Benefit Cost Analysis
Tiger II Grant Application
Port of Anchorage
Barge Berths and Rail Extension Project
By
Scott Goldsmith and Toby Schwoerer
Institute of Social and Economic Research
University of Alaska Anchorage
August 17, 2011
Benefit Cost Ratio:
$103.084 / $29.880 = 3.45
Project Description:
Funds will be used to complete construction of wet and dry barge berths at the north end of the
Port of Anchorage (POA). The construction will include a cathodic protection system, roll-onroll-off (RORO) ramp, and upgrading of the backlands to create 12.5 additional usable acres.
The existing railroad line will be extended north to access the barge dock and this will also allow
direct access of the railroad line to the container dock. Access through the barge dock to the
uplands between the container dock and the barge dock will also be enhanced. These additions
will reduce costs of operations at the port and increase port capacity.
Project Cost:
$29.88 million in 2011 $.
Construction Schedule:
All enhancements are assumed in this analysis to be completed in 2011 although actual
construction would extend into the 2nd quarter of 2012 and benefits would begin 2012.
Benefit Cost Analysis Assumptions:
All benefits and costs are measured in 2011 dollars without inflation. Time period for analysis
extends for 20 years from 2011 thru 2030. Future benefits and costs are discounted to present
value at 7% annual discount rate. Project benefits are the difference between shipping costs and
environmental costs without the project (no build alternative) and those realized with the project.
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 1
Project Summary:
No Build Alternative (Baseline): Currently within The Project boundaries is: a dry barge berth
with limited use, fendering and mooring on a galvanized steel bulkhead with no impressed
current cathodic protection, and no utility trunk service (natural gas, power, water, sewer,
telecommunications); a wet barge berth with an incomplete galvanized steel bulkhead with no
impressed current cathodic protection, no utility trunk service, no fendering, and no mooring and
no roll-on/roll/off (RORO) configuration, a rail line ending 3,880 LF short of connection to the
berth/dock area, and 12.5 acres of undeveloped land adjacent to the berths. The dry barge berth
currently accommodates one user: a company that leases 5 acres to stage and move rock to the
Kenai Peninsula (2-3 trips per week during summer months).
The Project: The Port of Anchorage Barge Berths and Rail Extension Project (The Project) is
comprised of three components: dry and wet barge berth with roll-on/roll-off capability, 12.5
newly created acres, and extended rail line. The Project creates fully functional, state-of-the-art
dry and wet barge berths with roll-on/roll-off (RORO) capability for shipment of goods to
locations throughout Southcentral and Western Alaska, and includes installation of impressed
current cathodic protection to prevent corrosion of the dock structure, minimizing life cycle
costs. These facilities improve reliability and cost competitiveness in the movement of goods
from the barge berths to over 200 rural Western Alaskan communities. Constructing the barge
berths would also facilitate upgrades to the remaining docks so the POA remains economically
competitive in the long-term. Extending rail line to the barge berths creates an intermodal
connection for transfer of goods directly to and from the barges and rail to Southcentral and
Interior Alaska, including Alaska's five military installations. The Project creates 12.5 acres to
accommodate the operational needs of barge operators and construction projects throughout the
state.
Justification: Without The Project the ability to efficiently and most cost effectively serve the
needs of residents in many locations throughout Alaska is constrained.







Use of barge docks largely restricted to low value activities such as handling and storage
of bulk materials like rocks and gravel because backlands not developed.
Loading and unloading barges requires costly and inefficient pass-pass method utilizing
barge and shore cranes.
Barge dock face subject to corrosion requiring significant maintenance and replacement
costs.
Existing container traffic into Anchorage destined for rail transport must be moved by
truck several miles to the rail terminal adding to costs and road congestion.
Most barge traffic into south central Alaska continues to come thru Seward (130 road
miles from Anchorage) and Whittier (60 road miles), requiring transfer to Anchorage by
rail or truck and subject to delay due to avalanche and other weather related problems.
Dock and upland capacity constraints at the port mean that growth in freight demand will
be diverted to ports at Whittier and Seward. Transfer to Anchorage will require
movement by rail or truck.
Access to western Alaska by barge limited.
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 2

Port capacity to provide movement and storage of equipment and materials for natural
resource development and military operations limited.
Please see Details of Benefits below for an analysis of how The Project affects long-term
outcomes.
