Inland Ports and DeepWater Container Terminals: Mitigating the Gathering Storm

1
Inland Ports and Deep-Water Container Terminals
Mitigating the Gathering Storm

• Robert Harrison
• Deputy Director
• Center for Transportation Research
• The University of Texas at Austin

2
Dramatic increases in projected freight demand
15,835
2,557
1,776
Volume of trade,2004 and 2020
Seattle
4,478
4,396
1,798
Tacoma
3,382
2,043
Oakland
6,165
1,437
2,152
1,010
Houston
Miami
Forecast figures based on a 10-year linear
regression
3
Inland Port Background

• What are they?
• Decade of Evaluation.
• Current interest.

4
Inland Ports can be defined by the dominant mode

• Air
• Rail
• Deep Water Marine

5
Logistics Park-Alliance
6
Logistics ParkChicago

• Premier Intermodal Facility
• Close to current and emerging markets
• Capacity to grow
• Major retailers,distributioncenters,
  oceancarriers andmotor carriers arelocating to
  LPC

7
Marine Port Distribution Centers

• Metropolitan
• State
• Regional, on transportation corridors

8
Marine Port
Inland Port
9
Container Demand at US Ports

• Driven by
• Offshore manufacturing costs
• Global container systems
• US demographics
• Creating
• Economic impacts (benefits)
• Traffic congestion
• Air/Noise pollution
• Safety and security
• Community concerns - EJ

10
Current Situation

• Terminal congestion at many ports capacity
  constraints
• Landside impacts, both direct and external
• New strategies needed but funding limited
• Dire forecasts if little done

11
Systems Perspective and a Multiple Strategy
Approach tailored to the Deep Water Ports needs
Meyer, TRB, 2005
12
Initiatives to Raise Port Terminal Productivity
and Efficiency
13
At the Terminal

• Extend gate hours
• Extend work week
• Gate entry congestion pricing
• Raise demurrage or reduce free time
• On dock rail
• Shuttle trains to local Inland Ports
• Block containers on ship or shore
• Virtual container yard

14
On the Supply Chain

• Container tracking
• Transloading
• New corridors
• Inland ports secondary gateways

15
RFID infrastructure at the Bellevue DC
RFID infrastructure at the Auburn DC
RFID infrastructure at the Port of Tacoma
Washington Reader Deployments

• RFID Reader Locations
• Distribution Centers - Bellevue (2) Auburn (2)
  Washington, C Street Anchorage, AK (1)
• Storefronts in North Pole (1) and Soldotna (1)
  Alaska
• Alaska D.O.T. Sites in Houston (1), Healy (1),
  and Summit Lake (1) Alaska
• Horizon Facilities in Port of Tacoma (3) and Port
  of Anchorage (3)

16
Shippers/Steamship Companies

• Want the box back as soon as possible
• Billing contract specifies detention and
  demurrage (pick up and return)
• Try to get a return load

17
Port of New York and New Jersey

• Growth in container demand
• Trade clusters
• PIDN barge and rail vs. truck
• Congestion, air quality operational benefits

18
Houston

• Metro-centric at 2007
• Potential for an inland port close to Port of
  Houston
• Agreement with Allen Group for south Dallas
  Inland Port
• For Dallas, truck over rail

19
Container Growth at the Port of Houston
Each bar represents the total annual TEUs
handled. The dotted lineis the moving average
while the solid line is an exponential trend line.
20
If current trends continue, the POH will grow to
the current size of todays largest ports
21
Savannah

• Strong growth, gateway for new customer centers
• Site selection includes both local and regional
• Similar to PIDN

22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
LA/LB

• State vs. regional destinations
• Transloading and inland empire
• Transloading and regional destinations
• Rail double stack service
• Rail landbridge vs. alternative transportation
  corridors

25
Locations of Warehousing/Distribution Centers
Existing Potential Intermodal Rail/Terminals in
the Inland Empire
26
The Alameda Corridor in 2004
27
Kansas City

• Pioneering inland ports
• City/Metro model
• Value added services
• US and Mexico customs
• Lazaro Cardenas agreement

28
Inland Ports

• Take time to develop (Alliance, Denver)
• Need rail major location factor?
• Few large sites like Alliance
• Variety of sizes and types
• Benefit driven
• Internalizing external costs should favor inland
  ports

29
Inland Ports need careful and consistent
promotion to take advantage both of new demand
and funding opportunities.
30
Little doubt that Inland Ports can be part of a
growth strategy for deep water terminals,
notwithstanding the concerns over income loss at
the marine port. Partnership has to be carefully
managed focusing on mutual benefits.
31
Agile Port Concept Supports Inland Ports
32
The I-710 Freeway in 2004
33
(No Transcript)
34
Inland Ports will grow in the next decade and
help manage container growth at many US port
terminals.
35

• 3208 Red River
• Austin, TX 78705
• [phone]
• www.utexas.edu/research/ctr