Inland Waterways Intermodal Transportation System Design and Feasibility Analysis

Inland Waterways Intermodal Transportation System Design and Feasibility Analysis Expanding the Use of Our Nation’s Inland and Coastal Waterways Syste...
Author: Melina Bradford
5 downloads 0 Views 736KB Size
Inland Waterways Intermodal Transportation System Design and Feasibility Analysis Expanding the Use of Our Nation’s Inland and Coastal Waterways System to Improve Freight Productivity and Protect our Environment

Prepared For Office of Intermodal Development United States Maritime Administration United States Department of Transportation Prepared By The University of Virginia Accelerated Masters Program in Systems Engineering Team Mississippi

Team Mississippi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States currently maintains a vast transportation network used for transporting cargo around the country. As the current infrastructure of the United States intermodal transportation system approaches its capacity, congestion ensues, resulting in lost time and revenues. Alternative means for augmenting transport capacity are thus explored. In particular, the integration of the inland waterways into the nation’s current intermodal transportation system potentially provides a reasonably efficient, cost effective means for transporting cargo. Determining the economic viability and feasibility of integrating the inland waterways system into the nation’s current intermodal transportation system is an issue currently faced by the United States Maritime Administration. Because the Inland River Container Services (IRCS) are not fully integrated with the intermodal system, a great potential for low-cost transport is underutilized. Unfortunately, there are several factors impeding integration of the intermodal system with existing river facilities, such as the river locking system which is in serious state of disrepair and would require extensive funding to upgrade and maintain. Utilizing a holistic systems framework, the analysis herein identifies a number of candidate short and long term solutions to the problem. Due to the time constraints on the project and resources available, some system engineering tools were not able to be fully exercised to obtain additional viable solutions. However, the alternative solutions identified to assist in increasing inland waterway integration for shipping cargo containers include: a) lock upgrades and replacement, b) “iModal”, an intermodal information technology solution, c) a transportation consortium, d) back haul brokerage, e) provision of incentives to alleviate congestion during seasonal congestion, f) port upgrades, and g) a joint venture of various identified alternatives. Based on several systems analyses conducted within, the final recommendation is to embark on a technology-supported joint venture which aims to integrate and systematically optimize the nation’s intermodal transportation system.

5/25/2005

Page 2 of 37

Team Mississippi

Table of Contents I.

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 5 Background Information ............................................................................................ 5 Problem Definition ...................................................................................................... 5 Description of the Current System............................................................................. 6 Descriptive Scenario of the System ............................................................................ 6 Objective of the Analysis............................................................................................. 7 Normative Scenario ..................................................................................................... 8 Description of What Is To Be Gained........................................................................ 9 II. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK.............................................................................. 10 Scope of the System and Approach of the Analysis................................................ 10 Methods and Processes for Completing Analysis ................................................... 10 Gibsonology........................................................................................................... 10 Process Tools......................................................................................................... 11 CORE® System .................................................................................................... 11 System Constraints .................................................................................................... 11 Externally Established and Controlled Restrictions......................................... 11 Identified Risks..................................................................................................... 12 Axiological Components ...................................................................................... 13 Environmental Considerations ........................................................................... 13 Laws....................................................................................................................... 14 Financial................................................................................................................ 15 System Assumptions .................................................................................................. 15 General Assumptions:.......................................................................................... 15 Risk Assumptions ................................................................................................. 15 Army Corps of Engineers Data Assumptions: .................................................. 17 Criteria Evaluation Assumptions: ...................................................................... 18 Evaluation Criteria and Use ..................................................................................... 19 Screening Criteria ................................................................................................ 19 Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................. 20 Evaluation Factors ............................................................................................... 21 Alternative Solutions ................................................................................................. 22 The “iModal” System Solution: .......................................................................... 22 An Intermodal Transportation Consortium: .................................................... 25 Lock Modernization:............................................................................................ 27 The Backhaul Solution: ....................................................................................... 29 The Seasonality Solution: .................................................................................... 30 Port Upgrades and Maintenance:....................................................................... 30 Alternative Evaluation .............................................................................................. 31 III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 32 V. APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 35 VI. REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 36

5/25/2005

Page 3 of 37

Team Mississippi

Table of Tables Table 1 - Evaluation Criteria Table 2 - Criteria Ranking Definitions Table 3 - Shipping Cost Approximation for “iModal” System Table 4 - Empty Barge Movement Data Table 5 - Unused Ton Movement Table 6 - Overhaul Solution Impact Table 7 - Goods Movement by Trucks Table 8 - Alternative Solutions Evaluation Results Table 9 – Joint Venture Evaluation Rankings Table 10 - Sensitivity Analysis Framework

20 21 24 29 29 30 30 31 33 34

Table of Figures Figure 1 - Influencing Variables for the Integrated Intermodal Transportation System Figure 2 - Logistical Flow of Fully-Integrated Intermodal System Figure 3 - Hierarchical Holographic Model for Risks Figure 4 - Stakeholder Interest Risk Filtering Figure 5 - Risk Scenarios Figure 6 - Risk Ranking Figure 7 - Ohio River System Figure 8 – Potential “iModal” Network Diagram

5/25/2005

8 9 12 16 17 17 18 23

Page 4 of 37

Team Mississippi

I.

INTRODUCTION

Background Information The transportation infrastructure of the United States has allowed the country to become the world leader in the Global Market that it is today by providing a high quality, inexpensive, expansive network of roads, bridges, rails, and inland waterway ports and locks. Throughout the 1900’s the growth of the United States was directly related to the capital investment in infrastructure which supports the movement of finished goods, raw materials, farm products, and people. It was this growth in infrastructure that not only provided jobs, but allowed the many corporations of the United States to become the leaders in goods provisions around the world. It was these actions that pulled the country out of the Depression and the United States businesses to maintain their stance as industry leadersi. Through the direct use of the transportation infrastructure, the United States has become one of the wealthiest nations in the world only through further advancements in this imperative system will it maintain this status. As roads and rails have seen increasing congestion nearing maximum capacity, leading to lost time and money, increasingly harming the environment through pollutants, and becoming a large expense to repair, maintain and traverse, we begin to look to the inland waterway network as the solution to alleviating these problems. The inland waterway system of the United States stands as a minimally exploited system which, if optimized, could help eliminate congestion, pollution, and provide a low cost alternative to long haul passages. However, despite its many rewards, the system has yet to be integrated with other means of transportation currently available. Through examination of the entire intermodal system and the many factors inhibiting the inland waterways from being a preferred route for goods movement, we will be able to determine the feasibility of integrating the inland waterways transportation system into the nation’s current intermodal transportation system

Problem Definition Determining the feasibility of integrating the inland waterway system into the nation’s current inter-modal transportation system is a current issue facing the U.S Maritime Administration. The problem exists because the Inland River Container Services (IRCS) are not fully integrated with the inter-modal system. Identified reasons are the following: problems with integration, technology, procedures, economics, stove-piping effects and axiological concerns including political and social considerations. The current river system does not immediately support integration – there are multiple technical as well as infrastructural problems which need addressing in order to improve the inland waterway system and to integrate with land based transportations. The existing technology does not meet the needs of users in terms of locks, ports and terminals, and vessels. The concept of operations currently used is not convenient for shippers and it needs enhancements to integrate rail and road. A reliable supply chain management needs to be employed with real-time scheduling and availability features. Funding is not properly allocated or available which is the major issue facing technology. Stakeholders are operating independently of each other. This independence will be addressed through the creation of a consortium that will consist of select key industry stakeholders. Further, the

5/25/2005

Page 5 of 37

Team Mississippi

community, environmental and political concerns are not met by the current river system. Integration is not currently present because it is not yet and absolute necessity. The railroad and trucking industry are meeting their current capacity needs and see the integration as a potential lost of business.

Description of the Current System The combinatory effects of funding, technology, regulation, and system inefficiencies has left the United States Inland Waterway System, specifically the Mississippi River and it’s tributaries, without the means to be competitive in a fast-moving and demanding economy. Without being able to offer competitive prices, delivery time and goods protection the inland waterways will continue to be a vastly underutilized system. Without pursuing the involvement of the inland waterways as a member of the greater intermodal transportation system, it will not be possible to achieve the efficient goods transfer system that we so heavily rely on. Through consideration of public policy, regulations, and funding, as well as the normal hindrances to operation including weather and environmental influences, the development of a truly optimal intermodal system of goods movement has high potential to be developed.

Descriptive Scenario of the System The Inland River Container System (IRCS) is not fully integrated with the current United States intermodal transportation system due to the lack of capability and accessibility of road and rail options in place, despite increasing demands for commercial transportation capacity on the inland waterways. The current transportation system is operating without collaboration, and as stove-piped organizations with minimal communication and planning between the different transport types. Private sector companies, including Osprey Line and CSG, are in fact operating container-on-barge (COB) services along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The operation is both a fiscal benefit to the companies, as well as provisional in providing a cost effective, congestion alleviating, environmentally sound alternative to the current road and rail options commonly utilized in the United States. These independent operators provide limited service involving the scheduling, planning, and execution of transportation routes, but exploitation and optimization is not performed in a cogent, systematic manner like the current U.S. Interstate Highway System. As the number of independent operators has grown, so has the traffic and congestion on the waterways – with the impact most pronounced on inland locks. Inland waterway lock systems experience frequent and unexpected maintenance delays due to outdated and failing infrastructure and technology. Maintenance of the inland waterway channels and locks is the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, who in 2002 operated 275 lock chambers at 230 sites. However, due to budgetary constraints and a lack of investors in the system, only 195 sites with 240 chambers received any funding. Fifty-three percent (53%) of all lock chambers, or 145 chambers, have exceeded their 50-year design livesii. Maintenance and updating fund limitations results in an inability of the IRCS to deliver goods efficiently, safely and reliably at a competitive price.

