Post on 17-Jul-2020
transcript
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Chad Miller, Ph.D.
The University of Southern Mississippi
Job Creation Factors for Near Dock & Intermodal Facilities/Warehouse Job Creation
Member of the National Center for Freight and Infrastructure Research and Education (CFIRE) Consortium
World Trade Center Mississippi 2013 Intermodal Conference
Multi-Modal Transport: Cornerstone of the Global Economy April 24 & 25, 2013
Gulfport, Mississippi
Research supported by the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute at the University of Memphis
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Intermodal Freight Facilities (IFF)
• For this study, we are focusing on near port and hinterland facilities designed to handle containers.
• Identified 184 rail-to-track containerized freight transfer facilities with at least a dozen more under development. 39 used for statistical analysis
• Also examined 28 near dock near intermodal facilities
http://www.thefutureneedsus.com/project-updates/birmingham/
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Review of 184 Intermodal Facilities
• Growing Trend and Sophistication – Green Technology
• Range of Type of Facilities – Rail spur to freight village
– Ownership: Public Authority to Railroad
• Industrial Real Estate Development Companies – CenterPoint Properties, the Allen Group, Hillwood, A Perot Company
http://www.bnsfconnects.com/make-the-connection/c/cleaner-air
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Review of 184 Intermodal Facilities
• Large economic impact estimates
– The new $105 million Memphis Regional Intermodal Facility in Rossville, TN is expected to create or enhance 6,200 jobs
– Alliance Texas Logistics Park over $5 billion dollars in private investment, 24,000 permanent jobs, and $147 million in property taxes
– The $112 million NS intermodal facility in McCalla, AL is forecast to create 8,600 jobs
• Increasing use of ED incentives
– MD Department of Transportation splitting the estimated $150 million cost of a CSX facility
– BNSF provided 65% tax abatement along with over $25m in road connector construction for its intermodal facility in Kansas City
– CenterPoint Properties received $100 to $125 million in tax incremental financing (TIF) support for the Joliet Intermodal Terminal (JIT)
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Range of Employment Impacts
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Change in Intermodal Related Employment Year 3-5 after opening
What can explain this range of job creation impacts? Can government involvement increase the likelihood of job creation?
Top Job Creaters Bottom Job Creaters
1. UP/ Port Laredo (1990) 2. NS/Virginia Inland Port (1989) 3. Marion (AR) Intermodal Railport (1998) 4. NS Georgetown, KY Intermodal Facility (1987) 5. Port of Quincy (WA) Intermodal Terminal (2005)
1. St. Paul (MN) Intermodal Facility (1974) 2. Columbus (OH) Intermodal Terminal (2007) 3. Somerset (KY) Rail Park (2007) 4. Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (2004) 5. Buffalo Intermodal Container Terminal Facility (2007)
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Dependent Variable: Intermodal Related Jobs
Logistics related fields
SIC SOC Description
81017 53-1021 First-Line Supervisors of Helpers, Laborers, and Material Movers, Hand
81011 53-1031 First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and Material-Moving Machine and Vehicle Operators
97102 53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
98700 53-7062 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand
The employment and annual wage data for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas were retrieved from the Occupational Employment Statistics page of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Website. County level data by industry was found on the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Employment for counties containing the facility and adjacent counties was included in the analysis. Absolute and percent change
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Independent Variables
Inland Facilities 1. National/local Business cycle 2. Management model
– Landlord Model (public authority owns the land)
– Operator Model (e.g., railroad) – Developer Model
3. Developable land (population density) 4. Annual container Volume
– 3.6 direct jobs per 1,000 TEU of throughput (TranSystems 2011)
5. Level of public funding 6. Dryport
– An inland intermodal terminal directly connected to seaport(s) with high capacity transport means(s), where customers can leave/pick up their standardized units as if directly to the seaport (Leveque and Roso 2002).
