Maersk’s recent threat to pull out of the Port of Charleston and the development of a Port in Jasper County jointing owned by Georgia and South Carolina pose serious threats to Charleston’s economy.
Charleston should regain it’s status as the leading container port in the Southeast by developing a floating port connected to land via bridge-tunnel. By developing this innovative concept, Charleston could handle more and larger ships without constantly dredging the harbor.
The idea is to combine the existing technology for floating oil drilling platforms and bridge-tunnels to create a highly efficient offshore port. The port could be expanded at any time since it would not be constrained by land masses, residential neighborhoods or other on shore considerations. The tunnels might also be used as conduit to bring electrical power from offshore wind turbines and tidal power generators to land.
Oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico regularly survive Hurricanes. Huge oil platforms, such as the Hibernia Platform, have been deployed around the world. The Norfolk Bridge-Tunnel and others are proven to allow navigation and transportation at a reasonable cost.
A bridge-tunnel from South Carolina to 25 miles offshore, the distance at which the floating port would disappear over the horizon, could carry trucks, trains, electricity, water, data, and other vital links. Depending on exactly where the port was located, the water 25 miles offshore is much deeper than the 42 feet that Charleston is required by treaty to keep the harbor dredged to. The new port could handle the huge Post-Panamax ships now sailing the oceans.
Charleston would benefit from the reduced inshore pollution and dredging without giving up the port revenue to another city.
By being proactive and creative, the Governor, Mayor and South Carolina State Ports Authority could created an engine of economic growth for generations to come.
The floating port that I’m proposing would be bigger and more permanent than the “floating ports” which are really transfer ships, that operate in India and elsewhere.
2 responses so far ↓
kristin // January 7, 2009 at 2:51 am |
Where would the money come from? Would costs saved from not dredging cover the costs? There would be maintenance that is not necessary on land based ports. I LOVE this idea– I think.
reggiefairchild // January 7, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
The funding could come from the SCSPA just like the funding for the Jasper County port. Or the funding could come from a private port developer. In Hong Kong and other places, the ports are owned and operated by private companies. The State of South Carolina seems to want to the port authority to run the ports. So a private owner might not work here.