5/25/2005

Page 6 of 37

Team Mississippi

As the requirements for new and improved facilities continue to grow, sources of funding for these facilities have become difficult to obtain. Traditional funding options are often times inadequate or unavailable for projects along the water system. Sources of funding for updates and maintenance include the Inland Waterway Trust Fundiii, which is supported through a $0.20 per gallon tax on fuel. The Trust Fund provides 50% of the cost of major capital improvement projects on the inland waterways, but was initially designated for the improvement of locks and dams. Additional funding is made available through the Harbor Services User Fee (formerly Harbor Maintenance Tax)iv which generates funds to pay the Department of the Army’s annual costs of developing, operating, and maintaining the nation’s harbor channels and related facilities. The tax is paid by the vessel operators and is not collected on exports. Although these and other sources of funds exist, the monetary investment needed to keep the Inland Waterways as a viable and competitive transportation system is unavailable. The funds available have been unable to keep up the aging infrastructure essential to the life of the Mississippi River shipping routes. As our nation has matured both physically, through the acquisition of new territory, and legislatively, through the formation of new states, organizations and regulatory commissions, the waterway system has fallen under the jurisdiction of many levels of governmental structure. Local, regional, state and federal guidelines and regulations on use and expansion of the waterways affect several portions of the potential inland river transportation system. These overlapping regulatory boundaries present seams that impose unique challenges toward further improvements in the system.v Environmental protection of the river is ensured through the passing of several legislative policies, including the Clean Water Act (CWA)vi which establishes the basic scheme for restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by generally prohibiting the discharge of oil and hazardous substances into coastal or ocean waters. In addition to further environmental protection acts, numerous regulatory measures are in place that govern the behavior and accessibility of vessels traveling on the United States waterways. For instance, the Jones Act of 1920vii only allows U.S. built, owned, and operated vessels transporting goods to traverse the river. U.S. built ships can be up to three times as expensive as foreign built competitors causing the potential for increased pricesviii. The Intermodal Shipping Container Security Act 2005 (bill form)ix allows for inspections and further regulations of goods on the inland waterways and was developed in response to security threats. The policies and regulations act as an aid to ensuring protection of goods, life, and environment, but also require special planning and additional financing in order to meet the requirements expected of all users of the inland waterway system.

Objective of the Analysis This study is a goal-centered analysis which examines the normative, descriptive, and transitive scenarios involved in container-on-barge (COB) shipping on the U.S. inland waterways.

5/25/2005

Page 7 of 37

Team Mississippi

Normative Scenario A fully functional and optimized IRCS system contains a holistic approach to integrating the use of inland waterway transportation for shipping cargo. The system has four major functions: Scheduling, Planning, Execution, and Follow-up. The scope of this analysis includes only the following five river ports: New Orleans, Memphis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. This system is expandable to the other ports and terminals along the Mississippi River and its tributaries, as well as all other inland waterway systems facing similar hindrances to full maximization of potential. Scheduling Phase During the scheduling phase the system performs several functions, from scheduling commodity distribution to the ports from rail and/or road to identifying traffic patterns along the river system between port terminals, as well as careful timing for passage through the lock and dam systems where applicable. Planning Phase During the planning phase, the system performs functions to identify specific intermodal transportation routes to transport commodities requested by the shipper, while simultaneously meeting the multiple objectives of price, delivery time, and goods protection demanded by the shipper and receiver. Execution Phase During the execution phase, the system is monitoring the current state of the IRCS. System performance is monitored, collected and stored for later analysis. Information such as lock performance, vessel performance, the number of commodities en-route, and unused capacity of vessels en-route will be retained for future analysis and decision making. Follow-Up Phase During the follow-up phase, analysis of collected data is used to determine system performance enhancements, maintenance requests, identify disposal needs, and the like.

Figure 1 - Influencing Variables for the Integrated Intermodal Transportation System

5/25/2005

Page 8 of 37

Team Mississippi

Description of What Is To Be Gained The feasibility of the fully-integrated IRCS system, as depicted below in Figure 2, will be capable of iterating through all of the above functions, thereby providing the seamless, and easy to use, just-in-time delivery system demanded by users and offered through the current road and rail transportation combinations which are nearing maximum capacity. The following analysis will further explore the potential to achieve this ideal transportation system in the United States. This analysis works to gain a better understanding of the feasibility of this concept.

Send information Vessel, Crew,Carg To DHS

Import

Goods Imported To U.S

Documentation Freight Cleared

Transportation Submit Request via Multi-Modal System

Verify Availability And release

Pick up Product at Terminals and Transport

Inform Customer via Email and Tracking System

Receive Orders for Fulfillment

Deliver to Port

Cargo is put on Truck or Rail

Deliver to Customer

Handling and Storage Receiver at Warehouse/Staging

Fulfillment Process Orders for Pickup

Pick Up Orders

Ship to Final Port

Customer Service Follow up on Shipment

Send Information via email

Final Receipt and Update Database

Figure 2 - Logistical Flow of Fully-Integrated Intermodal System

5/25/2005

Page 9 of 37

Team Mississippi

II.

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

Scope of the System and Approach of the Analysis For the purposes of modeling (given constraints of time, money, etc.) only the following five inland ports, which move the largest amount of tonnage in a year, the twenty locks between them, and the goods and commodities shipped through them, will be considered: New Orleans, LA The final river port before entering the Gulf of Mexico, known as the Gateway to the Global Marketplace with direct rail service to anywhere in the country. Memphis, TN The second largest Mississippi inland port on the shallow draft portion. St. Louis, MO The northernmost port on the Mississippi with ice-free conditions and provides a lock-free route to New Orleans. Cincinnati, OH The fifth largest inland port with four major railroad systems, fifteen major metro markets within 600 miles, and home to ten fortune 500 companies. Pittsburgh, PA The second largest inland port in the United States and is situated at the beginning of the inland waterway. Additionally, the analysis is reduced to the consideration of four primary influential factors, including the market potential and feasibility, the current and desired concept of operation, the technological assets and barriers, and any regulatory and legal considerations. These will be the major drivers in assessing the feasibility of integrating the inland waterway systems into the current intermodal transportation systems.

Methods and Processes for Completing Analysis Gibsonology The Gibson Methodology of systems analysis (Dr. Jack Gibson, University of Virginia) is applied as a general framework and approach to problem solving, and was reiterated multiple times to expound upon the many alternative scenarios and potential solutions. Gibson’s methodology consists of six major phases: 1. Determine the Goal of the System 2. Establish Criteria for Ranking Alternative Candidates 3. Develop Alternative Solutions 4. Rank Alternative Candidates 5. Iterate 6. Action Throughout the analysis, Excel was employed to model the system of barges in an effort to determine the number traveling through each lock. Lock delay times were calculated to identify candidate locks to be marked as bottlenecks. Additionally, Excel was used to quantify the commodities shipped in the U.S in order to target market demand, as well as to estimate operational costs. Risk Management Analysis (Haimes) was used to assess the risk of the inter-modal system with the Risk Ranking (RFRM) methodology to identify high risk areas.

5/25/2005

Page 10 of 37

Team Mississippi

Process Tools In order to better understand the state of the current inland waterway system, several statistical analyses were conducted based on the “Lock Statistics” data from Navigation Data Center (NDC) Publications. The main variables examined include Average Delay Time, Main Lock Outage, and Lock Tonnage throughput. The methods involved in the analysis include summary observations of the data via graphical means utilizing Microsoft Excel and S-plus Statistical Analysis Software. From the summary observations, a linear regression was conducted in S-Plus to identify significant predictors of the selected response variables (Average Delay Time, Total Kiloton Shipped, etc.). Where appropriate, contrast analysis was used to compare the means to determine the statistically significant differences between categorical predictor variables (Locks, Month, Season, Quarter, etc.). In conducting the regression and significance analysis, a predictor variable was determined to be significant if its p-value is less than or equal to 0.05 (95% confidence).

CORE® System As part of the system engineering decision making process, identification of requirements, system components, and system functions is crucial. To assist in coordinating the effort of identifying the system, CORE®, a system engineering, modeling and integration tool that assists in documenting and tracing requirements within the system was utilized. In addition, CORE® supports discrete event simulation by the use of defined system scenarios, components, and functions. Out of CORE®, the requirements documentation, performance specifications and system diagrams are generated. For the scope of this project, only system modeling for the capstone project and inland waterway system alternative solutions have been identified and captured in CORE®. The CORE® generated documentation can be located in a separate addendum to this report.

System Constraints The following restrictions have been established by the scope of this document and will remain unchanged throughout the course of this analysis.

Externally Established and Controlled Restrictions The following resource constraints identified are the river capacities, physical water system limitations due to location of river, uncertainties of weather, size of the tow (15 barges on average), the 100 nautical mile per day average travel distance, and the 6 km per hour average speed for barges. The following water maintenance constraints have been identified: the age of the infrastructure, the hours of operation for the locks, and the varying river depths. Other constraints include the skilled worker availability, i.e. tug operators, captains, and maintenance and repair specialists.

