Week 3: No Plagiarism No content from other students papers. Post should be in APA 6th edition format, I will need References and in-text citations. This website should be useful for all APA referencing for books, websites, magazines, images, etc. http://apareferencing.ukessays.com/generator/ BOOK: The Future of Intermodal Freight Transportation, Author: Konings, Publication: Edward Elger Publishing 2008, ISBN: 978-1-84542-238-7 Read Chapter 4 and 5 Instructions Part 1: Your initial post should be at least 250 words. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Keep in mind that this is a minimum requirement and does not guarantee full credit. Please review the attached rubric to see how to attain full credit. Instructions Part 2: Responses should be a word count of 100 words and include direct questions. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Initial post question: Identify and discuss the environmental impact of intermodal transportation. Discuss the role of ports within intermodal transportation and the importance effective network design has on port operations. Please read and follow instructions No Plagiarism No content from other students papers. APA format for citations and references Each Student post should have a response of 100 words with direct questions. STUDENT 1: The environmental impact of intermodal transportation comes from the fuels being used to drive the modes of transportation. Whether that fuel is diesel in a Semi, a train, a ship or jet fuel in a plane, they all leave some sort of foot print on the environment. Intermodal transportation however seems to help this with the efficiency it provides. Utilizing more than one mode of transportation may increase the amount of goods being moved, it also expedites the process and drives companies to be able to do this as cheap as possible. This, in my opinion, drives companies to invest in finding the most fuel efficient route possible. Fuel isn't cheap. Another way that intermodal transportation affects the environment is in the manufacturing of the equipment being used. Minerals have to be mined to produce the material being used to make the containers, rail cars, trucks and everything else being used in the industry. In my opinion, though, the increased regulation on all of this has hindered the industry because I am one to believe that companies would do this on their own and they would do work even harder to be green. People understand the impact on the environment and these people are the customers. The customers dictate who survives in business and companies will want to make the customer happy. Instead, companies do the least amount to be \"in compliance\" because they see they can get away with this. I could go on and on, but this is a topic for another conversation. Ports are an integral part of the intermodal process. Access to other modes, from the ships, is really the most intriguing aspect of intermodal transportation. Hundreds of containers are placed on a ship to cross the ocean and from there these containers are placed onto trucks or trains and delivered to the next portion of the journey. Since I have started taking this class, I have notice every single container on the back of an 18-wheeler and it amazes me at the ingenuity that took place to tie all of these modes together.-AH STUDENT 2: It has been report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that transportation of freight is responsible for 30% of the greenhouse gases that are present in the US. It seems to me that Railroads are the best mode of transportation when it comes to environmental friendly transportation when compared to the hazards of trucks and cargo ships. Railroad also are four times more fuel efficient when it comes to greenhouse emissions. Trains can carry freight that weighs over a ton and estimated 830 miles before it needs to be refueled. Railroad transportation engineers over time have figured out how to decrease the weight of cargo cars and increase the max capacity of railroad cars which improves the fuel economy further decreasing greenhouse emissions. On the other hand, there is a growing concern that marine transport may not be able to compete in international trade along with the new challenges that present themselves throughout the growth of transportation. The goal of port operations is very important to the successfulness of intermodalism is the timeliness of shipments and reducing lost cargo. As the transportation market increases, marine transport seems to be struggling to keep up with the market. Ports play a key role in receiving and shipping products from the Unites States and other countries but it can very well impact intermodal transportation. "Complex bundling networks can strongly rely on the speed and cost-effectiveness of the transfers at intermediate terminals" (Konings p.69).-MF References: Konings, J.W(2008). The Future of intermodal freight transport: operations, design and policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/ (Accessed Sept 24, 2016) Week 4: No Plagiarism No content from other students papers. Post should be in APA 6th edition format, I will need References and in-text citations. This website should be useful for all APA referencing for books, websites, magazines, images, etc. http://apareferencing.ukessays.com/generator/ BOOK: The Future of Intermodal Freight Transportation, Author: Konings, Publication: Edward Elger Publishing 2008, ISBN: 978-1-84542-238-7 Read Chapter 6 and 7 Instructions Part 1: Your initial post should be at least 250 words. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Keep in mind that this is a minimum requirement and does not guarantee full credit. Please review the attached rubric to see how to attain full credit. Instructions Part 2: Responses should be a word count of 100 words and include direct questions. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Initial post question: Discuss competition within intermodal transportation. Points of discussion may include strategies, the impact of regulation/deregulation, competition between the various modes of transport, safety, rates, supply and demand, port ownership, equipment, etc. Please read and follow instructions No Plagiarism No content from other students papers. APA format for citations and references Each Student post should have a response of 100 words with direct questions. STUDENT 1: In the past in the transportation world it seemed that one mode of transportation would completely dominate the other, but as time went on boats, freight trucks, and railroad have proven to be the leaders in freight transportation. The transportation world has three significant areas of competition: infrastructure, modal usage, and the market areas. Each area of transportation has seemed to exploit their own advantages when it comes to cost, service and reliability/safety. Most carriers try to keep business and maximize there profit by line-haul under there own control. Each mode of shipping sees each other as a competitors and are approached with caution when it comes to merging business. There is a lack of integration due to the public law that prohibits companies from owning business in other freight carriers. There are a lot of factors within intermodal transportation between air, rail, road, and ships such as prices, transit times, and restrictions on the type of cargo. The biggest problem that presents itself within the community is a lack of network communication, as it seem that mostly all systems are ran independently and this leads to a lot of mistakes like missing cargo, delayed cargo delivery, and most important, mishap insurance. The competition between the different modes is so competitive that the end user of the products reaps the benefits because of the lower prices. If one shipping company or mode of transportation will not accommodate to the business, one can simply move on to another company without really losing anything. The main strategy is to be able to maintain great customer satisfaction while also providing them with the best price and fastest transit time.