Long-Term Economic Impacts to Marine Vessel Operation in

Comments

Transcription

Long-Term Economic Impacts to Marine Vessel Operation in
Final
Schuyler Heim Bridge Replacement and
SR-47 Expressway Project
Long-Term Economic Impacts to Marine
Vessel Operation in Cerritos Channel
Commodore Schuyler Heim Bridge (Br. No. 53-2618) and SR-47 in the Ports of
Long Beach and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California
07-LA-47-KP 4.4/9.3 (PM 2.7/5.8)
EA: 238500
May 2006
Revised December 2006
Revised August 2007
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on
audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or
write to Caltrans, Attn: Karl Price, District 7, 100 South Main Street, Ste. 100, Los Angeles , CA 90012;
(213) 897-1839, or use the California Relay Service TTY number.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
Contents
Section
Page
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... ES-1
1.
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 San Pedro Bay Ports .................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Commodore Schuyler Heim Bridge........................................................................ 1-2
1.4 Scope of Analysis....................................................................................................... 1-5
2.
Methodology........................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Sources of Data........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Assumptions............................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1
Operating Costs .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2
Vessel Size.................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.3
Distribution of Traffic by Vessel Type..................................................... 2-2
2.2.4
Seasonality ................................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.5
Length of Detour......................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.6
Mast Folding................................................................................................ 2-4
2.2.7
Growth in Marine Vessel Traffic in the Channel ................................... 2-7
2.2.8
Horizontal Constraints............................................................................... 2-7
3.
Impacts During Construction ........................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Marine Vessel Impacts .............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Roadway Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3-1
4.
Impacts During Operation ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Marine Vessel Navigation Impacts ......................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Roadway Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1
Economic Impacts from Improved Mobility .......................................... 4-2
4.2.2
Improved Safety and Emergency Response ........................................... 4-2
4.2.3
Ongoing Bridge Cost Reductions ............................................................. 4-2
5.
Permit-Related Compensation ......................................................................................... 5-1
6.
List of Contacts .................................................................................................................... 6-1
7.
References............................................................................................................................. 7-1
Appendixes
A
B
C
D
E
Tugboat Companies
ACET Draft Memorandum
Calculation of Economic Impacts to Marine Vessel Navigation
False Work Letter and Pictures
Construction Schedule in Calendar Days
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
I
CONTENTS
Tables
ES-1
1
2
3
4
5
Marine Vessel Impacts During Construction and Operation .....................................ES-2
Vessel Calls at the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach ................................................... 1-2
Vessel Operating Costs ...................................................................................................... 2-2
Vessels Through Channel Requiring Bridge Lift............................................................ 2-3
Average Vessel Operation Times in Minutes.................................................................. 2-4
Number of Vessels Through Channel Requiring Detour (Postconstruction)............. 4-1
Figures
1
2
II
Build Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 1-3
Schuyler Heim Bridge Lifts for January and July 2003, 2004, and 2005 ...................... 2-5
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
Executive Summary
The purpose of the proposed project is to: 1) provide a structurally and seismically safe
vehicular connection along the critical north-south corridor between Terminal Island and
the mainland that can remain in service following a major earthquake to ensure that ground
and vessel transportation are maintained; 2) improve operational and safety design features
of the crossing to facilitate the movement of people, freight, and goods, while meeting
current design standards to the maximum extent feasible; 3) reduce traffic congestion on
local surface streets (between Terminal Island and Pacific Coast Highway), as well as on I110 and I-710; and 4) improve safety by providing a limited-access route between Terminal
Island and I-405.
The project includes replacement of the existing structurally deficient Schuyler Heim Bridge
(lift bridge) with a fixed-span bridge. The project is needed to provide for uninterrupted
transport of people, freight, and goods between Terminal Island and the mainland after a
major earthquake, and to improve safety and relieve congestion on the local street network.
The proposed replacement bridge would provide a route across the Cerritos Channel to
Terminal Island that would remain in service to ensure ground and vessel transportation
immediately following a maximum credible earthquake. A 14.3-meter [m] (47-foot [ft])-high
and 54.9-m (180-ft)-wide navigable channel for the fixed bridge is considered in this study
(see Exhibit D-1).
Since the elimination of U.S. Naval vessel requirements for passage though this portion of
the Cerritos Channel, the 49.6-m (163-ft) vertical clearance that is currently provided by the
existing Schuyler Heim Bridge has less justification than when it was used by U.S. Naval
vessels. Various communications were initiated with waterway users and the local Guard
commands concerning the overall needs of the transportation system and the reasonable
needs of existing and future vessel traffic on the waterway. The consensus indicated a
proposed fixed-bridge navigational opening, providing a 14.3-m (47-ft)-vertical and 54.9-m
(180-ft)-horizontal clearance, would have the best potential to receive a favorable
endorsement when considering the reasonable needs of existing and future vessel traffic,
highway traffic, ports, seismic activity contingencies, and the development of the overall
infrastructure for the region.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for issuing permits for bridges and
structures that cross the Cerritos Channel. As part of the bridge permitting process, the
USCG considers the anticipated economic impacts to marine vessel usage. The California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was engaged to quantify impacts to marine vessel
navigation through the Cerritos Channel resulting from the potential reconstruction of the
Schuyler Heim Bridge from a moveable to a fixed span. The primary economic impact
would be increased operating costs for marine vessels that would have to detour around
Terminal Island as a result of the new height restriction. As shown in Table ES-1, these
economic impacts are estimated to be $23.6 million over a 20-year period (see Table C-5 in
Appendix C).
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1
Marine Vessel Impacts During Construction and Operation
Height
Width
Impactsa
Construction Impactsb
43 feet
(13.1 m)
75 feet
(22.9 m)
$2,600,500
47 feet
(14.3 m)
180 feet
(54.9 m)
$23,568,700
Operational Impactsc
a
Discounted at real rate of 3%.
Net present value of impacts assuming 2-year construction period and reduced
navigational opening.
c
Net present value of impacts from 2010 to 2029.
b
During construction of the proposed fixed bridge and demolition of the existing bridge,
the Cerritos Channel is expected to be intermittently closed to marine vessel crossings; the
estimated costs associated with vessel detours are also shown in Table ES-1. As shown,
construction impacts to marine vessel navigation are $2.6 million (see Table C-5 in
Appendix C).
There are a number of other economic impacts associated with the proposed bridge
reconstruction project that are not the focus of this study but that should be recognized,
including:
•
Income and jobs associated with the direct, indirect, and induced spending on labor and
materials for construction would lessen the overall economic impacts of the project in
the short term.
•
Added costs of roadway delay, vehicle operations, and possibly accidents during
construction would temporarily increase the economic impacts of the project.
•
Substantial benefits to roadway users during operations from reduced delay (due to
elimination of the lift bridge) and fewer accidents, as well as some indirect benefits to
businesses resulting from more reliable and consistent delivery of goods to and from
Terminal Island, would decrease the overall economic impacts of the project in the long
term.
ES-2
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
1. Introduction
1.1
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to: 1) provide a structurally and seismically safe
vehicular connection between Terminal Island and the mainland that could remain in
service following a major earthquake; and 2) provide a high-capacity alternative route
between Terminal Island and I-405. The project includes replacement of the existing
Schuyler Heim Bridge (lift bridge) with a fixed-span bridge. The project is needed to
provide for uninterrupted transport of people, freight, and goods between Terminal Island
and the mainland after a major earthquake, and to improve safety and relieve congestion on
the local street network.
This economic study was prepared to determine the economic impact of construction and
operation of the proposed build alternatives analyzed in the Schuyler Heim Bridge
Replacement and SR-47 Expressway Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (EIS/EIR). The EIS/EIR considers six alternatives, which include four build
alternatives (Figure 1). The build alternatives directly affect marine vessel movements
within the Cerritos Channel. This study will support the Marine Vessel Transportation
section included in the EIS/EIR. Economic impact calculations used throughout this report
can be seen in Appendix C.
1.2
San Pedro Bay Ports
The Port of Los Angeles is located in San Pedro Bay. The Bay is protected from Pacific Ocean
surge conditions by the San Pedro, Middle, and Long Beach Breakwaters. The openings
between these breakwaters, known as Angels Gate and Queens Gate, provide entry to the Port
of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, respectively. Vessel traffic channels have been
established in the harbor, and numerous aids to navigation have been placed. Many types of
recreational and commercial marine vessels utilize the harbor area, including fishing boats,
pleasure vessels, passenger-carrying vessels, tankers, auto carriers, container vessels, dry bulk
carriers, and barges. Commercial vessels follow vessel traffic lanes established by the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG) when approaching and leaving the harbor. These traffic lanes meet at the
“Precautionary Area” where incoming and outgoing traffic crosses.
