Tioga marine terminal, master plan Prepared for Philadelphia Regional Port Authority

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

TIOGA MARINE TERMINAL
MASTER PLAN

1-7

AUGUST 1994

PROJECT NO. 9405

PREPARED FOR: PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL PORT AUTHORITY
210 WEST WASHINGTON SQUARE
PHILADELPIRA, PA 19106

PREPARED BY: URBAN ENGINEERS, INC.
300 N. 3RD STREET
PRILADELPIUA, PA 19106

Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program

The Tioga Marine Terminal Master Plan

September 30, 1994

DER Grant/Contract No. CZ1:93.02PS
Grant Task No. CZI:93PS.02
ME No. 93256

A REPORT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES TO NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
PURSUANT TO
NOAA AWARD NO. MA370ZO351

PENNSYLVANIA
ZonE

Project was financed' in part through a federal Coastal Zone
Management from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
@0'af 44

Resources, with funds provided by the NOAA. The views expressed
herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL REPORT Page

L INTRODUCTION ......................................................... I
A. Background ................................ * .... *.*- .: ...... I
B. Purpose of Master Plan ......................................... I
C. Planning Assumptions and Issues ................................... 2
D. Master Plan Components ........................................ 3

111. DATA COLLECTION ..................................................... 4
A. Provided Data ................................................ 4
B. Interviews .............. ....... 4
C. Traffic Analysis .............................................. 11
D. Site Visits to Sin-dlar Terminals ................................... 12
E. Environmental Analysis ......................................... 14
F. Property Acquisitions .......................................... 18

III. CONCEPTUAL PLANNING CONCERNS ...................................... 20
A. Market Forecast .............................................. 20
B. Terminal Utilization ........................................... 20
C. Elements of Container Capacity ................................... 21

IV. RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ................................ 24
A. Two Operator Terminal ......................................... 24
B. Single Operator Terminal ........................................ 26
C. Closure of Delaware Avenue ..................................... 27

V. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FINAL REPORT ................................ 29

VI. EXHIBITS

APPENDICES - In Separate Binder
1. PRPA Provided Terminal Activity Reports
li. Strategic Business Plan for the Philadelphia Port Corporation Date October 1988 by
Booz, Allen & Hamilton, hic.
III. Market Based Facilities Plan for the Port of Philadelphia Dated November 13, 1992 by
Martin O'Connell Associates
IV. Philadelphia Container Terminals Capacity Analysis Dated May 1987 by Container
Transport Technology
V. Automatic Vehicle Identification Report for the Tioga Marine Terminal Performed by
Urban Engineers, Inc.
V1. Traffic Study Results of the Tioga Marine Terminal Performed by Urban Engineers,
Inc.
VII. Urban Engineers, Inc., Interview Recaps.
VIII. Urban Engineers, Inc., Other Terminal Site Visit Recaps.
ix. Urban Engineers, Inc. Preliminary Area Reconnaissance Report
Dated September 15, 1994
X. Urban Engineers, hic., Property Acquisition Information, April 13, 1994

EXECUTIVE SUMAIARY

Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA) was established in 1990 as an independent State
Authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. P"A owns several marine terminals in the
Philadelphia area, one of which is the 97 acre Tioga Marine Terminal located on North
Delaware Ave. in the vicinity of Venango Street. At present, Tioga Marine Terminal is leased
to three (3) independent operators. The primary cargo handled at Tioga Marine Terminal is
containerized cargo, fruit and bulk liquids. One of PRPA's goals is to retain and increase the
quantity of cargo handled at Tioga Marine Terminal. Based upon current and project cargo
volumes, PRPA is presently reviewing a five (5) year Capital Improvement Program for Tioga
Marine Terminal.

PRPA has had several reports prepared reflecting the capacity and facilities planning of Tioga
Marine Terminal. Through these reports, PRPA has been apprised of several issues which
must be addressed in order that Tioga Marine Terminal remain competitive in the port industry.
As a result, PRPA has deemed it necessary to invest in several Capital Improvement Projects
aimed at improving efficiency and capacity. PRPA is now interested in obtaining an in depth
Capital Improvement Master Plan. Urban Engineers, Inc. (Urban) was retained by PRPA to
develop this Capital Improvement Master Plan Study. The scope of Urban's services included
an in depth review of the needs related to continued operation of the Terminal by two
scenarios. The first being multiple lessees as presently exists, and the second being a single
operator terminal. A third item of interest which was discovered during the course of
development of the Tioga Capital Improvements Master Plan is that of the partial closure of
Delaware Avenue in the vicinity of Tioga Marine Terminal.

Before Urban could start the development of the Tioga Master Plan, a better understanding of
Terminal operations was required. PRPA made available to Urban three (3) previously
prepared capacity and facilities planning reports as well as Terminal activity reports also for
the Tioga Marine Terminal. In addition, Urban performed interviews with the various
stakeholders to ascertain their comments regarding the existing operations, perceived efficiency
problems, and possible improvements. Interviews were conducted with persons within PRPA,
all three lessees (Crowley American Transport, Inc., Tioga Fruit Terminal, Inc., and General
American Transport, Inc.), one stevedoring company and a PRPA security consultant. A
detailed traffic analysis was performed of the truck traffic both on the Terminal and on
Delaware Avenue. Urban visited similar terminals on the east coast to observe the effects of
the recent capital improvements made at these terminals. Urban provided an environmental
analysis and a Preliminary Area Reconnaissance (PAR) report for two adjacent properties to
Tioga Marine Terminal and Pier 179 and the Northern Lagoon. Urban also performed title
searches on several adjacent properties to determine the feasibility of PRPA expanding Tioga
Marine Terminal's acreage.

After all of the above mentioned data was obtained, Urban began their conceptual planning
stage of Capital Improvement Master Plan Project. Items such as market forecasts, terminal
utilization and the terminal capacities were all taken into account. As a means to evaluate the
feasibility and impacts of the various capital improvements, Urban developed a number of

conceptual plans. After evaluating the merits of each of those conceptual plans, combinations
of the capital improvement schemes were assembled in an attempt to arrive at the two
requested operational plans, including the conceptual plan for the closure of Delaware Avenue.

In summary, Urban has suggested that PRPA pursue the capital improvements as suggested in
our Two Operator Terminal scenario (refer to Exhibit 2). This scheme includes the following
features:

1. Acquisition of the former railroad right-of-way for the entire distance of
Crowley's terminal. This will allow expansion of the terminal to the
Delaware Avenue right-of-way and increase the container yard size by
1.5 acres.

2. In order to allow maximum efficiency, the terminal's paving Is in need
of repair. The terminal's pavement should be restriped to increase
efficient traffic circulation and increase the yard's capacity.

3. Construction of a new 40,000 square foot Container Freight Station at the
northeast comer of the container terminal. Including maneuvering space,
Crowley will lose approximately 1.5 acres.

4. Expansion of the maintenance and repair shop to include four (4)
additional bays. The acquisition of the railroad track will allow the shop
expansion to occur westward so that the driving isle is not affected. The
container terminal would lose approximately 0.25 acres of the 1.5 acres
gained from the relocation of the fence along the Conrail right-of-way.
The expansion of the maintenance and repair shop will include moving
the present operations from the existing carpenter shop to the
maintenance and repair shop.

