Texas ports, this section will provide an infrastructure inventory of TPA
members. The original asset matrix created for this high level overview became so extensive
that it was divided into eight components so it would be more easily understood. The eight
components of the asset matrix are: terminal assets, navigational assets, highway assets,
rail assets, intermodal assets 2, cargo handling assets, storage assets, and market assets.
The sections below will give a collective overview of the assets at Texas ports and the
accompanying tables will provide specific information for each port, according to the criteria
inventoried.
TERMINAL ASSETS
As discussed in Section 1, there is a great deal of diversity among Texas ports, in terms of
the tonnage and the types of cargo handled. Most of the waterborne cargo that moves
through Texas ports is liquid bulk material, which is primarily handled at private terminals
that lie outside of the publicly-owned facilities (but rely upon channels maintained by the
public ports and the USACE). However, there are some notable exceptions to this
observation, such as the Port of Corpus Christi and the Calhoun Port Authority. Usually,
these privately-owned terminals connect directly to refineries or petrochemical plants and
require relatively little terminal infrastructure and space, compared to dry cargo terminals.
The majority of the state’s public port infrastructure, however, concentrates on dry cargoes,
in the forms of dry bulk, breakbulk, project cargo, military equipment, intermodal containers,
and RO/RO. Terminal assets at Texas ports were inventoried under five categories: dry bulk
docks (which also include RO/RO and project cargo docks), liquid bulk docks, container
docks, cruise ship docks, and the total linear feet of berthing space.
Among the Texas ports, the Port of Houston has the largest number of dry cargo facilities
followed by the Ports of Galveston and Brownsville. It is interesting to note that though the
Port of Port Arthur often handles a significant volume of dry bulk and project cargo, it only
has five dry cargo facilities.
The Port of Texas City, the state’s only privately-owned port, is also the state’s largest liquid
bulk port, followed by the Port of Corpus Christi, which serves adjacent petroleum refineries
and petrochemical facilities. Within the entire port facility, the Port of Corpus Christi has 12
2
Throughout this report, the use of the term “intermodal” refers to containerized cargoes that can be easily transferred
between modes.
8
liquid bulk docks. The Calhoun Port Authority serves petrochemical facilities near the port
and further afield through a local pipeline network while the Port of Brownsville handles
various fuels and lubricants with its liquid bulk docks. Despite its vast size and the immense
petrochemical industry along the Houston Ship Channel, the Port of Houston has only one
liquid bulk dock. The many visible liquid bulk terminals along the Houston Ship Channel are
privately-owned.
There are three Texas ports that regularly handle intermodal containers: the Ports of
Houston, Freeport, and Galveston. The Ports of Freeport and Galveston receive
containerized cargo via regularly scheduled refrigerated produce carriers. The Port of
Houston receives scheduled calls from containerships operated by various domestic and
international carriers. At a smaller scale, the Port of Orange recently completed a facility for
handling containers-on-barge (COB) and the Port of Brownsville has handled COB in the
past, but neither port has a regularly scheduled service at present. The intermodal assets at
Texas ports will be discussed in greater detail, later within this chapter.
Three Texas ports have cruise ship docks, (as of June 2014) the Port of Galveston has
served as a home port for ships from Carnival Cruise Lines since 2000 and for Royal
Caribbean cruise lines since 2002. The Port of Houston, which built its cruise terminal near
its Bayport container facility in 2008, began servicing its first cruise ships from the Princess
Cruise Line during fall 2013. During 2014, the Port of Houston will also become a home
port for the Norwegian Cruise Line. The Port of Corpus Christi’s cruise terminal, built in
2000 to attract a service, has since been repurposed into a successful event center.
Although the total linear feet of berth space is not directly correlated with the amount of
cargo handled at each port, it is somewhat indicative for dry cargoes. As would be expected
the Port of Houston has the greatest amount of berth space followed by the Ports of Corpus
Christi and Galveston. Smaller shallow draft ports, like the Ports of Victoria and Harlingen,
have much shorter linear berth lengths due to their handling of GIWW barges that are
smaller length overall (LOA).
9
10
Terminal Assets at Texas Ports
a
Terminal Assets
Dry cargo
Liquid bulk
Container
Cruise ship
Total linear feet
docks
docks
docks
docks
of berths
--
2,725
Port of Orange
5
--
1ab
Port of Beaumont
10
1
--
--
7,829
Port of Port Arthur
5
--
--
--
3,102
Port of Texas City
1
21
--
--
N/A
Port of Galveston
11
1
1
3
11,832
Port of Houston
47
1
12
1
35,964
Port Freeport
6
--
1
--
2,800
Port of Palacios
2
--
--
--
N/A
Calhoun Port Authority
3
9
--
--
3,301
Port of Victoria
1
1
--
--
1,150
Port of West Calhoun
1
1
--
--
N/A
Port of Corpus Christi
9
12
--
1b
14,761
Port of Port Mansfield
1
1
--
--
2,000
Port of Harlingen
6
1
--
--
1,000
Port of Port Isabel
3
1
--
--
2,250
Port of Brownsville
13
5
--
--
5,685
Container-on-barge; b The port was not providing this service when this document was being prepared (June 2014).
Note: N/A denotes no data available or provided
NAVIGATIONAL ASSETS
The navigational attributes of ports have become increasingly critical to their real and
perceived viability. The importance of navigability has been especially influenced by falling
federal expenditures for channel maintenance dredging and growing ship size, starting in
the late-1990s. The announcement of the Panama Canal expansion has also caused the
leadership of many ports to question if they have sufficient channel draft. To serve a fullyloaded post-Panamax containership (i.e. a ship that is too large for the current set of locks) a
port needs to have a channel depth of at least 50 feet (the ship’s air draft can also be an
issue). At present, the deepest ship channels in Texas are 45 feet, which serve the Ports of
Houston, Galveston, Texas City, Freeport, and Corpus Christi. The shallow draft ports of
Palacios, Victoria, and Harlingen have 12-foot drafts. The Port of Port Mansfield, which has
not received maintenance dredging from the USACE for a number of years due to its lack of
commercial cargo and commercial cargo tonnage, currently, has about a 3-foot draft which
limits its use to small recreational boats.
Channel width varies by port and those with a deeper channel do not necessarily have more
width. The key element to channel width is that there is sufficient capacity for the amount of
ship traffic on the channel, including the ability of vessels to pass each other safely. In the
case of the Houston Ship Channel, there are also “barge shelves”, which are shallower
channels adjacent to and on either side of the main channel. The barge shelves allow the
slower moving barge traffic to operate freely, while the main ship channel is open to handle
the larger and faster ocean-going vessels that call on the various terminals.
Most Texas ports have unlimited air draft, which means their ship channel does not have an
overhead obstruction, such as a bridge or power lines. A port’s air draft is relevant if
overhead obstructions prevent a vessel from calling on a terminal. Currently, five deep draft
ports have air draft limitations. Following the planned replacement of the Harbor Bridge, the
air draft of the Corpus Christi ship channel will be approximately 200 feet. Even the shallow
draft Ports of Harlingen and Victoria can be limited by the size of tugs and small vessels that
can call on those two ports, just like the larger ports, due to bridge height.
As with channel width, the width of the turning basin is significant if it is insufficient to
handle the dimensions of the ships that want to call on the port. Larger ports may have
several turning basins, so that vessels can be turned quickly and depart.
A port’s distance to sea can be a factor in its competitiveness. Ports that require long
transits between the entrance of its ship channel and the port are generally more expensive
to call on because of the longer steaming times. However, many cargoes handled at Texas
ports are tied to specific markets or facilities and so longer steaming times may not
influence the port of call. Additionally, if the ship’s cargo must be drayed to its final
destination and the port is closer, the marginal cost per mile is lower for cargo on a piloted
11
ship than the same cargo hauled by a truck. Therefore, a port’s distance from sea may
influence where it is landed in some cases and in others may have little or no influence.
12
Navigational Assets at Texas Ports
Channel
Channel
Depth (ft.)
Width (ft.)
Port of Orange
30
200
Port of Beaumont
40
Port of Port Arthur
Turning basin
Distance to blue-water
width (ft.)
(statute miles)
136
700
30
400
136
1,100
40
40
450
136
900
19
Port of Texas City
45
1,200
Unlimited
1,000
27
Port of Galveston
45
1,200
Unlimited
1,400
9
Port of Houston
45
530
135-Unlimiteda
N/A
61
Port Freeport
45
400
Unlimited
1,190
8
Port of Palacios
12
125
Unlimited
1,200
14
Calhoun Port Authority
36
200
Unlimited
1,000
26
Port of Victoria
12
125
50
1,410
35+
Port of West Calhoun
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Port of Corpus Christi
45
300
137.5
1,200
35
Port of Port Mansfield
3
125
Unlimited
350
9+
Port of Harlingen
12
125
73
1,200
25+
Port of Port Isabel
36
200
Unlimited
1,000
6
Port of Brownsville
42
250
Unlimited
1,200
21
Navigation Assets
Air Draft (ft.)
Air draft restrictions at the Port of Houston vary according to terminal. For example, the Port of Houston’s Barbours Cut and Bayport terminals have unlimited
air draft, while the Port of Houston’s Turning Basin Terminal has an air draft of 135 feet.
Note: A “statute” mile is the typical measurement of a mile on land, which is 5,280 feet. A nautical mile is 6,075 feet.
Note: Ports with a distance to sea followed by a plus sign denotes shallow draft channels that end at the GIWW and are bordered to the east by a barrier island.
Note: N/A denotes no data available or provided.
a
13
HIGHWAY ASSETS
Landside access, particularly roadway access, is critical for many ports. Since the market
area for most ports is local, trucks are the only reasonable transportation mode to move
many goods between the port and their origin or destination. Even in the best case, the
local movement of cargo by truck (called a “drayage” trip) is the most expensive part of any
shipment proportional to the distance travelled. Ports located in regions with significant
traffic congestion make truck drayage trips even more expensive. Roadway congestion
often occurs on the local roads that connect a port to the local transportation network,
particularly around a port’s entry gates, where trucks and their drivers wait in lines to enter,
submit paperwork, and pass through inspection points. Collectively, the bottlenecks often
found closest to a port are referred to as “last mile” issues. Some frequently observed last
mile issues around ports include inadequate roadway capacity (especially for heavy volumes
of commercial traffic), deteriorated and uneven pavement surfaces, inadequate turning
radii, poor traffic signalization, and insufficient signage or markings.
Most Texas ports are located within five miles of a four-lane highway. The only deep water
port in Texas that is not within five miles of a four-lane highway is the Calhoun Port Authority.
There are two other deep draft ports that are not within one mile of a four-lane highway,
which are the Ports of Orange and Port Arthur. Several of the shallow draft ports are not
within five miles of a four-lane highway. Most of Texas’s deep and medium draft ports are
within one or five miles of a U.S. interstate highway. The exceptions are the Ports of Port
Arthur, Freeport, the Calhoun Port Authority, and Port Isabel. The Port of Port Arthur is a U.S.
Strategic Port and handles a large volume of bulk and project cargo that moves by truck.
Port Freeport is Texas’s second largest container port and handles a large amount of project
cargo that travels by truck. Both ports would benefit from closer proximity to a controlled
access freeway connecting them to the U.S. interstate system. None of Texas’s shallow
draft ports is within five miles of a U.S. interstate highway.
Regardless of location, Texas ports may be served by roadway infrastructure that needs
additional improvements to meet existing demand and to minimize or eliminate safety
hazards. In urban areas, congestion created by passenger vehicles complicates the
operating environment for commercial vehicles and additional capacity or the separation of
vehicles is desirable to improve safety and traffic flow.
There are also locations where port users need overweight corridors to move heavy loads or
to reduce the number of truck trips. To date, the Texas Legislature has established four
oversized/overweight corridors to serve ports. 3 These corridors have been established to
serve the Ports of Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Freeport, and Victoria. Once a corridor is
enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, the Texas Transportation
3
These corridors can be found in Chapter 623 of the Texas Transportation Code.
14
Commission prepares a written agreement with the sponsoring local agency. The agreement
is based upon prior discussions between TxDOT and the local agency to determine the
location of the corridor, the permit fee amount, etc. Under these agreements, the local
agency issues the oversize/overweight permits to users and collects fees to cover the
maintenance cost of the corridor, since overweight trucks wear pavement more quickly.
Importantly, the local agency (i.e. the port) takes full responsibility for the corridor’s
maintenance. If the oversize/overweight permit fees are inadequate to cover the additional
maintenance costs, the port must make up the difference. Therefore, the most logical
locations for oversize/overweight corridors are roadway segments where there would be
sufficient volumes of permitted loads to fully cover the additional maintenance costs. Once
the administrative rules of the corridor are adopted by the Texas Transportation
Commission, the agreement is signed.
The oversize/overweight commercial vehicle corridor connecting the Port of Brownsville to
bridges on the Texas-Mexico border provides a good example of how these tools can be
effectively used by ports. The Port of Brownsville plays an important role in Mexican
manufacturing as the port of entry for steel ingots, bars, rolled steel, etc. Commercial trucks
can purchase an oversize/overweight permit to carry cargoes from the Port of Brownsville to
the Gateway International Bridge (via SH 48/SH 4) and the Veterans International Bridge at
Los Tomates (via US 77/US 83 and SH 48/SH 4). These permits allow trucks up to the legal
weight limit for Mexican trucks, which is 125,000 pounds. Dimensionally, the combined
vehicle and load cannot exceed 12 feet in width, 15.5 feet in height, and 110 feet in length.
Finally, improved roadway access to ports can provide opportunities for land development
and local economic development, if they provide access to land that was previously
inaccessible to the port. For example, the recently constructed SH 550 in Cameron County
provides access to undeveloped land owned by the Port Brownsville that can be used for
future development opportunities.
In short, the importance of roadway infrastructure to ports cannot be overstated and there
are many desired roadway improvements among the ports. Supporting landside highway
infrastructure needs is TxDOT’s most effective and direct manner for assisting Texas ports
and it is also a mechanism that is most closely aligned with the agency’s current statutory
and constitutional limitations on spending.
15
16
Highway Assets at Texas Ports
Highway Assets
Port of Orange
Port of Beaumont
Port of Port Arthur
Port of Texas City
Port of Galveston
Port of Houston
Port Freeport
Port of Palacios
Calhoun Port Authority
Port of Victoria
Port of West Calhoun
Port of Corpus Christi
Port of Port Mansfield
Port of Harlingen
Port of Port Isabel
Port of Brownsville
Within 1 mile of
Within 5 miles of
Within 1 mile of a controlled
Within 5 miles of controlled
Oversize/Overweight
4-lane highway
4-lane highway
access roadway
access roadway
Corridor
--
X
--
X
--
X
X
X
X
--
--
X
--
X
--
X
X
X
X
--
X
X
X
X
--
X
X
X
X
--
X
X
--
--
X
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
--
--
X
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
--
--
--
X
X
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
RAIL ASSETS
Landside access to rail is a significant component of Texas’s freight transportation network.
With the exception of the Port of Port Isabel, all of Texas’s deep water ports have access to
rail. Among the three shallow draft ports reviewed in this report, only the Ports of Victoria
and Harlingen had access to rail. Most Texas ports with rail access are served by more than
one Class I railroad. Receiving service from more than one Class I railroad within the port is
desirable, since rail rates may be lower than those ports without competition. Notably, the
Port of Port Arthur and Port Freeport are the only two deep water ports that are served by
one carrier (Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific, respectively). It should also be noted
that agreements between the railroads usually allow rail cars to be interchanged between
Class 1 railroads, if it is necessary for the cargo to reach its final destination.
Many Texas ports are served by port terminal railroads, which have the responsibility of
interfacing with the Class I railroads. Port terminal railroads are common carriers which
ensure that trains are interchanged efficiently between the terminals and the Class I
railroads and that all users are treated fairly. The most extensive port terminal railroad is
the Port Terminal Railroad Association (PTRA) that operates along the Houston Ship
Channel. The PTRA serves more than 220 customers from seven rail yards and maintains
154 miles of track and 20 bridges. 4 It was first formed in 1924 and is owned and operated
by the Port of Houston Authority and the three Class I railroads. The Port of Brownsville’s
terminal railroad is called the Brownsville & Rio Grande International Railroad and it serves
port traffic, as well as interchanges with the Kansas City Southern Mexico Railroad at the
Brownsville & International Matamoros Bridge. Not all port terminal railroads are operated
fully or partially by their port. Two of the port terminal railroads (the Corpus Christi Terminal
Railroad, the Galveston Railroad) are owned and operated by the private firm Genesee &
Wyoming, Inc. The Calhoun Port Authority is the only port switched by a short line railroad,
the Point Comfort and Northern Railroad, which is also owned by Genesee & Wyoming. The
Port of Orange Terminal Railway switches for the Port of Orange. The Port of Beaumont does
not have terminal railroad, but uses Trans-Global Solutions, Inc. as an industrial switching
contractor.
Many Texas ports are located within a rail district, which were created by the Texas
Legislature to help local governments prevent railway abandonments or to invest in rail
infrastructure for economic development purposes. Rural Rail Transportation Districts have
the ability to sell bonds, collect usage fees, and exercise eminent domain, but they do not
have taxing authority. The Gulf Coast Rail District (GCRD), which does not meet the criteria
of a Rural Rail District, was formed by Harris County, the City of Houston, and Fort Bend
County under authority granted by the Texas Legislature. Efforts by the GCRD to address rail
congestion in the Houston region provide indirect benefits to all the ports in and around its
4
17
A rail yard is a system of tracks where trains can organize cars without regard to a schedule (Armstrong, 1998). Rail
yards usually consist of a series of parallel tracks and switches.
jurisdiction by dealing with issues that create inefficiencies throughout the regional rail
network.
Texas Ports Located in Rail Districts
Port
Jurisdiction
Port of Texas City
Galveston County Rural Rail District
Port of Galveston
Galveston County Rural Rail District
Port of Houston
Port Freeport
Calhoun Port Authority
Port of West Calhoun
Port of Corpus Christi
Gulf Coast Rail District
Gulf Link Rural Rail District
Calhoun County Rural Rail District/
Gulf Coast Rural Rail District
Calhoun County Rural Rail District
Nueces County Rural Rail District/
San Patricio Rural Rail District
Source: TxDOT, 2013.
Most of Texas’s larger ports that handle bulk materials have the ability to work a unit train
within the port. However, Port Freeport and the Calhoun Port Authority are exceptions. The
Port of Texas City, which is jointly owned by the UP and the BNSF can access rail yards
outside of the port for breaking up and forming trains. Two types of rail infrastructure that
are useful to ports but not included in the Rail Assets matrix below are rail loops and rail on
dock. A rail loop is a rail siding that connects to a main track with connectors on both ends.
Rail loops of sufficient length can be used so that one train can move off the main track to
allow another train to pass, which increases the efficiency of a track (Jackson, 2006). Rail
on dock allows trains to pull alongside a vessel at berth and cargoes can be loaded directly
from the ship onto the train and vice-versa. Finally, a number of Texas ports provide storage
for rail cars on a fee-basis. This practice allows ports to profit from underutilized rail
infrastructure and provides a useful service to rail users.
18
Rail Assets at Texas Ports
a
b
No. of Class I
Short Line
Terminal
Within a Rail
Can Handle Unit
Rail Car
Railroads
Railroad
Railroad
District
Train Within Port
Storage
Port of Orange
2
X
X
--
X
--
Port of Beaumont
3
--
--
--
X
--
Port of Port Arthur
1
--
--
--
X
X
Port of Texas City
2
--
X
X
--
--
Port of Galveston
2
--
X
X
X
X
Port of Houston
3
--
X
X
X
X
Port Freeport
1
--
--
X
--
--
Port of Palacios
--
--
--
X
--
--
Calhoun Port Authority
2
X
--
X
--
--
Port of Victoria
1
--
--
--
--
--
Port of West Calhoun
--
--
--
X
--
--
Port of Corpus Christi
3a
--
X
X
X
X
Port of Port Mansfield
--
--
--
--
--
--
Port of Harlingen
1
--
--
--
--
--
Port of Port Isabel
--
--
--
--
--
--
Port of Brownsville
3ab
--
X
--
X
X
Rail Assets
Union Pacific provides direct service to the port or direct service via a terminal operator. BNSF has trackage rights on Union Pacific track and can also
provide service to the port.
The Kansas City Southern de Mexico (KCSM) provides rail service into Mexico from the Port of Brownsville. KCS can only provide direct domestic rail service
by traversing Mexico on KCSM track.
19
INTERMODAL ASSETS
The Ports of Houston, Freeport, and Galveston are the three ports in Texas that regularly
handle intermodal containers. The table below shows the number of twenty-foot equivalent
units (TEUs) handled within each customs district, which may include private terminals
outside of the publicly-owned ports. The Houston custom’s district clearly handled the vast
majority of Texas’s containers with 95.3 percent of the market share or almost 1.5 million
TEUs. It should be noted that MARAD’s figures appear to only account for loaded
containers, since the Port of Houston’s estimates for the number of loaded TEUs handled
during 2012 aligns relatively close to the figure below. There were more than 440,000
empty TEUs handled at the Port of Houston during 2012 and additional empty containers
were handled at Port Freeport and the Port of Galveston.
Number of Loaded TEUs Handled at Texas Maritime Ports, 2012
Rank
1
2
3
Customs Port
TEUs
Share of Total
Houston
1,494,516
95.3%
Freeport
60,818
3.9%
Galveston
12,609
0.8%
1,567,943
100.0%
Total
Source: MARAD, 2014.
As would be expected, based upon the volume of TEUs handled, the Port of Houston has the
most extensive intermodal container infrastructure in Texas. Between its original Barbours
Cut facility and its newer Bayport container terminal, the Port of Houston has 12 berths for
containerships, with room for expansion. The Port of Houston also has 26 container cranes
and among those, 12 cranes that are of Post-Panamax size (of which three are Super PostPanamax sized cranes). Port Freeport utilizes a Gottwald Mobile Harbor Crane with an
attached device called a “spreader” for lifting and moving intermodal containers. Using this
equipment, the port’s workers are adept at moving a significant number of containers per
hour. Container vessels calling on Port Freeport may also use shipboard cranes that assist
with or handle the loading and unloading. Port Freeport will be receiving two Post-Panamax
ship-to-shore cranes in July 2014 and they will be operational by September 2014. The Port
of Galveston relies entirely upon shipboard cranes to discharge and load containers at the
port.
Each of the three ports maintains storage and marshalling yards within the port. The Port of
Houston has large storage and marshalling yards at both of its container facilities. Within
these yards, containers are received, stacked, sorted, and sent out. Rubber tire gantry
(RTG) cranes stack and sort the containers within the yard, while yard hustlers (essentially
stripped down semi-trucks equipped with an attached chassis) move the containers
20
between the ships and the RTGs. The yard hustlers may also service the intermodal rail yard
within the Port of Houston’s Barbours Cut facility. At that rail yard, containers are often
moved using reach stackers, which are a cross between a forklift and a truck-mounted crane
with an attached spreader. For origins and destinations outside of the port, full-size semitrucks bring and pick-up the intermodal containers at the port. Containers that move over
the road sit upon a trailer chassis that locks the container in place. At the ports of Freeport
and Galveston, containers are not stacked but placed directly onto their trailer chassis.
Texas’s container facilities are especially important to TxDOT, since each intermodal
container that is not handled at the intermodal rail yard at Barbours Cut, typically generates
one or two truck trips.
Finally, in addition to ocean-going vessels, many Texas ports have an interest in servicing
barges that carry intermodal containers. Called “Container-on-Barge” (COB), the use of COB
has the potential to reduce the number of truck trips carrying goods on Texas highways.
Various Texas ports, such as Brownsville, Beaumont, Port Arthur, Orange, and Victoria have
been long-time proponents of COB. The Port of Brownsville even hosted a COB service for a
short period. The Port of Orange recently completed construction of a facility capable of
handling COB and the Port of Victoria started construction of a COB-capable facility during
2013. Nonetheless, despite the potential transportation network, environmental, and cost
benefits of COB, many shippers have been reluctant to adopt a service for various reasons
including (Kruse and Hutson, 2010):
•
•
•
The service is not cost-competitive with truck or rail;
Difficulty chartering vessels; and
Under capitalization makes the service unreliable when there is equipment failure.
Another potential problem, that has been previously cited, is the inability of a COB service to
maintain shipping schedules.
21
22
Intermodal Assets at Texas Ports
Containership
Containership
Total Container
service
Berths
Port of Galveston
X
Port of Houston
Port Freeport
Intermodal Assets
Post-Panamax
Wheeled Storage
Cranes
Cranes
Regular/Reefer
1
--a
--
Yes/Yes
X
12
26
12
Yes/Yes
X
3
3
2b
Yes/Yes
The Port of Galveston uses shipboard cranes to discharge and load the vessel.
b Port Freeport anticipates these cranes will be operational September 2014.
a
CARGO HANDLING ASSETS
Given the enormity of the oil refinery and petrochemical complex located along the Texas
coastline, it is not surprising that a significant portion of the state’s maritime trade consists
of liquid bulk cargoes. In addition to crude oil and chemicals, other liquid bulk cargoes
include gasoline, distillates, fertilizers, lubricants, and molasses. As was noted earlier, a
large proportion of this liquid bulk cargo is handled at Texas’s privately-owned terminals,
although vessels access these private terminals using public shipping channels. In fact,
there are no liquid bulk docks at the Ports of Orange, Port Arthur, or Port Freeport. There is
only a single liquid bulk dock at the Port of Houston and one other at the Port of Galveston,
which again attests to the extensive array of liquid bulk port infrastructure owned and
operated by the private sector. The Port of Beaumont has recently added a liquid bulk dock
that has equipment for transloading crude oil from rail to barge. The one port with a large
complement of liquid bulk facilities (21 liquid bulk docks) is the Port of Texas City and it is
privately owned. Moving down to the mid to lower Texas Coast, liquid bulk docks in public
ports become more common. The Port of Corpus Christi has 12 liquid bulk docks (as noted
earlier) and the Calhoun Port Authority has 9 liquid bulk docks. Some of these ports are
able to access local or intrastate/interstate pipeline networks.
All Texas ports have facilities to handle dry bulk materials. With the exceptions of shallow
draft ports and the Port of Texas City and the Calhoun Port Authority, all Texas ports have
heavy-lift cranes that can be used to move bulk goods and project cargo (e.g. large vehicles,
electrical generators, oil field equipment, etc.). Some shallow draft ports are equipped with
automated belt conveyor systems for handling bulk materials. Many Texas ports also have
RO/RO ramps, which are used to load or discharge vessels loaded with any wheeled cargo
from automobiles to farm equipment to military tanks. There have even been ferry services
to Mexico and Central America that have operated from Texas ports, but these services are
no longer in service.
