Date post: | 18-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alaina-owen |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Tio g a
Port Drayage, Productivity, and Capacity:
Results of Three New Studies
March 1, 2010
PRELIMINARY
^
2Tio g a
Three New Studies
• Port Capacity Study, sponsored by the USACE Institute of Water Resources (IWR) CDM as prime contractor
• Port Productivity Study, sponsored by the Container Handling Cooperative Program (CHCP)
• Truck Drayage Practices, sponsored by the National Cooperative Freight Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Project 14
• All three studies nearing completion
3Tio g a
Port Capacity and Productivity
IWR Port Capacity Study - Key Questions• What is East and Gulf Coast port capacity?• What constrains capacity?• Can they handle new Panama Canal vessels and
business?
CHCP Port Productivity Study - Key questions • Are we using the right productivity measures?• Where do we get the data?• How do we approach benchmarking?• How do we encourage productivity improvements?
4Tio g a
TEU per Acre? Are we losers?
2004 TEU PER ACRE
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Singap
ore
Hong Kong
Port Kla
ng
Hamburg
Rotterd
am
Houston
Antwer
p
Long Bea
ch
Los Angel
es
Tacom
a
BUSTED
BUSTED
5Tio g a
Five Dimensions of Terminal Capacity
DRAFTDRAFT
BERTH LENGTHBERTH LENGTH
STACKING HEIGHTSTACKING HEIGHTCY DEPTH (AREA)CY DEPTH (AREA)
OPERATING HOURSOPERATING HOURS
6Tio g a
CY Metrics
Cheap land at U.S. ports leads to:• Lower TEU/acre • Dedicated carrier terminals • On-terminal chassis pools• On-dock rail transfer• Wheeled operations• Fewer moves per box• Lower terminal operating costs
Key Metrics• TEU per CY acre• Slots per acre (density) and TEU/slot (turns)• Utilization – annual TEU vs. CY capacity
7Tio g a
CY vs. Gross Acres
RAILRAIL
TRANSLOAD
TRANSLOAD
CHASSIS LOT
CHASSIS LOT
STAFF PARKING
STAFF PARKING
CYCY
• US terminals include more functions• On average, only half the gross acres are used as CY
8Tio g a
Gross vs. CY TEU per Acre
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Baltim
ore
Boston
Charle
ston
NYNJ
Philadel
phia
Port Eve
rgla
des
Savan
nah
Virgin
ia
Houston
New O
rlean
s
LALB
Oakla
nd
Portlan
d
Seattl
e
Tacom
a
Selec
ted U
S Ports
TEU/Gross AcreTEU/CY Acre
On TEU per CY acre, US terminals suddenly look “world class”
On TEU per CY acre, US terminals suddenly look “world class”
Many, but not all, ports and terminals publish CY acreageMany, but not all, ports and terminals publish CY acreage
9Tio g a
Estimated TEU Slots per CY Acre (Density)
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
Baltim
ore
Boston
Charle
ston
NYNJ
Philadel
phia
Port Eve
rgla
des
Savan
nah
Virgin
ia
Houston
New O
rlean
s
LALB
Oakla
nd
Portlan
d
Seattl
e
Tacom
a
Selec
ted U
S Ports
AVERAGE = 190AVERAGE = 190
Many, but not all, ports and terminals publish TEU slot dataMany, but not all, ports and terminals publish TEU slot data
10Tio g a
CY Utilization: 2008 TEU per Slot (Turns)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
Baltim
ore
Boston
Charle
ston
NYNJ
Philadel
phia
Port Eve
rgla
des
Savan
nah
Virgin
ia
Houston
New O
rlean
s
LALB
Oakla
nd
Portlan
d
Seattl
e
Tacom
a
Selec
ted U
S Ports
AVERAGE = 34
MAXIMUM = 70?
AVERAGE = 34
MAXIMUM = 70?
11Tio g a
Crane Metrics
The primary task is turning the vessel• Crane utilization and productivity can be measured in
TEU and vessels worked• Crane efficiency would be measured in moves/hour, but
data are seldom available
There is a critical tradeoff• Annual crane output is higher if fewer cranes work the
vessels
BUT• Vessel turns are faster and more reliable with more
cranes
12Tio g a
How many cranes per berth?
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Baltim
ore
Boston
Charle
ston
NYNJ
Philadel
phia
Port Eve
rgla
des
Savan
nah
Virgin
ia
Houston
New O
rlean
s
LALB
Oakla
nd
Portlan
d
Seattl
e
Tacom
a
Selec
ted U
S Ports
Average is 2.2Average is 2.2
Maximum of 5?Maximum of 5?
