Transpacific Logistics Demonstration Study PR-LOGISTICS-DEMO-2026

The land produced the advantage.
The machine only converted it into throughput.

A quantitative analysis of transpacific corridor performance through Port Edward and Prince Rupert, British Columbia — on Ts'msyen territory, on the CN northern mainline.

Sources: PRPA, NGA Pub. 151, CN, CPKC, OpenStreetMap, Copernicus GLO-30

Land Acknowledgment

This work traverses the traditional and ancestral territories of the Ts'msyen (Tsimshian), Nisga'a, Gitxsan, Wet'suwet'en, Carrier, and Nuxalk peoples, and many other Pacific Northwest and Plateau nations. These nations govern their lands today. The port's geographic advantage is a function of this territory; its logistics value cannot be separated from the lands and waters that make it possible.

Mamook does not conduct or represent Indigenous consultation. Consultation on this corridor is government-to-government and nation-to-nation. This study offers analytical support only, and claims no endorsement by any First Nation, port authority, or carrier. Indigenous territory boundaries referenced in this project are credited to Native Land Digital.

Executive summary

Measured end to end — sailing from Asia, terminal dwell, and rail inland — Prince Rupert reaches Chicago in 17.15 days. That is 2.03 days ahead of Vancouver BC, the next fastest option, and 5.67 days ahead of Los Angeles / Long Beach.

Sailing from Asia
253.2 hrs

Mean across four Asian origin ports at 18 knots.

Terminal dwell
60 hrs

PRPA published target: under 2.5 days.

Rail to Chicago
98.4 hrs

CN northern mainline, sourced lane figure.

Total transit
17.15 days

17.2 days (411.6 hrs)

What this analysis does not claim. Prince Rupert is not the cheapest option in this model. On the modelled Shanghai -> Chicago lane, Vancouver BC lands at $932.56 per TEU against Prince Rupert at $956.04. The advantage measured here is time, not landed cost — and time only converts into money through inventory carrying cost and restocking velocity, which are shipper-specific.

Methodology

Maritime distances are published practical sea-lane distances — NGA Pub. 151 Distances Between Ports where the pair is listed, and composites of Pub. 151 legs or routed values where it is not. Per-pair provenance travels with the data. Sailing times assume a mean vessel speed of 18 knots: the pre-2008 22-knot service speed no longer holds under slow steaming, and the global container fleet now averages roughly 15–16 knots.

Rail corridor geometries and distances are measured, not estimated: each port-to-hub lane is a shortest path over OpenStreetMap main-track rail, Dijkstra-stitched from a tiled Overpass extract. 18 lanes are measured this way and 0 remain schematic. Measured distances are shortest-path network values, not carrier routing guarantees. Rail transit times are sourced per lane where a primary carrier or port figure exists, and tagged illustrative elsewhere.

Limitations. This is a demonstration study built to show analytical method and narrative cartography. It is not a substitute for commercial due diligence, which would require live AIS vessel tracking, real-time terminal operating data, and shipper-specific contract rates. 3 of the 7 ports compared carry illustrative dwell-time placeholders (Portland OR, Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA), Oakland CA) and 1, Port Edward (PR bulk), is a stated modelling assumption, rather than published operator figures; they are labelled as such wherever they appear.

1. Distance from Asia

Mean published sea-lane distance from four major Asian origin ports. Geography and sailed distance diverge here: Vancouver lies farther north than Seattle, yet ranks below it on practical routing, because vessels bound for Vancouver transit the Strait of Juan de Fuca and then steam back north.

Mean maritime distance and sailing time from Asia
Rank Port Mean distance (nm) Sailing time (hrs @ 18 kn)
1 Prince Rupert 4,558.2 253.2
2 Port Edward (PR bulk) 4,558.2 253.2
3 Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) 5,004.2 278.0
4 Vancouver BC 5,043.0 280.2
5 Portland OR 5,097.2 283.2
6 Oakland CA 5,225.5 290.3
7 Los Angeles / Long Beach 5,536.8 307.6

