Home Uncategorized TLMT

Uncategorized

TLMT

Hide Assignment InformationTurnitin®This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®.Instructions

Midterm:

Complete a written paper.

Write a 2-3 page paper on a transportation topic from chapter 6 or 7 of the Elger text.

You will write an outline that organizes your paper and includes an introduction and a conclusion. This is a separate deliverable and is intended to assist students in writing outlines and organization.

The paper should demonstrate your understanding of the transportation topic and should follow this format (you must use APA headings to mark each section below or points will be deducted):

Introduction
Background
The pros to your concept (bring in outside source)
The opposing points of view (bring in outside source)
Conclusion
Include a cover page and list of References

This midterm paper must be in APA format, double spaced (no extra space between paragraphs) using 12-point font and include at least three references.

Container terminal handling quality
Bart Wiegmans, Peter Nijkamp and Piet
Rietveld

6.1 INTRODUCTION

In the container terminal handling market, quality is important in attract-
ing and retaining customers. In Europe, container carriers do have choice

between different container ports that can meet their demand. For the ter-
minal operator, this results in increasing importance of quality of services
and the need to know the needs of (potential) customers. A favourable
network position and well-organized processes are no longer sufficient to
attract container volumes. Meeting customer needs and delivering high
quality (speed, reliability, and so on) for low costs are critical factors.
Currently, adoptions of innovative handling systems to improve operations
(and thus quality) have not been signalled in the European container ter-
minal market (Bontekoning 2002). This might be due to the fact that these
systems are not cheap and their added value is not recognized by terminal
operators so far.

Transport research in the EU (Intermodal Quality 1997; European
Commission 1997; TERMINET 1998) shows the following important quality
elements concerning transport: time, reliability, flexibility, qualification, acces-
sibility, control, handling price, frequency, speed, long-term planning, man-
agement, and safety and security. Dedicated quantitative information on
container terminal handling quality is hard to find in the literature. Container
terminals are monitoring their quality levels (mainly internal processes), but
the results are not made public. Therefore, a more general literature survey
forms the main input for this chapter combined with 14 interviews with ter-
minal operators.

The aim of this chapter is to offer an approach for measuring container
terminal service quality and to determine critical performance conditions.
For this purpose, the well-known SERVQUAL model is used. This model
has been adapted to container terminals and presents an ‘operational’ view
on the judgement of service quality of container terminals by terminal
operators (Parasuraman et al. 1991). The focus is on container terminals,

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
00

8.
E

dw
ar

d
E

lg
ar

P
ub

lis
hi

ng
L

im
ite

d.
A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

because the terminal is an important link in the total intermodal transport
chain (change of transport mode, collection, distribution, and so on). In
the next section characteristics of services are explored and adapted to the
container terminal market. Next the service quality of maritime terminals
and continental terminals is analysed. The chapter ends with conclusions.

6.2 THEORY ON SERVICE QUALITY AND
CONTAINER TERMINALS

Service Production Process

In the service process, usually the front office of a service organization
interacts directly with customers. This direct interaction is conceded to be
‘the moment of truth’ for the service organization. The conventional
service triangle consists of three actors (de Vries et al. 1994):

1. the service organization (back office);
2. its contact personnel (front office);
3. its customers.

The production process of a service can be based on a customer-orientation,
a competitor-orientation or a market-orientation. In a customer-orientation,
the main objective of the producer of the service may be to fulfil customer
needs. He can strive to provide a better price–quality service than his
competitor (competitor-orientation), or he can provide his service as both
customer- and competitor-oriented (market-oriented) (Narver and Slater
1990; Slater and Narver 1994a and 1994b; Slater and Narver 1995). A rela-
tively newly distinguished orientation is process-oriented. In this case, the
service is seen as part of the whole supply chain and there is an extensive
exchange of information between actors in the supply chain in order to be
able to perform all services smoothly. This seems a suitable approach for ter-
minal services, because they form part of an integrated transport chain.

The terminal service buying process can be divided into three activities:

1. pre-purchase phase (problem definition, information collection and
evaluation of alternatives);

2. consumption of the terminal service;
3. post-purchase phase (evaluation of the terminal service).

In the pre-purchase phase, the actors are the terminal operator and the
terminal customer. Usually, the terminal–customer personnel, the terminal

90 Intermodal transport operations

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:28:16.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
8.
E
dw
ar
d
E
lg
ar
P
ub
lis
hi
ng
L
im
ite
d.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

personnel and the terminal operator consume the terminal service. The ter-
minal customer and his personnel evaluate the service. Generally, the cus-
tomer’s management does not have an obligation to be present in person.
The service delivered to the terminal customers is quite homogeneous and
there is no need for participation of the terminal customer’s management
in the service production process. Furthermore, the customer service is
intangible, there is no need for simultaneous production and consumption,
and the (objective) terminal transit time is highly important. However, as
long as the needed terminal transit time fits in the total transport solution
it does not need to be fast but it needs to be on time.

Costs of Service Quality

Achieving quality services costs money. A useful concept in analysing the
cost of terminal service quality may be that of value density, that is, value
per unit weight. The value density reflects the relative importance of the
container in transit and inventory in the logistics system (Magee et al.
1985). In any business, this suggests that it might be preferable to stock low-
value items rather than high-value items. The terminal operator can also
use this knowledge: the higher the value of the container the operator is
handling, the more important reliability and speed become. Generally,
costs of service quality comprise (de Vries et al. 1994):

1. prevention costs, for example training programmes;
2. inspection costs, for example costs of quality tests;
3. internal repair costs, for example costs to repair errors before the

service reaches the customer;
4. external repair costs, for example costs to repair errors after the servi

has reached the customer;
5. lost sales, these do not result in direct costs, but may well represent the

highest damage to a company delivering poor service quality.

Delivering good-quality services only requires inspection costs and pre-
vention costs, whereas in the case of poor service quality, costs also consist
of internal and external repair costs and lost sales. The total container
handling service costs should always be placed in the perspective of the
total transport channel costs. The terminal handling costs depend – besides
the desired quality level – on container characteristics (value of freight),
size of shipment (volume), weight, handling difficulty, density, buying of
additional terminal services, and transport distance to and from the termi-
nal. Therefore, more tailor-made handling services might ‘produce’ more
satisfied customers and justify higher prices.