23
24
Cargo Handling Assets at Texas Ports
Liquid bulk handling
Access to local
equipment
pipeline network
Port of Orange
--
--
Port of Beaumont
X
Port of Port Arthur
Access to
Heavy lift
Roll On/Roll
cranes
Off ramp
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
--
--
--
X
X
Port of Texas City
X
X
X
--
--
Port of Galveston
X
-
-
X
X
Port of Houston
X
X
X
X
X
Port Freeport
--
X
X
X
--
Port of Palacios
--
--
--
--
--
Calhoun Port Authority
X
--
X
--
X
Port of Victoria
X
X
--
--
--
Port of West Calhoun
X
X
--
--
--
Port of Corpus Christi
X
X
X
X
X
Port of Port Mansfield
--
--
--
--
--
Port of Harlingen
X
X
--
--
--
Port of Port Isabel
--
--
--
X
X
Port of Brownsville
X
N/A
N/A
X
--
Terminal Assets
Note: N/A denotes data not provided or available.
intrastate/interstate
pipeline network
STORAGE ASSETS
Outdoor storage areas are an important part of a port’s operations, not only for the staging
and marshalling of the cargoes loaded or unloaded from the ship, but also because many
port customers use the port as a short-term warehouse. Ports have a combination of paved
and unpaved areas that are assigned for storage. Paved areas are often concrete and are
capable of handling heavy loads, like project cargo (e.g. power plant generators, oil field
equipment, etc.). Unpaved storage areas are land usually improved with a road base so that
the surface can handle both the weight of the cargo and the moving equipment.
Six Texas ports have elevators and four of those are for public use. The Port of Beaumont’s
elevator is leased and not available for public use and the elevator within Port Freeport is
owned by a tenant and used for rice. Grain elevators at Texas ports are capable of rapidly
handling large volumes of agricultural commodities. Most facilities can handle cargoes
dropped into ground hoppers from trucks or rail cars, which are then conveyed into the
elevator. The Port of Houston’s grain elevator has a 6.2 million bushel capacity (leased and
operated by Louis Dreyfus, therefore, not available for public use) and it can receive up to
30 trucks per hour and 20 rail cars per hour. Grains can be loaded into the elevator at a
rate of 120,000 bushels per hour. The Port of Corpus Christi has the next largest elevator
with a capacity of 5.0 million bushels (leased and operated by ADM Growmark). In general,
there is a lack of elevator storage capacity at Texas ports, which limits export and import
opportunities for producers, customers, and the ports.
Four Texas ports have cold storage facilities. The largest facility is located at the Port of
Houston’s CARE terminal and is 200,000 square feet in size. The Port of Corpus Christi built
a 100,000 square foot refrigerated warehouse that is capable of cooling down to -10
degrees Fahrenheit. The Port of Galveston has a 65,000 square foot facility that is used for
the fresh fruits and vegetables it crossdocks at the port. 5 Port Freeport has a 40,000
square foot cool storage facility that is also used for crossdocking bananas, other fresh fruit,
and fresh vegetables. In the case of Port Freeport, the refrigerated warehouse is primarily
used to protect produce during its transfer from refrigerated containers to refrigerated
trucks, rather than being used for longer term storage. Refrigeration units mounted on the
truck trailers keep the produce chilled once crossdocking is complete. These units may
operate using plug in electricity or with a diesel generator.
Some cargoes require covered storage prior to shipment or after being unloaded from the
vessel. These cargoes may be stored temporarily in dockside wharves, transit sheds or
longer term in port warehouses. All of Texas’s deep water ports have covered storage.
Collectively among its various terminals, the Port of Houston maintains the most space with
5
25
Cross-docking refers to the unloading of cargoes from refrigerated intermodal containers and placing them in
refrigerated van trailers. Cross-docking allows the refrigerated intermodal containers to be returned to the vessel
more quickly and reduces the overall number of truck trips.
2,872,900 square feet of transit sheds, wharves, and warehouses followed by the Port of
Beaumont. Even some of the state’s shallow draft ports maintain covered storage, such as
the Port of Victoria with 24,300 square feet of storage.
26
Storage Assets at Texas Ports
Paved outdoor
Unpaved outdoor
Elevator
Cold Storage
Transit sheds and
storage (ac.)
storage (ac.)
(bushels)
(sq. ft.)
warehouses (sq. ft.)
3
15
--
--
350,000
Port of Beaumont
42
50
3,500,000
--
620,000
Port of Port Arthur
17
40
--
--
518,400
Port of Texas City
--
N/A
--
--
--
Port of Galveston
23
N/A
3,000,000
65,000
199,530
Port of Houston
359
--
6,200,000
200,000
2,872,900
Port Freeport
10
81
Unknown
40,000
450,000
2
5.5
--
--
N/A
0.5
3
--
--
25,000
3
N/A
--
--
17,000
Port of West Calhoun
N/A
N/A
--
--
--
Port of Corpus Christi
100>
N/A
5,000,000
100,000
496,333
Port of Port Mansfield
--
N/A
--
--
--
Port of Harlingen
--
400
--
--
--
Port of Port Isabel
--
35
--
N/A
--
Port of Brownsville
N/A
65
3,000,000
--
571,065
Storage Assets
Port of Orange
Port of Palacios
Calhoun Port Authority
Port of Victoria
Note: N/A denotes data not provided or available
27
MARKET ASSETS
The next table shows some of the unique market assets of Texas ports, which include
designation as a U.S. Military Strategic Port, having a cruise terminal, being located within
an air quality attainment area or a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ), and having developable land
for future port expansion or port customers. Each of these attributes is considered desirable
and provides additional opportunities for ports to expand their cargo volumes.
Three of Texas’s ports are among the 17 U.S. ports within the National Port Readiness
Network. These ports are the Ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Corpus Christi, with
largest volume of military cargo in the United States handled at the Port of Beaumont.
Stationed at each port are representatives from 10 federal agencies that oversee the secure
transport of U.S. military equipment and personnel. These agencies include the U.S.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), the USACE, the Surface Deployment and Distribution
Command (SDDC - led by the U.S. Army’s 842nd Transportation Battalion), the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), the Military Sealift Command (MSC), the U.S. Army Forces Command
(USFORSCOM), the U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), and the U.S. Army
Installation Management Command (MARAD, 2014). Most of the military equipment that
went through Texas ports during the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan arrived and
departed by rail, unlike the Persian Gulf War when most equipment travelled to and from the
ports by truck. Nonetheless, Texas ports handling military cargoes do receive some truck
trips related to military deployments. Some Texas ports even receive military cargo by air,
such as the Port of Beaumont and the Port of Corpus Christi, where helicopter squadrons
have been flown in with multiple helicopters landing simultaneously on the dock, in order to
be loaded aboard Large Medium Speed RO/ROs (LMSR). Repatriated and damaged
equipment also returns and many of the damaged vehicles are sent to the Red River Army
Depot in Texarkana, which specializes in repairing them.
There are two Texas ports with active passenger cruise terminals. The Port of Galveston has
been a major departure point for the U.S. cruise industry, serving as home port for cruise
ships from the Carnival and Royal Caribbean cruise lines. During 2012, approximately
863,000 cruise ship passengers and crew embarked and debarked from the Port of
Galveston 6. When the ships turn, a large number of passengers embark and debark the
vessel, which generates a significant amount of traffic on roadways surrounding the port.
These port calls also generate a large number of commercial vehicles that supply and
service the ship. The Port of Houston began hosting Princess Cruises during 2013 and will
begin serving the Norwegian Cruise Line from its Bayport Cruise Terminal starting in 2014.
According to the Port of Houston, Princess Cruises and the port hosted more than 78,000
passengers during the 2013 Sailing Season.
6
Galveston’s 2012 count of cruise ship passengers reflected an increase over recent years, but was below
the 2007 peak, when 1.2 million passengers and crews embarked and debarked at the port. The growing
volume suggests that improving economic conditions are encouraging higher passenger volumes.
28
The availability of a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) is a significant factor in the decision making for
many firms that are considering relocation to Texas. Texas has 32 designated and approved
Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ). Most Texas ports are located within approved FTZ boundaries.
FTZs are geographic areas approved by the federal government and can allow special U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) procedures for importing and exporting goods.
Companies that are approved for FTZ designation are able to defer U.S. Customs duties until
the cargo enters the commerce of the United States and defer quota charges on goods that
are being re-exported. Approved companies can also reduce or defer duties on imported
goods. Many companies that manufacture a finished product using imports, with a lower
duty rate than the combined duty rate of its components may be approved to pay a reduced
duty rate. Some companies may also be able to take advantage of special CBP procedures.
Ports can work with local and state economic development organizations to offer FTZ
benefits for prospective companies looking for incentives that will benefit their business.
Port Isabel is the only deep-draft port in Texas that is not in an FTZ and the Port of Victoria is
the only shallow-draft port (among those discussed in this report) that is within a FTZ
(Foreign Trade Zones Board, 2014).
Finally, many of Texas’s port authorities or navigation districts have large amounts of land
that could be used for future development, although not all the owned land is necessarily
developable. The Brownsville Navigation District is the largest landowner with approximately
40,000 acres followed by the Port of Corpus Christi, which owns 22,000 acres. Many of
the ports along the upper Texas Coast have more limited acreage. The Port of Houston has
907 acres of land to develop within its Bayport facility and another 1,100 acres of
developable land on Pelican Island. The Port of Galveston has 300 acres on Pelican Island,
while the Port of Beaumont owns 600 acres of developable land. Among the shallow draft
ports, the Port of Victoria is the most land-rich with 1,800 acres, followed by the Port of
Palacios with 729 acres.
29
30
Summary of Market Assets for Texas Ports
Market Assets
Port of Orange
Port of Beaumont
Port of Port Arthur
Port of Texas City
Port of Galveston
Port of Houston
Port Freeport
Port of Palacios
Calhoun Port Authority
Port of Victoria
Port of West Calhoun
Port of Corpus Christi
Port of Port Mansfield
Port of Harlingen
Port of Port Isabel
Port of Brownsville
U.S. Military
Operational
Within an Air Quality
Within a Foreign
Available Land for
Strategic Port
Cruise Terminal
Attainment Area
Trade Zone (FTZ)
Development (acres)
--
--
X
X
150
X
--
X
X
600
X
--
X
X
70
--
--
--
X
140
--
X
--
X
300
--
X
--
X
2,007
--
--
--
X
7,723
--
--
X
--
729
--
--
X
X
137
--
--
X
X
1,800
--
--
X
--
200
X
--
X
X
22,000
--
--
X
--
9
--
--
X
--
150
--
--
X
--
45
--
--
X
X
40,000
Note: The Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange County airshed, which contains the Ports of Beaumont, Orange, and Port Arthur, was once designated as nonattainment. It is currently considered in “attainment maintenance”, which means that it regularly maintains the same air quality standards as those locations
that are within attainment.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite their commonalities, Texas ports differ so that no two ports are alike. In fact, Texas
port directors emphasize their ports’ uniqueness with the adage, “Once you have been to
one Texas port, you have been to one Texas port”. Although Texas’s port network is
resource rich, the sustained growth of the state’s economy has placed heavy demands on
port infrastructure. Many of the investments made in Texas ports were made decades ago
and years of heavy use are taking their toll. Unfortunately, the replacement or expansion of
this infrastructure is neither quick nor cheap. It is also important for Texas ports to have the
flexibility to diversify their assets, so they may be prepared for future activities. This flexibility
allows the ports to adapt to unanticipated market shifts. As an example, the Port of Victoria
fortuitously added a liquid dock, prior to the booming activity of the Eagle Ford Shale. As a
result, the port was able take advantage of this opportunity and currently handles more than
1 million barrels of crude oil per month. Section 4 will discuss some of the existing and
current needs for updating the assets at Texas ports.
31
SECTION 3
PORT QUESTIONNAIRES
Last year, TxDOT sent a questionnaire to TPA members to better understand the conditions
and issues at their port. Specifically, TxDOT’s questions focused on understanding the
concerns that each port identifies as hindering its ability to meet its goals, as well as to
better understand each port’s strengths and market position. Another key purpose of the
questionnaire is to identify opportunities where TxDOT might be able to provide assistance
to the ports, particularly as their needs relate to landside issues. To date, TxDOT has
received 11 responses with the respondents listed in the table below.
Respondents to TxDOT’s 2014 73$ Questionnaire
TPA Member
Response
Port of Orange
--
Port of Beaumont
X
Port of Port Arthur
X
Port of Texas City
--
Port of Galveston
--
Port of Houston
X
Port Freeport
X
Port of Palacios
X
Calhoun Port Authority
X
Port of Victoria
X
Port of West Calhoun
--
Port of Corpus Christi
X
Port of Port Mansfield
--
Port of Harlingen
X
Port of Port Isabel
X
Port of Brownsville
X
BARRIERS TO GROWTH
The first question of the questionnaire focused on issues that were preventing the port from
reaching its desired operational performance. The question was stated as:
Question #1: What currently is not working in your port that hinders efficient operations (this
could be regulatory, operations/logistics, etc.)?
Generally, the issues reported by the ports could be grouped into four categories: the need
to build new port infrastructure to respond to growing demand; the need to replace
32
infrastructure that is beyond its productive lifespan; the need for maintenance dredging of
ship channels and the GIWW or channel deepening or widening; and the need to build or
replace landside infrastructure serving the ports. Weaved throughout the discussion of
many of the ports’ responses was the need for additional funding sources.
As noted, several ports identified the need to build new infrastructure to respond to growing
market demand, improve operational efficiencies, and replace aging infrastructure. The Port
of Beaumont identified the need to replace several aged docks, wharves, and cargo
handling facilities within the foreseeable future. The Port of Port Arthur is planning a $31
million berth expansion project, but has not identified all the funding sources needed to
move forward. The Port of Corpus Christi cited the need for new barge fleeting and mooring
areas to meet existing and future demand. At present, barges are waiting as far as 50 miles
from their eventual dock assignment, due to the lack of sufficient mooring locations. As the
volumes of crude oil, refined petroleum products, and frac sand grow to service the Eagle
Ford Shale play, the Port of Corpus Christi expects its problems to worsen. The Port of
Brownsville reported the need for a new liquid dock that will cost between $10 and $12
million. The Ports of Port Isabel and Brownsville both reported the need to replace or repair
aged dock infrastructure and both ports expressed concerns about funding these projects.
The need for maintenance dredging, channel deepening, or channel widening was frequently
cited by the responding ports. The Port of Corpus Christi detailed the need for widening of
the Corpus Christi Ship Channel to allow two-way traffic in some areas, as well as deepening
the channel so vessels could fully utilize their capacity. Another identified improvement was
the dredging of barge shelves along the channel in the Upper and Lower Corpus Christi Bay.
Barge shelves, which exist along the Houston Ship Channel, allow barges to operate outside
of the main ship channel, leaving it open for larger, ocean-going vessels. The Ports of
Houston and Corpus Christi also expressed frustration with the USACE’s
regulatory/permitting/planning process for dredging projects. The Port of Corpus Christi
stated the difficulties of these processes have limited its ability to respond to private-sector
port customers. Furthermore, the USACE was said to be developing new
policies/regulations/real estate requirements that will further complicate current and
planned dredging projects. The Ports of Harlingen and Brownsville stressed the need to
maintain channel depths in the GIWW and their respective channels.
Many ports identified specific highway and rail infrastructure projects that needed funding.
The Ports of Beaumont and Port Arthur each identified rail projects that are eligible to be
built with Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds. The Port of
Beaumont project is a rail overpass to access its Orange County facility, which will have a
major crude oil terminal. The overpass would prevent trains serving the Orange County
terminal from conflicting with rail operations on other nearby tracks. The Port Arthur project
is a rail reliever that would also be eligible for CMAQ funds. The questionnaire’s
33
respondents also listed a number of roadway projects that would improve the efficiency of
their ports. The Port of Port Arthur identified the need to modify or replace the SH 82 Bridge,
which crosses the ship channel serving the Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange. The
Port of Corpus Christi identified a number of potential roadway projects. Two of the projects
would improve access at the port’s La Quinta terminal, through a reversal of ramps on SH
35 and with a grade separation of US 181 at the La Quinta terminal’s main entrance. A
third roadway project identified by the Port of Corpus Christi was the widening of the SH 181
Bridge as it crosses the Rincon Canal. The supports for the current bridge are placed in the
canal and prevent the simultaneous passage of two barges. A roadway improvement
suggested by the Port of Port Isabel was the construction of a new port access road, which
would allow trucks to avoid traversing through an adjacent neighbourhood.
Finally, the Port of Houston identified the lack of funding, to expand the hours of operation
for U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, as an impediment to trade.
Self-Identified Barriers to Growth at Texas Ports
Respondent
Response
Port of Beaumont
1. Major repair or replacement for several docks, wharves, and other cargo
Port of Port Arthur
handling facilities.
1. Need funding for rail reliever route through CMAQ program.
2. Funding for local match, if the Water Resource Development Act of 2013
is enacted.
3. Modification or replacement of SH 82 Bridge.
4. Need funding for $31 million berth expansion project.
Port of Houston
1. The USACE is receiving an insufficient allocation of funding from Congress
to fulfil its mission to maintain authorized channel depths and widths.
This situation is affecting the types of vessels that can use the Houston
Ship Channel and it also affects how the vessels are loaded.
2. The Port of Houston is using its own funds to deepen and widen federally
authorized channels, so that the port can remain competitive in the global
marketplace.
3. The USACE is not able to permit dredge material placement areas quickly
enough to keep pace with the need to dredge the ship channels.
4. U.S. Customs and Border Protection needs additional resources to
operate at night and during weekends to keep up with the flow of
commerce.
34
Self-Identified Barriers to Growth at Texas Ports (Continued)
Respondent
Port of Freeport
Response
1. Navigational modifications needed before Phase Three of channel
deepening can proceed.
2. Single service rail with limited capacity which hinders investing in
Port of Palacios
additional rail infrastructure.
1. Customer industry conditions and limited customer diversity.
Calhoun Port Authority
No response.
Port of Victoria
1. Add capacity to existing rail spur.
Port of Corpus Christi
1. Channel widening to allow two-way traffic in some locations or reduce
piloting fees.
2. Channel deepening so vessels can fully utilize their capacity and reduce
port calls.
3. Need for barge fleeting areas to serve existing and future traffic.
4. Widen the US 181 channel crossing at the Rincon Canal to permit two-way
barge traffic to and from the Rincon Industrial Park.
5. Add barge shelves to ship channel in the upper and lower bay.
6. Difficulties with the regulatory/permitting/planning process with the
USACE.
7. SH 35 ramp reversals to serve future SH 35 entrance to La Quinta
property.
8. Grade separation of La Quinta Gateway’s primary entrance from US 181
to serve future truck and rail traffic.
Port of Harlingen
1. Urgently need maintenance dredging of channel to maintain current barge
Port of Port Isabel
drafts.
1. Need to upgrade or replace aged dock structures.
2. Improved port access so a port tenant does not have to bring cargo
through existing residential neighbourhoods.
Port of Brownsville
1. New liquid cargo dock is needed.
2. Dock repairs needed for existing dry bulk and liquid docks.
3. Maintaining channel depths in GIWW and ship channel.
PORT STRENGTHS
After identifying their barriers, ports were asked to identify their strengths, responding to the
following question:
Question #2: What are your port’s strengths, what is working well?
35
The ports’ wide-ranging responses reflect the diversity of Texas ports, with regard to the
services they offer, their tenants, and their port and channel infrastructure.
Self-Identified Port Strengths
Respondent
Port of Beaumont
Response
1. Strong and stable management with support from the community and
loyal customers.
2. Stable workforce.
3. Diversified client base, without dependence upon any one customer.
4. Recently completed major railroad improvements in the Jefferson County
facilities.
5. New rail and roadway improvements at the Orange County facility.
6. Largest military cargo port in the world. Excellent relationship with the
U.S. Army Surface Deployment and Distribution Command.
Port of Port Arthur
1. One of the most modern breakbulk cargo ports in the Gulf of Mexico.
2. Less than two hours sailing time to the Gulf of Mexico.
3. Located along a section of the Sabine-Neches Waterway with a 40-foot
draft, which is also a segment of the GIWW.
4. On-dock rail and service by Kansas City Southern Railroad.
5. RO/RO dock and a U.S. Military Strategic Port.
Port of Houston
1. The Port of Houston has become the largest foreign cargo port in the
United States and the second largest in overall tonnage.
2. The port’s competitive advantages are its ties to the energy industry’s
infrastructure, its proximity to a major population center, and its role as a
low-cost link within the supply chain.
3. The Port of Houston has key partnerships with many of the 150 different
entities located along the Houston Ship Channel.
4. The Port of Houston has strong relationships with the USACE, which has
assisted the port with maintaining and improving the Houston Ship
Channel
5. The Port of Houston has a strong partnership with the Class 1 railroads
that operate the Port Terminal Rail Association (PTRA).
Port of Freeport
1. Ranked 21st port in the U.S. in terms of international trade.
2. New 800’ berth which is currently the deepest operational berth in the
gulf at 47’
3. Purchased two state of the art ZPMC container cranes that are capable of
handling Panamax class container ships
36
Self-Identified Port Strengths (Continued)
Respondent
Port of Palacios
Response
1. Port is home to Texas’s largest shrimping fleet. While the industry has
come under intense pressure, the Palacios fleet has been stable.
2. Home to a successful barge and push boat manufacturing facility.
3. Developing other parts of the port to diversify tenant base.
Calhoun Port Authority
1. The port is able to get vessels in and out without them incurring
demurrage.
Port of Victoria
1. Ability to adapt quickly to customer needs and support customer’s project
Port of Corpus Christi
development needs.
1. One of the deepest draft ports in the Gulf of Mexico and one of the few in
the nation with a draft authorization of 52 feet.
2. Transit time from open water to cargo dock less than three hours and the
channel is generally uncongested.
3. Well-maintained and modern waterfront facilities which includes one of
the strongest multipurpose docks in the area able to handle large and
extra heavy cargo.
4. Ideally positioned to take advantage of the Eagle Ford Shale Play.
5. Available land for future development, such as storage tanks, plants, or
waterfront facilities.
Port of Harlingen
1. Port is able to efficiently and effectively handle 90 percent of fertilizers
and 70 percent of gas products in South Texas.
2. Low operating expense (overhead and staff costs).
3. Good relationship with Navigation District board.
Port of Port Isabel
1. Port is able to effectively serve deep and shallow draft vessels and their
cargoes.
2. Returning to its previous importance as an off-shore platform service port.
3. RO/RO ferry ramp with a history of ferry service.
Port of Brownsville
1. Only deep water port directly on the U.S.-Mexico border. Active in crossborder trade/transhipment.
2. Overweight truck corridor to Mexico.
3. The port has 40,000 acres of developable land.
BETTER UTILIZING THE GIWW
The third question posed to the ports related to facilitating the use of the GIWW and was
stated as follows:
Question #3: Please describe how the GIWW serves your port, if it all.
opportunities for improvement in how the waterway can better serve?
37
Are there
All the responding ports viewed the GIWW as important component of serving their existing
customers. The Port of Houston called the GIWW “vital” for its operations, while the Port of
Port Isabel called the GIWW “essential” for bringing in new customers. In the case of the
shallow water ports, namely the Ports of Victoria, Palacios, and Harlingen, the GIWW is
literally “essential”, since none of the ports are connected to the Gulf of Mexico by a ship
channel. The Ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi reported a jump in traffic on the GIWW
that has been spurred by the oil and gas industry. In the case of the Port of Beaumont, it
has been the shipping of crude oil to refineries in Southeast Texas. For the Port of Corpus
Christi, it has been in the form of shipping crude oil from the Eagle Ford Shale play to
refineries, shipping locally refined products, and receiving frac sand. Many of the smaller
ports receive refined petroleum products from the larger ports, which use the GIWW.
Almost all of the ports identified improvements to the GIWW or maintenance dredging as
very important. The most common response emphasized the need to continue maintenance
dredging of the GIWW and to bring it down to its authorized depth of 12 feet. One
suggestion offered by the Port of Corpus Christi was that TxDOT should work with the USACE
to increase the number of dredge placement areas to insure that there will be sufficient
capacity over the long-term. A more urgent concern was the need for more barge mooring
areas around the Lydia Ann Channel. The Port of Harlingen made some additional,
important suggestions including the straightening of a bend in the GIWW at the Queen
Isabella Memorial Causeway. On September 15, 2001, a barge struck the causeway and
partially collapsed it, killing eight motorists. The Port of Harlingen also encouraged TxDOT to
keep the GIWW’s mooring areas clear and to remove abandoned barges.
The final set of suggestions involved TxDOT’s policies or activities toward the GIWW. The
Port of Brownsville encouraged TxDOT to develop a Marine Highway along the GIWW to
encourage the shift of cargo away from trucks to barges. Finally, the Port of Corpus Christi
suggested that TxDOT facilitate and support the activities of private companies that seek to
develop plans that involve the GIWW.
38
How to Better Utilize the GIWW
Respondent
Port of Beaumont
1. Historically, the Port of Beaumont had not used the GIWW a great deal,
but with the new crude oil facility at its Orange County terminal, it will be
used to send oil to refineries in southeast Texas.
2. Most of the previous use of the GIWW was for the movement of small
vessels from nearby shipyards and project cargo for local construction
projects.
3. TxDOT should provide incentives so that shippers will have option of using
a Container-on-Barge service.
Port of Port Arthur
1. The GIWW provides barge access to the port.
2. TxDOT should work to insure that the GIWW be dredged and maintained to
its federally authorized depth.
Port of Houston
1. The GIWW is vital to the success of the Port of Houston. It connects the
port to other Texas ports, ports along the Gulf of Mexico, and ports along
the Mississippi Valley.
2. Five times as many tows (125,000) transited the Houston Ship Channel
as did deep draft vessels. Many of these tows utilized the GIWW.
3. The GIWW needs additional barge moorings, replacement of outdated
flood control and locking structures, and modernizing the antiquated
bridges that traverse it.
Port of Freeport
1. Barge traffic is anticipated to dramatically increase.
2. Various corporate partners use the GIWW for barge movement.
Port of Palacios
1. The GIWW provides access to the port to recreation and commercial
vessels.
2. TxDOT should work to insure that the GIWW be dredged and maintained to
its federally authorized depth.
Calhoun Port Authority
1. All barge traffic at the port uses the GIWW. Maintaining the GIWW at its
authorized depth would reduce the costs to shippers who cannot fully load
their barges.
Port of Victoria
1. The GIWW is essential to the Port of Victoria’s existence.
2. TxDOT should work to insure that the GIWW be dredged and maintained to
its federally authorized depth, including performing the maintenance
dredging itself.
Response
39
How to Better Utilize the GIWW (Continued)
Respondent
Port of Corpus Christi
Response
1. The GIWW serves outbound crude oil from the Eagle Ford Shale play and
inbound frac sand and locally refined outbound products.
