Evaluation of Intermodal Marine Container Terminal Gates via Simulation

Transcription

1 Evaluation of Intermodal Marine Container Terminal Gates via Simulation Jeffery Karafa, Mihalis M. Golias,, Martin Lipinski Department of Civil Engineering & Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute University of Memphis 2012 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Forum Madison September 6-7, 2012 Madison, Wisconsin

2 The problem Container volumes are predicted to double over the next years Volume increases must be met with physical expansion or increases in efficiency Source:

3 The effect Congestion concerns are coupled with emissions concerns Diesel emissions are known to contain carcinogens Drayage activities are a major source of emissions at ports Source:

4 Source: The choke point In-gate processing is another source of delay for drayage operations. In-gate processing includes: Identity verification Checking container availability Equipment inspection Dispatching yard equipment Typical delay is 4-5 min.

5 The tools Attempts to increase terminal gate efficiency include: Installing advanced technology Extending gate operation hours Appointment systems Source:

6 The Objective(s) Can we use state of the practice traffic simulation models and quantify benefits from employment of gate strategies Congestion via delays (gates) & travel times Emissions Increase terminal productivity

7 Authors Software Port Huynh & Walton (2005) Contribution Entrance Gates Terminal Yard Exit Gates IMCT Road Network Arena Houston no yes yes no Fischer et al. (2006) QuickTrip LA/Long Beach no no no no Moini (2010) Arena Generic yes yes yes no Lee et al. (2011) Paramics Singapore no yes no yes Dougherty (2010) Vissim Newark/ Elizabeth no no no yes Karafa and Golias (2012) Paramics Newark/ Elizabeth yes yes yes yes

8 Newark Liberty Int l Airport 2. I I Doremus Ave. 5. Port St. 6. PNCT Terminal Maher Terminal APM Terminal 9. Maher chassis depot 10. PNCT chassis depot 11. North Ave. 12. Newark Bay Source: Google Earth

9 Modeling Contributions Don t lose the truck Capture delays at gates Model delays within terminal

10 Don t Lose the Truck!! Multiple zones at each entrance Allows for the creation of waypoint routes Zone type allows vehicles to enter simulation at link speed

11 Delays at Gates Terminal gates were modeled using toll feature Allowed for discrete uniform delays from s. Each terminal gate was set up as a series of 3 tolls to approximate normal distribution

12 Delays within terminal Terminal operations modeled as a roadway network Delay from operations == Delay on roadway network How accurate??

13 Scenarios 1. Base Scenario (2006) 2. Extended Hours (2006) 3. Appointment (2006) 4. Base Scenario (2020) 5. Extended Hours (2020) 6. Appointment (2020) Each scenario was run for 100 iterations. The results are the average values scenarios were created by increasing the volumes of the ODs by 25%.

14 Travel Time: % of Base Case 20% Extended Hrs. 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% 10% Apt. System 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% Hour APM Maher PNCT Hour APM Maher PNCT

15 Delays What Gates: is wrong % of here? Base Case Extended Hrs. Apt. System 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% -100% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% Maher PNC T Hour APM Maher PNCT Hour

16 Time in terminal % Extended Hrs. 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% Apt. System 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% Hour APM Maher PNCT Hour

17 -7% -6% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 2006 CO CO2 HC NO Fuel PM -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% Ext Apt 2020 Emissions CO CO2 HC NO Fuel PM Ext Apt

18 Conclusion Extended hours outperforms appointment lanes under heavy congestion Simulation should include entire roadway network (capture interactions of terminal gates and roadway) Future research Turn times in terminal as a function of volume Optimization algorithms for dynamic appointment systems Dynamic allocation of appointment lanes

19 Acknowledgement This case study has been funded by the Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute (IFTI), University of Memphis and the National Center for Freight & Infrastructure Research & Education (CFIRE), University of Wisconsin. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IFTI or CFIRE.

20 Evaluation of Intermodal Marine Container Terminal Gates via Simulation Jeffery Karafa, Mihalis M. Golias,, Martin Lipinski Department of Civil Engineering & Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute University of Memphis 2012 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Forum Madison September 6-7, 2012 Madison, Wisconsin