National Academies Press: OpenBook

Truck Drayage Productivity Guide (2011)

Chapter: Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing

« Previous: Chapter 6 - Marine Terminal Gate Queuing
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Marine Terminal Gate Processing." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Truck Drayage Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14536.
×
Page 63

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Gate Capacity and Working Hours Marine container terminal gate throughput capacity is a function of the number of gates avail- able, the hours they are open, and the rate at which they process transactions. Marine terminals may have up to 16 gates divided between inbound (in-gates) and outbound (out-gates). It is common for some of the gates to be reversible to accommodate either inbound or outbound transactions. The number of gates is generally proportional to the expected transaction volume. An older facility whose expansion has not kept pace with trade growth may have too few gates. A large, new terminal planned for long-term growth may have an overabundance at low start-up business volumes. Marine terminal operators must decide how many gates to staff each day. Labor agreements may require additional clerks, supervisors, or relief workers to support the individual gate clerks. Gen- erally, union labor must be hired for a full shift, which makes it difficult for terminal operators to vary gate capacity during the day. Building and opening more gates seems the obvious way to reduce gate queues. As demand has increased, the number of entry gates has increased—both as entirely new terminals have been opened and as legacy facilities have been replaced. Remote adjunct chassis and container yards also have increased the number of gates available. Opening a larger number of gates to reduce queuing, however, could simply shift the delays from the gate to an increasingly congested CY. Some terminal appointment systems serve to ration CY capacity, with the number of available hourly appointment slots set to the hourly CY throughput limit. When Southern California terminals were pressured to reduce truck waiting times outside the gates, some reportedly responded by speeding up gates or opening more gates to get trucks into the terminal faster without reducing the total turn time—the trucks simply waited inside the ter- minal instead of outside. The use of OCR and video cameras for inspection has made it increasingly common for gate clerks to be located at computer terminals physically separated from the actual gates. Working in these remote locations also can allow a clerk to serve multiple gates. The span of gate hours matters, specifically one-shift gate hours versus extended gate hours. Single-shift gates usually open at 7:30 or 8:00 A.M. and close at 4:30 or 5:00 P.M. in some combi- nation. Extended hours can be earlier (e.g., opening at 6 A.M.), later (open until 6 P.M., or as late as 3 A.M. in some cases), or both. Longer gate hours do not completely eliminate queues, since there will always be a queue before the gates open in the morning. Longer gate hours do, however, reduce the size of the morning queue, effectively spreading the morning “start up” period over several hours. Longer gate hours 53 C H A P T E R 7 Marine Terminal Gate Processing