5. Due to the lighting levels that presently exist and the fact that many
existing light standards/poles will have to be relocated/replaced because
of suggested capital improvements, the existing terminal lighting should
be replaced.

6. The addition of a third container crane would allow for an increase in
berth utilization and productivity. It also would allow the two existing
cranes to be retrofitted one at a time without affecting the container
operation.

7. Demolition of the carpenter's shop, since both Crowley and DRS would
like to move the DRS repair shop to the north end. DRS currently
utilizes the carpenter shop, and must move their equipment from one end
of the terminal to the other. Tioga Fruit would gain approximately 0.6
acres, but more importantly, the bottle neck between the existing
Container Freight Station and the carpenter shop would no longer exist.

Tioga Fruit Terminal will have the final decision regarding the
demolition of this facility. The present carpenter shop operations will be
relocated to the expanded maintenance and repair shop identified above.

8. Relocate Tioga Fruit's employee parking to the west side of Delaware
Avenue at Venango Street. Relocate Crowley's employee parking to the
west side of Delaware Avenue near Wheatsheaf Lane. Tioga Fruit would
gain approximately 1.4 acres of additional laydown space and Crowley
would gain approximately 1. 1 acres of additional laydown space.

9. Tioga III should be converted into a refrigerated transit shed to provide
year round capabilities.

10. Due to the lighting improvements recommended above and increased
electrical requirements for Tioga 111, electrical upgrades are
recommended. These upgrades should include a second PECO Energy
service to be installed to the Tioga II building, and the manual transfer
switch at Tioga I should be replaced with an automatic transfer switch.

11. Construction of a four lane gatehouse in the same location as Tioga
Fruit's present guard house. This gate would accommodate the large
volumes of both fruit and in-transit moves. Tioga Fruit would lose
approximately 1.0 acre of laydown space.

12. Construction of both a new eight-lane gatehouse canopy and a new four-
lane roadability facility for Crowley in the northwest corner of the
container terminal. Crowley would lose approximately 2.8 acres. The
new gatehouse location will provide more queuing space for Crowley.

Urban recommends the Two Operator Terminal scheme, and has prepared an estimated cost
summary for the twelve (12) capital improvements which were suggested. It is estimated that
the total capital cost to PRPA to perform these capital improvements will be approximately
$ 14,500,000. The benefits to Tioga Marine Terminal will far outweigh the capital
expenditure.

0-4

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 1. INTRODUCTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

The Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA) was established in 1990 as an
independent State Authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. of the
Authorities' goals is to retain and increase the quantity of cargo handled at their
port facilities.

One of the major marine terminals in the Philadelphia area is the 97 acre, Tioga
Marine Terminal located on Delaware Avenue in the vicinity of Venango Street
in Philadelphia. At present, the Terminal is owned by PRPA and leased to three
(3) independent operators. The primary cargos handled at Tioga Marine
Terminal are containerized cargo, fruit and bulk liquids. While there are three
lessees at Tioga Marine Terminal, the Terminal is basically divided into two
distinct operations. The third lessee is a bulk liquid transporter which utilizes
two berths on site to dock ships and unload chemicals to their facility on the
west side of Delaware Avenue. For more details regarding the existing
condition of Tioga Marine Terminal, refer to Exhibit I in Section VI this report.

B. PURPOSE OF MASTER PLAN

In 1992, both the container terminal and fruit terminal experienced increased
cargo volumes compared to previous years. The container terminal handled
48,304 TEU's (twenty foot equivalent units) and approximately 1,550 metric
tons of general cargo'. The fruit facility handled over 17.3 million cases of
fruit and exported 12,000 metric tons of new and used automobileS2 . The bulk
liquid storage and distribution operation in 1993 handled 853,454 Metric Tons
of liquids'. Based on current and projected cargo volumes, PRPA is presently
reviewing a five year capital improvement program for Tioga Marine Terminal.

PRPA, Tioga Marine Terminal Activi1y Report Quarterly Report (4th Quarter 1992),
Tioga Container Terminal.

PRPA, Tioga Marine Terminal Activi1y Report Quarterly Report (4th Quarter, 1992),
Tioga Fruit Terminal.

Shay, Al (GATX), Interview, March 22, 1994.

years, PRPA has deemed it necessary to invest in several capital improvement
projects aimed at improving efficiency and capacity. PRPA is now interested
in obtaining an in-depth Capital Improvement Master Plan which should include,
at a minimum, detailed development plans for a new terminal layout. Thus,
PRPA has provided general guidelines of issues which must be addressed under
this Capital Improvement Master Plan. These issues are addressed in more
detail in Section I.D.

PRPA retained Urban Engineers, Inc. (Urban) in February 1994 to undertake this
Capital Improvement Master Plan Study. The scope of services included the in-
depth review of the needs related to continued operation of the Terminal by the
following two scenarios:

1. Multiple lessees as presently exists
2. A single operator Terminal

For both scenarios, the Capital Improvement Master Plan addresses those
modifications which must be performed to alleviate issues which PRPA has
determined to be existing problems. In addition, it shall prepare the Terminal
for any changes in the shipping industry within the identified time frame of five
(5) years. A third item of interest which was not identified in the original Scope
of Work was that of the partial closure of Delaware Avenue for the entire length
of Tioga Marine Terminal. Pertinent issues related to these scenarios are
addressed in more detail in Section IV.

C. PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS AND ISSUES

As mentioned before, PRPA has made available to Urban three (3) previously
prepared capacity and facilities planning reports as well as Terminal activity
reports, all for the Tioga Marine Terminal. It is understood that with the
exception of a traffic analysis study, Urban will be utilizing the information
from the PRPA as a basis for this Master Plan.

There are certain issues that must be considered when evaluating the potential
operational and physical changes to a Terminal. They are the following:

Whether or not the physical infrastructure properly supports the current
operation.

Whether or not a different operating scenario would make better use of
the existing infrastructure.

What improvements to the infrastructure are required to increase the
efficiency of cargo handling.

What improvements to the infrastructure are required to accommodate
expected changes in the global shipping industry.

In an effort to obtain answers to the above questions, Urban performed a series
of informational interviews and site visits to similar, competing marine
terminals. Through the interviewing process, Urban obtained a list Qf items or
concerns which either PRPA or one of the Terminal operators felt should be
addressed as part of the Tioga Master Plan. Urban visited marine terminals in
Baltimore, North Jersey, South Jersey and the Philadelphia area in an effort to
determine what would make Tioga Marine Terminal more efficient.

D. MASTER PLAN COMPONENTS

With the aid of the previously prepared reports (refer to Section IIA - Provided
Data), PRPA developed a list of possible capital improvements for which they
would expect to be included in a Tioga Capital Improvement Master Plan. That
list was presented as part of the Request For Proposal and included the
following components:
Two terminal layouts:
- Terminal layout reflecting a single operator
- Terminal layout reflecting current multiple operators

Cost estimates, schematic design and location of the following suggested
capital improvements:
- Crane rehabilitations
- Container Freight Station of about 40,000 s.f
- Demolition of Pier 179
- Addition of refrigeration to Tioga III building
- New gate complex
- Maintenance shop expansion
-Reefer outlets

Identification of Environmental problems at the facility.