Container terminal handling quality 91

Terminal Actors in the Service Process and Quality

The terminal customer provides the terminal operator with requirements
concerning the desired terminal service. In particular, flexibility require-
ments have been growing in importance during recent years (Kuipers 1999).
This requires improvements from terminal operators in order to meet the
service demands of their customers. In this respect, much is expected from
new-generation terminals in the Continental terminal market (Bontekoning
and Kreutzberger 2001). These types of terminals are expected to improve
the cost and quality performance of terminal operations (Konings and
Kreutzberger 2001). However, so far, no new-generation terminals have
been built. In Figure 6.1, the main elements influencing, and following from,
terminal service quality are depicted. The terminal customer consists of two
elements: the management (back office), and the employees (front office)
who are present when the service is produced at the container terminal. The
terminal operator also consists of two sub-elements: front office and back
office. This results in four groups that may have different expectations and
observations about terminal service quality. This means that both the ter-
minal customer’s front and back office must judge the quality of the termi-
nal service. An additional complicating factor is that for the terminal
operator the inclusion of the total supply chain in the quality delivery is
extremely important, because it is the channel, not the terminal operator,
that actually delivers the products and services to the final customers.

92 Intermodal transport operations

Source: Based on de Vries et al. (1994).

Figure 6.1 Terminal service quality environment

Terminal service quality

Back office
Terminal operator

Front office

Quality
expectations

Quality
perceptions

Back office
Terminal customer

Front office
Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:28:16.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
8.
E
dw
ar
d
E
lg
ar
P
ub
lis
hi
ng
L
im
ite
d.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

Without channel coordination, it may be even harder to achieve an adequate
terminal service performance level.

If the focus is placed on terminal customers of both maritime and con-
tinental terminals, four main customer groups can be distinguished:

1. container carriers (deep-sea shipping companies);
2. transport companies (rail, road, barge and short-sea transport com-

panies);
3. importers/exporters (intermediaries, such as stevedores, ship brokers,

shipping agents and forwarders);
4. shippers/consignees (companies that send and receive the freight).

The main customer groups must be identified in order to be able to deter-
mine the weight that must be placed on the judgements of the different
groups. The services that are provided can be grouped according to type of
customers, importance of different sales categories, type of container
(process) or transport mode (network). Usually, terminal operators are not
entirely clear about their customers, and therefore offer a broad package of
services for the sake of risk-spreading and widening the operating base
(that is many potential customers).

Measurement of Service Quality

Service quality can, in general, be measured on three aspects: search,
experience and credence attributes. Search attributes are quality features
that can be identified by the customer before the purchase of a certain
service. Experience attributes are features that can only be disclosed during
or directly after the consumption of a certain service. Finally, credence
attributes are features that cannot be identified by customers, neither before
nor after the consumption of the service.

Bowersox et al. (1986) view handling as one of the most costly aspects of
logistic channel performance, and thus the objective is to reduce handling
operations in the logistic chain to an absolute minimum. This creates an
extra dimension concerning quality: there is a tendency to minimize termi-
nal handling, stressing the importance of quality even more. The distinc-
tion between services is necessary in order to be able to determine which
services are important or should be important to the terminal operator. At
a container terminal the following main activities can be found:

1. ship-oriented services: discharging the ship, loading the ship, direct
transshipment, warehousing and storage of container, and container
groupage;

2. yard-oriented services;

Container terminal handling quality 93

3. other terminal services: manufacturing; renting, leasing and selling ser-
vices; collection and distribution of containers; physical transport of
containers; container monitoring; and other services.

SERVQUAL to Measure Container Terminal Service Quality

The SERVQUAL model is used as a framework to analyse the terminal
service quality. In the SERVQUAL model of Parasuraman et al. (1985), the
difference between customer expectations and observations (valuations or
judgements) is measured. If the expectation of the customer is greater than
his observation, there is a lack of quality. Quality is delivered when the
observation is equal to the expectation. More quality is delivered if the
observation of the customer is greater than his expectation. The expect-
ations must be carefully dealt with, as expectations can be low (which is the
case in the container terminal market). In this respect, it is better to focus
on the aspirations of customers rather than on expectations. In the termi-
nal interviews dealt with later in this chapter, the expectations of terminal
operators about terminal customers expectations have been used as a proxy
for the important quality elements for terminal services. The ‘general’
objectives of terminal operators may be stated as cost minimization and
profit maximization, capacity-oriented and realizing political goals (for
example concerning the environment, enhancement of status and role).
The terminal operator should translate the customers’ quality expectations
into performance statements and define ‘target’ quality levels. The set of
SERVQUAL quality questions served as input for the interviews. It has not
been possible to interview terminal customers in this chapter. Testing the
SERVQUAL model with terminal customers is thus an important item for
further research. This would make it possible to compare the terminal oper-
ators’ expectations with terminal customer judgements of service quality.

6.3 MARITIME CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICE
QUALITY

Maritime Quality Judgement Histo

In general, container terminal services have no extensive history concerning
quality measurement. Some research has been carried out on quality aspects
in the broader field of transport mode comparison and also in the field
of logistics. In that field, it has been shown that, in the past, average deliv-
ery time was the most important customer service element determining

94 Intermodal transport operations

customer satisfaction (see also Table 6.1). This table indicates the impor-
tance of different quality aspects to customers. It not only applies to trans-
port or logistics companies, but also to terminal operators. If time,
availability of service and information are important to customers, these
service elements are automatically important to terminal operators as well.
Their solutions must fit these requirements in order to be competitive.

Characteristics of Maritime Terminal Services

For the maritime terminal operator, ship services are the most important.
All services are offered (ship, yard and other), but the handling service is of
prime importance. The container carriers are the main customers and the
central focus is on the quality of service that they receive. Maritime termin-
als are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The average transit time for a
container is between 48 and 96 hours through a maritime terminal.
According to terminal operators, in the service production process, the reli-
ability of the service is most important for their customers. Compared with
the results from Perreault and Russ (1976), ‘average delivery time’, ‘time
availability’ and ‘rush service’, have decreased in importance, while ‘relia-
bility’ (for example accuracy, action on complaints) has increased in
importance. See Table 6.2 for an overview of the terminal interview results.

Relative Importance of Maritime Handling Quality Conditions

The importance of maritime container terminal quality – according to
terminal operators – has been tested on five quality dimensions. These

Container terminal handling quality 95

Table 6.1 Customer service elements and customer satisfaction

Customer service elements Correlation coefficient1

Average delivery time 0.76
Delivery time availability 0.72
Order status information 0.67
Rush service 0.59
Order methods 0.56
Action on complaints 0.56
Accuracy in filling orders 0.46
Returns policy 0.44
Billing procedure 0.39

Note: 1 Correlation between service element and customer satisfaction.

Source: Perreault and Russ (1976).

dimensions are: tangibles – the appearance of the physical facilities; reli-
ability – the ability to provide the promised service; responsiveness – the
willingness to help customers; assurance – the knowledge of the personnel;
and empathy – the caring for terminal customers. The interviewed terminal
operators were asked to divide 100 points between the five items (see
Table 6.3 for an overview) in order to define relative importance of quality
conditions.

The interviews show that ‘reliability’ is of main importance to maritime
terminal operators. The main finding for maritime container terminals is
that all quality variables are important, but ‘reliability’ is the most impor-
tant one.

