Fremantle Inner Harbour Container Movement Study
Department for Planning and Infrastructure Fremantle Ports Main Roads Western Australia Sea Freight Council of Western Australia
March 2004 Fremantle Inner Harbour Container Movement Study
March 2004 Department for Planning and Infrastructure Fremantle Ports Main Roads Western Australia Sea Freight Council of Western Australia
Sinclair Knight Merz ABN 37 001 024 095 590 Orrong Road, Armadale 3143 PO Box 2500 Malvern VIC 3144 Australia Tel: +61 3 9248 3100 Fax: +61 3 9248 3631 Web: www.skmconsulting.com
COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Contents
1. Introduction 1 1.1 Context 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 This report 1 1.4 Acknowledgments 2 2. Executive Summary 3
3. Objectives 6 3.1 Specific objectives 7 3.2 Data targeted 8 4. Approach adopted 9 4.1 Qualitative discussions 9 4.2 Quantitative survey 10 4.2.1 Approach 10 4.2.2 Data capture rates 12 4.2.3 Assessment of survey completeness 13 4.2.4 Data cleansing 17 4.2.5 Annualising findings 18 4.2.6 Sensitivity analyses – road rail market share 22 4.3 Ultimate journey origins and destinations 23 4.4 Video Survey 24 5. Analyses and Discussion 28 5.1 Total land transport task for Fremantle Inner Harbour containers 29 5.2 Movements to and from stevedores 36 5.3 Import related container movements 37 5.4 Export related container moves 39 5.5 Empty container moves 40 5.6 Assessment of port zones 43 6. Discussion 45 6.1 Overall complexity is less than other ports 45 6.2 Inability for any player to optimise overall 46 6.3 Interim moves 46 6.4 Complex task optimisation 47 6.5 Movement of empty containers 47 6.6 20 foot versus 40 foot containers 50 6.7 Length of container journeys 51
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE i 6.8 Journeys to and from Inner Harbour length by origin and destination type 53 6.9 Container journey origin and destination locations 56 6.9.1 All origins and destinations 59 6.9.2 Ultimate origins and destinations 61 6.9.3 Moves to and from ultimate and all origins and destinations by postcode 62 6.10 Movement patterns 75 6.11 Road / rail market share 76 6.11.1 Ove rall market share 76 6.11.2 Rail market share to and from the port by journey length 77 6.11.3 Increasing rail’s market share 80 6.12 Potential for intermodal terminals 81 6.13 Times of Day 82 6.14 Container carrying vehicle types observed 86 6.15 Container truck utilisation (empty running) 87 6.16 Dangerous goods 88 7. Opportunities 89
Appendix A Summary of views raised in discussions 96 A.1 Overview 97 A.2 Issues raised by most interviewees across the sea freight supply chain 97 A.3 Stevedores 98 A.4 Road transport operators 99 A.5 Cargo handling companies 101 A.6 Container truck drivers 102 A.6.1Hourly paid drivers 102 A.6.2Drivers on commodity, unit or container rates 103 A.6.3Owner drivers 103 A.7 Rail operators 103 A.8 Container parks 104 A.9 End users 105 A.9.1Importers 105 A.9.2Exporters 105 A.10 Shipping lines 106 A.11 Others 106 A.11.1Fremantle Ports 106 A.11.2Unions 107 Appendix B Quantitative data collection form 108
Appendix C Statistical tables 111
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE ii Document history and status
Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type 1 10 November S Manders 2003 2 22 December S Manders S Manders for 22 December 2003 release as draft 2003 3 13 February S Manders S Manders 13 February Revisions to address 2004 2004 Steering Group comments 4 10 March 2004 S Manders S Manders 10 March 2004 Addition of Table 6-4 and 7- 9 addressing best estimates of ultimate origins and destinations. 5 19 March 2004 K Wilcox S Manders 19 March 2004 Revisions to address F Callander’s comments and improvements from proof reading
Distribution of copies Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to 1 email email F Callander 2 email email M Brownell 3 email email M Brownell F Callander 4 email email M Brownell F Callander 5 email email M Brownell F Callander
Printed: 26 March 2004 Last saved: 19 March 2004 12:23 PM File name: I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R26smmdg.doc Author: Steve Manders, Nhung Mason Project manager: Steve Manders Name of organisation: Department for Planning and Infrastructure Name of project: Fremantle Port Container Movement Study Name of document: Report Document version: 5 Project number: SS30210
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE iii Definitions and Abbreviations
AQIS Australian Quarantine Inspection Service Best estimates of Estimated numbers of container journey origins and destinations ultimate origins and where boxes were loaded and unloaded, adjusting for various data destinations issues, as explained in section 4.3. Cargo handling Company providing integrated logistics services, including company warehousing, palletising, container stuffing etc, but usually with well established transport services as well. Container Shipping containers, standard sized steel boxes used to transport cargoes. Most are 6.1 m (20 feet or 20’) or 12.2 m (40 feet or 40’) long. Container destination The end point of a container journey. Container journey Primary data record collected in quantitative data survey, from commencement of an individual movement by a single transport mode to completion of that movement. Data items recorded are shown in Appendix B. Container origin The starting point of a container journey –each location it leaves during the total journey. A container will have multiple origins for a complete journey. For example, a container recorded as moving from a stevedore to a transport depot and later to an importer will have origins at the stevedore and transport depot. Container park Company predominantly storing, cleaning and repairing containers (but may undertake some transport or other related functions). Container repairer A site which predominantly repairs and modifies shipping containers. Container truck A vehicle fitted with twist locks and capable of carrying shipping containers. DC Distribution centre Destuffed The unloading of goods from containers Domestic container Container undertaking journeys entirely within Australia, by land transport modes. Physically it is difficult to distinguish these from international containers. DPI Department for Planning and Infrastructure (WA). Exporter Company sends goods to areas outside of Australia. FCL Full container load, where the one importer / exporter fills one container with their own goods. GPS Global Positioning System. Importer Company bringing goods from overseas into Australia.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE iv Importer / Exporter Locations reported in Quantitative Survey as origins and location destinations of container journeys where containers are packed or unpacked. Interim location All container journey start and end points excluding exporter, importer and stevedore terminal. Intermodal facility A facility where goods are transferred between road and rail. ITV Internal transfer vehicle – over dimensional multi trailer rubber tyred vehicle used within some ports for moving containers. Kewdale Perth suburb containing many transport depots and western terminal of transcontinental rail line. Includes PN and Fremantle Port Link rail services. LCL Less than container load, where different importers / exporters share a container and the freight is consolidated by a freight forwarder. Linehaul Vehicles used to haul freight long distances between cities. Non container truck Trucks that cannot carry containers – identified by absence of twist locks. PN Pacific National, previously National Rail. Pocket Road Train Articulated vehicle generally with lead 20ft trailer and trailing 40ft trailer, joined by a dolly. Capacity 3 TEUs. Maximum overall length 27.5 metres. Quantitative Survey Data collated through a one week (Monday 15– Sunday 21 September 2003) survey of operators targeting all land moves of shipping containers. Quantitative Survey – One week survey results adjusted to compensate for estimated Adjusted Results missing movements not captured. Quantitative Survey – Estimate of total annual container movement task, derived from Annualised Results quantitative survey adjusted results, multiplied by an adjustment factor to reach the total Fremantle Ports recorded container throughput totals for September 2002 – August 2003. Quantitative Survey – 12,817 actual container movements captured during the survey Direct Results week. Quantitative Survey – 12,817 actual container movements captured during the survey Annualised Direct week, multiplied by annualising factor of 58.04 – total 743,921 Results moves used in origin destination location analyses. Source: Quantitative Estimates of all container movements to and from locations at Survey –best estimates which the boxes were loaded and unloaded. Derived from of ultimate origins and Quantitative Survey – direct results, and adjusted for errors in destinations provided data to equate with known totals of loaded containers through the port.
Rail terminal Facility where trains are loaded and unloaded with containers.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE v Rigid truck Rigid vehicle with a maximum capacity of one TEU. Rigid truck and trailer Rigid vehicle with trailer, maximum capacity two TEUs. Road Depot Operating base of a road transport company, predominantly providing road transport of containers (but may store these for short periods). Road Train Articulated vehicle up to 36.5 metres long, generally with two 40ft trailers, joined by a separate dolly. Road Transport Company predominantly providing road transport of containers (but Company may store for short periods). Road depots may also be the final origin / destination or for LCL containers that are packed / destuffed at the road depot. Semi trailer Articulated vehicle with a single 20 or 40 ft trailer. Maximum capacity two TEUs. Stevedore terminal A terminal where containers are loaded/unloaded from ships for export/import. Stevedore Operator of a stevedore terminal. Stuffed The loading of goods into containers. TEU Twenty foot equivalent unit - most commonly used shipping container definition, enabling addition of task associated with containers of different sizes. One forty foot container = 2 TEUs. Timeslot Booked time made by a transport operator to load or unload at a facility such as a stevedore terminal or distribution centre.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE vi 1. Introduction
1.1 Context Sinclair Knight Merz was engaged to undertake the Department for Planning and Infrastructure’s Fremantle Inner Harbour Container Movements study. The Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) was formed in July 2001, by an amalgamation of divisions from the former Department of Transport and the Ministry for Planning. Other organisations also assisted fund the study, including Fremantle Ports, Main Roads WA and the Sea Freight Council of Western Australia.
1.2 Background
Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour is Western Australia’s principal container port, currently handling around 440,000 TEU per annum. It is a significant component of Perth and WA’s economic prosperity, with direct and flow on employment estimated at around 5,800 jobs, 0.8% of WA’s employment. (BTE, 2000).
It is generally accepted that there are many sub-optimal arrangements currently affecting the efficiency levels of land based container movements to and from Fremantle Inner Harbour, and that land transport of shipping containers around the metropolitan area is not as efficient as it could be. Factors highlighted in previous work include the mismatch in working hours between various components in the import / export container transport chain, the location of empty container parks and poor communication between stakeholders.
This work has investigated land movements of containers, quantifying numbers of container trips and providing qualitative explanation of how, why and where particular container trips occur.
From this, opportunities to improve performance are highlighted.
1.3 This report This report summarises the findings, conclusions and data sets collected as part of a major investigation into land movement of containers associated with Fremantle Inner Harbour.
The provision of data sets covering various aspects of container supply chain movements is a major output from this work. This is designed to enable accurate analysis of a range of issues which may arise over the next few years.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 1 The data collected and reported here is in container journeys . While conversion could be undertaken to show data in TEUs, this has not been done, as the agreed focus was on container movements.
A separate PowerPoint presentation report providing an overview of findings is also available.
1.4 Acknowledgments Many companies and individuals within them gave generously of their time and effort in supporting this project, particularly in providing data concerning container movements undertaken during the main survey week.
In addition, many others assisted through participation in discussions and other qualitative information gathering techniques. These contributions were invaluable to undertaking this work, and their generosity is gratefully acknowledged.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 2 2. Executive Summary
This study investigated the movement of containers associated with Fremantle Inner Harbour using three main approaches: n A one week survey (15 – 21 September 2003) collecting information on all container receipts, despatches and moves by road and rail transport companies, stevedores, container parks and others in the import export container supply chain n Discussions with nearly 80 companies and stakeholders involved with landside container operations n Video surveys of container truck movements in Tydeman and Port Beach Roads, near Inner Harbour.
The objectives were to better understand current movement patterns, so that actions to improve efficiency, increase capacity to handle expected growth and provide for increases in sustainability could be identified and implemented. Specific objectives are summarised in Table 3-1, page 7.
The main quantitative survey captured an estimated 88% of all container moves within the survey week. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken examining implications of greater or lesser capture rates. Various adjustments to compensate for the missed container journeys and provide annualised equivalents were undertaken.
The study estimates that approximately 750,000 individual land based container moves occurred in 2003 for containers associated with Inner Harbour. Of these, 96.8% were by road, and 3.2% by rail.
The overall pattern of container movement on land is complex, summarised in Figure 5-2, page 32. This shows the difficulty for any player to effectively coordinate the process. Around 48% of all moves were part of the optimal pattern: stevedore – importer – container park – exporter – stevedore. This was just under half of all moves recorded, underlining the large number of interim moves, multi-modal movements and broken journeys involved. However, it also compares favourably with results from similar work undertaken in Melbourne (DOI 2003) where the proportion of moves following optimum patterns was only 26%.
Around 33% of container moves from stevedores go direct to importers; and 41% of moves to stevedore are direct from exporter. The balance were via interim locations, predominantly road depots, as shown in Table 5-3, page 36.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 3 A common pattern observed was for road operators to use pocket road trains between the port and their depots, and semitrailers for deliveries and pickups of single containers at end user customers. Vehicles are taken to road operator depots for configuration change.
Figure 5-17 and Figure 5-18 on page 44 show container moves to and from Inner Harbour, subdivided into port zones, demonstrating that the busiest zones are Rous Head, Patrick and P&O terminals, in that order. All of these are located towards the end of Rous Head, and have the single road access route of Port Beach Road. Opportunities to develop alternative access routes that would provide greater options for emergency and routine access could be worth investigating, particularly as part of the rail developments planned.
A major objective of this study was to determine the ultimate origins and destinations of containers – the locations at which containers are filled and emptied. Table 4-9 on page 23 shows that the reported number of ultimate origins and destinations was significantly less than the known number of loaded import and export boxes handled through the port. In order to address this issue, the number of containers to and from customer locations was adjusted, so the total would align with the known throughput of loaded container statistics as provided by Fremantle Ports. The adjusted ultimate origins and destinations are shown by zone and individual postcode in Appendix C, in Table 7-9 and Table 7-10 respectively.
Figure 6-14, page 61 summarises the distribution of the best estimates of all ultimate destinations for import containers by zone. This figure clearly shows that virtually all container journeys to ultimate destinations were to Perth metropolitan areas. The greatest concentration of ultimate destination locations receiving containers is in the Kewdale / Forrestfield inner southwestern suburbs of Perth, with 39% of all journeys to ultimate destinations ending there. Around 12% of boxes were destined the central and eastern metropolitan areas of Perth, and 14% of boxes were destined for ultimate destinations in the suburbs near the port such as Fremantle and O’Connor. 3% of journeys were to importers in North Fremantle.
The situation for best estimates of ultimate origins was quite different, with 51% of boxes from ultimate origins destined for the port coming from outer Perth and Western Australian country areas, including 24% south west, and 10% central wheatbelt, as shown in Figure 6-15. Perth’s major industrial suburbs were well represented, with 16% of ultimate moves originating in the Kewdale – Canning Vale area. Only 2% of export moves originated in North Fremantle, but 18% came from O’Connor and 5% from Perth Central region.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 4 Rail market share can be assessed in various ways, which give differing outcomes. The two main approaches used to assess road rail market share in this study were:
1) The proportion of container journeys undertaken by rail as a percentage of all container journeys – 3.2% by rail overall 2) The proportion of containers to and from the stevedore terminals which were moved by rail as part of the overall transfer process to importers and from exporters – 10% overall. The various measures of road rail market share calculated are shown in Table 6-3, page 77.
Opportunities to increase rail’s market share are discussed in section 6.11.3. Infrastructure developments and improvements are central to most, with dual gauge direct access to North Wharf stevedore terminals, improvements at Kewdale and potential for intermodal terminals at Kwinana, Kemerton / Bunbury and direct interstate rail movements assessed as having greatest potential.
This study confirms that inefficiencies are still created and or exacerbated by mismatch in operating hours between various sections of the import and export container supply chain. Figure 6-31 and Figure 6-32 page 83 show starting and finishing times for container journeys. These confirm that overall activity levels are low after about 1800 each day, and that although stevedore receivals and despatch are open until 2200 / 2300, relatively little use is being made of the last four or five operating hours.
Figure 6-35 page 86 shows the distribution of container truck types reported, with semitrailers (36%) and pocket road trains (27%) dominating the reported container truck fleet.
Container truck utilisation was assessed by measuring the percentage of trucks completely empty, which averaged 27% overall, and average number of TEUs carried on all container trucks (including those empty) which averaged 1.27. Details are in Table 6-7, page 87.
Two percent of containers were reported as carrying dangerous goods, with reported DG classes shown in Figure 6-38, page 88.
Container trucks were approximately 6.5% of all traffic on Tydeman Road, and 1.3% on Port Beach Road. This represented growth of around 10% in the 10 months since the previous survey, which is very similar to the increase in container throughput at Inner Harbour.
The identified opportunities and suggested next steps are shown in Table 7-1, commencing on page 89.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 5 3. Objectives
The objective of this major study was to gain a better understanding of the movement of containers, both loaded and empty, between the port and importers / exporters. This understanding will lead to identification of areas of inefficiency, together with causes and impacts.
This information will enable policies and programs to be developed to enhance the efficiency of port related transport operations, and reduce the impact of port traffic of the surrounding community.
This project aimed to provide information, conclusions, recommendations and data sets which will assist government and industry achieve the following: n Improved effectiveness and efficiency of intermodal operations – it is generally accepted that there are many sub-optimal arrangements in land based container movements associated with the Fremantle Inner Harbour, including: • identified truck empty running • limited use of the existing Fremantle Port rail terminal • limited access between Patrick and P&O terminals and Fremantle rail terminal • delays at the Tydeman Road rail level crossing • road traffic congestion in various locations • lack of integration in port, rail and road planning • shorter opening hours of container parks and warehouses compared with ports • individual companies aiming to optimise their own operations at the expense of overall efficiencies.
n Improved strategic land planning for port adjacent land – a thorough understanding of container movement patterns, both currently and those anticipated from likely industry changes is essential to optimising land planning strategies for port adjacent land. There has been significant residential and other development close to operating port terminals which are likely to have incompatibilities.
n Reducing environmental and social impacts and increasing sustainability of freight and logistics processes – there are many perceived opportunities to improve environmental performance of port related container operations, including: • greater use of rail (with targets of 15% within 4 years and 30% within 10 years) • reducing double handling and unnecessary movements
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 6 • reducing truck empty running and unutilised capacity • increasing use of bulk runs and bulk container transport movements • encouraging trucks to use main arterial routes and avoid residential areas.
3.1 Specific objectives Specific objectives for this work, including rationale and likely data uses are summarised in Table 3-1. n Table 3-1 Freight and Logistics Strategy Links
Data Required Why is it needed? How will it be used?
1. Ultimate origins and n no recent data exists To assist with planning for : destinations of containers to and from the port. n previous data did not capture n landuse much regional trade n freight network n to provide a definitive understanding of the n location of inland freight destination of imports and terminals the source of exports
2. Intermediate origins and n to understand the whole of To assist in: destinations the transport chain between port and consignee / n developing policies and consignor programs geared towards optimising transport n to identify the extent of multi efficiency leg journeys n considering appropriate n to understand why locations for empty container containers are being moved parks. between locations
n to identify where a mismatch of working hours has generated additional container handling
3. Determine movement of n limited existing Planning for: empty containers understanding of how the transport chain for empty n inland freight terminals containers operates n empty container parks
n understand how, where and when empty containers are sourced and stored
4. Identify transport mode n to verify modal split in n to plan for increasing transport task attractiveness for rail
n to monitor progress towards achieving rail usage targets
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 7 Data Required Why is it needed? How will it be used?
