[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PROPOSAL GREAT LAKES COOPERATIVE PORT PLANNING STUDY TECHNICAL SECTION I HARM Frederic R. Harris, Inc. September 2, 1977 HARRI Proposal Maritime Administration U.S. Department of Commerce for the Steering Committee GREAT LAKES COOPERATIVE PORT PLANNING STUDY TECHNICAL SECTION by Frederic R. Harris, Inc. 3003 New Hyde Park Road Lake Success, N.Y. 11040 September 2, 1977 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL HARRIS Frederic R. Harris, Inc., Consulting Engineers, 3003 New Hyde Park Road, Lake Success, New York 11040 516-328-7700 Cable Harkob Telex 224136 Domestic Telex 14-7137 September 2, 1977 Research Contracts Division Office of Administrative Services and Procurement Room 6066 U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 Attn: Mr. Carroll Day RE: Solicitation No. 7-38057 Gentlemen: Frederic R. Harris, Inc. is pleased to submit its proposal in three sections to assist the Maritime Adminstration and the Great Lakes Steering Committee in completing the urgently needed Great Lakes Cooperative Port Planning Study. This is a proposal for change. The Technical Section describes a path to a program for realizing the Lakes' true cargo moving capability, and involves two essentials: Drawing up a picture of that capability; and producing an implementable strategy which blends resources of the ports with the needs of port users. Harris's approach puts prime importance on identifying and planning for this port users group. By align- ing its actions with the economic imperatives facing users, the Great Lakes ports will find themselves in concert with technological and economic trends, and will discover new sources of support for their individual and joint development and marketing strategies. Chapters 1 to 3 describe this study approach in increasing detail. I wish to call particular attention to the professional team proposed in Chapter 4. This team blends economic and planning skills with practical engineering considerations. Each member has extensive experience with the proposed approach and can work cooperatively and tactfull y with the various study a PM company HARRIS U. S. Department of Commerce September 2, 1977 Page 2 participants. Some of our recent studies -- and the real actions stemming from them -- are discussed in Chapter 5. In preparing this proposal, we have been very mindful of past and concurrent studies by others. Our planning approach is designed to make full use of these efforts by dovetailing their outputs with the Cooperative Port Planning Study in- puts, limiting new data collection to the minimum needed for successful completion while avoiding overlap or duplication. A dynamic and useable information system will result. We are prepared to supplement this proposal with additional documentation or personal presentations as you may require, and look forward to serving you and the Great Lakes Steering Committee on this project in the near future. Sincerely.yours, R. S FRE E C r J n E. Ricklefs, ce President Devel ment Planning JER:hn J @E C Jn E ce Pre Devel rment TABLE OF CONTENTS )@L HARRIS TABLE 'OF CONTENTS 0 STANDARD FORM 33 TECHNICAL SECTION 1.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 2.0 UNDERSTANDING, APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 3.0 DETAILED WORK PROGRAM 3.1 List of Project Tasks 3.2 Detailed Task Descriptions 3.3 Network Diagram of Tasks 3.4 List of Key Study Events 4.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING 4.1 Study Management and Coordination 4.2 Resumes of Key Proposed Personnel 4.3 Percentage of offeror's Work Week 5.0 ABILITY TO PERFORM 5.1 Relevant Experience 5.2 Computer Capabilities 0 COST PRICE SECTION 4 ........... I 9 - Separately Bound SECTION i HARRIS 1.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE This proposal outlines a Cooperative Great Lakes Port Planning Study to guide the development of Great Lakes ports and related goods transport systems and services. The objectives of this study are derived from the U.S. Great Lakes - Seaway Port Development and Shipper Conference, (Dearborn Conference) work elements, specifically: 1-1-9, Port Marketing and Planning Strategies; and 2-1-2, Centralized Data Files and Software Programs. As defined in the Request For Proposal, this study is to identify and address all problems relating to the above two work elements. Specifically, its obj:ectives are: 1. Define the existing and potential cargo-flows of all types, from all origins and destinations in domestic and foreign commerce favorable to the Great Lakes ports based on sound economic and logistic criteria and judgment in a total distri- bution context. This represents present and future demand for transportation service. 2. Estimate the capability and/or capacity of the total transportation system (inland feeder, portr-, and water carrier capacities which represent the service supply) to handle the existing and potential cargoes and anticipate changes in cargo movement trends and capacity requirements. 1-1 HARRIS 3. Prepare marketing and planning strategies by which Great Lakes states and ports may realize the indicated cargo potential and assure the necessary capability. 4. Develop a consolidated data system and information processing techniques which will periodically update the cargo flows and transportation market and development strategies. In the accomplishment of these basic objectives, existing studies, data files and plans are to be analysed and used to the maximum. Furthermore, the study is to coordinate with other concurrent studies and to analyze and assimilate the data and findings of these studies. The scope of the study is understood to include the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway Region -- including the economic space of its service area. The study will give detailed consideration to the transportation systems serving this region and will include both those routings through Great Lakes ports as well as competing routings. The study will be comprehensive, in that it will focus on the following interdependent elements; * Goods movement systems: commodity trade, routing networks, services, and the future demands for increased volume and service requirements 9 Physical development systems: capacity and capabilities I of ports, carri-ers, and related infrastructure 1-2 HARRIS o Institutional systems: State and Federal agencies, Great Lakes related agencies, re- gulatory groups, carrier conferences and organizations, and cooperative organizations. The study will consider, in depth, all aspects of transport routings which currently handle cargoes generated by shippers/consignees located in the Great Lakes service area and which will be affected by the diversion of such cargoes to routings through Great Lakes ports. The study will focus on those Great Lakes ports and related services which offer service to the shipper and consignee public located in the region. At a minimum, the study will include the following ports: Chicago Buffalo Muskegon Toledo Green Bay Ludington Duluth Manitowoc Saginaw Superior Oswego Bay City Milwaukee Kenosha Port Huron Detroit Burns Waterway Harbor Lorain, Cleveland Indiana Harbor Ashtabula Erie Holland Harbor Ogdensburg 1-3 SECTION 2 HARRIS 2.0 UNDERSTANDING, APPROACH, AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 THE CHALLENGE Fundamentally, Frederic R. Harris, Inc. sees the objective of this study as maximizing the'benefits of Great Lakes waterborne commerce to the Great Lakes Region. As the Re quest for Proposal de- scribes, the Consultant is asked to follow a phased approach to define the market potential and related Great Lakes ports and services development plans which maximize these benefits. By definition, however, these study products describe "Potentials"; they do not, per se, mean the realization of commerce flows. The real challenge of this study, addressed in Phase IV, is to transform these potentials into reality -- and in a time frame- which preserves the validity of the potentials. Great Lakes ports are now well aware that commerce which they are not handling is in fact moving in their respective trade areas. They Are also convinced that they shoul d be handling at least a part of it. Frederic R. Harris, Inc., working in close cooperation with the Great Lakes Steering Committee, will specifical ly identify and classify the sources of that commerce, and set out the specific cost-savings which the Great Lakes ports can offer to these shippers/consignees. The study will show how to meet all of the non-cost service requirements as well. 2-1 HARRIS Thus, we propose not to provide "another study;" instead, the ports will have a new and powerful means of coordinating and promoting their independent respective develop- ment efforts. e Plans and information will be provided which delineate and justify port development efforts relative to the handling of total system commerce. 9 A system to provide all responsible parties with on-going intelligence will be described. * Great Lakes States will be provided data to support their industrial development efforts to retain and make their existing industry more competitive in the market place. States and ports will be provided with specific information to use in attracting new industry which has transportation cost requirements which are significant to their location decisio ns. This information system -- however significant and pertinent -- is not sufficient to insure that necessary actions will be taken, or, in fact, can be taken within existing organizational and institutional constraints. The challenge of this study is, therefore, to examine existing and alternative strategies and cooperative mechanisms to determine that combination which offers greatest promise of positive action to transform poten- tial commerce into real shipments. Hypothetical benefits to 2-2 HARRIS industry can thereby be converted into real saving s, and in the process, a stronger and more viable Great Lakes ports system can develop. 2.2 SHIPPER/CONSIGN EE ORIENTATION As previously mentioned, the basic objective of this study is to maximize benefits of waterborne commerce for the Great Lakes Region. It should be stressed at the outset, that the focus of the study as defined by this proposal is not to promote the development of Great Lakes ports, but to determine how Great Lakes ports best can promote the development of the Great Lakes Region. The Harris study approach does not assume that what is good for the ports -- as establish- ments or employers -- is necessarily good for shippers or consignees or the corresponding state Is economy. The underlying assumption of this study is shipper/consignee related. That is, the reason for any port is to serve the area (termed "service area" in this proposal) to and from which waterborne commerce moves at the lowest possible total distribu- tion costs (door to door). The effectiveness of each port should be measured not against any other port, but in how well it meets the needs of sh ipp ers and consignees in its least-cost service area. I 2-3 HARRI This concept of shipper preference (least-cost) provides the only possible foundation for cooperative port actions. It implies that in practice there will be a minimum of inter-port competition for the same commodities or shippers. A port need...have only those facilities and provide only those services for which there is a tangible requirement. Thus whether a port is just like any other, or whether it does or does not have a Darticular type of equipment, often becomes irrelevant. The "me too" syndrome which produces unproductive and costly white elephant installations can be avoided. As important, that Port which carefully identifies and equips itself to serve its service area's needs can develop public acceptance and support. It will be able to demonstrate its contribution to the economic well-being of its service area in real terms. It will also be in a much better position to finance its port operations out of realistically structured revenues and, perhap's to fund its own future development. 2.3 APPROACH The approach represented by this proposal views ports as one of several elements in a multimodal system of transportation linking shippers and consignees in the Great Lakes Region to their distant markets. The objective of the total system, to which every element must contribute, is to provide the transport and handling services required to move goods to I de sired destinations at the least possible additional cost 2-4 HARRIS to the final commodity price. The competitive position of the Great Lakes industrial corridor is in this sense determined by the cost of transportation. Recent surveys carried out by Frederic R. Harris, Inc. and others have shed some light on the current role of transport costs in the-market competitiveness of Great Lakes industry. e For instance, transportation accounts for approxi- mately 28-percent of the cost of delivered (rail) steel products from plants located in the North Central Great Lakes area to the East Coast, compared to 23 percent from Gulf Coast plants and only 18 percent from Japan. 9 A major consumer products firm in the Fortune 500 list, which exports the world over from upstate New York (via tidewater ports) finds that transportation costs as a percentage of delivered price in foreign markets has now reached an intolerable 27 percent. The firm is contemplating relocation. A major U.S. automobile producer recently ordered the.distribution manager for its Detroit plant to cut transport cost by 4 percent on pro- duction inputs from domestic or foreign sources. Owing to competition, the company must realize these savings or move production to its plants located in the South on inland waterways. 2-5 HARRIS e Perhaps the most interesting example is that of a corrosives producer located on the Great Lakes. Seven years ago, the company used a nearby Great Lakes port for its exports. Recently, however, the company has shifted to moving its products by container via tidewater ports. During this period, transport costs have risen from 15 to 24 percent of the delivered pr ice, due mainly to the greatly increased outlays required to deliver the containers to the port. It is apparent that the quality and cost of the total system of transportation within which ports function directly influences the extent of the industrial market, the size of the industrial work forces and, of course, the taxes i ndustry pays. 2.4 A QUESTION The objective of this transportation system is to enhance the economic development of the regions served by the Great Lakes ports. It is the lesson of Harris' recent and extensive experience working with Great Lakes ports that no other "sea coast" in America offers its hinterland such a potential for cost-saving port service. Probably one of the most important questions to be answered by this study is whether, in fact, the needs of the Great Lakes shipping public are best served 2-6 HARRIS by the evolving pattern of concentrated shipping functions in a few tidewater ports. Is it not possible that, by means of specialized functions and coordinated action, the Great Lakes ports can perform to the advantage of-Great Lakes industry? It is possible, provided that functions are designed and operated to optimize all aspects of the specific service requirements of the transportation system involved in the movement of each commodity. Accordingly, in this proposal, the roles of Great Lakes ports are to be determined by the extent to which they represent the least-c ost routing of commodity inputs and outputs of the Great Lakes regional economy. In turn, the specific functional specialization of the ports are to be determined by the han dling, storage or distribution requirements of goods routed through these ports at the least total distribution costs to Great Lakes shippers and consignees. The economic significance to the economy of port functions thus determined is measured in the resultant money savings to shippers and consignees. These savings or "benefits" will be considered to equal the difference in transportation costs between a least-cost routing through a Great Lakes port and that currently taken by the goods in transit. 