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.
68 Approach If the proposed evaluation method is to be broadly applicable and useful, the next study step is to test and validate it in real-world applications. There are, as yet, no alternative container transport systems in operation, or even active proposals for implementation. The method must therefore be checked at earlier stages of system development. An evaluation method can be tested either in a new application or by âredoingâ 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. The methodological evaluation steps were shown in Figure 4-1. To test and validate this method, the research team needed to match the generic steps in Figure 4-1 with the specifics of the proposed technologies, their port application, and their state of development relative to the portâs goals. If the method steps are valid, the research team should be able to use them as templates for a wide range of evaluation tasks. While application to early phase conceptual proposals for research and development support should be a valid use of these evaluation tools, such a test would not verify their utility and more advanced development stages. The research team, therefore, sought potential applications that either ⢠Addressed a specific near-term application of alternative container transport systems; ⢠Anticipated incorporation of alternative transport systems in infrastructure planning; or ⢠Evaluated the ability of alternative transport systems to solve a specific problem. The research team surveyed U.S. container ports to locate possible candidates for near-term (e.g., within 5 years) application of alternative container transport technologies. The research team narrowed the candidates to Los Angeles/Long Beach and Baltimore and confirmed that the ports were willing to participate in the project. Technology Candidates The technologies identified in the project (Table 2-1) were reviewed to identify representative candidates for evaluation in the case studies. Key considerations included ⢠Status of technology development. Was the underlying transport technology proven and used in other applications, still under development, or strictly conceptual? ⢠Viability of sponsor. Was there an active technology sponsor with whom the research team could work? If not, were there alternative sources of information? C H A P T E R 5 Case Studies
Case Studies 69 ⢠Availability of construction designs. Had preliminary or sketch-level designs been prepared for right-of-way support structures, terminals, or other major capital items? Or would the research team have to use conceptual placeholders for these items? ⢠Experience with comparable systems. Did comparable systems exist (e.g., public transit applications) from which cost and operational factors could be estimated? ⢠Completeness. Completeness of system design would be a major consideration. From Tiogaâs experience in previous studies it appeared that development of most technologies had thus far emphasized line-haul technology and operations, with limited progress being made in terminals and network configurations. ⢠Market readiness. Expected time-to-market would be estimated based on the considerations above and other factors. The chosen technologies should be different enough to constitute a valid test of the method, but realistic enough to engage the affected stakeholders in serious discussions. Status of Technology Development Most of the new technologies proposed to move containers from ports to inland locations are in early stages of development. Although none have been tested with prototypes working under representative working conditions, some had been tested with full-scale prototypes on test tracks. Table 5-1 presents the technological readiness of those technologies listed in Table 2-1. Many of these ratings are based on the findings of work done for the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach Zero-Emissions Container Movement System. The technologies listed in the left-hand column would have the TRL (per Table 3-2) of seven or above. Technologies listed in the center column would have a TRL of about six, while those in the right-hand column would correspond to TRL 5 or below. In this case, technologies receive a score of TRL 6 only if there is a full-scale working prototype. Some of the technologies have prototypes, but they are of a smaller scale. Viability of Sponsor Each of the technologies presented in Table 2-1 has a sponsor or sponsor(s). These vary from large, established corporations to essentially a person and an idea (Table 5-2). Although the specific viability of a sponsor is uncertain, the level of resources available for these technologies could provide some indication of viability. A company with other sources of revenue could apply research and development funds to the container moving technology project. A larger company Either Actual System or Prototype Demonstrated in an Operational Environment (TRL 7+) Model or Prototype Demonstrated in a Real Environment (TRL 6) Concept Only or Component Validation (TRL 5-) Electrified railway Hybrid trucks Electric Cargo Conveyor System EMMI Bombardier Maglev AirHelo Flight Rail Corporation Automated Shuttle Car System CargoRail/Cargo Tram Container-Express Corridor Container Port Skid MagneTruck MagneRail LIM-Rail/MagRail Air Rail Southern California Guideway SAFE Freight Shuttle Freightrapid Rail Motor & SPM Maglev LEVX California Freight Systems Table 5-1. Status of technology development.
