Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers (2015)

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.

1 Background Inland transport is one of the most serious problems facing U.S. container ports. The ability of ports to meet local, regional, and national demand depends on landside con- tainer transport solutions that also address the environmental and social costs of cargo operations. Advanced inland container transport technologies have been proposed as solutions to the port capacity, congestion, and emissions issues in dense urban environments. These advanced fixed-guideway technology proposals were generated by the desire in Southern California for a zero-emissions container movement system (ZECMS) to replace conventional diesel truck highway drayage. A definitive evaluation of advanced-technology fixed-guideway options, however, is not yet feasible. The capacity, cost, emissions, and congestion effects of conventional diesel truck drayage are fairly well known; the equivalent factors for advanced transport technologies are not. The research team found that, as of early 2014, no zero-emissions container transport systems exist, nor are there complete system proposals, including terminals, handling equipment, infrastructure network, and controls. Most proposed container movement technologies have been drawn from rail transit and people-mover systems using Maglev, linear induction motor (LIM), or linear synchronous motor (LSM) propulsion. Most proposals are conceptual; a few technologies have been tested in proto- type or model form. There is, however, an ongoing interest in alternatives to truck drayage. Accordingly, this research project was sponsored to develop a method to evaluate future proposals. Purpose and Scope The objective of this research was to develop a method to evaluate alternatives for ocean container transport between deep-water ports and inland destinations within 100 miles. Adjacent communities and political bodies are especially interested in technologies that could take container movements off streets, highways, and conventional railroads. The major anticipated benefits of these advanced technologies include • Increased throughput capacity • Reduced road and rail congestion • Reduced emissions and energy use • Reduced community impacts S U M M A R Y Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers

2 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers A key challenge throughout the project was to develop common evaluation concepts, criteria, and metrics for a wide range of seemingly disparate proposals. That process began at the highest conceptual level by asking basic questions: • What is the system goal or objective? • What problem is the system designed to solve? • Where is the system expected to be applicable? • What is a reasonable basis of comparison between systems? • What questions need to be asked and answered to evaluate the system? There is a critical distinction separating line-haul technologies, freight movement applications, and complete transport systems. Each container movement option consists of a line-haul technology (e.g., LIMs or hybrid highway tractors) which then must be embedded in an end-to-end container transport system linking marine terminals with inland terminals (Figure S-1). The task of an inland container transport system is to move containers between marine container terminals on one hand and inland facilities on the other. The end-to-end transport system is, in turn, part of the broader container port/terminal/inland transport complex in which it operates and perhaps interacts with other systems. The port/terminal/inland transport complex is then part of the community and region in which it must coexist, generate economic wealth, and minimize adverse impacts. Ultimately, the value of a proposed container transportation system must and will be evaluated at all four levels. Landside Container Transport Alternatives The research team compiled available information on all known, active inland container transport proposals, based primarily on the preceding work in Southern California on ZECMS. A summary is given in Table S-1. In parallel, the research team developed a generic CO NT AI NE R PO RT CO MP LE X CO MM UN ITI ES AN D RE GI ONTERMINALI TERMINALI LIN E- HA UL TE CH NO LO GY CO NT AI NE R TR AN SP OR T S YS TE M Figure S-1. Container transport system context.

