1C Osantowski Ward
Transcript of 1C Osantowski Ward
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
1/48
1
Maritime DevelopmentAlternative Study
Port of Oakland
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
2/48
2
Vision 2000
Port of Oakland has largely completed theVision 2000 Plan: Conversion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center Oakland
Development of the Oakland Intermodal Gateway (JIT)
Development of Berths 55-56 for Hanjin
Development of Berths 57-59 for SSA
Development of Middle Harbor Shoreline Park
Realignment of Middle Harbor Road
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
3/48
3
Continued Growth
Port of Oaklands 2003 throughput was 1.8M TEUs The Port of Oakland projects steady growth in containerthroughput of 3% to 6% per year
Bay Conservation and Development Commissionprojects that the Port of Oakland will need toaccommodate about 5.5M TEUs by 2025, with 50% of thatmoving by intermodal rail
These projections are consistent and have been verifiedby independent consultants
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
4/48
4
What Should the Port Do?
Can existing facilities handle projected throughput? What are the constraining elements? How can constraints be alleviated?
How should the Port allocate its funds? How should the Port allocate its available land? How should the Port balance the needs of different
customers and constituencies? What external forces will change how the Port works? How can the Port mitigate the impacts of growth?
How can the Port maximize its benefit to Oakland?
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
5/48
5
Maritime Development Programming
Prediction is hard, especially as regards the future A single, fixed Master Plan for any Port: Creates endless political controversy
Is unable to respond to shifting market and political demands Is readily undermined during tenant negotiations
Cannot survive first contact with the enemy
The Maritime Development Program was designed togive the Port a Planning Tool instead of a Plan
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
6/486
Constituencies
Each Port is blessed with a complex blend of internalconstituencies How can these be balanced during the Programming
process? The Port of Oakland identified four major operatingelements that had to be balanced: The marine terminals and their operations
The railroad yards and their attendant track networks
The roadway system
The Ports existing civil infrastructure
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
7/487
Dynamic Balance
Rather than hire a single consultant to reflect allconstituencies, the Port of Oakland establishedfour independent consulting teams
Maritime: JWD Group Railroads: Parsons Transportation Group + DMJM Harris Roadways: CCS
Infrastructure: Port Engineering Staff
The Port relied on each consultant to fervently representthe interests of its area of expertise
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
8/488
Constraints on Thinking
The Port identified only three geographic constraints: The existing waterfront, except at the Berth 21 fill site The vertical and horizontal alignment of the BART rail line and
Transbay Tube right-of-way
The Red Line, being a mixture of the Nimitz Freeway I-880 andthe Ports boundary line
The Port set no fixed end date or time frame
The Port set no fixed growth projection The Port set no limits on capital expenditure The Port set no limits on creativity
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
9/489
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
10/48
10
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
11/48
11
Major Project Elements
Visioning What might the Port do? Maximum creativity!! Growth Modeling
What is the mix of flows for different growth patterns?
Capacity Modeling What is the balance between flow and service for each element?
Plan Elements Uncoordinated maritime, rail, road and infrastructure
improvements
Capacity Balancing How do Plan Elements affect total Port capacity, using a common
set of measurements?
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
12/48
12
Major Project Elements
Development Sequencing In what order do Plan Elements reach capacity? Feasibility and Cost Estimation
How much will each Plan Element cost? How long will each Plan Element take to plan and construct?
Capital Demand Mapping How fast will the Port have to spend money?
How will capital expenditure track with capacity enhancement?
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
13/48
13
Growth Models
Growth Model 2Constant Rail Fraction 23% now and in 2025 Growth Model 3
High Rail Growth 23% now, 28% by 2025 Growth Model 4CIRIS + High Rail Growth 28% now, 38% by 2025
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
14/48
14
Throughput Measurement Maritime vessel throughput:
Thousands of TEUs per year (kTEUs/yr)
Rail throughput:Thousands of maritime rail lifts per year (kLifts/yr)(IPI + CIRIS, not domestic)
Road throughput:Non-rail truck entries (NRTEs) per peak hour (trk/pk hr)
These measurements are closely related,provided certain values are held constant
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
15/48
15
Growth Model 3Model 3 Growth
1
,708
1,7
86
1,8
70
1,9
58
2,0
52
2,1
51
2,2
57
2,3
70
2,4
89
2,6
16
2,7
51
2,8
95
3,0
47
3,2
10
3,3
83
3,56
8
3,7
65
3,9
75
4,1
98
4,4
37
4,6
91 4
,963 5
,253 5
,562
496
518
541
566
592
619
648
679
711
746
782
820
861
904
949
997
1,0
48
1,1
02
1,1
60
1,2
20
1,2
85
1,3
531,4
2
5
1,5
01
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Year
AnnualVolume
Road kLifts Rail kLifts Marine kTEUs NRTEs
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
16/48
16
Rail Plans Ten Railroad Plans
RR01 Existing conditions
RR02 Build-out Oakland Intermodal Gateway (OIG)
RR02.1 Phase 1 Knight Yard
RR03 Knight Yard Storage expansion
RR04 Densified OIG
RR05 OHIT with OIG used as storage track
RR06 Densified OHIT with OIG as storage trackRR07 OHIT with tail track through OIG site
RR08 OHIT with straight tail track
RR09 Consolidated Intermodal Facility
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
17/48
17
Rail Plan Development Tree
898 kLifts/yr Maritime
RR2.1 plus OHIT w/
Satellite & E. Storage
7
882 kLifts/yr Maritime
RR2.1 plus
Enhanced Knight Yd
3
1,189 kLifts/yr Maritime
RR3 plus
Densified OIG
4
1,096 kLifts/yr Maritime
RR2.1 plus
OHIT Center-Row
5
1,085 kLifts/yr Maritime
RR2.1 plus OHIT w/
Satellite & W. Storage
6
475 kLifts/yr Maritime
Existing1
577 kLifts/yr Maritime
Short-Term
OIG Buildout
2
677 kLifts/yr Maritime
RR2 plus
Phase 1 Knight Yd
2.1
1,347 kLifts/yr Maritime
CIF with
Storage by UP Main
9
Maritime St.
Realign & Widen
5
7th St. Grade Sep
Elevated
3a
RR
3,
4
Maritime St.
Widen in situ
6
7th St. Grade Sep
Trench
3b
RR
5,
6,
7
Maritime St.
Widen in situ
6
7th St. Grade Sep
Tunnel
3c
RR8
1,013 kLifts/yr Maritime
Old Alt 10A
Seaport Master Plan
8
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
18/48
18
Road Improvement Plans RIP1 Improve perimeter intersections RIP2 Braided ramps or 5th & Adeline Streets improved RIP3 7th Street Grade Separation
A: Elevated
B: Trench short jack-and-bore, long trench
C: Tunnel long jack-and-bore, short trench
RIP4 Adeline Street OC Replacement RIP5 Realign N. Maritime Street to East for RIP3A RIP6 Widen N. Maritime Street in situ for RIP3B, 3C
RIP7 Widen Middle Harbor Road in situ
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
19/48
19
Road Development Sequence
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
20/48
20
Utility Master Plans UMP0.1: Design/Build new OAB substation & switchgear
UMP0.2: Reinforce existing utility lines within OAB
UMP1: Realign 12kV pole at 7th and Maritime
UMP3a.1: Design/Build new Cuthbertson Substation
UMP3a.2: Realign utilities that interfere with new 7th Street UMP3b/c.1: Negotiate new location and Design/Build new K-M fuel tank UMP3b/c.2: Realign utilities that interfere with new 7th Street
UMP4: Realign 115kV poles that interfere with new Adeline Street Viaduct UMP5: Realign utilities along Maritime Street UMP6: Realign OH utilities along Maritime Street
UMP7: Realign OH utilities along MHR UMP7.1: Reroute Utilities along 7th Street west of Maritime Street UMP7.2: Reroute Utilities along south Maritime Street
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
21/48
21
Terminal Plans Five base Terminal Plans
TP01 with Railroad RR01 / RR02
TP02 with Railroad RR03 / RR04 TP03 with Railroad RR05 / RR06 TP04 with Railroad RR07
TP05 with Railroad RR08 / RR09
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
22/48
22
Terminal Densities Maritime capacity depends on the density
at which operators are willing to operate
This is an economic decision
Capacity modeling considered six densities,ranging from fully-wheeled (1) to fully-grounded (6)
Three densities were used in establishing specificsequences: Medium Density Model 2: ~2,900 TEUs/gross acre/year
High Density Model 4: ~ 5,100 TEUs/gross acre/year
Very High Density Model 5: ~5,900 TEUs/gross acre/year
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
23/48
23
Terminal Sections High Density
Level 4, High Density: 5,100 TEUs/Gross Acre / Year
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
24/48
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
25/48
25
Potential Affected Facilities (PAF) Oakland Army Base Area
PAF1 Big Warehouses
PAF2 Campus Area
PAF3 Retail Area
Middle Harbor Area PAF14 Port Facilities Building PAF15 SSAT Admin Bldg
PAF16 Crane Maint. Bldg
PAF17 Adeline Street Urban
OIG / Central Port Area PAF4 US Customs
PAF5 Cold-1 Warehouse
PAF6 Cold-2 Warehouse
PAF7 Chassis Repair @ Cold-2 PAF8 Amtrak Maint. Facility
PAF8 3-Rivers Transload Whse
PAF10 - Building D511
PAF11 Building 412 PAF12 Building 512
PAF13 UniCold Transload
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
26/48
26
Development Sequences Relate Maritime, Rail, and Road throughputs and
capacities
For each Growth Model, identify reasonable target railplans balanced capacities in 2025
For each GM / Rail Plan, develop chronological sequenceof capacity states
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
27/48
27
Maritime and Road Volume vs. Rail Capacity
For a given Rail System capacity, in Maritime Rail kLifts/year,these tables show the corresponding
Maritime Road Traffic, in NRTEs/peak hour, andMaritime Throughput, in kTEUs/year, for each Growth Model.