5. Determine what times of the n although port terminals can To assist in: day freight is moving operate 24/7, many other components of the transport n policy development aimed at chain do not. Better increasing the efficiency of information of when freight interfaces between moves will help in stakeholders determining the impact of the n network planning mismatch in working hours.
6. Identify types of road vehicles n to understand the types of To assist in: used vehicles serving the port n road network planning n to confirm the extent of the use of permit vehicles (ie those exceeding 42.5t or 19.0m)
3.2 Data targeted The specific data sought in this study includes: n A representative data set of land based container movements, including ultimate origins and destinations of boxes, suitable to extrapolate to an estimate of the total land container movement task associated with Fremantle Port Inner Harbour n Container movement patterns: • Numbers of port related truck movements • Routes commonly used by port traffic n Calculation of road and rail modal share for various container transport tasks n Time distribution over the day for container movement and freight operations at terminals n Loading factors of port related container truck traffic n Understanding reasons for empty running and unoccupied container truck slots n The proportion of containers delivered direct versus those through interim moves n Interim container movements and lapsed time for final delivery n Road vehicles used – rigid trucks, semi trailers, b-doubles, pocket road trains etc
Although the primary focus was on these data sets, possible actions highlighting the roles government could take are also included.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 8 4. Approach adopted
Given the range of data targeted for this study, it was recognised that a number of different data collection approaches would need to be used to ensure that the findings of this study provided a comprehensive understanding of container activity. This study aimed not only to obtain a solid foundation of data to provide the analytical basis for the report, but also to have an understanding of the business drivers behind the trends shown in the data.
There were two main approaches utilised to collect data:
Quantitative An industry survey of container movements over a one week period to survey provide data on the origin and destination of containers interacting with the Fremantle Inner Harbour, covering local, regional and interstate movements. Qualitative Discussions with a range of industry stakeholders to better understand discussions relevant issues facing industry which constrained potential efficiencies, and ensure that underlying processes and business drivers which provide explanation of the data trends were well understood.
DPI undertook a video survey of container trucks during day light hours on Tydeman and Port Beach Roads adjacent to the port during the week of the quantitative survey, replicating an earlier study from November 2002. Results from these surveys have been incorporated to compliment the quantitative survey and qualitative approaches.
Further details of the approaches adopted for each of these components is outlined in the following sections.
4.1 Qualitative discussions Discussions were held with a variety of organisations involved in all aspects of land movements of containers associated with the Fremantle Inner Harbour. This included: n stevedores n rail service providers n road transport companies n truck drivers n container park operators n importers and exporters n professional, unions and other associations involved in the industry overall
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 9 n government organisations with responsibilities and interests in aspects of container transport.
Most discussions were held as individual face to face interviews, at the interviewee’s premises, but some were undertaken by telephone, particularly discussions with regionally based organisations.
A summary of all qualitative discussions undertaken is shown in Table 4-1. n Table 4-1 Qualitative discussions
Organisation type Face to face discussions Telephone discussions Stevedores 2 Rail transport operators 4 Road transport operators 11 4 Cargo handling companies 4 Container truck drivers 10 Container park operators 4 Importers 7 2 Exporters 6 3 Brokers and agents 5 2 Shipping lines 4 1 Government organisations 4 Others 4 1 Total 65 13
A summary of the views expressed during these discussions is in Appendix A. Although these views may not always accord with the expectations of government or others in the industry, it is suggested that these views are a useful approach to understanding the interviewees’ perception of reality.
4.2 Quantitative survey 4.2.1 Approach The quantitative data survey aimed to capture 100% of all port related container movements for a seven day consecutive period.
The survey commenced at midnight at the beginning of Monday 15 September, and continued for seven days, to finish at midnight at the end of Sunday 21 September 2003. This period was chosen as it avoided public holidays, and statistics from previous years showed this had been a typical
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 10 week. Further, checks were made with stevedores in the preceding week, to ensure that unusual occurrences, such as missed ship calls, bad weather or other factors were not expected.
Approaches were made to all companies identified as undertaking port related transport and logistics work, including: n stevedores n road transport operators n rail operators n container park operators n container repairers.
These companies were identified using a range of sources, including: n Main Roads WA, Port Operations Task Force and Transport Forum databases n White and Yellow Pages telephone directories n consultants’ database n stevedores’ cartage company listings.
These companies were asked to provide a summary of all container movements undertaken during the seven day period, following a supplied data schedule pro forma, a copy of which can be found in Appendix B. The data collected covered a wide range of attributes associated with containers handled by these operators. The key components focussed on details of the container itself, and the origin and destination of the journey.
Data was collected from respondents in a variety of ways, including: n companies providing required information electronically on excel spreadsheet pro formas n companies providing electronically downloaded information from internal information systems n companies manually filling in questionnaire forms n manual compilation of information by project team at the company’s premises n provision of original or copied driver run sheets for compilation of required information by the project team.
Origin and destination were grouped into the following categories: n stevedore terminal n road depot – where container stored for short periods of time
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 11 n road depot / cargo handling company – where containers were loaded or unloaded n rail terminal – where trains are loaded and unloaded n container park – companies predominantly storing, cleaning and repairing containers, although many also provide some transport n importer – companies importing goods and unloading containers n exporter – companies exporting goods and loading containers.
The term ‘interim location’ is used extensively in this report, and refers to all locations not importers, exporters and stevedores.
4.2.2 Data capture rates Table 4-2 shows a summary of participation rates. It must be noted that participation in this survey was voluntary, and ultimately there was little which could be done if an organisation refused outright to participate. However, a wide variety of encouragement approaches were used, including: n study promotion by a significant number of major players, including the Transport Forum, P&O, Patrick, Fremantle Ports, Main Roads WA and Department for Planning and Infrastructure among others n direct mail contact with target companies n industry association promotion n personal encouragement by telephone contact n where considered appropriate, offers to undertake data collection by project team staff n plus a good deal of cajoling and pleading by survey staff.
The original mail out was to 338 companies, of which 202 were identified as either duplicates with the same company operating under different names or at different locations; no longer in business; or no longer undertaking port related container work. Thus 136 surveys went to relevant companies, from which responses were received from 89 companies or 65.4%.
Significant effort went into chasing up all companies, with most contacted by telephone once before the survey went out, once during the survey week and up to five times chasing responses. All companies were pursued until they stated they would not be participating or we felt we would only engender poor feelings about the study and those conducting it. The best response rates came from the large and medium sized companies. This meant that those which did not respond were generally smaller and less significant players in the overall container market. In several cases,
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 12 study staff collected data at company premises, or collated and entered data from provided driver run sheets. n Table 4-2 Quantitative Survey Company Participation Rates
Status Number Percentage of total sent Percentage of surveys to valid companies Total surveys forms sent 338 100.0% Returned as duplicate to same 36 10.6% company No longer carrying shipping 75 22.2% containers No longer in business 91 27.0% Subtotal 202 59.8% Surveys to valid companies 136 40.2% 100.0% Returned complete 66 19.5% 48.5% Returned complete, but zero 23 6.8% 16.9% movements Total complete 89 26.3% 65.4% Refused to participate 9 2.7% 6.6% Not returned 38 11.2% 28.0% Total non participants 47 13.9% 34.6% Total participants 89 26.3% 65.4%
4.2.3 Assessment of survey completeness
Given the number of companies which did not participate in the survey, it was considered necessary to assess the completeness of movement information collected, so that any necessary adjustments could be made to provide the most comprehensive and complete analysis possible from the available data.
This was assessed by comparing the number of container journeys captured with the number which were estimated to have been completed during the survey period. The number of containers handled through the stevedore gates in the survey week was obtained, and this number was multiplied by the estimated average number of journeys made by each container.
We asked virtually all industry representatives we spoke with as part of the qualitative survey how many moves on average they thought import, export and empty containers made. This was expressed as: n stevedore to importer – import boxes n exporter to stevedore – export boxes
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 13 n from the importer which unloads the box to the exporter next loading it – empty boxes. The responses were assessed using a qualitative weighting approach, based on the interviewee’s role, experience, and size, type and representativeness of the container task they were familiar with.
For import boxes, the estimated average number of moves ranged from one to three, with the most common responses being one, one and a half, (half have one move, half have two) and two. For export boxes, a similar situation emerged, with estimates ranging from one to four, and most common being one, one and a half and two. For empty boxes, the most common response by far was two, but some suggested three or four.
Our assessment concluded that the best estimate was: n Stevedore – importer: 1.5 n Empty moves importer – container park – exporter: 2.5 n Exporter – stevedore: 1.25 n Total land moves per land transport cycle: 5.25
This was on the basis that, for each of the types of moves: n They are the most frequently given estimate, or averages of the two most frequently given estimates n Are near the middle of the most common responses n Accord well with typical movement patterns: • import boxes: • stevedore – importer, or • stevedore – transport company – importer n export boxes: • exporter – stevedore, or • exporter – road transport company – stevedore n empty boxes: • importer – container park • container park to exporter • but a small proportion will have additional moves for repair, urgent sourcing when boxes are in short supply etc
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 14 The assessment of survey completeness, using this average estimate of 5.25 moves per land transport cycle is shown in Table 4-3. There were 5,547 container movements (imports plus exports through the stevedore gates during the survey week. The estimate of 5.25 container moves is per land container movement cycle (that is, from import receipt until export despatch). Thus the estimate of total land container moves during the survey week is 14,561 (5,547 divided by 2, because each land transport cycle has both an import and an export move through stevedore gates), multiplied by movement estimate of 5.25. The survey captured a total of 12,817 non duplicated records, an estimated capture rate of 88.0%.
It is important to understand the significance of this estimate of 5.25 moves on average for each land transport cycle on two areas of the study. These are: n total land based container movement task n road rail market share. The impact on total container movement task results from the fact that we were unable to calculate the total number of moves occurring from the number of moves captured, due to incomplete participation by transport companies. The impact on road rail modal share is due to the fact that complete records were obtained from all rail companies, but not from road companies. All missing moves were road moves, hence the impact on road rail modal share.
The estimate of 5.25 moves per container was selected as the best estimate on the basis of industry consultation as explained above. However, should this estimate be incorrect, implications arise for findings on total land container transport task and road rail modal share.
Basic sensitivity analyses have been undertaken which assess the impact should the true average number of moves per container be 4, 5.25 and 6.
If there were more than 5.25 moves per container: n the total land container movement task would be larger than that shown n rail’s market share of all container moves would be less than that shown.
In the Melbourne port study (Department of Infrastructure, Victoria, 2002) a similar approach was used, with a total of 6 moves estimated, and sensitivity analyses based on 5 and 8 moves. There is little doubt that the container movement patterns associated with Fremantle are less complex, with more direct moves between stevedore and importers / exporters. These pattern differences provide reinforcement that the 5.25 estimate has a high level of confidence.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 15 n Table 4-3 Assessment of quantitative sample completeness
Dimension Outcome used Sensitivity analyses
Containers reported 2,027 Inbound handled through 1,593 Outbound Fremantle Port 1,029 Domestic Sea Freight 4 5.25 6 898 Empty relocation 5,547 Total 1,048 Transhipments (not included in calculations)
Estimated typical number of land container moves (from stevedore receipt 5.25 4 5.25 6 as import box to stevedore despatch as export box)
Total land container movements for containers received during survey week 14,561 11,094 14,561 16,641 (5,547/2) X estimated average number of moves)
Number of land container movements captured in 12,817 12,817 12,817 12,817 quantitative survey
Percentage of estimated population 88.0% 115.5% 88.0% 77.0% captured
Sources: Fremantle Ports statistics, Quantitative survey, direct results
Table 4-4 shows a comparison of the split between import and export boxes captured in the survey with Fremantle Ports figures for the 12 months ended September 2003. The survey captured slightly more import and slightly less export containers that the 12 month figures. This is likely to be explained by the time of year of the survey (August). Agricultural products, peaking in January – February, dominate exports. Imports peak in October – November, the pre Christmas rush. It is concluded that the split captured in the quantitative survey is reasonably closely representative of the population, although influenced by seasonal factors to a small extent.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 16 n Table 4-4 Assessment of quantitative sample import/export breakdown
Full - Import Full - Export Fremantle Ports container throughput 118,012 98,016 statistics 55% 45% 1 October 2002 – 30 September 2003 Quantitative data survey 5,838 4,060 59% 41%
Sources: Fremantle Ports statistics, Quantitative survey, direct results
Complete movement records were obtained from rail companies, and from stevedores, although the latter generally did not know the origin for export boxes or the destination for import boxes. Adjustments have been made where possible to improve the representativeness and accuracy of analyses from data collected.
4.2.4 Data cleansing Before collating this data, the survey results were reviewed to remove duplicate records. For example, where a stevedore recorded that a container was delivered to them, the data was checked to see if there were similar records either from the transport company delivering this container to the stevedore, and also from exporter which despatched the box. The data was checked to remove all such duplicate records with a final result of 12,817 unique records. At the same time, a variety of inconsistencies and impossible combinations recorded were identified, and corrections, based on knowledge of companies’ operations made.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 17 4.2.5 Annualising findings The actual results of the survey in terms of number of moves from different origin / destination combinations is shown in Table 4-5.
n Table 4-5 Total actual recorded moves captured in survey – “Direct results”
Estimated total annual task Origin Destination Road Rail Total Stevedore Importer 1,289 - 1,289 10.1% Stevedore Interim 2,630 - 2,630 20.5% Interim Importer 204 - 204 1.6% Importer Interim 1,745 - 1,745 13.6% Importer Stevedore 9 - 9 0.1% Total import related 5,877 - 5,877 45.9%
Interim Interim 1,312 472 1,784 13.9%
Stevedore Exporter 40 - 40 0.3% Interim Exporter 1,710 - 1,710 13.3% Exporter Interim 263 - 263 2.1% Interim Stevedore 1,858 - 1,858 14.5% Exporter Stevedore 1,285 - 1,285 10.0% Total export related 5,156 - 5,156 40.2%
Total 12,345 472 12,817 100.0% 96.3% 3.7% 100.0%
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
This data was then adjusted in order to estimate the total annual task as follows:
Step 1. Estimating the number of container movements that would have been captured in the one week survey if every container move had been captured. Step 2. Extrapolating these results to show the number of moves that would occur in one year.
Step 1 – Adjusting for moves not captured
Table 4-3 shows that we captured an estimated 88.0% of container movements that occurred during the survey week. Thus the survey did not capture 12.0% or 1,744 movements. These 1,744 moves
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 18 are not represented evenly across all the modes or origin destination combinations shown in Table 4-5 for a number of reasons, including: n All stevedores were readily identifiable and agreed to participate in the study. Stevedores have comprehensive and accurate computer systems that were able to provide a complete record of all containers moving through their operations. Thus it was concluded that 100% of moves to and from the stevedores for the survey week were already captured and there was no need to increase this portion of the results for missed records. n Rail operators were also readily identifiable and agreeable to participate in the survey and were confident that they were readily able to provide details of all containers moved during the survey period. Thus it was concluded that the survey had successfully captured 100% of rail movements that occurred during the survey week.
Thus it was concluded that the 1,744 moves not captured during the survey week were road moves, to and from locations not involving stevedores or rail terminals. This is supported by the greater difficulty associated with identifying the large number of road operators and the relative difficulty they had in completing the survey compared with rail operators and stevedores. Table 4-6 shows the estimated total task for the survey week with the 1,744 missed moves added in. The shaded numbers highlight where the missing data have been added. The allocation was undertaken using pro-rata adjustments based on proportions of captured movement types, plus industry consultation on expected movement patterns.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 19 n Table 4-6 Survey week results adjusted for moves not captured
Estimated total annual task Origin Destination Road Rail Total Stevedore Importer 1,289 - 1,289 8.9% Stevedore Interim 2,630 - 2,630 18.1% Interim Importer 279 - 279 1.9% Importer Interim 2,331 - 2,331 16.0% Importer Stevedore 9 - 9 0.1% Total import related 6,538 - 6,538 44.9%
Interim Interim 1,731 472 2,203 15.1%
Stevedore Exporter 40 - 40 0.3% Interim Exporter 2,285 - 2,285 15.7% Exporter Interim 352 - 352 2.4% Interim Stevedore 1,858 - 1,858 12.8% Exporter Stevedore 1,285 - 1,285 8.8% Total export related 5,820 - 5,820 40.0%
Total 14,089 472 14,561 100.0% 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Source: Quantitative survey – adjusted results
Step 2 - Annualising
The next step was to take the estimated 14,561 moves during the survey week and extrapolate them to annual results. Figures provided by the Fremantle Ports showed that for the survey week the Port had a throughput of 5,547 containers, compared with an annual throughput of 283,405 containers (not TEUs) for the period 1 October 2002 – 31 September 2003. That is, the survey week was 1.957% of the annual throughput for the 12 months preceding the survey. Table 4-7 shows the results when the total moves during the survey week, Table 4-6, are annualised (multiplied by a factor of 51.09) to represent a full year. This factor of 51.09 compares very closely with 1 week in the 52 weeks per year. (Obviously, with the continued growth in container throughputs, larger annualising factors would apply if later 12 month periods were selected. However, the period selected was the most recent available at the time of commencing the analysis).
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 20 n Table 4-7 Annualised survey results
Estimated total annual task ('000 container moves) Origin Destination Road Rail Total Stevedore Importer 65,855 - 65,855 8.9% Stevedore Interim 134,366 - 134,366 18.1% Interim Importer 14,254 - 14,254 1.9% Importer Interim 119,090 - 119,090 16.0% Importer Stevedore 460 - 460 0.1% Total import related 334,025 - 334,025 44.9%
Interim Interim 88,437 24,114 112,551 15.1%
Stevedore Exporter 2,044 - 2,044 0.3% Interim Exporter 116,741 - 116,741 15.7% Exporter Interim 17,984 - 17,984 2.4% Interim Stevedore 94,925 - 94,925 12.8% Exporter Stevedore 65,651 - 65,651 8.8% Total export related 297,345 - 297,345 40.0%
Total 719,807 24,114 743,921 100.0% 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised results
A key finding from this table is an overall rail market share of 3.2%, which accords very closely with the largest rail operator’s view of a 3% market share. It must be recognised that this market share is defined as (container journeys undertaken by rail) / (all container journeys). Other definitions will yield different outcomes. For example another commonly used definition calculates the proportion of containers moving between port and importer / exporter which move by rail at some stage, which generally results in higher rail shares.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 21 4.2.6 Sensitivity analyses – road rail market share Table 4-8 shows a sensitivity analysis examining impact on the total annual container market share and road rail market share where estimates for average moves per container of 4, 5.25 and 6 are used.
n Table 4-8 Sensitivity analyses
Estimated total annual task Average moves per Origin Destination Road Rail Total container Total import related 266,893 - 266,893 47.1% Interim Interim 45,981 24,114 70,095 12.4% 4 Total export related 229,855 - 229,855 40.5% Total 542,729 24,114 566,843 100.0% Road rail market share 95.7% 4.3% 100.0% Total import related 334,540 1,277 335,817 45.1% Interim Interim 88,387 22,837 111,224 15.0% 5.25 Total export related 296,881 - 296,881 39.9% Total 719,807 24,114 743,921 100.0% Road rail market share 96.8% 3.2% 100.0% Total import related 374,284 - 374,284 44.0% Interim Interim 113,880 24,114 137,994 16.2% 6 Total export related 337,909 - 337,909 39.7% Total 826,073 24,114 850,187 100.0% Road rail market share 97.2% 2.8% 100.0%
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 22 4.3 Ultimate journey origins and destinations A major objective of this study was to determine the ultimate origins and destinations of containers – the locations at which containers are filled and emptied. The identification of ultimate locations was taken from the reported journey origin and destination type, with “Importer”, “Exporter”, “Road transport depot – container packed / unpacked at depot” and “3rd party distribution centre” considered ultimate origins and destinations. As shown in Table 4-9, the reported number of ultimate origins and destinations is significantly less than the known number of loaded import and export boxes passing through the port. n Table 4-9 Annual throughput of loaded imports and exports
Ultimate origins and Fremantle Port destinations captured statistics Loaded Imports 60,944 118,012 Loaded Exports 61,234 98,016 All loaded 122,187 216,028
This was considered to be due to two main factors: n Some respondents may have failed to distinguish between the various journey origin and destination categories applying to each journey – particularly between “road transport depot interim storage” and “road transport depot – container packed / unpacked at depot” n Lower container journey capture rates were achieved further from Perth, some of which would have been to and from ultimate journey origins and destinations.
To enable the best possible estimates of the locations at which containers are loaded and unloaded, the following adjustments, which align ultimate origins and destinations with known port container throughput were made: n All reported ultimate origins and destinations have been included as such 1 n All interstate interim origins and destinations have been considered ultimate locations 1 n All remote intrastate interim locations have been considered ultimate locations n A proportion of interim locations have been treated as ultimate for outer Perth and metropolitan areas1. The closer to Inner Harbour, the lower the proportion.
1 Journeys to and from these interim locations would have been preceded or followed by journeys to ultimate origins or destinations.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 23 n The adjustments have been balanced against the known number of loaded import and export containers handled through the port.
These adjustments are shown by zone and by individual postcodes are shown in Table 7-9 and Table 7-10, commencing on page 123. The zones are shown in Figure 6-9– Figure 6-11, commencing on page 56.
The resulting data set is referred to as “Best estimates of ultimate container origins and destinations” and was used in analyses considering location.
By contrast, analyses which examine the types of journey origins and destinations, and whether containers moved direct or via interim locations use the unadjusted data set, referred to as “Importers” and “Exporters”.
4.4 Video Survey DPI undertook a video survey of all vehicles on Tydeman and Port Beach Roads adjacent to the Port, as shown in Figure 4-1. These surveys operated from 0600 – 1800 Monday – Friday of the main survey (Tydeman Rd) and Monday and Wednesday only (Port Beach Road). This survey repeated a similar one undertaken on 11 – 15 November 2002.
These locations were selected as they are the only two road access points to Fremantle Inner Harbour.
Information captured by video survey was summarised to provide the following: n location n time of observation n direction n container traffic related or not n level of utilisation (number and size of containers carried).
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 24 n Figure 4-1 Video Survey Locations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 25 Vehicles were categorised under three groups: light vehicles, container trucks and other heavy vehicles. Table 4-10 and Figure 4-2 show the average number of vehicles recorded per day during survey hours (0600 – 1800)on Tydeman and Port Beach Roads, totalling average numbers in both directions. n Table 4-10 On road vehicle observations
Location November 2002 Survey September 2003 Survey Average vehicles per Light Container Other heavy Light Container Other heavy Total Total day, total two vehicles trucks vehicles vehicles trucks vehicles way
Tydeman 21,150 1,270 1,450 23,870 18,687 1,386 1,235 21,308 Road
% of total 88.6 5.3 6.1 100.0 87.7 6.5 5.8 100.0
% change -11.6% +9.1% -14.8%
Port Beach 16,480 180 570 17,230 14,945 201 567 15,713 Road
% of total 95.6 1.0 3.3 100.0 95.1 1.3 3.6 100.0
% change -9.3% +11.7% -0.5%
Total 37,630 1,450 2,020 41,100 33,632 1,587 1,802 37,021
% of total 91.2 3.5 4.9 100.0 90.9 4.3 4.9 100.0
% change -10.6% +9.4% -10.8% -10.8%
Source: Video surveys
Overall, container trucks make up only a small, although increasing, percentage of the total traffic stream. Opportunities to reduce congestion will mostly focus on light vehicles. The increase in container trucks is proportional to the increase in containerised port trade throughput, suggesting that there has been no fundamental change in land transport efficiency between the two surveys. The reduction in other heavy vehicles may be due to live sheep export loadings which were occurring during the first survey but not the second. The overall reduction in average vehicles per day is mainly due to the 10.6% decrease in light vehicles (mostly cars and derivatives). The cause of this reduction is not known with any certainty, but could be due to seasonal differences between August and November or specific unusual circumstances affecting one or both surveys.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 26 n Figure 4-2 Average vehicles per day on Tydeman and Port Beach Rds
Average number of vehicles per day on Tydeman and Port Beach Rds 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Average vehicles per day 2002 2003 2002 2003 Tydeman Road Port Beach Road
Light vehicles Container trucks Other heavy vehicles
Source: Video surveys
This clearly shows that congestion on both port access roads is mostly due to light vehicles, and not container trucks.
The percentage change in vehicle numbers from 2002 to 2003 is shown in Figure 4-3, with an increase of 9.1% in container truck on Tydeman Rd and 11.7% on Port Beach Rd. n Figure 4-3 Change in vehicles numbers on Tydeman and Port Beach Rds
Changes in vehicle numbers 2002 - 2003
15.0% 11.7% 9.1% 10.0% 5.0% Light vehicles Other heavy vehicles 0.0% Container trucks -0.5% -5.0% -10.0% -9.3% -15.0% -11.6% -14.8% -20.0%
Tydeman Road Port Beach Road
Source: Video surveys
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 27 5. Analyses and Discussion
There is a wide variety of analyses which could be undertaken to examine the data collected in this study. This chapter reports on the analyses undertaken to fulfil the objectives listed in section 2, and provide interpretation of issues revealed during those analyses. Various supporting statistical information tables are in Appendix C.
The data collected in this study will be relevant to analysing other issues which will arise in the future, such as handling likely throughput growth, infrastructure developments and changes in demand for various port related transport and supply chain services. For this reason, the raw data set was a deliverable from the study, to permit such future analyses.
In general, the analyses undertaken and reported here were performed using the annualised estimate (referred to as “Quantitative Survey – annualised results”), developed from the base sample of container journeys collected during the one week survey period (referred to as “Quantitative Survey – direct results”).
Analyses that examine journey length are based on the Direct Results, as it was felt that there was insufficient evidence to support the implication that missed journeys followed the same patterns as those captured.
Comments made during qualitative interviews have been used where relevant to aid interpretation or provide confirmation.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 28 5.1 Total land transport task for Fremantle Inner Harbour containers Table 5-1 shows actual direct results captured in the one week survey of container journeys, subdivided into the major origin and destination types, and whether undertaken by road or rail. The survey collected 46.0% import containers, compared with the annual total of 45.1% import containers, suggesting a representative split between imports and exports was achieved. n Table 5-1 Quantitative survey direct results summary
Recorded moves
Origin Destination Road Rail Total Stevedore Importer 1,289 - 1,289 10.1% Stevedore Interim 2,630 - 2,630 20.5% Interim Importer 204 - 204 1.6% Importer Interim 1,745 - 1,745 13.6% Importer Stevedore 9 - 9 0.1% Total import related 5,877 - 5,877 45.9% Interim Interim 1,312 472 1,784 13.9% Stevedore Exporter 40 - 40 0.3% Interim Exporter 1,710 - 1,710 13.3% Exporter Interim 263 - 263 2.1% Interim Stevedore 1,858 - 1,858 14.5% Exporter Stevedore 1,285 - 1,285 10.0% Total export related 5,156 - 5,156 40.2% Total 12,345 472 12,817 100.0% 96.3% 3.7% 100.0%
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
Table 5-2 shows the estimated annual equivalent, with 744,000 container moves for calendar year 2003, with an overall split of observed moves carried out 96.8% by road and 3.2% by rail for all container moves. Mode share is assessed in detail in section 6.10.
Container movements have been subdivided in these tables into the major origin destination types, with percentages showing the total percentage of all moves. Where the origin or destination type was not provided, the moves were allocated to different locations according to the most common movement patterns. These allocations are detailed in Appendix C, Table 7-2.
It is noted that the number of moves to and from importers (and to a lesser extent, exporters) do not balance. This could be due to a number of factors, including errors or missing data in journey end type, and more or less containers at various location types at the end of the survey week compared with the beginning.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 29 n Table 5-2 Quantitative survey – annualised results summary
Estimated total annual task
Origin Destination Road Rail Total Stevedore Importer 65,855 - 65,855 8.9% Stevedore Interim 134,366 - 134,366 18.1% Interim Importer 14,254 - 14,254 1.9% Importer Interim 119,090 - 119,090 16.0% Importer Stevedore 460 - 460 0.1% Total import related 334,025 - 334,025 44.9% Interim Interim 88,437 24,114 112,551 15.1% Stevedore Exporter 2,044 - 2,044 0.3% Interim Exporter 116,741 - 116,741 15.7% Exporter Interim 17,984 - 17,984 2.4% Interim Stevedore 94,925 - 94,925 12.8% Exporter Stevedore 65,651 - 65,651 8.8% Total export related 297,345 - 297,345 40.0% Total 719,807 24,114 743,921 100.0% 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised results
Figure 5-1 shows the distribution of container journey types by mode. On an annualised basis: n 45.1% of container moves were associated with imports n 15.0% were moves between interim locations (that is, all locations not stevedores, importers or exporters, which includes road transport depots, rail terminals, container parks, container wash, AQIS etc) and n 39.9% of journeys were export related. These percentages are used in the various pattern analysis charts in subsequent sections.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 30 n Figure 5-1 Total land transport container task – overall journey type
Road / Rail Share by Journey Type for Total Annual market
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% Annual container journeys
Interim to ImporterImporter to Interim Interim to Interim Interim to ExporterExporter to Interim Stevedore toStevedore Importer to Interim Importer to StevedoreStevedore to Exporter Interim toExporter Stevedore to Stevedore
Road Rail
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
This data provides an initial benchmark against which future similar surveys can be compared, to examine changes in the total land transport task for containers.
Figure 5-2 shows the proportion of collected moves, analysed into the major origin and destination types: n stevedore terminal – where ships are loaded and unloaded n road depot - companies predominantly transporting containers, although many store for short periods of time n rail terminal – where trains are loaded and unloaded n container park – companies predominantly storing, cleaning and repairing containers, although many also provide some transport n importer – company importing goods and unloading containers, including third party logistics companies unloading containers n exporter – company exporting goods and loading containers, including third party logistics companies loading containers.
This chart, and similar ones which follow, show the percentage of moves between each origin and destination pair, as a percentage of the annualised container transport task. For clarity, move types with less than 1% of all moves have not been shown. Where either origin or destination type was not known, allocations have been made according to overall movement type patterns.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 31 n Figure 5-2 Movement patterns – all container moves
3%
1% 1% 15% 9% 12%
4% 2% 1%
3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 8% 1% 9% 15% 1% 1%
4%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
This chart illustrates the complexity of movement types, and may help explain the lack of overall coordination of the total task and processes – there are so many origin and destination points, and so many organisations involved that overall coordination and optimisation becomes extremely difficult. Actual, adjusted and annualised numbers of container moves captured are in Appendix C Table 7-2.
Figure 5-3 shows that 48% of all moves recorded were what might be considered the optimum pattern – stevedore terminal – importer – container park – exporter – stevedore. The fact that this is just under half of all moves recorded underlines the large number of interim moves, multi-modal movements and broken journeys involved. However, it also compares favourably with results from similar work undertaken in Melbourne (DOI 2003) where the proportion of moves following optimum patterns was only 26%.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 32 n Figure 5-3 Direct flows
15% 9%
9% 15%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
Figure 5-4 shows that 32% of container moves are associated with road depots, and Figure 5-5 shows that 7% are rail related movements.
n Figure 5-4 Flows via road depots
1%
12%
4% 1%
1% 3% 1% 8% 1%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 33 n Figure 5-5 Rail related moves
2%
3% 1% 1%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
A number of points emerge from these charts: n A total of 20% of all movements were between stevedore terminal and road depots. In many of these instances the road depot will be an interim move, while for some the road depot may have been the final origin / destination of the container where the container is stuffed / destuffed. Although separate categories for road depots (loaded / unloaded) and road depots (temporary storage in container) were provided, these may not always have been filled in correctly. A number of records were adjusted where information provided was known to be incorrectly allocated, but there may have been others. n 7% of moves were between container parks and road depots n A substantial amount of rail related movements are associated with imports, and interim moves between rail depots.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 34 Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7 show movement patterns associated with container parks, and other miscellaneous movements. Key points here are: n 30% of all moves were empty boxes between importers, exporters and container parks n 7% were between container parks and road depots n a further 7% were between stevedores and container parks n 1% of all moves were between different container parks n 1% were between road transport depots n 3% were to and from wash, AQIS, etc.
n Figure 5-6 Container park related movements
3%
15%
4%
1% 3%
15%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 35 n Figure 5-7 Other movements
1%
1% 1% Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results 5.2 Movements to and from stevedores Table 5-3 shows the proportion of moves to and from stevedore terminals direct to importers and direct from exporters, compared with other interim origin and destination types. n Table 5-3 Movements to and from stevedores terminals
Import moves from stevedore Direct Via interim location(s)
To To To container To road To To rail TOTAL importer AQIS park depot exporter
Moves from 9% 2% 1% 3% 12% 0% 27% proportion of all stevedore moves proportion of Proportion from 33% 66% 1% 100% stevedore (27%) moves from stevedore Export moves to stevedore Direct Via interim location(s)
From From From From From road From TOTAL importer rail AQIS container park depot exporter
Moves to proportion of all 0% 0% 1% 4% 8% 9% 22% stevedore moves proportion of all Proportion to 0% 59% 41% 100% stevedore (22%) moves to stevedore
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 36 This shows that only 33% of moves from the stevedore go direct to importers; and 41% of moves to stevedore are direct from exporter. The balance are via interim locations, including road depots. However, for LCL containers, the road depot may the final origin / destination point where the container is stuffed or destuffed. Details of LCL versus FCL containers were not specifically collected as a part of this study and may be suitable for further examination. Two categories were provided for road transport depots, to separate journeys where containers were loaded and unloaded from those where boxes were stored, although this distinction was not consistently understood by respondents.
A common pattern observed was for road operators to use pocket road trains between the port and their depots, and semitrailers for deliveries and pickups of single containers at end user customers. Vehicles are taken to road operator depots for configuration change.
5.3 Import related container movements Figure 5-8 shows subdivisions of movements for all containers classified as import, with 55% of all moves being flows from stevedores.
n Figure 5-8 Import moves from stevedore
5%
2%
19%
7%
22%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 37 Figure 5-9 also identifies a further 40% of import related moves, associated with road depots, rail depots and container parks.
This data shows that: n import moves are most commonly: • stevedore – road depot – importer, or • direct to importer n 5% are moves of empty boxes from stevedores to container parks
n Figure 5-9 All import moves
5%
1% 2%
19% 2% 8% 4% 7% 1% 22% 8% 4% 1%
8% 1%
1% 1%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
Actual numbers of import related container moves are in Appendix C, Table 7-3.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 38 5.4 Export related container moves Container movements to stevedores for all boxes classified as export are shown in Figure 5-10, covering 79% of all export box moves. Figure 5-11 shows all export classified moves. Around 2% of export moves were rail related.
This data shows that: n 79% of moves were to stevedore, (compared with 55% of import moves from stevedore) n this suggests a more direct and well managed process overall n 34% of export moves were direct exporter – stevedore, and 28% from road depots n 18% were to or from container parks, all empties for reloading or export.
Actual numbers are shown in Appendix C, Table 7-4.
n Figure 5-10 Export flows to stevedore
28%
34% 6%
11%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 39 n Figure 5-11 All export moves
2%
28% 2% 1%
6% 6% 34%
6% 1%
11%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
5.5 Empty container moves The “direct” movements of empty containers, defined as moving from the importer to the container park or from the container park to the exporter, comprises 49% of all empty container moves. “Direct” moves are shown in Figure 5-12 and the relocation of empty boxes is shown in Figure 5-13.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 40 n Figure 5-12 “Direct” moves of empty containers
24%
25%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
n Figure 5-13 Relocation of empty boxes
1% 2% 7% 1%
2% 5% 6%
2% 2%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 41 Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15 shows that 11% of empty container movements were imports and 8% were exports. Figure 5-16 shows the complete picture for all empty container moves. n Figure 5-14 Empty box imports
10%
1%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
n Figure 5-15 Empty box exports
8%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 42 n Figure 5-16 All empty box moves
10%
24%
1% 1% 2% 7% 1%
2% 5% 6%
2% 2% 25%
8% Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
5.6 Assessment of port zones Figure 5-17 and Figure 5-18 show container moves to and from Inner Harbour, subdivided into port zones.
These show that the busiest zones are Rous Head, Patrick and P&O terminals, in that order. All of these are located towards the end of Rous Head, and have the single road access route of Port Beach Road. Opportunities to develop alternative access routes could provide greater options for emergency and routine access could be worth investigating, particularly as part of the rail developments planned.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 43 n Figure 5-17 Moves from Inner Harbour by zone n Figure 5-18 Moves to Inner Harbour by zone
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 44 6. Discussion
6.1 Overall complexity is less than other ports The immediate conclusion from this analysis, summarised in Figure 6-1 is the overall complexity of move patterns. Just under half (48%) of all moves were parts of the most direct logical flow (stevedore – importer – container park – exporter – stevedore), leaving 52% in which other, apparently less efficient, movements occurred. By comparison, the Melbourne port study (DOI, 2002) revealed only 26% of moves following the most logical route.
n Figure 6-1 All Container Moves
3%
1% 1% 15% 9% 12%
4% 2% 1%
3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 8% 1% 9% 15% 1% 1%
4%
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
During qualitative discussions, it was stated several times that about one half of containers moved direct from importer/exporter to stevedore. This survey suggests that this is so for export boxes (9% of all moves direct, 8% via road depots) but not for imports, where 9% went direct, but one third as many again, 12% to road depots.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 45 6.2 Inability for any player to optimise overall It is concluded that, from the overall movement chains displayed, there is little ability for any of the players to coordinate operations overall. Qualitative discussions with larger players, particularly those achieving increased vertical integration of businesses, suggested that these players are attempting to improve streamlining of operations within their control. However, this pattern suggests significant opportunities still exist in this process.
Nearly all companies interviewed indicated they were taking active steps to seek efficiency gains in their operations. This was generally driven by a need to improve margins, but also to avoid rate increases in a very competitive environment. In particular, owner drivers, smaller road transport companies and container parks generally expressed concern about poor margins, and appeared to be earning poor rates of return of assets invested.
Most of the road transport companies were seeking to improve the efficiency of their vehicle fleet, and most were tackling this by seeking to allocate the most efficient vehicle type to the nature of the task. This generally resulted in the creation of separate vehicle fleets for different tasks. Larger vehicles were used where multiple containers were required to make the same journey, such as depot – stevedore transfers. Smaller vehicles such as standard semi trailers were used for one off container moves, such as to and from exporters and importers.
