MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS

IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)

FINAL REPORT

(5) Phased Implementation Plans of North Kalibaru New Container Terminal of Option-1
In each alternative plan, the Master Plan of North Kalibaru Terminal with the target volume of
international containers of 9.4 million TEUs in 2030 has been divided into the three phased
implementation plans as shown in Table 4.7-10 (see Figure 4.7-13).

Table 4.7-10 Balance of Capacity and Demand in Container-Handling at Tanjung Priok

Unit: ‘000TEUs per annum
International Domestic
Container-Handling Capacity Cargo
Year North Kalibaru Phased Plans Demand Balance Handling Demand Balance
JCT Total
sub- (B) (A)-(B) Capacity (D) (C)-(D)
I II III (A) (C)
total
2009 4,850 4,850 2,736 2,114 2,130 1,068 1,062
2010 4,850 4,850 3,167 1,683 2,130 1,144 986
2011 4,850 4,850 3,598 1,252 2,130 1,220 910
2012 4,850 4,850 4,029 821 2,130 1,295 835
2013 4,850 4,850 4,460 390 2,130 1,371 759
2014 4,850 4,850 4,890 -40 2,130 1,447 683
2015 4,850 0 4,850 5,321 -471 2,130 1,523 607
2016 4,850 950 950 5,800 5,708 92 2,130 1,675 455
2017 4,850 1,900 1,900 6,750 6,095 655 2,130 1,827 303
2018 4,850 1,900 1,900 6,750 6,482 268 2,130 1,979 151
2019 4,850 1,900 500 2,400 7,250 6,869 381 2,130 2,130 0
2020 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 7,255 1,845 3,980 2,284 1,696
2021 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 7,777 1,323 3,980 2,463 1,517
2022 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 8,299 801 3,980 2,643 1,337
2023 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 8,821 279 3,980 2,822 1,158
2024 4,000 1,900 3,200 600 5,700 9,700 9,343 357 3,980 3,002 978
2025 4,000 1,900 3,200 3,000 8,100 12,100 9,865 2,235 3,980 3,181 799
2026 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 10,563 2,837 3,980 3,421 559
2027 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 11,261 2,139 3,980 3,662 318
2028 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 11,960 1,440 3,980 3,902 78
2029 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 12,658 742 3,980 4,142 (162)
2030 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 13,356 44 3,980 4,382 (402)
Note 1) Jakarta Container Terminal containing JICT KOJA and MAL at Tanjung Priok Terminal
Note 2) MTI and JICT II currently used for international container terminals have been assumed to be converted into the
terminals for domestic containers in 2020 corresponding to the completion of the redevelopment of the existing
conventional berths for domestic container-handling
Source: Estimated by the Study Team

As mentioned in Section 4.3 “Estimate of Cargo-Handling Capacity of Tanjung Priok”

Terminal in terms of containers, the container-handling capacities of the existing facilities have been
estimated as 4.9 million TEUs per annum in international containers and 2.1 million TEUs per annum
in domestic containers, respectively.
Domestic container-handling and conventional cargo-handling are forecast to be saturated in
2019, and to cope with the saturation, the existing conventional wharves where domestic containers
and conventional cargoes are handled in mixture need to be separated and converted into terminals
specialized in containers and conventional cargoes through redevelopment in 2020.
Together with the development of the existing conventional wharves, the two terminals, viz.
MTI and JICT II have been assumed to be converted into domestic container terminals from the
current international container terminals. Due to these conversions, the capacity of JCT decreases in
2020. By contrast, that of domestic container terminals increases as shown in the above table.

4-72
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

16,000
15,000 Capacity
14,000 Demand Start at Kalibaru III
13,000
12,000
Start at Kalibaru II
'000 TEUs per annum

11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000 Start at Kalibaru I
7,000
JCT
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-

Year
Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-13 Demand and Total Capacity in International Container-Handling at Tanjung

Priok Terminal

Phase I plan off North Kalibaru with a capacity of 1.9 million TEUs per annum has been made
to narrow the gap of the demand and the capacity in international container handling. Operations are
scheduled to commence in the beginning of 2016.
Phase II plan off North Kalibaru with a capacity of 3.2 million TEUs per annum has also been
made and operations are scheduled to begin in the middle of 2019.
Furthermore, Phase III off North Kalibaru with a capacity of 4.3 million TEUs per will be
ready for operations in the middle of 2024.
Phases I~III plans off Kalibaru complete the Option-1 as the Master Plan of international
container handling with the target year of 2030 and a total accumulated capacity of 9.4 million TEUs
per annum in total.

4.7.2 Development Split to off North Kalibaru and Cilamaya (Option-2)

Option-2 with the two terminals has been planned so as to compare with other options
including Option-1 mentioned in the previous section, Section 4.7.1 and select the optimum
development plan for international container handling in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area (see Section
4.6.4).
One terminal has been planned off North Kalibaru and another terminal at Cilamaya. The
former terminal coincides with North Kalibaru Phase I Plan 1 as a part of the entire Option-1 plan
described in the previous section, Section 4.7.1.

4-73
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

(1) North Kalibaru Phase I Terminal of Option-2

North Kalibaru Phase I Terminal Plan has three alternatives, viz. Alternative-1, Alternative-2
and Alternative-3 by partly succeeding Option-1 plan. Facility layout plans are shown in Figure 4.7-14
~ Figure 4.7-16.

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-14 Facility Layout Plan of North Kalibaru Expansion in Phase I (Alternative-1)

4-74
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-15 Facility Layout Plan of North Kalibaru Expansion in Phase I (Alternative-2)

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-16 Facility Layout Plan of North Kalibaru Expansion in Phase I (Alternative-3)

4-75
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

(2) Cilamaya Terminal

1) Required Access Channel Dimensions

Cilamaya Terminal has been planned so as to correspond to Kalibaru II and Kalibaru III as a
part of the entire Option-1 plan. Thus, the same dimensions of the access channel as those applied in
the planning of the entire Option-1 have been used. The design vessel size of ordinary Post-Panamax
container ships with a capacity of around 6,000 TEUs has been applied in the planning of Cilamaya
Terminal as a part of Option-2 as shown below.
- DWT: 88,000 tons
- TEU Capacity: 5,600 TEUs
- LOA: 320 m
- Beam: 40 m
- Summer draft: 14 m

By using the design vessel size mentioned in the above clause “1)”, the same access channel
dimensions as Option-1 have been determined (see in Table 4.7-11).

Table 4.7-11 Dimensions of Planned New Navigational Channel in the New Terminal
Maximum design vessel: Post-Panamax
PIANC Guideline Deviation Angle Method
Beam LOA Beam LOA （A)
Number of （B) m （A) m （B) m m
Lanes Channel Width Channel
（D) m 40.06 318 Width （D) 40.06 318
D/B D/L D/B D/L
One-way 150 3.8 0.5 160 4.0 0.5
Two-way 310 7.8 1.0 320 8.0 1.0
Source: Made by the Study Team

2) Required Berth Dimensions:

Although Post-Panamax container ship has been selected as the maximum sized ship for the
access channel planning, she is not the only ship to call the new terminal. In other words, various ship
sizes need to be considered to make an economical plan. Various ship types and the corresponding
berth dimensions accommodating them are shown in Table 4.7-12.

