container port capacity study - savethecape.orgsavethecape.org/stcwp1/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/port...

The Tioga Group, Inc. 288 Rheem Blvd. Moraga, CA 94556 Phone 925.631.0742 Fax 925.631.7936

CONTAINER PORT CAPACITY STUDY

The Tioga Group, Inc.

Prepared for:

CDM/IWR

December 2, 2010

Page i

Tioga

Contents

I. SUMMARY 1

II. BACKGROUND AND APPROACH 8

III. NORTH ATLANTIC PORTS 24

IV. SOUTH ATLANTIC PORTS 65

V. GULF PORTS 104

VI. APPENDIX: SECONDARY CONTAINER PORTS 125

Page ii

Tioga

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Major Ports Analyzed .................................................................................................................... 1

Exhibit 2: 2008 Port Utilization Summary ...................................................................................................... 2

Exhibit 3: Reserve Container Port Capacity by Coast .................................................................................. 3

Exhibit 4: Terminal Space and CY Utilization ............................................................................................... 3

Exhibit 5: 2008 TEU and CY TEU Capacity .................................................................................................. 4

Exhibit 6: Average TEU Slots per CY Acre ................................................................................................... 5

Exhibit 7: Container Cranes and Utilization .................................................................................................. 5

Exhibit 8: Berth and Vessel Capacity and Utilization .................................................................................... 6

Exhibit 9: Major Ports Analyzed .................................................................................................................. 10

Exhibit 10: Five "Dimensions" of Container Terminal Capacity .................................................................. 11

Exhibit 11: Container Vessel DWT vs. TEU Capacity ................................................................................. 13

Exhibit 12: Reported vs. Estimated Container Vessel TEU ........................................................................ 14

Exhibit 13: DWT vs. Draft ............................................................................................................................ 14

Exhibit 14: USACE Guidance on Cargo Capacity as a Percentage of DWT .............................................. 15

Exhibit 15: Maximum vs. Average Vessel Capacity - TEU ......................................................................... 15

Exhibit 16: Vessel Size and Load Comparison ........................................................................................... 16

Exhibit 17: Berth Capacity - Maximum Vessel Basis Example ................................................................... 17

Exhibit 18: Berth Capacity Estimate- Vessel Call Basis Example .............................................................. 17

Exhibit 19: Container Yard Handling Equipment Types .............................................................................. 18

Exhibit 20: Progression of Terminal Handling Methods .............................................................................. 18

Exhibit 21: Wheeled Containers on RTG Layout ........................................................................................ 19

Exhibit 22: Typical CY Storage Densities ................................................................................................... 20

Exhibit 23: CY Acreage Example: Port of New Orleans ............................................................................. 20

Exhibit 24: CY Capacity Example: Port of New Orleans ............................................................................. 21

Exhibit 25: Typical Two-Berth/Four-Crane Terminal ................................................................................... 23

Exhibit 26: Container Cranes and Utilization .............................................................................................. 23

Exhibit 27: North Atlantic Capacity and Utilization Summary ..................................................................... 24

Exhibit 28: North Atlantic Drafts and Vessel Data ...................................................................................... 25

Exhibit 29: Port of Boston Conley Container Terminal ............................................................................... 25

Exhibit 30: Conley Container Terminal Profile ............................................................................................ 26

Exhibit 31: Conley Terminal Land Use ........................................................................................................ 27

Page iii

Tioga

Exhibit 32: Conley Terminal Near Term CY Capacity ................................................................................. 27

Exhibit 33: Conley Terminal Near Term Crane Capacity ............................................................................ 28

Exhibit 34: Boston Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis ...................................................... 29

Exhibit 35: Conley 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis ........................................................................ 29

Exhibit 36: Conley Terminal Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary ........................................... 30

Exhibit 37: Port of New York and New Jersey ............................................................................................ 31

Exhibit 38: Red Hook Marine Terminal ....................................................................................................... 32

Exhibit 39: Global Marine Terminal ............................................................................................................. 33

Exhibit 40: Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) ................................................................................. 34

Exhibit 41: Maher Terminal ......................................................................................................................... 35

Exhibit 42: APM Elizabeth Marine Terminal ................................................................................................ 36

Exhibit 43: New York Container Terminal ................................................................................................... 37

Exhibit 44: Port of New York and New Jersey Land Use ............................................................................ 38

Exhibit 45: Port of New York and New Jersey Near Term CY Storage Capacity ....................................... 38

Exhibit 46: Port of New York and New Jersey Near-term Crane Capacity ................................................. 39

Exhibit 47: Port of New York and New Jersey Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis ........... 39

Exhibit 48: Port of New York and New Jersey Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis ...................................... 40

Exhibit 49: Port of New York and New Jersey Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary ............... 41

Exhibit 50: Packer Marine Terminal ............................................................................................................ 42

Exhibit 51: Packer Marine Terminal, Philadelphia ...................................................................................... 43

Exhibit 52 Wilmington Marine Terminal ...................................................................................................... 44

Exhibit 53: Wilmington Marine Terminal, Wilmington, DE .......................................................................... 45

Exhibit 54: Delaware River Ports Land Use ................................................................................................ 45

Exhibit 55: Delaware River Ports Near Term CY Storage Capacity ........................................................... 46

Exhibit 56: Delaware River Ports Near-term Crane Capacity ..................................................................... 46

Exhibit 57: Delaware River Ports Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis ............................... 47

Exhibit 58: Delaware River Ports Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis........................................................... 47

Exhibit 59: Delaware River Ports Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary .................................... 48

Exhibit 60: Port of Baltimore........................................................................................................................ 49

Exhibit 61: Dundalk Marine Terminal .......................................................................................................... 50

Exhibit 62: Seagirt Marine Terminal ............................................................................................................ 51

Exhibit 63: Port of Baltimore Land Use ....................................................................................................... 52

Page iv

Tioga

Exhibit 64: Port of Baltimore Near Term CY Storage Capacity .................................................................. 52

Exhibit 65: Port of Baltimore Near-term Crane Capacity ............................................................................ 53

Exhibit 66: Port of Baltimore Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis ...................................... 54

Exhibit 67: Port of Baltimore Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis .................................................................. 54

Exhibit 68: Port of Baltimore Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary ........................................... 55

Exhibit 69: Port of Hampton Roads ............................................................................................................. 56

Exhibit 70: Norfolk International Terminal ................................................................................................... 57

Exhibit 71: Portsmouth Marine Terminal ..................................................................................................... 58

Exhibit 72: Newport News Marine Terminal (NNMT) .................................................................................. 59

Exhibit 73: APM Terminals Virginia ............................................................................................................. 60

Exhibit 74: Port of Virginia Land Use .......................................................................................................... 61

Exhibit 75: Port of Virginia Near Term CY Storage Capacity ...................................................................... 61

Exhibit 76: Port of Virginia Near-term Crane Capacity ............................................................................... 62

Exhibit 77: Port of Virginia Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis ......................................... 62

Exhibit 78: Port of Virginia Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis ..................................................................... 63

Exhibit 79: Port of Hampton Roads Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary ................................ 64

Exhibit 80: South Atlantic Capacity and Utilization Summary ..................................................................... 65

Exhibit 81: South Atlantic Drafts and Vessels ............................................................................................. 66

Exhibit 82: Port of Charleston ..................................................................................................................... 67

Exhibit 83: Wando Welch Terminal ............................................................................................................. 68

Exhibit 84: North Charleston Terminal Profile ............................................................................................. 69

Exhibit 85: North Charleston Terminal Drawing .......................................................................................... 70

Exhibit 86: Columbus Street Terminal ........................................................................................................ 70

Exhibit 87: Columbus Street Terminal Profile ............................................................................................. 71

Exhibit 88: Port of Charleston Land Use ..................................................................................................... 71

Exhibit 89: Port of Charleston Near Term CY Storage Capacity ................................................................ 72

Exhibit 90: Port of Charleston Near Term Crane Capacity ......................................................................... 72

Exhibit 91: Port of Charleston Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis .................................... 73

Exhibit 92: Charleston 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis .................................................................. 73

Exhibit 93: Port of Charleston Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary ......................................... 75

Exhibit 94: Garden City Container Terminal ............................................................................................... 76

Exhibit 95: Garden City Terminal Profile ..................................................................................................... 77

Page v

Tioga

Exhibit 96: Garden City Land Use ............................................................................................................... 78

Exhibit 97: Garden City Near Term CY Storage Capacity .......................................................................... 78

Exhibit 98: Garden City Terminal Near Term Crane Capacity .................................................................... 79

Exhibit 99: Garden City Terminal Near Term Berth Capacity Max Vessel Basis ....................................... 79

Exhibit 100: Garden City 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis .............................................................. 80

Exhibit 101: Garden City Near Term Capacity Summary ........................................................................... 81

Exhibit 102: Port of Jacksonville Marine Terminals .................................................................................... 82

Exhibit 103: Blount Island Terminal Profile ................................................................................................. 83

Exhibit 104: Talleyrand Marine Terminal .................................................................................................... 84

Exhibit 105: Dames Point Container Terminal ............................................................................................ 85

Exhibit 106: Port of Jacksonville Land Use ................................................................................................. 86

Exhibit 107: Port of Jacksonville CY Storage Capacity .............................................................................. 86

Exhibit 108: Port of Jacksonville Near Term Crane Capacity ..................................................................... 87

Exhibit 109: Port of Jacksonville Near Term Berth Capacity Max Vessel Basis ......................................... 88

Exhibit 110: Port of Jacksonville 2009 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis .................................................. 88

Exhibit 111: Port of Jacksonville Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary..................................... 89

Exhibit 112: Port Everglades Container Terminals ..................................................................................... 90

Exhibit 113: Port Everglades Container Terminal Profile ............................................................................ 91

Exhibit 114: Midport Terminal Area ............................................................................................................. 92

Exhibit 115: Port Everglades Land Use ...................................................................................................... 92

Exhibit 116: Port Everglades Near Term CY Capacity ............................................................................... 93

Exhibit 117: Port Everglades Near Term Crane Capacity .......................................................................... 93

Exhibit 118: Port Everglades Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis ..................................... 94

Exhibit 119: Port Everglades 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis ........................................................ 94

Exhibit 120: Port Everglades Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary .......................................... 95

Exhibit 121: Port of Miami Container Terminals.......................................................................................... 96

Exhibit 122: Miami Tunnel Project .............................................................................................................. 96

Exhibit 123: South Florida Container Terminal Profile ................................................................................ 97

Exhibit 124: Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company Terminal (POMTOC) ........................................ 98

Exhibit 125: Seaboard Marine Terminal ...................................................................................................... 99

Exhibit 126: Port of Miami Land Use ......................................................................................................... 100

Exhibit 127: Port of Miami CY Storage Capacity ...................................................................................... 100

Page vi

Tioga

Exhibit 128: Port of Miami Near Term Crane Capacity ............................................................................. 101

Exhibit 129: Port of Miami Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis ........................................ 101

Exhibit 130: Port of Miami 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis .......................................................... 102

Exhibit 131: Port of Miami Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary ............................................ 103

Exhibit 132: Gulf Coast Capacity and Utilization Summary ...................................................................... 105

Exhibit 133: Gulf Coast Draft and Vessel Data ......................................................................................... 106

Exhibit 134: Mobile Container Terminal (MCT) ......................................................................................... 106

Exhibit 135: Mobile Pier Two - Container and General Cargo Terminal ................................................... 107

Exhibit 136: Mobile Container Terminal Profile ......................................................................................... 107

Exhibit 137: Pier Two Terminal Profile ...................................................................................................... 108

Exhibit 138: Port of Mobile Land Use ........................................................................................................ 109

Exhibit 139: Port of Mobile Near Term CY Storage Capacity ................................................................... 109

Exhibit 140: Port of Mobile Near Term Crane Capacity ............................................................................ 110

Exhibit 141: Port of Mobile Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis ....................................... 111

Exhibit 142: Port of Mobile Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis .................................................................. 111

Exhibit 143: Port of Mobile Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary ........................................... 112

Exhibit 144: Port of New Orleans Napoleon Avenue Terminal ................................................................. 113

Exhibit 145: Napoleon Avenue Terminal Profile ....................................................................................... 114

Exhibit 146: Port of New Orleans Land Use ............................................................................................. 114

Exhibit 147: Port of New Orleans Near Term Storage Capacity ............................................................... 115

Exhibit 148: Port of New Orleans Near Term Crane Capacity .................................................................. 115

Exhibit 149: Port of New Orleans Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis ............................ 116

Exhibit 150: Port of New Orleans 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis ............................................... 116

Exhibit 151: Port of New Orleans Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary ................................. 117

Exhibit 152: Port of Houston Terminals .................................................................................................... 118

Exhibit 153: Barbours Cut Terminal .......................................................................................................... 119

Exhibit 154: Bayport Terminal ................................................................................................................... 120

Exhibit 155: Port of Houston Land Use ..................................................................................................... 121

Exhibit 156: Port of Houston Near Term CY Storage Capacity ................................................................ 121

Exhibit 157: Port of Houston Near Term Crane Capacity ......................................................................... 122

Exhibit 158: Port of Houston Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis .................................... 122

Exhibit 159: Port of Houston 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis....................................................... 123

Page vii

Tioga

Exhibit 160: Port of Houston Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary ......................................... 124

Exhibit 161: Wilmington, NC ..................................................................................................................... 125

Exhibit 162: Port of Palm Beach - Riviera Beach Terminal ...................................................................... 126

Exhibit 163: Port of Tampa........................................................................................................................ 127

Exhibit 164: Port of Gulfport ...................................................................................................................... 128

Exhibit 165: Freeport, TX .......................................................................................................................... 129

Exhibit 166: Additional Texas Ports .......................................................................................................... 130

Tioga

I. Summary

U.S. container port capacity is the single most critical factor in the nation’s ability to participate

in containerized trade. Within this port network the Corps of Engineers’ primary focus is on

navigation improvements – developing and maintaining the channels, berths, and other aids that

give container ships access to port terminals. The facilities, equipment, systems, and manpower

needed for container terminals are all costly. There is an inherent tension between having

enough capacity for trade peaks and expected growth and creating excess capacity that ties up

valuable resources.

This study was initiated to obtain a broad overview of East Coast and Gulf Coast container port

capacity as an input to the Corps’ planning and as a supplement to the many documents and

studies produced in the course of project feasibility studies. The study team attempted to address

the following questions.

What are the near-term and long-term capacities of the major East Coast and Gulf

Coast container ports?

What factors constrain the capacities of those ports?

How well is capacity currently utilized?

How well are the major ports prepared to handle larger vessels?

How do the smaller container ports or terminals fit into the picture?

There is a particular concern over capacity at East Coast (North Atlantic and South Atlantic) and

Gulf Coast ports. Before the recession, emergence of multi-coast import strategies shifted

market share and volume from the West Coast to the East and Gulf Coasts. The planned opening

of the new, higher-capacity Panama Canal locks in 2014 will permit carriers to deploy larger,

more economical vessels in Asia-East Coast and Asia-Gulf services.

The study team analyzed the following major container ports (Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 1: Major Ports Analyzed

North Atlantic South Atlantic Gulf

Boston Charleston Mobile

New York/New Jersey Savannah New Orleans

Philadelphia Jacksonville Houston

Wilmington Port Everglades

Baltimore Miami

Virginia

Exhibit 2 display five measures of estimated 2008 utilization for these major North Atlantic,

South Atlantic, and Gulf ports, and for the East Coast and Gulf total. With the exception of high

estimated berth utilization at some South Atlantic ports, the data in Exhibit 1 indicate substantial

reserve capacity. North Atlantic ports, notable the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Tioga

(PANYNJ) are relatively tight on container yard (CY) capacity. Gulf ports have higher vessel

utilization (e.g. are discharging and loading a higher percentage of vessel capacity), largely due

to draft restrictions at Houston that hold down maximum vessel size.

Exhibit 2: 2008 Port Utilization Summary

55%

34%

46%

42%

30%

37%

34% 33%

42%39%

57%

42%

39%

54%

42%

49%

42%

83%

44%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

N. Atlantic Ports* S. Atlantic Ports Gulf Ports East & Gulf Coast Ports

CY Utilization

Crane Utilization

Avg. Vessel Ute. - % Discharge/Load

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Avg. Vessel Basis

Utilization estimates for the combined East Coast and Gulf ports are near or below 50%. On

average, these ports are using:

42% of their CY storage capacity given existing land uses;

33% of the two-shift capacity of their container cranes;

49% of the berth capacity for vessel calls;

42% of the vessel capacity for cargo discharge and load; and

53% of the berth TEU throughput capability using the maximum vessel sizes.

Many ports have annual volume peaks that can strain capacity for a short period. The figures in

Exhibit 2 and throughput the report are based on an annual capability of 80% of the theoretical

maximum to allow for peaking and sustainable service quality.

Volume figures used throughout this report are compared to 2008 volumes reported to the

American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). As has been widely reported, 2009 cargo

volumes were down 10%-30% from 2008, so using 2009 volumes would artificially inflate

estimates of reserve capacity. It is also likely, however, that the major container ports will have

somewhat more reserve capacity than was estimated herein until the trade recovers.

Tioga

Exhibit 3 summarizes the implied reserve container port capacity by coast and for the East and

Gulf port total. Generally speaking, the system as a whole could handle roughly double the 2008

volume before hitting CY or berth capacity constraints. That result would obtain, however, only

if the increased trade were distributed according to the available capacity – an unlikely outcome.

It is far more likely that some ports and terminals would see a disproportionate share of the cargo

growth and hit capacity constraints while other ports and terminals remained underutilized.

Exhibit 3: Reserve Container Port Capacity by Coast

MetricN. Atlantic

Ports*

S. Atlantic

PortsGulf Ports

East & Gulf Coast

Ports

2008 TEU 8,744,838 6,676,245 2,229,877 17,650,961

Reserve CY Capacity - TEU 10,612,402 13,869,035 2,669,003 25,491,439

Reserve Crane Capacity - TEU 20,895,164 12,501,742 4,423,466 37,820,372

Reserve Berth Capacity - Vessel Calls 8884 4189 1555 12024

Reserve Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 11,832,051 1,922,907 2,799,609 16,554,568

Reserve Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 29,332,298 3,193,986 2,554,332 35,080,616

Exhibit 4 provides key measures of terminal space and CY utilization. The North and South

Atlantic ports taken together are about 10 times the size of the Gulf ports and have about 90% of

the CY capacity. In 2008 these ports averaged about 2,307 TEU per gross acre. This sort of

relatively low density is often compared to much higher throughput per acre achieved in Asia

and Europe. Asian and European terminals, however, typically devote almost all their terminal

space to CY functions and rarely have on-dock rail, chassis storage, warehousing, or other

functions in the terminal acreage. As Exhibit 4 shows, however, East and Gulf Coast terminals

devote an average of only 48% of the gross acres to CY functions. The average throughput for

actual CY space was 4,842 TEU per acre, a more accurate basis of comparison.

Exhibit 4: Terminal Space and CY Utilization

MetricN. Atlantic

Ports*

S. Atlantic

PortsGulf Ports

East & Gulf Coast

Ports

2008 TEU 8,744,838 6,676,245 2,229,877 17,650,961

Gross Acres 3,227 3,839 717 7,783

CY Acres 1,542 1,715 442 3698.5

CY/Gross Ratio 48% 45% 62% 48%

Annual CY Capacity - TEU 17,698,240 20,545,280 4,898,880 43,142,400

Reserve CY Capacity - TEU 10,612,402 13,869,035 2,669,003 25,491,439

Annual TEU/Gross Acre 2,918 1,739 3,109 2,268

Annual TEU/CY Acre 5,973 3,893 5,045 4,772

Est. CY TEU Slots 267,620 366,880 84,360 718,860

Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 174 214 191 194

Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 36 18 26 25

CY Utilization 55% 32% 46% 41%

Exhibit 5 compares 2008 TEU and estimated CY TEU capacity. Reserve capacity is greatest at

NYNJ, Charleston, and Savannah. This chart, however, does not take into account current and

announced terminal expansion projects in Mobile, Houston, and elsewhere. terms of shear size

PANYNJ, Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville are the largest ports. The Delaware River

Ports include Philadelphia and Wilmington, DE. The Port of Virginia includes Norfolk, Newport

Tioga

News, and Portsmouth terminals. The APM Portsmouth terminal is new and not part of the Port

of Virginia and is therefore shown separately.

Exhibit 5: 2008 TEU and CY TEU Capacity

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

Bost

on

NYNJ

Del

awar

e Riv

er

Bal

timore

VPA

APM

Port

smouth

N. A

tlantic

Port

s*

Char

lest

on

Savan

nah

Jack

sonvi

lle

Port E

verg

lades

Mia

mi

S. Atla

ntic P

orts

Mobile

New

Orlea

ns

Houst

on

Gulf

Ports

East &

Gulf

Coas

t Port

s

Reserve CY Capacity - TEU

2008 TEU

Exhibit 6 compares CY storage densities. Those terminals with the largest shares of land set up

for RTG operations, such as Boston, Baltimore, Charleston, and Savannah show the highest slot

densities, although not all those slots are regularly occupied. The highest density is at the APM

Portsmouth terminal, which is the only U.S. terminal using RMGs. The available TEU “slots”

were estimated by applying rule-of-thumb storage densities to the acreage used for wheeled,

stacked, straddle carrier, RTG, or RMG handling. Annual throughput capacity is therefore a

function of TEU slots and annual turnover per slot. The ports analyzed averaged 194 TEU slots

per acre against a rough maximum of 300 for all-RTG storage. As the data suggest, almost all

the terminals examined use a mix of storage types and densities. The East and Gulf Coast ports

averaged an estimated 25 annual turns per slot against a benchmark maximum of 70. Annual

turns per slot are noticeably higher in the North Atlantic (largely due to PANYNJ and the Ports

of Virginia).

Tioga

Exhibit 6: Average TEU Slots per CY Acre

243

160

125

206

124

306

174

260 261

153 155166

214

176

158

205191 194

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bost

on

NYNJ

Del

awar

e Riv

er

Bal

timore

VPA

APM

Port

smouth

N. A

tlantic

Port

s*

Char

lest

on

Sav

annah

Jack

sonvi

lle

Port

Eve

rgla

des

Mia

mi

S. A

tlantic

Port

s

Mobile

New

Orlea

ns

Houst

on

Gulf

Port

s

Eas

t & G

ulf Coas

t Port

s

As Exhibit 7 shows, crane utilization in terms of annual TEU is relatively low, averaging 33%

This relatively low utilization might imply an excess of crane capacity. Yet the primary purpose

of crane capacity is to turn vessels quickly. Whether there is one vessel per week or five, each

vessel will need two or more cranes. Not coincidently, the terminals surveyed averaged two

cranes per berth. Crane utilization is therefore co-determined with berth and vessel utilization.

Exhibit 7: Container Cranes and Utilization

Container CranesN. Atlantic

Ports*

S. Atlantic

PortsGulf Ports

East & Gulf Coast

Ports

Cranes 120 77 27 224

Cranes per Berth 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.0

Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 29,640,002 19,177,987 6,653,344 55,471,333


Annual TEU/Crane 76,709 86,704 82,588 78,799

Annual Moves/Crane 43,140 48,739 47,017 45,532

Crane Utilization 30% 35% 34% 32%

Berth and vessel utilization, shown in Exhibit 8, are tightly linked. In 2007, the ports and

terminals averaged 103 annual vessel calls per berth – roughly two per week. The average was

higher in the South Atlantic. Against a benchmark maximum of 260 calls per year (one each

week day) and a rule-of-thumb sustainable maximum of 208 (80%), the average of 103 calls

implies 49% utilization. In practical terms, berths that are handling two vessels per week could

probably handle four. This conclusion, however, depends on vessel size and the total cargo

discharged and loaded. The vessels calling at these ports in 2007 had an average capacity of

3,710 TEU (estimated from DWT data). The average discharge and load was 9,553 TEU, or

42% of vessel capacity. The theoretical maximum is actually 200% of capacity – 100%

CY Storage TEU Slots per Acre

Wheeled Chassis 80

Grounded Straddle Carrier 160

Grounded Stacked 200

Grounded RTG 300

Grounded RMG 360

Tioga

discharged and 100% loaded. That only 49% of the capacity is discharged and loaded implies

that the vessels themselves are not sailing full or that the capacity is shared between multiple port

calls, or most likely, both.

Exhibit 8: Berth and Vessel Capacity and Utilization

Berths and VesselsN. Atlantic

Ports*

S. Atlantic

PortsGulf Ports

East & Gulf Coast

Ports

Berths 57 44 13 114

Berth Feet 58,200 38,608 12,900 109,708

Annual Vessel Calls (2007) 5,576 4,963 1,149 11,688

Annual Vessel Calls per Berth (2007) 80 113 88 103

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis 39% 54% 42% 49%


Annual TEU per Berth 164,997 151,733 171,529 154,833

Annual TEU/Foot of Berth 159 173 173 161

Average Vessel Capacity - TEU 3,762 3,727 3,387 3,710

Average TEU per Vessel (2007) 1,568 1,345 1,941 1,510

Avg. Vessel Ute. - % Discharge/Load 42% 36% 57% 41%

Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 20,576,889 8,599,152 5,029,487 34,205,528

Berth Utilization - Avg. Vessel Basis 42% 78% 44% 52%

Reserve Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 11,832,051 1,922,907 2,799,609 16,554,568

Reserve Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 29,332,298 3,193,986 2,554,332 35,080,616

The average vessel capacities shown in Exhibit 8 are low compared to the maximum vessel sizes

that ports say that they can accommodate with the available draft. Ports typically receive few if

any calls from the maximum size vessels, so most calls are made by a mix of smaller container

ships.

Throughput could be increased by using larger vessels for the same number of calls, making

more calls with the same vessels, discharging and loading more of the vessel capacity at each

call, or any combination of these changes. In each case more container cranes and/or crane time

would be required to handle the increased cargo while keeping the vessel on schedule. The crane

capacity estimates are based on availability for two shifts per day, 250 days per year (4,000

annual hours). The cranes are, in fact, available 24 hours per day if the terminal operator needs

the additional shifts to turn the vessel on schedule and is willing to pay for overtime.

The study team also briefly reviewed the capabilities of the secondary East Coast and Gulf Ports,

detailed in the Appendix.

Wilmington, NC

Palm Beach, FL

Tampa, FL

Gulfport, MS

Freeport, TX

Beaumont, TX

Port Arthur, TX

Texas City, TX

Galveston, TX

Corpus Christi, TX.

Generally speaking, the secondary ports supplement the capacity of the major ports and handle

trades and cargoes that do not fit in well with the large, dedicated container terminals. These

Tioga

ports handle a mix of containerized, bulk, and break-bulk shipments, so their container capacities

are difficult to determine with precision. This mix of capabilities, does however, provide

flexibility, particularly for project cargoes and other limited-duration needs. While these ports

handle relatively small volumes of containers, several have specific importance to the imported

fruit trade (e.g. bananas) and other niche markets. Some, such as Wilmington and Beaumont, are

part of larger complexes that include major military shipping points. Tampa, Gulfport, Freeport,

and Corpus Christi have expansion plans in various stages of progress.

