Estimating economic and resilience consequences of potential navigation infrastructure failures: A case study of the Monongahela River

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 69, Issue , 2014, Pages 142-164

  DiPietro, Gwen Shepherd ^a   Scott Matthews, H ^a   Hendrickson, Chris T ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Coal shipment; Infrastructure failure; Inland waterway; Network resilience; Vulnerability assessment

Indexed keywords

BARGES; COAL INDUSTRY; COAL MINES; INLAND WATERWAYS; MINE POWER PLANTS; NETWORK SECURITY; OUTAGES; SHIPS;

CATASTROPHIC FAILURES; ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION; INFRASTRUCTURE FAILURES; NAVIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE; NETWORK RESILIENCE; POTENTIAL EFFECTS; REPLACEMENT COSTS; VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS;

COST ESTIMATING;

BARGE; COAL; COST ANALYSIS; INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT; SHIPPING; VULNERABILITY; WATERWAY TRANSPORT;

MONONGAHELA RIVER; PENNSYLVANIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84930940738     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2014.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. American Waterways Operators, 2006. 2006 Carrier Dues and Assessment Schedule. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 6 September 2013]. http://www.americanwaterways.com/membership_meetings/2006Carrierdues.pdf.
2. Baroud H., Barker K., Ramirez-Marquez J.E., Rocco S. Importance measures for inland waterway network resilience. Transp. Res. Part E 2014, 62:55-67. C.M.
3. Bray L., Dager C., Burton M. Willingness to pay for water transportation in the Ohio River basin. Transp. Res. Rec. 2004, 1871:5-12.
4. Bray L.G., Murphree C.M., Dager C.A. Toward A Full Accounting of the Beneficiaries of Navigable Waterways 2011, s.l.: Inland Waterways Users Board.
5. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2008. Use of FAF Data for Florida Multimodal Freight Analysis, s.l.: Systems Planning Office, Florida Department of Transportation.
6. Campo M., Mayer H., Rovito J. Supporting secure and resilient inland waterways: evaluating off-loading capabilities at terminals during sudden catastrophic closures. Transp. Res. Rec. 2012, 2273:10-17.
7. Chen A., Yank C., Kongsomsaksakul S., Lee M. Network-based accessibility measures for vulnerability. Networks Spatial Econ. 2007, 7:241-256.
8. Chulkov D.V. Managing new technology investment for underwater security of ports. J. Transp. Secur. 2012, 5:95-105.
9. Department of Homeland Security, 2009. National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Partnering to Enhance Protection and Resiliency. [Online] Available at: <>. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NIPP_Plan.pdf.
10. EIA, 2010. Annual Coal Distribution Report, U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed February 2014]. http://www.eia.gov/coal/distribution/annual/archive.cfm.
11. EIA, 2012. Coal Transportation Rates to the Electric Power Sector, U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 2013]. http://www.eia.gov/coal/transportationrates/.
12. EIA, 2013a. Electricity Data Browser, U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed November 2013]. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=0,1%26geo=0001a001l%26endsec=vg%26linechart=ELEC.PRICE.PA-ALL.A%26columnchart=ELEC.PRICE.PA-ALL.A%26map=ELEC.PRICE.PA-ALL.A%26freq=A%26start=2009%26end=2010%26ctype=columnchart%26ltype=pin%26fuel=8%26sec=008%26pin=%26rse=0%26ma.
13. EIA, 2013b. Form EIA-923 Power Plant Operations Report Instructions, U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 2014]. http://www.eia.gov/survey/form/eia_923/proposed/2013/instructions.pdf.
14. EIA, various. Form EIA-923 detailed data, U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 2013]. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/index.html.
15. First Energy, 2013. [Online] Available at: [Accessed July 2013]. https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/fecorp/newsroom/news_releases/firstenergy-to-deactivate-two-coal-fired-power-plants-in-pennsyl.html.
16. Folga S., et al. A systems-level methodology for the analysis of inland waterway infrastructure disruptions. J. Transp. Secur. 2009, 4:122-136.
17. Geurs K.T., van Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr. 2004, 12(2):127-140.
18. Google, 2013. Map data @2013 Google. [Online] [Accessed various 2013].
19. Gravens M.B., et al. Incorporating complexity and uncertainty in planning models for engineering: economic analysis within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. Issue 2008, 140:15-23.
20. Grier, D.V., 2004. The Declining Reliability of the U.S. Inland Waterway System. Washington, D.C., s.n.
21. Ham H., Kim T.J., Boyce D. Assessment of economic impacts from unexpected events with an interregional commodity flow and multimodal transportation network model. Transp. Res. Part A 2005, 39:849-860.
22. Jenelius E., Mattsson L.-G. Road network vulnerability analysis of area-covering disruptions: a grid-based approach with case study. Transp. Res. Part A 2012, 46:746-760.
23. Jenelius E., Peterson T., Mattsson L.-G. Importance and exposure in road network vulnerability analysis. Transp. Res. Part A 2006, 40:537-560.
24. Johnson, L.R., 1978. The Headwaters District: A history of the Pittsburgh District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. s.l.:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District.
25. Kruse C.J., et al. America's Locks & Dams: "A Ticking Time Bomb for Agriculture?" 2011, American Soybean Board, Chesterfield, MO.
26. Kruse, C.J., Protopapas, A., Olson, L.E., Bierling, D.H., 2007, amended 2009. A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation, College Station, Texas: Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System.
27. Ludlow, D., 2011. Key Observations on Improving the 2007 Commodity Flow Survey. Number E-C158 ed. Washington (D.C.): Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
28. MacKenzie, C.A., Barker, K., Grant, F.H., 2012. Evaluating the Consequences of an Inland Waterway Port Closure With a Dynamic Multiregional Interdependence Model. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 42(2), pp. 359-370.
29. Mapquest, 2014. [Online] Available at: [Accessed February 2014]. http://www.mapquest.com.
30. National Transportation Safety Board, 2008. Collapse of I-35W Highway Bridge, Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 1, 2007. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed February 2014]. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/ntsb/finalreport.pdf.
31. Nicholson, A. & Dalziell, E., 2003. Risk evaluation and management: a road network reliability study. In: Proc. of the 1st Int. Sym. on Transportation Network Reliability, pp. 45-59.
32. NRC, 2001. Inland Navigation System Planning: The Upper Mississippi River Illinois Waterway, National Research Council, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C.