7 cranes for 6 berths
7 cranes for 6 berths
32 cranes for 22 berths
32 cranes for 22 berths
8 cranes for 3 berths
8 cranes for 3 berths
24 cranes for 8 berths
24 cranes for 8 berths
13Tio g a
How hard do we work those cranes?
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Baltim
ore
Boston
Charle
ston
NYNJ
Philadel
phia
Port Eve
rgla
des
Savan
nah
Virgin
ia
Houston
New O
rlean
s
LALB
Oakla
nd
Portlan
d
Seattl
e
Tacom
a
Selec
ted U
S Ports
TEU per Crane (000)
Vessel Calls per Crane
Some, but not all, ports and terminals publish crane moves per hourSome, but not all, ports and terminals publish crane moves per hour
14Tio g a
Estimated 2008 Crane Utilization
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Baltim
ore
Boston
Charle
ston
NYNJ
Philadel
phia
Port Eve
rgla
des
Savan
nah
Virgin
ia
Houston
New O
rlean
s
LALB
Oakla
nd
Portlan
d
Seattl
e
Tacom
a
Selec
ted U
S Ports
TEU vs. Max Sustainable TEU
AVERAGE = 35%AVERAGE = 35%
15Tio g a
Berth & Vessel Metrics
Berth utilization can be measured in multiple ways• Vessel calls and TEU per berth• TEU as percentage of maximum vessel capacity• TEU as percentage of current vessel capacity
Vessel utilization is also a factor• Average vessel size compared to maximum possible for berth
and channel depth• Average TEU per vessel as % of vessel capacity
16Tio g a
How hard do we work the berth?
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Baltim
ore
Boston
Charle
ston
NYNJ
Philadel
phia
Port Eve
rgla
des
Savan
nah
Virgin
ia
Houston
New O
rlean
s
LALB
Oakla
nd
Portlan
d
Seattl
e
Tacom
a
Selec
ted U
S Ports
Vessel Calls per Berth
TEU per Berth (000)
17Tio g a
How well do we use the draft?
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Baltim
ore
Boston
Charle
ston
NYNJ
Philadel
phia
Port Eve
rgla
des
Savan
nah
Virgin
ia
Houston
New O
rlean
s
LALB
Oakla
nd
Portlan
d
Seattl
e
Tacom
a
Selec
ted U
S Ports
Est. Max Vessel TEU
Est. Average Vessel TEU
Average TEU Handled per Vessel
DR
ED
GIN
GD
RE
DG
ING
DR
ED
GIN
GD
RE
DG
ING
DR
ED
GIN
GD
RE
DG
ING
DR
ED
GIN
GD
RE
DG
ING
DR
ED
GIN
GD
RE
DG
ING
18Tio g a
Estimated 2008 Berth Utilization
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Baltim
ore
Boston
Charle
ston
NYNJ
Philadel
phia
Port Eve
rgla
des
Savan
nah
Virgin
ia
Houston
New O
rlean
s
LALB
Oakla
nd
Portlan
d
Seattl
e
Tacom
a
Selec
ted U
S Ports
Average Vessel Basis
Max Vessel Basis
CURRENT TEU VS. CAPACITY
NEAR TERM WITHCURRENT VESSELSNEAR TERM WITH
CURRENT VESSELS
LONG TERM WITHMAXIMUM VESSELSLONG TERM WITH
MAXIMUM VESSELS
19Tio g a
East & Gulf Coast Capacity
Most East and Gulf ports have CY, crane, and berth capacity to handle additional near-term Panama Canal business
• As larger vessels are phased in over time, most East and Gulf Coast ports will have to add cranes
• NYNJ and Norfolk can handle large vessel drafts today, although NYNJ has a long-term air draft problem
• Baltimore, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Savannah have dredging programs in progress or proposed
• Rising volumes will eventually require additions to road and rail infrastructure
20Tio g a
US Port Productivity
Terminals attempt to balance the five dimensions of capacity• Berths long and deep enough for the biggest expected vessel
• Enough berths and cranes to avoid vessel delay
• Enough CY acreage and density to avoid congestion
• Enough hours to turn the vessel
US Ports are underutilized, not inefficient• Cheap land has led to large, individual terminals instead of
small multi-user terminals
• Most ports have substantial excess capacity
• Lower density holds down costs
Better productivity metrics are possible• “Sometimes” data such as CY acres, TEU slots, and crane
hours can yield better measures
21Tio g a
NCFRP-14 Port Drayage Project
Key questions• Where are the bottlenecks and delays?• What are the causes?• What are the solutions?
