Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Publications No. 231 December 1981 EFFECTS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS ON OPTIMIZATION OF SHIP SIZE FOR NAVIGATION IN RESTRICTED WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKES Howard McRaven uh Mark Evans Laes-heir Charles J. Younger, Jr. Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering College of Engineering The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 This research was sponsored by NOAA Michigan Sea Grant #NA79AA-D-00093 Grant No. R/T-3 MICHU-SG-81 -204 Michigan Sea Grant Publications Office 2200 Bonisteel Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 $1.55 ea. copy

r\A f\A M R s

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION......................................................... 1 SHIP CHARACTERISTICS DETERMINATION...........................3....... COSTS FOR DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING CHANNELS.......................... 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................ 21 REFERENCES............................................................ 23 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — Description of Procedures Used by the Corps of Engineers in Determining Costs of Channel Improvements to Accommodate Larger Vessels............. 25 APPENDIX B -- Corps of Engineers Summary of Costs Associated with Increasing Channel Clearances for Larger Great Lakes Vessels...................................... 33 APPENDIX C — Details of Comparison of Federal Construction Costs for Different Methods of Increasing Vessel Size in Upper Great Lakes Service........................... 44

TABLES AND FIGURES Page Table 1 -- Required Freight Rates for Selection of Coal Colliers in Duluth/Buffalo Service.................... 8 Table 2 -- Comparison of Optimum Ship Design with Largest Ship Presently Capable of Operating in Upper Great Lakes............................. 9 Table 3 -- Required Freight Rates for Two Ships in Coal Service in Upper Great Lakes ($/Ton of Coal)............................................ 10 Table 4 -- Capital Costs Required to Modify Channels and Ports to Accommodate Larger Ships in Upper Great Lakes....................................... 14 Figure 1 -- Differences in Capital Costs Between Two Systems for Accommodating Larger Ships in Upper Great Lakes Channels and Ports.................... 19 Figure 2 -- Capital Available for Installation of Advanced Control Systems as the Relationship Between Ship's Beam and Channel Clearance is Reduced............... 20 iv

SUMMARY The study examined the question of how alteration of traditional channel clearances (i.e., three times ship width for one-way channels, and seven to eight times vessel beam for two-way traffic) would affect the economics of increasing the ship's dimensions. First there was a study of ship dimension optimization, holding draft constant, to meet Great Lakes depth constraints. It was found that the optimum-sized vessel is approximately 1,250' in length, 156' in width, and has a 27.2' draft (maximum allowable without dredging). The second task was to estimate the costs required to modify channels and harbors to accommodate the optimally-sized ship. It was estimated the dredging costs would be $6-$7 billion (1977 value) if the current channel/ship dimension relationships were maintained. This investment could be reduced to less than one billion dollars if the channel/ship dimensions were altered so that ships about 50 percent wider were permitted to operate in the same width channel. The savings (in excess of $5.0 billion) would be available for investment in advanced ship control systems to maintain the original traffic safety factors. The exact amount of reinvestment into emplacing the control systems would be a function of the safety margin desired. v

INTRODUCTION The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway system is the world's largest body of fresh water. The system functions as a major trade route for the midcontinent of North America (Refs. 1, 2). Although a great deal of the system involves open-water navigation, the connecting waterways require transit through constricting channels and locks. These constraints, especially the locks, place a limitation on the number and size of vessels which can effectively use the system, thus establishing the capacity of the system. Much of the traffic in the lakes carries dry bulk cargo: iron ore, coal, and rock (Refs. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9). As with all bulk cargo, there is no practicable limit to the vessel size (under ideal conditions) if there is cargo available at the dock. Ship size would only be constrained by the dimensions of the waterways. The economic implications of this constraint become obvious when one considers the fact that any increase in ship size would be directly translatable into cheaper transportation costs per unit. As a result of the economic benefits available from increasing ship size, there has been continuing interest in developing the waterways so that the largest possible vessels can be used (Refs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9). Today, the upper limit in wetted-ship dimensions is 1,000' x 105' x 25.5' (Refs. 8, 9). There have been several studies undertaken for examining the costs and benefits of increasing the waterway dimensions so that larger vessels can make transit (Refs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9). One study (Ref. 9), for example, examined a series of alternatives that would increase ship size up to dimensions of 1,500' x 175' x 25.5' and 32'/36'. The estimated costs for widening and deepening the waterways for the larger vessels were staggering, easily exceeding $25 billion. 1

In all analyses to date, however, traditional navigation and vessel control systems have been assumed. The width of channel, for example, was assumed to be three times the vessel beam for one-way traffic and seven to eight times vessel beam for two-way traffic. These clearance dimensions have been found to be the practicable minimum, given the present methods of vessel control. But the question could be raised as to what extent improved vessel control might alter the channel dimensions requirement. It is plausible that with precision vessel positioning and with fine-tuned vessel steering and response controls the currently-used channel clearance standards could be reduced (Ref. 4). This study evaluates how reduced clearance and headway requirements affect the cost parameters for acquiring and maintaining channel dimensions. The data could be useful in ascertaining the optimum control-system/ship/channel-dimension relationships (Refs. 4, 5). This study examined the question of how alteration of the traditional channel clearances would affect the economics of increasing the ship's dimensions. It had three specific objectives: -- determine the costs associated with establishing and maintaining increased channel dimensions for restricted-passage transits in the Upper Great Lakes; -- determine the benefits associated with making transits through restricted waters with vessels optimally sized for passage under different control system assumptions; and -- relate the determined costs to the resulting benefits so that optimum instrument concepts may be determined. First, an analysis was made of ship dimensions optimization. The discussion of this portion of the research is in the section on Ship Characteristics 2

Determination. The section on Costs for Developing and Maintaining Channels contains the presentation of the analyses concerning costs associated with channel modification to accommodate passage under different control system assumptions. That section also presents the results of the integration of costs with resulting benefits for different investment profiles. And, finally, the last section contains the study conclusions and recommendations. The Appendices contain the supporting calculations. SHIP CHARACTERISTICS DETERMINATION The first step in the study was to determine the general characteristics of those new ship designs that would be logical contenders for use of the waterways if more elaborate control systems were emplaced. This chapter describes the analysis that was performed in. making this determination. There exists an almost infinite number of combinations of length, beam, draft, depth, horsepower, etc., that could be used in a new and large ship design. To aid in this preliminary design process, the University of Michigan's Extended Season Program (ESP), a computer ship design and operation model for the Great Lakes coal, iron ore, and taconite colliers, was used. This computer model has yielded accurate economic results for Great Lakes bulk carriers.1 The measure of merit for the design of the large ship was the Required Freight Rate (RFR) criterion. Using the most recent building and operating cost information available, and by varying principal dimensions, the ESP model developed a preliminary ship design yielding an economic optimum for ships of this service. It is pointed out, however, that the model has never been used to analyze the economics of ships in the size range under consideration, and no ships of these dimensions have ever been built for Great Lakes service. Hence, it has not been possible to validate the results of the model output against actual ships.