33. NRC, 2012. Corps of Engineers Water Resources Infrastructure: Deterioration, Investment, or Divestment?, National Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
34. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, n.d. Freight Analysis Framework Data Tabulation Tool, Version 3. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed August 2014]. http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Extraction1.aspx.
35. Pant R., Barker K., Grant F.H., Landers T.L. Interdependent impacts of inoperability at multi-modal transportation container terminals. Transp. Res. Part E 2011, 47(5):722-737.
36. Park J., et al. Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Anal. 2013, 33(3):356-367.
37. Port of Pittsburgh Commission, 2014. The Port District and the Inland Waterway System. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed February 2014]. http://www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us/index.aspx?page=127.
38. Reis V. Analysis of mode choice variables in short-distance intermodal freight transport using an agent-based model. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2014, 61:100-120.
39. TRB, 2013. Guidebook for Developing Subnational Commodity Flow Data, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, s.l.: s.n.
40. Tsang J.L., Lamber J.H., Patev R.C. Extreme event scenarios for planning of infrastructure projects. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2002, 8:42-48.
41. U.S. Congress, 2014. Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. Washington, D.C.: s.n.
42. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, 2013. Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed February 2014]. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/final_principles_and_requirements_march_2013.pdf.
43. U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2007. Commodity Flow Survey. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 2014]. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/commodity_flow_survey/index.html.
44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. eGRID2012 Version 1.0 Plant File. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed various 2013]. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html.
45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. Power Sector Modeling Platform v. 5.13, s.l.: s.n.
46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Inventory Of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Sinks: 1990-2012. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed March 2014]. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2014-Chapter-Executive-Summary.pdf.
47. U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, 2013. Mines Data Set. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 2013]. http://catalog.data.gov/dataset/mines-data-set.
48. USACE, 2000. FY 2000 Planning Guidance Shallow Draft Vessel Costs, s.l.: s.n.
49. USACE, 2003. September-October 2003 Main Chamber Maintenance Closure Greenup Lock and Dam. [Online] Available at: September-October 2003 Main Chamber Maintenance Closure Greenup Lock and Dam.
50. USACE, 2004. Navigation Charts. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 2014]. http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/NavigationCharts.aspx.
51. USACE, 2009. Shipper and Carrier Response to the June-July 2008 Upper Mississippi River Flood Emergency Closure of Locks 12-25. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed February 2014]. http://library.water-resources.us/pubsearchS.cfm?series=NET.
52. USACE, 2010a. U.S. Waterway Data: Vessel Characterization. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 2013]. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/data/datavess.htm.
53. USACE, 2010b. Ports and Waterways Facilities. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 2013]. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/ports/ports.asp.
54. USACE, 2010c. U.S. Waterborne Container Traffic by Port/Waterway in 2010. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed February 2014]. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/by_portnames10.html.
55. USACE, 2011a. 2011 Region to Region Public Domain Data Base by Origin. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed February 2014]. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/pdf/pdrgod11.pdf.
56. USACE, 2011b. Measuring the Impact of Monongahela Lock Closures on Forecasts of Utility Steam Coal Consumption, Sourcing and Transportation in the Ohio River Basin. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 5 August 2014]. http://www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=360.
57. USACE, 2013a. Dam Safety Program Activities. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 6 September 2013]. http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/DamSafetyProgram/ProgramActivities.aspx.
58. USACE, 2013b. Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 Project Fact Sheet (Lower Mon). [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 6 September 2013]. http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/Portals/72/docs/HotProjects/LMPJune2013.pdf.
59. USACE, 2013c. Navigation Data Center. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 2013]. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/data/data1.htm.
60. USACE, 2013d. Pittsburgh District Mission and Vision. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 5 September 2013]. http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/Missions.aspx.
61. USACE, 2013e. Part 2 Tons_Comm_Ports Calendar Year 2011. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 6 February 2014]. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/webpub11/Part2_Ports_tonsbycommCY2011.HTM.
62. USACE, 2014a. LPMS Summary by Division/District. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 29 January 2014]. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/lpms/pdf/2011%20%26%202012.pdf.
63. USACE, 2014b. Navigation Data Center. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 24 January 2014]. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/db/pport/xls/.
64. USACE, 2014c. Port Facility spreadsheet. s.l.:s.n.
65. USACE, n.d. Planning Guidance: Navigation - Inland. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed August 2014]. http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/guidance.cfm?Option=BL%26BL=InlandNav%26Type=None%26Sort=Default.
66. USACE, various. Waterborne Commerce of the United States. [Online] Available at: <> [Accessed 2014]. http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/wcsc.htm.
67. Ventyx, 2013. Coal Transaction Analyst. [Online] [Accessed July 2013].
68. Wang S., Tao X., Schonfeld P. Modeling shipper response to scheduled waterway lock closures. Transp. Res. Rec. 2006, 1963:33-43.
69. Zhu S., Levinson D., Liu H.X., Harder K. The traffic and behavioral effects of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse. Transp. Res. Part A 2010, 44:771-784.