The Box - Marc Levinson [176]
36. Minutes, combined meeting of MH-5 Load and Testing and Handling and Securing Subcommittees, November 30, 1966; Leslie A. Harlander, “Intermodal Compatibility Requires Flexibility of Standards,” Container News, January 1970, p. 20; Minutes of MH-5 committee, January 29 and May 20–21, 1970; L. A. Harlander, “Container System Design Developments,” p. 368.
37. Marad, “Intermodal Container Services Offered by U.S. Flag Operators,” January 1973 (unpaginated).
Chapter 8
Takeoff
1. New York figure estimated from PNYA data; West Coast figure taken from Hartman, Collective Bargaining, p. 160.
2. Ernest W. Williams, Jr., The Regulation of Rail-Motor Rate Competition (New York, 1958), p. 208; Werner Bamberger, “Containers Cited as Shipping ‘Must,’” NYT, January 21, 1959, and “Industry Is Exhibiting Caution on Containerization of Fleet,” NYT, December 4, 1960. Military freight accounted for one-fifth of the revenues of U.S.-flag international ship lines in 1964; see Werner Bamberger, “Lines Ask Rule on Cargo Bidding,” NYT, July 14, 1966.
3. McLean Industries, Annual Reports, 1957–60; Werner Bamberger, “Lukenbach Buys 3 of 5 Vessels Needed for Containership Fleet,” NYT, November 26, 1960; George Horne, “Luckenbach Ends Domestic Service,” NYT, February 21, 1961; “Ship Line Drops Florida Service,” NYT, March 2, 1961; “Grace Initiates Seatainer Service,” Marine Engineering/Log (1960), p. 55; Niven, American President Lines, p. 211.
4. “Coast Carriers Win Rate Ruling,” NYT, January 5, 1961.
5. United Cargo Corporation, a freight forwarder, offered container service from the United States to Europe as early as 1959, but the service involved boxes only 10½ feet long, which were carried in ships’ holds along with other freight. Jacques Nevard, “Container Line Plans Extension,” NYT; June 6, 1959.
6. Census Bureau, Historical Statistics, pp. 711 and 732; Beverly Duncan and Stanley Lieberson, Metropolis and Region in Transition (Beverly Hills, 1970), pp. 229–245.
7. Census Bureau, Historical Statistics, pp. 732–733; ICC, Transport Economics, July 1956, p. 10.
8. For information on piggyback operations prior to 1950, see Kenneth Johnson Holcomb, “History, Description and Economic Analysis of Trailer-on-Flatcar (Piggyback) Transportation” (Ph.D. diss., University of Arkansas, 1962), pp. 9–13.
9. Movement of Highway Trailers by Rail, 293 ICC 93 (1954).
10. U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract 1957, Table 705, p. 564; Wallin, “The Development, Economics, and Impact,” p. 220; ICC Bureau of Economics, “Piggyback Traffic Characteristics,” December 1966, p. 6. On Teamster opposition, see Irving Kovarsky, “State Piggyback Statutes and Federalism,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 18, no. 1 (1964): 45.
11. Curtis D. Buford, Trailer Train Company: A Unique Force in the Railroad Industry (New York, 1982); Comments of Roy L. Hayes, “Panel Presentations: Railroad Commercial Panel,” Transportation Law Journal 28, no. 2 (2001): 516; Walter W. Patchell, “Research and Development,” in Management for Tomorrow, ed. Nicholas A. Glaskowsky, Jr. (Stanford, 1958), pp. 31–34; Shott, Piggyback and the Future of Freight Transportation, p. 7.
12. Comments of Richard Steiner, “Panel Presentations: Railroad Commercial Panel”; Holcomb, “History, Description and Economic Analysis,” pp. 43–44; Eric Rath, Container Systems (New York, 1973), p. 33.
13. Holcomb, “History, Description and Economic Analysis,” pp. 54–67; Rath, Container Systems, p. 33.
14. Details here are taken from the ensuing U.S. District Court decision, New York, New Haven and Harford v. ICC, 199 F. Supp 635.
15. The relevant sentence in the Transportation Act of 1958 reads, “Rates of a carrier shall not be held up to a particular level to protect the traffic of any other mode of transportation, giving due consideration to the objectives of the national transportation policy declared in this Act.” “Coast Carriers Win Rate Ruling,” NYT, January 5, 1961; Robert W. Harbeson, “Recent Trends in the Regulation