It’s a risky endeavour for the competing Puget Sound ports of Tacoma and Seattle to voluntarily embark on an alliance to make themselves more competitive rather than going it alone. The two major ports in the Pacific Northwest that were founded roughly 100 years ago have competed for business vigorously ever since. But today things are changing dramatically, not only in the PNW but for the port industry generally. After a century of competition the two ports have pretty well come to a draw. In 2013 Seattle handled 1.59 million TEUs of box traffic and Tacoma handled 1.89 TEUs. Seattle’s operating revenues that same year were $110.3 million while Tacoma’s were$125.3 million. Tacoma crept slightly ahead of Seattle in March 2012 when the Grand Alliance, a consortium of NYK, OOCL, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim, moved its business to the Washington United Terminal on Tacoma’s Blair Waterway from the Port of Seattle. This was a serious blow to Seattle’s reputation and it not only hit the port’s bottom line but its ability to employ workers and pursue badly needed capital projects. In retrospect, Linda Styrk, Seaport Managing Director for the Port of Seattle, said that move might not have taken place if the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma had worked together to provide the service the Grand Alliance needed and focused their attention instead on attracting more shipping lines to Puget Sound as a key logistics hub on the U.S. West Coast and Western Canada. As with several other U.S. ports Styrk complains that other ports on the Pacific are attracting traffic that used to be Seattle’s and, like others, points the finger primarily at the Northern British Columbia port of Prince Rupert and its container terminal, Fairview, that opened September 1, 2007, with a box handling capacity of 500,000 TEUS owned by U.S.-based Maher Terminals, the Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, CN Rail (the only rail line serving the port) and the Prince Rupert Port Authority. Needless to say a design capacity of half a million TEUs and a single rail line is a far cry from Seattle and Tacoma with a combined handling capacity of over three million TEUs served by both BNSF and UPI railways. Since 1914 the Port of Prince Rupert hasn’t moved – it’s always been up to 58 hours closer to Asia by ship than the Port of Los Angeles – a major competitive advantage that seemed to escape the attention of Canada’s shipping industry and government for almost a century. However, with the onslaught of Asian traffic, industry leaders north of the border saw the need to increase the capacity of shipping facilities on the West Coast including the strategically located Port of Prince Rupert. Both levels of government and the shipping community came together to create a plan called the “Asia Pacific Corridor Initiative.” Styrk admires the plan and the results its had in Canada and told AJOT: “It’s what the U.S. should be doing.” She said building an alliance between the Pacific Northwest’s two major ports is what they’re trying to do on a voluntary basis, rather than being “mandated” by government. In fact, they’re doing what the major shipping lines have done, joined forces to form more powerful groups with larger, more fuel efficient ships, more technology, smaller crews and less cost per container moved. Once approved, the Puget sound alliance will have the budget and stature needed to promote their new entity to the U.S. and Canadian markets and, especially, to big box chains and shipping lines that will no longer be able to play the two ports against one another Styrk also pointed out that the allegiance has the ability to make a coordinated, joint presentation and carry more weight in meetings with government groups on major issues such as the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT). Working together the two ports can better coordinate and plan investments in next-generation equipment to load and unload super post-panamax container ships, probably at Seattle’s Pier 5 and she said, as an alliance, the ports can look at expanding the services they offer in sectors such as break bulk traffic and automobiles. But, these benefits for Puget Sound can only be achieved if the two competitors can come to a mutually agreed and sustainable work plan. Styrk called the amount of work involved in the due diligence and planning “enormous.” The next step is for the two ports to submit their proposal to the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) for approval. Once approval is received, the ports will have to work out details of the alliance and then take a final vote, which they plan to do by March 31. Once the plan comes together and is proved to be a viable arrangement; Puget Sound, the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest will have, from the customer’s perspective, a new port that’s double in size, building for the future and is a serious competitor for their business. But Styrk is right, it will be an enormous task. Not only will the two ports have to build new working relationships between the ports that provide both partners with what they believe is their equitable share of the business, but make the changes as seamless as possible to keep existing customers happy. At present the unions are supportive of the allegiance idea, but this could change quickly if employment levels drop significantly. And, the communities of Seattle and Tacoma, including politicians, investors and suppliers who are proud of their ports will have to be convinced that sharing them with a neighboring, competing city is the best alternative.