A Survey of Container Terminal Characteristics and Equipment Types

Transcription

1 Working Paper 0901, DS & OR Lab, University of Paderborn A Survey of Container Terminal Characteristics and Equipment Types Jörg Wiese, Natalia Kliewer and Leena Suhl March 2009 Decision Support & Operations Research Lab, University of Paderborn, Warburger Str. 100, Paderborn {wiese,kliewer,suhl}@dsor.de 1. Introduction In last decades the container traffic increases continuously. All over the world container terminals of different sizes and with different equipment types exist. For a list of the top 20 container terminals of the world see [174]. Most container terminals have different characteristics. Those characteristics are e.g. the dimensions and shape of the terminal area, the equipment types used and the organization of the container yard. In this paper we present a survey of container terminal characteristics for different terminals all over the world. Specifically, we focus on the used equipments for the stacking operations in the yard. The presented survey should answer the following questions: Which is the most popular equipment type for stacking operations? Which region uses a equipment type most? Which block orientation is used in the layout for which equipment type? Which is the container turnover per ha terminal area and turnover per meter quay wall? Therefore, mainly the information available at internet sites of the operators of container terminals are used. The aim is to give an overview of different terminal characteristics. A complete list of all existing terminals worldwide is not given. The data available on the internet is limited and therefore, some data is missing. Some data is unverified due to inconsistent information on different internet sites about an identical terminal. In such cases we use the more consistent data available. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: The next section describes the data which had been collected for the survey. Section 3 answers the above described questions using the collected data. In section 4 a short summary is given. 2. Summary of Collected Data All data with regard to the number of containers is measured in TEU (twenty foot equivalent unit). Equipment types that are used for stacking actually are Rubber Tired Gantries (RTG), Rail Mounted Gantries (RMG), Automated Rail Mounted Gantries (ARMG), Overhead Bridge Cranes (OHBC), Straddle Carriers (SC), Automated Lifting Vehicles (ALV),

2 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 2 Attribute Region Q-L QC St-TEU GS-TEU ha-t ha-y Reefer Main Eq. type TEUs/y Layout Note Describtion Region of the terminal location. The length of the quay wall in meter. The number of quay cranes used at the terminal. The storage capacity of the terminal container yard in TEU. The number of ground slots of the terminal container yard in TEU. The total area of terminal in ha. The area of the container yard in ha. The number of reefer plugs available in the terminal container yard. The main equipment type used for stacking containers. The following equipments are listed: RTG, SC, ARMG, Reach Stackers, Wheeled, ALV, RMG, OHBC. In case that two equipment types are mainly used for stacking both are mentioned. The container turnover per year of terminal in 1000 TEUs. Either achieved container turnover for the last publish year (if available) or maximal designed capacity (marked with *) Layout of the storage blocks. Either parallel (par.) or perpendicular (per.) to the quay wall. Information on the construction state of the terminal. The following states are noted: planned, currently constructing or expansion. Table 1: Data attributes collected and their abbreviations (a) (b) Figure 1: Schematic (a) parallel and (b) perpendicular layout Reach Stackers and an one tier storage of containers on wheeled chassis (Wheeled). Information about those different equipment types can be found in [171] and [172]. The different attributes collected as well as their abbreviations are defined in table 1. When a terminal is planned, just constructed or currently expanded as well as an expansion is planned we list this in the note column. Additionally, if the information is available, the planned completion date is noted. The orientation of the the storage blocks in the layout of the container terminal with respect to the quay wall is listed in the column layout. Figure 1 illustrates both types of orientations for the storage blocks. The values for length of the quay wall (Q-L), the number of the quay cranes (QC), the storage capacities (St-TEU, GS-TEU), the area sizes (ha-t, ha-y) as well as the container turnover per year (TEU/y) represent the sum of the values for all terminals subordinated to the given terminal name. The whole data collected is depicted in table 7 in appendix A. In total the data of 133 container terminals are listed. The data in table 7 is sorted by region first and secondly by the length of the quay wall. The longest sum of quay walls has the Pasir Panjang Terminal (Singapore) with 7900 m. The largest terminal area has the Garden City Terminal, Savannah

3 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 3 with ha, where ha are used for the container yard. In total 29 container terminals are currently expanded, planned or currently constructed. That is a ratio of 21.8%. The region of container terminal locations are Asia with 53 terminals (40%), Europe with 32 terminals (24%), America with 32 terminals (24%), Middle East with 9 terminals (7%), Australia/Pacific with 5 terminals (4%) and Africa with 2 terminals (2%). 3. Analysis of Container Terminal Data In the following section the questions described in section 1 are answered. Therefore, the information about the used equipments in table 7 are aggregated and analyzed. Moreover, turnover ratios are calculated for different terminals Equipment Type Analysis Table 2 shows the frequency an equipment is used as main stacking equipment. Moreover, the region where the equipment occurs most frequently is depicted in column main region. From the originally 133 terminals the equipment information is available for 114 terminals. Yard Equipment Freq. in % Main region Freq. in region RTG % Asia 40 SC % Europe 15 ARMG 7 6.1% Europe 6 Wheeled 2 1.8% America 2 RTG / SC 2 1.8% Asia 2 Reach Stackers 2 1.8% Europe 1 RTG / RMG 2 1.8% Europe 1 ALV 1 0.9% Australia Pacific 1 RMG 1 0.9% Asia 1 RTG / ARMG 1 0.9% Asia 1 OHBC 1 0.9% Asia Table 2: Frequency of used stacking equipment The RTG equipment is the most popular equipment type used at 63.2% of the terminals. It is followed by the SC equipment which is used at 20.2% of the terminals. Automated equipment is mainly used at terminals in Europe. From 7 ARMG installations 6 are installed in Europe. The Automated Lifting Vehicles (ALV) as well as Overhead Bridge Cranes (OHBC) are just installed once. The Patrick Fisherman Islands terminal in Brisbane uses ALV and the Pasir Panjang terminal in Singapore uses OHBC. Figure 2 shows for the equipment types RTG, SC and ARMG the ratio of the equipment type occurrence in a region to the total occurrence of the equipment type. Following figure 2, 56% of the terminals that use RTG are located in Asia. Straddle Carriers are mainly used RTG SC ARMG 55.6% 11.1% 20.8% 9.7% 65.1% 13.0%8.7% 13.0% 85.7% 14.3% Ratio of Asia Ratio of Europe Ratio of America Ratio of Middle East Ratio of Australia/Pacific Ratio of Africa Figure 2: Share of regions at the total occurrence of an equipment type

4 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 4 Asia Europe America Middle East Australia/Pacific Africa RTG SC ARMG Wheeled RTG / SC Reach Stackers RTG / RMG ALV RMG RTG / ARMG OHBC N/A Table 3: Stacking equipment by regions RTG ARMG parallel 49 (90.7%) 1 (14.3%) perpendicular 2 (3.7%) 6 (85.7%) both 3 (5.6%) 0 (0.0%) 54 7 Table 4: Orientation of storage blocks by equipment type in Europe as well as the above mentioned ARMG. Table 3 shows the absolute frequencies of stacking equipment by regions. From 53 terminals in Asia 40 use RTG for stacking of containers, which is a ratio of 75.5%. Table 4 shows the occurrences of block orientations (parallel, perpendicular to the quay wall) for RTG or ARMG equipment. For other equipment type no data or just one occurrence exists. For RTG equipment the parallel layout is with 90.7% the most frequent one. Just 2 terminals out of 53 terminals have a perpendicular orientation of their storage blocks Turnover Ratios In some cases the container turnover details are available only for a whole port or a combination of container terminals and not for the terminals listed in table 7. Therefore, we analyze ratios for the port of Singapore and the port of Hong Kong using information that cannot be listed in table 7. The turnover data in Mio TEU per year is only available for a combination of terminals in Singapore and Hong Kong: Following [174] Singapore port leads the list of the top 20 container ports of the world. The four terminals of Singapore listed in table 7 have a total turnover of about 27.1 Mio TEU in 2007 ([1]). The Hong Kong port is ranked on third place of the top 20 container ports. In total the five terminals have a turnover of Mio TEU ([2]). Singapore terminals in table 7 have a total quay length of m using 190 quay cranes and a total terminal area of 600 ha. The five Hong Kong terminals listed in table 7 have a total quay length of 8552 m using 93 quay cranes and a total terminal area of ha. Comparing the turnover per meter quay wall Hong Kong achieves TEU/m and Singapore TEU/m. Moreover, the container turnover per ha terminal area is TEU/ha for Hong Kong and TEU/ha for Singapore. As [173] states Hong Kong has a high intensity in their container traffic. In table 5 the values of container turnover per meter quay wall as well as the container

5 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 5 Terminal Name Q-L ha-t TEU/y TEU/m TEU/ha Hong Kong Terminals HHLA - Container Terminal Altenwerder CTA Singapore Terminals Yantian International Container Terminals Limited (YICT) Pusan East Container Terminal (PECT) Westports Malaysia (KMT) ECT Delta Terminal Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg CTH Port of Felixstowe (PFL) Container Terminal Bremerhaven Dalian Container Terminal Gioia Tauro - Medcenter Container Terminal HHLA - Container Terminal Burchardkai CTB Dongbu Pusan Container Terminal Manzanillo International Terminal HHLA - Container Terminal Tollerort CTT Port of Balboa Container Terminal Jakarta International Container Terminal (JICT) ECT City Terminal La Spezia Container Terminal Suez Canal Container Terminal Cagliari Container Terminal Table 5: Ratio achieved container throughput to meter quay length turnover per ha terminal area are calculated for each individual terminal listed in table 7 for which the information are available. The data is sorted by TEU/m and by TEU/ha. The highest ratio of TEU to meter quay length has the Hong Kong terminals with the above stated TEU/m. The automated container terminal HHLA - Container Terminal Altenwerder (CTA) achieves the second best ratio with TEU/m. Nevertheless, the Singapore Terminals have a higher ratio of TEU/ha with TEU/ha compared to TEU/ha of the CTA. Table 6 shows similar data, using the designed container capacity per year values listed in table 7. In this list the highest ration of designed container capacity to meter quay wall is achieved by the Port of Tanjung Pelepas with TEU/m.

6 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 6 Terminal Name Q-L ha-t TEU/y TEU/m TEU/ha Port of Tanjung Pelepas Deurganck Terminal PSA Hazira International Terminal PSA ABG Kandla Container Terminal SP-PSA International Port (SP-PSA) Gateway Terminals India Chennai International Terminals Noordzee terminal Eastern Sea Laem Chabang Terminal Tianjin Port Pacific International Container Terminal APM Terminals Virginia Pusan Newport North Container Terminal Guangzhou Container Terminal (GCT). Xinsha APM Terminals Rotterdam Tianjin Port Alliance International Container Terminal Incheon Container Terminal Mersin International Port APM Terminals Tangier ECT Euromax Terminal Sines Container Terminal Freeport Container Port Europa terminal Dalian Port Container Terminal MSC Home Terminal Voltri Terminal Europa (VTE) Antwerp Gateway East Swanson Dock (Melbourne) Constanta South Container Terminal (CSCT) SRL Port Botany (Sydney) Guangzhou Container Terminal (GCT). Xingang Fuzhou International Container Terminal (FICT) Hibiki Container Terminal Axis Fergusson. Port of Auckland Patrick Fisherman Islands Brisbane Albert II terminal Zeebrugge Container handling zeebrugge Terminal Catalunya (TERCAT) Churchill terminal Table 6: Ratio designed container capacity to meter quay length 4. Summary In this paper a survey on characteristics of 133 terminals is described. The focus of the survey lies on the used equipment for the stacking of containers in the container yard. For 114 terminals the data of the equipment types is available and the study shows that for 63.2% of the terminals RTG are used for stacking. The second most common equipment is the SC system with 20.2%. 55.6% of the terminals using RTG are located in Asia. Modern automated RMG equipment is mostly used in Europe (85.7%). Moreover, the survey shows that the Hong Kong Container Terminals processed TEU per meter quay wall in A. Appendix