5/25/2005

Page 11 of 37

Team Mississippi

Identified Risks The following risks have been identified as being relevant to this system in a Hierarchical Holographic Modelx. Technology

Temporal

Infrastructure

Political/Social

Environmental

Legal

Outreach

Economical

Org

Ownership

Future Capacity

Road -Congestion -Damage

Federal -Homeland Security -Terror

Endangered Species

Laws of Waterway -Jones Act

Marketing -Demand for shipping

Subsidies

Army Corp of Engineers

Private

Investment Option

Rail -Short Distance -Long Distance

States

Pollution

Interstate

Public Acceptance

Cost -Initial -Operations -Maintenance

Department of Transportation

Public

Communications

Terror

River -Locks

Local Communities

Eco- Tourism

State

Info. Dissemination

Start-ups

States

Consortium

Ports Locks

Maintenance

Capacity

Safety

River System

International

Employment -New Jobs created -Jobs Lost

Department of Homeland Security

Hubs/Terminals

Start-up Time

Distribution Centers

Climate -Seasons

Navigation -International -Local

Oil

Shippers

Vessels

Locks

Navigation

Ports

Delay

Manufactures/Retailers

Container Handling

Warehousing/Stages

Liability

Labor Union

Tolls

Railroad

Fees

MARAD

Port Authority

United States Coast Guards

Figure 3 - Hierarchical Holographic Model for Risks

5/25/2005

Page 12 of 37

Team Mississippi

Axiological Components Political constraints involve considerations of the union contracts in place, the federal funds provided for work projects, state funded work projects, and the allocation of resources and work based upon lobbying efforts to elected officials – not necessarily those who are best suited to perform the work to increase the efficiency of the system. Social constraints involve the consideration of the area property owners who may oppose legislation and the recreational fishing and boating communities and organizations that may be negatively impacted by changes in operational policies that could lead to the loss of navigational freedoms and liberties on the inland waterways. In addition, farming communities and farmers may view the consortium as an imposition on their business decisions and as a form of control over their ability to create profits.

Environmental Considerations The main legislations (see Legal and Trust Fund References Appendix for sources), which govern the use of the inland waterways and aim to protect the environment are outlined below: Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic scheme for restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Endangered Species Act (ESA) The ESA prohibits the taking, defined broadly as harassment, harm, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, collecting, or attempting to engage in any of this type of conduct of any member of an endangered species. The requirements of the ESA are enforceable, and federal agencies must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such an agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Federal Water Project Recreation Act The Federal Water Project Recreation Act requires that recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement be given full consideration in federal water development projects. The Act authorizes the use of federal water project funds for land acquisition in order to establish refuges for migratory waterfowl and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide facilities for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife at all reservoirs under the Secretary's control, except those within national wildlife refuges.

5/25/2005

Page 13 of 37

Team Mississippi

Laws The main legislations (see Legal and Trust Fund References Appendix for sources) which govern the use of the inland waterways are outlined below: The Jones Act The Jones Act stipulates that vessels used to transfer cargo between U. S. Ports must be owned, operated, and built by U.S. Citizens. Ports and Waterways Safety Act The Ports and Waterways Safety Act was designed to promote navigation, vessel safety, and protection of the marine environment. This act allows for the United States Coast Guard to establish vessel traffic service and separation (VTSS) schemes for ports, harbors and other waters subject to congested vehicle traffic. Increased supervision of vessel and port operations was deemed necessary in order to reduce the possibility of vessel or cargo loss, or damage to life, property, or the marine environment, prevent damage to structures in, on, or immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the U.S. or the resources within such waters, ensure vessels operating in the navigable waters of the U.S. shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements for vessel construction, equipment, manning, and operational procedures, and ensure the handling of dangerous articles and substances on the structures in, on, or immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the U.S. is conducted in accordance with established standards and requirements. Water Resources Development Act The Water Resources Development Act establishes a new interim goal for the Corps of Engineers water resources program of no overall net loss of the nations remaining wetland base and a long-term goal of increasing the quality and quantity of the nation's wetlands. The Act also directs the Secretary of the Army to include environmental protection as one of the primary missions of the Corps. The Act contains other general provisions affecting the Corps’s water resources projects, including the enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem restoration plan for the upper Mississippi river and Illinois Waterway System. Water Resources Planning Act Congress declared that to meet the rapidly expanding demands for water throughout the U.S. its policy is to encourage the conservation, development and use of water and related land resources on a comprehensive, coordinated and cooperative basis by the federal government, states, localities and private enterprise. The objectives of Congress in federally financed water resource projects are to enhance regional economic development, the quality of the environment, the well-being of people in the U.S. and national economic development. Inter-modal Shipping Container Security Act 2005 (Bill Form) Directs the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security to take into account a certain National Maritime Transportation Security Plan to ensure that the strategy for dealing with threats to transportation security incorporates relevant aspects of the Plan and addresses all modes of commercial transportation to, 5/25/2005

Page 14 of 37

Team Mississippi

from, and within the United States. This act directs the Under Secretary to implement a plan for random inspection of shipping containers in addition to any targeted or preshipment inspection of such containers required by law. The act sets forth civil penalties for discrepancies found in container manifests.

Financial Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act (Federal Ship Financing Guarantee Program) The government, through the Maritime Administration, guarantees payment of the underlying debt obligations, permitting the ship owner to obtain long-term financing at favorable interest rates. Inland Waterway Trust Fund The Inland Waterway Trust Fund is funded by a tax on diesel fuel used by barges. This fund provides 50 percent of the cost of major capital improvements on the inland waterway system. Any monies drawn from these funds must be authorized by Congress. Harbor Services User Fee (formerly Harbor Maintenance Tax) Harbor Services User Fees are used for the Army Corp of Engineer’s annual costs of developing, operating, and maintaining the nation’s harbor channels and related facilities. The fee is paid by the vessel operator and is not collected on Exports (declared in 1988 to be unconstitutional to collect on exports). Payments depend on the size and value of the cargo.

System Assumptions General Assumptions: The current container-on-barge service is estimated to have the following cost structure. Alternative solutions will be compared against many of the costs below in order to determine the most viable options. The following assumptions have also been made: projected demand for the transportation of goods will be two-fold in the next 10 years, the current river system is not adequate to support future demand, and the current intermodal system is at or near capacity.

Risk Assumptions Given the risks previously recognized (see HHM for Risks Figure), the following risk filtering (as described by Haimes) was performed and is assumed to be representative of the actual risks most prevalent in the system. Highlighted risks are further filtered and assessed to determine their likelihood of occurrence (see below). These risks are assumed to be the most pressing system risks.

5/25/2005

Page 15 of 37

Team Mississippi

Technology

Vessels

Locks

Communications

Ports Locks

Hubs/Terminals

Temporal

Infrastructure

Political/Social

Environmental

Legal

Outreach

Economical

Org

Ownership

Future Capacity

Road -Congestion -Damage

Federal -Homeland Security -Terror

Endangered Species

Legislation

Marketing -Demand for shipping

Subsidies

Army Corp of Engineers

Private

Investment Option

Rail -Short Distance -Long Distance

States

Pollution

Interstate

Public Acceptance

Cost -Initial -Operations -Maintenance

Department of Transportation

Public

Terror

River -Locks

Local Communities

Eco- Tourism

State

Info. Dissemination

Start-ups

States

Consortium

Maintenance

Capacity

Safety

River System

International

Employment -New Jobs created -Jobs Lost

Federal -Department of Homeland security

Start-up Time

Distribution Centers

Climate -Seasons

Navigation -International -Local

Oil Prices

Shippers

Navigation

Ports

Delay

Manufactures/Retailers

Container Handling

Warehousing/Stages

Liability

Labor Union/Truckers

Supply Chain / Logistics

Tolls

Railroad

Fees

MARAD

Port Authority

United States Coast Guards

Figure 4 - Stakeholder Interest Risk Filtering

5/25/2005

Page 16 of 37

Team Mississippi

The following subtopic scenarios are now identified as the most prevalent risks: Subtopic

Risk Scenario

Lock Navigation Future Capacity Investment Option Supply Chain/Logistics Safety River System Legislation Marketing Cost Fees Army Corp of Engineers Shippers Consortium

A. Lock Failure/Delay B. Navigation Failure causes barge accident C. Reduced Capacity no need for multi-modal D. Investment not met, not enough funds allocated E. Supply Chain Software Crashes F. Safety for community G. River systems change affects agriculture/people H. Legislation doesn't support multi-modal I. Marketing Demand for Shipping decreased K.Cost exceeds benefits, not optimal L. Fees increase M. Army Corp of Engineers data not valid N. Shippers joining the consortium O. Consortium dismantled

Figure 5 - Risk Scenarios

Risk Ranking is performed to determine the risks most likely to occur. Further research and consultation with subject matter experts would be required in order to appropriately rank and assess the risks based on their probabilities. Without the availability of additional information, further accurate ranking could not be performed. However, the following rankings have been established based on notional facts and ideas. Likelihood

Rarely

Seldom

Occasional

Likely

Effect A. Lock Failure/Delay B. Navigation Failure causes barge accident C. Reduced Capacity no need for multi-modal D. Investment not met, not enough funds allocated E. Supply Chain Software Crashes F. Safety for community G. River systems change affects agriculture/people H. Legislation doesn't support multi-modal I. Marketing Demand for Shipping decreased K.Cost exceeds benefits, not optimal L. Fees increase M. Army Corp of Engineers data not valid N. Shippers joining the consortium O. Consortium dismantled

Locks Navigation Capacity Investiment Supply Chain Safety River System Legislation Marketing Cost Fees ACoE Shippers Consortium

Low Risk

Moderate Risk

High Risk

Extremely High Risk

Figure 6 - Risk Ranking

Army Corps of Engineers Data Assumptions: Army Corps of Engineers Data is assumed to be a correct and viable source of data. Recent projects have shown that there are systemic flaws in the Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACoE) project management framework resulting in the construction of projects that negatively impact the environment and possess inherent construction flaws.xi