Cost and analysis of filling in the finger Pier 179 and the lagoon areas.

Traffic study to determine location and design of new container terminal
gatehouse.

Determine the condition and feasibility of acquiring the property north
of the Terminal boundary.

I
I
I

- .7
1
I
I
I
I
1 11. DATA COLLECTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

DATA COLLECTION

In an effort to achieve a better understanding of the Scope of Work as well as the
Terminal operations, preliminary steps were taken to obtain background information
available and conduct necessary interviews with interested parties. Listed below is a
brief recap of the information and comments obtained.

A. PROVIDED DATA

The PRPA offered the use,of several existing Tioga Marine Terminal related
reports which were either performed on their behalf or performed by PRPA
themselves. Those reports include the following:

Martin O'Connell Associates, Market Based Facilities Plan for the
Port of Philadelphia, November, 1992

Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., Strategic Business Plan for the
Philadelphia Port CoEporation October, 1988

Container Transport Technology, Philadelphia Container
Terminals CUacily Analysis, May, 1987

Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, Tioga Marine Terminal
Activijy Reports., January 1992 through September 1993

B. INTERVIEWS

In addition to the PRPA provided reports, Urban deemed it necessary to conduct
one on one interviews with the various stake holders to ascertain their comments
to the existing operations, perceived efficiency problems, and possible
improvements. Interviews were conducted with persons within the PRPA as
well as personnel from all 3 lessees, their stevedores, and a PRPA security
consultant. Listed below is a brief summary of the conclusions reached as a
result of these interviews:

Crowley American Tray"ort, Inc.

Crowley American Transport, Inc. (Crowley) is a containerized operation which
operates the northern most 50 acres of Tioga Marine Terminal (refer to Exhibit
I in Section VI of this report). Crowley subsidizes their operation by providing
stevedore services for outside shipping lines as well as In-Transit moves. . In-
Transit moves is a service where containers that have been delivered to a port
other than that which its bill of lading requires, are transported to their intended

port. The International Longshoreman's Association (ILA) rules require that any
such container be transported to the Port of Intent before being shipped to its
final destination. Crowley also provides services for break bulk however, this
entails only approximately 1% of their business'.

Crowley's operation utilizes two berths, two 90,000 lb. Kocks container cranes,
an 8 lane gatehouse for incoming and outgoing traffic, refrigerated container
receptacles, a four bay combination maintenance/repair shop and roadability
shop, a maintenance and repair shop for yard equipment, and a 37,785 s.f.
container freight station. The container freight station is where containers whose
contents are for more than one consignee are stripped or stuffed. Crowley
utilizes the stevedoring services of Delaware River Stevedoring Company
(DRS). Below is a summary of the major issues raised by Crowley:

Container Freight Station -

The present container freight station has significant disadvantages, the
first of which is location. Referring to Exhibit 1, entitled "The Existing
Condition of Tioga Marine Terminal", it is apparent that while Crowley
operates the northern half of the Terminal, the incoming truckers are
required to traverse the Tioga Fruit Terminal to access the container
freight station. This results in conflicts with Tioga Fruit. Secondly, the
structural design of the building includes interior ramps which reduce
capacity, reduce the traffic flow inside of the building, and also creates
a safety concern when these ramps are wet. Due to bonding and security
issues, Crowley notes that the container freight station cannot be
relocated to the west side of Delaware Avenue. Desirable features for
a new container freight station would include cross-dock operation as
well as rail access at the northern end of the Terminal.

Vehicle Queuing -

Terminal security requires that truckers first get approval to enter the
gatehouse area and while doing so they park their vehicles on Delaware
Avenue. Once approved, they are allowed to enter the Terminal. Upon
leaving the Terminal, the same information is required, and as a result,
a queue on the inside of the Terminal, between the gatehouse and
security gate, occurs. Crowley believes that the 8 lanes at the existing
gatehouse are adequate for the forecasted cargo volumes. In addition,

PRPA, Tioga Marine Terminal Activily Report Quarterly Report (4th Quarter, 1992),
Tioga Container Terminal.

queuing of vehicles on Delaware Avenue was noted as an operational
decision by Crowley.

Refrigerated Container Plugs -

A total of 80 new reefer plugs were recently constructed which- are being
used by Crowley. This alleviates the need for Crowley to traverse and
utilize the 40 Reefer plugs located at the north end the Tioga Fruit
Terminal.

Expansion of the Maintenance and Repair Shop -

Crowley suggested that the maintenance and repair shop be expanded to
meet the adequate requirement for mandatory roadability inspection of
trucks. In addition, a better facility for repair of yard vehicles is
desirable since Crowley would like to bring their stevedore's (Delaware
River Stevedores) maintenance shop from the south side of the Terminal
to the northern half

Railroad Access_.:

Crowley noted a need for modified rail access to their terminal. At
present, Crowley is the only tenant who utilizes the existing Conrail lines
through the Tioga Marine Terminal. Unfortunately, the only rail access
to the Terminal comes from the south end of the Terminal requiring that
all Conrail trains traverse through the Tioga Fruit Terminal's operation.
On occasion, tractor trailers are parked on the railroad lines delaying the
delivery and/or pick-up of rail cars. Crowley currently dispatchs 200 rail
cars per month.

K-1 Container Crane Boom Modification -

Crowley noted that the boom on crane K-1 cannot reach to the outer
most thirteenth container on the larger ships servicing the Terminal. This
is not an operational problem at this time. Repairs to the crane rails
were identified as a necessity. A third crane was not viewed as a
requirement provided that the existing 2 cranes are kept in good repair
and that down time is kept to a minimum.

Gatehouse -

A gatehouse, which would combine both Crowley's and Tioga Fruit's
use, was not desirable according to Crowley.

Terminal Lighting -

Crowley noted that the Terminal lighting requires improvement.

Tioga Fruit Terminal, Inc.

Tioga Fruit Terminal, Inc. (Tioga Fruit) primarily handles Chilean fruit on the
southern 47 acres of Tioga Marine Terminal (refer to Exhibit I in Section VI).
Tioga Fruit is a subsidiary of the shipping line CSAV based in Chile, South
America. They have operated at the Tioga Marine Terminal since 1987. Tioga
Fruit utilizes the stevedoring services of Independent Pier Company (EPC).

Tioga Fruit handles a large volume of fruit between the months of November
and May. In order to supplement their business during the off season, Tioga
Fruit handles other commodities. Ever since the closure of Northern Metals in
1993, another increasingly significant component of Tioga Fruit's operation has
become In-Transit moves. They also export new and used automobiles as well
as entertaining passenger cruise ships and general break bulk cargo. These
back-haul and other cargo amounted to approximately 10% of Tioga Fruit
Terminal's annual business in 19925.

