United States Air and Radiation EPA420-R-99-019
Environmental Protection September 1999
Agency
vvEPA Commercial Marine
Activity for Great Lake and
Inland River Ports in the
United States
Final Report
> Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
EPA420-R-99-019
September 1999
for
in the
Assessment and Modeling Division
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
NOTICE
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions.
It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data which are currently available.
The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
technical information and to inform the public of technical developments which
may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position, or regulatory action.
-------
COMMERCIAL MARINE
ACTIVITY FOR GREAT
LAKE AND INLAND RIVER
PORTS IN THE UNITED
STATES
Final Report
30 June 1999
PREPARED FOR
-------
Commercial Marine Activity
for Great Lake and Inland
River Ports in the United
States
Final Report
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Assessment & Modeling Division
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
This report and the information and data described herein have been funded by the USEPA
under Contract 68-C6-0068, Work Assignments 0-06, 1-05, and 2-01. It is being released for
information purposes only. It may not reflect the views and positions of the USEPA on the
topics and issues discussed, and no official endorsement by USEPA of the report or its
conclusions should be inferred.
This report has not been peer reviewed.
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Assessment & Modeling Division
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Prepared by:
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
555 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View
California 94043
Tel 650 9615700
Fax 650 254 2496
OurRef:
SJ007264
Date:
30 June 1999
Authors:
Louis Browning
Kassnadra Genovesi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
i
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
SECTION 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
SECTION 5
SECTION 6
APPENDIX A
INTRODUCTION TO COMMERCIAL MARINE ACTIVITY
AT GREAT LAKE AND RIVER PORTS 1-1
MARINE INVENTORY BACKGROUND 1 -1
DATA SOURCES FOR COMMERCIAL MARINE INVENTORIES 1 -1
APPROACH TO COMMERCIAL MARINE INVENTORIES 1 -3
REPORT ORGANIZATION 1-4
TOP RIVER AND LAKE PORTS 2-1
PURPOSE 2-1
DATA SUMMARIZED AND EXPLAINED 2-1
DATA ORIGINS AND DETAILS 2-3
TYPICAL GREAT LAKE PORTS 3-1
INTRODUCTION 3-1
DATA SOURCES 3-1
CALCULATION OF TIME-IN-MODE 3 -2
GENERAL OPERATIONS AT TYPICAL GREAT LAKE PORTS 3 -4
CLEVELAND, OHIO 3-4
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA 3-13
METHODOLOGY FOR ALLOCATION TO OTHER GREAT LAKE
PORTS 3-19
TYPICAL RIVER PORTS 4-1
INTRODUCTION TO TYPICAL RIVER PORTS 4-1
GENERAL OPERATIONS ON INLAND RIVERS 4-1
CALCULATING TIME-IN-MODE 4-4
PORT OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS 4-6
PORT OF CINCINNATI, OHIO 4-14
METHODOLOGY - USING TYPICAL RIVER DATA WITH TOP 60
LRPDATA 4-21
RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1
REFERENCES 6-1
USACE FIELDS DETAILED A-l
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION TO COMMERCIAL MARINE ACTIVITY
AT GREAT LAKE AND RIVER PORTS
This report is Volume II of a two volume report on commercial marine activity in the United States
developed by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office
of Mobile Sources. This Volume addresses commercial marine activity at selected Great Lake and river ports.
Volume I addressed commercial marine activity at selected deep-sea ports.
1.1 MARINE INVENTORY BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to present a basis for quantifying and qualifying operational characteristics
of commercial marine activity at major Great Lake and river ports in the U.S. This report details work
performed underwork assignment (WA) 2-01, a continuation of WAs 0-06 and 1-05, of Contract 68-C6-0068,
begun in fiscal year 1997 by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller for the EPA. The activity profiles developed herein
may be used to quantify emissions from Great Lake and river ports in the United States. EPA eventually plans
to use data derived from these activity models as default inputs to EPA's NONROAD model.
As air emission inventories become more precise, it becomes necessary to chronicle all types of
activities that could impact air quality. Because marine vessel emissions are believed to be a significant portion
of the emission inventory, their operations and emissions must be better understood before the true impact of
marine emissions on air quality can be assessed. Marine vessel activities have been investigated in the past, but
in general these studies focused on only a few ports or made assumptions about all vessels based on data for
only a few ship-types. This report will help EPA to assist state and local air pollution control agencies in
forming a more precise picture of commercial marine activity at Great Lake and river ports, a large contribution
to overall marine activity, and may help in devising incentive programs and regulations to reduce emissions
from the marine sector.
1.2 DATA SOURCES FOR COMMERCIAL MARINE INVENTORIES
A set of ports were selected for detailed analysis in this report. These ports are referred to as Typical
Great Lake Ports and Typical River Ports throughout this document. The Typical Ports are shown in Table 1 -1.
Data from these Typical Ports can then be used to define activity at other ports in the U.S. that are similar in
nature to the Typical Ports.
In addition, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller developed less detailed activity profiles (cumulative trips
and tonnage organized by ship-type) for the Top 60 Great Lake and River Ports (LRPs) in the U.S. The LRP
data can be used for applying Typical Port activity data to other of the LRPs.
1-1
-------
Table 1-1. Typical Great Lake and River Ports
Typical Port
Port of Cleveland, OH
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Port of Cincinnati, OH
Metropolitan Port of St. Louis, MO
Waterways
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Ohio River
Mississippi River
Data on the Typical Great Lake Ports were available from Marine Exchanges and Port Authorities
(MEPAs) associated with each Typical Great Lake Port as well as from the Census Bureau for foreign ships.
All of the Typical Ports had detailed data available from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE).
This detailed data contained information on vessel movements, vessel characteristics, and vessel operators. The
data sources, and a brief explanation of the data uses, are listed below. For a more detailed discussion of the
data, refer to the sections referenced below and also to Appendix A.
United States Army Corps of Engineers - The Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) provided data used to develop total domestic trips and total
domestic tonnages for the LRPs in the U.S. (see Section 2). The USAGE also provided more detailed
data on the Typical Ports allowing computation of individual vessel movements, (see Sections 3 and
4)
• United States Bureau of Census (Census Bureau) - Data provided on the Navigation Data Center
Publications and U.S. Waterway Data CD by the Census Bureau were used to develop the total foreign
trips and tonnages as well as individual foreign vessel movements for the Great Lake Ports, (see
Sections 2 and 3) (Reference 1)
• Marine Exchange/Port Authority (MEPA) - Data were used to develop vessel hotelling time averages
for the Great Lake Ports. (See Section 3)
• Lloyds Maritime Information Service (LMIS) - Data were provided from the Lloyds Register on vessel
characteristics such as horsepower and engine speed. These data were matched with the vessel data
from the MEPAs and Census Bureau for vessel characteristic summaries at the Great Lake Ports. (See
Section 3)
• Operator Data - Information obtained through conversations with operators augmented the electronic
data and allowed calculation of time-in-modes at the River Ports.
• Port Series Reports - Reports covering the principal U.S. coastal, Great Lakes, and ports are compiled
and published by the Ports and Waterways Division, Water Resources Support Center, USAGE. The
1-2
-------
data in these reports were used in conjunction with pilot data to develop the detailed port data presented
in each Typical Port section. (References 2 through 5 )
• Other data sources - Other data sources such as the book "Know Your Ships" (Reference 6) and
Internet Web Sites www.boatnerd.com (Reference 7) and www.lcaships.com (Reference 8) were
invaluable for determining vessel characteristics and general operations for the Typical Great Lake
Ports.
The data sources listed above were used to determine how each ship-type operates in each Typical Port,
how many of each ship-type called on the Typical Port in the given year, and the characteristics of the ship-type.
These data can be used to determine the emissions per ship-type for each mode of operation in the given year.
This report will determine the ship type categories to use as well as the values to use for the number
of trips per year, the average time-in-mode, and the average rated horsepower. Other factors needed for
determining emissions inventories, such as load factors and emission factors, are not discussed in this report.
1.3 APPROACH TO COMMERCIAL MARINE INVENTORIES
Our approach to the Great Lake and River component of the commercial marine inventory relies on a
detailed analysis of a set of Typical Ports to be used in conjunction with less detailed data on the LRPs in the
U.S. This approach provides a clear summary of the major U.S. ports as well as a more detailed analysis of the
Typical Ports. The foundations of this approach are the activity profiles for the Typical Ports that give
information on vessel equipment such as horsepower, speed, and age as well as information on vessel
movements so that a modeler can determine how long each type of vessel commonly operates in each of several
modes. These modes correspond to different engine loads and, thus, to different emission characteristics. In
order to develop the activity profiles, this report does the following:
• Lists the Top 60 LRPs in the U.S. as determined by cargo tonnage for 1995 by the USAGE
Provides an inventory of the number of trips, by vessel type, at the Top 60 LRPs in the U.S. for 1995
• Provides an inventory of the tons of cargo handled, by vessel type, at each of the LRPs in the U.S. for
1995
Provides Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)1 codes forthe LRPs in the U.S. Each county
has a unique FIPS code, and the county names are also given for each county within a port's
boundaries
• Provides detailed data, collected from the ports themselves, on vessel movements for four Typical Great
Lake and River Ports for 1996
FIPS codes are distinct, unique, numeric identification codes assigned to each county by the U.S. government.
1-3
-------
• Provides vessel characterizations, by vessel type, for the Typical Ports including such equipment
details as propulsion horsepower, capacity tonnage, and engine age (as available)
• Provides the time-in-mode for each vessel category
Provides a methodology for allocating time-in-mode activity data from a Typical Port to a similar LRP
An activity scenario for each Typical Port is specified in terms of categories of vessels, number of
vessels in each category for the given year (1996), and number of hours at each time-in-mode associated with
cruising, reduced speed, maneuvering, and hotelling. The time-in-mode values developed forthe Typical Great
Lake Ports were based on actual activity information acquired directly from vessel operators and information
obtained from the MEPAs. The time-in-mode values developed for the Typical River Ports were based on
information acquired from vessel operators. The ship characteristics and time-in-mode data can be used to
develop default operating time-in-modes for other LRPs based on similarities between a given LRP and a given
Typical Port. This will yield a more easily obtained and more accurate estimate of vessel emissions for a wide
range of ports than has been available in the past.
Because Great Lake ports and River ports are different from deep-sea ports as well as from each other,
individual methodologies have been developed for Great Lake ports and for River ports. These are explained
in detail in Sections 3 and 4.
By using trip and cargo tonnage data generated for the Top 60 LRPs and more detailed activity data
generated for 4 Typical Ports, time-in-mode and vessel characteristics by ship-type can be determined for each
of the 60 LRPs. Thus, a modeler could use either locally available time-in-mode characteristics unique to the
port they wish to model or to use the default values from a Typical Port that most closely resembles the port to
be modeled.
This report is intended for use by EPA in developing activity profiles for U.S. ports. These profiles will
then be used with emission factors to develop emission profiles for LRPs. This report can also be used to
facilitate data gathering and modeling efforts at the state and local levels by providing an understanding of the
inputs EPA used in developing port emission profiles.
1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report presents data from four Typical Ports and the Top 60 LRPs. This report is organized into
5 sections. Section 1 is this introduction to the purpose and organization of the report. Section 2 is apresentation
of the LRP data, data sources, and methodology for developing the data. Section 3 is a presentation of the
Typical Great Lake Ports used in this study, operations in a Typical Great Lake Port, and a summary of the data.
Section 4 is a presentation of the Typical River Ports used in this study, operation on the rivers, and a summary
of the data. Section 5 provides recommendations for future work. References follows in Section 6. Appendix
A gives descriptions for each field from each data source.
1-4
-------
SECTION 2
TOP RIVER AND LAKE PORTS
2.1 PURPOSE
The data on the U.S. Great Lake and River Ports (LRPs) will be used to:
• Rank the Lake and River Ports as determined by 1995 cargo tonnage records
Provide an inventory of the number of trips, by vessel type for 1995 at the LRPs
• Provide an inventory of the tons of cargo handled in 1995 by vessel type at each of the LRPs
• Determine county affiliations and federal county codes for the LRPs (for allocation purposes)
Allow an estimation of activity at each of the LRPs when coupled with the information presented in
Sections 3 and 4 for the Typical Ports.
2.2 DATA SUMMARIZED AND EXPLAINED
Before looking closely at the ship-types and the cargo tonnages, it is necessary to review the language
of vessel movements. The terms most commonly used in this section are defined in Table 2-1. Trips, entrances,
and clearances are terms used to denote a type of vessel movement to, from, or within a port/waterway area.
Table 2-1. Vessel movements described
Term
Definition
Port
A defined area of marine commerce within a navigable body of water. Ports have distinct
boundaries but may be nearly 100 miles long in some instances. Port and waterway codes
may be identical. They differ when a port is on a waterway which has more than one port.
For instance, the Port of St. Louis is defined by port code 2310 and is located on waterways
6079 and 6080, but Burns Waterway Harbor is located on waterway 3739 and has no
separate port code.
Waterway
A navigable body of water that may or may not have a port within it. Waterway codes and
port codes are identical for some bodies of water (See "Port" above).
Entrance
When a vessel enters a port/waterway area. An entrance is recorded for a vessel entering
the waterway and is analogous to one trip.
Clearance
When a vessel leaves a port/waterway area. A clearance is recorded for a vessel exiting the
waterway and is analogous to one trip.
Trip
A trip is one entrance or one clearance from a USAGE recognized port/waterway. A trip is
a one-way movement. Trips may also occur within a port/waterway. Trips within a port are
considered intraport and may be analogous to MEPA Area shifts (see Section 3.3). Trips
and tonnages associated with intraport trips are included in the LRP summary tables.
Intraport
Movement within the boundaries of a port. For Great Lake and river ports, an intraport
movement is comparable to a shift in a deep-sea port.
2-1
-------
In some instances, the terms port and waterway can be used nearly interchangeably. In most cases,
however, we are concerned with the traffic at the ports.
The data presented in this section were collected by the USAGE and the Census Bureau. Data on
domestic flag vessels were received from USAGE and data on foreign flag vessels from the Census Bureau.
Data received included trips and cargo tonnages for each port/waterway area in the U.S. recognized by the
USAGE. This trip and cargo data can be used separately or together to estimate ship traffic and activities in
order to estimate emissions due to commercial marine vessel activity from port areas. For more detail on the
relationship between Census Bureau data and USAGE data as used in this report, see "Commercial Marine
Activity Volume I: Deep-Sea Ports" by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, 1999 (hereafter Volume I).
There are a more limited number of ship-types involved with transportation at the LRPs than in the
Deep-Sea Ports (DSPs). Table 2-2 of Volume I has descriptions of many general ship-types. Of those, there
were no barge carrier, ferry or vehicle carrier trips or tons in 1995 at the Top 60 LRPs.
Table 2-2 presents a summary of all the trips and cargo tonnages for the LRPs in 1995. This table
demonstrates how different criteria can result in different rankings of the LRPs and the significance of each
ship-type. Intraport movements are included in the trip and tonnage totals of Tables 2-2 through 2-4. These
intraport movements are a significant part of traffic on the river ports and have the same time-in-mode
characteristics as atrip from an outside port. Intraport movements are an insignificant component of most of
the Great Lake Ports. However, there are exceptions, such as the Port of Chicago, which have significant
intraport movements. The activity profiles developed for the Typical Great Lake Ports may need to be revised
for Great Lake Ports with significant intraport movements, as intraport movements would not normally have
cruise or reduced speed zone time allotments.
Ship-types are abbreviated in Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 as follows:
BC = Bulk Cargo Carrier RF = Reefer
BD = Dry-cargo Barge RO = RORO and Ferry
BL = Liquid Cargo (Tanker) Barge SV = Supply/Support Vessel
CS = Container Ship TA = Tanker
GC = General Cargo TUG = Tugboat and Pushboat
OT = Other, Unknown, or Undefined UC = Unidentified Dry-cargo
PA = Passenger, Cruise and Excursion
2-2
-------
Table 2-2. USAGE trip and ton totals for the LRPs
Ship-Type
BC
BD
BL
CS
GC
OT
PA
RF
RO
sv
TA
TUG
UC
Grand Total
Trips
Lake
16,420
30,772
8,821
2
1,484
19
3,759
34
4
-
2,539
23,972
3,329
91,155
River
-
268,473
44,941
-
9
-
559
-
-
40
-
140,204
1,426
455,652
Tonnage
Lake
212,348,453
33,681,664
9,761,536
4,850
1,719,198
13,066
7,929
425,146
8,414
-
1,811,986
-
36,114,265
295,896,507
River
-
165,545,033
42,739,741
-
-
-
128
-
-
-
-
-
1,196
208,286,098
Table 2-3 and 2-4 present the LRPs ranked in order of net cargo tonnage recorded as sent/received by
the port. Only the Top 60 LRPs as determined by the data from the USAGE and Census Bureau are included
in these tables. The top commercial DSPs are in the corresponding tables in Volume I. Table 2-3 presents the
total number of trips per ship-type, and Table 2-4 presents the tons of cargo by ship-type. Table 2-5 presents
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) codes and corresponding county names for each of the LRPs.
2.3 DATA ORIGINS AND DETAILS
The number of vessels for each LRP were determined from two databases. One database, from the
USAGE Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, records the port code, type of vessel, tons of cargo, number
of trips per vessel type, and month of trip for domestic vessels. Port codes and waterway codes are assigned by
USAGE to all navigable waters in the U.S. As stated in Table 2-1, the port code is more specific and refers
directly to a port or harbor area. The waterway code usually refers to a more general waterway area that often
contains port or harbor areas. Knowledge of vessel type is important because there are distinct differences
between operating characteristics and, therefore, between emissions of various types of vessels.
Included in the USAGE files are data on foreign vessels. While USAGE receives these data from the
Census Bureau, they do not have permission to provide some details of foreign vessel traffic. USAGE may only
release the number of foreign entrances and clearances by a general ship-type description while reporting the
annual foreign shipments in January , and the annual foreign receipts in December. Thus, another data source
is needed in order to obtain detailed ship-type descriptions and monthly breakdowns of foreign vessel traffic.
