INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO THE STATE OF

ALASKA

FINAL REPORT

Prepared by

John T. Gray Institute of Social and Economic Research

University of Alaska

For

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

In Cooperation with

The United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Contract# DOT-OS-90096

December 1980

Notice:

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. , ..... , ..

TRANSPORT PLANNING AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

The Southcentral Deep-Draft Navigation Study ...•.

The Bureau of Land Management Outer Continental Shelf Office Transport Studies Program ..

Coal Transport Infrastructure Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Southcentral Deep-Draft Navigation Study: Project Details ..... .

ANALYTIC METHODS FOR INTERMODAL PLANNING.

The Alaska Transportation System Model •.....

The Southeast Region Transportation Model .

The United States Maritime Administration Port Model Series .

DATA REQUIREMENTS AND SOURCES FOR INTERMODAL PLANNING

Economic Data, ... Goods Movement and

Passenger Travel Data. Transport System Data. Air Data ...... . Rail Data ...... . Barge, Railcar-barge,

and Ship Data, ... Marine Highway Data .. Highway Data ..... Transfer Data, Tariffs. .

A REVIEW OF THE CONCERNS IN THE FUNDING OF INTERMODAL PLANNING PROJECTS .....

Review of State Policy Plan Outline. Proposal Rating Sheets Used by Federal

DOT: Office of University Research.

ACTIVITIES IN COOPERATION WITH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES ...

The Intermodal Planning Committee: Alaska Demonstration Projects.

Research Needs in the Areas of Technological Scale and Market Structure •.

Letter Concerning State Rail Plan

Request for Proposals, ................ , ,

1

7

17

22

26

34

48

59

62

65

89

89

92 110 111 115

121 123 124 126 131

133

142

146

151

152

169

173

Introduction

In the United States the term intermodal transport is generally

used to describe a situation in which carriers of two or more different

modes participate in a joint effort, usually on a joint tariff, to

deliver a shipment, The most common example, and the one toward which

most attention is directed, is that of rail-truck "piggyback" operations.

In many respects this makes the term applicable to the exceptional

rather than normal transport operations as the vast majority of all

shipments move between their origins and destinations without changing

modes,

In Alaska, one must take a considerably broader perspective of the

intermodal concept if the realities of the transport system are to be

adequately addressed, Both the geographic and economic nature of the

state dictate that intermodal activity will be the general rule rather

than an exceptional case, The state's economic base, relying on the ex-

port of raw materials and the import of most processed goods with little

local manufacturing taking place, insures that there will be little

traffic that is strictly intrastate, Geography, which leaves the state

almost entirely unconnected to the continental transport system, insures

that the interstate movements usually cannot take place on a single

mode, These factors, together with the undeveloped nature of much of

the transport system dictate that the only appropriate method of ana-

lyzing the operation of the system is on an intermodal basis,

For the planner these factors indicate that it is appropriate to

reassess the traditional methods of the profession to determine their

applicability to Alaska. Such a reassessment must include a considera-

tion of developing the proper analytic tools, a data base sufficient to

support their use, and a coordination of the transport analysis process

with the decision implementation process. A comparative example of

intermodal transport in the continental U.S. and Alaska is useful to

dimension the planner's problem in this state.

Assume a shipment of vegetables from the central valley of California

to Chicago. A typical routing would be by truck from the producer to a

rail yard with a trailer-on-flatcar loading capability; thence by rail

to Chicago where delivery to a wholesaler or local store would again be

made by truck. The movement uses the same vehicle, moving on a single

tariff for the entire distance, The only public facilities involved are

the highways at either end of the operation. The alternatives for the

movement are equally simple being either all rail or all highway delivery.

The analytic methods for making routing decisions are well developed and

relatively simple being based on straightforward comparisons of tariff,

carrier reliability, and timeliness.

The simplicity of this operation may be contrasted with a similar

commodity moving from the same origin to an Alaska point, approximately

an equivalent distance. Routing might involve movement by truck either

2

to Seattle or to a rail yard and then by rail to Seattle. Upon arrival

at that port the shipment will often be unloaded either into a whole-

saler's warehouse to await transport north or directly into a marine

container. After reloading it will be loaded onto a ship or barge and

moved to an Alaska port for unloading. If the debarcation port is its

final destination, it will then be delivered by truck. However, if the

contents of the container are destined for an inland point the situation

is more complex. If it is in the railbelt, it will be forwarded by

either truck or rail with a truck delivery to destination. If, however,

it is going to a point not served by either of these traditional means,

the contents must again break bulk and be reloaded for air transport,

either air freight or mail. Upon arrival at their final destination,

they must again be reloaded for final delivery. Clearly, the Alaska

situation, even in simplest form is much more complex than the U.S.

intermodal movement involving, as it does, up to four modes, numerous

loadings and unloadings, and various warehousing functions. It also

concerns the public sector planner in many more instances as it includes

public port, airport, and rail facilities as well as the public highways

of the U.S. example. It is also much more difficult to trace as there

may or may not be a through tariff applicable to the move. While rout-

ing may be straightforward in a few cases, it is usually a much more

intricate set of inter- and intramodal choices.

However, even though the system is highly intermodal in its opera-

tions and the best opportunities for increasing its efficiency are in

3

greater intermodalism, it is not organized in an integrated fashion.

Individual carriers generally provide service via a single mode and

public agencies involved in the transport industry tend to concern

themselves with only one mode. Such integration as has developed has

come about through operating and tariff agreements between individual

carriers and via operations specifically planned as intermodal. This

places a great deal of importance on the ability to use the present

structure as the basis for developing intermodal capabilities.

This project has been designed to explore a number of the aspects

of planning an intermodal transportation system for the state, It is

necessary to understand that the project is not structured to be a

research, analysis, and planning effort itself. Rather, it has directed

its attention toward planning efforts (not necessarily transportation)

which have already taken place or are underway and analyzed how these

relate to intermodal transport planning. It has also examined the

analytic methods and data bases necessary to perform intermodal planning

and detailed the basis for their use and assembly. To do these tasks

required extensive analytic work to insure the validity of the methods

and data, Finally, it has looked at funding mechanisms and has served

as a basis for making continuing recommendations for improving planning

processes,

The first section of this report deals with one of the principal

influences on Alaska transport demand, resource development, outlines

4

the interactions between reso~rce projects and transport and analyzes

the methods which are being used to estimate and plan the resulting

impacts. The second examines several sets of analytic tools which have

been developed both in Alaska and elsewhere to address intermodal ques-

tions. After review of basic methodological requirements, modifications

of these tools are proposed which might make them more useful or appli-

cable to Alaska situations. The third section provides details of data

requirements and sources to support intermodal planning. The fourth

section looks at some of the strategic requirements for funding inter-

modal plans and how the design of funding applications might be improved

and made more consistent. The final section summarizes several smaller

efforts undertaken within this project and details supplementary services

provided.

The importance of recognizing and planning for the intermodal

aspects of Alaska's transport system cannot be over emphasized, This

project has explored a number of important parts of the planning system

which need to be developed, However, it is critical that the actions

begun with this project be put into continuing practice by the state.

To do this, several recommendations have been formulated for an action

process to develop and update the intermodal planning.

1, That the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOTPF) vigorously pursue the development and maintenance of a statewide transportation policy plan to be used for coordination of in-house planning efforts and to identify conflicts between plans of other agencies and private concerns with consistent, broad based transport programs and policies.

5

2, That ADOTPF actively recruit the personnel necessary to devel-op an in-house capability to monitor all transport related planning concerning the state and to develop and maintain the analytic tools necessary to support detailed planning.

