Ohio Maritime Study (Client Ref: VAR/STW/Ohio Maritime Study)

Transcription

1 Working Paper Ohio (Client Ref: ) Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Prepared for: Ohio Department of Transportation Prepared by: CPCS Transcom Inc. In association with: W.R. Coles and Associates Dr. Peter Lindquist, University of Toledo CPCS Ref: March 10, 2017 (revised)

2 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Ohio The overarching objective of the Ohio is to inform the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) as it seeks to best leverage Ohio s maritime transportation system (MTS) to enable Ohio s economic competitiveness and growth. Working Paper This Working Paper is the first of seven that together inform the Ohio Maritime Study. This first Working Paper provides an overview of Ohio s maritime transportation system, the assets that comprise the system both on Lake Erie and the Ohio River, as well as a discussion the system s use, capabilities and constraints. Acknowledgments / Confidentiality The CPCS Team acknowledges and is thankful for the input of those consulted in the development of this Working Paper, as well as the guidance and input of representatives from ODOT. Opinions Unless otherwise indicated, the opinions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of ODOT, the Ohio Steering Committee, or the State of Ohio. Contact Questions and comments on this Working Paper can be directed to: Marc-André Roy Project Manager T: x 306 mroy@cpcstrans.com Cover image source: CPCS

3 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Table of Contents List of Figures and Images... v Acronyms / Abbreviations... vii Glossary of Key Terms... viii Executive Summary... ix 1 Overview of Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Nature of Waterway System Use Total Volumes Handled Marine Modal Share Direction of Marine Flows Ohio s MTS on Lake Erie Markets Served and Connectivity Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway System Vessels Ohio s MTS on the Ohio River Markets Served and Connectivity Inland River Vessels Ohio MTS Facilities, Connections and Capabilities Lake Erie MTS Facilities Most Significant Lake Erie Port Facilities Lock Infrastructure Providing Connectivity to Lake Erie Ohio River MTS Facilities Ohio River MTS Terminals Ohio River Locks & Dams Ohio MTS Physical Constraints On the Waterway Lake Erie MTS Ohio River At the Port On Dock Equipment Port Configuration Outside the Gate Connectivity iii

4 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Community Next Steps Next Steps iv

5 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System List of Figures and Images Figure ES-1: Ohio MTS as a Key Component of the State s Multimodal Freight Transportation System... x Figure 1-1: Ohio Waterborne Commerce by Commodity and Water Network ( million tons)... 2 Figure 1-2: Traffic Share of Marine Mode vis-à-vis Other Transportation Modes in Domestic (US) Trade of Ohio (2015)... 3 Figure 1-3: Direction of Trade Tonnage at Lake Erie (Left) and Ohio River (Right) Ohio MTS Facilities (2014)... 4 Figure 1-4: GLSLSS Maritime Transportation System... 5 Figure 1-5: Lake Erie Port Traffic (2015)... 6 Figure 1-6: Lake Erie Maritime Transportation System Traffic Tonnage Mix (2015)... 7 Figure 1-7: Dimensional Capacity of GLSLSS Locks... 8 Figure 1-8: Typical Straight Deck (left) and Self-Unloading (right) GLSLSS Bulkers... 9 Figure 1-9: Typical Tug/Barge Units on the Great Lakes... 9 Figure 1-10: Typical Multipurpose Salty Figure 1-11: Summary of US and Canadian Flagged Commercial Marine Vessels Operating in the GLSLSS Figure 1-12: US Flag Great Lakes Fleet Figure 1-13: Ohio and Inland River System Figure 1-14: Ohio River System Flows Figure 1-15: Ohio River Maritime Transportation System Traffic Tonnage Mix (2015) Figure 1-16: Ohio River Maritime Transportation System Traffic Mix by Lock (2015) Figure 1-17: Covered Hopper Barge Holding Aluminum T-bars at an Ohio River Terminal Figure 1-18: Typical 15-Barge Tow on the Ohio River Figure 1-19: 8-Barge Mixed (Liquid and Dry Cargo) Tow Figure 1-20: Liquid Unit Tow Figure 1-21: Typical Tow on the Lower Mississippi River Figure 1-22: Summary of Vessels Moving Freight on Mississippi River System (including Ohio River) Figure 2-1: Lake Erie MTS Facilities Figure 2-2: Lake Erie Principal Ports Figure 2-3: Cleveland Port Traffic by Commodity, and Historic Totals (inset) (Million Tons) Figure 2-4: Port of Cleveland Facilities Figure 2-5: Port of Cleveland Facilities (Selection) Figure 2-6: Port of Toledo Port Traffic by Commodity, and Historic Totals (inset) (Million Tons) Figure 2-7: Port of Toledo Facilities Figure 2-8: Port of Toledo Facilities (Selection) v

6 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-9 Lake Erie MTS Facilities Traffic Excluding at Cleveland and Toledo by Commodity, and Historic Totals (inset) (Million Tons) Figure 2-10: St. Lawrence Seaway Lock System Figure 2-11: St. Lawrence Seaway Traffic by Selected Major Ohio Port (2014) Figure 2-12: Ohio River Docks, Locks and Dams Figure 2-13: Number and Categorization of Ohio River Terminals by County and by Segment Figure 2-14: Ohio River Traffic by County (Ohio traffic only) Figure 2-155: Aerial View of the CCPA Bridge Crane Figure 2-16: Ohio River Locks and Dams Figure 2-17: Locks and Dams on the Ohio River Figure 2-18: Greenup Locks and Dam Figure 2-19: 15-Barge Tow in a 1200-foot Lock Figure 2-20: Ohio River Locks Figure 2-21: Barge Tow in a 600-foot Lock Chamber Figure 2-22: Tow Entering a Lock Figure 3-1: Change in Surface Water Levels, Figure 4-1: Ohio Work Plan Tasks Figure 4-2: Project Work Plan vi

7 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Acronyms / Abbreviations CAGR CCPA CN CPCS CSX FAF FTZ GIS GLSLSS LDB MARAD MLO MN MTS NCHRP NRT NS ODOT OH ORM ORS PA RDB SLSDC SLSMC TEU US USACE WCSC WRDA Compounded Annual Growth Rate Columbiana County Port Authority Canadian National Railway CPCS Transcom Limited CSX Railroad Freight Analysis Framework Foreign Trade Zone Geographic Information System Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway System Left Descending Bank US Maritime Administration Montreal and Lake Ontario Minnesota Maritime Transportation System National Cooperative Highway Research Program Net registered tonnage Norfolk Southern Ohio Department of Transportation Ohio Ohio River mile Ohio River System Pennsylvania Right Descending Bank St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit (container) United States United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center Water Resources Reform and Development Act vii

8 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Glossary of Key Terms Lakers Port commercial definition Port port authority Port principal port or Waterborne Commerce Statistical Area Salties Short ton Terminal General purpose terminal Special purpose terminal Ships principally serving Great Lakes trades. Most were purpose built for domestic and transborder bulk trades within the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River. Canadian-flagged Lakers are generally designed to transit the Seaway whereas many US-flagged Lakers ( 1000 footers ), are designed to transit the Soo locks to/from Lake Superior, but remain within the Upper Lakes as they are too large to transit the Seaway locks to the east. For purposes of this Ohio, the term port shall be the multiuse area contiguous with a navigable lake, harbor or waterway that encompasses the actual water frontage, as well as holding land for existing and future operations and development. A special purpose public agency chartered or formed under state enabling legislation with specific delineation of the physical boundaries for its powers and duties. Port authorities can own land, set fees, and levy taxes. Local governments frequently establish port authorities to promote or support economic development. Principal ports are the definition used by the USACE for its Waterway Commerce Statistics Center data. When port is used to define a waterborne commerce statistical area, it must not be confused with port authority as defined above. Ocean going vessels calling Great Lakes ports and serving international trade. Salties are often specifically designed to Seaway dimensions. A short ton is a unit of weight equal to 2,000 lbs. Short tons are the typical unit of weight used in the bulk maritime trade in the United States. Conversely a metric tonne, as is more common internationally, is a unit of weight equal to 1000kg. A short ton is equivalent to 0.91 metric tonnes. A terminal is a transfer facility for loading and unloading cargo from ships or barges. The terminal typically provides some form of inside or outside storage for accumulation of ship-load or barge-load quantities for materials outbound by water, or for inbound movements of large quantities which may be off-loaded from vessels in a single day and distributed by truck or rail over several days or weeks. Terminals can be publicly or privately owned and/or operated. General purpose terminals serve a variety of traffic types and are more versatile than special purpose terminals. A general purpose terminal is sometimes referred to as a public terminal because it serves the public, not because it is owned by a public entity. Special purpose terminals serve a specific type of traffic (e.g. petroleum products, cement, grain) moving in a single direction, are designed to be highly efficient for a single cargo rather than for versatility. They are often, but not always, privately owned. viii

9 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Executive Summary Introduction The objective of this Ohio Maritime Transportation Study is to inform the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) as it seeks to best leverage Ohio s maritime transportation system (MTS) to enable Ohio s economic competitiveness and growth. This Working Paper is the first of seven that together inform the Ohio. It provides an overview of Ohio s maritime transportation system, the assets that comprise the system both on Lake Erie and the Ohio River, as well as a discussion of the system s use, capabilities and constraints. Working Paper 1 and Supporting GIS Maps of Ohio s MTS Working Paper 2 on Ohio MTS Governance Working Paper 3 on Role of MTS in Ohio s Economy Working Paper 4 on MTS Demand and Associated Requirements Working Paper 5 on Options for Expanding MTS Use Working Paper 6 on Best Practices and Related Options for ODOT Working Paper 7 on ODOT Role Ohio Report Overview of Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Ohio s MTS is a key component of the state s multimodal freight transportation system. It comprises: 2 major waterways: Lake Erie and the Ohio River 736 navigable miles of waterway, including coastal miles along Lake Erie, 11 navigable miles along the Maumee River, 9 navigable miles along the Cuyahoga River, and river miles along Ohio s portion of the Ohio River 8 principal ports 1 on Lake Erie, including the Ports of Cleveland and Toledo, and dozens and docks and terminals along the Ohio River 162 commercial docks 2, the majority of which are along the Ohio River 9 locks and dams on the Ohio portion of the Ohio River The ports, terminals, and docks that provide connectivity to Ohio s MTS handle between 80 million and 100 million short tons of freight per year ( ), valued at over $12 billion (2015). Bulk commodities, notably coal, iron ore, limestone and other aggregates, grain and 1 Principal ports, as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers 2 US Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio Profile, 2015 ix