The Harbor utilizes a Vessel Traffic Information Service (VTIS), operated by the Marine
Exchange and the USCG, to monitor traffic within the main approaches to the harbor
including the Precautionary Area and vicinity with shore-based radar. Radar systems are
also operated by both the Long Beach and Los Angeles pilot services to monitor vessel
traffic within the harbor area. This information is available to all vessels upon request. The
pilot services also manage the use of anchorages under an agreement with the USCG. A
communication system links the following key operational centers: USCG Captain of the
Port, VTIS, Los Angeles Pilot Station, Long Beach Pilot Station, and Port of Long Beach
Security. This system is used to exchange vessel movement information and safety notices
among the various organizations.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.2.1.1
Vessel Traffic
An estimated 5,845 vessels called at the Ports in 2005; this is an increase from the 5,727 calls in
2004. Over the subsequent 3 years, vessel traffic to the Ports is anticipated to increase slightly
(Table 1). Commercial vessel traffic in the Cerritos Channel consists mostly of recreational
vessels, tugs and barges, and shipping, with few tankers and other marine traffic.
TABLE 1
Vessel Calls at the Ports of Los Angeles /Long Beach
Year
Vessel Calls
2008*
6,095
2007*
6,040
2006*
5,915
2005
5,845
2004
5,727
2003
5,696
2002
5,396
2001
5,662
2000
5,936
Source: Marine Exchange of Southern California, (2005), including
*projections for 2006-2008.
1.3
Commodore Schuyler Heim Bridge
The Schuyler Heim Bridge is one of three bridges that connects the mainland with
Terminal Island in the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles , the largest port complex in the
United States based on containerized cargo volume. This bridge currently accommodates
three 3.3- to 3.6-m (11- to 12-ft) lanes in each direction (no shoulders). The Schuyler Heim
Bridge is a steel vertical-lift bridge that is a popular route for truck traffic because of its
relatively short and low sustained longitudinal grades; therefore, it has become a vital truck
traffic link between the Ports and the mainland. Because it is a vital transportation link, and
due to a state mandate, the Schuyler Heim Bridge must sustain a major earthquake without
collapsing and be able to provide immediate service following a major earthquake.
The Schuyler Heim Bridge is normally 11 m (36 ft) to 12.5 m (41 ft) above water, depending
on tide levels. Data obtained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
indicate that the majority of vessel traffic through the Cerritos Channel consists of tugboats
and tugboats with barges; but it also includes ships, sailboats, cruise boats, fire boats, and
other vessels. Tugboats generally moor in Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors and guide
barges through the channel because the channel provides a quick link between docking
points. Tanker ships, sailboats, and fire boats find it easier and faster to use the channel but
rarely do because of the uncertainty of delay times. Cruise boats typically make loops
around Terminal Island and dock in Los Angeles.
1-2
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
I-110
Harry Bridges Ave
Pacific Coast Hwy
Anaheim St
s
Sea
id e
Ave
W
ilm
a
Oce
nB
e
Henry Ford Av
Schuyler Heim
Bridge
SR-47
eda
St
to
nA
ve
223rd St
lv d
Alam
Sepulveda Blvd
Na
ay
vy W
ing
I-405
Pier S of Port
of Long Beach
Wardlow Rd
SR-103
Willow St
W. Hill St
Pacific Coast Hwy
Anaheim St
I-710
Alternative 1: Bridge Replacement and SR-47 Expressway
Alternative 4: Bridge Replacement Only
Alternative 2: SR-103 Extension
Wardlow Road/223rd Street Ramp
Alternative 3: Bridge Avoidance
Ocean Boulevard/SR-47 Flyover
Existing SR-103
Aerial Date: May 2002
0
0
Note: Project components not to scale
!
°
(
LEGEND
Figure 1
Build Alternatives
Schuyler Heim Bridge Replacement
and SR-47 Expressway
2,800
Feet
1,000
Meters
\\galt\proj\AlamedaCorridorEng\320265\MapFiles\11x17L_acet_overview_v1.mxd 2/1/2007
1. INTRODUCTION
The proposed replacement bridge would have the following height and width:
•
Vertical Clearance. The vertical clearance of the proposed bridge would be at 14.3-m
(47 ft) over the mean high water level (MHWL).
•
Channel Width. The width of the navigable channel would remain at 54.9 m (180 ft).
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that false work erected during construction
would temporarily reduce the navigable channel opening to 13.1 m (43 ft) above the MHWL
and 22.9 m (75 ft) wide for 2 years. It is assumed that the vehicle capacity of the bridge
during construction would not change.
1.4
Scope of Analysis
The USCG is responsible for issuing permits for bridges and structures that cross the
Cerritos Channel. As part of the bridge permitting process, the USCG considers the
anticipated economic impacts to marine vessel usage. Caltrans was engaged to quantify
impacts to marine vessel navigation through the Cerritos Channel resulting from potential
reconstruction of the Schuyler Heim Bridge (from a moveable to a fixed span). If the
Schuyler Heim Bridge is rebuilt as a fixed span, some vessels that currently pass through the
channel would need to circumnavigate Terminal Island. The economic impacts to marine
vessels result from added operating costs related to detours. Impacts are estimated during
construction and during operation of the bridge (see Appendix C).
The project will also result in beneficial economic impacts from improved mobility and
safety for vehicular traffic. These impacts are discussed qualitatively.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
1-5
2. Methodology
This section documents the sources of data, methods, and key assumptions of the analysis.
2.1
Sources of Data
Several sources were used to estimate the impacts presented in this report. The main
sources of data used in this analysis include:
•
Video analysis by Port of Los Angeles for 2000 and 2001
•
Schuyler Heim Bridge activity logs, April-June 2001 and April-June 2002
•
1994 Badger Bridge Reconstruction Economic Analysis, by LA Harbor Department
•
1999, 2000, and 2001 Annual Marina Surveys, by Marina Masters Association
•
Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge Lift Data for January and July 2003, January and
July 2004, and January and July 2005
•
Operating cost data from interviews with a vessel operator and published reports and
charter rates
Contacts and references are provided in Sections 6 and 7.
Various support documents were reviewed, including prior analyses of the impacts to
marine vessel navigation resulting from replacement of the Badger Avenue Bridge
(e.g., U.S. Coast Guard, 1990).
2.2
Assumptions
Historical data, recent data, traffic projections, current infrastructure improvements, and
information from interviews were analyzed to ascertain trends and patterns. A discussion of
the key assumptions made for this analysis follows.
2.2.1
Operating Costs
Estimated marine vessel operating costs are shown in Table 2. The data collected for these
estimates are rental per-hour rates charged to customers, which include labor, vessel
depreciation, maintenance, fuel, and operating margin. Operating cost information for tugs
and tugs with barges was obtained from Crowley Maritime Services (Crowley), while data on
fishing boats and sailboats were obtained from published rental rates. When data for a
particular vessel type were unavailable, costs from one of the available vessel types were used.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
2-1
2. METHODOLOGY
TABLE 2
Vessel Operating Costs
$/hr
Tugs
1,370
Tugs w/Barge
1,370
Fishing
150
Sail
100
Cruise
1,370
Oil Cont.
1,370
Ship
1,370
Power
150
CG Cutter
1,370
Tanker
1,370
Tow
1,370
Fire Boat
1,370
2.2.2
Vessel Size
Interviews with vessel, bridge, and Port facility operators and the USCG indicate that the
size of vessels traveling through Cerritos Channel, on average, is not likely to increase over
time. The Port of Los Angeles is bringing taller fire-fighting vessels into operation; however,
these new vessels are smaller (in both beam and height) than the majority of vessels that
currently travel through the Cerritos Channel.
The economic impacts derived in this study are based on detours of marine vessels that
would no longer be able to travel through the Cerritos Channel because of height
restrictions (a worst-case scenario). However, some operators may modify their vessels
(such as mast height reductions) to allow passage through the channel. As fleets are
replaced, operators will have a strong economic incentive to use replacement vessels that
can pass under the new, fixed-bridge structure. Such modifications are likely to occur when
the economic costs of the modifications are less than the long-term operational costs
associated with detours. Consequently, actual economic impacts are likely to be less than
described herein.
2.2.3
Distribution of Traffic by Vessel Type
The number and type of marine vessels that required a bridge lift at the Schuyler Heim
Bridge from 2003 to 2005 are shown in Table 3. Those vessels that did not require a bridge
lift were not recorded. The data were grouped by type as shown in Table 2. The 2003 data
were adjusted because the bridge was closed from January 1 to January 17, 2003. During this
time, no vessels were able to traverse through the channel, so the missing data were
estimated by adding the average from this period in 2004 and 2005 (see Table C-2 in
Appendix C).