70 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers would typically have more financial resources than a smaller company. Other companies do not have current sources of revenue, but they have been successful at obtaining funding in the past from federal or other grant sources, or business partners. Finally, some proponents do not appear to have any significant source of funding. Generally, promotional materials from these companies refer to markets and revenues in the future tense. Availability of Construction Designs The availability of construction designs will typically be driven by participation or applications to past projects. Those technology proponents who had applied for previous opportunities would be likely to have designs available that were developed for their applications. Furthermore, this participation suggests a willingness to share and disseminate the proponentsâ ideas. Given the likely analysis of the Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles for this study, designs applicable to this port would likely be particularly relevant, such as those submitted for the ZECMS process. Information was provided both for the 2006â2008 ACTTEC study, as well as the 2009â2010 Request for Concepts and Solutions for a Zero-Emissions Container Movement System (2010 RFCS). Some responses to the ZECMS were more complete than others (Table 5-3). The availability of hybrid truck construction designs depends on what specifically is proposed. For the 2010 RFCS, Tetra Tech proposed hybrid trucks for existing streets and highways, plus a newly acquired right-of-way but was not very specific. However, if the trucks are expected to use existing rights of way, construction designs are less of an issue. Experience with Comparable Systems In some cases, while the overall container mover system is in a developmental stage, the underlying propulsion technology has broader usage: ⢠Electric rail and hybrid truck technologies are in use, although some proposed hybrid truck technologies are more experimental than others. Large Company Small Company with Other Sources of Revenues or Past Success in Securing Funding No Significant Apparent Source of Funding Hybrid trucks (Tetra Tech, etc.) Electrified railways (Siemens, etc.) Electric Cargo Conveyor System (General Atomics) MagneTruck (General Atomics) MagneRail (General Atomics) Freightrapid (ThyssenKrupp) Bombardier Maglev Automated Shuttle Car system SAFE Freight Shuttle (TTI) EMMI LIM-Rail/MagRail Launchpoint Technologies CargoRail/Cargo Tram Rail Motor & SPM Maglev Flight Rail Corporation AirHelo Container-Express Corridor Container Port Skid Air Rail Southern California Guideway/ Whelan & Associates LEVX California Freight Systems Table 5-2. Resources available to technology proponents. Submitted Relatively Complete Application Submitted Less Complete Application No Application Automated Shuttle Car System CargoRail Cargo Tram Electric Cargo Conveyor LIM Rail and MagRail Freightrapid LEVX California Freight Systems EMMI Flight Rail Corporation AirHelo Container-Express Corridor Container Port Skid MagneRail Air Rail Southern California Guideway SAFE Freight Shuttle Rail Motor & SPM Maglev Bombardier Maglev MagneTruck Table 5-3. Technologies submitted during the ZECMS process.
Case Studies 71 ⢠Of the linear electric motors, LIM systems have some applications. LIM motors are used on several passenger transit lines in China and Japan. The Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit System (ART) is also used for people movers at JFK, Vancouver, and Detroit airports. Kawasaki Heavy Industries has produced LIM motors for transit systems in Japan and China. LIM motors also power roller coasters and baggage handling systems. LSM is used for the Shanghai Transrapid system. There are no instances of linear motors being used for hauling freight. ⢠Two Maglev systems are used for passenger operations: the Shanghai Transrapid system and the Japanese HSST âLinimoâ line. Two other Maglev lines are under construction in China and in Korea, and other Maglev lines are planned. There are no examples of Maglev used for hauling freight. For several technologies, it is not clear what is being proposed to determine whether these are in use. Table 5-4 summarizes the status. Completeness Many of the proposed container mover systems have not established a complete solution. As an example, the ACTTEC consulting team found that none of the proponents had explained how the various container moving elements would integrate into an overall system. However, some proposals considered a broader array of system components than others. In the case of the ACTTEC, proposals were evaluated by the extent to which they presented feasible solutions for the following elements: ⢠Integration ⢠Guideway ⢠Propulsion ⢠Command and Control ⢠Loading and Unloading ⢠Vehicles ⢠Switching ⢠Sorting and Storage ⢠Operating Plan Some of these elements were specific to ACTTEC, but others indicate a general completeness and breadth of proponentsâ thinking about their technologies. The completeness of hybrid truck solutions would vary by what is being proposed but would generally rely on existing systems. The issue of completeness would not be as relevant to hybrid trucks as to a fixed-guideway system. Because railways with conventional electric power (e.g., catenary or third rail) have not Broad Application Some Comparable Systems Few or No Comparable Systems Electrified railways Hybrid trucks Automated Shuttle Car System CargoRail/Cargo Tram Container-Express Corridor Freightrapid Air Rail SAFE Freight Shuttle Flight Rail Corporation AirHelo Container Port Skid Electric Cargo Conveyor System MagneTruck MagneRail LIM-Rail/MagRail EMMI Rail Mover & SPM Maglev Bombardier Maglev LEVX California Freight Systems Southern California Guideway Table 5-4. Current experience with comparable systems.
