Click for next page ( 24


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 23
Drayage Data and Information Sources 23 origin/destination (O/D) samples at the terminal gates with a small number of calibration sites at key highway locations near the port, such as ramps. Surveys Driver and Drayage Company Surveys There are no regularly maintained public databases related to drayage activity or operations. The industry is not subject to economic regulation, and has no operational reporting requirements. Safety, licensing, and insurance information may be available but is not relevant to the objectives of this project. As a result, existing drayage data reside almost exclusively in studies, with data col- lected for the purpose mostly through surveys of drivers and drayage firms. Surveys of drayage firms and drivers can be reliable and useful for three purposes. 1. To document and quantify factors that are not recorded in operating systems or other data col- lection routines. Examples could include the frequency with which importers insist on specific containers (regardless of how long it takes the driver) and the frequency with which drivers whose export loads have been turned away from terminals chose to wait for resolution rather than parking the load. 2. To obtain the perceptions of managers, dispatchers, and drivers regarding bottlenecks and other issues being studied. Although quantifying and documenting these issues is a primary study objective, a gulf between perception and quantified reality may signal a critical measurement or definitional issue. 3. To ensure that the study has not missed significant issues or factors. One useful practice is to always include an open-ended survey question to ensure that respondents can convey other issues of concern. Surveys that ask for quantified estimates of average turn times, gate queue times, or trouble ticket frequency are likely to be met with off-the-cuff guesses. Drivers do not ordinarily have data on turn times, and trucking company executives or dispatchers would have to compile any available data to obtain averages or distributions. Inconsistencies are, unfortunately, common in survey data. Survey responses are not constrained by mathematical rules, and tend to reflect recent experience or on-going complaints rather than actual averages. For this reason, researchers need to be very careful about how surveys are constructed and how their results are used. The research team found that surveys or interviews of drayage company managers and dispatch- ers were more cost-effective--and just as valuable--as driver surveys. Moreover, company person- nel have a broader perspective than do drivers and have access to company records, whereas drivers must rely on memory and impressions. One of the most practical and useful set of opinion surveys designed to measure the satisfaction level of motor carriers with the performance of marine terminals was initiated by the bi-state harbor carriers in New Jersey more than a decade ago. Marine, rail, and container yard (CY) ter- minals are graded monthly by port motor carriers on several service dimensions using AF "schooltype" grades. The methodology had the advantage of being easy, relatively consistent, and sustainable over the long term. The results provide a regular basis for discussion and improvement throughout the port community. During the course of NCFRP Project 14, the results of these sur- veys clearly showed their utility. The system identified a terminal that was having severe operating problems. The terminal's grades showed both the degree (D and F grades) and duration (several months) of those problems. The motor carriers used the results to enlist the support of others in the port community to pursue resolution of the problems.

OCR for page 23
24 Truck Drayage Productivity Guide NCFRP Project 14 Survey Example As a part of this effort, the research team surveyed port drayage drivers and drayage company personnel (managers, dispatchers) seeking information relevant to the study. A draft survey instrument was used in a small number of pilot interviews. The survey instruments were refined and finalized. The survey followed conventional methodology. The research team identified candidate drayage companies from port workshops, referrals, and personal knowledge. The survey was distributed through the drayage companies, who responded to the company surveys and distributed the driver survey to their drivers. This methodology produced a selection bias toward relatively more conscientious and responsible drivers and firms. In the NY/NJ area, the research team contacted the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers and attended their meetings to request cooperation. Members of the research team contacted LoadMatch.com, a service that assists intermodal truckers (chiefly those who serve rail terminals) to locate matching loads and avoid empty moves. An online Survey Gizmo version of the company survey was created and LoadMatch dis- tributed the link to its subscribers. The results were interesting but inconsistent and of limited value. The most valuable use of the survey was in verifying that the team had indeed addressed the most critical issues. There are a number of problems/limitations associated with motor carrier and driver surveys that were encountered in the project survey. The team received significant resistance from the port com- munity, particularly in Los Angeles/Long Beach and Northern New Jersey, for a number of rea- sons, as follows: Many of the drivers have been surveyed several times. Change has come slowly to the industry, so response rates are low and results can be unreliable. There was some resistance on the part of drivers/companies to contribute their productive hours toward intangible results. The result of these surveys is opinion data, which is less highly regarded and useful than objec- tive data. The team concluded that the opinion survey efforts were the least rewarding of any of the data gathering methods used in this analysis, and that further use of driver/company surveys should be very limited and carefully focused toward specific realistic objectives. Alternate, more precise, methods are increasingly available for determining information available only by opinion survey for most of the past decade. Survey instruments are reproduced in the fol- lowing sections. NCFRP Project 14 Port Drayage Driver Survey Form The survey form given to drayage drivers is reproduced here (response spaces have been deleted). Please complete the following survey and turn it in to your dispatcher. Your name and answers will be combined with the responses from all the other drivers and kept confidential. Turn Times at Marine Terminals 1. In your experience, what are the major causes of congestion at marine container terminals? 2. In the spaces below, please enter the amount of time in minutes you would allow for each type of move with no congestion, with routine congestion, and with peak congestion.

