DOCSLIB.ORG

Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Our Mission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Kentucky Transportation Center Research Report KTC -14-11/MTIC1-14-1F Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Our Mission We provide services to the transportation community through research, technology transfer and education. We create and participate in partnerships to promote safe and effective transportation systems. © 2014 University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Center Information may not be used, reproduced, or republished without our written consent. Kentucky Transportation Center 176 Oliver H. Raymond Building Lexington, KY 40506-0281 (859) 257-4513 fax (859) 257-1815 www.ktc.uky.edu Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Prepared for: Multimodal Transportation & Infrastructure Consortium by the Kentucky Transportation Center 11/21/2014 This Page Left Intentionally Blank. Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability Authors: Principal Investigator: Doug Kreis, PE, MBA, PMP Researcher(s): Sarah McCormack, MSc, CTL Research Engineer Christopher Van Dyke, MA Research Analyst Bryan Gibson, PhD Research Associate Multimodal Transportation and Infrastructure Consortium P.O. Box 5425 Huntington, WV 25703-0425 Phone: (304) 696-2313 • Fax: (304) 696-6088 Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. This page left intentionally blank. Table of Contents ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7 LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....16 CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABILITY………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20 Defining Sustainability………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Sustainable Business…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………21 CHAPTER 3: UNDERSTANDING PORT SUSTAINABILITY………………………………………………………………………………………………24 Sustainable Ports………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24 Target Areas for Port Sustainability…………………………………………………………………………………………………..29 Sustainable Policies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30 Operational Sustainability………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..38 Sustainable Infrastructure………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..47 Energy Efficiency as Sustainability…………………………………………………….………………………………………………52 Environmental Sustainability……………………………………………..……..……………………………………………………..54 Safety & Security as Sustainability Initiatives…………………………………………………………………………………….58 Efficiency as Sustainability ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….61 CHAPTER 4: 2012 SITE VISITS ‐ FOCUSING ON TANGIBLE TARGETS & VIEWING SUSTAINBILITY AS ECONOMIC INVESTMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..65 CHAPTER 5: 2013 SITE VISITS – LESSONS LEARNED: FOCUSING ON THE ECONOMIC BOTTOM LINE, WORKING DIRECTLY WITH INLAND PORT OPERATORS, AND CREATING A PRACTICAL TOOL………………….…..72 CHAPTER 6: A NEW TARGET ‐ SUPPLY CHAIN SUSTAINABILITY…………………………….……………………………………………………78 CHAPTER 7: MEASURABLE SUSTAINABILITY CHARACTERISTICS – BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS FOR AN AUDIT TEMPLATE OF INLAND PORT SUSTAINABILITY ………………………………………………………………………..83 Regional Sustainability Templates……………………………………………………………………………………………………84 1 General Sustainability Templates……………………………………………………………………………………………………..85 Kentucky Transportation Center’s Audit Template for Inland Port Sustainability……………………………..86 Template Design Challenges Identified by Site Visits with Stakeholders…………………………………………..88 CHAPTER 8: KTC INLAND PORT SUSTAINABILITY AUDIT TEMPLATE & SELF‐ASSESSMENT TOOL……………………………….90 Sustainability Accounting………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….91 EPA Port Management and ISO Standards………………………………………………………………………………………..95 Creating the Audit Template……………………………………………………...…………………………………………………….99 A Version Historyt of Audi Template Development ………………………………………………………………………..106 Future Directions .………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….109 The Template (Version 3) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….112 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...121 CHAPTER 9: ADDENDUM: THE EXPANSION OF THE PANAMA CANAL, STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF U.S. INLAND WATERWAYS, & SPECIFIC CHALLEGES FOR KY PORTS …………………………………………………………….124 Moving from a Coastal to an Inland Perspective …………………………………………………………………………….124 The Sustainable and Strategic Value of the U.S. Inland Waterway System ……………………….