MARITIME DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE STUDY PORT OF OAKLAND

MARITIME DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE STUDY PORT OF OAKLAND 7 TH ANNUAL MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY COORDINATION CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 16-18, 2004 WASHINGTON, D.C. Imee Osantowski, PE Supervising Civil Engineer, Port of Oakland, California 530 Water Street, Oakland, California 94607 (510) 627 1479 Thomas A. Ward, PE Principal, Marine Terminal Planning & Analysis, JWD Group 300 Lakeside Driver, 14 th Floor, Oakland, California 94612 (510) 832 5466 1. ABSTRACT In early 2003, the Port of Oakland, California, commenced the preparation of its Maritime Development Alternative Study. The Port of Oakland handled 1.8 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) of container freight in 2003, and is experiencing growth rates varying from 3% to 6% per year. Like other Ports, it foresees a time in the near future when it will be land-constrained. The Port recognized that it could not simply continue to build capacity enhancements piecemeal, in response to chaotic tenant demand. Instead, the Port realized that a comprehensive approach to capacity and demand management was needed. The Maritime Development Alternative Study (MDAS) was the result. Unlike traditional Port Master Plans, the MDAS was not focused on creation of a single, optimized vision of the Port's future. Instead, the MDAS attempted to define a broad range of "possible futures", and to identify the size and form of facilities it would require in each case. Furthermore, the MDAS process was dedicated to giving the port a "living, breathing tool" that could be routinely updated and used to refresh its forecasts for facility development. The Port of Oakland recognized that it was not simply constrained by the capacity of its maritime facilities. Instead, it also faced constraints in the capacity of its roadway links and its intermodal rail links. Rather than focus on one problem at a time, the Port undertook a simultaneous examination of all transport issues in the maritime area. To prevent any one sector from dominating the debate, the Port hired three independent d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 1

specialist consultants, one each for Rail, Road and Maritime issues. Each consultant was tasked with strongly promoting and defending the interest of its sector, so that honest, informed debate could provide the Port with balance. Additional Project team members from the Port organization represented Public Access, Environment, and Infrastructure. The MDAS Project team prepared comprehensive Growth Models and Capacity Models for each transport element. Each member of the Project team prepared a range of alternative plans for its sector of the Port, competing for available land resources. After several iterations, the Project team arrived at a suite of possible plan elements that had compatible land uses, but which served different demand assumptions. A Development Sequencing Model was prepared that allowed the Project team to place Rail, Road and Maritime developments in order, based on different growth assumptions and development strategies. For each stage in each of nine Development Sequences, the Project team calculated overall Port capacity, identified constraining elements, and estimated the time at which the stage would be reached. The interleaving of maritime, road, and rail developments was based on a unique approach to assessing the capacity of each system with a common set of measurements. The Project team then prepared an Investment Timeline for each Development Sequence, and calculated the relationship between investment and throughput. The Port's future is, of course, uncertain. The final product of the MDAS is not a plan, nor a set of plans, but an engine for producing new balanced plans in response to shifting demands. This paper will describe the major elements of the MDAS, the decision tools delivered to the Port, and the process by which the competing demands on Port lands were resolved. The authors believe that this project represents a new prototype for development planning that can be applied in any port to achieve dynamic balance among competing demands for limited transport resources. 2. PROCESS OVERVIEW The Maritime Development Alternative Study (MDAS) project was instituted by the Port of Oakland to give Port staff a tool to manage the extent and timing of maritime development in response to growth in demand. Rather than focus on a single development plan, master plan, strategic plan, or project plan, the MDAS produced a method by which such future plans could be prioritized and evaluated. The Port chose four independent professional team members to implement the MDAS work: d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 2

Environment, community, & infrastructure: Port engineering staff Maritime facilities: JWD Group Rail facilities: Parsons Transportation Group Roadways: TY Lin International/CCS Each team member was tasked with rigorously defending and promoting the efficiency, cost effectiveness, and performance of the respective port elements. The Port set very few limits on the MDAS team. No specific end-date was set. No specific growth pattern was identified. No specific throughput target was set. No future mix of maritime traffic was defined. The Port asked the Project team to examine all aspects of Port throughput with fresh eyes to explore potential developments that would increase cargo handling capacity within the Port boundaries. The Port identified four physical constraints on the project thought process: The existing waterfront is to be maintained, except for the planned fill at Berth 21. The existing vertical and horizontal alignment of the BART tracks is to be maintained. The landside boundary of the Port is to be maintained. Middle Harbor Shoreline Park s boundary and access are to be maintained. Aside from these broad constraints, the Project team was free to define and redefine land uses throughout the Port area in multiple ways. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 3

