Transcript IMPROVING MARINE CONTAINER TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY:

Port Drayage, Productivity, and Capacity:
Results of Three New Studies
March 1, 2010
Tioga
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
Tioga
2
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?
Tioga
3
TEU per Acre? Are we losers?
25,000
2004 TEU PER ACRE
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Tioga
a
om
ng
e
A
Lo
s
Ta
c
le
s
ch
ea
B
Lo
ng
A
nt
w
er
p
n
ou
st
o
H
m
ot
te
rd
a
R
bu
rg
H
am
ng
rt
K
la
Po
K
on
g
H
Si
ng
ap
or
e
on
g
-
4
Five Dimensions of Terminal Capacity
STACKING HEIGHT
CY DEPTH (AREA)
OPERATING HOURS
DRAFT
BERTH LENGTH
Tioga
5
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
Tioga
6
CY vs. Gross Acres
• US terminals include more functions
• On average, only half the gross acres are used as CY
TRANS
LOAD
STAFF
PARKING
RAIL
CHASSIS
LOT
Tioga
CY
7
Gross vs. CY TEU per Acre
12,000
TEU/Gross Acre
TEU/CY Acre
10,000
On TEU per CY
acre, US terminals
suddenly look
“world class”
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Tioga
rg
in
ia
H
ou
st
N
ew
on
O
rle
an
s
LA
LB
O
ak
la
nd
Po
rt
la
nd
Se
at
tle
Se
T
le
ac
ct
om
ed
a
U
S
Po
rt
s
ah
Vi
nn
es
va
Sa
rg
la
d
ph
ia
Po
rt
E
ve
de
l
YN
J
N
Ph
ila
le
s
to
n
on
ha
r
os
t
B
C
B
al
tim
or
e
-
Many, but not all, ports and terminals
publish CY acreage
8
Estimated TEU Slots per CY Acre (Density)
300
250
AVERAGE = 190
200
150
100
50
ct
e
d
U
S
Po
rt
s
a
om
Ta
c
le
Many, but not all, ports and terminals
publish TEU slot data
Se
Se
at
tle
nd
d
Po
rt
la
ak
la
n
LB
O
LA
rg
in
ia
H
ou
st
N
on
ew
O
rle
an
s
h
Vi
va
nn
a
es
Sa
rt
E
ve
ila
Ph
Po
Tioga
rg
la
d
de
l
ph
ia
YN
J
N
B
os
to
C
n
ha
rle
st
on
B
al
tim
or
e
-
9
Tioga
le
de
l
h
d
ct
e
U
S
s
a
om
Po
rt
Ta
c
tle
at
Se
nd
d
ak
la
n
LB
Po
rt
la
O
LA
rg
in
ia
H
ou
st
N
on
ew
O
rle
an
s
Vi
nn
a
va
Sa
es
ph
ia
YN
J
rg
la
d
ve
rt
E
ila
N
50
Se
Po
Ph
B
or
e
al
tim
os
to
C
n
ha
rle
st
on
B
CY Utilization: 2008 TEU per Slot (Turns)
60
AVERAGE = 34
MAXIMUM = 70?
40
30
20
10
-
10
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
Tioga
11
How many cranes per berth?
5.0
Maximum of 5?
4.5
8 cranes for
3 berths
24 cranes for
8 berths
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Average is 2.2
2.0
1.5
1.0
32 cranes for
22 berths
7 cranes for
6 berths
0.5
s
a
ct
ed
U
S
Po
rt
co
m
Ta
Se
le
tle
Se
at
la
nd
Po
rt
d
LA
LB
ak
la
n
O
O
rle
an
s
to
n
N
ew
ou
s
a
H
Vi
rg
in
i
ah
nn
s
gl
Ev
er
rt
Sa
va
ph
el
ila
d
Po
Tioga
ad
e
ia
J
YN
N
Ph
on
ha
r
le
st
os
t
B
C
B
al
tim
or
e
on
0.0
12
How hard do we work those cranes?