3, That ADOTPF assemble and maintain the data base necessary to support planning activity. This will require a long run commitment to the use of planning as a tool for policy im-plementation,

6

Section I Transport Planning and Resource Development Projects

As mentioned in the introduction, a major influence on the structure

of transport in Alaska is the economic environment within which it

operates, The system has largely shaped itself to conform to the economic

opportunities available, In areas where these have been limited, the

system is still in a primitive state with most operations being on a

small scale and often having only marginal long-term financial prospects,

Conversely, areas where outlooks for long-term economic viability are

more evident have produced carriers operating in a manner much more

consistent with normal North American standards, These features are

much of what one would expect for a transport system serving a developing

economy, particularly one as uneven as Alaska's.

Resource extraction and primary processing projects have been key

features in shaping the transport system. Within the next two decades

they can be expected to remain as the most important influences on the

economic viability of existing transport enterprises and on the creation

of any major new systems, It is only after these primary resource

activities have become more intense and created a larger basic economy

and population base that secondary manufacturing can be expected to

emerge, The resource extraction and primary manufacturing types of

projects have a number of features which make them a challenge to both

the transport system and transport planner, as follows:

1, They involve construction/development periods which may have severe but short-term impacts on the transport system;

7

2, After operation of the extraction project begins, it will often involve transport systems which are largely unrelated to those used during the development process;

3, A primary manufacturing process, after operation start-up, may use either exclusive use transport or may change product dis-tribution patterns in ways which dramatically alter the traffic structure of existing transport systems;

4. The projects tend to be large and usually capital intensive when compared to the economy and transport system with which they interact;

5, The residual and subsidiary activity that results from move-ment from the construction/development phase to the operation phase is incompletely understood both as an economic and transport impact,

Before discussing particular types of projects or activities in

detail it is useful to explore each of these areas in a bit more depth

as they have important implications for the analysis performed by the

transport planner.

The phenomena of the construction boom is quite well-known in

Alaska. Its impacts on transportation usually include a short-term

traffic bonanza with these movements causing a substantial change in the

composition and character of most carriers' traffic. Frequently, the

volume of goods to be moved will exceed the normal capacity of the

regular carriers and will force some type of compromise in terms of

normal traffic and boom traffic. Such a compromise may often result in

serious shortages or delay of goods for long-term customers in prefer-

ence to the boom movements. It also may result in more costly goods

since the development project will usually have the resources to bid up

8

the cost of available transport to insure its needs are served, Such

activities may often cause a diversion of capacity away from scheduled

service into a charter market which can place hardships on those long-

term customers relying on scheduled service and new customers who do not

generate sufficient volume to warrant exclusive service. If the carrier

attempts to expand his capabilities to match the total market, he may be

forced to make relatively large investments which require amortization

over a short period. Because the texture of this construction boom

traffic is often different from that of long-term movements (both pre-

and post-boom), the types of equipment and facilities required to support

the boom may be inappropriate for long-term needs,

Clearly, there are a variety of benefits and costs accruing to many

parties in the boom situation. When analyzing such a situation, it is

important for the transport planner to recognize that a perspective

beyond that of the logistics system is required to assess the impacts,

For the carriers, direct costs may include capita investment, labor

turnover and training, customer alienation, equipment scheduling, con-

gestion, increased competition, and changes in revenue mix. Obviously

the prinicpal benefits are greater short-term revenue, hopefully a long-

term increase in nonboom type traffic and possible long-term operating

economies due to improvements in physical plant. For the customer, the

potential costs include higher freight rates, service degradation, in-

creased inventory requirements, difficulty in finding carrier capacity,

probably higher loss and damage rates, and disruption of normal routings.

The customers' benefits include long-term improvements in service quality

9

because of carrier plant improvements, possible increased transport

competiveness and, of course, increased sales. While these items do not

include all possible cost-benefit elements, they do demonstrate the

importance of the planner's inspection of a wide range of impacts when

examining the effects of resource projects.

When a resource extraction project has finally reached a point in

its development at which production operations become possible, it is

likely that many of its transport requirements will be handled by an

exclusive use system rather than the existing system. This is particu-

larly likely to occur in developing areas where the requirements for

product transport are either too large to be accommodated on the exist-

ing system, or are beyond the geographic extent of the existing network

or possible extensions of the existing network.

Raw or semi-processed resources tend to move in very large quantities.

Since these are usually relatively low value products there is a premium

placed on the minimum possible transport cost and in movement in large

individual lots to minimize unit costs. Since the transport system of

an undeveloped area is usually geared to move processed goods into the

area, it is frequently unsuited for transporting large quantities of an

extracted resource. The more primitive the transport system the more

this tends to be true. For example, the barge-air system of western

Alaska would be almost completely useless for supporting the requirements

of even a relatively small extraction industry in that area. This is in

10

contrast to the railbelt where the rudiments of inland transport and

port systems exist to handle some types of resources. However, even in

this region, considerable investment in existing facilities would be

required to support their large scale use in resource export.

There are several effects of the discontinuity of resource transport

demands and existing transport availability. These include:

1. Greater total investment requirement for transport since a completely separate system must be developed to handle the resource while existing systems must be upgraded to move con-struction material and possible increased long-term demand;

2. Inability to use the resource traffic to lower long-term costs of all transport users by spreading fixed cost structures over a larger base;

3. Requiring existing carriers to bear burden of construction/ development and subsequent traffic declines without benefiting from long-term opportunities of the resource movement;

4. In cases where resource and normal goods movement are rela-tively compatible (for example, fisheries) differences in handling requirements may still dictate extensive empty equipment movements and offer only a limited solution to backhaul problems;

5. Where resource movements and existing traffic are able to share common facilities, the scale of the resource movement may be so large in comparison to normal traffic that it will create congestion problems whose solution requires investments beyond the financial means of specific carriers or agencies.

Once again the planner is faced with an interesting array of

choices when trying to analyze the impacts of a resource project.

Obviously, there are both benefits and penalties associated with resource

transport. How the resource movement interacts or does not interact

11

with the existing system must be examined not only in terms of the move-

ment itself but also with regard to long-term interaction with existing

capacity and with the overall economy.

There are several types of primary manufacturing capability which

may develop in conjunction with resource extraction. The most common is

that which processes the resource and then exports a somewhat higher

value product from the economy. The second processes the resource for

both the domestic market and export with the production for local con-

sumption supplanting an import. Finally, there is production which serves

a domestic market which did not exist prior to the time of production.

The three types of primary processing may have very different impacts on

various components of the transport system and emphasize the need to

analyze that system within its economic context.

A major possible impact of all three types of processing is the in-

bound movement of subsidiary input materials. These are the items used

in the manufacturing process in addition to the primary input material.

These may constitute a major part of the input and represent important

additions to the traffic of existing carriers (as in pulp manufacture)

or they may be almost non-existent (as in petroleum refining). In any

case these movements will usually move on the existing system and will

represent a stable long-term traffic source.

12

In the first type of resource processing (all for export) the trans-

port system for the output product will often take a form which is similar

to that of the original resource. That is, it will move in large volume,

may require specialized handling, and may not be readily adaptable to the

use of existing transport. In fact the nature of many output products

may make them even more specialized in their handling requirements than are

the input resources, If the output has the same types of characteristics as

the input resource then the comments previously made concerning the move-

ment of the resource apply. If, however, the product is compatible with

existing transport types and capabilities (or expanded capabilities)

then the manufacturing process may offer significant opportunities for

improving and broadening the traffic base of existing carriers. As such,

it provides a mechanism for improved utilization of capacity and a sharing

of fixed costs between the resource development/manufacturing process

and the remainder of the economy. This feature makes the latter type of

resource/processing activity particularly attractive from the transport

perspective.

