The Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum Number 1
Port-Related Investments and Strategies Evaluation Criteria
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum Number 1
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
Background and Approach .................................................................................................................. 1
3.0
Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 1
4.0
Process
............................................................................................................................................ 6
List of Tables
Table 1:
Evaluation Criteria and Ratings ................................................................................................. 2
September 12, 2013
i
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum Number 1
The Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Port-Related Investments and Strategies Evaluation Criteria
1.0
Introduction
This technical memorandum presents the approach and criteria that will be used to refine and prioritize
port-related investments and strategies recommended as part of the Ports of Massachusetts Strategic
Plan. For the purposes of this memorandum, the term ‘alternative’ is used globally to refer to both
potential investments and strategies, which could include construction, organizational changes or policy
actions. Once a list of reasonable Plan alternatives is developed, each will be assessed qualitatively by
applying the evaluation criteria listed below to determine their relative effectiveness in realizing the goals
of the Plan and the Massachusetts Ports Compact. The purpose of applying the evaluation criteria to the
alternatives will be to assign an overall numeric rating to each. This rating will then be used as the basis
to refine and prioritize the list of alternatives to be included as recommended actions in the Plan.
2.0
Background and Approach
Each of the Massachusetts ports has unique physical infrastructure, including water depths, and
accessibility to local and international markets; operating infrastructure, and varied water-dependent uses
at their existing facilities. The uses at each port range from ocean cargo vessels to small and large cruise
ships, commercial fishing vessels, ferries, commercial charter and excursion vessels, research vessels,
water taxi services, and personal recreational vessels. The mix differs between ports, as do their
competitive market positions for each type of use. Understanding the special characteristics of each port,
therefore, and how these currently match market opportunities and constraints, is key to understanding
what can be obtained in additional cargo, fisheries, passenger and other use throughput. These traits are
also critical to understanding the kinds and levels of investment that will be required in both physical and
operating infrastructure to maintain existing, and capture additional market opportunities. From the
Commonwealth’s perspective, a successful investment strategy must include not only a grasp of realistic
market opportunities at individual ports, but also potential synergies between ports that can increase the
economic benefits to each, as well as to the Commonwealth overall. The evaluation criteria are designed
to assist in further developing those alternatives that will help prioritize investments and strategies that
best position Massachusetts ports for economic growth at all levels.
3.0
Evaluation Criteria
The goals of the Ports of Massachusetts Compact guide the development of the Ports of
Massachusetts Strategic Plan. The following are preliminary goals that are intended to frame
the key issues and criteria to be addressed in the Strategic Plan:
•
Increase mobility for people and goods within and through the Commonwealth in a safe, secure,
environmentally sustainable, and efficient manner;
•
Promote and adopt administrative efficiency and program improvement initiatives between and
among transportation agencies, authorities, and municipalities;
•
Share best practice techniques for project implementation across the Commonwealth; and,
•
Better integrate delivery of transportation services and goods across the Commonwealth.
September 12, 2013
1
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum Number 1
Using these goals as a backdrop, criteria were developed in consultation with the Ports of Massachusetts
Compact with the purpose of supporting its mission and developing strong and effective
recommendations. The general criteria developed at the April 30, 2013 Compact Meeting included:
•
Preserving existing capabilities and strengths at the Compact ports;
•
Creating new economic opportunities for local communities but also the broader state economy;
•
Building on investments made elsewhere in host communities;
•
Being a good neighbor;
•
Seeking the highest return;
•
Improving delivery to market;
•
Transportation infrastructure connectivity;
•
Right-of-way impacts,
•
Consistency with existing plans;
•
Impact on the environment; and,
•
Capital cost.
The general list of criteria above was then organized into five categories: operational, economic, land
use, environmental and financial. Within those categories, sub-criteria and values or ratings were
developed for each. Table 1 below shows the criteria and ratings for each:
Table 1:
Evaluation Criteria and Ratings
OPERATIONAL
Physical or functional impact on existing port operations (cargo, passenger,
fishery or maritime use).