5/25/2005

Page 17 of 37

Team Mississippi

Criteria Evaluation Assumptions: Shipping (Jim McCarville, Executive Director, Port of Pittsburgh): The shipping assumptions were that the price to ship on the waterway is less than $0.01 per ton mile, truck prices to ship vary from $0.05 to $0.35 per ton mile, and drayage price is $1.25 to $1.50 per ton mile. All lockage fees are included in the waterway fuel tax, which is estimated at $0.20 per gallon. The lift charge per container is $100. An average of thirty minutes is spent in each lock. Infrastructure Construction (Jim McCarville, Executive Director, Port of Pittsburgh): The shipping assumptions were that prices on small lock upgrades are estimated at $300 to $500 million, new lock construction is priced at $1 billion, and port upgrades are priced under $1 million. Data Analysis: The data analysis assumptions were that the two locks between New Orleans and Baton Rouge have no delay, and only the 20 locks on the Ohio River will be considered (see map below). The data is assumed to be accurate and correct from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the data from one (1) year is considered representative enough to perform an analysis. Current System: The current system assumptions were that the federal subsidies are decreasing into the future, and there is no seasonal shut down of the locks. Nine barges per tow are available with capacity for fifteen barges, and auxiliary locks are used for recreational vessels, or when the main lock is unavailable.

xii

Figure 7 - Ohio River System

5/25/2005

Page 18 of 37

Team Mississippi

Evaluation Criteria and Use Screening Criteria In order to determine the best potential alternative solutions to use in further analysis, solution ideas are initially screened against these six broad topics: system cost, execution time, system capacity changes, legal compliance, acceptance by intermodal community, and overall system serviceability. As with all solutions, the risks involved must be fully explored, reduced if possible, and mitigated where risk remains. A careful discussion of the risks involved in each solution must be included with the evaluation criteria in order to ensure that each solution is not only preferred for enhancement of the system, but also maintains acceptable and manageable levels of risk. With any integration, such as the proposed intermodal transportation system which attempts to integrate roads, rail, and rivers, the management and operation of it pose a risk to the users, the goods and the environment. Rapidly increasing demand for goods, congestion on existing road and rail transportation systems, and increasingly higher costs has pushed the need for river transportation as an additional mode of transportation. In transporting commodities, we must be able to adhere to timely schedules and provide operational systems with the ability to properly manage the type and amount of commodities shipped, the distance traveled, the means of transportation along various routes, and the final cost to the users. Unknown events, such as information database unavailability, need to be considered and handled accordingly during the pre-planning and pre-implementation stages. Methods to determine the best possible way to mitigate potential risk occurrence, such as back up system availability, preparation for dealing with effects on users, and the capabilities of the system as a whole must be in place prior to introducing any alternative solutions. The Inland Waterway System presents its own unique set of risks, including the safety of individuals, the preservation of goods, and the protection of infrastructure, equipment, and vehicles. Programs are established to reduce risks, including comprehensive maritime security contingency plans that provide threat responsiveness to all 361 U.S. ports, in addition to the $105 million in grants currently available for security improvement at inland ports.xiii Additional risks, including those stakeholders who maintain vested interests in the continuation of an intermodal system will be considered for each alternative solution analyzed.

5/25/2005

Page 19 of 37

Team Mississippi

Evaluation Criteria The following evaluation criteria will be used in assessing the viability and sustainability of each potential alternative solution suggested. The criteria and description can be found in the table below. Table 1 - Evaluation Criteria CRITERIA System Cost (where applicable) Ports Locks Warehouse IT Systems Vessels Rail Roads Highway Non-Infrastructure Costs Alternative Execution Length (years) System Capacity Tons of Commodity Waterway Railway Roadway Number of Container Waterway Railway Roadway Total Ton Miles Shipped Waterway Railway Roadway Expandability Waterway Railway Roadway Legal Compliance % Compliant with Transportation Laws % Compliant with Environmental Laws Environmental Emissions Levels Total Intermodal Acceptance Probability of acceptance by waterway companies Probability of acceptance by railway companies Probability of acceptance by truck shipping companies Total System Solution Serviceability Additional truck companies involved Additional rail companies involved Additional waterway companies involved Additional ports/terminals involved

5/25/2005

DESCRIPTION Financial Implications Costs to maintain, upgrade, or build new ports Costs to maintain, upgrade, or build new locks Costs to maintain, upgrade, or build new warehouse Costs to maintain, upgrade, or build new IT systems Costs to maintain, upgrade or build new vessels Costs to expand or eliminate rail Costs to expand or eliminate highway Costs associated with non – infrastructure costs Years to Service Capacity Implications Increase or decrease in tons of commodities Commodity changes on waterways Commodity changes on railways Commodity changes on roadways Increase or decrease in container numbers Container number changes on waterways Container number changes on railways Container number changes on roadways Increase or decrease in ton miles shipped Ton miles shipped changes on waterways Ton miles shipped changes on railways Ton miles shipped changes on roadways System expandability Expandability of waterways Expandability of railways Expandability of roadways Legal Implications Increase or decrease in percent transportation compliance Increase or decrease in percent environmental compliance Increase or decrease in emissions levels Consortium Implications Likelihood to be accepted by waterway stakeholders Likelihood to be accepted by railway stakeholders Likelihood to be accepted by roadway stakeholders Serviceability Implications Additional truck companies required for support Additional rail companies required for support Additional waterway companies required for support Additional port/terminal companies required for support

Page 20 of 37

Team Mississippi

Evaluation Factors The above criteria will be used to quantitatively measure the alternative solutions highlighted within the analysis. The criteria will be ranked with regards to those most pertinent to system success and stakeholder acceptance in order to select the most viable alternative solution. The ranking of the most important criteria to meet are established as: 1. Legal Compliance weight: 0.25 2. System Cost weight: 0.22 3. System Capacity weight: 0.20 4. Total Intermodal Acceptance weight: 0.16 5. Solution Serviceability weight: 0.12 6. Alternative Execution Length weight: 0.05 Solutions will be examined and ranked based on their ability to meet the criteria in the above stated order. The table below is a guide to help determine the proper score given to an alternative for each criterion. Table 2 - Criteria Ranking Definitions

Criterion Legal

Cost

Capacity

Intermodal

Serviceability

Length

5/25/2005

Score 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

Meaning Requires Change – 0% Decent Amount of Work – 50% Minimal Work – 80% Mostly Compliant – 90% $100M+ $10M – $100M $1M – $10M $0 – $1M Current or Less 1 – 10% 10 – 30% 30%+ 0 – 10% 10 – 50% 50 – 80% 80%+ 0 – 10% 10 – 50% 50 – 80% 80%+ 50+ years 30 – 50 years 10 – 30 years 0 – 10 years

Page 21 of 37

Team Mississippi

Alternative Solutions The “iModal” System Solution: The goal of this technology-based solution is to ship cargo in the most efficient manner as possible, respecting tradeoffs of time and cost as chosen by the shipper, independent of any specific mode of transportation. The vision is to create a truly intermodal shipping system, and propose an integrated set of software and hardware systems to aid in managing and optimizing the involved transportation infrastructure, providing different, tailored views to all parties involved in the system. Through the creation of a centralized, web-accessible software system and associated service which will seamlessly integrate and help manage all aspects of container-onbarge (COB) shipping with the existing intermodal system, a single point of collaboration between shippers, towers, port authorities, terminal operators, bridge tenders, distributors, and manufacturers, would be provided and would allow for optimal use of the transportation infrastructure. The software system would be developed by a third party with minimal intrusion and involvement of any parties involved, providing a full, pointto-point shipping service utilizing truck, rail, air, ocean barges, and inland waterways. The following technologies could potentially be integrated to facilitate the smooth passing of commodities: Inventory Tagging – Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system for containers and barges to instantly identify cargo on board, taking appropriate actions and optimal routing of cargo either to a specified port Brokering - The system will provide automated brokering services, matching up shippers with towers, allowing barge operators and truckers alike to utilize their often empty, available cargo capacity on return trips. Real Time Tracking - All cargo should be able to tracked online, and in real time. Based on data collected at each terminal, and through the use of GPS systems attached to each barge, users could be instantly notified of the location and status of their cargo. The “iModal” system would be capable of assessing the current transportation network status to determine the best possible solution for customers based on price and time considerations. See below for a display of a network that the “iModal” system might manage and optimize.

5/25/2005

Page 22 of 37

Team Mississippi

(1, 2, 3) (1, 2, 3)

T , (1, 2

(1 ,

2,

(1 , 2

, 3)

3)

(1, 2,

(1 , 2

(1, 2, 3

(1 ,2 ,3

(1

3) 2, (1 ,

3)

,3

,3

)

) ,3

3)

)

3) 2,

3)

2, 3

(1 ,

3)

3)

, 3)

2,

(1, 2, 3)

2,

2,

(1 , (1 , 2

(1 ,

3) (1, 2, 3)

, (1

(1 ,

(1

, ,2

(1 ,

2,

(1 ,

R

R

(1, 2, 3)

Memphis

2,

(1, 2,

(1

,2

3)

,2

, 3)

)

2,

(1 , 2

,2

(1 ,

, 3)

Cincinnati

)

(1 (1, 2, 3)

T

Pittsburgh

, 3)

(1 , 2

)

3)

St. Louis

3)

(1, 2, 3)

)

2,

, 3)

2, 3

(1 ,

(1 , 2

(1 ,

3)

(1

,2

,3

)

R

3)

(1 , 2

, 3)

T

New Orleans

Legend Large Node = Port Small Node = Hub R = Railroad T = Truck 1 = max cost/ton mile 2 = min cost/ton mile, 3 = max weight tons

Figure 8 – Potential “iModal” Network Diagram

Figure 8 defines the cost and capacity of shipping freight between cities using truck, rail, or waterway. The diagram represents a loose representation of the cost and capacity flow through the intermodal waterway system. In this model, large nodes represent the ports of five major industrial cities for waterway transport and small nodes represent a scaled down railway and trucking transport. The assumption of a single truck and railway between cities was used to reduce the complexity of this diagram to meet project time constraints. To increase the granularity of the analysis, all truck and railway options should be included to optimize the end result. The following is a table of the approximate cost of shipping 40 tons of freight between cities for each of the methods for transport (Jim McCarville Executive Director, Port of Pittsburgh).