Overall, the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf ports have substantial inherent capacity for

near-term growth. That growth can be achieved through more intensive use of existing

terminals, cranes, and berths. The existence of aggregate reserve capacity does not preclude slot

shortages at ports and terminals that receive more than their share of growth.

Tioga

II. Background and Approach

Background

The capacity of U.S. container ports is the single most critical factor in the nation’s ability to

participate in containerized trade. Beginning in the 1950s and accelerating in the decades that

followed, containerization transformed both international merchandise trade and the ports that

serve it. Efficient handling of containerized trade requires far more than just dockside space and

labor – it requires sophisticated facilities, equipment, and systems manned by trained operators.

The facilities, equipment, systems, and manpower needed for container terminals are all costly.

There is an inherent tension between having enough capacity for trade peaks and expected

growth and creating excess capacity that ties up valuable resources.

Within this port network the Corps of Engineers’ primary focus is on navigation improvements –

developing and maintaining the channels, berths, and other aids that give container ships access

to port terminals. That responsibility is also a balancing act. Dredging and related activities are

costly and time consuming, and have serious environmental implications. Moreover, in an era of

limited resources, the Corps cannot meet every port’s desire for unlimited vessel access. There

is little benefit to providing deeper channels if terminals do not have capacity to match, or to

expanding terminals if channels become a bottleneck.

There are few, if any, concerns over container port capacity for the immediate future. The global

recession has drastically eroded containerized trade, with most ports seeing 2009 volumes 10-30

percent below the 2006-2007 peaks. Trade began to recover its momentum in early 2010 as this

report was being prepared, but it will likely take 5-7 years to regain 2006-2007 volumes.

At those 2006-2007 peaks, however, there were legitimate concerns over the capacity of U.S.

container ports to accommodate foreseeable long-term growth. The San Pedro Bay ports were

severely congested during the 2004 peak shipping season. Spot capacity shortages have

developed from time to time at many ports (and have persisted in some cases despite the

recession). Given the high cost and long lead times required to expand container terminal

capacity, it is reasonable to ask whether the capacity will be available when it is eventually

needed.

There is a particular concern over capacity at East Coast (North Atlantic and South Atlantic) and

Gulf Coast ports. Before the recession, growth and maturation of supply chains had led major

importers to diversity their routings away from the past concentration in Southern California.

The emergence of multi-coast import strategies shifted market share and volume from the West

Coast to the East and Gulf Coasts. Concern over potential congestion and cost increases in

Southern California added impetus to this trend. Some East Coast ports have also been very

successful in attracting new distribution centers to their region, in sync with the diversification of

import supply chains.

Tioga

The planned opening of the new, higher-capacity Panama Canal locks in 2014 will permit

carriers to deploy larger, more economical vessels in Asia-East Coast and Asia-Gulf services.

The increase in vessel sizes is likely to be gradual for several reasons.

While the new locks will accommodate vessels of 12,000-13,000 TEU, such

vessels are presently dedicated to the Asia-Europe trade. The vessel fleet required

to provide 12,000+ TEU capacity in trans-Panama service does not yet exist.

Given the drastic decline in container vessel orders, it is unlikely that such a fleet

will exist in 2014. Carriers are more likely to use smaller vessels presently laid

up.

The recession has led to a fall-off in trans-Panama trades and a withdrawal of

some all-water services. The volume needed to support a tripling of pre-recession

capacity (from 4,000 TEU vessels to 12,000 TEU vessels) is unlikely to emerge

by 2014.

Consolidation of services through vessel-sharing agreements may achieve some

economies of scale, but is unlikely to fill 12,000 TEU vessels at the same service

frequency as the 3,000-4,000 TEU vessels now deployed.

While a more gradual increase in the size of trans-Panama container vessels will likely give the

ports and the Corps more time to respond, the response will still be necessary. Moreover, the

East Coast and Gulf ports also serve the trans-Atlantic and round-the-world (RTW) trades in

which vessel sizes are also increasing.

This study was initiated to obtain a broad overview of East Coast and Gulf Coast container port

capacity as an input to the Corps’ planning and as a supplement to the many documents and

studies produced in the course of project feasibility studies. The study team attempted to address

the following questions.

What are the near-term and long-term capacities of the major East Coast and Gulf

Coast container ports?

What factors constrain the capacities of those ports?

How well is capacity currently utilized?

How well are the major ports prepared to handle larger vessels?

How do the smaller container ports or terminals fit into the picture?

This report does not address the capacity of highways, railroads, and intermodal connector to

move containers to and from the ports. Trade growth through 2006-2007 was creating concern

among local, regional, and state transportation officials regarding impacts on road and rail

infrastructure. The recession has provided a multi-year reprieve, but the issue will eventually

return.

This report likewise does not address the supply of drayage trucks and drivers needed to pick up

and deliver more containers. The drayage tractor supply can be increased as required, although

Tioga

meeting stringent emissions requirements will add to the cost. The supply of drivers may be

more problematical. Until the recession, motor carriers nationwide were experiencing a

persistent driver shortage. Some Southern California drayage firms were offering signing

bonuses for new drivers. TWIC requirements have further reduced the pool of drivers eligible

for port drayage. As trade recovers, there could be a shortage of drayage drivers.

Finally, this study does not address the need for trained personnel to operate expanded terminals.

Labor supply cannot be taken for granted. A major contributor to the 2004 peak season

congestion in Southern California was a Longshore labor shortage. The pool of Longshore labor

has since expanded, but has shrunk somewhat as longshoremen idled by the recession have

moved to other jobs.

Overall Approach

The study team analyzed the following major container ports (Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 9: Major Ports Analyzed

North Atlantic South Atlantic Gulf

Boston Charleston Mobile

New York/New Jersey Savannah New Orleans

Philadelphia Jacksonville Houston

Wilmington Port Everglades

Baltimore Miami

Virginia

No two container terminals are exactly alike, despite having a great deal in common. Port

planners and terminal operators have preferences for different operating types and

configurations, and those preferences change over time. Moreover, each terminal design must be

adapted to its site.

These differences are particularly apparent in the definition and configuration of the container

yard (CY). There are frequently disparities between what they port lists as CY acreage and what

the consultant team identified as working CY acreage from aerial photos. Depending on local

practice, land used for chassis storage, land used for equipment maintenance, or land not

presently used at all may or may not be included as CY acreage. The study team focused on land

being used for container storage, so the figures in this report tend to be conservative.

There are several possible ways to estimate container port capacity. All rely heavily on industry

rules of thumb and a variety of assumptions as well as quantifiable engineering relationships.

The general approach used in this study was chosen primarily to suit the readily available port

and terminal data elements. More precise estimates are possible, but would require a much

greater investment in data collection and analysis and would change frequently as ports and

terminals change their facilities and operations.

Marine container terminal capacity has five long-term constraints or dimensions, as illustrated in

Exhibit 10.

Tioga

Exhibit 10: Five "Dimensions" of Container Terminal Capacity

DRAFTDRAFT

BERTH LENGTHBERTH LENGTH

STACKING HEIGHTSTACKING HEIGHTCY DEPTH (AREA)CY DEPTH (AREA)

OPERATING HOURSOPERATING HOURS

DRAFTDRAFT

BERTH LENGTHBERTH LENGTH

STACKING HEIGHTSTACKING HEIGHTCY DEPTH (AREA)CY DEPTH (AREA)

OPERATING HOURSOPERATING HOURS

Ports and marine terminal operators are continually reviewing and adjusting their capacity, and

their operating practices within that capacity. 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

Estimating container terminal capacity and utilization along the five dimensions in Ex__ works

well for dedicated container terminals that handle vessels with on-shore gantry cranes. The

methodology does not work as well with multi-purpose terminals that may also handle autos,

breakbulk, neobulk, or project cargoes. ______ and ________ are examples of such terminals.

There is not, in general, any easy way to divide terminal CY space or other attributes among the

uses. Terminals that also handle Ro-Ro vessels (e.g. Seaboard at Miami) or refrigerated vessels

with ship’s gear (e.g. Freeport, TX) present the same problem. In such cases, the division of

terminal space devoted to different cargo types is flexible, and capacity is not fixed or readily

estimated. For these terminals the study team used aerial photos to approximate the current

acreage devoted to gantry-served container trade.

Berth length and draft determine the size of vessels the terminal can handle and how heavily they

can be loaded. The terminal storage capacity depends on the area available and how high the

Tioga

container can be stacked. The other variable is operating hours. Most terminals will operate a

second shift as required to turn the vessel, but second shifts are expensive and third shifts are still

more expensive. Most terminals still open the gates for just one shift.

Port authorities are commonly charged by their communities, regions, or states with promoting

growth of trade, economic development, and jobs. To do so, port and terminal operators attempt

to build and maintain sufficient capacity for foreseeable and attainable growth. Most container

terminal parameters, however, can only be adjusted in large, costly, and time-consuming

commitments. Development of new terminals, expansion of berths, and dredging are multi-year,

multi-million dollar projects. Expansion of existing terminal space can be undertaken more

easily and inexpensively, but can still take months or years in congested seaport areas.

In the shorter term, ports and terminals can add container cranes at a cost of $5-$10 million each,

with a lead time of multiple months rather than multiple years.

In the very short term ports and container terminals can adjust capacity along two dimensions:

container yard stacking density and operating hours. These are also ordinarily the only means by

which container terminals reduce capacity. Except in rare circumstances, terminal areas do not

shrink, berths do not get shorter, channels do not become shallower, and the number of cranes

does not decline. During seasonal or economic trade downturns, however, marine terminal

operators can reduce operating hours, reduce manning during operating hours, and revert to low-

density, low-cost container yard operations.

Berth Length

Berth length is published in many places. Berth length also tends to remain stable over long

periods, so the sources tend to be accurate. Container terminal berths are typically 600-1,000

feet. At many ports, however, the berth face is continuous across multiple berths or even across

multiple terminals (need example). Two 1,000-foot berths on a 2,000-foot face, therefore, can

accommodate vessels longer than 1,000 feet although not two at a time.

As most container vessels in service are less than 1,000 feet long and 1,000-foot berths are

common, berth length per se has seldom been a limiting factor. That will eventually change as

Post-Panamax and Super-Post-Panamax vessels become more common on the East and Gulf

Coasts.

The “Panamax” length limit is 965 feet and the width limit is 105 feet. Vessels

that transit the Canal can be as large as 5000 TEU, although most are much

smaller.

Typical “Post-Panamax” vessels are 1000+ feet long and 130+ feet wide.

Capacities range up to 10,000 TEU. These are the vessels targeted by the Panama

Canal expansion.

The largest “super-post-Panamax” vessels now being built in the 13,000-15,000

TEU range such as the Maersk E-Class, however, are 184 feet wide and 1300+

feet long.

Tioga

Draft (Berth Depth)

Berth depth (and the depth of the channel required to reach the berth) is also commonly

published. It is seldom clear, however, whether the published figure is the authorized depth

(which may or may not have been fully maintained) or a measured and maintained depth. Given

the long-term outlook of the capacity estimates, it was assumed that the published depths would

be maintained.

It should be noted that the current draft limit for the Panama Canal is 39.5 feet, which is more

restrictive than most East Coast and Gulf ports. The new Canal locks are expected to allow

vessel with drafts if up to 60 feet, widths of up to 180 feet, and lengths of up to 1400 feet transit

the Canal.

Ports and terminal operators can provide capacity, but throughput is limited by the capacity of

the vessels than call and the percentage of that capacity that is discharged and loaded.

Berth depth was used to estimate the maximum vessel size that each port could accommodate.

The relationship between vessel design or maximum draft and size measured in deadweight tons

(DWT) or twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) varies considerably, especially in very large

vessels (e.g. over 8,000 TEU). To develop a working relationship the study team assembled a

database of 350+ container vessels. A regression analysis yielded the relationship shown in

Exhibit 11.

Exhibit 11: Container Vessel DWT vs. TEU Capacity

Container Ship TEU vs. DWT

y = 0.0838x - 253.39

R2 = 0.9599

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000

DWT

TE

U

N=353

This analysis is likely to be most reliable where there is the most data available, which is the

range of 20,000 to 80,000 DWT or 2,000 to 6,000 TEU. At the upper end of the range there are

fewer data available. It appears, moreover, that vessel designers have kept maximum drafts

within boundaries, and that the largest vessels are becoming wider rather than deeper.

Exhibit 12 compares the reported versus estimated TEU capacities where available. Significant

differences in reported and estimate TEU capacities should be expected because there are

substantial variations in the way the carriers themselves rate vessel capacity. A vessel can hold

Tioga

more containers if they are light or empty, so a TEU capacity based on an illustrative average of

12 metric tons per TEU will be higher than an estimate for the same vessel at 13 or 14 metric

tons per TEU. These variations account for much of the disparity between vessels of similar size

and tonnage but different TEU capacities.

Exhibit 12: Reported vs. Estimated Container Vessel TEU

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Reported TEU

Est TEU

Exhibit 13 shows the relationship between DWT and draft, where both data items were available

for a given vessel.

Exhibit 13: DWT vs. Draft

y = 939e0.0972x

R2 = 0.9559

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

DW

T

Draft (ft)

N=119

Vessels rarely sail at their full design draft. To do so would entail a full load of loaded

containers, which is uncommon. USACE guidance (Exhibit 14) suggests that maximum

effective cargo capacity is typically about 95% of DWT. Applying this ratio to design draft

versus sailing draft suggests that a vessel designed for 50 feet draft would, for example, usually

Tioga

sail at a maximum of 47.5 feet. While not a precise relationship, this guideline was adopted for

the capacity analysis.

Exhibit 14: USACE Guidance on Cargo Capacity as a Percentage of DWT TABLE 28

Adjustments for Estimating Actual Vessel Capacity

Short Tons of Cargo as a Percentage of Vessel DWT

Vessel DWT % Cargo to DWT

<20,000 90%

20,000 to 70,000 92%

70,000 to 120,000 95%

>120,000 97%

Source: IWR Report 91-R-13, National Economic Development

Procedures Manual, Deep-Drat Navigation, November 1991, p. 77.

Likewise, vessels rarely use the full channel depth. For safety reasons, pilot rules and common

practice typically require a minimum of 3 feet under keel. This rule is sometimes “bent”, and it

is common at some ports to “ride the tide” to gain additional clearance. Taking the long-term

view again, the capacity analysis incorporates the 3-foot minimum.

Together, these guidelines imply that a vessel with a 50-foot design draft would have a

maximum sailing draft of 47.5 feet and would need a channel depth of 50.5 feet to maintain a 3-

foot underkeel clearance.

This series of relationships was used to estimate the largest vessel size in TEU that could be

accommodated at each port, and the corresponding berth requirements for length and beam.

Exhibit 15 shows the estimated maximum vessel size for each port and the reported average

container vessel size for 2007. Most major ports receive a mix of vessels whose average size is

well below the maximum.

Exhibit 15: Maximum vs. Average Vessel Capacity - TEU

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Bost

on

NYNJ

Del

awar

e Riv

er

Bal

timore

VPA

Char

lest

on

Savan

nah

Jack

sonvi

lle

Port E

verg

lades

Mia

mi

Mobile

New

Orlea

ns

Houst

on

Avg. 2007 Vessel TEU Capacity

Est. Max Vessel TEU Capacity

Tioga

A comparison between the estimated maximum vessel size and the record of vessel calls

revealed some cases where the reported average vessel size was greater than the estimated

maximum. These cases include ports with serious draft restrictions, such as the Delaware River

(39’, and Houston (40’). Larger vessels can call at these ports by riding the tide or through light-

loading.

(Note – some of the estimates need to be double-checked)

Exhibit 16 compares the estimated TEU capacity of the average vessel with the average TEU

discharged and loaded at each port. The theoretical maximum is 200% of vessel capacity: a

vessel completely emptied and reloaded.

Exhibit 16: Vessel Size and Load Comparison

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Bost

on

NYNJ

Del

awar

e Riv

er

Bal

timore

VPA

Char

lest

on

Savan

nah

Jack

sonvi

lle

Port E

verg

lades

Mia

mi

Mobile

New

Orlea

ns

Houst

on

Avg. 2007 Vessel TEU Capacity

Avg. 2007 Vessel Discharge and Load

As vessel sizes grew, concern increased over the potential for “load centering”, the expected

practice of using large vessels to serve large ports and smaller feeder vessels (or inland truck or

rail service) to serve smaller ports. The practice was not widely used in part because carriers

formed VSAs and alliances and continued direct service to small ports under competitive

pressure.

The data in Exhibit 16, however, suggest that load centering or similar practices may be limiting

volumes through Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Portland. These ports are all adjacent to

major competitors. PANYNJ competes with Boston and Philadelphia; Virginia competes with

Baltimore, and Seattle and Tacoma compete with Portland. Philadelphia, Baltimore, and

Portland also have the competitive disadvantage of being located some distance from the open

ocean.

The analysis provides two different perspectives on berth capacity.

The Maximum Vessel Basis, which estimates the potential throughput using the largest vessel for

the available draft and the 2007 ratio of discharge/load total to vessel capacity. In Exhibit 17, an

example from Boston, the nominal maximum vessel size is 5,183 TEU based on an available

Tioga

draft of 45 feet and a corresponding sailing draft of 42 feet. The current average vessel capacity

(2007) is estimated at 3,675 TEU, with a 37% discharge/load rate. At the same rate, a 5,183

TEU vessel would load and discharge 1,930 TEU at Boston. Based on a maximum of 260 calls

per year per berth (5 per week) and a sustainable estimate of 208 (80%) per berth. The annual

TEU capacity would be 803,012.

Exhibit 17: Berth Capacity - Maximum Vessel Basis Example

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis Conley Port Total

Berths 2 2

Berth length 2,000 2000

Berth Depth - Feet 45 45

Max Sailing Draft 42 42

Corresponding Design Draft @ 95% 44 44

Corresponding DWT 63,678 63,678

Nominal Max Vessel TEU 5,183 5,183

Corresponding Vessel Length - Feet 1,000 1,000

Vessel Spacing (Beam) 140 140

Length requirement 1,140 1,140

Available Berths for Max Vessel 2.0 2.0

Port average TEU/container 1.73 1.73

2007 TEU 220,339 220,339

Avg. TEU/Vessel 1,369 1,369

Avg. Vessel DWT 45,571 45,571

Average Est. Vessel Capacity TEU 3,675 3,675

Average Discharge & Load % 37% 37%

Average TEU per Max Vessel 1,930 1,930

Max annual calls per berth 260 260

Sustainable Calls per berth @ 80% 208 208

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 416 416

Annual Berth Capacity TEU 803,012 803,012

2008 Annual TEU 208,626 208,626

Berth Utilization, Max Vessel Basis 26% 26%

Alternatively, the berth capacity can be more conservatively estimated using the current average

vessel size and simply maximizing the number of calls (Exhibit 18).

Exhibit 18: Berth Capacity Estimate- Vessel Call Basis Example

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis Conley Port Total

Max Calls per berth 5 / wk 260 260

Available Berths 2.0 2.0



2007 Vessel calls 161 161

2007 Berth Utilization 39% 39%

Container Yard Storage Density (Stacking Height)

Marine container terminal operators adjust container yard (CY) storage density and stacking

height by reconfiguring the CY, changing handling equipment, and varying container storage

practices. Typical handling equipment types are shown in Exhibit 19.

Tioga

Exhibit 19: Container Yard Handling Equipment Types

TOP-PICK EMPTY HANDLERTOP-PICK EMPTY HANDLER REACH STACKERREACH STACKER SIDE LOADERSIDE LOADER

STRADDLE CARRIERSTRADDLE CARRIER RUBBER-TIRED GANTRY (RTG)RUBBER-TIRED GANTRY (RTG) RAIL-MOUNTED GANTRY (RMG)RAIL-MOUNTED GANTRY (RMG)

TOP-PICK EMPTY HANDLERTOP-PICK EMPTY HANDLER REACH STACKERREACH STACKER SIDE LOADERSIDE LOADER

STRADDLE CARRIERSTRADDLE CARRIER RUBBER-TIRED GANTRY (RTG)RUBBER-TIRED GANTRY (RTG) RAIL-MOUNTED GANTRY (RMG)RAIL-MOUNTED GANTRY (RMG)

Exhibit 20 displays the progression of terminal handling methods from lowest to highest density.

Virtually all U.S. marine container terminals use a mix of the handling methods shown in Exhibit

19 and Exhibit 20, and vary that mix to provide sufficient capacity at minimum cost. Terminal

operators gravitate to low-density, low-cost operating methods whenever possible.

Exhibit 20: Progression of Terminal Handling Methods

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

Faced with a need to accommodate more trade, terminals move progressively up the density

scale.

Terminal operators start increasing density by stacking empty containers instead

of leaving them parked on chassis. Empties can be handled with inexpensive

equipment and stacked first-in/last-out since they are largely interchangeable.

Tioga

As additional capacity is required, terminal operators begin stacking loaded

export containers. Export containers typically build up over the week prior to

vessel arrival and need not be accessed until it is time to load that vessel. Loaded

containers are heavier than empties, however, and must be accessed in a sequence

tied to vessel loading plans. Loaded export storage therefore usually requires

more expensive RTGs or straddle carriers.

Terminal operators typically leave loaded import containers parked on chassis

(“wheeled”) as long as possible to both minimize handling cost and maximize

responsiveness to customer needs. When loaded imports are eventually stacked,

they require RTG or straddle carriers for flexible access.

Containers with special requirement are rarely stacked, and most terminals

reserve space to keep such movements on chassis. Specialized movements

include refrigerated containers, containers with hazardous cargo, over-size or

over-weight containers, tank containers, and containers held for CBP inspection.

In peak periods, such as the annual holiday import surge, terminals shift the balance of

operations to higher densities. In slack periods, the operators park more containers on chassis.

In protracted downturns, such as the current recession, terminal operators will idle costly

handling equipment and revert to wheeled operations, even on space configured for stacking

(Exhibit 21).

Exhibit 21: Wheeled Containers on RTG Layout

IDLE RTGsIDLE RTGs

EMPTIES

STACKED WITH

TOP-PICKS

EMPTIES

STACKED WITH

TOP-PICKS

WHEELED

CONTAINERS

PARKED ON

RTG LAYOUT

WHEELED

CONTAINERS

PARKED ON

RTG LAYOUT

IDLE RTGsIDLE RTGs

EMPTIES

STACKED WITH

TOP-PICKS

EMPTIES

STACKED WITH

TOP-PICKS

WHEELED

CONTAINERS

PARKED ON

RTG LAYOUT

WHEELED

CONTAINERS

PARKED ON

RTG LAYOUT

The CY capacity estimation method used in this study is necessarily a compromise, based on a

“snapshot” of current stacking density. As shown in the example below, the team used the most

recent aerial photos available on Google Earth and estimated the CY acreage configured for each

storage density category. The precision of this method is necessarily limited in several respects.

The latest available aerial photos vary from a few months old to 2 to 3 years old,

and terminal configurations and uses can change on short notice.

Tioga

Aerial estimates of acreage and uses are imprecise although probably sufficiently

accurate for high-level capacity estimates.

The container yard capacities were estimated by dividing the CY acreage by handling type and

applying the storage factors for each to derive estimated TEU slot totals. The typical storage

densities for terminal handling methods are shown in Exhibit 22.

Exhibit 22: Typical CY Storage Densities

CY Storage Method TEU Slots per Acre

Wheeled Chassis 80

Grounded Straddle Carrier 160

Grounded Stacked 200

Grounded RTG 300

Grounded RMG 360

The focus on capacity, rather than current throughput, led the team to rely more on terminal

configuration rather than on current usage or estimates. For example, terminal space configured

to use RTGs was assigned an inherent capacity of 300 TEU per acre even though it may

currently be used for wheeled storage at 80 TEU per acre. This estimation practice is also

necessarily imprecise as the ability to use the full inherent capacity of may depend on the

availability of handling equipment, operating systems, and other factors beyond the scope of this

study.

Exhibit 23 shows an example of CY acreage allocation in which the 79 total CY acres were

divided into 20 acres of wheeled storage at 80 TEU/acre, 43 acres of straddle carrier operation at

160 TEU/acre, 8 acres of stacked storage at 200 TEU/acre, and 8 acres of RTG storage at 300

TEU per acre for a total storage capacity of 12,480 TEU slots (Exhibit 24). If the terminal

needed more CY capacity, the operator would like stack more containers or expand RTG

operations at the expense of low-density wheeled storage. The average of 158 slots per acre is

between the low density of wheeled operations and the higher density of stacked or RTG

operations.

Exhibit 23: CY Acreage Example: Port of New Orleans

Terminal Space Napolean Port Total

Total Acres 128 128

Wheeled CY Acres 20 20

Straddle Carrier CY Acres 43 43

Stacked CY Acres 8 8

RTG CY Acres 8 8

RMG CY Acres -

Total CY Acres 79 79

On-Dock Rail Acres 10 10

Other Non-CY Acres 16 16

Net Berth/Gate/Yard Acres 105 105

Undeveloped Acres - -

Tioga

Exhibit 24: CY Capacity Example: Port of New Orleans

Container Yard Capacity Napolean Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots 1,600 1,600

Grounded Straddle Carrier Slots 6,880 6,880

Grounded Stacked Slots 1,600 1,600

Grounded RTG Slots 2,400 2,400

Grounded RMG Slots - -

TEU Storage Slots 12,480 12,480

Avg TEU Slots/CY Acre 158 158

Maximum Annual Slot Turnover 70.0 70.0

Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 873,600 873,600

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 698,880 698,880

2008 Annual TEU 313,765 313,765

2008 TEU per CY Slot 25 25

2008 CY Capacity Utilization 45% 45%

As Exhibit 24 shows, the team estimated the maximum annual TEU capacity based on a

maximum annual slot turnover of 70 turns annually, an aggressive average of more than one turn

per week and equivalent to an average container dwell time of slightly over 5 days. While

theoretically possible, particularly in periods of peak demand, operation at this level of intensity

is unlikely to be sustainable day-in and day-out. Moreover, if this level of density were routine

there would be no reserve capacity to handle the inevitable trade surges. The study team

therefore also estimated sustainable CY TEU capacity at 80% of the maximum, following a

common industry rule-of-thumb. There is only one major container terminal at the Port of New

Orleans, so in the examples above the port total is the same as the Napoleon terminal total.

2008 annual TEU counts were compared with the estimated sustainable TEU capacity to

estimate the annual TEU per storage slot (25 in the example) and average annual CY capacity

utilization (45% in the example).

Under greater pressure, such as was experienced in Southern California before the current

recession, marine terminals can also increase capacity by reducing container dwell times. By

shortening “free time” allowances and raising or vigorously enforcing charges for excess dwell

time, terminal operators have succeeded in reducing dwell times for import loads and therefore

increasing storage turnover. On the export side, terminals can limit the time in advance of vessel

arrival during which export containers will be accepted. To reduce the dwell time of empty

containers, terminal operators and their ocean carrier clients can move empties to off-terminal

depots or return leased containers to leasing company depots.

Operating Hours

Port terminals occasionally vary operating hours to handle additional vessels or cope with trade

surges. Marine container terminals typically maintain full cargo handling and gate functions for

a single shift five to six days per week. Additional shifts are often operated to handle arriving or

departing vessels and complete loading or unloading, even if full gate and truck handling

functions are not supported. In peak periods, terminals will extend gate hours to handle inbound

and outbound truck movements. At the busiest ports, such as NYNJ or LALB, extended age

hours are a regular feature.

