Upload
oakes
View
80
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Intermodal Transportation and Terminal Operations. Transportation Logistics Spring 2008. Intermodal Transportation. Transportation that includes more than one mode (air, rail, road, water) Typically refers to containerized goods (as opposed to bulk or general cargo) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Intermodal Transportation and Terminal Operations
Transportation Logistics
Spring 2008
Intermodal Transportation
• Transportation that includes more than one mode (air, rail, road, water)
• Typically refers to containerized goods (as opposed to bulk or general cargo)
• Capital intensive but requires less labor than traditional freight handling
• The majority of the costs incurred with intermodal transportation are incurred when handled in terminals (between modes)
Bulk Cargo
Wet bulk cargo refers to fluids like oilDry bulk cargo refers to non-fluids such as grain, coal, etc..Many goods that used to be shipped as bulk cargo (grain, bananas, coffee beans)are now shipped in containers
General Cargo
• Whatever needs moving• Flatbed trucks for odd-shapes• General cargo vessels
Containers
• Containers have become the box of choice
• There are approximately 18 million containers worldwide
• Standard containers (20’, 40’, 45’ height 8’6’’)• Hard top containers (removable steel roof)• Open top containers• Flat racks• Domestic containers (53’)• Refrigerated containers (require clear space)• Tank containers• High cube container (9’6’’ tall)
• One 20’ container is a Twenty foot Equivalent Unit (TEU)
There are many varieties of containers….
Intermodal Issues
• Single-carrier transfers versus interline transfers (between two carriers)
• Shipper – the person who wants the freight moved
• Intermodal containers existed prior to the intermodal containers we see in use today (a box is an intermodal container), but were typically smaller than a truck or rail car load
Intermodal issues
• Transportation agencies are still structured around modes
• Transportation companies are still structured around modes, in fact they had to be during regulation
• There has been much growth in intermodal transportation companies since deregulation (3PLs, IMCs, and to some extent Steamship lines)
• Transportation infrastructure is build by modal agencies that historically did not interact
The view from an intermodal container
• http://www.forbes.com/home/logistics/2006/04/13/containers-worldwide-movement-tracking-cx_rm_0417contain.html
• We will discuss containerization and deregulation further in future class sessions
Terminal
• A station where freight is received or discharged• Situated at the end• Placed at a boundary• A point or part that forms the end• From terminus (end)
• The name reflects their historic role• In the intermodal world we usually refer to
intermodal yards rather than terminals
Terminals or interchanges occur in all modes
• Airports• Bus terminals• Marine terminal or port• Ferry terminal• Train station• Rail yard or terminal• Cross-dock facility• Distribution center• Intermodal yard
• They have common characteristics, I’ll focus today on marine ports and intermodal yards
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Portland(OR)
Charleston
New York/New Jersey
Houston
Vancouver (BC)
US Port Throughput (TEU)
Local Storage
Chassis
Quay Crane
Vessel
Port Operations
Discharging container flowLoading container flow
Wheeled versus Grounded
Port productivity metrics
• TEUs per hectare
• TEUs per annum
• Dwell time
• Crane productivity– Crane cycle time– Lifts per hour– Moves per hour
Port Characteristics
• Hong Kong and Singapore, the traditional Asian hubs are trans-shipment facilities
• New Asian ports in China are export facilities
• US Ports have historically served as storage facilities, storage has been cheap (sometimes free)
• Land has historically been inexpensive in the US but labor has been costly
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Portland(OR)
Charleston
New York/New Jersey
Houston
Vancouver (BC)
US Port Throughput (TEU)
Increasing productivity of West Coast Terminals
• In recent years West Coast Ports have experienced congestion and marine vessels have at times been unable to access the port
• There have been many responses to this including pressure to increase the productivity of West Coast Terminals
While throughput has increased dramatically density has not
Productivity of west coast ports during the years 1985-2005
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1985
1987
1989
1991
.019
9319
9519
9719
9920
0120
0320
05
Years
Pro
duct
ivity
for d
iffer
ent m
easu
res
Throughput
Gross Terminal Area
Density
Berth utilisation
Berth length
