Port of redwood city ca marine terminal plan l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 18

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


  • 337 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • 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

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


  • Login