In making the analysis, consideration was given to the factors of: -- principal dimension -- cargo -- propulsion plant -- superstructure -- investment and financial criteria. Ship Factors Considered Principal Dimensions In determining the new vessel, the principal dimensions must be consistent with the rules of sound naval architecture. Additionally, the dimensions must be compatible with the Great Lakes environment. In this context, draft of the vessel is the primary design-limiting dimension in the design process. The maximum draft presently operating in the Great Lakes is 25.5 feet. However, the maximum possible draft fluctuates with the rise and fall of the lakes' water level. Recent conditions, for example, have allowed safe drafts of 27.2 feet. It was decided to use the temporary draft level of 29.2 feet as the design criterion on the assumption that high lake levels will continue to occur in the future. The benefits from slight over-design for draft will offset the costs for the extra weight during those periods when lake level is such that lesser draft is required. Except for draft, all other ship dimensions were allowed to vary during the optimization analyses. The parameters that were manipulated were length, beam, and block co-efficient (Cb).2 The specific numbers were: 2 Block coefficient is the percentage of a ship's sectional area that would fill a rectangle of the same beam and depth dimensions. 4

length: 1,000', 1,100', 1,200', 1,300', 1,400', 1,500' beam: 105', 135', 150', 200' block coefficients (Cb): 84, 86, 88, 90, 94, 96, 98. Cargo Bulk commodities would be the cargo that could effectively utilize the size of vessels under consideration. And of these, coal has the least density. With a density of 4-5 cubic feet per ton, coal would require a higher hold volumetric capacity for the same cargo deadweight. For that reason, the vessel designs were based on coal as the carried cargo. The vessel was also equipped with self-unloading equipment with an unloading rate of 10,000 long tons per hour. Propulsion Plant Because of the unique environment found in the Great Lakes, the propulsion plant must be capable of operating within a wide range of speeds typically encountered in both restricted waterways and open lakes, and in high maneuvering conditions. The ship will have controllable pitch propellers. In addition to the controllable-pitch propeller, the vessel shall be outfitted with a bow thruster to aid in maneuverability in restricted waters. By comparison to the vessel size, large Great Lakes bulk carriers operate in a shallow draft condition. Because of the shallow draft operation, difficulties arise if the shaft horsepower is allowed to become too large. Such difficulties are seen in hydrodynamic and vibrational areas, and are a result of close propeller tip clearances, rake angle of the after-hull section, and propeller diameter restrictions coupled with the high applied horsepowers. All of the previously enumerated conditions are critical in shallow draft 5

operations, even if propeller tunnels are used. Past experience on the Great Lakes under these conditions has indicated that a 10,000-horsepower per screw limit be observed to minimize the effects of shallow draft operation. In order to observe these horsepower restrictions and still maintain the required speed for the ship, usually in the range of 12-14 knots, a twin screw operation is mandatory. With this type of required speed, a total shaft horsepower of 14,000 to 20,000 would be required. Twin screw configuration would allow 7,000 to 10,000 horsepower per screw, which would be within the allowable range. Superstructure The historical ship arrangement for Great Lakes vessels has typically been a fore and after superstructure. Newer vessels such as the thousand-footers have satisfactorily adopted the ocean going arrangement of an all-aft superstructure. Use of an all-aft superstructure saves both lightship weight and initial cost. Even though ship maneuvering in the Great Lakes is often in restricted channels, rivers, and locks, the all-aft superstructure has shown not to be detrimental to ship operations, and has been used in this evaluation. Economic Criteria Not only will the optimum vessel design depend on ship particulars, but it will also be affected by economic considerations. Such considerations include the owner's required rate-of-return-on-investment, ship life, and income tax rate. With interest rates at unprecedented levels and long-term inflation generally predicted, a 15 percent after-tax rate-of-return-on-investment was selected as a reasonable investment criterion. 6

Ship life on the Great Lakes is much longer than on the oceans. Salt water is much harsher on steel ships and their components than is fresh water. The average vessel age of many Great Lakes fleets is over 50 years. As a result, a 35-year life expectancy seemed a reasonable and conservative vessel life factor to use in the calculations. A corporate income tax-rate of 46 percent was used. This rate is approximately that currently applied today (1980) in the United States. Optimum Design Selection By using the University of Michigan computer program to optimize ship design parameters, the investigators were able to evaluate the economies of over 250 different design concepts. First, for each design, an estimate was developed for the delivered cost of the ship. Then operating costs were estimated over a variety of trade routes within the upper Great Lakes. Both the capital investment calculations and the annual operating cost calculations were performed on a specially structured computer program.3 These calculations were then used as input into the required freight rate computations. Early analyses indicated that the optimum ship length would be from 1,000 to 1,300 feet long; the optimum beam would be at a ratio of about one-eighth of the length; the optimum horsepower would be in the 7,000 to 20,000 horsepower range; and the block coefficient (Cb) would be in the.88 to.94 range. A series of required freight rates on a coal service between Duluth and Buffalo for five typical configurations is shown in Table 1. As seen, the major design parameters all fall in the ranges just enumerated. 3 A sub-program of the University of Michigan Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Extended Season Program.

TABLE 1. Required freight rates for selection of coal colliers in Duluth/ Buffalo service. Required Freight Rate ($/ton) Vessel Specifications 7,000 Shp 14,000 Shp 20,000 Shp 1,000 ft x 105 ft x 56 ft x.94 Cb $6.69 $6.49 $6.59 1,100 ft x 137.5 ft x 61.5 ft x.91 Cb 6.34 6.01 5,99 1,200 ft x 150 ft x 67 ft x.89 Cb 6.37 5.98 5.92 1,250 ft x 156 ft x 69.5 ft x.89 Cb 6.41 5.97 5.89 1,300 ft x 162.5 ft x 72.5 ft x.89 Cb 6.47 6.00 5.91 Source: Calculated. It should be noted that the first ship in Table 1 (the 1,000 ft x 105 ft x 56 ft) is capable of operating in the Great Lakes today. There would need to be channel and/or harbor modifications to accommodate any of the remaining four. After iterating through the cases, an optimum ship design was selected, and is identified in Table 2. Also in the table, for comparison, is the largest ship (called "parent") capable of operating in the upper Great Lakes today. Table 3 compares the optimum ship against the existing parent for a variety of transits in the Great Lakes. As seen, the reduction in unit transportation costs ranges from less than two percent to over ten percent. The most likely transits for the coal carriers (from the port of Duluth) average about ten percent savings. In examining Table 2 and Table 3 it should be remembered that the costs only considered investment and operation of the ships. Channel preparation and maintenance costs are not considered in these calculations. The data clearly indicated that there is an optimum ship size for upper Great Lakes service. And while it is not readily apparent in the data, the optimum point is strongly influenced by the draft limitation. (In ocean 8

TABLE 2. Comparison of optimum ship design with largest ship presently capable of operating in upper Great Lakes. Item Parent Optimum Length ft 1,000 1,250 Beam ft 105 156 Depth ft 56 69.5 Draft ft 27.2 27.2 Displacement tons 74,781 131,492 Deadweight tons 60,169 105,290 Speed mph 16.51 14.69 Engine Diesel Diesel SHP 20,000 20,000 Unload Rate LT/hr 10,000 10,000 Cargo FT3/ton 45 45 Crew 26 26 Cb.94.89 L/D 17.86 17.99 L/B 9.52 8.01 B/D 1.875 2.245 B/T 3.860 5.735 V/L.453.361 CN 58,800 135,525 Steel Weight tons 11,796 22,796 Outfit Weight tons 791 1,016 Mach. Weight tons 894 894 Light Ship tons 14,612 26,201 Investment $ 50.53M 75.12M Ship Life years 35 35 Interest % 15 15 Tax % 46 46 Fuel Intr 15 $/ton 189 189 Steel HSS $/ton 460 460 Source: Calculated service, where operators have no draft limitation, the economic optimum-sizedship is essentially infinite, or at least significantly greater than found in the Great Lakes.) Finally, the analyses also clearly indicated that freight rate reductions are possible if ship size can be increased beyond the presently existing maximum 9

