Ports Compact Meeting
July 10, 2013
1
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Agenda
Introductions
Meeting purpose
Evaluation Criteria
Existing Conditions
Trends
Public input
Next steps
2
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Meeting Purpose
Summarize work completed since last meeting
Obtain concurrence on evaluation criteria/ratings
Obtain feedback on existing conditions
Summarize trends
Obtain public input
Discuss next steps
3
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Project Submissions
Three draft technical memorandum
submitted since last meeting:

Evaluation Criteria
 Existing Conditions
 Market Trends
Comments can be submitted today via discussion,
or in writing through July 24
Final memorandum to be posted online after edits
for Compact feedback
4
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Preliminary Evaluation Criteria
Travel time
Rail connectivity
Highway connectivity
ROW impacts
Consistency with plans
Capital costs
Environmental impacts
5
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
Socioeconomic impacts
Preserve existing
capability/strengths
Create economic
opportunity
Build on other
investments
Be a good neighbor
Seek the highest return
on investment
July 10, 2013
Evaluation Criteria – Tech Memo 1
Expanded evaluation criteria and organized into
categories:





Operational (efficiency, capacity, road & rail connections)
Economic (maritime jobs, regional jobs, new industry)
Land Use (consistency with plans and investments, ROW, DPA)
Environmental (impacts; ease or complexity of permitting)
Financial (capital cost, payback period, prospects for
federal or P3, availability of O&M funding).
Provided preliminary ratings
for each
Seeking feedback on criteria/
ratings
6
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Evaluation Criteria – Proposed
OPERATIONAL
Physical or functional impact on existing port operations (cargo, passenger, or fishery)
Impact to Existing Port Operations
2 - Enhances an existing port operation
1 - No impact on existing port operations
Capacity
Connectivity
Operational Efficiency
0 - Displaces or severely impacts an existing port operation
Effect on current throughput (cargo, passenger, or fishery as applicable)
2 - Increases overall throughput
1 - No effect on throughput
0 - Overall throughput decreases as a result
Connection to land-side infrastructure (highway, rail)
2 - Provides new connections
1 - Improves existing connections
0 - Does not affect connectivity
Upgrades or modernizes the operation of a port facility of business
2 - Improves port facility operation
1 - No impact on port facility operation
0 - Negatively impacts port facility operation
Ability to increase market share
Market Share
2 - Significantly increases market share (for any specific commodity/service)
1 - Moderately increases market share (for any specific commodity/service)
0 - Does not affect market share (for any specific commodity/service)
Organizational
Ability of port to manage improved asset(s)
2 - Improves operational management
1 - Does not affect management of port
0 - Complicates ability to operate
7
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Evaluation Criteria – Proposed (cont)
ECONOMIC
Maritime Jobs
Impact on employment in cargo, passenger, or fishery businesses in the port or in businesses immediately related
to them
2 - Creates new jobs
1 - Retains existing employment
Regional Employment
New Industry
Long-Term Sustainability and Resilience
0 - No impact on employment
Impact on regional employment related to the port
2 - Creates new jobs
1 - Retains existing employment
0 - No impact on employment
Opportunity created in a new industry
2 - Supports new industry expansion/development
1 - Neutral regarding new industry development
0 - Discourages new industry development
Long term outlook for the investment or operational strategy
2 - Investment has multiple alternative uses and benefits
1 - Investment has an alternative use or benefit
0 - Investment tied to one product or scenario
8
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Evaluation Criteria – Proposed (cont)
LAND USE
Consistency with the Local, Regional, and Commonwealth transportation visions, plans and objectives
Consistency with Transportation Plans
2 - Directly implements specific elements of Plans
1 - Generally consistent with Plans
Land Use Impacts
0 - Inconsistent with existing Plans
Compatibility with existing land uses
2 - Enhances existing and future land use
1 - Generally compatible with existing land use
0 - Incompatible with adjacent land uses
Impact on the effectiveness/value of past or concurrent investments (air, rail, highway, or other port)
Leveraging Other Major Investments
2 - Builds on or directly utilizes past or concurrent investments
1 - Does not affect/is unrelated to any past or concurrent investment
0 - Negates a past or concurrent investment
Extent to which property must be acquired for expansion
Right- of-Ways Impact
2 - No additional property is required
1 - Acquisition required but would not adversely affect property/owner/existing use
0 - Acquisition required and would result in change of use or other hardship
Secondary Impacts
Effect on sister Compact ports
2 - Improves any aspect of another port
1 - Would not affect other port use/market position
0 - Degrades any aspect of another port
Consistency with DPA requirements
2 - Fully consistent, requiring no relief or change
Designated Port / Chapter 91
1 - Generally consistent with the DPA but requires some relief or change (e.g., minor boundary adjustment,
change in existing DPA plan, etc.)
0 - Generally inconsistent, requiring DPA boundary change
9
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Evaluation Criteria – Proposed (cont)
ENVIRONMENTAL
Natural resources
Air Quality
Water Quality
Community
Impact on wetlands, parklands, and natural habitats
2 - Improves air quality
1 - Does not affect natural resources
0 - Impacts natural resources
Effect on emissions
2 - Improves air quality
1 - Does not affect air quality
0 - Degrades air quality
Effect on water quality
2 - Improves water quality
1 - Does not affect water quality
0 - Degrades water quality
Impact on host and surrounding communities
2 - Community would likely support
1 - Community would likely be neutral
0 - Community would likely oppose
Relative complexity of approvals and permitting
Approvals and Permitting
2 - The project does not trigger MEPA or NEPA review, and does not require a new or modified Municipal
Harbor Plan or DPA Master Plan; or such review/plan has been completed and approved (e.g., Record of
Decision, Final MEPA Certificate, EOEEA approval of MHP/DPA Master Plan
1 - The project requires one or more of the reviews listed above, the scoping process is compete or
substantially underway, and final clearance of the review(s) in question is expected in 18 months or less
0 - The project requires one or more of the reviews listed above and the scoping process has not begun or is
newly underway
10
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Evaluation Criteria – Proposed (cont)
FINANCIAL
Magnitude of Capital Cost
Recovery of Capital Investment
Estimated capital cost of improvements/action
2 - greater than $ 5,000,000
1 - $ 1,000,000 to 5,000,000
0 - less than $ 1,000,000
Projected timeframe for full payback of investment
2 - Less than 7-year payback
1 - 7 to 10-year payback
0 - More than 10-year payback
Demonstrated availability of long-term revenue stream to operate and maintain the improvement
Availability of O&M Funding
2 - A clear, dedicated revenue stream is identified, committed, and of sufficient size to support the
estimated O&M costs, including capital repair as applicable
1 - O&M costs are modest and the sponsoring agency has a future cash flow that appears sufficient
Prospects for Federal Funding
0 - Future O&M and revenues are not credibly aligned
Likelihood of securing federal funding for the investment
2 - The project is eligible for a specific federal funding program, the program is funded in the relevant time
frame, and based on specific interaction with the relevant federal agency the project would be
competitive
1 - The project is eligible for a specific federal funding program but its prospects are unclear
0 - The project is either not eligible for federal funding, or it is nominally eligible but unlikely to be
competitive
Potential for public-private partnership or other form of significant private participation in project costs.
Joint Public-Private Investment
Likely State/Local share
2 - The project specifically involves private participation in project costs
1 - Private participation is possible but prospects are unclear
0 - No meaningful or probable opportunity for private participation
The likely level of local/state investment, taking into account the prospects for federal and/or private
participation
2 - 25% or less local investment
1 - 25 – 50% local investment
0 - More than 50 % local investment
11
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Existing Conditions – Tech Memo 2
Overview of the port