Summary 3 Name Organization General Descrip on Generic Technology Conven onal Drayage Mulple This is the current standard system using a standard diesel tractor pulling a chassis holding one container. Diesel Truck Drayage Hybrid Trucks Tetra Tech Use of hybrid diesel electric trucks utilizing exisng streets and highways in addion to newly acquired right of way. Hybrid Trucks Hydrogen Hybrid Trucks Tyrano A prototype hydrogen fuel cell hybrid electric truck, with zero tailpipe emissions. Hydrogen Hybrid Truck MagneTruck™ General Atomics MagneTruck™ is a proposed concept that would utilize linear synchronous motors (LSMs) embedded in road surfaces to move road vehicles along within specially designed traffic lanes. Linear synchronous motor (LSM) Electrified Railway Siemens & others An electric locomove pulling convenonal rail cars on an electrified railway. Electrified Railway MagneRail™ General Atomics MagneRail™ is based on the idea of retrofitng convenonal steel wheel rail lines with linear synchronous motors, most likely mounted to the railroad es between the rails. Linear synchronous motor (LSM) LIM Rail/MagRail Innovave Transportaon Systems Corporation LIM Rail is proposed as a retrofit of exisng tracks with a linear synchronous motor system to move containers on railroad flatcars or convenonal truck trailer chassis under automated propulsion and control. Linear synchronous motor (LSM) Rail Motor & SPM Maglev Launchpoint Technologies Rail Motor is proposed as a retrofit to convenonal track, a linear rail motor to be mounted to existing rail lines to electrically propel passive railcars and locomoves. Maglev Flight Rail Corporation Flight Rail Corporation Use of a vacuum propulsion technology along an elevated, fixed guideway system. Vacuum propulsion Automated Shuttle Car System Automated Terminal Systems, Inc. Automated Shuttle Car System is proposed as a fully automated cargo container system for transporting cargo containers between marine/rail and other terminals, including a fully automated container yard. Electrified Rails DC Motors CargoRail/Cargo Tram MegaRail Transportaon Systems CargoRail/Cargo Tram is proposed as a coupled dual mode conveyance that could operate in port and railroad intermodal areas on exisng paved surfaces. Electrified Rails DC Motors Container Express Corridor CiCar CitiCar is proposed to move cargo containers within an automated corridor using exisng railroad track and specialized electrically powered vehicles. No design for railcar motor Container Port Skid Tubular Rail Container Port Skid is proposed to propel a container carrying skid (vehicle) on an electric power roller system. External AC electric propulsion Electric Cargo Conveyor System General Atomics Electric Cargo Conveyor System (ECCO) is proposed as a grade separated, fully automatic – driverless container transport system using stationary levitaon magnets and linear synchronous motor propulsion. Combination of Maglev and LSM Air Rail Skytech SkyTech's linear induction motor (LIM) powered framework and its forefront electromagnec technology provide automated container moves from point to point. Linear induction propulsion Southern California Guideway Southern California Guideway Southern California Guideway is proposed to move pallets loaded with cargo containers by linear motors in a grade separated guideway. Linear Induction Motor (LIM) SAFE Freight Shuttle Freight Shuttle Partners Freight Shuttle Partners has proposed the use of steel wheeled vehicles on elevated fixed guideway using linear induction motors. Linear induction propulsion Environmental Migaon and Mobility Iniave (EMMI) American Maglev Technology of Florida Environmental Migaon and Mobility Initiave Logiscs Solution (EMMI) would use grade-separated magnetically levitated trains to move cargo containers. Maglev Freightrapid Transrapid International USA Freightrapid is a proposed adaptaon of the Transrapid passenger technology, using electromagnecally levitated vehicles, propelled by a linear synchronous longstator motor to transport standard containers. Maglev Bombardier Maglev Maglev Inc. Use of magnetic levitaon technology along an elevated, fixed guideway system. Maglev LEVX California Freight Systems Magna Force, Inc Use of a levitaon technology employing permanent magnets along a fixed guideway system. Maglev AirHelo International, Inc AirHelo would use a fleet of lighter than air airships to move transfer containers from ships to transshipment points. Airships Truck Drayage Technologies Railway Technologies Advanced Fixed Guideway Technologies Other Technologies Table S-1. Technologies identified.

