Introduction
Over the past few years the airline industry has been offering competitive prices and competing more then ever for cargo that has been traditionally transported by ships because of their cheaper prices. Because of this ship owners have been looking for ways to keep cost to a minimum and to decrease the time it takes to transport cargo from seller to buyer. The time it takes the ship to transport cargo from one port to another cannot be reduced with out building faster ships, which is not practical because of the cost of development. However the ship owners have had larger ships built to transport more cargo at one time. Forcing some to dredge their harbor entrance and the channel leading to their port. They have also, been putting pressure on terminals, to decrease the time it takes to transport cargo from the ship to truck or rail.
Vessel sharing agreements have also forced ports to improve service. Vessel sharing is when shipping companies form certain partnerships to maximize space abroad ships by filling one ship to capacity with one or more carriers’ cargo rather than each partner sailing different ships not loaded to capacity. This affects ports because carriers in these agreements may reduce the number of calls to a port or a port’s worse nightmare; stop calling altogether.
The Essay on Cruise Ships Accident
Rogue wave Rogue waves up to 100 feet tall are a spontaneous natural phenomenon that cannot easily be predicted. In 2005, the Grand Voyager of Iberojet Cruises was smacked by a wave that knocked out propulsion and communications systems and injured 20 passengers. In 2010, the Louis Majesty, operated by Louis Cruise Lines, was struck by 26-foot waves off the coast of France, smashing glass and ...
These demands placed on the ports have forced them to develop new ways to offer competitive prices between ports for the business of the shipping companies.
Port of Charleston
Another problem facing ports today is the increased in the size of the ships. Because of the increase in the size of many vessels, ports have been forced to increase the depth of their harbor. While the current channel conditions are adequate to serve a large portion of existing commercial vessels, they create delays with larger vessels that must “ride the tides.” With a five- to six-foot tidal lift, Charleston regularly moves vessels drawing in excess of the 40-foot project. It is important to note that by the year 2010 the USDOT expects nearly 40% of containerized cargo to be carried on ships capable of drawing more than 40 feet of water. Allowing ships to sail freely from Charleston, regardless of their load or time of day, will hold down transportation costs and improve manufacturers’ international competitiveness. It was obvious that the harbor had to be dredged to be a competitive port in the future. Now the only question left was where to get the funding needed for the project. Recognizing the need to accommodate the ever-increasing size of vessels calling Charleston, the Ports Authority began the process to deepen its channels in 1990 with a resolution by the U.S. Congress. Over the next five years, the project proceeded through the required federal steps of the Reconnaissance Phase and a Feasibility Study under the direction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All of this required preliminary work.
After concluding that the 45-foot project met the engineering, economic cost-benefit, environmental and sponsor financial capability criteria, U.S. Congress authorized the work in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act. Preliminary engineering and design work began in 1997. The above work represents a $3.7 million investment in the Charleston Harbor Deepening Project by the Federal government and the South Carolina State Ports Authority. In March 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded a $58.9 million contract to deepen the 16-mile long Charleston Harbor entrance channel from 42 feet mean low water to 47 feet MLW. This work in the entrance channel began in June 1999 and should be completed in the last quarter of 2001. A $33.9 million contract for work in the lower harbor was awarded and began in the Wando River in July 1999. This covers approximately two years of work deepening channels from the Wando Welch Terminal and the mouth of Shipyard River to the entrance channel.
The Essay on Project Work 2
Project work is not a new methodology. Its benefits have been widely recognized for many years in the teaching of subjects like Science, Geography, and History. Some teachers have also been doing project work in their language lessons for a long time, but for others it is a new way of working. The aim of this booklet is to provide a simple introduction to project work. I shall explain what project ...
While ongoing channel maintenance is financed entirely by the U.S. government, deepening projects are cost-shared between the Federal government and local sponsors. The FY1999 Energy & Water Appropriations bill passed by Congress included $22 million for the work to begin in 1999. Members of South Carolina’s U.S. Congressional delegation have indicated they will continue to work diligently for federal funds. Senator Hollings and Congressman Clyburn have been especially helpful. The Federal FY2000 Energy & Water Appropriations passed by Congress provided $37 million for harbor deepening in 2000, helping to ensure the project’s timely completion. The full House and the Senate recently gave preliminary approval to $16.7 million for the deepening and widening project in federal FY2001 (Port of Charleston).
On the local side, the Ports Authority has received commitments for $40 million from the South Carolina General Assembly for harbor deepening work. In March 1999, the General Assembly passed legislation providing $16 million for harbor deepening to get underway, and in June the remaining $24 million was committed through a Bond Bill. The project requires another $24.6 million from the State to be completed.
The Ports Authority and its supporters from across South Carolina continue to build a strong case with legislative leaders for full funding and timely completion of the deepening project. The State Chamber of Commerce, every urban chamber in the state, major employers and the entire waterfront community has supported the project.
Port Authority of Virginia
Unlike the Port of Charleston, the Port of Virginia has established a well working on site management system. That has already integrated today’s technology to help obtain maximum performance. The Port of Virginia has also been lucky, because their harbor has been able to accommodate today’s larger ships. That is why the Port of Virginia has been focusing most of their attention market share for the future and development of the port itself.
Conclusion
For a port to be competitive in the future, each individual port must have a plan. An important factor ports must take into account when planning for the future is the accessibility of the port. Does it have the capability of handling larger ships? And if not is it possible to make changes to accommodate these continually growing ships? Also more cargo will be transported by container, in the future. Because of this a port most maintain a well-run container terminal with the ability to transfer each container to rail or truck in a timely manner. If a port is able to offer this and maintain good customer relations, I feel that they will be able to say competitive in the future.
The Term Paper on Cruise Ship Industry
Cruise Ship Industry Before we proceed to our discussion of cruise ship industry I believe we should first submerge in the notion of tourism in order to see the very model of peoples motivation, which makes them join cruises. MacCannell, in The Tourist (1999), portrayed the tourist as being on a pilgrimage, a search for authenticity. To define "authentic," MacCannell drew upon the distinction made ...
Key Volume StatisticsContainer Volume FY1999 FY2000
Export TEUs 690,771 823,918 19%
Import TEUs 656,847 743,675 13%
TOTAL TEUs 1,347,618 1,567,593 16%
Non-Container Tons FY1999 FY2000
Charleston 543,357 493,543 -9%
Grain Elevator 19,820 66,448 235%
Georgetown 1,709,949 1,635,646 -4%
Port Royal 364,153 336,793 -8%
TOTAL 2,637,279 2,532,430 -4%
Vessels FY1999 FY2000
Charleston Ships 1,963 1,981 1%
Georgetown Barges 294 286 -3%
Charleston Barges 63 123 95%
Georgetown Ships 108 107 -1%
Port Royal Ships 27 30 11%
Grain Elevator Ships 2 6 200%
TOTAL 2,457 2,533 3%
For More Information Contact:Anne Moise or Byron MillerTel: 843-577-8121 FAX: 843-577-8127E-mail: [email protected]