2-3
-------
Table 2-3. Top 60 Lake and River Ports, trips by ship-type for 1995
Rank
1
9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Port Name
Port of Pittsburgh, PA
Duluth-Superior, MN & WI
Port of St. Louis, MO & PL
Port of Chicago, PL
Huntington, WV
Memphis, TN
Indiana Harbor, IN
Port of Detroit, MI
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Lorain Harbor, OH
Toledo Harbor, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Presque Isle Harbor, MI
Ashtabula Harbor, OH
Gary Harbor, IN
Taconite Harbor, MN
Louisville, KY
Escanaba, MI
Stoneport, MI
Calcite, MI
Two Harbors, MN
Mount Vemon, IN
St. Clair, MI
Conneaut Harbor, OH
Vicksburg, MS
Port Inland, MI
St. Paul, MN
Victoria, TX
Silver Bay, MN
Port of Kansas City
Marine City, MI
Port of Nashville, TN
Sandusky Harbor, OH
Marblehead, OH
Milwaukee Harbor, WI
Port Dolomite, MI
R/La
R
L
R
L
R
R
L
L
L
L
L
R
L
L
L
L
L
R
L
L
L
L
R
L
L
R
L
R
R
L
R
L
R
L
L
L
L
BC
-
1,808
-
690
-
-
679
1,068
1,344
1,061
763
-
306
505
522
325
339
-
521
696
612
317
-
378
223
-
457
-
-
306
-
162
-
183
339
302
299
BD
104,185
63
46,419
21,739
29,154
13,888
638
361
229
35
80
12,419
2,634
2
2
1,350
41
8,864
44
32
51
34
5,551
6
8
2,877
111
6,818
1,813
-
15,983
-
4,603
9
114
902
75
BL
3,668
6
5,039
5,964
5,769
4,748
1,504
605
145
-
212
2,824
88
-
-
-
-
4,034
-
-
-
-
1,610
53
-
9,508
-
346
2,991
-
132
-
252
-
12
83
-
CS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GC
-
84
1
10
-
2
1
-
11
12
26
-
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19
-
OT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PA
286
-
3
1
-
4
-
-
2
-
-
220
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
3,714
-
-
RF
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
18
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
-
RO
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
SV
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
-
670
-
166
-
-
961
207
48
-
65
-
214
-
-
88
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TUG
49,742
64
29,939
12,523
18,595
1,893
2,671
838
685
46
346
3,341
2,189
2
-
1,089
41
2,238
44
29
46
35
730
42
8
5,141
109
3,788
2,478
-
15,728
-
1,123
9
22
2,060
71
uc
-
566
-
120
-
-
92
-
186
37
423
-
145
115
212
17
-
-
-
66
164
-
-
26
168
-
31
-
-
-
-
-
-
517
52
105
27
Grand Total
157,881
3,265
81,401
41,213
53,518
20,535
6,546
3,079
2,650
1,191
1,917
18,804
5,587
624
738
2,869
421
15,136
609
825
873
386
7,891
529
425
17,576
708
10,952
7,282
306
31,843
162
5,978
733
4,253
3,476
472
2-4
-------
Table 2-3. Top 60 Lake and River Ports, trips by ship-type for 1995 (continued)
Rank
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
Port Name
Fairport Harbor, OH
Alpena Harbor, MI
Guntersville, AL
Chattanooga, TN
Green Bay Harbor, WI
Helena, AR
Monroe Harbor, MI
Greenville, MS
Port of Buffalo, NY
Muskegon Harbor, MI
Biloxi Harbor, MS
Drummond Island, MI
Charlevoix Harbor, MI
Tulsa, Port of Catoosa, OK
Buffington Harbor, IN
Minneapolis, MN
Ludington Harbor, MI
Huron Harbor, OH
Erie Harbor, PA
Grand Haven Harbor, MI
Washington, DC
Hempstead, NY
R/La
L
L
R
R
L
R
L
R
L
L
R
L
L
R
L
R
L
L
L
L
R
R
Grand Total
BC
256
492
-
-
215
-
128
-
106
170
-
121
154
-
88
-
103
87
186
108
-
-
16,420
BD
36
2
3,277
2,709
1,801
1,604
1
1,700
6
37
1,979
36
146
1,036
117
1,813
6
-
2
22
1,041
740
299,245
BL
-
-
297
737
6
730
31
935
16
10
419
-
-
574
-
-
86
-
-
-
122
206
53,762
CS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
GC
576
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
662
-
-
-
1,493
OT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19
PA
-
-
32
-
-
7
-
1
34
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,318
RF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
34
RO
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
SV
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
TA
-
4
-
-
14
-
9
-
73
-
-
-
-
-
22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,539
TUG
35
1
484
802
16
768
32
986
58
33
395
36
388
552
75
541
246
20
1
62
144
796
164,176
UC
35
41
-
-
-
-
-
-
45
16
1,426
30
4
-
1
-
3
30
22
33
-
-
4,755
Grand Total
938
540
4,090
4,248
2,052
3,109
194
3,624
411
266
4,219
223
692
2,162
303
2,354
444
137
873
225
1,307
1,742
546,807
R indicates a river port, L indicates a Great Lake Port.
2-5
-------
Table 2-4. Top 60 Lake and River Ports, tonnage by ship-type for 1995
Rank
1
9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Port Name
Port of Pittsburgh, PA
Duluth-Superior, MN & WI
Port of St. Louis, MO & IL
Port of Chicago, IL
Huntington, WV
Memphis, TN
Indiana Harbor, IN
Port of Detroit, MI
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Lorain Harbor, OH
Toledo Harbor, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Bums Waterway Harbor, IN
Presque Isle Harbor, MI
Ashtabula Harbor, OH
Gary Harbor, IN
Taconite Harbor, MN
Louisville, KY
Escanaba, MI
Stoneport, MI
Calcite, MI
Two Harbors, MN
Mount Vernon, IN
St. Clair, MI
Conneaut Harbor, OH
Vicksburg, MS
Port Inland, MI
St. Paul, MN
Victoria, TX
Silver Bay, MN
Port of Kansas City
Marine City, MI
Port of Nashville, TN
Sandusky Harbor, OH
Marblehead, OH
Milwaukee Harbor, WI
Port Dolomite, MI
R/La
R
L
R
L
R
R
L
L
L
L
L
R
L
L
L
L
L
R
L
L
L
L
R
L
L
R
L
R
R
L
R
L
R
L
L
L
L
BC
-
35,251,727
-
6,101,138
-
-
11,266,916
13,589,436
12,019,713
14,515,815
7,604,955
-
6,820,626
8,250,539
6,569,580
7,637,237
8,620,330
-
7,737,833
7,125,554
5,934,910
7,141,452
-
6,153,051
2,776,685
-
4,569,546
-
-
4,348,458
-
3,850,333
-
887,715
2,838,254
1,659,048
2,455,796
BD
59,181,271
971,765
26,781,810
17,137,750
21,349,882
10,332,453
1,488,782
761,008
1,554,374
328,479
351,877
10,127,942
1,527,771
57,133
57
2,068,560
627,031
4,557,255
741,595
330,530
585,986
1,123,932
6,130,521
64,912
220,301
1,941,307
106,723
4,456,951
2,034,914
-
4,050,173
-
3,340,089
2,400
265,134
327,940
519,206
BL
3,531,651
8,284
5,897,501
5,442,921
6,915,849
5,970,642
2,239,545
698,825
270,307
-
322,682
2,950,144
91,936
-
-
-
-
4,442,027
-
-
-
-
2,109,194
36,688
-
3,290,186
-
314,057
2,589,278
-
208,686
-
408,889
-
13,453
232,256
-
CS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,850
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GC
-
608,991
-
22,388
-
-
1,945
-
29,249
5,467
72,272
-
27,236
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43,015
-
OT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,066
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
716
2,143
-
-
RF
-
69,273
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
34,538
-
-
-
-
33,671
-
-
-
-
248,892
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38,771
-
-
-
RO
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,414
-
SV
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
-
91,015
-
274,525
-
-
89,551
620,028
177,671
-
187,426
-
25,164
-
-
3,354
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9,176
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TUG
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
uc
-
8,089,024
-
1,153,627
-
-
674,386
-
1,501,766
114,523
5,530,436
-
1,809,673
1,791,750
3,406,054
283,208
-
-
-
978,000
1,859,996
-
-
128,387
2,376,495
-
374,003
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,606,398
398,970
994,916
286,856
Grand Total
62,712,922
45,090,079
32,679,311
30,132,350
28,265,731
16,303,095
15,761,125
15,669,297
15,553,079
14,964,284
14,074,499
13,078,086
10,302,406
10,099,422
10,010,229
9,992,359
9,247,361
8,999,282
8,479,428
8,467,755
8,380,892
8,265,384
8,239,715
6,405,280
5,622,373
5,231,493
5,050,272
4,771,008
4,624,192
4,348,458
4,258,859
3,850,333
3,748,978
3,536,000
3,517,954
3,265,588
3,261,858
2-6
-------
Table 2-4. Top 60 Lake and River Ports, tonnage by ship-type for 1995 (continued)
LRP
Rank
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
Port Name
Fairport Harbor, OH
Alpena Harbor, MI
Guntersville, AL
Chattanooga, TN
Green Bay Harbor, WI
Helena, AR
Monroe Harbor, MI
Greenville, MS
Port of Buffalo, NY
Muskegon Harbor, MI
Biloxi Harbor, MS
Drummond Island, MI
Charlevoix Harbor, MI
Tulsa, Port of Catoosa, OK
Buffmgton Harbor, IN
Minneapolis, MN
Ludington Harbor, MI
Huron Harbor, OH
Erie Harbor, PA
Grand Haven Harbor, MI
Washington, DC
Hempstead, NY
R/La
L
L
R
R
L
R
L
R
L
L
R
L
L
R
L
R
L
L
L
L
R
R
Grand Total
BC
2,056,975
2,604,507
-
-
1,538,824
-
1,792,744
-
616,321
1,628,417
-
1,045,235
979,061
-
1,097,077
-
871,258
955,802
716,368
719,217
-
-
212,348,453
BD
365,871
-
2,623,790
1,897,795
745,982
963,237
-
1,185,025
47,546
20,298
1,428,647
357,634
581,212
821,129
317,208
1,299,922
32,842
-
-
49,825
654,715
386,205
199,226,697
BL
-
-
142,323
627,582
14,918
1,001,345
120,959
700,259
31,441
-
309,613
-
-
710,748
-
-
237,321
-
-
-
204,829
414,938
52,501,277
CS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,850
GC
91,412
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
581,213
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
236,011
-
-
-
1,719,198
OT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,066
PA
-
-
128
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,070
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,057
RF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
425,146
RO
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,414
SV
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
-
12,328
-
-
31,206
-
6,209
-
282,029
-
-
-
-
-
2,304
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,811,986
TUG
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
uc
427,085
149,882
-
-
-
-
-
-
313,984
175,902
1,196
203,209
18,844
-
30,450
-
8,531
131,415
104,348
192,147
-
-
36,115,461
Grand Total
2,941,343
2,766,717
2,766,241
2,525,377
2,330,930
1,964,582
1,919,912
1,885,284
1,872,534
1,824,617
1,739,456
1,606,078
1,584,187
1,531,877
1,447,039
1,299,922
1,149,952
1,087,217
1,056,727
961,189
859,544
801,143
504,182,605
R indicates a river port, L indicates a Great Lake port.
2-7
-------
Table 2-5. County and FIPS codes for the Top 60 LRPs
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Port Name
Port of Pittsburgh, PA
Duluth-Superior, MN & WI
Port of St. Louis, MO & IL
Port of Chicago, IL
Huntington, WV
Memphis, TN
Indiana Harbor, IN
Port of Detroit, MI
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Lorain Harbor, OH
Toledo Harbor, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Burns Wwy Harbor, IN
Presque Isle Harbor, MI
Ashtabula Harbor, OH
Gary Harbor, IN
Taconite Harbor, MN
Louisville, KY
Escanaba, MI
Stoneport, MI
Calcite, MI
Two Harbors, MN
Mount Vernon, IN
St. Clair, MI
Conneaut Harbor, OH
Vicksburg, MS
Port Inland, MI
St. Paul, MN
Victoria, TX
Silver Bay, MN
Port of Kansas City
Marine City, MI
Port of Nashville, TN
Sandusky Harbor, OH
Marblehead, OH
Milwaukee Harbor, WI
R/La
R
L
R
L
R
R
L
L
L
L
L
R
L
L
L
L
L
R
L
L
L
L
R
L
L
R
L
R
R
L
R
L
R
L
L
L
County
Allegheny
Saint Louis/Douglas
Saint Louis City/ Saint Louis/Jefferson
St. Charles/Monroe/St. Clair/Madison
Cook
Cabell/Wayne/Lawrence
Shelby/Crittenden
White County
Wayne
Cuyahoga
Lorain
Lucas
Hamilton/Kenton/Campbell
Porter
Presque Isle
Ashtabula
Lake
Itasca
Jefferson/Floyd/Harrison
Delta
Presque Isle
Presque Isle
Lake
Posey/Henderson
Saint Clair
Ashtabula
Warren/Madison
Interlochen in Grand Traverse
Washington/St. Croix/Pierce
Victoria/Goliad
Lake
Jackson/Clay/Platte
Johnson/Wyandotte
Saint Clair
Davidson
Erie
Ottawa
Northampton
FIPS code
42003
27137/54047/55031
29510/29189/29099
29183/17133/17163/17119
17031
54011/54099/39087
47157/05035
18181
26163
39035
39093
39095
39061/21117/21037
18127
26141
39007
18089
27061
21111/18043/18061
26041
26141
26141
27075
18129/21101
26147
39007
28149/22065
26055
27163/55109/55093
48469/48175
27075
26095/29047/29165
20091/20209
26147
47037
39043
39123
37131
2-8
-------
Table 2-5. County and FIPS codes for the Top 60 LRPs (continued)
Rank
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Port Name
Port Dolomite, MI
Fairport Harbor, OH
Alpena Harbor, MI
Guntersville, AL
Chattanooga, TN
Green Bay Harbor, WI
Helena, AR
Monroe Harbor, MI
Greenville, MS
Port of Buffalo, NY
Muskegon Harbor, MI
Biloxi Harbor, MS
Drummond Island, MI
Charlevoix Harbor, MI
Tulsa, Port of Catoosa, OK
Buffington Harbor, IN
Minneapolis, MN
Ludington Harbor, MI
Huron Harbor, OH
Erie Harbor, PA
Grand Haven Harbor, MI
PortofHopewell, VA
Washington, DC
Hempstead, NY
R/La
L
L
L
R
R
L
R
L
R
L
L
R
L
L
R
L
R
L
L
L
L
R
R
R
County
Mackinac
Lake
Alpena
Marshall
Hamilton
Brown
Phillips/Coahoma/Tunica
Monroe
Washington/Chicot
Erie
Muskegon
Harrison
Chippewa
Charlevoix
Tulsa
Brunswick in Lake
Hennepin/Ramsey
Mason
Fresno
Erie
Ottawa
Hopewell City
Prince Georges
Queens, Nassau
FIPS code
26097
39085
26007
1095
47065
55009
05107/28027/28143
26115
28151/05017
36029
26121
28047
26033
26029
40143
18089
27053/27123
26105
06019
42049
26139
51670
24033
36081/36059
R indicates a river port, L indicates a Great Lake port
2-9
-------
To obtain more detailed ship-type descriptions and monthly breakdowns for foreign vessel traffic, data
on the "U.S. Waterway Data CD-ROM" made available by the Census Bureau's Bureau of Transportation
Statistics was used. The fields available in this database include vessel name, month in which the data were
recorded, port/waterway entered or cleared, international classification by ship-type (ICST) code, flag of
registering country, waterway schedule to indicate the next or last port visited, net registered tons, and draft.
The data on the CD-ROM are gathered from the Census Bureau who collects the data from U.S. Customs
entrance clearance forms.
Both the foreign and domestic vessel files had port/waterway codes to define what port was being
entered or cleared. There is a master list of waterways recognized by the USAGE on the Waterway CD-ROM.
This list was used to query the foreign and domestic databases and to break the data down into the LRPs. The
LRPs were ranked by the most cargo tonnage (combination of shipments and receipts) for the calendar year
1995. Table 2-7 in the Volume I report presents the corresponding Vessel Type Classification and Construction
codes (VTCC) used to identify domestic ship-types and International Classification by Ship-Type codes (ICST)
used to identify foreign ship-types. The match between the VTCC and ICST codes in Table 2-7 comes from
the USAGE CD-ROM from the Waterborne Transportation Lines of the United States (WTLUS).
2-10
-------
SECTION 3
TYPICAL GREAT LAKE PORTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO TYPICAL PORTS
The purpose of these Typical Port data are to allow determination of actual commercial marine vessel
movements on the Great Lake ports of Cleveland and Burns Waterway Harbor. These two ports are considered
by this report to be Typical Great Lake Ports and were chosen to use as models for extrapolating vessel
characteristics and movements at other Great Lake ports. Included in this section are detailed data on these
ports and a methodology allowing the data for these Typical Great Lake Ports to be used with the more general
data in Section 2 to estimate commercial marine vessel movements at other Great Lake ports. The data on the
Typical Great Lake Ports are from 1996 and were obtained from a variety of sources as will be explained in
detail in Section 3.2. The data on the Typical Great Lake Ports will be used to:
Calculate the total number of trips to and from locations within each Typical Great Lake Port
• Calculate the total number of trips by Lakers and Salties
Determine vessel characteristics for the various ship-types stopping at each Typical Great Lake Port
Determine modes of similar speed and operating characteristics
• Calculate the average time each ship-type is operating in these modes
The two Typical Great Lake Ports were chosen because they represent different barge-type distributions
and because they were able to provide electronic data. Both ports are mid-sized Great Lake ports, with
Cleveland ranked 9th by tonnage in the Top 60 LRPs and Burns Waterway Harbor ranked 13th.
The following information is presented in this section. Section 3.2 presents a general overview of the
data sources used to determine operations at the ports. Section 3.3 presents a general overview of time-in-mode
calculations. Section 3.4 presents operating information common to the Typical Great Lake Ports. Section 3.5
presents detailed data on the Port of Cleveland. Section 3.6 presents detailed data on Burns Waterway Harbor.
This section concludes with Section 3.7, a methodology to use the Typical Great Lakes Port data with the
general Great Lakes data presented on the Top 60 LRPs in Section 2.
3.2 DATA SOURCES
Fourprimary sources of data were used to determine trips and time-in-mode forthe two Typical Great
Lake Ports. These include USAGE, Census Bureau, MEPA, and LMIS. The first dataset, obtained from the
USAGE, gave detailed trip data on domestic trips to the ports of Burns Waterway Harbor and Cleveland.
Information within this database included vessel name, vessel type, engine horsepower, shipping port and dock,
receiving port and dock, travel code, unloading equipment, year built, capacity and net rated tons. This dataset
was used to determine trips and shifts for domestic ships, tugs, and barges calling on and leaving the two
3-1
-------
Typical Ports.
The second dataset used was the data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Census on the Navigation Data
Center Publications and U.S. Waterway CD. These data gave detailed trip data on foreign vessels that stopped
at the ports of Burns Waterway Harbor and Cleveland. Data included in this dataset were ship name, flag,
vessel type, and net rated tons. These data were used to determine trips to and from the two Typical Ports by
foreign ships. The third dataset was provided by the Marine Exchange or Port Authority (MEPA). This
included at least ship name, date and time the ship arrived at the port and date and time the ship left the port.
This was used to determine hotelling times.
The fourth dataset was provided by LMIS on ship characteristics. This was matched with both the
Census Bureau and MEPA datasets to provide detailed ship information. Sea-speed, engine type, engine speed
and DWT ratings were determined using LMIS data for similar ship-types and information from the book
"Know Your Ships 1996". Barge types and capacities were determined from USAGE data and "Know Your
Ships 1996". Ship-type information was determined from the vessel type construction and characteristics
(VTCC) codes in the USAGE datasets and from "Know Your Ships 1996". Maneuvering time was determined
using the distance from the breakwater to the dock at which the vessel left or arrived.
In addition to the aforementioned data sources, information about ship activity was obtained from
calling various operators of Lake vessels and pilots used to guide foreign vessels through the lakes. In addition,
information published by the Lake Carriers Association and an educational web site at www.boatnerd.com
provided valuable information on ship characteristics. Further details on the datasets can be found in Appendix
A.
3.3 CALCULATION OF TIME-IN-MODE
Time-in-modes associated with the major engine operating characteristics are needed to calculate
emission inventories due to commercial marine activity. Four separate time-in-modes were calculated for all
ships entering and leaving the two Typical Great Lake Ports: cruise, reduced speed zone (RSZ), maneuvering,
and hotelling. Definitions of these four time-in-modes are given in Table 3-1.
As this study details ship activity within a Great Lake port and not the Great Lakes themselves, travel
on shipping lanes in the Great Lakes were excluded from this study. As most shipping lanes are over 10 miles
from the breakwater of any port, cruise time-in-modes were treated as starting 10 miles from the breakwater and
continuing for 7 nautical miles. Cruise times for all vessels that entered or cleared the breakwater were
determined using the sea-speed or service speed of the vessel. Cruise is assumed to occur at 85 to 90 percent
of maximum continuous rating (MCR). Intraport vessel movements do not have cruise times. Cruise times for
each vessel entering or clearing one of the Typical Great Lake Ports were calculated using Equation 3.1.
Cruise (hrs/trip) = 7 nautical miles / Service Speed (knots) (3.1)
3-2
-------
Table 3-1. Time-in-mode descriptions for vessel movements in Typical Great Lake Ports
Summary
Table Field
Description
Cruise (hrs/trip)
Time at sea-speed measured from 10 miles outside of the breakwater to 3 miles outside
of the breakwater. The breakwater is the geographic marker for the change from the
open lake to the port.
Reduced Speed
Zone (RSZ)
(hrs/trip)
Time during which the vessel slows from sea-speed to 4 knots. This occurs during the
last 3 miles before entering the port. It also occurs upon leaving the port when the
vessel increases speed from 4 knots to sea-speed over a distance of 3 miles.
Maneuver
(hrs/trip)
Time at dead slow or reverse. Dead slow is usually from 2 to 4 knots. All ships are at
maneuvering speed while within the port boundaries except for excursion vessels
which tend to operate at a RSZ of 6 to 7 knots for most of the 2 hour excursion within
the port boundaries. Maneuvering for excursion vessels is only to get into and out of
the dock and is considered to be 0.4 hours for the total trip.
Retelling
(his/call)
Retelling is the time at a dock when the vessel is operating auxiliary engines only.