2-2
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
2. METHODOLOGY
TABLE 3
Vessels Through Channel Requiring Bridge Lift
2003a
2004
2005
1,578
1,428
1,554
Tugs with Barges
528
486
498
Fishing
24
0
12
Sail
792
852
510
Cruise
30
36
24
Oil Cont.
27
6
12
Ship
15
6
6
Power
36
30
24
CG Cutter
6
30
6
Tanker
6
0
12
Tow
12
0
0
Fire Boat
18
18
6
Tugs
Source: Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge, lift data for January and July 2003, January and
July 2004, and January and July 2005
a
Data adjusted to account for bridge closure in early January 2003.
This information demonstrates that vessel traffic through the channel declined from 2003 to
2005. Thus, the 2005 data were used as an estimate of the number of crossings that would be
likely to occur in future years.
2.2.4
Seasonality
On the basis of the interviews, it was determined that Cerritos Channel marine traffic is
seasonal in nature: peaking in June, July, and August. Vessel traffic data collected from
Caltrans included data from January and July 2003, January and July 2004, and January and
July 2005. From these data, annual traffic levels by vessel type were calculated by
multiplying each monthly figure by six. This resulted in yearly data for 2003, 2004, and 2005.
This method will help account for the seasonality that occurs in the channel (see Figure 2
and Table C-2 in Appendix C).
2.2.5
Length of Detour
The estimated amount of time needed to detour around the Schuyler Heim Bridge is shown
in Table 4. The through-channel data provided by Caltrans includes delay times, if any,
experienced by vessels waiting for the bridge to lift. The time to detour around Terminal
Island is an estimated time based on data from Crowley and from a prior Badger Bridge
Replacement Analysis study conducted by the Los Angeles Harbor Department in 1994. The
detour times for tugs and for tugs with barges are estimates based on interviews with
Crowley. It is assumed that the tug-with-barge combinations and tow vessels will travel at
slower speeds than other vessels and will use Crowley’s time needed to detour estimate of
90 minutes. It is also assumed that all other vessels will travel at a higher speed and will use
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
2-3
2. METHODOLOGY
Crowley’s time needed to detour estimate of 60 minutes. For the purposes of our economic
analysis, the added cost to operators is the net detour time, which is the detour time minus
the through-channel time (see Table C-2 in Appendix C).
TABLE 4
Average Vessel Operation Times in Minutes
Through Channel
Detoura
Net Detour
Tugs
25
60
35
Tugs with Barges
25
90
65
Fishing
25
60
35
Sail
25
60
35
Cruise
25
60
35
Oil Cont.
25
60
35
Ship
25
60
35
Power
25
60
35
CG Cutter
25
60
35
Tanker
25
60
35
Tow
25
90
65
Fire Boat
25
60
35
Source: Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge, Lift Data for January and July 2003, January and
July 2004, and January and July 2005
a
Average time to detour around Terminal Island.
2.2.6
Mast Folding
Several interviewees mentioned that costs associated with folding and unfolding masts
would be relevant impacts to quantify. Conceptually, should a vessel wish to cross under a
fixed-span Schuyler Heim Bridge and its mast is too high, but were it folded it could pass,
the costs associated with that act are relevant economic impacts. Vessel operators
interviewed suggested that time spent by the crew to fold and unfold a mast for this
purpose would take the crew away from other shipboard duties; therefore, the costs
associated with that time are a real cost impact.
Data were unavailable on the time necessary to fold masts and the likelihood that vessels
would fold masts rather than detour around the channel. Thus, it was assumed that all
vessels with masts higher than 14.3 m (47 ft) would detour (i.e., no vessels would fold their
masts to pass under the new fixed bridge). This assumption will overstate impacts to marine
vessels to the extent that operators elect to fold their masts rather than detour once the new
fixed bridge is in place.
2-4
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
Ju
ly
Ju 1s
ly t
2
Ju nd
ly
Ju 3rd
ly
Ju 4th
ly
Ju 5th
ly
Ju 6th
ly
Ju 7th
ly
Ju 8th
ly
J u 9t
ly h
J u 10t
ly h
Ju 11t
ly h
Ju 12t
ly h
J u 13t
ly h
J u 14t
ly h
Ju 15t
ly h
Ju 16t
ly h
J u 17t
ly h
J u 18t
ly h
J u 19t
ly h
Ju 20th
ly
Ju 21
ly st
2
Ju 2n
ly d
J u 23r
ly d
Ju 24t
ly h
J u 25t
ly h
J u 26t
ly h
J u 27t
ly h
Ju 28t
ly h
J u 29t
ly h
Ju 30t
ly h
31
st
Number of Vessels Requiring Bridge Lift
Ja
n
Ja 1st
n
2
Ja nd
n
3
Ja r d
n
4
Ja th
n
5t
Ja h
n
6
Ja th
n
7
Ja th
n
8
Ja th
n
Ja 9th
n
1
Ja 0th
n
11
J a th
n
1
Ja 2th
n
1
Ja 3th
n
1
Ja 4th
n
1
Ja 5th
n
1
Ja 6th
n
1
Ja 7th
n
18
J a th
n
1
Ja 9th
n
2
Ja 0th
n
Ja 21s
n
t
2
Ja 2nd
n
2
Ja 3rd
n
2
Ja 4th
n
25
J a th
n
2
Ja 6th
n
2
Ja 7th
n
2
Ja 8th
n
2
Ja 9th
n
3
Ja 0th
n
31
st
Number of Vessels Requiring Bridge Lift
2. METHODOLOGY
45
Schuyler Heim Bridge Lifts for January 2003, 2004, and 2005
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
* Note: Bridge was closed from Jan 1st - 17th; therefore no data was recorded.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
2003
2003
*
2004
2004
2005
45
Schuyler Heim Bridge Lifts for July 2003, 2004, and 2005
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2005
Figure 2. Schuyler Heim Bridge Lifts for January and July 2003, 2004, and 2005
2-5
2. METHODOLOGY
2.2.7
Growth in Marine Vessel Traffic in the Channel
As shown in Table 3, the number of vessels requiring a lift of the Schuyler Heim Bridge has
generally declined in recent years. According to Caltrans, this is because more vessels are
choosing instead to detour around Terminal Island because of the uncertainty in delay times
in the channel. These delay times are associated primarily with increased rail traffic on the
Badger Avenue Bridge. Port activity and rail traffic are expected to continue increasing in
the future. Thus, it was assumed that future marine vessel traffic will remain constant
through time, which may tend to overstate the economic impacts to marine vessels.
2.2.8
Horizontal Constraints
Impacts to marine vessel operation could occur because of both horizontal and vertical
constraints imposed by Schuyler Heim Bridge reconstruction. The magnitudes of such
impacts are based on a 14.3-m (47-ft) height and 54.9-m (180-ft) navigable channel width
(pier-to-pier under the Schuyler Heim Bridge at water level).
Interviewees, field observations, and collected data show that only tug/barge combinations
(in Cerritos Channel this is typically tugs with fuel bunker barges) potentially could be
constrained because of the horizontal distance between bridge fenders at water level. The
proposed bridge width of 14.3 m (180 ft) is the same as currently exists and is likely to be
adequate for all vessels that currently travel in the Cerritos Channel. Thus, it was assumed
that there would be no constraints to marine traffic from the width of the new bridge.
Because the estimated channel width during a portion of construction is only 22.9 m (75 ft),
it is assumed that no tug with barge combinations could pass under the bridge during
construction when this restriction is in effect.
Several operators mentioned that they currently “use” the fact that the Schuyler Heim
Bridge span is wider than that of the Badger Bridge in crossing the channel. This is due to
conditions associated with certain prevailing winds. The procedure involves aligning the
vessel to travel through the passageway under the bridge in a skewed fashion. Rather than
starting in the middle of the channel, the vessel will start closer to one side and end up
closer to the other. Design consideration should be given to operators’ use of this procedure
when evaluating various width and pier placement options.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
2-7
3. Impacts During Construction
The proposed Schuyler Heim Bridge reconstruction would result in a number of different
economic impacts. For example, construction of the facility (estimated to cost $143 to
$162 million) would provide short-term income and employment for local construction
workers and state and local tax revenue. This analysis focuses on the impacts to marine
vessel navigation and recognizes impacts that might affect road users.
3.1
Marine Vessel Impacts
At this preliminary level of engineering, it is assumed that construction of the proposed
replacement bridge would result in constraints to marine vessel navigation for a 2-year
period. The temporary navigational constraints would be a reduced clearance height of
13.1 m (43 ft) and reduced width of 22.9 m (75 ft).
