|
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 R1
IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY
IN U.S. MARINE
CONTAINER TERMINALS
Committee on Productivity of Marine Terminals
Marine Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
National Academy Press
Washington, D.C.
1986
OCR for page R2
National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by
the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are
drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members
of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special
competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors ac-
cording to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting
of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was established by the National Academy
of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technol-
ogy with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the
federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies
determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter
of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing
membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating
agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy
of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public,
and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by
both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of
Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970,
respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences.
The project described in this report is supported by Cooperative Agree-
ment No. 14-12-0001-30301 between the Minerals Management Service of the
Department of the Interior and the National Academy of Sciences.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 86-62194
International Standard Book Number 0-309-03694-1
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE ON PRODUCTIVITY OF
MARINE TERMINALS
CLIFFORD M. SAYRE, Chairman, E. I. du Font de Nemours & Co.,
Wilmington, Delaware
CHARLES F. CONNORS, Port of Long Beach, Long Beach, California
HUGH M. LACEY, Sea-Land Service, Inc. (retired), Iselin,
New Jersey
HENRY S. MARCUS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
ROBERT J. NOLAN, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., New
York, New York
RUDY RUBIO, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, San Francisco, California
PETER G. SANDLUND, Council of European and Japanese National
Shipowner's Associations, Washington, D.C.
SVEN I. THOOLEN, Matson Navigation Company, San Fiancisco,
California
WILLIAM C. WEBSTER, University of California, Berkeley, California
L. —
Matson
JOHN PISANI, U.S. Maritime Administration, Washington, D.C.
Staff
C HARLES A . BO OKMAN, Associate Director for Programs
AURO RE BLECK, Senior Secretary
111
OCR for page R4
MARINE BOARD
BRAMLETTE McCLELLAND, Chairman, McClelland Engineers, Inc.,
Houston, Texas
WILLIAM C. WEBSTER, Vice Chairman, University of California,
Berkeley, California
ROGER D. ANDERSON, Cox's Wholesale Seafood, Inc., Tampa,
Florida
ROBERT D. BALLARD, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
WILLIAM M. BENKERT, U.S. Coast Guard (retired), McLean,
Virginia
KENNETH A. BLENKARN, Amoco Production Company, Tulsa,
Oklahoma
DONALD F. BOESCH, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium.
Chauvin, Louisiana
H. RAY BRANNON, JR., Exxon Production Research, Houston, Texas
ROBERT G. DEAN, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
CHARLES D. HOLLISTER, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
PETER JAQUITH, Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine
KENNETH S. KAMLET, URS Dalton, Washington, D.C.
DON E. KASH, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
WILLIAM M. NICHOLSON, U.S. Navy (retired), Annapolis, Maryland
ERNEST L. PERRY, Port of Los Angeles (retired), Sun City, Arizona
RICHARD J. SEYMOUR, University of California, La Jolla, California
WILLIAM H. SILCOX, Chevron Oil Co. (retired), San Fiancisco,
California
RICHARD T. SOPER, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Iselin, New Jersey
1V
OCR for page R5
Staff
RALPH D. COOPER, Director
CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Associate Director for Programs
DONALD W. PERKINS, Associate Director for Planning
RICHARD W. RUMKE, Senior Program Officer
MARTIN J. FINERTY, JR., Program Officer
DORIS C. HOLMES, Administrative Assistant
JOYCE B. SOMERVILLE, Administrative Secretary
AURORE BLECK, Senior Secretary
JANET CROOKS, Senior Secretary
v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
PREFACE
Expanding world trade and the consequent fast growth in ocean
freight traffic have stimulated the construction of mammoth con-
tainer ships and larger containers, round-the-worId container ser-
vices, and integrated intermodal ocean and land transportation,
with double-stack trains crossing the continent. In the United
States this growth has been accompanied by much deregulation of
freight transportation. The hub of this rapidly changing interna-
tional transportation universe is the marine terminal, a complex
network of receiving, storing, container stuffing and stripping, and
transporting facilities for cargo carried by ships. At marine termi-
nals, cargo is transferred between deep-sea vessels, feeder vessels,
and inland transportation modes.
