06-30-2003 Bayport Expansion Review CommitteeMeeting

Browse Search

• IP®II~~ ®1~ IAI~L~J~~~~ A~J~I~I®I~II~~Y EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 111 EAST LOOP HOUSTON, TEXAS 77029-4327 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 25G2 HOUS'T'ON, TEXAS 77252-25G2 TELEPHONE: (713) C,70-2400 FAX: (713) G70-2429 H.T. KO RNEGAY Executive Director (713) 670-2480 June 26, 2003 The Honorable Chuck Engelken Councilman City of La Porte 604 W. Fairmont Pkwy. I,a Porte, TX 77571 Dear Councilman Engelken: ~~~uSTOry~Gy T ~ A O =i o- - -~ s s y~~sTON,TF~P~ The Port of Houston Authority believes that vigorous public discussions are essential to ensure that all questions and concerns related to the potential design, construction, and operation of the proposed Bayport Container and Cruise Terminal are addressed. The public process is severely undermined, however, by the kind of distorted analyses and misinterpretations that have been perpetuated by members of the Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association (GBCPA). For example,' members of GBCPA have asserted that Spilman Island, an active disposal site for dredge material from the deepening and widening of the Houston Ship Channel, is a feasible alterative to Bayport. Their assertions were based on the results of a new study released May 16 by S&ME, Inc., a South Carolina-based engineering contractor for the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department. While the PHA actively supported the independent analysis performed by S&ME and concurs with its technical accuracy, the results must be understood and interpreted in light of the assumptions on which the analysis is based. The S&ME report assumed six inches of post-construction settlement, and considered a range of loading conditions, some of which are lower than the actual calculated design loads for the terminal paving. Using different and, in our opinion, unacceptable assumptions, the resulting analysis lowered the cost of stabilizing the poor soils at Spilman Island, and ignored the expensive costs to protect and repair pavement, underground utilities when large settlement occurs, and the impact on equipment operations. Local experts familiar with Houston construction requirements agree that the true cost to stabilize soils at Spilman Island is at the high end of the range of the S&ME report - or about $ 210 million more -than at Bayport, which requires no additional stabilization cost. The SBiME report itself recognizes that stabilization of Spilman Island would cost considerably more than the Bayport alternative and also cautions that their estimate in excess of $200 million does not include "other cost issues" such as "pipeline relocations, acquisitions of a new dredge disposal site, parking garage costs, etc.