In the second type of processing activity (part or none for export,

part or all for local consumption) the locally produced product is assumed

to replace a portion, or all, or a region's import consumption of that

product or its substitutes. It is clear that such a product will be

compatible with the existing transport system. Because this is the case

and because the new production represents a spatially changed source

of supply, it is probable that the processing activity will change the

13

internal routing of the product as it moves to consumption points. In

fact, location of the processing plant close to principal consumption

points may entirely eliminate some aspects of transport, Clearly, this

is a major impact with which the planner must deal during his analysis

of a resource based project. It is possible that the new activity may

cause considerable hardship to some carriers by diverting a major portion

of their traffic base, This makes it possible that the result of a new

plant may be higher costs of all other goods excepting that produced at

that plant as the carrier attempts to replace lost revenue by raising

tariffs on the remaining business, Conversely, it is possible that the

new plant will increase the traffic available to various carriers with

the benefits mentioned previously. The important point in this particular

instance is that the planner can effectively note the impacts of the

project only through an analytic procedure which goes beyond the transport

system and addresses the wider economic interactions.

The third type of processing activity (that which produces a new

local market) is perhaps the easiest to address in that it always results

in increased traffic for at least some components of the transport

system, However, even this case is not trivial as it still requires a

routing assessment and an understanding of the secondary economic impacts

and the resultant transport requirements. However, if the product

shares currently available capacity its most likely effect will be to

provide a more substantial traffic base for sharing fixed unit costs,

14

A common feature of many of the extractive resource and primary

manufacturing projects is that they tend to be large in comparison to

the economy upon which they are superimposed. This gives them the

ability to impose major transport impacts quite apart from the direct

impacts of their development and operation. This results from the

effects of a major infusion of capital on a small economic base both

through direct and indirect payroll and local purchasing. In Alaska's

underdeveloped economy such an infusion will usually result in increased

demand for goods and services which acts to broaden the existing economic

base. For transport this means a short-term heightened demand for

construction goods and a long-term increase in the consumer goods.

Timing of this change is of critical importance. Most evidence indicates

that it reacts on a somewhat delayed basis to the initial development

boom of the resource project although it does tend to reinforce and

extend the boom. It may also act to dampen the drop in traffic which

follows the boom.

It is clear that the phenomena noted above occurs on a significant

scale in an economy such as Alaska's, However, the dimensions of this

activity are not well documented. Particularly uncertain is the type of

subsidiary activity which will occur in a region following the end of

the development boom, In part, this will be a function of the operations

employment of the resource extraction project, with those projects which

are most labor intensive being assumed to be the least likely to have

dramatic post-boom effects. However, even this relationship is not clear.

What is certain, for transportation, is that following the project there

15

will be a change in either the quantity or character of traffic and,

most likely, both, This implies that different modes may undergo very

different types of impacts,

For the planner the importance of understanding the relationship of

the resource project and its secondary impacts to the remainder of the

economy lies in the need to estimate total traffic that can be generated

by the project rather than simply the obvious project related traffic,

Most analysis has ignored these impacts with the result usually being a

misstatement of the project effects, While the magnitude of some errors

is not great, in other cases expectations generated by planning estimates

are not appropriate, The most obvious case of the latter has been the

traffic through the Anchorage port in the post-pipeline years. Prior to

the beginning of construction the annual throughput of the port's general

cargo berths was about 800,000 tons. Expectations were that following

the pipeline boom the traffic level would return to approximately this

size, However, after rising to 1,25 million tons in 1976 the decline

has been to only about 1.18 million tons or an increase of 48 percent,

This has resulted from the broadening of the general economy rather than

being simply an increase due to the project alone. Clearly, both the

extent and timing on the secondary impacts is of considerable importance,

It is also important to realize that as the economy gradually expands

the differential effects of large projects will become progressively

less.

16

The next three parts of this section view the relationship of

resource development and transportation in terms of a review of other

work dealing with the subject. The first part looks at the U.S. Army,

Corps of Engineers (COE) Southcentral Deep-Draft Navigation Study. The

second comments on the Bureau of Land Management/Outer Continental Shelf

Office (BLM/OCS) series of reports on transport impacts of offshore

development, The third briefly reviews the transport infrastructure

requirements for movement of Alaska coal.

THE SOUTHCENTRAL DEEP-DRAFT NAVIGATION STUDY

In 1978 the Corps of Engineers commissioned a study of the south-

central Alaska ports to determine their traffic potential through the

year 2030 and thus to estimate requirements for navigation improvements,

a COE responsibility, A principal focus of this effort is to identify

those Alaska ports which now serve or potentially serve as resource

export centers or which are required to support national interest

resource development projects, The initial scope of the project in-

cluded ports from Yakutat to Kodiak, however, following the initial

phase the western extent of the work was extended to Unalaska. It

should be remembered that the principal focus of this work was not

directed toward planning of shoreside facilities, the normal interests

of the state government, but was designed to estimate requirements for

harbor and channel development and maintenance, the principal marine

transport concerns of COE. However, this does not imply that shoreside

facilities were not a part of the study effort. Rather, their role was

to help determine types and volumes of shipping which could or would use

a particular port or channel.

17

The study has been structured in three phases, The first of these

being an inventory and capacity assessment of present waterways and

ports. The second phase involves projection of traffic based on economic

change, particularly as related to resource development, and how this will

impact port demand. The third phase will be an analysis of critical ports

that the second phase indicates require a major continuing involvement

of COE in the port's activity or that have the potential for substantial

change which may place new demands on COE.

The first phase, completed in mid-1979, prepared individual in-

ventories and capacity assessments for the ports of Yakutat, Cordova,

Valdez, Whittier, Seward, Homer, Kenai/Nikiski, Anchorage, and Kodiak.

These reviews used methods designed by the U.S. Maritime Administration

for developing the capacity of various types of port facilities, Capacity

was estimated for dry bulk, liquid bulk, neo-bulk, container/roll-on-roll-

off, breakbulk, and special cargo. This was then compared to present

throughout and very rough economic projection trends to obtain several

preliminary estimates of future congestion,

The methodology employed in this first phase of the work was basically

sound; however, several of the assumptions behind the study limited its

usefulness, These assumption problems included the treatment of inland

transport, the definition of the study area and the definition of cargo

types. In this particular work these problems did not seriously affect

18

the validity of the results; however, they will be examined briefly

below to assist planners in developing the scope of similar future work,

The failure to critically examine and inventory inland transport

can have several impacts on the validity of port studies, All ports are

to some degree intermodal transfer facilities. Thus, the ability of the

inland extensions of a port to adjust to traffic changes can be as

important in determining both its capabilities and future potential as

can the marine aspects of its activities, This is of particular impor-

tance when dealing with extractive resources since the size of movement

of the resource can be much larger than an inland link might be capable

of accommodating, In such a situation, the selection of an appropriate

port might well be based on the inland capabilities rather than superior

maritime circumstances. While in may not be necessary to define a study

in a broad manner in every case, it is necessary to recognize the limita-

tions of particular assumptions and their possible impact on results.

In Alaska, ports are an area which require a fairly broad examination to

produce the most usable results.

The definition of the study area is a problem closely related to

the manner in which inland transport is treated; however, it has some-

what broader implications, In the COE phase one study, two problems

appeared in the definition. First, the area under examination did not

include the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, or Bristol Bay, all

areas whose traffic generation, port capacity, future prospects and

maritime commerce patterns have a major impact on operations at one of

19

the study area ports, Kodiak, This indicates the need to develop at

least a basic understanding of the system being investigated prior to

dimensioning a planning project, The second definitional problem re-

sulted from the inclusion of the interior and north slope in the hinter-

land of the southcentral ports while failing to detail inland transport

and, more importantly, failing to use economic background data including

these areas, The latter was the most important failure of the phase one

effort representing a major limitation on the usability of the results,

The planner must remember to maintain the consistency between the com-

ponents of both the data bases and analytic methods, otherwise, the

result cannot be accepted as having been produced by a logical, justi-

fiable means.