2. The GIWW also serves other dry bulk and liquid bulk commodities, as well
as building materials and industry equipment.
3. TxDOT should consider performing dredging maintenance to keep the
GIWW at a 12 foot draft
4. TxDOT should be evaluating methods to increase the dredge placement
areas for dredge materials from the GIWW to insure long-term channel
maintenance.
5. There is a desperate need for fleeting and mooring areas along the GIWW,
especially around the Lydia Ann Channel.
6. Facilitate and support private partners and industries that seek to make
improvements.
Port of Harlingen
1. Barges regularly traverse the GIWW to reach the Port of Harlingen.
2. Straighten bend in GIWW at the Queen Isabella Memorial Causeway,
which led to a barge hitting the causeway and partially collapsing it. Eight
people died in that incident.
3. TxDOT should work to insure that the GIWW be dredged and maintained to
its federally authorized depth.
4. Keep the GIWW and mooring areas clear of abandoned barges.
Port of Port Isabel
1. The GIWW is key in some of the port’s plans to bring in new customers.
2. GIWW needs more frequent maintenance dredging. The current draft is
significantly less than the authorized 12 feet, which makes barge less
competitive with trucks.
Port of Brownsville
1. TxDOT should develop a Marine Highway to encourage cargoes to shift
from truck to water.
2. A Texas Marine Highway Program should be incorporated into the State’s
Freight Mobility Plan
VALUE OF THE PAAC AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
The next question asked the ports about the value of the Port Authority Advisory Committee
(PAAC) and how it could be more responsive to meeting the needs of ports. The question
asked was:
Question #4: Please describe how the Port Authority Advisory Committee (PAAC) serves your
port, if at all. Are there opportunities for improvement in how the committee can better
serve?
40
Most of the responses to this question urged TxDOT to use the PAAC less as a platform for
disseminating information and more as a tool for coordination and promoting the mutual
agenda of TxDOT and Texas ports, as well as to promote the allocation of state funds for port
improvements. This sentiment was expressed more directly by the Ports of Port Arthur,
Harlingen, and Brownsville. Three of the ports (the Ports of Beaumont, Palacios, and Corpus
Christi) encouraged the PAAC and TxDOT to work together to find funding for the Port Access
Account Fund, which was created by the Texas Legislature under Chapter 55 of the Texas
Transportation Code. The Port of Brownsville made a similar recommendation, but pointed
to the Texas Mobility Fund as a potential funding source. The Port of Brownsville also
encouraged TxDOT to allow the PAAC to assist with project and program development for
projects that link the ports to Texas’s transportation network.
Value of the PAAC and How It Can Be Improved
Respondent
Port of Beaumont
1. Work with TxDOT to obtain funding for the Port Access Account Fund,
Port of Port Arthur
which was established in Chapter 55 of the Texas Transportation Code.
1. The PACC should expand its opportunities beyond just the reporting of
information
2. The PAAC could participate in the process of allocating available funds to
ports
Port of Houston
1. The PAAC has provided some worthwhile services to the Port of Houston
and Texas ports overall.
2. It primarily serves as a conduit for information between the port
community and TxDOT to communicate needs and develop a better
understanding of the movement of freight in Texas.
Port of Freeport
1. The PAAC helps each port understand the other ports better
2. Helps facilitate discussions with other ports regarding the last mile port
highway connector issues and freight mobility via all modes.
Port of Palacios
1. Encouraged funding of the Port Access Account Fund. Identified several
Calhoun Port Authority
port infrastructure projects that could benefit from these funds.
1. The PAAC needs to make a greater effort to include the smaller ports in its
discussions.
Port of Victoria
1. The Port of Victoria is not a member of the PAAC, but trusts that its efforts
benefit all Texas ports†.
Port of Corpus Christi
1. The PAAC provides a forum for meeting with TxDOT and discussing
infrastructure needs as they relate to ports.
2. Work with TxDOT to obtain funding for the Port Access Account Fund,
which was established in Chapter 55 of the Texas Transportation Code.
†The
Response
41
Port of Victoria has since become a member of the PAAC to represent Texas’s shallow draft ports.
Value of the PAAC and How It Can Be Improved (Continued)
Respondent
Port of Harlingen
Response
1. The Port receives regular communications that inform the staff on the
PAAC’s activities, but it does not view them as being particularly valuable.
2. The PAAC should seek more input from ports that are not in the PAAC.
3. There was more communication and input when the PAAC was initially
formed than there is now. The PAAC was also more active in its advocacy
Port of Port Isabel
for Texas ports during the early period.
No response.
Port of Brownsville
1. Uncertain if the PAAC has provided many benefits to Texas ports, although
the situation appears to be slowly improving.
2. PAAC can assist TxDOT with project and program development that link
the port with other elements of the state’s transportation network.
3. Can assist with supporting program changes to the state’s Mobility Fund
[specifics not provided in the comment, but assumedly to support the
development of port and landside infrastructure]
4. Work to advocate for transportation infrastructure funding in coordination
with the mutual goals of TxDOT and the ports.
VISIONS OF THE NEAR FUTURE AND HOW TXDOT CAN ASSIST
The final portion of the questionnaire asked ports about their visions of the future. The first
of two questions focused on the ports’ view of their near-term future and how TxDOT might
be able to assist them with achieving their goals. The question was:
Question #5: What would you like to see for the near future of your port and how can TxDOT
play a role in achieving that goal(s)?
The ports’ responses to this question varied a great deal. Several ports identified new
projects that they were trying to develop and needed funding assistance. A number of these
projects and suggestions would fall under TxDOT’s purview or could be moved forward with
TxDOT’s assistance.
Another role the ports envisioned for TxDOT was to be a greater advocate for their interests.
The Port of Beaumont, for example, suggested that TxDOT work with the PAAC and the Texas
Ports Association (TPA) to encourage the Texas Legislature to fund the Port Access Account
Fund established under Chapter 55 of the Texas Transportation Code.
42
Ports’ View of the Near Future and Opportunities for TxDOT’s Assistance
Respondent
Port of Beaumont
1. Suggests TxDOT work with the PAAC and the Texas Ports Association to
obtain funding for the Port Access Account Fund, which was established in
Port of Port Arthur
Chapter 55 of the Texas Transportation Code.
1. The near-term construction of Berth 6 ($31 million project) and other
infrastructure projects.
2. Needs TxDOT to include CMAQ funding for the port’s rail reliever project
and other projects in the region.
3. Needs TxDOT’s assistance with landside connectivity projects that would
help the port serve export-oriented customers.
Port of Houston
1. The Port of Houston’s role as the lowest-cost link in the supply chain is
critical to its competitiveness and growth.
2. It is critical that the public sector facilitate the movement of goods by the
private sector between transportation modes. This facilitation means
supporting established or developing freight corridors that minimize
impacts to overall regional mobility.
Port of Freeport
1. TxDOT, along with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, could
assist the ports by developing a state or regional rail policy.
2. TCEQ could assist in addressing the non-attainment issue so future
economic development is not handicapped.
3. More emphasis should be placed on port connector routes, including a
possible southern connector route around Houston for I-69 that allows
connectivity for port MPO members to the interstate network.
Port of Palacios
1. The Port is working towards a balance of fishing fleets and new
commercial development.
2. It is attempting to develop some of its available land.
3. In addition to shallow draft port’s use of the GIWW, TxDOT should focus on
helping these ports become support terminals for larger ports as they
become busier.
4. The port needs assistance with constructing a rail spur to the UP line in
Blessing.
Calhoun Port Authority
1. There is a need for an oversize/overweight truck corridor between the port
Port of Victoria
and Formosa Plastics.
1. TxDOT should develop a state-wide freight policy which insures maximum
freight efficiency without straining existing traffic loads on Texas
roadways.
Response
43
Ports’ View of the Near Future and Opportunities for TxDOT’s Assistance (Continued)
Respondent
Port of Corpus Christi
Response
1. Continue working with Texas ports to identify critical needs that will
benefit the state-wide freight transportation system and the ports.
2. Continued collaboration with TxDOT’s Freight Advisory Committee to
develop the Texas Freight Mobility Plan.
3. Fully develop the IH 69 corridor from Laredo to Corpus Christi
4. Reconstruct the Nueces Bay Causeway at Rincon Canal to be higher and
wider to improve the operating conditions for barges.
5. Construct the SH 35 ramp reversal and US 181 grade separation for
improved access to the La Quinta terminal.
Port of Harlingen
1. Want to continue serving its customers in South Texas and expand its
customer base to new businesses.
2. A more concerted effort by TxDOT to educate Congress and the USACE on
the importance of keeping the GIWW dredged to its authorized depth.
Port of Port Isabel
1. Construct a new entrance to the port that avoids existing neighborhoods.
2. Develop an overweight corridor along the new entrance road to SH 48 and
Port of Brownsville
along SH 48 into the Port of Brownsville.
1. Wants TxDOT to advocate the funding of channel deepening projects for
the Port of Brownsville and other Texas ports with proposed channel
deepening projects.
2. TxDOT can educate state and federal government on the importance of
Texas ports to the state’s economy.
VISIONS OF THE LONG-TERM FUTURE
The final question of the survey asked ports to visualize their port over 20 years and its
contribution to the Texas economy. The question was posed as:
Question #6: How do you envision your port in the next 20 years and how will it serve the
State of Texas?
In their responses, Texas ports were optimistic about their future and the future of the Texas
economy. As would be expected, most ports mentioned their current and future role in
regional and statewide economic development, job retention, and job creation. Many of the
ports also emphasized their desire to continue serving their existing, as well as, future
customers. Another common theme in many of the responses was their future role in
energy exploration, production, and transportation. The Port of Houston pointed to the $50
billion of new investment in petrochemical manufacturing along the Houston Ship Channel.
The Ports of Victoria and Corpus Christi highlighted their role in oil and gas exploration and
44
production in the Eagle Ford Shale play. The Port of Victoria took the somewhat prescient
(or perhaps better defined as “experienced”) view that it would be necessary to position the
port for new types of customers after the Eagle Ford Shale boom winds down. Further
south, ports saw their importance in supporting the industries that build oil exploration and
production platforms and equipment (Port of Corpus Christi), as well as providing offshore
support services (Ports of Port Isabel and Brownsville). The Port of Harlingen was the only
port to mention the possible movement of freight related to the opening of the Mexican oil
industry to foreign investment. This very significant change in Mexico’s historic position
towards foreign investment in its petroleum industry could have a positive impact on the
Texas economy.
Many ports visualized that their facilities would have updated or new port infrastructure and
that the channels serving their ports would be deepened. Some of these ports also
envisioned new landside infrastructure.
45
Vision of the Port in 20 Years and Its Service to the State of Texas
Respondent
Port of Beaumont
Response
1. The port will develop its property in Orange County for intermodal use.
2. Existing wharves in Jefferson County will be replaced with state-of-the-art
cargo handling facilities.
3. The port will continue to be an employment and economic development
Port of Port Arthur
generator in the state.
1. The port will continue to be viable and grow over the next 20 years,
creating jobs and economic development in Texas.
2. Further deepening of the ship channel
3. Need for additional land, as well as road and rail infrastructure due to
demand.
Port of Houston
1. The key factors that have historically driven the port’s success will be
drivers in the future: energy infrastructure; the efficient movement of
cargo; and population growth.
2. The current investment of approximately $50 billion in petrochemical
manufacturing facilities along the Houston Ship Channel will generate
jobs and business for the port for many years into the future. These
investments are expected to be completed within a few years.
Port of Freeport
1. Will continue to pursue our preferred role as a “land lord” than an
operating port.
2. Continue to offer expertise in international business and transportation to
all types of clients.
Port of Palacios
1. Located near multiple, large population centers, the port’s future
opportunities are both commercial and recreational.
2. The port will continue to serve its customers and Matagorda County
taxpayers by maintaining and developing safe navigation and marine
facilities. This goal will be achieved in an efficient and cost-effective
manner that stimulates economic development and the retention and
creation of jobs.
3. The port seeks to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner,
while encouraging responsible growth and good-paying jobs for its
residents.
Calhoun Port Authority
1. The port will become a major hub for the petrochemical industry and will
continue to earn revenue and create new jobs for Texas.
46
Vision of the Port in 20 Years and Its Service to the State of Texas (Continued)
Respondent
Port of Corpus Christi
1. The port will have the deepest channel in the Gulf of Mexico at 52 feet.
2. A new Harbor Bridge will be constructed with over 200 feet of clearance.
3. The port will have a modern rail network with a rail yard that has 14 miles
of parallel track and siding.
4. The outer harbour will be where the largest off-shore platforms in the
world are constructed and deployed from.
5. The La Quinta multipurpose terminal will be built and handle a large
volume of containers every year.
6. The port will continue to handle its traditional cargoes of steel, military
equipment, crude oil, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas.
7. The port will continue to be a major generator of jobs and economic
activity to the region, particularly as it relates to serving the Eagle Ford
Port of Harlingen
Shale play.
1. Continue to function as an economic engine for the region, handling fuels,
lubricants, and construction materials for the local economy.
2. Continue exporting the region’s production of sugar, feed grains, and
cotton.
3. Possibly supply Mexico’s petroleum industry with materials and
equipment as it opens to foreign investment.
4. Continue supporting free trade with Mexico via the Los Indios Free Trade
International Bridge. The port anticipates that the export of fertilizers and
petrochemicals to Mexico will continue to grow.
Port of Port Isabel
1. Will continue servicing the offshore oil and gas industry, as well as
offshore wind power industry.
2. Become a regional hub for energy and job creation
3. Will construct new port facilities on surrounding land to serve its
customers, particularly to support offshore energy production.
Port of Brownsville
1. The port will continue to grow as a major transhipment center handling
petroleum products, liquefied natural gas, propane gas, bulk
commodities, and containers.
2. The port will be a logistical center for offshore logistical support for oil
exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico.
3. The port will attract major development to its available land.
4. The port will handle high-value cargo to its cargo mix.
5. The port will be a major employment center in the region.
Response
47
SUMMARY
Overall, as stated earlier, Texas ports are optimistic about their future and the future of the
State of Texas. Texas currently finds itself in the fortunate position as being the economic
powerhouse of the United States. This strength has, in no small way, been driven by the
expansion of the state’s energy sector and the exploitation of new energy resources. While
the economy is prosperous, Texas ports are eager to move forward with infrastructure
improvements to their berths, docks, and storage facilities. Many ports are also keenly
interested in deepening their ship channel and every port is concerned about maintenance
dredging along the GIWW. Texas ports continue to look to state government to appropriate
funds to the Port Access Account Fund, which could be used for many needed projects, but
at a minimum, they want TxDOT to maintain its traditional role supporting landside access.
Section 4 will discuss port financing issues and opportunities in greater detail.
48
SECTION 4
PORT FINANCE
Although most ports are subdivisions of the State of Texas, Texas ports have not historically
received direct funding from the state for port infrastructure. The lack of state funding has
meant that Texas ports have become largely self-sufficient, barring federal grants that are
usually targeted to homeland security improvements and federally funded dredging of ship
channels. This self-sufficiency has also meant that ports have developed a strong sense of
autonomy and cautiousness. During 2013, Texas ports spent in excess of $300 million of
their own funds (through revenues or bonding authority) on capital expenditures. The one
indirect form of state-funded support that Texas ports have historically received has been in
the form of landside roadway investments made by TxDOT. And, over time, the accumulated
value of these landside projects has been very significant. Nonetheless, the lack of state
funds for other port needs has generated frustration among some Texas ports, especially
because there is a mechanism in place to address the issue but there have been no
appropriations by the Texas Legislature. At the federal level, a few Texas ports have been
successful with their efforts to acquire funds to partially pay for port infrastructure
improvements and it is hoped that the recent enactment of the Water Resources Reform &
Development Act of 2014 will provide additional funding sources to ports for channel
dredging and maintenance.
PORT ACCESS ACCOUNT FUND
The Port Access Account Fund (PAAF) was created by the 77th Texas Legislature to provide
funds for Texas ports to finance security improvements, port infrastructure projects, and
related studies. Specifically, Chapter 55 of the Texas Transportation Code allows money
appropriated to the PAAF to be spent on:
1. Construction or improvement of transportation facilities within the port;
2. Dredging or deepening channels, turning basins, or harbors;
3. Constructing or improving wharves, docks, structures, jetties, piers, storage facilities,
cruise terminals, or any other facility that is needed or can be used for transportation
or economic development;
4. Construction or improvement of facilities for port security;
5. The acquisition of cranes or other mechanized equipment for moving cargo or
passengers in international commerce;
6. The acquisition of land for port purposes;
7. The acquisition, improvement, enlargement, or extension of existing port facilities;
and
8. Environmental protection through studies to obtain environmental permits or by
acquiring or improving dredge spoil sites.
49
The selection of projects to be funded from the Port Access Account Fund is to be based
upon a review of submitted projects by TxDOT in consultation with the PAAC. Together, their
recommendations are sent to the Texas Transportation Commission, which makes the final
decision on funding. The primary criterion for ranking the projects for selection is their
estimated economic benefit.
Since its creation in 2001, the Texas Legislature has not appropriated any funds to the Port
Access Account Fund.
TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONE (TRZ)
Due to the lack of direct funding, some Texas ports are beginning to explore other funding
mechanisms offered by the state. During the 83rd Texas Legislature, ports were made
eligible to use Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZ) as a funding tool. A TRZ is a
delineated, underdeveloped area, where a new transportation project is to be built.
Generally TRZs allow a sponsoring entity to capture incremental tax revenue above a
baseline year to be reinvested in a project designated within the zone. It is assumed that
tax revenues will increase due to infrastructure projects, so that the revenue increase can
be appropriated to pay for the cost of new infrastructure. TRZs may be set up by a county or
a city. A TRZ must also be deemed underdeveloped and the proposed project must: 1)
promote public safety; 2) facilitate the improvement, development, or redevelopment of
property; 3) facilitate the movement of traffic; and 4) enhance the local entity’s ability to
sponsor transportation projects.
Several ports are exploring the use of this tool. The Ports of Beaumont and Port Arthur,
along with the Sabine Neches Navigation District, have created TRZs, as has the Port of
Brownsville.
TEXAS MOBILITY FUND
Created by the 77th Texas Legislature, the Texas Mobility Fund is a revolving fund that
issues bonds secured by future revenues so that transportation projects can be built more
quickly. In the 83rd Session, the Texas Legislature passed language, subject to the passage
of a constitutional amendment, allowing the Texas Mobility Fund to finance port
improvements. With this in mind, the Sabine Neches Navigation District has requested a
loan from the Texas Mobility Fund to assist with paying the non-federal portion of the
deepening project for the Sabine Neches waterway.
OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES
There are other state and federal funding sources that could be used to fund new
transportation infrastructure. Below is a partial listing of available programs:
50
•
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary
Grants – TIGER grants are funded through a competitive selection process that has
allocated $4.1 billion, since 2009, for projects that “promise to achieve critical
national objectives” and “have a significant impact on the Nation, a region, or a
metropolitan area”. Successful projects are also expected to have a state or local
match (historically 2:1). To date, over $400 million of TIGER money has been
allocated to port projects across the United States. There have been three portrelated TIGER grants awarded in Texas over the life of the program:
1. Brownsville Navigation District – In 2012, $12,000,000 was awarded for the
construction of a 600-foot cargo dock to expand marine highway container
operations.
2. Port of Corpus Christi – In 2012, $10,000,000 was awarded to build a rail siding.
3. Port of Houston – In 2013, $10,000,000 was awarded to the Port of Houston to
extend the Bayport Terminal wharf from 3,300 feet in length to 4,000 feet in
length.
•
Regional Mobility Authority (RMA) – RMAs are political subdivisions of the state
created by the Legislature. RMAs have bonding authority and can finance, design,
construct, operate, maintain, expand or extend transportation projects. The projects
undertaken by RMAs may be tolled or non-tolled, but as a matter of practice all RMA
roadway projects to-date have been tolled. Cameron County is the only county in the
state with an RMA that also has maritime ports (Ports of Brownsville, Port Isabel, and
Harlingen).
•
Transportation Development Credits – States receive federal transportation
development credits for investment in toll facilities (excluding maintenance, debt
service, and returns to investors). Three-quarters of these credits are assigned to the
MPO where the project occurred and the remaining quarter is assigned to the Texas
Transportation Commission to use around the state of Texas. Transportation
Development Credits can be used meet federal matching requirements for a project
but they do not convert into actual monies that can be used to pay for a project’s
construction.
WATER RESOURCES REFORM & DEVELOPMENT ACT (WRRDA) OF 2014
On June 10, 2014 the President signed the Water Resources Reform & Development Act
(WRRDA) of 2014, which was a bipartisan effort to address many of the funding shortfalls
and inefficiencies that ports experience when developing projects. Some of the major
actions of this important piece of legislation include:
51
•
Requires an Assessment of the GIWW – The USACE is required to conduct an
assessment of the operations and maintenance needs of the GIWW. This
assessment was specifically requested by TxDOT and the Texas Delegation.
•
Authorizes Channel Improvement Projects – Authorizes the final feasibility studies for
two Texas navigation projects. The first navigation project is the Sabine Neches
Waterway which has an estimated cost of $1,114,040,000 with a $748,070,000
federal contribution. The second navigation project is Freeport Harbor with a total
estimated cost of $239,300,000 and a federal contribution of $121,000,000. The
WRRDA also authorizes project modification to the Corpus Christi Ship Channel
project, which has a total estimated cost of $353,231,000 and a federal contribution
of $182,582,000.
•
Streamlines Regulatory Requirements – USACE studies for projects are now limited
to three years in length. Prior to this limit, it was not uncommon for project studies to
require 10-15 years for completion. Multiple divisions and the hierarchy of the
USACE must now view studies concurrently rather than sequentially. The process of
studies has been consolidated and duplicative analyses have been eliminated. All of
these actions are expected to expedite project implementation and reduce
expenditures during the preparation of the studies, as well as reduce the opportunity
costs related to delays.
•
Expands Funding Opportunities – WRRDA allows various tools to assist ports with
funding projects. Examples include limited credit for local agencies that carry out
operations and maintenance on authorized navigation projects. It also establishes a
Water Infrastructure Public Private Partnership Program modelled on the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program.
•
Supports Underserved, Emerging Ports – WRRDA requires that not less than 10
percent of the allocated funds be directed towards “emerging” harbors between FY
2015 and FY 2022. Emerging harbors are defined as those that handle less than 1
million tons of cargo annually. The remaining portion of funding is to be allocated to
high use and moderate use harbors. High use harbors are defined as 10 million tons
or more of cargo annually. Moderate use harbors are defined as more than 1 million
tons but less than 10 million tons annually. In addition to the 90/10 percent split,
the USACE must authorize 5 percent of the funding to Underserved Harbors, which
are defined moderate use or emerging harbors maintained at less than authorized
dimensions for six fiscal years.
52
Port Designations under the Water Resources Reform & Development Act of 2014
HIGH USE HARBORS
Port of Beaumont
Port of Corpus Christi Port of Texas City
Port of Port Arthur
Port Freeport
Port of Galveston
Calhoun Port Authority Name
Port of Houston
Short Tons
238,185,582
78,515,010
69,001,357
56,721,627
30,618,123
22,084,551
11,618,368
11,589,123
MODERATE USE HARBORS
Name
Short Tons
Port of Brownsville
5,600,977
Port of Victoria
4,517,632
EMERGING PORTS
Name
Short Tons
Port of Harlingen
800,000
Port of Orange
732,450
Port of Port Isabel
120,000
•
Rectifies Allocation of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Tax – One of the most
important elements of the WRRDA is that it stops the reallocation of funds collected
specifically for the purpose of harbor maintenance. This change will occur
incrementally so that by FY 2025, 100 percent of the revenue collected from the
Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) will go to that purpose.
•
Provides Discretionary Funding – WRRDA authorizes discretionary appropriations of
$50 million per year between FY 2015 and FY 2018 for qualifying ports designated
as donor or energy transfer ports (split equally), with the potential to extend these
appropriations through FY 2022. A donor port is defined as one that collects at least
$15 million in HMT annually and received less than 25% of the collected HMT back in
the last five fiscal years and handled more than 2 million TEUs during FY 2012
(unfortunately, the Port of Houston falls short of this threshold). An Energy Transfer
Port is a port that is subject to the HMT under CFR 19 Section 24.24 at which energy
commodities (petroleum products, natural gas, coal, bio fuels, wind and solar energy
components) comprised greater than 25% of all commercial activity by tonnage in
FY2012 and through which more than 40 million tons of cargo were transported
53
during FY 2012. Among the public ports, the Ports of Houston, Corpus Christi, Texas
City, and Beaumont meet these criteria.
PORT FUNDING TOOLS IN OTHER GULF STATES
While the Texas Legislature has not appropriated funds to the Texas Port Access Account
Fund, other states along the Gulf of Mexico are actively funding their ports to improve their
competitiveness. The sections below provide a summary of the various programs that are
available to ports in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. Alabama, like Texas, does not
provide any state funds to its ports (despite operating the Port of Mobile under the Alabama
Ports Authority) and expects their ports to be completely self-sufficient.
Louisiana
The state of Louisiana is Texas’s closest competitor for existing business and has two statefunded port development programs, which are described below:
Port Construction and Development Priority Program - This program is open to all public port
authorities in Louisiana when considering a new capital project. A wide variety of projects
may be funded through this program, as long as they are maritime-related and have an
immediate economic impact. Feasibility projects must be submitted in order to request
funds with approved projects able to receive up to $15 million over three years and the
ports must be willing to pay for engineering costs and 10 percent of construction costs.
Additionally, projects must have a Rate of Return on the state’s investment of at least 2.375
and a cost-benefit ratio greater than 1.0. In order to be approved, recommended projects
must be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Transportation, Highways, and
Public Works to be approved and sent to the Louisiana Legislature for funding. During 2012,
$19.7 million was appropriated to projects in this program.
Delta Regional Authority “States’ Economic Development Assistance Program” Participating member states, local governments, public bodies, and non-profit entities of the
DRA are eligible for the SEDAP program (private/for-profit entities are ineligible for this
program). Additionally, any entities owing federal debt are not eligible for funds until the
debt has been paid in full. Four funding categories are available through the program: basic
public infrastructure in distressed counties; transportation infrastructure for the purpose of
economic development and growth; business development; and job training or employmentrelated education.
Mississippi
Of the 16 public ports in Mississippi, only two are directly controlled by the state while 14
are operated under various governance structures at the city or county level. Several
programs are available to these ports to fund capital improvement projects. However, the
overall funds available to ports each year is fairly limited.
