1C Osantowski Ward

8/6/2019 1C Osantowski Ward

1/48

1

Maritime DevelopmentAlternative Study

Port of Oakland


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


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


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?


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


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


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


8/488

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


9/489


10/48

10


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?


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?


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


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


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


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


17/48

17

Rail Plan Development Tree

898 kLifts/yr Maritime

RR2.1 plus OHIT w/

Satellite & E. Storage

7


RR2.1 plus

Enhanced Knight Yd

3

1,189 kLifts/yr Maritime

RR3 plus

Densified OIG

4


RR2.1 plus

OHIT Center-Row

5


RR2.1 plus OHIT w/

Satellite & W. Storage

6


Existing1


Short-Term

OIG Buildout

2


RR2 plus

Phase 1 Knight Yd

2.1


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


Old Alt 10A

Seaport Master Plan

8


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


19/48

19

Road Development Sequence


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


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


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


23/48

23

Terminal Sections High Density

Level 4, High Density: 5,100 TEUs/Gross Acre / Year


24/48


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


32/48

32

GM3toRR03:State

AState A in Jan 2004Capacity = 2.05 MTEUs/yrDemand = 1.80 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Road in Dec 2005


33/48

33

GM3

toRR03:State

BState B in Dec 2005Capacity = 3.21 MTEUs/yrDemand = 2.05 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Rail in Jan 2015


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


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


36/48

36

GM3toRR03:State

CState C in Jan 2015Capacity = 3.31 MTEUs/yrDemand = 3.21 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Road in May 2016


37/48

37

GM3toRR03:State

DState D in May 2016Capacity = 3.89 MTEUs/yrDemand = 3.31 MTEUs/yrConstrained by Rail in Aug 2018


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


39/48


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


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


42/48


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


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


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


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


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


48/48

An

Integrated Programming Toolinstead of an

Inflexible Plan

Documents

1C Osantowski Ward