445 mile navigation system Located in Ok & AR

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
GDP by Income Approach and Accounts of Household Sector For Qatar Experience Prepared by : Aisha Al-Mansoori Statistical Researcher Population & Social.
Advertisements

Transportation and the Economy
The Economic and Community Impact of the University of Washington (FY14) Research and analysis completed by:
Presents. Tough Times For Transportation Funding Declining gas tax revenues Declining state revenues Uncertain federal revenue + Increasing construction.
THE RED RIVER. FUNDING ad valorem tax based on value of property in the district - ad valorem tax based on value of property in the district
Returning to Our National Waterways Dabney Hegg U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Domestic Water Carriers. Significance of the Industry Transport roughly 14% of total national freight 26.5% of total domestic ton-miles Employ close to.
1 Ports and Harbors – Transitions and Challenges Ms. Doris J. Bautch Commissioner, U.S. Section of PIANC U.S. Maritime Administration Presented at the.
Department of Industrial Engineering1 Economic Evaluation of the Impact of Waterways on the Port of Cincinnati-Tristate Heather Nachtmann, Ph.D. River.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW)
The Impact of the Aerospace Industry in Washington State
1 Great Lakes Maritime Task Force 14th Annual Informational Briefing for the Great Lakes Delegation Tom Buck, C.E.O. Carmeuse Lime and Stone April 2, 2009.
Macroeconomics & Finance Introduction & Chapter 3.
Contribution of Grain Production to the Washington Economy T. Randall Fortenbery Professor and Grain Commission Endowed Chair, School of Economic Sciences,
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Tonnage Reporting: Getting It Right Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center Navigation and Civil Works Decision.
Planning for One Transportation System – Marine Highways Kevin Schoeben Deputy Director Office of Planning and Programming Illinois Department of Transportation.
“As the state’s second largest economic driver, it’s a sector ripe with opportunity for business expansion, job growth, and is a driving force in our.
THE IMPORTANCE OF AGRIBUSINESS TO THE ST. LOUIS ECONOMY November 8, 2004 Study funded by the.
Central New Mexico Community College Economic Impact Study – Summer 2012.
Study conducted for the Coalition of Alabama Waterway Associations by Troy University Center for International Business and Economic Development.
Impact Analysis Assessing the change in local economic activity as a result of some change in the community Some potential issues What if we build a new.
A New Tool for Estimating and Simulating Economic Impacts of Dredging Activity New, Increased and Reduced Dredging Drs. Yue Cui and Ed Mahoney, Michigan.
Transportation—Managing the Flow of the Supply Chain Lecture 8.
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Introduction to the SNA, advanced Lesson 6 The 2008 SNA compared with government finance statistics.
African Centre for Statistics United Nations Economic Commission for Africa Chapter 6: Chapter 6: Data Sources for Compiling SUT Ramesh KOLLI Senior Advisor.
BRIEFING FOR BG DUKE DELUCA COMMANDER, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION PRESIDENT-DESIGNEE, MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2014 William B. Hobgood.
July 2012 The Economic Impact of Tourism in Clark County, Ohio.
The Farm and Food System Chapter 2. Agriculture’s Role in US Economy What do you consider Agriculture? Agriculture includes: Family Farms Corporate Farms.
Potential Socio-Economic Impacts of Climate Variability and Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region by George M. Albercook C E P E S Center for Environmental.
Economic Productivity of the Working Coast Louisiana’s coast is a tremendously productive region ecologically and economically Variety of separate studies.
Discovering Maritime Transportation. Significance of the Industry  Transport roughly 14% of total national freight  26.5% of total domestic ton-miles.
Using More Inland Rivers in Intermodal Transport Speaker: FEI WEIJUN Economy: P.R. China.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Navigation Data/Information Workshop July 7, 2005 Arlene L Dietz, Director, Navigation Data Center.
Economic Benefits Associated with Corps of Engineers Programs Dr. Wen-Huei Chang PROSPECT COURSE - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, March.
Economic Significance of the Border: A Perspective at the Regional and National Levels for both Passenger and Freight Movements Bruno Penet HDR | Decision.
1. 2 THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT ON CALHOUN AND SURROUNDING COUNTIES 2003 Prepared by: William T. Fielding, Ph.D. Dean, College of Commerce.
An Evaluation of the Potential for Commercial Navigation to Further Facilitate Freight Transportation in the Tennessee River Valley Larry G. Bray, Ph.D.
Thoughts on Freight Logistics in the Southeast Bruce Lambert 1.
Introduction Transportation is necessary to:
Tiffany Julien Office of Freight Management and Operations Implementation of the National Freight Network 1.
Mark R. Pointon Operations/Navigation COP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mark R. Pointon Operations/Navigation COP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Presentation.
TXDOT PORT FAMILIARIZATION MAY 8, PORT FACILITIES PORT OF GALVESTON.
“If you think we’ve got problems now... and …what can we do about it” Transportation Day-Pittsburgh May 17, 2007 James R. McCarville Port of Pittsburgh.
Objective Transportation Assets Strategic Intermodal/International Points Next Steps & Discussion Critical Issues for Ohio.
Pensionomics 2014: Measuring the Economic Impact of DB Pension Expenditures MD Retired School Personnel Association Legislative Workshop November 13, 2014.
Western Rivers/ Inland/ Great Lakes
Statewide Transportation Planning Oklahoma DOT Planning Process Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan Statewide Freight Transportation Plan Arkansas.
Jeremy Sage, Eric Jessup & Ken Casavant
The Fourth Annual Metropolitan Little Rock
WATERWAYS: Working for America
Economic Contribution of
Process Economics Factors that affect profitability
THE RED RIVER.
An Inland Port in Salt Lake County
Smart Rivers Conference 2017
Arkansas’ State Freight Plan
AAPA and AASHTO State of Freight II Survey Results
Economic Contribution of
Topic 6 – Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Austin Community College
WATERWAYS: Working for America
Estimating Highway Pavement Damage Costs Attributed to Truck Traffic
The Fourth Annual Metropolitan Little Rock
11/18/2018 Systems Analysis of the Behavior and Economic Impacts from the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System Heather Nachtmann University.
Oklahoma Statewide Economic Impact Study Objectives
Jeremy Sage, Eric Jessup & Ken Casavant
Transportation Task Force Mission and Vision
The Economic Impact of the Conceptual Plan for the Redevelopment of the Green Bay Correctional Institution Site Commissioned by the Village of Allouez.
Mile Point Restriction
The U.S. Economy.
Presentation transcript:

Regional Economic Impact Study of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS) 445 mile navigation system Located in Ok & AR originating from the Tulsa Port of Catoosa and flowing in the southeast direction through Arkansas to the Mississippi River. Heather Nachtmann, Ph.D. Director, Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center and Mack-Blackwell Transportation Center Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering July 28, 2016 SOURCE: OKLADOT

MKARNS connects the heartland of America to the global supply chain. The inland waterways system includes 12,000 miles of commercially navigable channels with over 200 lock chambers 38 states connected to inland waterway system 99% of overseas trade by volume (62% by value) U.S. ports handle $5.5 billion worth of goods every day 2.5 billion tons of cargo every year NIW carry the equivalent of about 51 million truck trips each year. SOURCE: USACE

A series of 18 lock and dam systems maintain navigation through the MKARNS’ 420 foot drop in elevation. 420 foot drop in elevation from the Port of Catoosa to the Mississippi River.

1 barge = 58 large semi-trucks or 15 railcars. 1 barge tow = 9 to 15 barges.

More than 120,000 railcars or 450,000 semi-trucks would be needed to transport MKARNS’ annual tonnage. 12 million tons In 2013, the total tonnage throughout the entire MKARNS was approximately 12.1 million tons. On land, 120,781 railcars or 483,121 semi-trucks would be needed to transport an equivalent tonnage (USACE, 2014). In 2013, sand gravel and rock, chemical fertilizers, iron and steel, wheat, and petroleum products had the highest share of tonnage transported on the MKARNS

MKARNS is a multi-beneficiary, complex system. multi-beneficiary system hydropower energy generation, USACE O&M expenditures, private sector investment expenditures, port activities, shippers’ activities, transportation cost savings, and recreation benefits

We recently completed a multi-state, multi-institute, multi-disciplinary regional economic impact study of the MKARNS. Investigators Sponsored by

Indirect&Induced Impacts Input-output models account for the interdependencies between industries within national or regional economies. Data Collection Direct Impacts Indirect&Induced Impacts Total Impacts

We implemented a multiregional variable input-output model developed by Robinson, et al. (2014)

We consider Hydropower Energy Generation impacts. These facilities are Dam 2, Murray, Whillock, Ellis, Dardanelle, and Ozark in Arkansas and Robert S. Kerr and Webber Falls in Oklahoma. Calculated the plant size needed to replace the established hydropower energy generation facilities. we annualized the capital, fixed O&M, and variable operations and maintenance costs for the energy generation decision alternatives and adjusted these values for the study year based on the time value of money calculated direct economic impacts associated with hydropower and advanced combined cycle energy generation alternatives are multiplied by the MKARNS MRSAM multipliers to calculate total (direct, indirect, and induced) economic impacts.

We consider USACE Operations and Maintenance Expenditure impacts.

We consider Private Sector Investments impacts. private capital expenditure data multiplied the total private sector investment values with the water transportation capital expenditures by commodity values to calculate the direct impacts.

