feasibility study for a roro-terminal -...
TRANSCRIPT
MEMO
PORT OF KARLSHAMN
Feasibility Study for a RoRo-terminal ASSIGNMENT NO: 7000334000
2014-10-06
Olof Fredholm
Martin Ullberg
Joakim Bengtsson
Kristofer Lilja
Fredrik Meurling
Emanuil Tsoutas
MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
Contents
1 Case Port of Karlshamn – BSR TransGovernance project 1
1.1 Background and objective 1
1.2 Planning horizons and impact on stakeholders 1 1.2.1 Stakeholder involvement in the process 2 1.2.2 Multilevel governance conclusions 2
2 Feasibility study with conclusions and recommendations 4
2.1 Study trips to Kiel and Fredericia 4 2.1.1 Kiel 4 2.1.2 Fredericia 4
2.2 Identification of need and specification of consultancy assignment 4
2.3 Preconditions for the feasibility study 6
2.4 Determination of current situation 8
2.5 Design of port and traffic system 11
2.6 Passenger terminal design 14
2.7 Design of Customs function 16 2.7.1 Rolling stock 16 2.7.2 Foot passengers 17
2.8 Cost assessment 18
Enclosures
1. Port of Karlshamn Basic Planning Data 2. Design of Port and Traffic System 3. Passenger Terminal and Customs Function for Foot Passengers 4. Customs Function for RoRo Vehicles 5. Cost Calculation
1 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
1 Case Port of Karlshamn – BSR TransGovernance project
The Port of Karlshamn Feasibility Study has served as a basis for Chapter 1.
1.1 Background and objective
The purpose of the work was to highlight in detail the cooperation framework, from a
multilevel governance perspective, involving public and private stakeholders in the
planning phase of large changes in the Port of Karlshamn. The principal outcome of the
work conducted has been a feasibility study that also contains conclusions and
recommendations on the use of an MLG approach in public-private stakeholder
collaboration for the site.
The work started with an expressed need to extend the services offered by the port.
Larger and larger vessels are being handled at the port as a result of growing cargo
flows. The larger vessels also have a higher passenger capacity. This has created an
obvious need for new passenger facilities, gate solutions with higher security and levels
of automation, and the need for connections with public transport. A new intermodal
terminal has also recently been opened in the port area.
The development needs cannot be met in isolation by the actual port company
itself. Several of the players are key stakeholders in the planning and
implementation.
The stakeholders concerned are the Port of Karlshamn, DFDS Seaways (ferry
operator), the Swedish Customs, the border police, transport companies that use
the ferry services, tenants of the port warehouses, private motorists and foot
passengers.
1.2 Planning horizons and impact on stakeholders
The private business planning horizon is much shorter than that of the public sector.
While planning for the work on the terminal, a number of issues have been dealt with that
involve differences in the nature of the operations conducted by the stakeholders
involved. The need, for example, of the ferry operator to make important changes to the
terminal area at the port as soon as possible is an extremely difficult task to fit quickly into
the investment plans of the port.
The same applies to the planning of public transport so that it can serve the needs of foot
passengers. The regional public transport authority has to undergo a political process, as
all changes in traffic that entail additional costs have to be formally approved.
All stakeholders know their roles and the division between them. The issues that have to
be overcome concern both the nature of how to conduct everyday operations as well as
planning. The lack of synchronization in, for example, budget planning (the municipality
decides on its budget in June, whereas companies usually do so later in the year) is
another factor to consider.
2 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
The impact on the different stakeholders has also been varied. The proposed changes
will affect the stakeholders in the following ways:
Port of Karlshamn
More efficient flows through the port
Elevated level of security with clearer ISPS delimitation and photo gate
Safer traffic in the port area
DFDS Seaways
More efficient loading procedures
Safer inspection of trucks and cargo carriers with photo gate. Possibly lower
insurance costs.
Customs
Operations moved to new premises, with separate locations for vehicles and foot
passengers.
Better siting in the flow chain within the port.
Area for the location of an X-ray truck
Border police
New premises for passport control for both departures and arrivals
Transport companies using the ferry services
Greater clarity in directions and stand-by areas within the port
Safer traffic in the port area
Tenants of the port warehouses
Additional security filter with moved ISPS delimitation
Private motorists
Greater clarity in directions and stand-by areas within the port
Safer traffic in the port area
Foot passengers
Easier and clearer navigation
New departure terminal
Bus transport to and from the ferries
1.2.1 Stakeholder involvement in the process
Although all the stakeholders specified earlier are relevant and should be taken into
account, the work on planning the changes that are to be made in the port has involved
the efforts of a smaller group. This is because it has been possible to obtain the infor-
mation needed for the feasibility study through a group of core stakeholders.
