review of planning concepts and privatization - save the cape

Review of Planning Concepts and Privatization Options

June 2010

FINAL REPORT

P F Richardson AssociatesP.F. Richardson Associates

FINAL Report – Executive Summary

1 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

REVIEW OF NCIT PLANNING CONCEPTS AND PRIVATIZATION OPTIONS

The North Carolina State Port Authority (The Authority) worked with several consultants to develop a

Business Plan (The Plan) for the development of the North Carolina International Terminal (NCIT).

The Plan includes a three-phase development of a semi-automated terminal on 600 acres in Brunswick

County, NC with an ultimate capacity to handle 3,000,000 TEUs per year. As planned, the waterside

approach to the terminal will be designed to allow access to a 12,500 TEU design vessel, and ultimately

the NCIT will support the loading and/or unloading of three 12,500 TEU vessels or four vessels of a

more moderate size. The Plan proposes the implementation of an Automated Rail-Mounted Gantry

(ARMG) system for container operations, which optimizes container operations on the available

footprint. The Plan includes the required dredging, proposed on-site terminal development, and

proposed off-site development of the additional infrastructure necessary for the successful development

of the terminal.

As the Authority is exploring options for obtaining private funds for terminal development, this study

was to identify cost saving options that might make the development of the NCIT more attractive to

private investors. Paul F. Richardson Associates (PFRA) and TEC Inc. were hired by the Authority to

review the planning concepts presented in the NCIT development documents and identify potential

alternate concepts for terminal development that would meet the financing criteria used by the private

investment community. The PRPA and TEC review team did not identify any major flaws in the

ultimate NCIT Development Plan., however, the review team did identify several important planning

assumptions that will be important in order to maximize the potential private investment in the project,

including:

Developing a business strategy for the terminal development that that’s advantage of its

proximate to a planned nearby distribution center;

Developing a marketing plan that will enable the terminal to achieve the forecasted cargo

projections;

Developing a phased construction plan that will allow the terminal to achieve a positive cash-

flow within the first few years of operations;

Because of the current world economic conditions and its impact on the private investment community,

it was important to identify possible cost-saving development options to the current plan that would

make the project more attractive to private investors. While reviewing the current terminal plan, the

Study identified several areas where capital and operational cost savings could be achieved, including:


2 | P a g e

RTGs

ARMGs

Adjusting the terminal site footprint to reduce costly grading and site preparation requirements;

Developing a terminal operating plan and equipment plan that more efficiently met planned

cargo throughputs and productivity requirements;

Developing a Container Yard Plan based on this revised equipment plan; and

Revising the layout and sizing of the proposed on-dock ICTF (Intermodal Container Transfer

facility) to better meet market projections and rail operations.

Base on this assessment of where possible capital cost savings could be achieved, especially early in

project development, an Alternate Concept that focused on cost-saving opportunities during initial

project startup (Phase 1) was developed, with Phase 2 and 3 also being developed in a financially

prudent manner as cargo and revenue grows. The review team identified two primary concepts for the

Phase 1 development that have the potential to significantly reduce the initial capital cost investment.

The first concept is to construct a containment dike

along the marsh area adjacent to the wharf

proposed in The Plan. By filling the dike area with

the excess excavation material and suitable dredge

material, approximately 71 acres can be reclaimed

for additional terminal development and the $21

million estimated for hauling the excess excavation

material is eliminated. This realignment also

allows the wharf to be extended by approximately

330 feet.

The second concept is to initially install a rubber-

tired gantry (RTG) system for Phase 1 container

yard operations, postponing the installation of the

more expensive ARMG system until Phases 2 and

3. This reduces the initial equipment costs and

postpones the purchase of the costly automation

software until the later phases when the terminal

has a positive cash flow. This operational concept

also provides a terminal capacity commensurate

with expected initial volumes.

By reclaiming the noted marsh area for additional terminal development, realigning the wharf and

postponing the implementation of the more efficient ARMG system to Phases 2 and 3, the Alternate

concept can save approximately $375,000,000 for Phase 1 development costs with the added benefit of


3 | P a g e

increasing the site area by approximately 70 acres. No additional savings in Phases 2 and 3 were

identified. For these subsequent Phases, the development plans and associated costs appear to be

comparable.

In order for the development of the NCIT to move forward, a strategy to accomplish the required

project development activities needs to be established. These activities will include pre-design studies,

permit acquisition, and engineering and planning efforts. For the successful and timely implementation

of this project, these activities will need to be coordinated between the Authority and other stakeholders

and jurisdictional agencies. Frequent and timely coordination will be particularly important with the

USACE. The Project Development Budget outlined in The Plan estimates $32.235 million for the

project development activities listed. It is not yet established what portion of this budget will be the

responsibility of the Authority and what portion will be the responsibility of the other agencies. Also, it

is TEC’s opinion that the ‘on-site’ components of the Engineering and Planning efforts identified in The

Plan’s Project Development Budget would in fact be the responsibility of the private developer and

should therefore not be included in the Project Development Budget. The budget estimated by TEC for

the project development activities is $24,380,000, of which, approximately $18,000,000 would be the

responsibility of the Authority. It should also be reiterated that the coordination with USACE is of the

utmost importance in order for this project to proceed on a timely schedule. An initial introduction of

the project to the proper USACE staff should be arranged as soon as practicable.

This report is a compilation of the individual interim reports prepared by TEC to address the tasks

identified in the NCIT Review of Planning Concepts and Privatization Options Scope of Work.


4 | P a g e

REVIEW TASKS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 – DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW

CHAPTER 2 – DATA ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT

CHAPTER 3 – LAND TRANSPORT CONNECTIONS ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 4 – NAVIGATION AND DREDGING IMPROVEMENTS

CHAPTER 5 – ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT COST ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 6 – PLANNED VS. ALTERNATE CONCEPT COST COMPARISON

CHAPTER 7 – WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE EVALUATION

FINAL PRESENTATION TO The Authority

FINAL Report – Chapter 1

1 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW

This chapter summarizes our review of data provided by the North Carolina State Ports Authority (The Authority) and their consultants CH2MHill and Moffatt & Nichol in regards to the development of the former Pfizer property in Brunswick County, NC. Access to the files was via two ftp sites, one for the Authority documentation and the other for the consultants’ data.

Documents Provided and Reviewed: The following is a list of the provided data and a brief description of the contents.

Moffatt & Nichol Analysis Report, dated 11-17-2005: The first part of the data is the analysis and justification of the Pfizer property for utilization as a port facility. The second part of the data is the trends and assumptions used in determining the required/suggested port development criteria. The final part is the concept plan of the new port development. Among the data within this document is the assumption for the rail/truck split with a range of 25-80% among east coast ports.

CH2MHILL Technical Memos – dated 02-11-2008: Technical memorandums from CH2MHILL to the Authority outlining the requirements and proposed developments for the Civil Site Design, Dredging, Cost Estimating, Railroad, roadway, security, terminal development, utility connections, and wharf development. The technical memorandums are summaries and the overall studies are not included.

DRAFT NCIT Pro Forma Business Plan CH2MHILL Phase 2A – dated 03-15-2008:

First Pro-Forma plan that deals more deeply with the economic figures and rationale behind the port development, cargo forecasting, development scenarios, and market predictions. The forecasting data includes the truck/rail throughput assumption of an eventual 50% split in cargo. The current competitive ports of Savannah and Charleston currently operate at 20% or less cargo by rail. The assumption is made that with the growing trend in gas prices, recession, and improvements to be made by the rail companies, a 50% split will be desired.

NCIT Planning Assumptions v3 – dated 03-26-2008: Planning assumptions made by CH2MHIILL for the development of the Terminal. The data is summarized in outline form listing the assumptions and planning parameters made during the development of the terminal.

NCIT Estimate of Preliminary Costs Spreadsheet – dated 07-01-2008: Detailed construction cost estimate and planning/costing assumptions.

CH2MHILL Phase 2B Infrastructure Report – dated 09-18-2008: Report derived from the Planning Assumptions, economic models, technical memos, and previous comments to the Phase 2A report.

Report Appendices – dated 09-18-2008: Phase 2B appendices.


2 | P a g e

2008-09-18 NCIT Infrastructure Report – dated 09-18-2008:

Detailed report on the terminal development. Information provided in this report is the same as previous reports and assumptions with more detailed figures and concept plans.

Appendix C NCIT Drawings – dated 09-19-2008:

Drawings for the Infrastructure Report.

Initial Observations Cargo Forecasting: Economic and/or cargo forecast studies supporting the development program and throughput volumes were not included in the data. Terminal Development: The terminal development was divided among three phases based on the cargo forecasting (TEU throughput), and further divided into two to three sections per phase. The phases and cargo volumes are as follows:

Phase One: Development of Berths 1 & 2 Turning Basin and berth dredging Approach Channel to accommodate Ultra Post Panamax Vessels. 415,000 TEU – 1,135,000 TEU Phase Two: Development of Berth 3 1,445,000 TEU – 2,165,000 TEU Phase Three: Development of Berth 4 2,475,000 TEU – 3,000,000 TEU

There is no detailed description of the required equipment and operating model for each phase of development. The breakdown of the planned improvements can only be derived from the figures and cost estimate. There is data on the recommended cargo handling and offloading procedures and interaction between the gate, rail yard, and cargo, but there is not a description for the method or decision making behind the recommended option. The cargo forecasting is on the incoming cargo with little to no mention of outgoing cargo and how it is processed Terminal Gate: The terminal gate (as derived from the figures) is developed as throughput grows. Details and assumptions for the gate complex are not included in the information provided. Rail Yard: The rail yard development is based on volume and standard loading rates. A detailed explanation of the cargo handling and rail yard management regarding queuing and staging is not provided within the data. As depicted in the figures, the rail yard is developed as the cargo throughput grows. In the ultimate build out conditions, the yard is divided to on dock rail (active loading of the tracks) and the staging area (where the organization of the loaded cars takes place.) In the early phases, the staging area is also utilized for the on-dock rail (active loading area). The size of the yard is based on the factors of lifts per hour, size of trains, and volume of cargo per phase. The specific phase breakdown of each rail yard development is not given. Access Roadway: Terminal roadway access and improvements of existing roadways was not included in


3 | P a g e

the provided data and therefore not part of the review. Rail Access: The data did not include information regarding the existing rail lines to be utilized in the terminal development and therefore were not part of the review. Offsite Utilities: The utility technical memorandum refers to conversations with the local utilities and the reference to adequate capacity within the existing infrastructure. The base map (figure) shows that the water and sewer connections are not located adjacent to the terminal. The data did not include original studies or conversation records for verification of the information. Geotechnical Studies: The data did not include a report of geotechnical investigations for the project. Navigation Improvement and Dredging: There are three main parts to the dredging program, the main channel, the turning basin, and berth dredging. The dredging is planned for a 52.5-ft depth with 2-ft over dredge to handle the Ultra Post Panamax vessel. The vessel is not expected to call on the port fully loaded. The main channel alignment needs to be improved in order to accommodate the design vessel; several options are under consideration, but a final option has not been chosen. The PPP is intended to apply only to the terminal development and does not include the work to be performed by the US Army Corps in regards to the channel straightening and turning basin. Top of the Line Options: Current development plan provides the latest technology and top of the line equipment. The following is a list of the options provided. Security: Motion sensors along the perimeter fence (Perimeter Intrusion Detection & Assessment

System (PIDS) Card readers at every access point along with guard shacks High powered dockside cameras Mooring: State of the Art Vacuum Mooring System Yard: The container yard is operated with RMG and automated shuttle carts for transport of

containers between the ship and the yard. Interviews: The following interviews held during review of the data:

07-14-2009 – Stephanie Ayers: Telephone call to discuss preliminary questions regarding data collection and clarification of the data provided. The conversation was to request detailed data on the terminal gate complex, economic dredging responsibilities, and the most recent Pro-Forma plan. 07-17-2009 – Stephanie Ayers: Telephone call to discuss receipt of the economic forecasting and background data.

Additional Data Requirements: From results of the reviews under Task 1, we are developing a list of additional data that will be needed to continue with subsequent phases of the study.


1 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

DATA ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT

This chapter summarizes our analysis of data provided by the North Carolina State Ports Authority (The Authority) and their consultants CH2MHill and Moffatt & Nichol (the Planning Team) under Task 1. This task was to evaluate and “repackage” the currently proposed terminal plan and development concept for the NCIT to be more financially feasible and interesting to the private infrastructure investment groups. The output of this task is a TEC developed alternative development plan based on: 1) providing operational flexibility that produces; 2) a more commercially attractive capital investment plan and; 3) realistic phasing to meet market demand.

Our evaluation of the current terminal plan indicates that it was driven by a market analysis, operating philosophy and a marketing strategy. The market analysis and justification appears well researched with top-down and bottom-up approaches, although some of the assumptions and the conclusions on volume forecast appear optimistic for this location, given nearby competitor ports and a green field terminal. The market analysis concluded that, in order to be successful, NCIT had to offer as a business strategy (distribution center/transload delivery model), a ‘state of the art’ terminal with high level of automation (equates to high density and productivity), along with strong intermodal rail capability and draft for 12,000+ TEU vessels to attract users away from larger and more established ports such as Savannah, Charleston and Norfolk. These conclusions led to development planning concepts that provide on-terminal rail capability; high technology cranes and automation investment to increase container yard (CY) density (10,000 to 11,000 TEU/acre/year) and provide high throughput and velocity; significantly reduce labor costs when compared with more traditional designs; and berth capacity for very large vessels drawing 50 feet or more. The target CY density is virtually twice that generally realized by the best U.S. terminals today, and while it appears operationally optimistic, it is technically possible. The planning concept relies on significant rail transport to maintain a high velocity of containers through the terminal, which appears quite a challenging assumption given the current state of rail connections between this location and major rail hubs in, say, Charlotte NC for example. To facilitate our understanding of the current plan, TEC met with John Corley of CH2M HILL, during which time additional context and planning background information affecting its development was discussed along with our questions. Overall, the current planning concept seems well aligned with the conclusions of the market analysis and resulting planning assumptions. Additionally, the technical concepts and components for the terminal layout appear to be properly conceived and well integrated with the market and planning drivers, albeit with some ambiguities in the details. From the information we reviewed and questions posed, it does not appear that any other terminal siting footprints were considered during the planning process, and terminal planning was confined to within the property boundaries. This point seemed be worthy of further investigation, and we explored alternative footprints under Task 2, as will be discussed later.


2 | P a g e

Basic Facility Marketing Strategy Assumptions by the Planning Team are summarized as: Deepwater access and berthing facilities; -52.5 feet depth available

High rail volume throughput with on-terminal rail capability

Available “good” highway access

High productivity facility – employing automated RMG cranes

State of the art facility

Cost competitive with ports in range (Jacksonville to Norfolk)

Distribution Center/Transload delivery model with near-port logistics support facilities

Sustainability Basic Facility Development Assumptions by the Planning Team include: A high-density, automated container terminal

Capacity of 3.0 million TEUs per year at build-out

Accommodate vessels up to 12,000 TEU capacity

Initiate operation and generate revenue at earliest possible date

Terminal operations begin before completion of all construction activities

Financing method – PPP with concession agreement

Supporting access infrastructure (road, rail, navigation channel) funded by other than PPP

Significant intermodal rail utilization for inland moves; 50% of annual TEU volume at build-out While significant development challenges are noted for the off-site components of the Plan, specifically navigation, rail and roadway access, Task 2 is focused on the terminal proper, essentially ‘inside the fence’. Our review of the documents revealed the following most notable facility and infrastructure areas that appeared to require further clarification or examination to determine if cost saving alternatives can be identified. 1. Site earthwork costs are significant 2. Dredging costs are significant and current documents do not clearly establish whether costs for the

proposed Branch Channel leading to the site and the related turning basin are to be assigned to the project, or will be funded by others.

3. Equipment costs are significant. 4. Wharf cost is significant 5. The documents discuss several competing equipment strategies (Translifters, Shuttles/straddle carriers,

and Cassettes) for moving containers between the quay cranes and container stacks, and between container stacks and intermodal yard, but do not identify the selected option.

6. Number of gate lanes required at build-out (Phase 3) varies between the different documents, from 22 to 30. Neither figure seems to align well with the required gate moves and service times assumed.

7. Total length of rail trackage to be constructed by phase does not seem to be consistent between different documents and it is unclear what portion is associated with the PPP project vs. funded by other sources.


3 | P a g e

Similar to the facilities-related issues listed above, several business and marketing assumptions raise concerns which, we believe, merit additional examination and/or validation:

1. Market analysis with regard to NCIT potential share capture of regional container volume.

2. Assumption of 50% rail moves by build-out approximately 2035.

3. Business case for near-terminal Distribution Center/Transload model for this site and service hinterland.

4. Impact of Jasper Ocean Terminal in SC, does not appear to have been considered in the analysis. The project is well into the planning phase and is projected to open in 2019 to 2021, with build-out contemplated at 7 million TEU capacity around 2050.

5. With regard to ILA labor agreements, the relative level of labor savings that could likely be realized with the automated container yard.

We reviewed the comprehensive cost estimate, revision date of June 27, 2008, to identify and understand highest cost component areas for further evaluation. Site earthwork, dredging, wharf and equipment components appear to offer the most potential for significant cost savings. With regard to the first two of these items, we developed 6 alternative locations for the terminal to determine if relocating the footprint could offer better value over the current plan. Alternate 6 was developed from our group meeting discussions in Annapolis on August 25th. For each of these concepts, we calculated a rough-order of magnitude quantity for site fill material, and for dredging of berthing and access fairway areas to compare with the current plan. The cost tabulation and comparison for site earthwork and dredging indicates that five of the Alternates compare favorably with the current Plan and merit consideration. Alternate 6 appears to be the most promising option from technical, operational and environmental perspectives. And, with the additional land created on the waterside, this alternate provides additional landside area for future development. Our findings at this point in the Study are as follows: 1. Since market assumptions, analysis, conclusions and forecasts are driving the planning concepts,

operating strategies, and thus capital investment requirements, these need to be further vetted and discussed in order to confirm and validate the direction and parameters going forward.

2. The current terminal plan aligns well with the market analysis and assumptions (Item 1 above), and with reasonably flexible phasing for expansion to meet the 3 million TEU throughput as cargo volume warrants.

3. Several areas for potential improvement in development costs exist and merit further technical investigation and consideration.

4 If the terminal footprint can be relocated, there are several alternative locations that appear feasible and at least one of those (Alternate 6) appears superior to the current plan. Additional engineering and evaluation will be needed to refine the selected concept(s) and develop more accurate cost estimate(s).

5. Confirming a second user for the proposed access channel to serve this terminal is expected to allow the cost for that channel and the associated turning basin to be eligible for federal cost share funding, which in turn removes that cost from the terminal cost assigned to the PPP.


1 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

LAND TRANSPORT CONNECTIONS ASSESSMENT

This Chapter summarizes our review of data provided by the North Carolina State Ports Authority (the Authority) and their consultants CH2MHill and Moffatt & Nichol in regards to the development of the former Pfizer property in Brunswick County.

This task was to perform a cursory review of the proposed road and railroad connections, confirm the basic details, check the assumptions made during the preliminary planning process, and review the ICTF. In addition to the cursory review, TEC’s transportation model was utilized to generate the truck and rail traffic generated from the port. The output of this task is this report presenting our assessment and observations for development of the land transport connections and recommended modifications to the current program.

OVERVIEW:

The planning analysis of the original Business Plan (the Plan) was a multi-phased development with a projected annual volume of 3 million TEU’s at ultimate build-out, year 2035, with a 50/50 modal split of road and railroad traffic.

The Plan assessed the connectivity of the roadways and railroads for their ability to accommodate the projected volume of traffic. The Plan’s roadway access analysis was divided into two sections, access from the terminal to Route 87 (the Exit Corridor) and access from Route 87 to Route 17. Section one investigated three paths from the terminal to Route 87 and section two investigated 4 paths to Route 17 with a level of service (LOS) of C used as the minimum acceptable level. The Plan does not indicate that any analysis was performed beyond the Route 17 intersection. Alternative roadway access to either of these two interstates, through either a new roadway system, upgrades to existing roadways, or a combination of the two should be investigated further.

With the new roadway alternative, consideration should be given to the option of increasing the right of way width to include railroad lines. The addition of new rail lines will provide a broader variety of rail line access and connection choices.

The railroad access and capacity was based on the corridor’s ability to handle 50% of the projected 3-million TEU throughput of the terminal at build-out. The Plan analyzed the existing rail lines and facilities, required upgrades, possible alternatives, and conceptual requirements. Railroad access to the terminal would be via CSX rail lines that run between Wilmington and Charlotte, North Carolina. From the CSX lines, access is provided via the 17-mile USA rail line operated by the US Army and serving the Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MOTSU) and then through the neighboring industries’ 5.5-miles of private rail sidings owned by Progress Energy, Primary Energy, and Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM).

The Plan’s basic road and railroad development assumptions include:

Capacity of 3.0-million TEU’s per year at build-out

Three main phases of development : o Phase One: 425,000 TEU at startup and 1.135 million TEU at year 7.


2 | P a g e

o Phase Two: 1.445 million TEU at year 9 and 2.175 million TEU at year 13. o Phase Three: 2.475 million at year 15 and 3-million TEU at year 16.

50% road and 50% railroad modal split

Four lane typical roadway section serving the terminal

9,000 to 10,000 foot long train

10 daily trains The Plan’s thorough analysis for the projected throughput and base assumptions appear to be valid based calculations, modeling studies, and port industry knowledge. For planning purposes, we rounded the throughput volumes to million TEU increments as shown below:

Phase One: 1-million TEU at startup

Phase Two: 2-million TEU

Phase Three: 3-million TEU

The creation of a new terminal, located at some distance from established transportation networks, affects the assumptions and calculations. A conservative analysis of the Plan’s assumptions was performed by TEC with the suggested development assumptions:

Road/railroad modal split for competitive container ports was researched for comparison. Modal splits for Savannah’s Garden City Terminal are published as 86% Truck/11% Rail, and the Virginia Port Authority is shown as 64% truck/31% rail.

We believe that the most probable modal split for this terminal at/near build-out will be in the range of 70% truck/30% rail, rather than the 50%/50% split used in the current plan.

Our alternate concept is based on the following:

Phase One: 90% truck / 10% rail (this considers that significant rail traffic may not develop during the early years of this terminal, but facilities must be in place in order to attract potential rail users.)

Phase Two: 75% truck / 25% rail

Phase Three: 70% truck / 30% rail

The terminal will have the ability to serve 10,000-foot long trains.


3 | P a g e

ROADWAYS: The Plan calls for an improved and multi-lane roadway access path to the terminal. As mentioned above, the access path investigated for the Plan included two sections, an access roadway from the terminal to Route 87 and access from Route 87 to Route 17. A traffic analysis of the conceptual roadway access paths was conducted using the anticipated volume, existing roadway capacity, the possible access routes, and required improvements to obtain the required capacity. In addition to the 3-million TEU volume, a 4-million TEU volume was incorporated into the Plan’s analysis.

In the Plan, the following three alternatives from the Terminal to Route 87, referred to as Exit Corridors, were assessed:

Corridor One utilized Route 1528, which traverses through the City of Southport to Route 87.

Corridor Two follows Route 1528 to Route 1527, and follows Route 1527 past the Congentrix Energy Plant. Shortly after the Congentrix Energy entrance drive, the corridor heads northeast as a newly constructed roadway. Corridor Two has an optional path to divert around an existing residential dwelling and connects to Route 87.

Corridor Three is a greenfield development of a new roadway that parallels the railroad access siding adjacent to the Progress Energy power plant and connects with Route 87.

For the access corridors, the Plan concluded that to obtain a LOS of C, the road should be a 4-lane roadway with either a physical median or two-way left turn lane, with limited access. For the three corridors, the existing roadways were to be upgraded and the proposed roads constructed according to the template. The Plan suggested Corridor Two as the preferred access route based on cost and the capacity analysis, and we agree with this conclusion. The access exit corridors are shown on the CH2MHill drawings, Appendix C, Drawing T-1.

The Plan performed separate studies for the access corridors from the end of the exit corridors mentioned above, to an access point with U.S. Route 17. The following four alternatives were assessed:

Corridor One follows Route 87 from the Exit Corridors north to Route 17, approximately 20-miles. Route 87 would be upgraded to the four-lane section described earlier.

Corridor Two follows Route 87 south to Route 211, and then follows Route 211 to Route 17, approximately 16-miles. Route 211 would be upgraded to an eight-lane roadway to accommodate the increased traffic volume.

Corridor Three follows Route 87 north to Route 133, and then follows Route 133 to Route 74 near Wilmington, approximately 23-miles. Route 133 would be upgraded to an eight-lane roadway to accommodate the increased traffic volume and includes an existing at-grade crossing of the proposed railroad access.

Corridor Four is a greenfield development of proposed road which intersects Route 87 near the intersection with Route 133 and connects to Route 17, approximately 15-miles. The proposed roadway would be constructed as a four-lane roadway section as described earlier.

For Corridors Two and Three, the Plan did not define the factors and reasoning for upgrades of the roadway section beyond the four-lane options for Corridors One and Four. According to the Plan, based on cost and


4 | P a g e

the results of the capacity analysis, the proposed conceptual alignment of Corridor Four was the preferred access route. This corridor appears to offer the least amount of right-of-way acquisition and impact to established residential/commercial properties, and we agree with this conclusion. The access corridors are shown on the Plan, Appendix C, Drawing T-2.