Auxiliary engines are operated at some load conditions the entire time the vessel is
manned, but peak loads will occur after the propulsion engines are shut down either
because the auxiliary engines are responsible for onboard power or because they are
being used to power off-loading equipment, or both.
At about 3 miles from the breakwater, the vessel begins to slow down in order to pass the breakwater
at approximately 4 knots. Reduced speed zone (RSZ) times for vessels that entered or cleared the breakwater
were determined from the average between sea-speed and 4 knots and were expected to last 3 nautical miles.
The calculations give all vessels an average of 3 miles to slow from sea-speed to 4 knots. In actual operations,
larger vessels may require more distance and time at RSZ to slow to maneuvering speed. RSZ is assumed to
occur at about 60% MCR. RSZ time for each vessel was calculated using Equation 3-2 for all vessels entering
or clearing one of the Typical Great Lake Ports. Tug sea-speed was assumed to be 12 knots based upon
information gathered from tug operators.
RSZ (hrs/trip) = 3 nautical miles * 2 / (Sea-Speed + 4) knots (3.2)
The third time-in-mode is maneuvering. It is the final leg of the journey into the port estimated to occur
at 2 to 4 knots depending upon the waterway, direction, and ship-type. Different estimations of maneuvering
time were made for each Typical Great Lake Port. Maneuvering occurs at approximately 20 to 30% MCR.
Details on maneuvering calculations for Cleveland and Burns Waterway Harbor are in Sections 3.5.2 and 3.6.2
respectively.
Retelling time was determined from the time and date a ship arrived in the port to the time and date
it left the port. These details on individual vessel operations were received from the MEPAs. Details on
hotelling calculations for each Typical Great Lake Port can be found in Section 3.5.3 for Cleveland and Section
3.6.3 for Burns Waterway Harbor.
3-3
-------
3.4 GENERAL OPERATIONS AT TYPICAL GREAT LAKE PORTS
There are several ship-types common to the Great Lakes. Most Great Lake ports have a combination
of Lakers and Salties as well as a substantial amount of barge traffic. Commercial passenger vessels used for
brief excursions are also common.
Lakers are dry-cargo ships that operate only on the Great Lakes and have self-unloading equipment.
Most Lakers are bulk carriers or cement carriers. Salties are foreign flag ships entering and leaving the Great
lakes using the St. Lawrence Seaway. Salties may include bulk dry-cargo, general cargo, tankers, and container
ship-types.
Barge traffic falls into two categories: flat-bottomed river barges (scows) that enter the Great Lakes
through the Ohio River near Chicago, Illinois. The river barges share 1-4 barges per tug and generally do not
have self-unloading equipment. Notch barges are larger lake barges that are more common at Great Lake ports
distant from Chicago. These frequently have self-unloading equipment.
Not included in any of the datasets used for this project are mooring tugs and dredges. Both operate
within the harbor boundaries. Generally, only Salties use mooring tugs to assist in docking, but some Lakers
also will need mooring help under certain conditions. According to operators on the Great Lakes, the rule of
thumb is that ships with bow thrusters need one mooring tug, while those without bow thrusters often require
two tugs. Generally Lakers have bow thrusters and Salties do not. Salties are often required to pick up a Great
Lake pilot who is familiar with the specific section of the Lakes and the vessel's destination port.
3.5 CLEVELAND, OHIO
Cleveland, Ohio is on the south shore of Lake Erie, at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, approximately
176 statute2 miles southwesterly by water from Buffalo, New York, and 96 statute miles easterly by water from
Toledo, Ohio. The Port of Cleveland consists of a lakefront, breakwater-protected, outer harbor area, and an
inner harbor consisting of the lower, deep draft section of the Cuyahoga River, and connecting Old River.
Table 3-2. Port Of Cleveland
LRP Rank
9
Typical Port
Cleveland, Ohio
USACE Port Code
3217
The approximate dimensions ofthe Outer Harbor are as follows: length of 5 miles along the Cleveland
lakefront, a width of 1,600 to 2,400 feet, and an area of 1,300 acres. It is divided into an East and West Basin,
formed by the East and West Breakwaters. The Outer Harbor has two entrances from Lake Erie: the main
entrance is through a dredged channel between the outer ends of two converging breakwaters; the other entrance
One statute mile is equivalent to 5280 feet. A nautical mile is equivalent to 1.15 statute miles
3-4
-------
is at the east end of the East Basin between the breakwater and the shore.
The Inner Harbor includes the improved, lower 5.8 miles of the Cuyahoga River and about one mile
of Old River, the former outlet of the Cuyahoga River. The Old River extends westward from a point about 0.4
mile above the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. The mouth of, and entrance channel to, the Cuyahoga River are
in line with the main entrance to the Outer Harbor from the lake. The entrance channel is protected by 2 parallel
piers placed 325 feet apart. The Cuyahoga River varies in width from 130 feet to 325 feet in straight sections
and widens in the bends and in the turning basin where a width of 800 feet is available; the turning basin is
located 4.8 miles above the mouth. No foreign flag ships use harbors on the Cuyahoga River.
Cleveland has four distinct seasons with strong modifying influences caused by Lake Erie. Prevailing
winds are generally from the south. Summers are moderately warm and humid, winters are reasonably cold and
cloudy with expectations of about 5 days with sub-zero temperatures. Precipitation varies from year to year,
but is normally abundant and well distributed throughout the year with spring being the wettest season. Winds
of 50 mph or greater are most frequent from April to August. Mean snowfall is about 45 inches in the west to
more than 90 inches in the extreme east. The average earliest and latest dates of opening and closing of
navigation for Salties are as follows:
Opening Closing
Earliest Date March 21 December 20
Latest Date Aprils December 30
Domestic Lakers use the port all year around. Coast Guard cutters may be used in the winter months to break
up ice in the harbors and channels to allow passage by Lakers.
3.5.1 Data
The main datasets used to analyze ship activity for the Port of Cleveland were USAGE, Census Bureau,
and data available from the MEPA.
Census Bureau data together with LMIS data were used to determine trips and ship characteristics for
foreign vessels. The Census Bureau data were matched to the LMIS data using ship name. Of the 614 records
of ships that stopped at the Port of Cleveland, 287 matched directly with LMIS data. Another 118 related to
barges, leaving 209 that were matched to similar ships based upon ship-type, DWT and date of build. Each
record represented an entrance or clearance to the Port of Cleveland. It was assumed that all vessels in the
Census Bureau dataset stopped or left from a central dock in the Outer Harbor.
MEPA data together with LMIS data were used to determine hotelling times for all vessels. Of the 154
records in the MEPA dataset, 132 matched directly with LMIS data by vessel name. The other 22 records were
matched with LMIS data based upon ship type, DWT, flag, and date of build. While there were no domestic
ship data in the MEPA dataset, the data did represent data on all the various ship-types except excursion vessels,
3-5
-------
tugboats and barges. Assumptions made for those ship-types are explained in Section 3.5.2.
3.5.2 Time-in-Mode Calculations
Cruise and RSZ time-in-modes for all vessels that entered or cleared the breakwater were determined
as discussed in Section 3.3. Maneuvering times were calculated based upon ship-type and the direction on the
Cuyahoga River. Salties typically stop at a central dock in the Outer Harbor. Maneuvering times for Salties
were estimated to be 0.8 hours per trip. Lakers and tugboats travel down the Cuyahoga river to unload cargo.
Because the Cuyahoga is too narrow for Lakers to turn around (except at the turning basin), they must be pushed
back out the Cuyahoga river by tugboats. Assuming that the river current is negligible, maneuvering for Lakers
is assumed to occur at 4 knots down the river (away from the breakwater) and at 2 knots up the river (towards
the breakwater) with tug assist. Average maneuvering times for Lakers are shown in Table 3-3 for the various
docks within the port of Cleveland. Tugboats are assumed to travel at 3 knots both up and down the river. In
addition to the travel time to the dock discussed above, 0.5 hours are added to maneuver into or out of a dock.
The maneuvering times in Table 3-3 include the 0.5 hours of maneuvering into or out of a dock.
Retelling time for bulk carrier Salties and Lakers were calculated using the MEPA Retelling time was
calculated using Equation 3.3.
Hotelling (hrs/call) = (ETD DATE - ETA DATE) * 24 + (ETD TIME - ETA TIME) (3.3)
where
ETA_DATE = Estimated date of arrival at port
ETD_DATE = Estimated date of departure from port
ETA_TIME = Estimated time of arrival at port
ETD_TIME = Estimated time of departure from port
The MEPA dataset did not contain any information on tugs, excursion vessels, or barges. Estimates
of hotelling time for those ship-types is discussed in Subsection 3.5.4.
3.5.3 Trip Activity
Summary tables for Lakers, Salties, and excursion vessels stopping at the Port of Cleveland are given
in Table 3-4. Each trip is considered one way, either an entrance or clearance into or out of the port. The total
time-in-mode for each ship-type can be achieved by multiplying the trips by the chosen time-in-mode category.
For instance, the 219 trips recorded for Bulk Carrier, Salty times the average RSZ time of 0.3 hours gives a total
RSZ time for all Salty Bulk Carriers that stopped at Cleveland of 65.7 hours per year. The abbreviation "ST"
denotes that a steam turbine is used for the propulsion engine instead of a diesel engine. Because most of the
Lakers go down the Cuyahoga River but Salties do not, Lakers tend to have larger maneuvering times. The use
of mooring tugboats to push the Lakers up the river from the last dock, LTV Steel, to the turning basin also
increases maneuvering time. This activity might be unique to the Port of Cleveland and should be taken into
3-6
-------
account when extrapolating the detailed data for Cleveland to other Great Lake ports. For ports without narrow
rivers that prevent a Laker from turning, maneuvering times for Salties should be used for Lakers when
allocating Cleveland time-in-mode data to other ports.
Loaded vessels sit deeper in the water and require more power than the same vessel would without
cargo, thus emissions will be higher from loaded vessels. Table 3-5 shows the percent of trips by Lakers,
Salties, and excursion vessels that are loaded. Lakers tend to be loaded for only 57% of the trips indicating that
they travel to a port loaded and leave light or visa versa. Salties tend to enter and leave the port loaded.
Trips for tugboats and barges are shown in Table 3-6. Cruise, RSZ and maneuvering times for barges
are not shown as barge emissions come from the tugboat which pushes them. While there is no direct way to
tie specific barges to specific tugboats, several conclusions can be drawn from the comparison of tug and barge
trips. First, there is an almost equal number of barge trips and tugboat trips, so one can assume that the tugboats
recorded by USAGE are nearly always pushing a barge and are not deployed "light" or without a barge. It can
also be assumed from this one to one barge to tug ratio that one tug pushes one barge in the Cleveland area.
Furthermore, only 44 % of return trips are loaded, and one can assume that the larger horsepower tugs are used
to push larger capacity barges. This means that for a majority of the trips into and out of the harbor, the barge
comes in loaded and leaves light or comes in light and leaves loaded. Based upon information obtained from
the tugboat operators, the tugboat generally stays with the barge while loading or unloading. Mooring tug trips
are not recorded by USAGE.
3.5.4 Hotelling
Summary tables for hotelling times for all ship-types are given in Table 3-7. While the MEPA only
provided data on foreign ships, hotelling times for domestic ships are expected to be similar. According to the
Boatnerd website (http://www.oakland.edu/boatnerd/), "Most Lakers require around six hours in port loading
or unloading; many self-unloaders are so highly evolved it often takes just one man at the controls to unload the
entire vessel. The majority of Lakers are self-unloaders - able to discharge cargo without dockside equipment."
The 7.4 hour average hotelling time for Lakers found in this study seems quite reasonable based upon the above
statement.
Because they are not recorded by the MEPA, tug and barge hotelling times were not calculated using
the MEPA data. It can be assumed that self-unloading barges would unload in 6 hours or less depending upon
cargo capacity. Since a 20,000 ton ship takes approximately 6 hours to unload with self-unloading equipment,
one might assume 20 minutes unloading for each 1,000 tons of capacity for a barge with self-unloading
equipment. Barges without self-unloading equipment have no significant emissions and therefore hotelling
time, but there may be hotelling time associated with the tugboat if it stays with the barge. Hotelling time for
excursion vessels should be assumed to be one hour for most voyages, to allow for passenger loading and
3-7
-------
unloading and cleaning the boat after an excursion. Back-to-back cruises might have two hours of hotelling
in between voyages. Tugboats do stay with the larger self-unloading barges thus hotelling time for both the
barge and tug should be taken into account. Table 3-8 shows the percentage of trips by each ship-type and
category that have self-unloading equipment.
Table 3-3. Laker maneuvering times for various docks in Port of Cleveland
Dock
No.
1
10
29
30
50
107
115
160
178
195
250
275
329
360
378
435
440
495
580
590
598
673
720
724
728
736
Description
Cuyahoga River Bank
Consolidated Rail Corp.
Cleveland Breakwall
City of Cleveland
Ontario Stone Corp., Dock 1
Sand Products Corp.
International Salt Co.
Ontario Stone Corp., Dock 4
Lafarge Cement Corp.
Byerlite Dock - ARCO Chemicals
United Ready Mix Dock
Mid Continental Coal & Coke Co.
Cleveland Builders Supply, F Hill Dock
Clifton Concrete & Supply Co. Wharf
Cleveland Builders Supply, Dock 1
LTV Steel, Middle Dock
LTV Steel, Upper Dock
LTV Steel, Lower Dock
Ontario Stone Corp., Dock 2
Cleveland Builders Supply, Dock 2
River Dock, Inc.
Medusa Cement Co.
Cleveland Stevedore Co.
Cleveland MEPA
Pier 28
North Coast Cruises Landing
Miles from
Breakwater
1.5
1.2
0.0
2.8
0.8
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.9
3.7
4.6
5.0
6.2
6.5
5.6
4.0
3.7
3.2
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
Maneuvering (hrs/trip)
Entering
0.9
0.8
0.5
1.2
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9
Clearing
1.3
1.1
0.5
1.9
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.0
3.6
3.8
3.3
2.5
2.4
2.1
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.3
3-S
-------
Table 3-4. Summary of trips for the Port of Cleveland for 1996
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
Stroke
Type3
2
Category
< 10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000 - 30,000
> 30,000
BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
2
4
ST
10,000-20,000
20,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 40,000
> 40,000
< 10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 40,000
10,000-20,000
BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY
2
4
< 10,000
10,000-20,000
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY Total
EXCURSION VESSEL
4
450
1000
EXCURSION VESSEL Total
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
2
4
< 10,000
10,000-20,000
< 10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000 - 30,000
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total
TANKER, SALTY
2
4
< 10,000
10,000-20,000
TANKER, SALTY Total
Grand Total
Trips
2
23
134
60
219
39
717
55
37
56
350
70
16
106
1446
4
2
6
572
748
1320
2
6
8
2
2
20
5
12
17
1665
Year
Built
ND
ND
1984
1981
1983
1943
1977
1974
1980
1959
1951
1973
1980
1943
1967
ND
1995
1995
1981
1990
1986
ND
1980
1963
ND
ND
1972
1974
1978
1976
1968
DWT
(tonnes)
8,186
15,866
27,225
35,125
28,022
17,500
26,830
37,107
50,800
7,686
17,000
21,303
33,205
15,047
23,445
8,229
10,187
8,882
ND
ND
ND
7,805
15,658
7,251
17,154
23,000
12,394
8,000
11,420
10,280
23,678
Power
(hp)
6,200
6,996
9,116
10,909
9,358
4,500
7,098
7,087
8,538
4,303
4,236
5,503
9,601
8,269
6,308
5,950
7,382
6,427
460
850
655
5,400
10,600
3,391
6,000
7,800
6,456
2,950
6,253
5,152
6,664
Sea-Speed
(knots)
14
14
15
14
14
13
13
13
13
14
13
14
12
15
13
15
16
15
10
12
11
15
16
12
14
13
14
12
15
14
13
Engine
(rpm)
ND
113
110
100
109
ND
750
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
750
ND
500
500
ND
ND
ND
225
ND
550
ND
ND
442
750
117
328
519
Cruise
(hrs/trip)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
RSZ
(hrs/trip)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Manuerver0
(hrs/trip)
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.4
1.0
0.9
0.9
2.0
2.5
0.8
0.9
2.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.6
0.8
1.4
1.8
ST refers to steam turbine
Category is dead weight tonnes for all ship types except excursion boats. Excursion boat category is passenger capacity.
Hotelling times are found in Table 3-7.
3-9
-------
Table 3-5. Percent of trips that are loaded by ship-type for the Port of Cleveland, 1996
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY
EXCURSION VESSEL
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
TANKER, SALTY
Category a
< 10,000
10,000 - 20,000
20,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 40,000
> 40,000
all
all
all
all
< 10,000
10,000 - 20,000
% of trips
loaded
93%
43%
59%
54%
62%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
92%
Category is dead weight tonnes.
3-10
-------
Table 3-6. Tugboat and barge trip summary for Port of Cleveland for 1996
Ship-type
TUGBOAT
Category"
2000
2400
3000
3600
4000
5000
7000
Barge
N/A
TUGBOAT Total
DRY-CARGO BARGE
< 2,000
2,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 10,000
10,000 - 15,000
15,000-20,000
> 20,000
Loaded
Light
Loaded
Light
Loaded
Light
Loaded
Loaded
Light
Loaded
DRY-CARGO BARGE Total
LIQUID CARGO BARGE
2,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 10,000
Light
Loaded
Light
Loaded
LIQUID CARGO BARGE Total
Grand Total
Trips
80
254
30
70
6
27
8
475
1
15
66
10
6
33
32
32
25
47
267
37
49
52
73
211
953
Year
Built
1930
1971
1977
1965
1975
1944
1990
1961
1983
1968
1977
1937
1937
1957
1957
1978
1950
1951
1962
1981
1980
1969
1968
1973
1964
Sea-Speed
(knots)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Cruise
(hrs/trip)
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.5
RSZ
(hrs/trip)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Maneuver
(hrs/trip)
1.8
1.6
0.9
2.3
2.1
1.3
1.2
1.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
12
0.5
0.3
1.7
Cargo
(tons)
N/A
N/A
382
3,225
7,996
10,131
2,816
15,057
7,563
3,092
5,063
4,259
6,239
Category for Tugboats is actual engine power (hp). Category for barges is cargo capacity in tons.
3-11
-------
Table 3-7. Average hotelling times by ship-type for calls on Port of Cleveland in 1996
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
DWT Category
(tonnes)
10,000 - 20,000
20,000 - 30,000
> 30,000
BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
20,000 - 30,000
> 30,000
BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY
< 10,000
10,000 - 20,000
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY Total
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
< 10,000
10,000 - 20,000
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total
PASSENGER, SALTY
TANKER, SALTY
all
all
Grand Total
Calls
11
75
45
131
1
1
2
1
1
2
9
6
15
2
1
153
Hotelling
(hrs/call)
41.3
69.3
49.1
60.0
7.8
7.0
7.4
24.7
111.5
68.1
55.1
78.9
64.6
30.5
29.0
59.3
Table 3-8. Percent of self-unloaders by ship-type for the Port of Cleveland, 1996
Ship-Type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY
EXCURSION VESSELS
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
TANKER, SALTY
DRY-CARGO BARGE
LIQUID CARGO BARGE
TUGBOAT
DWT Category
(tonnes)
all
all
all
all
all
< 10,000
10,000 - 20,000
< 5,000
5,000 - 10,000
10,000-20,000
> 20,000
2,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 10,000
all
Percent
Self-Unloaders
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
8%
0%
100%
0%
100%
99%
94%
0%
3-12
-------
3.6 BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA
Burns Waterway Harbor is an artificial harbor constructed on the south shore of Lake Michigan,
approximately 16 miles east of Indiana Harbor and 19 miles east of Chicago, Illinois. The 400-foot-wide
entrance between the breakwaters extends from deep water in the lake to the 94-acre Outer Harbor. The East
Harbor Arm and the West Harbor Arm are each 820 feet wide and have lengths of about 2,140 feet and 3,950
feet, respectively.
Table 3-9. Burns Harbor Waterway
LRP Rank
13
Typical Port
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
USAGE Port Code
3739
Bethlehem Steel Corp. has a riparian3 fill in Lake Michigan in the area immediately east of the harbor
area and the west bulkhead of this riparian fill is the east limit of Burns Waterway Harbor. Midwest Steel
Division of National Steel Corp. has a riparian fill in the lake immediately west of the port site. The West
Harbor Arm is owned by National Steel Corp.