…………..125 The Impact of the Expansion of the Panama Canal ………………………………………………………………………..128 Specific Challenges to Implementation of Port Sustainability in Kentucky ……………………………………..131 APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL MEMO ON AMERICAN COASTAL & INLAND PORT SITE VISITS 2012 ………………………………..135 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….136 Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….138 Port Visits Port of Norfolk – Norfolk, Virginia………………………………………………………………………………………….139 Port of Savannah – Savannah, Georgia…………………………………………………………………………………..148 Port of Charleston – Charleston, South Carolina ……………………………………………………………………158 Concluding Thoughts – Norfolk, Savannah, Charleston ……………………………………………………….…169 Port of New Orleans – New Orleans, Louisiana ………………………………………………………………………170 Port of Houston – Houston, Texas ………………………………………………………………………………………….178 Port of Mobile – Mobile, Alabama ………………………………………………………………………………………….182 Concluding Thoughts – New Orleans, Houston, Mobile ………………………………………………………….186 Port of Paducah – Paducah, Kentucky …………………………………………………………………………………….188 Port of Memphis – Memphis, Tennessee ……………………………………………………………………………….191 Concluding Thoughts – Paducah, Memphis …………………………………………………………………………….197 Port of Cincinnati –Cincinnati, Ohio ………………………………………………………………………………………..198 Port of Louisville – Louisville, Kentucky ………………………………………………………………………………….201 Port of St. Louis – St. Louis, Missouri ………………………………………………………………………………………204 Concluding Thoughts Louisville, St. Louis ……………………………………………………………………………….206 Discussion – Transferable Initiatives for Inland Ports ……………………………………………………………..207 2 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL MEMO ON SECOND ROUND OF INLAND PORT SITE VISITS 2013 ………………………………………213 Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………213 Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………214 Port Visits Port of Paducah ………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………217 Owensboro Riverport ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….219 Henderson County Riverport Authority ……….………………………………………………………….……….222 Louisville – Jefferson County Riverport International ……………............................................224 Greenup‐Boyd County Riverport Authority ……………………………………………………………………….226 Columbiana County Port Authority ……………………………………………………………………………………229 Weirton Area Port Authority ……………………………………………………………………………………………..232 Eddyville Riverport Authority …………………………………………………………………………………………….235 Hickman‐Fulton County Riverport Authority ……………………………………………………………………..238 Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority …………………………………………………………..241 APPENDIX C: PROMOTIONAL BROCHURE FOR INLAND PORT SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT ...........................................244 APPENDIX D: KTC INLAND PORT SUSTAINABILITY SELF‐ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE VERSION HISTORY (V1, V2, V3) …….247 APPENDIX E: PORT TERMINOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….266 APPENDIX F: LISTING OF SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………274 WORKS CITED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………280 3 ABSTRACT This report serves as an assessment of port sustainability and its potential applications for the inland river ports of Kentucky and the surrounding region. The report discusses and defines sustainability, both generally as it relates to business and industry and specifically as it relates to the port industry. Given the unique nature of the inland port industry, the report reviews lessons learned from 11 port site visits conducted by Kentucky Transportation Center in 2012, primarily at major U.S. coastal ports but also representative inland ports. KTC’s analysis identifies the sustainability challenges facing various domestic and international ports, and what policy and operating initiatives are being undertaken to meet these challenges. This report then discusses KTC’s progress in tailoring the sustainability process identified during these visits to the inland port industry. Field visits to 13 public ports along the Ohio River were conducted in order to develop a sustainability self‐assessment tool, which took the lessons learned at coastal ports and large‐scale inland ports and applied them to the inland ports of Kentucky and the surrounding region. From these visits and the associated research, an audit template has been developed that allows inland port operators to assess and improve sustainability levels. The wealth of information compiled in this report, along with the associated appendices, will prove invaluable to the inland port industry. The research relayed to the industry has already proven to be a boon to the ports that participated in the project. The preliminary results
Recommended publications
  • Container Ship Size and Port Relocation Discussion Paper 169 Roundtable

