Advertisement
1 / 18

Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 192 Views
  • Uploaded on 08-10-2011
  • Presentation posted in: General

Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan. Background and Need. BACKGROUND The Port of Redwood City plays a key role in Bay area Port infrastructure system Experiencing steady cargo growth, specifically related to dry bulk cargoes Nearly 2.0 Million tons per year handled in FY2005 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation

Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Port of redwood city ca marine terminal plan l.jpg

Port of Redwood City, CA

Marine Terminal Plan


Background and need l.jpg

Background and Need

  • BACKGROUND

  • The Port of Redwood City plays a key role in Bay area Port infrastructure system

  • Experiencing steady cargo growth, specifically related to dry bulk cargoes

  • Nearly 2.0 Million tons per year handled in FY2005

  • It is anticipated growth and demand will continue into the future

  • Reliability and stability of Port facilities critical to sustaining operations and attracting new tenants that will foster continued growth

Wharves 3 and 4

SIMS Metal

Wharves 1 and 2

HS&G/CEMEX Yard


Background and need3 l.jpg

Background and Need

  • NEED for MARINE TERMINAL PLAN

  • Focus for Marine Terminal Plan is the redevelopment of Wharves 1 and 2

  • Wharves 1 and 2 are critical to present and future cargo activity at the Port

  • Berth conflicts between Wharves 1 and 2 and the cement berth demand attention. Need to partially accommodate two ships simultaneously to increase efficiency and berth capacity.

  • Wharves 1 and 2 present condition:

    • Timber construction, original wharf constructed in 1937

    • Several Wharf and Transit Shed expansion projects since inception

    • Extensive repairs, upgrades and replacements to pile system completed in 1979

    • Wharf system now significantly deteriorated; in need of replacement

      • Piles support system suspect – no known inspections or upgrades since 1979 project,

      • Timber deck worn and considered unsafe for vehicle traffic in many areas,

      • Timber vehicle approach ramp and access walkway are deteriorated and not functional,

      • Timber fender system collapsing and inadequate for vessel berthing, and

      • Flooding under landward seawall prevalent at high tides.


Marine terminal plan l.jpg

Marine Terminal Plan

Three-Phase Approach

  • Phase 1 – Completed October 3, 2005

    Objective: Review cargo data and Port physical layout to determine the best use for Wharves 1 and 2 within the framework of the overall Port.

  • Phase 2 – Completed November 16, 2005

    Objective: Develop an efficient, cost effective and constructible Marine Terminal Plan that responds to the best current and projected use identified for Wharves 1 and 2.

  • Phase 3 – Completed February 28, 2006

    Objective: Further expand the Phase 2 conceptual plans and cost estimate and provide a plan for moving forward with the redevelopment project.


Marine terminal plan5 l.jpg

Marine Terminal Plan

ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN

  • Wharf Redevelopment Plan

  • Demolition plan and recommendations

  • Interim Conveyor Plan – relocate ship receiving hopper away from cement berth

  • Site Development Plan

    • Raze Warehouse #1 and realign HS&G/CEMEX lease area to provide the Port with additional land for future development opportunities

  • Environmental and Permitting Review

  • Cost Estimates

  • Project Schedules


Wharf redevelopment plan l.jpg

Wharf Redevelopment Plan

  • Concrete pile supported concrete platform, 60’ wide x 490’ long (nominal)

  • 500psf design deck load

  • Two approach trestles/ramps

  • Walkways between existing monopile fender dolphins


Wharf redevelopment plan7 l.jpg

Wharf Redevelopment Plan

  • Combination barge/ship fenders spaced along length of proposed wharf

  • Elevation to match existing timber wharf, slope access ramps to existing grade

  • Storm water runoff contained on wharf and directed to land along access ramps

  • Repair/replace landward seawall


Demolition plan l.jpg

Demolition Plan

  • Recommend complete removal of existing timber wharf system

    • Overall, long term cost savings for demolition

    • Maintenance cost savings related to retaining deteriorating structures

    • Existing wharf stability is suspect, safety issues

    • Environmental benefit of removing old, creosote impregnated piles and deteriorating timber platform


Interim conveyor plan l.jpg

Interim Conveyor Plan

  • Relocate ship-unloading operations away from RMC/CEMEX

  • Demolition of Warehouse #1 NOT required

  • Realignment/modifications to HS&G/CEMEX yard NOT required

  • Low cost solution to help (partially) mitigate berth conflict issues

    • May initially utilize portable equipment on existing wharf, prior to reconstruction