These tables used to establish road and marine demands whenparticular rail plans reach their constrained capacities.
NRTEs/hr Road traffic at which a given rail traffic is reached
Rail Model: RR01 RR02 RR02.1 RR03 RR04 RR05 RR06 RR07 RR08
Rail Lifts: 475 577 677 882 1,189 1,096 1,085 898 1,013
2 1,077 1,301 1,517 1,958 2,618 2,418 2,395 1,993 2,240
3 929 1,081 1,222 1,493 1,887 1,767 1,753 1,514 1,661
4 614 727 833 1,038 1,323 1,239 1,229 1,054 1,162
kTEUs/year Marine traffic at which a given rail traffic is reachedRail Model: RR01 RR02 RR02.1 RR03 RR04 RR05 RR06 RR07 RR08
Rail Lifts: 475 577 677 882 1,189 1,096 1,085 898 1,013
2 3,694 4,470 5,220 6,751 9,045 8,350 8,268 6,871 7,730
3 3,305 3,890 4,444 5,529 7,122 6,639 6,582 5,612 6,208
4 2,478 2,960 3,421 4,333 5,640 5,250 5,203 4,402 4,898
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
28/48
28
Marine and Rail Traffic vs. Road CapacitykLifts/year Rail traffic at which a given road traffic is reached
Road Model: RW01 RW02 RW03 RW04 RW05 RW06
Road Trips: 490 590 967 1,130 1,226 1,949
2 222 262 426 499 543 878
3 222 272 500 611 680 1,238
4 369 454 809 978 1,082 1,884
kTEUs/year Marine traffic at which a given road traffic is reached
Road Model: RW01 RW02 RW03 RW04 RW05 RW06Road Trips: 490 590 967 1,130 1,226 1,949
2 1,708 2,027 3,317 3,878 4,210 6,720
3 1,708 2,045 3,452 4,082 4,459 7,374
4 1,960 2,377 4,014 4,750 5,190 8,549
For a given Road System capacity, in NRTEs/hour,these tables show the corresponding
Maritime Rail Traffic, in kLifts/year, andMaritime Throughput, in kTEUs/year, for each Growth Model.
These tables used to establish rail and marine demands whenparticular road plans reach their constrained capacities.
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
29/48
29
Road and Rail Capacity vs. Year
For a given Rail Maritime Capacity, in kLifts/yr,or Road System Capacity, in NRTEs/hour,
these tables show the month and year in which demand matches that capacity,for each Growth Model.
These tables were used to establish the synchronization betweenroad and rail capacity restrictions.
