Building on a narrow quay

Vital work to increase the capacity at Cape Town Container Terminal is now underway, taking into account environmental and practical concerns, writes Benedict Young

The phenomenal boom in South Africa’s economy has put tremendous pressure on the country’s ports, particularly the container sector, which has borne the brunt of escalating volumes in recent years. While Durban – which handles 64% of the country’s containers – has regularly been in the headlines due to crippling peak season congestion, last year saw the port roll out a new tranche of capacity in the form of the Pier One terminal. The facility boasts 18 RTG cranes and will be capable of handling 720,000teu per year, boosting the port’s total capacity to over 3m teu.

The country’s second largest container port, Cape Town, is the first port of call for many liner services serving South Africa, and is also one of the main reefer ports for the buoyant fruit export trades. It has also faced major constraints, and capacity started to run out in 2001. A new Cosmos terminal operating system was then introduced, allowing the terminal to better utilise its stack, while a dedicated empty stacking area was introduced to better handle the disproportionate number of empties. In 2006, 27 new one-over-three straddle carriers were introduced, replacing 23 older one-over-two units and providing additional stacking capacity.

These were, however, interim measures and the state-owned transport company, Transnet, and its subsidiaries, had to formulate a longer-term capacity expansion plan. Cape Town Container Terminal is characterised by a very narrow quay – the long jetty – that was built as a general cargo pier, and later converted to a container terminal. The location of the port in the city is a limiting factor, so the obvious solution was to reclaim land to widen the long jetty by 300 metres seawards, which would provide 47.5ha of additional space.

Following concerns raised over the environmental damage that could be caused by the scheme, an Environmental Impact Assessment was initiated, and the government asked the National Ports Authority also to investigate other viable options for expansion. Of six alternatives initially explored, three were identified as potentially feasible: the land reclamation scheme; the reconfiguration of the existing container terminal and the clearing and development of onshore areas of the facility to make provision for stacking areas; and the development of an inland port at Belcon Intermodal Facility on Cape Flats.

Judgement on the matter was referred to Marthinus van Schalkwyk, minister of environmental affairs and tourism. In his record of decision on 21 September, he acknowledged that the land reclamation scheme was the best option for improving operational efficiency of the terminal. However, he dismissed the scheme based on the impact it would have on wave climate and the coastal processes.

A comparative analysis suggested the development of the inland port at the Belcon was a feasible solution, but it also showed that the logistics of transporting goods between Cape Town Container Terminal and Belcon would be complex and that disruptions to the flow of goods between the port and Belcon would have major impacts on the ability of the port to handle the required throughput. It was also the highest cost option in terms of port operations.

The minister concluded that it was possible to make the reconfiguration of the existing container terminal operationally viable, and it was also considerably cheaper than the other two alternatives.

"The most compelling reasons for recommendation of this option is that it has limited environmental impact, as it eliminates the need for reclamation and other marine construction activities, as well as the fact that it is an existing brownfield site used for purposes similar to the proposed development that does not require additional land beyond the existing terminal boundaries," said van Schalkwyk.

Based on these findings, the reconfiguration plan was approved. In order to maximise the stacking capacity within the existing terminal footprint, the straddle stack operation will be replaced with an RTG system, comprising 32 units.

Various structures and buildings – including the NPA engineering building, the port workshops and the existing terminal gate structures – will be demolished, and the main entrance and exit gates will be relocated. The reefer stacks will be relocated to the long jetty where new reefer steel access platforms will be provided, while the number of reefer points will be increased to 5,000. The terminal marshalling yard will be converted into a port security and staging area. Alterations will also be made to the rail lines, drainage systems, power grids and lighting masts.

In order to accommodate two new Liebherr gantry cranes, which have a 30-metre gauge, compared with the existing cranes’ 18 metres, the quayline is to be extended by 10 metres.

On 14 January this year, work on the R4.2bn (US$337.5m) expansion programme began. The project is expected to take five years to complete, and will increase capacity from the current 740,000teu to 1.4m teu.

"Initial work will entail refurbishing the quay and deepening the berth and Ben Schoeman Basin to 15.5 metres," says Oscar Borchards, business unit executive at the Cape Town Container Terminal. This work will be done in sections to mitigate against a reduction in productivity at the terminal.

During 2008, a crane erection site will be installed to assemble the new ship-to-shore cranes and will later be used for RTG crane assembly.

Borchards says the terminal’s productivity will be maintained during construction by diverting container vessels with their own ships’ gear to the port’s multipurpose terminal, which will be supported by "intense planning and engagement with all supply chain stakeholders".

Shippers and carriers will no doubt take heart from the fact that capacity expansion is now underway. However, van Schalkwyk’s recommendation for the reconfiguration scheme came with the caveat that "it is not the preferred option with regard to the efficiency of operations".

With South Africa’s state-run monopoly on port operations already often blamed for below par productivity levels, customers must now hope that efficiency won’t be compromised by the development. cs