Landside Access to U.S. Ports Special Report 238 (1993) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 1-212
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 2... ...
1992 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Chairman: WILLIAM W MILLAR, Executive Director, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Vice Chairman: A
|
From page 3... ...
Special Report 238 WDSIDE AcCESS TO U
|
From page 4... ...
Transportation Research Board Special Report 238 Subscriber Categories IA planning and administration VIII freight transportation Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering directly from TRB. They may also be obtained on a regular basis through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB; affiliates or library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts.
|
From page 5... ...
Committee for Study on Landside Access to Ports Chairman, MICHAEL S BR0NzINI, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee ANNE D
|
From page 6... ...
ERIK STROMBERG, American Association of Port Authorities RICHARD L WALKER, Maritime Administration, U.S.
|
From page 7... ...
Preface In October 1990, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
|
From page 8... ...
The committee was asked to determine whether access to the ports examined is hindered by lack of interagency and public-private coordination, physical impediments, land use restrictions, or federal, state, and local safety and environmental regulations. The committee was also asked to evaluate the severity of the problems identified and, as appropriate, to recommend remedial strategies.
|
From page 9... ...
contributions, as did liaison representatives from different agencies of DOT, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Association of Port Authorities, Inland Rivers Ports and Terminals, Inc., and the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association. The study was conducted under the overall supervision of Robert E
|
From page 11... ...
Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 19 Information Sources, 20 Outline of Report, 28 Previous Reports of Study Committee, 28 2 Background 30 General Cargo Ports, 30 Bulk Ports and Terminals, 35 Growth Capacity Relative to Demand, 36 3 Physical Access 47 Impediments, 47 Opportunities, 59 4 Land Use 66 Impediments, 66 Opportunities, 77 5 Regulatory Issues 86 Constraints, 86 Opportunities, 101 6 Defense Deployment 109 Background, 110 Future Issues, 113 Opportunities, 114
|
From page 12... ...
7 Institutional Relationships 117 Government Institutions, 118 Private Institutions, 133 Opportunities, 134 8 Intermodal Terminal Efficiency 143 Information Technology, 144 Increased Terminal Efficiency, 149 Terminal Designs, 154 Opportunities, 155 Appendixes A Results of Survey on Landside Access by American Association of Port Authorities 160 B Survey of Inland Terminal Operators 176 C Glossary 191 Study Committee Biographical Information 193
|
From page 13... ...
Executive Summary The American economy depends more and more on producers and consumers all over the world. Over the past 20 years imports and exports have increased so that they equal one-fifth of the U.S.
|
From page 14... ...
Legend Rai Lrnrs Used for Inte,modai Cargo FIGURE ES-I Intermodal cargo network of United States. North American Cargo (Cross-border trattrc)
|
From page 15... ...
Executive Su North American Cargo r45(Cr05Sb0rd0r traffic) International Carg~o~ (Cross-border tratbc)
|
From page 17... ...
Executive Summary S TABLE ES-i Examples of Landside Access Impediments Identified in AAPA Survey Impediment Container Ports (n-2S)
|
From page 18... ...
6 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS T Rail service on or adjacent to marine terminals reduces u tick traffic on urban streets but consumes scarce urban waterfront land (photograph courtesy Port of Tacoma)
|
From page 19... ...
Executive Summary 7 terfront land. Port officials also report that lack of land has already restricted access improvements at one-third of ports (Table ES-i)
|
From page 20... ...
LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS as governmental enterprises somewhat removed from traditional governmental agencies.
|
From page 21... ...
Executive Summary 9 consumers and producers dispersed throughout the nation. This raises the concern that pressures placed on local authorities by commercial urban land developers, neighborhoods, and local environmental groups will result in future investment decisions in which national priorities are not considered or given enough weight.
|
From page 22... ...
10 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS borhood demands that residents' lives not be disrupted by traffic noise and congestion.
|
From page 23... ...
Executive Summary 11 tal plans and select projects with the assistance of their states. For metropolitan areas with fewer than 200,000 persons, the states are to develop capital plans with the assistance of their MPOs.
|
From page 24... ...
12 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS purchased and preserved in land banks.
|
From page 25... ...
Executive Summary 13 dinating federal policy on intermodal transportation and initiating policies to promote efficient intermodal transportation in the United States. The Secretary can call on various offices and agencies of the U.S.
|
From page 26... ...
14 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS The success of the first three of these efforts will partly depend on reducing the congestion caused by at-grade rail-highway crossings.
|
From page 27... ...
Executive Summary 15 MPOs, and states in defining a research agenda that will help them address the issues they face. The federal government should serve as a catalyst to bring together the various parties involved in the use of technologies such as information systems in order to define joint needs, to promote standardization, and to encourage research on and dissemination of innovations in cargo handling and intermodal freight transportation (Chapter 8)
|
From page 28... ...
16 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Federal To ensure that state and local governments consider the corridors between major highways and ports that are important for national security and defense, the federal government should require planners at the departments of Transportation and Defense to continue the periodic identification of corridors that may be needed for deployments of troops or military hardware and ammunition.
|
From page 29... ...