Impact to Existing Port
Operations
2 - Enhances an existing port operation
1 - No impact on existing port operations
0 - Displaces or severely impacts an existing port operation
Effect on current throughput volumes (cargo, passenger, or fishery as
applicable)
Capacity
2 - Increases overall throughput
1 - No effect on throughput
0 - Overall throughput decreases as a result
Connection to land-side infrastructure (highway, rail, sea or processing
facility)
Connectivity
2 - Provides new connections
1 - Improves existing connections
0 - Does not affect connectivity
Upgrades or modernizes the operation of a port facility of business
Operational Efficiency
2 - Improves port facility operation
1 - No impact on port facility operation
0 - Negatively impacts port facility operation
September 12, 2013
2
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum Number 1
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)
Ability to compete with outside ports
Competition
2 – Improves competitive advantage
1 – No improvement to competitive advantage
0 – Impacts competitive advantage
Ability of port to manage improved asset(s)
Organizational
2 - Improves operational management of asset
1 - Does not affect management of port of asset
0 - Complicates ability to operate of asset
Economic
Impact on employment in cargo, passenger, fishery businesses or maritime
production facility in the port or in businesses immediately related to them
Maritime Jobs
2 - Creates new jobs
1 - Retains existing employment
0 - No impact on employment
Impact on regional employment related to the port
Regional Employment
2 - Creates new jobs
1 - Retains existing employment
0 - No impact on employment
Opportunity created in a new industry
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
Long-Term Sustainability
and Resilience of
Investment
2 - Investment has multiple alternative uses and benefits
1 - Investment has an alternative use or benefit
0 - Investment tied to one product or scenario
Long-Term Sustainability
and Resilience of Port
Operations
Long term outlook for port sustainability
2 - Investment improves sustainability of other port operations
1 - Investment is neutral
0 - Investment undermines sustainability of other port operations
Land Use
Consistency with the Local, Regional, and transportation, economic
development and harbor visions, plans and objectives
Consistency with Plans
2 - Directly implements specific elements of Plans
1 - Generally consistent with Plans
0 - Inconsistent with existing Plans
September 12, 2013
3
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum Number 1
Compatibility with existing land uses
Land Use Impacts
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, economic development 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
2 - No additional property is required,
Right- of-Way
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.
Effect on sister Compact ports
Secondary Impacts
2 - Improves any aspect of another port
1 - Would not affect other port use/market position
0 - Degrades any aspect of another port
Effect on upland areas
Upland Resources
2 - Enhances use of upland resources
1 - No effect on upland resources
0 - Restricts use of upland resources
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.
Environmental
Impact on wetlands, parklands, and natural habitats
Natural resources
2 - Improves air quality
1 - Does not affect natural resources
0 - Impacts natural resources
Effect on emissions
Air Quality
2 - Improves air quality
1 - Does not affect air quality
0 - Degrades air quality
Effect on water quality
Water Quality
2 - Improves water quality
1 - Does not affect water quality
0 - Degrades water quality
September 12, 2013
4
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
Technical Memorandum Number 1
Susceptibility to climate change effects
Climate Change
2- Not affected by climate change
1 - Moderately affected by climate change
0 - Substantially affected by climate change
Impact on host and surrounding communities
Community
2 - Community would likely support
1 - Community would likely be neutral
0 - Community would likely oppose
Financial
Projected timeframe for full payback of investment
Recovery of Capital
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.
0 - Future O&M and revenues are not credibly aligned.
Likelihood of securing funding for the investment:
Prospects for Public
Funding
2 - The project is eligible for a specific funding program(s), the
program(s) is/are funded in the relevant time frame, and based on
specific interaction with the relevant source(s), the project would be
competitive.
1 - The project is eligible for a specific funding program(s) but its
prospects are unclear.
0 - The project is either not eligible for public 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
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.
September 12, 2013
5
Ports of Massachusetts Strategic Plan
4.0
Technical Memorandum Number 1
Process
The study team, based on input from the Ports Compact members, community and port representatives
and industry input, developed the initial set of criteria, which was discussed at the April 30, 2013 Compact
meeting. Following that meeting, the general criteria were then expanded further to include the more
detailed sub-criteria and potential values/ratings for each. The expanded list was then reviewed with the
Compact at its July 10, 2013 meeting to finalize the criteria and ratings that will eventually be applied in
the alternative screening process. Once alternatives are developed, each will be evaluated against the
criteria and given an overall rating. The overall ratings will then be reviewed as part of the effort to refine
the preliminary list of alternatives down to a more reasonable set of implementation strategies. This
refined list will then be presented to the Ports Compact, who in consultation with MassDOT, will decide on
the final implementation strategy, the results of this process will be reported in the recommendation
section of the Study.
September 12, 2013
6