How USWC Ports are Preparing for Higher Container Volumes
By Jock O’Connell
A report is being circulated in the state of Oregon justifying the creation of a brand-new container port along the Beaver State’s Pacific seaboard at Coos Bay. The report was prepared by Rebel Group, a consulting firm in far off Rotterdam. The Dutch company’s client is NorthPoint Development, a real estate firm out of Kansas City. NorthPoint would develop and operate the new terminal, although NorthPoint has no evident experience with either management of a port designed to handle 1.5 million TEUS per year or the servicing of modern container ships. The offered plan calls for the new port to be up and handling imposing volumes of containers after a remarkably accelerated three-year construction period.
The Dutch firm’s report makes some startling claims, among them that, absent a new port, Pacific Coast ports from Vancouver to San Pedro Bay will eventually be experiencing the sort of congestion that backed up shipping along the coast during the height of the pandemic.
The Rotterdam report states that its “projections demonstrate that existing West Coast port facilities are already nearing operational capacity and will exceed full capacity in the early 2040s.” Hence, as the Dutch consultant’s contention goes, a new container port is necessary to absorb the anticipated demand after the existing ports along North America’s Pacific Coast are saturated with TEUs and risk becoming bottlenecks holding up the flow of imported materials. The assessment further claims that the new Coos Bay facility would reduce “concentration risk at San Pedro and Canadian ports”.
The Rebel Group study finds that total capacity for container volumes at West Coast port facilities is around 49 million TEUs/year. It then discounts that figure by observing that “operational capacity” is about 70% of total capacity, which would put true capacity at about 35 million TEUs per year. “The projections demonstrate that existing West Coast port facilities are already nearing operational capacity and will exceed full capacity in the early 2040s.” contends the Dutch analysis.
That’s odd for at least a couple of reasons. All of the four major maritime gateways along North America’s Pacific Coast – Vancouver in British Columbia, the Northwest Seaport Alliance Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, Northern California’s Port of Oakland, and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in Southern California -- reported handling 29,310,483 laden and empty TEUs in 2025, which is obviously shy of the operational capacity figure conjured up by RebelGroup.
Although perhaps deliberately, the study overlooks the excess capacity and struggling performance of the container ports that the Coos Bay port would most immediately compete. Two years ago, the proprietors of the Port of Portland were ready to shutter container operations at the port’s Terminal 6. An informal consortium of state and local leaders and regional businesses intervened to forestall that eventuality by coughing up as much as $40 in taxpayer money to keep Terminal 6 afloat. Two years after that intervention, which also saw heartfelt promises from regional businesses that they would step up their use of the port, container traffic is down 27.6% from when port officials thought it financially prudent to throw in the towel on containerized trade.
And then there are the big container ports in the Pacific Northwest, the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle in Washington State’s Puget Sound, against which a proposed container facility on a sparsely developed part of the Oregon Coast would most directly compete. Both ports have fielded plans to expand their container throughput rates to handle projected volumes of containerized trade. Even then, there is the more immediate matter of underutilized capacity. The fact is that the two Northwest Seaport Alliance have seen a significant decline in TEU numbers. So far this this, total TEU levels at the two ports is down 10.9% from the same period last year as well as down 25.5% from the first eight months of pre-pandemic 2019.
The Rebel Group analysis claims that “existing West Coast port facilities are already nearing operational capacity and will exceed full capacity in the early 2040s”. Expansion plans at the leading Pacific Coast ports are taken as proof that a new port is warranted, especially since those expansion projects “have a long-term horizon” unlike the proposed facility at Coos Bay.
Those contentions are patently false. The notion that ports up and down the Pacific Coast of North America have been standing idly by is perhaps a conclusion that might be drawn by analysts using dated information while sitting halfway around the globe. Ports from San Diego to Prince Rupert have all embarked-on aggressive projects to bolster their capacities and accelerate throughput rates.
The Port of Long Beach aims to double its container capacity to 20 million TEUs by 2050. One feature of the port’s expansion project is the $1.8 billion Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility that would triple on-dock rail capacity by 2032. The San Pedro Bay port also recently kicked off the environmental review for a project to upgrade, redevelop, and expand container throughput at Pier T.
At the adjacent Port of Los Angeles, expansion planning includes the Pier 500 Marine Container Terminal, a proposed 200-acre container terminal with 3,000 linear feet of wharf, which would be the port's first new terminal in a generation. In addition, the port is working on an 80-to-89-acre hub on Terminal Island dedicated to chassis parking, maintenance, and centralized container pick-up and drop-off. Plans also feature ongoing on-dock rail expansions at Pier 300, potential vacant land activation at Fenix Marine Terminal, and wharf/rail upgrades at LA TiL Container Terminal in the West Basin.
In Northern California, the Port of Oakland has just initiated a project in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to widen the port’s two turning basins to accommodate ships of up to 1,300-feet in length. The $640 million project is expected to be completed by 2030. Its completion is key to the port’s plans to service many of the largest vessels engaged in the transpacific trade but also to attract first-call service from major shipping lines.
In Washington State, the Northwest Seaport Alliance Ports of Tacoma and Seattle have been advancing major infrastructure and expansion plans across the Seattle and Tacoma harbors to increase cargo capacity and regional competitiveness. Upgrades involve outfitting all international container terminals with shore power by 2030, following completions at Terminal 5 and Husky Terminal. The Port of Seattle has added over 1,500 total reefer plugs to support regional agricultural exporters shipping perishable goods, while doubling its on-terminal queuing capacity.
North of the border in British Columbia, Canadian officials are dusting off ambitious plans to boost exports to markets other than those in the United States by expanding utilization of its major port facilities. The focus will be on shipping higher volumes of minerals and metals, agricultural products, and natural gas and oil through ports like Vancouver and Prince Rupert.
Apart from port expansion plans already underway, there is ample unused capacity. While the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach have lately been reporting record highs, they are still not at capacity. Likewise, the Port of Oakland as well as the ports of the Northwest Seaport Alliance have been handling far fewer containers than they have in the recent past, placing them below existing capacity. The same is true of the Port of Prince Rupert. It is especially noteworthy that the Rebel Group feasibility study makes almost no reference to the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, even the Puget Sound ports would offer the most direct competition for cargo.
One might think that shrewd public officials might doubt a scheme to potentially invest billions in a new port when the established ports in the region have been unable to prevent the steady decline of their container volumes. Even George Shinn, the famously pompous mayor in The Music Man would be dubious of the outsider’s numbers or its belief that such an audacious greenfield project could be realized in a mere three years.
The commentary, views, and opinions expressed by Jock O’Connell are his own and do not reflect the views or positions of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. PMSA does not endorse, support, or make any representations regarding the content provided by any third party commentator.