2-7 HARRIS 2.5 HISTORY OF=E HARRIS APPROACH The approach to regional port planning described in this proposal was developed and applied as part of a recent study completed for the New York State Department of Transportation, entitled Comprehensive Upstate New York Public Ports Study. The study indicated-..-.that the availability of Great Lakes ports saved New York shippers and consignees $9.1 million (in 1974) in reduced transportation costs. Furthermore, $19.6 million could have been realized if traffic now moving through other modes and ports had been diverted through Upstate New York ports. The study recommended major capital improvements ($30 million) and a coordinated marketing plan. As part of the study marketing documents were prepared for each port showing the name and address of eachstzhipper or consignee to which the port could provide least-cost service, The document also contained a comparative transportation cost proforma for the-:shipments or receipts of each shipper/ consignee, showing in detail how the port could reduce the firm's total transport costs. The study showed that the trend towards increasing public port deficits could be reversed. Investments in facilities needed for each port to develop its special potential will A yield high benefits to the economy, as well as to the individual ports. Other policies recommended by the study included: 2-8 HARRI 9 Proposed new facilities will g enerate revenues, high and dependable enough to b e financ&d through revenue bonds. e User charges can and should be increased to eliminate current and future port deficits. With proposed increases, only a minimal loss of potential and existing traffic will occur, Further, user charges should be set to recover port operations, rehabilitations and the full capital.cost of existing and proposed facilities, whether previously financed through loans orgrants. e Accelerated repayment of. existing loans will be self-defeating and make bond financing impossible. * No change in existing authority functions and responsibilities, 9 state assistance with common problems through participation in an Upstate Ports Council. e Formation of a shippers association, Following the completion of the study, both-,--the Upstate Ports Council and a shippers association have been formed. Based on the recommendation of the Upstate Ports Council, the New York State Department of Transportation is currently formulating plans to provide a data and information service to the ports. The service will essentially update the informa- tion provided in the original study in an on-going manner. 2-9 HARR Since the completion of the Upstate New York Ports Study, Frederic R. Harris, Inc. has had the opportunity to develop its approach and accompanying software to a higher level of detail and flexibility. The approach was selected by the American International Development Agency (AID) for use in planning the Egyptian ports system till 2020. In its selection of Harris, AID referred to the approach as most successful at integrating robust economic methodology with practical short and long run problem solving.- in a manner focusing on regional organization', strategies and issues". 2.6 PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE GREAT LAKES COOPEIRATIVE PORTS STUDY As requested in the RFP, the study will be carried out in four phases. The elements and flow of the work effort for each phase are illustrated on Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2.6.1 Phase I. As can be seen on Figure 1, Flow Diagram of Phase I, the work effort concentrates on the development -- in coordination with contractors of other studies -- of an extensive bibliography on 18 major data/ assumption areas. The calibration and operation of a Great Lake Service Area Model is used as a means for testing available data and defining areas in which data is currently lacking. The Great Lakes Service Area model is designed to 2-10 @11 INN m m m IWI m m m m m m m -n Cy =-at== 3@ tv V) c2- M f" 3@-- m --4 m m !! rn m = m = -n 'a - ?a z wn c.4.) m,. C.) awc m r= r- 32. w CA m Me CA M T (D - 4 m C2 -0 11 m-.4mcl M m. -4 z :0 me tv a, -.4 m co 01 m me c,* rn ze COO) 1= C3 2. co "a z3. = C4 30 C2 atwc)z m C* 3. C7 -0 -.4 = C2 at tz m. cl) r-w C2 -4 X.- m -n -0 w 3* E: w M. -4 = w W @ C, . c' !Z2 r"n = I" @: z 3%. SERVICE AREA NETWORK DESCRIPTORS m 30.m m r" 21, -4A z r- wm '-q INLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM m r" M - r" W C, ca 3.- Z r. C, WATERBORNE TRANSPORT SYSTEM z 3- z C, 0, --l cr) Ic rn -nW 1 '.. INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM FACTORS z - = tv C13 -4 r" r- m '.. r- w m 31- -4= W. CA -4 3..z -COST RELATED ROUTING FACTORS A -4 NON rn r- TT cm 3.M xtr- r- TY MOVEMENT POTENTIALS co rn I" X.- m COMMODI .4 " W.0 m to= COMMODITY PROJECTIONS rn- C* 40 cm COMMODITY MOVEMENTS, EXISTING PORT SERVICE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS co co PORT REQUIREMENTS -0 vs C2 W = '. A @3- ECONOMIC BENEFIT.- B/C m 2.. T Q z C4 C2 C, rn -, @: @ rn w -0 c* m Lam FINANCIAL - PORT CHARGES - CAPITAL 02 V-) -10 C440 ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT, STAFFING M M N- 3'. C, -n :1.0 zn.-Im= =rn:m- CD ca go (A G -" MARKETING m -4 0* A rn cl rn a C, DEFINITIONS OF G.L. PORTS A5,SYSTEM CD CD w en 0 En -.4 2. -.4 -4 @ - C, 10 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES 'm OR m C2 cz 3. 31 - r'"m SHIPPERS/CONSIGNEES RELATIONS 'o C, - co > CD r, -4 ? f" EXISTING PORT FACILITIES INVENTORY C3 co 0 -m - C,a vb < C2 -4 C3 00 - CA rn to -4 to m rl -9 > -4 to M ;a rn ;a W rn cn C, ? -:40 -w-1 ):P. -4 m rn m m 0 @; CA -4 --4 44 ::o C, rn w aD oD zCD CA C3 m ri- 3: 02 C, C@ c/) C* 2.. C, c@ M 2c CD a2A m CA m CA 42 W. m c@ n m . . . . . . HARRI define, on the basis of total system transportation costs per ton, the extent of the economic service area s for each port. It simultaneously defines the-location, trade route, and cargo handling characteristics of each port's several service areas. In this manner, the process of surveying commodity flows currently moving in the region can be highly focused. Phase I also provides a definition of proposed files. The outputs or products of Phase I are listed on Figure l.. 2.6.2 Phase II. Figure 2 presents a flow diagram of proposed Phase II efforts. Essentially, commodity flows which could potentially move at least-cost through Great Lakes ports are further tested in terms of a series of non- cost constraints shown on the boxes representing Tasks 13, l4f 15, 16 and 17. Commodity flows surviving this test are considered to be feasible for direct vessel serviceat specific Great Lakes ports, see Task 20. Flows excluded are further tested for services (inland port services) which the respective port may provide in their regard. Feasible commerce flows are pro- jected till 2000 in Task 22 and further translated into ser- vice performance requirements in Task 23. These requirements are compared with available or planned capacities in Task 25. 2-11 FROM PHASE 1, LEAST-COST COMITY FLOWS GENERATEO BY G. L. REG ION OURATION: 17 WEEKS TASK 13 INLAND FEEDER CONSTRAINTS TO THE NOT FEASIBLE INLAND PORT REALIZATION OF POTENTIALS FOR DIRECT SERVICE OR VESSEL SERVICE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TASK 14 VESSEL & SEAWAY CONSTRAINTS ;0 THE REALIZATION OF POTENTIALS TASK 19 TRANSPORT CD SERVICE i [ TASK 15 SERVICE CONSTRAINTS TO THE REALIZATION ceo C) OF POTENTIALS TAU Is SOLIOATtONJ SUPPLY 5 i TASK 16 INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS NOT FEASIBLE INLAND PORT TO REALIZATION FOR DIRECT OR CORRECTIVE ;F VESSEL SERVICE ACTIONS TASK 17 RATE & TARIFF CONSTRAINTS TO THE REALIZATION OF POTENTIALS T SK 18 TASK 19 TASK 12 IMPACTS DUE FEASIBLE COMMERCE FOR COMMERCE NOT NON-VESSEL TRANSPORT SUPPLY TO DIVERSION DIRECT VESSEL SERVICE FEASIBLE FOR RELATED PERFORMANCE SERVICE SERVICES/ CAPABILITY AT G.L. PORTS ACTIONS TASK 21 TASK 20 TASK 18 TASK 24 L_TASK 12 4 _T_ 4 4 COST-SAVINIS AND COMMERCE PROJECTION GREAT LAKES TRANSPORT SYSTEM TRANSPORT R111 RE- ECONOMIC BENEFITS DUE 1985, 1990, 1995. SERVICE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS MENTS SCHEMES TO DIVERSION 2000 COSTS TASK 26 TASK 22 TASK 23 TASK 25 BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY OF DEVELOPMENTS REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS TASK 26 TASK 27 PHASE 11 PRODUCTS: Il* EVALUATION IF NIN-COST CONSTRAINTS TO THE REALIZATION OF I*L, PORTS POTENTIAL 14. PRINT OUT OF POTENTIAL COMMERCE FEASIBLE FOR DIRECT VESSEL SERVICE AT G.L. PORTS, BY SERVICE AREA Z(NE. G.L. PORT, TRADE ROUTE, COST SAVINGS. 15. SUMMARY OF NON-FEASIOLE COMMERCE FOR DIRECT VESSEL SERVICE. 16. DEFINITION IF PORT NON-VESSEL RELATED SERVICES. 17. IMPACTS FROM DIVERSION DUE TO DIVERSION ON OTHER PORTS AND MODES. 18. CARGO PROJECTIONS TO 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000 19. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR GREAT LAKES TRANSPORT SYSTEM TO SERVE POTENTIAL. 20. DESCRIPTION OF G.L. SERVICE SUPPLY CAPACITY. 21* DESCRIPTION IF CONSOLIDATED INLAND PORT SERVICES. 22. PORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES AND COSTS. .23. BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS. 24. PRELIMINARY REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 25. REVISED PHASE 11 AND III WORK PLAN 26. DRAFT OF PHASES I AND 11 27. REVIEW MATERIALS 26. FINAL REPORT OF PHASE I AND 11 TAU PON A FIGURE 2 GREAT LAKES COOPERATIVE PORTS STUDY FLOW DIAGRAM OF PHASE 11 HARRIS HARRIS Also in this taskf development schemes for each port will be drafted and their costs estimated. Finally Ta sk 26 develops benefit/cost justifications for the various schemes. The products of Phase II are listed on Figure 2. 2.6.3 Phase III. Figure 3 presents a flow diagram of proposed Phase III efforts. This phase reviews and incorporates the inputs from other concurrent studies. Where requiredf the analytical process carried out in Phase II will be rerun to produce definitive products. The products of Phase III are listed on Figure 3. 2.6.4 Phase IV. Figure 4 presents a flow diagram of the proposed Phase IV effort. As shown on the diagram, this phase will carryiout a systematic and coordinated analysis of alternative action programs for Great Lakes ports individually or as a system and for r egional shippers/consignees in each port service area or in the entire Great Lakes service area. Utilizing a coordinated issues analysis matrix, shown in Figure 4. data and conclusio ns developed in Phase II I will be translated into two sets of common issues areas for ports and shippers/consignees. Further, the procedure illustrated will make possible the preparation of focused and coordinated alter- 2-12 DURATION: 13 WEEKS INPUT OF DATA, INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTION FROM CON- CURRENT STUDIES: TASK 32 1 TASK 33 TRAFFIC, COMPETITION & FEEDER ADJUSTMENT OF FILES - BULK FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT RERUN PHASE 11 MID-AMERICA FOR IS DATA AREAS ANALYTICAL PROCESS - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1976 (SEE TASK 1) TO I COMMODITY O/D STUDY INCORPORATE INPUTS AS REQUIRED BY I FROM OTHER STUDIES NEW DATA INPUTS I - G.L. MAXIMUM VESSEL SIZE STUDY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS - REVIEW & MODIFICATION OF PHASE 11 DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES BY PORT OFFICIALS TASK 34 - OTHERS REVISED CONSOLIDATED DATA SYSTEM CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND STRUCTURE PHASE III OUTPUTS: 29, DEFINITIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FILES FOR 18 PLUS MAJOR DATA/ASSUMPTION AREAS 30. REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND STRUCTURE FOR CONSOLIDATED DATA'SYSTEM 3k DEFINITIVE (REVISED AND ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO REPORTS FROM CONCURRENT'STUDIES) PHASE 11 OUTPUTS 13 THROUGH 23 FIGURE 3 GREAT LAKES COOPERATIVE PORTS STUDY FLOW DIAGRAM OF PHASE III I I HARRI , I native short and long run development strategies. The products I of Phase IV are listed on Figure IV. I I I I I I I I I I I i M 4 01 -1 2-13 = mmm m = m m m 4@ W ca W C.3 C4 'a C., 3w " -0 -0 rrv -m Sw -n CD rrl 3w C2 G* m c@ W -0 C2 ca -c w V) C4 m rro :0 Ic -4 --I L4 me r" 30 T cD a, c D a=, m 35 20. C4 c-* --4 -4 3. CD mv) "cli r,;. G 3m. 93 m = -4 No -c C4 -c m -c -c -4 rn c* c, c, @m c, C@3 Ca V2 FACILITY SPECI ,r" m -n C-44 - -n -n -m CD - -m w CD CDm C, W DEVELOPMENT i z M. - = m. w z 3m. --I 3w 3w zo c* X.- 3w ca 31. 30. z Z X. Z X.. z z z rm r- C13 rm r- cr) C*3 --I C= M. rn INTER PORT COM 3. :0 CI 3. 6 r.-C "r, 1--, -n -,c r- m m CID m rm a, 2c , '.., 2 =., 2 ,2--2 m r-4 X.. -4 M W , M W M CIS M 0* C4 zm M.- --4 !!; OVERLAND FEEDE f r- r- &2 C= --4 cm c"J z C03 r, cm CD C2 C) C3 co co C* 0 -0 00 C= m 7 C= 3. -0 Zm -0 z I z -n 3m. m m. rn C= rlm c1l r" C, A w -4 = w C* c 3 c-.) sc -c m --q SHIPPING SERVI n rm rn c,2 r" cv rm cj = cli a IS rn 3w 30. c* z CD W = co z C3, C3 1= c") --q an rn -4 an -4 g rn 3,c --i .3p mc rn --4 cc -4 c c c A 11" r" = 20 INtAND PORT SE --4 .1 rl-, 1, = r- 1, c, 3' c, cl, C13 = C) @* m Co C4 r C z :! z CA 6 m :PC rn m @4 C02 V3 W2 ca -< rn C12 c, M C,* SHIPPER/CONSIG Go r" --4 - rn -4 ;; -4 V CA co C= z ca " = C3 -n --o C.0 RELATIONS co cl, C. C= -n 3m. m m r" m m m C's 4= r- MARKETING 6" mrm m a, co (43. 3- 4h. a, T ", - 1, '*, r- ::2 "-4 C`2 -th. cz c.* r" m 2 - - r- GMA w c, 3c,2 A2 z c-* = Z; OPERATING ACTI z m rn I T --4 30. C-,) --, C,D G 'm G C3 -0 = r- 1 C02 = 29 :0 z m z -4 C13 C= C= MANAGEMENT ORG Go 30 G* 3w cm 3. 3. c= im- c ci m rn r" =a m M- C6 --4 ac --4 m m m m ca co* FINANCIAL/CAPI 3. Cl = r = m go C7 w --4 r@j 3w USER CHARGES r" m r. tz m r- 30 3. r- 30 209 :9.. go C17 CD -z r z m- z ?Zw --4 -0 9 = INSTITUTIONAL- e" to ot C3 C7 b. 3m. -n -0 -0 C* C"i m r" = --q W C, cm r" DATA m = 2 =1 1=0 co* i -n 4 cm G2 71 CA 4@ -ob 4- 4.. -P, 4@ p. Ab L ri OTHER C7 m OVERLAND CARRI m :0 W. m m m rn -4 m C3 3w @v T Cos m 30 r z'c n X. -n SHIPPING RATES r- m -4 cm z z z -4 n -n CD m -4 mom c -c -c -c A C6 c@ m r@4 m. %-4%w-mmvm"29 = 'z- --4 ROUTING ALTERN rn n m t= --4 z rrs -4c -4 m w " " --4 -4 C= rm 1-4 = % z r." A = = -" ; ; V. 2- rm g--, CONSOLIDATION r, = --4 co cro, CZ2 rn A ,4, c, 1-0 X. z rri C30 M 3w r" m r- r- cz p w Sl 390 G') 0 m m -c coll 4= :0 9 Q = w c-* rm r" FORWARDING m = C** 3-04 cMn cMa 3-04 Wc X. m m rln CA C, co, -4 30 C.3 -n -4 ROUTE SELECYIO co C2 sm -n --4 20 ca CD :0 C3 CD -c V -m "" - 2- M 30 C', I.- @, 9 A 0 > C2 ca C-3 C3 r- -fb@ --I C02 -4 INTERMODALISM --4 &* --c C." -n --i C2 pt C, -4 CD 30 !2 c* r- - 30 '" < Pt 'o C4 REGULATION A 4= CIO 10, r- cz r- w m C2 C2 36 rri -c c*% f=c USER CHARGES ca 1, 30. 3p 4 ;8 " = '. Z;!@ 4 n c, -4 m c, 2 m 0 040= r" 2 cv r.". Z; --4 z C3 Q" PORT & CARRIER 30. ca CA R. 9 z 'c., = -.4 r-4 33, rn C2 m:v rrl = r- < -n z --, m X. C= cz SEASONALITY rn C* 30 .4 m -c :0 m C-21 cn 94 rn w --4 m -4 --c r- ;; rm ORGANIZATION C, 3w m 'a -4 m rn a t* DATA HARRIS The Phase IV diagram is important in another major respect: it is an indication of what a cooperative coordinated plan actually looks like. Reading up and down, ports or shipper consignees can see how their common issues and action areas affect each port or service area' 'and how they fit in with the Great Lakes system as a whole. Reading across, actions and issues for ports can be compared with similar actions and issues for shipper/consignees. Further examination of the diagram will reveal how all actions may fit together in concert for an internally consistent blend of individual and Great Lakes-wide actions. This is what a coordinated plan is about. 2-14 'Ai SECTION 3 HARRIS 3.0 DETAILED WORK PROGRAM Section 3.1 is a list of study tasks. Section 3.2 which follows, describes each study task in detail. These task write-ups may be read in conjunction with the foldout network diagram of study tasks which has been placed in Section 3.3, behind the study task write-ups, for ease of reference. Section 3.4, following the network diagram, is a listing of key study events. 