[BTinSF]

I deemed this worthy of a thread because I think a new cruise terminal is a bit of critical infrastructure for San Francisco. Our port is dead as a cargo terminal but it can have a new life with passenger ships. And I think this new proposal makes so much sense, it may finally be the one that gets done.

Cruise terminal revamp
Shorenstein to pare office space, go full steam ahead on ships
San Francisco Business Times - May 11, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Najib Joe Hakim

In an effort to increase support from the state commission that regulates waterfront development, Shorenstein Properties is proposing to cut back the amount of office space developed on Piers 27-31 and instead make a new cruise ship terminal a central part of the project.

The revised plan, which is still being hashed out between the developer and the Port of San Francisco, would make Pier 27 the city's primary cruise ship terminal and help shore up the burgeoning cruise ship business, which saw 80 port calls in the last fiscal year and pumped $60 million into the city's economy. It could also include a water taxi service.

On May 9, the Port Commission voted unanimously to give Shorenstein a three-and-a-half month extension to come up with a new proposal that would include the cruise ship terminal on Pier 27.

A new cruise ship terminal, to accommodate larger ships and modern facilities, was originally planned for Piers 30-32, but had stalled recently when the developer that promised to build it pulled out, citing high seismic and construction costs.

While the details are still in flux, the revised plan for Piers 27-31 could represent a substantial reduction in new office space. The original plan, submitted in October 2006, called for a total of 440,000 square feet of office. This included about 140,000 square feet of renovated historic space on Piers 29 and 31 and 300,000 square feet of new construction on Piers 27 and 29. Of the new construction, 150,000 square feet was slated for Pier 27, which would be severely reduced or eliminated altogether if the cruise ship terminal is built there.

"We're studying the feasibility of incorporating the cruise ship terminal in the Pier 27 shed and making that the new terminal," said Tom Hart, executive vice president for Shorenstein.

Hart said he didn't know how much office would be cut from the plan. Shorenstein and development partner Farallon Capital Management, which are both committed to moving headquarters to the piers, together need about 200,000 square feet. He added that the recreation component of the plan, which included everything from soccer to basketball to kayaking, would remain. The plan calls for about 500,000 square feet of recreation space.

The changes are coming five months after the head of the State Lands Commission, the state agency that determines whether waterfront development is allowable under the public trust, wrote a letter to the port suggesting that the initial Shorenstein proposal relied too heavily on office development. Shorenstein had proposed office development as the economic engine that could pay for the $446 million project, which includes a $145 million seismic upgrade of the rotting piers. Allowable uses under public trust laws include maritime, historic and environmental restoration, recreation and other commercial activities if they are accessible to the general public.

Meanwhile, recent port studies suggest Pier 27 may be the most economical place to locate the new cruise ship terminal. On April 19, the city's Cruise Ship Advisory Panel held a hearing to explore the three most likely cruise terminal options: Pier 30-32, Pier 35, and Piers 27-31.

In that discussion, Edward Byrne, the port's chief engineer, said the dilapidated Pier 35 structure -- now the port's main cruise ship terminal -- is on "life support" with five to seven years of viable life remaining. It is also too short and narrow to accommodate modern cruise ships.

Piers 30-32, which has long been seen as the best bet for the terminal, is now deemed as overly expensive. Last year, developer Bovis Lend Lease walked away from the cruise ship project on those piers after the estimated cost more than doubled to $155 million.

In contrast, Uday Prasad, the port's senior civil engineer, told the panel that the cost of rehabbing the existing Pier 27 shed into a cruise terminal would cost about $34.6 million. Since there is no significant change of use, seismic upgrades would not be necessary. Port Senior Project Manager John Doll said support for Pier 27 seems to be growing.

"I wouldn't say there is a consensus yet, but maybe leaning in that direction," Doll said.

Jon Gollinger of Citizens To Save Our Waterfront, which represents the Fisherman's Wharf business community, said moving the terminal from Piers 30-32 to 27-31 might make sense.