Figure 2.1 shows the current configuration of the Port, with the limited set of physical constraints. Berth 21 Expansion Red Line Port Boundary Middle Harbor Park BART Line Obstacle Figure 2.1 Current Port Configuration and Constraints 3. GROWTH AND VOLUME ANALYSIS RESULTS The Port did not provide the Project team with specific growth scenarios or volume targets for which alternative plans were to be developed. Instead, the Project team developed a number of possible Growth Scenarios based on extrapolation of long-term trends at the Port. The Project team identified four major possibilities, differentiated primarily by growth in rail intermodal traffic: Growth Scenario 1, No Rail Growth: Inland point intermodal (IPI) rail volume remains at its current level of about 400,000 TEUs per year, and truck-based traffic grows at 5% per year. Total annual volume reaches 4.4M TEUs in 2025, of which 9.2% is moving by rail. Growth Scenario 2, Constant Rail Fraction: IPI rail volume grows at the same rate as truck-based traffic, 5% per year, so that IPI and truck traffic remain in their current d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 4

proportions. Total annual volume reaches 5.2M TEUs in 2025, of which 23.3% is moving by rail. Growth Scenario 3, High Rail Growth: IPI rail volume grows at 6.3% per year while truck traffic grows at 5% per year, so that the IPI fraction grows over time. Total annual volume reaches 5.6M TEUs in 2025, of which 28.8% is moving by rail. Growth Scenario 4, High Rail Growth + CIRIS (California Inter-Regional Intermodal System a proposed high-speed shuttle to the Central Valley): 10% of current truckbased traffic is converted to CIRIS-based movement. Truck and CIRIS traffic then grow at 5% per year while IPI traffic grows at 6.3% per year. Total annual volume is 5.6M TEUs in 2025, of which 38.3% is moving by either CIRIS or IPI rail. It is probable that none of these scenarios will prove fully accurate, but the Project team believes that they represent a reasonable range of what is possible. Different Development Sequences were established for each Growth Scenario. The Port will have to monitor truck- and rail-based growth patterns and adjust the Development Sequences accordingly using the tools provided by the MDAS team. 4. CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS The Port of Oakland handled about 1.8 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) across its wharves in 2003. The largest single component was export full containers, at over 40% of total throughput. The Project team found that the capacity of the Port s maritime area is very much dependent on a wide variety of commercial decisions taken by the various users of the Port: Operating Storage Density: The Port s tenant operators can substantially increase the operating storage density of their facilities if they are willing to spend more money per lift on capital and labor costs. Storage Dwell Times: The utilization of land can be greatly improved if shippers and shipping lines cooperate to reduce the time spent by containers in the terminal. Second-Port-of-Call: Oakland is the second-port-of-call on the West Coast for virtually all major vessel service strings. First-port-of-call (FPOC) operations would allow higher berth utilization, shorter container dwell times, and higher throughput per acre. Intermodal Rail Fraction: About 28% of maritime containers move via the Port s neardock intermodal rail facilities. Intermodal containers experience shorter on-terminal storage dwell times and allow higher utilization of maritime property. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 5

Operating Hours: Current labor cost structures greatly deter use of third or hoot shifts for any reason. Labor costs and inland logistic patterns greatly deter the use of non-daytime gate operating hours. Technology Deployment: Terminal operators will soon be introducing new technology that will greatly reduce the cost of grounded container storage, and allow increased storage density and throughput without raising costs. Chassis Operations: Many shipping lines are seriously considering abandoning the practice of providing chassis to shippers. Chassis storage on the marine and rail terminals consume significant land area. Given our current knowledge of maritime trends, the Project team believes that the Port can handle between 5.5 and 6.0 million TEUs per year on the current maritime space, with the addition of the Berth 21 fill. The limiting factor at this throughput is berth space at Berths 21 to 25 and 55 to 59, and container yard space at other facilities. The existing port rail infrastructure can handle about 640,000 intermodal rail lifts per year. A portion of this capacity is consumed by non-maritime domestic traffic. Given projected growth in maritime rail traffic, the Project team estimates that the existing rail system will constrain Port capacity at between 2.5 and 3.5 million TEUs per year, depending on intermodal rail fraction. With modest improvements to perimeter roadway intersections, the Port s road system will impose a level of service constraint at between 3.3 and 3.9 million TEUs per year, depending on intermodal rail fraction. The capacity of the Port is not currently constrained by its maritime facilities. It is constrained by the capacity and performance of the road and rail intermodal connectors. It is impossible to predict the trends in all of these areas. The Project team prepared a Port Capacity Model that allows the Port to track trends and to quickly evaluate the impact on long-term Port capacity. The content and usage of the Port Capacity Model are described below in Section 7. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 6

5. ALTERNATIVE PLAN ELEMENTS 5.1 Rail Facilities The Port has two major Inland Point Intermodal (IPI) rail links, via the Union Pacific Railroad at its Railport Oakland (Railport) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe at the Oakland International Gateway (OIG). The layout and operation of the Railport are outside the Port s control. The OIG is the Port s property, and the Port can readily modify, expand, or augment OIG capabilities. Figure 5.1 depicts the existing Port intermodal rail facilities. Figure 5.1 Existing Port Rail Facilities Beyond the Port, the main lines leading to the Central Valley and beyond to the Midwest and East Coast represent long-term constraints on inland transportation. The most efficient route from Oakland to the Midwest is over the Tehachapi Mountains in Southern California. This is the same route used out of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The longer haul distance from Oakland to the Tehachapi Pass puts Oakland at a competitive disadvantage with LA and Long Beach for this critical market segment. Improving the northern trans-sierra routes would help reduce the disadvantage, but not eliminate it altogether. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 7

To compensate for longer haul distances, the Port of Oakland will need to focus on optimizing the layout and performance of its in-port rail system. With regard to the OIG, the Port faces three broad strategic choices: 1. Increase the intensity of operations on the existing OIG and support it with storage and assembly tracks north of 7 th Street in the Oakland Army Base (OAB) area. 2. Build a new Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminal (OHIT) in the OAB, either keeping or downgrading the OIG facility. 3. Remodel and extend Railport in combination with a new OHIT facility to create a centralized shared rail facility. Clearly, the third option is the most extreme and the most difficult to achieve because it would require the willing cooperation of the Union Pacific Railroad. For each of these three choices, the Project team developed a reasonable sequence of capacity development through staged development of rail facilities. Table 5.1 summarizes all rail alternatives. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 8