5/25/2005

Page 23 of 37

Team Mississippi

Table 3 - Shipping Cost Approximation for “iModal” System

Cincinnati

Memphis

New Orleans

Pittsburgh

St. Louis

Truck

Railroad

Barge

Truck

Railroad

Barge

Truck

Railroad

Barge

Truck

Railroad

Barge

Truck

Railroad

Barge

Cincinnati

$0

$0

$0

$3,160

$643

$296

$6,472

$1,068

$552

$2,264

$373

$188

$2,808

$463

$276

Memphis

$3,160

$643

$296

$0

$0

$0

$3,160

$520

$255

$6,160

$1,016

$484

$2,264

$374

$162

New Orleans

$6,472

$1,068

$552

$3,160

$520

$255

$0

$0

$0

$8,744

$1,442

$740

$5,416

$894

$419

Pittsburgh

$2,264

$373

$188

$6,160

$1,016

$484

$8,744

$1,442

$740

$0

$0

$0

$4,832

$797

$464

St. Louis

$2,808

$463

$276

$2,264

$374

$162

$5,416

$894

$419

$4,832

$797

$464

$0

$0

$0

Cost of shipping 40 tons of freight

A complete quantitative analysis is not achievable in the time allocated for this project. Currently no system with this level of integration exists. However, the technology does exist to implement the system. The concept is that “iModal” will increase the probability of getting to an integrated intermodal system across rail, river, and road. Without the cooperation and data sharing that “iModal” is identified to provide, the objective of an integrated intermodal transportation service would reach only limited success.

5/25/2005

Page 24 of 37

Team Mississippi

An Intermodal Transportation Consortium: The Consortium operates as a contract agency, working cooperatively with all agencies, corporate partners, and alliances to establish and schedule a viable, reliable, and scalable freight transportation service for commodities and goods on the railways, roads, and inland waterways. The Consortium shall also identify and prioritize infrastructure investments to insure this intermodal service is timely, reliable, and competitively priced. The consortium will also manage the continuity and efficiency of the system. The consortium will operate as a separate entity deriving their fees from the shippers, operators, government grants and contracts, and taxes on fuel. The initial marketing efforts and proof of concept could be funded by government contracts and investments by waterway, drayage, vessel, tow, barge, port and terminal operators. The motivation for the investment would be the improvement of the throughput, management of traffic and situation awareness for shippers and customers. The improved situation awareness also provides an additional level of security for transporting containers. The Consortium will be driven by the “iModal” system – a collaborative, open information system that will: -

-

-

5/25/2005

Provide improved security of containers, ports, system, data, and tugs, barges, tows and vessels. Manage external technologies, such as Automated Identification System (AIS), Vessel Tracking System (VTS), Electronic Chart and Display Information System (ECDIS), and Voyage Data Recorder (VDR). Provide optimized scheduling to find optimal paths over all modes, eliminate empty barges, and brokering return trips. Coordinate inspection of containers and barges through Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tracking, Homeland Security measures, and increased container security. Provide improved tracking with real-time tracking, inventory tracking (RFID), and barge and tow tracking Global Positioning System (GPS). Facilitate numerous interfaces such as intermodal information data sharing, standardized data sharing schema, established data conversions layers, report preparation, access to policy information, supply chain management support, website accessibility, Personal Data Assistant (PDA) and e-mail availability, shippers, customers, policy markers, rail and road integration, and drayage information. Provide quality situational awareness regarding unscheduled outages with estimated wait times, rerouting capability and suggestions, real-time port and lock status updates, weather and tidal forecasting, bridge opening schedules, river depth changes and charting updates, and dredging services. Identify priority lists for waterway maintenance.

Page 25 of 37

Team Mississippi

The consortium would also market the service to shippers, commodity owners, and other stakeholders, e.g., railways and trucking companies, offering to maintain a competitive service, and assisting in the management of the continuity, efficacy, and efficiency of the system. The consortium would also negotiate an alliance with the stakeholders to improve collaboration, provide intermodal integration, assist in traffic flow management, manage the distribution of empty containers, and improve scheduling. Once negotiated across the intermodal transportation providers, the initial efforts will be targeted on a two-port system: New Orleans to Memphis. Once the consortium has demonstrated the benefits of its operation, we would add additional ports in a phased implementation as the system matures. An example implementation scheme may be: Phase 1 – New Orleans to Memphis, TN Phase 2 – New Orleans to St. Louis, MO Phase 3 – New Orleans to Tulsa, OK Phase 4 – New Orleans to Cincinnati, OH Phase 5 – New Orleans to Pittsburg, PA A further, in-depth economic analysis and policy decision using 5-year IANA data is recommended.

5/25/2005

Page 26 of 37

Team Mississippi

Lock Modernization: Inland waterway lock systems experience frequent and unexpected maintenance delays due to outdated and failing infrastructure and technology. Maintenance of the inland waterways channels and locks is the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, who in 2002 operated 275 lock chambers at 230 sites. However, due to budgetary constraints and a lack of investors in the system, only 195 sites with 240 chambers received any funding. 53% of all lock chambers, or 145 chambers, have exceeded their 50-year design lives. The results of the maintenance and updating fund limitations is an inability of the IRCS to deliver goods efficiently, safely, at a competitive price, and reliably. A lock modernization policy is a phased approach to upgrading the U.S. inland waterway infrastructure, allowing for continued efficient use of the network for intermodal transport. The first phase to lock modernization is to identify any candidate locks in need of upgrade or repair, and assign scheduled priorities to them based on the following criteria, in no particular order: -

Level of impedance to efficient, cost-effective waterway transport Degree of disrepair and safety of the lock operation Locks with the highest use or potential future use

In addition to upgrading locks based on their current state of repair, an effective lock modernization policy should include an investigation and analysis of newer technologies for locks, with a focus on: -

Decreasing unscheduled outages due to mechanical failure in operation of the lock Increasing the throughput of the locks under normal operation Ways to increase the useable lifespan of a lock to preclude problems with future infrastructure maintenance and upgrades Integration of newer construction technology to decrease the costs associated with building a new lock.

A simulation and analysis of any proposed lock technologies could be coupled with future transportation data, perhaps collected by an Intermodal Transportation Consortium. Consistent data provided by a Consortium would provide the tools necessary for a tighter estimate of the economic impacts of any new technologies. Funding for a lock modernization policy shall be derived from a tax on inland waterway transportation based on ton miles shipped. This would supplement the current funds generated from the $.20 fuel tax used for lockage fees. A preliminary economic estimate suggests that the U.S. could fully fund lock infrastructure upgrades on a phased approach yet still maintain inland waterways as a competitive mode of transportation: Total ton miles shipped via COB: 239 billion ton miles (Source: NBTC Report FR-1036, 1997)

5/25/2005

Page 27 of 37

Team Mississippi

Inland waterway shipping costs, per ton mile: < $.01. (Source: Jim McCarville) For purposes of demonstration, given the current estimate of a lock upgrade ($300$500M for a small lock, $1B for a large lock), a $.01 tax per ton mile shipped would provide enough additional revenue to fully und nearly five small lock upgrades per year: 239 B × $0.01 = $2,390,000,000 Assuming the current price of shipping via rail is $.03 per ton mile, this would still provide a less expensive alternative mode of transportation for shipping cargo. Again, those figures are for demonstration purposes. Perhaps a more suited recommendation would be a tax of only 5%, which would still provide off-the-cuff revenues of (239 B × $0.0005) = $119.5 Million per year. A further, in-depth economic analysis and policy decision based on more consistent IANA data is recommended for an actionable recommendation.

