Benchmarking South African Ports: container and · PDF fileBenchmarking South African Ports:...
Transcript of Benchmarking South African Ports: container and · PDF fileBenchmarking South African Ports:...
Benchmarking South African Ports: container and automotive terminals
2014/15
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page ii
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Approach ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Determining the sample ......................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Limitations............................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Sample ports ........................................................................................................................... 6
2. Container benchmarking: global trends with container traffic ...... 8
2.1. Container terminals .............................................................................................................. 11
2.2. Container throughput ........................................................................................................... 13
2.3. TEUs per hectare ................................................................................................................... 16
2.4. Throughput per metre of berth ............................................................................................ 19
2.5. Throughput per crane ........................................................................................................... 21
2.6. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 25
3. Automotive/ Ro-ro terminals ..................................................................... 27
3.1. Ro-ro throughput and berth productivity ............................................................................. 27
3.2. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 31
4. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 31
5. Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 32
Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Determining benchmark sample ports .................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: World container throughput growth 2008 - 2013 ................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Annual container throughput – TEUs of selected countries (2008 – 2013) ............................ 9
Figure 4: TEU throughput per annum (2010) ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 5: Global TEU throughput by terminal vs Cumulative Average Growth Rate (CAGR) ............... 14
Figure 6: Total container terminal area (ha)(2010) ............................................................................. 16
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page iii
Figure 7: TEUs per hectare per annum ................................................................................................. 17
Figure 8: Correlation between throughput and terminal area ............................................................. 18
Figure 9: Throughput per terminal area (similar sized ports) ............................................................... 19
Figure 10: TEUs per running metre of berth ......................................................................................... 20
Figure 11: Crane per metre of berth ..................................................................................................... 22
Figure 12: TEUs per crane per annum .................................................................................................. 23
Figure 13: TEUs per crane per working year ......................................................................................... 24
Figure 14: Anticipated vessel cascading and depiction of vessel size increases .................................. 25
Figure 15: Summary of SA terminal's performance against sample and global average ..................... 26
Figure 16: Ro-ro terminal annual throughput....................................................................................... 28
Figure 17: Ro-ro terminals berth length (m) ......................................................................................... 29
Figure 18: Units per running metre of berth ........................................................................................ 30
Table 1: Most frequent next and last port of call for container vessels at South African ports (2013). 6
Table 2: Most frequent next and last port of call for Ro-Ro vessels calling at SA terminals, 2013/14 ... 7
Table 3: Benchmark sample ports containers and automotive/Ro-Ro ................................................... 7
Table 4: Country TEUs as proportion of world total (2008 – 2013) ........................................................ 9
Table 5: Sample container terminals and input variables (2010) ......................................................... 12
Table 6: Overall statistics on input variables (2010) ............................................................................. 15
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 1
1. Introduction
Benchmarking is a tool that assists in measuring comparative operating performance and identifies
best practices that can be adopted in improving terminal service levels. In addition to the annual
Global Port Pricing Comparator study in which the Ports Regulator benchmarks prices, the Regulator
has embarked on studies to benchmark South African port terminal performance relative to other
global ports. This report on container and ro-ro terminals reflects the start of what is planned to be a
systematic process of benchmarking South African marine terminals and marine services. It focuses
on key performance metrics of annual throughput, throughput per hectare (yard productivity),
throughput per metre of berth, throughput per crane for container terminals as well as throughput
per berth length at automotive terminals.
The report is intended to stimulate discussion and to generate inputs and comments from the port
community on the reported comparative performance as the Regulator defines a research and
benchmarking programme that will ultimately contribute to improved terminal operations. With the
knowledge gained through the study, the Regulator strives to set a shared agenda for the
enhancement of South African port performance, especially that relate to infrastructure, industry,
port users in their various categories, and government.
The Regulator, whilst aware and cognisant of the performance monitoring initiatives of the Port
Consultative Committees (PCC) and the National Ports Authority’s terminal, marine, road and road
haulier’s operator performance standards processes, has excluded these in this first benchmarking
report.
1.1. Approach
Globally terminals vary in their layout, physical endowments (human, system, and equipment),
markets and commercial activities, linkages with hinterlands and global trading routes, etc. which in
turn affect their performance. The approach in this benchmarking exercise entailed the
identification of terminals against which South African port terminal performance could be
compared, focusing in particular on:
SA terminal performance in the context of global trade, trends and throughput handled at
container and automotive terminals;
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 2
Comparisons of terminal performance based on terminal productivity measures i.e.
throughput; throughput per terminal area; throughput per metre of quay and/or per
terminal equipment.
Performance measures for marine and other services in the port is expected to be included
in the next iteration of the report.
The benchmark is based on analysis of secondary and publicly available data on all of the terminals
with the main data sources for global ports being the following:
Containerisation International: Top 100 Container ports: 2012 – 2014 annual publications.
United Nation’s Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Review of Maritime
Transport. 2012 – 2014 Annual Publications.
Journal of Commerce (JOC) White Paper on Port Productivity: 2012 – 2013.
Port publications with port facts and figures as well as websites for specific ports.
This report represents the start of a longer term benchmarking process by the Regulator on the
performance of South African terminals to be up scaled and enhanced with inputs form the wider
port industry and community.
1.2. Determining the sample
Various approaches can be followed in identifying comparable ports for South African terminals
ranging from identifying terminals in South Africa’s trading partner countries and blocks (Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa -BRICS); in developing countries similar to South Africa in terms
of economic growth rates or in the same trade routes of vessels calling in South African ports; or by
typology of the port based on its role i.e. Gateway, Hub or Transshipment ports; or all. A
combination of these will frame PRSA benchmarking. The sample for this report was determined by
availability of comparable secondary data for containers and automotive terminals.
Standardisation that has happened through the containerisation of cargo and container handling
allows for easier comparisons across container port terminals that are not homogeneous (they each
differ in terms of physical attributes, sizes, level of resourcing with regard to superstructure and
operating systems etc.). In the automotive sector, the development of auto carriers that allows for
vehicles to roll-on and roll-off (Ro-ro) terminals and establishment of dedicated terminals with the
requisite parking and handling facilities also allows for comparisons to be made.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 3
In contrast the range of commodities that makes up the broad categorisation of dry bulk, break bulk
and liquid bulk categories and their different cargo handling methods means that it is not possible to
have homogeneity at the level of cargo type as a unit of measure. Port and terminal publications
generally specify the main type of commodities handled at their dry, break and liquid bulk facilities
and the mix will differ from port to port for the same cargo type. As an example, the 2014 Facts and
Figures for Port of Antwerp breaks down dry bulk for the Ports of Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hamburg,
Antwerp etc. into fertilisers, ore, sand, gravel and minerals, coal, grain and seeds as well as others.
