Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s

Maritime Services and Associated Costs with other

�

Major International Ports

�

Marine Department
�
Planning, Development and Port Security Branch
�
December 2006
�
 All Rights Reserved

No part of the materials protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or

utilized in any other form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including

photocopies, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without

written permission from the copyright owner.

 Page
Contents
Executive Summary

1. � Introduction 1

2. � Objectives of the Study 2

3. � Scope of the Study 3

4. � Methodology 4
�

5. � Assumptions 5-6
�

6. � Benchmarking for Port Charges 7-16

�

7. � Benchmarking for the Container Port

7.1 Container Throughput � 17-25

�

7.2 Container Terminals � 25-34

�

8. � Analysis on Services Provided, Port Formality and Application of Information

Technology in Hong Kong

8.1 Port Services � 35-36

�

8.2 Port Formality Procedures � 36-38

�

8.3 Application of Information Technology � 38-39

�

9. � Findings 40-41
�

10. � Recommendations 42

References 43
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Executive Summary

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 In order to assess the relative position of the port of Hong Kong in relation
to other leading container ports, a comparative study of port costs and port facilities
was conducted in 2001. The current study is an update of the 2001 study.

1.2 Hong Kong is a mature port with different types of cargo handling facilities.
These facilities handle containers, general cargoes, petroleum, other liquid bulk, dry
bulk, and vehicles. Although these facilities are integral parts of the port, with the
exception of the container terminals, the majority of the cargo handled are for
domestic consumption. From the 2005 shipping and cargo statistical data,
containerized cargoes handled in Hong Kong represented about 74% by weight of the
total cargo throughput of Hong Kong. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the focus is
to benchmark the related port charges incurred by container ships at container
handling facilities in Hong Kong, and against other leading container ports of the
world.

1.3 Since the 2001 study, Hong Kong has faced growing competition from other
container ports in the region, in particular, the south China ports where container
terminal capacity has increased by approximately 150 %. In the past five years, the
growth of our container throughput has been marginal. The growth in 2005 was 2%,
compared year-on-year, bringing the total container throughput to 22.43 million
Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEU). The latest growth rate is well below our
competitor port Shenzhen (+18.6% to 16.19 million TEU) where direct cargo access
by road from the manufacturing areas in the Pearl River Delta is easier and by sea
from the western delta areas is comparatively similar.

1.4 Hong Kong is a free market economy with the container terminals owned
and operated by private enterprises. The various charges and tariffs related to terminal
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Executive Summary

and shipping operations are set by terminal operators and shipping lines. Given these
charges are confidential commercial decisions outside the realms of the Government,
this study would not compare these charges with other ports, however empirical
evidence indicates these charges have been reducing over the past decade but remain
higher than those in Shenzhen.

2. Objectives of the Study

2.1 The objectives of this study are :

• To conduct a benchmarking exercise focusing on comparative port costs

and characteristics of container terminals at leading container ports
around the world;
• To evaluate the productivity of our container terminals and compare it
with other major container ports;
• To conduct an analysis on services provided to visiting ships, port
formality procedures and application of information technology in Hong
Kong;
• To position the port of Hong Kong amongst major ports worldwide
taking into account the cost and performance of the port; and
• to formulate recommendations, as far as possible, on matters related to
port charges and services provided by the Government.

3. Scope and Methodology

3.1 For quantitative comparison purpose, the top 20 container ports in 2005 are
chosen for benchmarking on the following indicators:-

• Individual port cost items including harbour and light dues, pilotage,
towage, mooring/unmorring and other ancillary charges;
• Total port charges;
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Executive Summary

• Container throughput growth; and

• Terminal characteristics including number of berths, total quay length,
maximum alongside depth, total terminal area, total storage capacity,
productivity per metre quay length and ratio of storage capacity over
terminal area.

3.2 While quantitative comparisons are not practicable on services provided to

ships, port formality procedures, and application of information technology, these
areas are covered by empirical analysis.

3.3 This study involves an extensive survey of literatures with a view to

collating the latest data, available at the time of the data collection phase of this study,
on port charges, container throughput (TEUs), characteristics of container terminals,
and port formalities. In parallel, interviews with international shipping lines and
shipping agencies have been conducted so as to obtain their views on the performance
of the Hong Kong port.

4. Findings

4.1 The key findings are summarised below :-

i. � The position on total port charges is similar to the findings in 2001.

Hong Kong remains as one of the ports with the lowest cost in the
world with total port charges only slightly higher than Singapore and
Port Klang in the region.

ii. � The growth of container throughputs in Hong Kong from 2001 to

2005 was generally lower than other top container ports. The less
encouraging achievement in throughput growth indicates that Hong
Kong is unable to get an even share of the strong growth in
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Executive Summary

Mainland's container volume. Though Hong Kong is expected to

benefit from Mainland's economic growth, appropriate measures need
to be taken, if better throughput increase is to be achieved.

iii. � In terms of number of berths and total quay length, Hong Kong is
average in the global context and second to Singapore in terms of
regional context. The available alongside water depth of Hong Kong's
container terminals is 15 metres which is average for leading ports.
The Kwai Tsing container port handled 1,745 TEU per metre quay
length in 2004 which was average amongst leading container ports.
The physical size of Hong Kong's container terminals is considered
average yet our terminals have the highest container storage capacity
in the world. The ratio of container storage to total terminal area in
2004 at 74 TEU per thousand square metres ranks the fifth behind
Kaohsiung.

iv. � Worldwide crane productivity ranges from 23 to 40 moves per hour

(MPH) with many advanced ports able to achieve a rate of at least 30
MPH. For Hong Kong's container terminals, the average crane rate is
36 MPH with peak rate at 40 MPH. This makes Hong Kong one of the
most efficient container port in the world.

v. � The analysis on services reveals that Hong Kong is providing world

class port services to visiting ships and port formality procedures are
considered very satisfactory. Hong Kong may be considered a little
lagging in terms of IT application amongst leading container ports
worldwide, but it is more advanced than other ports in this region.
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Executive Summary

5. Recommendations

5.1 From the analysis and findings of this study, it is recommended that :-

• Low and simple port charge strategy should be continued.

• Efficient and simple port formalities should be maintained.

• The two suggestions made by the shipping industry on providing port

formality service at Kwai Chung and reducing physical inspection of the
trading certificates of Hong Kong registered ship will be addressed by
the MD eBS Phase 2, the effectiveness of this system on alleviating these
issues should be taken into account in system development.

• Continuous effort should be given to further promote and develop IT

applications with a view to providing more user friendly automated port
and shipping services to our customers.

• Action should be taken to improve cargo access to/from the port from the
hinterland areas.

• Given competitive demands, terminal tariff and shipping charges should

continue to ease towards the prevailing levels at competitive facilities in
Shenzhen.
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

1. Introduction

1.1 In order to assess the relative position of the port of Hong Kong in relation
to other leading container ports, a comparative study of port costs and port facilities
was conducted in 2001. The current study is an update of the 2001 study.

1.2 Hong Kong is a mature port with different types of cargo handling facilities.
These facilities handle containers, general cargoes, petroleum, other liquid bulk, dry
bulk, and vehicles. Although these facilities are integral parts of the port, with the
exception of the container terminals, the majority of the cargo handled are for
domestic consumption. From the 2005 shipping and cargo statistical data,
containerized cargoes handled in Hong Kong represented about 74% by weight of the
total cargo throughput of Hong Kong. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the focus is
to benchmark the related port charges incurred by container ships at container
handling facilities in Hong Kong, and against other leading container ports of the
world.