The current height of the bridge is roughly similar to the proposed height of the bridge
during construction. Thus, the number and type of vessels that required a lift of the bridge
for passage during 2005 were used to represent the number and type of vessels that would
be required to detour around the channel during construction with the exception noted in
Section 2. It is assumed that no tug with barge combinations could pass under the bridge
during construction when the channel is restricted to a width of 22.9 m (75 ft).
The estimated economic impact associated with constructing the proposed replacement
bridge in the Cerritos Channel is $2.6 million (see Appendix C, Table C-1).
3.2
Roadway Impacts
The proposed Schuyler Heim Bridge replacement could result in longer travel times and
distances for freight and other roadway users during construction. At this time, it is
estimated that the bridge would not be closed to road traffic for more than a few days at a
time during each phase. There will be lane closures, however, during the construction
period that will restrict traffic movement.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
3-1
4. Impacts During Operation
4.1
Marine Vessel Navigation Impacts
During operations, the bridge would be 14.3 m (47 ft) high. Data from the Port of
Los Angeles for the year 2002 indicate that about 13 percent of the vessels over 12.1 m (40 ft)
in height that traveled in the channel at that time were between 12.1 m (40 ft) and 14.3 m
(47 ft) (Port of Los Angeles , 2002). Thus, it was assumed that 13 percent of the vessels
requiring a lift in 2005 could pass under a 14.3-m (47-ft) bridge and would not need to
detour. These numbers are shown below in Table 5.
TABLE 5
Number of Vessels Through Channel Requiring Detour (Postconstruction)
2003
2004
2005
Tugs
1373
1242
1352
Tugs with Barges
459
423
433
Fishing
21
0
10
Sail
689
741
444
Cruise
26
31
21
Oil Cont.
23
5
10
Ship
13
5
5
Power
31
26
21
CG Cutter
5
26
5
Tanker
5
0
10
Tow
10
0
0
Fire Boat
16
16
5
Source: Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge, Lift Data for January and July 2003, January
and July 2004, and January and July 2005
The results of the analysis of marine vessel impacts during operation are estimated to be
$23.6 million (see Appendix C, Table C-2).
4.2
Roadway Impacts
While the focus of this report is on impacts to marine vessels, it is important to recognize
that the proposed replacement bridge would provide substantial economic benefits for
roadway users of the Schuyler Heim Bridge.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
4-1
4. IMPACTS DURING OPERATION
4.2.1
Economic Impacts from Improved Mobility
Replacement of the Schuyler Heim Bridge with a fixed structure is critical to successful
completion of the expressway project. When complete, the 2.7-kilometer (km) (1.7-mile [mi])
expressway would provide the missing link between the Ocean Boulevard Interchange on
Terminal Island and Alameda Street on the mainland. This link would allow traffic to
continue north to connect to Pacific Coast Highway, I-405, and/or SR-91. The proposed
expressway would also help maximize use of the recently completed six-lane
Alameda Street and provide crossings over the signalized intersections at Henry Ford
Avenue, Anaheim Street, and Denni Street.
Year 2030 traffic projections indicate that the proposed expressway would result in a
6 percent reduction in truck traffic on I-710 (between Ocean Boulevard and Pacific Coast
Highway) and a 5 percent reduction in truck traffic on I-110 (between SR-47 and Pacific
Coast Highway). Traffic conditions on parallel arterial streets also would improve.
There are many economic benefits that would result from this project including:
•
Substantial reduced delay benefits to roadway users during operations due to
elimination of the lift bridge
•
Fewer accidents
•
Indirect benefits to businesses resulting from more reliable and consistent delivery of
goods to and from Terminal Island
4.2.2
Improved Safety and Emergency Response
The SR-47 Expressway and Schuyler Heim Bridge would provide an important service route
that would enable emergency service vehicles and equipment to access Terminal Island in
the event of an emergency.
In the event of an earthquake, the Schuyler Heim Bridge and SR-47 Expressway would
provide a route to both the I-710 and I-110 highways should service be disrupted on both
the Gerald Desmond Bridge and the Vincent Thomas Bridge. They would also provide a
route that can remain in service to ensure ground and vessel transportation immediately
following a major earthquake. After a major earthquake, the Schuyler Heim Bridge and
SR-47 Expressway would provide safety for vehicular users of the bridge and marine users
of the Cerritos Channel.
4.2.3
Ongoing Bridge Cost Reductions
Replacement of the Schuyler Heim Bridge would minimize the annual capital costs of
bridge improvements by maximizing the life span of the bridge, and minimize future
maintenance, operational activities, and costs of the bridge.
4-2
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
5. Permit-Related Compensation
Compensation related to marine vessel detours would be provided as a permit condition if
lawfully imposed by the U.S. Coast Guard.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
5-1
6. List of Contacts
A number of in-person and telephone interviews were conducted during the preparation of
this analysis and during prior work conducted in 2002. A list of the persons contacted
during the prior analysis can be found in the 2002 draft study (CH2M HILL, 2002). The list
below includes persons contacted during the preparation of this study.
Name
Affiliation
Russell Byington
U.S. Maritime Administration
Jerry Gesparo
Crowley Maritime
Jim Penny
Crowley Maritime
Richard Luecht
Caltrans
Johnny Garcia
Caltrans
Katherine McDermott
POLB
Carl Adamowicz
POLB
Kathryn Curtis
POLA
Dan Knott
POLA
Ted Blackenburg
American Navigation (Am Nav)
Marcel
American Marine Corporation
Mike Ellis
Connolly Pacific
Dave
Foss Maritime
Laura
General Petroleum
Tom Jankovich
The Jankovich Co. (J&S)
Lum
Manson Construction
Igor Lock
Marine Transport Corp. (Crowley Petroleum)
Robert
Millennium Maritime
Leslie
Olympic Tug and Barge
Wayne Caley
Pacific Tugboat Services
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
6-1
7. References
Alameda Corridor Engineering Team. 2005. Caltrans Data for Schuyler Heim Bridge Draft
Memo. November.
CH2M HILL. 2002. Long-Term Economic Impacts to Marine Vessel Operation in Cerritos Channel
Due to Schuyler Heim Bridge Due to Schuyler Heim Bridge, No 53-2618 Bridge Replacement
Project, Long Beach, California. Draft Study.
Heim Bridge Activity Logs. 2002. April-June 2001 and April-June 2002.
Los Angeles Harbor Department. 1994. Badger Bridge Replacement Analysis.
Los Angeles Harbor Department, Environmental Management Division. 1994. Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement/4(f) Evaluation. July.
Port of Los Angeles. 2002. Video Surveillance Data, 2000 and 2001.
Russell Byington, Acting Director, U.S. Government Maritime Administration (MARAD).
2005. September.
U.S. Coast Guard. 1990. Environmental Assessment for Renovating the Ford Avenue Railroad
Bridge (Preferred Alternative), and supporting document including economic impact study.
August.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis Maritime
Administration. 2004. Coastal Tank Barge Market. April.
Washington Group Consulting. 2002. Railway Traffic Forecasts for Alameda Corridor.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
7-1
Appendix A
Tugboat Companies
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
Appendix A. Tugboat Companies
TABLE A-1
Tugboat Companies and Vessel Names
Company Name
Vessel Name
AM Nav (sister company to Foss)
Defiant, Reliant
American Marine Corporation
Lokalia, Spirit
City of Los Angeles
Angles Gate
Connolly Pacific
Durango, Lacona, Patcona II
Crowley Maritime Services
Admiral, Leader, Master, Sea Cloud, Sea Robin, Scout,
Tioga, Guardsman, Mar, Warrior
Foss Maritime
Brynn Foss, Diane Foss, Edith Foss, Howard Olsen, Iver
Foss, Marshall Foss, Pacific Escort, Pacific Spirit, Peter Foss,
Pt. Ferman, Pt. Vincente
General Petroleum
Elsa
The Jankovich Company
Robyn J, Vickie Ann
Ocean Blue
Martin Curtin
Seana C.
Manson Construction and Engineering
Cub, Elmer M, Jeffrey M.
Marine Spill Response
Clean Waters
Marine Transport Corporation
Coastal Reliance, Ocean Reliance, Sea Reliance, Sound
Reliance
Millennium Maritime (Harley Marine Services)
Millennium Dawn, Millennium Falcon, Millennium Maverick,
Millennium Star, Tim Quigg, Z Three, Ernest Campbell, and
other chartered vessels (i.e., CF Campbell, Gene Dunlop,
HMS Frontier)
Olympic Tug and Barge
Pacific Falcon
Pacific Tugboat Services
Kodak, Theo Jr.
Public Service Marine
Eagle
Sause Bros.