The job allocation used by small and medium road transport companies was generally manual, based on job tickets, driver run sheets and generally telephone and fax communication with clients, stevedores and others in the movement chain. Even where more sophisticated vehicle scheduling systems were in use, optimum results were limited by day to day issues at various locations preventing tight scheduling, and lack of notice of requirements by users.
The lack of sophisticated vehicle task allocation systems and the generally short time period from job requirement notification to actually undertaking it, meant that these companies’ ability to use vehicle scheduling and planning to avoid interim moves via their transport depots was very limited.
6.3 Interim moves Just as there are many different types of interim moves, so it is concluded that there are many reasons for these moves. Some of the more important and apparently more credible reasons for interim moves are discussed below.
Short hours of operation of container parks are certainly a significant reason for many interim moves. Many interim moves cannot be made direct between stevedore and ultimate location because the ultimate location is shut at the time the move would need to commence or finish to fit in with booked timeslots at the port. The only logical way to fulfil stevedore timeslot obligations is to move the box via the transport company’s depot.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 46 The same applies for importer / exporter warehouses. There was little evidence of solutions such as after hours trailer swaps to make better use of the 24 hours each day.
Road transport companies are scheduling more container moves through their depots to use the largest possible vehicle for each move. A common example is pocket road trains to and from the port, but semitrailers to and from importers and exporters, with box transfer and vehicle configuration change at their depot.
Some journeys are scheduled through depots to avoid metropolitan peak hour traffic which a direct move would encounter.
6.4 Complex task optimisation It appears, although there is little evidence to support this, that some interim moves through transport company depots occur because that is the routine way the transport company operates for certain types of moves. Boxes are transferred between their depot and the stevedore in road trains, with significant efforts to maximise efficiency of these moves. Similarly, great efforts are made to improve efficiency of transfers to and from importers and exporters through avoiding peak hour traffic, linking inwards and outwards moves at importers and exporters etc.
However, the more difficult and complex task optimisation approach, considering stevedore and ultimate location in the one move, may not be routinely performed. Reasons for this could include: n lack of sufficient IT sophistication in scheduling and route planning n lack of awareness of the cost of box transfer via transport company depots n habit – this is the operational mode which is normally undertaken n in some cases, customer service gains to end user customers are achieved by transport companies holding boxes from or for a single shipment at their yards, and picking up or delivering in a routine schedule, frequently at the same time each day.
Most transport companies did not know the costs of staging a container through their depots. Lifts, space and a proportion of duplicated running must place this cost in the range $50 - $100 per box, depending on distance and transport company cost structures involved.
6.5 Movement of empty containers It is well known that a substantial proportion of containers observed in transit are empty: either on route to be filled; to be cleaned and prepared for the next journey; or being repositioned to be closer to the anticipated next requirement for boxes of that type. Fremantle port is a surplus port for 40’ general boxes, and many such boxes are exported empty, particularly to Singapore. Fremantle
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 47 Ports statistics (Fremantle Ports, 2003) show that 16.7% of import TEUs, 26.6% of export TEUs and 21.5% of all TEUs were empty.
The relocation of empty boxes between interim locations makes up 28% of moves (Figure 5-13) showing that the management of empty containers has opportunity for improvement.
There is always a perception that moving an empty container is wasteful or fails to add value, and hence a more detailed understanding of the movement of empty containers is required. Figure 6-2 shows an overall assessment of the differences in types of movements between full and empty containers.
n Figure 6-2 Journey type for all full and empty containers
Journey type for full and empty containers
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Recorded container journeys Interim to Interim Stevedore toInterim Interim toImporter Importer to Interim Interim toExporter ExporterInterim to Interim to Stevedore Stevedore to Importer Importer to StevedoreStevedore to Exporter Exporter to Stevedore
Full Empty
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 48 These analyses show that the proportion of empty container moves is highest for containers moving within the metropolitan area, but patterns overall are similar. Moves outside the metropolitan area are more likely to be one move direct to the exporter. Of container journeys captured by the study, 70% were for full and 30% for empty containers. Actual numbers of moves are in Appendix C Table 7-5.
Figure 6-3 shows an assessment of empty containers journey type, providing an overview of movement types and proportions for empty container movements only. n Figure 6-3 Journey type for empty containers
Journey type for empty containers
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Recorded container journeys
Interim to ImporterImporter to Interim Interim to Interim Interim to Exporter to Interim Stevedore toStevedore Importer to Interim Importer to StevedoreStevedore to Exporter Interim toExporter Stevedore to Stevedore
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised results
This data shows that there are three predominant journey types for empty containers: n Importer to interim (generally container park) – 27% of all empty box moves n Interim to interim – 24% of empty box moves n Interim (generally container park) to exporter – 27% of empty box moves.
Figure 5-12 (page 41) shows that while 51% of empty box moves are the expected minimum moves required (importer – container park – exporter) there are many other moves involving interim locations (Figure 5-13).
Exporters, particularly those in country locations, complained of difficulties in obtaining empty boxes to meet their requirements.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 49 6.6 20 foot versus 40 foot containers There has been a general increase in the proportion of 40’ containers in use for container movements to and from Australia over the last 5 – 10 years. This section aims to examine movement patterns for 20’ and 40’ containers. Journey type for the two container types is shown in Figure 6-4 and analysed in Table 6-1, excluding records where container size was not provided. n Figure 6-4 Comparison of journey type for 20’ / 40’ containers
20' / 40' Allocation by Journey Type for Recorded Moves
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Recorded container journeys
Interim to Interim Interim toImporter Importer to Interim Interim toExporter Exporter to Interim Stevedore Stevedoreto Importer to Interim Importer to StevedoreStevedore to Exporter InterimExporter to Stevedore to Stevedore
20' 40'
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised results n Table 6-1 20’ versus 40’ container moves Origin Destination 20 Foot 40 Foot % of total Stevedore Importer 6% 6% 12% Stevedore Interim 17% 9% 26% Interim Importer 1% 0% 1% Importer Interim 3% 3% 7% Importer Stevedore 0% 0% 0% Total import related 28% 18% 46%
Interim Interim 14% 4% 18%
Stevedore Exporter 0% 0% 0% Interim Exporter 5% 2% 8% Exporter Interim 1% 1% 2% Interim Stevedore 10% 7% 17% Exporter Stevedore 9% 0% 9% Total export related 25% 11% 36%
Total 66% 34% 100% Source: Quantitative survey – annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 50 This shows that 60% of imports are received in 20’ boxes (20’ moves from stevedore) and 40% in 40’ boxes. By contrast, 73% of exports are in 20’ boxes and 27% in 40% boxes.
This data shows that 40’ boxes are much more likely to be moved through interim locations, and 20’ are more likely to move direct. Reasons for this are not immediately apparent, but could relate to the nature of cargo – for example, imported retail products, clothes etc in 40’ boxes may be more likely to be handled through interim locations, whereas export products such as horticultural products, grain etc in 20’ boxes may be more urgent, or have more structured supply chains.
6.7 Length of container journeys This section examines the length of various types of container journeys, including evaluation of commonly held views along the lines that “half of all container moves are within 5 kilometres of the port and most of the rest are to Kewdale / Welshpool area”. Distances from origins / destinations to the port were calculated using typical road routes to each postcode.
Data is presented as annualised totals, multiplying the Direct Results (as collected) by the annualising factor (51.09), which is referred to as the “Annualised Direct Results
Figure 6-5 shows that most of the very short moves to and from stevedores are interim moves. However, the majority of direct moves to importers and from exporters were in the range 10 – 50 km. Moves between interim locations and the stevedore comprised 64% of all moves to and from the stevedores; the balance, 36% were direct. In Melbourne (DOI 2002) 82% of the total moves to and from stevedores were via interim locations, leaving only 18% as direct moves. Numbers of moves can be found in Appendix C, Table 7-6.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 51 n Figure 6-5 Journey length distribution – all moves
Container moves to stevedore
50%
40% Interim to stevedore
30% Exporter to stevedore
20%
10%
0%
0 < 5 km >250 km 5 < 10 km 10 < 20 km 20 < 50 km 50 < 100 km 100 < 250 km
Container moves from stevedore
50%
Stevedore to interim 40%
30% Stevedore to importer
20%
10%
0%
0 < 5 km >250 km 5 < 10 km 10 < 20 km 20 < 50 km 50 < 100 km 100 < 250 km
Container moves from interim to interim
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 < 5 km >250 km 5 < 10 km 10 < 20 km 20 < 50 km 50 < 100 km 100 < 250 km
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 52 Figure 6-6 shows the distribution of journey lengths for full and empty containers. n Figure 6-6 Distances travelled by full and empty containers
Distances travelled by full and empty containers
30%
25% 19% 20% 17%
15% 13% 11% 9% 9% 10% 6% 5% 4% 5% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% Recorded container journeys
0 < 5 km >250 km 5 < 10 km 10 < 20 km 20 < 50 km 50 < 100 km 100 < 250 km
Full - 56% Empty - 44%
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised direct results
Overall, full and empty containers had similar journey length patterns, but with trends for empty container journeys to be shorter overall.
6.8 Journeys to and from Inner Harbour length by origin and destination type Figure 6-7 shows container journey length for journeys commencing and finishing at Inner Harbour, separating the inland destination and origin location by type. Figure 6-8 contains a map showing distances from Inner Harbour.
This shows that around 70% of all moves to or from the port were to the metropolitan area, within 20 km of the port. A further 20% were to and from locations in the range 20 – 50 km, leaving only 11% of journeys to or from locations beyond 50 km from the port.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 53 n Figure 6-7 Journey lengths by origin and destination type – to and from Inner Harbour
To and from the Inner Harbour by distance
60%
Importer 50% Exporter 40% Container park
30% Rail terminal
20% Road transport depot
AQIS and customs 10% Stevedore 0%
0 < 5 >250 5 < 10 10 < 20 20 < 50 50 < 100 100 < 250 Km
Source: Quantitative Survey - direct results
The very large numbers of journeys less than five kilometres is further examined in Table 6-2 , subdividing journeys entirely within North Fremantle by origin and destination type. n Table 6-2 Origins and destination types – container journeys within North Fremantle 6159 Destination Container Rail Road AQIS and Origin Importer Exporter park terminal depot Customs Stevedore Total Importer 116 - 2,089 - - 406 116 2,728 Exporter - - - - 116 - 1,567 1,683 Container park - 4,295 4,759 58 2,902 116 15,032 27,163 Rail terminal - - 813 116 580 522 116 2,147 Road transport depot 58 - 4,527 1,103 522 58 17,992 24,261 AQIS and Customs 290 - 290 813 174 58 11,028 12,653 Stevedore 1,799 - 13,465 14,800 23,680 5,920 580 60,246 Total 2,264 4,295 25,944 16,890 27,975 7,081 46,432 130,880 Source: Quantitative Survey - direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 54 n Figure 6-8 Distances from Inner Harbour
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 55 6.9 Container journey origin and destination locations Container journey origin and destination locations were analysed using the postcode given for the origin and destination of each journey. Figure 6-9 to Figure 6-11 show the zones used in the analyses. Results by individual postcodes are in Appendix C.
n Figure 6-9 WA zone allocations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 56 n Figure 6-10 South west WA zone allocations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 57 n Figure 6-11 Metro WA zone allocations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 58 6.9.1 All origins and destinations Figure 6-12 shows the origins and destinations for all container journeys, and Figure 6-13 shows the same information, but excludes movements to and from North Fremantle. This gives an appreciation of the true hinterland served by Fremantle Ports. This analysis suggested that ultimate origins and destinations were less likely to be captured further from Perth, probably as a result of greater difficulty in obtaining information from road based carriers in more remote regions and interstate locations. n Figure 6-12 Origins and destinations of all container journeys
Container origin and destination movement summary
80%
70%
60% Destination
50% Origin
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SA Vic
Outer Perth Goldfields Gascoyne O'Connor region Joondalup region Geraldton region Perth Central region South West region Inner Harbour region Great Southern region Bayswater / Morley region Central Wheatbelt region Kwinana / RockinghamKewdale / Forrestfield region region Manjimup / Katanning region
Source: Quantitative Survey - direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 59 n Figure 6-13 Origins and Destinations of all container journeys, excluding Inner Harbour
Container origin and destination movement summary without Inner Harbour
14%
12% Destination
10% Origin 8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
SA Vic
Outer Perth Goldfields Gascoyne O'Connor region Joondalup region Geraldton region Perth Central region South West region Great SouthernCentral Wheatbelt region region Bayswater / Morley region Kwinana / RockinghamKewdale / Forrestfield region region Manjimup / Katanning region
Source: Quantitative Survey - direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 60 6.9.2 Ultimate origins and destinations The derivation of best estimates of ultimate origin and destination container numbers by location used in this section is detailed in section 4.3.
Figure 6-14 summarises the distribution of best estimates of ultimate destinations for import containers by location zone. This figure clearly shows that virtually all container journeys to ultimate destinations were to Perth metropolitan areas. The greatest concentration of ultimate destination locations receiving containers is in the Kewdale / Forrestfield inner southwestern suburbs of Perth, with a majority (39%) of all journeys to ultimate destinations ending there. Around 12% of boxes were destined for the central and eastern metropolitan areas of Perth, and 14% of boxes were destined for ultimate destinations in the suburbs near the port such as Fremantle and O’Connor. 3% of journeys were to importers in North Fremantle. n Figure 6-14 Container best estimate of ultimate destination – region summary
Ultimate destinations by Zones
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
SA Vic
Outer Perth Goldfields Gascoyne O'Connor region Geraldton region Joondalup region South West region Inner Harbour regionPerth Central region Great Southern region Central Wheatbelt region Bayswater / Morley region Manjimup / Katanning region Kwinana / RockinghamKewdale / Forrestfield region region
Source: Quantitative Survey – best estimates of ultimate origins and destinations
The situation for best estimates of ultimate origins is quite different, with 51% of boxes from ultimate origins destined for the port coming from outer Perth and Western Australian country areas, including 24% south west, and 10% central wheatbelt, as shown in Figure 6-15. Perth’s major industrial suburbs were well represented, with 16% of ultimate moves originating in the Kewdale – Canning Vale area. Only 2% of export moves originated in North Fremantle, but 23% came from near port suburbs.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 61 n Figure 6-15 Container best estimate of ultimate origins – region summary
Ultimate origins by Zones
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
SA Vic
Outer Perth Goldfields Gascoyne O'Connor region Joondalup region Geraldton region Perth Central region South West region Inner Harbour region Great Southern region Bayswater / Morley region Central Wheatbelt region Kwinana / KewdaleRockingham / Forrestfield region region Manjimup / Katanning region
Source: Quantitative Survey – best estimates of ultimate origins and destinations
6.9.3 Moves to and from ultimate and all origins and destinations by postcode Figure 6-16 to Figure 6-27 shows the distribution of container moves to and from each postcode. Two sets are provided: n an analysis showing the Best Estimates of moves to and from Ultimate Origins and Destinations (using the adjustment approach explained in section 4.3) n all analysis showing all origins and destinations, (using the Annualised Direct Results, the Direct Results multiplied by the annualising factor).
Care should be used when interpreting postcodes showing the smallest number of containers annually (1 – 200 or 1 – 2000), as this could result from a single, one off box movement not representative of typical movement patterns. Actual numbers of containers by individual postcode are in Appendix C Table 7-7.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 62 n Figure 6-16 Annual container moves to Best Estimates of Ultimate Destinations – Perth metro area
Source: Quantitative survey – Best Estimates of Ultimate Origins and Destinations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 63 n Figure 6-17 Annual container moves to Best Estimates of Ultimate Destinations – SW Western Australia
Gerralldtton
Bunburry Esperrance
Allbany
Source: Quantitative survey – Best Estimates of Ultimate Origins and Destinations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 64 n Figure 6-18 Annual container moves to Best Estimates of Ultimate Destinations – Australia
Source: Quantitative survey – Best Estimates of Ultimate Origins and Destinations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 65 n Figure 6-19 All container move destinations – Perth metro area
Source: Quantitative survey – Annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 66 n Figure 6-20 All container move destinations – SW Western Australia
Gerralldtton
Bunburry Esperrance
Allbany
Source: Quantitative survey – Annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 67 n Figure 6-21 Annual container move destinations – Australia
Source: Quantitative survey – Annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 68 n Figure 6-22 Annual container moves from Best Estimates of Ultimate Origins – Perth metro area
Source: Quantitative survey – Best Estimates of Ultimate Origins and Destinations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 69 n Figure 6-23 Annual container moves from Best Estimates of Ultimate Origins – SW Western Australia
Gerralldtton
Bunburry
Esperrance
Allbany
Source: Quantitative survey – Best Estimates of Ultimate Origins and Destinations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 70 n Figure 6-24 Annual container moves from Best Estimates of Ultimate Origins – Australia
Source: Quantitative survey – Best Estimates of Ultimate Origins and Destinations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 71 n Figure 6-25 All container move origins – Perth metropolitan area
n
Source: Quantitative survey – Annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 72 Figure 6-26 All container move origins – SW Western Australia
Gerralldtton
Bunburry Esperrance
Allbany
Source: Quantitative survey – Annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 73 n Figure 6-27 All container move origins - Australia
Source: Quantitative survey – Annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 74 6.10 Movement patterns The quantitative survey captured a number of examples where a single container completed several different journeys within the survey week. These provide insights into overall movement patterns for individual containers, which may be typical of movements more generally. Some examples are shown in Figure 6-28.
n Figure 6-28 Linked container move examples
Container Journey Vehicle Journey origin Date, Time Date, Time Comments type destination type DT…..7465 15 Sept Loaded, Rail Terminal 15 Sept Pocket Transfer to Fremantle rail Stevedore - 6159 1400 import – 6159 1440 road train terminal Rail Terminal - 16 Sept Loaded, Rail Terminal 17 Sept Rail Transfer to Kewdale 6159 1800 import – 6105 1130 Rail Terminal 17 Sept Loaded, Rail terminal – Not Rail Landbridge to Adelaide 6105 0900 import 5000 provided
AP…..2385 Transfer from importer who 15 Sept Empty, Container park 15 Sept Road – Importer – 6159 emptied to container park. 0800 import – 6159 0830 other Probably swinglift trailer. Container park – 15 Sept Empty, Exporter – 15 Sept Road – Move to exporter at 6159 1200 export 6104 1300 other Belmont for loading Road – 19 Sept Stevedore – 19 Sept Move loaded from exporter Exporter – 6104 Full, export semi 1255 6159 1812 to stevedore trailer
CA…..8997 Road transport Transfer from container Road – Container park – 15 Sept Empty, depot (temp 15 Sept park to road transport semi 6159 1200 import storage) – 1900 depot in Kingston / trailer 6256 Maranup area. Road transport 17 Sept Empty, Exporter – 17 Sept Road B Move to exporter at depot (temporary 1149 import 6275 1400 double Nannup area for loading storage) - 6256 18 Sept Stevedore – 18 Sept Road B Move loaded from exporter Exporter 6275 Full, export 1255 6159 2112 double to stevedore
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 75 6.11 Road / rail market share 6.11.1 Overall market share Rail market share can be assessed in several ways, which give differing outcomes. The two main approaches and calculation methods used to assess road rail market share in this study were:
1) The proportion of container journeys undertaken by each mode, as a percentage of all container journeys Calculated: (Container journeys by rail) / (all container journeys) – annualised adjusted results.