    Container Ship Size and Port Relocation Discussion Paper 169 Roundtable

    CPB Corporate Partnership Board Container Ship Size and Port Relocation Discussion Paper 169 Roundtable Olaf Merk International Transport Forum CPB Corporate Partnership Board Container Ship Size and Port Relocation Discussion Paper 169 Roundtable Olaf Merk International Transport Forum The International Transport Forum The International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 59 member countries. It acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is the only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively integrated with the OECD. The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy. The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and pre- negotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promote exchange among transport decision-makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy. The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.
  • SEASONS: the 2012 Annual Report for the City of Greer

    SEASONS: the 2012 Annual Report for the City of Greer

    TEAM GREER SEASONS: The 2012 Annual Report for the City of Greer The City of Greer, South Carolina Founded: 1876 Population: 25,515 (2010 Census) Government: Council City Administrator: Edward Driggers Mayor: Rick Danner City Council: Jay Arrowood Wayne Griffin* Kimberly Bookert Lee Dumas Wryley Bettis Judy Albert * - Mayor pro tempore Area: Total 21.76 square miles Land 19.99 square miles Water 1.77 square mile Elevation 1,024 ft. Departments: Administration Building and Development Standards Fire Municipal Court Parks and Recreation Police Public Services Fiscal Year 2012 Budget: $17,588,375 Greer City Council District Representatives DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 6 Jay Wayne Kimberly Lee Wryley Judy Arrowood Griffin Bookert Dumas Bettis Albert CONTENTS 9 6 New Map Caps Redistricting Process After seven months of work and public discussion about the 10 redistricting process, Greer City Council successfully completed the arduous task with the Department of Justice’s approval. 7 Transit Oriented Development 101 A national planner helped Upstate elected officials, planners, and residents consider the future of the Highway 29 corridor. 11 14 8 Students Connect with Upstate Soldiers Soldiers in Kosovo received a special Thanksgiving greeting from a group of young artists and wordsmiths in Greer. 9 Concussion Training for Coaches Injuries are nothing new to NFL players and concussions are at the top of the list. What happens when youth league 20 players emulate their heroes when it comes to taking hits? 10 City Website Among ‘Best of the Best’ Departmental Reports A new design and creative features helped the City of Greer 22 Finance website earn honors from the Horizon Interactive Awards.
  • Inland Port Zoning Modifications Per HB 2001

    Inland Port Zoning Modifications Per HB 2001

    Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Daniel Echeverria, [email protected], 801-535-7165 Tracy Tran, [email protected], 801-535-7645 Date: September 26, 2018 Re: PLNPCM2018-00601 Inland Port Text Amendments Zoning Text Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: Multiple PARCEL ID: Multiple MASTER PLAN: Northwest Quadrant, Northwest ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple REQUEST: A proposal by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to modify zoning requirements related to inland port land uses as required by Utah Code 11-58-205(5). This statute gives the City until December 31, 2018 to allow an inland port and associated uses as permitted or conditional uses subject to standards that are determined by the municipality and consistent with the policies and objectives of the inland port authority. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and findings of this report, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed zoning text amendments meet the standards for a zoning ordinance amendment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation of petition PLNPCM2018-00601 to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A. Inland Port Jurisdictional Lands and Zoning Map B. Proposed Inland Port Overlay Zoning Ordinance Text C. Northwest Quadrant Overlay Zoning for Reference D. Conditional Use Standards for Reference E. M-1 Zoning District Land Use Table for Reference F. Analysis of Standards G. Department Review Comments H. Suggested Lighting Ordinance (from David Scheer) I. Public Process and Comments SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLNPCM2018-00601 1 Date Published: 9/20/2018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This zoning text amendment proposal was initiated by Mayor Jackie Biskupski in response to the State Legislature adopting modifications to Utah Code 11-58 “Utah Inland Port Authority Act” (HB2001) during a special session of the legislature held in July 2018.
  • Digitalizing the Port Call Process