3-1 HARRIS LI'ST 'OF PROJECT TASKS PHASE I - EXISTING CONDITIONS Task 1 Stummary and Analysis of Data and Assumptions on the Great Lakes System Task 2 Calibration of Great Lakes Service Area Model Task 3 Summary of Existing Data Files Task 4 Operation of Service Area Model and Production of Phase I Print-Outs Task 5 Summary and Analysis of Data and Assumptions on Commodity Flows Task 6 Definition of Required Data Outputs Task 7 Definition of Proposed Data Files Task 8 Revised Phase II Work Plan Task 9 Phase I Draft Report Preparation .Task 10 Preparation Study Review Materials Task 11 Final Phase I Report. Preparation PHASE II - POTENTIAL CONDITIONS Task 12 Transport Service Supply Analysis Task 13 Inland Feeder Constraints to the Realization of Potentials Task 14 Vessel and Seaway Constraints to the Realization of Potentials Task 15 Service Constraints to the Realization of Potentials Task 16 Institutional and Regulatory Constraints to the Realization of Potentials Task 17 Rate and Tariff Constraints to the Realization of Potentials Task 18 Commerce Not Feasible for Direct Vessel Service at Great Lakes Ports Task 19 Inland Port Services or Corrective Actions Related to the Handling of Commerce Not Feasible for Direct Vessel Service at Great Lakes Ports Task 20 Feasible Commerce for Direct Vessel Service at Great Lakes Ports Task 21 Impact on Other Ports or Modes Owing to the Diversion of Commerce to Great Lake Ports Task 22 Commerce Projecti6ns for 1980, 1985, 1990, 19951 and 2000 Task 23 Great Lakes Transport System Service Performance Requirements Task 24 Non-Vessel Related Service Requirements Task 25 Transport Requirement Schemes and Costs 3-2 HARRIS Task 26 Benefit/Cost Analysis of Developments Task 27 Preliminary Regulatory Requirements Task 28 Revised Phase III and IV Work Plan Task 29 Phase I and II Draft Reports Preparation Task 30 Preparation of Study Review Materials Task 31 Final Phase I and II Report Preparation PHASE III - ADJUSTMENT Task 32 Adjustment of Files to Incorporate Inputs rrom other Studi6s Task 33 Rerun Phase II Analytical Process as Required By New Data Inputs Task 34 Revised Consolidated Data System Conceptual Plan and Structure Task 35 Phase III Draft Report Preparation Task 36 Preparation of-Study Review Materials Task 37 Final Phase III Report Preparation PHASE IV - DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Task 38 Alternative Action Analysis for Each Port Task 39 -Alternative Action Analysis for Shippers and Consignees in Each Port Service Area Task 40 Alternative Action Analysis For All Ports in Great Lakes System Task 41 Alternative Action Analysis for Shippers and Consignees in Great Lakes Service Area Task 42 Analysis of Alternative Consolidated Data Systems Task 43 Benefit/Cost Analysis of Consolidated Data System Alternatives Task 44 Benefit/Cost Analysis of Alternatives for Each Port and the Great Lakes System Task 45 Benefit/Cost Analysis of Alternatives for Shippers and Consignees in the Service Area of Each Port and the Great Lakes System Task 46 Delineation of Consolidated Data System Task 47 Short and Long-Run Development Strategy for Each Great Lakes Port and for the Great Lakes Port Systems as a Whole Task 48 Short and Long-Run.*-.Development Strategy for Shippers and Consignees in Service Area of Each Great Lakes Port and in the Great Lakes Service Area as a Whole Task 49 Data Package for Use By Public, Private, Individual or Cooperative Interests in Efforts to Riialize Great Lakes Potential Task 50 Definitive Integrated Implementation Program Task 51 Preparation of Draft Report and'Executive Summary 4 01 Task 52 Preparation of Review Materials Task 53 Final Report Preparation 3-3 HARRIS 3.2 DETAILED TASK 'DESCRIPTIONS This proposal for the Great Lakes Cooperative Ports Study will be carried-out in four phases. The realization of these phases will be defined here in terms of 53 task. Where further explanation appears necessary, tasks are broken down into their component items. A network diagram illustrating the flow in time and interdependence of tasks is presented together with a listing of study events. The outputs of each phase have previously been described on each of the phase flow diagrams,..Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. PHASE I - EXISTING CONDITIONS Task 1 - Summary and Analysis of Data and Assumptions on the Great Lakes System PURPOSE: Review, analysis, and compilation of information from existing sources will be carried out in terms of data and assumption areas which deal with the role of waterborne commerce in the Great Lakes Regions. Data and assumptions will be organized into at least 18 areas, each designed to contribute specific inputs to the series of steps in the methodological development proposed herein. Under each of the following area headings, textual bibliography and summary files will be established: 3-4 HARRIS 1.1 Description of the elements of the se3@vice area transport network (zones, nodes, links, descriptors, etc.) 1.2 The inland transportation system (current state and future change in modes, infrastructure, user changes, loading, speed, etc.) 1.3 The waterborne transportation system (current state and expected future changes) 1.4 Institutional factors 1.5 Non-cost related factors which constrain the realization of commodity routing potentials: a. Inland feeder constraints; b. Vessel constraints; C. Seaway constraints; d. Service constraints e. institutional and regulatory constraints; and f. Rate and tariff constraints 1.6 Total distribution factors which determine commodity movement potentials: a. At plant loading/unloading costs; b. Overland carriage costs; C. At port loading/unloading costs; d. Port handling costs; e. Port changes; f. Vessel costs g. Great Lakes & Seaway tolls and charges; and h. Inventory time of goods in transit 1.7 Commodity projections 1.8 Existing commodity movements a. Domestic bound cargoes generated by Great Lakes market - area.;_ - b. Domestic bound overhead cargoes; c. Foreign bound cargoes generated by Great Lakes market area; d. Foreign bound overhead cargoes e. Commodities not currently in movement 4 3-5 HARRIS 1.9 Port performance standards 1.10 Port requirements 1.11 Economic benefits and measuremant methods 1.12 Financial factors including port charges and capital requirements 1.13 Organization, management and staffing 1.14 Marketing 1.15 Definitions of Great Lakes Ports as a system 1.16 Great Lakes ports development strategies 1.17 Shipper/@Consignees relations 1.18 Baseline inventory.of port and ancillary facilities Task 2 - Calibration of Great Lakes Service Area Model PURPOSE: Calibration of the Harris Comflow model 1to the parameters of alternative goods transportation routings available to Shippers/Consignees located in the Great Lakes service area. The Comflow model is designed to delineate least-cost routings for the transportation of cargo handling categories (containers, breakbulk, neobulk, dry bulk, liquid bulk -- together with several valve levels within each . category). The model prints out the least-cost trade route and port, the cost savings per ton over the next least-cost routing, as well as the next least-cost trade route and port. The model assumes current average capacity utilization of system elements. All aspects of the model have been compared 4 M1 ............. ........ .- - ....... ........................................ ,1. Developed as part of the Comprehensive Upstate Ports Study for the New York State Department of Transportation. 3-6 HARRIS with the multimodal model developed by the Corps of Engineers as part of the Inland Navigation Systems Analysis (INSA) project. While Conflow operates on similar network assign- ment principals, its purpose and, therefore, outputs are different. Specifically, the model is designed to (1) describe Great Lakes port least-cost service areas in terms of cost- saving contours, (2) to examine-the sensitivity of the extent of service areas to increases in cost components such as port user charges, future increased seaway user charges, increased fuel costs, etc., (3) to make possible the formation of a highly focused commodity flow survey. 2.1 Based on existing surveys of commodity flows generated by Great Lakes Region, develop cargo groupings which represent significantly different handling, storage, or carriage costs. Cargo handling categories: - General dargo: containerized (LO/LO, RO/RO), breakbulk (conventional or LASH), neobulk and special - Dry bulk: commodity types (coal, grain, other) - Liquid bulk 2.2 Determine current and future functional, cost, loading capacity, and time characteristics of carriers, infra- structure, and loading and unloading activities. I 3-7 HARRIS 2.3 Definition of transportation network elements: a. Division of preliminary service area into zones (to be established: counties or OBERS) b. Delineation of current and future interface points and linkages in network C. Definition of transportation network coding system 2.4 Determination of ptint-out contents and formats. Task 3 - Summary of Existing Data Files PURPOSE: Provision of summary description, samples, uses, shortcomings and availability of data files and programs relating to any aspect of the 18 major data/assumption areas (see Task 1). Task 4 - Operation of Service Area Model PURPOSE: Delineation of Great Lakes service areas for each port and the system as a whole. Note, each port will have several service areas depending on cargo handling category, commodity value level and distant origins or destinations. Impact on the extent of the service areas owing to changes in cost factors will also be tested. Service areas will be generated for 1977, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000. 3-8 HARRIS Task 5 - Survey of Existing Commodity Movements PURPOSE: Based on available data sources, define and document commodity flows generated by least-cost service areas, by shipper/consignee, currently used trade route, and volume. 5.1 Develop print-out of existing and past cargo flows via all Great Lakes ports showing U.S. shipper/consignee,. overland carriage mode, average vessel type in use, frequency and size of shipment and distant origin or destination. 5.2 Based on 1976 and 1977 manifest survey 1 describe on tape all foreign trade generated by Great Lakes least-cost service area in terms of (1) shipper/ consignee, (2) mode of overland carriage, (3) U.S. or Canadian port of exit or entrance (4) vessel and shipping line used, cargo handling category, and average shipment size. 5.3 Based on cross-referencing Schedul e B numbers, check extent of coverage with ot her available documentation including the Department of Commerce commodity flow surveys. ..... ...................... . ............... . ................ . . ......... . ............ .... .. I Unprocessed tapes available from Journal of Commerce, 4 M1 Information Service. 3-9 HARRIS 5.4 Based on available documentation, describe on tape domestic bound shipments and receiptsi by commodity, current mode of carriage, and zones of origin and destination and probable average shipment size. 5.5 Based on available documentation, describe on tape potential new commodity flows not now in movement, for instance deliveries of Western coal to eastern states. Task 6 - Defini tion of Required Data Outputs PURPOSE: Definition of data outputs not currently available but required for the execution of port and related systems planning. Task 7 Definitio n of Proposed Data Files PURPOSE: For those data outputs identified in Task 8 and not possessing a satisfactory stbstitute, describe outputs in terms of use, contents, frequ ency of issue, formats and procedures for compilation. Task 8 - Plan of Transfer of Phase I Outputs and the Outputs of Concurrent Studies to Phases II and III ..............I........................I.......I...... ................................... . ............................................. ............. 1. Including movements not currently moving by water-, I 01 but considered suseptible to waterbound carriage. 3-olO HARRIS Task 9 Prevaration and Submittal of Draft Phase I Repor Task 10 Preparation of Review Material and Presentation and Discussi.on of Phase I Repo -ti Task 11 - Preparation and Submittal of Phase I_Report PHASE II - POTENTIAL CONDITIONS Task 12 - Transport Service Supply Analysis PURPOSE: Definition of current capacity and capacity utili- zation characteristics of Great Lakes public ports. 12.1 Based on the level of new requirements revealed by a comparison of least-cost commodity potentials (developed in Phase I) with current cargo levels and current port plans, and based also on 'the occurrance of baseline port facilities invento ry information which can only be obtained from a site visit; make arrangements for a study reconnaissance trip to each selected port. .................... ...... 1. Whereas the referenced task identifies one of four points where discussion of findings with the Steering Committee can be best conducted, on-going discussions conducted on an informal basis with the COTR and individual.members of the I 01 Committeewould be carried out during the entire course of the study. It will be noted that the Network Diagram of Tasks identifies three additional points where study progress re- views could be-held. See Events B,, G and U. HARRIS 12.2 Carry out on-site investigations at ports and in problem areas defined in Task 12.1. Investigations limited to the accumulation of port facilities inventory and physical development baseline informa- tion. Task 13 - Evaluation of Inland Feeder Related Constraints to the Realization of the Least-Cost Commodity Flow Potential of Great Lakes Ports PURPOSE: Analyze commodity flow pattern s in terms of known functional constraints of inland carriers. Where constraints are found to be effective, identify which commodity flows -- for such reasons -- cannot be diverted to their least-cost routing through a Great Lakes port. 13.1 Evaluate extent of LCL shipment, by average establish- ment. 13.2 Evaluate extent of potential capacity utilization on carrier hauls both ways, to and from ports. 13.3 Identify location and numbers of forwarders and NVOCC's in Great Lakes port areas. 13.4 Investigate possible revised overland networks con- sidering a) dedicated TOFC or COFC unit train systems to ports; b) motor carrier networks of higher capacity utilization. 3-12 HARRIS 13.5 Where necessary, interview selected common carriers and railways as to reality of factors considered in this task. Task 14 - Evaluation of Vessel Related Constraints to the Realization of the Least-Cost Commodity Flow Potentials of Great Lakes Ports PURPOSE: Analyze commodity flow patterns in terms of the known functional constraints of vessels. Where constraints are found to be effective, identify which commodity flows cannot be diverted to their least-cost routing through a Great Lakes port. 14.1 Reconstitute annual commodity flows assigned to each port into cyclical deliveries. 14.2 Organize delivery cycle volumes on the basis of foreign or domestic origins or destinations. 14. 3 Evaluate whether potential cargo volumes reclassified according to 14.1 and 14.2 are sufficient to warrant a vessel call. 14.4 If necessary, consolidate volumes to single port (must be second least-cost port) to provide sufficient volumes to attract adequate service. 3-13 HARRIS Task 15 Evaluation of Service Related Constraints to the Realization of Least-Cost Commodity Flow Potentials of Great Lakes Ports PURPOSE: Analyze commodity flow patterns in terms of known service requirements by shippers/consignees not offered by Great Lakes ports the lack of which acts as constraints to the relaization of Great Lakes port potentials. Where such constraints are found to be effective, identify which commodity flows cannot be diverted to their least-cost routing through a Great Lakes port. 15.1 Examine the effect of such constraints as lack of U.S. flag vessels, seaway seasonality, broker handled cargoes, hazardous cargo and others. Task 16 - Evaluation of Institutional or Regulatory Constraints to the Realization of Least-Cost Commodity Flow Potentials of Great Lakes Ports PURPOSE: Analyze commodity flow patterns in terms of regulatory constraints. Where such constraints are found to be effective, identify which commodity flows cannot be diverted to their least-cost routing through a Great Lakes port. 16.1 Evaluation of effect of Section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Actl regulations on U.S. Government freight shipments through-Great Lakes ports. ...............I............. ............ 1. Section 22 provides for lower inland rates on government movements as compared to commercial'shipments. 3-14 HARRIS 16.2 Evaluation of effect of existing cargo preference laws'. 