Tioga Fruit's operation includes 2 non-refrigerated warehouses totaling 400,000
s.f., a 90,000 s.f. cold storage warehouse, refrigerated container receptacles, 3
berths and available parking space for In-Transit moves. The following is a
summary of the issues raised by Tioga Fruit:

Forecasted Cargo Volumes -

Tioga Fruit does not anticipate any significant changes in their forecasted
cargo volumes (fruit, break bulk, automobiles, passengers, In-Transit
moves).

Vehicle Queuina -

Queuing has become a great concern for Tioga Fruit. They noted that
congestion due to the combination of fruit trucks and In-Transit moves
results in long back-ups outside of their own gate. Also, conflicts occur
between the excessively long queues from Crowley's gatehouse.

PRPA, Tioga Marine Terminal Activi1y Report Quarterly Report (4th Quarter, 1992),
Tioga Fruit Terminal.

Automobiles -

Because Tioga Fruit has agreed to store automobiles undercover for one
of their major customers, they are using the Tioga III building for this
purpose. An undetermined amount of additional covered area for car
storage was identified as being desirable.

Refriaeration Tioga 111-

It was suggested that Tioga III be upgraded to a refrigerated warehouse
to handle the overflow of fruit during the peak fruit season.

Terminal Conflicts -

Tioga Fruit indicated that conflicts exist between their operation and
Crowley's operation due to the location of the Container Freight Station.
Tioga Fruit also pointed out that the rail access to Crowley's Terminal
traverses through Tioga Fruit's operation and hampers it.

Gatehouse -

The suggestion of a combined gatehouse with Crowley was viewed as a
problem due to the differing nature of Tioga Fruit's operation from
Crowley's container operation.

General American Transportation, Inc.

General American Transportation, Inc. (GATX) is a world wide bulk liquid
storage and handling company who operates a storage facility near Tioga Marine
Terminal (refer to Exhibit I in Section VI). GATX currently leases the south
berths adjacent to finger Pier 179 and a berth along the marginal wharf east of
the Tioga H building. From these' two points, a series of pipe lines connect
Tioga Marine Terminal to GATX's tank farm facility immediately across
Delaware Avenue. Consequently, GATX's operation affects the activities of the
Terminal in a minimal manner.

While GATX has a total storage capacity of 1.2 million barrels of liquids at
their facility, in 1993 they posted a throughput of 854,000 metric tons or over
4 million barrels of bulk liquids'. Approximately 90% of their annual
throughput is importation while the remaining 10% is export. The following is
a summary of those issues raised by GATX:

Trovato, Carl (PRPA), Telephone Conversation, August 4, 1994.

Access to Berthing Area -

GATX noted that access to their berthing area is at times cumbersome
since they are required to enter the site through Tioga Fruit's security
gate. GATX proposed the construction of a separate gate for their use
only.

Filling of Pier 179 -

The filling in of Pier 179 was noted as being undesirable especially in
light of the fact that GATX has recently invested in the construction of
a pipe bridge across Delaware Avenue connecting the existing on-site
piping to their tank facility.

Reconstruction of Pier 179 -

GATX recommended that the finger Pier 179 either be reconstructed or
be completely removed to facilitate easier berthing of their ships. They
noted that if the pier was to be reconstructed they could potentially
accommodate two large tanker ships at a time. GATX has disclosed
plans to expand their tank facility sometime in the future.

Delaware River Stevedores, Inc.

Delaware River Stevedores, Inc. (DRS) performs the stevedoring services at the
container terminal on behalf of Crowley. DRS owns and operates all of their
on-site yard equipment including fork lifts, top picks, and yard horses. DRS
generally concurred with those comments which Crowley entered during their
interviews, but also raised several other issues:

Gatehouse -

Regardless of whether the Terminal is a one operator terminal or two
operator terminal, DRS notes that separate gates for the two operations
(fruit and containers) is typical.

Stacking of Containers

DRS has purchased a top pick which is capable of stacking containers
four (4) high. Crowley/DRS' present operation is a wheeled operation
or one which places all full containers on chassis. Empty containers are
either stored on chassis or stacked depending on the shipping line and
availability of chassis.

Philadelphia Regional Port Authorily

The PRPA interviews were conducted with personnel from the Operations, Real
Estate and Strategic Planning Departments. The Operations interviews
confirmed policy issues relating to Tioga Marine Terminal, day to day
operational issues and furnished background information on -the, existing
infrastructure. The Strategic Planning Department provided all of the necessary
data related to the throughput of the three operators for the past several years
and the anticipated cargo volumes during the 5 year time frame of the Master
Plan. During the course of the tenant interviews, the PRPA was informed of the
issues raised by the various other stakeholders. The PRPA raised the following
concerns which should be addressed:

Vehicle Queuin%z -

The queuing of trucks appears to be the worst in the early morning prior
to the terminal opening and during lunch time. This truck traffic parked
on Delaware Avenue is primarily a safety concern.

In-Transit Moves -

PRPA raised the possibility of routing of all of the Tioga Fruit In-Transit
moves through Crowley's gate in lieu of constructing a new gate facility
at the south end of the Terminal (as requested by Tioga Fruit). This
could alleviate the duplication of effort and provide more trucks to the
existing gate facility. Gate capacity is of concern.

Partial Closure of Delaware Avenue -

The full or partial closure of Delaware Avenue would present
opportunity to, among other things, expand the Terminal and isolate the
public traffic from the Terminal traffic.

Container Crane Situation -

PRPA believes the two container cranes are in very good working
condition. They discussed the possibility of adding another container
crane to Tioga Marine Terminal to accommodate the anticipated future
increase in container volumes.

10.

Container Freight Station -

PRPA and Crowley both determined that the size of a new Container
Freight Station could be reduced from 100,000 s.f. to 40,000 s.f. without
restricting the operation.

Finger Pier and the North Lagoon

PRPA requested that Urban investigate the possibility of filling in finger
Pier 179 or the lagoon located at the north end of the marginal wharf as
a possible way to increase the Terminal capacity.

Refrigeration of Tioga III -

PRPA agreed with Tioga Fruit that the refrigeration of the Tioga III
Building would open the door to new opportunities at the Fruit Terminal.
The refrigeration of the 98,500 s.f. building would increase the
marketability of the Terminal.

Additional Terminal Acreage -

PRPA agrees that the limiting factor at Tioga Marine Terminal is its size.
Additional Terminal acreage would provide many opportunities to better
enhance the existing Terminal operations, as well as any future
operations.

C. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

This section summarizes the data collection and analysis performed by Urban
on the existing vehicle traffic and queuing at Tioga Marine Terminal. The
information developed provides a baseline for evaluating the impact of the
various proposed improvements included in the Master Plan.

Traffic and queuing counts were manually performed during the week of March
28, 1994. During this week a total of five ships arrived, three container ships
and two fruit ships. During the fruit season (November to May) the truck
activity is at its busiest, therefore this week was considered to be a good
representative basis for evaluating capacity and traffic conflict issues. The counts
were conducted at the following on-site and off-site locations:

Delaware Ave. in front of Crowley's terminal entrance

Delaware Ave. in front of Tioga Fruit's terminal entrance

On-site between Crowley's gatehouse and security gate

On-site at Tioga Fruit's Trailer Interchange Receipt gate

Patterns which were observed indicated heavy volumes of traffic the day of a
ship arrival at the fruit terminal and slowly tapering off over the next-two days.
At the container terminal, it was observed that the most active days are the
day before and the day after a ship arrival. The temporal distribution of traffic
varied by the day and by the Terminal activity.