Project Users and Groups that Benefit: The Project would accommodate barge operators,
including a Large Barge Operator that is locating and expanding its business at the Port of
Anchorage (POA) as a result of The Project. Beneficiaries would include 237 rural Alaska
villages, including 99 that are designated as Economically Distressed Areas, customers that
receive commodities shipped through the barge berths, construction companies with projects in
those rural villages and the rest of interior Alaska, union employees, the Alaska Railroad,
military, the Municipality of Anchorage through increased revenue.
Types of Economic Effects: The quantifiable economic effects of the project include:

State of good repair benefits of $8.2 million

Economic competitiveness benefits of $93.6 million

Sustainability benefits of $1.3 million
Non quantifiable benefits are also briefly discussed in this paper.
Benefit Cost Model:
Project benefits were calculated using an Excel model originally developed for the TIGER I
application process that was expanded and modified for this analysis. All model assumptions nad
methods are identified and documented in the model spreadsheet. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Further
detail and description of assumptions is contained in Benefit Cost Analysis of Proposed TIGER
Discretionary Grant Funds, September 2009.
Detail of Benefits Attributable to Project:
(1) State of Good Repair
1a. Cathodic Protection—($8.21 million)
Installation of a cathodic protection system on the dock face reduces corrosion of the
structural steel pilings. This increases the operating cost of the dock but lowers the
replacement cost for deteriorating pilings. The savings is based on a published life cycle
cost analysis comparing construction using galvanized steel piles, baseline, with
construction using galvanized steel with an impressed current cathodic protection system,
The Project (See Port of Anchorage Expansion Project, Corrosion Control Report and
Life Cycle Cost Analysis, December 2007). The published analysis was adjusted for
consistency with the assumptions in the benefit cost analysis by netting out inflation,
setting the discount rate to 7% and restricting the life cycle cost calculation to 20 years.
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 3
(2) Economic Competitiveness
2a. Rail Extension—($10.91 million)
Container freight currently moving over the port that is transferred to rail for shipment
throughout south central Alaska must move about 3.5 miles by truck to the rail terminal
adding to cost and congestion. Extension of the rail line to the north end of the port
would eliminate the need for this truck transfer. This would save labor costs, time, and
fuel, as well as reducing congestion on the roads in the port area, eight of which are the
most congested intersections in the city, and expanding the value of the existing space at
the container freight dock. We limit our estimate of the benefit of the rail extension to
the difference between the cost of moving a container 3.5 miles by rail and the cost of
moving it by truck which involves additional loading and unloading.
Currently 10,000 containers move by truck from the port to the rail terminal annually at a
cost of $125 per container or $28.54 per ton. Extension of the rail line would reduce the
cost to $2.75 per ton for an annual savings of $1.13 million. The annual fuel savings
would be 2,500 gallons.
We assume the undiscounted savings will be constant each year since the container dock
is currently operating at capacity. However there would also be savings from any new
freight coming over the port that moves by rail which we have not quantified.
2b. Redirected Barge Traffic—($30.58 million)
Completion of the barge docks, uplands, and rail extension would allow barge traffic
currently coming from the west coast into south central Alaska thru Whittier (60 road
miles from Anchorage) to come directly thru Anchorage. This would eliminate the
transshipment of this freight by rail from Whittier to Anchorage. (Some barge traffic also
comes into Seward, 130 road miles from Anchorage, either by road or rail.)
Transhipment from Whittier adds to the shipping cost and time, and delays are often
encountered in the winter due to avalanches. The benefit we calculate is the cost saving
from redirecting a portion of the traffic that currently comes through Whittier to direct
barge service from Seattle to Anchorage. Although the distance and barge time by this
route is somewhat longer (about one day), this additional cost is more than offset by the
savings from avoiding the time and expense of the rail link from Whittier to Anchorage.
Currently 243,000 tons annually moves by rail from Whittier to Anchorage. We assume
half of the current tonnage would be diverted to the Anchorage barge dock. The cost per
ton of freight from Dixon Entrance (the international boundary between Alaska and
Canada through the Inside Passage sea route from Seattle to south central Alaska)
delivered to Anchorage by barge is $13 compared to barge and rail delivery thru Whittier
of $57, for a savings of $43 per ton. We assume the realized savings per ton would only
be half of this amount due to unidentified relocation costs for services. This savings takes
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 4
into account the additional fuel cost of the barge to Anchorage alternative which is .26
gallons per ton.