The stakeholders that were directly involved in the process were the port company itself,
the ferry operator and the Swedish Customs, as the only national authority involved. The
critical information was obtained through face-to-face meetings and site visits. Trade
unions were also involved.
1.2.2 Multilevel governance conclusions
The main conclusion from a multilevel governance point of view is that the needs of the
different players have to be taken into account early in the process, regardless of the size
of the proposed changes. Depending on whether the work is focused on, for example,
feasibility studies or actual construction, different groups of stakeholders are relevant.
3 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
However, the prerequisites for all categories of stakeholders that will be affected need to
be taken into account.
Table 1.1 Multilevel governance matrix of direct involvement – Port of Karlshamn
Stakeholder
Phases
Port of Karlshamn
DFDS Seaways
Customs
Border police
Transport companies
Tenants
Private motorists
Passengers on foot
Initial discussions on development
needs X X
Feasibility study X X X
Implementation X X X X X
End user X X X X X X X X
4 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
2 Feasibility study with conclusions and recommendations
This Memorandum comprises documentation of the feasibility study on how the Port of
Karlshamn can be developed within the framework of the EU TransGovernance Project.
The study has entailed various stages. Personnel from the port have made study trips to
Kiel and Frederica, Sweco has conducted interviews with port personnel, personnel from
DFDS and the Swedish Customs, and drawn up proposals for the design of the port area
and associated properties.
2.1 Study trips to Kiel and Fredericia
In order to obtain ideas and new views on how different problems in a port can be solved,
the Port of Karlshamn Authority made two study visits: one to Kiel in Germany and the
other to Fredericia in Denmark. The reason for visiting these particular ports was that
DFDS operates transport services and terminals there that strongly resemble the
operations conducted between and in Karlshamn and Klaipeda. The outcome of the visit
was a specification of requirements that was used for the purpose of the feasibility study
performed by Sweco.
2.1.1 Kiel
DFDS services on the route between Kiel and Klaipeda are very reminiscent of the
services operated in Karlshamn. Here, RoPax vessels carry both passengers/trailers and
T/T, which enables a direct comparison to be made with the traffic operated in
Karlshamn. Kiel has for some time made substantial investments in its gate function,
where safety and control in the form of photographs taken of all vehicle sets and
combinations are taken on. The area in which the port is operated in Kiel is large and the
surface requirement is therefore not a congested sector. The area inside the gates,
however, is more limited. The visit made to Kiel was very informative and rewarding since
many of the functions and solutions are easy to transfer to meet the requirements in
Karlshamn.
2.1.2 Fredericia
DFDS services on the Fredericia route have a different setup from the traffic that operates
from Kiel and Karlshamn. Fredericia only has RoRo-traffic with trailers as freight carriers.
The need for a gate function is therefore different in that there are no passengers or
driver-based traffic. Fredericia has a form of shell protection with the same code for all
openings. All gates are CCTV-monitored.
2.2 Identification of need and specification of consultancy assignment
Following the study visits, the Port of Karlshamn produced a graphical summary
(Enclosure 1) in order to determine more effectively which solution they should proceed
with. The setup that is most similar to the situation in Karlshamn is the one employed at
Kiel. The material has served as a basis for the present consultancy assignment in order
to optimize the site areas in Karlshamn.
The consultancy assignment has consisted of conducting a feasibility study incorporating
the following items. The results are presented in the form of an overall drawing of the
proposed new port layout supplemented with more detailed drawings of the passenger
terminal and Customs functions. The drawings are also reproduced in a smaller format
later in the document.
5 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
Proposal for the location of a new gate, including the possibility for both
automated and manual check-in. It shall also be possible for the photo-gate
function to be located here.
Proposal for the overall traffic system in the RoRo terminal.
Proposal for holding areas/lanes for trucks, cars and detached trailers as per
design prerequisites drawn up by the port authorities.
Proposal for the siting and overall design concept for the passenger terminal.
Proposal for the localisation of Customs functions and overall design concept.