-MF Resources: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/qrfm2/sect13.htm (Accessed October 2, 2016) STUDENT 2: The sea ports of Los Angles and Long Beach are adjacent to each other in San Pedro Bay, California. Natural competitors of ships, containers and workers these rivals throughout the years have been in lockstep changing with the times and technology to ensure relevancy and profitability. Though compatible in size the two port have distinct business practices that both benefit and detract from their competitive edge respectively. Los Angles business plan is to bind carriers to long term agreements in order to ensure a steady flow of business (Rodrigue, 2013). In contrast Long Beach was making agreements with the stevedoring companies and letting their agencies jockey shipping liner companies for business. Both of these actions have proven successful in keeping the business competitive for each. When looking at the data of containers processed between 1980 and 2015, the winner was Los Angeles 24 years and Long Beach 11 years (Rodrigue, 2013). To note it was close every year no larger than a 60-40 split. The internal San Pedro Bay battle of transoceanic cargo wages on as other port a vying for their business too. Once protected from the east coast competition the ports are now concerned with new widening of the Panama Canal that has begun. This project will allow the new larger classes of container ships to transit the continental by pass which will allow them to bypass west coast ports if warranted. Los Angeles port director mentioned in an article that other ports such as Savannah, Charleston and Houston have made great leaps over them in modernizing infrastructure to accommodate the new classes of ships (Kirkham, 2015). This could mean diverted traffic and diverted profit. -RC References: Rodrigue, J.-P, (2013). The geography of transport systems. Retrieved from https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/appl4en/ch4a2en.html Kirkham, C. (2015, June 2). L.A., Long Beach ports losing to rivals amid struggle with giant ships - LA Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-big-ships-ports-20150602-story.html Week 5: No Plagiarism No content from other students papers. Post should be in APA 6th edition format, I will need References and in-text citations. This website should be useful for all APA referencing for books, websites, magazines, images, etc. http://apareferencing.ukessays.com/generator/ BOOK: The Future of Intermodal Freight Transportation, Author: Konings, Publication: Edward Elger Publishing 2008, ISBN: 978-1-84542-238-7 Read Chapter 8 and 9 Instructions Part 1: Your initial post should be at least 250 words. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Keep in mind that this is a minimum requirement and does not guarantee full credit. Please review the attached rubric to see how to attain full credit. Instructions Part 2: Responses should be a word count of 100 words and include direct questions. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Initial post question: Discuss your understanding of bundling as well as the advantages and disadvantages of bundling. Please read and follow instructions No Plagiarism No content from other students papers. APA format for citations and references Each Student post should have a response of 100 words with direct questions. STUDENT 1: Discuss your understanding of bundling as well as the advantages and disadvantages of bundling. When it comes to shipping products, bundling products or containers gives more opportunities for companies to ship products and save money. Bundling is the process of taking multiple products or containers for shipment and giving the customer a discount on shipping. According to Globeconfrieght.com, "Organizations using this strategy have proven to hold an upper hand on their competition by offering door-to-door service handled all by one company," (www.globeconfreight.com). Some advantages of bundling include expanding the geographical area offering customer more locations for service. Increased transport frequencies which leads to less waiting time, unlike before when you would have to wait until the ship or train had a full load before shipment. When it comes to disadvantages of bundling there are a few. Depending upon the type of mode it can cause additional handling if processing through intermediate terminals. Also it can increase transport distance and transport time with compared to shipments to direct connection locations. There can also be complications resulting from competition with 3PLs while supplying them shipping capacities to fill larger transport mediums (www.globeconfreight.com). With all the challenges and perceptions this industry has to face the outcome is positive and has proven to be very successful. Majority of this success can be contributed to the onset of computer technology. This has provided a more efficient way to conduct business.-EM Reference: 7 Advantages of Bundling Container Transport Services with Logistics. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2016, fromhttp://www.globeconfreight.com/blog/bundling-container-transport-services-logistics STUDENT 2: Companies are starting to ship multiple products bundling up together in containers and transported either through rail, truck, or freights resulting in big cost savings. Bundling is defined as placing multiple products in container or package and selling them to a customer for reduced prices, which also saves the customers money on shipping cost because they only have to ship a bundle out rather than multiple items. Bartosek & Schonemann reports that: The so-called bundling concept is one of the possible solutions how to improve the intermodal transport and could also increase competitiveness. The application allows solving appropriate intermodal situations, such as route choice, and bundling decisions (Bartosek & Schonemann, 2010). The concept of bundling can be used on relations where the container flows are not economical sufficient to fulfil a direct service. If small vehicle scales are acceptable, bundling is possible to use (Bartosek & Schonemann, 2010). The advantages of bundling also include: increase in the transport frequencies which leads to reduce the waiting time at seaport terminal, decrease prices of shipping goods to customers, increase in the number of destinations served from a terminal and increases in profits thanks high utilization of larger transports (Bartosek & Schonemann, 2010). Some disadvantages of bundling are: additional handling at intermediate terminals, such as the exchange of load units between trains or barges, increase of transport distance and increase in transport time in comparison to direct connection, and its very expensive shipping locally because of the higher weight on vehicle scales (Bartosek & Schonemann, 2010).-EP References Bartoek, A., & Schnemann, R. (2012). BUNDLING NETWORKS FOR INTERMODAL FREIGHT FLOWS TO THE EUROPEAN HINTERLAND, VII, 6-15. Retrieved October 9, 2016, from http://pernerscontacts.upce.cz/28_2012/Bartosek.pdf Week 6: No Plagiarism No content from other students papers. Post should be in APA 6th edition format, I will need References and in-text citations. This website should be useful for all APA referencing for books, websites, magazines, images, etc. http://apareferencing.ukessays.com/generator/ BOOK: The Future of Intermodal Freight Transportation, Author: Konings, Publication: Edward Elger Publishing 2008, ISBN: 978-1-84542-238-7 Read Chapter 10 and 11 Instructions Part 1: Your initial post should be at least 250 words. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Keep in mind that this is a minimum requirement and does not guarantee full credit. Please review the attached rubric to see how to attain full credit. Instructions Part 2: Responses should be a word count of 100 words and include direct questions. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Initial post question: Compare and contrast the transport planning models for passenger and freight transport. This may require you to do additional research in the online Library or Internet. Please read and follow instructions No Plagiarism No content from other students papers. APA format for citations and references Each Student post should have a response of 100 words with direct questions. STUDENT 1: Compare and contrast the transport planning models for passenger and freight transport Transport modes are the means by which people and freight achieve mobility. They fall into one of three basic types, depending on over what surface they travel - land (road, rail and pipelines), water (shipping), and air. Each mode is characterized by a set of technical, operational and commercial characteristics: (Rodrigue, Slack, Comtois, 2016). When discussing the differences between the modes of transportation, they are actually built to handle both modes of transportation. One instance is what we see in the military all the time: cargo is in the belly of a airplane that is carrying passengers. Of course it would all have to depend on what type of cargo that is being hauled and if it can be in the same airplane as passengers. Even though there are advantages of mixing both modes of transpiration, there are disadvantages such as: rarely match, frequency of demand, timing of service, traffic balance, reliability, favors passenger traffic, operational speeds and security screening measures (Rodrigue, Slack, Comtois, 2016). When freight is used, they have to look at how fast they need the cargo. Typically cargo that moved on rail and vessel take longer to get to their final destination. Also, if some cargo is too heavy they are not able to fly on the plane because of the load balance.DM References: Rodrigue, J. P., Slack, B., & Comtois, C. (2016). Transportation Modes, Modal Competition and Modal Shift. Retrieved from https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/ch3c1en.html STUDENT 2: The planning model is generally the same when planning for freight and passenger: 1. Production and attraction. 2. Distribution. 3. Mode Choice. 4. Traffic conversion. 5. Assignment. 6. Calibration and validation. The biggest difference in the two types of "cargo" would be the organization of it and how you transport it. Freight is easy, put it in containers, stack it and if you have the floor space you can ship it. Passengers require a lot more planning in how they are placed. Each passenger needs a seat, depending on the length of travel they may need food, water and other services like restrooms and other personnel services. This makes the planning process much more difficult for passengers versus cargo and if you compare pound for pound requires the costs of transporting passengers much more expensive than cargo. Another planning factor is the timing of the transportation. If cargo gets left at a port for an extra day or two no one gets really upset. Leave a person at an airport terminal for a few hours more than expected and you could be losing customers. Intermodal transportation is slightly different for passengers also. Passengers will use different modes of travel but normally they coordinate it on their own due to personal preferences. Cargo intermodal transportation will be planned and coordinated by one shipper. All in all it is much easier to plan the shipping of freight than passengers due to many different variables, the most important variable to me would be the timing aspect. Get it wrong with freight and its not that big of a deal, get it wrong with passengers and you will quickly go out of business.-WJ References Konings, J. W., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The Future of Intermodal Freight Transport : Operations, Design and Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Week 7: No Plagiarism No content from other students papers. Post should be in APA 6th edition format, I will need References and in-text citations. This website should be useful for all APA referencing for books, websites, magazines, images, etc. http://apareferencing.ukessays.com/generator/ BOOK: The Future of Intermodal Freight Transportation, Author: Konings, Publication: Edward Elger Publishing 2008, ISBN: 978-1-84542-238-7 Read Chapter 12 and 13 Instructions Part 1: Your initial post should be at least 250 words. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Keep in mind that this is a minimum requirement and does not guarantee full credit. Please review the attached rubric to see how to attain full credit. Instructions Part 2: Responses should be a word count of 100 words and include direct questions. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Initial post question: Discuss the advances in technology such as EDI, RFID, and the Internet within the intermodal industry as well as how these technologies are beneficial to retail customers using intermodal transportation to get their product to market. Give sources to back up your position. le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 7. Container handling in mainports: a dilemma about future scales Joan Rijsenbrij 7.1 INTRODUCTION The ongoing expansion of world population, and the further economic development of almost every country, maintain increasing cargo ows all around the world. This globalization, along with the growing demands from consumers and the economies of scale, are essential drivers in container shipping and related container terminal operations and land transportation. Today containerization has expanded to a global doortodoor trans portation system with ecient 6000-8000 TEU (twentyfoot equivalent unit) vessels, large hightech terminals, intermodal, inland transportation and computerized online information systems. Shippers and consignees are increasingly demanding better performance, such as exibility for last minute changes, a rapid response with fast deliveries and a perfect t in their logistics chains. However, reliability and low costs are the major issues in doortodoor containerized transportation. Shipping lines have con quered the pressure on rates with the application of economies of scale to their container vessels; ports and terminals followed with enlarged facilities with improved productivity, and inland transportation responded both with economies of scale (barge and rail transportation) and more ecient planning (trucking) to avoid emptyleg operations. In the late nineties, this drive for economies of scale has encouraged many mergers and takeovers among shipping lines, terminal operators and logistics service providers. But, nevertheless, severe competition and the inability to control capacity have resulted in tremendous price erosions, leaving a broad awareness to look for cost reduction. The pure shipping costs have already been decreased considerably and therefore the focus on cost reduction is more and more directed towards terminal operations. At the same time, the introduction of large container vessels and the scrapping of older (small) container vessels has made shipping lines demand enlarged berth productivity and more exibility to handle operational peaks. 