4 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers step-by-step description of the inland container transport process from marine terminal to delivery at inland destinations within 100 miles. Evaluation Criteria The diversity of inland container transport options and technologies calls for flexible, performance-based evaluation criteria. Accordingly, the research team developed a set of proposed performance-based criteria reflecting the transportation, emissions, energy utili- zation, and congestion relief objectives and cost implications of alternative inland transport options. The criteria developed in this study are intended to guide evaluations of potential alternative container transport technologies and systems, both in the abstract and in specific port and terminal applications. The research team examined inland container transport goals and criteria from multiple reports and other sources and found common goals: • Reducing emissions, congestion, noise, truck miles traveled, energy use, and community impacts. • Maintaining or improving capacity, reliability, throughput, productivity, velocity, and safety. • Maintaining or reducing costs and prices without subsidy from the port. The “overall worth” of a solution must be evaluated on what has sometimes been called the “triple bottom line” (TBL): economics, environment, and community impact. The TBL concept is a major touchstone for this analysis because it relates directly to the broadened scope of port authority responsibility and the interest of those authorities in inland transport. The driving force behind port and community interest in alternative container transport technologies is their promise of emissions reduction and congestion relief, not cost saving or increased capacity. Systems and technologies can only reduce emissions and other adverse impacts through market forces if they also meet the second and third objectives. Unless the capacity, service, and cost are better than conventional transport systems (e.g., truck drayage and on-dock rail transfer), market forces alone will not enable alternative systems to attract enough patronage to have a significant effect. Proposed Evaluation Method One key finding regarding evaluation methods for container transport systems is that “one size does not fit all.” The resulting method should be adaptable to fit the specific cir- cumstances. The research team identified four generic types of decisions that might be made regarding alternative container transport systems: • Support for research and development • Readiness for incorporation or anticipation in other projects • Funding for demonstrations or pilot projects • Commitment to construction and operation The generic sequence of evaluation steps is shown in Figure S-2. The basic method is not unique to container transport systems or even to transportation. These same steps apply to any instance in which proposals must be evaluated against given criteria, against a baseline scenario, or against each other. The content and approach within the steps, however, will vary considerably depending on • The decision to be made • The state of proposal development

Summary 5 • The timeline for development, implementation, and project life • The availability and precision of information • The existence of a baseline or “no-project” alternative • The resources and time available for the evaluation Testing the Method A method such as that described above can be tested either in a new application or by “redoing” a previous evaluation. In both cases, the proposed method should yield a satisfactory outcome, but in the second case, that outcome can also be compared with the original result and conclusions drawn regarding any differences. The research team located opportunities to test the method both ways in case studies at the Ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach and Baltimore. Los Angeles/Long Beach Case Study Background A case study involving the Southern California Ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach (LA/LB) is appropriate for several reasons. Together, the two ports form the largest, busiest, and most complex container port in North America. The advanced container transport and advanced DEFINE GOALS SELECT & WEIGHT CRITERIA DEFINE BASELINE LOCATE POTENTIAL CANDIDATES ASSEMBLE SCREENING DATA SCREEN IDENTIFY EVALUATION CANDIDATES ASSEMBLE EVALUATION DATA ANALYZE EVALUATE CHOOSE BEST CANDIDATE(S) Figure S-2. Evaluation method structure.

6 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers drayage concepts considered in this project first emerged in response to emissions and con- gestion problems in Southern California. The Southern California ports have 13 active or developing container terminals, 9 port intermodal yards, 2 near-dock rail intermodal yards, 2 more distant (20 miles) rail intermodal yards, and the possibility of service to inland ports or satellite terminals within the 100-mile study radius, so many different system con- figurations are possible. The potential traffic types include local imports and exports, local transloads, near-dock intermodal, off-dock intermodal, regional imports and exports, and intraregional imports and exports. Advanced technologies proved to be primarily suitable for the off-dock and regional imports and exports, which constitute only a fraction of the total container trips. Previous Studies There have been four previous major studies of alternative container transport systems in Southern California: • The 2006–2008 Advanced Container Transportation Technology Evaluation and Com- parison (2008 ACTTEC) • The 2007–2009 Alternative Goods Movement Technology Analysis Initial Feasibility Study Report (I-710 Alternatives Analysis) • The 2009–2010 Request for Concepts and Solutions for a Zero-Emissions Container Movement System (2010 RFCS) • The 2011 Roadmap for Moving Forward with Zero-Emissions Technologies at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (2011 Roadmap) These studies found that advanced fixed-guideway technologies were not ready for near- term implementation and would likely have prohibitively high capital and operating costs. The latter two studies found that advanced drayage technologies (e.g., battery-electric trucks using wayside power) appeared more feasible in the near term. The I-710 Alternatives Analysis provided cost and capacity estimates against which the research team’s estimates could be compared for reasonableness. Approach For this case study, the research team defined the decision question as Which inland transport systems would be cost-effective approaches to reducing port-related criteria pollutants, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and capacity constraints within the current port planning horizon (2035)? Analysis At their highest level, the selection criteria for a new LA/LB container transport system reflect port and regional TBL goals: • Reduce criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to “clean” truck drayage. • Reduce drayage truck traffic on public roads and highways. • Add container transport capacity to accommodate cargo growth. • Remain economically feasible. These goals are interdependent in ways that must be recognized and reflected in both selection criteria and weighting.