Calculation of the overall investment cost for the components included in the
feasibility study, i.e. gate, holding areas including the traffic system, passenger
terminal and Customs function.
6 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
2.3 Preconditions for the feasibility study
The Port of Karlshamn is one of Sweden’s ten largest cargo ports and has in government
surveys and planning documents been specified as being of both strategic and central
importance. Operations are conducted within several different product and goods
categories: forestry products (pulp, pulpwood, sawn timber, paper), bulk products (scrap
metal, stone, salt), petroleum products (oil, gas, petrol, diesel fuel, other chemicals) and
RoRo- and container operations. The port is divided into several different geographical
areas, including Sutudden, Oxhaga and Stilleryd.
The Port of Stilleryd is one of Karlshamns Hamn AB’s port facilities, and is located some
3 km west of Karlshamn, see Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 The port areas in Karlshamn.
The port area was built in the 1970s as an entirely new facility with substantial potential
for development. Traditionally, it has been mainly bulk and general goods that have been
handled in the Port of Stilleryd. Around the turn of the century, the port of Stilleryd was
supplemented with a RoRo section. Since the mid-1990s, RoRo-traffic has been
introduced between Karlshamn and the Baltic countries. 1999 saw construction of the first
ramp in the Port of Stilleryd, and heavy traffic no longer had to drive through the central
parts of the town. In 2004, Ramp 2 and the current passenger terminal were completed.
Holding areas and traffic systems have since then been gradually adapted to cope with
the rapidly growing traffic. In 2003, some 35 000 units were handled, a figure that has
since risen to 65 000 units in 2013. The passenger volume in 2003, including truck
drivers, was 35 000 and today the figure has reached approximately 135 000. The
increase in goods flows across the Baltic is expected to continue for many years to come.
Traffic between Karlshamn and Klaipeda has been steadily increasing for many years, and is expected to continue. Today’s layout of the RoRo-terminal will be incapable of coping with the growth in traffic volume. In order to be able to assess the future need for space in the port area, and thereby make it possible to develop design proposals, the Port of Karlshamn has drawn up a set of basic planning data with an assessment of future traffic volumes that are presented in Table 2.1.
Stillerydshamnen
Karlshamn
7 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
Table 2.1. Set of design conditions drawn up by the Port of Karlshamn.
Trucks with trailers and drivers
Klaipeda traffic One departure 230 m ship. 2 800 running m
“Other traffic” One departure minus share of cars
1500 running m
Detached trailers, other vehicles/ load carriers driven on board by port Klaipeda traffic Max 3 days holding 80+80 To be positioned
near the ramp. Should be able to grow.
“Other traffic” Accommodated within Klaipeda
“Intermediate port calls”
max 3/week 20 + 20 Different times from daily services
Cars
Klaipeda traffic One departure Max 200 cars. 1000 running m Interacts with volumes for trucks/trailers
“Other traffic” One departure Max 300 bilar. 1500 running m Interacts with volumes for trucks/trailers
Foot passengers via terminal
Klaipeda traffic One departure Max 100 passengers
“Other traffic” One departure Max 100 passengers
People inside terminal ”at the same time”
“Same” departure times
100+share of car drivers + a few truck drivers times two. 300 persons?
“Different” departure times
100+share of car drivers + a few truck drivers times two. 150 persons?
In addition to the number of vehicles that are forecast, the vehicle size is also a design
factor for the traffic system. The following vehicle sizes have been used:
16 m vehicle sets (truck with trailer, type vehicle Lps)
25.25 m vehicle sets (truck with dolly and trailer, type vehicle Lmod)
19 m vehicle set (truck with plant trailer, type vehicle LpSpec).
The accessibility requirement and space needed by vehicles will be tested by means of digital track analyses.
8 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
2.4 Determination of current situation
In order to be able to study a future setup and an improvement in the present port
structure, a determination was initially made of the present situation. The situation in the
port with regard to structure and activities was established by means of two site visits,
interviews with personnel from the Port of Karlshamn, an interview with experts from
DFDS and interviews with the Customs authorities.
