Use Inland Ports to Relieve Container Congestion, Port Authorities Say

The U.S. should make use of more inland ports to help alleviate congestion along the coasts, port authorities told the Department of Transportation in recent comments. More inland terminals could help containers move more quickly and efficiently, they said, and could help reduce costs by limiting the number of containers forced to sit in marine terminals.

DOT in September asked for feedback to help it identify sites for the storage and transfer of cargo containers and whether more storage space would help mitigate supply chain congestion (see 2209290022). Finding more space to store intermodal containers is “an issue of paramount importance in maintaining cargo fluidity,” the National Association of Waterfront Employers told DOT, adding that additional storage sites could help beneficial cargo owners move containers out of marine terminals.

The association said its members have “repeatedly” seen “unsustainable” buildups of containers at terminals due to a “lack of sufficient downstream warehouse” capacity. “Marine terminals are not warehouses,” the association said. More storage and transfer space, “including the development of near-dock solutions to increase marine terminal cargo fluidity, is a cornerstone issue for developing long-term supply chain congestion solutions,” NAWE said.

The American Association of Port Authorities said inland port sites are “not a feasible or realistic model for all U.S. ports.” But for others, the additional space “can help with alleviating congestion while also serving to simplify the drayage process and meet customers closer to where their operations are,” the AAPA said.

“While no port wants to have containers idling for excessive periods,” moving some containers inland by rail or barge can reduce the number of containers waiting for drayage, the association said, and decrease truck and chassis congestion at seaports. “In that regard, inland ports are a helpful tool in the arsenal of methods ports can use to maintain fluidity,” the AAPA said.

Multiple inland ports said they would be willing to provide more storage for seaports. Tulsa Ports in Oklahoma said ports along inland U.S. waterways “have the capacity for the additional transfer and storage for containers.” The port said it has two 2,500-acre industrial parks that can be used for storage.

“Given the direct access to the Class I, shortline, highway and interstate, and waterway systems, IM containers can be easily delivered to each of our industrial parks,” Tulsa Ports said. The port also said it “might be willing to construct additional infrastructure if the benefits of an opportunity outweigh the costs.”

The South Carolina Ports Authority said it has operated two inland ports for over 13 years, saying they have been “successful in providing much needed inland capacity.” The port uses an overnight rail service to move the containers, which reduces truck congestion. “The SCPA has seen long term solutions like our Inland Terminals as the best way to mitigate some of the fluidity challenge,” the port authority said.

The Helena-West Helena-Phillips County Port Authority, located in Arkansas, also supported the idea, saying “providing safe storage off site reduces the cost of container storage.” It said inland port leaders should “play a larger role” in marketing their storage facilities to shippers, especially because many shippers may not “know what options are available if no one is reaching them.”

Maybe the most “significant question” posed by DOT is how the inland port sites should be selected, the AAPA said. The group said government agencies, port authorities, railroads, freight trucking companies and all other “stakeholders” should have a say in the selection process. “Successful operation of an inland port as a multimodal cargo hub will require buy-in and investment from each of these supply chain partners,” the association said, “so their initial feedback is critical.”