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 oil
Dry 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
There are many varieties of
containers….
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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)
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-movementtracking-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
US Port Throughput (TEU)
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
19
89
19
88
19
87
19
86
19
85
19
84
19
83
19
82
19
81
19
80
0
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Portland(OR)
Charleston
New York/New Jersey
Houston
Vancouver (BC)
Port Operations
Quay Crane
Vessel
Local Storage
Chassis
Discharging container flow
Loading 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
US Port Throughput (TEU)
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
19
89
19
88
19
87
19
86
19
85
19
84
19
83
19
82
19
81
19
80
0
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Portland(OR)
Charleston
New York/New Jersey
Houston
Vancouver (BC)
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
P roductivity ofw estcoastports during the years 1985-2005
5
4
Throughput
G ross Term inalA rea
3
D ensity
B erth utilisation
2
B erth length
1
Years
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
.0
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
0
19
P roductivity for differentm easures
6
West Coast Terminal Area has
increased
Term inalgrow th over the period 1985-2005
35000.0
25000.0
Term inalarea
20000.0
B erth Length
15000.0
10000.0
5000.0
Years
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
98
19
97
19
96
19
94
19
89
19
88
19
85
0.0
19
T erm inalarea(acres)
30000.0
Primarily at California ports
T erm inalarea variation at the w est coast ports
6,000
Long B each
4,000
Los A ngeles
O akland
3,000
S eattle
T acom a
2,000
V ancouver
1,000
years
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
0
1985
T erm inalarea(acres)
5,000
Similarly with berth length
B erth length variation atthe w estcoastports
120,000
Long B each
Los A ngeles
80,000
O akland
S eattle
Tacom a
60,000
V ancouver
40,000
20,000
Years
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
0
19
B erth length(feet)
100,000
Throughput density (TEUs/acre)
variation across west coast ports
Throughput density(TEUs/acre)
Throughput density variation across west coast ports during 1985-2005
7000
6000
5000
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Vancouver (BC)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
0
1.
9
19
2
99
,
1
93
19
94
19
95
19
Year
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
19
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
Berth length (TEUs/ft) utilisation at
west coast ports
350
300
250
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Vancouver (BC)
200
150
100
50
Year
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
1,
99
2
19
91
.0
19
90
19
89
19
88
19
87
19
86
0
19
85
Berth length utilisation(TEUs/ft)
Berth length utilisation across west coast ports during 1985-2005
West Coast Throughput
T hroughput of top w est coasts betw een 1985 - 2005
8,000,000
6,000,000
Long B each
5,000,000
Los A ngeles
O akland
4,000,000
S eattle
T acom a
3,000,000
V ancouver (B C )
2,000,000
1,000,000
Y ear
04
20
02
20
00
20
98
19
96
19
2
94
19
1,
99
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
0
19
T hroughput (T E U s)
7,000,000
Market share among the west
coast ports
Market share of the top west coast ports between 1985-2005
0.45
0.4
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Vancouver (BC)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Year
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
0
19
80
Market share
0.35
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=DMuuN
pBnKA4
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeMHY
X4LxEc
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ZcRs
A29NU
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
16
14
gt
h
e
ay
le
n
t/c
ra
n
t/q
u
pu
ro
u
Th
ro
u
gh
Th
gh
ro
u
Th
gh
pu
pu
tD
ro
u
en
gh
pu
si
ty
t
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Th
P roductivity values
Global Comparison
Los A ngeles
Long B each
K w aiS ing(H K )
S ingapore
R otterdam
A ntw erp
H am burg
Tacom a
K lang(M alaysia)
B arbour's C ut Term inal (H ouston)
Comparison of characteristics of different
ports across the world(2004)
Characteristics of selected leading ports across the world(2004)
18
16
Los Angeles
Long Beach
Kwai Sing(HK)
Singapore
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Hamburg
Tacoma
Klang(Malaysia)
Barbour's Cut
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Berths [10]
Terminals
No,
No.
Gantry cranes
[10000]
(acres) [100]
Berth
Length(ft)
Terminal Area
Throughput variation at container
ports across the world
Throughput at container ports across the world
25
Throughput(Million
TEUs/year)
20
15
10
5
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Hong Kong
Singapore
Shanghai
Shenzhen
LA/Long Beach
Busan
Kaohsiung (Taiwan)
Rotterdam
Los Angeles
Hamburg
Antwerp
Long Beach
Oakland
Seattle
Tacoma
Vancouver
Sea-tac
be
ac
h
(W
C)
Ch
in
a
Sh
an
gh
ai
Ma
la
ys
ia
Ne
wz
ea
la
nd
Si
ng
ap
Ba
or
lt
e
im
or
Wi
e(
lm
EC
in
)
gt
on
Ch
ar
(E
le
C)
st
on
(E
C)
Ho
ng
ko
ng
Ja
pa
n
Ca
na
da
Sy
dn
ey
Ro
tt
er
Ma
da
ni
m
la
MI
CT
La
/l
on
g
Average crane productivity at
different container ports
Average crane productivity
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moves/hr
Transhipment percentages at Asian
ports
Comparison of productivity measures of
different ports across the world(2004)
Productivity measures of selected leading ports across the world (2004)
30
25
Los Angeles
Long Beach
Kwai Sing(HK)
Singapore
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Hamburg
Tacoma
Klang(Malaysia)
Barbour's Cut
20
15
10
5
0
M TEUs
[1000]
[10000]
[100]
Throughput
Density(TEUs/acre)
Throughput/crane
Throughput/quaylength(ft)
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)