From the Port, interviews were held with Tomas Carlsson, Head of Operations, and Ian
Birgersson, Supervisor for RoRo-operations. The interviews were conducted in the Port of
Karlshamn and combined with a tour of the port area. During the course of the interviews
and the tour of the port area, accounts were given of the various port activities and how
the space within the port area is used today. In connection with the tour, the port
personnel were able to describe how the Customs authority works and which premises
they have access to. In addition, a description was given of those parts of the premises
within those areas that could be demolished without having any form of negative impact
on the operations. Tomas’ and Ian’s experience of the work conducted within the port, in
combination with an account of all the meetings that are held with drivers who pass
through the port in order to embark and disembark from the ferries, gave a good picture
of the kind of possibilities for improvement that exist. Among other things, examples were
given of the difficulties experienced by the drivers in following signs, despite the fact that
they consist of symbols rather than text.
At present, the flow through the port is divided up. Import and export trailers are collected
from and returned to the same place to the west. Trucks and drivers that are to board the
ferry park their vehicles first of all in the northern part of the area and go on foot to the
southern part of the warehouses in the centre of the facility, where the passenger terminal
and ticket office are situated. After this, they have .to wait in their cabs until they receive
the signal to proceed into the harbour area and take their places in the boarding lanes.
East of the warehouses, they mix with vehicles disembarking from the ferry and making
their way out on to the road network. This is also where the Customs authority makes its
inspections. For more detailed examinations/inspections of both cars and trucks, the
Customs authority has heated premises in the south-eastern part of the warehouses in
the middle of the port area, see Figure 2.2
9 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
Figure 2.2 Today’s traffic system layout inside the port entails a considerable number of intersecting flows, dispersed operations and a shortage of vehicle holding capacity.
10 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
The interview with the expert from DFDS Seaways PLC, Head of Operations Alistair
Campbell, was also held in Karlshamn. The purpose of the interview was to take
advantage of Alistair’s experience of harbour operations from other ports in Europe. He
stressed the benefits of having a flow in one direction within the port, but he also
emphasised the importance of a simple and clear flow for other activities in the port.
In order to be able to design the port in the best way possible, it is also important to give
due consideration to the Swedish Customs and their activities. For this reason, an
interview was held with Bengt Möller from the Swedish Customs in Helsingborg in order
to share their experience from other ports. Bengt gave an account of what is important in
order for their work to be carried out smoothly. He also provided guidelines concerning
the sizes and functions of the type of premises the Customs authorities need, as well as
preferable locations with consideration to incoming and outgoing traffic flows.
11 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
2.5 Design of port and traffic system
Based on the interviews referred to above, site visits and design requirements, a design
proposal has been drawn up. The proposal gives due consideration to the fact that there
must be holding areas for trucks, trailers and cars. All trucks arriving at and departing
from the port area will pass through a photo gate. The passenger flow of private
individuals has been studied for those who arrive both with and without a car.
Consideration has also been given to the flow of goods that is loaded and offloaded in
one of the RoRo-terminal warehouses.
The goal has been to create secure and well-functioning port operations for everyone
who will use them. In the case of traffic safety, the number of crossing points between
pedestrian traffic and goods vehicles has been minimised. In order to simplify matters for
everyone passing through the area, the surface areas have been clearly defined by
means of linear markings and clearly demarcated traffic areas, so that it is easy for
people to find their way around. Further clarification is achieved by supplementing the
design with road signs suspended both from gantries and attached to poles.
The proposal incorporates a rerouting of the access road to the existing Port Office and
Båtsman Skottes väg. The rerouting is based on the Swedish Transport Administration’s
requirements and guidelines concerning the design of roads and streets (VGU, 2012).
The basic principle has been to create a circular single-direction flow with no traffic
moving in the opposite direction. The purpose is on the one hand to facilitate matters for
those road users who are trying to orientate themselves within the facility, and on the
other to reduce the risk of accidents and serious incidents. The design can be seen from
Figure 2.3 and Enclosure 2, and the size of the respective areas from Table 2.2.
12 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
Figure 2.3 Outline drawing of new port layout proposal
13 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
Table 2.2 Areas subdivided according to category as per outline drawing.
Category Volume Comments
Truck 2170 running m Divided into 2 areas
Car 800 running m Divided into 2 areas
MAFI 80 pcs. * 12 running m Excluded associated handling area
Detached trailer, export 113 pcs. Divided into 2 areas
Detached trailer, import 88 pcs. Divided into 4 areas
Long-term parking, car 91 pcs.
Flexible use area 3 740 m2
Furthest to the north, a small area has been set aside for arriving cars and trucks. The
idea is that it should be possible for their drivers to stop here and go in and out of the
building to fetch tickets so that they can then continue along the road. At the end of the
road there is a photo-gate.
