|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 transportation—ship, rail, road, and barge—and
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 150
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 151
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 152
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 153
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 154
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 155
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 156
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 utilization—multi-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 157
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 158
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 159
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 174
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 175
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 176
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 177
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 178
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 179
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 180
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 181
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 182
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 183
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 184
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.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
road haulers