"Fisherman's Wharf businesses certainly like the idea of cruise ships on this side of San Francisco rather than on the other side of the Bay Bridge," he said.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971


Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/05/14/story2.html?t=printable

[Reminiscence]

I think this plan is as good as its going to get for a new cruise terminal to be built. The location is good in my opinion as there is no need to sail under the Bay Bridge, even though clearance-wise, it matches the Golden Gate. I can certainly see the benefit for places such as Pier 39, as business there will grow even more.

Overall, I like the plan very much, and it makes sense in financial terms. I wonder if it will somehow impact Treasure Islands development somehow, and if they choose to retain the same name as originally planned for the terminal.

[SFView]

Just as SFO is preparing to accommodate larger aircraft like the Airbus A380, the Port of San Francisco needs to be able to accommodate larger cruise ships as soon as possible. Ships are soon getting large enough, that some will not be able to fit under the Golden Gate Bridge. Even with that limiting factor, San Francisco would greatly benefit from being able to handle a majority of the larger cruise ships. The city should also keep up with the ever growing cruise ship industry as a more major port of call.

Just as a side note:
Ships like Royal Carribbean's Genesis of the Seas, at 240 feet high above the waterline, due to enter service in late 2009, will not be able to pass under the 220 foot height clearance of the Golden Gate Bridge. The ship will also be 1180 feet long, 154 wide, 220,000 gross registered tons, and be able to carry up to 6,400 passengers.
Image from flickr.com
http://static.flickr.com/139/319387998_5676a97247_o.jpg

[Reminiscence]

With ships like that one that surpass the 220' clearance of the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, even with a new terminal that supports them lenght-wise, how can they be expected to enter the bay in the first place? Have they come up with some clever plan to lower the level of the water under the bridges (such as a canal-like structure), or raise the bridge higher from sea level?

[viewguysf]

Have they come up with some clever plan to lower the level of the water under the bridges (such as a canal-like structure), or raise the bridge higher from sea level?

No way!

[LWR]

Just as SFO is preparing to accommodate larger aircraft like the Airbus A380, the Port of San Francisco needs to be able to accommodate larger cruise ships as soon as possible.

I'm wondering about the draft? There are some really twisty-strange depths at dock-side (Even if the craft could fit under the GG or OB bridges. :shrug:

[The_Analyst]

These megaships, like the A380, have a relatively limited use. They are designed almost exclusively for the Carribbean. Even the Queen Mary 2, which was designed as a true ocean-going ship will be rarely seen here on its occasional round-the-world cruise. Although growing, the market for Pacific cruises to Mexico, Hawaii, and Alaska is much more limited than the Carribbean. Even if the Genesis of the Seas could fit under the bridge, the economics of it are such that it would not be sent here. There are plenty of other mid-size ships that work just fine for Pacific runs.

[SFView]

With ships like that one that surpass the 220' clearance of the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, even with a new terminal that supports them lenght-wise, how can they be expected to enter the bay in the first place? Have they come up with some clever plan to lower the level of the water under the bridges (such as a canal-like structure), or raise the bridge higher from sea level?

Each cruise line will simply limit as to which ships can safely enter the SF Bay, dock at San Francisco, or any other port in question. There are also economic issues, as mentioned above, to consider.

The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge in New York has a clearance of 228 feet. One would think that cruise and passenger liner companies would want their largest ships to able to reach the Cruise Ship Terminal at Piers 88-92 in Manhatten. Perhaps a redesign of the stacks should be considered. The RMS Queen Mary 2 had its stacks modified to allow it to pass under Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. In doing so, it was also able to recently visit San Francisco.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:5nHzoS7cMYMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary_2+ship+height+clearance+under&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us

[Reminiscence]

No way!

Heh, I thought so. However, I see no other way of effectivly getting ships such these through the Gate, even if they dont come here often.