The third problem in the phase one COE work related to the defini-

tion of commodity types. It is the least serious of the three. The

difficulty comes in the aggregation of various subcargo types into the

bulk liquid and dry bulk cargo categories, While it is logical to

aggregate into these two groups for most purposes, it is possible to

lose a good deal of information if one is not aware of the specific

types of movements that make up the categories for a particular port,

Many types of both commodity groups require specialized handling facil-

ities which cannot be shared either with other commodities or even

within the group, Examples of these inconsistencies might include bulk

cement and coal or liquified natural gas and crude oil. These problems

are not serious if the planner is aware of them; however, it is impor-

tant to understand that a port's capacity for a cargo type may be composed

of an incompatible set of subcategories,

20

The second phase of the COE study resolved several of the difficulties

noted above, The important changes involve respecification of the study

area to include the western areas of the state and use of an economic

baseline more consistent with the geographic area, Additionally, the

use of a series of resource project scenarios identified specific inland

routes and commodity handling methods necessary to accommodate movements,

A complete listing of these projects and the impacts anticipated by

the COE are included at the end of this section. While the method

employed in this refinement has some weakness (it is not as comprehensive

as might be desirable and is not capable of detecting many secondary

effects), it is quite adequate to produce analysis at the level of detail

necessary to support COE's waterways improvements and maintenance pro-

gram,

A useful feature of the phase two study involved the use of three

panels of knowledgeable individuals in economics, transport, and environ-

mental science to address many of the planning issues, This represented an

attempt to bring expertise into the analysis more extensive than that

available to the COE simply by using a single group of consultants,

By fairly close structuring of the meetings of these groups it appears

that a good deal of useful input was obtained, particularly from the

group on resource development and economics, However, the transportation

group (discussing routing probabilities for both resource products and

general cargo) appeared to have been composed of too many relatively

parochial interests, This resulted in various factions establishing

themselves in advocacy positions rather than providing an analysis of

21

the broader picture. A more useful group might have resulted from the

inclusion of more professionals in transport consumption (nontransport

industry traffic personnel) 'rather than individuals associated with

particular transport enterprises.

The second phase of the report should be available for distribution

in 1981. The third phase will concentrate on questions related to the

ports of Upper Cook Inlet and Kodiak. Special emphasis is being placed

on these locations not because they are the only areas expecting large

scale change during the next fifty years but because their potential

changes probably involve activity types which would require considerable

commitment from COE both in the short-term and over an extended time

frame,

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFFICE TRANSPORT STUDIES PROGRAM

The BLM/OCS program is directed toward preparation of the transport

portion of the environmental impact statement which is required prior to

the leasing of an area for offshore oil exploration and development. As

such, it represents a series of planning efforts specifically designed

to assess the interaction of transport and the resource development

process. Because of the pervasiveness of oil potential along the Alaska

coast the series of studies will, when complete, be one of the·most

comprehensive sets of information on Alaska transport available; second

only to the Alaska Department of Transportation's Regional Transportation

Studies, To date, five study regions have been completed including the

22

Beaufort Sea, eastern Gulf of Alaska, western Gulf of Alaska, Lower Cook

Inlet, and Norton Sound. Future reports will deal with the Bristol

Bay/Kuskokwim Bay region, the Chukchi Sea, and the eastern parts of the

Aleutian Islands,

The studies are required to address several aspects of transporta-

tion as it relates to offshore petroleum development. These include

support during exploration, movement of field development materials,

movement of production support goods, and transport of the final product

be it crude oil or some form of gas. All modes which interact with a

particular study area are included; however, only direct hydrocarbon

development effects are considered, The latter point places a serious

limitation on the value of the series.

Evidence available to date suggests that the long-term impacts, and

frequently those with the greatest magnitude, do not occur at the

location of actual OCS activity or as a result of direct involvement in

the OCS process, Rather, these impacts are created by the secondary

growth process and through the location of headquarters activity. This

has been most dramatically illustrated in Anchorage where the increase

in transport activity since completion of the trans-Alaska pipeline has,

each year, been equivalent to about one-third of the total traffic

generated by pipeline construction. The implication is that the long-

term growth generated by a resource project has the potential, particularly

over a twenty-year horizon, to have many times the effect of the movements

related directly to the development itself. The importance of this

23

activity indicates that it should play a much larger role in the impact

assessment process,

It should be noted that BLM/OCS's present program incorporates

some analysis of the impacts of development activity on Anchorage, For

the economic studies this includes some assessment of the secondary

impacts of remote development, However, the transportation studies

include only the direct impacts on OCS movements through Anchorage,

particularly air movements,

The second deficiency of the study program is the failure to

explicitly consider the cumulative impacts due to multiple development sales

and the interactive effects of other development activities, This is a

less serious methodological problem due to the nature of any projection

process, That is, the art of projecting future events and developing

impacts of these events is, of necessity, an uncertain one, The process

of tracing the effects of a single set of related developments is one

which is relatively straightforward even though not simple, Even this

type of scenario building can have numerous solutions for a complex

project as a variety of decision possibilities occur at points in the

project, Adding another set of possible occurrences for another un-

related set of projects increases the number of plausible outcomes con-

siderably, When the additional projects are related to the initial ones

(such as two OCS operations) the decision tree may either be simplified

24

or become more confusing depending upon the analyst's assumptions,

Thus, it is reasonable to carry out an impact analysis for a complex

system on the basis of isolation of that system from other activities,

However, it is important to recognize that other activity (either direct-

ly related or mostly unrelated) may have a major impact on the system

under study,

It is the failure to adequately perform this type of sensitivity

analysis that represents an important deficiency of the BLM/OCS program.

While it is unreasonable to expect a complete set of possible futures

involving all possible combinations of project types to be studied, it

is not improper to suggest that the study series more directly recognize

the existence of other development opportunities and estimate rough

impacts and directions of expected change of the impacts caused by

interaction of the projects, BLM/OCS has recently begun to do this type

of background work in relationship to one important area of possible

conflict with offshore activities, They have completed an analysis of

the interaction of fishing with oil and gas development which deals with

a number of impact types and directions including transportation, This

report is quite useful in expanding the scope of the issues and the

ability of the planner to assess the interrelated impacts. When making

these assessments it becomes quite clear that the possible fishing

development scenarios make it unrealistic to expect detailed potential

conflict analysis to accompany every OCS transportation study,

25

Other than the limitations mentioned above the BLM/OCS series of

reports provide a useful framework for impact assessment of offshore

development. It is important to remember that these are impact assess-

ments and not planning studies, The former simply traces the results of

a series of actions and decisions while the latter proposes solutions to

the problems evidenced by the analysis of future occurrences or looks

for ways to influence outcomes of policy proposals, Within these limita-

tions the reports provide a useful analytic framework.

COAL TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

The comments in this section address a specific resource development

and the considerations involving transport infrastructure that can be

considered both for public or private investment if the resource is to

be used, The material is extracted from a paper prepared for the Resource

Development Council's Alaska Coal Marketing Conference and was prepared

in December 1980.

The transport infrastructure requirements to move Alaska coal in

volume are closely related to the location of both the resource and potential

port sites, With the current state of transport technology there are

only a limited number of options available. It should be remembered that

the development of a resource as extensive as coal, requires a long-term

incremental effort and is not a task to be accomplished in a limited

time or with a single (or very few) major investments. The nature of

coal offers an opportunity to put in place a multi-use transport system

26

which can serve the entire economic development process rather than only

a limited industrial constituency. To properly assess the opportunities

to do this, it is first necessary to understand the requirements for

the movement of coal and how various aspects of Alaska's geography and

present infrastructure fit into the process.

The first, and most important, aspect of any discussion of the move-

ment system is to emphasize that transport structure must be considered

only as a part of the overall market system, not independently of it.

This points out the importance of matching transport investment to both

the demand for coal (utility, industrial) and the supply (the mine(s)

production capacity). While this point appears obvious, it is often

ignored in the rush to make major capital investments. This emphasizes

the incremental nature of the development process. For example, it is

usually inappropriate to make the major investment required to move

5 million tons annually if the initially available volume is only

500,000 tons with the remainder being speculative.