TABLE 3. Required freight rates for two ships in coal service in upper Great Lakes ($/ton of coal). RFR RFR Reduction Route Parent Optimum In RFR % Duluth to Buffalo* $6.589 $5.894 10.55% Duluth to Ashtabula* 5.985 5.894 10.18 Duluth to Burns Harbor* 5.610 5.070 9.63 Duluth to Detroit 5.012 4.550 9.22 Toledo to Buffalo 2.209 2.170 1.77 Toledo to Burns Harbor 4.811 4.388 8.79 Escanaba to Ashtabula 4.159 3.829 7.93 Escanaba to Burns Harbor 2.308 2.255 2.30 Escanaba to Buffalo 4.762 4.345 8.74 * Assume Soo Locks are able to allow transit of optimum ship. size. It now remains to be determined whether this benefit potential would be more than offset by costs associated with either increasing channel size or by emplacing control systems that would permit larger ships to safely operate in the current channels. The next section will examine the capital costs and operating costs associated with developing and maintaining channels to accommodate the larger ships. COSTS FOR DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING CHANNELS While the Great Lakes have a large number of ports, only a small number are involved in most of the cargo movement. The first task in investigating the development and maintenance of channels was to decide upon which ports should be included in the analysis. The second task was to develop costs for enlarging and maintaining the channels. In conjunction with this activity, cost analyses were developed on the basis of emplacing an advanced control system (i.e., only 10

deepening the channel to accommodate ships of the dimensions under consideration; widening the channel was omitted). The final activity was to compare the different costs, and their assumptions, and to isolate those costs that would be eliminated with the use of advanced control systems. Port Selection There was first an extensive screening of all ports in the upper Great Lakes that are capable of handling any ship that can transit the Welland Canal (730' x 76' x 26'). The ports were then categorized according to annual cargo tonnage, and availability of Corps of Engineer Lake Survey charts. The final selection included: Harbors' Commodities Duluth-Superior, MN and WI Iron ore, coal, general cargo Two Harbors, MN Iron ore Presque Isle, MI Iron ore Calumet, IL Iron ore, general cargo Indiana, IA Iron ore Gary, IA Iron ore Burns Waterway, IA Iron ore, general cargo Detroit, MI Iron ore, coal, general cargo Toledo, OH Iron ore, coal, general cargo Sandusky, OH Coal Lorain, OH Iron ore, coal Cleveland, OH Iron ore, coal, general cargo Ashtabula, OH Iron ore, coal Conneaut, OH Iron ore, coal Buffalo, NY Iron coal, coal, general cargo 11

Channels St. Marys River Straits of Mackinac St. Clair River Detroit River Toledo Harbor to Detroit River Pelee Passage Fortunately, the Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, recently (1977) performed extensive analyses on the same ports. The investigation, therefore, concentrated on extending the Corps' effort to specific questions raised in this study. In their analysis, the Corps of Engineers examined project maps, dredging surveys, Lake Survey Center charts, and harbor modifications. Information was also obtained fromthe Corps' Rivers and Harbors Port Series, Greenwood's Guide to Great Lakes Shipping, and the Great Lakes Pilot. The Corps' analyses "assumed that generally: (1) a no-passing channel should be three times the beam of the vessel, (2) a two-way channel should be 7.6 times vessel width, and (3) turning basins should be 1.5 times vessel length. "4 The Corps of Engineers next prepared detailed estimates of costs that would occur in sizing the channels to accommodate vessels of different sizes. Appendix A contains a description of the procedures that were followed in making these estimates. 4 "Methodology for Cost Estimating," undated memorandum, Corps of Engineers, Chicago District. The memo cites the following documents as the basis for dimensions: Engineering Manual EM111021607 (2 August 1965) Tidal Hydraulics, Page 13, and the Gross Isthmus Canal Study, Panama, Appendix 6, Navigation in Confined Channels, Page F-2. 12

As noted, the improvements were calculated on the basis of increasing a channel dimension to accommodate a ship of a particular size using a ratio of channel width to ship beam as one reference point, and a ratio of turning basin diameter to ship length as a second reference point. Ship depth was a third factor in establishing the channel size. Appendix B presents the costs that resulted from the analyses for several vessel sizes, each with a variety of drafts. Also included are the projected operating and maintenance costs for keeping the channels at the prescribed dimensions after the initial expansion has been completed. Table 4 is a presentation of calculations derived from the Corps of Engineers costs. It shows the differences in costs (1977 dollars) that would occur in expanding the ports and channel facilities to accommodate various sizes of vessels under two different sets of assumptions: 1) expanding the channel clearances per the traditional ratio; 3 times ship beam for one-way traffic; 7.6 times ship beam for two-way traffic; 1 1/2 times ship length for turning basin diameter. 2) not altering the channel widths, but dredging to meet turning-basin requirements as per 1.5 times ship's length. This option would be considered typical of the expense required to accommodate larger vessels if they were also equipped with advanced control systems. Table 4 shows the cost estimates for channel preparation for different sizes of ships under the two sets of assumptions described above. (The details for the federal capital cost are shown in Appendix C.) The data show quite clearly that significant increases occur as ship's beam expands, especially when the traditional allowances for ship beam/channel width are followed. Of particular interest is the difference in capital costs between the two 13

TABLE 4. Capital costs required to modify channels and ports to accommodate larger ships in upper Great Lakes (thousands of 1977 dollars). Vessel Size: 1,100' x 105' 1,100' x 130' Enlarge Emplace Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Channels Control and Harbors System and Harbors System (1) Federal capital cost (includes dredging, bridges, tunnels, breakwaters, locks, relocations) 197.3 114.5 2,400.6 204.6 (2) Aids to navigation (1%) 2.0 1.1 14.0 2.0 (3) Real estate (2%) 3.9 2.3 48.0 4.1. (4) Total 203.2 117.9 2,472.6 210.7 (5) Contingency (20% of line 4) 40.6 23.6 494.5 42.1 (6) Total federal capital cost 243.8 141.5 2,967.1 252.8 (7) Engineering & design (5% of line 6) 12.2 7.1 148.4 12.6 (8) Supervision & administration (6% of lines 6 & 7) 15.4 8.9 186.9 15.9 (9) Total federal first cost 271.4 157.5 3,302.4 281.3 (10) Non-federal first cost (2% of federal first cost) 5.4 3.2 66.0 5.6 (11) Total first cost 276.8 160.7 3,368.4 286.9 (12) Interest prior to beginning accrual of benefit stream (6 5/8% for 5 years) (.33125) 91.9 53.2 1,115.8 95.0 (13) Total investment costs (1977 dollars) 369.4 213.9 4,484.2 381.9 Source: Calculated from data developed by Corps of Engineers (continued).

TABLE 4. (Continued). Vessel Size: 1,200' x 130' 1,300' x 130' Enlarge Emplace Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Channels Control and Harbors System and Harbors System (1) Federal capital cost (includes dredging, bridges, tunnels, breakwaters, locks, relocations) 2,578.9 353.3 2,621.9 385.9 (2) Aids to navigation (1%) 25.7 3.5 26.2 3.9 (3) Real estate (2%) 51.4 7.1 52.4 7.7 (4) Total 2,645.0 363.9 2,700.5 387.5 (5) Contingency (20% of line 4) 529.0 72.8 540.1 79.5 (6) Total federal capital cost 3,174.0 436.7 3,240.6 477.0 (7) Engineering & design (5% of line 6) 158.7 21.8 162.0 23.9 (8) Supervision & administration (6% of lines 6 & 7) 200.0 27.5 204.2 30.1 (9) Total federal first cost 3,532.7 486.0 3,606.8 500.9 (10) Non-federal first cost (2% of federal first cost) 70.7 9.7 72.1 10.0 (11) Total first cost 3,603.4 495.7 3,378.9 510.9 (12) Interest prior to beginning accrual of benefit stream (6 5/8% for 5 years) (.33125) 1,193.6 164.2 1,218.6 169.2 (13) Total investment costs (1977 dollars) 4,794.0 695.9 4,897.5 680.1 Source: Calculated from data developed by Corps of Engineers (continued).

TABLE 4. (Continued). Vessel Size: 1,100' x 175' 1,200' x 175' Enlarge Emplace Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Channels Control and Harbors System and Harbors System (1) Federal capital cost (includes dredging, bridges, tunnels, breakwaters, locks, relocations) 3,151.0 204.8 3,648.8 377.7 (2) Aids to navigation (1%) 31.5 2.0 36.5 3.8 (3) Real estate (2%) 63.0 4.1 73.0 7.6 (4) Total 3,245.5 210.9 3,758.3 389.1 (5) Contingency (20% of line 5) 649.1 42.2 751.7 77.8 (6) Total federal capital cost 3,984.6 253.11 4,510.0 466.9 (7) Engineering & design (5% of line 6) 194.7 12.7 225.5 23.3 (8) Supervision & administration (6% of lines 6 & 7) 245.4 15.9 284.1 29.4 (9) Total federal first cost 4,334.7 281.7 5,019.6 519.6 (10) Non-federal first cost (2% of federal first cost) 86.7 5.6 100.4 10.4 (11) Total first cost 4,421.4 287.3 5,120.0 530.0 (12) Interest prior to beginning accrual of benefit stream (6 5/8% for 5 years) (CRF of.33125) 1,464.6 95.2 169.6 175.6 (13) Total investment costs (1977 dollars) 5,886.0 382.5 6,816.0 705.6 Source: Calculated from data developed by Corps of Engineers (continued).