The initial year savings would be $2.64 million and this would increase at 2.5% annually
as the economy of south central Alaska grows.
Further evidence of potential savings from the redirection of barge traffic comes from the
fact that a current barge operator is interested in expanding his operations at the port of
Anchorage contingent on the barge dock upgrade. This would increase competition in
the freight market and put downward pressure on the price of moving barge freight.
2c. Redirected Container Growth—($47.24 million)
As the south central economy grows, demand for container freight coming from the west
coast through the port of Anchorage will increase at a rate estimated at 2.5% annually.
However the POA container dock is already operating at capacity so this growth will be
diverted to other south central ports—Whittier, Seward, Valdez, and Pt. McKenzie.
Upgrading of the barge dock would allow some of this incremental container traffic to
come directly into Anchorage by barge, avoiding the cost of transshipment by rail or
truck from other ports.
We assume this incremental freight traffic would be redirected to the POA barge dock
beginning in 2013 at a level starting at 39,000 tons. The barge dock would be able to
handle growth in traffic for a decade and thereafter the level would remain constant due
to a constraint on the availability of lay down space behind the dock. We assume half the
lay down space would be allocated to this use.
Because this incremental traffic would come by barge the cost savings per ton would be
less than if the container dock capacity were expanded to handle additional containers.
2d. Western Alaska Access—($4.83 million)
Completion of the barge dock would improve access from south central Alaska to those
western Alaska communities that are currently served only infrequent by barge service or
extremely expensive air service. Although developing a quantitative estimate of the
value of expanding the frequency and reliability of service to these communities was not
possible for this study, we were able to identify and quantify several types of potential
savings associated with this improved access. We conservatively assigned a value of
$500 thousand per year as the benefit of this improved access.
The annual cost of the US Postal Service Bypass Mail System is $150 million. That
program subsidizes the cost of parcel post mail delivery of perishables to bush Alaska by
small plane. That cost is passed on to parcel post customers in the rest of the nation
through higher postal rates. The Postal Service is continuously looking for alternatives to
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 5
air service to hold down or possibly even reduce the cost of this program.1 Recent
proposals have included the use of hovercraft on interior rivers and trucking on the road
from Fairbanks to the North Slope. Barge service to western Alaskan communities offers
an attractive possibility to save some program costs.
The cost of basic goods like groceries, building materials, and fuel increases with
distance from the commercial centers. According to the quarterly market basket survey
of the Cooperative Extension Service of the University of Alaska, a standard market
basket of groceries costs twice as much in Kotzebue in western Alaska as it does in
Anchorage, and a 2x4 costs 4 times as much.2 In addition, the differential in price
fluctuates considerably from quarter to quarter, partly because the availability of goods
depends upon the transportation links. When supplies are scarce because freight
deliveries are delayed or unavailable, prices tend to be higher, reflecting the value placed
on availability and access.
A large share of the higher cost of construction in rural Alaska is due to the cost of
barging construction supplies and materials to the work site. However transport cost also
factors into other elements of the cost differential. For example, it is much more difficult
to coordinate the timing of the elements of a construction project when transportation
access is limited. In some instances an entire construction season might be lost due to
difficulties associated with getting materials and equipment to the site expeditiously. The
Denali Commission, a joint Federal-State agency with an annual budget of about $100
million to build infrastructure for economic development in rural Alaska, has estimated
construction costs in remote sites may be double those in Anchorage.3 Improvements in
access could considerably reduce that differential.
2e. Not Quantified
Enhanced Military Preparedness--The Port of Anchorage has been designated as a
“Strategic Military Seaport”. This designation is assigned to those ports that the
Department of Defense utilizes for the quick movement of military equipment and
personnel overseas in times of crisis, and for the Department of the Army’s Military
1
U.S. Postal Service. 2006. Memorandum for john E. Potter, postmaster general, Chief
Executive Officer Subject: White Paper – USPS Cost Burdens (Product Number MSWP-06-001, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/5%20USPS%20Cost%20Burden
s.pdf
2
Corporative Extension Service (2010) Alaska Food Cost Survey, available at:
http://www.uaf.edu/ces/fcs
3
Nana Pacific. 2008. Update and Revise Cost Containment Benchmarks, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/6%20Cost%20Containment%20
Benchmarks.pdf
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 6
Surface and Distribution Command. The Port of Anchorage serves Fort Richardson,
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Fort Wainwright, Eielson Air Force Base, and Fort Greely.