West Coast Terminal Area has increased
Terminal growth over the period 1985-2005
0.0
5000.0
10000.0
15000.0
20000.0
25000.0
30000.0
35000.0
1985
1988
1989
1994
1996
1997
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Years
Ter
min
al a
rea(
acre
s)
Terminal area
Berth Length
Primarily at California ports
Terminal area variation at the west coast ports
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
years
Ter
min
al a
rea(
acre
s) Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Vancouver
Similarly with berth lengthBerth length variation at the west coast ports
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
Years
Ber
th le
ngth
(feet
)
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Vancouver
Throughput density (TEUs/acre) variation across west coast ports
Throughput densi ty var i at i on across west coast ports dur i ng 1985- 2005
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Year
Thro
ughp
ut d
ensi
ty(T
EUs/
acre
) Long BeachLos Angel esOakl andSeat t l eTacomaVancouver (BC)
Berth length (TEUs/ft) utilisation at west coast ports
Berth l ength ut i l i sat i on across west coast ports dur i ng 1985- 2005
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Year
Bert
h le
ngth
uti
lisa
tion
(TEU
s/ft
)
Long BeachLos Angel esOakl andSeat t l eTacomaVancouver (BC)
West Coast Throughput
Throughput of top west coasts between 1985 - 2005
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1,99
219
9419
9619
9820
0020
0220
04
Year
Thr
ough
put (
TE
Us) Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Vancouver (BC)
Market share among the west coast ports
Market share of the top west coast ports between 1985- 2005
0
0. 05
0. 1
0. 15
0. 2
0. 25
0. 3
0. 35
0. 4
0. 45
Year
Mark
et s
hare
Long BeachLos Angel esOakl andSeat t l eTacomaVancouver (BC)
Operational Improvements
• Technology implementations– RFID, GPS, OCR, automation
• Land area utilization (stacking)– Rail mounted gantry cranes
• Extended gate hours• Truck appointment systems• Crane Utilization
– Double cycling
• Increase Intermodal Percentage – containers typically have shorter dwell times
Container movements
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMuuNpBnKA4
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeMHYX4LxEc
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ZcRsA29NU
Productivity Improvements
• As is true across the board in transportation, infrastructure is expensive to build, or impossible to build
• Solutions must be found to manage demand and utilize infrastructure better
• There is evidence our ports are “unproductive” and that we can expect better utilization of the infrastructure
Global Comparison
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Throug
hput
Throug
hput D
ensit
y
Throug
hput/cr
ane
Throug
hput/qua
yleng
th
Pro
duct
ivity
val
ues
Los Angeles
Long Beach
Kwai Sing(HK)
Singapore
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Hamburg
Tacoma
Klang(Malaysia)
Barbour's Cut Terminal (Houston)
Comparison of characteristics of different ports across the world(2004)
Characteri st i cs of sel ected l eadi ng ports across the worl d(2004)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Berths [10] Termi nal s [10000] (acres) [100]
No, No. Gantry cranes BerthLength(f t)
Termi nal Area
Los Angel esLong BeachKwai Si ng(HK)Si ngaporeRotterdamAntwerpHamburgTacomaKl ang(Mal aysi a)Barbour' s Cut
Throughput variation at container ports across the world
Throughput at contai ner ports across the wor l d
0
5
10
15
20
25
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Thro
ughp
ut(M
illi
onTE
Us/y
ear)
Hong KongSi ngaporeShanghaiShenzhenLA/ Long Beach BusanKaohsi ung (Tai wan)Rot terdamLos Angel esHamburgAntwerpLong BeachOakl andSeat t l eTacomaVancouverSea- tac
Average crane productivity at different container ports
Average crane product i vi ty
05
101520253035404550
Moves/ hr
Transhipment percentages at Asian ports
Comparison of productivity measures of different ports across the world(2004)
Product i vi ty measures of sel ected l eadi ng ports across the wor l d (2004)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
M TEUs [1000] [10000] [100]
Throughput Densi ty(TEUs/ acre) Throughput / crane Throughput / quayl ength( f t )
Los Angel esLong BeachKwai Si ng(HK)Si ngaporeRot terdamAntwerpHamburgTacomaKl ang(Mal aysi a)Barbour ' s Cut
The Freight Transportation System
• With improvements in port productivity we are starting to see the bottleneck move away from the port and onto the landside infrastructure
• Truck congestion around ports (Alameda Corridor)
• Rail infrastructure delays and expansion• The infrastructure view needs to be mindful of
corporate operations• Moves to internalize all costs (emissions)