Executive Summary 17 made progress toward the goal of ensuring greater certainty in getting state permits for port development plans, has avoided investment in redundant port facilities, and has made sure that port access needs receive priority in the metropolitan transportation planning agency's short- and long-range capital plans. The committee recommends that MPOs consider both development and environmental needs in port regions when analyzing port access needs.
|
From page 30... ...
18 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS cause by working more closely with netghborhood groups and local planning officials while they are planning their improvements to develop and negotiate projects more acceptable to all parties and to help avoid litigation by groups opposed to such projects (Chapter 4)
|
From page 31... ...
I Introduction The growing competition in international markets has increased the dependence of producers in the United States on an exten-sive and efficient transportation system. The individual modes of the nation's transportation system have responded well to the demands of international trade, but bottlenecks to efficient freight movement occur at the points at which freight moves from one mode to another.
|
From page 32... ...
20LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS tation, environmental regulation, economics, port administration, terminal design, urban planning, and state government.
|
From page 33... ...
Introduction 21 FIGURE 1-1 Ports that responded to AAPA survey. cause most general cargo now moves by container, and because almost all general cargo will move by container within the next two decades, the discussion and tables in this report feature the 25 general cargo ports in the survey that currently handle more than 90 percent of container movements.
|
From page 34... ...
22 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Respondents to AAPA Survey on Landside Access Baltimore, Md.
|
From page 35... ...
TABLE 1-1 Oceanborne Foreign Trade Handled by Ports in AAPA Survey, by Type of Service, Ranked by Total Value Port Long Tons in 1990 Linera Tankerb Trampc Total Value ($ millions) Los Angeles 10,560,629 4,515,870 6,422,844 21,499,343 56,334.9 New York/New Jersey 11,264,420 29,922,102 5,569,909 46,756,431 49,575.8 Long Beach 9,239,961 2,061,773 8,601,317 19,903,051 42,858.0 Hampton Roads 5,239,282 4,343,034 53,376,402 62,958,718 39,574.3 Seattle 6,931,492 223,480 4,313,570 11,468,542 26,737.7 Tacoma 3,713,174 466,146 10,247,071 14,426,391 24,304.4 Oakland 5,281,968 199,268 678,096 6,159,332 17,244.2 Baltimore 3,177,080 2,381,240 16,706,885 22,265,205 16,583.3 Delaware River/Pennsylvania 1,886,982 34,635,215 4,391,493 40,913,690 14,672.2 Charleston 5,570,061 258,310 2,170,157 7,998,528 14,315.5 New Orleans 3,573,631 12,717,293 26,997,952 43,288,876 11,730.3 Savannah 3,627,626 1,758,270 4,289,400 9,675,296 9,955.8 Miami 2,181,216 164,650 613,010 2,958,876 7,678.3 Portland (Oreg.)
|
From page 36... ...
TABLE 1-1 (continued) Port Long Tons in 1990 Linera Tankerb Trampc Total Value ($ millions)
|
From page 37... ...
Canaveral Everett Cleveland San Diego Duluth Manatee Milwaukee Brownsville Pensacola Eástport Searsport Olympia Indiana Port Commission Portland (Maine) 824 315,093 1,070,118 1,386,035 364.2 15,675 0 2,121,056 2,136,731 323.3 63,803 130,226 2,932,708 3,126,737 322.1 75,654 162,937 456,508 695,099 208.5 72,138 11,976 1,598,870 1,682,984 168.9 47,467 82,138 540,211 669,816 146.6 4,663 0 725,076 729,739 143.3 10,621 199,205 176,726 386,552 124.7 144,210 22,629 159,922 326,761 112.5 96,304 0 121,674 217,978 89.9 11,434 476,124 144,588 632,146 86.1 62,735 0 388,845 451,580 78.3 Total 84,372,009 224,387,560 246,797,352 555,556,921 398,007.0 NOTE: Data not available for last two entries.
|
From page 38... ...
26 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS did not respond)
|
From page 39... ...
Introduction 27 Ports and Port Authorities Visited by DOT Study Teams Boston, Mass. Charleston, S.C.
|
From page 40... ...
28 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Appendix B
|
From page 41... ...
Introduction 29 lieved should be considered in the reauthorization of the pending federal surface transportation programs. The committee's report identifies a wide variety of options addressing port access that will be of use to ports, all levels of government, and private industry.
|
From page 42... ...
2 Background Throughout the history of maritime transportation in the United States, ports have tended to specialize in various kinds of trade, partly because of the produce or demands of their hinterlands and partly because of the natural attributes of their harbors. For several reasons, most general cargo terminals are publicly owned, although individual terminals may be operated by private stevedoring companies.
|
From page 43... ...
Background31 another mode. This process is called a break-bulk operation.
|
From page 44... ...
32 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Major productivity gains in the movement of general cargo have been made possible by containerization and intermodal technologies (photograph courtesy Joe Rodriguez, Port of New Orleans)
|
From page 45... ...
