Click for next page ( 150


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 149
PRODUCTIVITY AT SELECTED FOREIGN MARINE TERMINALS Terminal Productivity at Europe Container Terminus, Rotterdam: A Variety of Factors JOAN RIJSENBRIJ This paper highlights various factors that influence terminal productivity and provides representative data concerning the sit- uation in a West European container terminal in 1985. PRODUCTIVITY: WHAT IS THE PRODUCT? Container terminals are the indispensable links between the various modes of transportationship, rail, road, and bargeand their function may be defined as follows: "A container terminal is an organization offering a total package of activities to handle and control the container flows from the vessel to road, rail, and waterways and vice versa, resulting in a maximum service for Joan Rijsenbri; is director of equipment engineering and research and de- velopment at the Europe Container Terminus in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 149

OCR for page 149
150 shipping and inland transportation against minimized costs. In other words, service to both sides of the interacting transportation chain is the sole product of the container terminal operator. The product quality may be defined as handling-speed with the requisite reliability and flexibility. Expressions such as "maximum service," "required service level," and "minimized costs" are at least open to discussion. However, one objective is clear: the required level of service and the resultant handling costs must never lead to restricted transportation times or uneconomic total transportation costs. Transportation companies (shipping, trucking, and railroads) and terminal operators must cooperate in achieving a maximum use of capital and labor investments in transportation and handling systems and organization regardless of peak demands, clashing of vessels, stacking capacity limits, increasing labor restrictions, and other factors. Some characteristics of the service product to be provided by a high throughput terminal may consist of: operating 7 days a week, 24 hours a day; . providing a total vessel-handling operation within 24 hours (from the moment the gangway lands to the moment the last containers have been lashed); . providing a standard service, even if a large number of ships call on the same day; . providing adequate organization and handling systems to allow quay-side and shore operations to work simultaneously (e.g., not closing the gate while working the vessel); . having the ability to process road haulers through the ter- minal within half an hour (average); ~ having the ability to handle trains and barges at fixed schedule-times within several hours; ~ providing safe handling of containers from the point of view of both men and cargo; . having a 100 percent reliable real-time control system, both for physical handling and information flow; ~ providing the online presentation of data to allow preplan- ning and integration of subsequent transportation steps and re- porting all relevant information to the lines agents; and . providing back-up activities to maintain a smooth container transportation flow. These include container freight station (CFS),

OCR for page 149
151 minal; reefer plants, empty container depots, trailer parking, container cleaning, and repair. Analyzing the productivity of a terminal organization that may provide such a complex product mix of services is not simple. This is demonstrated by the variety of representative indicators that exist for the assessment of terminal productivity. Some of these typical indicators are: . number of moves per employee (including or excluding casual labor); number of moves per meter quay-wall; throughput in moves per acre (hectare); gross moves per gross (or net) crane hour; number of moves per crane per year; number of overall maintenance man-minutes per move; . production hours per move; number of handlings per container moved through the ter- . number of processing minutes per container moved through the terminal; number of trucks handled at the gate per lane per hour; and . processing time per road truck, train, or barge. It is evident that no single specific indicator will represent "the" overall terminal productivity. There are, moreover, many factors that will influence the total terminal cost and therefore the result- ing price for the service product ts) offered by a terminal operator. Table 1 gives a list of some of these influencing factors. In order to investigate possibilities for improvement, a terminal should analyze a variety of characteristics describing the specific container flows and services. Some examples are given in Figures 1 to 7 (pp. 153-157~. The following observations can be made: . The distribution over the week from vessel arrivals and call sizes (Figure 1) is important for man-hour planning. . The arrival pattern of road haulers at the gate (Figure 2) and the related period of time haulers spend at the terminal (gate- in/gate-out) shows the relation between peak-hours and increasing processing time at the terminal. A guaranteed maximum service time for road haulers throughout the day will require additional (possibly uneconomic) labor and equipment during limited periods