The Plan’s proposed road way cross sections were based on a daily traffic volume of 4407 trucks per day for the ultimate build out scenario of 3-million TEU throughput. As was noted earlier, TEC evaluation does not support the Plan’s road/rail modal split, and our analysis required consequent adjustments to the expected traffic volumes. The adjusted traffic volumes were computed from TEC’s transportation model and results are presented in Table 1:

Table 1

Output: Port Generated Traffic Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Average Weekday Traffic (Total) 4,095 6,196 8,544

Average Weekday Auto 1,647 2,524 3,404 Average Daily Truck 2,448 3,672 5,140

Daily Number of Train Movements 1 3 6 Total Peak Hour Directional Traffic: (15% of AWDT) 247 379 511 Peak Hourly Truck Traffic 297 445 622 Passenger Car Equivalent Conversion 1.5 1.5 1.5 Total Peak Hour Truck Volume (as passenger car equivalents) 446 668 933 Total Roadway Traffic (as passenger car equivalents) 693 1,047 1,444

The AASHTO Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) lists rural divided highways, with a LOS of C, to have the following capacities (passenger cars per hour per lane – pcphpl):

45 mph design speed: 1260 pcphpl / 2520 pcph for the roadway section

60 mph design speed: 1650 pcphpl/ 3300 pcph for the roadway section

A 4-lane divided highway section, as proposed for the preferred corridor in the Plan, can accommodate the revised traffic peak hour volumes. For the Phased development and projected traffic, the proposed four-lane highway section will have the minimum LOS ratings shown in Table 2:

Table 2

45 MPH 60 MPH Phase 1 LOS A LOS A Phase 2 LOS A LOS A Phase 3 LOS B LOS A

U.S. Route 17 is a north-south United States Highway spanning the southeastern United States. The highway’s southern terminus is in Punta Gorda, Florida and northern terminus is in Winchester Virginia. In the vicinity of the terminal, Route 17 is mainly a four lane divided highway with a grass median from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to Wilmington, North Carolina.


5 | P a g e

The CH2MHill Technical Memo, performed prior to the Plan, suggested several future studies prior to the final determination of a roadway access corridor. The Technical Memo’s recommended studies were:

A detailed wetland survey

A preliminary conceptual design (to further define an appropriate corridor and alignment)

Individual property ROW appraisals

Detailed and site-specific intersection and traffic volumes of the immediate area,

The Plan’s roadway and access analysis terminates at the intersection with Route 17 with a proposed flyover interchange for left turn movements. Since the inbound and outbound cargo will be destined not only to North Carolina, but also to other states, a more direct access to an interstate roadway is suggested. The closest Interstate Roadways are the I-140/I-40 interchange north of Wilmington NC, (33-miles via existing roads) and I-95 (93-miles via existing roads). The analysis of the roadway access and traffic volume impact on the existing roadways should, in our opinion, be expanded to consider the projected corridors all the way to connection with the Interstate system, specifically the access corridor to NC Route 74, which provides the most direct route to I-95(I-95) to the west, I-40 to the north of Wilmington. Once the traffic reaches Route 17, there is no direct route to I-95, forcing the trucks to find an alternative way to I-95, which could cause smaller, more rural roads to be utilized. In particular, Route 211, one of the suggested access paths, continues past Route 17 to Route 74, and could be utilized by the terminal traffic to gain more direct access to I-95, a 25-mile path. An alternative option, would be for the traffic to head north on Route 17 towards Wilmington, and then west on Route 74, a 48-mile path. For reference, the North Carolina Highway Map is shown in Figure 1.

In addition to the future studies identified by the Technical Memo, alternative studies recommended to further the analysis of the most cost efficient and best-case access route for the terminal include:

Environmental assessment (EA) of proposed use and improvements for the access corridor alternatives. The EA will assist in socio-economic factors and the effects on the residential areas to help identify the best alternative access corridors. It is anticipated that at a minimum, an EA will be required for governmental approval of the access corridor.

Traffic volumes of existing roadways to be incorporated into the access routes to identify additional improvements to the local roads affected by the access corridor selection.

The terminal gate operations will need additional investigation and detail. The gate operations are critical to the operation of the terminal, and with the adjusted phase volumes and modal splits, the gate development will be a critical part of the terminal development. The TEC transportation model included a preliminary gate analysis based on the adjusted volumes and phases. The conceptual gate analysis results are shown in Table 3, and indicate that 24 gate lanes will be required at final build-out.


6 | P a g e

Table 3 Gate Operations

Year Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Boxes per year 526,316 789,474 1,105,263

Days per year of Gate operation 286 286 286 Boxes per Day 1841 2761 3865 Boxes per hour 184 276 386

Hourly peaking factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 Boxes per Peak Hour 276 414 579

Avg. Transaction Time 2.2 2.2 2.2 Avg. Lane Transactions per hour 27.27 27.27 27.27

Number of Gate Lanes 11 17 24 Number of Bypass lanes 2 2 2

Total Gate Lanes 12 17 23

The Plan’s gate analysis projected the final build-out for 20 total gate lanes. The associated cost estimate for the Plan was based on square footage of the gate and there was no discernable breakdown for a cost per gate lane. Our three additional gate lanes will cost approximately $1.5 to $2.0-million dollars.

RAILROAD:

The railroad access to the terminal could be via the existing CSX main rail line between Wilmington and Charlotte. From the CSX line, access would be across property and track owned by multiple owners. Outside of Wilmington, the CSX line ends in vicinity of its Davis Yard, which connects the main line to the industrial sidings that could provide the access to the terminal. A 4.5-mile track connects the CSX Davis Yard to the USA Rail Leland Yard, owned and operated by the United States Army (Army). The Army operates a 17-mile track which services the Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point (MOTSU) and other industries near the proposed development site. The Army provides service to the industrial sidings of Progress Energy, Primary Energy, and Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) located south of MOTSU. The existing rail alignments currently stop short of the proposed development site. Rail infrastructure will need to be constructed from the current line to reach the Terminal boundary and rail yard. The railroad access is shown on the Plan’s drawings, Appendix C, Drawing T-3. An alternative option is to provide additional right of way with the proposed road improvements to accommodate rail sidings. Rail lines to the west would provide more direct access to the major north-south rail corridors closer to the I-95 corridor. The Plan’s suggested upgrades to the alignment and rail infrastructure of the existing sidings, USA Leland Yard, and CSX Davis Yard were based on the 50/50 modal split and 9,000 to 10,000 foot long trains. The amount of rail upgrades that will be required needs to be investigated in detail, preferably with the planned rail operator, to determine the necessary upgrades to the rail lines and sidings. The upgrades to the yards are shown on the CH2MHill drawings, Appendix C, Drawing T-4. We take no particular issues with the general assumptions of the Plan concerning the rail access and improvements based on the modal split and train lengths used. However, when compared to the competitive container ports of Savannah’s Garden City Terminal (11% Rail) and the Port of Norfolk (31% rail), and in conversation with Paul F. Richardson, the following modal splits are considered more realistic for NCIT and used in the development of the terminal and traffic volumes for TEC’s alternate concept:


7 | P a g e

Phase One: 90% truck / 10% rail Phase Two: 75% truck / 25% rail Phase Three: 70% truck / 30% rail

The revised modal splits recognize that, while there will likely be no rail traffic at the start up of the terminal, it will be heavily marketed and could grow to be 10% of the Phase One projected volume. From the Brunswick County GIS online maps, it appears that the USA Rail rights of way are 175-feet wide with a single track in the center. The right of way appears sufficient for the construction of additional sidings and turnouts to accommodate the additional traffic and resolution of potential conflicts. To obtain further information and statistics on the railroad traffic, the following studies and investigations are recommended:

A detailed study of the rights of way, track alignments, and future sidings, based on the agreed. Detailed investigations on the existing railroad line conditions, existing rail traffic, and potential

operating conflicts. Meetings with the private owners of the existing rail lines to inform them of the potential project

and obtain cooperation. The Infrastructure Report included in the Plan presented viable options for improvements to the Leland Yard, with which we concur. The improvements would assist in the movement of cargo from the terminal that would not interfere with the CSX Davis Yard and would reduce inefficient movements created by the Leland Yard switchbacks. The Infrastructure Report also recommended the development of an offsite support yard, located just outside of the terminal limits, ”to operate as a buffer between on-terminal rail-loading and unloading activities and the arrival and departure of mainline trains.“ We agree that the offsite support yard is an important part of the terminal development. The alternate concept’s revised modal split and onsite intermodal yard configuration may affect the offsite support yard capacity requirements and should be investigated further.

In addition to adjusted truck and traffic movements through the terminal gate, the TEC transportation model also adjusted the projected train volume through the facility. The TEC projected amount of annual train cargo and daily train traffic is shown in Table 4:

Table 4 – Projected Railroad Movements

Number of Boxes Moved By: Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Truck 526,316 789,474 1,105,263 Rail 105,263 263,158 473,684 Transshipped 0 0 0 Daily Number of Train Movements 1 3 6

The adjusted train movements and cargo throughput, affects the Plan’s projected train movements of 10-15 per day at final build-out. The onsite intermodal yard consists of two main areas, the working tracks and the storage tracks. We proposed a working track to be a 2500-foot section and operated by rubber tire gantry cranes (RTG). The storage track should be capable of storing one design length train (10,000-feet) in order to accommodate the arrival of a train while the working tracks are being utilized. In addition, the adjusted terminal layout removes the Plan’s bend in working tracks and utilizes straight-line working track sections. The statistics of the phased intermodal rail yard is:


8 | P a g e

Phase One: 4 working track sections (10,000-feet total) & 10,000 feet storage track

Phase Two: 8 working track sections (20,000-feet total) & 10,000 feet storage track

Phase Three: 12 working track sections (30,000 feet total) & 10,000 feet storage track

The Plan’s proposed onsite intermodal yard at build-out consisted of 10 working track sections of 3,660-feet long per section, for a total of 36,600-feet of working tracks. The 6,600 feet less working tracks as proposed in the TEC plan, is a saving of $1,650,000.

The adjusted onsite intermodal rail yard is approximately 70% of the Plan’s proposed rail yard, a potential savings of 30% or $8.07 million in initial cost. The offsite support yard can also be similarly scaled back to accommodate the lower projected volume of trains and rail traffic. The Plan projects 5 arrival/departure tracks and 79,000 lf of track to support 10-15 trains per day. TEC’s adjusted volume of 5 trains per day at final build-out is 33% the size and requirement of the Plan’s off-site support yard. Phase One cost estimates, prepared by CH2MHill, projected costs for the off-site support yard at $20.9-million, so the alternate concept could offer a potential savings of $14-million.

Along with the previously recommended investigations, the following studies and alternatives are suggested:

Short Line Railroad: A short line railroad will assist the Port in the day-to-day operations of cargo movement and interactions with CSX on scheduling, track maintenance, and availability of cargo to increase the train movements if needed.

Connection to a Norfolk Southern rail service. The competitive container ports of Charleston, Norfolk, and Savannah all currently operate with dual rail services creating a more competitive situation. This objective could well be facilitated with development of a short line railroad.

Engage with the area’s current rail track owners (CSX, Army, Progressive Energy, ADM) with regard to the Plan and concepts for rail access to NCIT.

The North Carolina Railroad Map is attached for reference to locations of existing rail services. The creation of a short line railroad may also assist in the negotiations with the second rail service.

SUMMARY:

Our assessment for development of the land transport connections recommended modifications to the current program, which are summarized below.

OVERVIEW:

Three Phase Development Plan

o Phase One: 1-million TEU: Track/Rail modal split of 90/10

o Phase Two: 2-milion TEU: Track/Rail modal split of 75/25

o Phase Three: 3-million TEU: Track/Rail modal split of 70/30


9 | P a g e

ROADWAYS:

CH2MHill’s preferred access corridors are reasonable.

Four-lane roadway section is sufficient for all phases of development. Depending on the design speed (45mph/60mph), the LOS ranges from A in Phase One to B in Phase Three.

Environmental Assessment (EA) should be anticipated as part of the roadway access approval process.

Larger gate complex. The gate lanes per phase (Phase 1: 12 lanes, Phase 2: 17 lanes, and Phase 3: 23 lanes) correspond to the projected truck traffic due to the revised modal split.

RAILWAYS:

10,000-foot long trains

CH2MHill’s proposed modifications to the Leland Yard are reasonable.

More in-depth conversation with the Army and other owners/users of the industrial siding for track usage rights.

Creation of a short line railroad for cargo handling and communication with CSX.

In-depth review of the existing railroad access trackage and sidings and identify needed improvements.

POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS:

Onsite intermodal yard working tracks: $1,165,000

Onsite intermodal yard: $8,070,000

Offsite support yard: $14,000,000

Additional Gate Lanes -$2,000,000

Total Potential Savings: $21, 235,000

ATTACHMENTS:

TEC Transportation Model

Figure 1: North Carolina State Roadway Map

Figure 2: North Carolina State Railway Map

TEC TRANSPORTATION MODELNORTH CAROLINA INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL

CONTAINER TERMINAL TRAFFIC MODEL

Summary Sheet (Rail Split)Year Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3Container Capacity (TEUs per Yr.) 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000Percent 40-foot 90% 90% 90%TEU per lift 1.90 1.90 1.90

Annual Boxes 526,316 1,052,632 1,578,947

Modal SplitsTruck 100% 75% 70%Rail 20% 25% 30%Transshipment 0% 0% 0%

Number of Boxes Moved By:Truck 526,316 789,474 1,105,263Rail 105,263 263,158 473,684Transshipped 0 0 0

TOTAL TERMINAL STAFF 659 1,009 1,361TOTAL YARD / EQUIPMENT WORKERS 552 824 1,096TOTAL SHIFT YARD / EQUIPMENT WORKERS 276 412 548TOTAL ADMINISTRATION STAFF 107 185 265TOTAL SHIFT VOLUME 383 597 813

Page 1 of 3


CONTAINER TERMINAL TRAFFIC MODEL

Data SheetPhase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Truck Traffic:Number of Boxes by Truck 526,316 789,474 1,105,263Days per Year of Operations 286 286 286Percentage of Two Way Trucks 67% 67% 67%Percent of Empty Trucks 0% 0% 0%Peak Week Factor 1.1 1.1 1.1Peak Day Factor 1.1 1.1 1.1Peak Hour Factor 1.5 1.5 1.5Annual Truck Trips 700,000 1,050,000 1,470,000Average Daily Truck Trips 2,448 3,672 5,140 Peak Daily Truck Trips 2,962 4,443 6,220Gate Hours of Operation 10 10 10Peak Hourly Traffic 297 445 622Rail TrafficNumber of Boxes by Rail 105,263 263,158 473,684Percent Export 50% 50% 50%Percent Import 50% 50% 50%Export Boxes 52,632 131,579 236,842Import Boxes 52,632 131,579 236,842Length of Intermodal Rail Unit (5 platforms) 305 305 305TEU's Per Intermodal Rail Unit 20 20 20Boxes per Rail Unit(305 ft.) 10.5 10.5 10.5Length of Train (in feet) 8000 8000 8000Number of Units per Train 26 26 26Number of Boxes per Train 273 273 273Inbound Trains (Exports) 192 481 867Outbound Trains (Imports) 192 481 867Additional Equipment Trains 0 0 0Total Annual Trains 384 962 1734Days per Year of Operations 286 286 286Average Daily Train Trips 1.4 3.4 6.1Auto TrafficTotal number of On- Port Employees 659 1009 1361Auto Trips per Employee per day 2.5 2.5 2.5Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT) 1647 2524 3404Total Peak Hour Directional Traffic: (15% of AWDT) 247 379 511Output: Port Generated Traffic

Average Weekday Traffic (Total) 4,095 6,196 8,544Average Weekday Auto 1,647 2,524 3,404Peak Day Auto (15%) 247 379 511Average Daily Truck 2,448 3,672 5,140Percent Trucks 59.8% 59.3% 60.2% Peak Daily Truck Trips 2,962 4,443 6,220Peak Hourly Truck Traffic 297 445 622Passenger Car Equivalents (Trucks) 1.5 1.5 1.5Total Truck Trips (peak hour) 446 668 933Total Roadway Traffic (Peak hour) 693 1,046 1,444Daily Number of Train Movements 3 3 3

Page 2 of 3

Gate Complex Number of Shifts 2Statistics Total Hrs per Shift 8

Downtime per Shift (lunch, Breaks) 3Hrs of Ops per day 10

Working Days per week 5.5Total annual work days 286

Total Year Operation Hrs. 2860Avg. Transactions/Hr 27.27

Operational Utilization 90%Transaction per Year per Gate Lane 70192

Transaction per Day per Gate Lane 245

Year Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3Boxes per year* 526,316 789,474 1,105,263

Days per year of Gate operation 286 286 286Boxes per Day 1841 2761 3865

Boxes per hour 184 276 386Hourly peaking factor 1.5 1.5 1.5Boxes per Peak Hour 276 414 579

Avg. Transaction Time 2.2 2.2 2.2Avg. Lane Transactions per hour 27.27 27.27 27.27

Number of Gate Lanes 10 15 21Number of Bypass lanes 2 2 2

Total Gate Lanes 12 17 23


GATE OPERATIONS

*Refer to TEC Container Terminal Traffic Model, summary sheet for daily truck trips.

Page 3 of 3

Aberdeen

Alamance

Alexander Mills

Alliance

Andrews

Angier

Ansonville

Arapahoe

Arlington

Asheboro West

Askewville

Atkinson

Atlantic Beach

Aulander

Aurora

Autryville

Badin

Bailey

Bakersville

Balfour

Banner Elk

Bannertown

Barker Heights

Bath

Battleboro

Bayboro

Beargrass

Belwood

Bethel

Beulaville

Biltmore Forest

Biscoe

Black Creek

Bladenboro

Blowing Rock

Boiling Spring Lakes

Bolivia

Bolton

Boonville

Bostic

Bridgeton

Broadway

Brookford

Brunswick

Bryson City

Buies Creek

Bunn

Burgaw

Burnsville

Calabash

Calypso

Cameron

Candor

Cape Carteret

Carthage

Casar

Cashiers

Castalia

Castle Hayne

Caswell Beach

Catawba

Centerville

Cerro Gordo Chadbourn

Chadwick Acres

China Grove Cotton Mill

Chocowinity

Claremont

Clarkton

Cleveland

Clyde

Coats

Cofield

Colerain

Columbia

Columbus

Como

Conetoe

Conway

Cooleemee

Cornelius

Cove City

Cramerton

Creedmoor

Creswell

Crossnore

Danbury

Dellview

Denton

Dillsboro

Dobson

Dortches

Dover

Drexel

Dublin

Earl

East Arcadia

East Bend

East Laurinburg

East Marion

Eastover

Elk Park

Ellenboro

Ellerbe

Elm City

Emerald Isle

Eureka

Everetts

Fair Bluff

Fairview

Faison

Faith

Falcon

Falkland

Fallston

Flat Rock

Fountain

Four Oaks

Foxfire

Franklinton

Franklinville

Fremont

Garden Creek

Garland

Garysburg

Gaston

Gatesville

Gibson

Glen Alpine

Godwin

Goldsboro Northwest

Goldston

Granite Quarry

Greenevers

Grimesland

Grover

Halifax

Hamilton

Harkers Island

Harmony

Harrells

Harrellsville

Harrisburg

Hassell

Haw River

Hayesville

Haywood

Hazelwood

Henrietta

Hertford

High Shoals

Highlands

Hildebran

Hobgood

Hoffman

Holden Beach

Holly Ridge

Holly Springs

Holly View Forest-Highland

Hollyville

Hookerton

Hot Springs

Huntersville

Indian Beach

Indian Trail

Jackson

Jamesville

Jefferson

Jenkins Heights

Jonesville

Kelford

Kenansville

Kenly

Kill Devil Hills

Kittrell

Knightdale

Kure Beach

Lake Lure

Lake Waccamaw

Lansing

Lasker

LattimoreLaurel Park

Lawndale

Leggett

Lewiston

Liberty

Lilesville

Lillington

Linden

Linville

Littleton

Locust

Long Beach

Love Valley

Lucama

Lumber Bridge

Macclesfield

Macon

Maggie Valley

Magnolia

Manteo

Marshall

Matthews

Maysville

McAdenville

McDonald

McFarlan

McLeansville

Mesic

Micro

Middleburg

Middlesex

Milton

Minnesott Beach

Montreat

Mooresboro

Moravian FallsMorgantown

Morven

Mount Gilead

Mount Pleasant

Mountain Home

Nags Head

Navassa

New London

Newland

Newport

Newton Grove

Norlina

Norman

North Henderson

Norwood

Oak City

Oakboro

Ocean Isle Beach

Old Fort

Oriental

Orrum

Pantego

Parkton

Parmele

Patterson Springs

Peachland

Penelope

Phillipsville

Pikeville

Pilot Mountain

Pine Knoll Shores

Pine Level

Pinebluff

Pinetops

Pineville

Pink Hill

Pisgah Forest

Pittsboro

Pleasant Garden

Pleasant Hill

Polkton

Polkville

Pollocksville

Powellsville

Princeton

Princeville

Proctorville

Ramseur

Ranlo

Raynham

Red Oak

Rennert

Rhodhiss

Rich Square

Richfield

Richlands

Robbins

Robbinsville

Robersonville

Rockwell

Rolesville

Ronda

Roper

Rose Hill

Roseboro

Rosemary

Rosman

Rowland

Roxobel

Rural Hall

Ruth

Rutherford College

Salem

Salemburg

Saluda

Saratoga

Seaboard

Seagrove

Seven Devils

Seven Springs

Severn

Shady Forest

Shallotte

Sharpsburg

Silver City

Simpson

Sims

Snow Hill

South Weldon

Southern Shores

Sparta

Speed

Spencer Mountain

Spring Hope

St. Pauls

Staley

Stallings

Stanfield

Stantonsburg

Star

Statesville West

Stedman

Stem

Stokesdale

Stoneville

Stonewall

Stony Point

Stovall

Summerfield

Sunset Beach

Surf City

Swansboro

Sylva

Tar Heel

Taylorsville

Teachey

Topsail Beach

Trent WoodsTrenton

Troutman

Tryon

Turkey

Vanceboro

Vandemere

Vander

Vass

Virgilina

Waco

Wade

Wagram

Walnut Cove

Walnut Creek

Walstonburg

Wanchese

Warrenton

Washington Park

Watha

Waxhaw

Weaverville

Webster

Weldon

West Jefferson

West Marion

Whispering Pines

Whitakers

White Lake

Williamsboro

Winfall

Winton

Woodland

Woodville

Yanceyville

Yaupon Beach

Youngsville

Ahoskie

Apex

Asheboro South

Ayden

Beaufort

Belhaven

Belmont

Benson

Bessemer City

Black Mountain

Boger City

Boiling Springs

Brogden

Butner

Canton

Carolina Beach

Cherryville

China Grove

Clayton

Conover

Cricket

Dallas

Davidson

East Flat Rock

East Spencer

Elizabethtown

Elkin

Elon College

Elroy

Enfield

Enochville

Erwin

Fairmont

Fairplains

Farmville

Franklin

Fuquay-Varina

GibsonvilleGlen Raven

Gorman

Granite Falls

Grifton

Half Moon

Hamlet

Hickory North

Hillsborough

Hudson

Icard

Jacksonville East

James City

Jamestown

La Grange

Landis

Laurel Hill

Lewisville

Lincolnton

Long View

Louisburg

Lowell

Madison

Maiden

Mar-Mac

Marion

Mars Hill

Marshville

Masonboro

Maxton

Mayodan

Mebane

Mocksville

Morehead City

Mount Holly

Mount Olive

Mulberry

Murfreesboro

Murphy

Myrtle Grove

Nashville

North Concord

North Wilkesboro

Ogden

Parkwood

Pembroke

Pine Valley

Pinehurst

Plymouth

Poplar Tent

Pumpkin Center

Raeford

Randleman

Red Springs

Rosewood

Rutherfordton

Salem

Scotland Neck

Seagate

Selma

Siler City

Silver Lake

South BelmontSouth Gastonia

South Goldsboro

South Henderson

Southport

Spencer

Spindale

Springdale

Spruce Pine

Stanley

Tabor City

Toast

Troy

Valdese

Valley Hill

Wadesboro

Wake Forest

Wallace

Warsaw

Welcome

Wendell

West Rockingham

Wilkesboro

Windemere

Windsor

Wingate

Winter Park

Winterville

Woodfin

Wrightsboro

Wrightsville Beach

Yadkinville

Zebulon

Archdale

Bonnie Doone

Brevard

Carrboro

Clemmons

Clinton

Dunn

East Rockingham

Edenton

Enka

Forest City

Graham

Hendersonville

Hope Mills

Kernersville

King

Kings Grant

Kings Mountain

Mint Hill

Mooresville

Mount Airy

New Hope

New Hope

New River Station

Newton

Oxford

Piney Green-White Oak

Rockingham

Roxboro

Smithfield

Southern Pines Spring Lake

Stanleyville

Swannanoa

TarboroTrinity

Washington

Waynesville

West Concord

Whiteville

Williamston

Burlington

Camp Lejeune

Chapel Hill

Fort Bragg

Gastonia

Goldsboro

Greenville

Kannapolis

Kinston

Rocky Mount

Wilmington

Wilson

Albemarle

Asheboro

Boone

Cary

Concord

Eden

Elizabeth City

Garner

Havelock

Henderson

Hickory

JacksonvilleLaurinburg

Lenoir

Lexington

Lumberton

Monroe

Morganton

New Bern

North Belmont

Reidsville

Roanoke Rapids

Salisbury

Sanford

Shelby

St. StephensStatesville

Thomasville

Durham

GreensboroWinston-Salem

Asheville

Fayetteville

High Point

Charlotte

Raleigh

105

109

109

109

11

11

12

12

12

121

130

133

16

16

16

168

172

177

18

18

18

18

194

209

209

210

211

211

211

211

211

211

218

22

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

242

242

251

28

28

304

305

32

32

32

33

33

403

41

41

42

43

43

43

46

49

49

49

49

49

49

50

50

50

51

53

561

561561

58

58

58

58

581

63

704

72

8

87

87

87

87

9

94

94

96

98

1

1

1

117

117

117

117

129

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

15

15

15

15

15

15

158158

158

158

158

158158

158

158

158

158

158

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

176

19

19

19

19

19

19E

19E

19W

21

21

21

21

220

220

221

221

221

221

221

221A

23

23

25

258

258

258

258

258

258

264

264

264

276

276

276

29

29

29

301

301

301

301

301

311

311

321

321

321

321

321

401

401

401

401

401

401

421

421

421

421

421

421

421

421

421

421

441

501

501

501

501

52

52

52

52

601

601

601

601

601

64

64

64 64

64

64

64

64

6464

64

64

64

64

64

64

64

64

64

64

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

701

701

701

701

701

701

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

76

BLUE RIDGE PKWY.

BLUE RIDGE PKWY.

BLUE RIDGE PKWY.

BLUE RIDGE PKWY.

BLUE RIDGE PKWY.