2. Harbour depth and terminal dwell

Bar chart comparing harbour and berth depths across seven West Coast ports; Prince Rupert and Port Edward have a 35 metre channel, roughly twice the depth of every other port shown.
Figure 1 — Harbour and berth depth by port. Rendered at 300 DPI from the analysis pipeline.
Port facilities, ordered by terminal dwell time
Port Harbour depth (m) Berth depth (m) Dwell (hrs) Dwell basis Congestion On-dock rail
Port Edward (PR bulk) 35.0 18.0 48 Assumption Low Yes
Prince Rupert 35.0 17.0 60 Sourced Low Yes
Vancouver BC Terminal-specific depths at Deltaport, Centerm, and Vanterm range 14.5–16.0 m; 15.2 m is a representative mid-range value used for comparison. 15.2 15.2 72 Sourced Moderate Yes
Portland OR 13.0 12.8 84 Illustrative Low No
Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) 16.0 12.0 96 Illustrative Moderate-High Yes
Oakland CA 16.0 14.0 108 Illustrative High Yes
Los Angeles / Long Beach 16.0 13.0 120 Sourced Severe Yes

Dwell times marked "Illustrative" are comparative placeholders, not published operator figures. Repeated documented searches found no authoritative container dwell series for Portland OR, Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA), Oakland CA; hover any badge for the full provenance note. The Port Edward (PR bulk) figure is marked "Assumption": a deliberate modelling choice for an adjacent facility with no published dwell target, not a missing datum. Treating any of these as sourced data would overstate the precision of every total that depends on them.

Tornado chart showing how the Prince Rupert transit advantage widens or narrows as the assumed terminal dwell time varies.
Figure 2 — Dwell-time sensitivity. Because dwell is the least certain input, the advantage is shown across a range rather than at a single assumed value.

3. Total transit time by port and inland hub

Sailing plus terminal dwell plus rail, for each West Coast port against three inland hubs. Fastest first.

Asia to Chicago — total transit
Port Sailing (hrs) Dwell (hrs) Rail (hrs) Total (hrs) Total (days)
Prince Rupert 253.2 60 98.4 411.6 17.15
Vancouver BC 280.2 72 108.0 460.2 19.18
Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) 278.0 96 96.0 470.0 19.58
Portland OR 283.2 84 132.0 499.2 20.80
Oakland CA 290.3 108 120.0 518.3 21.60
Los Angeles / Long Beach 307.6 120 120.0 547.6 22.82
Asia to Toronto — total transit
Port Sailing (hrs) Dwell (hrs) Rail (hrs) Total (hrs) Total (days)
Prince Rupert 253.2 60 108.0 421.2 17.55
Vancouver BC 280.2 72 108.0 460.2 19.18
Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) 278.0 96 144.0 518.0 21.58
Portland OR 283.2 84 156.0 523.2 21.80
Oakland CA 290.3 108 144.0 542.3 22.60
Los Angeles / Long Beach 307.6 120 144.0 571.6 23.82
Asia to Memphis — total transit
Port Sailing (hrs) Dwell (hrs) Rail (hrs) Total (hrs) Total (days)
Prince Rupert 253.2 60 120.0 433.2 18.05
Vancouver BC 280.2 72 132.0 484.2 20.18
Portland OR 283.2 84 144.0 511.2 21.30
Oakland CA 290.3 108 120.0 518.3 21.60
Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) 278.0 96 168.0 542.0 22.58
Los Angeles / Long Beach 307.6 120 120.0 547.6 22.82
Grouped bar chart of total Asia-to-inland-hub transit time for each West Coast port, broken into sailing, dwell, and rail components.
Figure 3 — Total transit time by port and inland hub, decomposed into sailing, dwell, and rail.

4. Time saved via Prince Rupert

Hours saved by routing through Prince Rupert instead of each competing port. Positive values mean Prince Rupert is faster.

Hours faster via Prince Rupert
Compared with Chicago Toronto Memphis
Los Angeles / Long Beach 136.0 150.4 114.4
Oakland CA 106.7 121.1 85.1
Portland OR 87.6 102.0 78.0
Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) 58.4 96.8 108.8
Vancouver BC 48.6 39.0 51.0
Heatmap of hours saved by routing through Prince Rupert rather than each competing West Coast port, for three inland hubs.
Figure 4 — Time-savings matrix. Darker cells indicate a larger advantage.

5. Landed cost

Modelled total landed cost per TEU on the Shanghai -> Chicago lane, across 72 modelled rows. Time advantage and cost advantage are different questions, and this model answers the second one differently from the first.