We consider Port Activities impacts. obtained port expenditures data (USACE, 2011) which were multiplied by the commodity flow values between the study regions We classified the commodities as either liquid bulk or dry bulk and other (USACE, 2011). Next, we multiplied the discounted and annualized port activity costs by type of cargo per ton data (Robinson et al., 2014) with the calculated commodity flow data to measure the direct economic impacts associated with the port activities. Finally, we utilized the MRSAM multipliers to calculate the economic impacts.

We consider Shippers’ Activities impacts. utilized the cargo handling cost data for each commodity (USACE, 2011) and multiplied these costs with their commodity flows data using the origin data to attribute these costs. multiplied the calculated direct impacts with the MRSAM multipliers.

We consider transportation cost savings impacts. obtained commodity flow data between the individual study regions by commodity (Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, 2011) annualized net present value of MKARNS water transportation savings data savings/commodity value ratios for every arc between the study regions. Last, we multiplied the savings/commodity value ratios with the MRSAM multipliers

We consider Recreation impacts. recreation visitation data from the Arkansas and Oklahoma segments were obtained ( number of day and overnight visitors were estimated ( associated recreation expenditures were calculated for both day and overnight visitors to estimate the direct economic impacts. MRSAM multipliers were used to calculate total economic impacts

The multiregional social accounting matrix model utilizes multipliers account for regional economic impacts of the MKARNS. The total MKARNS economic impacts are calculated as the sum of the following activities’ impacts: Hydropower Energy Generation (Section 4.1) The USACE O&M Expenditures (Section 4.2) Private Sector Investment Expenditures (Section 4.3) Port Activities (Section 4.4) Shippers’ Activities (Section 4.5) Transportation Cost Savings (Section 4.6) Recreation Benefits (Section 4.7)

Port Activities, Shippers’ Activities, and Transportation Cost Savings are the largest contributors to Sales impacts.   Here we report the total direct and indirect impacts on Sales revenue if the MKARNS was no longer in operation. Sales is defined as the revenue generated by firms whose operations are affected by the MKARNS. The total MKARNS impact on Sales is $8.525 billion nationwide. On its own, the Arkansas segment of the MKARNS nationally contributes $4.535 billion, and while the Oklahoma MKARNS segment nationally contributes $4.077 billion. The combined impact is slightly less than the two segment impacts combined due to shared freight benefits. Examining the MKARNS Sales impact results, we observe Port Activities ($2,904 million), Shippers’ Activities ($1,775 million), and Transportation Cost Savings ($1,615 million) are the largest contributors to Sales impacts.  

The MKARNS is responsible for more than $1 The MKARNS is responsible for more than $1.6B in Sales impacts in Arkansas alone.  $8,525M

Employment impacts in US and OK are primarily due to Port Activities; Recreation is the primary employment impact factor in AR. 55,872 33,695 22,761 Employment impacts are the jobs created directly by MKARNS activities due to purchases from businesses and individuals’ local expenditures. The total impact on Employment of the MKARNS is 55,872 jobs nationwide. On its own, the Arkansas segment of the MKARNS nationally contributes 33,695 jobs, and while the Oklahoma MKARNS segment nationally contributes 22,761 jobs. The combined impact is slightly less than the two segment impacts combined due to shared freight benefits. The largest component of the entire MKARNS and MKARNS Oklahoma segment employment impacts are due to port activities (18,070 and 8,969 jobs respectively). The largest employment impact component of the MKARNS Arkansas segment is due to recreation (11,429 jobs).  

A third of MKARNS employment impacts are jobs located in AR. 55,872 33,695 18,715 jobs in AR from MKARNS Majority from MKARNS Arkansas – 18,566

Port Activities and Transportation Cost Savings are the largest contributors to Business Tax impacts. $289M $168M $125M We investigated the direct and indirect impacts of MKARNS operations on Business Taxes including taxes on sales, property, and production. The total nationwide impact of the entire MKARNS operations on Business Taxes is $289 million. On its own, the Arkansas segment of the MKARNS nationally contributes $168 million, and while the Oklahoma MKARNS segment nationally contributes $125 million. The combined impact is slightly less than the two segment impacts combined due to shared freight benefits. Examining the MKARNS Business Tax impacts, we observe Port Activities and Transportation Cost Savings are the largest contributors to Business Tax impacts.  

The majority (54%) of business tax impacts are outside of the region; $64M in AR business taxes are generated from MKARNS operations. $289M $168M

Tax impacts of $289 million 55,872 jobs $8.5 billion in sales impacts As much freight as 221,896 trucks or 57,693 railcars 445 navigable miles Tax impacts of $289 million 55,872 jobs $8.5 billion in sales impacts ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department through the Mack-Blackwell Transportation Center. The work was conducted in conjunction with the Arkansas Waterways Commission, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. This material is based upon work supported as a match project for the U.S. Department of Transportation under Grant Award Number DTRT13-G-UTC50. DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.