Tioga

Labor agreements specify the options available to terminal operators and the attendant costs.

Marine terminal operators attempt to match labor supply and costs with vessel and trade

requirements. The rigidities of these agreements make it difficult and costly for terminal

operators to extend operating hours or to match labor supply closely with trade and vessel

requirements. So although container terminal throughput and capacity could be greatly increased

by adding shifts, that option is usually the last choice for any extended period.

Vessels and Crane Use

Container terminal throughput is limited by the size and utilization of the vessels that call. As

Exhibit 16 suggests, the average vessel that calls at most ports discharges and loads substantially

less than its full capacity. There are two basic reasons for this disparity.

Vessels almost invariably call at multiple U.S. ports on each voyage, and the

vessel’s total cargo discharge and load is split among those ports.

Ocean carriers, like ports and terminals, offer and deploy sufficient capacity to

accommodate growth as well as current cargo volumes. Only in peak periods of

peak years will vessels be completely full.

The ability to handle a given vessel size depends on the berth length and draft available at the

terminal. The ability to handle the cargo from that vessel depends on the number of cranes

available, the hourly throughput capability of those cranes, and the hours those cranes are

available in a day or week.

A typical marine terminal, such as the one shown in Exhibit 25, might have two berths and four

cranes. This configuration gives the terminal operator the flexibility to assign from one to four

cranes to a vessel as required. as the vessel discharge and load averages increase, the number of

cranes may limit the number of vessels that can be handled simultaneously and therefore

annually. As this limit is approached the port or terminal operator will add cranes.

Tioga

Exhibit 25: Typical Two-Berth/Four-Crane Terminal

The primary goal of terminal operators is to service the vessel or schedule and at minimum cost.

The number of cranes installed and used is determined primarily by the need to “turn” the vessel,

with annual crane productivity a secondary consideration. This set of priorities results in

relatively low container crane utilization, as suggested by Exhibit 26. A vessel is far more costly

to own and operate than the cranes that serve it, so crane utilization is effectively sacrificed to

vessel utilization.

Exhibit 26: Container Cranes and Utilization

Container CranesN. Atlantic

Ports*

S. Atlantic

PortsGulf Ports

East & Gulf Coast

Ports

Cranes 120 77 27 224




Annual TEU/Crane 76,709 86,704 82,588 78,799



Tioga

III. North Atlantic Ports

North Atlantic Summary

Exhibit 27 summarizes estimates of North Atlantic port capacity and utilization along multiple

dimensions. North Atlantic container trade is dominated by the Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey (60% of the 2008 TEU total) and the Port of Virginia (Virginia Port Authority, 24%

of the 2006 TEU total). The Ports of Boston and Philadelphia (Delaware River) must compete

with NYNJ. The other Delaware River port, Wilmington, DE, is a specialized facility handling

imported bananas. Baltimore must compete with the Port of Virginia In addition to its own

seaport terminals, VPA operates the Virginia Inland Port, a satellite terminal in Baltimore’s

market area. Philadelphia and Baltimore have the additional competitive disadvantage of being

located a significant distance from the open ocean with channel draft restrictions. The new APM

Portsmouth terminal is shown separately.

Exhibit 27: North Atlantic Capacity and Utilization Summary

Container Yard Boston NYNJDelaware

RiverBaltimore VPA

APM

Portsmouth

N. Atlantic

Ports*

2008 TEU 208,626 5,265,058 574,876 613,000 2,083,278 na 8,744,838

Gross Acres 101 1,338 420 458 680 230 3,227

CY Acres 49 783 120 228 284 78 1,542

CY/Gross Ratio 49% 59% 29% 50% 42% 34% 48%

Annual CY Capacity - TEU 666,400 8,772,400 840,000 2,634,240 3,126,200 1,659,000 17,698,240

Reserve CY Capacity - TEU 457,774 3,507,342 265,124 2,021,240 1,042,922 1,659,000 10,612,402

Annual TEU/Gross Acre 2,066 3,935 1,369 1,338 3,064 na 2,918

Annual TEU/CY Acre 4,258 6,724 4,791 2,689 7,335 na 5,973

Est. CY TEU Slots 11,900 125,320 15,000 47,040 44,660 23,700 267,620

Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 243 160 125 206 124 306 174

Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 18 42 38 13 47 - 36

CY Utilization 31% 75% 68% 23% 83% na 55%

Container Cranes Boston NYNJDelaware

RiverBaltimore VPA

APM

Portsmouth

N. Atlantic

Ports*

Cranes 4 58 8 16 28 6 120

Cranes per Berth 2.0 2.2 1.6 1.6 2.8 1.5 2.1

Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 968,800 14,616,000 2,016,000 3,471,202 7,056,000 1,512,000 29,640,002

Reserve Crane Capacity - TEU 760,174 9,350,942 1,441,124 2,858,202 4,972,722 1,512,000 20,895,164

Annual TEU/Crane 52,157 90,777 71,860 38,313 74,403 na 76,709

Annual Moves/Crane 30,148 50,432 39,922 24,723 41,335 na 43,140

Crane Utilization 22% 36% 29% 18% 30% na 30%

Berths and Vessels Boston NYNJDelaware

RiverBaltimore VPA

APM

Portsmouth

N. Atlantic

Ports*

Berths 2 26 5 10 10 4 57

Berth Feet 2,000 27,421 5,300 8,819 11,460 3,200 58,200

Annual Vessel Calls (2007) 161 2,549 499 427 1,940 na 5,576

Annual Vessel Calls per Berth (2007) 81 98 62 43 194 na 80

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis 39% 45% 30% 21% 67% na 39%

Reserve Berth Capacity - Vessel Calls 255 3067 1165 1653 972 na 8884

Annual TEU per Berth 104,313 202,502 114,975 61,300 208,328 na 164,997

Annual TEU/Foot of Berth 104 192 108 70 182 na 159

Average Vessel Capacity - TEU 3,675 3,895 2,482 3,895 3,895 na 3,762

Average TEU per Vessel (2007) 1,369 2,079 1,146 2,346 1,097 na 1,568

Avg. Vessel Ute. - % Discharge/Load 37% 53% 46% 60% 28% na 42%

Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 569,323 11,675,078 1,430,333 4,392,000 2,510,155 na 20,576,889

Berth Utilization - Avg. Vessel Basis 37% 45% 40% 14% 83% na 42%

Reserve Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 360,697 6,410,020 855,457 3,779,000 426,877 na 11,832,051

Reserve Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 594,386 17,125,247 1,396,227 7,809,918 2,406,520 na 29,332,298

Tioga

As the summary data show, reserve capacity in the North Atlantic is substantial, in part because

of the shear size of NYNJ and Virginia (particularly of the APM terminal is included) and in part

because Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are underutilized.

Exhibit 28 displays the maximum reported draft available at the North Atlantic ports, and

corresponding estimated maximum vessel TEU capacity. These can be contrasted with the actual

vessel averages and TEU volumes per vessel, which are much lower in some cases. The listed

drafts, however, are not available at all of the NYNJ, Baltimore, and VPA terminals, so some of

those terminals remain draft-constrained.

Exhibit 28: North Atlantic Drafts and Vessel Data

Berths and Vessels Boston NYNJDelaware

RiverBaltimore VPA

APM

Portsmouth

Nominal Maximum Channel/Berth Draft Feet 45 50 40 50 49 50

Estimated Maximum Vessel TEU 5,183 7,470 3,420 7,470 6,967 7,470

2007 Average Vessel TEU 3,675 3,895 2,482 3,895 3,895 na

2008 Average Vessel Discharge/Load 1,369 2,079 1,146 2,346 1,097 na

Port of Boston

Overview

Container activity at the Port of Boston is centered at the 101-acre Conley Container Terminal

(Exhibit 29). The terminal has four Post-Panamax container cranes and 2000 feet of berthing

space. The Port of Boston has direct access to the Atlantic Ocean. The terminal is operated by

The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), an independent public authority which develops,

promotes, and manages seaport infrastructure in Massachusetts. Containers were formerly

handled at the 65-acre Moran Terminal, which now has been repurposed as an automobile

handling terminal.

Exhibit 29: Port of Boston Conley Container Terminal

Source: Google Earth Image Date April 17, 2008

Tioga

Conley terminal’s peak year was 2007, when 220,000 TEU were handled. Exhibit 30 provides a

profile of the Conley terminal.

Exhibit 30: Conley Container Terminal Profile

Profle date: Sept. 25, 2009 2008 TEU: 208626

Port: Boston Total Acres: 101

Terminal: Conley CY Acres: 49

Terminal Type: RTG/Top-pick/Wheeled On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

First & Farragut Rd. Other Non-CY Acres: 17

Boston MA 02127 Net Terminal Acres (BGY): 84

Operator (Stevedore): MassPort Berths: 2

Contact Name: Total Berth Length: 2,000

Telephone Number: (617) 464-8200 Channel Depth (MLLW): 45

Fax Number: (617) 464-8201 Berth Depth (MLLW): 45

E-Mail Address: Panamax Container Cranes:

Port Website: www.massport.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 4

Terminal Website: CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:

Inbound Gates: 8 CY Rubber-Tired Gantries:

Outbound Gates: 4 CY Side or Top Loaders:

Reversible Gates: CY Straddle Carriers:

Total Gates: 12 CY Reach Stackers:

On-Line Access System: GYAS Total CY Lift Machines 0

Appointment System: On-site M&R (yes/no):

Reefer Plugs/Slots: 160 On-dock Rail (yes/no): No

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:

CONTAINER TERMINAL PROFILE

Address:

(Diagram)

Notes: On July 22, 2009 Massport launched a web-based Gate and Yard Automated System (GYAS) at

Conley Terminal. This system, designed by Maher Terminal Logistics Systems. This software also gives

Massport an automated approach to yard management, providing

Monday - Friday, 7 a.m-5 p.m. Last inbound truck, 4:15pm

Tioga

Container Yard Storage Capacity

Exhibit 31 summarizes land use at Conley Terminal. The total area for the port’s container

operations is 101 acres. The CY to gross ratio is estimated at 49%. Conley does not have on-

dock rail.

Exhibit 31: Conley Terminal Land Use

Port Land Use Conley Port Total

Gross Acres 101 101

CY Acres 49 49

Rail Acres - -



CY/Gross Ratio 49% 49%

Exhibit 32 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage. The port currently has a mix

of wheeled and stacked CY operations. The CY area has been estimated to be 49 acres producing

11,900 TEU storage slots. Annual CY sustainable TEU capacity is estimated to 666,400 TEU.

This produces annual utilization of 31% relative to 2008 volume.

Exhibit 32: Conley Terminal Near Term CY Capacity

Container Yard Capacity Conley Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots 800 800

Grounded Straddle Carrier Slots - -





Avg TEU Slots/CY Are 243 243




2008 Annual TEU 208,626 208,626



In the long term, Conley could increase CY capacity by shifting the acreage used for wheeled

and stacked storage to RTG storage.

Crane Capacity

Exhibit 33 provides a summary of Conley Terminal cranes and an estimate of crane capacity.

The port provides 4 cranes for use by its tenants. Estimated annual crane capacity at the port is

968,000 TEU with 2008 utilization at 22%. The utilization estimate may be somewhat overstated

because the port has a sizeable Ro-Ro operation which is in the TEU count but does not utilize

container cranes for loading and unloading.

Tioga

Exhibit 33: Conley Terminal Near Term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity Conley Port Total

Cranes 4 4

Available Crane Hours per Day 16 16

Current Annual Operating Days 250 250

Current Annual Hours/Crane 4,000 4,000

Annual Available Crane Hours 16,000 16,000

Sustainable Hours @ 80% 12,800 12,800

Avg. TEU/Available Crane-hour 13.0 13.0

Avg. Annual TEU/Crane 52,157 52,157

Crane Capacity, Moves/hour 35 35

Sustainable Moves/Hr @ 80% 28 28


Crane Capacity TEU/hour 61 61

Annual Crane Capacity 968,800 968,800

Current Annual TEU 208,626 208,626

Current Crane Utilization 22% 22%

The four cranes at Conley serve two berths, which are in fact a continuous berth face of 2,000

feet. The terminal can handle two vessels simultaneously with two cranes each at a single larger

vessel with 3-4 cranes.

Berth Capacity

Conley berth capacity in TEU for the maximum vessel size is summarized in Exhibit 34. The

analysis estimates near term berth capacity at 803,012 TEU and 2008 berth utilization at 26%.

Tioga

Exhibit 34: Boston Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis Conley Port Total

Berths 2 2

Berth length 2,000 2000











2007 TEU 220,339 220,339









Annual Berth Capacity TEU 803,012 803,012

2008 Annual TEU 208,626 208,626


The estimated maximum vessel size of 5,183 TEU is based on the reported 45-foot draft. Larger

vessels could call at Conley, but not fully loaded. Vessels currently calling Conley discharge

and load an average of 37% of their TEU capacity. That ratio is most likely influenced by the

vessel’s need to call at other ports. The analysis implicitly assumes that the ratio will remain

constant, and that cargo growth would be accommodated in larger vessels rather than as larger

loads in existing vessels.

Berth capacity on a vessel call basis is summarized in Exhibit 35. This approach generates a

berth capacity estimate of 416 calls and 2007 berth utilization of 39%.

Exhibit 35: Conley 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis Conley Port Total

Est. Sustainable Calls per berth 5 / wk 260 260

Available Berths 2.0 2.0





Capacity and Productivity Summary

Exhibit 36 summarizes the capacity and productivity analysis for CY space, container cranes,

and vessel berths for Conley Terminal. This analysis estimates CY utilization at 31%, crane

Tioga

utilization at 22%, and berth utilization at 31% on a vessel call basis and 26 % on a maximum

vessel basis. These estimates suggest that the port has substantial inherent capacity to handle

growth.

Exhibit 36: Conley Terminal Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space Conley Boston

2008 TEU 208,626 208,626

Gross Acres 101 101CY Acres 49 49CY/Gross Ratio 49% 49%Annual CY Capacity - TEU 666,400 666,400 Annual TEU/Gross Acre 2,066 2,066 Annual TEU/CY Acre 4,258 4,258 Est. CY TEU Slots 11,900 11,900 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 243 243 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 18 18 CY Utilization 31% 31%

Container Cranes Conley Boston

Cranes 4 4

Cranes per Berth 2.0 2.0

Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 968,800 968,800

Avg. Moves/Available Crane-Hour 13.0 13.0

Annual TEU/Crane 52,157 52,157

Annual Moves/Crane 30,148 30,148

Annual Vessel Calls/Crane (2007) 40 40

Crane Utilization 22% 22%

Berths and Vessels Conley Boston

Berths 2 2

Berth Feet 2,000 2,000

Annual Vessel Calls per Berth (2007) 81 81

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis 39% 39%

Annual TEU per Berth 104,313 104,313

Annual TEU/Foot of Berth 104 104

Average Vessel Capacity - TEU 3,675 3,675

Est. Max. Vessel Capacity - TEU 5,183 5,183

Avg. vs. Max. Vessel Capacity 71% 71%

Average TEU per Vessel (2007) 1,369 1,369

Avg. Vessel Utilization - % Discharge/Load 37% 37%

Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 569,323 569,323

Berth Utilization - Avg. Vessel Basis 37% 37%

Avg. Discharge/Load per Max. Vessel 1,930 1,930

Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 803,012 803,012

Berth Utilization - Max. Vessel Basis 26% 26%

Port of New York and New Jersey

Overview

The Port of New York and New Jersey has six container terminals under the Port Authority of

New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). The Port Authority is a bi-state agency. Exhibit 37 is a

map of the region identifying the major marine container terminal facilities.

Tioga

Exhibit 37: Port of New York and New Jersey

Source: Tioga Group 2010, Data available from the Port Authority Web Site. Depot locations are available on the

marine terminal and stevedore websites.

The Port of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) is the largest East Coast Port, handling more

than 5 million TEU in 2008. While most of the import cargo using the port is destined for

consumption in the New York Metropolitan area1, the port competes successfully for

discretionary cargo moving by motor carrier to Quebec, Ontario, New England, and

Pennsylvania. Rail service moves cargo to more distant Midwestern locations such as

Columbus, Detroit, and Chicago.

At NYNJ loads and empties are grounded to a greater degree than at other ports. The marine

terminals operate auxiliary chassis and empty container depots to simplify and expedite gate

operations as well as add CY capacity. The trend away from wheeled operations, initiated about

a decade ago, lead to innovations in chassis management such as cooperative chassis pools.

Dredging is underway to produce 50’ drafts at the major PANYNJ terminals. Air draft on the

bridge linking Bayonne and Staten Island is a future constraint for the largest container vessels.

The air draft beneath the Bayonne Bridge varies with the tide between 151 and 156 feet. As more

Port-Panamax and Super-Post-Panamax vessels enter the world fleet, the frequency with which

the Bridge will be a barrier for container terminals west of the Bridge will increase.

Red Hook (Exhibit 38) is a legacy complex of container, bulk, break bulk, and warehouse

facilities. The terminal is operated by American Stevedoring, Inc. Located at the foot of

Hamilton Avenue in Brooklyn, the Red Hook terminal has a total of 80 acres for all of its

operations. The container portion of the terminal is estimated to be 54 acres with 30 acres of CY

space. The Red Hook terminal operates two berths for all of its operations with a total berth

1 Precise numbers are not available. Tioga estimates this at approximately 80% remains in the New York Metropolitan area, with up to 5%

moving by motor carrier to Canada, 5-10% moving by rail, and the remainder by motor carrier to nearby states.

Tioga

length of 2,080 feet. In Port Newark, ASI operates a 20-acre barge facility which is linked to the

main Brooklyn terminal by a cross-harbor barge service.

Exhibit 38: Red Hook Marine Terminal

Profle date: February 15, 2010 2008 TEU:

Port: PA of New York and New Jersey Total Acres: 80

Terminal: Red Hook Container Terminal CY Acres: 30

Terminal Type: Top-pick Combination On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

70 Hamilton Ave. Other Non-CY Acres: 26

Brooklyn, NY 11231 Net Terminal Acres: 54

Operator (Stevedore): American Stevedoring Berths: 2




E-Mail Address: Panamax Container Cranes: 4

Port Website: http://www.panynj.gov/port/containerized-cargo.htmlPost-Panamax Container Cranes:

Terminal Website: www.asiterminals.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:


Outbound Gates: 1 CY Side or Top Loaders: Yes



On-Line Access System: Total CY Lift Machines 0


Reefer Plugs/Slots: 72 On-dock Rail (yes/no):

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:

2007 TEU

2006 TEU

2005 TEU

2004 TEU


Address:

Notes: Entrance Gates: Foot of Hamilton Avenue. Cranes: four active container cranes 1 Star-50-ton, 1 Kone-50-

ton, 2 Paceco-40-ton. 2 Liebherr-60-ton Toploaders-45-tons.

8am-4pm M-F

Global Marine Terminal (Exhibit 39) is a dedicated container terminal using a combination of

RTG, top-pick, and wheeled storage. The terminal has a total of 100 acres with 64 acres for CY

storage. Global operates two container berths with a total berth length of 1,800 feet. The Global

terminal is operated by Global Terminal & Container Services, LLC. Work is underway to

produce 50’ berth drafts at Global. In addition Global Marine Terminal is the one New Jersey

facility which is not affected by air draft restrictions imposed by the Bayonne Bridge.

Tioga

Exhibit 39: Global Marine Terminal


Port: Jersey City Total Acres: 100

Terminal: Global Marine Terminal CY Acres: 64

Terminal Type: RTG/Top-pick/Wheeled Combination On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

302 Port Jersey Blvd. Other Non-CY Acres: 15

Jersey City, NJ 07305 Net Terminal Acres: 85

Operator (Stevedore): Global Terminal & Container Services, Inc Berths: 2




E-Mail Address: [email protected] Panamax Container Cranes: 0

Port Website: http://www.panynj.gov/port/containerized-cargo.htmlPost-Panamax Container Cranes: 6

Terminal Website: www.global-terminal.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:

Inbound Gates: 9 CY Rubber-Tired Gantries: 10

Outbound Gates: 5 CY Side or Top Loaders: 9



On-Line Access System: Gate Cam Total CY Lift Machines 19

Appointment System: On-site M&R (yes/no): Yes


Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

(Diagram)

Notes: Entrance Gates: Port Jersey Boulevard. Cranes: 6 Quayside Container Cranes; 4 ZPMC -50 ton Post-Panamax container cranes

and 2 40 ton Starporter container Cranes. Mobile/Chassis container repair vans, 10 Chassis repair bays, 5 roadability lanes. Dredging

is underway to provide 50' berth capability.

6am-4pm M-F

Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) (Exhibit 40) is a dedicated container terminal using

a combination of RTG, top-pick, and wheeled storage. The terminal has a total of 176 acres with

139 acres for CY storage. PNCT operates six container berths with a total berth length of 4,400

feet. PNCT is operated by Ports America. The terminal operates ExpressRail Port Newark, as

well an auxiliary container yard located on nearby Marsh St.

Tioga

Exhibit 40: Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT)


Port: Port Newark Total Acres: 176

Terminal: PNCT CY Acres: 76

Terminal Type: Straddle/Top-pick/Wheeled On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

241 Calcutta St. Other Non-CY Acres: 41

Port Newark, NJ 07114 Net Terminal Acres: 135

Operator (Stevedore): PNCT a Ports America Subsidiary Berths: 6






Terminal Website: www.pnct.net CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:



Reversible Gates: CY Straddle Carriers: 72

Total Gates: 15 CY Reach Stackers: 6

On-Line Access System: Navis Total CY Lift Machines 90



Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

(Diagram)

Notes: Entrance Gates: Calcutta Street (Main Gate). Recent change closed Mohawk, Panama, and Maracaibo streets

to truck traffic. The terminal is now using a remote CY on Kellog Street.

6 to 6

0600-1600 Monday-Friday (August 2009)

Maher Terminal (Exhibit 41) is a dedicated container terminal using a combination of RTG and

seven-high top-pick empty container handlers. The terminal has a total of 445 acres with 273

acres for CY storage. Maher operates eight container berths with a total berth length of 10,128

feet. Maher is operated by Maher Terminals, LLC. The terminal shares operation of ExpressRail

Port Elizabeth with APM. The facility is totally grounded and chassis are stored in a nearby

depot. Empty containers are permitted on the terminal only with repositioning bookings.

Tioga

Exhibit 41: Maher Terminal


Port: Port Elizabeth Total Acres: 445

Terminal: Maher CY Acres: 273

Terminal Type: Straddle/Top-pick On-Dock Rail Acres: 41

1020 N. Fleet St. Other Non-CY Acres: 72

Elizabeth, NJ 07201 Net Terminal Acres: 332

Operator (Stevedore): Maher Terminals, Inc. Berths: 8






Terminal Website: www.maherterminals.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:


Outbound Gates: 25 CY Side or Top Loaders: Yes

Reversible Gates: CY Straddle Carriers: Yes

Total Gates: 53 CY Reach Stackers: Yes



Reefer Plugs/Slots: On-dock Rail (yes/no): Yes

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: Depth: 45-50 ft. Cranes: 6 Paceco – 30-ton, 2 Paceco Post Panamax – 50-ton. 5 Post Panamax – 60-

ton. Stackers 15-ton, 30-ton, and 5-ton. Toploader – 40-ton. ExpressRail Elizabeth is adjacent. Grounded

operation. Relies on remote empty con

M-F 6am - 10pm

APM Elizabeth Marine Terminal (Exhibit 42) is a dedicated container terminal using a

combination of RTG, top-pick and wheeled storage. The terminal has a total of 350 acres with

192 acres for CY storage. APM Elizabeth operates five container berths with a total berth length

of 6,001 feet. APM Elizabeth is operated by APM Terminals. The terminal shares operation of

ExpressRail Port Elizabeth with Maher.

Tioga

Exhibit 42: APM Elizabeth Marine Terminal


Port: Port Elizabeth Total Acres: 350

Terminal: APM CY Acres: 192

Terminal Type: RTG/Top-pick/Wheeled On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

5080 Lester St. Other Non-CY Acres: 61

Elizabeth, NJ 07207 Net Terminal Acres: 289

Operator (Stevedore): APM Terminals Berths: 5


Telephone Number: 908-558-6000 Channel Depth (MLLW): 45

Fax Number: 908- 558-6481 Berth Depth (MLLW): 50



Terminal Website: www.apmterminals.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:



Reversible Gates: 3 CY Straddle Carriers:


On-Line Access System: Navis Express and Navis Sparcs Total CY Lift Machines 63


Reefer Plugs/Slots: 1968 On-dock Rail (yes/no): yes

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

(Diagram)

Notes: Navis Express gate system. Navis Sparcs computerized stowage and yard operations system. 3 berths

@ 50 ft. others at 45 ft. 15 ship-to-shore cranes, 6 Paceco – 30-ton, 2 Paceco Post-Panamax – 50-ton, 4 ZPMC

Post-Panamax-50 ton. Adjacent to Ex

0600-2200 M-F

New York Container Terminal (NYCT) (Exhibit 43) is a dedicated container terminal using a

combination of top-pick and wheeled storage. The terminal has a total of 187 acres with 85 acres

for CY storage. NYCT operates three container berths with a total berth length of 3,012 feet.

NYCT is operated by New York Container Terminal, Inc. The terminal operates ExpressRail

Staten Island.

Tioga

Exhibit 43: New York Container Terminal


Port: New York Total Acres: 187

Terminal: New York Container Terminal CY Acres: 85

Terminal Type: Top-pick/Wheeled On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

300 Western Ave. Other Non-CY Acres: 20

Staten Island, NY 10303 Net Terminal Acres: 167

Operator (Stevedore):New York Container Terminal,

Inc.Berths: 3






Terminal Website: www.nycterminal.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:







Reefer Plugs/Slots: 477 On-dock Rail (yes/no): Yes

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: Entrance Gates: North Washington Ave & Western Ave. 4 IHI- 40-ton, 4 Liebher Cranes, 2 Paceco- 45

Ðton. Berths: 42 ft. for 2,300 feet of berth; 37 ft. for 700 feet of berth. 22 full container handlers; 9 empty container

handlers. Adjacent 37 a

Monday - Friday: 6:00am - 4:00pm


Exhibit 44 summarizes land use at the Port of New York and New Jersey. The combined acreage

of the container terminals is 1,338 acres. The net terminal area is 1,062 acres with 783 acres of

CY, yielding a CY/Gross ratio of 59%. The container acreage areas were estimated from the

aerial photos. As Exhibit 37 shows these legacy terminals have a significant amount of non-CY

Tioga

acreage. While most have been periodically reorganized and rationalized, they do not have the

“clean sheet of paper” configurations of the most modern terminals (e.g. APM Portsmouth or the

Mobile Container Terminal). As anticipated, Red Hook, which is a mixed use terminal, has the

lowest CY/Gross ratio.

