The gate keepers
Truck drivers can now self-serve at automated gates, saving time
An intelligent gate system is fast becoming a terminal 'must-have', as Alex Hughes explains
Since 2002, approximately 300 global ports have implemented some form of automated gate system and that number is expected to triple within the next few years.
“The reason for wider adoption is improved reliability and the increased sustainability of solutions. Providers have cut costs and have helped customers define a clear ROI using industry best practices,” says Allen Thomas, chief operating officer of solution provider APS Technology Group, who claims that every port gate could leverage some type of automation.
For operators, there are a host of possible benefits, including improved security (via automated access control); safety (through the removal of personnel from driver lanes); and the productivity improvement or throughput velocity that comes from automating many of the old data collection processes.
Asked whether potential customers take into account whole life costs of operating an automated gate system or simply look at the capital investment involved, Mr Thomas is adamant that “buying anything solely on price is rarely a good investment. The smart ports compare benefits they receive with the TCO over the life of the system, which we estimate to be in the region of five to seven years.”
He also advises ports to adopt the simplest workable solution. Complexity, customised parts and inflexible systems deliver a one-size-fits-all approach, he argues. “I see value in a solution that leverages modular, off-the-shelf components and adapts these to the operating environment - not the other way round. Additionally, these have to be easily supported by port electricians.”
As for the future, he predicts that systems will become more standardised, particularly given the growing presence of global stevedoring groups. Common functions, such as equipment ID, equipment inspection and access control will all be automated, with any exceptions being handled remotely.
“In line with other port technology trends that become widely adopted, there will also be a continued improvement in reliability and supportability, combined with a lowering of ownership costs,” he predicts.
The Port of Miami for one saw the worth in a customised approach to its gate, designing its own set up, while field peripherals were selected, purchased/manufactured and installed by SAIC. SAIC also provided the messaging software that sends and receives data to/from the middleware, which communicates with the graphic user interface used by the gate officers.
Louis A Noriega, head of information systems at Miami-Dade County Seaport Department, notes: “The system design brought together commercial off the shelf equipment configured to our particular requirements. We are now at the forefront of the technological cutting edge, without necessarily getting to the bleeding edge.”
The software design, he claims, is revolutionary, being the only gate system that allows truck drivers to self-serve upon arrival at the reception pedestal. The driver is prompted to answer questions before the gate officer takes charge of the transaction. Furthermore, both security and accounting elements are brought together in the cargo gate system, with Mr Noriega stressing that control mechanisms inherent in the back end system were strictly adhered to as part of the overall cargo gate system design.
Challenged to say how secure the gate is given its high degree of automation, he says that it is as secure as any high end COTS Access Control System can be.
“Our gate operators must still vet the driver, comparing a live CCTV image provided by the pedestal with an electronically stored picture. Furthermore, once our access control system makes use of the Transport Worker ID Card (TWIC) to authenticate the driver using a fingerprint biometric, I fully believe the system can function in a“hands-off” manner.
However, "there will nevertheless always be some transactions requiring human intervention", concedes Mr Noriega.
He points out that customer service was the port's main motivating factor when modernising our cargo gates.
“We could no longer afford to have truck drivers waiting in line for 30+ minutes to transverse our entrance gates. Truck turnaround time is one of the key issues for a shipping line when considering a port. It would have been difficult to justify a cargo gate system on ROI alone,” he says.
For his part, Port of Tacoma planning director Brian Mannelly argues that the initial capital cost of automating a gate is certainly a primary concern, but should not be the only issue to be critically evaluated. An assessment of gate and terminal productivity - turnaround times, inbound queuing, lane balancing and operational oversight - must also be taken into consideration.
“I would therefore consider the life-cycle cost/benefit of the operation ultimately the most important objective,” he says.
In terms of a return on investment, he says that an automated gate could become part of a lease or operating agreement. In this case, the total project costs (system design, permitting, construction and commissioning) should be rolled into an amortisation schedule, or folded into an existing lease.
Asked whether ports consider operational or security aspects first when automating the gate, he says that it is reducing the cost of the former that is often the main driver.
Gate automation, he adds, can impact positively on net utilisation of existing space, which means ports don't necessarily have to expand into new areas to handle more cargo. A conventional gate may occupy 3% to 7% of a terminal’s gross area. However, if a port can devote adjacent, off-terminal space for use as a consolidated and automated gate function to serve multiple terminals, former on-terminal gate area can be re-allocated for higher and better terminal operations functions, increasing utilisation and commanding higher performance yields, he says.
Furthermore, he believes that existing technology can deliver all the things that ports want from their gates. “The complication is implementing a single system -or independent satellite systems that hub into a centralised clearing house - that accommodates the needs of the terminal operators, stevedores, truck drivers, BCOs and port authority, whilst also allows for flexibility, technological adaptation, privacy and standardisation -which is no small order!”
Asked whether the entire gate process will eventually be automated, Mr Mannelly replies by pointing out that, ultimately, we will find a way to do this, although it will take time.
But is cutting the wage bill the number one incentive for ports to automate gates? Not according to APS' Mr Thomas. “It is a common misconception that ports are only interested in shedding jobs. True, on the US west coast, the initial automation driver was solely labour cost reduction, however in the Panama canal zone and elsewhere, enhanced security has been key. In most cases, gates simply can’t run without people,” he says.
However, the Port of Miami reports it has been able to significantly reduce the work force required to operate its cargo gates. The old system needed a gate officer in every booth, while the new one is usually operated by six to eight officers depending on the time of day. Nowadays, there are four to six officers in the command center and two in manned booths to handle personal vehicle transactions and drivers that opt to pay for the scale charge in cash.
Images for this article - click to enlarge
Unless otherwise stated, all images copyright © Mercator Media 2012. This does not exclude the owner's assertion of copyright over the material.