26

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

77

77

85

85

85

85

95

95

95

MileByMi le .comFree North Carol ina Maps &North Carol ina Road Map Travel Guides

Copyr ight 2005

http://www.milebymile.com/

http://www.milebymile.com/

Lipsey

Callout

PROJECT LOCATION

Lipsey

Rectangle

Lipsey

Callout

ROADWAY ACCESS STUDY AREA

Lipsey

Text Box

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

FIGURE 1 - North Carolina Highway Map

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

Lipsey

Text Box

Lipsey

Text Box

Lipsey

Text Box

CAMPLeJEUNE

FORTBRAGG

CAMPBUTNER

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS

NATIONAL PARK

SEYMOURJOHNSON

AFB

STATEPORT

STATEPORT

NHV

NC

DO

T

NS

NS

NS

NS

CSX

NS

NS

NSNS

NS

NS

NS

CWCY

ARC

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

CSX

CSX

CSX CSX

CSX

CSX

NS

WSS

WSS

WSS

WSS

NS

NS

NSNS

HPTD

NS

CSX

YAN

NS

NSNCDOT

GSMR

GSMR

CSXCSX

ACWR

NC

DO

T

NCDO

TSUR

NS

VSR

R

VSR

R

NS

NS

NS

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

NC

VA

NCVA

CSX

NS

NS

CSXNS

CA

CA

NS

NCRR/NS

CLNACLNA

CLNA

CLNA

NS

NS

NCRR/N

S

CPLJ

NCRR/NS

NCRR/NS

NCRR/NS

NCRR/NS

NCRR/NS

NCRR/N

S

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

CTR

NCDOT

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

NS

CLNA

NCYR

NCDOT

CSX

NS

NS

YVRR

YVRR

NS

NS

NS

NS

NSHPTD

NSN

SCS

X

CSX

CSX

CSX

CSX

LRS

AR

ACWR

ACWR

CSX

PDRR

CSX

CSX

CSX

RSNR

CSX

CSX

CALA

CALA

CALA

WTRY

CSX

US

CSX

CSX

TBRY

CSX

ATW

CFR

NS

NSN

CDO

T

NS

CSX

NCDOT

NS

MHSF

to Knoxville

to Greenville

to Johnson City

to Augusta

to Petersburgto Petersburg

to Lynchburg

to Roanoke

to Columbia

to Chester

to Columbia

to Florence

to Charleston A t l a n t i c Oc e a n

Albemarle Sound

Pamlico Sound

T E N N E S S E E

G E O R G I A

S O U T H C A R O L I N A

V I R G I N I A

Clio

ShelbyBelmont

Hamlet

FarmvilleMarion

Newton

Carrboro

Glenn Joyland

SouthDurham

GrahamMebane

Hendersonville

Murphy

AndrewsBrevard

Bryson City

Dillsboro

WaynesvilleCanton

Marshall

Newport

Erwin

Micaville

Rutherfordton

ForestCity

Landrum

Gaffney

Blacksburg

KingsCreek

Tirzah

Catawba

FortMill

Bosti

cEll

enbo

roLa

ttimore

Lincolnton

Lenoir Taylorsville

Maiden

Mt.Holly

Pineville

Monroe

North WilkesboroElkin

Mount Airy

Rural Hall

Mocksville

Cheraw

Bennettsville

Dillon

Latta

Wadesboro Rockingham

Laurin-burg Maxton

Pembroke

High Rock

Badin

Mt. Gilead

Pinehurst

StarSanford

Siler City

Albemarle

Norwood

Spencer

Kernersville

Belews Creek

ReidsvilleMadison

Martinsville

Clarksville

Eden

Blanche

Hyco

Hyco Jct.

Roxboro

Timberlake

Emporia

Norlina

Boykins

Henderson

FranklintonLouisburg

Clayton

Zebulon

Oxford

Weldon

Kelford

Ahoskie

Tunis

Fremont

Tarboro

WilliamstonPlymouth

Elizabeth City

Hertford

Edenton

Mt. Olive

WarsawClinton

Wallace

CastleHayne

St. PaulDuart

Vander

Dunn

Smithfield

Selma

Spring Hope

Chocowinity Washington

Elmer

McColl

Rowland

ChadbournWhiteville

Tabor City

Mullins

Conway

Marion

Sunny Pt.

Malmo

Morehead City

RadioIsland

Lee Creek

Belhaven

Suffolk

Aberdeen

BonsalApex

Red Springs

Raeford

Burgaw

Sunny Point Jct.

Tuxedo

Kona

Spruce Pine

TerrellTroutman

Mooresville

BarberJct.

Cooleemee Jct.

PinnacleKing

Candor

SouthBoston Clover

Keysville

Lawrenceville

Mayo

NurneyFranklin

VirginiaBeach

Parmele

PhosphateJct.

Pinetown

Parkton

Capol

Manchester

Gulf

Fuquay- Varina

Lillington

Breedin

Marboro

SylvaHall’s Ferry Jct.

Whitney

Linwood

Clarkton

Johns

Wagram

SkiboClifbragg Jct.

Clifbragg

NewHill

Cumnock

Colon

Climax

Garner

RiverTerminal

Enfield

Jonesboro

Ringgold

PicksRidgeway

Warren Plains

Weeksville

Wash

burn

Hilltop

Crowder

CHERRY PT.MCAS

ASHEBORO

ASHEVILLE

WINSTON-SALEM

CHARLOTTE

DURHAM

RALEIGH

FAYETTEVILLE

HICKORY

STATESVILLE

BURLINGTON

THOMAS- VILLE

HIGH POINT

ROCKHILL

DANVILLE

PORTSMOUTHNORFOLK

KANNAPOLIS

SALISBURY

GASTONIA SOUTHERNPINES

ROCKYMOUNT

WILSON

GREENVILLE

GOLDSBORO

KINSTON

NEW BERN

HAVELOCK

LUMBERTON

ROANOKERAPIDS

LEXINGTON

MORGANTON

SPARTANBURG

WILMINGTON

GREENSBORO

MYRTLE BEACH

CARY

Legend Existing Rail Corridor

Preserved Rail Corridor/Out of Service

Military Base

State Line

North Carolina

RAILROADSYSTEM

Michael F. Easley, GovernorLyndo Tippett, Secretary

RailDivisionNC Department of Transportation1553 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1553Phone: (919) 733-7245, Fax: (919) 715-6580www.bytrain.org

BurlingtonCaryCharlotteDurham

FayettevilleGastoniaGreensboroHamlet

High PointKannapolisRaleighRocky Mount

SalisburySelmaSouthern PinesWilson

StationsinNorthCarolina

Information: 1-800-BYTRAIN (1-800-298-7246)Reservations: 1-800 USA RAIL (1-800-872-7245)

Railway Association of North Carolina www.ncrailways.net

December 2007

ACWR Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway AR Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad ARC Alexander Railroad ATW Atlantic & Western Railway, LP CA Chesapeake & Albemarle Railroad CALA Carolina Southern Railroad CFR Cape Fear Railways CLNA Carolina Coastal Railway CPLJ Camp Lejuene Railroad CSX CSX Transportation

CTR Clinton Terminal Railroad CWCY Caldwell County Railroad HPTD High Point, Thomasville & Denton Railroad LRS Laurinburg & Southern Company, Inc. MHSF Morehead and South Fork Railroad Company NCDOT N.C. Department of Transportation NCRR North Carolina Railroad Company NCVA North Carolina & Virginia Railroad NHV New Hope Valley Railroad NS Norfolk Southern Corporation

PDRR Pee Dee River Railway RSNR Red Springs & Northern Railroad SUR State University Railroad TBRY Thermal Belt Railway US US Military VSRR Virginia Southern Railroad WSS Winston-Salem Southbound Railway WTRY Wilmington Terminal Railroad, Inc. YVRR Yadkin Valley Railroad

REPORTINGMARK RAILROADNAME



Lipsey

Callout

PROJECT LOCATION

Lipsey

Callout

USA LELAND YARD

Lipsey

Callout

CSX DAVIS YARD

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

Lipsey

Text Box

Lipsey

Text Box

Lipsey

Typewritten Text

FIGURE 2 - North Carolina Railroad Map


1 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

NAVIGATION AND DREDGING IMPROVEMENTS

This Chapter summarizes our review of the proposed dredging plans as presented in the North Carolina International Terminal Infrastructure Report, dated September 2008. The purpose of this review is to identify any potential cost savings for the development of the proposed terminal, with respect to the dredging plans.

The dredging plans include the navigational and access channels, turning basin, and berth area for the proposed terminal site. Of the three dredging efforts, only the berth access is associated solely with the development of the proposed terminal. The navigational channel and turning basin will support multiple users and therefore dredging efforts associated with these components include cost-sharing between the Federal Government and the State of North Carolina.

Channel Dredging Plan

Design Vessel

The design vessel proposed in the Infrastructure Report is a 12,000 TEU vessel, with a length (LOA) of 1,260 ft, width of 185 ft, and draft of 50 ft. To provide adequate clearance, dredging efforts are proposed in the navigational channel to provide a minimum depth of 52.5 ft, with a two foot over dredge to a depth of 54.5 ft.

TEC has performed a number of studies, which have included research on dimensions of large container vessels. We have compiled information on the largest container vessel classes in operation or under construction. Based on our research, vessel class dimensions are listed in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, there are some differences between the “Design Vessel” dimensions assumed in the Original Business Plan and the typical dimensions used for planning purposes by TEC. While the drafts of the vessels are comparable, the length and beam of the design vessel in the Original Business Plan are larger than those used by TEC. However, the dimension differences have little impact on the assessment of the channel planning concepts proposed in the Original Business Plan.

TABLE 1. Ship Dimensions By Vessel Class Vessel Type TEU DWT Draft (ft) LOA (ft) Beam (ft)

CMA CMG Pellas Class 9,661 109,000 49.2 1148 140

CMA CMG Vela Class 10,980 109,000 49.2 1148 142

MSC Sola Class 11,312 120,000 49.2 1200 150

Samsung ULC Class 12,500 142,400 50.8 1200 158

Maersk E Class 13,000 158,000 52.5 1302 185

MSC Paloma Class 13,200 135,000 52.5 1246 167


2 | P a g e

Background detail from NOAA Navigational Chart 11537

Terminal Site

Cut-Thru Channel Location Used For Costing Purposes

12,000 TEU Design Vessel

Navigation Channel

The existing main ship channel providing access to the proposed terminal location includes an “S” shaped curve in the vicinity of Battery Island, as shown in Figure 1. This existing channel was evaluated in the Original Business Plan for its capability to handle design vessel traffic. With assistance from Gahagan and Bryant Associates, Inc. (GBA) and references to USACE Channel Width Design Manual, it was concluded that this alignment did not meet USACE design standards and there were no viable modifications that could be performed to meet these standards. Therefore, the Original Business Plan indicates that a “Cut-Thru” channel will provide the most viable option to access the site. TEC concurs with this assessment.

According to USACE Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1613, reverse turns (S-bends) require a straight segment at least five times the design ship length between successive turns. This is not possible to accomplish within the confinements of the existing waterway. Therefore, a new Cut-Thru alignment was suggested, based on addressing the following design considerations:

1. Meet the USACE Design criteria

2. Minimize need to excavate rock

3. Minimize volume of unconsolidated materials to be dredged

4. Minimize the number and degree of turns in the channel

TEC’s review concurs that the Cut-Thru identified by the Original Business Plan for costing purposes meets the criteria and is feasible.

The width of the suggested navigational channel is a bit unclear in the Original Business Plan. Section 4.1.2 Navigation Channel, indicates the width varies from 500 ft to 600 ft and the accompanying document prepared by GBA indicates a width of 550 ft.

There are several methods for calculating channel width, each including a number of factors such as determining one-way or two-way traffic, width of design vessel, vessel speed, prevailing cross winds, prevailing cross currents and several others. With so many potential variations in the input factors, the

FIGURE 1. Cut-Thru Channel Alignment


3 | P a g e

calculated width of a channel can vary significantly. The Original Business Plan indicates that the navigational channel is calculated based on one-way traffic. Again, using the USACE Engineering Manual, the design criteria indicates the channel width for a one-way traffic, canal-type channel should be 2.5 – 4.0 times the beam of the design ship. Calculating width, based on a vessel beam of 185 ft, requires a channel between 463 ft and 740 ft. Calculating width, based on a vessel beam of 158 ft (as listed in Table 1), requires a channel between 395 ft and 632 ft. During our review, TEC also prepared a computer model using The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) Design Guidelines. Based on a ship beam of 185 ft, our model calculated a channel width of 685 ft and based on a ship beam of 158 ft, our model calculated a channel width of 585 ft. Ultimately, the final design of the channel will be studied by the USACE and designed to their standards. The two key input factors to the calculation are ship beam and determination of a one-way or two-way channel. Assuming the channel design remains a one-way channel, there may be some potential cost-savings in planning for the 158 ft beam ship rather than the 185 ft beam design vessel. However, at this time, until the input factors are refined by USACE, TEC concurs that the channel alignment used in the Original Business Plan for cost estimating purposes is reasonable.

Berth Dredging Plan

The new wharf is proposed along the bluff between the lower tidal area and the upland area. The upland area is at approximately 20 ft above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) and the tidal area ranges from 0 to 5 ft NGVD. The development of the wharf is proposed in three phases. The first phase proposes 2,330 LF of wharf, followed by an additional 550 LF and 1,390 LF in Phases 2 and 3, respectively for a total of 4270 linear feet of wharf. This will allow 3 design vessels to be berthed at one time. The three vessels would extend the entire length of the proposed wharf, with no berth space for any additional vessels.

FIGURE 2. Infrastructure Report – Proposed Wharf Location and Berth Area Dredging Plan

Berth Area Dredging Requirements

Background detail from CH2M HILL Infrastructure Report – Appendix C –DWG B‐1, Sheet 3


4 | P a g e

Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost

Excavation Material Disposal $23.62 888,224 $20,979,851 296,075 $6,993,292 296,075 $6,993,292 1,480,374 $34,966,434

Berth Area Dredging $8.43 5,276,604 $44,481,772 1,245,550 $10,499,987 3,147,845 $26,536,333 9,669,999 $81,518,092

TOTAL

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 TOTAL

$116,484,525

Description

$65,461,623 $17,493,278 $33,529,625

Unit

Cost

FIGURE 3. TEC’s Berth Area Dredging Plan FIGURE 4. TEC’s Terminal Concept Plan

To access the proposed wharf, the berth dredging plan includes dredging a large portion of the tidal area, as seen in Figure 2 to a depth of 54.5 feet (52.5 ft requirement + 2 ft over dredge) and a width of 800 feet. The berth dredging plan is also proposed in 3 phases, coinciding with the wharf development.

In addition to the required dredging, development of the terminal requires site preparation of the upland area. According to the Infrastructure Report, the total volume of excavated material is approximately 2,814,240 CY. Of this excavated material, the Original Business Plan estimates that 1,480,374 CY will not be suitable for fill at the site and will therefore require disposal at a site up to 20 miles away (round trip).

The costs associated with the proposed berth dredging plan and the disposal of the “unsuitable” excavated material is estimated over the three phases of proposed terminal development at a total of $116,484,525, as shown in Table 2.

TEC’s review identified the potential for cost savings associated with both the disposal of landside excavated material and the berth dredging plan. TEC has developed an Alternate Concept Plan for the development of the wharf, which extends the construction of the wharf to the edge of the tidal area. In order to raise the elevation of the new proposed wharf area to an elevation even with the upland area, a significant amount of fill material will be required.

TEC’s plan is also proposed in three phases, but proposes a width for the berth dredging at 500 ft, to allow for 3 times the width of a 158 ft wide vessel. The first phase proposes 2,330 LF of wharf, followed by an additional 1120 LF and 1150 LF in phases 2 and 3, respectively, for a total of 4600 linear feet of wharf. This will allow 3 design vessels to berth at the terminal with ample space between vessels or will allow 4 vessels of a more modest size, such as 8,000 TEU capacity to berth at one time.

TABLE 2. Infrastructure Report – Original Business Plan – Excavation Material Disposal and Berth Area Dredging Cost Estimates

Background details from CH2M HILL Infrastructure Report – Appendix C –DWG B‐1, Sheet 3


5 | P a g e

The Alternate Concept for this proposed terminal will be presented in further detail in Chapters 5 and 6 of this report. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the increased terminal footprint, new dredging area requirements, and the conceptual wharf development plan. As seen in these figures, the proposed berth area dredge plan in the Alternate Concept prepared by TEC is adjacent to the cooling water channel north of the proposed terminal which is the source of the power plant cooling water. As an added benefit, the Alternate Concept dredging could improve the cooling water flow through this channel. However, no assessment has been performed to evaluate if there would be any potential concerns with the relocation of the wharf adjacent to the intake canal.

This Alternate Concept provides five main benefits to project development: 1. The wharf length is extended approximately 300 feet and the terminal area is increased by

approximately 71 acres at ultimate build-out. 2. The excess excavated material from the site preparation can be used as fill for the land reclamation,

eliminating the time and expense of disposal off-site. 3. By moving the required berth dredging location, the dredge area is moved from a tidal area to

shallow water, slightly decreasing the amount of dredging required. 4. Suitable dredged material can be reused for land reclamation. 5. Although not capable of berthing 4 design vessels, the Alternate Concept can berth 4 vessels,

provided at least one is a smaller vessel In order to calculate the potential cost savings associated with the reconfiguration of the wharf, TEC made

the following assumptions: 1. Based on documents prepared for the current Plan, dredge material from the surface to

approximately -33 ft. is assumed to be unsuitable as fill material, and is transported off-site to a disposal site. Dredge material from elevation-33 to elevation -54.5 is considered to be suitable, which indicates that approximately 34% of the dredge material can be used as fill for the land reclamation area. The Alternate Concept incorporates this suitable material into the land reclamation.

2. Based on documents prepared for the current Plan, approximately half of the material excavated during the site grading process is not required as fill for site development. The documents term this material “unsuitable” and include a significant cost to haul it off-site to a remote disposal area. TEC contacted CH2M HILL staff to inquire about the characteristics of the material designated as “unsuitable”. The CH2M Hill engineer indicated that the material referred to was actually just excess material not needed for site preparation in the Plan’s configuration, and that in his opinion the material could reasonably be used for land reclamation. Therefore, TEC’s Alternate Concept, assumes that all site excavated material is used as fill for land reclamation.

3. The volume of material calculated for dike construction and land reclamation assumes five feet of settlement.

4. The entire dike and land reclamation area shown in Figure 3 will be constructed in Phase 1 of the terminal development. To be most cost-efficient, the cut and fill requirements should nearly balance. In order to balance the requirements for the construction of the dike and land reclamation area, some additional dredge material and excavation material beyond the volumes proposed in Phase 1 of the Original Business Plan are required for Phase 1 of TEC’s Alternate Concept. By increasing the dredge length by 120 feet and including 20% of the Phase 2 excavation requirements, the cut and fill requirements are relatively balanced. Table 3 lists the volumes of material available for construction of these components compared to the quantity of material available for their construction through site excavation and dredging.


6 | P a g e

Material Required For Land Reclamation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total

Dike Construction (CY) 392,610 0 0 392,610

Land Reclamation (CY) 1,762,575 0 0 1,762,575

Total Material Required 2,155,185 0 0 2,155,185

Material Available for Land Reclamation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total

Total Dredge Material 3,007,629 1,040,278 1,073,775 5,121,682

Dredge Material ‐ Suitable For Land Reclamation (@ 34%) 1,022,594 353,695 365,084 1,741,372

Total Excavation Material 2,215,661 82,205 516,374 2,814,240

Excavation Material ‐ Available For Land Reclamation 1,137,442 46,857 296,075 1,480,374

Total Material Available 2,160,036 400,552 661,159 3,221,746

Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost

Excavation Material Disposal $23.62 0 $0 46,857 $1,106,762 296,075 $6,993,292 342,932 $8,100,054

Dike Construction (CY) $3.50 392,610 $1,374,135 0 $0 0 $0 392,610 $1,374,135

Containment Fil l (CY) $3.36 1,762,575 $5,922,252.00 0 $0 0 $0 1,762,575 $5,922,252

Berth Area Dredging (CY) $8.90 3,007,629 $26,767,898.10 1,040,278 $9,258,474.20 1,073,775 $9,556,597.50 5,121,682 $45,582,969.80

Unit

Cost

TOTAL

Description

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 TOTAL

$60,979,411$34,064,285 $10,365,237 $16,549,889

$10,365,237

$33,529,625

Phase 2 Phase 3 TOTAL

CH2M HILL PLAN

TEC's Alternate Concept

Cost

$116,484,525

$60,979,411

$65,461,623

$34,064,285

Cost Cost

$17,493,278

$16,979,735.85 $55,505,115

Cost

$16,549,889

Phase 1

POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS

Source

$31,397,338 $7,128,041.46

TABLE 3. TEC Concept Plan–Dike Construction, Containment Area Fill and Berth Area Dredging Cost Estimates

The balance between the required cut and fill indicates a cost-savings associated with eliminating the need to dispose of material or truck additional fill material to the site.

Based on the assumptions listed on page 5, the costs associated with dike construction, land reclamation and the Alternate Concept dredging requirements are presented in Table 4. Unit costs used in the Original Business Plan were used in TEC’s analysis, in order to maintain consistency for comparison purposes.

* Although the Unit Cost for Berth Area Dredging appears higher in the TEC Alternate Concept Plan than the Original Business Plan, the unit costs for the various dredge material types are the same. The variation in percentage of dredge material types assumed for each Plan accounts for the overall difference in unit costs.

Comparing the costs associated with the berth area dredging and disposal of excess excavation material, as proposed in the Original Business Plan to the cost estimates prepared for the TEC Alternate Concept, the potential cost savings for this portion of the project are estimated at approximately $55,500,000, as seen in Table 5.

TABLE 4. TEC Concept Plan- Dike Construction, Containment Area Fill and Berth Area Dredging Cost Estimates

TABLE 5. Berth Area Dredging Plan Potential Cost Savings

*


7 | P a g e

FIGURE 5. The Plan and TEC Alternate Concept Turning Basins

Access Channel and Turning Basin Dredging Plan

The PIANC model that was used to assess the proposed channel dimensions was also used to calculate the turning basin approaching the berth access. According to the model, the turning basin should have a minimum diameter of 1890 ft. The basin proposed in the Infrastructure Report has a diameter of 1900 ft and therefore meets the minimum area requirements. TEC’s Alternate Concept maintains a 1900 ft diameter turning basin, which is shifted away from the tidal area by approximately 500 feet. However, the access channel is maintained at the same location used for cost-estimating purposes in the Original Business Plan. Although a small portion of the turning basin proposed in the Alternate Concept may be in deep water, without better bathymetric data in the area, it is assumed that the dredge quantities calculated for cost estimating purposes in the Original Business Plan are comparable to the dredge quantities estimated in the Alternate Concept and therefore do not include any potential cost–savings.

Summary

For this Task of the North Carolina International Terminal Infrastructure Report review, TEC focused on the proposed dredging plans associated with the main channel, access channel, turning basin, and berth area. All costs discussed in this report are related to the areas identified by TEC for cost-savings with respect to dredging and other associated components. The overall project costs and potential cost savings will be prepared and discussed in subsequent Report review submittals. Although the dimensions of the design vessel used in the Original Business Plan to calculate the dimensions of the navigational channel are slightly different than TEC’s typical dimensions for a vessel of equivalent capacity, the differences between the assumptions in The Plan and the assumptions in the Alternate Concept do not have an impact on the assessment of the navigational channel developed in The Plan for cost-estimating purposes. As discussed in the Infrastructure Report, the bends in the existing channel do not allow for passage of a 12,000+ TEU vessel. Therefore, TEC agrees that the most viable alignment for the new navigational channel is a cut-thru from the Smith Island Range Channel to the Snows Marsh Channel. A channel width of 500 ft to 600 ft is within the design guidelines and an appropriate dimension to use for cost estimating purposes. During the final design of the channel, there could potentially be some cost savings, depending on the refinement of input factors by the USACE. For the purposes of this review, TEC did not


8 | P a g e

identify any definite cost savings opportunities with respect to the navigational channel. The primary cost savings identified by TEC are related to the relocation of the proposed berths. By moving the wharf development to the tidal area and reducing the width of the berth dredging area, the required dredging in the berth area is decreased, and although TEC’s Alternate Concept requires the construction of a dike and land reclamation, these components provide the benefit of creating a disposal site for all of the land excavation material and a portion of the dredge material. The costs of these components are far outweighed by the cost-savings provided by their benefits. In addition to the approximately $55,500,000 in cost-savings that potentially could be realized with TEC’s Alternate Concept for the proposed terminal, the terminal area is also increased by approximately 71 acres, creating more space for terminal operations and related activities. As a result of relocating the proposed berth area, the turning basin is also slightly relocated. The proposed size of the turning basin in the Original Business Plan meets the USACE Engineering Manual design criteria and the PIANC model, and without better bathymetric data, it is assumed that the dredging requirements are comparable and therefore there are not any appreciable cost-savings expected to be associated with the relocation of the turning basin.


1 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5

ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT COST ANALYSIS

This Chapter summarizes TEC’s Alternate Concept for the development of the North Carolina International Terminal (NCIT) and an order of magnitude capital cost estimate for its construction. The construction of the NCIT will include various elements, both on-site and off-site. In addition to the actual terminal construction, access to the site by railway, roadway, and waterway will require modifications and additions to the existing infrastructure. As discussed in previous chapters and correspondences, it is assumed that all infrastructure upgrade costs associated with access to the terminal site will be the responsibility of various public sector organizations. The capital cost estimate prepared in this Task focuses on the elements that are assumed will be provided by private sector investors. Therefore, the transportation infrastructure costs included for terminal development are limited to the roadways and railways within the property boundary and the berth area dredging requirements up to the proposed turning basin.

The current Plan proposes a 3-phase approach to development of a new container terminal along the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County on 600 acres for the North Carolina State Ports Authority (The Authority). The Plan includes an automated rail mounted gantry (ARMG) crane system for container yard operations. This type of system is considered state-of-the-art and offers very dense, high throughput container stacks at significantly reduced labor requirements relative to other yard systems. This type of system if very expensive and typically is most effective and economical where land area is limited and/or very expensive and where labor costs are very high. The Plan includes an ultimate wharf length of 4270 ft and a terminal capacity of 3,000,000 TEUs per year.

