Port's volume falls sharply
SPA officials say delays in building new terminal having negative effect
By Peter Hull
The Port of Charleston reported a double-digit drop in container volume in 2007, but it will likely hang on to its position as the fourth-busiest East Coast port.
The port handled the equivalent of 1.75 million 20-foot-long containers in the last calendar year, down 11 percent from 2006, according to the State Ports Authority.
Charleston, once the East Coast's No. 2 container port, was again eclipsed by the Port of Savannah, which moved a record 2.6 million boxes of freight last year, or nearly 21 percent more than in 2006, the Georgia Ports Authority said.
The Post and Courier/File
The Port of Charleston handled the equivalent of 1.75 million 20-foot-long containers in the last calendar year, down 11 percent from 2006, according to the State Ports Authority.
The SPA's other chief rival, the Virginia Port Authority, posted a 4 percent gain last year, moving 2.12 million boxes at its terminals in the Hampton Roads area. That was enough for the Southeast Virginia terminals to maintain the third spot on the East Coast.
The Port Authority of New York/New Jersey has yet to release its 2007 volume. The giant maritime complex handled more than 5 million containers in 2006 and is unlikely to lose its grip on the No. 1 spot.
Charleston fell to the fourth spot in the East Coast rankings in 2006, swapping places with Savannah.
The SPA said Tuesday that the 11 percent drop last year does not mean its terminals are awash with unused space.
"Charleston remains one of the top ports in the country," said agency spokesman Byron Miller. "The No. 1 thing to do is press forward with port expansion."
But Miller said expansion-related delays have "crippled the perception of Charleston" within the shipping industry.
The SPA has to show customers it is serious about adding new capacity and that investment in Charleston by steamship lines is a safe long-term bet, he said. Any uncertainties about the port's future ability to handle more containers could spur some carriers to rethink where they want to send their ships.
The SPA has been trying to expand for more than a decade, including a failed effort to develop a massive terminal on Daniel Island. It then took the agency four years to obtain permits for a container terminal at the former Navy base in North Charleston. The $600 million terminal will be capable of handling up to 1 million additional containers annually when completed. Work at the site started last fall.
Paul Bingham, an economist with trade and transportation economic forecasting company Global Insight, said perception is important in the shipping business. But he questioned whether it is enough to dictate where lines decide to send their vessels.
Much of Savannah's recent boom, for example, stems from its success at attracting large distribution centers where retailers and other shippers can store imports and exports. Those big warehouse complexes likely helped Georgia siphon business away from Charleston, Bingham said.
"That calls into question attributing the entirety of the market-share drop in Charleston to the problems with the port-facility expansion," he said.
Miller said the Port of Charleston is poised to benefit from plans by private investors to develop about 2,000 acres at sites near Summerville and Orangeburg into huge distribution hubs that could provide competition for Savannah.
Reach Peter Hull at 937-5594 or phull@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
icbmman (anonymous) says...
JohnQ, you really are an idiot. This stupid NIMBY attitude among some residents of my hometown is the reason why the majority of Chas jobs are low-wage, tourism-oriented jobs. You actually would prefer moving jobs away from population centers, which stand to gain economically from the people living there?!?! Answer this question, genius, where are all those people who work at the joint port going to live?
The SPA is far from ramming anything down Charlestonians throats; however, it is people like you who ignore the benefits of having an important port on the East Coast and choose to stick their heads up their a$$es because you don't want anymore growth.
Here's a tip: if you want to live in a coastal hamlet that doesn't attract many jobs and will probably never grow very much, move to Georgetown, Brunswick, or fricking McClellanville! It's time to remove people like you from the community that continuously hinder and drag Chas from becoming part of the 21st century.
January 30, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jnot (anonymous) says...
icbmman, my understanding is that not only does the port only employ a relative handful of workers, but that the vast majority of the cargo goes straight out of state. Also, being a state entity, I believe that the SPA pays no taxes. Maybe I'm misinformed, and please feel free to enlighten me, but the biggest economic impact I can see is that the port occupies what probably could be the most valuable real estate in the entire region that otherwise could be occupied by an industry that pays taxes and employs more workers.