Concept Description RR1 Existing Conditions RR2 Build-out OIG RR2.1 Phase 1 Knight Yard RR3 Knight Yard Expansion RR4 Densified OIG RR5 OHIT with OIG Store RR6 Densified OHIT-OIG Store RR7 OHIT w/tail @ OIG RR8 OHIT w/straight Tail RR9 Consolidated I/M Term OIG OHIT Total Load Store Load Store Area Trk-ft Trk-ft Trk-ft Trk-ft (Ac) klft /yr 13,000 12,000 22,000 28,000 270 750 16,000 20,000 22,000 28,000 270 850 16,000 40,000 22,000 28,000 290 950 16,000 61,000 22,000 73,000 340 1,160 33,000 61,000 22,000 73,000 390 1,460 32,000 92,000 22,000 28,000 460 1,370 22,000 73,000 22,000 28,000 450 1,360 32,000 92,000 22,000 28,000 370 1,170 24,000 51,000 22,000 28,000 370 1,290 61,000 155,000 -- -- 480 1,620 Table 5.1 Rail Development Alternatives d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 9

Figure 5.2 shows the decision tree, depicting how each major rail alternative leads to, or cuts off, subsequent rail developments. 5.2 Roadways Figure 5.2 Rail Decision Tree The Port currently has three major roadway access corridors: via the north end of Maritime Street, along 7 th Street, and via the Adeline Street Overcrossing onto Middle Harbor Road. In order to maintain flexibility and high throughput velocity, the Project team found that all three of these access corridors need to be maintained and optimized. As Port throughput grows, demand on each major access corridor will increase. At between 3.3 and 3.9 million TEUs per year, the level of service will likely fall to unacceptable levels along 7 th Street. The total Port throughput level at which the various road and rail plans reach capacity depends on the nature of growth. Section 7 addresses this issue in some detail. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 10

Improving the capacity of 7 th Street will be a major undertaking, and the Port will need to make critical decisions regarding 7 th Street s alignment and configuration well before its level of service degrades. The Project team identified three major options for the alignment of 7 th Street, each corresponding to one of the three major rail strategic alternatives: 1. Realign Maritime Street to the east to allow larger terminals on the Outer Harbor, in conjunction with expanded rail support facilities in the OAB. Elevate the connection of 7 th Street and Maritime Street so that tracks out of the north end of the OIG can go underneath. 2. Keep Maritime Street in its current alignment. Place 7 th Street in an extended trench with access tracks for the OHIT overhead on discrete bridges. 3. Keep Maritime Street in its current alignment. Place 7 th Street in a largelycovered trench, with the rails for the consolidated intermodal terminal overhead. Figures 5.3 through 5.5 depict these three options. Figure 5.3 7 th Street Elevated for OIG Expansion d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 11

Figure 5.4 7 th Street Trenched for OHIT Development Figure 5.5 7 th Street Trenched for Consolidated Intermodal Terminal d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 12

The choice of road systems is intimately related to the choice of rail systems because of the unique geometry of the Port and the exacting demands of rail design. In particular, the vertical and horizontal alignment of BART represents significant constraints on layout creativity. 5.3 Maritime Improvements The Port of Oakland has sufficient maritime land and berth space to handle up to 5.5 to 6.0 million TEUs per year, if it is properly configured. The Port s two newest facilities, at Berths 55-56 and Berths 57-59, have been designed according to the latest thinking in terminal design, and have all the flexibility they need to achieve the maximum required throughput. Some of the other terminals merit reconfiguration to increase flexibility and the ability to work at higher throughput per acre. The Project team identified a number of modest modifications for terminals along the Outer Harbor and Middle Harbor. Figure 5.6 shows, as an example, the modified layout for the Outer Harbor terminals at Berths 21 to 25. Figure 5.6 One Possible Modification to Outer Harbor Terminals A number of terminal boundary changes were proposed, mostly reflecting changes in the alignment of rail yards, Maritime Street, and Middle Harbor Road. It is changes in these inland transportation links that will drive the final shape of the marine terminals. The Project team also identified a number of other maritime developments for consideration by the Port: d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 13

Centralized Gates: Replace most gate processing at the individual terminals with centralized processing at two major Port gates. Barge Operations: Provide facilities to support short-sea shipping of containers via barge, either along the California coast or along the Sacramento/San Joaquin River system. Joint Inspection Facilities: Replace distributed security scanning of containers with consolidated inspection for all purposes, at a single Port inspection facility. 5.4 Other Improvements In addition to major rail, road and maritime improvements, the Project team identified extensive improvements in Infrastructure and Potentially Affected Facilities. Infrastructure improvements included long-planned upgrades in buried utilities, relocation of major utilities to reflect the impact of road and rail realignments, and opportunistic utility improvements during major port reconstruction projects. Potentially Affected Facilities included a number of existing above-grade structures scattered throughout the Port planning area that might have to be relocated or razed to facilitate Port redevelopment. 6. DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCING 6.1 Overview The study elements described in Section 5 represent a broad range of alternative Port developments, each with its own advantages, disadvantages, and capacity. With the study elements defined, the Project team next examined the sequence in which the study elements might be developed, and how they might be interwoven into comprehensive development programs. 6.2 Comparing Capacities The first step in this process was to summarize the capacity of each of the study elements. The Project team described the Demand on Infrastructure using three distinct but interrelated measures: Maritime kteus per Year (MkTEUs/yr): The number of TEUs crossing the Port's wharves in one year, divided by 1,000. Maritime Rail klifts per Year (MRklifts): The number of maritime TEUs moving across either Port area rail yard in one year, divided by 1,000, divided by 1.8 TEUs per lift. This ratio of 1.8 TEUs per lift reflects experience at the Port area rail yards and information gathered from Port stakeholders. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 14

