Western Railroad Discussion > West Coast port slowdown & the Port of SF

Given the labor / contract dispute between the ILWU and the PMA, more ships have been sent north to the Port of Oakland for unloading, due to some unused capacity there. Right across the bay is the Port of San Francisco's container terminals, which sit unused. I believe there are 8 container cranes and plenty of empty docks over there. Has anyone seen if the Port of SF is also being put back into action for unloading the container ships? The cranes there are maintained, just in case they're needed for business again.

Of course, all those containers would have to be drayed to Oakland if rail shipment was needed. But for local delivery, that port could be useful.

The Port of Richmond northeast of SF also has 2 container cranes and dock area, unused.

I think the problem with the Port of San Francisco is about the same as the Port of San Diego. In both cases, they're not all that serious at being big players in the port scene. They're too busy having their strings pulled by other interests and are more interested in catering to the sail boat, cabin cruiser, recreational watercraft user/owner. Also, both ports have serious handicaps when it comes to rail transportation.

It would be the same union (and the same port operator?), so any changes to the work rules etc would run into the same concerns faced elsewhere

There is no support infrastructure in place in SF to operate the ports for container ships. The cranes may be there but that is it.

Gary

Posted from iPhone

There was a time in the early to mid 1980's when Evergreen Marine was seriously considering using the Port of SF instead of the Port of Oakland (which really never made sense unless the POSF was offering incentives). The #1 biggest problem was the tunnels around South San Francisco were nowhere near large enough to accommodate stacked containers...who was going to pay for tunnel enlargement?? Having to send out "single stacks" defeated the purpose. IIRC Evergreen did operate a few short test trains with only bottom containers.

"WAF" probably remembers more about this than I do.



Allen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/14 09:16 by bradleymckay.

All is not well at the Port of Oakland, either. Check out this article from last Saturday's San Francisco Chronicle...

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Port-of-Oakland-delays-Absolute-madness-5969642.php

Rick

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the problem with the Port of San Francisco
> is about the same as the Port of San Diego. In
> both cases, they're not all that serious at being
> big players in the port scene. They're too busy
> having their strings pulled by other interests and
> are more interested in catering to the sail boat,
> cabin cruiser, recreational watercraft user/owner.
> Also, both ports have serious handicaps when it
> comes to rail transportation.

TOURISTS!!!!

Mike

Bloomberg News has its broadcast studio in the renovated Pier 3 building. The rent per square foot is similar to the prestigious office towers in the financial district. But the views are much better.

Can't imagine shipping and break-bulk ever returning to that part of town.

Yes, Evergreen was at Port of SF for awhile--I used to see them unloading on a regular basis.

Being the cranes are still maintained, I thought maybe it was a chance to grab some business, but perhaps there are no drayage trucks, no chassis frames, office support, etc. anymore--not even turn-key ready? It's a shame to see all that taxpayer funded equipment sit idle.

That Port would be good for bulk traffic (coke, coal, grain, etc.). The wheat silos are still there (but would have to be rebuilt, along with the rail infrastructure), but the bigger container piers have lots of room. Switch them to bulk! Richmond and Stockton are doing that business, and in far more difficult maritime environments (shallow channel depths). They have to load in Stockton, then top off in Richmond, whereas they could just dock bigger bulk carriers in SF and do 1 loading! Bring the long bulk trains in at night when 3rd Street traffic is slow, use the staging yard of SF Belt for cuts, and then get the bulk loads to the piers. Yes, some trackage would have to be re-built, but I feel the Port of SF isn't even trying to explore this potential business. The container traffic won't come back (due to the tunnels), but the bulk traffic would have no problem with their lower cars.

I wish it would happen. I wish we had some real business leaders in the Port of SF with vision and muscle to get things done.

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish it would happen. I wish we had some real
> business leaders in the Port of SF with vision and
> muscle to get things done.

It will never happen. The politicians are catering to the desires of the yuppies / NIMBYS, and they would never want ships clogging up the waterfront and obstructing their views of the bay. All those bulk commodities being loaded and unloaded would kick up dust that would settle on the foam of their lattes that they buy at Starbucks.

We could never have that.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coach Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I wish it would happen. I wish we had some
> real
> > business leaders in the Port of SF with vision
> and
> > muscle to get things done.
>
> It will never happen. The politicians are
> catering to the desires of the yuppies / NIMBYS,
> and they would never want ships clogging up the
> waterfront and obstructing their views of the bay.
> All those bulk commodities being loaded and
> unloaded would kick up dust that would settle on
> the foam of their lattes that they buy at
> Starbucks.
>
> We could never have that.

OK, that got me. The "dust settling on the foam of everyone's lattes..." was a good description!