Background 33 on to shippers, producers, and consumers. Automobile manufacturers in the Midwest receive components partially assembled in Asia that arrive by container.
|
From page 46... ...
34 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS relatively impregnable, offers protection from the elements, reduces the chances of damage, and almost eliminates the pilferage that used to plague break-bulk operations.
|
From page 47... ...
Background 35 For the marine container transportation industry, that means measuring the part of U.S. foreign trade that is waterborne (i.e., excluding all air shipments and overland trade with Canada and Mexico)
|
From page 48... ...
Capital investments in bulk-handling technologies have increased throughput and reduced labor costs (photograph courtesy Port of Thcoma)
|
From page 49... ...
Background 37 porting imports and exports. To the extent that export costs rise, American products can become less competitive abroad, which would weaken U.S.
|
From page 50... ...
38 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS It is inherently difficult to forecast the long-range demand of imports and exports; the effects on the transportation system are complicated further because dimensions of supply and demand are interrelated.
|
From page 51... ...
Background 39 Demand for Imports and Exports Exports have been a growing share of the gross national product (GNP) , reflecting the growing globalization of the U.S.
|
From page 52... ...
40 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS ships.
|
From page 53... ...
Background 41 coast (the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port)
|
From page 54... ...
42 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS major capital assets used unproductively.
|
From page 55... ...
Background 43 center port are considerable, and port communities have spent millions of dollars to attain that status (Chilcote 1988)
|
From page 56... ...
44 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS each individual port has a different ability (or faces a different set of constraints)
|
From page 57... ...
Background 45 Aside from the adequacy of the physical infrastructure, many other issues affect landside access. Logistics decisions made by shipping lines and railroads determine whether ports will receive double-stack service.
|
From page 58... ...
46 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Research Report UCB-ITS-RR-90-13.
|
From page 59... ...
-- C Physical Access I nfrastructure constraints to port landside access are characterized by deficient bridges, freeway access ramps, railway grade crossings, and railway tunnels and underpasses, as well as congested or inadequate roadways serving marine terminals. These constraints are not systemwide, but site-specific.
|
From page 60... ...
48 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Traffic congestion is growing in the metropolitan areas wherein most ports are located.
|
From page 61... ...
Physical Access49 TABLE 3-1 Infrastructure Impediments Identified in AAPA Survey All Ports Container Ports All Other (n = 54)
|
From page 62... ...
SO LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS country.
|
From page 63... ...
Physical Access SI but its success will depend on whether the neighborhood approves the upgrade of one roadway into a major freight corridor and whether the railroad that controls the most direct line to the ports will agree to sell (neighborhood issues are discussed in the next chapter)
|
From page 64... ...
52 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS officials believe that this will resolve most terminal-related congestion on these bridges.
|
From page 65... ...
Access 53 tion of the Gowanas Freeway. This freeway is the major access route between the port and the rail terminals in New Jersey.
|
From page 66... ...
54 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS docks.
|
From page 67... ...
Physical Access 55 Inadequate bridges of outdated design are especially prevalent in older, built-up cities. Various bridge problems on truck routes were noted in the site visit reports for Charleston, New York and New Jersey, Philadelphia, St.
|
From page 68... ...
56 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Highway and bridge design standards have lagged behind the dimensions of large trucks, but the standards in the revised design guide of AASHTO and the exceptions to design permitted by FHWA appear adequate for designing physical facilities for vehicles transporting marine containers.
|
From page 69... ...
Physical Access 57 At-grade crossing of a rail line with a port access route delays truck traffic serving the port. grade.
|
From page 70... ...
58 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS productive containers, which are 9 ft 6 in.
|
From page 71... ...
Physical Access 59 OPPORTUNITIES The DOT site visit reports and the AAPA survey indicate a host of potential access problems. Road access to many ports is good or adequate, but congestion is a growing problem.
|
From page 72... ...
60 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS TABLE 3-2 Infrastructure Opportunities Identified in AAPA Survey All Ports Container Ports All Other (n = 54)
|
From page 73... ...
Physical Access 61 mensurate with the cost are all major issues. (Funding issues are discussed more in Chapter 7.)
|
From page 74... ...
62 -- LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS modal terminal at the port.
|
From page 75... ...
Physical Access 63 terminals may depend in part on the ability to reduce at-grade conflicts. Barge and Intercoastal Shipment of Containers Yet another concept worthy of consideration is greater reliance on barge shipments to and from major ports and other coastal cities.
|
From page 76... ...
64 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS in ships built outside the United States and by the high cost of acquiring and operating U.S.-built ships that would not fall under these prohibitions.
|
From page 77... ...
Physical Access 65 recognize the spirit of intermodalism and flexibility for states in the IS TEA in approving project proposals such as those listed. REFERENCES ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials TAMS TAMS Consultants, Inc.
|
From page 78... ...
F! Land Use The waterfront land of cities on navigable waterways may be the cities' most valuable physical assets, and for many cities they have been fundamental to urban renewal.
|
From page 79... ...