Non-Rail Truck Entries per Hour (NRTEs): The number of trucks entering the Port area destined for marine terminals during the mid-day peak hour. This included trucks with containers, trucks pulling bare chassis, and "bobtail" trucks that have no chassis or container. The Project team established the capacities of the Maritime, Rail and Road Plan Elements in these same units as were used to establish infrastructure demand. These three values are inter-related as follows: Thruput = Marine TEUs per year MkTEUs = Thruput / 1000 MRkLifts = [(Thruput / 1000) x (1 - Rail Fraction)] / 1.80 NRTEs = [(Thruput / 1000) x (1 - Rail Fraction)] x 0.3800 for 5 days/wk, 10 hrs/day As can be seen, the demand on rail and road elements is a function of overall throughput and of the rail fraction. The rail fraction is a function of the Growth Scenario and time. Therefore, the order in which study elements reach capacity is a function of the Growth Scenario. 6.3 Sequencing To prepare reasonable development sequences, the Project team needed to place the various maritime, rail and road projects in the correct order. To do this, we had to compare maritime flows as each plan element reached capacity, and then place the developments in order of increasing maritime volume. The following analyses were prepared, with results presented on the following tables: Table 6.1: Maritime volume at which each Rail Plan ( RRx ) reaches capacity Table 6.2: Maritime volume at which each Road Improvement Plan ( RIPx ) reaches capacity Table 6.3: Road volume at which each Rail Plan reaches capacity Table 6.4: Rail volume at which each Road Improvement Plan reaches capacity Tables 6.5 and 6.6: Year in which each Rail Plan and Road Improvement Plan reaches capacity Because of the growth-dependent relationship between maritime, road and rail volume, these analyses were performed for Growth Scenarios 2, 3 and 4. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 15

Rail Model: Rail Lifts: 475 577 677 882 1,189 1,096 1,085 898 895 RR1 RR2 RR2.1 RR3 Grth 2 3,694 4,470 5,220 6,751 9,045 8,350 8,268 6,871 6,830 Grth 3 3,305 3,890 4,444 5,529 7,122 6,639 6,582 5,612 5,596 Grth 4 2,478 2,960 3,421 4,333 5,640 5,250 5,203 4,402 4,389 Table 6.1 - Maritime Volume (kteus/yr) as a Function of Rail Plan Capacity (MRkLifts/yr) Road Model: RIP0 RIP1 RIP2 RIP3564* RIP7 NRTEs 590 967 1,130 1,226 1,949 Growth 2 2,023 3,310 3,870 4,201 6,711 Growth 3 2,040 3,442 4,070 4,445 7,380 Growth 4 2,366 3,993 4,724 5,161 8,557 Table 6.2 - Maritime Volume (kteus/yr) as a Function of Road Plan Capacity (NRTEs/hr) RR4 RR5 RR6 RR7 RR8 Rail Model: Rail Lifts: 475 577 677 882 1,189 1,096 1,085 898 895 RR1 RR2 RR2.1 RR3 Grth 2 1,079 1,304 1,520 1,956 2,605 2,409 2,385 1,989 1,983 Grth 3 931 1,084 1,226 1,498 1,874 1,762 1,749 1,518 1,514 Grth 4 617 730 837 1,043 1,330 1,245 1,235 1,059 1,056 Table 6.3 - Road Volume (NRTE/hr) as a Function of Rail Plan Capacity Road Model: RIP0 RIP1 RIP2 RIP3564* RIP7 Road Trips: 590 967 1,130 1,226 1,949 Growth 2 261 425 498 541 879 Growth 3 271 499 609 677 1,251 Growth 4 452 805 972 1,075 1,905 Table 6.4 - Rail Volume (MRkLifts/yr) as a Function of Road Improvement Plan Capacity RR4 RR5 RR6 RR7 RR8 *RIP3564 represents the combination of: RIP 3a, 3b, or 3c: Seventh Street Remodel RIP5 or 6: Maritime Street Widening, to East or in-situ RIP4: Adeline Street Overcrossing replacement d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 16