The results of the Traffic Study are as follows:

25% of all trucks entering/exiting the container terminal were bobtails
(i.e. no trailer)

19% of the trucks entering/exiting the fruit terminal were bobtails and
1% were auto carriers.

75% of all truck traffic on the fruit terminal utilized the Trailer
Interchange Receipt (TIR) booth. In other words, approximately 400 of
the 526 trucks on that particular day were In-Transit moves and the
remaining 126 trucks were for either fruit, autos, or break bulk.

For more information regarding the above mentioned traffic data refer to Urban
Engineers, Inc. Summary of Existing Traffic Conditions at Tioga Marine
Terminal in the Appendices'.

D. SITE VISITS TO SIMILAR TERMINALS

With the knowledge that competing marine terminals have made significant
capital expenditures within the past twelve years in order to upgrade their
physical plant, Urban deemed it worthwhile to visit some of these terminals. The
ports of New York have invested approximately $797 million since 1982 and the
ports in Baltimore have invested approximately $424 million in the same time
span'. During each site visit, Urban would meet with the head of the
Operations Department for that facility, at which time inquiry was made about
the basic operation of the terminal, capacity, general cargos, future

7 Urban Engineers, Inc. SummM of Existing Traffic Condition at Tioga Marine
Terminal April 14, 1994.

Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., Strategic Business Plan for the Philadelphia Port
CoLporation October 1988, Page 1-6.

12.

improvements, etc. Upon completion of the interview, an informational tour of
the facility was conducted.

The following terminals were visited:

Sealand Service, Inc., Elizabeth, N.J.

Aside from the 250 acre, 6 Berth Terminal itself, a point of interest is the
150,000 s.f. Central Examination Station (CES). This is where U.S
Customs performs their inspection of 80 - 100 containers per day.

Seagirt Marine Terminal, Baltimore, MD.

The 275 acre terminal is an "open terminal" operation where the current
five (5) shipping lines all share the same berths, cranes, warehouse, etc.
Seagirt's state of the art gatehouse complex and double trolley gantry
cranes were of great interest.

Dundalk Marine Terminal, Baltimore, MD.

This 570 acre, 13 Berth Terminal currently handles 150,000 containers
per year along with large volumes of automobiles, break bulk and project
cargos. As many as 50 shipping lines operate at this terminal.

Del Monte Fresh Produce Terminal, Camden, N.J.

This terminal has a very consistent flow of fruit. One ship arrives on
Monday, 52 weeks a year. They handle Costa Rican fruits such as
pineapples, bananas, various melons, coconuts and sweet com in the
35,000 s.f. refrigerated warehouse.

Penn Terminal, Eddystone, PA

This multi cargo terminal is owned and operated by the same company
and they stay busy due to the competitive labor provided by the
Boilermakers Union.

13.

E. ENVIRONMIENTAL ANALYSIS

Trash Incinerator Site

A Preliminary Area Reconnaissance (PAR)' was conducted at the site of the
former City of Philadelphia trash incinerator located adjacent to the northern
property line of Tioga Marine Terminal. This study was presented to PRPA in
a separate report and its salient points are summarized here. More information
regarding this matter can be found in the complete report in the appendices.
The goal of the Preliminary Area Reconnaissance was to determine the potential
presence of hazardous or other environmentally sensitive waste at the trash
incinerator site which might affect its viability of expanding Tioga Marine
Terminal onto its site. The work was based on a site reconnaissance, historical
files, document reviews, and the use of Environmental Risk Imaging and
Information Services. No intrusive methods (i.e. sampling, drilling, etc.) were
used to prepare the Preliminary Area Reconnaissance report.

The site contains an incinerator building, Philadelphia Water Department Sludge
Line, office building, several small buildings, and a settling basin for storm
water runoff. The major structures were constructed in 1956. Approximately
60% of the site is covered with either asphalt or concrete paving.

Based on the Preliminary Area Reconnaissance, the following areas of concern
were determined:

Numerous stains from former use of the property observed at the site
indicate potential contamination.

Former coal stockpiles located on the Tioga Marine Terminal and the
Philadelphia Electric Company properties may have potential to
contaminate surficial soils along the property lines.

Water runoff is depositing sediment in the settling basin.

The incinerator building, with an emphasis on asbestos containing
materials (general building materials, heat insulation).

The contents of several aboveground storage tanks and drums are
unknown.

Urban Engineers, Inc., Preliminga Area Reconnaissance Report September 15, 1994.

14.

Groundwater quality should be checked due to storage tanks, collection
bins, sludge pipes, etc.

Dredge spoils from the Delaware River and fill material may be on the
premises.

Prior to PRPA making a decision to proceed with any development on this site,
it is recommended that additional investigations be undertaken to further
characterize the site. Groundwater monitoring is also recommended. Urban
approximates that the cost of the investigation, sampling and report would be
$40,000 to $60,000 and take up to 6 months to complete.

Conrail Right-Qf-Wgy

At this time, there are two abandoned railroad tracks running parallel to
Delaware Avenue. They start at Tioga Street and run north between the
property line of the Terminal and Delaware Avenue. By definition, the railroad
ties and ballast from these tracks would be considered residual waste. The
potential also exists for hazardous materials to be present along the right-of-way
due to the nature of the materials previously hauled along the rail lines.

Prior to the PRPA making a decision to proceed with the acquisition of this
property, it is recommended that samples of the ballast material and surface soil
be taken at periodic intervals along the rail line. These samples should be
analyzed to classify the materials as either residual or hazardous waste. Urban
approximates that the cost of the sampling and characterization would be
$15,000 to $20,000 and take up to 2 months to complete.

Pier 179 and Northern Lagoon

One of the required items included within the Scope of Work for the Master
Plan project was to provide an analysis and cost of filling in the two berths
adjacent to finger Pier 179 and also the lagoon area located north east of the
container terminal. In addressing the possibility of filling in wetlands along the
Delaware River, Urban researched the required steps which would be
encountered if this option was pursued. Meetings were held with the Urban
Waterfront Action Group and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Both entities
reached similar conclusions.

It would be very difficult to receive authorization to fill in either piers 179
(north or south) and it would be even more difficult to fill in the lagoon area.
They cited recent cases along the Delaware River where the Fish and Wildlife
Service in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had
expressed several reservations regarding "negative" impacts to shallow water

15.

habitat and to migratory fish patterns. These agencies have held up projects in
close proximity to Tioga Marine Terminal which proposed less then two (2)
acres of fill because field surveys indicated the presence of over 26 different
species of fish and other wildlife would be affected. The proposed filling in of
Piers 179 north and south involves approximately 9 acres and the lagoon
involves approximately 16.5 acres.