7 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 7 Terminal Name Region Sources Q-L QC St-TEU GS-TEU ha-t ha-y Reefer Main eq. type TEUs/y Layout Note Apapa Container Terminal Africa [3] Reach Stackers APM Terminals Tangier Africa [4];[5] RTG *1300 cur. constr. Garden City Terminal. Savannah America [6] RTG both APM Terminals Pier 400 Los Angeles America [7] RTG par. International Transportation Service America [8];[9] RTG par. Barbours Cut Container Terminal. Houston America [10];[11] par. Port Elizabeth America [12] RTG Pacific Container Terminal. Long Beach America [13];[14] Manzanillo International Terminal America [15];[16];[153] RTG 1580 par. Norfolk International Terminals (NIT) America [17] SC APM Terminals Miami America [18] TTI / Hanjin Shipping Co. Long Beach, Pier T America [19] APM Terminals Oakland Berth20-24 America [20];[21] Port of Seattle Terminal 18 America [22] Wheeled Terminales Internacionales de Ecuador (TIDE) America [23] constr. APM Terminals Virginia America [24];[25] ARMG *2100 per. cur. constr. Kingston Container Terminals America [26] SC Port of Balboa Container Terminal America [27];[154] RTG 1000 expansion APM Terminals Charleston America [28] RTG per. Wando Welch Terminal (WWT). Charleston America [29] RTG Terminal A Long Beach America [30];[31] RTG Oakland International Container Terminal America [32];[33] SSA Mexico - Manzanillo. Colima America [34];[10] RTG Freeport Container Port America [35] SC *1500 expansion Ben E. Nutter Marine Container Terminal. Oakland America [36] New York Container Terminal America [37] Bouenos Aires Container Terminal America [38] RTG par. Buenos Aires Container Terminal (BACTSSA) America [39] RTG par. Port of Seattle Terminal 5 America [40];[41] Wheeled Long Beach Container Terminal. Pier F America [42] APL Terminal. Oakland America [43] Deltaport. Port of Vancouver America [44] RTG per. DP World Caucedo America [45];[46] RTG par. Vanterm. Port of Vancouver America [44] RTG par. Pasir panjang terminal (Singapore) Asia [1];[47] OHBC par. Yantian International Container Terminals Limited (YICT) Asia [48];[49] RTG par. expansion(2010) Qingdao Qianwan Container Asia [50];[51] RTG par. Hongkong Terminals CT 4.6 & 7 Asia [52];[53];[54];[2] RTG both Pusan Newport North Container Terminal Asia [55];[56] RMG *5500 par. cur. constr.(2009) Keppel terminal (Singapore) Asia [1];[47] RTG par. Westports Malaysia (KMT) Asia [57];[58];[155] RTG 4966 par. expansion River Trade Terminal Asia [59];[60] RTG both Port of Tanjung Pelepas Asia [61];[62] RTG *6000 expansion Brani terminal (Singapore) Asia [1];[47] RTG par. Hongkong Terminal CT 1. 2, 5 & 9 (South) Asia [2];[63] RTG par. expansion Tianjin Port Pacific International Container Terminal (TPCT) Asia [64] *4000 Tanjong pagar terminal (Singapore) Asia [1];[47] RTG par. Shanghai Container Terminals Asia [65] RTG par.? Dalian Port Container Terminal Asia [66];[67] RTG *3000 par. expansion Hutchison Laemchabang Terminal (HLT) A2.A3,C1,C2 Asia [68];[69];[70] RTG par. Dalian Container Terminal Asia [67];[156] RTG 2100 par. Hutchison Laemchabang Terminal (HLT) D1-D3 Asia [68];[69] planned(2011) Yokohama. Honmoku PIER (A5-A8;D4-D5) (YPDPC) Asia [157];[158] RTG Fuzhou International Container Terminal (FICT) Asia [71];[72] RTG *2000 par. expansion Yokohama. Honmoku PIER (C5- D3) Asia [157];[158] RTG / SC Pusan East Container Terminal (PECT) Asia [73];[74] RTG / ARMG 2450 par. Korea International Terminals (KIT) Asia [75];[76] RTG par. Karachi New Port Container Terminals (KNP) Asia [77] planned(2011) Hutchison Busan Container Terminal (HBCT) Asia [78];[79] RTG par.