RR1 RR2 RR2.1 RR3 Rail Model: Rail Lifts: 475 577 677 882 1,189 1,096 1,085 898 895 Grth 2 2019 2022 2025 2031 2040 2037 2037 2031 2030 Grth 3 2016 2019 2021 2025 2030 2028 2028 2025 2025 Grth 4 2010 2013 2016 2020 2025 2024 2024 2021 2021 Table 6.5 - Year Each Rail Plan Reaches Capacity Expressed as Year and Fractional Year Road Model: RIP0 RIP1 RIP2 RIP3564* RIP7 Road Trips: 590 967 1,130 1,226 1,949 Growth 2 2006 2016 2019 2021 2030 Growth 3 2006 2016 2019 2021 2030 Growth 4 2009 2019 2022 2024 2033 Table 6.6 - Year Each Road Plan Reaches Capacity Expressed as Year and Fractional Year In addition to putting road and rail developments into proper sequence, the Project team attempted to determine when marine terminals would likely be remodeled to accommodate higher densities. In the Port Capacity Model, the shift from Storage Density Model 2 to Storage Density Model 3 reflects the grounding of import loads using rubber-tired gantries. This is a significant operating change, and would probably induce remodeling of a marine terminal. This shift from Storage Density Model 2 to Storage Density Model 3 occurs at a throughput density of about 3,100 TEUs per gross terminal acre per year. The shift from Storage Density Model 3 to Storage Density Model 4 occurs at about 4,000 TEUs per gross acre per year. The order in which other terminals will be upgraded is unknown. However, for illustrative purposes, the Project team assumed: 1. Growth would occur in remodeled terminals up to Storage Density Model 4. 2. When throughput density in all remodeled terminals reaches Storage Density Model 4, another terminal will be remodeled to accommodate Storage Density Model 3 and above. 3. The remodel order was as follows: MT5 (Berths 55-56, complete) MT6 (Berths 57-59, complete) MT7 (Berths 60-63, imminent) MT2 (Berth 23) MT1 (Berth 21, including fill) RR4 RR5 RR6 RR7 RR8 d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 17

MT4 (Berth 35) MT3 (Berth 30) MT8 (Berth 67) Table 6.7 summarizes the annual maritime throughput, in thousands of TEUs per year, by which terminal remodeling would occur under these assumptions. Note that there are minor differences between the Terminal Plans 1 to 5 because of different terminal areas. Of course, remodels may well occur at lower throughputs, should the terminal operator and Port agree on a remodel. These throughputs should be taken as the highest values at which remodel is likely to occur. TP MT5 MT6 MT7 MT2 MT1 MT4 MT3 MT8 1 2,779 2,965 3,023 3,129 3,240 3,321 3,356 3,404 2 2,797 2,980 3,037 3,166 3,302 3,380 3,420 3,434 3 2,668 2,854 2,913 3,019 3,125 3,206 3,248 3,263 4 2,775 2,961 3,019 3,125 3,231 3,311 3,384 3,399 5 2,718 2,868 2,928 3,046 3,156 3,239 3,316 3,332 Table 6.7 Annual Maritime Throughput Driving Terminal Remodeling (000 TEUs/year) Once the Project team had established the various throughput capacities and volume/capacity relationships between Rail and Roadway Improvement Plans, we could establish the order in which plans would be needed, for each Growth Scenario. The results are expressed in Table 6.8, which shows the study element order for Growth Scenarios 2, 3 and 4. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 18

Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Plan Date Plan Date Plan Date RIP0 Nov 2005 RIP0 Nov 2005 RIP0 Nov 2008 MT5 Nov 2012 MT5 Apr 2012 RR1 Nov 2009 MT6 Mar 2014 MT6 Jul 2013 MT5 Mar 2012 MT7 Jul 2014 MT7 Dec 2013 RR2 May 2013 MT2 May 2015 MT2 Sep 2014 MT6 Jun 2013 MT1 Apr 2016 MT1 Jul 2015 MT7 Nov 2013 RIP1 Apr 2016 RR1 Jul 2015 MT2 Aug 2014 MT4 Sep 2016 MT4 Dec 2015 MT1 Jun 2015 MT3 Dec 2016 MT3 Mar 2016 MT4 Nov 2015 MT8 Jan 2017 MT8 Apr 2016 MT3 Feb 2016 RR1 Jul 2018 RIP1 Apr 2016 RR2.1 Feb 2016 RIP2 Jun 2019 RR2 Aug 2018 MT8 Mar 2016 RIP3564 Jan 2021 RIP2 Jun 2019 RIP1 Dec 2018 RR2 Mar 2022 RIP3564 Jan 2021 RR3 Jun 2020 RR2.1 Mar 2025 RR2.1 Jan 2021 RR8 Aug 2020 RIP7 Jan 2030 RR3 Nov 2024 RR7 Sep 2020 RR3 Jan 2030 RR7 Feb 2025 RIP2 Dec 2021 RR8 May 2030 RR8 Feb 2025 RIP3564 Jul 2023 RR7 Jun 2030 RR6 Oct 2027 RR6 Sep 2023 RR6 Oct 2034 RR5 Dec 2027 RR5 Oct 2023 RR5 Jan 2035 RR4 Mar 2029 RR4 Jan 2025 RR4 Mar 2037 RIP7 Jan 2030 RIP7 Nov 2032 Table 6.8 - Order of Plan Elements and Date that System Reaches Capacity as Limited by Element d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 19