Summary 7 The options that passed the initial screening step include • Battery-electric trucks on new electrified lanes in or parallel to the I-710 Corridor, and free-running elsewhere (to the limit of their battery capacity). • Advanced-technology propulsion over an exclusive fixed-guideway in or parallel to the I-710 Corridor, with scenarios defined by the research team. No definitive scenario for a Southern California fixed-guideway advanced-technology container transport system exists. The research team analyzed seven fixed-guideway scenarios; three from the I-710 Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) alternatives evaluation and four constructed for this study. Evaluation of the two basic short list candidates—advanced fixed-guideway and electric truck with wayside power—and their variations was relatively straightforward because of the large differences among them. It was not necessary to weight the criteria or use formal ranking or ratings. • Emissions. Both candidates achieve zero or near-zero criteria pollutant emissions by using electric power. Differences in GHG emissions would depend on relative energy efficiency. Any estimates are conceptual and there is no basis for reliably distinguishing them. • Congestion Relief. The substantially higher operating costs of an advanced-technology fixed-guideway system imply failure under a critical criterion: the potential to divert truck trips from the baseline drayage option in a competitive market. Alternatively, an advanced fixed-guideway system would have to be heavily subsidized to compete. There are no funding sources for such subsidy. • Capacity. A representative fixed-guideway system can handle about 800 containers per hour in each direction. A 4-lane electrified truck roadway has a capacity of 1,130 vehicles/ containers per lane-hour. Both systems have adequate capacity to accommodate port trade growth to the 2035 planning horizon and to divert trucks from existing highways. • Feasibility. The estimated cost of a near/off-dock fixed-guideway system is roughly $10 billion, while the estimated cost of a 4-lane electrified highway system with greater capacity is about $6 billion. Estimated operating costs of an advanced fixed-guideway system greatly exceed baseline drayage costs and electric truck estimates. Results Based on the available information supplemented by the research team’s efforts, advanced- technology fixed-guideway systems (e.g., Maglev, LIM, and LSM) will not have an effective role in solving LA/LB inland container transport problems for the foreseeable future. Such systems do not appear to be cost-effective relative to either free-running truck drayage or battery-electric trucks with wayside power. The capital costs are substantially higher than the alternatives. The operating costs are likely to be prohibitive, eliminating any potential for substantial diversion of trucks from existing streets or highways. In contrast, battery-electric or battery-electric hybrid trucks appear to be a potentially cost-effective option in terms of both capital investment and competitive operating costs. Baltimore Case Study Background The Port of Baltimore was planning on moving the on-dock rail transfer facility from its Seagirt Terminal and relocating it inland. The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) had been working with the Port and CSX since 2009 to develop a near-dock,

8 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers double-stack intermodal facility. After rejecting four initial sites as too costly, stakeholders chose a new site at CSX’s Mount Clare yard. The Port Authority expressed interest in reviewing alternative technologies for potential application between Seagirt and the chosen site. Approach For this case study, the research team defined the decision question as Can advanced technologies play a long-term role in container movement between Seagirt and Mount Clare? The preferred Mount Clare site is less than 10 highway miles from Seagirt, and the pre- ferred technology for container movement is conventional drayage services. Advanced tech- nologies are insufficiently developed to play a role in the short-term development of the new terminal at Mount Clare. Given that success with the Mount Clare project is not certain and rests on the ability of planners to meet community concerns while maintaining transport efficiency, advanced technologies could have had a role to play in the long-term viability of the project. The research team determined that community acceptance of the Mount Clare terminal development was the critical issue. To improve community acceptance over truck drayage, an alternative transport option must • Reduce the number of trucks moving through the Mount Clare community. • Reduce local emissions and noise. • Minimize the need for new, potentially objectionable infrastructure. The effectiveness of a proposed system in increasing community acceptance of the Mount Clare terminal development was therefore the critical minimum requirement for screen- ing. Proposals that would not significantly increase community acceptance of the termi- nal project would be screened out because they would not solve the problem facing the decisionmakers. Analysis The research team analyzed electric truck drayage, electric rail shuttle, and advanced fixed- guideway scenarios. For both screening and more detailed analysis, the research team used the same sources and data compilation as in the LA/LB case study. The technical, performance, and cost factors developed by the research team were applied and adjusted as necessary to fit the Baltimore case study circumstances. As with the LA/LB case, it was determined that neither the need for criteria weighting or the necessary information for criteria weighting existed. With increasing community acceptance of the Mount Clare terminal as an overriding objective, the evaluation tends to become a binary yes/no decision rather than a ranking or rating exercise. Infrastructure issues were paramount in the Baltimore case study. Advanced technologies that require new fixed guideways faced substantial barriers: • Guideway Feasibility. In the Baltimore case, a new guideway would require bridges, tunnels, or building through dense urban areas. • Infrastructure Cost. The cost estimates showed that it would be impossible to recover the capital cost from revenues in a competitive environment. Moreover, the funding agreement between MDOT and CSX had a $225 million cap, which was far exceeded by all scenarios requiring new guideways or roadways.