Year Year at which a given road traffic is reachedRoad Model: RW01 RW02 RW03 RW04 RW05 RW06
Road Trips: 490 590 967 1,130 1,226 1,949
2 Dec-01 Nov-05 Apr-16 May-19 Dec-20 Sep-30
3 Dec-01 Nov-05 Apr-16 May-19 Jan-21 Oct-30
4 Nov-04 Dec-08 Dec-18 Dec-21 Jul-23 Mar-34
Year Year at which a given rail traffic is reached
Rail Model: RR01 RR02 RR02.1 RR03 RR04 RR05 RR06 RR07 RR08
Rail Lifts: 475 577 677 882 1,189 1,096 1,085 898 1,0132 Jun-18 Feb-22 Feb-25 Nov-30 Jun-39 Nov-36 Jul-36 Apr-31 Jul-34
3 Jun-15 Jul-18 Dec-20 Oct-24 Dec-29 May-28 Mar-28 Jan-25 Jan-27
4 Oct-09 Apr-13 Jan-16 May-20 Dec-24 Sep-23 Aug-23 Aug-20 Jul-22
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
30/48
30
Capacity Sequence vs. Growth Model
2025
2025
Plan MThru Plan MThru Plan MThru
RW01 1,708 RW01 1,708 RW01 1,960RW02 2,027 RW02 2,045 RW02 2,377
RW03 3,317 RR01 3,305 RR01 2,478
RR01 3,694 RW03 3,452 RR02 2,960
RW04 3,878 RR02 3,890 RR02.1 3,421
RW05 4,210 RW04 4,082 RW03 4,014
RR02 4,470 RR02.1 4,444 RR03 4,333RR02.1 5,220 RW05 4,459 RR07 4,402
RW06 6,720 RR03 5,529 RW04 4,750
RR03 6,751 RR07 5,612 RR08 4,898
RR07 6,871 RR08 6,208 RW05 5,190
RR08 7,730 RR06 6,582 RR06 5,203
RR06 8,268 RR05 6,639 RR05 5,250RR05 8,350 RR04 7,122 RR04 5,640
RR04 9,045 RW06 7,374 RW06 8,549
Model 4Model 2 Model 3
For each Growth Model, this table summarizes
the Maritime Throughput, in kTEUs/year,at which each Road and Rail development reaches capacity.
The bold lines reflect throughput in 2025, for reference.
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
31/48
31
Growth Model 3 to RR03
Ex
istingroadnetwork
Im
proveperimeterintersection
s
BraidedRamps/5th&Adeline
7thStreetGSAltA-Elevated
7thStreetGSAltB-Trench
7thStreetGSAltD-Tunnel
Ad
elineStreetOC
Re
alignedMaritimeStreetfor3A
WidenedMaritimefor3B,3C
WidenedMiddleHarborRoad
Ex
istingrailnetwork
Sh
ort-termOIGbuildout
RR
02+Phase1KnightYard
RR
02A+Phase2KnightYard
De
sign/BuildnewOABsubstation&switchgear
Re
inforceexistingutilitylineswithinOAB
Re
align12kVpoleat7thandM
aritime
De
sign/BuildnewCuthbertson
Substation
Re
alignutilitiesthatinterferew
ithnew7thStreet
Re
align115kVpolesthatinterferewithnewAdelineStreet
Viaduct
Re
alignutilitiesalongMaritime
Street
Re
alignOHutilitiesalongMaritimeStreet
Re
alignOHutilitiesalongMHR
Re
routeUtilitiesalong7thStre
etwestofMaritimeStreet
Re
routeUtilitiesalongsouthM
aritimeStreet
Be
rth21/22
Be
rth23/25
Be
rth30/32
Be
rth35/37
Be
rth55/56
Be
rth57/59
Be
rth60/63
Be
rth67/68
Be
rth67West
Th
is"Date"columnshowswhentheelementsofthe"State"must
be
inplace.
Th
is"Capacity"columnshows
thePort'sthroughputcapac
ity,in
marineMTEUs/year,withallth
eState'selementsinplace.
Th
is"Demand"columnshows
thePort'sthroughputdemand,in
marineMTEUs/year,atthis"D
ate".
Th
is"Constraint"columnshow
sthataspectofthePortsystemthat
willcausethenextconstraintoncapacity.
Th
is"Reaches..."columnshowsthedatewhenthePortwillreach
its
nextcapacitylimitation,by
whichtimetheelementsinthenext
"S
tate"mustbeinplace.
