the current U.S. port policy system have cited this 
division of responsibility and the local focus in shore- 
Side development as fundamental to the maintenance 
of a flexible water transportation system which is 
responsive ‘to rapidly changing U.S. trade require- 
ments and local economic development—considera- 
tions. Some critics, on the other hand, have suggested 
that the fragmented nature of the U.S. port policy 
system tends to it impede aggregate efficiency owing 
to the inadequacy of planning based on broad re- 
Sor 
gional and national considerations. The dispute be- 
tween these two competing philosophical perspectives 
is likely to frame much of the debate over many of 
the more specific port policy issues in the future. 
As indicated, U.S. shoreside port facilities are, for 
the most part, maintained and operated by a variety 
of private interests and State and local government 
entities. Today more than 60 percent of the 2,400 
commercial marine—terminals in the United States 
(terminals capable of accommodating U.S. foreign 
trade) are owned i privaterprahteqalinglongasion 
tions. Except for a very few facilities owned by pri- 
vate ate nonprofit organizations and nonmilitary Federal 
agencies, the rest are owned and operated by either 
State (12 percent) or local (24 percent) govern- 
mental agencies.’ 
As a tule, private terminals are an integral part 
of some larger corporate activity and are_generally 
designed to handle a single bulk commodity. Today 
bulk cargoes such as fuels, agricultural products, and 
ores account for about 95 percent of the total ton- 
nage of cargo moving in U.S. waterborne commerce, 
and most of this traffic is handled by private port 
facilities. The State and local public terminals, on 
the other hand, are characteristically general cargo 
facilities which are operated on a “common carrier” 
_ basis. These facilities, in addition to seeking a return 
on investment, are commonly operated by govern- 
ments in support of other general objectives relating 
to community economic development. Because of the 
substantial local economic benefit associated with 
a successful port, considerable community support 
and pressure for port development and expansion 
have been common. 
Generally, public ports in the United States are 
operated by government port authorities of one kind 
or another. These institutions take many forms and 
may be part of an existing city, county, or State 
government or may be essentially autonomous local, 
State, or regional instrumentalities. While the form 
of this governmental institution varies widely 
throughout the United States, a common function is 
to improve port financing prospects through govern- 
ment involvement. Improved financing is in turn 
intended to yield better facilities, more trade and an 
expanded local economy. 
7 Ibid., p. 7. 
Historically, the fragmented structure of the U.S. 
port_policy system_and the Federal policy of non- 
discrimination did not present_any major problems 
for U.S. port development and trade. Although at 
times there may have been a tendency toward the 
development of some excess capacity, port develop- 
ment costs were not great and, in general, capacity 
matched growing trade requirements fairly well. 
In recent years, however, the system has experi- 
enced increasing pressure because of advances in 
shipping technology and because of growing environ- 
mental concerns. For many years, the relatively slo 
growth in vessel size, the prominence of compara 
tively small vessels, and the importance of break 
bulk general cargo handling techniques fit well with 
a U.S. port system comprised of a national netwoi network 
of ports, each serving its own local econ 
munity and each of sullicient depth to accommodate 
most commercial carriers. The absence of con 
over such issues as spoil spoil disposal_and coastal zone 
management allow ort expansion and channe 
size an roceed strictl 
requirements. The combin of a relatively simpl 
shipping tech and the absence of requirements 
r 
in response to commerci 
to incorporate envi ntaf considerations tended 
to keep inte ort development cosfs relatively 
low. 
~The introduction of _containerization and other 
intermodal shipping services together with the explo- 
Sive increase in average vessel size in recent years 
has spawned new concerns, however, that have 
raised questions regarding the adequacy of tradi- 
tional U.S. port policies to meet contemporary trade 
requirements efficiently. The need for larger facilities 
to accommodate larger vessels and the extensive 
shoreside investment required to support intermodal 
shipping have resulted in dramatic increases in the 
cost of port development. To support these invest- 
ments, individual ports have made efforts to expand 
the flow of cargo through their facilities, frequently 
seeking an enlargement of the economic community 
served by the port. This expansion, of course, has 
been facilitated by the availability of the intermodal 
cargo handling procedures that, in part, made it 
necessary. 
While it has been suggested that the economies 
of scale inherent in modern intermodal cargo han- 
dling procedures may call for a reduction in the total 
number of ports needed, the local economic impor- 
tance of maintaining a healthy port facility imposes 
strong pressures on each port in the system to seek 
intermodal traffic. There is concern, however, that 
these individual efforts may have resulted in the 
development of excess intermodal capacity in the 
es U.S. port system. But while some observers 
see this capacity as excess, others assert that most 
of the capacity identified by critics as redundant is 
V-4 
| 