Table 6.9 summarizes the maritime throughput volume, in marine kteus per year, for the plan elements, as each reaches its capacity. Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Plan Thru Plan Thru Plan Thru RIP0 2,023 RIP0 2,040 RIP0 2,366 MT5 2,797 MT5 2,797 RR1 2,478 MT6 2,980 MT6 2,980 MT5 2,797 MT7 3,037 MT7 3,037 RR2 2,960 MT2 3,166 MT2 3,166 MT6 2,980 MT1 3,302 MT1 3,302 MT7 3,037 RIP1 3,310 RR1 3,305 MT2 3,166 MT4 3,380 MT4 3,380 MT1 3,302 MT3 3,420 MT3 3,420 MT4 3,380 MT8 3,434 MT8 3,434 MT3 3,420 RR1 3,694 RIP1 3,442 RR2.1 3,421 RIP2 3,870 RR2 3,890 MT8 3,434 RIP3564 4,201 RIP2 4,070 RIP1 3,993 RR2 4,470 RR2.1 4,444 RR3 4,333 RR2.1 5,219 RIP3564 4,445 RR8 4,389 RIP7 6,711 RR3 5,529 RR7 4,402 RR3 6,734 RR7 5,611 RIP2 4,724 RR8 6,830 RR8 5,696 RIP3564 5,161 RR7 6,852 RR6 6,555 RR6 5,203 RR6 8,230 RR5 6,609 RR5 5,250 RR5 8,311 RR4 7,073 RR4 5,639 RR4 8,996 RIP7 7,380 RIP7 8,557 Table 6.9 - Maritime Throughput (MkTEUs/yr) at Plan Element Capacity The Project team found that there were some combinations of "end-stage" development that reached a balance between demand and capacity for all elements (Maritime, Rail, Road) with only some Growth Scenarios. For example, applying Growth Scenario 4, the "High Rail + CIRIS" model, to Rail Plan RR2 as an end point did not make sense. Rail demand was much greater than rail capacity in a short period of time. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 20

Preliminary analysis revealed the following nine "sensible" development sequences: Growth Scenario 6.4 Growth Scenario 3 to Rail Plan RR3 Ultimate Rail Plan Capacity (MkTEUs/yr) 2 RR2.1 5,220 RR3 5,529 RR5 6,609 3 RR6 6,535 RR7 5,611 RR8 5,596 RR4 5,630 4 RR5 5,250 RR6 5,203 Table 6.10 Viable Development Sequences In this Section, we examine one of the nine Development Sequences identified above. For simplicity, we are showing the details of Growth Scenario 3 leading ultimately to Rail Plan RR3, with a throughput capacity of 5.53 million TEUs, 28% of which is longhaul intermodal rail by 2025. Table 6.11 shows the order and timing in which plan elements reach capacity under this development sequence. For example, Rail Plan RR1, representing Existing Conditions, constrains total port maritime throughput at 3.31 million TEUs by July of 2015. By this point, additional rail capacity will need to be in place to avoid constraining port throughput. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 21

State Plan Element to Add Thruput at Capacity (MkTEUs/yr) Date Reaches Capacity A Initial 1,708 Jan 2003 A RIP0 2,040 Nov 2005 A RR1 3,305 Jul 2015 A MT5 2,797 Apr 2012 A MT6 2,980 Jul 2013 B RIP1 3,442 Apr 2016 B RR2 3,890 Aug 2018 B MT2 3,166 Sep 2014 B MT7 3,037 Dec 2013 C RR2.1 4,444 Jan 2021 D MT1 3,302 Jul 2015 E MT4 3,380 Dec 2015 E MT3 3,420 Mar 2016 E MT8 3,434 Apr 2016 F RIP2 4,070 Jun 2019 G RIP3564 4,445 Jan 2021 H RR3 5,529 Nov 2024 Table 6.11 - Development States, Growth Scenario 3 to Rail Plan RR3 Table 6.12 shows eight discrete stages of development, or states, and indicates: The date from which the state is in effect The plan transportation elements (RIPs, RRs and MTs) that are in place The supporting plan elements (Utility Master Plan and Potentially Affected Facilities) The maritime throughput demand, in thousands of TEUs per year The capacity of the Port with the designated elements in place The element that will constrain throughput next The date at which the next constraint is felt Figure 6.1, following Table 6.12, shows the final state in this Development Sequence, State H. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 22

State Date Elements In Place A Present RIP0, RR1, MT5, MT6 B C D E F G H Nov 2005 Dec 2007 Dec 2013 Jul 2015 Apr 2016 Jun 2019 Jan 2021 Add RIP1, RR2, MT2, MT7 Add RR2.1 to improve rail ops Other Elements Demand (kteu/yr) Capacity (kteu/yr) Constraining Element 1,708 2,040 Road (RIP0 @ 2,040) UMP1.0 2,040 3,037 Marine (MT7 @ 3,037) UMP0.1, UMP0.2 PAF1, PAF2 2,151 3,037 Marine (MT7 @ 3,037) Add MT1 3,037 3,302 Marine (MT1 @ 3,302) Add MT4, MT3, MT8 3,302 3,434 Road (RIP1 @ 3,440) Add RIP2 3,440 4,070 Road (RIP2 @ 4,070) Add RIP3A, RIP5, RIP4 Add RIP7, RR3 UMP3a.1, UMP3a.2, UMP4.0, UMP5.0, PAF14 UMP7.0, PAF3, PAF4 4,070 4,444 Road (RIP4 @ 4,445) and Rail (RR2.1 @ 4,444) 4,445 5,529 Rail (RR3 @ 5,529) Table 6.12 - Growth Scenario 3 to Rail Plan RR3 Development States A to H Next Constraint Nov 2005 Dec 2007 Dec 2013 Jul 2015 Apr 2016 Jun 2019 Jan 2021 Nov 2024 d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 23

Figure 6.1 - Development Sequence 3: Growth Scenario 3 to Rail Plan RR5 Final State "H" at Capacity of 6.61 Million TEUs/year Each of the plan elements described above requires a lead time for planning, design, contracting, and construction. The Project team estimated the lead time in two parts for each plan element: 1) preparation, including planning, design and permitting; and 2) contracting and construction. Based on the predecessor/successor relations between each plan element, we then prepared a comprehensive strategic timeline for this development sequence, shown in the form of a Gantt chart in Figure 6.2. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 24

