Port Drayage, Productivity, and Capacity: Results of Three New Studies March 1, 2010 PRELIMINARY ^

Tio g a

Port Drayage, Productivity, and Capacity:

Results of Three New Studies

March 1, 2010

PRELIMINARY

^

2Tio g a

Three New Studies

• Port Capacity Study, sponsored by the USACE Institute of Water Resources (IWR) CDM as prime contractor

• Port Productivity Study, sponsored by the Container Handling Cooperative Program (CHCP)

• Truck Drayage Practices, sponsored by the National Cooperative Freight Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Project 14

• All three studies nearing completion

3Tio g a

Port Capacity and Productivity

IWR Port Capacity Study - Key Questions• What is East and Gulf Coast port capacity?• What constrains capacity?• Can they handle new Panama Canal vessels and

business?

CHCP Port Productivity Study - Key questions • Are we using the right productivity measures?• Where do we get the data?• How do we approach benchmarking?• How do we encourage productivity improvements?

4Tio g a

TEU per Acre? Are we losers?

2004 TEU PER ACRE

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Singap

ore

Hong Kong

Port Kla

ng

Hamburg

Rotterd

am

Houston

Antwer

p

Long Bea

ch

Los Angel

es

Tacom

a

BUSTED

BUSTED

5Tio g a

Five Dimensions of Terminal Capacity

DRAFTDRAFT

BERTH LENGTHBERTH LENGTH

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

OPERATING HOURSOPERATING HOURS

6Tio g a

CY Metrics

Cheap land at U.S. ports leads to:• Lower TEU/acre • Dedicated carrier terminals • On-terminal chassis pools• On-dock rail transfer• Wheeled operations• Fewer moves per box• Lower terminal operating costs

Key Metrics• TEU per CY acre• Slots per acre (density) and TEU/slot (turns)• Utilization – annual TEU vs. CY capacity

7Tio g a

CY vs. Gross Acres

RAILRAIL

TRANSLOAD

TRANSLOAD

CHASSIS LOT

CHASSIS LOT

STAFF PARKING

STAFF PARKING

CYCY

• US terminals include more functions• On average, only half the gross acres are used as CY

8Tio g a

Gross vs. CY TEU per Acre

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Baltim

ore

Boston

Charle

ston

NYNJ

Philadel

phia

Port Eve

rgla

des

Savan

nah

Virgin

ia

Houston

New O

rlean

s

LALB

Oakla

nd

Portlan

d

Seattl

e

Tacom

a

Selec

ted U

S Ports

TEU/Gross AcreTEU/CY Acre

On TEU per CY acre, US terminals suddenly look “world class”

On TEU per CY acre, US terminals suddenly look “world class”

Many, but not all, ports and terminals publish CY acreageMany, but not all, ports and terminals publish CY acreage

9Tio g a

Estimated TEU Slots per CY Acre (Density)

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

Baltim

ore

Boston

Charle

ston

NYNJ

Philadel

phia

Port Eve

rgla

des

Savan

nah

Virgin

ia

Houston

New O

rlean

s

LALB

Oakla

nd

Portlan

d

Seattl

e

Tacom

a

Selec

ted U

S Ports

AVERAGE = 190AVERAGE = 190

Many, but not all, ports and terminals publish TEU slot dataMany, but not all, ports and terminals publish TEU slot data

10Tio g a

CY Utilization: 2008 TEU per Slot (Turns)

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

Baltim

ore

Boston

Charle

ston

NYNJ

Philadel

phia

Port Eve

rgla

des

Savan

nah

Virgin

ia

Houston

New O

rlean

s

LALB

Oakla

nd

Portlan

d

Seattl

e

Tacom

a

Selec

ted U

S Ports

AVERAGE = 34

MAXIMUM = 70?

AVERAGE = 34

MAXIMUM = 70?

11Tio g a

Crane Metrics

The primary task is turning the vessel• Crane utilization and productivity can be measured in

TEU and vessels worked• Crane efficiency would be measured in moves/hour, but

data are seldom available

There is a critical tradeoff• Annual crane output is higher if fewer cranes work the

vessels

BUT• Vessel turns are faster and more reliable with more

cranes

12Tio g a

How many cranes per berth?