109 le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 110 Design and modelling It is expected that volumes in container shipping will continue to grow, despite some lower growth rates during 2002. From 2000 to 2010 the world wide annual growth in container shipping could range from 5-7 per cent per annum, thus showing a doubling in the next 10-15 years. The growing volumes, the increased vessel sizes and the demand for increased performance at lower cost will encourage the realization of new, larger and faster container terminals. Currently many ports all over the world are projecting new facilities (for example Shanghai, Pusan, Tanjung Pelepas, Norfolk, Algeciras, Southampton, Rotterdam, Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven and Le Havre) and all decisionmaking bodies are con fronted with some major questions: how to design and construct the quay wall, with what type of container cranes to handle the future vessels, which gate systems to handle the inland ows in a secure way and what type of automation to adopt to assure costeective handling in the future. So, terminal operators, port authorities, governments and inland trans portation companies are challenged to expand and improve their handling facilities and inland infrastructure and at the same time to provide a better performance with even lower cost. Unfortunately they are faced with one dilemma: what future scales can be expected, both for vessel sizes and inland transport vehicles? The (too) long preparation times for new facilities and infrastructure and the long lifetime of the dominant assets in ports (access channels, quay walls, terminals, road and rail systems) require action today in order to be ready for tomorrow, with ongoing globalization and a projected world population of 9 billion people by 2050. 7.2 TRENDS AFFECTING MAINPORT DEVELOPMENTS The development of mainports will be highly inuenced by the trends in global container logistics and the future demands of shippers, which con tinuously monitor the service levels and costeectiveness of their world wide supply chain. The following trends can be recognized: Container shipping volumes will continue to increase in the near future. Yearly growth gures of 5-7 per cent are projected for the coming years and that will create demands for more terminal capac ity both in handling (waterside and landside) and storage; some terminals will be confronted with doubledigit growth gures. Especially in the Far East (China, Korea, India, Vietnam and so on), considerable growth is expected. le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 111 Shipping will maintain the application of economies of scale, result ing in larger vessels, larger numbers of cargo per call (both for main line and feeder vessels) and enlarged peak demands. This necessitates larger stack capacities and special attention for special cargo like reefercontainers and breakbulk cargo. The increased volumes and larger yard areas put high demands on internal transportation, where many more movements must be processed over the existing infra structure. Shippers and consignees are requiring better services from the ship ping lines. This will increasingly result in service level agreements between shipping lines and terminal operators. Guaranteed service times for the delivery and receival of containers, guaranteed ows to be handled and sucient exibility in case of peak demands must be oered by the operator. Nonperformance will result in penalties, either collected by the shipping line or by the land transportation companies. Railway companies and barge operators will demand time slots in order to maintain (tight) turnaround schedules. The formation of alliances and still more mergers will decrease the number of global players (shipping lines, shippers, logistics providers). However, the remaining parties will try to improve their buying power. Power play between the major carriers and shippers will continue; the fastexpanding global logistics service providers will become new players in this area. An increasing number of shipping lines are opting for dedicated faci lities including marine terminals, intermodal terminals and inland depots. This may result in varying conditions for receivals and de liveries, gate handling, documentation, inspection and so on. Shipping lines will attain more commercial interest in all major worldwide mainports. Privatization (or nancing with public money) will be further encour aged; however, the private sector shows some reluctance due to the limited protability of port investments. The continuing demand for port facilities and the awareness of the scarcity and value of land for many applications (industry, housing, infrastructure, leisure and nature) will cause an increasing scarcity of land for port operations (terminals). This will result in growing demands among terminal operators for better area utilization, aecting stacking systems and landside services. In this respect the development of satellite terminals will contribute to a better utiliza tion of mainport facilities. The dwelltime of containers at deepsea ports can be reduced and diverted to the inland satellite terminals. All kinds of secondary services (Container Freight Stations (CFS), le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 112 Design and modelling depots, repair, Value Added Logistics (VAL) services, security check ing) can be shifted to those inland terminals as well, and that will benet the utilization of highcost facilities in deepsea ports. Society is asking for more control over imported cargo entering the country. All kinds of inspections are required, such as Xrays (to detect drugs, illegal immigrants, illegal shipments), visual inspection (to check quantities, packing, control of due taxes) and even product tests (veterinary checks, bacteriological tests and so on). All such activities require additional transportation (mostly to the edges of a terminal), sometimes planned but often at random. All major ports will further improve their Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)based port community information systems. Web applications will be further developed allowing for online informa tion and tracking and tracing of shipments. The planning of termi nal and inland transportation operations will be further supported with more preinformation and realtime data sharing. A growing reluctance against trucking (fuel consumption, air pollu tion, noise pollution and scarcity of drivers for longhaul operations) will encourage a further shift to rail, barging and coastal shipping. Such modes require capacity for internal transportation, either in small (onebyone) quantities or in large blocks for lastminute handling. For the expansion of existing container terminals and for the plan ning and construction of new port facilities, the environmental issues will increasingly determine the selection of location and the possible speed of realization of such new facilities. Noise and emissions reduction, avoidance of visual hindrance and the preservation of nature and wildlife are the most prominent issues. Safety and sound working conditions will become an increasingly important topic for port operations. The still increasing amounts of hazardous cargo will get more attention from public regulatory bodies. Labour unions will rightly ask for safe working conditions and some participation in the daily decisionmaking processes. The last but certainly not the least trend is the strong drive for further cost control. For many years the transportation industry has not been very protable (it is a buyers' market) and despite the annually increasing volumes and the economies of scale it is expected that the near future will not show any improvement. So, cost control will remain a major issue and probably will be diverted from the ocean leg towards terminals and inland transportation. The above trends will inuence the container operations in mainports. The dilemma for terminal operators, port authorities and port planners is the le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 113 question about future scale, the uncertainty about the size of future hub andspoke systems, and the concentration of shipping lines in a few large mainports. 