While dramatic change continues to occur in intermodal freight
transportation, no such breakthroughs have occurred within the
marine terminal since the adoption of containerization in the
1960s. The gantry cranes of today are similar in productivity
to those of 20 years ago. Similar methods of materials handling,
with similar levels of productivity, also still prevail. The major
change has been an immense expansion in size and volume, and
hence in the complexity of marine terminal operations. Many in
the marine terminal industry, and also many who rely on the effi-
cient handling of cargoes in world trade, have come to feel that the
· ~
V11
OCR for page R8
marine terminal is on the verge of becoming a bottleneck rather
than a funnel for world general cargo commerce.
This report appraises issues pertinent to the productivity of
U.S. marine terrn~nals that handle containerized general cargo.
It was prepared by a committee operating under the auspices
of the Marine Board of the National Research Council (NRC).
The project was requested by the U.S. Maritime Administration,
responding to the need expressed by the National Association of
Stevedores and others in the marine terminals industry.
Members of the committee were selected with regard for the
expertise necessary and to achieve a balance of viewpoints. Com-
mittee members' backgrounds spanned the fields of ocean shipping
and transportation logistics, marine terminal design and engineer-
ing, intermodal terminal operation, port operation, foreign cargo
handling and ship operation, U.S. cargo handling and ship op-
eration, vessel and terminal integration, transportation system
analysis, and labor. Biographies of the committee members ap-
pear in Appendix A. The principle guiding the constitution of the
committee and its work, consistent with the policy of the NRC,
was not to exclude the bias that might accompany expertise vital
to the study, but to seek balance and fair treatment.
The committee was charged with investigating issues pertinent
to the productivity of marine terminals handling general cargo in
the United States. It was asked to make a preliminary assessment
of their relative importance, areas needing further study, and
any impediments or barriers to productivity improvement. The
committee was instructed to address the following subjects:
. state of the art of technology and engineering design in gen-
eral cargo terminals, and the state of application and practice in
the United States;
. comparison with technology and design in other countries;
. interrelations of port and terminal practices, advanced tech-
nology, institutional arrangements, capital investments, energy,
and other factors, with a view to measurement and improvement
of terminal productivity; and
. implications of port and terminal costs, practices, engineer-
ing design, and use of technology for import and export trade of
the United States and competitiveness of U.S. terminals.
· .—
van
OCR for page R9
The committee focused its efforts on large, general cargo con-
ta~ner terminals because they are the most dynamic sector of the
terminals industry and also because containers overwhelmingly
dominate U.S. general cargo handling. In spite of this focus, the
committee considers much of its assessment of issues, especially its
comments on utilization of human resources, to be germane to the
entire marine terminals industry in the United States, including
other types of general cargo and bulk cargo terminals.
Productive operations imply the most efficient use of capital,
labor, and material to obtain optimum throughput of freight.
Measuring productivity traditionally involves the ratios of two
quantities that generally reflect an input to a process and its
output.
The committee was directed to convene a symposium and work-
shops to investigate these issues and produce a proceedings. Thus,
the committee convened the National Meeting on Productivity of
U.S. Marine Terminals on January 8-10, 1986, in Long Beach,
California. Participants in the meeting included representatives
of marine terminals, port and shipping labor and management,
as well as technical experts. A list of participants is provided in
Appendix B; the agenda of the meeting is presented in Appendix
C.
The meeting included a symposium with invited papers and
discussion, and workshops to identify and appraise issues. This
proceedings contains the invited papers and discussion as well as
the reports of the workshops. A summary, with conclusions and
recommendations, presents the committee's assessment.
The committee is indebted to all who participated in the na-
tional meeting for their willingness to give of their time, for their
forthrightness, and for their remarkable professional insight and
fair-mindedness. Special thanks are due to Thomas D. Wilcox
and Mary Dyess of the National Association of Stevedores and to
John Pisani of the Maritime Administration for their sustained
encouragement.
1X
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
CONTENTS
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
PRODUCTIVITY OF MARINE TERMINALS ...