The port is also the gateway to the largest training ground in the US in the interior of the
state.
Expanding the capacity of the port, including the rail line extension, will allow the
military to move personnel and materials more expeditiously without interference or
delays caused by competing uses of facilities. Since the value of military preparedness is
not subject to a market test, it is difficult to put a monetary value on the military
willingness to pay for this enhanced capacity.
Reduced Costs for Existing Alaska Businesses and Households--Virtually all consumer
goods and business supplies must be shipped to Alaska from the contiguous states,
resulting in a higher cost of doing business and a higher cost of living in Alaska than
elsewhere. Anything that reduces those costs frees up business profits and consumer
purchasing power that can be directed at new investment and consumer spending that
would both stimulate the current economy and increase the rate of economic expansion.
Resource Development--High transport costs reduce the profitability of developing
natural resources in the state—petroleum, seafood, timber, minerals—compared to other
locations in the U.S. and abroad. Lowering shipping costs can enhance the
competitiveness of some of these businesses. This could result in production increases in
Alaska that are not offset by reductions in economic activity in other locations. The
result would be a real increase in national income rather than a diversion of resources
from other activities. Enhanced resource production could also lead to a reduction in
imports from abroad which would positively impact the US balance of trade.
A number of large economic development projects have been identified as potential
sources of incremental demand on the capacity of the port in the coming years. The most
significant example is the construction of a gas pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas
to market in the upper Midwest. The steel pipe for the line would weight 3.6 million tons
and the project would require 1 million tons of materials. The population growth
associated with that project would further add to port demand.
In contrast, in 2008 the port handled a total of 4.4 million tons over the dock of which
most was containers and petroleum. Dry bulk and steel was 117,000 tons. If the
Anchorage port did not have the capacity to handle the demand created by pipeline
construction, it would have to be diverted at additional cost, to other south central ports
increasing the cost of moving supplies into the state along with the total project cost.
Another potential source of new demand will come from expansion of oil and gas
exploration and development from the North Slope of Alaska into the interior of the state.
Materials and supplies destined for the coastal and offshore North Slope oil fields
currently move in one of two ways. The first is by barge sealift directly from Seattle to
the North Slope during a short window during the summer when ice in the Beaufort Sea
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 7
moves offshore. The second is by a combination of rail and road from south central
Alaska ports.
The industry is interested in developing known deposits south of those on the Northern
coast which are not directly accessible by barge sealift. The Umiat oil field, about 200
miles south of Prudhoe Bay has 1 billion barrels of oil in place and the state is
considering constructing a spur road to access that field. 4 If that oil field were to be
developed, it is likely that it would be served entirely by road through south central ports
rather than by barge to the North Slope and then south by road.
Although it is unlikely that the cost of shipping would be the determining factor in
whether any of these special large projects moved forward, it would impact their
profitability, and consequently national income.
(3) Livability
3a. Not Quantified
Reduced Highway Congestion—Truck traffic from outlying ports into Anchorage must
compete with tourists in the summer and in the winter truck movement can be restricted
due to snow and avalanches. Any project that removes truck traffic from these highways
enhances livability.
Several road locations within the port have been identified as among the most critically
congested locations for freight traffic within Anchorage by the Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Freight Advisory Committee.
The rail extension would eliminate considerable truck traffic thru those intersections.
Increase in Quality of Land—This project would increase the quality of over 70 acres of
real estate at the port by improving its accessibility to both ocean and rail traffic.
Although the benefit cost analysis has quantified the direct benefits of this improved
access, the option of having this access is likely to produce economic benefits that have
not been anticipated in this study.
Increase in Modal Options for Freight Movement—There is value to south central Alaska
from having an additional option for moving goods into and out of Anchorage. For
example the highly seasonal nature of economic activity in Alaska, particularly
construction activity, can lead to congestion during peak periods even when there is
sufficient capacity on a year round basis.
4
Watt et al. (2010) Umiat: a North Slope giant primed for oil development. Oil and Gas
Journal Jan 2010 Volume 108.1, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/4%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Jo
urnal%20Article.pdf
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 8
(4) Sustainability
4a. Emission Cost Savings—($1.31 million)
The rail extension reduces fuel consumption thru a shift from truck to rail transport. The
redirection of barge traffic and container growth increases barge fuel use, but this is more
than offset by savings from the reduction in rail and truck traffic. This saves 6.6 million
gallons of fuel and 66 thousand tons of Co2 emissions. At a cost of $33 per ton (2009 $)
increasing at a rate of 2.4% annually, the Co2 emission cost savings would be valued at
$1.31 million. (This savings includes reduced nitrogen and particulate emissions.)