TABLE 4. (Continued). Vessel Size: 1,300' x 175' Enlarge Emplace Channels Control and Harbors System (1) Federal capital cost (includes dredging, bridges, tunnels, breakwaters, locks, relocations) 3,664.9 415.3 (2) Aids to navigation (1%) 36.6 4.2 (3) Real estate (2%) 73.3 8.3 = (4) Total 3,774.8 427.8 (5) Contingency (20% of line 4) 755.0 85.6 (6) Total federal capital cost 4,529.8 513.4 (7) Engineering & design (5% of line 6) 226.5 25.7 (8) Supervision & administration (6% of lines 6 & 7) 285.4 32.3 (9) Total federal first cost 5,041.7 571.4 (10) Non-federal first cost (2% of federal first cost) 100.8 11.4 (11) Total first cost 5,142.5 582.8 (12) Interest prior to beginning accrual of benefit stream (6 5/8% for 5 years) (CRF of.33125) 1,703.5 193.1 (13) Total investment costs (1977 dollars) 6,846.0 775.9 Source: Calculated from data developed by Corps of Engineers

approaches. These differences have been plotted in Figure 1. The range is caused by costs associated with increasing the length (with the beam remaining constant), the lower estimate being the cost for 1,100-foot ships. The upper range is for 1,300-foot ships. As seen in Table 4, the (1977 dollar) cost for enlarging channels and increasing turning basin diameter to accommodate 1,100-ft x 105-ft ships would be $370 million if the traditional channel/ship relationships are followed. If the channels and ports were to be expanded only to meet the length requirements, and the locks were to be increased only to meet minimum pass-through requirements, the cost would only be $215 million (1977 dollars). Theoretically, then, the difference in the two costs ($155 million) is the amount that could be spent to emplace control systems that would provide the same margin of safety, and still not exceed the costs for the traditional system. It is possible, by interpolation, to estimate the cost for improving channels and ports to accommodate the optimum design described in the preceding chapter, a ship with dimensions of 1,250 ft (length) by 156 ft (width). The cost (1977 dollars) would be approximately $5.99 billion if channel and port enlargement is based on the traditional ship/channel width relationships. The cost (1977 dollars) would be about $720 million if channel improvements were confined to only those improvements necessary to complement an advanced control system, i.e., turning basins and locks. If a control system could be emplaced that would provide the same traffic flow attributes as a conventional channel system for $5.2 billion ($5.99 -.72 billion) or less, then it would make economic sense to choose that alternative. Finally, Figure 2 shows the difference in capital costs between the two systems (i.e., conventional channel clearance and a control system-oriented 18

En, I- j h (I) H o D~ O1GQ CD 1 -l 3, ~. SAVINGS IN CAPITAL AVAILABLE FOR CONTROL SYSTEMS." n * (Millions of 1977 U.S. Dollars) D IH tD 4 Pi Y _ edC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C -cn O O O O O O ~ Po I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO rq' "0 t4rt' 0 co #m m...:3 _ rt _.. 3 P0 1I rt a. cIrt OQ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,).

> 6 P _ 1,300_ Ship's Length ___ __ _ __100 Ship's L h _ th __ ~ ~~~ ~ i Z --- _ n|fi,,_, ___ _ 0 F _I It I I I I I I2 ~IgIII/ 1 IIIIIIIII____ X _ __ _'..VV. P.1. Z I I V._ _ 0 -.j.j r-., ~~~~Ship' B eamt FIG 24 Capitl avaiIlable fo insallato of adane cnrl sytm as the___ relationship between ship' IbIaImIandIchan1_1e1c1la —1 is"r' 11 1 CL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, _~~ ~ _, Sip' LenI,,th. - lv |XZ1 |1l__- Z}1111 F l|1 l'_ -,........ ( ~- _' l|Z||Z lZ|____ Channel Clecrance RATIO:, Ship s Beam FIG. 2. Capital available for installation of advanced control systems as the relationship between ship's beam- and channel clearance is reduced ( for ships with length of 1, 100 to 1, 300 feet). 20

clearance) as functions of the ratio between ship beam and one-way channel clearance distance. (The ratio for the conventional system is 3:1.) As seen, the more the ratio of channel dimension to ship's beam can be reduced, the greater the fund availability for control system emplacement. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS There were two major conclusions of the study. First, the optimum size bulk carrier for upper Great Lakes services was determined to be 1,250 ft by 156 ft, assuming a maximum draft constraint of 27.2 feet. The shallow draft is the major factor in forcing the length and width limitations. Vessels of the optimum size would produce a savings in excess of 10 percent on the longest transits (Duluth to Buffalo) when compared with the largest (and most efficient) ships in service today. There would be major capital investments required to modify the water system so that the larger vessels could be accommodated. It is estimated that an initial investment of $6 billion (1977 value) would be required to complete the channel and turning basin expansions, and lock enlargements. On the basis of current traffic flows, and assuming a 50-year capital investment write-off period, all bulk cargo would be confronted with a surcharge of $1-2 per ton.5 The second conclusion of the study was that it is possible to save up to $5.0 billion (1977 value) in channel, turning basin, and lock improvement costs by emplacing advanced concept ship maneuvering control systems. The exact amount of savings would be a function of a control system's ability to precisely regulate the movement of the vessel. The greater the control, the less clearance is required between ship and channel bank. 5 Based on annual total tonnage of about 120,000,000 tons. 21

It was beyond the scope of the study to investigate the economics of emplacing advanced concept control systems only within specific channel networks, (e.g., St. Marys River). Such analysis would be logical next steps in further analyses. The analyses would be compared with research which is presently underway on the effectiveness and adaptability to a specific channel location of various control systems. 22

REFERENCE S 1. Great Lakes Winter Navigation - Technical and Economic Analyses. Department of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, 5 Volumes. Volume I: Methods of Evaluation, by H. Nowacki et al., Report No. 151, 1973. Volume II: Computer Program - Documentation and User Instructions, by Steve Callis et al., Report No. 152, 1974. Volume III: Parametric Studies, by H. Nowacki, Report No. 153, 1974. Annex: Methods of Evaluation and Computer Program, by Peter Swift et al., Report No. 156, 1975. 2. Transport Analysis - Great Lakes and Seaway. Department of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, 5 Volumes. Volume I: Summary and Miscellaneous, by Harry Benford, Report 158, 1975. Volume IV: Environmental Considerations, by John B. Woodward, Report No. 161, 1974. Volume V: Dimensional Enlargement of Great Lakes Bulk Carriers - Weights and Costs, by Peter Swift et al., Report No. 162, 1975. 3. Maneuvering Characteristics of Great Lakes Vessels, by Steven C. Fisher, Report No. 205, Department of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, 1978. 4. Optimal Stochastic Path Control of Surface Ships in Shallow Water, by Michael G. Parsons et al., Report No. 188, Department of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, 1977. 5. Maneuverability in Restricted Waters, by Masataka Fujino, Report No. 184, Department of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, 1976. 6. Economics of Great Lakes Shipping in an Extended Season, by Horst Nowacki et al., Report No. 135, Department of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, 1972. 23

7. Cost-Benefits Analysis Model for Great Lakes Bulk Carriers Operating During an Extended Season, by Harry Benford et al., Report No. 114, Department of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, 1971. 8. Plan of Study for Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit, Michigan, 1978. 9. Feasibility Study for Additional Locks and Other Navigation Improvements, St. Lawrence Seaway - Plan of Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, New York, 1978. 24

APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES USED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN DETERMINING COSTS OF CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE LARGER VESSELS 25

PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES Channels: The work to establish channel cost estimates consisted of the development of criteria to size the channels relative to the considered vessel sizes. This was followed by the development of a computer program to efficiently translate the criteria into channel dimensions for the 79 reaches, both up and down bound conditions, times 28 vessel's cases for a total of 4,424 distinct solutions. Next came a plan layout of these cases, the estimation of dredging quantities of rock and other material for the cases from cross sectioning the 79 reaches, and finally applying cost figures which include the disposal price to obtain the dredging estimate first costs. The criteria established are based upon current literature and practice. References for this are: 1. Interoceanic Canal studies, Appendix 6, Navigation in Confined Channels. Corps of Engineers 1970. 2. Journal of the Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers. Volume 97, August 1971, containing water depths required for ship navigation (R.G. Waugh), and vessel controllability in restricted waters (E.W. Edrin), Volume 99, February 1973, containing design of ship channels and maneuvering areas (C.K. Kray). 3. EM 1100-2-1607, 2 August 1965, Corps of Engineers. 4. Squat Study - St. Lawrence ship channel, L. Simard, March 1969. 5. Report No. 3, Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, Corps of Engineers, May 1965. 26

In addition, discussions were had with the University of Michigan Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Department to confirm the approach and criteria. Squat criteria are based upon the empirical equation V,2 Al 2 - 0.84 S - 1.01 2g Aw from the St. Lawrence study. V, = Ship velocity relative to water Al = Cross sectional area of channel Aw = Channel cross section area - vessel cross section area g = 32.2 ft/sec2 In addition, the channel type, either confined or open, is recognized through a modification to the effective width of the channel. This recognizes that squat appears to be less in channels cut in wider shallow bodies of water as opposed to channels immediately bounded by banks or placed in narrow rivers where the ship channel constitutes a significant portion of the river. Required channel widths are a function of the controllability of the vessels using the channel. It is a function of the vessel distance from the bank, passing or no passing conditions, vessel velocity relative to the water, channel shape, and amount of water under the vessel keel. Channel width appears to be a trade-off with channel depth. The wider a channel, the less can be the depth of water under the keel to maintain the same degree of controllability. This situation of controllability is discussed more fully in the reference documents. The mathematical procedures outlined in the Interoceanic Canal 27

studies were utilized in the computer model of this study. This was done through curve fitting techniques that reduce the family of curves graphed on the next two pages to equation form for efficient computer programming. The resulting equations are: First graph upper portion Ratiox = (240.12 Fy.362)2 - Ratio - 37.18)2 - 55.8 First graph lower portion Ratiox = (93.92 F%.1079) /Ratioy 12.7226 Second graph Ratioy = (115.99 R 2.0371) (Fez) 4.351 F being a Froude Number R being (ship cross section) / (channel cross section) These graphs are shown as exhibits on the following pages. The limits of 3 times vessel beam for one way traffic and 7.6 times vessel beam for two way traffic were utilized as lower and upper bounds, respectively to constrain the empirical equation of the computer model. Trim and bottom clearance are handled in the model by the addition of a 2foot clearance to the calculated squat regardless of bottom material type. Harbors: Two types of work had to be performed at each of the harbors investigated. First, entrance and inner harbor criteria had to be estimated, plans prepared, and cost estimates made. Second, similar work had to be accomplished to provide for berthing spots and turning basins. Work was essentially confined to the non-river sections of the harbors, as inspection indicated facility improvements necessary to allow the transiting of the rivers would for the most part be exceedingly non-economical. 28

1.0.14.5.16,13 1.8 ~~~~~1.6 ~ ~ ~ 0.sat Te ealhrz.09.06 1.2..04 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ratio: Mean channel width/Ship beam Legend.07 Contour of indicated Froude number along which ship navigability is approximately constant. The nearly horizontal part of the contour represents conditions at which the ship Just clears the channel bottom. CHANNEL DESIGN CURVES 29

D 0.25 ) )0.20 0 L Uj 0 7oz0. iI / I<. lu cn Cs~~~~~~~" C'r1 -VtLJ'"'7 0.10 co~_... Li. o / o 0 0-.05 c~ 0 0 0.2 0.14 0.6 0.8 1.0 SNIP SPEED RELATIVE TO WATER IN FT./SEC. FPROUDE NUMBEP, =. 32.2 x CNANNIEL DEPTH DIMENSIONLESS SQUAT IN RESTRICTED CHANNELS* *Committee on Tidal Hydraulics - Corps. of Engineers - Report No. 3 page X-8. 30

Harbor entrance criteria considered vessel roll, pitch, heave, squat, and trim. Vessel roll response was estimated from charts on pp. 434-437 in Section 2, Ocean Navigation, Report of Proceedings XXIInd Congress of Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses, 1969; extrapolation from the charts was necessary. Pitch-heave response was estimated according to (pitch + heave - amplitude) at bow = 0.2x (wave height as recommended by E.O. Tuck (University of Michigan). Dr. Tuck's recommendation was based on extrapolation of charts in the paper, Beck, R., and Tuck, E., Computation of Shallow Water Ship Motions, Proc. Ninth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, 1970. Waves used in the roll, pitch, and heave calculations were 10-year recurrence summer (JulyAugust-September) waves for Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan from WES TR H-76-1, Reports, 1, 3, and 4, Design Wave Information for the Great Lakes by D. Resio and C. Vincent. For Lake Superior, as Report 5 of TR H-76-1 has not yet been published, it was arbitrarily assumed that the summertime climates of the Lake Superior ports would resemble that of Milwaukee. Squat was computed from an equation on page F-ll of Annex V, Appendix B, of the Study of Engineering Feasibility of a sea-level Panama Canal. An additional 2-foot clearance was allowed, regardless of whether the lake bed was rocky or soft material. Recommended harbor entrance widths vary from three times the vessel beam (20 June 1977 letter from President, Lakes Carriers' Association, to Division Engineer, NC) to 7.6 times the vessel beam. (CERC special report #2, Small Craft Harbors: Design, Construction and Operation) 31

Width of harbor entrance should be as follows: No Passing Passing Beam Width (3x Beam) Width (5x Beam) Width (776x Beam) 105 ft 315 ft 525 ft 798 ft 130 390 650 988 175 525 875 1330 Squats were calculated for vessel speeds of 5 mph and 10 mph, except where existing channels are so narrow that squat would exceed 6 to 8 feet. Also calculated were channel widths for which 1 ft and 2 ft squat would be experienced at those two speeds. Outer harbors protected by permeable breakwater were assumed to be infinitely-wide channels due to the permeable walls; consequently, zero squat was predicted for such areas. The 1,300 and 1,500-foot vessels were found to have very small roll and pitch-heave responses to summertime storm waves. 32

APPENDIX B CORPS OF ENGINEERS SUMMARY OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASING CHANNEL CLEARANCES FOR LARGER GREAT LAKES VESSELS (All figures in 1977 dollars) 33

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 940' x 105' ($000) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor --- 38,000 58,500 78,500 Superior Harbor Two Harbors N/A N/A N/A N/A Presque Isle Harbor N/A N/A N/A N/A Milwaukee Harbor 6,100 10,800 18,300 25,800 Calumet Harbor --- 54,087 122,443 187,834 Indiana Harbor Gary Harbor --- Burns Harbor 1,200 3,380 6,830 10,500 Detroit Harbor --- 1,607 3,513 4,520 Toledo Harbor 131,850 164,480 245,930 584,780 Sandusky Harbor Lorrain Harbor Cleveland Harbor 450 4,152 12,065 20,650 Ashtabula Harbor Conneaut Harbor Buffalo Harbor Total Harbors 139,600 276,506 467,581 912,584 St. Marys River 57,763 537,529 1,015,234 1,350,711 Straits of Mackinac --- 3,739 25,078 52,830 St. Clair River --- 577,463 1,090,984 1,525,528 Detroit River --- 712,036 5,273,515 9,201,230 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River --- 48,232 86,816 125,400 Pelee Passage --- 49,680 174,645 607,815 Total Channels 57,763 1,928,679 1,746,453 13,776,098 Total 197,363 2,205,185 2,214,034 4,688,682 34