8 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 8 Terminal Name Region Sources Q-L QC St-TEU GS-TEU ha-t ha-y Reefer Main eq. type TEUs/y Layout Note Shanghai East Container Terminal (SECT) Asia [80];[81] RTG par. Yokohama. Daikoku Pier (C1-C4) Asia [158];[159] RTG par. Shanghai Mingdong Container Terminals Asia [82] RTG par. Eastern Sea Laem Chabang Terminal Asia [83] RTG *2220 par. Hibiki Container Terminal Asia [84];[85] RTG *1100 expansion SP-PSA International Port (SP-PSA) Asia [86];[87] RTG *2200 par. cur. constr.(2009) Tianjin Port Alliance International Container Terminal (TACT) Asia [64] *1850 Hongkong Terminal CT 8 East Asia [53];[54];[2] RTG par. Xiamen International Container Terminals (XICT) Asia [160] RTG Hongkong Terminals CT 9 (North) Asia [52];[53];[54];[2] RTG par. Myanmar International Terminals Thilawa Asia [88] RTG APM Terminals Kaohsiung Asia [89] RTG / SC par. Karachi International Container Terminal (KICT) Asia [90] RTG par. Ningbo Beilun International Container Terminals Asia [91] RTG Shanghai Pudong International Container Terminals Asia [92];[93] RTG par. Incheon Container Terminal Asia [94];[95] RTG *1500 par. cur. constr. TaiChung Container Terminal Asia [96];[97] RTG / RMG United Logistics International. Port of Keelung Asia [98] RTG Chennai International Terminals Asia [99] *1500 cur. constr.(2009) Dongbu Pusan Container Terminal Asia [100] RTG 800 Guangzhou Container Terminal (GCT). Xingang Asia [101] RTG *1000 par. Kobe Terminal Asia [102] RTG par. Hongkong Terminal CT 8 West Asia [54];[2] RTG par. Gateway Terminals India Asia [103];[161] RTG *1300 par. expansion Yokohama. Minami Honmoku Pier Asia [158];[162] RTG par. PSA HAZIRA INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL Asia [104] *1230 cur. constr.(2010) Guangzhou Container Terminal (GCT). Xinsha Asia [101] RTG *1100 par. PSA ABG Kandla Container Terminal Asia [105] *1000 Jakarta International Container Terminal (JICT) Australia Pacific [106];[107] RTG 1700 par. Port Botany (Sydney) Australia Pacific [163] SC *1300 expansion Patrick Fisherman Islands Brisbane Australia Pacific [164] ALV *800 East Swanson Dock (Melbourne) Australia Pacific [165] SC *1200 expansion Axis Fergusson. Port of Auckland Australia Pacific [108] SC *500 Container Terminal Bremerhaven Europe [109];[110];[111];[112] SC 5500 ECT Delta Terminal Europe [113] ARMG 5000 per. Gioia Tauro - Medcenter Container Terminal Europe [114];[166] SC 3468 Port of Felixstowe (PFL) Europe [167];[115] RTG 3500 par. MSC Home Terminal Europe [116];[117] SC *4100 HHLA - Container Terminal Burchardkai CTB Europe [118]; [119];[120] ARMG 2800 per. expansion Deurganck Terminal Europe [116];[121] SC *5700 expansion Antwerp Gateway Europe [122] ARMG *3500 per. expansion churchill terminal Europe [116] SC *800 Algeciras Terminal Europe [123] RTG par. Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg CTH Europe [118];[168] SC 2700 Nord France Terminal International (NFTI) Europe [124] Reach Stackers Maritima Valenciana. Marvalsa Europe [125] RTG par. APM Terminals Rotterdam Europe [126] SC *2700 Cagliari Container Terminal Europe [114];[166] RTG 256 par. ECT Euromax Terminal Europe [127] ARMG *2300 per. Voltri Terminal Europa (VTE) Europe [128];[129] RTG *2000 par. La Spezia Container Terminal Europe [114];[166] RTG / RMG 1052 par. HHLA - Container Terminal Altenwerder CTA Europe [120];[118] ARMG 2400 per. ECT City Terminal Europe [169] SC 1100 Southampton Container Terminals Europe [130];[131] SC Albert II terminal Zeebrugge Europe [132] *1100 cur. constr. Tilbury Container Services (TCS) Europe [133] SC europa terminal Europe [116] SC *1700 noordzee terminal Europe [116];[134] SC *2000 Terminal Catalunya (TERCAT) Europe [135];[136] RTG *850 par.