Land Use67 only part of a much larger trend. Residential and nonmaritime commercial development has been occurring along nearly every urban shoreline.
|
From page 80... ...
68 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS TABLE 4-1 Land Use Impediments Identified in AAPA Survey All Ports Container Ports All Other (n = 54)
|
From page 81... ...
Land Use 69 promoted the commercial development of land owned by the port. Although the port has been active in redeveloping Jack London Square, it has resisted some of the city's efforts for fear that they would undermine the port's long-term competitive edge (Journal of Commerce 1988)
|
From page 82... ...
70 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS town Navy Yard have been boons for the city's coffers, but truckers serving Boston's port complain about the heavily congested roads that are due in part to increased tourist traffic.
|
From page 83... ...
Land Use 71 Problems of Land Use Planning and Implementation Many port officials have problems apart from rising land values: they may discover that a road serving the port becomes congested because development is permitted along its access road. The increased traffic adds to travel times and costs for trucks serving the port, which ultimately leads to higher transportation costs.
|
From page 84... ...
72 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Operating within legal precedent and within the context of local government, zoning as it has traditionally been practiced can guide, but not prescribe, development.
|
From page 85... ...
Land Use 73 has long been difficult for local communities to resist site developments that promise additional growth, even when the local officials are aware that the new development may congest the routes serving it. With the recent constraints on public budgets, transportation planners have minimized the need for public investment by relying more heavily on transportation system management (TSM)
|
From page 86... ...
74 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Neighborhood-Port Conflicts Background Many urban ports abut residential areas, and the interests of the ports often conflict with those of its neighbors because the land uses are incompatible.
|
From page 87... ...
Land Use 75 Allowing residential areas to develop close to port complexes often results in neighborhood efforts to reduce the traffic, noise, and dust stirred up by port activities. Los Angeles International Airport with communities to the east was delayed for the first time in 1972, partly as the result of a lawsuit filed by a community at the behest of an active neighborhood group.
|
From page 88... ...
76 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS was also boosted by Congressman Glenn Anderson, then the chairman of the powerful House Public Works Committee, and it did not initially meet significant opposition from the communities and neighborhoods along the way (Kagan 1990, 140)
|
From page 89... ...
Land Use 77 but this may be resisted by the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed corridor. Boston's port has been reluctant to push for the improvement of the spur rail lines serving the port because port officials know it would bring neighborhood opposition.
|
From page 90... ...
78 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS neighborhood opposition to increased port operations reduce the ability of port officials to resolve landside bottlenecks.
|
From page 91... ...
Land Use 79 require state-enabling legislation and careful administration to avoid legal challenges. Kolis and Mandelker (1987)
|
From page 92... ...
80 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS concern (MASS.
|
From page 93... ...
Land Use 81 adjacent to port terminals or along access roads (Rosenbloom 1988)
|
From page 94... ...
82 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS air standards.
|
From page 95... ...
Land Use 83 ties. The developer could proceed less concerned about future efforts to stop or delay the project.
|
From page 96... ...
84 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS City of Boston.
|
From page 97... ...
Land Use 85 Rohe, W., and S
|
From page 98... ...
Regulatory Issues The growing array of complex, sometimes conflicting, federal, state, regional, and local environmental and safety laws and regulations affects the efficiency of port operations and the ability to improve access constraints. For port officials, the most pressing aspects of this problem are the regulations on the preservation of wetlands.
|
From page 99... ...
Regulatory Issues87 The National Environmental Policy Act and other laws already require assessment of the effects of significant Federal transportation actions or Federal-aid projects on the environment, special attention to air pollution, and protection of wetlands and coastal zones.
|
From page 100... ...
88 LANDSIDE AccEss TO U.S. PORTS refer to the same geographic area and often have the same environmental protection or resource allocation objectives.
|
From page 101... ...
Regulatory Issues 89 changes to the manual for delineating wetlands were requested by notice in Federal Register of August 14, 1991; these changes are designed to clarify the definitions and assessment procedures that can be used to classify land that is part of a wetland or wet for only part of the year (Federal Register 1991)
|
From page 102... ...
90 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Container storage areas require scarce urban waterfront land.
|
From page 103... ...
Regulatory Issues 91 or regional destinations, the terminal must also provide service roads for trucks to enter and exit and space for them to maneuver. Much of the available land around the ports could be designated as wetlands (depending on the definition recommended by the administration in pending revisions to wetland regulation)
|
From page 104... ...
92 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS TABLE 5-1 Environmental Constraints Identified in AAPA Survey All Ports Container Ports All Other (n = 54)
|
From page 105... ...
Regulatory Issues 93 - -. ~1 M I Ma ,ç-.:-.: •: Nine-acre wetland built by the Port of Tacoma to help mitigate the environmental impact of developing a marine terminal.
|
From page 106... ...
94 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS but current restrictions are likely to be related to noise and future restrictions are likely to be related to air quality.
|
From page 107... ...