(5) Safety
5a. Not Quantified
Reduced Highway Accidents, Personal Injuries, and Deaths—Fewer trucks on the
highway would mean fewer accidents leading to personal injuries and deaths.
Furthermore, more efficient handling of freight is likely to reduce the incidence of
accidents at the port.
Enhanced Earthquake Response Capability—South central Alaska is in a location prone
to earthquakes and since almost all supplies and equipment come into the region by ship,
the availability of the port in the event of an earthquake is critically important.
Consequently, a benefit from the development of the barge dock is increased
capacity of the port to continue operating after an earthquake. The probability that an
earthquake would do significant damage to the port in the next 20 years is small, and the
benefit of improved response capability is also small, but the barge dock would provide
some extra insurance that does have a value.
Summary of Benefits:
Detail of the quantifiable benefits are shown in Table 1. and the non-quantifiable benefits are
listed in Table 2.
The net present value of quantifiable benefits is $103 million and the project cost is $29 million
all of which is assumed spent in the first year of the analysis (2011). The Benefit Cost Ratio-benefits divided by costs—is 3.45.
Table 1. Benefit Cost Analysis Summary Quantitative Information
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 9
Benefits (million 2011 $)
Initial
Cost
Project
(2011
State of Good
Year
Million$)
Repair:
Calendar
Year
Cathodic
Protection
Sum
($29.88)
Economic Competitiveness:
Redirected
Rail
Redirected
Container
Extension Barge Traffic
Growth
$26.54
$ (29.88) $
-
$21.46
$
$63.20
Sustainability:
Western
Alaska
Access
Emission Cost
Savings
$9.50
$3.20
$110.33
Undiscounted
Sum of Net
Benefits
Additional
Net Present Value CO2 Emissions Tonnage thru
@ 7% Discount
saved (metric
POA (000
Rate (1)
tons)
tons)
$204.35
2011
1
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
2012
2
-
$
(0.06) $
1.13
$
2.64
$
-
$
0.50
$
-
2013
3
-
$
(0.01) $
1.13
$
2.71
$
0.79
$
0.50
$
0.01
2014
4
-
$
(0.06) $
1.13
$
2.77
$
1.68
$
0.50
$
0.03
2015
5
-
$
(0.07) $
1.13
$
2.84
$
2.60
$
0.50
$
2016
6
-
$
(0.07) $
1.13
$
2.91
$
3.54
$
0.50
2017
7
-
$
(0.02) $
1.13
$
2.99
$
4.50
$
2018
8
-
$
(0.08) $
1.13
$
3.06
$
5.49
2019
9
-
$
(0.03) $
1.13
$
3.14
$
2020
10
-
$
(0.14) $
1.13
$
3.22
2021
11
-
$
(0.04) $
1.13
$
2022
12
-
$
(0.09) $
1.13
2023
13
-
$
(0.04) $
2024
14
-
$
2025
15
-
2026
16
2027
$
$73.34
(29.88) $
(29.88)
-
-
4.20
$
3.90
(299)
121
$
5.12
$
4.42
218
163
$
6.05
$
4.85
806
210
0.06
$
7.06
$
5.25
1,408
258
$
0.08
$
8.09
$
5.58
2,026
308
0.50
$
0.11
$
9.20
$
5.90
2,659
358
$
0.50
$
0.14
$
10.24
$
6.09
3,308
410
6.50
$
0.50
$
0.17
$
11.41
$
6.30
3,973
463
$
7.54
$
0.50
$
0.21
$
12.45
$
6.39
4,655
518
3.30
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.22
$
12.87
$
6.13
4,801
533
$
3.38
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.22
$
12.91
$
5.71
4,791
537
1.13
$
3.46
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.23
$
13.05
$
5.36
4,780
541
(0.10) $
1.13
$
3.55
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.23
$
13.08
$
4.99
4,770
545
$
(0.10) $
1.13
$
3.64
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.24
$
13.18
$
4.66
4,759
549
-
$
(0.10) $
1.13
$
3.73
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.24
$
13.27
$
4.36
4,747
553
17
-
$
27.87
$
1.13
$
3.82
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.25
$
41.34
$
12.62
4,736
557
2028
18
-
$
(0.11) $
1.13
$
3.92
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.25
$
13.46
$
3.81
4,724
562
2029
19
-
$
(0.06) $
1.13
$
4.02
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.26
$
13.62
$
3.58
4,712
566
2030
20
-
$
(0.16) $
1.13
$
4.12
$
7.77
$
0.50
$
0.26
$
13.62
$
3.33
4,700
571
NPV
$8.21
$10.91
$30.58
$47.24
$4.83
(0.01) $
66,274
$1.31
=
$103.08
1 Project net present value of $73 million is calculated as net present value of total benefits of $103 million minus costs of $30 million.
