By Chris Kraul and Deborah Schoch, Times Staff Writers
MEXICO CITY ? A coalition of shipping and freight concerns announced plans Friday for a $1-billion port on deserted seaside farmland about 150 miles
south of Tijuana on the Baja peninsula. They hope to link the Mexican port to California with a new rail line connecting to the Imperial Valley and
compete with the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports for a share of the multibillion-dollar West Coast shipping business.
If it materializes, the Punta Colonet facility would be one of the largest public works projects undertaken in Mexico, requiring the construction of
roads, housing, public buildings and other infrastructure where none now exists.
The firms have begun lobbying the Mexican government, telling officials there would be enough cargo traffic and investment dollars to underwrite a
major portion of the cost to build the port and a new city to serve it.
At stake is a share of the estimated $200 billion in revenue generated annually by shipping through California.
"We have to get Colonet developed," said Walter J. Romanowski, an executive with Los Angeles-based Marine Terminals Corp., a holding company owned by
Evergreen and Yang Ming shipping lines of Taiwan, Hanjin of South Korea and China Shipping of Shanghai, all among the world's largest shipping firms.
"There are no other viable West Coast options."
Romanowski said he wanted the right to build a complex of berths, warehouses and cranes that by 2012 could be running 1 million standard container
units a year, about one-seventh the current volume at the Los Angeles port. Construction of the proposed Mexican port would take at least five years,
the shipping companies say.
Port officials in Long Beach and Los Angeles said Friday that the project was news to them, although rumors have circulated for months about potential
new port developments in Mexico.
The shipping industry soon will have no choice but to expand out of the Los Angeles Basin, and Mexico is the best alternative, said Al Fierstine,
former Los Angeles port business development director who is now an advisor to Marine Terminals Corp.
Mexican Sen. Hector Osuna Jaime said the project would promote much needed growth in jobs and industry in Baja California. A new port, he said, would
spur investors to build factories, possibly reversing a trend in recent years that has seen manufacturing jobs leave Mexico for China.
One political hurdle facing approval of the proposed port is the 150-mile rail link to connect with the United States. Mexican laws bar foreign
ownership of such a line.
Also, Mexican officials traditionally authorize public works projects that they can see completed before their terms expire. President Vicente Fox
leaves office at the end of 2006, long before the Punta Colonet project would receive its first ship.bajalou - 4-9-2005 at 09:35 AM
I was ready to post this but you beat me to it, Tommy.
One comment they made about no forign ownership of railroads seem odd as the Kansas City Southern Railroad just bought one of the largest of Mexican
Railroads with the same idea min mind but using mainland port, I think Mazatlan and another to move the containers to the eastern US and for
transhipment to Europe.
David K - 4-9-2005 at 09:58 AM
The San Diego and Arizona Easter RR had no problem with that law, as their railroad goes south at Tijuana and back north east of Tecate. The Railroad
Museum runs passengers from Campo to Tecate on it, or has recently. I read that it is unique in that it is the only railroad in the world that crosses
the International border, underground!Skipjack Joe - 4-9-2005 at 10:17 AM
Absolutely sickening!!bajalou - 4-9-2005 at 10:17 AM
David, the SD&AE RR built by Spreckels and later oned by the SP had a Mexican subsideary the Tijuana and Tecate RR. There were many railroads in
Mexico owned by US companies. The pacific RR of Mexico from Nogales to Guadalahara was started by the ATSF and later taken over by the SP. The
Nocazari RR south of Arizona to a mining district also owned by SP. Another in the sam are that I don't remember the name. But all these might be
the reason that forign ownership was outlawed and the existing rail lines nationalized.
Skeet/Loreto - 4-9-2005 at 10:52 AM
All of this seems to tie in with the recently announced multi-Lane Highway from Laredo Texas to Houston and Beyond mostly for large Trucks.
Skeet
deep water port
Sharksbaja - 4-9-2005 at 12:15 PM
if true, might as well capitalize on it........buy cheap land now and sell it at a huge profit later.... now we gots to find out exactly where and
when
Have you seen the ports in Asia. YIKES!!!! Faster spreading industrial type cancers. Would make Cabo pale in growth.