OCR for page 149
152 TABLE 1 Terminal Cost Influencing Factors Approach channel characteristics Subsoil Clunatical conditions Local construction cost level Scarcity of land Local labor cost Type of labor contract Industrial relations Available casual labor Vessel arrival pattern Utilization rate of berth and cranes Dwell time of containers Gate opening hours Truck arrival pattern at the gate Cost of energy Offered services during the week Extra services like vessel stowage, planning, lashing Modal split Financing Quality of information exchange Activities for customs Possibilities for closing time Single or multi-user Auxiliary services (e.g., depot, repair) of the day. However, a smoothly distributed arrival of road haulers is still an operator's dream. . The modal split (Figure 3) is important to evaluate the handling activities over the basic transportation modes (such as sea-going vessels, trains, barges, road-trucks, and CFS). Figure 4 shows how the activities may change under an equal production level at the quay-wall. So, the production output of a terminal, which is often presented in moves (or TEUs) per year over the quay-wall, cannot be the only assessment figure for productivity. ~ The need for cranes is presented in Figures 5 and 6. They show the influence of single-use or multi-use operations, the latter requiring more cranes in order to cope with service demands under clashing conditions. This results in an unavoidable lower use per crane per year. ~ The continuous monitoring of crane delays (Figure 7) will inform the operator about the nature of causes that result in nonproductive crane time. It will help to achieve improvements in hourly crane production. . Shipping lines regularly record the production levels at the various terminals (ports), so that this information will be avail- able for the terrn~nal operators. The data concerning numbers of

OCR for page 149
153 loaded, empty, and shifted containers show that the comparison of plain gross moves per crane hour is not a very representative tool for comparison. Hence the handling of hatches and nonstan- dard cargo slows down crane production while, on the other hand, the shifting of containers is obviously a simple and speedy crane activity. While these examples have demonstrated that the product of a terminal can be defined, they have also shown that different termi- rLals will offer different products, dependent on the typical location and transportation characteristics. So, if productivity comparison between terminals is required, then the product characteristics should be examined as well. 50 40 `, 30 of LL Cam up 20 10 o Arrivals Gross Moves Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday FIGURE 1 Weekly distribution of vessel arrivals and call sizes.

OCR for page 149
154 - 125 100 75 50 25 o LO can 40 , 30 Z 20 or 10 o Z O 40 an 30 > cc 20 o 10 o , _ l _ 1 hour 20 - - ..... 20 22 24 a 6 8 1 14~ 10 12 14 HOU RS - r 2 4 6 8 I rat 1 1 1 1~// 1 0 2 10 12 14 HOU RS 16 18 20 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 HOU RS FIGURE 2 Daily arrival pattern and cycle time of road haulers. 1\ W=2670 X=5 L= 1381 R = 965 - Water= 7761 J ~1 .. dU X=0 W=218 L=612 R = 787 FIGURE 3 Monthly modal split of a multi-user terminal client.

OCR for page 149
155 Quay I \/ / , ~ 1 ~ Road Rail Barge ! \ _ \ - - - ~ Transsh ipment 1 - \ Jo' Road Ra i I Barge FIGURE 4 Influence of terminal utilization on modal split. - /i /i / l l , 1 l / / Barge Rail Road Barge Rail Road

OCR for page 149
156 100 90 80 Z 40 LU Cat 70 60 J - 50 30 20 10 o 0 1 2 CRANES IN OPERATION FIGURE 5 Crane utilizationmulti-user terminal, 1984. 00 90 80 O 70 60 ~ 50 by LU CL 204 10 40 C30 / o Average 4.8 I / f / /umulative Percentage Number 3 4 5 6 1 1 7 8 I ~ 9 10 11 12 13 Average 2~9 ,/ /~\Number / i / / / Cumulative Percentage _ 1 1 i, ~ 1 11 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CRANES IN OPERATION FIGURE 6 Crane utilization single-user terminal, 1984. 9 10 11 1 1 12 13