1.3 Since the 2001 study, Hong Kong has faced growing competition from other
container ports in the region, in particular, the south China ports where container
terminal capacity has increased by approximately 150 %. In the past five years, the
growth of our container throughput has been marginal. The growth in 2005 was 2%,
compared year-on-year, bringing the total container throughput to 22.43 million
Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEU). The latest growth rate is well below our
competitor port Shenzhen (+18.6% to 16.19 million TEU) where direct cargo access
by road from the manufacturing areas in the eastern Pearl River Delta is easier and by
sea from the western delta areas is comparatively similar.

1.4 Hong Kong is a free market economy with the container terminals owned
and operated by private enterprises. The various charges and tariffs related to terminal
and shipping operations are set by terminal operators and shipping lines. Given these
charges are confidential commercial decisions outside the realms of the Government,
this study would not compare these charges with other ports, however empirical
evidence indicates these charges have been reducing over the past decade but remain
higher than those in Shenzhen.

1
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

2. Objectives of the Study

2.1 The objectives of this study are :

• To conduct a benchmarking exercise focusing on comparative port costs

and characteristics of container terminals at leading container ports
around the world;
• To evaluate the productivity of our container terminals and compare it
with other major container ports;
• To conduct an analysis on services provided to visiting ships, port
formality procedures and application of information technology in Hong
Kong;
• To position the port of Hong Kong amongst major ports worldwide
taking into account the cost and performance of the port; and
• to formulate recommendations, as far as possible, on matters related to
port charges and services provided by the Government.

2
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

3. Scope of the Study

3.1 For quantitative comparison purpose, the top 20 container ports in 2005
(Figure 3.1) are chosen for benchmarking on the following indicators:-

• Individual port cost items including harbour and light dues, pilotage,
towage, mooring/unmorring and other ancillary charges;
• Total port charges;
• Container throughput growth; and
• Terminal characteristics including number of berths, total quay length,
maximum alongside depth, total terminal area, total storage capacity,
productivity per metre quay length and ratio of storage capacity over
terminal area.

3.2 While quantitative comparisons are not practicable on services provided to

ships, port formality procedures, and application of information technology, these
areas are covered by empirical analysis.

Container Throughput of Top 20 Container Ports in 2005

24 23.19
22.43
22
20
18.08
18
16.2
16
14
Million TEU

11.84
12
10 9.47 9.29
8.09 7.62
8 7.48
6.71 6.49 6.31
6 5.54 5.21 4.8 4.8
4.17 3.77
4 3.7

2
0
n

o
m

York
re

zhen

jin

ang
ghai

i
burg

d ao
g

lang

s
eles

bo
Duba

a
Busa

Toky
Beac
Kon

siun

er
erda
apo

elep
Tian
Ning
Antw

Chab
Qing
Ang
Shan

K
Ham
Shen

New
Kaoh
Sing

Rott

Port

ng P
Long
Hon

Los

Laem
Tanju

(Figure 3.1)
�

3
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

4. Methodology

4.1 This study involves an extensive survey of literatures with a view to

collating the latest data, available at the time of the data collection phase of this study,
on port charges, container throughput (TEUs), characteristics of container terminals,
and port formalities. In parallel, interviews with international shipping lines and
shipping agencies have been conducted so as to obtain their views on the performance
of the Hong Kong port.

4.2 To facilitate comparisons with different ports, all port costs are denominated
in US currency.

4
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

5. Assumptions

5.1 In the calculation of port charges, two popular cost elements have been
excluded, namely berthage/wharfage and agency fees. The main reasons being:

(i) � In a modern container terminal, berthage/wharfage fees are normally

incorporated in the box-handling rate. As such, the berthage/wharfage
fees are considered as a cargo handling charge; and

(ii) � According to the liner shipping industry, there has been a growing
trend towards bringing the agency functions in-house by liner
operators and many shipping lines no longer require the employment
of local shipping agencies to service their container ships during each
port call. This means that agency fees can be taken out of the port
charges equation as agency functions are taken up by carrier-owned
agency offices.

5.2 Other assumptions are:

(i) � Despite the trend that container ships are getting larger in size in
recent years, the size of the model ship only relates to absolute port
disbursement but it would not cause significant difference in
benchmarking type comparisons. To facilitate comparison with the
results obtained in the 2001 study, the same panamax size model ship
is used for the calculation of port disbursement data. The particulars
of this model container ship are as follows:
• GRT: 50,350 tonnes

• NRT: 28,369 tonnes

• Capacity: 4,200 TEUs

• Length: 270 m

• Draft: in/out 12.0 m

• Towage: 2 mooring / unmooring tugs

5
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

(ii) � no overtime and holiday expenses are involved. All port cost
calculations are based on standard rates to facilitate like-for-like
comparisons.

6
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

6. Benchmarking for Port Charges

6.1 When a ship calls at a port, the following costs are normally incurred: port
charges, cargo expenses and operating costs. In addition, bunker costs may also be
incurred. In this study, the focus will be centred around port charges which are the
costs levied on the carriers for using the port and its associated facilities based on
2005 prices.

6.2 Broadly speaking, port charges are made up of the sum of various tariffs
which are based on the ship’s dimensions (e.g. Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT), Net
Registered Tonnage (NRT), length, draft and etc.). It should be noted that this practice
may vary from port to port, and in certain cases other non-conventional bases may be
used for calculation of tariffs. For the purpose of making comparisons in this study,
port charges include harbour and light dues; pilotage; towage; mooring/unmooring;
and ancillary charges. Total port charges is the sum of the above charges a ship
incurred at a port. It should be noted that in the case of Tanjung Pelepas all port
charges are consolidated into a single charge which will be shown in the total port
charges comparison.

Harbour and Light Dues (Figures 6.1 - 6.2)

6.3 Harbour and light dues are charges that do not affixed with a specific port
service. They are in general charged by port authorities for using a port according to
the tonnages of vessels. Some ports may name this type of charges simply as port
dues, harbour dues, light dues or tonnage dues.

6.4 From the global comparison in Figure 6.1, we can see that European ports
are the most costly followed by US ports and Asian ports.

6.5 As can be seen in Figures 6.1 and 6.2, Hong Kong's harbour and light dues
is found to be very low in both global and regional context. Although Hong Kong is
no longer the least expensive port as in the last study, Hong Kong is now slightly
higher than Dubai and Port Klang. The global average and regional average of harbour
and light dues are US$ 6,354 and US$ 3,694 and Hong Kong's dues is US$ 2,073
which is 33% and 56% of the global and regional average respectively.
7
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Global Comparison of Harbour & Light Dues

25000 23800

21687

20000

15000
US $

10000 8600
6797 6797 6797 6550
5805
5000 4676 4585 4369 4111
3333 2942 2511 2233 2073 1919
1238
0
0
les

York
p

zhen

g
ang

as
g
rdam

jin
burg

dao

Kong
bo

i
ghai

Duba
apor
Toky

Klan
Beac

Busa
er

siun

elep
Tian
Ning
Ange
Antw

Qing
Chab

Shan
Ham

Shen
Rotte

New

Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Port

ng P
Long
Los

Laem

Tanju
(Figure 6.1)
�

Regional Comparison of Harbour and Light Dues

7000
�
6550
�

6000
� 5805
�

5000
�
4676
� 4585
�
4369
�
4111
�
4000
�
US $

3333
�
3000
� 2942
�
2511
�
2233
�
1976
�
2000
�
1238
�
1000
�

0
0
o

g
n

hen

dao

pas
e

g
g

ghai

jin
apor
Toky
aban

Kon
Busa

siun

Klan
Tian
Ning

Pele
Qing
z

Shan
Shen

Kaoh
Sing

Hong
Ch

Port

ng
Laem

Tanju

(Figure 6.2)

Pilotage Charge (Figures 6.3 - 6.4)

6.6 Pilotage service is provided either by the port authorites or private
companies. pilotage charge is usually calculated on the size of a vessel and/or the
distance under pilotage. The cost for providing pilotage services to river and inland
ports are therefore usually higher. This is reflected in the global comparison of
pilotage charge (Figure 6.3) that Antwerp, Hamburg, Tokyo (require a bay pilot),
Rotterdam and Shanghai appear as the top five ports.
8
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

6.7 Given our geographical benefit, Hong Kong's pilotage cost, named as
pilotage dues, is comparatively lower. Our pilotage dues ranks the fifth lowest
globally and the fourth regionally (Figure 6.4). Hong Kong's pilotage dues has been
revised twice since the last study. In 2003 part of the additional dues were reduced.
While in 2005, the basic due has been increased together with increases in majority of
the additional dues. Despite the price revision in 2005, the position of Hong Kong's
pilotage cost is still lower than that in Shenzhen.