As a minimum, the filling in of Pier 179 and the lagoon would require the
following:

A complete bio-habitat survey

Identification of subsurface habitat

Identification of depths of habitat material

Identification of nesting and spawning areas

Address shading impacts

The following are the regulatory reviews that are required to fill in the Pier 179 and
the Northern Lagoon:

Regulatofy Agency Reviews:

1. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Urban Waterfront Action Group (UWAG)

2. Delaware River Basin Commission

3. City of Philadelphia

a. Zoning Permit
b. Use Registration

4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit with PADER

5. U.S. Coast Guard

6. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
(PADER) Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit Joint Chapter 105
Wetlands Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review

16.

7. PA Historical and Museum Commission (PI-IMC) Review

8. PA Department of Community Affairs

The time frame to complete permitting and start filling the area is as follows:

1. Presentation to UWAG - meets once a month ................ 60 days

2. Preparation of Wildlife Survey and fisheries ........... 12 to 18 months

3. Submission of Joint Applications and Wildlife Reports

a. Corps of Engineers
b. PADER
C. PHMC
d. City Water Department

4. Review of Applications for completeness ................... 30 days

5. Technical Review of Applications ........................ 90 days

6. Preparation of Response to Questions
Document Revisions ............................. 3 0 to 60 days

7. Review of Questions and Answers ..................... 30 to 60 days

8. Preparation of Public Notice, Announcements,
Public Hearing, Public Comment Period .................... 60 days

9. Preparation of Response to Public Questions
and Hearing Comments ........................... 30 to 60 days

10. Receipt of Preliminary Approvals
(Above mentioned items I through 9) ............... 23 to 32 months

If approval is achieved:

11. Preparation of Design Documents ................... 6 to 12 months

12. Regulatory Review of Construction Documents ........... 60 to 90 days

13. Public Bidding ................................. 60 to 90 days

TOTAL .................................... 33 to 50 months

17.

The above mentioned approval process would be expected to take 23 to 32
months to be completed. If the results of in-depth study permits filling in, the
area would then be classified. Based upon the classification, a mitigation site
in the same geographical watershed area would have to be constructed in order
to duplicate the lost habitats. Depending on the classification, the mitigation
could be from a 1: 1 ratio all the way up to a 4:1 ratio. The availability of
shallow water habit areas around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is limited.

Based upon a classification requiring a mitigation ratio of I to 1.5 acres, Urban
approximates that the cost to fill in Pier 179 (9 acres) and build a new bulkhead
and cell system would be $ 21,875,100.00 and the cost to fill in the northern
lagoon (16.5 acres) would be $ 33,982,000.00. The time frame to obtain
permits, receive approval, design, and bid the construction will range from 33
to 50 months.

F. PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS

During the course of the Master Planning process, it was discovered that on of
the limiting factors of the container throughput at Tioga Marine Terminal was
not the capacity of the cranes, berths or gates, but the capacity of the yard itself.
A previously prepared report stated that in 1986 Tioga Marine Terminal had the
following maximum container capacities'0:

Berth Capacity 52,000 containers/year
Crane Capacity 126,000 containers/year
Gate Capacity 86,000 containers/year
Yard Capacity 60,000 containers/year

Since 1986, few if any changes have been made to the infrastructure at Tioga
Marine Terminal which would lead us to believe that the theoretical yard
capacity of the Terminal would remain the same. Aside from making changes
in the operational techniques (reduce container dwell times, change to a
grounded operation, stacking containers four high, etc.) the only other way to
increase yard capacity is to expand the yard acreage.

Many of the recommended capital improvements will require the acquisition of
several off-site properties. Prior to Urban suggesting that a certain parcel of

'0 Container Transport Technology, Philadelphia Container Terminals Capacity Analysis,
May 1987, Page 27 (Table 3).

Matin O'Connell Associates, Market Based Facilities Plan for the Port of Philadelphia,
November, 1992, (Pages 1-13 and 111-5).

18.

land be purchased, research was performed to determine the feasibility of the
PRPA purchasing the land.. The City of Philadelphia Tax Assessors Office and
Department of Records were both visited and title searches were performed for
the various properties.

The following information was recovered:

Location: City of Philadelphia's Northeast Incinerator
Owner: City of Philadelphia Department of Public Property
Present Use: The east half of the property is the incinerator and
it has been abandoned since 1972. The western
half is still is being used by the Streets
Department.

Location: West of Delaware Ave. and South of Wheatsheaf Lane
Owner: City of Philadelphia Department of Public Property
Lessee: Philadelphia Water Department
Present Use: Vacant field

Location: South of Venango St. between Delaware Ave. and Carbon
St.
Owner: City of Philadelphia Department of Public Property
Lessee: Philadelphia Gas Works
Present Use Vacant field and trailer storage

Location: Railroad between Delaware Ave. and the Terminal
propeqy line
Owner: A branch of the Penn Central Kensington and
Tacony Branch. The owner is Conrail.
Present Use Abandoned line

19.

III

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 111. CONCEPTUAL
PLANNING CONCERNS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

M. CONCEPTUAL PLANNING CONCERNS

A. MARKET FORECAST

As part of the PRPA provided data, Urban received copies of a market based
facilities plan, and a strategic business plan and capacity analysis, -all-addressing
Tioga Marine Terminal. This Capital Improvement Master Plan does not attempt
to duplicate those studies, but rather utilize certain information from them as a
basis for the master planning process. These are the market forecasts which
Urban used during the study:

It is anticipated that the activity on the container terminal at Tioga will
increase from its present volume of 48,000 container per year to 80,000
per year within the next decade.

It is anticipated that the activity in the fruit industry will remain the
same.

Activity in other cargo markets such as automobiles, break bulk,
passengers, etc. are incidental to this study. These cargos are
supplemental since Tiog4 Marine Terminal is considered to be a
container and fruit terminal.

The conclusion reached as a result of the provided market forecasts is that the
Tioga Master Plan should address ways to increase capacity and to increase the
ability to efficiently handle the current and projected volume of cargo.

B. TERMINAL UTHJZATION

The Tioga Marine Terminal is currently operated as if it were two separate
terminals handling two distinctly different cargos. There are occasions when
there is joint utilization of the Terminal's facilities such as the use of a crane or
the reefer plugs, but this is on an infrequent basis. As outlined in the project
scope of work, Urban was required to provide a terminal layout including
suggested capital improvements for both a single operator terminal and the
present situation of a dual operator terminal. It should be noted that there are
advantages and disadvantages to both.

Single Operator -

Internal coordination between containers and fruit is better. This reduces
conflicts (i.e. railroad delays).

20.

Allows the elimination of redundant facilities such as maintenance shops,
roads, and reefers.

Allows greater flexibility in berthing arrangements.

Security is the responsibility of one organization.

Dual Operator -

Accommodates smaller, specialized tenants who handle either fruit or
containers.

Allows for flexibility to have a multi-use terminal.

Less capital expenditures since it is present situation.

Diversification allows greater intensity of each operation.

C. ELEMENTS OF CONTAINER CAPACITY

For the time frame of this study, both fruit and containers will be the main cargo
handled at Tioga Terminal. The recommended capital improvements discussed
later in this report attempt to enhance the current operations in a manner which
is consistent with PRPA's policies, but also provide flexibility should conditions
change. Obviously, suggested capital improvements which support both a single
and a dual operator terminal are advantageous. As was documented via the
previously prepared reports, the Terminal operations can have a profound impact
on the calculated capacity of a terminal's throughput. Thus, approval of capital
improvements to accommodate increased throughput should be closely evaluated
against possible changes in operational procedures used by the tenant(s).