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 940' x 105' ($000) (Operating & Maintenance) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor --- 20 30 40 Superior Harbor Two Harbors N/A N/A N/A N/A Presque Isle Harbor N/A N/A N/A N/A Milwaukee Harbor 0 19 25 31 Calumet Harbor 4 6 8 10 Indiana Harbor -. Gary Harbor --- --- Burns Harbor Detroit Harbor 20 33 36 39 Toledo Harbor 183 201 221 240 Sandusky Harbor Lorrain Harbor Cleveland Harbor 10 10 13 16 Ashtabula Harbor Conneaut Harbor Buffalo Harbor Total Harbors 217 289 333 376 St. Marys River --- 85 94 103 Straits of Mackinac --- St. Clair River 144 304 342 Detroit River --- 93 197 221 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River --- 100 110 121 Pelee Passage --- 86 185 492 Total Channels --- 508 890 1,279 Total 217 797 1,223 1,655 35

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 1,100' x 105' ($000) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor 0 84,700 122,500 No Plan Superior Harbor 0 10,738 17,305 Two Harbors 0 6,100 13,700 Presque Isle Harbor 0 1,580 6,450 Milwaukee Harbor 0 0 0 Calumet Harbor 0 63,294 143,285 Indiana Harbor 0 40,900 97,500 Gary Harbor 0 9,980 23,400 Burns Harbor 0 1,800 3,750 Detroit Harbor 75,440 104,330 163,330 Toledo Harbor 0 128,480 209,030 Sandusky Harbor 80,930 118,306 183,069 Lorrain Harbor 8,630 15,376 26,858 Cleveland Harbor 9,530 13,682 27,895 Ashtabula Harbor 2,700 6,380 13,661 Conneaut Harbor 2,330 3,980 13,503 Buffalo Harbor 20,930 37,378 93,289 Total Harbors 200,490 647,004 1,158,525 St. Marys River 67,595 548,348 1,026,908 Straits of Mackinac 0 3,739 25,078 St. Clair River 0 577,463 1,090,984 Detroit River 0 712,036 5,273,515 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 0 48,232 86,816 Pelee Passage 0 49,680 174,645 Total Channels 67,595 1,939,498 7,677,946 Total 268,085 2,586,502 8,836,471 September 1977 Costs 36

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 1,100' x 105' ($000) (Operating & Maintenance) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor 0 49 59 No Plan Superior Harbor Two Harbors Presque Isle Harbor Milwaukee Harbor Calumet Harbor 0 6 8 Indiana Harbor 0 4 6 Gary Harbor Burns Harbor Detroit Harbor 20 33 36 Toledo Harbor 183 201 221 Sandusky Harbor 10 34 41 Lorrain Harbor 0 8 20 Cleveland Harbor 10 10 13 Ashtabula Harbor 10 14 30 Conneaut Harbor 0 0 10 Buffalo Harbor 48 53 58 Total Harbors 281 412 502 St. Marys River 0 85 94 Straits of Mackinac 0 0 0 St. Clair River 0 144 304 Detroit River 0 93 197 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 0 100 110 Pelee Passage 0 86 185 Total Channels 0 508 890 Total 281 920 1,392 37

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 1,200' x 130' ($000) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor 75,180 95,810 134,550 173,190 Superior Harbor 9,167 13,059 21,024 32,863 Two Harbors 4,000 7,000 16,300 29,900 Presque Isle Harbor 790 1,510 6,980 15,830 Milwaukee Harbor. Calumet Harbor 18,068 85,488 193,528 296,881 Indiana Harbor 10,140 25,020 64,040 140,840 Gary Harbor 5,800 9,200 21,900 49,800 Burns Harbor 6,000 1,910 3,900 6,150 Detroit Harbor o 9,250 13,610 20,800 27,530 Toledo Harbor 125,360 158,700 250,540 589,500 Sandusky Harbor 92,550 134,270 206,665 352,621 Lorrain Harbor 13,840 22,783 37,943 67,813 Cleveland Harbor 9,790 14,681 29,324 45,160 Ashtabula Harbor 3,560 7,880 16,950 37,288 Conneaut Harbor 3,280 5,580 15,387 28,790 Buffalo Harbor 23,400 37,848 94,573 187,648 Total Harbors 410,125 634,349 1,134,404 2,081,804 St. Marys River 870,419 1,140,322 1,797,967 2,421,371 Straits of Mackinac --- 3,739 25,078 52,830 St. Clair River 573,600 718,336 1,163,143 1,628,938 Detroit River 658,622 873,193 5,661,509 9,886,057 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 39,416 59,720 107,496 155,272 Pelee Passage 15,660 49,860 174,645 607,815 Total Channels 2,142,057 2,845,170 8,929,838 14,752,283 Total 2,552,182 3,479,519 10,064,242 16,834,087 38

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 1,200' x 130' ($000) (Operating & Maintenance) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor 55 65 78 94 Superior Harbor Two Harbors Presque Isle Harbor Milwaukee Harbor Calumet Harbor 4 6 8 10 Indiana Harbor 2 4 6 8 Gary Harbor --- --- --- --- Burns Harbor --- Detroit Harbor 25 41 45 49 Toledo Harbor 842 926 1,018 1,120 Sandusky Harbor 30 44 53 64 Lorrain Harbor 4 12 22 40 Cleveland Harbor 14 16 30 50 Ashtabula Harbor 12 14 40 60 Conneaut Harbor 10 12 15 30 Buffalo Harbor 59 66 73 80 Total Harbors 1,057 1,156 1,388 1,605 St. Marys River 266 293 322 354 Straits of Mackinac - St. Clair River 337 396 435 478 Detroit River 218 256 282 309 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 421 463 509 560 Pelee Passage 37 86 185 492 Total Channels 1,279 1,494 1,733 2,193 Total 2,336 2,650 3,121 3,798 39

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 1,300' x 130' ($000) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor 81,480 106,430 146,500 186,590 Superior Harbor 9,931 14,148 22,776 35,602 Two Harbors 4,800 8,100 19,000 31,900 Presque Isle Harbor 900 1,430 7,500 17,100 Milwaukee Harbor... Calumet Harbor 19,574 92,612 209,656 321,730 Indiana Harbor 10,990 27,110 69,380 152,580 Gary Harbor 5,630 8,480 20,550 49,280 Burns Harbor 6,750 2,000 4,050 6,380 Detroit Harbor 9,750 14,340 21,910 29,030 Toledo Harbor 152,480 188,930 292,050 666,380 Sandusky Harbor 104,180 149,870 228,565 383,001 Lorrain Harbor 19,050 30,023 48,403 84,463 Cleveland Harbor 10,050 15,581 30,334 46,280 Ashtabula Harbor 4,430 9,380 20,070 39,988 Conneaut Harbor 4,130 7,200 17,147 31,170 Buffalo Harbor 23,810 32,298 95,663 195,718 Total Harbors 467,935 713,932 1,253,554 2,277,192 St. Marys River 871,237 1,147,916 1,803,611 2,423,075 Straits of Mackinac --- 3,738 25,077 52,830 St. Clair River 573,600 718,336 1,163,143 1,628,938 Detroit River 653,923 868,034 5,531,793 9,834,419 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 39,416 59,720 107,496 155,272 Pelee Passage 15,660 49,680 174,645 607,815 Total Channels 2,153,836 2,847,424 8,805,765 14,702,349 Total 2,621,771 3,561,356 10,059,319 16,979,541 40

