Measuring Supply Chain Performance
A Government Perspective
The World Bank
June 2011
Economic Analysis Directorate
Canada’s Gateways and Trade Corridors:
System-wide Approach
October 2006+
Efficient, reliable
and secure
gateways to
North America
Asia-Pacific
Gateway and
Corridor Initiative
Atlantic
Gateway
Ontario-Quebec
Continental Gateway
and Trade Corridor
Aligning trade &
transportation
Integrated
package of
investments and
policy aimed at
enhancing
Canada’ s
competitiveness
System-wide
approach
2
What Is Efficient Transportation?
The Challenge of Measuring System Performance
Economic Analysis Directorate
3
Integrated Research Approach
Reliability and efficiency of Canadian supply chains
Fluidity
Indicator
Port
Utilization
Indicators
$$$
Logistics cost &
resilience
Air Cargo
Economic Analysis Directorate
4
Fluidity Project
Economic Analysis Directorate
5
Fluidity Concept
are Canadian supply chains competitive?
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Valencia
Hong Kong
Shanghai
Yantian
Singapore
Panama Canal
2014
Economic Analysis Directorate
6
Phase 1 Corridors: Asia-Pacific
PRINCE
RUPERT
•
•
•
•
Hong Kong
Yantian
Shanghai
Singapore
VANCOUVER
Economic Analysis Directorate
Calgary
Toronto
Montreal
Chicago
Memphis
Calgary
Toronto
Montreal
Chicago
7
A Container Journey through the Pacific Gateway
(model below excludes transload)
All truck transit: XX
Prince Rupert
Rail Transit: XX
MTD: XX
RTD:
XX
Drayage XX
DC
Chicago
Vancouver
Innerharbour CTs
Shanghai
Hong Kong
Yantian
Singapore
Toronto
MTD: XX
Rail transit
:XX
Rail Dwell
: XX
Drayage
to rail
yard : XX
RTD:
XX
Drayage XX
DC
Deltaport
All truck transit: XX
MTD: XX
: gateway/ inland hub
: marine
: rail
: trucking
MTD: marine terminal dwell
Economic Analysis Directorate
RTD: rail terminal dwell
8
Supply Chain Time Components Measured
Ocean & Port
Rail
Trucking
Logistics and
Warehousing
Ocean
transit
Dwell at origin
rail yard
Truck from marine
terminal to origin
rail yard
Dwell at
transload facility
Marine Terminal
Dwell
Rail transit time
(inter-urban)
Truck from
marine terminal
to end customer
Dwell at destination
rail yard
Truck from marine
terminal to transload
facility
Truck from transload
facility to origin rail yard
Truck from transload
facility to end customer
Truck from destination
rail yard to end
customer
9
Supply Chains – Various Models
SUPPLY
CHAIN 1
+
+
+
+
SUPPLY
CHAIN 2
+
+
+
+
+
+
SUPPLY
CHAIN 3
+
+
+
+
+
+
SUPPLY
CHAIN 4
+
+
+
+
+
+
Direct-rail
Rail Inner-harbour - Drayage
Rail Inner-harbour – Urban Rail
+
+
Transload - Rail
SUPPLY
CHAIN 5
+
+
SUPPLY
CHAIN 6
+
+
All-Truck – without transload
+
+
Economic Analysis Directorate
All-Truck – with transload
10
Example of Transit Times by Model ( Feb 2011)
Chart Legend
Supply Chain 1
Supply Chain 2
Supply Chain 3
Supply Chain 4
Supply Chain 5
Supply Chain 6
Marine Transit
Port Dwell
Rail Transit
Rail Dest. Dwell
Drayage
Marine Transit
Port Dwell
Drayage
Rail Origin Dwell
Rail Transit
Rail Dest. Dwell
Marine Transit
Port Dwell
Rail Transit
Rail Origin Dwell
Rail Transit
Rail Dest. Dwell
Drayage
Marine Transit
Port Dwell
Drayage
Transload Dwell
Drayage
Rail Origin Dwell
Rail Transit
Marine Transit
Port Dwell
Truck Transit
Marine Transit
Port Dwell
Drayage
Transload Dwell
Truck Transit
Shanghai to Toronto
Feb-11
1
Supply Chain 1
344.8