10 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System petroleum products are among the major commodities handled by Ohio MTS facilities. Inbound flows comprise the largest share of Ohio MTS freight flows on both Lake Erie and the Ohio River. The largest share of Ohio MTS freight flows by volume (58%) is carried on the Ohio River. Lake Erie marine traffic is largely served by Laker and ocean going Salty vessels, whereas on the Ohio River, marine traffic is predominantly handled by barges. Figure ES-1: Ohio MTS as a Key Component of the State s Multimodal Freight Transportation System Source: CPCS, US Army Corp of Engineers, Consultations Ohio MTS Facilities, Connections and Capabilities Of the principal ports on Lake Erie in Ohio, the Port of Cleveland the Port of Toledo are the two most significant, together handling close to 60% of total tonnage moving through Lake Erie MTS facilities (or 13.7 million tons and 8.5 million tons in 2015, respectively). Both ports include common user general cargo facilities equipped to handle most types of traffic (including containers at the Port of Cleveland), shipyards, and covered and outdoor storage facilities able to accommodate twice the current levels of traffic. In addition, there are dozens of private docks throughout Lake Erie, including in and around the ports of Cleveland and Toledo. Bulk traffic comprises the largest share of Lake Erie MTS traffic. x

11 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Ohio s Lake Erie MTS is connected to the Atlantic Ocean, to the east, via the locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway (operated by Canadian and US Seaway corporations), and to Lake Superior to the west, via the locks at Sault St. Marie (Soo Locks) (operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE). Many Lake Erie MTS facilities also have strong rail connections either directly with Class I railroads, or via short lines. There are 118 terminals along the Ohio River in the State of Ohio, providing access to the marine highway system and connectivity to global markets via the Gulf Coast ports of New Orleans, Louisiana, and Mobile, Alabama. Terminals are primarily privately owned. The two publicly owned terminals on the Ohio River in Ohio are integral to economic development efforts in Columbiana County and Lawrence County. Some private terminals could add general cargo capabilities but are constrained due to the capital intensive nature of investments required to do so. Ohio MTS Physical Constraints For the most part, MTS facilities on Lake Erie have significant excess capacity. There are few other physical constraints, other than relating to particularly heavy and dimensional cargo (lift capacity, restrictions to movement of dimensional cargo) on MTS access roads. The Ohio River also has excess capacity and represents untapped potential for increased state and regional prosperity, as the state of Ohio engages in marketing for new industry, developing capabilities in trending industry sectors, and establishing new businesses, many of which need maritime support. The most concerning physical constraints on the Ohio River are centered on inadequate federal funding for maintenance of locks and dams and landside connectivity issues to link the River to inland industrial centers. Physical constraints of the performance of Ohio s MTS (as distinct from regulatory, policy and funding constraints, which are the subject of another working paper) include: Seasonality, which restricts navigation and MTS access from late December to late March due largely to ice conditions Draft issues at certain Lake Erie facilities, resulting from a combination of silting, a dredging backlog, and varying water levels to do a range of environmental factors Aging locks and dams on the Ohio River, causing unplanned outages and creating risks to system resiliency. Consultations on the Ohio River are scheduled through February. The primary physical issue cited to date is landside access. Landside access connections to ports, such as roadwaywidening, addition of truck turn lanes and rail grade separation projects would improve access to economical river transportation for many inland industries. xi

12 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System 1 Overview of Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Key Messages Lake Erie and the Ohio River comprise the core of Ohio s maritime transportation system (MTS). The ports, terminals and docks that provide connectivity to Ohio s MTS handle between 80 million and 100 million short tons of freight per year ( ), valued at over $12 billion (2015). Bulk commodities, notably coal, iron ore, limestone and other aggregates, grain and petroleum products are among the major commodities handled by Ohio MTS facilities. Inbound flows comprise the largest share of Ohio MTS freight flows on both Lake Erie and the Ohio River. The largest share of Ohio MTS freight flows by volume (58%) and by value (70%) is carried on the Ohio River. Lake Erie marine traffic is largely served by laker and ocean going salty vessels, whereas marine serves to MTS facilities on the Ohio River is predominantly handled by barges. Ohio s maritime transportation system (MTS) is a key component of the state s multimodal freight transportation system. It comprises: 2 major waterways: Lake Erie and the Ohio River 736 navigable miles of waterway, including coastal miles along Lake Erie, 11 navigable miles along the Maumee River, 9 navigable miles along the Cuyahoga River, and river miles along Ohio s portion of the Ohio River 8 principal ports 3 on Lake Erie, including the Ports of Cleveland and Toledo, and dozens and docks and terminals along the Ohio River 162 commercial docks 4, the majority of which are along the Ohio River 9 locks and dams on the Ohio portion of the Ohio River 3 Principal ports, as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers 4 US Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio Profile,

13 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System 1.1 Nature of Waterway System Use Total Volumes Handled Ohio s MTS handled about 84 million tons of freight in 2015 (down from 97 million tons in 2014), valued at over $12 billion. 5.The share of these flows on Ohio s Like Erie MTS was 35.3 million tons with an estimated value of $3.6 billion; the share moving on the Ohio River in Ohio was 48.4 million tons, with an estimated value of approximately $8.5 billion. Most of this waterborne commerce is low value-to-weight bulk traffic that is not particularly time sensitive. Iron ore is the most significant flow by volume on Lake Erie, and coal is the largest flow by volume on the Ohio River. Note that these flows are specific to Ohio. Figure 1-1: Ohio Waterborne Commerce by Commodity and Water Network Others Chemical Fertilizers Chemicals excl. Fertilizers Primary Non-Metal Products Primary Metal Products Petroleum Products Food and Food Products Unknown & Not Elsewhere Classified Iron Ore, Iron, & Steel Scrap Sand, Gravel, Shells, Clay, Coal, Lignite, and Coal Coke River 58% Lake 42% Undetermined River Lake ( million tons) 6 Source: CPCS Analysis of WCSC Data Marine Modal Share Marine transportation handles about 4% of all domestic (i.e. US) freight tons carried in Ohio, and a much smaller share of freight, by value. When looking at flows carried within Ohio (with origin and destination in the State), these shares were 1.2% and 0.1%, respectively. The marine share of international transportation flows (imports and exports) to and from Ohio is far greater, representing 78% of all freight flows, by volume, and 26% of freight flows, by value in As one stakeholder put it, true international flows to/from Ohio are only made by water and air. Nevertheless, international flows represent only 4.4% of Ohio freight flows, by volume, and 11% of flows, by weight. 5 Source: Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (WCSC) and Freight Analysis Framework (FAF). 6 Flows carried between Ohio and Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, or Indiana can either transit on the Great Lakes or on the Ohio River. These flows are categorized as Undetermined. We have requested more detailed data from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to refine these figures. 2

14 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 1-2: Traffic Share of Marine Mode vis-à-vis Other Transportation Modes in Domestic (US) Trade of Ohio (2015) Weight (Tons) Value ($) Truck 65% Water 4% Pipeline 16% Air 0% Multiple modes & mail 5% Truck 76% Water 1% Air 1% Multiple modes & mail 12% Rail 10% Pipeline 6% Rail 4% Source: CPCS Analysis of FAF Data Marine Transportation in Ohio: Largely Used for Heavy, Bulky and Low Value to Weight Cargo Marine transportation is generally slower than truck, rail and pipeline transportation. Over long distances, however, marine transportation provides a lower ton-mile cost of transportation than rail and truck transportation. This is in large part due to the high economies of scale of marine transportation. A typical 1,500-ton barge for example, has the equivalent cargo carrying capacity of 16 rail hopper cars and close to 70 truck trailers. 7 Only pipelines offer a lower ton-mile cost of transportation over longer distances. Marine transportation is particularly well suited to low value to weight cargo, such as coal, limestone, grain, iron ore or other bulk and break bulk cargo that are not particularly time sensitive, since transportation costs represent a greater share of the total landed cost of these cargo. Conversely, the marine mode is not particularly well suited to transporting time sensitive, highvalue goods, such as electronics, high-end fashion apparel, or parts destined to just-in-time automotive manufacturing processes. 8 Consultations corroborated this, highlighting that historically, most marine flows in Ohio have largely comprised of low cost raw materials (e.g. iron ore, coal, limestone) rather than valueadded finished product (e.g. fabricated automotive parts - although the marine mode does handle raw material that later become automotive parts)). 7 US Department of Transportation MARAD, National Waterways Foundation, Texas Transportation Institute 8 CPCS, Unlocking the Value of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Maritime Transportation System, February

15 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Direction of Marine Flows Total volumes handled at Ohio MTS facilities of Lake Erie reached 41.8 million tons in These volumes were down by 25% compared to 2005 figures (and dropped further in 2015, to 35 million tons). Both Lake Erie and Ohio River traffic is largely inbound. Major inbound flows were composed of iron ore (12 million tons tied to steel production) and limestone (7 million tons tied to construction) while outbound flows were dominated by coal (8.6 million tons). Local flows were essentially composed of iron ore. At Ohio River facilities, the share of inbound flows was slightly higher. The figures and the charts below, reflect Ohio traffic, specifically. Figure 1-3: Direction of Trade Tonnage at Ohio Lake Erie MTS Facilities (2014) 9 Figure 1-4: Direction of Trade Tonnage Ohio River MTS Facilities in Ohio (2014) Shipping 34% Shipping 30% Local 9% Receiving 57% Local 8% Receiving 62% Source: CPCS Analysis of WCSC data 1.2 Ohio s MTS on Lake Erie Ohio s MTS is connected to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway System (GLSLSS) via Lake Erie. This provides Ohio with maritime connectivity to other Great Lakes markets including in the eight US Great Lakes states, two Canadian provinces (Ontario, Quebec), and water access to the Atlantic Ocean via St. Lawrence Seaway. 9 Ohio River traffic statistics published by the WCSC do not allow the isolation of flows handled in Ohio from the ones handled in another State. For example, traffic figures of Cincinnati include tons handled on both sides of the river as well as the ones loaded/unloaded in facilities of Licking River. A similar observation can be made for Louisville and Huntington which include volumes handled in facilities on both sides of the river. 4

16 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 1-5: GLSLSS Maritime Transportation System Source: CPCS, US Army Corp of Engineers, St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation Ohio s Lake Erie and related river facilities handled over 35 million short tons of traffic in 2015, 10 down from 40 million tons in The most significant Lake Erie port facilities, by volume, are Cleveland and Toledo, which handled close to 14 million tons and 8.5 million tons, respectively in By comparison, the port handling the most traffic in the Great Lakes, the Port of Duluth-Superior handled just over 33 million tons in USACE, Ohio Profile, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (2014) 12 USACE US Waterways Data (2015) 13 USACE US Waterways Data (2015) 5

17 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 1-6: Lake Erie Port Traffic (2015) Source: CPCS, US Army Corp of Engineers Markets Served and Connectivity Lake Erie MTS facilities predominantly handle bulk and to a lesser extent breakbulk traffic. The major commodity groups handled at Lake Erie port facilities include: Limestone, sand and gravel for regional construction activity Non-metallic minerals, including coal, pet coke and other metal and non-metal commodities, tied largely to regional industrial activity, notably, the steel industry, and exports. A range of agricultural commodities, largely destined for export markets. 6