OCR for page 149
157 10 8 7 I: 5 C' UJ a 4 2 O . _ 6.9 ...... ...... ...... ....... ...... ' ,:....... ............ ...... ......... ...'.... .......... '., ............ ...... .'.......... ........... ...... ....... .......... ......... ,,.., 5.9 ~ . . . .2.-.-2.2. ...-.-....'.... .~ .2-. .-..-.-........ .- 2 .-.-.-.'.2 ...2..-...... ........ ........... -. ............ .~ ... -- - .-..-...-. .-...... _ :,:.:.:,:,:, 3.4 A...... :-::-:-::: ::-::-::- :-:-:-:-::: .--:.-,.,2 ..-.......... :-:-:-:-:-:-: ..... - :-:-:-:-:-:-: :-'..,.N, ....... 1.5 22 ~ ............ 1 ... 1 1.4 I~ i] 1 '. i.] 1 ~ 1.7 1.'.1 [""'I 1 ~/ USA ~b oi ~~ c< ~si 3~\0~ FIGURE 7 Causes of crane delays. ~~, at; ~ / DIG' ~0' ~ An' PRODUCTIVITY CONTROL So far, the users of terminals are principally interested in crane production, which represents a major item of the terminal product. The total cost for the processing of a container through the ter- minal (= product price) is the other major element for a shipping line to assess its attractiveness. The analysis of cost elements will be a continuing activity for any terminal management. Here are some examples from the West-European area: . The review of all expense categories (see Table 2) will show management which areas should receive its attention if proper cost control is to be achieved. The costs for personnel and investments are the two dominant elements. . As labor is by far the most expensive element in Western Europe, it is necessary to analyze where labor is employed. Table 3 characterizes the labor force of Europe Container Terminus (ECT).

OCR for page 149
158 TABLE 2 Expenses of Imaginary Profitable Terminals in Europe Expense Category Percentage of Total Personnel Depreciation Financing Maintenance (parts and services) Lease (e.g., quay wall, buildings) Energy Insurance (including own risk) Duties Miscellaneous (e.g., telex, travel) Profit (before tax) Total 60 12.5 3 6 5.25 4 2.25 1 3 3 100 TABLE 3 Characterization of Europe Container Terminus Work Force Category Percentage of Total Operations In 5-shift system, 86.0% In 2-shift system, 9.5% In 1-shift system, 4.5% Maintenance In 5-shift system, 36.0% In 2-shift system, 43.0% In 1-shift system, 21.0% Container control Security Management and other staff Administration Engineering, purchasing, services Data processing Total 70.8 9.9 4.5 3.6 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 loon aInclusion of casual labor in these figures would increase the total by 8.5 percent.

OCR for page 149
159 TABLE 4 Available Working Hours Per Laborer at the Europe Container Terminus Man-hours according to labor contract Not available due to: Vacation 23 x 7.75 Illness (average 10%) Holidays/special leave Paining Subtotal Available for operations Shifts per year 1,292/7.75 52 x 32.55 = 1,693 furs. 178 furs. 169 furs. 15 furs. 39 furs. 401 furs. 1,292 hrs.a = 167 shifts a The yearly available effective working hours are influenced by non- productive periods and elongation of breaks, among other factors. . The analysis of productive hours to be produced by labor is presented in Table 4. That data allow for cost calculations but also provide a basis for labor contract negotiations. It is clear that the overall industrial working conditions will influence the annual productivity. In Europe the trend over the last few years has been to diminish the amount of working hours per week, resulting in higher hourly labor cost. . The productivity per crane per day can be produced through analyzing all causes of time periods in which the crane is unable to handle containers. Table 5 shows that effort is required to increase the time a crane can be made available for container- handling activities. The major areas of attention will be meal breaks and shifts, hatch-cover and other noncontainer handlings, and information exchange between the terminal and shipping lines or their representatives. With respect to the control of productivity and handling costs, it is necessary to provide management with the appropriate tools. Figure 8 shows a general control cycle for terminal operations. ECT has developed a control system to monitor every vessel operation; at the home terminal this is done by the checker beneath the crane who is responsible for recording all activities and delays. At the new Delta terminal all these data are processed online to

OCR for page 149
174 3. Activity C- Stuffing (vanning)/stripping (devanning) of cargo units or unitizing of cargo. 4. Activity D Reception and delivery of loose general cargo. Large Free-Span Sheds Modern mechanized handling requires free unobstructed spaces indoors as well as outdoors. The door openings must be wide enough to allow a Hotfoot wide unit to pass at speed. Scandinavian main ports have in many instances been lucky enough to start off fresh on new land, but where it has not been possible, old sheds have been pulled down and substituted with new lightweight constructions with large free-span beams without any traffic hindering pillars. Some ports have converted the sheds to opensided trailer- garages and others have at least widened up the shed doors to allow the magic 20-footer to pass, even if not everybody has been so drastic as the port engineer in Mozambique who let a huge bulldozer pass through the wall until ~ was satisfied. Door heights should allow any piece of equipment to pass, and the Hotfoot figure is again appropriate. Handling Equipment Gantry cranes are used for pure container handling in the main ports. We have not till now seen anything but the plain standard ones. Smaller ports prefer mobile harbor cranes with container capacity. Standard multipurpose railborn harbor cranes with ca- pacities of 3-5 tons are disappearing. Wheelborn portainers are used for reception and delivery of rail- carried boxes. Transport from portainer to stack and from stack to gantry is usually performed by terminal tractors and trailers with large forklifts serving the stack. Yesterday's heavy forklifts of 25-ton capacity are today dwarfed by 40-50 tanners. Terminal tractors with trailers and heavy forklifts are also used to serve RoRo ships that are quite abundant in our part of the world. A long array of special equipment make these standard vehicles do all sorts of tricks: . skeltrailers; bathtub trailers;