The Review of Maritime Transport, UNCTAD publication classifies major dry bulks into steel
production and consumption, iron ore shipment, coal shipment, bauxite/alumina and phosphate
rock. Minor dry bulk includes metals and minerals (cement, nickel ore, anthracite, forest and steel
products, agribulks such as sugar and oilseed) as well as containerised dry cargo.
The wide range of commodities and cargo handling methods in this category therefore requires that
comparisons be done at a commodity handling level e.g. iron ore, coal, grains or crude oil terminals.
A scan of the UNCTAD Maritime Transport Review reveals some trends that will help inform, though
not exclusively, future samples. The majority of dry bulk is exported from South Africa, following
Australia and Brazil as the main exporters of ores, with countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone
also emerging as exporters of ores. Mozambique and Ghana are set to significantly increase their
exports of dry bulk. China, India, Europe and Japan are the main importers of ores. The players in
coal involve similar countries as other ores and include Germany, Korea, the United Kingdom, the
United States, Russia Mongolia and Indonesia, which would need to be considered in benchmarking
dry-bulk terminals. Similar analysis towards identifying countries and specific terminals will inform
the samples for the other sub-categories and bulks.
Often published terminal and throughput information for these terminals is generally aggregated at
cargo type and it is almost never available at the granular level that is required to ascribe
performance to specific commodity handling terminals unless primary data collection is done on
those terminals. Future PRSA benchmarking exercises will seek to confirm the commodity types, as
well as comparator ports, for South African dry, liquid and break bulk terminals.
The ports included in the PRSA sample for container and automotive terminals were determined by
balancing availability of terminal and performance information, with the need to include ports that
are comparable to South African ports and those that reflect best practices or performance amongst
peer terminals. The sample was arrived at through a combination of these approaches, tempered by
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 4
availability of data. Figure 1 reflects the process undertaken to identify comparable ports for South
African terminals, which was to identify ports visited by vessels that call at South African ports for
the same cargo handling type.
Figure 1: Determining benchmark sample ports
The first step was to identify the most frequent next and last ports of call per cargo type from the
vessel tracking system (VTS) data for the most recent year (2013/14). In this way local ports are
compared with ports that are most relevent as they fall on the same shipping route as South African
ports.
In line with the categorisation of terminal by cargo type, the reasons for vessel call should be
captured as ‘container’, ‘dry bulk’, ‘breakbulk’, ‘ro-ro’ and ‘liquid bulk’ depending on what is being
loaded or unloaded at the port. This is however not always the case. The VTS information had to be
‘cleaned’ to address the challenges relating to uniformity in the data within and across the ports and
terminals. For example, where one port captures the reason for the vessel call as ‘container’ or
‘working’ (Port of Cape Town); another would simply capture ‘loading’ or ‘unloading’ under their
reason for call (Port of Saldanha). The ‘general cargo’ category includes both bulk and breakbulk,
making them indistinguishable from each other.
The second step was to conduct a desktop search for comparative port performance data for the
ports identified. As highlighted previously, container terminal information is generally better
recorded in various studies and on websites and therefore could be captured. Data availability was
limited for automotive terminals. Port authority’s annual reports, brochures and other data sources
capture annual throughput and some capacity statistics for automotive but very few published port
performance statistics. Even fewer ports publish both throughput data and capacity data together
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 5
(both are required for productivity calculations). In very limited cases, this information was sourced
directly from the ports or terminals. The bulk of information sourced was then through desktop
research. In future, within resource limitiations, primary data gathering with shipping lines, agents
and terminals to collect and/or verify the data will be considered to improve the sample.
1.3. Limitations
It is important, therefore, to reiterate the context for reading this report. Firstly, the study solely
relies on publicly available and comparable information. For container terminals, comparable
physical characteristics data was obtainable for the year 2010; therefore, the base year used is 2010,
unless indicated otherwise.
Accordingly, there would be developments in some of the ports which have not been reflected or
captured in the report for the simple reason that this could not be determined for all terminals after
2010 e.g. purchase of additional cranes or widening of berths, etc. We are aware of some trends in
the procurement of Ship To Shore (STS) quay cranes in the intervening years which may have been
additional to already existing cranes or replacement of old equipment.
The Port Equipment Manufacturers Association (PEMA) annual ship-to-shore crane survey reports
and annual yard equipment survey reports – both in their 3rd year - provides a preview into some
trends on terminal operator’s purchases of ship to shore cranes and other yard equipment. In 2012,
the Durban Container Terminal acquired 7 new cranes to replace old equipment whilst terminals in
China procured the most number of cranes (49) in the same year. Secondly, since the study relied on
publicly available information, some of the port infrastructure information is not made publicly
available which limited comparable ports in our study. A third limitation relates to the financial
constraints that impacted on our ability to purchase data-sets from commonly used international
publications, in particular the JOC Group’s port productivity data. However, the published White
Paper was used in drawing comparisons on port productivity, even though methodological nuances
and approaches may have differed.
Sample ports
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 6
Table 1 summarises the last port of call for the most frequent vessels that called at South African
container terminals, based on vessel tracking data for each of the designated container terminals in
the South African system i.e. Ports of Durban, Ngqurha, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town.
Table 1: Most frequent next and last port of call for container vessels at South African ports (2013).
Last port of call Country No. of calls to SA ports
Next port of call Country No. of calls
Singapore Singapore 202 Singapore Singapore 143
Kelang Malaysia 158 Port Louis Mauritius 80
Port Louis Mauritius 144 Pointe noire Canada 70
Santos- sp Brazil 116 Port Kelang Malaysia 60
Las Palmas Spain 72 Lome Togo 51
Luanda Angola 63 Santos Brazil 45
Jebel Ali UAE 55 Las Palmas Spain 44
Walvis bay Namibia 53 Walvis Bay Namibia 36
Cotonou Benin 47 Abbot Point Australia 34
Abidjan Ivory Coast 41 Lagos Nigeria 31
Freeport Bahamas 38 Algeciras Spain 28
Beira Maputo 38 Luanda Angola 27
Toamasina Madagascar 38 New York USA 24
Colombo Sri Lanka 32 Rotterdam Netherlands 23
Maputo Mozambique 29 Newark USA 21
Source: VTS/CMR data for 7 largest SA ports, 2013/14
The combination of last and next port of calls above reflects a mix of ports including those ranked in
the Top 100 Container Terminals globally (Singapore, Rotterdam, Kelang, Jebel Ali, New York,
Colombo, Algeciras, Santos, Las Palamas, and Freeport); and those in the west and east African
coast thus in the same market as SA terminals (Luanda, Abidjan, Cotonou, Walvis Bay, Beira,
Maputo, Lome and Nigeria). Out of these ports, comparable throughput, terminal area, berth
length, and number of cranes was obtainable for 16 ports for 2010 and they comprise the sample
together with the Ports of Durban, Ngqurha, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town (see Table 3). The last
and next ports of call for Roll On-Roll Off (Ro-Ro) vessels are captured in Table 2.
Table 2: Most frequent next and last port of call for Ro-Ro vessels calling at SA terminals, 2013/14
Ro-ro last port Country No. of calls Ro-ro next port Country No. of calls
Maputo Mozambique 56 Maputo Mozambique 63
Singapore Singapore 53 Luanda Angola 61
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 7
Ro-ro last port Country No. of calls Ro-ro next port Country No. of calls
Southampton UK 40 Fremantle Australia 56
Walvis bay Namibia 32 East London SA 52
India India 30 Singapore Singapore 39
Dar-es-salaam Tanzania 18 Vigo Spain 17
Mombasa Kenya 17 Dar-es-Salaam Tanzania 15
Tagier Morocco 17 Reunion France 10
Tamatave Madagascar 11 India India 7
Zarate Argentina 10 Melbourne Australia 6
Santander Spain 10 Santos Brazil 6
Spain Spain 10 Spain Spain 6
Lagos Nigeria 8 Australia Australia 6 Source: VTS/CMR data for 7 largest SA ports 2013/14
Comparable data for Ro-Ro terminals was obtainable for 2013 for 7 of the abovementioned ports
(these are captured in table 3 below). The ports of Mombasa in Kenya and Walvis Bay in Namibia are
still to develop dedicated Ro-Ro terminals. Their throughput is handled at either a container or
multipurpose terminal. Whilst the Port of Tin Can in Nigeria has a 2 berth, 450m berth facility with a
depth of 11.5m at the Tin Can complex, throughput data for this facility is not readily available. The
Port of Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania has 7 general cargo berths which also handle Ro-Ro’s. Tanzania
has plans for a new Port of Bagamoyo, which will have a dedicated ro-ro terminal. Given these
considerations, the sample ports are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Benchmark sample ports containers and automotive/Ro-Ro
Container ports/ terminals Automotive terminals/ ports
Barcelona Rotterdam Singapore
Genoa Valencia Le Havre
Kelang Hamburg Southampton
Gioia Tauro Santos London Gateway
Bahia De Algeciras Bremerhaven/Bremen Barcelona
Le Havre St. Petersburg Bremhaven
New York Jawaharlal Nehru Valencia
Antwerp Shanghai
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 8
2. Container benchmarking: global trends with container traffic
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) puts world TEU throughput at
651 099 413 Twenty Foot Equivalent Units (TEU) in 2013, up from 516 255 115 in 2008, which gives a
Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 6%, as reflected in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: World container throughput growth 2008 - 2013
Source: UNCTAD (2014)
China and the United States account for the most significant portion of global throughput as well as
growth rate even though the USA’s growth rate over time has reduced and is below that of China.
Overall, about 24 countries accounted for between 77 and 79 per cent of global container
throughput during this period. Figure 3 reflects each country’s TEU total and also groups them by
size, from those countries handling more than 20million TEUs per annum, to those handling
between 10 and 19 million TEUs and below.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 9
Figure 3: Annual container throughput – TEUs of selected countries (2008 – 2013)
Source: UNCTAD Trade Statistics http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx
China, the USA, and Singapore have led growth, with a throughput of around 30million TEUs and
above each since 2008. They are followed by Korea, Hong Kong and Malaysia which each have an
annual throughput of between 19million and 30million TEUs. The next 10 countries’ annual TEUs for
the same period were in excess of 5 million TEUs but less than 10million. Together with Sri Lanka and
Russia, South African terminal’s TEU throughput is below 5 million TEUs per annum, putting it at the
bottom of the scale. Table 4 provides the proportion of country throughput in relation to the global
figure.
Table 4: Country TEUs as proportion of world total (2008 – 2013) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
World (TEUs) 516 255 115 472 273 661 540 816 751 587 484 148 616 675 181 651 099 413
China 22% 23% 24% 25% 26% 27%
USA 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7%
Singapore 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Korea 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3%
HK 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%
Malaysia 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Japan 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Germany 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Taiwan 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 10
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Spain 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Italy 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Netherlands 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Indonesia 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Belgium 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
India 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Brazil 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2%
UK 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Australia 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Egypt 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Saudi Arabia 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
France 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
South Africa 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Sri Lanka 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Russia 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Compiled from UNCTAD Trade Statistics http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx
Notably, whilst the throughput for China has been rising since 2008 at a cumulative average growth
rate of 8%, both Singapore and the USA’s share of TEUs marginally reduced from the 2008 TEU
figures, with both shedding a per cent in 2011 and 2010 respectively. Korea, Hong Kong, Japan,
together with Malaysia and Germany, account individually for 3 per cent of world TEU throughput in
2013. These country’s throughputs and terminal performance define the context and environment
that other terminals must compete, including South African container terminals. South African
container terminal’s share of global TEUs has not risen above 1 per cent since 2008 and the same
holds for Australia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France, Sri Lanka and Russia; whilst the United Kingdom only
joined the rank of countries whose TEUs are only 1 per cent of global throughput when its share
changed from 2 per cent in 2012.
The operating environment for container terminals across regions and countries has been marked by
uneven performance in global economic growth reflected in overall declining growth in TEU
throughput. Containerisation 100 (Lloyds List 2014: 03) reports that since the ‘90’s world trade has
tended to grow at twice the rate of GDP and world seaborne trade volumes expanded at 3.8 per
cent to 9.6 billion tons in 2013 led by developing countries. Between 2012 and 2013 economic
growth shifted away from developing countries to the advanced economies. The aftermath of the
2008 financial crisis has been characterised by China’s positive growth and expansion, albeit at a
slower rate; Indian and Russian Federation’s economies contraction between 2012 and 2013, and a
USA slow down.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 11
There are challenges with infrastructure and logistics performance even with the positive ranking in
the Logistics Performance Index (LPI). South Africa ranks 34th out of 160, this is after Malaysia, China,
Turkey and Hungary in the top 10 upper middle income country performers on the 2014 index.
South Africa’s ranking slips to number 38 when considering reliability of logistics infrastructure,
rebounding to 24th on quality of logistics and competence. In the upper middle income performing
country category South Africa is with Malaysia, China and other countries whose main concern are
with quality of logistics services, pointing to a need for improvements. The group of countries in the
container benchmark sample includes both upper middle income countries with partial performers
on infrastructure and logistics as well as logistics friendly countries. Port performance is significant in
the ability of countries’ ports and terminals to attract traffic which is the primary objective of
terminals, including South African terminals.
Against this background we look at the South African container terminals performance in relation to
the sample identified above and highlight areas where they have/ are performing well, where
improvements can be made, or best practices identified against which operations and performance
can benefit.
2.1. Container terminals
Benchmarking container terminals was done by assessing berth, yard, and crane productivity for
South African terminals against that of a group of similar and larger capacity terminals based on
reported/published annual throughput as well as available and common input data obtainable for
the ports in a particular year. Analysis covers the following areas:
Throughput (TEU) per hectare/terminal area: which is a measure of how productively a
yard or terminal is used;
Throughput (TEU) per running metre of berth/quay (berth and quay are used
interchangeably in this report): which shows how productively the berth/quay wall is being
used (the whole length of quay used regardless of cargo handling area);
Throughput (TEU) per crane: the productivity of each crane. (The types of crane and
operational capability considerations were excluded from methodology); and
Berth length/crane: shows the density in relation to placement of cranes along the
berth/quay wall – the higher the distance in metres, the lower the crane density.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 12
Terminal area, berth length and number of cranes per port were obtainable for sample ports for the
year 2010, hence the use of 2010 throughput data from Lloyd’s list. Recent studies (see Merk: 2014)
that relied on similar information also have 2010 as a baseline year due to sensitivities around
publication of some of the metric information, where terminals prefer rather to provide such
information once off for specific purposes. Table 5 details the features of container terminals in the
sample.
Table 5: Sample container terminals and input variables (2010) 2013 Rank
2010 Rank
Port name Country Throughput (2010)
Total area (ha)
Total berth length (m)
No. of cranes
1 1 Shanghai China 29 069 000 308 11 307 397
11 10 Rotterdam Netherlands 11 145 804 685 16 125 118
13 13 Kelang Malaysia 8 870 000 207 6079 26
16 14 Antwerp Belgium 8 468 475 765 13 120 93
15 15 Hamburg Germany 7 900 000 593 9148 76
26 20 New York USA 5 292 020 523 8182 49
23 23 Bremerhaven /Bremen
Germany 4 871 297 264 5260 51
33 30 Jawaharlal Nehru India 4 279 744 142 1992 34
31 26 Valencia Spain 4 206 937 148 4453 36
44 40 Gioia Tauro Italy 2 851 261 130 3155 16
30 42 Bahia De Algeciras
Spain 2 810 242 111 5594 30
54 43 Durban South Africa 2 762 023 185 2578 22
38 45 Santos Brazil 2 715 600 65 1870 16
59 52 Le Havre France 2 400 000 224 6405 37
77 63 Barcelona Spain 1 945 735 105 4498 17
57 64 St-Petersburg Russia 1 928 238 126 2393 24
72 69 Genoa Italy 1 758 858 469 9520 36
Unranked Cape Town South Africa 686 672 69 1 151 8
Ngqura South Africa 413 996 77 720 10
Port of Elizabeth South Africa 333 596 36 635 5
Average 5 235 475 262 5 079 55
Source: Amended from Lloyd’s List, 2010 and 2013.
The table highlights how, over time, some ports have retained their place in the ranking (Shanghai,
Kelang, Hamburg and Bremerhaven). Notably, the Port of Durban slid 11 places from position 43 in
2010 to position 54 in 2013 purely on the basis of a decline in the volumes handled relative to the
performance of other ports in retaining and attracting volumes. In contrast, the Port of St.
Petersburg (Russia) moved 7 places from 64 to 57 and the Port of Santos (Brazil) moved 7 places up
from 45 to 38 during the same period.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 13
In the next sections we consider the performance of container terminals in the sample ports and we
assess South African terminal performance in relation to the three measures generally used as proxy
for port productivity i.e. TEUs per hectare (indicator of yard productivity), TEUs per metre of berth
(yard productivity) and TEUs per crane, starting with container throughput.
2.2. Container throughput
Including the Port of Shanghai which holds the pole position in Containerisation 100 for handling the
most number of TEUs per annum, the average throughput per year (in 2010) is 5,2m TEUs. The
annual TEU throughput for South African terminals (Durban, Cape Town, Ngqurha and Port
Elizabeth) are all below the average, including those of Container 100 peer ports of Jawaharlal Nehru
(India), Santos (Brazil) and St. Petersburg (Russia), South Africa’s BRIC partner ports.
Figure 4: TEU throughput per annum (2010)
Source: Amended from Container 100, 2010
Based on annual throughput the sample ports are categorised as follows:
Ports comparable to the Port of Durban: Handling under 3million TEUs per annum - Ports of
Gioia Tauro, Bahia De Algeciras, Santos, Le Havre, Barcelona, St. Petersburg and Genoa.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 14
Large ports: Ports that handled double the TEUs for Durban - Ports of Bremerhaven/Bremen
and New York
Super large ports: The biggest terminals that handled more than four times Durban’s
throughput.
Container traffic growth per terminal has not been even. Some terminals have gained significant
traffic whilst others have seen significant declines in their container volumes during the period.
Notably, the Port of Ngqurha has had the highest growth rate at 78%. This growth reflects consistent
growth in container traffic that has happened at the port since the terminal was commissioned and
is off a low base of about 71 000 TEUs in 2009. By 2013 the terminal was handling 712 000 TEUs.
Figure 5: Global TEU throughput by terminal vs Cumulative Average Growth Rate (CAGR)
8%5%
9%4% 7%
5%
6%
1%
4%2%
10%
1%
11%
3%
-9%
17%
7% 4%
78%
-2%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
CA
GR
TEU
s p
er
ann
um
TEUs and cumulative average growth rates 2009 - 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 CAGR
The top 15 container terminals collectively recorded growth rates of between 4 per cent and 9 per
cent. Double digit growth rates were recorded by the Ports of Algeciras (Spain), Santos (Brazil) and
St. Petersburg (Russia). With the exclusion of the Port of Ngqura, all the South African terminals have
not attracted significantly more traffic in 2013 than was the case in 2009. Whilst the port of Cape
Town grew at 4 per cent, the port of Durban only increased its throughput by 2 per cent over the
period. The Port of Port Elizabeth registered negative growth rate at -2 per cent. Whether this trend
will keep on the current trajectory is central to the country’s port terminal expansion programme
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 15
which aims to provide capacity ahead of demand. Container capacity expansion seemed more
pronounced pre-2008 with growth at double-digit rates, and is somewhat subdued in the depressed
economic climate.
From their survey of over 100 terminals in 2013, Drewry reports the following average global
performance which, together with our calculated averages, provides a reference point for global
benchmarks, notwithstanding the limitation of our sample size in relation to the global population.
In addition to size of terminal, port performance is also influenced by average vessels sizes calling at
terminals, the number and types of cranes deployed and operating systems in the ports. The
assessment does not include the type of cranes due to lack of complete information for each
terminal on these and other yard equipment which would allow for a comprehensive assessment. It
is also taken as a given that terminal operators or authorities, driven by the need to optimise their
resources, would make the optimum decision on the right type of cranes and yard equipment.
Table 6 provides overall statistics in the sample for terminal area, berth length and number of
cranes.
Table 6: Overall statistics on input variables (2010)
Throughput Terminal area (ha) Total berth length(m) No of cranes
Average 5 235 475 262 5 079 55
Minimum 333 565 36 635 05
Maximum 29 069 000 765 16 125 397
As reflected in the table, there are vast differences between the minimum and maximum
throughput, terminal area, berth length and cranes across the terminals. The Port of Rotterdam had
the longest berth length in the sample, whilst the Port of Shanghai had both the maximum
throughput and the maximum number of cranes in the system. The Port of Antwerp with 765
Global container terminals, key asset performance metrics (2013)
Performance measure Global average
Teu per metre of quay p.a. 1,072
Teu per hectare p.a. 24,791
Teu per gantry crane p.a. 123,489
Source: Drewry’s Container Terminal Capacity and Performance Benchmarks
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 16
hectares has the largest terminal area, whilst the Port of Port Elizabeth accounts for the minimum
yard space or terminal area, berth length as well as number of cranes.
2.3. TEUs per hectare
The number of TEUs per terminal area is a measure of yard productivity, indicating how intensely the
yard infrastructure is used in processing the throughput. It also indicates the capacity that a terminal
has to store boxes upon loading or unloading as well as for transhipment. A busy port with a large
terminal area can arguably, with the right systems and equipment, not only handle more containers
but will have sufficient storage space. This is significant where terminals all over the globe are
positioning themselves to handle relatively bigger vessels in their trade routes, requiring efficient
handling by road and rail within the terminal areas.
Figure 6: Total container terminal area (ha)(2010)
The average terminal size is 262 hectares. South African terminals are in a cluster of terminals whose
terminal area is below the average. This includes Le Havre, Santos, Algeciras, Valencia, Jawaharlal
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 17
Nehru, St. Petersburg, Algeciras, and Barcelona. The bigger ports by size include the ports with the
most throughput with the exception of the Port of Genoa.
Next the amount of TEUs per terminal area in each of the terminals was examined as reflected in
Figure 7 below. As reported above, the 2013 global (population) average throughput per terminal
area is 24 791 TEUs per hectare per annum (Drewry: 2014). In relation to that average, at 22 344
TEUs per hectare, the sample average is slightly below. The busiest terminal was the Port of
Shanghai where 94 380 TEUs were handled per hectare in a year. The least number of TEUs per
hectare was recorded for the Port of Genoa (Italy).
Figure 7: TEUs per hectare per annum
All four South African container terminal annual throughput per annum was below the sample
average.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 18
Figure 8: Correlation between throughput and terminal area
It is clear from Figure 8 above that there is a relatively strong positive relationship between
terminal area on the one hand and throughput on the other. Whilst this is a generally accepted
fact it does little to provide insight in the optimum combination or ratio of these two variables. It
is however interesting to note in the figure above that all the South African ports are
significantly below the trend line (with the exception of Durban that is on the trend line),
indicating a much lower throughput/area ratio. As a matter of fact, the South African ports
occupy the three lowest ratios of the sample, with Durban the 11th smallest. The weak
throughput/area ratios exhibited by the South African ports (graphically represented by being
significantly below the trend line indicated a sub optimal use of available terminal area. This
could however not only be ascribed to operational inefficiencies, but market share (this may be
seen as available volumes) must also be taken into consideration in explaining the low
productivity indicator.
When the South African ports are compared to ports of a similar size the effect becomes more
prominent with even the port of Durban significantly below the trend line. As can be seen in
figure 2 below the ports of Goioia Tauro, Santos and Algeciras for example has similar levels of
throughput compared to Durban, but their terminal are is significantly smaller. Conversely, the
ports of Nehru and Valencia recorded much higher levels of throughput, with a similar terminal
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 19
area available. Durban does however compare favourably with the port of Le Havre and
St. Petersburg.
Figure 9: Throughput per terminal area (similar sized ports)
2.4. Throughput per metre of berth
Berth productivity is one indicator of terminal efficiency alongside cargo handling equipment, yard
productivity, rail and/or road operations, operational systems and labour. Global maritime trends of
increasing vessel sizes requires better performance on berth productivity, as well as land and rail
connections, for mega vessels to have shorter stays at berth and cargo to be moved as quickly as
possible from the terminals.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 20
Figure 10: TEUs per running metre of berth
The above graph shows the number of TEUs moved per running metre of quay in a year (2010). This
is informed by the length of quay wall servicing container vessels in each of the ports and the
throughput handled in a year. The average throughput per running metre of quay was 916 TEUs per
annum. The Port of Shanghai is doing exceptionally well, relative to the others, in their quay
productivity, moving 2 973 TEU per running metre of quay, whilst the least number of TEUs per
metre of quay (185) was recorded at the Port of Genoa.
At 1 072 TEUs per metre in a year, the Port of Durban performed above the sample average with the
Ports of Ngqurha, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth annual TEUs per metre below the average.
Notwithstanding, the three SA terminal’s berth productivity was above that of Algeciras (Spain),
Barcelona (Spain), Le Havre (France) and Genoa (Italy).
Early in 2000, in a study that benchmarked container terminals in Northern America, Beckett
Rankine Partnership (2003) suggested industry standard of 850 TEUs per metre per year for
European Ports, and 550TEUs per metre per year for American ports, whilst noting that 1500 TEUs
per metre per annum was already attained at the Port of Hong Kong. Most recently “Drewry
Container Terminal Capacity and Performance Benchmarks” (2014) puts the global average at 1 071
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 21
TEUs per metre of berth. This means that the Port of Durban at 1 072 TEUs per metre in 2010, is on
par with the current global population average.
As reported by the Journal of Commerce (2014), before the advent of 8000 to 18 000 TEU vessels,
many berths could accommodate 3 ships of 274m each, today the 9500TEU vessels take up about
730 metres of space, effectively reducing the number of ships, leading to congestion and ultimately
requiring faster turnaround. Instead of being able to handle three smaller vessels, a port will only be
able to take two which does not necessarily translate into higher volumes of cargo thus reducing
productivity. At the same time, in order for vessels not to stay too long at a port, additional
resources (cranes and labour) are required. North American terminals are reported to work two
eight hour shifts each day to turn a 5000 TEU vessel in 2,5 days.
2.5. Throughput per crane
With cranes representing very high capital investment and outlays after quay walls, terminal areas,
turning basins and breakwaters, there is an even more pronounced focus on their productive and
effective use in a terminal. The type and numbers of cranes per berths are important in determining
how fast a vessel can be worked. Generally crane efficiency can reduce vessel turnaround time,
increase overall terminal productivity and throughput.
Port planning and operations focuses, amongst others, on optimal scheduling of cranes in a berth
taking into account the operational realities of quay cranes i.e. crane movement and range is
restricted by the fact they operate on rail lines alongside the quay. They cannot cross over each
other making the location of a vessel, its container stowage plan and the location of other cranes an
important consideration. The following three graphs show the number of cranes per metre of berth,
and the throughput per crane per year and working year.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 22
Figure 11: Crane per metre of berth
Figure 11 above illustrates the number of metres of berth length per crane and provides a sense of
location of the cranes on the berths. On average there is one crane per 144 metres of berth in the
sample with the higher the number reflecting a longer piece of berth worked by each crane in a year.
The Port of Shanghai was the most densely populated with a crane less than every 30 metres against
the sample average of 144m. Accordingly, its cranes work over smaller portions of the berth length.
In contrast, the Port of Barcelona reportedly had 4 498 metres of berth and 17 cranes which is
reflected by the longest berth metres covered per crane. The Port of Cape Town with 8 cranes over
1 151 metres of berth operates at the average of the sample, with the Port of Port Elizabeth, Durban
and then Ngqura at shorter distances and improved densities.
Further analysis that factor in vessel number and sizes will provide a greater sense of the
productivity levels of the cranes. The Journal of Commerce (2013) White Paper on port productivity,
notes trends and changes in optimal number of cranes per vessel with the changing vessel sizes. In
Northern American ports, vessels smaller than 8000 TEU could be serviced with four cranes, and 6
cranes would be allocated to 8000TEU vessels whilst 7 – 8 cranes are deployed on 14 000 TEU
vessels, with the bigger vessels requiring not only additional cranes but additional shifts as well.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 23
Figure 12: TEUs per crane per annum
Figure 12 above illustrates the TEUs per crane per annum, showing the average TEUs moved in a
year for each crane by port. Although the type of cranes were not determined, it should be noted
that the Drewry results for the global population was 123 000 TEUs per crane per year. The above
figure depicts an average of 110 678 TEUs moved in a year per crane for the sample. The maximum
number of cranes in the sample ports was 397 with the minimum number of 5 cranes in a terminal.
With a handling of 341 153 TEUs per crane in a year, the Port of Kelang had the most productive use
of its cranes. Of the South African ports, the Port of Durban was the most productive, not only
operating above the average, but also more productive than 8 other ports which ranked higher than
Durban on throughput including Valencia, Barcelona, Rotterdam, Algeciras and Antwerp.
The Port of Cape Town’s TEU throughput was lower than the average. However, its throughput per
crane per annum is higher than that of larger ports such as St. Petersburg, Shanghai, Le Havre and
Genoa. In comparison, the Port of Santos had even fewer cranes but their utilisation is high and
above the average which could talk to the type of cranes used by the port. The Port of Port
Elizabeth’s 5 cranes were handling 66 719 TEUs in a year, just slightly lower that Shanghai’s. This is
indicative of low productivity of the cranes when compared to the sample. In the long run, the type
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 24
of cranes will need to be looked at to relate productivity levels to the types of cranes. For example,
the largest container ships operating now require cranes that have a 21 -22 box outreach and
deployment of, at the least, 3 – 5 cranes per vessel. These are typically tandem lift cranes capable of
loading/unloading up to four boxes at a time.
To the number of TEUs per crane, the reported total operational hours of a terminal was factored to
calculate TEUs per crane per working year which is reflected in Figure 13. This measure controls for
annual throughput variations which accounts for the higher number of TEUs per crane per annum
above.
Figure 13: TEUs per crane per working year
Again the Port of Durban results are above the average and ahead of the same terminals as before.
The Port of Cape Town’s performance is close to the average. It could be investigated whether the
number of cranes per metre of berth had any effect.
Assuming the same ship working time, the more cranes deployed per metre must reflect more
throughput handled by a terminal, where if the same throughput is achieved with fewer cranes per
metre, this may indicate a longer working time. This would be addressed by looking at ship
turnaround time or TEU per ship working time, for which comparable information was not available.
Overall, across the three productivity measures and reported performance, it should be noted that
the global trends towards larger vessels will have an effect on South African terminal performance
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 25
requiring them to improve and perform better, even where they are reported to at least be
performing as well as the average. Although the South African terminals are outside the major trade
routes where the Ultra Large Container Vessels are deployed, as reported by Drewry, there is a
cascading effect which means that there is significant up-scaling on vessels sizes to South African
ports.
Figure 14: Anticipated vessel cascading and depiction of vessel size increases
Source: Davidson, N. Presentation on the Global effects of ship sizes development and liner alliance on port planning and productivity, Drewry Maritime Research. April 2014.
2.6. Summary
The Ports of Santos, Giaigo Tauro, and J. Nehru may be the best case studies from which to learn.
They consistently were above the average and the Port of Durban’s performance in the sample. They
were also the only ports that had fewer cranes than SA ports but they are amongst the top two
productive ports in the sample. The Port of Santos had the lowest terminal area but is amongst the
top four productive ports in the sample.
South African container terminals demonstrated variable performance in relation to the sample and
global averages. Though further analysis taking into account factors not considered in this report is
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 26
important and has been highlighted, the emerging picture is one the overall trends suggests a basis
from which South African ports can achieve even better performance and efficiencies.
On terminal area for container terminals:
Durban Container Terminals, Cape Town Container Terminals, Ngqura Container Terminal
and Port of Port Elizabeth are in the cluster of small terminals with an average area of less
than 300 hectares.
The throughput per hectare is also below average and suggests that there is capacity for
further growth through more productive and efficient use of available terminal area.
On throughput per metre of berth:
The Durban Container Terminals performed above the sample average and in line with the
global average as published by Drewry.
The Cape Town Container Terminal, Ngqura and Port of Port Elizabeth, although below the
averages, demonstrated more productive use of berth handling more TEUs per metre of
berth than the terminals in ports of Algeciras, Barcelona and Genoa.
The overall summary is provided in Figure 15 below.
Figure 15: Summary of SA terminal's performance against sample and global average
SA Container terminal/port sample
TEUs per hectare per annum
TEUs per metre berth per annum
TEUs per crane per working year
Drewry Global Port averages 24 791 1 072 123 489
Port sample averages 22 344 916 110 678
Durban Below sample and population average (14 930)
Above sample and population average (1 071)
Above sample and population (125 547)
Cape Town Below sample and population (9 952)
Below sample and population average (597)
Below sample and population average (85 834)
Port Elizabeth Below sample and population (9 2670)
Below sample and population average (525)
Below sample and population average (66 719)
Ngqurha Below sample and population (5 377)
Below sample and population average (575)
Below sample and population average (41 400)
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 27
3. Automotive/ Ro-ro terminals
Available and comparable data for Automotive/Ro-Ro terminals obtained includes number of berths
and berth length in metres as well as throughput units per annum per terminal for eight ports, in
addition to the three South African Ro-ro terminals (Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London). This
section therefore is limited to total throughput and throughput per metre of berth. Future
benchmarking will assess, amongst others, the following productivity measures based on throughput
and terminal capacity:
Vehicle units per terminal area (m2/ha);
Vehicle units per quay length (m);
Vehicle units per storage space (square metres or ha);
Vehicle units per parking space (number of parking bays).
These measures taken individually are not a reflection of the productivity of the whole port. For
example, a port with large capacity may under-utilise its parking or storage space, that does not
mean it is an inefficient or under productive port but rather that the utilisation of its parking area is
under-productive. Below is an assessment of throughput, and throughput in relation to berth length
for the sample ports.
3.1. Ro-ro throughput and berth productivity
Automotive volumes are subjected to global economic growth trends and production decisions of
Automakers. Literature suggests that the proximity of vehicle processing centers to terminals or
ports seem to benefit ports, as will effective road and rail linkages where processing centers are
located further than the terminals.
In
Figure 16 the largest volumes of vehicles were handled in the Ports of Bremhaven and Singapore
respectively with the lowest number of units handled at the South African Port of East London.
Notably, Germany is a leader in motor and motor components manufacturing globally and Singapore
is a big transhipment centre in Asia for Europe and most other trade routes. The Port of Bremhaven
handled almost forty times the units handled at the Port of East London and four times that handled
by the Durban ro-ro terminal in 2013, signifying the relative market positions of the ports.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 28
Figure 16: Ro-ro terminal annual throughput
The Port of Durban’s Ro-ro terminals annual throughput on the other hand is higher than that of
Valencia, Le Havre and St. Peterburg which is a significant indicator of the relative share of the
market given the position that the three ports hold in the global seaborn trade and their proximity to
markets. For example, as reported in the Fact and Figures Handbook Port of Bremen and Le Havre
are both part of the Hamburg – Le Havre range where facilities such as the Freight Village are
available to ensure significant value addition to happen at the port within a reasonable range of the
port aimed at, ultimately attracting automotive makers to export, import and tranship through this
ports.
The port of Bremen/ Bremerhaven complex has logistics centers for automobile industry where
parts are packed and shipped to destinations all over the world, with the primary destinations being
South Africa, North and South America and some Asian countries. Bremerhaven Autoterminal
(comprising Haiserhafen II and III, Hodrhafen, Osthafen) became an import hub for Europe when
their production plants relocated to the USA. Vehicles are also transshipped at Bremerhaven. The
Port of Portland which is not part of the sample due to missing data, also demonstrates how linkages
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 29
with upstream and down stream services contributes to increased volumes, although are not the
only factor in volume growth.
In comparison, the South African terminals either serve particular Automakers (Mercedes Benz in
the Port of East London and Volkswagen in the Port of Port Elizabeth) or as with Durban they are
supported through the Department of Trade and Industry’s Automotive sector’s development
programme (APDP) which incentivises manufacturing even in the economic centre of Gauteng, thus
the transportation of vehicles from as far away as Roslyn, over 600kms away from Durban.
Figure 17: Ro-ro terminals berth length (m)
Figure 14 illustrates that the average berth length in the sample is 1 498metres and all three South
African terminal sizes are below this average, although for Durban Ro-ro terminal this is by a small
margin at 1 149 metres. The Port of East London’s berth length is not only larger than that of the
Port of Port Elizabeth but also Port of Southampton and double that of St. Petersburg, each of which
respectively handled 1 224% and 328% more units per annum than the Port of East London.
The graph below compares South African terminal’s berth productivity with the rest of the sampled
terminals.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 30
Figure 18: Units per running metre of berth
This data represents the productivity of the berth on the assumption that the entire berth length is
used for vehicle loading/offloading operations. From Figure 17 the Port of Singapore has 100m less
berth length than the Port of Durban and yet moves more than double the volume of vehicles and
therefore shows more than double the productivity of Durban in the graph. The Port of East
London’s throughput is relatively less than that in other ports even though the berth length is more
than that of the Port of Port Elizabeth. This shows low berth productivity levels at this terminal and
can be attributed to the lower units handled per annum.
In turn the Port of Port Elizabeth’s Ro-ro berth with a throughput of 389 units per metre of berth per
annum is more productive than that of Le Harve, Valencia and London Gateway whose throughputs
are less per metre of berth. Taking the total number of berths into account still puts the Port of Port
Elizabeth in the lead. This seems to confirm that ambitions of the port to develop as a Premium
Automotive port in the Southern Hemisphere. Further assessments relating to efficient use of
facilities were not possible due to lack of comparable information on terminal area, parking space
and storage available to all the terminals.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 31
From the limited information it can be said that the Port of East London has the capacity to handle
significantly more automotives than is the case currently. With similar berth space, the Port of
Southampton is handling 1 344 units per metre of berth or 672 units per berth compared to the Port
of East London’s 101 and 50 in the two graphs respectively. There is arguably more capacity on the
South African Ro-Ro terminal that can be optimised to handle more throughput in the foreseeable
future. Thus strategies to retain current traffic and attract more traffic to the South African Ro-Ro
terminals are critical.
3.2. Summary
On automotive/ro-ro terminals
The sample size and information available only provides very generalised trends based on
throughput and berth productivity.
Relative to performance of the terminals, South African Ro-ro terminals have opportunities
for more throughput to be achieved within existing facilities.
Models and strategies to attract more activity upstream and downstream of the automotive
supply chain may increase the throughput and optimise the use of the ro-ro terminals.
4. Conclusions
South African terminal performance looked at through the lens of productivity measures registers
variable results against the global sample as determined. This first benchmarking report provides a
sense of the performance of South African terminals in relation to global terminals and has allowed
for the process of collating performance data for local as well as international terminals, a process
which will be enhanced in the Regulator’s ongoing research and monitoring of port data and
performance going forward.
The Regulator will engage with the authority and port industry players to take the benchmarking
process forward, including expanding this brief report to include terminal performance on measures
related to marine services, berth productivity in relation to vessels, as well as optimal and efficient
use of infrastructure. With the value of benchmarking lying in comparisons of like with like as well as
identification of best practices which, with adjustments and contextualisation, can be emulated to
improve performance, common ground will be established on amongst others the sampling frame
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 32
and sample ports as well as definitions, norms for ship working hour, crane throughput per annum
etc. and measures for gate and rail operations.
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 33
5. Bibliography
1. Aykagan A.K. (2008). Berth and quay crane scheduling: problems, models and solution methods.
Thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirement for Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Industrial
and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of technology.
https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/26652/ak_aykagan_200812_phd.pdf
2. Davidson, N (2014). Presentation on the Global effects of ship sizes development and liner
alliance on port planning and productivity. Presentation to the IAPH Mid- Term Conference: Port
Planning and Investment, Drewry Maritime Research.
http://iaphsydney2014.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/30581/IAPH_Port_Planning_and_Inve
stment_-_Neil_Davidson_Drewry.pdf
3. Spendolini, (1982) in Beckett Rankine (2003) The benchmarking book. American Management
Association, NY. 1982 quoted in Beckett Rankine Partnership: 2003. Benchmarking container
terminal. Rotterdam. Speaker’s notes.
4. Merk, O & T. Notteboom (2013). The Competitiveness of Global Port Cities: the Case of
Rotterdam, Amsterdam the Netherlands. OECD Regional Development Working Papers. OECD
Publishing.
5. Containerisation International: TOP 100 Container Ports 2009, Informa plc. 2009
6. Containerisation International: TOP 100 Container Ports 2009, Informa plc. 2012
7. Containerisation International: TOP 100 Container Ports 2009, Informa plc. 2013
8. Containerisation International: TOP 100 Container Ports 2009, Informa plc. 2014
9. Review of Maritime Transport: UNCTAD/RMT/2012
10. Review of Maritime Transport: UNCTAD/RMT/2013
11. Review of Maritime Transport: UNCTAD/RMT/2014
12. African Development Bank: African Development Report 2010. Oxford University Press, New
York.
13. Annual Report and Port Handbooks:
a. Port of Rotterdam, Port Statistics, 2010 – 2012.
b. Port of London Handbook 2013
c. Port of Valencia Annual Report 2013
d. Port of Portland, Marine Facilities
Benchmarking SA port terminals: Containers and Automotives Page 34
e. Port of Antwerp. 2014 Fact and figures.
f. Ports Handbook, Bremen/Bremerhaven 2013/14.
Websites:
14. www.drewry.co.uk/publications/view_publications.php?id=425
15. www.globaltragemag.com/port_manatee_pasha_partner-to-expand-auto-terminal Accessed 5/5/2014
16. www.automotivelogisticsmagazine.com/finished-vehicle-logistics/european-vehicle-ports:sail-into-the-light Accessed
17 March 2014
17. www.nigerianports.org/Aboutustincanport.asxp
18. www.worldportsource.com/ports/commerce/NLD_port_of_Rotterdam_106
19. www.worldportsource.com/ports/commerce/CAN_Port_Metro_Vancouver_220.php
20. www.africanreview.com/transport-a-logistics/shipping/us-11-billion-tanzanian-port-gets-chinese-backing
21. http://www.pema.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/PEMA-DS10-2nd-annual-global-survey-of-ship-to-shore-container-crane-deliveries.pdf