18 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 1-7: Lake Erie Maritime Transportation System Traffic Tonnage Mix (2015) Unknown & Not Elsewhere Classified 4% Others 1% Sand, Gravel, Shells, Clay, 29% Coal, Lignite, and Coal Coke 20% Food and Food Products 3% Primary Non- Metal Products 3% Primary Metal Products 4% Source: CPCS analysis of WCSC Iron Ore, Iron, & Steel Scrap 36% Breakbulk cargo, tied to large regional projects such wind turbine projects, also represents important business volumes for Lake Erie port facilities particularly in terms of revenue, though breakbulk traffic does not represent significant traffic tonnage compared to bulk traffic. The Port of Cleveland also handles container traffic, tied to the scheduled Cleveland-Europe Express container services operated by Spliethoff. The Port of Cleveland is the only port in the Great Lakes that handles containers. As noted in consultations with the Port of Cleveland, containerized traffic through the Port is largely comprised of industrial goods, rather than consumer packaged goods, as are more typical of container traffic at coastal ports. 7

19 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway System Vessels Commercial ships calling GLSLSS ports can be categorized in three main groups Lakers, barges, and Salties. These can further be broken down according to criteria such as flag, area of operation, gear, size, etc. Maritime Flag A ship s flag designates the country in which the ship is registered. The Jones Act in the US and the Canadian Coasting Trade Act in Canada restricts the movement of cargo between two points within the US and Canada to US and Canadian-flagged ships, respectively. A fleet of Lakers constitutes the backbone of marine carrying capacity in the GLSLSS. Most were purpose built for domestic and transborder bulk trades within the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River. Many vessels particularly Canadian flagged Lakers - were designed to maximize carrying capacity according to the physical dimensions of Seaway locks (see Figure 1-8). For example, these Lakers were designed with flat bottoms and are typically longer than ocean-going ships. Many US-flagged Lakers, built specifically for Great Lakes trades, were designed to fit through the larger Soo locks. These 1,000 footers and remain within the Upper Lakes as they are too large to transit the Seaway locks to the east. US and Canadian Lakers each carry their respective domestic trades and can also be engaged in transborder trade. Figure 1-8: Dimensional Capacity of GLSLSS Locks Dimensional Capacity of Soo Locks The Soo Locks have a capacity of 1,200 feet in length, 110 feet in width and 32 feet in depth (channel is maintained to 28.5 ft.). 14 Ships transiting the Soo Locks can carry up to about 72,000 tons. Source: Soo Lock capacity USACE, Seaway lock capacity SLSMC. Dimensional Capacity of Seaway Locks The locks along the Welland Canal and Montreal-Lake Ontario section of the Seaway have a capacity of 776 feet in length, 80 feet in width and 30 feet in depth over the sill. 15 Ships transiting the Seaway can carry up to about 30,000 tons. With respect to configuration, the major vessel distinction relates to ship gear. Straight deck bulkers have no gear and rely on shore-side equipment to load and unload cargo. Selfunloaders, on the other hand, are equipped with internal conveyor systems connected to booms which can unload cargo directly on docks, into hoppers or even into other ship holds. As such, self-unloaders are more versatile and can service a wider range of port facilities. The following figure illustrates the typical configurations of straight deck and self-unloading bulkers. 14 USACE 15 SLSMC 8

20 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 1-9: Typical Straight Deck (left) and Self-Unloading (right) GLSLSS Bulkers Source: shipspotting, Jeff Cameron Source: shipspotting, rburdick27 GLSLSS trades are also carried by a fleet of tug/barge units which can also be under either US or Canadian flags. Depending on their configuration, the barges can carry dry or liquid bulk cargoes throughout Great Lakes and into the St. Lawrence River. As with Lakers, some barges are also equipped with self-unloading conveyor systems. The following figure illustrates a typical tug/barge unit in operation on the Great Lakes. Figure 1-10: Typical Tug/Barge Units on the Great Lakes Source: shipspotting, Sam Draye Source: shipspotting, Sam Draye The previous two vessel categories are exclusively operated in domestic or transborder trade (i.e. they do not trade with other markets overseas). Trade between the GLSLSS and overseas is rather carried by a fleet of ships which are often referred to as Salties ships. Many Salties have also been specifically designed to serve these overseas trades and as such, they can maximize Seaway lock dimensions ( Seawaymax ships). These ships are often multipurpose geared ships which can carry bulk and/or breakbulk cargoes (including project cargo) in their holds. This allows these ships to unload one type of cargo at a Great Lakes port (e.g. inbound steel products) and reload another type of cargo for the outbound move (e.g. grain). 9

21 Number of ships Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 1-11: Typical Multipurpose Salty Source: boatnerd photo by Ron Beaupré Obviously, there are many other ship types ranging from tankers to ferries or cruise ships which are also active in the GLSLSS. These ships are however less frequent than the three main ship types described above (Lakers, barges, Salties). The figure below provides summary information on the number and types of US and Canadian ships which sail on the GLSLSS. Figure 1-12: Summary of US and Canadian Flagged Commercial Marine Vessels Operating in the GLSLSS US Canada Source: CPCS, from USACE and Lloyd s List Intelligence data 10

22 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System The domestic US fleet operated on the Great Lakes is composed of over 700 units. As shown in the figure below, about 1/3 of the fleet s cargo volume capacity (net registered tonnage, or NRT) is held by the barge fleet while the self-propelled fleet holds the rest. The self-propelled dry bulk fleet provides the core of carrying capacity on the Great Lakes. This fleet of 44 Laker vessels averages 45 years of age. The most recent units joined the US Great Lakes bulker fleet in 1981 while others sailed for the first time in the 30s, 40s and 50s. Most of the latter were however rebuilt between the 1960s and early 1990s. Finally most US bulkers operated on the Great Lakes are equipped with self-unloading conveyors. Figure 1-13: US Flag Great Lakes Fleet Type Number of vessels NRT Average age Non-Self-Propelled, Dry Cargo Barge Other Non-Self-Propelled, Tanker Barge Self-Propelled, Dry Cargo Bulk carrier Ferry/Passenger General cargo Crewboat / Supply / Utility Self-Propelled, Tanker Tanker Towboat Pushboat Tugboat Grand Total Source: CPCS from WCSC data 1.3 Ohio s MTS on the Ohio River The Ohio River System is part of the larger Mississippi River System, the nation s busiest inland waterway, which begins at Minneapolis, Minnesota, and flows 1,800 miles to New Orleans, Louisiana. The Ohio River flows from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Cairo, Illinois, where it joins the Mississippi River. Major navigable tributaries of the Ohio River include the Tennessee, Cumberland, Green, Big Sandy, and Kanawha Rivers. The 981-mile-long Ohio River mainstem along with its navigable tributary rivers that flow through nine states offer a total of 2,800 miles of water transportation opportunities. The Ohio River mainstem transported more than 200 million tons of commerce in The Ohio River links the state of Ohio to global markets through the Port of New Orleans (via the Mississippi River) and the Port of Mobile (via the Tennessee River and the Tenn-Tom 16 USACE, Navigation Data Center 11

23 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Waterway). As shown on the accompanying map, the inland waterway system also links Ohio to domestic markets in 22 states. Figure 1-14: Ohio and Inland River System Source: CPCS, US Army Corp of Engineers Markets Served and Connectivity The inland river system is the primary artery for more than half the nation s grain and oilseed exports and nearly a quarter of the nation s coal for utility plants. 17 As on the GLSLSS, waterborne commodity markets on the Ohio River are driven by the fundamental forces of supply and demand influenced by factors such as navigation circumstances, the price of oil, the value of the US dollar relative to foreign currencies, domestic and foreign consumption of agricultural and industrial products, crop production, trade policies, and global commodities prices. The inland waterway system is a primary transporter of dry bulk, liquid bulk and general dry break-bulk cargoes. Major commodity groups include: Coal for domestic utility companies, industrial and coke producers, and export markets 17 US Department of Transportation MARAD, Waterways: Working for America 12

24 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Construction materials, such as cement, limestone, sand, and gravel Other dry bulk cargoes such as ores, salt, gypsum, fertilizers Grain and oilseeds, including corn and soybeans for export markets Liquid fertilizers Petroleum products and other fuels such as ethanol and bio-diesel Liquid chemicals such as styrene, methanol, ethylene glycol, and caustic soda Vegetable oils, molasses and other food related liquids General break bulk cargoes such as steel, finished and partially finished steel products, aluminum, partially finished aluminum products, and other manufactured and/or fabricated items Oversized and/or overweight project cargoes Figure 1-15: Ohio River Maritime Transportation System Traffic Tonnage Mix (2015) Other 5% Manufactured Goods 4% Food & Farm 10% Coal 46% Crude Materials 26% Petro & Petro Products 9% Source: WRCA Analysis of Navigation Data Center Data The other category is significant from an economic development perspective, as it includes manufactured items which are directly related to jobs and tax base. Coal is the dominant cargo by tonnage, followed by petroleum products and chemicals. Primary manufactured goods and manufactured equipment are important categories relative to jobs, tax base and economic development. The unit of measurement for maritime commerce is tons, but a ton of sand would not typically support as many jobs as a ton of manufactured goods or equipment. 13

25 Thousands of tons Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 1-16: Ohio River System Flows Source: CPCS, US Army Corp of Engineers Figure 1-17: Ohio River Maritime Transportation System Traffic Mix by Lock (2015) Coal Petroleum Chemicals Crude Materials Pri. Manuf. Goods Food and Farm Manuf. Equipment 0 New Cumberland Pike Island Hannibal Willow Island Belleville Racine Robert C. Byrd Greenup Capt. Anthony Meldahl Source: WRCA Analysis of Navigation Data Center Data 14

26 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Inland River Vessels Cargo on the inland river system of the United States typically moves in a barge which is 35 feet wide and 195 feet long, known as a standard jumbo hopper barge. For dry cargo, the barge may have covers, or may be uncovered, depending on the requirements of the shipper and of the cargo. Examples of cargoes moved in open hopper barges include dry bulk products such as minerals, coal, sand, gravel, iron ore, and pig iron. Covered hopper barges are used for products which are more weather sensitive such as corn, wheat, soybeans, fertilizers, dry chemicals, steel products, and aluminum products. Figure 1-18: Covered Hopper Barge Holding Aluminum T-bars at an Ohio River Terminal Source: Ron Coles, W. R. Coles and Associates Slight variations in the standard jumbo hopper barge include whether the ends of the barge have a rake end (a sloped surface) or a box end a flat surface. A rake end is preferred at the front of a tow, as it glides through the water with less resistance. A box end is often preferred in the center of a tow as it has a slightly larger cargo capacity. Many barges have one rake end and one box end, but some are double rake, and some are box at both ends. Some barges are 200 feet long, but almost all are 35 feet wide so that they can fit three abreast in navigation locks. 15