Exhibit 44: Port of New York and New Jersey Land Use

Port Land Use Red Hook Global PNCT Maher APM NYCT Port Total

Gross Acres 80 100 176 445 350 187 1,338

CY Acres 30 64 139 273 192 85 783

Rail Acres - - - - - - -

Other Non-CY Acres 26 15 41 72 61 20 235

Net Berth/Gate/Yard Acres 54 85 135 332 289 167 1,062

CY/Gross Ratio 38% 64% 79% 61% 55% 45% 59%

Exhibit 45 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage from Exhibit 44. Applying

standard CY storage factors yields an estimated combined total of 125,320 TEU slots for the six

terminals. Annual sustainable CY TEU capacity is estimated to be 7.0 million TEU producing

annual utilization of 75% relative to 2008 volume of 5.2 million TEU.

Exhibit 45: Port of New York and New Jersey Near Term CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard Capacity Red Hook Global PNCT Maher APM NYCT Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots - 2,000 6,160 800 8,160 960 18,080

Grounded Straddle Carrier Slots - - 8,960 37,280 - - 46,240

Grounded Stacked Slots 6,000 3,000 1,200 6,000 8,000 14,600 38,800

Grounded RTG Slots - 7,200 - - 15,000 - 22,200

Grounded RMG Slots - - - - - - -

TEU Storage Slots 6,000 12,200 16,320 44,080 31,160 15,560 125,320

Avg TEU Slots/CY Acre 200 191 117 161 162 183 160

Maximum Annual Slot Turnover 70.0 70.0 71.0 72.0 73.0 70.0 70.0

Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 420,000 854,000 1,158,720 3,173,760 2,274,680 1,089,200 8,772,400

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 336,000 683,200 926,976 2,539,008 1,819,744 871,360 7,017,920

2008 Annual TEU - - - - - - 5,265,058

2008 TEU per CY Slot - - - - - - 42

2008 CY Capacity Utilization 75%

At this level of utilization spot shortages of CY capacity have occurred as trade ebbs and flows

and as carriers and business volume shifts between terminals. Maher established and has

maintained use of auxiliary chassis and empty container yards through the downturn. PNCT

gained a large new customer in late 2009 that created a demand for CY space that it was unable

to meet without adding an outside CY. Cargo is constantly being redistributed among the

terminals.

The use of off-terminal land to store chassis and empty containers at PANYNJ is a likely

harbinger of developments to come at other ports. in addition Maersk, the major tenant at APM

Terminals, has converted its carrier-provided chassis pool to a per-diem pool that can be used for

non-Maersk containers. These developments probably signal the start of a shift between the US-

only practice of carrier chassis supply via on-terminal fleets to trucker-supplied chassis, as is the

practice everywhere else. Moving chassis pools out of the terminals will increase throughput

capacity.

Crane Capacity

Exhibit 46 summarizes the Port of New York and New Jersey container cranes and their

estimated capacity. A total of 58 container cranes operate at the six PANYNJ container

Tioga

terminals. Panamax cranes are gradually being replaced and supplemented with Post-Panamax

and Super Post-Panamax varieties. Red Hook is the only terminal that does not have Post -

Panamax cranes. Annual crane capacity for the port is estimated to be 14.6 million TEU with

2008 utilization estimated at 36%.

Exhibit 46: Port of New York and New Jersey Near-term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity Red Hook Global PNCT Maher APM NYCT Port Total

Cranes 4 6 9 15 15 9 58

Available Crane Hours per Day 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Current Annual Operating Days 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Current Annual Hours/Crane 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Annual Available Crane Hours 16,000 24,000 36,000 60,000 60,000 36,000 232,000

Sustainable Hours @ 80% 12,800 19,200 28,800 48,000 48,000 28,800 185,600

Avg. TEU/Available Crane-hour - - - - - - 28.4

Avg. Annual TEU/Crane - - - - - - 90,777

Crane Capacity, Moves/hour 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

Sustainable Moves/Hr @ 80% 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

Port average TEU/container 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80

Crane Capacity TEU/hour 63 63 63 63 63 63 63

Annual Crane Capacity 1,008,000 1,512,000 2,268,000 3,780,000 3,780,000 2,268,000 14,616,000

Current Annual TEU - - - - - - 5,265,058

Current Crane Utilization 36%

As at other ports, the number of cranes is dictated by the need to unload and load vessels on

schedule, so crane utilization is effectively sacrificed in favor of vessel utilization.

Berth Capacity

The Port of New York and New Jersey’s berth capacity estimated in TEU for the maximum

vessel size is summarized in Exhibit 47 . This estimate generates near term berth capacity of 22.4

million TEU and berth utilization of 24%.

Exhibit 47: Port of New York and New Jersey Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis Red Hook Global PNCT Maher APM NYCT Port Total

Berths 2 2 6 8 5 3 26

Berth length 2,080 1,800 4,400 10,128 6,001 3,012 27,421

Berth Depth - Feet 42 43 50 50 45 35 50

Max Sailing Draft 39 40 47 47 42 32 47

Corresponding Design Draft @ 95% 41 42 49 49 44 34 49

Corresponding DWT 50,280 54,506 91,137 91,137 63,678 26,763 91,137

Nominal Max Vessel TEU 4,067 4,419 7,470 7,470 5,183 2,108 7,470

Corresponding Vessel Length - Feet 900 900 1,000 1,000 900 700 1,000

Vessel Spacing (Beam) 105 105 120 120 105 90 120

Length requirement 1,005 1,005 1,120 1,120 1,005 790 1,120

Available Berths for Max Vessel 2.0 2.0 4.0 9.0 6.0 4.0 27.0

Port average TEU/container 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72

2007 TEU 5,299,105

Avg. TEU/Vessel 2,079

Avg. Vessel DWT 48,220

Average Est. Vessel Capacity TEU 3,895

Average Discharge & Load % 53%

Average TEU per Max Vessel 3,987

Max annual calls per berth 260

Sustainable Calls per berth @ 80% 208

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 5,616

Annual Berth Capacity TEU 22,390,305

2008 Annual TEU - - - - - - 5,265,058

Berth Utilization, Max Vessel Basis 24%

Tioga

The PANYNJ average vessel discharge/load ratio of 53% is substantially higher than at Boston,

with which PANYNJ competes.

Berth capacity based on vessel calls is summarized in Ex ___. This approach generates a berth

capacity estimate of 7020 vessel calls and 2007 port berth utilization of 36% Exhibit 48.

Exhibit 48: Port of New York and New Jersey Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis Red Hook Global PNCT Maher APM NYCT Port Total

Est. Sustainable Calls per berth 5 / wk 260 260 260 260 260 260 260

Available Berths 2 2 4 9 6 4 27

Sustainable Calls per berth @ 80% 208 208 208 208 208 208 208

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 416 416 832 1,872 1,248 832 5,616

2007 Vessel calls 2549

2007 Berth Utilization 45%



and vessel berths for the Port of New York and New Jersey. The port currently has estimated

sustainable CY capacity of 8.8 million TEU with utilization at 75%. Current crane capacity for

the port’s 58 cranes is estimated to be 14.6 million TEU with utilization of 36%. Berth capacity

utilization on a vessel call basis is estimated to be 36%. On a TEU basis berth capacity is

estimated to be 4.4 million TEU with utilization of 24%.

Overall this analysis indicates that the Port of New York and New Jersey is potentially land

constrained, that spot shortages of CY space have been experienced, and that management

measures are being taken to both densify container yard storage and move non-essential features

off the main marine terminal. Capacity exists for growth in both crane and berth capacity.

Tioga

Exhibit 49: Port of New York and New Jersey Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space Red Hook Global PNCT Maher APM NYCT NYNJ

2008 TEU 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,265,058

Gross Acres 80 100 176 445 350 187 1,338CY Acres 30 64 139 273 192 85 783CY/Gross Ratio 38% 64% 79% 61% 55% 45% 59%Annual CY Capacity - TEU 420,000 854,000 1,158,720 3,173,760 2,274,680 1,089,200 8,772,400 Annual TEU/Gross Acre - - - - - - 3,935 Annual TEU/CY Acre - - - - - - 6,724 Est. CY TEU Slots 6,000 12,200 16,320 44,080 31,160 15,560 125,320 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 200 191 117 161 162 183 160 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) - - - - - - 42 CY Utilization 75%

Container Cranes Red Hook Global PNCT Maher APM NYCT NYNJ

Cranes 4 6 9 15 15 9 58

Cranes per Berth 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.9 3.0 3.0 2.2

Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 1,008,000 1,512,000 2,268,000 3,780,000 3,780,000 2,268,000 14,616,000

Avg. Moves/Available Crane-Hour - - - - - - 28.4

Annual TEU/Crane - - - - - - 90,777

Annual Moves/Crane - - - - - - 50,432

Annual Vessel Calls/Crane (2007) - - - - - 44

Crane Utilization 36%

Berths and Vessels Red Hook Global PNCT Maher APM NYCT NYNJ

Berths 2 2 6 8 5 3 26

Berth Feet 2,080 1,800 4,400 10,128 6,001 3,012 27,421

Annual Vessel Calls per Berth (2007) - - - - - - 98

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis 45%

Annual TEU per Berth - - - - - - 202,502

Annual TEU/Foot of Berth - - - - - - 192

Average Vessel Capacity - TEU - - - - - - 3,895

Est. Max. Vessel Capacity - TEU 4,067 4,419 7,470 7,470 5,183 2,108 7,470

Avg. vs. Max. Vessel Capacity 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 52%

Average TEU per Vessel (2007) - - - - - - 2,079

Avg. Vessel Utilization - % Discharge/Load 53%

Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis - - - - - - 11,675,078

Berth Utilization - Avg. Vessel Basis 45%

Avg. Discharge/Load per Max. Vessel 3,987

Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 22,390,305

Berth Utilization - Max. Vessel Basis 24%

Delaware River Ports

Overview

Because MARAD combines all ship call information for all ports on the Delaware River, this

estimate covers both the Port of Philadelphia and the Port of Wilmington, Delaware. Both

terminals handle frozen and refrigerated goods and have temperature and atmosphere controlled

on dock warehouses. Packer Terminal at Philadelphia handles steel and project cargo and has a

ro-ro berth. Wilmington’s largest customers are Dole and Chiquita and the terminal is the largest

banana port in the world.

Packer Marine Terminal (Exhibit 50) is a mixed use, legacy complex of container, Ro-Ro, and

break bulk terminals and berths. The container facilities are operated by Greenwich Terminals,

LLC which is a subsidiary of Holt Logistics. The Packer terminal has a total of 112 acres for all

of its operations. The container portion of the terminal is estimated to be 68 acres with 51 acres

of CY space. The Packer terminal operates 5 berths for all of its operations with a total berth

length of 3,800 feet.

Tioga

Exhibit 50: Packer Marine Terminal

Profle date: Sept. 27, 2009 2008 TEU: 255994

Port: Philadelphia Total Acres: 112

Terminal: Packer Ave. CY Acres: 51


3301 S. Columbus Blvd. Other Non-CY Acres: 17

Philadelphia, PA 19148 Net Terminal Acres: 68

Operator (Stevedore): Greenwich Terminals. LLC Berths: 5



Fax Number: Berth Depth (MLLW): 40


Port Website: www.philaport.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes:

Terminal Website: www.holtlogistics.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:







Reefer Plugs/Slots: 1,350 On-dock Rail (yes/no): No

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: Separate gate for breakbulk cargo. 6 berths, 1 RO/RO. Cranes: 2 Hyundai container cranes (65 T) (Twin

lift capable), 1 Kocks container crane: 375 tons (340.1 metric tons), 3 Kocks container cranes: 45 tons each (40.8

metric to), 1 Paceco container crane

Tioga

Exhibit 51 is an aerial view of Packer Marine Terminal.

Exhibit 51: Packer Marine Terminal, Philadelphia

Source: Google Earth Image Date July 4, 2007

Wilmington Marine Terminal (Exhibit 52) is a mixed-use marine terminal complex for

container, Ro-Ro, and break bulk cargo. The terminal is owned by the state and operated by

Delaware River Stevedores, Inc. The Wilmington terminal has a total of 308 acres for all of its

operations. The container portion of the terminal is estimated to be 83 acres with 59 acres of CY

space. The Wilmington terminal operates 2 berths for its container operations with a total berth

length of 1,500 feet.

The terminal also handles palletized fruit, beef, automobiles, and dry bulk, such as petroleum-

coke, road salt, and magnetite. The Port facilities include seven deepwater general cargo berths,

a tanker berth, a floating berth for Ro-Ro vessels on the Christina River, and an auto and Ro-Ro

berth on the Delaware River.

Containerized handling equipment includes two multi-purpose gantry cranes, each with 50-ton

capacity.

Tioga

Exhibit 52 Wilmington Marine Terminal

Profle date: April 8, 2010 2008 TEU: 267684

Port: Delaware Bay Total Acres: 308

Terminal: Wilmington CY Acres: 69


1 Hausel Road Other Non-CY Acres: 14

Wilmington, DE 19801-5852 Net Terminal Acres: 83

Operator (Stevedore): Delaware River Stevedores Berths: 2





Port Website: http://www.portofwilmington.com/ Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 0

Terminal Website: http://www.d-r-s.com/wilmington.htmlCY Rail-Mounted Gantries:

Inbound Gates: CY Rubber-Tired Gantries:

Outbound Gates: CY Side or Top Loaders:



On-Line Access System: Total CY Lift Machines


Reefer Plugs/Slots: Temprature and Atmosphere On-dock Rail (yes/no): No

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Tioga

Exhibit 53 is an aerial view of the Wilmington marine terminal.

Exhibit 53: Wilmington Marine Terminal, Wilmington, DE

Source: Google Earth Image Date August 6, 2009


Exhibit 54 summarizes land use at the Delaware River container ports. The combined acreage of

the Packer container terminal and the Wilmington container terminal areas is 420 acres. The CY

area is 120 acres creating net land use of 29%. Both terminals, but particularly Wilmington, are

mixed use facilities.

Exhibit 54: Delaware River Ports Land Use

Port Land Use Packer Wilmington Port Total

Gross Acres 112 308 420

CY Acres 51 69 120

Rail Acres - - -

Other Non-CY Acres 17 14 31

Net Berth/Gate/Yard Acres 68 83 151

CYGross Ratio 46% 22% 29%

Exhibit 55 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage from Exhibit 63. Based on

interpretation of aerial photos, Packer is about 12% wheeled and 88% grounded with top-picks.

Wilmington’s CY is currently 100% wheeled. Applying these percentages to the standard CY

storage factors yields an estimated combined total of 15,000 TEU slots for the two terminals.

Annual CY sustainable TEU capacity is estimated to be 1.1 million TEU producing annual

utilization of 68% relative to 2008 volume of 575,000 TEU.

Tioga

Exhibit 55: Delaware River Ports Near Term CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard Capacity Packer Wilmington Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots 480 5,520 6,000

Grounded Straddle Carrier Slots - - -

Grounded Stacked Slots 9,000 - 9,000

Grounded RTG Slots - - -

Grounded RMG Slots - - -

TEU Storage Slots 9,480 5,520 15,000

Avg TEU Slots/CY Acre 186 80 125

Maximum Annual Slot Turnover 70.0 70.0 70.0

Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 663,600 386,400 1,050,000

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 530,880 309,120 840,000

2008 Annual TEU 307,192 267,684 574,876

2008 TEU per CY Slot 32 48 38

2008 CY Capacity Utilization 58% 87% 68%

Crane Capacity

Exhibit 56 summarizes the Delaware River Ports container cranes and their estimated capacity.

Eight Panamax container cranes operate at the two terminals. Annual crane capacity for the port

is estimated to be 2.0 million TEU with 2008 utilization at 29%. Both Packer and Wilmington

have additional cranes for heavy lifting.

Exhibit 56: Delaware River Ports Near-term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity Packer Wilmington Port Total

Cranes 6 2 8

Available Crane Hours per Day 16 16 16

Current Annual Operating Days 250 250 250

Current Annual Hours/Crane 4,000 4,000 4,000

Annual Available Crane Hours 24,000 8,000 32,000

Sustainable Hours @ 80% 19,200 6,400 25,600

Avg. TEU/Available Crane-hour 16.0 41.8 22.5

Avg. Annual TEU/Crane 51,199 133,842 71,860

Crane Capacity, Moves/hour 35 35 35

Sustainable Moves/Hr @ 80% 28 28 28

Port average TEU/container 1.80 2.00 1.80

Crane Capacity TEU/hour 63 70 63

Annual Crane Capacity 1,512,000 560,000 2,016,000

Current Annual TEU 307,192 267,684 574,876

Current Crane Utilization 20% 48% 29%

Berth Capacity

The Delaware River Ports’ container berth capacity estimated in TEU for the maximum vessel

size is summarized in Exhibit 57. This estimate generates near-term berth capacity of 2.0 million

TEU and berth utilization of 29%. Berth capacity based on vessel calls is summarized in Exhibit

57. This approach generates a berth capacity estimate of 2600 vessel calls and 2007 port berth

utilization of 32%.

Tioga

Exhibit 57: Delaware River Ports Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis Packer Wilmington Port Total

Berths 5 2 8

Berth length 3,800 1,500 5,300

Berth Depth - Feet 40 38 40

Max Sailing Draft 37 35 37

Corresponding Design Draft @ 95% 39 37 39

Corresponding DWT 42,512 40,000 42,512

Nominal Max Vessel TEU 3,420 3,210 3,420

Corresponding Vessel Length - Feet 800 800 800

Vessel Spacing (Beam) 105 105 105

Length requirement 905 905 905

Available Berths for Max Vessel 4.0 2.0 6.0


2007 TEU 287,552 284,352 571,904







Sustainable Calls per berth @ 80% 208

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 1,248

Annual Berth Capacity TEU - - 1,971,103

2008 Annual TEU 307,192 267,684 574,876


The maximum vessel size for Philadelphia and Wilmington is constrained by channel and berth

depth. The proposed Delaware River dredging project has been repeatedly delayed and is now

being held up by a dispute between the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If eventually

completed, the project would provide a 45-foot channel to the Packer and Wilmington

Terminals. The deeper channel would raise the maximum vessel size to an estimated 5,183

TEU, and increase long-term berth capacity to roughly 3 million TEU.

Exhibit 58: Delaware River Ports Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis Packer Wilmington Port Total

Max annual calls per berth 260 260 260

Sustainable Calls per berth @ 80% 208 208 208

Available Berths 4 2 6

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 832 416 1,248





and vessel berths for the Delaware River Container Ports. The port region currently has

estimated sustainable CY capacity of 840,000 TEU with utilization at 68%. Current crane

Tioga

capacity for the port’s 16 cranes is estimated to be 2.0 million TEU with utilization of 29%.

Berth capacity utilization on a vessel call basis is estimated to be 32%. On a TEU basis berth

capacity is estimated to be 2.0 million TEU with utilization of 29%. Overall this analysis

indicates that the Delaware River Ports have adequate capacity to handle future growth.

Exhibit 59: Delaware River Ports Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space Packer Wilmington Delaware River

2008 TEU 307,192 267,684 574,876


CY Acres 51 69 120

CY/Gross Ratio 46% 22% 29%

Annual CY Capacity - TEU 530,880 309,120 840,000

Annual TEU/Gross Acre 2,743 869 1,369

Annual TEU/CY Acre 6,023 3,879 4,791

Est. CY TEU Slots 9,480 5,520 15,000

Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 186 80 125

Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 32 48 38

CY Utilization 58% 87% 68%

Container Cranes Packer Wilmington Delaware River

Cranes 6 2 8

Cranes per Berth 1.5 1.0 1.6

Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 1,512,000 560,000 2,016,000

Avg. Moves/Available Crane-Hour 16.0 41.8 22.5

Annual TEU/Crane 51,199 133,842 71,860

Annual Moves/Crane 28,444 66,921 39,922

Annual Vessel Calls/Crane (2007) 62

Crane Utilization 20% 48% 29%

Berths and Vessels Packer Wilmington Delaware River

Berths 4 2 5

Berth Feet 3,800 1,500 5,300

Annual Vessel Calls per Berth (2007) 62


Annual TEU per Berth 76,798 133,842 114,975

Annual TEU/Foot of Berth 81 178 108

Average Vessel Capacity - TEU 2,482

Est. Max. Vessel Capacity - TEU 3,420 3,210 3,420

Avg. vs. Max. Vessel Capacity 73%

Average TEU per Vessel (2007) 1,146


Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 1,430,333





Like the Port of Boston, the Port of Philadelphia competes with the PANYNJ. Some ocean

carriers currently offer Philadelphia bills of lading via truck service to and from PANYNJ.

Philadelphia’s market share thus appears to have been reduced by a variation on load centering.

Tioga

Port of Baltimore

Overview

The Port of Baltimore has two container terminals owned by the Maryland Port Administration.

The Seagirt Marine Terminal is a dedicated container terminal and the Dundalk Marine terminal

is a mixed-use port facility. Exhibit 60 is an aerial view of the port with the container operating

areas outlined in red.

Exhibit 60: Port of Baltimore

Source: Google Earth Image Date February 28, 2007

Dundalk (Exhibit 61) is a legacy complex of container, Ro-Ro, and break bulk terminals and

berths. The container facilities are operated by Ports America and Ceres stevedoring companies.

Unlike most dedicated container terminals there is no exclusive relationship between gates,

container yard, berths, and cranes. The Dundalk terminal has a total of 570 acres for all of its

operations. However, the container portion of the terminal is estimated to be 202 acres with 94

acres of CY space. The Dundalk terminal operates 7 berths for all of its operations with a total

berth length of 5,692 feet.

Seagirt (Exhibit 62) is a dedicated container terminal using a combination of RTG, top-pick, and

wheeled storage. The terminal has a total of 256 acres with 134 acres for CY storage. The

terminal acreage also includes a 66 acre on dock rail intermodal terminal which is operated by

CSX. Seagirt operates three container berths with a total berth length of 3,127 feet. The Seagirt

terminal was leased to Ports America Chesapeake in a 50-year concession agreement in January

of 2010. One of the provisions of the agreement is that Ports America has agreed to construct a

new 50-foot draft berth at Seagirt.

Tioga

Exhibit 61: Dundalk Marine Terminal

Profle date: Sept. 27, 2009 2008 TEU: 144,000

Port: Baltimore, Maryland Total Acres: 202

Terminal: Dundalk Marine Terminal CY Acres: 94

Terminal Type: Container, RoRo & Breakbulk On-Dock Rail Acres: NA

2700 Broening Highway Other Non-CY Acres: 108

Baltimore, MD 21222 Net Terminal Acres: 94

Operator (Stevedore): Ports America (410-282-4260) Berths: 7


Telephone Number: 410-633-1043 Channel Depth (MLLW): 42' & 38'

Fax Number: 410-633-3273 Berth Depth (MLLW): 42'


Port Website: www.marylandports.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes:

Terminal Website: www.portsamerica.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:

Inbound Gates: 5 container, 4 non container CY Rubber-Tired Gantries:




On-Line Access System: eModal & Navis Total CY Lift Machines 0

Appointment System: no On-site M&R (yes/no):


Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

(Diagram)

Notes: 570 acres includes container, general cargo and automobile facilities. 94 acres of container storage. Seagirt ICTF

operated by CSX is adjacent to Dundalk, Norfolk Southern Baltimore terminal about 4 miles. Dundalk and Seagirt terminals

are connected by internal connector bridge.

Mon – Fri 0700-1600

Mon – Fri 0630-1800

Tioga

Exhibit 62: Seagirt Marine Terminal


Port: Maryland Total Acres: 256

Terminal: Seagirt Marine, Baltimore CY Acres: 134

Terminal Type: Container Terminal On-Dock Rail Acres: 66

2600 Broening Highway Other Non-CY Acres: 56

Baltimore, MD 21224 Net Terminal Acres: 190

Operator (Stevedore): Ports America (410-288-8602) Berths: 3


Telephone Number: 410-288-8602 Channel Depth (MLLW): 50'



Port Website: www.marylandports.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 7

Terminal Website: www.portsamerica.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:





On-Line Access System: eModal & Navis Total CY Lift Machines 12

Appointment System: no On-site M&R (yes/no): no

Reefer Plugs/Slots: 192 On-dock Rail (yes/no): yes

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

(Diagram)

Notes: Seagirt near dock terminal operated by CSX is contiguous to the marine terminal, Norfolk Southern Baltimore

terminal 3-4 miles. Dundalk and Seagirt terminals are connected by internal connector bridge.

Mon – Fri 0700-1700

Tioga


Exhibit 63 summarizes the land use at the Port of Baltimore. The combined acreage of the

Seagirt container terminal and the Dundalk container terminal areas is 458 acres. The CY

terminal area is 336 acres creating a CY/gross ratio of 73%. The container acreage areas for

Dundalk were estimated from the aerial photos. Only the estimated container areas for the

Dundalk terminal were considered in this analysis. The inclusion of 66 acres of rail intermodal

operations within Seagirt lowers the net/gross ratio.

Exhibit 63: Port of Baltimore Land Use

Port Land Use Seagirt Dundalk Port Total


CY Acres 134 94 228

Rail Acres 66 - 66




Exhibit 64 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage from Exhibit 63. Based on

interpretation of aerial photos, Dundalk is about 31% wheeled and 69% grounded with top-picks.

Seagirt’s CY is currently 15% wheeled, 49% grounded with top-picks, and 36% grounded with

RTGs. Applying these percentages to the standard CY storage factors yields an estimated

combined total of 47,040 TEU slots for the two terminals. Annual CY sustainable TEU capacity

is estimated to be 2.6 million TEU producing annual utilization of 23% relative to 2008 volume

of 613,000 TEU.

Exhibit 64: Port of Baltimore Near Term CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard Capacity Seagirt Dundalk Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots 1,280 2,160 3,440


Grounded Stacked Slots 10,400 13,400 23,800

Grounded RTG Slots 19,800 - 19,800





Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 2,203,600 1,089,200 3,292,800

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 1,762,880 871,360 2,634,240

2008 Annual TEU 469,000 144,000 613,000



Crane Capacity

Exhibit 65 summarizes the Port of Baltimore container cranes and their estimated capacity. The

port operates 16 cranes at its two terminals. Seagirt’s modern, dual-hoist, post-Panamax cranes

are exceptionally productive. Dundalk’s Panamax cranes are older, and are not heavily used.

Annual crane capacity for the port is estimated to be 3.5 million TEU with 2008 utilization at

18%. The low port average is due to the underutilized cranes at Dundalk.

Tioga

Exhibit 65: Port of Baltimore Near-term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity Seagirt Dundalk Port Total

Cranes 7 9 16












Annual Crane Capacity 1,518,651 1,952,551 3,471,202



Berth Capacity

The Port of Baltimore’s berth capacity estimated in TEU for the maximum vessel size is

summarized in Exhibit 66. This estimate generates near term berth capacity of 8.4 million TEU

and berth utilization of 7%. Berth capacity based on vessel calls is summarized in Exhibit 67.

This approach generates a berth capacity estimate of 2600 vessel calls and 2007 port berth

utilization of 16%. It is clear that the berth utilization estimates are somewhat understated

because the Dundalk terminal berths are utilized for more than just container ships.