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 1,300' x 130' ($000) (Operating & Maintenance) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor 65 74 89 107 Superior Harbor 0 0 0 0 Two Harbors 0 0 0 0 Presque Isle Harbor 0 0 0 0 Milwaukee Harbor 0 0 0 0 Calumet Harbor 4 6 8 10 Indiana Harbor 2 4 6 8 Gary Harbor..... --.. Burns Harbor Detroit Harbor 30 49 54 59 Toledo Harbor 842 926 1,018 1,120 Sandusky Harbor 38 48 58 69 Lorrain Harbor 6 12 26 45 Cleveland Harbor 14 16 30 50 Ashtabula Harbor 12 18 40 75 Conneaut Harbor 10 12 15 30 Buffalo Harbor 59 66 73 80 Total Harbors 1,082 1,231 1,417 1,653 St. Marys River 266 293 322 354 Straits of Mackinac St. Clair River 337 396 435 478 Detroit River 218 256 282 309 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 421 463 509 560 Pelee Passage 37 86 185 492 Total Channels 1,279 1,494 1,733 2,193 Total 2,361 2,725 3,150 3,846 41

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 1,300' x 175' ($000) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor 85,580 110,530 150,600 190,690 Superior Harbor 14,197 18,838 27,582 40,397 Two Harbors 4,000 8,100 19,000 31,900 Presque Isle Harbor 900 1,430 7,500 17,100 Milwaukee Harbor --- -- - Calumet Harbor 26,350 124,670 282,230 433,099 Indiana Harbor 14,800 36,500 93,400 205,400 Gary Harbor 5,630 8,480 20,550 49,280 Burns Harbor 6,750 2,000 4,050 6,380 Detroit Harbor 11,560 15,990 23,230 30,010 Toledo Harbor 152,480 188,930 292,050 666,380 Sandusky Harbor 104,180 150,523 231,617 397,884 Lorrain Harbor 19,050 30,344 49,533 88,914 Cleveland Harbor 10,052 15,753 31,057 47,872 Ashtabula Harbor 4,430 9,380 20,396 42,740 Conneaut Harbor 4,130 7,200 17,371 33,059 Buffalo Harbor 24,524 39,457 100,452 215,304 Total Harbors 489,413 768,095 1,370,618 2,496,409 St. Marys River 1,375,085 1,666,822 2,430,540 3,187,753 Straits of Mackinac --- 3,739 25,078 54,076 St. Clair River 876,488 1,050,919 1,678,655 2,247,890 Detroit River 854,882 1,088,695 5,965,971 10,311,588 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 53,056 80,384 144,696 209,008 Pelee Passage 15,660 49,680 174,645 607,815 Total Channels 3,175,171 3,940,239 10,419,585 16,618,130 Total 3,664,584 4,708,334 11,720,203 19,114,539 42

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Vessel Size: 1,300' x 175' ($000) (Operating & Maintenance) DRAFT Location 25.5' 28.0' 32.0' 36.0' Duluth Harbor 80 98 118 142 Superior Harbor Two Harbors Presque Isle Harbor Milwaukee Harbor Calumet Harbor 4 6 8 10 Indiana Harbor 2 4 6 8 Gary Harbor 0 0 0 0 Burns Harbor --- --- --- --- Detroit Harbor 40 65 72 79 Toledo Harbor 1,432 1,575 1,733 1,906 Sandusky Harbor 42 52 62 74 Lorrain Harbor 8 15 30 50 Cleveland Harbor 18 20 40 80 Ashtabula Harbor 14 24 55 85 Conneaut Harbor 13 14 20 35 Buffalo Harbor 80 89 98 107 Total Harbors 1,733 1,962 2,242 2,576 St. Marys River 750 825 908 998 Straits of Mackinac St. Clair River 731 803 822 970 Detroit River 473 519 570 627 Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 716 787 866 953 Pelee Passage 37 86 185 492 Total Channels 2,707 3,020 3,351 4,040 Total 4,440 4,982 5,593 6,616 43

APPENDIX C DETAILS OF COMPARISON OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DIFFERENT METHODS OF INCREASING VESSEL SIZE IN UPPER GREAT LAKES SERVICE (Based on Costs Shown in Appendix B) (All figures are in thousands of 1977 value dollars) 44

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DIFFERENT METHODS OF INCREASING VESSEL SIZE IN UPPER GREAT~ LAKES SERVICE VESSEL SIZE: 1 100' x 105' Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Location & Harbors System Comment Duluth Harbor Superior Harbor Two Harbors Presque Isle Harbor Milwaukee Harbor Calumet Harbor Indiana Harbor Gary Harbor ~-.r Burns Harbor --- Detroit Harbor 75.4 --- All dredging from widening channels Toledo Harbor --- --- ------ Sandusky Harbor 80.9 80.9 Dredging for turning basin only Lorrain Harbor 8.6 8.6 Dredging for turning basin only Cleveland Harbor 9.5 9.5 Remove breakwater Ashtabula Harbor 2.7 2.7 Dredge turning basin Conneaut Harbor 2.3 2.3 Dredge turning basin Buffalo Harbor 20.9 10.5 Widen channel (50%); dredge turning basin (50%) St. Marys River 57.8 57.8 New locks Straits of Mackinac St. Clair River Detroit River Toledo Harbor to Detroit River Pelee Passage Total 197.3 114.5

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DIFFERENT METHODS OF INCREASING VESSEL SIZE IN UPPER GREAT LAKES SERVICE VESSEL SIZE: 1,100' x 130' Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Location & Harbors System Comment Duluth Harbor --- Superior Harbor Two Harbors Presque Isle Harbor Milwaukee Harbor Calumet Harbor Indiana Harbor Gary Harbor --- --- Burns Harbor 6.0 6.0 Deepening of channel Detroit Harbor 9.3 --- Widen channel 6o Toledo Harbor 98.3 Widening channel to 1,330' (Cost based on 1,200' x 130' less 1,800' x 130' - 1,200' x 130') Sandusky Harbor 83.8 80.9 Dredging for turning basin only; widening channel Lorrain Harbor 8.6 8.6 Dredging for turning basin only Cleveland Harbor 9.5 9,5 Remove breakwater Ashtabula Harbor 2.7 2.7 Dredge turning basin Conneaut Harbor 2.3 2.3 Dredge turning basin Buffalo Harbor 23.4 13.7 Widen channel (50%); Dredge turning basin (50%) St. Marys River 869.4 80.9 $77.8M for locks; 2.1M for bridge mod; deduct $1.0 for dredge saving between 1,200' and 1,100' Straits of Mackinac --- St. Clair River 573.6 --- All costs associated with widening channel Detroit River 658.6 --- All costs associated with widening channel Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 39.4 --- All costs associated with widening channel Pelee Passage 15.7 All costs associated with widening channel Total 2,400.6 204.6

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DIFFERENT METHODS OF INCREASING VESSEL SIZE IN UPPER GREAT LAKES SERVICE VESSEL SIZE: 1,100' x 175' Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Location & Harbors System Comment Duluth Harbor 4.1 4.1 Bridge improvements Superior Harbor --- --- Two Harbors Presque Isle Harbor --- --- Milwaukee Harbor --- --- Calumet Harbor -- Indiana Harbor Gary Harbor --- --- Burns Harbor --- Widen channel Detroit Harbor 11.6 --- Widen approach and entrance channels to 1,380' (cost based on 1,500' x 175'-4 times A1,300' x 130' 1,200' x 130') Toledo Harbor 119.1 --- Sandusky Harbor 83.8 80.9 Dredging for turning basin; widening channel Lorrain Harbor 19.1 9.5 Remove breakwater; widen approach channels Cleveland Harbor 10.1 2.7 Dredge turning basin; widen approach channels Ashtabula Harbor 4.4 2.7 Dredge turning basin; widen approach channel Conneaut Harbor 4.1 2.3 Dredge turning basin; widen approach channel Buffalo Harbor 24.5 13.7 Dredge turning basin; widen channel St. Marys River 1,374.1 93.0 91.9 for locks; 2.1 for bridge, deduct $1.0 for dredge saving between 1,200' and 1,100' Straits of Mackinac St. Clair River 876.5 --- All costs associated with channel Detroit River 554.9 --- All costs associated with channel Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 53.1 --- All costs associated with channel Pelee Passage 15.7 All costs associated with channel Total 3,151.0 204.8