    Digitalizing the Port Call Process

    UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORT AND TRADE FACILITATION Series No 13 Digitalizing the port call process UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORT AND TRADE FACILITATION Series No 1 Digitalizing the port call process Geneva, 2020 DIGITALIZING THE PORT CALL PROCESS © 2020, United Nations This work is available open access by complying with the Creative Commons licence created for intergovernmental organizations, available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States. The designation employed and the presentation of material on any map in this work do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Photocopies and reproductions of excerpts are allowed with proper credits. This publication has not been formally edited. United Nations publication issued by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UNCTAD/DTL/TLB/2019/2 eISBN: 978-92-1-004933-7 UNCTAD Transport and Trade Facilitation Series No. 13 ൟ2 DIGITALIZING THE PORT CALL PROCESS Acknowledgements This study has been compiled by Mikael Lind, Robert Ward, Michael Bergmann, Sandra Haraldson, and Almir Zerem with the Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE), in cooperation with Jan Hoffmann, chief of the Trade Logistics Branch, Division on Technology and Logistics, building upon related discussion and presentations by Mikael Lind at the UNCTAD Multi-Year Expert Meeting on Transport, Trade Logistics and Trade Facilitation in its sixth session on 21 to 23 November 2018.
  • Job Creation Factors for Inland and Near Dock Intermodal Facilities

    Job Creation Factors for Inland and Near Dock Intermodal Facilities

    Job Creation Factors for Inland and Near Dock Intermodal Facilities Chad Miller1, Brian Richard2, MD Sarder3,Tulio Sulbaran4, and Martin Lipinski5 1,2,3,4University of Southern Mississippi Center of Logistics, Trade, and Transportation 118 College Ave. #5022 Hattiesburg, MS 39406 (601) 266-6666; fax (601) 266-6071; email [email protected] 5University of Memphis Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute 3815 Central Ave, Memphis, TN 38152 (901) 678-3279; fax (901) 678-0404; email [email protected] ABSTRACT The major driving forces behind the establishment of intermodal facilities include number of jobs that will be created by the facility, freight performance improvement, and other economic benefits to the region. Job creation is the most tangible benefit that stakeholders use to justify the development of such facilities. This project explores different job creation factors for intermodal facilities in terms of facility types, management structures, financing options, and activitiesperformed. Near port and hinterland type facilities are analyzed separately. This project tests several hypotheses statistically to find the correlations among different job creation factors. The result shows that the public landlord model facility creates more jobs than the private operator model. The result also shows that facilities connected with well-established transportation network systems usually produce more jobs. INTRODUCTION In today’s growing global economy, intermodal facilities have become increasingly popular as a method of increasing efficiency and decreasing costs across the entire spectrum of supply chain operations. Regions across the country are seeking to establish intermodal facilities as a means to fostereconomic development and jobs. In order for a facility to be considered intermodal it must be accessible by more than one mode of transportation such as truck, rail, ship/barge, or plane.
  • Four Corners Intermodal Transloading Equinox 4Cite

    Four Corners Intermodal Transloading Equinox 4Cite

    FOUR CORNERS INTERMODAL TRANSLOADING EQUINOX 4CITE Final November 2016 4CITE Public Involvement Plan October, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Scenario C .................................................................................................................................... 15 Scenario D .................................................................................................................................... 15 Scenario E .................................................................................................................................... 15 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................ 1 C. Scenario Network Performance ................................................................................................... 15 A. Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Analysis Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 15 B. Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Level of Service Methodology ....................................................................................................... 19 Stakeholder and Public Outreach ....................................................................................................
  • Engagement Report Inland Port Proposed Zoning Modifications Qualtrics Survey Results

    Engagement Report Inland Port Proposed Zoning Modifications Qualtrics Survey Results

