Post on 22-Jan-2022
transcript
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG®
INLAND WATERWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
Mark Hammond Co-Tech Director, Planning Center of Expertise for Inland Navigation (PCXIN) Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD) 22 November 2013
BUILDING STRONG® 2
Inland Waterways and Infrastructure Planning*
1) Corps Planning Process 2) Challenges 3) Conclusions
* This presentation is in support of the TRB’s consensus study titled “Reinvesting in Inland Waterways: What Policy Makers Need to Know”.
BUILDING STRONG®
Six Step Planning Process
1) Identify Problems & Opportunities - Scoping 2) Inventory & Forecast Critical Resources* 3) Formulate Alternative Plans – Nonstructural, Structural 4) Evaluate Alternative Plans – NED, EQ, RED, OSE 5) Compare Alternative Plans 6) Select Recommended Plan – NED, NER, Combined
Planning Guidance Notebook ER 1105-2-100 22 Apr 2000
* Involves readying the economic model(s) too!
3
BUILDING STRONG®
Problems & Opportunities
• Reliability and aging infrastructure (decay) • Construction and declining revenues • Maintenance backlog with flat budget • Infrastructure Investment means jobs and economic
growth
4
BUILDING STRONG®
Inventory and Forecast
• Study Area • Resources • Industries • Commodity Traffic • Transportation Systems
• Shippers (Demand) • Traffic Demand (uncertainty)
• Transportation Rates • Willingness to Pay
• Project Performance (Supply) • Reliability (risk) • Capacity
P
Q Quantity
Price
S
D
5
BUILDING STRONG®
Ohio River Basin
Forecast Waterway Demand
Forecasts Based on Alternative Futures
Inventory and Forecast
6
UNCERTAINTY
BUILDING STRONG®
Base Rate Savings
Transportation Rates Waterway & Overland
Water Routing Land Routing Metropolitan Statistical Area
Inventory and Forecast
Current Future Waterway Cost: $ 10 $ 16 Overland Cost: $ 20 $ 20 Savings/Ton: $ 10 $ 4
7
BUILDING STRONG®
Inventory and Forecast
Willingness-to-Pay for Barge Transportation
Price Elasticity of Demand – Shipper Stated Preference Curve
εpq = %∆p/%∆q
$
Rail RQ
Barge BQ
Qe
$
Rail
Barge BQ
Qe
Max.$ WTP
Rail
Barge BQ
Qe8
BUILDING STRONG®
Modeling Lock Performance - Capacity
• Tonnage-Transit (Supply) Curve
• WAM uses LPMS data to simulate Supply
Inventory and Forecast
Greenup Main Chamber Closures
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Tonnage (KTons)
Tran
sit T
ime
(Hrs
)
Full Op1-day Main3-days Main5-days Main10-days Main15-days Main30-days Main45-days Main60-days Main90-days Main180-days Main365-days Main
Family of Curves – set of curves for different closure durations
9
BUILDING STRONG®
Component Engineering Reliability - RISK
• Hazard Function
• Event Tree
Inventory and Forecast
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Replace Hz
MINOR #1
MINOR #2
MAJOR
CATASTROPHIC
• Performance over time • Non-Price Determinant of Supply
10
BUILDING STRONG®
• Demand • Forecast (Uncertainty) • Rates (Cost) • Elasticity (Shape, Slope)
• Supply • Capacity (Ton-Transit) • Reliability (Risk)
Greenup Main Chamber Closures
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Tonnage (KTons)
Tran
sit T
ime
(Hrs
)
Full Op1-day Main3-days Main5-days Main10-days Main15-days Main30-days Main45-days Main60-days Main90-days Main180-days Main365-days Main
0%10%
20%30%40%50%
60%70%80%
90%100%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Year of FollowingAnnual Time Prob. Prob. Year Failure YearDependent Degree of Repair Repair of Closure 1/2 Spd Effect on
Component Probabilities Failure Level Level Repair Cost Days Days Reliability
Satisfactory New Gate 5% 1 $13,150,000 365 0 R=1 all future yearsTable Values 2 $3,150,000 90 0
Main - GateEvent Tree Major Major Repair 35% 1 $1,575,000 45 0 Back 5 years
100% 2 $1,575,000 45 0
Temporary Repair with 60% 1 $3,575,000 45 0 R=1 all future yearsAnnual New Gates 60% 2 $3,575,000 45 0