54
Multimodal Transportation Capital Improvement Program Fund - This program was enacted
by the Mississippi Legislature in 2000 as a funding mechanism for short line railroads,
public airports, mass transit, and ports. No specific annual amount is deposited to the fund
in a given year but, historically, approximately $10 million per annum is appropriated by the
Mississippi Legislature (Wagner et al, 2009). Of the deposited amount, 38 percent may be
utilized by the ports for approved projects. No local match is required to access funds
derived from this program, but all funds allocated to a project must be spent in that
calendar year and cannot be carried over to the following year. As of 2005, $26.6 million
had been funded through this program of $67.3 million requested.
Intermodal Connector Improvement Program - “The Intermodal Connector Improvement
Program (which is dedicated to roadways, access roads, marshalling areas, etc.) is
administered by the Mississippi Department of Transportation from the federal funds that
generally reflect the Department’s multi-year construction schedule. To date, the ports have
received approximately $14 million of these federal funds.” (Wagner et al, 2009)
Port Revitalization Revolving Loan Program - The Mississippi Development Authority
provides low-interest loans through the Port Revitalization Revolving Loan Program. These
loans, made available to public port authorities, are meant to aid capital improvement
projects which promote commerce and economic growth in Mississippi. The loans are not to
exceed $750,000 and have a 3% interest rate with a 10-year pay-out period.
Alabama
The Alabama Ports Authority administers all public ports in the State. According to a report
prepared by Wagner et al. (2009), the Ports Authority does not receive any support from the
State of Alabama. Alabama’s ports are dependent on their own revenues in order to fulfill
monetary obligations for operations and capital spending.
Florida
Florida’s state legislature has established several funding programs available to its ports.
Available funds vary from year to year, with an additional $50 million awarded in 2007. The
four main programs identified by Wagner et al. (2009) are:
Florida Ports Financing Commission Loan Program - This program provides access to bonds
for capital projects by the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development
Council that are accepted by the Florida Ports Financing Commission. The funds are made
available through the sale of bonds that are then “loaned” to accepted port projects.
Repayment of the bonds is drawn solely from funds generated by motor vehicle registration
fees to pay debt service. This program resulted in a $25 million annual expenditure on the
debt service.
55
Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Program - Florida makes $15
million available annually for capital improvement projects at its ports, with $8 million
dedicated by law and $7 million in additional funding from FDOT’s annual budget. Funds are
only awarded with a 50-50 match on approved projects and for projects that are consistent
with a port’s master planning documents. A wide variety of projects are eligible for these
funds: transportation facilities; harbor dredging or deepening; construction or rehabilitation
of docks, wharves, or other maritime facilities; acquiring Vessel Tracking Systems; container
cranes; land acquisition; environmental protection projects; seaport intermodal access
projects which are part of the five-year Florida Seaport Mission plan; and transportation
facilities not part of the DOT work program. Limits on use of this fund are set at $7 million in
a given year and $30 million during any 5-calendar year period for a single port (Wagner et
al, 2009).
State Infrastructure Bank - This option for financing capital projects is generally used in
conjunction with other funding mechanisms. The SIB is a revolving loan and credit
enhancement program that consists of three accounts: 1) a federally funded account
derived from federal and state-matched funds; 2) a state funded account derived from state
funds and bond proceeds; and 3) an emergency account for declared state emergencies
that would also be funded by state monies and bond proceeds. For projects drawn from the
federally funded account, all requirements of SAFTEA-LU must be followed. State funded
projects are limited to transportation facility projects on the State Highway System or that
provide for enhanced mobility or intermodal connectivity with the state’s transportation
system, airports, seaports, rail facilities, and other facilities that increase the movement of
people, cargo, and freight. Repayments to the SIB are required to begin within 5 years of
project completion or when the project is open to traffic, whichever is later. Repayment
cannot exceed 30 years from first payment (Wagner et al, 2009).
FDOT District Intermodal Funds - Discretionary funds for intermodal projects are available to
ports within each FDOT district. Intermodal funds generally require a 50/50 match (Wagner
et al., 2009).
SUMMARY
Although Texas ports are thriving under current conditions, the lack of state funding for port
infrastructure improvements and equipment is increasingly being viewed as a concern by
many Texas ports (although this view is not unanimous). With the exception of Alabama,
other states along the Gulf of Mexico are providing meaningful state funds to their ports and
these funds are improving their competitiveness. Given the growing competition between
states for new jobs and job retention, it is conceivable that current funding disadvantage for
Texas ports will one day have tangible consequences.
56
SECTION 5
TOPICS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION BY THE
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
It is generally recognized by the Texas maritime industry that this is a golden age. Texas
ports have been buoyed by the state’s remarkable demographic and economic growth over
the past two decades, the sustained and intensifying pace of globalization, and the current
boon in the oil and gas industry that was sparked by the widespread use of hydraulic
fracturing. Even the impacts of the severe 2008-2009 Recession were handled by Texas
ports with fewer consequences than were experienced by ports in many other regions of the
nation. As a result, cargo volumes have been strong and many Texas ports are dealing with
the desirable concerns related to accommodating growing demand. But, alongside the
positive, there is also an ongoing recognition of the need to deepen ship channels and
maintain the GIWW, as well as to replace aging infrastructure and equipment at many ports.
If Texas ports do not have the facilities (docks, warehouses, channel depth, etc.) to handle
future cargo growth, then the cargo will move through ports in neighboring states, resulting
in a loss of jobs, revenue and economic output. TxDOT’s renewed commitment to Texas
ports provides an opportunity to support their growth by providing targeted assistance to
build, expand, or upgrade existing roadway infrastructure, supporting the continued dredging
of the GIWW (as its non-federal sponsor) and the state’s ship channels, and, possibly, to
provide other forms of assistance that will improve ports competitiveness. The current
golden age cannot be taken for granted.
As the state’s transportation agency, TxDOT’s role is to coordinate the efficient movement of
goods across all modes, despite statutory and constitutional requirements that mostly limit
its activities to the state’s highway system. Nonetheless, TxDOT can still be an effective
enabler of Texas ports by improving landside access and representing the overall interests
of the Texas’s freight transportation network. In some instances, this representation could
be as simple as legitimizing the needs of individual ports as they interact with federal
agencies that provide project funding. In other cases, it could require providing technical
expertise or even considering requests for funding support, if the legal framework is in
place. It is also important to recognize that macro-level trends such as the growing national
economy, the Panama Canal expansion, and the shale oil and gas boon are among the
major driving forces behind growing port demand, but they are explanations not solutions.
The practical solutions for handling new demand are what the ports and TxDOT must be deal
with at a localized level and, sometimes, even at the micro-level, such as a road, a railroad,
a channel, a terminal, a dock, or a piece of equipment.
The sections below identify key areas for future investigation and consideration by the Texas
Transportation Commission that were identified during the preparation of this report. Many
57
of these topics were identified by the ports through their interactions with TxDOT and
previously described questionnaires and their participation at a PAAC-hosted workshop held
in March 2014.
Explore Investment Opportunities for Landside Infrastructure – Consider identifying
categories of key infrastructure improvements for ports that TxDOT can assist with under its
current constitutional and statutory limitations (such as overweight truck corridors, removal
of at-grade rail crossings, air draft clearance, etc.) and request that ports submit competitive
requests to TxDOT for funding those projects. Among the suggested improvements,
overweight truck corridors are frequently mentioned by the ports as an asset that would
make them competitive with other ports outside of Texas, since it would allow shippers to
move goods with fewer truck drays and promote the development of distribution centers.
Additionally, there are needed transportation improvement projects around the state that
would assist Texas ports with moving goods to and from markets. These projects should
also be given additional consideration.
Provide Leadership for Texas’s Dredging Needs – Many of Texas’s deep water ports are
pursing permits or funding to widen or deepen their ship channel. At the same time, many
in the maritime industry are very concerned about the USACE’s lack of resources to maintain
the GIWW at its authorized depth. As the state’s transportation agency and the non-federal
sponsor for the GIWW, Texas ports are looking to TxDOT to provide leadership for the state’s
dredging needs. This desired leadership is not necessarily related to the State of Texas
funding for dredging projects. Rather, Texas ports are looking for TxDOT to use its influence
and take a proactive role with the USACE to actively promote dredging projects along Texas
port channels and GIWW. Although direct funding of needed dredging project or even
performing dredging itself are options, most dredging experts see these solutions as
creating new problems for USACE, TxDOT, and Texas ports.
Transportation System Approach – TxDOT’s statutory and constitutional focus is to build and
maintain the state’s roadway network, so it is natural that roadway concerns dominate its
attention. But, improving freight mobility for other transportation modes can also be a
means of meeting one of TxDOT’s key responsibilities, particularly as these other modes
mitigate congestion by maintaining or increasing their share of freight movements. The role
that Texas ports have in handling intrastate freight movements, as discussed in Appendix B,
is critical to avoiding even greater congestion on Texas highways. Several Texas ports have
expressed an interest in the development of a marine highway along the Texas segment of
the GIWW. A marine highway along the Texas Coast could be used to encourage an even
greater volume of freight movements to occur along the GIWW, which would help to mitigate
congestion along the state’s roadway and railway networks at a relatively low cost.
58
Encourage Commodity Diversification at Texas Ports – Texas’s maritime trade is highly
dependent upon the petrochemical industry for the cargoes it handles. While this
specialization has unquestionably benefited Texas ports, it would also be prudent to
encourage growth in other commodity markets so that natural market fluctuations have less
impact on cargo volumes. Rather than attempt to directly influence the types of
commodities handled at Texas ports, any strategy would likely focus on taking advantage of
new opportunities and may require additional support from the State of Texas.
Strengthen Relations with Local Port Authorities and Administration - The Commission and
TxDOT’s staff are currently entering into a new era of coordination and collaboration with
Texas’s port authorities, so they must be cognizant of the inevitable autonomy issues that
can arise when working with another entity of the state. Port administrators are particularly
aware of these issues, since they alternately desire to work closely with TxDOT and work
closely with and respond to the port commission that has authority over them. Additionally,
because ports engage in revenue generating activities that occur within an environment that
has high capital expenditures and an environment that is intensely competitive, their
administrators must constantly mitigate the risks of participating in any program, by
ensuring that the port’s needs or ambitions are met and its risks rewarded. This approach
differs from most other public agencies, which are expected to provide services to the public
that would not be otherwise available. Put another way, most public agencies do not
actively compete against other state agencies to provide the same or similar service to the
public. However, this is what Texas ports do. TxDOT will be most effective in supporting
Texas ports, if it engages them with a nuanced understanding of this unique relationship.
Port Infrastructure Funding - Texas is among a minority of U.S. coastal states that do not
provide state funds for their ports. Within the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana and Florida are
especially active at providing state funding. Although Texas ports have been able to
compete thus far by annually investing hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money,
competition with ports in states that do provide financial support raises the stakes. The
most direct mechanism for providing funds for port improvements would be for the
Legislature to obligate funds to the Port Access Account Fund, found in Chapter 55 of the
Texas Transportation Code. Funding to ports could be allocated by categories, so that each
port has an opportunity to receive funding relative to its size or function. Examples of these
categorizations can be found in the table in the introductory section (e.g. small, medium,
large, comprehensive, specialized, niche, etc.).
Pursue Further Study of Critical Maritime Issues – While this report has covered a number of
issues that are important to Texas ports, many of the topics require more detail for planning
and policy purposes, while others have yet to be studied. Examples of future studies that
would benefit the Commission, TxDOT’s Maritime Division, and Texas ports include: detailed
maritime trade analyses at the region, country, or commodity level; research into the
59
opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships; implementing intelligent transportation
systems (ITS) around ports; and continued monitoring of macroeconomic and maritime
industry trends.
60
SOURCES
American Association of Port Authorities. 2014. AAPA Seaports of the Americas – 2014
Membership Directory. Naylor, LLC: Gainesville, FL.
Armstrong, John H. 1998. The Railroad - What It Is, What It Does: The Introduction to
Railroading 4th ed. Simmons-Boardman Books, Inc.: Omaha, NE.
Calhoun Port Authority. 2014. Calhoun Port Authority Website. www.calhounport.com
Calhoun Port Authority. 2012. Annual Financial Report – For the Year Ended June 30,
2012.
Foreign Trade Zones Board. 2014. Frequently Asked Questions.
http://enforcement.trade.gov/ftzpage/info/ftzstart.html.
Jackson, Alan A. (2006). The Railway Dictionary (4th ed.). Sutton Publishing Ltd.: United
Kingdom.
Kruse, J.C. and N. Hutson. 2010. NCFRP 5: North American Marine Highways.
Transportation Research Board, National Academies: Washington, D.C.
Martin Associates. 2006. The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of
Beaumont and Port Arthur. Lancaster, PA.
. 2012. The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of Brownsville.
Lancaster, PA.
. 2012. The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of Corpus Christi.
Lancaster, PA.
. 2012. The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of Port Freeport. Lancaster,
PA.
. 2012. The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of Galveston.
Lancaster, PA.
. 2012. The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of Houston.
2011. Lancaster, PA.
Port of Beaumont. 2014. Port of Beaumont Website. www.portofbeaumont.com.
61
Port of Brownsville. 2014. Port of Brownsville Website. www.portofbrownsville.com.
Port of Corpus Christi. 2014. Port of Corpus Christi Website. www.portofcorpuschristi.com.
Port Freeport. 2014. Port Freeport Website. www.portfreeport.com.
Port of Galveston. 2014. Port of Galveston Website. www.portofgalveston.com.
Port of Harlingen Authority. 2014. Port of Harlingen Authority Website.
www.portofharlingen.com.
Port of Houston Authority. 2014. Port of Houston Authority Website.
www.portofhouston.com.
Port Isabel-San Benito Navigation District. 2014. Port Isabel-San Benito Navigation District
Website. www.portofportisabel.com.
Port of Orange. 2014. Port of Orange Website. www.portoforange.com.
Port of Palacios – Matagorda County Navigation District No. 1. 2014. Port of Palacios
Website. www.portofpalacios.com.
Port of Port Arthur. 2014. Port of Port Arthur Website. http://portofportarthur.com.
Port of Port Mansfield – Willacy County Navigation District. 2014. Port of Port Mansfield.
http://portofmansfield.com.
Port of Texas City. 2014. Port of Texas City Website. www.tctrr.com.
Port of Victoria. 2014. Port of Victoria website. www.portofvictoria.com.
Port of Victoria. 2013. June 2013 Newsletter. Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Siegesmund, P. et al. 2008. Guide to the Economic Value of Texas Ports. Report 0-5538P1. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX.
Texas Ports Association. 2014. Texas Ports Association Website. www.texasports.org.
U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2014. National Port Readiness Network.
http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/nprn_home/nprn_home.htm.
62
Wagner, D. A., J Cocchiara, and J.M. Orlesh Jr. 2009. Report on State Financial Assistance
for Capital Improvements at Public Ports in the United States. The Ports Association
of Louisiana.
63
APPENDIX A
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MACROECONOMIC TRENDS AFFECTING TEXAS PORTS
64
INTRODUCTION
Freight transportation trends are inherently driven by macroeconomic factors at the regional,
national, and global level and Texas’s maritime ports are no exception to this rule. As of
mid-2014, Texas ports have been operating within a period of strong demand and new
opportunities, much of which have been sparked by exploration and production in the
energy industry. However, strong population growth and general economic expansion in
Texas have also provided a firm underpinning to sustain this growth. On the horizon is the
completed Panama Canal expansion, which is anticipated to be a positive contributor to the
Texas economy and is expected to open in the next 18 to 24 months.
STATEWIDE ECONOMIC TRENDS
The stability and growth of the Texas economy during the nationwide economic turmoil of
2008 and its aftermath is so highly touted that it is often referred to as a “miracle.” While
the state’s robust economic landscape is certainly worthy of accolades, the reason for its
health and future growth is more than just a miraculous event, it is the result of positive
trends in population, employment, production, and trade among other things. To better
understand the state’s economy as a whole and its future direction, a closer look at these
positive trends is warranted.
Population helps drive any economy. A state’s residents need housing, goods, and services;
while, at the same time, these residents are also become an important ingredient, as both
employees and founders of the companies providing those items – in the state and beyond.
The last two decades have seen a steady upward trend in population migration flows from
both within the country and internationally.
65
Texas’s Population Trends, 1993-2013
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau and the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, 2014.
In absolute numbers, Texas led the nation between July 1, 2012 and July 1, 2013 adding
387,000 residents while coming in third in terms of rate of growth, only falling behind an oilboom fueled North Dakota and Washington D.C. (Young, 2013). While population growth is
helping to drive the Texas economy, a closer look at that growth offers insight into future
trends for the economy and the state. The dynamics of the state’s population growth have
shifted over the past few decades. Where the population flows are originating speaks to the
fact that Texas is not just a popular destination for international migration – largely from
Mexico and Central America – but increasingly a top location for residents of other states. A
mix of increased border security after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and
nationwide economic crises in 2001 and in 2008 have resulted in a steady decline in
international migration from a high of almost 160,000 in 2001 to 64,187 in 2013 (Snyder,
M, 2008 and Gilmer and Hopper, 2001). At the same time, the ability of Texas to foster a
diversity of industry, the boon in energy due to hydraulic fracturing and rising energy prices,
and comparatively affordable cost-of-living combined to make the state an increasingly
attractive relocation spot for domestic migration hitting a high of 232,616 in 2006 and
remaining above 100,000 in the following years save for 2010 (Thompson, 2010).
66
Net Migration to Texas: 1993 – 2013
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau; Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University
The state’s population growth is forecasted to continue for several decades. Using a
conservative formula to estimate future trends, the Office of the State Demographer
suggests Texas will be home to just over 41 million residents by 2050 (Potter and Hoque,
2013).
The steady influx of new residents detailed here has been met with expanding employment
opportunities. While many other states still struggle with replacing jobs lost to the economic
crisis in 2008, Texas continues to add them at a quickening pace. By 2011, the state
returned to pre-recessionary employment levels, by 2012, it surpassed them.
67
Employment Growth in Texas: 2000 – 2013
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2014.
The state’s diverse economy is responsible for this steady rise in employment. Much like
Texas’ transformation into an urbanized state with continuing connections to its rural past,
the Texas economy has grown to add industries like health and education, business
services, and information services to the state’s traditional industries of energy and
agriculture. With the state’s economy and associated employment spread out across many
industrial sectors, Texas was able to weather the 2008 economic crisis with the success of
some sectors compensating for the underperformance of others. For example, examining
job growth by industrial sector between 2010 and 2013 illustrates how positive gains in
energy and mining occupations helped balance losses in sectors like construction and
information services. There are signs of the state’s economy slowing down with only the
information services and government sectors registering growth in employment from 2012
to 2013, while other sectors flattened or experienced losses (Phillips and Slijk, 2014).
Despite these losses and generalized cooling, Texas remains a leader in job growth – falling
behind only North Dakota and Florida in 2013 – and the state’s varying industrial sectors
are forecasted to grow during 2014 (Phillips and Slijk, 2014).
68
Annual Employment Change in Texas by Industry: 2010 - 2013
Note: Not all industries included; percentages do not total 100.
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics and Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2014.
The strength of the Texas economy not only encompasses the state, but extends beyond its
borders engaging with other economies internationally. Texas is the leading export state in
the country (Wright, no date). The nature of the state’s international trade is diverse and
facilitated by the state’s extensive border ports-of-entry, maritime ports, and airport
infrastructure. The export of petroleum products dwarfs other offerings from Texas in terms
of value, but the list of products exported encompasses everything from electronics to
propane.
69
Top 10 Texas Exports: 2012-2013
Rank
2013
2012
Description
Value
Value
2012
% Share
2013
% Share
2012-13
% Change
1
Petrol Oil Bitumous Mineral (Not Crude) Etc Nt Bio
$34,282
$36,656
13.0
13.1
6.9
2
Lt Oils, Preps Gt=70% Petroleum/Bitum Nt Biod
$19,777
$21,753
7.5
7.8
10.0
3
Parts & Accessories For Adp Machines & Units
$6,731
$9,717
2.5
3.5
44.4
4
Processors And Controllers, Integrated Electronic
$4,644
$4,980
1.8
1.8
7.2
5
Civilian Aircraft, Engines, And Parts
$4,955
$4,979
1.9
1.8
0.5
$5,085
$4,874
1.9
6
Machines
for
the
Recept./Convers./Transmis./Regen. of Voice/Image
1.7
-4.1
7
Propane, Liquefied
$2,471
$4,587
0.9
1.6
85.6
8
Parts For Boring Or Sinking Machinery, NESOI
$4,881
$4,189
1.8
1.5
-14.2
9
Acyclic Ethers (Excluding Diethyl Ether) NESOI
$2,909
$2,926
1.1
1.0
0.6
10
Parts And Accessories of Motor Vehicles, NESOI
$3,815
$2,850
1.4
1.0
-25.3
Note: Value in millions of dollars based on 2013 dollar value
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The countries of Mexico and Canada are the leading destinations for Texan products and
account for almost 45 percent of its export trade. While a significant proportion of NAFTA
export trade occurs as surface trade (i.e. moves by land modes such as truck, rail, or
pipeline), another significant share moves over water. The remaining 55 percent of Texas’s
trade is with countries that require moving cargoes by maritime vessels or airplanes,
exclusively.
Top 10 Countries for Texas Exports: 2012-2013
Rank
Country
2012 Value
2013 Value
2012 %
2013 %
2012 – 2013
Share
Share
% Change
1
2
Mexico
Canada
$94,456
$23,853
$100,994
$25,885
35.7
9.0
36.1
9.3
6.9
8.5
3
Brazil
$10,036
$10,830
3.8
3.9
7.9
4
China
$10,306
$10,737
3.9
3.8
4.2
5
Netherlands
$9,612
$9,583
3.6
3.4
-0.3
6
South Korea
$7,781
$7,917
2.9
2.8
1.8
7
Colombia
$5,629
$7,287
2.1
2.6
29.4
8
Singapore
$6,387
$5,810
2.4
2.1
-9.0
9
Venezuela
$6,943
$5,429
2.6
1.9
-21.8
10
Japan
$4,673
$5,075
1.8
1.8
8.6
Note: Value in millions of dollars based on 2013 dollar value
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014.
70
ENERGY PRODUCTION AND EXPLORATION
The emergence of gas as a primary export item for Texas is mirrored by other petroleum
products produced by the state and distributed internationally. This specifically impacts
Texas in light of the state’s port infrastructure, which is struggling to keep up with an energy
boon speculated to last well into the future (Blackmon, 2013 and Murtaugh, 2014).
Although the increased domestic production of oil and gas has caused imports to taper off
the last few years at the Houston-Galveston Customs District, this decline is more than
offset by “sharply higher exports” of oil and gas largely due to the high productivity of the
Eagle Ford Shale oil and gas play in South Texas (Jordan, 2013). To place this boon and its
impact on ports in the Gulf into perspective, the managing director of the Port of Corpus
Christi notes that in his 27 years of employment at the port, the volume of activity in the last
two years has outstripped activity in the prior 25 years… combined (Murtaugh, 2014).
The number of active natural gas production wells in Texas has steadily risen since 1990,
with an increase of more than 40,000 wells between 2000 and 2010 alone (compared with
about 10,000 new wells between 1990 and 2000). As of 2012, there were an estimated
102,218 active natural gas wells in the State. Combinations of horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing have led to this dramatic growth of natural gas and oil production in
several regions of the state.
Texas is also benefiting from the oil production activities located in other areas of the United
States. The Port of Beaumont, for example, handles oil produced in Colorado and Wyoming.
The port’s recently completed terminal receives crude oil via rail tank car and then
transloads the oil into barges that carry it to a refinery. These types of transloading activities
are growing because new production from hydraulic fracturing is occurring in locations that
lie outside of the nation’s existing oil pipeline network and the process of building new
pipelines has become very slow or uneconomical.
71
Operating Gas Wells in Texas, 1990 – 2012
110,000
102,218
(2012)
100,000
90,000
Operating Wells
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
40,000
1990
Source: Railroad Commission of Texas, 2014.
The production of natural gas and crude oil has risen sharply to match the increase in
drilling. Between 1990 and 2004, natural gas production was variable, resulting in a
modest overall increase, despite the constantly growing number of wells. However, starting
in 2005, production volumes grew dramatically from 5.7 billion Thousand Cubic Feet (Mcf)
to 7.5 billion Mcf in 2009, due to high oil prices and the widespread practice of hydraulic
fracturing. Gas production volumes fell during the following years, but were still greater than
7.1 billion Mcf during 2012. The reversal of declining Texas crude oil production has been
even more remarkable. From 1990 to 2007, Texas’s crude oil production fell by almost half
to 336,222 thousand barrels (Mbbl) annually. However, during the two-year period between
2010 and 2012, crude oil production increased from 356,911 Mbbl to 533,141 Mbbl or by
nearly 50 percent. The driving force behind this growth was the Eagle Ford Shale in South
Texas, which produces a very light, sweet crude oil.
72
Annual Natural Gas (Mcf) and Oil (Mbbl) Production in Texas, 1990 – 2012
700,000
8,000,000,000
650,000
7,500,000,000
600,000
7,000,000,000
550,000
6,500,000,000
500,000
450,000
6,000,000,000
400,000
5,500,000,000
350,000
5,000,000,000 300,000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Natural Gas (Mcf)
Oil (Mbbl)
Source: Railroad Commission of Texas, 2014.
The dramatic growth of oil and gas production has had a significant impact on Texas ports.
Ports in South Texas have seen a strong uptick in their tonnage handled as they move frac
sand, pipes, machinery, and other cargoes related to oil exploration and production in the
Eagle Ford Shale. However, the impacts are not limited to these ports. The Port of
Beaumont is handling large volumes of crude oil produced in Colorado and Wyoming and
many private terminals are receiving oil and gas for refining or processing. Producers of
natural gas are also looking to export the vast quantities of natural gas that is being
produced and a number of new liquefaction facilities are being planned along the Texas Gulf
Coast.
PANAMA CANAL EXPANSION
Among all the potential factors that could affect future cargo volumes at Texas ports, the
expansion of the Panama Canal has arguably generated the most interest and speculation.
While the current expansion of the Panama Canal is expected to increase the volume of
cargoes handled at Texas’s maritime ports, most of the public narrative has focused on
handling imported goods, primarily goods imported from Asia (mostly China) and largely for
consumer markets. However, this interpretation does not necessarily reflect how the
Panama Canal expansion might affect Texas ports. To start, the predominance of tonnage
transiting the canal flows from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, as opposed to the
73
Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. It should be noted that the commodity flows on this
corridor are dominated by low-value bulk goods. In the case of higher value goods, such as
breakbulk, RO/RO, and containerized goods, the contraflow is heavier. More specifically,
among the cargoes transiting the canal from the eastern United States, exports with origins
or destinations at ports in the region outweigh imports (measured by tonnage) by
approximately a 2:1 margin. Gulf Coast ports, which include Texas ports and ports in other
states along the Gulf of Mexico, ship approximately three-quarters of the westbound cargo
transiting the Panama Canal. On the import side, Gulf ports receive approximately one-third
of all imports destined for the eastern United States.