Adjacent to the passenger terminal there is a parking area for cars whose drivers are
there to drop off or pick up passengers, or alternatively to leave their vehicles for long-
term parking while they board the ferry without their cars. Foot passengers are
transported by bus from the terminal to the ferry and vice versa.
Detached trailers for export have been located immediately north of the ferry port to
facilitate the loading procedure for the port personnel. East of the export trailers there is
an embarking lane area for departing trucks and cars. Furthest to the east – within the
ISPS border – there is a flexible-use area for project loads and other temporary holding
purposes.
Import trailers are located furthest to the south. In this way, a truck that delivers an export
trailer can continue in the flow and collect an import trailer on the way out. The area for
import trailers has been demarcated with a fence. The reason for this is to try and prevent
vehicles, individuals or other objects from being parked or standing here while waiting for
the Customs inspectors to leave the port so that they can then drive out from the facility
without the risk of inspection or examination.
Exit lanes for both cars and trucks are routed east of the central storage building in
exactly the same way as at present. At the point where exit traffic meets the traffic that is
to enter the warehouses, central separation barriers with refuges have been provided.
The area set aside for the handling of MAFI-trailers and the loading/offloading of goods in
the warehouses has been sited north of the buildings.
14 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
2.6 Passenger terminal design
The terminal building has been designed and sized to hold a maximum of 150
passengers inside the terminal at the same time.
The ticket counters are angled towards the entrance and any queuing will be in the
direction of the exit in order not to conflict with the queues at the ticket counters. The
Ticket Hall contains three toilets, and another toilet for disabled persons is situated in the
Transit Hall. Behind the ticket counters is the “back office”. If there should ever be a need
for additional office space, it could be arranged on another floor. After ticket inspection
comes the Transit Hall, which is an open-plan area as far as the Passport Control and
exit.
The area needed for the Transit Hall is 0.5 m2 per person. Seating equivalent in area to
0.5 m2 per person (i.e. the total number of passengers times 0.5 m
2) is grouped to the left
in the vicinity of the toilets, which also include a toilet for disabled persons. Physically
disabled persons in wheelchairs require a width of 90 cm (120 cm preferably) between
rows of seats or through doors/control points. Toilets for the disabled, including nursery
rooms, need to be 220 x 220 cm in size. The flow continues to Passport Control and the
exit.
For a design capacity of max. 300 persons inside the premises at the same time, it is
basically only in the Transit Hall that changes need to be made. This could mean, as a
proposal, a second floor with a spiral staircase and a 20 m2 shop on the bottom floor. The
floor above would only contain a waiting-room, but it would afford a good view out over
the port area if glazed walls were to be provided. Altogether, this means that the
building’s ground print is equivalent to 600 m2. If there is a strong likelihood of an
increase in traffic, it would be advantageous to construct the second floor without delay.
The upper floor could be used for some other purpose in the meantime. The passenger
terminal is situated to the left of the property, see Figure 2.4 Enclosure 3.
15 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
Figure 2.4 Design proposal for the passenger terminal.
The passenger terminal should be located in the vicinity of the check-in area for other
types of traffic for the coordination of ticket offices, rest rooms, etc. Adjoining the
passenger terminal, parking facilities should also be provided for the long-term parking of
cars belonging to those individuals who want to travel without their cars.
During the interviews with the Port of Karlshamn Authority, it emerged that one possible
solution could be a redisposition of the present port authority office for use by a function
such as the passenger terminal.
16 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
2.7 Design of Customs function
The Customs function adjacent to the facility has two parts: one for rolling stock (cars,
trucks and buses) and the other for foot passengers. In order to determine how large a
ground print the Customs functions would make in the geographical layout, schematic
diagrams have been produced based on Swedish Customs’ standards. Agreement will be
reached on the exact design in the course of continued negotiations between the Port of
Karlshamn and the Swedish Customs.
2.7.1 Rolling stock
For the inspection and examination of vehicles, a hall is needed for trucks and buses as
well as two smaller halls for cars. The truck hall shall also contain a loading platform to
enable the offloading of an entire trailer and allow goods to be located to one side. The
hall is 25 m long and 10 m wide. To this shall be added the width of the loading platform,
i.e. 6.5 m. The two halls for cars, which are each 11.5 m long and 7.5 m wide, are
arranged in series in the direction of flow for vehicles disembarking from the ferry, see
Figure 2.5 and Enclosure 4.
