Marine Transportation System

Archive for the ‘Marine Highway’ Category

, , ,

Short Sea Grants on the Horizon

In Marine Highway on October 29, 2009 at 2:02 pm

In 2007 Congress approved marine highways as a new policy direction in a measure signed into law by President George W. Bush.  The Secretary of Transportation “shall designate short sea transportation routes as extensions of the surface transportation system…” and is authorized to “designate” short sea transportation projects.

Yesterday President Barack Obama signed a bill containing an addition to the policy and program.   “The Secretary shall establish and implement a short sea transportation grant program to implement projects or components” of a designated project.

Originally sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) the grant provision was part of a Maritime Administration Authorization Act, subsequently folded into a Defense Department Authorization bill (see title XXXV) that went to the White House.

This is a welcome addition to the still new policy initiative to increase marine highway use in the United States.  It is a modest but important enhancement of the 2007 law.  Money gives meaning to policy.  Even if it is just $15 million, the amount that the Administration is prepared to spend if Congress were to appropriate it.   (The  Senate version of the still unresolved DOT appropriations bill contains funding.)  Indeed the Maritime Administration budget plan includes $15 million for each of  the next couple of years.

The new grant program is broadly writ.  To be eligible to apply for funding a project must be “financially viable” and demonstrate that “a market exists” for the project services.  The Federal grant could be no more than 80 percent of the cost for which the money would be used.  That use presumably would be to cover capital costs.  We will see how the Maritime Administration further defines the new grant program through regulation in the months ahead.   Before they do that  MARAD will finalize the rulemaking first published for comment in October 2008 regarding the designation of routes and projects.   Pbea

, , , ,

HMT on the Marine Highway: Once is Too Much

In Marine Highway, Surface Transportation Policy on October 18, 2009 at 11:09 pm

The Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) discourages new customers for the marine highway.  It may not be the only number in the logistics calculus but it tops most to-fix lists.  Why?

Vessel operators, maritime labor, ports, and others agree that the HMT is most in need of a policy fix.  But the diversity of perspective sometimes means the prescriptions for a fix will vary…as will the way of explaining the issue.

If you ask someone to explain the HMT issue the response may be:  “It’s a double tax on cargo.”   I have heard  that  lone, simple statement made many times including by an  industry witness at a committee hearing.  It is how others are coming to know the issue.  A key Member of Congress recently explained the issue that same way.  Double taxation,  period.

The double hit of the ad valorem tax is a valid reason.  Imported cargo pays on entering a U.S. port, and then, when transshipped by coastal service to another American port, pays again.  But that explanation leaves out an equally important reason for Congress to approve legislation such as the Cummings bill in the House (H.R. 638) or the Lautenberg bill in the Senate (S. 551).

The single hit of the HMT on domestic cargo–much of which moves in trailers–is the other principal reason.   Domestic freight represents the greater percentage of goods moving on the roads today…far more than international boxes.   When the Port Authority of  New York & New Jersey studied trucking in that congested metro region less than 5 percent of the trucks on the road were carrying containers to or from the port.  This is hardly surprising.

So whether the cargo is riding in a 53′ trailer, or is a vehicle itself, that is the freight we need to attract to the marine highway.  Unlike the imports the domestic freight would pay only once.  That also is too much.

If the marine highway is to fulfill our expectation to enhance the surface transportation system and mitigate the interstate burden the J.B. Hunts, the FedExs and other companies should participate in blue and brown water services.

Exempting both international and domestic non-bulk cargo moving in the American domestic trade, and among Great Lakes ports, is the objective. It is a low-cost way to remove a disincentive for the use of efficient marine transportation and signal  a policy change to the logistics industry where the business decisions are made.

That says it all.    Pbea

, , , , ,

The Marine Highway Route to Climate Action

In Green Transportation, Marine Highway, Surface Transportation Policy on October 15, 2009 at 7:26 pm

BlogActionDayCall me silly, but I give benefit of the doubt to John McCain, Barack Obama, Al Gore (yes, him, too) and the slew of scientists who have convinced leaders around the globe that the time for action to address global warming is…yesterday.   (With such heavy stakes I’m betting on the smart guys–people of science.)

Closer to home, I trust people like marine biologist Marisa Guarinello, who on Sunday told me of her recent stint in Antarctica.  She witnessed the consequences of diminishing ice habitat and the effects on native species.

I also trust my gut, paunchy thing that it is.  I never expected in my lifetime to see terra-evolution.  From my early years in grammar school I learned, as we all did, about  the  Ice Age and other such periods that lasted over the course of  tens of thousands  of years.  When I see ongoing evidence of change (the Melting Age?) occurring in my lifetime it’s a bit unnerving.

Want an example?  How about the shrinking of the Arctic?  So much so that studies and early planning are underway for Arctic shipping routes as ice is reduced to being less of an obstacle.  I understand that there is opportunity in them thar high latitude shortcuts, but that opportunity has the look of silver lining an awfully dark cloud.

The Marine Transportation System can do more than take advantage of a disturbing, ecological change to Planet Earth.   It also can contribute to the reversal of GHG factors.

In fact the future of the MTS–the prospect for growth in maritime-centered mobility–is dependent on marine transportation being relevant in the Climate Change Era (CCE).