Maritime Terminal Services and Quality Conditions

Several characteristics of the maritime container terminal service were
tested in the interviews. According to terminal operators, maritime terminal
customers expect excellent service, therefore quality costs are concentrated
at the beginning of the internal service production process. Costs are made
in order to prevent internal quality defects. Terminal performances meas-
ured by the maritime operators are crane performance, container damage,

96 Intermodal transport operations

Table 6.2 Service characteristics in the maritime terminal market

Variable Characteristic

Kind of services Ship, yard, other
Average container terminal transit time 48–96 hours
Operating hours 24/7, all year
Critical performance condition Reliability

Source: Terminal interviews, 2002.

Table 6.3 Quality importance according to maritime terminal operators

Variable Share (%)

Tangibles 20
Reliability 30
Responsiveness 15
Assurance 20
Empathy 15

Source: Terminal interviews, 2002.
Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:28:16.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
8.
E
dw
ar
d
E
lg
ar
P
ub
lis
hi
ng
L
im
ite
d.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

straddle carriers performance, and that of other transport modes (besides
deep-sea). The percentage of containers that is not handled according to
customer requirements is far less than 1 per cent, and the conflicts over false
handlings are solved to the maximum extent possible. However, maritime
terminal customers are also interested in channel performance, suggesting
that terminal operators might start measuring channel performance in add-
ition to internal performance. The attitude of maritime terminals should
improve from a production-oriented (internal process) to a more customer-
and process-oriented attitude. The maritime terminal operators conclude
that better-educated personnel, shorter container terminal transit time,
better handling performance, and quality measurement may improve the
container handling service. However, these items are just facilitators to help
the terminal customers with a good transport channel performance.

Conclusion about Maritime Terminals

Several characteristics of maritime terminals have been identified. Ship ser-
vices are the most important to maritime terminals, but related services
(yard and other) are offered as well. Container carriers are the main cus-
tomers and are served 24/7, 365 days per year with an average container
transit time through the terminal of 48–96 hours. In the 1990s, the import-
ance of speed and time relatively decreased in favour of reliability of the
service. According to past transport research, average delivery time was
judged to be of main importance. The interviews have proven that this has
changed for the container terminal sector in Europe. As transport services
are, in general, price-inelastic, container handling price reductions will not
generate a dramatically increased demand for container handling. However,
the market is very competitive on a port-by-port basis. Quality levels must
meet high standards set by the container carriers. Costs incurred by better
quality performance cannot be recovered through higher rates. Therefore,
the relatively most critical performance condition for their customers –
according to maritime container terminal operators – in terms of quality is
‘reliability’. It has not been possible to produce a table with the scores of
maritime terminals, concerning the adapted SERVQUAL model, because
the response on this part of the questionnaire was insufficient.

However, several tools to improve maritime container terminal services
can be developed, based on this research. Current terminal performances
measured by operators are crane performance, container damage, straddle
carrier performance, and that of other transport modes (besides deep-sea).
The maritime operators conclude that better-educated personnel, shorter
container terminal transit time, better handling performance, and quality
measurement may help improve the container handling service. Handling

Container terminal handling quality 97

speed, information and communication are quoted as important tools
to improve the quality performance of maritime container terminals.
However, faster handling is not important as long as the terminal service
fits the total transport solution. Information and communication is what
counts in order to improve the terminal operator attitude, the channel per-
spective and performance, and the flexibility.

The attitude of maritime terminals should improve from a production-
oriented (internal process) to a more customer-oriented attitude. Internal
processes are important, but the transport channel of the customer – which
the terminal service forms part of – counts. Measuring ‘total’ container
channel performance, through an increased number of terminal perform-
ance measures, might help to improve the reliability of container terminals.
Most maritime container terminals measure performance on the basis of
their terminal; container carriers are interested in channel performance: is
container X reliably transported from point A to B in the agreed time-
frame? Internal terminal performance measures must therefore be extended
with external terminal performance measures. These external performance
measures measure the container carriers’ on-time performance. A perform-
ance improvement for maritime terminals might be ‘flexibility’. Deep-sea
ship arrivals are no easy planning task, as weather influences and other
problematic developments make the terminal operator’s task more difficult.
Through strict contracts, all risks of delays and terminal berth congestion
are passed onto the terminal operator. This makes ‘flexibility’ a critical per-
formance condition in order to optimally service the terminal customer.

6.4 CONTINENTAL CONTAINER TERMINAL
SERVICE QUALITY

Continental Quality Judgement History

Research into Continental terminal services has no extensive history.
Research has been carried out on quality aspects in a broader perspective
(logistics). In the annual report of RENFE (1998) there is a short section
on quality measurement concerning intermodal freight transport including
the use of Continental rail terminals (see Figure 6.2 and 6.3 for the main
results).

This quality judgement by customers concerns rail services in Spain,
including the use of Continental container terminals. Figure 6.2 shows
that, according to clients, ‘compliance with terms’ and ‘quality–price rela-
tionships’ are the most important quality aspects. ‘Compliance with terms’
may also be stated as ‘reliability’. Figure 6.3 shows that the most important

98 Intermodal transport operations

Container terminal handling quality 99

Note: ‘Usual speaker’ refers to usual contact person.

Source: RENFE (1998).

Figure 6.2 Customer judgement of rail service quality

conditions

Source: RENFE (1998).

Figure 6.3 Importance of quality elements and corresponding judgements

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

co
m

pl
ia
nc

e
wi

th
te

rm
s

pu
nc

tu
al
d

el
ive

tim
e

be
tw

ee
n

te
rm

in
al
s

ha
nd

lin
g

of
g

oo
ds

qu
al
ity

–p
ric

e
re

la
tio

ns
hi
p

re
gi
st
ra

io
n

ra
te

re
fu

nd
s/
di
sc

ou
nt

cla
im

te
le
ph

on
e

in
fo

rm
at

io
n

us
ua

l s
pe

ak
er

Quality aspect

Im
p

o
rt

a
n

Importance

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
co
m
pl
ia
nc
e
wi
th
te
rm
s
pu
nc
tu
al
d
el
ive
ry
tim
e
be
tw
ee
n
te
rm
in
al
s
ha
nd
lin
g
of
g
oo
ds
qu
al
ity
–p
ric
e
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
re
gi
st
ra

tio
n

ra
te
re
fu
nd
s/
di
sc
ou
nt
s
cla
im
s
te
le
ph
on
e
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
us
ua
l s
pe
ak
er
Quality aspect

1997

1998

Importance
Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:28:16.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
8.
E
dw
ar
d
E
lg
ar
P
ub
lis
hi
ng
L
im
ite
d.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

quality aspects (‘compliance with terms’ and ‘quality–price relationship’)
are not those customers are most satisfied by. The differences between the
quality aspects are quite large and especially the most important quality
aspects must perform better. In general, it is more important for operators
to perform better in aspects that are more important to customers. Below,
the interviews with the Dutch container terminals will be discussed.

