When the Manatee County Port Authority was created in 1988, one of its objectives was to provide a dedicated access road from Port Manatee to I-75, a north-south interstate highway located approximately 5 km (3 miles) east of the port. The new port access would connect to I-75 at either an existing interchange located at Moccasin Wallow Road or new interchange. The Manatee County Commissioners envisioned that the road would be needed in the future to assure adequate access between Port Manatee and the interstate highway system.

The questions Florida DOT posed to PB were, "Is the new port access needed by the year 2020 or by another date? If this new access is not needed, what improvements to the existing roadway network will be needed by the year 2020?" Accordingly, we were asked to:

• Identify the most probable growth scenario for Port Manatee in the year 2020
  
  
• Project the 2020 tonnage throughput
  
  
• Estimate the landside vehicular traffic that would enter and exit the port on a daily and peak-hour basis.

Approach

First, we gathered baseline information from several sources. Cargo import and export information was received from the Ports Import Export Reporting System (PIERS) and from the port. Data on revenue cruise ship passengers was obtained from the cruise ship operators.

Existing truck traffic, rail usage, employment figures and traffic counts were gathered. Through an interview process with port tenants, we collected information on each one's existing levels of truck and rail usage. We also asked each for its number of employees and what factors might affect that number, such as ship calls.

Existing land uses and the availability of developable land were identified. Maps provided by the Port Authority, specifically the Port Manatee Existing Uses Map and the port's General Plan were used as baseline maps.

Next, we developed three land-use scenarios for 2020 to illustrate a range of potential growth factors low growth, mid-growth, and high-growth. Assumptions were made based upon port tenant interview results, the port's own projections and regional growth plans.

• Low Growth. This scenario reflected an average annual growth rate of 2 percent based on economic background growth of the region and anticipated that the port's share would not increase.
  
  
• Medium Growth. This scenario reflected an average annual growth rate of 4 percent based on partial development of the port's intermodal land use study's plans for development through 2009, including rail yard development. It also assumed that Cuba would be open to trade with the U.S.
  
  
• High Growth. This scenario reflected an average annual growth rate of 7 percent based on a full "build-out" of the port's intermodal land use study's cargo projections.

A medium to high growth scenario was selected by port officials. This scenario reflected an average annual growth rate of 6 percent with a full build out of developable land, but fewer berths and "in water" development than called for in the high-growth scenario. There would be expanded berthing facilities, however, to accommodate more ships than either the low- or medium-growth scenarios. In summary, this scenario called for:

• Five additional berths in an extended central basin and an additional berth probably constructed as an extension of an existing berth.
  
  
• Full build out of the 259 ha (648 acres) of available developable land
  
  
• A 6 percent annual growth rate in tonnage for the port-a total of more than 13.5 million tons in 2020 with a proportionate distribution of 60 percent dry and liquid bulk, 25 percent break-bulk¹, and 15 percent container:
  
  
• Three 850-passenger cruise ships making 66 ship calls during the December-to-May cruise season
  
  
• Rail use increasing in proportion to demand of bulk and break-bulk tenants and intermodal rail container service (being provided on a limited basis with minimal effect on truck traffic generation).

Table 1: Estimated 2020 Tonnage and Landside Trip Generation Rates

These calculations were applied to overall highway traffic estimates along the affected roadways and highways. We studied existing and future patterns and truck routes available from the Florida DOT and from other studies we had done within the region.

Results of the Study

The result of our analyses led us to conclude that the existing port access will provide adequate access to Port Manatee to 2020 and beyond. The existing port access consists of US 41, a four-lane median divided state highway that intersects with I-275 5 km (3 miles) south of the port and via I-275. It provides access to I-75. US 41 can be widened to a six-lane roadway if necessary, and existing at-grade intersections could be grade separated. Therefore, high quality access can be provided along this corridor well into the twenty-first century.

Table 2: Estimated 1998 Port Tonnage and Landside Trip Generation Rates

Everyone came out a winner. The port was pleased with these up-to-date cargo projections that they deemed were more realistic than earlier projections, the tenants were pleased with the fact that they had a voice in future plans for the port through the interview process, and the Florida DOT was pleased they would be able to provide the port with adequate access via existing state and federal highways.

The port, which has shown a 6.5 percent annual growth rate in cargo to date, is in the process of constructing two of the planned new berths, including additional cold storage facilities; a new parking lot for cruise ship passengers; and additional warehousing facilities.

Keys to a Successful Project

Several factors related to our success with this planning process may be applicable to other port-access studies.