Sequence Step
RIP0
RIP1
RIP2
RIP3A
RIP3B
RIP3C
RIP4
RIP5
RIP6
RIP7
RR01
RR02
RR02.1
RR03
UMP0.1
UMP0.2
UMP1.0
UMP3a.1
UMP3a.2
UMP4.0
UMP5.0
UMP6.0
UMP7.0
UMP7.1
UMP7.2
MT01
MT02
MT03
MT04
MT05
MT06
MT07
MT08
MTRH
Date
Capacity
(MTEUs/yr)
Demand
(MTEUs/yr)
Constraint
Reaches
CapacityIn
GM 3 to RR03 A 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Jan 2004 2.05 1.80 Road Dec 2005
B 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Dec 2005 3.21 2.05 Rail Jan 2015
B1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 Dec 2008 3.21 2.44 Rail Jan 2015
B2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 Dec 2011 3.21 2.82 Rail Jan 2015
C 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jan 2015 3.31 3.21 Road May 2016
D 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 May 2016 3.89 3.31 Rail Aug 2018
E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Aug 2018 4.08 3.89 Road Jun 2019
F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jun 2019 4.44 4.08 Road+Rail Jan 2021
G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jan 2021 5.53 4.44 Rail Feb 2021
H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Feb 2021 5.53 5.53 Marine Feb 2021
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
32/48
32
GM3toRR03:State
AState A in Jan 2004Capacity = 2.05 MTEUs/yrDemand = 1.80 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Road in Dec 2005
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
33/48
33
GM3
toRR03:State
BState B in Dec 2005Capacity = 3.21 MTEUs/yrDemand = 2.05 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Rail in Jan 2015
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
34/48
34
GM3t
oRR03
:State
B1State B1 in Dec 2008
Capacity = 3.21 MTEUs/yr
Demand = 2.44 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Rail in Jan 2015
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
35/48
35
GM3t
oRR03
:State
B2State B2 in Dec 2011
Capacity = 3.21 MTEUs/yr
Demand = 2.82 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Rail in Jan 2015
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
36/48
36
GM3toRR03:State
CState C in Jan 2015Capacity = 3.31 MTEUs/yrDemand = 3.21 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Road in May 2016
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
37/48
37
GM3toRR03:State
DState D in May 2016Capacity = 3.89 MTEUs/yrDemand = 3.31 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Rail in Aug 2018
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
38/48
38
GM3
toRR0
3:State
EState E in Aug 2018Capacity = 4.08 MTEUs/yrDemand = 3.89 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Road in Jun 2019
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
39/48
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
40/48
40
GM3to
RR03:StateG
State G in Jan 2021
Capacity = 5.53
MTEUs/yrDemand = 4.44
MTEUs/yr
Constrained by Rail
in Feb 2021
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
41/48
41
GM3to
RR03:StateH
State H in Feb 2021
Capacity = 5.53
MTEUs/yrDemand = 5.53
MTEUs/yr
Constrained by
Marine in Feb 2021
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
42/48
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
43/48
43
DS2: GM 3 to RR03 - Investment
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
$55,000
$60,000
Jan2003
Jan2004
Jan2005
Jan2006
Jan2007
Jan2008
Jan2009
Jan2010
Jan2011
Jan2012
Jan2013
Jan2014
Jan2015
Jan2016
Jan2017
Jan2018
Jan2019
Jan2020
Jan2021
Jan2022
Jan2023
Jan2024
Jan2025
Jan2026
Jan2027
Jan2028
Date
QuarterlyInvestment($000)
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,200,000
CumulativeInve
stment($000)
Quarterly Investment Cumulative Investment
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
44/48
44
DS2: GM3 to RR03 Investment/TEU Handled
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
1-Jan-03
1-Jan-04
1-Jan-05
1-Jan-06
1-Jan-07
1-Jan-08
1-Jan-09
1-Jan-10
1-Jan-11
1-Jan-12
1-Jan-13
1-Jan-14
1-Jan-15
1-Jan-16
1-Jan-17
1-Jan-18
1-Jan-19
1-Jan-20
1-Jan-21
1-Jan-22
1-Jan-23
1-Jan-24
1-Jan-25
1-Jan-26
1-Jan-27
1-Jan-28
Date
CumulativeTEUsHandled(000TEUs)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Cumulative$/Cu
mulativeTEUs
Capacity(M
TEUs/yr).
Capacity (MTEUs/yr) Cost per TEU Handled Cumulative TEUs Handled
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
45/48
45
Paradigm Shifts
Capacity is not fixed: it is a function of terminaleconomics and the mixture of growth patterns
Existing marine terminals have ample reserve capacity
Growth patterns will be driven by the viability of thePort as a First Port of Call (FPOC) FPOC is augmented by:
Deep water for big ships dredging is crucial
High-speed, high-capacity rail systems
High velocity and low cost per lift
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
46/48
46
Paradigm Shifts
Velocity is more important than Capacity
Velocity is enabled by establishing balanced,high-speed linkages between modes
Capital expenditures for enhancing maritime velocityand capacity will be outside the marine terminals Projects that enhance velocity will lower the
environmental footprint of the Port
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
47/48
47
Paradigm Shifts
Port growth can only be achieved and maintainedby focusing on projects thatimprove the environment surrounding freight movementand the lives of the citizens
Enhancing velocity and supporting growthrequires the combined efforts andactive participation of all parties
-
8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward
48/48
An
Integrated Programming Toolinstead of an
Inflexible Plan