Transportation Research Board, 86th Annual
Meeting, Washington, DC, January 21-25 2007
Shared Intermodal Terminals
and the Potential for Improving
the Efficiency of Rail-Rail
Interchange
Jack Lanigan Sr. & John Zumerchik, Mi-Jack Products
Inc.
Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Hofstra University, New York
Randall Guensler & Michael Owen Rodgers, Georgia
Institute of Technology
Email: ecojpr@hofstra.edu
Paper available at:
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue
A Future Intermodal Terminal
Integrated Transport Systems
■ Resurgence in rail transportation
• Driven by capacity and competitive advantages.
• Substantial growth in international trade:
• Particularly imports from Asia (China).
• Interface between global supply chains and national distribution; national
gateways.
• Growth in long distance shipments at the international and national levels.
• Rail productivity:
• Decrease in rail freight rates (35% decline between 1980 and 2000).
• Increase in trucking transport costs (wages, fuel, insurance, congestion).
• Capacity constraints at gateways:
• Containerization growing rapidly.
• Large volumes at gateways create capacity constraints.
• Intermodal rail offers an alternative to the capacity constraints of trucking.
Millions of Ton-Miles
1,400,000
1,200,000
40
35
1,000,000
30
800,000
25
600,000
20
400,000
15
200,000
0
1960
10
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
TEU
1,600,000
45
Intercity truck (Left)
Rail (Left)
Rail-Truck (left)
Port Traffic (Right)
Millions
Freight Volume, United States, 1960-2005
Between a Gateway and a Hard Place:
Major Maritime and Land Gateways, 2004
Land Gateways
Port of Blaine
Port of Seattle
Exports Port Gateways
Exports
Imports
Imports
$54 billion
$69 billion
Port of Sweetgrass
Port of Pembina
Port of Tacoma
Port of Champlain-Rouses Pt.
Port of Portland
Port of Alexandria Bay
Port of Huron
Port of Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Port of Detroit
Port of New York
Port of Philadelphia
Port of Oakland
Port of Baltimore
Port of Norfolk Harbor
Port of Otay Mesa Station
Port of Calexico-East
Port of Los Angeles
Port of Nogales
Port of El Paso
Port of Charleston
Port of Long Beach
Port of Savannah
Port of Morgan City
Port of Laredo
Port of Beaumont Port of New Orleans
Port of Houston
Port of Corpus Christi
Port of Brownsville-Cameron
Port of Hidalgo
Port of Jacksonville
Port of Port Everglades Port of Miami
Intermodal and Transmodal Operations
Intermodal Operations Transmodal Operations
Port container yard
Intermodal Terminal
MARITIME
On-dock rail
RAIL
Transloading
ROAD
DCs / CD
Thruport
Ship-to-ship
Advanced Rail Terminals and their
Constraints
■ Thruport concept
•
•
•
•
Advanced transmodal rail terminal facility.
Reduce handling and the number of container movements.
Optimal use (flow based) of the terminal rail capacity.
Analogy with air transport hubs:
• Belongs to an independent entity.
• Consolidation and redistribution.
• Passengers “reposition” themselves.
■ Major constraints
• Real estate and terminal configuration.
• Market and ownership fragmentation.
• Performance metrics.
Real Estate Constraints
■ Terminal Configuration Change
• From “box-shaped” with many
spurs to elongated and less
spurs.
■ Location/Function Changes
CBD
• More space consuming
terminals.
• New sites further away from the
core areas.
• Importance of highway access.
• Often integrated with logistics
parks (“freight villages”).
Transmodal Transportation and Market
Fragmentation
■ Market fragmentation
Thruport
Gateway
Markets
• Mainly retail / consumption
related.
• National distribution in view of
global production.
• Single origin; through a gateway
and several destinations (DC).
• Thruport: reconcile the high
volume requirements of markets
with the time sensitive
requirements of distribution.
Transmodal Transportation and Ownership
Fragmentation
■ Railroad fragmentation
Gateway
D
C
B
Thruport
A
• Own facilities and customers.
• Own markets along the segments
they control.
• A shared terminal for interchange
addresses the ownership
fragmentation problem.
• The Thruport creates multiplying
productivity effects.
• The distribution potential of each
operator is expanded.
• Network alliances like in the airline
industry (constrained by the spatial
fixity of rail networks).