    Engagement Report Inland Port Proposed Zoning Modifications Qualtrics Survey Results Considering Typical uses of an inland port: · Rail lines that transfer freight to another mode of transportation, such as trucks · Large cranes that move freight between different transportation modes and temporary storage · Warehouses and distribution centers · Manufacturing facilities · Temporary storage of goods and materials awaiting distribution Do you see potential impacts to: Air Quality Yes No 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 # Field Choice Count 1 Yes 96.06% 390 2 No 3.94% 16 406 1 Do you see potential impacts to: Water, Sewer, or other Public Utilities Yes No 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 # Field Choice Count 1 Yes 89.37% 353 2 No 10.63% 42 395 2 Sensitive Natural Environments Yes No 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 # Field Choice Count 1 Yes 89.00% 356 2 No 11.00% 44 400 3 Salt Lake City Neighborhoods Yes No 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 # Field Choice Count 1 Yes 77.63% 302 2 No 22.37% 87 389 4 Do you have any other potential impacts you are concerned about? Not enough transparency the state doing whatever it wants w/o regard to the city or its residents Who benefits from the proposed “economic development”? Growth is to large for our area. We want a good area to enjoy. Increased population in valley, increased GHG emissions how it was created, who is on the boards, the facts that meetings are nt open My community has been footing the bill for all these public utility upgrades they say are required anyway but likely would not be.
  • SLC 2019 Resident Survey Results

    SLC 2019 Resident Survey Results

    SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENT SURVEY OFFICIAL 2019 SURVEY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENTS 1. Salt Lake City residents consistently report a high quality of life over time. 2. On average, residents rank investing in affordable housing programs as their highest priority city initiative. 3. 95% of respondents rank improving air quality as their highest environmental priority. 4. A majority of respondents believe Salt Lake City has job opportunities for them, but they also believe that the City can do more to attract businesses. 5. A plurality of residents would prefer to receive information regarding SLC via email. Fewer than a quarter report following the City’s social media accounts. 6. There is currently a general lack of knowledge regarding the Inland Port Project. Residents who follow the city’s social media accounts and use the city website report greater understanding of what the project is. 7. Favorability of the port is heavily divided with an average score of 42 on a scale of 0-100. Currently, greater understanding of the port is associated with less favorable opinions of it. 7FINDINGS TO REMEMBER SURVEY OBJECTIVES RESEARCH GOALS § Track approval of the City and the services it offers over time § Evaluate neighborhood perceptions regarding safety and city maintenance § Explore residents’ priorities regarding current City initiatives, including attitudes about public transit and the conditions of streets and roads § Examine from which communication channels residents most commonly receive information about the City and which modes they would prefer § Quantify understanding of and attitudes toward the Utah Inland Port SURVEY METHODOLOGY SAMPLING, MODE, & MARGIN OF ERROR § 1,297 residents within the boundaries of Salt Lake City participated in this survey.
  • Inland Port Logistics Center Road Improvements

    Inland Port Logistics Center Road Improvements

    IInnllaanndd PPoorrtt LLooggiissttiiccss CCeenntteerr RRooaadd IImmpprroovveemmeennttss D.O.T. National Infrastructure Investments FY2016 TIGER VIII Discretionary Grant Program Application TIGER VIII DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION PROJECT TITLE: INLAND PORT LOGISTICS CENTER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TYPE OF PROJECT: Road – New Capacity TYPE OF APPLICATION: Capital APPLICANT: CANAVERAL PORT AUTHORITY Local Government LOCATION OF PROJECT: Cocoa, Florida 32926 Brevard County Congressional District: FL‐15th District PROJECT AREA: Urban Area AMOUNT OF TIGER FUNDS REQUESTED: $9,672,638 APPLICATION AND PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Captain John W. Murray Chief Executive Officer Phone: (321) 783‐7831 Extension 233 Fax: (321) 783‐4651 Email: [email protected] Canaveral Port Authority 445 Challenger Road, Suite 301 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Table of Contents I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 3 II. PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................. 4 III. PROJECT PARTIES ................................................................................................................. 7 IV. GRANT FUNDS AND SOURCES/USES OF PROJECT FUNDS ................................................ 8 V. SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 8 A. Primary Criteria ‐ LONG‐TERM OUTCOMES ....................................................................
  • Central New York Inland Port Market Feasibility Study