The climate in Burns Harbor is predominately continental, ranging from relatively warm in summer to
relatively cold in winter. In the winter, there is sometimes snowfall that is light inland but locally heavy near the
lakeshore. Most of Lake Michigan does not freeze during the winter, which enhances the effect of Lake
Michigan on winter temperatures and lake-produced snowfall, even though the area and harbors are often ice-
choked.
Lakers use the harbor throughout the year. Coast Guard cutters break the ice around the harbor during
winter months. The average navigation season for Salties is April 1 to December 15. Prevailing wind direction
varies by month as shown in Table 3-10.
Table 3-10. Prevailing wind direction for Burns Harbor
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
Prevailing Wind
W
SW
NW
NW
S
W
Month
July
August
September
October
November
December
Prevailing Wind
NW
NW
SW
S
SW
SW
Riparian = along the bank of the Lake
3-13
-------
Burns Waterway Harbor and the other ports on Lake Michigan and Lake Huron have more unique barge
traffic than other Great Lake ports. Most of the barge traffic at Burns Waterway Harbor are river barges that
come up the Illinois River from as far south as the Lower Mississippi River. When river tows reach the mouth
of the Illinois River near Chicago, the barges are left in a fleeting area for distribution to nearby Great Lake ports.
The larger barges that are commonplace to other Great Lake ports, such as Cleveland, are rarely seen in Burns
Waterway Harbor. Tugs from Burns Waterway Harbor will bring loaded barges from the fleeting area into Burns
Waterway Harbor and then push other loaded or light barges from Burns Waterway Harbor back to the fleeting
area to be carried back down the river. These barges are also pushed from Burns Waterway Harbor to other ports
on Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, as well as other Great Lake ports.
3.6.1 Data
The main datasets used to analyze ship activity for Burns Waterway Harbor were obtained from USAGE,
Census Bureau, and the MEPA.
Census Bureau data together with LMIS data were used to determine trips and ship characteristics for
foreign vessels. The Census Bureau data were matched to the LMIS data using ship name. Of the 221 records
of ships that stopped at Burns Waterway Harbor, 112 matched directly with LMIS data. The remaining 109
were matched to similar ships based upon ship-type, DWT, and date of build. Each record represented an
entrance or clearance to Burns Waterway Harbor. It was assumed that all vessels in the Census Bureau dataset
stopped or left from a central dock in the International Harbor.
MEPA data together with LMIS data were used to determine hotelling times for all vessels. Of the 594
records in the MEPA dataset, 71 matched directly with LMIS data by name. Another 496 records related to
barges. The remaining 27 self-propelled vessel records were matched with LMIS data based upon ship-type,
DWT, flag, and date of build. While there was no domestic ship data in the MEPA dataset, it did contain data
on most of the various ship-types except tankers and tugboats. Assumptions made for those ship-types are
explained in Section 3.6.2.
3.6.2 Time-in-Mode Calculations
Cruise and RSZ times for all vessels that entered or cleared the breakwater were determined as discussed
in Section 3.3. Maneuvering time was calculated based upon the distance from the breakwater to the dock at 4
knots plus 0.5 hour for maneuvering into or out of a dock. For all ship types, the maneuvering times in Table
3-11 were used. In actual operations, larger vessels may require more time for maneuvering.
Hotelling times were calculated directly from the MEPA dataset for all vessel types. The exceptions
include dry-cargo barges, tankers, and tugboats. All of the dry-cargo barges that stopped at Burns Waterway
Harbor in 1996 did not have any auxiliary equipment, thus they would have no associated emissions with
hotelling. Most of the liquid-cargo barges, however, had diesel pumps for unloading and thus some emissions
would be associated with hotelling for those barges. Due to the efficiency of tugboat deployment, tugboats in
3-14
-------
Burns Waterway Harbor are continually in motion either picking up or delivering barges. Thus, no hotelling
emissions are associated with tugboats. Tanker hotelling emissions were unavailable using the existing datasets.
The average hotelling time of 29 hours found for tankers in Cleveland would be an acceptable estimation of
hotelling at Burns Waterway Harbor. Hotelling times for all other ship-types were calculated using Equation 3.4.
Table 3-11. Average maneuvering times for various docks in Burns Waterway Harbor
Dock
No.
1
2
410
420
510
540
550
560
Description
Disposal Site
Burns Harbor Breakwater
National Steel Corp. Barge Dock
Indiana Port Commission Berth 15
Indiana Port Commission Berth 6
Indiana Port Commission Berths 2-4.
Indiana Port Commission Berth 1
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Miles from
Breakwater
0.7
0.0
1.1
1.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.5
Maneuvering
(hrs/trip)
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
= Date ship arrived at port
= Date ship departed from port
= Time ship arrived at port
= Time ship departed from port
Hotelling (hrs/call) = (Exit_Date - Entry_Date) * 24 + (Exit_Time - Entry_Time) (3.4)
where
Entry_Date
Exit_Date
Entry_Time
Exit_Time
3.6.3 Trip Activity
Summary tables for Lakers and Salties stopping at Burns Waterway Harbor are given in Table 3-12.
Each trip is considered one way, either an entrance, clearance, or an intraport movement. The abbreviation "ST"
indicates a steam turbine used for the propulsion engine. In all other instances a diesel engine is the propulsion
source. All of the cruise, RSZ and maneuvering times were fairly similar for all ship types and categories for
Burns Waterway Harbor due to the short distance from the breakwater to the docks. This port should be used
to model other ports that are similar in geography.
Load on the propulsion engines increases as the weight of the vessel increases. Table 3-13 shows the
percent of trips by Lakers and Salties that are loaded with cargo. Lakers tend to be loaded for only about 58%
of the trips indicating that they travel to a port loaded and leave light or visa versa. Salties tend to enter and leave
the port loaded.
3-15
-------
Table 3-12. Summary of trips for Burns Waterway Harbor for 1996
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
Stroke
type"
2
4
ST
Category b
20,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 40,000
> 40,000
10,000 - 20,000
20,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 40,000
20,000 - 30,000
BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
2
ST
10,000 - 20,000
20,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 40,000
20,000 - 30,000
BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total
GENERAL CARGO,
SALTY
2
4
< 10,000
10,000 - 20,000
< 10,000
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total
TANKER, SALTY
Grand Total
4
< 10,000
Trips
9
37
162
14
6
27
11
266
4
99
42
20
165
8
1
6
15
200
646
Year
Built
1973
1974
1975
1952
1971
1979
1953
1973
1976
1973
1982
1961
1974
1962
1982
1979
1970
1973
1973
DWT
(tonnes)
24,827
34,925
67,695
17,978
22,491
32,908
23,627
52,630
14,631
27,329
32,449
26,175
28,185
8,395
16,467
5,785
7,889
7,500
40,342
Power
(hp)
8,531
7,108
14,376
4,800
6,600
9,541
8,886
11,753
6,700
8,839
10,132
3,551
8,476
4,100
11,200
3,667
4,400
400
9,792
Sea-Speed
(knots)
13
13
14
13
15
12
16
14
14
13
14
16
14
14
16
12
13
14
14
Engine
(RPM)
750
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
750
ND
219
105
ND
193
ND
150
ND
150
720
596
Cruise
(hrs/trip)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
RSZ
(hrs/trip)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
Maneuver c
(hrs/trip)
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
ST refers to steam turbine
Category is dead weight tonnes for all ship-types
Hotelling times are found in Table 3-15
3-16
-------
Table 3-13. Percent of trips that are loaded by ship-type
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
TANKER, SALTY
Category a
10,000 - 20,000
20,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 40,000
> 40,000
all
all
all
< 10,000
Percent loaded trips
50%
77%
72%
51%
100%
100%
100%
50%
Category is in dead weight tonnes
Trips for tugboats and barges are shown in Table 3-14. Cruise, RSZ and maneuvering times for barges
are not shown as the emissions come from the tugboat which pushes them. While there is no direct way to tie
specific barges to specific tugboats, several conclusions can be drawn. First, there are almost 1.6 barge trips
for each tugboat trip, indicating that tugboats push more than one barge at a time. Tugboat operators indicate
that they can move from 2 to 4 barges at a time over the Great Lakes. It is assumed that the larger horsepower
tugboats will push more barges. One can also see that about 56% of the barge trips are loaded, thus it is slightly
more likely that loaded barges are moved into Burns Waterway Harbor and empty barges are pushed out.
Based upon information obtained from the tugboat operators, the tugboat generally does not stay with the barge
while it is loading or unloading. Tugs are dispatched so that they are constantly on the move. Mooring tug trips
are not recorded by USAGE.
3.6.4 Retelling
Summary tables for hotelling times for all ship-types are given in Table 3-15. While the MEPA
provided data on almost all the ships and barges that stopped at Burns Waterway Harbor, tankers and tugboats
were not recorded by the MEPA. Tugboat hotelling emissions are negligible as tugboats are scheduled to
maximize the ratio of hours operated to barges pushed. The hotelling time for tankers in Cleveland can be used
as a default for Burns Waterway Harbor. When comparing Table 3-15 for Burns Waterway Harbor against
Table 3-7 for Cleveland, Lakers hotel longer and Salties shorter at Burns Waterway Harbor. This might be due
to the port configuration, unloading equipment at the harbor, or the type of cargo handled.
Table 3-16 shows the percentage of each ship-type that contained self-unloading equipment. Only the
Lakers and liquid-cargo barges have unloading equipment, the rest of the ship-types have none.
3-17
-------
Table 3-14. Tugboat and Barge trip summary for Burns Waterway Harbor, 1996
Ship-type
TUGBOAT
TUGBOAT Total
DRY-CARGO BARGE
Category a
<1500
1500-2500
2500-3500
4000
7000
<2000
Barge
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Light
Loaded
DRY-CARGO BARGE Total
LIQUID-CARGO BARGE
<2000
2000 - 5000
Light
Loaded
Light
Loaded
LIQUID-CARGO BARGE Total
Grand Total
Trips
530
356
170
8
2
1066
639
827
1466
24
24
21
22
91
2623
Year
Built
1963
1962
ND
ND
1990
1963
1980
1979
1980
1985
1985
1966
1966
1976
1977
Power
(hp)
1,264
2,048
2,600
4,000
7,000
1,637
Sea-Speed
(knots)
12
12
12
12
12
12
Cruise
(hrs/trip)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
RSZ
(hrs/trip)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Maneuver
(hrs/trip)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,637
12
0.6
0.4
0.6
Cargo
(tons)
N/A
N/A
1,475
1,475
1,490
2,686
2,062
1,509
Category for tugboat is actual engine power (hp). Category for barges is cargo capacity in tons.
3-18
-------
Table 3-15. Average hotelling times by ship-type for calls on Burns Waterway Harbor
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
Category a
10,000 - 20,000
20,000 - 30,000
> 30,000
BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
10,000 - 20,000
20,000 - 30,000
> 30,000
BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
< 10,000
20,000 - 30,000
GENERAL CARGO Total
DRY-CARGO BARGE
LIQUID CARGO BARGE
<2000
<2000
2000 - 5000
LIQUID CARGO BARGE Total
Grand Total
Calls
7
7
7
21
4
43
19
66
10
1
11
446
23
27
50
594
Hotelling (hrs/call)
13.5
17.9
18.7
16.6
61.0
43.2
48.0
45.8
26.3
23.9
26.0
46.8
52.9
29.7
40.3
44.4
Category is in dead weight tonnes.
Table 3-16. Percent of self-unloaders by ship-type
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, SALTY
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
TANKER, SALTY
DRY-CARGO BARGE
LIQUID CARGO BARGE
TUGBOAT
Percent
Self-Unloaders
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
3.7 METHODOLOGY FOR ALLOCATION TO OTHER GREAT LAKE PORTS
In Section 2 of this report, trips and tons for the various ship-types were presented for the Top 60 LRPs.
In Section 3, two Typical Great Lake Ports were studied in detail, showing activity and time-in-mode for the
various ship-types. In this subsection, amethodology is presented for determining time-in-modes atother Great
Lake ports using the following steps:
Step 1: Determine the Like Port for the Modeled Port (i.e. which Typical Great Lake Port is most
similar to the port to be modeled)
3-19
-------
Step 2: Allocate undetermined dry-cargo trips
Step 3: Determine bulk carrier trips made by Lakers
Step 4: Adjust barge and tug trips as needed
Step 5: Allocate time-in-modes to the Modeled Port
Step 6: Adjust maneuvering time as needed
As an example, Lorain Harbor, Ohio, ranked 10th in the Top 60 LRPs shall be used as the Modeled Port.
3.7.1 Step 1: Determine Which Typical Great Lake Port Is Most Like The Port To Be Modeled
In order to determine which Typical Great Lake Port to use as the basis for allocation of time-in-modes,
the modeler must determine which Typical Port the Modeled Port is most similar to. Several factors can be used
to determine this, but the most distinguishing characteristic is the dominant type of barge traffic that is seen at
the port.
As stated in Subsections 3.5 and 3.6, two different types of barge traffic are common to the Great Lakes.
Cleveland has a maj ority of larger notch barges which have unloading equipment. Burns Waterway Harbor has
a majority of river barges which have no unloading equipment. Only barges with unloading equipment will
have emissions associated with hotelling time. Tugboats tend to stay with barges that have unloading equipment,
thus hotelling time is likely to be significant for tugboats pushing these barges.
If more detailed information is not available directly from the Modeled Port, the modeler can use Table
3-17 to help determine the dominate barge-type at the Modeled Port. As can be seen from Table 3-17, ports like
Chicago, Gary, and Port Inland all have dry-cargo barge tons per trip of less than 2,000 tons indicating river
barges with no unloading equipment. Tugs may often push more than one river-type barge at a time. Thus a
barge to tug ratio greater than 1 indicates a majority of river barge traffic These ports should use Burns
Waterway Harbor as the Like Port for allocation of time-in-modes. Ports such as Lorain, Toledo, and Buffalo
all have dry-cargo barge tons per trip greater than 2,000 tons and barge to tug ratios of less than 1.0 indicating
large notch barges with self- unloading equipment. These ports should use Cleveland as the Like Port.
Other ports such as Duluth-Superior and St. Clair have dry-cargo barge tons per trip over 2,000 tons
but barge per tug trips greater than 1.0. For lack of better information, the modeler should look at the liquid-
cargo barge tons per trip as well. Since in both these cases, liquid-cargo barge tons per trip are under 2,000 tons,
one might assume that tugboats might push several liquid-cargo barges but only one dry-cargo barge. In those
cases Cleveland should be used as the Like Port for the dry-cargo barge trips with tugboats and the Burns
Waterway Harbor as the Like Port for the liquid-cargo barges. Other ports such as Detroit and Marblehead do
not have a dominant barge-type and would require further data before a Like Port could be chosen. Green Bay
Harbor seems to be an anomaly that either overstates dry-cargo barge trips, or understates tugboat trips, or both.
Since Lorain Harbor is the Modeled Port, the above discussion shows that Cleveland should be used
as the Like Port.
3-20
-------
3.7.2 Step 2: Allocate Undetermined Dry Cargo Trips
Time-in-modes were not calculated for undetermined dry-cargo (UC) ships. UC ships can be bulk
carrier (BC), container (CS), general cargo (GC), passenger (PA), refrigerated cargo (RF), or roll-on/roll-off
Table 3-17. Tug and barge ratios for the top Great Lake ports
LRPRank
2
4
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
24
25
27
30
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
42
44
46
47
49
50
52
54
55
56
57
Port Name
Duluth-Superior, MN & WI
Port of Chicago, IL
Indiana Harbor, IN
Port of Detroit, MI
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Lorain Harbor, OH
Toledo Harbor, OH
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Presque Isle Harbor, MI
Ashtabula Harbor, OH
Gary Harbor, IN
Taconite Harbor, MN
Escanaba, MI
Stoneport, MI
Calcite, MI
Two Harbors, MN
St. Clair, MI
Conneaut Harbor, OH
Port Inland, MI
Silver Bay, MN
Marine City, MI
Sandusky Harbor, OH
Marblehead, OH
Milwaukee Harbor, WI
Port Dolomite, MI
Fairport Harbor, OH
Alpena Harbor, MI
Green Bay Harbor, WI
Monroe Harbor, MI
Port of Buffalo, NY
Muskegon Harbor, MI
Drummond Island, MI
Charlevoix Harbor, MI
Buffington Harbor, IN
Ludington Harbor, MI
Huron Harbor, OH
Erie Harbor, PA
Grand Haven Harbor, MI
Grand Total
Barge/Tug a
1.1
2.2
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.0
NET
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
NET
NET
1.0
5.7
0.5
1.1
1.0
2.0
112.9
1.0
0.4
1.4
1.0
0.4
1.6
0.4
NET
NET
0.4
1.7
Tons/DCB b
15,425
788
2,334
2,108
6,788
9,385
4,398
580
28,567
NET
1,532
15,293
16,854
10,329
11,490
33,057
10,819
27,538
961
NET
NET
267
2,326
364
6,923
10,163
NET
414
NET
7,924
549
9,934
3,981
2,711
5,474
NET
NET
2,265
1,095
Tons/LCB c
1,381
913
1,489
1,155
1,864
NET
1,522
1,045
NET
NET
NET
NET
NET
NET
NET
NET
692
NET
NET
NET
NET
NET
1,121
2,798
NET
NET
NET
2,486
3,902
1,965
NET
NET
NET
NET
2,760
NET
NET
NET
1,107
3 Ratio of all barge trips to tug trips for port. NET indicates no barge trips.
b Ratio of total dry-cargo barge tons to total dry-cargo barge trips for port.
0 Ratio of total liquid-cargo barge tons to total liquid-cargo barge trips for port.
3-21
-------
(RO) ship-types. UC trips should be allocated to each of the above-listed ship-types using the ratio of trips for
each dry-cargo ship-type divided by the total of all the listed dry-cargo ship-type trips. In the example of Lorain
Harbor, there were 1,061 BC, 12GCor 1,083 defined dry-cargo trips and 3 7 UC trips in 1995 (from Table 2-3).
The 37 UC trips can be allocated to the BC and GC ship-types as follows. Of all the defined dry-cargo ship
trips, 1,061 out of 1,083 were bulk carrier trips and 12 out of 1,083 were general cargo trips. The 37 UC trips
multiplied by 1,061 and divided by 1,083 trips equals 36 trips, which should be added to BC trips. The
remaining trip should be added to GC trips. Thus the total BC trips for Lorain would be 1,097 and the total GC
trips would be 13.
3.7.3 Step 3: Determine Bulk Carrier Trips Made By Lakers
As the hotelling time for Lakers that have self-unloading equipment is significantly shorter than
hotelling time for Salties, bulk carrier trips determined in Subsection 3.7.2 should be broken into Laker and
Salty trips. By using the information in Table 3-18, the modeler can allocate bulk carrier trips to Lakers and
Salties.
As a result of the step described in Subsection 3.7.2, Lorain Harbor had 1097 bulk carrier trips in 1995.
Using the percentages in Table 3-18, all 1097 trips were by Lakers.
3.7.4 Step 4: Adjust Barge and Tug Trips as Needed
For ports like Duluth-Superior where barge to tug ratios are higher than 1.0 and dry-cargo barge tons
per trip exceed 2000 tons, a reallocation of tug trips should be made. In this case, the modeler should allocate
one tug trip for each dry-cargo barge trip. The remaining tug trips should be allocated to the liquid-cargo barge
trips. This will give a different barge to tug ratio for dry-cargo and liquid-cargo barges.
Duluth-Superior had 63 dry-cargo barge trips, 6 liquid-cargo barge trips and 64 tug trips. Assigning
one dry-cargo barge trip to one tug trip leaves 6 liquid-cargo trips for one tug trip. If the tugs at this harbor are
higher horsepower tugboats, they should be able to push 6 liquid barges without problem. By doing this, the
modeler can better estimate the loads on the tugboat while pushing barges.
In the example of Lorain Harbor, there are no liquid-cargo barge trips, the dry-cargo barge tons per trip
seem reasonable, and so does the ratio of barge trips to tug trips. In the case of Lorain Harbor, there are 35 dry-
cargo barge trips and 46 tugboat trips, indicating that 11 trips or 24% of the tug trips are made without barges.