Arapahoe, Cabrillo, Joseph Sause, Kahu (renamed Laguna),
Klinhyam, Laguna, Ranger, Robert L, Solana
South Bay Barge
West Oil (Harley Marine Services)
St. Andrews
Source: Alameda Corridor Engineering Team, Caltrans Data for Schuyler Heim Bridge Draft Memo.
November 2005
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
A-1
Appendix B
ACET Draft Memorandum
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
Appendix B. ACET Draft Memorandum
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO:
Harley Martin, CH2M HILL
FROM:
Elaine Silvestro, ACET
DATE:
November 8, 2005
Project Name:
SR-47
Subject:
Caltrans Data for Schuyler Heim Bridge
Cc:
Dan Pitzler, CH2M HILL
The following is information related to recent historical records of the operation of the Schuyler
Heim Bridge and the lifting of this bridge for vessels traversing through Cerritos Channel:
Schuyler Heim Bridge
•
Height of bridge is normally 36 feet to 41 feet above water (depends on tide) compared
to the Badger Bridge (aka Henry Ford Avenue Bridge) which is approximately 6 feet to
8 feet above water (only a 2 man vessel can go underneath without a lift).
•
Caltrans is the operator of the bridge and only record the vessels that go under the
bridge requiring a lift. If a vessel clears the bridge (without a lift), there is no data
available.
•
The information recorded by Caltrans is the date, name and type of vessel, direction of
vessel (east or west bound), and time of passage (up and down of the bridge).
•
Full height (lift) of the bridge is 126 feet above water.
•
The Caltran operator controls the height of lift (based on their experience) unless the
vessel requests a specific height.
•
Caltrans maintains 3 shifts; midnight to 8 a.m., 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and 4 p.m. to midnight.
•
Bridge is lifted only after traffic (6 lanes) comes to a complete halt and it is verified that
no pedestrians are on the bridge.
•
Recorded times for the lifting of the bridge start when the light on the bridge changes
from green to amber and stop when the vessel clears the bridge and it is lowered.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
B-1
APPENDIX B. ACET DRAFT MEMORANDUM
•
In 1985, the recording system began.
•
The Caltrans operator is contacted by the vessel by audio signal, visual signal, or marine
radio (this must comply with Coast Guard Regulations). The majority of the contacts are
by marine radio.
•
Vessel names and types are recorded by visual observation. If no name is visible, then
none is recorded.
•
According to Richard Luecht of Caltrans, in 1988 approximately 500 to 600 vessels
required lifts in the winter and 700 to 800 vessels required lifts in the summer. Since this
time, there has been increased train traffic on Badger Bridge, an adjacent, separate, lift
bridge with a lower headroom clearance. Therefore, there has been an additional waiting
time for Badger Bridge to lift in Cerritos Channel. Consequently, the number of lifts has
decreased (vessels are going around).
Vessel Information
Tugboats
Tugboats park in both Long Beach and Los Angeles harbors, whereas ships come in on the
Los Angeles side. Ships come in and go out through Angel’s Gate. In order for tugboats to get
to ships from Long Beach to Los Angeles , it is shorter to use Cerritos Channel (less fuel and
less time). If they have to go around, they travel through Cerritos Channel, the Back Channel,
Long Beach Channel, Outer Harbor (staying inside the breakwater), then up the Main Channel
and back into the Cerritos Channel. This can take approximately 45 to 60 minutes of additional
time.
The following is a list of the tugboat companies that were identified from their vessel name.
Please note that not all vessels recorded by Caltrans were identified. The unidentified owners of
the vessels (listed below the table) may be one of the companies listed in the table or be
independently owned.
Tugboats
COMPANY NAME
Am Nav (sister company to Foss)
American Marine Corporation
Berths 270-271
Terminal Island, CA 90731
310-547-0919
City of Los Angeles
Connolly Pacific
Pier D, Berth 40
Long Beach, CA 90802
562-437-2831
Crowley Maritime Services
300 S. Harbor Blvd., Berth 86
San Pedro, CA
310-732-6570
B-2
VESSEL NAME
Defiant, Reliant
Lokalia, Spirit
Angels Gate
Durango, Lacona, Patcona II
Admiral, Leader, Master, Sea Cloud, Sea
Robin, Scout, Tioga, Guardsman, Mars,
Warrior
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
APPENDIX B. ACET DRAFT MEMORANDUM
COMPANY NAME
Foss Maritime
Pier D, Berth D35
Long Beach, CA
562-435-0171
General Petroleum
1028 Seaside Ave.
Terminal Island, CA
310-714-4439
The Jankovich Co.
Berth 74
San Pedro, CA 90733
310-547-3305
Ocean Blue
Martin Curtin
Manson Construction and Engineering
1617 W. Pier D St.
Long Beach, CA
562-432-6918
Marine Spill Response (formerly Clean
Waters)
Marine Transport Corporation (Crowley)
Pier D, Berth 48
Long Beach, CA
562-4914753
Millennium Maritime (Harley Marine Services)
74 Berths
San Pedro, CA
310-831-9200
Olympic Tug and Barge
206-628-0051
Pacific Tugboat Services
1512 Pier C
Long Beach, CA
562-590-8188
Public Service Marine
310-548-4020
Sause Bros.
1607 W. Pier D St.
Long Beach, CA
562-901-0365
South Bay Barge (sister company to Foss)
Southern California Ship Services
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
VESSEL NAME
Brynn Foss, Diane Foss, Edith Foss, Howard
Olsen, Iver Foss, Marshall Foss, Pacific
Escort, Pacific Spirit, Peter Foss, Pt. Fermin,
Pt. Vincente (some tugs have been
reassigned, and a new tug to be added is the
Morgan Foss).
Elsa
Robyn J, Vickie Ann
Seana C.
Cub, Elmer M, Jeffrey M
Clean Waters
Coastal Reliance, Ocean Reliance, Sea
Reliance, Sound Reliance
Millennium Dawn, Millennium Falcon,
Millennium Maverick, Millennium Star,
Tim Quigg, Z Three, Ernest Campbell, and
other chartered vessels (i.e., CF Campbell,
Gene Dunlop, HMS Frontier)
Pacific Falcon
Kodak, Theo Jr.
Eagle
Arapahoe, Cabrillo, Joseph Sause, Kahu
(renamed Laguna), Klinhyam, Laguna,
Ranger, Robert L, Solana
B-3
APPENDIX B. ACET DRAFT MEMORANDUM
COMPANY NAME
West Oil (Harley Marine Services)
401 Canal St.
Wilmington, CA
310-547-8286
Same as Millennium Maritime
VESSEL NAME
St. Andrews
Unidentified Tugs: Claudia, Everest Campbell, Pacific Avenger, Pacific Combi ,Santee, Sea
Prince, Tugnoya, Willie III
Barges
Most barges recorded by Caltrans are fuel barges. Barges are pushed and maneuvered by
tugboats. Barge names include: Alseabay, Alan G, Bonnie R, Columbia, CR Starlight, Cypress
L, Hannah, JJ, John S. Meek, Jovalan, Max III, Olympic L, Rockford, San Pedro, Southman,
Sullivan, Sunset Bay, Tasita, Wonkiakum, #1, #25, #30, WT30, #45, 242, 550-1, 550-2, 550-4.
Barges were not included in the table above.
Ships
Vopak is located on the west side of the Badger Bridge (and west of the Schuyler Heim Bridge).
Vopak is an operator of independent tank storage terminals and allows for efficient delivery from
stocking location to customer (by rail, truck or ship). The Vopak Terminal in Long Beach has
55 tanks for a total capacity of approximately 15 million gallons (approximately 357,000 barrels).
These tanks contain a variety of chemicals including primary organics, organic intermediates,
organic end-chemicals, inorganic chemicals, fuel, refined products and plasticizers. The dock
along Cerritos Channel is 725 feet in length, 100 feet wide (beam) and the water (draught) is
36 feet deep.
On average, there has been one ship per month to go under the Schuyler Heim Bridge during
the months of January and July in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Typically, two tugboats were required
to maneuver and dock the ship at the Vopak Terminal.
Sailboats
The majority of sailboats dock in Los Angeles. Also easier to use channel than go around.
Cruise Boats
Cruise boats make loops around Terminal Island, majority dock in Los Angeles.
Fire Boats
There are 3 fire boats; two in Long Beach (Challenger and Liberty) and one in Los Angeles.
Vessel / Schuyler Heim Bridge Data
The months of January and July for the years of 2003, 2004, and 2005 were reviewed.
One month during the winter season and one month during the summer season were chosen
for comparison purposes. This data is attached and is as follows:
B-4
•
For both seasons, the greatest percentage of vessels to require a lift was from tugboats
and sailboats (91% to 96%).
