Intermodal Transportation and Terminal Operations

Transportation Logistics

Spring 2008

Intermodal Transportation

• Transportation that includes more than one mode (air, rail, road, water)

• Typically refers to containerized goods (as opposed to bulk or general cargo)

• Capital intensive but requires less labor than traditional freight handling

• The majority of the costs incurred with intermodal transportation are incurred when handled in terminals (between modes)

Bulk Cargo

Wet bulk cargo refers to fluids like oilDry bulk cargo refers to non-fluids such as grain, coal, etc..Many goods that used to be shipped as bulk cargo (grain, bananas, coffee beans)are now shipped in containers

General Cargo

• Whatever needs moving• Flatbed trucks for odd-shapes• General cargo vessels

Containers

• Containers have become the box of choice

• There are approximately 18 million containers worldwide

• Standard containers (20’, 40’, 45’ height 8’6’’)• Hard top containers (removable steel roof)• Open top containers• Flat racks• Domestic containers (53’)• Refrigerated containers (require clear space)• Tank containers• High cube container (9’6’’ tall)

• One 20’ container is a Twenty foot Equivalent Unit (TEU)

There are many varieties of containers….

Intermodal Issues

• Single-carrier transfers versus interline transfers (between two carriers)

• Shipper – the person who wants the freight moved

• Intermodal containers existed prior to the intermodal containers we see in use today (a box is an intermodal container), but were typically smaller than a truck or rail car load

Intermodal issues

• Transportation agencies are still structured around modes

• Transportation companies are still structured around modes, in fact they had to be during regulation

• There has been much growth in intermodal transportation companies since deregulation (3PLs, IMCs, and to some extent Steamship lines)

• Transportation infrastructure is build by modal agencies that historically did not interact

The view from an intermodal container

• http://www.forbes.com/home/logistics/2006/04/13/containers-worldwide-movement-tracking-cx_rm_0417contain.html

• We will discuss containerization and deregulation further in future class sessions

Terminal

• A station where freight is received or discharged• Situated at the end• Placed at a boundary• A point or part that forms the end• From terminus (end)

• The name reflects their historic role• In the intermodal world we usually refer to

intermodal yards rather than terminals

Terminals or interchanges occur in all modes

• Airports• Bus terminals• Marine terminal or port• Ferry terminal• Train station• Rail yard or terminal• Cross-dock facility• Distribution center• Intermodal yard

• They have common characteristics, I’ll focus today on marine ports and intermodal yards

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

Long Beach

Los Angeles

Oakland

Seattle

Tacoma

Portland(OR)

Charleston

New York/New Jersey

Houston

Vancouver (BC)

US Port Throughput (TEU)

Local Storage

Chassis

Quay Crane

Vessel

Port Operations

Discharging container flowLoading container flow

Wheeled versus Grounded

Port productivity metrics

• TEUs per hectare

• TEUs per annum

• Dwell time

• Crane productivity– Crane cycle time– Lifts per hour– Moves per hour

Port Characteristics

• Hong Kong and Singapore, the traditional Asian hubs are trans-shipment facilities

• New Asian ports in China are export facilities

• US Ports have historically served as storage facilities, storage has been cheap (sometimes free)

• Land has historically been inexpensive in the US but labor has been costly

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

Long Beach

Los Angeles

Oakland

Seattle

Tacoma

Portland(OR)

Charleston

New York/New Jersey

Houston

Vancouver (BC)

US Port Throughput (TEU)

Increasing productivity of West Coast Terminals

• In recent years West Coast Ports have experienced congestion and marine vessels have at times been unable to access the port

• There have been many responses to this including pressure to increase the productivity of West Coast Terminals

While throughput has increased dramatically density has not

Productivity of west coast ports during the years 1985-2005

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1985

1987

1989

1991

.019

9319

9519

9719

9920

0120

0320

05

Years

Pro

duct

ivity

for d

iffer

ent m

easu

res

Throughput

Gross Terminal Area

Density

Berth utilisation

Berth length

West Coast Terminal Area has increased

Terminal growth over the period 1985-2005

0.0

5000.0

10000.0

15000.0

20000.0

25000.0

30000.0

35000.0

1985

1988

1989

1994

1996

1997

1998

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Years

Ter

min

al a

rea(

acre

s)

