We use a standard container port handling capacity in establishing national port development plan. Are there any case using this kind of norm capacity for the development plan?
'기본카테고리' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 세계 인명사전에 등재 (0) | 2010.11.01 |
|---|---|
| 2011년 인천대 동북아물류대학원 계약학과 학생 모집 요강 (0) | 2010.10.27 |
| 국내 컨테이너부두시설 확보제도 개선방향연구 (0) | 2010.10.24 |
| 물류는 무엇을 배우는 것입니까? (0) | 2010.10.24 |
| 인천대 동북아물류대학원 기사_물류신문 (0) | 2010.10.24 |
BenedictStop Following Follow Benedict
Benedict Young • Hi Chang, Can you elaborate on your question to explain the processes you are following? There are several members of the group that work in this area and may be able to respond to you if you add more detail. Thanks
JolkeStop Following Follow Jolke
Jolke Helbing • besides perhaps trying to use a standard for capacity calculation for future new capacity it will be worhtwhile to see the historic development of the ports in question and what upgrades are planned for in the masterplan.
ScottStop Following Follow Scott
Scott Schoenfeld
• Hi Chang, When looking at Korean Capacity planning if I remember the standard was 300K teu per each 350m berth with 3 cranes is that right? This standard is very limiting as if you look at individual terminals with one berth it may be appropriate, but with multiple berths in a terminal the capacity increases per berth meter and hectare. Can (did) lead to some overdevelpment at BNP and Gwanyang?
SarathkumaraStop Following Follow Sarathkumara
Sarathkumara Premachandra • Since I am currently involved in a project in BNP (phase 2-3/BNCT) I do not think there is over development. Considering the limitations of the old Pusan port and its Terminals, I believe the development of capacity in BNP is both timely and well planned. With the introduction of semi automation,(a wise decision) the capacities of Terminals have been enhanced immensely. What do you mean by standard capacity ? If you can elaborate on parameters currently used then we can share views.
Chang Ho Yang • Hi, Benedict Young, Scott Schoenfeld, Jolke Helbing, Sarathkumara Premachandra, Thank you for your comments even if it's my first question on this pannel.
The purpose of the issue I suggested is to know foreign countries' case that have national or local gonernment guideline of standard for capacity for the calculation newly developing container terminal berthes.
Actually in my countries Korea, there is a standard guideline capacity for the container terminal that is 400k teu per each 350m berth with 3 cranes as Mr. Scott Schoenfeld said (but revised up to 400k teu from 300k teu several years ago).
Recently I'm studying this guideline' problems in terms of quality of terminal constructed even if the guideline is for long term national planning purpose.
At this present, I'll suggest to my government that the guideline is no use for planning for the future container terminal development, rather simply estimating the needed port handling volumes. To do so the privates can make high productivity container terminal especially for the VLCSs.
Kok ChoonStop Following Follow Kok Choon
Kok Choon Tan • In my opinion, standard guidelines of container terminal capacity are misleading and often incorrect. I suggest the best way is to use simulation models of the planned development to estimate the capacity taking into account the demand, vessel arrival and workload patterns, berth and crane specifications, total number of cranes per linear berth stretch, equipment productivity, yard support, etc. That's what we have done in Singapore, where annual berth capacity can vary from 700k TEU to 1m TEU per berth of 360m with 4 or 5 cranes (some are tandem lift cranes).
Chang Ho Yang • Thank you, Mr. Kok Choon Tan, that is my point also. In my study berth capacity could be up to 1mil. teu each 400m berth with 5 tandem cranes when serving the VLCSs.
SarathkumaraStop Following Follow Sarathkumara
Sarathkumara Premachandra • I fully agree with Mr Tan.Even complex standard simulation models available are inadequate to measure specific situations in different Ports. Each Country/ port need to develop its own simulation model taking into consideration unique factors that affect berth productivity.
Chang Ho Yang • Mr.Sarathkumara Premachandra and Mr. Scott Schoenfeld, I am sorry for late reply for your comment. Actually BNP, and Gwangyang terminal do not show good results still. Overcapacity problem is caused by the guideline of capacity of container terminal even it is for long term planning. Based on the long term planning 5-10yrs ago, BNPs' terminal are constructing, but at planning time a berth's handling capacity was only 400k teu! My main point is that when planning do not plan berth meter by guideline capacity but just estimating port handling volumes. To do so the privates can make high productivity container terminal especially for the VLCSs eliminating overcapacity problem.
SarathkumaraStop Following Follow Sarathkumara
Sarathkumara Premachandra • You are correct in saying 5-10 year old plans are not realistic for Terminal development as many factors change in the short term. In the case of BNP, introduction of semi automation has naturally increased the capacity of Terminals.I think its still too early to decide BNP has over capacity. As we know many shipping lines have invested in BNP Terminals. I am sure they did their homework before taking the decision to invest. My understanding was that BNP would eventually fully take over the business of old Pusan Terminals. As the old Terminals face capacity problems resulting from lack of space for development and restrictions imposed by City congestion, it is unavoidable that many shipping lines would shift their operations to BNP gradually. Thanks to the down turn in shipping during the last year traffic volumes were below expectations. However now we see a remarkable recovery where some Korean lines have registered over 40% growth. With the potential to handle transshipment traffic, the currently visible over capacity will soon be a thing of the past. The problem with many Asian ports is shortage of capacity due to bad planning or delayed implementation.
To a port that has Transshipment potential, overcapacity is an asset that can be effectively utilized.
Chang Ho Yang • Mr. Sarathkumara Premachandra, I fully agree with your mention on the potentiality of BNP. Originally BNP's planning were 25 berth on 8.5km and it's total handling capacity was 10,000k teu in total based on guideline of 400k teu per berth. But most of BNP terminal were developing with more than 600k teu handling capacity by the private companies. It could lead BNP's handling capacity might be more than 50% over the planning in total up to 15,000k teu. I know BNP have a merit on site for transsipment, so this amount of overcapacity could be utilized in some year, and also could be an asset on transshipment potential as you said.
markStop Following Follow mark
mark sisson • I would echo the comments of Kok Choon Tan that a custom analysis of the particular terminal or port in question is the best way to get a quality result. AECOM has developed a proprietary statistical model we call BERTHA that takes into account vessel on-time probability and allows the user to examine the relationship between berth throughput and the likelihood that one or more vessels will have to queue for berth space.
This model is now the standard for the two largest ports in the US, Los Angeles and Long Beach. The link below shows an AECOM capacity report featuring the BERTHA model used as an official supporting document to an EIR at the Port of Long Beach
http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5149 )