Los Angeles / Long Beach port expansion projects
By Splatty • Jul 1st, 2007 • Category: Misc Logistics, Seafreight, Security
We have all heard the alarming reports about the state of the U.S. logistics infra-structure and with the influx of containers from China increasing every year, the problem will only worsen. The below report details the plans of the ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach to combat the growing trade imbalance.
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach plan $13.4 billion in projects over the next decade to meet increasing cargo demand.
Project: Widen and add truck-only lanes to the I-710, the main freeway serving the ports
Goal: Speed the flow of container-toting trucks and reduce air pollution by eliminating traffic tie-ups
Cost: $5.5 billion
Project: Port of Los Angeles terminal expansions
Goal: Expand cargo capacity and reduce air pollution
Cost: $3 billion
Project: Port of Long Beach terminal expansions
Goal: Expand cargo capacity and reduce air pollution
Cost: $1.8 billion
Project: Alameda Corridor East
Goal: Improve or eliminate street-level rail crossings in the San Gabriel Valley to speed eastbound freight trains out of L.A.-area rail yards.
Cost: $918 million
Project: Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement
Goal: Widen the main bridge connecting the container terminals on Terminal Island with freeways
Cost: $800 million
Project: Commodore Heim Bridge Replacement
Goal: Replace vertical-lift bridge with a higher bridge to allow container ships to pass beneath and improve truck access to freeways and freight yards
Cost: $557 million
Project: Southern California International Gateway
Goal: Near-dock intermodal facility operated by BNSF Railway to transfer cargo containers from trucks to rail and reduce air pollution
Cost: $300 million
Project: Intermodal Container Transfer Facility
Goal: Upgrade Union Pacific facility to increase capacity and efficiency and reduce air pollution
Cost: $300 million
Project: Port of Los Angeles channel deepening
Goal: Accommodate the next generation of larger, deep-draft cargo ships.
Cost: $222 million
Sources: Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority, BNSF, Union Pacific, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Union Tribune
I firmly believe that the U.S. must act now to develop our port locations and infra-structure in order for us to remain an economic power in the future. If we don’t, the financial impact due to port congestion and the impact to supply chains will be substantial.
One area that has been raised that may take pressure of the port congestion situation will be the new Punta Colonet port complex in Mexico. Once completed the port will be able to handle 1.5 to 6 million TEU’s annually. Call me a protectionist, but I don’t necessarily like the idea of cargo bound for the U.S. transiting a foreign country unless there are fail safe security plans to inspect the cargo as it crosses the border into the United States.
There are no easy answers to the infra-structure problems at our ports especially with the potential environmental roadblocks to expanding port operations.
One thing could bring that strategy to a screeching halt: environmental concerns. The ports’ full-speed-ahead growth in recent decades has been blunted by criticism over the increasing air pollution spewing from diesel-powered ships, trucks, trains and other cargo equipment.
The ports are the single largest polluter in the smog-ridden greater Los Angeles area. A recent state study found that they cause an estimated 1,200 premature deaths annually from particulate and ozone pollution. Another study concluded that residents who live near the ports face cancer risks 10 times higher than those who live 15 miles away. Source - Union Tribune.
Stumble it!
Related Posts:
Splatty is Co-Contributor
Email this author | All posts by Splatty
© 2008
Just a point that Ships have no real emission standard as they aren’t based in California, they merely visit. Ships typically use the cheapest fuel available. Fuel oil or bunker fuel. This is known as heavy fuel oil, where what we the consumers call diesel fuel is know as a light fuel oil. The heavier the fuel, the more carbon out the stack.
Trucks on the other hand do use diesel. Its less polluting than fuel oil, but there is a LOT more of it. I frequently work just east of the port of long beach. There are literally thousands of trucks passing my employer every day(I will admit that some of this traffic is a single truck that has passed more than once, but I think that counts as if it was two).
I’d like to see the ports expand the rail yards faster, and make it a direct ship to rail movement. No trucks ferrying the containers a few miles inland where they are loaded onto trains. Trains use diesel as well, but are about 4 times more efficient as trucks on a ton/mile basis. IE to move 1000 tons of freight 100 miles a train would use 1000 gallons of diesel, where truck(s) would use 4000 gallons(numbers are just so you understand the math. I’m incorrect on the actual MPG). Most of the trains used in the ports to switch the cars are now powered by natural gas, and by law, are limited on the time they can sit just idling. The trains headed out of town all use diesel, but they are headed out of town as fast as the rail lines can manage(they make no money sitting still). Plus, fewer trucks means less traffic congestion, less people sitting in traffic jams with their engine idling, and their AC on, polluting. Fewer tires being made, fewer construction crews resurfacing the road. Oh, did I mention that the roads are paid for with taxes, and rail lines are not? 90% anyway.
Just a though.
Dave