9 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 9 Terminal Name Region Sources Q-L QC St-TEU GS-TEU ha-t ha-y Reefer Main eq. type TEUs/y Layout Note Constanta South Container Terminal (CSCT) SRL Europe [137];[138] RTG *1300 par. container handling zeebrugge Europe [132];[139] SC *825 HHLA - Container Terminal Tollerort CTT Europe [118];[120] SC 950 expansion Sines Container Terminal Europe [140] RTG *1400 par. expansion APM Terminals Zeebrugge Europe [141] SC London Thamesport Europe [142];[143] ARMG par. Mersin International Port Middle East [144] RTG *2500 par. Saudi Arabia - Jeddah Middle East [145] RTG International Ports Services. Dammam, Saudi Arabia (IPS) Middle East [146];[147] RTG Port of Salalah Middle East [148] RTG par. expansion Suez Canal Container Terminal Middle East [149];[170] RTG 700 par. APM TERMINALS BAHRAIN Middle East [150] SC Fujairah Port Middle East [151] RTG JEBEL ALI TERMINALS. Dubai Middle East [152] RTG par. Port Rashid. Dubai Middle East [152] SC Table 7: Information about container terminals sorted by region and quay length

10 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 10 References [1] Anonymous, Accessed [2] Anonymous, Accessed [3] Anonymous, Accessed [4] Anonymous, Accessed [5] Anonymous, Accessed [6] Anonymous, /Default.aspx. Accessed [7] Anonymous, Accessed [8] Anonymous, Accessed [9] Anonymous, Accessed [10] Anonymous, Accessed [11] Anonymous, Accessed [12] Anonymous, Accessed [13] Anonymous, Accessed [14] Anonymous, Accessed [15] Anonymous, Accessed [16] Anonymous, Default.aspx. Accessed [17] Anonymous, Accessed [18] Anonymous, Accessed [19] Anonymous, Accessed [20] Anonymous, Accessed [21] Anonymous, Accessed [22] Anonymous, Accessed [23] Anonymous, Accessed [24] Anonymous, Accessed [25] Anonymous, Accessed [26] Anonymous, Accessed [27] Anonymous, Accessed

11 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 11 [28] Anonymous, Accessed [29] Anonymous, Accessed [30] Anonymous, Accessed [31] Anonymous, Accessed [32] Anonymous, Accessed [33] Anonymous, Accessed [34] Anonymous, Accessed [35] Anonymous, Accessed [36] Anonymous, Accessed [37] Anonymous, Accessed [38] Anonymous, Accessed [39] Anonymous, Accessed [40] Anonymous, Accessed [41] Anonymous, Accessed [42] Anonymous, Accessed [43] Anonymous, Accessed [44] Anonymous, FacilityInfo.pdf. Accessed [45] Anonymous, _schema=pogprtl. Accessed [46] Anonymous, Accessed [47] Anonymous, Accessed [48] Anonymous, Accessed [49] Anonymous, Accessed [50] Anonymous, Accessed [51] Anonymous, Accessed [52] Anonymous, Accessed [53] Anonymous, Accessed [54] Anonymous, Accessed [55] Anonymous, Accessed [56] Anonymous, Accessed