7.3 THE IMPACT OF INCREASED SCALE The continuing growth in container shipments and the competitive climate with the focus on service improvements and lower costs has fuelled the drive for economies of scale. Scale developments can be clearly recognized in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. Sizes of transport vehicles, such as seagoing vessels, barges, trains and road trucks. Sizes of terminals, both in throughput (that is, terminal dimensions) and service performance. The magnitude of information exchange and process control. Waterborne transport has shown the largest scale developments (Figure 7.1). Seagoing vessels carry twentyfold more cargo than 50 years ago; motor barges and pushbarge systems have only grown two to ve times. The developments in rail transportation capacity have been limited with the exception of the USA, where the introduction of doublestack trains (with train lengths up to 3 km) supported a modal shift towards rail transport. Road trucks as well have showed little development with respect to cargocarrying capacity. Only a few countries allow threeTEU trucks (the USA, Sweden). However, there is a tendency to accept three and four TEU trucks on the roads under some specic conditions (Canada). Figure 7.1 Scale developments in general cargo vessels (1946-96) le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 114 Design and modelling Over the years the terminal handling capacity (throughput, normally measured in containers or TEUs moved over the quay wall) has increased from a few hundred thousand moves to about 5 million moves per terminal at present. However, the majority of terminals were sized for a capacity between 0.5 and 2 million moves (0.75 million - 3 million TEU). Scale developments are seen in the terminal area (up to 200 ha) and the quay wall designs. Equipment as well has been designed larger (loads almost doubled, due to twinlift operation) and especially quay cranes have been enlarged with load moments rising from 600 tonmetres in the 1960s towards 6000 tonmetres nowadays. The handling and storage systems have been enlarged tremendously. The control over the internal container movements to carry hundreds of boxes per hour at the right time and to the right place (scheduling, sequencing), has enlarged the labour organizations and their management systems up to the limits of human capabilities. Some ter minals have already been divided into several smaller units which can be better managed. The rst automated handling systems have been installed, which boosted the scales in planning and control systems. Scale developments in container transport would not have been possible without the impressive developments in information and communication technology (ICT). Worldwide connections between information databases, many Internet applications and a variety of identication techniques have supported a largescale development towards continuous tracking and tracing of containers. This allows lastminute decisions in trade transac tions, scheduling of vessels and vehicles and terminal handling. Today's availability of highcapacity computer systems standardizes EDI messages, and eective planning and management information software is a pre requisite for further increases in the scale of container logistics (Saanen et al. 2000). Vessel size developments have been dominant by far in the design of han dling facilities for mainports, a reason to review the impact of vessel sizes in more detail. Vessel Size Developments The considerable lifetimes of container cranes (25 years), terminal quay walls (50 years or more) and port entrances and breakwaters (100 years) require longterm projection when it comes to the impact of future vessel sizes and shipping lines' demands on the design of terminal quay walls and cranes. Reviewing some recent publications on vessel size developments and considering vessel size developments in adjacent shipping activities (for example bulk materials) leads to the conclusion that 200 000-250 000 DWT le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 115 Table 7.1 Characteristics of future type container vessels Vessel characteristics Vessel capacity (TEU) Length overall (m) Approximate deadweight (tons) Beam (m) Draught (m) Speed (knots) Containers across on deck Tiers under deck Tiers on deck Type I Type II 12 500 375-395 160 000 55 15-16 25 22 10-11 7 18 000 400 240 000 65 18-20 26 26 11-13 8 container vessels should certainly be considered as a feasible size for a ULCV (ultra-large c From these data the following requirements may be put to ports and ter- minals in the future minimum channel depth 20-23 metres; a turning basin of 600-750 m diameter; sucient fendering and mooring facilities; call size (lifts per call) 6000-10 000 lifts, preferable to be handled in 24 hours; outreach for handling equipment about 70 metres from fenderface; lifting height (under the spreader) above water level 47-55 m, depending on the ratio 8 The arrival of vessel type I (12 500 TEU) is a fact; the application of the much larger type II may take another 10 years. The introduction of such large vessels does not only depend on technical demands (strength, avail able diesel engine, propeller dimensions). Scale benets are not dramatic when going from 8000 TEU towards 12 500 and 18 000 TEU, although the savings in fuel consumption per slot may become of more interest. Other factors will inuence the selection of vessel size as well: risk of investing in vessel sizes with a limited area of application; a further concentration of container trac in a few mainports causing more complexity in logistics; le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 116 Design and modelling reluctance from shippers to further concentration in the shipping industry; the arrival of new ports close to the existing ones, stopping a further growth in mainport sizes (see port planning in Korea, Japan, PR of China, US West Coast, NorthWest Europe); the tremendous investments in port facilities required for 18 000 TEU vessels, including the environmental constraints related to dredging of entrance channels and port basins. In September 2006, the rst 12 500 TEU class vessel was introduced (see Figure 7.2). The EmmaMaersk (ocially 11 000 TEU, but unocially 13 600 TEU) is the rst of eight Maersk vessels for a Europe-Far East service. It remains to be seen whether this type of vessel or even further enlarged vessels will come into use in the next decade. In general it should be questioned whether such large vessels will really contribute to a cost benet for the whole transport chain. Figure 7.2 Ultralarge container vessel Emma Maersk, 156 000 DWT le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 117 Port and Terminal Developments The possible future vessel characteristics and related handling operations will put high demands upon infrastructure and superstructure of ports and terminals. The long lead time of expansion programmes and the increasing shortages of land and connecting infrastructure necessitates planning well in advance, and making area reservations for such possible developments. The rapid introduction of postPanamax container vessels (see Figure 7.3) has shown that many ports and terminals were insuciently prepared to accommodate these large vessels and their related