16-.3 Evaluation of effects of current pending legislation designed to limit activities of third flag vessels in U.S. trades (HR 7940). Task 17 - Evaluation of Transportation Rate Constraints to the Realization of Least-Cost Commodity Flow Potentials of Great-Lakes Ports PURPOSE: Analysis of commodity flow patterns in terms of inland and vessel rates. Best available rates will be substituted for costs in the least-cost flow model (Comflow) and the resulting routings will be compared with those pre- viously produced by using costs. Excessive differences in rates from costs -- which produce significantly different cargo routings will be further investigated in terms of their possible discrimatory nature. Where such constraints are effective and are not subject to short or long term adjustment, identify which commodity flows cannot be diverted to their least-cost routing through a Great Lakes port. 17.1 Evaluate the effect of intermodal/minibridge rates and routes. 17.2 Evaluate the effect of the lack of specific export/ import rates to Great Lake ports comparable to those for tidewater ports. l.Public Law 480 Title II cargoes must be shared on U.S. flag vessels. 3-15 HARR Task 18 - Compilation of Least-Cost Cargoes Which Are Not Feasible for Direct Vessel Service at Great Lakes Ports PURPOSE: Accumulate and summarize those cargo flows found not to be feasible for direct vessel service at Great Lakes ports. Analyze and rank non-cost factors as to their relative impact on existing cargo routing patterns. Task 19 - Description of_Possible Inland Port Services of Corrective Actions Relating to Cargoes Summarized in Task 18 PURPOSE: Analyze cargoes for which direct vessel service is not feasible in@terms of other "inland" port services which may be'offered the shippers of these commodities. Determine short or long run corrective actions identified in Tasks 13 through 17. Task 20 - Summary of Commerce Feasible for Direct Vessel at Great Lakes Ports PURPOSE: Accumulate all feasible cargoes passing the "squeeze- out" constraints of Tasks 13 through 17, and summarize on tape in terms of (1) shipper/consignee identification code, (2) location zone in Great Lakes service area, (3) cargo handling category, (4) annual tonnage, (5) foreign or domestic origin or destination, (6) current routing, (7) least-cost routing and Great Lakes port of preference, and (8) cost-savings accounted for by feasible diversion through Great Lakes port. 3-16 HARRIS Task 21 - Evaluation of Impacts Resulting from the Feasible Diversion of Commerce to Least-Cost Routing Through Great Lakes Ports PURPOSE: Qualification of the impact of diversion on replaced overland modes and tidewater ports. Task 22 - Commodity Projections PURPOSE: Projection of the future tonnage of feasible commodity movements in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000; from respective 1977 service area bases, see Task 4. Projections will be carried-out on the basis of best estimated from available studies and, where deemed necessary, framed in a low and high estimate. Task 23 - Delineation of Service Performance Standards for Each Great Lakes Port PURPOSE: Based on feasible cargo types and volumes described in Task 22, develop programs and standards for port facility specializations, productivity levels, interface characteristics with waterborne and overland carriers, and the time phasing of development. 3-17 HARRIS Task 24 - Delineation of Non-Vessel Related Service Per- formance Standards PURPOSE: Based on the results of Task 19, develop programs and standards for port facility specializations, productivity levels, interface characteristics, and time phasing of develop- ment. Task 25 - Development of Transport Requirement Schemes and Related Costs PURPOSE: Identification and schematic planning of additional port and related facilities required to serve demand described in Tasks 23 and 24 in comparison with the level of corres- ponding supply described in Task 12. Schematic port modifi- cation plans, additional service requirements, and costs related thereto, will be submitted to those responsible in each port affected. Their review, modification, and approval will be requested. Receipt of their comments is expected to take two months. Task 26 - Benefit/Cost Evaluation of Recommended Development in Each Port PURPOSE: Each port development plan will be subjected to a benefit/cost analysis in which will be considered benefits to shippers and consignees as well as negative benefits to trans- port elements no longer required. The analysis will also be used to.evaluate the optimum time phasing of specific new developments. Y18 HARR Task 27 - Definition of Preliminary Regulatory Requirements PURPOSE: Based.on the results of Tasks 16 and 26, develop preliminary scope of regulatory requirements. Task 28 - Development of a Revised Plan for the Accomplishment of Phases III and IV Task 29 - Preparation and Submittal of Draft Phase I and II Reports Task-30 - Preparation of Review Materials and Presentation and Discussion of Phase I and II Reports Tdsk 31 - Preparation and Submittal of Final Report PHASE III - ADJUSTMENT OF PHASE II CONCLUSIONS Task 32 - Adjustment of Files for the 18 Data Areas PURPOSE: Adjustment and.modification of the 18 Data Area Files, described in Task 1, to incorporate the data, assumptions, and findings from other concurrent studies. Note, while the purpose of this task is to update the 18 Data Area products, coordination with concurrent studies is proposed to begin with Event B, six weeks after the start of this study. 3.-.19 HARR 32.1 Input of data, information, assumptions, and conclu- sions from concurrent studies, to include: - Traffic and Competition (and feeder service) Study; - Bulk Eacilities Improvement Study; - Mid-America Study; - Department of Commerce 1976 Commodity O/D Study; - Great Lak es Maximum Vessel Size Study - U.S. Corps of Engineers; and - Others 32.2 Receipt and review-of port development schemes developed in Task 12 and reviewed and modified by corresponding port officials. Task 33 - Rerun Phase II Analytical Process PURPOSE: Rerun Phase II analytical process as required by new data inputs from Task 33. 33.1 Rerun of Phase II process and production of definitive Phase I and II products. See,Flow Diagrams of Phases I, II and III for List of Products. 3-2.0 HARRIS 33.2 For significant or key commodity flows for each port, recall shipper or consignee name and location and develop routing proforma for shipments considered to be feasible (least-cost) for diversion from current routing to one through a Great Lakes port. Routing proforma to show shipper or consignee's identification code number, cargo handling category, volume, and distant O-D of movement. Further, the proforma-will compare, component by component, the total distribution costs of the current routing with the proposed least- cost routing through a Great Lakes port. These proforma will identify in detail cost reasons specific shippers should choos e a lesser cost alternative routing through the Great Lakes port. 33.3 Using Task 33.2 proformas as base, a sample of shippers or consignees will be systematically interviewed as to their current reaction to the feasibility of using the corresponding Great Lakes port. Conditions cited by shippers/co nsignees will be documented. Where deemed advantageous, representatives of freight for- warders and carriers will also be contacted. 3-21 HARRIS Task 34 - Description o f Revised Data Consolidation System_ PURPOSE: Revision and presentation of a conceptual plan and structure of ongoin g data files. Files will be described in terms of their use, format, software programs and modeling requirements. Task 35 Preparation of Draft Phase IIIReport Task 36 Pre aration of Re view Materials and Presentation and Discussion of Phase III Results Task 37 Preparation and Submittal of Phase III Report 3-.;22 HARRIS PHASE IV - DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Task 38 - Analysis of Development Issues . and Alternative Actions Required for Each Great Lakes Port to Achieve Its Potential PURPOSE: The purpose of this task, as well as that of Tasks 39, 40 and 41, is twofold: 1) to establish a coordinated issues analysis matrix (See Phase IV Flow Diagram) designed to make possible the systematic identification of coordinated alternative action programs for Great Lakes ports individually or as a system and Great Lakes regional shippers/consignees in each port service are a or in the entire Great Lakes service area. This matrix will serve as the basis for the translation of data and conclusions produced by Phases I, II and III into two sets of common issues areas for ports and shippers/consignees. Further, the procedure will make possible the preparation of focused and coordinated alternative short and long run develop- ment strategies. The tentative list of common issues and action areas for Great Lakes ports individually or a system are as follows: 1. Facility specialization and development; 2. Inter-port competition; 3. Overland feeder services; 4. Shipping services;. 3-23 HARRIS 5. Inland port services; 6. Shipper/consignee relations; 7. Marketing; 8. Operating activities; 9. Management and organization; 10. Financial/capital/user charges; 11. Institutional - regulations; 12. Data; and 13. Intermodal competition The tentative list of common issu es and action areas for shippers/consignees located in the service area of each Great Lake port or the entire Great Lakes service area are as follows: 1. Overland carrier rates 2. Shipping rates 3. Routing alternatives 4. Consolidation 5. Forwarding 6. Route selection 7. Intermodalism 8. Regulations and regulatory agencies 9. User charges 10. Port and carrier relations 11. Organization 12. Seasonality of seaway service 4 13. Data 3-@24 HARRIS Task 39 - Analysis-of Issues and Alternative Actions by Shippers and Consignees Located in the Service Areas of Each Great Lakes Port In Order to Achieve Lowest Possible Transportation Costs and Best Service for Their Goods Task 40 - Analysis of Issues and Alternative Actions Required for the Great Lakes Port System to Achieve Its Potential Task 41 - Analysis of Issues and Alternative Actions by__ Shippers and Consignees Located in the Great Lakes Service Area In Order to Achieve Lowest Possible Transportation Costs and Best Service for Their Goods Task 42 - Development of Comprehensive Data and Information System PURPOSE: Elaboration of the definitive data and information system serving the ongoing needs of ports and shippers as defined in Tasks 38, 39, 40 and 41. The system will be described as a file processing and output process and will be accompanied with related software and other model requirements. Recommenda- tions will be made concerning the staffing, location and cost of the system. Alternative arrangement differing in levels of service and costs will be defined. I 3-25 HARRIS Task 43 - Definitive Benefit/Cost Analysis of Comprehensive Data and Information S.Yst em PURPOSE: The selection of the recommended data and information system will be based on a benefit/cost analysis of alternatives developed in Task 42. Task 44 - Definitive Benefit/Cost Analysis of Action . Strategy Alternatives for Great Lakes Ports PURPOSE: A recommended, coordinated short and long run develop- ment strategy for each port and the Great Lakes port system will be selected on the basis of benefit/cost analysis to be carried'' out in this task. Task 45 - Definitive Benefit/Cost Analysis of Action Strategy Alternatives for Shippers/Consignees PURPOSE: A recommended, coordinated short and long run develop- ment strategy for shippers/consignees located in the service area of each port and in the Great Lakes service area will be selected on the basis of benefit/cost analysis to be carried out in this task. Task 46 - Definitive Description of the Recommended Comprehen- sive Data and Information System PURPOSE: A detailed description of the definitive data and information system will be based on the results of the benefit/ cost analysis carried out in Task 43. 3'26 HARRIS Task 47 - Definitive Description of the Recommended Coordinated Strategy for Great Lakes Ports PURPOSE:- A detailed description of the definitive, coordinated development strategy for Great Lakes ports -- for each port and for the ports system -- will be based on the results of the benefit/cost analysis carried out in Task 44. Task 48 - Definitive Description of the Recommended Coordinated Strategy for Shippers/Consignees PURPOSE: A detailed description of the definitive coordinated action strategy for shippers/consignees -- individual port service areas or the-Great Lakes service area --@- will be based on the benefit/cost analysis carried out in Task 45. Task 49- - Development of Sample'Data and Information Packages PURPOSE: Sample data packages will be developed and will be designed to (1) provide summaries of critical data produced by this study for immediate use by ports and shipper/consignee groups, and (2) serve as a tool in promoting the implementation of the data and information system. 3-27 HARRIS Task 50 - Summary Description of the Integrated Action Strategy Developed by this Study PURPOSE: A summary description of all aspects of each strategy area -- an Integrated Action Strategy -- will be developed. The intent of this task will be to outline coordinated steps towards the full-scale implementation of the strategies. Task 51 - Preparation-and Submittal of Draft Repo Irt and Executive Summa ry Task 52 - Preparation of Review materials and Presentation and Discussion of the Report Task 53 Preparation and Submittal of Final Report 3-'28 HARRIS 3.3 NETWORK DIAGRAM OF TASKS The foldout chart which follows illustrates the sequence and interrelationship of study tasks for the life of the entire project. The chart may be read in conjunction with Section 3.2, preceding, which contains detailed descrip- tions for the study tasks. 3-29 PHASE IV DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IUDY OBJErl 52 53 54 55 56 57 8 59 So 49 1 50 ISOLIDATED S AND IKFORMATiF TD4 IN I @ES NOW ....... ... NTHESIS AN ;p CESSING ;S AND IN'EACH TASK 49 TASK 51 TASK 52 TASK 53 ;E r - AR A Y FINAL REPORT PREPARATION Z. DATA PAC:A BE F!DOUSE BY PUBLIC.PRIVATE. DRAFT TASK 44 IND IV IOU L OR ERATIVE INTERESTS REPORT REVIEW '/C SYSTEM ANALYSIS L CQ%- :w9ft -41: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ .......... ...... ....... . ....... ...... ........... ............ I. ......... ..... .... . ............... ......................... ................. . . . . . . . . . . . .............. SEEM, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DATA SYSTEM 40-BENEFIT 43. DEFINITIVE DATA PACKAGE 47- IN TEGRATED 48 DRAFT 49. 50. FINAL REPORT COST 44. DEFINITIVE CONSOLIDATED DATA ACTI ON PLAN EPORY COMMON ANALYSIS SYSTEM : EXE_ VION AREAS OF DATA 45. DEFINITIVE STRATEGY FCR PORTS CUTIVE VIES ENT OF SYSTEM EACH AND AS SYSTEM SUMMARY STRA TEGIES II.BEHEFIT 46. DEFINITIVE STRATEGY FOR SHIPPERS, CONSIGNEES FOR EACH COST PORT SERVICE AREA AND G.L. COMMON IS- AN ALYSIS SERVICE AREA @" AREAS IL F DY PRODU F ALTER- a SHIPPER/ EMS FOR CON- VSTEN SIGNEES tOMMIN 'S_ ON AREAS ST:A- OF ALTER-& 7E IES EGIES FOR SIGNEES IN %V ICE AREA COMMON I S IN AREAS 0F ALTER- EGIES FOR IGNEES IN AREA FIGURE 5 @72 GREAT LAKES COOPERATIVE PORT PLANNING STUDY- NETWORK DIAGRAM OF TASKS HARRIS HARRIS 3.4 KEY'STUDY EVENTS The capital letters in front of each event are keyed to the lettered circles shown on the network diagram, preceding this page. WEEKS FROM START A START 0 B SUGGESTED COTR INTERIM REVIEW* 6 D SUBMISSION OF DRAFT PHASE I REPORT 12 E REVIEW BRIEFING OF REPORT 13 F SUBMISSION OF PHASE I REPORT 15 I SUGGESTED COTR INTERIM REVIEW*:@ 23 L SUBMISSION OF DRAFT PHASES I AND 11 29 M REVIEW BRIEFING OF REPORTS 30 N SUBMISSION OF FINAL PHASE I AND II REPORTS 32 P SUBMISSION OF DRAFT PHASE III REPORT 42 Q REVIEW BRIEFING OF PHASE III REPORT 43 R SUBMISSION OF PHASE III REPORT 45 U SUGGESTED COTR INTERIM REVIEW* 52 z SUBMISSION OF COMPREHENSIVE DRAFT FINAL 63 REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 21 REVIEW BRIEFING OF DRAFT REPORT 64 22.'