TEC reviewed the current Plan with the intent to discern potential project cost-savings, with a focus on ways to reduce the cost of Phase 1 (start-up) development, while providing a modern and efficient terminal capable of handling the desired throughput and very large container vessels. Our evaluation revealed a significant initial cost for equipment, mainly due to the ARMG system for container yard operation. As mentioned, while providing highly efficient operation, it is expensive and in TEC’s opinion requires investment in more capacity than needed for start-up and early years of operation. After review and assessment of this and other concepts in the current Plan, TEC began to develop an Alternate Concept for the development of the NCIT. TEC’s Alternate Concept was developed with the following objectives: Improve site layout and function

Provide terminal operation more commensurate with the low expected cargo volumes expected with initial start-up and early years of operation.

Provide for terminal capacity increases in practical phases, as volume increases

Incorporate higher-efficiency technology after cargo volume grows sufficiently to justify the expenditures

Reduce cost of equipment for Phase 1

Reduce cost of terminal sitework


2 | P a g e

Land Reclamation Area

Terminal Alternatives TEC developed five alternative concepts for NCIT layouts along with rough order of magnitude estimates for potential cost savings over the current Plan. These alternatives were presented to NCPSA and Paul F. Richardson Associates at our team meeting in Annapolis on August 25, 2009. After a very productive discussion and direction, one of the alternates was modified to create Alternate 6, which was selected as the best suited for development as TEC’s Alternate Concept in this task. Drawings of the Alternate Concept are attached to this report. This report presents further information on the Alternate Concept including a different approach to container handling equipment, operating parameters, facilities details and projected costs. TEC’s Alternate Concept for terminal development is also proposed in three phases. Phase 1 is projected to provide a capacity of 1,000,000 TEUs/year. Phase 2 will provide additional capacity to 2,000,000 TEUs annually, followed by an ultimate capacity of 3,000,000 TEUs per year at the completion of Phase 3.

The Alternate Concept includes some land reclamation along the tidal area, which will increase the available area for terminal development by approximately 71 acres, as seen in Figure 1. This concept reduces the amount of dredging required for the berth area and eliminates the need to haul and dispose of any site excavation material and suitable dredge material in Phase 1 of terminal development. As presented in Chapter 4 (Interim Report No. 4), this concept of reducing berth dredging requirements and eliminating excavation material disposal in Phase 1 saves approximately $60 million.

In addition to the extra area created, the repositioning of the terminal provides a configuration that increases the overall length of

the wharf from 4,270 feet in the current Plan to 4,600 feet in the Alternate Concept.

Another conceptual difference between the current Plan and TEC’s Alternate Concept involves the development of the container yard. Since the NCIT site has significant available land, and additional land in the area is inexpensive relative to other East Coast ports, it is TEC’s opinion that the ARMG systems’ high density of throughput is not required or well justified for Phase 1. Additionally, terminal labor costs for the area are relatively low compared to competing ports, which, again, would not favor the ARMG yard system, at least initially. Finally, the ARMG system’s high throughput capability is most effective when coupled with commensurate intermodal rail capabilities to move high volumes of cargo rapidly into and out of the terminal. Since the intermodal connection, competitive intermodal rail service and, moreover, demand for rail services are not likely to be firmly established at start-up, or in the early years of operation, the full benefits from an ARMG system will not be realized in Phase I. Therefore, TEC considers the following approach as most effective for accomplishing the stated objectives.

Develop Phase 1 using rubber tired gantry (RTG) equipment with container stacks oriented perpendicular to wharf. This is not the most popular layout, but many terminals use it. (GPA

Figure 1. Land Reclamation Area


3 | P a g e

Savannah, Yang Ming - LA and HIT – Hong Kong, for example). Disadvantages include more congestion on road behind hatch-covers due to more intersections and every truck drives a longer loop through yard, even if container required is close to the wharf. However, a typical layout for ARMG container stacks is perpendicular to wharf, and orienting the RTG yard in this same way will facilitate future conversion of the Phase 1 area to ARMG use if and when warranted.

Figure 2 is the conceptual layout of TEC’s Alternate Concept at ultimate build-out. The breakdown of development by Phase is further described and illustrated, starting on page 6 of this report. See the Attachments to this report for larger figures illustrating the overall site layout and the Phase developments.

Cost Estimate Assumptions

For the purposes of generating an order of magnitude capital cost estimate for the Alternate Concept described above, a number of assumptions were made. These assumptions and some of the differences between the two NCIT development plans are summarized below, and will be presented in greater detail in the Plan Comparison effort to be performed in Chapter 6.

1. The building types and sizes presented in the current Plan are within the size ranges typically proposed by TEC and for consistency, most of the buildings in the Alternate Concept are proposed to be the same or similar to those proposed in the current Plan.

2. TEC didn’t have access to specific topographic information of the site to develop our own calculations and therefore, the excavation volume proposed in the current Plan is used in the Alternate Concept for developing the cost estimate.

3. The current Plan includes 2.75 acres for the storage of empty containers and chassis together. According to the Throughput Analysis model prepared by TEC, ultimately the terminal will require 35 acres for the storage of empties and up to an additional 10 acres is assumed for the storage of chassis. It is unclear if the current Plan includes provisions for supplemental off-site storage for empties and chassis. The Alternate Concept and associated cost estimate assume

Figure 2. Overall Conceptual Layout


4 | P a g e

these areas will be included on-site and suitably sized to handle the volumes calculated in the TEC model.

4. In TEC’s Alternate Concept, the area of stormwater management ponds is assumed to require 8% of the total impervious area in the terminal. In ports, it is common to supplement stormwater management ponds with the installation of packaged stormwater treatment units in the areas adjacent to the water, to eliminate the need to pipe and pump the stormwater long distances. However, when stormwater management ponds are not supplemented by additional packaged stormwater treatment units, the pond sizes typically encompass 10% - 15% of the area. The ultimate design of the stormwater management system for the NCIT will be verified during engineering design, but for the purposes of conceptual design and cost-estimating the Alternate Concept assumes 8% of the total impervious area for stormwater management pond estimates.

5. The current Plan includes reefers concentrated in dedicated ARMG modules. TEC believes that reefer storage in homogeneous stacks creates significant inefficiencies in Container Yard (CY) operations and prefers to distribute small blocks of reefers in every ARMG stack. The percentage of reefer container throughout was not clear in the current Plan, but for the purpose of the Alternate Concept cost estimate, TEC assumes approximately 7% of the container slots will be dedicated to reefers.

6. TEC assumed that initially, 100% of the container traffic to and from the terminal will be by truck. However, in order to demonstrate rail capability to existing and potential future users, the terminal start-up includes the installation of both working and storage tracks. The working tracks proposed in the current Plan include a curved section. Since RTGs are proposed for Intermodal Yard (IY) operations, curved working tracks are not particularly efficient and therefore the Alternate Concept proposes working tracks in only straight segments. The Alternate Concept provides Phase 1 (IY) capability to handle one 10,000 ft train, which is consistent with the current Plan assumptions and its assessment of probable intermodal train operations.

7. Terminal development will include the installation of an ARMG system in Phase 2. This will require the implementation and integration of an automation software control package. This type of software package and set-up is a significant cost, at approximately $30,000,000. This cost does not appear to have been included in the current Plan, but is listed as a line item in the Alternate Concept cost estimate. Similarly, it does not appear that Terminal Operating Software (TOS) has been included in Phase 1, 2 or 3 of the current Plan. For the purposes of the Alternate Concept, it is assumed that the initial TOS implementation and integration will be on the order of $3,000,000 with additional $1,000,000 integration costs associated with the implementation of Phases 2 and 3.

8. The per acre unit costs for the CY, IY, and the Empty and Chassis Storage Areas listed in the Alternate Concept cost estimate are all-inclusive of the site preparations, drainage, electrical, utilities, fencing, paving, rail tracks and switches (when applicable), etc. and, the Reefer unit cost is all inclusive of the electrical service, plugs and racks.

As referenced in No. 3 above, TEC’s development of the Alternate Concept included the generation of a Throughput Analysis model. Input factors such as average dwell times, expected throughput distribution, and distribution of operations equipment were used to calculate annual throughput, throughput per acre, and the total yard areas required for efficient operations. The NCIT Terminal Capacity Model results are included as an attachment to this chapter. Also, the model input and output factors and the list of assumptions above are summarized in the list of Terminal Characteristics


5 | P a g e

in Table 1. Many of these values are utilized in the preparation of the cost estimates in the following section.

Table 1. NCSPA NCIT Alternate Concept Terminal Characteristics


6 | P a g e

Phase 1 Development

The Alternate Concept for Phase 1 development proposes 2330 lf of wharf, to include the installation of 8 container cranes. This will allow one 12,000 TEU vessel and one small to medium size vessel to berth at NCIT at the same time. The Phase 1 Concept is illustrated in Figure 3.

In order to make the investment in the terminal development an attractive proposition, the capital costs for Phase 1 development need to be minimized. There are a number of terminal development components which will need to be completed during Phase 1. Below is a list of some concepts that were incorporated into the cost saving plans for Phase 1.

Where possible, components such as site development, gate complex expansion, buildings, CY/IY expansions, wharf construction, berth dredging and major equipment installation are phased to expand or come on-line as capacity requirements increase.

There are 4 relatively new cranes currently in operation at the Port of Wilmington that can handle 18-wide container vessels. It is proposed that a schedule be developed to allow these 4 cranes be relocated to NCIT and modified to handle ships with 20-wide container vessels as outlined in the current Plan. Initially, it is expected that 6 container cranes will be sufficient for terminal start-up. During the project design, it can be determined whether initially all 4 existing cranes can be relocated, while only 2 new ones need to be purchased or if only 2 can be relocated initially, requiring the initial purchase of all 4 new cranes.

As previously discussed, it is proposed that the Phase 1 container yard be developed using rubber tired gantry cranes (RTGs) and reach stackers for container handling, and yard tractors and trailers for transport between the quay cranes and the CY and between the CY and the IY.

Figure 3. Alternate Concept - Phase 1


7 | P a g e

North Carolina State Ports Authority ‐ NCIT Concept Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate ‐ Alternate Concept

Quantity Units Unit cost Cost

Mobilization/Demobilization 1 ls $5,000,000 $5,000,000

Environmental Mitigation 1 ls $10,000,000 $10,000,000

Clearing and grubbing 211 acre $4,529 $955,691

Excavation 2,215,661 cy $8.45 $18,722,335

Excavation material disposal 0 cy $23.62 $0

Berth Dredging 3,007,629 cy $8.90 $26,767,898

Containment Dike 392,610 cy $3.50 $1,374,135

Leveling Fill Behind Dike 1,762,575 cy $0.55 $969,416

Marginal Wharf 302,900 sf $175 $53,007,500

Apron 3 acre $600,000 $1,800,000

Container Yard 74 acre $600,000 $44,400,000

Reefer Yard 1,700 plug $5,000 $8,500,000

Container Yard Gate 14 lane $250,000 $3,500,000

Intermodal Rail Yard 10 1000 ft wkg trk $550,000 $5,500,000

Rail spur/leads to IY & storage track 17,650 ft of track $155 $2,735,750

Rail switches 9 Each $25,000 $225,000

Empty Storage 20 acre $500,000 $10,000,000

Chassis Storage 5 acre $200,000 $1,000,000

Port Security & Customs 1,070 sf $150 $160,500

Maintenance ‐ General 15,000 sf $150 $2,250,000

Maintenance ‐ Cranes 6,000 sf $150 $900,000

Maintenance ‐ Shuttles 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ Roadability 800 sf $150 $120,000

Administration Building 28,000 sf $225 $6,300,000

Gate Assistance 250 sf $150 $37,500

IY Yard Office 250 sf $150 $37,500

Roadability canopy 2,550 sf $75 $191,250

Marine Building 1,800 sf $150 $270,000

Miscellaneous Site Paving 18 acre $200,000 $3,600,000

Elect. Transformers & Switchgear 2 Each $2,000,000 $4,000,000

Subtotal Site Costs $212,324,476

Container Cranes (new) 4 each $9,500,000 $38,000,000

Container Cranes (relocated) 4 each $2,250,000 $9,000,000

RTG Yard Cranes (CY & ICTF) 25 each $1,500,000 $37,500,000

ARMG Yard Cranes (CY) ‐‐

Terminal Operating Software 1 each $3,000,000 $3,000,000

Automation Software Package ‐‐

Shuttle Carriers (ARMG CY) ‐‐

Reach Stackers 14 each $450,000 $6,300,000

Yard Hostlers and Trailers 67 each $150,000 $10,050,000

Fork Lift Trucks 6 each $260,000 $1,560,000

Subtotal Major Equipment $105,410,000

Subtotal Site + Equipment $317,734,476

Planning & Design Services 5 % Site + Equip. 5% $15,886,724

Construction Admin. & Mgmt. 5 % Site + Equip. 5% $15,886,724

Subtotal Project $349,507,923

Contingency 25 % Project 25% $87,376,981

Total Estimate (2009 $) $436,884,904

Item

SITE WORK

MAJOR EQUIPMENT

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

Phase 1

Table 2 presents the cost estimate prepared for Phase 1. The total estimate for Phase 1 construction is approximately $437 million.

Table 2. Alternate Concept Cost Estimate – Phase 1


8 | P a g e

Phase 2 Development

As the terminal begins to approach its 1,000,000 TEU Phase 1 capacity, Phase 2 will be implemented. Phase 2 development proposes an additional 1120 lf of wharf, the installation of 4 new container cranes to equip the terminal with one additional post-Panamax berth, and additional stormwater management ponds. Upon completion of Phase 2, the wharf would accommodate two 12,000 TEU vessels, plus one smaller vessel. The Phase 2 Concept is illustrated in Figure 4.

As the terminal approaches its operational capacity of Phase 1, a positive cash flow will have developed to support Phase 2 development. In order to achieve an additional 1,000,000 TEU capacity with the Phase 2 expansion and footprint, a higher capacity yard operation is required. Thus, at this time, TEC proposes the installation of an ARMG system. The implementation of the ARMG system in Phase 2 will improve terminal density, throughput velocity and reduce handling costs, all of which are required to successfully increase terminal capacity to 2,000,000 TEUS per year. The Phase 1 RTG system and the Phase 2 ARMG system will operate simultaneously. The Phase 2 operations will utilize shuttle carriers for transport between the CY and IY and between the quay cranes and the CY stacks but without intermixing of traffic on the waterside, for safety reasons. In addition to the automated equipment, the ARMG system will require the installation and setup of an automated control system. This software package and customization of the control features must be integrated with the Terminal Operating System.



9 | P a g e




Environmental Mitigation 0 ls $10,000,000 $0


Excavation 82,205 cy $8.45 $694,632

Excavation material disposal 46,857 cy $23.62 $1,106,762


Containment Dike 0 cy $3.50 $0

Leveling Fill Behind Dike 0 cy $0.55 $0


Apron 1.5 acre $600,000 $900,000


Reefer Yard 900 plug $5,000 $4,500,000

Container Yard Gate 6 lane $250,000 $1,500,000


Rail spur/leads to IY & storage track 3,250 ft of track $155 $503,750



Chassis Storage 5 acre $200,000 $1,000,000

Port Security & Customs 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ General 15,000 sf $150 $2,250,000

Maintenance ‐ Cranes 6,000 sf $150 $900,000

Maintenance ‐ Shuttles 27,600 sf $150 $4,140,000

Maintenance ‐ Roadability 0 sf $150 $0

Administration Building 0 sf $225 $0

Gate Assistance 250 sf $150 $37,500

IY Yard Office 250 sf $150 $37,500

Roadability canopy 0 sf $75 $0

Marine Building 900 sf $150 $135,000

Miscellaneous Site Paving 6 acre $200,000 $1,200,000




Container Cranes (relocated) 0 each


ARMG Yard Cranes (CY) 18 each $2,500,000 $45,000,000


Automation Software Package 1 each $30,000,000 $30,000,000

Shuttle Carriers (ARMG CY) 39 each $830,000 $32,370,000

Reach Stackers 2 each $450,000 $900,000

Yard Hostlers and Trailers 0 each $150,000 $0

Fork Lift Trucks 4 each $260,000 $1,040,000







Total Estimate (2009 $) $342,399,055

Item

SITE WORK

MAJOR EQUIPMENT


Phase 2

Table 3 summarizes the cost estimate prepared for Phase 2. The total estimate for Phase 2 is $342 million.



10 | P a g e

Phase 3 Development

As the terminal begins approaching the 2,000,000 TEU Phase 2 capacity, Phase 3 will be implemented. Phase 3 will be very similar to Phase 2 with the construction of an additional 1150 lf of wharf and the installation of 4 new container cranes. At completion of Phase 3 the terminal will be equipped to handle three 12,000 TEU vessels or four smaller post-panamax vessels simultaneously. The Phase 3 Concept is illustrated in Figure 5.

Phase 3 development will complete the site build-out, which will include the installation of 10,000 ft of additional working tracks in the ICTF, completion of the container yard and additional Empty Storage area. The construction of the wharf for a total of 4600 lf will also be complete and the remaining major equipment will be purchased and installed.

Phase 3 operations will be identical to Phase 2, in size and capacity, expanding the ARMG system for CY operations. It will require additional shuttle carriers, and some modifications to the automated control system. At the completion of Phase 3, the ultimate build-out will include the simultaneous operation of half of the container yard area with an RTG system and half with an ARMG system to provide a capacity of 3,000,000 TEUs/year.



11 | P a g e




Environmental Mitigation 0 ls $10,000,000 $0


Excavation 516,374 cy $8.45 $4,363,360

Excavation material disposal 296,075 cy $23.62 $6,993,292


Containment Dike 0 cy $3.50 $0

Leveling Fill Behind Dike 0 cy $0.55 $0


Apron 2 acre $600,000 $960,000


Reefer Yard 1,100 plug $5,000 $5,500,000

Container Yard Gate 2 lane $250,000 $500,000


Rail spur/leads to IY & storage track 2,750 ft of track $155 $426,250



Chassis Storage 0 acre $320,000 $0

Port Security & Customs 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ General 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ Cranes 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ Shuttles 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ Roadability 0 sf $150 $0

Administration Building 0 sf $225 $0

Gate Assistance 0 sf $150 $0

IY Yard Office 0 sf $150 $0

Roadability canopy 0 sf $75 $0

Marine Building 900 sf $150 $135,000

Miscellaneous Site Paving 0 acre $200,000 $0




Container Cranes (relocated) 0 each


ARMG Yard Cranes (CY) 18 each $2,500,000 $45,000,000


Automation Software Package 1 each $500,000 $500,000

Shuttle Carriers (ARMG CY) 42 each $830,000 $34,860,000

Reach Stackers 2 each $450,000 $900,000

Yard Hostlers and Trailers 3 each $150,000 $450,000

Fork Lift Trucks 2 each $260,000 $520,000







Total Estimate (2009 $) $303,248,356

Item

SITE WORK

MAJOR EQUIPMENT


Phase 3

Table 4 summarizes the cost estimate prepared for Phase 3. The total estimate for Phase 3 is $303 million.



12 | P a g e

Summary

The primary goal of creating an Alternate Concept for the development of the North Carolina International Terminal was to reduce the terminal cost estimated in the current Plan, particularly for Phase 1 start-up. TEC identified three principal concepts that should provide overall project savings and more importantly, initial capital investment savings.

The first concept is to reposition the wharf along the edge of tidal marsh area rather than along the existing bluff. This concept decreases the dredging requirements adjacent to the berth area and provides the opportunity to reclaim land, thus increasing the area available for terminal development. This also allows the wharf to be extended from 4270 ft to 4600 ft, providing additional berthing area.

Concept two is to use the excavation material from the site preparation and suitable dredge material from dredging efforts to reclaim the tidal marsh area for terminal development. This eliminates the need to haul and dispose of the excavation and dredge material, providing a significant cost savings in Phase 1.

The third concept is to initially develop the terminal utilizing RTGs for terminal operations and defer the introduction of an ARMG terminal operations system until Phase 2 of the project. This strategy will allow the terminal to minimize the initial capital costs and provide a startup system that is more flexible and compatible with the expected throughput at start-up.

The order of magnitude cost estimate for the construction of this terminal proposed in the Alternate Concept Plan is $437 million for Phase 1, followed by an additional $342 million and $303 million in Phases 2 and 3, respectively, for a total of $1,082,500,000. The Alternate Concept concludes with the installation of the ARMG terminal operations system in Phase 3. At this time, the terminal would operate with a combination of RTGs and ARMGs, giving the terminal a capacity of approximately 3,000,000 TEUs. If it is decided that yet additional throughput capacity is required to meet the demands in the future, an additional phase to retrofit the RTG terminal area with ARMGs could be implemented. However, it should be noted that sufficient berthing capacity may not be available to support this increased yard capacity. The feasibility and cost for such an effort are beyond the scope of this Task.

A detailed assessment of the differences between plans and costs outlined in the current Plan and the Alternate Concept will be provided in Chapter 6.

ATTACHMENTS:

NCIT Terminal Capacity Model

Alternate Concept – Conceptual Drawings

o Overall Site Layout

o Phase 1 Development



ATTACHMENTS

NCIT Terminal Capacity Model

ALTERNATE CONCEPT – Conceptual Drawings

Overall Site Layout

Phase 1 Development

Phase 2 Development

Phase 3 Development

Throughput Analysis

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Total Terminal Area (acres) 154.3 235.1 302.7Length of Berth(s) 2300 3500 4600

Intermodal Yard 16.7 30.8 46.5 Admin Areas (Gate, Maintenace Areas, Parking) 36.7 51.7 56.6 MT Yard 20.0 30.0 35.0 CY 71.0 108.0 145.0 Berth 9.9 14.6 19.6

Net CY 91.0 138.0 180.0

Adjusted CY Throughput (TEUs/yr) 1,015,338 1,904,358 2,826,780

Throughput Per Acre Calulations:Throughput/Net CY/Ac/Yr. 11,158 13,800 15,704Throughpuy/Gross terminal Ac./Yr. 6,580 8,100 9,339

Equipment Allocation

% of 40' equipment 70.0% % of 20' slots in Wheeled yard 10.0%

TEUs/Move

Average Dwell Time (days)

Imports 5 5 5 Exports 7 7 7 Empties 15 13 10

Throughput Distribution

Imports 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% Exports 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% Empties 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

Storage Modes Distribution

Imports

Terminal Capacity Model - North Carolina International terminal

1.70

NCIT Planning Study

TEC IncOct. 2009

Throughput Analysis

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Wheeled 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RTG 100.0% 50.0% 33.0% Top Pick 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ASC 0.0% 50.0% 67.0% Exports Wheeled 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RTG 100.0% 50.0% 33.0% Top Pick 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ASC 0.0% 50.0% 67.0% Empties Wheeled 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RTG 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Top Pick 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Side Pick 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ASC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Storage Density

Wheeled (TEU/acre) 92 Grounded RTG (TEU/acre) Grounded Top Pick (TEU/acre) 350 Grounded ASC (TEU/acre) Grounded Side Pick (TEU/acre)

Model Factors

Vessel Peaking Factor 85.00% Shape Factor 90.00% Grounded Storage Sorting Factor 75.00% Seasonal Peaking Factor 115.00%

325

555750

NCIT Planning Study

TEC IncOct. 2009

Throughput Analysis

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Adjusted CY Throughput (TEUs/yr) 1,015,337.63 1,904,358.01 2,826,780.16

Total Area RequiredRTG 71.6 67.2 65.8ASC 0.0 39.3 78.2Empties 19 32 36

Area Available:RTG 71 71 71ASC 0 37 74.0Empties 20.0 30.0 35.0

NCIT Planning Study

TEC IncOct. 2009

ByDateDescriptionNo.

Revision or Issue

Checked

Drawn

Approved

Revision

Scale

Drawing No

Project No:

Date

Designed

619 Severn Ave., Suite 202Annapolis, MD 21403410.990.0299 * 410.990.0455 Fax

NO

RTH

CA

RO

LIN

A IN

TER

NA

TIO

NA

L TE

RM

INA

LD

RA

FT A

LTER

NA

TE C

ON

CEP

TO

VER

ALL

SIT

E LA

YOU

T

0 400' 800' 1200' 1600'

10/13/2009

1 of

1 10/15/09


Revision or Issue

Checked

Drawn

Approved

Revision

Scale

Drawing No

Project No:

Date

Designed


NO

RTH

CA

RO

LIN

A IN

TER

NA

TIO

NA

L TE

RM

INA

LD

RA

FT A

LTER

NA

TE C

ON

CEP

T P

HA

SE 1

LA

YOU

T

0 200' 400' 600' 800'

10/13/2009

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

2 of

1 10/15/09

15

16

17

14

18


Revision or Issue

Checked

Drawn

Approved

Revision

Scale

Drawing No

Project No:

Date

Designed


NO

RTH

CA

RO

LIN

A IN

TER

NA

TIO

NA

L TE

RM

INA

LD

RA

FT A

LTER

NA

TE C

ON

CEP

T P

HA

SE 2

LA

YOU

T

0 200' 400' 600' 800'

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

10/13/2009

3 of

17

1 10/15/09

14

18


Revision or Issue

Checked

Drawn

Approved

Revision

Scale

Drawing No

Project No:

Date

Designed


NO

RTH

CA

RO

LIN

A IN

TER

NA

TIO

NA

L TE

RM

INA

LD

RA

FT A

LTER

NA

TE C

ON

CEP

TPH

ASE

3 L

AYO

UT

0 200' 400' 600' 800'

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

10/13/2009

4 of

1 10/15/09

15

16

17

14

18


1 | P a g e

CHAPTER 6

PLANNED VS. ALTERNATE CONCEPT COST COMPARISON

The existing Plan for the development of the North Carolina International Terminal (NCIT) and the subsequent Alternate Concept for terminal development prepared by TEC have been presented in detail in Chapters 1 through 5. The purpose of this Chapter is to summarize the differences between the two development concepts, with respect to terminal characteristics, as well as cost estimates. The scope of the comparison is limited to the on-site development and adjacent berth dredging. The turning basin and access channel dredging and the off-site infrastructure development outlined in the Plan documents are beyond the scope of the TEC review and are therefore not addressed in the Alternate Concept.

