Expanding Freight on our W Waterways and d Modernizing our Ports - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Expanding Freight on our W Waterways and d Modernizing our Ports Modernizing our Ports U.S. Department of Transportation – Maritime Administration May 2014 May 2014

America’s Marine Highways: g y From Concept to Reality! • Authorized in 2007 • Grant program created and $7M awarded Grant program created and $7M awarded in 2010 • Four new services funded • Four new services funded • Three market studies funded • New vessel designs funded 2

M 495 M-495 3 M-146 M-29

Marine Highway Studies Three Routes Studied (M-5, M-55, & M-95) • Market Analysis • Operation/Infrastructure Analysis • Business Case Major Findings • Where the geography and market were favorable, services could work services could work • Infrastructure gaps and modal connectivity need to be addressed • Handling costs and vessel operations continue to be the major cost drivers • Must be part of a total supply chain package M t b t f t t l l h i k 4

64 Express Marine Highway Service 64 Express Marine Highway Service  MARAD Marine Highway Grant Funds provided for purchase of barges for purchase of barges  Service started in 2008 in 2008  Moves approx. 8000 TEU 8000 TEUs annually  Provides relief of congested I- 64 corridor 64 corridor 5

California California Green Trade Corridor Green Trade Corridor Tiger Grant Tiger Grant Tiger Grant Tiger Grant  DOT Tiger Grant Funds provided for landside improvements and two barges p g  Service between Stockton and Oakland began June 2013 2013  Improves air quality and reduces and reduces highway congestion along I-580  Allows shipments of All hi t f heavy weight containers

Tenn- Tenn -Tom Waterway Pilot Project Tom Waterway Pilot Project  MARAD Marine Highway Grant Funds provided for landside container handling equipment Memphis  Service between Mobile and Fulton to begin 2 nd Qtr 2014 Tupelo Fulton Fulton  Provides modal choice and an all Birmingham water alternative versus east/west versus east/west coasts to Memphis rail ramps.  Potential to expand P t ti l t d to other Ports along the waterway and extend the service Mobile further north further north

NY Metro Area Potential NY Metro Area Potential 8

Lessons Learned for forming Marine Highway Services Highway Services • It takes a village! Partnerships must be formed among the State DOTs MPOs Port formed among the State DOTs, MPOs, Port Authorities, Terminal Operators, Service Operators, Logistics Providers/Shippers and p , g pp Federal Agencies (i.e. U.S. Customs) • Communication and Cooperation • In-depth Market Analysis • Sufficient start up capital p p • Part of a complete, door to door supply chain • Value-added services as part of the total p service package

Prime Considerations & • Where’s my freight? y g • When will I get it? • How much will it cost me? • How much will it cost me?

Major Cost Factors & • Maximizing vessel utilization Maximizing vessel utilization • Efficient terminal operations • How much will it cost me? H h ill it t ?

StrongPorts Program Legislation: Authorizes Port Infrastructure Development Program (2010 National Defense Authorization Act (PL 111-84)) Purpose: Promote, Encourage, Develop Ports and Transportation Facilities in Connection with Water Commerce • Secretary of Transportation, through the Maritime Administrator y p , g “shall establish a port infrastructure development program for the improvement of port facilities.” • Provide technical assistance as needed for project planning, p j p g, design and construction. • Coordinate with Federal agencies to expedite NEPA. • C Coordinate reviews or requirements with local state and federal di t i i t ith l l t t d f d l agencies. • Receive (Federal, non-Federal, private) funds to further projects. 12

StrongPorts Program Primary Objective: • Improve state of repair capacity efficiency and environmental Improve state of repair, capacity, efficiency and environmental sustainability of all U.S. ports. • Leverage existing programs where possible • Improve port competitiveness for public (Federal, State and local) and private funds through enhanced planning and engagement d i t f d th h h d l i d t Factors, Goals and Methodologies to Consider • Ensure Federal role is appropriate to circumstances – Right Size, not Super Size • Competition among/between ports is essential – minimize impact • • Program must be effective with no new Federal Funds – New Program must be effective with no new Federal Funds – New money only increases scope of program benefits. • Address the real challenges ports face, not perceived - Consensus • Program should benefit all ports, not just a select few. 13