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DIFFERENT METHODS OF INCREASING VESSEL SIZE IN UPPER GREAT LAKES SERVICE VESSEL SIZE: 1,300' x 130' Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Location & Harbors System Comment Duluth Harbor 81.5 81.5 Dredging for turning basin only Superior Harbor 9.9 9.9 Dredging for turning basin only Two Harbors 4.8 4.8 New breakwater and dredging for turning basin Presque Isle Harbor.9.9 Dredging for turning basin only Milwaukee Harbor Calumet Harbor 19.6 19.6 Dredging to provide docking space; deepen entire channel Indiana Harbor 11.0 11.0 New breakwaters; new turning basin Gary Harbor 5.6 5.6 Dredging for turning basin only Burns Harbor 6.8 6.8 Dredging for turning basin; deepen entire channel v- Detroit Harbor 9.8 2.9 Channel is widened (70%); turning basin expanded (30%) Toledo Harbor 152.5 15.3 Channels widened (90%); turning basin expanded (10%) Sandusky Harbor 104.2 83.4 Channels widened (20%); turning basin expanded and dikes removed (80%) Lorrain Harbor 19.1 19.1 Change breakwater and dredge turning basin Cleveland Harbor 10.1 10.1 Change breakwater and dredge turning basin Ashtabula Harbor 4.4 4.4 Dredging for turning basin only Conneaut Harbor 4.1 4,1 Dredging for turning basin only Buffalo Harbor 23.8 23.8 Dredging for turning basin; deepen entire channel St. Marys River 871.2 82.7 2.0 Mil for dredging from 1,100' to 1,300'; 78.6 Mil for locks; 2.1 Mil for bridge Straits of Mackinac --- --- St. Clair River 573.6 --- All costs associated with widening channel Detroit River 653.9 --- All costs associated with widening channel Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 39.4 --- All costs associated with widening channel Pelee Passage 15.7 All costs associated with widening channel Total 2,621.9 385.9.......................,,..

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DIFFERENT METHODS OF INCREASING VESSEL SIZE IN UPPER GREAT LAKES SERVICE VESSEL SIZE: 1,300' x 175' Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Location & Harbors System Comment Duluth Harbor 85.6 85.6 Dredging for turning basin; improve bridge Superior Harbor 14.2 9.9 Dredging for turning basin only Two Harbors 4.8 4.8 Dredging for turning basin only Presque Isle Harbor.9.9 Dredging for turning basin only Milwaukee Harbor --- --- Calumet Harbor 26.4 26.4 Dredging for turning basin only; deepen entire channel Indiana Harbor 14.8 14.8 Additional backwaters; new turning basin Gary Harbor 5.6 5.6 Dredging for turning basin only Burns Harbor 6.8 6.8 Dredging for turning basin only Detroit Harbor 11.6 2.9 Channel is widened; turning basin expanded Toledo Harbor 152.5 15.3 Channel is widened; turning basin expanded Sandusky Harbor 104.2 83.4 Channel is widened; turning basin expanded 0o and dikes removed Lorrain Harbor 19.1 19.1 Replace breakwaters; widen channels (same as 1,300' x 130') Cleveland Harbor 10.1 10.1 Enlarge turning basin; widen channel (same as 1,300' x 130') Ashtabula Harbor 4.4 4.4 Enlarge turning basin; widen channel (same as 1,300' x 130') Conneaut Harbor 4.1 4.1 Enlarge turning basin; widen channel (same as 1,300' x 130') Buffalo Harbor 24.5 24.5 Enlarge turning basin; widen channel (same as 1,300' x 130') St. Marys River 1,375.1 96.7 2.0 Mil for dredging from 1,100' to 1,300'; 91.9 Mil for locks; 2.8 Mil for bridges Straits of Mackinac --- --- St. Clair River 876.5 --- All costs associated with widening channel Detroit River 854.9 --- All costs associated with widening channel Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 53.1 --- All costs associated with widening channel Pelee Passage 15.7 All costs associated with widening channel Total 3,664.9 415.3

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DIFFERENT METHODS OF INCREASING VESSEL SIZE IN UPPER GREAT LAKES SERVICE VESSEL SIZE: 1,200' x 130' Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Location & Harbors System Comment Duluth Harbor 75.2 75.2 Dredging for new turning basin only Superior Harbor 9.2 9.2 Dredging for new turning basin only Two Harbors 4.0 4.0 New breakwater and dredging for turning basin Presque Isle Harbor.8.8 Dredging for turning basin only Milwaukee Harbor Calumet Harbor 18.1 18.1 Dredging to provide docking space; deepen entire channel Indiana Harbor 10.1 10.1 Additional breakwaters; new turning basin Gary Harbor 5.6 5.6 Dredging for turning basin only Burns Harbor 6.0 6.0 Dredging for turning basin; deepen entire channel o Detroit Harbor 9.3 2.8 Channel widened (70%); turning basin expanded (30%) Toledo Harbor 125.4 12.6 Channel widened (90%); turning basin expanded (10%) Sandusky Harbor 92.6 74.1 Channel widened (20%); turning basin expanded, dikes removed (80%) Lorrain Harbor 13.8 13.8 Change breakwater and dredge turning basin Cleveland Harbor 9.8 9.8 Change breakwater and dredge turning basin Ashtabula Harbor 3.6 3.6 Dredging for turning basin only Conneaut Harbor 3.3 3.3 Dredging for turning basin only Buffalo Harbor 23.4 23.4 Dredging for turning basin; deepen entire channel St. Marys River 870.4 80.9 1.0 Mil for dredging to 1,200' Straits of Mackinac St. Clair River 573.6 All costs associated with widening channel Detroit River 658.6 --- All costs associated with widening channel Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 39.4 --- All costs associated with widening channel Pelee Passage 15.7 All costs associated with widening channel Total 2,567.9 353.3

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DIFFERENT METHODS OF INCREASING VESSEL SIZE IN UPPER GREAT LAKES SERVICE VESSEL SIZE: 1,200' x 175' Enlarge Emplace Channels Control Location & Harbors System Comment Duluth Harbor 85.6 85.6 Dredging for turning basin; improve bridge Superior Harbor 14.2 9.2 Dredging for turning basin only Two Harbors 4.0 4.0 Dredging for turning basin only Presque Isle Harbor.8.8 Dredging for turning basin only Milwaukee Harbor Calumet Harbor 18.1 18.1 Dredging for turning basin; deepen entire channel Indiana Harbor 10.1 10.1 Additional breakwaters; new turning basin Gary Harbor 5.6 5.6 Dredging for turning basin only Burns Harbor 6.0 6.0 Dredging for turning basin only Detroit Harbor 11.6 2.8 Channel is widened (1,300' x 175' estimate); turning basin expanded Toledo Harbor 152.4 12.6 Channel is widened (1,300' x 175' estimate); turning basin expanded Sandusky Harbor 104.2 74.1 Channel is widened (1,300' x 174' estimate); turning basin expanded, and dikes removed Lorrain Harbor 19.1 13.8 Replace breakwater; widen channels Cleveland Harbor 10.1 9.8 Enlarge turning basin; widen channels to approach Ashtabula Harbor 4.4 3.6 Enlarge turning basin; widen channels to approach Conneaut Harbor 4.1 3.3 Enlarge turning basin; widen channels to approach Buffalo Harbor 24.5 23.4 Enlarge turning basin; widen channels to approach St. Marys River 1,374.2 94.9 1.0 Mil for dredging to 1,200'; 91.1 Mil for locks; 2.8 Mil for bridge Straits of Mackinac --- St. Clair River 876.5 All costs associated with widening channel Detroit River 854.5 --- All costs associated with widening channel Toledo Harbor to Detroit River 53.1 --- All costs associated with widening channel Pelee Passage 15.7 All costs associated with widening channel Total 3,648.8 377.7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN:' 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 3 9015 02656 7183