5/25/2005

Page 28 of 37

Team Mississippi

The Backhaul Solution: Every year, thousands of empty barges move between ports on the inland waterways thereby underutilizing the potential capacity of the locks to transport commodities. The goal of this solution is to move barges and cargo in the most efficient manner as possible. In 1999, the number of empty barges traveling both up and downstream through the many locks along the Ohio River System are shown in the following table: Table 4 - Empty Barge Movement Data

Lock EMSWORTH DASHIELDS MONTGOMERY NEW CUMBERLAND PIKE ISLAND HANNIBAL WILLOW ISLAND BELLEVILLE RACINE ROBERT C. BYRD GREENUP CAM MARKLAND MCALPINE CANNELTON NEWBURGH JOHN T. MYERS SMITHLAND 52 Totals

River Mile

Up Barge Empty

Distance between locks (up)

6 13 32 54 84 126 162 204 238 279 341 436 532 607 721 776 846 919 939

282 363 311 138 22 27 8 3 155 12 58 10 13 386 8 22 50 72 12

0 7 18 23 30 42 35 42 34 42 62 95 95 75 114 55 70 73 20

Down Barge Empty

Distance between locks (down)

346 385 426 108 108 57 51 13 757 34 51 17 15 420 8 19 24 1,077 12 3,928

7 18 23 30 42 35 42 34 42 62 95 95 75 114 55 70 73 20 0 933

The total potential tons and ton miles not utilized up and downstream are included in the following table: Table 5 - Unused Ton Movement

Potential Tons Moved (up) 2,264,320

Potential Ton-mile (up) 101,931,752

Potential Tons Moved (down) 4,556,480

Potential Ton-miles (down) 194,466,576

Total tons moved

Total Tonmiles moved

6,820,800

296,398,328

By fully utilizing backhaul through these locks along the Ohio River System, the waterway system could accommodate more than 6.8 million additional tons of cargo resulting in over 296 million additional ton miles. Unfortunately, when compared to the overall system including rail and truck, this additional capacity is insignificant, as seen in the table below:

5/25/2005

Page 29 of 37

Team Mississippi

Impact of using empty barges on the overall transportation system: Table 6 - Overhaul Solution Impact

Mode of Transportation Tons % of Total Ton Miles % of Total River 368,700 4% 475,698 19% Rail 1,726,530 19% 1,164,903 47% Truck 7,179,800 77% 1,127,827 46% All 3 Modes 9,268,209 100% 2,472,030 100% Although this extra capacity is practically insignificant to the overall bottom line, it could have provided almost $3 million in additional revenues, additional monies toward trust funds, and indirect benefits to the environment. Table 7 - Goods Movement by Trucks

Trucksxiv Total miles driven per year 2,000,000,000,000 Number of trucks in US 7,100,000 Average miles driven per year 64,000 Total tons carried/year 11,600,000,000 Total truck ton-miles 1,255,908,000 Ton-miles per gallon 60 Using this extra capacity would save approximately 4.5 million gallons of fuel each year and over 6.5 million lbs. of CO2 emissions, compared to hauling by trucks. Implementation Ideas A backhaul policy could be implemented through the use of a small penalty tax for moving empty barges along the river, as implemented through government policy or a consortium on intermodal transportation. The “iModal” system, addressed in the Alternatives section, would be designed to help broker return shipments preventing empty barges on the backhaul. The backhaul policy could also be implemented through collaborative supply chain management—an optimized model result which “iModal” seeks to address.

The Seasonality Solution: The lock system was addressed to determine if there was any seasonality to their use or potential antagonist to their delays. However, since the data available only covered a period of one year, it was not sufficient to determine any seasonal patterns. Therefore, it was not necessary to rank this solution against the criteria.

Port Upgrades and Maintenance: Port upgrades and maintenance were considered to determine if any infrastructure or modifications would help optimize the current Inland River Container Service. Fortunately, there is an ongoing study undertaking the “Storage and Distribution of Ports” (Army Corps of Engineers, 2005) which essentially examines the same items. Therefore, port upgrades were not specifically addressed in this report. Therefore, it was not necessary to rank this solution against the criteria.

5/25/2005

Page 30 of 37

Team Mississippi

Alternative Evaluation Table 8 - Alternative Solutions Evaluation Results

CRITERIA Legal Compliance System Cost System Capacity Total Intermodal Acceptance Total System Solution Serviceability Alternative Execution Length (years)

Score

Lock Back Haul Modernization “iModal” Consortium Solution Weight Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking 0.25 3.000 3.000 2.667 3.000 0.22 1.250 2.500 2.143 2.875 0.20 1.000 1.167 1.167 0.250 0.16 1.333 1.667 1.333 0.667 0.12 0.000 1.750 1.500 0.250 0.05 1.000 3.000 3.000 3.000

1.00

1.488

2.160 1.915

1.719

The remaining four alternatives, Lock Modernization, “iModal”, Consortium, and Back Haul Solution, were individually scored and ranked against the established criteria. The results are presented in Table 8. As expected, the Lock Modernization is at the bottom of the ranking. Reasons include the fact that Lock Modernization not only requires high costs and long project time, but also does not promote intermodal integration on its own merits. As shown in the table of results, the “iModal” alternative is the most effective to achieve the goal to integrate the IRCS into the intermodal transportation system. The most attractive aspect regarding the “iModal” option, as compared to other alternatives, is its cost and contribution in pulling together a tool capable of optimizing the entire intermodal supply chain. Although “iModal” is a part of the Consortium alternative, the Consortium did not rank as highly due to political issues. Previous attempts at bringing stakeholders together to work cooperatively in such manner have experienced high resistance. Based on this history, lower scoring for the Consortium alternative is reflected in the criteria “Total Intermodal Acceptance” and “Total System Solution Serviceability.” This result points to the need for a new and innovative forum, other than a Consortium, to bring the stakeholders to work together. Each alternative possess merits in realization of a integrated intermodal transportation system, as seen in the evaluation of alternative. The results of these evaluations form the basis for the findings and recommendations.

5/25/2005

Page 31 of 37

Team Mississippi

III.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Poorly maintained infrastructure that is too costly to update. with ports operating at only a 30% capacity, leaves the inland waterways a poor proposition for transporting cargo (Source: Jim McCarville, Executive Director, Port of Pittsburgh). There are two approaches we recommend to resolving this dilemma: a Joint Venture (JV), and the reestablishment and modification to the Intermodal Transportation Commission. Establishing a new Joint Venture among the intermodal stakeholders is a potentially viable policy option. The role of the JV would be to bring together the membership of ports, terminals, barge operators, towers, waterway workers, drayage firms, vessel operators, shippers, railways, and trucking companies to establish a profitable business entity which fully integrates all current means of intermodal transport. The JV would get its initial funding from a diminutive fee based on each ton mile of cargo transported on the inland waterways. This initial fee would be assessed on all shipments, with all the JV inland river organizations agreeing to pay the fees. The fees would be directly utilized to fund a phased implementation of an Inland River Container Service (IRCS). The start-up costs for the JV would be funded by investments from the stakeholders, with the potential returns on investment being the profits from the JV. As an example implementation of these fees, if a customer wanted to move 100,000 tons of coal, 1200 miles from Cincinnati to New Orleans to be transferred to an international shipper, the standard cost of this shipment averages out to be 100,000 × 1,200 × $0.01 = $1.2M. If the JV fee were imposed, this would result in additional revenues of 100,000 × 1,200 × $0.0005 = $60,000.00. If this same amount had been shipped by rail, even with the additional fee, there would still be a savings of 100,000 × 1200 × $0.03 = $3.6M $1.206 = $2.394M. At an annual rate of 239 billion ton miles, this fee would generate revenues of $119.5M, less any administrative costs in the first year. A five-year financial estimate indicates that the fee would provide the resources to develop and implement “iModal”, fund the marketing effort, and make an integrated intermodal system a true possibility. At this particular rate, impact to the customer would be minimal, as it should only nominally affect their bottom line. The JV would facilitate horizontal integration of these modes of transportation to provide a more efficient, secure, and reliable system. The JV would also acquire and distribute data related to the intermodal transportation system. However, if the government opted to implement a program using a similar fee as a tax, the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation could operate the system. The Commission would be responsible for collecting revenues, implementing or managing the system, or contracting out the operation and implementation. The tax would also

5/25/2005

Page 32 of 37

Team Mississippi

provide resources to improve and replace aging infrastructure, as well as funds for proper maintenance of the waterways. The JV efforts would be driven by the “iModal” system – a collaborative, open information system that will: -

-

-

Provide improved security of containers, ports, system, data, and tugs, barges, tows and vessels. Manage external technologies, such as AIS, VTS, ECDIS, and VDR. Provide optimized scheduling to find optimal paths over all modes, eliminate empty barges, and brokering return trips. Coordinate inspection of containers and barges through RFID tracking, Homeland Security measures, and increased container security. Provide improved tracking with real-time tracking, inventory tracking (RFID), and barge and tow tracking GPS. Facilitate numerous interfaces such as intermodal information data sharing, standardized data sharing schema, established data conversions layers, report preparation, access to policy information, supply chain management support, website accessibility, PDA and e-mail availability, shippers, customers, policy markers, rail and road integration, and drayage information. Provide quality situational awareness regarding unscheduled outages with estimated wait times, rerouting capability and suggestions, real-time port and lock status updates, weather and tidal forecasting, bridge opening schedules, river depth changes and charting updates, and dredging services. Identify priority lists for waterway maintenance.

To compare the JV option to previous alternatives, the same alternative evaluation process was performed. The results presented in following table. Table 9 – Joint Venture Evaluation Rankings Lock Back Haul Modernization “iModal” Consortium Solution Joint Venture CRITERIA Weight Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Legal Compliance 0.25 3.000 3.000 2.667 3.000 3.000 System Cost 0.22 1.250 2.500 2.143 2.875 2.125 System Capacity 0.20 1.000 1.167 1.167 0.250 2.333 Total Intermodal Acceptance 0.16 1.333 1.667 1.333 0.667 1.667 Total System Solution Serviceability 0.12 0.000 1.750 1.500 0.250 2.500 Alternative Execution Length (years) 0.05 1.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000

Score

1.00 1.488

2.160 1.915 1.719

2.401

The score for the JV option outperformed all of the former alternatives. This was expected since the idea of the JV would be the result of a combination the top performers of the previous alternatives, particularly the “iModal” system and idea of a Consortiumtype entity to promote intermodal integration.

