LINER SHIPPING ROUTE STUDY

FINAL REPORT

VOLUME V

EASTERN VISAYAS SHIPPING SERVICES

EVALUATION REPORT

November 1994

Submitted toUnited States Agency for International Development Manila, Philippines

Support for Development Program II:

Philippine Sea Transport Consultancy

Project No. 492-0450

Prepared'by Nathan Associates Inc.under Contract No. 492-0450-C-00-2157-00

FOREWORD

The Liner Shipping Route Study (LSRS) andSHIPPERCON STUDY the MARINA and(MARSH Study) were conducted, during 1993-1994,under the Philippine Sea Transport Consultancy (PSTC). The FinalReport of the LSRS comprises 14 volumes and the Final Report of theMARSH Study comprises 5 volumes.

This technical assistance was made possible through thesupport provided by the Office of Program Economics, United StatesAgency for International Development (USA1D) MissionPhilippines. in theThe views, expressions and opinions contained in thisand other volumes of LSRS Final Report are those of the authors andof Nathan Associates, and do not necessarily reflect the views ofUSAID.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number 1. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1

Introduction Summary of Findings 1 3

Samar 3

Cargo Services Passenger Services

3 5

Leyt e 6

Cargo Services Passenger Services

6 7

2. EASTERN VISAYAS VISAYAS LINER SHIPPING & FERRY SERVICES 11

Introduction Shipping Operators, Routes & Vessels Route Capacity Analysis

11 12 21

3. CARGO SERVICES EVALUATION 25

Introduction Ports & Cargo Traffic

25 25

Samar Leyte Island

25 28

Adequacy of Appropriate Cargo Service Capacity and Linkages 38

Major Commodities Principal Routes

38 41

Cargo Service Standards 43

Major Commodities 43 Principal Routes 45

Charges for Cargo Services 47

4. PASSENGER SERVICES EVALUATION 51

Introduction 51 Passenger Traffic 51

Samar 51 Leyte 51

Passenger Service Standards 56 Passenger Service Fares 75

5. FACTORS AFFECTING SERVICE ADEQUACY 79

Introduction 79 Liner Shipping Servicne & Rate Regulation 79

80Port Limitations & Operating Problems

Market Characteristics &

Shipper-related Problems 82 Level of Competition &

Liner Operator Problems 83

6. APPROACH TO IMPROVING SERVICE ADEQUACY 85

85General Assessment & Approach

Deregulation 86

Cargo Rate for Rice 86 Ferry Schedule Flexibility 87

Tacloban Port

Port Development & Operations Improvement 87

87 Guiuan Port 89

Liner Shipping Route Franchising 89

ANNEX A

Results of Eastern Visayas Cargo Surveys

ANNEX B

Eastern Visayas Passenger Survey Results

1. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Introduction

The terms of reference (TOP)Study (LSRS) specify, as one for the Liner Shipping Routeobjective of the study,shall "survey and review the that the LSPS

services, adequacy of existing liner shippineincluding ferry services, in the Philippines, andidentify priorities for new ...franchises and franchise amendmentsprovide toexpanded services, new types of services,standards nd betterof service". The workscope section of thethat, TOP states"The LSRS must identify, from shipping operators reportsoperations, onfrom SHIPPERCON records, andinterviews with users of cargo

from extensive fieldand passenger liner services, thestandards of services being performed on each liner shipping route,including especially the availability of appropriateconvenience of services,schedule, service reliability, passenger care andcomfort standards, and safety considerations. .. ". The TOR go onstate that, "current low service standards, as well as high to

factors, annually loador seasonally, are to be criteria by which theLSRS will identify needs for increasing service frequency,including just seasonal frequency increases, and for approving newroute franchises".

The TOR also identify the limitsregarding shipping of LSRS responsibilityservice evaluation stating that,expected that the "It is notLSRS will recommend precise adjustmentsservice schedules, tobut merely will indicate where,approximate extent and theto which, service schedule flexibility should beincorporated in existing and new route franchises, and toapproximately, indicate,the new route franchises that should be approvedduring the cargo rate deregulation period, i.e., 1993-1996",further that, and"It will subsequently be the responsibility of MARINAto invite applications for new or expanded services, and then toevaluate applications received...".

To carry out the shipping service evaluation portion ofLSRS workscope, the LSRS divided the areas the to be surveyed into sixgroups:

i Northern Islands. The areas surveyed include the islandsof Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon, Tablas, Sibuyan,Masbate, and Catanduanes, and survey portsprincipal ports include theof these islands, as wellports as the Luzonof Manila, Batangas, Lucena (Dalahican), Tabaco,

and Legaspi.

i Eastern Visayas. This survey area is Region VIII of thePhilippines, and ports where LSRS surveys were conductedincluded Tacloban and Catbalogan.

Central & Western Visayas. This area corresponds toRegions VI and VII. LSRS survey ports included Cebu,Iloilo, San Jose De Buenavista, Dumaguit, New Washington,Culasi, Bacolod, Dumaguete, San Carlos, Tagbilaran, and

the ports of Guimaras Island.

- Northern Mindanao. This area approximately correspondsto Region X and the northern provinces of Region XII,includes the survey ports and

of Cagayan de Oro, Surigao,

Nasipi t, 1Iigan , and 0amis.

- Southern Mindanao. This area approximately correspondsto Region XI, the southern provinces of Region XII,the mainland provinces of the Autonomous Region of and

MuslimMindanao (ARMM), and includes the survey ports of Davao,General Santos, and Cotabato/Polloc.

Zamboanga & Sulu Archipelago. Thi, area includes theARMM offshore provinces of Sulu and Tawi Tawi, BasilanIsland, and most of the Zamboanga Peninsula, and portswhere LSRS surveys were conducted include Zamboanga,

Pagaian and Jolo.

The LSRS prepared a draft shipping service evaluation reporton each of the six areas identified above. In this Final Report,however, the Northern Mindanao and Southern Mindanao reports havebeen combined in Volume VII. The other service evaluation reportsare Volumes IV through VI, and Volume VIII.

The shipping services of Palawan Province are discussed inFinal Report's Volume theIX, wherein the LSRS focus is mainly on theneeds for additional services, rather than on the improvement of

existing services.

The port of Manila North Harbor (MNH) is discussed to someextent in most volumes of Finalthe Report, because of theimportance of shipping connections to the MNH for all other areasof the Philippines. The principal discussion of the MNH isincluded in XII,Volume however, which focuses on the potentialrole of Batangas Port as a terminus for interisland liner shipping

services.

Northern Luzon and the Bicol Peninsula have very limitedinterisland liner shipping services, in 1994. The LSRS didconduct any developmental route evaluations for not

these two largeareas of Luzon, but both areas are discussed in Volume III of thisFinal Report, which provides profiles of the sea trade of various areas and islands of the Philippines.

Each of fivethe service evaluation reports examinesadequacy of both the cargo and passenger liner shipping and ferryservices, identifying: routes that are franchised and the extent to

2

vhicih they are being operated; operators and vessels with vesselrated or estimated capacities; route capacities for passengertraffic and capacity utilization, including seasonality; shippingservice standards and problems; underlying, contributory causesany identified low service standards and problems; for

and desirableactions to be taken to better ensure that shipp:ng servicestandards are satisfactory in the future.

After this brief introduction, each of the shipping serviceevaluation reports presents its findings and recommendations as theremainder of Chapter 1, and is comprised of five other chapters andtwo or three annexes. Chapters 2 through 6 of each report present,respectively, available information on services franchisedoperated, an evaluation of and cargo services, an evaluation ofpassenger services, the identification of factors affecting serviceadequacy, and a recommended approach to improving the adequacyservices. of"nnexes A and B, in each of the five reports, providedetailed cargo and passenger survey information, respectively.Onlv Volume VITT, discussing the shipping :ervices of Zamboanga anlthe Sulu Archipelago, includes a third annex which examines theeconomy and trade of the area.

Summary of Findings

LSRS findings in regard to the liner shipping and ferryservices performed to ports of the Eastern Visayas are based mainlyon fieldwork that was undertaken, during August 1993, at the portsof Tacloban and Catbalogan. The detailed results of these surveysare presented as Annexes A and B of this Eastern Visayas ShippingServices Evaluation Report (EVISSER). Principal findings in regardto interisland liner shipping cargo and passenger services providedto ports of the Eastern Visayas are presented below, first forSamar and then for Leyte. For each island, cargo services arefirst discussed and then passenger services.

Samar

Cargo Services

Samar Island is provided with very limited liner shippingcargo seryices. What services are provided are mainly to the portof Catbalogan, and to a more limited extentCalbayog. to the port ofThe two operators providing services between these twoSamar Island ports and Manila accommodated 37,000 freight tons toand from Catbalogan, in 1992, and more than 10,000 freight tons toand from Calbayog. However, most of the Catbaloganaccommodated in just cargo was seven months out of the year, while Calbayogtraffic was almost entirely concentrated in the first four monthsof the year. During the other months of 1992, there were very

3

limited services being performed between these ports and Manila.The two Samar ports are also provided with liner shipping serviceslinking them to Cebu, but MARINA traffic information in regard tothese services is very incomplete.

The limited liner shipping cargo services at Samar ports isdue mainly to the following:

Low cargo traffic demand, mainly in the outwarddirection, with the principal outward-moving commodity

being copra, which can best be accommodated in bulk, by

tramper vessels.

Inadequacies of Samar ports.

The availability of roll-on roll-off (RORO) ferryservices between Samar and Luzon, which makes roadtransport competitive with liner shipping cargo serviceto Manila for at someleast commodities.

The San Juanico Bridge and the Leyte port of Tacloban,which permits this Leyte port to serve a sizable portion

of Samar Island.

The southern coastal area of Samar Island is too distant fromboth the northern RORO ferry services and the San Juanico Bridge touse either of these transport options economicallyinterregional cargo shipment. Ferry for

services are operated fromthis southern coastal area to the port of Tacloban, but some of thesouthern Samar shippers complained, in 191)3, that this shipmentalternative, also, was not very economic. Shipper suggestions forreducing their shipment costs included: (i) transformation of theTacloban-southern Samar conventional ferry operation to a ROROferry operation; and/or (ii) providing the Samar south coast with a direct liner shipping connection to Cebu.

Either of these approaches would avoid the Taclobantransshipment delays and costs. The RORO option would be usefulfor the shipment of perishable, fisheries products, especially,offering the same options which Tacloban shippers of fisheriesproducts indicated they preferred: either road transport and useof the Isabel-Carmen RORO ferry, to reach Cebu Port and shippingservices; or road transport all the way to Manila. In regard tothe latter, some Eastern Visayan shippers of fisheries productsindicated a preference for road transport to Manila vis-a-vis thedirect sea transport option for the former's advantage in regardto: shipment time flexibility and shorter transit time; lowertotal freight cost, due to avoidance of having to pay cargohandlers; convenience and direct delivery to the consignee; and therelative ease of collecting on claims, whenever there might bedamage or deterioration losses.

4

One of the two operators serving the Manila-Catbalogan-Tacloban route indicated to the LSRS that the company wascontemplating the discontinuance of service on the route, in partbecause of the erosion of the operator's passenger traffic, asroad transport/RORO ferry market share was the

continuing to grow, andin part because there was a large imbalance of cargo traffic on theroute, with relatively light volumes of cargo moving northward.

Catbalogan shippers, meanwhile, argued that they required morefrequent and more reliable services to both Manila and Cebu.the other hand, the shippers indicated that, whenever the port On ofCatbalogan was by-passed by an operator on the Manila route, due toinadequate volumes of traffic offering at the theport, shippershad no difficulty in arranging for trucking services to eitherManila or Tacloban. Where the Catbalogan-Cebu route is concerned,the LSRS could identify, from shipping operator 1992 reports, onlyabout 4,000 freight tons moved on the route in that year. However,one of the two operators on the route did not report to MARlINA on

cargo traffic accommodated.