Study area
 Location and access
 Organization and management
 Issues and opportunities
Analysis of port activities



12
Cargo transport
Passenger transport
Commercial fishing and seafood
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Boston Study Area
Strengths:
Cargo: multiple types
(container, fuel,
automobiles, bulk)
Passenger: cruise, ferry,
excursion
Fishing and seafood
13
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Fall River Study Area
Strengths:
Cargo: fuel import
Tourism, with potential for
passenger transport
14
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Gloucester Study Area
Strengths:
Fishing and seafood
Passenger: excursion,
cruise potential
Emergence of new marine
economy
15
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
New Bedford Study Area
Strengths:
Fishing and seafood
Passenger: ferry, excursion,
cruise
Cargo: bulk; multiple
capabilities at new terminal
16
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Salem Study Area
Strengths:
Passenger: ferry, excursion,
cruise potential
Cargo: fuel import
17
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Trends – Tech Memo 3
Global, National and Local Trends

Cargo freight
 Commercial fishing
 Waterborne passenger transportation
Other factors


18
Wind power
Climate change
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Cargo Freight
By 2040, U.S. cargo volumes will double
Container cargo will see greatest increase
Exports will see strong increase
Elevated trade with India and East Asia
Panama Canal expansion to benefit East Coast ports
Expanded Suez traffic benefits East Coast ports
Container opportunity and challenges in Boston
Marine Highway, hub-and-spoke, and short-sea concepts
could benefit a range of ports
19
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Commercial Fishing
Demand strong worldwide
U.S. demand will increase over time
Growth varies depending on species
Ground fish more regulated / less predicable
20
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Waterborne Passenger Travel
Generally posted gains despite economy
More cruise providers entering market worldwide
Boston growing as a cruise port despite loss in
overall U.S. share
Smaller cruises, excursion, and ferry use
expected to continue growing
21
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Other Issues
Wind Power
New Bedford seeks to become Cape Wind’s base port
 If successful, future potential in off-shore wind industry
 Gloucester and Boston see potential as well

Climate Change


22
Will require port infrastructure to address sea level
change
Could shift some fish stocks to colder water
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Next Steps
Finalization of Deliverables 1-3
Development of Deliverables 4-6
•
•
•
Port system analysis
Preliminary Recommendations
Financial Analysis
Compact Meeting – September 9th – Fall River
23
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013
Public Input & Contact Information
www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/StatewidePlans/PortsStrategicPlan.aspx
Matthew Ciborowski - MassDOT - (857) 368-8845 - matthew.ciborowski@state.ma.us
24
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
July 10, 2013