Supply Chain 2
344.8
Supply Chain 3
344.8
Supply Chain 4
344.8
Supply Chain 5
344.8
Supply Chain 6
344.8
2
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
3
164.3
1.0
XXXX
1.0
106.6
1.0
4
31.5
22.2
22.2
48.0
5
1.0
164.3
164.3
1.0
48.0
106.6
Hong Kong to Toronto
Feb-11
1
Supply Chain 1
402.0
Supply Chain 2
402.0
Supply Chain 3
402.0
Supply Chain 4
402.0
Supply Chain 5
402.0
Supply Chain 6
402.0
2
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
3
164.3
1.0
XXXX
1.0
106.6
1.0
4
31.5
22.2
22.2
48.0
5
1.0
164.3
164.3
1.0
48.0
106.6
Yantian to Toronto
Feb-11
1
Supply Chain 1
398.4
Supply Chain 2
398.4
Supply Chain 3
398.4
Supply Chain 4
398.4
Supply Chain 5
398.4
Supply Chain 6
398.4
2
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
3
164.3
1.0
XXXX
1.0
106.6
1.0
4
31.5
22.2
22.2
48.0
5
1.0
164.3
164.3
1.0
48.0
106.6
Drayage
Rail Dest. Dwell
6
7
8
9
31.5
31.5
22.2
1.0
1.0
164.3
31.5
1.0
6
7
8
9
31.5
31.5
22.2
1.0
1.0
164.3
31.5
1.0
6
7
8
9
31.5
31.5
22.2
1.0
1.0
164.3
31.5
1.0
Economic Analysis Directorate
Direct-rail
Inner-harbour - Drayage
Inner-harbour - Rail
Rail Transload
Drayage
All-Truck – without transload
All-Truck – with transload
Total Hours Total Days
617.2
25.7
640.4
26.7
639.4
26.6
689.4
28.7
527.0
22.0
576.0
24.0
Total Hours Total Days
674.4
28.1
697.6
29.1
696.6
29.0
746.6
31.1
584.2
24.3
633.2
26.4
Total Hours Total Days
670.8
27.9
694.0
28.9
693.0
28.9
743.0
31.0
580.6
24.2
629.6
26.2
11
Variability & Predictability
HK to Toronto via PMV
September 2010
95th percentile
Days
DELAYED
5th percentile
EARLY
Containers (n=400 random sample)
Economic Analysis Directorate
12
Breakdown by Segment
Breakdown by Segment
3.9%
1 = Ocean Travel
0.1%
2 = Port Dwell
19.8%
3 = Port Drayage
2.5%
0.2%
11.2%
62.3%
4 = Rail Dwell @ Departure Yard
5 = Rail Travel
6 = Rail Dwell @ Arrival Yard
7 = Drayage to DC
Economic Analysis Directorate
13
Data Capture Model
MODEL 1: "follow-the-vehicle"
• Ocean: Lloyd’s List Intelligence,
ocean carrier websites
• Ports: CPAs, some operators
• Unique source from origin to
destination (Container Status
Messages)
• Pilot-testing in Vancouver (GT Nexus)
• Rail: CN, CP, American Association
of Railways (AAR)
• Trucking: GPS (private fleets)
MODEL 2: "follow-the-container"
• Rail data sharing agreements
secured with both Class 1 railways
• RFP Summer 2011 for ocean data
Validation with major importers, BCOs and forwarders
Economic Analysis Directorate
14
Port Utilization Indicators
Economic Analysis Directorate
15
North American
West Coast
Container Ports
2010
Rank
Country
Port
Deltaport Berth 3
600,000 TEU capacity
(Jan 2010)
Phase 1: 750, 000 TEU
Phase 2: 1.5M TEU
Port Metro Vancouver
TEUs 2010
% growth over
2009
1
Los Angeles
7,831,902
16%
2
Long Beach
6,263,499
24%
3
Vancouver
2,514,309
17%
4
Oakland
2,330,202
14%
5
Seattle
2,133,548
35%
6
Manzanillo
1,509,378
36%
7
Tacoma
1,455,466
-6%
8
Làzaro Càrdenas
796,023
36%
9
Prince Rupert
343,366
30%
10
Portland
181,100
4%
Port of Prince Rupert
West Coast Market Share
Portland
2010
1%
Prince Rupert
Tacoma 1%
6%
Seattle
9%
Làzaro Càrdenas
3%
Los Angeles
33%
Oakland
10%
Vancouver
11%
Long Beach
26%
Note: excludes Manzanillo
Source: port authorities, AAPA
Economic Analysis Directorate
16
Port Utilization Indicators for
B.C. Container Ports, 2010
Dwell Time Performance at B.C.