Passenger Services

The passenger traffic accommodated

terminals of northern Samar,

at the two RORO ferry

i.e., the government owned andoperated terminal at San Isidro theand privately owned andoperated terminal Allen,at reached a combined level of 160,000passengers, in 1992. These traffic volumes included considerablenumbers of through traffic (i.e., traffic between Luzon and eitherLeyte or Mindanao), but it is probably also true that mostresidents of northern Samar travel to and from Luzon via one of theferries. Thus, the unreliability of some of the services operatedbetween Manila and the northern Samar ports of Catbalogan andCalbayog probably was not creating a serious problem for northernSamar travellers. The LSRS was unable (due to time constraints) toconduct passenger surveys on the Luzon-Samar RORO ferry routes.

The LSRS did, however, conduct passenger surveys on two iinershipping routes between Cebu and Samar, viz., routes serving theSamar ports of Catbalogan and Calbayog, and surveys were alsoconducted of two ferry services between the Samar southern coastports of Guiuan and Balangiga and the Leyte port of Tacloban.Principal findings of these surveys are:

- Catbalogan-Cebu Route. The route was being served by a175 GRT vessel, the MV Elizabeth Lily, of Western SamarShipping Lines. According to MARINA's Annual Domestic

Shipping Route Inventory (ADSRI), this vessel has acapacity to accommodate 80 passengers. A sample size ofonly 25 passengers was obtained by the LSRS, but a fewsignificant results were nevertheless derived, becausenearly all of the passengers rated operator management

attention to service quality and staff attitude toward

5

passengers as satisfactory, and all the passengers approved of the space reservation system. The only

complaint of a majority of the passengers was that the eating area on board the vessel was not kept clean.

M Calbayog-Cebu Route. The route was being served byPalacio Shipping Lines, with a vessel having a rated capacity for 262 passengers. All of the passengers interviewed (39) expressed the view that services provided were adequate to meet demand, yet the majorityalso stated that congestion during the peak period of traffic constitutes a serious problem. The passengers were nearly unanimous in expressing satisfaction with schedule adherence, and they had no general complaints regarding any aspects of service.

M Tacloban-Guiuan Route. This ferry route was being served by two operators, Roly Shipping and K & T Shipping, and the LSRS obtained a survey sample of 91 passengers aboard the two vessels surveyed. A large majority (90 percent)of the passengers felt that services were adequate 'to meet demand. Majorities of the passengers gave low ratings to several aspects of physical accommodation, however, and maintenance of toilets/sanitation facilities was given an "unacceptable" rating by 29 percent of the respondents to the question.

M Tacloban-Balangiga Route. This ferry route was being operated just two days a week at the time of the LSRS survey, and the operator was Proceso Canillas. The LSRS survey was not very useful, with a sample size of 21 passengers, and the only significant result obtained was that all 13 of the respondents to the question regardingpeak period travel thought that traffic congestion constituted a serious problem.

Leyte

Cargo Services

Leyte island is mainly served by liner shipping cargo services connecting to Cebu and Manila. Shippers of various commodities based in Tacloban, Leyte were utilizing these liner services, in 1993, at which time they were found to be adequate in one direction, i.e., from Tacloban to either Manila or Cebu. In the opposite direction, there was an insufficiency of capacity for some commodities, due to large imbalance of cargo flows in two directions. Shut-outs and delays in shipment were therefore experienced mostly by shippers to Tacloban of general merchandise, flour and animal feeds. The cargo trade imbalance in the route was affecting the viability of liner operations, and one of the

6

operators indicated to the LSRS that the company was contemplating

possibly quitting the route. Further, additional containercapacity was required in the Cebu-Tacloban direction since shipperspreferred that their cargoes be containerized, in order to minimize or eliminate pilferage and damage losses.

The lack of direct shipping services to major trading areashad forced shippers to charter tramper vessels, in order to shipout bulk copra from Tacloban to Iligan and ship in sugar and ricefrom Bacolod and Iloilo, and salt and rice from Mindoro. Someshippers indicated that there was potentia! for a regular linerservice between Tacloban and Batangas, mainly to enable Mindoroshippers of rice and salt to ship on a fairly regular basis toTacloban, but also generate theto trading of fruits, vegetables

and livestock, since Leyte was a deficit area in these agriculturalproducts. Such direct service would also benefit Leyte coprasnippers, some of whom indicated their intention to ship copra toLucena City, Quezon, if possible via Batangas.

One major problem for Leyte exporters of marine products wasthe lack of appropriate shipping capacity for refrigerated cargoesin the Tacloban-Manila route, compelling them to ship via Cebu fortransshipment at Manila. To export fishery products from Tacloban,the products were being trucked to the RORO ferry port of Isabel,moved aboard a RORO ferry to Carmen, Cebu, trucked to Cebu Port,and then shipped to Manila by sea. Shippers maintained that this route was cheaper than moving the products to Cebu by sea for thefirst of two transshipments, but more expensive and time-consuming

than if the cargo could be shipped directly from Tacloban to Manila.

Passenger Services

Two liner shipping routes connecting Tacloban with Manila andCebu and ferry routes between ports of Leyte and Cebu were surveyedby the LSRS to ascertain the adequacy of passenger services. Principal findings of these surveys are:

- Manila-Tacloban Route. Vessels of William Lines andSulpicio were performing services on this route in 1993,and passengers generally found the services to be both

satisfactory and sufficient. Capacity utilization ofthese vessels, in fact, was quite low, at 30 percent or

slightly less. As a result of this low utilization, andthe continuing trend toward greater reliance by

passengers on road transport and RORO ferries for travelbetween the Eastern Visayas and Luzon, Sulpicio Shipping

was contemplating ending services on the route.

Cebu-Tacloban Route. In 1993, the route was being

adequately served by two liner vessels. However, service

of one vessel was found to be unreliable due to frequent

-7

engine breakdown. Most passengers interviewed wereregular travelers and were generally satisfied withspace reservation and the operator's concern with safety.However, passengers were not fully satisfiedaccommodation standards, such in with

as regardfacilities, to toiletleisure facilities, ventilation, drinkingfountains, and space to move around. The crew's c uui tesyand willingness to provide assistance were found to besatisfactory, as were the adequacy and security of

baggage security.

- Baybay, Leyte-Cebu Route. Passengers interviewed on thisroute were generally satisfied with passenger services,and considered that operators maintained the cleanlinessof facilities before and during the voyage such as:seating/sleeping area, thevessel open areas, waiting areabefore boarding, and eating areas, as well as toilet andwashing facilities. Services were rated satisfactory inregard to on-board drinking water availability, vesselboarding procedure, convenience and security of booking,professional attitude of management, and the attitude ofshore-based staff and vessel crew toward passengers.Dissatisfaction was expressed only in regard to adherenceto service schedule, although service speed was found tobe satisfactory.

- Cebu-Bato, Leyte Route. Passengers interviewed on thisroute felt that services were adequate to meet demand andwere being reliably operated. The majority notedthe management had developed a good space that

reservationsystem, ensured satisfactory baggage accommodationsecurity, showed andadequate concern for safety, and hadestablished an organized boarding procedure. Likewise,accommodation standards were satisfactorily provided.Congested travel during the peak season, however, wasseen by the passengers as being a problem. Hilongos-Cebu Route. Services of the three vesselssurveyed on this route were judged by the passengers tobe fairly adequate and reliable. Aspects of servicewhich interviewed passengers generally found to besatisfactory included sleeping/seating areas,toilet/washing facilities, eating areas on board, mealsand meal service, open areas for passengers, waiting areafor passengers, boarding process, baggage security, andconvenience and security of booking. Likewise, thepassengers expressed general satisfaction with theattitude of management, and viewed the operator's landbased staff and vessel crews to be efficient andresponsive to the needs of the passengers. Moreover, thepassengers noted the reliability, andconvenience sufficiency of services.

0

- Naval-Cebu Route. Two vessels serving the route weresurveyed. A majority of the passengers were satisfiedwith the adequacy and cleanliness of the sleeping/seatingarea, toilet and washing facilities, vessel open areas,waiting area before boarding, meals served and mealservice and baggage security. However, passengerscomplained of the inadequacy of on-board drinking water supplies.

- Palompon, Leyte-Cebu Route. Three vessels were surveyedon this route, and passengers expressed satisfaction withthe cleanliness of seating/sleeping area, toilet/washirIgfacilities, eating areas on board, pre-boarding waitingarea, meals and meal service, baggage security and thevessel open areas for passengers. However, on-boarddrinking water supplies were found to be inadequate.Passengers noted that there was convenience and securityof booking, and passengers generally viewed favorably theoperator's attitude toward quality of service and theattitude of operator staff toward passengers. Theservice schedule was likewise deemed to be sufficient andconvenient and adherence to schedule and service speedwere considered to be satisfactory.

Ormoc-Cebu Route. There were two vessels surveyed onthis route, and passengers interviewed found the servicesto be reliable. There was good space reservat ion as welas good baggage accommodation/security. Most passengerswere satisfied with the provision and maintenance of tclseat ing/sleeping area, toi let/wash:ig faci Ii c t 1nhareas , vessel open area and pre-board irig wait i g a ca.Meals and meal service, baggage _security, the operator'sconcern for safety and vessel boarding procedure werelikewise deemed to be satisfactory. Passengers had noproblems with security of booking, or thewith managemenLand staff attitude to service and efficiency. Maasin-Cebu Route. Two vessels were surveyed in theMaasin-Cebu route, and services were found to be adequateand reliable. Almost all facilities and services werefavorably rated by interviewed passengers as satisfactoryand they were likewise satisfied with the convenience andsufficiency of services, adherence to schedule, andservice speed. Passengers indicated thatobserved improvement in the services of

they had one of the twovessels serving the route.

Cabalian-Cebu Route. This route was being served by K 3T Shipping Lines, with a vessel of 243 GRT, and the LSRSobtained a passenger survey sample of 60. The passengershad no general complaints about services, and ratedseveral aspects of services highly, including operator

9

management and staff, vessel cleanliness, drinking water adequacy, the apace reservation system, schedule adherence, and other aspects.

In regard to passenger service fares, the LSRS learned that operators were adhering to officially sanctioned rate: of IARINA, except that the third class passage was even lower than the official ranges in the liner routes connecting Cebu with laasin,

Naval, Tacloban and Baybay, Leyte. However, in the liner routes coinecting Tacloban with Manila and Ormoc with Cebu, third class passage rates were found to be on the high side of the official range. There were no stipulated rates for the ferry routes connecting Cebu with Hilongos and Bato, Leyte.

10

2. EASTERN VISAYAS LINER SHIPPING

& FERRY SERVICES

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to identify the liner shippingand ferry services that were franchised to serve one or more portsof the Eastern Visayas, during the period of conduct of the LSRS,and to provide information on the services actually being operatedin 1992 and 1993. It is left to Chapters 3 and 4 to discuss theadequacy of service connections, capacities, and standards from thestandpoint of the users (shippers and passengers, respectively).

MIARINA and the LSRS jointly worked to produce the first ADSRI,in 1994, which involved a major effort to "clear" MARINA's recordsof vessels and franchises which had become out of date. ADSRIncludes all of the liner shipping, ferry, and coastal shippingranchises which were valid as of the 1st of 1994.April, Al thoughADSRI represents an improvement in MARINA's records regardingfranchised vessels and services, there remain needs for further improvement. In particular:

The list of franchised operations is, at any given time,

not entirely in accord with the services actually beingoperated. This occurs in large part because the shipping

industry is not static, but rather is dynamic, andshipping operators are often in the process of exchanging

vessels in their respective fleets among routes. There are also some services being operated which do not show up in the records of MARINA.

Vessel information is incomplete. theEven type of

vessel is not always accurately or sufficiently

identified, and information on deadweight tonnage,

container twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) capacity,

passenger car unit (PCU) or bus equivalent unit (BEU)

capacity. and passenger capacity is frequently not provided.

Operating schedules are frequently not provided,

especially in the cases of cargo vessels which are franchised for a route.

Traffic information is incomplete, with some operators

reporting no traffic information at all in the annual reports they are required to submit to MARINA. A few operators do not even regularly submit these reports.

Even where traffic information is submitted, it is

sometimes unclear and at other times clearly inaccurate.

11

Shipping Operators, Routes & Vessels

There are leastat four things striking in regardshipping services being operated to the

to the Eastern Visayas: Nearly all of the liner shipping services operate(. to oneor more ports of these islands are competing with ferryservices and road transport.

The islands are dependent upon the port of (ebu forshipping connections to Negros, Panay and much of Mindanao.

There are many services franchised between Leyte and Surigao.

Except for its northern public and private RORO ferryports, the island Samarof has no port accommodatinglarge volumes of traffic, and the Leyte port of Tacloban serves as the interisland port for much of Samar.

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 identify the franchised liner shipping andferryservices, respectively, operating to one or more ports of theEastern Visayas. These services are also identified in Figure 2.1.The principal liner shipping and ferry operators, and the servicesthey are franchised to provide, in l))4, are summarized below: i Aboitiz Shipping Corp. serves only one Eastern Visayanport, viz., the port of Ormoc on the west central coastof Leyte Island. The shipping line provides both ferryand liner shipping service theto port. The ferryservices are between Ormoc and Cebu Port, and Aboitiz isfranchised to operate with three vessels. One of thesevessels, the MV Ramon Aboitiz, appeared no longer to beserving the route in 1993-1994, however, and may in factno longer be in the company's vessel fleet. The MVElcano and the MV Legaspi have a combined capacity for1,871 passengers. The Legaspi operates this route onlywhen i.t replaces the Elcano for the drydocking of thelatter. Normally, the Legaspi was being employed, in1992-1993, at least, for the liner service connection toboth Manila and Surigao.

W C.A. Gothong Lines performs services to the EasternVisayan ports of Tacloban, Palompon and Catbalogan. Thecompany's vessel, the MV Don Calvino, calls at Catbaloganonly aftei every third voyage from Cebu to Tacloban,i.e., once each week. Three of the operator's vesselsare franchised to serve the Leyte coast ofwest port

Palompon.

12

--- --

-- --_______

--- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - --- - -

- - ------------------ ------------ - --- -- -

------------ - -------------

------------

-----

IA-a-nL,J A.1

EASTERN VISAYAS UNER SHIPPING ROUTE FRANCHISES (As ulit APr, 194)

OPERATOR PAX ERV. FRAPCrHED O. OFRoUmP V mLAINUAL VESSEL MAXE CRT CAP. iPE - ROUTE TIPSEAR PA CAPiV LCAmo n= 3 rm,co i. -CEB - - -mEs-*--- - - - - - -. - - - - -- A .,' MV rCANO 2,047.61 PAS/CBA0RGo RMC-CEBU

MV 1.EGAZPI 2,0476 893 PAS/CARGO CEhU-ORMC-CEBU :.5, MV RAMON ABMT 1,O3.7 PAS CRGO CEBU-ORMC-CEU MVLEGA3FI 2,047.61 89 PASMCARGO b5ADMGT-Id)A-OBMC-SGAO-OR)C-LE

R DJAON A IGA O CORP. %O 44, MV BADJAO PI- -DOG---MEL-CR, .IBEL

S- - ---- ---- -- -- -- --GOFHOi i ..- CEU- -C -- -- -- -- -- -- ------- --A. PPMI:A, -- - - - --- - - -- - - --- ----- ---- 05V OUR LADY OF MT. CARMEL 2,72.00 840 PAS/CARGO U-O -- -- ---------------- ) 420OEDON CALVINO 881.38 17M PASS/CARGO -T- 15) 113.20

- OUR LADY OF rAUmA 4 PASSCARGO .- -_M" 2,-.6680 COKATIONG SEDfIPG LITES

MV TWIA O 4, 62 PAC"CEB-.N-SAO-MA-CE-SAOCEBU.GAOCBU 50 & I00 Isia00o a mV TrLIP]jSIARGAO 326M -" P/CARGO CEBU-MA5BLG -MMN-CE3U-BY-CiUBY.CEBU_.N)MV FILZI]AMAASIr 5 14 0_4y_.o 683 PASSCARGO CESU-SGAOIDG-SGAOCE----- O---CEBUSGAO.CEBU MaBVSIL.RA V0.14 225 ERRC -

MVfluAI o~~~~~o-- (m ----- - -- --- ---- ... ... --.Gs - mu-.-S------..... .... ..--- . . .106 PASS/CRGO- souoacr.carGEORGE & P-- INC.. --- ... ..ETER,;,--

3WMGEORICH 69Hi5 PASSJERRYCB ANSA-k-EUHLIOSDE F.E:SrO, INC:usm3r dUA-CBYG-CEBU-BUT'U-CRY G-LNIA ....

K&TSHIPIG LINES, INc-MV GUIUA-2 PA/ARGO SGOD-

TABLE 2.2 EASTERN VLSAYAS FERRY ROUTE FRANCHISES

(As of 1st April, 1994)

OURATOR JPAX SERV. FRANC[IISID NO. OF ROLND ANNUAl. \'ICSEL VESSEL NAME CRT CAP. TYPE ROUTE TRIPS/YEAR PAX CAP./VVC 11EG,('MV RYUA u.7 D PAS*S/F0LRY JTCLB-GUUN-:rCLB

STA.NAS-S . . E.. 1 7 5jPABLO ...

C-,VN-O*R-I*Ahn SA5 fRjTJG.ALLN-MTNG701.460-R-N"-,- 49KAS

s_'UR-POR TION..P..e ..... ...... .... ... . ..... ....... ....... ... . ., .

MV y _ UAA CRIT Y 307.35 -. 435... AFCtRAS ... .. ... . PAS!_._...S/CAR GO C'EBU-I-INCO-N L M-Uj. .. . .. ....... . 0. .. . |MOUTIE~A ... .. ' O %350 is 2. 25so MV FIJI ........ N.D D. PAS'S/CARG-O CE-BU-BATr'CEBU - - 20*0MV SOUTH PACIFIC 230'*iJ:".99N.D. PAS'S/CARGO- CEBH-IaATh-CERBU20

Reference: Annual Domestic Shipping Route Inventory

14

http:230'*iJ:".99

FIGURE 2.1

EASTERN VISAYAS LINER SHIPPING a FERRY SERVICES 1994

SITE

NOG

0 V

0 .LEGEND: ' - LINER

, . . . .FERRY

CALA A MAHARLIKA ROAD

VISAYANNAVA 16BORONGAN

SEA

SAN EASTERN SAMA

&,

AANGABAA

CARMENq

DANAO, DANA0CA~rE EA OUTHERN

CEBU /LEYT

CITY -L P

ISAS

AN ISIDRO

15

- Cokaliong Lines atShipping calls two Leyte ports,

namely the ports of Maasin and Baybay. Cokaliong

provides the port of Baybay with a service from Cebu, and provides Maasin with service connections to Cebu, Surigao and Camiguin Island.

- K & T Shipping Lines serves the Leyte ports of Tacloban,

Cabalian, Sogod, and Liloan, operating two vesseis to provide shipping connections to Cebu.

- Sulpicio Shipping Lines is franchised, in 1994, to serve the Leyte ports of Cabalian, Ormoc, and Maasin, and the Samar port of Calbayog. The operator's vessel, MV Tacloban Princess, was serving the Manila-Catbalogan-

Tacloban route, in 1993. The franchises identified in Table 2.1 are for the Cebu Princess, the Surigao

Princess, and the Palawan Princess. The first two provide

the Leyte west coast port of Ormoc with connections to Manila, Cebu, and Masbate, and the Cebu Princess includes the Samar port of Calbayog in its route, as well. The Palawan Princess is franchised to serve the Southern Leyte ports of Maasin and Cabalian, providing service connections to Manila and Surigao.

- Trans-Asia Shipping Lines is serving only Maasin, of Eastern Visayan ports, operating two vessels to that port, and providing service connections to Cebu, Jagna,

Butuan, and, in the case of one vessel, also to Cagayan de Oro.

William Lines provides Catbalogan and Tacloban with a service connection to Manila. In 1993, the shipping line was employing the passenger/RORO vessel, MV Masbate I , to perform services on this route, and the services of that vessel are discussed in this LSRS report.

Besides the Leyte-Surigao services provided by Aboitiz,

Cokaliong and Sulpicio, George & Peter Lines and Visayan Transport

Co. each have a vessel franchised to operate between Cebu and

Surigao, via Maasin. The greatest competition, however, may come from PSEI Transport Corp. which operates the MV Maharlika I RORO

ferry between a Leyte terminal at Liloan and a Surigao terminal at Lipata. Thus, a total of six operators are franchised, in 1994, to operate between Leyte ports and Surigao

The Northern Samar port of Calbayog is provided v,.th liner

shipping services by a vessel of the Visayan Transport Co. and by

the MV Don Martin, Sr. of Palacio Shipping, with both vessels

providing a service connection to Cebu. The MV Elizabeth Lily of Western Samar Shipping is franchised to serve the Cebu-Catbalogan route.

16

The liner shipping services between Tacloban and Cebu facevery stiff competition from Leyte-Cebu ferry services, whichoperate out of the Leyte ports of Palompon, Isabel, Ormoc,Hilongos, Baybay and Bato. The ferry service at Isabel is a ROROservice, connecting to portthe of Carmen, north of Cebu City.Together with the general improvement of the Leyte arterial roadnetwork, this RORO port and service is attracting cargo that wouldotherwise have moved by sea between Tacloban and Cebu.

In the northern direction, it is the RORO ferries operating tothe Samar ferry ports of Allen (two private terminals) and SanIsidro (a public, Maharlika Highway terminal) that are providingstiff competition to liner services between Manila and the EasternVisayan ports of Tacloban, Calbayog and Catbalogan. Much of theformer liner shipping passenger traffic has, by 1994, already been

lost to the road/RORO ferry travel option.

Table 2.3 presents the Tacloban Port vessel call schedule for1993, for passenger/cargo and general cargo vessels tooperatingfixed routes, although only the passenger/cargo vessels have fixedschedules. The table shows that, between them, the Gothong Linesvessel and the K & T Shipping vessel were providing six servicespor week between Tacloban and Cebu, and the vessels of Sulpicio andWilliam Lines (which are both passenger/container vessels), weretogether providing four round-trip services between Tacloban andManila.

The Tacloban-Cebu services were being operated as franchised,in 1993, except that K & T Shipping was employing the Leyte Queen,with approximately twice the passenger capacity of the Samar Queenidentified in Table 2.1.

Table 2.4 identifies liner shipping cargo 'trafficEastern Visayas in 1992, of the as such traffic was recorded in shippingoperator annual reports submitted to MARINA. Points which mightusefully be made on the basis of information presented in Table 2.4 are:

Aboitiz Shipping employed mainly the Elcano on the Cebu-Ormoc route, and brought in the Legaspi only when theElcano needed temporarily to be taken out of service. Ifreported traffic figures are correct, the introduction ofthe Legaspi on the route greatly expanded cargo volumes.The MV Ramon Aboitiz did not operate at all on the route in 1992.

route between Cebu and

Gothong Shipping operated its theports of Tacloban and Catbalogan throughout the year, butoperated to a Leyte west coast port in one month only.If the traffic information is correct, the Don Calvinoaccommodated an average of about 35 tons per voyage inthe outbound direction at Tacloban, but accommodated

17

TABLE 2.3

VESSELS CALLING AT TACLOBAN PORT, 1993

TYPE. ov.VEISS.5 ... ...... ... .. ~.. ...... ..... LOA P....S.. SERVICE SCIWDULE, 'AM OF~ ESI bPEIZA~tOSPO SOFAL GRT J(Meters) CA. TED

PASSENGER I CARGO

......... . . . . . ..D . . .:: :: . :. : .. :

(P/C) DonCalvino Gothorg Lines Cebu -Tacloban - Catbalogan 881.33. 57.20 671 TTh Sat. 7:30 A.M. Sin 12.00 Noon Tu-fhurs-Sat 4:00 P.M. Sun 1:00 PMt Leyte Qu_i - . .. K.&T Cebu -Tacloban 654.44 65.00 559 Wed-Fri-Sun 7:00 AM. Wed.-Fri-Sun 4:00 AM. Flo-Soccour RSL Gukan - Tacloban 231.07 37.50 300 Every-otherday 5:O P14. ........ Evdydwi11 OO .. .. Staccy K&T Guinan - Tacloban 99.38 32.00 327 Evay other day 5:00 P.M. EverycAhe" da 11 .00P.MMasbatI William Lines Manila -Tacloban -Ctbalogn 4417 900 130Tue-d-ay5:00O-P.M.-, S*aurd-ay 11-:00 -A-It Wednesday. 10:00 -i.4:00Pi.c;66A.M.,Sia TaclobmPrinces Sulpicio Lines Manila-Tacloban- Calbalogan _3351.24 104.590 800 Mondy10:00 AM, _imdy 3:00P.. Moncl;y 5:00P.M., Friday 10:00 A.M.-Sm ol'nzoJ'.ales almigaTacoba 5315 23-78 T8"ues. &Tlu- 5:00 A.MI. , Tues &Thurs. 12:00 Midnigt

GENERAL CARGO (GC) Melucina 1. Gurnag, y Balwgiga - Taclobaz 45.M 25.91 _ Virgin de la Aiincic.n S. Carroso Jr. Palapag - Tacloban 75.0) 2400 ___ro __ Family Shrippiriglinca ID~xnao - Taclc.ban- -- 9 .: .. .3 93. . . .. .. .. . ... . . . .... . . . .. . .Eurcl 196.03 . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.9~3 - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - -Paco ........... Tones Carier Inc. Mandauc - Tacloban 464.02 -48.26 -

Ctimco I Ca-tiznco Shipping Cagayan de Oro - Tacloban- 100.0') 50.00

t Elon ortC- IBEC Cagayan de Oro - lligan -Tacloban 1,021.91 50.90 ...... . ... DannylII- N.C. ___Barnyan -Taclobw - Bacolod 31.98 14.70- ----- --- --.-----Glacy Janrnar -- Guin.ac. Tacloban - Cebu 267.32 37.00 ... . ... .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. Dino HI - ILIloilo -Tacloban - Cagqrn --- 54 24.7- ---

Marvi M Gil - Maipipi-'racloban 32.2') 14.02 --

fi- r-IE- Caayn -Tacloban - igan 1,021.51 50.00 ..

fligm Trade IEC llig-an -Tacloban 1,003.96 68.50--------------------............................. J. JsC .Bacolod-Taclobana -Iloilo 104.64 -- 2.13 -.

-Phanni .rJanShippin - Maasin - Tacloban - Cebu 474.40 51.50 Cebu - Tacloban -Gen. SanosPalaw-ab &.w .SL . .. 490.32 65.40 ......

Ma- r AGSLI Danao - Tacloban 446.97 44.50 Princc Anrika Yio Shipping Dnac, - Taciohan - Polloc -- 23i.45 43.00 JoseEmery R.S.L Bacolod - Tacloban - Cebu 223.3: 37.50

Prcinshp VII PSI, __ Cebu -Tacloban -Bacolod 3490.77 41.00 ___-

MaL Cri ina I ARIMCORP San Carlos -Tacloban 249 37 4!.02. .

MT Rafloro VII .. IC:- Iligan- Ttcloban _i" 97 72 I&86 .__.. ___'"__'_.

BOAT (B)

nsufc 77llap Taclob j 491 0 3.491 Sour-ce: Phi1lpiiielPorts.-AnxLhct.;lty

http:1,003.96http:1,021.51http:1,021.91

----

TABIE 2.4 EASTERN VISAYAS LINER VESSEL CARGO TRAFFIC, 1992

(FREIGHT TONS)

ABOMTfZ SHIPPING CORPrwCANO

39 .9 ....... .

CmU 0MW

oaMC CEU

6 E 4.44

,262 330

3,690 533

2,715 828

, : 218

z,33 406

-

l 90 183

_3,.4 ._f-302. 222

6_,.38 249

3 3731

... 339

c.,

___

OF=

___ __ CEBU O__,CO 1

1_

3

38 3

5 2L1t. .. .

5 iT42I 6 ..... -91

I.......__1, 2 127,526

6

W-tA MA 655 _ Z 465 604 283 442 3 129.52 82 1 93..........1 3CLO-.J-8,20-

ALESON MG.LINES, I&C. 4,377 _ 4,915 ,531,)f

ALES..-- ............ ........ A.EXAHI ,.. E 1oT" - ____ - 231777 ...............7--1....... ....... __ .___________9____..............- - -........ .. . ...! .. .......

I

LO4LA

L7W

ZD1A

LrlE ' "

191 _T

J 256 -._..-..-..---7 -!I-

19

.Y":i .

91

":L

CEBU o c: 3-22A. ....... . 324] CDflO 3411 . .. . . . . . . ..D__^__ ___" _ 3.....................................I...... ................3-41t..........

L.IILA T 393 -. .. --.-- ...... .... 393 HEIXN _

CAcGO ONGL M I C. _ .. . .......... . ... .. ._ _ DON CALVINO . .

T99. CE8U 63 247 265 1,248 244 77 175 799 193 508 214.. ....CEBU T_ __ 2 _0 ___22,9_ I_6

T__ _ 28 50 37__ LA 67 30 13 225 37 CMu Ctoo 312 48 199 249 338 49 38 314 232 402 32 2568 '33

- - to u - __U ... 953 , . -.....- i . 91i 2 . ........... ....- s ..... ~3 .a......1,--1-31i .. -TCCTOOCT90 2u5 91.953. 24 ...... ..... _4j 24 .... .................................... 2 ,-TCU BUaTH 26i

OURLADlYOf aABALPE----CWJ CUMR 92 35 757 ,41 2.3031 66f 65 41

5 5L ...--- ." .... . .. .o LyCtIOR ~ ~2 .~2 .1 -3-........... ............. ...

CDOR TCLD 55 25 52 24 121 70

,'R MHLA 200 191 113 26~R ... .. 4 34715 S-_ -. . .. ........LDVP T, .... .... . ."OU . .. __ . ..4o ..__ . ............. --;. .. ................-........o

EVER SBPG. LINES, INC. .... ...... EVERThP.NSPO l I

_M__ . . . . 550 ........... 0 .o ___ _==__ __- . - -- --. li= -.--20'-2-201=i----*-- -'--==

DO__ SCAR 220 I20 22 D.:, CEBU __..MACABATIL DANIEU K 240 . . . . . . .. . . .....

JOHNDAVE U.... ........ ..... . . ..... . .......

Ra BY 156 156 1561 oULPICOLng, INC.CmJF1U11C2 -I cpsm ,Jcrm t 12 3 15 7CMU 2,21 2,334 -3.134 68 22 1 jj04072' . . - .........GRUC 2020. 2,083 1,417 . . . .... -"...-- -5 ~ 2~ _ _ __. .. ... .... . . . .... .... ..... . .........m 5 1 3 _ -m _ - . .. . . . . _762921t.

1,789CU M= 2,200 2,409 2,660 2,645 3264 693 2,827 1697 1,605 708 2297 2045 I oRMl MWT 5,361 380 336 377 407 567 145 611 464 452 5,007 14,107 1,282 1 OMC WILA 275 2,716 430 4,770 999 709 107 i3240 225. -,31 - . 427- ... 2,-1 cya u3r 260 402 85 747 249 C8m IlLA 3,157 2,309 3,826 631: ... " 2,481L=T MLt. - 959 1010 JJ9 ~ 619 i52~ 0~8pI1 62 131109 9,09d l 927UNLA MS~rr 1,6 1229 1,205 1,17 1,79 1,958 400 1,777 1347 763 . j033,385 . 2171 UMA C8T 3 3 6 203 _I331 -. . 546 109

___ __ __ __ JRC 1.063 1,337 1,205 ,209 1035 321 100 14! 90.15 1447 um cm it 241 2 190 132 _ 1 57 961 MIS.TORMC 3,.58 2,896 .,813 3,601 211 5.009 80 194 247661 1,0808 22,076 L uWT CEBU 15,76 ,656 127 105 17 452 ,23 53 1'6 610 26A9 6762-6 __t . - _ ... ....... .-.CBYU 0MW 781 l001 5 .2 3560 -7,149 1,430

m cmu 3 48 47 1 30 69 1,,001,,_t 08Mg CEBU 235 319 15 262 3.3164 9,23 1795 196 - 6 ~

PAAWAN 1NH____ UWLA TcW 883 .... TMW 1111L. 2381 _ 238

19

- -

TABLI 2.4

EASTERN VISAYAS LINER VESSEL CARGO TRAFFIC, 1992 (FREIGHT TONS)

(Continued)

T8E 579LA 39 is 709 cr-ea.MHLA 210 210 21b

cmW mHh16 106 _106 - - - -- ------- ---------- - .-.-.. .- --- --- -.-- .. - - ~ S SULrf#-.

. 748 2113 233 - __ __ .o . . UIIL. Cm 29 179 207 101

M A OZM3 713 713 713 MNL.a. x'JTL_ 642 642 642 D1' 0 tL i .484 4 84 484

COZ3 NMTlA 90 90 90 TCI2 C2U 2 9 2

SUl .lOO -.V ........ . . . . . .. . .. PmLA TCLt 1,425 1,941 3,360 1,603

~691 4 175T~t w . ._ ... i _ 59V ... n fA ___,_ 754 754 754 I.,I _____ 210 210 210

SUI8OAO ?R,,2C I . H CX ' i 8 1. - 6 3 00 7 8 6 555 664 Mm A rUt. 21 11 14 6 1 53 II M LA MASH 5 4 34 37 39 9 195 24

t....... ... .. 14.5 _ 680 _ 1 63 IL7 4E1 2003 1,244 116 343 24,230 2,692 .......... a . 1 541 990 IJ24 64 333 150 737 41 S ,828 648u. 1849

M Y. 2t9.f 9

B1T AH 1 121 034 1 e46 202 811H a~ 00 006r06 300

......... ... .... ... . .. - 4-. . . - - 8I~~ 12n 6tFBOT - ..-- 3 1,9- 16-3 211 671 438 156 2 .. .-. 2.....8..

.. 4 0 . . . . . . .. 103138 7

..3OA0 CtS - .... .. . - .... 81 .... . -M.::..WJ-i- .... .. -........ .......I] 33....1. ..... .........1. .. . ...- -1....::"GA - --. 101 i30 69 - 19 93 459 364 2 ,5 -----.......--------- .. .... - - .. ....._ -_-_

----- 3) 9, 1 34"------27-6 4 33 238

cl i 73 87 86 79 22 140 97 197 _ 781 98 _ .I CEBU 22 _- - --- .. . . 22 . 22

8.,__..R __ __ _ __ _ 2 6., 1 .*-6L t..............MA W

....... 8

. ............. 14151 7 2 .__.. _ 1o _ _ _ _

COOT MIA 4,442. .23 20 9,3901 326 13430 108 15,:31 4607I-- --- - - --------- 36087 -. .1 ,3 ........ .........-- ..-...... 2 22......,.2

KPASIAHG LUTE IN

..... . ..TOM. ....... ... . .... . . - . _ .. - .... -CEBU. .... ..-.. . . . . . _ _ . . ... , . .....4,4I__I 221_________ 22

IDR TOL391 391 391T-C, CBU .............. 8 - --9

I 10109

I2 -- -----

.2.4..35 -. - -01-

.. .

16.7 33

MASW BITT - 10 726 22 849 283 .

JEI^

.,'" ....i - 19 aUH ~i 13

81rTH 105

71 8929

63 27835

57 18529

-

56 2.54

81 18338

_______ _ _1,172

380 20

63 19548

.. . . _A.2 66 115 30 4 2 13 6 9 115 1,082 1 0 c.-C lDD 94 140 129 61 42 7 472 79 -R CEBU 762 731 3_11 1808 603 -. .. . . . 0 ____ 272 9

,MASH CUt! 247 370 646 361 3561 433 _2413 402 M,A ,, 7 115 35 14Z S 0 43

UTH clau 206 152 314 19 64 -"_ '7 151 W/,.._,_, ARI_ 28 28 28

'ILLIVILINES, IC. E,14 2f27T 3i585 3649 3031 -T1"73 3,504 1,749 2,289 2,645 2i386 1,853JJ3310 2i792

WIA TCLB 14,763 20,611 12,280 19:278 15,985 25,092 21,469 14,641 11,812 17,551 18,994 20,846 213,320 17,777 - >,L, c.,< 1374 5 40 fl 43 105 47 60 16 11 4 4 21 190 . . , MIaA 28 79 141 1 . 13 53 .. 70 55 2 28 34 15 71 6!

20

nearly 200 tons of cargo per voyage in the otherdirection. (LSRS passenger surveys, discussed in Chapter4 and Annex B of this report, provide evidence thatGothong was more actively serving the west coast port of Palompon in 1993).

Sulpicio Lines provided some services to the EasternVisayas in every month but November, mainly with itsvessels, the Cebu Princesa and the Tacloban Princess. Theformer served the port of Ormoc, mainly, but also servedCalbayog for several months, mostly early in the year.The Tacloban Princess served the Manila-Catbalogan-

Tacloban route during 7 months of the year.

One of the franchised vessels of Trans-Asia served

port of Maasin during the first

the half of the year, butthen discontinued services to the port.

Only the Masbate Uno, of the vessels of William Lines,performed any services to Eastern Visayan ports, in 1992,and this vessel served Tacloban throughout the year.

None of the other operators identified in Tables 2.1 and 2.2submitted traffic information to MARINA for 1992, so it is notpossible to know the extent to which they actually operated theirfranchised routes. Where ferry operators are concerned, however,it is likely that services were more-or-less regularly operated.

Route Capacity Analysis

From the foregoing discussion, it notis useful to do anyroute capacity analysis on the basis of franchises, but only on thebasis of identified actual services, including service schedules.Following are some comparisons between route capacities and 1992passenger traffic volumes for those routes where capacities can beestimated on the basis of actual operations.

- Manila-Catbalogan-Tacloban. The combined capacity of the

Masbate Uno and the Tacloban Princess is 2100 passengers,and, with each vessel operating two round-trips per week,the weekly capacity is 4200 passengers per direction, andannual capacity is more than 200,000 passengers perdirection. 'Actual

in

traffic between Manila and Tacloban,

1992, was approximately 98,000 passengers, nearlyevenly divided in two directions. Additional passengerswould have embarked and disembarked at Catbalogan.

Although the LSRS has not learned the distribution

Catbalogan traffic by route, total

of passenger traffic atthat port was under 35,000, in 1992, so that passengercapacity utilization on the route could not have exceeded

21

ji percent, and was probably in the 25-30 percent range. M Tacloban-Cebu. The combined passenger capacity ofDon Calvino and the Leyte Queen

the is 1230, and with threeround-trips per week by each vessel, the approximateweekly single direction capacity is 3690 passengers.Annual capacity is about 185,000 passengers perdirection. In contrast, the two-direction total onroute was 70,000, in 1992, with

this nearly 40,0(0disembarking at Tacloban. That is an average capacityutilization of only 19 percent.

W Cebu-Baybay. The ferry vessel operating the route has acapacity for 200 passengers, and was operating to aschedule, in 1994, shouldthat result in approximately

200 trips operated per annum. Thus, the annual capacityof the operator is the accommodation of 40,000 passengersper direction. In addition to this vessel, the MVFilipinas Siargao of Cokaliong Shipping is scheduledoperate three round-trips

to per week between Cebu andBaybay. The vessel has a capacity for 292 passengers, andan annual capacity for nearly 44,000 passengers perdirection on the route. Passenger traffic at Baybay, in1993, totaled 98,000 passengers, suggesting thatutilization of shipping passenger accommodation capacityaveraged 58 percent in two directions at the port.

M Cebu-Ormoc. this

The Aboitiz vessel which regularly served route, in has1992, a passenger capacity of 978passengers; with a schedule of three -ound-trip voyagesper week, the vessel has an annual capacity foraccommodation of more than 146,000 passengers perdirection. The route is also served, as one leg oflonger liner-shipping routes, by Sulpicio's MV CebuPrincess and MV Surigao Princess. Combined, thesevessels can serve the Cebu-Ormoc portions of their routes100 times per annum in each direction. The averagepassenger capacity of these two vessels is approximately740, so that they have a joint capacity for accommodating74,000 passengers per direction each year between Ormocand Cebu. The combined single-direction capacity of thethree vessels is 220,000 passengers per annum. In 1992,total passenger traffic at Ormoc was 330,000, someportions of which were traveling'in one direction or theother on the Manila-Ormoc route and other routes, and notonly in the Ormoc-Cebu connection. If all had beentraveling between Ormoc and Cebu, and estimated 1994capacity had been available in 1992, then capacityutilization on the route would have been 75 percent.

From PPA statistics, the two-way passenger volumes at the RORO ferry terminals of San Isidro and Allen, in 1992, were 463,000 and

22

397,000, respectively, for a combined total of 860,000.these were long-distance passengers Not all ofcoming from andthe National Capital Region (NCR), but traveling to

the fact that it is nearly9 times the passenger volumes accommodated on the Manila-Taclobanliner shipping route is nevertheless worthy of note.one of the According totwo operators serving the Manila-Tacloban route,loss of passenger traffic theto road transport/RORO ferry iscontinuing, and may make it unremuaerative to serve the route witha passenger/cargo (container) vessel in the future.

The ferry between Liloan and Lipata haspassengers, so that it a capacity for 400can accommodate more than 140,000 passengersper direction per year. In 1992, traffic wasthe northward direction 71,000 passengers inand 56,000 passengersdirection, i.e., in the southwardapproximately 50 percent and less than 40 percentcapacity utilization, respectively.

23

PORT OF TACLOBAN, LEYTE

.7.

RRO~ vessel with separate entry and exit doors for embarking and disembarking passengers.

A passenger/cargo ROR) vessel.

24

3. CARGO SERVICES EVALUATION

Introduction

Somewhat over a decade ago, two island linkages wereestablished that have since altered the pattern and role ofshipping services provided to the islands of Samar and Leyte. Bothof these island linkages, one thebeing establishment of ROROservices between Samar and Luzon and the other being theconstruction of the Juanico BridgeSan between Samar and Leyte,form links in the Maharlika Highway. The RORO ferry services,which ply between the Sorsogon port of' Matnog and Samar terminalsat Allen and San Isidro, have converted a sizeable proportion ofpasoenger travel between the Eastern Visayas and Luzon fromshipping to the road/ferry route. The briege converted shortdistance passenger volumes from sea to road transport, and expandedthe hinterland of the Leyte port of Tacloban, for both cargo andpassengers, to include a significant portion of Samar Island.

These changes are still evolving, as there is some evidencethat the road/ferry mode is becoming competitive for Luzon-EasternVisayas cargo traffic, and continued improvement of the Samar andLeyte road networks is likely to result in further expansion of the

Tacloban port hinterland.

The following section of this chapter discussp, the cargotraffic at the ports of Samar and Leyte. Subsequent sectionsthe chapter present an evaluation of

of the liner shipping cargoservices provided to these two islands. The evaluation is dividedinto three parts: first, the LSRS examines the adequacy of cargoservices from the standpoint of available capacity to accommodateall cargo transport demand, taking into account the appropriatenessof the capacity and service connections; second, cargo services are examined for their service standards, principally theiradherence to service schedule and the avoidance of cargodeterioration, damage or loss; and finally, the charges forshipping services are considered, to ensure that they arereasonable and are more-or-less in line with official tariff ranges(i.e., fork tariffs). Annex A presents detailedthe shipper,shipping operator, and other survey information which forms thebasis for the evaluation presented in this chapter.

Ports and Cargo Traffic

Samar

Other than the northern public and private RORO ferry ports,the island of Samar is served by five public ports, as loading andunloading points for both cargo and passengers, namely: Catbalogan,

25

Calbayog, Guiuan, San Jose Carangian, and Borongan. The ports ofCatbalogan, Calbayog, and San Jose Carangian serve the hinterlandof Northern Samar and the ports of Guiuan and Borongan serve themunicipalities of Eastern Samar. All the public ports of SamarIsland handle only domestic cargo, which is mostly shipped asbreakbulk cargo. The 1992 cargo traffic volumes and seasonalityindices computed for these ports are presented in Table 3.1.

The cargo tonnage handled in the port of Catbalogan amountedto 91,868 mt in 1992, with inbound cargo volume almost equalcutbound cargo toflow. There was very little containerized cargo,while bulk cargo, virtually all copra, comprised 21 percent oftotal cargo handled and the remainder of the cargo was breakbulk cargo. Cargo traffic for the single month of December was 49percent above the monthly average and more than 140 percent higherthan the leanest month of November.

The port of Calbayog registered cargo tonnage of 57,800 mt1992, with outgoing cargo accounting in

for 60 percent of totalvolume. More than 50 percent of total tonnage comprised outwardmovement of copra, shipped in bulk aboard trampers, whereas allinward cargoes were breakbulk, and comprised 40 percent ofport's traffic. The lowest monthly cargo tcnnage was the

in August,when throughput dipped to under 1,000 and weretons, there no outward shipments of copra.

The port of Guiuan registered a cargo throughput of 13,514 mtin 1992, entirely breakbulk. Guiuan had a good balance of trafficin two directions, and seasonality was not pronounced, ranging from

64 to 144 percent of the average month.

Total cargo at porttonnage the of San Jose Carangian was20,547 mt, of which bulk cargo, all outgoing, comprised 89 percentof cargo handled. Cargo traffic during the two-month periodOctober-November accounted for almost 50 percent of total cargo

volume.

The port of Borongan had the lowest cargo tonnage of any ofthe Samar ports, just mt.6,279 Incoming cargo comprised 94percent of cai'gototal volume. Cargo handled in bulk waspercent of the total tonnage. 63

Cargo traffic during the three-monthperiod, May-July, accounted for 40 percent of total cargo handled in 1992.

The aggregate cargo tonnage of the five Samar ports was nearly190,000 mt in 1992. Total inbound cargo traffic, which amounted to86,857 mt, accounted for less than half (46 percent) of total cargotonnage and outbound cargo traffic comprised 54 percent of thetotal, cargo traffic at the five ports. As regards type ofhandling, cargoes handled were predominantly breakbulk (58 percent)and bulk (38 percent) and very little cargo was containerized. Thelowest traffic volumes were recorded during the period January

26

Table 3.1

SAMAR ISLAND PORT CARGO TRAFFIC, 1992

(InMetrc Tom)

9AVZ

.38 6.272 7,37 104531 7,M66 7,601 4,-)57Im.nd3 6.44 ,2 0387 3 52 3.183935 467 141 9,6324 3X96 2=92 5,6232 50,7W .4, 11,421 49,1 ,52,8 238 11 7,0673,467 490 3,16 2,449 3 ,236 5.722 427 5,393 42,0 037Bulkcont-a.ud 234 234308 480 468 3051,1 .,----- .ii. nn,671r2,72- -- ,4. ... 102-254 6.596 3SjI4.282 3.695 2,035 2.746 2,386 4,57 0 6,06B1ulk . 4 .....1 135 644 855 421 2,74 386 4.576 44 6,02.u. 492 1540 1610 3741 2170310 45 1.1.691 3_ . t, ,,&, co.) 9,038 6 72 7,372 10,531 7.56 6 _3Bscakbulk 3,6 973 7747 AII 64 5,62 1 4 1,42 9 ,63 6.443 ,622 10.3-8 .4,3'97 11,421 Conrainaized 5.154 L.7741 1,60 629 27*I.M3 9jj 9 i___

618s 5 I52 4 485 1S In d e o nU _ 771 9461- 736 ,e a s 1 1 _ ~8 6 1 9 9 1 W9 65 -- 7 0 6 1 11 4 74 1-61CAL VO - "d~eCm . 2.852 5,238 3,3261,616 2,622 10 3,67 3N94 7,536 6,707 84 839--1 1,958 2,89_ 392 20 ,8..9 7 1,578 2,097 1,J9 5,7 ,12,207 2.3,,_5 1,9401234 3481,36 261174 409,36 ,031.946 329 4,639 4.77 .- 3-1 ,1 ,35 36 6,_Bulk b l ~1 - 4w2_1002 2268 2142 644 1 6 51fa8 134 276 213 36 73 2,--51617 342 43 4 3 8 366-..6535 1622 609 30,114 2,310Brckbulkrll(kb zjBl ot. 8184 356282 528 ,6k,03,1-.- .3 6.707 8W4 ,392,87 42= .44 3,32 2.104 8,921 57.778 4,81SBulk i 84 1.854-"2.3101,002 228 21 Z4-2,3802 142 644 -21,617 3,42 4,233 - 6,535 1622 6,60 3.35

S Ix 973 78 a 7GUILUAN Daaw..nn~~o&)1,394 162 ,30 901 ~4 123laboua.1 137 176 106781 92 84 59 63 88 ~ 0 82 77 1,1 ,268 57 49 33 33 26T~ 9

OXONCAJJDmmmC 337 1.20 497 931 728 1,064 54 7471401104 215 2 02 6,79 5337 120 497 91 573 924 54 7 1 9 0 ,1337 310 411 335 338 is1B ,. 1,944 162Olotad&3 _337 120 160 621 162 9 2052 155 29 82 370 3140 68 363 30

To____ _ 'k 337 ,1 20 7 " 31 72 8 54 5143 747 21 5 295 02 6,27 523B UL 437 16 47 331 m 3 2,309 1n 71ex0 16 621 162 519 205 464 21 3 29 57

; 02 -9-3 7 2-- n nd )t-- '- 9 73 59 ,0 2 371 4, 5,445 125 20,47 4.-1,71210Odam i 0 1,0 1,010 44 400 78 2,144 ,30 3 2 2 ,3 68

.1 ,4 Bulk 9 0 0 1200 1010ToalMraknl &Bulk 4 2 400 780 214. 2 04 2 8 21919 1.273 1U69 544 40 78 ,4 , 2 . 23 7 .i 545 15 2,4 .1u tbo mul

a-. 1 415 411 56 15B.4 19 73 55 1s9B uea Doaad 0 1 2 W 0 1 1 4 2 9 4 0 0 7 8 0 214 4 2 2 04,91 ,27 329 4 8 83 4S TO TAInd AR5 74 1,69 54 400+ __ 7_.806_ _ 1 262 32 23 46 131 154 .76,--22 276 3187

15,23 1750 17.31 71 6, 4 13,74 S 1 7,230 16 ,2= 11.705 16,20 5 2 0,159 13,393 22,054 1 lS 32 fI o n d5 ,24 1 ,450 1987, 11 7,8 5 6, 1 6 8 205 6 55.4 5 1 6 6 , 2 9 ,= 4 .1 67 777 6 8 78 24"1 7.el5,2,057 01 933.4 72571 120 628s 42 5,711 5,w31 27 6 7,5621 467 589 205 77,146 .42'9Co~anrje 38 480 46 1 25"2 5,1 32574 44,Outbound 5.45 00 478 420 7r 6T,07 5 6929 965 979 ,7 ,1 1 7 626 13fl13'~ ,

Brckblk .28 218 1,44 1,71Bulk 6822 5 4762 6914 ,05 3397 1,64 3629 3 7 5 .W,6, 1,344 6.668 33,250 2,7714,187 5 2Couaiacriud 7277 2 S 530310 45 1,691 326 488 5951 4882 6,609 6719 585

Graradotal uakbuk, Bulk a&3 2,60 23 Coalai 1420 14,742 13,117 16,4 , 17,830 16.-3 11.795 16,205 20,1596,5396 8 8,435 13,9 22,054 1986 1583Bul 79 1,457 10,9 746 9,0 9267.056 5,5.9 4,88 7,44 4,808 6,;89 7,866 2,45 6,9 1393 ,1 4,31036 920,6 ,7 , 1 209 6 ,q000oturw 52 4,813 7 M 2.5561 T7 1 7,3o0 613

SoWft sPhdiphie Farb Au&h,ffy

27

http:cont-a.ud

March, but the month of least traffic was August.

Table 3.2 indicates the 1993 cargo traffic volumes at the samefive ports of Samar. The port of Borongan almost ceased to operate

in 1993, and Guiuan Port suffered a sharp decline in cargo volumes,

but the other three ports considerably increased their volumes of

outbound cargo shipments. The five-port combined cargo throughput

exceeded 264,000 tons in 1993, approximately 39 percent up from the preceding year. Outflows increased by a greater extent, rising to

174,000 tons in 1993, from only 103,000 mt the preceding year,

which represented a rise of 69 percent. It is pertinent to the

LSRS, however, that more than two-thirds of total cargo outflows from these principal ports of Samar constituted bulk cargo (nearly

120,000 mt in 1993). Copra shipments are, in 1994, mostly

accommodated by barges and other tramper vessels, partly as bulk

and partly as breakbulk cargo. Thus, the rapid increase of Samar cargo outflows by sea, in 1993, did not necessarily result in any

significant rise in the accommodation of outbound cargo by

interisland liner shipping.

Leyte Island

Other than the Maharlika Highway ferry terminal at Liloan,

Southern Leyte, there are nine principal public ports which serve

the hinterland of Leyte and Southern Leyte. The ports of Leyte

Province are Tacloban, Baybay, Ormoc, Isabel, and Palompon, and the ports of Southern Leyte include Maasin, Cabalian, Hilongos and

Bato. These ports fall uncer the jurisdiction of the PPA Port

Management Office of Tacloban. The port of Tacloban is the PPA

baseport, and accounts for more than 50 percent of the total cargo

traffic of Leyte Island ports.

Table 3.3 presents the inbound and outbound cargo traffic and

Tacloban amounted to 448,563 mt in 1992, and comprised 64 percent

the seasonality indices for 1992 for seven of the Leyte Island ports.

Total cargo tonnage, domestic and export, for the port of

of the total tonnage of the seven ports. Domestic cargo handled in

the port of Tacloban constituted 94 percent of that port's total cargo tonnage. There were more incoming cargoes than outgoing,with the former constituting 62 percent of total traffic. Inbound traffic consisted of breakbulk (66 percent) and containerized (34

percent). Outbound cargo was mainly bulk (70 percent). Export

cargo handled was all bulk, and all copra. The fact that only 30 percent of the outbound cargoes from the port comprised breakbulk and containerized cargoes tends to create an imbalance of

interisland liner shipping cargoes in two directions. Any large

imbalance, in turn, tends to limit the attractiveness of liner shipping routes serving the port.

28

TABLE 3.2

SAMAR ISLAND PORT CARGO TRAFFIC, 1993

(In Metric Tons)

.......... . 4-D-aC o lc 5, 10,541 -"3 565 9,529 - ' .. . .7,71 73 8 16,460 27,731 9,.4561 . .. . . .. . . . - Aj 14,661 10,337 13,3261 1.4,Md (b kbu ) 313 4.14 , 34 , 7 4,,, 3,43 3,424 4,43, 6,2141 1.76 6,018 5,1611 47,3021 3,942 O~bvumd- - - = o ,J I J 2,= 6,7 71 264 5,3 4,280 3,9M4 12,021 21,542 176884_l g._51M.AM I_ tMK l 3,?_I_4,tlt J ,64315,176 -91,224 760B ekbolk--l 1681 1- i 714 2,654 53 -, 71 +'OCT: IOI ,C-It---AI-V, ______ 1164 4946 4,2801 ,944 1, 64,82 17,688 518 9 4 4;26 ,3_ 10001 1500401415 ,0

CA2LBAYOG .. .. .. ...4 s . . -+~l~ 'mT "K l --151 2 41 11-4-l--, ------ -P- -.~ joameatic Cargo 5,777 6,132 4,553 5,547

fJ 3,149 7,578 5,633j 7,430 7,087 6,59W 4,M9 6,791 71,419 5.952 _ (m __w 1 3 2,03 19 78 sm 30481891 2,227 2,193 1,26055 2,571~ 2,157 3,125 23,243 1,9371

Bulk 44 389 2547k 4&9 84 415 28'41 408 02 331 3458 44,434 3,

to~u 7 3,02 2.0l - .. 3-1-2

339- m 196 320 23 1 373lGUIUAN 173 407 326 4 3,742W

Dakede Cro 640 35 42 60 00 922 677 74 683 72__ 7860.bowd: Q..) 343 120

655 312 441 488 560 418 428 441 510 522 5,005 4V1O bO.m--mktb'k) I29 1 m3'1 9"12Ij 1 7 2 ,W '1i A4 341 2,i5 2

_ _- _ _ _, 7 7 7W 7 7 -7-7.r, so 69-- 4 34 BORONGAN

Domt* Cflgo 635 67 281 4195 371 1,030 660 - 1 4,153 371 Inbomu 6 673 281 495 341 552 660 338 4,075 340

12 67- 481 95 3011 , Z-66 13 2 173,41 285_ Bulk jut4O"!~k 323751 378

'A J CAAI NUSE

j -p- -

DafeutkC, 3,500 102,082 3,288 1.1,Inbound (eokhol) j 0 051 19 7 9 5,334 6143,734 42,1583,51325I249 ,6 754 2, 2,391 I10,870 90Zi --Oidboud 2998 02 31

- 725 -1.3Q-'Z4 _ 9061180 1960 3459 259 2942 Y)44 3540 31V9 1343 3,288. 2,607

Buk 2,~9W 2,082 2,910 1,180 1,969 3,459 2,472 2,730 3,044 3,540 3,eg189 7 30,882 2,574

........ .. ... . 1.. xzGRAND-TOTAL SAMAR oetc Cm 15,082 19,896 11,32 13,493 15,25W7719750717,702 30,29 41,060

U

31,692 263 21,7253 264,416 22,035Jnbozmd 5,71 7,168 4,54 4,53 5X8 7,2.= 7,775 9.847 1090 5,816 10,551 11,199 90,495 7,541Brcaltu& 5,37 6,533 4,54 3,8U4 5,5= 6,988 7,78D 9,515 10,910 5,156 10,213 11,199 U7,081 7,257Duflk 635 673 221 4.95 332 660 338 ___ 3,414 285Outhowd 10 121,72 0,799 8,956 9,739 12,481 9,(L7 20.45Bm&1,ulk 12,32 1 1 1,269_ 3,077 30,150 25,7 1V,78 10,S26 173,921 14495N5 4,867 4,5566 1,998 7,38 1 1,294, 1,038 1,592, 54,4071 4541Bulk 8,16 10,827 5,50 ,7 ,1 7,614 5,361 18,447 22412 7,5U81 14.745, 8,9341 119,5141 9,96

Sorrue: FhUp *rts Au&orty

'29

http:g._51M.AM

Table 3.3

LEYTE ISLAND PORT CARGO TRAFFIC, 1992

(In Metric Tons)

FTA.*O.A*...... .............. ... .. . .....

jTACTADBAN ToWa C a Throutpazl

Domestc ]orelgn

Iabumwd Baebuk Blk C,,hizd,234

Onom

Brohu& BDuk

CmVobized

, udk

TOMttal Bk , Buk & SCW 1lak~*13,114

Contaledzed se -onalftyIndex

HILONGO-S

35,983 32,833

3,150 21,259 15,725

300.

11.574 2,3W 8,236

949

3,1501 35,13

11,686 6,13

96

33b.-,

32,68 32504 32,687 32,504

17,258 21,873 11,958 15,237

500

4.00 6,631 13,429 10,631 2,163 1855

12,.1 t,375 1,135 2.401

328 32,4 14,121 17,09 12,631 6,375

5,935 9,037 87 8

3=,36 28,885

6,650 23,120 17,434

5.686 5,765 1,.550 Z750

1456

6,650 35535 18,903 9,400 7,142

95

28,668 31,564 26,268 31,564

2,400 17,411 19,360 8,665 13,185

900_ 7 6,175 9857 12,204 3,515 3,421 3,900 6,142 1,442 2,641

2,400 2,668 31,564 12,180 16,606 7,200 6,142 9,21 8,816

77 4

38,462 35,712

2,750 19,421 11,913

7,508 16, 91 2,194

12,687 1,410

2,730 38,462 14,107 15,07

6,915 103

37,M36 34,836

3AW 19,916 12,673

7.243 14,20 2,330

11,320 1,270

3,000 37,836 15,003 14,520

5,513 101

36,38 34,387

2,000 22,431 15,009

7,422 11,956

1,714 7,94

2,346

2,000,

36,387 16,723 9,894 9,770

97

38,942 36,942

2,000 22,004 13,456

400 8,1,48

14,938 944

12,431

1,563

2,o 33,942 14,400 14,831 9,711

104,

42,969 40,69

2,000 21,548 11,943

9,605 19,421

1,145 16,277 1,99

2,000 42M 13,088 18,277 11,604

115

DC!.

57.02 54,026

0 35,892 24.450

11,442 16,134

1,350 14,172

2,612

3,000-

31,26 25,800 17,172 14,054

153f

TALIA

4-1,56$ 37,3o01 411,613 35,134

26,930 2.6 261,493 21,791 171 A 14,304

2,100 175 87,745 7,312

160,12 13,343 24.579 2,048

114,315 9,526 21,226 1,76Q 26, 2,246

448,563 37,380 196227 16,352 143,365 11047 108,971 9,081

Cargo Damec bbound bnkb& ()tintd brtotkflAS

1.376 98 438

1,=5 782 577

1.451 900 551

1,=2 5 6S8

1,62 1,075

547

1,589 977 612

1,W1 960 386

1,06 1,307

389

2=454 1,.W

,

1,613 1,315

2"

MUB8 2,00 388

1,N05 1,375

530

20 14,39 6,121 _

1,0 1,200 .3f1

2csoh~Idx ORMOC

, 80 79 5 89 95 93 79 99 14 914 151 11 _ _ _ CapDom=tc

Inbound .,bk4,-S4

8.424 6,331

9.576 6,4864.4V6

9,043 7,3605,232

5,844 4,3022,97

10,261 10,8521 6, 6,68715.93216.52

10,289 7=6,Wu

16,198 12,169 6.56 3,S.6,1X36,490

12,114 5,75.1071

12,435 7.

4,97 18,137

6,400 135.-162P31I

,

S.W, C4271,773

on mi Ernddatk _ _ _

Cotobeized

T!!! (1Ftask uW,Bunc Bm"kb __ B Coutwaedz

Bcaonaltl Indt

BAYBAY

('A.AL)

2,09 653 950 490

8424

5,211 95o

2,263

75

2,000 2,0 3,090 1.63

923 d03 1,300 5501

362 530 9,576 9,043 5,414 5,355 1,800 50 2 13622,638

S5 80

'.7 1,.42

782

760 5,844

3,661 -

2,183 52

3.902 2.559 1,100 243

10,261

3,491 1,100

670 91

165 4,165 1,56s 2,373

227 10,8&%

1,0 2.373 32

96

118 53,

957 2,146

114 10,239

7,341

2,14 302

91

9,,6 5.205 4,211

246 16,198

11,741 74,211

246

144

72 ,617

.263 3X4

130 12,169

8,743 3,224

202

108

6U1 656 3521 2,7385

21D

12,114

8,428 2,785

901 107

353 7,.125 3.377 3,575

173 12,435

,T-4 3,75 52d

110

1,365 10,372

6,344 3,360

165 18,137

12,744 3,860 1,533

1611

10,425V 69 61924 3,160 31,37 2A.6 26,574 2,215 3,793 316

133,342 11,274

.04,5.V 7,879 2.6,574 2,15, 14,218 1,115

Cw oDeumsU Inboumd ldmtb& Ouboeudbredbuk

2E!En q ludex

120

592 228

50

1 1322 1,170

15.2

80

1,135 697 438

69

1,032 661 364

621

"985 666 319

59

1,072 915 157

65

2,0181

773 1,2,45

122

1,8671 7611 ,106k

1131

1,4691

7331 7361

91

2,8.941

7981 2,0A6

175

2,7711 788

1,93

167

2,40 796

1,694

1

19.67.i 9,357

10,5111

1,656 780 877

MAASIN Cupgo Dom..tdc

imlbomdbrtuuk Oubound

Bta"A

Blak

TO M B Ikoakhlkb

1,268 1,000

268 268

1,3 1,26V

2,739 1,239

900 415 485

2,7 225

3.024 1,524

La0

735 462

3A4 2.5U

1,565 1,573

292 292

INS 1.V65

3,443 2,955

488 488

3,443 3,443

4,257 2,117 2,170

352 1,818 4;87 2.469

2.630 1,283 1,347

326 1,021 2.30 1,01

3,273 2,730

543

543

3,273 3273

1,799 1,394

405

405

1.799 1.799

2,954 2,416

538

538

2.954 2.954

2,7331 2.312

421

421

2,733 2.733

4,127 2,629

1,498

570 928

4.127 3.199

. 3 4,1 42 r 24,072

10,070 5,356 4.714

34.1421 29,42 .

2,9451 2,006

o39

446 393

2,845 2.452

__ _ _

.. __,_,__.__..451

PALOMPON

__ _ _ _485

96 462

Lo 66 12, 1,8

11 892

1,21 2 15 63 104 96 145

47 3__928j313

Cwp Dowesk Inboundbregkbu

2,7001 1.732

2,3763 1 .952

2,,7o, 2,2 1 169 1,P321

2.M9 244

2,S6 1,646

2,55f 1,703

3,4421 1,011

3,71 2,303

25491 1,353

34,387 2,115

2,IW6 1,843

Otboum brcdb 968 792 751,D55 1,1321 9601 745 1,017 $47 1,641[ 1.1681 1,196 12,272 1,023 stas ,INJndex 94 96 94 1031 981 101J 101 931 9 1201 1211 89 1

30

Table 3.3 (Continued)

LEYTE ISLAND PORT CARGO TRAFFIC, 1992

(In Metric Tons)

I MJl 4 ~ I , ~ 2 i 7 ..H f J f ~IABA OL

MroDonitzwl m:62 540 5wbouadbr" - [ 324! 378[ 341 299 66 631 42 500 7131 574 544! 720 - ,042157321 243 254 456 406 449OuoadbreakbuL 156 435 4,215 -246 199 2871 347 322 219 246 2571 169 95 285 2,827 3ef""ornaIndex 62 1W 92 100 114 10i 7n 85 121 98 93 123 -MRAND-TOTAL LRYTE 4,5--57

retaicarp T'io | ,50,602150,749 4,911i 48,621 49,2461 52,7 01 1 57,9353 63,=81 57,452 62,24 67,379[ ...,.Caro DousetIc 17,452 50, 9,, 4; ,,. ,. 55,203r- __.... 66,5701 55,0448 6......Inbou d 29. 34947 ~32.734 30,456 3271 5' 02n-_ 582 32.i76 4 0 __ 31. 6 33.150 55,45212 60a4 ,3798,V_66__62_4 50,254.0 -.--5.1 6 3,4 '~ 69 62 0 89BrUb& 24,869 22,584 26,0 25,625 21,253 25-957 -j6- ------ -'i .10 . .... 24,0 25,907 24,682 25,2.72 3 ... 0 7...72...3 7....-i..4.

i_ -0090 _ __o,_- ___ __ __.. .... 400 100 1......

Oo unudt~ b 7 07 6 00 8 44 7 09 , 73 6 0 2 241 '~ 494 3769w 1 ,R 9 8, 70 KI iOubud15,276 20,865 14,964 9.244 15,390 20,404 23,377 27,678 23,276 25,82,6 -0,669 351 26,1 2113.... 5,100,......................5,2--73 5,135 4 ,907 7,359 6,072

DuIk 10,3 9,769 9,006W ,777.

9,186 14,416 7,387 2,750 5,000 10,333 15,851 11 16 1 1,0 1, 1 3 9ox~iazd~90 2,442 1.497 1,493 2,6C2 1,451 2,J891,176 -1.311"Exort abWk 3,150 1,604 2,040 t,653 21-,71! 1,810~_ 6,650 2,400 2.750 3,000 2,000 2,000 2000 3,000 25.950 2,15"Md-T*h (BMuU-bulk Cont.) 5,0 5o.749 49,911 4 48,M 52,1 57,013 62 5 64 6779 86,27, 696,570, 58,0429,99 27,857 31,338 30,622 30.190 33.346 30.272 36.743 34,451 34,305 33529 49,407 402,029 33%2BA11 12,636 14,916 7,38 1 9 5,3008 10,333 -18.6'9 18,531 13,118 _17,61Contsineied 7,99 7,976 111111 5,606 1I'St 21,960 174,2653 14,5549,756 9,022 9,077 8,554 9,883 10,373 11,9 15,460 119 881 9,1

& ", 7 7 6 04',91 10 110 go 107 116 1SO

W"Im 3PWImhoc Pea Andmiay

31.

The port of Baybay registered total cargo tonnage of 19,875 mt

in 1992. There was a good balance of cargo flows in two

directions, with outgoing cargo comprising 53 percent of total tonnage. Cargo traffic registered was much higher during the

period, October-December, than during the first three quarters of the year.

Cargo tonnage handled in the port of Ormoc amounted to 135,342

mt in 1992. Inbound cargo, which was mainly breakbulk, comprised

54 percent of the total tonnage. Outbound cargo was comprised of

bulk cargo (42 percent) and breakbulk cargo (51 percent). Cargo

traffic during the period August-December was 26 percent above the monthly average for the whole year.

The port of Palompon registered a cargo throughput of 34,387

mt in 1992. Inbound cargo comprised 70 percent of total cargo

tonnage, which was all breakbulk. Outbound cargo was comprised of breakbulk (53 percent) and bulk (47 percent).

The port of Hilongos registered total cargo tonnage of 20,520

mt in 1992, all breakbulk. Incoming cargo accounted for 70 percent

of total volume. Average cargo traffic flow during the months of

September, November and December was 40 percent above the monthly average.

The port of Bato had the lowest cargo traffic among the seven

Leyte Island ports, of just 7,042 mt. Around 60 percent of the cargo handled at the port was incoming. Cargo flows were more or less evenly distributed throughout the year, with the exception ofthe month of December, when cargo tonnage was 23 percent above the monthly average.

TIhe combined tonnage for the seven Leyte ports amounted to

696,570 mt in 1992. Incoming cargo was larger in volume than outgoing, accounting for 61 percent of the total domestic cargo at

the seven Leyte ports. As regards type of handling, cargoes

handled were predominantly breakbulk (58 percent) and bulk (25

percent) and the rest were containerized. The lowest traffic volumes were recorded during the first half of the year and cargo

volumes picked up in the second semester of 1992.

Table 3.4 presents the seasonality of cargo traffic flows in

the routes connecting Tacloban with other ports and seasonality is shown graphically in Figure 3.1. Two-directional cargo imbalance existed in the Manila-Tacloban-Manila route. Cargo traffic, for 1992, in the Manila-Tacloban direction, amounting to 72,000 mt, and was four times the cargo traffic registered in the Tacloban-Manila direction, viz. 17,620 mt.

Cargo volumes peaked in the periods of April to July and

November-December in the Maniia-Tacloban direction. Almost 74 percent of the total cargo accommodated on this route was

32

TABLE 3.4

CARGO TRAFFIC AT TACLOBAN PORT, BY SHIPPING ROUTE AND DIRECTION 1992 (In Metric Tons)

................. ___ ....... _ 4,744 .__am' .5,581 7,22 _ _'42 . U8,541 7,658 9,33 8,274 UG ~ _ _ O6,869 7,61l .. . ......canvatimw 902 6.888 I 10.160 91,51 7,62.1,009 1,81 4,089 1,107 4,385 1488 1.124 1,359CoritizCiZed 3,842 4,572 5 467 1,010 19,39 1,6205,469 4,451 6,5 4,945 6,685 5,745 6,252S dex 6,M2 8,116 9,149 72,,asnhmk? 62 6,007'73 _112100 122 JO 90 1 90 113 133

1,153 21M 2 1,261 1,618 2,22Cmertio2 1,173 1,510 1"o 1.435314 1,152 31 34 1,789 2,157 20,745 1,359 39 246 5 109cotaim-ized 148 156 87 3,125 260839 1,105 2,24 1,227 1,259 2,189 927 960 1.!71 1.87 1,633 2,070 17.620 MaS ai~wXdbk 67 -- 125 131 73 94 129 6S87 - 115 83. T,dobm 4,065 2,764 5,896 5,926 3,631 4,261 __ 103 1-25

5.979 4,059 5,598Conveti~ow 2,673 2,537 4,444 3,762 6,914 57,298 4,7754,729 4,692 2,339 3,032 5,157 2,564 4,427Conurtzized 1,392 2,598 2,272 4,891 41,912 3,493227 1,166 1,233 1,292 1,228 822 1,495 1,171 1,946S dex 1,490 2,023 15.386 1,282kanala 85 58 12 1241 89 125 m5 117 93 79 _145aclbnCb 0 261 1,830 723 1,503 1,0 1 -502cmwetimm 1,071 1,450 938 3-M 1,755297 230 1.684 493 1,319 1.452 16,725 1,394Conhintrized 110 31 146 1,018 762 977 662 3,015 1,211 13,121 1,093230 184 451 484 308 473 276 367 543 3.604 300

SasmiaUxIndex 29 19r 131. 52 108 137 108 77Gul0an-Tazdobn 104 67 243626 677 426 16393 1,158 420 637 678Sewa rindcx 102 Il 667 568 565 56565 64 7,380 615188 68 104 110 108 92 92 92rdobms&-Ga 850 874 805 551 633 879 654 564 484 329SeAnfaityIndex - 139 143 131 90 327 398 7.347 612103 143 107 _--92 _---_79 54_ .53.--- 65

fluao-Tadobmn 2,020 727 506 120 548 555ScmoaliryIndex 595 440 1,978 3,433158 57 40 9 43 43 2,519 1,873 15,315 1,2747 34 1S5 269 197 147rso-. lqjo -1,199 120SemaaityInd

- 210 - 335 1,864 155...... - 135 772 177 - 216

flgan-Tadoban 2,446 1,856 1,896 3,403 2,017SemsonalityIndex 960 1,00.) 2,198170 129 132 236 - 1,504 17,280 1,440140 67 69 153 - 104 _aban-1"gan 5,608 9,005 2,450 3,000 5.712 10,035 8.758 6,842 9,744 7,608Season2atkyIndeX 89 6,758 75,520 6,293143 39 . 48 91 159 139 109 155 121 107Mmndm-Tackbin 1,694152 . 1,600Sezrwalky Indec 143 55650 686 196 1,342120 1,04961 2,192 94 97,387 82274 - 83875 1,654 13,402148_ _ 1,117

adobg-n-Mndam" 897 916 34 2 468 695 898 368 754 392 254 478SesyajiIndex 123 2,301 8,765 730125 47 64 95 123 50 .... 103 54 _ 35Bacolod-Tadeban 65 315250 1,009 670 51.3 5 9 740 450 531 1,442 450SeScasoaityindex 740 1,100 8,474 70635 143 9-4 73 82 los 64 75 204 64 105 _ 156 dobze-Bacsal - 120 1SeasonalityIndex~-

-T I2

--

-------

FIGURE 3.1

SEASONATY OF CARGO TRAFFIC AT TACLOBAN PORT, 1992

MANIA .-ZAC,.OBAN

- -2--- ----- ---- TACLOBAN--------- E

20 -------------------

80 -- --- ,/--- --. ---- ------ ----0- --

40-------------- TAcWEOBAN-yMAILA

@

;o ta 20 ----------------------------- C 1U - TACLOBAN~

0 0

MONTHS MONrM

TACLOA-GUIUAN

180 ----------- ---------------- ---0 - --------

o 100 ,120

180-0 1407O- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -1----0-------------------

------ ----- -----------

j 50 4 0 -- L4--- A 3 S K

--------------

------

%101 -- ------ ----------- 400 I2 OBA-------------T . ................ 080------------GU1UNTLON

0 0

MONTHS MONTHS

-----------------

--------

-------------------------------------------

FIGURE 3.1

(Continued) SEASONALJTY OF CARGO TRAFFIC

AT TACLOBAN PORT, 1992

25 ILIAN- IACLOBAN TACOBAN-KANDAUE

3050- ----------------

200-----2l ----------------------0 MNAMJCOA0*ri.1cR 20 -----------r --250-------------lioo .L lo 71 7o

~100n TACLt RANi-flGA2N 50 ----- ---a--- - -----

l 0 l0 z+0 00 0 p

MONTHS MONTH

1200 ----- ...........................----

1000 ------------ TAC BAN BACOD --

~600 ------------------------400 -------------- BACOLOD-TACLOBAN ---

200 -- I-- --

MONTHS

containerized. In the Tacloban-Manila direction, cargo volumespeaked during the months of February, March, June, and November-December. Cargo was 85 percent containerized in this direction.

In the Tacloban-Cebu direction, the cargo traffic volume wasonly 16,725 mt in 1992, equivalent to about 30 percent of the total cargo volume of 57,300 mt in the opposite, Cebu-Tacloban direction.Cargo traffic in the Tacloban-Cebu direction was lowest during themonths of January to February and peak volume occurred in the monthof November, which was 140 percent higher than the monthly average.Cargoes shipped to and from Cebu, despite the provision of serviceby a passenger/container vessel, were predominantly breakbulk.

In the Guiuan-Tacloban direction, peak volume occurred in Mayand was 88 percent above the monthly average. In the oppositeTacloban-Guiuan direction, highest monthly cargo volumes wereregistered in February and June, more than 40. percent above the monthly average computed.

Peak months for cargo traffic in the Iloilo-Tacloban routedirection were during the period September to January, while duringthe rest of the year, the monthly cargo volumes belowwere percent of the monthly average. 50

In the opposite Tacloban-Iloilo

direction, cargo traffic was recorded to occur in just four monthsof 1992, with the peak volume recorded in August. Outgoing cargovolume from Tacloban destined to Iloilo was only 12 percent of the

total incoming cargo volume from Iloilo.

In the Tacloban-Iligan direction, the cargo tonnage shippedout was more than 300 percent higher than incoming cargo volumefrom Iligan. This was due to the heavy movement of copra to Iliganprocessing mills. The opposite trade pattern could be discerned inthc routes Mandaue-Tacloban and Bacolod-Tacloban direction, whereincoming tonnage to Tacloban was higher in volume than outgoing cargo traffic.

Table 3.5 identifies the cargo volumes which were accommodatedat the same seven ports of Leyte in 1993. There was an overallgrowth of cargo traffic for the seven ports of about 6.6 percent,as cargo throughput grew from slightly less than 700,000 mt in1992, to more than 742,000 mt the following year. Cargo trafficdeclined slightly at Tacloban Port, but this decline was more thanoffset by high percentage increases in cargo traffic at four of theother ports, viz: Ormoc (30.3 percent), Baybay (24.6 percent),

Maasin (42.3 percent), and Bato (42.8 percent). Although the westcoast ferry ports of Palompon and Hilongos suffered declines intheir respective cargo throughputs from 1992 to 1993, the overalltrend from 1992 to 1993 was definitely toward greater reliance onthe west coast ports in comparison with past heavy reliance on theport of Tacloban. This trend is not surprising, because theimprovement of the Leyte arterial road network, which has beenproceeding over several years, permits shippers and travelers at

36

- ---

TABLE 3.5

LEYTE ISLAND PORT CARGO TRAFFIC, 1993

(In Metrtc Torn)

TACLOBAN4TW"C aThr .. 081 4250 212 33,738 31,419 37264 339771. 1 47,410 42-Demt~se 1 38,09 43.846 442_818 36,902,8 37602 3082 1,6 3,6429,777 38,091 42,34 40,181 35.99lbgd13067, 43,84 41 12 34,72624,4 1,5 21,832417b 7,497 25,718 -20,782 24,61215.32 11,506-' 12,857--- 1,72"--'-5~-"-~5 10,119 20,716 27 23,128 29,73 274,915 22,9103,40 1,019- 17.537 12,302Coutm~cnzvd8 17.1- 159. 13,5,5M 9 10 7,351 10446 11,133 10663 11,07211~au 9,014 12708 7~5.L 9 697 m54 10825 95 115431 9619~ 74916 10 a" 14 79 21 241 13102 127 141021aum 1,10 83 .1 141,9 11Buk 18S- 1 187 15 9,85 51 A8 6,800 1 1,6 2.024 191 1,2cokmuzd 5 10-0 71.67J 213 116 120 115 9,87 93 10.1401 91Fe 646 1.791 2.1730 6 1.5000 2,756 27300 4 14..100 5100 21 2100_ 2_106 2_76 e"tu~) 500 2,756 2,04 200 210 210 ,00216IMONGOS--O 196... . _' 1 '.''' 1 12 1,283oetcuOE Ir 92_74Thmd rekhnT " 1, 655 472 118 ,22 92 1,219 1,319 .1 2,14398 4 60K 1,10 ,23 4,9 121I-da : 44 250

811 M 1,717 4 -vi 11 424 426 578 423 4,5 400ORMOC

Donmmtlc Cwarj_ _ 8,793 11"88 1413?3 2310 12 770 1SInbound 21 17 14,523 156913:,7 3 16,211 176 19 1,8__ujL2,801 5,871 95 7051 6,6394,7SS 9 51 9759 9,1715 525 7,O41 63S 8,632 7799 6 723 a,02 12 7,5566610 -587,-a. 6,544

n'os j 24O 10193 1 ,1 44 227 1414 ,1 C o r 426 4.5 .

.......... :

HAYBAY-- a- go 873 301 1 2071..,3-, 829.___ 2,475TnheitmdQ~a~ 775' 147 24763 2,06tA 66)M 1,2-41 677l 7 61 M 7 M7 9541 1,017 1,117 902 9976 Ru.Ouboumd akbulk 205 1,788 7 15 -92 1-831 1,103 1 1,48 1,8 - 14,789 12

Dmerd c 47 - 525 3,779 3677 482 4067 3 4,07bo&..W, 1,61 2P 044 724 224 - 1-5 6Oulbwaad 981 2 2,177 3 615 1 4.5 7 8439 735 72 305 1027 1 74 444 1530&aBufl 1,7 1477 120 1-376 -439 -369 -M339 - 305 20 4 118S387 444 619 679BLduk 605 366 453 506 1,027 5749 479767 9217BIN 92 8591 9171 493 6,465 539 ALOMPON

Dome---- e 1852 2, 2..