There are a number of documents included in the Plan, which outline the development plans for the NCIT. There are some variances in dimensions and other values between several of these documents. For the purposes of the comparison and this report, the NCIT Infrastructure Report and all referenced appendices including drawings and cost estimate back-up were used.

BACKGROUND

Brief descriptions of the existing Plan and the Alternate Concept for NCIT development are presented below, followed by some conceptual layouts of the terminal. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the overall terminal layout plans as proposed in the Plan and TEC’s Alternate Concept, respectively, followed by the ultimate terminal concepts for the completion of Phase 3, in Figures 3 and 4.

Existing Plan

The existing Plan proposes a 3-phase approach to development of a new container terminal along the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County on 600 acres for the North Carolina State Ports Authority (The Authority). The Plan includes an ultimate wharf length of 4270 feet and a terminal capacity of 3,000,000 TEUs per year. The wharf is designed to ultimately handle three 12,000 TEU vessels or four smaller vessels. Initially, the Phase 1 terminal will be able to berth either one 12,000 TEU vessel or two smaller vessels at a 2330 foot wharf. Phase 2 will add an additional 550 feet of wharf and Phase 3 will complete wharf construction with 1390 feet. With plans to berth up to 4 vessels, the existing Plan includes the installation of 16 quay cranes. Initially, Phase 1 will include 8 cranes, in order to berth 2 vessels and 4 additional cranes will be added in each of the remaining phases.

The existing Plan includes an automated rail mounted gantry (ARMG) crane system for container yard operations. ARMG systems are considered state-of-the-art and offer very dense, high throughput container stacks at significantly reduced labor requirement relative to other yard systems. This type of system is very expensive and typically is most effective and economical where land area is limited and/or very expensive and where labor costs are very high.

As proposed, the Container Yard in the existing Plan will have an ultimate static capacity of 53,824 TEUs, of which, approximately 10% will support reefer TEUs. The intermodal yard will ultimately include 10 working tracks and be equipped with 11 RTGs. The working tracks include a combination of curved and straight sections.


2 | P a g e

Alternate Concept

TEC was tasked with reviewing the Plan with the intent to discern some alternate concepts that could reduce capital costs. The review focused on a number of different components, including terminal configuration, size, container yard operations, support buildings, equipment and dredging requirements. Although many of the conclusions of TEC’s assessment concurred with those developed in the Plan, there were a number of concepts identified that should offer some overall cost savings that will be particularly beneficial to the project start-up costs in Phase 1.

TEC’s Alternate Concept for terminal development is also proposed in three phases. Phase 1 is projected to provide a capacity of 1,000,000 TEUs/year. Phase 2 will provide additional capacity to 2,000,000 TEUs annually, followed by an ultimate capacity of 3,000,000 TEUs per year at the completion of Phase 3, just as the terminal proposed in The Plan.

The Alternate Concept includes land reclamation along the tidal area, which will increase the available area for terminal development by approximately 71 acres and provide on-site disposal of excess excavation material and suitable dredge material. The additional area created by repositioning the terminal provides a configuration that allows the installation of a 4600 foot wharf, a 330 foot increase over the existing Plan.

One of the other major differences outlined in the Alternate Concept is the plan for the Container Yard operations. The Alternate Concept includes the development of Phase 1 using rubber tired gantry (RTG) equipment with container stacks oriented perpendicular to the wharf and then transitioning into the installation of an ARMG system in Phases 2 and 3. It is TEC’s opinion that the ARMG type system outlined in the existing Plan requires a large investment in more capacity than is needed for start-up and in the early years of operation. As outlined in the Alternate Concept, the Container Yard will have an ultimate static capacity of 64,768 TEUs in Phase 3, of which, approximately 7% will be allotted for reefers. The intermodal yard will ultimately include 12 working tracks and be equipped with 12 RTGs. Due to the limitations of the RTGs, the proposed working tracks include only straight sections


3 | P a g e

FIGURE 1. NCIT EXISTING PLAN OVERALL PLAN

FIGURE 2. TEC NCIT ALTERNATE CONCEPT OVERALL PLAN


4 | P a g e

FIGURE 3. NCIT EXISTING PLAN PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 4. TEC NCIT ALTERNATE CONCEPT PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENT


5 | P a g e

Figures 1 – 4 illustrate some of the conceptual differences between the two plans, but to fully understand the implications of their differences, a number of comparisons need to be made. Table 1 focuses on the differences between the characteristics of the terminal including capacity, development area, types and numbers of equipment, types and sizes of buildings, and some of the assumptions used to establish these characterics, such as dwell time of loaded and empty containers. The primary source of The Plan numbers in Table 1 is the NCIT Infrastructure Report and associated Appendices and the source of the TEC numbers is TEC’s Chapter 5 (Interim Report 5).

THE PLAN TEC Foot notes

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Total Acres 192 236 265 154 235 303 1

TEU/Year 1,135,000 2,165,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000

% rail 10% 30% 50% 10% 25% 30%

% road 90% 70% 50% 90% 75% 70%

Wharf length 2,330 2,880 4,270 2,330 3,450 4,600 1

# of cranes new 8 12 16 4 8 12

# of cranes relocated 4 4 4 Container Yard

CY TEU ground slots 4,011 8,021 10,731 7,060 11,830 16,600

CY TEU's (excl. MT) 17,664 38,400 53,824 24,700 44,734 64,768 Avg. CY stacking height 4.4 4.8 5.0 3.5 3.8 3.9 2

Reefer TEU ground slots 500 1,000 1,750 567 933 1,300

Reefer TEU's 1,500 3,000 5,250 1,701 2,799 3,900 1

Avg. Reefer stacking height 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Empty TEU ground slots 2,500 3,750 4,375 3

Empty TEU's 3,072 6,144 6,144 15,000 22,500 26,250 3

Avg. Empty stacking height 6 6 6 3

Empty Storage Acres 2.75 2.75 2.75 20.0 30.0 35.0 4

Density/acre 1,117 2,234 2,234 750 750 750

Total CY TEU's 20,736 44,544 59,968 39,700 67,234 91,018

Net CY TEU's excl. empty 17,664 38,400 53,824 24,700 44,734 64,768

Average dwell imports 5.0 5.2 5.0 5 5 5 5

Average dwell exports 3.3 3.6 2.7 7 7 7 5

Average dwell empty 7.0 7.0 5.0 15 13 10 5

IY Yard

# of loading tracks 2 7 10 4 8 12

Track length ft. 7,320 25,620 36,600 10,000 20,000 30,000

Gate lanes ? 20 20 14 20 26 6

Total CY acres 61.0 105.0 134.0 91 138 180 1

TEU/acre 18,607 20,619 22,388 11,158 13,800 15,704

Containers/acre 10,945 12,129 13,169 6,563 8,118 9,238

TABLE 1. NCIT Terminal Characteristics Comparison


6 | P a g e

THE PLAN TEC Foot

notes Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Equipment

Marine

RMG's 24 48 64 0 18 36

RTG's 21 21 21

Hustlers/bombcarts 53 53 53

Translifter 33 49 65

Shuttle carriers 0 31 62

Reach stackers 12 12 12

Empty handlers 2 5 5 10 20 30

IY

RTG's 5 10 11 4 8 12

Hustlers/bombcarts 14 14 17

Shuttle carriers 0 8 19 Reach stackers/tpldr's 2 4 5 2 4 6

Buildings

Administration 27,900 27,900 27,900 28,000 28,000 28,000 Maintenance

General 15,000 30,000 30,000 15,000 30,000 30,000

Straddle 13,800 27,600 27,600 27,600 27,600

Crane 6,000 12,000 12,000 6,000 12,000 12,000

Roadability 900 900 900 800 800 800

Total maint. 35,700 70,500 70,500 21,800 70,400 70,400

Roadability canopy 2,550 2,550 2,550 12,000 12,000 12,000

Marine building 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600

Gate assistance 250 250 250 250 500 500

IY Yard Office 250 500 500 Customs & security 1,070 1,070 1,070 1,200 1,200 1,200

Total square feet 71,070 105,870 105,870 67,100 116,200 116,200

1. Some of the components in The Plan vary between a number of Plan documents. The values that are supported in the Infrastructure Report and corresponding Appendices were used for comparison purposes, since the cost estimate and backup documents appear to be based on this document.

2. The average stacking height for the Alternate Concept RTG stacks is assumed to be 3.5. The average height of the Alternate Concept ARMG stacks is assumed to be 4.2. The 3.8 and 3.9 values in average stacking height are the result of including the 3.5 average stacking height in the RTG yard in the cumulative average height calculations for Phases 2 and 3.

3. The Yard Capacity calculations included in The Plan’s Infrastructure Report Appendix 7, only include total number of empty TEUs by phase. The stacking height and ground TEUs are not included in The Plan’s Yard Calculations worksheet.

4. The Plan includes a total of 2.75 acres for the storage of empties and chassis. For the purposes of this table, it was assumed that all of the storage area would be available for the empties.

5. The Plan’s average dwell times were obtained from The Plan data interpolated by PFRA.

6. Based on the cost estimate prepared for The Plan, it appears that all gate costs will be incurred by Phase 2, but it is not clear how much will be completed in Phase 1. Note: The totals for Phases 2 and 3 are cumulative values for each line item.


7 | P a g e

As seen in Table 1, the estimated TEUs per year for both plans are comparable. However, some of the input factors used to determine the annual throughput capacity are quite different. Below is a discussion on the comparison of a number of the factors referenced and/or calculated in Table 1.

Total Acres - Table 1 indicates that The Plan requires more upfront development in Phase 1 than the Alternate Concept. However, at the end of completion of Phase 3, the Alternate Concept will include more developed acres. This is partially attributable to the increased terminal size associated with the relocation of the wharf in the Alternate Concept. In Phase 1, the Alternate Concept requires a larger container yard than the existing Plan, since inherently RTG systems require more space to achieve the same throughput of an ARMG system. Also, the Alternate Concept includes more on-site storage space for empties and chassis and more miscellaneous pavement for parking, gate, etc.

Wharf Length - The difference in wharf length is attributed to the relocation of the wharf in the Alternate Concept. The land reclamation effort will allow the construction of the overall wharf length to be extended by 330 feet.

Dwell times - The dwell times included in Table 1 represent assumptions made by TEC, based on their general planning practices and values interpolated by PFRA for The Plan’s averages, based on other data in the planning documents. These values have a significant impact on the calculated capacity of the storage and container yards. Shorter dwell times increase the calculated capacity. To provide an apples-to-apples comparison, both plans should be based on the same input factors, as deemed appropriate for the expected conditions.

Container Yard (CY) - In addition to dwell times, container stacking height is an important input factor when calculating terminal capacity. Typically, ARMG systems can operate efficiently with higher stacks than RTG systems, which is reflected in the difference in stacking heights in Phase 1. In Phases 2 and 3 the Alternate Concept assumes a stacking height of 4.2 for the ARMG systems compared to the average stacking height of 4.7 for the comparable ARMG systems in the existing Plan. Therefore, the calculated CY capacity is not an actual apples-to-apples comparison. There is also a difference in the plans for reefer distribution throughout the yard. Although the number of proposed reefers is comparable, the Alternate Concept includes the distribution of reefers throughout all of the stacks, whereas the existing Plan assumes two adjacent entire ARMG stacks of reefers. This configuration can be inefficient when reefers are not present.

Empties - The Plan identifies only 2.75 acres for the on-site storage of empties and chassis. It is assumed that the Plan includes additional storage off-site, but it is not clear what provisions have been made for off-site storage. For the purposes of comparison, only the on-site storage has been included in Table 1.

Equipment and Buildings - Both plans include the same number of quay cranes in each phase. The only difference between the plans is the proposal in the TEC Alternate Concept to relocate and modify the 4 existing cranes from Wilmington to the NCIT as a means of providing 8 cranes in Phase 1. The remainder of the equipment differences noted in Table 1 are predominantly related to the concept of installing RTGs in Phase 1 (Alternate Concept) vs. installing an ARMG system (The Plan) for container yard operations. This will be further discussed in the cost estimate comparison. For the purposes of comparison, the number, types and sizes of buildings included in both plans are considered comparable.

Both terminal development concepts include a cost estimate to construct the NCIT, based on the plans illustrated in Figs 1-4, and the characteristics listed in Table 1. The estimates for each concept are included in the Attachments. The line items and level of detail vary for the two development concepts and therefore Table 2 was developed to provide a cost summary comparison. It should be noted that the costs included in Table 2 are not cumulative costs for Phases 2 and 3. All listed costs will be incurred in the respective phase.


8 | P a g e


9 | P a g e

As seen in the Total Costs summarized in Table 2, the major cost difference is noted in Phase 1 development. In Phase 1, the existing Plan Total Cost is more than twice the Alternate Concept Total Cost. However, in Phases 2 and 3, the Total Cost differences are 7.6% and 2%, respectively with the Alternate Plan slightly higher in Phase 2 and slightly lower in Phase 3.

As mentioned previously, the line items in the attached cost estimates do not allow for an apples-to-apples comparison and therefore the costs are summarized in Table 2, for comparison purposes. To determine the origin of the costs included in each Table 2 line item, Table 3 was created to summarize the components used from each cost estimate in the Attachment to establish the comparison values listed in Table 2. Column 1 lists each line item from Table 2. Columns 2 and 3 list the cost estimate components from the attached Existing Plan and TEC cost estimates, respectively, used to develop the comparison estimates presented in Table 2.

Description Line Item

From Existing Plan Cost Estimate

From Alternate Concept

Cost Estimate (TEC)

Dredging – Berth Only Dredging – Berth Only Berth Dredging

Site Embankment or Fill Site Embankment or Fill

Mobilization/Demobilization Clearing and grubbing Excavation Excavation material disposal

Containment Dike N/A Containment Dike Leveling Fill Behind Dike

Wharf Wharf Marginal Wharf Apron

Container Yard Container Yard Container Yard Reefer Yard

Intermodal Yard Intermodal Yard

Intermodal Rail Yard Rail spur/leads to IY and storage tracks

Rail Switches

Equipment and rolling stock Equipment and rolling stock All Major Equipment

Support Facilities and Buildings Support Facilities and Buildings

Port Security and Customs All Maintenance facilities Gate Assistance IY Yard Office Roadability canopy Marine Building

TABLE 3. Origin of Costs Used to Develop Cost Comparison Table


10 | P a g e

Additional Site Paving N/A Empty Storage Chassis Storage Miscellaneous Site Paving

Security Systems Security Systems As footnoted in Table 2 (#4)

Inbound Gate Inbound Gate Container Yard Gate

Utilities Utilities As footnoted in Table 2 (#6)

General Requirements – Div. 01 General Requirements – Div. 01 As footnoted in Table 2 (#7)

Project Specific Items Project Specific Items As footnoted in Table 2 (#7)

Non-construction costs

Design Services Material Testing Construction Management Inspection Services Engineering Services Land and Easement Contingency (@10%)

Planning and Design Services Construction Administration & Management

Contingency (@25%)

Based on the cost comparison in Table 2, the major cost differences are noted in the following major components:

Mobilization and Demobilization The TEC cost estimate includes a $5,000,000 mobilization and demobilization estimate for each Phase. It is not clear whether this component is included in The Plan estimate Equipment Within a margin of uncertainty, the equipment costs in Phases 2 and 3 are considered comparable between the two estimates. The primary differences between the two estimates are in Phase 1 and are associated with the number of quay cranes and the container yard operations equipment. The TEC Alternate Concept includes the relocation of 4 existing cranes and the purchase of 4 new cranes in Phase 1, whereas the existing Plan includes the purchase of 8 new cranes in Phase 1. Obviously, it is a bit more expensive to purchase 8 new cranes, rather than to relocate 4 of the cranes. However, this is not a significant consideration since the concept of relocating cranes could easily be incorporated into the existing Plan. The major difference between the two plans is the proposed container yard operations. The ARMG system proposed in the existing Plan requires more expensive equipment than the RTG system proposed in the Alternate Concept and also includes the integration and implementation of an expensive software package for ARMG system controls. This software package and implementation and integration requirements are included as a line item in the TEC Equipment cost estimate, but it’s inclusion in The Plan estimate is not clear.


11 | P a g e

Dredging The difference in dredging costs noted in Table 2 is a little more than expected. There would be some cost savings expected from the relocation of the terminal berth face from the bluff in the existing Plan to the tidal area in the Alternate Concept due to the surface elevation differences in the areas to be dredged, and some additional savings associated with a narrower dredge area in the Alternate Concept. However, some differences may also be attributed to differences in assumptions used in calculating dredge quantities. The Alternate Concept will provide some cost-savings with respect to dredging, but it may be less than projected in Table 2. Sitework The configuration of the terminal is one of the major differences between the two plans. In the Alternate Concept, the land reclamation effort requires the creation of a containment dike and placement of fill in the area to raise the reclaimed area to the required elevation. The reclaimed area creates an additional 71 acres for terminal development and an additional 330 lf of wharf. This area becomes a site for the disposal of excavation material and suitable dredge material, which eliminates the need to haul and dispose of this material. This is a savings of over $20 million dollars over the existing Plan. Container Yard As noted in Table 2, the line item comparison for the Container Yard is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The TEC unit cost estimate includes other components, such as utilities, lighting, fencing, signage, etc. that are separate line items in the existing Plan cost estimate. The major Container Yard differences are noted under the Equipment for Container Yard operations discussion, above.

Intermodal Yard There are several differences between the two plans to note in the Intermodal Yard. First, the unit cost for track is nearly $100 more per foot in The Plan estimate than in the TEC estimate. The $250 per foot estimate seems a bit excessive to TEC, especially when considering the lower labor costs associated with the Brunswick County region of North Carolina. This per unit cost difference coupled with the fact that The Plan includes 70,592 feet of New Track and the TEC concept includes a total of 27,650 feet of track in Phase 1, has created a significant disparity between the two estimates that should be further investigated. As indicated previously, the existing Plan includes working tracks with a combination of straight and curved segments. Although this Plan provides longer working tracks than those proposed in the TEC Alternate Concept, TEC does not consider the utilization of RTGs with any curved sections of track a viable option and therefore limits the working tracks to the straight sections provided by the configuration.

Non-construction items In Phases 2 and 3, the Alternate Concept cost estimate has significantly higher non-construction costs than the existing Plan. This is primarily due to the higher contingency included in the TEC cost estimate to cover some of the General Requirements and Project Specific items included in the corresponding existing Plan line items. Without all of the background data that was available to the consultants during the initial development of The Plan, TEC used a contingency of 25% to cover ancillary components, rather than the 10% used in The Plan. This difference in contingencies is applicable in Phase 1 as well, but is not obvious due to the much higher cost of The Plan’s Phase 1 estimate. By utilizing a percentage of the construction


12 | P a g e

cost estimate to establish an estimate for the non-construction costs, the disparity between the Phase 1 construction costs has skewed the difference between the non-construction costs.

Summary

Based on the differences utilized in the development of the cost estimates prepared in the Plan and TEC’s Alternate Concept, it is difficult to perform an actual apples-to-apples comparison on a number of the project components. However, when comparing the overall costs for the major components, the impacts of several of the conceptual differences between the terminal development plans become evident.

The results of the Phases 2 and 3 comparison indicates the conceptual development plans are comparable, as would be expected due to their similarities. Most of the differences noted in this report for Phases 2 and 3 are primarily due to margins of uncertainty in the cost estimating process and basically boil down to cost estimating accuracies. The cost estimate prepared by TEC in Task 5 was intended as an order of magnitude cost estimate in order to outline some alternate concepts for terminal development that would offer some cost-savings. There are no major concept changes in Phases 2 and 3 that need to be further addressed in this report. The only conclusion from the differences noted in the cost estimates for Phases 2 and 3 is that the preparation of the cost estimate during the design phase of terminal development should consider the cost items included in both cost estimates presented in the Attachments to ensure all major components are included, regardless of which terminal development concept proceeds to design.

The major distinctions between the existing Plan and the Alternate Concept are noted in Phase 1, where TEC has outlined a number of cost-saving concepts that allow the project to be constructed and brought on-line at a more attractive initial investment. These concepts include repositioning the wharf along the edge of the tidal marsh area, rather than along the bluff, as proposed in the existing Plan. This requires the construction of a containment dike and placement of fill material, which eliminates the costly expense of hauling excavation material and suitable dredge material away from the site. This concept creates over 70 acres of additional property for terminal development. Additionally, the terminal layout has been expanded to allow adequate space for the storage of empties and chassis on site. The realignment of the terminal in the Alternate Concept also allows for construction of a longer wharf, with 330 feet of additional wharf for the berthing of vessels. The final concept that allows Phase 1 capital costs to be minimized and more compatible with the start-up conditions is the development of container yard operations utilizing RTGs, rather than ARMGs. TEC concurs that by the time the terminal is approaching Phase 1 capacity, the development of the remainder of the terminal would be most effective as an ARMG system. Again, the cost estimate prepared by TEC in Task 5 was intended as an order of magnitude cost estimate to allow the development plans to be compared. As seen in the relative similarities in the cost estimates prepared for both development concepts in Phases 2 and 3, the cost-saving concepts proposed in the TEC Alternate Concept will offer substantial savings in Phase 1 over the existing NCIT development Plan.

ATTACHMENTS:

The Plan Cost Estimate

Alternate Concept Cost Estimate

Project: North Carolina International Terminal, Wilmington, NC Estimator: Pete BredehoeftClient: North Carolina Ports Authority Q.C Reivewer: Denny Stoddard, Lee Lindig, Rob EdgertonLocation: Wilmington, NC Estimate Rev Date: Rev 01 - May 27, 2008

Rev. 04 - June 27, 2008 PRBCapital Project Estimate

Construction Estimate USE THIS OR THIS

Category ID Description % Phase 1 - 2015 Phase 2 - 2019 Phase 3 - 2022Current Estimate

Total (2008 $)

Estimating Contingency

(2008 $)Non-Construction

$ (2008$)Total Project Cost

(2008 $)

Construction Escalation (Future

$)

Non-Construction Escalation (Future

$)Total Project Costs

(Future $)

A Container Terminal2 Dredging - Berthing Area Only 44,476,000$ 10,499,000$ 26,533,000$ 81,508,000$ 8,151,000$ 9,198,000$ 98,857,000$ 71,712,000$ 2,584,000$ 173,153,000$ 3 Site Embankment or Fill 43,453,000$ 13,637,000$ 13,842,000$ 70,932,000$ 7,093,000$ 8,005,000$ 86,030,000$ 62,407,000$ 2,248,000$ 150,685,000$ 4 Quay or Wharf 92,228,000$ 22,132,000$ 53,129,000$ 167,489,000$ 16,749,000$ 18,901,000$ 203,139,000$ 147,359,000$ 5,309,000$ 355,807,000$ 5 Container Yard 35,192,000$ 8,691,000$ 4,381,000$ 48,264,000$ 4,826,000$ 5,447,000$ 58,537,000$ 42,463,000$ 1,530,000$ 102,530,000$ 6 Intermodal Yard 20,904,000$ 6,968,000$ 6,968,000$ 34,840,000$ 3,484,000$ 3,932,000$ 42,256,000$ 30,653,000$ 1,104,000$ 74,013,000$ 11 Equipment & Rolling Stock 230,390,000$ 167,277,000$ 123,413,000$ 521,080,000$ 52,108,000$ 58,804,000$ 631,992,000$ 458,453,000$ 16,517,000$ 1,106,962,000$ 12 Support Facilities and Buildings 18,406,000$ 5,360,000$ -$ 23,766,000$ 2,377,000$ 2,682,000$ 28,825,000$ 20,910,000$ 753,000$ 50,488,000$ 13 Security Systems 4,983,000$ 312,000$ 208,000$ 5,503,000$ 550,000$ 621,000$ 6,674,000$ 4,841,000$ 174,000$ 11,689,000$ 14 Inbound Gate 3,827,000$ 729,000$ -$ 4,556,000$ 456,000$ 514,000$ 5,526,000$ 4,009,000$ 144,000$ 9,679,000$ 17 Utilities - Include Valves and Appurtenances 99,451,000$ 19,612,000$ 9,219,000$ 128,282,000$ 12,828,000$ 14,477,000$ 155,587,000$ 112,864,000$ 4,066,000$ 272,517,000$ 18 General Requirements - Div 01 22,097,000$ 7,019,000$ 7,016,000$ 36,132,000$ 3,613,000$ 4,077,000$ 43,822,000$ 31,789,000$ 1,145,000$ 76,756,000$ 20 Project Specific Items 56,877,000$ -$ -$ 56,877,000$ 5,688,000$ 6,419,000$ 68,984,000$ 50,042,000$ 1,803,000$ 120,829,000$

Total Container Terminal $ 672,284,000 $ 262,236,000 $ 244,709,000 $ 1,179,229,000 $ 117,923,000 $ 133,077,000 $ 1,430,229,000 $ 1,037,502,000 $ 37,377,000 $ 2,505,108,000

B Roadway & Bridges9 Access Roadway 194,724,000$ -$ -$ 194,724,000$ 19,472,000$ 21,975,000$ 236,171,000$ 171,321,000$ 6,172,000$ 413,664,000$ 10 Access Roadway Bridges 20,328,000$ -$ -$ 20,328,000$ 2,033,000$ 2,294,000$ 24,655,000$ 17,885,000$ 644,000$ 43,184,000$

Total Roadway & Bridges $ 215,052,000 $ - $ - $ 215,052,000 $ 21,505,000 $ 24,269,000 $ 260,826,000 $ 189,206,000 $ 6,816,000 $ 456,848,000

C Rail Line & Bridges7 Rail Line 26,897,000$ 8,966,000$ 8,966,000$ 44,829,000$ 4,483,000$ 5,059,000$ 54,371,000$ 39,441,000$ 1,421,000$ 95,233,000$ 8 Rail Bridges 15,177,000$ -$ -$ 15,177,000$ 1,518,000$ 1,713,000$ 18,408,000$ 13,353,000$ 481,000$ 32,242,000$

Total Rail Line & Bridges $ 42,074,000 $ 8,966,000 $ 8,966,000 $ 60,006,000 $ 6,001,000 $ 6,772,000 $ 72,779,000 $ 52,794,000 $ 1,902,000 $ 127,475,000