12 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 12 [57] Anonymous, Accessed [58] Anonymous, Accessed [59] Anonymous, Accessed [60] Anonymous, Accessed [61] Anonymous, Accessed [62] Anonymous, Accessed [63] Anonymous, Accessed [64] Anonymous, Accessed [65] Anonymous, Accessed [66] Anonymous, Accessed [67] Anonymous, Accessed [68] Anonymous, Accessed [69] Anonymous, Accessed [70] Anonymous, Accessed [71] Anonymous, Accessed [72] Anonymous, Accessed [73] Anonymous, Accessed [74] Anonymous, Accessed [75] Anonymous, Accessed [76] Anonymous, Accessed [77] Anonymous, Accessed [78] Anonymous, Accessed [79] Anonymous, Accessed [80] Anonymous, Accessed [81] Anonymous, Accessed [82] Anonymous, Accessed [83] Anonymous, Accessed [84] Anonymous, Accessed [85] Anonymous, Accessed [86] Anonymous, Accessed [87] Anonymous, Accessed [88] Anonymous, Accessed

13 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 13 [89] Anonymous, Accessed [90] Anonymous, Accessed [91] Anonymous, Accessed [92] Anonymous, Accessed [93] Anonymous, Accessed [94] Anonymous, Accessed [95] Anonymous, Accessed [96] Anonymous, Accessed [97] Anonymous, Accessed [98] Anonymous, Accessed [99] Anonymous, Accessed [100] Anonymous, Accessed [101] Anonymous, Accessed [102] Anonymous, Accessed [103] Anonymous, Accessed [104] Anonymous, Accessed [105] Anonymous, Accessed [106] Anonymous, Accessed [107] Anonymous, Accessed [108] Anonymous, Accessed [109] Anonymous, Accessed [110] Anonymous, Accessed [111] Anonymous, Accessed [112] Anonymous, eg_html_de/psfile/htmlfile/99/eg_portinf457951c74fce1.pdf&name=eg_portinfo_bhv.pdf. Accessed [113] Anonymous, Accessed [114] Anonymous, Accessed [115] Anonymous, Accessed [116] Anonymous, Accessed [117] Anonymous, $file/msc%20home%20terminal.pdf. Accessed [118] Anonymous, Accessed

14 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 14 [119] Anonymous, Accessed [120] Anonymous, Accessed [121] Anonymous, $file/deurganck.pdf. Accessed [122] Anonymous, Accessed [123] Anonymous, Accessed [124] Anonymous, Accessed [125] Anonymous, Accessed [126] Anonymous, Accessed [127] Anonymous, Accessed [128] Anonymous, Accessed [129] Anonymous, Accessed [130] Anonymous, Accessed [131] Anonymous, Accessed [132] Anonymous, Accessed [133] Anonymous, Accessed [134] Anonymous, $file/noordzee.pdf. Accessed [135] Anonymous, Accessed [136] Anonymous, Accessed [137] Anonymous, _schema=pogprtl. Accessed [138] Anonymous, Accessed [139] Anonymous, Accessed [140] Anonymous, Accessed [141] Anonymous, Accessed [142] Anonymous, Accessed [143] Anonymous, Accessed [144] Anonymous, Accessed [145] Anonymous, _schema=pogprtl. Accessed [146] Anonymous, Accessed [147] Anonymous, Accessed

15 J. Wiese, N. Kliewer and L. Suhl: Container Terminal Survey 15 [148] Anonymous, Accessed [149] Anonymous, Accessed [150] Anonymous, Accessed [151] Anonymous, Accessed [152] Anonymous, Accessed [153] Anonymous, Accessed [154] Anonymous, Accessed [155] Anonymous, Accessed [156] Anonymous, Accessed [157] Anonymous, Accessed [158] Anonymous, Accessed [159] Anonymous, Accessed [160] Anonymous, Accessed [161] Anonymous, Accessed [162] Anonymous, Accessed [163] Anonymous, Accessed [164] Anonymous, Accessed [165] Anonymous, Accessed [166] Anonymous, Accessed [167] Anonymous, Accessed [168] Anonymous, Accessed [169] Anonymous, Accessed [170] Anonymous, Accessed [171] Birgitt Brinkmann. Seehäfen Planung und Entwurf. Springer, [172] Hans-Otto Günther and Kap-Hwan Kim. Container terminals and terminal operations. OR Spectrum, 28(4): , October [173] Katta G. Murty, Jiyin Liu, Yat-wah Wan, and Richard Linn. A decision support system for operations in a container terminal. Decision Support Systems, 39(3): , May [174] UNCTAD. Review of Maritime Transport UNCTAD, 2008.