Summary 9 • Capacity. The high initial cost of advanced fixed-guideway systems can only be justified by very high throughputs. The relatively low expected volume of container trips in the Baltimore case would leave such a system seriously underutilized. • Operating Cost. The estimated operating cost for a new fixed-guideway system far exceeds the cost of conventional truck drayage. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that Baltimore customers would be willing to use a much more costly fixed-guideway system, and a large subsidy (for which there was no source) would be required to divert trucks from the highway. • Terminal Integration. Unless the new technology could be efficiently integrated into the Mount Clare terminal design, the fixed-guideway system would need its own loading/ unloading capabilities there. Fundamentally, advanced fixed-guideway technologies are unsuited for moving a low volume of containers through a developed area with inherently high infrastructure costs. The Baltimore case study suggests a more promising role for technologies (e.g., in-track LSM or wayside electrification—for trucks or trains—that could be retrofitted to existing rail or highway infrastructure). Results Based on the information available and on the established positions and policies of the stakeholders and decisionmakers, no new technology or transport system can, by itself, reduce community impacts to a point where the Mount Clare terminal development would be clearly acceptable to the community. None of the technologies or systems makes the trucks or terminal go away. Use of the existing rail right-of-way for international containers moving between Seagirt and CSX Intermodal was already part of the project proposal. These results were borne out by the August 2014 announcement that MDOT had terminated its terminal development agreement with CSX and pulled all state funding from the project.1 The chief reason was that CSX could not satisfy the concerns of MDOT, the City of Baltimore, and the local community regarding potential impacts. Findings and Implications Implications for the Proposed Method Results of the two case studies indicate that the proposed method is fundamentally valid, but must be adapted to the circumstances. The current social, environmental, and economic context of North American ports requires that a transport system do more than move containers efficiently. TBL is the new reality for ports. In the LA/LB case study, the proposed evaluation method yields the same result as the Roadmap analysis and the I-710 Alternatives Analysis: advanced fixed-guideway systems are too costly, too narrow in their application, too inflexible, and insufficiently scalable to be cost-effective solutions to the emissions, congestion, and capacity problems facing the Ports and the region. Moreover, the very long and uncertain lead times for their development and implementation would leave pressing problems unaddressed for an unacceptably long time and entail considerable risk. The proposed method also identified advanced truck drayage concepts as more feasible in the near term, again consistent with the Roadmap and the I-710 1 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WITHDRAWS FUNDING FOR PROPOSED CSX INTERMODAL FACILITY IN MORRELL PARK, http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/News/Releases2014/2014August28_MDOT_Withdraws_ CSX_Funding.html, August 28, 2014