OCR for page 149
175 . logtrailers; flatbed rolltrailers; heavylift trailers; toplift frames; sidelift frames; pulp clamps; reel clamps; coil prongs; and fifth wheels. All rolltrailers today used for terminal shuttle traffic have goose necks attached permanently. A tough climate, and just as tough unions, require all vehicles to have fully enclosed cabins. To meet the rather heavy investments necessary for a good marine terminal, we have seen a change in the port-owner/port- operator configurations in Sweden. Private stevedores have amal- gamated step by step into larger and larger companies. In most ports there is only one stevedore left, which often maintains the private company construction, but with the municipality as the majority owner. TERMINAL OPERATION As stated earlier, first it is essential to structure the layout of a terminal in a functional way and thus enable a structured operation. Second, all work should be preplanned to the largest possible extent, physically as well as economically. Preplanning has long traditions in shipping, probably from the day a poor Viking supercargo had to abandon a good loot on a foreign shore. Pure container handling introduced the need for sequencing, i.e., a structured resource planning. Together with some terminals we have developed it further, and prior to each call, we presequence general cargo RoRo ships with the help of a rather simple form. But having realized the need for preplanning and sequencing of the actual shipwork, we are introducing a structured reception and delivery of cargo to further control and diminish the waste of money. To get acceptance from the market we might introduce, together with the terminals, an Executive-Apex system where different degrees of service pay different terminal-handling charges.

OCR for page 149
176 Just as important as the pre- and ship-operational work, but less glamorous, is the postoperational work. The cargoes must move out of the terminal. Sadly to say, it is worldwide more a function of customs ability than that of the terminal-operator, and thus more of an organizational matter than a practical one. Nevertheless, it is an important factor that has a great influence on the terminal cargo turnover and should be approached in an openminded way. Great steps have been made by introducing online computer-based information systems. Flexibility is another key word. Resources, whether men or equipment, must be interchangeable. Anybody in a terminal should be able to handle a forklift professionally. Some termi- nals have also succeeded to persuade the unions of the need for flex-time. The shift may start 0700-0900 in the morning and con- tinue for 8 hours to avoid waste of money. As the ports of Scandinavia as well as the Scandinavian Shipping Lines live in a very competitive world, we have made common marketing efforts where quality and efficiency has been our basic message. Productivity As port calls do not earn a shipowner any money, but still must be regarded as necessities for the whole business venture, it is essential that time in port is used for the good, i.e., for cargo operations, and not wasted or, in other words, that port time is minimized. If there is an option, the choice should be given to the port with the best productivity per port-hour, which does not necessarily equal that one with the best production per stevedore hour. Port time in this context is seen as opposed to sea time, where sea time is the part of a trip over which the line has full control through the master of the ship. Consequently, port time starts to run upon arrival at the pilot station inbound and ends upon disembarkment of the pilot outbound. The impact of nonproductive time Is greater today when oper- ational port time gets shorter. Following is a comparison of two different port calls, each involving a liner with 4,000 tons of cargo to handle. Port A lies up river, and pilot to berth is 4 hours in, 4 hours out. Port B lies closer to the coast and requires only 2