The Team. The team responsible for performing the tonnage projections and landside trip generation tasks was comprised of a port/land use planner, a traffic engineer and a rail engineer. All three had cross-over experience:

• The rail engineer had done container traffic projections.
  
  
• The traffic engineer had done land use analysis.
  
  
• The port planner had some traffic planning training.

They shared a common understanding of terminology and, to some extent, the technical approach in each of the disciplines.

Each team member had contacts with key players in the affected operations and could contact and speak with them in terms of the operator's own frame of reference. The port planners knew the port director and economic development person, the traffic engineer knew the trucking companies and could speak with the truckers, and the rail engineer knew individuals at CSX (the rail operator) and could "talk rail" with the rail folks. This multi-disciplinary team approach was very important in scoping the methodology for integrating multi-modal transportation elements and assessing the "reality" of the study results.

Interview Process. Our team developed a form to use when interviewing the port tenants and other affected parties. Interviews were conducted by a two-person team comprised of the port planner and the traffic engineer. (If rail had been a major factor, the rail person would have participated as well.) A master list of those to be interviewed was developed based on tenant information provided by the port and the port users' organization, and each interviewee was sent notification of the planned interview and a copy of the interview form. These steps helped to ensure that all the needed information was gathered in one interview.

The interviews involved frank and open discussions concerning conditions at the port and issues affecting future traffic growth. During these discussions, the tenants tended to disclose proprietary information. They were assured, however, that the interview forms and summary interview notes would remain confidential, plus they had the opportunity to review these notes and make changes. In addition, the information we gathered was also to be reported in aggregate terms and would be only one factor in determining future cargo projections.

This interview process has been used at the Port of Tampa for a similar traffic projection process and adapted to a marine traffic task for a moveable bridge study in New York.

Integration With Regional Plans. In the U.S., state and local highway agencies fund roadway access routes to ports. Local and statewide planning agencies provide input to these agencies regarding priority projects needed to ease congestion and provide capacity for future demands. In recent years, highway departments have begun to develop freight mobility plans and highway access plans for truck traffic.

Even when a port is well funded, however, and able to share the costs of roadway access improvements outside the port's gate in the public domain, it is still the state and local highway agencies that decide whether investing is such improvements is worthwhile. This issue becomes particularly critical when one is competing for highway money geared to benefit the single occupancy vehicle over truck routes. The public constituency for investing public funds to benefit truck and port access over other single occupancy vehicle highway improvements is generally just not there.

The Port Manatee planning process addressed this issue by carefully studying either approved or developing regional and local transportation plans. Responding to the port and elected officials, the highway department did have access improvements in their long-range plan and the study was intended to "right-size" this investment. The land use plans for industrial growth, population growth, housing growth (among other factors) also impacted on demand for products coming through the port.

A study of these existing plans was factored into projected cargo growth percentages at the port. It was the linkage between politically acceptable and publicly approved growth scenarios and plans that supported the credibility and acceptance of our projections by the client, a state highway agency.

Environmental Impacts. There is an increased recognition of the fact that trucks backed up at port gates for hours with engines running contribute to air pollution. Ports and government agencies are investing in roadway access improvements that address congestion. When governmental monies are involved for such projects, some type of environmental impact analysis must be undertaken.

While truck congestion was not an issue at Port Manatee, the method employed to calculate trip generation and cargo projection was sufficiently grounded in reality that the product could be used to describe future scenarios in environmental review documents. The linkage of port, tenants, local, regional, and private sector developmental plans provided a sound basis for assessing likely environmental impacts.

Railroads. Railroads, which have been the most traditional of private sector operators within our transportation system, have rejected public funding assistance and regulatory requirements. They are highly competitive so proprietary information on infrastructure investments and service plans are difficult to obtain. It was absolutely critical to the Port Manatee planning project to have on the team a rail engineer who knew the overall operational requirements of the CSX railroad. Local PB staff members who knew the local CSX staff were able to obtain important information through these contacts.

Conclusion

A multi-disciplinary approach must be used to address the issues related to multi-jurisdictional interests in identifying and funding needed highway access to ports. This is true throughout the world. Except for the pure transhipment port, a critical factor to the success of any port is the ability of the inland transportation system to move cargo in and out of the port by truck and rail, and to facilitate the operation of the entire intermodal freight distribution system.

The methodology we developed in the Port Manatee project is available for use in other projects evaluating services to ports, state highway departments, metropolitan planning organizations, and local transportation agencies as they plan improved highway access to ports.