5/25/2005

Page 33 of 37

Team Mississippi

Further Recommended Analysis: Sensitivity Analysis: Sensitivity analysis and risk analysis to be performed on the Joint Venture alternative is recommended, due to time constraints the analysis is not complete. Intentions of taking the criteria in order of highest ranking and observing the likelihood of failure of all the criteria. Finding the least, most likely and best case scenarios with respect to Joint Venture and putting it in a Fractile method as a way of estimating the risk. Table 10 - Sensitivity Analysis Framework Liklihood of Failure for Joint Venture based on criteria Legal Compliance System Cost System Capacity Total Internmodal Acceptance Total System Solution Servicability

Best ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

25% ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

Median 3 2.125 2.333 1.667 2.5 3

75% ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

Worst ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

Economic Analysis: From Computer Assisted Cost Assessment of Intermodal Transportation Linkagesxv: “The goal in conducting the literature search has been to obtain data and information that could be used in assessing different transportation modes. To date, a bibliography in excess of sixty viable sources has been compiled. Perhaps the most striking results of this exercise is the almost complete absence of any consistent cost data for the different transportation modes. We have attempted to assess the federal and state contributions to the transportation infrastructure of each mode analyzed, and the operating costs incurred by each transportation carriers for each mode.” The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA, www.intermodal.org), currently has available their Intermodal Trends and Statistics: Five Year Data File of Industry Activity, which retails for $5000. Given the appropriate budget and time, we recommend utilizing this trend data in a more comprehensive economic analysis, as it should provide enough consistency with which to base more accurate results.

5/25/2005

Page 34 of 37

Team Mississippi

V.

APPENDICES • • • •

5/25/2005

Team Roles and Responsibilities Acronyms Legal and Trust Fund References Statistical Analysis Results

Page 35 of 37

Team Mississippi Roles and Responsibility Co-Team Leaders -- Waahida Jones and Joseph McCormick Task 1

Aaron Koehl Joseph McCormick, David Naffis, Mark Reilly

Task 2

Carl Heininger Waahida Jones, Joseph Parker

Task 3

Denise Thompson-Harmon Timothy Beach

Task 4

Thomas Britten I Jun Chen, Jessica Young

Task 5

Composed of Task 1-4 Leaders

Acronyms Acronym AAPA ACoE AIS COB CoB CWA CWA DHS DoT ECDIS EDS ESA FAF GPS IMTS IRCS IRCS IT IWICP IWRM IWTF MARAD MarAD NOAA NVD OMNI PA PDA PIERS PWSA RFID RR Title XI U.S. USCG VDR VTS

Definition American Association of Port Authorities Army Corps of Engineers Automatic Identification System Container On Barge Container on Barge Clean Water Act Clean Water Act Department of Homeland Security Department of Transportation Electronic Charting Display Information System Endangered Species Act Endangered Species Act Freight Analysis Framework Global Positioning Satellites Intermodal Transportation System Inland River Container Service Inland River Container Service Information Technology Inland Waterways Intermodal Cooperative Program Inland Waterways Resource Management Inland Waterway Trust fund Maritime Administration United States Maritime Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Navigation Data Center Operational and Maintenance of Navigation Installations Port Authority Public Displays of Affection Port Import Export Reporting Service Ports and Waterways Safety Act Radio Frequency Identification Railroads Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act United States United States Coast Guard Voyage Data Recorder Vessel Tracking System

Legal and Trust Fund References Jones Act www.fhwa.dot.gov/freightplanning/dec17transcript.html Ports and Waterways Safety Act www.csc.noaa.gov/opis/html/summary/pwsa.htm Water Resources Development Act http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/wrda90.html http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s728is.txt.pdf Clean Water Act www.csc.noaa.gov/opis/html/summary/cwa.htm Endangered Species Act http://www.csc.noaa.gov/opis/html/summary/esa.htm Federal Water Project Recreation Act http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/fedwarec.html Water Resources Planning Act http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/wrpa.html Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2001_hr/01-07-13carlton2.htm Inland Waterway Trust Fund www.dot.state.ia.us/fed_trans_funding.html Harbor Services User Fee (formerly Harbor Maintenance Tax) www.aapa-ports.org/govrelations/hsfdescript.htm Intermodal Shipping Container Security Act 2005 (Bill Form) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00376:@@@L&summ2=m&

Statistical Analysis Results Several statistical analyses were conducted in order to better understand the current inland waterway shipping system. Base on the “Lock Statistics” data from Navigation Data Center (NDC) Publications, we examine Delay Time, Main Lock Outage, and Lock Tonnage throughput. Assumption(s) / Data Discussion • Auxiliary Lock Chamber is in use if and only if the Main Lock Chamber is incapacitated (Per Jim McCarville) • The 1999, one year of monthly data is representative of current system • The 2000 and 2001 data only included the annual numbers and not monthly data • Locks included in the analysis derive from previously state scenario within the “Scope of the System” section. The analysis examines 20 Locks on the Ohio River • The two locks on the Lower Mississippi has no delay (data unavailable) Methods/Metrics: Methods. The methods involved include summary observations of the data via graphical means (excel and S-plus). Then conduct linear regression (S-plus) to identify significant predictors of the selected response variables (Average Delay Time, Total Kiloton Shipped, etc.). Where appropriate, contrasts analysis was used to compare the means between categorical predictor variables (Locks, Month, Season, Quarter, etc.) Metrics. In conducting the regression and significance analysis, a predictor variable was determined to be significant if its p-value is less than or equal to 0.05. I. Delay Time (Tows) Findings Summary Observation The analysis began with observation of the general data summary statistics. Table I depicts the average annual numbers for the twenty locks on the Ohio River. As the data shows, the percent of tows delayed, total delay hours, and the average delay per tow stay fairly consistent from 1999 to 2001. The average delay per delayed tows increased from 1999 to 2001 (given more data with future years, further analysis should be done to observe the trend in the delay time for delayed tows and other categories).

Yr 1999 2000 2001

Table I. Total Delays (1999 – 2001) Tows Delayed Average Delay Total Delay Total Processing Time % of all Tows All Tows Delayed Tows (Hrs) (Hrs) (Hrs) (Hrs) 31.75% 0.88 1.54 3103.83 0.774 33.20% 0.82 1.72 2363.48 No Data 33.16% 1.01 2.98 4274.03 No Data

By sorting the data by month, we see a slight increase in the percent of tows delayed towards the end of the year. Similar trend is observed in the graphs of Total Delay Time and Average Delay Time of Delayed Tows. Tows Delayed % of all Tows

Average Processing Time (Hrs)

1

25.99%

All Tows Delayed Tows (Hrs) (Hrs) (Hrs) 0.36 1.03 105.75

2 3

24.86% 24.45%

0.27 0.26

0.69 0.70

93.32 94.54

0.72 0.73

4

26.04%

0.31

0.93

95.66

0.74

5

27.86%

0.34

1.05

126.48

0.70

6

33.81%

0.83

1.47

177.56

0.77

7

38.00%

0.82

1.69

218.81

0.74

8

37.27%

1.56

2.28

365.97

0.78

9

37.31%

1.85

2.34

460.77

0.81

10

36.29%

1.34

1.84

549.25

0.79

11

36.40%

1.68

2.37

572.53

0.86

12

31.72%

0.79

1.94

243.19

0.85

0.79

Percent of Tows Delayed 1999

Ju l-9 9 Au g99 Se p99 O ct -9 9 No v99 De c99

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ja n99 Fe b99 M ar -9 9 Ap r- 9 9 M ay -9 9 Ju n99

Percent

Mo

Table II. Total Delays (1999 Monthly) Average Delay Total Delay

Total Delay Time

700

Total Delay Time 1999

600 500 400 300 200 100

Ja n99 Fe b99 M ar -9 9 Ap r- 9 9 M ay -9 9 Ju n99 Ju l-9 9 Au g99 Se p99 O ct -9 9 No v99 De c99

0

Average Delay Times of Delayed Tows 2.5

Hours

2 1.5 1 0.5

Ja n99 Fe b99 M ar -9 9 Ap r- 9 9 M ay -9 9 Ju n99 Ju l-9 9 Au g99 Se p99 O ct -9 9 No v99 De c99

0

When the data is sorted according to lock names (Table III), three locks stand out as having the highest Percent Tows Delayed and Total Delay Hours: Freenup, McAlpine, and Lock 52.

Table III. Total Delays (1999 Locks) Tows Average Delay Delayed Lock % of all All Tows Delayed Tows Tows (Hrs) (Hrs) 35.11% 0.66 1.44 Emsworth 32.80% 0.37 0.84 Dashields 37.28% 0.69 1.39 Montgomery 25.86% 0.19 0.65 New Comberland 24.34% 0.18 0.61 Pike Island 19.71% 0.59 0.16 Hannibal 30.68% 0.61 1.13 Willow Island 23.26% 0.19 0.57 Belleville 25.97% 0.24 0.71 Racine 28.81% 0.36 0.94 Robert C. Byrd 46.02% 2.18 3.21 Greenup 32.87 0.57 1.37 Captain Anthony Meldahl 32.33% 0.85 1.50 Markland 62.99% 4.03 4.68 McCalpine 38.49% 1.92 2.37 Cannelton 28.62% 0.26 0.67 Newburgh 32.01% 0.42 0.97 John T. Myers 7.97% 0.07 0.69 Smithland 54.45% 4.66 6.34 52 32.50% 0.92 2.47 53

Total Delay (Hrs)

Avg Processing Time (Hrs)

96.54 88.88 101.54 57.46 64.46 56.88 66.96 66.67 72.54 97.17 172.75 126.96

0.79 0.76 0.83 0.84 0.78 0.76 0.86 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.73

101.04 225.29 110.71 111.67 130.5 24.67 197.1 103.72

0.79 1.12 0.81 0.70 0.63 0.71 0.79 0.47

Percent Delayed Tows 70.00% 60.00%

Percent

50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00%

53

52

R ac in e tC .B C yr ap d ta G in re An en th up on y M el da hl M ar kl an d M cC al pi ne C an ne l to n N ew bu rg Jo h hn T. M ye rs Sm ith la nd R ob er

D

Em

sw

or th as hi el ds M on t g N om ew er C y om be rl a nd Pi ke Is la nd H an ni ba W l ill ow Is la nd Be l le vi l le

0.00%

Linear Regression Delays at locks slow the timeline in which goods are shipped and received. In order to fully understand the state of the current status of system, the next step of the analysis attempted to explain delay time with inputs to the system and possible predictor variables. The analysis regress the response variable, Average Delayed Time per Delayed Tows, against selected predictor variables such as Locks, Empty Barges, Total Barges, Chamber, Month, Quarter, and Semiannual. Regression 1 (Main Chamber only) After several iterations of regression, the following Table outlines the statistically significant predictor variables. The results support the following findings: • Greenup and McAlpine have significantly higher average delay time (hours) per delayed tows compared to other locks • Dashields and Emsworth have significantly lower average delay time (hours) per delayed tows compared to other locks • Number of Empty Barges is significant factor in predicting delay time. Per our results, increase in one empty barge, increased the delay time by 0.0022 hours. ( • The month of September has significantly higher average delay times compared to other months.