72 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers been put forward as alternatives for inland container movements, little has been documented regarding the systems that would support this technology. Table 5-5 shows the relative complete- ness of applications from the ZECMS process. Technology Choices Table 5-6 provides an overall rating of technologies based on the ratings that appear in Table 5-1 through Table 5-5 above. For each criterion, technologies can receive a score of zero to 2. A score of 2 applies to the technologies that appear in the left-hand column of figures above, those that fulfill a given criterion relatively well. A 1 is given to technologies that appear in the middle column of figures above, those that somewhat fulfill a given criterion. A score of zero is given to the technologies that appear in the right-hand column of the figures above and do not Many of the System Aspects Thought Through Some System Aspects Thought Through Relatively Incomplete System Analysis Automated Shuttle Car System CargoRail/Cargo Tram Electric Cargo Conveyor System EMMI Freightrapid Rail Mover & SPM Maglev LEVX California Freight Systems MagneRail Flight Rail Corporation AirHelo Container Port Skid MagneTruck LIM-Rail/MagRail Bombardier Maglev Container-Express Corridor Electrified Railway Southern California Guideway Table 5-5. Completeness of applications. Name Organization Technology Status Sponsor Viability Design Availability Experience with Comparable Complete Total Hybrid Trucks Tetra Tech 2 2 2 2 2 10 Electrified Railway Siemens & others 2 2 2 2 0 8 Electric Cargo Conveyor System General Atomics 1 2 2 0 2 7 Automated Shuttle Car System Automated Terminal Systems, Inc. 0 1 2 1 2 6 CargoRail/Cargo Tram MegaRail Transportation Systems 0 1 2 1 2 6 Environmental Mitigation and Mobility Initiative (EMMI) American Maglev Technology of Florida 1 1 2 0 2 6 Freightrapid Transrapid International-USA 0 2 2 1 1 6 MagneRail⢠General Atomics 0 2 1 0 1 4 Bombardier Maglev Maglev Inc. 1 2 1 0 0 4 LIM-Rail/MagRail Innovative Transportation Systems Corporation (with General Atomics) 0 1 2 0 0 3 SAFE Freight Shuttle Freight Shuttle Partners 0 1 1 1 0 3 Rail Motor & SPM Maglev Launchpoint Technologies 0 1 1 0 1 3 LEVX California Freight Systems Magna Force, Inc 0 0 2 0 1 3 MagneTruck⢠General Atomics 0 2 0 0 0 2 Air Rail Skytech 0 0 1 1 0 2 AirHelo International, Inc 0 0 1 0 0 1 Flight Rail Corporation Flight Rail Corporation 0 0 1 0 0 1 Container Express Corridor CitiCar 0 0 1 0 0 1 Container Port Skid Tubular Rail 0 0 1 0 0 1 Southern California Guideway Southern California Guideway/ Whelan & Associates 0 0 1 0 0 1 Table 5-6. Ratings of technologies to short list for further evaluation.
Case Studies 73 fulfill a given criterion well. The results suggest that hybrid trucks would be an obvious choice for a technology selection. Electrified rail would be a second candidate, because it is an established technology. The third would be the Electronic Cargo Conveyor System. This is because General Atomics submitted a relatively complete proposal as part of the ZECMS process and has a working prototype on a test track, albeit with a small container. This technology also received relatively high marks because it is sponsored by General Atomics, a company of reasonable size and resources. However, the relative market readiness of this technology is open to debate, particularly because it relies on LSM and Maglev, two technologies of very limited current application, even for passenger operations. A subjective scoring of market readiness could suggest a different technology.