Figure 6.2 - Development Timeline, Development Sequence 2: Growth Scenario 3 to Rail Plan RR3 The Project team prepared a very rough order-of-magnitude estimate of the cost of preparation and development for each plan element, assuming a logical order of development. We then calculated the quarter-by-quarter expenditures for all projects combined, through the duration of the development sequence. We also calculated the running cumulative investment. These results are depicted in Figure 6.3. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 25

$50.0 $45.0 $1,000.0 $900.0 Quarterly Investment ($M). $40.0 $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Date $800.0 $700.0 $600.0 $500.0 $400.0 $300.0 $200.0 $100.0 $0.0 Cumulative Investment ($M). Quarterly Investment Cumulative Investment Figure 6.3 - Quarterly and Cumulative Investment, Development Sequence 2 (DS2): Growth Sequence 3 (GS3) to RR3 The logical sequence of thought presented in this Section was embodied in an Excel worksheet and delivered to the Port for internal use. The finished model allows the Port to update the nature of the plan elements and to recalculate the relationships among development, capacity, growth, and investment on a routine basis. 7. CAPACITY MODELING TOOL The Project team prepared a comprehensive port capacity model that will allow the Port to analyze its maritime capacity under a broad range of operating and physical conditions. Rather than being a static model of a small range of conditions, the model allows the Port to mix different assumptions and to update it based on changing conditions in the Port. The port capacity model is a complex Excel spreadsheet that is comprised of several inter-related worksheets. A brief description of each worksheet is provided in subsections 7.1 through 7.4. 7.1 Throughput Statistics The worksheet "Throughput Stats" provides information on historic throughput patterns at the Port and includes the Growth Models that are used to define the mix of container movements at future dates. 7.2 Port Components The worksheet "Port Components" provides a method for describing the key features of marine terminal properties to be specified by the analyst. It includes the Port's current terminal properties as well as possible property configurations established through the MDAS program. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 26

This worksheet allows the analyst to specify different terminal boundary conditions in coherent sets that each describes the entire Port. These "Property Models" are then referenced on the main Capacity Model spreadsheet. 7.3 Model Segments The worksheet "Model Segments" provides a method for rapidly describing coherent sets of assumptions regarding major elements of Port operations. Using the Model Segments worksheet, the analyst can rapidly specify and easily control a variety of complex capacity factors. 7.3.1 Property Models Specification of maritime properties to be used based on data in the "Port Components" worksheet. The user can specify, for each property: Name Gross terminal area Net container yard / gross terminal area ratio Total berth length Rectangularity shape factor 7.3.2 Storage Density Models Specification of the fraction of containers grounded, storage mode, and stack height for each major class of container. Research with terminal operators indicated that there is a decided sequence in which terminal storage is densified as throughput increases. This sequence is driven by container-handling logistics, available technology, and labor costs. Table 7.1 summarizes the order in which storage elements are densified. Choice Description 1 All containers wheeled 2 Empties grounded using side-picks 3 Local export loads grounded using top-picks 4 IPI loads grounded - exports with top-picks, imports with rubber-tired gantries (RTGs) 5 Local import loads grounded using RTGs Table 7.1 - Preferred Storage Modes Based on these preferences, the Port Capacity Model has six levels of storage density built into it, reflecting varying degrees of grounding for each container type. Table 7.2 gives the assumed fraction of containers stored in grounded storage for each of six Storage Models. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 27

Storage Model: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Container Type VLow Low Med High VHigh XHigh Import Local Load 0% 0% 0% 50% 90% 100% Import CIRIS 1 Load 0% 0% 75% 80% 80% 100% Import IPI Load 0% 0% 75% 80% 80% 100% Export Local Load 0% 85% 85% 95% 95% 100% Export CIRIS Load 0% 85% 85% 90% 95% 100% Export IPI Load 0% 0% 70% 90% 95% 100% Empties 85% 90% 95% 95% 100% 100% 1. California Inter-Regional Intermodal System, a proposed high-speed shuttle to the Central Valley Table 7.2 - Degree of Grounding Most of the capacity analysis for the MDAS project was done using Storage Models 4 or 5. Table 7.3 lists the storage mode for each container type, for each Storage Model. When imports are grounded, they are typically stored in RTG configuration. Currently, terminal operators tend to store imports from the ship into RTG blocks using top-picks, then retrieve them to street trucks using RTGs. This system makes the best use of each machine's performance and economics. Storage Model: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Container Type VLow Low Med High VHigh XHigh Import Local Load Wheeled Wheeled Wheeled RTG RTG RTG Import CIRIS Load Wheeled Wheeled Pick Pick Pick Pick Import IPI Load Wheeled Wheeled RTG RTG RTG RTG Export Local Load Wheeled Pick Pick Pick Pick Pick Export CIRIS Load Wheeled Pick Pick Pick Pick Pick Export IPI Load Wheeled Wheeled Pick Pick Pick Pick Empties Pick Pick Pick Pick Pick Pick Table 7.3 - Storage Mode Table 7.4 shows the mean stack height of grounded containers during peak demand, for each container type and Storage Model. Stacking height strongly influences productivity. Storing higher requires more rehandle moves and wasted motion, especially for container types that have random retrieval patterns. Stacking heights are also influenced by longshore safety rules, which limit stack heights in many circumstances. The values in Table 7.4 reflect JWD's best judgment about future trends. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 28

