John. K. Bulow. AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF
NORTH CAROLINA PORTS. (Under the direction of Edward P. Leahy)
Departraent of Geography, May 1979.
The purpose of this stud}?- is to evaluate the competitive
advantages of North Carolina's tV7o state ports, Wilmington
and Morehead City, in regard to the transportation networks
of the state and in competition with the regional ports of
Norfolk, Virginia; Charleston, South Carolina; and Savannah,
Georgia. The methodology chosen to accomplish this goal is
the subjection of abstracted highway and railroad networks
composed of the five port cities and the twenty largest cities
of North Carolina to network analysis. By doing so, a value
graph matrix is developed for each transport system that
will indicate which cities are closest to all others using
the parameter distance in miles. This enables us to evaluate
the five port cities in terms of highway and railroad mile-
age to all of the other cities. Also, a composite figure,
consisting of all the distances to every city from any one,
allows us to rank the port cities in terms of access to the
entire system. In this manner the geographic position of
the state ports in relation to the largest cities of the
state can be analysed in conjunction with that of the compet-
ing regional ports of Norfolk, Charleston and Savannah.
Ï. T. JOYNER LIBRARY
CAROLINA UNIVERSTTÎJ
.All of the above ports transfer a significant portion
of the North Carolina import and export commerce and an
examination of the distance factor is significant in terms
of port selection by those responsible for moving commerce
to and from North Carolina's growing economy.
An important area of secondary consideration within
this thesis is the documentation of the movement of state
commerce through North Carolina's ports. Even though the
competing regional ports are much larger than either
Morehead City or Wilm.ington, the state ports transfer a
significant portion of the state's ocean going coiranerce
from their wharves. Wilmington is a port where facilities
are miost concerned with general cargo shipment. Since
the containerization of ships cargo is an important
technological innovation in this type of trade, an analysis
of the containers shipped to and from the state for the
year 1977 is made. Morehead City, on the other hand, is
oriented more to shipment of bulk cargo and so all tonnages
for all types of cargoes for the year 1977 are analysed.
This view of the actual cargo shipment demonstrates the
ability of the ports to contend for different kinds of
cargo within the state.
iH') "I >
AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES
OF NORTH CAROLINA PORTS
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of Geography
East Carolina University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Geography
by
John K. Bulow
AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES
OF NORTH CAROLINA PORTS
by
John K. Bulow
APPROVED BY:
SUPERVISOR OF THESIS
CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF^^GgE^OgGrRaA:PHY
. Ennis L. Chestan
DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
Dr. <J^eph G. Boyelfte
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS
Page
1. Petroleum Unloading Facility 17
2. Private Petroleum Storage Facility 17
3. Loading of Tobacco Hogsheads 18
4. Tobacco Fumigation Facility 18
5. Unloading Container Ship 19
6. Container Crane Unloading 20
7. Gantry Crane Unloading 20
8. Special Gantry Crane Adapter 21
9. Container Stacker 21
10. Morehead City Container Crane 24
11. Container Crane Unloading 30
12. Containers on Railroad Cars 30
13. Wilmington's Containerized Cargo Market .... 33
14. Total Tonnages, Morehead City 35
15. Phosphate Conveyor 36
16. Phosphate Storage Facility 36
17. Phosphate Barge 37
18. Imported Lumber 37
19. Schematic Highway Map 42
20. Schematic Railroad Map 43
21. Initial Highway Matrix 51
22. Completed Highway Matrix 52
23. Initial Weighted Highway Matrix 53
24. Completed Weighted Highway Matrix 54
25. Initial Railroad Matrix 55
26. Completed Railroad Matrix 56
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose 1
Literature 4
Scope, Study Area, and Hypothesis 10
II. PORT DESCRIPTION 13
Historical Background of North Carolina Ports. 13
Port Facilities 16
Identification of Trade Areas of North
Carolina . T 26
III. CONSTRUCTION OF ABSTRACTED MODEL 39
Origin of Data 40
MetnôïïoTogy 45
IV. EVALUATION OF ABSTRACTED TRANSPORT NETWORKS . . 57
Highway Network 57
Railroad Network 61
V. SLTIMARY AND CONCLUSION 64
North Carolina Ports and Their Distance
Relationships to the Twenty Largest North
Carolina Cities 64
Conclusion 71
APPENDIX A 76
APPENDIX B 84
BIBLIOGRAPHY 87
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Highway Matrices Composite Totals 60
2. Railroad Matrix Composite Totals 63
3. Highway Distances to Ports 65
4. Weighted Highway Distances to Ports 67
5. Railroad Distances to Ports .• 69
IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project is dedicated to my wife, Susan, whose
loving dedication enabled me to complete this manuscript.
My mother, Nancy Bulow, was also instrumental in provid-
ing necessary encouragement. My entire family has stood
behind me at all times and I wish to express my gratitude
for their confidence.
The academic assistance I received from Dr. Edward
Leahy, Dr. Phillip Shea, Dr. Simon Baker, Dr. Peter
Fricke, Dr. Donald Steila and others at East Carolina
University was most helpful and greatly appreciated.
The technical help offered by Mr. Charles Zehr in develop-
ing a computer program for my project; the photographic
assistance of Mr. Everett Wall and the cartographic aid
from Mr. Jim. Owens all contributed to the success of this
proj ect.
Ms. Margaret Wiggins of the North Carolina Room at
Joyner Library was instrumental in obtaining materials
necessary for this thesis and providing entry into other
fields of information.
I also wish to express my gratitude to Admiral William
Greene, the executive director of the State Ports Authority,
for his interest in this study and for providing any infor-
mation or data requested. His assistant, Mr. Grant Godwin,
and all of the Ports Authority staff have been more than
V
helpful and have made significant contributions to this
thesis. Finally, I wish to thank the other members of the
various state government agencies who have been so cour-
teous and helpful v/hen information was requested of these
offices.
VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Wilmington and Morehead City, the two deepwater ports
of the North Carolina States Ports Authority, function to
service the demand for break bulk transfer of the state's
foreign commerce. In direct competition with these two
ports are the regional ports of Norfolk, Charleston, and
Savannah. These larger regional ports account for a signi-
ficant portion of the movement of North Carolina's foreign
trade. In fact, almost fifty percent of the state's imports
and exports by volume travel through ports other than Wilming-
ton or Morehead City.^ Despite the vigorous competition from
these ports, state ports are able to contend for the move-
ment of an important if not dominant share of the ocean
freight generated by the state's growing economy. These
two facilities while small in comparison to the competing
ports of Norfolk, Virginia (Hampton Roads complex);
Charleston, South Carolina; and Savannah, Georgia are
2
m.odern seaports with railroad and highway connections .
Paul F. Mulligan and Raymond L. Collins, Impact of
North Carolina Pores on the North Carolina Economy,
"(Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1975) , 215-
16.
2
N. C. Ports, Facts and Figures, North Carolina Ports
Authority, 19777
2
Purpose
Can North Carolina ports survive and flourish in the
highly competitive ocean freight trade with its larger
counterparts? Support for an affirmative answer to this
question can be found in publications which substantiate
growth in total tonnage for the two ports from the commence-
ment of the North Carolina State Ports Authority operations
-5
in 1952 to the present.
Critics of North Carolina ports who have an understand-
ing of the history and geography of the state will be quick
to point out that it is absurd to think that one of North
Carolina's ports could someday become the "New York of the
South." Because such criticism is valid, many economic plan-
ners and government officials have decided that further develop-
ment is a waste of taxpayers %ioney. Such attitudes do not con-
sider the value of Wilmington and Morehead City to the
economy and people of North Carolina. Both ports are signi-
ficant points of entry and exit for state cargoes. Each
facility is in reality a business owned by the people of
North Carolina and capable of returning a profit on invested
capital. Employment, taxes, and capital investment within
the state are positive results of North Carolina cargoes
moving through these ports.
^Mulligan and Collins, Impact of N. C. Ports, 2 20-
21.
3
If North Carolina exporters and importers can move car-
goes through state owned ports, why is there a problem or
need for further research? An tinderstanding of the com.peti-
tive nature of freight movement will help to answer this
question. Freight generally moves from its origin in the
state to the port of most economical route and optimum ser-
vice. Historical business contacts can also be a factor
as to how a shipper makes a decision regarding the use of
a particular port. kTiile it is possible to move North
Carolina cargoes through state owned ports, competing fácil-
ities at Norfolk, Charleston, and Savannah are strongly com-
petitive for North Carolina's trade. The latter have tradi-
tionally served as break bulk points for North Carolina's
4
ocean freight. The later histox'ical development of North
Carolina ports and the relatively recent upgrading of their
facilities has hampered the state's ability to compete with
cargo inertia developed by older, larger ports.
If North Carolina ports are to attract trade presently
using Norfolk, Charleston, and Savannah, they must attempt
to be com.petitive in handling and service costs. It is
also important that positive features of the ports, (dis-
tances to various cities of the state) be identified and
emphasized to those responsible for port selection of North
Carolina ocean freight. To capture a larger share of the
^Ibid., pp. 2-16 - 2-21.
4
total, the state ports must attract trade which has tradi-
tionally moved through other ports, but can just as easily
or economically go through a North Carolina port.
The future growth of North Carolina's ports is depend-
ent upon the enlargement of their share of the state's
cargoes. A position of dominance for Wilmington and More-
head City as the only ports of selection by N. C. customers
may be a dreamer's hope, but the establishment of one or
both as major points of entry and exit for North Carolina
foreign conmierce is well within the scope of reality.
It is the intended purpose of this research effort to
investigate the transportation network of the ports of
Wilmington, Morehead City, and the competing ports of
Charleston, Savannah, and Norfolk in relationship to the
twenty largest urban centers in North Carolina. Examina-
tion of this network will provide insight into the dis-
tance relationship between the optimum port or ports of
the study region in relation to the state's largest cities.
The hypothesis for the study is that North Carolina ports
possess advantages in distance and access over the compet-
ing port cities to the total transportation network. By
testing this hypothesis further information will be pro-
duced on the competitive position of North Carolina ports .
Literature
The competitive status of a seaport is the result of
many complex variables. Investigation of any portion of
5
such a diverse relationship requires examination and evalu-
ation of various information sources. Understanding the
seaport as a point of special function is of importance
to this research effort.
Seaports are the subject of a rich and varied
scholarly literature. In geographic literature a dis-
tinctive type of port study evolved. Articles and books
of this type usually deal with the physical description of
available facilities and listings of cargoes shipped
through a port. A book characteristic of this format
is the macro analysis, World Shipping, by Gunnar
Alexandersson and Goran Nostrom.^ Journal articles illus-
trating a similar vein on a smaller scale are "The Port
of 6Genova”‘by Allan L. PN.ogers” and "Dar Es Salaam, Port
and its Tributary Area" by William A. Hance and Irene S.
Van Dogen.^ Such descriptive articles are still being
published in current journals and are still relevant as
the port in most cases is not a static entity, but one
changing in response to the political and economic flue-
tuatipns of the region it serves. Two journal articles
^Gunnar Alexandersson and Goran Nostrom, World Ship-
ping (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963).
^Allan L. Rogers, "The Port of Genova" Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 48 (195By : 319-51.
^William A. Hance and Irene S. Von Dogen," Dar Es
Salaam, The Port and its Tributary Area" Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 48 (1958) : ÍT9-35.
6
which, convey this thought are "African Politics and Port
3
Expansion at Dar Es Salaam" by B. S. Hoyle and "Changes
Q
in the Port of Amsterdam" by D. G. Mills.
In addition to physical description, the functional
definition of a port is a prevalent theme. The often
citied book Ports and Harbours by F. W. Morgan^^ and the
article "Man's Ports and Channels” by Lester E. Klimm are^^
popular examples. A more recent book, but of the same
12
type is Industrial Port Development by R. E. Takel.
In the early 1960's geographic literature moved toward
a quantitative trend thus providing new insights into geo-
graphic relationships that were afore unachievable. While
port studies continued to be descriptive, other phases of
transportation geography subscribed to the quantitative
school of thought. Since the inception of this trend,
numerous new techniques have been developed to test and
analyze geographic problems. Of the various techniques to
Q
B. S. Hoyle, "African Politics and Port Expansion at
Dar Es Salaam" Geographic Review, 68 (1978) ; 31-50.