may not eliminate late afternoon queues either, because some of the late afternoon surge is caused by customers releasing containers late in the day. To the extent that late afternoon queuing is caused by truckers trying to complete one more transaction before closing, however, extending the gate hours should reduce that problem. Closing for Meals and Breaks Depending on local labor agreements and practices, gates may remain open during scheduled coffee breaks and meal periods or may close. Lunch breaks (and coffee breaks or shift-change breaks) that close gates cause major queuing problems and impose significant inefficiencies on the drayage industry. Gates can be kept open through breaks by staggering the break periods and using relief workers. Trouble Tickets The findings of NCFRP Project 14 point to exceptions from normal processes as a major source of delay and cost. The long “tails” on the turn time data, in particular, suggest that around 5% of the cases consume much more than the “normal” time and expense. “Trouble ticket” is the generic name given to exceptions in the port drayage process that are significant enough to be docu- mented and handled separately. In most cases, a printed slip of paper—the trouble ticket—is issued to the driver, who then goes to an office or trouble window to have the issue resolved. Trouble tickets are generated by exceptions that require interaction between some combination of driver, terminal staff, drayage firm, ocean carrier, and customer. Drivers have a strong incentive to complete the transaction as quickly as possible, so they will only bring an issue to the attention of the terminal staff if they cannot easily resolve it themselves. About 5% of all transactions result in trouble tickets and each one adds about an hour to the turn time. That hour of a trucker’s time is worth $50 to $60. In 2007, the United States moved about 26 million containers through its ports. At 5%, trouble tickets are therefore affecting about 1.3 mil- lion annual movements and costing the industry roughly $65 million annually. Minor exceptions that can be quickly resolved would not ordinarily generate a trouble ticket. Examples of minor exceptions could include the following: • Missing information, such as a trucking company phone number, that a driver can quickly supply; • Minor chassis defects that can be corrected at a roadability canopy; and • A container on chassis that is not parked in the expected spot, but that the driver can quickly locate nearby. “Turnaways” impact dray efficiency while sometimes not being fully internalized as a metric of terminal efficiency. When a truck at the Port of Houston is refused entry, for example, a trouble ticket is issued and a transaction is entered into the database. However, the “clock” that measures turn times never starts, thus it is difficult to know the true time cost penalty for the driver who is turned away. The difference in the mean turn times between troubles and non-troubles may thus understate the true impact of such problems. Truckers can be turned away at either gate stage for a variety of reasons. In the Port of Houston Webaccess System, most often turnaways will be des- ignated in the truck visits database as a visit with no turn time, because the truck never completed its operation. The automatically generated explanations for abandoned visits rarely tell the full story but include the following: • Shipper-owned empty container not returned, • No empty pickup/load receipt, 54 Truck Drayage Productivity Guide

• Shipping line rejects the load, • Booking not correct for size/type/height of container delivered, • Unknown booking number, and • Trucking company not authorized for pickup by the ocean carrier (line). When these trouble tickets are entered, there is no comprehensive way to show how or if the issue was eventually resolved. If the truck returns to the terminal later and is successful in entering, a new transaction number is generated. The severity of impact of turnaways on drayage is likely to be less severe for large companies. If there is an irresolvable issue with a container, a large company with a high volume of deliveries is more likely to have a backup job ready for the driver. Further- more, if the turnaway issue is tied to a problem with the driver or the truck, a large company will tend to have an easier time finding another driver as a replacement. Trouble tickets are usually documented in terminal information systems and given a code or phrase describing the reason for exception. One important question is whether the trouble transactions are preventable. In principle, trouble transactions could result from the following: • Unfamiliarity or lack of knowledge on the part of the driver, his firm, or the customer (par- ticularly from those that serve the port irregularly); • Carelessness on the part of driver, drayage firm, or customer; • Information entry, transmission, or system errors; or • Carelessness or error on the part of terminal gate or administrative clerks. Figure 7–1 suggests that most trouble tickets could have been prevented through better pre- arrival communication. One marine terminal provided the study team with a year’s worth of detail on trouble ticket rea- son codes. Most of the trouble tickets issued can be categorized as booking, dispatch, or system problems (Table 7–1). The one line of text that is the “reason code” typically deals only with the immediate symptom of a problem that could have several root causes. About 80% of those trouble tickets are process Marine Terminal Gate Processing 55 Figure 7–1. Sample data—leading causes of trouble tickets. TROUBLE TICKETS 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 New bare chassis not allowed Trucker contract with line expired No load receipt for containers until (time/date) New full container not allowed, must be on-hired New empty to be on-hired Empty container not allowed Empty to yard position Bill of lading held by line operator Booking tally reached Booking not on file Container number unknown Booking size/type information required 2008 2007