*.. SUBMISSION OF FINAL REPORT 72 These project review sessions are also intended as coordination sessions for interaction and input from the concurrent studies, and are suggested to be run in conjunction with Steering Committee meetings. I 3-30 SECTION 4 HARRIS 4.70, , PROjFCT `ORGANIZATION 'AND 'ST=ING This section of the proposal describes the way in which Frederic R. Harris, Inc. plans to organize the study team which will carry out and coordinate the many study tasks and inputs from others. Discussion of study management and coordination is covered in Section 4.1, which includes a Table of Organization showing each major study discipline, along with personnel proposed to carry out the associated functions. Resumes of key personnel are included in Section 4.2 4.1 . 'STUDY MANAMMTT AND COORDIXATION The Table of Organization is shown on Figure 6. Several matters are worth pointing out. Tight management control is afforded by a single Project Manager, who is responsible for the timely completion of all study tasks and the day-to-day conduct of work. For this study, a highly qualified senic*-transportation economist, Raymond Heinzelmann, will be assigned. Dr. Heinzelmann has extensive experience on commodity movement and port systems. 4-1 GREAT LAKES COOPERATIVE PORT PLANNING STUDY PROJECT OFFICER Jw' RICKLEFS I PROJECT MANAGER R. HEINZELMANN POLICY ECONOMICS SYSTEMS ANALYSIS PLANNING OPERATIONS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT J. RICKLEFS R. HEINZELMANN L.. BOORSTEIN J. BONASIA E. BALL E. ALVAREZ R. FORSTER 1. RICKLEFS L, RAGUSA E. BALL R. WIERSEMA 1. BONASIA M. CARROLL B. PERL 0. PERL R. WIERSEMA M. CARROLL 1. DRINANE NOTE: SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE HARRIS TEAM ARE SHOWN UNDER ERE THAN ONE HEADING TOTAL TEAM MEMBERSHIP IS 12 FIGURE 6 TABLE OF ORGANIZATION HARRIS A senior Harris Project officer is in overall charge of the study for Harris. He is in a position in the Company to assure that necessary personnel and other resources can be drawn from the 1,000-person Harris organization to complete the project on time and to client satisfaction. He is in a position to arrange modifications in the study work, if- deemed necessary by the management of the Great Lakes Cooperative Port Planning Study, negotiate change orders, etc. It should be pointed out that the Project Officer on this study, Mr. John Ricklefs, plays a considerable role not only in executive functions but in conduct of key study policy and transportation economics elements. This is an unusual approach for a consulting company; rLevertheless, it reflects Harris' actual operating practise, it indicates the impor- tance Harris ascribes to the Great Lakes and it brings to the client the considerable technical expertise of Project Officer who has played a key role in design and conduct of the study methodology. It should also be pointed out that direct access to the Project Manager by the Great Lakes policy and administrative personnel is provided at all times. 4 -2 HARRIS Harris uses a team approach for tasks. This means that some personnel serve on more than one of the six intedis- ciplinary teams shown in figure 6. Harris has found that this multiple assignment management technique provides for better coordination among related tasks, and allows for smoothing of manpower loads over the course of the study. Harris intends to give specific input coordination assign- ments to each disciplinary team leader to assure that the coordination provided for by the outline of tasks (see section 3) is effected. Each of the concurrent studies and inputs by others will be tracked by the Project Manager, analyzed by discipline team leaders, and inputted to the appropriate study element. Finally, the comprehensive interdisciplinary team which is drawn from the Harris organization should be noted. The team members have worked together before, and all are versed in coordinating among economics, planning and engineering areas, a particular strength of the Hareis organization. Harris has found that involving engineering personnel at the earliest phases of comprehensive planning results in plans which are credible and which can be translated into specific designs, if physical facilities are involved. V 4-3 HARRIS 4.2 RESUMES OF KEY PROPOSED PERSONNEL The following is a list of the key personnel and their pro- ject assignments for the proposed Great Lakes Cooperative Port Planning Study. Resumes for each person follow',- in the order listed below: John E. Ricklefs Project Officer and Regional Development Specialist Raymond G. Heinzelmann Project Manager and Senior Transportation Economist Richard L. Forster Senior Advisor Port Development Matthew Carroll Senior Great Lakes Port Development Planner Barry S. Perl Transportation Economist Laurence Boorstein Senior Systems Analyst Lawrence Ragusa Systems Analyst Joseph J. Bonasia, P.E. Port Systems Engineer Ernest Ball Port Operations Specialist Richard Wiersema Land Modes Specialist Ernest Alvarez, P.E. Port Engineer Joseph S. Drinane,,P.E. Port Costing Engineer 4-4 PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: JOHN F. RICKLEFS HARRIS PROJECT Project Officer and ASSIGNMENT Regional Development Specialist QUALIFICATIONS More than 20 years experience in port-systems planning, intermodal trAnsportation economics and regional economic development planning. Coordination and management of complex, multi-participant programs. EDUCATION Phm (PhD in process), regional economics, Columbia University; MS, regional economics, University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia: BS, Architecture, Kansas State University; specialized studies in economics, econometrics and sociology. SELECTED 9 Project manager-andtransportation economist to develop EXPERIENCE comprehensive, coordinated port development program for the five upstate ports of New York. Users grp pp and government agencies nm-; implementing major recommendations for utilization of ports to promote regional development For the New York State Department of Transportation. � Project Officer for port feasibility and engineering study for Louisville and Jefferson County (Kentucky) riverport industrial complex. � Developed basis for unique commodity flows (COMFLO) model toperform comparative cost and rate analyses of shipping routes through alternative terminals. � Project manager for Somerset County (Maryland) inter-modal. port and industrial development study. � Chief Transportation Economist for Egyptian port systems plan and port relocation study to determine port and intermodal goods movement network to strengthen Egyptian regional economic development. For the Ministry of Housing and Development of Egypt. � Developed foreign trade commodity demand and other eeconomics aspects of the plan for future development of Mexico's port system. For the'World Bank. � Developed coordinated investment program for the major ports of Iran as part of Iran National Port Study. continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: JOHN E. RICKLEFS 01 1. 1 Page Two HARRIS CAREER HISTORY Vice President for Development'Planning, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., New York (1975 - present) Project Manager and Regional Economist, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., Caracas, Venezuela (Puerto Cabello development study); Mexico City (Isthmus of Tehnantepec expansion study); Tehran, Iran; New London, Connecticut (port development study) (1974-75) Transportation Economist and Economic Planner, Frederic R. Harris,'Inc., Portland, Maine (port of Portland economics study); Managua, Nicaragua; New York, New York; Tehran, Iran (1972-1974) Director of Planning Operations for the commidnity develop- ment division of a large development corporation (1971-72) Director of Planning for an urban design and planning firm in New York City (1969-71) Research Consultant,.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1966-69) Consultant in urban planning in Yugoslavia (1964-66) Various urban and regional development organizations (1959-64) military service, USAD-SAC lst. Lt. (1957-59) PUBLICATIONS Gaps in Technology: The Non-Ferrous Metals Industry, (In addition to Paris, OECD, 1968 reports on above The General Report on the Technological Gap, Paris, OECD, 1968 mentioned pro- Gaps in Technology: The Analytical Report, Paris, OECD, 1968 jects) The Conditions for Success in Technological Innovation, Paris, CECD, 1969 (masters Thesis) integracija Nazadnih Regiona. (The Integration of a Backwards Region), University of Belgrade, 1966 PERSONAL Married, 42 years old PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: RAYMOND G. HEINZELMANN HARRIS PROJECT Project Manager and ASSIGNMENT Senior Transportation Economist QUALIFICATIONS Experienced in transportation and distribution economics focusing on changes in cargo movementpatterns and models. Specializing in commodity mix and tonnage forecast, port facility and service requirements, regulatory constraints, financial requirements pricing policies and management information systems. EDUCATION PhD, business administration, The American University, Washington, D.C.; MBA, marketing and management, New York University; MS, University of New Hampshire; BS, Delaware Valley College PROFESSIONAL Interstate Commerce Commission Practitioner CERTIFICATION SELECTED e Completed an economic feasibility study for a new port EXPERIENCE and industrial park complex for Somerset County, Maryland o Designed and implemented a management information system for Andrews International (International Freight Forwarder) ocean export operations. Carried-out studies on patterns of U.S. trade to identify market opportunities for their Part IV varrier authority. Carried-out cost studies, alternative routing analysis, and set-up through container systems combining the Part IV authority with NVOCC authority. o Carried-out port pair analysis between U.S. ports and ports in the middle east for Aspen Steamship Lines. o Determined economic feasibility of transshipment facilities and interlining of goods between Europe and Indian Ocean, via eastern Mediterranean ports. e Investigated the market needed for additional tramp tonnage to carry grain to Russia and oil from Alaska for Columbus Circle Line. Projected the capital requirements to acquire ships and set@up the supporting organizational structure. Designed the organizational requirements and the company's profit and loss statement for a five-year period. * Developed and marketed through transportation systems for consumer goods based around the LASH system for Prudential Lines. This included bringing together warehousing for consolidation setting up shippers' associations and con tract truckings. continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: RAYMOND G. HEINZELMANN 01 Page Tw HARRIS SELECTED 0 Developed a five-year projection of the market potential EXPERIENCE for the Inter-City Transportation Company's (Construction (continued) materials Trucking Company) services. Also set-up a five-year plan including marketing, fleet expansion, and manage- ment organizational requirements. (1975) RECENT Project Manager and Senior Transportation Economist CAREER HISTORY (Somerset County, Maryland, Industrial Port Complex Study; Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky,-Riverport Engineering and Feasibility Survey), Frederic R. Harris, Inc., New York (1977 - present) Assistant Professor of Marketing (international transportation, containerization and intermodal transport, marketing logistics, ocean shipping, physical distribution). Bernard M. Baruch College - City University of New York (1973-77) Consultant to-project manager, "The Inland origin and Destination of Trans-Atlantic Freight Movements Between United States/Canadian and Western European Cities -- to 1985." Also involved in the project design, data collection and marketing of the study. (1971-1973) PROFESSIONAL "Changing Trade Patterns of U.S. Ocean Liner Cargo", 1974 PUBLICATIONS "Evaluation of the Domestic Air Cargo Market", 1972 MEMBERSHIPS American Society of Traffic and Transportation National Council of Physical Distribution Management National Committee on International Trade Documentation Containerization Institute PERSONAL Married, 42 years old PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: RICHARD L. FORSTER HARRIS PROJECT Senior Advisor - Port Development ASSIGNMENT QUALIFICATIONS One of the foremost world experts in multi-modal transportation planning with over 28 years experience in the development of port systems, port planning and operations_r@@ shipping technology applications, distribution, revenue bond financing feasibility studies, industrial development, waterfront industrial parks and course-of-action studies. EDUCATION Business administration major, Wichita State University, Kansas SELECTED 9 Supervised comprehensive study for New York State Department EXPERIENCE of Transportation of five upstate ports to establish commerce potential for each port, determine economic contri- bution to hinterlands, establish facilities and service requirements, prepare land-use and physical development plans, recommend organization, operating and financial structures, and develop marketing strategies. 9 Study for the Maritime Administration, for port collection and separation facilities for oily water-wastes from ships and commercial vessels at U.S. Coastal Ports, Great Lakes ports, and on the Inland Waterways. * Plan to incorporate waterborne movement into the intermodal transport of ore products from upstate New York mines to various domestic and international markets to reduce costs. Development of plans for the shipping system, port facilities, and intermodal transfers. * Long range plan for the Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands, the deep-water gateway port serving the European Common Market and the European Free Trade countries of Northwest Europe. Included projection of industrial development potential and related infrastructure requirements from Rotterdam to the Belgian Border. e Nationwide port planning studies for the governments of Iran and of Mexico, including the inland transportation service network and supporting urban infrastructure. 9 Plan--for expansion of the Port of Pascagoula, Mississippi, to include a bulk handling port and upland facility. continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: RICHARD L. FORSTER Page Two HARRIS * modernization study for the fish pier complex for the Port of Boston, Massachusetts, including related requirements for the modernization of fishing industry practices. 9 Plan for the Mystic Pier Containerport in the Port of Boston. * Developed transportation alternatives for shipment of products from a proposed new petrochemical complex in the Middle East to worldwide destinations. 0 Study of cargo movements by all transportation modes in Jacksonville (Florida). Included modal volumes, movement patterns, linkages and terminal facilities. 0 Course-of-action study for the Connecticut Department of Transportation for future use of the state-owned pier at New London. 9 Feasibility study of passenger/car ferry service between Southern Florida and the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. * Long range planning and ecnomic feasibility for the further development and expansion of the Port of Pensacola, Florida. CAREER HISTORY Advisor in Port Development Planning 1976 - present) Senior Vice President and Director of Planning, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., New York (1964 - 76) General Planning Consultant and Manager of Facilities, Community and Industrial Planning, Ebasco Services, Inc.f New York (1947 - 64) Instructor - Lecturer in Business Management, New York University (1946 - 51) office and Facilities Manager, Atlantic Division, Pan American World Airways (1941 - 47) President, own commercial travel agency (1939 - 40) Assistant to General Manager, Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co,, Wichita, Kansas (1933 39) 4 continued - PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: RICHARD L. FORSTER HARRIS Page Three MEMBERSHIPS American Economic Association American Industrial Development Council American Society of Planning Officials American Association of Port Authorities Urban Land Institute PIANC (Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses) PROFESSIONAL Member National Panel of Arbitrators, American Arbitration RECOGNITION Association, Listed in Who's Who in the East, Who's Who in Finance and Industry, Dictionary of International Biography, and Men of Achievement, 1973-4. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: MATTHEW CARROLL HARRIS PROJECT Senior Great Lakes Port Development Planner ASSIGNMENT QUALIFICATIONS More than 30 years experience in all phases of port planning, physical layouts, port management and marine and terminal operations including five years.on the Great Lakes and as Director of International Association of Great Lakes Ports. Coordination of agencies, integrated transportation operations and planning. EDUCATION BS, United States Merchant Marine Academy; specialized studies in transportation and business administration, Georgetown University and New York University SELECTED o Preparation of master plan for relocation of port and EXPERIENCE port facilities in Port Said, Egypt, and on rehabilitation and modernization of existing general cargo facilities. 6 General manager of the Port of Buffalo. Accomplishments: four years of record income, elimination of annual port deficits during last two years, major new construction pro- gram. o Planned and supervised study to determine adequacy of port facilities operation in relation to physical layout for Port of New York/Ndw Jersey. o Formed port users group and maritime council, with officers elected by users, for Port of Buffalo and initiated new program for marketing and public relations. * Recommended an improved layout for marine terminals of the Port of New York/New Jersey based on analysis of steamship and connecting overland carrier operations. o Coordinated Port of New York/New Jersey interests with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and maintained continuing liaison with other ports to develop a cooperative solution t o port problems. o Renewed and executed new leases on 600,000 square feet of port facilities. Created 200 acres of productive upland from dredged spoils disposal area, and built new road and waterfront dike from salvaged road materials. Revised port tariff and negotiated new stevedore agreement. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: MATTHEW CARROLL Page Two HARRIS CAREER Port Development Specialist, regional port planning and HISTORY port operations evaluation, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., New York (1977-present) General Manager, Port of Buffalo (1972-1977) Supervising Transportation Planner, Senior Transportation Planner and Marine Terminals Analyst, Port of New York/ New Jersey Authority (1960-63) Increasing responsibility in the conduct of planning for optimized marine operations in relation to master planning of marine facilities, including extensive analysis of transportation technology, intermodal commodity movements and marine and terminal operations Assistant Director of Engineering, Grace Lines, New York. Responsible for all technical operational phasis of construction for new container, passenger and general cargo vessels, specifications, bids and contracts. Coordinated container cargo operations with Freight Traffic Department. Represented Grace Lines at interagency meetings. (1960-63) Staff consftltant, Drake Startzman, Sheahan and Barclay, New York (1959-60) Assistant to President, Stephen Ramson, Inc., New York, including administration, general operations, customer relations and coordination of all ship repair facilities and five years as Supervisory Engineer (1950-59). Marine engineer with various steamship companies. Chief Engineer license. (1944-50) PUBLICATIONS marine News - 1960 - Ship Maintenance Program Society of Naval Architects Marine Engineers - 1965. Relation of Ships to their Terminals Society of Marine Port Engineers - 1965, Partners in Progress (sponsored by the Port Authority of New York) continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: MATTHEW CARROLL 01 Page Three HARRIS PROFESSIONAL Society of Navel Architects and Marine Engineers MEMBERSHIPS Society of Marine Port Engineers American Association of Port Authorities Director, Secretary Committee II, Special Representative to Society of Naval Architects and National Standards Institute, Committee of Container Standards North Atlantic Ports Association - Navigation and Harbor Committee Buffalo Chamber of Commerce Vice Chairman of Transportation committee PERSONAL Single, 55 years old mom r PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: BARRY S. PERL HARRIS PROJECT Transportation Economist ASSIGNMENT QUALIFICATIONS Experienced in national and international commodity flow least cost transportation analysis and forecasting, economic development research, and environmental evaluation. EDUCATION MS in process, international marketing and transportation, Baruch College, City University of New York; BA, economics, sociology and urban planning, Brooklyn College, City -University of New York. Specialized studies in computer programming, marketing, management, statistics, accounting and finance. SELECTED 9 Compilation of costs of commodity transport through a EXPERIENCE proposed inland U.S. reverine port complex to domestic and foreign consignees * Test of alternative transportation modes to find least cost alternatives through a proposed inland port e Analyzed development impact of Verrazano-Narrows bridge on growth of Staten Island economy and transportation link improvement impact on regional economy e Evaluated socio-economic effects and legal and institutional implications of transportation improvements on growth of business and transportation facilities e Greenbelt and environmental impact assessment 0 Coordinated inputs from local planning agencies, interviewed officials and maintained two-way communications between participants in a development study RECENT Transportation economist, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., CAREER HISTORY New York (1977 - present) Cost estimator, Joseph Weinstein Electric Corporation, New York (1976-77) Purchasin g agent, Meter Measure Corporation, Los Angeles (1975-76) continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: BARRY S. PERL Page Two HARRIS PROFESSIONAL * Economics Society - Officer ACTIVITIES & Urban Affairs Club - Officer PERSONAL Single, 24 years old, excellent health PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: LAURENCE BOORSTEIN HARRIS PROJECT Senior Systems Analyst ASSIGNMENT QUALIFICATIONS Experienced in computer systems, modeling and simulation of complex transportation networks, consolidated data systems and information processing. EDUCATION MSCE, Columbia University; BA, Columbia College. Specialized gradu&te studies in linear programming'. SELECTED *Designed computer based forecasting system for cargo flow EXPERIENCE data and port facility capacities for proposed Louisville riverport and industrial complex engineering and feasibility study. 9Developed intermodal transportation systems simulation program for Delmarva peninsula (Delaware/Maryland) regional ports, including marine and inland waterborne and rail/truck segments of alternative shipping routes. *Constructed a utility program to develop a data base of existing and potential cargo routings through upstate New York ports from records of shippers and consignees in the regional market area. *Used transportation systems program with shipping data base to simulate performance, in terms of shipping costs, cargo volumes and benefits to shippers of upstate ports and the regional ports system under alternative routings of potential cargoes and reroutings of existing commodity flows, which were selected automatically to minimize costs thereby projecting future cargo throughputs for various facilities. Delineated boundaries of preferential port market areas for each commodity class. Determined market marginality sensitivity-.of cargo routings to incremental changes in costs of @Llternative.routings and service frequency constraints, by variation of model parameters, and evaluated interactions of ports.in the regional system under alternative cost levels in each port. 9Simulated future financial performance of--the port authorities of Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and other upstate ports with projected throughputs. Tested sensitivity of financial performance to different throughputs possible under various levels of investment in new facilities. Validated financial models simulating historical, financial performances of the ports. continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: LAURENCE BOORSTEIN HARRIS Page Two e Simulated a middle eastern port traffic system.to compare alternative port location sites for lease total transporta- tion cost optimization. 9 Developed computerized process interaction for a shore- side forest products shipping terminal. 9 Developed computer program modules for GPSS V simulation of a crude oil trails-shipment terminal. The program applies multi-server theory to the utilization of berths, lines and tanks to evaluate performance of terminal under alternative operating procedures and with and without selected facilities. o Performed *benefit/cost analysis of alternative investments in proposed bulk and container cargo handling facilities and evaluated sensitivity of theseanalyses to capital opportunity cost levels. CAREER HISTORY Senior Systems Analyst, Frederic R. Harris, New York (1976 - present) Systems Analyst, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., New York (1975) Structural.Designer, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., New York (1973- - 74) MEMBERSHIPS American Society of Civil Engineers American Concrete Institute Association of Computing Machinery PERSONAL Married, 27 years old PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: LAWRENCE RAGUSA HARRIS PROJECT Systems Analyst ASSIGNMENT QUALIFICATIONS Experienced in numerical and in scientific methods, creating systems for analyses of ship*market avail- ability, port design sensitivity. EDUCATION BS, Mathematics, St. John's University SELECTED Performed a specification sensitivity analysis for the EXPERIENCE proposed construction of a new graving dock for the -'SavannAh'.-Machine-,ahd'-ShipyaLtd.-.Company. -.- ProViddd evaluation of the marginal effect of incremental changes in design parameters on ship market availa- bility. Developed methods of analyses and their corresponding computer programs. Analyzed, charter, and graphed the resultant output. Programs were developed to select worldwide vessel population, as well as specific nearby port markets and tabulated ship population versus varying design criteria. o Designed system and programmed a comprehensive search analysis of ship market and investigated characteristics of ship criteria and population for various proposed harbor facilities. o Developed system of schentific programs for use in design of an-offshore nuclear power plant for Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey. o Created system of- graphics routines that were used in analyzing output. Output was graphed on an in-house interactive graphics computer terminal. � Responsible for maintaining computer capabilities, programs and their documentations. � Developed mathematical programs, utilizing various numerical analysis methods, to solve systems of equasions and polynomials. RECENT Mathematician, F.R. Harris (1974 present) CAREER HISTORY PERSONAL Single, 25 years old A PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: JOSEPH J. BONASIA, P.E. HARRIS PROJECT Port Systems Engineer ASSIGNMENT QUALIFICATIONS More than.20.years experience in port systems planning and engineering, offshore engineering and structural design. Specialized in complex engineering and planning assign- ments where a high degree of coordination among grographically dispersed elements is required. EDUCATION MCE, Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute; BCE Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute SELECTED 9 Analyzed capability of five upstate New York public ports EXPERIENCE to handle potential commerce, and evaluated navigation systems on the Hudson River, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. * Developed port planning criteria which included engineering and environmental impacts and prepared master development plans for the five ports. -Master plan for Port of Albany included the addition of a mineral bulk handling facility and a container handling facility to the port. -Plan for Port of Buffalo included development layout for handling of 7.5 million tons of coal and .6 million tons of other bulk material. -Plan for Port of Ogdensburg included development for increased general cargo and bulk material thruput. -Plans for Port of Oswego included development for a 300,000 ton coal handling facility. -Plans for Port of Rochester included development of a RO/RO -facility. 0 Surveyed navigation problems on Great Lakes and tributory rivers, observing operations and constraints of locks. Familiar with locks, operations, traffic conditions on 'the Great Lakes. 0 Designed breakwater for small boat harbor at-.Dunkirk on Lake Erie for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. continued V PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: JOSEPH J. BONASIA, P.E. Page Two HARRIS SELECTED 9 Planned and performed preliminary engineering for a port EXPERIENCED complex to handle b -agged and bulk cement, container, (continued) RO/RO and general cargo, Established basic criteria and layout for.container handling complex. Developed organi- zational and staffing structure to control, manage, operate and maintain port complex. 9 Engineered 75 acre, five berth marine container RQ/RO terminal including marginal wharf, roads, sheds, railroads, and creation of 37 acres of new land, * Completed landmark NSF study on ways to assess onshore impacts of offshore energy and related developments (Project Manager). * Completed a study to evaluate feasibility of artificial, manmade industrial port islands located off the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. CAREER HISTORY Principal Engineer, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., New York Port (1963 - present) Structural Designer, on-shore pier facilities, Praeger-Kavanagh- Waterbury, New York (1961-63) Structural designer and project supervisor, Lockwoodr Kessler & Bartlett, Syosset, New.York (1956-61) Structural designer, D.B. Steinman, New York (1953-56) MEMBERSHIPS American Society of Civil Engineers PUBLICATIONS "Artificial Islands for Industrial Ports", Water Spectrum, U. S, Army Corps of Engineers, Fall 1975, "Evaluation of multi-Purpose Industrial Port Islands; Sea Island Structure Engineering Research Study", offshore Technology Conference, May, 1976, OTC Paper #2336. PERSONAL Married, 47 years old PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: ERNEST BALL HARRIS PROJECT Port Operations Specialist ASSIGNMENT QUALIFICATIONS More than 25 years in port planning an dmarine terminal location and operation, with experience in warehousing, physical distribution, operating, labor and financial considerations. Knowledge of commodity and cargo move- ments, establishment and negotiation of rates, tariffs, and profitability factors. Experienced operator of containerized, dry bulk, and liquid bulk marine terminal facilities. EDUCATION Graduate studies in business administration, Columbia University and Amos Tuck School; BA, Dartmouth College SELECTED 9 Responsible for operations, sales and profitability EXPERIENCE of major U.S. Gulf Coast bulk marine terminal, and for preparation of expansion and development program for the facility. 9 Developed Mathematical Planning Technique for determining. Port & Berth Capacity by commodity type, relating annual volume to desired waiting time. System is compatible with graphic and computerized presentation, facilitating use in port planning. * Developed computerized system for determining optimum transit shed size as related to traffic pattern and free time policy (1973). * Prepared recommendations for the rehabilitation and modern- ization of existing facilities at Port Said, Egypt. * Established operating requirements, berth and transportation layout for 20 berth Persian Gulf port and surroundings. Prepared port operations analysis for recommended future operations. e Calculated port capacities and projected berth requirements for all major Iranian ports. Prepared recommended operating practices, port organization, and equipment requirements for the 15 year period. Prepared cost and financial fore- cast data for return on investment analysis and for computerized foreign trade model. 