There are four key elements which affect the overall capacity of the container
terminal. First is, the berth capacity, the second is the crane capacity, the third
is the yard capacity and fourth is the gate capacity. In addressing the desire to
achieve a throughput of 80,000 containers per year, the present operating
policies have been assumed to continue, however where operational changes
would impact capacity, these issues will be discussed.

Berth Capacity -

Berth capacity for the container terminal is a function of the length of the
marginal wharf, the number of cranes, the crane production rate, and the
occupancy of the individual berths. Based on the size of the present Panamax
container ships (650' to 750' in length) calling at Tioga, the 1400 If. berth of the

container terminal can effectively be considered a two (2) berth terminal. Based
on typical crane production rates, a range of berth capacities is between 40,000
and 70,000 containers per year (previous reports show 52, 000)12 . The PRPA
has identified that the growth in the container volume is expected to occur with
an increase in the containers per ship. This will effectively increase the
allowable berth occupancy by reducing the ship maneuvering timein relation to
the time spent actually unloading and loading.

Berth Utilization and Crane Cna@j@-

The theoretical crane capacity of 126,000 containers per year is well in excess
of both the berth and yard capacity". A third crane would help to increase
berth utilization by allowing either three cranes to operate on one ship (instead
of two at present) or if two ships were at dock, two cranes could work the
heavier activity ship while the third crane could be working the second ship. In
addition, a third crane would increase berth productivity by providing a spare
should down time occur. It would also allow for the retrofit of the two existing
cranes (one at a time), while still providing two container cranes for Crowley's
use.

As a result an expensive crane rail turntable would be required to be
constructed to connect the diverging crane rail tracks. In addition, the projected
length of time required to obtain approval of the environmental aspect (referred
to in "Environmental Analysis" Chapter 11, Section E) is enough to negate the
idea of berth expansion. Another feasible alternative would be the installation
of a dolphin in the north lagoon area to accommodate the berthing of two 750
If. ships at once. Since this may not be required until the later stages of this 5
year study period, Urban's recommendation would be to have a berth occupancy
study performed to justify the need for the third crane.

Yard Capacity -

It has been documented that the Tioga container yard capacity is approximately
14
60,000 containers per year . Yard capacity is highly dependant upon
operational policy. In order to achieve 80,000 containers per year without
increasing the acreage of the yard, steps could be taken to decrease the dwell
time, or the period of time which a container is left on the Terminal, for both
import and export containers. Instead of stacking empty containers three high,

12 Philadelphia Container Terminals Capacity Analysis Page 27.

Philadelphia Container Terminals Cgpacity Analysis Pages 27 and 37.

Market Based Facilities Plan for the Port of Philadelphia (Pages 1-13 and 111-5).

22.

they could be stacked four high, use a grounded operation in lieu of a chassis
operation, or possibly address the Terminal striping layout to increase the
number of container slots.

Another item of concern is the relocation of the container freight station to the
container terminal. A minimum of 120 container parking slots stand to be lost
due to the construction of the building or as many as 170 parking sfots.

Gate Capacity_.::

The container terminal currently processes in excess of 40,000 containers per
year through four lanes of the existing eight lane gatehouse. The documented
gate capacity is 86,000 containers per year through the existing gatehouse".
Therefore, it is not a requirement to expand the existing gatehouse, but rather
to determine if it could be relocated to a more advantageous location.
Automatic Vehicle Identification is an applicable new technology which could
possibly benefit the gatehouse. Since the responsibility for this lies with
Crowley to initiate, refer to the appendices for more information.

Philadelphia Container Terminals Cgpaciiy Analysis Page 27.

23.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I IV. RECOMMENDED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
I
I
I
I ..
I
I I
I
I
I
I

IV. RECOMMENDED CAPITAL BIPROVEMIENTS

As a means to evaluate feasibility and impacts of the various possible schemes, Urban
developed a number of conceptual plans. Addressed in these conceptual plans were all
of the major issues including the Container Freight Station relocation, additional parking
lots and the gatehouse, as well as revisions to rail access and the filling in of Pier 179.
After evaluating the merits of each of those various schemes, combinations if schemes
were assembled in an attempt to arrive at two viable terminal plans. The following
section discusses the issues related to these two schemes which Urban is recommending
for consideration.

A. TWO OPERATOR TERMINAL - THE RECOMAMNDED SCHEMIE

Refer to Fxhibit 2 in Section VI entitled "Two Operator Scheme" which reflects
Tioga Marine Terminal being utilized by two operators as is the present case.
This scheme includes the following features:

2. In order to allow maximum efficiency, the terminal's paving is in need
of repair. The terminal's pavement should be restriped to increase
efficient traffic circulation and increase the yard's capacity.

3. Construction of a new 40,000 square foot Container Freight Station at the
northeast comer of the container terminal. Including maneuvering space,
Crowley will lose approximately 1.5 acres.

24.

7. Demolition of the carpenter's shop, since both Crowley and DRS would
like to move the DRS repair shop to the north end. DRS@ currently
utilizes the carpenter shop, and must move their equipment from one end
of the terminal to the other. Tioga Fruit would gain approximately 0.6
acres, but more importantly, the bottle neck between the existing
Container Freight Station and the carpenter shop would no longer exist.
Tioga Fruit Terminal will have the final decision regarding the
demolition of this facility. The present carpenter shop operations will be
relocated to the expanded maintenance and repair shop iden tified above.

9. Tioga III should be converted into a refrigerated transit shed to provide
year round capabilities.

10. Due to the lighting improvements recommended above and increased
electrical requirements for Tioga III, electrical upgrades are
recommended. These upgrades should include a second PECO Energy
service to be installed to the Tioga II building, and the manual transfer
switch at Tioga I should be replaced with an automatic transfer switch.

I
12. Construction of both a new eight-lane gatehouse canopy and a new four-
lane roadability facility for Crowley in the northwest comer of the
container terminal. Crowley would lose approximately 2.8 acres. The
new gatehouse location will provide more queuing space for Crowley.

25.

B. SINGLE OPERATOR TERMINAL

Although this is not the present situation nor a current priority, it would be
prudent to investigate this scenario should the circumstances become such that
a one-operator facility becomes viable (refer to Exhibit 3 in Section VI entitled
"One Operator Scheme"). This option includes the following features:

1. Acquisition of the railroad right-of-way for the entire distance of the
container operation. This will allow expansion of the terminal to the
Delaware Avenue right-of-way and increase the yard size by 1.5 acres.

2. In order to allow maximum terminal efficiency, the terminal's paving is
in need of repair. The terminal's pavement should be restriped to
increase efficient traffic circulation and increase the yard's capacity.

3. Construction of a new 40,000 square foot Container Freight Station at the
far northeast comer of the container terminal. A separate access road
will be constructed, thereby eliminating the need for freight consignees
to enter the Terminal for pickup or delivery. Including maneuvering
space, the terminal would stand to lose approximately 3 acres.