issues. Booking mistakes by the customer handicaps both the trucker and the terminal because it costs the terminal operator time and money to clear the problem. Analysis of the data leads to the following observations: A small share of the tickets did not represent an error of any kind. For example, one terminal creates a trouble ticket if a driver arrives before all of the container releases have been issued. This facility also serves a particular customer whose boxes are urgently required, and truckers purposefully dispatch drivers to the terminal in advance of the releases, thus guaran- teeing a trouble ticket. • About a third of the real trouble tickets are related in some way to lack of correct equipment- related information in the terminal’s computer systems. The source of these issues varies from simple clerical data entry error to receiving equipment that the terminal’s computer system does not recognize. • Another third of the trouble tickets are related in some way to bookings. If the booking is not on file, incorrect in some way, or the dispatch does not match the booking, then trouble tickets are issued. • The final third of trouble tickets relate in some way to the lack of correct information being avail- able to motor carrier dispatchers. This manifests itself in a wide variety of “dispatch errors.” The most common trucking dispatch problems include the following: • The terminal is not accepting return of the type of equipment presently in the custody of the driver. Empty return locations change frequently. • The driver or drayage firm may not have the proper credentials available at the terminal. • The container may be too early or too late for the outbound vessel cutoff. • The container may be overloaded. • The driver may be attempting to take the wrong box out of the terminal. It is impossible to accurately assess responsibility for trouble tickets, except on a case-by-case basis. Failure of any of the parties in this complex logistics chain to communicate fully, effectively, and systematically via data interchange, voice, email, or text leads to mistakes by others in the sys- tem. Regardless of the cause, the drayage driver bears the consequence associated with the efficiency depleting trouble ticket process. There is often an important distinction between proximate and underlying causes. At one ter- minal, for example, one of the major reasons for trouble tickets was that the number of export con- 56 Truck Drayage Productivity Guide Table 7–1. Reasons for trouble tickets: data from one terminal. Category Reason Share Booking Problems Booking does not match equipment type Booking is not on file Booking tally has already been reached Missing notice for hazardous cargo Booking quantity exceeded for equipment type Dispatch Problems Cargo not yet released Driver or motor carrier credential problem Empty container/chassis not allowed Past cargo cutoff Demurrage due (unpaid bills) Container exceeds maximum safe weight System Problems Container/chassis not recognized* Duplicate transaction Container not found in yard Other Total 28.4% 9.5% 6.5% 6.5% 3.1% 2.8% 29.2% 8.4% 6.8% 6.1% 2.9% 2.6% 2.4% 22.4% 17.9% 2.3% 2.2% 20.0% 100.0% * This category may also include tank, Hazmat, and other unusual loads

tainers received exceeded the total on the export bill of lading (“booking tally reached”). On the surface, this situation would indicate either a paperwork error or an undocumented change of plans by the exporter. On further investigation, however, the research team learned that many such exceptions occurred when an export container arrived at the terminal and was entered into the ter- minal system, but was returned to the exporter for some reason (e.g., documentation error, defec- tive cargo seal). When the export container left the terminal it was not deleted from the information system. When the same container returned, it was double-counted and generated the trouble ticket exception. Driver Experience and Knowledge Less experienced drivers and firms that do not regularly serve the port container terminals tend to generate exceptions and receive trouble tickets much more frequently than drivers and firms that are familiar with terminal systems and their requirements. The data presented in Table 7–1 and Figure 7–2 demonstrate the relationship between driver experience and the likelihood of delay due to a trouble ticket. The data are for an entire year and cover 14,199 drivers making almost 600,000 trips. Overall, 5.0% of the driver visits resulted in a trouble ticket. Those drivers making an average of at least one call per day had only a 3.0% trouble ticket rate. The rate rises dramati- cally for inexperienced drivers. Those making an average of at least one call per week averaged 4.4%; those making less than a weekly call averaged 7.8%. There are several instances in which a less experienced driver may arrive at a port terminal. Trucking firms of all kinds typically experience high turnover of both employee drivers and owner subcontractors, so there are often new drivers coming into the pool. Trucking firms that usually handle the domestic business of a low-volume importer or exporter may make occasional trips to the port to maintain their relationship with the customer. Drivers handling seasonal products such as agricultural exports may make only a few trips to the port each year, and may never become fully familiar with terminal operations. Some trucking firms may ordinarily serve only one marine ter- minal due to their customers’ ocean carrier preferences. Such firms and their drivers may find Marine Terminal Gate Processing 57 Figure 7–2. Trouble ticket frequency versus driver terminal visits.