•
For both seasons, tugboats exceeded the number of sailboats and other vessels. In the
winter season, there were 3.7 to 4.7 tugboats for every one sailboat. In the summer
season, this ratio decreased to 1.5 to 2.6 tugboats for every 1 sailboat.
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
APPENDIX B. ACET DRAFT MEMORANDUM
•
In the winter season, the number of vessels ranged from 222 to 230 per month, and in
the summer season, ranged from 222 to 299 per month.
•
As stated previously, in 1988 approximately 500 to 600 vessels required lifts in the
winter and 700 to 800 vessels required lifts in the summer. The number of lifts has
decreased (vessels are going around) due to the waiting time for Badger Bridge to lift.
•
Typically, the busiest day of the year is July 4th. In 2003, 40 vessels (75% sailboats)
required a lift, and in 2004, 31 vessels (71% sailboats) required a lift. However, in 2005,
only 19 vessels (26% sailboats) required a lift. In should be noted that on July 4th,
sailboats travel through the Cerritos Channel to enjoy the fireworks show presented by
the Queen Mary. However, in 2005, the Queen Mary did not present a fireworks show.
The future presentation of this show is unknown.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
B-5
Appendix C
Calculation of Economic Impacts
to Marine Vessel Navigation
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
Appendix C. Calculation of Economic Impacts
to Marine Vessel Navigation
TABLE C-1
Annual Costs
PV in 2006$
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
a
Annual cost of detours ($2006)
Annual Growth
in Marine
Vessel Traffica Construction
Operation
$2,600,500
$23,568,700
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$0
$0
1
$761,630
$0
1
$2,057,167
$0
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
1
$1,797,999
Annual Net Detour Hours: (Air Quality)
Tugs
Tugs
w/Barge
Fishing
Sail
Cruise
Oil
Cont.
Ship
Power
CG
Cutter
309
879
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
809
225
578
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
2
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
101
289
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
5
14
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
2
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
14
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Tanker Tow
2
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fire
Boat
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Total
656
1,804
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
1,608
No future growth assumed because recent years have trended downward.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
C-1
APPENDIX C. CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO MARINE VESSEL NAVIGATION
TABLE C-1
Annual Costs
C-2
Const. Restriction 43'x75'
Operational 47'x180'
Full Closure
Base 2005 Daily Detour Cost in 2005$
Tugs
Tugs w/Barge
Fishing
$3,402
$2,531
$3
$2,960
$1,762
$3
$4,253
$2,531
$4
Sail
$82
$71
$102
Cruise
$53
$46
$66
Oil Cont.
$26
$23
$33
Ship
$13
$11
$16
Power
$6
$5
$7
CG Cutter
$13
$11
$16
Tanker
$26
$23
$33
Tow
$0
$0
$0
Fire Boat
$13
$11
$16
Total
$6,168
$4,926
$7,078
Const. Restriction 43'x75'
Operational 47'x180'
Full Closure
Base 2005 Daily Net Detour Hours
Tugs
Tugs w/Barge
2.48
1.85
2.22
1.32
3.10
1.85
Sail
0.82
0.73
1.02
Cruise
0.04
0.03
0.05
Oil Cont.
0.02
0.02
0.02
Ship
0.01
0.01
0.01
Power
0.04
0.03
0.05
CG Cutter
0.01
0.01
0.01
Tanker
0.02
0.02
0.02
Tow
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fire Boat
0.01
0.01
0.01
Total
5.31
4.41
6.17
Const. Restriction 43'x75'
Operational 47'x180'
Full Closure
Number of Days Restricted Per Type
2009
2010
Post Const.
112
148
0
0
182
365
10
35
0
Fishing
0.02
0.02
0.02
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
APPENDIX C. CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO MARINE VESSEL NAVIGATION
TABLE C-2
Net Detour Hours by Vessel Type
Net Detour Hours (Post Const. with channel fully open at 47'x180')
Tugs
Tugs w/Barge Fishing
# of Vessels per Year
1,352
433
10
Net Detour Time (Mins)
35
65
35
Net Detour Hours per Year
789
469
6
Net Detour Hours per Month
65.72
39.11
0.51
Net Detour Hours per Day
2.22
1.32
0.02
Sail
444
35
259
21.57
0.73
Cruise
21
35
12
1.02
0.03
Oil Cont.
10
35
6
0.51
0.02
Ship
5
35
3
0.25
0.01
Power
21
35
12
1.02
0.03
CG Cutter
5
35
3
0.25
0.01
Tanker
10
35
6
0.51
0.02
Tow
0
65
0
0.00
0.00
Fire Boat
5
35
3
0.25
0.01
Total
2,318
480
1569
130.72
4.41
Net Detour Hours (During Const. with channel closed)
Tugs
Tugs w/Barge
# of Vessels per Year
1943
623
Net Detour Time (Mins)
35
65
Net Detour Hours per Year
1,133
674
Net Detour Hours per Month
94.43
56.20
Net Detour Hours per Day
3.10
1.85
Fishing
15
35
9
0.73
0.02
Sail
638
35
372
30.99
1.02
Cruise
30
35
18
1.46
0.05
Oil Cont.
15
35
9
0.73
0.02
Ship
8
35
4
0.36
0.01
Power
30
35
18
1.46
0.05
CG Cutter
8
35
4
0.36
0.01
Tanker
15
35
9
0.73
0.02
Tow
0
65
0
0.00
0.00
Fire Boat
8
35
4
0.36
0.01
Total
3330
480
2254
187.81
6.17
Net Detour Hours (During Const. with restriction of 43'x75')
Tugs
Tugs w/Barge Fishing
# of Vessels per Year
1,554
623
12
Net Detour Time (Mins)
35
65
35
Net Detour Hours per Year
907
674
7
Net Detour Hours per Month
75.54
56.20
0.58
Net Detour Hours per Day
2.48
1.85
0.02
Sail
510
35
298
24.79
0.82
Cruise
24
35
14
1.17
0.04
Oil Cont.
12
35
7
0.58
0.02
Ship
6
35
4
0.29
0.01
Power
24
35
14
1.17
0.04
CG Cutter
6
35
4
0.29
0.01
Tanker
12
35
7
0.58
0.02
Tow
0
65
0
0.00
0.00
Fire Boat
6
35
4
0.29
0.01
Total
2,789
480
1,938
161.49
5.31
Sail
510
35
298
24.79
0.82
Cruise
24
35
14
1.17
0.04
Oil Cont.
12
35
7
0.58
0.02
Ship
6
35
4
0.29
0.01
Power
24
35
14
1.17
0.04
CG Cutter
6
35
4
0.29
0.01
Tanker
12
35
7
0.58
0.02
Tow
0
65
0
0.00
0.00
Fire Boat
6
35
4
0.29
0.01
Total
2664
480
1,803
150.25
4.94
Net Detour Hours (Current)
# of Vessels per Year
Net Detour Time (Mins)
Net Detour Hours per Year
Net Detour Hours per Month
Net Detour Hours per Day
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
Tugs
1554
35
907
75.54
2.48
Tugs w/Barge
498
65
540
44.96
1.48
Fishing
12
35
7
0.58
0.02
C-3
TABLE C-3
Summary of Data Needed for the Project
Number of Tugs Through Channel Requiring Bridge Lift (Current)
Tugs
Tugs*
w/Barge
Date
Fishing
Sail
Cruise
Oil Cont.
Ship
Power
CG Cutter
2003
1,578
528
24
792
30
27
15
36
6
2004
1,428
486
0
852
36
6
6
30
30
2005
1,554
498
12
510
24
12
6
24
6
Vessels per day:
4.26
1.36
0.03
1.40
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.02
Note: The height of the bridge at this time is normaly between 36' and 41' depending on tide.
*Tugs has been adjusted so that it does not include tugs w/barge. This is different than what is used in "Vessels by Year".
Average Time in Minutes for Ships to Traverse Through Channel (Including Bridge Lift) and Around Terminal Island
Tugs
Tugs
w/Barge
Fishing
Sail
Cruise
Oil Cont.
Ship
Power
CG Cutter
Through Channel
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Detour Around Island*
60
90
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Net Added Detour Time
35
65
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
Tanker
Tow
6
0
12
0.03
Tanker
12
0
0
0.00
Tow
25
60
35
25
90
65
Fire Boat
18
18
6
0.02
Total
3,072
2,892
2,664
7.30
Fire Boat
25
60
35
*Detour Around Island times for "Tugs" and "Tugs w/barge" are estimates from Crowley. Assume "Tugs w/barge" and "Tow" vessels will travel at slower speeds than other vessels
and will therefor take longer to detour and will use the "Tugs w/barge" time estimate from Crowley. Assume all other vessels will travel at a higher speed (same as "Tugs") and
will use the "Tugs" time estimate from Crowley.