10 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers Alternatives Analysis. Truck drayage systems range from existing diesel trucks moving over public highways to electric trucks moving over exclusive right-of-way. The LA/LB case study demonstrated that the proposed evaluation method was also valid for truck drayage options. In the Baltimore case study, the research team’s application of the proposed method led to two basic findings. First, a careful analysis of goals revealed that the primary purpose of an alternative container transport system would be to reduce the community impact of the proposed new intermodal terminal at Mount Clare. Second, applying the method led to the conclusion that advanced fixed-guideway technologies were not cost-effective ways to reduce the community impacts of trucks serving an intermodal terminal. In the Balti- more case study, the analysis was also constrained by the small portion of intermodal trips that could actually be moved via a new fixed-guideway connection to the Port. Ultimately, the project itself was cancelled because there was no other means to satisfy community concerns. The Baltimore case was perhaps a better illustration of circumstances where advanced technologies could not solve the problem, rather than a failure of advanced tech- nologies in a promising application. One common thread between the LA/LB and Baltimore case studies is that providing a zero-emissions solution is not enough. Community concerns over truck movements include the mere presence of more trucks on local streets and highways in addition to emissions, noise, and safety. Eliminating emissions and reducing noise through alternative fuels or electrification may not be enough to gain community acceptance; the trucks must be diverted from local streets and highways. These observations suggest that the high capital cost of new zero-emissions systems, including electrified truck systems, may not result in community acceptance unless those systems can also take trucks off local streets and highways. Unfor- tunately, to do so, the new systems would have to extend their own infrastructure into the rail or marine terminals. Doing so increases the costs, complicates terminal design, reduces flexibility, and—most critically—adds more freight transportation infrastructure to the community. The technologies themselves are not yet ready for implementation, and the implementation timeline for such systems is both long and uncertain. A key point in the LA/LB 2011 Roadmap is that the Southern California ports needed to address existing problems and could not postpone action until advanced guideway systems were ready. In the Baltimore case study, the Port wanted a solution implemented in time for the opening of new Panama Canal locks in 2015. The conceptual nature of the technologies and system elements also creates substantial technology risk in any public- or private-sector funding efforts. The precision of the proposed method remains limited by the information available on advanced technologies and on the complete systems that must eventually be built around them. The advanced propulsion systems remain largely conceptual in their application to container transport, despite some successful demonstrations under “laboratory” condition. There is no obvious funding source for ongoing research and development beyond the pri- vate capital of the proponent firms, so the outlook for eventual technological and system readiness is unclear. Implications for Advanced Fixed-Guideway Technologies It became increasingly apparent in the compilation of technology descriptions that the developers faced inherent limitations of fixed guideways in attempting to adapt technologies to container movement. These are discussed below. • Suitability for container transport. The advanced fixed-guideway container transport systems proposed to date appear ill-suited for moving containers within 100 miles of

Summary 11 port terminals. The advanced fixed-guideway proposals lie in a no-man’s land between truck systems more suitable for short trips and conventional rail systems more suitable for long trips. • Lack of precedent for operating cost subsidies. There is no precedent for an operating subsidy for freight systems such as the advanced fixed-guideway proposals. The lack of a subsidy mechanism places the burden of diverting truck traffic on the commercial char- acteristics of technologies that compare unfavorably with trucks. • System costs and regional priorities. The national shortfall in investment for conventional transportation infrastructure suggests that a large investment in landside container transport would not be a regional priority even if funds were otherwise available. • Scale economies. The need for advanced fixed-guideway systems and the scale economies required to support them may simply not exist at most U.S. ports. • Legacy infrastructure barriers. A major shortcoming of advanced fixed guideway is the difficulty and cost of integrating such systems with existing infrastructure. • Closing window of opportunity for emissions solutions. With clean or even zero- emissions trucks here or on the immediate horizon, advanced fixed-guideway solutions appear to be relatively distant, uncertain, and costly approaches to reducing emissions. Favorable Conditions for Advanced Fixed-Guideway Technologies When, if ever, will advanced container transport technologies become cost-effective options? Attempting to lay out a timeline for system development is unlikely to be fruitful or accurate. A more useful approach may be to define the circumstances under which such technologies would become cost-effective options. The above considerations imply that advanced guideway technologies are poorly suited to replace truck and rail systems at existing ports, but might be more competitive as part of new port designs and developments. Unfavorable and favorable conditions for advanced fixed-guideway systems are outlined in Table S-2. Ideal circumstances are most likely to occur in new port developments or stand-alone expansions at existing ports. In these cases, a “single marine terminal” is likely to be a large multi-berth, multi-user facility typical of European and Asian ports. These terminal configu- rations offer the opportunity to link with a container transport system at a single common point or along a loop. The inland terminal configuration would likely be similar. This sys- tem geometry closely matches typical people-mover configurations at airports. Such systems commonly operate in loop or semi-loop patterns, with vehicles operating at fixed headways in either or both directions. These single configurations also favor automated operations, because no switching or merging is required in routine operations. Policy Questions The analyses presented here suggest that advanced fixed-guideway systems will not be able to compete commercially with truck drayage systems. This observation implies in turn that customers—ocean carriers, 3PLs, brokers, importers, exporters, and others who control cargo and pay the bills—will not use such systems voluntarily. Some fundamental policy questions have not yet been addressed and are unlikely to be resolved in the near future. • Can the public sector require the private sector to use a more costly transport option to achieve public goals? To some extent, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (and other ports) have done so by implementing clean truck plans, which require customers to use motor carriers with “clean” trucks and thus pay higher prices. The emerging require- ment for electric “shore power” to avoid idling vessels in port is another example. In both

