Small Ports Don’t Need Rotterdam’s Budget To Automate – Here’s What They’re Doing Instead

Smaller ports do not need to automate everything at once. Many are starting with one gate, one system and solving one problem at a time. When we talk about port automation, we usually think of big ports like Rotterdam, Singapore, Busan and Shanghai. These ports use automated cranes, autonomous trucks and digital systems across their terminals.

But automation can be very expensive. Long Beach Container Terminal spent about $1.4 billion to automate a terminal with a capacity of 3.3 million TEU. The Port of Santos put the cost of its automated equipment at about $534 million over 35 years.
Complete automation usually makes financial sense for ports handling at least 1 million TEU a year.

Even then, U.S. operators told the Government Accountability Office that it can take 10 to 20 years to recover the cost of automated cargo-handling equipment. McKinsey says a fully automated new terminal needs to cut operating costs by 25% or increase productivity by 30% to make the investment worthwhile.

For smaller terminals handling only a few hundred thousand TEU a year, these costs can make automation seem out of reach. But smaller ports do not need to automate everything.

The Industry Has A Scaling Problem

UNCTAD says ports are at very different stages of digitalisation. At many smaller ports, important information is still handled manually or outside digital systems. It also says that many small and medium-sized ports do not have the skills or staff needed to manage large digital projects on their own. Instead, UNCTAD suggests using simpler technologies that solve specific problems. It also suggests that ports can share the cost of developing these systems.

So, smaller ports do not need to ask, “How can we automate the whole terminal?” A better question is, “Which part of our operation takes the most time, costs the most money or causes the most problems?” They can then start by fixing that one area.

Automation Is a Spectrum, and the Middle Is Crowded

Automation does not always mean using automated cranes across the whole terminal. For smaller ports, semi-automation can be easier and cheaper to introduce. It can cost about $25 million to $45 million, compared with $65 million to $95 million for full automation. It can also take 18 to 24 months to set up, compared with 36 to 48 months for a full system.

Semi-automation can still reduce labour costs by 18% to 25% and increase throughput by 15% to 22%. For terminals handling 1 million to 3 million TEU, it can be a practical alternative to full automation.

What Smaller Terminals Are Actually Doing

Smaller terminals are mainly taking three approaches.

Start with one part of the operation.

Smaller terminals do not need to automate the whole yard. They can start with one process that uses a lot of labour or causes delays. The gate is often a good place to start.

OCR cameras can read licence plates and ISO 6346 container numbers. Along with driver verification, they can process more than 60 trucks per hour per lane with very little need for gate clerks.

The system can reduce gate processing from minutes to seconds. It can also send each movement directly to the terminal operating system, or TOS.

Grendi’s Marina di Carrara terminal in Italy introduced this type of system in 2026. Cameras and sensors read vehicle plates, container numbers and driver details and record each movement digitally.

This is also easier now because some TOS providers allow terminals to buy individual modules instead of a complete system.
For example, Infyz’s iTOMS allows a terminal to start with the gate or invoicing module. It does not have to pay for commercial, marine and planning functions that it may not need yet.

Using cloud-based systems

For a terminal with a small IT team, not having to maintain its own servers can save money and time.
Cloud-based TOS platforms can reduce upfront costs by about 60% compared with older systems that are installed on the terminal’s own servers.

Several companies now offer cloud systems for smaller terminals. Navis Octopi is a cloud-based TOS for terminals handling around 100,000 TEU a year. It reportedly helped Caribbean Port Services in Port-au-Prince increase productivity by 50%.

CyberLogitec’s OPUS Terminal M runs through a browser and can work across different operating systems.
omoqo’s TOM platform went live at Cargo-Terminal Lehmann at the Port of Lübeck in eight weeks with little disruption.
TCS DynaPORT is a cloud-ready TOS used at more than 70 terminals worldwide.

Infyz’s iTOMS is also web-based. It can run on AWS or Azure without being installed locally. Standard configurations are reportedly ready in two to three weeks.

In New York, Red Hook Container Terminal used a cloud TOS to replace spreadsheets and paper records. Its COO said the system helped a small team run the operation.

Introduce Automation in Stages

Smaller terminals can also avoid making one big investment. They can introduce automation one step at a time.
This keeps the initial cost lower and gives staff time to learn the new system. After each stage, the terminal can see if the investment is working before moving to the next one.

There is no fixed TEU number at which selective automation makes sense. A terminal handling 150,000 to 200,000 TEU a year could still benefit from selective automation if labour costs are high or the site has other problems. A larger terminal with cheap land and low labour costs may have less reason to automate. The EU’s CONNECT2SMALLPORTS initiative follows a similar approach across the Baltic region. Small ports are introducing TOS, IoT, cloud and AI systems in stages.

The Port of Koper has also followed a similar approach at the port-community level. Some smaller ports start with something even more basic: connectivity.

The Port of Tyne in the UK built a private 4G/5G network across its site before adding specific applications. These include number-plate recognition at the gate, AI-based container inspection and smart surveillance.

The port is now testing an autonomous terminal tractor through its P-CAL project. In this case, the network came first. The automation came later.

Why Modular Fits Small Ports Better Than Mega-Ports

This step-by-step approach can work better for smaller regional terminals. A large terminal handling huge volumes may need a complete automated system to make the investment worthwhile. That is why some major automation projects cost billions.

A smaller terminal can take a different approach. It can find its biggest problem, automate that part, see how much it helps and then decide what to do next. The rest of the terminal can continue to operate as usual. This can be a useful option for smaller operators.

Cloud-based TOS systems can also help. Infyz’s iTOMS, for example, can run in the cloud or on-premises. It can connect with ERP systems, customs, OCR, weighbridges, RFID and GPS. Its administrative tools also let terminals manage their own data and settings without asking the vendor to make every change. This can be helpful for terminals with small IT teams.

More advanced tools, such as AI-based yard optimisation and digital-twin-style visualisation, can be added later. They do not have to be part of the first investment. That is the main benefit for smaller terminals. They can add technology when they need it instead of buying one large system from the start.

Conclusion

When we talk about port automation, we often look at ports like Rotterdam, Busan and Singapore. But these are examples of large, fully automated terminals that can require billions of dollars. That is not the only way to automate a port. It may not be the right option for most smaller terminals either.

Smaller operators can start with the part of the operation that needs the most improvement. They can use cloud-based systems and add more functions later. Some systems can be introduced in weeks instead of years. You do not need Rotterdam’s budget to make a terminal smarter.