2) The proportion of containers to and from the stevedore terminals which were moved by rail at some point as part of this overall transfer process Calculated: (Container journeys by rail to or from Inner Harbour stevedore terminals) / (loaded containers through Fremantle Port) – annualised adjusted container movement numbers and actual Fremantle Port statistics.
As discussed in Section 4.2, it was necessary to adjust direct results collected in the quantitative survey to account for container journeys not captured. This was undertaken by obtaining and assessing industry estimates of the average number of moves per container. As complete movement information was obtained in the survey for rail moves, but not for road, differing estimates of the average number of moves per container affects calculated road rail market share figures. As discussed in section 4.2, an average of 5.25 moves per container land transport cycle has been selected as the best estimate. However, a sensitivity analysis has been undertaken which shows the road rail share should the actual average number of movers per container be 4, 5.25 or 6, shown in Table 4-8.
Table 6-3 shows road rail market share conclusions from this work.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 76 n Table 6-3 Road rail market share
Container journeys included Road Rail Source All journeys Quantitative data survey, annualised results All container journeys 96.8% 3.2% (road and rail container journeys as % of all journeys)
Movements between port and importers and exporters only Quantitative data survey, annualised results and From Fremantle port to Fremantle Ports throughput data (container 88% 12% importer transfers from port to importer using rail as part of the overall transfer) Quantitative data survey, annualised results and To Fremantle Port from Fremantle Ports throughput data (container 92% 8% exporter transfers to port from exporter using rail as part of the overall transfer) Quantitative data survey, annualised results and Between Fremantle Port and Fremantle Ports throughput data (container 90% 10% importer / exporter transfers between port and importer / exporter using rail as part of the overall transfer)
Source: Sources for this table are shown in the right hand column.
6.11.2 Rail market share to and from the port by journey length
Figure 6-29 shows that rail market share to and from the port for all container journeys varies significantly by journey distance: n 3% around the metropolitan area n 0% to and from outer Perth and country locations within 150 km n 12% to and from Western Australian country locations
Rail market share for journeys between port and interstate locations was zero, reflecting that Kewdale is the receipt despatch location for interstate rail movements, and that no containers are presently despatched directly between Inner Harbour and interstate locations.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 77 n Figure 6-29 Modal share to and from the port
Road / rail mode share to and from the port
Metro
Rail share Rail share Outer Perth Rail - full 0.0% 2.6% Rail - empty Rail share Road - full Country WA 11.7% Road - empty Interstate
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Proportion of container moves
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
Figure 6-30 shows road rail market share of all container journeys to and from the port separately, subdivided into metropolitan, outer Perth (beyond 50 km) and country WA. There were also a few journeys to and from the port where origin or destination location were not provided, which are not shown.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 78 n Figure 6-30 Road Rail mode share
Road / rail mode share from the port
Rail share Metro 4.5% Rail share Outer Perth 0.0% Rail - full
Rail share Rail - empty Country WA 28.1% Road - full Road - empty Interstate
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Proportion of container moves
Road / rail mode share to the port
Rail share Metro 0.4%
Rail share Rail - full Outer Perth 0.0% Rail - empty Rail share Country WA Road - full 5.0% Road - empty Interstate
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Proportion of container moves
Source: Quantitative Survey - annualised results
Rail moves from the port were predominantly full boxes, but to the port were mostly empties, regardless of distance. Actual numbers of container moves for these analyses are in Appendix C, Table 7-12, which also defines postcodes comprising the metropolitan area.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 79 These patterns differ quite significantly from the situation observed in Melbourne (DOI 2002) where rail’s market share was: n 1% around the metropolitan area n 43% to / from Victorian country locations within 250 km n 92% to / from Victorian country locations beyond 250 km n 78% from interstate and 95% to interstate locations (this difference attributable to successful landbridging to Adelaide by rail).
However, it should be noted that the Victorian figures include rail movements to and from Dynon terminals (about 3 kilometres by road from the port) as well as those to and from the on dock rail terminals.
6.11.3 Increasing rail’s market share There are a number of current initiatives that aim to increase the proportion of Australia’s freight task performed by rail. Increased rail task share is expected to improve overall logistics and supply chain efficiency, environmental performance and community amenity. The WA state government has set rail share targets for 15% of port related freight to be carried by rail by 2008 and 30% by 2013, although the method of calculation has yet to be clearly defined.
Rail traffic to and from Inner Harbour was almost entirely bulk grain until the grain storage and loading facilities were removed in the late 1990s. Up to 12 trains per day used the corridor each day. The current rail market share of container traffic has been gained over the relatively short time frame since 2000.
It is likely that rail gauge issues may partly explain rail’s lower market share in Perth, where the port currently does not have narrow gauge rail facilities, and the short road move from the rail terminal adds cost, delays and potential for damage.
There are substantial opportunities for rail to capture market share in all categories of port related container transport. The larger opportunities for rail are probably in metropolitan and closer country areas, as movement patterns suggest that there are not large numbers of container moves to more distant country locations. The locations of many importers and exporters clearly show that for rail to capture these moves, an intermodal terminal in the Kewdale or other outer industrial suburbs would need to be linked to on dock rail facilities by port shuttle trains.
Experience in Sydney shows that such terminals can enable rail to capture and hold substantial market share.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 80 6.12 Potential for intermodal terminals Achieving increased rail market share will require enhanced rail terminal facilities away from the port. A number of locations have been suggested for such terminals. Table 6-4 shows postcodes which could realistically be serviced through intermodal terminals at each location.
n Table 6-4 Postcodes included for potential intermodal terminal location
Location grouping Postcode Location grouping Postcode Bunbury area Kewdale area Bunbury 6231 Kewdale 6105 Welshpool 6106 Collie 6225 Australind 6233 Forrestfield 6058 Brunswick Junction 6224 Northam area Burekup 6227 Northam 6401 Capel 6271 Kalgoorlie 6430 Busselton 6280 Coolgardie 6429 Kemerton Boulder 6432 Dunsborough 6281 Merredin 6415 Kimberley area Kwinana area Kimberley 6728 Kwinana 6167 Tom Price 6751 Rockingham 6168 Paraburdoo 6754 Naval Base 6165 Karratha 6714 Kwinana Beach 6167 Dampier 6713 East Rockingham 6168 Port Hedland 6721 Henderson 6166 Marble Bar 6760 Wattleup 6166 Newman 6753 Mandogalup 6167 Broome 6725 Derby 6728 Fitzroy Crossing 6765 Wyndham 6740 Kununurra 6743
Table 6-5 shows annual container numbers for:
n Best estimates of ultimate origins and destinations
n All moves to and from these locations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 81 n Table 6-5 Container numbers to and from potential intermodal terminal locations
Ultimate Ultimate All Location origins destinations All origins destinations Bunbury 3,192 871 3,192 871 Kewdale 10,743 21,411 48,639 59,435 Kimberley 0 116 0 116 Kwinana 8,223 3,163 16,542 11,318 Northam 2,148 2,380 2,148 2,380 Other 74,207 90,083 673,400 669,802 Total 98,513 118,024 743,921 743,921
Source: Quantitative survey – best estimates of ultimate origins and destinations; and annualised results
6.13 Times of Day Inefficiencies created or exacerbated by mismatch in operating hours between various sections of the import and export container supply chain have been highlighted since 1995 (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure) in the “Warehouse to Wharf” report.
These current position on these issues have been examined from both the quantitative survey of container moves, and also the video survey of container truck movements in this study.
Figure 6-31 and Figure 6-32 show starting and finishing times for container journeys subdivided by origin and destination type, analysing each of the 24 hours of the survey period.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 82 n Figure 6-31 Times released from origin
Times that containers were despatched from origin 12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Stevedore Importer Exporter Interim
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
n Figure 6-32 Times received at destination
Times that containers were received at destination 10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Stevedore Importer Exporter Interim
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 83 The video survey also permitted examination of vehicle numbers by time of day for an average weekday, summarised in Table 6-6, Figure 6-33 and Figure 6-34. n Table 6-6 Observed vehicle numbers by hour of day
Port Beach Rd Tydeman Rd Port Beach + Tydeman Rds Hour Other Other Other Container Light Container Light Container Light commen- heavy Total heavy Total heavy Total trucks vehicles trucks vehicles trucks vehicles cing vehicles vehicles vehicles 6:00 11 27 620 658 65 62 988 1,114 76 89 1,608 1,772 7:00 18 47 1,559 1,623 119 108 1,902 2,129 137 155 3,460 3,752 8:00 20 63 1,886 1,969 112 130 2,165 2,407 131 193 4,051 4,376 9:00 23 51 1,116 1,190 128 142 1,341 1,611 151 193 2,457 2,801 10:00 19 64 874 957 132 127 1,175 1,434 151 191 2,049 2,391 11:00 21 60 919 999 130 129 1,218 1,477 151 189 2,136 2,476 12:00 20 54 944 1,017 126 113 1,295 1,534 146 166 2,239 2,551 13:00 17 44 993 1,054 138 113 1,351 1,602 155 157 2,344 2,656 14:00 17 51 1,086 1,153 132 124 1,467 1,724 148 175 2,553 2,877 15:00 17 46 1,425 1,488 124 94 1,823 2,042 141 140 3,248 3,530 16:00 12 41 1,659 1,711 107 61 1,992 2,160 119 102 3,650 3,871 17:00 9 21 1,866 1,895 73 32 2,070 2,176 82 53 3,936 4,071 Total 201 567 14,945 15,713 1,387 1,235 18,787 21,409 1,588 1,802 33,732 37,122 Source: Video Survey n Figure 6-33 Vehicles on Tydeman Road by hour of day
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000 No. of vehicles
500
0 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
Light vehicles Container trucks Other heavy vehicles
Source: Video Survey
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 84 n Figure 6-34 Vehicles on Port Beach Road by hour of day
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000 No. of vehicles 500
0 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
Light vehicles Container trucks Other heavy vehicles
Source: Video Survey
The quantitative surveys confirm comments that overall activity levels are low after about 1800 each day, and that although stevedore receivals and despatch are open until 2200 / 2300, relatively little use is being made of the last four or five operating hours.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 85 6.14 Container carrying vehicle types observed Figure 6-35 shows the distribution of container truck types reported in the main quantitative survey.
n Figure 6-35 Container truck types
Vehicle types - Quantitative survey
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
- Rail Rigid Rigid & Semi B-double Pocket Road Road - truck trailer trailer road train train other (27.5m) (36m)
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results. Excludes records where vehicle type not provided.
This shows that semitrailers (36%) and pocket road trains (27%) dominate the reported container truck fleet. A significant proportion of the 11% of observations reported as “Road – other” refers to vehicles with swinglift trailers (capable of placing and retrieving containers from the ground next to the truck). However, it is likely that a substantial proportion of semitrailers also have swinglift trailers. It is thought that about one third of container deliveries are with swinglift trailers in WA, much higher than in the eastern states. Swinglift trailers should be identified as a separate vehicle type in future surveys.
Mass limit concessions are available for swinglift trailers in WA, with annual permits for 6.0t, 18.0t and 27.0t, up to 8.5t above regulation mass limits. After making allowances for typical masses of the cranes, power plant, fuel tanks etc involved, at least 1 – 1.5 t additional carrying capacity should result. However, it is concluded that the main reason for popularity of swinglift trailers is convenience rather than additional carrying capacity.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 86 6.15 Container truck utilisation (empty running) Container truck utilisation was assessed by measuring the percentage of trucks completely empty, which averaged 27% overall. The number of empty slots was not examined. These results are shown in Table 6-7 and Figure 6-36. Figure 6-37 shows container truck utilisation by time of day.
n Table 6-7 Container truck utilisation Port Beach Rd Tydeman Rd Port Beach + Tydeman Rds Hour Container % TEU / Container % TEU / Container commenc- % empty TEU / truck trucks empty truck trucks empty truck trucks ing 600 11 5% 1.64 65 40% 1.07 76 26% 1.15 700 18 8% 1.47 119 35% 1.10 137 42% 1.15 800 20 21% 1.15 112 27% 1.22 131 34% 1.21 900 23 7% 1.38 128 29% 1.23 151 38% 1.25 1000 19 3% 1.45 132 28% 1.34 151 38% 1.35 1100 21 7% 1.41 130 25% 1.37 151 34% 1.37 1200 20 5% 1.43 126 30% 1.25 146 39% 1.27 1300 17 6% 1.59 138 33% 1.20 155 47% 1.24 1400 17 12% 1.27 132 27% 1.34 148 37% 1.34 1500 17 26% 1.26 124 27% 1.28 141 38% 1.28 1600 12 4% 1.48 107 28% 1.34 119 31% 1.35 1700 9 12% 1.47 73 38% 1.07 82 29% 1.11 Total 201 10% 1.40 1,387 30% 1.25 1,588 27% 1.27 Source: Video survey n Figure 6-36 Container truck utilisation
35% 1.60
30% 1.40 1.20 25% 1.00 20% 0.80 15%
0.60 TEU/truck 10% 0.40 % completely empty 5% 0.20
0% - Tydeman Rd Port Beach Rd
% empty TEU / truck
Source: Video survey
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 87 n Figure 6-37 Container truck utilisation at different times of the day
Inner Harbour container trucks Tydeman and Port Beach Rds 50% 1.60 1.40 40% 1.20 30% 1.00 0.80 20% 0.60 % empty TEU / truck 10% 0.40 0.20 0% 0.00
6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
% empty TEU / truck
Source: Video survey
6.16 Dangerous goods The quantitative survey asked respondents whether containers contained dangerous goods, and if so, the class. The findings from this, which showed that 2% of boxes contained dangerous goods, are in Figure 6-38. The percentages shown are of the 2% of boxes which were reported as containing dangerous goods.
n Figure 6-38 Dangerous goods findings
Dangerous Goods in Import and Export containers 60%
50% 98% of 40% containers had no DGs 30%
20%
10%
0% 1 2.1 2.2 3 4.3 5.1 5.2 6.1 8 9 Class
Import Export
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 88 7. Opportunities
Although the overall objectives of the project were aimed at providing information and data sets which will assist government and industry to achieve overall industry development benefits, this section aims to develop this to a set of actions which can be considered for implementation by various industry and government stakeholders. Some measures are listed under more than one heading.
n Table 7-1 Recommended action plan – improving efficiency of intermodal operations
Initiative Role of Government Driver Desired Outcome Priority Lead agency Others involved Performance levels, benchmarking and reporting 1 Monitor and report container truck Undertake video or on-ground Need to develop Improved truck H DPI Stevedores, road utilisation. observation surveys annually at landside KPIs utilisation, reduced transport same time each year and report empty running operators reults using time series approaches. 2 Develop a high level benchmark Measure and report routinely Concern about Consistent and H DPI Stevedores, measure of port landside Agree exact measures to be used. undue delays accountable Fremantle Ports, efficiency, such as total truck performance TWU turnaround time at stevedore terminals. 3 Monitor and report rail container Define assessment measures Uncertainty about Appreciation of trend H DPI Stevedores, transport market share. Measure and report routinely government target in modal share Fremantle Ports, Establish acceptance of rail market definition enabling TWU, rail share targets in port culture. action/intervention if operators failing to meet target
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 89 Initiative Role of Government Driver Desired Outcome Priority Lead agency Others involved Stevedore and VBS 4 Enable road carriers with a booked Champion benefits. Observed difficulty in Improved truck H Stevedores Road transport timeslot preferential access to obtaining adjacent utilisation, reduced operators, TWU adjacent or simultaneous timeslots slots for empty running to link export container delivery import/export boxes with import pick up.
5 Actively encourage increased use Ensure benefits of booking slots Lack of incentves to Compulsory booking H Stevedores Road transport of VBS. outweigh costs. book slots and system (currently operators, TWU penalties for failing to being developed) with honour booking appopriate incentives Raise two way and penalties loading rates 6 Investigate differential slot booking Champion benefits - even quite Acitivity concentrated Better spread of H Stevedores TWU or usage pricing. small pricing differentials are likely in office hours activity and increased to have a noticeable effect. asset utilisation
7 Provide "look-up" only access to Champion benefits. Cargo interests told Increased cargo H Stevedores Cargo interests, VBS. "no slots available" interest participation in shipping lines, greater use of road transport currently empty slots operators
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 90 Initiative Role of Government Driver Desired Outcome Priority Lead agency Others involved Road Transport Operators 8 Assist road carriers understand the Activity based costing study to Road transport Improved operational H DPI - to Road transport true cost of interim moves via their demonstrate true costs of interim operators generally efficiency arising from develop brief operators depots. delivery moves via transport unaware of true cargo interests paying Transport Forum company depot vesus direct costs thus reducing true costs of truck delivery, considering efficiency of capacity to charge operations separate fleet alternatives versus cargo interests integrated pickup and delivery fleet accordingly arrangements.
9 Compare true costs of swinglift Undertake activity based costing Road transport Improved operational H DPI - to Road transport deliveries with wait while load and assessment and report to industry. operators generally efficiency arising from develop brief operators trailer swap approaches. unaware of true cargo interests paying Transport Forum costs thus reducing true costs of truck capacity to charge operations cargo interests accordingly
10 Increase road truck double shifting. Champion legal structures to Concentration of Improved truck, M Road transport TWU Main Roads enable owner drivers to hire truck trips between teminal and road operators WA second drivers. 6am and 6pm and infrastructure impact on other road utilisation. Potential users for reducing density of truck traffic by spreading of truck journeys throughout the day. 11 Encourage truck use of preferred Feasibility assessment of costs Congestion and Reduction in "rat- L Main Roads DPI, Road routes. and benefits. delays on major running" WA transport routes encouraging operators drivers to seek alternative routes SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ through residential
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 91 Initiative Role of Government Driver Desired Outcome Priority Lead agency Others involved Information and Communication 12 Establish industry wide web- Define system objectives, basic Disenfranchisement Better management of H Industry wide Whole supply enabled IT platform to manage operating parameters Preliminary of smaller operators land movement of initiative chain land transport of containers. feasibility assessment ot containers Improved demonstrate viability. asset utilisation
13 Improve small-medium transport Demonstration project to assess Disenfranchisement Better management of M Road transport Whole supply company IT capability. costs and benefits of enhanced IT of smaller operators land movement of operators / chain capability for small-medium containers Improved system transport companies, including in- asset utilisation integrators cab capability. 14 Encourage a more strategic role of Existing groups may be more Many important Strategic industry H DPI Whole supply an industry group with broad effective if more strategic and less developments group with generally chain representation across all sectors of focussed on day-to-day require agreement accepted industry the port community. operational issues and fighting and cooperation confidence fires. across the whole supply chain Infrastructure Issues 15 Improve road access to Rous Head Assess and implement actions. Undesirable queuing Improved safety and H Fremantle Port Ops Task through smoothing tight curves, and lack of suitable truck facilities Ports Force widening where possible and place for trucks to reevaluating truck parking and park queuing options. 16 Evaluate options to improve Stirling Various intersection options, grade Reducing levels of Operational efficiency H Main Roads DPI, Road Highway-High Street-Leach separation and consistent three service and safety as and safety WA transport Highway and Stock Road routes. lane road configuration have been traffic volumes improvements arising operators, Local advanced and could contribute to increase, resulting in from high quality, impacts committee reducing delays and costs of road additional costs for appropriate level of improvements. truck operators service provision for identified major truck route 17 Assess options for use of Internal Assess and implement actions. Potential to minimise Lower transport costs L Stevedores Fremantle Ports, Transfer Vehicles (ITVs) between number of trips and fewer vehicle Main Roads WA port and near dock facilities. through use of larger movements vehicles 18 Progress existing plans to realign Assess and implement actions Potential congestion Removal of non-port H Main Roads DPI, Road Curtin Avenue to enable light Potentially contentious. at new at-grade rail related traffic from WA transport vehicles to bypass Tydeman Road crossing, increasing Tydeman Road, West operators, Local / Port Beach Roads intersection. conflict between port- of Queen victoria impacts committee related and other street traffic
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 92 Initiative Role of Government Driver Desired Outcome Priority Lead agency Others involved Enhancing Use of Rail 19 Progress existing plans to provide Assess and implement actions. Increased rail market Increased rail market H Fremantle Rail operators direct dual gauge access to share to reduce truck share Ports, DPI Fremantle Inner Harbour. traffic and impact
20 Develop enhanced on-dock rail Assess and implement actions. In progress Increased rail market M Fremantle DPI terminals closer to stevedore share Ports, rail terminals to enable direct handling operators of containers between rail terminals and stevedores wharf stacks.