Answers• The terminal drayage bottlenecks are the gate,
CY, and chassis pool• The causes are congestion and exceptions• The solutions include terminal improvements,
operating practices, and exception reductions
22Tio g a
Terminal Congestion
Terminal data (which exclude gate queues) show the expected correlation between volume and turn times
Import Deliveries vs. Non-Trouble Turn Time - 2008
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100
Daily Import Volume
Tu
rn T
ime
Min
ute
s
2008 DATA FROM MARINE
TERMINAL SYSTEM
2008 DATA FROM MARINE
TERMINAL SYSTEM
23Tio g a
Chassis Transactions and Pools
Chassis transactions add drayage time and delays at stacked terminals
• Two sources of delay – finding the chassis, and waiting for the box
• Two source of exceptions – chassis problems and transfer problems
• Moving pools off-site to save space adds drayage trips and time
• Chassis interchange adds time to gate transactions
In the near term, neutral pools expedite chassis searches and reduce equipment problemsIn the long run, trucker or third-party chassis supply should reduce terminal time and exceptions
24Tio g a
Gate Queuing – Webcam Study Example
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
6:0
07
:00
8:0
09
:00
10:
001
1:00
12:
001
3:00
14:
001
5:00
16:
006
:00
7:0
08
:00
9:0
01
0:00
11:
001
2:00
13:
001
4:00
15:
001
6:00
6:0
07
:00
8:0
09
:00
10:
001
1:00
12:
001
3:00
14:
001
5:00
16:
006
:00
7:0
08
:00
9:0
01
0:00
11:
001
2:00
13:
001
4:00
15:
001
6:00
6:0
07
:00
8:0
09
:00
10:
001
1:00
12:
001
3:00
14:
001
5:00
16:
00
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
CO
NG
ES
TIO
N L
EV
EL
LONG QUEUES IN THE MORNING AND FOR EXPORT CUT-OFFS
LONG QUEUES IN THE MORNING AND FOR EXPORT CUT-OFFS
25Tio g a
Lunch Break Closures - Ouch!
13:04:2572 min.
13:04:2572 min.
13:05:2573 min.
13:05:2573 min.
13:07:2575 min.
13:07:2575 min.
13:15:2683 min.
13:15:2683 min.
13:09:2577 min.
13:09:2577 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:04:2572 min.
13:04:2572 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:04:2572 min.
13:04:2572 min.
13:05:2573 min.
13:05:2573 min.
13:07:2575 min.
13:07:2575 min.
13:15:2683 min.
13:15:2683 min.
13:09:2577 min.
13:09:2577 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:04:2572 min.
13:04:2572 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:06:2574 min.
13:06:2574 min.
TERMINAL GATE CLOSED FOR LUNCH- FRONT ROW SPENDS 72-83 MINUTES WAITING
TERMINAL GATE CLOSED FOR LUNCH- FRONT ROW SPENDS 72-83 MINUTES WAITING
DATA COLLECTION
VIA TERMINAL WEBCAMS
DATA COLLECTION
VIA TERMINAL WEBCAMS
26Tio g a
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0-1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-1
1
12-1
3
14-1
5
16-1
7
18-1
9
20-2
1
22-2
3
24-2
5
26-2
7
28-2
9
30-3
1
32-3
3
34-3
5
Minutes
Terminal A
Terminal B
Gates – 3 to 4 Minutes, but Too Many Exceptions
5% of the moves use 14-18% of the total time and
back up the queue
5% of the moves use 14-18% of the total time and
back up the queue
27Tio g a
Turn Times – Again, Too Many Exceptions
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
0-15
15-3
0
30-4
5
45-6
0
60-7
5
75-9
0
90-1
05
105-
120
120-
135
135-
150
150-
165
165-
180
180-
195
195-
210
210-
225
225-
240
240-
255
255-
270
270-
285
285-
300
Example Terminal Turn Time
Port-wide Trucker Turn Time
QUALCOMM data show added queue time
QUALCOMM data show added queue time
5% of the moves use 14% of the total time
5% of the moves use 14% of the total time
28Tio g a
Process Issues Cause Exceptions
BOOKING PROBLEMS 28%Booking does not match equipment type 10%Booking is not on file 7%Booking tally has already been reached 7%Missing notice for hazardous cargo 3%Booking quantity exceeded for equipment type 3%
DISPATCH PROBLEMS 29%Cargo not yet released 8%Driver or motor carrier credential problem 7%Empty Container/chassis not allowed 6%Past cargo cutoff 3%Demurrage due (unpaid bills) 3%Container exceeds maximum safe weight 2%