Program Framework - Phase 1 PHASE I Implementation Category III Category I Category II Project Support Planning & Engagement Financing Very Few Ports All Ports Limited No. of Ports High Federal Oversight Low Federal Oversight Moderate Federal Oversight Minimal Market No Market Interference Minimal Market Interference Interference A. Guidelines & Data: Financing: Project Support: Sector advocate through analysis & g y Di Direct funding support via t f di t i Increased Federal project I d F d l j t showcasing opportunities/consequences existing/future programs assistance where unique regarding port role/investment Federal interest exists Activities Include: • Port Investment Plan Guidelines (With • TIGER I-VI Grants ($420M) MARAD Co-Manages Stakeholders) ) • Marine Highway Grants Project w/Port • National/Regional Studies and Maritime Impact • Eligible for Port Infra • Design Development Analysis Development. Fund • Eligible For PID Fund B. Assistance: • Eligible for Lead Fed. Agency Supp. Direct support to individual ports (upon request) • Strict Sel. Criteria St i t S l C it i • Investment Plan Devel. Support (TIGER VI • Investment Plan Req’d Planning Grants) • Project Clearly Defined • Delivery of Federal Services (Gateway Offices & HQ) 14 • Dedicated Staff With MPO Experience Authority: 46 USC, Section 50302

Maritime Administration Projects Portland, OR Garibaldi, OR Eastport, ME Duluth, MN Duluth MN Maine Ports, ME M i P t ME Lewiston, ID i Coos Bay, OR ProvPort, RI Quonset, RI Wellsville, OH Toledo, OH Bayonne, NJ W. Sacramento, CA Green Trade Green Trade Wilmington, DE g , South Jersey y Stockton, CA St kt CA Corridor, CA Port Corp, NJ Oakland, CA Baltimore, MD Tri ‐ City, IL Cates Landing, TN Catoosa, OK Port of L.A., CA Port of Long Beach, CA Pascagoula, MS Mobile, AL Pier 29, HI JaxPort, FL New Orleans, LA Gulfport, MS Houston, TX Corpus Christi, TX Port Manatee, FL Port of Miami, FL Brownsville, TX Auke Bay, AK ARRA Grants TIGER FY 2010 TIGER FY 2012 TIGER FY 2009 TIGER FY 2013 TIGER FY 2011 15

Maritime Administration Projects M5 Corridor Tacoma, WA Pasco, WA Portland, OR Garibaldi, OR Eastport, ME Duluth MN Duluth, MN M i Maine Ports, ME P t ME Lewiston, ID i Benton, WA Coos Bay, OR M95 Corridor ProvPort, RI Quonset, RI Wellsville, OH NE Gateway Toledo, OH Bayonne, NJ W. Sacramento, CA Green Trade Green Trade Wilmington, DE g , South Jersey y Neptune Neptune Stockton, CA Corridor, CA Port Corp, NJ Oakland, CA Baltimore, MD Richmond, VA Tri ‐ City, IL Virginia Ports, VA M55 Corridor Hueneme, CA Cates Landing, TN Catoosa, OK Port of L.A., CA Port of Long Beach, CA Fulton, MS , Pascagoula, MS Mobile, AL Pier 29, HI JaxPort, FL New Orleans, LA Gulfport, MS Houston, TX Main Pass Cross Gulf, FL Orange, TX Corpus Christi, TX Port Manatee, FL Port of Miami, FL LOOP Gulf Gateway Gulf Gateway Cross Gulf, TX Gulf Brownsville, TX Port Dolphin Dillingham, AK Landing Port Pelican Auke Bay, AK ARRA Grants TIGER FY 2010 TIGER FY 2012 Marine Highway Port Conveyance TIGER FY 2009 TIGER FY 2013 TIGER FY 2011 Deep Water Ports 16

StrongPorts Initiatives - 2014 A Collection of Investment Plan Best Practices and Tools, Developed by industry experts under a cooperative agreement between AAPA and the Maritime Administration agreement between AAPA and the Maritime Administration Working with State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and ports to include water transportation in State freight and passenger transportation plan transportation plan 17

A joint venture between AAPA, a working group of 57 industry expert volunteers, and the Maritime Administration. Toolkit will help ports obtain funding by developing investment grade plans that: • Clearly identify future port needs ; • Determine the most cost-effective , sustainable and efficient solutions to port problems; and solutions to port problems; and • Get port infrastructure projects into MPO and state transportation programs in order to receive formula funding ; funding ; • Position port projects for federal funding such as TIGER grants; and • Assist ports in obtaining private sector investment funds . p g p 18