Ownership of Major North American Rail Lines, 2005
Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF)
Canadian National (CN)
Canadian Pacific (CP)
CSX Transportation (CSXT)
Ferromex (FNM)
Kansas City Southern (KCS)
Norfolk Southern (NS)
Union Pacific (UP)
Other
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
Transmodal Transportation and Supply
Chain Fragmentation
■ Supply Chain fragmentation
Thruport
1
4
2
3
3
2
4
Distribution
Parts & raw
materials
1
2
3
Manufacturing
Supply Chain
4
Customers
4
4
1
• Contemporary supply chains
involve a complex sequence of
trips.
• Specialization and comparative
advantages.
• Different stages (parts,
manufacturing, distribution);
each of which could benefit from
a Thruport.
• Thruport would have a positive
impact on the locational behavior
of production and distribution
activities.
Transmodal Transportation and Ownership
Fragmentation
■ Local Rail Terminals Location
Metropolitan Area
CBD
• Fragmentation at transmodal
Interchange.
• Requires cross-town hauling of
containers between terminals
(“rubber tire” or “steel wheel”).
• Takes place within a
metropolitan area.
• Contributes to congestion.
• Negative feedback undermines
the reliability of the transport
chain.
• The construction of new terminal
facilities in suburban areas
exacerbate the problem.
A) Container
B) Chassis
C) Hostler (inbound yard)
D) Cross-town truck
E) Inbound storage
F) Outbound storage
G) Hostler (outbound yard)
H) Doublestack railcar
Steps
1) Inter Box Connector (IBC) unlocked.
2) Container unloaded to chassis.
3) Hostler hooks up the chassis.
4) Hostler brings container to the outbound
storage yard.
5) Cross-town truck checks in at the inbound
operator entrance gate and is given the
location of chassis/container to be picked
up.
6) CT truck checks out at the inbound
operator exit gate, presenting proper
identification for the pick up.
7) CT truck checks in at the entrance gate of
the outbound rail operator and given
instructions where to drop off the C/C at the
storage area.
8) CT truck drops the C/C at the storage
area.
9) Holster picks up the C/C at the storage
area and brings it trackside for outbound
loading.
10) IBC installed on bottom container.
11) Crane loads the container on the
doublestack railcar.
12) IBC locked.
13) Chassis removed from trackside and
stored in an empty chassis area.
Number of Lifts at Major Intermodal Rail Terminals, Chicago, 2005
Other
CN (Canadian National)
Bensenville (CP)
CPRS (Canadian Pacific)
BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe)
CSXT (CSX Transportation)
Global II (UP)
NS (Norfolk Southern)
Number of Lifts
UP (Union Pacific)
Global I (UP)
Less than 40,000
Cicero (BNSF)
40,000 to 200,000
Canal Street (UP)
Corwith (BNSF)
200,000 to 350,000
Lake Michigan
47th/51st Street (NS)
59th Street (CSX)
350,000 to 500,000
Bedford Park (CSX)
Willow Springs (BNSF)
63rd Street (NS)
Landers / Hanjin (NS)
More than 500,000
Calumet (NS)
Yard Center (UP)
Moyers Gateway (CNIC)
Joliet (BNSF)
0
Source: US National Transportation Atlas
5
10
20 Miles
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
Performance Metrics
■ Terminal performance
• In terms of interchange volume, speed and reliability.
• Logistics permeates into the rail industry.
• Under appreciated problem because it has been an under
studied problem.
• Volume of time-sensitive freight continues to increase due to:
• A growing reliance on just-in-time manufacturing.
• Greater consumption of temperature-sensitive products (food, beer, wine,
confectionary, chemicals, coatings, adhesives).
Performance Estimates for Chicago
Interchange
Traffic
Rubber Tire
Interchange
Steel Wheel
Interchange
Increase in
Interchange
Time from
2000 to 2006
Time InTerminal for
Trucks (Peak
Average)
Time InTerminal for
Trucks (OffPeak Average)
30-50 %
24 hours +
30-70 hours
20% +
45-60
minutes
45 minutes
■ Interchange traffic from 30 to 50% of the volume.
■ It can take longer for a container to move 20 miles through
Chicago than the 2000 miles from Los Angeles to Chicago.
Major Container Ports and Potential Thruport Locations
Calgary
Fraser
Vancouver
Regina
Winnipeg
Tacoma
Seattle
Halifax
Portland
Montreal
Minneapolis
Boston
Chicago
Oakland
New York/New Jersey
Wilmington (DE) Philadelphia
Baltimore
Kansas City
St Louis
Hampton Roads
Memphis
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Wilmington (NC)
Charleston
Savannah
Dallas / Fort Worth
Jacksonville
Houston
Gulfport
New Orleans
Port Traffic in TEU (2005)
Less than 300,000
300,000 to 500,000
500,000 to 1,000,000
1,000,000 to 3,000,000
Port Everglades Palm Beach
Miami
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
More than 3,000,000
Potential Thruport Site
Thruport: Full and Hybrid Configurations
CRANE #1
Full
Hybrid (2-1)
CRANE #1
Ownership Models
■ Shared facility model
•
•
•
•
“Thruport authority”.
