![\"\"](\"http:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/weblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_0384.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
To recap, Vancouver has a slight edge in certain factors like the cost of transiting terminals, they have more large super-post-Panamax cranes, they have slightly better rail delivery rates through state-subsidized Canadian National Rail, slightly better productivity, and they get a break of about $100 per container on Harbor Maintenance Tax.\u00a0 And they have massive <\/em>plans for expansion.<\/p>\n One of the most obvious things we can do to improve our competitive position is to improve our productivity, and having modern, state of the art equipment would make it a lot easier.\u00a0 The slight edge Vancouver enjoys in productivity could easily be attributed to the fact that they\u2019ve spent a lot of money upgrading their cranes and yard equipment.<\/p>\n The Port of Tacoma, by comparison, seems intent on draining every last, little penny out of their investments.\u00a0 A good example would be the port-owned cranes.\u00a0 The cranes at Husky (Pier 3 and Pier 4) and Olympic Container Terminal (OCT – Pier 7) are on the average 27 years old<\/em>.\u00a0 At they\u2019re not tall enough to work the current ships in rotation\u00a0 when they\u2019re fully loaded (unless it\u2019s at low tide).\u00a0 They\u2019re not strong enough to pick up heavy loads (like twin 20-foot containers).\u00a0\u00a0 And they\u2019re slow.<\/em>\u00a0 How can you have a world-class port and world-class productivity when the equipment you\u2019re using are antiques?<\/p>\n The non-port owned cranes at APMT (Maersk – the former SeaLand) are in the same boat (circa mid-80’s), and the four older cranes at Washington United Terminal (WUT) aren\u2019t that much newer.\u00a0 They all<\/em> need to be replaced.<\/p>\n While the Port of Tacoma has rebuilt Pier 3 and is in the process of realigning and rebuilding Pier 4 to provide berth space for two mega-ships at the same time \u2013 which is great \u2013 it still hasn\u2019t come up with any truly meaningful<\/em> plan to deal with the larger ships.\u00a0 The port only has four super post-Panamax cranes on order for Pier 3 and while that\u2019s a great start, it\u2019s still not enough to even deal with one of the 15,000+ TEU ships, much less two.<\/p>\n The shipping lines whole business model is predicated on getting in and out of port quickly. A typical port call for a container ship might last 2 or 3 days. \u00a0 The maximum time in port is typically 4 days. With just 4 cranes working, it could take as much as 12 days, working day and night, to fully discharge and load a mega-ship. That’s obviously unacceptable.<\/p>\n In LA, they\u2019ll be working the 18,000 TEU CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin with 9 cranes<\/em>.<\/p>\n The Pier 4 – Husky yard would also still be too small to meaningfully deal with even one mega-ship.\u00a0 The 18,000 TEU ships can discharge as many as 10,000+ moves and at 93 acres, the Husky yard just couldn\u2019t absorb that kind of volume.<\/p>\n One of the catch phrases I\u2019ve heard used in the last year by Port of Tacoma officials is that they envision a future where instead of five container terminals, we consolidate the operations into just three larger yards.\u00a0\u00a0 That\u2019s a nice thought.\u00a0 I\u2019ve read the minimum sized yard to be able to efficiently work the new mega-ships and absorb the huge surges of cargo they generate is something like 200 acres.\u00a0 So in theory, combining yards would help prepare for larger ships.\u00a0 But is it workable?<\/p>\n To that end, the port has actually published a drawing of a consolidated and reconfigured Husky and OCT (which they call the General Central Peninsula Terminal<\/em>) in their NW Seaport Alliance Strategic Business Plan<\/a> \u2013 2015 (page 14) : \u00a0 According to officials at the port, this drawing is very preliminary and would only be seriously contemplated if there was new demand.\u00a0 I\u2019m glad they recognize that moving the North Intermodal rail yard (NIM yard) is the only workable way to consolidate OCT and Husky.\u00a0 This configuration above would create an 173 acre yard.<\/p>\n A better way to configure the peninsula would be to move the rail yard (and the port maintenance buildings and everything else) all the way across East 11th street.\u00a0 The parcel between the South Intermodal rail yard (SIM yard) and Port of Tacoma Road, bordered by Ross Way could accommodate 15\u00a0 1,800 Ft long tracks \u2013 a bonus of some 2,000 Ft of track.\u00a0 Doing that would also leave the Pier 7 dock available for containers, breakbulk or autos.\u00a0 And, it\u2019d create a full 200 acre yard.\u00a0 The main problem with this approach of course, is that not all of the property across East 11th is owned by the port.\u00a0 But that\u2019s not insurmountable.<\/p>\n Farther up the waterway, while there\u2019s been talk of combining WUT and Pierce County Terminal (PCT) into one yard, I don\u2019t see any reasonable way to make that work.\u00a0 They\u2019re just not situated properly to work as one single terminal.<\/p>\n Looking at PCT itself, the only thing that makes sense for expansion there is to go ahead with the original 2005 Phase 2 plans which would add 53 acres of yard and 13 acres of rail yard (the former Portac property across Alexander).\u00a0 That acreage and the addition of a few more super Post-Panamax cranes would make PCT ready and able to deal with the 18,000+ TEU megaships.<\/p>\n Another expansion possibility at PCT would be to use the former Kaiser smelter property.\u00a0 That\u2019d be a natural.<\/p>\n Finally, I don\u2019t see the APMT yard being combined with any other, but here again, there\u2019s plenty space for expansion available there.\u00a0 If the East 11th Street viaduct was torn down and the Milwaukee Avenue right-of-way was vacated, you\u2019d have a yard that was around 185 acres with adjacent on-dock rail.\u00a0 Or potentially, even more.<\/p>\n That would give Tacoma three approximate 200 acre terminals, all with on-dock rail.\u00a0 With those changes \u2013 new cranes and reconfigured yards, Tacoma would truly be mega-ship ready.\u00a0 We could compete with any port in the world.<\/p>\n The obvious place to start would be finish the General Central Peninsula, combining Husky and OCT, and moving the NIM yard.<\/p>\n What we cannot<\/em> do is just roll over and let the Canadian ports rake in all the business.\u00a0 We must be bold and audacious.<\/p>\n We have to aggressively match what the Canadian ports are offering, in terms of facilities and service.\u00a0 And if the present Port Commission doesn\u2019t have the vision or wherewithal to pursue this more aggressive path, then we have yet another reason (of many) to replace them.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" To recap, Vancouver has a slight edge in certain factors like the cost of transiting terminals, they have more large super-post-Panamax cranes, they have slightly better rail delivery rates through state-subsidized Canadian National Rail, slightly better productivity, and they get a break of about $100 per container on Harbor Maintenance Tax.\u00a0 And they have massive […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-port-of-tacoma"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"Blair](\"http:\/\/mikepellegrini.com\/weblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Blair-peninsula-copy.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n