SYSTEM PROBLEMS 22%Container/chassis not recognized 18%Duplicate transaction 2%Container not found in yard 2%Other 20%
TOTAL 100%
• 5% of transactions get trouble tickets
• 80% due to booking, dispatch, or system errors
• Each one adds an hour
29Tio g a
Experience Matters
The average is 5%
The average is 5%
30Tio g a
The Trucking Company and Ocean Carrier Matter
Trucking Company Total tripsTransactions
per trip% Trouble
Tickets
A 1124 1.2 2.2%B 2649 1.7 2.5%C 1210 1.3 3.7%D 1146 1.4 3.9%E 2878 1.2 4.4%F 1329 1.4 5.6%G 1193 1.5 8.5%
Transaction Type Line Transactions Trouble Flag % Trouble Tickets
A 3,438 172 5.0%B 4,049 169 4.2%A 3,869 307 7.9%B 10,106 485 4.8%A 3,391 242 7.1%B 9,721 414 4.3%A 4,197 108 2.6%B 3,482 26 0.7%A 14,895 829 5.6%B 27,358 1,094 4.0%
Total
Deliver Import
Deliver Empty
Receive Export
Receive Empty
The average is 5%
The average is 5%
31Tio g a
Drayage Solutions
Reducing Bottlenecks• Keep gates open during lunch • Chassis pool – Saves time in stacked terminals• “Automated” gates – OCR, RFID, saves gate time • Two-stage gates – Gets exceptions out of line• Appointment system – May save time, depends on
implementation
Reducing Exceptions – The 5% “tail”• Talk – regular trucker/terminal/port/customer meetings• Manage booking, dispatch, and system communications • Choose experienced trucker and efficient ocean carrier
32Tio g a
Transition from Lower to Higher Density
Volume growth will drive denser, more capital-intensive operations
DENSITY TYPE COMMENT
Ro/Ro or Ship’s gear Very small, barge, specialized
Wheeled Combination Small, mixed, legacy
Dedicated Wheeled Older terminals when new
Wheeled/Top-pick Transition temrinals
Top-pick/Wheeled Transition temrinals
Straddle/Top-pick/Wheeled Hybrid terminal
RTG/Top-pick/Wheeled Dominant hyrbid type
Straddle Carrier NIT Virginia
RTG No US Example
VERY HIGH DENSITY Pure RMG APM Portsmouth
VERY LOW DENSITY
LOW DENSITY
MID DENSITY
HIGH DENSITY
33Tio g a
Terminal & Drayage Tradeoffs
Higher terminal density has costs…• More cranes to handle larger ships• More berth and CY congestion on vessel days• Higher terminal operating costs due to more moves per box,
more labor, and more capital• Higher drayage costs due to more time and moves in terminals • Greater impacts on roads and rails
The transition has to be managed carefully…• A long-term solution to on-terminal chassis supply• Terminal operations that move both vessels and trucks• Gates that expedite clean transactions and separate problems• Systems to cope with rising complexity of terminals and
transactions
34Tio g a
Bottom Line: What does the customer want?
Better, faster, cheaper
Average Rating
1.201.201.251.351.452.252.352.803.53
Drayage (truck) turn time
TEU/acre
Overall cost per container
Container moves/crane hour
Please rate each of the following measures of container terminal efficiency/productivity.
Reliability (% on schedule)
Average man-hours per
Measure
Average container dwell time
Overall transit time
Average vessel time in port
35Tio g a
Are customers willing to switch? Yes!
It depends on….? Costs being equal.
60.0%35.0%5.0%
It depends on...
Would you consider shifting volume between ports based on container terminal efficiency/productivity?
No
Yes
65.0%35.0%0.0%
It depends on...
Would you consider shifting import or export volume between ocean carriers at the same port based on
container terminal efficiency/ productivity?
No
Yes
36Tio g a
Thank you! Questions?
Contacts and Follow-upsContainer Handling Cooperative Program:
[email protected], [email protected]
National Cooperative Freight Research Program Project 14:
http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2412
On-line survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=gKU1ZDY25GgNzNAI1WK9mw_3d_3d
Tioga website: www.tiogagroup.com
Project manager: [email protected], 925-631-0742