operations. Only through very costly modications could many ports and terminals compensate for their lag in providing facilities. For longterm planning, ports should consider the following demands of ultralarge container vessels: The access channel should provide sucient keel clearance, so 20-23 m water depth will be required. S A large turning basin will be required and powerful tugboats to assist manoeuvring. Obviously, due to the r Figure 7.3 Large postPanamax container vessel le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 118 Design and modelling pilotage must be available 24 hours a day; a helicopter service for pilots will be helpful. The mooring will require an increased fender system and even upgraded bollards (maybe 100 tons per bollard) could be required. A redesigned quay wall will be necessary, not only because of the increased forces from mooring, the larger quay cranes and the increased water depth (approximately 20 metres), but also to withstand the forces from enlarged power installed for bow and aft thrusters. There must be sucient facilities to provide 10-15 000 tons of bunker oil within 20 hours during berthing of the vessel. Due to the time pressure from such vessels there must be sucient (spacious) access to the vessel for maintenance and supply activities. If terminals want to prepare themselves for services for the ULCVs, they should meet the following demands: The berth productivity should be in the range of 275-375 lifts per berth hour. A 24hour stay in port may generate 8000 lifts that must be handled in about 22 eective operating hours. Working with six quay cranes, this will require a sustainable net productivity of 60-65 lifts per crane hour and that can only be realized if the technical crane productivity is 100 lifts/hour (undisturbed cycle). There will be increased transshipment activities asking for more internal movements in the terminal (repositioning in stack, trans portation to adjacent dedicated terminals), and more lastminute decisions. The vessel stowage planning systems must be further improved due to the large amount of boxes to be handled and the complex oper ations connecting feeder, barge and rail services, arriving justin time (or even late). Enlarged stack capacity will be required to absorb the high volume of discharged containers and some spare capacity in case of vessel clashing. Unforeseen delays in vessel arrival schedules (due to bad weather, vessel breakdown or whatever) will aect the storage capac ity. Special attention should be given to the space required for spe cials like reefercontainers, hazardous cargo, overheight (OH) and overwide (OW) containers and breakbulk cargo. Lashing will remain necessary if hatchcoverless vessels continue to be rare species. The handling of SATLs (semiautomatic twist locks) will require special attention and could easily become a major bot tleneck in performance improvements and automation of waterside operations. le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 119 The probably increasing peak demands may require more exible work rosters and the availability of standby (parttime) employees in case of sudden changes. There will come an increased need for ecient inland satellite termi nals, operationally connected to the major seaside terminal and pro vided with all kinds of secondary services (depot, repair, CFS, VAL and so on) and even the possibility to store cargo in bonded areas. A weekly vessel call with 6000-8000 lifts/call will result in 300 000-400 000 lifts (450 000-600 000 TEU) per year and that is only a onedayper week operation (that is, costly underutilization). The terminal's economics ask for much more cargo and so the larger vessels will probably encourage (partly) dedicated terminals with an annual handling capacity of about 5 million TEU (compared to the 2 million TEU/annum operations of today). Requirements for Container Cranes One important component has not been mentioned: the container handling cranes at the terminal quayside. The two most important inuences of the vessel scale development on the design of cranes are the increased dimen sions in order to handle the containers of the vessel and the required increased handling capacity, which should be at least doubled. The majority of mainport terminals are in the process of preparing themselves for the type I future vessel (12 500 TEU) by just 'beengup' the crane characteristics. Recently purchased container handling cranes have the following characteristics: Outreach 60-65 m from centre waterside (WS) rail. Back reach 15-25 m from centre landside (LS) rail. Rail gauge 25-35 m centre to centre WS/LS rail. Lifting height above quay level 40-44 m. Lifting capacity up to 100 tons. Lifting speed full load up to 100 m/min. Lifting speed low load up to 200 m/min. Trolley travel speed up to 325 m/min. However, these specications will not full the demands from vessels of type II (15 000 up to 18 000 TEU). Future demands may increase with the following specications: Outreach 70-80 m from centre waterside rail. Lifting height above quay level up to 50 m. le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 120 Design and modelling Lifting capacity up to 125 tons (twinlift, tandemlift). Eective handling capacity 60-70 containers/hour, which asks for a technical handling capacity of at least 100 containers/hour. Related to this impressive upscaling, some aspects should be recognized: The enlarged cranes may require at least double the amount of power supply (redundant). The increased height of the crane structure and the enlarged struc tural dimensions (Van de Bos and Rijsenbrij 2002) will increase the total wind load, but at the same time the crane base will remain almost the same as the vessel hatch spacing is still designed for 40-45 ft containers and so the preferred maximum crane width will remain 25-28 m (resulting in a stability base of 16-18 m). Corner loads may well increase towards 800 tons. The increased corner loads (and resulting wheel loads) and wind loads will require much stronger quay wall designs, real heavyduty rail tracks and appropriate provisions for parking the cranes during storms or hurricanes. Larger crane dimensions and no changes in trolley travel and main hoist speed will result in larger cycle times for increased vessel sizes, due to the longer trolley travel and hoist and lowering distances. The number of handlings for a complete unloading or loading of one vessel bay will increase from 300 lifts (Panamax vessel) to more than 800 lifts (ULCVs); however the technical crane productivity will decrease from about 60 cycles to only 48 cycles (that is, lifts) per hour (Luttekes and Rijsenbrij 2002). To compensate for the longer crane cycle times, single trolley cranes are provided with increased drive speeds, to compensate for the longer trolley travel or hoist distance. In order to minimize the add itional requirements for horsepower it is recommended to optimize maximum speeds and maximum acceleration rates. An example is shown in Figure 7.4. Another means to increase the eective crane productivity is the use of twinlift operations, which will result in a design load of about 75 metric tons (on the hoist cables). Further increases can be obtained by the application of tandemlift allowing the handling of two 40 ft containers (and even four 20 ft containers). Figure 7.5 shows the result of a research project of Stinis and Delft University of Technology, based on a split head block and two longtwin spreaders. It is doubtful whether beefedup single trolley cranes will ever realize a sustained average operational productivity of 45 moves/hr. Surely, the capacity (cont/hour) 60,0 58,0 56,0 54,0 52,0 50,0 48,0 46,0 44,0 42,0 40,0 38,0 36,0 34,0 32,0 30,0 121 2,2 hoist