27 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System A river tow is comprised of barges arranged in longitudinal rows called strings and positioned directly ahead of the towboat. On the Ohio River, barges typically move in fifteen-barge tows, as shown below, configured three wide by five long and pushed by a towboat. Figure 1-19: Typical 15-Barge Tow on the Ohio River Source: USACE Many liquid barges, or tank barges, are also 35 feet wide by 195 feet long. Examples of liquid cargoes include asphalt, gasoline, other petroleum products, chemicals, and vegetable oils. A tow may include a mix of liquid and dry cargo barges, both covered and uncovered. Figure 1-20: 8-Barge Mixed (Liquid and Dry Cargo) Tow Source: Ron Coles, WR Coles and Associates 16

28 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Some liquid cargoes move in four barge unit tows. These unit-tow liquid barges are typically larger, with dimensions which vary but 295 feet long by 52.5 feet wide is one typical size. Figure 1-21: Liquid Unit Tow Source: USACE River vessels designed to push barges throughout the Inland Waterways System are typically referred to as towboats. Towboats range in size and horsepower dependent upon the area of primary operations. Tows on the upper Mississippi River and the Ohio River are restricted to fifteen barges due to the locks. Towboats on these rivers typically range from 4,000 to 6,000 horsepower, while towboats operating on the lower Mississippi River have greater horsepower. The lower Mississippi becomes much wider and deeper, with no locks and dams below St. Louis; therefore, more barges can be pushed by each towboat. A tow on the Lower Mississippi can consist of as many as thirty to fifty barges. 17

29 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 1-22: Typical Tow on the Lower Mississippi River Source: Ron Coles, W. R. Coles and Associates Figure 1-23: Summary of Vessels Moving Freight on Mississippi River System (including Ohio River) Vessel Mississippi River System (including the Ohio River) Dry Cargo Barges 22,605 Liquid Tank Barges 4,417 Railroad Car Floats 2 Towboats (self-propelled) 3,740 Source: USACE Navigation Data Center 18

30 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System 2 Ohio MTS Facilities, Connections and Capabilities Key Chapter Takeaways Of the eight principal ports on Lake Erie in Ohio, the Port of Cleveland the Port of Toledo are the two most significant, together handling close to 60% of total tonnage moving through Lake Erie MTS facilities. Both ports include common user general cargo facilities equipped to handle most types of traffic (including containers at the Port of Cleveland), ship yards, and covered and outdoor storage facilities able to accommodate twice the current levels of traffic. In addition, there are dozens of private docks throughout Lake Erie, including in and around the ports of Cleveland and Toledo. Bulk traffic comprises the largest share of Lake Erie MTS traffic. Ohio s Lake Erie MTS is connected to the Atlantic Ocean, to the east, via the locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway (operated by Canadian and US Seaway corporation), and to Lake Superior to the west, via the locks at Sault St. Marie (Soo Locks) (operated by the USACE). On the Ohio River, terminals are primarily privately owned. The two publicly owned terminals are integral to economic development efforts in Columbiana County and Lawrence County. The Lawrence County terminal is a start-up linked to The Point Industrial Park. The Columbiana County Port Authority has developed and controls two major industrial parks and intermodal development centers. Waterborne cargoes at the CCPA Wellsville Intermodal Industrial Park have included steel coils, steel fabrications, minerals, molasses and rocket components for NASA. Jobs and tax base related to industries such as metals fabrication, energy (Marcellus and Utica shale), automotive, plastics and food processing are supported by these cargoes. 2.1 Lake Erie MTS Facilities Lake Erie s MTS facilities are located on Lake Erie itself, as well as along the Cuyahoga River (at Cleveland), the Maumee River / Bay (at Toledo), the Black River (at Lorain) and the Conneaut River, among other rivers and bays. There are eight principal port facilities on and connected to Lake Erie in Ohio located in Cleveland, Toledo, Ashtabula, Marblehead, Sandusky, Fairport, Lorain, and Conneaut. 19

31 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-1: Lake Erie MTS Facilities Source: USACE, CPCS Consultations, Research The following provides a summary of the principal ports on Lake Erie and their key attributes. A more detailed database on Ohio MTS facilities along Lake Erie are provided separately in a geographic information system (GIS) database. Figure 2-2: Lake Erie Principal Ports Port Annual Tonnage (M tons, 2015) CAGR* ( ) Top Commodities Handled Rail Access (Provider) Owner / Operator Cleveland % Iron Ore, Steel Waste and Scrap, Sand, Gravel, Stone CSX, Norfolk Southern, Cleveland Works Ry Co, River Terminal Railway Cleveland- Cuyahoga County Port Authority, Several private terminals, incl. ArcelorMittal 20

32 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Port Annual Tonnage (M tons, 2015) CAGR* ( ) Top Commodities Handled Rail Access (Provider) Owner / Operator Toledo % Iron Ore, Steel Waste and Scrap, Coal, Lignite, Coal, Coke, Grain Ashtabula % Coal, Lignite, Coal, Coke, Sand Gravel, Other Rock CSX, Norfolk Southern (NS), CN via NS, Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Norfolk Southern (recently closed coal dock), CSX Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, Several private terminals, including CSX Ashtabula City Port Authority, Kinder Morgan/Pinney Dock & Transport Co., Norfolk Southern Marblehead % Limestone None Not clear Sandusky % Coal Norfolk Southern Norfolk Southern Fairport % Limestone and other non-metallic minerals Lorain % Iron Ore and Iron & Steel Waste & Scrap Conneaut % Iron Ore, Steel Waste and Scrap CSX None Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Co. Fairport Ohio Port Authority, several private terminal operators Several private terminal operators, including Lorain Pellet Terminal Co. Several private terminal operators including the Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. Source: USACE, CPCS consultations, research *Compounded annual growth rate Note: CPCS has not in every case succeeded in validating the above information with the facility owner /operates. This information will be updated, as warranted, during the course of the. The Port of Cleveland and the Port of Toledo are Ohio s two most significant Lake Erie port complexes, together handling close to 60% of total tonnage moving through Lake Erie MTS facilities Most Significant Lake Erie Port Facilities Port of Cleveland The Port of Cleveland is the first major port of call into the Great Lakes and last major port out of the Great Lakes for ships transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Port of Cleveland comprises a number of terminals within the footprint of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, as well as several private docks, notably along the banks Cuyahoga River, as well as facilities along the Old River and at Whiskey Island. 21

33 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority facilities include a 45 acre bulk terminal with an automated ship loader and an additional 80 acres of general cargo facility equipped with three mobile cranes, significant laydown area, including a multipurpose shed. 18 It is the only port on the Great Lakes that currently handles containers. The Port Authority reports having available space to double traffic within its existing footprint. Port of Cleveland Traffic Profile Port of Cleveland traffic is varied but dominated by iron ore and steel. Limestone is the second largest product handled in the Port. Outbound shipments consisted of other nonmetallic minerals. Figure 2-3: Cleveland Port Traffic by Commodity, and Historic Totals (inset) (Million Tons) Others Primary Iron and Steel Products (Ingots,Bars,Rods,etc.) Building Cement & Concrete; Lime; Glass Other Non-Metal. Min. Sand, Gravel, Stone, Rock, Limestone, Soil, Dredged Mate Receiving Local Shipping Iron Ore and Iron & Steel Waste & Scrap Source: CPCS Analysis of WCSC Data Private facilities at the Port of Cleveland are many. The largest is the ArcelorMittal facility at the inland most point of the navigational channel on the Cuyahoga River, which handles iron ore, coal, among other cargo tied to the steel mill operation. This product is shuttled (on 700 footers ) using ship-to-ship transshipment operations at the bulk terminal. Other significant private facilities at the Port of Cleveland include the Lafarge facility, the Great Lakes Group facility (towing and shipbuilding/ship repair) and several facilities handling construction related materials (sand, gravel, limestone, etc.). The Port of Cleveland s channel and harbor are dredged to Seaway draft (27 feet). The Cuyahoga River is dredged to 23 feet, though dredging, and the disposal of dredge material has been the subject to legal challenges in recent years (with respect to dredge disposal), sometimes requiring 18 Port of Cleveland website, consultations 22

34 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System that ships using the Cuyahoga River lighter (carry less than their available capacity) to reduce ships draft. The Port of Cleveland has good rail access and is served by two Class I s (CSX and Norfolk Southern). Road access to and from the Port is also good, though there is limited access to the bulk terminal by truck. Figure 2-4: Port of Cleveland Facilities Source: CPCS, US Army Corp of Engineers, Updated through CPCS Consultations with Port of Cleveland 23

35 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Bulk Terminal Figure 2-5: Port of Cleveland Facilities (Selection) General Purpose Terminal Private Terminals at Cleveland Source: CPCS 24

36 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Port of Toledo The Port of Toledo comprises 15 terminals, located largely along the Maumee River. Terminals handle a wide range of cargo including grain, coal and iron ore, cement, breakbulk and project cargo, and liquid petroleum. Most terminals are owned and/or operated by the private sector through long-term leases (typically years). Port of Toledo Traffic Profile Port of Toledo traffic is dominated by inbound iron ore and outbound coal and grain. Figure 2-6: Port of Toledo Port Traffic by Commodity, and Historic Totals (inset) (Million Tons) Other Building Cement & Concrete; Lime; Glass Primary Iron and Steel Products (Ingots,Bars,Rods,etc.) Other Non-Metal. Min. Grain Sand, Gravel, Stone, Rock, Limestone, Soil, Dredged Mate Receiving Shipping Coal,Lignite & Coal Coke Iron Ore and Iron & Steel Waste & Scrap Source: CPCS Analysis of WCSC Data The Port of Toledo has a general cargo terminal operated by Midwest Terminals, which the Port notes can handle just about anything. The general cargo terminal has 4,100 feet of dock, significant indoor and outdoor storage facilities, on-dock rail access, and modern handling equipment (2 Liebherr LHM Mobile Harbor Cranes (280,000 lbs), 2 Gantry Cranes, and conveyors and 1 Mantsinen RB200 material handler. 19 The Port of Toledo also has a full-service shipyard with dry dock, which provides vessel repair services as well as the fabrication and shipping of heavy industrial equipment. The shipyard is owned by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority and operated by IRONHEAD Marine. 20 The Port has considerable available space to accommodate additional traffic. And unlike the Port of Cleveland which is located in downtown Cleveland, there are also few proximity issues as the land adjacent the Port are largely industrial. 19 Toledo Lucas County Port Authority website, consultations with Port of Toledo. 20 Toledo Lucas County Port Authority website, consultations with Port of Toledo. 25