Characteristics of Continental Terminal Services

Most Continental terminal operators who were interviewed (11 in the
Netherlands) have large customer bases, and most of the customers are
located close to the terminal. The operating hours for barge terminals show
a mixed picture, ranging from 05.00 Monday to 12.00 Saturday every week
to 24/7, 365 days a year. The average container terminal transit time for
barge terminals is 48 hours and for rail terminals 73 hours. In the service
production process, reliability of the service is most important (see Table
6.4 for an overview of the interview results).

Relative Importance of Continental Handling Quality Conditions

Table 6.5 shows that ‘reliability’ is of relatively main importance to both
barge and rail terminal operators. Several characteristics of the container
terminal service were tested in the interviews. The percentage of containers
that is not handled according to customer requirements is less than 1 per
cent for rail terminals, and the conflicts over these false handlings are solved
where possible. For barge terminals, the false handlings are between 1 and
3 per cent, with one terminal reaching almost 10 per cent (interviews with
terminal operators in 2002). Terminal performance measured by the barge

100 Intermodal transport operations

Table 6.4 Service characteristics in the Continental terminal market

Variable Characteristics: barge Characteristics: rail

Kind of services Barge, yard, other Rail, yard, other
Average container 48 hours 73 hours

terminal transit time
Operating hours Most 24/7, all year 05.00 Mon.-12.00 Sat
Critical performance Reliability Reliability

conditions

Note: Most terminals are open 24/7, all year, with few (mainly rail) exceptions.

operators concern barge on-time performance, and customer pre- and
end-haulage on-time performance. Rail terminals measure the on-time
performance of trains (departures) and trucks (percentage handled within
30 minutes).

Continental Terminal Services and Quality Conditions

The main finding for Continental barge container terminals is that the
differences between the quality variables are not large. This means that all
quality variables are relatively important, and ‘reliability’ is the most
important one. According to Continental rail terminals, customers are
strongly focused on ‘reliability’ and relatively less on the other quality
aspects. This might be due to the great chance of disruption in the rail trans-
port chain. According to terminal operators, barge and rail terminal cus-
tomers expect ‘reliability’, ‘good price’ and ‘added value’.

Conclusion about Continental Terminals

Characteristics of Continental terminal service were revealed in the inter-
views. Most operators have large customer bases, and most of the cus-
tomers are located close to the terminal. The operating hours differ from
terminal to terminal. The average container terminal transit time for barge
terminals is 48 hours and for rail terminals 73 hours. The percentage of
containers that is not handled according to customer requirements is less
than 1 per cent for rail terminals and for barge terminals the false handlings
are between 1 and 3 per cent. According to terminal operators, barge and
rail terminal customers expect ‘reliability’, ‘good price’ and ‘added value’.
‘Reliability’ is a critical performance condition for Continental terminal
operators, especially for rail terminals, due to the great likelihood of
disruption of the system flow, in the rail part of the transport chain. Barge

Container terminal handling quality 101

Table 6.5 Quality importance in the Continental container terminal
market

Variable Barge Rail

Tangibles 13 9
Reliability 25 55
Responsiveness 22 13
Assurance 20 12
Empathy 21 11

terminals, in order to determine their own quality, but also in order to
determine the total channel performance, monitor the start and the end of
the trip of a container. The differences between the quality judgements (see
Table 6.6) are not large. According to terminal operators, this means that
all quality variables are relatively important to their customers, and ‘reli-
ability’ is relatively important. Better-educated personnel, shorter con-
tainer terminal transit time, better handling performance, and quality
measurement may enable an improvement in the container handling
service. Quality improvements must come down into cost reductions as
price increases seem difficult. This is even more complicated as the invest-
ment costs for improved quality are concentrated at the terminal, while
most advantages occur in the networks (Trip and Kreutzberger 2002).

102 Intermodal transport operations

Table 6.6 Quality judgements of Continental container terminals

Quality dimension Barge Rail Difference:
terminals terminals barge–rail

1. Tangibles: equipment 5 5 �
2. Tangibles: facilities 5 5 �
3. Tangibles: clothes 5 5 �
4. Tangibles: promotion 4 5 �1
5. Reliability: promise 7 7 �
6. Reliability: solve 7 7 �
7. Reliability: 1st time 7 7 �
8. Reliability: on-time 7 7 �
9. Reliability: mistakes 7 6 �1

10. Responsiveness: tell 7 6 �1
11. Responsiveness: adequate 7 7 �
12. Responsiveness: always 7 7 �
13. Responsiveness: busy 6 6 �
14. Assurance: behaviour 6 7 �1
15. Assurance: safe 7 6 �1
16. Assurance: careful 6 6 �
17. Assurance: knowledge 7 6 �1
18. Empathy: individual 7 6 �1
19. Empathy: open 5 6 �1
20. Empathy: personal 5 5 �
21. Empathy: customer 7 6 �1
22. Empathy: needs 7 7 �

Note: The quality dimensions on the left-hand side correspond with the extensive
described numbers in Table 6.1

Tools to improve the Continental terminal service can be developed
based on this chapter. To make the Continental container terminal – and
the transport service it forms part of – more competitive it is necessary to
offer a total service package, increase the already broad customer base, and
have increased quality checks. Single-mode transport is the reference point
on which the terminal operators base their price. They must ideally meet
the single-mode road transport price, or even better, be cheaper. A tool for
improvement for Continental terminal operators is to offer a ‘total service
assortment’. The total service, including pre- and end-haulage (logistics
solution) is important, not only the container handling. The competitive
position of Continental (mainly barge) terminals is stronger than that of
maritime and rail terminals. A large customer base and a broad service
package offers opportunities to make money. This already good competi-
tive position must be retained and enlarged where opportunities exist.
Some terminals measure quality performance, and others do not. It is not
possible to recover the extra quality control costs through higher prices.
Individualized attention and caring for customers may be as good as
making the effort to measure quality performance. Due to the limited scale
of Continental barge and rail terminals, it is often possible to work without
a professional quality performance measurement system. However, if the
container terminal grows larger, an automated system to monitor quality
performance might be implemented.

6.5 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Conclusion for Maritime Terminals

Critical internal performance improvement characteristics for terminal
operators are information and communication about transport channel per-
formance. In past transport research, average delivery time was judged to be
of main importance. According to terminal operators, ‘reliability’, in terms
of meeting container carriers’ demand, is thus a critical performance
condition for maritime container terminals. Measuring ‘total’ container
channel performance, through an increased number of terminal perform-
ance measures, might help to improve the reliability of container terminals.
Most maritime container terminals measure performance on the basis of
their terminal. Container carriers are interested in channel performance: is
container X reliably transported from point A to B in the agreed timeframe?
Internal terminal performance measures must therefore be extended with
external terminal performance measures. These external performance
measures measure the container carriers’ on-time performance. An external

Container terminal handling quality 103

performance improvement characteristic might be ‘flexibility’. Through
strict contracts, all risks of delays and terminal berth congestion are passed
onto the terminal operator. This makes ‘flexibility’ a critical performance
condition.

