METHODOLOGY

The four solutions chosen for detailed feasibility analyses were: (i) off-site parking and staging, (ii) off-site parking and staging combined with a “virtual gate” where some terminal transaction processes could be done off-site, (iii) automated truck (SAE Level 4, High Driving Automation) in queue, and (iv) automated truck in queue combined with off-site load staging. These solutions were assessed under five representative port operations: (i) a hypothetical “generic port” scenario, (ii) a port in a major urban area serving primarily a local market, (iii) a port in a major urban area with a local and hinterland market, (iv) a port in a minor urban area with a predominantly hinterland market, and (v) an inland port.

The study assessed terminal turn time (the period a drayage truck spends inside the terminal from gate entry to exit) and estimated the benefits and costs for building a new “generic” port with off-site parking and a staging area with a virtual gate. The economic analysis regarded the generic port as the base scenario and then the four other scenarios corresponding to representative ports in actual port environments. The economic analyses were based on parameters documented in the USDOT’s 2018 Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs.

FINDINGS

• For solution (ii) off-site parking and staging area with a virtual gate, the turn time within the port can be reduced by 20 percent with reductions in waiting and loading times.
• The following table presents the B/C ratios for each solution scenario and port operation type for three percent amortization rate. The highest score was obtained from the Minor Urban Hinterland location due to the relatively cheap cost of land and reasonable volume whereas the lowest score came from the Major Urban Local. 

Table. Summary of the B/C Ratios for New Technology at Various Port Operation Types