Public or private consortium.
Mostly transmodal.
Fits better the full Thruport
configuration.
■ “Freight Village” model
DC
DC
DC
• Each railroad owns/operates a
yard.
• Location is shared.
• Intermodal and transmodal.
• Fits better the hybrid Thruport
configuration (two lifts).
• Agglomeration of distribution
centers.
Potential Thruport Sites in the Chicago Metropolitan Area
Other
CN (Canadian National)
CPRS (Canadian Pacific)
BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe)
CSXT (CSX Transportation)
NS (Norfolk Southern)
UP (Union Pacific)
Thruport Site
Existing Intermodal Rail Terminal
In d
i an
Lake Michigan
Wisconsin Steel
a
Illinois
H
ar
bo
rB
e lt
Ra
Riverdale
ilw
ay
Gibson West Gibson East
US Steel
Gary
Indiana
0
5
10
Source: US National Transportation Atlas & L. Rohter (2006)
20 Miles
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
Potential Impacts of a Thruport System
Derived efficiencies
Substitution effect
Nature
Transmodal operations
Modal shift to rail
Scale
Micro (metropolitan area; city
logistics)
Macro (national; commodity chains)
Thruport
effect
Direct (transmodal benefits); less
short distance trucking
Indirect (supply chain management);
less long distance trucking
Potential
modal shift
20-40% (depending on local rail
10-20% (depending on the level of
terminal locations and configurations) market, supply chain and ownership
fragmentation); 30 to 60 million
reduction in tractor trailer originations.
Potential
energy
savings
25,000 to 50,000 barrels of diesel
per year for a large terminal (e.g.
Chicago)
Potential time About 1 day (30% to 50%) of
savings
transmodal operations (from 1 to 2
days currently); Less uncertainties
60 to 120 million barrels of diesel per
year (United States)
About 2 days for landbridge shipments
(from 5 days currently, including time
savings from derived efficiencies)
Productivity Improvements in Freight
Distribution
■ Private Sector
• Reduction of the minimal viable rail distance:
• Currently 500 to 600 miles for rail vs. truck.
• Reduce rail terminals for pickup or delivery:
• Significant benefit for perishable cargos.
• Faster turnaround for rolling stock and increase operational
utilization.
• Reduce chassis requirement.
• Trackside handling of containers:
• Full and empty, inbound and outbound.
• Increased operational flexibility:
• All tracks can be converted, by need, to 2, 4, or 6 to 1 ramp operations.
• Trackside storage and pick-up/drop-off.
• Improved labor productivity.
• Efficiency savings results in lower rates for freight stakeholder.
Productivity Improvements in Freight
Distribution
■ Public Sector
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce truck traffic.
Reduce freight bottlenecks and highway congestion.
Improve the speed and reliability of national freight distribution.
Reduce potential local truck crash and damage costs.
Dramatically lowers energy consumption and reduces emission
linked with freight movements:
• Significantly reduce impacts in urban areas.
Other Environmental Impacts
Real estate
97 acres, far less than conventional terminals.
Concrete
Only 7040 cu. ft., about 15% of what conventional terminals
use.
Pavement
Minimal since traffic mostly sits on the rails.
Roadway Access
Minimal beyond employee access.
Drainage
More crushed limestone; less pavement and concrete.
Noise
Coupling and decoupling of cars will be minimal, and sound
level drops off quickly for crane's warning "point source"
alarms.
Storage
No need for chassis storage and container storage yard.
Conclusion: Shared Transmodal Facilities
in 21st Century Continental Rail
Distribution
■ The Thruport concept and Inland Freight Distribution
• Growth and changes in international and domestic container
shipments:
• Higher levels of integration along commodity chains.
• Emergence of long distance rail corridors.
• Additional stress on the transportation infrastructure:
• Increased volumes.
• Growth in time sensitive cargo.
• Rail is well positioned:
•
•
•
•
Increase both total shipments (absolute) and market share (relative).
Need to increase mainline capacity in critical areas.
Increasing throughput by reducing rail to rail transfer times.
The Thruport and related approaches offer an efficient means of reducing
critical rail to rail transfer times.