Making the Case for the Port of Sydney (in 1917)

kenzie macneil Follow Me

Posted this 2016-03-07 12:30 PM AST (updated 2016-04-08 10:38 AM ADT)

This chart was produced by the Sydney Board of Trade in a Business Journal in 1917. Calling us the " long wharf of North America", the Board was pitching the idea of the Port of Sydney being a major transshipment hub for Atlantic shipping.

A closer look at the chart reveals how lucrative Sydney's location is to other international ports. In an industry where labour counts for 3% of the costs and fuel for 33% - distance matters.

Posted by kenzie macneil
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW

1917- The Port of Sydney "The Pivotal Point Of The World's Commerce"

Gov Political Commentary

Depth
Joe Ward Follow Me 2016-03-07 9:21 PM AST Reply 1 0 Over the 99 years that have past since 1917, I wonder at what point we might have come the closest to attracting International shipping interests? Intuitively, I'm thinking that during our peak population and industrial economic activity, that might have been the best window of opportunity. The other lingering question I'm left with each time a seemingly cogent case (from my layman perspective) for the port is presented... is if the business case and competitive advantages of shipping operators utilizing Sydney as a strategic port is so strong... then it's surprising that International shipping experts/investors haven't already moved on the opportunity. In other words, why haven't they accepted the basis of the opportunity as presented?
Wayne O'Toole Follow Me 2016-03-09 7:18 AM AST Reply 0 0 The issue with comparison to 1917 is grand in difference. In the early 1900s for example, Sydney Mines was one of the richest towms in Canada. We had North-South trading which was converted to East-West. We had a newly developed railway. The mode of shipping was unique to the time period. Things have changed drastically in 100 years,;there are 100s more ports now and the infrastructure is completely different. As well, as Joe mentioned, if we were that viable and superior 100 years ago, why over that 100 years has this not been taken advantage of. Our competitive edge has been falling on a steady decline over that 100 years and shipping ports have suffered demise and decline in almost every major centre across north america and are losing profit margins. Add that what you save in fuel costs on vessels you lose in fuel having to ship via truck/rail to get product to the eastern American coastly cities. We may have an edge in the shipping via vessel but that is eaten up by less then ideal location once it lands at a port. We also have failing infrastrucure i.e. railway ready to be ripped up and sold for scrap and poor roadways. You cannot make direct comparisons from then (100 years ago) to now as they don't exist. I do challenge the originally poster to provide actual data that is current and present a case that way with empirical data.

Depth

Joe Ward Follow Me 2016-03-07 9:21 PM AST

Reply 1 0

Over the 99 years that have past since 1917, I wonder at what point we might have come the closest to attracting International shipping interests? Intuitively, I'm thinking that during our peak population and industrial economic activity, that might have been the best window of opportunity. The other lingering question I'm left with each time a seemingly cogent case (from my layman perspective) for the port is presented... is *if* the business case and competitive advantages of shipping operators utilizing Sydney as a strategic port is so strong... then it's surprising that International shipping experts/investors haven't already moved on the opportunity. In other words, why haven't they accepted the basis of the opportunity as presented?

Wayne O'Toole Follow Me 2016-03-09 7:18 AM AST

Reply 0 0

The issue with comparison to 1917 is grand in difference. In the early 1900s for example, Sydney Mines was one of the richest towms in Canada. We had North-South trading which was converted to East-West. We had a newly developed railway. The mode of shipping was unique to the time period. Things have changed drastically in 100 years,;there are 100s more ports now and the infrastructure is completely different. As well, as Joe mentioned, if we were that viable and superior 100 years ago, why over that 100 years has this not been taken advantage of. Our competitive edge has been falling on a steady decline over that 100 years and shipping ports have suffered demise and decline in almost every major centre across north america and are losing profit margins. Add that what you save in fuel costs on vessels you lose in fuel having to ship via truck/rail to get product to the eastern American coastly cities. We may have an edge in the shipping via vessel but that is eaten up by less then ideal location once it lands at a port. We also have failing infrastrucure i.e. railway ready to be ripped up and sold for scrap and poor roadways. You cannot make direct comparisons from then (100 years ago) to now as they don't exist. I do challenge the originally poster to provide actual data that is current and present a case that way with empirical data.

goCapeBreton.com

Making the Case for the Port of Sydney (in 1917)

2

Facebook Comments

More Posts by kenzie macneil

Featured Posts

More Posts Under