For any coal export transportation system there are five critical

elements. These are the mine production and loading system, the land

transport system, the port transfer system, the ship system, and destina-

tion port system. Each of these involves a number of subelements, all

27

of which must be matched together if the overall operation is to func-

tion correctly. It is also in this process that the opportunities will

occur for coordination of coal movements with other transport demand.

The mine production and loading system is the first point of inter-

face between coal transport and the market, The mine transfer process

will be closely tailored to the requirements of the inland transport

system but will have several elements in any case, These include move-

ment to a washing and/or grading facility, movement from there to a

storage pile or loading tipple and, finally, transfer to the inland

transport system. Each of these elements will be present to a greater

or lesser degree depending on the quality and grading requirements of

the coal, the quantity being mined, and the nature of the inland trans-

port system. Local mine transport usually involves either high capacity

trucks and/or conveyors for surface mines and industrial trains for

underground operations. The former are usually used for all aspects of

movement in smaller operations and from the mine to a central gathering

point for larger mines, From there, the conveyor system may be used to

get the coal to storage piles or loading tipples,

The inland transport system offers the greatest number of movement

options. Four technologies have been developed to transport coal over

longer distances and will be used based on the distance being moved, the

quantity of coal available, availability of in-place infrastructure,

28

investment capital availability and, most importantly, the economic ob-

jectives of the system, Two possible options are long distance conveyors

and coal slurry pipelines, Both are high capital cost options, particularly

in cold climates, and both are applicable to high volume movements only,

both are exclusive-use systems and neither have attained the status of well

tested technology or proven economic feasibility (particularly slurry

pipelines). For purposes of this discussion, it would appear that their

principal drawbacks are the high movement volumes necessary for their use

and the exclusivity of their applicability. The high volume demands imply

that 5 to 10 million annual tons must be available even before the

technology can be considered. The exclusivity conditions imply that

the use of these technologies will preclude the use of the inland coal

transport system from being available to help in developing other resources,

The other two inland modes do not have this limitation, although

they are subject to other types of problems. Highway movement of coal is

feasible under conditions where the distances are relatively short and/or

the volumes to be transported are small. If adequate highways are existing

over the route of movement, large initial capital investments are not

required; however, there are significant long-term operational penalties

in the form of very high (and inflation prone) labor costs and accelerated

highway maintenance expenses, the latter being a direct public expenditure.

If the requisite highway is not in place, then there is a major public

capital investment required if the resource is to move, Such an invest-

ment may or may not be warranted depending on the additional marketable

29

development opportunities adjacent to the proposed facility. In Alaska,

another major consideration is the relationship that a new facility

(or expanded use of an existing one) may have on land use patterns in

the vicinity,

The final land transport method, rail, is the most flexible means

of moving large volumes of coal where direct water alternatives are not

available. In many respects, it represents a compromise between the

adaptability of highways and the inflexibility of the single use conveyor

and pipe systems, Its operation involves a considerably smaller labor

component than does trucking although it is larger than that of an

exclusive use system, Maintenance costs of rail systems may increase

considerably depending on volume moved and the type of equipment used

but still tend to be proportional to total tonnage. This puts it in a

somewhat middle position in regard to inflation susceptibility. If the

physical plant is in place, the capital investment required to upgrade

it is fairly closely related to the tonnage to be moved thus making it

(like trucking) capable of incremental change. When it is necessary to

create new physical facilities, their cost is comparable to that of

highways, and usually much less than that of the exclusive systems.

Like highways, it can be used as a tool to shape other types of develop-

ment although it is usually of a considerably different nature than that

promoted by highways. It is much more selective in its land use impact

than is a highway system.

30

The third and fifth elements in the coal transport system are the

port transfer. Once again, the characteristics of this system may vary

widely both in their operational and long-term effects based on the

volume to be moved, the goals of the port's owner, and the degree of

integration with other port functions. At one extreme is the single

purpose port which serves only to move coal, To justify the investment

in such facilities, it is usually necessary to move very large volumes.

Clearly, they also contribute very little to other development prospects

and cannot be considered for incremental facility development. Next in

line would be ports in which the coal facilities are separate but use a

common harbor along with other marine users, While this has a good deal

in common with the exclusive use port, it does share harbor development

(usually a public cost under any circumstance), navigation aids, and

also tends to involve use of some common shore-side facilities (utilities,

maintenance) and coal transfer systems which have elements in common

with other commercial operations, Finally, there is the possibility of

using facilities for transferring coal which are shared with other port

activities. This is the most appropriate method where volumes are

relatively small (say less than 3 to 5 million tons annually) or where

there may be considerable fluctuation in demand, Clearly, this maxi-

mizes the sharing of fixed costs between coal and a port's other commerce,

Much of the decision making involved in the determination of port type

(also other transport infrastructure) will be related to the mixture of

parties supplying development capital.

31

The physical facilities required for a coal port include, at a

minimum, a mechanism for unloading the land transport mode, a space for

coal storage, method for removing the coal from storage and moving it to

the dock face, a mooring system, and a method for loading the coal into

the ship. The form of each of these elements is closely tied to the

port geography, volume to be moved, and the characteristics of the land

transport and ship systems,

The final element of the coal transport system is the ship system.

Here, the principal distinguishing feature between options is the size

of the ship. Modern colliers usually range in size from 20 to 100 thousand

tons capacity. The choice of a particular ship type for a particular

market is based on the volume to be moved, distance between origin and

destination, depths of water in the ports and, perhaps most importantly,

the availability of various ship types on the international charter

market, An additional consideration for some Alaska situations is the

ability to navigate icey waters. As a general rule, the largest ship

possible will be used on a particular run since operational costs increase

very little with increased volume, This places something of a premium

on ports capable of handling larger ships. Another distinguishing

feature of some ships is the ability to be either self-loading or self-

unloading. This may or may not be of significance depending on port

capabilities. If even relatively primitive shore-side facilities are

available, it is usually not a particularly important asset,

32

In sunnnary, there are a number of options available for developing

a transport infrastructure to support coal development. Generally, they

range from some form of an exclusive use system through various levels

of integration with other transport systems, The system chosen should

be based on both the characteristics of the movement (location, volume,

market) the nature of the various investments (public, private, combina-

tion), and the degree to which the system is or can be integrated into

other development objectives, While these comments have been directed

toward coal many aspects are equally applicable to many other resource

activities including agricultural products, forest products, bulk finished

goods, and solid extrative minerals,

33

MAY 15,1980

Introduction

On April 22, 1980, the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers engaged the

firms of Alaska Consultants, Inc. and PRC Harris to undertake the Stage 2

Southcentral Alaska Deep-Draft Navigation Economic and Transportation

Studies. (Stage 1 was completed by PRC Harris in March 1979). The

overall study is a broad scale regional marine transportation study that

will conclude in an orderly plan for harbor and channel improvements for

deep-draft navigation in Southcentral Alaska from Yakutat to Dutch

Harbor. Stage 2 consists of basic economic analysis to estimate potential

major additions to the region's waterborne commerce through the year

2030 and then transportation analysis to identify and generally locate

the harbor and channel improvements that may be needed to accommodate

the added shipping demands at the region's eleven major ports. These

ports have been identified by the Corps of Engineers as Anchorage, Cold

Bay, Cordova, Dutch Harbor/Unalaska, Kenai-Lower Cook Inlet, Kodiak,

Matanuska-Susitna-Point McKenzie, Seward, Valdez, Whittier and Yakutat.

STUDY METHODOLODY

In broad terms, the Stage 2 study methodology can be outlined as follows:

Step _l:

Step 2:

Inventory existing ports and port operating conditions.

Analyze historic trends (1960-70-80) in the region's

shipping patterns.

34

Step 3: Analyze an economic scenario projectin~ the region's

future economy and population. This scenario will mai"nly

be used to project future consumer and general cargo

volumes.