Table 4.7-12 Vessel Sizes Used for Berth Allocation Plan

Beam Draft Depth Length
Type DWT TEUs LOA
(m) (m) (m) (m)
Small size 18,300 1,270 169 27.30 8.4 9.0 200
Midium size 33,750 2,550 207 29.84 11.4 12.5 240
Panamax 59,283 4,230 292 32.23 13.0 14.5 320
Post-Panamax 87,545 5,648 318 40.06 14.0 15.5 360
Source: The Study Team

4-76
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

3) Berth Allocation Plan at Cilamaya Terminal

Target Container Volume for the New Cilamaya Terminal
As shown in Table 4.7.16, the required capacity at Kalibaru Phases II~III has been estimated as
7.5 million TEUs in total in the stage of the Master Plan with the target year of 2030. The same target
volume has been applied for Cilamaya Terminal.
Allocation of Containers by Ship Type
Containers to be handled at the new terminal in 2030 have been allocated as indicated in Table
4.7-13.

Table 4.7-13 Allocation of Containers by Ship Type at Cilamaya Terminal in 2030

Unit: ‘000TEUs/year
Allocation
Direct/Transshipment Total
Small size Medium size Panamax Post-Panamax
Eastbound Direct 60% 4,500 2,250 2,250
Westbound Direct 10% 750 750
Transshipment 30% 2,250 1,125 1,125
Total 100% 7,500 1,125 3,375 2,250 750
Source: Estimated by the Study Team

Berth Allocation Plan

The allocation of container ships by type shown in Table 4.5.20 has been converted into an
economical berth allocation plan composed of the three types of berths with different water depths and
lengths as shown in Table 4.7-14.

Table 4.7-14 Berth Composition of Cilamaya Terminal in 2030

Quay No. Berth composition (m) Sub-total (m) Berth No. Water depth (m)
No.1 360 360 720 2 15.5
No.2 240 240 240 240 960 4 12.5
No.3 240 240 480 2 12.5
No.4 360 360 720 2 15.5
No.5 240 240 240 240 960 4 12.5
No.6 240 240 480 2 12.5
No.7 200 200 200 600 3 9
Total (m) 4,920 19
Source: The Study Team

4) Facility Components and a Layout Plan of Cilamaya Terminal

Main components and a facility layout plan of Phases II~III of Cilamaya Terminal are
summarized in Table 4.7-15 (see Figure 4.7-17 and Figure 4.7-18). An access channel to the new
terminal at Cilamaya is shown in Figure 4.9.5. An access road to the new terminal at Cilamaya is
shown in Figure 4.7-19

4-77
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-15 Facility Components of Option-2 (Phases II – III at Cilamaya)

Component Amount
Bottom width (m) 310
Access channel
Water depth (m) 15.5
West Length (m) 360
Northwest Length (m) 720
Breakwaters
Northeast Length (m) 680
East Length (m) 360
Seawalls （Open Sea） Length (m) 4,680
Revetment Length (m) 1,630
Berth number (unit) 2
Berth length (m) 720
No.1 Quay
Water depth (m) 15.5
Container yard (sq. m) 360,000
Berth number 4
Berth length (m) 960
No.2 Quay
Water depth (m) 12.5
Container yard (sq. m) 480,000
Berth number (unit) 2
Berth length (m) 480
No.3 Quay
Water depth (m) 12.5
Apron (sq. m) 24,000
Container Terminal Berth number (unit) 2
Berth length (m) 720
No.4 Quay
Water depth (m) 15.5
Container yard (sq. m) 360,000
Berth number 4
Berth length (m) 960
No.5 Quay
Water depth (m) 12.5
Container yard (sq. m) 480,000
Berth number (unit) 2
Berth length (m) 480
No.6 Quay
Water depth (m) 12.5
Apron (sq. m) 24,000
Berth number (unit) 3
Multi- purpose Berth length (m) 590
No.7 Quay
Terminal Water depth (m) 9
Open yard (sq. m) 147,500
Berth length (m) 1,000
Port service boats basin No.8 Quay
Water depth (m) 4
Land use area (ha) Terminal area total 290
North-South Bridge Length (m) 800
Access Road East-West Bridge Length (m) 150
Land road Length (m) 30,600
Source: Made by the Study Team

4-78
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-17 Location of a New Cilamaya Terminal in Phase II and III (2030)

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-18 Facility Layout Plan of a New Cilamaya Terminal in Phases II and III (2030)

4-79
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Cilamaya Port

Access Road

National road

Kawarang Kawarang
Barat IC Timur IC
IC
SA
Railway
Junction SA

Dawuan JCT

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-19 Access Road to a New Cilamaya Terminal

(3) Phased Implementation Plans of Option-2

Option-2 being composed of the two terminals, viz. North Kalibaru Phase I Terminal and the
Cilamaya Terminal with the target volume of international containers of 9.4 million TEUs in 2030 has
been divided into the three phased implementation plans as shown in Table 4.7-16 (see Figure 4.7-20
and Figure 4.7-21):

4-80
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-16 Balance of Capacity and Demand in Container Handling in Option-2

Unit: ‘000TEUs per annum
International
Container-Handling Capacity
Year North Cilamaya Demand Balance
JCT sub- Total
Kalibaru (B) (A)-(B)
II III total (A)
Phase I
2009 4,850 4,850 2,736 2,114
2010 4,850 4,850 3,167 1,683
2011 4,850 4,850 3,598 1,252
2012 4,850 4,850 4,029 821
2013 4,850 4,850 4,460 390
2014 4,850 4,850 4,890 (40)
2015 4,850 - 4,850 5,321 (471)
2016 4,850 950 950 5,800 5,708 92
2017 4,850 1,900 1,900 6,750 6,095 655
2018 4,850 1,900 1,900 6,750 6,482 268
2019 4,850 1,900 1,300 3,200 8,050 6,869 1,181
2020 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 7,255 1,845
2021 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 7,777 1,323
2022 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 8,299 801
2023 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 8,821 279
2024 4,000 1,900 3,200 1,000 6,100 10,100 9,343 757
2025 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 9,865 3,535
2026 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 10,563 2,837
2027 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 11,261 2,139
2028 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 11,960 1,440
2029 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 12,658 742
2030 4,000 1,900 3,200 4,300 9,400 13,400 13,356 44
Note 1) Jakarta Container Terminal containing JICT KOJA and MAL at Tanjung Priok Terminal
Note 2) MTI and JICT II currently used for international container terminals have been assumed to be converted
into the terminals for domestic containers in 2020 corresponding to the completion of the
redevelopment of the existing conventional berths for domestic container-handling
Source: Estimated by the Study Team

4-81
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

16,000
15,000 Capacity JCT + Kalibaru I + Cilamaya II~III
14,000 Demand
13,000
12,000
JCT + Kalibaru I+ Cilamaya II
'000 TEUs per annum

11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000 JCT + Kalibaru I
7,000
6,000
JCT
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-

Year
Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-20 Capacity and Demand in International Container-Handling at Tanjung Priok

Terminal and Cilamaya Terminal

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-21 Facility Layout Plan of a New Cilamaya Terminal in Phases II (2020)

4-82
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

4.7.3 Development Split to off North Kalibaru and Tangerang (Option-3)

Option-3 with the two terminals has been planned so as to compare with other two options, viz.
Option-1 and Option-2 mentioned in the previous sections, Sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.2, and select the
optimum development plan for international container handling in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area (see
Section 4.6.4). One terminal has been planned off North Kalibaru and the other terminal at Tangerang.