^D. G. Mills, "Changes in the Fort of Amsterdam" Geo-
graphy, 63 (1978) : 209-13.
W. Morgan, Ports and Harbours (London, Hutchinson
House, 1952).
^^Lester E. Klimm, "Man's ports and Channels" in Man's
Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, ed. William L.
ThomaF7 Jr. (Chicago’: University ot Chicago Press, 1956),
pp. 522-41.
12
R. E. Takel, Industrial Port Development (Bristol,
Scientechnica Ltd., 1974).
7
come from this era, the development of network theory is of
particular interest to this research project. This tool
is used to evaluate relationships between a group of
separated points.
Although numerous studies illustrate the network theory
approach as it pertains to various modes of transportation,
there has been an absence of research in regards to the sea-
port as a component of the land transport network. Conse-
quently background information is limited, however, the
following works provide a foundation for further inquiry.
A fundamental source of netv7ork analysis theory is the
13
Structure of Transportation Networks by K. J. Kansky.
This book describes the various measures of network struc-
ture, their validity, and interpretation. A.nother excellent
source of that details network theory is The Geography of Move-
ment by Lowe Moryades.^^ A book primarily concerning spatial
form that gives special consideration to network theory is
Locational Analysis in Human Geography authored by Peter Haggett,
15
Andrev? Cliff, and Allan Frey. Transport dem.and is the
13
K. J. Kansky, Structure of Transportation Networks :
Relationships between Network Geometry and Regional Charñ^c-
teristics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963) .
^^Lowe Moryades, The Geography of Movement (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1975).
^^Peter Haggett, Andrew D. Cliff, and Allen Frey, Loca-
tional Analysis in Human Geography (New York: John Wiley
and Soni^i l'977T.
8
primary consideration of Allan Hay's Transport for the Space
16
Economy, but graph theory and network analysis figure pro-
minently within the book's framework. An additional source
of particular significance is Geography of Transportation
by E. J. Taaffe and H. L. Gauthier.Simplification of some
of the complex aspects of network theory is a major virtue of
this work. Specific procedures discussed by Taaffe and
Gauthier are incorporated within the methodology used for
testing the hypothesis of this thesis.
The examination of a port's hinterland is not uncommon.
However, the study of seaports as a part of a land trans-
portation network is unique. Since specific examples are
not available for background study, general types of network
analysis are scrutinized. Such samples of the usage of this
methodology to test relationships in land transport networks
are common.
Network analysis as a technique is flexible in that it
allows the researcher to use various parameters in testing
network associations. Intercity phone calls are an example
of a data source used by John D. Nystuen and Michael Dacey.
Their article entitled "A Graph Theory Interpretation of
Nodal Regions" used this data source and network analysis to
^^Alan Hay, Transport for the Space Economy (Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1973).
^^E. J. Taaffe and H. L. Gauthier, The Geography of
Transportation (Englewoods Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 197377
9
establish a hierachy of cities using the nodal areas of Wash-
ington state and the surrounding nodes of Portland, Oregon
and 18Vancouver, British Columbia. Using an economic base
to develop a hierarchy of a set of nodes is a prominent
method for measuring the association or dominance of a mem-
ber to the entire set. In addition to the Nystuen and Dacey,
an article by William^ L. Garrison came into prominence in
the 1960's. Titled "Connectivity and the Interstate Highway
System" , it is one of the more frequent works cited by later
authors.
Although network analysis became popular in the 1960's.
it is still a current technique. William A. Muraco’s 1972
article "Intraurban Accessibility" published in Economic Geo-
20
graphy is an example. The growth and change in the trans-
port networks of Indianapolis, Indiana and Columbus, Ohio
are evaluated using a distance matrix.
Access to seaports from hinterland cities has not been
the subject of investigative research. By using techniques
developed and tested on other network problems, a contribution
1 O
John D. Nystuen and Michael Dacey, "A Graph Theory Inter-
pretation of Nodal Regions," Papers and Proceedings of the
Regional Science Association 7 (1961) : 29-42.
19
William L. Garrison, "Connectivity and the Interstate
Highway System.," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional
Science Association, 6 (1960) ; 121-37.
20
William A. Muraco, "Intraurban Accessibility" Economic
Geography, 48 (1972) : 388-405.
10
to further understanding the seaport as a special point in
the land transport network will be realized.
Scope, Study Area, and Hypothesis
A total appraisal of all elements contributing to the
success or failure of a port is beyond the scope of this
investigation. The substance of this paper is confined to
the establishment of a representative hinterland for the
North Carolina ports of Wilmington and Morehead City, and
an analysis of the highway and rail networks between the
twenty largest cities in North Carolina and the five port
cities mentioned initially.
Establishing a hinterland for a port can be a complex
undertaking. Ports may specialize in a few commodities or
handle a multitude of different cargoes. Documentation of
cargoes moving through North Carolina ports does not fácil-
itate an in-depth study of cargo movement. Information is
available, however, that is used to develop a hinterland
for each port. Morehead City is a port that specializes
in bulk shipments. North Carolina State Ports Authority
personnel are able to identify origin and destination of
cargoes crossing these wharves. By using 1977 tonnage
totals and this identification process, a hinterland of
reasonable accuracy is produced.
Wilmington, on the other hand, is more involved with
general cargo shipment. As stated earlier, information on
11
the exact movement of cargo is difficult to obtain. Gen-
eral cargo is of high value and is increasingly being
containerized to enable faster and easier shipment. Wil-
mington has entered into the containerized cargo trade in
the last year and information in regard to its origin and
destination is available. "It is now believed that, on
som.e major transoceanic routes, nearly all of the traffic
which is physically capable of being containerized is
21
actually transported in containers." In light of this
development, a container hinterland is relevant in res-
pect to future general cargo movement.
The main purpose of this project is to evaluate the
hypothesis that North Carolina ports are more accessible
in terms of distance to the twenty largest urban centers
of the state than the competing ports of Norfolk, Charles-
ton, and Savannah. The technique selected to evaluate the
hypothesis is network analysis. Highway and railroad networks
between the chosen cities are developed into a matrix for
each system and represented as a value graph. This graph
is multiplied by itself a successive number of times until
a minimum distance for each entry to every other entry is
known. The total sum of distance from each node to every
other is compiled and ranked. Ranking of the nodes allows
21
Harold M. Mayer, "Some Geographical Aspects of Techno-
logical Change in Maritime Transportation," Economic Geography
49 (April, 1973): 149.
12
the composition of a hierarchy of cities to the entire
network. From this hierarchy the evaluation of the port
22
cities is accomplished.
22
Taaffe and Gauthier, The Geography of Transportation,
138-158
CHAPTER II
PORT DESCRIPTION
The development of Wilmington and Morehead City has
been restricted by the existance of the larger ports of
Norfolk, Charleston, and Savannah. These out-of-state
ports developed during the earl^/ period of colonializa-
tion and became the dominant ports within the region.
Historical Background of North Carolina Ports
Several factors contributed to the slow growth of North
Carolina ports. Physical features of the coast did not
encourage early development during the colonial period. The
shape, currents, shoals, stormy weather, barrier beaches,
shallow inlets and sounds made access to the colonial ports
23
dangerous. The number of ports, itself, was a hinderance
in that with five small river ports operating during this
period, no single port could establish itself in a position
of dominance. These ports remained small due to interport
competition and a trade area restricted to the coastal plain
by the fall line of North Carolina's rivers. The coastal
plain was not an area of major settlement during early
development of the state. Although the climate and soils of
the region were conducive to agriculture of crops in demand
23
B. E. Logan, "A Historical Geographic Study of North
Carolina Ports" (Ph. D. dissertation, University of North
Carolina, 1956), p. 2.
13
14
at this time, the fear of malaria limited early immigration
2
into the Aarea.
Pioneers moving south from the already established
northern colonies settled in the Piedmont, forming a cen-
tral core for early development of the state. The ports
selected to m.arket the commerce of this region were those
of Virginia and South Carolina, which were already estab-
lished and provided good marketing facilities. The road
network connected the interior of the state to these ports,
whereas, access to North Carolina ports was virtually non-
existan^t.25
The only North Carolina port able to compete for the
movement of the piedmont's commerce during this time was
Wilmington. The Cape Fear River was navigable for a con-
siderable distance toward Fayetteville and a road was
built from the head of navigation to this city. A plank
road completed the link to the city of Salem in the Pied-
mont thus enabling the port to contend for the ocean transit
2 g
freight generated by the area.
Railroad construction was undertaken in North Carolina
between 1830-1860. Nine hundred miles of track were laid
during these years with Wilmângton being the only port with
24Itkb-i.d:| ., PP . 18
^^Ibid., P- 43.
^^Ibid., P- 43.
15
regular service. The Piedmont's commerce was still pre-
dominantly moving through out of state ports, even though
Wilmington did have access to this region.
As a result of being able to attract some of the com-
merce, from the interior of the state, Wilmington was the
only pore of the colonial era to survive. The major period
of growth for the port was in the 1860's. As a Confederate
haven for blockade runners during the civil war, the port
began to grow. More important was the postwar demand for
naval stores brought to the port by rail and the movement
of coastal plain agricultural products to world markets.
Cotton was the dominant crop and remained so until the
1930's. By 1905 the port was fourth in cotton exports in
the United States. Further growth was enhanced by the con-
solidation of the Atlantic Coast Line and the Seaboard Air
Line in the early 1900's. This merger improved service to
27
Wilmington and decreased shipping rates within the state.
Growth continued until the 1930's when the United
States' tariff policy on cotton encourage foreign markets
to buy from other nations. Tobacco then became the most
important cargo in terms of value to the port. In the 1950's
petroleum came on the scene to become the most valuable car-
28
go moved through the port.
^^Ibid., p. 83.
^^Ibid., pp. 96, 111, 117.
16
Port Facilities
The port facilities of Wilmington are one-half the
physical size of its smallest out-of-state competitor,
Charleston. The physical features of the port are of two
parts, the private docks not controlled by the state and
the public docks under the direct supervision of the North
Carolina Ports Authority. The private wharves are almost
totally involved with the movement of bulk commodities such
as petroleum products, iron ore, and cement (see Figures 1
and 2). Bulk items crossing the public wharves are metal
scrap, chemicals, tobacco, lumber, pulp, phosphate, iron and
steel (see Figures 3 and 4). General cargo, a major area
of emphasis at the public facility, grew significantly in
volume during the 1960's. The quantity of shipments of
this high value cargo grew from 24,000 tons in 1961 to
29
100,000 tons by 1972. It is this type of cargo that is
conducive to containerized shipment and Wilmington provides
this service to its' customers. At present the port OT^ms
one container crane and additional adapters to conventional
cranes to move this form of cargo (see Figures 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9). While this small amount of equipment does limit
efficiency to some degree, projected expenditures include
29
Paul F. Mulligan and Raymond L. Collins, "Impact of
North Carolina Ports on the North Carolina Economy" (Raleigh
North Carolina Deport of Transportation and Highway Safety,
1975), pp. 3-1, 3-31.
?lltMF
 
17
Figure 1: Petroleum unloading facility at the
Wilmington port (T-head pier, private facility).
All photographs within the text were taken by
Everett T. Wall.
Figure 2: Private Petroleum storage facilities
at the Wilmington port.
18
Figure 3: Loading of tobacco hogsheads at the
Wilmington port.
Figure 4: Tobacco fumigation facility at the
Wilmington port.
19
Figure 5 ; Simultaneous unloading of a container
ship at the Wilmington port by a container crane
and a gantry crane with an adapter for container
handling.
20
Figure 6: Container crane unloading the middle
section of a container ship at the Wilmington
port.
Figure 7 : Gantry crane unloading the fore
section of a container ship at Wilmington
port.
21
Figure 8: Special adapter that enables gantry
cranes to load and unload containerized cargo.
Figure 9 : Specialized piece of equipment
utilized for stacking containers in storage
areas.