themselves at an unfamiliar terminal if the customer changes lines, or if the chosen ocean carrier changes terminals. Pragmatically, a truck driver who only occasionally visits a marine terminal may not be able to justify spending the time and effort to learn the system, especially if the system might change by the time of his next visit. Moreover, a 30-minute delay at the port may not be significant to a driver delivering export cotton on an overnight trip from another state. Drayage firms are not all equally committed to the same high level of professionalism found in the leading companies. Some customers and ocean carriers continue to purchase drayage service solely on the basis of cost, creating a niche for drayage operators who cut corners and leave drivers with the burden of delay. This niche is shrinking, as increasingly stringent safety, insur- ance, and environmental rules require increased professionalism and commitment. The best drayage firms do the following: • Make good use of terminal and port information systems; • Train and retain good drivers; • Make more dual moves; and • Work with customers, lines, and terminals, and have lower error rates. As Table 7–2 shows for one case study terminal, there is also a wide variance in the frequency with which drivers from different companies receive trouble tickets. With an overall average of about 5%, there were clearly better-than-average performers and worse-than-average performers. Some firms encounter frequent problems due to their business mix (hazmat, tanks, reefers). It is impossible from the data in Table 7–2 alone to determine whether Company G was careless or just had a lot of problem customers. Ocean Carrier and Terminal Differences Ocean carriers and terminal operators vary in the quality and consistency of their operations. Drayage companies report significant differences in working with different ocean carriers. Data from two lines at the same terminal can indeed show different trouble ticket rates. As shown in Table 7–3, Line A caused truckers more problems than Line B at the same terminal. Gate Processing Solutions Automated Gates: OCR and RFID “Automated” gates that use OCR or RFID to identify incoming containers and match them with booking numbers, bills of lading, etc. can both reduce the minimum processing time and tighten the distribution by reducing errors or catching mismatched transactions more quickly. “Remote” 58 Truck Drayage Productivity Guide Table 7–2. Variability in trucking company trouble ticket ratios. Trucking Company Total trips Transactionsper trip % Trouble Tickets A 1124 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 2.2% B 2649 1.7 2.5% C 1210 3.7% D 1146 3.9% E 2878 4.4% F 1329 5.6% G 1193 8.5%

gates that use video cameras to conduct visual inspections also can reduce processing time while increasing safety and reducing face-to-face friction between drivers and clerks. The process can be expedited further and errors reduced further where RFID, swipe cards, or a PIN entered on a key- pad can identify the driver, the drayage company, or even the entire transaction. Accurate and Complete Shipment Documentation A significant number of trouble tickets are generated by shortcomings in import/export doc- umentation or other transaction features beyond the driver’s control. Examples could include the following: • Dispatching an export container too early for a future voyage, • Attempting to pickup an import container subject to unpaid fees or CBP inspection, • Mismatched container and booking numbers, and • Incomplete paperwork of any kind. On arrival at the terminal, a driver attempting to complete such a transaction may be turned away, stalled at the gate, or issued a trouble ticket. Resolving the problem may require multiple phone calls between terminal, driver, and customer, and transmission of new documents or deliv- ery of a check for unpaid fees. Such delays are almost entirely avoidable. Other than a few inevitable clerical errors, these trans- action shortfalls are a matter of diligence and care on the part of the customer. Here too, an inex- perienced or infrequent importer or exporter may not know the process in sufficient or current detail, and may cause a disproportionate number of problems. Taking Advantage of Terminal Information Systems The data make it clear that many gate processing delays and trouble tickets are due to misinfor- mation and miscommunication. Port and terminal information systems such as VoyagerTrack and eModal are designed to prevent such mistakes. These systems allow customers or truckers to ver- ify that import containers are ready to be picked up, with all necessary payments and clearances complete. Although such systems are not immune to error, their consistent and proper use dras- tically reduces some transaction problems. For export bookings, the information systems allow truckers to check booking information against the paperwork or electronic documents the customer has provided. Use of the available sys- tems also will allow the trucks to check delivery windows for export containers on specific vessels and voyages. Marine Terminal Gate Processing 59 Table 7–3. Variability in ocean carrier trouble ticket ratios. Transaction Type Line Transactions Trouble Flag % Trouble Tickets A 3,438 172 5.0% B 4,049 169 4.2% A 3,869 307 7.9% B 10,106 485 4.8% A 3,391 242 7.1% B 9,721 414 4.3% A 4,197 108 2.6% B 3,482 26 0.7% A 14,895 829 5.6% B 27,358 1,094 4.0%Total Deliver Import Deliver Empty Receive Export Receive Empty