Global Comparison of Pilotage Charge

18000
16600
16000

15000

12000
10328
US $

8942
9000

6000 5635
4770
3844 3641 3528 3457 3293 3217
3000
1925 1776 1752 1645 1410
1018 621
0
0
les

as
p

zhen

g
ng
ghai

rk

e
dam

dao

Kong

i
burg

ang
bo

Duba

apor
Toky

Beac

siun
Busa
er

ji
Yo

elep
Tian
t Kla
Ning

Ange
Antw

Chab
Qing
Shan
er
Ham

Shen
New

Kaoh

Sing
Hong
Rott

ng P
Long

* Por
Los

Laem

Tanju

* Also includes towage and mooring/unmooring charges

(Figure 6.3)
Regional Comparison of Pilotage Charge
12000

10326
10000

8000
US $

6000 5635

4000 3844
3528 3293 3217

1925
2000 1776 1752 1645
1410
621
0
0
hen

ong

as
o

dao

g
ghai

jin
bo

ng

apor
aban
Toky

Busa

siun

elep
Tian
Ning

rt Kla
Qing

K
Shan

Shen

Kaoh

Sing
Hong

Ch

ng P
* Po

Laem

Tanju

9
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

* Also includes towage and mooring/unmooring charges

(Figure 6.4)

Towage Charge (Figures 6.5 - 6.6)

6.8 Comparisons of towage cost indicate that there are wide variations between
ports. The highest towage cost is found at Rotterdam which is over US$ 8,000, about
7 times of the lowest port - Singapore at US$ 1,173. Similar to pilotage, towage costs
are in general higher in river and inland ports. New York seems to be the exception as
it is located at the river mouth yet it has a rather expensive towage cost.
Comparatively Hong Kong's towage cost is at the low side of both the global and
regional comparisons, as found in the previous study.

Global Comparison of Towage Charges

8181
8000 7868

7061
6733
6400 6315
6000
US $

4121 4100
4000
3300 3300
2883 2710 2659
2345
2100
2000 1933
1367
1173

0 0
0
h
ang

pas
bo

les
m

burg

dao
n

hen

Kong

e
Yark

jin

ng
ghai

i
Duba

apor
Beac

siun
Toky

Busa
er
erda

Tian
Ning

t Kla
Ange
Antw

Pele
Chab

Qing

z
Shan

Ham

Shen
New

Kaoh

Sing
Hong
Rott

Long

* Por
ng
Los
Laem

Tanju

* The towage charge of Port Klang is included in the pilotage charge

(Figure 6.5)

* The towage charge of Port Klang is included in the pilotage charge

10
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Towage Charges

7000 6733
6315

6000

5000

4121 4100
4000
US $

3000 2883
2710 2659
2345
2100
2000 1933

1173
1000

0 0
0

zhen

as
o

dao
bo

g
ghai

ang

jin

ng
Kong

e
apor
Toky

Busa

siun

elep
Tian

rt Kla
Ning
Chab

Qing
Shan

Shen

Kaoh

Sing
Hong

ng P

* Po
Laem

Tanju
(Figure 6.6)

Mooring/Unmooring Charge (Figures 6.7 - 6.8)

6.9 The differentiation of this labour intensive charge between ports is quite
significant. The highest charge is at Antwerp where US$ 2,500 will be levied on the
model vessel which is 47 times higher than the lowest port Ningbo at US$ 53. Similar
to that found in the 2001 study, Hong Kong's mooring / unmooring charge is
comparatively low in both global and regional context.

Global Comparison of Mooring / Unmooring Charges

3000

2500
2500

2110
2000 1900

1655
US $

1500
�

1000
�

604 572
500
285
185 180 166 147
66 60 53 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
g

York
m
p

hen

dao
burg

pas

les

g
e

jin

h
i

ghai
Duba

apor
Toky

Kon

aban
Busa

Beac
er

Klan
siun
erda

Tian

Ning

Ange
Antw

Pele
z

Qing
Shan
Ham

Shen

New
Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Ch
Rott

Port
Long
ng

Los
Laem

Tanju

(Figure 6.7)

11
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
�
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Mooring / Unmooring Charges

1800
1655

1500

1200
US $

900

604
600

300 285
185 180 166 147
66 60 53
0 0 0
0

lang
g

ang
o

hen

j in

Kong

dao
e

ghai
n

bo

lepa
apor
Toky

siun
Busa

Tian

Ning
Qing

Chab
z

K
Shan
Shen

g Pe
Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Port
Laem
n
Tanju
(Figure 6.8)

Ancillary Charges (Figures 6.9 - 6.10)

�
6.10 Other than the above four items, other charges imposed to ships by port
authorities are grouped as ancillary charges. These charges come under many different
hats, examples are port clearance charge; port entry fee; maritime welfare charge;
harbour cleaning and maintenance fee; VTS user fee and etc. It should be noted that
different ports levy different charges and a few ports do not have any charge of this
category. For this reason only the total of the ancillary charges are compared. From
Figures 6.9 and 6.10, it can be seen that Hong Kong's total ancillary charges is the
lowest amongst the ports that charge some form of ancillary charges. The conclusion
made in the last report that Hong Kong's ancillary charges was minimal remains valid.

12
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Global Comparison of Ancillary Charges

7000
6255
6000

5000 4755
4451

4000
US$

3000

2132
2000
1578 1500
1022
1000 820
405 361
178 158 108 17 12.5 0 0 0 0 0
0

York
n

erp

zhen

as
bo

burg
ang

les
jin

rdam
dao

ang

Kong

h
ghai

i
Duba
apor
Toky

siun

Beac
Busa

elep
Tian

Ning
Ange
Antw
Qing

Chab

Kl

Shan

Ham
Shen
Rotte

New
Kaoh
Sing

Hong
Port

ng P

Long
Los
Laem

Tanju
(Figure 6.9)
�

Regional Comparison of Ancillary Charges

7000
�
6255
�
6000
�

5000
� 4755
�
4451
�

4000
�
US$

3000
�

2000
�
1578
�

1022
�
1000
� 820
�
405
�
178 158 108
� 17 12.5 0
0
o

ong

as
jin
n

dao

ang

lang

hen

g
e
ghai

apor
b

siun
Busa

Toky

elep
Tian

Ning
Chab
Qing

K
Shan
K

Shen

Kaoh
Sing

Hong
Port

ng P
Laem

Tanju

(Figure 6.10)
�

13
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Total Port Charges (Figures 6.11 - 6.12)

6.11 The collected data, listed in Figure 6.11, indicate that the price range of total
port charges per call by the model ship varies between US$ 51,461 at Antwerp to US$
4,876 at Dubai. Amongst the 20 leading container ports, Hong Kong lies at the lower
end at US$ 5,918 per call which only slightly higher than Singapore (US$ 5,420) and
Port Klang (US$ 5,275) in the region, and Dubai (US$ 4,876) in the global context.
The ranking on total port charge is the same as in the last study.