Tioga

Exhibit 66: Port of Baltimore Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis Seagirt Dundalk Port Total

Berths 3 7 10

Berth length 3,127 5,692 8,819






Corresponding Vessel Length - Feet 1,000 900 1,000


Length requirement 1,120 1,005 1,120



2007 TEU 610,000





Average TEU per Max Vessel 4,499 4,499 4,499

Max annual calls per Berth 260 260 260

Sustainable Vessel Calls @ 80% 208 208 208

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 624 1,248 1,872

Annual Berth Capacity TEU 2,807,639 5,615,278 8,422,918

2008 Annual TEU 469,000 144,000 613,000

Berth Utilization, Max Vessel Basis 17% 3% 7%

Exhibit 67: Port of Baltimore Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis Seagirt Dundalk Port Total

Max annual calls per Berth 260 260 260



Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 624 1,456 2,080

2007 Vessel Calls 427




and vessel berths for the Port of Baltimore. The port currently has estimated sustainable CY

capacity of 2.6 million TEU with utilization at 23%. Current crane capacity for the port’s 16

cranes is estimated to be 3.5 million TEU with utilization of 18%. Berth capacity utilization on a

vessel call basis is estimated to be 16%. On a TEU basis berth capacity is estimated to be 4.4

million TEU with utilization of 7%. Overall this analysis indicates that the Port of Baltimore has

adequate capacity to handle future growth.

Tioga

Exhibit 68: Port of Baltimore Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space Seagirt Dundalk Baltimore

2008 TEU 469,000 144,000 613,000

Gross Acres 256 202 458CY Acres 134 94 228CY/Gross Ratio 52% 47% 50%Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 1,762,880 871,360 2,634,240 Annual TEU/Gross Acre 1,832 713 1,338 Annual TEU/CY Acre 3,500 1,532 2,689 Est. CY TEU Slots 31,480 15,560 47,040 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 235 166 206 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 15 9 13 CY Utilization 27% 17% 23%

Container Cranes Seagirt Dundalk Baltimore

Cranes 7 9 16


Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 1,518,651 1,952,551 3,471,202


Annual TEU/Crane 67,000 16,000 38,313




Berths and Vessels Seagirt Dundalk Baltimore

Berths 3 7 10

Berth Feet 3,127 5,692 8,819






Est. Max. Vessel Capacity - TEU 7,470









The low utilization figures for the Port of Baltimore as a whole are driven by the use of part of

the legacy Dundalk terminal for containers. Utilization of the Seagirt terminal is still low, but

more in line with other ports. One option raised by the channel and berth deepening associated

with Ports America operation of Seagirt is concentration of all Baltimore container activity there.

Tioga

Port of Virginia

Overview

The Port of Virginia2 has four container terminals, three that are operated by the Virginia

International Terminals, Inc. (VIT) and one a private terminal operated by APM Terminals. VIT

is a corporation owned by the Commonwealth through the local Port Authority (VPA). Exhibit

69 is a map of the region identifying the major marine container terminal facilities. Craney

Island has been identified as a large future development site.

Exhibit 69: Port of Hampton Roads

Source: Tioga Group 2010, Data available from the Port Authority Web Site.

There is an important distinction in the numbers that follow and a difference in approach when

compared with other port capacity estimates. The Port of Virginia’s three terminals reported 2.1

million TEU in 2008. There is no separate report of TEU from APM Virginia, which opened in

September 2007. Ratios involving TEU therefore apply only to the three Port of Virginia

terminals. Vessel call information for 2007 is from a different source and includes the first calls

made at APM Virginia; therefore ratios involving vessel calls apply to all four terminals.

Approximately a third of the containers move west by rail. This percentage is expected to

increase with the completion of Norfolk Southern’s Heartland Corridor project anticipated in

2010. The project will result in a new intermodal route between Hampton Roads, Va., and

Chicago which is approximately 200 miles shorter that the present double stack rail route via

Harrisburg, PA. A low percentage of the cargo remains in the Norfolk area.

A further increase in marine terminal capacity is anticipated with the development of the 600-

acre Craney Island site. The first phase includes a 220 acre container yard, 3000 feet of berth,

an on-dock rail facility, and eight cranes. The ultimate build out is projected with 20 Suez-

class cranes and 8,400 feet of berth space. The first phase could be complete as early as 2017.

2 Port of Virginia is the adopted and preferred term for the complex of Hampton Roads, Norfolk, Newport News, and Portsmouth terminals.

Tioga

Norfolk International Terminal (NIT) (Exhibit 70) is a legacy complex of container, bulk,

break bulk, and warehouse facilities. The terminal is operated by Virginia International

Terminals, Inc. Norfolk International Terminal (NIT) is the Port of Virginia's largest container

facility using a combination of straddle carrier, top-pick, and wheeled storage. NIT

has fourteen Super Post-Panamax cranes with a reach stretching 245 feet. The main channel

leading to the terminal is 50 feet deep and is being deepened to 55 feet. The terminal has an

on-dock rail intermodal terminal which is served by Norfolk Southern.

Exhibit 70: Norfolk International Terminal

Profile date: 2/4/2010 2008 TEU:

Port: The Port of Virginia Total Acres: 320

Terminal: Norfolk International Terminals CY Acres: 152

Terminal Type: Straddle/Wheeled/CombinationOn-Dock Rail Acres (includes area

for rail operations):10

7737 Hampton Blvd. Other Non-CY Acres: 0

Norfolk, VA 23505 Net Terminal Acres: 310

Operator (Stevedore): Virginia International Terminals (VIT) Berths (container/total): 5

Contact Name:Russell Held, Deputy Executive Director,

DevelopmentTotal Berth Length: 6,000


Fax Number: 757-683-8500 Berth Depth (MLLW): 48

E-Mail Address: [email protected] Panamax Container Cranes*: 0

Port Website: www.portofvirginia.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 14

Terminal Website: www.vit.org CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:

Inbound Gates: Depends on traffic flows CY Rubber-Tired Gantries:

Outbound Gates: Depends on traffic flows CY Side or Top Loaders:




Appointment System: In the process of implementing On-site M&R (yes/no): Yes


Terminal Hours: 24/7 with exception of holidays

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: *All Post-Panamax container cranes also meet Panamax descriptions. Total container berth length is 6530 ft. Intermodal: On dock

intermodal terminal served by NS.

Monday through Friday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM - Dispatches Stop at 4:15 PM; LTL: 7:00 AM - 5: PM (Must

Tioga

Portsmouth Marine Terminal (PMT) (Exhibit 71) is a dedicated container terminal using a

combination of straddle carrier, top-pick, and wheeled storage. The terminal has a total of 219

acres with 109 acres for CY storage. PMT operates three container berths with a total length of

3,540 feet. All areas have been estimated from aerial photographs. The PMT is operated by

Virginia International Terminals, Inc. The facility has direct access to both Norfolk Southern

and CSX Railroads.

Exhibit 71: Portsmouth Marine Terminal



Terminal: Portsmouth Marine Terminal CY Acres: 109

Terminal Type: Straddle/Top-pick/Wheeled On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

2000 Seaboard Ave. Other Non-CY Acres: 20

Portsmouth, VA 23707 Net Terminal Acres (BGY): 199

Operator (Stevedore): Virginia International Terminals (VIT) Berths: 3





E-Mail Address: [email protected] Panamax Container Cranes*: 3








Appointment System: In the process of implementing On-site M&R (yes/no): Yes

Reefer Plugs/Slots: 150 On-dock Rail (yes/no): (rail service) No


Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: *All Post-Panamax cranes also meet Panamax descriptions, cranes that only meet the description of Panamax and not Post-

Panamax are listed in this column. CSX Portsmouth intermodal terminal is adjacent to PMT and NS Chesapeake terminal is within draft.

Monday through Friday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM - Dispatches Stop at 4:15 PM

Newport News Marine Terminal (NNMT) (Exhibit 72) is primarily a break-bulk terminal.

Container facilities are limited to two berths, five Panamax cranes, and a 23-acre container yard.

Tioga

Exhibit 72: Newport News Marine Terminal (NNMT)



Terminal: Newport News Marine Terminal CY Acres: 23

Terminal Type: Top-pick/Wheeled/CombinationOn-Dock Rail Acres: (includes area

for rail operations)6

25th St. & Warwick Blvd. Other Non-CY Acres: 70

Newport New, VA 23807 Net Terminal Acres: 65

Operator (Stevedore): Virginia International Terminals (VIT) Berths (Container/Total): 2








Inbound Gates: Depends on traffic flow CY Rubber-Tired Gantries:

Outbound Gates: Depends on traffic flow CY Side or Top Loaders:




Appointment System: On-site M&R (yes/no): No

Reefer Plugs/Slots: 72 On-dock Rail (yes/no): (rail service) No


Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: Container berth length is 1930 ft. CSX Portsmouth terminal and NS Chesapeake terminal within drayage distance. Currently

no on-dock rail service, however, on-dock rail access exists. Newport news handles both containers and breakbulk and ro/ro

containers.

Hours: Monday through Friday 8:00 AM - 12 noon, 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM - Dispatches Stop at 4:30 PM LTL:

APM Terminals, Virginia (Exhibit 73) is a new, highly automated container terminal which

opened in September 2007. The terminal uses RMGs in the main storage area. Some wheeled

storage is provided for expedited and unusual cargo. The terminal has a total of 230 acres, a

significant portion of which remains undeveloped. The facility is operated by APM Terminals

and has a dedicated on-dock rail facility with open access for CSX and Norfolk Southern. The

Tioga

terminal is one of the few outside Southern California that operates with a motor carrier

appointment system.

Exhibit 73: APM Terminals Virginia



Terminal: APM Virginia CY Acres: 78

Terminal Type: On-Dock Rail Acres : 34

1000 APM Terminals Boulevard Other Non-CY Acres: 122

Portsmouth, VA 23703 Net Terminal Acres: 108

Operator (Stevedore): APM Terminals Berths (container/total): 4

Contact Name: Allison Lovick Total Berth Length: 3,200

Telephone Number: 757.686.6000 Channel Depth (MLLW): 50


E-Mail Address: [email protected] Container Cranes*:

Port Website: Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 6

Terminal Website: http://www.apmterminals.com/americas/virginia/CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 30



Reversible Gates: 0 CY Straddle Carriers: 20


On-Line Access System: Yes, Navis Total CY Lift Machines 50

Appointment System: Yes On-site M&R (yes/no): Yes

Reefer Plugs/Slots: 300+ On-dock Rail (yes/no): Yes

Terminal Hours: 0700-1700 M-F

Gate Hours:


Address:

0700-1600 M-F Dispatch and Recieveing Cut Off

Notes: New Terminal opened September 7, 2007. Rail terminal is immediately adjacent and is operated by

APM Terminals. 2 additonal RTG in Rail Terminal.


Exhibit 74 summarizes land use at the Port of Virginia. The combined acreage of the container

terminals is 910 acres. The net terminal area is 569 acres creating net land use of 63%, with a

CY/gross ratio of 40%. As anticipated, NNMT which is a mixed use terminal has the lowest

net/gross ratio. Only the southern portion of the Norfolk International Terminals was evaluated

Tioga

in this effort; the northern portion contains finger piers and covered storage. The CY/Gross

ratios in Exhibit 67 are low compared to other ports due to the mix of uses at NIT and NNMT

and the undeveloped area at APM.

Exhibit 74: Port of Virginia Land Use

Port Land Use NIT NNMT PMT VPA Total APM Virginia Port Total

Gross Acres 320 141 219 680 230 910

CY Acres 152 23 109 284 78 362

Rail Acres 10 6 - 16 34 50

Other Non-CY Acres 108 70 - 178 88 266

Net Berth/Gate/Yard Acres 202 65 194 461 108 569

CY/Gross Ratio 48% 16% 50% 42% 34% 40%

Exhibit 75 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage from Exhibit 74. Applying

standard CY storage factors yields an estimated combined total of 68,360 TEU slots for the four

terminals. Annual CY sustainable TEU capacity is estimated to be 3.1 million TEU for the VPA

terminals only, producing annual utilization of 83% relative to 2008 volume of 2.1 million TEU.

The CY utilization rate points to the need for the future development of the Craney Island

terminal facility.

Exhibit 75: Port of Virginia Near Term CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard Capacity NIT NNMT PMT VPA Total APM Virginia Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots 3,040 240 2,200 5,480 1,200 6,680

Grounded Straddle Carrier Slots 16,960 - 8,720 25,680 - 25,680

Grounded Stacked Slots 1,600 600 3,800 6,000 - 6,000

Grounded RTG Slots - 5,100 2,400 7,500 - 7,500

Grounded RMG Slots - - - - 22,500 22,500

TEU Storage Slots 21,600 5,940 17,120 44,660 23,700 68,360

Avg TEU Slots/CY Acre 142 258 157 124 306 189

Maximum Annual Slot Turnover 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70

Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 1,512,000 415,800 1,198,400 3,126,200 1,659,000 4,785,200

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 1,209,600 332,640 958,720 2,500,960 1,327,200 3,828,160

2008 Annual TEU - - - 2,083,278 -

2008 TEU per CY Slot - - - 47 -

2008 CY Capacity Utilization 83%

Crane Capacity

Exhibit 76 summarizes the Port of Virginia container cranes and their estimated capacity. A total

of 34 container cranes operate at the four Virginia container terminals. Older cranes are

gradually being replaced and supplemented with post-Panamax and Suez-class varieties. NNMT

is the only terminal that does not have Post Panamax cranes. Annual crane capacity for the port

is estimated to be 8.6 million TEU with 2008 utilization at the VPA terminals estimated at 30%.

Tioga

Exhibit 76: Port of Virginia Near-term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity NIT NNMT PMT VPA Total APM Virginia Port Total

Cranes 14 5 9 28 6 34

Available Crane Hours per Day 16 16 16 16 16 32

Current Annual Operating Days 250 250 250 250 250 250

Current Annual Hours/Crane 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Annual Available Crane Hours 56,000 20,000 36,000 112,000 24,000 136,000

Sustainable Hours @ 80% 44,800 16,000 28,800 89,600 19,200 108,800

Avg. TEU/Available Crane-hour - - - 23.3 -

Avg. Annual TEU/Crane - - - 74,403 -

Crane Capacity, Moves/hour 35 35 35 35 35

Sustainable Moves/Hr @ 80% 28 28 28 28 28

Port average TEU/container 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80

Crane Capacity TEU/hour 63 63 63 63 63

Annual Crane Capacity 3,528,000 1,260,000 2,268,000 7,056,000 1,512,000 8,568,000

Current Annual TEU - - - 2,083,278 -


Berth Capacity

The Port of Virginia’s berth capacity estimated in TEU for the maximum vessel size is

summarized in Exhibit 77. This estimate generates near-term berth capacity of 4.5 million TEU

and berth utilization of 46%.

Exhibit 77: Port of Virginia Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis NIT NNMT PMT VPA Total

Berths 5 2 3 10

Berth length 6,000 1,920 3,540 11,460

Berth Depth - Feet 49 49 43 49

Max Sailing Draft 46 46 40 46

Corresponding Design Draft @ 95% 48 48 42 48

Corresponding DWT 85,099 85,099 54,506 85,099

Nominal Max Vessel TEU 6,967 6,967 4,419 6,967

Corresponding Vessel Length - Feet 1,000 1,000 900 1,000

Vessel Spacing (Beam) 120 120 105 120

Length requirement 1,120 1,120 1,005 1,120

Available Berths for Max Vessel 5.0 2.0 4.0 11.0

Port average TEU/container 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76

2007 TEU 2,128,366







Sustainable Calls per berth @ 80% - - - 208

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls - - - 2,288

Annual Berth Capacity TEU - - - 4,489,798

2008 Annual TEU - - - 2,083,278


Berth capacity for all of the Port of Virginia terminals based on vessel calls is summarized in

Exhibit 78 This approach generates a berth capacity estimate of 3,640 vessel calls and a berth

utilization of 53% based on 2007 vessel calls.

Tioga

Exhibit 78: Port of Virginia Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis NIT PMT NNMT APM Virginia Port Total

Max annual calls per berth 260 260 260 260 260

Sustainable Calls per berth @ 80% 208 208 208 208 208

Available Berths 5 2 3 4 14

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 1,040 416 624 832 2,912

2007 Vessel calls 1,940


The Port of Virginia is pursuing a 55-foot channel depth to handle larger bulk vessels as well as

the expected influx of large container ships form the new Panama Canal locks.



and vessel berths for the Port of Hampton Roads. The port currently has estimated sustainable

CY capacity of 4.8 million TEU, with VPA utilization at 83%. Current crane capacity for the

port’s 34 cranes is estimated to be 8.6 million TEU with VPA utilization at 30%. Berth capacity

utilization on a vessel call basis is estimated to be 53%. On a TEU basis berth capacity at VPA

ports is estimated to be 4.4 million TEU with utilization of 46%.

Tioga

Exhibit 79: Port of Hampton Roads Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space NIT NNMT PMT VPA APM Virginia Port Total

2008 TEU 2,083,278

Gross Acres 320 141 219 680 230 910CY Acres 152 23 109 284 77.5 362CY/Gross Ratio 48% 16% 50% 42% 34% 40%Annual CY Capacity - TEU 1,512,000 415,800 1,198,400 3,126,200 1,659,000 4,785,200Annual TEU/Gross Acre - - - 3,064 -

Annual TEU/CY Acre - - - 7,335 -

Est. CY TEU Slots 21,600 5,940 17,120 44,660 23,700 68,360Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 142 258 157 124 306 189 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) - - - 47 -

CY Utilization 83%

Container Cranes NIT NNMT PMT VPA APM Virginia Port Total

Cranes 14 5 9 28 6 34

Cranes per Berth 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.8 1.5 2.4

Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 3,528,000 1,260,000 2,268,000 7,056,000 1,512,000 8,568,000

Avg. Moves/Available Crane-Hour - - - 23.3

Annual TEU/Crane - - - 74,403

Annual Moves/Crane - - - 41,335



Berths and Vessels NIT NNMT PMT VPA APM Virginia Port Total

Berths 5 2 3 10 4 14

Berth Feet 6,000 1,920 3,540 11,460 3,200 14,660

Annual Vessel Calls per Berth (2007) - - - 139


Annual TEU per Berth - - - 208,328

Annual TEU/Foot of Berth - - - 182

Average Vessel Capacity - TEU - - - 3,895

Est. Max. Vessel Capacity - TEU 6,967


Average TEU per Vessel (2007) - - - 1,097


Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis - - - 2,510,155





Tioga

IV. South Atlantic Ports

South Atlantic Summary

Exhibit 80 displays the capacity and utilization estimates for the major South Atlantic ports.

Savannah is the busiest at 39% of the 2008 TEU total, but the shares are more evenly distributed

than in the North Atlantic. The Miami total shown in Exhibit 80 excludes barge traffic through

the Seaboard terminal. All of these ports have significant reserve capacity, although Charleston

and Savannah could become berth constrained if the average size stays low. Most of the reserve

capacity is at Charleston and Savannah.

Exhibit 80: South Atlantic Capacity and Utilization Summary

Container Yard Charleston Savannah JacksonvillePort

EvergladesMiami

S. Atlantic

Ports

2008 TEU 1,635,534 2,616,126 754,352 985,095 685,139 6,676,245

Gross Acres 1,045 1,200 1,085 315 194 3,839

CY Acres 453 495 361 267 139 1,715

CY/Gross Ratio 43% 41% 33% 85% 72% 45%

Annual CY Capacity - TEU 6,605,760 7,238,560 3,090,080 2,318,400 1,292,480 20,545,280

Reserve CY Capacity - TEU 4,970,227 4,622,434 2,335,728 1,333,305 607,341 13,869,035

Annual TEU/Gross Acre 1,565 2,180 695 3,127 3,532 1,739

Annual TEU/CY Acre 3,610 5,285 2,090 3,689 4,929 3,893

Est. CY TEU Slots 117,960 129,260 55,180 41,400 23,080 366,880

Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 260 261 153 155 166 214

Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 14 20 14 24 30 18

CY Utilization 25% 36% 24% 42% 53% 32%

Container Cranes Charleston Savannah JacksonvillePort

EvergladesMiami

S. Atlantic

Ports

Cranes 19 23 18 8 9 77

Cranes per Berth 2.1 2.6 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.8

Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 4,642,917 5,777,192 4,536,000 2,016,000 2,205,877 19,177,987

Reserve Crane Capacity - TEU 3,007,384 3,161,066 3,781,648 1,030,905 41 12,501,742

Annual TEU/Crane 86,081 113,745 41,908 123,137 76,127 86,704

Annual Moves/Crane 49,317 63,397 23,282 68,409 43,484 48,739

Crane Utilization 35% 45% 17% 49% 31% 35%

Berths and Vessels Charleston Savannah JacksonvillePort

EvergladesMiami

S. Atlantic

Ports

Berths 9 9 11 8 7 44

Berth Feet 7,940 9,693 9,850 6,125 5,000 38,608

Annual Vessel Calls (2007) 1,589 1,807 265 739 563 4,963

Annual Vessel Calls per Berth (2007) 177 201 80 92 106 113

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis 85% 77% 39% 44% 51% 54%

Reserve Berth Capacity - Vessel Calls 283 533 422 925 546 4189

Annual TEU per Berth 181,726 290,681 68,577 123,137 97,877 151,733

Annual TEU/Foot of Berth 206 270 77 161 137 173

Average Vessel Capacity - TEU 3,895 4,200 3,895 2,764 3,737 3,727

Average TEU per Vessel (2007) 1,104 1,441 855 1,284 927 1,345

Avg. Vessel Ute. - % Discharge/Load 28% 34% 22% 46% 25% 36%

Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 1,377,887 2,698,084 1,956,868 1,602,112 964,201 8,599,152

Berth Utilization - Avg. Vessel Basis 119% 97% 39% 61% 71% 78%

Reserve Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis (257,647) 81,958 1,202,516 617,017 279,062 1,922,907

Reserve Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 497,746 (3,418) 963,650 1,371,839 364,170 3,193,986

Exhibit 81 displays the reported channel/berth drafts and associated vessel data for the South

Atlantic ports. The channel and berth depths are shallower than on the North Atlantic, and the

Tioga

ports shown will not be bale to handle the larger post-expansion vessels that could transit the

Panama Canal without completion of dredging projects.

Exhibit 81: South Atlantic Drafts and Vessels

Berths and Vessels Charleston Savannah JacksonvillePort

EvergladesMiami

Nominal Maximum Channel/Berth Draft Feet 47 42 37 39 42

Estimated Maximum Vessel TEU 6,031 4,067 3,420 4,067 4,067

2007 Average Vessel TEU 3,895 4,200 3,895 2,764 3,737

2008 Average Vessel Discharge/Load 1,104 1,441 855 1,284 927

Port of Charleston

Overview

The Port of Charleston has five terminals owned and operated by the South Carolina State Port

Authority (SCSPA). Three of these terminals are container terminals: Wando Welch, Columbus

Street, and North Charleston. The two other terminals, Union Pier and Veterans Terminal, handle

break bulk, Ro-Ro, and project cargo. SCSPA staff operate the container cranes, run container

yard equipment, and operate gates at all container terminals, with the exception of terminal space

utilized by licensed operators. In these terminal areas the licensed operators operate their own

yards and gates. Total 2008 port volume was 1,635,534 TEU.

Exhibit 82 is an aerial view of the port showing the location and relative size of each terminal. In

this view the access to the Atlantic Ocean is at the bottom of the photo. The photo also shows the

location of a proposed new terminal located at the former Charleston Navy Base.

Tioga

Exhibit 82: Port of Charleston

Wando Welch terminal is the port’s largest container operation handling 62% of the port’s 2008

volume. Exhibit 83 provides a profile. Wando Welch is a dedicated container terminal utilizing

361 acres. It has 4 berths with total berth length of 3800 feet. Terminal operator APM is a

licensed operator and operates a 160 acre facility within the terminal.

Tioga

Exhibit 83: Wando Welch Terminal

Profle date: Sept. 29, 2009 2008 TEU: 1,011,302

Port: Charleston Total Acres: 689

Terminal: Wando Welch CY Acres: 241.7

Terminal Type: Container On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

400 Long Point Rd. Other Non-CY Acres:

Mt. Pleasant, SC Net Terminal Acres: 361 developed

Operator (Stevedore):SCSPA (Common Use Terminal) and APM

TerminalsBerths: 4

Contact Name: Billy Crowther Total Berth Length: 3,800

Telephone Number: WWT 843-856-7005; APM 843-971-3200 Channel Depth (MLLW): 47

Fax Number: WWT 843-971-3200; APM 843-971-3228 Berth Depth (MLLW): 45

E-Mail Address: [email protected] Panamax Container Cranes:

Port Website: portofcharleston.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 10

Terminal Website: http://www.scspa.com/charleston/terminals/wandoterminal.asp CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 6


Outbound Gates: 6 CY Side or Top Loaders: 19 toplifters


Total Gates: 18 CY Reach Stackers: 12 empty handlers

On-Line Access System: SCSPA System for common use. APMT for Maersk yard.Total CY Lift Machines 36

Appointment System: SCSPA System for common use. APMT for Maersk yard.On-site M&R (yes/no): Yes


Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: APM terminals is a "licensed facility operator" at Wando Terminal with its own 160 acre facility. There are separate gates for

Common Use Terminal and APM Terminals.

APM Terminal: Mon – Fri 0800 – 1145, 1245 - 1600. Common Use Terminal no information.

APM Terminal: Mon – Fri 0800 – 1145, 1245 - 1600. Common Use 0700-1700 no lunch closure.

North Charleston is the Port’s second largest container terminal handling 27% of Charleston’s

2008 volume. It is a mixed use terminal which can handle break bulk and Ro-Ro cargoes in

Tioga

addition to containers. Exhibit 84 provides the terminal profile and Exhibit 85 is a schematic

drawing of the terminal. The terminal utilizes 198 acres and operates three berths totaling 2500

feet in length. Ceres Marine Terminals is a licensed operator at North Charleston and utilizes

over 50 acres of the terminal acreage

Exhibit 84: North Charleston Terminal Profile



Terminal: North Charlston CY Acres: 129

Terminal Type: Container, breakbulk and roro On-Dock Rail Acres:

1000 Remount Road Other Non-CY Acres:

North Charleston, SC Net Terminal Acres: 198 developed

Operator (Stevedore): SCSPA and Ceres Marine Terminals Berths: 3

Contact Name: David Hoffman Total Berth Length: 2,500

Telephone Number:Common Use 863-745-6533; Ceres 843-881-

1938Channel Depth (MLLW): 47

Fax Number:Common Use 843-745-6540; Ceres 843-881-

1938Berth Depth (MLLW): 45

E-Mail Address: [email protected] Panamax Container Cranes:

Port Website: portofcharleston.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 6

Terminal Website: http:/ /www.scspa.com/charleston/terminals/ncharlestonterminal.asp CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 2

Inbound Gates: 4 (licensed operator) CY Rubber-Tired Gantries: 10

Outbound Gates: 3 (licensed operator) CY Side or Top Loaders: 12

Reversible Gates: 9 (common use) CY Straddle Carriers:

Total Gates: 16 CY Reach Stackers: 5 empty handlers

On-Line Access System: SCSPA System for common use. Ceres TOS. Total CY Lift Machines 24

Appointment System: SCSPA System for common use. Ceres TOS. On-site M&R (yes/no): Yes

Reefer Plugs/Slots: 365 On-dock Rail (yes/no): Near Dock

Terminal Hours: Security 24/7. Terminal operations 24/7 as needed except ILA no-work holidays.