37 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System As with the Port of Cleveland, the Port of Toledo has Seaway draft (27 feet), though annual dredging is required as the 21- mile channel on the Maumee River is subject to significant silting in large part due to runoff from adjacent lands. Three Class I railways, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and CN converge at the Port of Toledo, as well as two major highways (I-75 and I-80/90). Generally, the Port provides good road access for dimensional cargo and has a designated oversize/overweight corridor, though certain routes have power line and overpass weight issues (e.g. along George Hardy Dr.) The Port of Toledo also has a foreign trade zone (FTZ) and designated facilities for London/Chicago metals exchanges, at its general cargo facility. Figure 2-7: Port of Toledo Facilities Source: CPCS, US Army Corp of Engineers, Updated through CPCS Consultations with Port of Toledo 26

38 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-8: Port of Toledo Facilities (Selection) General Cargo Terminal (Midwest Terminals) Source: GoogleEarth Toledo Shipyard Source: Port of Toledo website 27

39 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Other (Smaller) Lake Erie Facilities In addition to the large ports of Cleveland and Toledo, there are several other smaller ports on Lake Erie that include Ashtabula, Conneaut, Sandusky, Lorain and others. These smaller ports are not as diversified as their larger counterparts and often directly serve a local industry or a dedicated commodity. As a result, the volumes handled at these facilities are directly related to the level of industrial activity that it feeds. For example, during active construction seasons commodities such as limestone and gravel increase to supply concrete plants. And, when steel plants are idle, taconite (iron ore) volumes are down. Figure 2-9 Lake Erie MTS Facilities Traffic Excluding at Cleveland and Toledo by Commodity, and Historic Totals (inset) (Million Tons) 35.0 Others All Manufactured Non-Ferrous Ores and Scrap Other Non-Metal. Min. Receiving Shipping Iron Ore and Iron & Steel Coal,Lignite & Coal Coke Sand, Gravel, Stone, Rock, Source: CPCS Analysis of WCSC Data The port of Ashtabula essentially handles bulk materials. As for many other ports on the shore of Lake Erie, these bulk flows are largely composed of unloaded limestone and loaded coal. Since 2005, total volumes handled dropped by 50%. Even if limestone unloaded almost tripled to 1.6 million tons in 2014, this did not compensate for the reduction in over 3 million tons of coal shipments. It is expected that Ashtabula s coal exports will be absent from future traffic profiles, as the coal dock was idled by its operator, Norfolk Southern, in late Conneaut s traffic is dominated by inbound iron ore. All other products, including coal shipments, only represent a fraction (31%) of iron ore flows. The 35% reduction in volumes handled since 2005 can be attributed to coal shipments which disappeared between 2009 and At the turn of the century, the port and rail facilities at Conneaut were established to directly serve Carnegie Steel in Pittsburgh, PA. During consultations it was noted that because of this history, this facility has a stronger base than many other ports on Lake Erie, and the ability to handle and store very heavy materials in large quantities. In Lorain, total volumes reached 980,000 tons in More than half of these flows were composed of inbound limestone and the rest consisted in various other minerals which were also unloaded at the port. Commodities have continually evolved in this location. As example, 21 Norfolk Southern closing Ashtabula docks, Star Beacon, December 24,

40 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System up until 2003 the ore dock was active and operated by LTV Steel, at which time all LTV equipment was sold and moved to Cleveland. Also, the Republic Steel plant (located at the inland most navigation point on the Black River) is currently idle. Marblehead is a limestone shipping port through which other types of cargo can occasionally transit. Annual variations in volumes handled can be significant and largely depend on the domestic market because The Port of Sandusky is mainly used to ship coal across the Great Lakes. Annual variations in volumes loaded at the port can notably be attributed to exports to Canada which have be extremely volatile, whereas volumes shipped domestically steadily decreased. In 2015, Norfolk Southern idled coal operations in Ashtabula and consolidated them with their operations in Sandusky. 22 Other Lake Erie Ports of Ohio A total of 1.6 million tons of cargo were handled in Fairport in These flows were essentially domestic and notably consisted in inbound limestone and outbound non-metallic minerals (other than limestone). Limestone was also the unique commodity handled in Huron - Total volumes reached 543,000 tons in 2014 of which over 91% was inbound. Put-In-Bay Harbor and Kelleys Island are the two other locations on Lake Erie where limited amounts of cargo are occasionally handled Lock Infrastructure Providing Connectivity to Lake Erie Ohio s Lake Erie MTS is connected to the Atlantic Ocean, to the east, via the locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and to Lake Superior to the west, via the locks at Sault St. Marie (Soo Locks). St. Lawrence Seaway Ohio Lake Erie ports can access ships directly from world markets via the St. Lawrence Seaway, managed jointly by the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) and the US St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC). The Seaway comprises seven locks between Montreal and Lake Ontario (MLO), and the eight Welland Canal locks between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. All but two of these locks (the Snell and Eisenhower locks located at Massena, New York in the MLO section) are owned and operated by the SLSMC. Both the SLSMC and SLSDC are implementing a multi-year capital asset renewal and modernization program, 23 which includes the introduction of hands-free mooring technology (as of the end of 2015, eight locks were equipped with hands-free mooring technology), among other system maintenance and improvement projects. Hands-free mooring will allow international vessel to enter the Seaway system without Seaway-specific lines, thereby opening up a new market for the GLSLSS. 22 Coal operations shifting to Sandusky, Sandusky Register, December 24, US St. Lawrence Seaway Asset Renewal Program Capital Investment Plan,

41 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-10: St. Lawrence Seaway Lock System Source: SLSMC In 2014, 7.3 million tons of traffic were shipped via the St. Lawrence Seaway to/from Ohio, representing approximately 17% of total Seaway tonnage. 24 Of particular note, Ohio s trade with the world via the Seaway is predominantly outbound (i.e. export) traffic. Toledo, Cleveland and Ashtabula are the ports in Ohio which rely most extensively on the Seaway. In the case of Toledo, volumes handled at the port in 2014 notably include inbound domestic shipments of various bulks (1 million tons) as well as outbound shipments of coal (1 million tons) and grain (1.28 million tons). In Cleveland, volumes handled and transiting through Seaway facilities included inbound bulk and general cargo (1.2 million tons) and nearly 24 CPCS comparison of SLSMC traffic data with USACE traffic data for Ohio 30

42 Million tons Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System 7,500 inbound and outbound containers (Twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs). Volumes handled in Ashtabula which transited through the Seaway consisted of outbound coal (612,000 tons) and various inbound domestic bulk materials (471,000 tons). 4.0 Figure 2-11: St. Lawrence Seaway Traffic by Selected Major Ohio Port (2014) Inbound Outbound Total Ashtabula Cleveland Conneaut Fairport Lorain Sandusky Toledo Source: CPCS analysis of USACE and St. Lawrence Seaway Data 31

43 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Locks at Sault St. Marie ( Soo Locks ) The lock system at Sault St. Marie ( Soo Locks ), within the 1.6-mile St. Marys Falls canal in northern Michigan enables ships to navigate the St. Marys River from Lake Superior to Lake Huron, and onward into Lake Erie. Two of the four Soo locks are still in operation 25 (MacArthur Lock, constructed in 1943, and the Poe Lock, originally built in 1895 and rebuilt in 1968). The Soo Locks are Source: Don Coles, Aerialpics.com owned and operated by the US Army Corp of Engineers, which provides passage to ships at no charge. 26 The Soo Locks are in desperate need of rehabilitation and modernization. One stakeholder reported that the Soo Locks facility is the single greatest infrastructure vulnerability for marine transportation within the GLSLSS system. A report by the Council of the Great Lakes Governors and Premiers underscored the importance of the Soo Locks, highlighting analysis by the US Department of Homeland Security which found that an extended unplanned closure of the Soo Locks would mean that, approximately 80 percent of iron ore mining operations and nearly 100 percent of the North America appliances, automobile, construction equipment, farm equipment, mining equipment, and railcar production would shut down. 27 In 2007, the USACE began a multi-year program to rehabilitate and modernize the Soo Lock system, including twinning the Poe Lock, though this program is underfunded and work to twin the Poe Locks is stalled. The Soo Locks handle more than 80 million tons of cargo per year, 28 or more than twice the traffic by tonnage moving through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Roughly half this traffic is comprised of iron ore, tied steel production in the Great Lakes Region, including in Ohio. 25 The Davis and Sabin locks are no longer in operations, but are to be replaced by a new lock, which is not yet fully funded 26 CPCS, Unlocking the Value of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Maritime Transportation System, Council of Great Lakes Governors and Premiers, Maritime Transportation System Strategy, Lake Carriers Association, Second Poe-Sized Lock,

44 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System 2.2 Ohio River MTS Facilities Ohio River MTS Terminals There are 118 terminals along the Ohio River in the State of Ohio, providing access to the marine highway system. All but two of the terminals are privately owned. At this time, all are privately operated. As such, specific business data is proprietary. Figure 2-12: Ohio River Docks, Locks and Dams Source: CPCS, US Army Corp of Engineers It is important to recognize and understand not only the total number of terminals, but also the characterization of those general purpose terminals which provide access to economical waterways transportation to support several industries. Typically, the industries which use general purpose terminals do so because they need the economy provided by waterborne transportation availability, but lack the volume or location to construct their own private special purpose terminal. General purpose terminals are relevant to sustaining existing industries as well as providing support for future economic development. Sites available for industries which require riverfront locations and their own private, special purpose terminals are also important. Key industries in 33

45 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Ohio such as power generation, steel and other metals production, agriculture, road builders, polymers and other chemical production rely on the availability of water transportation, and many of these types of employers are sustained by private, special purpose terminals. Both general purpose terminals and special purpose terminals are important nodes in Ohio s freight transportation network. Ohio River terminal data can be evaluated in more detail by considering four river segments as defined below: 1. Columbiana County through Belmont County 32 terminals 2. Monroe County through Meigs County 23 terminals 3. Gallia County through Scioto County 18 terminals 4. Adams County through Hamilton County 44 terminals Understanding the locations and business volumes of these terminals by river segment, and the clusters of terminals within those river segments, helps in understanding the relevance of waterborne commerce data. Information provided by USACE by county and by river segment is shown below. Note that some county level data is not shown where it could potentially violate confidentiality agreements. Figure 2-13: Number and Categorization of Ohio River Terminals by County and by Segment Total Number of Terminals Millions of Tons Reported by USACE by County for 2015 General Special County Purpose Purpose Columbiana Jefferson Belmont Monroe Washington Athens Meigs Gallia Lawrence Scioto Adams * Brown * Clermont * Hamilton Millions of Tons Reported by USACE for 2015 Subtotaled by Segment # Terminals in Segment All Ohio River Counties in Ohio Source: WRCA, USACE 34