3.7.5 Step 5: Allocate Time-In-Modes To The Modeled Port
Cruise, RSZ and maneuvering times listed in the tables for the Typical Great Lake Ports are in hours
per trip, while hotelling times are in hours per call. If the modeler desires to calculate time-in-modes (cruise,
RSZ, and maneuver) for calls (an entrance and clearance) instead of trips, divide the trips by 2 and multiply the
times-in-mode by 2. Hotelling can be directly applied from the Like Port to the Modeled Port without
modification for all the various ship-types. In the case of Lorain Harbor, 1097 bulk carrier Laker trips, 35 dry-
cargo barge trips, 13 general cargo trips and 46 tugboat trips were made in 1995. Time-in-modes were applied
3-22
-------
directly from Tables 3-4 and 3-6 for Cleveland and are shown in Table 3-19 for Lorain Harbor. Tugboat and
dry-cargo barge hotelling times should be determined using the rule of thumb for self-unloading barges from
Subsection 3.5.4 and the cargo tonnage per barge from Table 3-17, if the cargo tonnage per dry-cargo barge is
over 2000 tons. Lorain Harbor has an average of 9,385 tons per barge, thus a hotelling time of 20 minutes per
1000 tons times 9.385 gives a hotelling time of 188 minutes or 3.1 hours. This should be applied to both the
barges and the tugboats.
Table 3-18. Bulk carrier Laker and Salty percentage of trips for Great Lake ports
RLRank
2
4
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
24
25
27
30
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
42
44
46
47
49
50
52
54
55
56
57
Port Name
Duluth-Superior, MN & WI
Port of Chicago, IL
Indiana Harbor, IN
Port of Detroit, MI
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Lorain Harbor, OH
Toledo Harbor, OH
Bums Waterway Harbor, IN
Presque Isle Harbor, MI
Ashtabula Harbor, OH
Gary Harbor, IN
Taconite Harbor, MN
Escanaba, MI
Stoneport, MI
Calcite, MI
Two Harbors, MN
St. Clair, MI
Conneaut Harbor, OH
Port Inland, MI
Silver Bay, MN
Marine City, MI
Sandusky Harbor, OH
Marblehead, OH
Milwaukee Harbor, WI
Port Dolomite, MI
Fairport Harbor, OH
Alpena Harbor, MI
Green Bay Harbor, WI
Monroe Harbor, MI
Port of Buffalo, NY
Muskegon Harbor, MI
Drummond Island, MI
Charlevoix Harbor, MI
Buffington Harbor, IN
Ludington Harbor, MI
Huron Harbor, OH
Erie Harbor, PA
Grand Haven Harbor, MI
Salty
10%
27%
0%
0%
15%
0%
15%
30%
0%
7%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
21%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
31%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
2%
0%
Laker
90%
73%
100%
100%
85%
100%
85%
70%
100%
93%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
79%
100%
97%
100%
100%
100%
69%
100%
100%
100%
100%
91%
100%
98%
100%
3-23
-------
Table 3-19. Allocation of ship activity to Lorain Harbor
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
TUGBOAT
DRY-CARGO BARGE
Trips
1,097
13
46
35
Cruise
(hrs/trip)
0.5
0.5
0.5
N/A
RSZ
(hrs/trip)
0.3
0.3
0.3
N/A
Maneuver
(hrs/trip)
2.0
0.8
1.7
N/A
Hotelling
(hrs/call)
7.4
64.6
3.1
3.1
3.7.6 Step 6: Adjust Maneuvering Time as Needed
A comparison should be made between the Modeled Port and the Like Port distance from the
breakwater to docking areas. These data can be obtained from the Port Series reports for the Modeled Port. If
the distances are different, maneuvering times should be adjusted accordingly by the ratio of the distances. The
easiest and most direct method is to determine the distance to the furthest dock for the Modeled Port and the
Like Port. Since 0.5 hour of maneuvering time pertrip is related to entering or clearing the dock, 0.5 hourneeds
to be subtracted from the total maneuvering time at the Like Port to determine the travel time from the
breakwater to the average dock. The remaining maneuvering time should then be adjusted by multiplying it by
the ratio of the distance to the furthest dock in the Modeled Port divided by the distance to the furthest dock in
the Like Port. The 0.5 hour per trip should then be added back to the adjusted travel time to give the total
maneuvering time per call for the Modeled Port.
In the case of Lorain, the furthest dock is about 2.8 miles down the Black River while the furthest dock
for Cleveland is approximately 6.5 miles down the Cuyahoga River. Distances to various docks within ports
can be determined from the Port Series Report published by the USAGE. Subtracting 0.5 hour of maneuvering
time pertrip, the modeler calculates 1.5 hours of maneuvering time for Lakers. The maneuvering time should
then be adjusted by multiplying it by the ratio of 2.8 miles divided by 6.5 miles giving an adjusted maneuvering
travel time of 0.6 hour. Adding 0.5 hour of maneuvering for the time into or out of the dock, the modeler gets
1.1 hours of maneuvering for Lakers per trip. Similar adjustments for distance should be carried out for
tugboats, dry-cargo barges, and liquid-cargo barges. Data indicate that Salties do not go down the river and thus
the maneuvering times for Cleveland can be directly applied to all Salty ship-types. The final time-in-modes
for Lorain Harbor are shown in Table 3-20.
Table 3-20. Final time-in-modes at Lorain Harbor
Ship-type
BULK CARRIER, LAKER
GENERAL CARGO, SALTY
TUGBOAT
DRY-CARGO BARGE
Trips
1,097
13
46
35
Cruise
(hrs/trip)
0.5
0.5
0.5
N/A
RSZ
(hrs/trip)
0.3
0.3
0.3
N/A
Maneuver
(hrs/trip)
1.1
0.8
1.0
N/A
Hotelling
(hrs/call)
7.4
64.6
3.1
3.1
3-24
-------
SECTION 4
TYPICAL RIVER PORTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION TO TYPICAL RIVER PORTS
To continue our analysis of major commercial ports in the United States, we chose to acquire data on
two inland river ports. The purpose of these data are to allow determination of actual commercial marine vessel
movements on the inland waterways at the Port of St. Louis and the Port of Cincinnati. These two ports are
considered Typical River Ports and will be examined in detail in this section. A methodology is also presented
in Section 4.6 that allows data for these Typical River Ports to be used with the more general data in Section
2, Tables 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 to estimate commercial marine vessel movements at other river ports. The data on
the Typical River Ports is for 1996 and were obtained from the USAGE Waterborne Commerce Statistics
Center. The data will be used to:
Calculate the total number of trips to and from locations within each Typical River Port
• Calculate the total number of trips passing, but not stopping at, each Typical River Port
Determine vessel characteristics for tugboats and barges operating in and through each Typical River
Port
• Determine modes of similar speed and operating characteristics
Calculate the average time the tugs are operating in these modes
The Typical River Ports were chosen because they are large ports located on two of the most important
rivers in the U. S. and because of the availability of lock data either within or on either side of the port. The Port
of St. Louis has two locks located within its boundaries. Cincinnati has no locks located within its boundaries
but has an up-river and a down-river lock with no other major ports located between the locks.
This section is organized with general data on the river ports in Section 4.2 and general information on
time-in-modes of the river ports in Section 4.3. Information and data specific to the Port of St. Louis are in
Section 4.4. Information and data specific to the Port of Cincinnati are in Section 4.5. Section 4.6 presents the
methodology for using Typical River Port data with the rivers in the general Top 60 Lake and River Ports data.
4.2 GENERAL OPERATIONS ON RIVERS
Commercial traffic on rivers consists almost exclusively of tug and barge movements. There are some
excursion vessels such as paddle boats, dinner cruises, or other entertainment-centered river traffic, but the
majority of trips and vast majority of tonnage recorded by the USAGE are centered around the tug/barge
movements. The tug/barge combination is often referred to as atow. The following is adiscussion of excursion
vessels, tugs, and barges.
Excursion vessels are passenger boats of all kinds which normally operate on repetitive routes that last
4-1
-------
a set length of time. Excursion vessels include cruise, passenger, and excursion ship-types. Each excursion boat
usually has a cruise that lasts from one to several hours, returning and departing from the same port. A few
excursion cruises may be overnight or several days and cover several ports. Excursion vessels will have only
a short time at the dock between cruises and will rarely leave their auxiliary engines on for more than an hour
of hotelling time at the dock. Gambling boats are likely to have large hotelling emissions from auxiliary
engines, however they are expected to be a small percentage of the overall excursion vessel population and are
not specifically addressed in this report.
There are differenttypes of tugs and differenttypes of barges that commonly operate on the rivers. Two
main types are described as follows. The two main types of tugs are towboats and pushboats. A river tug or
pushboat is generally a flat bottomed boat with a flat bow. The bow meets up against the flat stern of a river
barge, the two are secured to each other, and the tug pushes the barge or barges up or down the river. In one
variation, the pushboat has a rounded or pointed bow that fits in a notch on the stern of a barge (notch barge)
and then commences to push the barge. Less commonly seen on the rivers are towboats. Unlike a pushboat, the
hull of the towboat does not, generally speaking, touch the barge. Instead a long line passes between the towboat
and the barge as the towboat pulls the barge forward. Towboats are more commonly used for ocean going barges
and on the Great Lakes than they are in the rivers. Table 4-1 shows the relative percent of tow trips powered
by towboats and by pushboats near the Typical River Ports. No distinction is made between operating
characteristics of these vessels in the report and, in all other sections of the report, the propulsion boat of the
tow is referred to as a tug.
Table 4-1. Percent of towboats and pushboats at the Typical River Ports
Port
St. Louis
Cincinnati
Propulsion Source
Towboat
Pushboat
Towboat
Pushboat
Trips
4,833
17,864
4,000
12,000
% of Trips
21%
79%
25%
75%
The two main types of barges are dry cargo and liquid cargo barges. Dry cargo barges include flat deck,
open hopper, covered, and lash barges. Liquid cargo barges include single-hull, double-hull, and double-sided.
Liquid cargo barges have an average of 40% greater cargo capacity and are an average of 15% longer and 30%
wider than a dry cargo barge. There are variations within the liquid and dry cargo barge categories. Table 4-2
presents the barge-types and total number of trips near the ports of St. Louis and Cincinnati. These trip totals
also include barges which passed the port without calling. However, it is very difficult to determine, using the
existing data, any matches between specific tugs and specific barges on the river. Because tugs generally push
4-2
-------
several barges as part of a tow and the tow could be made of a combination of liquid and dry barges, it is not
considered critical to this report to present barges in more defined ship-type categories in the summary tables.
Table 4-2. Detailed barge characteristics at the Typical River Ports
Barge
Type
Dry Cargo
Dry Cargo
Dry Cargo
Dry Cargo
Dry Cargo
Dry Cargo
Dry Cargo
Liquid Cargo
Liquid Cargo
Liquid Cargo
Liquid Cargo
Liquid Cargo
St. Louis
Trips
0
231
2,663
23,493
17,411
7,398
59,157
4
8,678
530
662
512
Cincinnati
Trips
1,918
48
1,668
1,740
47,711
184
7,776
6
4,741
149
1,359
858
Cap3
(Ton)
486 e
407
1557
1618
1600
1464
1596
1655
2290
2440
3227
2764
NRTb
84
204
590
758
691
806
905
740
1254
1314
1318
1369
Length
116
62
184
195
196
206
196
200
230
243
232
264
Breadth
33
31
30
35
35
40
35
35
46
48
48
53
VTCCC
4A11
4A52
4A47
4A48
4A40
4A43
4A41
5F71
5A71
5A74
5A70
5A72
ICSTd
351
344
341
342
341
343
342
142
142
149
141
143
Description
Passenger barge
Lash Barge
Open Dry Cargo Barge
Covered Dry Cargo Barge
Open Hopper Barge
Flat/Deck Barge
Covered Hopper Barge
Double Hull Liquid Cargo
Barge (unknown material)
Double Hull Liquid Cargo
Barge (steel)
Other Liquid Cargo Barge
Single Hull Liquid Cargo
Barge
Double Sided Liquid
Cargo Barge
a Barge capacity in Tons, Average Net Registered Tons, ° Vessel Type Classification and Construction code,
International Classification by Ship-Type code,e Average Passenger Capacity
Barges are assembled into tows at fleeting areas. It is within the fleeting area that tows are made and
broken down by harbor tugs and where the higher horsepower tug meets the completed tow for the trip up- or
down-river. Barges are secured together according to their delivery destination. Sometimes the entire tow may
be delivered to a fleeting area within a port and sometimes a harbor tug will meet the tow and remove one or
more of the outermost barges while leaving the rest of the tow intact to continue its voyage.
Unlike deep-sea ports, a vessel passing through a river port does not necessarily stop at the port.
However, the passage of this vessel will be an emission event for the surrounding port area. For example, a
vessel leaving from Memphis, TN and destined for St. Paul, MN would pass through the Port of St. Louis.
Likewise, a vessel leaving St. Louis, MO and destined for Pittsburgh, PA would pass through the Port of
Cincinnati. Thus, traffic passing through a river port can be equally important as traffic calling on the port.
Indeed, passing traffic is often more significant in tonnage and trips than the calling traffic as seen in the
summary tables for the Typical River Ports. For this reason, the summary tables are broken out by passing and
calling to indicate the characteristics of vessels that actually had the Typical River Port as their shipping or
receiving port as separate from the characteristics of vessels that were passing through the port.
4-3
-------
As mentioned above, there is no direct way to link a specific tug with a specific barge or set of barges
using the USAGE data. Lock Performance Monitoring System data were also consulted and the average barges
per tug through the locks are presented in the sections on St. Louis and Cincinnati. To supplement these data,
river operators were contacted and asked how tug horsepower related to the number of barges in a tow. The
operators cited many different factors that affect this decision including weather, river stage (depth), river
current, destination on the river, and Coast Guard Regulations. We were also told that the Coast Guard rule is
250 hp per barge but that the ratio might be higher or lower than that depending on the previously cited factors.
In general, strong current requires more horsepower as shown in the example from one operator who stated that
3 barges carrying 20,000 barrels of oil each could be pushed by an 1,800 hp tug in the intracoastal waterway
around the Gulf of Mexico, but that a 3,000 hp tug would be assigned to the same barges if they were destined
for a port on the river. General guidelines for horsepower required per total tow tonnage as used by one operator
are repeated in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Rules of thumb for computing maximum barge to tug ratios per tow
Tug HP Range
3,500 and above
1,500-3,500
< 1,500
tons/hp
5.7
5.3
6.6
tons/barge a
1,610
1,610
1,610
hp/tug
4,200
3,000
1,200
barge/tug b
15
10
5
3 Average tons/barge includes 1550 tons for barge cargo, 100 tons for the empty barge NRT, and 10 tons for i
fraction of the tug NRT.
b Barge per tug numbers are expected to be the upper limit of that tugs horsepower capacity. These are rule of thumb
numbers only. Actual barges per tow should be expected to vary considerably.
4.3 CALCULATING TIME IN MODE
Unlike the commercial deep-sea ports, vessels moving within inland river ports have two primary
modes of operation, river cruise and maneuvering. Retelling is rarely seen on the river although some hotelling
time is allocated to passenger/excursion vessels.
4.3.1 River Cruise
River cruise is considered to be the speed when traveling on the river which varies due to weather and
river conditions, congestion in the river, and load on the tug. This speed will be slower in the vicinity of a port
where congestion forces slower speeds, in bends where slower speeds allow more maneuvering time, going up-
river where the current of the river reduces the relative speed of the boat, and at low river stages. River cruise
will be faster going down-river in straight flowing, open water when the river is at a higher stage.
The river cruise speeds were adjusted for the river current. Data on river current was obtained from the
regional office of the USAGE for St. Louis and Cincinnati respectively. The velocity of the river will change
depending on season, river stage, and whether it is a bend or straight section. The river is generally wide enough
4-4
-------
such that varying widths produce only small changes in the current speed. The average river velocity, given by
the USAGE regional office for St. Louis, varies from 1.5 to 8 miles per hour. An average of 2 mph was used
in this report. For Cincinnati a range of 0.2 to 3 miles per hour was given and an average of 0.5 mph was used.
When calculating river cruise time-in-mode, river current is added to the tug speed for downbound traffic and
subtracted from the tug speed for upbound traffic to get the overall speed.
For excursion vessels, if the shipping mile and receiving mile are the same, a value of 2 hours for time
at river cruise is recorded and factored into the average cruise time calculations.
4.3.2 Maneuvering
Maneuvering is calculated to take place when a tug maneuvers a barge into a dock or fleeting area or
when a tow maneuvers through a lock. There are other times a tow may drop to a maneuvering speed within the
port area such as to maneuver around a tight bend, to maneuver through a congested area, or as a precaution in
unusually high river conditions or other inclement weather. Only maneuvering associated with movements into
and out of docks, fleeting areas, or locks has been accounted for in this study.
4.3.3 Hotelling
Retelling is the time the vessel is at dock with it's main propulsion engines shut down and the auxiliary
engines still in operation. While hotelling can last many hours at deep-sea ports, it is rarely a significant event
for vessels operating on the river. Tugs are deployed nearly constantly. Due to the efficiency of river operation,
tugs are rarely at dock and virtually never traveling without any barges. They have two crews which keep the
vessel in operation 24 hours a day. Tugs are most often refueled midstream so they do not even have hotelling
time due to bunkering. Therefore, for a normal trip on the river, hotelling time is negligible.
No emissions are generally associated with barges, so time the barges spend in port is generally of little
interest to the modeler. The exception to this would be for barges with self-unloading equipment or other
equipment that requires power. A very small percentage, less than 0.5% of the liquid cargo barges at St. Louis
have self-unloading equipment. These vessels are not discussed in any further detail and no extra hotelling time
is included for them.
The time an excursion vessel is at port is rarely hotelling. As the term is used in this report, hotelling
is time the vessel is at dock with it's main propulsion engines shut down and the auxiliary engines still in
operation. Excursion vessels will have only a short time at the dock between cruises (if they are doing back to
back cruises). This time between cruises may be up to an hour long, but the propulsion engines are generally
running in the idle position during this time. If the vessel is done for the day, it will have up to an hour of
hotelling while the crew cleans the vessel and readies it for the next day's operation. Then the vessel will be
completely shut down for the night. For this reason, hotelling times for each excursion vessel can be considered
to be 1 hour per trip.
4-5
-------
4.4 PORT OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS
The Metropolitan Port of St. Louis is located on the Mississippi River and is nominally located between
miles 138.8 and 208.8 on the river. The port extends for 70 miles along both banks of the river and encompasses
Jefferson, St. Louis, and St. Charles counties as well as the city of St. Louis on the right bank and Monroe, St.
Clair, and Madison counties on the left bank. The city of St. Louis, MO is located on the right bank of the
Mississippi River below its confluence with the Missouri River and approximately 175 miles above its
confluence with the Ohio River. The Missouri River flows into the Mississippi River at mile 195, within the
boundaries of the Port of St. Louis. Seven port authorities serve the area in and around the port. These are the:
City of St. Louis Port Authority, Tri-City Regional Port District, Southwest Regional Port District, St. Charles
County Port Authority, Jefferson County Port Authority, St. Louis County Port Authority, and the Southeast
Missouri Regional Port Authority.
Table 4-4. Metropolitan Port of St. Louis
LRP Rank
4
Typical Port
Metropolitan Port of St. Louis
Miles
138.8-208.8
USAGE Port Code
2310
The USAGE is responsible for maintaining a minimum channel of 9 feet deep and 300 feet wide in the
lower Mississippi River and a depth of 9 feet and minimum width of 200 feet starting at mile 191 (within the
Port of St. Louis) with additional width in bends. Weather in the St. Louis area varies with four seasons and a
modified continental climate. Freezing temperatures are not unusual in December, January, or February,
however, the river traffic is rarely if ever impeded due to ice. Table 4-5 has prevailing wind directions as
reported in the USAGE Port Series report 70 from data compiled by the National Weather Service. All data
were collected and averaged over a 32 year period. Heavy fog days occur less than 12 days per year and are
those with 1/4 mile visibility or less.