Total landed cost per TEU — Shanghai -> Chicago
Port Landed cost (USD / TEU)
Vancouver BC $932.56
Prince Rupert $956.04
Portland OR $956.28
Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) $974.72
Oakland CA $1,011.72
Los Angeles / Long Beach $1,034.40
On landed cost this model ranks Vancouver BC first, not Prince Rupert — a difference of $23.48 per TEU. Publishing this is the point: an analysis that only reported the metric where its subject wins would not be worth commissioning.
Cost model assumptions
Assumption Value (USD)
Ocean freight per teu 350.00
Rail rate per km per teu 0.08
Demurrage rate per day 50.00
Drayage flat fee 150.00

The assumptions travel with the figures deliberately. A landed-cost number without its rate assumptions is not a finding, it is an advertisement.

Distribution of modelled landed cost per TEU by port, produced by the independent R validation script.
Figure 5 — Landed-cost distribution, independently replicated in R against the Python pipeline as a cross-check.

6. The corridor itself

The CN northern mainline answers to the same physiographic fact the Nuxalk-Carrier grease trail did: a comparatively low crossing of the Coast Mountains to a protected Pacific harbour. The modern corridor is faster, heavier, and more capital-intensive, but it is not geographically novel.

Corridor length
1,140 km

Prince Rupert to Jasper.

Maximum grade
1.136%

Mean 0.234% across 229 sampled points.

Summit elevation
1,137.9 m

Mean 533.1 m along the alignment.

Elevation source
Copernicus GLO-30

30 m resolution, CC BY 4.0.

Elevation and grade profile of the CN northern mainline from Prince Rupert to Jasper, derived from a 30 metre Copernicus digital elevation model.
Figure 6 — Elevation and ruling-grade profile, Prince Rupert to Jasper, sampled from Copernicus GLO-30.
Measured rail distance by lane (km)
Lane Shortest-path distance (km)
Prince Rupert → Chicago 4,138
Prince Rupert → Toronto 4,748
Prince Rupert → Memphis 4,867
Vancouver BC → Chicago 3,532
Vancouver BC → Toronto 4,306
Vancouver BC → Memphis 4,200
Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) → Chicago 3,434
Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) → Toronto 4,223
Seattle / Tacoma (NWSA) → Memphis 4,044
Portland OR → Chicago 3,516
Portland OR → Toronto 4,306
Portland OR → Memphis 3,922
Oakland CA → Chicago 3,584
Oakland CA → Toronto 4,373
Oakland CA → Memphis 3,774
Los Angeles / Long Beach → Chicago 3,555
Los Angeles / Long Beach → Toronto 4,330
Los Angeles / Long Beach → Memphis 3,329

Cross-validation: Measured shortest paths cross-checked against published passenger-route mileages (Amtrak Empire Builder / Southwest Chief / California Zephyr, VIA Canadian) in validate_claims.py; Oakland->Chicago follows the UP Overland freight route via Cheyenne-Ogden, ~340 km shorter than the Zephyr's Denver/Moffat passenger routing.

Sources and uncertainty

  • Maritime distances: NGA Pub. 151 Distances Between Ports, Pub. 151 leg composites, and routed distances where the pair is unlisted. Display geometry is a great-circle arc; the tabulated distance is the practical sea lane.
  • Port facilities: Prince Rupert Port Authority, Port of Vancouver, NWSA, Port of Portland, Port of Oakland, and POLA/POLB public disclosures.
  • Dwell times: PRPA published target; Port of Vancouver terminal performance dashboard (June 2026); Pacific Merchant Shipping Association San Pedro Bay report (April 2026). Seattle/Tacoma, Portland, and Oakland are illustrative placeholders; the Port Edward bulk figure is a modelling assumption.
  • Rail: OpenStreetMap railway=rail main tracks (service=* excluded), shortest-path stitched; scripts 19-20, 2026-08 Transit times from CN comments to FMC Docket 11-19, CPKC Network Intermodal Service Schedule Matrix (April 2026), and BNSF NWSA service announcement (April 2025).
  • Elevation: Copernicus GLO-30 digital elevation model, 30 m resolution, CC BY 4.0.
  • Indigenous territories: Native Land Digital (native-land.ca).

Every figure on this page is generated directly from the analysis pipeline rather than transcribed, and a continuous integration check fails the site build if the published numbers drift from the pipeline that produced them.

Explore the corridor interactively

The same data drives an interactive map of the corridor — port infrastructure, the CN northern mainline, transpacific sea lanes, and the historical travel routes that preceded them.

Open the interactive map Read the case study