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Baltim

ore

Boston

Charle

ston

NYNJ

Philadel

phia

Port Eve

rgla

des

Savan

nah

Virgin

ia

Houston

New O

rlean

s

LALB

Oakla

nd

Portlan

d

Seattl

e

Tacom

a

Selec

ted U

S Ports

Average is 2.2Average is 2.2

Maximum of 5?Maximum of 5?

7 cranes for 6 berths








13Tio g a

How hard do we work those cranes?

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Baltim

ore

Boston

Charle

ston

NYNJ

Philadel

phia

Port Eve

rgla

des

Savan

nah

Virgin

ia

Houston

New O

rlean

s

LALB

Oakla

nd

Portlan

d

Seattl

e

Tacom

a

Selec

ted U

S Ports

TEU per Crane (000)

Vessel Calls per Crane

Some, but not all, ports and terminals publish crane moves per hourSome, but not all, ports and terminals publish crane moves per hour

14Tio g a

Estimated 2008 Crane Utilization

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Baltim

ore

Boston

Charle

ston

NYNJ

Philadel

phia

Port Eve

rgla

des

Savan

nah

Virgin

ia

Houston

New O

rlean

s

LALB

Oakla

nd

Portlan

d

Seattl

e

Tacom

a

Selec

ted U

S Ports

TEU vs. Max Sustainable TEU

AVERAGE = 35%AVERAGE = 35%

15Tio g a

Berth & Vessel Metrics

Berth utilization can be measured in multiple ways• Vessel calls and TEU per berth• TEU as percentage of maximum vessel capacity• TEU as percentage of current vessel capacity

Vessel utilization is also a factor• Average vessel size compared to maximum possible for berth

and channel depth• Average TEU per vessel as % of vessel capacity

16Tio g a

How hard do we work the berth?

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Baltim

ore

Boston

Charle

ston

NYNJ

Philadel

phia

Port Eve

rgla

des

Savan

nah

Virgin

ia

Houston

New O

rlean

s

LALB

Oakla

nd

Portlan

d

Seattl

e

Tacom

a

Selec

ted U

S Ports

Vessel Calls per Berth

TEU per Berth (000)

17Tio g a

How well do we use the draft?

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Baltim

ore

Boston

Charle

ston

NYNJ

Philadel

phia

Port Eve

rgla

des

Savan

nah

Virgin

ia

Houston

New O

rlean

s

LALB

Oakla

nd

Portlan

d

Seattl

e

Tacom

a

Selec

ted U

S Ports

Est. Max Vessel TEU

Est. Average Vessel TEU

Average TEU Handled per Vessel

DR

ED

GIN

GD

RE

DG

ING

DR

ED

GIN

GD

RE

DG

ING

DR

ED

GIN

GD

RE

DG

ING

DR

ED

GIN

GD

RE

DG

ING

DR

ED

GIN

GD

RE

DG

ING

18Tio g a

Estimated 2008 Berth Utilization

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Baltim

ore

Boston

Charle

ston

NYNJ

Philadel

phia

Port Eve

rgla

des

Savan

nah

Virgin

ia

Houston

New O

rlean

s

LALB

Oakla

nd

Portlan

d

Seattl

e

Tacom

a

Selec

ted U

S Ports

Average Vessel Basis

Max Vessel Basis

CURRENT TEU VS. CAPACITY

NEAR TERM WITHCURRENT VESSELSNEAR TERM WITH

CURRENT VESSELS

LONG TERM WITHMAXIMUM VESSELSLONG TERM WITH

MAXIMUM VESSELS

19Tio g a

East & Gulf Coast Capacity

Most East and Gulf ports have CY, crane, and berth capacity to handle additional near-term Panama Canal business

• As larger vessels are phased in over time, most East and Gulf Coast ports will have to add cranes

• NYNJ and Norfolk can handle large vessel drafts today, although NYNJ has a long-term air draft problem

• Baltimore, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Savannah have dredging programs in progress or proposed

• Rising volumes will eventually require additions to road and rail infrastructure

20Tio g a

US Port Productivity

Terminals attempt to balance the five dimensions of capacity• Berths long and deep enough for the biggest expected vessel

• Enough berths and cranes to avoid vessel delay

• Enough CY acreage and density to avoid congestion

• Enough hours to turn the vessel

US Ports are underutilized, not inefficient• Cheap land has led to large, individual terminals instead of

small multi-user terminals

• Most ports have substantial excess capacity

• Lower density holds down costs

Better productivity metrics are possible• “Sometimes” data such as CY acres, TEU slots, and crane

hours can yield better measures

21Tio g a

NCFRP-14 Port Drayage Project

Key questions• Where are the bottlenecks and delays?• What are the causes?• What are the solutions?