25% Assumed added percent of tugs w/barge that will require a detour during construction due to decreased width of channel.
Number of Tugs Through Channel Requiring Bridge Lift (During Const. with restriction of 43'x75')
Tugs
w/Barge* Fishing
Date
Tugs
Sail
Cruise
Oil Cont. Ship
Power
CG Cutter Tanker
2003
1,578
660
24
792
30
27
15
36
6
2004
1,428
608
0
852
36
6
6
30
30
2005
1,554
623
12
510
24
12
6
24
6
Vessels per day:
4.26
1.71
0.03
1.40
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.02
Tow
6
0
12
0.03
12
0
0
0.00
Fire Boat Total
18
3,204
18
3,014
6
2,789
0.02
7.64
*Assumes that no Tugs w/Barge will be able to pass under the bridge when channel width is 75'. During current operation of the bridge 75% of tugs with barge need to detour
around the bridge. The remaining 25% that can pass under currently are assumed not to be able to pass under during construction. This means 100% of tugs with
barge can not pass under the bridge during construction.
Number of Tugs Through Channel Requiring Bridge Lift (During Const. with full closure)
Tugs
w/Barge Fishing
Date
Tugs
Sail
Cruise
Oil Cont. Ship
Power
CG Cutter Tanker
2003
1,973
660
30
990
38
34
19
45
8
2004
1,785
608
0
1,065
45
8
8
38
38
2005
1,943
623
15
638
30
15
8
30
8
Vessels per day:
5.32
1.71
0.04
1.75
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.08
0.02
Tow
8
0
15
0.04
15
0
0
0.00
Fire Boat Total
23
3,840
23
3,615
8
3,330
0.02
7.64
Note: This table is also multiplied by 25% factor. Assumes no vessels will be able to pass under the bridge during this time so 25% more of each vessel type will have to detour.
This means 100% of vessels will have to detour.
13% Assumed percent of vessels that will be able to cross under 47' bridge that require lift of bridge today (see Note below).
Number of Vessels Through Channel Requiring Detour (Post Construction at 47'x180')
Tugs
Tugs
w/Barge
Date
Fishing
Sail
Cruise
Oil Cont.
2003
1,373
459
21
689
26
23
2004
1,242
423
0
741
31
5
2005
1,352
433
10
444
21
10
Vessels per day
3.70
1.19
0.03
1.22
0.06
0.03
Ship
13
5
5
0.01
Power
CG Cutter
31
5
26
26
21
5
0.06
0.01
Tanker
5
0
10
0.03
Tow
10
0
0
0.00
Fire Boat
16
16
5
0.01
Total
2,673
2,516
2,318
6.35
Note: Calculated by assuming that once the bridge has completed construction 20% less traffic will need to detour because of the increased height of
the bridge. This was calculated using 2000 Video Surveillance Data. The height of the bridge at this time will be 47' depending on tides.
Data from Above Transposed for Report
Number of Tugs Through Channel Requiring
Bridge Lift (Current/During Construction)
Tugs
Tugs w/Barge
Fishing
Sail
Cruise
Oil Cont.
Ship
Power
CG Cutter
Tanker
Tow
Fire Boat
2003
1578
528
24
792
30
27
15
36
6
6
12
18
2004
1428
486
0
852
36
6
6
30
30
0
0
18
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
2005
1554
498
12
510
24
12
6
24
6
12
0
6
Average Time in Minutes
Through
Channel
6
9
5
6
4
0
0
5
5
0
16
4
Around
Island*
60
90
50
60
40
60
60
50
50
60
160
40
Number of Vessels Through
Channel Requiring Detour
(Post Construction)
2003
1262
422
19
634
24
22
12
29
5
5
10
14
2004
1142
389
0
682
29
5
5
24
24
0
0
14
2005
1243
398
10
408
19
10
5
19
5
10
0
5
Extra Time in Minutes to Detour Around Terminal Island
Tugs
Tugs w/Barge
Fishing
Sail
Cruise
Oil Cont.
Ship
Power
CG Cutter
Tanker
Tow
Fire Boat
60
90
50
60
40
60
60
50
50
60
160
40
C-5
TABLE C-4
Total Number of Vessels Requiring Lift of Schuyler Heim Bridge by Month and Year
Adjusted
Date
Jan-03
Jul-03
Jan-04
Jul-04
Jan-05
Jul-05
Total
Tugs
167
184
174
145
188
154
Tugs
w/Barge*
44
44
37
44
60
23
Fishing
4
0
0
0
2
0
Sail
33
99
47
95
25
60
Cruise
3
2
2
4
0
4
Oil Cont.
2.5
2
1
0
2
0
Ship
1.5
1
1
0
0
1
Power
1
5
2
3
3
1
CG Cutter
0
1
0
5
0
1
Tanker
0
1
0
0
1
1
Tow
0
2
0
0
0
0
Fire Boat
1
2
3
0
1
0
Total
213
299
230
252
222
222
* number of tug boats with barges included in total number of tug boats
Source: Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge, Lift Data for Jan. and July 2003, Jan. and July 2004, and Jan. and July 2005
Date
2003
2004
2005
Average Mins. through Channel
Total
Tugs
2,106
1,914
2,052
25
Tugs
w/Barge*
528
486
498
25
Fishing
24
0
12
25
Sail
792
852
510
25
Cruise
30
36
24
25
Oil Cont.
27
6
12
25
Ship
15
6
6
25
Power
36
30
24
25
CG Cutter
6
30
6
25
Tanker
6
0
12
25
Tow
12
0
0
25
Fire Boat
18
18
6
25
Total
3,072
2,892
2,664
Sail
27
11
19
Cruise
2
0
1
Oil Cont.
1
0
0.5
Ship
1
0
0.5
Power
0
2
1
CG Cutter
0
0
0
Tanker
0
0
0
Tow
0
0
0
Fire Boat
2
0
1
Total
131
119
125
* number of tug boats with barges included in total number of tug boats
Calculations for Adjusted Jan-03:
Total
Tugs
Tugs
w/Barge*
Date
Jan 1-17, 2004
98
19
Jan 1-17, 2005
104
41
Average
101
30
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
Fishing
0
2
1
C-7
TABLE C-5
Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge Lift Data
January 2003
Total
Tugs
Tugs
w/Barge* Fishing Sail Cruise Oil Cont. Ship
Date
1/1 to 1/17/03 bridge closed due to repairs
1/18/03
3
1
2
2
1/19/03
5
1
5
2
1/20/03
3
1/21/03
1
1/22/03
8
1/23/03
4
1
1/24/03
7
2
1
1/25/03
2
2
1/26/03
5
1
1
1
1/27/03
4
2
1/28/03
4
1
1/29/03
6
4
1/30/03
8
2
1
1
1/31/03
6
1
2
TOTAL
66
14
3
14
2
2
1
%
75
3
16
2
2
1
* number of tug boats with barges included in total number of tug boats
Power
CG Cutter
Tanker
Tow
Fire Boat
Total
8
13
3
1
8
4
8
2
7
6
4
6
10
8
88
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Power
CG Cutter
Tanker
Tow
Fire Boat
July 2003
Date
7/1/03
7/2/03
7/3/03
7/4/03
7/5/03
7/6/03
7/7/03
7/8/03
7/9/03
7/10/03
7/11/03
7/12/03
7/13/03
7/14/03
7/15/03
7/16/03
7/17/03
7/18/03
7/19/03
7/20/03
7/21/03
7/22/03
Total
Tugs
4
13
11
7
8
5
4
6
3
10
11
8
8
2
1
3
3
5
9
7
4
5
Tugs
w/Barge*
2
3
2
1
7/23/03
7/24/03
7/25/03
7/26/03
6
4
5
10
3
7/27/03
7/28/03
7/29/03
7/30/03
7/31/03
TOTAL
%
5
4
4
6
3
184
62
2
Fishing Sail
1
3
1
30
5
4
Cruise
Oil Cont. Ship
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
6
7
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
8
3
2
1
1
(supply)
12
1
1
1
2
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
1
2
3
1
44
1
0
0
9
2
3
1
2
99
33
10
4
8
23
1
(passenger)
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
5
2
Total
5
16
13
40
15
9
5
7
3
14
13
15
15
3
1
4
3
10
12
15
8
9
1
0
1
0
2
1
2
1
15
7
7
7
5
299
100
C-9
APPENDIX C. CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO MARINE VESSEL NAVIGATION
TABLE C-5
Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge Lift Data
January 2004
Date
1/1/04
1/2/04
1/3/04
1/4/04
1/5/04
1/6/04
1/7/04
1/8/04
1/9/04
1/10/04
1/11/04
1/12/04
1/13/04
1/14/04
1/15/04
1/16/04
1/17/04
1/18/04
1/19/04
1/20/04
1/21/04
1/22/04
1/23/04
1/24/04
1/25/04
1/26/04
1/27/04
1/28/04
1/29/04
1/30/04
1/31/04
TOTAL
%
C-10
Total
Tugs
9
4
7
7
3
9
9
7
3
3
8
5
2
5
4
10
3
7
7
Tugs
w/Barge*
1
1
3
1
1
Fishing Sail
2
Oil Cont. Ship
1
Power
CG Cutter
Tanker
Tow
3
1
1
2
3
6
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
4
3
2
1 vessel
assist
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
2
2
1
37
Fire Boat
1
1
1
1
3
3
6
4
6
5
9
5
5
2
4
5
11
174
76
Cruise
0
0
1
1