160
TEU per Crane (000)
Vessel Calls per Crane
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Tioga
rt
s
a
te
d
U
S
Po
m
Ta
co
Se
le
c
Some, but not all, ports and terminals
publish crane moves per hour
Se
at
tl e
nd
Po
rt
la
nd
ak
la
O
LB
LA
O
rle
an
s
n
st
o
N
ew
H
ou
ia
in
Vi
rg
de
lp
Po
hi
rt
a
Ev
er
gl
ad
es
Sa
va
nn
ah
N
YN
J
Ph
ila
rle
st
on
to
n
C
ha
B
os
B
al
tim
or
e
-
13
Tioga
Se
le
ct
ed
S
U
rt
Po
s
a
co
m
tle
Se
at
Ta
d
la
nd
rt
Po
ak
la
n
O
an
s
to
n
a
LA
LB
rle
O
ou
s
H
s
ah
nn
Vi
rg
in
i
Sa
va
ad
e
ia
ph
el
gl
Ev
er
N
ew
rt
Po
J
YN
N
on
e
on
le
st
ila
d
Ph
ha
r
C
os
t
tim
or
B
al
B
Estimated 2008 Crane Utilization
60%
TEU vs. Max Sustainable TEU
50%
AVERAGE = 35%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
14
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
Tioga
15
ha
r
Tioga
YN
J
n
nd
rt
la
nd
Se
at
tle
Se
Ta
le
co
ct
m
ed
a
U
S
Po
rt
s
Po
LB
la
ak
O
LA
de
Po
lp
rt
hi
Ev
a
er
gl
ad
es
Sa
va
nn
ah
Vi
rg
in
ia
H
ou
st
N
on
ew
O
rle
an
s
N
to
on
os
t
le
s
B
or
e
al
tim
300
Ph
ila
C
B
How hard do we work the berth?
350
Vessel Calls per Berth
TEU per Berth (000)
250
200
150
100
50
-
16
How well do we use the draft?
Est. Max Vessel TEU
12,000
Est. Average Vessel TEU
Average TEU Handled per Vessel
10,000
DREDGING
4,000
DREDGING
6,000
DREDGING
DREDGING
DREDGING
8,000
2,000
Tioga
le
ct
ed
U
S
Po
rt
s
a
om
e
Ta
c
ttl
Se
Se
a
nd
rt
la
Po
ak
la
nd
LB
O
LA
de
Po
lp
rt
hi
Ev
a
er
gl
ad
es
Sa
va
nn
ah
Vi
rg
in
ia
H
ou
st
N
on
ew
O
rle
an
s
YN
J
N
Ph
ila
os
to
n
ha
rle
st
on
B
C
B
al
tim
or
e
0
17
Estimated 2008 Berth Utilization
CURRENT TEU VS. CAPACITY
90%
80%
Average Vessel Basis
Max Vessel Basis
NEAR TERM WITH
CURRENT VESSELS
70%
60%
LONG TERM WITH
MAXIMUM VESSELS
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
ed
U
S
Po
rt
s
a
om
e
Ta
c
ttl
Se
a
nd
rt
la
nd
Po
la
ak
LA
LB
O
O
rle
an
s
on
ew
ou
st
Se
le
ct
N
H
in
ia
Vi
rg
ah
va
nn
es
Sa
ve
de
l
rt
E
Po
Tioga
rg
la
d
ph
ia
YN
J
N
Ph
ila
ha
r
le
s
to
n
on
os
t
B
C
B
al
tim
or
e
0%
18
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
Tioga
19
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
Tioga
20
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
Tioga
21
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
100.0
Turn Time Minutes
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
2008 DATA
FROM MARINE
TERMINAL
SYSTEM
50.0
40.0
30.0
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
Daily Import Volume
Tioga
22
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 problems
In the long run, trucker or third-party chassis supply
should reduce terminal time and exceptions
Tioga
23
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
CONGESTION LEVEL
Gate Queuing – Webcam Study Example
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
LONG QUEUES IN THE
MORNING AND FOR
EXPORT CUT-OFFS
0
MONDAY
Tioga
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
24
Lunch Break Closures - Ouch!
DATA
COLLECTION
VIA
TERMINAL
WEBCAMS
13:06:25
13:06:25
74
74 min.
min.
13:06:25
13:06:25
74
74 min.
min.
13:04:25
13:04:25
72
72 min.
min.
13:06:25
13:06:25
74
74 min.
min.
13:09:25
13:09:25
77
77 min.
min.
13:15:26
13:15:26
83
83 min.
min.
13:07:25
13:07:25
75
75 min.
min.
13:04:25
13:04:25
72
72 min.
min.
13:05:25
13:05:25
73
73 min.
min.
