Historically, the seaports of Seattle and Tacoma, only 30 miles apart, have vied with one another for ships, cargoes, overland rail connections, and, in general, for customers who could be persuaded to use their particular facilities and services.
Geographical proximity meant that the two deep-water Puget Sound ports had the same potential shipping prospects and each or either could serve as Puget Sound gateways for cargo in transit. This has been especially important from an Asian perspective. The focus of this essay is on today's high volume container trade, almost equally shared in 2007, and on the behavior of the public ports in developing container terminals, then acting as landlords by renting the facilities on long term lease to steamship lines or to terminal operators.
Here are some of the recently voiced arguments for more cooperation and, to be blunt, less competition between the two ports:
1. Joint planning for the financing, construction and leasing of new container facilities would reduce costly and unnecessary duplications.
2. Joint marketing efforts would result in cost-saving simplifications. Micro-geographic competition between Tacoma and Seattle tends to be a someone must lose proposition versus elevating the competitive emphasis to a regional level (e.g., British Columbia now including Prince Rupert versus Puget Sound versus Columbia River versus San Francisco Bay versus San Pedro Bay). This conforms to the usual need of container lines for only one port and one terminal for each region. The combination of Seattle and Tacoma handling a total of more than 4 million TEUs in 2007 signifies a potent force in the container trade, especially, it is argued, if their marketing efforts are coordinated.
3. Joint planning would encourage logical port specialization that makes the most of each port's comparative advantages -- and there certainly are some. For instance, Seattle, the larger city of the two, has the hotel accommodations and the tourist attractions to make it the logical port choice for the cruise lines. Tacoma has more abundant expansion room at the waterfront which appeals to container line customers, as does the ship-to-rail transfer of containers, which is probably the most cost efficient on the west coast. It doesn't make sense to dodge logical specializations.
4. Recent cooperative efforts by the public ports of Seattle and Tacoma, with important input from the Coast Guard, on environmental and safety/security issues have looked promising. Freight mobility problems in the Puget Sound region and beyond have been studied and discussed at committee meetings with joint Seattle and Tacoma representation. The problems have been identified but, so far, progress toward solutions (e.g., grade separations, etc.) has been frustratingly slow. Just as the two ports share much the same Puget Sound physical environment they also share approximately the same global location and rely on many of the same overland transport systems. Freight mobility should be a joint concern, calling for joint remedial action.
5. There is a long and unpublicized list of public and private-sector port-related services that Tacoma and Seattle share. Ships at each port have an equal opportunity to call for tugs, pilots, stevedoring, ship repairs, provisions, crew replacements, garbage disposal, fuel, marine surveyors, cargo inspectors, Customs, Immigration, etc. Often the same private-sector enterprise and the same personnel are covering the same needs in Seattle and Tacoma, sometimes on the same day. This is partly an unintended consequence of geographical proximity. Unintended sharing is not quite the same thing as cooperation but sometimes it can be a platform for it as in the case of freight mobility, mentioned above.
6. As one Canadian expert said of the Vancouver/North Fraser/Fraser River merger under a single port authority, “The combined British Columbia ports will be better able to allocate financial and land resources.” Joint efforts to finance and, in fact, allocate space for huge new container facilities at Tacoma and Seattle are likely to have more chance of success than would a divided approach.
7. Joint efforts by the Port of Seattle and Port of Tacoma would give the two more clout in dealing with the two major railroad systems providing transcontinental freight service for the two gateway ports.
8. Two former Seattle port commissioners, critical of the structure, governance and mission of the Port of Seattle and the self-defeating “over-competition” between Tacoma and Seattle, recommend the legislative creation of a Port of Puget Sound incorporating Seattle and Tacoma with future expansion possibilities throughout Puget Sound.
9. Several observers have recently referred to what they believe are successful experiments in public port consolidations -- the early 20th century formation of the New York-New Jersey Port Authority, the coordination of Virginia ports under state authority, and, most relevant to Seattle and Tacoma as their regional competitor, the recent emergence of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. It is significant that in April 2008 the commissioners of the Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma held a joint study session. One of the topics of discussion was “regional promotion to market cooperatively the strengths of the two ports as they address emerging competitive threats.” They have talked about it, at least!
10. The need to build a realistic framework and infrastructure for the future growth of Puget Sound commerce, creating jobs and incomes for the region, suggests a reasonable objective for both ports. The key in the container trade is more cooperation. The history of competition between the port communities of Seattle and Tacoma goes back well over 100 years. In the attitudes and behavior of the two communities and the two public ports there is still evidence of a strong competitive spirit. Within each of the many categories of port-, ship- and cargo-related private-sector services, competition between firms in the same line of business is the name of the game. However, as indicated above, the most logical competitive level for the container ports is regional, not local. Furthermore it is the big container lines and the big shippers constructing their supply chains who shape the choice of ports. Public ports, building, sometimes operating but usually leasing out their container terminals are the great enablers!