D Dredging by Others2 Access Channel and Turning Basin $ 105,804,000 105,804,000$ 10,580,000$ 11,940,000$ 128,324,000$ 93,087,000$ 3,354,000$ 224,765,000$ 2 Main Channe $ 455,952,000 455,952,000$ 45,595,000$ 51,454,000$ 553,001,000$ 401,152,000$ 14,452,000$ 968,605,000$

Dredging by Others $ 561,756,000 $ 561,756,000 $ 56,175,000 $ 63,394,000 $ 681,325,000 $ 494,239,000 $ 17,806,000 $ 1,193,370,000

E Project Development CostsEngineering and Planning Services $ 5,000,000 5,000,000$ 500,000$ 564,000$ 6,064,000$ 4,399,000$ 158,000$ 10,621,000$ Pre-Design Services $ 10,000,000 10,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,128,000$ 12,128,000$ 8,798,000$ 317,000$ 21,243,000$ Permitting $ 45,000,000 45,000,000$ 4,500,000$ 5,078,000$ 54,578,000$ 39,591,000$ 1,426,000$ 95,595,000$

Total Project Development Costs $ 60,000,000 $ 60,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 6,770,000 $ 72,770,000 $ 52,788,000 $ 1,901,000 $ 127,459,000

Total Construction Estimate (2008 $)without Contingency and Escalation 1,551,166,000$ 271,202,000$ 253,675,000$ 2,076,043,000$ 207,604,000$ 234,282,000$ 2,517,929,000$ 1,826,529,000$ 65,802,000$ 4,410,260,000$

Check Math 2,016,039,000$ Estimating Contingency - Based Upon DesignLevel - 10% 10% 155,117,000$ 27,120,000$ 25,368,000$ 207,605,000$

Total Construction Cost With Contingency (2008 $ 1,706,283,000$ 298,322,000$ 279,043,000$ 2,283,648,000$

Non-construction CostsDesign Services 2.5% 69,599,000$ 15,512,000$ 17,644,000$ 102,755,000$ Material Testing 0.2% 5,568,000$ 1,241,000$ 1,412,000$ 8,221,000$ Construction Management Serv During Const 1.0% 27,839,000$ 6,205,000$ 7,058,000$ 41,102,000$ Inspection Services During Construction 1.5% 41,759,000$ 9,307,000$ 10,586,000$ 61,652,000$ Engineering Services During Construction 0.5% 13,920,000$ 3,102,000$ 3,529,000$ 20,551,000$ Land and Easements 0.0% -$ -$ -$ -$

Total Non- Construction Cost with Escalation (2008 $ 5.7% 158,685,000$ 35,367,000$ 40,229,000$ 234,281,000$

Total Project or Capital Cost (2008 $) 1,864,968,000$ 333,689,000$ 319,272,000$ 2,517,929,000$

Escalation To Mid-Point of Construction 1,077,663,000$ 322,158,000$ 426,709,000$ 1,826,530,000$

Total Construction Cost with Escalation (Future 2,783,946,000$ 620,480,000$ 705,752,000$ 4,110,178,000$

Escalation on Non-Construction - 5% 7,934,000$ 22,242,000$ 35,629,000$ 65,805,000$ Total Non-construction Costs (Future 5.7% 166,619,000$ 57,609,000$ 75,858,000$ 300,086,000$

Total Project or Capital Cost (Future $) 2,950,565,000$ 678,089,000$ 781,610,000$ 4,410,264,000$

Current Estimate June 2008

Project: North Carolina International Terminal, Wilmington, NC Estimator: Pete BredehoeftClient: North Carolina Ports Authority Q.C Reviewer: Denny Stoddard, Lee Lindig, Rob EdgertonLocation: Wilmington, NC Estimate Rev Date: Rev 04 - June 27, 2008 - PRB

Estimate: Construction Cost Estimate

Report: Detailed Report

Item No.WBS Code Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Total

1. 02 Dredging2. Berthing Area3. Rock 693,543 CY 35.40$ 24,549,353$ 163,712 CY 35.40$ 5,794,912$ 413,745 CY 35.40$ 14,645,322$ 1,271,000 CY 35.40$ 44,989,587$ 4. Silt Clamshell 3,600,859 CY 4.13$ 14,866,148$ 849,988 CY 4.13$ 3,509,177$ 2,148,152 CY 4.13$ 8,868,646$ 6,599,000 CY 4.13$ 27,243,972$ 5. Clay Clamshell 982,201 CY 5.15$ 5,060,302$ 231,850 CY 5.15$ 1,194,492$ 585,948 CY 5.15$ 3,018,807$ 1,800,000 CY 5.15$ 9,273,600$ 6. Beach Fill - - - - CY -$ 7. Port Basin Subtotal 5,276,604 CY 8.43$ 44,475,803$ 10,498,580$ 3,147,845 CY -$ 26,532,775$ 9,670,000 CY 8.43$ 81,507,159$

8. Access Channel and Turning Basin9. Rock 1,580,000 CY 35.40$ 55,927,260$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 1,580,000 CY 35.40$ 55,927,260$ 10. Silt Clamshell 8,960,000 CY 4.13$ 36,991,360$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 8,960,000 CY 4.13$ 36,991,360$ 11. Clay Clamshell 2,501,000 CY 5.15$ 12,885,152$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 2,501,000 CY 5.15$ 12,885,152$ 12. Beach Fill - - - - CY -$ 13. Port Basin Subtotal 13,041,000 CY 8.11$ 105,803,772$ - -$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 13,041,000 CY 8.11$ 105,803,772$ 14.15. Main Channel16. Rock 546,000 CY 35.40$ 19,326,762$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 546,000 CY 35.40$ 19,326,762$ 17. Beach Fill Hydraulic 4,709,000 CY 8.11$ 38,178,218$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 4,709,000 CY 8.11$ 38,178,218$ 18. Beach Fill Hydraulic (Booster) 20,660,000 CY 11.56$ 238,777,950$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 20,660,000 CY 11.56$ 238,777,950$ 19. Beach Fill Hopper 8,883,000 CY 12.90$ 114,617,349$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 8,883,000 CY 12.90$ 114,617,349$ 20. Unsuitable Hopper (Nearshore) 2,771,000 CY 3.76$ 10,420,346$ -$ CY -$ 2,771,000 CY 3.76$ 10,420,346$ 21. Unsuitable Hopper (Offshore) 8,009,000 CY 4.32$ 34,630,916$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 8,009,000 CY 4.32$ 34,630,916$ 22. Main Channel Subtotal 45,578,000 CY 10.00$ 455,951,540$ -$ - CY -$ -$ 45,578,000 CY 10.00$ 455,951,540$ 23. Total 63,895,604 CY 9.49$ 606,231,115$ - - 10,498,580$ 3,147,845 CY - 26,532,775$ 68,289,000 CY 9.42$ 643,262,471$ 24.25.26. 03 Sitework Embankment or Fill

27.Studies: Light Polution, Noise Polution Plans 198 AC 678.39$ 134,321$ 44 AC 1,526.59$ 67,170$ 29 AC 2,316.07$ 67,166$ 271 AC 991.36$ 268,657$

28. Storm Water Pollution Plan 198 AC 847.99$ 167,902$ 44 AC 2,289.91$ 100,756$ 29 AC 3,474.14$ 100,750$ 271 AC 1,363.13$ 369,408$ 29. Clearing and Grubbing 198 AC 6,199.25$ 1,227,452$ 63 AC 5,377.52$ 338,784$ 78 AC 5,750.12$ 448,509$ 339 AC 5,943.20$ 2,014,745$ 30. Excavation - Cut 1,781,492 CY 8.45$ 15,053,607$ 516,374 CY 8.45$ 4,364,090$ 516,374 CY 8.45$ 4,363,839$ 2,814,240 CY 8.45$ 23,781,536$ 31. Backfill - Fill 970,723 CY 3.36$ 3,261,629$ 295,974 CY 3.58$ 1,059,183$ 295,974 CY 3.58$ 1,059,120$ 1,562,671 CY 3.44$ 5,379,932$

32.

Disposal of None-Suitable Soil - Offsite - Assumed 20 Miles Round Trip - 10 Miles One Way 888,224 CY 23.62$ 20,982,730$ 296,075 CY 23.63$ 6,995,271$ 296,075 CY 23.63$ 6,994,853$ 1,480,374 CY 23.62$ 34,972,854$

33. Sedimentation/Erosion Control 198 AC 929.38$ 184,017$ 63 AC 1,201.40$ 75,688$ 78 AC 813.82$ 63,478$ 339 AC 953.34$ 323,183$ 34. Landscaping and Mitigation 198 AC 12,329.90$ 2,441,320$ 63 AC 10,090.52$ 635,703$ 78 AC 9,543.17$ 744,367$ 339 AC 11,272.54$ 3,821,390$ 35. Total 198 AC 219,459.49$ 43,452,980$ 63 AC 216,454.67$ 13,636,645$ 78 AC 177,462.59$ 13,842,082$ 271 AC 261,740.61$ 70,931,705$ 36.37.38. 04 Quay or Wharf

39.Wharf Studies: Seismic, Wave Surge, Tide, etc. 2,330 LF 804.71$ 1,874,969$ 550 LF 1,352.51$ 743,880$ 1,390 LF 324.95$ 451,676$ 4,270 LF 804.71$ 3,070,525$

40. Piles/Beams/Slabs, Caps 2,330 LF 34,373.74$ 80,090,811$ 550 LF 34,603.62$ 19,031,989$ 1,390 LF 33,581.85$ 46,678,774$ 4,270 LF 34,373.74$ 145,801,574$ 41. Fenders/Moorings 2,330 LF 2,210.76$ 5,151,071$ 550 LF 2,161.60$ 1,188,881$ 1,390 LF 2,185.66$ 3,038,071$ 4,270 LF 2,210.76$ 9,378,023$ 42. Slope Protection 2,330 LF 2,193.66$ 5,111,228$ 550 LF 2,122.87$ 1,167,581$ 1,390 LF 2,129.55$ 2,960,076$ 4,270 LF 2,193.66$ 9,238,885$

Phase 1 (198 AC, 2,330 LF Wharf) Phase 2 (44 AC, 550 LF Wharf) Phase 3 (29 AC, 1,390 LF Wharf) Total Build Out (Current Est)

Estimate Data Date: May 2008 Page 1 of 7






43. Total 2,330 LF 39,582.87$ 92,228,078$ 550 LF 40,240.60$ 22,132,330$ 1,390 LF 38,222.01$ 53,128,596$ 4,270 LF 39,224.59$ 167,489,007$ 44.45.46. 05 Container Yard47. Pavement Asphalt 242,550 SY 83.78$ 20,320,264$ 9,100 SY 83.59$ 760,650$ - -$ 251,650 SY 83.77$ 21,080,914$ 48. Pavement Gravel/Stone 176,154 SY 20.46$ 3,604,399$ 9,100 SY 20.46$ 186,225$ - -$ 185,254 SY 20.46$ 3,790,624$ 49. Pavement Curb 5,000 LF 32.85$ 164,258$ 1,000 LF 10.01$ 10,012$ 1,000 LF 10.01$ 10,011$ 7,000 LF 26.33$ 184,281$ 50. Pavement Curb and Gutter 8,000 LF 30.53$ 244,267$ 1,000 LF 30.54$ 30,538$ 1,000 LF 30.54$ 30,536$ 10,000 LF 30.53$ 305,341$ 51. Access Roads 198,330 SY 54.75$ 10,859,030$ 141,200 SY 54.56$ 7,703,320$ 94,100 SY 46.13$ 4,340,543$ 433,630 SY 52.82$ 22,902,893$ 52. Total 617,034 SY 57.03$ 35,192,218$ 159,400 SY 54.52$ 8,690,745$ 94,100 SY 46.56$ 4,381,090$ 870,534 SY 55.44$ 48,264,053$ 53.54.55. 06 Intermodal yard56. New Track 22,990 LF 250.00$ 5,747,400$ 7,663 LF 250.00$ 1,915,800$ 7,663 LF 250.00$ 1,915,800$ 38,316 LF 250.00$ 9,579,000$ 57. New Turnouts 4 EA 140,000.00$ 504,000$ 1 EA 140,000.00$ 168,000$ 1 EA 140,000.00$ 168,000$ 6 EA 140,000.00$ 840,000$

58. New Precast Concrete Grade Crossings 1,440 TF 300.00$ 432,000$ 480 TF 300.00$ 144,000$ 480 TF 300.00$ 144,000$ 2,400 TF 300.00$ 720,000$

59. New Precast Concrete Grade Crossings 173 TF 300.00$ 51,840$ 58 TF 300.00$ 17,280$ 58 TF 300.00$ 17,280$ 288 TF 300.00$ 86,400$

60.Support Yard Paving (Roadways), 6" ACP Section 2 AC 350,000.00$ 840,000$ 1 AC 350,000.00$ 280,000$ 1 AC 350,000.00$ 280,000$ 4 AC 350,000.00$ 1,400,000$

61. New Track 47,602 LF 250.00$ 11,900,550$ 15,867 LF 250.00$ 3,966,850$ 15,867 LF 250.00$ 3,966,850$ 79,337 LF 250.00$ 19,834,250$ 62. New Turnouts 10 EA 140,000.00$ 1,428,000$ 3 EA 140,000.00$ 476,000$ 3 EA 140,000.00$ 476,000$ 17 EA 140,000.00$ 2,380,000$ 63. Total 20,903,790$ 6,967,930$ 6,967,930$ 120,341 LF 289.51$ 34,839,650$ 64.65.66. 07 Rail Yard67. New Track 63,360 LF 250.00$ 15,840,000$ 21,120 LF 250.00$ 5,280,000$ 21,120 LF 250.00$ 5,280,000$ 105,600 LF 250.00$ 26,400,000$ 68. New Turnouts 2.40 EA 140,000.00$ 336,000$ 0.80 EA 140,000.00$ 112,000$ 0.80 EA 140,000.00$ 112,000$ 4 EA 140,000.00$ 560,000$ 69. Control Siding 13,200 LF 250.00$ 3,300,000$ 4,400 LF 250.00$ 1,100,000$ 4,400 LF 250.00$ 1,100,000$ 22,000 LF 250.00$ 5,500,000$ 70. New Track 21,104 LF 250.00$ 5,276,100$ 7,035 LF 250.00$ 1,758,700$ 7,035 LF 250.00$ 1,758,700$ 35,174 LF 250.00$ 8,793,500$ 71. New Turnouts 1.20 EA 140,000.00$ 168,000$ 0.40 EA 140,000.00$ 56,000$ 0.40 EA 140,000.00$ 56,000$ 2 EA 140,000.00$ 280,000$

72. New Precast Concrete Grade Crossings 468 TF 300.00$ 140,400$ 156 TF 300.00$ 46,800$ 156 TF 300.00$ 46,800$ 780 TF 300.00$ 234,000$ 73. Grade Crossing Protection 7.80 EA 120,000.00$ 936,000$ 2.60 EA 120,000.00$ 312,000$ 2.60 EA 120,000.00$ 312,000$ 13 EA 120,000.00$ 1,560,000$ 74. Misc Yard & Rail Items 0.60 % 1,500,000.00$ 900,000$ 0.20 % 1,500,000.00$ 300,000$ 0.20 % 1,500,000.00$ 300,000$ 1 LS 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000$ 75. Total 98,132 LF 274.08$ 26,896,500$ 32,711 LF 274.08$ 8,965,500$ 32,711 LF 274.08$ 8,965,500$ 163,554 LF 274.08$ 44,827,500$ 76.77. 08 Rail Bridges78. Rail Bridge 500 SF 30,354.00$ 15,177,000$ - SF 30,354.00$ -$ - SF 30,354.00$ -$ 500 SF 30,354.00$ 15,177,000$ 79. Total 500 SF 30,354.00$ 15,177,000$ - SF -$ -$ - SF -$ -$ 500 SF 30,354.00$ 15,177,000$ 80.81. 09 Access Roadway82. Port Bridge to Cooling Towers 1 LS 8,321,057.72$ 8,321,058$ 1 LS 8,321,057.72$ 8,321,058$ 83. Cooling Towers to NC-87 1 LS 5,532,286.39$ 5,532,286$ 1 LS 5,532,286.39$ 5,532,286$ 84. NC-87 to Exit 3 intersection 1 LS 233,583.37$ 233,583$ 1 LS 233,583.37$ 233,583$ 85. Exit 3 intersection to NC-133 1 LS 7,552,089.21$ 7,552,089$ 1 LS 7,552,089.21$ 7,552,089$







86. NC-133 to 1000' south of NC-87/133 1 LS 9,313,528.72$ 9,313,529$ 1 LS 9,313,528.72$ 9,313,529$ 87. 1000' south of NC-87/133 to NC-1512 1 LS 35,855,028.99$ 35,855,029$ 1 LS 35,855,028.99$ 35,855,029$ 88. NC-1512 to US 17 1 LS 25,583,169.14$ 25,583,169$ 1 LS 25,583,169.14$ 25,583,169$ 89. Catch Basin / Inlet 50 EA 5,000.00$ 250,000$ 50 EA 5,000.00$ 250,000$ 90. Manhole 20 EA 5,000.00$ 100,000$ 20 EA 5,000.00$ 100,000$ 91. Outfall Structure 5 EA 6,000.00$ 30,000$ 5 EA 6,000.00$ 30,000$ 92. Endwall 5 EA 3,000.00$ 15,000$ 5 EA 3,000.00$ 15,000$ 93. 18" RCP 5,000 LF 26.74$ 133,700$ 5,000 LF 26.74$ 133,700$ 94. 24" RCP 5,000 LF 43.03$ 215,150$ 5,000 LF 43.03$ 215,150$ 95. 30" RCP 2,000 LF 60.85$ 121,700$ 2,000 LF 60.85$ 121,700$ 96. 36" RCP 3,000 LF 77.25$ 231,750$ 3,000 LF 77.25$ 231,750$ 97. 42" RCP 1,000 LF 100.70$ 100,700$ 1,000 LF 100.70$ 100,700$ 98. 48" RCP 1,000 LF 135.55$ 135,550$ 1,000 LF 135.55$ 135,550$ 99. Asphalt Pavement (Section 1) 325,000 SY 60.00$ 19,500,000$ 325,000 SY 60.00$ 19,500,000$ 100. Asphalt Pavement (Section 2) 720,000 SY 90.00$ 64,800,000$ 720,000 SY 90.00$ 64,800,000$ 101. Gravel / Stone 331,000 SY 30.00$ 9,930,000$ 331,000 SY 30.00$ 9,930,000$ 102. Concrete Curb 7,000 LF 10.00$ 70,000$ 7,000 LF 10.00$ 70,000$ 103. Concrete Curb and Gutter 10,000 LF 20.00$ 200,000$ 10,000 LF 20.00$ 200,000$ 104. Pavement Marking 1 LS 500,000.00$ 500,000$ 1 LS 500,000.00$ 500,000$ 105. Traffic Signals - Allowance 4 EA 250,000.00$ 1,000,000$ 4 EA 250,000.00$ 1,000,000$ 106. Missing Scope Allowance 1 LS 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000$ 1 LS 5,000,000.00$ 5,000,000$ 107. Total 194,724,294$ 49,655 LF 3,921.54$ 194,724,294$ 108. 9.4 Miles 20,705,755.11$ 194,724,294$ 109. 10 Access Roadway Bridges

110.Additional Grade Separation over Railroad crossings, added to all alternates 1 LS 10,162,500.00$ 10,162,500$ 1 LS 10,162,500.00$ 10,162,500$

111. Fly overs on NC-87, US-17 1 LS 3,810,000.00$ 3,810,000$ 1 LS 3,810,000.00$ 3,810,000$ 112. Fly over - Rail Way - At Terminal 150 LF 42,368.49$ 6,355,273$ 150 LF 42,368.49$ 6,355,273$ 113. Total 20,327,773$ 1 LF 20,327,773.00$ 20,327,773$ 114.115.116. 11 Equipment and Rolling Stock117. Ship-to-Shore Gantry Crane 8 EA 11,670,000.00$ 93,360,000$ 4 EA 11,670,000.00$ 46,680,000$ 4 EA 11,670,000.00$ 46,680,000$ 16 EA 11,670,000.00$ 186,720,000$ 118. Spreaderbars - Spare 4 EA 235,000.00$ 940,000$ 2 EA 235,000.00$ 470,000$ 2 EA 235,000.00$ 470,000$ 8 EA 235,000.00$ 1,880,000$ 119. ARMG's-yard 24 EA 3,055,000.00$ 73,320,000$ 24 EA 3,055,000.00$ 73,320,000$ 16 EA 3,055,000.00$ 48,880,000$ 64 EA 3,055,000.00$ 195,520,000$ 120. Spreaderbar - Spare 3 EA 140,000.00$ 420,000$ 6 EA 140,000.00$ 840,000$ 2 EA 140,000.00$ 280,000$ 11 EA 140,000.00$ 1,540,000$ 121. Translifter 33 EA 605,000.00$ 19,965,000$ 16 EA 605,000.00$ 9,680,000$ 16 EA 605,000.00$ 9,680,000$ 65 EA 605,000.00$ 39,325,000$ 122. Chassis 128 EA 12,000.00$ 1,536,000$ 64 EA 12,000.00$ 768,000$ 64 EA 12,000.00$ 768,000$ 256 EA 12,000.00$ 3,072,000$ 123. RTG 5 EA 2,350,000.00$ 11,750,000$ 5 EA 2,350,000.00$ 11,750,000$ 1 EA 2,350,000.00$ 2,350,000$ 11 EA 2,350,000.00$ 25,850,000$ 124. Spreaderbar - (1 over 3) - Rail 20 EA 1,050,000.00$ 21,000,000$ 20 EA 1,050,000.00$ 21,000,000$ 10 EA 1,050,000.00$ 10,500,000$ 50 EA 1,050,000.00$ 52,500,000$ 125. Chassis 20 EA 16,000.00$ 320,000$ 20 EA 16,000.00$ 320,000$ 10 EA 16,000.00$ 160,000$ 50 EA 16,000.00$ 800,000$ 126. Reach Stacker 2 EA 495,000.00$ 990,000$ 2 EA 495,000.00$ 990,000$ 1 EA 495,000.00$ 495,000$ 5 EA 495,000.00$ 2,475,000$ 127. Empty Handler 2 EA 265,000.00$ 530,000$ 3 EA 265,000.00$ 795,000$ EA 265,000.00$ -$ 5 EA 265,000.00$ 1,325,000$ 128. Yard Tractors 2 EA 65,000.00$ 130,000$ 2 EA 65,000.00$ 130,000$ 1 EA 65,000.00$ 65,000$ 5 EA 65,000.00$ 325,000$ 129. Pick-Up Trucks 15 EA 20,000.00$ 300,000$ 10 EA 20,000.00$ 200,000$ 5 EA 20,000.00$ 100,000$ 30 EA 20,000.00$ 600,000$ 130. Fork Trucks (FT) Small - 3.5-4 ton 1 EA 22,000.00$ 22,000$ 1 EA 22,000.00$ 22,000$ EA 27,000.00$ -$ 2 EA 22,000.00$ 44,000$







131. Fork Trucks (FT) Med. - 7-8 ton capacity EA -$ 1 EA 70,000.00$ 70,000$ 1 EA 70,000.00$ 70,000$ 2 EA 70,000.00$ 140,000$ 132. Fork Trucks (FT) Large - 20-25 ton 1 EA 265,000.00$ 265,000$ EA 265,000.00$ -$ 1 EA 265,000.00$ 265,000$ 2 EA 265,000.00$ 530,000$ 133. Man-Lift 1 EA 87,000.00$ 87,000$ 1 EA 87,000.00$ 87,000$ EA 110,000.00$ -$ 2 EA 87,000.00$ 174,000$ 134. Fuel Truck (10,000 gal.) 1 EA 155,000.00$ 155,000$ 1 EA 155,000.00$ 155,000$ EA 155,000.00$ -$ 2 EA 155,000.00$ 310,000$ 135. AMP 2 EA 2,650,000.00$ 5,300,000$ - EA 2,650,000.00$ -$ 1 EA 2,650,000.00$ 2,650,000$ 3 EA 2,650,000.00$ 7,950,000$ 136. Total 230,390,000$ 167,277,000$ 123,413,000$ 589 EA 884,685.91$ 521,080,000$ 137.138.139. 12 Support Facilities and Builidings140. Administration 27,900 SF 265.15$ 7,397,575$ -$ 27,900 SF 265.15$ 7,397,575$

141.Inbound Gate Canopy (shared for all lanes) - See Below SF -$ -$ - SF -$ -$ - SF -$ -$