4-6
-------
Table 4-5. Weather data for the Port of St. Louis
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
Prevailing wind direction
NW
NW
WNW
WNW
S
s
Overall for the Year
Month
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Prevailing wind direction
S
S
S
s
WNW
S
S
4.4.1 Locks of St. Louis
Two locks are located within the port. These are located at miles 185.5, for lock 27 at Granite City, IL,
and mile 200.8, the Melvin Price lock at Alton , IL. Each of these locks has a main and an auxiliary lock. The
main locks, with an available length of 1,200 feet are twice as long as the auxiliary locks and can accommodate
larger tows. Lockage times through the main lock are longer than those through the auxiliary lock due, in part,
to the larger volume of water transferred. Lock 27 is the first lock for vessels traveling up-river on the
Mississippi J^iver. Tows may be as large as 40 barges per tow on the lower Mississippi J^iver but due to
restrictions in lock capacity and river conditions, it is rare to see more than 15 barges per tow up-river of lock
27. Vessel passage data recorded at these locks differ not only because of traffic that may have stopped at or
originated in St. Louis, but also due to traffic originating from or stopping at ports on the Missouri River. Table
4-6 gives the total counts and average barges per tow as reported by the Lock Performance Monitoring System
for 1996 (Reference 9). These averages are through the lock and may or may not accurately reflect the average
number of barges per tug on the river or within the port itself.
Table 4-6. Vessel counts and tonnage through locks in the Port of St. Louis
Lock up
27 ,
dn
Melvin up
Price ,
dn
tow
Aa M
865 3,022
983 3,086
449 2,879
549 2,947
barge loaded
A M
1857 12,960
5193 30,717
491 13,660
527 32,845
total barges
A M
5,383 34,579
6,015 34,009
971 36,284
1,298 36,023
total tons
A M
2,871 20,852
8,173 47,588
603 22,031
854 50,394
Barges/
tow
A M
6 11
6 11
2 12
2 12
tons/barge
A M
1,546 1,609
1,574 1,549
1,228 1,613
1,615 1,534
3 A = Auxiliary Lock, M = Main lock. The main lock often has twice the capacity of the auxiliary lock.
4-7
-------
4.4.2 Time-in-modes for St. Louis
The load on the tugs during river cruise is of interest to any modeler. The cruise speeds in this report
account for load in three ways - tows with loaded and light barges, direction the tow is headed on the river, and
the average barges/tug in the tow. Upbound tugs have higher loads, or slower speeds, than downbound tugs.
Loaded barges are heavier and therefore sit lower in the water requiring more power to move, or moving slower,
than a light barge.
For tows in and around St. Louis, 57% of the barges were loaded with cargo in 1996. In general, all
loaded barges are considered loaded to capacity of 1,500 tons and all light barges carry no cargo tonnage.
Information from phone conversations with tug and barge operators indicates that loaded barges are traveling
(with no current and in an open river) at 8 mph and light barges are traveling at 10 to 11 mph (full ahead). In a
more congested area, the tugs are likely to run at 60% to 80% of their max power or less for an average speed
of 5 to 6.5 for loaded barges and 6 to 8 mph for light barges (without adjusting for current). Thus, if 57% of
the barges are loaded, we adjust the overall tug speeds to be 57% at 5.7 mph and 43% at 7 mph for an overall
weighted average speed of 6.2 mph. Adjusting for current gives the results shown in Table 4-7.
In addition to the difference between loaded barges and light barges, there is the difference in load
depending on the number of barges in a tow. On average, tugs under 1,500 hp are harbor tugs used for
maneuvering 1 to 4 barges in and around the port. The larger tugs are used to transport the barges longer
distances although they may also take part in maneuvering a barge into dock to facilitate the dispersal of the
tow. An adjustment were made to the cruise speed of tugs <1,500 hp to account for their role in more congested
areas by reducing their cruise speeds by 20% as shown in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7. Cruising and maneuvering, average speeds on the Mississippi River
Tug Power
>1500hp
<1500hp
Direction
Upbound
Downbound
Upbound
Downbound
Status
Calling
Passing
Calling
Passing
Calling
Passing
Calling
Passing
Cruise (mph)
4.2
4.2
8.3
8.3
3.4
3.4
6.6
6.6
Maneuver (mph)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Although the speeds used in this report, as presented in Table 4-7, reflect accurate average speeds, the
following anecdotal information may help modelers understand the variability in river cruising speeds.
Anecdotal information from river operators suggests that other speeds may be common on the river and within
the boundaries of the port. Anecdotal information from Cincinnati has 8 loaded liquid cargo barges pushed by
4-8
-------
3 800-5000 hp tugs at 8 mph using an estimated 80-85% of tug capacity. The same speed would be used for light
barges leading to a lower load on the tug. Another operator said that speed through a port varies but 3-4 mph
is considered no wake. All operators agreed that the pilot is responsible for the wake of his tow and any damage
which it might cause. Loaded barges create more wake than light barges. Another operator gave an average of
8 mph loaded and 10-12 mph for light barges in still water (no current) when in straight water and non-
congested areas.
Maneuvering is calculated to take place when a tug maneuvers a barge into a dock or fleeting area or
when a tow maneuvers through a lock. Data from the operators indicates that on average, each lockage event
takes one hour from initial slow down until the vessel is back up to speed again. This includes delays at the lock
and is the same for upbound and downbound vessels. The average speed maneuvering into the lock is 1-2 mph.
For the data summaries, maneuvering is associated with the USAGE recorded tug trips and is considered to be
0.5 hours each to maneuver into or out of a dock and 1 hour from first slowdown to resumption of river cruise
speed when going through a lock. As both lockages and calls on port are considered reasons for maneuvering,
both calling and passing vessels have maneuvering time. Thus, vessels passing the Port of St Louis also have
1 hour of maneuvering time for each lock or atotal of 2 hours of maneuvering. Depending on the miles traveled
within the port, other vessels will also have an extra hour of maneuvering to account for each probable lockage.
Maneuvering for lockages were computed as follows. The two locks within the boundaries of the Port
of St. Louis are located at miles 185.5 for lock 27 at Granite City, IL and mile 202.9, the Melvin Price lock at
Alton, IL. For tows traveling upbound on the Mississippi River and received at mile 185.5 or less and for tows
traveling downbound on the Mississippi River and received at mile 202.9 or greater, no locks are passed and
no maneuvering time for lockages were computed. For tows shipped from or received to a mile on the
Mississippi River between miles 185.5 and 202.9, each trip has one hour of maneuvering for lockages plus 0.5
hours to maneuver into a dock or fleeting area. For all other tows, each trip has 2 hours of maneuvering for
lockages plus 0.5 hours to maneuver into a dock or fleeting area. Note, although 0.5 hours is considered an
average time to maneuver into a fleeting area, one operator indicated that larger tows take 1 to 1.5 hours to
maneuver into a fleeting area.
4.3.3 Summary Data for the Port of St. Louis
All data in Tables 4-8 through 4-10 were assembled from data received from the USAGE Waterborne
Commerce Statistics Center. Table 4-8 is the summary table for St. Louis tug movements and Table 4-9 is the
summary of tug characteristics. Table 4-10 is the summary table for barge trips and tonnage. Table 4-11
summarizes the percent of barges loaded and light by barge type. Table 4-12 presents the summary of barge/tug
ratios for trips and tonnages including all the St. Louis barges (including light) in the calculations.
4-9
-------
Table 4-8. Tug movements in the Port of St. Louis
Status
Calling
Direction
Downbound
HP Bin
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Downbound Total
Upbound
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Upbound Total
Calling Total
Passing
Downbound
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Downbound Total
Upbound
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Upbound Total
Passing Total
Grand Total
Total
Trips
544
1,544
613
4,015
730
912
8,358
3,972
814
704
4,368
961
1,033
11,852
20,210
4
76
81
628
239
56
1,084
13
85
71
891
307
36
1,403
2,487
22,697
%of
Trips
2%
7%
3%
18%
3%
4%
37%
18%
4%
3%
19%
4%
5%
52%
89%
0%
0%
0%
3%
1%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
4%
1%
0%
6%
11%
100%
Maneuver
(hr/trip)
2.2
2.3
1.7
2.1
1.8
2.2
2.1
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.0
0.7
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
Cruise
(hr/trip)
2.7
2.1
3.7
3.8
4.3
4.3
3.7
4.5
5.0
6.5
7.5
8.4
8.5
7.4
5.6
10.6
6.0
8.4
8.1
8.4
8.4
8.2
20.6
14.4
16.7
16.3
16.7
16.7
16.4
13.0
7.0
4-10
-------
Table 4-9. Tug characteristics in the Port of St. Louis
Status
Calling
Calling Total
Passing
Passing Total
Grand Total
Direction
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
HP Bin
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Total
Trips
544
1,544
613
4,015
730
912
8,358
3,972
814
704
4,368
961
1,033
11,852
20,210
4
76
81
628
239
56
1,084
13
85
71
891
307
36
1,403
2,487
22,697
NRT
(Ton)
55
85
195
408
605
817
419
44
85
184
408
610
817
433
426
130
75
162
365
619
753
409
79
91
145
388
648
582
431
422
425
Avg. Engine
Power (hp)
497
998
1,884
4,504
6,332
8,992
4,549
559
1,050
1,855
4,413
6,319
9,010
4,641
4,596
293
1,140
2,061
4,511
6,371
8,527
4,724
541
1,169
2,093
4,712
6,362
8,683
4,911
4,835
4,640
Date Of
Build
1968
1971
1966
1971
1978
1975
1972
1969
1973
1965
1970
1978
1975
1972
1972
1962
1978
1968
1974
1982
1976
1975
1975
1976
1971
1973
1981
1983
1975
1975
1973
4-11
-------
Table 4-10. Barge trips and cargo tonnage summary for St. Louis
Status
Calling
Direction
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
Calling Total
Passing
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
Passing Total
Grand Total
Barge Type
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
All
All
Trips
14,003
2,052
16,055
26,761
2,238
28,999
45,054
36,646
3,061
39,707
32,972
3,066
36,038
75,745
120,799
Tons
18,863,052
2,459,163
21,322,215
6,010,668
2,817,515
8,828,183
30,150,398
51,309,023
1,747,262
53,056,285
15,657,937
4,705,737
20,363,674
73,419,959
103,570,357
Table 4-13 is the summary table for excursion and other traffic on the river calling or passing the Port of St.
Louis.
The date of build given in Table 4-9 for St. Louis tugs includes the date of rebuild for some of the tug
vessels. A review of the data shows that approximately 5% of the 2,000 horsepower bin tugs and 2% of the
4,000 horsepower bin tugs have been rebuilt. There is no indication that the other horsepower categories have
rebuilt engines. It was unknown at the time of writing if the data accurately presented the rebuilt indicator for
all rebuilt engines.
Higher horsepower tugs push more barges. In order to estimate the maximum feasible barge/tug ratios,
it is suggested to use the rule of thumb in Section 4.2. However, to determine the average load on each tug in
Table 4-8, it is useful to know the overall average barge/tug ratio and the overall average tons/barge ratio
(including light barges in the calculations). Table 4-12 presents these overall summaries.
4-12
-------
Table 4-11. St. Louis barges, percent of total for light and loaded by barge type
Status
Calling
Direction
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
Calling Total
Passing
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
Passing Total
Grand Total
Cargo
Light
Loaded
All
Light
Loaded
All
All
Light
Loaded
All
Light
Loaded
All
Type
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
All
All
Trips
2%
1%
10%
1%
13%
18%
1%
4%
1%
24%
37%
1%
2%
29%
1%
33%
18%
0%
9%
2%
30%
63%
100%
Tons
0%
0%
18%
2%
21%
0%
0%
6%
3%
9%
29%
0%
0%
50%
2%
51%
0%
0%
15%
5%
20%
71%
100%
Table 4-12. Overall average barges per tug and tons per barge on the Mississippi River at St. Louis
Status
Call
Pass
Direction
Downbound
Upbound
Downbound
Upbound
Barges/Tug a
2
2
37
54
Tons/Barge
1,328
304
1,336
565
z The barge per tug ratios for passing vessels are higher than is actually seen on the river. This may be due
to lack of reporting for tugs passing the port. LPMS reports an average of 10 barges per tug
The overall barge per tug ratios in Table 4-12 for vessels calling on St. Louis is synchronous with the
anecdotal information received from the port. However, the passing barge to tug ratio is higher than the
4-13
-------
anecdotal information or the LPMS information would lead one to expect. It appears that the USAGE data
undercounts the number of tugs passing the port. One hypothesis that explains this undercounting would be if
a tug pushed a tow of 15 or so barges up or down the river to the fleeting area. The tug then leaves the tow in
the fleeting area, removes two to four barges from the tow, and pushes these barges into port at St. Louis. After
depositing those barges, the tug picks up one to four barges and pushes them back to the fleeting area. These
new barges may be introduced into the original tow or another tow. The tug then continues up or down the river
with the larger tow. The reason for the undercounting of passing tugs comes because the barges in the tow that
stopped in the fleeting area are considered as passing while the tug is considered calling.
Table 4-13. Excursion vessel summary on the Mississippi River at St. Louis
Status
Calling
Passing
Direction
Downbound
Upbound
Downbound
Upbound
Trips
5,031
5,028
8
3
Date
of Build
1978
1977
1975
1994
Avg. Engine
Power (hp)
2,066
2,026
2,348
1,928
NRT
(ton)
1,226
1,135
1,997
1,249
Passenger
Capacity
1,006
1,027
343
217
Cruise
(hr)
3.4
3.4
14.0
10.2
Maneuver
(hr)
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
Hotel
(hr)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.5 PORT OF CINCINNATI, OHIO
The Ohio River starts in Pittsburgh, Pa and flows in a generally west/southwest direction through the
states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. At Cairo, IL, the Ohio flows into the Mississippi.
The Port of Cincinnati lies between miles 0 and 7 on the Licking River and between miles 483 to 516 on the
Ohio River if the river miles are considered to increase from Cairo, IL to Pittsburgh, PA (C to P) or between
miles 460 and 483 if the river miles are considered to increase from Pittsburgh, PA to Cairo, IL (P to C).
The reason for this ambiguity is that organizations which record data on the Port of Cincinnati seem
to use two different numbering conventions to indicate miles on the river. Care must be taken as to which
numbering convention is being used as the port of Cincinnati is nearly in the middle of the length of the Ohio
River. Some numbering systems put mile 0 at Cairo, IL and mile 981 at Pittsburgh, PA ( C to P) and others put
mile 0 at Pittsburgh, PA and mile 981 at Cairo, IL (P to C). Lock Performance Monitoring System (LPMS) data
uses P to C as does the USAGE's Port Series Report. The detailed electronic data from the USAGE data,
however, uses C to P. Not only are the numbering conventions reversed in direction, but the C to P method has
10 more miles within the bounds of the Port of Cincinnati than does the P to C method. As the electronic data
forms the basis of the summary tables, the C to P format is favored in this report and the Port of Cincinnati is
treated as 33 miles long. Both numbering conventions will be presented here in the format of C to P (followed
by P to C in parenthesis).
4-14
-------
Table 4-14. Port of Cincinnati
LRP Rank
14
Typical Port
Port of Cincinnati
Miles on River
Ohio River, 483-5 16 ( C to P)
Ohio River, 460-483 (P to C)
Licking River, 0-7
USACE Port Code
2335
2335
2345
There are no locks within the boundaries of the Port of Cincinnati. The closest upstream lock to
Cincinnati is the Captain Anthony Meldahl at mile 544.8 (436.2) and the closest downstream lock is the
Markland at mile 449.5 (531.5).
4.5.1 Time-in-mode calculations for Cincinnati
The load on the tugs during river cruise is of interest to any modeler. The cruise speeds in this report
account for load in three ways - tows with loaded and light barges, direction the tow is headed on the river, and
the average barges/tug in the tow. Upbound tugs have higher loads, or slower speeds, than downbound tugs.
Loaded barges are heavier and therefore sit lower in the water requiring more power to more, or moving slower,
than a light barge.
For tows in and around Cincinnati, 56% of the barges were loaded with cargo in 1996. In general, all
loaded barges are considered loaded to capacity of 1,500 tons and all light barges carry no cargo tonnage.
Information from phone conversations with tug and barge operators indicates that loaded barges are traveling,
with no current and in an open river, at 8 mph and light barges are traveling at 9 to 10 mph. In a more congested
area, the tugs are likely to run at a maximum of 60-80% of their max power to a minimum of engine idle for an
average speed of 4 to 6 mph for loaded barges and 6 to 7 mph for light barges (without adjusting for current).
Thus, if 56% of the barges are loaded, we adjust the overall tug speeds to be 56% at 5 mph and 44% at 6.5 mph
for an overall average speed of 5.7 mph. Adjusting for a current of 0.5 mph gives the results shown in Table 4-
15.
In addition to the difference between loaded barges and light barges, there is the difference in load
depending on the number of barges in a tow. On average, tugs under 1,500 hp are harbor tugs used for
maneuvering 1 to 4 barges in and around the port. The larger tugs are used to transport the barges longer
distances although they may also take part in maneuvering a barge into dock to facilitate the dispersal of the
tow. An adjustment was made to the cruise speed of tugs < 1,500 hp to account for their role in more congested
areas by reducing their cruise speeds by 20% as shown in Table 4-15.
4-15
-------
Table 4-15. Cruising and maneuvering, average speeds on the Ohio River
Tug Power
>l,500hp
< 1,500 hp
Direction
Upbound
Downbound
Upbound
Downbound
Status
Calling
Passing
Calling
Passing
Calling
Passing
Calling
Passing
Cruise
(mph)
5.2
5.2
6.2
6.2
4.1
4.1
4.9
4.9
Maneuver
(mph into dock)
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
Maneuver
(mph on Licking R.)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Anecdotal information from river operators suggests that other speeds may be common on the river and
within the boundaries of the port. Information from Cincinnati has 8 loaded liquid cargo barges pushed by
3,800-5,000 hp tugs at 8 mph using an estimated 80-85% of tug capacity. The same speed would be used for
light barges leading to a lower load on the tug. Another operator said that speed through a port varies but 3-4
mph is considered no wake. All operators agreed that the pilot is responsible for the wake of his tow and any
damage which it might cause. Loaded barges create more wake than light barges. Another operator gave an
average of 8 mph loaded and 10-12 mph for light barges in still water (no current) when in straight water and
non-congested areas.
There are no locks within the boundaries of the Port of Cincinnati. Thus, no maneuvering time due to
lockages is accounted for on the Ohio River near Cincinnati. Maneuvering time in Cincinnati is a default value
of 0.5 hours for all trips and 1 hour for intraport trips.
4.5.2 Summary data for the Port of Cincinnati
All data in Tables 4-16 through 4-21 were assembled from data received from the USAGE Waterborne
Commerce Statistics Center. Table 4-16 is the summary table for Cincinnati tug movements. Table 4-17 is the
summary table for Cincinnati tug characteristics. Table 4-18 is the percent of trips loaded and light for the
barges. Table 4-19 presents barge trip and tonnage summary data. Table 4-20 present the overall averages for
barges per tug and tons per barge in and around Cincinnati including light barges in the calculations. Table 4-21
is the summary table for all other traffic (excursion) calling or passing the Port of Cincinnati.