Tonnage of Cargo Transiting the Panama Canal and Originating from the Eastern United
States (Long Tons), FY 2000-FY 2012
90,000 Long Tons of Cargo (in Thousands) 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Gulf Ports South Atlantic Ports North Atlantic Ports Great Lakes Ports FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2007 FY 2006 FY 2005 FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002 FY 2001 0 FY 2000 Other U.S. Ports Source: Panama Canal Authority, 2013.
74
Tonnage of Cargo Transiting the Panama Canal and Destined for the Eastern United States
(Long Tons), FY 2000-FY 2012
70,000 Gulf Ports Great Lakes Ports North Atlantic Ports South Atlantic Ports FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2009 FY 2008 0 FY 2007 10,000 FY 2006 20,000 FY 2005 30,000 FY 2004 40,000 FY 2003 50,000 FY 2002 60,000 FY 2001 FY 2000 Long Tons of Cargo (in Thousands) Other U.S. Ports Source: Panama Canal Authority, 2013.
Among the cargoes handled at U.S. Gulf ports and transiting the Panama Canal, most of the
export trade is with countries in Asia. However, trade with western Latin America has grown
significantly. Trade between U.S. Gulf ports and countries in the Pacific grew between FY
2008 and FY 2012, while exports to Asia from Gulf ports were roughly the same in FY 2012
as they were in FY 2000.
75
Destinations of Cargo Transiting the Panama Canal from U.S. Gulf Ports
(Long Tons), FY 2000-FY 2012
70,000
Long Tons of Cargo (in Thousands)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
South America
Central America
West Coast Canada
Oceania
FY 2012
FY 2011
FY 2010
FY 2009
FY 2008
FY 2007
FY 2006
FY 2005
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
FY 2000
Asia
FY 2001
0
United States
Source: Panama Canal Authority, 2013.
The trends for goods imported into Gulf ports through the Panama Canal are also
interesting. Noticeably, the overall volume of trade peaked during FY 2006, which was likely
a result of the housing bubble. However, once the bubble burst, historic trade patterns reestablished themselves so that in FY 2012, the total tonnage of goods imported into the
U.S. Gulf through the Panama Canal was roughly the same as it was during FY 2000.
Throughout this period, Asian countries were the primary source of imports for Gulf ports,
followed by the western coast of South America. Unlike exports, Central America and Mexico
did not contribute a major share of the import commodities transiting the Panama Canal. It
is also important to note that these data do not show a historic trend towards increasing
cargo volumes with Asia through the canal, despite a greater interest in all-water services to
the Atlantic Coast ports during this same period. This would imply that the Panama Canal’s
added capacity will not lead to a significant and immediate increase in import volumes. On
the other hand, within these aggregate trends, individual ports have seen significant
changes. The Port of Houston, for example, had virtually no direct all water cargo to and
from Asia, before 2000. During 2013, the volume of containerized trade on the corridor was
approximately 300,000 TEUs. The Port of Houston expects this trade volume to grow further
once the Panama Canal expansion is complete. However, the impacts of the Panama Canal
expansion are not expected to be uniform. A few ports will likely experience noticeable
increases in related cargo tonnage but many are likely to see little or no impact. Other
factors that could affect the future flow of trade are the pricing of rail transportation from
Pacific Coast ports, congestion within the Pacific Coast ports, and transit tolls charged by the
76
Panama Canal Authority. Its current toll rates are already causing some carriers to shift to
the Suez Canal to remain profitable.
Tonnage of Cargo Transiting the Panama Canal and Destined for U.S. Gulf Ports (Long
Tons), FY 2000-FY 2012
30,000 Asia South America Central America Oceania United States FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2007 0 FY 2006 5,000 FY 2005 10,000 FY 2004 15,000 FY 2003 20,000 FY 2002 25,000 FY 2001 FY 2000 Long Tons of Cargo (in Thousands) Canada Source: Panama Canal Authority, 2013.
Intermodal Containers
During 2011, Texas ports handled more than two-thirds of the loaded twenty-foot equivalent
units (TEUs) in the Gulf of Mexico. The Houston, Texas Customs Port, which contains the
Port of Houston’s container terminals, handled almost 1.42 million loaded TEUs or 65.55
percent of the U.S. Gulf market. The next largest volume of containers was handled in the
New Orleans custom district (307,121 TEUs or 14.19 percent, overall), followed by the
customs districts of Gulfport, Mississippi (182,865 TEUs, 8.45 percent) and Mobile,
Alabama (107,939 TEUs, 4.99 percent). Texas’s other customs districts with container
ports were Freeport, which handled 51,533 (2.38 percent) during 2011 and Galveston,
which handled 13,955 TEUs or 0.65 percent of the U.S. Gulf ports’ market share.
77
Volume of Intermodal Containers (TEUs) Handled at U.S. Gulf of Mexico Ports
Rank
Port District
1
2
Houston, TX
New Orleans, LA
3
Gulfport, MS
4
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2011
Share
1,416,745
258,018
1,374,437
241,932
1,255,153
230,439
1,346,309
280,998
1,418,419
307,121
65.55%
14.19%
171,857
172,604
158,634
181,335
182,865
8.45%
Mobile, AL
68,379
75,310
87,546
82,629
107,939
4.99%
5
Freeport, TX
59,837
56,201
57,689
57,230
51,533
2.38%
6
Panama City, FL
42,382
37,448
31,141
29,023
33,984
1.57%
7
Tampa, FL
26,686
31,080
38,706
31,122
25,836
1.19%
8
Galveston, TX
6,228
7,718
8,542
10,922
13,995
0.65%
Source: U.S. Maritime Administration, 2013.
Given that Texas is already the primary origin and destination for containerships in the Gulf
of Mexico, it is generally expected that the Panama Canal expansion will have a positive
overall impact on intermodal container volumes at Texas ports. However, most industry
experts see it as unlikely that the largest containerships (say 12,000 to 13,000 TEU
containerships) would immediately call upon the U.S. Gulf Coast. On the other hand, it is
likely that ships in the 8,000 to 10,000 TEU range will traverse the canal and call on the
Port of Houston. In fact, some ships in the 6,000 to 8,000 TEU range already call on the
port. Although these vessels would require a 50-foot draft, if they were fully loaded, when
they call on the Port of Houston, they are lighter (i.e. not utilizing the entire TEU capacity of
the ship) and the vessel can be safely navigated within a 45-foot channel. It is unlikely that
the largest ships that can traverse the canal will call on Texas ports because it is less
economical to operate them partially loaded. But, even if the infrastructure was in place,
industry experts believe the population of the Port of Houston’s hinterlands are simply too
small to justify a call. On the other hand, if there was frequent and seamless intermodal rail
connectivity between the Port of Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth region, some industry
experts believe the Port of Houston might reach the critical threshold to encourage the
largest containerships to call. Another concurrent trend is the likely development of one or
more transhipment centers in the Caribbean Sea, once the Panama Canal expansion is
complete. Much akin to a hub-and-spoke system for passenger air carriers, the
transhipment centers would receive the largest containerships, offload their boxes, and then
transfer the containers to smaller vessels that would call upon U.S. ports. Not every
container would go through a transhipment center, since there will continue to be timesensitive cargoes that will need direct service, but some unknown share of containers is
likely to be transported within this new system, which will lower operating costs for carriers
but increase transit times for shippers.
78
Agricultural Products
Over the long-term, the Panama Canal expansion is expected to have a positive impact on
Texas’s agricultural exports. The expanded canal is expected to lower trans-Pacific
transportation costs, due to carriers using larger bulk ships for carrying agricultural
commodities to Asia. These lower costs will make Texas’s agricultural producers more likely
to remain competitive with lower-cost nations like Argentina and Brazil. However, it is not
anticipated that the canal expansion will sufficiently lower the price of Texas’s agricultural
commodities so that lower-cost producers in other areas of the world will be unable to
compete in Asian markets. As global population and income levels grow, the demand for
agricultural products will increase and the Panama Canal will provide Texas producers with a
cost-effective corridor for reaching these consumers. It is also possible with the Panama
Canal expansion and service by larger dry bulk ships that some agricultural commodities
being directed to Pacific Coast for export will be redirected to closer Gulf Coast ports. This
redirection of trade would also create positive and visible benefits to Texas ports.
Liquefied Natural Gas
The Panama Canal Expansion is expected to offer new opportunities for the export of natural
gas produced in the United States and many in the maritime industry expect that LNG will
become a major commodity transiting the canal. At present, only 8.8 percent of the world’s
fleet of LNG carriers are capable of transiting the canal, due to dimensional limitations, but
this figure will increase to approximately 88 percent of the fleet after the expansion.
However, the canal is not the only constraint to LNG exports. Another significant constraint
is the lack of liquefaction facilities needed to chill natural gas to a liquid for export. At
present, there is only one approved LNG export terminal (Sabine Pass) in the U.S. Gulf,
which is currently (2014) under construction and located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana (near
the Texas border). According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), four new
LNG export terminals have been proposed in Texas. Locations in Freeport, Corpus Christi,
Lavaca Bay, and Sabine Pass may all see new LNG liquefaction plants cable of preparing
natural gas for export to foreign markets. There are also potential liquefaction sites in
Brownsville and Ingleside, as of March, 2014. Another significant constraint that must be
confronted is the legal limitations to exporting petroleum products, which requires special
permits or future amendments to existing laws.
Despite the current constraints on LNG exports, the extraordinary profit potential for LNG
exporters suggests that appropriate pressure will be placed upon lawmakers and regulators
to allow it to happen. The table below shows the landed price of LNG around the world
against the price in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The landed price of LNG in Asia and Latin
America was roughly five times higher than in the United States during November 2013 and
the landed price in Europe was roughly three times higher.
79
Landed Price of LNG at Select Locations around the World, November 2013
Location
Price ($US/MMBtu)
Lake Charles, LA - USA
Altamira, Mexico
$3.15
$16.40
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
$14.65
Bahia Blanca, Argentina
$15.65
Korea
$15.65
China
$15.65
Japan
$15.25
United Kingdom
$10.66
Belgium
$10.40
Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2014.
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES AND WILDCARDS
The current optimism in the Texas port industry is expected to be affirmed over the near- to
medium-term. Although the U.S. economy is growing once again, its performance is likely to
continue lagging behind historic trends. However, Texas’s economy, driven by its population
growth, entrepreneurial environment, and the coinciding boon in the petroleum industry, is
expected to fare well. The continued exploration and production of shale gas and crude oil
will support the state’s economy directly and indirectly, by encouraging manufacturers who
use natural gas for energy and as a feedstock to locate or expand here. However, like every
energy boon before it, the current level of activity will eventually come to an end and the
state’s economic activity that is based upon energy production will contract as a result.
However, in the meantime, there have been very significant investments by the
petrochemical industry that total in the billions of dollars, particularly along the Houston Ship
Channel. These investments, which will produce plastic resins for manufacturers around the
world, are expected to produce long-term jobs and wealth, even if there are downward
pressures on oil prices. In addition to creating employment at the petrochemical plants,
these new resins will generate a large volume of containerized export cargo that must be
drayed to the Port of Houston and placed upon outgoing vessels. These activities will create
additional jobs in the Houston region and drive the demand for containership capacity.
The most likely outcome of the Panama Canal Expansion on Texas ports is that trade will
grow to coincide with population and economic growth. Additionally, coinciding events, such
as the investment in petrochemical manufacturing along the Houston Ship Channel that was
triggered by the shale gas boon in the United States, will create new cargoes that will transit
the canal and that will take advantage of its expanded capacity. Additionally, LNG exports
offer an example of the canal expansion providing an opportunity to open new export
markets for a commodity that does not currently have adequate transportation
infrastructure to effectively compete. The opportunity for significantly increasing the volume
80
of intermodal containers due to shifting trade routes is less certain, since there are multiple
routes for containerized goods from Asia to reach the Texas market and many carriers will
likely implement hub-and-spoke systems, which will allow the largest vessels to avoid the
Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports, where they may find it more difficult to operate profitably.
However, some cargoes will be more time-sensitive and will travel on the larger
containerships, and these vessels might call on a Texas port (most likely the Port of
Houston). After the Panama Canal’s expansion is complete, larger vessels calling on Texas
ports will not be limited to just containerships. It is expected that bulk carriers will also
begin using larger ships, which may result in equal or greater volumes of cargoes moving
through Texas ports but with fewer ship calls. Regardless of the type of ship used, larger
ships will likely require Texas ports to make some improvements to port infrastructure and
channels to remain competitive.
Even as shippers and carriers attempt to plan for and take advantage of the Panama Canal
expansion, there are various countervailing trends that work against it as a corridor. For
example, the rerouting of cargo away from Pacific Coast ports to Gulf Coast ports assumes
that the railroads (namely Union Pacific Railroad and the BNSF Railroad) will not alter their
rates to be competitive with the expanded Panama Canal. It is widely understood that the
railroads are not currently operating at their lowest possible price. Instead, the railroads will
likely lower costs to compete against all-water services. On the other hand, long-distance
trucking, will likely be impacted by new “Hours of Service” rules, which will increase the
costs of bringing cargoes to Texas from Pacific Coast ports by truck. At the same time, the
ocean carriers will likely struggle with the problem of overcapacity, due to their past
purchases of large vessels, which could lower shipping costs but also create financial
instability within the carrier industry.
Many of the factors that make it difficult to predict the impacts of the Panama Canal’s
expansion are events that are not anticipated. One recent example is an unexpected delay
in the expansion project, due to contractor underbidding. During early 2014, the contractor
briefly left the work site until a compromise was reached on additional compensation.
These construction delays have extended the project by roughly a year and the
consequences will likely have a much further reach than just the Panama Canal Authority.
Any private-sector firm or public port that has invested in infrastructure or equipment related
to the Panama Canal’s expansion is at risk of paying a penalty, if they are forced to carry
additional capacity they cannot use until the expanded canal opens. Other examples of
unpredictable factors are the risk of drought in the United States, which affects agricultural
output, and variability in the price of natural gas. Either of these events could affect the
westbound flow of goods through the canal and both of them are highly relevant to Texas.
Even remote geopolitical events like the crisis in Ukraine could affect the canal and Texas’s
economy, if the U.S. government adopts policies to route LNG exports to Europe to counter
Russia’s influence over the region, instead of to other markets with higher prices.
81
Ultimately, the flow of cargoes will follow where the vessels can go and this simple fact
underscores the necessity for Texas ports to maintain adequate channel depth and
sufficient port infrastructure to meet current and future market demand,
SOURCES
Blackmon, D. (2013, March 13). “The blessing that is the Eagle Ford Shale.” Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/03/13/the-blessing-that-is-theeagle-ford-shale/
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2014. LNG.
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng.asp.
Gilmer, R. W. and Hopper, T. K. (2001). “Houston business: A perspective on the Houston
economy.” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Houston Branch. Houston, TX.
Jordan, A. (2013, Third Quarter). “Along Texas Gulf, exports pick up as oil imports decline.”
Southwest Economy. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Dallas, TX.
Murtaugh, D. (2014, April 10). “Eagle Ford’s exports spur boom at Port of Corpus Christi.”
Bloomberg.
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/eagle-ford-s-exports-spur-boomat-port-of-corpus-christi.html
Panama Canal Authority. 2001-2013. Transit Statistics. http://www.pancanal.com/eng/op/transitstats/index.html
Phillips, K. R. and Slijk, C. (2014, October). “Texas to remain a top state for job growth in
2014.” Southwest Economy. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Potter, L. B. and Hoque, N. (2013, January). “Texas population projections: 2010-2050.”
Office of the State
Snyder, M. (2008, December 3). “Census: U.S. citizens, not immigrants, lead Texas growth.”
Houston Chronicle. http://www.chron.com/news/article/Census-U-S-citizens-notimmigrants-lead-Texas-1777850.php
Texas Railroad Commission. 2014. Production Data. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oilgas/research-and-statistics/production-data/.
82
Thompson, D. (2010, July 31). “How Texas is dominating the recession.” The Atlantic: Cities.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/how-texas-is-dominating- therecession/60721/
U.S. Census Bureau – Foreign Trade Division. 2014. USA Trade Online.
https://usatrade.census.gov/.
U.S. Maritime Administration – U.S. Department of Transportation. 2013. U.S. Waterborne
Foreign Container Trade by U.S. Customs Ports.
http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/data_and_statistics/Data_and_Stat
istics.htm.
Wright, B. “World trade makes Texas a global player.” The Texas Economy. Texas
Comptroller of Public Accounts. Austin, TX. http://thetexaseconomy.org/businessindustry/trade-logistics/articles/article.php?name=texas-world-trade
Young, M. E. (2013, December 30). “Texas population increase leads U.S. in latest
estimates. The Dallas Morning News. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/localnews/20131230-texas-population-increase-leads-u.s.-in-latest-estimates.ece
83
APPENDIX B
UNDERSTANDING TEXAS’S MARITIME TRADE
84
INTRODUCTION
It is well known that Texas is the United States largest exporter of goods by value and,
perhaps less well known, Texas is also the United States second largest importer. As a
result, Texas’s public ports and private terminals play a critical role in the state’s and
nation’s economy. This chapter will provide a better understanding of this role by analyzing
trade patterns using data collected from U.S. Customs records and reported by the USACE.
Specifically, this chapter will provide an overview of maritime trade flows between Texas and
other domestic and foreign trading partners, based upon data from the USACE’s Waterborne
Commerce of the United States statistics. Since the USACE data does not distinguish
individual port authorities or private terminals, the data will be aggregated and reported at
the state level.
A NATIONAL LEADER IN MARITIME TRADE
Texas is among the nation’s leading states in maritime trade, handling 15.8 percent of total
U.S. cargo between 2007 and 2011. This volume ranked Texas second nationally and only
slightly behind Louisiana, which handled 15.9 percent of total U.S. maritime tonnage. In
terms of the actual weight, Texas’s ports and private terminals handled 2.39 billion tons of
maritime cargo, compared to Louisiana’s 2.41 billion tons. Texas maritime trade was more
than twice the volume of third-ranked California, which handled 1.09 billion tons between
2007 and 2011.
Total Maritime Tonnage Handled by State (Short Tons), 2007-2011
Rank
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
2
Louisiana
Texas
2,412,161,000
2,392,392,000
15.91%
15.78%
3
California
1,091,900,000
7.20%
4
New Jersey
757,849,000
5.00%
5
Washington
581,146,000
3.83%
6
Illinois
573,302,000
3.78%
7
Florida
531,258,000
3.50%
8
Ohio
500,983,000
3.30%
9
Pennsylvania
467,624,000
3.08%
Kentucky
464,756,000
3.06%
Subtotal Top Ten
9,773,371,000
64.45%
TOTAL TONNAGE
15,164,978,000
100.00%
10
Commodity Name
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014,
Texas ranked second among all U.S. states for tonnage shipped to foreign destinations
between 2007 and 2011, with 532.0 million tons handled or 20.1 percent of the total
tonnage shipped. Louisiana, which handles a large share of the nation’s agriculture exports,
85
ranked first overall with 579.7 million tons or almost 22.0 percent of the national total. For
cargo shipped to a domestic destination Texas ranked fifth in the nation, at 179.8 million
tons or approximately 5.6 percent of the national total. Louisiana was again ranked first
with 579.7 million tons or 21.9 percent of total volume shipped. Following Louisiana, for
total domestic tonnage shipped, were Illinois (13.0 percent), Kentucky (7.5 percent), and
West Virginia (6.5 percent).
Total Tonnage of Maritime Cargo Shipped (Short Tons), 2007-2011
FOREIGN CARGO SHIPPED
Rank
1
Commodity Name
Louisiana
Total Tonnage
579,684,000
Share of Total
21.86%
2
Texas
532,025,000
20.06%
3
California
295,079,000
11.13%
4
Washington
247,191,000
9.32%
5
Virginia
214,001,000
8.07%
6
New Jersey
91,897,000
3.47%
7
Florida
88,833,000
3.35%
8
Maryland
79,199,000
2.99%
9
Georgia
78,439,000
2.96%
10
Oregon
77,095,000
2.91%
TONNAGE TOP TEN
2,283,443,000
86.12%
TOTAL TONNAGE
2,651,871,000
100.00%
DOMESTIC CARGO SHIPPED
Rank
Commodity Name
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
Louisiana
449,149,000
13.99%
2
Illinois
418,598,000
13.04%
3
Kentucky
241,961,000
7.53%
4
West Virginia
210,152,000
6.54%
5
Texas
179,827,000
5.60%
6
Alaska
171,724,000
5.35%
7
New Jersey
163,697,000
5.10%
8
Minnesota
134,916,000
4.20%
9
Wisconsin
103,593,000
3.23%
10
Michigan
102,412,000
3.19%
Tonnage Top Ten
2,176,029,000
67.77%
TOTAL TONNAGE
3,211,280
100.00%
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014,
86
Texas’s ports and terminals led the nation for the tonnage of foreign cargo received between
2007 and 2011, at 1.25 billion tons. This volume accounted for more than one-quarter
(26.7 percent) of the total foreign tonnage handled in the United States. Texas received
more than twice the foreign tonnage of California (605.5 million tons) and roughly 2.5 times
the volume of foreign cargo received at Louisiana’s ports. Texas’s share of domestic cargo
received was lower, however, roughly one-tenth (124.9 million tons) of its received foreign
cargo volume. The state ranked eighth overall with Louisiana ranked first with 625.7 million
tons.
Total Tonnage of Maritime Cargo Received (Short Tons), 2007-2011
FOREIGN CARGO RECEIVED
Rank
1
Total Tonnage
1,249,868,000
Share of Total
26.68%
2
California
605,535,000
12.92%
3
Louisiana
531,970,000
11.35%
4
New Jersey
358,771,000
7.66%
5
Other
263,447,000
5.62%
6
Pennsylvania
177,945,000
3.80%
7
Florida
164,906,000
3.52%
8
Washington
113,674,000
2.43%
9
New York
107,068,000
2.29%
10
Mississippi
106,715,000
2.28%
SUBTOTAL
3,679,899,000
78.55%
TOTAL TONNAGE
4,685,499,000
100.00%
DOMESTIC CARGO RECEIVED
Rank
Origin
87
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
Louisiana
625,598
19.48%
2
Ohio
284,849
8.87%
3
Florida
231,873
7.22%
4
Indiana
228,886
7.13%
5
Tennessee
152,979
4.76%
6
Pennsylvania
141,344
4.40%
7
Kentucky
130,306
4.06%
8
Texas
124,945
3.89%
9
Washington
113,879
3.55%
10
Michigan
103,356
3.22%
SUBTOTAL
2,138,015
66.58%
TOTAL TONNAGE
3,211,280
100.00%
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014,
Origin
Texas
An important aspect of Texas’s maritime trade is the volume of its intrastate movements.
Texas leads the nation in the total volume of intrastate maritime cargo handled at 305.7
million tons between 2007 and 2011. This high volume of intrastate trade (as well as
maritime trade shipped to and received from other states) is significant because every ton of
cargo handled on Texas’s waterways reduces or eliminates the need to utilize the state’s
road, rail, or pipeline networks. As a result, Texas’s coastwise maritime trade plays a key
role in managing congestion and reduces the need to build new transportation
infrastructure. Additionally, many of the cargoes moved on water are hazardous materials
and maritime vessels provide the safest mode of transportation.
Total Intrastate Maritime Tonnage Handled by State (Short Tons), 2007-2011
Rank
U.S. State
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
Texas
305,726,000
21.76%
2
Louisiana
225,760,000
16.07%
3
Kentucky
92,489,000
6.58%
4
Alabama
71,886,000
5.12%
5
California
66,598,000
4.74%
6
Pennsylvania
59,631,000
4.24%
7
Illinois
58,532,000
4.17%
8
West Virginia
55,264,000
3.93%
9
Michigan
50,298,000
3.58%
10
Washington
48,847,000
3.48%
1,035,031,000
73.67%
1,405,050,000
100.00%
TOTAL TONNAGE
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014,
Texas’s Foreign Maritime Trade
Texas’s maritime exports between 2007 and 2011 totalled 533.4 million tons. 7 The top ten
export markets received just over half (50.3 percent) of those goods or 268.3 million tons.
Mexico was Texas’s most important maritime export trading partner, receiving 87.2 million
tons during this period or 16.4 percent of the total tonnage handled. Brazil was the second
largest trading partner with 38.3 million tons and the Netherlands ranked third with 30.2
million tons. The remaining countries of the top ten were dispersed around the world in
Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa.
7
The total volumes of export and import trade reported in the first four tables of this appendix are slightly higher than
the values reported in the remaining tables. Both sets of tables are based upon the same data source from the
USACE, but the USACE reports the data differently between the two products, which accounts for the discrepancies.
88
Texas’s Total Maritime Export Trade by Trading Partner (Short Tons), 2007-2011
Rank
Destination
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
2
Mexico
Brazil
87,209,552
38,268,632
16.35%
7.18%
3
Netherlands
30,208,748
5.66%
4
China
18,377,399
3.45%
5
Nigeria
17,874,918
3.35%
6
Colombia
16,174,017
3.03%
7
Spain
15,798,258
2.96%
8
Italy
15,556,994
2.92%
9
Chile
14,690,074
2.75%
10
Panama
14,200,562
2.66%
Subtotal Top Ten
268,359,154
50.31%
Grand Total
533,334,209
100.00%
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014.
The next table shows which countries are Texas’s primary sources of maritime imports,
which are less diversified than the recipients the state’s exports. The top ten countries that
shipped Texas’s imports sent over 900 million tons of cargo or almost 72.0 percent of the
total 1.2 billion tons of foreign import cargo handled at Texas ports between 2007 and
2011. Mexico is Texas’s largest exporter with 249.5 million tons of cargo imported between
2007 and 2011. Overall, Mexico accounted for almost one-fifth of all of Texas’s maritime
imports. The “unknown” category ranked second with 207.6 million tons of cargo. This
category includes cargoes that originated on the high seas. While it is not intuitive that a
large volume of cargo handled at Texas ports would originate on the high seas, port calls by
lightering tankers are a common occurrence. 8 Given that 94.5 percent of the cargo in this
category is crude oil and that 93.9 percent of that cargo was handled on the high seas of the
Gulf of Mexico, this is a plausible explanation of the data. Venezuela was the third largest
exporter to Texas ports, sending 175.1 million tons of cargo, which accounted for almost
14.0 percent of Texas’s total maritime imports. Among the top ten exporters to Texas
between 2007 and 2011, crude oil accounted for the majority of their exports to the state
(in terms of tonnage), with the exception of Brazil and Trinidad. Overall, imports of crude oil
accounted for 85.6 percent of the imports from Texas’s top ten exporters between 2007
and 2011. When all maritime imports from all nations are accounted, crude oil was 71.8
percent of the total volume of imports. Fortunately for Texas highways, the vast majority the
state’s petroleum cargo is handled by Texas’s maritime and pipeline networks, until the final
8
89
Lightering tankers are the vessels that off-load crude oil from the very large crude carriers (VLCC) that bring their cargo
to Texas from around the world. Because the channel drafts at Texas ports cannot accommodate large oil tankers,
the cargoes are off-loaded onto smaller tankers in deep water and then brought to shore.
product is distributed by truck. In fact, a significant share never goes inland from the Texas
Coast, either as a raw material or a finished product.