These systems provide truckers with vital information regarding terminal operations, such as follows: • Changes in gate hours, or in the availability of specific transaction types; • Empty container or chassis shortages; • Changes in the availability of import boxes or acceptance of export boxes for specific vessels and voyages; • Instructions or restrictions on the return of empty containers; and • Scheduled or unscheduled closures or system downtime. Figure 7–3 provides examples of eModal messages. Truckers who know and use these systems can adapt to changing conditions with varying degrees of success. Truckers who do not use these systems will experience a stream of unwelcome surprises, bottlenecks, and delays. 60 Truck Drayage Productivity Guide Figure 7–3. Messages from eModal. Attn Trucking Community: Please be advised that Rows 29 / 39 and 49 will not be open for truck delivery today on the 1st shift gate, due to vessel discharge from the NYK Atlas. There will be no cargo other then the NYK Atlas cargo that will start discharging into these area at 0800. These areas will be open for tonights Pierpass gate at 1800. Please plan accordingly. Thank you, YTI Management (a) Example 1. Vessels Working; Reliance Stop-Work Meeting Thursday, Feb 4th, 2nd Shift Areas Closed For Wheeled/Grounded Pickup: AG ,MRU-AG, MRU, VNV, NIC Yrd Operation Advisory; There will be a MOD (must open door) Clerk on Broadway 1100 area for Drivers that want to inspect their mty contrs after receiving them. Maersk Equipment Advisory: Maersk Import containers, all type & sz, pulled from APM Term Pier 400 must be returned empty to APM Term Pier 400 (no chas split) Maersk Import containers, dry sz 20' &, 40' Reefers, pulled from SSA Pier A on SSA/WCCP chas must be returned empty to SSA Pier A (no chas split). Maersk Import containers, dry sizes 40', 40'hi &, 45' pulled from SSA Pier A on SSA/WCCP chas must be returned empty to APM Term Pier 400 (chas split is required) until further notice. Maersk Import containers, all type & sz, pulled from ITS Term Long Beach must be returned empty to ITS Term (no chas split). Maersk Equip control contact is PSWDSPEQUPOS@MAERSK.COM - EQU 310 221- 4904 (b) Example 2.

