How inland terminals can benefit the port

GHD Transportation

Richard Hill

Principal, Ports, Maritime & Freight

• GHD at a glance

• Background and drivers

• Concept overview

• Benefit analysis findings

– Port capacity

– Supply chain

– Govt. & community

• Summary

Presentation structure

How inland terminals can benefit the port

GHD at a glance

GHD operates internationally with 8500 staff across 200 offices.

Intermodal Planning

• Port of Hastings

intermodal facilities

• Port of Melbourne

intermodal rail terminal

• Villawood/Botany

• Western Interstate Freight

Terminal (WIFT)

• Dooen Freight Terminal

• Lyndhurst

• Griffith

• North Queensland

• Perth

Context

• A ports influence on the supply chain is changing

• Melbourne lease will focus on capacity enhancement

• Victoria needs to catch up and opportunities exist

Inland Ports

• Inland ports service different markets and must consider

national economics with local impacts

• Facilitate competitive port and supply chain system(s)

– Terminal capacity factors (berth, yard, gate)

– Location factors (origins / destinations)

– Integrated transport solutions (HPFV’s)

• Commercial benefits at the port are key.

Background

Port owners & supply chain

• Increased revenue

• Deferred investment

• Efficiency and capacity gain

using existing assets

Inland port benefit drivers

Community & Government

• Road congestion reductions + rail share increase

• Reduced emissions and sustainable solutions

• Enhanced security and management controls

MIS concept overview

• Multi terminal container port

• Metropolitan setting

• Three inland port locations

within existing industrial areas

• Altona

• Somerton

• Dandenong

• Integrated rail handling and

container storage + 24/7

operations

• Port rail shuttle connectivity

offering up to 1.6M TEU capacity

• HPFV transport connectivity.

Transfer mode Imports Exports

Direct transfer by truck 23% 48%

Staged transfer by truck 77% 52%

Rail transfer 5% 20%

CLCS 2009 findings

Port profileTrade profile

• Containerised throughput is a dominant revenue driver

• Revenue driver is throughput based

• 87% of import trade and 54% export trade is from metropolitan destinations

Channel16%

Lease rental14%

Other5%

Revenue split

Wharfage65%

Oil / Petroleum

14%

Grain exports

10%

Other bulk4%

Other cargo6%

Trade share

Containerised 66%

Operational profile

• Straddle carrier systems of operation

• Truck dominated transfer system

Capacity

• Expandable berth capacity

• Expandable yard capacity

Container growth

Three growth scenarios:

• low (2.5%),

• Medium (3.5%)

• high (5%)

• Forecasts developed drawing on published trends

• Port of Melbourne CAGR 3, 5 and 10 years trends

Capacity timeline

• Capacity limits are on the planning timeline horizon

• Dependant on phasing and contribution of Webb Dock

Capacity Enhancement Options

Options:

• Alternative yard

systems

• New container

terminals

• On dock rail +

inland ports

Ad

ds

ca

pa

cit

y

Uti

lis

es

exis

tin

g a

ssets

Tim

elin

e

Co

mm

erc

ial

att

racti

ven

ess

Comment

- -

• New infrastructure required

• Requires stevedore ‘buy-in’

• Limited system choice options

• Capacity disruption risk during

implementation

• New development required

• Intensive capital investment

• Impacts to existing tenants

• Future option

• Approval risks

• Optimises existing assets

• Mitigates loss in capacity

• Reduced capital investment

• Allows phased expansion

• Complimentary to other options

• Govt / private support exists

Creating port capacity

• Connection to the inland ports utilising available rail capacity in four phases

• Development of an on-dock intermodal facility

• Removal of existing landside transfer constraints

• Testing of transfer scenarios

• Comparing alternate yard systems

Key Transfer options Existing dwell

Imports direct from quay Not possible

Imports via main stacks (variable share) 2.6 days

Exports via main stacks 3.5 days

Performance benefits

• Average container dwell times reduced by up to 30%

• Capacity enhancement comparable to alternative yard systems options

• Capacity satisfied with existing equipment with efficiency gains at peaks

• Reduced number of lifts and modal share up

• Empty container backload opportunities, reducing land requirements at port

Capacity increase Dwell Scenario 1 Dwell Scenario 2 Dwell Scenario 3

Rail capacity Imp / Exp = 0.5 d Imp = 0d / Exp= 3.5d Imp = 50% / Exp = 1d

400,000 0.3 M 0.16 M 0.22 M

800,000 0.7 M 0.32 M 0.44 M

1,200,000 1.0 M 0.50 M 0.66 M

1,600,000 1.3 M 0.62 M 0.89 M

Rail capacity Estimated avg dwell (days) Estimated reduction (days)

As is 2.9 -

400,000 2.63 0.27

800,000 2.40 0.5

1,200,000 2.21 0.69

1,600,000 2.05 0.85

Rail capacity Yard equipment increase est.

As is -

400,000 7.5%

800,000 13%

1,200,000 18%

1,600,000 23%

Capacity increase RTG ASC/RTG

TEU 1 M 1.25 M

Capacity benefits

Capacity benefits

• Four phases of Metropolitan Intermodal Rail Terminal capacity

• Opportunity for capacity in excess of an alternative RTG system across same footprint

• Potential capacity to match an alternative ASC system of yard operation on same footprint

• Mitigates against capacity delay impact resulting from conversion

Capacity comparison

Capacity timeline benefit

• Increased port capacity timeline

• Estimated benefit between 7 and 13 years

high

med

Supply chain benefits• Reduction in staging depot usage

• Improved delivery timelines for imports and exports

• 24/7 operations to provide additional services at inland ports

and reduce impacts on traffic peaks

• Flexible and more reliable ‘on demand’ deliveries to

destinations (port road congestion)

• Potential container scanning facilities for all railed containers

• Optimisation of empty container storage away from the port

< 1 day

Destination

243

5

3 hrs 1 hrImport timeline To suit

Rail or HPFV

Inland portMIRT

1

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Tru

ck t

rip

s p

er

ann

um

Current Operations Truck Trips Inland Ports Truck Trips

Truck trip benefits

Do nothing = 504,000 trips p.a.

MIRT & HPFV = 48,526 trips p.a.

In 2025

Do nothing = 1.19 M trips p.a.

MIRT & HPFV = 0.2 M trips p.a.

In 2050

90% reduction in truck trips p.a.

82% reduction in truck trips p.a.

Potential saving equivalent

• 40 M truck trips over 50 years

• 1.06 Billion truck km over 50 years

• 19,000 tonnes CO2 p.a. averaged over 50 years

Financial benefits• Catchment demand > rail

capacity

• Extra 40 M TEU over 50 years

• Additional Ship Calls – up to 480 p.a. (30 M GT over 50 yrs)

• Deferral of future investments

• Improved service offering

• Opportunity to relocate empty container parks away from port land

In summaryPort capacity benefits

• Efficiency gains and capacity

enhancement

• Optimisation of existing assets

Government & community benefits

• Reduced emissions, noise,

congestion

• Transport Integration Act alignment

• Enhanced security

Commercial benefits

• Increased revenue

• Deferred investment opportunity

How inland terminals can benefit the port

GHD Transportation

Richard Hill

Principal, Ports, Maritime & Freight

Questions?