OCR for page 149
177 hours in, 2 hours out. Port A has a good stevedore producing 400 tons/hour. PORT IN OUT STEV. TIME TOTALTIME TONS/PORT HR. TONS/STEV. HR A 4 4 10 18 222 400 B 2 2 14 18 222 286 The stevedore in port B can produce 29 percent less per hour, but still equal port A in tons per port-hour. As terminals in Sweden that are capable of handling large deep- sea vessels have diminished in number to a mere handful and for large pure cellular vessels to a single one, the possibility to sub- stantiate a threat of going somewhere else in Sweden is close to nil, especially when the line's competition in the optional north Euro- pean ports is much more aggressive. The line's policy, thus, has been to seek cooperation with the ports. Productivity is directly a consequence of better technology. Each phase of development we have been through has resulted in increased productivity. But as the labor force engaged has become less in numbers, the impor- tance of motivation has increased. High productivity and few individuals make the modern in- tegrated system more vulnerable to disturbances. Almost any individual involved can influence the total operation, and with an hourly production of 40~500 tons, there can be quite a stack of cargo left ashore when time for departure arrives if the stevedore has just been working and not been working for you. Contract formats can be used to steer the dealings with a termi- nal as such. Control systems can be developed to check in minute detail, but only good everyday relationship and mutual respect can give that extra boost needed for good motivation and thus production.

OCR for page 149
178 Productivity of Canadian Marine Terminals RICHARD KUSEL Since terminal technologies are largely affected by many fac- tors inherent in the overall transportation scene in the particular area, ~ will very briefly try to give you the economic and logis- tic perspectives as they exist in Canada and affect the Canadian transportation system as a whole. Canada is a small country. In terms of population, we are only about 25 million, more than two-thirds of which live in about a dozen cities spread from the Atlantic Coast to the Pacific Coast over some 5,000 miles of distance. We have only four ports that have operative container terminals, i.e., Halifax; Saint John, New Brunswick; Montreal; and Vancouver. In these ports there are only seven container terrn~nals that handle over 50,000 TEUs. These ports, the 10 major cities, and all container terminals are interconnected with two major railroads (except Halifax, which is served by just one railroad). Otherwise both railroads span the country from coast to coast with no interchange necessary to and from any major city or market across Canada. This extensive and uninterrupted rail system interconnecting all terminals is one of the factors that significantly influences the terminals' productivity as well as the whole intermodal transportation system in Canada. Although Canada is small, it is very much a trading nation. Over 30 percent of our gross national product is derived from the international trade. A large portion of our production in forestry, mining, and agriculture is exported, whereas you know that Canadians are avid buyers of foreign goods as evidenced by substantial imports through our ports. Canada has, from its beginnings, relied on the railroad to move its products from and to its ports, and it can be rightly said that the two major railroads are the backbone of Canada. These same two railroads have been instrumental in the development of Canadian intermodal transportation technology in both inland rail and port terminal interfaces, and in particular the technology Richard Kusel is president and chief executive officer of Canada Maritime Agencies Limited, Montreal, Canada.

OCR for page 149
179 of evacuation of containerized traffic from the port terminals. One railroad is owned by the Canadian taxpayers through a Crown Corporation called Canadian National Railway, the other by the public through a publicly held company, Canadian Pacific Rail- road. Both are giants and successful, and while their ideologies of operation may differ from time to time, both railroads have developed extensive container flat-car fleets, have equipped inland terminals, and have participated in development of port termi- nals, thus creating compatible and smooth ship/terminal rail and truck interfaces creating, in my opinion, one of the best and truly intermodal systems anywhere. Another significant factor affecting terminal productivity is practically a total absence of the trailer- on-freight-car mode of container transportation in both Canadian terminals and rail systems. The container-on-freight-car (COFC) system results in substan- tially lesser space requirements in container terminals themselves (no space required to park chassis) and eliminates the need for each container to be married to a chassis through its import/empty and export cycle and, above all, this system eliminates duplication in transportation, i.e., container lies on chassis and chassis lies on rail car during long rail transits. This means significant savings for the shipowner or service operator, as well as for the terminal operator. In three of the four container ports in Canada, i.e., Halifax; Saint John, New Brunswick; and Vancouver, less than 20 percent of cargo originates locally. In the case of Montreal, the percentage is slightly higher; nevertheless, the majority of cargo also originates elsewhere. Exactly the same patterns are evident for the inbound cargoes. In summary, these peculiar traffic patterns, coupled with com- prehensive rail networks across Canada and parts of the United States, vast distances between major points of origin and desti- nations have engendered specific technologies of cargo evacuation from Canadian terminals, the most important elements of which are as follows: 1. Most of the cargo is evacuated on the rail in COFC mode, leaving smaller portion of cargo at terminals to be trucked. The