21 Develop an empty container park Ensure timing of this development Ability for empty Improved truck M Rail operators DPI, Fremantle as part of Kewdale rail terminal fits with the reduction in container boxes for exports to utilisation. Reduction Ports design. park capacity at P&O and Baguley be sourced locally in longer, slower trips depots resulting from rail terminal and for emptied to/from port area to work. import boxes to be pick up/drop off stored for empties subsequent return to 22 Assess potential for further Assess potential tonnages through Increased rail market Increased rail market H DPI Rail operators, intermodal terminals in identified locations Prefeasibility share to reduce truck share importers metropolitan and regional areas, study of operational viability. traffic and impact exporters with rail port services.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 93 Initiative Role of Government Driver Desired Outcome Priority Lead agency Others involved Improved Strategic Land Use for Container Movement Patterns 23 Ensure strategically valuable near Ensure optimum land use planning Potential conflict Buffer zone around H Fremantle Road operators port land is reserved for trade and reservation is undertaken. between users port Ports actively seeking related use, and methods Pressure from non Ongoing 24 hour per suitable land established to encourage existing port interests for day operation less beneficial land uses to reductions in port relocate. uses and activity 24 Improve Kewdale intermodal Preliminary feasibility assessment. Increased rail market Increased rail market H DPI to inform Rail operators terminal with common user or share to reduce truck share Kewdale similar style terminal to encourage traffic and impact redevelopers - rail port shuttle competition. Chris Bebich DPI 25 Complete long term horizon (20+ Review existing work in light of Incompatibile land Certainty in longer H Fremantle DPI years) planning study evaluating current and anticipated issues, uses, incompatible term vision. Ongoing Ports options for Outer Harbour. Review complete studies in progress. traffic mixes 24 hour per day port and update completed study operations. Reduce examining Inner Harbour. Ensure incompatible traffic mix effective promulgation to all relevant stakeholders.
26 Ensure options for handling growth Review existing planning work, Accommodating Accommodation of M Fremantle DPI in container trade are pursued, include issue assessment in work container traffic growth in container Ports subject to conclusions from long underway. growth. volumes. term planning studies.
27 As part of the Rous Head Longer term implementation of Conflict between Separation as far as H Fremantle Port Tenants on Rous reclamation project, investigate measures to eliminate light, private light, private and non- possible Head options for greater separation of and non-motorised vehicles from motorised traffic and port and leisure traffic, alternative area. Investigate options for light container traffic road access etc. vehicle parking with shuttle bus operations for remaining Rous Head businesses.
28 Examine options to assist better Evaluate and implement if Limited expansion Scale economies and M Fremantle DPI, Container performing container parks acquire supported. opportunities for competition on service Ports parks, shipping suitable land for expansion. many container among container parks lines parks 29 Examine options to require Evaluate and implement if Limited opening Increased spread of L Fremantle DPI, Container minimum hours of operation for supported. hours at container activity over 24 hour Ports parks, shipping container parks as part of land parks limiting options day lines lease arrangements. for others
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 94 Initiative Role of Government Driver Desired Outcome Priority Lead agency Others involved Increasing utilisation of available operting hours 30 Seek longer hours of operation for Hold discussions with facility Mismatch of hours Land transport H DPI Whole supply AQIS and container wash facilities. operators, consider lease impeding efficient efficiency chain incentives or requirements for operations improvements minimum hours of operation. 31 Shipping lines - better access to Hold discussions with shipping Mismatch of hours Land transport H Shipping lines DPI, Container relevant personnel to resolve lines to encourage staggered impeding efficient efficiency parks empty container issues. working hours for relevant clerical operations improvements and call centre staff. 32 Seek increased hours of container Promote concept through SFCWA, Mismatch in Ability for truck M Container park DPI, shipping lines park operation (potential remote Transport Forum, industry container park and operators servicing operators monitoring and control from central associations etc. Examine stevedoring terminal terminals to pick control room, with electronic strategies with measures at land hours of operation up/drop off an empty access control, vehicle and lease renewal requiring longer reducing truck box at container park container identification etc to hours. operating efficiency reduce on site staff requirements).
Importers and Exporters 33 Encourage importers and exporters Champion benefits. Undertake Cargo interests Improved efficiency in H DPI Port Ops task to invest in improved container cost benefit analysis Coventry unaware of true land transport logistics force Importers loading dock facilities. Group Ltd could be a potential costs of logistics and chain exporters case study. potential for cost savings 34 Encourage increased hours of Conduct study assessing costs, Cargo interests Improved efficiency in H DPI Port Ops task container swap access at importer benefits and feasibility of various unaware of true land transport logistics force Importers and exporter warehouses. approaches (eg.after hours driver costs of logistics and chain exporters access, remote monitoring, potential for cost electonic access and identification savings control systems, extended receipt and despatch operating hours etc.).
35 Encourage development of an Raise possibility with likely Lots of potential Inproved loading, M Importers and DPI, road importer/exporter industrial park developers and land owners . inefficiencies at unloading and exporters?? transport with high standard common loading importer and container truck operators docks for smaller exporters stem from utilisation importers/exporters who could not poor or non existant otherwise justify container loading loading dock facilities docks.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 95 Appendix A Summary of views raised in discussions
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 96 A.1 Overview This section provides a summary of the views raised by interviewees during the qualitative discussions held for this project. The views reported here are a summary of the opinions and comments made during the discussions held. The views reported here may not accord with everyone’s perceptions of reality, or even to generally held consensus. However, an understanding of the perceptions and views of specific groups of players in the import / export seafreight chain is important if various groups are to be encouraged to make changes which improve efficiency overall.
A.2 Issues raised by most interviewees across the sea freight supply chain
Residential encroachment and incompatible neighbours near Inner Harbour was a common theme raised by most interviewees, who expressed concerns that these developments would limit 24 hour operation, larger more efficient road transport vehicles and similar efficiency gains.
The issue of live sheep exports from berths at Inner Harbour was seen as port activity with high potential to provoke actions which disrupt other operations. Many interviewees recognised that most were now confined to berths 1 and 2 near Rous Head, furthest from residential development and Fremantle’s residential and recreational areas. However, the ongoing issues with the Kormo Express was clearly raised as a high priority issue. Relocation of livestock trade was suggested several times.
The cancellation of the Fremantle East Bypass and Roe Highway Extension 8 were raised by nearly every interviewee, generally as an unfortunate, politically influenced decision which seriously compromised the logical efficiency improvement which would better link Inner Harbour with its landside hinterland. In most cases, this was the first issued raised by most interviewees.
Most interviewees believed that Inner Harbour limits must be reached, and consequently planning for Outer Harbour, Kwinana, should be given higher priority. A typical reaction was along the lines “what’s the point of lots of development work focusing on Fremantle, when at most we will only be here for 10 or 20 years. Our planning should be focussing on Kwinana now”. 2
Congestion at the proposed Tydeman Road rail level crossing to be constructed as part of the upgraded, direct rail link to North Quay was frequently raised. Many interviewees believed that if the rail share targets were reached, resulting in increased number and size of trains, the closure of Tydeman Road at the new level crossing could cause severe congestion and reduce general
2 Author comment: Recognising that much planning work has already been done, it could be concluded that publicising the outcomes of this work has not been effective to this target audience.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 97 acceptance of rail’s increased share of the land container transport task. Many pointed out that since the new level crossing would be further east than the existing one near Port Beach Road, blockage at this Queen Victoria Street intersection was more likely.
Many interviewees raised issues associated with stevedore vehicle booking systems (VBSs). The three commonly raised issues were: n Inability to obtain stevedore timeslots at the times desired. This was particularly 07:00 – 11:00. n Varying flexibility of VBSs, where one stevedore was commonly nominated as more flexible and easier to deal with, particularly for non-standard requests. n VBS fines systems not equitable, where stevedores fine road operators for no show and late arrival, but do not credit when they cancel slots or trucks are delayed in queues. It was pointed out these encourage use of standby queues.
A.3 Stevedores
Both stevedores reported low VBS usage overall, which limits opportunities for stevedores to use booking levels to assist more dynamic resource scheduling. One stevedore said that booking rates were so low that maximum resource and staff scheduling was applied virtually all the time.
Both stevedores were aiming to increase VBS usage , by means such as not servicing standby queues at popular times (or at all) and improving service speed for vehicles with booked slots.
Free storage is generally three days, or moving to three days, but other arrangements are also in place. Saturday and Sunday are generally not counted in calculating three days.
Stevedore terminal road receipt and despatch areas operate 06:00 – 22:00 / 23:00 Monday – Friday, but will open outside these times if container movement minimus are met, or an opening fee paid.
Both stevedores reported very low activity levels after 18:00.
The common Patrick and P&O VBS booking system OneStop expected mid 2004.
Both stevedores reported significant spare terminal capacity overall, but not in prime day shift.
Stevedores seek direct rail connection as soon as possible, removing current requirement for short truck movement to the rail terminal. Customs and quarantine requirements also make this more difficult.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 98 Stevedores quoted typical truck turnaround times around 15 – 30 minutes, but delays beyond this occur, with common reasons including: n equipment breakdown n heavy standby queue demand n sick leave n extensive recent overtime (resulting in no shows) n heavy demand for working ships. Road transport operators claimed longer average throughput times and delays.
Exact measuring approaches differ between the stevedores, including where trucks queue, use of cafeteria within terminal, when vehicle paperwork is processed (and hence when the turnaround time clock starts).
A.4 Road transport operators
There was strong and virtually universal support for construction of the Fremantle East Bypass and Roe Highway 8. This was virtually always the first issue mentioned by road transport operators, and by many in other parts of the container supply chain.
Existing road routes between the port and Kewdale are inadequate to provide acceptable transit times: n Port Beach Road, Tydeman Road, Stirling Highway, High Street, Leach Highway to Kewdale / Canningvale industrial areas. n This route, then Stock Road to Kwinana n Port Beach Road and Reid Highway to northern locations.
Minimum viable upgrading for the Stirling / Leach route seen as: n total remodelling of Stirling Highway / High Street intersection (close High Street south of Stirling Highway) n grade separate: • Leach / Orrong • Leach / Stock n consistent three lanes each way – particularly High Street and Shelley Bridge n signal synchronisation to meet truck needs n reduce traffic lights by “at least half!”
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 99 Roe Highway Extension must reach Stock Road at the minimum to be of any real benefit.
Concern was expressed about congestion in the Kewdale rail terminal area in peak periods, particularly: n Kewdale Road / Fenton Street n Kewdale Road / Abernethy Road n Kewdale Road / Tonkin Highway / Horrie Miller Drive n Need to link McDowell Streets north and south with a rail overpass bridge.
Grade separation of all Tydeman Road rail crossings required.
Nearly all road transport operators stated that there were insufficient timeslots at stevedores in the morning to meet demand.
Truck throughput times stated by stevedores are underestimates, and are not like for like comparisons (Patrick is more reflective of reality).
Container washing rates in WA (13%) are much higher than eastern states (3%), with WA Department of Agriculture officer involvement (not AQIS) a major factor. [Greater use of flat top trailers, where undersides of containers cannot be seen, and WA’s unique environmental isolation may also be issues.]
Container parks need to open until at least 18:00, preferably 19:00, with current hours a major inefficiency.
Industry warehouse opening hours are also a limiting factor.
Container wash facilities also need to open later – preferably port operating hours.
All these working hour mismatches lead to additional movements and unnecessary breaks in container journeys overnight at transport company yards (frequently the only other option for truck drivers).
Road transport operators stated that VBSs have substantially reduced queues.
There was widespread support among larger operators for increased use of booked slots , and reducing standby queue service levels.
Smaller and regional carriers were greatly concerned by these potential developments. Smaller carriers generally stated they did not have the time or inclination to book slots, particularly
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 100 since it then enables stevedores to fine them. Regional carriers were concerned about impact on fatigue management programs, if standby queue service levels reduced.
Many road transport operators stated that it was difficult to link export and import box movements through matched VBS slots.
There was lack of continuity in stevedore operations over smoko and lunch.
A number of road transport operators believed that stevedore performance was heavily influenced by who was on duty, with some excellent, but others poor.
There were inconsistent views on container park performance. Many highlighted poorer and better container parks , others said performance uniformly very poor.
Operational patterns varied by location of road transport operator: n local operators have more import work, and backload with empties to container parks near the port n regional transport companies have more export work , and backload with empties for filling in regional areas.
These patterns tend to support container parks near the wharfs.
Road transport operators expressed varying views over planned rail developments including: n unlikely to have any significant impact – “we couldn’t care less” n rail will have a useful role to handle increase in container volumes n concern about unfair subsidies and lack of a level playing field.
A.5 Cargo handling companies
The boundary in differentiating between road transport operators (primarily transporting boxes, but may do some storage and warehousing / distribution) and cargo handling companies (extensive warehousing, distribution and logistics operations, but most with well established transport operations) was difficult. However, companies classified as “cargo handling” were generally integrated logistics operations with substantial warehousing, palletising and container packing, but with substantial transport operations as well.
Most port – importer journeys are direct, but some cargo handling companies are increasingly experimenting with “load overs” in their yards overnight, mostly a response to operating hour issues.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 101 An increasing demand for container unpacking and palletising goods was reported.
There are fewer trailer swaps at end customers and a higher proportion of swing lift deliveries than at other ports , both reflecting less investment in loading dock by importer and exporters.
Domestic freight from the eastern states is heavily dependent on continuing single voyage permit availability to keep sea at current competitive rates.
Sea cannot compete with rail back haul rates to the east for domestic freight movements.
There is increasing use of rail for landbridging time sensitive import cargoes from Fremantle to the eastern states. There is a well developed land bridging service to Adelaide, stemming from many shipping lines dropping Adelaide calls.
Lack of port adjacent land and higher lease costs are issues of increasing concern – current land reclamation is long overdue.
The relocation of livestock to Outer Harbour to free up space for container trade, but also remove potential for broader public protest over port operations was raised several times.
Similarly, relocating bulk cargo trades were also suggested to free up space for container operations.
A.6 Container truck drivers
Discussions with container truck drivers were held while they were waiting in queues at several locations, including stevedore terminals, end user distribution centres and container parks.
Views expressed varied significantly, but tended to concentrate in three categories: n Hourly paid drivers, generally employees of larger road transport or integrated logistics companies n Drivers paid on box rates (ie $x per container moved from A to B), generally by road transport companies n Owner drivers, who generally had perhaps 4 – 10 regular customers, some of which may be other often larger transport companies, the balance importers and exporters.
A.6.1 Hourly paid drivers These drivers’ opinions tended to focus on inefficiencies, opportunities and problems related to road infrastructure, traffic lights, police and others with power or opportunity to direct their activities. Issues raised included:
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 102 n Inadequate road capacity, traffic lights etc n Police, Main Roads and other inspectors enforcing load limits, mass limits, specified routes for particular truck types etc n Inability to determine hours worked without jeopardising job security (excessive overtime demands) n Pay rates n Queue delays
A.6.2 Drivers on commodity, unit or container rates These drivers focussed primarily on the difficulty in making adequate income from driving port related container trucks. Any delay reduces effective hourly rate. Market forces determine the ‘going rate’ and the competitive environment means that rate increases are very difficult to come by, as nearly all customers buy on price. Delays mean that rates that assume five or six completed trips per day are recipes for bankruptcy if only three or four trips can be completed in a day. Opportunities to link inwards and outwards journeys at many terminals and warehouses are very limited.
A.6.3 Owner drivers The issues raised by owner drivers were similar to drivers on box rates, but tended to reflect these people’s greater understanding of the total supply chain, and the fact that they had greater risk acceptance, and more invested in the success of their company. Common themes included: n Time slot availability, mostly at stevedores terminals, but also larger DCs n Difficulty in obtaining desired timeslots by telephone n It was difficult to make customers understand (and hence be prepared to pay for) the specific logistics services required, such as container storage, palletising, container stuffing etc.
A.7 Rail operators
Fremantle Link Services (a Toll Patrick JV, separate to Pacific National) run the port – Kewdale service, with South Spur Rail providing “hook and pull” capacity. Fremantle Link Services are operated through Toll SPD office.
Current rail volumes are around 250TEU per week, 80% from port to Kewdale, 20% from Kewdale to port. Three companies only (Toll, Patrick and K&S) provide all volume.
ARG operates a rail service from Kalgoorlie to the port, and from Forrestfield five – seven days per week. The goldfields service is unable to handle demand for bulka bag mineral commodity demand. The Forrestfield service is mostly containerised grain.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 103 Port rail access upgrade with new direct turning loop should greatly increase efficiency, eliminating the need for shunting at North Fremantle yards.
One train consist should be able to do three return services per day between the port and Kewdale, despite current rail system curfews of 06:00 – 09:00 and 15:30 – 18:00.
Redevelopment of the Kewdale rail terminal for Pacific National, Toll and Patrick is planned, with a separate terminal for other operators (either common user or “second operator”).
Rail operators support a container park as part of this terminal.
Definition of the 30% rail target needs clarity. The 30% could be calculated with any or all of: n import / export 280,000 TEU n transhipment 69,000 TEU n empties 90,000 TEU n Total 440,000 TEU
These figures are Fremantle Ports 2002/03 throughput figures.
There is interest from other potential rail operators (SCT, CRT) to operate trains if sufficient volumes could be achieved.
Concerns were expressed about the connections between Fremantle terminal and stevedore terminals, where inefficiencies and resultant pricing makes services uncompetitive. Three lifts are required – rail to ground, ground to truck, truck to ground at stevedore.
Narrow gauge to rail links to Fremantle port are essential for rail connection between regional WA and the port. A variety of agricultural and mineral products are possible by rail.
