In the U.S. the local port authorities, for the most part have responsibility for their own planning and are independent from national government's control. The federal government is not involved with port planning for the commercial enterprise.54 There is federal government involvement on a more general scale: The U.S. Coast Guard (for navigational aids); Corps of Engineers (for dredging); the Department of Transportation (DOT) and its Maritime Administration (MARAD) for general oversight and research. These reflect U.S. National Government's involvement.55
Bargaining relationship between public (port authorities) and private (terminal operators and shipping companies)
In Japan, the local government and the PMB make all decisions for public facilities. There are, however, many ports in Japan with demands from labor, stevedores, and shipping companies that influence their decisions.56 The PTPC is a public corporation established by the local government.57 As the “new system” for a public/private terminal that is dedicated to private use comes on stream, the relationship between public/private becomes blurred. Under the old scheme users were not treated equally. The public terminals for example are intended for all users but are often used by only a few shipping companies and multiple stevedore companies. New institutional arrangements are needed to improve efficiency, lower costs and make terminals more “user-friendly.” Under the new method there are 3 entities (the PMB,the PTPC,and the carriers). There are other systems to consider as well and the authorities find it difficult to accommodate change but are now looking to the outside.58 Who should have the greater role? Should it be the public authority's role, the private sector's role, or some combination? Which is best?59 In Nagoya, one terminal is constructed and managed by a JSC - a public/private partnership. Could this, if revised somewhat, be a viable model for container terminals?60 In Hakata, the PMB/Private sector setup a council meeting to make better terminals and to increase services.61 In Tokyo, a committee made up of public/private sector organizations worked on the study that looked at container terminal's hours of operation. Will there be more efforts of this nature?
The situation on the West Coast of North America is extremely competitive. Much of the cargo crossing docks of West Coast ports is called “discretionary” cargo, which means it could move through any of these ports because it is intermodal cargo. That is, it is destined for inland points in the U.S. Mid-West and beyond. Therefore, the bargaining relationships between public port authorities and terminal operators strongly favors terminal operators or shipping companies. This is because they are able to move their cargo from one port to another and still have it shipped efficiently to its destination.62 Often times, public port authorities are quite strong, quite “independent”, and quite ready to take credit for port achievements (when port users the carriers and terminal operators are the ones mainly responsible for those achievements).63
Terminal planning, development, and cost/benefit analysis
In Japan, social benefits and costs are important.64 Terminal planning, development, and cost/benefit analysis is done that considers the social benefits and costs such as regional development and employment. Ports are a public good and the national government has a role in the coordination of gateway ports and their operations. It should help them be able to develop a comparative advantage, promote an effective distribution system and maintain a national competitiveness.