Regulatory Issues 95 for carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide, others are watching the Los Angeles area with great interest. Dredge and Fill Operations The need for dredging to improve the ability of harbors and channels to handle large, modern vessels is mainly a waterside issue, but dredge and fill operations are closely related to port landside development.
|
From page 108... ...
96 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS negotiations with 63 separate offices of the various regulatory agencies.
|
From page 109... ...
Regulatory Issues 97 Hazardous Materials Transportation A substantial share of products moving through ports handling bulk commodities are classified as hazardous. At the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for example, officials estimate that 12 percent of port vehicles carry hazardous materials of which 40 percent is flammable.
|
From page 110... ...
98 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS TABLE 5-2 Regulatory Issues Affecting Landside Access Identified in AAPA Survey All Container All Ports(%)
|
From page 111... ...
Regulatory Issues 99 (FHWA) , and RSPA within the modes under their purview.
|
From page 112... ...
100 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS desirable to maintain economic vitality and meet consumer demands, and shall be conducted in a safe manner.
|
From page 113... ...
Regulatory Issues 101 laws and enforcement practices differ widely; to date, the federal government has not acted to bring state laws and enforcement practices into greater conformity. Many public and private studies and activities are under way, however, that are intended to address and resolve this complex problem.
|
From page 114... ...
102 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS ment needs with environmental protection.
|
From page 115... ...
Regulatory Issues 103 The Seaport Plan has not resolved all problems. Competition between Bay Area cities and their ports reemerges from time to time, ports still face competition for land from commercial developers, federal approval and permits for dredging operate outside the plan, and interregional port competition still exists (Dahms 1992)
|
From page 116... ...
104 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS procedures exist for reducing the delay, however.
|
From page 117... ...
Regulatory Issues 105 a part of a Section 404 permit. Instead, mitigation often emerges after a permit has been requested and evolves as a condition of receiving a permit after extensive negotiations between and among the developers, COE, and other involved agencies.
|
From page 118... ...
106 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS hancing wetlands.
|
From page 119... ...
Regulatory Issues 107 Clark, J
|
From page 120... ...
108 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Wessel, A., and M
|
From page 121... ...
Defense Deployment Seaports have an important role in national defense; thus, the existence of landside impediments to ports raises concerns about military readiness in addition to those of transportation efficiency. Many of the resolutions to these impediments are the same as those addressed elsewhere in this report, but some requirements for military readiness are unique.
|
From page 122... ...
110 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS ployment (referred to as "unit moves")
|
From page 123... ...
Defense Deployment111 would not encounter any landside access impediments at their ports. The ports involved in Desert Shield/Storm report landside access problems in roughly the same proportion as other ports in the AAPA survey, except that there is less indication of a problem with many rail-highway crossings and no reports that the condition of rail lines impedes access (Table 6-1)
|
From page 124... ...
112 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Cargo shipments went smoothly partly because a large share of the domestic shipments (about 40 percent of the tonnage)
|
From page 125... ...
Defense Deployment 113 primary highways (the National Highway System, or NHS)
|
From page 126... ...
114 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Other pending shifts in defense policy could also affect the ports.
|
From page 127... ...
Defense Deployment 115 To ensure that state and local governments consider the corridors between major highways and ports that are important for national security and defense, the federal government should require planners at DOD and DOT to continue periodically identifying corridors that may be needed for future deployments of troops or military hardware and ammunition. DOD Funding Federal law mandates that surface transportation projects, including highways of military significance, be paid for by federal transportation funds of the DOT.
|
From page 129... ...
7 Institutional Relationships For some ports the weakest link in the logistics chain is at their back doors, at which congested roads or inadequate rail link-ages to marine terminals, and sometimes both, result in delays and increased transportation costs. Direct influence over these issues, however, is often out of the reach of port officials; the responsibility for road and highway improvement projects resides with a city, county, or state government.
|
From page 130... ...
118 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS Port Institutional Status The unique institutional arrangement of most ports allows them to operate with a great deal of autonomy in the business-oriented setting in which they operate, but it may impair their coordination with other units of government.
|
From page 131... ...
Institutional Relationships119 affiliations with other units of government vary from having no affiliation (New Haven, Connecticut) to being a department of a city government (Los Angeles and Long Beach)
|
From page 132... ...
120 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS orities of these local groups.
|
From page 133... ...
Institutional Relationships 121 inefficient investments of national resources on projects of only local significance -- that is, it led to pork-barrel politics (Ferejohn 1974)
|
From page 134... ...
122 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS ever, FMC has not protected the ports in this regard (Hershman and Kory 1988, 105)
|
From page 135... ...
Institutional Relationships 123 State Role The absence of a federal port policy has left the development and promotion of individual ports to the states and localities. Many states are active promoters and supporters of their ports; nevertheless, not all ports are accustomed to working with state and local transportation agencies.
|
From page 136... ...
124 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS State Transportation Agencies Many ports experience deficiencies in highways and roads serving them but have neither the funds nor the authority to make the needed improvements.
|
From page 137... ...