Our friends in USDOT might agree with that assertion.  They are preparing the administration’s view as to the next surface transportation policy.  Even as the policy is in development clear themes are being voiced by Secretary Ray LaHood and his team.  Sustainability.  Livability.  Mobility.

The Secretary sees the MTS as fitting neatly in that framework of principles.  He said marine transportation, specifically the development of the American Marine Highway (AMH), as transformational for the national transportation system.

Marine transportation is highly efficient.  It moves large volumes of  things using less fuel than  the other surface modes.  It has advantages from a GHG perspective.   However it isn’t a slam dunk for “Green Mode of the Year.”  But with the right investments it can do even better in contributing to our environmental and energy security.  Fuel switching.  Operational adjustments.  New technologies.

Government and the private sector have roles to play here.  Federal policy should aggressively foster both the use and greater advances in marine transportation.  Investments in technology, new equipment and AMH services by the private sector, or its public sponsors, should be rewarded.  Research should be supported.  Transportation policies in this CCE should be unified through the integration of modal policies and some programs.

Like it or not, change is happening.  There are implications for the Marine Transportation System.  Let’s make it work both for future generations and for the industry that supports millions of jobs.   Pbea

, ,

Say It Again, Solon

In Marine Highway, MTS Policy, Surface Transportation Policy on October 5, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Some things are worth repeating. Especially on the subject of putting our waterways and waterfront to greater productive use.

Here’s a for-instance — excerpts from a recent statement by Rep. John Mica (R-FL), the ranking minority member of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, as submitted to the America’s Marine Highways website.

  • “As construction costs rise, and as the resources to address our growing infrastructure needs become stretched thinner by the day, it is…important that we use all of our transportation assets more wisely and effectively.
  • “I have advocated for the development of a national strategic transportation plan that considers our various modes of transportation as components of one comprehensive system, drawing on the strengths of each mode, rather than as separate unrelated transportation systems.
  • “The nation would clearly benefit from the greater use of coastwise trade on our nation’s marine highways as part of a national transportation strategy” …. “Marine highways are energy efficient and can yield positive environmental benefits.
  • “If waterborne routes are to be fully used, industry must develop new options that are better suited for moving higher value and more time-sensitive goods.
  • “However, there are still roadblocks that may limit the establishment of new waterborne transportation routes. Chief among these is the imposition of the Harbor Maintenance Tax on cargo carried by vessel between U.S. ports.
  • “Of course, all proposals to better use our transportation system faces challenges…. Financing ships without the commitment of cargo is not easy. Obtaining a commitment for cargo without existing ships and an established schedule is not easy. Financing and permitting for the expansion of port facilities is never a simple or easy task….  However, these are challenges we can and must overcome.”

John Mica is an influential Member of Congress who is playing a key role in the crafting of the replacement for SAFETEA-LU, along with his counterpart Chairman Jim Oberstar, another supporter of the marine highway.   Mica is one of a small number of legislators who has spoken in terms of national strategic transportation planning, modal components being of a single transportation system, and the importance of developing the marine highway…all in the context of surface transportation policy.

That’s worth repeating…and reading in full.  With any luck his colleagues of the House and Senate will listen.   Pbea

, , , , ,

The MPO Role in AMH

In Marine Highway on September 26, 2009 at 10:34 pm

NYMTC

The Marine Highway effort took a big step forward,maybe three years ago, when former MARAD Administrator Sean Connaughton traveled to Little Rock for the annual meeting of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.  MPOs are the regional transportation planning entities responsible for developing Transportation Improvement Plans and selecting projects for Federal funding.  They consist of local government and transportation agencies including State DOTs.  The interest that an MPO shows in freight transportation depends on how well ports and other freight stakeholders engage their local MPO.

Connaughton, a former county official in Virginia, understood the role of MPOs and the Federal resources they have to support projects.  He knew also that most MPOs understood little or nothing about short sea shipping or most any form of marine transportation.  If transportation planners were to give consideration to coastal or inland shipping in addressing transportation needs they would first have to know it exists…and is relevant.

When MARAD later issued for comment the interim final rule for the America’s Marine Highway (AMH) program the notice effectively alerted transportation agencies that a new program was to begin.  Input was invited for the naming of marine highway corridors.  The response has brought to light many projects and a level of interest that previously had not been known.  (MARAD is expected to issue final rules for the program later this year and formally solicit project proposals early next year.)  Enter NYMTC.

An effort is underway by planners in the New York Metro region to gauge interest in the budding marine highway program.  NYMTC, the New York City and Long Island MPO, has scheduled a meeting for September 29th.  (See the “downloadable files” on the left menu of NYMTC site and find “America’s Marine Highways” on drop-down list.)   All are welcome to participate and one can view the meeting online.

According to Howie Mann of NYMTC the agency has reached out to neighboring MPOs–an important step because marine highway corridors inevitably extend beyond the limits of one or more MPOs.  Like the 64 Express project on the James River, undertaken by Barbara Nelson of the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission since that Little Rock meeting, these steps by NYMTC will add to public and institutional understanding and should prove useful.

Note:  If you are curious to know more about reginoal transportation planning and the MPO role, here is a worthwhile read about The History of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.   Pbea