Adobe Acrobat File:port_facilities.pdf
This document is a text-only version of the original Adobe Acrobat file. Graphics and formatting may be lost in the conversion from pdf to html.
View the Adobe Acrobat version of this file.
C. Port Facilities - clustering of the heaviest port activities
(Eastern Shore) The concentration of port operations can be seen as an integral part of at-
and heavy industry on the lake (perhaps tracting a greater variety of desired land
under the aegis of a Port Authority or uses to the lake while at the same time,
Muskegon's long held slogan, "Port other quasi-public agency) can be seen enhancing Muskegon's viability as a
City" stems from its long and storied as benefiting both industry and the gen- general cargo port.
history as a Great Lakes port-of-call for eral public in a variety of ways. In the
the shipping of locally abundant raw case of the former, economies-of-scale At a minimum, the logistical require-
materials, primarily lumber. However it and other efficiencies can be achieved ments for a port include ample land for
belies the fact that the City has never through the common use of port related storage and warehousing, deep water
had an official foci for its shipping and infrastructure such as: booms, steve- berths, and convenient access to a re-
break-bulk dore (gantry) cranes, deep wa- gional transportation network. Of all
activities; ter slips, warehousing and the sections of shoreline historically
only scattered transportation facilities thus used for industrial purposes, the section
wharves, relieving each operator of the of shoreline between Fisherman's
docks and need to maintain separate fa- Landing and the CMS, Cobb Plant per-
bulkheads lo- cilities. Perhaps more impor- haps best meets all of these criteria.
cated at vari- tantly, effective management Along this stretch of shoreline there are
ous points of port activities could eventu- several deep water slips, ample acreage
along the ally lead to full containeriza- for storage and access to inland rail
Lake. tion capabilities and more ex- transport. Most importantly, it is only a
pansive use of Foreign Trade Zone short distance to U.S. 31 and its conflu-
While this historical pattern of devel- (FTZ) designations. ence with I-96.
opment has added a distinctive 19th
Century character to parts of the water- From the public's standpoint, large A key benefit to a central port at this
front, it has also perpetuated a land use tracts of formerly inaccessible water- location is the reduction in truck traffic
pattern destructive of the environment front lands would be opened up for
and of the public's enjoyment of the more optimal uses such as housing and
lake. Worse still, the negative external- recreation. Truck traffic, and the wear
ities associated with port operations and tear it causes to local roads, would
(i.e. dust, noise, truck and train traffic), be more effectively contained to more
routinely spill over into residential sec- compatible areas away from high con-
tions of the City. centrations of housing. In short, the
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 40
This page: Conceptual planning for
port facilities on Muskegon Lake. Ship-
ping operations should have good ac-
cess to the regional transportation net-
work, and incorporate public viewing
areas wherever possible. Aggregate
storage and warehousing should be
limited to the northern edge of the site.
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 41
n downtown and along other sections of sediment. At the very least, special backgrounds. The presence of commer-
the lake. Trucks could quickly and eas- measures would have to be imple- cial vessels both animates and adds
ily access the port and circumvent mented to move the materials to a character to many urban waterfronts.
downtown altogether. Greatly reduced Class II
would be the heavy truck traffic along disposal Although
Muskegon and Webster Avenues. site. port facili-
ties have
Consideration however, would have to historically
be given to the amount of dredging re- been
quired to accommodate large ships at treated as
this location. The existing slips are not forbidden
currently wide enough to fit two ships wastelands,
side by side and at some point the slips many ports
may have to be widened and/or deep- have re-
ened. Given the present restrictions on cently at-
dredg- tempted to
ing soften their
activi- appearance
ties in Observation by developing public observation decks
Mus- Areas and piers. It is therefore important ,as
kegon with all other sections of shoreline, that
Lake The call for greater the future development of any port fa-
(due to public access to the cilities in Muskegon include adequate
sedi- lake (made else- public access and viewing areas.
ment where in this sub-
con- plan) applies Funding Sources
tamina equally to any pro-
tion), a posed port opera- Possible funding sources include: pri-
tions. It is widely vate capital investments, TEA-21
mitigation plan may have to be coordi- acknowledged that the watching of transportation grants, and the creation
nated with the DEQ and/or EPA to ef- ships and shipping operations have of a port authority entity with full
fectuate the necessary improvements, long provided a source of genuine en- bonding and condemnation powers.
including disposal of the hazardous tertainment for people of all ages and
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 42
Port facilities should be visually accessible, and incorporate the public realm. *Drawing by Collette Klukos.
Facing page: Playground in Vancouver, B.C., with port facilities as a backdrop (top). As in Muskegon, a passing ship proves to be
an "event" on the Duluth, MN waterfront (bottom).
* Source: Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim Their Edge", Breen & Rigby.
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 43