Figure 2.5 Customs building design.
17 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
Located between the truck and car halls are the office, interview and examination rooms,
staff room, dog room, etc. The idea behind the proposed layout is that it will be possible
to bring in people for questioning or examination from each vehicle hall without needing
to go through any of the other halls. In all, the facilities for rolling stock will be a building
25 m x 25 m in size, which is equivalent to 625 m2.
Ahead of the inspection halls, a new area has been provided to serve as a parking bay
for the Swedish Customs’ X-ray inspection truck.
2.7.2 Foot passengers
Since foot passengers will be transported by bus between the passenger terminal and the
ferry, the Customs’ functions must be located adjacent to the terminal. The waiting-hall,
passport control and Customs’ filter have been inserted and are shown in Figure 2.4 and
Enclosure 3. The areas are sized on the basis of the same number of passengers as the
facilities for departing traffic. The size of the entire Customs’ facility is calculated to be
approximately 340 m2.
18 (18) MEMO
2014-10-06
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A RORO-TERMINAL
2.8 Cost assessment
The survey proposal has been costed on a general basis. The Unit Rates that have been
used in the costings are based on experience values and on other data collected from
previous projects. The cost calculation is presented in Table 2.3. The complete
calculation is reproduced in Enclosure 5.
It should be noted that the calculation is on a general level and that the ground conditions
are assumed to be normal with no need for stabilisation, reinforcement or the excavation
of contaminated soil. A more accurate analysis would require further detailed design
supplemented by more detailed price monitoring on the market.
Table 2.3 Outline cost calculation.
Cost calculation compilation SEKM
Properties 36.4
Ground surfaces 59.0
Design 5.0
Proprietor expenses 3.2
Risk costs 7.2
Total budget 110.9
Standard deviation +/- 7
RoRo (truck+trailer)
Check in operatör (DFDS) Mindre angöringsyta
ISPS gräns, Hamnens kontrollansvar
Fotogate
Uppställning viss definierad tid före avgång Trucks Trailers
Färja Färja
Trailers
Fotogate
ISPS gräns, Hamnens kontrollansvar
Mindre väntyta för dragbilar
Bilaga
Enclosure 1. Port of Karlshamn Basic Planning Data
Passagerare (personbilar)
Check in operatör (DFDS) Bestämd tid före.
ISPS gräns, tull. Hamnens kontrollansvar
Biluppställning per avgång
Färja
P Vänt- sal
Färja
ISPS gräns, tull. Hamnens kontrollansvar
Bilaga
Enclosure 1. Port of Karlshamn Basic Planning Data
Passagerare (gående)
Vänt- sal
Check in operatör (DFDS)
P Kollektivtrafik
ISPS gräns, tull. Hamnens kontrollansvar
Buss till färjan Buss från färjan
ISPS gräns, tull. Hamnens kontrollansvar
Vänt- sal
Kollektivtrafik P
P P
Bilaga
Enclosure 1. Port of Karlshamn Basic Planning Data
B
D
14
Skageracksvägen
A
Hamn
maga
sin
4
D
D
Hamn
maga
sin
2
Hamn
maga
sin
3
A
116
Karl
sham
ns s
tuve
ri o
term
inal
AB
B
Båts
man
Skot
tes
väg
B
Hamn
maga
sin
1
Kattegattsvägen
127
C
C
Nord
sjöv
ägen
4
11-3
MA
FI 8
0 pi
eces
Sem
i-tru
cks
2170
m
Passenger terminal1200 m2
Phot
o
Sem
i-tru
cks
720
m
Chec
k-in
Car
s80
0 m
Trai
lers
, ex
port
51+6
2pi
eces
Long
-term
park
ing
65 p
Buses
Car
s22
0 m
Phot
o
Add
ition
al a
rea
3740
m2
Exi
stin
gpa
rkin
g Trai
lers
, im
port
73+1
5pi
eces
safety distance 5 m
CU
STO
MS X-
ray
plat
form
Alternative Passenger terminal 1200 m2
P:\7301\7000334_Förstudie_RoRo-terminal\000\08_Arbetsmtr_ritn\rit\Ritn_01_Alt5.dwgPlottad: 2014-09-11 12:59:23, SEJOBN, G_PDF-A.pc3, G_Sweco_I_f_hel.ctb
SW
EC
O T
rans
portS
yste
m A
BH
jälm
areg
atan
3, B
ox 2
42, 2
01 2
2 M
alm
ö
Org
.nr.
