D. Hamm Presentation

Port Industry Day

10/12/05

Comments on “A Call to Action”

 

Members of the panel, friends and colleagues, ladies and gentlemen it is a pleasure to present to you today on the topic of the report prepared by the Waterfront Coalition on the National Marine Container Transportation System, titled “A Call To Action”.

 

I am Don Hamm, President of Port Newark Container Terminal, currently the third largest terminal in New York Harbor handling 550,000 units on an annualized basis.  For those of you who count in TEU’s that is approximately 935,000 TEU’s.  P&O Ports and Maersk Sea Land own PNCT equally.  But more about our terminal later, right now let’s move on to the report titled “A Call To Action”.

 

All of us employed by this industry realize that the business has changed dynamically over the last 15 years and, here on the East Coast, especially over the last 5 years.  We on the East Coast too are experiencing double digit growth rates in volume as the business either diverts from the West Coast or organically grows, spurned on by the decrease in manufacturing capacity in the U.S.  This growth is a phenomenon, which will not change but will require significant modifications and upgrades in the terminal infrastructure and intermodal operating capacities available to handle this increase in volume.  The subject report addresses many of these issues and, while I do not subscribe to all positions in the report, I applaud the efforts expended in organizing the issues in a format which will stimulate debate and emphasize the areas which need long-term consideration, planning and ultimately change.

 

First premise “We must improve the productivity, efficiency and throughput of all American blue-water ports”.  In the report under this area, there are 6 topics which are headlined and each is tremendously pertinent and I will address them later but I think it omits one of the most important issues facing the maritime industry as it grows, creating thousands of high paying, tax paying, regional enhancing enterprises and that is “we don’t do a good job in insuring that the waterfront and adjacent property is used for waterborne cargo”.  A good example is Port Newark where 25% of the 930 acres available is utilized for industries which have no direct dependency on the waterfront to support their businesses.  Through this practice, the landlord is directly contributing to the constraint of the waterborne cargo handling capacity of the port, reducing efficiencies and actually turning away business which would provide high paying blue collar jobs for our longshoremen and the highly efficient delivery of goods to the surrounding population.  I am not a proponent of putting these ancillary businesses out of business, just relocate them to the off-port areas which are currently available for development.  The rule of thumb should be, if you have a piece of property or building in the port and the goods handled there have been moved from or to a marine terminal or elsewhere, that business doesn’t need to be in the port and is taking up space which can be utilized to handle cargo to be loaded aboard or discharged from a vessel. This is additional capacity, which we are not using today but will be needed in the future to keep pace with the forecasted growth.  Some experts would say just densify the existing terminal footprints – and this too is an option which the recent terminal investment in the Port is achieving but it will not be sufficient to satisfy the forecasted demand.  The terminal operators have already invested in off-dock CY’s to handle empties and in some cases chassis but we can’t work the vessels on the Passaic River.  Unfortunately, vessels can only be worked at deep water berths and need marshalling areas for their cargo.

 

The second opportunity in the waterfront capacity area is the single stacking of autos in the port.  Currently, there is probably 300 acres utilized for car parking between Port Elizabeth and Port Newark maybe more depending on the time of year.  Isn’t it time we start seriously considering investing in multi-storied parking garages which will meet the demand of the car manufacturers for the processing of the imports which arrive in New York.  Doesn’t it make sense that we gain back valuable property for other types of waterborne industries at the same time providing the auto processors with additional property on which to handle the growth in their industry?  Isn’t this like killing two birds with one stone?  This is not a novel idea as they are already doing this in Europe.

 

The issues covered in the terminal efficiency part of the report on which I will comment are as follows:

 

“Making harbor trucking a profitable business”

There are owner operators giving up their trucks every day, some say as many as 80,000 last year alone.  This is a trend, which must be stopped if we are to handle the growth predicted over the next 5 – 10 years.  It is all about earning power and it is true that the slow service of trucks at marine terminals contributes to the ability or lack thereof of the owner operator to make a fair return on his truck.  It is something we at PNCT discuss and make decisions to assist many times every day.  There are however certain issues which arise for which the terminal doesn’t possess the solutions.  Currently between 20-30% of the trucks arriving at our facility must go to a trouble window to resolve a problem over which we have no control.  These problems range from incorrect booking numbers, no insurance clearance, holds on cargo by line, bringing the containers to the wrong terminal, unpaid demurrage, unpaid VACIS, no chassis, incomplete hazardous material information, containers not on file, etc.  These problems are also for the most part out of the control of the owner operator but are very much in the control of the dispatcher who sent them to our terminal.  In essence, in many cases, the very company for whom the owner-operator works is slamming the owner-operator by not preplanning his trip.  At PNCT we are developing a Website, which will allow the truckers to get these questions answered before he is dispatched to the terminal.  If used, this will speed up the servicing of up to 20% of the trucks calling at the facility.