142. OCR Canopy - See Below - SF -$ -$ -$ - SF -$ -$ 143. Customs Building - See Below - SF -$ -$ -$ - SF -$ -$ 144. Drivers Assistance 250 SF 169.84$ 42,459$ -$ 250 SF 169.84$ 42,459$ 145. Maintenance & Repair 15,000 SF 144.62$ 2,169,360$ 15,000 SF 144.62$ 2,169,360$ 30,000 SF 144.62$ 4,338,720$ 146. Reefer Receiving (canopy) 1,200 SF 90.85$ 109,018$ -$ 1,200 SF 90.85$ 109,018$ 147. Reefer Dispatch (canopy) 1,200 SF 90.85$ 109,018$ -$ 1,200 SF 90.85$ 109,018$ 148. Reefer Wash (canopy) 4,000 SF 131.79$ 527,170$ -$ 4,000 SF 131.79$ 527,170$ 149. Reefer Wash (dock) 420 SF 583.71$ 245,158$ -$ 420 SF 583.71$ 245,158$ 150. Roadability (canopy) 2,550 SF 101.85$ 259,710$ -$ 2,550 SF 101.85$ 259,710$ 151. Roadability (building) 900 SF 272.40$ 245,158$ -$ 900 SF 272.40$ 245,158$ 152. Straddle Carrier Shop 13,800 SF 151.43$ 2,089,800$ 13,800 SF 151.43$ 2,089,800$ 27,600 SF 151.43$ 4,179,600$ 153. Rail Office 2,700 SF 265.15$ 715,894$ -$ 2,700 SF 265.15$ 715,894$ 154. RTG Repair Area 9,000 SF 199.20$ 1,792,760$ -$ 9,000 SF 199.20$ 1,792,760$ 155. Marine Building 3,600 SF 183.50$ 660,587$ -$ 3,600 SF 183.50$ 660,587$ 156. Crane Maintenance Building 6,000 SF 183.50$ 1,100,978$ 6,000 SF 183.50$ 1,100,978$ 12,000 SF 183.50$ 2,201,955$ 157. Guard Building (2 locations) 70 SF 272.40$ 19,068$ -$ 70 SF 272.40$ 19,068$ 158. Bus Stop Shelter (canopy) 280 SF 85.05$ 23,815$ -$ 280 SF 85.05$ 23,815$ 159. Main Substation 6,500 SF 91.68$ 595,889$ -$ 6,500 SF 91.68$ 595,889$ 160. US Customs 1,000 SF 302.25$ 302,254$ -$ 1,000 SF 302.25$ 302,254$ 161. Labor Gate -$ -$ - SF -$ -$ 162. Abution Buildings (3 Locations) -$ -$ - SF -$ -$ 163. Total 96,370 SF 190.99$ 18,405,670$ 34,800 SF 154.03$ 5,360,138$ 131,170 SF 181.18$ 23,765,808$ 164.165.166. 13 Security Systems167. Security Trenchwork 22,000 LF 2.00$ 44,000$ 22,000 LF 2.00$ 44,000$ 168. Security Concduit 22,000 LF 15.00$ 330,000$ 22,000 LF 15.00$ 330,000$ 169. Fiber Optic - Main Runs 1 EA 177,500.00$ 177,500$ 1 EA 177,500.00$ 177,500$ 170. Cameras - Southwest Site 1 EA 80,000.00$ 80,000$ 1 EA 80,000.00$ 80,000$ 171. Cameras - West Site 1 LS 175,000.00$ 175,000$ 1 LS 175,000.00$ 175,000$ 172. Cameras - South Site 1 LS 135,000.00$ 135,000$ 1 LS 135,000.00$ 135,000$ 173. Cameras - North Site 1 LS 135,000.00$ 135,000$ 1 LS 135,000.00$ 135,000$ 174. Cameras - Southeast Site 1 LS 200,000.00$ 200,000$ 1 LS 200,000.00$ 200,000$ 175. Cameras - Northeast Site 1 LS 200,000.00$ 200,000$ 1 LS 200,000.00$ 200,000$ 176. Cameras - Central Site 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000$ 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000$







177. Cameras - Guardhouse Area 1 LS 65,000.00$ 65,000$ 1 LS 65,000.00$ 65,000$ 178. Cameras - Inbound/Outbound Area 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 179. Cameras - Maintenance Area 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000$ 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000$ 180. Cameras - Maintenance Area 1 LS 40,000.00$ 40,000$ 1 LS 40,000.00$ 40,000$ 181. Card Readers - Inbound/Outbound Area 1 LS 23,000.00$ 23,000$ 1 LS 23,000.00$ 23,000$ 182. Card Readers - Main Building 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000$ 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000$ 183. Security Signage - Overall Site 1 EA 25,000.00$ 25,000$ 1 EA 25,000.00$ 25,000$ 184. Video Surveillance System - Maint Facility 1 LS 165,000.00$ 165,000$ 1 LS 165,000.00$ 165,000$ 185. Video Analysis System - Maint Facility 1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000$ 1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000$ 186. Access Control System - Maint Facility 1 LS 67,000.00$ 67,000$ 1 LS 67,000.00$ 67,000$ 187. Communication Room - Maint Facility 2 EA 50,000.00$ 100,000$ 2 EA 50,000.00$ 100,000$ 188. Video Surveillance System - Guardhouse 1 LS 14,000.00$ 14,000$ 1 LS 14,000.00$ 14,000$ 189. Access Control System - Guard House 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000$ 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000$ 190. Security Chainlink Fence - 12' High 22,000 LF 67.23$ 1,479,011$ 3,000 LF 67.23$ 201,683$ 2,000 LF 67.23$ 134,456$ 27,000 LF 67.23$ 1,815,149$

191.Security Chainlink Fence - Concertina Wire 22,000 LF 15.88$ 349,285$ 3,000 LF 15.88$ 47,630$ 2,000 LF 15.88$ 31,753$ 27,000 LF 15.88$ 428,668$

192.Intrusion Dection System - Passive Magnetic 22,000 LF 20.90$ 459,892$ 3,000 LF 20.90$ 62,713$ 2,000 LF 20.90$ 41,808$ 27,000 LF 20.90$ 564,413$

193. Fencing - 0 -$ 194. Fencing - 0 -$ 195. Gate Complex - 0 -$ 196. PIDAS Zones - 0 -$ 197. Security Management Systems - 0 -$ 198. a) Access control door - 0 -$ 199. b) Pedestrian gate - 0 -$ 200. c) Vehicle gate - 0 -$ 201. d) Train gate - 0 -$ 202. e) Badge printer - 0 -$ 203. f) Access control card - 0 -$ 204. Water Font Security - 0 -$

205.General Surveillance Video, Includes PTZ camera interfaced with SMS. - 0 -$

206. Security Boat 2 EA 60,000.00$ 120,000$ 2 EA 60,000.00$ 120,000$ 207. Radios and Dispacthing Equipment 1 EA 250,000.00$ 250,000$ 1 EA 250,000.00$ 250,000$ 208. Patrol Vehicles 5 EA 25,000.00$ 125,000$ 5 EA 25,000.00$ 125,000$ 209. Total 198 AC 25,165.09$ 4,982,688$ 44 AC 7,091.49$ 312,026$ 29 AC 7,173.00$ 208,017$ 271 AC 20,305.28$ 5,502,730$ 210.211.212. 14 Inbound Gate213. Inbound Gate Complex 15,750 SF 138.89$ 2,187,582$ 5,250 SF 138.89$ 729,194$ 21,000 SF 138.89$ 2,916,776$ 214. ORC Canopy 12,000 SF 131.96$ 1,583,479$ 12,000 SF 131.96$ 1,583,479$ 215. Customs Building 400 SF 139.24$ 55,695$ 400 SF 139.24$ 55,695$ 216. Total 28,150 SF 135.94$ 3,826,756$ 5,250 SF 138.89$ 729,194$ -$ 33,400 SF 136.41$ 4,555,950$ 217.218.219. 17 Utilities







220.Main Substation and 69 kV Transmission Lines 1 LS 15,000,000.00$ 15,000,000$ 1 LS 15,000,000.00$ 15,000,000$

221.Electrical Distribution and Low Voltage Equipment 6 EA 1,426,843.00$ 8,561,058$ 6 EA 1,426,843.00$ 8,561,058$

222. Ductbanks and Manholes 77 EA 25,514.00$ 1,964,578$ 10 EA 25,479.67$ 254,797$ 14 EA 25,479.67$ 356,715$ 101 EA 25,505.84$ 2,576,090$

223.

Infracture Only: Includes 6 & 69 kV Ductbanks, manholes, equipment foundations and receptacle pits 27,495 LF 509.91$ 14,020,085$ 8,188 LF 476.19$ 3,899,031$ 4,370 LF 334.34$ 1,461,081$ 40,053 LF 483.86$ 19,380,197$

224. 69 kV Primary Feeders 51,700 cLF 112.44$ 5,813,054$ 34,700 cLF 111.68$ 3,875,278$ 13,200 cLF 30.04$ 396,512$ 99,600 cLF 101.25$ 10,084,844$

225.

Unit Substations w/7.5 MVA, 69kV/6kV transformers complete with primary and secondary breakers 1 LS 955,780.00$ 955,780$ 1 LS 955,780.00$ 955,780$

226. 6kV Feeders to berths - -$ 227. 6kV Receptacles (4 per berth) 16 EA 122,886.00$ 1,966,176$ 16 EA 122,886.00$ 1,966,176$ 8 EA 122,886.00$ 983,088$ 40 EA 122,886.00$ 4,915,440$ 228. Site Ductbank (2x2-4" Conduits) 125,000 LF 21.45$ 2,681,731$ 80,000 LF 21.45$ 1,716,308$ 50,000 LF 21.45$ 1,072,692$ 255,000 LF 21.45$ 5,470,731$ 229. Communications Manhole (4'x4') - -$ 230. Fiber Optic Cable (8-Strand) 11,000 LF 5.35$ 58,876$ 9,000 LF 5.35$ 48,171$ 2,000 LF 5.35$ 10,705$ 22,000 LF 5.35$ 117,752$

231. Copper Communications Cable (24-Pair) - -$ 232. Site Communications - -$ 233. High Voltage Feeders to Berths - -$ 234. High Voltage Berth Receptacles 12 EA 157,021.00$ 1,884,252$ 12 EA 157,021.00$ 1,884,252$ 8 EA 250,000.00$ 1,256,168$ 32 EA 157,021.00$ 5,024,672$ 235. Lightning Protection - 15% of SF 14,456 SF 5.00$ 72,278$ 5,220 SF 5.00$ 26,100$ 19,676 SF 5.00$ 98,378$

236.High Mast Lighting - 70' Poles - Assumed 400' on Center Spacing 35 EA 75,097.00$ 2,628,395$ 11 EA 75,097.00$ 826,067$ 6 EA 75,097.00$ 450,582$ 52 EA 75,097.00$ 3,905,044$

237.Reefer Electrical Connections - Plugs - 3% of Throughput 1,500 EA 7,800.00$ 1,848,861$ 1,500 EA 7,800.00$ 1,848,861$ 750 EA 7,800.00$ 924,430$ 3,750 EA 1,232.57$ 4,622,152$

238.Reefer Racks - 3 High - with Platform and Stairs 500 EA 32,400.00$ 16,200,000$ 500 EA 32,400.00$ 1,848,861$ 250 EA 32,400.00$ 924,430$ 1,250 EA 15,178.63$ 18,973,291$

239.Generator Set 13.2kV, 2500kVA diesel generator 1 EA 1,638,480.00$ 1,638,480$ 1 EA 1,638,480.00$ 1,638,480$

240. TRENCH EXCAVATION &BACKFILLING 65,331 CY 2.00$ 130,662$ 65,331 CY 2.00$ 130,662$ 241. SANITARY SEWER PIPE 45,795 LF 70.27$ 3,218,180$ 45,795 LF 70.27$ 3,218,180$ 242. Storm Water System 25,632 LF 441.10$ 11,306,387$ 1,231 LF 203.90$ 250,998$ 1,231 LF 185.28$ 228,081$ 28,094 LF 419.50$ 11,785,466$ 243. POTABLE WATER 19,000 LF 96.72$ 1,837,764$ 2,000 LF 157.81$ 315,610$ 2,000 LF 157.80$ 315,591$ 23,000 LF 107.35$ 2,468,965$ 244. FIRE WATER - System 198 AC 8,999.24$ 1,781,850$ 198 AC 8,999.24$ 1,781,850$ 245. FIRE WATER - Water Main 11,000 LF 111.53$ 1,226,822$ 4,900 LF 173.80$ 851,639$ 4,900 LF 171.18$ 838,792$ 20,800 LF 140.25$ 2,917,253$ 246. Industrial Wast System 5,000 LF 71.34$ 356,700$ 5,000 LF 71.34$ 356,700$ 247. STEAM PLANT 1 LS 3,377,150.00$ 3,377,150$ 1 LS 3,377,150.00$ 3,377,150$ 248. Compressed Air System 15,000 LF 61.47$ 922,065$ 15,000 LF 61.47$ 922,065$ 249. Disinfection Treatment System 198 AC 2,698.01$ 534,205$ 198 AC 2,698.01$ 534,205$ 250. Total 198 AC 502,278.71$ 99,451,184$ 44 AC 445,730.66$ 19,612,149$ 29 AC 317,892.00$ 9,218,868$ 271 AC 473,366.06$ 128,282,201$ 251.252.253. 18 General Requirements - Div 01254. Field Personnel 30 MO 85,287.33$ 2,558,620$ 18 MO 48,129.11$ 866,324$ 18 MO 48,126.28$ 866,273$ 66 MO 65,018.44$ 4,291,217$







255. Office Support 30 MO 41,621.60$ 1,248,648$ 18 MO 21,090.11$ 379,622$ 18 MO 20,922.17$ 376,599$ 66 MO 30,376.80$ 2,004,869$ 256. Field Equipment 30 MO 405,658.93$ 12,169,768$ 18 MO 166,813.50$ 3,002,643$ 18 MO 166,803.56$ 3,002,464$ 66 MO 275,376.89$ 18,174,875$ 257. Temporary Utilities 30 MO 8,183.70$ 245,511$ 18 MO 5,915.44$ 106,478$ 18 MO 5,915.11$ 106,472$ 66 MO 6,946.38$ 458,461$ 258. Protection, Safety and Site Security 30 MO 628.63$ 18,859$ 18 MO 1,047.83$ 18,861$ 18 MO 1,047.78$ 18,860$ 66 MO 857.27$ 56,580$ 259. Field Testing 30 MO 79,387.73$ 2,381,632$ 18 MO 54,828.83$ 986,919$ 18 MO 54,825.56$ 986,860$ 66 MO 65,991.08$ 4,355,411$ 260. Site Support Items 30 MO 30,227.50$ 906,825$ 18 MO 28,034.94$ 504,629$ 18 MO 28,033.28$ 504,599$ 66 MO 29,031.11$ 1,916,053$ 261. Marine Equipment Rental 30 MO 75,463.27$ 2,263,898$ 18 MO 55,906.89$ 1,006,324$ 18 MO 55,903.50$ 1,006,263$ 66 MO 64,795.23$ 4,276,485$ 262. General Support Items 30 MO 10,092.10$ 302,763$ 18 MO 8,204.89$ 147,688$ 18 MO 8,204.39$ 147,679$ 66 MO 9,062.58$ 598,130$ 263. Total 30 MO 736,550.80$ 22,096,524$ 18 MO 389,971.56$ 7,019,488$ 18 MO 389,781.61$ 7,016,069$ 66 MO 547,455.77$ 36,132,081$ 264.265. 19 Other Project Cost266. Contractor's Preliminaries -$ 267. Total 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS -$ 268.269. 20 Other Project Specific Costs270. Storm Water Retention Pond 198 AC 22,806.50$ 4,515,687$ 198 AC 22,806.50$ 4,515,687$ 271. Wetland Mitigation 1 LS 40,000,000.00$ 40,000,000$ 1 LS 40,000,000.00$ 40,000,000$ 272. All - Wetlands 1 LS 10,701,000.00$ 10,701,000$ 1 LS 10,701,000.00$ 10,701,000$ 273. Displacements 1 LS 35,000.00$ 35,000$ 1 LS 35,000.00$ 35,000$ 274. Exfiltration Chambers (Storm Tech) 1,000 EA 1,500.00$ 1,500,000$ 1,000 EA 1,500.00$ 1,500,000$ 275. Exfiltration Bedding 5,000 SY 25.00$ 125,000$ 5,000 SY 25.00$ 125,000$ 276. Total 56,876,687$ -$ 271 AC 209,877.07$ 56,876,687$ 277.278. Total Construction Costs (2008 $) 198 AC 7,531,126.26$ 1,491,163,000$ 44 AC 6,163,681.82$ 271,202,000$ 29 AC 8,747,379.31$ 253,674,000$ 271 AC 7,439,258.30$ 2,016,039,000$ 279.

280.Estimating Contingency - Based upon level of Design 10% 149,116,000$ 10% 27,120,000$ 10% 25,367,000$ 201,603,000$

281.

282.Total Construction Cost With Estimating Contingency (2008 $) 198 AC 8,284,237.37$ 1,640,279,000$ 44 AC 6,780,045.45$ 298,322,000$ 279,041,000$ 242 AC 9,163,809.92$ 2,217,642,000$

283.284.

285.Escalation To Midpoint of Construction - Escalation Factor 65.7% 1,077,663,000$ 108.0% 322,158,000$ 152.92% 426,709,000$ 1,826,530,000$

286.

287.Total Construction Cost With Escalation ( Future $) 2,717,942,000$ 620,480,000$ 705,750,000$ 4,044,172,000$

288.289.


North Carolina State Ports Authority ‐ NCIT Concept Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate

Quantity Units Unit cost Cost Quantity Units Unit cost Cost Quantity Units Unit cost Cost

Mobilization/Demobilization 1 ls $5,000,000 $5,000,000 1 ls $5,000,000 $5,000,000 1 ls $5,000,000 $5,000,000

Environmental Mitigation 1 ls $10,000,000 $10,000,000 0 ls $10,000,000 $0 0 ls $10,000,000 $0

Clearing and grubbing 211 acre $4,529 $955,691 50 acre $5,378 $268,876 78 acre $5,750 $448,509

Excavation 2,215,661 cy $8.45 $18,722,335 82,205 cy $8.45 $694,632 516,374 cy $8.45 $4,363,360

Excavation material disposal 0 cy $23.62 $0 46,857 cy $23.62 $1,106,762 296,075 cy $23.62 $6,993,292

Berth Dredging 3,007,629 cy $8.90 $26,767,898 1,040,278 cy $8.90 $9,258,474 1,073,775 cy $8.90 $9,556,598

Containment Dike 392,610 cy $3.50 $1,374,135 0 cy $3.50 $0 0 cy $3.50 $0

Leveling Fill Behind Dike 1,762,575 cy $0.55 $969,416 0 cy $0.55 $0 0 cy $0.55 $0

M i l Wh f 302 900 f $175 $53 007 500 140 000 f $175 $24 500 000 143 750 f $175 $25 156 250

TEC's ALTERNATE CONCEPT

Item

SITE WORK

Phase 3Phase 2Phase 1

Marginal Wharf 302,900 sf $175 $53,007,500 140,000 sf $175 $24,500,000 143,750 sf $175 $25,156,250

Apron 3 acre $600,000 $1,800,000 1.5 acre $600,000 $900,000 2 acre $600,000 $960,000

Container Yard 74 acre $600,000 $44,400,000 37 acre $600,000 $22,200,000 37 acre $600,000 $22,200,000

Reefer Yard 1,700 plug $5,000 $8,500,000 900 plug $5,000 $4,500,000 1,100 plug $5,000 $5,500,000

Container Yard Gate 14 lane $250,000 $3,500,000 6 lane $250,000 $1,500,000 2 lane $250,000 $500,000

Intermodal Rail Yard 10 1000 ft wkg trk $550,000 $5,500,000 10 1000 ft wkg trk $550,000 $5,500,000 10 1000 ft wkg trk $550,000 $5,500,000

Rail spur/leads to IY & storage track 17,650 ft of track $155 $2,735,750 3,250 ft of track $155 $503,750 2,750 ft of track $155 $426,250

Rail switches 9 Each $25,000 $225,000 3 Each $25,000 $75,000 3 Each $25,000 $75,000

Empty Storage 20 acre $500,000 $10,000,000 10 acre $500,000 $5,000,000 5 acre $500,000 $2,500,000

Chassis Storage 5 acre $200,000 $1,000,000 5 acre $200,000 $1,000,000 0 acre $320,000 $0

Port Security & Customs 1,070 sf $150 $160,500 0 sf $150 $0 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ General 15,000 sf $150 $2,250,000 15,000 sf $150 $2,250,000 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ Cranes 6,000 sf $150 $900,000 6,000 sf $150 $900,000 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ Shuttles 0 sf $150 $0 27,600 sf $150 $4,140,000 0 sf $150 $0

Maintenance ‐ Roadability 800 sf $150 $120,000 0 sf $150 $0 0 sf $150 $0

Administration Building 28,000 sf $225 $6,300,000 0 sf $225 $0 0 sf $225 $0

$ $ $ $ $ $Gate Assistance 250 sf $150 $37,500 250 sf $150 $37,500 0 sf $150 $0

IY Yard Office 250 sf $150 $37,500 250 sf $150 $37,500 0 sf $150 $0

Roadability canopy 2,550 sf $75 $191,250 0 sf $75 $0 0 sf $75 $0

Marine Building 1,800 sf $150 $270,000 900 sf $150 $135,000 900 sf $150 $135,000

Miscellaneous Site Paving 18 acre $200,000 $3,600,000 6 acre $200,000 $1,200,000 0 acre $200,000 $0

Elect. Transformers & Switchgear 2 Each $2,000,000 $4,000,000 2 Each $2,000,000 $4,000,000 2 Each $2,000,000 $4,000,000

Subtotal Site Costs $212,324,476 $94,707,495 $93,314,259

Container Cranes (new) 4 each $9,500,000 $38,000,000 4 each $9,500,000 $38,000,000 4 each $9,500,000 $38,000,000

Container Cranes (relocated) 4 each $2,250,000 $9,000,000 0 each 0 each

RTG Yard Cranes (CY & ICTF) 25 each $1,500,000 $37,500,000 4 each $1,500,000 $6,000,000 4 each $1,500,000 $6,000,000

ARMG Yard Cranes (CY) ‐‐ 18 each $2,500,000 $45,000,000 18 each $2,500,000 $45,000,000

Terminal Operating Software 1 each $3,000,000 $3,000,000 1 each $1,000,000 $1,000,000 1 each $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Automation Software Package ‐‐ 1 each $30,000,000 $30,000,000 1 each $500,000 $500,000

Shuttle Carriers (ARMG CY) ‐‐ 39 each $830,000 $32,370,000 42 each $830,000 $34,860,000

Reach Stackers 14 each $450,000 $6,300,000 2 each $450,000 $900,000 2 each $450,000 $900,000

MAJOR EQUIPMENT

Yard Hostlers and Trailers 67 each $150,000 $10,050,000 0 each $150,000 $0 3 each $150,000 $450,000

Fork Lift Trucks 6 each $260,000 $1,560,000 4 each $260,000 $1,040,000 2 each $260,000 $520,000

Subtotal Major Equipment $105,410,000 $154,310,000 $127,230,000

Subtotal Site + Equipment $317,734,476 $249,017,495 $220,544,259

Planning & Design Services 5 % Site + Equip. 5% $15,886,724 5 % Site + Equip. 5% $12,450,875 5 % Site + Equip. 5% $11,027,213

Construction Admin. & Mgmt. 5 % Site + Equip. 5% $15,886,724 5 % Site + Equip. 5% $12,450,875 5 % Site + Equip. 5% $11,027,213

Subtotal Project $349,507,923 $273,919,244 $242,598,685

Contingency 25 % Project 25% $87,376,981 25 % Project 25% $68,479,811 25 % Project 25% $60,649,671

Total Estimate (2009 $) $436,884,904 $342,399,055 $303,248,356



1 | P a g e

CHAPTER 7

WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE EVALUATION

This Chapter summarizes TEC’s review of the current North Carolina International Terminal (NCIT) Work Plan and proposed schedule, to identify potential schedule improvements, cost saving measures, and phasing modifications. The development and permitting of the NCIT requires multiple phases, including the offsite roadway and railway access, upland terminal development, berth development including dredging, and the proposed shipping channel upgrade discussed previously in Chapter 4 (Interim Report No. 4). As discussed in previous chapters, it is assumed that all infrastructure upgrade costs associated with access to the terminal site will be outside of funding requirements for a private terminal developer/operator. While it is expected that the development of NCIT itself will be a joint effort by the North Carolina State Port Authority (The Authority) and the terminal developer, there are some permitting functions of the terminal area that will need to be addressed prior to the terminal development.

As previously described in Chapter 5, TEC’s Alternate Concept for terminal development is proposed in three phases. Phase 1 is projected to provide a capacity of 1,000,000 TEUs/year. Phase 2 will provide additional capacity to 2,000,000 TEUs annually, followed by an ultimate capacity of 3,000,000 TEUs per year at the completion of Phase 3.

Terminal Development

The development of NCIT will require coordination with state and federal regulatory agencies in order to obtain permits. Some of the agencies whose participation is necessary include the North Carolina State Department of Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina State Department of Transportation (NCDOT), US Army Corp of Engineers – Wilmington District (USACOE), Brunswick County, and the Federal Government (USA). Additional organizations, which may play a pivotal role in the development of the terminal, include Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point and CSX Corporation for the railway access and upgrades.

The Work Plan and proposed schedule provide a list of pre-design, engineering, and planning services necessary for the terminal development. The comprehensive list can be divided among different parties depending on their role and responsibilities in the terminal development. Even with a detailed and well planned terminal, the final configuration and management of the terminal will depend on the selection of a terminal developer. The following list of pre-design, engineering, and planning services and costs from the current Work Plan, as well as some additional services and costs identified by TEC, have the potential to be shared with the developer, once selected:


2 | P a g e

Table 1. PPP Package & Marketing

Responsible Party

Project Activity The Plan

Cost* TEC Cost

NCSPA Refine of Market Studies and Assumptions $250,000 NCSPA Refine Development Plan and Costs / Pro Formas $500,000 NCSPA Develop PPP Package and Market to Private Sector $250,000 NCSPA Develop PPP and Market to Rail Operators $250,000 Private Refine Financing Plan $350,000 Private Adjacent Real Estate Market Options $50,000 NCSPA Legal Support $3,000,000 $3,000,000 NCSPA Develop Concession Agreements (terminal & rail) $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NCSPA Coordination with NCDOT/RR on Access Issues $250,000 Private Project Risk Profiling and Mitigation Plan $100,000 Total Cost: $4,500,000 $5,500,000

Source: NCIT Project Development Costs – Budget Estimate

The development of the terminal and most tasks within the permitting process will either benefit from or require legal support. Depending on the amount of community opposition, local and state regulators processes, and the federal requirements, the cost for legal services could vary. There is potential for legal costs to be incurred throughout all stages of the terminal development process. TEC has no disagreement with the estimate of $3-million for potential legal support.

The Authority will be responsible for initializing the studies, pre-design development tasks (surveys, geotechnical studies, environmental wetland studies, etc.), initial conversations with the local and state agencies as well as negotiations with the CSX Corporation and the railway users for access rights. These tasks should be started to facilitate the permitting process and to ensure future operators that there are no conflicts or obstacles with the development of the site. Table 2 includes tasks associated with the cost of terminal development that are critical items necessary for future studies, financing, engineering plans, and specifications.