A new rail link Brunswick to Kemerton would open a significant developing area to port by rail, via the main south west line.
A.8 Container parks Most container parks close 16:30, but will open late with a fee, depending on customer needs and volumes.
Container parks reported poor profitability, particularly from storage.
CRS has moved to a much smaller site at Rous Head, with concentration on more value adding activities, particularly refrigerated containers.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 104 Baguley container parks dominate Fremantle activity, with around 600 moves per day, with 250 at both No 2, and No 3, and 100 at Maersk.
Concern was expressed over short term loss of container park space from rail development, both at P&O and Baguley No 2.
P&O will incur costs in rearranging their site, with entry and exit to move to northern end from southern end.
Existing container park operators expressed little concern about a new container park in the Kewdale area.
A.9 End users
A.9.1 Importers Most importers engaged third party logistics companies to provide an integrated wharf to importer service. Many take an attitude of “they are engaged to provide this service – problems they encounter are their problem” to these arrangements.
Most importers were unable to see value in opening their facilities longer hours, but most had not really analysed costs or benefits.
Importers stated that rail shunting can cause damage and unstable loads , and were a consideration in whether to use a rail service.
A.9.2 Exporters Exporters reported problems obtaining empty containers at times, particularly food grade and heavy capacity boxes.
Exporters believed that communication between shipping lines, exporters and container parks on exact empty box availability status was inadequate , leading to unnecessary truck movements where boxes supposedly available were not.
Some container quality problems were reported, particularly door seals, cleanliness, leaks, paint smells etc.
Exporters believed that a lack of stevedore timeslots at peak hours increased costs of business, through transport company overtime etc. For this reason, many exporters believed evening container moves would increase transport costs.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 105 Some exporters appeared to be seriously pursuing integrated supply chain approaches, with detailed improvement option development and evaluation. Others however appeared to have undertaken little evaluation of other potential improvement options.
Many exporters believed a single, properly resourced container park would greatly enhance efficiency, believing that existing container parks were hampered by inadequate, old and poorly maintained equipment operating in poor facilities.
Late receipt of cleared letters of credit can lead to tight container loading and transport timeframes.
A.10 Shipping lines
Most shipping lines stated that Fremantle was a surplus port for most container sizes, although shortages of food grade and reefer 20ft boxes occurred at times.
Being the last or first port of call meant repositioning decisions at Fremantle were more significant than at other Australian ports.
Container repositioning decisions were mostly made in Sydney for the Australia – New Zealand area, in response to overall container fleet management decisions made globally, usually at the shipping line’s head office.
Shipping lines expressed benefit from holding containers at a minimum number of locations , on the basis of aggregating container park buying power and minimising having required boxes at the wrong park.
Export of empties was usually a last minute decision (particularly for last port of call ships) and holding containers which may be required for empty relocation remotely from the port was seen as a disadvantage.
A.11 Others A.11.1 Fremantle Ports Significant concern over incompatible nearby development, such as “Between the Bridges” housing development only 160 metres from the nearest berth.
Concern over traffic mix on Rous Head, including Rottnest Island ferry traffic with cars, bicycles, and pedestrians, and light vehicle traffic to other retail and wholesale operations. The planned wind farm could exacerbate light vehicle tourist and visitor traffic.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 106 Fremantle Ports strongly supports the improved rail connection due to open in 2004, initially providing better access to Patrick, and later to P&O container terminals. The aim is for 30% of all containers to be moved by rail within ten years.
Double stack rail operations are feasible with minimal expenditure , which will reduce the number and length of trains required to handle given volumes. This would have benefits for general neighbour amenity issues.
A.11.2 Unions A properly thought out and generally supported truck route between the port and Kewdale was seen as the most important outcome desired from this study.
Concerns were expressed over certain routes not permitted for B-doubles, road trains, etc, which adversely impact on efficiency.
While VBSs have reduced queuing overall, they require operator computer literacy for real success. VBSs are difficult for owner drivers to manage by telephone.
Port cartage drivers were not making good margins , and pressures from importers, exporters, shipping lines and large transport companies were combining to reduce the number of independent owner drivers and small companies operating at the port.
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 107 Appendix B Quantitative data collection form
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 108 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 109 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 110 Appendix C Statistical tables
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 111 n Table 7-2 Actual, adjusted and annualised container movements from the quantitative survey
Actual container moves
Destination type Origin Type Stevedore terminal AQIS - Customs Interim depot (6) Container park Rail terminal Exporter Importer Not provided Grand Total Stevedore terminal 11 180 1,746 434 295 40 1,289 1,463 3,995 (2) AQIS - Customs 194 1 8 8 15 1 28 - 255 Interim depot (6) 1,133 1 65 451 64 38 161 1 1,914 Container park 512 2 348 104 1 1,619 8 1,429 2,594 (4) Rail terminal 8 15 114 31 449 7 13 624 (3) Exporter 1,285 76 151 32 4 2 - 1,550 Importer 9 9 53 1,674 2 35 4 2 1,788 Not provided 1,101 - 15 1,449 15 - 66 96 Grand Total 3,153 284 2,500 2,734 830 1,750 1,497 69 12,817 (1) (5)
Allocation of origins and destinations that were not provided: (1) Assume 45% exporter, 45% interim depot and 10% container park. (2) Assume 50% interim depot; 30% importer, 5% AQIS, 2% exporter and 13% container park. (3) Assume 60% interim depot; 20% container park; 10% rail terminal and 10% AQIS. (4) Assumes 75% to exporter, 15% to interim and 10% to stevedore (5) Assume 80% from importer and 20% from interim (6) Includes transport depots, interim storage yards, freight packing facilities, bond stores and bulk loading terminals
Adjusted container moves Destination type Origin Type Stevedore terminal AQIS - Customs Interim depot (6) Container park Rail terminal Exporter Importer Not provided Grand Total Stevedore terminal 11 180 1,746 434 295 40 1,289 1,463 3,995 (2) AQIS - Customs 194 1 11 11 20 1 38 - 276 Interim depot (6) 1,133 1 87 604 86 51 216 1 2,179 Container park 512 3 467 139 1 2,169 11 1,429 3,301 (4) Rail terminal 8 20 149 41 453 - 9 13 681 (3) Exporter 1,285 102 202 43 5 3 - - 1,640 Importer 9 12 71 2,243 3 47 5 2 2,392 Not provided 1,101 - 15 1,449 - 15 - 66 96 Grand Total 3,153 320 2,747 3,515 864 2,326 1,568 69 14,561 (1) (5)
Allocation of origins and destinations that were not provided: (1) Assume 45% exporter, 45% interim depot and 10% container park. (2) Assume 50% interim depot; 30% importer, 5% AQIS, 2% exporter and 13% container park. (3) Assume 60% interim depot; 20% container park; 10% rail terminal and 10% AQIS. (4) Assumes 75% to exporter, 15% to interim and 10% to stevedore SINCLAIR(5) Assume 80%KNIGHT from importerMERZ and 20% from interim (6) Includes transport depots, interim storage yards, freight packing facilities, bond stores and bulk loading terminals
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 112 Annualised container moves Destination type Origin Type Stevedore terminal AQIS - Customs Interim depot (6) Container park Rail terminal Exporter Importer Not provided Grand Total Stevedore terminal 562 9,204 89,178 22,183 15,072 2,057 65,850 74,745 204,105 (2) AQIS - Customs 9,911 68 548 548 1,027 68 1,916 - 14,087 Interim depot (6) 57,908 68 4,449 30,855 4,380 2,601 11,020 51 111,332 Container park 26,158 137 23,843 7,118 68 110,795 548 73,008 168,667 (4) Rail terminal 409 1,047 7,615 2,094 23,168 - 479 664 34,813 (3) Exporter 65,674 5,202 10,335 2,190 274 137 - - 83,811 Importer 460 616 3,628 114,590 137 2,396 274 102 122,202 Not provided 56,250 - 766 74,029 - 766 - 3,372 4,905 Grand Total 161,082 16,343 140,361 179,578 44,126 118,820 80,086 3,525 743,921 (1) (5)
Allocation of origins and destinations that were not provided: (1) Assume 45% exporter, 45% interim depot and 10% container park. (2) Assume 50% interim depot; 30% importer, 5% AQIS, 2% exporter and 13% container park. (3) Assume 60% interim depot; 20% container park; 10% rail terminal and 10% AQIS. (4) Assumes 75% to exporter, 15% to interim and 10% to stevedore (5) Assume 80% from importer and 20% from interim (6) Includes transport depots, interim storage yards, freight packing facilities, bond stores and bulk loading terminals n Table 7-3 Import related container moves
Origin Type Stevedore Wash, customs Road Container Rail Not Destination type terminal and AQIS depot park terminal Exporter Importer provided Total Stevedore terminal 9 52 20 3 1 33 118 Wash, customs and AQIS 104 1 7 - 6 62 2 - 182 Road depot 971 7 36 - 48 7 19 2 1,152 Container park 232 2 179 2 107 907 1,429 Rail terminal 287 13 156 1 330 1 788 Exporter 6 - 363 369 Importer 814 28 362 6 2 1,212 Not provided 1,462 - 209 95 1 2 1,769 Total 3,885 103 209 99 393 103 131 911 7,019
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 113 n Table 7-4 Export related container moves
Origin Type Stevedore Wash, customs Destination type terminal Road depot Container park Rail terminal Exporter Importer and AQIS Not provided Total Stevedore terminal 1 615 255 5 756 6 142 1,101 2,881 Road depot 3 9 5 1 138 - - 1 157 Container park 2 3 27 2 3 37 Rail terminal 54 4 3 61 Exporter 5 139 35 1 180 Importer 2 4 1 7 Wash, customs and AQIS 1 14 15 Not provided - 718 4 722 Total 8 691 1,118 10 938 43 142 1,110 4,060 Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 114 n Table 7-5 Actual container moves by distance
Full Empty Total 0 < 5 km 2,490 2,171 4,661 5 < 10 km 799 631 1,430 10 < 20 km 1,645 1,185 2,830 20 < 50 km 1,402 1,142 2,544 50 < 100 km 72 95 166 100 < 250 km 460 318 778 >250 km 349 59 408 Total 7,216 5,601 12,817
The results from a minority of responses, where origin or destination postcode was not provided (precluding trip distance calculation) have been assumed to follow the distance patterns of all other trips. This could underestimate the numbers of longer trips slightly.
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
n Table 7-6 Journey types by distance Moves to the stevedore
Exporter to Interim to Distance breaks (Km) stevedore stevedore Total 0 < 5 km 29 772 801 5 < 10 km 151 110 261 10 < 20 km 227 145 372 20 < 50 km 138 48 186 50 < 100 km 11 - 11 100 < 250 km 182 19 201 >250 km 32 2 34 Not provided 20 3 23 Total 790 1,099 1,889
Moves from the stevedore Stevedore to Stevedore to Distance breaks (Km) importer interim Total 0 < 5 km 57 1,049 1,106 5 < 10 km 93 173 266 10 < 20 km 432 241 673 20 < 50 km 216 193 409 50 < 100 km 37 2 39 100 < 250 km 3 2 5 >250 km 3 4 7 Not provided 2 3 5 Total 843 1,667 2,510
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 115 Moves from interim location to interim location Interim to Distance breaks (Km) interim 0 < 5 km 454 5 < 10 km 57 10 < 20 km 54 20 < 50 km 346 50 < 100 km 7 100 < 250 km 12 >250 km 225 Not provided 6 Total 1,161
Source: Quantitative survey – direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 116 n Table 7-7 Number of containers by individual postcode
Ultimate Ultimate Zone and Suburb Postcode Origin Destination origin destination Bayswater / Morley region Inglewood 6052 58 - 4 - Bayswater 6053 638 1,393 158 1,154 Bassendean 6054 929 1,161 176 1,010 Hazelbrook 6055 813 1,741 633 847 Dianella 6059 348 580 255 70 Morley 6062 2,031 2,786 538 2,714 Beechboro 6063 232 232 73 144 Koondoola 6064 - 58 - 65 Total 5,050 7,952 1,837 6,004 Central Wheatbelt region Badgin 6302 116 - 232 - Aldersyde 6306 580 697 1,161 697 Codjatotine 6308 987 - 1,973 - Narrogin 6312 58 232 116 232 Boraning 6391 1,741 - 3,483 - Northam 6401 929 - 1,857 - Nukarni 6480 - 116 - 116 Total 4,411 1,045 8,822 1,045 Gascoyne Karratha 6714 - 116 - 174 Total - 116 - 174 Geraldton region New Norcia 6509 697 464 1,393 464 Barberton 6510 58 - 116 - Cervantes 6511 - 116 - 232 Arrino 6519 232 58 464 58 Mount Hill 6528 58 - 116 - Geraldton 6530 174 116 348 116 Greenough 6532 58 - 58 - Total 1,277 755 2,496 871 Goldfields Kalgoorlie 6430 1,219 2,380 1,219 2,380 Kulja 6470 - 58 - 58 Total 1,219 2,438 1,219 2,438 Great Southern region Katanning 6317 813 464 1,509 464 Bobalong 6320 58 - 116 - Narrikup 6326 174 - 348 - Albany 6330 755 - 1,219 - Esperance 6450 - 58 - 116 Total 1,799 522 3,192 580 Inner Harbour region North Fremantle 6159 443,323 390,563 1,799 2,496 Total 443,323 390,563 1,799 2,496
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 117 Ultimate Ultimate Zone and Suburb Postcode Origin Destination origin destination Joondalup region Kingsley 6026 - 116 - 130 Joondalup 6027 58 58 4 7 Nowergerup 6032 58 58 4 65 Yanchep 6035 - - - - Total 116 232 8 202 Kewdale / Forrestfield region Forrestfield 6058 2,322 3,541 1,521 1,377 Burswood 6100 58 348 3 271 Carlisle 6101 116 174 64 193 Bentley 6102 1,161 232 818 200 Rivervale 6103 58 - 3 - Belmont 6104 1,857 2,786 973 1,410 Kewdale 6105 38,888 42,370 6,376 11,520 Welshpool 6106 7,081 12,769 2,711 7,792 Cannington 6107 348 755 135 722 Thornlie 6108 58 - 3 - Maddington 6109 290 1,335 190 379 Canning Vale 6155 7,720 16,310 1,585 13,697 Total 59,957 80,620 14,384 37,561 Kimberley Bilingurr 6165 - - - - Derby 6167 - - - - Kununurra 6168 - - - - Wyndham 6169 - - - - Total - - - - Kwinana / Rockingham region Naval Base 6165 813 1,103 741 296 Kwinana 6167 3,599 3,483 2,229 1,022 Rockingham 6168 1,045 1,161 986 592 Warnbro 6169 116 - 6 - Total 5,572 5,746 3,963 1,910 Manjimup / Katanning region Pemberton 6260 406 232 813 232 Total 406 232 813 232 O'Connor region Myaree 6154 348 2,380 75 1,283 Willagee 6156 58 58 3 6 Palmyra 6157 290 116 131 12 East Fremantle 6158 58 697 3 186 Fremantle 6160 290 1,799 15 1,225 South Fremantle 6162 755 2,902 38 697 Bibra Lake 6163 22,868 25,945 10,604 7,528 Jandakot 6164 1,625 6,152 1,010 1,486 Henderson 6166 11,086 5,572 4,211 1,196 Total 37,379 45,621 16,089 13,617 Outer Perth Caraban 6041 - 116 - 14 Baskerville 6056 2,380 813 2,360 562 Ashby 6065 1,741 4,121 1,448 1,713 Bickley 6076 - 58 - 7 Canning Mills 6111 58 174 4 21 Armadale 6112 58 58 62 7 Oakford 6113 58 116 4 72 Byford 6122 348 348 371 42 Mundijong 6123 58 - 62 - Barragup 6210 522 406 556 107 Hamel 6215 1,509 2,031 98 2,275 Cookernup 6220 2,438 1,161 2,364 139 Bannister 6390 - 58 - 7 Bambun 6503 - 58 - 65 Total 9,171 9,519 7,329 5,031 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 118 Ultimate Ultimate Zone and Suburb Postcode Origin Destination origin destination Perth Central region Perth 6000 290 232 131 197 Northbridge 6003 348 290 133 261 East Perth 6004 58 116 3 128 West Perth 6005 1,045 813 1,097 139 Subiaco 6008 174 116 67 128 Claremont 6010 580 580 435 348 City Beach 6015 58 174 3 75 Glendalough 6016 - 58 - 64 Osborne Park 6017 4,643 8,532 348 7,992 Woodlands 6018 - 58 - 64 Scarborough 6019 - 116 - 128 Balcatta 6021 2,554 2,438 2,159 1,695 Menora 6050 58 - 3 - Total 9,809 13,524 4,379 11,219 SA Adelaide 5000 - 7,487 - 7,487 Total - 7,487 - 7,487 South West region Collie 6225 58 - 116 - Picton 6229 3,018 1,625 5,978 1,625 Bunbury 6230 1,625 - 3,134 - Australind 6233 2,148 813 4,295 813 Crooked Brook 6236 174 58 290 58 Donnybrook 6239 116 - 232 - Boyup Brook 6244 116 - 116 - Greenbushes 6254 1,857 1,103 3,715 1,103 Manjimup 6256 522 580 522 580 Balbarrup 6258 580 - 987 - Capel 6271 987 58 1,509 58 Barrabup 6275 116 116 232 116 Augusta 6290 - 116 - 174 Total 11,318 4,469 21,127 4,527 Victoria Melbourne 3000 - 1,915 - 1,915 Total - 1,915 - 1,915 Not provided - - Not provided 153,114 171,165 11,055 20,714 Total 153,114 171,165 11,055 20,714 Grand Total 743,921 743,921 98,513 118,024