(1) North Kalibaru Terminal

The North Kalibaru Terminal of Option-3 is composed of the three phased plans, viz. Phases I,
II and III. Phases I and II of Option-3 are the same as those of Option-1. Phase III of Option-1 has
been curtailed by 2 million TEUs in terms of container-handling capacity per annum. Then the
curtailed portion has been allocated to Tangerang Terminal so as to keep the same capacity of 9.4
million TEUs per annum in Option-3 in total (see Table 4.7-17).
The Kalibaru Terminal plan of Option-3 has the three alternatives, viz. Alternative-1,
Alternative-2 and Alternative-3 by partly succeeding Option-1 plan. The main components of each
alternative are shown in Table 4.7.24. The respective facility layout plans are shown in Figure 4.7-22 ~
Figure 4.7-24.

Table 4.7-17 Facility Components of Alternative Plans at North Kalibaru (Option-3)

Component Alternative - 1 Alternative - 2 Alternative - 3
Access Bottom width (m) 310 310 310
West
Channels Water depth (m) 15.5 15.5 15.5
Northwest Water depth (m) 15.5 15.5 15.5
Basins
South Water depth (m) 15.5 15.5 15.5
New West Length (m) 2,640 2,640 2,640
Breakwaters North Length (m) 1,580 1,170 580
Seawalls (Open Sea) Length (m) 620 1,130 1,420
Revetment Length (m) 1,440 4,280 2,040
Berth length (m) 1,200 1,200 800
Phase I Water depth (m) 15.5 15.5 15.5
Container yard (ha) 80 80 50
Berth length (m) 2,000 2,000 2,400
Phase II Water depth (m) 15.5 15.5 15.5
Container Container yard (ha) 130 170 180
Terminal Berth length (m) 1,500 1,500 1,500
Phase III Water depth (m) 15.5 15.5 15.5
Container yard (ha) 90 110
Berth length (m) 4,700 4,700 4,700
Master Plan (I~III) Water depth (m) 15.5 15.5 15.5
Container yard (ha) 300 370 340
Land use area (ha) Terminal area total 310 390 350
North-South Bridge Length (m) 1,100 670 1,090
Access Road Land road Length (m) 950 600 420
Eastbound Coastal Bridge Length (m) 10,300 11,020 9,700
Access Road Land road Length (m) 26,400 26,400 26,400
Source: JICA Study Team

4-83
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-22 Facility Layout Plan of North Kalibaru Expansion in 2030 (Alternative-1)

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-23 Facility Layout Plan of North Kalibaru Expansion in 2030 (Alternative-2)

4-84
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-24 Facility Layout Plan of North Kalibaru Expansion in 2030 (Alternative-3)

(2) Tangerang Terminal

1) Required Channel Dimensions

Tangerang Terminal has been planned so as to correspond to a part of Kalibaru III of Option-1.
Thus, the same dimensions of the access channel as those applied in the planning of the entire
Option-1 have been used. The design vessel size of ordinary Post-Panamax container ships with a
capacity of around 6,000 TEUs has also been applied as shown below.
- DWT: 88,000 tons
- TEU Capacity: 5,600 TEUs
- LOA: 320 m
- Beam: 40 m
- Summer draft: 14 m

By using the design vessel size mentioned in the above clause “1)”, the same access channel
dimensions as Option-1 have been determined (see in Table 4.7-18).

4-85
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-18 Dimensions of Planned New Navigational Channel in Tangerang Terminal

Maximum design vessel: Post-Panamax
PIANC Guideline Deviation Angle Method
Beam LOA Beam LOA （A)
Number of （B) m （A) m （B) m m
Lanes Channel Width Channel
（D) m 40.06 318 Width （D) 40.06 318
D/B D/L D/B D/L
One-way 150 3.8 0.5 160 4.0 0.5
Two-way 310 7.8 1.0 320 8.0 1.0
Source: Made by the Study Team

2) Required Berth Dimensions:

Various ship types corresponding to the various berth dimensions necessary for
accommodating them have been considered in the same way in Option-1 and Option-2 (see Table
4.7-12)

3) Berth Allocation Plan

Target Container Volume
As mentioned in the clause “(1)” of this section, two million TEUs per annum has been
allocated to Tangerang Terminal in 2030.
Allocation of Containers by Ship Type
Containers to be handled at Tangerang Terminal in 2030 have been allocated as indicated in
Table 4.7-19.

Table 4.7-19 Allocation of Containers by Ship Type at Tangerang Terminal in 2030

Unit: ‘000TEUs/year
Allocation
Direct/Transshipment Total
Small size Medium size Panamax Post-Panamax
Eastbound Direct 60% 1,200 600 600
Westbound Direct 10% 200 200
Transshipment 30% 600 300 300
Total 100% 2,000 300 900 600 200
Source: Estimated by the Study Team
Berth Allocation Plan
The allocation of container ships by type shown in Table 4.7-19 has been converted into an
economical berth allocation plan composed of the three types of berths with different water depths and
lengths as shown in Table 4.7-20.

4-86
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-20 Berth Composition of Tangerang Terminal in 2030

Quay No. Length (m) Berth No. Water depth (m)
No.1 360 1 15.5
No.2 240 1 12.5
No.3 360 1 15.5
No.4 240 1 125
No.5 320 1 12.5
Total 1,520 5
Source: The Study Team

4) Facility Components and a Layout Plan

Main components and a facility layout plan of Tangerang Terminal are summarized in Table
4.7-21 (see Figure 4.7-25). An access road to the new terminal at Tangerang is shown in Figure 4.7-26.