4-16
-------
Table 4-16. Tug movements summary table for the Port of Cincinnati
Status
Calling
Direction
Downbound
HP Bin
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Downbound Total
Upbound
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Upbound Total
Calling Total
Passing
Downbound
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Downbound Total
Upbound
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Upbound Total
Passing Total
Grand Total
Trips
392
796
191
559
57
1
1,996
393
774
168
474
34
1
1,844
3,840
57
3,014
555
2,101
277
1
6,005
83
3,033
538
1,987
215
1
5,857
11,862
15,702
%
Trips
2%
5%
1%
4%
0%
0%
13%
3%
5%
1%
3%
0%
0%
12%
24%
0%
19%
4%
13%
2%
0%
38%
1%
19%
3%
13%
1%
0%
37%
76%
100%
Cruise
(hr)
4.2
4.3
2.8
3.0
2.8
3.8
3.2
4.3
5.4
3.5
3.7
3.4
4.5
3.9
3.5
7.7
7.7
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.8
8.2
8.2
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.3
5.8
Maneuver
(hr)
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4-17
-------
Table 4-17. Tug characteristics summary table for the Port of Cincinnati
Status
Calling
Direction
Downbound
HP Bin
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Downbound Total
Upbound
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Upbound Total
Calling Total
Passing
Downbound
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Downbound Total
Upbound
0-750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,000 - 5,000
5,000 - 8,000
>8,000
Upbound Total
Passing Total
Grand Total
Trips
392
796
191
559
57
1
1,996
393
774
168
474
34
1
1,844
3,840
57
3,014
555
2,101
277
1
6,005
83
3,033
538
1,987
215
1
5,857
11,862
15,702
NRT
(ton)
45
82
175
397
505
602
303
43
81
173
405
540
602
305
304
47
63
170
427
543
602
350
42
62
170
429
555
602
345
347
339
Avg. Engine
Power (hp)
600
1,009
1,882
4,098
6,437
8,200
3,255
589
965
1,812
4,151
6,342
8,200
3,205
3,233
605
951
1,802
4,384
6,163
8,200
3,691
606
948
1,803
4,352
6,126
8,200
3,590
3,642
3,561
Date of
Build
1973
1972
1967
1969
1979
1965
1970
1972
1972
1968
1969
1979
1965
1970
1970
1974
1970
1972
1972
1981
1965
1972
1974
1970
1972
1972
1981
1965
1972
1972
1972
4-18
-------
Table 4-18. Cincinnati Barges, percent of total for light and loaded by barge type
Status
Calling
Calling Total
Passing
Passing Total
Grand Total
Direction
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
Cargo
Light
Loaded
Light
Loaded
Light
Loaded
Light
Loaded
Barge Type
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
All
All
% Trips
4%
1%
11%
2%
18%
8%
2%
7%
2%
18%
37%
5%
0%
19%
2%
27%
21%
2%
13%
0%
36%
63%
100%
% Ton
0%
0%
16%
6%
22%
0%
0%
9%
4%
12%
34%
0%
0%
35%
6%
41%
0%
0%
24%
1%
25%
66%
100%
4-19
-------
Table 4-19. Barge Summary for Cincinnati, OH
Status
Calling
Direction
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
Calling Total
Passing
Downbound
Downbound Total
Upbound
Upbound Total
Passing Total
Grand Total
Barge Type
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
All
All
All
Trips
8,287
1,960
10,247
8,415
2,050
10,465
20,712
13,950
1,481
15,431
19,163
1,406
20,569
36,000
56,712
Tons
8,015,952
2,999,500
11,015,452
4,359,134
1,793,011
6,152,145
17,167,597
17,394,338
2,934,547
20,328,885
12,201,534
358,540
12,560,074
32,888,959
50,056,556
Higher horsepower tugs push more barges. In order to estimate barge/tug ratios, it is suggested to use
the rule of thumb in Section 4.2. However, to determine the average load on each tug in Table 4-16, it is useful
to know the overall average barge/tug ratio and the overall average tons/barge ratio (including light barges in
the calculations). Table 4-20 presents these overall summaries.
Table 4-20. Overall average barges per tug and tons per barge on the Ohio River at Cincinnati from
USAGE data (Tables 4-16 and 4-18)
Status
Call
Pass
Direction
Downbound
Upbound
Downbound
Upbound
Barges/Tug
5
6
3
4
Tons/Barge
1,075
588
1,317
611
4-20
-------
Table 4-21. Excursion Vessels on the Ohio River at Cincinnati
Status
Calling
Direction
Downbound
Upbound
Grand Total
Passengers
Light
Loaded
Light
Loaded
Trips
42
915
44
913
1,914
Tons
0
85,718
0
85,873
171,591
Maneuver (hr)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Cruise (hr)
1.1
1.6
3.3
4.9
2.9
No excursion vessels passing the Port of Cincinnati were reported by the USAGE
4.6 METHODOLOGY - USING TYPICAL RIVER PORT DATA WITH TOP 60 LRP DATA
Operations on the rivers are significantly different from operations on the Great Lakes or at Deep Sea
Ports. For this reason, a different methodology is needed to apply Typical River Port data to other river ports.
In general, this methodology will apply the percentage of tug trips and barge trips and tonnages for the Typical
Port to the total tug and total barge trips given in Section 2 for a port chosen to be the Modeled Port.
The Typical River Ports can be used with the general river data in Section 2 to develop more detailed
vessel characteristics and movements at other river ports. The tug, barge, and excursion vessel data developed
for the ports of St. Louis and Cincinnati can be used to model tug, barge, and excursion vessel movements at
the other river ports by using the percent of total trips given in each of the Section 4 summary tables. If there
is better information available from the port on the distributions of trips by horsepowers or on barge to tug
ratios, that data should be used to supplement the default values in the summary table for the Typical Ports.
This methodology for river allocations pertains to barges, tugs, and passenger/excursion ship-types.
Unidentified dry-cargo ship-types should, by default, be treated as excursion vessels. Other ship-types such as
general cargo or bulk carrier may have a few trips for some ports. These can either be treated as a barge/tug
combination or can use the methodology from the deep-sea port when determining their characteristics and time-
in-modes.
There are seven main steps to use when applying the Typical River data to a general river port. Step
1 is to choose a general port from Section 2. This is the Modeled Port. Step 2 is to choose which Typical River
Port to use. Step 3 is to summarize the trips and tonnage data for the Modeled Port. Step 4 is to calculate the
time-in-modes of interest for the Modeled Port by applying the percentage of trips and tonnages in the summary
tables (4-10 or 4-17). Step 5 is to adjust the cruising time for the port distance on the river. Step 6 is to adjust
the maneuvering time for the presence of locks. Step 7 addresses how the data may be allocated to the county
level. An example of how the default data from the Typical River Ports would be used with general data from
a LRP (Section 2) follows.
4.6.1 Step 1: Choose a Modeled Port
This example will use Memphis, TN (LRP # 6) as the Modeled Port.
4-21
-------
4.6.2 Step 2: Choose the Typical River Port
Choosing a Typical Port is at the discretion of the modeler. Some of the important factors to consider
are:
The presence or absence of locks in the Modeled Port
• The presence or absence of navigable tributary rivers within the Modeled Port
• The characteristics of the fleet and the barge to tug ratio at the Modeled Port
The average river characteristics including current information if available for the Modeled Port.
Memphis Harbor has no locks within the boundaries of the port. In this way it is like Cincinnati. From
the data in Section 2, Table 2-3 we find that Memphis is like many of the river ports in that virtually all of the
traffic is barge and tug and that there are several times as many dry-cargo barge trips as liquid-cargo barge trips.
Memphis Harbor has a section of the Wolf River within the boundaries of the port. In this way it is like
Cincinnati. The overall barge to tug ratio from Table 2-3 is 18,632 to 1,893 or roughly 10 to 1. In this way
Memphis, with its relatively high barge to tug ratio, is more like St. Louis. The main river for Memphis Harbor
is the Mississippi below St. Louis and is likely to flow at 2 to 5 miles per hour. In this way, Memphis Harbor
is more like St. Louis.
Thus, the data available from the river ports is similar enough such that a modeler can choose which
Typical Port to use as Like Port for individual criteria if need be. The bulleted criteria indicate that for
calculating the cruising time-in-mode, barge to tug ratios, and other vessel characteristics, use of St. Louis as
the Like Port is likely to yield a better estimate of activity for Memphis. Likewise, using Cincinnati to estimate
maneuvering time-in-mode (after correcting for river current) is likely to yield more accurate vessel movement
data.
4.6.3 Step 3: Summarize Trip and Tonnage Data for the Modeled Port
From Section 2, Tables 2-3 and 2-4 we get the trip and tonnage data by ship-type for Memphis as shown
below in Table 4-22.
Table 4-22. Trip and tonnage data for the Modeled Port, Memphis, TN
Ship-Type
Dry Cargo Barge
Liquid Cargo Barge
General Cargo
Passenger
Tug
Total
Trip
13,888
4,748
2
4
1,893
20,535
Ton
10,332,453
5,970,642
0
0
0
16,303,095
4-22
-------
4.6.4 Step 4: Determine Trips and Tons for the Modeled Port Ship-Types
Using the percentages in the tug and barge summary tables (Table 4-8 and 4-11 for St. Louis), trips and
tons can be calculated for any of the horsepower bins, calling or passing the port, upbound or downbound using
Equation 4.1 (below). If details of tug horsepower distributions are available from the Modeled Port, calculating
all of these categories may be necessary to determine emissions for the port. However, as we are assuming that
the Modeled Port has a distribution of tug horsepowers similar to those in the Typical Port, only the overall trip
and tonnage averages for the categories of upbound, downbound, calling and passing will be required to
determine emissions. As there is currently no way to determine what tugs push loaded or light barges or which
tugs push dry or liquid cargo barges, the barge trips and tons used in Equation 4.1 are totals including both
loaded and light, dry and liquid cargo barges.
MPCT = MPTT * %TPCT (4.1)
Where:
MPCT = Modeled Port category trips or tons (by vessel type)
MPTT = Modeled Port total trips or tons (by vessel type)
%TPCT = Percentage of Typical Port trips or tons (by vessel type and by category)
As an example, here are the calculations for the category of calling, downbound tugs. MPTT from Table 4-22
is 1,893 and the %TPCT for St. Louis from Table 4-8 is 37%. Thus,
MPCT = MPTT * %TPCT
= 1,893 * 37%
= 700
Thus the methodology estimates that there are 700 calling, downbound tug trips for Memphis. Table 4-23 has
the results of these calculations for each category. The categories are abbreviated with DB for downbound and
UB for upbound traffic.
Table 4-23. Step 4 results for the Modeled Port, Memphis, TN
Category
Calling DB
Calling UB
Passing DB
Passing UB
Total
% Tugs a
37%
52%
5%
6%
100%
Tug Trips b
700
984
95
114
1,893
% barge trips c
13%
24%
33%
30%
100%
Barge Trips b
2,423
4,473
6,150
5,591
18,636
% barge tons c
21%
8%
51%
20%
100%
barge tons b
3,423,650
1,304,248
8,314,578
3,260,619
16,303,095
a From Table 4-8, bFrom Equation 4-1,c From Table 4-11
4-23
-------
The barge trips and tonnages found by the methodology in Step 4 will be significantly lower than those
found if the modeler used the rule of thumb in Table 4-3. Application of the rule of thumb in Table 4-3 will
result in barge trip numbers close to the upper limit of barge trips and tonnages that could be propelled by the
recorded number of tugs in the Modeled Port. The rule-of-thumb is likely to give the upper limit of feasible
barge trips rather than an estimation of actual trips. The numbers in Table 4-23 represent an estimation of the
actual average barges and tonnage per tug and therefore give the modeler some indication of load on the tugs.
4.6.5 Step 5. Allocation of Cruise Time-in-mode to the Modeled Port
As stated in Step 2, more than one Like Port may be chosen to determine the time-in-mode and vessel
characteristics of the Modeled Port. As cruise times are largely unaffected by locks and are dependent mainly
on the length of the Modeled Port on the river and of the river current through the Modeled Port, St. Louis will
be used as the Modeled Port for determining cruise time-in-mode at Memphis.
The Modeled Port distance along the river can be determined from the master dock file available from
the USAGE. This file presents the docks within each port, the waterway the dock is on, and the mile on the river
for each dock. Thus the difference between the miles for the first dock and the last dock give a useful estimation
of the length of the river port along the river. These data are also available for most of the perspective Modeled
Ports from Port Series Reports published by the USAGE and other sources. If the exact distance of the Modeled
Port on the river is not available, the default distance can be the distance of the Modeled Port's namesake city
along the river.
Cruise times are calculated by calculating the ratio of the Modeled Port's distance along the river and
the Like Port's distance along the river and by adjusting for the Like Port's river current from the time-in-mode.
Cruise times for excursion vessels are calculated using the same ratio. Equation 4.2 shows the calculations for
cruise time-in-mode.
MPCT = LPc^MPVLP^LPcs/CLPcsV.LPBcY+MPsc) (4 2)
Where:
MPCT = Modeled Port cruise time-in-mode (hr/trip)
LPCT = Like Port cruise time-in-mode. Data in Tables 4-8 and 4-13 or 4-16 and 4-21
depending on the Like Port.
MPW = Modeled Port distance along the river
LPgo = Like Port distance along the river
LPCS = Like Port cruise speed. Depends on direction. Data in Tables 4-7 or 4-15
LPRC = Like Port river current (added for upbound vessels or subtracted for downbound)
MPRC = Modeled Port river current (subtracted for upbound vessels or added for downbound)
Regardless of the vessel category (hp bin, direction, or status), the port of Memphis is approximately
30 miles long (MPj^ = 30 miles). The Like Port, St. Louis, is 70 miles long (LP^ = 70 miles). The river current
4-24
-------
at Memphis is treated as an average of 3 miles per hour. As stated earlier, the current at St. Louis is treated as
2 miles per hour. An example of how Equation 4-2 would be applied to Memphis for the category of calling,
upbound tugs follows:
MPCT = LPCT * MP^/LP^* LPCS/(LPCS+/. LPRC Y+ MPRC)
7.4*30/70*3.87(3.8 + 2-3)
3.7*0.43*1.4
4.3 (hr/trip)
Note: Although the cruise speeds are broken into greater than and less than 1,500 tug horsepower categories
in Tables 4-7 And 4-15, the use of these more specific cruise speeds is only useful if the allocation of
horsepowers within the Modeled Port is known or needed. If a general estimation is required, the above and
below 1500 hp categories should be averaged. For St. Louis this leads to the cruise speeds of 7.5 mph
downbound and 3.8 mph upbound. Table 4-24 has the results of Step 5 calculations.
4-6.6 Step 6. Allocation of Maneuvering Time-in-mode to the Modeled Port
Maneuvering times are mainly dependent upon the presence of locks and of tributary rivers within the
port. Memphis Harbor has a tributary river and no locks within the boundaries of the port. Thus, Cincinnati
which also has a tributary river and no locks within its boundaries will be used as the Like Port.
If there are locks within the Modeled Port, maneuvering times should be adjusted based on the number
of locks within the boundaries of the port. If a port has no locks, maneuvering times should be treated as 0.5
hours per each tug trip. If a port has two locks, the maneuvering times from St. Louis can be used without
adjustment. If a port has 1 or 3 or more locks, an estimate of the maneuvering time can be made using the
average maneuvering times for St. Louis (with 2 locks) and Cincinnati (with 0 locks). For example, the category
of downbound calling tugs has 2.1 hours of maneuvering for St. Louis and 0.5 hours for Cincinnati. The
difference between these maneuvering times is 1.6 hours and can be considered the maneuvering time associated
with two locks for this category of vessel. For a 1 lock port, the average maneuvering time per lockage could
be considered 1.6/2 or 0.8 hours and the total maneuvering time for tugs towing barges downstream would be
1.3 hours (0.8 + 0.5) in a single lock port. Maneuvering times for excursion vessels are calculated using the
same methodology.
If there is a navigable tributary river within the Modeled Port, maneuvering times should also be
adjusted for the time-in-mode on the tributary river. In Cincinnati, miles on the Licking River are considered
maneuvering and calculated accordingly.
To conclude the example of the Modeled Port, Memphis has no locks and a tributary river and thus
would use the maneuvering time-in-modes as calculated for Cincinnati. Table 4-24 shows the cruising and
maneuvering times to use for Memphis calculated as discussed above.
4-25
-------
Table 4-24. Cruise and maneuvering times in hours for the Modeled Port, Memphis
Category
Calling DB
Calling UB
Passing DB
Passing UB
Tug Cruise
1.4
4.3
3.1
9.5
Tug Maneuver
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
Excursion Cruise
1.3
2.0
5.3
5.9
Excursion Maneuver
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.6.7 Step 7: Allocation to counties
Emissions from ports will likely need to be allocated to counties. Many ports are large enough that
their boundaries encompass more than one county. For example, the Port of St. Louis is located on both banks
of the Mississippi River from mile 138 to mile 208 on the river. Thus the port encompasses the city of St. Louis
counties of Jefferson, St. Louis, St. Charles, Monroe, St. Clair, and Madison. If emissions from ports will need
to be allocated to the county level, trips or the various time-in-modes must be allocated to the county level. The
following are some possible methods of allocating ship traffic to the various counties that are within the port.
Method 1. Equal distribution: Divide the total number of trips for the port by the total number of
counties. This is the simplest method and gives a straight forward equal allocation of trips to each county.
Method 2. Distribution by coastline distance: Divide the coastline distance of the county by the total
coastline of the port. This method seeks to allocate trips based on an actual geographic factor. Still a simple
method but more complex and probably more accurate than Method 1.
Method 3. Distribution using average wind speed and direction. Get data on wind speeds and
directions along the river. Allocate emissions to the counties downwind of the prevailing wind (either by
Method 1 or 2). This method has varying degrees of complexity depending upon the detail of the
meteorological data used to determine the prevailing winds. This could be used to change the allocation to ports
on a seasonal basis. This method may be more or less accurate than Methods 1 or 2 depending on the constancy
of the prevailing winds.
Method 4. Distribution by berth density: Determine the density of activity (by counting the total
number of berthing facilities in each county), total the berthing facilities in the overall port, determine the
fraction in each county and use that fraction to determine traffic distribution. This method assumes that areas
with more piers, wharves, and docks (PWDs) should have more emissions allocated to them. The port series
reports published by the USAGE for most major U.S. ports have detailed descriptions of PWD locations. For
this method to be accurate, the intensity of activity at the majority of PWDs would need to be similar.
An example of how Method 4 would be used on the Typical River Ports is shown in Table 4-25 and
4-26 below.
Table 4-25. Counties within the boundaries of the Port of St. Louis
4-26
-------
from the USAGE published Port Series Report 70, Revised 1990
County
Jefferson
St. Louis
St. Charles
Monroe
St. Clair
Madison
State
MO
MO
MO
IL
IL
IL
Bank
R
R
R
L
L
L
Mile (AOR for Mississippi)
138.8-161
161 - 195.5
195-208.8
138.8-171
171 - 182
182-208.8
PWD #'s
148-158
86 - 147
0
13-17
18-34
35 - 68, 76-77
# Docks
11
62
0
5
17
36
% of total
8%
47%
0%
4%
13%
28%
PWD = Piers, wharves, and docks.
AOR = actual on river
Table 4-26. Counties within the boundaries of the Port of Cincinnati
from the USACE published Port Series Report 72, Revised 1991
County
Kenton
Campbell
Hamilton
State
KY
KY
OH
Bank
L
L
R
Mile C to P (P to C)
516-483(470-483)
516-516(460-470)
516-483(460-483)
PWD#'s
12-19
20-24
113-132
# Docks
8
5
20
% of total
24%
15%
61%
PWD = Piers, wharves, and docks.
AOR = actual on river C to P = Cairo, IL to Pittsburgh, PA
Activity information developed for the port as a whole could be allocated to the county level using the
percent of total numbers given in the above tables. Thus we would say that since 47% of the docks in the
Metropolitan Port of St. Louis are in St. Louis County, 47% of the time-in-mode activity also takes place there.
However, the percent of total numbers do not necessarily reflect activity. They are merely a count of the
piers, wharves, and docks in operation when these Port Series Reports were revised and updated. Some of the docks
may be used infrequently, others several times a day. The data in Tables 4-25 and 4-26 do not determine frequency
of use.
4-27
-------
SECTION 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section discusses further work required to quantify and qualify the commercial marine
inventory at Great Lake and river ports in the United States. Some tasks must be completed before the
default inputs for the NONROAD model can be developed. All of these recommendations are complimentary
to the work already performed in this Work Assignment. Many of the recommendations are similar to those
recommendations in Volume I of this report. The recommendations pertain to the following:
1. Characterization of mooring tug operation
2. Clearer definitions of barge types at Great Lake ports
3. Determination of emission factors
4. Update of the Top 60 LRPs to 1996
5. Auxiliary engine characterization
6. General understanding of inland river and Great Lake traffic
7. Commercial fishing vessels and activity
8. Dredging vessels and activities
9. Distances from the breakwater for Great Lake ports
10. Distance on the river for river ports
11. Electronic maps
12. Guidance document
Mooring tug operation on the Great Lakes, as well as at the Deep-Sea Ports, may account for a large
percentage of the emissions that occur close to land. Unfortunately, neither the USAGE nor the MEPAs
regularly track mooring tug operations. It may be possible to apply a rule-of-thumb, based on ship-type, to
determine the average number and time-in-mode for mooring tugs. It would be better to have actual data on
mooring tugs and have these vessels tracked within the port.
The types of barges used at the Great Lake ports help determine barge per tug ratios and whether
emissions are negligible during hotelling. Although it is possible to determine the number of dry and liquid
cargo barges, and even to determine average capacity tonnages for the barges based on VTCC codes, the
VTCC code alone is not enough to determine if the barges are river barges or the larger lake barges which
would have self-unloading equipment and therefore hotelling emissions.