Conclusion for Continental Terminals

A critical performance condition for Continental terminal operators is to
offer a ‘total service assortment’. The total service, including pre- and end-
haulage (logistics solution) is important, not the container handling only.
The competitive position of Continental (mainly barge) terminals is
stronger than that of maritime and rail terminals. A large customer
base and a broad service package offers opportunities to make money.
‘Reliability’ is a critical performance condition for Continental terminal
operators, especially for rail terminals, due to the great likelihood of dis-
ruption of the system flow, in the rail part of the transport chain. Barge ter-
minals, in order to determine their own quality, but also in order to
determine the total channel performance, monitor the start and the end of
the trip of a container. The interviews indicated that the main group of
barge terminals may be further advanced in measuring transport channel
performance than maritime and rail terminals. It is not possible to recover
the extra quality control costs through higher prices. Individualized atten-
tion and caring for customers may be as good as making the effort to
measure quality performance. Due to the limited scale of Continental
barge and rail terminals, it is often possible to work without a professional
quality performance measurement system. However, if the container ter-
minal grows larger, an automated system to monitor quality performance
might be implemented.

Further Research

The container terminal is very important in the transport chain and must
thus meet the transport channel requirements. Terminal quality measure-
ment should then be focused on the channel performance, besides the inter-
nal processes that must be good. Where possible, future quality research
might incorporate the transport channel perspective. Several customer
groups are involved in terminal services, this might require different services
with different quality requirements. These customer requirements must be
analysed in future research and confronted with the terminal operators’
judgements.

104 Intermodal transport operations

REFERENCES

Bontekoning, Y.M. (2002), Towards New-Generation Terminal Operations:
Identifying Implementation Obstacles, Delft: Delft University Press.

Bontekoning, Y.M. and E. Kreutzberger (2001), New-Generation Terminals, Delft:
TRAIL.

Bowersox, D.J., D.J. Closs and O.K. Helferich (1986), Logistical Management, New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

European Commission (1997), Intermodal Quality and Performance Indicators,
Deliverable 1, INRETS.

Intermodal Quality (1997), The Quality of Terminals, Executive Summary,
Intermodal quality and performance indicators, Brussels.

Konings, J.W. and E. Kreutzberger (2001), Towards a Quality Leap in Intermodal
Freight Transport, Delft: TRAIL.

Kuipers, B. (1999), Flexibiliteit in de Rotterdamse Havenregio, Delft: Uitgeverij
Eburon.

Magee, J.F., W.C. Copacino and D.B. Rosenfield (1985), Modern Logistics
Management Integrating Marketing, Manufacturing, and Physical Distribution,
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Narver, J.C. and S.F. Slater (1990), ‘The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability’, Journal of Marketing, 54, October, pp. 20–35.

Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml and L.L. Berry (1985), ‘A conceptual model of
service quality and its implications for future research’, Journal of Marketing, 49,
pp. 41–50.

Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml and L.L. Berry (1991), ‘Refinement and reassess-
ment of the SERVQUAL-scale’, Journal of Retailing, 67, pp. 420–50.

Perreault Jr, W.D and F.A. Russ (1976), ‘Physical distribution service in industrial
purchase decisions’, Journal of Marketing, 40, p. 8.

RENFE (1998), Annual Report, Madrid: RENFE.
Slater, S.F. and J.C. Narver (1994a), ‘Does competitive environment moderate the

market orientation-performance relationship?’ Journal of Marketing, 58,
pp. 46–55.

Slater, S.F. and J.C. Narver (1994b), ‘Market orientation, customer value, and supe-
rior performance’, Business Horizons, 37, pp. 22–8.

Slater, S.F. and J.C. Narver (1995), ‘Market orientation and the learning organisa-
tion’, Journal of Marketing, 59, July, pp. 63–74.

TERMINET (1998), Indicators and Criteria for New-generation Bundling,
Terminals and Terminal Nodes, Delft: Delft University of Technology.

Trip, J.J. and E. Kreutzberger (2002), Complex Bundling Networks and New-
generation Terminals: A Synthesis, Delft: Delft University Press.

Vries Jr, W. de, H. Kasper and P.J.C. van Helsdingen (1994), Dienstenmarketing,
Houten: Educatieve Partners Nederland BV.

Container terminal handling quality 105

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 flows 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 door-to-door trans-
portation system with efficient 6000–8000 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent
unit) vessels, large high-tech terminals, intermodal, inland transportation
and computerized online information systems. Shippers and consignees are
increasingly demanding better performance, such as flexibility for last-
minute changes, a rapid response with fast deliveries and a perfect fit in
their logistics chains. However, reliability and low costs are the major issues
in door-to-door 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 efficient
planning (trucking) to avoid empty-leg 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 flexibility to handle operational peaks.

109

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
E

d
w

a
rd

E
lg

a
r

P
u
b
lis

h
in

g
L

im
ite

d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

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 decision-making 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 flows in a secure way and what type of
automation to adopt to assure cost-effective 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 influenced by the trends in
global container logistics and the future demands of shippers, which con-
tinuously monitor the service levels and cost-effectiveness 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 figures 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 double-digit growth figures.
Especially in the Far East (China, Korea, India, Vietnam and so on),
considerable growth is expected.

110 Design and modelling

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

● 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
reefer-containers and break-bulk 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 flows to
be handled and sufficient flexibility in case of peak demands must be
offered by the operator. Non-performance 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 fast-expanding 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 financing with public money) will be further encour-
aged; however, the private sector shows some reluctance due to the
limited profitability 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,
affecting stacking systems and landside services. In this respect the
development of satellite terminals will contribute to a better utiliza-
tion of mainport facilities. The dwell-time of containers at deep-sea
ports can be reduced and diverted to the inland satellite terminals.
All kinds of secondary services (Container Freight Stations (CFS),

Container handling in mainports 111

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

depots, repair, Value Added Logistics (VAL) services, security check-
ing) can be shifted to those inland terminals as well, and that will
benefit the utilization of high-cost facilities in deep-sea ports.

● Society is asking for more control over imported cargo entering the
country. All kinds of inspections are required, such as X-rays (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 pre-information and real-time data sharing.

● A growing reluctance against trucking (fuel consumption, air pollu-
tion, noise pollution and scarcity of drivers for long-haul operations)
will encourage a further shift to rail, barging and coastal shipping.
Such modes require capacity for internal transportation, either in small
(one-by-one) quantities or in large blocks for last-minute 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 decision-making 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 profitable (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 influence the container operations in mainports. The
dilemma for terminal operators, port authorities and port planners is the

112 Design and modelling

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

question about future scale, the uncertainty about the size of future hub-
and-spoke 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. Sizes of transport vehicles, such as seagoing vessels, barges, trains and
road trucks.

