Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 378–398 | Cite as

Container terminal gate appointment system optimization

  • Changqian GuanEmail author
  • Rongfang (Rachel) Liu
Original Article


As a consequence of continuing growth of container volume and the introduction of 12 000 TEU plus containerships into major trade routes, the port industry is under pressure to come up with the necessary capacity to accommodate the increasing freight volume. One critical issue is the marine terminal gate capacity. Limited gate capacity leads to congestion. The harbor trucking industry operates in a very competitive environment; gate congestion is detrimental to their economic well-being. This article applies a multi-server queuing model to analyze marine terminal gate congestion and quantify truck waiting cost. An optimization model is developed to balance the gate operating cost and trucker’s cost associated with excessive waiting time. The model is tested using data from field observations. A case study is applied to analyze gate congestion behavior and truck waiting cost. Model sensitivity is discussed. The results indicate that truck waiting cost at marine terminal gates is an issue that needs to be addressed. A truck appointment system seems to be the most viable way to reduce gate congestion and increase system efficiency. With an optimized appointment system, the total system costs, especially truck waiting cost, can be drastically reduced.


multi-server queuing model waiting cost gate operation appointment system optimization container terminal 


  1. Ballis, A. and Abacoumkin, C. (1996) A container terminal simulation model with animation capabilities. Journal of Advanced Transportation 30 (1): 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cosmetatos, G. (1976) Some approximation equilibrium: Results for the multi-server queue (M/G/r). Operational Research Quarterly 27 (3, Part 1): 615–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dragovic, B., Park, N.K. and Radmilovic, Z. (2006) Ship-berth link performance evaluation: Simulation and analytical approaches. Maritime Policy and Management 33 (3): 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Giuliano, G., Hayden, S., Dell’aquila, P. and O’Brien, T. (2008) Evaluation of the Terminal Gate Appointment System at the Los Angeles/Long Beach Ports. METRANS Transportation Center, California Department of Transportation and University of Southern California. Research Report.Google Scholar
  5. Huynh, N. and Walton, M. (2008) Robust scheduling of truck arrivals at marine container terminals. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering 134 (8): 347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim, K.H., Lee, K.M. and Hwang, H. (2003) Sequencing delivery and receiving operations for yard crane in port container terminals. International Journal of Production Economics 84: 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kozan, E. (1997a) Comparison of analytical and simulation planning models of seaport container terminals. Transportation Planning and Technology 20: 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kozan, E. (1997b) Increasing the operational efficiency of container terminals in Australia. The Journal of Operational Research Society 48 (2): 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kozan, E. (2000) Optimizing container transfers at multimodal terminals. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 31: 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Law, A. (2006) Simulation Modeling & Analysis, 4th edn. McGraw Hill, pp. 340–346.Google Scholar
  11. Law, A. and Kelton, D. (2000) Simulation Modeling and Analysis, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 227–228.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, A.M. and Longton, P.A. (1959) Queuing processes associated with airline passenger check-in. Operational Research Quarterly 10 (1): 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Noritake, M. and Kimura, S. (1983) Optimum number and capacity of seaport berths. ASCE Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 109: 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Noritake, (1985) Congestion cost and pricing of seaports. ASCE Journal of Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 111 (2): 354–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rizzoli, A., Fornara, N. and Gambardella, L. (2002) A simulation tool for combined rail/road transport in intermodal terminals. Mathematics and Computer Simulation 59 (1–3): 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Taniguchi, E., Noritake, M., Yamada, T. and Izumitani, T. (1999) Optimal size and location planning of public logistics terminals. Transportation Research Part E 35: 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Watanabe, Y. (2003) Environmental impact of intermodal transportation by trucks on ports. Proceedings of International Association and Maritime Economics (IAME) and Korean Maritime Institute & Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics; 26–30 June, Busan, pp. 864–873.Google Scholar
  18. Winston, W.L. (1993) Operations Research: Applications and Algorithms, 3rd edn. Belmont, CA: International Thomson Publishing, Duxbury Press, pp. 1109–1111.Google Scholar
  19. Yamade, T., Yoshizawa, G., Frazila, R. and Mori, K. (2003) Optimizing the handling capacity in a container terminal for investigating efficient handling systems. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 5: 597–608.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marine TransportationLogistics & Intermodal Transportation, United States Merchant Marine AcademyKings PointUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations