NCT PRODUCTIVITY
5.2.7 Total port turnaround time
Total port turnaround time is also one of the key indicators of port efficiency. The total port turnaround refers to the period between the times a vessel reports its arrival at the anchorage of the port up until the time it leaves the berth, outbound. The port turnaround time is made up of a series of events as indicated in Figure 5.7 which include marine services (tugs, navigational services and pilotage) as well as berth operations.
Figure 5.7: UNCTAD strategic port pricing – port value chain (1995)
Source: UNCTAD, 1975
Each event is subject to its own performance objectives, which might be impeded by certain factors including, but not limited to, extended waiting hours at anchor owing to berth unavailability, shortage of marine equipment, tardy pilot and tug services as well as a limitation of human resources required to operate equipment. These factors could lead to delays that would increase port stay and turnaround times. The port authority has set a target for the time a vessel spends at anchorage to a maximum of 46 hours (TNPA Corporate Strategy, 2014). APPENDIX 1 shows the longest stay at
anchorage to be 117 hours at DCT for vessel type A. Longer anchorage stays are affected by a host of different factors, one being the carrier’s deliberate instructions caused by delays from connection or late arrival of export cargo in stack. Emphasis on port turnaround time will therefore be placed on the quayside and landside productivity.
The argument of this dissertation is that the port turnaround times at the respective container terminals analysed may be shown to be inconsistent over time, given the available operations infrastructure. The CTCT turnaround time is generally acceptable, averaging two days as indicated in APPENDIX 1. The port authority has set the port turnaround target times at 57 hours for DCT and 45 hours for NCT (TNPA Corporate Strategy Report, 2014).
In arguing the above, the performance of two types of vessels calling the respective ports was tracked, in order to measure the actual turnaround times and inconsistencies (see APPENDIX 1). The two types of vessels, differing in call size and types of cranes required, were vessel type A (gearless, 4 000 TEUs handled per port call) and vessel type B (geared, 2 000 TEUs handled per port call). Only the turnaround time for the ports of Ngqura and Durban were analysed. The CMR shows a wide range of total port turnaround times from the longest stay of 172 hours at DCT to the shortest stay of 58 hours. In Ngqura, APPENDIX 1 indicates the longest stay of 156 hours and the shortest stay of 18 hours. In measuring trends and patterns of the port turnaround time at the respective terminals, a standard deviation (SD) method was applied to a sample consisting of over 40 observations. The SD approach was considered to be an appropriate tool to determine the inconsistencies and volatility on the turnaround time over the observed period, by way of establishing a variance against the mean/average turnaround values achieved (see APPENDIX 1). The mean referred to in this regard represents the average turnaround time achieved from the time the vessel arrives at anchorage, berths and finally leaves the port. The further away the SD is from a mean of zero the more inconsistent a particular performance is. A smaller SD is preferable as it means that the deviation is not far from the mean performance level with minimal inconsistencies. Sample observations are summarised in Table 5.7 below.
Table 5.7: Mean and standard deviation for DCT and NCT port turnaround times
VARIABLES VESSEL A VESSEL B
DCT – Pier 2
MEAN (m) 101.1 86.8
STANDARD DEVIATION (SD) 25.4 51.2
NCT
MEAN (m) 53.7 80.8
STANDARD DEVIATION (SD) 33.9 112.4
Source: TPT CMR, 2014–2015 (APPENDIX 1)
In the table above, vessel type A at DCT Pier 2 showed a mean of 101.1 hours of total port turnaround time with a SD of 25.4, showing some deviation from the mean levels of performance and somewhat inconsistent port turnaround. Vessel type B in DCT has even a higher SD, indicating greater inconsistency in the level of performance. NCT data shows a higher SD on vessel A’s performance and an even bigger SD on vessel B’s performance. In the case of NCT, the higher turnaround times and higher inconsistencies are not only the result of various moves done from the trans-shipment operations, but also tight trans-shipment transit times often caused by delayed inbound vessels, resulting in longer port stays and turnaround times. In addition, during the period under consideration, NCT experienced a low SWH owing to a lack of sufficient cranes and the supporting landside equipment and labour, adding to longer turnaround times.
In the case of DCT, most of the vessel A calls are on paid windows (CTOC, see Chapter 4) meaning that they are guaranteed a departure time on condition that the vessel arrives on schedule and does not exceed the number of contracted moves. Less time is spent at anchorage at an average of 26 hours, as the vessel’s berthing is almost on arrival. The slight inconsistencies on the turnaround time result from the quayside and landside operations, for the reasons stated in the previous sections of this chapter, resulting in an average vessel turnaround of over 100 hours at berth. Vessel B calls do not have allocated windows, and only berth when there are berths available for them, seldom resulting in longer anchorage waiting time. APPENDIX 1 shows, however, that the longest anchorage waiting time reached was 136 hours, which is an exception as the most waiting time achieved was approximately between two to three days. The
possible reason for the longer waiting time of six days or more could be that different vessels servicing same trades (and potentially requiring the same berths) arrive at almost at the same time without the shipping line having sufficient cargo to load on both of them. The longer turnaround time could also be due the usage of older cranes at the non-prime berth with lower SWH (20 moves per hour) as well as scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of (older) cranes and landside equipment.
Total port turnaround time is also a KPI of the port authority and it is measured in line with other variables including berth occupancy and berth utilisation. The berth occupancy rate represents the percentage of the total available time that ships occupy berths, and the berth utilisation rate is the percentage of the actual working time at berth. As discussed in Chapter 4, the berth occupancy should ideally be set such that there is always a berth available for ships to berth almost at arrival. Unduly high berth occupancy rates (as indicated in Table 5.8) are associated with longer waiting times, which in turn add to the vessel port turnaround time. In addition, the berth occupancy rate could be on target as well as the utilisation rate, but the quality of cargo handling might still affect the port turnaround time.
Table 5.8 below summarises the berth occupancy and utilisation rates at the respective ports together with their target and actual performance.
Table 5.8: Summary of the berth occupancy container terminals in South Africa
PORT Berth occupancy - per cent Berth Utilisation - per cent
Target Actual Target Actual
Durban 70-80 81 70-80 78
Cape Town 60-70 66 50-60 62
Ngqura 75-85 77 75-85 84
Source: TNPA Corporate Strategy Report, 2014
All the container terminals have determined their berth occupancy targets with DCT having set their target at 70–80 per cent, CTCT having a target of 60–70 per cent and NCT having a target of 75–85 per cent, as shown in Table 5.8. The actual performance shows that Durban has recorded slightly higher average berth occupancy and this could be due to its main port status or its higher overall vessel traffic levels,
leaving most berths spaces occupied almost all the time. Berth utilisation is also within target, indicating full and planned utilisation of the berths by the port authority.
However, in the literature, De Monie expressed an opinion that even if both the berth occupancy and utilisation are within the set targets, it does not mean that the port turnaround time can be significantly reduced, since that efficiency still lies in the quality of cargo handling at the quayside. It is therefore clear from Table 5.8 that the container terminal requires improved quayside operations in order to deal with turnaround time challenges.
5.3 Benchmarking analysis of South African container terminals with ports