22
procuring of additional container cranes and related support
equipmen^t. 30
Morehead City, the second port of the North Carolina
State Ports Authority (S.P.A.), does not have the historical
heritage of its' counterpart Wilmington. It first entered
the ocean freight trade in 1935. It became part of the
S.P.A. 31in 1945 and became operational in 1952. Private
facilities at this port are small in size. They are presently
limited to moving jet fuel for Cherry Point Marine Air Station
and kerosene and pulp for commercial usage. The public docks
are oriented to the movement of bulk cargo. A significant
commodity of the port is phosphate which accounts for over
507o of the total tonnage at the port. Lumber (construction
grade), liquid sulfur, fishmeal, and tobacco are examples
of principle cargoes imported to Morehead. Tobacco is of
special importance because of its' high value and the
revenue it provides due to special services rendered at
the port. Containerization of tobacco exports in the future
is viewed with interest by the port management. This pro-
cess would diminish traffic peaks and also diminish seasonal
variation in demand for labor. Few insurance claims as a
result of less handling by port personnel would be a benefit
as well as the ability to ship tobacco in smaller lots at
30North Carolina States Ports Authority, unpublished
report, Raleigh, 1977.
^^Logan, "History of N.C. Ports," pp. 128-9.
^^Mulligan and Collins, "Impact of N.C. Ports," pp. 2-10.
23
any time of the year. At present one container crane is
operational at the port; but materialization of this antici-
pated change in tobacco handling has been slow (see Figure
10). Limited use of the container crane at the Morehead
City port has resulted in a decision to move this piece of
specialized equipment to the Wilmington port by the govern-
ing board of the North Carolin State Ports Authority. Local
opposition to the anticipated move by those people interested
in the development of the Morehead City port may stop the
intended move. At this point in time (May 1979) the conflict
is unresolved.
General cargo at Morehead City has been negligible in
Q /
the last decade despite attempts to attract this trade.
The port,-at present, seems destined to handle only bulk
cargoes.
The regional ports that compete for North Carolina's
ocean commerce are Norfolk, Charleston, 9nd Savannah. It
is true that other Atlantic coast ports, such as New York,
ship cargoes to and from the state, but this study is
limited to North Carolina ports and the surrounding regional
ports.
33
Mulligan and Collins, "Impact of N. C. Ports," pp. 3-6,
3-29
O /
^Mulligan and Collins, "Impact of N. C. Ports," p. 3-31.
24
Figure 10 : Container crane at the Morehead
City port.
25
Norfolk, the headquarters of the Virginia Ports Author-
ity (V.P.A.) is the largest of the regional ports. This
developmental and promotional Authority owns the terminals
and equipm.ent of its' states ports as do all the ports within
this study. V.P.A. differs from the other state port author-
ities in that it leases all its terminals to private operators.
These facilities include Norfolk International Terminal,
Lambert's Point Docks, Portsmouth Marine Terminals, Sewell's
Point Facility and Newport News Terminals. All of these
encompass an area called Hampton Roads and provide berths
for 42 ships. Container services at this complex are
expedited by the utilization of eight container cranes,
backed 35up by ample support equipment and storage space.
Charleston, South Carolina has been developed as the
primary port of the South Carolina Ports Authority. Three
terminals are operated by this orgnaization. They are
Columbus Street Terminal, North Charleston facilities, and
Union Pier. This combination of terminals provides berths
foi' 22 ships at any one time. A new facility on the Wando
River is expected to be completed by 1980 and will enable
even more ships to be in port at any one time.
All types of cargo are transported through this port,
including grain, which moves through a modern elevator
35
North Carolina States Ports Authority, unpublished
report, Raleigh, 1977.
26
and dispensing system. Containerized cargo is an impor-
tant aspect of the port's general cargo trade. This
operation is equipped with five container cranes on loca-
36
tion, with four more planned for expansion of this service.
The state of Georgia's largest port, Savannah, also
handles North Carolina trade. The ports authority of this
state operates three terminals; Garden City Terminal,
Ocean Terminal, and Container Central. Twenty-seven berths
are included within these facilities. Again, all types of
cargo are unloaded in this port and two container cranes,
with a projected increase of two additional cranes, service
the container trade. 37
Identification of Trade Areas of North Carolina Ports
The five regional ports of this study consider North
Carolina as part of their hinterlands. "A hinterland can
be described as an organized and developed land space
which is connected with a port by means of transportation
38
lines, and which receives or ships through that port."
This simple definition of a hinterland leaves out a great
deal to be considered. It is probably more accurate to
state that a port's hinterland is, in reality, a series of
hinterlands, one each for every commodity that enters into
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid.
38
Weigand, "Port Geography," pp. 192-3.
27
the port’s trade. The boundaries of each are not static,
but variable and dependent upon political and economic con-
ditions of the 39port. From these statements one can
surmise that determination of a port's hinterland is a
complex undertaking. This complexity is further complicated
by the lack of raw data in a form conducive to the orderly
composition of accurate trade areas. In 1963 Donald C. Darton
wrote a journal article titled "We Gan Have Hinterland Data."
This essay highlights the deficiencies within various govern-
mental agencies regarding collection of data pertinent to
movement of cargo through United States ports. Darton's
recommendations have not been adopted and accurate informa-
tion regarding cargo movement through ports is still almost
impossible to obtain. Often it is possible to establish
a representative hinterland or series of such using data
not generally available to the public. Such is the case
with studies cited by Darton in his article. The informa-
tion used to ascertain trade areas for North Carolina ports
is of such an origin.
Although exact data regarding the movement of import
and export cargoes within the state is not available,
information furnished by the North Carolina States Ports
Authority (S.P.A.) is used to construct sample hinterlands
for both ports. The relatively small number of bulk items
moving through Morehead City enables the S.P.A. to determine
39
Morgan, Ports and Harbours. p. 111.
28
origins and destinations for these few commodities with a
reasonable degree of accuracy. Wilmington on the other
hand is a much more diversified port with many types of ?
cargo crossing its' wharves. Much of the trade of this
port is of the general freight type. Considered the cream
of the crop in regards to cargo, this classification type
produces higher revenues per ton than other types.Also
it is conducive to containerization, a packaging process
that has become important to the shipping industry in
recent years.
Due to the importance of the impact of this technolog-
ical innovation upon shipping and the desire of the S.P.A.
to increase its' share of North Carolina container trade,
data has been collected regarding the movement of containers
in and out of the state for the year 1977. This information
identifies the counties within the state receiving or send-
ing containerized shipments and the port through which the
cargoes passed. Such information enables the determination
of Wilmington's containerized cargo hinterland. This type
of cargo is of consequence now at Wilmington, and promises
to be increasingly important in the future. An examination
of containerized general cargo will demonstrate the range
of service from Wilmington and competing ports. The
^^Donald J. Patton, "General Cargo Hinterlands of
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Orleans,"
Association of American Geographers 48 (1958) : 436.
29
relevancy of this effort is outstanding, since the amount
of general liner cargo estimated to be containerized by
1980 is 61%.'^^
"The essence of containerization is the application
of mass production techniques to freight shipment. It
requires the handling of a box of standard dimensions in
a controlled system which embraces as much of the ultimate
objective (door-to-door transfer) as possible.” The pro-
cess, itself, is a capital intensive operation, requiring
special ships, port equipment, and the containers, of
standard design. An advantage of the system is the savings
in handling of the cargo. The labor force for loading
and unloading is of smaller size and constant number. This
facilitates the employment of contract labor rather than
the day-to-day longshoremen used in conventional loading crew.
Benefits of this type of employment are less union problems
and a consistant work force of experienced labor. Other
positive features of the process are the fast speed (25 to
28 knots) and shallow draft (33 to 35 feet) of the ships
designed specifically for this trade. The containers can
^^Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Develop-
ment, Developments and Problems of Seaborne Container
Transport 19711^ Maritim.e Transport Committee'^ 19 71.
/ 0
"^lain Wallace, "Containerization at Canadian Ports,"
Association of American Geographers 65 (1975); 434.
^^Ibid. 434-443.
Figure 11: Container crane unloading containers
onto truck bodies for transshipment.
Figure 12: Containers secured on special rail-
road cars awaiting transshipment.
31
be carried overland by railroad or truck allowing ease of
transfer to and from inland cities (see Figures 11 and 12).^^
With containerized cargo constituting such an impor-
tant technological advance, it is natural that the industries
of North Carolina have adopted this system. In 1977, 35,749
containers, moving through the five regional ports, were
generated by businesses within the state. Thirty-six coun-
ties of the state were the origin or destination for these
shipments. Other containers moved through the state by way
of ports not examined in this survey. Also additional con-
tainers moved to and from areas outside North Carolina
through state ports. The analysis of container traffic
within the state, through state ports indicated, is the
focal point of the hinterland study and the data on container
movem.ent is limited to such.
Wilmington's 1977 share of the state trade in con-
tainerized general cargo was 317=. Imports and exports were
almost evenly divided with exports representing 15.97o of
total and imports composing the remaining 157o. The
largest competitor for the state's trade was Norfolk with
45.37o of the total. Charleston was next with 18.57. and
Savannah followed with 47.. Morehead City is included within
the total with 1.97 but its' share of this market is negli-
able.
44
Harold M. Mayer, "Some Geographic Aspects of Techno-
logical Change in Maritime Transportation," Economic Geo-
graphy 49 (1973): 146-155.
32
In the trade area represented by the origins and
destinations of the containers, twelve counties account
for ITU of the total volume. These dominant counties
include Guilford, Mecklenburg, Davidson, Iredell, Forsyth,
Cleveland, Gaston, Randolph, Durham, Alamance, and
Rockingham. Of the twelve, eleven counties are within the
Piedmont region of the state. The only county not located
in this area is Brunswick County of the coastal plain.
The percentage of container trade of this key region moving
through Wilmington is relatively constant with statewide
container movement through the port at 29%.
This band of counties, excepting Brunswick, crossing
the state along the Piedmont is an area of industrializa-
tion. Competition for trade is keen as evidenced by
the division of business between the regional ports.
Wilmington competes for a significant portion of this key
trade area but is strongly challenged by Norfolk and
Charleston. It is notable that Wilmington does transfer
some containers from every county of the region as does
Norfolk (see Figure 13). Charleston's competitive advances
are more restricted to the southern counties of Mecklenburg,
Gaston, and Cleveland. By controlling a meaningful portion
of the container traffic in this industrial region, Wilming-
ton has demonstrated its ability to contend with Norfolk and
Charleston.
33
Fig. 13
KEY COUNTIES IN RELATION TO CONTAINERIZED CARGO
PROCESSED THROUGH THE WILMINGTON PORT IN 1977
34
Morehead City is primarily a bulk cargo port. As
such, the number of different commodities moving through
the port is small. Using data supplied by the S.P.A. for
the year 1977, it is possible to identify both the origins
and destinations of cargo moving through the public sector.
Examination of this information reveals that most of the
counties using this port are located in the coastal plain
region near the port itself (see Figure 14). The only
counties outside the coastal plain shipping cargo through
the port are Catawba county, which imports lumber, and
Forsyth which imports tobacco. A large percentage of the
port's business is concentrated in three counties, Craven,
Carteret, and Beaufort. These counties are located close
to the port and a few local activities dominant the port's
trade. These include the phosphate mines in Beaufort
county and lumber and paper industry within Craven County
(see Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18). Also important in terms
of revenue is the tobacco exported from Wilson, Pitt,
Edgecombe, and Nash counties. Some tobacco originates in
Danville, Virginia and exits through the port.
The number of imports is very small with petroleum
products dominating the total tonnage. Individual products
include asphalt and bunker C oil which are both used
locally.
Exports are also limited in scope with the already
mentioned phosphate, lumber, pulp, and tobacco composing
35
Fig. 14
Figure 15 : Dockside phosphate conveyor at the
Morehead City port.
Figure 16: Phosphate storage facility at the
Morehead City port.
37
Figure 17: Phosphate barge from local mine wait-
ing to unload into the storage facility at the
Morehead City port.
Figure 18: Imported lumber at the Morehead City
dock.
38
most of the total. Only peanut meal and strapping steel
are not associated with or are a derivative of the afore-
mentioned exports.
39
CHAPTER III
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ABSTRACTED TRANSPORTATION MODEL
A port is the point of modal transfer of cargoes between
land and ocean transit. Serving this function entails pro-
viding facilities and services to both modes. Movement of
cargo results in economic opportunities for the port city
and surrounding region; thus, it is natural for a port city
to attract as much traffic as possible. Often this leads
to competition between neighboring ports.Relative access-
ibility of North Carolina's inland cities to seaports is a
factor influencing the competitive position of ports seeking
the state's trade. Granted this is only one factor contri-
buting to the economic position of a particular port, but it
is one that is significant. The ability to transport manufac
tured products or bulk commodities from a city within the
state to a port or vice versa is vital to the state's
economy. Determination of the optimum seaport in terms of
distance from the twenty largest cities of North Carolina
to the Atlantic coast ports of Wilmington, Morehead City,
Norfolk, Charleston and Savannah is the goal of this research
effort. This goal is accomplished by subjecting the highway
and railroad system connecting the involved cities to
45
Guido G. Weigand, "Some Elements in the Study of
Port Geography," Geographic Review, 48 (1958): 185.