Texas’s Total Maritime Import Trade by Trading Partner (Short Tons), 2007-2011
Rank
Origin
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
Percent Crude Oil
1
2
Mexico
Unknown
249,524,141
207,658,628
19.93%
16.59%
86.82%
94.49%
3
Venezuela
175,145,628
13.99%
93.05%
4
Saudi Arabia
60,068,774
4.80%
94.92%
5
Algeria
48,267,257
3.86%
80.78%
6
Nigeria
42,592,239
3.40%
91.55%
7
Colombia
36,896,675
2.95%
86.45%
8
Brazil
33,310,055
2.66%
30.74%
9
Trinidad
26,333,340
2.10%
26.52%
10
Russia
21,385,508
1.71%
53.68%
901,182,245
71.98%
85.60%
1,252,044,991
100.00%
71.76%
Subtotal Top Ten
Grand Total
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014.
Texas’s Domestic Maritime Trade
Despite the large volume of ship and barge traffic along the Texas Coast, it is somewhat
surprising that less than 20 percent of the trade originating from Texas had a destination in
another U.S. state between 2007 and 2011. More than one-half (51.5 percent) of goods
shipped from Texas ports had a foreign destination and approximately 30 percent of
shipped goods were destined to ports within Texas. Among U.S. states, Louisiana and
Florida were the most frequent destinations of cargoes shipped from Texas, receiving 6.9
percent and 5.4 percent of shipped goods, respectively. Alabama received just over 1
percent of goods shipped from Texas and all other U.S. states and territories have less than
1 percent of the total market share.
90
Destinations of Cargoes Handled at Texas Ports, 2007-2011
Rank
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
2
Foreign
Texas
523,898,621
305,726,286
51.48%
30.04%
3
Louisiana
69,766,186
6.86%
4
Florida
55,150,710
5.42%
5
Alabama
10,324,342
1.01%
6
Canada
8,126,513
0.80%
7
Illinois
5,373,414
0.53%
8
Indiana
4,467,480
0.44%
9
South Carolina
3,847,010
0.38%
Arkansas
3,098,605
0.30%
Subtotal Top Ten
989,779,167
97.27%
TOTAL TONNAGE
1,017,578,442
100.00%
10
Note: Canada is the only country identified separately in this database.
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014,
The origin of goods received at Texas ports had an even smaller contribution from other U.S.
states. Almost three-quarters of cargo received at Texas ports had a foreign origin. Goods
originating from other Texas ports accounted for 18.2 percent of the total volume of cargo
received. Louisiana was Texas’s largest domestic trading partner with 81.1 million tons or
4.8 percent of the total tonnage received between 2007 and 2011. Texas ports next largest
domestic trading partner was Alabama with 0.46 percent 7.7 million tons, behind Canada’s
9.2 million tons.
Destination
91
Origins of Cargoes Handled at Texas Ports, 2007-2011
Rank
Commodity Name
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1,240,694,330
305,726,286
73.83%
18.19%
81,051,176
4.82%
1
2
Foreign
Texas
3
Louisiana
4
Canada
9,173,482
0.55%
5
Alabama
7,724,727
0.46%
6
Mississippi
7,424,252
0.44%
7
Virgin Islands
6,319,537
0.38%
8
Illinois
4,819,165
0.29%
9
Missouri
2,571,568
0.15%
10
Kentucky
2,228,563
0.13%
Subtotal Top Ten
1,667,733,086
99.24%
TOTAL TONNAGE
1,680,539,420
100.00%
Note: Canada is the only country identified separately in this database.
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014,
Trade by Commodity
More than 1.0 billion tons of goods originated from Texas ports and private terminals
between 2007 and 2011 but there was relatively little diversity in these commodities. More
than one-half of the total tonnage shipped from Texas ports during this period (or
approximately 570.9 million tons) was petroleum products (such as gasoline, diesel,
lubricants, etc.). Chemicals (but not fertilizers) were the second largest commodity group
with 251.8 million tons (24.8 percent of the total). Food and food products were the third
largest commodity shipped at 90.5 million tons or 8.9 percent of all goods. Collectively,
these top three goods accounted for almost 90 percent of all maritime goods shipped from
Texas.
92
Total Tonnage of Maritime Goods Originating from Texas, 2007-2011
Rank
Commodity Name
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
2
Petroleum products
Chemicals, excluding fertilizers
570,932,642
251,823,720
56.11%
24.75%
3
Food and food products
90,509,300
8.89%
4
Crude petroleum
29,296,075
2.88%
5
Unknown or not elsewhere classified products
16,086,390
1.58%
6
Manufactured goods
15,721,764
1.55%
7
Sand, gravel, shells, clay, salt, and slag
9,559,562
0.94%
8
Non-ferrous ores and scrap
9,206,504
0.90%
9
Primary metal products
7,873,641
0.77%
10
Iron ore, iron, and steel waste and scrap
7,671,319
0.75%
11
Chemical fertilizers
4,505,661
0.44%
12
Primary non-metal products
2,427,600
0.24%
13
Coal, lignite, and coal coke
1,281,663
0.13%
14
Lumber, logs, wood chips, and pulp
682,601
0.07%
1,017,578,442
100.00%
TOTAL TONNAGE
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014
The volume of maritime goods received by Texas’s ports and private terminals was 65
percent larger than the volume that was shipped out. More than 900 million tons of crude
oil was shipped to Texas, as was 425.6 million tons of petroleum products. The third largest
category was chemicals, excluding fertilizers, which accounted for almost 8.8 percent of the
incoming goods handled. Together, these three commodities accounted for approximately
88.4 percent of the maritime goods received at Texas’s ports and private terminals. It is
important to note that while Texas receives more goods than it ships, which implies a state
trade imbalance, much of this tonnage enters into the petroleum refining process and are
rendered into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other petroleum products that are sold
domestically and internationally. 9 The refining process is a value-added activity that
generates wealth for Texas, which is only possible due to imports of feedstock. Similarly,
chemicals are also imported to use in the production of more sophisticated chemicals or
products, which are then exported. In short, the importing of goods into Texas ports is
critical to the state’s economy and provides the necessary inputs for its value added
activities that generate wealth for the state rather than reducing it.
9
93
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, one barrel of crude oil (42 gallons) makes 19 gallons of gasoline,
11 gallons of diesel, 4 gallons of jet fuel, 2 gallons of liquefied petroleum gas, and 9 gallons of other products. The sum
of products exceeds the input of oil because other inputs are added during the refining process.
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_refining
Total Tonnage of Maritime Goods Destined to Texas, 2007-2011
Rank
Commodity Name
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
2
Crude Petroleum
Petroleum Products
911,031,261
425,623,890
54.21%
25.33%
3
Chemicals excluding Fertilizers
148,828,955
8.86%
4
Primary Metal Products
44,954,790
2.68%
5
Non-Ferrous Ores and Scrap
42,374,530
2.52%
6
Sand, Gravel, Shells, Clay, Salt, and Slag
35,324,652
2.10%
7
Unknown and Not Elsewhere Classified Products
21,078,920
1.25%
8
Primary Non-Metal Products
14,323,212
0.85%
9
Manufactured Goods
13,057,488
0.78%
10
Food and Food Products
12,985,850
0.77%
11
Chemical Fertilizers
6,608,981
0.39%
12
Lumber, Logs, Wood Chips, and Pulp
2,799,121
0.17%
13
Iron Ore, Iron, and Steel Waste and Scrap
1,072,879
0.06%
14
Coal, Lignite, and Coal Coke
474,891
0.03%
1,680,539,420
100.00%
TOTAL TONNAGE
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014,
TEXAS’S MARITIME TRADE WITH MEXICO
While it is common knowledge that Mexico is Texas’s largest trading partner, the importance
of this relationship extends beyond surface trade (i.e. truck and rail shipments) along the
Texas-Mexico border. Mexico was also Texas’s most important maritime trading partner
between 2007 and 2011. There are 40 commercial cargo ports in Mexico along the Gulf of
Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Ocean. More than half of Mexico’s ports handled
cargo with an origin or destination in Texas between 2007 and 2011, although the vast
majority of the cargo was handled at a small number of ports. This section will provide a
brief overview of maritime cargo flows between Texas and Mexico.
Origins and Destinations of Texas’s Export Trade with Mexico
Between 2007 and 2011, 87.2 million tons of maritime cargo was exported to Mexico. The
ten Mexican ports with the most trade accounted for 98.5 percent of the total and the top
four ports accounted for 83.5 percent. The Mexican port of Tuxpan, located in the Mexican
state of Veracruz was the recipient of the largest share of Texas’s maritime exports (30.7
percent), followed by the Port of Veracruz (20.9 percent), Pajaritos (also in the city of
Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz with 17.4 percent). Abryos, a Pacific Coast port, was the fourth
largest recipient of Texas’s exports to Mexico and received 12.6 million tons of cargo, while
two other Pacific Coast ports (Lazaro Cardenas and Manzanillo) rounded out the top 10
94
destinations for Texas’s maritime exports but collectively only accounted for 1.6 percent of
the total market.
Texas’s Total Maritime Export Trade by Mexican Port (Short Tons), 2007-2011
Rank
Mexican Port
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
2
Tuxpan
Veracruz
26,791,673
18,223,076
30.72%
20.90%
3
Pajaritos
15,202,312
17.43%
4
Abryos
12,606,441
14.46%
5
Coatzacoalcos
7,245,132
8.31%
6
Progreso
2,489,829
2.85%
7
All Other Mexico East Coast Region Ports
1,050,643
1.20%
8
Altamira
914,532
1.05%
9
Lazaro Cardenas
715,534
0.82%
10
Manzanillo
680,681
0.78%
Subtotal Top Ten
85,919,853
98.52%
Grand Total
87,209,552
100.00%
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014.
The next table shows that Texas’s exports to Mexico were highly concentrated in refined
petroleum products, chemicals, and agricultural products. The top 10 export commodities
accounted for 98.6 percent of all goods exported to Mexico. Refined fuels, such as gasoline
and jet fuel, accounted for slightly more than one-third of exports, while chemicals
accounted for more than one-fifth of exports and the combined volume of agricultural
products was 16.4 percent of the total.
95
Texas’s Maritime Exports to Mexico by Commodity, 2007-2011
Rank
Commodity Name
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
2
Gasoline, Jet Fuel, Kerosene
Other Chemicals and Related Products
29,161,978
18,565,939
33.44%
21.29%
3
Distillate, Residual & Other Fuel Oils; Lube Oil & Grease
11,394,418
13.07%
4
Petroleum Pitches, Coke, Asphalt, Naptha and Solvents
8,186,341
9.39%
5
Corn
5,737,228
6.58%
6
Barley, Rye, Oats, Rice and Sorghum Grains
4,651,671
5.33%
7
Wheat
3,927,595
4.50%
8
Petroleum Products NEC
3,026,287
3.47%
9
Other Agricultural Products; Food and Kindred Products
672,611
0.77%
10
Iron Ore and Iron & Steel Waste & Scrap
634,723
0.73%
Subtotal
85,958,791
98.57%
Total All Commodities
87,209,552
100.00%
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014,
Texas ports imported almost 250 million tons of cargo from Mexican ports between 2007
and 2011. Sixty percent of this cargo originated at the Cayo Arcas Terminal, which is an
offshore oil terminal approximately 84 miles into the Bay of Campeche. The second and
third largest origins were the Port of Pajaritos located in Coatzacoalcos and the Port of
Coatzacoalcos, which are both located in the Mexican state of Veracruz. The Port of
Cozumel Island was the origin of 15.5 million tons (6.2 percent of total tonnage) of maritime
goods from Mexico, while the Port of Dos Bocas in the Mexican state of Tabasco, exported
13.5 million tons (5.4 percent of total imports).
96
Texas’s Maritime Trade with Mexico’s Ports (Short Tons), 2007-2011
Rank
Mexican Port
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
2
Cayo Arcas
Pajaritos
149,810,805
32,108,273
60.04%
12.87%
3
Coatzacoalcos
23,716,432
9.50%
4
Cozumel Island
15,466,698
6.20%
5
Dos Bocas
13,542,712
5.43%
6
All Other Mexico East Coast Region Ports
9,446,151
3.79%
7
Altamira
1,833,484
0.73%
8
Veracruz
1,710,292
0.69%
9
Lazaro Cardenas
922,518
0.37%
10
Acapulco
222,657
0.09%
Subtotal
248,780,022
99.70%
Grand Total
249,524,141
100.00%
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014.
Almost 87 percent of Texas’s maritime imports from Mexico, between 2007 and 2011,
consisted of crude oil. The next largest commodity was sand, gravel, stone, rock, limestone
and soil, which collectively made up approximately 6.2 percent of the total volume of
imports. The third and fourth ranked maritime imports were fuels and distillates (like
diesel), which together accounted for roughly 5.0 percent of all imports. Collectively, these
four groups of commodities accounted for 98.0 percent of all goods imported from Mexico
between 2007 and 2011.
Texas’s Maritime Imports from Mexico (Short Tons), 2007-2011
Rank
Total Tonnage
Share of Total
1
2
Crude Petroleum
Sand, Gravel, Stone, Rock, Limestone, Soil, etc.
216,626,239
15,388,371
86.82%
6.17%
3
Gasoline, Jet Fuel, Kerosene
8,192,495
3.28%
4
Distillate, Residual & Other Fuel Oils; Lube Oil & Grease
4,334,951
1.74%
5
Primary Iron and Steel Products (Ingots ,Bars ,Rods ,etc.)
1,717,674
0.69%
6
Other Chemicals and Related Products
1,169,547
0.47%
7
Petroleum Pitches, Coke, Asphalt, Naptha and Solvents
1,134,301
0.45%
8
Other Agricultural Products; Food and Kindred Products
327,453
0.13%
9
Building Cement & Concrete; Lime; Glass
175,435
0.07%
10
Petroleum Products NEC
114,779
0.05%
Subtotal Top Ten
249,181,245
99.86%
Total All Commodities
249,524,141
100.00%
Source: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2014,
Texas Waterway
97
CONCLUSIONS
The review of maritime trade data provided in this chapter demonstrates the prominent role
of the state’s public ports and private terminals in the national economy. Texas’s maritime
activities have contributed greatly to the state’s wealth, economic output, employment, and
worker income. This role is especially true within the petroleum and chemical industries,
where raw and intermediate products are imported and then refined or processed into
products that are shipped to the remainder of the United States and throughout the world.
However, within the strength in these industries, there is also a strong reliance. A long-term
movement towards a more diversified commodity mix would make Texas’s maritime system
more resilient. Texas’s well-developed intrastate maritime network (i.e. its ports, ship
channels, and the GIWW) play an important role in preventing greater congestion on Texas’s
highways and the state’s rail network. Additionally, the movement of hazardous materials
on maritime vessels has created fewer safety risks to the general public. As mentioned
earlier in this report, the GIWW will be discussed in detail by a companion document that is
scheduled to be released by TxDOT in mid-2014. Finally, the trade analysis in this chapter
demonstrated that Mexico’s importance to the Texas economy extends well beyond trade
along the Texas-Mexico border. Mexico is Texas’s largest maritime trading partner for both
imports and exports, providing critical feedstock into the state’s petrochemical industry and
a market for agricultural products. As Mexico opens its petroleum industry to foreign
investment, there are prospects for an even stronger relationship between the two
economies.
SOURCES
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 2007-2011. Foreign Cargo.
http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/data/data1.htm
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 2007-2011. State to State and Region to Region Commodity
Tonnages. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/data/data1.htm
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 2007-2011. Waterborne Commerce of the United States.
http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/data/data1.htm
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 2007-2011. State Tonnages.
http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/data/data1.htm
98
APPENDIX C
PORT PROFILES
99
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Port of Orange • Orange, TX
Legal Name:
Orange County Navigation and Port District
Draft: Deep
2011 Cargo Tonnage: 94,504
(All commodity types in tons)
Annual Economic Impact: $1.9 million (in 2004)
Background
The port is located on the Sabine-Neches waterway and is linked to the “Golden
Triangle” ports which include the Port of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange – an area
that has become strategically more important to Texas ports growth since 2003. It has
handled an annual tonnage of around 800,000 since 2001 and traditionally has acted
as a successful landlord port, complementing activities at larger ports on the SabineNeches channel. It is also used for lay berthing.
Orange County
Navigation & Port District
1201 Childers Road
Orange, Texas 77632
(409) 883-4363
www.portoforange.com
Port Director
Gene Bouillion
Commissioners
Jerry Hughes
President
Jimmy Smith
Vice President
Keith Wallace
Secretary/Treasurer
John Young
Barbara Winfree
Governing Body
Port of Orange is a
navigation district and
political subdivision of
the state of Texas. The
port is governed by 5
commissioners, elected
on staggered 4-year
terms by voters in the
district.
Revised 08/2013
Assets
• The Port is the mechanical, electrical repair, and fabrication of ocean-going
•
•
•
•
barges of the type used to service deep water Gulf oil rigs
A total of 2,300 feet of docking space at a depth of 30 feet
Four (4) berths with a grain elevator and bagging facility
Eight (8) warehouses
Used by MARAD to service, repair, and maintain the military ready reserve fleet
Orange County
Navigation & Port District
1201 Childers Road
Orange, Texas 77632
(409) 883-4363
www.portoforange.com
Port Director
Gene Bouillion
Commissioners
Jerry Hughes
President
Jimmy Smith
Vice President
Keith Wallace
Secretary/Treasurer
John Young
Barbara Winfree
Governing Body
Port of Orange is a
navigation district and
political subdivision of
the state of Texas. The
port is governed by 5
commissioners, elected
on staggered 4-year
terms by voters in the
district.
Revised 08/2013
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
221 Houston Avenue
Port Arthur, Texas
(409) 983-2011
Port of Port Arthur • Port Arthur, Texas
Legal Name: Port of Port Arthur Navigation
District of Jefferson County, Texas
Draft: Deep
US Port Ranking: 14th in total tonnage (U.S. Customs Port Ranking)
1,183
2011 Total Tonnage: 30.3 tons¹
Vessel Calls (annual)
including barge/tug calls
www.portofportarthur.com
Executive Port Director
Floyd Gaspard
Secretary/Treasurer of the
Board
Commissioners
Linda Turner Spears
President
John Comeaux
Vice President
Morris Albright
Raymond Johnson
Annual Economic Impact: $128.0 (in millions)
Of that, $11.1 million went to state and local taxes and $31.6 million went to custom
receipts
Top Commodities
Imports
Exports
Steel Slabs
Forest Products
Forest Products
Petroleum Coke
Project Cargo
Steel Pipe
Misc. Steel
Project Cargo
Jobs
Jobs
Total
Direct
1,509
Induced
1,132
Indirect
192
Related
3,093
1. www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_57.html
Mark Underhill
Governing Body
Port of Port Arthur is a
political subdivision of the
state of Texas. A Port
Commission composed of
five at-large elected
commissioners governs the
Port.
PORT PROFILE
Port of Port Arthur • Port Arthur, TX
The Port of Port Arthur is situated directly on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
and only 19 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. Port Arthur’s strategic location on the GIWW
provides easy barge transportation on the U.S. inland waterway system to cities along
the Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, and Tennessee, Missouri and Illinois Rivers plus its
many tributaries. Panamex size vessels began taking advantage of the ports new 2000
terminal expansion for lay berthing. Port Arthur has emerged as a major break-bulk port
for forest products, project cargo, steel and military redeployments. Port Arthur’s
principal trading partners include South America, the European Continent, United
Kingdom, Mediterranean Area, Middle East and Mexico.
Assets
•
•
•
•
Two Class 1 Rail lines – Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific
Contains 3,104 feet of docks
48,000 square meters of shed storage and over 68,000 square meters of open
asphalt-paved storage
The Port is served by three wharf rail tracks with 150-car capacity, two shed tracks
with 80-car capacity and six storage yard tracks with 140-car capacity
221 Houston Avenue
Port Arthur, Texas
(409) 983-2011
www.portofportarthur.com
Executive Port Director
Floyd Gaspard
Secretary/Treasurer of the
Board
Commissioners
Linda Turner Spears
President
John Comeaux
Vice President
Morris Albright
Raymond Johnson
Mark Underhill
Governing Body
Port of Port Arthur is a
political subdivision of the
state of Texas. A Port
Commission composed of
five at-large elected
commissioners governs the
Port.
Connectivity
•
•
•
Direct access to interstate highway system
Rail and truck service to all points within the United States, Canada and
Mexico.
Barge service to cities along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the
Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio and Tennessee River Systems.
1. www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_57.html
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
1225 Main Street
Beaumont, TX 77704
(409) 835-5367
Port of Beaumont • Beaumont, Texas
Legal Name: Port of Beaumont Navigation District
Of Jefferson County, Texas
Draft: Deep
US Port Ranking: 7th in total tonnage (U.S. Customs Port Ranking)
Short Tonnage (Millions)
0
20
40
60
www.portofbeaumont.com
Port Director & CEO
David C. Fisher
Commissioners
C.A. “Pete” Sheldon
President At-Large
400
Foreign
Trade (46.7) Domestic
Trade (22.6)
Vessel Calls (annual) including barge/tug calls
Total Trade: 69,483,539 short tons
Annual Economic Impact: $122.2 million
$11.6 million in state and local taxes and $23.3 million in federal taxes
Top Commodities
Imports
Exports
Forest Products
Bulk Grain
Steel
Forest Products
Project Cargo
Potash
Aggregate
Project Cargo
Georgina Guillory
Secretary-Treasurer
Pat Anderson
Louis M. Broussard, Jr.
Governing Body
Port of Beaumont is a
navigation district and
political subdivision of the
state of Texas. The port is
governed by six
commissioners, elected on
staggered six-year terms by
voters in the district.
Principal Trading
Partners
Brazil, Canada, Iraq, Russia,
China, Chile, Peru, Norway
and Nigeria
Lee E. Smith
Vice President
Jobs
Revised 08/2013
Jobs
Total
Direct
970
Induced
730
Indirect
165
Related
1,865
Service Area
Midwest and Western
United States, Texas,
Mexico and Canada
PORT PROFILE
1225 Main Street
Beaumont, TX 77704
(409) 835-5367
Port of Beaumont • Beaumont, TX
The Port of Beaumont is a large cargo port located approximately 84 miles east of
Houston in Jefferson County. It is accessible from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
through the Sabine-Neches ship channel. One major advantage of the location of the
Port of Beaumont is that it is connected with the U.S. inland waterways. Using these
paths, water-transported cargo traveling through the Port of Beaumont can be
delivered to Minneapolis, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Louisville, Omaha, and
Memphis. The Port of Beaumont includes layberths for ships of the Maritime
Administration as well as various facilities to accommodate the international and U.S.
products that pass through the port.
www.portofbeaumont.com
Port Director & CEO
David C. Fisher
Commissioners
C.A. “Pete” Sheldon
President At-Large
Lee E. Smith
Vice President
Assets
 Port facilities include more than 620,000 square feet of covered storage space Georgina Guillory
alongside nine berths and more than 80 acres of open-air storage
Secretary-Treasurer
 Roll-On/Roll-Off Ramp, immediately downstream from Harbor Island Marine
Pat Anderson
Terminal
 3.5-million-bushel-capacity grain elevator and dry bulk cargo facilities
Louis M. Broussard, Jr.
 Rail-to-ship bulk transfer facility; ship loading rate: 10,000 metric tons/day
Connectivity
Governing Body
 Connected with the U.S. inland waterways
Port of Beaumont is a
 Three Class 1 railroads – BNSF, Kansas City Southern, Union Pacific
navigation district and
 Connected to five (5) highways
political subdivision of the
state of Texas. The port is
governed by six
commissioners, elected on
staggered six-year terms by
voters in the district.
Principal Trading
Partners
Brazil, Canada, Iraq, Russia,
China, Chile, Peru, Norway
and Nigeria
Service Area
Midwest and Western
United States, Texas,
Mexico and Canada
Revised 08/2013
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Port of Houston • Houston, Texas
111 East Loop North
Houston, Tx 77029
Legal Name: Port of Houston Authority
www.portofhouston.com
Draft: Deep
(713) 670-2400
US Port Ranking: 1st in U.S. in foreign waterborne tonnage and 2nd in U.S. in total
tonnage¹ (U.S. Customs Ports Ranking)
Port Executive Director
Roger Guenther
Commission Members
Foreign Trade in TEUs in Short Tonnage (Millions)²
9.2
0
13.7
10
208,000ᶾ
Import
20
Export
30
Total Trade Value: 22.9 MIL tons valued at $53.5 BIL
Barge and Vessel Calls
(annual)
Annual Statewide Economic Impact: $178.5 BIL
Direct Jobs: 53,952
|
Induced Jobs: 71,065
|
Indirect Jobs: 49,835
Top Commodities
(In ranking order)
Exports
Resins & Plastics
Chemicals & Minerals
Machinery, Appliances & Electronics
Food & Drink
Automotive
Steel & Metal
Fabrics Incl. Raw Cotton
Imports
Food & Drink
Hardware & Construction Material
Machinery, Appliances & Electronics
Steel & Metals
Chemicals & Minerals
Retail Consumer Goods
Furniture
Janiece M. Longoria
Chairman
John D. Kennedy
Dean E. Corgey
Clyde Fitzgerald
Theldon R. Branch, III
Stephen H. DonCarolos
Roy D. Mease
Governing Body
Governed by a board of
seven commissioners
and selected by
governmental entities
within Harris County, the
port commissioners set
policy and provide
guidance to the Port
Authority staff.
Commissioners serve
staggered two-year
terms.
1. Port of Houston Authority Website: http://www.portofhouston.com/about-us/overview/
2. Port of Houston Foreign Trade Containerized Cargo Statics Report, 2013, http://www.portofhouston.com/static/gen/businessdevelopment/Origination/FTS_Containerized_Cargo_2013.pdf
3. http://www.portofhouston.com/about-us/overview/
4. http://www.portofhouston.com/about-us/overview/
PORT PROFILE
Port of Houston • Houston, Texas
The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities
located just a few hours by ship from the Gulf of Mexico. The port is consistently
ranked 1st in the United States in foreign waterborne tonnage; 1st in U.S. imports; 1st in
U.S. export tonnage and 2nd in the U.S. in total tonnage. It is also the nation’s leading
breakbulk post, handling 65 percent of all major U.S. project cargo. The Port of
Houston Authority is the sponsor of the Houston Ship Channel which is 45 feet deep
and 530 feet wide.