Table 2. Advancing Terminal Development Costs

Responsible Party


Cost* TEC Cost

NCSPA Preliminary Geotechnical Testing $350,000 $50,000 NCSPA Preliminary Property Data $1,500,000 $50,000 NCSPA Preliminary Access Mapping $100,000 Total Cost: $1,850,000 $200,000

Source: NCIT Project Development Costs – Budget Estimate

Joint Permitting Responsibilities for Terminal Development

The upland and waterside development (berth and channel) for the terminal will require environmental studies as part of the permitting process. The upland development will most likely be in the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the waterside development will most likely be an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Many tasks for the studies are similar and can be accomplished simultaneously. The Work Plan and schedule combined the tasks for the two reports into a single line item and priced them together. In order to remain consistent with the provided documentation, TEC’s adjusted Work Plan and schedule was added to reflect the Original Business Work Plan and associated activities.


3 | P a g e

The EIS for the channel dredging and realignment project will be a jointly funded by the Authority and the USACOE, conducted by the USACOE through the federal process. Construction of a new federal shipping channel and abandonment of certain segments of the current shipping channel will require congressional authorization. The USACOE planning process is as follows:

Two-Phase Study Process

1. The Federal government first conducts a reconnaissance study to determine whether a Federal project can solve local and regional water resources problems. The reconnaissance phase is 100% Federal funded and takes approximately 2-years to complete. According to the USACOE – Wilmington District website, in fiscal year 2009, funding was received to determine whether there was federal interest in the cost shared Feasibility Phase Study.

2. Based upon the reconnaissance report, the Federal government and the non-Federal sponsor jointly decide whether a full feasibility study is warranted. Initiation of the feasibility phase depends on execution of a study cost-sharing agreement with the sponsor. The study for this project is expected to require a cost-share of 50% Federal and, 50% non-Federal funds.

Phase 1: Reconnaissance Phase Study evaluates the following:

Definition of problems and opportunities related to water resources; identification and potential solutions.

Estimation of benefits and costs of solutions to determine prospects for an implementable project. Appraisal of Federal interest in potential solutions.

Determination as to whether or not further studies are appropriate. Estimation of feasibility phase costs. Corps and non-Federal sponsor must agree to share equally in the cost of the

feasibility phase.

Phase 2: Feasibility Phase Study provides more detailed assessment of following:

Further planning and evaluation of alternative solutions to water resources problems.

Detailed estimation of benefits and costs of alternatives to determine what plans merit Federal participation.

Preparation of a feasibility report recommending solutions to water resources problems and Congressional authorization.

Preparation of a letter of intent by State or local entity to financially participate in recommended plan implementation, as demonstrated by mutual concurrence in a draft Project Coordination Agreement (PCA) for implementation of the project.

Coordination of feasibility report with Federal, State and local agencies.

The Plan lists the feasibility study with a $7.5-million cost. The Authority responsibility is expected to be 50% of the feasibility study cost which would be $3.75-million. The estimated cost for the feasibility study is dependent on the results of the Phase 1 reconnaissance study and required actions.

In addition to the EIR/EIS, an environmental assessment (EA) will likely be required for the development of the roadway access. The EA would be conducted in conjunction with the NCDOT and Brunswick County development permitting process, and is expected to include a Traffic Impact Analysis

TEC has identified four unique sections associated with the EIR/EIS studies based on the financial responsibilities and timeframe of the activities;


4 | P a g e

1. Upfront coordination and investigation studies 2. Cost shared activities with the USACOE 3. Upland Development EIS Activities 4. EIS Outcome Dependent Studies

The following table summarizes the tasks and costs associated with the environmental studies as seen by TEC:

Table 3. Joint NCSPA / USACOE Responsibilities Responsible

Party Project Activity

The Plan Cost*

TEC Cost

NCSPA Up‐front Coordination with USACE for Channel Reconnaissance / Feasibility/EIS

$250,000 $250,000

NCSPA Coordination for Scoping of Upland EIS with State Agencies

$250,000

USACOE Hydrographic and Bathymetric Surveys $500,000 USACOE USACOE Channel Reconnaissance Study1

Sub Total $750,000 $500,000


5 | P a g e

Cost Shared Activities (Assumed to be 50/50 Cost Share)

USACOE3 Channel Feasibility Study $7,500,000 $4,000,000 USACOE3 Channel EIS $3,500,000 $7,000,000 USACOE3 Public Draft EIR/EIS2 $500,000 USACOE3 Final EIR/EIS2 $500,000 USACOE3 Certification /Record of Decision2 $50,000 USACOE3 Permitting2 $1,000,000 USACOE3 NEPA Special Studies2 $500,000

USACOE3 Development and Permitting of Upland, near shore, and offshore dredge disposal sites2

$1,000,000

USACOE3 Beneficial Uses for Dredged Material2 $75,000 USACOE3 Dredge Management / Monitoring2 $250,000 USACOE3 Public Involvement2 USACOE3 Impact Mitigation Plan2 USACOE3 Wave and Wake Effects2 $50,000

USACOE3 Environmental and Regulatory Permitting Compliance Plan2

$100,000

USACOE3 Social Cost of Alternative Land Development Scenarios2

$35,000

USACOE3 Water Quality2 $200,000 USACOE3 Biology2 $75,000 USACOE3 Cultural Resources2 $50,000 USACOE3 Human Health Risk Assessment2 $50,000 USACOE3 Noise2 $75,000 USACOE3 Air Quality2 $125,000 USACOE3 Work Hazards2 $50,000 USACOE3 Dredged Material Management2 $500,000 USACOE3 River Waste Quality Modeling Study2 $500,000 USACOE3 Sediment Quality Evaluations2 $50,000 USACOE3 Mitigation monitoring Plan2 $75,000

Channel Feasibility Study/EIS Subtotal $16,810,000 $11,000,000

NCSPA Cost Share Subtotal $16,810,000 $5,500,000Footnote 1: 100% Federal Cost (Cost of Study $100,000) Footnote 2: Part of channel EIS Footnote 3: Cost shared with the NCSPA


6 | P a g e

Table 3. Joint NCSPA / USACOE Responsibilities (cont) Responsible

Party Project Activity

The Plan Cost*

TEC Cost

Upland Development EIS Activities NCSPA Upland Development EIR/EIS $4,000,000 NCDOT3 Upland Permitting and Agreements4

NCDOT3 Vehicular and Railroad Traffic and Transportation Assessment3

$250,000

NCDOT3 Corridor Alternative Analysis ‐ Rights of Ways, channel alignment, grade crossings4

$350,000

NCDOT3 Environmental Mitigation Site Survey4 $500,000 NCDOT3 Material Sourcing / Logistics Plan4 $150,000 NCDOT3 Adjacent Land Use Impact Plan4 $50,000

Upland EIS Subtotal $1,300,000 $4,000,000

EIS Outcome Dependent Studies

USACOE3 Permitting of Disposal Sites5 USACOE3 Subsurface Investigation Offshore of Site $500,000

EIS Outcome Activity Subtotal $500,000 $0

Permitting Studies Total $19,360,000 $15,500,000

NCSPA Permitting Responsibilities $19,360,000 $10,000,000 Footnote 3: Cost shared with the NCSPA Footnote 4: Part of upland EIS Footnote 5: Results of EIS will determine requirements.

A portion of the permitting task effort is typically included among the EIR/EIS tasks. Permitting support documentation consists of the approved EIR / EIS reports and background information. Dredge disposal sites, either upland, near shore, or offshore, have been previously approved and permitted for dredge disposal. A portion of the permitting effort for dredge disposal is handled during the EIR / EIS review process and coordination with the USACOE and local regulatory agencies and the cost for the task has been adjusted by TEC to reflect the anticipated permitting effort.

The Plan has line items for individual studies to be performed in addition to the EIR/EIS, these line items are listed in the Cost Shared Activities subsection of Table 3. Some of the listed additional studies are typically tasks performed during an EIR/EIS studies, such as:

Regional Road and Rail Logistics Subsurface Investigation Offshore of the Site Wave and Wake Effects Environmental and Regulatory Permitting Compliance Plan Social Cost of Alternative Land Development Scenarios Water Quality Study Biological Study Cultural Resources Human Health Risk Assessment Noise Study Air Quality Work Hazards


7 | P a g e

Dredged Material Management River Waste Quality Modeling Study Sediment Analysis Channel Alignment Alternative Analysis Mitigation Monitoring Plan

We believe these additional individual study costs are redundant, as they are typically already included in the EIR/EIS report line item. Using the information in Table 3, the tasks removed present a potential initial cost saving of $5,810,000.

The development of the terminal will require the terminal operator to perform some activities in order to customize the terminal for their operating and management style. These activities are the option of the terminal operator to perform. The activities and their estimated costs are listed in Table 4:

Table 4. Terminal Engineering & Planning

Responsible Party


Cost* TEC Cost

Private Terminal Operations Programming $500,000 Private Construction Phasing Plan $200,000 Private Detailed Program Schedule $200,000 Private Detailed Cost Estimate $200,000 Private Ongoing Evaluation of Project Economics $200,000 Private Business Plan Refinement $350,000 Private Vessel Mooring $35,000

Private Sustainable Land Development Best Practices Assessment and Incorporation Plan

$35,000

Private Project Implementation Assistance $250,000 Private Institutional Development Assistance $250,000 Private Regional Road and Rail Logistics $100,000

SECTION D Subtotal $2,220,000 $0

Summary

The development of the terminal is dependent on coordination with multiple parties. The EIS process for realignment of the channel and dredging of the current channel to accommodate the larger vessels is the most time intensive portion of the process.

The Work Plan developed in the existing NCIT Terminal Development Plan identifies costs and tasks associated with the development of the terminal, but does not associate responsibility for those tasks. Many of the tasks are cost shared between federal agencies and private entities. The Work Plan also lists tasks that are typically included as subtasks within the larger reports and studies while omitting some tasks that should be included with the cost estimate. It was not clear whether the identified costs were considered to be cost shared and if the unidentified tasks were included with the major task items. Table 5 - Comparison of Project Costs and Responsibilities identifies TEC’s alternative list of costs and cost sharing opportunities of the Work Plan.

DRAFT Report – Chapter 7

8 | P a g e

Table 5 – Comparison of Project Development Costs and Responsibilities

Responsible Party ACTIVITY ESTIMATED NCSPA

COSTS Foot Notes

Comments

NCSPA

Private Sector

USACOE NCDOT The Plan TEC

SEC

TIO

N A

- P

PP P

acka

ge a

nd M

arke

ting

X

Refine of Market Studies and Assumptions

$250,000 Current Marketing Work to be improved.

X

Refine Development Plan and Costs

$500,000

Finalize Development Plan and Cost Estimates and Pro-forms for PPP Package

X

Develop PPP Package and Market to Private Sector

$250,000

X

Develop PPP and Market to Rail Operators

$250,000

Need to privatize Rail Opportunity

X

Refine Financing Plan

$350,000

Included in development of PPP package

X

Adjacent Real Estate Market Options

$50,000

Optional Study by Private Sector

Legal Support $3,000,000 $3,000,000

X

Develop Concession Agreements (terminal and rail)

$1,000,000 $1,000,000 1

Legal support to finalize concession agreements

X

Coordination with NCDOT for Highway Access

$250,000

X

Project Risk Profiling and Mitigation Plan

$100,000

Part of PPP

SECTION A

Total $4,500,000 $5,500,000 NCSPA Costs

SE

CT

ION

B –

Adv

anci

ng T

erm

inal

D

evel

opm

ent D

ata

X Preliminary Geotechnical Testing

$350,000 $50,000 1 Only need Preliminary data on Terminal

X

Preliminary Property Data

$1,500,000 $50,000 1 Terminal Property Information

X

Preliminary Access Mapping

$100,000 1 Property information for Terminal Access

SECTION B Total

$1,850,000 $200,000


9 | P a g e

SE

CT

ION

C –

P

erm

ittin

g S

tudi

es

X

Up-front Coordination with USACE for Channel Reconnaissance / Feasibility/EIS

$250,000 $250,000 1

X

Coordination for Scoping of Upland EIS with State Agencies

$250,000 1

X

Hydrographic and Bathymetric Surveys

$500,000 1 Assumed to Be USACE Cost

X

USACOE Channel Reconnaissance Study

100% Federal Cost (Cost of Study $100,000

SECTION C (Part one) Sub

Total $750,000 $500,000


10 | P a g e


COSTS Foot Notes

Comments

NCSPA

Private Sector


Cost Shared Activities (Assumed to be 50/50 Cost Share)

SE

CT

ION

C -

Per

mitt

ing

Stu

dies

X USACOE Channel Feasibility Study

$7,500,000 $4,000,000 All USACE Costs to be 50/50 Cost Shared

X USCOE Channel EIS $3,500,000 $7,000,000

X Public Draft EIR/EIS $500,000 Part of channel EIS

X Final EIR/EIS $500,000 Part of channel EIS

X

Certification /Record of Decision

$50,000

Part of channel EIS

X Permitting $1,000,000 Part of channel EIS

X NEPA Special Studies $500,000 Part of channel EIS

X

Development and Permitting of Upland, near shore, and offshore dredge disposal sites

$1,000,000

Part of channel EIS

X

Beneficial Uses for Dredged Material

$75,000

Part of channel EIS

X

Dredge Management / Monitoring

$250,000

Part of channel EIS

X Public Involvement 2,3 Part of channel EIS

X Impact Mitigation Plan 2 Part of channel EIS

X Wave and Wake Effects $50,000 2 Part of channel EIS

X

Environmental and Regulatory Permitting Compliance Plan

$100,000 2 Part of channel EIS

X

Social Cost of Alternative Land Development Scenarios


X Water Quality $200,000 2 Part of channel EIS

X Biology $75,000 2 Part of channel EIS

X Cultural Resources $50,000 2 Part of channel EIS

X

Human Health Risk Assessment


X Noise $75,000 2 Part of channel EIS

X Air Quality $125,000 2 Part of channel EIS

X Work Hazards $50,000 2 Part of channel EIS

X

Dredged Material Management


X

River Waste Quality Modeling Study


X

Sediment Quality Evaluations


X

Mitigation monitoring Plan


Channel Feasibility Study/EIS Subtotal

$16,810,000 $11,000,000

NCSPA Cost Share

Subtotal $16,810,000 $5,500,000


11 | P a g e


COSTS Foot Notes

Comments

NCSPA

Private Sector


Upland Development EIS Activities

SE

CT

ION

C -

Per

mitt

ing

Stu

dies

X

Upland Development EIR/EIS

$4,000,000

Private Sector Partner Should "reimburse" costs after completion of EIS Process (Concession Fees)

X

X Upland

Permitting and Agreements

Part of upland EIS

X

X

Vehicular and Railroad Traffic and Transportation Assessment

$250,000

Part of upland EIS

X

x

Corridor Alternative Analysis - Rights of Ways, channel alignment, grade crossings

$350,000

Part of upland EIS

X

Environmental Mitigation Site Survey

$500,000

Part of upland EIS

X

X Material Sourcing / Logistics Plan

$150,000 1 Part of upland EIS

X

X Adjacent Land Use Impact Plan

$50,000

Part of upland EIS

Upland EIS

Subtotal $1,300,000 $4,000,000

EIS Outcome Dependent Studies

X X

Permitting of Disposal Sites

Results of EIS will determine requirements.

X X

Subsurface Investigation Offshore of Site

$500,000

Results of EIS will determine requirements.

EIS Outcome

Activity Subtotal $500,000 $0

SECTION C - Permitting Studies

Total $19,360,000 $15,500,000

NCSPA Permitting Responsibilities

$19,360,000 $10,000,000


12 | P a g e


COSTS Foot Notes

Comments

NCSPA

Private Sector


SE

CT

ION

D -

Ter

min

al E

ngin

eeri

ng a

nd P

lann

ing

X Terminal Operations Programming

$500,000 Developer's option and responsibility.

X

Construction Phasing Plan

$200,000

Developer's option and responsibility.

X

Detailed Program Schedule

$200,000


X

Detailed Cost Estimate $200,000


X

Ongoing Evaluation of Project Economics

$200,000


X

Business Plan Refinement

$350,000


X

Vessel Mooring $35,000


X

Sustainable Land Development Best Practices Assessment and Incorporation Plan

$35,000


X

Project Implementation Assistance

$250,000


X

Institutional Development Assistance

$250,000


X

Regional Road and Rail Logistics

$100,000


SECTION D Subtotal $2,320,000 $0

PROJECT ACTIVITY

SUB-TOTAL $28,030,000 $21,200,000

CONTINGENCY (15%) $4,204,500 $3,180,000

TOTAL COST $32,234,500 $24,380,000

ANTICIPATED NCSPA COSTSECTION COST NOTES

PPP PACKAGING & MARKETING $5,500,000 Section A

ADVANCING TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT $200,000 Section B

PERMITTING STUDIES Section C

EARLY STUDIES $500,000

CHANNEL FEASIBILITY $5,500,000 Assumed 50/50 cost share

U UPLAND EIS $4,000,000

NCSPA SUB-TOTAL $15,700,000

CONTINGENCY (15%) $2,355,000

TOTAL $18,055,000

Foot Notes

1 The costs shown for these tasks are from the NCIT Work plan and TEC concurs that they are reasonable estimates.

2

These items are studies and tasks which are required actions under the EIR/EIS process and are therefore part of the EIR/EIS cost.

3

Public Involvement is the cost associated with attendance and participation in public meetings. The Plan did not appear to have a line item cost associated with this task.

North Carolina International Terminal

Project Development Costs

Budget Estimate

Project Year # # # # # # # # # # # #

DRAFT Project Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Construction Phase Construction Phase Construction Phase Start of Ops

Key MilestoneR

e

c

R

e

c

Approp for

FeasibilityFeasbility Study Feasbility Study Feasbility Study

Concessionaire

SelectedPermits Complete Construction Start

Construction

Complete

Program Task, Work Item or Study Budget Estimate

($000's)Totals ($000's) Notes

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Adjacent real estate market analysis $50 Nominal effort assumed to be required 50$

Terminal operations programming $500 Represents a detailed evaluation & simulation of all planned

operational compnents 500$

Comprehensive community participation and outreach Assumes increasing community outreach activities over the

course of the development cycle, and into construction. X X X X X X X X X X X

Geotechnical testing and analysis $350 Subsurface investigation efforts primarily on landside assets 350$

Initial Program Management to help with scoping for

Reconn/early Feasibility

$250

83$ 83$ 83$

Project risk profiling and mitigation planning $100 Prelminary efforts required to identify unique risks, and mitigate

early in the process 100$

Sub Total $1,250

Detailed North Carolina International Terminal master

plan

Further refinement of the infrastructure report, providing detailed

development plans for the NCIT facility - tying project to financing

alternatives X X X X X

Corridor Alternatives Analyses; right of way, channel

alignment, grade crossings

$350 Detailed alternatives analyses of off-site infrastructure features

350$

Surveys (landside, terminal, roadway, and rail) $1,500 Land survey of terminal and landside access corridors 750$ 750$

Support for government funding Assumes ongoing activities to capture State and Federal funding

for key components of the project - across a seven year

development cycle X X X X X X X X 100$

Adjacent land use and impact plan $50 Recognizes some effort may be required to mitigate potential

impacts to adjacent properties - however, current industrial

zoning indicates this may be a minor effort 50$

Construction phasing plan $200 A detailed construction phasing plan will be required to integrate

the major components of the project, to be refined over time200$

Detailed program schedule $200 A detailed project schedule will be required in order to command

time commitments, detail critical paths, and focus resources200$

Detailed cost estimate $200 The concept level cost estimate will need to be further developed,

and refined against the construction phasing plan 200$

Materials Sourcing / logistics plan $150 A sourcing study will be required for each of the major project

elements - assumes terminal, roadway, and railway upgrades -

integrates with cost estimate 150$

Ongoing evaluation of project economics $200 Assumes consistent update to economic model, as cost data

continues to be refined 67$ 67$ 67$

Financing plan $350 A detailed financing strategy and plan will be required for

elements not to be included under the concession - important to

demonstrate that related infrastructrue will be committed to 175$ 175$

Business plan refinement $350 As the market continues to evolve, the concept level business

plan will continue to evolve - continuously improving the level of

detail included 117$ 117$ 117$

Integration of stakeholder and community

requirements / partnerships

Involves coordination with stakeholder and community needs,

development of a coordination plan, and future implementation of

common infrastructure opportunities X

State and local infrastructure improvements Plan for incorporation of resultant State and local infrastructure

improvements, indentified from stakeholder and community

requirements / partnerships X

Social Cost of Alternative Land Development

Scenarios (SCALDS)

$35 Study to verify highest and best use, from a social sustainability

perspective 35$

Environmental and regulatory permitting compliance

plan

$100 Development of the strategy to ensure compliance with

regulatory requirements 100$

Sustainable land development best practices

assessment and incorporation plan

$35 Study to document those land development practices that will be

implemented throughout the course of the project 35$

Memorandum of cooperation with ILWU (semi-

automated/automated terminal)

Negotiation and agreement with ILWU on terminal labor

operations, staffing, etc. X

Project labor agreement Negotitation and agreement with construction labor on

requirements during construction of the project X

Program controls A comprehensive program controls system should be developed

for monitoring progress, ensuring cost and schedule compliance,

and meeting quality standards X

Program Management, Implementation / Coordination Assumes appropriate level of program management throughout

seven year development program X X X X X X X X X X

Project implementation assistance (commissioning

plan)

$250

250$

Institutional development assistance $250 Assumes a level of coordination will be required at the

organizational level - recognizing that a portion of existing

container business would be potentially relocated 250$

Vessel mooring $35 A mooring analysis would be necessary to finalize unique

structural requirements for the wharf design 35$

Wave and wake effects $50 Necessary for both mooring analyses, and preliminary

environmental impacts 50$

Subsurface inspection offshore of the site $500 Geotechnical analysis of underwater features, data to be used in

channel design 500$

Regional road and rail logistics plan $100 100$

Sub Total $4,905

Concession marketing, RFP development, and

implementation

A detailed RFP strategy will be required to secure the concession

- this would involve development of the RFP, information

memoranda, conducting meetings, and responding to questionsX X

Contract documents and concession agreements $1,000 Concession negotiations, contract development, signing, etc. 500$ 500$

Sub Total $1,000

Pre-Design

Engineering and Planning Services

NEPA review and Permitting

Privitization

Ayers Draft_Development_Costs_with_Expenditure_Timeline 05-2009.xls **DBOFM 5/28/2009

North Carolina International Terminal

Project Development Costs

Budget Estimate

Project Year # # # # # # # # # # # #

DRAFT Project Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Development Phase Construction Phase Construction Phase Construction Phase Start of Ops

Key MilestoneR

e

c

R

e

c

Approp for

FeasibilityFeasbility Study Feasbility Study Feasbility Study

Concessionaire

SelectedPermits Complete Construction Start

Construction

Complete

Program Task, Work Item or Study Budget Estimate

($000's)Totals ($000's) Notes

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Pre-DesignSpecial Studies Required for NEPA $500 A contingency factor to cover special studies that are not

identified herein. 125$ 250$ 125$

Vehicular and Railroad Traffic and Transportation

Assessment

$250 Traffic impact analyses required for NEPA

250$

Water Quality $200 Assessment of water quality impacts associated with vessel

navigation, with focus on Nuclear Plant intake channel 200$

Biology $75 Assessment of Biological resources associated with waterside

and landside 75$

Cultural Resources $50 Assumes little to no potential findings in Native American nor

other Cultural resources at the site. 50$

Human Health Risk Assessment $50 Assumes little to no potential health risks, however must be

developed 50$

Noise $75 Noise pollution study 75$

Air Quality $125 Air Quality study 125$

Hazards $50 Other potential hazards - during construction and long-term

operation 50$

Administrative Draft EIR/EIS $3,500 The DEIS document. development, field work, and incorporation

of special studies - assumes Section 203 work is separate for the

Channel effort only. 1,750$ 1,750$

Public Draft EIR/EIS $500 The DEIS document, ready for public comment 500$

Final EIR/EIS $500 The FEIS document 500$

Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) $75 Implementation of the preliminary stages of mitigation and

monitoring requirements identified within the FEIS 75$

Certification/Record of Decision $50 Efforts required to compelte the Record of Decision 50$

Permitting $1,000 Permit applications, submittal of supporting documentations, etc.

Assumes EIS and Sec. 203 efforts provide substantial support in

documentation requirements 1,000$

USACE Feasibility Study (channel) $7,500 The study effort to engage USACE, ultimately resulting in

Federal interest in the Channel development 1,875$ 1,875$ 1,875$ 1,875$

Dredged Materials Management $500 A dredged materials management plan will be required, however

it is assumed that the majority of supporting documentation

would come from the Section 203 Study 500$

Environmental Mitigation Site Survey $500 Begin to address wetland mitigation needs 500$

River Waste Quality Modeling Study $500 Begin to address the river water quality through modeling 500$

Development and permitting of upland, near shore,

and offshore dredge disposal sites

$1,000 Allowance for special permitting for dredged material disposal,

wetlands fill, etc. 500$ 500$

Sediment quality evaluations $50 Special study to investigate quality of potentially dredged

sediments 50$

Hydrographic and Bathymetric Surveys $500 Waterside surveys 500$

Beneficial uses for dredged materials $75 A special study to indepently evaluate beneficial use of dredged

materials for construction of the terminal, roadways, etc.75$

Dredge management/monitoring $250 Implementation of the preliminary stages of dredged material

management monitoring, as required by the permits 250$

Sub Total $17,875

Port Staff engagement Port staff involvement will be required across the assumed eight

year development cycle - assumed as 3 FTE's across the seven

year period X X X X X X X X

Legal Support $3,000 Assumed to be required at the contract development / negotiation

phase, however would involve some involvement across the eight

year development cycle 500$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 500$

Sub Total $3,000

Contingency for Unknowns (15%) $4,205 Contingency on all costs identified, plus port staff engagement -

contingency factor assumed at 15% 294$ 527$ 1,174$ 1,171$ 553$ 461$ -$ 15$ -$ -$

Sub Total $4,205

Total Budget Estimate (Project Development Costs) $32,235 Total Budget Estiamate for Project Development Costs

Total Budget Estimate - Project Development

Costs

$32,235

83$ 83$ 2,252$ 4,037$ 9,003$ 8,980$ 4,236$ 3,536$ -$ 115$ -$ -$

Contingencies for Unknowns

Total Budget Estimate

Port Administration Requirements

Ayers Draft_Development_Costs_with_Expenditure_Timeline 05-2009.xls **DBOFM 5/28/2009