4-87
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-21 Facility Components of Tangerang Terminal (Option-3)

Component Amount
Bottom width (m) 310
Access channel
Water depth (m) 15.5
West Length (m) 630
Northwest Length (m) 510
Breakwaters
Northeast Length (m) 470
East Length (m) 640
Seawalls （Open Sea） Length (m) 1,860
Revetment Length (m) 2,460
Berth number (unit) 1
Berth length (m) 360
No.1 Quay
Water depth (m) 15.5
Container yard (ha) 20
Berth number 1
Berth length (m) 240
No.2 Quay
Water depth (m) 12.5
Container yard (sq. m) 10
Container Terminal Berth number (unit) 1
Berth length (m) 360
No.3 Quay
Water depth (m) 15.5
Container yard (ha) 20
Berth number (unit) 1
Berth length (m) 240
No.4 Quay
Water depth (m) 12.5
Container yard (ha) 10
Berth number (unit) 1
Multi- purpose Berth length (m) 320
No.5 Quay
Terminal Water depth (m) 9
Open yard (sq. m) 10
Land use area (ha) Terminal area total 100
North-South Bridge Length (m) 420
Access Road
Land road Length (m) 4,600
Source: Made by the Study jTeam

4-88
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-25 Facility Layout Plan of Tangerang Terminal in 2030 (Option-3)

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-26 Access Road to New Container Terminal at Tangerang

4-89
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

(3) Phased Implementation Plans of Option-3

Option-3 being composed of the two terminals, viz. North Kalibaru Phase Terminal and
Tangerang Terminal with the target volume of international containers of 9.4 million TEUs in 2030 has
been divided into the three phased implementation plans as shown in Table 4.7-22 (see Figure 4.7-27):

Table 4.7-22 Balance of Capacity and Demand in Container Handling in Option-3 Plan
Unit: ‘000 TEUs per annum
International
Container-Handling Capacity
Year Demand Balance
JCT North Kalibaru Sub-
Tangerang
total
Total (B) (A)-(B)
Phase I Phase II Phase III
2009 4,850 4,850 2,736 2,114
2010 4,850 4,850 3,167 1,683
2011 4,850 4,850 3,598 1,252
2012 4,850 4,850 4,029 821
2013 4,850 4,850 4,460 390
2014 4,850 4,850 4,890 (40)
2015 4,850 4,850 5,321 (471)
2016 4,850 950 950 5,800 5,708 92
2017 4,850 1,900 1,900 6,750 6,095 655
2018 4,850 1,900 1,900 6,750 6,482 268
2019 4,850 1,900 500 2,400 7,250 6,869 381
2020 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 7,255 1,845
2021 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 7,777 1,323
2022 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 8,299 801
2023 4,000 1,900 3,200 5,100 9,100 8,821 279
2024 4,000 1,900 3,200 1,000 2,000 8,100 12,100 9,343 2,757
2025 4,000 1,900 3,200 2,300 2,000 9,400 13,400 9,865 3,535
2026 4,000 1,900 3,200 2,300 2,000 9,400 13,400 10,563 2,837
2027 4,000 1,900 3,200 2,300 2,000 9,400 13,400 11,261 2,139
2028 4,000 1,900 3,200 2,300 2,000 9,400 13,400 11,960 1,440
2029 4,000 1,900 3,200 2,300 2,000 9,400 13,400 12,658 742
2030 4,000 1,900 3,200 2,300 2,000 9,400 13,400 13,356 44
Note 1) Jakarta Container Terminal containing JICT KOJA and MAL at Tanjung Priok Terminal
Note 2) MTI and JICT II currently used for international container terminals have been assumed to be converted
into the terminals for domestic containers in 2020 corresponding to the completion of the redevelopment
of the existing conventional berths for domestic container-handling
Source: Estimated by the Study Team

4-90
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

16,000
15,000 Ca pa city
14,000 Demand
13,000
12,000
11,000
'000 TEUs per annum

10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-

Year
Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-27 Capacity and Demand in International Container-Handling at Tanjung Priok

Terminal and Tangerang Terminal (Option-3)

4.7.4 Comparison of the three Options and Selection of the Optimum Option
In this section, the above-mentioned three options, Option-1, Option-2 and Option-3 have been
compared with each other from the points which have not yet been compared or have not necessarily
described in detail in the stage of the above-mentioned screening.
Each option plan has three alternative plans, and hence nine plans in total have been made. In
the first step of the comparison, differences between the three options have solely been taken into
account rather than differences between alternatives among each option.
In the second step of the comparison, after selecting the optimum option plan out of the three
options, three alternative plans of the selected option have been compared and the optimum alternative
plan out of three alternatives of the optimum option plan have finally been selected.
When comparing construction costs between the three options in the first step, the least cost
among three alternatives of each option has been used as a representative cost for the comparison.
Main points to evaluate the three options are as follows. Environmental points are described in
Chapter 7 in detail.

(1) Rice field conservancy

In all the cases new port access roads need to be constructed together with construction of port
facilities. In all options, access road constructions will be accompanied by the conversion of current
land use from rice field to road to a certain extent against the governmental policy of rice field
conservation.

4-91
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

(2) Resettlement and land use alteration

A planned access road route of Option-2 runs local residential areas as well as rice field and
consequently will be accompanied resettlement to comparatively larger extent than Option-1 of which
route is planned to run along the river bank and Option-3 with a shorter length of planned access road
to Tangerang Terminal.

(3) Narrowing the gap of socio-economic disparity

Gross Regional Products (GRP) per capita in Kabupaten Karawan where Option-2 is planned
and Kabupaten Tangerang where Option-3 is partly planned are much less than that of DKI Jakarta.
The fact results the difference of the effect for narrowing the gap of regional disparity.

(4) Influence of container traffic to the new container terminal on road traffic congestion within
JABODETABEK
Currently, road traffic within JABODETABEK area is being incurred by serious road
congestion, getting worse year by year.
Even if the new access road is realized in Option-1 and Option-3, it is predicted that the
congestion within JABODETABEK toll road will be accelerated due to further concentration of port
activities to Tanjung Priok Terminal. That means a negative factor to JABODETABEK toll road
congestion.
On the other hand, in the case of Option-2, an access road to Cilamaya has been planned
independent from JABODETABEK road network. Thus it has been judged that Option-2 could
alleviate traffic congestion in JABODETABEK due to decentralization of port activities.

(5) Natural environment

Within the coast of Kabupaten Karawan, there is some coral reef. Thus, in Option-2, port
facility construction has to pay due attention not to exert any influence on their habitation. On the
other hand, coral reef is not found in and around the planned project sites of other Options, Option-1
and Option-3.

(6) Impact on fishery

Option-2 and Option-3 will eliminate fishing grounds by reclamation for creating land for port
facilities. In Option-1 off North Kalibaru coordination with fishing activities needs to be
considered.

(7) Construction cost

Total construction costs including superstructure of Options-1 to -3 have been estimated as
shown in Table 4.7-23. The estimated costs include both construction costs of port facilities and port
access roads.

4-92
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-23 Estimated Construction Costs of Options (Unit: Billion Rp.)

Option -1 Option -2 Option -3
Marine Terminal 37,019 34,114 39,275
Access Road 12,455 3,178 12,859
Total 49,474 37,292 52,134

(8) Economic feasibility

Present Value of aggregated construction cost and transportation cost of each development
option is shown in Table 4.7-24, and Option - 2 has the minimum cost. Therefore, based on the cost
minimum approach Option 2 is the best choice from the economic view point.
The resulting EIRR of the Option 2 was 46.2%.

Table 4.7-24 Estimated Costs of Options

Option -1 Option -2 Option -3
25,700 Billion Rp. 20,558 Billion Rp. 26,714 Billion Rp.
125 100 130

A comparison matrix on a quantitative basis by scoring each item has been made to facilitate
the comparison (see Table 4.7-25 ~ Table 4.7-27).
So as to evaluate comparison items quantitatively, the respective quantitative indices have been
used as well as weights by comparison item. Then scores have been given to the respective options by
comparison item. In the evaluation by item and option, scores in the range from “1” to “3” have been
given. “3”, “2” and “1” mean high, medium and low. Each score has been given according to the
quantitative index shown in the tables.
Then, each score has been multiplied the corresponding weight of which summation has been
adjusted to be 100%. Thus, the maximum possible score should be “3”.
In putting weights, the three cases have been examined. The first one is the case in which
solving the current overconcentration to the JABODETABEK area and simultaneously narrowing the
socio-economic disparity between the area and its periphery areas through the regional development
are given priority. The weights of the items contributing to the solution to the problems mentioned
above (Economic items) have been given 70% in total, whereas the remaining items (Natural items),
30% in total as shown in Table 4.7-25. As shown in the table, Option-2 has obtained the highest score
of “2.5”, followed by Option-1 with the score of “1.8” and Option-3 with the score of 1.6.
Although the Option-2 with the highest score in the former case has some negative impacts on
the natural environment at its project site, it has been judged that the supposed impacts could be
mitigated by adequate measures to the extent that the activities relating to the new port, and human
livings and natural environment including fauna and flora peripheral to the project site could co-exist.
The necessary mitigation measures, if any, will be revealed through the EIA in the feasibility study to
be implemented after this.
The second one is the case in which merely preserving environment at the project site
disregarding the problems of the overconcentration to the JABODETABEK area and regional disparity
is given priority. The weights of the items contributing to the environmental preservation mentioned
above (Natural items) have been given 70% in total, whereas the remaining items (Economic items),
30% in total as shown in Table 4.7-26. As shown in the table, Option-1 has obtained the highest score
of “2.3”, followed by Option-3 with the score of “2.0” and Option-2 with the score of 1.8.”.

4-93
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

The third one is the case in which equal weights are put on the Natural Items and Economic
Items mentioned above. (Natural items) have been given 50% in total, whereas the remaining items
(Economic items), 50% in total as shown in Table 4.7-27. As shown in the table, Option-2 has
obtained the highest score of “2.1”, followed by Option-1 with the score of “2.0” and Option-3 with
the score of 1.8.”.
Through the measurement of the sensitivity of weights of the category, viz. economic items
and natural items, Option-2 obtained the highest scores twice, viz. in the first case and the third case
among the above three cases. In the second case, although Option-2 obtained the lowest score, it has
been judged that its anticipated negative impacts on the natural environment at its project site could be
mitigated by adequate measures as mentioned above. From the above, Option-2 has been selected as
the optimum plan.

Table 4.7-25 Weight with Solving Overconcentration to JABODETABEK and Contributing

Regional Development
Category Comparison Item Weight QuantitativeIndex for comparison Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Narrowing the gap of socio- GRDP per capita ('000 Rp.) 56 15 43
23.3%
economic disparity Score 1 3 2
Container traffic volume to/from
Influence of container
JABODETABEK area from/to
traffic to the new container
Economic Items Bekasi-Karawang industrial estates 13.8 4.3 13.8
terminal on road traffic 23.3%
(Weight: 70%) in the year of 2030 (passenger car
congestion within
unit (pcu) per day)
JABODETABEK
Score 1 3 1
tillion Rp. 49 37 52
Construction cost 23.3%
Score 2 3 1
Area of rice field to be altered to
56 72 65
Rice field conservancy 7.5% land for road (ha)
Score 3 1 2

Building to be removed for road About About About

Resettlement and land use
7.5% construction 160 160 160
alteration
Natural Items Score 2 2 2
(Weight: 30%) Distance from the nearest coral
Natural environment far 2 far
7.5% reef (km)
(coral reef)
Score 3 1 3
Area of fishing grounds to be
disappered for port construction (sq. 0.3 14 6
Impact on fishery 7.5%
km)
Score 3 1 2
Weight Total 100.0% Total score multiplied by weight 1.8 2.5 1.6
Source: Study Team
Note) Numbers of building to be removed for road construction are excluding Phase I project at North Kalibaru.

4-94
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-26 Weight with Preserving Environment at the Project Site

Category Comparison Item Weight QuantitativeIndex for comparison Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Area of rice field to be altered to
56 72 65
Rice field conservancy 17.5% land for road (ha)
Score 3 1 2

Building to be removed for road About About About

Resettlement and land use
17.5% construction 160 160 160
alteration
Natural Items Score 2 2 2
(Weight: 70%) Distance from the nearest coral
Natural environment far 2 far
17.5% reef (km)
(coral reef)
Score 3 1 3
Area of fishing grounds to be
disappered for port construction (sq. 0.3 14 6
Impact on fishery 17.5%
km)
Score 3 1 2
Narrowing the gap of socio- GRDP per capita ('000 Rp.) 56 15 43
10.0%
economic disparity Score 1 3 2
Container traffic volume to/from
Influence of container
JABODETABEK area from/to
traffic to the new container
Economic Items Bekasi-Karawang industrial estates 13.8 4.3 13.8
terminal on road traffic 10.0%
(Weight: 30%) in the year of 2030 (passenger car
congestion within
unit (pcu) per day)
JABODETABEK
Score 1 3 1
tillion Rp. 49 37 52
Construction cost 10.0%
Score 2 3 1
Weight Total 100% Total score multiplied by weight 2.3 1.8 2.0
Source: Study Team
Note) Numbers of building to be removed for road construction are excluding Phase I project at North Kalibaru.

4-95
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-27 Equal Weights on Economic Items and Natural Items

Category Comparison Item Weight QuantitativeIndex for comparison Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Narrowing the gap of socio- GRDP per capita ('000 Rp.) 56 15 43
16.7%
economic disparity Score 1 3 2
Container traffic volume to/from
Influence of container
JABODETABEK area from/to
traffic to the new container
Economic Items Bekasi-Karawang industrial estates 13.8 4.3 13.8
terminal on road traffic 16.7%
(Weight: 50%) in the year of 2030 (passenger car
congestion within
unit (pcu) per day)
JABODETABEK
Score 1 3 1
tillion Rp. 49 37 52
Construction cost 16.7%
Score 2 3 1
Area of rice field to be altered to
56 72 65
Rice field conservancy 12.5% land for road (ha)
Score 3 1 2

Building to be removed for road About About About

Resettlement and land use
12.5% construction 160 160 160
alteration
Natural Items Score 2 2 2
(Weight: 50%) Distance from the nearest coral
Natural environment far 2 far
12.5% reef (km)
(coral reef)
Score 3 1 3
Area of fishing grounds to be
disappered for port construction (sq. 0.3 14 6
Impact on fishery 12.5%
km)
Score 3 1 2
Weight Total 100.0% Total score multiplied by weight 2.0 2.1 1.8
Source: Study Team
Note) Numbers of building to be removed for road construction are excluding Phase I project at North Kalibaru.

4.7.5 Comparison of the three Alternatives of Option-2 Selected as the Optimum Option and
the Selection of the Optimum Alternative
The selected Option-2 is divided into the three phased plans, viz. Phase I planned at North
Kalibaru with three alternatives and Phase II and III planned at Cilamaya without alternatives. Hence,
the three alternatives of North Kalibaru Phase I of Option-2 have been compared with each other from
the various points (see Table 4.7-28).
According to the table, Alternative-2 has the minimum negative factors, while Alternative-3
has a large number of negative factors. As to the project cost, Alternative-3 indicates the highest
project cost, followed by Alternative-2 and then Alternative-1.
By comparing Alternative-1 and Alternative-2, although the two alternatives have their
comparative advantages and disadvantages, it has been judged that there are no decisive differences
affecting the selection.

4-96
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-28 The Results of Comparison between Alternatives at North Kalibaru Phase I
(Optoin-2)

Assesment Items Alternative-1 Alternative-2 Alternative-3

In Phase I, the direction of In Phase I, the direction of In Phase I, the direction of
the inner access channel is the inner access channel is the inner access channel is
parallel to berth line and parallel to berth line and perpendicular to berth line
ensures safe maneuverability ensures safe maneuverability and is not aligned to one side
Navigational Safety of a ship of a ship f the berth, and therefore it is
not preferable in view of
safety maneuverability of a
ship.

Consistent Consistent In the stage of Phase III, the

breakwater of the project to
Consistency with Urgent
be constructed will be
Rehabilitation Project
removed.

Obstacle to navigation No obstacle to the existing No obstacle to the existing Fishing boats have to go
of fishing boats navigation. navigation. around due to the new
terminal.

Elimination of Fishing ground will be Fishing ground will be A part of shallow fishing
fishing ground secured. secured. ground for shell aquaculture
will be eliminated.

Impact on water Water exchange will be Water exchange will be Water stagnation may cause
quality within the port secured to prevent water secured to prevent water degradation of water quality.
basins quality degradation. quality degradation.

Strategic
Impact on smell Reclamation for new Reclamation for new Water quality degradation
Environmental
within the port area terminal will not cause water terminal will not cause water may cause bad smell.
Assessment
quality degradation, which quality degradation, which
may cause bad smell. may cause bad smell.

Involuntary Tens of residential houses are Resettlement is not required Warehouses and tens of
resettlement required to be resettled for for utilizing the existing residential houses are
the access road. road. required to be resettled for
the access road.

Impact on noise, Residents along the access No residents along the Residents along the access
vibration and safety road will be affected. planed access road road will be affected.
along port access road
at Kalibaru

Marine
8,230 9,125 10,949
Terminal
Project cost Access
Phase I 594 464 571
(Billion Rp.) Road

Total 8,824 9,589 11,520

Note (1): Negative factor

For comparison on equal basis, berth length of Alternative-3 is adjusted to 1,200m,
Note (2):
the same as Alternatives-1 and 2
Source: Made by the Study Team

Corresponding to items in the comparison matrix on a descriptive basis, an additional

comparison matrix on a quantitative basis by scoring each item has been made to facilitate the
comparison (see Table 4.7-29). As shown in the table, alternative-1 has obtained the highest score of
“2.5”, followed by Alternative-2 with the score of “2.4”. Thus, Alternative-1 has been selected as the
optimum plan. In this regard, there are no decisive differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
in scores and Alternative 2 has an advantage over Alternative 1 in Involuntary Resettlement.

4-97
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.7-29 Comparison Matrix on a Quantitative Basis by Scoring

Assessment Items Alternative-1 Alternative-2 Alternative-3

Navigational Safety 3 1 1
Necessity of the mainenance dredging in the second
3 1 3
channel

Consistency with Urgent Rehabilitation Project 3 3 1

Obstacle to navigation of fishing

3 2 1
boats

Elimination of fishing ground 3 3 1

Strategic Impact on water quality within the

3 3 1
Environmental port basins
Assessment
Impact on smell within the port area 2 3 1

Involuntary resettlement 1 3 1
Impact on noise, vibration and safety
1 3 1
along port access road at Kalibaru
Project cost 3 2 1
Weight Total 2.5 2.4 1.2
Source: Made by the Study Team

4-98
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Container Terminal at North Kalibaru Container Terminal at Cilamaya

Cilamaya Port

Access
Road
National
road

Kawarang Barat IC

IC
Kawarang
Timur IC SA Railway
SA
Junction
Dawuan JCT

Access Road to Cilamaya Terminal

Source: Made by the Study Team

Figure 4.7-28 Composition of Project Components of Option-2 with Alternative-1

4.8 Development of Terminals for Domestic Containers and Conventional cargoes

In this section, long-term development plan for handling domestic containers and conventional
cargoes at Tanjung Priok Terminal has been studied so as to meet the increasing demand for those
cargoes towards the future and also the requirement of transfer of petroleum as typical dangerous
cargoes and dusty bulk cargoes such as coal, sand and clinker away from the existing terminal areas in
the vicinity of urban areas.

4.8.1 Summary of the volumes of cargoes to be handled in the stage of the Master Plan in
2030
In Table 4.8-1, the volumes of all kinds of cargoes including domestic containers and
conventional cargoes in 2009 are shown. In addition, in Table 4.8-2, the estimated volumes of cargoes
in the stage of the Master Plan with a target year of 2030 are shown based on the demand forecast
mentioned in Section 4.2.

4-99
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.8-1 Handling Volume of Cargoes at Tanjung Priok Terminal in 2009

Unit: MT
2009
Import and Domestic Unloading Export and Domestic Loading
Cargo Item Total
International Domestic Sub-total International Intra-Indonesi Sub-total
Containers (TEUs) 1,374,292 514,612 1,888,904 1,361,708 553,700 1,915,408 3,804,312
Vehicle 90,348 14,553 104,901 62,632 102,881 165,513 270,414
Cattle 259,593 259,593 - 259,593
Wheat 1,941,612 395 1,942,007 12,796 12,796 1,954,803
flour - 61,242 61,242 61,242
rice 74,758 3,300 78,058 - 78,058
rice bran - 226,300 9,000 235,300 235,300
Sand 80,961 1,774,600 1,855,561 - 1,855,561
Construction material - 4,552 4,552 4,552
Lumber 4,017 4,017 - 4,017
Cement in bulk 2,044 770,544 772,588 469,072 554,739 1,023,811 1,796,399
Cement in bag - 52,772 52,772 72,500 885,799 958,299 1,011,071
Clinker - 1,357,900 1,950 1,359,850 1,359,850
Gypsum 549,586 62,541 612,127 - 612,127
Sulfur 185,115 185,115 - 185,115
Coal 3,219,781 3,219,781 - 3,219,781
Mineral 16,822 112,552 129,374 - 129,374
Quartz sand 119,500 119,500 - 119,500
Slag 47,686 47,686 - 47,686
Salt 44,100 44,100 - 44,100
Fertilizer 23,955 1,000 24,955 6,900 32,952 39,852 64,807
Maize 16,500 16,500 - 16,500
Petroleum products 2,241,925 1,959,439 4,201,364 57,130 30,109 87,239 4,288,603
LPG 786,677 786,677 - 786,677
Lubricant oil 183,262 183,262 - 183,262
High Speed Doesel 51,512 51,512 43,220 51,512
Chemical product 401,607 4,912 406,519 - 406,519
Chemical product DKP 209,811 195,087 404,898 - 404,898
Vegetable oil 5,010 1,584,302 1,589,312 35,760 35,760 1,625,072
Vegetable fats 10,402 10,402 18,251 29,950 48,201 58,603
Bo-diesel 41,097 41,097 - 41,097
Iron and steel product 2,441,264 5,759 2,447,023 225,555 143,838 369,393 2,816,416
Aluminium 42,738 65,626 108,364 - 108,364
Scrap 255,795 6,725 262,520 - 262,520
Pulp 202,410 667,560 869,970 - 869,970
GC 114,161 66,404 180,565 83,774 416,637 500,411 680,976
GC + CNT 176,468 72,610 249,078 85,692 228,318 314,010 563,088
GC + cement - 84,126 84,126 84,126
Project material - 2,638 12,397 15,035 15,035
Machinery and equipment 51,653 34,403 86,056 8,124 90,375 98,499 184,555
Parts and components - 2,887 5,586 8,473 8,473
Plywood and particleboard 11,076 122,569 133,645 - 133,645
Textile - 62,200 62,200 62,200
miscellaneous 24,082 107,347 131,429 2,200 8,861 11,061 142,490
Frozen fish 941 941 - 941
Total excluding non-MT units 9,687,049 11,926,219 21,613,268 2,721,867 2,816,976 5,538,843 27,152,111
Note: Containers: Intra-Indonesian Islands
Soure: Vessel Berting Records probided by Pelindo 2

4-100
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.8-2 Forecast Volumes of Cargoes Handled at Tanjung Priok Terminal in 2030
Unit: MT
2030
Import and Domestic Unloading Export and Domestic Loading
Cargo Item Total
International Domestic Sub-total International Intra-Indonesi Sub-total
Containers (TEUs) 6,678,000 2,191,000 8,869,000 6,678,000 2,191,000 8,869,000 17,738,000
Vehicle 314,000 23,933 337,933 185,000 169,195 354,195 692,128
Cattle 485,502 - 485,502 - - - 485,502
Wheat 3,631,290 739 3,632,029 - 23,932 23,932 3,655,960
Flour - - - - 114,538 114,538 114,538
Rice 139,816 6,172 145,988 - - - 145,988
Wheat bran - - - 423,236 16,832 440,069 440,069
Sand 332,090 7,279,146 7,611,236 - - - 7,611,236
Construction material - - - 18,672 - 18,672 18,672
Lumber 5,647 - 5,647 - - - 5,647
Cement in bulk 4,835 1,822,858 1,827,694 1,109,673 1,312,333 2,422,006 4,249,700
Cement in bag - 124,842 124,842 171,512 2,095,515 2,267,026 2,391,868
Clinker - - - 3,212,353 4,613 3,216,966 3,216,966
Gypsum 1,300,143 147,952 1,448,095 - - - 1,448,095
Sulfur 468,552 - 468,552 - - - 468,552
Coal - 6,118,629 6,118,629 - - - 6,118,629
Mineral 42,579 284,885 327,464 - - - 327,464
Quartz sand 302,471 - 302,471 - - - 302,471
Slag 120,700 - 120,700 - - - 120,700
Salt 111,623 - 111,623 - - - 111,623
Fertilizer 60,633 2,531 63,165 17,465 83,406 100,871 164,036
Maize 30,859 - 30,859 - - - 30,859
Petroleum products 2,161,517 1,889,162 4,050,679 55,081 29,029 84,110 4,134,789
LPG - 758,462 758,462 - - - 758,462
Lubricant oil - 176,689 176,689 - - - 176,689
High Speed Doesel 49,664 - 49,664 - 41,670 41,670 91,334
Chemical product 387,203 4,736 391,939 - - - 391,939
Chemical product DKP 202,286 188,090 390,376 - - - 390,376
Vegetable oil 7,856 2,484,426 2,492,283 56,077 - 56,077 2,548,360
Vegetable fats - 16,312 16,312 28,620 46,966 75,586 91,898
Bio-diesel - 39,623 39,623 - - - 39,623
Iron and steel product 3,174,608 7,489 3,182,097 293,311 187,046 480,357 3,662,454
Aluminium 55,576 85,340 140,916 - - - 140,916
Scrap 332,635 8,745 341,380 - - - 341,380
Pulp 284,550 938,463 1,223,013 - - - 1,223,013
GC 187,746 109,206 296,952 137,772 685,188 822,960 1,119,912
GC + CNT 290,214 119,412 409,626 140,926 375,485 516,411 926,037
GC + cement - - - - 138,351 138,351 138,351
Project material - - - 4,338 20,388 24,726 24,726
Machinery and equipment 84,946 56,578 141,524 13,360 148,628 161,988 303,513
Parts and components - - - 4,748 9,186 13,934 13,934
Plywood and particleboard 15,571 172,309 187,880 - - - 187,880
Textile - - - - 102,292 102,292 102,292
Miscellaneous 39,604 176,539 216,144 3,618 14,573 18,191 234,335
Frozen fish 1,760 - 1,760 - - - 1,760
Total excluding non-MT units 14,626,478 23,043,269 37,669,747 5,875,763 5,619,164 11,494,927 49,164,675
Note: Containers: Intra-Indonesian Islands
Soure: Vessel Berting Records probided by Pelindo 2

4-101
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

4.8.2 Required Access Channel Dimensions

The representative principal dimensions of large petroleum product tankers and bulk carriers
which have a possibility of calling at new bulk berths to be developed off North Kalibaru have been
considered.
Then required dimensions of an access channel for receiving the above-mentioned large
products tankers or bulk carriers have been estimated as below.

(1) Required Channel Dimensions for Petroleum Products Tankers

Correlation between DWT and principal dimensions of petroleum product tankers are shown in
Figure 4.8-1 ~ Figure 4.8-3. In those figures, all the ships currently in operations worldwide are
covered.
52.0
Beam Length
50.0
y=bx^a+c
48.0

46.0 44m

44.0

42.0
Beam Length (m)

40.0 Ａｆｒａmax：
38.0 80,000～
120000DW
36.0

34.0 32.2m

32.0 Panamax：
28m 40,000～
30.0 Handy-size：
25,000～
28.0 45,000DWT
26.0

24.0
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
DWT
Source: Compiled by the Study Team based on the data from Fairplay

Figure 4.8-1 Correlation between DWT-Beam Length in Products Tankers

4-102
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

15.5
16.0
m
Summer Draft
14.5m
y=bx^a+c

14.0
Summer Draft (m)

Panamax：
Ａｆｒａmax：
12.5m 40,000～
80,000～
80,000DWT
120000DW
T
12.0

Handy-size：
25,000～
10.0
45,000DWT

8.0
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
DWT
Source: Compiled by the Study Team based on the data from Fairplay

Figure 4.8-2 Correlation between DWT-Summer Draft in Products Tankers

LOA
y=bx^a+c
250 m

250.0

230 m
Ａｆｒａmax：
80,000～
120000DW
LOA (m)

Panamax： T
40,000～
200m 80,000DWT
200.0

Handy-size：
25,000～
45,000DWT

150.0
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
DWT
Source: Compiled by the Study Team based on the data from Fairplay

Figure 4.8-3 Correlation between DWT-LOA in Products Tankers

As shown in Figure 4.8-1 ~ Figure 4.8-3, Aframax-type is the largest type out of petroleum
products tanker followed by Panamax-type. Representative principal dimensions of Aframax-type and
Panamax-type petroleum products Tankers are summarized in Table 4.8-3.

4-103
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.8-3 Representative Principal Dimensions of Products Tankers

Vessel type DWT Draft (m) LOA (m) Beam (m)
Aframax-type 120,000 15.5 250 44.0
Panamax-type 80,000 14.0 230 32.2
Source: Estimated by the Study Team

Currently Panamax-type and handy-size petroleum products tankers call at the petroleum
berths in Tanjung Priok Terminal. Due to the restriction of water depths under 10 m along berths of
Pertamina, even medium sized Panamax-type tankers cannot enter under full-draft as shown in Table
4.8-4 in which comparatively large tankers are listed.

Table 4.8-4 Samples of Products Tankers Calling at Petroleum Berths in Tanjung Priok
Terminal in 2009
Entering Draft Beam
Vessel type DWT Summer Draft (m) LOA (m)
(m) (m)
Panamax-type 53,600 13.0 8.7 186 32.2
Handy-size 41,500 11.8 8.5 182 30.0
Source: Pelindo II

The purpose of setting up a new petroleum terminal is to transfer the existing petroleum
terminal operations to the new terminal with a view to keeping some distance between its tank farms
and densely-populated urban areas. By taking account of the fact that major consumption areas of
petroleum products are considered to be the so-called JABODETABEK area, and that petroleum
products are typically dangerous cargoes in terms of stevedoring operations, storage and
delivery/distributing by land, off North Kalibaru has been considered to be almost the only site for the
setting up of the new terminal.
As mentioned in the previous sections, “Section 4.7.5”, a part of off North Kalibaru waters area
has been already occupied by the new international container terminal plan in the so-called “North
Kalibaru Phase I plan”. Thus, the new petroleum terminal has been planned to the west of the North
Kalibaru container terminal site on land to be created by reclamation as well as the new container
terminal.
With a view to receiving Post-Panamax type container ships, a new access channel with a
water depth of 15.5 m and a width of 310 m has already been proposed in Section 4.7.1 (2).
From the above, so as to save investment costs as much as possible Panamax-type has been
applied for the design vessel size for the petroleum terminal. Required channel widths for
Panamax-type products tankers are shown in Table 4.8-5. The required water depth for the ships has
been estimated to be 15.5 meters. Thus, an additional investment in the access channel is not required
for receiving petroleum tankers.

4-104
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.8-5 Required Dimensions of an Access Channel for Panamax-type Tankers

Maximum design vessel: Panamax-type Products Tankers
PIANC Guideline Deviation Angle Method
Beam LOA Beam LOA （A)
Number of （B) m （A) m （B) m m
Lanes Channel Width Channel
（D) m 32.2 230 Width （D) 32.2 230
D/B D/L D/B D/L
One-way 120 3.8 0.5 120 3.6 0.5
Two-way 250 7.8 1.1 230 7.0 1.0
Source: Made by the Study Team

(2) Required Channel Dimensions for Bulk Carriers

Taking account of types of bulk cargoes such as clinker and gypsum which will be potentially
handled at a new bulk terminal to be placed off-shore within Tanjung Priok Terminal, suitable vessel
type has been considered to be Panamax-type rather than larger type of Cape-size bulk carriers. The
representative principal dimensions of Panamax-type bulk carriers and corresponding dimensions of
required port facilities have been summarized in Table 4.8-6.

Table 4.8-6 Representative Principal Dimensions of Panamax-type Bulk Carriers

Vessel type DWT Draft (m) LOA (m) Beam (m)
Panamax-type 80,000 13.0 240 32.2
Source: Estimated by the Study Team

The purpose of setting up a new bulk terminal is to transfer the stevedoring operations of dust
cargoes such as clinker, gypsum, coal and sand at the existing conventional wharves to the new bulk
terminal with a view to keeping some distance between the new terminal and densely-populated urban
areas.
By taking account of the fact that major consumption areas of the said bulk cargoes are
considered to be the so-called JABODETABEK area, off North Kalibaru has been considered to be a
possible site for the setting up of the new bulk terminal as well as the new petroleum terminal.
As mentioned in the previous clause “1)”, a part of off North Kalibaru waters area has been
already occupied by the new international container and petroleum terminals, and hence the bulk
terminal has been planned on the west of the North Kalibaru container terminal site and on the east of
the new petroleum terminal site.
Required channel width for Panamax-type bulk carriers is shown in Table 4.8-7. The required
water depth for Panamax-type bulk carriers has been estimated to be 14.5 meters (see Table 4.8-6).

4-105
MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS
IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA (JICA)
FINAL REPORT

Table 4.8-7 Required Dimensions of an Access Channel for Panamax-type Bulk Carriers
Maximum design vessel: Panamax-type bulk carriers
PIANC Guideline Deviation Angle Method
Beam LOA Beam LOA （A)
Number of （B) m （A) m （B) m m
Lanes Channel Width Channel
（D) m 32.20 240 Width （D) 32.2 240
D/B D/L D/B D/L
One-way 120 3.8 0.5 120 3.8 0.5
Two-way 250 7.8 1.0 250 7.8 1.0
Source: Made by the Study Team

4.8.3 Required Dimensions of New off-shore Berths within Tanjung Priok Terminal

(1) Petroleum Products Tankers

To accommodate the design vessel mentioned in Table 4.8-3, the following berth dimensions
are required:
- Berth length: 270 m
- Water depth: -15.5 m

(2) Bulk Carriers for Clinker and Gypsum

To accommodate the design vessel mentioned in Table 4.8-6, the following berth dimensions
are required:
- Berth length: 270 m
- Water depth: -15 m

(3) Barges for Coal

To accommodate barges for coal, the following berth dimensions are required:
- Berth length: 120 m
- Water depth: -6 m

(4) Barges for Sand

To accommodate barges for sand, the following berth dimensions are required:
- Berth length: 100 m
- Water depth: -3 m

4-106