2. Sizes of terminals, both in throughput (that is, terminal dimensions)
and service performance.

3. 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 push-barge systems have only grown two to five
times. The developments in rail transportation capacity have been limited
with the exception of the USA, where the introduction of double-stack
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 cargo-carrying capacity. Only a few countries allow three-TEU trucks
(the USA, Sweden). However, there is a tendency to accept three- and four-
TEU trucks on the roads under some specific conditions (Canada).

Container handling in mainports 113

Figure 7.1 Scale developments in general cargo vessels (1946–96)

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

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 twin-lift operation) and especially quay cranes have been enlarged
with load moments rising from 600 ton-metres in the 1960s towards 6000
ton-metres 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 first 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 identification techniques have
supported a large-scale development towards continuous tracking and
tracing of containers. This allows last-minute decisions in trade transac-
tions, scheduling of vessels and vehicles and terminal handling. Today’s
availability of high-capacity computer systems standardizes EDI messages,
and effective 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 long-term 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

114 Design and modelling

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

container vessels should certainly be considered as a feasible size for a
ULCV (ultra-large container vessel). However, speculation about the most
likely size will probably continue and that explains why it is recommended
to use a range of characteristics for tomorrow’s container vessels (see
Table 7.1).

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;
● sufficient 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 ft 6 ins high/9 ft 6 ins high containers.

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 benefits 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 influence the selection of vessel size as well:

● risk of investing in vessel sizes with a limited area of application;
● a further concentration of container traffic in a few mainports

causing more complexity in logistics;

Container handling in mainports 115

Table 7.1 Characteristics of future type container vessels

Vessel characteristics Type I Type II

Vessel capacity (TEU) 12 500 18 000
Length overall (m) 375–395 400
Approximate deadweight (tons) 160 000 240 000
Beam (m) 55 65
Draught (m) 15–16 18–20
Speed (knots) 25 26
Containers across on deck 22 26
Tiers under deck 10–11 11–13
Tiers on deck 7 8

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

● 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, North-West 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 first 12 500 TEU class vessel was introduced (see
Figure 7.2). The Emma-Maersk (officially 11 000 TEU, but unofficially
13 600 TEU) is the first 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
benefit for the whole transport chain.

116 Design and modelling

Figure 7.2 Ultra-large container vessel Emma Maersk, 156 000 DWT

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

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 post-Panamax container vessels (see Figure 7.3)
has shown that many ports and terminals were insufficiently prepared to
accommodate these large vessels and their related operations. Only through
very costly modifications could many ports and terminals compensate for
their lag in providing facilities.

For long-term planning, ports should consider the following demands of
ultra-large container vessels:

● The access channel should provide sufficient keel clearance, so
20–23 m water depth will be required. Such a deep channel may
influence sediment depositing which could include additional (expen-
sive) regular dredging.

● A large turning basin will be required and powerful tugboats to assist
manoeuvring. Obviously, due to the required short stay in port,

Container handling in mainports 117

Figure 7.3 Large post-Panamax container vessel

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

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 sufficient 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 sufficient
(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 24-hour stay in port may generate 8000 lifts that must
be handled in about 22 effective 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 last-minute
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 just-in-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 affect the storage capac-
ity. Special attention should be given to the space required for spe-
cials like reefer-containers, hazardous cargo, over-height (OH) and
over-wide (OW) containers and break-bulk cargo.

● Lashing will remain necessary if hatch-coverless vessels continue to
be rare species. The handling of SATLs (semi-automatic twist locks)
will require special attention and could easily become a major bot-
tleneck in performance improvements and automation of waterside
operations.

118 Design and modelling

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

● The probably increasing peak demands may require more flexible
work rosters and the availability of stand-by (part-time) employees
in case of sudden changes.

● There will come an increased need for efficient 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 one-day-per-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 influences 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 ‘beefing-up’ 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 specifications will not fulfil the demands from vessels of
type II (15 000 up to 18 000 TEU). Future demands may increase with the
following specifications:

● Outreach 70–80 m from centre waterside rail.
● Lifting height above quay level up to 50 m.

Container handling in mainports 119

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

● Lifting capacity up to 125 tons (twin-lift, tandem-lift).
● Effective 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 heavy-duty
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 effective crane productivity is the use
of twin-lift 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 tandem-lift 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 long-twin spreaders.

It is doubtful whether beefed-up single trolley cranes will ever realize a
sustained average operational productivity of 45 moves/hr. Surely, the

120 Design and modelling

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

application of twin-lift, tandem-lift and dual cycling (that is, combined dis-
charge and load operation) will increase this figure 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 first steps in this direction have been made through the introduction of
second-trolley systems (at ECT Rotterdam in 1979), a height-adjustable
main girder and the application of separate waterside and landside hand-
ling with a buffer in between for SATL handling and smoothing stochas-
tics (see Figure 7.6).

Container handling in mainports 121

Figure 7.4 Optimization of speeds (Stinis/TUD)

30,0

trolley speed (m/s)

hoist speed
(m/s)

1,0

1,6

2,2

3,
50

4,
00

5,
00

6,
00

3,
00

4,
50

5,
50

32,0
34,0
36,0
38,0
40,0
42,0
44,0
46,0
48,0
50,0
52,0
54,0
56,0
58,0
60,0

capacity
(cont/hour)

Figure 7.5 Tandem lift spreader

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

More effective 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 (rope-driven) 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 buffer function integrated into the
crane cycle and the landside trolley can even be designed for a double-hoist
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 twin-lifts. The quiet and
controlled way of operation will result in a steady flow 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.

122 Design and modelling

Figure 7.6 Separated crane functions, including a buffer (CTA Hamburg)

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

The above consequences of increased scales have not yet been fully evalu-
ated. A substantial increase in container vessel capacity will have a tremen-
dous impact on the required investments in ports and terminals and could
well result in higher operating costs for the overall transportation chain.

7.4 DEVELOPMENTS IN TERMINAL HANDLING
SYSTEMS

The introduction of post-Panamax vessels (4500–8000 TEU) took place in
a very short period of time (between 1989 and 1996) and within five 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 modified to cope with the new demands from these
post-Panamax 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

Container handling in mainports 123

Figure 7.7 Gottwald Port Technology RCE Jumbo Crane

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

all the partners in the transport chain expected cost reductions as a basic
driver from the introduced economies of scale in liner services. Many ter-
minals struggle with the balance between performance and cost. Moreover,
the dominance of waterside operations diminished and nowadays there is
much more focus on landside operations.