Institutional RelationshiDs 125 (WSDOT) recognizes the importance of these ports to the state's economy and has addressed port needs in statewide transportation capital planning.
|
From page 138... ...
126 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Some states have taken an active role in responding to port landside access needs.
|
From page 139... ...
Institutional Relationships 127 bly created a unified transportation trust fund, which also established annual allocations for each mode. The highway access needs of Hampton Roads terminals appear to have been considered in several highway improvements currently under way by the Virginia DOT.
|
From page 140... ...
128 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS have been designated by FHWA, working with the states, and are quite specific.
|
From page 141... ...
Institutional Relationships 129 cess. Not only must these various requirements and standards be met, but federal-aid projects must receive FHWA approval.
|
From page 142... ...
130 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS but will leave project selection involving other roads to local authorities, usually at the county level in a nonurbanized area.
|
From page 143... ...
Institutional Relationships 131 states can spend more for highway projects than is required to match trust fund apportionments; they are "overmatching? ' When a state is overmatching, ineligibility is an excuse, not a reason, for rejecting a project desired by a port.
|
From page 144... ...
132 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS reflect those of their constituents.
|
From page 145... ...
Institutional Relationships 133 Many ports are trying to communicate their needs to local groups and to influence local decisions. More than half of the ports (57 percent)
|
From page 146... ...
134 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS between the port's interests and those of the railroads and shipping lines: the port wants more traffic, and, presumably, so do the private firms.
|
From page 147... ...
Institutional Relationships 135 their transportation planning. Besides setting forth requirements for more comprehensive planning, the bill also allows states and MPOs to spend a larger proportion of federal aid on planning; such spending was based on a formula allocation in previous legislation.
|
From page 148... ...
136 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS The bill also greatly eases restrictions on toll facilities on federalaid routes and the potential uses of toll revenues.
|
From page 149... ...
Institutional Relationships 137 willing to impose such fees for fear that they will lose cargo to their competitors. The competition among ports is so keen that many ports accept lower land leases and wharfage fees than they wish to earn in order to outbid rival ports (Dowd 1988, 219)
|
From page 150... ...
138 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS tion of revenues to ports around the country.
|
From page 151... ...
Institutional Relationships 139 Regional and Local Roles At the local or regional level, transportation planners will be required by the ISTEA to give more detailed consideration to freight transportation needs than they have in the past. Besides requiring that specific attention be paid to port access needs, the legislation requires the assessment of "methods to enhance the efficient movement of freight" [Section 1024(f)
|
From page 152... ...
140 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS requirements for the new federal-aid system designations to be made within 2 years after passage of the act.
|
From page 153... ...
Institutional Relationships 141 international cargo and providing for national defense; and the economic benefits that ports give to their cities and regions. NOTE The Shipping Act of 1984 addressed some of the anticompetitive issues that arise from abuses in carrier and port conferences that set joint rates and tariffs.
|
From page 154... ...
142 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Ferejohn, J
|
From page 155... ...
EE Intermodal Terminal Efficiency Modern intermodal marine terminals are the points of trans-fer of cargoes from sea to land and land to sea, but the transfer is less than optimal. The transfer of cargo between ports and inland transport is "one of the weakest, least efficient, and most costly links in the intermodal transportation chain" (Hayuth 1987, 36)
|
From page 156... ...
144 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS space in the container yard to pick up or drop off a container.
|
From page 157... ...
Intermodal Terminal Efficiency145 tronically. Using hand-held optical scanners transmits information about container identification and location with far greater accuracy and efficiency than does repeatedly entering the information manually.
|
From page 158... ...
146 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS TABLE 8-1 Issues Regarding Terminal Operating Efficiency Raised in AAPA Survey All Ports Container Ports All Other (n = 54)
|
From page 159... ...
Intermodal Terminal Efficiency 147 will allow the terminal managers to better control inventories and manage the flow of containers across the terminal (Port Development International 1991)
|
From page 160... ...
148 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS be staged such that the crane operator knows which container to pick up next and where it needs to go.
|
From page 161... ...
Intermodal Terminal Efficiency 149W example indicates that information can be provided in ways to protect proprietary interests while still permitting planning for complex, time-sensitive logistics. In the future the production of some goods will be planned such that they move out of the factory to a container, out of the port of exit, across the ocean, through a domestic port, and to the point of distribution.
|
From page 162... ...
150 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS A queue of trucks backs up at a port entrance awaiting processing.
|
From page 163... ...
Intermodal Terminal Efficiency 151 or drop containers, which may require only a clerk and one or two workers in the terminal, some local union work rules require that an entire crew be paid overtime for a full shift. For half of the container ports, expanded operating hours would reduce the delays encountered on landside routes (Table 8-1)
|
From page 164... ...
152 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS locals in renegotiating less restrictive limits on port operating hours.
|
From page 165... ...
Intermodal Terminal Efficiency 153 leaving a berth must be inspected by a longshore clerk. The clerk and the driver inspect the equipment and make note of any dents or damage.
|
From page 166... ...