Answers• The terminal drayage bottlenecks are the gate,

CY, and chassis pool• The causes are congestion and exceptions• The solutions include terminal improvements,

operating practices, and exception reductions

22Tio g a

Terminal Congestion

Terminal data (which exclude gate queues) show the expected correlation between volume and turn times

Import Deliveries vs. Non-Trouble Turn Time - 2008

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100

Daily Import Volume

Tu

rn T

ime

Min

ute

s

2008 DATA FROM MARINE

TERMINAL SYSTEM

2008 DATA FROM MARINE

TERMINAL SYSTEM

23Tio g a

Chassis Transactions and Pools

Chassis transactions add drayage time and delays at stacked terminals

• Two sources of delay – finding the chassis, and waiting for the box

• Two source of exceptions – chassis problems and transfer problems

• Moving pools off-site to save space adds drayage trips and time

• Chassis interchange adds time to gate transactions

In the near term, neutral pools expedite chassis searches and reduce equipment problemsIn the long run, trucker or third-party chassis supply should reduce terminal time and exceptions

24Tio g a

Gate Queuing – Webcam Study Example

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

6:0

07

:00

8:0

09

:00

10:

001

1:00

12:

001

3:00

14:

001

5:00

16:

006

:00

7:0

08

:00

9:0

01

0:00

11:

001

2:00

13:

001

4:00

15:

001

6:00

6:0

07

:00

8:0

09

:00

10:

001

1:00

12:

001

3:00

14:

001

5:00

16:

006

:00

7:0

08

:00

9:0

01

0:00

11:

001

2:00

13:

001

4:00

15:

001

6:00

6:0

07

:00

8:0

09

:00

10:

001

1:00

12:

001

3:00

14:

001

5:00

16:

00

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

CO

NG

ES

TIO

N L

EV

EL

LONG QUEUES IN THE MORNING AND FOR EXPORT CUT-OFFS

LONG QUEUES IN THE MORNING AND FOR EXPORT CUT-OFFS

25Tio g a

Lunch Break Closures - Ouch!

13:04:2572 min.

13:04:2572 min.

13:05:2573 min.

13:05:2573 min.

13:07:2575 min.

13:07:2575 min.

13:15:2683 min.

13:15:2683 min.

13:09:2577 min.

13:09:2577 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:04:2572 min.

13:04:2572 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:04:2572 min.

13:04:2572 min.

13:05:2573 min.

13:05:2573 min.

13:07:2575 min.

13:07:2575 min.

13:15:2683 min.

13:15:2683 min.

13:09:2577 min.

13:09:2577 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:04:2572 min.

13:04:2572 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:06:2574 min.

13:06:2574 min.

TERMINAL GATE CLOSED FOR LUNCH- FRONT ROW SPENDS 72-83 MINUTES WAITING

TERMINAL GATE CLOSED FOR LUNCH- FRONT ROW SPENDS 72-83 MINUTES WAITING

DATA COLLECTION

VIA TERMINAL WEBCAMS

DATA COLLECTION

VIA TERMINAL WEBCAMS

26Tio g a

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0-1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-9

10-1

1

12-1

3

14-1

5

16-1

7

18-1

9

20-2

1

22-2

3

24-2

5

26-2

7

28-2

9

30-3

1

32-3

3

34-3

5

Minutes

Terminal A

Terminal B

Gates – 3 to 4 Minutes, but Too Many Exceptions

5% of the moves use 14-18% of the total time and

back up the queue

5% of the moves use 14-18% of the total time and

back up the queue

27Tio g a

Turn Times – Again, Too Many Exceptions

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

0-15

15-3

0

30-4

5

45-6

0

60-7

5

75-9

0

90-1

05

105-

120

120-

135

135-

150

150-

165

165-

180

180-

195

195-

210

210-

225

225-

240

240-

255

255-

270

270-

285

285-

300

Example Terminal Turn Time

Port-wide Trucker Turn Time

QUALCOMM data show added queue time

QUALCOMM data show added queue time

5% of the moves use 14% of the total time

5% of the moves use 14% of the total time

28Tio g a

Process Issues Cause Exceptions

BOOKING PROBLEMS 28%Booking does not match equipment type 10%Booking is not on file 7%Booking tally has already been reached 7%Missing notice for hazardous cargo 3%Booking quantity exceeded for equipment type 3%

