The Port of Houston Authority's projected costs for
developing a container terminal at Spillman's Island are emerging as
manipulative and misleading, according to the Galveston Bay Conservation and
Preservation Association (GBCPA).
"Truth is elusive in some fields, but not in engineering," said Larry
Tobin of GBCPA. "Stabilization is a routine procedure that does not depend on
unknowns such as market conditions. Engineers know how much drainage costs,
and they know how much fill dirt costs. This is why the Port's excessive
projections have been so sharply challenged."
The 900-acre island in the Houston Ship Channel is a dredge spoil disposal
area and is among the potential alternative locations for the Port's proposed
Bayport container terminal. Unconsolidated material on the island site would
need stabilization to prepare it for port construction.
An independent analysis, conducted by the engineering firm S&ME, Inc. and
released in May by the Harris County Infrastructure Department, shows Port
figures to be inflated by at least 50 percent. The average cost the new
assessment gives for two-year stabilization of Spillman's Island would be
$160,000 per acre. By contrast, the Port's current estimate is an average of
$258,750 per acre, which is 58 percent higher.
--more--
Port Bad Faith Challenged 2 of 3
Critics have long argued that the Port's figures were outlandishly high,
serving only to dismiss Spillman's Island as a possible alternative to
Bayport. Harris County commissioned the new study under pressure from watchdog
groups, precisely because of repeated challenges to the Port's estimates of
costs at Spillman's Island.
"We have already seen the Port's figures drop by half, from their initial
outrageous estimate of $600,000 per acre, with no clear explanation," Tobin
said. Last year the Port told State Representative John Davis in a letter that
stabilization costs at Spillman's would range between $297,000 and $428,000
per acre.
"But now we learn from S&ME that $160,000 is a realistic number. By this
stage, the Port's credibility is at rock bottom," he said.
Tobin pointed out that the conservative assumptions in the new S&ME study
may mean that even $160,000 is an overestimate, because these consulting
engineers systematically used higher numbers where there was a choice. For
example, fill material in large quantities generally costs $3.00-$5.00 per
cubic yard, but S&ME used a price of $5.50.
Similarly, their projection involved purchasing at once all required
temporary "surcharge" material (used to achieve compaction). More likely less
would be needed because work would occur in phases, re-using the same
surcharge material on different sectors of the site. A third possible savings
factor would be resale of the surcharge, not assumed by S&ME.
"Now we know that the critics have been right all along," said GBCPA Chair
Jim Blackburn. "The inflated numbers for Spillman's Island were apparently
designed to make that site seem unfeasible, so as to bolster the case for
Bayport. This is not the action of an agency operating in good faith. It is
sheer manipulation."
--more--
Port Bad Faith Challenged 3 of 3
A recent presentation by Port spokesman Charlie Jenkins underscored the
Port Authority's disregard for Spillman's Island as a contender, noted Tobin.
Speaking at a joint May meeting of the citizen-industry advisory panels known
as BAYCAP and SEACAP, Jenkins claimed it would take five to seven years to
develop Spillman's Island. This is countered by the S&ME analysis, which
indicates that stabilization could be accomplished in two years.
"Jenkins revealed the port's real position when he expressed his belief
that even if there were no geotechnical cost, Bayport would still be their
preferred site," Tobin said. "The Port seems determined to reject the island
site even though it has far lower environmental and community impacts than
Bayport."
--30--
Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association
P.O. Box 323, Seabrook, Texas 77586
Phone: 281-326-3343
Website: www.gbcpa.net
E-mail: gbcpa@ev1.net