OCR for page 23
Drayage Data and Information Sources 25 Terminal Condition If these times are differ- ent at each terminal, please Expected turn time* No Routine Peak explain why some are in minutes for . . . Congestion Congestion Congestion longer or shorter ________ Bobtail in/Load out ______________________ ______________________ Bobtail in/Empty out ______________________ Load in/Bobtail out ______________________ Load in/Empty out ______________________ Load in/Load out ______________________ ______________________ Empty in/Bobtail out ______________________ Empty in/Load out ______________________ Empty in/Empty out ______________________ ___________ *including time in line and time in the terminal Sources of Delay, Extra Trips, and Trouble Tickets at Marine Terminals 3. Please rate overall sources of delay, with 1 as the least serious and 5 as the most serious. Public roads & highways 1 2 3 4 5 Marine terminal gates 1 2 3 4 5 Marine terminal yards 1 2 3 4 5 Other ______________ 1 2 3 4 5 4. Please rate causes of non-revenue trip legs, with 1 as the least serious and 5 as the most serious. Gate turnaways 1 2 3 4 5 Chassis logistics ("Splits") 1 2 3 4 5 Dirty or littered empties 1 2 3 4 5 Import box not ready 1 2 3 4 5 Export box not accepted 1 2 3 4 5 Wrong information 1 2 3 4 5 Other______________ 1 2 3 4 5 5. Please rate causes of trouble tickets, with 1 as the least serious and 5 as the most serious. Customer information error 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal information error 1 2 3 4 5 Equipment problem 1 2 3 4 5 Driver error 1 2 3 4 5 Dispatcher/company error 1 2 3 4 5 Other______________ 1 2 3 4 5 6. When you get a trouble ticket or have to visit the trouble window, how long do you usually wait for resolution before shifting to another container? ________ minutes What percentage of the time can you shift to another container move? ______% What percentage of the time does a customer delay a driver by insisting that the driver pick up or deliver a specific container that is causing trouble?_____% Problems at Marine Terminals 7. At marine terminals, what practices cause longer turn times, more frequent trouble tickets, or extra trips? 8. At marine terminals, how often do those practices happen? _____% of trips 9. At marine terminals, what should they do differently? 10. What customer practices cause longer turn times, more frequent trouble tickets, or extra trips? 11. How often do those customer practices happen? _____% of trips

OCR for page 23
26 Truck Drayage Productivity Guide 12. What should customers do differently? 13. What steamship line practices cause longer turn times, more frequent trouble tickets, or extra trips? 14. How often do those steamship line practices happen? _____% of trips 15. What should steamship lines do differently? Thank you very much for your help with this survey. Distributed by: ___________ NCFRP Project 14 Port Drayage Company Survey Form The survey form given to drayage firms is reproduced below (response spaces have been deleted). Please complete the following survey based on your experience in port container drayage. Your name and answers will be combined with the responses from all the other firms and kept confidential. Key Issues 1. Are you a . . . Dispatcher Company Owner Manager Other ____________________________ 2. In your experience, what are the major causes of congestion at marine container terminals? 3. What are the major impacts of terminal congestion and delays on drayage operations? 4. In the spaces below, please enter the amount of time in minutes you would allow for each type of move with no congestion, with routine congestion, and with peak congestion. Terminal Condition Expected turn time* No Routine Peak in minutes for . . . Congestion Congestion Congestion Bobtail in/Load out Bobtail in/Empty out Load in/Bobtail out Load in/Empty out Load in/Load out Empty in/Bobtail out Empty in/Load out Empty in/Empty out *including time in line and time in the terminal 5. If these times are different at each terminal, please explain why some are longer or shorter. 6. What has been your experience with terminal appointment systems? 7. What has been your experience with TWIC to date? 8. Please rate overall sources of delay, with 1 as the least serious and 5 as the most serious. Public roads & highways 1 2 3 4 5 Marine terminal gates 1 2 3 4 5 Marine terminal yards 1 2 3 4 5 Other ______________ 1 2 3 4 5

OCR for page 23
Drayage Data and Information Sources 27 Problems at Marine Terminals 9. Please rate causes of non-revenue trip legs, with 1 as the least serious and 5 as the most serious. Gate turnaways 1 2 3 4 5 Chassis logistics ("Splits") 1 2 3 4 5 Dirty or littered empties 1 2 3 4 5 Import box not ready 1 2 3 4 5 Export box not accepted 1 2 3 4 5 Wrong information 1 2 3 4 5 Other______________ 1 2 3 4 5 10. Please rate causes of trouble tickets (or visits to a trouble window), with 1 as the least serious and 5 as the most serious. Customer information error 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal information error 1 2 3 4 5 Equipment problem 1 2 3 4 5 Driver error 1 2 3 4 5 Dispatcher/company error 1 2 3 4 5 Other______________ 1 2 3 4 5 11. When drivers get a trouble ticket or have to visit the trouble window, how long do they usu- ally wait for resolution before shifting to another container? ________ minutes What percentage of the time can they shift to another container move? ______% What percentage of the time does a customer delay a driver by insisting on a specific troublesome container? _____% 12. What marine terminal practices cause longer turn times, more frequent trouble tickets, or extra trips? 13. How often do those marine terminal practices happen? _____% of trips 14. What should marine terminals do differently? Steamship Line Practices 15. What steamship line practices cause longer turn times, more frequent trouble tickets, or extra trips? 16. How often do those steamship line practices happen? _____% of trips 17. What should steamship lines do differently? Customer Practices 18. What customer practices cause longer turn times, more trouble tickets, or extra trips? 19. How often do those customer practices happen? _____% of trips 20. What should customers do differently? Rail Intermodal Terminal Practices 21. What rail intermodal terminal practices cause longer turn times, more trouble tickets, or extra trips? 22. How often do those rail intermodal terminal practices happen? _____% of trips 23. What should rail intermodal terminals do differently? Best Practices 24. What marine terminal gate or other changes have you experienced that improved drayage operations? 25. What marine terminal practices have you experienced that you would recommend as "best practices" for other marine terminals?