 

“Operating ports during extended hours”

PNCT has, with the advice and consent of the Bi-State Trucking Association, started offering extended hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays, keeping our gates open to 2000 hours.  So far the response has been less than expected averaging about 150 units serviced against a capacity of 5-700.  This is an expensive operation for PNCT which if fully utilized is worthwhile and a definite boon to increased capacity.  If however it is not utilized, we will have 2 choices: stop offering the extended hours which will jam more cargo through our daytime gates slowing the truck turn-time or conversely, follow the lead of our West Coast colleagues and put in some modification of the PierPASS system which has shown so much promise by encouraging as much as 35% of the cargo to be moved off hours.  As they say “necessity is the mother of invention”!

Operating terminals during extended hours is definitely the way of the future, the only question remains is how will we accomplish it without breaking the bank.

 

“Developing regional or national chassis pools”

Currently PNCT has 16 of 180 acres devoted to chassis storage for the servicing of the containers moving over our facility.  At the same time both state and federal government are coming up with laws governing the liability connected with dispatching these chassis on the road.  I do not believe that marine terminals belong in this equation which is a commercial tool developed by the lines to service their cargoes.  If they want to provide chassis to their freight they should go off terminal and set up chassis pools to do so, or alternatively join common pools established by the leasing companies to service the trade.  If the chassis are forced off terminals the lines by necessity will have to join common pools as truckers cannot be cost effective if they have to, for example:  deliver a Hapag box on a Hapag chassis and then leave the terminal to get a NYK chassis to make their next move. Again “necessity is the mother of invention”!  Chassis are a cost item to a terminal; we make our money loading and discharging vessels and receiving and delivering containers to/from trucks and rail. Every truck arriving at our facility should have a chassis.  There should be no bobtails.  When we talk about quick dispatch at marine terminals just imagine the time saved if the trucker already had his chassis when he arrived and this same chassis could be used for any subsequent moves.  The improvement in truck turn-time would be significant.

 

Rethinking “free time” and managing it more efficiently:

 

Currently PNCT’s dwell time on imports is 5.2 days and approximately the same on exports.  This is despite service contracts agreed to by the lines which could be as long as 30 days for certain commodities although PNCT only allows a max of 15 days.  I consider this, the lines buying the cargo with the terminal operators money because while the extended free time box is sitting on terminal, the terminal operator is deprived of utilizing that space for another paying box.  This is a practice which will have to be curtailed in the future.  Whatever happened to “Just in Time” inventories?  Maybe it is only just in time unless we can store our goods on your nickel!  The NY/NJ terminal operators are making inroads with free time and you can expect more in the near future.  We want to encourage greater cargo velocity by moving the boxes off the marine terminal more promptly.  If we can accomplish this, the result will be significantly increased terminal capacity, which is one of the premises this study is directed at.

 

Spreading out vessel schedules:

 

As an eastern port depending on the North Atlantic weather for schedule integrity, it is like gambling at Atlantic City – sometimes you win but most times you lose.  We are not in a good position.  Ships arriving 4 days or more late is not uncommon especially during winter months and this creates havoc with terminal capacity, production and the bottom line.  To understand the impact on a terminal for example, when a weekly-scheduled vessel is a week late, we have to manufacture space for an extra vessel’s export freight while awaiting the delayed ship, and manufacture capacity for an extra vessel’s discharged containers after the late ship finally leaves.  The cost of this operation is extreme when you calculate the extra moves and gate hours expended during the receiving and delivery process to handle the late cargo.  Today there are terminals in the world where if a vessel is late and misses its assigned berthing window, they must pay a surcharge to the terminal operator to cover the extra expense caused by the late vessel.  I predict that this will become a practice in the U.S. as terminal space continues to tighten.

 

Others Items of interest in paper:

 

Short Sea Shipping – This paper predicts that Short Sea Shipping is not expected to result in any significant benefit.  I feel that there will be a place for this mode of transportation in the future but only after the roads are so congested that alternatives must be found and mandated.  The problem with this mode is the inherent cost in handling the boxes on and off the barge.  This mode has been successfully deployed for years in Europe on the various rivers and between proximate countries, and I feel we will use it as well here in the U.S.

 

Shuttle Trains – The report predicts and I agree that shuttle trains are not likely until we come to grips with upgrading the current long haul rail system to handle the projected volume increases.  I believe that nighttime truck shuttles to inland terminals are more likely in the immediate future utilizing the off-peak traffic hours to strategically position boxes closer to destination and out of the clutter of port traffic.

 

 

Summary

 

The report while defining issues, which need to be addressed, is essentially attempting to solve problems, which are being caused by a very positive occurrence, that being the growth of the maritime industry over the next decade.  What other industry has the same healthy forecasts for which they must plan.  In my opinion this is potential knocking at our door and if we put our parochial interests aside for a short time and work together I am convinced we will come up with plans in all areas to handle the demand.

 

This concludes my comments.  Thanks for you attention today.