[pseudolus]

With ships like that one that surpass the 220' clearance of the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, even with a new terminal that supports them lenght-wise, how can they be expected to enter the bay in the first place? Have they come up with some clever plan to lower the level of the water under the bridges (such as a canal-like structure), or raise the bridge higher from sea level?

You haven't seen my plans to convert the Golden Gate to a drawbridge?

[Reminiscence]

You haven't seen my plans to convert the Golden Gate to a drawbridge?

Yeah, I dont think its possible to alter the bridge itself :haha:

That post was almost sarcastical in a way, hence the word "clever" that was used.

We cant even add rail to the current bridge, I cant imagine a drawbridge. Still, I'd like to see what you've come up with. ;)

[SFView]

Too bad they couldn't just build a cruise terminal west of the Golden Gate Bridge, but that would be another bad idea for other reasons. By the way the span does bend up and down depending on the traffic load and temperatures, etc. but not high enough for such superships. There are also the tides, but even then that still wouldn't be enough.

The best thing to do is to go ahead and build the new Cruise Ship Terminal at Piers 27-31 to accommodate the largest ships that are feasible. ...And please do it soon! San Francisco is so far behind as it is. At least, San Francisco should better accommodate the amount of potential cruise ship traffic and size of ships that make best sense for most everyone for the next decade or two.

[BTinSF]

Personally, I think these megaships may be a transient mistake. Certainly, if I were going to take a cruise I would not want to be on one. When they pull into smaller ports (anything smaller than a major city, really), they offload what amounts to a crowd and everything ashore gets swamped. Just boarding and debarking is a mob scene. Who wants to "cruise" with thousands of other people?

I can see why the cruise lines want these ships and why first-time passengers may accept them, but I predict return customers will shun them and eventually the lines will realize their limited utility.

That said, I don't think San Francisco needs to or should worry much about them. As was said, they probably won't show up much in the Pacific and even if they do find some use on this coast, there are plenty of other ships interested in visiting San Francisco. We don't necessarily even want the mass market end of the cruise business and that's what these monster ships represent: The Marriotts of cruising, not the Ritz or 4 Seasons (that's Crystal Cruises which has long been visiting the Port of San Francisco).

[BTinSF]

These megaships, like the A380, have a relatively limited use. They are designed almost exclusively for the Carribbean. Even the Queen Mary 2, which was designed as a true ocean-going ship will be rarely seen here on its occasional round-the-world cruise.

But the Queen Mary 2, as we have seen, fits under the Golden Gate just fine.

[SFView]

The cruise ship industry knows best what type of ships work best for each kind of itinerary. The signs are clear that building ever larger ships make good market sense for these companies, along with retaining smaller ships in their fleets. It has been an unbroken trend since the 1970's, and is predicted to continue. The Pacific runs are generally a smaller market, thus requiring smaller ships. However, there are hopes of expanding in this sector. A new terminal in San Francisco would be necessary to permit such an expansion. The larger ships usually travel the Caribbean and Trans-Atlantic runs. Some ships have continually changing runs. Occasionally these larger ships may stop in San Francisco as they switch their itineraries to other parts of the world.

[BTinSF]

The cruise ship industry knows best what type of ships work best for each kind of itinerary.

Maybe. I don't know if that's yet proven nor is it clear how many of them the indiustry needs. And industries make mistakes (ask GM and Ford). They will be right to build them, in the numbers they do, if they consistently make money with them over time. But there will remain plenty of market share for smaller ships so that San Francisco need not worry about catering to the monsters to have a successful cruise industry. We see this in the maritime cargo industry where there are many sizes and classes of vessels, some of which can pass through the Panama Canal and some of which cannot--and time/experience is sorting out the right proportion of which vessels is maximally profitable for each company, yet the Canal is doing very well.

San Francisco does, however, need a modern terminal . . . yesterday. One that fits ships that CAN pass under the bridge.