    Central New York Inland Port Market Feasibility Study

    FINAL REPORT CENTRAL NEW YORK INLAND PORT MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY potenti PREPARED FOR: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBMITTED BY: RSG CENTRAL NEW YORK INLAND PORT MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED FOR: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Background ................................................................................................................ 1 Principal Findings ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 6 2.1 | Physical Requirements .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 | Central New York Inland Port Proposals: History ......................................................................... 7 3.0 INFORMATION SOURCES .............................................................................................................. 8 4.0 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS .................................................. 10 4.1 | Rail Service ................................................................................................................................. 10 4.2 | Highway ......................................................................................................................................
  • Intermodal & Logistics

    Intermodal & Logistics

    Intermodal & Logistics Winter 2019-2020 Market Scope 5 Current Market Trends The intermodal and logistics market is a dynamic and 1. Market Faces Urban Challenges: Largely due to the growing one, with various types of facilities, including rise of e-commerce and next-day delivery, our freight marine terminals, rail terminals, depots and container infrastructure is under strain. Shipments in 2018 grew yards, inland ports, freight airport terminals, and industrial 5.6% from 2017, setting a fifth volume record in the real estate located adjacent to intermodal facilities. last six years, according to the Intermodal Association Many facilities are like mini-cities, and a wide range of North America. Because many packages are now of engineering design services are required for their destined for individual residences, challenges extend creation and expansion, including land development, to not only those of the "last mile" but also the "final transportation, mechanical/electrical/plumbing, structural, fifty feet". As a result, smaller warehouses are being environmental, geotechnical, and water-related design. Continued on next page With more than 2,200 facilities, the North American intermodal market is the largest in the world. Top 10 Truck Bottlenecks in U.S. Peak Peak Avg. Avg. Top Clients Avg. Speed % Rank Location Speed Speed Change Major clients in this market sector contract with (mph) (mph) 2018- engineering firms directly, often using master service 2019 agreement-type contracts. These clients include: 1 Fort Lee, NJ: I-95 at SR 4 31.7 23.0 -7.65% 1. Ports: There are more than 300 ports in the United 2 Atlanta, GA: I-285 at I-85N 34.8 22.9 -7.35% States (source: U.S.
  • Basic Concepts of Maritime Transport and Its Present Status in Latin America and the Caribbean

    Basic Concepts of Maritime Transport and Its Present Status in Latin America and the Caribbean

    or. iH"&b BASIC CONCEPTS OF MARITIME TRANSPORT AND ITS PRESENT STATUS IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN . ' ftp • ' . J§ WAC 'At 'li ''UWD te. , • • ^ > o UNITED NATIONS 1 fc r> » t 4 CR 15 n I" ti i CUADERNOS DE LA CEP AL BASIC CONCEPTS OF MARITIME TRANSPORT AND ITS PRESENT STATUS IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN UNITED NATIONS Santiago, Chile, 1987 LC/G.1426 September 1987 This study was prepared by Mr Tnmas Sepûlveda Whittle. Consultant to ECLAC's Transport and Communications Division. The opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily coincide with those of the United Nations. Translated in Canada for official use by the Multilingual Translation Directorate, Trans- lation Bureau, Ottawa, from the Spanish original Los conceptos básicos del transporte marítimo y la situación de la actividad en América Latina. The English text was subse- quently revised and has been extensively updated to reflect the most recent statistics available. UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS Sales No. E.86.II.G.11 ISSN 0252-2195 ISBN 92-1-121137-9 * « CONTENTS Page Summary 7 1. The importance of transport 10 2. The predominance of maritime transport 13 3. Factors affecting the shipping business 14 4. Ships 17 5. Cargo 24 6. Ports 26 7. Composition of the shipping industry 29 8. Shipping conferences 37 9. The Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences 40 10. The Consultation System 46 * 11. Conference freight rates 49 12. Transport conditions 54 13. Marine insurance 56 V 14.