Statistically Significant Predictor Variables to Delay Main ID Type Parameter p-value Less/More Dashields Lock -0.0893 0.0246 Less Emsworth Lock -0.197 0 Less Greenup Lock 0.0863 0.00031 More McAlpine Lock 0.04436 0.0211 More Empty Barge 0.0022 0 More September Month 0.0471 0.0177 More In addition to these predictor variables, other factors considered include: Quarters, Semiannual, and Total Barges. The p-values showed that these factors were not statistically significant in contributing to the Average Delay Time of Delayed Tows. It is interesting to note that while the number of Total Barges was not a significant predictor of delay time, the number of Empty Barges is. A possible explanation for this result is that when faced with increased demand, the Loaded Barges are given priority to go through the locks over Empty Barges. If the Empty Barges were used to its full potential, the effects on the lock delay times must be examined. Regression 2 (Auxiliary Chamber only) Since that auxiliary chamber is the back up to the main chamber, the same analysis was conducted for the auxiliary chamber. The following Table outlines the statistically significant predictor variables. The results support the following findings: • Cannelton and McAlpine have significantly higher average delay time (hours) per delayed tows compared to other locks • Dashields has significantly lower average delay time (hours) per delayed tows compared to other locks • Number of Empty Barges is significant factor in predicting delay time. Per our results, increase in one empty barge, increased the delay time by 0.0022 hours. ( • The month of August has significantly higher average delay times compared to other months. Statistically Significant Predictor Variables to Delay ID Type Parameter p-value Cannelton Lock 0.5258 Dashields Lock -0.4832 McAlpine Lock 0.7778 Empty Barge 0.0033 August Month 0.1621

0.0033 0 0 0 0.0099

Auxiliary Less/More More Less More More More

Regression 3 (Both Chambers) The third regression model examined chamber as a predictor variable with the following results: • Locks…

• • • •

Number of empty barges is of significant impact on average delay time per delayed tows The Month of August and September have significantly higher average delay time per delayed tows than other months Quarter 3 (July, August, September) has significantly higher average delay time per delayed tows than other quarters The second half of the year (July – December) has significantly higher average delay time per delayed tows than the first half of the year

Statistically Significant Predictor Variables to Delay ID Type Parameter p-value Q3 Quarter 0.318 Semi Semi 0.4449 -1.9521 1 Lock -0.6341 2 Lock 0.2453 11 Lock August Month 0.1335 September Month 0.1314

0.0025 0.0006 0 0.018 0.0001 0.0249 0.0115

Both Chambers Less/More More More Less Less More More More

Interestingly, the chamber type (main or auxiliary) is not a significant contributor to delay. This result implies that if the main is down, there are no significant statistical differences between the performance of the auxiliary and the main chamber. The Month, Quarter, and Semiannual results are consistent with the previous observation of the data that showed an increase in the delay time. II. Main Lock Outage (Findings) Given that the auxiliary lock is only in use when the main lock is incapacitated, the following equation represents a rough estimate of the percentage of time the main chamber is out of use when a barge approaches the lock (this assumes that the barges arrival is distributed uniformly): % DownTime =

NumberofB arg es( AuxiliaryChamber ) NumberofB arg es( Auxiliary ) + NumberofB arg es( Main)

The results are presented in the following graph by Lock Name:

% Main Down Time 0.6

percent

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

Be 52 l le An Ca ville n th o n ne lt y M on el d Da ah sh l i Em e ld sw s o G rth re en u Jo Ha n p hn ni T. ba l M y M e rs ar kl M and cA M l Ne on pine w tgo Cu me m r be y rla Ne n w d Pi bu r ke gh Is la n Ro Ra d be rt cine C. B Sm y r d i t W illo hlan w d Is la nd Ca pt ai n

53

0

Most locks’ down time is under 15 percent except for one outlier of the data is the Smithland Lock. In looking at the percent down time of the main lock at Smithland, one would assume the delay times are worse at Smithland is worse than the other locks – but this is not the case. In doing additional research, it is found that this result may be the fact that the Main and Auxiliary Chambers are both down when the water level gets to a certain level (http://www.ribb.com/itcs/2207.html). One may want to further examine the operations at Smithland to explore opportunities / lessons learned (whether good or bad) and analyze its effect on the system.

IV. Lock Throughput Statistically Significant Predictor Variables to Throughput ID

Type

Parameter

p-value

Less/More

53

Lock

80.61

0.0032

More

Cannelton

Lock

38.75

0.0002

More

Captain Anthony Meldahl Lock

-34.35

0.0000

Less

Dashields

Lock

-51.75

0.0000

Less

Emsworth

Lock

-31.38

0.0000

Less

Greenup

Lock

-26.46

0.0000

Less

John T. Myers

Lock

8.55

0.0187

More

Markland

Lock

13.81

0.0000

More

McAlpine

Lock

46.14

0.0000

More

Montgomery

Lock

-16.69

0.0000

Less

New Cumberland

Lock

12.49

0.0000

More

Pike Island

Lock

-11.68

0.0000

Less

1.09

0.0000

More

55.51

0.0040

More

-107.12

0.0000

Less

Total Barges February Chamber

Month

Team Mississippi

VI.

REFERENCES

i

Work Project Administration, Encyclopedia.com http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/W/WorkP1roj.asp ii US Waterway System Transportation Facts, Navigation Data Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, 2003 http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/ iii Inland Waterway Trust Fund, Federal Transportation Funding in Iowa http://www.dot.state.ia.us/fed_trans_funding.html iv Harbor Services User Fee, American Association of Port Authorities, Government Relations http://www.aapa-ports.org/govrelations/hsfdescript.htm v Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005 http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm vi Clean Water Act, NOAA Coastal Services Center, Ocean Planning Information System, Legislative Summaries http://www.csc.noaa.gov/opis/html/summary/cwa.htm vii Jones Act of 1920, The Jones Act: Fact or Fiction, Maritime Cabotage Task Force, http://www.mctf.com viii Jones Act of 1920, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Freight Planning http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/freightplanning/dec17transcript.html ix Intermodal Shipping Container Security Act 2005, Bill Summary and Status for the 109th Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00376:@@@L&summ2=m& x Risk Modeling, Assessment and Management, 2nd Ed, Yacov Y. Haimes, 2004 xi Whistle Blower Charges Army Corps With Cooking The Books On Mississippi Project, The Chief Engineer http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/262.htm xii Ohio River System Map, Ohio River Mainstream Lock and Dame, US Army Corps of Engineers http://www.littleriverbooks.com/ohio.gif xiii Department of Homeland Security, Port and Border Security http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=21 xiv US Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs http://www.dot.gov/affairs/bts0305.htm xv Computer Assisted Cost Assessment of Intermodal Transportation Linkages Mackblackwell Transportation Center http://www.mackblackwell.org

5/25/2005

Page 36 of 37

Team Mississippi

Additional References Used Throughout Report: I. AMP Capstone Project Files CD Rom, Professor Mike Smith, April 2005 II. County FAF Data CD Rom, Professor Mike Smith, April 2005 III. NDC Publications and U.S. Waterway Data CD Rom, Vols 9 thru 10, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2003 IV. TR News, Transportation Research Board National Research Council, July – Aug 2002 V. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No 1871 Water Transport, Transportation Research Board, 2004 VI. The U.S. Waterway System – Transportation Facts, Navigation Data Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December, 2000, 2001, and 2002 VII. The Engineering Design of Systems Models and Methods”, Dennis M. Buede, 2000 VIII. SYS 601 Introduction to Systems Engineering, including How to do a Systems Analysis and Systems Analyst Decalog, by John E. Gibson, Professor W.T. Scherer, Spring 2004 including: IX. SYS 601: Introduction to Systems Engineering: Course Materials, Professor W. T. Scherer, May, 2004 X. Computer Assisted Cost Assessment of Intermodal Transportation Linkages, Phase II. MBTC report FR-1036. Data is from 1997 http://www.mackblackwell.org/research/finals/MBTCOldFinals/MBTC1036.pdf XI. Jim McCarville , Port of Pittsburgh Teleconference, April 2005 XII. NBTC Report FR-1036, 1997 XIII. USAsc1, Shipment Characteristics by Transport Mode, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1997 XIV. “Trucks Carry the Most Freight by Weight and Value, According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics”, http://www.dot.gov/affairs/bts0305.htm, U.S Department of Transportation, Jan, 2005 XV. “Commodity Flow Survey [multiple databases]” http://www.transtats.bts.gov, Bureau of Transportation Statistics Databases

5/25/2005

Page 37 of 37

Suggest Documents