{
  "id": "R44831",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44831",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 586594,
      "date": "2017-05-02",
      "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:35:13.250513",
      "title": "Revitalizing Coastal Shipping for Domestic Commerce",
      "summary": "In recent years, domestic shipborne commerce has lost much of its market to other modes. Although potential shipping routes run parallel to congested truck, railroad, and pipeline routes along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the Great Lakes region, the volume of cargo carried by domestic ships has declined by 61% since 1960, while the volume carried by other modes, including river barges, has more than doubled. Use of domestic ships has retreated to routes where overland modes are not available, such as between Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska and the U.S. mainland, and where oil pipelines do not exist or are at capacity.\nOne reason for the comparatively lower usage of domestic coastal and Great Lakes shipping is that despite their inherent efficiencies, ships are often not the lowest-cost option for domestic shippers.\nU.S.-built ships cost six to eight times more to build than the equivalent cargo capacity provided by rail and barge equipment. The comparatively high cost is related to the absence of foreign competition in shipbuilding and the lack of economies of scale at U.S. shipyards.\nU.S. container ports are widely considered to be much less efficient than ports in Europe and Asia, some of which are fully automated. A 2013 study examining the feasibility of coastal container services on the East Coast found that port handling costs were the largest cost element ship operators would face.\nShip crewing costs are inflated by subsidies provided to U.S. crews aboard U.S. international trading ships that have government-impelled cargoes reserved for them. Domestic ship lines compete with the international fleet when hiring maritime officers.\nU.S. cargo shippers have responded to the comparatively high cost of domestic ship transport by turning to land modes, exporting goods instead of selling them domestically, and utilizing oceangoing barges instead of ships for coastal transport. Oceangoing barges cost less to construct, and can require only a third as many crew as coastal ships. Since 1960, coastwise and Great Lakes tonnage carried by barges has increased 356%, while ship tonnage carried on these waters has decreased by 61%. However, oceangoing barges have significant disadvantages: they are less efficient for longer voyages, and their use does not preserve the shipbuilding and maritime crewing capabilities Congress has sought to protect. Oceangoing barges mainly carry petroleum products, suggesting that commercial shippers do not find them attractive for other types of cargo.\nReviving coastal shipping would dramatically increase the capacity of the nation\u2019s freight network. Moreover, some of the necessary infrastructure is largely in place, as many of the harbors the federal government dredges for deep-draft vessels currently have little or no ship traffic. The question is whether a different mix of federal policies would make coastal trade an attractive option for shippers and ship owners. To revive coastal shipping, the cost issues would need to be addressed. Further information on the causes of the high cost of U.S.-built ships, the justification for the crewing disparity between oceangoing barges and coastal ships, and whether automation would lower cargo-handling costs at ports would be useful in evaluating policies that might revitalize coastal shipping.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44831",
          "sha1": "48ec7636a56c42a201cdf0b27914187ea77ceeb2",
          "filename": "files/20170502_R44831_48ec7636a56c42a201cdf0b27914187ea77ceeb2.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44831_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170502_R44831_images_75223c18de5f3c69b107ef2cfa3c2961f66eae2d.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44831_files&id=/2.png": "files/20170502_R44831_images_2c5f21bb50dbcce0a6967552951eb4a4cac8e30d.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44831_files&id=/3.png": "files/20170502_R44831_images_6d51fa6c0df8f5823e33722b49a96679bbcaefa1.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44831_files&id=/1.png": "files/20170502_R44831_images_036ecb1d514e43465c9d40ce4656f04cff479ce2.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44831",
          "sha1": "831a14af67b85fdfe04578b0b172c09f80c6e255",
          "filename": "files/20170502_R44831_831a14af67b85fdfe04578b0b172c09f80c6e255.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4767,
          "name": "Freight"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Transportation Policy"
  ]
}