Terminal area

Berth Length

Primarily at California ports

Terminal area variation at the west coast ports

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

years

Ter

min

al a

rea(

acre

s) Long Beach

Los Angeles

Oakland

Seattle

Tacoma

Vancouver

Similarly with berth lengthBerth length variation at the west coast ports

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Years

Ber

th le

ngth

(feet

)

Long Beach

Los Angeles

Oakland

Seattle

Tacoma

Vancouver

Throughput density (TEUs/acre) variation across west coast ports

Throughput densi ty var i at i on across west coast ports dur i ng 1985- 2005

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Year

Thro

ughp

ut d

ensi

ty(T

EUs/

acre

) Long BeachLos Angel esOakl andSeat t l eTacomaVancouver (BC)

Berth length (TEUs/ft) utilisation at west coast ports

Berth l ength ut i l i sat i on across west coast ports dur i ng 1985- 2005

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Year

Bert

h le

ngth

uti

lisa

tion

(TEU

s/ft

)

Long BeachLos Angel esOakl andSeat t l eTacomaVancouver (BC)

West Coast Throughput

Throughput of top west coasts between 1985 - 2005

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1,99

219

9419

9619

9820

0020

0220

04

Year

Thr

ough

put (

TE

Us) Long Beach

Los Angeles

Oakland

Seattle

Tacoma

Vancouver (BC)

Market share among the west coast ports

Market share of the top west coast ports between 1985- 2005

0

0. 05

0. 1

0. 15

0. 2

0. 25

0. 3

0. 35

0. 4

0. 45

Year

Mark

et s

hare

Long BeachLos Angel esOakl andSeat t l eTacomaVancouver (BC)

Operational Improvements

• Technology implementations– RFID, GPS, OCR, automation

• Land area utilization (stacking)– Rail mounted gantry cranes

• Extended gate hours• Truck appointment systems• Crane Utilization

– Double cycling

• Increase Intermodal Percentage – containers typically have shorter dwell times

Container movements

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMuuNpBnKA4

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeMHYX4LxEc

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ZcRsA29NU

Productivity Improvements

• As is true across the board in transportation, infrastructure is expensive to build, or impossible to build

• Solutions must be found to manage demand and utilize infrastructure better

• There is evidence our ports are “unproductive” and that we can expect better utilization of the infrastructure

Global Comparison

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Throug

hput

Throug

hput D

ensit

y

Throug

hput/cr

ane

Throug

hput/qua

yleng

th

Pro

duct

ivity

val

ues

Los Angeles

Long Beach

Kwai Sing(HK)

Singapore

Rotterdam

Antwerp

Hamburg

Tacoma

Klang(Malaysia)

Barbour's Cut Terminal (Houston)

Comparison of characteristics of different ports across the world(2004)

Characteri st i cs of sel ected l eadi ng ports across the worl d(2004)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Berths [10] Termi nal s [10000] (acres) [100]

No, No. Gantry cranes BerthLength(f t)

Termi nal Area

Los Angel esLong BeachKwai Si ng(HK)Si ngaporeRotterdamAntwerpHamburgTacomaKl ang(Mal aysi a)Barbour' s Cut

Throughput variation at container ports across the world

Throughput at contai ner ports across the wor l d

0

5

10

15

20

25

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Thro

ughp

ut(M

illi

onTE

Us/y

ear)

Hong KongSi ngaporeShanghaiShenzhenLA/ Long Beach BusanKaohsi ung (Tai wan)Rot terdamLos Angel esHamburgAntwerpLong BeachOakl andSeat t l eTacomaVancouverSea- tac

Average crane productivity at different container ports

Average crane product i vi ty

05

101520253035404550

Moves/ hr

Transhipment percentages at Asian ports

Comparison of productivity measures of different ports across the world(2004)

Product i vi ty measures of sel ected l eadi ng ports across the wor l d (2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

M TEUs [1000] [10000] [100]

Throughput Densi ty(TEUs/ acre) Throughput / crane Throughput / quayl ength( f t )

Los Angel esLong BeachKwai Si ng(HK)Si ngaporeRot terdamAntwerpHamburgTacomaKl ang(Mal aysi a)Barbour ' s Cut

The Freight Transportation System

• With improvements in port productivity we are starting to see the bottleneck move away from the port and onto the landside infrastructure

• Truck congestion around ports (Alameda Corridor)

• Rail infrastructure delays and expansion• The infrastructure view needs to be mindful of

corporate operations• Moves to internalize all costs (emissions)