40
network analysis. Obviously,it is an advantage for any port
to have the shortest and most direct route to the cities of
the contested hinterland. Common sense substantiates this
statement while "studies dealing with spatial effects of
social interaction have shown that distance between individ-
uals (or cities) is important. As physical and social dis-
tance increase between participants, interaction is likely
to decline.
Origin of Data
Both the railroad and highway networks used in this
study are derived from actual maps of the two systems.
Each includes the twenty largest urban centers within the
state as defined by level of population based on 1976
estimate by the North Carolina Department of Administra-
47
tion, Division of State Budget and Management. One of
the port cities, Wilmington, is contained within this
group. Additionally, the remaining port cities com,plete
the set.
In the initial composition of the model networks,
the direct linkages between the cities are of major impor-
tance. It is from these linkages that all others are
derived. The existance of a link (defined as a route with
^^Fredrick P. Staz, "Distance and Network Effects on
Urban Social Travel Fields," Economic Geography, 49
(April, 1973): 134.
47
North Carolina, North Carolina Municipal Population,
(1977), Table 2. ~
41
no intervening nodes between the two points of origin) is
determined by examination of a highway map in the case of the
road system. Naturally there are many more cities in North
Carolina than those selected and a multitude of possible
connections between them. Thus the network analyzed is an
abstraction of the real highway network (see Figure 19).
Direct linkages are obtained for the abstracted network by
viewing a 1977 North Carolina state highway map to ascertain
if a plausible route between the two cities in question exists.
To qualify as a direct route, the route between two cities
or nodes must not be intersected by another member of the
set and the highway, itself, must be considered a primary
route, primary m.eaning the most likely access route for actual
transport. Examples of such are multilane highways, primary
two-lane trunk roads, and important secondary roads that
connect a significant portion or area of the state. Secondary
roads with a maze of connections and intersections are not
considered direct routes.
The railroad network constructed for this study is also
an abstraction of reality (see Figure 20) . Using the sam.e
cities as the highway network, direct routes between cities
or nodes are determined in a similar manner. The shortest
direct routes between member cities are established if
they exist. Judgement was used in the definition of these
routes. It is true that railroad tracks within the state are
the private property of individual railroad companies and not
42
Figure 19
SCHEMATIC HIGHWAY NETWORK
Kl KINSTON
SL SALISBURY
0 so 75^100 125 150 l/fi ?nn MILES HY HICKORY
ST STATESVILLE
MC MOREHEAD CITY
NF NORFOLK
CT CHARLESTON
SA SAVANNAH
43
Figure 20
SCHEMATIC RAILROAD NETWORK
CL CHARLOTTE
GB GREENSBORO
RA RALEIGH
ws WINSTON-SALEM
DH DURHAM
HP HIGH POINT
FT FAYETTEVILLE
AS ASHEVILLE
WL WILMINGTON
GA GASTONIA
RM ROCKY MOUNT
BU BURLINGTON
GL GOLDSBORO
CH CHAPEL HILL
GV GREENVILLE
Wl WILSON
Kl KINSTON
SL SALISBURY
HY HICKORY
25 50 75 I 1^5 ISO 175 200 MILES ST STATESVILLE
MC MOREHEAD CITY
NF NORFOLK
CT CHARLESTON
SA SAVANNAH
A4
subject to unrestrained access. However, it is possible to
move cargo between various locations by transfer of cargo
between several railroad lines. Therefore, it is assumed,
for the purpose of this study, that the cooperation between
companies constitutes the same thing as freedom of movement
between rail systems.
Since the gradient of North Carolina roadways generally
allows maximum speed by vehicles, the parameter mileage is
used as a data source. Highway mileage for direct connec-
tions is compiled from the 1977 North Carolina State High-
way Map and highway maps of the states of Virginia, South
Carolina, and Georgia. Railroad mileage is procured from
the 1977 map of North Carolina Railroads prepared by the
North Carolina Utilities Commission. Distances to the
out-of-state ports are computed from the maps of the 1978
Commercial Atlas and 48Marketing Guide.
Road quality can be a significant factor in the
choice of routes or in the selection of destinations by
those responsible for decisions on highway movement of
port bound cargoes. In respect to this factor two matrices
for the highway network are compiled. The first is based
on mileage obtained directly from a map with no regard to
road quality, whereas, the second is weighted to determine
the impact of interstate and four lane highways upon the
^^1978 Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide (Chicago:
Rand McNally and Company, 1978), pp. 477-78 and 530-31.
45
abstracted system.
In the weighted highway matrix the distances between
cities and adjusted, dependant upon the amount of inter-
state and four lane highway on each route. Mileage is
calculated using the formula one map mile = one mile on
two lane road, one map mile = .88 mile on four lane roads,
and one map mile = .76 mile on interstate highway. These
nximbers are derived from the average truck speeds for the
terrain of North Carolina used by Curtis C. Harris, Jr.
in his book Regional Economic Effects of Alternate High-
4P
way Systems.^
Me thodology
The networks constructed and the information concern-
ing the shortest direct connections between nodes are
abstracted as a graph and represented as a matrix. In
this initial stage the matrix, twenty-four cells by twenty-
four, contains only direct route connections. All other
positions within the matrix are incomplete. A direct
shortest path between each member of the set and all other
members is an impossibility. Therefore, it is the next
step to identify the shortest two stage links where they
exist within the system. This step is accomplished by
computation.
49
Curtis C. Harris, Jr., Regional Economic Effects
Of Alternative Highway Systems (Cambridge, Mass.,
Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974), p. 118.
46
The process entails the element by element addition
of each member of a row by a member of the column side of
the matrix. From this series of additions the minimum
two-link value is established and inserted in the appro-
priate position within the second matrix. For example in
Figure 21 to determine if a two-stage link is present
between Raleigh and Wilmington, each element of the row
WL and column RA is added. The resulting combinations are
203 + 143 = 347, 0+0=0 (0 meaning no connection)
0+0=0, 0+0=0, 23+0=0, 0+0=0, 59+92=151, 0+0=0, 0+0=0,
0+0=0, 53+0=0, 0+0=0, 50+89=139, 0+28=0, 0+0=0, 0+47=0,
89+0=0, 0+0=0, 0+0=0, 0+0=0, 87+0=0, 0+0=0, 165+0=0, 0+0=0.
The minimum, value in this case is 139 miles. This indi-
cates that-there is a two-stage link of 139 miles between
the two cities.
The two-stage links derived in this manner are added
to one-stage links of the original matrix to form a new
matrix consisting of the shortest paths of both stages of
linkage. Successive powers of the m.atrices are calculated
until the distance from each node to every other node is
computed. In the final matrix all cells are filled with
the exception of those which concern a node's linkage to
itself. The formula used to derive the two stage linkages
is :
^^Taaffe and Gauthier, Geography of Transportation,
pp. 138-48.
47
N
kil Ijk = min
Simplified this formula means that the cell ij value is the
minimum value of the sums of possible tv/o stage links from
origin ik and the destination ij. Further stages of linkage
are identified by using the formula until all shortest paths
between each node and every other is known. Upon completion
of the matrix, each row is summed to determine a figure that
represents the total number of miles from each node to the
entire system. This figure is the basis for the establish-
ment of a hierarchy of accessibility from the members of
the entire set. Evaluation of the port cities positions
to the total network is accomplished through this index.
A simplified example of the preceeding methodology
may clarify any questions resulting from the discussion of
this process. In the example it will be assumed that a
network of five separated cities exist. These cities are
connected by roads in the manner illustrated below and are
named City A,B,C,D, and E. In addition the distance in
miles connecting the various cities is labeled.
4
E
51
Ibid.
48
The initial matrix for this network would be as follows:
A B C D E N represents no connection
A 0 1 N N N
B 1 0 2 N 5
C N 2 0 4 N
D N N 4 0 3
E N 5 N 3 0
To determine the shortest two-stage path between the cities
E and A, the column A and the row E are added together in
pairs to ascertain if a route exist. The following pairings
would exist.
Row E
These pairs will produce the following combinations : 0 + N = N
(N = no connection), 1+5=6, N+N=N, N+3=N,
N + N = N. Thus the two stage connection between cities
A and E is 6 miles. If all of the positions of the initial
matrix that are incomplete are subjected to this form of
computation the following matrix representing the connec-
tion of one and two stage links would result:
ABODE
A 0 1 3 N 6
B 1 0 2 6 5
C 3 2 0 4 7
D N 6 4 0 3
E 6 5 7 3 0
49
.To demonstrate the progression of linkages a three-
stage link for the example network is calculated. In this
step the second stage matrix is paired with the original
one-stage matrix to produce the three-stage matrix. The
calculation of the position D.\, which is the connection
between the cities D and A, illustrates this process.
To accomplish this row D from the second-stage matrix and
column A from the initial matrix are paired and inspected
to determine if this incomplete position DB can be com-
pie ted in the third level matrix. The following pairs
result;
Row D
The combinations produced by these pairings are 0 + N = N,
1+6=7, N+4=N, N+0=N, and N + 3 = N. In this
particular instance the progression to the third-stage
linkage completes the matrix. In a more complete network
it can take many stages to completion.
Once the matrix is complete, as in the example, a
composite number or index can be calculated to identify the
optimum city of the network in terms of distance to all the
other cities. A hierarchy of cities for the network can
be determined from this calculation. The completed exam.ple
network below illustrates this concept. In this final
50
matrix the shortest distances from all points to every other
point has been compiled. These figures are summed for every
city to provide a total figure which represents the total
mileage from this city to all others in the network.
ABODE
A 0 1 3 7 7 18
B 1 0 2 6 5 14
C 3 2 0 4 7 16
D 7 6 4 0 3 20
E 6 5 7 3 0 21
In the example network city B is the most accessible in terms
of distance.
Matrices of the Transportation Networks
The following pages contain the matrices of the highway,
weighted highway, and railroad networks. For each type
of network, an intial matrix composed of direct links and
a completed matrix composed of the initial matrix and the
successive multiple connections calculated by the methodology
previously discussed are shown. A computer program was used
to accomplish the calculation of the final matrix in order
to speed up the mathematical process and to minimize human
error. This program was based on the procedures discussed
by T. C. Hu in his article "Revised Matrix Alogrithms for
Shortest Paths.
S2
T. C. Hu, "Revised Matrix Algorithms for Shortest
Paths," Siam Journal of Applied Mathematics 15 (Januarv
1967) : WT^IT.
