Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
71 The various scenarios evaluated by the model are presented in Table 22 in the body of the report. That table is reproduced here as Table F-1 for easy reference. The model maximizes the throughput of the new project depth cargo, subject to congestion and budget constraints. The first three scenarios are all part of one model run where the budget is continually adjusted downward. The last three scenarios were each the focus of a model run. In these cases, the total budget was set at the budget amount for that sce- nario. Several subsets of each of the six scenarios were created by taking various percentages of the scenario budget (reduc- ing the budget). The downward adjustments were done in order to see at what budget level the project mix would show a significant change. When discussing the model results, the term âtotal demandâ is used. This term denotes the new project depth tonnage that could possibly be generated if all projects pertaining to the ports being modeled were constructed. This demand is listed on a segment-by-segment basis in the âIncrease from Projectâ column in the origin-destination table (see Table 20 in the main body of this report). Tables F-2 through F-6 present the results of these model runs. Scenarios 1 and 2: All Ports Included, Total Budget of $99,265,442 or $79,412,354 Scenarios 1 and 2 produced exactly the same results. The segments shown in Table F-2 are selected by the model in each case. This project mix accommodates 39.7 million tons of 40.0 million tons (99 percent) of total demand. The model shows that spending the full budget amount will not produce any additional benefit over spending just 50 per- cent of the budget ($49,915,341/$99,265,442) in Scenario 1 and 63 percent of the budget ($49,915,341/$79,412,354) for Scenario 2, based on projected demand levels. Scenario 3: All Ports Included, Total Budget of $49,632,721 In Scenario 3 the project mix begins to change. The seg- ments shown in Table F-3 are selected by the model. This proj- ect mix accommodates 39.2 million tons of 40.0 million tons (98 percent) of total demand. The model shows that 97 percent of the budget ($48,297,303/ $49,632,721) should be spent, based on projected demand levels. At this budget level, the available budget has begun to cut into the optimum project mix from Scenarios 1 and 2. Both of those scenarios required a budget greater that Scenario 3âs budget. Even so, 98 percent of the demand is still met. Scenario 4: Duluth and Hampton Roads Are Excluded, Total Budget of $49,632,721 The segments shown in Table F-4 are selected by the model under this scenario. This project mix accommodates 26.7 mil- lion tons of 27.0 million tons (99 percent) of total demand. The total demand for this scenario drops to 27.0 million tons since Duluth and Hampton Roads are not included. The model shows that 86 percent of the budget ($42,814,101/$49,632,721) should be spent, based on projected demand levels, even though this budget is only half of the original budget in Scenario 1. Scenario 5: Portland Is Excluded, Total Budget of $79,412,354 The segments shown in Table F-5 are selected by the model under this scenario. This project mix accommodates 100 per- cent of total demand (35.1 million tons). The total demand for all of the ports minus Portland is 35.1 million tons. The projects selected in Table F-5 can fully A P P E N D I X F Model Results
72 accommodate the demand. Only 57 percent ($45,032,039/ $79,412,354) of the budget is required to do so. Scenario 6: Plaquemines Is Excluded, Total Budget of $44,632,551 The segments shown in Table F-6 are selected by the model under this scenario. This project mix accommodates 37.8 million tons of 38.1 million tons (99 percent) of total demand. Table F-1. Scenarios analyzed. Projects Included Budget Amount All Projects $99,265,442 (100%) All Projects $79,412,354 (80%) All Projects $49,632,721 (50%) All Projects minus Duluth & Hampton Roads $49,632,721 (50%) All Projects minus Portland $79,412,354 (80%) All Projects minus Plaquemines $44,632,551 (total minus Plaquemines) Port Segment Units of Improvement* Expenditure Huntington Segment 4 1 $754,436 Huntington Segment 6 1 $754,436 Hampton Roads HR2 1 $889,341 Hampton Roads HR3 2 $1,064,718 Duluth DS1 3 $2,828,485 Duluth DS4 1 $293,067 Duluth DS6 3 $2,025,629 Plaquemines PL1 2 $36,421,927 Portland-Inland Segment 4 1 $200,202 Portland-Coastal PO1 1 $ 4,683,100 Total $49,915,341 *Unit of Improvement for waterway segments is 1 ft of dredging; for locks, it is the maintenance necessary to reduce the average delay at a lock by one-third of the total potential reduction in delay. Table F-2. Segment improvements selected for Scenarios 1 and 2. Port Segment Units of Improvement* Expenditure Huntington Segment 4 1 $754,436 Huntington Segment 6 1 $754,436 Hampton Roads HR2 1 $889,341 Hampton Roads HR3 2 $1,064,718 Duluth DS1 2 $1,885,656 Duluth DS4 1 $293,067 Duluth DS6 2 $1,350,420 Plaquemines PL1 2 $36,421,927 Portland-Inland Segment 4 1 $200,202 Portland-Coastal PO1 1 $ 4,683,100 Total $48,297,303 *Unit of Improvement for waterway segments is 1 ft of dredging; for locks, it is the maintenance necessary to reduce the average delay at a lock by one-third of the total potential reduction in delay. Table F-3. Segment improvements selected for Scenario 3. Port Segment Units of Improvement* Expenditure Huntington Segment 4 1 $754,436 Huntington Segment 6 1 $754,436 Plaquemines PL1 2 $36,421,927 Portland-Inland Segment 4 1 $200,202 Portland-Coastal PO1 1 $4,683,100 Total $42,814,101 *Unit of Improvement for waterway segments is 1 ft of dredging; for locks, it is the maintenance necessary to reduce the average delay at a lock by one-third of the total potential reduction in delay Table F-4. Segment improvements selected for Scenario 4. Port Segment Units of Improvement* Expenditure Huntington Segment 4 1 $754,436 Huntington Segment 6 1 $754,436 Hampton Roads HR2 1 $889,341 Hampton Roads HR3 2 $1,064,718 Duluth DS1 3 $2,828,485 Duluth DS4 1 $293,067 Duluth DS6 3 $2,025,629 Plaquemines PL1 2 $36,421,927 Total $45,032,039 *Unit of Improvement for waterway segments is 1 ft of dredging; for locks, it is the maintenance necessary to reduce the average delay at a lock by one-third of the total potential reduction in delay. Table F-5. Segment improvements selected for Scenario 5. Port Segment Units of Improvement* Expenditure Huntington Segment 4 1 $754,436 Huntington Segment 6 1 $754,436 Hampton Roads HR2 1 $889,341 Hampton Roads HR3 2 $1,064,718 Duluth DS1 3 $2,828,485 Duluth DS4 1 $293,067 Duluth DS6 3 $2,025,629 Portland-Inland Segment 4 1 $200,202 Portland-Coastal PO1 1 $4,683,100 Total $13,493,414 *Unit of Improvement for waterway segments is 1 ft of dredging; for locks,it is the maintenance necessary to reduce the average delay at a lock by one-third of the total potential reduction in delay. Table F-6. Segment improvements selected for Scenario 6.
73 The expected demand for all the ports minus Plaquemines is 38.1 million tons. The project mix selected in Table F-6 can accommodate 99 percent of total demand, yet only 30 percent of the budget ($13,493,414/$44,632,551) is required to do so. At first glance, this would seem to indicate that Plaquemines is a relatively expensive port to maintain for the expected growth in cargo that would result, but dredging the river below Plaquemines could affect ports all the way up to Baton Rouge, and it could also affect the decisions of shippers in the upper Mississippi region. A more comprehensive approach is needed in this instance, where the potential increases in proj- ect depth cargo are calculated for all potentially affected ports.