    • Viable alternative for permanent system if HS&G/CEMEX does not realign yard


Preferred marine terminal plan l.jpg

Preferred Marine Terminal Plan


Environmental permitting review l.jpg

Environmental & Permitting Review

Bay Fill Mitigation Strategy (Demolition & Construction)

  • BCDC will require mitigation to offset any new construction

  • Removal off all existing structures are proposed to mitigate proposed construction; remainder will establish a mitigation bank

  • Can not lock in ratio of mitigation credit to new/proposed fill elsewhere in the Port

    NEPA/CEQA Process

  • One joint NEPA/CEQA document will be prepared

    • NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

    • CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act

  • NEPA/CEQA review will require studies of impacts including:

    • Cultural resources, Air Quality, Biological resources, Traffic

  • Warehouse #1 may be eligible to be listed as a historic resource under CEQA

    • Demolition of Warehouse #1 could potentially effect the level of environmental documentation

  • Potential Project Construction Permits identified and listed in Report

  • Potential Terminal Operating Permits identified and listed in Report


Cost estimates l.jpg

Cost Estimates

Environmental Document Preparation:

  • Historic Evaluation of Warehouse #1:$10,000 to $12,000

  • EA/ND:$85,000

  • EIS/EIR:$190,000

    Wharf Redevelopment Plan:

  • Wharf with complete demolition:$15,329,000

  • Wharf with partial demolition:$12,782,000

  • Costs shown include:

    • Demolition and removal of existing timber structures

    • Pile supported concrete platform with two approach trestles

    • Fender elements, bollards and other hardware

    • Line handler walkways between existing breasting dolphins

    • Electrical power distribution system upgrades

    • Contractor mob/demob, project administration, overhead & profit

    • Expenses for bonds, engineering, testing, inspection, construction management

    • 15% allowance for contingency


Cost estimates13 l.jpg

Cost Estimates

Site Redevelopment Plan:

  • Landside infrastructure improvements:$996,000

  • Cost includes:

    • Demolition and removal Warehouse #1 and foundations

    • Removal of existing rail adjacent to Wharves 1 and 2

    • Improved access road adjacent to waterfront

    • Rail crossing and intersection improvements at Hinman Road

    • Longshoremen/Stevedore’s building with paved parking area

    • Service improvements including electrical, communications, potable water, sewer and drainage

    • Contractor overhead & profit

    • Expenses for bonds, engineering, testing, inspection, construction management

    • 15% allowance for contingency

  • Cost excludes:

    • Purchase and installation of new hopper and conveyor system

    • Realignment of HS&G/CEMEX storage yard; relocation of existing equipment

    • Soil improvements, if required to accommodate new stockpile location


Project schedule l.jpg

Project Schedule

DESIGN-BID-BUILD vs. DESIGN-BUILD:

  • The Port may opt to follow either contracting method

  • Design-Bid-Build:

    • Port advertises for and selects an A/E Firm to design the project

    • Second advertisement and selection for a contractor to build the project using A/E Firm’s plans and specifications

    • Traditional contracting method

    • A/E Firm works for Port and Port has more input into details of design

  • Design-Build:

    • Port advertises for and selects an A/E-Contractor team to design and construct the project

    • Generally results in an overall reduction in project cost and shorter schedule to delivery

    • Disputes between A/E Firm and Contractor eliminated

    • Has recently become the contracting method of choice for many owners

      RECOMMENDATION:

  • Overall cost difference between contracting methods not substantial

  • If project timeline is critical factor, recommend Design-Build contract


Project schedule15 l.jpg

Project Schedule

OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE:

Time-line from the start of Environmental Documents to completion:

  • Design-Bid-Build contract: 30 to 33 months (EA/ND or EIS/EIR)

  • Design-Build contract: 24 to 27 months

    ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS and PERMITTING:

  • Historic Evaluation of Warehouse #1: 2 months

  • Following Historic Evaluation, level of Environmental Documentation determined

    • EA/ND: 6 months

    • EIS/EIR: 9 months

  • Permitting follows Environmental Document: 5.5 months


Project schedule16 l.jpg

Project Schedule


Project execution plan l.jpg

Project Execution Plan

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

  • Work with HS&G/CEMEX to install temporary system to relocate ship unloading operations closer to Wharf 2 and away from RMC/CEMEX cement wharf.

  • Perform Economic Evaluation/Impact Analysis of wharf replacement

    • Phased construction planning is possible

  • Initiate Warehouse #1 Historic Review

    • Results of assessment will determine the level of NEPA/CEQA review

  • Prepare Environmental Document(s)

  • Prepare RFP documents to advertise and select a Design/Design-Build Contractor to initiate project design and construction


Slide18 l.jpg

Port of Redwood City, CA

Marine Terminal Plan