46 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-14: Ohio River Traffic by County (Ohio traffic only) Source: CPCS, US Army Corp of Engineers **See discussion in text box below for discussion of traffic at Port of Cincinnati and Port of Huntington In the first segment, Columbiana through Belmont, half of the terminals are clustered in Columbiana County, but over half of the reported tonnage is in Jefferson County. This is primarily due to coal moving to the Sammis Power Plant. Ores, metals and steel products move through the general purpose terminals in Columbiana and Belmont Counties. The Columbiana County Port Authority (CCPA) is located in this segment, and is one of only two publicly owned ports on the Ohio River in Ohio. Columbiana County is located in the heart of the Cleveland-Pittsburgh corridor, which has a population of 6.5 million people. CCPA has developed and controls two major industrial parks and intermodal development centers. 35

47 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-155: Aerial View of the CCPA Bridge Crane Source: Columbiana County Port Authority The 70-acre Wellsville Intermodal Industrial park is located on the right descending bank of the Ohio River near mile 49, providing access to the Ohio River, Norfolk Southern Railroad, and Ohio State Route 2, which is adjacent. In 2012, a new 60-ton lift capacity overhead bridge crane was constructed. In 2016, a Manstein 120 Hybrilift Material Handler and new conveyor system were added to the river terminal complex. The terminal is operated by Pier 48 Stevedoring. Cargoes have included steel coils, steel fabrications, soybeans, minerals and rocket components for NASA. The Intermodal Industrial Park has seen much recent activity related to the Marcellus and Utica Shale. Data from the Monroe through Meigs segment shows the largest cluster of river terminals in Washington County, but the largest reported tonnage is in Monroe County, where Center Point terminals has developed a new terminal complex at the renovated Ormet Aluminum facility. Gallia County accounts for approximately 85% of the tonnage in the third river segment, much of which is coal moving to the AEP Gavin Power Plant. General purpose terminals in Lawrence and Scioto Counties support local jobs and tax base, but contribute fewer tons to the data. In addition to Columbiana County, as noted above, Lawrence County also has a publicly owned port. The Point Industrial Park in Lawrence County is located at the southern tip of the state in South Point, Ohio. The Point encompasses 504 acres of prime, flat land with river, rail and highway access. It is utility-ready and has 3,400 ft. of Ohio River frontage with an intermodal transport dock facility which has recently been constructed. ( The river terminal facility is managed by the Lawrence County Port Authority and the Lawrence Economic 36

48 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Development Corporation and is operated by McGinnis, Inc. Seven miles of rail track runs through the site for easy connection to Norfolk Southern rail lines. U.S. 52 runs beside the property with I-64 only 6 miles away from the site s entrance. The Cincinnati area, Hamilton County, dominates the data in the fourth river segment. There are 39 river terminals in Hamilton County, and a total of 5 terminals in the other three counties. All are privately owned and operated. USACE cannot report data for counties unless there are more than three users, so no tonnage data is shown for Brown County. Alternative Traffic Data Reporting on Ohio River The USACE also reports waterborne commerce data by Congressional District and by Port Statistical Areas. Both reporting approaches are discussed briefly below. By Congressional District This approach can in some cases be useful in that some data that was necessarily excluded from the county-level reporting can be included in the aggregation without violating any confidentiality agreements. The current Ohio 6 th Congressional District includes Ohio River frontage from Columbiana County through about half of Scioto County, the 2 nd Congressional District includes Ohio River frontage from Scioto into eastern Hamilton County, and the 1 st Congressional District includes most of Hamilton County and the greater Cincinnati area. In 2015, approximately 26.6 million tons of cargoes moved to/from the 6 th District, 11.2 million tons to/from the 2 nd District, and 10.8 million to/from the 1 st District. By Port Statistical Area USACE also compiles and reports waterborne commerce data by port statistical area or Principal Port. On the Great Lakes, Principal Ports encompass territory that are defined by an embayment or harbor off of Lake Erie. The Ohio River, however, is linear, and data for port statistical areas is normally obtained and reported by river mile, including both sides of the river. Further, port statistical areas along the Ohio River are not contiguous along Ohio s border, and where they do exist, the statistical areas encompass counties in other states as well as Ohio. The Principal Port statistical areas on the Ohio River are not aligned with the legal/administrative Port Authority boundaries and imply no jurisdiction, staff or facility designation. They are analogous to a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, or SMSA, which is very different from a city or county unit of local government s legal/administrative boundaries. USACE recently re-defined the waterborne commerce statistical area now known as the Port of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky to include miles of the Ohio River and its navigable tributaries which enter the river in that reach. The new port region includes a total of fifteen counties, five in Ohio and ten in Kentucky. This redefinition of the statistical catchment area results in the Port of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky becoming the second largest inland riverport statistical area in the US for the year This statistical area definition has no bearing on the administrative boundaries for any 37

49 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System local port authorities. The USACE Inland Navigation Data Center reports traffic volume in 2015 for the 15 county Cincinnati principal port waterborne commerce statistical area to be 45 million tons, of which approximately 12 million tons were from the state of Ohio. The Port of Huntington waterborne commerce statistical area encompasses 100 miles of the Ohio River from the mouth of the Scioto River near Portsmouth, Ohio, to the northern border of Gallia County, Ohio, plus 9 miles of the Big Sandy River, and 90 miles of the Kanawha River. Statistically, the Port of Huntington was the third largest inland river port in the US in While the information is of interest in characterizing general Ohio River commerce in the area, as parts of the Ohio economy are supported by river terminals across state lines, it must be noted that few of the terminals contributing to the Huntington waterborne commerce statistics are actually in the State of Ohio. The USACE Inland Navigation Data Center reports traffic volume in 2015 for the Huntington Tri-State principal port waterborne commerce statistical area to be 43 million tons, of which approximately 10 million tons were from the state of Ohio. The definition of principal port statistical area boundaries helps in drawing attention to the region for marketing purposes, but has no bearing on legal or administrative jurisdictions such as Port Authorities, states, or units of local government. As noted on the map presented earlier, there is no port waterborne statistical area for river miles from Ohio River mile (ORM) 40 to ORM This reach of the Ohio River includes many active private river terminals in the State of Ohio as well as the Columbiana County Port Authority terminals Ohio River Locks & Dams The elevation of the Ohio River from its head of navigation at Pittsburgh to its mouth where it joins the Mississippi River near Cairo, Illinois, drops a total of 417 feet. In the 19 th century, the Ohio River had stretches of deep water with intermittent reaches of shallow water and rapids. Construction of modern dams and navigation locks in the 20 th century stabilized the water levels by creating a series of reservoirs or pools, akin to a flight of water stairs. Dams provide reservoirs of sufficient depth to enable year-round navigation. Multipurpose dams provide additional benefits such as flood control, hydroelectric power generation, water supply, and recreation. Five of the Ohio River dams abutting the State of Ohio provide green energy, produced by gravity, in the form of hydroelectricity. At this time, there are 20 locks and dams (L&D) on the Ohio River. After the Olmsted L&D project is completed, and L&D s #52 and #53 are demolished, there will be 19 L&D s on the Ohio River. Nine L&D s are along the southern and southeastern borders of the State of Ohio. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is authorized by the US Congress to construct, maintain, and operate Ohio River L&D s and is responsible for maintaining a year-round navigable channel sufficient for supporting nine-foot draft navigation. 38

50 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Olmsted Lock and Dam Project Olmsted Locks and Dam, currently under construction on the Ohio River 17 miles above the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, will replace Locks 52 and 53. Lock 52 is the busiest lock on America s inland navigation system, where more than 80 million tons of coal, grain, chemicals, fuel, and other commodities, worth about $22 billion, pass through each year. 29 When the $2.9-billion project is completed and the locks become operational, one of the most costly and inefficient impediments to commercial navigation on the nation s inland waterway system will be eliminated. This most complex and challenging construction project ever built by the US Army Corps of Engineers consists of two parallel 110 x foot locks and a dam that stretches 2600 feet across the river. By use of wickets, 1400 feet of the dam can be lowered when river stages permit to accommodate passage of barges over the dam and avoid the use of the locks which is much more time consuming. Depending on future appropriations, the project could be operational as early as 2020 with the entire project completed, including demolition and removal of Locks 52 and 53, by These improvements are expected to generate annual net benefits of $640 million, which would recoup the capital investment in the project in less than 5 years of its operation. 31 Image sources: USACE Louisville District (top) New York Times (bottom) A modern Ohio River lock is 1200 feet long by 110 feet wide, which is sufficient for containing an entire 15-barge tow (three wide by five long) and the towboat in a single lockage. Older locks 29 Tyler J. Kelley, Choke Point of a Nation: The High Cost of an Aging River Lock. The New York Times, November 23, USACE Louisville District. Olmstead Fact Sheet. 31 USACE Louisville District. Olmstead Locks and Dam 39

51 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System are 600 feet long by 110 feet wide, and 15-barge tows must be broken apart, requiring a double lockage. The following map shows the location of the locks and dams on the Ohio River, followed by a tabular presentation describing each L&D location by river mile, bank side for the navigation locks, number of lock chambers, sizes of the primary and auxiliary chambers, and the status of the locks. Many of these locks are more than fifty years old; some are more than seventy-five years old. Some have structural deterioration and are in need of replacement or major rehabilitation. A major improvement program was started in the 1970 s to meet current and future needs that include larger more efficient locks. The program continues today. The centerpiece of these improvements has been to provide 1200-foot by 110-foot locks alongside the older 600-foot by 110-foot locks at each dam. If one lock is out of service for any reason, scheduled or unscheduled, the parallel lock allows passage of vessel traffic, thus improving the reliability of the overall system. The latest generation of improvements involves twin larger locks where justified such as at Olmsted and McAlpine Locks and Dam. Figure 2-16: Ohio River Locks and Dams Source: USACE, CPCS 40

52 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-17: Locks and Dams on the Ohio River SourceUSACE Louisville District 41

53 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-18: Greenup Locks and Dam Source: USACE Figure 2-19: 15-Barge Tow in a 1200-foot Lock Source: USACE 42

54 Locks in Ohio Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-20: Ohio River Locks (Locks in Ohio Highlighted) Lock Ohio River Mile Lock Bank Side # of Lock Chambers Lock Size Main (M) Auxiliary (A) Emsworth 6.2 RDB 2 M x 600 A - 56 x 360 Comments Opened in Oldest lock and dam on system Dashields 13.3 LDB 2 M x 600 A - 56 x 360 Montgomery 31.7 LDB 2 M x 600 A - 56 x 360 New Cumberland 54.3 RDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Opened in Increased funding needed to minimize service disruptions. Opened in Improvements to Montgomery, Emsworth and Dashields are part of $2.6 billion plan authorized by Congress in WRDA Old locks at the three sites will be replaced with new 110 x600 structures. Opened in Its age requires increases in annual funding for maintenance and repairs. Pike Island 84.2 LDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Hannibal RDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Willow Island RDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Belleville RDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Racine LDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Robert C. Byrd LDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Greenup 341 LDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Opened in Needs major rehab. Larger lock opened in Dam completed in Busiest lock on upper river. Larger lock opened in Opened in Lock chamber needs major repairs. Opened in Needs repairs. Both new locks opened in Opened in Lock gates replaced in Capt. Anthony Meldahl RDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Opened in Over 50 years of heavy use has affected reliability of service. Markland LDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Opened in A $40-million rehab of the lock is planned. McAlpine LDB 2 M x 1200 M x 1200 Cannelton RDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 New locks opened in A new auxiliary lock was constructed and the small older lock was replaced with a 1200-ft. lock, doubling capacity. Larger lock opened in Requires more O&M funding due to heavy use. 43