Near Dock Facilities
1. Size of Facility In Acres
2. Annual container Volume – 3.6 direct jobs per 1,000 TEU of
throughput (TranSystems 2011)
3. Size of existing transportation sector
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Findings of Statistical Analysis of IFFs
• It appears that there was an ‘early mover’ advantage related to IFF job creation. Facilities that opened earlier tended to have larger job creation numbers.
• Intermodal facilities tend to be associated with greater job creation when they are built in regions with a higher level of transportation related employment to start with. This indicates that these regions are building on the existing strength of the region’s transportation sector.
• The size of intermodal facilities has little or no relationship to job creation. Large facilities may be very efficient at moving large volumes of freight utilizing a small workforce. Conversely, small facilities may attract other transportation companies to the area.
• The landlord management model was associated with higher intermodal related employment growth.
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
South Mississippi Warehouse Job Creation Study Research Question
Assuming projections of increased volumes of freight moving through northern Gulf of Mexico ports as a result of the completion of the Panama Canal Expansion materialize, what will be the expected impact on warehouse and distribution job creation in South Mississippi?
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Methodology
• Literature Review
• Primary and Secondary data collection of the historical trends of warehouse & distribution industry in South Mississippi
• Case Study of the Port of Mobile Pre & Post Expansion and the impact on South Alabama’s warehouse & distribution industry
• Shift share analysis of warehouse & distribution industry employment
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Warehouse Location Literature
• As retail distribution centers grow in size, the tendency is to locate these facilities in less populated rural areas away from more populated port areas (EEOC 2004).
• Bowen (2008) found that seaport access was not critical while air and highway access was essential.
• Large warehouse location selection unaffected by local market access and zoning controls, but instead was mostly driven by surface and air-transportation access advantages (Sivitanidou 1996) .
• Decentralization of freight activity from metropolitan central business districts toward the periphery of urban areas while nationally there was a centralization of freight activity to the Midwest (Cidell 2009) .
• Dablanc and Ross (2012) exam “logistics sprawl” and highlight the role of megaregions in understanding the new geography of warehousing and distribution.
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Path of Goods Movement (POGM)
• Analyzes the routes along which goods move using shipping weight (in tonnage) to determine strong demand for warehouse space (Mueller & Laposa 1994; Mansour, & Christensen, 2001)
• Larger warehouse nodes tend to occur at major Interstate Highway System intersections along routes to and near large population bases. A port is the end point of the POGM system.
National Warehouse Markets on the Path of Goods Movement Market Square Foot per Person
Memphis TN-MS-AR 123 Columbus OH 105
Indianapolis IN 95 Cincinnati OH-KY-IN 86
Cleveland OH 85 Kansas City MO-KS 85
Riverside-San Bernardino CA 84 Atlanta GA 80
Edison-New Brunswick NJ 77 Dallas-Fort Worth TX 75
Charlotte NC-SC 74 Chicago IL 74
Nashville TN 73 Salt Lake City UT 69
Miami FL 68 Los Angeles-Long Beach CA 64
Detroit MI 63 Newark-Union NJ-PA 63
St. Lois MO-IL 63 Jacksonville FL 61
Houston TX 61 Portland-Vancouver OR-WA 60
Oakland-Fremont CA 58 Source: CoStar/Property and Portfolio Research 2012
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
The changing geography of freight activity across the US
Source: Cidell 2009
A pattern of Midwestern distribution centers emerging, plus the Pacific Northwest and Piedmont regions to a lesser extent. A trend towards inland ports is visible.
“Logistics Clusters
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Port-Centric Economic Development Literature
• Public investment in ports often justified on claims of job creation and numerous impact studies claim regional job growth.
• Seaport activity is becoming more self-contained and less capable of generating spillover benefits for their metropolitan regional economies because of pass-through freight (Christopherson & Belzer, 2009).
• Grobar (2008) suggests that though ports are growth engines for the nation and the states it is located within, ports could be the cause of decline in the immediate radius that it has a direct impact over; that is within a 7 and a half-mile radius of the port.