Unsatisfactory 3 $5,050,000 30 0Table Values
Minor0%
Scheduled Replacement Year 1 = 30 - closure days and cost $5,050,000 Year 2 = 30 - closure days and cost $5,050,000Future Reliability will be equal to 1.0 for all future years after replacement
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
- 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000
TonnageSa
ving
s ($
) per
Ton
ORS Forecasts
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1960 2010 2060
Mill
ion
Tons LOW
BASEHIGH
Inventory and Forecast
11
BUILDING STRONG®
• Management Measures • Structural/Non-Structural • Without-Project Condition • With-Project Condition • Formulate to maximize benefits to
national economy and environment Rehabs
+ Comp Replacements and Reactive Maintenance
Structural+ all below options
Reactive MaintenanceFix-as-Fails
Component Replacements+ Reactive Maintenance
Formulate Alternatives
12
BUILDING STRONG®
Evaluate Alternatives
• NED* – changes in economic value of the national output of goods and services • EQ* – non-monetary effects on ecological, cultural, and aesthetic resources and effects of ecosystem restoration • RED – changes in regional economic activity (income and employment) • OSE – community impacts, health and safety, energy conservation, etc.
Four Accounts
* required
P’
Q
D
S S’
P
Q Quantity
Price
13
BUILDING STRONG®
Formulation Criteria Matrix ranked by average annual net benefits
Blue – superior, green-acceptable, yellow-questionable, red-unacceptable performance to meet study objectives
Compare Alternative Plans
14
BUILDING STRONG®
• Preferable to no action
• NED Plan – maximizes net benefits
• NER Plan – (for ecosystem restoration projects)
• Combined NED/NER Plan – optimum
• LPP - complicated
Select Recommended Plan
15
BUILDING STRONG®
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79
80+
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Age in 2012 (Years)
Number of Operational Lock Chambers
3 9
16 17
53 31
19 55
39
Challenge - Aging Lock Inventory
Dewatering and repairs of Inner Harbor Lock, GIWW, which opened in 1923 for steamboats.
60% > 50
17
BUILDING STRONG®
Challenge - Condition
• Half of locks more than 50 years old • Investments in water resources
infrastructure have declined in real terms • Result: more frequent closures for
repairs, decreased performance and costly delays
Crumbling lock wall, Lower Mon 3, opened in 1907
Concrete deterioration at Chickamauga could result in
lock failure
Leaking miter gates, Lock & Dam 52, Ohio R.
18
BUILDING STRONG®
Challenge – IWTF
-150-100-50
050
10015020025030035040045019
87
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
$ M
illio
n
Annual Surplus / Deficit Trust Fund Balance
IWTF History / Projection FY 1987 - 2014
19
BUILDING STRONG®
Challenge - O&M Funding 1977-2011 Current $ and 1996 Constant $ *
Flat or declining O&M funding in constant dollars, even as project portfolio grows and ages… Lock wall, Lower Mon 3
Lock wall deterioration, Chickamauga
* Fuel-Taxed Waterways Only
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
$ M
illio
n
Current$Constant$
20
BUILDING STRONG®
Conclusions • Civil Works Transformation emphasizes planning, budgeting, delivering and sustaining infrastructure – growing recognition that cost growth and insufficient funding disadvantages new construction
• Methods of Delivery initiatives include Production, Design, & Planning Centers
• PCXIN with study ready models and data sets supports Civil Works Transformation
• Waterways are part of national transportation system – both competitive and complementary with other modes
• Maintenance may present as big a challenge as construction
• Public sector under-investment leads to private sector under-investment … resembling the downward spiral of urban decay
• Remediation requires effective public-private partnership that is dedicated to sustaining the inland system (revenues, finance, policy)
21