51
12Figure 21Initial Highway MatrixCL GB RA WS DH HP FT AS WL GA RM BU GL CH GV Wl Kl SL HY ST MC NF CT SA TOTâUCHARLOTTE (CL) n 143 141 203 ?0 .42 235.GREENSBORO (GB) Q 19 1 7i 250 320
RALEIGH (RA)
JL4J3 n 23 59 53 50 28 47
WINSTON-SALEM (WS) 19 0 19 48
DURHAM (DH) 23 0 67 34 12 175
HIGH POINT (HP) 17 19 0 IOC 35
FAYETTEVILLE (FT) 141 91 59 100 c 92 82 59 67 76 78 128 144 185 280
ASHEVILLE (AS) 0 95 74 275 300
WILMINGTON (WL) 203 92 0 89 89 87 165
GASTONIA (GA) 20 95 0 44
ROCKY MOUNT (BM) 53 67 0 41 18 115
BURLING! ON (BU) 21 34 82 0 26
GOLDSBORO (GL) 50 59 89 0 49 26 27
CHAPEL HILL (CH) 28 12 67 26 0
GREENVILLE (GV) 41 49 0 38 28 79 140
WILSON (Wl) 47 76 18 26 38 0
KINSTON (Kl) 78 89 27 28 0 70
SALISBURY (SL)
42 35 128 0 26
HICKORY (HY) 74 44 0 28
STATESVILLE (ST) 43 48 26 28 0
MOREHEAD CITY (MC) 144 87 79 70 0 195
NORFOLK (NF) 175 115 140 195 0
CHARLESTON (CT) 215 250 185 275 165 0 105
SAVANNAH (SA)
235 320 28C 300 105 0
52
Figure 22
Completed Highway Matrix
CL GB RA WS DH KP FT AS WL GA RM BU GL CH GV Wl Kl SL HY ST MC NF CT SA total
-j
CHARLOTTE (CL) 0 94 143 91 149 77 141 115 203 20 196 115 193 141 228 190 219 42 64 43 285 311 215 235 3510
GREENSBORO (GB) 94 0 75 19 55 17 91 169 183 114 122 21 125 47 160 122 152 52 95 67 222 230 250 320 2802
RALEIGH (RA) 143 75 0 94 23 92 59 244 139 163 53 54 50 28 85 47 77 127 170 142 147 168 244 349 2763
WINSTON-SALEM (WS) 91 19 94 0 74 19 110 150 202 111 141 40 144 66 179 141 171 54 76 48 241 249 269 326 3015
DURHAM (DH) 149 55 23 74 0 72 79 224 162 169 67 34 73 12 108 70 100 107 150 122 170 175 264 359 2818
HIGH POINT (HP) 77 17 92 19 72 0 100 163 192 97 139 38 142 64 177 139 169 35 89 61 239 247 267 312 2947
FAYETTEVILLE (FT) 141 91 59 110 79 100 0 256 92 161 94 62 59 67 106 76 78 128 182 154 144 209 185 280 2933
ASHEVILLE (AS) 115 169 244 150 224 163 256 0 318 95 291 190 294 216 329 291 321 128 74 102 391 399 275 300 5335
WILMINGTON (WL) 203 183 139 202 162 192 92 318 0 223 133 174 89 159 ¡117 115 89 220 267 246 87 248 165 270 4093
GASTONIA (GA) 20 114 163 111 169 97 161 95 223 0 216 135 213 161 248 210 239 62 44 305 331 235 255 3870
ROCKY MOUNT (RM) 196 122 53 141 67 139 94 291 133 216 0 101 44 79 41 18 69 174 217 189 120 115 279 374 3272
BURLINGTON (BU) 115 21 54 40 34 38 82 190 174 135 101 0 104 26 139 101 131 73 116 88 201 209 267 341 2780
GOLDSBORO (GL) 193 125 50 144 73 142 59 294 89 213 44 104 0 78 49 26 27 L77 220 192 97 159 244 339 3138
CHAPEL HILL (CH) 141 4 7 28 66 12 64 67 216 159 161 79 26 78 0 113 75 105 99 142 114 175 187 252 347 2753
GREENVILLE (GV) 22B 160 85 179 108 L77 106 329 117 248 41 139 49 113 0 38 28 212 255 227 79 140 282 386 2726
WILSON (Wl) 190 122 47 141 70 L39 76 291 115 210 18 101 26 75 38 0 53 174 217 189 117 133 261 356 3159
KINSTON (Kl) 219 152 77 171 100 L69 78 321 89 239 69 131 27 105 28 53 0 204 247 219 70 168 254 358 3549
SALISBURY (SL) 42 52 127 54 107 35 128 128 220 62 174 73 177 99 212 174 204 0 54 26 272 282 257 277 3236
HICKORY (HY) 64 95 170 76 150 89 182 74 267 44 217 116 220 142 255 217 247 54 0 28 317 325 279 29? 3927
STATESVILLE (ST) 43 67 142 48 122 61 154 102 246 63 189 88 192 114 227 189 219 26 28 0 289 297 258 278 3442
MOREHEAD CITY (MC) 285 222 147 241 170 239 144 391 87 305 120 201 97 175 79 L17 70 272 317 289 0 195 252 257 4772
NORFOLK (NF) 311 230 168 249 175 1^1 209 399 248 331 115 209 159 187 L40 133 168 282 325 297 195 0 394 489 5660
CHARLESTON (CT) 215 250 244 269 264 267 185 275 165 235 279 267 244 ^52 282 261 254 257 279 258 252 394 0 105 5753
SAVANNAH (SA) 235 320 339 326 359 312 280 300 270 255 374 341 339 3^7 186 356 358 299 278 357 489 105 0 7302
53
1 Figure 23Initial Weighted Highway MatrixC L GB RA WS DH HP FT AS WL GA RM BU GL CH GV Wl Kl SL HY ST MC NF CT SA totalCHARLOTTE 2(CL) 0 143 131 188 15 32 33 178 195GREENSBORO (GB) 0 14 13 85 16 200 253RALEIGH (RA) 1,43, 0 18 48 46 45 25 44WINSTON-SALEM (WS) 14 0 - 36
DURHAM (DH) 18 0 65 26 11 152
HIGH POINT (HP) 13 19 0 100 27
FAYETTEVILLE (FT) 141 85 48 100 0 83 82 48 67 61 78 128 143 141 206
ASHEVILLE (AS) 0 87 58 209 229
WILMINGTON (WL) 188 83 0 89 89 156
GASTONIA (GA) 15 87 0 44
ROCKY MOUNT (RM) 46 65 0 41 14 115
BURLINGTON (BU) 16 26 82 0 26
GOLDSBORO (GL) 45 48 89 0 49 26 23
CHAPEL HILL (CH) 25 11 67 26 0
GREENVILLE (GV) 41 49 0 38 25 75 140
WILSON (Wl) 47 61 14 26 38 0
KINSTON (Kl) 78 89 23 25 0 64
SALISBURY (SL) 132 27 128 1 0 "Je
HICKORY (HY) 58 44 0 21
STATESVILLE (ST) 33 36 26 21 0
MOREHEAD CITY (MC) 143 lIL 75 64 0 188i
i
NORFOLK (NF) 152 \ 115 140 j 188 0
CHARLESTON (CT) 178 200 141 209 156 0 99
SAVANNAH (SA) 195 253 206 228 99I 0
54
i Figure 24Completed Weighted Highway MatrixCL GB RA WS OH HP FT AS WL GA RM BU GL CH GV Wl Kl SL HY ST MC NF CT SA TOTALCHARLOTTE (CL) 0 12 132 69 114 59 131 102 188 15 178 88 177 114 214 176 200 32 54 33 264 266 178 195 3051GREENSBORO (G8) 72 0 60 14 42 13 85 129 168 87 106 16 105 42 142 104 128 40 71 50 192 194 200 253 2313RALEIGHj(RA) 132i60 0 74 18 73 48 189 131 147 46 44 45 25 02 4 4 68 100 131 110 132 161 189 254 2303WINSTON-SALEM (WS) à^-63 14 74 Ç 56 99 il5 182 84 120 30 119 56 1 56 IIB 142 46 57 36 206 208 214 264 2484
DURHAM (DH) 114 42 18 56 0 55 66 171 149 12? 64 26 63 11 ion 62 86 82 113 92 150 152 207 272 2280
HIGH POINT (HP) 59 13 73 19 55 0 98 132 181 74 119 29 118 55 155 117 141 27 74 53 205 207 213 254 2471
FAYETTEVILLE (FT)
131 85 48 99 66 98 0 214 83 146 75 82 48 67 96 61 71 125 156 135 135 190 141 206 2558
ASHEVILLE (AS) in2 129 189 115 171 132 214 0 290 87 235 145 234 171 271 233 257 105 58 79 321 323 209 229 4299
WILMINGTON (WL) IRP 168 131 182 149 181 83 290 0 2C3 129 165 89 150 114 115 89 208 239 218 87 244 156 255 3833
GASTONIA (GA)
15 87 147 84 129 74 146 87 203 0 193 103 192 129 229 191 215 47 44 48 279 281 193 210 3326
ROCKY MOUNT (RM)
178 106 46 120 64 119 75 235 129 193 0 90 40 71 41 14 63 146 177 156 116 115 216 281 2791
BURLINGTON (BU)
88 16 44 30 26 29 82 145 165 103 90 0 89 26 126 88 112 56 87 66 176 178 216 269 2307
GOLDSBORO (GL)
177 105 . 45 119 63 118 48 234 89 192 40 89 0 70 48 26 23 145 176 155 87 155 189 254 2647
CHAPEL HILL (CH) 114 42 25 56 11 55 67 171 150 129 71 26 70 0 107 69 93 82 113 92 157 163 208 273 2344
GREENVILLE (GV) 214 142 82 156 100 L55 96 271 114 229 41 126 48 107 0 38 25 182 213 192 75 140 237 302 3285
WILSON (Wl) ],7fi 104 44 118 62 L17 61 233 115 191 14 88 26 69 38 0 49 144 175 154 113 129 202 267 2689
KINSTON (Kl) 200 128 68 142 86 L41 71 257 89 215 63 112 23 93 25 49 0 168 199 178 64 165 212 277 302Í
SALISBURY (SL)
32 40 100 46 82 27 125 105 208 4 7 146 56 145 82 182 144 168 0 47 26 232 234 210 227 2711
HICKORY (HY) 54 71 131 57 113 74 156 58 239 44 177 87 176 113 213 175 199 47 0 21 263 265 232 24 9 3214
STATESVILLE (ST) 33 50 110 36 92 53 135 79 218 48 156 66 155 92 192 154 178 26 21 0 242 244 211 228 2819
MOREHEAD CITY (MC) 264 192 132 206 150 205 135 321. 87 279 116 176 87 157 75 113 64 232 263 242 0 188 243 341 4268
NORFOLK (NF) 266 194 161 208 152 207 190 323 244 281 115 178 155 163 140 129 165 234 265 244 188 0 331 396 3929
CHARLESTON (CT) 178 200 189 214 207 213 141 209 156 193 216 216 189 208 237 202 212 210 232 211 243 331 0 99 4706
SAVANNAH (SA)
195 253 254 264 272 >54 206 229 255 210 281 269 254 273 302 267 277 227 249 228 341 396 99 ? 0 5855
55
Figure 25
Initial Railroad Matrix
CL GB RA WS DH HP FT AS WL GA RM BU GL CH GV Wl Kl SL HY ST MC NF CT SA total
1
CHARLOTTE (CL) 0 147 143 190 23 44 45 210 238
GREENSBORO (GB) 0 28 15 21 228 287 365
RALEIGH (RA) 147 0 26 62 48 49 168 250 328
WINSTON-SALEM (WS)
28 0 37 553
DURHAM (DH) 26 0 34 19 167
HIGH POINT (HP) 15 0 34
FAYETTEVILLE (FT)
143 138 62 0 113 69 172 296
ASHEVILLE (AS) 0 129 82 286 286
WILMINGTON (WL) 190 113 0 83 102 193
GASTONIA (GA) 23 129 0 46 58
ROCKY MOUNT (RM) 0 43 16 108
BURLINGTON (BU) 21 34 0
GOLDSBORO (GL) 48 69 83 0 25 26
CHAPEL HILL (CH) 19 0
GREENVILLE (GV) 43 0 35 28 82 113
WILSON (Wl) 49 16 25 35 0
KINSTON (Kl) 26 28 0 67
SALISBURY (SL) 44 ?> 37 34 0 25 220 307
HICKORY (HY) 82 46 22
STAT ESVILLE (ST) 45 53 58 25 22 0
MOREHEAD CITY (MC) i 102 82 : 67 0 191
NORFOLK (NF) 228 168 167 108 113 191 0
_
CHARLESTON (CT) 210 287 250 1 172 286 193 220 0 113
SAVANNAH (SA) ¡
238 365 328 1 296 286 307 113 0
56
Figure 26
Completed Railroad Matrix
CL GB RA ^s DH HP FT AS WL GA RM BU GL CH GV Wl Kl SL HY ST MC NF CT SA TOTAL
CHARLOTTE (CL) 0 93 147 81 148 78 143 149 190 23 212 114 195 167 233 196 221 44 67 45 288 315 210 238 3595
GREENSBORO (GB) 93 0 81 28 55 15 138 178 212 116 146 21 129 74 165 130 155 49 96 74 222 222 269 331 2999
RALEIGH (RA) HI 81 0 109 26 96 62 259 131 170 65 60 48 45 84 449 74 130 177 155 141 168 234 328 2839
WINSTON-SALEM (WS) 81 28 109 0 83 43 166 -157 240 104 174 49 157 102 1Ô3 158 183 37 75 53 250 250 257 319 3268
DURHAM (DH) 148 55 26 83 0 70 88 233 157 171 91 34 74 19 110 75 100 104 151 129 167 167 260 354 2866
HIGH POINT (HP) 78 15 96 43 70 0 153 163 227 101 161 36 144 89 180 145 170 34 81 59 237 237 254 316 3089
FAYETTEVILLE (FT) 143 138 62 166 88 153 0 292 113 166 110 122 69 107 123 94 95 187 210 188 162 218 172 285 34 63
ASHEVILLE (AS) 149 178 259 157 233 163 292 0 339 128 324 199 307 252 343 308 333 129 82 104 400 400 286 286 5651
WILMINGTON (WL) 190 212 131 240 157 227 113 339 0 213 124 191 83 176 137 108 109 234 257 235 102 232 193 306 4309
GASTONIA (GA)
423 116 170 104 171 101 166 128 213 0 235 137 218 190 254 219 244 67 l 58 311 338 233 261 4003 1
1
ROCKY MOUNT (BM) 212 146 65 174 91 161 110 324 124 235 0 125 41 LIO 43 16 67 195 242 220 125 108 282 393 3609 i
BURLINGTON (BU) 114 21 60 49 34 36 122 199 191 137 125 0 108 53 144 109 134 70 117 95 201 201 290 352 2962 !