6.12 As shown in Figure 6.12, Hong Kong maintains its position as one of the
lowest cost ports in Asia.

Global Comparison of Total Port Charges

51461
50000

43052

40000

32900

30000
US$

23431

20000 19435
17424 17004
13915 13738 13659 13108
12524 11732
11410 11167
10000
7115
5918 5420 5275 4876

0
h

dao

bo

as

e
dam

i
erp

ang

hen

jin

Kong
York

les

g
burg

ghai

Duba
apor
Toky

Beac

siun
Busa

Klan
elep

Tian
Ning
Ange
Antw

Chab

Qing

z
Shan
er

Ham

Shen
New

Kaoh

Sing
Hong
Rott

Port
ng P
Long
Los

Laem

Tanju

(Figure 6.11)
�

14
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Total Port Charges

24000 23431

20000
17424 17004
16000
13659
13108
12524
US$

12000 11732 11410 11167

8000 7115
5918
5420 5175

4000
�

0
�

as

g
bo

e
o

dao

zhen

Kong
ghai

jin
ang

apor
siun

Klan
Toky

Busa

elep

Tian
Ning
Qing
Chab
Shan

Shen

Kaoh

Sing
Hong

Port
ng P
Laem

Tanju
(Figure 6.12)

Hong Kong Port Charges

6.13 Figure 6.13 below shows the composition of Hong Kong's port charges. It is

mainly composed of three almost equal parts of about one third of the total cost. The

harbour and light dues are set and collected by the Government. The pilotage dues are

set by the Government on the advice of the pilotage Advisory Committee. The towage

charges are set by the tug companies based on commercial decisions.

6.14 In February 2006 the Government has reduced harbour and light dues from

HK$57 to HK$54 per 100 NRT to make the port more attractive to shipping lines.

Although not benchmarked in this study, the Government has also reduced the

anchorages dues at the same time.

15
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Composition of Hong Kong's Port Charges

35.03%

29.61% 0.21%

2.48% 32.67%
Harbour & Light Dues
Pilotage
Mooring/Unmooring
Towage
Ancillary

(Figure 6.13)
�

16
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

7. Benchmarking the Container Ports

7.1 Container Throughput

7.1.1 Figure 7.1 is a graphical representation of Hong Kong's container

throughputs from 1991 to 2005.

7.1.2 It should be noted that started from 1998 the Marine Department has used a
new series of container throughput statistics. For comparison purpose, Hong Kong's
container throughput in 1997 under the old and new series were 14.567 million TEU
and 14.386 million TEU respectively. In other words, the new series has offset the
throughput figure of 1997 by -0.181 million TEU.

Hong Kong's Container Throughputs from 1991 to 2005

25
22.602
22.5 21.984
20.449
20 19.144
18.09817.826
17.5
16.211
15 14.56714.582
Million TEU

13.46
12.55
12.5
11.05
10 9.204
7.972
7.5
6.162
5

2.5

0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

(Figure 7.1)

7.1.3 In terms of annual container throughput, Hong Kong was still at the top of
the world list in 2004 but has been replaced by Singapore in 2005.

17
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Growth of Container Throughput

7.1.4 The growth rate of container throughput is considered over a designated
period by comparing the throughput of the end year to that of the base year. In this
study, a ten year period of 1996 to 2005 and the latest five year period of 2001 to 2005
are used. From Tables 7.2, it can be seen that over the 10 year period, the growth rate
of Hong Kong's container throughput are the lowest amongst the top 20 container
ports. While in the last study, Hong Kong's 10 year growth rate (1991 to 2000) were
ranked fourth and second in global and regional comparisons respectively. In the
period 2001 to 2005, Hong Kong's throughput growth rate rises slightly to the second
lowest as shown in Table 7.3. However, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Qingdao and Tianjin
occupy the top four places in growth rate, indicating China's blooming economy.

7.1.5 Using Hong Kong's growth rate as the reference point, the other ports
growth rate is indexed against Hong Kong. It shows Shenzhen has a growth rate of
nearly 23 times that of Hong Kong in 1996 to 2005 and 8.5 times in 2001 to 2005.
The relative growth rate indexes are shown in Figures 7.5 to 7.8.

7.1.6 Due to the smaller bases, newly developed ports tend to achieve a higher
relative growth. In order to determine the position of Hong Kong's actual growth in
volume, Table 7.4 is developed based on the actual increase in throughput in 2001 to
2005. Hong Kong climbs up to the upper part of the list with 4.6 million TEU growth
over the five-year period, however Hong Kong's growth still falls behind Shanghai
(11.75 million TEU), Shenzhen (11.12 million TEU) and Singapore (7.62 million
TEU). The global and regional comparisons are shown in Figures 7.9 and 7.10.

7.1.7 Although, Hong Kong's throughput still benefits from China's strong
economy, the low achievement in growth indicates that Hong Kong is unable to get an
even share of the strong growth in trade volume in south China.

7.1.8 According to the "Regional Shipping and Port Development Strategies

(Container Traffic Forecast)" published by UN ESCAPE in 2005, Asian port's share
of the world container volumes will continue to grow from 55% in 2002 to 61% in
2015. China is expected to be the main driving force to push up the throughput. In
18
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

order to handle the anticipated port container traffic in 2015, around 570 new
container berths will be required in the region. The study forecasts that the largest
number, a total of 270 new berths will be needed in China including Hong Kong and
Taiwan. It is important that Hong Kong is prepared to meet the opportunity and
challenge of the future container market.

19
 (Table 7.2)
Growth Rate of Container Throughputs at Top 20 Container Ports from 1996 to 2005 ( Million TEU)
Growth Rate
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 (%) # Index*
Shenzhen 0.11 0.35 0.64 1.58 2.14 5.08 7.61 10.65 13.66 16.2 15226.4 22842.14
Shanghai 1.97 2.52 3.05 4.22 5.61 6.33 8.62 11.37 14.55 18.08 817.77 1226.79
Port Klang 1.41 1.69 1.75 2.55 3.21 3.76 4.53 4.84 5.2 5.54 293.02 439.58
Dubai 2.25 2.6 2.8 2.84 3.06 3.5 4.19 5.15 6.43 7.62 239.12 358.72
Los Angeles 2.68 2.96 3.38 3.28 4.88 5.18 6.11 7.15 7.4 7.48 178.79 268.22
Hamburg 3.05 3.34 3.56 3.74 4.25 4.69 5.37 6.14 7 8.09 164.9 247.38
Busan 4.73 5.23 5.51 6.44 7.54 8.07 9.44 10.37 11.43 11.84 150.58 225.9
Antwerp 2.65 2.97 3.28 3.61 4.08 4.22 4.78 5.45 6.06 6.49 144.63 216.97
Long Beach 3.07 3.51 4.1 4.41 4.6 4.46 4.52 4.66 5.78 6.71 118.78 178.19
New York 2.27 2.46 2.78 2.83 3.05 3.32 3.75 4.07 4.48 4.8 111.45 167.2
Rotterdam 4.81 5.45 6.01 6.34 6.27 6.1 6.52 7.12 8.22 9.29 93.1 139.66
Kaohsiung 5.06 5.69 6.27 6.99 7.43 7.54 8.49 8.84 9.71 9.47 87.04 130.58
Tokyo 2.01 2.09 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.54 2.71 3.31 3.58 3.7 84.45 126.68
Singapore 12.95 14.14 15.1 15.94 17.09 15.57 16.94 18.1 21.33 23.19 79.14 118.73
Hong Kong 13.46 14.54 14.69 16.21 18.1 17.83 19.14 20.45 21.93 22.43 66.66 100
Ningbo 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.86 2.77 4 5.21 - -
Tianjin 0 0 0 1.3 1.71 2.01 2.41 3.02 3.81 4.8 - -
Tanjung Pelepas 0 0 0 0 0 2.05 2.66 3.49 3.48 4.17 - -
Qingdao 0 0 0 1.54 2.12 2.64 3.41 4.23 5.14 6.31 - -
Laem Chabang 0 0 0 1.76 2.11 2.31 2.66 3.18 3.62 3.77 - -

# Growth Rate from 1996 to 2005 (%)

* This index shows the relative growth rate from 1996 to 2005 on a percentage scale, using Hong Kong as a reference (100%)
 (Table 7.3)
Growth Rate of Container Throughputs at Top 20 Container Ports from 2001 to 2005 ( Million TEU)

Growth Rate
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 (%)* Index#
Shenzhen 5.08 7.61 10.65 13.66 16.2 219.12 848.41
Shanghai 6.33 8.62 11.37 14.55 18.08 185.43 717.94
Qingdao 2.64 3.41 4.23 5.14 6.31 139.15 538.77
Tianjin 2.01 2.41 3.02 3.81 4.8 138.81 537.44
Dubai 3.5 4.19 5.15 6.43 7.62 117.6 455.33
Tanjung Pelepas 2.05 2.66 3.49 3.48 4.17 103.51 400.79
Hamburg 4.69 5.37 6.14 7 8.09 72.54 280.88
Laem Chabang 2.31 2.66 3.18 3.62 3.77 63.03 244.05
Antwerp 4.22 4.78 5.45 6.06 6.49 53.86 208.53
Rotterdam 6.1 6.52 7.12 8.22 9.29 52.39 202.85
Long Beach 4.46 4.52 4.66 5.78 6.71 50.35 194.94
Singapore 15.57 16.94 18.1 21.33 23.19 48.93 189.45
Port Klang 3.76 4.53 4.84 5.2 5.54 47.36 183.37
Busan 8.07 9.44 10.37 11.43 11.84 46.67 180.68
Tokyo 2.54 2.71 3.31 3.58 3.7 45.91 177.75
New York 3.32 3.75 4.07 4.48 4.8 44.74 173.23
Los Angeles 5.18 6.11 7.15 7.4 7.48 44.3 171.54
Hong Kong 17.83 19.14 20.45 21.93 22.43 25.83 100
Kaohsiung 7.54 8.49 8.84 9.71 9.47 25.59 99.07
Ningbo 0 1.86 2.77 4 5.21 - -

# Growth Rate from 2001 to 2005 (%)

* This index shows the relative growth rate from 2001 to 2005 on a percentage scale, using Hong Kong as a reference (100%)
 (Table 7.4)
Actual Growth of Container Throughputs at Top 20 Container Ports from 2001 to 2005 ( Million TEU)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual TEU Growth

Shanghai 6.33 8.62 11.37 14.55 18.08 11.75
Shenzhen 5.08 7.61 10.65 13.66 16.2 11.12
Singapore 15.57 16.94 18.1 21.33 23.19 7.62
Hong Kong 17.83 19.14 20.45 21.93 22.43 4.6
Dubai 3.5 4.19 5.15 6.43 7.62 4.12
Busan 8.07 9.44 10.37 11.43 11.84 3.77
Qingdao 2.64 3.41 4.23 5.14 6.31 3.67
Hamburg 4.69 5.37 6.14 7 8.09 3.4
Rotterdam 6.1 6.52 7.12 8.22 9.29 3.19
Tianjin 2.01 2.41 3.02 3.81 4.8 2.79
Los Angeles 5.18 6.11 7.15 7.4 7.48 2.3
Antwerp 4.22 4.78 5.45 6.06 6.49 2.27
Long Beach 4.46 4.52 4.66 5.78 6.71 2.25
Tanjung Pelepas 2.05 2.66 3.49 3.48 4.17 2.12
Kaohsiung 7.54 8.49 8.84 9.71 9.47 1.93
Port Klang 3.76 4.53 4.84 5.2 5.54 1.78
New York 3.32 3.75 4.07 4.48 4.8 1.48
Laem Chabang 2.31 2.66 3.18 3.62 3.77 1.46
Tokyo 2.54 2.71 3.31 3.58 3.7 1.16
Ningbo 0 1.86 2.77 4 5.21 0
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Global Comparison of Relative Growth Rate Index in Container Throughput in 1996 - 2005
22842
5000

4000

3000
%

2000

1227
1000

440 359 268 247 226 217 178 167 140 131 127 119 100
0

am
an
ai

yo

on g
k
en

ang

ai

ng

re
s

urg

rp

Yor
ele

eac
ngh

Dub

o
we
Bus

Tok
nzh

hsiu
terd

gap
b
t Kl

gK
Ang

Ham

gB
Ant

New
Sha
She

Kao
Rot

Sin
Por

Hon
Lon
Los

(Figure 7.5)
�

Regional Comparison of Relative Growth Rate Index in Container Throughput in 1996 - 2005

22842
5000

4000

3000
%

2000

1227
1000

440
226
131 127 119 100
0
ong
an
ang
ai

re
n

ung

yo
zhe

ngh

apo
Bus

Tok
t Kl

gK
hsi
n

Sha

g
She

Kao

Sin
Por

Hon

(Figure 7.6)
�

23
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Global Comparison of Relative Growth Rate Index in Container Throughput in 2001 - 2005

1000

848
800
718

600
539 537
%

455
401
400
281
244
209 203 195 189
200 184 181 178 173 172
100 99

yo
am

re

ong

ng
jin
n

an
s

eles
ai

ch
o

ai

ang

ng
epa

Yor
zhe

gda

bur

w er
Dub
ngh

apo

Tok
Tian

Bea

Bus

hsiu
Kla
terd
hab

gK
Ang
Ham
n

Pel
Qin

Ant

New
Sha

g
She

Kao
g

Sin
Rot

Por

Hon
mC

Lon
jung

Los
Lae
Tan

(Figure 7.7)
�

Regional Comparison of Relative Growth Rate Index in Container Throughput in 2001 - 2005
1000

848
800
718

600
539 537
%

400
401

244
200 189 184 181 178
100 99

0
ang

an

yo

g
jin
en

ai

dao

ng

g
as

or

Kon

n
ngh

elep

Bus

Tok
nzh

Tian

Kla

hsiu
gap
g

hab
Qin
Sha

g
She

t
gP

Kao
Sin

Por

Hon
mC
jun

Lae
Tan

(Figure 7.8)
�

24
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Global Comparison of Actual Growth in Container Throughput in 2001 - 2005

12 11.75
11.12

10

8 7.62
Million TEU

6
4.6
4.12
4 3.77 3.67
3.4 3.19
2.79
2.3 2.27 2.25 2.12
2 1.93 1.78
1.48 1.46
1.16

0
ong

ang

yo
ng

ang

k
en

ore
ai

in

p
dam

eles

as
g
ai

an

Yor
eac
gda

bur

w er
ngh

Dub

elep

Tok
Bus
nzh

Tian

hsiu
gap

t Kl

hab
gK

Ang
ter
Ham

gB
Qin

Ant

New
Sha

She

gP

Kao
Sin

Rot

Por
Hon

mC
Lon
Los

jun

Lae
Tan
(Figure 7.9)
�

Regional Comparison of Actual Growth in Container Throughput in 2001 - 2005

12 11.75
11.12

10

8 7.62
Million TEU

6
4.6
4 3.77 3.67
2.79
2.12 1.93
2 1.78
1.46
1.16

0
an

ang

yo
as

ng

ang
en

e
i

in
gha

or

Kon

gda

ep
Bus

Tok
nzh

Tian

hsiu
gap

hab
t Kl
n

Pel
Qin
Sha

g
She

Kao
Sin

Por
Hon

mC
g
jun

Lae
Tan

(Figure 7.10)

7.2 Container Terminals

7.2.1 Hong Kong has been a container port for more than three decades.
Containerized cargoes handled in Hong Kong represent about 74 per cent by weight of
Hong Kong's total cargo throughput which is one of the key factors in the prosperity
and economic growth of Hong Kong. The container port is also vital for Southern

25
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

China as some 78 per cent of the throughput is related to the area. The port of Hong
Kong is a major hub port in the global supply chain and is served by some 80
international shipping lines with over 450 container liner services per week to over
500 destinations worldwide. Hence, it would be useful to know the relative position of
Hong Kong's container terminals in terms of hardware and efficiencies.

7.2.2 The physical characteristics : number of berths, total quay length, maximum
alongside depth, total terminal area and total container storage capacity will be
benchmarked against the top 20 ports. By comparing the annual throughput per metre
quay length and container storage capacity over total terminal area, it can give an
indication on how the efficiencies of the terminals are fare. The following
comparisons are based on 2004 container terminal data obtained from the
"Containerization International Yearbook 2005". It should be noted that the total quay
length and total terminal area data of 2004 are obtained from the “Port of Hong Kong
in Figures 2005”. These figures assumed full operation of Terminal 9 but in fact, only
four berths of Terminal 9 were in operation in 2004 and the remaining two berths
commenced operation only in 2005.

Number of Berths (Figures 7.11 to 7.12)

7.2.3 In terms of number of berths Hong Kong is average in global context
and second to Singapore in regional context. The result is similar to that of the last
study.

Global Comparison of Number of Berths

50
45

40
35
33

30 28
27
24
22
20 20
20 19
16
14 13 13 13
12
10 9 8
7 6

0
jin
e

dam
ghai

ng
erp

ong

dao

as
ork

zhen

bo
urg

Duba
apor

gele
Klan
Busa
Beac

Toky
siun

elep
Tian
a

Ning
Antw

Y
b

Chab
Qing
K

Shan

r
Ham

Shen

Rotte
New

An
Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Port

ng P
Long

Los

Laem

Tanju

26
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Number of Berths

40

35
33

30

25 24
22
20 20
20 19

15 14
13 13

10 9
8
7
6
5
�

0
�
g

as
n

lang
e

jin
zhen

dao

ang

bo
ghai
apor

Kon

Busa

Toky
siun

elep
Tian

Ning
Qing

Chab
K

Shan

Shen
Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Port

ng P
Laem

Tanju
(Figure 7.12)

Total Quay Length (Figures 7.13 - 7.14)

7.2.4 In this aspect, Hong Kong is also found to be on par with the global
trend and is only having shorter total quay length than Singapore in Asian region. The
result is similar to that of the last study. However, this position may change in the next
few years as Shenzhen is continuously expanding Yantian and is building a new port
at Dachan.

Global Comparison of Total Quay Length

14000

12120
12000
11070
10475
10000
9163 9037 9002

8000 7694
Meter

6736 6711
5973
6000 5543
5100 5096 4913

4000 3686
3000
2570 2450 2160 2138
2000

0
York

pas
h

hen

lang
burg

g
e
dam

dao
erp

Kong

ang

bo
les

jin
ghai

Duba
apor

Beac

Toky
Busa
siun

Tian

Ning
Ange
Antw

Pele
Qing

Chab
z

K
Shan
r

Ham

Shen
Rotte

New

Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Port
Long

ung
Los

Laem

Tanj

(Figure 7.13)
27
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Total Quay Length

12000

10475
10000
�

8000
� 7694

6711
Meter

5973
6000 5543
5100 5096 4913

4000 3686
3000
2450
2160 2138
2000
�

0
�

as
g

zhen
g
e

g
dao

ang
o

bo
n

ghai

jin
apor

Kon

siun

Busa

Klan

Toky

elep
Tian

Ning
Qing

Chab
Shan
Shen
Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Port

ng P
Laem

Tanju
(Figure 7.14)

Maximum Alongside Depth (Figures 7.15 - 7.16)

7.2.5 The maximum alongside water depth of Hong Kong's container
terminals is 15 metres which is within the average band but behind our neighboring
port - Shenzhen. On comparison with the last study, it can be seen that the number of
ports having over 15 metres alongside depth berths has increased from 4 to 10.
Although majority of the ports in the region are still having a maximum of 15 metres
alongside depth, it can be expected that more and more ports would seek to provide
deeper berths.
Global Comparison of Maxium Alongside Depth

18
17.5

17 16.8 16.7 16.6

16 16 16
16 15.8
15.5
Meter

15.2
15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
15
14.3 14.2
14

13

12
as
h

hen

erp
York

g
i
dam
dao

jin

bo

Kong
e

les
burg

ghai
Duba

apor
Beac

Toky
aban

Klan

siun
Busa
elep
Tian

Ning

Ange
Antw
z
Qing

Shan
er
Ham

Shen

New

Kaoh
Sing

Hong
Ch
Rott

Port
ng P
Long

Los
Laem

Tanju

28
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Maxium Alongside Depth

18
17.5

17

16 16
16
Meter

15.2
15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
15

14.2
14
�

13
�

12
�
as

g
zhen

bo

g
e

g
dao

ang

jin

ghai
apor
Toky

Kon

siun
Busa

Klan
elep
Tian

Ning
Chab
Qing

Shan
Shen

Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Port
ng P
Laem

Tanju

(Figure 7.16)

Total Terminal Area (Figures 7.17 - 7.18)

7.2.6 The physical size of Hong Kong's container terminals is considered as
medium. The finding is similar to that of the last study.

Global Comparison of Total Terminal Area

7000
6161
6000 5680
Thousand Square Meter

5068 5055
5000 4835
4667

4010
4000
3390

3000 2923
2750
2290
2000 1899
1721
1493
1200 1136 1026 1004
1000 894 757
m
h

lang

ang
g

pas
ong
York

i
zhen
p

dao

o
les

jin

bo
rg

n
ghai

Duba
apor
Beac

Toky
siun
er

Busa
erda
bu

Tian

Ning
Ange

Antw

Pele

Qing

Chab
K

K
Shan
Ham

Shen
New

Kaoh
Sing

Hong
Rott

Port
Long

ng
Los

Laem
Tanju

(Figure 7.17)
�

29
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Total Terminal Area

5000

4010
4000
Thousand Square Meter

3390

3000 2923
2750

2290

2000
1721
1493
1200 1136
1026 1004
1000 894
757
n

as
ghai

an g

n
dao
zhen

o
ong

bo
apor

Busa

siun

Klan

ji

Toky
elep

Tian

Ning
Qing

Chab
K
Shan

Shen

Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Port

ng P

Laem
Tanju
(Figure 7.18)

Total Storage Capacity (Figures 7.19 - 7.20)

7.2.7 Hong Kong's container terminal is medium in size, its storage capacity
is found to having the highest storage capacity in the world in this study.

Global Comparison of Total Storage Capacity

204 201
200
185
170
164 163
Thousand TEU

150 147 145

138

108
102
100
87

66
56 52 51 51 49
50

22

0
0
h
les

burg

as

o
York

am

jin
Kong

hen

dao

ang
e
ghai

i
Duba

apor
Beac

Toky
siun

Klan

b
Busa
er

elep

Tian

Ning
Ange

erd
Antw

Chab
Qing
z

Shan

Ham
Shen

New
Kaoh

Sing
Hong

Rott

Port
ng P
Long
Los

Laem
Tanju

(Figure 7.19)
�

30
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Total Storage Capacity

204
200
185
170
163
Thousand TEU

150 145

108
100
87

66
51 51 49
50

22

0
0

as
zhen

o
Kong

g
ghai

ang
dao

jin

bo
e
apor

Klan
Busa

Toky
siun
elep

Tian

Ning
Qing

Chab
Shan
Shen

Kaoh

Sing
Hong

Port
ng P

Laem
Tanju

(Figure 7.20)

Productivity per metre Quay Length (Figures 7.21 - 7.22)

7.2.8 The Kwai Tsing container port handled 13.425 million TEU of
containers in 2004 which gives a yearly productivity of 1,745 TEU per metre quay
length. The productivity is of average amongst leading container ports, recorded a
downward movement since the last study (2003 TEU). The decrease in productivity
may be related to the additional quay length after the opening of container terminal 9.

Global Comparison of Productivity per Metre Quay Length

3000 2855

2502 2464
2500
TEU per Meter

2036
2000 1914 1871
1745
1611 1555
1500 1447

1207
1058 1008
1000 971
858 822
764 743

500 496
500
as

York
am
n

h
ang
bo

g
zhen

Kong

dao

burg
n

erp
e

les
ghai

i
Duba

apor

siun
Busa

Toky

Beac
Klan
ji
elep

Tian
Ning

Ange

erd

Antw
Qing
Chab
Shan

Ham
Shen

New
Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Rott
Port
ng P

Long

Los
Laem
Tanju

(Figure 7.21)

31
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Productivity per Metre Quay Length

3000
2855

2500 2464
TEU per Meter

2036
2000 1914 1871
1745
1611 1555
1500 1447

1207
1058 1008
1000 971

500

g
e

bo

as
zhen

Kong

dao

o
jin

ang
n
ghai

apor

siun

Toky
Klan
Busa

elep

Tian
Ning

Qing
Chab
Shan

Shen

Kaoh
Sing

Hong

Port
ng P

Laem
Tanju

(Figure 7.22)

Storge Capacity / Terminal Area (Figures 7.23 - 7.24)

7.2.9 The ratio of container storage capacity over total terminal area in 2004
was 74 TEU per thousand square metre that ranks the fifth behind Kaohsiung with a
ratio of 80 TEU per thousand square metre.

Global Comparison of Storage Capacity / Terminal Area

140
128
TEU per Thousand Square Meter

120
�

100
�
90
81 80
80
74

60 57 56 54
48
42
40
34 33 32
29 29
22
20 19
11 10

0
0
York
m
elep

zhen

h
n
g

burg
ang

les

o
i

jin
dao

ong

e
ghai
ang
Duba

apor
Toky

Beac
Busa
siun

b
er

erda
Tian

Ning
Ange

Antw
Qing

Chab

Kl
K
ng P

Shan

Ham
Shen

New
Kaoh

Sing
Hong

Rott
Port

Long
Los
Tanju

Laem

(Figure 7.23)
�

32
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Regional Comparison of Storage Capacity / Terminal Area

140
128
TEU per Thousand Square Meter

120
�

100
�
90
81 80
80 74

60 57 56
48
42
40 34

22
20 19

0
0

e
dao

elep

ang
zhen

Kong

bo
n

ghai

apor
Klan
Toky
siun

Busa

ji
Tian

Ning
Chab
Qing

ng P

Shan
Shen

Kaoh

Sing
Hong

Port
Tanju

Laem
(Figure 7.24)

Terminal Productivity (Figure 7.25)

7.2.10 The container port is an important link in the overall supply chain, the
level of terminal productivity is an important indicator to a port's efficiency. While
there could be other indicators to represent terminal productivity, crane rate is the
most frequently used indicator for gauging container terminals.

7.2.11 Crane productivity is not well documented for many ports. In this
study, a data set of 12 container ports has been collected, the comparison is
graphically presented as in Figure 7.25.

7.2.12 From the collected data, worldwide crane productivity ranges from 23
to 40 moves per hour (MPH) with many advanced ports able to achieve a rate of at
least 30 MPH. Crane rate depends on many factors including layout of the terminal,
its facilities, type of ships handled, interfacing with yard gantries/tractors, proximity
and stacking of the containers and loading/unloading sequence planning. For Hong
Kong's container terminals, the average crane rate is 36 MPH with peak rate at 40
MPH. This makes Hong Kong one of the most efficient container port in the world.

33
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Comparison of Crane Productivity of 12 Ports

45
40
40 38
36
35
35 33
Move per Hour

32 32
30 30 30
30 28

25 23

20

15
10
5

n
n

en
o

ng

ne
i
s

s
e

am
ha
pa

le

sa
ky

ac
he
or

am
Ko

ur
ge

rd
ap
To

Be

Bu
le
z

an

bo
en

tte
Pe

An

Xi
ng

Sh

el
ng
on

Sh

Ro
Si

M
g

Lo
H

Lo
un
nj
Ta

(Figure 7.25)
�

34
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

8 Analysis on Port Services, Port Formality Procedures

and Application of Information Technology in Hong Kong

8.1 Port Services

8.1.1 In supporting safe and efficient port operations and protecting the
environment, seaports provide a number of port services to visiting ships. Apart from
basic services such as navigation aids, bunkering, fresh water and garbage collection,
modern ports also provide vessel traffic services (VTS), Differential Global
Positioning System (DGPS) broadcasting and waste reception services.

8.1.2 The purpose of VTS is to actively monitor and tending navigational advice
to vessels particularly within confined and busy waterways. For automation in vessel
identification, more and more VTS centres are integrating the Automatic
Identification System (AIS) transponder signals into their surveillance systems.

8.1.3 To improve the accuracy of the position obtained from the "degraded"
civilian GPS signal by shipboard receivers, many ports use a network of fixed ground
based reference stations to broadcast the difference between the positions indicated by
the satellited systems and the known fixed positions. This system is commonly known
as DGPS.

8.1.4 Shore-base waste reception facilities allow ships to discharge the chemical
wastes accumulated on board thus protecting the environment from shipboard
discharges.

8.1.5 From the results of literature research and data collection, these services are
provided by the majority of the top 20 ports with only a few exceptions in one or two
services. Table 8.1 below shows the services provided by the top 20 container ports. It
confirms that Hong Kong has provided comprehensive services to visiting ships.

35
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

DGPS Waste
Reference Reception
Port VTS AIS Integration Station Facility
Hong Kong Yes Yes Yes Yes
Singapore Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shanghai Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shenzhen Yes Yes - -
Busan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kaohsiung Yes - - -
Rotterdam Yes Yes Yes Yes
Los Angeles Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hamburg Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dubai Yes Yes - -
Antwerp Yes Yes Yes Yes
Long Beach Yes Yes Yes -
Port Klang Yes Yes Yes Yes
Qingdao Yes Yes Yes Yes
New York Yes Yes Yes -
Ningbo Yes - Yes Yes
Tianjin Yes Yes Yes Yes
Laem Chabang - - - -
Tokyo Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tanjung Pelepas Yes - - Yes

(Table 8.1)

8.2 Port Formality Procedures

8.2.1 Long processing time, inappropriate formalities and unclear

rules/regulations can become serious obstacles to visiting ships. In comparing the
inward and outward clearance, information on activities, pre-arrival notification
requirements, number of documents required by ports and port formality processing
time are collected from shipping companies.

8.2.2 Majority of the ports, including Hong Kong, require notification to be given
24 hours in advance of the arrival of a ship. The exceptions are Singapore and US
ports. Singapore only requires a 12 hour advance pre-arrival notification while the US
dictates all vessels to give a 96 hour advance notification due to security
considerations.

8.2.3 The number of documents required for port formalities ranging from 4 to
17, amongst a total of 12 ports that we are able to collect the relevant information.
Hong Kong asks for 10 different documents for completing the port formalities : The
crew list, passenger list, maritime declaration of health, vaccination list, deratting
exemption certificate, bonded store/personnel effects/arms/drugs/narcotics list, port of
call list, arrival declaration of dutiable stores, cargo manifest and general declaration
(MO 618).

36
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

8.2.4 The port formality time of the ports reported by shipping companies ranges
from 1 to 7 hours. Two thirds of these ports require less than 2 hours to complete the
formalities. In Hong Kong our performance pledge for processing port formalities
with Marine Department is 20 minutes and this is being met in 90% of cases.

8.2.5 Although Hong Kong has very satisfactory port formality performance,
there are still areas that shipping lines and shipping agencies would like to see
improvements in. These areas are :-

i. At present, � registered agents can submit the arrival and departure

declarations of ships under their management by facsimile to Marine
Department. However, they still need to visit the Central Marine Office
to collect the port clearance. Nowadays, majority of shipping activities
are being conducted in the Kwai Tsing container port area, shipping
agents consider that travelling between Kwai Chung and Central for
clearing a ship is time consuming.

ii. The � existing port formality process requires the submission and
examination of the ship's original trading certificates on her first visit
and the renewed certificates upon the expiry of such documents. This
formality applies to all visiting ships including Hong Kong registered
vessels. The industry feels that, for vessels registered in Hong Kong, the
Marine Department should posses all information related to the validity
of their trading certificates. If Hong Kong ships could be exempted from
this requirement, it can save their time spent on visiting the Central
Marine Office.

8.2.6 The two suggestions are relating to port formality processes that need to be
conducted in person at the Central Marine Office. In this regard, some shipping
agencies suggest Marine Department to establish a port formality office at Kwai
Chung to minimise the commuting time. It should be noted that the two port formality
processes have been reviewed among other procedures under the Business Process
Re-engineering Study on Electronic Business System for Port Formalities and Related
37
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

Shipping Activities in Marine Department conducted by the Efficiency Unit in 2004.

The two processes have been included for automation in Phase 2 of the Marine
Department Electronic Business System, the details of which will be discussed in the
following Section 8.3.3.

8.3 Application of Information Technology

8.3.1 Effective use of information technology (IT) enhances service efficiency
and level of facilitation to port users. Nowadays, use of IT systems already becomes
an indispensable element of a port given the needed efficiency and complexity of
various operations. Applications of IT are found in areas like port facilitation, port
management, cargo/shipping management, communication and information
dissemination.

8.3.2 The port of Hong Kong has a long history in making use of the world wide
web technology in disseminating information and providing services to customers.
The Marine Department maintains a number of IT systems for port management and
facilitation such as the Vessel Traffic Management System, the Dangerous Goods
Information System and the Marine Department Electronic Business System (MD
eBS) Phase 1 with Phase 2 of the System being developed.

8.3.3 The MD eBS Phase 1 was implemented in April 2004. The system is an
online document submission system for port formality and other shipping related
documents including : pre-arrival notification; tanker arrival notification; general
declaration, applications for various permits; booking of Government mooring buoys;
dangerous goods manifest and etc. On completion of the Phase 2 development, the
MD eBS will provide a one-stop electronic submission solution to all port formality
procedures in Hong Kong via the internet, including those required by Port Health and
Immigration Department. As a result of the re-engineered business process to be
implemented together with the Phase 2 system, registered shipping
companies/agencies will have the flexibility of using e-printing to produce the
approved permits and port clearance at their offices. Furthermore, ship's certificates
would also be submitted electronically via MD eBS to the Marine Department instead
of producing them physically for examination. Thus, shipping agents, including those

38
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

managing Hong Kong registered vessels, will not need to visit the Central Marine
Office for collecting clearances or submitting ship's certificates.

8.3.4 To facilitate trade and enhance the efficiency and productivity of the
logistics sector, Hong Kong has implemented the Digital Trade and Transportation
Network (DTTN) in 2006. DTTN is an information infrastructure and multi-
compatible platform for data exchange along the supply chain. Paper-based
documents can be prepared and transmitted electronically to raise efficiency and lower
expenses. The concept of the DTTN is about providing infrastructure for
communication, especially for the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Hong
Kong and Southern China. These SMEs cannot compete with the bigger companies in
the area of in-house technology development. The DTTN assists the SMEs in bridging
the technology gap.

8.3.5 To promote electronic commerce, improve efficiency and reduce the use of
paper, the Government has, since 1997, introduced electronic services for the
submission of a number of trade documents. The electronic submission of cargo
manifests in the air, rail, river and ocean modes of transport (EMAN) was launched in
April, 2003. After constructive dialogues with industry representatives and having
ascertained the state of readiness of ocean and river carriers, electronic submission of
cargo manifests for river and ocean carriers has been made mandatory on 16 June
2006.

8.3.6 Although Hong Kong may be considered a little lagging in terms of IT

application amongst leading container ports worldwide, but it is more advanced than
other ports in this region. Both the port industry and the Government have exerted
continuous effort in improving their IT systems in meeting customers' expectations.

39
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

9. Findings

9.1 The key findings are summarised below :-

i. � The position on total port charges is similar to the findings in 2001.

Hong Kong remains as one of the ports with the lowest cost in the
world with total port charges only slightly higher than Singapore and
Port Klang in the region.

ii. � The growth of container throughputs in Hong Kong from 2001 to

2005 was generally lower than other top container ports. The less
encouraging achievement in throughput growth indicates that Hong
Kong is unable to get an even share of the strong growth in
Mainland's container volume. Though Hong Kong is expected to
benefit from Mainland's economic growth, appropriate measures need
to be taken, if better throughput increase is to be achieved.

iii. � In terms of number of berths and total quay length, Hong Kong is
average in the global context and second to Singapore in terms of
regional context. The available alongside water depth of Hong Kong's
container terminals is 15 metres which is average for leading ports.
The Kwai Tsing container port handled 1,745 TEU per metre quay
length in 2004 which was average amongst leading container ports.
The physical size of Hong Kong's container terminals is considered
average yet our terminals have the highest container storage capacity
in the world. The ratio of container storage to total terminal area in
2004 at 74 TEU per thousand square metres ranks the fifth behind
Kaohsiung.

iv. � Worldwide crane productivity ranges from 23 to 40 moves per hour

(MPH) with many advanced ports able to achieve a rate of at least 30
MPH. For Hong Kong's container terminals, the average crane rate is
36 MPH with peak rate at 40 MPH. This makes Hong Kong one of the
most efficient container port in the world.

40
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

v. � The analysis on services reveals that Hong Kong is providing world

class port services to visiting ships and port formality procedures are
considered very satisfactory. Hong Kong may be considered a little
lagging in terms of IT application amongst leading container ports
worldwide, but it is more advanced than other ports in this region.

41
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

10. Recommendations

10.1 From the analysis and findings of this study, it is recommended that :-

• Low and simple port charge strategy should be continued.

• Efficient and simple port formalities should be maintained.

• The two suggestions made by the shipping industry on providing port

formality service at Kwai Chung and reducing physical inspection of the
trading certificates of Hong Kong registered ship will be addressed by
the MD eBS Phase 2, the effectiveness of this system on alleviating these
issues should be taken into account in system development.

• Continuous effort should be given to further promote and develop IT

applications with a view to providing more user friendly automated port
and shipping services to our customers.

• Action should be taken to improve cargo access to/from the port from the
hinterland areas.

• Given competitive demands, terminal tariff and shipping charges should

continue to ease towards prevailing levels at competitive facilities in
Shenzhen.

42
Port Benchmarking for Assessing Hong Kong’s Maritime Services and Associated Costs
Main Report

References

• A comparative analysis of port tariffs in ESCAP region, United Nations, 2002

• Containerisation International Yearbook 2005, Containerisation International,

2005

• Lloyd’s List ports of the world 2006, Lloyd’s List Press, 2006

• Regional Shipping and Port Development Strategies (Container Traffic

Forecast), UN ESCAPE, 2005

• Executive Summary, Study on Hong Kong Port - Master Plan 2020,

Economic Development and Labour Bureau, 2004

• Hong Kong Industrialist - December 2005, Federation of Hong Kong

Industries

• Shipper's Today, Hong Kong Shippers' Council

• Business Process Re-engineering Study on Electronic Business System for

Port Formalities and Related Shipping Activities in Marine Department,

October 2004, Efficiency Unit, HKSAR Government

• Port of Hong Kong in Figures 2005

43