speed (m/s) 1,6 1,0 3,50 3,00 le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports trolley speed (m/s) Figure 7.4 Optimization of speeds (Stinis/TUD) Figure 7.5 Tandem lift spreader application of twinlift, tandemlift and dual cycling (that is, combined dis charge and load operation) will increase this gure to 60-75 boxes/hour. However, only a part of the vessel handling volume can be operated with these special handling techniques. A quantum leap in crane productivity will ask for new crane concepts. The rst steps in this direction have been made through the introduction of secondtrolley systems (at ECT Rotterdam in 1979), a height adjustable main girder and the application of separate waterside and landside hand ling with a buer in between for SATL handling and smoothing stochas tics (see Figure 7.6). le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 122 Design and modelling Figure 7.6 Separated crane functions, including a buer (CTA Hamburg) More eective will be the use of special conveying provisions in the crane, but still within the existing portal structures (Tax 1989). Some concepts go even further: a crane structure adapted to innovative new functionality to satisfy the need for 100 lifts/hour technical handling capacity (see Figure 7.7). The Carrier Crane is another recent development using two waterside trolleys (ropedriven) which position containers onto moving carriers. In addition, traversing motions in the trolley avoid crane gantry travel for small positioning displacements and to handle 20 ft containers in 40 ft cells (see Figure 7.8). The carriers provide a buer function integrated into the crane cycle and the landside trolley can even be designed for a doublehoist capability. In fact these types of cranes must be considered as the combination of two cranes in one stable structure. The operational performance can be 75 moves/hour and even higher when using twinlifts. The quiet and controlled way of operation will result in a steady ow of containers, being an advantage for the connecting transport system to the stacking yard. The arrival of much larger container vessels (type I or even type II) will require a doubling of the net average productivity and that is impossible with the single trolley cranes presently in use. le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 123 Figure 7.7 Gottwald Port Technology RCE Jumbo Crane The above consequences of increased scales have not yet been fully evalu- ated. A substantial The introduction of postPanamax vessels (4500-8000 TEU) took place in a very short period of time (between 1989 and 1996) and within ve years around 50 ports and their terminals had to realize large investments, not only in quay walls, cranes, handling systems and terminal area, but also in the connecting infrastructure. A considerable number of cranes had to be replaced or extensively modied to cope with the new demands from these postPanamax vessels. Ports and terminals had to absorb a lot of extra costs related to early replacement, well before the end of the technical life time of the existing assets. On top of that the larger volumes asked for more handling capacity and an increased performance at both the waterside and landside. In addition le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 124 Design and modelling Figure 7.8 Carrier Crane designed for 100 lifts/hr all the partners in the transport chain expected cost reductions as a basic driver from the in The introduction of large scales has resulted in various developments in terminal handling systems for waterside and landside operations. Waterside Operations Here the larger vessels have caused larger peaks in hourly handling capac ities (moves per hour over the entire quay wall) and the following develop ments can be recognized. The longer transportation distances between quay cranes and enlarged stack areas (more stochastic) and the increased quay crane handling pro ductivity has resulted in a demand for more transport capacity connected to the cranes (Rijsenbrij 1979). In some mainports ve to seven terminal trac tors per crane are required and that is an expensive operation. Some ter minals use straddle carriers for the transport (and stacking) between quay le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 125 crane and stack and for those operations dynamic order control systems were introduced. In these orderplanning systems the transport equipment is directed to cranes based on algorithms referring to crane demand, mini mized transportation distance, minimized waiting and so on. Basically the order processing is focused on a guaranteed waterside performance with minimized costs. It is expected that such control systems for the pooling of equipment will be further developed to attain better equipment (and manning) utilization. The increased stacking height at the vessel decks made labour unions and safety boards decide to reject containerlashing activities on board. The introduction of semiautomated twist locks (SATLs) indeed supported safer handling. However, it also caused extra complexity in the waterside handling process, including additional labour. This SATL handling and the related handling of storage bins will remain a major hindrance to further productivity improvement of waterside operations. Stacking operations will be further focused on improved area utilization, easy response to lastminute changes, and costeectiveness. Pioneering terminals like ECT Rotterdam, HIT (Hong Kong), Thamesport (UK) and PSA Singapore started the introduction of rail mounted gantry cranes (RMGs) and overhead bridge cranes (OBCs) and this trend will cer tainly continue. Railmounted cranes (RMGs and OBCs) can be auto mated with proven technology and can be electrically powered (to avoid pollution). A proper load control (sway control) and reliable automated positioning are essential requirements for these cranes. Present and future technology can full these requirements and thus this type of equip ment is attractive for increased stacking demands. The higher initial invest ments can be compensated for by their longer lifetime and automation potential. Automation is becoming an attractive approach in the design of hand ling systems to control the increased scales at reduced costs. Since ECT started its robotization project at the Delta Terminal in 1988 a number of terminals have implemented robotized yards (Rijsenbrij 1996). However, only ECT Delta Terminal (commissioned in 1993) and Container Terminal Altenwerder (commissioned in 2002) operate a completely automated system for both the waterside transportation and stacking of containers (see Figure 7.9 and Figure 7.10). The experience with automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and automated stacking cranes (ASCs) is promising for further developments in this eld. Some terminals and manufacturers con centrate on the automation of straddle carriers and shuttle carriers. However, straddle carriers are less attractive for highdensity stacking (nec essary for increased throughputs) and automated shuttle carriers still have to prove the same reliability as shown by AGVs today. The development of le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 126 Design and modelling Figure 7.9 Automated container handling ECT Rotterdam, 1993 Figure 7.10 Automated container handling CTA Hamburg, 2002 le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 127 control software is a major issue for automated operations and here the support from simulation models will become a valuable tool in the design of ecient control algorithms that can cope with the dynamics of terminal handling operations. Further scale developments will denitely change the terminal handling systems towards more