55 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Newburgh RDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 John T. Myers 846 RDB 2 M x 1200 A x 600 Smithland RDB 2 M x 1200 A x 1200 # RDB 2 M x 110 A x 110 # RDB 2 M x 110 A x 110 Olmsted RDB x x1200 Source: WRCA Analysis of Research, including the USACE Navigation Data Center Larger lock opened in Dam completed in Larger lock opened in Dam completed in Enlarging smaller lock to 1200 feet authorized in 2000, but not yet funded. Opened in Twin locks of this size were the first on the river when completed in 1979, as well as the largest in the world at that time. Will be replaced by Olmsted L&D when the dam is completed in Will be replaced by Olmsted L&D when the dam is completed in Largest project ever built in US. Locks and dam projected for completion in 2020 and removal of L&D 52&53 in Notes: 1. Ohio River Mile is measured in miles below The Point in Pittsburgh where the Monongahela River and Allegheny River merge to form the Ohio River at mile zero. 2. Lock Bank Side denotes whether the locks are on the Right Descending Bank (RDB) or Left Descending Bank (LDB). Funding Locks and Dams Operations and Maintenance The Congress of the United States must authorize funding on an annual basis for operating and maintaining the navigation locks. By law, USACE submits its annual funding request for lock operations and maintenance to the President of the United States, the request is processed (and usually adjusted) by the Executive Branch and then becomes a part of the President s budget which is submitted to Congress each year. In many years, the funding provided by Congress has been significantly less than requested by USACE. Lack of adequate funding for recommended maintenance is a long-standing problem. This is much like owning a fine automobile, driving it regularly, and neglecting to change the oil or perform other recommended maintenance. Additional information on governance and funding is in Working Paper 2. 44

56 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Figure 2-21: Barge Tow in a 600-foot Lock Chamber Source: USACE Figure 2-22: Tow Entering a Lock Source: USACE 45

57 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System 3 Ohio MTS Physical Constraints Key Chapter Takeaways Physical constraints of the performance of Ohio s MTS (as distinct from regulatory, policy and funding constraints, which are the subject of a forthcoming working paper) include: Seasonality, which restricts navigation and MTS access from late December to late March due largely to ice conditions Draft issues at certain Lake Erie facilities, resulting from a combination of silting, a dredging backlog, and varying water levels to do a range of environmental factors Aging locks and dams on the Ohio River, causing unplanned outages and creating risks to system resiliency. Congress has provided inadequate funding to USACE for several years. The lack of funding for proper maintenance, combined with aging infrastructure leads to this concern. Some individual terminals may have land side access issues which can be addressed by adding turn lanes, bypasses for congested traffic areas or rail grade crossing separation For the most part, MTS facilities on Lake Erie have significant excess capacity. There are few other physical constraints, other than relating to particularly heavy and dimensional cargo (lift capacity, restrictions to movement of dimensional cargo on MTS access roads. On the Ohio River, the primary concern is maintenance of the locks and dams. Terminals are primarily privately owned. The two publicly owned terminals are integral to economic development efforts in Columbiana County and Lawrence County. This section addresses physical constraints of Ohio s MTS. A follow-up working paper on MTS Governance will highlight policy, regulatory and funding constraints, as they impact the use and competitiveness of Ohio s MTS. 46

58 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System 3.1 On the Waterway Lake Erie MTS The primary water-side physical constraints to the performance Ohio s MTS on Lake Erie are seasonality, and draft issues. Seasonality Ice conditions in the Great Lakes, including Lake Erie, impede marine navigation from December through to the late April. In 2014/2015, ice coverage in the Great Lakes was reported to be 89%, down from 93% in 2013/ These were reportedly the two worst ice years in several decades. By contrast, ice coverage in the Great Lakes in 2015/16 was closer to 20%. 33 In typical years, ice coverage is in the range of 40% in the Great Lakes. 34 Lake Erie is the shallowest of the Great Lakes (average depth of 62 feet, compared to next shallowest Lake Huron, which has an average depth of 195 feet 35 ) and consequently tends to ice over earlier than other Great Lakes. Generally, ice coverage begins around Christmas or the early New Year and runs into April. As classified by the US Coast Guard, the ice season in the Great Lakes has three periods: Extended navigation period (the period when ice starts to form until the Soo Locks close mid-january). Winter navigation period, or closed navigation period, from the time the Soo Locks close to the time they reopen in late March). Spring breakup period, from the time the Soo Locks re-open through to when there is no more ice coverage. Commercial navigation during the winter navigation period is greatly reduced on Lake Erie. During this period, most marine carriers operating Lakers layup their ships at port facilities throughout the Great Lakes. Traffic is typically limited to the movement of fuel (e.g. from Sarnia to Nanticoke) and often requires ice breaking assistance from the Coast Guard. The US and Canadian Coast Guards provide icebreaking services, operating nine and two icebreakers in the Great Lakes, respectively. These icebreakers are older ships. Six of the US Coast Guard icebreakers, for example, were built in the 1970s and pushing the end of their useful lives. There is an ongoing program of modernization of older US Coast Guard icebreakers, but this will not be complete until Council of Great Lakes Governors and Premiers, Maritime Transportation System Strategy, Consultation with US Coast Guard, Detroit Sector. 34 Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 35 St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation 36 Lake Carriers Association, (accessed Dec 4, 2016) 47

59 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System In Lake Erie, specifically, the US and Canadian Coast Guards both provide ice breaking service during the winter season. Known as Operation Coal Shovel, ice breaking services are provided from the Lower part of Lake Huron, through the St. Clair River and Lake Erie (this operation is managed by the US Coast Guard s Detroit Sector, as distinct from its ice breaking operation in the Upper Lakes, which are managed by the US Coast Guard s Soo Sector. Generally the part of Lake Erie that is most problematic from an ice and navigation standpoint is the Pelee Pass, which tends to ice up most quickly and consistently. The US and Canadian Coast Guards each keep two icebreakers (total of 4) in the Lower Lakes, which serve Lake Erie. When asked about the extent of icebreaking service in Lake Erie, the US Coast Guard noted that it depends on the particular ice conditions. Heavy ice conditions in the Great Lakes in 2013/2014, and 2014/2016, for example required significant ice breaking and led to delays or canceled shipments, and increase ship repair costs for carriers. Closure of Seaway and Soo Locks The St. Lawrence Seaway operates from late March through late December. In 2016, for example, the Seaway opened March 21, and will shut down December 26, The navigation season through the Soo Locks is slightly different than that for the Seaway. In 2016, the Soo Locks were opened March 25, 2016, 39 or four days later than the Seaway. They typically close in mid-january (for example, January 15 in 2016). 40 Notwithstanding potential technologies and practices that could help extend the navigation season of the Seaway and Soo Locks, a shutdown is necessary for regular maintenance. In the short to medium term, extending the Seaway and Soo Lock navigation seasons will likely happen incrementally. Nevertheless, many Great Lakes ports and carriers would like to see greater consideration of extending the Seaway season. This point was underscored by the Port of Cleveland in consultations, adding that extending the season requires re-thinking options and marine transportation in the Great Lakes more broadly. 37 St. Lawrence Management Corporation website, Seaway, (accessed December 4, St. Lawrence Management Corporation website, Seawayhttp:// (accessed December 4, 2016) 39 American Journal of Transportation, (accessed Dec 4, 2016) 40 US Army Corps of Engineers, NEWS-RELEASE-2016.pdf (accessed December 4, 2016) 48

60 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System The Seaway season has long been considered a barrier to the competitiveness of marine transportation in the Great Lakes, as shippers must either stockpile product or find alternative arrangements outside the Seaway season. In many cases, they are faced with higher rail rates during the period that the Seaway is closed, in some cases creating a disincentive to using marine transportation when the Seaway is open. In establishing the Cleveland-Europe Express, the Port of Cleveland and the operator, Spliethoff, have sought to offer year round service by contracting with CSX to move product to the US East Coast by rail during the period that the Seaway is closed. Draft Dredging and varying water levels impact draft levels on Ohio s MTS along Lake Erie, and consequently, can affect navigation. Specifically, when draft levels are below Seaway draft (27 feet), larger ships may need to operate below their full capacity resulting in lost revenue (lower payload) for marine carriers, and by extension, higher marine transportation costs for shippers. Until recently, dredging in the Great Lakes, including on Lake Erie, was badly underfunded, resulting in a significant There is a real commercial impact to low draft levels. As noted by the Lake Carriers Association, the largest Lakers forfeit almost 3,200 tons of cargo of each foot of reduced draft. 41 dredging backlog. By one estimate, this backlog has resulted in an estimated 17 million cubic yards of sediment in the Great Lakes system. 42 The 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRDA) provides for increases in funding for dredging in the Great Lakes. Consultations with the Great Lakes Ports Association suggested that this increased funding is for the most part adequate to maintain the Great Lakes system at Seaway draft (27 feet) going forward, but does not address the historic dredging backlog, which still clogs part of the marine system on Lake Erie and on the Great Lakes more broadly. For the smaller ports on Lake Erie, dredging is a top issue. In order to qualify for ongoing federal funds for maintenance dredging, a port must handle over 1 million tons per year. 43 In Lorain, when the steel mill and other businesses were active the port tonnage was 14 million. Today the tonnage is just under 1 million, but it has been as low as 500,000 tons in recent years. The port is on the threshold of being a lower priority for dredging and, right now, can accommodate the traffic that uses the port. In the future, channel depth at Lorain and other smaller ports that are not dredging priorities may be a factor in where businesses choose to locate and/or ship their goods. 41 Lake Carriers Association, News and Issues, Dredging Crisis, July 13th, Lake Carriers Association, News and Issues, Dredging Crisis, July 13th, As confirmed by American Great Lakes Ports Association 49