January 30, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Big_al (anonymous) says...
Once again, more uninformed comments in regards to the port and employment statistics. The SCSPA is not the only employer in town for this industry. Several steamship lines have regional headquarters here in Charleston. There are many customs brokers and freight forwarders. Several stevedoring companies and over 100 truck line, each with many drivers attached to them. Countless warehousing companies are here and more are in the works. All of these business employ countless people. Let's not forget the ILA either.
As far as freight going out of state, that is true. However, a quick look at an atlas shows that not all states border the ocean. For in state business, take a look at Michelin, BMW, Quoizel, Dollar General, Wal-Greens etc. Others are in the works such as Starbucks. Directly and indirectly, the port employs thousands upon thousands of people in this state.
One more thing, the SCSPA is a STATE entity, so yes, it does not pay taxes, but it also operates without state funding. It operates solely on it's own revenues. But, all of these employers and employees listed above ALL pay taxes and buy things that are taxed etc etc.
The port is a good thing, we need it.
January 30, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
boatrite (anonymous) says...
JohnQ is surely entitled to his own opinion.........even if it is an igonorant one.
I am willing to bet that he migrated to Charleston from waaaaay up yonder.
Maybe he should move out of the population centers if he fears traffic or a terrorist attack.
We don't want YOU here!
January 30, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wbk (anonymous) says...
Well said icbmman and Big_al. Ports = Jobs and it seems that those who oppose expansion know little about the port or how it operates - or - have migrated to Charleston. Expansion of this port is vital for this city and this state and for those who oppose, move.
Why should the SPA which generates its own revenues not be able to spend those funds on expansion? Any other business would be allowed to.
January 31, 2008 at 12:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jnot (anonymous) says...
wbk, the SPA is not a business, it's a state agency. "Any other business" would be paying taxes and would have paid market value for the kabillion dollars worth of real estate it occupies.
I'm not advocating for the port to go away -- I think the port is a good thing. That said, I think the SPA grossly overstates the economic impact -- which would be fine, I guess, except that it's a real health hazard and as someone with a small child that frightens me. It should frighten you as well. All I want is for our port to act as responsibly as other ports which use rail (vastly less polluting than trucks, and less traffic), insist on boats using cleaner fuel when they're in port, ask boats to cut the engines when they stop, and use electric equipment on the dock. They're already converting to electric, but there's not much promise of the other changes -- and these are things that other ports in other parts of the country do, it's not some pie-in-the-sky request, it's just common sense and being a good neighbor.
January 31, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
jnot, the port has to pay the state 6.5% on every dollar that they earn.
See my comment on the other port article.
People are so misinformed on port operations.
Visit www.scspa.com and read about the port.
Under the FOIA you can obtain copies of financial reports and other documents at the cost of about 15 cents per page.
People need to remember that a city was built around the port and not the other way around.
The port provides many jobs and is vital to the economy of SC. If people believe that tourism keeps Charleston thriving, then they are totally misguided.
January 31, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
Jnot, you need to pay attention to the facts. RTC and Big Al both have made great points. SPA's existence facilitates trade and business for 700 companies in the state. SPA alone employs 600 people, and as commented earlier, hundreds of other jobs are provided by the port indirectly through other jobs, so we're talking about a few thousand jobs...pretty substantial, wouldn't you think?
Here's a question for you: what industry would takeover all of the most valuable real estate in the region (I agree with you on that observation)? Name one business that could recoup what was lost if Chas banned its port?
You forget that because of the port, Chas has attracted new manufacturers like American LaFrance, Vought/Alenia, and DaimlerChrysler. These companies even indicated that one of the primary reasons for locating in Chas was because of the quick access to port facilities. Do you think Chas could even attempt to create industry clusters in aviation or biomed tech without the port?
As far as state responsibility, the SPA has not received taxpayer-paid subsidies to 2 decades, and with its expansions paid for by bonds, the bonds and the interest payable on them are directly paid through SPA-generated revenue, not the state. Please get your facts straight.
February 1, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
