Transport Hub

  • 3,362 views
Uploaded on

Investing in Transport Infrastructure for productivity growth

Investing in Transport Infrastructure for productivity growth

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
3,362
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. + Transport Opportunities: Trade drives prosperity White Paper on the changing opportunities from investing in multimodal transport facilities world- wide.
  • 2. + Executive Summary of Conclusions  US seriously lags in intermodal transport infrastructure. Canada has positioned itself to be land-bridge with Asia in competition with Panama Canal. Fastest growth in North America will be in West Coast to China, as bulk commodities trade use will grow from North American ports of:  Shanghai to Prince Rupert Is. in British Columbia;  Improvements in productivity in worst ports on West Coast namely Portland, Seattle ~ Tacoma, and British Columbia ports, only if change in ways these strategic assets are run;  Fastest trade growth intra Asia, followed by trade from Asia to North America.  Canadian National Railroads will be biggest beneficiary of Asia to East Coast USA, even with new Panama Canal increase in capacity.
  • 3. + Globalization has meant the explosion of Containerization
  • 4. + World Rail Freight Traffic
  • 5. + Trade Flows over past 40 years
  • 6. + Value of Trade between Major Trading Partners 2010, $ Bn
  • 7. + Drivers of Trade Efficiencies
  • 8. + Transport as percent of 2010 GDP US is least competitive of OECD. No investment has been made.
  • 9. + Main Trade Routes in 2010
  • 10. + East India Company Trade Routes
  • 11. + Global trade hubs in TEU
  • 12. + Liner Shipping Connectivity Index
  • 13. + Trade as % GDP
  • 14. + Resilience of Trade in Recessions
  • 15. + Global value of Exports
  • 16. + World Maritime Trade Tons/Km. The rise of Bulk Commodities
  • 17. + Intermodal Trade Break-down
  • 18. + Marine Cost ~ Experience Curve
  • 19. + Cost of Sea and Air Freight relative to Computers and Phone Calls
  • 20. + Cost Function of Intermodal Trans Shipment
  • 21. + I-Pad online supply chain. Fed-ex
  • 22. + Evolution of Trade in TEU
  • 23. + Costs of Trans Shipment NY Rotterdam
  • 24. + Northern American“Land Bridge”
  • 25. + US Freight ton miles Intercoastal has almost vanished even with Jones Act
  • 26. + Rail productivity has driven US “land bridge” economics
  • 27. + CONTAINER SHIP EVOLUTION
  • 28. + Super Container Ships Dimensions
  • 29. + But can’t get through existing Panama Canal Infrastructure New Canal will accommodate up to 366 m length, 49 m breadth and 15 m depth.USS Missouri in Panama Canal 1945
  • 30. + Economic Logic of 12,000 TEU Container Ship
  • 31. + Propulsion Economics
  • 32. + The Mega Container Ship 12,000 TEU
  • 33. + Top Container Operators world-wide
  • 34. + Capital Equipment as % of revenues in US industryRail transportation is one of the most capital intensive activity, particularly in North America where rail operators (Class I) ownand operate their networks. Thus, maintenance and improvement costs tend to be high. Comparatively, other transport sectorsare facing a different context. Roads are often provided and subsidized by public agencies. Ports and airport also tend to beowned by public agencies with user charges being the standard business model. Thus, if a maritime shipping company or anairline decides to lower or cut its services to a terminal, there are essentially no financial penalty in doing so. However, a railoperator seeing a decline of its traffic will still have similar maintenance costs. Abandoning tracks is seen as a last resortmeasure.
  • 35. + Canadian National Rail likely winner in North America.
  • 36. + Percent Rail Passenger Traffic to Total Rail, [2000]
  • 37. + Total World Rail Passengers
  • 38. + Disclaimer  Disclaimer:  The information and any statistical data contained herein have been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but we do not represent that they are accurate or complete, and they should not be relied upon as such. All opinions expressed and data provided herein are subject to change without notice. Gnostam LLC and/or its shareholders, directors, officers and/or employees, may have long or short positions or deal as principal in the securities discussed herein, related securities or in options, futures or other derivative instruments based thereon. The securities mentioned in this report may not be suitable for all types of investors. ALL investments involve different degrees of risk. You should be aware of your risk tolerance level and financial situations at all times. Furthermore, you should read all transaction confirmations, monthly, and year-end statements. Read any and all prospectuses carefully before making any investment decisions. You are free at all times to accept or reject all investment recommendations made by the Gnostam LLC. As you know, a recommendation, which you are free to accept or reject, is not a guarantee for the successful performance of an investment and we are expressly prohibited from guaranteeing accounts against losses arising from market conditions.  Past performance is no guarantee of future results, and current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted.  Investment Disclaimer
 All investments involve different degrees of risk. You should be aware of your risk tolerance level and financial situations at all times. Furthermore, you should read all transaction confirmations, monthly, and year-end statements. Read any and all prospectuses carefully before making any investment decisions. You are free at all times to accept or reject all investment recommendations made. All products sold are subject to market risk and may result in the entire loss to the clients investment. (For example: excessive withdrawals may result in the depletion of your account). Please understand that any losses are attributed to market forces beyond the control or prediction of Gnostam LLC. As you know, a recommendation, which you are free to accept or reject, is not a guarantee for the successful performance of an investment and we are expressly prohibited from guaranteeing accounts against losses arising from market conditions. Gnostam LLC ontact: Philip Corsano Tel 1 206 384 0069. E-mail: pcorsano@gnostam.com or pcorsano@me.com
  • 39. + Sources:  Bibliography:  Governor’s Container Ports Initiative: Recommendations of the Container Ports and Land Use Work Group, Washington State 2009;  Office of Financial Management, State of Washington , Land use around the Port of Seattle, 2009;  State of Washington Office of Financial Management. Land Use and local finance 2005.  Jean-Paul Rodrigue et al The Geography of Transport Systems, Hofstra University, Department of Global Studies & Geography,  EC (2005), ExternE: Externalities of Energy - Methodology 2005 Update, Directorate-General forResearch Sustainable Energy Systems, European Commission (www.externe.info).  EDRG (2007), Monetary Valuation of Hard-to-Quantify Transportation Impacts: Valuing Environmental, Health/Safety & Economic Development Impacts, NCHRP 8-36-61, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (www.trb.org/nchrp); at www.statewideplanning.org/_resources/63_NCHRP8-36-61.pdf.