Benefit cost ratio is $103.08/$29.88 = 3.45.
Table 2. Benefit Cost Analysis Qualitative Benefits
(ii) Economic Competitiveness
(iii) Livability
(v) Safety
Reduced costs for current Alaska residents and businesses
Reduced transport cost for new resource development
Enhanced military preparedness
Reduced highway congestion
Increase in quality of land
Increase in modal options for freight movement
Reduced highway accidents, personal injuries, and deaths
Enhanced earthquake response capability
Sensitivity Analysis:
The sensitivity of the Benefit Cost Ratio was tested by considering three key assumptions of the
analysis subject to uncertainty.
A reduction in the growth rate of freight demand in south central Alaska from 2.5% to 1%
annually reduced the Benefit Cost Ratio to 3.3. The Redirected Container Growth (2c.) is
sensitive to the growth rate in demand, but the port has limited capacity to handle additional
containers. So the Redirected Container Growth benefit is limited by that capacity constraint and
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 10
reducing the growth rate in freight demand has little effect on this benefit or the Benefit Cost
ratio.
A reduction by half in the assumed cost savings for each ton of freight redirected to Anchorage
from outlying ports (or reduction by half in the tonnage) reduced the Benefit Cost Ratio to 2.2.
However the Benefit Cost Ratio of 3.45 is based on the assumption that only half the current cost
difference between shipping by barge thru Anchorage and outlying ports could be realized.
Consequently this sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the model result of 3.45 is quite robust.
The largest category of quantified benefits is the redirected container cost savings. If the current
container dock were able to handle additional capacity, or if it were not efficient to move
additional containers through an upgraded barge dock, the assumption of those benefits might be
incorrect. However if the benefits in that category were eliminated entirely, the remaining
quantifiable benefits would still produce a Benefit Cost Ratio of 1.9.
Benefit Cost Ratio at Reduced Discount Rate or Longer Time Horizon:
Using a discount rate of 3% increases the Benefit Cost Ratio to 5.4.
With a 40 year time horizon the Benefit Cost Ratio would be 6.2.
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 11
References
TIGER II Benefit Cost Analysis
Northern Economics Inc. 2006. Port of Anchorage Consolidation and Distribution Concept
Feasibility Study. Prepared for Anchorage Economic Development Corporation,
available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/1%20Consolidation%20Distribu
tion%20Study.pdf
Northern Economics Inc. 2008. Port of Anchorage Transportation Cost Comparison Study.
Prepared for Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/2%20Cost%20Comparison%20S
tudy.pdf
VZM (Vickerman Zachary Miller/ Transsystems). 1999. Regional Port of Anchorage Master
Plan, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/3%20POA%20Master%20Plan.p
df
Watt et al. (2010) Umiat: a North Slope giant primed for oil development. Oil and Gas
Journal Jan 2010 Volume 108.1, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/4%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Jo
urnal%20Article.pdf
U.S. Postal Service. 2006. Memorandum for john E. Potter, postmaster general, Chief
Executive Officer Subject: White Paper – USPS Cost Burdens (Product Number MSWP-06-001, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/5%20USPS%20Cost%20Burden
s.pdf
Nana Pacific. 2008. Update and Revise Cost Containment Benchmarks, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/6%20Cost%20Containment%20
Benchmarks.pdf
Erickson & Associates. 2009. Summary Appraisal Report Market Rental Value North and
South Backlands Port of Anchorage Subdivision, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/7%20POA%20Land%20Lease%
20Value.pdf
Port of Anchorage. 2008. Three letters of intent, Subject: Lease of POA property in Dry
Barge Berth Area Port of Anchorage North Expansion, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/8%20Letters%20of%20Intent.pd
f
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 12
Coffman Engineers. 2007. Port of Anchorage Expansion Project Corrosion Control Report
Cook Inlet, Alaska, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/10%20Corrosion%20Control.pdf
Coffman Engineers. 2007. Port of Anchorage Expansion Project Corrosion Control Life
Cycle Cost Analysis, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/11%20Life%20Cycle%20Cost%
20Analysis.pdf
Alaska Railroad Corporation. 2009. Email communication between ARRC and POA about