61 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Disposal of Dredge Material: A Present Day Issue in Ohio Environmental concerns have challenged dredging operations on Lake Erie. Specifically, concerns with algae in parts of the Lake Erie (which is largely the result of farm runoff) has prompted the banning of open-lake disposal of dredged material from ports and harbors in Lake Erie (Senate Bill 1). The consultations have underscored that there is no scientific evidence that open-lake disposal of dredge material has contributed to algae blooms. Nevertheless this ban can significantly increase the cost of dredge material disposal as material would need to be disposed in confined disposal facilities (CDFs). This matter is the subject of a least one legal challenge in Ohio. Compounding the draft issue are increasingly fluctuating water levels in the Great Lakes the result of a range of environmental factors, including overlake precipitation, overlake evaporation, and rainfall-induced runoff. 44 Lake Erie, being the Great Lake with the least depth, is likely most prone to being impacted by water level variability with regards to commercial marine navigation. Figure 3-1: Change in Surface Water Levels, Source: CPCS, based on map provided by Lake Carriers Association in presentation, Dredging Primer by Jim Weakly (Cleveland, OH, Oct. 2013) 44 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Water Levels on the Great Lakes,

62 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Ohio River The primary concerns on the Ohio River center around the aging infrastructure of this important marine highway. Congress has provided inadequate funding to USACE for several years. The lack of funding for proper maintenance, combined with aging infrastructure leads to this concern. In terms of age and size, the twenty L&D facilities on the Ohio River can be viewed in three broad groups. Locks 75+ years old. This includes the upper three structures: Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery L&Ds. These 3 locks each have one 600 x110 main chamber and a 360 x56 auxiliary chamber. Fifteen-barge tows must be processed in double-cuts through the main chamber, while tow sizes are limited to five-cuts in the small auxiliary chamber. The condition of these old structures and the inefficiently small lock sizes are major concerns. Improvements to Montgomery, Emsworth and Dashields are part of $2.6 billion plan authorized by Congress in WRDA Old locks at the three sites will be replaced with new 110 x600 structures. As discussed in Working Paper 2, appropriations of actual funding are needed for these projects to begin. Locks 50+ years old. This includes six locks placed in operation prior to 1966: New Cumberland, Pike Island, Greenup, Meldahl, Markland, and McAlpine, and also three locks/chambers that are now at 50 years of service: Belleville, Racine, and #52. Routine maintenance is required, and reliability could suffer if this maintenance is not adequately funded. Locks less than 50 years old. There are 13 modernized lock and dam structures that were constructed between 1954 and 1979, plus Byrd L&D which has locks that were completed in This includes all the locks from New Cumberland downstream to J. T. Myers, a distance of miles. Each of these newer locks has a 1200 x110 main lock chamber and a 600 x110 auxiliary chamber. The 1200 long main chamber allows 15-barge tows to lock through in a single operation, while smaller tows or other vessels usually use the auxiliary chambers. These newer locks and dams are spaced about 60 miles apart, on average, and replaced a series of older [about 50 old lower-lift] structures built around the turn of the 20 th century. A major issue for Ohio River stakeholders is lock and dam deterioration as these structures near the end of their intended design life. Insufficient federal funding for maintenance and repair has been a long-standing problem. Organized advocacy for Ohio River projects is a need that has been mentioned during stakeholder consultations. Collaboration between the adjoining states, and between publicsector and private-sector stakeholders is required. Better marketing and more user-friendly digital access to waterway industry-related information, such available services, rates, etc. are needed to enable economic developers, site 51

63 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System selectors, and potential shippers to better determine the relative advantages of the various modal options for transporting freight. This subject is addressed more fully in a subsequent Working Paper. A stronger digital presence is needed so that economic developers, site selectors, and potential shippers can more readily have access to information for their analysis of modal options for moving freight. This subject is addressed more fully in a subsequent Working Paper. 3.2 At the Port On Dock Equipment Lake Erie Most of the marine facilities in Ohio s MTS are private and serve the needs of their users. Consultations did not reveal specific issues with on-dock equipment at private facilities within the Lake Erie portion of the Ohio MTS. Equipment needs within private facilities are satisfied and financed largely on the basis of commercial contracts. The ODOT has in the past helped fund specialized equipment within private facilities, where there is an associated potential for job growth. A specific example was an ODOT grant to the Great Lakes Group shipyard in Cleveland to purchase a 770-ton capacity crane the highest lift capacity crane in the Great Lakes. The general cargo facilities at the Ports of Cleveland and Toledo generally have adequate equipment to handle most cargo. ODOT has helped fund ($6.8 million) the purchase of some equipment in these facilities, including two LMH 280 Liebherr Mobile Harbor Cranes (each have a lift capacity of 84 metric tonnes) at the port of Toledo and contributed to the purchase of new cranes at the Port of Cleveland as well. Nevertheless, most marine facilities on Lake Erie lack the capacity to handle particularly heavy project cargo, more typical of types of project cargo. Heavier lift capacity is required for this heavy cargo. ODOT, and other state departments over the years provided grant funding and forgivable loans to support the purchase of MTS-related equipment, such as lift cranes and conveyor systems. Ohio River The ODOT Mid-Ohio Valley Intermodal Study, completed in 2012 by W. R. Coles and Associates, notes the need for general cargo capability in the Marietta area, as well as development of a multimodal industrial park providing access to water, rail and highway transportation. Some terminals which now focus on bulk could add general cargo capabilities with investment in new cargo docks, mooring structures, cranes, operations areas and on-site roadways. Suitable short- 52

64 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System term storage could also be needed, depending on the cargoes attracted. These investments are capital intensive Port Configuration Lake Erie Consultations did not reveal any space or configuration issues at the larger Lake Erie port facilities, nor did the Ohio Freight Plan. Both the Ports of Cleveland and Toledo noting having adequate laydown and storage area to accommodate more than twice current demand, though we understand that some of the covered storage facilities at the port of Toledo require rehabilitation. With respect to heavy project cargo, laydown areas may in some cases need to be re-enforced to prevent damage. For example questions remain as to whether facilities at the Port of Cleveland will be able to handle heavy offshore wind energy cargo related to the LEEDCo-led pilot project on Lake Erie. As with support for the purchase of new equipment, ODOT and other state departments over the years provided grant funding and forgivable loans to port reconfiguration and facilities projects. For example, $4.7 million was awarded to the Cleveland Port Authority for its reconfiguration projects which included slip reconfigurations, the construction of a warehouse and the purchase of equipment, as well as road improvements. Ohio River Consultations on the Ohio River are scheduled through February. The primary physical issue cited to date is landside access. Roadway improvements and rail access will enhance the multimodal capabilities at general cargo terminals, and allow use of efficient waterborne transportation by an increased number of inland users. 3.3 Outside the Gate Connectivity Lake Erie Consultations did not reveal significant port connectivity issues on Lake Erie. On the contrary, in most cases particularly at the Ports of Cleveland and Toledo that rail and road access to the port facilities was generally very good (i.e., access to multiple Class I railroads). One exception is problematic interchanges between the Cleveland Harbor Belt Railroad (CHB) and CSX at the Port of Cleveland (26 th Street Yard has access from only one end of the yard) Ohio MTS stakeholder (no permission for direct attribution) 53

65 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System In Toledo, Midwest Terminals recently opened a 3 rd cargo dock that enables them to provide competitive service to their customers via CSX or Norfolk Southern (NS). One Ohio stakeholder underscored that rail access can help attract traffic to marine facilities, but that Class I railroads are generally only interested in facilitating such access if it generates new business for them. In this respect, short lines were noted has having a particularly important regional economic development role in that their interests are more local than that of Class Is. Specifically, one regional stakeholder noted that only two Class Is have effective access to Lake Erie ports and that there would be potential value in increasing effective access by shortlines the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway (W&LE) or Indiana & Ohio Railway (I&ORY). W&LE could readily get into the Port of Cleveland or the Port of Toledo if NS and CSX were to provide trackage rights over short stretches of their tracks. The I&ORY could get into the Port of Toledo with more extensive trackage rights. As was suggested, if goods to and from Ohio businesses come in via lake ports, trucking is the logical first mile/last mile choice UNLESS there is a small railroad that lives on short haul traffic. 46 Road access to port facilities on Lake Erie are also good. Road corridors into and out of the Port facilities are not constrained by bridges or tunnels. There are challenges with respect to truck access to the bulk terminal at the Port of Cleveland, but this is largely a ship transloading / railserved facilities. The bulk terminal access has been studied in the past but it has been concluded that there are no feasible solutions. And, in Sandusky, there is an at-grade crossing near the coal dock where trains may block the crossing for up to 30 minutes at a time. The Port of Toledo did highlight certain challenges in moving dimensional cargo along certain routes in/out of the Port (particularly along George Hardy Dr.), which has bridge weight restrictions and overhead line challenges. More significant, and outside the direct control of port are permitting challenges for oversize/overweight cargo moving via marine facilities on Lake Erie. Oversize/overweight cargo require special permits to move by road. Permitting can be particularly challenging for multistate moves as size/weight and permitting processes can differ greatly from state to another Ohio MTS stakeholder (no permission for direct attribution) 47 CPCS, NCHRP Report 830, Multi-State, Multimodal, Oversize/Overweight Transportation, 54

66 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System Community Lake Erie The communities on Lake Erie have historically prospered due to their proximity to the water and the role it served in driving their economies. However, consultations revealed that while these communities respect and understand the past, they do not necessarily believe it is a true indicator of their future growth. As example, Lorain is in the early stage of conducting a 23-mile long economic development study focused on the Lake Erie Shoreline (from Vermilion, OH to the east). This study will ensure future development is both recreational and commercial in nature, focusing on the assets that are already in place, and making best use of them. In Sandusky, development on the west side of town will likely be industrial or mixed-use in nature. There is a newer condo community in this area, across the water from the Norfolk Southern coal facility, but this is an anomaly and developed because the community did not have a comprehensive land use plan in place. This will likely remain an isolated residential community. Due to the good rail access and available land on the west side of town, mixed use/industrial development makes sense. However industrial expansion on the water is unlikely. To connect with the rest of the city/downtown, this industrial area will have a bike path. In Lake County, near Fairport Harbor (on the Grand River), economic developers do not foresee any long-term industrial demands for marine transport that are not already provided locally, or via port of Cleveland. As example, Lubrizol is located in Lake County and ships out of the port of Cleveland it is only 30 miles away, and the distance is not a barrier. Additionally, the ports on the Grand River have no developable land adjacent to current operations, limiting future growth potential. The Lake County Ohio Port and Economic Development Authority s Annual Report notes that communities that border the lakes are seeing a corresponding rise in the demands of their residents to provide high-quality options for access to, and recreational facilities, on the water Lake County Ohio Port and Economic Development Authority s Annual Report,

67 Ohio Working Paper 1 Ohio s Maritime Transportation System 4 Next Steps The present Working Paper and supporting GIS maps of Ohio s MTS is the output of Tasks 1.1 and 1.2. It is provided for review and comment by ODOT. A revised Working Paper will be provided in due time, based on ODOT comments and updates based on future consultations and research. Work on Tasks 1.3 and 1.4 is well underway and will conclude with the submission of a Working Paper on Ohio MTS Governance. Work on Task 2 is also well underway. Figure 4-1: Ohio Work Plan Tasks 56