9 Prepared technical specifications and operating require- ments, comparative rate analysis, recommended tariff rates, and prepared fi'nancial analysis of operating results for a I crude oil transhipment terminal. e Developed port traffic data collection system for Ports of Iran, and prepared manual for implementation. - continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: ERNEST BALL Page Two HARRIS e Developed plan and determined economic feasibility for Scrap Metal Loading facility, Chesapeake, Virginia (now under construction). 9 Planned, developed and placed in operation, fastest (in US) export bagging and shiploading facility for fertilizer industry, Chesapeake, Virginia. o Planned, determined economic viability, and developed high capacity barge transfer and shiploadiqg facility for phosphate r6ck and phosphate products. * Arranged establishment of Marine Terminal Association, under U.S. Federal Maritime Commission regulations, for Port of Norfolk, Virginia. Presided over development of port tariff. e Represented Virginia Ports at Federal Maritime, Interstate Commerce Commission and U.S. Department of Labor hearings. CAREER HISTORY Senior Port Operations Specialist, Frederic R. Harris, New York (1977 - present) Member, U.S.A.I.D. war damage assessment team of Port of Beirut, Lebanon (1977) Managing Director, Burnside Terminal, Burnside, Louisiana (1975-76) , Consultant, Burmah Oil Tankers, Ltd., New York (1975) Export Technical Advisor to General manager of Port of Alexandria, Egypt, for port operations and management, for U.S.A.I.D. .(1975) Senior Port Operations Specialist, Iran ports master plan (1972-74) Management and Operating Experience: (1952 - 1971) President, Elizabeth River Terminals, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia and its trucking and liquid commodity storage facility, Chemical Storage & Transport lorp. Also Chairman of Norfolk Marine Terminal Association and Middle Atlantic Ports Dockage Association. President, Seacor, Inc., Wilmington, North Carolina - marine terminal operators and port developers, and its subsidiary, Almont Shipping Co. continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: ERNEST BALL Page Three HARRIS CAREER HISTORY Manager, O.T.D. Terminals', Inc. and Operations Director, (continued) Custom Distribution Services, Inc., Perth Amboy, New Jersey PERSONAL Married, 55 years old PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: RICHARD H. WIERSEMA HARRIS PROJECT Land Modes Specialist ASSIGNMENT QUALIFICATIONS Twenty years experience in freight and traffic improvement programs; railroad systems analysis, planning, economics, operations and cost analysis; intermodal transportation studies; market and commodity flow analysis; rate and route analysis. EDUCATION MBA, transportation, Northwestern University; Cert. Trans., Transportation Center, Northwestern University; BBA, University of Cincinnati SELECTED e Developed a network of coordinated rail-highway services EXPERIENCD utilizing independent motor carriers as feeders to the rail system. * Designed and ipplemented ICG intermodal management informa- tion system utilizing instantaneous display equipment and techniques. e Studies of urban railroad relocation and cost/benefit analysis. * Developed passenger marketing programs for a-major rail carrier. e Prepared five and ten year plans for railroad development including major investment requirements and projections of future rail services demand. 9 Development. of future market demand for rail services by geographic area, commodities and major origin-destination pairs. * Developed and utilized procedures for locating new inter- modal facilities considering customer locations vs capi-tal and operating expense. a Managed tank-car fleet of approximately 1,000 cars. & Established sales forecasting for use in estimating future car demand. * managed all traffic functions for three plants including two shipping largely in less-than-truckload quantities. I continued - PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: RICHARD H. WIERSEMA HARRIS CAREER HISTORY Principal, PRC Railway Systems, McClean, Virginia (1977 - present) Manager Corporate Planning, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company, Chicago (1967-77) Transportation Engineer, U.S. Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh (1958-67) First Lieutenant, U.S. Air Force (1953-57) PUBLICATIONS "Computer Control of the Intermoda"l Terminal", Rail International,-D&c. 1970. Presented to the International Railway Congress., London, 1971 "The Intermodal Interface: presented at the United Engineering Foundation Conference-on Urban Goods Movement, August, 1974. "Improving the Intermoda,l Interface" presented at the University of California-San Diego Seminar "Transportation in the Seventies", May, 1969. MEI@MERSHIPS Transportation Research Forum PERSONAL 48 years old PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: ERNEST ALVAREZ, P.E. HARRIS PROJECT Port Engineer ASSIGNMENT QUALIFICATIONS More than 20 years experience in engineering design, feasibility and economic studies of ports,.terminals, offshore structures, highway and other transportation facilities. EDUCATION BCE, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn; Graduate studies at Columbia University and Alexander Hamilton Institute. SELECTED e Project Engineer on the design of two marine terminals EXPERIENCE for LNG in Chile, at Cabo Negro and Quintero; for 125,000 M3 carriers. � Developed conceptual designs for a lime mud slurry trans- portation system consisting of dredging, pipelining, storage and marine terminal. � In charge of review of design, evaluation of construction, and survey of port operations for San Vicente Port, Chile. � Designed protective structures for selected floating nuclear power plants offshore sites. � Design for expansion and rehabilitation of Port of Haina, Dominican Republic. modernization consists of two container berths, one cargo berth, three RO/RO platforms, transit sheds, marshalling areas and port buildings., � Project Coordinator in charge of preliminary engineering design of a common-user oil terminal located in the St rait of Canso, Nova Scotia. � Project Manager in charge of an economic and engineering feasibility study for deepwater oil terminal facilities for the Port of Los Angeles. � Managed a marine terminal feasibility and basic engineering design to permit careful assessment of environmental impa ct of proposed facilities. � Performed an economic-technical feasibility study and preliminary engineering for a new proposed oil terminal for Karachi, West Pakistan. 4 continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: ERNEST ALVAREZ, P.E. HARRIS Page Two StLECTED * Project Manager in charge of the Lake Pontchartrain EXPERIENCE Hurricane Barrier Plan, Louisiana. (continued) * Project Engineer for the construction of the super tanker crude oil loading and storage terminal located in Venice, Louisiana. o Deputy Project Director in charge of an investigation and report covering transportation corridors, including roads, waterways and seaports for an economic feasibility study in Liberia, West Africa. * Civil Engineer and Designer of the design analysis for; Breakwater and bulk loading pier in Newfoundland Small Craft Harbor in Kharg Island, Iran Wharf facilities for a crude oil loading terminal in Martinez, CA. Offshore mammoth tanker mooring device located in Libya Development of an Offshore multi-leg mooring system CAREER HISTORY Project Managerand Assistant Vice President, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., USA and overseas (1960 - present) Soils Engineer, Hardesty & Hanover, New York (1960) Engineer, Moran, Proctor, Muesser & Rutledge, New York (1958 - 59) Engineer Analyst, Dame s & Moore,,New York (1955, 1957 58) First Lieutenant, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1955 57) MEMBERSHIPS American Society of Civil Engineers National Society of Professional Tngineers Society of American Military Engineers International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers PERSONAL Married, 46 years old PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: JOSEPH S. DRINANE, P.E. HARRIS PROJECT Port Costing Engineer ASSITNMENT QUALIFICATIONS More than 30 years experience in port facility cost engineering, construction engineering, and cost estimating on-all types of projects. EUDCATION Graduate, LaSalle Military Academy, BS, architectural entineering, University of Notre Dame SELECTED 9 Cost engineering on follo*ing projects: EXPERIENCE LNG Terminal - Cabo Negro, Chile for ENAP LNG/LPG Terminal - Quintero, Chile for ENAP Massport, Terminal Buildings - Boston, Massachusetts Portable Ports ;.;, U. S@. Navy Oil Terminal - Cherry Point, Washington Karachi Oil Terminal Pakistan Submarine Pipelines Trinidad oil Terminal - Singapore Breakwater - Karachi offshore Nuclear Power Plant - New Jersey Aramco Oil Terminal - Saudi Arabia Drydock Bid Analysis - Iran Construction Graving Dock - Jacksonville, Florida marine Transshipment Terminal - Bahamas Offshore Power System Development e Prepared engineering and construction estimates, construction equipment requirements and procurement of equipment and materials for complex projects. Made.studies of construction methods, time and progress to advise clients on order of procedures and time involved for multiple contract projects. Some of these projects were: Rehabilitation of Jetties 1 to 6, Chittagong, East Pakistan Proposed Drydock, Callao, Peru Airport - Managua, Nicaragua Gdlf'Oil Terminal, Bantry Bay-,' Ireland Proposed Highway Program, Malaysia Oil Terminals: Point Tupper, Nova Scotia Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland Kharg Island, Iran Container Port: Staten Island, Iran I Boston, Massachusetts Slurry Trench Construction, New Orleans, La. Drydock, mobile, Alabama Tanker Berth, Virgin Islands Various Sections of the Garden State Parkway continued PROFESSIONAL HISTORY STATEMENT: JOSEPH S. DRINANE, P.E. Page Two HARRIS CAREER HISTORY Cost Engineer, Frederick R. Harris, Inc., New York (1970 - present) Chief Construction Engineer, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., New York (1967 - 69) President, Drinane & Peterson Corporation, Englewood, New Jersey (1963 - 67) Chief Engineer, Elmhurst Construction Co., Corona, New York (1944 - 63) Chief Estimator, Pan American Airways, New York (1942 - 44) Assistant Chief Engineer, George M. Brewster & Sons, Bogota, New Jersey (1935 - 42) Resident Engineer, New Jersey approach to George Washington Bridge and state highways in New Jersey and Pennsylvania MEMBERSHIPS Association of General Contractors (former Director) National Society of Professional Engineers Society of American Military Engineers moles HARRI 4.3 PERCENTAGE :OF. OFFERER'S WORK WEEK The percentage of time to be devoted to each study PHASE by the personnel is shown in'the table below: PERSONNEL PHASES IV Percentage of Average Work Week J. Ricklefs 40 40 40 60 R. Heinzelmann 60 60 60 40 R. Forster is 15 15 25 M. Carroll - - 52 42 B. Perl 95 90 100 95 L. Boorstein 95 60 80 80 L. Ragusa 75 30 40 20 J. Bonasia is 50 - 15 E. Ball 25 15 R. Wiersema 20 - - 15 E. Alvarez - 15 - J. Drinane - is 10 Draftsman 20 25 15 SECTION 5 HARRIS 5.0 ABILITY TO PERFORM Frederic R. Harris, Inc. has 50 years experience in the complete evaluation, planning and design of regional port systems. Harris' success in this field stems from a unique balance of planning and engineering experience, which enables it to blend social, economic, land use and transportation planning considerations with practical engineering. Port plans developed in coordination with engineering personnel result in systems that have credibility. Harris has world-wide experience in the engineering design of ports, harbors, related marine structures and navigation improvements: massive and small piers, wharves and harbor works; the transformation of exposed coastline into protected deepwater harbors; rehabilitation and modernization of deterior- ated waterfronts. Nine-tenths of a billion dollars of port and harbor works have been constructed in accord with Harris' plans and specifications. Harris is in the forefront of A/E firms with strong in- house capabilities in regional planning, market research, 5-1 HARRIS economic and financial analysis and the environmental rami- fications of marine-talated activities. Every project undertaken by Harris can call upon the competence and skills of some 1,000 technical support personnel in 24 permanent offices throughout the United States and abroad. 5.1 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE The small selection of Harris studies and engineering projects which follows indicates the range of prior experience related to diverse aspects of the Great Lakes Cooperative Port Planning Study'. 5-2 HARRIS PORT SYSTEMS PLANNING Comprehensive Upstate New York Port Stud A statewide study of five upstate New York ports: Albany, Buffalo, Ogdensburg, Oswego and Rochester. The study pre- sented firm conclusions in three interrelated areas: 1. Coordinated port development - identified specialized service, equipment, and facility needs for effective handling of existing and potential freight traffic; 2. Financing - defined the appropriate level of charges, regional economic benefit and level of public financial support and distribution of cost of this support among state and local governments, and 3. Port Management - defined the organizational structure and staffing patterns that will most effectively meet the requirements of present and future port operations. As a direct result of this study, the following actions have been taken: a. An independent Upstate Ports Council has been formed and already achieved significant results in facilities planning, coordinated marketinge and the adjustment of port charges; b. A Users (Shippers/Consignees) Association has been formed and embarked upon a program aimed at achieving the lowest possible transport costs.for members' goods by, where appropriate, shipping through an upstate port; C. In four out of the five cases, the Port Authori- ties have officially commended and adopted the development program and plans presented in the reports; and d. TheN.Y. State D.O.T. togetherwith the Upstate Ports Council have begun the process for establishing the mechanism whereby specific portions of the study can be "rerun" on an annual basis. I 01 Client: New York State Department of Transportation 5-3 HARRIS National Ports Study_for Mexico The study was conducted in two phases: Plase I consisted of the preparation of a long-term master plan for a system of 14 ports based on import and export projections over the next 25 years and upon traffic assign-..,. ments based on minimum total distribution costs. Evaluation was made of the plans and forecasts of investment costs, revenues and economic benefits. Phase II consisted of the preparation of specific feasibility studies of high priority projects identified in the master plan. Two ports which were a part o-177the second phase of the study were Vera Cruz and Tampico. Client: Ministry of Public Works, Mexico National Ports Study for Iran Adibi-Harris Associates, Tehran, a coordinated investment program for the Ports of Iran. In order to re commend such a program, Adibi-Harris analyzed and reviewed existing facilities including those under con- struction. It established a development program for ports to handle traffic through 1366 a.h. (after Hegira/1987 A.D.). The study also included a master plan for future long range harbor development in the priority ports on the Persian Gulf and on the Caspian Sea and feasibility studies as the first step toward 'Such developments. The feasibility studies in- cluded preliminary engineering designs and cost estimates, an economic analysis of proposed investments for all ports .and a financial analysis of future non-military port opera- tions. Client: Iran Ports and Shipping Organization Rotterdam, The Netherlands Appraisal and recommendations for the world 's largest port in terms of its administration and