trucking costs at POA, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/12%20Trucking%20Cost.pdf
Port of Anchorage . 2004. Road and Rail Extension Environmental Assessment, available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/TIGERIIBCA/13%20Rail%20Extension%20E
A.pdf
Kim et al. 2010. Prioritization of Future Freight Infrastructure Projects within the Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS), Available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/traffic/AMATS/Documents/FACProjectrpt20100428.pdf
Corporative Extension Service (2010) Alaska Food Cost Survey, available at:
http://www.uaf.edu/ces/fcs
Port of Anchorage. 2009. Port of Anchorage Annual Tonnage. Available at:
http://www.muni.org/Departments/port/Documents/AnnualTonnage.pdf
TIGER I Benefit Cost Analysis (Many of these references are used in TIGER II Analysis)
Alaska Marine Lines. 2009. Personal communication
Atkinson and Boore. 2003. Empirical Ground Motion Relations for Subduction Zone
Earthquakes and Their Application to Cascadia and Other Regions. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 93, No. 4, pp: 1703-1729.
Campbell, Harry F. and Richard P.C. Brown, Benefit-cost Analysis: Financial and Economic
Appraisal using Spreadsheets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2009. Petroleum Product Prices. Report #:DOE/EIA0383(2009) Table 12. Petroleum Product Prices
Environmental Protection Agency_a. 2009. Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.htm#carbon
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 13
Environmental Protection Agency_b. 2009. Proposed Standards for Heavy-Duty Highway
Engines and Vehicles. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/diesel/f00022.htm#3
Federal Register.2009.Notice of Funding Availability for Supplemental Discretionary Grants for
Capital Investments in Surface Transportation Infrastructure Under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act/Vol. 74, No. 115 /Wednesday, June 17, 2009 /Notices,
page 28755-28767.
Google. 2009. Google Earth software. Available at: http://earth.google.com/
Gregor, N.J., Silva, W.J., Wong, I.G., and Youngs, R.R. 2002. Ground-Motion Attenuation
Relationships for Cascadia Subduction Zone Megathrust Earthquakes based on a Stochastic
Finite-Fault Model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 5, pp:
1923-1932.
Greydanus, Stuart. Personal communication.
Hanley, Nick and Clive L Spash. Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar,
Northampton, 1993.
Morgan, M. Granger, and Max Henrion. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in
Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
Musso, Enrico, Claudio Ferrari and Mrco Benacchio. “Port Investment: Profitability, Economic
Impact and Financing”in Port Economics, edited by Kevin Cullinane and Wayne Talley,
Elsevier, Oxford, 2006.
Nassco. 2009. Personal communication.
Okuyama, Yasuhide and Stephanie E. Chang, editors. Modeling Spatial and Economic Impacts
of Disasters. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
PND Engineers. 2008. Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal Redevelopment Geotechnical
Analysis Report
POA (Port of Anchorage). 2005. Marine Terminal Redevelopment Environmental Assessment,
EIS.
Privratsky, Ken, Letter to Alaska Legislature regarding Port of Anchorage funding, March 20,
2008.
R&M Engineers. 2009. Communication about POA susceptibility to earthquake damage.
TOTE. 2009. Personal communication.
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 14
URS. 2008. Site-Specific Probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard analysis and
development of earthquake ground motions for the Port of Anchorage Expansion Project,
Alaska
USDOT. 2009. Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light
trucks: Final Regulatory Impact Analysis. Available at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/N
HTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_Final_Rule_MY2011_FRIA.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. Transportation Indicators. available at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/intensityindicators/docs/transportation_indicators.xls
USGS. 2009. 2002 Earthquake Probability Maps. Available at:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/shakemap/images/scale.jpg
TOTE (Totem Ocean Trailer Express). 2009. TOTE ships Orca class. Available at:
http://www.totemocean.com/ts-ships.htm
Youngs, R.R., Chiou, S.-J., and Silva, W.J. 1997. Strong Ground Motion Attenuation
Relationships for Subduction Zone Earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68,
1, pp: 58-73.
Tiger II BCA Port of Anchorage
Page 15