154 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS until 4 hr before the deadline)
|
From page 167... ...
Intermodal Terminal Efficiency 155 About a quarter of the container port respondents believe off-dock designs are more efficient than on-dock. Almost all port respondents (91 percent)
|
From page 168... ...
156 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS which steamship companies, drayage firms, and double-stack rail operators can share data to enhance terminal efficiency.
|
From page 169... ...
Intermodal Terminal Efficiency 157 work rules. But given the monopoly positions of the longshoremen unions and the adversarial, zero-sum-game character of some labormanagement relations, longshoremen unions are not likely to agree to significant changes in operating practices without getting something in return (Kagan 1990, 168)
|
From page 170... ...
158 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS demands placed upon marine terminals and their access routes.
|
From page 171... ...
Intermodal Terminal Efficiency 159 Marine Board.
|
From page 172... ...
Appendix A Results of Survey on Landside Access by American Association of Port Authorities The following survey, mailed by the AmericanAssociation of Port Authorities (AAPA) to 85 member ports in the United States, received 54 responses.
|
From page 173... ...
Appendix A: AAPA Survey Results 161 Although the committee was well aware of problems with the questionnaire and the interpretation of the data, it has used the results because of the lack of other data or information. It has been conservative in its interpretation of the results in the body of the report and has striven to balance the perspectives of port officials with those of others concerned about and influenced by the transportation system.
|
From page 174... ...
162 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Percent of Port Income in Maritime Cargo No.
|
From page 175... ...
Appendix A: AAPA Survey Results 163 Are freight-only roads from highways to port terminals a viable option at your port considering all local group concerns? YES yes y/n no NO DK NA Total Number 1 6 12 14 20 0 2 S4 Percentage 1.9 11.1 20.4 25.9 37.0 0 3.7 100 Are there viable options for consolidated rail/truck corridors to port facilities?
|
From page 176... ...
164 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS YES yes y/n no NO DK NA NR Total Number 3 12 9 2 7 6 0 24 54 Percentage 5.6 24.1 16.7 3.7 5.6 13.0 7.4 44.4 100 How do environmental permit procedures impact the provision of port access improvements?
|
From page 177... ...
Appendix A: AAPA Survey Results 165 YES yes y/n no NO DK NA NR Total Number 23 22 5 1 0 0 1 2 54 Percentage 42.6 40.7 .9.3 1.9 0 0 1.9 3.7 100 Physical Impediments (a) Are operating constraints imposed by labor contracts the major restriction to operational solutions to congestion problems?
|
From page 178... ...
166 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Some- Always Usually times Rarely Never NA DK NR Total Number 3 1 13 20 12 2 1 2 54 Percentage 5.6 1.9 24.1 37.0 22.2 3.7 1.9 3.7 100 (b)
|
From page 179... ...
Appendix A: AAPA Survey Results 167 Some- Always Usually times Rarely Never NA DK NR Total Number 8 26 11 4 3 1 0 1 54 Percentage 14.8 48.1 20.4 7.4 5.6 1.9 0 1.9 100 (b) What are truckers' most frequent complaints about street signs?
|
From page 181... ...
Appendix A: AAPA Survey Results 169 More than Adjacent 1 mi Other NR Total Number 37 12 1 2 54 Percentage 68.5 22.2 1.9 3.7 100 32. If your port is served by intermodal terminals (e.g., rail-highway terminals, inland port facilities)
|
From page 182... ...
170 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS YES yes y/n no NO DK NA NR Total Number 13 15 13 8 3 1 0 1 54 Percentage 24.1 27.8 24.1 14.8 5.6 1.9 0 1.9 100 (b)
|
From page 183... ...
Appendix A: AAPA Survey Results 171 Some- Always Usually times Rarely Never NA DK NR Total Number 0 8 4 2 0 3 4 0 20 38.
|
From page 185... ...
Appendix A: AAPA Survey Results 173 YES yes y/n no NO DK NA NR Total Number 24 22 0 3 1 1 1 2 54 Percentage 44.4 40.7 0 5.6 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.7 100 (b) If yes, does it provide funding for Rail projects?
|
From page 186... ...
174 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Some- Always Usually times Rarely Never NA DK NR Total Number 4 8 12 7 0 0 21 2 54 Percentage 7.4 14.8 22.2 13.0 0 0 38.9 3.7 100 Defense-Related Access 49.
|
From page 187... ...
Appendix A: AAPA Survey Results 175 (b) Are hazardous material exemptions a problem?
|
From page 188... ...
Appendix B Survey of Inland Terminal Operators PREFACE The material in this appendix comes from a survey of terminal operators on the nation's rivers and inland waterways. The survey questionnaires were mailed to members of Inland Rivers Ports and Terminals, Inc., and the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association.
|
From page 189... ...
Appendix B: Survey of Inland Terminal Operators 177 Survey of Inland Terminal Operators THOMAS M
|
From page 190... ...