Findings, 1
State of the Art of Marine Container Terminals, 3
Opportunities for Improving Productivity in Marine
Terminals, 11
PART 1. WORKSHOP REPORTS
MEASURES OF MARINE CONTAINER TERMINAL
PRODUCTIVITY 25
The Elements and Constituencies Involved in
Productivity, 27
A Profile of Productivity Measures, 30
Using a Profile to Improve Productivity, 37
ISSUES IN IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY 38
New Technologies Requiring Major Capital Investment, 39
Incremental Operational Improvements Not Requiring
Capital Investment, 42
Improving Labor and Management Performance and
Relations, 44
X1
OCR for page R12
IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND
OPERATIONAL FACTORS FOR COMPETITION
AND TRADE...............................
Principal Findings, 53
PART 2. SYMP O SIUM PAPERS
INTRODUCTION .......
James H. Mc~unk~n
TRENDS IN WORLD TRADE: IMPLICATIONS FOR
U.S. MARINE TERMINALS....................................
Richard King
Trends in International Bade, 62
The Role of the U.S. Economy in the World Uading
System, 64
International Bade in the Pacific Basin, 65
Government Policy Impact on World Trade, 66
Corporate Strategies, 67
THE MARINE TERMINAL AN ELEMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...............................
Productivity from a Rail Transportation Perspective.
David Burns
Improving System Productivity, 70
Marine Terminal Productivity as it Relates to the Mucking
Industry ..........................................................
Robert A. Curry
Grounded Container Operations, 77
Gate Operations, 78
Available Productive Working Hours at a Marine
Terminal, 79
51
59
62
69
69
75
Marine Container Terminal Productivity 81
1;. P. Robinson
Who Cares?, 83
How to Improve Stevedoring Productivity, 85
Conclusion, 93
· —
X11
OCR for page R13
Productivity Concerns in Intermodal Terminal Operations 94
John Gray
Discussion
U.S. MARINE TERMINAL TECHNOLOGY
AND OPERATION
..... 97
104
Technology Development and Application in U.S. Marine
Terminals 104
Frank Nolan, JO.
The Rail Perspective, 106
Civil Engineering Aspects, 106
Labor Productivity and Manning Levels, 107
Equipment and Facilities, 107
Management Systems, 108
Bulk Cargo Systems, 108
Summary, 108
Marine Terminal Operations in the United States.
Dan Rayacich
Container-Handling Systems, 110
Overview of Operating Procedures, 114
Throughput, 117
Container Terminal Cost Breakdown, 118
The Effect of Work Rules on Productivity, 119
Viewpoints Concerning Productivity, 120
Application of Information Systems to Marine Terminal
Operations and Productivity
Nancy Friedman
Automatic Equipment Control, 123
Raining Technology, 129
Material-Handling Systems, 132
Decision Support Systems, 134
Conclusion, 134
..... 109
121
The Human Element in Marine Terminal Productivity 135
Michael Gagney and Joe! Fadem
Why Change?, 136
Direction of Change, 137
Recommendations, 148
· ·—
x~n
OCR for page R14
PRODUCTIVITY AT SELECTED FOREIGN MARINE
TERMINALS
149
Terminal Productivity at Europe Container Terminus,
Rotterdam: A Variety of Factors 149
Joan Rijsenbrij
Productivity: What is the Product?, 149
Productivity Control, 157
Future Trends, 165
Opportunities for Better Productivity and Cost
Control, 169
Technology, Operations, and Productivity at Marine
Terminals of Scandinavia
Calle Westman
Historical Background, 171
Terminal Technology, 172
Terminal Operation, 175
Productivity of Canadian Marine Terminals
Richard Bose!
Conclusion, 184
THE IMPORTANCE OF PRODUCTIVE, EFFICIEI\-T
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FOR
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
Robert Kleist
APPENDIXES
A.
B. List of Participants ....
C.
D.
Biographies of Committee Members ..
170
178
. .185
......... 193
.................................... 196
.199
203
Agenda .... e · ~
Composition of Workshops................................
XIV
OCR for page R15
IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY
IN U.S. MARINE
CONTAINER TERMINALS
OCR for page R16