The Port of Houston is made up of the public terminals owned, managed and leased by
the Port of Houston Authority, and the 150-plus private industrial companies along the
52-mile long Houston Ship Channel.
111 East Loop North
Houston, Tx 77029
www.portofhouston.com
(713) 670-2400
Port Executive Director
Roger Guenther
Commission Members
Janiece M. Longoria
Chairman
John D. Kennedy
Dean E. Corgey
Clyde Fitzgerald
Theldon R. Branch, III
Stephen H. DonCarolos
Roy D. Mease
Governing Body
Governed by a board of
seven commissioners
and selected by
governmental entities
within Harris County, the
port commissioners set
policy and provide
guidance to the Port
Authority staff.
Commissioners serve
staggered two-year
terms.
1. Port of Houston Authority Website: http://www.portofhouston.com/about-us/overview/
2. Port of Houston Foreign Trade Containerized Cargo Statics Report, 2013, http://www.portofhouston.com/static/gen/businessdevelopment/Origination/FTS_Containerized_Cargo_2013.pdf
3. http://www.portofhouston.com/about-us/overview/
4. http://www.portofhouston.com/about-us/overview/
Assets
•
•
Home to a $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and
second largest in the world.
Largest Texas port with 46% of market share by tonnage and 95% market
share in containers by total TEUs in 2013
Connectivity
•
•
•
•
•
The Port is located in the 4th largest city in the US.
The Port has access to numerous local and state highways as well as two major
interstate corridors.
There are 3 Class 1 Railroads
The Port is home to the most extensive port terminal railroad, the Port Terminal
Railroad Association (PTRA) that operates along the Houston Ship Channel. The
PTRA serves more than 220 customers from seven rail yards and maintains
154 miles of track and 20 bridges.
The Port is in the Gulf Coast Rail District which works to address rail congestion
in the Houston region.
Potential Improvements to Infrastructure
•
The Port is beginning work on a channel improvement project at the Port
Authority's two container terminals that will deepen the channels from 40 feet
to 45 feet, making it match the depth of the Houston Ship Channel.
o The project will also widen or realign the channels by up to 100 feet to
better accommodate larger ships.
o The Port Authority is funding the $68 million project at its sole cost to
ensure the channel improvements are available as soon as possible to
better accommodate larger container ships in preparation of the
opening of the expanded Panama Canal in 2016.
111 East Loop North
Houston, Tx 77029
www.portofhouston.com
(713) 670-2400
Port Executive Director
Roger Guenther
Commission Members
Janiece M. Longoria
Chairman
John D. Kennedy
Dean E. Corgey
Clyde Fitzgerald
Theldon R. Branch, III
Stephen H. DonCarolos
Roy D. Mease
Governing Body
Governed by a board of
seven commissioners
and selected by
governmental entities
within Harris County, the
port commissioners set
policy and provide
guidance to the Port
Authority staff.
Commissioners serve
staggered two-year
terms.
1. Port of Houston Authority Website: http://www.portofhouston.com/about-us/overview/
2. Port of Houston Foreign Trade Containerized Cargo Statics Report, 2013, http://www.portofhouston.com/static/gen/businessdevelopment/Origination/FTS_Containerized_Cargo_2013.pdf
3. http://www.portofhouston.com/about-us/overview/
4. http://www.portofhouston.com/about-us/overview/
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
123 Rosenberg Ave.
Galveston, TX 77550
Port of Galveston • Galveston, Texas
www.portofgalveston.com
Legal Name: Board of Trustees of the Galveston Wharves
Draft: Deep
US Port Ranking: 4th busiest cruise port¹ | 40th in total tonnage (U.S. Customs Port
Ranking)
Ranked #41 (2011) in tonnage which was a 52.1% increase from the previous year.¹ 2011 Total Tonnage: 7,358,869 tons²
Welcomed 863,000
passengers and crew
(2012)ᶾ
944 (2010)⁴
Ranked #3 in U.S.
Cruise Industry
Vessel Calls (annual)
including barge/tug calls
Annual Economic Impact: $3,060,700,000 BIL⁵
3,326 Direct Jobs | 3,794 Induced Jobs
Top Commodities:
Import
Export
Wind power equipment
Agricultural equipment
Machinery
Vehicles
Fertilizer products
Lumber Products
Military-related cargos
Bulk grains
Containers
Machinery
Vehicles
Linerboard and paper
Carbon Black
Light fuels
1. U.S. Department of Transportation Website, www.dot.gov/maritime‐waterways 2. Texas Ports 2013‐2014 Capital Program report, page 19 3. Galveston Cruise Industry On A Successful Course, Houston Chronicle, Stanton, Robert, July 19, 4. Port of Galveston website – www.portofgalveston.com/civicalerts.aspx?AID=28 5. Martin Associate Economic Impact Report on Texas Ports Sponsored by Texas Port Association, 2011
6. Guide to the Economic Value of Texas Ports, Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at Austin, Dec. 2008e 40 7. Presentation given at Panama Canal Stakeholder. Working Group Meeting. POHA, Bayport Container Terminal, Houston, Texas. August 27, 2012. [Slide number 21] (409) 766-6105
Port Director
Michael Mierzwa
Board of Trustees
Benjamin F. Holland, Jr.
Chairman
Edward Walsh, III
Vice Chairman
Members
Gerald Sullivan
Mayor James Yarbrough
Richard Devries
John A. Smecca
Albert Shannon
Governing Body
The Board of Trustees of
the Galveston Wharves
(Port of Galveston), a
body politic and
corporate, is comprised
of seven trustees who
are appointed by the
Galveston City Council.
One member of the
Board of Trustees is an
ex-officio representative
of the City Council. The
Board of Trustees of the
Galveston Wharves fully
manages, controls,
maintains and operates
Port improvements and
facilities owned by the
city of Galveston.
PORT PROFILE
Port of Galveston • Galveston, Texas
The Port of Galveston is located at the mouth of Galveston Bay along the Upper Texas Coast in
Galveston County. Associated by the public as port terminal for cruises, it has historically handled
containerized cargo, dry and liquid bulk, break-bulk, roll-on/roll-off cargo, and refrigerated and
project cargo. Commodities arriving at the port are often destined for Galveston County, Harris
County, Fort Bend County, Brazoria County, the state of Texas, as well as Texas’ neighboring states
and the United States Midwest region. The ports international trading partners include Mexico,
Guatemala, Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Israel,
Turkey, Bulgaria, Belgium, England, Germany, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirate, Kuwait,
Singapore and China.⁶
123 Rosenberg Ave.
Galveston, TX 77550
www.portofgalveston.com
(409) 766-6105
Port Director
Michael Mierzwa
Board of Trustees
Benjamin F. Holland, Jr.
Chairman
Edward Walsh, III
Vice Chairman
Members
Gerald Sullivan
Mayor James Yarbrough
Richard Devries
John A. Smecca
Albert Shannon
Governing Body
The Board of Trustees of
the Galveston Wharves
(Port of Galveston), a
body politic and
corporate, is comprised
of seven trustees who
are appointed by the
Galveston City Council.
One member of the
Board of Trustees is an
ex-officio representative
of the City Council. The
Board of Trustees of the
Galveston Wharves fully
manages, controls,
maintains and operates
Port improvements and
facilities owned by the
city of Galveston.
1. U.S. Department of Transportation Website, www.dot.gov/maritime‐waterways 2. Texas Ports 2013‐2014 Capital Program report, page 19 3. Galveston Cruise Industry On A Successful Course, Houston Chronicle, Stanton, Robert, July 19, 4. Port of Galveston website – www.portofgalveston.com/civicalerts.aspx?AID=28 5. Martin Associate Economic Impact Report on Texas Ports Sponsored by Texas Port Association, 2011
6. Guide to the Economic Value of Texas Ports, Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at Austin, Dec. 2008e 40 7. Presentation given at Panama Canal Stakeholder. Working Group Meeting. POHA, Bayport Container Terminal, Houston, Texas. August 27, 2012. [Slide number 21] Assets
 Significant Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo) operation and its matured profile of RoRo operations.
 Vigorous cruise line port terminal.
 Proximity to the Port of Houston and Texas City
Connectivity
 Situated 50 miles south of Houston and at the entrance of the Galveston-Texas CityHouston Port Complex located in Galveston Bay.
 Ground accessibility via IH 45, Gulf freeway
 Has two Class 1 rail companies, Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe
(BNSF) with switch yards immediately adjacent to the Port’s West End
Potential Improvements to Infrastructure
 Improvements needed to ensure adequate rail capacity in Class One manifest yards and
main lines to and from the ports to handle increases in exports and imports.⁷
 Adequate maintenance dredging of channels to ensure consistent authorized depths, and
construction to provide additional deepening to maximum feasible depths to controlling
drafts at the expanded Panama Canal.⁵
 “First Mile” and “Last Mile” highway and roadway connectors to reduce congestion and
improve port productivity. ⁵
 Pelican Island Project
o Desalination plant
o A 3000-megawatt cogeneration facility that uses biomass to produce electricity at a
cost of 3.5 cents/kilowatt
o A four-lane vehicular bridge from Galveston to Pelican Island
o A new railroad bridge and a railroad switching yard
.
1. U.S. Department of Transportation Website, www.dot.gov/maritime‐waterways 2. Texas Ports 2013‐2014 Capital Program report, page 19 3. Galveston Cruise Industry On A Successful Course, Houston Chronicle, Stanton, Robert, July 19, 4. Port of Galveston website – www.portofgalveston.com/civicalerts.aspx?AID=28 5. Martin Associate Economic Impact Report on Texas Ports Sponsored by Texas Port Association, 2011
6. Guide to the Economic Value of Texas Ports, Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at Austin, Dec. 2008e 40 7. Presentation given at Panama Canal Stakeholder. Working Group Meeting. POHA, Bayport Container Terminal, Houston, Texas. August 27, 2012. [Slide number 21] 123 Rosenberg Ave.
Galveston, TX 77550
www.portofgalveston.com
(409) 766-6105
Port Director
Michael Mierzwa
Board of Trustees
Benjamin F. Holland, Jr.
Chairman
Edward Walsh, III
Vice Chairman
Members
Gerald Sullivan
Mayor James Yarbrough
Richard Devries
John A. Smecca
Albert Shannon
Governing Body
The Board of Trustees of
the Galveston Wharves
(Port of Galveston), a
body politic and
corporate, is comprised
of seven trustees who
are appointed by the
Galveston City Council.
One member of the
Board of Trustees is an
ex-officio representative
of the City Council. The
Board of Trustees of the
Galveston Wharves fully
manages, controls,
maintains and operates
Port improvements and
facilities owned by the
city of Galveston.
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Port Freeport • Freeport, TX
Legal Name: Port Freeport
Draft: Deep
US Port Ranking: 21st in foreign tonnage | 30th in total tonnage (U.S. Customs Port
Ranking)
200 W. Second St.
Freeport, TX 77541
(972) 233-2667
www.portfreeport.com
Executive Director
Glenn Carlson
Commissioners
Tonnage (Millions)
4.7
0
Domestic
23.3
10
20
30
Total (public and private)
Bill Terry
Chairman
Ravi K. Singhania
Vice Chairman
2012 Total Container Cargo: 2,100,000 Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (T.E.U.s)¹
John Hoss
Secretary
3,000
Shane Pirtle, P.E.
Assistant Secretary
155,000
50,000
Thomas S. Perryman
Vessel Calls (annual)
including barge/tug calls
Truck Traffic (annual)
public/private
Annual Economic Impact: $17.9 billion
Railcar Transits (annual)
public/private
13,362 Direct Jobs | 27,656 Induced Jobs
Top Commodities:
Imported
Exported
Aggregate
Chemicals
Clothing
Crude
Foods
LNG
Paper goods
Resins
Windmills
Autos
Chemicals
Clothing
Foods
Paper goods
Resins
Rice
LNG
1. Texas Ports 2013-2014 Capital Program Report, http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/giww/port_capital_plan_201314.pdf
Paul Kresta
Governing Body
Port Freeport encompasses
approximately 85 percent of
Brazoria County, Texas.
The Port Commission is
comprised of six members.
Five positions represent a
specific geographic area,
and one position is at-large.
Each Port Commissioner
serves a term of six years.
PORT PROFILE
Port Freeport • Freeport, TX
Brazoria County is one of Texas' most fertile agricultural areas, one of the nation's most
successful commercial fishing ports, and one of the region’s more prolific fuel and mineral
areas. The primary economic bases of the county include chemical manufacturing, petroleum
processing, offshore production maintenance services, diversified manufacturing, biochemical
and electronic industries, commercial fishing and agriculture. In addition, the area's deep-water
channel and port facilities, sports fishing services and tourism are major components of the
county's economic base.
Assets
Port Freeport land and operations currently include 186 acres of developed land and 7,723
acres of undeveloped land, 14 operating berths (public and private docks), a 45-foot deep
Freeport Harbor Channel and a 70-foot-deep berthing area. Future expansion includes building
a 1,300-acre multi-modal facility, two multi-purpose 1,200-foot berths on 50 feet of water and
two dockside 120,000 square-foot transit sheds.
Connectivity
Port Freeport is conveniently
accessible by rail, waterway and
highway routes. There is direct
access to the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Brazos River
Diversion Channel, State
Highways 36 & 288 and rail
service provided by the Union
Pacific Railroad.
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
and the Port are focused on
improving rail service and
capacity to and from the Port.
1. The replacement of the
swing bridge in downtown Freeport across the old Brazos River and improvements to
the primary rail corridor between the Port and the Angleton switching yards were
completed in 2011 by the UPRR.
2. New port multi-modal facilities could include up to three new rail lines each
approximately 5,000 feet long, providing service enhancements related to both the
Parcel 25 and the new Velasco Terminal.
These investments will significantly improve capacity for Port clients, service by UPRR and is
necessary to accommodate the increase in rail shipments.
1. Texas Ports 2013-2014 Capital Program Report, http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/giww/port_capital_plan_201314.pdf
200 W. Second St.
Freeport, TX 77541
(972) 233-2667
www.portfreeport.com
Executive Director
Glenn Carlson
Commissioners
Bill Terry
Chairman
Ravi K. Singhania
Vice Chairman
John Hoss
Secretary
Shane Pirtle, P.E.
Assistant Secretary
Thomas S. Perryman
Paul Kresta
Governing Body
Port Freeport encompasses
approximately 85 percent of
Brazoria County, Texas.
The Port Commission is
comprised of six members.
Five positions represent a
specific geographic area,
and one position is at-large.
Each Port Commissioner
serves a term of six years.
Current and Future Projects
Channel improvements.
1. Widening of the Channel is moving forward with construction to begin in early 2014,
and has been locally funded.
2. Deepening the Channel to 55 feet is advancing as well, with a key U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers report that was released in January 2013 signifying the completion of the ten
year feasibility study. The next steps will be the pre-engineering design and funding
which is anticipated to be completed in three years.
A new 22 acre truck queuing area is being planned. Plans call for an environmentally friendly
off-road parking/staging area for trucks entering the Port and surrounding industrial facilities. It
will be located south of State Highway 36 in close proximity to the Port entrances. It is
anticipated that the Port will apply for Federal grant funds to offset a portion of the project cost.
200 W. Second St.
Freeport, TX 77541
(972) 233-2667
www.portfreeport.com
Executive Director
Glenn Carlson
Commissioners
Bill Terry
Chairman
Ravi K. Singhania
Vice Chairman
John Hoss
Secretary
Shane Pirtle, P.E.
Assistant Secretary
Thomas S. Perryman
Paul Kresta
Governing Body
Port Freeport encompasses
approximately 85 percent of
Brazoria County, Texas.
The Port Commission is
comprised of six members.
Five positions represent a
specific geographic area,
and one position is at-large.
Each Port Commissioner
serves a term of six years.
1. Texas Ports 2013-2014 Capital Program Report, http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/giww/port_capital_plan_201314.pdf
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Port of Palacios – Palacios, Texas
Legal Name: Matagorda County Navigation Dist. #1
Draft: Shallow
2009 Cargo Tonnage: 15.1 million (All commodity types in tons)¹
Annual Economic Impact: $41.2 MIL²
541 Direct Jobs | 43 Induced Jobs
Top Commodity
Shrimping industry
1602 Main Street
P O Box 551
Palacios, Tx 77465
Phone: (361) 972-5556
Chairman
Ted R. Bates, Jr.
Vice Chairman
Victor L. Eggemeyer
Secretary
Jimmy E. Neeley
Commissioner
Bryan L. Fields
Commissioner
Greg T. Seaman
Port Director
Debbie Morris
Governing Body
The Port of Palacios is
governed by 5 member
panel of elected
commissioners.
1. Texas Ports 2013-2014 Capital Program, Page 25
2. Texas Port Association website: www.texasports.org/ports/palacios
3. Guide to the Economic Value of Texas Ports, Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at Austin,
Dec. 2008, page 40
4. Texas Ports 2013 – 2014 Capital Program, pg. 24
Background
The Port of Palacios is located on the Upper Gulf Coast approximately 110 miles south
of Houston in Matagorda County. Traditionally, Palacios’ chief industry has been
shrimpingᶾ. Fishing, tourism and shipbuilding, including barges, tugs and commercial
and recreational boats of various sizes and configurations are increasing. The Port
also provides a safe harbor for commercial fishermen from the three counties around
Matagorda Bay – Matagorda, Jackson and Calhoun counties.⁴
Assets
• The Port has over 130 commercial fishing boats which operate from the four
•
•
•
•
•
turning basins at the Port and are affiliated with the fish houses located at the
Port
Fish houses and commercial boats employ approximately 400 people.
Properties also included with the Matagorda County Navigation District #1 are
the Texas State Marine Education Center, Bay Side RV Park, Brooking-Hays
Yacht Harbor Subdivision
4 turning basins with 13,000 linear feet of dock space
2 recreational marinas with 55 slips
Currently own over 800 acres of developable land
Connectivity
•
Currently there are no major direct shipments of import/export cargos from
Palacios and no Class 1 railroad connections
1602 Main Street
P O Box 551
Palacios, Tx 77465
Phone: (361) 972-5556
Chairman
Ted R. Bates, Jr.
Vice Chairman
Victor L. Eggemeyer
Secretary
Jimmy E. Neeley
Commissioner
Bryan L. Fields
Commissioner
Greg T. Seaman
Port Director
Debbie Morris
.
1. Texas Ports 2013-2014 Capital Program, Page 25
2. Texas Port Association website: www.texasports.org/ports/palacios
3. Guide to the Economic Value of Texas Ports, Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at Austin,
Dec. 2008, page 40
4. Texas Ports 2013 – 2014 Capital Program, pg. 24
Governing Body
The Port of Palacios is
governed by 5 member
panel of elected
commissioners.
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Calhoun Port Authority • Point Comfort, Texas
Legal Name: Calhoun Port Authority
Draft: Deep
2009 Cargo Tonnage: 3,194,255 tons² (All commodity types in tons)
Annual Economic Impact: $ 2 BILᶾ
5,300 Direct Jobs | 4,590 Induced Jobs
Top Commodity
Chemicals
Fertilizers
Petroleum Products
Bauxite
2323 FM 1593 South
Point Comfort, Texas
www.calhounport.com
(361) 987-2813
Port Board
Randy L. Boyd.
Board Chairman
H.C. “Tony” Wehmeyer, Jr.
Board Secretary
Shields A. “Tony” Holladay, Sr.
Dell R. Weathersby
J.C. Melcher, Jr.
Aron Luna
Port Director
Charles R. Hausmann, CPA
Governing Body
The Port Authority is
governed by a Port Board
made up of six members
elected from districts within
Calhoun County. The Port
Director and a full-time
professional staff are
responsible for port
management and day-to-day
operations. The Port
Authority serves as the local
non-federal sponsor of the
Matagorda Ship Channel
which extends 24 miles from
the Point Comfort turning
Basin to the Gulf of Mexico.¹
1. Calhoun Port Authority website: www.calhounport.com
2. Texas Ports 2011 – 2012 Capital Program, pg. A-21
3. Calhoun Port Authority website, http://www.calhounport.com/about/impact.php
Background
The Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort, governed by the Calhoun Port Authority, serves
as a gateway to world markets for the Texas Mid-Coast Region. The port plays a vital
role in supporting Texas chemical manufacturing industries and in building a stable
economic foundation for Calhoun County. It is served by the Matagorda Ship Channel
and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Primary cargos handled are chemicals,
petrochemicals, aluminum ore and agricultural fertilizer. A key part of this mix is very
high value chemicals produced by area industries and sold for export to markets
around the world.¹
Assets
•
•
Three liquid cargo facilities
Dry bulk dock that went into full operation in 2011. It can handle bulk carriers
up to 740 ft. in length. The cargo handling system includes a spiral conveyor
unloading tower that travels on dock rails to access each cargo hold and feed a
continuous conveyor system that extends to nearby industrial sites
Connectivity
•
•
Direct highway access to US Hwy 59, US Hwy 87, SH 35 and SH 172
Served by the Point Comfort and Northern Railway, a short line railroad which
connects to the Union Pacific main line at a point 20 miles north of the Port’s
main harbor
1. Calhoun Port Authority website: www.calhounport.com
2. Texas Ports 2011 – 2012 Capital Program, pg. A-21
3. Calhoun Port Authority website, http://www.calhounport.com/about/impact.php
2323 FM 1593 South
Point Comfort, Texas
www.calhounport.com
(361) 987-2813
Port Board
Randy L. Boyd.
Board Chairman
H.C. “Tony” Wehmeyer, Jr.
Board Secretary
Shields A. “Tony” Holladay, Sr.
Dell R. Weathersby
J.C. Melcher, Jr.
Aron Luna
Port Director
Charles R. Hausmann, CPA
Governing Body
The Port Authority is
governed by a Port Board
made up of six members
elected from districts within
Calhoun County. The Port
Director and a full-time
professional staff are
responsible for port
management and day-to-day
operations. The Port
Authority serves as the local
non-federal sponsor of the
Matagorda Ship Channel
which extends 24 miles from
the Point Comfort turning
Basin to the Gulf of Mexico.¹
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Port of West Calhoun • Long Mott, Texas
Legal Name:
West Side Calhoun County Navigation District
Draft: Shallow
402 South Main Street
Seadrift, Texas 77983
(361) 785-6492
Chairman
Jack Campbell, Jr.
Secretary
Teddy Hawes
Background
The West Side Calhoun County Navigation District (the District) was formed on
July 8, 1946 and was approved for $125,000 bond issue for the building of the
barge Canal. The District operates the Port of West Calhoun, which is linked to
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway via the Victoria Barge Canal.
Port facilities include berths for commercial seafood productions and oil and
gas exploration. The waterway is also used for barge shipments of industrial
products including petroleum coke and chemicals.¹
1. Texas Port Association Website: www.texasports.org/ports/west-calhoun
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
1934 FM 1432
Victoria, Texas 77905
(361) 570-8855
www.portofvictoria.com
Port of Victoria • Victoria, Texas
Legal Name:
Victoria County Navigation District
5,711²
Draft: Shallow
228,205 bbls
crude
Executive Director
Paul “Skip” Kaup
Commissioners
Robby Burdge
Chairman
Elton Calhoun
Vice Chairman
Vessel Calls (annual)
including barge/tug calls
Railcar Transits (annual)
public/private
Claud Jacobs
Secretary
Kevin Krueger
Annual Economic Impact: $6.6 BIL (2011) - Of the $6.6 BIL, $1.5 BIL is direct business revenue
and the remaining $5 BIL is the value of the output
to the State of Texas due to cargo moving via the
port. These numbers do not include the Eagle Ford
Shale.¹
Induced Jobs: 21,000
Commodities
Chemicals
Petrochemicals,
Frac Sand
Crude Oil
Liquid Fertilizers
Dry Fertilizers
Grain
Aggregates
1. Port of Victoria, Texas Newsletter, June 2013, Volume 1, Issue 1, www.portofvictoria.come/Libraries/Documents
2. Port of Victoria Website: http://www.portofvictoria.com/Default/About.aspx
Robert Loeb
Governing Body
The Victoria County
Navigation District (Port of
Victoria) is comprised of
five members appointed by
Victoria County
Commissioners Court.
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Port of Victoria • Victoria, Texas
The Port of Victoria is located approximately 80 miles northeast of Corpus Christi and recent
expansions should significantly increase the tonnage operated by the port. The Port serves all
other ports along the Inland Waterway System within the United States. The main products
traded at the port include chemicals, petrochemicals, sand, gravel, grain, project cargo,
fertilizers and frac sand.
1934 FM 1432
Victoria, Texas 77905
(361) 570-8855
www.portofvictoria.com
Executive Director
Paul “Skip” Kaup
Commissioners
Robby Burdge
Chairman
Elton Calhoun
Vice Chairman
Claud Jacobs
Secretary
Kevin Krueger
Robert Loeb
Governing Body
The Victoria County
Navigation District (Port of
Victoria) is comprised of
five members appointed by
Victoria County
Commissioners Court.
Assets
• New Industrial Park with multi-modal access
• Center for the chemical, construction and steel fabrication and agribusiness industries
offering access to all transportation modes.
• New lighting system that allows for 24-hour operations
• Foreign Trade Zone
Connectivity
• The turning basin area is situated on over 2,000 acres
• Rail spur with rail serviced provided by Union Pacific Railroad with track agreements
with Union Pacific, Kansas City Southern and BNSF
Potential Improvements to Infrastructure
• Container on barge service is being planned.
1. Port of Victoria, Texas Newsletter, June 2013, Volume 1, Issue 1, www.portofvictoria.come/Libraries/Documents
2. Port of Victoria Website: http://www.portofvictoria.com/Default/About.aspx
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
222 Power Street
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
(361) 882-7110
http://portofcorpuschristi.com/
Port Corpus Christi • Corpus Christi, TX
Legal Name: Port of Corpus Christi Authority
Draft: Deep
US Port Ranking: 5th Largest in U.S. for tonnage
6,072
2012 Cargo Tonnage: 78,806,189
(All commodity types in tons)
Vessel Calls (annual)
including barge/tug calls
Commissioner
s Mike Carrell
Chairman
Cargo: Heavily focused on bulk,
specifically petroleum
Richard Borchard
Vice Chairman
Al Jones
Secretary
Barbara Canales
Judy Hawley
Annual Economic Impact: $13.1 billion
Induced Jobs 16,767
Direct Jobs 13,746
Indirect Jobs 15,607
Robert Kostelnik
Charles Zahn
Executive Director
John LaRue
Top Commodities Tonnage Figures for 2012
All tonnages are given in short tons
Revised 07/2013
Commodity
Tons
Petroleum
65,367,343
Dry Bulk
7,939,684
Grain
2,578,847
Chemical
1,966,012
Liquid Bulk
554,336
Break Bulk
390,967
Governing Body
The Port Commission is
comprised of seven members,
each serving a staggered term of
three years. Three
commissioners are appointed by
the Corpus Christi City Council,
three commissioners are
appointed by the Nueces County
Commissioners Court, and one is
appointed by the San Patricio
County Commissioners Court.