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 119 n Table 7-8 Portion of containers by individual postcode
Ultimate Ultimate Zone and Suburb Postcode Origin Destination origin destination Bayswater / Morley region Inglewood 6052 0.008% 0.000% 0.004% 0.000% Bayswater 6053 0.086% 0.187% 0.160% 0.978% Bassendean 6054 0.125% 0.156% 0.179% 0.856% Hazelbrook 6055 0.109% 0.234% 0.643% 0.718% Dianella 6059 0.047% 0.078% 0.259% 0.059% Morley 6062 0.273% 0.375% 0.546% 2.300% Beechboro 6063 0.031% 0.031% 0.074% 0.122% Koondoola 6064 0.000% 0.008% 0.000% 0.055% Total 0.679% 1.069% 1.865% 5.087% Central Wheatbelt region Badgin 6302 0.016% 0.000% 0.236% 0.000% Aldersyde 6306 0.078% 0.094% 1.178% 0.590% Codjatotine 6308 0.133% 0.000% 2.003% 0.000% Narrogin 6312 0.008% 0.031% 0.118% 0.197% Boraning 6391 0.234% 0.000% 3.535% 0.000% Northam 6401 0.125% 0.000% 1.885% 0.000% Nukarni 6480 0.000% 0.016% 0.000% 0.098% Total 0.593% 0.140% 8.956% 0.885% Gascoyne Karratha 6714 0.000% 0.016% 0.000% 0.148% Total 0.000% 0.016% 0.000% 0.148% Geraldton region New Norcia 6509 0.094% 0.062% 1.414% 0.393% Barberton 6510 0.008% 0.000% 0.118% 0.000% Cervantes 6511 0.000% 0.016% 0.000% 0.197% Arrino 6519 0.031% 0.008% 0.471% 0.049% Mount Hill 6528 0.008% 0.000% 0.118% 0.000% Geraldton 6530 0.023% 0.016% 0.354% 0.098% Greenough 6532 0.008% 0.000% 0.059% 0.000% Total 0.172% 0.101% 2.533% 0.738% Goldfields Kalgoorlie 6430 0.164% 0.320% 1.237% 2.016% Kulja 6470 0.000% 0.008% 0.000% 0.049% Total 0.164% 0.328% 1.237% 2.065% Great Southern region Katanning 6317 0.109% 0.062% 1.532% 0.393% Bobalong 6320 0.008% 0.000% 0.118% 0.000% Narrikup 6326 0.023% 0.000% 0.354% 0.000% Albany 6330 0.101% 0.000% 1.237% 0.000% Esperance 6450 0.000% 0.008% 0.000% 0.098% Total 0.242% 0.070% 3.240% 0.492% Inner Harbour region North Fremantle 6159 59.593% 52.501% 1.826% 2.115% Total 59.593% 52.501% 1.826% 2.115%
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 120 Ultimate Ultimate Zone and Suburb Postcode Origin Destination origin destination Joondalup region Kingsley 6026 0.000% 0.016% 0.000% 0.110% Joondalup 6027 0.008% 0.008% 0.004% 0.006% Nowergerup 6032 0.008% 0.008% 0.004% 0.055% Yanchep 6035 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Total 0.016% 0.031% 0.008% 0.171% Kewdale / Forrestfield region Forrestfield 6058 0.312% 0.476% 1.544% 1.167% Burswood 6100 0.008% 0.047% 0.003% 0.229% Carlisle 6101 0.016% 0.023% 0.065% 0.164% Bentley 6102 0.156% 0.031% 0.831% 0.169% Rivervale 6103 0.008% 0.000% 0.003% 0.000% Belmont 6104 0.250% 0.375% 0.987% 1.195% Kewdale 6105 5.227% 5.696% 6.472% 9.761% Welshpool 6106 0.952% 1.716% 2.752% 6.602% Cannington 6107 0.047% 0.101% 0.137% 0.611% Thornlie 6108 0.008% 0.000% 0.003% 0.000% Maddington 6109 0.039% 0.179% 0.193% 0.321% Canning Vale 6155 1.038% 2.192% 1.609% 11.605% Total 8.060% 10.837% 14.601% 31.825% Kimberley Bilingurr 6165 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Derby 6167 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Kununurra 6168 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Wyndham 6169 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Total 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Kwinana / Rockingham region Naval Base 6165 0.109% 0.148% 0.752% 0.251% Kwinana 6167 0.484% 0.468% 2.263% 0.866% Rockingham 6168 0.140% 0.156% 1.001% 0.502% Warnbro 6169 0.016% 0.000% 0.006% 0.000% Total 0.749% 0.772% 4.023% 1.619% Manjimup / Katanning region Pemberton 6260 0.055% 0.031% 0.825% 0.197% Total 0.055% 0.031% 0.825% 0.197% O'Connor region Myaree 6154 0.047% 0.320% 0.077% 1.087% Willagee 6156 0.008% 0.008% 0.003% 0.005% Palmyra 6157 0.039% 0.016% 0.133% 0.010% East Fremantle 6158 0.008% 0.094% 0.003% 0.157% Fremantle 6160 0.039% 0.242% 0.015% 1.038% South Fremantle 6162 0.101% 0.390% 0.038% 0.590% Bibra Lake 6163 3.074% 3.488% 10.764% 6.378% Jandakot 6164 0.218% 0.827% 1.025% 1.259% Henderson 6166 1.490% 0.749% 4.275% 1.013% Total 5.025% 6.132% 16.332% 11.537% Outer Perth Caraban 6041 0.000% 0.016% 0.000% 0.012% Baskerville 6056 0.320% 0.109% 2.396% 0.476% Ashby 6065 0.234% 0.554% 1.470% 1.452% Bickley 6076 0.000% 0.008% 0.000% 0.006% Canning Mills 6111 0.008% 0.023% 0.004% 0.018% Armadale 6112 0.008% 0.008% 0.063% 0.006% Oakford 6113 0.008% 0.016% 0.004% 0.061% Byford 6122 0.047% 0.047% 0.376% 0.035% Mundijong 6123 0.008% 0.000% 0.063% 0.000% Barragup 6210 0.070% 0.055% 0.565% 0.090% Hamel 6215 0.203% 0.273% 0.100% 1.928% Cookernup 6220 0.328% 0.156% 2.400% 0.118% Bannister 6390 0.000% 0.008% 0.000% 0.006% Bambun 6503 0.000% 0.008% 0.000% 0.055% Total 1.233% 1.280% 7.440% 4.263%
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 121 Ultimate Ultimate Zone and Suburb Postcode Origin Destination origin destination Perth Central region Perth 6000 0.039% 0.031% 0.133% 0.167% Northbridge 6003 0.047% 0.039% 0.136% 0.221% East Perth 6004 0.008% 0.016% 0.003% 0.108% West Perth 6005 0.140% 0.109% 1.114% 0.118% Subiaco 6008 0.023% 0.016% 0.068% 0.108% Claremont 6010 0.078% 0.078% 0.442% 0.295% City Beach 6015 0.008% 0.023% 0.003% 0.064% Glendalough 6016 0.000% 0.008% 0.000% 0.054% Osborne Park 6017 0.624% 1.147% 0.354% 6.772% Woodlands 6018 0.000% 0.008% 0.000% 0.054% Scarborough 6019 0.000% 0.016% 0.000% 0.108% Balcatta 6021 0.343% 0.328% 2.192% 1.436% Menora 6050 0.008% 0.000% 0.003% 0.000% Total 1.319% 1.818% 4.445% 9.506% SA Adelaide 5000 0.000% 1.006% 0.000% 6.344% Total 0.000% 1.006% 0.000% 6.344% South West region Collie 6225 0.008% 0.000% 0.118% 0.000% Picton 6229 0.406% 0.218% 6.069% 1.377% Bunbury 6230 0.218% 0.000% 3.182% 0.000% Australind 6233 0.289% 0.109% 4.360% 0.688% Crooked Brook 6236 0.023% 0.008% 0.295% 0.049% Donnybrook 6239 0.016% 0.000% 0.236% 0.000% Boyup Brook 6244 0.016% 0.000% 0.118% 0.000% Greenbushes 6254 0.250% 0.148% 3.771% 0.934% Manjimup 6256 0.070% 0.078% 0.530% 0.492% Balbarrup 6258 0.078% 0.000% 1.002% 0.000% Capel 6271 0.133% 0.008% 1.532% 0.049% Barrabup 6275 0.016% 0.016% 0.236% 0.098% Augusta 6290 0.000% 0.016% 0.000% 0.148% Total 1.521% 0.601% 21.446% 3.836% Victoria Melbourne 3000 0.000% 0.257% 0.000% 1.623% Total 0.000% 0.257% 0.000% 1.623% Not provided Not provided 20.582% 23.009% 11.222% 17.551% Total 20.582% 23.009% 11.222% 17.551% Grand Total 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised direct results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 122 n Table 7-9 Evaluation and adjustments to generate best estimates of ultimate origins and destinations by regions
Total ultimate origins Exporter Importer Interstate Remote intrastate Outer Perth and metro and destinations % of interim % of interim Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate origins Ultimate detinations Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Zone origin destination origin destination origin destination allocated origin allocated destination origin destination Inner Harbour region 1,799 2,496 ------1,799 2,496 O'Connor region 14,220 9,055 - - - - 5.0% 1,869 10.0% 4,562 16,089 13,617 Perth Central region 3,889 9,867 - - - - 5.0% 490 10.0% 1,352 4,379 11,219 Kwinana / Rockingham region 3,657 1,277 - - - - 5.5% 306 11.0% 634 3,963 1,910 Kewdale / Forrestfield region 11,086 28,673 - - - - 5.5% 3,298 11.0% 8,889 14,384 37,561 Bayswater / Morley region 1,509 5,050 - - - - 6.5% 328 12.0% 954 1,837 6,004 Joondalup region - 174 - - - - 6.5% 8 12.0% 28 8 202 Outer Perth 6,733 3,889 - - - - 6.5% 596 12.0% 1,142 7,329 5,031 South West region 9,809 58 - - 11,318 4,469 21,127 4,527 Manjimup / Katanning region 406 - - - 406 232 813 232 Great Southern region 1,393 58 - - 1,799 522 3,192 580 Central Wheatbelt region 4,411 - - - 4,411 1,045 8,822 1,045 Goldfields - - - - 1,219 2,438 1,219 2,438 Geraldton region 1,219 116 - - 1,277 755 2,496 871 Gascoyne - 58 - - - 116 - 174 Kimberley ------SA - - - 7,487 - - - - - 7,487 Victoria - - - 1,915 - - - - - 1,915 Not provided 1,103 174 - - - - 6.5% 9,952 12.0% 20,540 11,055 20,714 Total 61,234 60,944 - 9,403 20,431 9,577 16,848 38,101 98,513 118,024
Source: Quantitative Survey – estimated ultimate total origins and destinations
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 123 n Table 7-10 Evaluation and adjustments to generate best estimates of ultimate origins and destinations by postcodes
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 124 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 125 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 126 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 127 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 128 n Table 7-11 Postcodes within regions and zones
Zone and Suburb Postcode Zone and Suburb Postcode Geraldton region Bayswater / Morley region New Norcia 6509 Inglewood 6052 Barberton 6510 Bayswater 6053 Cervantes 6511 Bassendean 6054 Arrino 6519 Hazelbrook 6055 Mount Hill 6528 Dianella 6059 Geraldton 6530 Morley 6062 Greenough 6532 Beechboro 6063 Allanooka 6525 Koondoola 6064 Alma 6535 Balga 6061 Ambania 6632 Ballajura 6066 Badgingarra 6521 Cullacabardee 6067 Bowgada 6623 Maylands 6051 Breton Bay 6043 Whiteman 6068 Bundanoon 6522 Canna 6627 Carnamah 6517 Zone and Suburb Postcode Cooljarloo 6507 Gascoyne Coomberdale 6512 Karratha 6714 Coorow 6515 Angelo River 6642 Denham 6537 Babbage Island 6701 Devils Creek 6630 Cane 6710 Eneabba 6518 Cape Range National Park 6707 Green Head 6514 Chichester 6754 Gunyidi 6513 Cossack 6720 Jurien Bay 6516 Dampier 6713 Kalbarri 6536 East Lyons River 6705 Karakin 6044 Fortescue 6716 Merkanooka 6625 Indee 6721 Miling 6575 Innawanga 6751 Pindar 6631 Roebourne 6718 Seabird 6042 Tardun 6628
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 129 Zone and Suburb Postcode Zone and Suburb Postcode Central Wheatbelt region Central Wheatbelt region Badgin 6302 Goomalling 6460 Aldersyde 6306 Goomarin 6415 Codjatotine 6308 Grass Valley 6403 Narrogin 6312 Greenwoods Valley 6405 Boraning 6391 Harrismith 6361 Northam 6401 Highbury 6313 Nukarni 6480 Adamsvale 6375 Hindmarsh 6462 Hines Hill 6413 Ardath 6419 Arthur River 6315 Jilakin 6365 Karlgarin 6358 Baandee 6412 Babakin 6428 Kukerin 6352 Kununoppin 6489 Bakers Hill 6562 Bally Bally 6304 Kwolyin 6385 Mahogany Creek 6072 Beechina 6556 Beenong 6353 Mogumber 6506 Mooliabeenee 6504 Bejoording 6566 Bendering 6367 Moulyinning 6351 Mount Helena 6082 Benjaberring 6463 Bindoon 6502 Mundaring 6073 Nangeenan 6414 Bokal 6392 Bolgart 6568 North Trayning 6488 North Yelbeni 6487 Boyerine 6316 Bruce Rock 6418 Nungarin 6490 Pantapin 6384 Bullaring 6373 Bungulla 6410 Parkerville 6081 Pingaring 6357 Calingiri 6569 Clackline 6564 Sawyers Valley 6074 Shackleton 6386 Commodine 6311 Cordering 6393 Wannamal 6505 Cowcowing 6485 Wooroloo 6558 Cunderdin 6407 Wundowie 6560 Dangin 6383 Yealering 6372 Darlington 6070 Doodlakine 6411 Doongin 6409 Dowerin 6461 Dudinin 6363 Dumbleyung 6350 East Popanyinning 6309 East Wickepin 6370 Glen Forrest 6071
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 130 Zone and Suburb Postcode Zone and Suburb Postcode Goldfields Inner Harbour region Kalgoorlie 6430 North Fremantle 6159 Kulja 6470 Balladonia 6443 Boorabbin 6429 Zone and Suburb Postcode Boorara 6431 Joondalup region Boulder 6432 Kingsley 6026 Cundeelee 6434 Joondalup 6027 Hannans 6433 Nowergerup 6032 Kambalda 6442 Banksia Grove 6031 Burns Beach 6028 Carabooda 6033 Zone and Suburb Postcode Clarkson 6030 Great Southern region Craigie 6025 Katanning 6317 Eglinton 6034 Bobalong 6320 Two Rocks 6037 Narrikup 6326 Yanchep 6035 Albany 6330 Esperance 6450 Amelup 6338 Zone and Suburb Postcode Beaufort River 6394 Kewdale / Forrestfield region Bow Bridge 6333 Forrestfield 6058 Broomehill 6318 Burswood 6100 Cape Riche 6328 Carlisle 6101 Cherry Tree Pool 6395 Bentley 6102 Cowalellup 6336 Rivervale 6103 Cranbrook 6321 Belmont 6104 Denbarker 6324 Kewdale 6105 Fitzgerald 6337 Welshpool 6106 Frankland 6396 Cannington 6107 Gibson 6448 Thornlie 6108 Gnowangerup 6335 Maddington 6109 Grass Patch 6446 Canning Vale 6155 Como 6152 Hopetoun 6348 Jerdacuttup 6346 Ferndale 6148 High Wycombe 6057 Kendenup 6323 Lort River 6447 Kensington 6151 Langford 6147 North Cascade 6445 Nyabing 6341 Pingrup 6343 Redmond 6327 Rocky Gully 6397 Tenterden 6322
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 131 Zone and Suburb Postcode Zone and Suburb Postcode Kimberley Outer Perth Bilingurr 6165 Caraban 6041 Derby 6167 Baskerville 6056 Kununurra 6168 Ashby 6065 Wyndham 6169 Bickley 6076 Canning Mills 6111 Armadale 6112 Zone and Suburb Postcode Oakford 6113 Kwinana / Rockingham region Byford 6122 Naval Base 6165 Mundijong 6123 Kwinana 6167 Barragup 6210 Rockingham 6168 Hamel 6215 Warnbro 6169 Cookernup 6220 East Rockingham 6185 Bannister 6390 Baldivis 6171 Bambun 6503 Golden Bay 6174 Banksiadale 6213 Karnup 6176 Belhus 6069 Leda 6170 Birchmont 6214 Port Kennedy 6172 Blythewood 6208 Secret Harbour 6173 Bullsbrook 6084 Singleton 6175 Gidgegannup 6083 Gosnells 6110 Hopeland 6125 Zone and Suburb Postcode Jarrahdale 6124 Manjimup / Katanning region Keysbrook 6126 Pemberton 6260 Mornington 6221 Northcliffe 6262 Muchea 6501 Walpole 6398 Myara 6207 Yarloop 6218
Zone and Suburb Postcode Zone and Suburb Postcode O'Connor region Myaree 6154 SA Willagee 6156 Adelaide 5000 Victoria Palmyra 6157 East Fremantle 6158 Melbourne 3000 Fremantle 6160 South Fremantle 6162 Bibra Lake 6163 Jandakot 6164 Henderson 6166 Applecross 6153 Bateman 6150 Bull Creek 6149
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 132 Zone and Suburb Postcode Zone and Suburb Postcode Perth Central region South West region Perth 6000 Collie 6225 Northbridge 6003 Picton 6229 East Perth 6004 Bunbury 6230 West Perth 6005 Australind 6233 Subiaco 6008 Crooked Brook 6236 Claremont 6010 Donnybrook 6239 City Beach 6015 Boyup Brook 6244 Glendalough 6016 Greenbushes 6254 Osborne Park 6017 Manjimup 6256 Woodlands 6018 Balbarrup 6258 Scarborough 6019 Capel 6271 Balcatta 6021 Barrabup 6275 Menora 6050 Augusta 6290 Broadway Nedlands 6009 Abba River 6280 Carine 6020 Alexandra Bridge 6288 Cottesloe 6011 Balingup 6253 Dog Swamp 6060 Baudin 6284 Duncraig 6023 Beela 6224 Floreat 6014 Benger 6223 Greenwood 6024 Benjinup 6255 Hamersley 6022 Boranup 6286 Boyanup 6237 Leederville 6007 Mosman Park 6012 Bramley 6285 Brazier 6251 North Perth 6006 Trigg 6029 Burekup 6227 Dunsborough 6281 Lowden 6240 Mullalyup 6252 Roelands 6226 Waterloo 6228 Wilga 6243 Yallingup 6282
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 133 n Table 7-12 Road rail share container numbers
Container movements to the port Metro Outer Perth Country WA Interstate Not provided Total Rail - full 204 - - - - 204 Rail - empty 613 - 971 - - 1,584 Road - full 138,475 6,793 18,173 - 55,506 218,947 Road - empty 75,711 2,032 348 - 91,620 169,712 Total 215,004 8,825 19,492 - 147,126 390,447 Container movements not to the port 353,474 Total moves 743,921
Container movements from the port Metro Outer Perth Country WA Interstate Not provided Total No. No. No. No. No. No. Rail - full 11,700 - 2,248 - - 13,948 Rail - empty ------Road - full 175,510 5,994 815 - 63,547 245,866 Road - empty 73,323 2,619 4,946 - 101,838 182,726 Total 260,533 8,613 8,009 - 165,385 442,540 Container movements not from the port 301,382 Total moves 743,921
Container movements to and from the port Metro Outer Perth Country WA Interstate Not provided Total No. No. No. No. No. No. Rail - full 11,904 - 2,248 - - 14,152 Rail - empty 613 - 971 - - 1,584 Road - full 313,985 12,787 18,988 - 119,053 464,813 Road - empty 149,035 4,651 5,295 - 193,458 352,438 Total 475,537 17,438 27,501 - 312,511 832,987 Container movements not to or from the port 654,856 Total moves 1,487,843
Source: Quantitative survey – annualised results
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 134 References
Bureau of Transport Economics (2000) Fremantle Port Its economic impact. BTE for Fremantle Port, March 2000.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure (1995) Warehouse to wharf. AGPS, Canberra, November 1995.
Department of Infrastructure, Victoria (2002) Melbourne port container origin destination study. SKM for DOI, September 2002.
Fremantle Ports (2003) Our corporate progress 2003. Fremantle Ports External Affairs, 2003
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
I:\Logi\SSPR\Projects\SS30210 - DPI Fremantle Port\Report\R27smmdg.doc PAGE 135