Click for next page ( 83

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 82
CHAPTER 11 Congestion on Streets and Highways Port-Area and Port Access Congestion Port-area road capacity and congestion have become a serious problem, particularly where growth in both port traffic and surrounding urban traffic has outpaced road and highway capac- ity. Marine container terminals are typically established away from congested urban centers in areas with relatively little development. Over time, however, the area around the terminal fills in with industrial and commercial development. Both the marine terminal and the adjacent land uses generate a growing volume of traffic, and denser development makes road improvements more difficult and costly. Reliability and predictability of port-area road conditions and travel times also are a factor in min- imizing gate congestion and queuing. For example, a drayage driver facing a predictable 1-hour trip to a terminal gate that opens at 8 A.M. can leave at about 7 A.M. and arrive at the gate on time. If the drive takes anywhere from 60 to 90 minutes, however, the driver will have to leave at 6:30 A.M. and frequently will have to wait for the terminal gate to open. Container trucks are heavy. Roads serving marine terminals require heavier duty construc- tion and more maintenance than ordinary arterials. If they are not built and maintained to ade- quate standards, they will deteriorate rapidly. Many port and rail terminal access roads are inadequate for their current purpose, and create delays, damage, and safety problems for drayage operations. Congestion on urban arterials and freeways can affect any drayage move that extends beyond the immediate port area. The scope of the "immediate port area" varies by port. Houston has two well-defined terminal areas--Barbours Cut and Bayport. In contrast, the "port area" for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach covers a zone about 5 miles wide and 20 miles deep, about 100 square miles, in which port drayage trips are a permanent part of the surface traffic. As Figure 111 and Figure 112 illustrate, many port drayage trips extend far beyond the port area. The distribution for PANYNJ (Figure 111) reflects clustering of importers, exporters, and related drayage trip generators near the port and a broader hinterland about 200300 miles away. The distribution for LALB (Figure 112) is much tighter, with around 60% of the trips contained within the 20-mile-deep port area, and most of the rest moving to and from other ports of Southern California. The difference is because most longer trips to and from LALB are made by rail; there are few significant population areas in easy trucking distance from the San Pedro Bay ports. The PANYNJ truckers making 200- to 300-mile trips to the hinterland will be using a mix of urban and rural highways and freeways, with a mix of more or less congested conditions. Trips to and from LALB, however, are almost all made over congested urban routes. 82

OCR for page 82
Congestion on Streets and Highways 83 Distribution of Containerized Trade within 50 to 400 Mile Radius from Port Elizabeth 1998/99 35% 30% Imports Exports 25% Market % Share 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0-50 51-75 76-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 Radius (in Miles) Figure 111. PANYNJ drayage distances. Other than the geographic location of most container ports in dense urban areas, there is noth- ing unique to drayage about congestion on urban roads and freeways. Any truck traveling to, from, within, or through those urban areas will experience the same delays. Broad national and regional estimates of the cost of congestion are applicable to port drayage. One potentially significant difference, however, is that drayage drivers are usually paid by the trip, receiving a percentage of the drayage companies' revenue from the customer. A drayage Figure 112. Port of LALB truck trips from survey.

OCR for page 82
84 Truck Drayage Productivity Guide Table 111. Ranking of freight bottleneck severity based on ATRI analysis. Source: Freight Performance Measures Analysis of 30 Freight Bottlenecks, ATRI, March 2009. driver's income depends on how many trips the driver can make in working hours. Other inter- city truck drivers are more commonly paid by the authorized mile, regardless of how long the trip takes. The impact of congestion on the drayage drivers' income therefore depends on the ability of the drayage firm to reflect expected congestion impacts in its rate structure. Table 111 shows a ranking of the 30 worst U.S. freight bottlenecks, based on an FHWA/ATRI study of GPS data. A number of the bottlenecks shown are in port regions, notably Southern Cal- ifornia, Houston, and New York. The impact of port-area congestion is well documented in previous national reports. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics noted that a 2005 U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) report estimated that landside access challenges cost as much as $200 billion annually and wasted 2.3 billion gallons of fuel.5 The same study provided estimates of average annual peak-period traffic delays per traveler in major port regions (Table 112). The three case study areas for this project are at the top of the table, with averages of 56 hours for Houston, 72 hours for LALB, and 5 America's Container Ports, BTS, 2009.

OCR for page 82
Congestion on Streets and Highways 85 Table 112. U.S. port activity and urban traffic delay, 2007.