178 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS ments are presented about the responses of all 17 operators; others are directed toward the responses of individual terminal operators.
|
From page 191... ...
Appendix B: Survey of Inland Terminal Operators 179 Roadway Access Issues. As stated, the roadway access impediments adversely affecting port operations can be grouped into the following categories: capacity inadequacies, design inadequacies, and signing and marking inadequacies.
|
From page 192... ...
180 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS able to trucks serving the terminal as inadequate.
|
From page 193... ...
Appendix B: Survey of Inland Terminal Operators 181 TABLE B-i Urban Inland Terminal Operator Survey: Physical Access Issues -- Roadway Impediments Roadway Impediments Capacity Limits Draw- Design Sign Terminal General Congestion bridge Problems Inadequacies 1 X x 2 X X 3 4 S 6 X 7 X 8 9 10 x x x 11 x x 12 X 13 14 15 X X X X X 16 X X 17 X NOTE: X-indicators follow. General capacity limits: more than moderately inadequate highway access available to trucks serving terminal.
|
From page 194... ...
182 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Railway Access Issues Although railroads may be viewed as an alternative to highways in order to improve landside access to ports, several factors may harm the efficiency of the rail mode.
|
From page 195... ...
Appendix B: Survey of Inland Terminal Operators 183 TABLE B-2 Urban Inland Terminal Operator Survey: Physical Access Issues -- Railway Impediments Rail Impediments Track At-Grade Adverse Terminal Condition - Crossings Impact 1 2 X X 3 X 4 S 6 X 7 8 9 X 10 x x x 11 x x 12 13 14 is x 16 X 17 X NOTE: X-indicators follow. Track condition: condition of rail tracks more than moderately restricts rail access efficiency.
|
From page 196... ...
184 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS LAND USE ISSUES The inland terminal operators were asked the following series of questions about the land use impediments in their terminal areas: (a)
|
From page 197... ...
Appendix B: Survey of Inland Terminal Operators 185 TABLE B-3 Urban Inland Terminal Operator Survey: Land Use Issues Land Use Issues Noncargo Competition Change in Terminal Growth for Land Land Value 1 2 3 4 X X X S 6 X X 7 8 X X 9 X X 10 X 11 12 X X X 13 14 X X 15 X X 16 X X 17 X X X NOTE: X-indicators follow. Noncargo growth: more than moderate growth of noncargo activities at terminal in past 10 years.
|
From page 198... ...
186 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS veyors would require right-of-way access, although they could possibly share right-of-way with existing infrastructure and require less need for additional land.
|
From page 199... ...
Appendix B: Survey of Inland Terminal Operators 187 A second regulatory impediment question concerned the extent to which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulations affected terminal operators' plans to improve transportation movements and capacity at the terminal.
|
From page 200... ...
188 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS TABLE B-4 Urban Inland Terminal Operator Survey: Regulatory Issues Regulatory Issues Truck Corps Terminal Operations Regulations 1 2 3 4 X S 6 7 8 9 10 X 11 x 12 13 14 X is x 16 X 17 NOTE: X-indicators follow.
|
From page 201... ...
Appendix B: Survey of Inland Terminal Operators 189 TABLE B-S Urban Inland Terminal Operator Survey: Institutional Issues Institutional Issues Labor Required DOT/MPO Port Terminal Contracts Coordination Contact Contact 1 x x 2 X X 3 X X 4 X X S 6 7 X X X 8 X 9 X X 10 x x 11 X X 12 X X 13 X X 14 15 X 16 X X 17 NOTE: X-indicators follow. Labor contracts: labor contracts effectively limit hours of terminal operations.
|
From page 202... ...
190 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS efforts to contact these agencies about the transportation needs of the terminal.
|
From page 203... ...
Appendix C GLOSSARY Backhaul A carrier's return movement, opposite from the direction in which it earns higher revenue. Bill of lading Receipt of goods shipped signed by the person (or agent)
|
From page 204... ...
192 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS definition includes transfers between all freight modes involved in general cargo transportation (ship, rail, and truck)
|
From page 205... ...
Study Committee Biographical Information Michael S Bronzini, Chairman, is Director of the Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee.
|
From page 206... ...
194 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS Richard V
|
From page 207... ...
Study Committee Biographical Information 195 positions in engineering, operations, planning, and sales and marketing. From 1990 to 1992 he served as Vice-President, Marketing, of PTL.
|
From page 208... ...
196 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS iron ore projects in Australia.
|
From page 209... ...
Study Committee Biographical Information 197 Clyde E Pyers is Director, Office of Transportation Planning, Maryland Department of Transportation.
|
From page 210... ...
198 LANDSIDE ACCESS TO U.S. PORTS the Transportation Research Board, the Los Angeles -- Long Beach Propeller Club, American Society for Public Administration, Western Governmental Research Association, and the Advisory Committees of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and SCAG.
|
From page 211... ...
The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's purpose is to stimulate research concerning the nature and performance of transportation systems, to disseminate the information produced by the research, and to encourage the application of appropriate research findings.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.