GOLDSBORO (GL) 195 129 48 157 74 L44 69 307 83 218 41 108 0 93 54 25 26 178 225 203 93 149 241 354 3214
CHAPEL HILL (CH) 167 74 45 102 19 89 107 252 176 190 110 53 93 0 129 94 119 123 170 148 186 186 279 373 3284
GREENVILLE (GV) 231 165 84 193 110 180 123 343 137 254 43 144 54 129 0 35 28 214 261 239 82 113 295 408 3865
WILSON (Wl) 196 130 49 158 75 l45 94 308 108 219 16 109 25 94 35 0 51 179 226 204 117 124 266 377 3305
KINSTON (Kl) 221 155 74 183 100 L70 95 333 109 244 67 134 26 119 28 51 0 204 251 229 67 141 267 380 3648
SALISBURY (SL)
44 49 130 37 104 34 187 129 234 67 195 70 178 123 214 179 204 0 47 25 271 271 220 282 3294
HICKORY (HY) 67 96 177 75 151 81 210 82 257 46 242 117 225 170 261 226 251 47 0 22 318 318 267 305 4011
STATESVILLE (ST) 145 74 155 53 129 59 186 104 235 58 220 95 203 148 239 204 229 25 22 0 296 296 245 283 3605 ¡
MOREHEAD CITY (MC) 1288 ¡222 141 250 l67 237 1&2 400 102 311 125 201 93 186 82 117 67 271 318 296 0 191 295 408 4930
NORFOLK (NF) 315 222 168 250 167 237 218 400 232 338 108 201 149 L86 113 124 141 271 318 296 191 0 390 496 5531
CHARLESTON (CT) 210 269 234 257 260 254 172 286 193 233 282 290 241 27? 295 266 267 220 267 245 295 390 0 113 5818 1
SAVANNAH (SA)
238 331 328 319 354 316 285 286 306 261 393 352 354 373 408 377 380 282 305 283 408 496 113 0 7548
57
CHAPTER IV
EVALUATION OF ABSTRACTED TRANSPORT NETWORKS
In the previous chapter, the highway and railroad
systems, constructed to test the hypothesis of this thesis,
are developed into a matrix or value graph by network analy-
sis. This data is evaluated to provide insight regard-
ing the ability of North Carolina's ports to effectively
compete for the ocean freight trade of the state.
Highway Network
Highways linking a port city to a trade area are
essential to the survival of the port as an outlet to ocean
commerce in the United States. Trucking companies serving
maritime interest must have fast and efficient access from
ports to interior cities to remain competitive. X-Jhen
several ports contend for the trade of one area, or as in
this case, a state, distance from major cities to ports is
an important factor regarding port selection by those
businesses importing or exporting commerce from foreign
nations. "Since motor rates are not usually equalized and
tend to bear a more direct relation to distance than rail,
5 3
their impact is to favor the closest viable port."
North Carolina's ports do have a freight rate advantage
53
James B. Keyon, "Elements in J.nter-Port Competition
in the United States," Economic Geography 46 (1970) : 17.
58
over the other regional ports in a large portion of the
state in both truck and rail rates. Wilmington has a pre-
ferential rate over the other ports in most of the Pied-
mont and southern Coastal Plains counties. The major area
of contention, in terms of rate advantage, for this port
is the area of Mecklenburg and surrounding counties, v/hich
have an equal rate per mile to the port of Charleston.
Morehead City has a very limited area of freight rate
advantage. This area includes Greene, Beaufort, Lenoir,
Jones, Pamlico, Carteret, and parts of Wayne, Pitt,
Johnston, Wake, Durham, and Orange Counties. Norfolk's
close proximity to the northern border of the state affords
it a rate advantage over Morehead City in most of the
northeastern counties.As freight charges are deter-
minant upon the rate times the distance traveled per unit,
distance can figure prominently in port selection. It is
this distance component that is evaluated in the matrices
of highway and railroad connections.
The actual evaluation of the distance component for
the five port cities in the completed highway matrix is
very simple. The composite totals for each of the port
cities reveals that Wilmington is the top port city in
terms of network distance with 4,093 miles. Morehead City
is second with 4,772 miles and the out of state ports
54
'Mulligan, "Impact of N. C. Ports," pp. 5 6-5 11.
59
follow with Norfolk at 5,660 miles, closely trailed by
Charleston with 5,753 miles. Savannah is last with 7,302
miles. (See Table 1).
The second highway matrix, designed to account for
the increased highway speeds of interstate and multilane
highways, is similar to the unadjusted original network.
Wilmington is, again, the m.ost accessible in terms of dis-
tance with 3,833 miles. Morehead City is second with a
composite total of 4,268 miles. Norfolk and Charleston,
while still close in total mileage (4,929 to 4,706 respec-
tively), switch positions in the port rankings. Savannah
once more, is last with a total of 5,855 miles (see Table 1).
It is significant to note that while the rankings of the
cities do not change to a large degree, the port cities most
affected by the weighted matrix are the out-of-state ports.
This indicates a larger amount of interstate and multilane
highway on the routes from these ports to the twenty
North Carolina cities selected as important transportation
centers.
Both of the m.atrices evaluating the highway network
between the twenty-four cities of the abstracted network
support the hypothesis that North Carolina ports have a
distance advantage over the competing ports of Norfolk,
Charleston, and Savannah in terms of distance to the twenty
largest cities of the state.
60
Table 1
Highway Matrices Composite Mileage Totals
Highway Matrix Weighted Kighw.
Charlotte 3510 3051
Greensboro 2802 2313
Raleigh 2763 2303
Winston-Salem 3015 2484
Durham 2818 2280
High Point 2947 2471
Fayetteville 2933 2558
Asheville 5335 4299
Wilmington 4093 3833
Gastonia 3870 3326
Rocky Mount 3272 2791
Burlington 2780 2307
Goldsboro 3138 2647
Chapel Hill 2753 2344
Greenville 3726 3285
Wilson 3159 2689
Kinston 3548 3025
Salisbury 3236 2711
Hickory 3927 3214
Statesville 3442 2819
Morehead City 4772 4268
Norfolk 5660 4929
Charleston 5753 4706
Savannah 7302 5855
Note; The first twenty cities of the table are ranked
in descending order of population size. The
last four cities are those of the additional port
cities.
61
Railroad Network
The evaluation of the railroad matrix compiled in
Chapter Three is also relevant to the investigation of the
transportation network between the twenty-four cities.
Railroads at present (1970) are major carriers of maritime
freight, especially in distances exceeding 200 miles.
Bulk items which do not necessitate immediate delivery are
the dominant cargo shipped by this type carrier.The
existance of rail connection from the interior cities of
the state to the various ports is, in itself, a solicitor
for the ports. Often railroad company promotion is well
organized, spread out over the trade area, and very effec-
tive.5S
North-Carolina's rail system includes 44,330 miles
of track operated by twenty three companies. Of this
total, three companies, the Seaboard Coast Line, Southern,
and the Norfolk Southern control 80% of the railbeds.^^
Wilmington is serviced by three lines of the Seaboard
Coast Line and Morehead City is connected to the main lines
of other companies by the Atlantic and East Carolina Rail-
road.58
^^Keyon, "Inter-Port Competition," p. 19.
^^Patton, "General Cargo," p. 436.
57
Barton-Asham, "Statewide Transportation Plan,"p. 59.
58
1978 Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, pp. 394-5.
62
The composite indexes, from the completed railroad
matrix in the previous chapter, are similar to that of the
highway model. The port of Wilmington, with 4,309 miles,
is the top ranking port of the five port set. Morehead
City is second in the rankings with 4,930 miles. The
three out-of-state ports follow the leaders with Norfolk
and Charleston closely grouped together at 5,531 and 5,818
m.iles respectively. Savannah is a distant last with 7,548
miles. (See Table 2).
The above totals support the hypothesis that Wilmington
and Morehead City are superior to the out-of-state competing
ports in terms of rail distance for the cities of the
abstracted network.
Table 2
Railroad Matrix Composite Mileage Total
Charlotte 3595
Greensboro 2999
Raleigh 2839
Winston-Salem 3268
Durham 2866
High Point 3089
Fayetteville 3463
Asheville 5651
Wilmington 4309
Gastonia 4003
Rocky Mount 3609
Burlington 2962
Goldsboro 3214
Chapel Hill 3284
Greenville 3865
Wilson 3305
Kinston 3648
Salisbury 3294
Hickory 4011
Statesville 3605
Morehead City 4930
Norfolk 5531
Charleston 5818
Savannah 7548
64
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The optimum seaport identified in the highway network
discussed in Chapter 4 is Wilmington. Morehead City also
compared favorably in this composite ranking of ports.
Just how much of a distance advantage do these ports have
and is it significant? By breaking-down the information
contained within the matrix, it is possible to further
appraise the advantageous position of North Carolina ports
to some degree.
North Carolina Ports and Their Distance Relationships to
The IX^fenty Largest North Carolina Cities
In Table 3, the dominant urban centers of the
state are portrayed in relation to their distances from
the five ports of this study. The distances from the N. C.
port cities to the nineteen urban centers (Wilmington is
also a member of the twenty top urban centers, increasing
the total to twenty) are shorter than the out-of-state ports
to seventeen of the nineteen cities. Wilmington's distances
to fifteen of these cities are shorter, whereas, Morehead
City is nearer to only two. The average distance advantage
of Wilmington to the seventeen cities is thirty-four miles
compared to eighty miles, for Morehead City. Norfolk and
Charleston are each the optimum port in term.s of distance
65
Table _3
Highway Distances to Ports From N. C. Urban Centers
WL MC NF CT SA
Charlotte 203 285 311 215 235
Greensboro 183 222 230 250 320
Raleigh 139 147 168 244 339
Winston-Salem 202 241 249 269 326
Durham 162 170 175 264 359
High Point 192 239 247 267 312
Fayetteville 92 144 209 185 280
Asheville 318 391 399 275 300
Gastonia 223 305 331 235 255
Rocky Mount 133 120 115 279 374
Burlington 174 201 209 267 341
Goldsboro 89 97 159 244 339
Chapel Hill 159 175 187 252 347
Greenville 117 79 140 282 386
Wilson 115 117 133 261 356
Kinston 89 70 168 254 358
Salisbury 220 272 282 257 277
Hickory 267 317 325 279 299
Statesville 246 289 297 258 278
WL - Wilmington
MC - Morehead City
NF - Norfolk
CT - Charleston
SA - Savannah
66
for one of the cities of the set. Norfolk is closest to
Rocky Mount, whereas, Charleston is the port with the short-
est distance to Asheville. Further limiting the totals to
just the industrialized Piedmont cities results in a reduc-
tion of the average advantage to twenty-nine miles for
Wilmington and zero for Morehead City. In fact the port
of preference in terms or distance for all of the cities
within the Piedmont group is Wilmington. These cities
include Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, Winston-Salem,
Durham, High Point, Gastonia, Burlington, Chapel Hill,
Salisbury, and Statesville.