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: Ceres Marine Terminals is a licensed terminal operator at North Charleston. Ceres operates the Evergreen terminal at North

Charleston which occupies 25-30% of the terminal acreage. There is a common gate for both SCSPA and Ceres Terminal.

0700-1700 no lunch closure (common use).

Tioga

Exhibit 85: North Charleston Terminal Drawing

Columbus Street is the smallest of Charleston’s three container terminals. It handled 11% of the

port’s 2008 container volume. Exhibit 86 is an aerial view. Columbus Street handles both

breakbulk and container cargo. The terminal utilizes 135 developed acres and has six berths with

3500 continuous feet of berth space. The two berths for container ships are 1640 feet. Ceres

Marine Terminals is a licensed operator at Columbus Street and utilizes 74 acres of the facility.

Exhibit 86: Columbus Street Terminal

Exhibit 87 provides a profile of the Columbus Street terminal.

Tioga

Exhibit 87: Columbus Street Terminal Profile



Terminal: Columbus St. Terminal CY Acres: 81.6

Terminal Type: Container & Breakbulk On-Dock Rail Acres:

1 Immigration St. Other Non-CY Acres:

Charleston, NC 29403 Net Terminal Acres: 135 developed

Operator (Stevedore): SCSPA & Ceres Marine Terms. Berths: 2 container 6 breakbulk 2

Contact Name: John Martin Terminal Mgr Total Berth Length: (container) 1,640

Telephone Number: 843-577-8743; CMT 843-881-1938 Channel Depth (MLLW): 47

Fax Number: 843-577-8755; CMT 843-881-7954 Berth Depth (MLLW): 45


Port Website: portcharleston.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 2

Terminal Website: http:/ /www.scspa.com/charleston/terminals/columbusterminal.asp CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 2

Inbound Gates: CY Rubber-Tired Gantries: 3

Outbound Gates: CY Side or Top Loaders: 13 toplifters



On-Line Access System: SCSPA System for common use. Ceres TOS. Total CY Lift Machines 18

Appointment System: SCSPA System for common use. Ceres TOS. On-site M&R (yes/no):


Terminal Hours: Security 24/7. Terminal operations 24/7 as needed except ILA no-work holidays.

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: 78 acres (74 leased to ocean carriers operated by Ceres, 4 operated by SCSPA). 128 reefer plugs on Ceres operated

terminal. 6 berths (2 container 4 breakbulk). Berth Length: total 3500 feet with 1640 feet of container berth.

0700-1700 no lunch closure (common use).


Exhibit 88 summarizes land use at the Port of Charleston. The combined area of the three

container terminals is 1,045 acres with net terminal area of 717 acres. This generates a net to

gross land use ratio of 69%, and a CY/Gross ratio of 43%. Land use at Columbus Street and

North Charleston are at 100%. Only the Wando Welch terminal appears to have any available

land with a net to gross ratio of 52%. It is unclear to what extent the port can develop additional

land at the Wando Welch terminal.

Exhibit 88: Port of Charleston Land Use

Port Land UseColumbus

St.

North

Charleston

Wando

WelchPort Total

Gross Acres 155 201 689 1,045

CY Acres 82 129 242 453

Rail Acres - - - -

Other Non-CY Acres - - - -

Net Berth/Gate/Yard Acres 155 201 361 717


Tioga

Exhibit 89 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage. Virtually all of the CY

operation is grounded. Based on interpretation of aerial photographs it was estimated the

combined CY area in use was 453 acres producing an estimated 117,960 storage slots. Annual

CY sustainable TEU capacity is estimated at 6.6 million TEU. This produces annual utilization

of 25% relative to 2008 volume of 1.6 million TEU. This analysis indicates that all three

terminals have sufficient CY capacity to handle future growth.

Exhibit 89: Port of Charleston Near Term CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard CapacityColumbus

St.

North

Charleston

Wando

WelchPort Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots - - - -

Grounded Straddle Carrier Slots - - - -

Grounded Stacked Slots 11,800 12,800 16,800 41,400

Grounded RTG Slots 4,200 16,200 39,600 60,000

Grounded RMG Slots 3,240 3,960 9,360 16,560

TEU Storage Slots 19,240 32,960 65,760 117,960

Avg TEU Slots/CY Acre 235 256 272 260

Maximum Annual Slot Turnover 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0

Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 1,346,800 2,307,200 4,603,200 8,257,200

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 1,077,440 1,845,760 3,682,560 6,605,760

2008 Annual TEU 174,808 449,424 1,011,302 1,635,534

2008 TEU per CY Slot 9 14 15 14

2008 CY Capacity Utilization 16% 24% 27% 25%

Crane Capacity

Exhibit 90 provides a summary of the Port of Charleston’s cranes and an estimate of crane

capacity. The port operates 19 cranes at its three terminals. Annual crane capacity for the port is

estimated to be 4.6 million TEU with 2008 utilization at 35 %. The Wando Welch terminal has

the highest capacity utilization at 41%.

Exhibit 90: Port of Charleston Near Term Crane Capacity

Crane CapacityColumbus

St.

North

Charleston

Wando

WelchPort Total

Cranes 3 6 10 19

Available Crane Hours per Day 16 16 16 16

Current Annual Operating Days 250 250 250 250

Current Annual Hours/Crane 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Annual Available Crane Hours 12,000 24,000 40,000 76,000

Sustainable Hours @ 80% 9,600 19,200 32,000 60,800

Avg. TEU/Available Crane-hour 18.2 23.4 31.6 26.9

Avg. Annual TEU/Crane 58,269 74,904 101,130 86,081

Crane Capacity, Moves/hour 35 35 35 35

Sustainable Moves/Hr @ 80% 28 28 28 28


Crane Capacity TEU/hour 61 61 61 61

Annual Crane Capacity 733,092 1,466,184 2,443,641 4,642,917

Current Annual TEU 174,808 449,424 1,011,302 1,635,534

Current Crane Utilization 24% 31% 41% 35%

Tioga

Berth Capacity

The Port of Charleston berth capacity estimated in TEU for the maximum vessel size is

summarized in Exhibit 91. This estimate generates near term berth capacity of 2.7 million TEU

and berth utilization of 77 %. The Wando terminal has the highest estimated utilization at 95%.

Exhibit 91: Port of Charleston Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel BasisColumbus

St.

North

Charleston

Wando

WelchPort Total

Berths 2 3 4 9

Berth length 1,640 2,500 3,800 7,940






Corresponding Vessel Length - Feet 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000


Length requirement 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120



2007 TEU 1,754,377





Average TEU per Max Vessel 1,709 1,709 1,709 1,709

Max Calls per Berth 5/wk 260 260 260 260

Sustainable Calls per Berth @ 80% 208 208 208 208

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 208 416 624 1,248

Annual Berth Capacity TEU 355,547 711,093 1,066,640 2,133,279

2008 Annual TEU 174,808 449,424 1,011,302 1,635,534

Berth Utilization, Max Vessel Basis 49% 63% 95% 77%

Berth capacity based on vessel calls is summarized in Exhibit 92. This approach generates a

berth capacity estimate of 1,872 calls and 2007 port berth utilization of 85%.

Exhibit 92: Charleston 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call BasisColumbus

St.

North

Charleston

Wando

WelchPort Total

Max Calls per Berth 5/wk 260 260 260 260

Sustainable Calls per Berth @ 80% 208 208 208 208

Available Berths 2 3 4 9

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 416 624 832 1,872

2007 Vessel calls 1,589




and vessel berths for the Port of Charleston. The port currently has estimated sustainable annual

Tioga

CY capacity of 6.6 million TEU with current utilization at 25%. This analysis indicates that all

three terminals of the port have reserve CY capacity for future growth.

Container crane capacity at the port is estimated at 4.6 million TEU with current capacity at

35%. The Wando Welch terminal has the highest utilization at 41%. The analysis indicates that

the port has reserve crane capacity for future growth.

In 2007 the port averaged 177 annual calls per berth. This produced berth utilization of 85%

using a sustainable capacity of 208 annual calls per berth. Berth capacity on a TEU basis is

estimated to be 2.7 million TEU on a maximum vessel call basis. This produces a 2008 capacity

utilization estimate of 79%. Data for containership calls by terminal was not available. Therefore

berth utilization by terminal could not be estimated.

It should also be noted that the SCSPA website advertises port capacity at 2.6 million TEU. This

figure is consistent with the berth capacity estimate of 2.7 million TEU. The SCSPA’s major

terminal capacity expansion project is the development of a new container terminal at the former

Charleston Navy Base. This terminal will be a 280-acre facility with 3 berths and 1.4 million

TEU capacity. Construction of the new terminal has started and completion of the first phase is

projected for 2017. South Carolina and Georgia are seeking to work cooperatively to develop a

new marine terminal on the Savannah River in Jasper County.

Tioga

Exhibit 93: Port of Charleston Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal SpaceColumbus

St.

North

Charleston

Wando

WelchCharleston

2008 TEU 174,808 449,424 1,011,302 1,635,534

Gross Acres 155 201 689 1,045CY Acres 82 129 242 453CY/Gross Ratio 53% 64% 35% 43%Annual Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 1,077,440 1,845,760 3,682,560 6,605,760 Annual TEU/Gross Acre 1,128 2,236 1,468 1,565 Annual TEU/CY Acre 2,132 3,484 4,179 3,610 Est. CY TEU Slots 19,240 32,960 65,760 117,960 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 235 256 272 260 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 9 14 15 14 CY Utilization 16% 24% 27% 25%

Container CranesColumbus

St.

North

Charleston

Wando

WelchCharleston

Cranes 3 6 10 19


Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 733,092 1,466,184 2,443,641 4,642,917

Avg. Moves/Available Crane-Hour 18.2 23.4 31.6 26.9

Annual TEU/Crane 58,269 74,904 101,130 86,081


Annual Vessel Calls/Crane (2007) - - 84


Berths and VesselsColumbus

St.

North

Charleston

Wando

WelchCharleston

Berths 2 3 4 9

Berth Feet 1,640 2,500 3,800 7,940






Est. Max. Vessel Capacity - TEU 6,031 6,031 6,031 6,031









Georgia Port Authority (GPA) Port of Savannah

Overview

The Port of Savannah has one large container terminal, the Garden City Terminal. Exhibit 94

provides an aerial view. The terminal is located on the Savannah River 13 miles from the

Atlantic Ocean. The GPA’s Garden City property includes a total of 1200 acres with the terminal

and associated rail facilities covering 625 acres. The Garden City Terminal also handles liquid

bulk products. The Garden City container terminal is the largest single container port facility in

North America. The terminal is owned and operated by GPA. Exhibit 94 identifies the key

features of the terminal and Exhibit 95 provides a summary of terminal information.

Tioga

The terminal operates nine container berths with 9693 feet of berth and includes two on-dock rail

intermodal terminals. GPA provides 23 container cranes for its operation. The port has two rail

facilities. The Mason ICTF is served by Norfolk Southern and the Chatham ICTF is served by

CSX. The CY operation covers 495 acres and is principally a stacked operation utilizing RTG

and top lift equipment. 2008 port volume was 2,616,162 TEU.

Exhibit 94: Garden City Container Terminal

Source: Google Earth Image date February 29, 2008

Over the next 10 years, Garden City Terminal is scheduled to add on average two high-speed

super post-Panamax container cranes every 18 months for a total of 25 cranes, as well as 86

Rubber-Tired Gantries (RTG) as part of long-term developments for a full RTG conversion at

the facility.

Tioga

Exhibit 95: Garden City Terminal Profile

Profle date: Sept. 29, 2009 2008 TEU: 2,616,162

Port: Georgia Port Authority Total Acres: 1200

Terminal: Garden City CY Acres: 495

Terminal Type: Container and Liquid bulk On-Dock Rail Acres: 50

2 Main St. Other Non-CY Acres: 80

Garden City, GA 31408 Net Terminal Acres: 575

Operator (Stevedore): GPA Berths: 9

Contact Name: John Trent Total Berth Length: 9,693

Telephone Number: 912-964-3811; 800-342-8012 Channel Depth (MLLW): 42 MLW

Fax Number: 912-963-5477 Berth Depth (MLLW): 42 MLW


Port Website: www.gaports.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 23

Terminal Website: www.gaports.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 0

Inbound Gates: 25 with pre check CY Rubber-Tired Gantries: 71

Outbound Gates: 37 lanes (In and Out) CY Side or Top Loaders: 40

Reversible Gates: All CY Straddle Carriers: 0


On-Line Access System: webaccess.gaports.com Total CY Lift Machines 111

Appointment System: Yes (Pre-advise - 98% Compliance) On-site M&R (yes/no): Yes

Reefer Plugs/Slots: 852 On-dock Rail (yes/no): yes (2 term's)

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: Gate 3 - 14 lanes, Gate 4 - 17 lanes, Gate 6 - 6 lanes (37 lanes with 25 pre-check lanes). 852 reefer plugs,

10 portable generators. 46 RTG’s, 24 five high toplifts, 16 four high toplifts, 56 seven high empty stackers. Mason

ICTF (NS served) is contiguous to the marine terminal , Chatham ICTF (CSX served) is on terminal.

M-F 0700-1800, Sat. 0800-1200 and 1300-1700.

M-F 0700-1800, Sat. 0800-1200 and 1300-1700.


Exhibit 96 summarizes the land use at GPA’s Garden City Terminal. The container terminal

utilizes about 625 acres which includes 50 acres for two rail terminals. The gross terminal

acreage of 1200 acres includes about 60 acres for the liquid bulk terminal, about 10 acres for the

GPA administration building and over 500 acres of undeveloped land. This high gross acreage is

the reason for the low CY to gross ratio of 52%.

Tioga

Exhibit 96: Garden City Land Use

Port Land Use Garden City Port Total

Gross Acres 1,200 1,200

CY Acres 495 495

Rail Acres 50 50




Exhibit 97 applies standard CY storage factors to the Garden City CY acreage. Virtually all of

the CY operation is grounded, primarily using RTG and top lift equipment for container

handling. The only wheeled area is the 12-acre rapid dispatch area utilized for high priority

shipments. Based on interpretation of the aerial photos it was estimated that 70% of the 483 acre

CY area or 340 acres utilized RTG equipment and the remaining 143 acres utilized top lift

equipment. This acreage allocation generated an estimate of 129,260 storage slots with annual

sustainable CY capacity of 7.2 million TEU. This produces capacity utilization of 36% relative

to 2008 volume of 2.6 million TEU.

Exhibit 97: Garden City Near Term CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard Capacity Garden City Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots 960 960








Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 9,048,200 9,048,200

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 7,238,560 7,238,560

2008 Annual TEU 2,616,126 2,616,126



Crane Capacity

Exhibit 98 summarizes the Garden City Terminal’s estimate of container crane capacity for its 23

cranes. Annual crane capacity is estimated at 5.8 million TEU with current utilization of 45%.

Tioga

Exhibit 98: Garden City Terminal Near Term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity Garden City Port Total

Cranes 23 23












Annual Crane Capacity 5,777,192 5,777,192

Current Annual TEU 2,616,126 2,616,126


Berth Capacity

Garden City berth capacity estimated in TEU for the maximum vessel size is summarized in

Exhibit 99. This estimate generates near-term capacity of 2.6 million TEU and berth utilization

of 100%.

Exhibit 99: Garden City Terminal Near Term Berth Capacity Max Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis Garden City Port Total

Berths 9 9

Berth length 9,693 9,693






Corresponding Vessel Length - Feet 900 900





2007 TEU 2,604,401 2,604,401








Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 1,872 1,872

Annual Berth Capacity TEU 2,612,708 2,612,708

2008 Annual TEU 2,616,126 2,616,126


Tioga


berth capacity estimate of 1,872 calls and 2007 berth utilization of 97%.

Exhibit 100: Garden City 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis Garden City Port Total



Available Berths 9 9


2007 Vessel calls 1,807 1,807


Current Capacity and Productivity Summary


and vessel berths for the Garden City Terminal. The terminal currently has estimated annual

sustainable CY storage capacity of 7.2 million TEU with current utilization at 36%. This

indicates that Garden City has plenty of reserve capacity CY for future growth. The port also has

a plan to add an additional 15 rubber-tired gantry cranes to reach a total of 86 cranes as it

converts to a full RTG CY operation. In addition, there appear to be several hundred acres of

undeveloped land that may be available for future development.

Container crane capacity for the terminal’s 23 cranes is estimated at 5.8 million TEU with

current utilization of 45%. In addition, the GPA website indicates that there is a plan to add 2

additional cranes to reach a total of 25 cranes on the terminal.

In 2007 Garden City averaged 201 calls per berth. This produced a utilization estimate of 97 %

using standard capacity of 208 calls per berth. Berth capacity on a TEU basis was estimated at

2.6 million TEU with 100% utilization on a maximum vessel call basis.

This analysis indicates that the Port of Savannah has adequate capacity CY to handle future

growth. Berth capacity appears to the most constrained facility resource. However, larger vessel

size and higher discharge rates could enable future volume growth and improved berth

throughput. to accommodate the larger traffic necessary to keep up with demand, the Georgia

Ports Authority is in the process of increasing the depth of the Savannah River Navigation

Channel from 42 to 48 feet.

Tioga

Exhibit 101: Garden City Near Term Capacity Summary

Terminal Space Garden City Savannah

2008 TEU 2,616,126 2,616,126

Gross Acres 1,200 1,200CY Acres 495 495CY/Gross Ratio 41% 41%Annual Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 7,238,560 7,238,560 Annual TEU/Gross Acre 2,180 2,180 Annual TEU/CY Acre 5,285 5,285 Est. CY TEU Slots 129,260 129,260 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 261 261 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 20 20 CY Utilization 36% 36%

Container Cranes Garden City Savannah

Cranes 23 23


Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 5,777,192 5,777,192






Berths and Vessels Garden City Savannah

Berths 9 9











Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 2,698,084 2,698,084



Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 2,612,708 2,612,708


Port of Jacksonville Capacity Estimates

Overview

The Port of Jacksonville has three marine terminals owned and managed by the Jacksonville Port

Authority (JAXPORT). These terminals are leased to its tenant ocean carriers and terminal

operators. The terminals are located on the St. Johns River between 9 and 21 miles from the

ocean. Blount Island is the largest terminal with about 754 total acres and 223 container terminal

acres. Blount Island is about 9 miles from the Atlantic. The Talleyrand terminal is located in the

City of Jacksonville about 21 miles from the ocean. Talleyrand has a total of 173 acres with 60

Tioga

acres allocated to its container operation. Both Blount Island and Talleyrand are mixed use

terminals handling break bulk, liquid bulk, automobiles, and Ro-Ro in addition to containers.

The third terminal Dames Point is a new 158 acre dedicated container terminal that opened in

January 2009. Exhibit 102 is an aerial view of the port showing the location and size of these

terminals

Exhibit 102: Port of Jacksonville Marine Terminals

Source: Google Earth Image Date December 31, 2007

Blount Island terminal is the Port’s largest container operation handling about 70% of the 2009

container volume. Exhibit 103 provides a profile. The terminal operation utilizes about 223

acres. It has 6 berths with total berth length of 5,250 feet. The terminal has 6 Panamax container

cranes which are leased to the terminal’s tenants on hourly basis. Two new post Panamax cranes

are on order with delivery expected in the fall of 2011. Blount Island also has a Ro-Ro operation

which handles containers for the Puerto Rican and Caribbean trades.

Tioga

Exhibit 103: Blount Island Terminal Profile

Profile date: Sept. 29, 2009 2009 TEU: 539,633

Port: Jacksonville, Florida Total Acres: 754

Terminal: Blount Island Marine Terminal CY Acres: 178

Terminal Type: Cont'r, RoRo,break & liquid bulk On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

9620 Dave Rawles Rd. Other Non-CY Acres: 45

Jacksonville, FL Net Terminal Acres: 223

Operator (Stevedore): Jacksonville Port Authority Berths: 6


Telephone Number: 904-357-3302 Channel Depth (MLLW): 40' (MLW)



Port Website: www.jaxport.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes:








Reefer Plugs/Slots: On-dock Rail (yes/no): No

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: The current estimate of CY space is 87 acres grounded and 91 acres wheeled. Most of the overall Blount

Island terminal acreage is utilized for automobile processing, breakbulk and liquid bulk operations. The port has

ordered two new Post Panamax cranes with delivery expected in fall of 2011. CSX, Norfolk Southern and FEC have

intermodal terminals in Jacksonville.

Talleyrand terminal is a mixed use terminal with 170 total acres. Exhibit 104 provides a profile.

Talleyrand has the smallest container facility of the three JAXPORT terminals utilizing 60 acres

for the terminal and 5 acres for a small on-dock rail facility. The terminal has 3 berths with 2200

feet of berth length and it is equipped with six container cranes.

Tioga

Exhibit 104: Talleyrand Marine Terminal


Port: Jacksonville Total Acres: 173

Terminal: Talleyrand Marine Terminal CY Acres: 50

Terminal Type: Container, roro, break bulk On-Dock Rail Acres: 5

2085 Talleyrand Ave. Other Non-CY Acres: 10

Jacksonville, FL 32206 Net Terminal Acres: 60

Operator (Stevedore): Jacksonville Port Authority Berths: 3

Contact Name: Total Berth Length: 2200

Telephone Number: 904-357-3205 Channel Depth (MLLW): 38 (MLW)



Port Website: www.jaxport.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes:



Outbound Gates: CY Side or Top Loaders: 6





Reefer Plugs/Slots: On-dock Rail (yes/no): Yes

Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: The terminal has a small on dock rail facility served by the Talleyrand Terminal Railroad which connects to

both CSX and NS.

Dames Point Terminal is a new 158 acre dedicated container terminal that was opened in

January 2009. A terminal profile and an artist’s rendering of the completed terminal are provided

in Exhibit 105. The terminal has 2 berths with a total of 2400 feet of berth length. The terminal is

equipped with 6 Post-Panamax cranes and is operated by TraPac Inc., the marine terminal

operating company subsidiary of ocean carrier Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL).

Tioga

Exhibit 105: Dames Point Container Terminal

Profile date: Sept. 29, 2009 2009 TEU: 48,269

Port: Jacksonville, FL Total Acres: 158

Terminal: Dames Point (TraPac) CY Acres: 133


9834 New Berlin Road Other Non-CY Acres: 25

Jacksonville, FL 32226 Net Terminal Acres: 158

Operator (Stevedore): TraPac Terminals Berths: 2





Port Website: www.jaxport.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 6

Terminal Website: www.trapac.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:








Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:

Notes: This terminal was just completed and opened for operations in January 2009. Currently the terminal

serves MOL, Hyundai and APL vessels. Volume levels are still low with about two vessels per week.


Address:

The Port’s shipping channel depth is currently maintained to 40 feet to for its first 15 miles from

the ocean to Drummond Point, which is beyond both Blount Island and Dames Point terminals.

However, the last 6 miles of the channel to the Talleyrand terminal are maintained to 38 feet.

The Port has a dredging project in progress to increase the channel depth to Talleyrand to 40 feet.

This project is expected to be completed by the end of 2010.

Tioga

A second navigation issue that the Port is working on is to reduce tidal cross currents at Mile

Point where the Intracoastal Waterway cuts through the St. Johns River about 5 miles from the

ocean. Due to the effect of these cross currents from the intracoastal waterway, the operation of

larger vessels with draft of 33 feet or greater is limited to less than 12 hours per day when

incoming tides mitigate the cross currents. The Army Corps of Engineers currently has a study

underway to address this issue.


Exhibit 106 summarizes land use for the Port of Jacksonville. The combined total acreage for all

three terminals in 1085 acres with net terminal area of 441 acres. This generates a net to gross

ratio of only 41% and a CY/Gross ratio of only 33%. The reason is that both Blount Island and

Talleyrand are mixed use terminals with most of the terminal area consumed in break bulk,

automobile, and liquid bulk uses. Expansion of the container operations at these two terminals

would require a reallocation of terminal property from existing non-container uses.

Exhibit 106: Port of Jacksonville Land Use

Port Land UseJax Blount

Isl.Jax Talleyrand

Jax Dames

Pt.Port Total

Gross Acres 754 173 158 1,085

CY Acres 178 50 133 361

Rail Acres - 5 - 5

Other Non-CY Acres 45 10 25 80



Exhibit 107 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage. Interpretation of aerial

photos for Blount Island and Talleyrand indicates CY areas are primarily stacked operations. The

new terminal at Dames Point is designed for RTG use. However, it appears that wheeled

operations are being used because the terminal is new and volume levels do not require the

additional CY capacity provided by grounded RTG operation. Overall this analysis shows that

the three terminals have sufficient CY capacity to handle future growth.

Exhibit 107: Port of Jacksonville CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard CapacityJax Blount

Isl.Jax Talleyrand

Jax Dames

Pt.Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots 7,280 1,200 6,400 14,880

Grounded Straddle Carrier Slots - - - -

Grounded Stacked Slots 17,400 7,000 - 24,400

Grounded RTG Slots - - 15,900 15,900

Grounded RMG Slots - - - -




Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 1,727,600 574,000 1,561,000 3,862,600

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 1,382,080 459,200 1,248,800 3,090,080

2008 Annual TEU 539,633 164,441 48,269 754,352

2008 TEU per CY Slot 22 20 2 14


Tioga

Crane Capacity

Exhibit 108 provides a summary of Jacksonville cranes and an estimate of crane capacity. There

are six cranes operated at each of the three facilities. Annual crane capacity for the port is

estimated at 17%. The analysis shows there will be adequate crane capacity for future growth. In

addition, the Port has two new cranes on order for Blount Island. It is also clear that the low

volume levels at Dames Point have not yet tested the terminal’s crane capacity.

Exhibit 108: Port of Jacksonville Near Term Crane Capacity

Crane CapacityJax Blount

Isl.Jax Talleyrand

Jax Dames

Pt.Port Total

Cranes 6 6 6 18

Available Crane Hours per Day 16 16 16 16

Current Annual Operating Days 250 250 250 250

Current Annual Hours/Crane 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Annual Available Crane Hours 24,000 24,000 24,000 72,000

Sustainable Hours @ 80% 19,200 19,200 19,200 57,600

Avg. TEU/Available Crane-hour 28.1 8.6 2.5 13.1

Avg. Annual TEU/Crane 89,939 27,407 8,045 41,908

Crane Capacity, Moves/hour 35 35 35 35

Sustainable Moves/Hr @ 80% 28 28 28 28


Crane Capacity TEU/hour 63 63 63 63

Annual Crane Capacity 1,512,000 1,512,000 1,512,000 4,536,000

Current Annual TEU 539,633 164,441 48,269 754,352

Current Crane Utilization 36% 11% 3% 17%

Berth Capacity

The Port of Jacksonville berth capacity estimated in TEU for the maximum vessel size is

summarized in Exhibit 109. This estimate generates near term berth capacity 1.7 million TEU

with berth utilization for the port at 44%. However, the overall average is influenced by the low

berth utilization estimate for Dames Point.

Berth capacity on a vessel call basis is summarized in Exhibit 110. This approach generates

berth a berth capacity estimate of 2860 vessel calls and 2009 estimated berth utilization of 31%.