Step 4: Analyze a set (10-12) of development project scenarios

to estimate the time, location and scale of potential

major additions of industrial and bulk shipping demands

to the region's marine transportation system.

Step 5: Preliminary routings of future marine commerce to and I

through the region's ports.

Step 6: Test preliminary routings ~gainst shipping and other

constraints and revise routings as advisable.

Step 7: ' Conclude with identification of harbor and channel

improvements necessary to accommodate the shipping volumes

and routings arrived at above.

Alaska Consultants, Inc. will primarily be responsible for the economic

analyses and PRC Harris will be primarily responsible for the marine

transportation system analysis. A key role in the study process will be

played by three advisory technical panels {Transportation, Commerce and

Environmental) to be established by the Corps of Engineers. The pooled

knowledge and judgment of panel memebers will be sought at critical

points to guide and verify the consultant team's work effort.

35

COMMERCE PANEL MEETING - MAY 27, 1980

At its opening meeting, the Commerce Panel will be asked to make

recommendations upon (a) the selection of a regional economic scenario

for subsequent indepth analysis and (b) the choice of 10 to 12

development scenarios whose analysis will contribute most to the Stage 2

studies' objective: identification of potential harbor and channel

improvement needs. (It should be stressed that the findings of the

Stage 2 studies are intermediate water resource plans and that any

specific improvement projects will depend upon a detailed feasibility

study).

The materials prepared for the Commerce Panel meeting and the role of

the Commerce Panel correspond with the relevant parts of Study Elements

l and 2 which are described in the contractual Scope Of Work as follows:

Study Element 1: Review copies of recent resource development

reports. Of particular interest are those dealing with coal,

minerals, agriculture, timber, bottomfish, and petroleum. Review

the updated Level B Economics Report. Form development scenarios

based on the literature review and summarize them for use in the

initial panel meetings. Two types of scenarios will be referenced

throughout this study: economic scenarios are the

high-intermediate - low economic growth projections for the region;

development scenarios are synopses of projected individual resource

developments projects, e.g., Beluga coalfield development, gas

pipeline construction, etc.

36

Study Element 2: The Commerce Panel will meet at the District

office and will assist in verifying development and economic scenarios

presented by the contractor for discussion.

Alaska Consultants) Inc. has prepared for advance distribution to the

Commerce Panel members a summary of the Level B Southcentral Water

Study's regional economic scenarios and short descriptions of 18

development scenarios we have selected as candidates for analysis.

Panel members are encouraged to suggest other scenarios that they feel

are appropriate for discussion at the meeting. The development scenarios

descriptions are purposely brief, but we have tried to present sufficient

data to enable the Commerce Panel to make informed recommendations about

which specific development projects merit more intensive examination for

their possible effects on southcentral ports. Accompanying the development-

scenario~ is a map that illustrates the boundaries of the study area and

the location of the region's eleven major ports and the development

projects.

At the close of the May 27, 1980 meeting, following review and discussion,

Commerce Panel participants will be asked to rank the candidate development

scenarios according to their significance for·· the Stage 2 studies. The

most significant projects will then be analyzed in greater detail by the

consultant team. We have prepared a rating sheet for panel members to

use to rank the scenarios at the end of the meeting.

37

• ).

(-'

,, -~ •;

June 23, 1980

MEMORM!DUM

TO:

FROM:

Captain Wayne Reynolds, Reports Section Alaska District, Corps of Engineers

( . ' Kevin Waring, Alaska Consultants, Inc.J(:V Ray Heinzelmann, PRC Harris, Inc.

SUBJECT: Southc~1tral Deep Draft Navigation Study Commerce and Transportation Panel Meetings of June 27, 1980

Enclosed are draft materfo 1 s for advance. di str-i buti on to Commerce Pane 1 and Transportation Panel members for the revi0w meetings of June 27, 1980. They ·include:

l. Reg_io_lltl_~c;onomic Scenalj.2_, as revised following the comments at the previous Commerce Panel meeting. Significant changes have been made over the earlier scenario to obtain population forecasts more specifically suited to future conrnerce projections.

2. ,PrQ_~s;_tJons of Waterborne Commerce> by cargo hand"l"ing cater1ory and year for eight of the eleven development scenarios selected for further analysis at the previous Commerce Panel meeting. The scenarios included are: Alpetco, Bering Sea OCS, Bering Sea Groundfish, Gulf of Alaska Groundfish, Healy Coal, Northwest Natural ·Gas Pipeline, Pac-ific-Alaska U!G Plant, and SusHna Hydtopower

3.

Project. Projections for the three remaining development scenarios (Prudhoe Bay Ongoing Development, Beaufort Sea OCS and Arctic Long-range Development) will be available at the panel meetings.

' '

Projections of Inbound Carao. This ser"ies of tables outlines the base"l"ine ·inbound cargo tormage potentials for the study ports. Inbound container/reefer cargoes to the Railbelt area are shown for consumer, nonconsumer and total cargoes. Cargoes are also shown by three census divis1011 groups: Anchorage-Mat-Su-Kenai-Cook Inlet-Seward, Fairbanks-Southeast Fairbanks) and Valdez-Chitina-Whittier. The rea:on to show the census division for Railbelt cargoes is that cargoes to trds area may be delivered by various ports. The long-run choice of ports may be a function of the inland market area of cargo 01·igin or destination. Conswner cargo projections are based on regress"ion analysis of tonnnge and purchasfog pO'.'ier by census d·ivision.

38

70! \\'EST SECO:\ D AVF.NU£, SUITE '/,, ANCr!OlU,(;;.:, AL:\S:,A 99501 TELEI'l10:\E (907) 2"iG·l '.5[;/~7,t.Jlll

r l

1

J'

Page 2

Cargoes for the ports of Dutch Harbor, Cordova and Yakutat are based on economic forecasts for the Aleutian and Cordova cens~s divisions and for the Yakutat area, respectively. Projections for Kodiak are based on economic forecasts for l(odiak-Shel·ikof and the census div·isions served via transshipn1ents: Bristol Bay, Bristol Bay Borough, Aleutian Islands and Cordova-McCarthy. Not included in the baseline projections of inbound cargo to Kodiak are increases in receipts of f-i sh for shipment to the Lower 48 or export.

At the panel meetings of June 27, 1980, our presentations will focus on the implications of _the regional economic scenarfo and the development scenarios for future patterns of waterborne commerce. We will also have ready for distr·ibution at the meeting an interim report summarizing our study findings to date and illustrating the possible tra~sportation routing options for movements of the projected cargo volumes.

Enclosures

39

,.

-SOUTHCENTRAL DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION STUDY ALASKA CONSULTANTS> INC. JUNE 17) 1980

REGIONAL ECONOMIC SCENARIO - REVISED

At the outset of the Southcentral Alaska Regional Deep Draft Navigation

Stage 2 Study> it was expected that the Southcentral Level B Water

Resources Study intermediate case population forecast would provide a

satisfactory basis for projecting future consumer cargo to be delivered

to Southcentral ports in the study area. However, during the Commerce

Panei meeting of May 27, some technical questions arose about the use of

the Level B forecasts for the purposes of the Nav1gation Study.

Consequently, the consultant was directed to resolve the questions, with

assistance from a subgroup of the panel.

Upon further investigation, new problems arose about the adaptability of

the Level B forecasts to the Navigation Study. Most-important> after

reviewing historic waterborne commerc:e data, it was evident that the

resident population of the Southcentral Region as defined for the Level ' -•' . . . " . . . - .

B Study omitted a·significant share of-the ri1arketing area of Southcentra.l

ports. For example, a substantial volume of inbound cargo to Anchorage

and other Southcentral por~s ~as in ttaniit and destined for Interio~ . i· ..