The weighted highway distances from the five ports
to the urban centers are displayed in Table 4. Of the
total, thirteen cities are closer to North Carolina ports
than those of the competing states. Wilmington's dis-
tances are minimal to nine of the nineteen cities with an
average advantage of twenty-one miles. Morehead City has
the shortest routes to four cities with an average advantage
of sixty-three miles. Charleston is the closest port to
three of the total nineteen cities. These include Charlotte,
Asheville, and Gastonia. Norfolk remains the port with the
shortest distance to Rocky Mount. Limiting the scope to
the Piedmont cities results in the reduction of Wilmington's
advantage to an average of fifteen miles. Morehead City
is no longer the optimum port in regard to any of the cities
67
Table _4
Weighted Highway Distances to Ports from N. C. Urban Centers
WL MC NF CT SA
Charlotte 188 264 266 178 195
Greensboro 168 192 194 200 253
Raleigh 131 132 161 189 254
Winston-Salem 182 206 208 214 264
Durham 149 150 152 207 272
High Point 181 205 207 213 254
Fayetteville 83 135 190 141 206
Asheville 290 321 323 209 229
Gastonia 203 279 281 193 210
Rocky Mount 129 116 115 216 281
Burlington 165 176 178 216 269
Goldsboro 89 87 155 189 254
Chapel Hill 150 157 163 208 273
Greenville 114 75 140 237 302
Wilson 115 113 129 202 267
Kinston 89 64 165 212 277
Salisbury 208 232 234 210 227
Hickory 239 263 265 232 249
Statesville 218 242 244 211 228
WL - Wilmington
MC - Morehead City
NF - Norfolk
CT - Charleston
SA - Savannah
68
of this reduced set. The three cities with the shortest
routes to Charleston are members of this Piedmont crescent
group and posses an average distance advantage of ten
miles over the nearest competing port city.
In the total assessment of the highway situation the
acceptance of the hypothesis that North Carolina ports
are located favorably in terms of distance to the twenty
top urban centers of the state m.ust be done so with some
reservation. Connection within the highway system does
not seem to constitute any problem, but the relatively
small margin of advantage the ports possess is not of
major significance. A port selection decision would not
be made on this amount of distance in most cases.
A final evaluation of the North Carolina ports rela-
tionship with the urban centers in terms of highway dis-
tance is that while the state ports have a distance advan-
tage, it is miniscule.
The evaluation of the state's rail networks in rela-
tion to the port cities is similar to that of the high-
way netviork. Again Wilmington and Morehead City are
favored in the composite scoring of the distance totals
of the inspection matrix. Norfolk, Charleston, and
Savannah follow in respective order. Reducing the data
to that pertinent to the question at hand in Table^b >
results in insights regarding the actual advantages of the
North Carolina ports.
Table 5
Railroad Distances to Port s from N. C. Urban Centers
V7L MC NF CT SA
Charlotte 190 288 315 210 238
Greensboro 212 222 222 269 331
Raleigh 131 141 168 234 328
Wins ton-Salem 240 250 250 257 319
Durham 157 167 167 260 354
High Point 227 237 237 254 316
Fayetteville 113 162 218 172 285
Asheville 339 400 400 286 286
Gastonia 213 311 338 233 261
Rocky Mount 124 125 108 282 393
Burlington 191 201 201 290 352
Goldsboro 83 93 149 241 354
Chapel Hill 176 186 186 279 373
Greenville 137 82 113 295 408
Wilson 108 117 124 266 377
Kinston 109 67 141 267 380
Salisbury 234 271 271 220 282
Hickory 257 318 318 267 305
Statesville 235 296 296 245 283
WL - Wilmington
MC ~ Morehead City
NF - Norfolk
CT - Charleston
SA - Savannah
70
Wilmington and Morehead are closer to sixteen of the
nineteen cities in the rail network. Wilmington accounts
for most of those connections with Morehead only closer
to two of the urban centers. The average advantage of
Wilmington is twenty-two miles with Morehead City averag-
ing 53 for its two cities. The remaining three cities
are evenly distributed as to their closest port with the
out-of-state ports. Charleston is the port of choice for
Salisbury in terms of railroad distance and Asheville is
tied between Charleston and Savannah as to its closest
port. Norfolk continues to be the port of choice for
Rocky Mount in regards to distance. Limiting the set to
the Piedmont cities reduces Wilmington's average to six-
teen miles while Morehead City is not closest to any
of these cities. (See Table 5 ). Of the eleven Pied-
mont cities, the North Carolina port of Wilmington domi-
nates the group with shorter routes to ten of the cities.
Charleston has a distance advantage to one city of this
group (Salisbury). It is questionable whether the limited
mileage advantage enjoyed by the ports of Wilmington and
Morehead, particularly in respect to Norfolk and Charleston,
would be important enough to influence a port selection
decision. Again the initial hypothesis is accepted, but
with the knowledge that the effect of the distance advan-
tage is probably not a major consideration in this parti-
cular instance.
71
Conclusion
In the examination of the highway and railroad net-
works abstracted between the port cities and urban nodes
the distance component has been determined to be of less
significance than originally conceived. It is true that
the ports of Wilmington and Morehead City are closer to
the urban cities of the state than those of Norfolk,
Charleston, and Savannah, but to a degree which is not
critical enough to alone influence port selection.
Does the lack of a large distance advantage for North
Carolina ports mean that the state ports cannot effectively
compete for the foreign trade generated by the state's
economy? The answer to this question is no. Wilmington,
although not in a geographic position of great dominance in
terms of distance, is still the closest port to most cities.
The ability of the port to capture a significant portion of
the container trade of the industrialized Piedmont demon-
strates the value of its existance. While connection to the
interior trade area is no problem, the quality of such could
be improved V7ith the construction of limited access four
lane highways from this city to the Piedmont crescent.
Such a highway. Interstate 40, is scheduled for comple-
tion in the early 1990's. This limited access highway will
provide Wilmington with direct connections to Raleigh and
to other cities of the Piedmont. The accomplishment of
72
this improvement over existing roadway will most definitely
be an asset to the development of the Wilmington state
59
port. Port services could be improved to make the port
more attractive to prospective customers. By prudent
capital investment, equipment necessary to expedite loading
and unloading could induce further business. Additional
service in regards to sailing schedules and liner service
could prove beneficial to the port.
In summary, Wilmington, vrhile not in a position of
great advantage, is neither in a position of disadvantage.
The slight distance advantage for the port means that the
real keys to the potential growth of the port and capture
of contested trade are port facilities and service. Also
additionally four lane access to the interior would fur-
ther enhance the competitive position of the port.
The future of Morehead City seems to be somewhat
limited in that it has not exhibited any ability to process
any meaningful volume of cargo from the industrialized
interior of the state. The distance advantage itself
is limited to only a few cities of the Coastal Plain. The
area is predominately rural in character providing little
business to the port excepting bulk commodities. At this
time the port is performing service in the form of local
59 Charles Atkins, Interview (telephone). Department of
Transportation, North Carolina State' Government, Raleigh,
North Carolina, April 1979.
73
trade without much hope of developing a large general cargo
trade. Even if the facilities and service were available
it is doubtful that this type of shipment would move
through this port. The actual demand necessary for the
successful establishment of general cargo service does not
exist in the limited trade area favored by preferential
freight rates or distance to Morehead City.
The examination of the two North Carolina ports in
this study concerns the transportation and economic
situations as they exist today (1979) . While this is
certainly pertinent, one must realize that North Carolina
is a state in transition and that the economic character
of the state is changing. This change will have an impact
on future port development. Once a predominantly rural
society, the state's non-farm employment has risen from
879,600 in 1949 to 2,128,300 in 1977. Correspondingly,
farm employment has dropped from 676,000 in 1940 to
164,000 in 1977.^*^ This shift in employment is continu-
ing as faims become larger and more mechanized and people
look to non-farm employment for sustenance.
Eastern North Carolina, long considered the agri-
cultural heartland of the state, is also a part of this
change in economic emphasis. While agriculture is still
^^Mary Stewart, Interview (telephone). North Carolina
Division of State Budget and Management, Raleigh, North
Carolina, April 1979.
74
very' important to the region, the number of manufactur-
ing and non-farm establishments is increasing in the area.
As the change occurs, the coastal plain will become more
important to the two ports in terms of cargo potential.
In the examination of the transportation system, one might
erroneously perceive that this study concedes that all
significant economic activity occurs in cities. Obviously
this is not so, especially in North Carolina where the
population has not chosen to congregate in large urban
centers, but in smaller, moderately spaced towns or in
rural areas. The transportation system in this study is
an abstraction which allows us to simplify the actual
system to a point where an evaluation of the economic
situation is possible. Again, it must be acknowledged
that the transportation of the state, especially the
highway segment, is not a static entity. The system is
constantly being upgraded and refined and these processes
will have an impact on future port development.
Finally, political considerations are an important
factor that will affect the future of North Carolina ports.
People from the local areas of the two state ports realize
that the economy of the state is growing and each group
seeks to develop it's port by acquiring the largest amount
of development capital possible from the state legislature.
The political strength of these port boosters can have a
significant affect upon the future of the indivitual ports.
75
As of today, Wilmington seems to hold the edge as it
has demonstrated it can comipete for the ocean transit
trade of the state. Morehead City, serving a limited
hinterland, seems less likely to be able to compete for
the general cargo of the state and will most probably
remain oriented to handling of bulk cargoes for some time.
The development potential of the eastern portion of the
state will most likely be sought by both ports and may
influence the future development of each facility.
APPENDIX A
North Carolina Container Imports - Exports for 1977
1977 Container Exports to Northern Europe
County CT
Alamance 245 285
Buncombe 120
Caldwell 132 60
Carteret 120 120
Catawba 96 169
Chatham 250
Cleveland 45 180 45
Craven 300 300
Cumberland 36
Davidson 45 72 45
Davie 300
Durham 373
Forsyth 1,620
Gaston 343 252 175
Guilford 382 560 13
Halifax 75
Lee 80
Mecklenburg 384 222 120
Pitt 10
Randolph . 115 222 123
Rockingham 85 163
Rowan 156 60
Rutherford 12
Stanly 195
Transylvania 130
Union 54 48
Vance 18 18
Wake 25
Washington 300 300
Wilkes 120
78
Container Exports to the Middle East
County m OT CT SA
Durham 75 75
Guilford 100
Iredell 50 50
Mecklenburg 100 100
Rockingham 500
79
1977 Exports to Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
County OT CT SA
Brunswick 1,550
Cleveland 760
Durham 175
Forsyth 140
Gaston 70 70
Guilford 805 330 240
Iredell 400
Mecklenburg 105
Rowan 200
Transylvania 150 150
80
1977 Container Imports from Northern Europe
County CT SA
Alamance 90 10
Catawba 20 12
Cleveland 75
Davidson 996 466
Durham 25 25
Edgecoiribe 150 150
Forsyth 50 10
Guilford 333 279 12 15
Iredell 12
Lincoln 36
Mecklenburg 656 256 250 15
Orange 20
Pitt 120
Randolph 60
Rockingham 49
Rowan 18
Vance 30
Wake 102
Wayne 12
Wilson 140 130
1977 Container Imports from the Mediterranean
County WL ÇT
Catawba 6 6
Davidson 262
Durham 50
Forsyth 34
Guilford 125 43
Lee 30
Mecklenburg 45 27 15
Randolph 60
Wake 230 60
Wayne 12
Wilson 40
82
1977 Container Imports from
Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
County m CT SA
Brunswick 55 55
Craven 250
Cumberland 19 164
Davidson 201 62
Edgecombe 18 350 19
Gaston 72
Granville 140
Guilford 140 134 50 60
Henderson 40
Iredell 246 147 147
l.ee 8
Mecklenburg 783 71 756 135
Montgomery 40 40
Randolph 75
Union 48
Vance 205 230
Wake 50
Wilkes 48
83
1977 Container Exports to the Mediterranean
County CT SA
Alamance 50 50
Brunswick 360
Buncombe 90 90
Davidson 12 12
Gaston 100
Guilford 5,200 700
Halifax 75 75
Iredell 520 520
Mecklenburg 24 810 30
Orange 10
Randolph 35 51 36
Union 24
APPENDIX B
Total Import - Export Trade of Morehead City in 1977
85
1977 Import Export Trade Processed by Morehead City
IMPORTS
Product Tonnage Origin Destination
Asphalt 62,070 Venezuela Carteret County
Bunker C Oil 52,774 Venezuela Carteret County
Lumber 22,568 Canada Catawba County
Brazil Catawba County
Meal Bone 6,485 Panama Wilson County
Chile Wilson County
Urea 14,270 Holland Carteret County
Tobacco 1,200 Turkey Forsyth County
Total Import 159,367
Tonnage
86
EXPORTS
Product Tonnage Origin Destination
Peanut Meal 4,110 Duplin County Holland
Logs 5,607 Craven County Brazil
Germany
Lumber 25,366 Craven County Holland
Belgium
Italy
Germany
Milk Carton Stock 11, 374 Craven County Germany
Iran
Paper Scrap 5,310 Craven County Italy
Strapping Steel 4,180 Pitt County South Africa
Tobacco 83,455 Wilson, Pitt, Japan
Edgecombe
Nash Counties ; Germany
Danville, Va. Thailand
Woodchips 44,387 Craven County Finland
Phosphoric Acid 26,798 Beaufort County Brazil
Phosphate 598,796 Beaufort County Belgium
France
Chile
Nicarauga
Brazil
United Kingdom
Germany
Singapore
Rumania
Holland
Woodpulp 57,372. Craven County Canada
Argentina
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Belgium
France
Germany
Rumania
Scotland
Japan
Egypt
Greece
Italy
Portugal
Total Export 886.935
Tonnage
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alderton, Patrick M. Sea Transport : Operation and Economics.