Ports, 2009-2010
17
Conclusion
Economic Analysis Directorate
18
Conclusion: Policy Value
Benefits
– Transparency: empirical and fact-based narrative on gateway performance
– Accountability in public asset management: measuring ROI
– Market intelligence and decision-supporting tools
– Facilitation: impartial metrics to monitor improvement and guide corrective action
– Marketing: deconstruct myths on reliability of Canadian gateways
Challenges
– Multiple sources of data
– Multi-stakeholder project
– Data aggregation and protection
– ‘Politics of statistics’
– Benchmarking
• limited comparability
• Methodological opacity of existing metrics
Economic Analysis Directorate
19
Thank You
Daniel Olivier, Ph.d.
Senior Analyst
Economic Analysis
Transport Canada
daniel.olivier@tc.gc.ca
613-991-6529
20
ANNEX
21
Lower Mainland Transload Activities
63% direct-rail
(marine containers)
37% leaving by truck
Marine Terminals
TOTAL 100%
via
intermodal
yards ?
to import
transloads 26%
to intermodal
yards 2%
53’
Back to
intermodal
yards 20%
Import transload facilities
Lower Mainland
Intermodal yards
Additional volumes via
intermodal yards 22%
to B.C.
customers. 2%
to other Can
destinations 4%
Total Rail to Eastern
Canada and U.S. 85%
Direct
Western Can.
9%
Direct U.S.
<1%
90% Can
10% U.S.
22
Source: Transload Mapping Study 2011. Proportions Based on 2009 volumes
Ocean Transit - Methodology
• Approach: measure total voyage time* of vessels leaving
Asian ports to B.C. ports including:
– Vessel movement at sea
– Time spent at intermediate ports
• Database: Lloyd’s List Seasearcher, ocean carrier websites
• Completeness: over 95% of vessels covered
• Example: APL Iris from Yantian to Vancouver – Dec 2010 …
* : total elapsed time from departure at port of loading to (quayside) arrival at port of destination
23
Example: APL Iris
Pacific South 1 Service Eastbound – November 2010
Port Rotation: Laem Chabang  Singapore  Yantian  Hong Kong  Seattle  Vancouver
ARR: Dec 8 / 15:16
7 Vancouver
Seattle
6
ARR: Nov 24 / 1:00
DEP: Nov 24 / 13:00
ARR: Dec 5 / 13:44
DEP: Dec 8 / 5:40
ARR: Nov 20 / 10:45
DEP: Nov 21 / 00:10
Shanghai
5
ARR: Nov 21 / 6:16
DEP: Nov 21 / 22:04
Yantian
3
Hong Kong
4
DEP: Nov 12 / 3:00
1
Laem Chabang
2
ARR: Nov 14 / 9:30
DEP: Nov 15 / 14:55
Singapore
Example Calculation YANTIAN-VANCOUVER:
Laem Chabang-Singapore =
Dwell @ Singapore =
Singapore-Yantian =
Dwell @ Yantian =
Yantian-Hong Kong =
Dwell @ Hong Kong =
Hong Kong-Shanghai =
Dwell @ Shanghai =
Shanghai-Seattle =
Dwell @ Seattle =
Seattle-Vancouver =
2.26 days
1.22 days
4.89 days
0.55 days
0.25 days
0.65 days
2.11 days
0.51 days
11.01 days
2.65 days
0.39 days
Yantian-Vancouver
Transit Segment
TOTAL TRANSIT TIME YANTIAN TO VANCOUVER= 17.6 days
(TOTAL TRANSIT TIME OF EASTBOUND SERVICE = 26.5 days)
24