• Helling and Positer (2000) conclude that ports have “weaker economic ties” to their home location; essentially this means that benefits from the port are becoming less distributed locally, and more dispersed to areas outside the port region
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Port of Gulfport Expansion
• Major clients of the port – Chiquita, Dole & Crowley – Moving their containers by truck
Source: Burk-Kleinpeter, 2011
• Modal shift of containers is a possibility in the future
• 350,000 containers expected to move by train in 2025
• Changes in business patterns
• New businesses attracted to Mississippi that could use the expanded port
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Growth in Container Traffic
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Port of Gulfport
Port of Mobile
Container Traffic in TEUs by Port
Source: AAPA
Source: WISER
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
South Mississippi Warehousing Employment (NAICS 493)
Source: EMSI
2001 Jobs
2011 Jobs
% Job Change
2011 Establishments
Location Quotient
Southern Mississippi
1,161 1,089 -6.2% 29 1.17
Memphis Region of Mississippi
1,904 3,825 100.9% 58 4.71
Nation 544,040 723,668 33.0% 15,221
Location quotient is a technique to compare the concentration of business activity levels among different regions
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Wholesale Employment
Warehousing Employment
Gulfport-Biloxi MSA Total Wholesale and Warehousing Employment from 2000-2010 (NACIS Codes 423 and 493)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Despite Increased Port Activity Warehouse and Distribution Employment is Decreasing
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
The Case of the Port of Mobile Expansion
In 2008, Alabama State Port Authority under went a $600m expansion. Regional warehousing and storage employment (NACIS code 493) grew 25.2% from 2001 to 2011 -General warehousing down, but refrigerated warehouse up National employment during same time increased 33%
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
State Versus Regional Job Creation
Mobile Region Transportation-Related Jobs 2001-2011
No. of jobs 2001
No. of jobs 2011
Change Percentage Change
15,020 14,252 -768 -5.4%
Martin Associates LLC (2009) employment impact for the state was 92,578 jobs state wide
Warehousing would be part of the 72,465 related user jobs includes shippers, consignees, importers, and exporters
Industry NAICS Jobs LQ 2001 LQ 2011 Avg. Wage
Trucking 484121 -2,057 3.08 1.82 $45,586
Sea Transportation 483111 766 0.42 23.44 $81,130
Source: EMSI
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Alabama Warehousing Employment 2001 and 2011
Source: EMSI
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Shift-Share Analysis of Warehousing Jobs (NAICS 493)-MSA Level
Shift-share is an analytical technique to identify industries considered to have a comparative advantage in that particular area
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Shift-Share Analysis of Warehousing Jobs (NAICS 493)-State Level
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Conclusions for Job Creation
• States and the Nation benefit the most from port-related development – The job creation benefit to port cities is less clear
• Under current business practices minimal impact on
warehousing jobs in South Mississippi – Major clients are sending most of their containers to final
destination by truck immediately after receiving • There is an important role for the public sector to ensure
quality job creation – Economic developers need to understand global supply chains
Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/
Chad R. Miller, Ph.D. Assistant Director
The University of Southern Mississippi Center for Logistics, Trade, and Transportation
Trent Lott National Center for Excellence in Economic Development & Entrepreneurship Bldg
118 College Drive, #5022 Hattiesburg, MS 39406 Tel: 601-266-6666 Fax: 601-266-6071
Email: chad.r.miller@usm.edu
“Making Multimodal Freight Systems Work for Economic Recovery and Quality of Life”
Miller, Chad, Brian Richard, MD Sarder, Tulio Sulbaran, and Martin Lipinski, “Job Creation Factors for Inland and Near Dock Intermodal Facilities,” Proceedings of National Conference on Intermodal Transportation: Problems, Practices, and Policies (NCIT), Hampton, Virginia, 2012. p52-60 http://biz.hamptonu.edu/esitac/docs/ncit2012_proceedings_rev20121214.pdf