OCR for page 149
180 same pattern exists on the outbound cargo. This results in rela- tively smaller terminal space requirements, enhances direct ship- to-raiT transfer and, coupled with block stowage on the ship and terminal, permits double cycling very frequently. 2. Unit or dedicated trains with fixed and regular schedules exist between all major origin or destination terminals, all of which are equipped with lifting equipment for each pick-up and delivery and return of empties on the terminals. This enables the movement of large numbers of containers over long distances very fast at realistic costs and at a predictable, regular schedule. 3. Weather elements in Canadian ports and terminals can be severe. Ice breaking, snow cleaning, and snow removal from ter- minals engendered new and specific technologies that now permit uninterrupted operation in adverse weather conditions. In fact it is mostly the speed of the wind that stops terminal operations in Canada, and this is the same reason that operations are inter- rupted elsewhere in the world. This general scenario and its peculiarities influence significantly the productivity of terminals in Canada, as they do the overall transportation system of which the terminals are one of the critical elements. The same general factors that influence the cost also vary significantly, which in turn makes container terminal and whole transportation costs very competitive in Canada. ~ will now elaborate on the productivity elements that are spe- cific to the port of Montreal on our own container terminal in that port (see Figures 1-6~. A. Labor in the port of Montreal and our terminal are members of the International Longshoreman's Association (~LA). Good la- bor relations exist between the employers association, the terminal management, and ILA, which are essential for productivity. Some of the items that further enhance good relationships and produc- tivity are training and job security. The amount of $38,184 has been spent in the last 5 years for ILA labor training, mainly to handle container cranes, transtainers, and lifting equipment. As you can note we have consistent improvement in productiv- ity, and while this may not appear spectacular, the actual labor hours are used, and times for breaks or opening and closing hatches are included.

OCR for page 149
181 220 200 180 140 120 80 60 40 o - - Outbound ~ I nbound I I . I 1981 1982 1983 YEAR FIGURE 1 Containerized cargo at the Port of Montreal. to A ~ 8 As - An 0 6 - X Lo z o 1984 ~ Break-Bulk Containers _ 1 982 1 983 1 984 YEAR FIGURE 2 Productivity at the Port of Montreal. t985 t986

OCR for page 149
182 24 20 18 16 14 10 8 6 4 o - 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ I 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 FIGURE 3 Productivity of cranes at Racine Terminal, Montreal. 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 tic 2.00 UJ 1.50 1 .00 0.50 _ 0 _ 1, s~ 0.00 1980 1981 1982 1983 YEA RS 1 984 1985 1986 FIGURE 4 Cargo assessments used for ILA job security and administration

OCR for page 149
18 16 14 10 Q. en 6 m 4 2 o 183 20 1981 1982 1983 ::: -:-:-.:. 1 984 YEARS FIGURE 5 Longshoremen's wages Montreal. 12 10 en Or 111 Q lo: Z ~ 6 an 111 C: LL 4 2 1 985 1 986 \ . 1982 1983 1984 YEAR 1985 1986 FIGURE 6 Yearly increases of longshoremen's wages Montreal.

OCR for page 149
184 B. Cargo assessments used for ILA job security and admin- istration have been decreasing with increasing productivity and increased tonnages. As you see from Figure 4, the decrease of assessments are quite significant, and they are contrary to the trends in some major ports and terminals in many parts of the world. Again, the reduction in costs in this area is a very important competitive factor and is a direct result of the improvement of productivity at the port and its terminals. C. Equipment in use and terminal layout are consistent with COFC technology and the traffic patterns in Canadian ports. The actual equipment in the terminal is three PACECO portainer cranes for ship/shore handling and four PACECO transtainer cranes for rail loading/unToading. Shuttle between shore cranes and transtainers is effected by only 20 yard trailers and 20 yard tractors. Eight high-capacity front-end lifters are used for empty in and out, local import, and block prestowage on the terminal. The terminal is handling, at the described productivity level and with the described equipment, 168,000 containers in 1985. It is making good money at competitive rates. CONCLUSION Lots of work, organization, and capital have been expended in Canada to create viable and cost-e~ective transportation systems. No single person or company can claim the responsibility or credit for the success our system is enjoying. If ~ were to name a specific cause of the success, ~ would say that it is the ability of the people with varied interests to work together. This includes labor, steamship companies, railroads, port and transport authorities, and the shipping public itself. It is this factor, in my opinion, that will dictate more than anything else the productivity of any terminal.