Alaska consumption. Similarly, a large volume of inbound cargo to

Kodiak was actually in transshipment to Weitern Alaska. Clearly, the

resident popu)ation of the Southcentral Region was not an accurate

measure of the population served by the Southcentral ports. For historic

trend analysis and for future commerce projections, it was advisable to

broaden the geographic boundaries of the regional economic scenario in

order to approximate more closely the future marketing area of the study

area ports. 40

Unfortunately, there is no available single forecast of population for

the relevant market area. Fortunately, the just published study of

Electric Power Consumption for the Railbelt (Power Study), employing

updated data and an updated version of the MAP model used for the Level

B forecast, presented forecasts through 2010 for the Anchorage (Anchorage,-

Matanuska-Susitna, Kenai-Cook Inlet and Seward Census Divisions) subregion,

the _Fairbanks (Fairbanks and Southeast ·Fairbanks Census Divisions)

subregion and the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Census Division. These census

divisions .encompass the.bulk of the Southce~ir~l ports marketing area

population. Furthermore, the developmental assumptions of the Power

Study's moderate case forecast were quite consistent with the development

scenarios chosen for the forecast of industrial cargo and bulk commodities

for.the Navigation Study. Therefore, the Power Study projections,

extrapolated through 2030, were taken as the basic e~onomic and population

fo-recast series for the Navigation Study, to_ be supplemented with forecasts

__ for_pt_her geographic areas. For the ro~~ cJ_ties of Yakutat and Cor_dova, ..

recently published population projecti-Ons through the year 2000 were

selected for use and extr,apolated through the 2030. In the case of

Kodiak,~ subregion not covered in the Power Study, it was assumed that

growth patterns would resemble the pattern for the State as a whole, as ·., . .

forecast in the Power Study. Also, since Kodiak is a transshipment port

for much cargo destined for the Aleutian Islands and Bristol Bay and

Bristol Bay Borough Census Divisions in Western Alaska, population

forecasts were also generated for those areas.

41

The population forecasts for the various subregions are summarized in

Table 1. Table 2 displays the specific developmental assumptions upon

which the moderate case population forecast of the Power Study was .

based.

To sum up, the advantages of.the Power Study version of the MAP model,

as updated from the Level B Study, are a more current population data

base and model; population forecasts for the Interior Alaska share of

the Southcentral port marketing area and consistency with the assumptions

of the development scenarios. On the other hand, the Power Study forecasts

do not encompass the whole economic region for the port study area, . .

necessitating that forecasts for some subregions (Kodiak, Aleutian

Islands, Bristol Bay, Cordova and Yakutat) be patched onto the basic . .

forecast. However, it should be noted, too, that port capacity threshholds

for these ports, perhaps excepting_ Kodiak, generally exceed small

variations in consumer cargo.

·,(.:.> '

42

ALASKA CONSULTANTS, INC. JUNE 17, 1980 SOUTHCENTRAL DEEP DRAFT STUDY

Anchorage Mat-Su

Kenai-Cook Inlet Seward 1/

1980 219.3

1990 282.8

t; 2000 361 .2

2010 440.3

2020 536.8

2030. 654.3

TABLE l

POPULATION PROJECTIONS SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA PORT MARKET AREA

1990-2030 (000 1 s of persons)

Fairbanks- Cordova Yakutat · S. E.. Fairbanks 1 / Valdez l/ Area 2/ Area 2/

59.3. 5:8 2.9 0.6·

78.9 8.8 3.5 0.7

100. l 11 .• 2 4.3 0.9

122.0 13.7 5.3 1.1

148.8 16.6 6.4 1.4

181.3 20.3 7.8 ,. 7

Kodiak- Aleutian Shelikof 3/ Islands 3/

9.3 8.9

12 ~ 1 11.6

15 .4 14.8

18 .8 18.0

22.9 22.0

28.0 26.8

Sources: l/ ~lectric Power Consumption.for the Railbelt, ISER, May 23, 1980 provided projections through 2010; thereafter, projected at a 2% annual growth rate.

y

3/

Northern Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development Scenarios~ Local Socioetonomit Impacts, BLM, October 1979, Base Case forecast through 2000; thereafter, projected at a 2% annual growth rate.

Alaska Consultants, Inc. estimate for 1980 population; thereafter, growth projected at same rat~ as for State as a whole.in Electric Power Consumption for the Railbelt.

Bristol Bay and

Bristol .Bay Borough 3/

5.9

7.7

9.8

11. 9

14.6

17.. 7

§:,ec::..al Projects

Tr~ns-Alaska ?i:;eli:-1·~

Northwest Gasline

.p-

.p-

Prudhoe Bay Pctrolcuu Production

~pper Cook Inlet. ?ctroleur.1 Pro-duction

TABLE 2

HODZRATE SCEXA:ZIO ECO;,\'OHIC ASSu1'!?TIONS

Descrintion

The construction of the TAPS was com-pleted in 1977. Additional construe-. · tion of four pump st-2.tions is assumed as well as pipeline operations.

Dates & Employment·

1979-1982 - Pun.p station construction of 90/year

1977-2000 - Operations employment of 1000/yr.

Railbelt Location

Operations e~ploy-ment allocated: · 1/3 to Valdez 1/3 to Fairbanks

Source

· E. Porte:::-, -~ 2rin:;;-Norton Sta tei:vid e- Rcgj.oncl Economic and Demographic Systems, Im::,act AnaJ.Ysis, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Progra~, Bureau of Land ~anagesent, 1980.

Construction of natural 1981-1985 - Construe- 1/2 of construe-. E. Porter, 1980. tion and trans-gas pipeline from

Prudhoe Bay which- in-cludes construction of an associated gas conditioning facility

. on the North Slope.

Primary recovery frcn Sadlerochit formation, secondary recovery using water flooding of that formation and development of the Kuparuk·formation.

E~ployment associated with declining oil production is assumed to be replaced by er.:ployment associated with rising gas pro-duction maintaining current lcvels·of employ.:tcnt.

tion peak en:.ploynent of 7,823 (1983) _portation employ-

1986-2000 - Operations begin employing 400· petroleu~ and 2~0 trans-port workers ,

1932-1984 -·Construction.· of water flooding pro-ject peak employment of 2,917 (1983)

1980-2000 - Mining employ-ment long-run average of.

·1,802/year

ment in Fairbanks

1980-2000 - Mining em- All in Anchorage ployment of 705/ye.ar. region

E. Porter, 1980.

E·. Porter, 1980

.i::--u,

Special Proiects

National Petro-leu::i. Re.serve in Alaska Petroleum Production

Outer Continental ·shelf Petroleum Production

Beluga Coal l'ro-duction

TABLE 2 (cont.)

., .. .,·.- MODE?-ATE SCENARIO ECOKOXIC ASS'L,'1':!PTIONS (cont.)

DescriPtion

Petroleum production in NPRA. Production in two fields with total reserves of 1.2 billion barrels equi-vale:1.ts of oil and gas. Construction of 266 miles of pipeline~

Production in six OCS lease sale areas: Beaufort 1 (1979) Lower Cook (1981) Beaufort 2 (1983) Navarian Basin 1 (1984) Hope Basin (1985) Chukchi Basin (1994)

. ' Mode.rat·e development

of Beluga coal .re-source for export.

Dates & Employment .\ . Railbelt Location

Leased between 1995 and 2013. Exploration and development begins in 1998. · Average mining employr.:ent of 286 (bc.tw-2.en 1998-2000) • ·

. ·Peak OCS employment · - mining - 4,900 (1996)

construction - 3,300 (1992).

1985-1990 - construc-tion -.pe~k employment of 400 (1987) ·

·1988-2000 - operations enplcyment of 210/year long-run a,·.,. ·~ge

Lower Cook lease •. sale in Anchorage region. Hec::d-quartcrs employ-ment averaging 12% of OCS mining

.employment

Located in, .. Anchorage. region

Source

Based on mean scenario under Management Plan 4 in Office of Minerals Policy and Research Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Final RePort of the lOS(b) Econo-mic and Policy Analysis, 1979.