The Port has plans in progress to maintain its entire 21-mile approach channel to 41 feet, and

there is a Corps study reportedly in progress to consider greater depths.

Tioga

Exhibit 109: Port of Jacksonville Near Term Berth Capacity Max Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel BasisJax Blount

Isl.Jax Talleyrand

Jax Dames

Pt.Port Total

Berths 6 3 2 11

Berth length 5,250 2,200 2,400 9,850






Corresponding Vessel Length - Feet 800 800 800 800


Length requirement 905 900 905 905



2009 TEU 754,352

Avg. TEU/Vessel 855




Average TEU per Max Vessel 751 751 751 751

Max annual calls per berth 260 260 260 260

Sustainable Calls per berth @ 80% 208 208 208 208

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 1,248 416 624 2,288

Annual Berth Capacity TEU 937,092 312,364 468,546 1,718,002

2008 Annual TEU 539,633 164,441 48,269 754,352

Berth Utilization, Max Vessel Basis 58% 53% 10% 44%

Exhibit 110: Port of Jacksonville 2009 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call BasisJax Blount

Isl.Jax Talleyrand

Jax Dames

Pt.Port Total

Max annual calls per berth 260 260 260 260

Sustainable Calls per berth @ 80% 208 208 208 208

Available Berths 6 3 2 11

Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 1,248 624 416 2,288

2009 Estimated Vessel calls 882

Berth Utilization 39%



and vessel berths for the Port of Jacksonville. The port currently has estimated sustainable CY

capacity of 3 million TEU with current capacity utilization of 24%. Container crane capacity at

the port is estimated at 4.5 million TEU with current utilization at 17%. Berth utilization on a

vessel call basis is 31% and on a maximum vessel size basis it is 44%. In all cases the low level

of utilization at the Dames Point terminal has reduced the average for the port. The terminal has

just opened and volume has not grown to a more normal level of utilization due to the economic

downturn. Overall the measures of this analysis indicate that the Port of Jacksonville has

sufficient capacity to handle future growth at its existing terminals.

Tioga

Exhibit 111: Port of Jacksonville Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space Jax Blount Isl.Jax

Talleyrand

Jax Dames

Pt.Charleston

2009 TEU 539,633 164,441 48,269 754,352

Gross Acres 754 173 158 1,085CY Acres 178 50 133 361CY/Gross Ratio 24% 29% 84% 33%Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 1,382,080 459,200 1,248,800 3,090,080 Annual TEU/Gross Acre 716 951 306 695 Annual TEU/CY Acre 3,032 3,289 363 2,090 Est. CY TEU Slots 24,680 8,200 22,300 55,180 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 139 164 168 153 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 22 20 2 14 CY Utilization 39% 36% 4% 24%

Container Cranes Jax Blount Isl.Jax

Talleyrand

Jax Dames

Pt.Charleston

Cranes 6 6 6 18



Avg. Moves/Available Crane-Hour 28.1 8.6 2.5 13.1

Annual TEU/Crane 89,939 27,407 8,045 41,908


Annual Vessel Calls/Crane (2009) - - 49


Berths and Vessels Jax Blount Isl.Jax

Talleyrand

Jax Dames

Pt.Charleston

Berths 6 3 2 11

Berth Feet 5,250 2,200 2,400 9,850





Average Vessel Capacity - TEU - - - 3,895

Est. Max. Vessel Capacity - TEU 3,420 2,845 3,420 3,420

Avg. vs. Max. Vessel Capacity 0% 0% 0% 114%

Average TEU per Vessel (2007) 855




Avg. Discharge/Load per Max. Vessel 751



Port Everglades Capacity Estimates

Overview

Port Everglades has two port areas that handle container cargoes. The primary container terminal

is at Southport with 238 acres of space leased to private terminal operators. The Midport area has

77 acres with two areas leased to terminal operators. Port Everglades terminals are a short

distance to the Atlantic Ocean. The Midport terminals are between one and two miles to the

ocean and the Southport berths are less than three miles. Southport is a dedicated container

terminal with 6 berths and total berth length of 4500 feet. Southport provides 7 Post-Panamax

gantry cranes and has Ro-Ro capability. The Midport terminals have 5 berths and total berth

Tioga

length of 2845 feet. The Midport basin berths have one gantry crane and one mobile harbor crane

and also have Ro-Ro capability. For purposes of this analysis the Southport and Midport areas

have been combined. Exhibit 112 provides an aerial view of the Midport and Southport

terminals.

Exhibit 112: Port Everglades Container Terminals


Southport terminal area handles about two thirds of the Port’s container volume. It has three

major terminal operators that lease property from the Port. Florida International Terminals (FIT)

operates a public terminal that handles several liner companies. FIT was formed in 2004 from the

combination of two large Latin American terminal operating companies associated with Chilean

ocean carriers CSAV and CCNI. FIT was organized to manage the Port Everglades marine

terminal. Crowley Liner Services operates a terminal for its Port Everglades Ro-Ro operation.

The third terminal operator is Port Everglades Terminal LLC which operates the Mediterranean

Shipping terminal at Southport.

Exhibit 113 provides a profile of the Port Everglades container terminals with an aerial photo of

the Southport operating area. As a part of the Port’s five year expansion plan additional CY

space of 41 acres is being developed in the Southwest corner of the terminal. In addition the plan

includes provisions for development of an on dock rail terminal which would be served by the

FEC railway. These development areas are also shown in the Exhibit.

Tioga

Exhibit 113: Port Everglades Container Terminal Profile


Port: Port Everglades Total Acres: 315

Terminal: Southport & Midport CY Acres: 245

Terminal Type: Container,roro, breakbulk On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

1850 Eller Dr. Other Non-CY Acres:

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Net Terminal Acres:

Operator (Stevedore): Various (see Notes) Berths: 11


Telephone Number: 954-765-4718 (operations mgr.) Channel Depth (MLLW):



Port Website: www.porteverglades.net Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 7









Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: The port is divided into three operating areas, Southport, Midport and Northport. Southport and Midport

areas have container handling capability. The Southport area is the primary container terminal with Florida

International terminals serving 7 major container carriers. In addition Crowley and Mediterranean Shipping (MSC)

are located at Southport. The Midport area handles numerous Caribbean Carriers plus Chiquita and Dole.

Southport Area 238 acres; Midport Area 77 acres. Southport has 6 Berths container & roro total 4500 feet, Midport

has 5 berths container, cargo, cruise and roro total 2845 ft. Southport – 7 post Panamax cranes, Midport 1 gantry

cranes and 1 mobile harbor crane. FEC Fort Lauderdale terminal within 2 miles of the port.

Tioga

Midport terminal handles smaller lines that serve the Caribbean and South American markets. In

addition, Chiquita and Dole vessels serve the port over the Midport terminal bringing fresh fruit

and vegetables utilizing Berth 29. Exhibit 114 provides an aerial of the Midport area. The aerial

from December 31, 2008 shows the Midport Basin CY at the start of a construction project to

demolish a building and expand the CY area. The Midport terminal berths are also used by cruise

ships that call on Port Everglades. The berth and cruise terminal adjacent to the Basin CY have

been expanded to handle 1225 foot Genesis-class cruise ships.

Exhibit 114: Midport Terminal Area


Exhibit 115 summarizes land use at Port Everglades. The total area for the port’s container

operations is 315 acres, with 267 acres of CY storage and a CY/Gross ratio of 85%.

Exhibit 115: Port Everglades Land Use

Port Land Use South & Mid Port Port Total

Gross Acres 315 315

CY Acres 267 267

Rail Acres - -


Net Berth/Gate/Yard Acres - -


Tioga

Exhibit 116 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage. The port has a mix of

grounded and stacked CY operations. The CY area has been estimated to be 267 acres producing

41,400 TEU storage slots. Annual CY sustainable TEU capacity is estimated to 2.3 million TEU.

This produces annual utilization of 42% relative to 2008 volume. This analysis indicates that the

port has adequate CY capacity for future growth. Not included in the analysis is a 41 acre area of

Southport that is currently being expanded for future port use and which will add CY capacity.

Exhibit 116: Port Everglades Near Term CY Capacity

Container Yard Capacity South & Mid Port Port Total




Grounded RTG Slots - -





Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 2,898,000 2,898,000

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 2,318,400 2,318,400

2008 Annual TEU 985,095 985,095



Crane Capacity

Exhibit 117 provides a summary of Port Everglades cranes and an estimate of crane capacity.

The port provides 8 cranes for use by its tenants. Estimated annual crane capacity at the port is

2.0 million TEU with 2008 utilization at 49%. The utilization estimate may be somewhat

overstated because the port has a sizeable Ro-Ro operation which is in the TEU count but does

not utilize container cranes for loading and unloading.

Exhibit 117: Port Everglades Near Term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity South & Mid Port Port Total

Cranes 8 8












Annual Crane Capacity 2,016,000 2,016,000



Tioga

Berth Capacity

Port Everglades berth capacity in TEU for the maximum vessel size is summarized in Exhibit

118. The analysis estimates near-term berth capacity at 2.4 million TEU and berth utilization at

42%.

Exhibit 118: Port Everglades Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis South & Mid Port Port Total

Berths 8 8












2007 TEU 948,687 948,687










2008 Annual TEU 985,095 985,095


Berth capacity on a vessel call basis is summarized in Exhibit 119. This approach generates a

berth capacity estimate of 2080 calls and 2007 berth utilization of 68%.

Exhibit 119: Port Everglades 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis South & Mid Port Port Total









and vessel berths for Port Everglades. This analysis estimates CY utilization at 42%, crane

utilization at 49%, and berth utilization at 36% on a vessel call basis and 42% on a maximum

vessel basis. These estimate indicate that the port has adequate capacity to handle future growth.

Tioga

Exhibit 120: Port Everglades Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space South & Mid Port Port Everglades

2008 TEU 985,095 985,095

Gross Acres 315 315CY Acres 267 267CY/Gross Ratio 85% 85%Annual Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 2,318,400 2,318,400 Annual TEU/Gross Acre 3,127 3,127 Annual TEU/CY Acre 3,689 3,689 Est. CY TEU Slots 41,400 41,400 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 155 155 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 24 24 CY Utilization 42% 42%

Container Cranes South & Mid Port Port Everglades

Cranes 8 8


Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 2,016,000 2,016,000






Berths and Vessels South & Mid Port Port Everglades

Berths 8 8











Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 1,602,112 1,602,112





Port of Miami Capacity Estimates

Overview

The Port of Miami owns and manages three container terminals on Dodge Island in Biscayne

Bay 2 to 3 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. These container terminals are leased to three terminal

operators, South Florida Container Terminal (SFCT), Port of Miami Terminal Operating

Company (POMTOC), and Seaboard Marine. SFCT and POMTOC use the Port’s container

cranes for lift-on/lift-off operations. Seaboard Marine is a primarily a Ro-Ro terminal but also

has access to the Port’s container cranes. Exhibit 121 provides an aerial view of Dodge Island

Tioga

and its container terminals. The Port provides 5 container berths with a total berth length of 5000

feet. The port owns 9 container cranes: 7 cranes are Panamax and 2 are Post-Panamax. The

cranes are maintained by the Port of Miami Crane Management Company (PMCM) and are

operated by the terminal operating companies. In addition to the container terminals the Dodge

Island port complex provides five cruise terminals which handled over 4 million passengers in

2008.

Exhibit 121: Port of Miami Container Terminals

Source: Google Earth Image Date November 17, 2007

Access to the Port of Miami is via Port Boulevard which runs through the city of Miami. A

major project is being advanced by the Port to develop a tunnel which will route port traffic

around the city to US 41 and I-395 as shown in Exhibit 122 below. Construction on this $607

million project is set to begin in mid 2010 with tunnel opening projected for 2014.

Exhibit 122: Miami Tunnel Project

SFCT is a joint venture terminal operator between Terminal Link (CMA-CGM) and APM

Terminals operating the former APM Terminals facility. It was formed when ocean carrier

CMA-CGM left POMTOC and took space in the former APM terminal. The terminal has 74

acres and utilizes the Port of Miami’s berth space and container cranes. Exhibit 123 provides a

profile of this terminal.

Tioga

Exhibit 123: South Florida Container Terminal Profile

Profle date: Sept. 30, 2009 2008 TEU: (Miami FY Estimate) 271,182

Port: Miami Total Acres: 74

Terminal: South Florida Cont. Term. CY Acres: _


2299 Port Blvd. Other Non-CY Acres: 0

Miami, FL 33132 Net Terminal Acres: 74

Operator (Stevedore): Eller-ITO Berths: 7

Contact Name: Mark Baker Total Berth Length: 5,000



E-Mail Address: [email protected] Container Cranes: 7

Port Website: www.miamidade.gov Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 2

Terminal Website: www.apmterminals.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 0

Inbound Gates: 10 lanes, all reversible CY Rubber-Tired Gantries: 0

Outbound Gates: CY Side or Top Loaders: 22



On-Line Access System: yes Total CY Lift Machines 22

Appointment System: yes On-site M&R (yes/no): yes


Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:

(Diagram)


Address:

available to work container vessels 24 hours

Mon-Fri 0800 – 1630 (closed for lunch from 1200-1300)

Notes: South Florida Continer Terminal was formed when CMA-CGM left the POMTOC terminal and took up space

in cooperation with APM. SFCT terminal is adjacent to the Port of Miami Container Terminal Operating Company

(POMTOC) terminal. Both terminals share use of the berths and container cranes.

POMTOC is a non-carrier owned terminal operating company which serves over 30 ocean

carriers. The terminal occupies 120 acres and utilizes the Port’s berths and cranes as does SFCT.

Exhibit 124 provides a profile of the POMTOC terminal.

Tioga

Exhibit 124: Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company Terminal (POMTOC)



Terminal: POMTOC CY Acres: same


1007 North America Way, # 400 Other Non-CY Acres: 0


Operator (Stevedore): Eller-ITO & Florida Steve. Berths: 7

Contact Name: John Ballestero Total Berth Length: 5,000





Terminal Website: www.pomtoc.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 0








Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

available to work container vessels 24 hours.

0800- 1700, closed for lunch from 1200- 1300.

Notes: POMTOC operates a public container terminal serving 30 ocean carriers at the port of Miami. The terminal

has its own gate complex. The POMTOC terminal is adjacent to the South Florida Container Terminal and

Seaboard Marine. All three terminals share the berth space and gantry cranes.

Seaboard Marine terminal is a private terminal operated by Seaboard Marine for its Caribbean

trades and South American trades. The terminal has a total of 84 acres and has 10 berths with

total berth length of 6500 feet. The terminal utilizes mobile harbor cranes and Ro-Ro for loading

Tioga

and unloading containers. The terminal also has access to the Port’s container berths and gantry

cranes. Exhibit 125 provides a profile of the Seaboard Marine terminal.

Exhibit 125: Seaboard Marine Terminal



Terminal: Seaboard Marine Terminal CY Acres: 84

Terminal Type: container & ro-ro On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

1630 Port Blvd. Other Non-CY Acres:


Operator (Stevedore): Seaboard Marine Berths: 10

Contact Name: Carlos Arocha Total Berth Length: 6500'

Telephone Number: 305-530-5750 Channel Depth (MLLW): 42'/29'

Fax Number: 305-579-9162 Berth Depth (MLLW): 42'/29'

E-Mail Address: carlos_arocha@seaboardmarin Panamax Container Cranes: 7


Terminal Website: www.seaboardmarine.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 0

Inbound Gates: 2 Mobile Harbor Cranes 3







Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: Seaboard Marine operates its own terminal at the Port of Miami utilizing Ro-Ro and mobile harbor cranes

for loading and unloading containers. Seaboard Marine also has access to the Port's container berths and gantry

cranes.

loads accepted 24 hours, vessels can be worked 24 hours

24 hours


Exhibit 126 summarizes the land use at the Port of Miami. The combined area of the three

container terminals is 278 acres. Since these are leased terminals, 100% of the terminal areas are

assumed to be utilized for container operations. Most of the remaining land on the port appears

to be utilized for cruise ship operations. Since the port is on an island, the only way to expand

Tioga

container area is to convert other port land to container operation. For the Port as a whole, there

are an estimated 189 acres of CY space for a CY/Gross ratio of 68%.

Exhibit 126: Port of Miami Land Use

Port Land Use SFCT Seaboard POMTOC Port Total

Gross Acres 74 84 120 278

CY Acres 56 50 83 189

Rail AcresOther Non-CY Acres 18 34 37 89



Exhibit 127 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage. Based on review of aerial

photos the CY area is a mixture of wheeled and grounded use. It was estimated that the

combined CY area was 189 acres producing 30,080 storage slots. Annual CY sustainable TEU

capacity is estimated at 1.7 million TEU producing capacity utilization of 70% relative to 2008

volume. However it should be noted that the Seaboard operation is primarily Ro-Ro which may

not have the same dwell time or utilization characteristics as the SFTC or POMTOC terminals.

Exhibit 127: Port of Miami CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard Capacity SFCT Seaboard POMTOC Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots 800 2,000 400 3,200

Grounded Straddle Carrier Slots 4,000 - 7,680 11,680

Grounded Stacked Slots 4,200 5,000 6,000 15,200

Grounded RTG Slots - - - -

Grounded RMG Slots - - - -




Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 630,000 490,000 985,600 2,105,600

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 504,000 392,000 788,480 1,684,480

2008 Annual TEU 388,329 501,062 296,809 1,186,190

2008 TEU per CY Slot 43 72 21 39


Crane Capacity

Exhibit 128 provides a summary of the crane operation and capacity for the combined SFCT and

POMTOC terminals. These two terminals share the 9 cranes and berth space adjacent to their

terminals. Crane capacity for this container operation is estimated to be 2.2 million TEU with

2008 utilization at 31%. Based on this analysis it appears that there is adequate crane capacity to

handle future growth.

Although the Seaboard marine operation can utilize the ports container berths and cranes it was

assumed that only the SFCT and POMTOC operations used these facilities. The Seaboard

facility handles self unloading vessels and R0-Ro vessels. It also has three mobile harbor cranes

to support its operations. Crane capacity calculations are not applicable to this type operation.

Tioga

Exhibit 128: Port of Miami Near Term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity SFCT Seaboard POMTOC SFCT & POMTOC

Cranes Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 9

Available Crane Hours per Day 16

Current Annual Operating Days 250

Current Annual Hours/Crane 4,000

Annual Available Crane Hours 36,000

Sustainable Hours @ 80% 28,800

Avg. TEU/Available Crane-hour 41.2

Avg. Annual TEU/Crane 76,127

Crane Capacity, Moves/hour 35

Sustainable Moves/Hr @ 80% 28

Port average TEU/container 1.75

Crane Capacity TEU/hour 61

Annual Crane Capacity 2,205,877

Current Annual TEU (SFCT & POMTOC) 685,139


Berth Capacity

Port of Miami berth capacity estimated for the maximum vessel size is summarized in Exhibit

129. Berth capacity was estimated separately for the combined SFCT and POMTOC and the

Seaboard terminal. The annual berth capacity for the SFTC and POMTOC berth space was

estimated at 1.0 million TEU with utilization of 84%. The Seaboard facility had annual berth

capacity estimate of 2.3 million TEU with utilization of 21%. The maximum vessel analysis

may not be applicable to the Seaboard facility as it currently handles much smaller vessels

because of the markets that Seaboard serves.

Exhibit 129: Port of Miami Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis SFCT Seaboard POMTOC SFCT & POMTOC

Berths Not Applicable 10 Not Applicable 7












2007 TEU 501,062 685,139

Avg. TEU/Vessel 589 927





Max Calls per Berth 5/wk 260 260

Sustainable Calls at 80% 208 208



2008 Annual TEU 501,062 685,139


Tioga

Berth capacity based on vessel calls is summarized in Exhibit 130. Using this approach the SFTC

& POMTOC terminals have capacity for 1,456 calls with 2007 utilization of 51%. Similarly the

Seaboard terminal has capacity for 2080 vessel calls at its 10 berths and 2007 berth utilization of

41%.

Exhibit 130: Port of Miami 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis SFCT Seaboard POMTOC SFCT & POMTOC

Max Calls per Berth 5/wk Not Applicable 260 Not Applicable 260

Sustainable Calls at 80% 208 208







and vessel berths for the Port of Miami. The port currently has estimated CY capacity of 1.6

million TEU with utilization of 70%. As noted earlier the analysis may not be appropriate for the

Seaboard operation. Crane capacity for the SFCT and POMTOC terminals is 2.2 million TEU

with utilization at 54%. Berth utilization for the SFCT and POMTOC terminals is 57% on a

vessel call basis and 84% on a maximum vessel call basis. Berth utilization at the Seaboard

terminal is 41% on a vessel call basis and 27% on a maximum vessel call basis. This analysis

indicates that the port has adequate terminal capacity to handle future growth.

Tioga

Exhibit 131: Port of Miami Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space SFCT Seaboard POMTOC Miami

2008 TEU 388,329 501,062 296,809 1,186,190

Gross Acres 74 84 120 278CY Acres 56 50 83 189CY/Gross Ratio 76% 60% 69% 68%Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 504,000 392,000 788,480 1,684,480

Annual TEU/Gross Acre 5,248 5,965 2,473 4,267 Annual TEU/CY Acre 6,934 10,021 3,576 6,276 Est. CY TEU Slots 9,000 7,000 14,080 30,080 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 161 140 170 159 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 43 72 21 39 CY Utilization 77% 128% 38% 70%

Container Cranes SFCT Seaboard POMTOC SFCT & POMTOC

Cranes Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 9

Cranes per Berth 1.3

Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 2,205,877

Avg. Moves/Available Crane-Hour 41.2

Annual TEU/Crane 131,799

Annual Moves/Crane 75,284



Berths and Vessels SFCT Seaboard POMTOC SFCT & POMTOC

Berths Not Applicable 10 Not Applicable 7









Average TEU per Vessel (2007) 589 927







Tioga

V. Gulf Ports

Gulf Coast Summary

Exhibit 132 summarizes capacity and utilization estimates for the three major Gulf Coast

container ports. Houston dominates the region with 80% of the total, and has most of the reserve

capacity. New Orleans suffered a setback from Hurricane Katrina as well as having a

competitive disadvantage from being located roughly 100 miles upriver from the Gulf of

Mexico. Mobile, however, and a new terminal and significant reserve capacity for post-recession

growth.

Tioga

Exhibit 132: Gulf Coast Capacity and Utilization Summary

Container Yard MobileNew

OrleansHouston Gulf Ports

2008 TEU 121,803 313,765 1,794,309 2,229,877

Gross Acres 156 128 433 717

CY Acres 91 79 272 442


Annual CY Capacity - TEU 898,240 873,600 3,127,040 4,898,880

Reserve CY Capacity - TEU 776,437 559,835 1,332,731 2,669,003

Annual TEU/Gross Acre 781 2,451 4,141 3,109

Annual TEU/CY Acre 1,338 3,972 6,597 5,045

Est. CY TEU Slots 16,040 12,480 55,840 84,360

Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 176 158 205 191

Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 8 25 32 26

CY Utilization 14% 45% 57% 46%

Container Cranes MobileNew


Cranes 4 4 19 27


Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 1,008,000 857,344 4,788,000 6,653,344

Reserve Crane Capacity - TEU 886,197 543,578 2,993,691 4,423,466

Annual TEU/Crane 30,451 78,441 94,437 82,588



Berths and Vessels MobileNew


Berths 3 2 8 13

Berth Feet 2,900 2,000 8,000 12,900

Annual Vessel Calls (2007) 50 281 818 1,149

Annual Vessel Calls per Berth (2007) 52 141 102 88

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis 25% 54% 49% 42%




Average Vessel Capacity - TEU 3,895 3,492 3,895 3,387

Average TEU per Vessel (2007) 781 1,189 2,162 1,941

Avg. Vessel Ute. - % Discharge/Load 20% 34% 56% 57%

Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 487,212 494,757 4,047,518 5,029,487

Berth Utilization - Avg. Vessel Basis 25% 63% 44% 44%

Reserve Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 365,409 180,991 2,253,209 2,799,609

Reserve Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 305,937 489,247 1,759,147 2,554,332

As shown in Exhibit 133, Houston has a relatively shallow draft, which is being remedied by a

planned dredging project.

Tioga

Exhibit 133: Gulf Coast Draft and Vessel Data

Berths and Vessels MobileNew

OrleansHouston

Nominal Maximum Channel/Berth Draft Feet 42 45 40

Estimated Maximum Vessel TEU 3,420 5,183 3,420

2007 Average Vessel TEU 3,895 3,492 3,895

2008 Average Vessel Discharge/Load 781 1,189 2,162

Port of Mobile

Overview

The Alabama State Port Authority (ASPA) has two container terminals at the Port of Mobile.

The new Mobile Container Terminal (MCT) was completed and opened for business in

September 2008. The second terminal is ASPA’s original container terminal at Pier Two. The

Pier Two terminal is a combination container and general cargo terminal. It has been reported

that most of the Port’s container traffic now moves through MCT. Phase I of the new terminal

has 95 developed acres. It has two berths with 2000 feet of berth length serviced by two Post-

Panamax cranes. Channel and berth depth at MCT are 45 feet. Final build out will be 135 acres

with six cranes. The Pier Two terminal utilizes about 21 acres for container operations. The

facility has one 900 foot berth serviced by two PACECO cranes. Water depth at Pier Two is 40

feet. Exhibit 134 and Exhibit 135 provide aerial photos of the MCT and Pier Two terminals.

Exhibit 134: Mobile Container Terminal (MCT)

Source: Mobile Container Terminal Website Information Sheet

Tioga

Exhibit 135: Mobile Pier Two - Container and General Cargo Terminal

Source: Google Earth Image Date January 31, 2008

Mobile Container Terminal was a $300 million development of the Alabama State Port

Authority and Mobile Container Terminal, LLC a terminal company formed to operate the

facility. Mobile Container Terminal LLC is a joint venture between APM Terminals, a

subsidiary of AP Moeller, and Terminal Link, a subsidiary of CMA CGM. MCT Phase I is

advertised to have terminal capacity of 350,000 TEU with future expansion capacity to 800,000

TEU. In addition, a new on-dock intermodal facility is being planned for MCT with projected

completion in 2012. Exhibit 136 provides a profile of MCT.

Exhibit 136: Mobile Container Terminal Profile

Profle date: Sept. 30, 2009 2009 TEU for entire Port 121,803

Port: Mobile, Alabama Total Acres: 135

Terminal: Mobile Container Terminal (MCT) CY Acres: 70

Terminal Type: On-Dock Rail Acres:

901 Ezra Trice Blvd. Other Non-CY Acres: 25

Mobile, AL 36603 Net Terminal Acres: 95

Operator (Stevedore): MCT Berths: 2





Port Website: www.asdd.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 2

Terminal Website: www.mobilecontainerterminal.us CY Rail-Mounted Gantries:








Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Mon – Fri 8:00AM to 5:00PM

Tioga

Pier Two terminal is operated by ASPA. This terminal still handles a small amount of container

cargo but the volume has been declining with the opening of the new terminal. With the existing

capacity and future expansion potential of MCT, it does not appear to be necessary for the ASPA

to continue to operate the Pier Two facility for container service. Exhibit 137 provides a profile

for the Pier Two terminal.