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 five 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

124 Design and modelling

Figure 7.8 Carrier Crane designed for 100 lifts/hr

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

crane and stack and for those operations dynamic order control systems
were introduced. In these order-planning 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 container-lashing activities on board. The
introduction of semi-automated 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 last-minute changes, and cost-effectiveness. 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. Rail-mounted 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 fulfil 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 field. Some terminals and manufacturers con-
centrate on the automation of straddle carriers and shuttle carriers.
However, straddle carriers are less attractive for high-density 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

Container handling in mainports 125

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

126 Design and modelling

Figure 7.9 Automated container handling ECT Rotterdam, 1993

Figure 7.10 Automated container handling CTA Hamburg, 2002

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

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 efficient control algorithms that can cope with the dynamics of terminal
handling operations.

Further scale developments will definitely 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 influences beyond
their control, such as:

● liaison activities from agents, brokers, shipping lines and so on;
● the average dwell-time of containers: often more than four days for

full containers and even 14 days for empty containers;
● stochastic arrival patterns (especially for trucking);
● insufficient (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 last-minute 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 non-standard containers (reefers, OH, OW, odd-size);
● 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: sufficient storage capacity in the yard, a
flexible 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 offered 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

Container handling in mainports 127

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

(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 influences from interference of waterside priorities,
filling 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 influenced 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 final selection for a stacking system
should be based on a total cost approach and a quantitative definition 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 sufficient parking and traffic 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 identification (ID) (ID number, type-size
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 identification. 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 identified 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 office before
entering the gate this security check can be centralized, and after checking
the presented documentation, the truck driver may receive a unique

128 Design and modelling

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

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,
type-size code, operator) and electronic seals. The radio-frequency identi-
fication (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.

Container handling in mainports 129

Figure 7.11 Automated gate at Maher Terminals USA

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

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 driver-operated crane. The first
applications are already in use for internal movement tractors.

Automation of the landside handling will not be limited to large-scale
operations. Some manufacturers have developed downscaled automated
stacking systems, which will be attractive for medium-sized 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 traffic
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

130 Design and modelling

Source: Gottwald Port Technology.

Figure 7.12 Automated handling at landside interface

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

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 rent-a-car business, the future might bring less physical inspec-
tions. Digital imaging from containers and storing such images over a
two-month period should be sufficient to have proof in case of severe
damage (under liability clauses).

Cooperation with Satellite Terminals

The increased inland container flows have supported the introduction of
daily shuttles (by barge and/or rail). A partnership between deep-sea ter-
minals and some major inland satellite terminals will allow the movement
of containers directly after discharging or one day before loading. This will
improve the dwell-time at the deep-sea terminals, will decrease transporta-
tion cost (through high utilization of transportation equipment) and will
give better service to truckers (faster turnaround) and shippers (who can
order the delivery of containers at shorter notice and with a better pre-
dicted time of arrival at their plant). The full benefit of satellite terminals
for the improvement of landside operations can only be obtained when
there is a strong operational coordination and a 100 per cent information
exchange between deep-sea and satellite terminals.

Train Shuttles, Every Hour on the Hour

The tendency to shift towards rail transportation will probably
continue. Larger volumes require more trains which must fulfil proper
train scheduling. Train shuttles between mainport terminals, satellite ter-
minals and other inland destinations can be run efficiently when the train
is operated as a fixed set of wagons with minimal requirements to con-
tainer weight and so on (to ease the planning of trains). Increasingly, ship-
ping lines, terminals and logistic service providers operate such shuttles
and a further privatized rail network will support better and faster rail
services.

Obviously the above-mentioned trends, developments and influences will
be affected by increasing volumes and peak demands. Mainports are in the
process of reconsidering their service products, but the uncertainty about
the future scales in operations hamper their decision-making.

Container handling in mainports 131

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

7.5 THE DILEMMA

Since 1995, the rapid introduction of much larger container vessels forced
ports and terminals to invest in new facilities, although the old ones were
still in good shape and not fully depreciated at all. And again, a new wave
of investments will be required to accommodate container vessels of 12 500
TEU capacity, now introduced to the market.

At the waterside, access channels, water depth before the quay wall, quay
wall strength, container cranes and handling system must be enlarged or
increased, but will there be sufficient volume and revenue for a sound
payback period?

On the landside, gate systems must be improved, the arrival of three-
TEU or four-TEU trucks need redesigned interchange areas, and the larger
and more frequently arriving shuttle trains ask for larger shunting yards
and on-dock rail facilities with more handling capacity. Again, where is the
profit from these investments?

That is the dilemma for ports and terminals. Their long-term continua-
tion requires a profitable operation but the competition between shipping
lines, terminal operators, shippers and consignees, and inland transporta-
tion companies is increasingly asking for more services with eroding
margins. Basically, ports and terminals can follow two alternatives: a
service-driven or a cost-driven approach.

Service-Driven Approach

In this philosophy the focus is on berth performance, fast turnaround times
and maximum flexibility, regardless of the size of vessels, trains, or barges
and the stochastic nature of arrival patterns and port capacity demands.
Vessel arrival and truck arrival are the most difficult to cope with. The
ability of peak handling will result in underutilized (costly) handling capac-
ity. Last-minute changes, fluctuations in flow density and frequent delays in
arrivals will cause extra costs for the operator. Service guarantees, fixed
time slots, guaranteed hourly productivities under all circumstances and
related penalties for non-performance will result in a surplus of available
capacity and thus increased costs.

Cost-Driven Approach

Observations using activity-based costing have revealed that ports and ter-
minals should strive for a sound cost–service ratio at both waterside and land-
side. In this case the terminal operator is looking for predictability, a spread
of the workload over the day and a 100 per cent quality of information to

132 Design and modelling

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

allow pre-planning and avoidance of false moves. Waterside and landside
operations are carefully balanced (waterside peak demands are marginally
compensated by landside capacity) and flexibility and guaranteed service are
limited to support a smooth cost-effective operation with a maximum uti-
lization of manning and assets.

So, What is the Choice for Mainports?

Should they follow every scale development and remain attractive for ship-
ping lines and transportation companies, but with a severe risk of financial
losses from under utilization and uneconomic depreciation, or should they
strive for maximum profitability with fully utilized assets and no asset
replacements before the end of the technical economic lifetime, although
this may result in the loss of customers and thus financial losses as well?

This dilemma can be conquered with a partnership between the major
participants in the door-to-door transportation chain. Scale steps should
be scheduled well in advance (release planning), to allow a slow, prepared
growth in the size of facilities. Required services should be quantitatively
specified and peak demands should be reasonably rewarded. All parties
involved should support a 100 per cent exchange of quality information
and reliable forecasting.

Finally, what is the optimal size of scales? In transportation it is definitely
not the unilateral approach of one participant (for example the shipping
line) to the detriment of all the others in the chain. Mainports are currently
in the process of preparing and adjusting their handling systems for the
15 000 TEU vessel, an effort that will take 2 to 5 years; hopefully the next
step in vessel size will not be one bridge too far from a total cost point of
view for the entire door-to-door logistic chain.