5569
49-1
698,
sät
e S
tock
holm
ww
w.s
wec
o.se
Kar
lsha
mns
harb
our
Dra
ft de
sign
REM
ARK
SEncl
osur
e 2.
Des
ign
of P
ort a
nd T
ra�
c Sys
tem
CO
ORD
INA
TES:
ELEV
ATI
ON
: RH
00
PLA
NE:
SW
EREF
99
15 0
0
EXPL
AN
ATI
ON
SIS
PS-B
ORD
ER
2014
-10-
06
INTERVIEWROOM
RECEPTION
PASSPORTCONTROL
PASSPORTCONTROL
PASSPORTCONTROL
PASSPORTCONTROL
PASSPORTCONTROL
TICKETINSPECTION
TICKETINSPECTION
HWC WC
WC
WC
WC
WC WC WC
HWC WC WC WC WC
TICKETCOUNTER
WAITING HALLWAITING HALL
OFFICE
PASSPORTCONTROL
BAGGAGEEXAMINATION
BREAK ROOM/KITCHENETTE
WAITING-ROOM
BODY SEARCHROOM BS.
WC
Preliminary study Roro-terminal Karlshamn 2014-10-06Scale 1:200Size: A4
DRAFT DRAWIN
G
N
Draft design of passport control and customs building at Karlshamn harbour
35 m
35 m
Enclosure 3. Passenger Terminal and Customs Function for Foot Passengers
HWC
DOGROOM
INTERVIEWROOM OFFICE
BREAK ROOM/KITCHENETTE
WAITING-ROOM
LOADING PLATFORM
RETRACTEDLIFTING PLATFORM
TRANSPORT VEHICLE/BUSINSPECTION
25 m
25 m
CARINSPECTION
CARINSPECTION
WAITINGROOM
BODY SEARCHROOM
BS.WC
EQUIPMENTROOM
EMP.WC
Preliminary study Roro-terminal Karlshamn2014-10-06Scale 1:100Size: A3
DRAFT DRAWIN
G
Draft design of customs building at Karlshamn harbour
N
Enclosure 4. Customs Function for RoRo Vehicles
RoRo Terminal Karlshamn2014-09-05
Compilation cost calculation SEKM
Properties 36,4
Ground surfaces 59,0
Design 5,0
Proprietor costs 3,2
Risk costs 7,2
Total budget 110,9
Standard deviation +/- 7
Properties
Ground surfaces
Design
Proprietor costs
Risk costs
Enclosure 5. Cost Calculation
Project: RoRo Terminal KarlshamnAssignment No: 7000334Date: 2014-09-05
Costings compilation, Level 1
Cost assessment all years
BL
OC
K DESCRIPTION Unit Quantity MIN (SEK) PROBABLE MAX (SEK)WEIGHTED
FUNDS
SHAREOF
FUNDS% STAND. DEV. VARIANCE
PRIO/ CALC. RISK NOTE
1 NEW GATE
1.1 Building with installation component box and s reen at truck height pce 3 1 600 000,0 1 830 000,0 2 000 000,0 5 453 265 5% 258 065 66 597 294 485 0%
2 HOLDING AREAS INCLUDING TRAFFIC SYSTEM (57 996 999) Not included in summation
2.1 Truck area m2 74700 500,0 716,0 900,0 52 997 363 48% 6 425 806 41 290 988 553 590 94%
2.2 Car parking m2 3035 350,0 477,0 550,0 1 414 248 1% 130 538 17 040 073 997 0%
2.3 New road m2 3015 400,0 477,0 650,0 1 497 224 1% 162 097 26 275 364 204 0%2.4 Traffic system pce 1 1 700 000,0 2 080 000,0 2 500 000,0 2 088 163 2% 172 043 29 598 797 549 0%
3 PASSENGER TERMINAL
3.1 New passenger terminal m2 1113 15 000,0 20 000,0 22 000,0 21 578 571 19% 1 675 484 2 807 246 201 873 6%
4 CUSTOMS FUNCTIONS 0
4.1 New building with Customs functions m2 625 13 000,0 15 000,0 17 000,0 9 375 000 8% 537 634 289 050 757 313 1%
7 DESIGN set ? 1 3 000 000,0 5 000 000,0 7 000 000,0 5 000 000 5% 860 215 739 969 938 721 2%
8 PROPRIETOR COSTS set ? 1 2 000 000,0 3 000 000,0 5 000 000,0 3 204 082 3% 645 161 416 233 090 531 1%