47
20
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
Total
12
4
8
8
4
10
12
9
6
9
11
5
5
7
5
12
7
10
7
6
6
5
9
5
13
7
6
2
4
6
12
230
100
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
TABLE C-5
Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge Lift Data
July 2004
Date
7/1/04
7/2/04
7/3/04
7/4/04
Total
Tugs
1
5
7
7
7/5/04
7/6/04
7/7/04
7/8/04
2
3
Closed
5
7/9/04
7/10/04
7/11/04
7/12/04
7/13/04
7/14/04
7/15/04
7/16/04
7/17/04
7/18/04
7/19/04
7/20/04
7/21/04
7/22/04
7/23/04
7/24/04
7/25/04
7/26/04
7/27/04
7/28/04
7/29/04
7/30/04
7/31/04
TOTAL
%
3
4
9
6
No Lifts
7
8
9
6
4
8
6
1
Tugs
w/Barge*
1
1
2
1
Fishing Sail
5
1
6
22
1
8
1
1
1
2
3
1
7
10
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
5
2
Cruise
Oil Cont. Ship
Power
1
passenger
2
CG Cutter
Tanker
Tow
Fire Boat
1
1
1
10
4
0
9
1 vessel
assist
1
1
6
4
5
4
4
10
4
2
5
145
58
3
1
1
2
1
3
4
1
2
44
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
1
1
4
8
1
1
1
0
0
7
95
38
4
2
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
Total
6
7
14
31
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
11
19
6
0
9
8
10
9
9
10
6
1
1
8
8
13
5
5
10
4
3
13
252
100
C-11
APPENDIX C. CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO MARINE VESSEL NAVIGATION
TABLE C-5
Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge Lift Data
January 2005
Date
1/1/05
1/2/05
1/3/05
1/4/05
1/5/05
1/6/05
1/7/05
1/8/05
1/9/05
1/10/05
1/11/05
1/12/05
1/13/05
Total
Tugs
2
6
11
7
9
2
11
13
12
8
4
1
1
Tugs
w/Barge*
1/14/05
1/15/05
1/16/05
1/17/05
1/18/05
1/19/05
1/20/05
1/21/05
1/22/05
1/23/05
1/24/05
1/25/05
1/26/05
1/27/05
1/28/05
1/29/05
1/30/05
1/31/05
TOTAL
%
2
3
7
5
5
2
6
5
5
5
2
7
6
10
11
7
8
5
188
85
1
C-12
Fishing Sail
1
4
2
3
7
10
5
4
1
Cruise
Oil Cont. Ship
Power
CG Cutter
Tanker
Tow
Fire Boat
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1 vessel
assist
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
3
3
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
60
2
1
25
11
0
0
2
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Total
2
6
13
7
11
4
12
13
13
8
7
1
2
2
5
9
5
5
4
7
5
8
10
2
7
8
10
13
9
9
5
222
100
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
APPENDIX C. CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO MARINE VESSEL NAVIGATION
TABLE C-5
Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge Lift Data
July 2005
Date
7/1/05
7/2/05
7/3/05
7/4/05
7/5/05
7/6/05
7/7/05
7/8/05
7/9/05
7/10/05
7/11/05
7/12/05
7/13/05
7/14/05
7/15/05
7/16/05
7/17/05
7/18/05
7/19/05
7/20/05
7/21/05
7/22/05
7/23/05
7/24/05
7/25/05
7/26/05
7/27/05
7/28/05
7/29/05
7/30/05
7/31/05
TOTAL
%
Total
Tugs
5
5
4
14
3
5
2
1
6
6
6
3
2
4
5
7
3
5
3
7
4
8
11
8
4
3
3
4
1
7
5
154
69
Tugs
w/Barge*
1
3
2
Fishing Sail
1
2
2
5
Cruise
Oil Cont. Ship
Power
CG Cutter
Tanker
Tow
Fire Boat
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
7
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
8
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
23
0
0
5
3
60
27
1
4
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
Total
6
7
6
19
3
5
3
1
10
8
8
6
2
4
8
10
11
5
3
7
8
12
14
16
5
5
3
5
1
12
9
222
100
Source: Caltrans, Schuyler Heim Bridge, Lift Data for Jan. and July 2003, Jan. and July 2004, and Jan. and July 2005
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
C-13
APPENDIX C. CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO MARINE VESSEL NAVIGATION
TABLE C-6
Vessel Heights as a Percent of Total
Tug and Tug with Barge Crossings by Vessel Height
Height-Mast Up
No. of
Crossings
Percent of
Total
20
52
1.7
25
13
0.4
30
59
1.9
35
526
16.9
% of added tugs with barge that need to detour
during construction:
25.2% more
37
135
4.3
% under (postconstruction)
13% more
40
61
2.0
45
96
3.1
46
135
4.3
50
35
1.1
52
0
0.0
55
65
2.1
60
85
2.7
62
42
1.3
68
54
1.7
70
600
19.2
78
1158
37.1
85
4
0.1
Grand Total
3120
100.0
Source: Port of Los Angeles Video Analysis
Note: These percentages were assumed for all vessel types.
C-14
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
APPENDIX C. CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO MARINE VESSEL NAVIGATION
TABLE C-7
List of Assumptions
1.
Assume that impacts to the channel during the construction period last for 485 days from September 1, 2009,
to December 29, 2010.
2.
Assume that the contractor works 7 days per week during the construction period.
3.
Assume that “Intermittent” closure days will be broken up by having half of the days as restricted access
(43’x75’) days and half of the days as full closure days. This means that, in 2009, of the 20 days that are
considered intermittent, 10 are restricted access days and 10 are full closure days. Also, in 2010, of the 20
days that are considered intermittent, 10 are restricted access days and 10 are full closure days.
4.
Assume that, during construction, the channel will have restricted access of 43'x75' for 112 days (this includes
10 days from the "intermittent" closure days) in 2009 and 148 days (this includes 10 days from the
“intermittent” closure days) in 2010. During this time, 100% of tugs with barge will have to detour.
5.
Assume that, during construction, there will be 10 days (this includes 10 days from the “intermittent” closure
days) of complete closures days in 2009 and 35 days (this includes 10 days from the “intermittent” closure
days) in 2010. During this time, 100% of vessels will need to detour.
6.
Assume that, during construction, the channel will also be fully open with access of 47'x180', as would be the
case during the Postconstruction phase, for 180 days in 2010. During this time, 13% more vessels that require
a bridge lift today will be able to pass under the bridge.
7.
Assume that the time to traverse through the channel is calculated between POLA Berth 210 and POLB Berth
B86 and takes 25 minutes at a speed of 5 knots.
8.
Assume net added detour times to be the time it takes to detour around Terminal Island.
9.
Assume, based on Crowley estimates, that tugs with barges will take 30 minutes longer to detour than tugs
alone.
10. Assume there is no future annual growth in marine vessel traffic through the Cerritos Channel because recent
years have trended downward.
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
C-15
Appendix D
False Work Letter and Pictures
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
Appendix D. False Work Letter and Pictures
EXHIBIT D-1
Proposed False Work Letter from the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
D-1
APPENDIX D. FALSE WORK LETTER AND PICTURES
EXHIBIT D-2
False Work Picture
D-2
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
APPENDIX D. FALSE WORK LETTER AND PICTURES
EXHIBIT D-3
False Work Sketches
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
D-3
APPENDIX D. FALSE WORK LETTER AND PICTURES
D-4
TB012006001SCO/BS2450.DOC/060060005
Appendix E
Construction Schedule in Calendar Days
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
Appendix E. Construction Schedule in Calendar Days
ES122006004SCO/BS2450.DOC/063410002
E-1

Similar documents