PORT PROFILE
Port of Corpus Christi• Corpus Christi, TX
The Port of Corpus Christi Authority district boundaries encompass all of Nueces and San
Patricio counties.
Richard Borchard
Vice Chairman
Al Jones
Secretary
Barbara Canales
Judy Hawley
Robert Kostelnik
Charles Zahn
Governing Body
The Port Commission is
comprised of seven members,
each serving a staggered term of
three years. Three
commissioners are appointed by
the Corpus Christi City Council,
three commissioners are
appointed by the Nueces County
Commissioners Court, and one is
appointed by the San Patricio
County Commissioners Court.
Executive Director
John LaRue
The Port Corpus Christi has been generating business and jobs in South Texas for 86 years.
Strategically located on the western Gulf of Mexico, Port Corpus Christi is the fifth largest port Commissioner
in the United States in total tonnage. The Port provides a straight, 45’ deep channel and
s Mike Carrell
quick access to the Gulf of Mexico and the entire United States inland waterway system.
Chairman
222 Power Street
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
(361) 882-7110
http://portofcorpuschristi.com/
Assets
The Port offers more than 125 acres of open storage and fabrication sites, heavy lift
capabilities, more than 295,000 sq. ft. of covered dockside storage as well as a cold storage
facility. Port Corpus Christi operates Foreign Trade Zone #122, encompassing 25,000 acres
with four active, general-purpose zones and 14 subzones.
Revised 07/2013
Connectivity
The Port has on-site and direct connections to three Class-I railroads, BNSF, KCS and UP,
and direct, vessel-to-rail discharge capabilities through Corpus Christi Rail Terminal. The Joe
Fulton International Trade Corridor provides direct access to Interstate 37 and Highway 181.
• Nueces River Railyard - June 2012 the U.S. DOT awarded a $10 million TIGER grant
for the port’s first phase of construction of the Nueces River Railyard (NRRY)
1. When complete the NRRY will include an 8,000 ft. unit train siding and a
four ladder track interchange yard totaling 15,400 track feet, enough space
for over 335 rail cars
2. Scope of work consists of construction of a 6 track rail interchange yard,
service road, drainage infrastructure, wetlands mitigation site, bike trail,
light relocation, fencing and railcar AEI readers
3. Contract awarded June 11, 2013 with a winning low bid of $12,658,040
222 Power Street
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
(361) 882-7110
http://portofcorpuschristi.com/
Executive Director
John LaRue
Commissioner
s Mike Carrell
Chairman
Richard Borchard
Vice Chairman
Current and Future Projects
Al Jones
• Completion of the La Quinta Trade Gateway
Secretary
1. Construction contract awarded in October 2012 for dredging of the channel
extension and its expected finish date is July 2013
Barbara Canales
• La Quinta Road/Bridge Project
1. Scope of work includes construction of a new two-lane access road
Judy Hawley
beginning at the Gulf Compress, cross the Green Lake drainage ditch, then
generally run along the east side of the property near the recently
Robert Kostelnik
constructed dredge material placement area and terminate near the
shoreline bluff
Charles Zahn
2. Contract was award in April 24, 2013 in the winning low bid of
$3,465,628.95
Governing Body
The Port Commission is
Others Items of Interest
comprised of seven members,
• New Port Commissioner, Barbara Canales, officially sworn in June 21, 2013
each serving a staggered term of
three years. Three
commissioners are appointed by
the Corpus Christi City Council,
three commissioners are
appointed by the Nueces County
Commissioners Court, and one is
appointed by the San Patricio
County Commissioners Court.
Revised 07/2013
PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Port of Harlingen • Harlingen, TX
Legal Name:
Port of Harlingen Authority
U.S. Port Ranking by Tonnage
Draft: Shallow (12’)
n/a
www.portofharlingen.com
Barge Activity
146.0
0
50
72.0
100
150
Inbound
200
900,000 tons (est.)
Port Tonnage
Outbound
250
Barge Traffic
Container Traffic1
218
n/a
Transit Activity2
218
939
161
Vessel Calls (annual)
including barge/tug calls
Truck Traffic (annual)
public/private3
Railcar Transits (annual)
public/private4
State and Local Taxes ($ Millions)
Total Taxes: $0.4
Imported
Liquid Fertilizer
Sand
Aggregates
1 2 3 4 5 6 Alan Johnson
Chairman
Alejandro Hinojosa, Sr
Secretary
Bryan Duffy
Commissioner
Governing Body
governed by a Port
Commission composed of
three elected
commissioners.
Principal Trading
Partners
Mexico
Top Commodities6
Port Director (acting)
W.G. “Butch” Palmer, Jr
The Port of Harlingen
Authority is a navigation
district and political
subdivision of the state of
Texas. The Authority is
Economic Impact (2006)5
Economic Value ($ Millions): $19.3
Total Jobs: 88 | Direct Jobs: 40
Port of Harlingen
Authority
P.O. Box 2646
Harlingen, TX 78551
(956) 423-0283
Gasoline
Diesel
Ethanol
Exported
Raw Sugar
Cotton
Sorghum
Corn
Service Area
South Texas and northern
Mexico
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 5, National Summaries, (CY2011) Mirna Del Castillo, Port of Harlingen activity during FY 2012 (personal communication via e‐mail, September 9, 2013) Cement (686) and liquid fertilizer (253) represent the commodities transported most from barge to trucks at the Port of Harlingen (FY2012). Liquid fertilizer is the commodity transported most from barge to rail at the Port of Harlingen (FY2012). 0‐5538‐P1, Guide to the Economic Value of Texas Ports, Center for Transportation Research, 2008 Texas Ports Association, Port of Brownsville (profile), Accessed: September 6, 2013 Revised 09/2013 PORT PROFILE
Port of Harlingen • Harlingen, TX
The Port of Harlingen is a shallow draft barge port
located in the geographic center of the lower Rio
Grande Valley four miles east of the city of Harlingen,
Texas. The Port exports 100 percent of the sugar
produced in the Rio Grande Valley. And, the Port
imports critical Valley resources, such as 90 percent
of fertilizer used by South Texas farmers and 70
percent of the refined petroleum products for the
South Texas region.7
The Port is connected to the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway by means of the Harlingen Channel. The
Harlingen Channel extends from the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway 25 miles west of Mile 646 and is supplied
by the Arroyo Colorado, a fresh water source.8
Assets
 650' (195m) general dry/liquid cargo wharf
 100' (30m) dry bulk wharf
 Five smaller docks (50' X 25' or 7.5m X
15m) located near the turning basin and extend
into the Harlingen channel
 Over 150 acres of open storage
Source: TxDOT Connectivity
 Nearby several inland ports of entry into Mexico within Brownsville/Los Indios area
 Barge lines serve the Port via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
 Intermodal railroad services offered by Union Pacific (UP)
 Harlingen Channel, the waterway of the Port, is maintained to 120 feet wide by 12 feet deep
 Air freight service available at the Valley International Airport (Harlingen, Texas)
Current and Future Projects9
Project Description
East Dock Refurbishment
Security Enhancements (Federally Funded)
TOTAL
Estimated Cost (FY 13)
$1,000,000
$130,000
$1,130,000
Estimated Cost (FY 14)
$0
$0
$0
7 8 9 Port of Harlingen website http://portofharlingen.com as of September 10, 2013 Port of Harlingen – Tariff #006 as of September 3, 2013, http://portofharlingen.com/wp‐content/uploads/2012/10/Port‐of‐Harlingen.pdf Texas Ports 2013 – 2014 Capital Program, Texas Department of Transportation, page A‐5 Revised 09/2013 PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Port of Port Isabel • Port Isabel, TX
Legal Name:
Port of Isabel/San Benito Navigation District
U.S. Port Ranking by Tonnage
n/a
www.portofportisabel.com
Vessel Activity1
13
0
60
20
Draft: Deep (36’)
40
60
25
80
100
Port of Port Isabel
250 Industrial Drive
Port Isabel, TX 78578
(956) 943-7826
Port Director
Steve Bearden
Deep Water
Shallow GIWW
Shallow Other
120
Board of Commissioners
Victor Barrera
Chairman
Port Tonnage
50,000 tons (est)
Barge Traffic
Container Traffic
85
n/a
Transit Activity1
100
500
n/a
Vessel Calls (annual)
including barge/tug calls
Truck Traffic (annual)
public/private
Railcar Transits (annual)
public/private
Economic Impact (2006)2
M.R. Garcia II
Secretary
Robert Ostos
Asst. Secretary
Governing Body
The Port of Isabel/San
Benito Navigation District is
governed by a Board of
Commissioners consisting
of three elected officials.
These commissioners
serve four-year terms on a
staggered basis.
Economic Value ($ Millions): $85.6
Total Jobs: 948 | Direct Jobs: 605
State and Local Taxes ($ Millions)
Total Taxes: $2.7
Service Area
Mexico, Central and South
America and United States
Top Commodities1
Imported
Concrete
Sand
Aggregate
Exported
n/a
1 2 Steve Beardon, Port Director at Port Isabel/San Benito Navigation District estimates 2012 Port activity (personal communication via e‐mail, September 11, 2013) 0‐5538‐P1, Guide to the Economic Value of Texas Ports, Center for Transportation Research, 2008.(CY2006) Revised 09/2013 PORT PROFILE
Port of Port Isabel • Port Isabel, TX
The Port of Isabel is a deep water port that serves oil
service vessels, various seafood processers,
concrete manufacturers, and boat construction and
repair companies. The Port is adjacent to the City of
Port Isabel and the Town of South Padre Island.
Waters interfacing with the Port include the
Brownsville Ship Channel, Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway (GIWW), Gulf of Mexico and Port Isabel
Channel.3 About 200 people worked the
manufacturing sector in 2006, which is responsible
for over 50 percent of the revenues from businesses
dependent on the Port. The shrimping sector
employed roughly 300 during the same period.4
In 2007, the Port Isabel-San Benito Navigation
District (PISBND), Canal and Navigation
Commissioners changed the strategic direction from
servicing cargo and cruise ships to attracting
offshore oil and gas industries. As a result, SubSea
7 (headquartered in London, England UK) built onsite
a $40 million pipeline fabrication spool-base.1
Assets





Source: TxDOT 726 acres of waterfront land
Storage: 45 acres open
5 docks (2 cargo, 1 roll-on/roll-off, 2 oil)
1,150 feet of deepwater docks
2,100 feet of deepwater frontage available
Connectivity
 Nearby several inland ports of entry into Mexico within Brownsville/Los Indios area
 Barge lines serve the Port via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
 Controlling depth is 150 feet wide by 36 feet deep with a Turning Basin of a 1,000 feet wide by 36 feet deep
 No railroad services offered
 Air freight service at the Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport
Current and Future Projects
Project Description
Repair High Dock
Cruise Dock Rehabilitation (oil dock conversion)
Dock Rehabilitation (two additional oil docks)
TOTAL
Estimated Cost (FY 12)
$750,000
$600,000
$0
$1,350,000
Estimated Cost (TBD)
$0
$0
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
3 4 Port Isabel/San Benito Navigation District, www.portofportisabel.com website as of September 11, 2013 An Analysis of the Value of Texas Seaports in an Environment of Increasing Global Trade, Center for Transportation Research, 2008. Revised 09/2013 PORT AT-A-GLANCE
Port of Brownsville • Brownsville, TX
Legal Name:
Brownsville Navigation District
U.S. Port Ranking by Tonnage1
Draft: Deep (42’)
#67 (U.S. Customs Port Ranking)
2.5
0
2.9
2
0.5
4
Port Director and CEO
Eduardo A. Campirano
Domestic
Foreign Inbound
6
Foreign Outbound
8
2012 Port Tonnage 5,536,689 tons
www.portofbrownsville.com
Tonnage (millions)
707
n/a
Barge Traffic
Container Traffic2
Transit Activity3
1,100
41,000
Port of Brownsville
1000 Foust Road
Brownsville, TX 78521
(956) 831-4592
27,194
Board of Commissioners
Sergio Tito Lopez
Chairman
Carlos R. Masso
Vice-Chairman
Martin C. Arambula
Secretary
John Reed
Asst. Secretary
Vessel Calls (annual)
including barge/tug calls
Truck Traffic (annual)
public/private
Railcar Transits (annual)
public/private
Ralph Cowen
Asst. Secretary
The Brownsville Navigation
District is governed by a
Board of Commissioners
consisting of five elected
officials. These
commissioners serve fouryear terms on a staggered
basis.
Economic Impact4
Economic Value ($ Millions): $2,024.9
Total Jobs: 21,590 | Direct Jobs: 4,373
State and Local Taxes ($ Millions)
Total Taxes: $134.1 | Direct Taxes: $13.4
Top Commodities5
Imported
Steel slab
Hot and cold roll
Steel plate
Steel beams (billets)
Iron ore
Petro products
Lubricants
Exported
Steel products
Petro products
Lubricants
Iron ore
3 4 5 Service Area
Mexico, Central and South
America and United States
2 Principal Trading
Partners
Mexico, Central/South
America, China, Korea,
Japan, Germany, Belgium,
Russian and Brazil
1 Governing Body
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 5, National Summaries, (CY2011) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Waterborne Container Traffic by Port/Waterway in 2011, (CY2011) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Finance Dept. Brownsville Navigation District, (CY2012) The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of Brownsville. Martin Associates, 2012. (CY2011) Texas Ports Association, Port of Brownsville (profile) as of September 6, 2013 Revised 09/2013 PORT PROFILE
Port of Brownsville • Brownsville, TX
The Port of Brownsville is located at the
southernmost tip of Texas at the end of a 17-mile
channel that meets the Gulf of Mexico at the Brazos
Santiago Pass. The Port sustains a vital ship
recycling industry that works on 80 percent of the
ships recycled in the U.S.6 During 2012, Keppel
AmFELS employed 2,400 to repair mobile drilling rigs
and platforms. More than 50 percent of the direct
revenue is generated by the oil rig and ship repair
operations. In terms of total revenue, scrap
generates the greatest revenue impact followed by
petroleum products. Barge and bunkering operations
generate the second largest local revenue impact,
followed by trucking operations.
Assets
•
•
•
•
Approximately 40,000 acres of land
Storage: 13 acres covered, 65 acres open
18 docks (12 cargo, 4 oil, 1 liquid, 1 bulk)
Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) #627
Source: TxDOT Connectivity
• Nearby several inland ports of entry into Mexico within Brownsville/Los Indios area
• Barge lines serve the Port via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
• Entrance Channel is 250 feet wide by 42 feet deep with a Turning Basin of 1,200 feet wide by 36 feet deep
• Intermodal railroad services offered by Brownsville & Rio Grande Int’l Railroad (BRG)
• Air freight service at the Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport
Current and Future Projects8
Project Description
Deepening and Widening Feasibility Study
Lift Station Improvements
Water Tank Rehabilitation
New Infrastructure (FY13, Dock No. 16)9
Improvements to Docks, Warehouses and Cargo Laydown
Areas (FY14, Oil Dock No. 6)
Port Security Improvements
Rail Improvements
TOTAL
Estimated Cost (FY 13)
$650,000
$60,000
$1,033,000
$20,500,000
$3,502,000
Estimated Cost (FY 14)
$500,000
$0
$982,000
$0
$26,038,000
$3,986,000
$2,200,000
$31,931,000
$0
$0
$27,520,000
6 7 8 9 News Release #: MARAD 03‐13, Maritime Administrator Matsuda Tours Port of Brownsville, Dated: March 4, 2013 Foreign‐Trade Zone #62 operations during CY 2012 ranked nationally at #11 and #1 in Merchandise Received and Exports activity, respectively, according to th the 74 Annual Report of the Foreign‐Trade Zones Board to the Congress of the United States, Appendix C, August 2013 Texas Ports 2013 – 2014 Capital Program, Texas Department of Transportation, page A‐5 Dock No. 16 construction partially funded by a $12 million federal TIGER (MARAD) grant in FY 2012 to expand Port container operations. Revised 09/2013 APPENDIX D
GLOSSARY OF MARITIME TERMS
100
Air Draft
Distance from surface of the water at mean high tide to the highest point of a vessel. Air
draft can also reference the clearance of an overhead obstruction.
Barge
A large, flat-bottomed boat used to carry cargo from a port to shallow-draft waterways.
Barges have no locomotion and are pushed by towboats. A single, standard barge can hold
1,500 tons of cargo or as much as either 15 railroad cars or 60 trucks can carry. A barge is
200 feet long, 35 feet wide and has a draft of 9 feet. Barges carry dry bulk (grain, coal,
lumber, gravel, etc.) and liquid bulk (petroleum, vegetable oils, molasses, etc.).
Berth
(v.) To bring a ship to a berth. (n.) The wharf space at which a ship docks. A wharf may have
two or three berths, depending on the length of incoming ships.
Breakbulk cargo
Non-containerized general cargo stored in boxes, bales, pallets or other units to be loaded
onto or discharged from ships or other forms of transportation. (See also: bulk and
container.) Examples include iron, steel, machinery, linerboard and wood pulp,
Bulk cargo
Loose cargo (dry or liquid) that is loaded (shovelled, scooped, forked, mechanically conveyed
or pumped) in volume directly into a ship’s hold; e.g., grain, coal and oil.
Buoys
Floats that warn of hazards such as rocks or shallow ground, to help ships maneuver
through unfamiliar harbors.
Channel Draft
The average, low-tide depth of a ship or barge channel.
Container
A box made of aluminum, steel or fiberglass used to transport cargo by ship, rail, truck or
barge. Common dimensions are 20' x 8’ x 8' (called a TEU or twenty-foot equivalent unit) or
40' x 8' x 8', called an FEU. Variations are collapsible containers, tank containers (for liquids)
and "rag tops" (open-topped containers covered by a tarpaulin for cargo that sticks above
the top of a closed box). In the container industry, containers are usually simply called
boxes.
101
Container chassis
A piece of equipment specifically designed for the movement of containers by highway to
and from container terminals.
Container crane
Usually, a rail-mounted gantry crane located on a wharf for the purpose of loading and
unloading containers on vessels.
Container terminal
A specialized facility where ocean container vessels dock to discharge and load containers,
equipped with cranes with a safe lifting capacity of 35-40 tons, with booms having an
outreach of up to 120 feet in order to reach the outside cells of vessels. Most such cranes
operate on rail tracks and have articulating rail trucks on each of their four legs, enabling
them to traverse along the terminal and work various bays on the vessel and for more than
one crane to work a single vessel simultaneously. Most terminals have direct rail access and
container storage areas, and are served by highway carriers.
Deep water
Deep water channels are defined as having depth of 35 feet or greater.
Dock
(verb) - To bring in a vessel to tie up at a wharf berth. (One parks a car, but docks a ship.)
(noun) - A dock is a structure built along, or at an angle from, a navigable waterway so that
vessels may lie alongside to receive or discharge cargo. Sometimes, the whole wharf is
informally called a dock.
Draft
The depth of a loaded vessel in the water taken from the level of the waterline to the lowest
point of the hull of the vessel; depth of water, or distance between the bottom of the ship
and waterline.
Drayage
Transport by truck for short distances; e.g. from wharf to warehouse.
Dredge
(noun) A waterborne machine that removes unwanted silt accumulations from the bottom of
a waterway. (verb) The process of removing sediment from harbor or river bottoms for safety
purposes and to allow for deeper vessels.
102
Dry bulk
Minerals or grains stored in loose piles moving without mark or count. Examples are potash,
industrial sands, wheat, cotton, sugar, soybeans, and peanuts.
Elevator
A complex including storage facilities, computerized loading; inspection rooms and docks to
load and unload dry bulk cargo such as grain or green coffee.
Fleeting
The area at which barges, towboats and tugs are berthed until needed. The operation of
building or dismantling barge tows.
Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ)
Known in some countries as a free zone, a foreign trade zone (FTZ) is a site within the USA
(in or near a U.S. Customs port of entry) where foreign and domestic goods are held until
they ready to be released into international commerce. If the final product is imported into
the U.S., duties and taxes are not due until the goods are release into the U.S. market.
Merchandise may enter a FTZ without a formal Customs entry or the payment of Customs
duties or government excise taxes. In the zone, goods may be: stored; tested; sampled;
repackaged or re-labeled; cleaned; combined with other products; repaired or assembled,
etc.
Gantry crane
Track-mounted, shoreside crane utilized in the loading and unloading of breakbulk cargo,
containers and heavy lift cargo.
General cargo
Consists of both containerized and breakbulk goods, in contrast to bulk cargo. See:
breakbulk, container, bulk, dry bulk). General cargo operations produce more jobs than bulk
handling.
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
The GIWW is a 1,300-mile waterway along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico that stretches from St.
Marks, Florida to Brownsville, Texas. The Texas segment of the GIWW is 423 miles in length
and begins at the Sabine River and ends at Port Isabel, linking the state’s deep and shallow
draft ports, as well as its private terminals. The GIWW is authorized by Congress to be
maintained at a width of 125 feet and a depth of 12 feet.
103
Heavy lift
Very heavy cargoes that require specialized equipment to move the products to and from
ship/truck/rail/barge and terminals. This "heavy lift" machinery may be installed aboard a
ship designed just for such transport. Shore cranes, floating cranes and lift trucks may also
adapted for such heavy lifts.
Home port
Port from which a cruise ship loads passengers and begins its itinerary, and to which it
returns to disembark passengers upon conclusion of voyage. Sometimes referred to as
"embarkation port" or "turn around port."
Hostler (or hustler)
A tractor, usually unlicensed, for moving containers within a yard. An employee who drives a
tractor for the purpose of moving cargo within a container yard.
Intermodal
The movement of cargo on two or more transportation modes. The term “intermodal” can
also refer to moving goods in a standardized metal container that is easily transferred
between ships, rail, and trucks.
Long ton
A long ton equals 2,240 pounds.
Marshalling yard
This is a container parking lot, or any open area where containers are stored in a precise
order according to the ship loading plan. Containers terminals may use a grounded or
wheeled layout. If the cargo box is placed directly on the ground, it is called a grounded
operation. If the box is on a chassis/trailer, it is a wheeled operation.
Mean low water (MLW)
Lowest average level water reaches on an outgoing tide.
Mean high water (MHW)
Highest average level water reaches on an outgoing tide.
Mooring dolphin
A cluster of pilings to which a boat or barge ties up.
Niche
A narrow specialization. In the context of ports, a niche port is one that serves a specialized
type of cargo or client, such as the offshore oil field services industry.
104
Ocean carrier
Diesel-fueled vessels have replaced the old steamships of the past, although many people
still refer to modern diesel ships as steamships. Likewise, the person who represents the
ship in port is still often called a steamship agent.
On-dock rail
Direct shipside rail service. Includes the ability to load and unload containers/breakbulk
directly from rail car to vessel.
On-terminal rail
Rail service and trackage provided by a railroad within a designated terminal area.
Public-Private Partnership (P3)
A contractual agreement between a public agency and a private sector entity to deliver
and/or finance transportation projects.
Port Authorities Advisory Committee (PAAC)
A seven-member committee appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission to provide a
forum for exchanging information between Texas ports and the Commission. The PAAC
provides the Commission with port-specific information and perspective that assists with the
development of department policy. The PAAC’s membership includes one representative
from the Port of Houston, three representatives from the upper Texas Coast ports, and three
representatives from the lower Texas Coast ports. The PAAC was established under Section
55.006 of the Texas Transportation Code.
Pilot
A licensed navigational guide with thorough knowledge of a particular section of a waterway
whose occupation is to steep ships along a coast or into and out of a harbor. Local pilots
board the ship to advise the captain and navigator of local navigation conditions (difficult
currents; hidden wrecks, etc.).
Port of call
Port at which cruise ship makes a stop along its itinerary. Calls may range from five to 24
hours. Sometimes referred to as "transit port" and "destination port." (See also: home port)
Project cargo
The materials and equipment to assemble a special project overseas, such as a factory or
highway.
105
Rail yard
A rail terminal at which occur traditional railroad activities for sorting and redistribution of
railcars and cargo.
RO/RO or ro/ro
Short for roll on/roll/off. A ro/ro ship is designed with ramps that can be lowered to the dock
so cars, buses, trucks or other vehicles can drive into the belly of the ship, rather than be
lifted aboard. A ro/ro ship, like a container ship, has a quick turnaround time of about 12
hours.
Rubber-Tired Gantry (RTG)
A traveling crane used for the movement and positioning of containers in a container field.
RTG's may also be used for loading and unloading containers from rail cars.
Shallow Draft
Shallow draft channels are defined as being less than 25 feet deep.
Shoaling
The gradual build-up of sand and other sediment in ship channels due to ocean currents
and waves.
Short ton
A short ton equals 2,000 pounds. Lifting capacity and cargo measurements are designated
in short tons.
Spreader
A device for lifting containers by their corner posts. The spreader bar on a container crane is
telescopic to allow it to lift containers of various lengths.
TEU
Abbreviation for “Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit.”
Texas Ports Association (TPA)
A trade organization that promotes the collective interest of Texas ports and their ability to
compete with ports outside of Texas.
Transit shed
The shed on a wharf is designed to protect cargoes from weather damage and is used only
for short-term storage. Warehouses operated by private firms that house goods for longer
periods.
106
Transhipment
The unloading of cargo at a port or other location where it is then reloaded, sometimes into
another mode of transportation, for transfer to its final destination.
Tugboat
Strong v-hull shaped boat used for maneuvering ships into and out of port and to carry
supplies. Large ships are too powerful to pull up to the wharf on their own power. The ship
cuts its power and lets the tug nudge it in. Generally barges are pushed by towboats, not
tugs.
Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU)
A unit of measurement equal to the space occupied by a standard twenty foot container.
Used when stating the capacity of container vessel or storage area. One 40 ft. Container is
equal to two TEU's.
Unit Train
A train of a specified number of railcars, perhaps 100, which remain as a unit for a
designated destination or until a change in routing is made.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)
The federal agency responsible for permitting and maintaining federally-funded channels.
The USACE also is responsible for building, maintaining, and operating locks along the
GIWW.
Vessel operator
A firm that charters vessels for its service requirements, which are handled by their own
offices or appointed agents at ports of call. Vessel operators also handle the operation of
vessels on behalf of owners.
Weights and Measures/Measurement ton:
40 cubic ft or one cubic meter
Net ton/short ton – 2,000 lbs
Gross ton/long ton – 2,240 lbs
Metric ton/kilo ton – 2,204.6 lbs
Cubic meter – 35.314 cubic ft.
107