9 GENERAL UNCERTAINTIES
9.1 Quantity deviations/Changes and Additional Works set ? 1 5 000 000,0 7 000 000,0 10 000 000,0 7 204 082 6% 1 075 269 1 156 203 029 252 3%
9.2 Laws and regulations 0 0% 0 0 0%
9.3 Swedish Transport administration/proprietor 0 0% 0 0 0%
9.4 Opinion/surroundings 0 0% 0 0 0%
9.5 Implementation 0 0% 0 0 0%
9.6 Financing 0 0% 0 0 0%
9.7 Development and utlisation 0 0% 0 0 0%
9.8 Ducting to to barriers, etc./ wireless systems pce 1 700 000,0 1 000 000,0 1 500 000,0 1 040 816 1% 172 043 29 598 797 549 0%
9.9 Miscellaneous (voluntary) 0 0% 0 0 0%
9.10 Miscellaneous (voluntary) 0 0% 0 0 0%
GROSS COST 50 % PROBABILITY (SEK): 110 852 815 100% 6 616 079 43 772 504 939 877 100%UNCERTAINTY 1-STD.DEV. (SEK): +/- 6 616 079
UNCERTAINTY 1-STD.DEV. (%): +/- 6%
COST
Enclosure 5. Cost Calculation
Designation Quantit Unit Price per unit Total
Status 1 New gate 5 490 000
1.1
Buiding with installation component box
and screen at truck height 3 1 830 000 5 490 000Building with installation component
box and screen at truck height Camera
system Traffic lights red/green on 3 m
pole Project management, installation
and travel costs Building 10 x 8 m.
Height 7 m. Gate opening: 5 m high 4 m
wide 240 m2 22 875 5 490 000
Status 2 Holding areas incl. traffic system 58 413 398
2.1
TRUCK AREA Asphalt heavy traffic on
normal ground 4/c, ds 74 700 m2 716 53 447 850Soil excavation, Case A 22 410 m3 150 3 361 500Soil excavation, Case B 14 940 m3 300 4 482 000Backfill soil, Case A 22 410 m3 35 784 350Sub‐base Tj 300 74 700 m2 125 9 337 500Bearing course Tj 110 74 700 m2 55 4 108 500Bitumen‐stabilised gravel BG 50 74 700 m2 120 8 964 000Soft asphalt concrete 100 Mab 12t 74 700 m2 300 22 410 000
2.2
CARPARK Asphalt normal traffic on normal
ground 2/c,ds 3 035 m2 477 1 447 543Soil excavation, Case A 607 m3 150 91 050Soil excavation, Case B 304 m3 300 91 050Backfill soil, Case A 607 m3 35 21 245
Sub‐baseTj 150 3 035 m2 55 166 773
Bearing course Tj 110 3 035 m2 55 166 925
Soft asphalt concrete 100 Mab 12t 3 035 m2 300 910 500
2.3
NEW ROAD Asphalt normal traffic on
normal ground 2/c,ds 3 015 m2 477 1 438 004
Soil excavation, Case A 603 m3 150 90 450
Soil excavation, Case B 302 m3 300 90 450
Backfill soil, Case A 603 m3 35 21 105
Sub‐base Tj 150 3 015 m2 55 165 674
Bearing course Tj 110 3 015 m2 55 165 825
Soft asphalt concrete100 Mab 12t 3 015 m2 300 904 500
2.4 Traffic system 1 pce 2 080 000 2 080 000
Sign gantries 3 pce 50 000 150 000
Signs 10 pce 2 000 20 000
Line painting 10 000 m 35 350 000
Lighting 1 pce 500 000 500 000
Fencing 1 300 m 650 845 000
Gates 5 pce 25 000 125 000
Barriers 6 pce 15 000 90 000
Status 3 Passenger terminal 22 260 000New passenger terminal 1 113 m2 20 000 22 260 000
Status 4 Customs functions 9 375 000Customs functions 625 m2 15 000 9 375 000
Net
calculation 95 538 398
Enclosure 5. Cost Calculation