TERMINAL GATE CLOSED FOR LUNCH
- FRONT ROW SPENDS 72-83 MINUTES WAITING
Tioga
25
Gates – 3 to 4 Minutes, but Too Many Exceptions
25%
Terminal A
Terminal B
20%
15%
5% of the moves use 1418% of the total time and
back up the queue
10%
5%
5
-3
34
3
-3
32
1
-3
30
9
7
-2
28
5
-2
26
3
-2
24
-2
22
1
-2
20
9
-1
18
7
-1
16
5
-1
14
3
-1
12
10
-1
1
9
8-
7
6-
5
4-
3
2-
0-
1
0%
Minutes
Tioga
26
Turn Times – Again, Too Many Exceptions
20%
18%
Example Terminal Turn Time
16%
Port-wide Trucker Turn Time
14%
12%
5% of the
moves use 14%
of the total time
10%
8%
6%
QUALCOMM data
show added
queue time
4%
2%
0
30
5
28
5-
28
0
27
0-
27
5
25
5-
25
0
24
0-
24
5
22
5-
22
0
21
0-
21
5
19
5-
19
0
18
0-
18
5
16
5-
16
0
15
0-
15
5
13
5-
13
0
0-
12
12
5-
-1
05
10
-9
5
0
90
75
-7
0
Tioga
60
-6
5
45
0
-4
30
-3
15
0-
15
0%
27
Process Issues Cause Exceptions
• 5% of
transactions
get trouble
tickets
• 80% due to
booking,
dispatch, or
system
errors
• Each one
adds an hour
BOOKING PROBLEMS
Booking does not match equipment type
Booking is not on file
Booking tally has already been reached
Missing notice for hazardous cargo
Booking quantity exceeded for equipment type
DISPATCH PROBLEMS
Cargo not yet released
Driver or motor carrier credential problem
Empty Container/chassis not allowed
Past cargo cutoff
Demurrage due (unpaid bills)
Container exceeds maximum safe weight
SYSTEM PROBLEMS
Container/chassis not recognized
Duplicate transaction
Container not found in yard
Other
TOTAL
Tioga
28%
10%
7%
7%
3%
3%
29%
8%
7%
6%
3%
3%
2%
22%
18%
2%
2%
20%
100%
28
Experience Matters
The average
is 5%
Tioga
29
The Trucking Company and Ocean Carrier Matter
Trucking Company
Total trips
Transactions
per trip
% Trouble
Tickets
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1124
2649
1210
1146
2878
1329
1193
1.2
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.5
2.2%
2.5%
3.7%
3.9%
4.4%
5.6%
8.5%
The average
is 5%
Transaction Type
Deliver Import
Deliver Empty
Receive Export
Receive Empty
Total
Tioga
Line
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Transactions
3,438
4,049
3,869
10,106
3,391
9,721
4,197
3,482
14,895
27,358
Trouble Flag
172
169
307
485
242
414
108
26
829
1,094
% Trouble Tickets
5.0%
4.2%
7.9%
4.8%
7.1%
4.3%
2.6%
0.7%
5.6%
4.0%
30
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
Tioga
31
Transition from Lower to Higher Density
Volume growth will drive denser, more
capital-intensive operations
DENSITY
VERY LOW 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
Pure RMG
APM Portsmouth
LOW DENSITY
MID DENSITY
HIGH DENSITY
VERY HIGH DENSITY
Tioga
32
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
Tioga
33
Bottom Line: What does the customer want?
Please rate each of the following measures of
container terminal efficiency/productivity.
Measure
Overall cost per container
Overall transit time
Reliability (% on schedule)
Drayage (truck) turn time
Average container dwell time
Container moves/crane hour
Average vessel time in port
Average man-hours per
TEU/acre
Average Rating
1.20
1.20
1.25
1.35
1.45
2.25
2.35
2.80
3.53
Better, faster, cheaper
Tioga
34
Are customers willing to switch? Yes!
Would you consider shifting volume between ports based
on container terminal efficiency/productivity?
60.0%
Yes
35.0%
It depends on...
5.0%
No
Would you consider shifting import or export volume
between ocean carriers at the same port based on
container terminal efficiency/productivity?
Yes
It depends on...
No
65.0%
35.0%
0.0%
It depends on….? Costs being equal.
Tioga
35
Thank you! Questions?
Contacts and Follow-ups
Container 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=gKU1ZDY25GgNzNAI1
WK9mw_3d_3d
Tioga website: www.tiogagroup.com
Project manager: [email protected], 925-631-0742
Tioga
36