Training and Education The performance difference between inexperienced and experienced drivers and firms implies a need for training and education. • New and infrequent drivers need instruction on marine terminal protocol and processes including information exchange, CY operations, safety, and security. • All firms and drivers need access to updated information on procedures and processes. There are several options available to improve driver and drayage company information and training. Terminal information systems and Web sites commonly include advisories aimed at drayage drivers. These advisories address safety issues, procedural requirements, and changes to operating hours or other day-to-day concerns. Expanding the scope of these advisories to cover documenta- tion practices and reminders of common procedural or booking errors would open another chan- nel of communication between terminal operators and customers. Some ports publish trucker maps or brochures. Examples include the following: • Port of Tacoma—www.portoftacoma.com/File.ashx?cid=2204 • Port of Baltimore—www.mpa.state.md.us/Links/Truckersmapforweb.pdf Given the clear findings regarding trucker experience, there would appear to be a significant potential benefit to giving new or occasional truckers and their firms better access to information on terminal processes. The need for information may be particularly acute at ports such as NYNJ or LALB that have multiple terminals, emerging clean truck plans, and other unique aspects of their operations. These information sources can be improved, updated, and coordinated or consolidated to cre- ate port-wide documentation. This is a challenging task, however, because the details of marine terminal processing, equipment management, security, and information exchange change fre- quently and on short notice. A second challenge is getting the information into the hands of drivers and firms unfamiliar with the port or its terminals. Familiarization trips, where new drivers ride as passengers with experienced drivers, are a long- standing and effective practice. Recent security practices, however, have drastically curtailed the ability of new drivers, or anyone else, to enter marine terminals as passengers. There is an unmet need for port-wide security protocols to allow familiarization trips. The TWIC requirement can be made part of the protocol. Familiarization trips are also an effective way for port staff, customers, and other stakeholders to learn about the drayage and terminal system. Some marine terminals offer periodic training classes for new drivers, others mandate such classes for drivers who violate safety rules. Generally, these training efforts are regarded as effective and valuable. Choosing Drayage Firms and Ocean Carriers Customers who choose a drayage firm solely on the basis of price or who ask non-port trucking firms to perform container drayage are doing themselves and other customers a disservice. As noted, choosing firms by price creates a niche for substandard drayage firms using inexperienced drivers and substandard equipment. Too often, such companies and their drivers do not invest the time and effort to learn and use port and terminal information systems or may even lack the tech- nical capability to do so. Such firms may allow insurance certificates, interchange agreements, or tractor inspections and registrations to lapse, or fall behind in demurrage payments. All of these shortfalls in the trucking operation will trigger trouble tickets and other delays. Marine Terminal Gate Processing 61

The TWIC requirement and the clean truck plans being put in place at various ports will restrict, or even prevent, an unprepared trucker from entering a port terminal. In many cases, the only option will be for the infrequent port visitor to turn the job over to a qualified port firm with a legal tractor and a TWIC-equipped driver. The study team has observed this process at NYNJ, where over-the-road carriers sometimes operate to and from the drayage company terminals, leaving the specialized drayage firm to perform the actual port trips. In Southern California, the increased need to use “clean” tractors for port trips has led to an increase in “dray offs”—the practice of using a clean truck to shuttle containers between the port and a nearby point where they are handed off to another tractor for delivery inland. The potential imposition of container fees at some or all ports will complicate matters further for unprepared truckers. An experienced trucker arriving at a Southern California container terminal during the day shift, for example, will be subject to the Off- Peak fee payable by the beneficial cargo owner (BCO). The inexperienced trucker is unlikely to have an OffPeak account, the expected RFID equipment, or any means to quickly resolve the problem. The need to choose a qualified drayage firm poses a classic dilemma: customers who do not understand the complexities of the port process are unlikely to appreciate the value of an experi- enced drayage partner, especially for infrequent shipments. Choosing an Ocean Carrier Although the research team did not make distinctions between named carriers or terminals, it is clear that there are notable differences between them when it comes to drayage productivity. The differences appear to be traceable to the following: • Investment in, and sophistication of, carrier and terminal information and operating systems; • Staffing levels and staff experience; and • Adequacy and performance of terminal equipment and facilities. As in choosing a drayage firm, customers that choose an ocean carrier solely on the basis of carriage rates may find themselves incurring delays, unreliability, and higher drayage costs as a result. Experienced drayage firms and drivers are reluctant to serve ocean carriers and terminals with bad reputations, and may justifiably postpone trips in hopes of avoiding problems, or quote higher rates. A recent study of port productivity on behalf of the Cargo Handling Cooperative Program (CHCP) included a survey of customer attitudes toward marine container terminal productivity. That survey found that 68% of the respondents considered drayage turn time to be very important in evaluating container terminal productivity, 74% considered reliability (% on schedule) to be very important in evaluating container terminal productivity, and 63% would consider splitting import or export volume between ocean carriers at the same port based on container terminal efficiency/productivity. Managing Non-Standard Transactions Most of the drayage transactions considered in this project and handled at marine container terminals involve dry van containers and loads without special characteristics. Containerized loads with special characteristics include the following: • Hazardous materials (hazmat), • Refrigerated containers and commodities, • Liquid in tank containers, • Open top or flat-rack containers, • Overweight loads, and • Oversize (“out of gauge”) loads. 62 Truck Drayage Productivity Guide

