MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
INLAND WATERWAY-Intermodal TEAM MEETING
WEDNESDAY, March 5, 2003
2:00 - 4:00 PM
Room 8126 DOT Building
Washington, DC
ATTENDEES
NAME REPRESENTING
Jim McCarville, Chair Inland Rivers, Ports and Terminals (IRPT)/Port of Pittsburgh Commission
Michael Smith SAIC
Michael Hokana MARAD - Washington, DC
Stephen Bivona SAIC
Dennis Kirwin Waterways Work
Ray Barberesi MARAD - Washington, DC
Ty Vanden Akker Carnegie Mellon University/Port of Pittsburgh
Deirdre McGowen IRPT
Wilfred Jackson West Va. Public Port Auth
Patrick Donovan West Va. Public Port Auth
Michael Gordon MARAD - Washington, DC
Chris Heldgere National Feed and Grain Assoc.
John Pearson Intermodal Logistics Group
Bob Goodwin * MARAD - St. Louis, MO
Doris Bautch * MARAD - Chicago, IL
James Cook * Black and Veatch
*Participated by telephone
Opening: Jim McCarville opened the meeting with introductions. Three participants attended via phone.
1. Old Business
Keith Lesnick's name was added to the list of attendees in the minutes of the previous meeting.
2. Inland Waterway Intermodal Cooperative Project (IWICP) – Container on Barge (COB) Trial/Data Needs
The group heard a summary report of a meeting earlier that morning from the IWICP, a public/private group working with MARAD to prepare the waterway industry for intermodal container business. The group is analyzing the Freight Analysis Framework data for waterway contestable cargo; pursuing a common marketing tool (www.SmartBarge.com) to estimate and compare costs and transit times for intermodal barges versus other modes; and exploring outreach to intermodal logistics companies or barge carriers that might be interested in performing the service.
3. Inland Waterway Infrastructure Needs Assessment Status
Mike Smith provided a briefing about the MTS Infrastructure Needs Assessment being done by SAIC: Failure to maintain the MTS would have adverse effects on the U.S. economy. Needs include: road and rail access to the ports; vessel tracking systems; increased terminal capacity and utilization needs and maritime security enhancements.
Specific needs for the inland waterway system, he said include: Aids to Navigation, lock modernization, dredging and the introduction of new technology. He said that $1.3 billion in benefits have been foregone, as costs increase, due to the delay in adequately funding new lock construction.
4. Status of MARAD Web Site for Identifying Inland River Studies
Mike Hokana reported on MARAD's Web Site for Inland River Reports to gather as much data and information on past Inland Waterway Reports as possible and put them on a web data base. The site currently is in beta testing. Hokana requested that committee members reach out to their constituents and request research papers and call him at 202-366-0760.
5. Funding for Operations and Maintenance of the Inland Waterway
Dennis Kirwin introduced the discussion regarding recent proposals to fund Inland River O&M from the trust fund previously created for new construction. A motion was unanimously approved to convey to the MTS Council that funding for operations and maintenance of the Inland Waterway System continue to be funded by general funds rather than trust funds.
6. Instrumented Locking Project.
Ty Vanden Akker reported that the Port of Pittsburgh Commission was working with Carnegie Mellon University to produce Instrumented Locking System prototype for use in fog using wireless technology. Initial indications are that the improvements could pay for themselves in a matter of months.
7. Heartland Intermodal Project
Deirdre McGowen reported on the HIP project including a 24 state alliance of the Gulf, Rivers and Great Lakes regions, to heighten awareness of the regional public and private sectors about the coming crisis in freight capacity and the intermodal-maritime resources to help cope with it, specifically to: educate senior freight policy makers; facilitate cooperation; and showcase innovation.
8. Missouri River Impacts on the Mississippi River
Bob Goodwin provided a synopsis on issues associated with the Missouri River Plan. Specifically, the Missouri was built by President Truman to control floods and regulate flows. After the ‘87 - '92 drought dried up the tourist industry in ND, ND wanted to keep higher levels to sustain fisheries, marinas and tourist trade. The '94 Plan put forth by the Cops of Engineers is not liked by anyone. So the Corps went back to the drawing board. In December 2000 Fish and Wildlife Dep't. got involved and said the Missouri should flow at its normal pace and cited the Endangered Species Act. On August 2001 the Corps came up with new plan, which was bad for navigation. It had a spring rise and low water in August, but it stimulates endangered species. The current time line is for the Corps to devise a new plan is by October 2003. The National Academy of Science is now studying economic impact of plan. MARAD opposes the spring rise and low water Plan. MARAD suggests establishing a Principles Group to sit down with Fish and Wildlife, and Corps before they come out with final ruling.
A motion was unanimously approved a motion to endorse a Principles Group to mediate issues on the Missouri River and that Bob Goodwin would draft such a motion to be approved by the committee to prior to being put before the MTSNAC.
9. Adoption of Program
The group endorsed an IWIT work plan supporting the above listed efforts.