London; Thomas Reed Ltd., 1973.
Alexanders son, Gunnar, and Norstro.m, Goran. World Shipping.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963.
Ashford, Norman. "The Developing P^le of State Government
in Transportation.” Traffic Quarterly 22 (1968); 458-
68.
Barber, Gerald M. "A Mathematical Programming Approach to
a Network Development Problem.” Économie Geography
51 (1975): 128-41.
Beaver, S. H. "Ships and Shipping; The Geographical Con-
sequences of Technological Progress.” Geography 52
(1967): 133-56.
Beckmann, Martin J. "On the Theory of Traffic Flows in
Networks.” Traffic Quarterly 21 (1967): 109-18.
Bennathan, Esra, and Walters, A. A. ^e Economics of Ocean
Freight Rates. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc.,
r9^'9.
Berry, Brian J. L. Essays on Commodity Flows and the Spatial
Structure of the~~Tndian Economy.' “CFTicago : University
b£ Chicago Press, 1966.
and Marble , Duane F. Spatial Analysis : A Reader
in Statistical Geography. Englewood Clifrs, N. J. ;
Prentice Hall, l^ooT
Bird, Jam.es. "Traffic Flows to and from British Seaports.”
Geography 54 (1969): 284-302.
Blunden, W. R. The Land-Use Transport System, Analysis and
Synthesis. New York: Pergamon Press, 1971.
Busaker, Robert G., and Saaty, Thomas L. Finite Graphs and
Networks. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19E57
Chorley, Richard J., ed., and Haggett, Peter, ed. Models
in Geography. London; Methuen and Company Ltd., 1967.
87
88
Cohen, Saul B., ed. Problems and Trends in American Geo-
graphy. New YorlT! Basic Books, Inc . , 1967 .
Couper, A. D. The Geography of Sea Transport. London:
Hutchinson and Company Ltïï."^ 1973.
Darnton, Donald C. "We Can Have Hinterland Data." Pro-
fessional Geographer 15 (1963): 11-13.
Draine, Edwin H. Import Traffic of Chicago and its Hinter-
land. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Elliot Hurst, Michael E. "Transportation and the Societal
Framework." Economic Geography 49 (1972): 163-78.
, ed. Transportation Geographv. New York: McGraw-
Hill, Inc., 1974.
Fleming, Douglas K. "The Independent Transport Carrier in
Ocean Tromp Trades," Economic Geographv 44 (1968):
21-36.
. "Port Geography from Madison Avenue." Professional
Geographer 19 (1967): 9-11.
Garrison, W. L. "Fragments of Future Transportation Policy
Program.s. " Economic Geography 49 (1973): 95-102.
, and Marble Duane F. "Factor-Analytic Study of
the Connectivity of a Transportation Network." Papers
and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association
T7~(jwrr: 2‘jr-37.
Goss, R. 0. Studies in Maritime Economics. Cambridge: The
University Press, 1968.
Haggett, Peter; Cliff, Andrew; and Frey, Allen. Locational
Analysis in Human Geography. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1977.
Hance, William A., and Van Dogen, Irene S. "Dar Es Salaam,
The Port and its' Tributary Area." Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 77S (19587: 419-35.
Harris, Curtis C., Jr. Regional Economic Effects of Alter-
nate Highways. Cambridge, ^Mass.: Ballinger Publishing
Co., 1974.
89
Harvey, Milon E.; Hung, Ming-Shing; and Brown, Randall J.
"The Application of a p-Median Alogorithm to the
Identification of Nodal Hierarchies and Growth
Centers." Economic Geography 50 (1974): 187-201.
Haupert, John S. "Development of Israel's Frontier Port of
Elat." Professional Geographer 16 (1964): 13-16.
Hay, Alan. Transport for the Space Economy. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1973.
Hoyle, B. S. "African Politics and Port Expansion at
Dar Es Salaam." Geographic Review 68 (1968): 31-50.
Hu, T. C. Revised Matrix Alogrithms for Shortest Paths."
Siom Journal of Applied Mathematics 15 (1967): 207-
TBT"
Kansky, K. J. Structure of Transportation Networks.
Chicago: The University ot Chicago Press, 1963.
Kendall, Lane C. The Business of Shipping. Cambridge,
Maryland: Cornell Maritime Press, Inc. 1973.
Kenyon, Jam.es B. "Elements in Inter-Port Competition in
the United States." Economic Geography 46 (1970):
1-24.
. "Land Use Admixture in the Built-up Urban
Waterfront; Extent and Implications. "Economic Geo-
graphy 44 (1968): 152-77.
King, Leslie J. Statistical Analysis in Geography. Engle-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Frentice HaXl, 1969.
Kneafsey, James T. Transportation Economic Analysis.
Lexington; Kentucky : D. C. Heath and Company, 1975.
Lachene, Rene. "Networks and the Location of Economic Acti-
vities." Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science
Association 14 (^1964) 1 183-96T
Lawrence, S. A. International Sea Transport : The Years Ahead.
Lexington, Kentucky : D7 C. Heath and Company, 1972.
. United States Merchant Shipping Policies and
Politics. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institute, 1966.
90
Logan, Bryon E. "A Historical Geographic Study of North
Carolina Ports," Ph.D. dissertation. University of
North Carolina, 1956.
Lowe, John C., and Moryadas, S. The Geography of Movement.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1975.
Manners, Gerald. "Transport Cost,•Freight Rates, and the
Changing Economic Geography of Iron Ore." Geography
52 (1967): 260-79.
Mayer, Harold M. "Some Geographic Aspects of Technological
Change in Maritime Transportation." Economic Geography
49 (1973): 146-55.
The Port of^ Chicago and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Mills, D. G. "Changes in the Port of Amsterdam." Geography
63 (1978): 209-13.
Morgan, F. W. Ports and Harbours. London: Huthinson's
University Library, 1952.
Mulligan, Paul F., and Collins, Raymond L. Impact of North
Carolina Ports on the North Carolina Economy. Raleigh :
North Carolina Department of Transportation and High-
way Safety, [^1975j .
Muraco, William A. "Intraurban Accessibility." Economic
Geography 48 (1972): 388-405.
Nordbeck, Stig. "Computing Distances in Road Nets." Papers
and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association i/.
1196371 207-20.
N. C. Dept, of Transportation. Statev7ide Transportation
Plan : Phase 1 Technical Report. North Carolina Depart-
ment of Transportation, 1976.
ii- Po^ts, Facts and Figures. Raleigh: North Carolina
State Ports Authority, ^977^ .
North Carolina Municipal Population. Raleigh: North
Carolina State Government, [l^lT) .
North Carolina State Ports Authority, untitled and unpublished
report, Raleigh, 1977.
91
Nystuen, John D., and Dacey, Michael. "A Graph Theory
Interpretation of Nodal RegionfJ.'' Papers and Pro-
ceedings of the Regional Science Association 7
: l9-zr^
O'Sullivan, Patrick. Transport Networks and the Irish
Economy. London: London School of Economics and
Political Science, 1969.
Patton, Donald J. "General Cargo Hinterlands of New York,
Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Orleans." Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 48 (1958) :
5^6^. —
Pender, David R., and Wilder, Ronald P. Impact of the
States Ports Authority Upon the Economy of South
Carolina. Columbia: University of SoutH~Carolina,
Perle, Eugene D. "Estimation of Transportation Demand."
Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Associ-
ation 15 (1965): 203-15.
Pitts, Forest R. "A Graph Theory Approach to Historical
Geography." Professional Geographer 17 (1965): 15-20,
Potts, Renfrey B., and Oliver, P.obert M. Flows in Trans-
port Networks. New York: Academic Press,
Poulsen, Roy G. "Southern New England and the Freight Ser-
vices of the Penn Central." Traffic Quarterly 23 (1969):
547-60. ^
Reed, Wallace E. "Indirect Connectivity and Hierarchies of
Urban Dominance." Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 60 (197ÍT) : 7717^857
Rimmer, Peter J. "The Problem of Classifing Seaports."
Professional Geographer 18 (1968): 83-91.
"The Changing Status of New Zealand Seaports,
1853-1960. " Amials of the Association of Am.erican
Geographers 57~~C^o7yT 88-rOD7
Robinson, Ross. "The Hinterland-Foreland Continuum: Con-
cept and Methodology." Professional Geographer 22
(1970): 307-10.
92
Rogers, Allan L. "The Port of Genova." Annals of the
Association of American Geographers iS (l95Sy: J19-51.
Sack, Robert D. "Geography, Geometry, and Exploration."
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 60
Twoy : ~~6J778:
Sampson, Roy J., and Farris, Martin T. Domestic Transporta-
tion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,”1966.
Schenker, Eric. The Port of Milwaukee. Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.
ed., and Brockel, Harry C., ed.. Port Planning
and Developm.ent. Cambridge, Maryland: Cornell Mari-
time Press, Inc., 1974.
Schwind, Paul J. "The Geographer of Piggyback Operations."
Traffic Quarterly 21 (1967): 237-48.
Shaffer, Manfied. The Competitive Position of the Port of
Durbon. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University
Press, 1965.
Sharp, Clifford. The Problem of Transport. Oxford: Per-
gamón Press Ltd., 1965.
Transport Econom.ics. London: Macmillion Press
Ltd., 1973.
Sibley, Marilyn M. The Port of Houston. Austin, Tex.:
University of Texas Press, 1968.
Staz, Fredrick P. "Distance and Networks on Urban Social
Travel Fields." Economic Geography 49 (1973): 95-102.
Taaffe, Edward J., and Gauthier, Howard L., Jr. Geography
of Transportation. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.“rT973.
; Morrill, Richard L.; and Gould, Peter." Transport
Expansion in Underdeveloped Countries : a Comparative
Analysis." Geographic Review 53 (1963): 503-29.
Takel, R. E. Industrial Port Development. Bristol:
Scientechnica Ltd., 1974.
93
Taylor, L. G. Seaoorts. Glasgow; Brown, Son, and Ferguson
Ltd., 1974.
Thomas, William L. Jr., ed. Man's Role in Changing the Face
of the Earth. Chicago: "^University of Chicago Press,
Wallace, Iain. "Containerization at Canadian Ports." Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 65 (1975) :
413^?.
Wallace, William H. "Railroads, Traffic Densities, and
Patterns." Annals of the Association of American Geo-
graphers 48 X195S7'; 352^74"
Walters, A. A. Integration in Freight Transport. London:
The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1968.
Weigand, Guido G. "Som.e Elements in the Study of Port Geo-
graphy." Geographic Review 48 (1958): 185-200.
Whittaker, J. R. Containerization. London: John W^iley
and Sons, 1975.
Wyckoff, D. Daryl. Organizational Formality and Performance
in the Motor-Carrier Industry. Lexington Kentu~cky;
D. C. Heath and Company, 1974.
Yeates, Maurice. "Hinterland Delimitation: a Distance
Minimizing Apnroach." Professional Geogranher 15
(1963): 7-10^.
1978 Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, Chicago : Rand
McNally and Company,