REFERENCES

Bos, W. van de and J.C. Rijsenbrij (2002), ‘Design optimization of space frame
structures’, World Class Crane Management Seminar Europe, Marriott Hotel
Amsterdam, 27–29 May.

Luttekes, E. and J.C. Rijsenbrij (2002), ‘Ship shore handling of ultra large contain-
erships: a design concept for the cranes’, World Class Crane Management
Seminar Europe, Marriott Hotel Amsterdam, 27–29 May.

Rijsenbrij, J.C. (1979), Terminal Productivity: A Variety of Factors, Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.

Rijsenbrij, J.C. (1996), ‘Terminal automation: challenges and threats’, Proceedings
of ICHCA Biennial Conference, April, Jerusalem, Israel: ICHCA.

Saanen Y.A., A. Verbraeck and J.C. Rijsenbrij (2000), ‘The application of advanced
simulations for the engineering of logistic control systems’, in K. Mertins and

Container handling in mainports 133

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

M. Rabe (eds), The New Simulation in Production and Logistics: Prospects, Views
and Attitudes, Proceedings of 9th ASIM Fachtagung Simulation in Produktion
und Logistik, Berlin 8–9 March, Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, pp. 217–31.

Tax, H. (1989), ‘Specifying quayside cranes for operations in the year 2009’,
Terminal Operators Conference, Singapore.

134 Design and modelling

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy.
ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2021-03-23 18:30:12.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
0
8
.
E
d
w
a
rd
E
lg
a
r
P
u
b
lis
h
in
g
L
im
ite
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

APUS Assignment Rubric Undergraduate Level

EXEMPLARY LEVEL					4	ACCOMPLISHED LEVEL 3	DEVELOPING LEVEL 2	BEGINNING LEVEL 1	POINTS
FOCUS/THESIS	Student exhibits a clear understanding of the assignment. Work is clearly defined to help guide the reader throughout the assignment. Student builds upon the assignment with well-documented and exceptional supporting facts, figures, and/or statements.	Establishes a good comprehension of topic and in the building of the thesis. Student demonstrates an effective presentation of thesis, with most support statements helping to support the key focus of assignment	Student exhibits a basic understanding of the intended assignment, but the formatting and grammar is not supported throughout the assignment. The reader may have some difficulty in seeing linkages between thoughts. Student has limited the quality of the assignment.	Exhibits a limited understanding of the assignment. Reader is unable to follow the logic used for the thesis and development of key themes. Assignment instructions were not followed. Student’s writing is weak in the inclusion of supporting facts or statements. Paper includes more than 25% quotes, which renders it unoriginal.
SUBJECT KNOWLEDGE	Student demonstrates proficient command of the subject matter in the assignment. Assignment shows an impressive level of depth of student’s ability to relate course content to practical examples and applications. Student provides comprehensive analysis of details, facts, and concepts in a logical sequence.	Student exhibits above average usage of subject matter in assignment. Student provides above average ability in relating course content in examples given. Details and facts presented provide an adequate presentation of student’s current level of subject matter knowledge.	The assignment reveals that the student has a general, fundamental understanding of the course material. Whereas, there are areas of some concerning in the linkages provided between facts and supporting statements. Student generally explains concepts, but only meets the minimum requirements in this area.	Student tries to explain some concepts, but overlooks critical details. Assignment appears vague or incomplete in various segments. Student presents concepts in isolation, and does not perceive to have a logical sequencing of ideas.
CRITICAL THINKING	Student demonstrates a higher-level of critical thinking necessary for undergraduate level work. Learner provides a strategic approach in presenting examples of problem solving or critical thinking, while drawing logical conclusions which are not immediately obvious. Student provides well-supported ideas and reflection with a variety of current and/or world views in the assignment	Student exhibits a good command of critical thinking skills in the presentation of material and supporting statements. Assignment demonstrates the student’s above average use of relating concepts by using a variety of factors. Overall, student provides adequate conclusions, with 2 or fewer errors.	Student takes a common, conventional approach in guiding the reader through various linkages and connections presented in assignment. However, student presents a limited perspective on key concepts throughout assignment. Student appears to have problems applying information in a problem-solving manner.	Student demonstrates beginning understanding of key concepts, but overlooks critical details. Learner is unable to apply information in a problem-solving fashion. Student presents confusing statements and facts in assignment. No evidence or little semblance of critical thinking skills.
ORGANIZATION & FORMAT	Student thoroughly understands and excels in explaining all major points. An original, unique, and/or imaginative approach to overall ideas, concepts, and findings is presented. Overall format of assignment includes an appropriate introduction, well- developed paragraphs, and conclusion. Finished assignment demonstrates student’s ability to plan and organize research in a logical sequence. Student exhibits excellent format grasp with no more than 5 APA errors.	Student explains the majority of points and concepts in the assignment. Learner demonstrates a good skill level in formatting and organizing material in assignment. Student presents an above average level of preparedness, with a few formatting errors. Assignment contains less than 5 resources. Student exhibits good format grasp with no more than 10 APA errors.	Learner applies some points and concepts incorrectly. Student uses a variety of formatting styles, with some inconsistencies throughout the paper. Assignment does not have a continuous pattern of logical sequencing. Student uses less than 3 sources or references. Student exhibits fair format grasp with no more than 15 APA errors.	Assignment reveals formatting errors and a lack of organization. Student presents an incomplete attempt to provide linkages or explanation of key terms. The lack of appropriate references or source materials demonstrates the student’s need for additional help or training in this area. Student needs to review and revise the assignment. Student exhibits poor format grasp with no more than 15 APA errors.
GRAMMAR & MECHANICS	Student provides an effective display of good writing and grammar. Assignment reflects student’s ability to select appropriate word usage and present an above average presentation of a given topic or issue. Assignment appears to be well written with no more than 3-5 errors. Student provides a final written product that covers the above-minimal requirements. Student exhibits excellent format grasp with no more than 10 contents for grammar, spelling, punctuation, or syntax errors.	Assignment reflects basic writing and grammar, but more than 5 errors. Key terms and concepts are somewhat vague and not completely explained by student. Student uses a basic vocabulary in assignment. Student’s writing ability is average, but demonstrates a basic understanding of the subject matter. Student exhibits fair format grasp with no more than 15 grammar, spelling, punctuation, or syntax errors.	Topics, concepts, and ideas are not coherently discussed or expressed in assignments. Student’s writing style is weak and needs improvement, along with numerous proofreading errors. Assignment lacks clarity, consistency, and correctness. Student exhibits poor format grasp with more than 15 errors and did not focus critical thinking use of critical thinking grammar APA format subject knowledge with communities grammar, spelling, punctuation, or syntax errors.
TIMELY	Turned in on time	1 day late	2 days late	More than 2 days late
Total Points	24/ 24= 100%

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ TLMT ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now