development from the pre- sent through the year 2000. Included a review of the physical, financial, constitutional and economic aspects of the Port or Rotterdam in relation to future port development within the entire Greater Delta Region. Client: Port of Rotterdam 5-4 HARRIS LEAST COST COMMODITY ROUTING ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF NEW TER14INAL LOCATIONS Course-of-Action Study for Port of Buffalo, New York The Upstate Port Study, mentioned previously, made a recom- mendation for a major bulk-coal transshipment terminal at the eastern end of Lake Erie at the Port of Buffalo to pro- vide the missing link in future large-scale shipments of inexpensive low-sulfur coal from the western part of the United States. In the aim of realizing this recommendation, Harris was hired by the Port of Buffalo to examine all aspects of this coal movement and related terminal opera- tion in order to provide performance standards for potential turn-key developers. The study delineated the total trans- portation costs of coal from the mines to New York State uitlities via several alternative routings. This was done in order to define the competitive advantages o- the proposed Buffalo terminal. The study also defined the financial pro-forma-and port-charge schedules related to the operations of.the terminal. .,It also recommended the optimum site. Client: Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Somerset County Industrial Port Complex Study, Maryland Harris investigated the feasibility of a new port and indus- trial complex on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. As part of the study, all touting patterns and multi-modal goods movements within the region were studied to identify those commodities which could be diverted through the new port at a cost savings to regional shippers and consignees. The study also examined,feasible industrial expansion potential related.to those goods movements. Port industrial complex alternatives were developed and environ- mental, economic and social impacts were assessed. The optimum alternative development was identified. The study also provides for a step-by-step implementation program for the recommended alternative. Client: U.S. Economic hevelopment Administration and the Somerset County Maritime Industrial Develop- ment Commission 5-5 HARRIS PORT FEASIBILITY STUDIES Port of Albany Dry Bulk Feasibility Study The study demonstrated the feasibilit of creating a dry y bulk shipping and receiving terminal in the Port of Albany. As part of the overall project, Harris analyzed existing flows, projected expansion of these flows, as well as new flows that would result if the terminal were constructed. Four sites were considered along the Hudson River. Finan- cial analyses reflecting transportation costs as well as construction costs were made for each site. Client: New York State Department of Transportation 5-6 HARRIS COMMODITY FORECASTS FOR PORT @MSTER PLANNING Egypt Ports Study Harris is developing traffic forecasts which include a com- prehensive analysis of all modes of the Egyptian foreign trade transportation and delivery system. This analysis will: 9 Define market areas e Delineate service specifications and development programs * Diagnose other non-port-site related problems areas which could improve service and reduce total transportation costs * Define transportation cost criteria for the location of foreign-trade intensive industries * Define economic benefits resulting from port development and provide firm criteria for the evaluation of port- development feasibility e Define a firm nationwide coordinated port development policy. Depending upon the forecasts developed and the data collected concerning shipping trends and expected local operating practices, planning criteria will be established to guide master-plan development and compare possible alternative development schemes. 5-7 HARRIS DEVELOPMENT OF THE APPROPRIATE ROLES FOR PORTS Port I-11anatee, Florida This was a new port to co-exist with the Port of Tampa in the Tampa Bay*area. The study identified specific commodity flows to support a revenue bond financing prior to building the port.. The financing was successful, the port was built, the projected commerce was secured, and the port has since expanded its faciliti.es. Port of Jacksonville, Florida A series of studies for the Jacksonville Port Authority dealt first with the improvement of the Talleyrand Docks -- includ- ing a container facility -- followed by development of a new location on Blount Island for bulk handling. New London, Connecticut This study was to determine the course of action which the, state should follow with respect to the State Pier. Market studies have-identified potentials for an expanded facility to handle commodities not now being serviced and which would save industries within a 10.0 mile radius of the port nearly a million dollars a year. Pascagoula, Mississippi A feasibility study investibated the potential for development of a dry-bulk port for certain specialized commodities. The plan as proposed was found not feasible; however, a market" analysis did develop potentials for a por t with a different commodity mix, and the program for implementation was adopted. 5-8 HARRI The Ports of Canaveral, Palm Beach, Port Everglades, and Pensacola, Florida The studies for each of these ports were similar in that each had been in ekis-'C-ence for a considerable period of time, and each had a definable trade territory which was only partially dependent upon waterborne commerce. The economic analysis, therefore, had to identify the commerce which the port might expect to handle, and then identify the requirements necessary to realize the potential. 5-9 HARRI PORT 14ASTER PLANS AND PORT ENGINEERING A small sample of Barris' many port facilities projects follows: Port Said (Egypt)_ Master Plan The existing Port Said is to be rehabilitated and modernized and a new port site, either on the Mediterranean or on the Suez Canal, will be considered in a study recently begun. The objectives of the project are to: e Prepare a program for the rehabilitation and modernizing of the existing facilities. e Prepare a detailed master plan for the new port. * Provide technical, economic and financial advice. * Prepare a feasibility study covering the first-stage development of port facilities. Port of Pascagoula, Mississippi Feasibility, location study, concept development and design of public bulk.terminal and facilities. This work was done with Hewitt-Robins. Harris' responsibility included commodity movement and cost analysi.s, site location, facili- ties concept design, cost estimates and operating plan. Client: Jackson County Port Authority Port of Muskogee, Oklahoma Economic and engineering feasibility studies,design and inspection of construction for a new barge terminal and industrial park on the Arkansas River at Muskogee. Client: Muskogee Area Planning Commission I 5-10 M HARRIS Port of Haina, Dominican Republic Design and supervision of construction for the expansion and rehabilitation of the Port of Haina at the mouth of the River Haina on the southern coast of the Dominican Republic. Existing port was expanded to handle vessels with a maximum of 130,000 DWT. Included in the contract were: administration building, onloading and offloading facilities, warehousing, office space, communications equipment and navigational aids. A new turning basin was provided in an area where the containerized facilities were located. A-diversion channel was also incorporated to eliminate riverine flow from the facilities. Wood River, Illinois Design of barge dock at Wood River, Illinois on the Mississippi River. Designed by Harris, the water-level dock provides a minimum of maintenance difficulty of moving parts. Venice, Louisiana Design of Louisiana's river oil terminal at Venice. Client: Getty Oil Company Port of Chittagong, Bangladesh Master plan for the long-range development of port facilities for the Port of Chittagong located on the Darnafuli River. Client: Chittagong Port Trust S'elected Sites, Bangladesh Economic and technical feasibility study for the development of inland waterjports at Dacca, Narrayangani, Chandpur, Barisol, Khuina and Chalna. Client: United States Agency for International Development 5-11 HARRIS IMPROVEMENT OF OPERATIONS AT EXISTING PORTS Most port planning projects consider operational changes needed to accommodate cargoes in new or expanded facilities. In this section, however, we include only studies which had as their primary purpose operational and organ izational' improvements. Curacao, Netherland West'Indies This study for*the Curacao Shipping Association investigated and recommended.opportunities for consolidation of operations, management and materials handling equipment at various locations in the Harbor for the private port operations. Iran As a separate port of the overall National Ports Study, existing ports were studied from both organization and operationsl viewpoints to determine how to improve efficiency and service. Mexico As in Vran, existing ports were studied t optimize existing @apabilities. The prots of-' 3ampico and Vera Cruz are currently in on-going implementation stages to carry out recommendations which were made. Montevideo, Uruguay This was a very comprehensive study of all aspects of the port's management, operations, equipment, financial structure, and national significance. On the job training followed during the implementation of the recommendations. 5-12 HARRIS ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCING/RATE-TARIFF STRUCTURES Feasibility studies for revenue bond financing, in which Harris has been significantly involved, considered the effects of administrative, financing and rate-tariff structures. The studies listed below are those in which a primary purpose in- volved one or more of these factors. Port Manatee As a follow-up.of the feasibility and planning studies, Harris served as port advisor during the early years in the areas of administration planning, financial management, and rates and handling charges for specialized commodities. Curacao, Netherlands West Indies As a specially identified part of this study, port handling charges were to be analyzed based both on viability from a local operations standpoint and on relationship to charges at other competitive ports in the Caribbean. New London, Connecticut Analyses of rates currently being charged vs. cost of per forming services vs. charges at alternative ports is a specific task in this study. Another is the recommendation of the management and operating structure as well as the financial program under which the port should operate. Mexico- The various ports in the country have been operating as local entities with widely varying tariffs and handling charges. A part of the overall study was the recommendation of a rational set of rates which would.recognize costs of perform- ing services while 'at the same time providing a uniformity for industry to work with. 5-13 HARRI Other most studies for.U.S. ports have involved costs for special- ized bulk commodities since tariffs for general commerce are generally regionally determined and not within the exclusive control of a single port. Examples of such special- ized studies are: - Charges for bulk cement, phosphate and rock; - Charges involving movement of heavy machinery where land rental, heavy equipment and port facilities were combined; - Throughput charges forhandling liquid petroleum products under differing assumptions of port responsibility; - Charges for shipment of pelletized meal where the port provided unloading and pelletizing operations as well as shipping facilities.. 5-14 HARR 5.2 COMPUTER CASABILITIES Harris' computer capabilities include an extensive software library of proprietary and non-proprietary programs. The programs run on IBM 370/168 or a Control Data Corporation (CDC) Cyber 74 to which the office is connected by two remote entry terminal systems including high-speed card readers and line printers. Other than the Corps of Engineers and U.S. D.O.T. modeling packages, Harris' proprietary COMFLO (Commodity Flows) program package performs comparative cost or rate analyses of shipping routes through alternative terminals. The program, which is coded in FTN FORTRAN and executes on a CDC 74 system, is composed of these parts: 1. Preferential terminals analysis a. Comparison of unit systems trans- portation costs b. Comparison of unit systems trans- portation rates 2. Existing flow analysis 3. Tabulation of existing and/or potential flows a. Potential flows volume and cost savings b. Potential flows market marginality C. Existing Flows 5.2.1 Preferential Terminals Analysis. The preferential terminal program determines the rate to ship a unit volume of cargo from a particular node to a foreign or domestic desti- nation through each terminal. By comparison of these costs, the program identifies the least and second-least cost terminal for each destination/commodity. Tables of all unit costs are printed out, as are summary tables of.least-cost ports. For tates, where directionality significantly affects these re- sults, two separate runs yield summary tables of least-cost .Port of Entry and Ports of Exit. Finally, the.preferential terminal program saves on file a matrix of least-cost terminals and their respective cost savings over the*.second-least cost terminal. 5-15 HARRIS 5.2.2 Existing Flows Analysis. The existing f lows analysis is performed by the preferential terminal program when a software switch is set. Input consists of identify- ing information for an existing flow, including volume and existing P.O.E. The program selects the least-cost terminal for comparison. Necessary rates and mileages are obtained by automated table look-up. Additional terminals may be compared by selection. The program computes and prints each component of shipping costs for each terminal being compared including: vessel operating cost wharfage and docking vessel cost in port inventory loading and unloading overland carrier, i.e., rail or truck In the case of container cargo, three least cost terminals are selected, one for each unit value of cargo. Finally, for each flow, the existing flows program saves on file identifying information including volume, existing P.O.E., least-cost alternate P.O.E. (unless existing is least- cost) and cost savings of alternate over existing. 5.2.3 Tabulation. Several forms of tabulation are possible using one post-processor program with alternative soft- ware switch settings. Potential flows volume and cost savings (over existing port) are tabulated using the same information and the cost savings (over next least-cost port), Flows with unit cost savings outside a chosen dollar range are rejected, Existing flows are tabulated directly from input cards. Text string recognition routines automatically identify the names of the countries, foreign destinations and ports, avoid- ing manual entry of code numbers. After index numbers are assigned to a flow, it is entered in the proper position in matrix comprising the summary table values, which is printed after all flows are processed. 5-16 HARR 5.2.4 Modeling and Simu .lations. Harris has employed simulation techniques to study oil and petrochemical marine terminalsf* bulk carrier terminals and general cargo ports. Operating conditions simulated include importing and export- ing and combined importing and exporting of a number of commodities or products simultaneously, multi-terminal situations involving topping-off., transshipment and complete two-ended commodity movement set ups. The physical elements of marine terminals or ports which have been considered in simulation studies are: - multiple classes on ships - general and special purpose berths - cargo.handling facilities (including pipelines) - storage facilities (tankage, stock piling, silos) - land transportation facilities - natural phenomena (wheather, tides, currents) - operational aids (quay side equipment, tugs, crews) - port throughput capacity Other points of special interest are: - short term forecasting of commodity movements - extensive priority setting rules for berth utilization - optimum ut@ilization of storage facilities - shuttling 5-17 NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 141-12798 7