12 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers these cases the regulations increased the cost of an existing mode without requiring the customer to switch mode, and the regulations were based on public air quality and health objectives. Proposals to require drayage operators to use employee drivers and meet other conditions as part of the Clean Air Action Program (CAAP) were struck down, however, after legal challenges, which suggests limits to the power of ports to intervene in the business decisions of other stakeholders. • Could ports or regional transportation agencies ban truck drayage entirely for some category of container moves and require customers to use fixed-guideway transport instead? There are myriad examples of truck bans on specific routes or in specific parts of cities, but not in industrial areas where truck transportation is integral to commerce. There are also weight limits for trucks and restrictions on the movement of tank trucks and hazardous materials. These restrictions, however, are almost entirely safety based and do not lead to mode shift. • Can the public sector induce port customers to use more costly transport options to promote public goals? All U.S. passenger transit systems are subsidized and charge fares that are less than their full economic cost. Transit systems are subsidized in two ways: (1) reducing or eliminating the cost of capital, and (2) subsidizing operations. Although there are many variations on these strategies, both apply to advanced fixed-guideway container transport systems or, indeed, any transport system. The cost estimates for advanced fixed- guideway systems indicate that capital costs will be very high. Given that fixed-guideway operating costs alone are expected to be higher than truck drayage costs, attempting to pay for those capital investments through transport charges would raise those charges far beyond a competitive ceiling. Any financial inducement to divert truck drayage trips to a Unfavorable Condions Favorable Condions Multiple separate terminals Single mul user or clustered terminals sharing a system connecon Legacy marine terminals New, purpose designed marine terminals Exisng on dock rail No on dock rail or opportunity to integrate system Wheeled container terminals Stacked container terminals Wheeled inland terminals Stacked inland terminals Low terminal automaon High terminal automaon Multiple inland points Single inland point Legacy ROW challenges New or clear ROW context Elevated (sunken, tunneled) ROW Surface ROW One weekday terminal shi (8/5) Mulple terminal shis (24/7) Exisng truck drayage No truck drayage, or exclusive system use More demand peaking Less demand peaking Very short distance Medium distance Very long distance Medium distance Exisng/planned emissions reducons in competing modes Unaddressed emissions problem No precedent for operaons subsidy Precedent/willingness to subsidize operaons Table S-2. Unfavorable and favorable conditions for advanced fixed-guideway systems.

Summary 13 fixed-guideway system, therefore, would have to be substantial. To date, there has been little or no public-sector interest in massive freight movement subsidies. For the most part, these broad policy issues remain unaddressed in the goods movement field. Multiple policy tools are in use to influence the mode choice of passengers, including transit subsidies, tax incentives, HOV lanes, and selective automobile bans. Outside of emis- sions regulations and funding for inland waterways, few, if any, policy tools are being used to influence mode choice among freight customers. In the United States, the public sector has supported the development of waterway, rail, and highway networks for freight to various degrees. Various agencies have likewise offered limited support (e.g., research grants) for the development of new freight technologies and for a few freight infrastructure projects. The advanced fixed-guideway container transport technologies proposed to date do not appear to be effective solutions to emissions, capacity, and congestion problems at U.S. ports. The question remains, however, whether a genuinely promising new technology could be supported if it were not commercially viable.