Emission factors will need to be applied to the time-in-mode data developed in this report if
emissions are to be estimated for Great Lake and river operations. Lloyds Maritime has reports on fuel
consumption and emission rates which could be used to calculate emission factors for the various time-in-
5-1
-------
modes for Salties, Lakers, tugs, and excursion vessels as used in the Great Lakes and rivers.
The Top 60 LRP data are from 1995 USAGE data. The Typical Great Lake Port and Typical River
Port data are from 1996. More agreement between these two datasets might be seen if the data were from
the same years. We suggest purchasing 1996 data on all the United States Ports so that the Top 60 Lake and
River Ports as well as the Top 95 Deep-Sea Ports may be updated to 1996 figures. Likewise, both the "Top
Port" data and the "Typical Port" lake and river data can be updated to any given year if those data sets are
purchased from USAGE.
Auxiliary engines are on some liquid and dry cargo barges, some tugs, and most excursion vessels.
Auxiliary engines are used for loading and unloading and power generation on the vessel. Lloyds Maritime
Information Service (LMIS) have auxiliary engine data on about 22,000 engines. However, these auxiliary
data are more likely to apply to deep-sea vessels than to the vessels operating on the Great Lakes and Rivers.
The USAGE has data on auxiliary equipment that could be used to determine the number of vessels with
auxiliary engines. Further information could be obtained directly from fleet operators.
While this report details river and Great Lake traffic at two ports, general operations on the rivers
and Great Lakes is not covered. There are substantial distances on the Mississippi and Ohio rivers that are
not covered by ports and could be a significant emissions source. Using lock data and additional USAGE
data, we could present a more thorough picture of activity on the inland rivers. In addition, significant lake
traffic occurs in the shipping lanes on the Great Lakes that is not characterized in our current study. This
could also be a significant source of emissions that are transported to local non attainment areas that need
to be characterized. With additional USAGE data, we could also characterized general Great Lake traffic.
Fishing activity was investigated and several possible methodologies were discussed. Very few ports
keep records on fishing boat activities. These most likely need to be determined from fishing boat operators
and state departments offish and game. Efforts were invested in contacting the Washington Department of
Fish & Game which provided information on fishing licenses and tons offish caught. Extrapolation of these
data are difficult since tons offish caught, as recorded by USAGE, are given without distinguishing the type
offish. Also USAGE only records these data for regions rather than ports. Furthermore, fishing license
information is not specific or complete enough to detail vessel activity. More vessel oriented information
is needed, however, to detail fishing vessel activity.
Some attempts were made to determine dredging activity from the USAGE. USAGE coordinates
most of the dredging in ports and rivers. The LMIS data has some information on dredges and together with
USAGE data on dredging schedules at the Typical Ports, dredging activity could be characterized.
Although distances from the breakwater to the majority of docks within the Great Lakes is only a
few miles and could be estimated, some port areas are more complex than others and information from these
ports would allow determination of a more accurate distance. Some of the Great Lakes ports also have rivers
5-2
-------
within the boundaries of the port and more detailed information would be needed from the port to determine
if vessels call on harbors on the river.
It would also be useful to obtain accurate miles on the river for each of the river ports. Many of these
ports extend beyond the boundaries of the city for which they are named and common maps do not show
these port boundaries. The Port Series Reports published by the USAGE are very useful in determining the
boundaries of the river ports as well as the counties located within the ports and the location of docks on the
river. If allocation is to be made to the county level, it will be necessary to know, at a minimum, what
percentage of docks lie within each county of the river ports.
Additional items to help the user of this report might include maps in electronic form that are
imported into the document. Electronic maps focusing on the major geographic features of ports and
waterways are not as readily available as street maps but through a combination of INTERNET map sites,
cooperation with various Port Authorities, and scanning of available paper maps, maps showing the
breakwater, ports, major geographic features and other reference points often referred to in this report could
be obtained and included herein.
Furthermore, a guidance document should be written for air emission inventory modelers to assist
them in obtaining marine activity information more specific to their port. As ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller
searched for information on detailed vessel activities and port descriptions, it became apparent that a great
deal of variability exits between ports as to what data are recorded at what level of completeness. A guidance
document could greatly assist the Port Authorities in obtaining information relevant to the model.
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller can provide all these services and would be happy to discuss these
recommendations and future work with EPA.
5-3
-------
SECTION 6
REFERENCES
1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support Center Navigation Data Center. NDC
Publications and U.S. Waterway Data CD, Volume 4. Alexandria, VA. April 1998.
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Port on Lake Michigan. Port
Series No. 48. Revised 1995.
3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of Cleveland, Ohio. Port Series No. 70. Revised 1992.
4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of St. Louis Missouri and Ports on Upper Mississippi River
Miles 0 to 300 AOR Port Series No. 70. Revised 1992.
5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of Cincinnati, Ohio and Ports on Ohio River, Miles 317-
560. Port Series No. 70. Revised 1992.
6 LeLievre, Roger ed. Know Your Ships, Guide to Boats andBoatwatching on the Great Lakes and
St. Lawrence Seaway. Marine Publishing Company. 1996. See web site
http: //www .kno wvourship s. com/
7 Schultheiss, N. Great Lakes and Seaway Shipping Web site, http://www.boatnerd.com/ Copyright
1995-1999.
8 Lake Carriers Association. Lake Carriers Association Web site, http://www.lcaships.com/
9 United States Army Corps of Engineers/CEWRC Navigation Data Center. Lock Performance
Monitoring Data. 1996
6-1
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA FIELDS DETAILED
A. 13 CONFIDENTIAL USAGE DATA FIELDS
Table A-l. ARC(WW) FILES (Cincinnati, St. Louis, Burns Harbor, Cleveland)
Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Field Name
LD_LT
OPERATOR
VESSEL
TRIPS
VESS_TYPE
SFflP_DATE
SFflP_LOC
SfflP_DOCK
SfflP_DRAFT
RECV_DATE
RECV_LOC
RECV_DOCK
RECV_DRAFT
TRAFFIC
SER_CODE
COMM_CODE
TONNAGE
ALTERNATES
SFflP_WW
SFflP_MILE
SfflP_PORT
SfflP_ST
RECV_WW
RECV_MILE
RECV_PORT
RECV_ST
CONT
AREAS
SUB_A1
SUB_A2
SUB_A3
SUB_A4
Type
TEXT
TEXT
NUM
NUM
NUM
TEXT
NUM
NUM
NUM
TEXT
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
TEXT
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
TEXT
NUM
NUM
NUM
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
Length
6
8
6
4
2
6
6
4
3
6
6
4
3
3
2
6
9
14
5
5
5
2
5
5
5
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
DESCRIPTION
loaded or light
operator code (OPERATOR)
vessel code (VESSEL)
Number of trips (some are more than 1 - how can that be?)
vessel type
shipping date (yymmdd)
shipping location (LOCATION)
shipping dock (DOCKS)
shipping draft
receiving date (yymmdd) (may need to convert in DBASE or other
receiving location (LOCATION)
receiving dock (DOCKS)
vessel draft upon reception into the dock
traffic code, 11 = oversears imports, 12 = overseas exports, 21 =
imports from Canada, 22 = Exports to Canada, 30 = Coastwise, 40 =
Lakewise, 50 = Internal, 70 = Intraport, 80 = Intraterritory, 90 =
Ferry
service code, 1 = common carrier, 2 = exempt for hire, 3 = private, 9
= unknown
detail commodity code (COMMODITY)
short tons (2,000 Ib = 1 ton)
maximum of 7 alternates, 2 characters each, indicates the route of the
vessel if different from the 'standard' route
shipping waterway (port/waterway codes)
shipping mile
shipping port
shipping state
receiving waterway (port/waterway codes)
receiving mile
receiving port
receiving state
containerized indicator
Indicates which regions were in the trip. The same
number can indicate 2 or more regions.
Indicates subareas traveled in region 1
Indicates subareas traveled for region 2
Indicates subareas traveled for region 3
Indicates subareas traveled for region 4
A-l
-------
Table A-2 OPERATOR
Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Field Name
OPERATOR
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
ST
ZIP
OWNER
OPER
TS OPER
SERVICE
REPORT FREQ
POCNAME
POC AREA CODE
POC PHONE
FAX
BEGIN DATE
END DATE
LAST CHANGE
CLASS
SEA GOING
Type
NUM
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
NUM
TEXT
TEXT
DATE
DATE
DATE
TEXT
TEXT
Length
6
62
25
20
2
10
1
1
1
1
1
20
3
3
20
6
6
6
2
2
Description
Detail Operator code - 6 digit numerical
Operator company name
street address
city
state
ZIP
not implemented
not implemented
not implemented
operator shipping service code, R = regulated, N = non-regulated
Operator reporting frequency, A = annual, M = monthly, Q =
quarterly, S = semi annual
contact person with NM or other 2 letter initial designation.
POC area code
Phone number
Fax number - and comments often blank
Date record created
Date record marked for deletion
date record last changed
types of vessels operatord, 3 = cargo/bulk, 4 = towing, 5 = passengers,
6 = barges, 7 = tankers, 8 = towing/barges, 9 crew boats
Indicates an ocean going vessel
Table A-3. ALTERNATES
Field
1
2
3
4
5
Field Name
ALTERNATE
ALTERNATE NAME
REGION
LINK
ENTRY
Type
NUM
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
Length
2
40
1
5
1
Description
alternate route
alternate name
region alternate is in, 1 = Atlantic, 2 = Miss Valley/Gulf, 3 = Great
Lakes, 4 = Pacific, 5 = Coastwise traffic
link number alternate is in
basis for alternate, C = contractor, O = O/D pairs, P = passengers
Tale ALLOCATION
Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Field Name
LOCATION
DISTRICT
LOCATION NAME
HMF
BEGIN DATE
END DATE
AREA
Type
NUM
NUM
TEXT
TEXT
DATE
DATE
NUM
Length
5
2
138
4
11
11
4
Description
Location code (5-digit port code)
engineering district code
location name
harbor maintenance fee indicator
Date record created
Date record marked for deletion
areas used in Part V publication
A-2
-------
Table A-5. COMMODITY
Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Field Name
COMMODITY
COMMODITY NAME
COMM4
PUB GROUP
PDDB GROUP
PMS GROUP
BEGIN DATE
END DATE
LAST CHANGE
HAZARD
STCC
EST GROUP
Type
NUM
TEXT
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
DATE
DATE
DATE
TEXT
NUM
NUM
Length
5
50
4
4
5
1
11
11
11
1
2
2
Description
TOWS commodity code
commodity name
WCSC commodity code prior to 1 990
publication commodity code
public domain database commodity code
PMS commodity code
date record created
date record marked for deletion
date record was last changed
hazardous material based on USDOT
Standard Transportation Commodity Classification
commodity groups used for estimating waterways
Table A-6. DOCKS
Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Field Name
LOCATION
DOCK
FACILITY TYPE
DOCK NAME
DOCK MILE
BANK
PORT
COUNTY
STATE
LINK NUMBER
WTWY
BEA
SMSA
PUB DOMAIN
PORT EQUIVALENCE
STATUS
COMM CLASS
SHIPRECV
BEGIN DATE
END DATE
LAST CHANGE
NTAR
Type
NUM
NUM
TEXT
TEXT
NUM
TEXT
NUM
TEXT
TEXT
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
TEXT
DATE
DATE
DATE
NUM
Length
5
3
3
50
4
1
4
3
2
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
2
1
11
11
11
3
Description
5 digit port code
dock code
dock facility type: First character: D= dock, L = lock, J = junction, B = bridge,
C = cargo handling facility, N = non-cargo handling facility, U = unverified port
facilty, M = milepost, F = fleeting area, X = foreign, W = open water (ocean,
rigs, fishing), O = other (harbor breakwater, dredging area, channel jetty and
turning basin), R = recreational (foreign yachts)
Second character: P = port facilities, null/blank = not official port facilities, D =
dam
official dock name
mile point on the waterway or channel
bank (location of dock on river)
C = center transfer, L = left bank, R = right bank
port code 4-digit
county code
dock state
River link number
waterway code (useful to see if the -waterway code and port code are different
for any or most or none)
Bureau of Economic Analysis Code
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Code
Public Domain code for 26 regions
Port Equivalence code
dock status code
commodity class code
shipping/receiving code: S = shipping only (not implemented), R = receiving
only, B = both shipping and receiving
Date record created
Date record marked for deletion
date record last changed
National Transportation Analysis Region
A-3
-------
Table A-7 VESSEL
Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Field Name
VESSEL
REGION
NRT
VESSEL NAME
VESSEL NUMBER
COAST GUARD
OPERATOR
OWNER
LAST OPERATOR
REG_LENGTH
OVERALL LENGTH
REG_BREADTH
OVERALL BREADTH
HORSEPOWER
CAP_REF
CAP_TONS
CAP_PASS
HFP
REBUILT
YEAR BUILT
VESSEL TYPE
EQUIPMENTJ
EQUIPMENT_2
STATE
BASEJ
BASE_2
SERIES 3
SERIES 4
SERIES 5
TS OPERATOR
SUSPENSE
FOREIGN EXCEP
STATUS
BEGIN DATE
END DATE
LAST CHANGE
LOADED DRAFT
LIGHT DRAFT
ICST
STATE ID
LAST REPORT DATE
YEAR REBUILT
Type
NUM
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
NUM
TEXT
NUM
NUM
NUM
TEXT
YEAR
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
TEXT
DATE
DATE
DATE
NUM
NUM
NUM
TEXT
DATE
YEAR
Length
5
1
6
24
7
10
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
1
8
4
4
1
4
4
16
16
2
10
10
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
11
11
11
7
7
3
14
11
4
Description
vessel code
vessel region
vessel net registered tonnage (NRT = gross registered tonnage less
an allowance for the space occupied by machinery, bunkers,
water ballast and crew 's quarters. Gross Registered Tonnage is a
measure of the carrying capacity of the vessel. 100 cubic feet of
capacity are equivalent to one gross ton
vessel name
vessel number
coast guard number
operator code
vessel owner code (same codes as operator codes)
last reporting operator
registered length of the vessel, 0-20,000
0-20,000
0-4,000
0-4,000
horsepower 0-150,000
capacity reference indicator: R = railroad cars, A = autos, C =
containers, V = ?
capacity tons 0 - 50,000
passenger capacity
highest fixed point
REBUILT INDICATOR
1900 -present
VTCC code
cargo handling equipment 1
cargo handling equipment 2
state code
vessel operating base 1
vessel operating base 2
series 3 indicator
series 4 indicator
series 5 indicator
TS Operator code
vessel suspense code
Foreign exemption code
vessel status code, A = active, G = group vessel code, F = foreign
vessel
Date record created
Date record marked for deletion
date record last changed
vessel loaded draft 1-99
1-99
International Classification of Ships by Type
state identification
last reporting/receiving date for that vessel
1990-present
A-4
-------
A.2 DATA FROM LLOYDS MARITIME INFORMATION SERVICE
Table A-8. Lloyds Maritime Information Service fields and descriptions
LMIS Field
Vessel
Ship Type - A
Ship Type - B
Ship Type -C
LrNo
Steam Turbine
Stroke Type
DWT
BHP
Speed
RPM
Consumption
DOB
Ind
Ship Status
Design
Designation
Recip - Kw
Gas Turb
Flag
Best Address
LR number
supplied
Description
Current trading name of vessel
Ship type classification as defined for Lloyds Register Statistical Tables
More detailed ship type classification
Most detailed ship type classification
The unique Lloyd's register identity number.
Number of steam turbines
2 stroke, 4 stroke, or blank (for steam turbines)
Summer deadweight tonnage
Power in brake horsepower of new or refurbished engines
Service speed of the vessel
RPM at service speed
Fuel consumption
Year in which the vessel was delivered to the fleet or last date of engine
refurbishment
Ship status indicator
Description of ship status
Name of company that manufactures the main propulsion engines
Engine designation
KW produced by the steam turbines
Number of propulsion gas turbines on board
Flag of country where the vessel is registered
Parent company where available, or manager, or owner.
Yes indicates that this record was generated from a Lloyds registry
supplied by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller to LMIS
No indicates that this record was generated from a ship name only.
number
A-5
-------
A.3 DATA FROM USAGE AND CENSUS BUREAU TO GENERATE TOP 60 LRP TABLES
Table A-9. Army Corps of Engineers Data 1995 file and field data vessel movement data
Data Field
acurrvld
acurrvlt
acurshld
acurshlt
USACE Field
PCODE
PORT NAME
SH RC DATE
TRAFFIC
VTYPE
VESS_TYPE
TONS
TRIPS
Description
File name for loaded receipts. These are vessels coming into port with cargo
File name for light receipts. These are vessels coming into port without cargo
File name for loaded shipments. These are vessels leaving the port with cargo
File name for light receipts. These are vessels leaving the port without cargo -
These files are cargo specific so that the same vessel could be recorded several
times in different files without double counting trips
Description
Port code used by the COE to represent ports and waterways in the United
States
Name of the port
Date of shipment receipt
Traffic code indicates the type of shipment or receipt by origin
Single digit vessel type code:
1 = Motor dry cargo and steam dry cargo
2 = Motor tanker and steam tanker
3 = Tug
4 = Barge - dry cargo
5 = Barge - tanker
6 = Other including yacht, sloop, schooner, sailboat, houseboat, rowboat, and
Four digit vessel type construction and characteristics (VTCC) code
Tons shipped or received
One-way entrance or clearance from a PCODE
Source: Waterbome Commerce Statistics Center in New Orleans, LA
A-6
-------
Table A-10. USAGE Data on Foreign Ships from USWWCD and the Census Bureau.
Data Field
STAT MONTH
WTWY
VESS_NAME
ICST
FLAG
WTWYSCHEDK
PORT IND
NRT
DRAFT
Description
Represents the month in which the vessel entrance or clearance was processed.
The porcessin month is almost always the same month as the physical
movement of the vessel
Port or waterway code used by the COE to represent ports and waterways in the
United States
Vessels full name up to 36 characters
International Classification of Ships by Type code indicates the ship type. If the
ICST code is not available, the Census Bureau's 1 digit rig code is used as
follows:
1 = Motor dry cargo and steam dry cargo
2 = Motor tanker and steam tanker
3 = Tug
4 = Barge - dry cargo
5 = Barge - tanker
6 = Other including yacht, sloop, schooner, sailboat, houseboat, rowboat, and
research
Vessel's flag of registry
Indicates the vessel's last port of call for an "entrance" or the next port of call
for a "clearance". If the port if foreign the field contains the port's 5 digit
schedule K code. If it is domestic, it contains the COE's 4 digit port or
waterway code.
Indicates a domestic port by a "D" in the field. Otherwise the port is foreign
Net registered tonnage of the vessel
Indicates the vessel's draft in feet
Source: Data submitted to the Census Bureau by the Army Corps of Engineers for publication on the United States Waterway
Data CD-ROM for 1995
A-7
-------
A.4 DATA FROM BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR PORT AUTHORITY
Table A-ll. Burns Waterway Harbor MEPA data
Data Field
TENANT
BARGE
SHIP
VESSEL
BERTH
IN
OUT
COMMODITY
CARGO TYPE
TONNAGE
Description
The company that brought the ship into Burns Harbor
Barge name and number. This field is blank if it is a ship
Ship name. This field is blank if it is a barge.
Indicates whether the ship is a Laker, Salty, or Barge.
Dock at which the vessel stopped.
Date and time the vessel stopped at Burns Harbor
Date and time the vessel left Burns Harbor
The commodity on the ship
Type of cargo carried. This includes Bulk Metal, Dry Bulk (Dr/Bk), General,
Grain, and Liquid Bulk (Li/Bk).
Cargo tonnage
A.5 DATA FROM PORT OF CLEVELAND PORT AUTHORITY
Table A-12. Cleveland MEPA data
Data Field
ETA (TIME)
ETA (DATE)
ETD (TIME)
ETD (DATE)
FLAG
SHIP
TONS
LINE
AGENT
PIER
PIER (#2)
Description
Estimated time of arrival to
Estimated date of arrival to
Estimated time of departure
Estimated date of departure
Port of Cleveland
Port of Cleveland
from Port of Cleveland
from Port of Cleveland
Vessel's flag of registry
Ship name
Cargo tonnage
Shipping line
Shipping agent
First pier stopped at
Second pier stopped at
A-8
------- |