Such loads all require some degree of special handling and processing and, in many terminals, these loads automatically generate trouble tickets. Customers and drayage firms that regularly han- dle such loads know the process and plan accordingly. Firms that only occasionally handle such loads may experience long delays. Customers who mix standard and non-standard container loads on the same bill of lading risk having the standard loads delayed if hazmat or other loads trigger trouble tickets for all customers on the same bill. This problem and others are symptomatic of limitations or quirks in terminal information systems. Although the ultimate solution is to correct the systems problems, the near- term solution is for customers and drayage firms to adjust business practices to current realities. Information and Communication Information and communication errors are the dominant cause of exceptions and trouble tick- ets. That finding is clear from both quantitative terminal data and qualitative driver and drayage company survey results. In principle, almost all information and communication errors should be preventable. As the research findings show, the frequency of trouble tickets declines with driver experience. From the driver and drayage company surveys, it is clear that experienced drivers and dispatchers place great importance on pre-dispatch verification of container status, etc. A significant portion of the trouble tickets and exceptions is apparently traceable to shortcom- ings or quirks of the marine terminal operating systems. Examples include the following: • Drivers who are stopped at exit gates because they have been given, or allowed to choose, an empty container that was reserved in the system for another use; • Inbound drivers that are stopped because the container they are carrying is still in the system from an earlier unsuccessful transaction; • Drivers who are turned away with empty containers because the return instructions have changed since the container was picked up; and • Drivers who are stopped because the equipment they are carrying is not listed in the terminal operating system. The timing of information is also a factor. Drayage company dispatchers commonly create a morning dispatch plan and communicate it to the drivers the previous night. This practice enables the drivers to position themselves and begin work as early as possible. If the terminal’s empty return instructions are changed late at night or early in the morning, however, the dispatch plan may be out of sync and may result in trouble tickets and exceptions. Gate Bypass and PINs The logical extension of the two-stage gate approach may be exemplified by the recently retro- fitted system at Houston’s Barbours Cut where the first gate stage is 1.5 miles away from the sec- ond stage and has its own parking area for drivers with problems to stop and contact their dispatchers. Once clear of the first gate, the drivers are issued a personal identification number (PIN) to be used at the second gate. Trucking firms have the option to complete the first stage of the process on-line and give their drivers a PIN in advance, enabling the drivers to bypass the first gate. Marine Terminal Gate Processing 63

Next: Chapter 8 - Container Chassis Supply Time and Delays »
Truck Drayage Productivity Guide Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) Report 11: Truck Drayage Productivity Guide is designed to help improve drayage productivity and capacity while reducing emissions, costs, and port-area congestion at deepwater ports.

The guide includes suggestions designed to help shippers, receivers, draymen, marine terminal operators, ocean carriers, and port authorities address inefficiencies, control costs, and reduce associated environmental impacts of truck drayage.

The guide identifies and quantifies the impacts of bottlenecks, associated gate processes, exceptions (trouble tickets), chassis logistics, congestion, and disruption at marine container terminals. The impacts are described in terms of hours, costs, and emissions that were estimated using the Environmental Protection Agency’s DrayFLEET model.

A CD-ROM, which contains the final report on the development of NCFRP Report 11 and its appendices, is included with the print version of NCFRP Report 11.

The CD-ROM is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image. Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning a .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large file and may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

CD-ROM Disclaimer - This software is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively “TRB’) be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operations of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!