automation and an increased application of control software and communication technology. Landside Operations Services to the landside terminal connections are getting more attention. The truckers' turnaround time and the maintenance of schedules for barges and trains are becoming more important when volumes are growing and inland transportation costs must be controlled. Mainport terminals are confronted with a variety of inuences beyond their control, such as: liaison activities from agents, brokers, shipping lines and so on; the average dwelltime of containers: often more than four days for full containers and even 14 days for empty containers; stochastic arrival patterns (especially for trucking); insucient (or no) information on connecting modes, expected deli very date; daily peaks caused by priorities in rail networks and trucking pat terns; late arrivals and lastminute changes; a short closing time (for export cargo) and a demand to deliver con tainers 1-2 hours after landing the box at the terminal; many nonstandard containers (reefers, OH, OW, oddsize); Customs regulations and directives for hazardous cargo; security checks for containers, which might contain illegal cargo. Nevertheless the operator should deliver an agreed service level and that boils down to three major issues: sucient storage capacity in the yard, a exible handling capacity to support landside operations and a proper gate complex. The selected landside terminal handling system and its characteristic average cycle times and cycle time distribution for the handling equipment determine the service level oered to landside operations. The application of RMGs and OBCs requires a proper balancing between stack sizes and numbers of cranes per stack. When using straddle carriers or reach stack ers it enables the operator to put in more equipment under peak conditions le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 128 Design and modelling (which may occur daily, for example in the afternoon), but the equipment and operators to drive it must be available. For larger operations it is recommended to create simulations for these landside operations in order to determine the required amount of equip ment and to analyse inuences from interference of waterside priorities, lling degree in the stack, stacking equipment characteristics (speeds, accel eration or deceleration) and stack layout. For manually operated stacking systems it should be noticed that in general the performance per stacking machine decreases when more machines are working in the same area. The service times from stacking equipment are inuenced by the number and locations of interchange areas. Here the advantage of many interchange areas (close to the location of the stacked container) results in more con necting infrastructure and that may cause unacceptable extra cost (or some times the land is not available). A nal selection for a stacking system should be based on a total cost approach and a quantitative denition of the required service levels. Some developments in landside operations are focused on a faster pro cessing of large volumes per hour and with less labour involved. The fol lowing ones are of interest. Gate Operations with Increased Automation Especially for terminals dominated by trucking at the landside (the US East Coast, the Far East, the Mediterranean) gate handling is of growing importance. Gate design includes sucient parking and trac lanes, a con trolled processing time in gate lanes, exception handling of truckers with incomplete documentation, the integration of Customs and security acti vities, and dedicated lanes for special functionality (empty containers (MTs) and trucks without chassis (Bob Tails)). It is well known from queuing theory that the demand for waiting (parking) is largely determined by the processing time in a lane. The gate process comprises: container identication (ID) (ID number, typesize code, CSC plate), checking of the container weight (a questionable activ ity due to many uncertainties), checking of tractor and chassis licence plate, seal checking and trucker's identication. Security is a major item in the gate process. The terminal's liability requires a 100 per cent certainty that the right container is picked up by the right trucker. In many places the driver is identied by checking his face and driver's licence (meanwhile respecting his privacy) or by checking some unique characteristics like hand shape or iris. When truck drivers have to come to an oce before entering the gate this security check can be centralized, and after checking the presented documentation, the truck driver may receive a unique le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 129 Figure 7.11 Automated gate at Maher Terminals USA process ID card (magnetic or chip), which can be used as a process trigger during the entire receival or delivery process through the gate and in the terminals. The application of tag readers, digital cameras and sensors has been initi ated to automate gate processing (Maher Terminals, PSA, ECT, Hessenatie, see Figure 7.11). Some terminals have already reduced their gate processing time to less than 30 seconds. Further progress can be obtained when the shipping world decides on more standardization for tags at the containers (ID number, typesize code, operator) and electronic seals. The radio frequency identi cation (RFID) technology looks promising for these types of identity checks. Automated Handling of the Truck Interface The existing automation of stacking cranes and some trials with automated straddle carriers promise a further automation of landside pickup and deliveries to road trucks. Remote control is already used (Thamesport, PSA) and further applications are under development. In such applications one operator will be able to control (remotely) four or even more stacking cranes, and this is an interesting cost saving. le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under 130 Design and modelling Source: Gottwald Port Technology. Figure 7.12 Automated handling at landside interface The next step could be to include the truck driver himself in the process of lowering a container onto his chassis or connecting a spreader to his con tainer. The simplicity of today's crane control features and maybe some training could eventually result in a truck driveroperated crane. The rst applications are already in use for internal movement tractors. Automation of the landside handling will not be limited to largescale operations. Some manufacturers have developed downscaled automated stacking systems, which will be attractive for mediumsized and small ter minals with high labour cost (see Figure 7.12). Partnership Between Trucking and Terminals A further cooperation between large trucking companies and terminals will allow for a better exchange of information and the announcement of an estimated time of arrival in advance. In this respect gates for public trac control and/or road pricing stations could be used to process data from truckers to the terminals in advance. Another challenge is to integrate the logistics from shippers and truck ers in the landside stack planning. There are some examples in the indus try where truckers plan their next day's workload based on the consignee's le copyright law. Copyright 2008. Edward Elgar Publishing. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under Container handling in mainports 131 demands and on the terminal stack layout and this helps to prevent false moves. Gate Process Redesign with Reduced Inspection Activities Shipping lines are increasingly aware of the tremendous costs related to the frequent inspection of equipment (container, chassis). Equal to develop ments in the rentacar business, the future migh