E. Porter, 1980 (for Lower Cook and Bering-Norton lease sales). Employ:::nent scenarios for remainder of sales esti-mated based on N. Gulf (Sale 55) .high case ad-

. justed to include LNG plant (Huskey and );ebesky ,. Northern Gulf Petroleum Scenarios: Economic and Demographic Systems Im-;n1c ts, Socioecononic Studies Program, Alaska OCS Office, 1979). ·.

·Northern Gulf Scenario ~as adjusted by difference in resource estimates to ,produce sce~arios for specific areas. ·

Pacific Northwest Laborci-tory, Beluga Coal Field Develoument: Social Effects

. -and }fa.nage;11ent Altcr:12.tives, 1979.

\

.i::-

°'

Special Proiects

Alpetco P:::-oject

Pacific LN'G ?roject

I:1

.p,. -..J

.TABLE 2 · (cont.)

MODER.A.TE SCEXA.~IO ECONOl'lIC ASSU'l-1:?TIONS (cont.)

I:10.ustry Asscrnrotions

Forestry/Pulp and Pa?er }fa:1:..1.facturing

Other }!anu-f acturing

Federal Govern-ment

Descri-otion . Dates· & Err.ploymen~

E=.ploy.:nent expands to acco:Lc:odate 960 mil-lion board feet of lunber.

E:9ar.sion of e::dsting Growth of output at manufacturing of 2% per year. locally consumed goods.

Civilian employn1.ent assumed to grow at recent historical rate •. Hilitary constant at curr8nt l8vel. .

Civilian employment grows at .05%/y8ar

.Railbelt Location Sou:::-ce

App::::oximately 11% M. Scott, 1979.' of activity in Fairbanks region ..

81% in Anchorage, 15% in Fairba~ks, .4% in Vc1lclez

56% of civilian employment in Anchorage, 15% in Fairbanks, .3% in Valdez

R8gional distribution baseci. on existing di~tribut~on of employr:i.ent.

M. Scott, 1979.

SOURCE: Electric Power Consumption for the R~ilbelt: A Projeition of Requirements. Institute for Socail and Economic Research, May 23, 1980 ..

Section II Analytic Methods for Intermodal Planning

Intermodal planning and analysis has two general components. The

first of these is plan development in which alternative courses of

future action are assembled in a logical fashion. The second is plan

evaluation in which the consequences of action programs are explored to

develop information which can assist decision makers in their selection

process. Together, they provide a comprehenisve analysis of the techno-

logical and social interactions of the future proposed by a planning

program. They form an iterative basis for selection of a course of

action, and, if properly done, provide the supporting justification for

making selections. A good planning and evaluation system should have a

number of characteristics, including:

1. It must address the primary elements of each alternative and indicate the magnitude of both their internal and external interactions;

2. It must provide for comparability between alternatives;

3. It must develop information which addresses decision makers' requirements;

4. It must deal with the distributional effects of the conse-quences of a course of action;

5. It must be capable of determining the degree to which a course of action is consistent with broader policy goals;

6. It must provide constructive guidance (that is, it should provide information which might allow a decision to be made in a manner different from that which would have occurred had the planning and evaluation not taken place);

7. It should, if possible, rank and compare the efficiency of alternatives;

8. It should explicitly deal with the uncertainty associated with the outcomes or various courses of action.

48

Thus, planning and evaluation methods must produce and classify informa-

tion which becomes the basis for selection from a menu of transport pro-

jects and policies, It is worthwhile to briefly detail some aspects of

each of the eight attributes noted above.

The first point addresses both the need for selectivity and for

completeness in assessing the elements of a plan or project proposal.

While the principal is obvious, it has several corollaries and implementa-

tion processes which are considerably more subtle, One must first

identify the important interrelationships within a system and between

the system and its external environment. The usual method of doing this

in planning is to construct some type of model which describes the

system in terms of its components and their interactions. This model

building may take many forms and, for a single project, several or a

combination of several forms may be appropriate, These may consist of

simple physical or statistical descriptions, analysis of cross-sectional

or time-series information, or, on a more complex level, the establish-

ing of interaction conditions of descriptive variables to determine an

optimal system configuration or to simulate the effects of input changes

or operational variation, The most important aspect of any type of

modeling effort is that in the process of creating the model the planner

will gain an extensive knowledge of the phenomena with which he is

working, Often, the most valuable information gained from planning and

modeling is the realization that various types of interactions exist and

the way in which these may change in conjunction with the movement of

49

certain variables, This may be far more enlightening than learning the

magnitudes of movement, This is particularly so if these magnitudes are

somehow determined without an understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

This is not to say that the ability to deal with the magnitude of change

is not important, However, in any planning effort is is essential to

understand causal mechanisms before trying to produce results. It is

only by going through the discipline of this process that it is possible

to establish reliable estimates of interaction and to establish the

sensitivity of results to the variables being used to explain the causes

of change,

The second condition requires that the methods used provide results

which allow alternative plans to be compared. This deals both with the

format of the planning product and the methods used to obtain that pro-

duct, Simply stated, it requires that the results be developed and

presented in such a way as to place the outputs of different planning

processes or alternatives within a process into a systematic framework

permitting direct comparability. This requires that the assumptions

used to develop a set of alternatives be consistent excepting those

which directly define the differences between alternatives, It does not

require that all methods used to generate the planning results neces-

sarily be the same, Different alternatives may have dramatically

different characteristics which may, in turn, demand a variety of ana-

lytic methods. However, the results of the analysis process must be

consistent. That is, if a particular set of alternative characteristics

are measured in quantitative terms in one plan they must be measured on

the same basis and in terms of results having the same meaning in all

50

plans. Similarly, if a more qualitative scaling presentation is used in

one instance it must be used when judging the suitability of all alterna-

tives.

The third characteristic of useful analytic tools and of planning

products is that they must address problems of interest to the decision

maker and provide analytic results in terms which are useful for his

choice between alternatives, This addresses two problems for the planner,

The first is the determination of those areas of interest or potential

interest for a particular decision maker or set of decision makers while

the second requires the packaging of planning products in such a way as

to insure that the decision maker can make use of (and will want to make

use of) the information made available from the planning process. This

is a complex process and is often outside the scope of activities under-

taken by planners, However, if the planning effort is to be successful

then the process of identifying decision makers and their agendas is an

essential one, While understanding a decision maker's public statements

on a topic may be of some importance, it is usually more instructive to

speak privately with the decision maker, his aides (usually his principal

information sources), and those around him who may have influence on the

direction he may take on policy and operational matters, It is also

important to clearly understand the process (usually political) involved

in reaching a decision and the technical requirements in the decision

making process and decision implementation, This understanding of the

agendas of decision makers and how to influence the structure of those

51

agendas is of critical importance to the design and use of planning

methodologies, It will serve little useful purpose to construct a

technically sophisticated planning system if it fails to recognize and

deal with the realities of the decision making process,

After preparing a set of action alternatives for consideration of

decision makers it is important to properly package those results so

that they can be used, This is not a "public relation" process as might

be implied. Rather, it is a continuation of the precepts outlined above

in which the planner interacts with the political process which is

capable of implementing his plans, This segment of the plan simply

identifies those factors which will make decisions possible and offers

the opportunity for them to be better grounded in the planning process,

It then presents these results to the decision maker in a manner which

he can understand and which makes the minimum imposition on what is

usually a busy calendar. It is usually inappropriate to confront a

decision maker with a mass of statistical or technical detail. While it

is necessary to have this detail available should he wish it (and to

support plan conclusions), it is essential that most material be reduced

to the minimum quantity possible which can properly explain alternatives,

support recommendations, and explain consequences of actions taken, At

this stage it is also wise for the planner to remember that his value

system is likely to differ from that of either the decision maker or his

constituency. While it is inevitable that the planner's perceptions of

desirable outcomes will influence the planning product it is important

52

that this be carefully controlled least the results become inadmissible

to the decision making proces