4. Expansion of the maintenance and repair shop to include four additional
bays. The acquisition of the railroad track will allow the shop expansion
to occur westward, so that the driving isle is not affected. The terminal
would lose approximately 0.25 acres of the 1.5 acres gained from the
relocation of the fence along the Conrail right-of-way. The expansion of
the maintenance and repair shop will include moving the present
operations from the existing carpenter shop to the maintenance and repair
shop.

7. Demolition of the carpenter's shop can be performed as a result of the
expansion of the maintenance and repair shop at the north end of the
terminal. The terminal would gain approximately 0.6 acres, but more

26.

important is the fact that the bottle neck between the existing Container
Freight Station and the carpenter shop would be eliminated.

8. Relocation of both the break bulk and container terminal employee
parking to the west side of Delaware Avenue. The terminal would gain
approximately 2.5 acres of laydown space as a result.

9. Tioga III should be converted into a refrigerated transit shed to provide
year round capabilities.

10. Due to the lighting improvements recommended above and increased
electrical requirements for Tioga III, electrical upgrades are
recommended. These upgrades should include a second PECO Energy
service to be installed to the Tioga 11 building, and the manual transfer
switch at Tioga I should be replaced with an automatic transfer switch.

11. Construction of a four lane gatehouse in the same location as the break
bulk terminal's present guard house. This gate would accommodate the
large volumes of fruit, break bulk and in-transit moves. The terminal
would lose approximately 1.0 acre of laydown space.

12. Construction of both a new eight-lane gatehouse canopy at the north end
of the terminal and a new four-lane roadability facility. The terminal
would lose approximately 2.8 acres. The new gatehouse location will
provide more queuing space for the container operation than exists at
present.

C. CLOSURE OF DELAWARE AVENUE

During the course of the Tioga Capital Improvements Master Plan, it became
apparent to both the PRPA and Urban Engineers that another possible
opportunity to improve site access and circulation is to obtain a full or partial
closure of Delaware Avenue. Despite being beyond the scope of work for this
endeavor, Urban has reviewed and identified several points of interest. (Refer
to Exhibit 4 entitled "Delaware Avenue Closure Concept" in Section VI for more
information reflecting the public traffic being separated from the Terminal traffic
and away from the Terminal's activities.) Please note that no investigative work
was performed confirming the feasibility of the plan. This option includes the
following points:

1. For both the partial and complete closure of Delaware Avenue, the public
vehicular traffic would be diverted west onto Carbon Street, currently an
active railroad bed. The PRPA would be required to acquire certain
properties, all of which are believed to be owned by the City of

27.

Philadelphia. In doing so, additional acreage would be obtained which
could be used to increase both the container and break bulk terminals.

2. The gatehouse location is shown schematically. Based upon the
Terminal utilization (i.e. one or two operators, In-Transits using the
container gate, etc.) the gatehouse could properly be oriented,_ sized and
designed.

3. Traffic signals would have to be designed to permit the railroad's access
to their line.

4. The potential exists for a greater length of queuing area which would
help eliminate the closeness of the public traffic to the queuing terminal
traffic. Also, conflicts between the break bulk and the container terminal
could be lessened.

5. Employee parking could be relocated westward, thereby allowing more
laydown space closer to the water's edge.

6. A possible obstacle may be the pipe bridge above Carbon Street, between
Venango Street and Castor Avenue.

28.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I V. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I

ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY
RECOMMENDED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
DUAL OPERATOR TERMINAL

ITEM IMPROVEMENT/TASK AMOUNT
NO.

I Purchase and Cleanup Conrail Railroad track $ 100,000.00
along Delaware Ave.
2 Pavement Repairs and Striping $ 400,000.00
3 Addition of Container Freight Station Building -
(40,000 s.f.) $ 1,633,835.00
4 Maintenance and Repair Shop Expansion
(6,000 s.f.) $ 250,000.00
5 Terminal Lightning and Electrical upgrades
including Automatic Transfer Switches $ 1,900,000.00

6 New Container Crane $ 5,500,000.00
7 Demolition of Carpenter Shop $ 15,000.00
8 Parking Relocation Across Delaware Ave. 250,000.00
9 Adding Refrigeration to Tioga 111 Building $ 2,697,758.00
10 Upgrade power distribution and add $ 600,000.00
second PECO service

11 Construction of four-lane gatehouse for $ 381,530.00
Tioga Fruit
12 New Gate and Roadability Complex for
Container Area (without office building) $ 763,060.00

TOTAL $ 14,491,183.00

All prices except for item No.6 (Third Crane) were obtained from 1994 MEANS
u
Constr ction Cost Data or historical data for similar projects Urban has designed.

29.

ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY
RECOMMENDED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
SINGLE OPERATOR TERMINAL

ITEM UVIPROVEMENT/TASK AMOUNT
NO.

I Purchase and Cleanup Conrail Railroad track $ 100,000.00
along Delaware Ave.

2 Pavement Repairs and Striping $ 400,000.00
3 Addition of Container Freight Station Building
(40,000 s.f.) $ 1,715,835.00
4 Maintenance and Repair Shop Expansion
(6,000 s.f) $ 250,000.00
5 Terminal Lightning and Electrical upgrades
including Automatic Transfer Switches $ 2,500,000.00

6 New Container Crane $ 5,500,000.00

7 Demolition of Carpenter Shop $ 15,000.00
8 Parking Relocation Across Delaware Ave. $ 250,000.00
9 Adding Refrigeration to Tioga III Building $ 2,697,758.00
10 Upgrade power distribution, and add
second PECO service $ 600,000.00
11 Construction of four-lane gatehouse for $ 381,530.00
Tioga Fruit
12 New Gate and Roadability Complex for
Container Area (without office building) $ 763,060.00

TOTAL $ 15,173,183.00

All prices except for item No.6 (Third Crane) were obtained from 1994 MEANS
Construction Cost Data or historical data for similar projects Urban has designed.

30.

ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY FOR
ITEMS REQUESTED BY PRPA, BUT
NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF RE.COMMENDATION

ITEM ITEM/TASK AMOUNT
NO.

I Demolition of Pier 179 $ 4,843,100.00
2 Filling of Adjacent Sides of Pier 17-9 $ 21,875,100.00
L-3 Filling of North Lagoon $ 33,981,820.00

31.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I VI. EXHIBITS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 8555
Harrisburg,-PA 17105-8555
November 1, 1994

717-787-2529
Bureau of Land and Water Conservation

IE ow Elf

K10V7

Neil K. Christerson, Program Specialist
Coastal Programs Division - OCRM
SSMC4 Room 11209 (N/ORM 3)
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910

RE: DER File No. CZ1:A(93)

Dear Neil:

Enclosed with this letter are two copies of the final plan for the Tioga Marine Terminal
Master Plan (CZ1:93PS.02). This project was completed with funds provided by a financial
assistance award in the Coastal Zone Management Program for the Fiscal Year 1993.

Sincerely,

@57,

Robert S. Edwards
Environmental Planner 11
Division of Coastal Programs
Enclosure

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Recycled Paper

I I "OAA COAUAL SIIRIICES CTR LIORARY
@ 3 6668 14112008 1 ,