Contractor gives residents and developers assessment of haul route options. Photo Contributed
Construction is a dirty business. During the redevelopment of the current Robinson Terminal South site, 15,000 cubic yards of dirt will have to be brought to the site to raise it above flood level, and then 55,000 cubic yards will have to be removed to facilitate construction of an underground parking garage. It has to be transported to and from the Waterfront construction site along a haul route determined by the city.
A rift has formed on the waterfront between local residents and civic associations who are in favor of barging materials to and from the development sites against local residents and the developers who are as dedicated to trucking materials away from the site. At a March 17 meeting in City Hall of the Ad Hoc Monitoring Group for the Waterfront Construction, a third party contractor was brought in to give a presentation on the costs and benefits of both proposed methods.
“I’d like to think there are opportunities to work this out,” said Mayor William Euille at the meeting, “but it’s not going to happen without a little give and take.”
The city hired AECOM, a technical and management support company, to analyze the costs and benefits of the trucking and barging options. In general, barging is considered less disruptive to the surrounding community than trucking, but is also the more expensive option. EYA estimated that trucking would cost approximately $3.2 million, while barging would cost $4.8 million. Mike Baker, an environmental specialist for AECOM, noted that $3.2 million was lower than their estimate of the cost but wasn’t outside the conceivable price range. The EYA estimated that trucking would cost $23.64 per cupid yard, while barging would cost $30.5. The AECOM estimate put the range of the costs for trucking between $27 and $31. Baker attributed this discrepancy more likely to differences in where dirt could be retrieved or disposed.
By AECOM’s calculations, one barge trip would be able to carry the same as 200 truck trips. Moving dirt, or earth fill, to the site would require eight barge trips or 1,500 truck trips. The larger task, however, is removing the dirt and debris from the site. This would require the use of 28 barge trips and 5,500 truck trips.
AECOM concluded that the barging concepts are a feasible alternative to trucking, but noted that this would come with its own share of additional challenges. Fewer commercially available options for loading or offloading materials would significantly increase the cost of barging, and contamination of the soil and debris being removed from the site limits the city’s options as far as disposal is concerned. Barging is the more expensive option for the company and could also result in a longer period of construction. Baker estimated that construction with barges could take two or three months longer than the trucking option.
There was also the problem of offloading the debris from the barges. AECOM found no sites on the Potomac that would be able to capable of handling the offloaded material. The debris would be removed on a four day round-trip near Shirley Plantation on the James River to unload the materials. However, petroleum levels in the removed soil may mean that the barges will be unable to directly offload the materials near the Shirley Plantation site, but will have to transport the materials to trucks to be taken to another facility. AECOM’s report recommended that if the clean material can be separated from the contaminated soil, the clean material could be taken to Baltimore for a more cost-effective disposal. The Potomac River also has no tug service, meaning it would have to be contracted out of Baltimore or Norfolk.
However, AECOM also noted that the project site on the waterfront does have sufficient access to make barging possible and can physically accommodate the amount of materials being transported. Barging would reduce the distance travelled by the trucks down to a block or two, which would reduce noises, traffic, and would ease concerns that the volume of the trucks and associated vibrations would damage nearby properties and city utilities.
According to AECOM, neither is a perfect option. Trucking is the most common method of transporting these types of materials. It’s less expensive and tends to have a shorter construction period than barging. However, AECOM added that some of these cost savings are mitigated by the risk of damaging the city streets and other nearby properties.
Bert Ely, co-chair of the Friends of the Alexandria Waterfront, asked Baker about the feasibility of a conveyor system between the barge on the pier and the construction site. Baker said AECOM staff had looked into that option but ultimately decided it offered no clear advantage over trucks for transporting materials to and from the development site. According to Baker, the conveyor would be unreasonably expensive and the unloading process into the barge would be difficult to manage.
The Ad Hoc Committee was not ready to provide guidance yet on its suggested haul route but would make an official statement once the committee members had a chance to review the new numbers and information.
On April 7, the Robinson Terminal South site proposal will be presented to the Alexandria Planning Commission, then to City Council for a hearing on April 18. If the project continues on schedule, EYA plans on beginning demolition on Sept. 1 and construction sometime in 2016.
The meeting briefly touched on the potential for barging at the Indigo Hotel Site planned for development by Carr Properties. According to Yon Lambert, acting director of the city’s Transportation and Environmental Services, the City Attorney’s office has advised him that the haul routes will be on the streets and that the city is not considering barging as an option at that site. At a Waterfront Commission meeting in the same building earlier that day, Townsend “Van” Van Fleet, president of the Old Town Civic Association, said that haul routes for the properties aren’t established until the site plan is proposed.
“The City Attorney is not correct in saying that the die has been cast,” said Van Fleet.