DISPATCH PROBLEMS 29%Cargo not yet released 8%Driver or motor carrier credential problem 7%Empty Container/chassis not allowed 6%Past cargo cutoff 3%Demurrage due (unpaid bills) 3%Container exceeds maximum safe weight 2%

SYSTEM PROBLEMS 22%Container/chassis not recognized 18%Duplicate transaction 2%Container not found in yard 2%Other 20%

TOTAL 100%

• 5% of transactions get trouble tickets

• 80% due to booking, dispatch, or system errors

• Each one adds an hour

29Tio g a

Experience Matters

The average is 5%

The average is 5%

30Tio g a

The Trucking Company and Ocean Carrier Matter

Trucking Company Total tripsTransactions

per trip% Trouble

Tickets

A 1124 1.2 2.2%B 2649 1.7 2.5%C 1210 1.3 3.7%D 1146 1.4 3.9%E 2878 1.2 4.4%F 1329 1.4 5.6%G 1193 1.5 8.5%

Transaction Type Line Transactions Trouble Flag % Trouble Tickets

A 3,438 172 5.0%B 4,049 169 4.2%A 3,869 307 7.9%B 10,106 485 4.8%A 3,391 242 7.1%B 9,721 414 4.3%A 4,197 108 2.6%B 3,482 26 0.7%A 14,895 829 5.6%B 27,358 1,094 4.0%

Total

Deliver Import

Deliver Empty

Receive Export

Receive Empty

The average is 5%

The average is 5%

31Tio g a

Drayage Solutions

Reducing Bottlenecks• Keep gates open during lunch • Chassis pool – Saves time in stacked terminals• “Automated” gates – OCR, RFID, saves gate time • Two-stage gates – Gets exceptions out of line• Appointment system – May save time, depends on

implementation

Reducing Exceptions – The 5% “tail”• Talk – regular trucker/terminal/port/customer meetings• Manage booking, dispatch, and system communications • Choose experienced trucker and efficient ocean carrier

32Tio g a

Transition from Lower to Higher Density

Volume growth will drive denser, more capital-intensive operations

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

33Tio g a

Terminal & Drayage Tradeoffs

Higher terminal density has costs…• More cranes to handle larger ships• More berth and CY congestion on vessel days• Higher terminal operating costs due to more moves per box,

more labor, and more capital• Higher drayage costs due to more time and moves in terminals • Greater impacts on roads and rails

The transition has to be managed carefully…• A long-term solution to on-terminal chassis supply• Terminal operations that move both vessels and trucks• Gates that expedite clean transactions and separate problems• Systems to cope with rising complexity of terminals and

transactions

34Tio g a

Bottom Line: What does the customer want?

Better, faster, cheaper

Average Rating

1.201.201.251.351.452.252.352.803.53

Drayage (truck) turn time

TEU/acre

Overall cost per container

Container moves/crane hour

Please rate each of the following measures of container terminal efficiency/productivity.

Reliability (% on schedule)

Average man-hours per

Measure

Average container dwell time

Overall transit time

Average vessel time in port

35Tio g a

Are customers willing to switch? Yes!

It depends on….? Costs being equal.

60.0%35.0%5.0%

It depends on...

Would you consider shifting volume between ports based on container terminal efficiency/productivity?

No

Yes

65.0%35.0%0.0%

It depends on...

Would you consider shifting import or export volume between ocean carriers at the same port based on

container terminal efficiency/ productivity?

No

Yes

36Tio g a

Thank you! Questions?

Contacts and Follow-upsContainer Handling Cooperative Program:

[email protected], [email protected]

National Cooperative Freight Research Program Project 14:

http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2412

On-line survey:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=gKU1ZDY25GgNzNAI1WK9mw_3d_3d

Tioga website: www.tiogagroup.com

Project manager: [email protected], 925-631-0742

Documents

Port Drayage, Productivity, and Capacity: Results of Three New Studies March 1, 2010 PRELIMINARY ^