Storage Model: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Container Type VLow Low Med High VHigh XHigh Import Local Load 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 Import CIRIS Load 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.50 Import IPI Load 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.50 Export Local Load 0.00 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.50 3.75 Export CIRIS Load 0.00 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.50 3.75 Export IPI Load 0.00 0.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 Empties 3.00 3.50 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.50 7.3.3 Depot Storage Models Table 7.4 - Mean Stack Height at Peak Demand Port throughput statistics report empty containers moving between the container yard and vessels. These are frequently termed "ship empties", and are the containers included in the Growth Models. Table 7.5 shows the three Depot Models. Model 1 assumes that peak depot storage demand is equal to 75% of the peak empty storage demand generated by the ship operations. That is, peak total empty storage demand is 175% of peak ship empty storage demand. 7.3.4 Vessel Models Component 1 2 3 Depot / Ship storage 75% 50% 25% Table 7.5 - Depot Storage Models The number of lifts a vessel does during its port call affects berth productivity and capacity in three ways: Lost Time per Lift: There is some lost time in every vessel call, during which the ship occupies berth space but no lifts are done. Crane Assignment: With more lifts to be done, more cranes can be effectively assigned to simultaneous operations. Crane Productivity: Ships with higher lift counts tend to have containers in larger contiguous stowage blocks. Table 7.6 summarizes the seven Vessel Models in the Port Capacity Model. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 29

7.3.5 Bare Chassis Models Model Lifts/Call Cranes Prod Shifts 0 550 2.5 28.0 1 1 600 3.0 28.0 1 2 1,000 2.0 30.0 2 3 1,200 2.5 31.0 2 4 1,500 3.0 32.0 2 5 1,800 3.5 32.0 2 6 2,100 4.0 32.0 2 Table 7.6 - Vessel Models Table 7.7 summarizes the six Bare Chassis Models, which correspond to the Storage Models. Each model indicates the average number of bare chassis stored in each wheeled slot. Chassis Model: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Container Type VLow Low Med High Vhigh XHigh Bare chassis per slot 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 N/A Table 7.7 - Bare Chassis Models 7.3.6 Storage Dwell Time Models Table 7.8 shows the six Dwell Time Models built into the PCM. Model 1 reflects our best estimate of current conditions in the Port, and was used for all analyses for the MDAS project. Each entry in the table indicates the mean container storage dwell time, in days, for the particular model and container type. Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 Import Local Load 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Import CIRIS Load 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Import IPI Load 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 Export Local Load 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 Export CIRIS Load 6.0 5.8 5.3 5.3 4.8 4.5 Export IPI Load 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 Import Empty 9.0 9.0 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 Export Empty 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 7.4 Capacity Model Table 7.8 - Dwell Time Models The "Capacity Model" worksheet assembles assumptions from other worksheets and calculates the throughput capacity of each marine terminal. The worksheet includes: d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 30

Key Features: A summary of key terminal features specified through the Master Model Definition worksheet and supporting tables. Berth Capacity / Stevedoring: Calculation of the throughput capacity of the terminal berth, based on berth length and Vessel Model data. Inventory: Calculation of the peak container storage demand associated with full berth throughput capacity, based on data in the Growth and Depot Storage Models. Container Yard: Calculation of the container yard area required to support full berth throughput capacity, based on data in the Storage Density and Bare Chassis Models. Calculation of the actual throughput capacity of the available container yard. Calculation of the "limiting" capacity - berth or container yard. Gate: Calculation of peak-day and peak-hour truck flow rates based on the limiting throughput capacity of each terminal. Executive Summary: A summary of the key throughput statistics for each terminal and for all terminals combined. Executive Soundbite: A selection of key throughput statistics for the overall Port. The Port was provided with a comprehensive user s manual and instruction for use of the Port Capacity Model, and is maintaining it with fresh data on a regular basis. 9. OPPORTUNITY AND POTENTIAL The Port of Oakland has tremendous reserve maritime capacity, and the opportunity to increase its maritime activities. Maximizing the opportunity will require investment in transportation links outside the marine terminals. Making rational investments outside the marine terminals will require active investigation and participation in landside transport link operations. Investing outside the marine terminals means making investments that are not strictly tied to specific income streams. The Port needs to recognize that these investments will generate strong but very indirect benefits to the Port s bottom line, through increases in wharfage and dockage revenue. The Port faces a major paradigm shift in how it sees its customers, its investments, and its income stream. d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 31

Proper application of the products of the MDAS will empower the Port to maximize its potential and to serve the Oakland area with the least possible environmental impact. 10. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the active participation and leadership of a number of individuals involved in this multi-faceted project: Jerry Bridges, Executive Director, Port of Oakland Gerald Serventi, PE, Director of Engineering, Port of Oakland Michael Beritzhoff, Maritime Planner, Port of Oakland Gay Joseph, Strategic Planner, Port of Oakland Michael Christensen, PE, Project Manager, Parsons Transportation Group Chwen Siripocanont, PE, Project Manager, TY Lin/CCS Michael Leue, PE, Lead Rail Planner, Parsons Transportation Group Mark Wood, PE, Lead Road Planner, TY Lin/CCS d:\osantowski.ward.portofoakland.alternativestudy.doc 32