By Dan McCue
Staff Writer

Shortly after ceremonially breaking ground at the site of the new cargo container terminal planned for the south end of the former Charleston Naval Base, members of the S.C. State Ports Authority board began discussing the possibility of engaging in an entirely different undertaking—enhancing Charleston’s 35 year old cruise ship terminal to capture more of that tourism rich trade.

As in the case of its container terminals, the Port of Charleston’s cruise ship terminal is being visited by larger ships with far more frequency, and the circa-1972 passenger terminal is simply running out of space.

This past year alone, Norwegian Cruise Line, the only line with which the SPA currently has a contract, called on the terminal  27 times, and has plans to add Charleston to the itinerary of nine more of its cruises.

Joe Bryant, the SPA’s vice president for terminal development, told the board that at a future board meeting, he’ll be requesting the board hire a consultant with experience in the cruise ship industry to do an analysis of the existing terminal in line of current industry needs, and to come up with a plan to bring the one-story terminal at the foot of Market Street into the 21st century.

Bernard S. Groseclose Jr., the SPA’s president and CEO, told board members that while the cruise industry itself has grown and changed, the Port of Charleston “kept this (aspect of our business) running with what we’ve had.”

He went on to suggest that a move to create a new state-of-the-art facility could enhance the SPA’s ability to capitalize on the existing terminal’s proximity to historic downtown Charleston.

Of course, even without a consultant on board, a number of SPA board members said such a move would require the creation of a lot more parking in the area and a lot more terminal space.

Bryant agreed. Today, he said, most state-of-the-art terminals that handle both debarkations and embarkations, as Charleston does, are at least 30,000 square feet. By comparison, the Charleston terminal is just 18,000 square feet.

Possibilities for expansion could  include tearing down or retrofitting old warehouses the SPA owns adjacent to the facility, or perhaps adding a second story to the existing terminal facility.

SPA chairman Bill Stern asked whether all the effort was worthwhile, particularly in light of past suggestions that the port’s cruise business wasn’t that big an activity.

“Has something changed? Is it lucrative?” Stern asked.

In response Groseclose said the cruise industry’s has been growing in importance to Charleston in recent years, as have expressions of interest by various cruise operations.

“In the cruise business they’re constantly looking for new destinations, something that will set them apart from the competition,” Groseclose said.

Before the conversation concluded, he mentioned that the Union Pier Redevelopment Plan long envisioned a second story being added to the cruise terminal.

In other action, SPA vice chairman Whitemarsh S. Smith III retracted a statement he’d made that suggested the Port of Charleston had lost as many as 104 ship calls between November 2006 and March 2007.

In actuality, he said, he’d included shipping activity at both the public and the privately operated terminals that comprise the port, and rolling the numbers together skewed the picture of what’s actually transpiring on the waterfront.

Smith said while the number of calls were down at the Wando Welch terminal when the period was compared to November 2005 through March 2006, when there were 451 calls on the terminal compared to 384 in the more recent period, other terminals actually saw gains.

These included the Columbus Street terminal, were activity grew from 130 calls in November 2005 through March 2006, to 161 calls in November 2006 through March 2007, and the North Charleston terminal, which went from 131 calls in November 2005 through March 2006, to 167 calls in November 2006 through March 2007.

The passenger terminal also picked up a net gain of two additional calls over the past year.

What this all boiled down to, Smith said, was that the Port of Charleston appears to be holding relatively steady in terms of port calls, gaining a net total of two calls overall, while private terminals experienced a decline of 66 calls between the two periods of comparison.

Lastly, port officials told the board that they are in talks with the city of Charleston about an easement agreement that would help the city install additional sidewalk at the end of the Arthur Ravanel Jr. Bridge ramp.

The deal, which still must go legal ratification pursuant to the SPA’s bond obligations, would allow the city to move the SPA’s current security fence by as much as 18 inches to install a proper sidewalk.

In return for the SPA’s bestowing the easement, the city would agree to erect a new security fence for the authority and to maintain the landscaping along it, according to the tentative plans.

SUBSCRIBE | REPRINTS | CONTACT US

Phone: 843-849-3100    Fax: 843-849-3122