Great Idea
The Gull - 4-9-2005 at 01:52 PM
Start buy property in Colonet waiting for the warehousing projects, then the residences, then the marina, then the hotels, then the prison, then....
Shipping lines look to build Mexican port because of L.A. backlogs
LOS ANGELES ? A group of shipping companies says it wants to build a $1 billion port complex about 150 miles south of Tijuana, Mexico, because of
severe congestion at Southern California ports.
Plans announced Friday by Marine Terminals Corp. include a complex of berths, warehouses and cranes that could handle nearly one-seventh the current
volume at the Los Angeles port, or about 1 million standard container units a year, by 2012.
Company officials hope to connect the proposed Punta Colonet harbor, located on undeveloped farmland, to California with a new rail line. Construction
would take at least five years.
"We have to get Colonet developed," said Walter J. Romanowski, an executive with Marine Terminals, a Los Angeles-based holding company owned by
shipping giants Evergreen and Yang Ming of Taiwan, Hanjin of South Korea and China Shipping of Shanghai. "There are no other viable West Coast
options."
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, together the nation's largest port complex, have become so congested that ships often must wait up to a week
before unloading their cargo. Environmental and other restrictions limit expansion, while backups at other West Coast terminals are increasingly
common.
The companies have begun lobbying the Mexican government. If approved, the facility would be one of Mexico's largest public works projects, requiring
the construction of roads, housing, public buildings and other infrastructure where none now exists.
But company officials claim it would attract enough investment and business to pay for major costs of building the harbor and an accompanying city. By
competing with California ports, it could siphon away part of the $200 billion in revenue generated each year by shipping through the state.
Mexican Sen. Hector Osuna Jaime said the port could create jobs and industry in Mexico, which has lost manufacturing jobs in recent years to China.
Among the hurdles facing the project are Mexican laws that would bar foreign ownership of the rail line.
Over the past three decades, Southern California's twin ports have grown into the country's main entry point for cargo containers. In 2003, the
equivalent of 11.3 million 20-foot containers passed across the docks. Only the ports of Hong Kong and Singapore saw more cargo.
LOS ANGELES - In an April 9 story about a proposed port along the Baja peninsula in Mexico, The Associated Press reported erroneously that the ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach have become so congested that ships often must wait up to a week before unloading cargo. Such backups occurred last
November, but there have been virtually no delays for arriving vessels so far this year, according to Manny Aschemeyer, executive director of the
Marine Exchange of Southern California, which monitors ship movements.
The article also described Marine Terminals Corp. as a holding company owned by Asian shipping firms. MTC is actually a family-owned company based in
Oakland that has separate joint-venture terminal operating agreements with Asian shipping lines.Anonymous - 4-17-2005 at 09:33 PM
...there have been virtually no delays for arriving vessels so far this year...
Thanx for the laugh. Bruce R Leech - 4-18-2005 at 09:01 AM
It will never happenDanO - 4-18-2005 at 11:27 AM
I wouldn't be so sure. The locals are treating it as a done deal, since it's based on economic necessity like the gas terminal farther north. This
isn't a retirement community or a string of marinas for gringo yachties, it's an expansion of an industrial sector to serve increasing commercial and
consumer demand that simply can't be handled by L.A., Long Beach and San Diego ports. I have a feeling we'll need to get used to the profiles of
container ships against those beautiful Pacific sunsets, although it'll take a long time to happen.
If it happens, I'd like to hope (call me naive, I know) that the Mexican environmental agency imposes strict pollution controls. The two biggest
polluters in the L.A. Basin happen to be the ports of L.A. and Long Beach.Anonymous - 4-25-2005 at 01:39 PM
What a nightmare! Cannot imagine the truckmtraffic on the existing 2 lane road being able to handle any more. Maybe the Mexican government will
improve the road? Probably Not!!!!
i just hope any rail car systems....
capt. mike - 4-26-2005 at 05:03 AM
have a bar car like the trains to Creel!!Bruce R Leech - 4-26-2005 at 06:51 AM
yes and I understand they are going to have a Lady's bar car.
Hmmmmmm . . .
DanO - 4-26-2005 at 10:51 AM
That seems to be recurring topic around here. I wonder if . . . nah, never mind. I must not think bad thoughts, I must not think bad thoughts, I
must not think bad thoughts . . .