Exhibit 137: Pier Two Terminal Profile

Profle date: Sept. 30, 2009 2009 TEU: for entire port 121,803

Port: Mobile, AL Total Acres: 21

Terminal:General Cargo & Container

Terminal Pier 2 TerminalCY Acres: 21

Terminal Type: Container/General Cargo On-Dock Rail Acres: Yes

Main Port Complex Other Non-CY Acres: 550

Pier 2 Port of Mobile - FIRM Code P047Net Terminal Acres: 21

Operator (Stevedore):Private Licensed Stevedores -

list available at Berths: 1

Contact Name: John Mickler, Mgr. General Cargo & IntermodalTotal Berth Length: 900

Telephone Number: 251-441-7325 Channel Depth (MLLW): 40 ft



Port Website: www.asdd.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 0

Terminal Website: www.asdd.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 0

Inbound Gates: Two CY Rubber-Tired Gantries: 1

Outbound Gates: Two CY Side or Top Loaders: 0



On-Line Access System: MainSail Online - Outside Total CY Lift Machines 7

Appointment System: Truckers CHB - Forecast - https://asd.tideworks.com/fc-ASD/default.doOn-site M&R (yes/no): No


Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

8:00 a.m. CT - 4:30 p.m. CT

8:00 a.m. CT - 4:30 p.m. CT


Exhibit 138 summarizes land use at the Port of Mobile. The combined acreage of the two

terminals is 156 acres with net terminal area of 116 acres. Overall land use ratio is 74%. The

Mobile Container Terminal (MCT) still has 40 acres of undeveloped land which will be available

for future development.

Tioga

Exhibit 138: Port of Mobile Land Use

Port Land UseMobile Gen

CargoMobile MCT Port Total


CY Acres 21 70 91

Rail Acres - - -

Other Non-CY Acres - 25 25



Exhibit 139 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage. The CY area is a primarily a

grounded operation with less than 10% wheeled space. The CY area estimated at 91 acres

produces 16,040 TEU storage slots. Sustainable annual CY capacity is estimated to be nearly

900,000 TEU with CY utilization of 14% based on 2009 volume of 121,803.

Exhibit 139: Port of Mobile Near Term CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard CapacityMobile Gen


Wheeled Chassis Slots 320 1,120 1,440



Grounded RTG Slots - - -





Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 260,400 862,400 1,122,800

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 208,320 689,920 898,240

2009 Estimated Annual TEU 12,180 109,623 121,803



Crane Capacity

Exhibit 140 provides a summary of the Port of Mobile’s cranes and an estimate of crane

capacity. The port has 4 cranes at its two terminals. Annual crane capacity for the port is

estimated to be 1.0 million TEU with current crane utilization of 12%.

Tioga

Exhibit 140: Port of Mobile Near Term Crane Capacity

Crane CapacityMobile Gen


Cranes 2 2 4












Annual Crane Capacity 504,000 504,000 1,008,000



Berth Capacity

The Port of Mobile’s estimated berth capacity for the maximum vessel size is summarized in

Exhibit 141. This analysis produces an estimate of near-term berth capacity of 427,740 TEU and

berth utilization of 28%.

Tioga

Exhibit 141: Port of Mobile Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel BasisMobile Gen


Berths 1 2 3

Berth length 900 2,000 2,900








Length requirement 905 1,005 905



2009 Estimated TEU 12,180 109,623 121,803

Avg. TEU/Vessel 234 1,054 781




Average TEU per Max Vessel 685 685 685

Max Vessel Calls per Berth 5/wk 260 260 260


Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 208 416 624

Annual Berth Capacity TEU 142,580 285,160 427,740

2009 Estimated TEU 12,180 109,623 121,803



berth capacity estimate 780 vessel calls and estimated 2009 berth utilization of 25%.

Exhibit 142: Port of Mobile Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call BasisMobile Gen


2009 Estimated Vessel calls 52 104 156




Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 208 416 624

2009 Berth Utilization 25% 25% 25%



and vessel berths for the Port of Mobile. This analysis estimates CY utilization at 14%, crane

utilization at 12% and berth utilization at 25% on a vessel call basis and 28% on a maximum

vessel basis. The overall analysis indicates that the Port of Mobile has plenty of capacity to

handle future growth. This is to be expected since the new Mobile Container Terminal has only

been open since September 2008 and volume have not increased sufficiently to challenge the

new terminal’s capacity.

Tioga

Exhibit 143: Port of Mobile Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal SpaceMobile Gen

CargoMobile MCT Mobile

2009 Estimated TEU 12,180 109,623 121,803

Gross Acres 21 135 156CY Acres 21 70 91CY/Gross Ratio 100% 52% 58%Annual CY Capacity - TEU 208,320 689,920 898,240 Annual TEU/Gross Acre 580 812 781 Annual TEU/CY Acre 580 1,566 1,338 Est. CY TEU Slots 3,720 12,320 16,040 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 177 176 176 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 33 10 8 CY Utilization 6% 16% 14%

Container CranesMobile Gen


Cranes 2 2 4


Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 504,000 504,000 1,008,000


Annual TEU/Crane 6,090 54,811 30,451


Annual Vessel Calls/Crane (2007) 26 52 39


Berths and VesselsMobile Gen


Berths 1 2 3

Berth Feet 900 2,000 2,900

Annual Vessel Calls per Berth (2009 estimate) 52 52 52

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis 25% 25% 25%



Average Vessel Capacity - TEU - - 3,895



Average TEU per Vessel (2007) 234 1,054 781


Berth Capacity - Avg. Vessel Basis 48,721 438,491 487,212


Avg. Discharge/Load per Max. Vessel 685

Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 142,580 285,160 427,740

Berth Utilization - Max. Vessel Basis 9% 38% 28%

New Orleans Capacity Estimates

Overview

The Port of New Orleans has one container terminal, the Napoleon Avenue Terminal, located on

the Mississippi River 99.5 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. Total acreage of the facility is 125

acres which includes a 10-acre on-dock intermodal terminal. The on dock terminal is served by

Tioga

the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad which connects to all 6 Class One rail carriers serving

New Orleans. Canadian National currently offers service to the terminal. The Napoleon Avenue

terminal area also includes a number of freight houses and lay down acreage which supports the

port’s general cargo business. The container terminal provides two berths with a total berth

length of 2000 feet. Channel depth and berth is 45 feet. The berths are equipped with four cranes,

two Panamax and two Post-Panamax. In addition the port has two additional cranes on order

with projected delivery in 2010. Exhibit 144 provides an aerial view of the terminal delineating

the container areas and on-dock rail facility.

Exhibit 144: Port of New Orleans Napoleon Avenue Terminal

Source: Google Earth Image Date February 28, 2006

The terminal’s CY space is leased to two terminal operators, Ceres Gulf, Inc. and Ports America

New Orleans. Ceres Gulf leases 47 acres and Ports America leases 48 acres. Both terminal

operators share a common gate, berth space, and crane use. Exhibit 145 provides a profile of the

Napoleon Avenue Terminal.

Tioga

Exhibit 145: Napoleon Avenue Terminal Profile


Port: New Orleans Total Acres: 125

Terminal: Napoleon Ave. Container Terminal CY Acres: 79


1350 Port of New Orleans Pl. Other Non-CY Acres: 16

New Orleans, LA 70130 Net Terminal Acres: 105

Operator (Stevedore): Ceres Gulf, Inc.; Ports America Berths: 2

Contact Name: Chris Bonura Total Berth Length: 2,000




Port Website: www.portno.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 2

Terminal Website: www.gemnola.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 0





On-Line Access System: www.gemnola.com Total CY Lift Machines 23

Appointment System: www.gemnola.com On-site M&R (yes/no): yes


Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:


Address:

Notes: The Napolean Ave Container Terminal is shared by two operators, Ceres and Ports America. Ceres Gulf Inc. at 50

Napolean Ave, New Orleans, LA 70115, leases 47 acres. Ports America New Orleans at 601 Louisiana Ave, New Orleans,

LA 70115 leases 48 acres. They both share a common gate, berthing space and gantry cranes. Two additional Panamax

cranes are on order with delivery expected in 2010 The on-dock intermodal facility is served by New Orleans Public Belt RR

(NOPB) which connects to all 6 class one carriers. CN provides direct intermodal service to the port . In addition BN, UP,

CN, NS, CSX and KCS intermodal terminals serve New Orleans and are within drayage distance of the port.

24 hours per day, 7 days per week

0700 to 1630 hours weekdays


Exhibit 146 summarizes land use at the Port of New Orleans. The estimated acreage of the

Napoleon Avenue container terminal is 125 acres with net terminal area of 105 acres and a land

use ratio of 84%, and a CY/Gross ratio of 62%. The net terminal area and CY estimates are

based on information taken from the Port Strategy Advisory Report of June 2009. This report,

prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, provided a feasibility study for expanding the Napoleon

Avenue terminal. The land area is based on current use by the Ports two terminal operators.

Exhibit 146: Port of New Orleans Land Use

Port Land Use Napoleon Port Total

Gross Acres 128 128

CY Acres 79 79

Rail Acres 10 10




Tioga

Exhibit 147 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage. The CY area is estimated to

provide sustainable annual capacity of 699,000 TEU. This produces annual utilization of 45%

based on 2008 volume of 314,000 TEU (reported loads and estimated empties).

Exhibit 147: Port of New Orleans Near Term Storage Capacity

Container Yard Capacity Napoleon Port Total


Grounded Straddle Carrier Slots 6,880 6,880









2008 Annual TEU 313,765 313,765



Crane Capacity

Exhibit 148 provides a summary of the Napoleon Avenue crane capacity. The terminal currently

provides 4 Panamax cranes. Estimated annual crane capacity is 1.0 million TEU with 2008

capacity utilization of 31%. The port also has two additional Post-Panamax cranes on order with

expected delivery in 2010.

Exhibit 148: Port of New Orleans Near Term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity Napoleon Port Total

Cranes 4 4












Annual Crane Capacity 857,344 857,344



Berth Capacity

The Napoleon Avenue berth capacity in TEU for the maximum vessel size is summarized in

Exhibit 149. This estimate generates near-term berth capacity of 803,012 TEU and berth

utilization of 39% for the terminals two container berths.

Tioga

Exhibit 149: Port of New Orleans Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis Napoleon Port Total

Berths 2 2












2007 TEU 334,199 334,199






Max annual calls per berth 5/wk 260 260

Sustainable calls at 80% 208 208


Annual Berth Capacity TEU - Max Vessel Basis 803,012 803,012

2008 Annual TEU 313,765 313,765



berth capacity estimate of 416 vessel calls and 2007 berth utilization of 68%.

Exhibit 150: Port of New Orleans 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis Napoleon Port Total

Max annual calls per berth 5/wk 260 260

Sustainable calls at 80% 208 208







and vessel berths for the Napoleon Avenue terminal. This analysis estimates current CY

utilization of 45%, crane utilization at 31% and berth utilization at 68% on a vessel call basis and

39% on a maximum vessel basis. These estimates indicate that the port has adequate capacity to

handle future growth.

Tioga

Exhibit 151: Port of New Orleans Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space Napoleon New Orleans

2008 TEU 313,765 313,765

Gross Acres 128 128CY Acres 79 79CY/Gross Ratio 62% 62%Annual CY Capacity - TEU 873,600 873,600 Annual TEU/Gross Acre 2,451 2,451 Annual TEU/CY Acre 3,972 3,972 Est. CY TEU Slots 12,480 12,480 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 158 158 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 25 25 CY Utilization 45% 45%

Container Cranes Napoleon New Orleans

Cranes 4 4


Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 857,344 857,344






Berths and Vessels Napoleon New Orleans

Berths 2 2














Berth Capacity - Max. Vessel Basis 803,012 803,012


Port of Houston

Overview

The Port of Houston has two container terminals owned by the Port of Houston Authority

(PHA). Aerial photos of the Barbours Cut Container Terminal and the Bayport Container

Terminal are shown in Exhibit 60. It should be noted that the latest expansion of the Bayport

terminal was completed after the aerial photos were taken.

Tioga

Exhibit 152: Port of Houston Terminals


Barbours Cut is the port’s largest terminal with a total of 303 acres and 165 acres of CY space.

The terminal has a 42 acre on-dock rail terminal. Barbours Cut has six berths with a total of

6000 feet of berth length. The port operates a total of 18 cranes at the terminal, five of which are

Post-Panamax. Exhibit 153 provides a profile of the terminal.

Bayport is a new terminal which opened in January 2007. The present development of 130 acres

is Phase IA of a 15 to 20 year phased development. The terminal has 107 acres of CY and two

berths with 2000 feet of berth length. The berths are served by six Post-Panamax cranes. When

fully built out the terminal will have seven berths, 378 acres of CY and a 123 acre intermodal

terminal. Exhibit 154 provides a profile of the terminal. Bayport will also have a cruise terminal

with three cruise ship berths.

Tioga

Exhibit 153: Barbours Cut Terminal

Profle date: 10/5/2009 2008 TEU: 750,145

Port: Houston Total Acres: (Not incl Empty Yards, etc.) 303

Terminal: Barbours Cut CY Acres: 165


1515 E. Barbours Cut Blvd. Other Non-CY Acres: 4

La Porte, TX 77571 Net Terminal Acres (BGY): 257

Operator (Stevedore): Port of Houston Berths: 6





Port Website: www.portofhouston.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 5

Terminal Website: www.portofhouston.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 0





On-Line Access System: Navis Express/WebAccess Total CY Lift Machines 64

Appointment System: N/A On-site M&R (yes/no): Yes


Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:

Barbours Cut Container Terminal Profile

Address:

Notes: Four entry points with a total of 26 truck lanes. 13 wharf cranes. On dock rail intermodal terminal served by

BNSF and Union Pacific. Four 40-ton (40.64 m.t.) Morris Cranes, eight 40-ton Bardella cranes, six 40 ton-Noell

cranes, 22 new 50-ton K

Monday through Friday: 7 am –5 pm


Tioga

Exhibit 154: Bayport Terminal


Port: Houston Total Acres: 130

Terminal: Bayport Container Terminal CY Acres: 107

Terminal Type: On-Dock Rail Acres: 0

12619 Port Rd. Other Non-CY Acres: 23

Seabrook, Tx 77586 Net Terminal Acres (BGY) 107

Operator (Stevedore): Berths: 2





Port Website: www.portofhouston.com Post-Panamax Container Cranes: 6

Terminal Website: www.portofhouston.com CY Rail-Mounted Gantries: 0





On-Line Access System: Navis Express/WebAccess Total CY Lift Machines 30

Appointment System: N/A On-site M&R (yes/no): Yes


Terminal Hours:

Gate Hours:

BAYPORT CONTAINER TERMINAL PROFILE

Address:

Notes: Entrance Gates: Port Road, 8 Inbound, 4 Outbound. Acreage: 90 total, wharf 5.6 acres, container yard 60.3 acres, gate 23.4

acres. Intermodal rail ramp at Barbours Cut.



Tioga


Exhibit 155 summarizes land use for the Port of Houston. The combined acreage of the two

terminals is 433 acres with 364 net terminal acres. This creates a net to gross land use ratio of

84% for the current developed terminal areas. The Bayport terminal has several hundred

undeveloped acres available for future container terminal expansion.

Exhibit 155: Port of Houston Land Use

Port Land Use Barbours Cut Bayport Port Total


CY Acres 165 107 272

Rail Acres 42 - 42




Exhibit 156 applies standard CY storage factors to the port acreage. Houston has a mix of

wheeled, stacked, and RTG storage areas. Based on interpretation of aerial photographs it was

estimated that the CY area of 272 acres produced 55,840 storage slots. Annual CY sustainable

capacity is estimated at 3.1 million TEU producing annual utilization of 57 % relative to 2008

volume of 1.8 million TEU.

Exhibit 156: Port of Houston Near Term CY Storage Capacity

Container Yard Capacity Barbours Cut Bayport Port Total

Wheeled Chassis Slots 5,680 2,160 7,840



Grounded RTG Slots 24,600 15,000 39,600





Maximum Annual CY TEU Capacity 2,287,600 1,621,200 3,908,800

Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 1,830,080 1,296,960 3,127,040

2008 Annual TEU 750,145 470,547 1,794,309



Crane Capacity

Exhibit 157 provides a summary of the Port of Houston’s cranes and an estimate of crane

capacity. The port operates 19 cranes at its two terminals. Annual crane capacity for the port is

estimated to be 4.8 million TEU with 2008 utilization at 37%. In addition, three additional cranes

are being added to the Bayport terminal with delivery expected by the end of 2010.

Tioga

Exhibit 157: Port of Houston Near Term Crane Capacity

Crane Capacity Barbours Cut Bayport Port Total

Cranes 13 6 19












Annual Crane Capacity 3,276,000 1,512,000 4,788,000

Current Annual TEU 750,145 470,547 1,794,309


Berth Capacity

The Port of Houston berth capacity estimate in TEU for the maximum vessel size is summarized

in Exhibit 158. This estimate gives near-term berth capacity of 3.6 million TEU and berth

utilization of 50%. In addition, the berth length at Bayport is undergoing an expansion project

which will extend it to 3,300 feet by the end of 2010.

Exhibit 158: Port of Houston Near Term Berth Capacity Maximum Vessel Basis

Berth Capacity - Max Vessel Basis Barbours Cut Bayport Port Total

Berths 6 2 8

Berth length 6,000 2,000 8,000








Length requirement 905 905 905



2007 TEU 1,768,627





Average TEU per Max Vessel 1,898 1,898 1,898



Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 1,456 416 1,872

Annual Berth Capacity TEU 2,763,799 789,657 3,553,456

2008 Annual TEU 750,145 470,547 1,794,309


Tioga

Berth capacity based on vessel calls is summarized in Exhibit 159. This approach generates berth

a capacity estimate 1,664 vessel calls and 2007 berth utilization of 49%.

Exhibit 159: Port of Houston 2007 Berth Capacity Vessel Call Basis

Berth Utilization - Vessel Call Basis Barbours Cut Bayport Port Total




Total Sustainable Vessel Calls 1,248 416 1,664





and vessel berths for the Port of Houston. This analysis estimates current CY utilization of 57%,

crane utilization at 37% and berth utilization at 49% on a vessel call basis and 50% on a

maximum vessel basis. These estimates indicate that the port has adequate capacity to handle

future growth. In addition, the Bayport terminal is undergoing a berth expansion project which

will add 1300 feet of berth length and three new container cranes by the end of 2010.

Tioga

Exhibit 160: Port of Houston Near Term Capacity and Productivity Summary

Terminal Space Barbours Cut Bayport Houston

2008 TEU 750,145 470,547 1,794,309

Gross Acres 303 130 433CY Acres 165 107 272CY/Gross Ratio 54% 82% 63%Sustainable CY TEU Capacity @ 80% 1,830,080 1,296,960 3,127,040 Annual TEU/Gross Acre 2,476 3,611 4,141 Annual TEU/CY Acre 4,546 4,398 6,597 Est. CY TEU Slots 32,680 23,160 55,840 Avg. CY Slots/ Acre - Density 198 216 205 Avg. Annual TEU/CY Slot (Turns) 23 20 32 CY Utilization 41% 36% 57%

Container Cranes Barbours Cut Bayport Houston

Cranes 13 6 19


Annual Crane Capacity - TEU 3,276,000 1,512,000 4,788,000


Annual TEU/Crane 57,703 78,425 94,437


Annual Vessel Calls/Crane (2007) - 43


Berths and Vessels Barbours Cut Bayport Houston

Berths 6 2 8

Berth Feet 6,000 2,000 8,000















120310 Port Capacity Report Draft.doc

Tioga

VI. Appendix: Secondary Container Ports

Wilmington, NC. The Port of Wilmington, NC is owned and operated by the North Carolina

State Ports Authority and illustrated below. The terminal is a multipurpose facility serving

containers, bulk, and break-bulk shipments.

Exhibit 161: Wilmington, NC

The terminal handled 196,040 TEU in 2008. Of the 80.1 acres listed as container yards, 57.7 are

currently in use as top pick storage. Three of the nine berths (2,633 of 6,768’) are near the CYs.

Water depth at the berth is 42’. Based on standard efficiency factors the current capacity is

approximately 638,000 TEU and would be easily expandable to over 1 Million TEU by using all

the available CY space.

The Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point, N.C. is located down the Cape Fear river from

Wilmington, NC near the Atlantic Ocean. The facility is a large ammunition port, and the

Army's primary east coast deep-water port. The Army has almost completely containerized its

ammunition shipments. The nine berths measure over 6000’ on three trestles. The south and

center trestle are dredged to 38’ of depth. The facility has 2 container cranes on the south trestle.

The 8,502 acre facility has a number of unique design features associated with the specialized

and high explosive nature of the cargo which make many of the standard productivity measures

meaningless.

Palm Beach, FL. The Port of Palm Beach is located in Riviera Beach, Florida, just north of the

city of West Palm Beach. The port of Palm Beach is a landlord port owned by the Port of Palm

Beach District. The Port’s Riviera Beach terminal is a mixed use facility handling containers,

bulk and breakbulk cargo. The terminal, shown in Exhibit 162, occupies 153 acres. The terminal

has three slips and provides 13 berth faces with a total length exceeding 6000 feet. The longest

berth is 1110 feet located on the south face of slip one, the northernmost slip. The Port also has a


Tioga

cruise ship terminal on the north side. The terminal is limited to handling cruise ships up to 680

feet in length. The port is located less than 1.5 miles from the Atlantic Ocean and has channel

berth depth of 33 feet. The port operates its own switching rail line which provides on dock

switching service for carload and intermodal rail cars. The Port’s direct rail connection is with

the FEC Railroad.

Exhibit 162: Port of Palm Beach - Riviera Beach Terminal


The Port’s container operating tenant is Tropical Shipping, a Caribbean container carrier.

Tropical’s corporate office is located on the Riviera Beach terminal. Tropical utilizes about 55

acres of the terminal for its container operations. Based on the aerial photograph above, Tropical

utilizes six mobile harbor cranes for loading and unloading its container ships. The terminal also

has Ro-Ro capability on the inner face of slips one and two. Palm Beach container volume in

2008 was 244,638 TEU.

Tampa, FL. The Port of Tampa is located at the north end of Tampa Bay about 33 miles from

the Gulf of Mexico. The Port is primarily a bulk cargo port handling over 40 million tons of

liquid and dry bulk cargoes in 2008. The Tampa Port Authority owns a 40 acre container

terminal which is operated by stevedoring company Ports America. The Tampa Container

Terminal, shown in Exhibit 162, has two berths with a total berth length of 2100 feet. The berths

are equipped three gantry cranes. The entrance channel and main container berth are maintained

to a depth of 43 feet. A terminal expansion project completed in April 2010 increased the

terminal area from 25 to 40 acres taking terminal capacity to 200,000 annual TEU. The Port has

a phased expansion plan to increase the container terminal to 140 acres with 750,000 TEU

capacity over the next three to five years.


Tioga

Exhibit 163: Port of Tampa


The terminal is served by Zim Shipping Services which provides a weekly Asia-Gulf Express

service and Horizon Lines which provides a Gulf – Puerto Rico Service. 2009 container volume

was 48,788 TEU. The Port Authority projects 2010 volume at 61,000 TEU.

Gulfport, MS. The Port of Gulfport, MS, is owned and operated by the Mississippi State Port

Authority (MSPA). The port operates 10 berths on two piers with a total berth length of nearly

6000 feet. The Gulfport terminal, shown in Exhibit 162 is a mixed use facility handling bulk,

breakbulk, and containerized cargo. The terminal is equipped with two Gottwald 100 ton cargo

cranes and has 400,00 square feet of covered storage. The port area encompasses 204 acres with

over 80 acres of open and container storage. The port channel is dredged to a depth of 36 feet.


Tioga

Exhibit 164: Port of Gulfport

Source: MSPA Website Image Date December 2009

MSPA utilizes the services of two stevedoring companies, Stevedoring Services of America

(SSA) and Ports America Gulfport. The Port is served by three container shipping lines,

Chiquita’s Great White Fleet, Dole Fresh Fruit Company and Crowley Maritime. These lines

principally serve the Central American Markets with Chiquita and Dole handling imported

produce. The port handled 214,074 TEU in 2008. The port has no on dock container crates;

containers are loaded and unloaded with the vessel mounted cranes of self sustaining

containerships.

The port was severely damaged in 2005 by hurricane Katrina. As a result the Port is in the

process of undergoing a major restoration project to repair damage and to elevate the Port to an

elevation of 25 feet above sea level. The first phase of this project is filling a 60 acre area

adjacent to the West Pier. This project is approximately 54% complete. The second phase of the

project is to fill an additional 24 acres for a total expansion of 84 acres of the West Pier.

Freeport, TX. Freeport handled 71,900 TEU in 2008. The facility includes 186 acres of

developed land, a 400-foot-wide, 45’ deep channel, and a 70’ deep berthing area with 14

individual berths. Rail access is to the Union Pacific Railway. The terminal had over 3000

vessel and barge calls per year, primarily serving bulk commodities. Primary imports include

aggregates, chemicals, clothing, crude oil, foods (fruit), paper goods, plastics, and windmills.

Top export commodities include autos, chemicals, clothing, foods, paper goods, resins, and rice.

The primary container cargo moving through the port are bananas and other fresh fruits. Like

Wilmington, DE, Dole and Chiquita are major tenants.

A major new container terminal is under construction in Freeport. The initial phase of the

Velasco Terminal is expected to open in the second quarter of 2010. Phase I consists of an 800’

berth, 50’ depth, and 20 acres of CY space. The ultimate build out is 2,400’ of berthing and 90


Tioga

acres of CY space plus a rail intermodal terminal. Tioga estimates the projected capacity of the

facility at over a million TEU.

Exhibit 165: Freeport, TX

Port of Beaumont, TX. The Port of Beaumont is the U.S. Military’s second largest port. It has

extensive bulk, break-bulk, and ro-ro facilities. The Sabine-Neches Channel is a minimum of

400 feet wide and maintained at a depth of 40 feet. Air draft is 136 feet. The facility handled

3,280 TEU in 2008.

Port of Port Arthur, TX. The Port of Port Arthur advertises itself as capable of any kind of

break-bulk marine service. It specializes in forest products; iron and steel products; dry bulk

cargoes; project and military cargo; and bagged and bailed goods. It handled 170 TEU in 2008.

Port of Texas City, TX. The Port of Texas City and Texas City Terminal Railway is a

privately owned port specializing in oil and other bulk commodities. The port’s key

shareholders are the BNSF and UP railroads.

Port of Galveston, TX. The Port of Galveston is served by the Galveston Channel which is a

minimum of 1200’ wide and 40’ deep. The facility consists primarily of a several bulk and break

bulk facilities. The port includes a 38 acre container terminal that handled 8,666 TEU in 2008.

This facility is slated to be closed in favor of a proposed 1200 acre container terminal

development on nearby Pelican, Island, which in turn is to be constructed after Houston’s new

Bayport terminal is operating at capacity.

Port of Corpus Christi, TX. The Port of Corpus Christi is a large oil, liquid bulk, and dry bulk

port. It did not handle any containers in 2008.


Tioga

Exhibit 166: Additional Texas Ports

container port capacity study - savethecape.orgsavethecape.org/stcwp1/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/port...

Documents