Ports & Infrastructure

Designing Greener and Denser Terminals

By Robert S. Johansen, P.E.

Larger ships are creating a demand for port and intermodal container terminals to handle more containers — and handle them faster. At the same time, terminal operators are under regulatory and societal pressures to enhance security and reduce environmental impacts such as congestion and pollution. With careful planning, terminals can be built or redesigned to meet all of these objectives.

System Approach

New technologies provide an important part of the answer, but incorporating them in a piecemeal fashion limits the overall improvement potential. For example, newer cranes with a theoretical productivity of 40–50 gross lifts per work hour may actually achieve only 25–35 lifts per work hour because of yard service limitations.
Using a systems approach to planning and design

• improves terminal operations
• increases productivity
• enhances reliability

A systems approach requires viewing the terminal as a set of interacting components — understanding the characteristics of each element within the system as well as the dynamics at work between these elements. They must also take into account the objectives imposed by multiple stakeholders.

Simulation modeling tools can help find the answers. Testing various terminal configurations and equipment selections through computerized models lets planners quantify the benefits of different systems, while measuring the environmental impacts of each scenario.

Two intermodal terminals on the U.S. West Coast have demonstrated how the systems approach to planning and design, facilitated by simulation modeling, can increase productivity and reduce costs — while being environmentally responsible.

Los Angeles Example

The Union Pacific (UP) Railroad operates the intermodal container transfer facility (ICTF) in Los Angeles. The facility is the main off-dock rail yard serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. At its current volume of 715,000 lifts per year, the ICTF is approaching capacity. UP is examining a number of innovative options to increase the facility’s capacity and reduce its environmental impact.

The ICTF currently uses diesel-powered, small-gauge, rubber-tired gantry cranes (RTGs), each serving one rail track. Street trucks, along with the terminal’s fleet of diesel tractors, service the RTGs and the wheeled container storage area. Under a proposed modernization plan, the operation would change to electrically powered rail-mounted gantry cranes (RMGs) and high-density trackside stacked storage. RMG operations would allow more rail tracks to fit into the existing space, and the more compact storage arrangement would further increase the terminal’s operational density.

This terminal redesign would
• roughly double annual volume to 1.5 million lifts
•  increase 40-foot container storage spots from 3,500 to 8,400
• reduce the operational footprint by 24 percent

Besides the increased capacity, this unique design also offers environmental benefits:

•  Eliminating the diesel-powered cranes and yard hostlers, while increasing the efficiency of the operation, will dramatically affect air quality.
• An automatic gate system, using an increased number of lanes, will reduce street truck dwells by half.
• Greater operational efficiency of the RMG configuration will also reduce truck loading and unloading times.
These improvements, along with more efficient train switching operations, will reduce diesel particulate matter emissions by 74 percent and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by more than 55 percent.

Energy efficiency is another benefit. RTGs burn fuel while idling as well as during gantrying, lifting, and lowering operations. In contrast, RMGs consume electric power only during the lifting and gantrying portions of their duty cycle and, in fact, generate electricity when lowering cargo containers. Simulation analysis revealed that the energy cost per move with the RMGs would be only 40 percent of what it is with the current RTG and yard hostler operation.
The RMGs and stacked container storage will also produce substantially less noise than the RTG operation. The electric cranes are quieter than diesel models and also place containers more quietly. The new operation mode will also eliminate the noise created by the backup safety horns used on the existing 10 RTGs and 73 yard hostlers.

Oakland Example

The Port of Oakland (POAK) has been operating as an intermodal facility since 1962, with facilities operated by both the SP and UP Railroads (now consolidated as the UP). Its international trade is expected to double between 2005 and 2020, and higher-capacity terminals are needed to keep pace with that growth.

On-dock space is limited, but two large parcels of adjacent land have become available in recent years. Using land made available by the 1998 closure of the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, POAK developed an 85-acre joint intermodal terminal (JIT). BNSF Railroad has operated the terminal since 2002.

Plans are now under way to create an outer harbor intermodal terminal (OHIT) on additional land made available through the 1999 closure of the Oakland Army Base. This new near-dock facility will increase the port’s annual rail terminal capacity from 640,000 containers to 1.7 million. Electrically powered RMGs are being recommended because they are energy efficient and create no local air pollution. Plans also incorporate the potential for automated operations.

Automated container terminals are new developments in the United States. Given this limited experience, it was important to carefully evaluate the safety aspects of automated cranes for intermodal operations at the OHIT.

Simulation modeling provided the ability to develop a unique terminal design that minimizes risk by reducing the number of people involved in the operation, while providing for the safe and efficient movement of containers on the street trucks and rail cars through the automated intermodal environment. Furthermore, the design enhances security by electronically controlling and recording all container movements, allowing for the automatic scanning of cargo while in the intermodal yard, and preventing truck drivers from accessing containers.

Simulation modeling was also used to assess the environmental impacts of artificial lighting. The OHIT design criteria now includes the use of special globes and cutoff covers on the lights to allow the terminals to have appropriate night lighting for safety reasons, while minimizing the spillage of light off the property. Also, since automated operations do not require light for the spotting and movement of containers, artificial light can be automatically turned on only when necessary to support maintenance and other ancillary functions.

A related issue, the adjacent estuary property contained a nesting site for California least terns, an endangered species. Simulated lighting studies were conducted to determine the light levels, the light spillage and how it would affect the birds’ nesting habits.

Automated container handling offers many advantages in terms of operating cost and efficiency. It can also produce denser storage. With containers stacked one-over-five high, representative storage yields per net container-yard acre are 360 TEUs for RTGs; 550 TEUs for RMGs; and 780 TEUs for automated stacking cranes. Automated operations also increase safety and security and produce less air, noise and light pollution.

These advantages are making automation more appealing to port terminal operators here and abroad. When coupled with diminishing land availability, surging demand for greater throughput volume and increasing regulatory and societal pressure for environmental responsiveness, the potential benefits are overwhelming. However, moving away from labor-intensive operations, with the perceived job losses, will require compelling persuasion. The growth in cargo volumes and the need for new worker classifications should offset this perception as the number of jobs actually increases.
Simulation modeling makes it possible to reliably predict the costs of building (or rebuilding) and operating terminals; quantify the environmental benefits; and measure the safety and security aspects. These will be important factors in moving to more efficient, productive, and environmentally responsible terminal designs.

About the Author

As the marine planning director for DMJM Harris, Robert Johansen oversees the master planning, conceptual design and detailed design of maritime and intermodal facilities. He has more than 40 years of experience with planning, design, project management and construction management in the maritime and mining industries. Before joining JWD Group, which subsequently became part of DMJM Harris, he was manager of facilities engineering for American President Lines. In that capacity he served as project manager for the planning, design and construction of APL’s Global Gateway Intermodal Container Terminal at the Port of Los Angeles. Johansen is a registered civil engineer in California and Texas, a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and a past member of the American Society of Professional Engineers (ASPE) and the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE).