Advertise your business here! 🚀

Dp World India Terminals Achieve Double-Digit Growth

port-and-ship

Apr 15, 2025

Maritime Standard

DP World terminals in Mundra and Cochin both delivered exceptionally strong growth rates over the 2024-5 financial year. The Mundra International Container Terminal (MICT) achieved a throughput of 1,497,228 TEU, 13% up on the previous financial year. The terminal achieved its highest-ever monthly volume in March, handling 138,983 TEU, surpassing the previous record of 138,000 TEU, set in January this year.

Meanwhile DP World’ Cochin set an all-time record throughput in 2024-25, handling 834,665 TEU, representing an 11% year-on-year growth. This included a transshipment volume record of 169,562 TEU.

Over the past year DP World Cochin has significantly expanded its capacity with infrastructure upgrades, including the introduction of new ship-to-shore cranes, electrified e-RTGs and an expanded yard space, boosting the terminal’s total capacity to 1.4 million TEU a year.

Share Your Insights!

Publish your articles, reach a global audience, and make an impact.

Related News You might want to check out

Marine Insight

Maryland Approves $160M Plan To Protect Bay Bridge From Ship CollisionsMaryland’s Transportation Authority (MDTA) has completed a safety study for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and announced plans to improve the bridge’s defenses against potential ship collisions. The decision comes after heavy criticism from federal officials after the fatal collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore in March 2024. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has previously expressed concern over MDTA’s failure to assess the Bay Bridge for ship-strike risks, especially since it had already identified the structure as vulnerable. The collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, when a container ship struck one of the bridge’s columns and killed six construction workers, and caused billions in damage, brought increased scrutiny to older US bridges over navigable waterways. According to the NTSB, the Key Bridge collapse could have been avoided if a proper risk analysis and pier protection were in place. After the incident, the board requested 30 bridge-owning agencies across the country to assess 68 aging and at-risk bridge spans. MDTA, which owns both the Key Bridge and the Bay Bridge, was specifically named for not having completed the Bay Bridge assessment at the time. MDTA says the risk analysis for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge has been completed. The agency spent $600,000 on the study, which was carried out by engineering firm Moffatt & Nichol, a recognised expert in ship-strike analysis. Their findings showed that the twin spans, built in the 1950s and 1970s, do not meet current safety standards set for modern bridges. While the bridge still complies with federal requirements for legacy structures, MDTA acknowledged that it does not meet current guidelines for vessel collision protection recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The agency stated that federal law does not require modifications for bridges that already have valid permits, but said it is voluntarily choosing to improve safety. The planned upgrades include adding stronger pier fenders and constructing large protective structures called dolphins, rock and concrete islands designed to shield bridge piers from runaway ships. The total estimated cost for this fortification project is around $160 million. MDTA also shared a list of short-term safety measures being considered. These include changes in communication protocols for vessel pilots, reducing ship speeds near the bridge, managing vehicle traffic more strategically, and possibly introducing one-way transits for ships. However, tugboat escorts are not currently part of the plan. Although MDTA had previously shared early plans for pier protection, the agency’s recent letter to the NTSB formally confirms its commitment. The NTSB’s recent review found that many bridges across the US were built long before ship-strike threats were fully understood. The Key Bridge, for example, was found to be 30 times more likely to suffer a ship strike than what is acceptable under modern standards. A separate analysis by Johns Hopkins University suggested the Bay Bridge could be hit once every 86 years, compared to once every 48 years for the now-collapsed Key Bridge. Although the ship has never been hit by a large vessel but a ship near-miss due to a steering issue last year led to a rare temporary closure of the span. In response to the NTSB’s criticism, MDTA officials said they are developing a full risk-reduction strategy and expect to begin designing the fortifications by summer. While a final timeline has not been confirmed, earlier estimates suggested that the work could be completed between winter 2027 and 2028. As the twin spans of the Bay Bridge approach the end of their expected lifespan, MDTA’s chief engineer mentioned earlier this year that the new protective infrastructure could eventually be incorporated into a future replacement bridge. Despite NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy’s public warning in March urging people to think twice about crossing the Bay Bridge, MDTA’s executive director later reassured the public that the bridge remains safe for travel. Reference: thebaltimorebanner Disclaimer : The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. While we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website. Disclaimer : The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. While we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. Do you have info to share with us ? Suggest a correction